Agenda packet, regular meeting — Newark City Council, July 23, 2026 (part 5 of 7)

84.4699 9.1000e0048.2800e0036.9600e0035.0000e0056.3000e0046.3000e0046.3000e0046.3000e0049.9376 9.9376 1.9000e0041.8000e0049.9967 Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Strip Mall 49.9726 5.4000e0044.9000e0034.1200e0033.0000e0053.7000e0043.7000e0043.7000e0043.7000e0045.8791 5.8791 1.1000e0041.1000e0045.9141 Total 0.1799 1.5377 0.6598 9.8100e0030.1243 0.1243 0.1243 0.1243 1,962.038 2 1,962.038
2 0.0376 0.0360 1,973.697
7 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 31 of 35 Date: 12/2/2021 11:25 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

14.4379 0.1557 1.3306 0.5662 8.4900e0030.1076 0.1076 0.1076 0.1076 1,698.578 0 1,698.578
0 0.0326 0.0311 1,708.671
8 Condo/Townhous
e High Rise

2.10497 0.0227 0.1940 0.0826 1.2400e0030.0157 0.0157 0.0157 0.0157 247.6435 247.6435 4.7500e0034.5400e003249.1151 General Office
Building

0.0844699 9.1000e0048.2800e0036.9600e0035.0000e0056.3000e0046.3000e0046.3000e0046.3000e0049.9376 9.9376 1.9000e0041.8000e0049.9967 Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Strip Mall 0.0499726 5.4000e0044.9000e0034.1200e0033.0000e0053.7000e0043.7000e0043.7000e0043.7000e0045.8791 5.8791 1.1000e0041.1000e0045.9141 Total 0.1799 1.5377 0.6598 9.8100e0030.1243 0.1243 0.1243 0.1243 1,962.038 2 1,962.038
2 0.0376 0.0360 1,973.697
7 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 32 of 35 Date: 12/2/2021 11:25 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 14.0243 0.3269 28.3869 1.5000e0030.1574 0.1574 0.1574 0.1574 0.0000 51.1736 51.1736 0.0491 0.0000 52.4017 Unmitigated 14.0243 0.3269 28.3869 1.5000e0030.1574 0.1574 0.1574 0.1574 0.0000 51.1736 51.1736 0.0491 0.0000 52.4017

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating

0.9887 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

12.1812 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 0.8544 0.3269 28.3869 1.5000e0030.1574 0.1574 0.1574 0.1574 51.1736 51.1736 0.0491 52.4017 Total 14.0243 0.3269 28.3869 1.5000e0030.1574 0.1574 0.1574 0.1574 0.0000 51.1736 51.1736 0.0491 0.0000 52.4017 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 33 of 35 Date: 12/2/2021 11:25 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Apply Water Conservation Strategy

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

0.9887 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

12.1812 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 0.8544 0.3269 28.3869 1.5000e0030.1574 0.1574 0.1574 0.1574 51.1736 51.1736 0.0491 52.4017 Total 14.0243 0.3269 28.3869 1.5000e0030.1574 0.1574 0.1574 0.1574 0.0000 51.1736 51.1736 0.0491 0.0000 52.4017 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 34 of 35 Date: 12/2/2021 11:25 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

11.0 Vegetation

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
Institute Recycling and Composting Services

8.0 Waste Detail

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 35 of 35 Date: 12/2/2021 11:25 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1
Alameda County, Annual
Project Characteristics - Run 5 - Revised site plan: 344 DU Phase 1, add transit station improvements.

Land Use - Condo/townhouse high rise = affordable housing units.

Retail = ground floor mixed use.

General office building = residential common areas in mixed use building.

Parking includes parking lots streets, sidewalks, transit station improvements.

Construction Phase - Construction schedule per project applicant/engineer.

Site Preparation included in grading.

Underground utilites and paving concurrent with building construction.

Architectural coating concurrent with the last 6 months of building construction.

Off-road Equipment -

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population General Office Building 1.61 1000sqft 0.00 1,610.00 0
Other Asphalt Surfaces 321.70 1000sqft 7.39 321,700.00 0 Condo/Townhouse 253.00 Dwelling Unit 8.65 479,306.00 724 Condo/Townhouse High Rise 91.00 Dwelling Unit 0.38 78,975.00 260 Strip Mall 4.00 1000sqft 0.00 4,000.00 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
5 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 63

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Operational Year 2025
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
203.98 CH4 Intensity 0.033
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.004
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 42 Date: 12/2/2021 11:26 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Off-road Equipment - Equipment per project applicant/engineer Off-road Equipment - Equipment per project applicant/engineer.

Off-highway Trucks = 2 dump trucks and 1 water truck.

Off-road Equipment - Equipment per project applicant/engineer.

Off-highway Trucks = 1 dump truck and 1 water truck.

Off-road Equipment - Equipment per project applicant/engineer.

Off-highway Trucks = 1 water truck.

Off-road Equipment - Equipment per project applicant/engineer.

Off-highway Trucks = 1 dump truck and 1 water truck.

Trips and VMT - Vendor trips during Underground Utilites for delivery of supplies and materials. 370 round trips for import of asphalt, aggreagte, and/or concrete during paving.

Demolition - 12,680 tons concrete/ashpalt exported during demolition.

Grading - 77,700 CY soil imported during grading.

Architectural Coating - VOC limits per BAAQMD Regulation 8 Rule 3: 50 g/L for flat interiior and exterior and 100 g/L for pavement marking.

Vehicle Trips - Trip generation rates per traffic study (Fehr & Peers 2021).

Future transit station trips applied to parking.

Trip generation acounts for "internalization," all trip purposes set to 100% primary.

Woodstoves - No hearths per project applicant.

Area Coating - VOC limits per BAAQMD Regulation 8 Rule 3: 50 g/L for flat interiior and exterior and 100 g/L for pavement marking.

Water And Wastewater -
Solid Waste -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Dust mitigation per BAAQMD BCMMs.

Tier 4 engine mitigation per Mitigation Measure AQ-1.

Energy Mitigation - Per 2019 Title 24 Residential Complinace Manual Eq. 7-1: kW = (CFA X A)/1000 + (DU X B) kW = (324029 X 0.628)/1000 + (208 X 1.12) = 436.5 kW
kWhr/year = kW X 24 hours X 365 days X 20% = 764,661 kWhr/year Water Mitigation - Water Mitigation - 20% water conservation per 2019 CalGreen not accounted for in model defaults.

Waste Mitigation - 25% solid waste diversion per AB 341 not accounted for in model defaults.

Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Exterior 150.00 50.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Interior 100.00 50.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Parking 150.00 100.00
tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Residential_Exterior 150.00 50.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 42 Date: 12/2/2021 11:26 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Residential_Interior 100.00 50.00 tblAreaCoating Area_EF_Nonresidential_Exterior 150 50
tblAreaCoating Area_EF_Nonresidential_Interior 100 50
tblAreaCoating Area_EF_Parking 150 100
tblAreaCoating Area_EF_Residential_Exterior 150 50
tblAreaCoating Area_EF_Residential_Interior 100 50
tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 0 15 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 4.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 9.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 4.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 6.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 4.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 8.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 8.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 4.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 4.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 10.00 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 42 Date: 12/2/2021 11:26 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 15.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 30.00 107.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 300.00 412.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 15.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 130.00
tblFireplaces NumberGas 37.95 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberGas 13.65 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 43.01 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 15.47 0.00
tblGrading MaterialImported 0.00 77,700.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 253,000.00 479,306.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 91,000.00 78,975.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.04 0.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 15.81 8.65
tblLandUse LotAcreage 1.42 0.38
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.09 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 4.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 4.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 8.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 42 Date: 12/2/2021 11:26 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 4.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 4.00 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 0.00 370.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 10.00
tblVehicleTrips CC_TTP 0.00 100.00
tblVehicleTrips DV_TP 11.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips DV_TP 11.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips DV_TP 40.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips PB_TP 3.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips PB_TP 3.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips PB_TP 15.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 86.00 100.00
tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 86.00 100.00
tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 0.00 100.00
tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 45.00 100.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 8.14 4.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 4.91 4.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.21 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 0.00 0.63
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 42.04 8.60
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.28 4.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 4.09 4.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 0.70 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 0.00 0.63
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 20.43 8.60
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 7.32 4.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 42 Date: 12/2/2021 11:26 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 5.44 4.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 9.74 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 0.00 0.63
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 44.32 8.60
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 5.06 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 1.82 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 5.06 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 1.82 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 42 Date: 12/2/2021 11:26 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2022 0.5426 6.0413 4.0726 0.0131 1.2419 0.2193 1.4612 0.4442 0.2023 0.6465 0.0000 1,188.335 4 1,188.335
4 0.2731 0.0547 1,211.448
8 2023 1.1369 8.8847 11.1055 0.0241 0.4205 0.3882 0.8087 0.1135 0.3748 0.4883 0.0000 2,118.200 3 2,118.200
3 0.3024 0.0404 2,137.803
2 2024 2.6151 6.2842 8.3225 0.0176 0.3922 0.2594 0.6516 0.1057 0.2525 0.3581 0.0000 1,544.078 1 1,544.078
1 0.1564 0.0317 1,557.447
8 Maximum 2.6151 8.8847 11.1055 0.0241 1.2419 0.3882 1.4612 0.4442 0.3748 0.6465 0.0000 2,118.200 3 2,118.200
3 0.3024 0.0547 2,137.803
2 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2022 0.1509 1.4550 5.0116 0.0131 0.6233 0.0247 0.6479 0.2175 0.0243 0.2418 0.0000 1,188.334 4 1,188.334
4 0.2731 0.0547 1,211.447
8 2023 0.4585 2.4562 12.5469 0.0241 0.4205 0.0566 0.4771 0.1135 0.0564 0.1699 0.0000 2,118.198 4 2,118.198
4 0.3024 0.0404 2,137.801
3 2024 2.1456 1.8797 9.0287 0.0176 0.3922 0.0397 0.4319 0.1057 0.0394 0.1451 0.0000 1,544.076 7 1,544.076
7 0.1564 0.0317 1,557.446
4 Maximum 2.1456 2.4562 12.5469 0.0241 0.6233 0.0566 0.6479 0.2175 0.0564 0.2418 0.0000 2,118.198 4 2,118.198
4 0.3024 0.0547 2,137.801
3 Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 42 Date: 12/2/2021 11:26 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

35.85 72.70 -13.13 0.00 30.11 86.04 46.71 34.17 85.53 62.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 4-1-2022 6-30-2022 2.9965 0.7456
2 7-1-2022 9-30-2022 3.0092 0.7092
3 10-1-2022 12-31-2022 0.5856 0.1284
4 1-1-2023 3-31-2023 1.3636 0.3779
5 4-1-2023 6-30-2023 3.0020 0.8622
6 7-1-2023 9-30-2023 3.0671 0.8892
7 10-1-2023 12-31-2023 2.6111 0.7914
8 1-1-2024 3-31-2024 2.3786 0.7713
9 4-1-2024 6-30-2024 3.2926 1.6463
10 7-1-2024 9-30-2024 3.1841 1.5920
Highest 3.2926 1.6463
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 42 Date: 12/2/2021 11:26 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 2.4804 0.0294 2.5548 1.4000e0040.0142 0.0142 0.0142 0.0142 0.0000 4.1782 4.1782 4.0100e0030.0000 4.2784 Energy 0.0328 0.2806 0.1204 1.7900e0030.0227 0.0227 0.0227 0.0227 0.0000 478.6041 478.6041 0.0311 8.9700e003482.0549 Mobile 0.6641 0.8595 6.3971 0.0143 1.5548 0.0106 1.5654 0.4154 9.9300e0030.4253 0.0000 1,349.657 1 1,349.657
1 0.0798 0.0672 1,371.688
3 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 33.2783 0.0000 33.2783 1.9667 0.0000 82.4457 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.2954 16.2039 23.4993 0.7519 0.0180 47.6646 Total 3.1773 1.1695 9.0724 0.0162 1.5548 0.0475 1.6023 0.4154 0.0468 0.4621 40.5737 1,848.643 3 1,889.217
0 2.8335 0.0942 1,988.131
9 Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 42 Date: 12/2/2021 11:26 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 2.4804 0.0294 2.5548 1.4000e0040.0142 0.0142 0.0142 0.0142 0.0000 4.1782 4.1782 4.0100e0030.0000 4.2784 Energy 0.0328 0.2806 0.1204 1.7900e0030.0227 0.0227 0.0227 0.0227 0.0000 407.8548 407.8548 0.0197 7.5800e003410.6060 Mobile 0.6641 0.8595 6.3971 0.0143 1.5548 0.0106 1.5654 0.4154 9.9300e0030.4253 0.0000 1,349.657 1 1,349.657
1 0.0798 0.0672 1,371.688
3 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 24.9588 0.0000 24.9588 1.4750 0.0000 61.8343 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 5.8363 12.9631 18.7994 0.6015 0.0144 38.1317 Total 3.1773 1.1695 9.0724 0.0162 1.5548 0.0475 1.6023 0.4154 0.0468 0.4621 30.7951 1,774.653 2 1,805.448
2 2.1800 0.0892 1,886.538
7 Mitigated Operational

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 4/1/2022 4/21/2022 5 15
2 Grading Grading 4/22/2022 9/19/2022 5 107
3 Underground Utilities Trenching 9/20/2022 9/19/2023 5 261 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 24.10 4.00 4.43 23.06 5.30 5.11 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 42 Date: 12/2/2021 11:26 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 4 Building Construction Building Construction 3/1/2023 9/26/2024 5 412 5 Paving Paving 9/20/2023 10/10/2023 5 15
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 3/29/2024 9/26/2024 5 130 OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 2 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Demolition Off-Highway Trucks 3 8.00 402 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders 2 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Off-Highway Trucks 2 8.00 402 0.38
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Scrapers 4 8.00 367 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Underground Utilities Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 8.00 9 0.56 Underground Utilities Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Underground Utilities Off-Highway Trucks 2 8.00 402 0.38 Underground Utilities Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Aerial Lifts 4 8.00 63 0.31
Building Construction Air Compressors 8 8.00 78 0.48
Residential Indoor: 1,130,519; Residential Outdoor: 376,840; Non-Residential Indoor: 8,415; Non-Residential Outdoor: 2,805; Striped Parking Area: 19,302 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 642
Acres of Paving: 7.39
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 42 Date: 12/2/2021 11:26 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Use Cleaner Engines for Construction Equipment
Water Exposed Area
Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads
Building Construction Cranes 4 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 4 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 8 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 4 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 2 8.00 9 0.56
Paving Off-Highway Trucks 1 8.00 402 0.38
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 11 28.00 0.00 1,254.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 14 35.00 0.00 9,713.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Underground Utilities 7 18.00 10.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 34 385.00 90.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 11 28.00 0.00 370.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 77.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 42 Date: 12/2/2021 11:26 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.2 Demolition - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1357 0.0000 0.1357 0.0205 0.0000 0.0205 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0353 0.3160 0.2667 6.4000e0040.0144 0.0144 0.0135 0.0135 0.0000 56.3285 56.3285 0.0161 0.0000 56.7297 Total 0.0353 0.3160 0.2667 6.4000e0040.1357 0.0144 0.1501 0.0205 0.0135 0.0340 0.0000 56.3285 56.3285 0.0161 0.0000 56.7297 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 2.8800e0030.1049 0.0216 3.9000e0040.0106 9.7000e0040.0116 2.9200e0039.3000e0043.8500e0030.0000 38.3870 38.3870 8.3000e0046.0600e00340.2145 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 5.9000e0044.3000e0045.0500e0031.0000e0051.6600e0031.0000e0051.6700e0034.4000e0041.0000e0054.5000e0040.0000 1.3432 1.3432 4.0000e0054.0000e0051.3559 Total 3.4700e0030.1053 0.0266 4.0000e0040.0123 9.8000e0040.0133 3.3600e0039.4000e0044.3000e0030.0000 39.7302 39.7302 8.7000e0046.1000e00341.5704 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 42 Date: 12/2/2021 11:26 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.2 Demolition - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0611 0.0000 0.0611 9.2400e0030.0000 9.2400e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 7.6700e0030.0332 0.3427 6.4000e0041.0200e0031.0200e0031.0200e0031.0200e0030.0000 56.3284 56.3284 0.0161 0.0000 56.7296 Total 7.6700e0030.0332 0.3427 6.4000e0040.0611 1.0200e0030.0621 9.2400e0031.0200e0030.0103 0.0000 56.3284 56.3284 0.0161 0.0000 56.7296 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 2.8800e0030.1049 0.0216 3.9000e0040.0106 9.7000e0040.0116 2.9200e0039.3000e0043.8500e0030.0000 38.3870 38.3870 8.3000e0046.0600e00340.2145 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 5.9000e0044.3000e0045.0500e0031.0000e0051.6600e0031.0000e0051.6700e0034.4000e0041.0000e0054.5000e0040.0000 1.3432 1.3432 4.0000e0054.0000e0051.3559 Total 3.4700e0030.1053 0.0266 4.0000e0040.0123 9.8000e0040.0133 3.3600e0039.4000e0044.3000e0030.0000 39.7302 39.7302 8.7000e0046.1000e00341.5704 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 42 Date: 12/2/2021 11:26 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.3 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.9892 0.0000 0.9892 0.3916 0.0000 0.3916 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.4051 4.2163 2.8791 7.1700e0030.1717 0.1717 0.1580 0.1580 0.0000 629.8930 629.8930 0.2037 0.0000 634.9860 Total 0.4051 4.2163 2.8791 7.1700e0030.9892 0.1717 1.1609 0.3916 0.1580 0.5496 0.0000 629.8930 629.8930 0.2037 0.0000 634.9860 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0223 0.8121 0.1670 3.0400e0030.0823 7.5000e0030.0898 0.0227 7.1700e0030.0298 0.0000 297.3311 297.3311 6.4400e0030.0470 311.4860 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 5.2700e0033.7900e0030.0450 1.3000e0040.0148 8.0000e0050.0149 3.9400e0037.0000e0054.0100e0030.0000 11.9769 11.9769 3.8000e0043.5000e00412.0904 Total 0.0276 0.8159 0.2121 3.1700e0030.0971 7.5800e0030.1047 0.0266 7.2400e0030.0338 0.0000 309.3079 309.3079 6.8200e0030.0473 323.5764 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 42 Date: 12/2/2021 11:26 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.3 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.4451 0.0000 0.4451 0.1762 0.0000 0.1762 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0879 0.3810 3.4953 7.1700e0030.0117 0.0117 0.0117 0.0117 0.0000 629.8922 629.8922 0.2037 0.0000 634.9852 Total 0.0879 0.3810 3.4953 7.1700e0030.4451 0.0117 0.4569 0.1762 0.0117 0.1880 0.0000 629.8922 629.8922 0.2037 0.0000 634.9852 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0223 0.8121 0.1670 3.0400e0030.0823 7.5000e0030.0898 0.0227 7.1700e0030.0298 0.0000 297.3311 297.3311 6.4400e0030.0470 311.4860 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 5.2700e0033.7900e0030.0450 1.3000e0040.0148 8.0000e0050.0149 3.9400e0037.0000e0054.0100e0030.0000 11.9769 11.9769 3.8000e0043.5000e00412.0904 Total 0.0276 0.8159 0.2121 3.1700e0030.0971 7.5800e0030.1047 0.0266 7.2400e0030.0338 0.0000 309.3079 309.3079 6.8200e0030.0473 323.5764 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 42 Date: 12/2/2021 11:26 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.4 Underground Utilities - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0684 0.5661 0.6665 1.6200e0030.0244 0.0244 0.0225 0.0225 0.0000 141.3456 141.3456 0.0453 0.0000 142.4791 Total 0.0684 0.5661 0.6665 1.6200e0030.0244 0.0244 0.0225 0.0225 0.0000 141.3456 141.3456 0.0453 0.0000 142.4791 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 7.5000e0040.0203 5.6900e0038.0000e0052.4300e0032.1000e0042.6400e0037.0000e0042.0000e0049.0000e0040.0000 7.4704 7.4704 1.1000e0041.1200e0037.8069 Worker 1.8700e0031.3500e0030.0160 5.0000e0055.2700e0033.0000e0055.2900e0031.4000e0033.0000e0051.4300e0030.0000 4.2599 4.2599 1.4000e0041.2000e0044.3003 Total 2.6200e0030.0216 0.0217 1.3000e0047.7000e0032.4000e0047.9300e0032.1000e0032.3000e0042.3300e0030.0000 11.7303 11.7303 2.5000e0041.2400e00312.1071 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 42 Date: 12/2/2021 11:26 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.4 Underground Utilities - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0217 0.0980 0.9133 1.6200e0033.1300e0033.1300e0033.1300e0033.1300e0030.0000 141.3454 141.3454 0.0453 0.0000 142.4790 Total 0.0217 0.0980 0.9133 1.6200e0033.1300e0033.1300e0033.1300e0033.1300e0030.0000 141.3454 141.3454 0.0453 0.0000 142.4790 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 7.5000e0040.0203 5.6900e0038.0000e0052.4300e0032.1000e0042.6400e0037.0000e0042.0000e0049.0000e0040.0000 7.4704 7.4704 1.1000e0041.1200e0037.8069 Worker 1.8700e0031.3500e0030.0160 5.0000e0055.2700e0033.0000e0055.2900e0031.4000e0033.0000e0051.4300e0030.0000 4.2599 4.2599 1.4000e0041.2000e0044.3003 Total 2.6200e0030.0216 0.0217 1.3000e0047.7000e0032.4000e0047.9300e0032.1000e0032.3000e0042.3300e0030.0000 11.7303 11.7303 2.5000e0041.2400e00312.1071 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 42 Date: 12/2/2021 11:26 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.4 Underground Utilities - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1633 1.2784 1.6702 4.0900e0030.0538 0.0538 0.0496 0.0496 0.0000 357.4099 357.4099 0.1147 0.0000 360.2762 Total 0.1633 1.2784 1.6702 4.0900e0030.0538 0.0538 0.0496 0.0496 0.0000 357.4099 357.4099 0.1147 0.0000 360.2762 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 9.4000e0040.0409 0.0124 1.9000e0046.1400e0032.5000e0046.3900e0031.7800e0032.4000e0042.0100e0030.0000 18.0869 18.0869 2.5000e0042.7100e00318.9001 Worker 4.4000e0033.0200e0030.0375 1.1000e0040.0133 7.0000e0050.0134 3.5400e0036.0000e0053.6000e0030.0000 10.4911 10.4911 3.1000e0042.9000e00410.5856 Total 5.3400e0030.0439 0.0499 3.0000e0040.0195 3.2000e0040.0198 5.3200e0033.0000e0045.6100e0030.0000 28.5780 28.5780 5.6000e0043.0000e00329.4857 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 42 Date: 12/2/2021 11:26 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.4 Underground Utilities - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0547 0.2477 2.3079 4.0900e0037.9000e0037.9000e0037.9000e0037.9000e0030.0000 357.4095 357.4095 0.1147 0.0000 360.2758 Total 0.0547 0.2477 2.3079 4.0900e0037.9000e0037.9000e0037.9000e0037.9000e0030.0000 357.4095 357.4095 0.1147 0.0000 360.2758 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 9.4000e0040.0409 0.0124 1.9000e0046.1400e0032.5000e0046.3900e0031.7800e0032.4000e0042.0100e0030.0000 18.0869 18.0869 2.5000e0042.7100e00318.9001 Worker 4.4000e0033.0200e0030.0375 1.1000e0040.0133 7.0000e0050.0134 3.5400e0036.0000e0053.6000e0030.0000 10.4911 10.4911 3.1000e0042.9000e00410.5856 Total 5.3400e0030.0439 0.0499 3.0000e0040.0195 3.2000e0040.0198 5.3200e0033.0000e0045.6100e0030.0000 28.5780 28.5780 5.6000e0043.0000e00329.4857 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 42 Date: 12/2/2021 11:26 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.8232 6.9018 8.1377 0.0145 0.3234 0.3234 0.3149 0.3149 0.0000 1,240.244 6 1,240.244
6 0.1676 0.0000 1,244.433
7 Total 0.8232 6.9018 8.1377 0.0145 0.3234 0.3234 0.3149 0.3149 0.0000 1,240.244 6 1,240.244
6 0.1676 0.0000 1,244.433
7 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 9.9100e0030.4290 0.1297 1.9600e0030.0644 2.5900e0030.0670 0.0186 2.4800e0030.0211 0.0000 189.7672 189.7672 2.5900e0030.0284 198.2996 Worker 0.1098 0.0753 0.9357 2.8200e0030.3318 1.7300e0030.3335 0.0883 1.5900e0030.0899 0.0000 261.5922 261.5922 7.7000e0037.2600e003263.9478 Total 0.1197 0.5043 1.0653 4.7800e0030.3962 4.3200e0030.4006 0.1069 4.0700e0030.1110 0.0000 451.3593 451.3593 0.0103 0.0357 462.2473 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 21 of 42 Date: 12/2/2021 11:26 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.2634 1.6133 8.8997 0.0145 0.0432 0.0432 0.0432 0.0432 0.0000 1,240.243 1 1,240.243
1 0.1676 0.0000 1,244.432
2 Total 0.2634 1.6133 8.8997 0.0145 0.0432 0.0432 0.0432 0.0432 0.0000 1,240.243 1 1,240.243
1 0.1676 0.0000 1,244.432
2 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 9.9100e0030.4290 0.1297 1.9600e0030.0644 2.5900e0030.0670 0.0186 2.4800e0030.0211 0.0000 189.7672 189.7672 2.5900e0030.0284 198.2996 Worker 0.1098 0.0753 0.9357 2.8200e0030.3318 1.7300e0030.3335 0.0883 1.5900e0030.0899 0.0000 261.5922 261.5922 7.7000e0037.2600e003263.9478 Total 0.1197 0.5043 1.0653 4.7800e0030.3962 4.3200e0030.4006 0.1069 4.0700e0030.1110 0.0000 451.3593 451.3593 0.0103 0.0357 462.2473 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 22 of 42 Date: 12/2/2021 11:26 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.6868 5.7539 7.2096 0.0129 0.2515 0.2515 0.2448 0.2448 0.0000 1,103.729 5 1,103.729
5 0.1461 0.0000 1,107.383
0 Total 0.6868 5.7539 7.2096 0.0129 0.2515 0.2515 0.2448 0.2448 0.0000 1,103.729 5 1,103.729
5 0.1461 0.0000 1,107.383
0 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 8.6100e0030.3832 0.1133 1.7200e0030.0574 2.3300e0030.0597 0.0166 2.2200e0030.0188 0.0000 166.2701 166.2701 2.3000e0030.0249 173.7513 Worker 0.0913 0.0599 0.7777 2.4300e0030.2953 1.4600e0030.2967 0.0786 1.3500e0030.0799 0.0000 227.0526 227.0526 6.2200e0036.0200e003229.0029 Total 0.0999 0.4431 0.8910 4.1500e0030.3526 3.7900e0030.3564 0.0951 3.5700e0030.0987 0.0000 393.3227 393.3227 8.5200e0030.0309 402.7542 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 23 of 42 Date: 12/2/2021 11:26 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.2272 1.4202 7.9144 0.0129 0.0354 0.0354 0.0354 0.0354 0.0000 1,103.728 2 1,103.728
2 0.1461 0.0000 1,107.381
6 Total 0.2272 1.4202 7.9144 0.0129 0.0354 0.0354 0.0354 0.0354 0.0000 1,103.728 2 1,103.728
2 0.1461 0.0000 1,107.381
6 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 8.6100e0030.3832 0.1133 1.7200e0030.0574 2.3300e0030.0597 0.0166 2.2200e0030.0188 0.0000 166.2701 166.2701 2.3000e0030.0249 173.7513 Worker 0.0913 0.0599 0.7777 2.4300e0030.2953 1.4600e0030.2967 0.0786 1.3500e0030.0799 0.0000 227.0526 227.0526 6.2200e0036.0200e003229.0029 Total 0.0999 0.4431 0.8910 4.1500e0030.3526 3.7900e0030.3564 0.0951 3.5700e0030.0987 0.0000 393.3227 393.3227 8.5200e0030.0309 402.7542 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 24 of 42 Date: 12/2/2021 11:26 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0147 0.1318 0.1721 3.3000e0046.1500e0036.1500e0035.6700e0035.6700e0030.0000 28.5196 28.5196 9.0700e0030.0000 28.7464 Paving 9.6800e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0244 0.1318 0.1721 3.3000e0046.1500e0036.1500e0035.6700e0035.6700e0030.0000 28.5196 28.5196 9.0700e0030.0000 28.7464 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 3.8000e0040.0243 5.5200e0031.1000e0043.1300e0032.1000e0043.3400e0038.6000e0042.0000e0041.0600e0030.0000 10.7799 10.7799 2.3000e0041.7000e00311.2931 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 5.5000e0043.8000e0044.6800e0031.0000e0051.6600e0031.0000e0051.6700e0034.4000e0041.0000e0054.5000e0040.0000 1.3091 1.3091 4.0000e0054.0000e0051.3208 Total 9.3000e0040.0247 0.0102 1.2000e0044.7900e0032.2000e0045.0100e0031.3000e0032.1000e0041.5100e0030.0000 12.0889 12.0889 2.7000e0041.7400e00312.6139 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 25 of 42 Date: 12/2/2021 11:26 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 4.7700e0030.0224 0.2139 3.3000e0047.3000e0047.3000e0047.3000e0047.3000e0040.0000 28.5195 28.5195 9.0700e0030.0000 28.7464 Paving 9.6800e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0145 0.0224 0.2139 3.3000e0047.3000e0047.3000e0047.3000e0047.3000e0040.0000 28.5195 28.5195 9.0700e0030.0000 28.7464 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 3.8000e0040.0243 5.5200e0031.1000e0043.1300e0032.1000e0043.3400e0038.6000e0042.0000e0041.0600e0030.0000 10.7799 10.7799 2.3000e0041.7000e00311.2931 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 5.5000e0043.8000e0044.6800e0031.0000e0051.6600e0031.0000e0051.6700e0034.4000e0041.0000e0054.5000e0040.0000 1.3091 1.3091 4.0000e0054.0000e0051.3208 Total 9.3000e0040.0247 0.0102 1.2000e0044.7900e0032.2000e0045.0100e0031.3000e0032.1000e0041.5100e0030.0000 12.0889 12.0889 2.7000e0041.7400e00312.6139 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 26 of 42 Date: 12/2/2021 11:26 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 1.8044 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0118 0.0792 0.1177 1.9000e0043.9600e0033.9600e0033.9600e0033.9600e0030.0000 16.5962 16.5962 9.3000e0040.0000 16.6195 Total 1.8161 0.0792 0.1177 1.9000e0043.9600e0033.9600e0033.9600e0033.9600e0030.0000 16.5962 16.5962 9.3000e0040.0000 16.6195 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0122 8.0200e0030.1042 3.3000e0040.0396 2.0000e0040.0398 0.0105 1.8000e0040.0107 0.0000 30.4297 30.4297 8.3000e0048.1000e00430.6911 Total 0.0122 8.0200e0030.1042 3.3000e0040.0396 2.0000e0040.0398 0.0105 1.8000e0040.0107 0.0000 30.4297 30.4297 8.3000e0048.1000e00430.6911 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 27 of 42 Date: 12/2/2021 11:26 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 1.8044 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.9300e0038.3700e0030.1191 1.9000e0042.6000e0042.6000e0042.6000e0042.6000e0040.0000 16.5961 16.5961 9.3000e0040.0000 16.6195 Total 1.8063 8.3700e0030.1191 1.9000e0042.6000e0042.6000e0042.6000e0042.6000e0040.0000 16.5961 16.5961 9.3000e0040.0000 16.6195 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0122 8.0200e0030.1042 3.3000e0040.0396 2.0000e0040.0398 0.0105 1.8000e0040.0107 0.0000 30.4297 30.4297 8.3000e0048.1000e00430.6911 Total 0.0122 8.0200e0030.1042 3.3000e0040.0396 2.0000e0040.0398 0.0105 1.8000e0040.0107 0.0000 30.4297 30.4297 8.3000e0048.1000e00430.6911 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 28 of 42 Date: 12/2/2021 11:26 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.6641 0.8595 6.3971 0.0143 1.5548 0.0106 1.5654 0.4154 9.9300e0030.4253 0.0000 1,349.657 1 1,349.657
1 0.0798 0.0672 1,371.688
3 Unmitigated 0.6641 0.8595 6.3971 0.0143 1.5548 0.0106 1.5654 0.4154 9.9300e0030.4253 0.0000 1,349.657 1 1,349.657
1 0.0798 0.0672 1,371.688
3 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Condo/Townhouse 1,012.00 1,012.00 1012.00 2,632,358 2,632,358 Condo/Townhouse High Rise 364.00 364.00 364.00 946,816 946,816 General Office Building 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 202.67 202.67 202.67 538,537 538,537 Strip Mall 34.40 34.40 34.40 95,981 95,981
Total 1,613.07 1,613.07 1,613.07 4,213,692 4,213,692
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Condo/Townhouse 10.80 4.80 5.70 31.00 15.00 54.00 100 0 0 Condo/Townhouse High Rise 10.80 4.80 5.70 31.00 15.00 54.00 100 0 0 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 29 of 42 Date: 12/2/2021 11:26 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by General Office Building 9.50 7.30 7.30 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4 Other Asphalt Surfaces 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 100.00 0.00 100 0 0 Strip Mall 9.50 7.30 7.30 16.60 64.40 19.00 100 0 0

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Condo/Townhouse 0.570753 0.056481 0.179220 0.111941 0.020784 0.005211 0.013984 0.013033 0.000790 0.000560 0.024477 0.000343 0.002423 Condo/Townhouse High Rise 0.570753 0.056481 0.179220 0.111941 0.020784 0.005211 0.013984 0.013033 0.000790 0.000560 0.024477 0.000343 0.002423 General Office Building 0.570753 0.056481 0.179220 0.111941 0.020784 0.005211 0.013984 0.013033 0.000790 0.000560 0.024477 0.000343 0.002423 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.570753 0.056481 0.179220 0.111941 0.020784 0.005211 0.013984 0.013033 0.000790 0.000560 0.024477 0.000343 0.002423 Strip Mall 0.570753 0.056481 0.179220 0.111941 0.020784 0.005211 0.013984 0.013033 0.000790 0.000560 0.024477 0.000343 0.002423

5.0 Energy Detail

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Kilowatt Hours of Renewable Electricity Generated
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 30 of 42 Date: 12/2/2021 11:26 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 83.0174 83.0174 0.0134 1.6300e00383.8383 Electricity
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 153.7667 153.7667 0.0249 3.0200e003155.2872 NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.0328 0.2806 0.1204 1.7900e0030.0227 0.0227 0.0227 0.0227 0.0000 324.8374 324.8374 6.2300e0035.9600e003326.7678 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.0328 0.2806 0.1204 1.7900e0030.0227 0.0227 0.0227 0.0227 0.0000 324.8374 324.8374 6.2300e0035.9600e003326.7678 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 31 of 42 Date: 12/2/2021 11:26 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

5.26984e
+006

0.0284 0.2428 0.1033 1.5500e0030.0196 0.0196 0.0196 0.0196 0.0000 281.2186 281.2186 5.3900e0035.1600e003282.8898 Condo/Townhous
e High Rise
768314 4.1400e0030.0354 0.0151 2.3000e0042.8600e0032.8600e0032.8600e0032.8600e0030.0000 41.0002 41.0002 7.9000e0047.5000e00441.2438 General Office
Building
30831.5 1.7000e0041.5100e0031.2700e0031.0000e0051.1000e0041.1000e0041.1000e0041.1000e0040.0000 1.6453 1.6453 3.0000e0053.0000e0051.6551 Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Strip Mall 18240 1.0000e0048.9000e0047.5000e0041.0000e0057.0000e0057.0000e0057.0000e0057.0000e0050.0000 0.9734 0.9734 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.9791 Total 0.0328 0.2806 0.1204 1.8000e0030.0227 0.0227 0.0227 0.0227 0.0000 324.8375 324.8375 6.2300e0035.9600e003326.7678 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 32 of 42 Date: 12/2/2021 11:26 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

5.26984e
+006

0.0284 0.2428 0.1033 1.5500e0030.0196 0.0196 0.0196 0.0196 0.0000 281.2186 281.2186 5.3900e0035.1600e003282.8898 Condo/Townhous
e High Rise
768314 4.1400e0030.0354 0.0151 2.3000e0042.8600e0032.8600e0032.8600e0032.8600e0030.0000 41.0002 41.0002 7.9000e0047.5000e00441.2438 General Office
Building
30831.5 1.7000e0041.5100e0031.2700e0031.0000e0051.1000e0041.1000e0041.1000e0041.1000e0040.0000 1.6453 1.6453 3.0000e0053.0000e0051.6551 Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Strip Mall 18240 1.0000e0048.9000e0047.5000e0041.0000e0057.0000e0057.0000e0057.0000e0057.0000e0050.0000 0.9734 0.9734 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.9791 Total 0.0328 0.2806 0.1204 1.8000e0030.0227 0.0227 0.0227 0.0227 0.0000 324.8375 324.8375 6.2300e0035.9600e003326.7678 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 33 of 42 Date: 12/2/2021 11:26 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Condo/Townhous
e

1.22428e
+006
113.2752 0.0183 2.2200e003114.3953
Condo/Townhous
e High Rise
377289 34.9082 5.6500e0036.8000e00435.2534
General Office
Building
19384.4 1.7935 2.9000e0044.0000e0051.8113
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Strip Mall 40960 3.7898 6.1000e0047.0000e0053.8273
Total 153.7667 0.0249 3.0100e003155.2872
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 34 of 42 Date: 12/2/2021 11:26 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Condo/Townhous
e

1.07135e
+006

99.1253 0.0160 1.9400e003100.1055
Condo/Townhous
e High Rise
224357 20.7583 3.3600e0034.1000e00420.9636
General Office
Building
-133548 -12.3564 -0.0020 -0.0002 -12.4785
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
-152932 -14.1499 -0.0023 -0.0003 -14.2898
Strip Mall -111972 -10.3601 -0.0017 -0.0002 -10.4625
Total 83.0174 0.0134 1.6300e00383.8383
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 35 of 42 Date: 12/2/2021 11:26 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 2.4804 0.0294 2.5548 1.4000e0040.0142 0.0142 0.0142 0.0142 0.0000 4.1782 4.1782 4.0100e0030.0000 4.2784 Unmitigated 2.4804 0.0294 2.5548 1.4000e0040.0142 0.0142 0.0142 0.0142 0.0000 4.1782 4.1782 4.0100e0030.0000 4.2784

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating

0.1804 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

2.2231 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 0.0769 0.0294 2.5548 1.4000e0040.0142 0.0142 0.0142 0.0142 0.0000 4.1782 4.1782 4.0100e0030.0000 4.2784 Total 2.4804 0.0294 2.5548 1.4000e0040.0142 0.0142 0.0142 0.0142 0.0000 4.1782 4.1782 4.0100e0030.0000 4.2784 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 36 of 42 Date: 12/2/2021 11:26 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Apply Water Conservation Strategy

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

0.1804 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

2.2231 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 0.0769 0.0294 2.5548 1.4000e0040.0142 0.0142 0.0142 0.0142 0.0000 4.1782 4.1782 4.0100e0030.0000 4.2784 Total 2.4804 0.0294 2.5548 1.4000e0040.0142 0.0142 0.0142 0.0142 0.0000 4.1782 4.1782 4.0100e0030.0000 4.2784 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 37 of 42 Date: 12/2/2021 11:26 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 18.7994 0.6015 0.0144 38.1317
Unmitigated 23.4993 0.7519 0.0180 47.6646

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Condo/Townhous
e

16.484 /

10.3921

16.8475 0.5390 0.0129 34.1702
Condo/Townhous
e High Rise

5.92902 /

3.73786

6.0598 0.1939 4.6400e00312.2905
General Office
Building

0.286151 /

0.175383

0.2908 9.3600e0032.2000e0040.5915
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Strip Mall 0.29629 /

0.181597

0.3011 9.6900e0032.3000e0040.6125
Total 23.4993 0.7519 0.0180 47.6646
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 38 of 42 Date: 12/2/2021 11:26 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Condo/Townhous
e

13.1872 /

8.31365

13.4780 0.4312 0.0103 27.3361
Condo/Townhous
e High Rise

4.74321 /

2.99029

4.8478 0.1551 3.7100e0039.8324
General Office
Building

0.228921 /

0.140306

0.2327 7.4900e0031.8000e0040.4732
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Strip Mall 0.237032 /

0.145278

0.2409 7.7500e0031.9000e0040.4900
Total 18.7994 0.6016 0.0144 38.1317
Mitigated

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
Institute Recycling and Composting Services

8.0 Waste Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 39 of 42 Date: 12/2/2021 11:26 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 24.9588 1.4750 0.0000 61.8343
Unmitigated 33.2783 1.9667 0.0000 82.4457
Category/Year

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Condo/Townhous
e
116.38 23.6241 1.3961 0.0000 58.5277
Condo/Townhous
e High Rise

41.86 8.4972 0.5022 0.0000 21.0515
General Office
Building

1.5 0.3045 0.0180 0.0000 0.7544
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Strip Mall 4.2 0.8526 0.0504 0.0000 2.1122
Total 33.2783 1.9667 0.0000 82.4457
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 40 of 42 Date: 12/2/2021 11:26 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Condo/Townhous
e

87.285 17.7181 1.0471 0.0000 43.8958
Condo/Townhous
e High Rise

31.395 6.3729 0.3766 0.0000 15.7886
General Office
Building

1.125 0.2284 0.0135 0.0000 0.5658
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Strip Mall 3.15 0.6394 0.0378 0.0000 1.5841
Total 24.9588 1.4750 0.0000 61.8343
Mitigated

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 41 of 42 Date: 12/2/2021 11:26 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

11.0 Vegetation
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 42 of 42 Date: 12/2/2021 11:26 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 1 - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 2
Alameda County, Winter
Project Characteristics - Run 5 - Revised site plan: 26 DU Phase 2, add Grand Park. Underground utilities and grading moved to Phase 1.

Construcion models only remaining building constructiona and architecitural coating after buildout of Phase 1.

Land Use - Parking includes parking lots streets and sidewalks.

Construction Phase - Construction schedule per project applicant/engineer.

Architectural coating concurrent with building construction.

Off-road Equipment - Construction equipment per project applicant/engineer.

Off-Highway Truck = water truck.

Trips and VMT -
Grading -

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Other Asphalt Surfaces 14.00 1000sqft 0.32 14,000.00 0
City Park 5.00 Acre 5.00 217,800.00 0
Condo/Townhouse 26.00 Dwelling Unit 0.68 51,409.00 74

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
5 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 63

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Operational Year 2025
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
203.98 CH4 Intensity 0.033
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.004
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 19 Date: 12/2/2021 11:03 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 2 - Alameda County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Architectural Coating - VOC limits per BAAQMD Regulation 8 Rule 3: 50 g/L for flat interiior and exterior and 100 g/L for pavement marking.

Vehicle Trips - Trip generation rates per traffic study (Fehr & Peers 2021).

Residential trip rates account for "internalization", trip purpose set to 100% primary.

Vehicle Emission Factors -
Vehicle Emission Factors -
Vehicle Emission Factors -
Road Dust -
Woodstoves - No hearths per project applicant.

Consumer Products -
Area Coating - VOC limits per BAAQMD Regulation 8 Rule 3: 50 g/L for flat interiior and exterior and 100 g/L for pavement marking.

Landscape Equipment -
Energy Use -
Water And Wastewater -
Solid Waste -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Dust mitigation per BAAQMD BCMMs.

Tier 4 engine mitigation per Mitigation Measure AQ-1.

Area Mitigation - CalEEMod error, defaults correct.

Energy Mitigation - Per 2019 Title 24 Residential Complinace Manual Eq. 7-1: kW = (CFA X A)/1000 + (DU X B) kW = (41,009 X 0.628)/1000 + (26 X 1.12) = 55 kW
kWhr/year = kW X 24 hours X 365 days X 20% = 96,139 kWhr/year.

Water Mitigation - 20% water conservation per 2019 CalGreen not acconted for in model defaults.

Waste Mitigation - 25% solid waste diversion per AB 341 not accounted for in model defaults.

Fleet Mix - CalEEMod error, defaults correct.

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 4.00 tblVehicleTrips DV_TP 11.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips PB_TP 3.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 86.00 100.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 1.96 2.40
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 8.14 4.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 2.19 2.40
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.28 4.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 0.78 2.40
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 7.32 4.00
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 0.52 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 0.52 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 19 Date: 12/2/2021 11:03 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 2 - Alameda County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2024 21.9241 62.6202 79.6778 0.1530 1.4197 2.6700 4.0897 0.3829 2.5997 2.9826 0.0000 14,611.18 22 14,611.18
22 1.7156 0.1554 14,700.38
30 Maximum 21.9241 62.6202 79.6778 0.1530 1.4197 2.6700 4.0897 0.3829 2.5997 2.9826 0.0000 14,611.18 22 14,611.18
22 1.7156 0.1554 14,700.38
30 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2024 17.0348 16.8532 86.9658 0.1530 1.4197 0.3856 1.8054 0.3829 0.3847 0.7676 0.0000 14,611.18 21 14,611.18
21 1.7156 0.1554 14,700.38
30 Maximum 17.0348 16.8532 86.9658 0.1530 1.4197 0.3856 1.8054 0.3829 0.3847 0.7676 0.0000 14,611.18 21 14,611.18
21 1.7156 0.1554 14,700.38
30 Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

22.30 73.09 -9.15 0.00 0.00 85.56 55.86 0.00 85.20 74.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 19 Date: 12/2/2021 11:03 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 2 - Alameda County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 1.2814 0.0247 2.1449 1.1000e0040.0119 0.0119 0.0119 0.0119 0.0000 3.8665 3.8665 3.7100e0030.0000 3.9593 Energy 0.0160 0.1367 0.0582 8.7000e0040.0111 0.0111 0.0111 0.0111 174.5574 174.5574 3.3500e0033.2000e003175.5947 Mobile 0.2595 0.3521 2.6510 5.4900e0030.6236 4.1300e0030.6277 0.1661 3.8500e0030.1699 572.8636 572.8636 0.0362 0.0298 582.6550 Total 1.5569 0.5135 4.8541 6.4700e0030.6236 0.0271 0.6507 0.1661 0.0268 0.1929 0.0000 751.2875 751.2875 0.0433 0.0330 762.2090 Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 1.2814 0.0247 2.1449 1.1000e0040.0119 0.0119 0.0119 0.0119 0.0000 3.8665 3.8665 3.7100e0030.0000 3.9593 Energy 0.0160 0.1367 0.0582 8.7000e0040.0111 0.0111 0.0111 0.0111 174.5574 174.5574 3.3500e0033.2000e003175.5947 Mobile 0.2595 0.3521 2.6510 5.4900e0030.6236 4.1300e0030.6277 0.1661 3.8500e0030.1699 572.8636 572.8636 0.0362 0.0298 582.6550 Total 1.5569 0.5135 4.8541 6.4700e0030.6236 0.0271 0.6507 0.1661 0.0268 0.1929 0.0000 751.2875 751.2875 0.0433 0.0330 762.2090 Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 19 Date: 12/2/2021 11:03 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 2 - Alameda County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Building Construction Building Construction 10/1/2024 10/31/2024 5 23 2 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 10/1/2024 10/31/2024 5 23 OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Building Construction Aerial Lifts 4 8.00 63 0.31
Building Construction Air Compressors 8 8.00 78 0.48
Building Construction Cranes 4 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 4 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 8 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 4 8.00 46 0.45
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Residential Indoor: 104,103; Residential Outdoor: 34,701; Non-Residential Indoor: 750; Non-Residential Outdoor: 250; Striped Parking Area:
840 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0
Acres of Paving: 0.32
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 19 Date: 12/2/2021 11:03 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 2 - Alameda County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.2 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 7.0801 59.3186 74.3260 0.1330 2.5927 2.5927 2.5233 2.5233 12,542.82 02 12,542.82
02 1.6607 12,584.33
76 Total 7.0801 59.3186 74.3260 0.1330 2.5927 2.5927 2.5233 2.5233 12,542.82 02 12,542.82
02 1.6607 12,584.33
76 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Use Cleaner Engines for Construction Equipment
Water Exposed Area
Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Building Construction 34 116.00 41.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 23.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 19 Date: 12/2/2021 11:03 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 2 - Alameda County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.2 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0395 1.8389 0.5414 8.0700e0030.2779 0.0109 0.2888 0.0800 0.0105 0.0905 861.6213 861.6213 0.0118 0.1291 900.4001 Worker 0.3069 0.2036 2.5038 7.4900e0030.9529 4.5500e0030.9575 0.2528 4.1900e0030.2570 772.1866 772.1866 0.0227 0.0219 779.2872 Total 0.3464 2.0424 3.0452 0.0156 1.2308 0.0155 1.2463 0.3328 0.0147 0.3474 1,633.808 0 1,633.808
0 0.0345 0.1511 1,679.687
3 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 2.3418 14.6417 81.5918 0.1330 0.3653 0.3653 0.3653 0.3653 0.0000 12,542.82 02 12,542.82
02 1.6607 12,584.33
76 Total 2.3418 14.6417 81.5918 0.1330 0.3653 0.3653 0.3653 0.3653 0.0000 12,542.82 02 12,542.82
02 1.6607 12,584.33
76 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 19 Date: 12/2/2021 11:03 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 2 - Alameda County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.3 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 14.2561 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e0030.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Total 14.4368 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e0030.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 19 Date: 12/2/2021 11:03 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 2 - Alameda County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.3 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0609 0.0404 0.4964 1.4800e0030.1889 9.0000e0040.1898 0.0501 8.3000e0040.0510 153.1060 153.1060 4.5000e0034.3500e003154.5138 Total 0.0609 0.0404 0.4964 1.4800e0030.1889 9.0000e0040.1898 0.0501 8.3000e0040.0510 153.1060 153.1060 4.5000e0034.3500e003154.5138 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 14.2561 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0297 0.1288 1.8324 2.9700e0033.9600e0033.9600e0033.9600e0033.9600e0030.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Total 14.2858 0.1288 1.8324 2.9700e0033.9600e0033.9600e0033.9600e0033.9600e0030.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 19 Date: 12/2/2021 11:03 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 2 - Alameda County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 19 Date: 12/2/2021 11:03 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 2 - Alameda County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 0.2595 0.3521 2.6510 5.4900e0030.6236 4.1300e0030.6277 0.1661 3.8500e0030.1699 572.8636 572.8636 0.0362 0.0298 582.6550 Unmitigated 0.2595 0.3521 2.6510 5.4900e0030.6236 4.1300e0030.6277 0.1661 3.8500e0030.1699 572.8636 572.8636 0.0362 0.0298 582.6550

4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
City Park 12.00 12.00 12.00 25,618 25,618
Condo/Townhouse 104.00 104.00 104.00 270,519 270,519
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 116.00 116.00 116.00 296,137 296,137
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by City Park 9.50 7.30 7.30 33.00 48.00 19.00 66 28 6
Condo/Townhouse 10.80 4.80 5.70 31.00 15.00 54.00 100 0 0 Other Asphalt Surfaces 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH City Park 0.570753 0.056481 0.179220 0.111941 0.020784 0.005211 0.013984 0.013033 0.000790 0.000560 0.024477 0.000343 0.002423 Condo/Townhouse 0.570753 0.056481 0.179220 0.111941 0.020784 0.005211 0.013984 0.013033 0.000790 0.000560 0.024477 0.000343 0.002423 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 19 Date: 12/2/2021 11:03 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 2 - Alameda County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.570753 0.056481 0.179220 0.111941 0.020784 0.005211 0.013984 0.013033 0.000790 0.000560 0.024477 0.000343 0.002423

5.0 Energy Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.0160 0.1367 0.0582 8.7000e0040.0111 0.0111 0.0111 0.0111 174.5574 174.5574 3.3500e0033.2000e003175.5947 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.0160 0.1367 0.0582 8.7000e0040.0111 0.0111 0.0111 0.0111 174.5574 174.5574 3.3500e0033.2000e003175.5947

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Kilowatt Hours of Renewable Electricity Generated
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 19 Date: 12/2/2021 11:03 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 2 - Alameda County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Condo/Townhous
e
1483.74 0.0160 0.1367 0.0582 8.7000e0040.0111 0.0111 0.0111 0.0111 174.5574 174.5574 3.3500e0033.2000e003175.5947 Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0160 0.1367 0.0582 8.7000e0040.0111 0.0111 0.0111 0.0111 174.5574 174.5574 3.3500e0033.2000e003175.5947 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 19 Date: 12/2/2021 11:03 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 2 - Alameda County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

1.48374 0.0160 0.1367 0.0582 8.7000e0040.0111 0.0111 0.0111 0.0111 174.5574 174.5574 3.3500e0033.2000e003175.5947 Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0160 0.1367 0.0582 8.7000e0040.0111 0.0111 0.0111 0.0111 174.5574 174.5574 3.3500e0033.2000e003175.5947 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 19 Date: 12/2/2021 11:03 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 2 - Alameda County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 1.2814 0.0247 2.1449 1.1000e0040.0119 0.0119 0.0119 0.0119 0.0000 3.8665 3.8665 3.7100e0030.0000 3.9593 Unmitigated 1.2814 0.0247 2.1449 1.1000e0040.0119 0.0119 0.0119 0.0119 0.0000 3.8665 3.8665 3.7100e0030.0000 3.9593

0.0898 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

1.1270 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 0.0645 0.0247 2.1449 1.1000e0040.0119 0.0119 0.0119 0.0119 3.8665 3.8665 3.7100e0033.9593 Total 1.2814 0.0247 2.1449 1.1000e0040.0119 0.0119 0.0119 0.0119 0.0000 3.8665 3.8665 3.7100e0030.0000 3.9593 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 19 Date: 12/2/2021 11:03 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 2 - Alameda County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Apply Water Conservation Strategy

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

0.0898 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

1.1270 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 0.0645 0.0247 2.1449 1.1000e0040.0119 0.0119 0.0119 0.0119 3.8665 3.8665 3.7100e0033.9593 Total 1.2814 0.0247 2.1449 1.1000e0040.0119 0.0119 0.0119 0.0119 0.0000 3.8665 3.8665 3.7100e0030.0000 3.9593 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 19 Date: 12/2/2021 11:03 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 2 - Alameda County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

11.0 Vegetation

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
Institute Recycling and Composting Services

8.0 Waste Detail

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 19 Date: 12/2/2021 11:03 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 2 - Alameda County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 2
Alameda County, Summer
Project Characteristics - Run 5 - Revised site plan: 26 DU Phase 2, add Grand Park. Underground utilities and grading moved to Phase 1.

Construcion models only remaining building constructiona and architecitural coating after buildout of Phase 1.

Land Use - Parking includes parking lots streets and sidewalks.

Construction Phase - Construction schedule per project applicant/engineer.

Architectural coating concurrent with building construction.

Off-road Equipment - Construction equipment per project applicant/engineer.

Off-Highway Truck = water truck.

Trips and VMT -
Grading -

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
5 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 63

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Operational Year 2025
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
203.98 CH4 Intensity 0.033
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.004
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 19 Date: 12/2/2021 11:04 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 2 - Alameda County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Architectural Coating - VOC limits per BAAQMD Regulation 8 Rule 3: 50 g/L for flat interiior and exterior and 100 g/L for pavement marking.

Vehicle Trips - Trip generation rates per traffic study (Fehr & Peers 2021).

Residential trip rates account for "internalization", trip purpose set to 100% primary.

Vehicle Emission Factors -
Vehicle Emission Factors -
Vehicle Emission Factors -
Road Dust -
Woodstoves - No hearths per project applicant.

Consumer Products -
Area Coating - VOC limits per BAAQMD Regulation 8 Rule 3: 50 g/L for flat interiior and exterior and 100 g/L for pavement marking.

Landscape Equipment -
Energy Use -
Water And Wastewater -
Solid Waste -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Dust mitigation per BAAQMD BCMMs.

Tier 4 engine mitigation per Mitigation Measure AQ-1.

Area Mitigation - CalEEMod error, defaults correct.

Water Mitigation - 20% water conservation per 2019 CalGreen not acconted for in model defaults.

Waste Mitigation - 25% solid waste diversion per AB 341 not accounted for in model defaults.

Fleet Mix - CalEEMod error, defaults correct.

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 4.00 tblVehicleTrips DV_TP 11.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips PB_TP 3.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 86.00 100.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 1.96 2.40
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 8.14 4.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 2.19 2.40
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.28 4.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 0.78 2.40
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 7.32 4.00
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 0.52 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 0.52 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 19 Date: 12/2/2021 11:04 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 2 - Alameda County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2024 21.9190 62.4696 79.7710 0.1537 1.4197 2.6699 4.0897 0.3829 2.5996 2.9825 0.0000 14,681.03 04 14,681.03
04 1.7122 0.1515 14,768.99
48 Maximum 21.9190 62.4696 79.7710 0.1537 1.4197 2.6699 4.0897 0.3829 2.5996 2.9825 0.0000 14,681.03 04 14,681.03
04 1.7122 0.1515 14,768.99
48 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2024 17.0297 16.7026 87.0591 0.1537 1.4197 0.3856 1.8053 0.3829 0.3847 0.7676 0.0000 14,681.03 04 14,681.03
04 1.7122 0.1515 14,768.99
48 Maximum 17.0297 16.7026 87.0591 0.1537 1.4197 0.3856 1.8053 0.3829 0.3847 0.7676 0.0000 14,681.03 04 14,681.03
04 1.7122 0.1515 14,768.99
48 Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

22.31 73.26 -9.14 0.00 0.00 85.56 55.86 0.00 85.20 74.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 19 Date: 12/2/2021 11:04 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 2 - Alameda County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 1.2814 0.0247 2.1449 1.1000e0040.0119 0.0119 0.0119 0.0119 0.0000 3.8665 3.8665 3.7100e0030.0000 3.9593 Energy 0.0160 0.1367 0.0582 8.7000e0040.0111 0.0111 0.0111 0.0111 174.5574 174.5574 3.3500e0033.2000e003175.5947 Mobile 0.2895 0.3081 2.4769 5.8100e0030.6236 4.1200e0030.6277 0.1661 3.8500e0030.1699 606.3737 606.3737 0.0320 0.0274 615.3440 Total 1.5869 0.4695 4.6801 6.7900e0030.6236 0.0271 0.6507 0.1661 0.0268 0.1929 0.0000 784.7977 784.7977 0.0391 0.0306 794.8980 Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 1.2814 0.0247 2.1449 1.1000e0040.0119 0.0119 0.0119 0.0119 0.0000 3.8665 3.8665 3.7100e0030.0000 3.9593 Energy 0.0160 0.1367 0.0582 8.7000e0040.0111 0.0111 0.0111 0.0111 174.5574 174.5574 3.3500e0033.2000e003175.5947 Mobile 0.2895 0.3081 2.4769 5.8100e0030.6236 4.1200e0030.6277 0.1661 3.8500e0030.1699 606.3737 606.3737 0.0320 0.0274 615.3440 Total 1.5869 0.4695 4.6801 6.7900e0030.6236 0.0271 0.6507 0.1661 0.0268 0.1929 0.0000 784.7977 784.7977 0.0391 0.0306 794.8980 Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 19 Date: 12/2/2021 11:04 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 2 - Alameda County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Residential Indoor: 104,103; Residential Outdoor: 34,701; Non-Residential Indoor: 750; Non-Residential Outdoor: 250; Striped Parking Area:
840 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0
Acres of Paving: 0.32
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 19 Date: 12/2/2021 11:04 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 2 - Alameda County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.2 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 7.0801 59.3186 74.3260 0.1330 2.5927 2.5927 2.5233 2.5233 12,542.82 02 12,542.82
02 1.6607 12,584.33
76 Total 7.0801 59.3186 74.3260 0.1330 2.5927 2.5927 2.5233 2.5233 12,542.82 02 12,542.82
02 1.6607 12,584.33
76 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Use Cleaner Engines for Construction Equipment
Water Exposed Area
Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Building Construction 34 116.00 41.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 23.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 19 Date: 12/2/2021 11:04 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 2 - Alameda County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.2 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0415 1.7357 0.5239 8.0600e0030.2779 0.0109 0.2888 0.0800 0.0104 0.0904 860.1587 860.1587 0.0119 0.1288 898.8435 Worker 0.3010 0.1640 2.5962 8.0600e0030.9529 4.5500e0030.9575 0.2528 4.1900e0030.2570 831.6978 831.6978 0.0198 0.0190 837.8450 Total 0.3425 1.8997 3.1201 0.0161 1.2308 0.0155 1.2463 0.3328 0.0146 0.3474 1,691.856 5 1,691.856
5 0.0317 0.1478 1,736.688
5 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 2.3418 14.6417 81.5918 0.1330 0.3653 0.3653 0.3653 0.3653 0.0000 12,542.82 02 12,542.82
02 1.6607 12,584.33
76 Total 2.3418 14.6417 81.5918 0.1330 0.3653 0.3653 0.3653 0.3653 0.0000 12,542.82 02 12,542.82
02 1.6607 12,584.33
76 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 19 Date: 12/2/2021 11:04 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 2 - Alameda County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.3 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 14.2561 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e0030.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Total 14.4368 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e0030.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 19 Date: 12/2/2021 11:04 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 2 - Alameda County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.3 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0597 0.0325 0.5148 1.6000e0030.1889 9.0000e0040.1898 0.0501 8.3000e0040.0510 164.9056 164.9056 3.9200e0033.7600e003166.1244 Total 0.0597 0.0325 0.5148 1.6000e0030.1889 9.0000e0040.1898 0.0501 8.3000e0040.0510 164.9056 164.9056 3.9200e0033.7600e003166.1244 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 14.2561 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0297 0.1288 1.8324 2.9700e0033.9600e0033.9600e0033.9600e0033.9600e0030.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Total 14.2858 0.1288 1.8324 2.9700e0033.9600e0033.9600e0033.9600e0033.9600e0030.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 19 Date: 12/2/2021 11:04 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 2 - Alameda County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 19 Date: 12/2/2021 11:04 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 2 - Alameda County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 0.2895 0.3081 2.4769 5.8100e0030.6236 4.1200e0030.6277 0.1661 3.8500e0030.1699 606.3737 606.3737 0.0320 0.0274 615.3440 Unmitigated 0.2895 0.3081 2.4769 5.8100e0030.6236 4.1200e0030.6277 0.1661 3.8500e0030.1699 606.3737 606.3737 0.0320 0.0274 615.3440

4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH City Park 0.570753 0.056481 0.179220 0.111941 0.020784 0.005211 0.013984 0.013033 0.000790 0.000560 0.024477 0.000343 0.002423 Condo/Townhouse 0.570753 0.056481 0.179220 0.111941 0.020784 0.005211 0.013984 0.013033 0.000790 0.000560 0.024477 0.000343 0.002423 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 19 Date: 12/2/2021 11:04 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 2 - Alameda County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.570753 0.056481 0.179220 0.111941 0.020784 0.005211 0.013984 0.013033 0.000790 0.000560 0.024477 0.000343 0.002423

5.0 Energy Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.0160 0.1367 0.0582 8.7000e0040.0111 0.0111 0.0111 0.0111 174.5574 174.5574 3.3500e0033.2000e003175.5947 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.0160 0.1367 0.0582 8.7000e0040.0111 0.0111 0.0111 0.0111 174.5574 174.5574 3.3500e0033.2000e003175.5947

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Kilowatt Hours of Renewable Electricity Generated
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 19 Date: 12/2/2021 11:04 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 2 - Alameda County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Condo/Townhous
e
1483.74 0.0160 0.1367 0.0582 8.7000e0040.0111 0.0111 0.0111 0.0111 174.5574 174.5574 3.3500e0033.2000e003175.5947 Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0160 0.1367 0.0582 8.7000e0040.0111 0.0111 0.0111 0.0111 174.5574 174.5574 3.3500e0033.2000e003175.5947 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 19 Date: 12/2/2021 11:04 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 2 - Alameda County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

1.48374 0.0160 0.1367 0.0582 8.7000e0040.0111 0.0111 0.0111 0.0111 174.5574 174.5574 3.3500e0033.2000e003175.5947 Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0160 0.1367 0.0582 8.7000e0040.0111 0.0111 0.0111 0.0111 174.5574 174.5574 3.3500e0033.2000e003175.5947 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 19 Date: 12/2/2021 11:04 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 2 - Alameda County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 1.2814 0.0247 2.1449 1.1000e0040.0119 0.0119 0.0119 0.0119 0.0000 3.8665 3.8665 3.7100e0030.0000 3.9593 Unmitigated 1.2814 0.0247 2.1449 1.1000e0040.0119 0.0119 0.0119 0.0119 0.0000 3.8665 3.8665 3.7100e0030.0000 3.9593

0.0898 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

1.1270 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 0.0645 0.0247 2.1449 1.1000e0040.0119 0.0119 0.0119 0.0119 3.8665 3.8665 3.7100e0033.9593 Total 1.2814 0.0247 2.1449 1.1000e0040.0119 0.0119 0.0119 0.0119 0.0000 3.8665 3.8665 3.7100e0030.0000 3.9593 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 19 Date: 12/2/2021 11:04 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 2 - Alameda County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Apply Water Conservation Strategy

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

0.0898 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

1.1270 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 0.0645 0.0247 2.1449 1.1000e0040.0119 0.0119 0.0119 0.0119 3.8665 3.8665 3.7100e0033.9593 Total 1.2814 0.0247 2.1449 1.1000e0040.0119 0.0119 0.0119 0.0119 0.0000 3.8665 3.8665 3.7100e0030.0000 3.9593 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 19 Date: 12/2/2021 11:04 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 2 - Alameda County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

11.0 Vegetation

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
Institute Recycling and Composting Services

8.0 Waste Detail

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 19 Date: 12/2/2021 11:04 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 2 - Alameda County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 2
Alameda County, Annual
Project Characteristics - Run 5 - Revised site plan: 26 DU Phase 2, add Grand Park. Underground utilities and grading moved to Phase 1.

Construcion models only remaining building constructiona and architecitural coating after buildout of Phase 1.

Land Use - Parking includes parking lots streets and sidewalks.

Construction Phase - Construction schedule per project applicant/engineer.

Architectural coating concurrent with building construction.

Off-road Equipment - Construction equipment per project applicant/engineer.

Off-Highway Truck = water truck.

Trips and VMT -
Grading -

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
5 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 63

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Operational Year 2025
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
203.98 CH4 Intensity 0.033
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.004
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 25 Date: 12/2/2021 11:06 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 2 - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Architectural Coating - VOC limits per BAAQMD Regulation 8 Rule 3: 50 g/L for flat interiior and exterior and 100 g/L for pavement marking.

Vehicle Trips - Trip generation rates per traffic study (Fehr & Peers 2021).

Residential trip rates account for "internalization", trip purpose set to 100% primary.

Vehicle Emission Factors -
Vehicle Emission Factors -
Vehicle Emission Factors -
Road Dust -
Woodstoves - No hearths per project applicant.

Consumer Products -
Area Coating - VOC limits per BAAQMD Regulation 8 Rule 3: 50 g/L for flat interiior and exterior and 100 g/L for pavement marking.

Landscape Equipment -
Energy Use -
Water And Wastewater -
Solid Waste -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Dust mitigation per BAAQMD BCMMs.

Tier 4 engine mitigation per Mitigation Measure AQ-1.

Area Mitigation - CalEEMod error, defaults correct.

Water Mitigation - 20% water conservation per 2019 CalGreen not acconted for in model defaults.

Waste Mitigation - 25% solid waste diversion per AB 341 not accounted for in model defaults.

Fleet Mix - CalEEMod error, defaults correct.

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 4.00 tblVehicleTrips DV_TP 11.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips PB_TP 3.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 86.00 100.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 1.96 2.40
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 8.14 4.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 2.19 2.40
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.28 4.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 0.78 2.40
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 7.32 4.00
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 0.52 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 0.52 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 25 Date: 12/2/2021 11:06 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 2 - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2024 0.2518 0.7194 0.9150 1.7600e0030.0157 0.0307 0.0464 4.2600e0030.0299 0.0342 0.0000 152.4896 152.4896 0.0179 1.6000e003153.4144 Maximum 0.2518 0.7194 0.9150 1.7600e0030.0157 0.0307 0.0464 4.2600e0030.0299 0.0342 0.0000 152.4896 152.4896 0.0179 1.6000e003153.4144 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2024 0.1956 0.1931 0.9988 1.7600e0030.0157 4.4300e0030.0202 4.2600e0034.4200e0038.6800e0030.0000 152.4894 152.4894 0.0179 1.6000e003153.4142 Maximum 0.1956 0.1931 0.9988 1.7600e0030.0157 4.4300e0030.0202 4.2600e0034.4200e0038.6800e0030.0000 152.4894 152.4894 0.0179 1.6000e003153.4142 Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

22.33 73.16 -9.16 0.00 0.00 85.57 56.57 0.00 85.22 74.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 25 Date: 12/2/2021 11:06 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 2 - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Highest

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.2279 2.2200e0030.1930 1.0000e0051.0700e0031.0700e0031.0700e0031.0700e0030.0000 0.3157 0.3157 3.0000e0040.0000 0.3233 Energy 2.9200e0030.0250 0.0106 1.6000e0042.0200e0032.0200e0032.0200e0032.0200e0030.0000 40.5409 40.5409 2.4400e0037.6000e00440.8277 Mobile 0.0473 0.0608 0.4522 1.0000e0030.1093 7.5000e0040.1100 0.0292 7.0000e0040.0299 0.0000 94.9207 94.9207 5.6600e0034.7500e00396.4780 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.5151 0.0000 2.5151 0.1486 0.0000 6.2310 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.5374 3.1231 3.6606 0.0557 1.3600e0035.4598 Total 0.2781 0.0879 0.6559 1.1700e0030.1093 3.8400e0030.1131 0.0292 3.7900e0030.0330 3.0525 138.9004 141.9529 0.2127 6.8700e003149.3197 Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 25 Date: 12/2/2021 11:06 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 2 - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.2279 2.2200e0030.1930 1.0000e0051.0700e0031.0700e0031.0700e0031.0700e0030.0000 0.3157 0.3157 3.0000e0040.0000 0.3233 Energy 2.9200e0030.0250 0.0106 1.6000e0042.0200e0032.0200e0032.0200e0032.0200e0030.0000 31.6457 31.6457 1.0000e0035.8000e00431.8446 Mobile 0.0473 0.0608 0.4522 1.0000e0030.1093 7.5000e0040.1100 0.0292 7.0000e0040.0299 0.0000 94.9207 94.9207 5.6600e0034.7500e00396.4780 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.8863 0.0000 1.8863 0.1115 0.0000 4.6732 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.4299 2.4985 2.9285 0.0446 1.0900e0034.3679 Total 0.2781 0.0879 0.6559 1.1700e0030.1093 3.8400e0030.1131 0.0292 3.7900e0030.0330 2.3162 129.3806 131.6969 0.1630 6.4200e003137.6869 Mitigated Operational

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 24.12 6.85 7.22 23.38 6.55 7.79 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 25 Date: 12/2/2021 11:06 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 2 - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Use Cleaner Engines for Construction Equipment
Water Exposed Area
Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads
OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Building Construction Aerial Lifts 4 8.00 63 0.31
Building Construction Air Compressors 8 8.00 78 0.48
Building Construction Cranes 4 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 4 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 8 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 4 8.00 46 0.45
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Building Construction 34 116.00 41.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 23.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Residential Indoor: 104,103; Residential Outdoor: 34,701; Non-Residential Indoor: 750; Non-Residential Outdoor: 250; Striped Parking Area:
840 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0
Acres of Paving: 0.32
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 25 Date: 12/2/2021 11:06 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 2 - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.2 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0814 0.6822 0.8548 1.5300e0030.0298 0.0298 0.0290 0.0290 0.0000 130.8545 130.8545 0.0173 0.0000 131.2877 Total 0.0814 0.6822 0.8548 1.5300e0030.0298 0.0298 0.0290 0.0290 0.0000 130.8545 130.8545 0.0173 0.0000 131.2877 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 4.7000e0040.0207 6.1200e0039.0000e0053.1000e0031.3000e0043.2200e0039.0000e0041.2000e0041.0200e0030.0000 8.9801 8.9801 1.2000e0041.3500e0039.3842 Worker 3.2600e0032.1400e0030.0278 9.0000e0050.0106 5.0000e0050.0106 2.8100e0035.0000e0052.8500e0030.0000 8.1105 8.1105 2.2000e0042.2000e0048.1802 Total 3.7300e0030.0228 0.0339 1.8000e0040.0137 1.8000e0040.0138 3.7100e0031.7000e0043.8700e0030.0000 17.0907 17.0907 3.4000e0041.5700e00317.5644 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 25 Date: 12/2/2021 11:06 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 2 - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.2 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0269 0.1684 0.9383 1.5300e0034.2000e0034.2000e0034.2000e0034.2000e0030.0000 130.8544 130.8544 0.0173 0.0000 131.2875 Total 0.0269 0.1684 0.9383 1.5300e0034.2000e0034.2000e0034.2000e0034.2000e0030.0000 130.8544 130.8544 0.0173 0.0000 131.2875 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 4.7000e0040.0207 6.1200e0039.0000e0053.1000e0031.3000e0043.2200e0039.0000e0041.2000e0041.0200e0030.0000 8.9801 8.9801 1.2000e0041.3500e0039.3842 Worker 3.2600e0032.1400e0030.0278 9.0000e0050.0106 5.0000e0050.0106 2.8100e0035.0000e0052.8500e0030.0000 8.1105 8.1105 2.2000e0042.2000e0048.1802 Total 3.7300e0030.0228 0.0339 1.8000e0040.0137 1.8000e0040.0138 3.7100e0031.7000e0043.8700e0030.0000 17.0907 17.0907 3.4000e0041.5700e00317.5644 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 25 Date: 12/2/2021 11:06 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 2 - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.3 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.1639 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.0800e0030.0140 0.0208 3.0000e0057.0000e0047.0000e0047.0000e0047.0000e0040.0000 2.9362 2.9362 1.7000e0040.0000 2.9404 Total 0.1660 0.0140 0.0208 3.0000e0057.0000e0047.0000e0047.0000e0047.0000e0040.0000 2.9362 2.9362 1.7000e0040.0000 2.9404 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 6.5000e0044.2000e0045.5100e0032.0000e0052.0900e0031.0000e0052.1000e0035.6000e0041.0000e0055.7000e0040.0000 1.6081 1.6081 4.0000e0054.0000e0051.6219 Total 6.5000e0044.2000e0045.5100e0032.0000e0052.0900e0031.0000e0052.1000e0035.6000e0041.0000e0055.7000e0040.0000 1.6081 1.6081 4.0000e0054.0000e0051.6219 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 25 Date: 12/2/2021 11:06 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 2 - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.3 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.1639 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.4000e0041.4800e0030.0211 3.0000e0055.0000e0055.0000e0055.0000e0055.0000e0050.0000 2.9362 2.9362 1.7000e0040.0000 2.9404 Total 0.1643 1.4800e0030.0211 3.0000e0055.0000e0055.0000e0055.0000e0055.0000e0050.0000 2.9362 2.9362 1.7000e0040.0000 2.9404 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 6.5000e0044.2000e0045.5100e0032.0000e0052.0900e0031.0000e0052.1000e0035.6000e0041.0000e0055.7000e0040.0000 1.6081 1.6081 4.0000e0054.0000e0051.6219 Total 6.5000e0044.2000e0045.5100e0032.0000e0052.0900e0031.0000e0052.1000e0035.6000e0041.0000e0055.7000e0040.0000 1.6081 1.6081 4.0000e0054.0000e0051.6219 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 25 Date: 12/2/2021 11:06 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 2 - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.0473 0.0608 0.4522 1.0000e0030.1093 7.5000e0040.1100 0.0292 7.0000e0040.0299 0.0000 94.9207 94.9207 5.6600e0034.7500e00396.4780 Unmitigated 0.0473 0.0608 0.4522 1.0000e0030.1093 7.5000e0040.1100 0.0292 7.0000e0040.0299 0.0000 94.9207 94.9207 5.6600e0034.7500e00396.4780

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

4.2 Trip Summary Information

5.0 Energy Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.7458 2.7458 4.4000e0045.0000e0052.7729 Electricity
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 11.6409 11.6409 1.8800e0032.3000e00411.7560 NaturalGas
Mitigated

2.9200e0030.0250 0.0106 1.6000e0042.0200e0032.0200e0032.0200e0032.0200e0030.0000 28.8999 28.8999 5.5000e0045.3000e00429.0717 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

2.9200e0030.0250 0.0106 1.6000e0042.0200e0032.0200e0032.0200e0032.0200e0030.0000 28.8999 28.8999 5.5000e0045.3000e00429.0717

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Kilowatt Hours of Renewable Electricity Generated
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 25 Date: 12/2/2021 11:06 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 2 - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Condo/Townhous
e
541564 2.9200e0030.0250 0.0106 1.6000e0042.0200e0032.0200e0032.0200e0032.0200e0030.0000 28.8999 28.8999 5.5000e0045.3000e00429.0717 Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 2.9200e0030.0250 0.0106 1.6000e0042.0200e0032.0200e0032.0200e0032.0200e0030.0000 28.8999 28.8999 5.5000e0045.3000e00429.0717 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 25 Date: 12/2/2021 11:06 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 2 - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Condo/Townhous
e
541564 2.9200e0030.0250 0.0106 1.6000e0042.0200e0032.0200e0032.0200e0032.0200e0030.0000 28.8999 28.8999 5.5000e0045.3000e00429.0717 Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 2.9200e0030.0250 0.0106 1.6000e0042.0200e0032.0200e0032.0200e0032.0200e0030.0000 28.8999 28.8999 5.5000e0045.3000e00429.0717 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 25 Date: 12/2/2021 11:06 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 2 - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Condo/Townhous
e
125816 11.6409 1.8800e0032.3000e00411.7560
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 11.6409 1.8800e0032.3000e00411.7560
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 25 Date: 12/2/2021 11:06 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 2 - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
City Park -32046.3 -2.9651 -0.0005 -0.0001 -2.9944
Condo/Townhous
e
93769.2 8.6759 1.4000e0031.7000e0048.7617
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
-32046.3 -2.9651 -0.0005 -0.0001 -2.9944
Total 2.7458 4.4000e0045.0000e0052.7729
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 25 Date: 12/2/2021 11:06 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 2 - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.2279 2.2200e0030.1930 1.0000e0051.0700e0031.0700e0031.0700e0031.0700e0030.0000 0.3157 0.3157 3.0000e0040.0000 0.3233 Unmitigated 0.2279 2.2200e0030.1930 1.0000e0051.0700e0031.0700e0031.0700e0031.0700e0030.0000 0.3157 0.3157 3.0000e0040.0000 0.3233

0.0164 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.2057 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 5.8100e0032.2200e0030.1930 1.0000e0051.0700e0031.0700e0031.0700e0031.0700e0030.0000 0.3157 0.3157 3.0000e0040.0000 0.3233 Total 0.2279 2.2200e0030.1930 1.0000e0051.0700e0031.0700e0031.0700e0031.0700e0030.0000 0.3157 0.3157 3.0000e0040.0000 0.3233 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 25 Date: 12/2/2021 11:06 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 2 - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Apply Water Conservation Strategy

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

0.0164 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.2057 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 5.8100e0032.2200e0030.1930 1.0000e0051.0700e0031.0700e0031.0700e0031.0700e0030.0000 0.3157 0.3157 3.0000e0040.0000 0.3233 Total 0.2279 2.2200e0030.1930 1.0000e0051.0700e0031.0700e0031.0700e0031.0700e0030.0000 0.3157 0.3157 3.0000e0040.0000 0.3233 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 25 Date: 12/2/2021 11:06 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 2 - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 2.9285 0.0446 1.0900e0034.3679
Unmitigated 3.6606 0.0557 1.3600e0035.4598

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
City Park 0 /

5.95741

1.9292 3.1000e0044.0000e0051.9483
Condo/Townhous
e

1.694 /

1.06796

1.7314 0.0554 1.3300e0033.5116
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 3.6606 0.0557 1.3700e0035.4598
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 21 of 25 Date: 12/2/2021 11:06 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 2 - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
City Park 0 /

4.76593

1.5434 2.5000e0043.0000e0051.5586
Condo/Townhous
e

1.3552 /

0.854368

1.3851 0.0443 1.0600e0032.8093
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 2.9285 0.0446 1.0900e0034.3679
Mitigated

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
Institute Recycling and Composting Services

8.0 Waste Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 22 of 25 Date: 12/2/2021 11:06 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 2 - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 1.8863 0.1115 0.0000 4.6732
Unmitigated 2.5151 0.1486 0.0000 6.2310
Category/Year

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
City Park 0.43 0.0873 5.1600e0030.0000 0.2163
Condo/Townhous
e

11.96 2.4278 0.1435 0.0000 6.0147
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 2.5151 0.1486 0.0000 6.2310
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 23 of 25 Date: 12/2/2021 11:06 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 2 - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
City Park 0.3225 0.0655 3.8700e0030.0000 0.1622
Condo/Townhous
e

8.97 1.8208 0.1076 0.0000 4.5110
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 1.8863 0.1115 0.0000 4.6732
Mitigated

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 24 of 25 Date: 12/2/2021 11:06 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 2 - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

11.0 Vegetation
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 25 of 25 Date: 12/2/2021 11:06 AM IPQ-37 FMC Willow Phase 2 - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Appendix B
HRA Calculations and Model Output
This page intentionally left blank
DPM Emissions
g/pound 453.59
HP Load Factor Time (s)
Load
Factor Time (s)
Load
Factor Time (s)
2028 Mix 0.048 3200 4.00% 60 2.2575E-04 84.0% 33.3 4.0% 33.3 2.7565E-03 Tier 4 DMU 0.015 1200 4.00% 60 2.6456E-05 84.0% 33.3 4.0% 33.3 3.2302E-04 Weekday Weekend Trains
Emissions
(pound/hr)
Total
Trains
Emissions
(pound/yr)
Platform 2028 Mix 6 2 1 2.2575E-04 1,768 3.9913E-01
Track 2028 Mix 6 2 1 2.7565E-03 1,768 4.8734E+00
Weekday Weekend Trains
Emissions
(pound/hr)
Total
Trains
Emissions
(pound/yr)
Platform Tier 4 25 10 3 7.9367E-05 7,540 1.9948E-01
Track Tier 4 25 10 3 9.6907E-04 7,540 2.4356E+00
Emission Factor (g/hp-hr)
Trains per Day Peak Hour Annual
Emissions
Control
Scenario 2 - 25 Multi Unit Diesel trains per day assumption per Dumbarton Corrdior Study, Tier 4 emissions Scenario 1 - 6 trains per day assumption per Newark TOD DEIR, 2028 average emissions Source
Source
At Platform Approach/Departure
Decelerate
Emissions
(lb/train)
Emissions
Control
Trains per Day Peak Hour Annual
Idle Accelerate
Emissions
(lb/train)
Nostes:

1. Emissions factor soiurce - USEPA Fact Sheet Emission Factors for Locomotives (2009).

2. Scenario 1 = 6 commuter trains per day assumption per the Dumbarton TOD EIR. Trains comprising 1 diesel locomotive pulling 5 or 6 passemger cars, typical of current Caltrain train confirugatioons. Emissions conforming to USEPA estimated average for line haul locomotive in 2028.

3. Scenario 2 = 25 DMU trains per day assumption per the highest estimated rail ridership scenario in the Dumabrton Transportation Corridor Study (2017). DMU trains would be new construction conforming to USEPA Tier 4 standards, typical of other DMU tains in operation in the Bay Area (Sonoma - Marin Transit).

Variable Emissions Fraction
Hour Ending NB SB Total
Fraction
Peak NB SB Total
Fraction
Peak
1 0 1 1 0.13 0 1 1 0.13
2 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 0.00
3 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 0.00
4 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 0.00
5 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 0.00
6 2 1 3 0.38 0 0 0 0.00
7 3 2 5 0.63 0 0 0 0.00
8 2 4 6 0.75 1 0 1 0.13
9 4 4 8 1.00 0 0 0 0.00
10 2 4 6 0.75 1 1 2 0.25
11 2 2 4 0.50 2 1 3 0.38
12 1 1 2 0.25 0 0 0 0.00
13 1 1 2 0.25 1 2 3 0.38
14 1 1 2 0.25 1 1 2 0.25
15 1 1 2 0.25 0 0 0 0.00
16 2 2 4 0.50 1 1 2 0.25
17 3 1 4 0.50 1 1 2 0.25
18 4 3 7 0.88 1 0 1 0.13
19 4 3 7 0.88 1 1 2 0.25
20 2 3 5 0.63 1 1 2 0.25
21 1 1 2 0.25 0 1 1 0.13
22 1 1 2 0.25 1 1 2 0.25
23 1 1 2 0.25 1 1 2 0.25
24 1 1 2 0.25 1 1 2 0.25
76 28
Weekday Weekend
Total Total
Notes:

1. Assuming future Dumbarton Corridor Trains would operate to coincide with the Caltrain Redwood City Station train schedule.

2. Trains per hour from the 2019 Caltrain Redwood City schedule.

AERMOD View - Lakes Environmental Software
SCALE:

0.2 km
1:6,897
PROJECT NO.:

DATE:
12/7/2021
COMPANY NAME:

HELIX Environmenal
Planning
COMMENTS:

Increased risk in chances per
million
PROJECT TITLE:

FMC Willow
Scenario 1 Residential Cancer Risk
SOURCES:

RECEPTORS:
1061
OUTPUT TYPE:

MAX:

AERMOD View - Lakes Environmental Software
SCALE:

0.2 km
1:6,897
PROJECT NO.:

DATE:
12/7/2021
COMPANY NAME:

HELIX Environmenal
Planning
COMMENTS:

Increased risk in chances per
million
PROJECT TITLE:

FMC Willow
Scenario 2 Residential Cancer Risk
SOURCES:

RECEPTORS:
1061
OUTPUT TYPE:

MAX:

Control Pathway
AERMOD
Total Deposition (Dry & Wet)
Dry Deposition
Wet Deposition
Output Type
Concentration
Regulatory Default Non-Default Options
Dispersion Options
C:\Users\mdrol\Desktop\FMC Willow HRA\FMC Willow Dispersion\FMC Will Titles
Dispersion Options
Plume Depletion
Dry Removal
Wet Removal
Output Warnings
No Output Warnings
Non-fatal Warnings for Non-sequential Met Data
Dispersion Coefficient
Rural
Pollutant / Averaging Time / Terrain Options
TG: Meters
RE: Meters
1 2 3 4 6 8 12 24 Flat Elevated SO: Meters
Hours Terrain Height Options
Averaging Time Options
Option not available
Pollutant Type Exponential Decay
1-Hour SO2 NAAQS
1-Hour SO2 Non-NAAQS
Month Period Annual
SO2
Flagpole Receptors
Yes No
Default Height = 1.20 m
AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software CO - 1 12/7/2021 Project File: C:\Users\martinr\Desktop\FMC Willow HRA\FMC Willow Dispersion R2\FMC Willow Dispersion R2.isc Control Pathway
AERMOD
Optional Files
Re-Start File Init File Multi-Year Analyses Event Input File Error Listing File Detailed Error Listing File
Filename: FMC Willow Dispersion R2.err
AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software CO - 2 12/7/2021 Project File: C:\Users\martinr\Desktop\FMC Willow HRA\FMC Willow Dispersion R2\FMC Willow Dispersion R2.isc Source Pathway - Source Inputs
AERMOD
Line Volume Sources
Source Type: LINE VOLUMESource: PLATFORM (Platform)
Release Height
[m]
Base Elevation
[m]
Y Coordinate for points
[m]
X Coordinate for Points
[m]
Length of Side
[m]
Emission Rate
[g/ s]
Building Height
[m]

9.12 1.00000 583533.52 4153265.25 3.27 4.15
583617.53 4153301.33 3.12 4.15
Source Type: LINE VOLUME
Source: TRACK (Track)
Release Height
[m]
Base Elevation
[m]
Y Coordinate for points
[m]
X Coordinate for Points
[m]
Length of Side
[m]
Emission Rate
[g/ s]
Building Height
[m]

9.12 1.00000 583363.02 4153192.59 3.02 4.15
584043.45 4153483.48 3.90 4.15
AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software SO1 - 1 12/7/2021 Project File: C:\Users\martinr\Desktop\FMC Willow HRA\FMC Willow Dispersion R2\FMC Willow Dispersion R2.isc Source Pathway - Source Inputs
AERMOD
Volume Sources Generated from Line Sources
Line
Source
ID
Volume
Source
ID
X Coordinate
[m]
Y Coordinate
[m]
Base
Elevation
[m]
Release
Height
[m[
Emission
Rate
[g/s]
Length of
Side
[m]
Building
Height
[m]
Initial Lateral
Dimencion
[m]
Initial Vertical
Dimencion
[m]
PLATFORM L0000001 583537.71 4153267.05 3.37 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.10000 L0000002 583546.09 4153270.65 3.52 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.10000 L0000003 583554.48 4153274.25 3.77 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.10000L0000004 583562.86 4153277.85 3.92 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.10000L0000005 583571.24 4153281.45 3.78 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.10000L0000006 583579.63 4153285.05 3.58 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.10000L0000007 583588.01 4153288.65 3.45 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.10000L0000008 583596.40 4153292.25 3.35 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.10000L0000009 583604.78 4153295.85 3.24 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.10000L0000010 583613.16 4153299.46 3.12 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.10000 Line
Source
ID
Volume
Source
ID
X Coordinate
[m]
Y Coordinate
[m]
Base
Elevation
[m]
Release
Height
[m[
Emission
Rate
[g/s]
Length of
Side
[m]
Building
Height
[m]
Initial Lateral
Dimencion
[m]
Initial Vertical
Dimencion
[m]
TRACK L0000011 583367.22 4153194.38 3.08 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235 L0000012 583375.61 4153197.97 3.21 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235L0000013 583384.00 4153201.56 3.39 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235L0000014 583392.39 4153205.14 3.55 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235L0000015 583400.78 4153208.73 3.70 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235L0000016 583409.17 4153212.32 3.82 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235L0000017 583417.56 4153215.90 3.87 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235L0000018 583425.94 4153219.49 3.46 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235L0000019 583434.33 4153223.08 3.11 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235L0000020 583442.72 4153226.66 2.93 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235L0000021 583451.11 4153230.25 3.01 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235L0000022 583459.50 4153233.84 3.13 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235 AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software SO1 - 2 12/7/2021 Project File: C:\Users\martinr\Desktop\FMC Willow HRA\FMC Willow Dispersion R2\FMC Willow Dispersion R2.isc Source Pathway - Source Inputs
AERMOD
Line
Source
ID
Volume
Source
ID
X Coordinate
[m]
Y Coordinate
[m]
Base
Elevation
[m]
Release
Height
[m[
Emission
Rate
[g/s]
Length of
Side
[m]
Building
Height
[m]
Initial Lateral
Dimencion
[m]
Initial Vertical
Dimencion
[m]
TRACK L0000023 583467.89 4153237.42 3.27 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235 L0000024 583476.28 4153241.01 3.68 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235L0000025 583484.67 4153244.60 3.86 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235L0000026 583493.06 4153248.18 3.94 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235L0000027 583501.45 4153251.77 3.57 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235L0000028 583509.84 4153255.36 3.31 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235L0000029 583518.23 4153258.94 3.19 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235L0000030 583526.62 4153262.53 3.30 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235L0000031 583535.01 4153266.12 3.36 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235L0000032 583543.40 4153269.70 3.44 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235L0000033 583551.79 4153273.29 3.70 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235L0000034 583560.18 4153276.88 3.88 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235L0000035 583568.57 4153280.46 3.86 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235L0000036 583576.96 4153284.05 3.63 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235L0000037 583585.35 4153287.64 3.48 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235L0000038 583593.74 4153291.22 3.38 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235L0000039 583602.13 4153294.81 3.27 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235L0000040 583610.52 4153298.40 3.16 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235L0000041 583618.91 4153301.98 3.25 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235L0000042 583627.30 4153305.57 3.53 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235L0000043 583635.69 4153309.16 3.75 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235L0000044 583644.08 4153312.74 3.73 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235L0000045 583652.47 4153316.33 3.56 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235L0000046 583660.86 4153319.92 3.41 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235L0000047 583669.25 4153323.50 3.32 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235 AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software SO1 - 3 12/7/2021 Project File: C:\Users\martinr\Desktop\FMC Willow HRA\FMC Willow Dispersion R2\FMC Willow Dispersion R2.isc Source Pathway - Source Inputs
AERMOD
Line
Source
ID
Volume
Source
ID
X Coordinate
[m]
Y Coordinate
[m]
Base
Elevation
[m]
Release
Height
[m[
Emission
Rate
[g/s]
Length of
Side
[m]
Building
Height
[m]
Initial Lateral
Dimencion
[m]
Initial Vertical
Dimencion
[m]
TRACK L0000048 583677.64 4153327.09 3.25 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235 L0000049 583686.02 4153330.68 3.18 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235L0000050 583694.41 4153334.26 3.36 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235L0000051 583702.80 4153337.85 3.61 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235L0000052 583711.19 4153341.44 3.83 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235 L0000053 583719.58 4153345.02 3.74 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235L0000054 583727.97 4153348.61 3.62 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235L0000055 583736.36 4153352.20 3.51 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235L0000056 583744.75 4153355.78 3.37 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235L0000057 583753.14 4153359.37 3.18 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235L0000058 583761.53 4153362.96 2.95 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235L0000059 583769.92 4153366.54 3.24 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235L0000060 583778.31 4153370.13 3.59 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235L0000061 583786.70 4153373.72 3.87 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235L0000062 583795.09 4153377.30 3.74 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235L0000063 583803.48 4153380.89 3.63 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235L0000064 583811.87 4153384.48 3.52 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235 L0000065 583820.26 4153388.06 3.42 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235L0000066 583828.65 4153391.65 3.30 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235L0000067 583837.04 4153395.24 3.29 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235L0000068 583845.43 4153398.82 3.63 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235L0000069 583853.82 4153402.41 4.06 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235L0000070 583862.21 4153406.00 4.30 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235L0000071 583870.60 4153409.59 4.18 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235L0000072 583878.99 4153413.17 3.97 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235 AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software SO1 - 4 12/7/2021 Project File: C:\Users\martinr\Desktop\FMC Willow HRA\FMC Willow Dispersion R2\FMC Willow Dispersion R2.isc Source Pathway - Source Inputs
AERMOD
Line
Source
ID
Volume
Source
ID
X Coordinate
[m]
Y Coordinate
[m]
Base
Elevation
[m]
Release
Height
[m[
Emission
Rate
[g/s]
Length of
Side
[m]
Building
Height
[m]
Initial Lateral
Dimencion
[m]
Initial Vertical
Dimencion
[m]
TRACK L0000073 583887.38 4153416.76 3.70 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235 L0000074 583895.77 4153420.35 3.51 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235L0000075 583904.16 4153423.93 3.44 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235L0000076 583912.55 4153427.52 3.58 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235L0000077 583920.94 4153431.11 3.83 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235L0000078 583929.33 4153434.69 3.93 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235L0000079 583937.71 4153438.28 3.83 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235L0000080 583946.10 4153441.87 3.67 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235L0000081 583954.49 4153445.45 3.56 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235L0000082 583962.88 4153449.04 3.55 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235L0000083 583971.27 4153452.63 3.56 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235L0000084 583979.66 4153456.21 3.56 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235L0000085 583988.05 4153459.80 3.71 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235L0000086 583996.44 4153463.39 3.94 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235L0000087 584004.83 4153466.97 4.18 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235L0000088 584013.22 4153470.56 4.17 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235L0000089 584021.61 4153474.15 4.14 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235L0000090 584030.00 4153477.73 4.13 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235L0000091 584038.39 4153481.32 4.07 4.15 9.12 4.24 3.86 0.01235 AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software SO1 - 5 12/7/2021 Project File: C:\Users\martinr\Desktop\FMC Willow HRA\FMC Willow Dispersion R2\FMC Willow Dispersion R2.isc Source Pathway
AERMOD
Hour / Day-of-Week Emission Rate Variation
Scenario: Scenario 1
Source ID: PLATFORM
Hour Mon Tues Wed Thr Fri Sat Sun
1:00 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13
2:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6:00 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.00 0.00
7:00 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.00 0.00
8:00 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.13 0.13
9:00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00
10:00 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.25 0.25
11:00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.38 0.38
12:00 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00
13:00 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.38 0.38
14:00 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
15:00 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00
16:00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.25 0.25
17:00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.25 0.25
18:00 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.13 0.13
19:00 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.25 0.25
20:00 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.25 0.25
21:00 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.13 0.13
22:00 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
23:00 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
24:00 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
Source ID: TRACK
Hour Mon Tues Wed Thr Fri Sat Sun
1:00 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13
2:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6:00 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.00 0.00
7:00 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.00 0.00
8:00 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.13 0.13
9:00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00
10:00 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.25 0.25
11:00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.38 0.38
12:00 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00
13:00 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.38 0.38
14:00 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
15:00 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00
16:00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.25 0.25
17:00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.25 0.25
18:00 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.13 0.13
19:00 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.25 0.25
20:00 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.25 0.25
21:00 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.13 0.13
22:00 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
23:00 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
24:00 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software SO2 - 2 12/7/2021 Project File: C:\Users\martinr\Desktop\FMC Willow HRA\FMC Willow Dispersion R2\FMC Willow Dispersion R2.isc Receptor Pathway
AERMOD
Receptor Networks
Note: Terrain Elavations and Flagpole Heights for Network Grids are in Page RE2 - 1 (If applicable) Generated Discrete Receptors for Multi-Tier (Risk) Grid and Receptor Locations for Fenceline Grid are in Page RE3 - 1 (If applicable) Uniform Cartesian Grid
Receptor
Network ID
Grid Origin
X Coordinate [m]
Grid Origin
Y Coordinate [m]
No. of X-Axis
Receptors
No. of Y-Axis
Receptors
Spacing for
X-Axis [m]
Spacing for
Y-Axis [m]
UCART1 583354.00 4153072.00 20.00 20.00 42 25
Discrete Receptors
Discrete Cartesian Receptors
X-Coordinate [m] Y-Coordinate [m] Terrain Elevations
Flagpole Heights [m]
(Optional)
Record
Number
Group Name
(Optional)
1 583564.39 4153258.71 3.82
2 583596.80 4153271.84 3.44
3 583613.96 4153279.15 3.23
4 583669.18 4153301.33 3.68
5 583687.31 4153308.93 3.57
6 583714.19 4153320.43 3.81
7 583719.51 4153322.54 3.84
8 583726.13 4153325.28 3.86
9 583733.76 4153328.41 3.86
10 583739.58 4153330.66 3.88
11 583637.22 4153288.00 3.66
Plant Boundary Receptors
AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software RE1 - 1 12/7/2021 Project File: C:\Users\martinr\Desktop\FMC Willow HRA\FMC Willow Dispersion R2\FMC Willow Dispersion R2.isc Meteorology Pathway
AERMOD
Met Input Data
Surface Met Data
Profile Met Data
..\724930.SFC
Default AERMET format
Filename:

Format Type:

Filename:

Format Type:
..\724930.PFL
Potential Temperature Profile
Base Elevation above MSL (for Primary Met Tower): 1.80 [m] Wind Direction
Rotation Adjustment [deg]:

Meteorological Station Data
Upper Air
Station No. Year Station Name
Surface
Stations X Coordinate [m] Y Coordinate [m]
2009 OAKLAND/WSO AP
2009 OAKLAND/WSO AP
Default AERMET format
Wind Speed
Wind Speeds are Vector Mean (Not Scalar Means)
Data Period
Start Date: 1/1/2009 Start Hour: 1 End Date: 1/2/2014 End Hour: 24 Data Period to Process

10.8 8.23

5.14 3.09

1.54 No Upper Bound
Wind Speed [m/s] Stability Category Wind Speed [m/s]
F
E
D
C
B
A
Stability Category
Wind Speed Categories
AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software ME - 1 12/7/2021 Project File: C:\Users\martinr\Desktop\FMC Willow HRA\FMC Willow Dispersion R2\FMC Willow Dispersion R2.isc Output Pathway
AERMOD
Tabular Printed Outputs
Short Term
Averaging
Period

RECTABLE
Highest Values Table

MAXTABLE
Maximum
Values Table

DAYTABLE
Daily
Values Table 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th
1 No
Contour Plot Files (PLOTFILE)
Path for PLOTFILES: FMC WILLOW DISPERSION R2.AD
Averaging
Period
Source
Group ID
High
Value File Name
1 ALL 1st 01H1GALL.PLT
Period ALL N/A PE00GALL.PLT
Output File of US NAAQS
Path for US NAAQS: FMC WILLOW DISPERSION R2.AD
AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software OU - 1 12/7/2021 Project File: C:\Users\martinr\Desktop\FMC Willow HRA\FMC Willow Dispersion R2\FMC Willow Dispersion R2.isc HARP Project Summary Report 12/7/2021 7:51:19 AM
***PROJECT INFORMATION***
HARP Version: 21081
Project Name: FMC Willow Scenario 1 Risk
HARP Database: NA
***EMISSION INVENTORY***
No. of Pollutants:2
No. of Background Pollutants:0
Emissions
ScrID           StkID           ProID PolID PolAbbrev Multi ______________________________________________________ _____________________________ Platform        0               0 9901 DieselExhPM 1
Track           0               0 9901 DieselExhPM 1
Background
PolID           PolAbbrev       Conc (ug/m^3) MWAF
______________________________________________________ __________ Ground level concentration files (\glc\)
________________________________________
9901MAXHR.txt
9901PER.txt
***POLLUTANT HEALTH INFORMATION***
Health Database: C:\HARP2\Tables\HEALTH17320. mdb
Health Table Version: HEALTH21221
Official: True
PolID           PolAbbrev        InhCancer AcuteREL InhChronicREL ______________________________________________________ _____________________________ 9901            DieselExhPM   1.1 5
Annual Ems MaxHr EmsMWAF
(lbs/yr) (lbs/hr)
_____________________ ________________

0.39913 0.000226 1

4.6741 0.002644 1
OralChronicR EL  InhChroRREL
_____________________ ____
Scenario 1 Residential Cancer Risk
*HARP ‐ HRACalc v21081 11/29/2021 2:37:43 PM ‐ Cancer Risk ‐ REC GRP NETID X Y RISK_SUM SCENARIO
1051 ALL 583634.36 4153274.64 1.24E‐06 30YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70 1052 ALL 583637.89 4153278.94 1.30E‐06 30YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70 1053 ALL 583684.79 4153303.65 1.20E‐06 30YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70 1054 ALL 583689.77 4153300.73 1.08E‐06 30YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70 1055 ALL 583694.61 4153301.73 1.05E‐06 30YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70 1056 ALL 583697.37 4153306.18 1.11E‐06 30YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70 1057 ALL 583713.87 4153313.17 1.09E‐06 30YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70 1058 ALL 583717.33 4153316.85 1.14E‐06 30YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70 1059 ALL 583732.52 4153319.85 1.04E‐06 30YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70 1060 ALL 583735.52 4153324.14 1.11E‐06 30YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70 1061 ALL 583869.91 4153374.06 6.32E‐07 30YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70 HARP Project Summary Report 12/7/2021 8:02:25 AM
***PROJECT INFORMATION***
HARP Version: 21081
Project Name: FMC Willow Scenario 2 Risk
HARP Database: NA
***EMISSION INVENTORY***
No. of Pollutants:2
No. of Background Pollutants:0
Emissions
ScrID           StkID           ProID PolID PolAbbrev Multi ______________________________________________________ _____________________________ Platform        0               0 9901 DieselExhPM 1
Track           0               0 9901 DieselExhPM 1
Background
PolID           PolAbbrev       Conc (ug/m^3) MWAF
______________________________________________________ __________ Ground level concentration files (\glc\)
________________________________________
9901MAXHR.txt
9901PER.txt
***POLLUTANT HEALTH INFORMATION***
Health Database: C:\HARP2\Tables\HEALTH17320. mdb
Health Table Version: HEALTH21221
Official: True
PolID           PolAbbrev        InhCancer AcuteREL InhChronicREL ______________________________________________________ _____________________________ 9901            DieselExhPM   1.1 5
Annual Ems MaxHr EmsMWAF
(lbs/yr) (lbs/hr)
_____________________ ________________

0.19948 7.94E‐05 1

2.336 0.000929 1
OralChronicR EL InhChroRREL
_____________________ ____
Scenario 2 Residential Cancer Risk
*HARP ‐ HRACalc v21081 11/29/2021 2:41:03 PM ‐ Cancer Risk REC GRP NETID X Y RISK_SUM SCENARIO
1051 ALL 583634.36 4153274.64 6.21E‐07 30YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermM 1052 ALL 583637.89 4153278.94 6.50E‐07 30YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermM 1053 ALL 583684.79 4153303.65 5.99E‐07 30YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermM 1054 ALL 583689.77 4153300.73 5.38E‐07 30YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermM 1055 ALL 583694.61 4153301.73 5.24E‐07 30YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermM 1056 ALL 583697.37 4153306.18 5.55E‐07 30YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermM 1057 ALL 583713.87 4153313.17 5.44E‐07 30YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermM 1058 ALL 583717.33 4153316.85 5.68E‐07 30YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermM 1059 ALL 583732.52 4153319.85 5.22E‐07 30YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermM 1060 ALL 583735.52 4153324.14 5.55E‐07 30YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermM 1061 ALL 583869.91 4153374.06 3.16E‐07 30YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermM Appendix C
Biological Resources Technical Report
for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
FMC Willow and Grand Park
Project
Biological Resources Technical Report
Prepared for:

City of Newark
Community Development Department
37101 Newark Boulevard
Newark, CA 94560
Prepared by:

HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
11 Natoma Street, Suite 155
Folsom, CA 95630
December 2021
This page intentionally left blank
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page

1.0 Introduction .....................................................................................................................................1

1.1 Purpose of the Report.........................................................................................................1

1.2 Project Location ..................................................................................................................1

1.3 Project Description .............................................................................................................1

1.3.1 Project Characteristics...........................................................................................1

1.3.2 Schedule and Phasing ............................................................................................2

2.0 Regulatory Setting............................................................................................................................2

2.1 Federal Requirements.........................................................................................................2

2.1.1 Federal Endangered Species Act............................................................................2

2.1.2 Migratory Bird Treaty Act......................................................................................3

2.2 State Requirements............................................................................................................3

2.2.1 California Endangered Species Act ........................................................................3

2.2.2 California Code of Regulations and California Fish and Game Code .....................3

2.2.3 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)........................................................4

2.2.4 California Native Plant Protection Act...................................................................4

2.2.5 Nesting Birds..........................................................................................................4

2.3 LOCAL REQUIREMENTS.......................................................................................................5

2.3.1 Dumbarton Transit Oriented Development Specific Plan .....................................5

2.3.2 Trees ......................................................................................................................5

2.4 JURISDICTIONAL WATERS ...................................................................................................5

2.4.1 Federal Requirements............................................................................................5

2.4.2 California Department of Fish and Wildlife ...........................................................7

3.0 Study Methods.................................................................................................................................8

3.1 Special-Status Species Evaluation.......................................................................................8

3.2 Biological Surveys ...............................................................................................................9

3.2.1 Biological Reconnaissance .....................................................................................9

3.2.2 Focused Botanical Surveys.....................................................................................9

3.2.3 Burrowing Owl .....................................................................................................10

3.2.4 Tree Inventory .....................................................................................................10

3.3 Jurisdictional Delineation of Wetlands and Other Waters...............................................10

4.0 Results: Environmental Setting......................................................................................................10

4.1 Existing Land Use and Setting ...........................................................................................10

4.2 Topography.......................................................................................................................11

4.3 Hydrology..........................................................................................................................11

4.4 Soils...................................................................................................................................11

4.4.1 Pescadero Clay, Drained (133).............................................................................11

4.4.2 Marvin Silt Loam, Saline-alkali (125)....................................................................11

4.5 Vegetation Communities and Land Cover........................................................................12

4.5.1 Ruderal/Disturbed ...............................................................................................12

4.5.2 Developed............................................................................................................12

4.5.3 Seasonal Wetland ................................................................................................13

4.6 Wildlife..............................................................................................................................13 ii

5.0 Discussion: Evaluation of Biological Resources .............................................................................13

5.1 Sensitive Natural Communities.........................................................................................13

5.2 Potential Jurisdictional Waters.........................................................................................14

5.2.1 Potential Waters of the U.S. ................................................................................14

5.2.2 Potential Waters of the State ..............................................................................14

5.2.3 CDFW Jurisdictional Areas...................................................................................14

5.2.4 Impacts to Aquatic Resources..............................................................................15

5.3 Special-Status Species.......................................................................................................15

5.3.1 Special-Status Animals.........................................................................................15

5.3.2 Nesting Migratory Birds and Raptors ..................................................................20

5.3.3 Special-Status Plants............................................................................................20

5.4 Protected Trees.................................................................................................................21

6.0 Discussion: General Avoidance and Mitigation Recommendations..............................................21

6.1 Special-Status Species.......................................................................................................22

6.1.1 Special-Status Wildlife .........................................................................................22

6.2 Protected Trees.................................................................................................................25

7.0 References .....................................................................................................................................26

LIST OF APPENDICES
A Figures
B USFWS, CNDDB, and CNPS Lists of Regionally-occurring Special-status Species C Potential for Special-Status Species to Occur in the Project Site D Plant and Wildlife Species Observed in the Project Site E Arborist Letter Report
F Representative Site Photos
G Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse Habitat Assessment

LIST OF TABLES
No. Title Page
1 Biological Surveys Conducted for the Proposed Project .................................................................9 2 Existing Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types in the Project Site ................................12 3 Aquatic Resources in the Project Site............................................................................................14 4 Regional Special-Status Species With Potential to Occur in the Project Site ................................15 5 Summary of Biological Resource Impacts and Mitigation Measures from the EIR and Applicability to the Proposed Project.................................................................................................................21 Biological Resources Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE OF THE REPORT
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) prepared this Biological Resources Technical Report (BTR) for the proposed FMC Willow and Grand Park Project (proposed project) in the City of Newark, Alameda County, California (City). The proposed project is within the Bayside Newark Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Specific Plan area, formerly known as the Dumbarton TOD Specific Plan area (City of Newark 2010). A Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the Specific Plan (RBF 2011a) and certified by the City (State Clearinghouse No. 2010042012), and the Specific Plan was adopted. For most parcels within the Specific Plan area (including the project site), the evaluation conducted for the EIR was programmatic. As specified in the EIR, project-specific studies and documents consistent with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) are required for processing individual projects under the Specific Plan.

This BTR has been prepared in support of the proposed project’s processing under CEQA. The purposes of the BTR are: (1) to document the environmental setting and existing biological conditions in the project site; (2) to evaluate the potential for any special-status plant or animal species or sensitive habitats to be present in or immediately adjacent to the project site and thereby be affected by the proposed project; (3) to quantify impacts to aquatic resources; (4) to document the relationship of the biological resources in the project site to applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations; and (5) to describe measures to avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate potential impacts to all protected biological resources in compliance with the Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program (MMRP) adopted as part of the Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan EIR (RBF 2011b).

1.2 PROJECT LOCATION
The proposed project site is located within the City of Newark in southwestern Alameda County, northwest of the intersection of Willow Street and Enterprise Drive (Appendix A, Figure 1). The proposed FMC Willow and Grand Park project would be located on the following six Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs): 092-0100-013, 092-0100-014, 537-0852-028, 537-0852-029, 537-0852-030, and 537- 0852-031. The majority of the proposed project site is located in Sections 2 and 11 of Township 5 South, and Range 2 West of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute “Newark” quadrangle map (quad).

The western portion of the site is unsectioned (unsurveyed). The approximate center of the project site is at latitude 37.5215, longitude -122.0538, NAD 83. Figure 2 in Appendix A is an aerial photograph of the project site and the associated properties.

1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

1.3.1 Project Characteristics
The proposed project would redevelop the 22.1-acre site into a 370-unit multi-family community including a mixed-use area of 4,000 square feet (sf) of retail and 90 affordable units (plus 1 manager unit), a 5-acre community park (Grand Park), and a 1,485-sf community building, along with approximately 1.8 acres set aside for a future transit station (including 0.1 acre of area for water quality management and 0.6 acre for public roads). The proposed residential land uses on-site would range from medium density residential (14-30 dwelling units/acre) to high density residential (25-60 dwelling Biological Resources Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 2 units/acre). The project would also provide a 20-foot-wide trail corridor containing a 12-foot-wide multipurpose trail that would transect the Grand Park and run along Enterprise Drive to Willow Street. It is anticipated that the proposed trail would be eligible to be part of the regional San Francisco Bay Trail, a bicycle and pedestrian trail that will eventually allow continuous travel around the shoreline of San Francisco Bay.

The Hetch Hetchy ROW is a 100-foot-wide corridor that transects the project site. Approximately 7 acres of the project site lies north of the Hetch Hetchy ROW, and approximately 15 acres of the project site lies south of the Hetch Hetchy ROW. No development would occur within the Hetch Hetchy ROW.

Additional proposed site improvements include the following: on- and off-street parking, open space and common areas, drive aisles, underground utilities, Low Impact Development (LID) drainage and water quality treatment structures, lighting, sidewalks, and landscaping. Figure 3 in Appendix A shows detailed site plans.

1.3.2 Schedule and Phasing
The project would be constructed in two phases. Phase 1 would consist of the construction of PA1, PA2, PA3, 66 DU in PA4, and the community building (4,000 sf of retail, 344 residential DU, and 1,485 sf community building). Construction of Phase 1 would commence in April 2022 and be completed in approximately 30 months (September 2024). Phase 2 would consist of the remaining 26 DU in PA4 and the Grand Park. Construction of Phase 2 would commence with grading as early as August 2022 and is anticipated to be complete by December 2024 but could be completed as early as October 2024 (27 months). Phase 2 construction activities would overlap the Phase 1 construction activities.

2.0 REGULATORY SETTING
Policies, regulations, and plans pertaining to the protection of biological resources in the project site and vicinity are summarized in the following sections.

2.1 FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS

2.1.1 Federal Endangered Species Act
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) enforces the provisions stipulated in the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (FESA, 16 USC Section 1531 et seq.). Species identified as threatened or endangered (50 CFR Section 17.11, and 17.12) are protected from take, which is defined as direct or indirect harm, unless a Section 10 permit is granted to an entity other than a federal agency or a Biological Opinion with incidental take provisions is rendered to a federal lead agency via a Section 7 consultation. Pursuant to the requirements of the FESA, an agency reviewing a proposed project within its jurisdiction must determine whether any federally-listed species may be present on the project site and determine whether the proposed project will have a potentially significant impact on them. Under the FESA, habitat loss is considered to be an impact to a species. In addition, the USFWS is required to determine whether the project is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species that is proposed for listing under the FESA or to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat proposed to be designated for such species (16 USC 1536[3], [4]). Therefore, project related impacts to those species or their habitats would be considered significant and would require mitigation.

Biological Resources Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 3 Other federal agencies designate species of concern (species that have the potential to become listed), that are evaluated during environmental review although they are not otherwise protected under the FESA. Impacts to those species or their habitats would likewise be considered significant and would require mitigation.

2.1.2 Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 established federal responsibilities for the protection of nearly all species of birds, their eggs, and nests. The Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act of 2004 further defined species protected under the act and excluded all non-native species. Section 16 U.S.C. 703–712 of the Act states “unless and except as permitted by regulations, it shall be unlawful at any time, by any means or in any manner, to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture, or kill” a migratory bird. A migratory bird is any species or family of birds that live, reproduce or migrate within or across international borders at some point during their annual life cycle. Currently, there are 836 migratory birds protected nationwide by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, of which 58 are legal to hunt.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (with jurisdiction over California) has ruled that the MBTA does not prohibit incidental take (952 F 2d 297 – Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, 1991).

2.2 STATE REQUIREMENTS

2.2.1 California Endangered Species Act
The CESA (California Fish and Game Code Sections 2050 to 2097) is similar to the FESA. The California Fish and Game Commission is responsible for maintaining lists of threatened and endangered species under the CESA. CESA prohibits the take of listed and candidate (petitioned to be listed) species. “Take” under California law means to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch capture, or kill (California Fish and Game Code Section 86). The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) can authorize take of a state-listed species under Section 2081 of the California Fish and Game Code if the take is incidental to an otherwise lawful activity, the impacts are minimized and fully mitigated, funding is ensured to implement and monitor mitigation measures, and CDFW determines that issuance would not jeopardize the continued existence of the species. A CESA permit must be obtained if a project will result in the take of listed species, either during construction or over the life of the project. For species listed under both the FESA and the CESA requiring a Biological Opinion under Section 7 of the FESA, CDFW may also authorize impacts to CESA species by issuing a Consistency Determination under Section 2080.1 of the Fish and Game Code.

2.2.2 California Code of Regulations and California Fish and Game Code The official listing of endangered and threatened animals and plants is contained in the California Code of Regulations Title 14 §670.5. A state candidate species is one that the California Fish and Game Code has formally noticed as being under review by CDFW for inclusion on the state list pursuant to Sections 2074.2 and 2075.5 of the California Fish and Game Code.

Legal protection is also provided for wildlife species in California that are identified as “fully protected animals.” These species are protected under Sections 3511 (birds), 4700 (mammals), 5050 (reptiles and amphibians), and 5515 (fishes) of the California Fish and Game Code. These statutes prohibit take or possession of fully protected species at any time. The CDFW is unable to authorize incidental take of fully protected species when activities are proposed in areas inhabited by these species. The CDFW has Biological Resources Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 4 informed non-federal agencies and private parties that they must avoid take of any fully protected species. However, Senate Bill 618 (2011) allows the CDFW to issue permits authorizing the incidental take of fully protected species under the CESA, so long as any such take authorization is issued in conjunction with the approval of a Natural Community Conservation Plan that covers the fully protected species (California Fish and Game Code Section 2835).

2.2.3 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Under CEQA (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), lead agencies analyze whether projects would have a substantial adverse effect on a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species (Public Resources Code Section 21001(c)). These “special-status” species generally include those listed under the FESA and the CESA, and species that are not currently protected by statute or regulation, but would be considered rare, threatened, or endangered under the criteria included in the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15380. Therefore, species that are considered rare are addressed in this study regardless of whether they are afforded special protection through any other statute or regulation. The CDFW, in consultation with the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) assigns a California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) to native species according to rarity; plants with a CRPR of 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, or 3 are generally considered special-status species under CEQA.

Although threatened and endangered species are protected by specific federal and state statutes, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15380(d) provides that a species not listed on the federal or state list of protected species may be considered rare if it can be shown to meet certain specified criteria. Those criteria have been modeled after the definition in FESA and the section of the California Fish and Game Code dealing with rare or endangered plants and animals. Section 15380(d) allows a public agency to undertake a review to determine if a significant effect on species that have not yet been listed by either the USFWS or the CDFW (i.e., candidate species) would occur. Thus, CEQA provides an agency with the ability to protect a species from the potential impacts of a project until the respective government agency has an opportunity to designate the species as protected, if warranted.

2.2.4 California Native Plant Protection Act
The California Native Plant Protection Act of 1977 (California Fish and Game Code Sections 1900-1913) empowers the Fish and Game Commission to list native plant species, subspecies, or varieties as endangered or rare following a public hearing. To the extent that the location of such plants is known, CDFW must notify property owners that a listed plant is known to occur on their property. Where a property owner has been so notified by CDFW, the owner must notify CDFW at least 10 days in advance of any change in land use (other than changing from one agricultural use to another), in order that CDFW may salvage listed plants that would otherwise be destroyed. Currently, 64 taxa of native plants have been listed as rare under the act.

2.2.5 Nesting Birds
California Fish and Game Code Subsections 3503 and 3800 prohibit the possession, take, or needless destruction of birds, their nests, and eggs, and the salvage of dead nongame birds. California Fish and Game Code Subsection 3503.5 protects all birds in the orders of Falconiformes and Strigiformes (birds of prey). Fish and Game Code Subsection 3513 states that it is unlawful to take or possess any migratory nongame bird as designated in the Migratory Bird Treaty Act or any part of such migratory nongame bird except as provided by rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary of Biological Resources Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 5 the Interior under provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The Attorney General of California has released an opinion that the Fish and Game Code prohibits incidental take.

2.3 LOCAL REQUIREMENTS

2.3.1 Bayside Newark Transit Oriented Development Specific Plan The proposed project is within the Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan area. A Final EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2010042012) has been prepared and certified, and the Specific Plan has been adopted. For most parcels within the Specific Plan area (including the proposed project site), the evaluation conducted for the Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan EIR was programmatic. That EIR requires project-specific studies and documentation to be completed for subsequent development in the Specific Plan area consistent with the requirements of CEQA. The Specific Plan EIR also contains measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential impacts to biological resources in its MMRP that are required to be implemented by applicants proposing future projects in the Specific Plan area.

2.3.2 Trees
The City of Newark protects trees as windbreaks essential to public health and safety. The City of Newark Municipal Code Chapter 8.16.02 requires that a permit be obtained from the Public Works Director to cut down, destroy, remove, or move trees when growing on any parcel except developed residential parcels less than ten thousand square feet in area. A tree is defined in the ordinance as any live perennial woody plant with at least one well-defined stem 6 inches or greater in diameter measured at 48 inches above grade (dbh).

2.4 JURISDICTIONAL WATERS

2.4.1 Federal Requirements
Any person, firm, or agency planning to alter or work in “waters of the U.S.,” including the discharge of dredged or fill material, must first obtain authorization from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA; 33 USC 1344). Permits, licenses, variances, or similar authorization may also be required by other federal, state, and local statutes. Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act prohibits the obstruction or alteration of navigable waters of the U.S. without a permit from USACE (33 USC 403).

On April 21, 2020, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and USACE published the Navigable Waters Protection Rule to define “Waters of the United States” in the Federal Register. On June 22, 2020, the Navigable Waters Protection Rule: Definition of “Waters of the United States” (NWPR) became effective in 49 states, including California, and in all US territories.

The NWPR regulates traditional navigable waters and perennial or intermittent tributary systems, and defines four categories of regulated waters including:
• The territorial seas and traditional navigable waters; • Perennial and intermittent tributaries to those waters; • Certain lakes, ponds, and impoundments; and
• Wetlands adjacent to jurisdictional waters.

Biological Resources Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 6 The NWPR also defines 12 categories of exempted aquatic resources:
• Waters not listed as WOTUS
• Groundwater
• Ephemeral features
• Diffuse stormwater run-off
• Ditches not identified as WOTUS
• Prior converted cropland (PCC)
• Artificially irrigated areas
• Artificial lakes and ponds
• Water-filled depressions incidental to mining or construction activity • Stormwater control features
• Groundwater recharge, water reuse, and wastewater recycling structures • Waste treatment systems
With non-tidal waters, in the absence of adjacent wetlands, the extent of USACE jurisdiction extends to the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) – the line on the shore established by fluctuations of water and indicated by a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in soil character, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, or the presence of litter and debris. Wetlands are defined in 33 CFR Part 328 as:
“those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.” Federal and state regulations pertaining to waters of the U.S., including wetlands, are discussed below.

Clean Water Act (33 USC 1251-1376). The CWA provides guidance for the restoration and maintenance of the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters.

Section 401 requires that an applicant for a federal license or permit that allows activities resulting in a discharge to waters of the U.S. must obtain a state certification that the discharge complies with other provisions of CWA. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) administers the certification program in California and may require State Water Quality Certification before other permits are issued.

Section 402 establishes a permitting system for the discharge of any pollutant (except dredged or fill material) into waters of the U.S.

Section 404 establishes a permit program administered by USACE that regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S. (including wetlands). Implementing regulations by USACE are found at 33 CFR Parts 320-332. The Section 404 (b)(1) Guidelines were developed by the USEPA in conjunction with USACE (40 CFR Part 230), allowing the discharge of dredged or fill material for non-water dependent uses into special aquatic sites only if there is no practicable alternative that would have less adverse impacts.

Regional Water Quality Control Board
Any action requiring a CWA Section 404 permit, or a Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 permit, must also obtain a CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification. The State of California Water Quality Certification (WQC) Program was formally initiated by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) in 1990 Biological Resources Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 7 under the requirements stipulated by Section 401 of the Federal CWA. Although the Clean Water Act is a Federal law, Section 401 of the CWA recognizes that states have the primary authority and responsibility for setting water quality standards. In California, under Section 401, the State and Regional Water Boards are the authorities that certify that issuance of a federal license or permit does not violate California’s water quality standards (i.e., that they do not violate Porter-Cologne and the Water Code).

The WQC Program currently issues the WQC for discharges requiring USACE's permits for fill and dredge discharges within Waters of the United States, and now also implements the State's wetland protection and hydromodification regulation program under the Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act.

On April 2, 2019, the SWRCB adopted a State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State (Procedures), for inclusion in the forthcoming Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters and Enclosed Bays and Estuaries and Ocean Waters of California. The Procedures consist of four major elements: 1) a wetland definition; 2) a framework for determining if a feature that meets the wetland definition is a water of the state; 3) wetland delineation procedures; and 4) procedures for the submittal, review, and approval of applications for Water Quality Certifications and Waste Discharge Requirements for dredge or fill activities. The Office of Administrative Law approved the Procedures on August 28, 2019, and the Procedures became effective May 28, 2020.

Under the Procedures and the State Water Code (Water Code §13050(e)), “Waters of the State” are defined as “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state.” Unless excluded by the Procedures, any activity that could result in discharge of dredged or fill material to Waters of the State, which includes Waters of the U.S. and non-federal Waters of the State, requires filing of an application under the Procedures.

The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne Act, Water Code Section 13000 et seq.) is California’s statutory authority for the protection of water quality in conjunction with the federal CWA.

The Porter-Cologne Act requires the SWRCB and RWQCBs under the CWA to adopt and periodically update water quality control plans, or basin plans. Basin plans are plans in which beneficial uses, water quality objectives, and implementation programs are established for each of the nine regions in California. The Porter-Cologne Act also requires dischargers of pollutants or dredged or fill material to notify the RWQCBs of such activities by filing Reports of Waste Discharge and authorizes the SWRCB and RWQCBs to issue and enforce waste discharge requirements, National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, Section 401 water quality certifications, or other approvals.

2.4.2 California Department of Fish and Wildlife
The CDFW is a trustee agency that has jurisdiction under Section 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code. Under Sections 1602 and 1603, a private party must notify CDFW if a proposed project will “substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed, channel, or bank of streambeds…except when the department has been notified pursuant to Section 1601.” Additionally, CDFW asserts jurisdiction over native riparian habitat adjacent to aquatic features, including native trees over four inches in diameter at breast height (DBH). If an existing fish or wildlife resource may be substantially adversely affected by the activity, CDFW may propose reasonable measures that will allow protection of those resources. If these measures are agreeable to the parties involved, they may enter into an agreement with CDFW identifying the approved activities and associated mitigation measures.

Generally, CDFW recommends submitting an application for a Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA) Biological Resources Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 8 for any work done within the lateral limit of water flow or the edge of riparian vegetation, whichever is greater.

3.0 STUDY METHODS
Studies conducted in preparation of this BTR included a desktop evaluation and background research to identify special-status species and other biological resources (e.g., wetlands) with the potential to occur on the project site or be impacted by the proposed project as well as biological field surveys to document baseline conditions and special-status species and/or their habitats present on the site. These methods are presented in the following sections.

3.1 SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES EVALUATION
For the purposes of this BTR, special-status species are those that fall into one or more of the following categories:
• Listed as endangered or threatened under the FESA, including candidate species and species proposed for listing;
• Listed as endangered or threatened under the CESA, including candidate species and species proposed for listing;
• Designated as a Species of Special Concern (SSC) or watch-list (WL) species by the CDFW, or “Fully Protected” under the California Fish and Game Code (FP); • Designated as California Rare Plant Rank 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, or 3.

The most current available lists of special-status species known to occur and/or having the potential to occur in the project region were reviewed to determine those species’ potential to occur on the project site or otherwise be affected by project activities. The following databases were queried, and the results are included in Appendix B:
• The San Francisco Bay – Delta Fish and Wildlife Office list of threatened and endangered species that may occur in the project site and/or may be affected by the project (USFWS 2021); • The California Native Plant Society list of special-status plants documented in the “Hayward, Dublin, Redwood Point, Newark, Niles, Palo Alto, Mountain View, Milpitas, and Newark ” quads (CNPS 2021); and
• The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) list of special-status species documented in the “Hayward, Dublin, Redwood Point, Newark, Niles, Palo Alto, Mountain View, Milpitas, and Newark ” quads (CDFW 2021).

Appendix C presents the general habitat requirements, status, the potential for the species to occur; and rationale for each species evaluated. Species determined to have no potential to occur on the project site or be otherwise affected by activities on the site were excluded from further evaluation. Species having potential to occur on the project site and/or be affected by site activities are evaluated in detail in Chapter 5 of this BTR.

Biological Resources Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 9 3.2 BIOLOGICAL SURVEYS
Biological surveys conducted at the project site for this BTR by HELIX consisted of biological reconnaissance surveys, two seasons of protocol-level burrowing owl surveys, a tree inventory, and a special-status plant survey. The study area for these surveys included the Hetch Hetchy ROW. In addition, a wetland delineation was conducted for the project site and vicinity by WRA, Inc. These surveys are described in the following sections and summarized in Table 1 below.

3.2.1 Biological Reconnaissance
Biological reconnaissance surveys were conducted on April 4, 2019, February 28 and June 3, 2020, and April 26, 2021 to verify current site conditions. The surveys included a pedestrian reconnaissance of the entire project site, mapping of habitats and land covers, and a comprehensive list of all plant and animal species observed or detected. Although not protocol level surveys, biological reconnaissance surveys included a search for target plant and animal species, including burrowing owl and rare plants. Species lists were updated during subsequent site visits described below. A list of plant and animal species observed during all site visits is provided in Appendix D.

Table 1

BIOLOGICAL SURVEYS CONDUCTED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Survey Dates Personnel - Company Tasks Performed
May 5, 2009 Spencer Badet - WRA
Justin Semion - WRA Jurisdictional delineation
April 4, 2019 Stephen Stringer, M.S.- HELIX
General biological reconnaissance survey, tree
inventory, burrowing owl habitat assessment;
focused botanical survey
May 2, 2019 Patrick Martin – HELIX
Stephanie McLaughlin, M.S. - HELIX Burrowing owl habitat assessment May 23, 2019 George Aldridge, Ph.D. - HELIX Burrowing owl habitat assessment; focused botanical survey
June 18, 2019 Stephen Stringer, M.S. - HELIX Burrowing owl habitat assessment; focused botanical survey
February 28, 2020 Patrick Martin - HELIX General biological reconnaissance survey, protocol burrowing owl survey
May 13, 2020 Stephanie McLaughlin, M.S. - HELIX Protocol burrowing owl survey June 3, 2020 Stephen Stringer, M.S. - HELIX Biological reconnaissance survey April 26, 2021 Stephanie McLaughlin, M.S. - HELIX Biological reconnaissance survey

3.2.2 Focused Botanical Surveys
HELIX biologists conducted focused botanical surveys on April 4, May 23, and June 18, 2019. They surveyed the entire project site on foot, documenting all plant species present. These dates span the blooming seasons of all regionally-occurring special-status plant species returned in database queries and reported in Appendix B.

Biological Resources Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 10 3.2.3 Burrowing Owl
HELIX biologists conducted a protocol-level survey for burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) in 2019 according to CDFW (2012) guidelines. The survey included a burrowing owl habitat assessment on April 4, 2019, and subsequent visits on May 2, 2019, May 23, 2019 and June 18, 2019. Protocol burrowing owl surveys were repeated in 2020 on February 28th and May 13th. The site was assessed for presence of suitable burrows and foraging habitat, abundance of prey, and sign of burrowing owl occupancy. Suitable burrows are holes or crevices greater than 3-inches diameter and are typically located on a mound or gentle slope, or near a post or other low perch. Suitable foraging habitat is open areas with sparse, low-growing vegetation that allows burrowing owls to see prey from low perches and hunt in low, horizontal flight. The most common mammal associated with burrowing owl is California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi). Signs of burrowing owl presence include pellets, bones, whitewash, and litter collected around burrow entrances and under perches. During all surveys, all mounds, posts, hummocks, banks, debris piles, and other prominent features were closely inspected for sign of burrowing owl.

3.2.4 Tree Inventory
A HELIX staff arborist conducted a tree inventory and Level 1 visual assessment of trees in the project site on April 4, 2019. The inventory included all plants in the project site that meet the definition of tree in Chapter 18.16 of the Newark municipal code (i.e., a live woody perennial with at least one stem measuring 6 inches or greater diameter at 4.5 feet above grade). The results of this survey are included in Appendix E.

3.3 JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION OF WETLANDS AND OTHER
WATERS
WRA Environmental Consultants mapped aquatic resources on the site and surrounding area (known as FMC Central Plant) and prepared a Delineation of Potential Jurisdictional Wetlands and “Other Waters” Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act in April 2013 (WRA 2013). The results are summarized in Section 5.2.

4.0 RESULTS: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

4.1 EXISTING LAND USE AND SETTING
The project site is a former industrial chemical plant that was active until the 1990s. Following ongoing soil remediation activities, the site is barren except for some remnant cement pads and cement and asphalt roads. At the time of the biological reconnaissance survey on April 26, 2021, remediation was ongoing in the western portion of the site. The project site is located within a former industrial area that is rapidly being converted to mixed residential uses. The project site is bound on the north by the San Mateo Transit District (SamTrans) railroad corridor and industrial development beyond, to the east by a vacant parcel planned for development, and to the south and west by residential and mixed-use development currently under construction.

Biological Resources Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 11 4.2 TOPOGRAPHY
Terrain in the project site and surrounding area has been altered by industrial development, and most existing topographic relief is the result of fill for the railroad and industrial pads, excavation of artificial basins and channels, and diking of tidelands. The project site consists of leveled industrial pads and road and railroad embankments. Terrain in the area surrounding the project site is flat. Elevations on the project site are between 9 feet and 12 feet (NGVD29) from west to east.

4.3 HYDROLOGY
The project site falls within the Plummer Creek-Frontal San Francisco Bay Estuaries watershed (HUC12 180500040702). Plummer Creek is a tidal channel 0.5-mile south of the project site that is connected to San Francisco Bay approximately 2.3 miles westward via Newark Slough. There are no waterways on the project site that directly connect to Plummer Creek or Newark Slough. Precipitation is the only source of water for the project site. Elevations are generally lowest at the west, and there is no clear pattern of drainage. According to the USGS T-sheets for this area (www.sfei.org/tsheets/), the site is outside the historic boundary of tidal marshes in San Francisco Bay.

4.4 SOILS
The study area includes two soil mapping units in two soil series (NRCS 2021): Pescadero Clay, drained; and Marvin silt loam, saline-alkali. The western side of the project site is mapped as Pescadero Clay, drained; and the eastern side of the project site is mapped as Marvin silt loam, saline-alkali (Appendix A, Figure 5). Much of the surface soil on the site has been disturbed and/or removed due to soil remediation.

4.4.1 Pescadero Clay, Drained (133)
Pescadero Clay soils are composed of 85 percent Pescadero and similar soils, and 15 percent minor components (Willows and Omni). The Pescadero clay component is characterized by poorly drained alluvial soils derived from sedimentary rock, and typically occurs on nearly level basin rims at elevations of 0 to 100 feet above mean sea level (amsl). The typical depth to a restrictive layer is more than 80 inches, and the depth to the water table is approximately 48 to 72 inches.

A typical profile of this soil is clay loam from a depth of 0 to 2 inches, clay from a depth of 2 to 30 inches, and clay loam from a depth of 30 to 60 inches. The frequency of flooding in this soil type is classified as “none” and the frequency of ponding is classified as “none.” Pescadero clay, drained and its minor components are listed as a hydric soil on basin floors and rims in Alameda County on the national hydric soils list (NRCS 2019).

4.4.2 Marvin Silt Loam, Saline-alkali (125)
Marvin silt loam soils are composed of 85 percent Marvin and similar soils and 15 percent minor components (Pescadero and Willows). The Marvin component is characterized by somewhat poorly drained alluvial soils derived from sedimentary rock, and typically occurs on stream terraces at elevations from 10 to 100 feet amsl. The typical depth to a restrictive layer is more than 80 inches, and the depth to the water table is approximately 42 to 72 inches.

Biological Resources Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 12 A typical profile of Marvin silt loam is silt loam from 0 to 4 inches; clay from 4 to 36 inches and clay loam from 36 to 60 inches. The frequency of flooding and ponding in this soil is classified as “none”. Marvin silt loam and its minor components are listed as a hydric soil on basin floors in Alameda County on the national hydric soils list (NRCS 2019).

4.5 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES AND LAND COVER
The site contains no natural biological communities. Following extensive soil remediation that included the export of contaminated soils and import of clean fill, the majority of the site is disturbed, but is vegetated by weedy species typical of the region. Soil remediation is on-going in the western portion of the site (see Photo 4 in Appendix F). Currently, the project site supports three vegetation communities/land covers: ruderal/disturbed, developed and seasonal wetland (Table 2 below). The majority of the plant species on the site are non-native (Appendix D). Refer to Appendix A, Figure 6 for the distribution of the habitat types on the site. Site photos are in Appendix F.

Table 2

EXISTING VEGETATION COMMUNITIES AND LAND COVER TYPES IN THE PROJECT SITE Vegetation Community/Land Cover Type Area (acres)
Ruderal/Disturbed 16.39
Developed 5.72
Seasonal Wetland 0.015
TOTAL 22.1

4.5.1 Ruderal/Disturbed
Ruderal/disturbed habitat occurs in areas that are heavily disturbed by past or ongoing human activities but retain a soil substrate. Ruderal/disturbed areas may be sparsely to densely vegetated, but do not support a recognizable community or species assemblage. Vegetative cover is usually herbaceous and dominated by a wide variety of weedy non-native species or a few ruderal native species. This habitat in the project site is either unvegetated post-remediation or heavily dominated by a dense cover of nonnative annual grasses, with small patches of native and non-native grasses and forbs. Portions of this habitat are still subject to on-going remediation in the western portion of the site.

Ruderal/disturbed habitat provides low-quality habitat for wildlife, typically supporting only transient individuals using the area for dispersal, because of the sparse vegetation and lack of species diversity.

Ruderal/disturbed habitat in the project site supports a large population of rodents such as Botta’s pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae) and California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi), which in turn provide a prey base and suitable burrow habitat for special-status birds of prey (burrowing owl) that could occur in the project site.

4.5.2 Developed
Developed areas in the project sited consist of areas that are graveled, paved or supported buildings with associated ornamental vegetation. Developed areas in the project site are scattered throughout the project site interspersed with ruderal/disturbed habitat. The developed areas consist of paved areas with asphalt or concrete and are either former foundations for structures that are no longer present or remediation sites. Graveled and paved roads also occur in the project site. These areas are heavily Biological Resources Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 13 disturbed and consist mostly of bare ground, paved surfaces and/or landscaped vegetation. Landscaped vegetation may provide habitat for wildlife such as nesting birds.

Developed habitat provides low-quality habitat for wildlife, typically supporting only transient individuals using the area for dispersal, because of the sparse vegetation and lack of species diversity.

California ground squirrels were observed burrowing in developed habitat, especially in areas paved with asphalt. Burrows in asphalt seemed to originate from cracks in the asphalt or along the margins of the asphalt. Burrows in developed habitat could provide habitat for special-status species such as burrowing owl.

4.5.3 Seasonal Wetland
There is one seasonal wetland in the project site, which occurs within a constructed ditch formed as a result of former construction activity that holds water for sufficient duration to form wetland conditions.

The seasonal wetland contains facultative (FAC) and facultative wetland (FACW) hydrophytic species such as salt grass (Distichlis spicata) and rabbit’s foot grass (Polypogon monspeliensis).

The seasonal wetland on the site provides low-quality habitat for wildlife, typically supporting only transient individuals using the area for dispersal, because of the sparse vegetation and lack of species diversity. Waterfowl and other wildlife were observed using the small wetland.

4.6 WILDLIFE
Wildlife observed on the project site were common urban species tolerant of human presence, such as California ground squirrel, black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchus), Canada goose (Branta canadensis), killdeer (Charadrius vociferous), western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), and gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus). Specialstatus species observed flying overhead during biological surveys include white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus) and golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), both of which are CDFW fully protected species. Both birds were observed foraging and quickly passed over the site.

5.0 DISCUSSION: EVALUATION OF BIOLOGICAL

RESOURCES

5.1 SENSITIVE NATURAL COMMUNITIES
No upland or aquatic natural communities in the project site were identified as a sensitive or specialstatus natural community. Developed lands and ruderal/disturbed areas are not considered sensitive and have low potential to support special-status species. The seasonal wetland in the project site occurs within a constructed ditch resulting from former construction activity and is associated with the disturbed habitats of the project site. Due to sparse vegetation and lack of species diversity, the seasonal wetland on the site provides low-quality habitat for wildlife, typically supporting only transient individuals using the area for dispersal. The seasonal wetland on the site is not considered a sensitive natural community.

Biological Resources Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 14 5.2 POTENTIAL JURISDICTIONAL WATERS
There is one seasonal wetland in the project footprint totaling 0.015 acre (Table 3). This feature is referred to as seasonal wetland “C” in the delineation prepared in April 2013 by WRA Environmental Consultants (WRA 2013). Seasonal wetlands “D”, “E”, “F”, and “G” delineated by WRA in the project vicinity are located in the Hetch Hetchy ROW or along the neighboring SamTrans train tracks and are not on the project site. These features will not be impacted by the proposed project. Seasonal wetland “H” delineated by WRA no longer exists, presumably due to ongoing soil remediation or other site disturbances.

Table 3

AQUATIC RESOURCES IN THE PROJECT SITE
Feature Name Cowardin Classification Area (ac)
Seasonal Wetland C PEMx (Palustrine, emergent, excavated) 0.015 TOTAL AQUATIC RESOURCES 0.015

5.2.1 Potential Waters of the U.S.

Seasonal wetland “C” occurs within a remnant of a constructed ditch that is unlined and ponds water as a result of the soil type and the high amount of disturbed material found within the soil (WRA 2013).

The constructed ditch is a man-made ditch/depression left over from industrial activities on the site.

WRA concluded that the seasonal wetland is isolated, as no connection to navigable waters was apparent and that federal regulations exclude drainage features excavated in uplands. For these reasons, the seasonal and isolated wetland was considered non-jurisdictional and exempt from Section 404 jurisdiction by WRA (WRA 2013). This finding is consistent with the Navigable Waters Protection Rule: Definition of “Waters of the United States”, which generally exempts ditches from jurisdiction that are not traditional navigable waters, tributaries, isolated features, or that are not constructed in adjacent wetlands.

5.2.2 Potential Waters of the State
According to the State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State adopted April 2, 2019 that went into effect on May 28, 2020, artificial wetlands less than one acre in size are not waters of the State unless they resulted from historic human activity, are not subject to ongoing operation and maintenance, and have become a relatively permanent part of the natural landscape. The seasonal wetland on the site was constructed in uplands (WRA 2013) and is considered artificial. The seasonal wetland is subject to ongoing operation and maintenance including soil remediation in the immediate vicinity, mowing and vegetation maintenance. Therefore, seasonal wetland “C” does not qualify as a waters of the State based on the delineation report (WRA 2013) and the State Wetland Definition.

5.2.3 CDFW Jurisdictional Areas
Section 1600 et seq. of the Fish and Game Code regulates activities affecting rivers, streams, and lakes where fish or wildlife resources may be adversely affected. A lake under CDFW jurisdiction is defined as “a permanent natural body of water of any size or an artificially impounded body of water of at least one acre, isolated from the sea, and having an area of open water of sufficient depth and permanency Biological Resources Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 15 to prevent complete coverage by rooted aquatic plants” (CCR Vol. 18 Title 14, Section 1562.1).

Streambeds within CDFW jurisdiction are based on the definition of a stream as “a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supporting fish or other aquatic life” (CCR Vol. 18 Title 14, Section 1.72).

Seasonal wetland “C” is not consistent with the definition of streams or lakes and is not regulated by the CDFW. No habitat potentially regulated by CDFW occurs in the project site.

5.2.4 Impacts to Aquatic Resources
The project will result in permanent impacts to seasonal wetland “C”, which totals 0.015 acre in size. As discussed in the preceding paragraphs, this seasonal wetland does not qualify as a waters of the U.S. or waters of the State and is not subject to CDFW jurisdiction under Section 1600 et seq. of the Fish and Game Code. No mitigation is required for impacts to this non-jurisdictional aquatic resource.

5.3 SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES
Database queries for regionally occurring special-status species are included in Appendix B. The habitat affinities of each of these species were compared to the habitats present in the project site to determine the potential for each of these species to occur in the project site (Appendix C). Two specialstatus animal species were determined to have the potential to occur in the project site or otherwise be affected by development of the proposed project (Table 4). In addition, salt marsh harvest mouse is discussed in this section due to requirements of the MMRP in the Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan EIR, although it has no potential to occur in the project site or be impacted by the proposed project.

Table 4

REGIONAL SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES WITH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE PROJECT SITE Scientific Name/ Common Name

FESA/CESA/
CRPR or Other
State Status*
Habitat Suitability
Birds
Athene cunicularia
burrowing owl --/--/SSC
There is marginal suitable habitat in the project site
consisting of foraging habitat and ground squirrel
burrows for nesting. This species has been
documented on or adjacent to the site in the CNDDB.

Elanus leucurus
white-tailed kite --/--/FP
There is potential habitat for nesting and foraging in
the project site. This species was observed on site and an old nest that could provide habitat is present on
site.
*SSC – state species of special concern; FP – state fully protected

5.3.1 Special-Status Animals
Habitat is present in the project site for burrowing owl and white-tailed kite, special-status bird species analyzed in Appendix C.

Biological Resources Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 16 5.3.1.1 Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia)
Federal Status – None
State Status – SSC
Other – None
Burrowing owls are often found in open, dry grasslands, agricultural and range lands, and desert habitats. They can also inhabit grass, forb, and shrub stages of pinyon and ponderosa pine habitats.

Burrowing owls occur at elevations ranging from 200 feet below mean sea level to over 9,000 feet amsl.

In California, the highest elevation where burrowing owls are known to occur is 5,300 feet amsl in Lassen County. In addition to natural habitats, burrowing owls can be found in urban habitats such as at the margins of airports and golf courses and in vacant urban lots. Burrowing owls nest in burrows and commonly perch on nearby fence posts or mounds. The owls also use ground squirrel burrows, badger dens or artificial burrows such as abandoned pipes or culverts (CDFW 2012).

Although the more northern burrowing owl populations migrate seasonally, burrowing owls are yearround residents in much of California. The owls often form loose colonies, with nest burrows 46 to 2,952 feet apart (ICF 2012). The nesting season for burrowing owl can begin as early as February 1 and continues through August 31. Burrowing owls forage in adjacent grasslands and other suitable habitats with low vegetation primarily for insects and small mammals, and less often for reptiles, amphibians, and other small birds.

Survey History
All biological surveys included searching for burrowing owls, including transects of the site on April 4, 2019. Protocol surveys were conducted on May 2, May 23, and June 18, 2019. Protocol burrowing owl surveys were reconducted on February 28, 2020 and May 13, 2020. In addition, biological reconnaissance surveys that included searching for burrowing owl and/or sign were conducted on June 3, 2020 and April 26, 2021. Burrowing owls, burrows or sign have not observed on the project site during any of the surveys. All burrows were either abandoned, collapsed or occupied by California ground squirrels or gray fox. Potential perch sites, such as bollards were also inspected, however no indication of burrowing owl using the site was detected.

The nearest documented occurrence in CNDDB of burrowing owl is located approximately 1/2 mile north of the project site. The occurrence is from 1950 and is presumed to be extirpated. The occurrence considers the conversion of vacant fields to developments a possible cause and notes a steady decline of burrowing owls in Newark (CDFW 2020. There is another reported occurrence approximately 0.5 mile northwest from 1978 and 1979 (CDFW 2020). In addition, this species was documented on site on January 17, 2012 in an unprocessed CDFW record (CDFW 2020). The record states that burrowing owl was observed foraging, and it does not identify any occupied burrows.

Habitat Suitability/Potential to Occur in the Project Site The project site provides suitable nesting, foraging and wintering habitat for this species. However, due to the high level of noise and human presence on the site due to ongoing remediation as well as in the immediate vicinity of the site resulting from the surrounding development activities, the site is not highly suitable for burrowing owl. The project site contains several California ground squirrel burrows that could be used by burrowing owl for nesting or stopover during winter migration. California ground squirrel burrows are scattered all over the site, with most burrows located adjacent to the site within Biological Resources Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 17 the Hetch Hetchy ROW. Burrows are also present along the edge of compromised paved surfaces and along other dirt berms. No burrowing owls or sign (whitewash, feathers, pellets) were detected during protocol surveys or any other biological surveys. All burrows appeared to be occupied by California ground squirrel or vacant.

Potential Project Impacts
Although the site provides some suitable foraging and potential mammal burrows for burrowing owl, no burrowing owl or active burrows have been observed on the project site during two seasons of protocol surveys and other biological surveys and the site is subject to a relatively high amount of noise disturbance and human presence on site due to ongoing remediation and in the immediate vicinity due to surrounding development activities. HELIX biologists have observed burrowing owl foraging or using burrows temporarily on several sites within the Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan area but have not observed nesting or long-term occupancy of burrowing owl within site in the area, likely due to the high level of disturbance. It is unlikely that burrowing owl would occupy the site prior to development, but burrowing owl could occasionally use the site for foraging or temporary refugia.

The loss of 16.39 acres of potential foraging habitat within the ruderal/disturbed habitat onsite would not be expected to significantly impact burrowing owl. Higher quality foraging habitat is abundant to the west and north of the site. Burrowing owl is a highly mobile bird species and individual birds foraging or otherwise occurring in the site could readily avoid construction areas or contact with construction equipment or personnel. Therefore, no impacts to individual foraging or transient burrowing owls is anticipated. However, because the potential for burrowing owl to take up residence in the site prior to construction cannot be ruled out, especially if the site were to remain dormant for several weeks or more during the winter, potential disturbance to burrowing owl individuals could occur as a result of construction activities (e.g., noise, human presence).

The recommended mitigation measures for burrowing owls contained in Section 6.1.1.2 would reduce any potential impacts to burrowing owl to less than significant.

5.3.1.2 White-tailed Kite (Elanus leucurus)
Federal Status – None
State Status – Fully Protected
Other – None
White-tailed kite is a year-round resident in California in coastal areas and lowlands in the Central Valley. Population sizes increase during the non-breeding season due to over-wintering migrants.

Population also changes with the availability of prey, which may follow prey abundance. White-tailed kite prefers open stages of habitats dominated by herbaceous species (Zeiner et al. 1990). White-tailed kite will nest in tall trees adjacent to foraging habitat (Zeiner et al. 1990). White-tailed kites feed mainly on small mammals such as voles (Microtus spp.) but will take other small vertebrate and invertebrate prey.

Survey History
A pair of white-tailed kites was observed in the project site during biological surveys on April 4, 2019.

The pair was observed defending their territory from one red-tailed hawk, which was driven away from the project site by both kites. No active nests were observed in or adjacent to the project site, although Biological Resources Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 18 suitable nest trees are present in the project site. One old nest was observed in a pine tree along the southern boundary of the project site, which could be an old kite nest, but is likely being used by an American crow. White-tailed kites were observed on the project site again during the biological survey on February 28, 2020.

The nearest reported occurrences in CNDDB of white-tailed kite is located approximately 1.5 miles north of the project site. The occurrence is from 1971 and is presumed to be extant (CDFW 2020). The occurrence documents white-tailed kite nesting in a deciduous tree (CDFW 2020).

Habitat Suitability/Potential to Occur in the Project Site The project site provides suitable foraging habitat for this species, but white-tailed kite is unlikely to nest in the site. This species was documented on site on April 4, 2019 during the general biological survey and was observed again in February 2020. The project site contains a few trees tall enough for nesting and one old nest suitable for white-tailed kite was observed in a pine tree on the southern boundary of the project site along Enterprise Drive. However, remediation is ongoing on the site in the vicinity of the potential nest trees and properties adjacent to the project site are currently being developed with constant activity and disturbance from heavy machinery and personnel. The pair of white-tailed kites observed during the survey did not appear to be nesting onsite even though they displayed territorial behaviors, they only appeared to be foraging. The pair was likely nesting somewhere near the project site and occasionally using the site for foraging.

Potential Project Impacts
White-tailed kite is a highly mobile bird species and individual birds foraging or otherwise occurring in the site could readily avoid construction areas or contact with construction equipment or personnel.

Therefore, no impacts to individual foraging kites is anticipated. The loss of 16.39 acres of potential foraging habitat within the ruderal/disturbed habitat onsite would not be expected to significantly impact white-tailed kites nesting in the region. Higher quality foraging habitat is abundant to the west and north of the site. It is considered unlikely that white-tailed kite would nest in or immediately adjacent to the site, however, this potential cannot be completed ruled out. If white-tailed kite were to nest in or adjacent to the site prior to construction activities, noise, vibration, human presence, and other construction-related disturbances could disturb nesting kites and potentially result in nest failure or lead to the abandonment of eggs or young.

The recommended mitigation measures for nesting raptors contained in Section 6.1.1.1 would reduce potential impacts to nesting white-tailed kite to less than significant.

5.3.1.3 Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris) Federal Status – Endangered
State Status – Endangered
Other – None
The salt marsh harvest mouse was federally listed as endangered in its entire range on October 13, 1970 (Federal Register 35: 16047). Critical habitat has not been designated for this species. This mouse is also state listed as endangered. A recovery plan for the salt marsh harvest mouse was prepared in 1984 and is currently under revision.

Biological Resources Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 19 The salt marsh harvest mouse is endemic to tidal and brackish marsh habitats of the San Francisco Bay region. Salt marsh harvest mice are primarily found in the salt marshes along northern San Pablo Bay, surrounding Suisun Bay, and along southern San Francisco Bay USFWS 1984). The acreage believed to be necessary to sustain a healthy salt marsh harvest mouse population is 150 acres or more (USFWS 2010).

The salt marsh harvest mouse is critically dependent on dense cover and its preferred habitat is considered to be pickleweed-dominated salt marsh wetlands. Studies have found salt marsh harvest mice occur not only in tidal wetlands dominated by pickleweed, but also in wetlands with little or no pickleweed, in diked wetlands, and in transition zones dominated by annual grasses. However, the extent to which salt marsh harvest mice depend upon these habitats has not been explicitly quantified (Sustaita et al. 2011). Recent studies have also shown that salt marsh harvest mice are more flexible in habitat use and with their diet than previously thought (Smith and Kelt 2019). Salt marsh harvest mice will use non-native plant species, such as rabbitsfoot grass (Polypogon monspeliensis) in their diet (Smith and Kelt 2019) in addition to other native species and are not tied exclusively to pickleweed-dominated wetlands but will also use other mixed vegetation wetlands (Sustaita et al. 2011). This shows that salt marsh harvest mice may use mixed vegetation salt marsh habitat (Sustaita et al. 2011; Smith et al. 2014).

In marshes with an upper zone of halophytes in the intertidal zone, salt marsh harvest mice will use the tall vegetation to escape high tides and may also move into adjoining grasslands during the highest winter tides especially in areas with shorter emergent salt marsh habitat (Sustaita et al. 2011; Smith et al. 2014). During a live trapping study that used radio telemetry, the trapping study found that salt marsh harvest mice rarely used upland areas with annual grasses but preferred to stay in taller vegetation in the intertidal zone during high tide (Smith et al. 2014). The best type of pickleweed association for the species has 100 percent vegetative cover with a cover depth of 30 to 50 centimeters at summer maximum, at least 60 percent cover of pickleweed, and additional halophytes such as fat hen (Atriplex patula) and alkali heath (Frankenia salina). The amount of salt grass, brass buttons (Cotula coronopifolia), alkali bulrush (Bolboschoenus maritimus), or other species (e.g., Schoenoplectus sp. or Typha sp.) should be low (USFWS 1984).

The Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse and California Clapper Rail Recovery Plan (USFWS 1984) lists five principal reasons for the decline of the salt marsh harvest mouse: (1) habitat loss, (2) fragmentation of the remaining marshes, (3) widespread loss of the high marsh zone as a result of backfilling, (4) land subsidence, and (5) vegetational change. It further points out that small marshes, separated by open land or dikes, have very low immigration, and that very few areas are likely to be recolonized.

Survey History
A habitat assessment for salt marsh harvest mouse was conducted by a salt marsh harvest mousepermitted biologist in accordance with the requirements of the Bayside Newark TOD EIR MMRP (Appendix G).

Habitat Suitability/Potential to Occur in the Project Site The project site and immediate vicinity does not contain suitable habitat for salt marsh harvest mouse.

Refer to the habitat assessment for salt marsh harvest mouse in Appendix G for further discussion.

Biological Resources Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 20 Potential Project Impacts
There is no suitable habitat for salt marsh harvest mouse on or immediately adjacent to the project site and no potential for salt marsh harvest mouse to occur within the project boundaries or be impacted by the project.

5.3.2 Nesting Migratory Birds and Raptors
Native birds are protected by the California Fish and Game Code, which prohibits direct take of adults, nests, eggs, and chicks. Disturbance that leads to nest abandonment can be considered take of eggs and chicks. Common bird species found on the project site include species that nest on all types of substrata, including bare ground, herbaceous and woody vegetation, pipes, debris, poles, and structures.

Potential nesting habitat is limited on the project site; however, the proposed project may include removal of vegetation that provides potential nesting habitat for nesting birds. Project construction activities would potentially result in impacts to nesting birds if construction of the proposed project commences during the typical nesting period for migratory birds. Construction activities and construction-related disturbance (noise, vibration and increased human activity) could adversely affect these species if they were to nest in or adjacent to the project area. Potential effects include physical destruction of nests by construction equipment and/or nest abandonment.

Construction of the proposed project would increase the number of people in close vicinity to potentially suitable nesting and foraging habitat for nesting birds. Similar to those identified for burrowing owl and white-tailed kite, associated potential impacts would include harassment from increased noise and activity in the vicinity of potentially suitable habitat, degradation of habitat from litter and light spillover from the nearby development, and the potential for increased depredation as a result of increased traffic from potential nest predators, such as feral cats, dogs, raccoons, foxes and other predatory domestic animals and wildlife associated with an urban setting.

The keeping of outside feline pets or feral cat feeding stations will be prohibited, thereby reducing the potential for cats to prey on or harass nesting birds in suitable habitat near the project site. Lighting will be designed consistent with Policy LU-6.6 of the City General Plan Land Use Element, and the Site and Architecture Design Guidelines contained in the Specific Plan which require that the lighting be designed to reduce glare and over-lighting impacts. As a result, potential indirect impacts to nesting passerines and other birds associated with light and glare would be reduced.

The recommended mitigation measures for nesting migratory birds contained in Section 6.1.1.3 would reduce impacts to nesting migratory birds to less than significant.

5.3.3 Special-Status Plants
Habitat for special-status plants on the site is not present since the site has been developed and it is currently disturbed with non-native and imported soil and paved surfaces. In addition, no special-status plant species have been documented on the site during focused botanical surveys or numerous other biological surveys. Therefore, special-status plants are presumed absent from the project site and no impacts to special-status plant species is anticipated. No mitigation measures are necessary for specialstatus plants.

Biological Resources Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 21 5.4 PROTECTED TREES
A total of 34 trees meeting the size threshold for protection were identified on the project site; two of these are dead. The condition of the 32 live trees ranged from good to declining. Tree species present included Monterey pine (Pinus radiata), shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei), carrotwood (Cupaniopsis anacardioides), cork oak (Quercus suber), coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), and Mexican fan palm (Washingtonia robusta). A total of 32 trees meeting the City of Newark Municipal Code definition of protected trees were identified in the project site. These trees do not provide a windbreak on which a substantial number of people depend, and therefore are eligible for removal to facilitate development of the proposed project. A permit would likely be required from the City of Newark Public Works Director prior to removal, destruction, or transplantation of any trees included in the inventory. Details regarding the location and condition of the trees in the project site are provided in the arborist report in Appendix E.

The recommended mitigation measures for protected trees contained in Section 6.2 would reduce potential impacts to protected trees to less than significant.

6.0 DISCUSSION: GENERAL AVOIDANCE AND

MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS
The mitigation measures in this section were adapted from pertinent measures in the EIR prepared for the Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan (RBF 2011b). Below is a summary table of identified impacts and associated biological mitigation measures in the EIR for the Specific Plan (RBF 2011b) and whether or not they are applicable to the proposed project. Shaded impacts and associated mitigation measures in Table 5 below are applicable to the proposed project.

Table 5

SUMMARY OF BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE EIR AND

APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Biological Resource Impact Mitigation Measure Applicable/Not Applicable Impact BIO-4.3-1: Impacts to salt marsh
harvest mouse MM BIO-4.3-1 Not Applicable – no salt marsh or other habitat for this species in the project site Impact BIO-4.3-2: Nesting Raptors MM BIO-4.3-2 Applicable; included Impact BIO-4.3-3: Burrowing owl MM BIO-4.3-3 Applicable; included Impact BIO-4.3-4: Nesting passerines MM BIO-4.3-4 Applicable; included Impact BIO-4.3-5: Special status plants MM BIO-4.3-5 Not applicable – no habitat for special status plants present on the project site
Impact BIO-4.3-6: Wetland mitigation MM BIO-4.3-6 Not applicable – no jurisdictional aquatic resources are present on the project site
Impact BIO-4.3-8: Impacts to protected
trees
MM BIO-4.3-8 Applicable; included
Biological Resources Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 22 6.1 SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES

6.1.1 Special-Status Wildlife

6.1.1.1 Nesting Raptors
Section 4.3 of the Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan EIR identified MM 4.3-2 to identify potentially significant impacts to nesting raptors within the Specific Plan area. The mitigation measure is relevant to the proposed project. The following avoidance and minimization measures shall be implemented prior to site disturbance to avoid impacts to nesting raptors and other migratory birds utilizing the project area or immediately adjacent properties, as required by MM 4.3-2 from the Specific Plan EIR. • To avoid impacts on nesting raptors, a nesting survey shall be conducted on individual project site parcels prior to commencing with earth-moving or construction work if this work would occur during raptor nesting season (between February 1 and August 31). The raptor nesting survey shall include examination of all trees on or within 300 feet of the entire project site, not just trees slated for removal, since ground vibrations and noise from earth-moving equipment can disturb nesting birds and potentially result in nest abandonment. • If nesting raptors are identified during the surveys, orange construction fence shall be installed to establish a 300-foot radius around the nest unless a qualified biologist determines that a lesser distance will adequately protect the nest (refer to discussion below for more detail). If the tree or nest is located off the project site, then the buffer shall be demarcated per the above where the buffer intersects the project site.
• The size of the non-disturbance buffer may be altered if a qualified raptor biologist conducts behavioral observations and determines the nesting raptors are well acclimated to disturbance.

If this occurs, the raptor biologist shall prescribe a modified buffer that allows sufficient room to prevent undue disturbance/harassment to nesting raptors. If the buffer is reduced, the qualified raptor biologist shall remain onsite to monitor the raptors’ behavior during heavy construction in order to ensure that the reduced buffer does not result in take of eggs or nestlings. No construction or earth-moving activity shall occur within the established buffer until it is determined by a qualified raptor biologist that the young have fledged (that is, left the nest) and have attained sufficient flight skills to avoid project construction zones. This typically occurs by August 1. This date may be earlier or later and would have to be determined by a qualified raptor biologist. If a qualified biologist is not hired to monitor the nesting raptors, then the full 300-foot buffers shall be maintained in place from February 1 through the month of August. The buffer may be removed, and work may proceed as otherwise planned within the buffer on September 1.

6.1.1.2 Burrowing Owl
Section 4.3 of the Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan EIR identified MM 4.3-3 to identify potentially significant impacts to burrowing owls within the Specific Plan area. If burrowing owl pair(s) or resident burrowing owl is observed during any of the pre-construction surveys, avoidance and compensatory mitigation would be required, as described below. The project specific mitigation presented below reflects revisions to MM 4.3-3 for consistency with the 2012 CDFW guidelines for preconstruction surveys and to address potential impacts to burrowing owls in the project site.

Biological Resources Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 23 • Pre-construction surveys for western burrowing owl shall be conducted in accordance with the CDFW 2012 protocol by a qualified biologist prior to ground disturbance (including grading, clearing and grubbing, brush removal, or any other ground disturbance) as described below to ensure there are no impacts on burrowing owls because of the proposed project. • The initial survey shall be conducted in the 30-day period prior to ground disturbance associated with the project, but no less than 14 days prior to the initiation of ground disturbance. Western burrowing owl surveys shall be conducted from two hours before sunset to one hour after, or one hour before to two hours after sunrise. All burrowing owl sightings, occupied burrows, and burrows with owl sign (e.g., pellets, excrement, and molt feathers) shall be counted and mapped. Surveys shall be conducted by walking all suitable habitat on the entire project area and (where possible) in areas within 150 meters (approximately 500 feet) of the project impact zone. The 150-meter buffer zone is surveyed to identify burrows and owls outside of the project area which may be impacted by factors such as noise and vibration (heavy equipment) during project construction. Pedestrian survey transects shall be systematically spaced to allow 100 percent visual coverage of the ground surface. The distance between transect center lines shall be no more than 20 meters (approximately 100 feet) and shall be reduced to account for differences in terrain, vegetation density, and ground surface visibility. If no suitable burrowing owl habitat is present, no additional surveys will be required. If suitable burrows are determined to be present on the site, a qualified biologist will visit the site an additional three times to investigate whether owls are present where they could be affected by the proposed activities.

The final survey shall be conducted within the 24-hour period prior to the initiation of construction.
• If burrowing owl is present during the non-breeding season (generally September 1 through January 31), a buffer of 50 meters (approximately 160 feet) shall be maintained around the occupied burrow(s), if practicable. If maintaining such a buffer is not feasible, then the buffer must be great enough to avoid injury or mortality of individual owls or the owls shall be passively relocated in coordination with CDFW. If burrowing owl is detected on the site during the breeding season (peak of the breeding season is April 15 through July 15), and appear to be engaged in nesting behavior, a fenced 250-foot buffer shall be required between the nest site(s) (i.e., the active burrow(s)) and any earth-moving activity or other disturbance in the project area. This 250-foot buffer could be decreased to 160 feet once it is determined by a qualified burrowing owl biologist that the young have fledged (that is, left the nest). Typically, the young fledge by August 31. This date may be earlier than August 31, or later, and would have to be determined by a qualified burrowing owl biologist.
• If burrowing owl is found on the project site, a qualified biologist shall delineate the extent of burrowing owl habitat on the site and a Mitigation Plan shall be prepared in consultation with CDFW for review and approval by the City. The Mitigation Plan shall identify the mitigation site and any activities proposed to enhance the site, including the construction of artificial burrows and maintenance of California ground squirrel populations on the mitigation site. In addition, for each pair of burrowing owls found in the construction area, two artificial nesting burrows shall be created at the mitigation site. The Plan shall also include a description of monitoring and management methods proposed at the mitigation site. Monitoring and management of any lands identified for mitigation purposes shall be the responsibility of the applicant for at least five years. An annual report shall be prepared for submittal to CDFW and the City by December 31 of each monitoring year. Contingency measures for any anticipated problems shall Biological Resources Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 24 be identified in the plan. Compensatory mitigation shall consist of providing six and a half acres of replacement habitat which shall be protected in perpetuity per pair of burrowing owls, or unpaired resident bird. Such a set-aside would offset permanent impacts on burrowing owl habitat. The protected lands shall be adjacent to occupied burrowing owl habitat if possible, and at a location selected in consultation with CDFW. Land identified to offset impacts on burrowing owls shall be protected in perpetuity by a suitable property instrument (e.g., a conservation easement or fee title acquisition).

6.1.1.3 Nesting Passerines and other Nesting Migratory Birds Section 4.3 of the Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan EIR identified MM 4.3-4 to identify potentially significant impacts to nesting passerines within the Specific Plan area. The mitigation measure is relevant to the proposed project. The following avoidance and minimization measures shall be implemented prior to site disturbance to avoid impacts to nesting passerines and other migratory birds utilizing the project area or immediately adjacent properties, as required by MM 4.3-4 from the Specific Plan EIR.
• To avoid impacts on nesting passerines and other migratory birds, a nesting survey shall be conducted in the project site and areas within 100 feet of the site prior to commencing initial earth-moving (including site remediation activities) or construction work if this work would occur during the passerine nesting season (between March 1 and September 1). Areas within 100 feet of the project site shall be surveyed on foot if accessible or from within the project site or publicly accessible areas by scanning the surrounding land with the aid of binoculars. • The nesting surveys shall be completed approximately 15 days prior to commencing work. If special-status birds are identified nesting on or near the project site, a 100-foot radius around all identified active nests shall be demarcated with orange construction fencing to establish a nondisturbance buffer. If an active nest is found off site, the intersecting portion of the buffer that is on site shall be fenced. No construction or earth-moving activity shall occur within this 100-foot staked buffer until it is determined by a qualified biologist that the young have fledged (that is, left the nest) and have attained sufficient flight skills to avoid project construction zones. • If common (that is, not special-status) birds, for example, red-winged blackbird, are identified nesting on or adjacent to the project site, a non-disturbance buffer of 75 feet shall be established or as otherwise prescribed by a qualified biologist. The buffer shall be demarcated with orange construction fencing. Disturbance around an active nest shall be postponed until it is determined by the qualified biologist that the young have fledged and have attained sufficient flight skills to leave the area.
• Typically, most birds in the region of the project site are expected to complete nesting by August 1. However, in the region many species can complete nesting by the end of June or in early to mid-July. Regardless, nesting buffers shall be maintained until August 1 unless a qualified biologist determines that the young have fledged and are independent of their nests at an earlier date. If buffers are removed prior to August 1, the biologist conducting the nesting surveys shall prepare a report that provides details about the nesting outcome and the removal of buffers. This report shall be submitted to the City project planner and CDFW prior to the time that buffers are removed if the date is before August 1.

Biological Resources Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 25 6.2 PROTECTED TREES
Section 4.3 of the Bayside Newark TOD Specific Plan EIR identified MM 4.3-8 to address potentially significant impacts to protected trees within the Specific Plan area. The mitigation measure is relevant to the proposed project. The following avoidance and minimization measures shall be implemented prior to removal of any protected trees, as required by MM 4.3-4 from the Specific Plan EIR.

The MMRP’s measure 4.3-8 specifies that a tree permit shall be obtained from the City prior to the removal of any tree protected by City Ordinance on project sites. Replacement trees shall be planted at a 1:1 ratio (replacement tree per tree removed) in designated open space areas on the subject parcel.

The measure contains specific requirements pertaining to monitoring, irrigation, and plan preparation for the replacement plantings.

If the trees in the study area are found to be protected under the City Ordinance, and will be removed for project development, mitigation measures shall be implemented in accordance with the MMRP.

Biological Resources Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 26 7.0 REFERENCES
Black, S. H., and D. M. Vaughan. 2005. Species Profile: Callophrys mossii bayensis. In Shepherd, M. D., D.

M. Vaughan, and S. H. Black (Eds). Red List of Pollinator Insects of North America. CD-ROM Version 1 (May 2005). Portland, OR: The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation.

Bolster, B.C., editor. 1998. Terrestrial Mammal Species of Special Concern in California. Draft Final Report prepared by P.V. Brylski, P.W. Collins, E.D. Pierson, W.E. Rainey and T.E. Kucera. Report submitted to California Department of Fish and Game Wildlife Management Division, Nongame Bird and Mammal Conservation Program for Contract No. FG3146WM.

Browning, M. R. 1994. A taxonomic review of Dendroica petechia (yellow warbler) (Aves: Parulinae).

Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 107:27-51.

Burger, J. 1981. Sexual differences in parental activities of breeding black skimmers. American Naturalist, 117 (6): 975-984.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation.

March.
2019. Report to the Fish and Game Commission: Evaluation of the Petition from the Xerces Society, Defenders of Wildlife and the Center for Food Safety to List Four Species of Bumble Bees as Endangered Under the California Endangered Species Act. April 2019. Special California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento, California, USA. 2021. California Natural Diversity Database (For: Hayward, Dublin, Redwood Point, Newark, Niles, Palo Alto, Mountain View, and Milpitas USGS 7.5-minute series quadrangles), Sacramento, CA. Accessed on May 11, 2021.

California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2021. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v8-02). California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. Website http://www.rareplants.cnps.org [Accessed 11 May 2021]. Queried for the San Leandro, Hayward, Dublin, Redwood Point, Newark, Niles, Palo Alto, Mountain View, and Milpitas USGS

7.5-minute quads. Queried for individual species as referenced.

City of Newark. 2010. Dumbarton Transit Oriented Development Specific Plan. September 8, 2010.

Available online at http://www.newark.org/departments/planning-and-economicdevelopment/on-going-projects/dumbarton-transit-devlopment-area-2/.

Hall, E. R. 1981a. The Mammals of North America, second edition. Vols. I & II. John Wiley & Sons, New York, New York. 1181 pp.

Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California.

Prepared for the State of California Resources Agency, Department of Fish and [Wildlife].

October.

Biological Resources Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 27 ICF International (ICF). 2012. Biological effectiveness monitoring for the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan Area 2011 annual survey results (agency version). Prepared for The Natomas Basin Conservancy, Sacramento, CA. Prepared by ICF, Sacramento, California. iNaturalist.org (2020). iNaturalist Research-grade Observations: Western Bumble Bee. Occurrence dataset: //https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/82371-Bombus-occidentalis accessed via GBIF.org on 2020-03-02.

Jennings, M.R., and M.P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern in California.

California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova, California.

Koch, J., J. Strange, and P. Williams. 2012. Bumble bees of the Western United States. USDA-Forest Service, Pollinator Partnership. Washington, DC. 144 pp.

Kucera, Thomas (1997). California Giant Salamander (Report). California Department of Fish and Game.

Lannoo, Michael (Editor). Amphibian Declines: The Conservation Status of United States Species.

University of California Press, June 2005.

Nail KR, Drizd L and Voorhies KJ (2019) Butterflies Across the Globe: A Synthesis of the Current Status and Characteristics of Monarch (Danaus plexippus) Populations Worldwide. Front. Ecol. Evol. 7:362. doi: 10.3389/fevo.2019.00362
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2006. 50 CFR Part 223 and 224 [Docket No. 051216341-5341-01; I.D. No.052104] RIN 0648–AR93. Endangered and Threatened Species; Final Listing Determination for 10 Distinct Population Segments of West Coast Steelhead.

Federal Register Vol. 71, No. 3. January 5.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2019. National List of Hydric Soils. Accessed online March 19, 2019 at
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcseprd1316620.html 2021. Web Soil Survey. Accessed online May 12, 2021. available at:
http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx RBF Consulting Inc., (RBF). 2011a. Dumbarton Transit Oriented Development Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report State Clearinghouse Number 2010042012. July. 2011b. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program - Dumbarton Transit Oriented Development Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report State Clearinghouse Number 2010042012. July.

Shuford, W.D., and T. Gardali, editors. 2008. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento.

Biological Resources Technical Report for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 28 Smith, K. R., L. Barthman‐Thompson, W. R. Gould, and K. E. Mabry. 2014. Effects of natural and anthropogenic change on habitat use and movement of endangered salt marsh harvest mice.

PloS One 9: e108739.

Smith, K. R. and D. A. Kelt. 2019. Waterfowl Management and Diet of the Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse.

The Journal of Wildlife Management 83(8) 1687-1699.

Sustaita, D., P. Quickert‐Finfrock, L. Patterson, L. Barthman‐Thompson, and S. Estrella. 2011. Salt marsh harvest mouse demography and habitat use in the Suisun Marsh, California. Journal of Wildlife Management 75:1498–1507.

Thorp, R. W., D. S Horning and L. L. Dunning. 1983. Bumble bees and cuckoo bumble bees of California (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Bulletin of the California Insect Survey 23: viii.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1984. The salt marsh harvest mouse/California clapper rail recovery plan. USFWS Region 1, Portland, Oregon.
2010. Draft Recovery Plan for Tidal Marsh Ecosystems of Northern and Central California.

January 2010. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, California. 2021. List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in and/or may be affected by [the] proposed project. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, San Francisco Bay – Delta Fish and Wildlife Office, Sacramento, California.

Williams, D.F. 1986. California Mammal Species of Special Concern in California. Department of Biological Sciences California State University, Stanislaus and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento.

WRA, Inc. 2013. Delineation of Potential Jurisdictional Wetlands and “Other Waters” Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for FMC Central Plant (Parcels A, B, C, D, and I) in Newark, Alameda County, California. Prepared April 2013.

Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. White, eds. 1988-1990. California’s Wildlife:

California Wildlife Habitat Relationships. Volumes I-III. Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch, California Department of Fish and Game. Available online at:
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/whdab/html/cawildlife.html.

Appendix A
Figures

ALAMEDA
COUNTY

SAN MATEO
COUNTY

SANTA CLARA
COUNTY
Palo Alto San Jose
East Palo Alto
Menlo Park
Sunnyvale
Mountain View
Los Altos
Santa Clara
Hayward
Redwood City
Newark
Union City
Fremont
Stanford
Sunol
Figure 1
Vicinity Map
S:\PROJECTS\I\IntegralCommunities_00357\IPQ-37 Willow\GIS\MXD\Fig1_Vicinity.mxd IPQ-28.29.30.31 5/14/2021 - johnd Source: Base Map Layers (Esri, USGS, NGA, NASA) K
FMC Willow and Grand Park
0 2 Miles

ALAMEDA

CONTRA COSTA
MARIN
MERCED
NAPA
SAN

FRANCISCO

SAN JOAQUIN
SAN
MATEO

SANTA CLARA

SANTA CRUZ
SOLANO
SONOMA

STANISLAUS

PROJECT SITE

PROJECT SITE
?E84
?E238
?E237
?E82
§¨¦880
§¨¦680 Willow Street
£¤101
Figure 2
Aerial Map
Source: Base Map Layers (DigitalGlobe 2019); Data (Alameda County 2021) K FMC Willow and Grand Park
0 250 Feet
Parcel Boundaries
Project Site
Document Path: S:\PROJECTS\I\IntegralCommunities_00357\IPQ-37 Willow\GIS\MXD\Aerial_Feb6_2020.mxd SamTrans Tracks
Enterprise Drive
Willow Street
Hickory Street
APN 092-100-13
APN 537-551-30
APN 537-852-29
APN 537-852-30
APN 092-100-7-6
APN 537-852-31
APN 537-0852-28
APN 092-100-14
FMC Willow and Grand Park
\\folsomdc2\vol4\PROJECTS\I\IntegralCommunities_00357\IPQ-37 Willow\GIS\InDesign\Fig3_20210531.indd Site Plan
Figure 3
Source: Urban Arena 2022
1111a'f'79
I 13", 1-436 ,,, I I .
, I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I I;
I I I I I :
' I :
157
158
'-. ,,�
,,
,, ,, ,,
"-{, �
\ � i ------�- -
---

SAN MATEO TRANSIT DISTRICT
APN 537-0551-020-0D
'
.

DISTRICT
... �6' '="--- -� - • � --------------- - - - - APN 537-0551-019-0D &p � t;j
7' RETAINING WALL l'IITH "� TUBE STEEL FENCE
,,
'"'n Q _,.;": r.f " � ""rr-) "' )
2 (UNITS 7-14)
EL LINE P PARCEL MAP 110
.....
••••••...... - -" • ·--�·-~ '--! "cf::: . . . . . . . . . . - . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :::::::::::::::::::::::... 111111 :
1 .::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 111111 .

I
.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 111111 :

I
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 111111 :
1 I
/•"" GRAND:::::::::::::::: 111111 -:
f.li:::::: PARK : : : :,:::,:
: 1\UJJ I Ill:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 19.2' '1�::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: I.\ •...•......................... .. ' ......................... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :,. ............................ : . : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : ........................ t�. . :.:_:::::::::::::::::::::
�',
"--.__ ................... .............
��--�· '----'-"7'
OC,:::0==30•;:,::
·� --:;.
,.._,,,.. ,
;;c: .. l--· .
' ,_ ..:e �� • .---.--....
- . ...
...
..... ... �_,___ ·······,< ··········· .-;-... ••····:--· . --..�,---<�� -��· --.---

HARBOR POINTE
I 66
I 68
•
=
' 177
180
� r' . � _,,._/ --___/../
I I I I 1 1 10 \ 1 1
1 �TS 5�-60) 1
1 I 8 I 185
182 186
184.
8' MASONRY SOUN
ON 3-4' RETAINING
27'
ROW
C
SIGHT TRIANGLE PER CITY OF NEWARK ---t-Jt-·STANDARD DETAIL \
,,; /qJ
I I. ' '-0 ' '
..... ,--.' � ' . 7�
'c.f/{5 ,1-I/.J
7' RETAINING WALL WITH

STEEL FEN
/ 16/-,�/ UNITS 103-112) ,' ,'
�""' i
) <-:-:-:
vt-�-,- ��fii=:��ifl:t 1 -c
(UN
�1�
�
T
�
s
c-llh�1-J!/Ts
18 26-129) 130-136) 119-125) u::
t
(UN1TSl
�07-215)
29 "' (UNITS 197-2
�
I�� - ----"otJ
I 38 j (UNITS , 251-255)
COURT'9

PARCELE
8' MASONRY SOUNDWALL
ON 2-3' RETAINING WALL
-

14.7'

EXISTING RAILROAD TRACKS
FORMER P 4 STORAGE AREA .. -.... �
--

PARCELF

FUTURE TRANSIT

STATION PARCEL

1.61 GROSS ACRES

1.80 NET ACRES
(INCLUSIVE OF PARCEL Q PAE)
- 2-3' RET�NING WALL WITH.\" 6' TUBE STEEL FENCE .1,:,-c' .1, r
�--------- .� /.1,6' ��;!!
21 (UNITS
137-143)- 4.5' I
l
e.-.. , -. G. . ...
- p L i:P•"-s=\=,
'B' STREET en
C:e'f- 50-12.7'
,·

4.5'
27 TS 1 8-187)
- ·--·-·-·-·5;
-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·6'cf) ·Ll") - ,n o'f O -------G 0 \

ENTERPRISE
65 -7 I
DRIVE
•.
(PUBLIC)
------�: -
�-"'?
--------...,.-
APPROXIMATE --c.i -LOCATIONS ,-r- -sVEMENT RESTO�ATION,-- --- -- � ,/L,9

RESULTANT

PARCEL A

NEWARK PARCEL C

PROJECT OWNFR, LLC
1;;.,
'
0 I.
,,
,
0 '"" PROPOSED .<s ,
1 MEDIAN
�"6
I __.,-2
\
I
SIGHT TRIANGLE PER !ca CITY OF NEWARK STANDARD DETAIL
PUBLIC

ROW DEDICATION BY OTHERS
\ ULnMATI. ROW 1
� I
I
I
I
I ' r
I
I
I
I
1,
I
I

HT TRIA ITY OF NEWARK STANDARD DETAIL
,,_ \�L :,. "t - WAY EASEMENT TD BE VACATED E
\L' _JI
I I I
I, _J_
c
r'
FMC Willow and Grand Park
\\folsomdc2\vol4\PROJECTS\I\IntegralCommunities_00357\IPQ-37 Willow\GIS\InDesign\Fig4_20210531.indd Site Design
Figure 4
Source: Urban Arena 2022
-
-
-
-
-- -• ,_, -- -----
-
----
.. "::<
-c
�
c
-,_.,-.f -----
---
FUTURE
T.O.D.
•

PARCEL F '

TRANSIT STATION) '
1111 II 1111
1 ,-
7 I
I
I
I
.,.,., �-�
'
I-w
w '
O::'. IU1
t5 i '"""1'"""1 1-I
s
I
�
I ... ...�
I
llllll
�lll
r . !J1 ·�
Figure 5
Soils Map
Source: Base Map Layers (DigitalGlobe 2019); Data (Alameda County 2021) K
FMC Willow and Grand Park
0 250 Feet
Project Boundary
Soil Type
Marvin silt loam, saline-alkali
Pescadero clay, drained
Document Path: S:\PROJECTS\I\IntegralCommunities_00357\IPQ-37 Willow\GIS\MXD\Fig5_Soils.mxd SamTrans Tracks
Enterprise Drive
Willow Street
Hickory Street
Figure 6
Habitat Map
S:\PROJECTS\I\IntegralCommunities_00357\IPQ-37 Willow\GIS\MXD\Fig5_Habitat.mxd Source: Esri 2019, Alameda County 2021, HELIX 2021 K
FMC Willow and Grand Park
0 250 Feet

SAMTRANS TRACKS
Willow Street
Enterprise Drive
Project Boundary
Habitat
Developed (5.72 Acres)
Ruderal/Disturbed (16.39 Acres)
Wetlands (0.015 Acre)
Appendix B
USFWS, CNDDB, and CNPS Lists of
Regionally-occuring Special-status Species
5/11/2021 IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/ADIDWTRSNBAR5DNXAX4KBMD2BQ/resources 1/17 IPaC resource list
This report is an automatically generated list of species and other resources such as critical habitat (collectively referred to as trust resources) under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) jurisdiction that are known or expected to be on or near the project area referenced below. The list may also include trust resources that occur outside of the project area, but that could potentially be directly or indirectly aected by activities in the project area. However, determining the likelihood and extent of eects a project may have on trust resources typically requires gathering additional site-specic (e.g., vegetation/species surveys) and project-specic (e.g., magnitude and timing of proposed activities) information.

Below is a summary of the project information you provided and contact information for the USFWS oce(s) with jurisdiction in the dened project area. Please read the introduction to each section that follows (Endangered Species, Migratory Birds, USFWS Facilities, and NWI Wetlands) for additional information applicable to the trust resources addressed in that section.

Location
Alameda County, California
Local oce
Sacramento Fish And Wildlife Oce
 (916) 414-6600
 (916) 414-6713
Federal Building
2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605
Sacramento, CA 95825-1846
IPaC U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
5/11/2021 IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/ADIDWTRSNBAR5DNXAX4KBMD2BQ/resources 2/17 Endangered species
This resource list is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an analysis of project level impacts.

The primary information used to generate this list is the known or expected range of each species.

Additional areas of inuence (AOI) for species are also considered. An AOI includes areas outside of the species range if the species could be indirectly aected by activities in that area (e.g., placing a dam upstream of a sh population even if that sh does not occur at the dam site, may indirectly impact the species by reducing or eliminating water ow downstream). Because species can move, and site conditions can change, the species on this list are not guaranteed to be found on or near the project area. To fully determine any potential eects to species, additional site-specic and project-specic information is often required.

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of such proposed action" for any project that is conducted, permitted, funded, or licensed by any Federal agency. A letter from the local oce and a species list which fullls this requirement can only be obtained by requesting an ocial species list from either the Regulatory Review section in IPaC (see directions below) or from the local eld oce directly.

For project evaluations that require USFWS concurrence/review, please return to the IPaC website and request an ocial species list by doing the following:

1. Draw the project location and click CONTINUE.

2. Click DEFINE PROJECT.

3. Log in (if directed to do so).

4. Provide a name and description for your project.

5. Click REQUEST SPECIES LIST.

Listed species and their critical habitats are managed by the Ecological Services Program of the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the sheries division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA Fisheries ).

Species and critical habitats under the sole responsibility of NOAA Fisheries are not shown on this list. Please contact NOAA Fisheries for species under their jurisdiction.

1. Species listed under the Endangered Species Act are threatened or endangered; IPaC also shows species that are candidates, or proposed, for listing. See the listing status page for more information. IPaC only shows species that are regulated by USFWS (see FAQ).

2. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an oce of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce.

The following species are potentially aected by activities in this location:

Mammals
1 2

NAME STATUS
5/11/2021 IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/ADIDWTRSNBAR5DNXAX4KBMD2BQ/resources 3/17 Birds
Reptiles
Amphibians
Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse Reithrodontomys raviventris
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/613
Endangered

NAME STATUS
California Clapper Rail Rallus longirostris obsoletus
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4240
Endangered
California Least Tern Sterna antillarum browni
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8104
Endangered
Western Snowy Plover Charadrius nivosus nivosus
There is nal critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not available.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8035
Threatened

NAME STATUS
Alameda Whipsnake (=striped Racer) Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus
Wherever found
There is nal critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not available.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5524
Threatened

NAME STATUS
California Red-legged Frog Rana draytonii
Wherever found
There is nal critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not available.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2891
Threatened
California Tiger Salamander Ambystoma californiense
There is nal critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not available.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2076
Threatened
5/11/2021 IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/ADIDWTRSNBAR5DNXAX4KBMD2BQ/resources 4/17 Fishes
Insects
Crustaceans
Flowering Plants

NAME STATUS
Delta Smelt Hypomesus transpacicus
Wherever found
There is nal critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not available.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/321
Threatened

NAME STATUS
San Bruno Eln Buttery Callophrys mossii bayensis
Wherever found
There is proposed critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not available.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3394
Endangered

NAME STATUS
Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp Branchinecta lynchi
Wherever found
There is nal critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not available.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/498
Threatened
Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp Lepidurus packardi
Wherever found
There is nal critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not available.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2246
Endangered

NAME STATUS
California Seablite Suaeda californica
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6310
Endangered
Contra Costa Goldelds Lasthenia conjugens
Wherever found
There is nal critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not available.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7058
Endangered
5/11/2021 IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/ADIDWTRSNBAR5DNXAX4KBMD2BQ/resources 5/17 Critical habitats
Potential eects to critical habitat(s) in this location must be analyzed along with the endangered species themselves.

THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS AT THIS LOCATION.

Migratory birds
The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) list or warrant special attention in your project location. To learn more about the levels of concern for birds on your list and how this list is generated, see the FAQ below. This is not a list of every bird you may nd in this location, nor a guarantee that every bird on this list will be found in your project area. To see exact locations of where birders and the general public have sighted birds in and around your project area, visit the E-bird data mapping tool (Tip:
enter your location, desired date range and a species on your list). For projects that occur o the Atlantic Coast, additional maps and models detailing the relative occurrence and abundance of bird species on your list are available. Links to additional information about Atlantic Coast birds, and other important information about your migratory bird list, including how to properly interpret and use your migratory bird report, can be found below.

For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, click on the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY at the top of your list to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area.

Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act .

Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described below.

1. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.

2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.

Additional information can be found using the following links:

Birds of Conservation Concern http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-species/ birds-of-conservation-concern.php
Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds
http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/project-assessment-tools-and-guidance/ conservation-measures.php
Nationwide conservation measures for birds
http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/management/nationwidestandardconservationmeasures.pdf 1 2
NAME
5/11/2021 IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/ADIDWTRSNBAR5DNXAX4KBMD2BQ/resources 6/17

BREEDING SEASON (IF A

BREEDING SEASON IS INDICATED

FOR A BIRD ON YOUR LIST, THE

BIRD MAY BREED IN YOUR

PROJECT AREA SOMETIME WITHIN

THE TIMEFRAME SPECIFIED,

WHICH IS A VERY LIBERAL

ESTIMATE OF THE DATES INSIDE

WHICH THE BIRD BREEDS
ACROSS ITS ENTIRE RANGE.
"BREEDS ELSEWHERE" INDICATES

THAT THE BIRD DOES NOT LIKELY
BREED IN YOUR PROJECT AREA.)
Allen's Hummingbird Selasphorus sasin
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9637
Breeds Feb 1 to Jul 15
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in oshore areas from certain types of development or activities.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1626
Breeds Jan 1 to Aug 31
Black Oystercatcher Haematopus bachmani
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9591
Breeds Apr 15 to Oct 31
Black Rail Laterallus jamaicensis
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7717
Breeds Mar 1 to Sep 15
Black Skimmer Rynchops niger
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5234
Breeds May 20 to Sep 15
Black Turnstone Arenaria melanocephala
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.

Breeds elsewhere
5/11/2021 IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/ADIDWTRSNBAR5DNXAX4KBMD2BQ/resources 7/17 Burrowing Owl Athene cunicularia
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9737
Breeds Mar 15 to Aug 31
Clark's Grebe Aechmophorus clarkii
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.

Breeds Jan 1 to Dec 31
Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas sinuosa
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2084
Breeds May 20 to Jul 31
Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in oshore areas from certain types of development or activities.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1680
Breeds Jan 1 to Aug 31
Lewis's Woodpecker Melanerpes lewis
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9408
Breeds Apr 20 to Sep 30
Long-billed Curlew Numenius americanus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5511
Breeds elsewhere
Marbled Godwit Limosa fedoa
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9481
Breeds elsewhere
Nuttall's Woodpecker Picoides nuttallii
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9410
Breeds Apr 1 to Jul 20
Oak Titmouse Baeolophus inornatus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9656
Breeds Mar 15 to Jul 15
5/11/2021 IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/ADIDWTRSNBAR5DNXAX4KBMD2BQ/resources 8/17 Probability of Presence Summary
The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read and understand the FAQ Rufous Hummingbird selasphorus rufus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8002
Breeds elsewhere
Short-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus griseus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9480
Breeds elsewhere
Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA
Breeds Feb 20 to Sep 5
Spotted Towhee Pipilo maculatus clementae
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4243
Breeds Apr 15 to Jul 20
Tricolored Blackbird Agelaius tricolor
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3910
Breeds Mar 15 to Aug 10
Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9483
Breeds elsewhere
Willet Tringa semipalmata
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.

Breeds elsewhere
Wrentit Chamaea fasciata
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.

Breeds Mar 15 to Aug 10
Yellow-billed Magpie Pica nuttalli
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9726
Breeds Apr 1 to Jul 31
5/11/2021 IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/ADIDWTRSNBAR5DNXAX4KBMD2BQ/resources 9/17 probability of presence breeding season survey eort no data "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret this report.

Probability of Presence ( )
Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4-week months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey eort (see below) can be used to establish a level of condence in the presence score. One can have higher condence in the presence score if the corresponding survey eort is also high.

How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps:

1. The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is 0.25.

2. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12 (0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is

0.05/0.25 = 0.2.

3. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the probability of presence score.

To see a bar's probability of presence score, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.

Breeding Season ( )
Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time-frame inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project area.

Survey Eort ( )
Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys.

To see a bar's survey eort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.

No Data ( )
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.

Survey Timeframe
Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant information. The exception to this is areas o the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse.

SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 5/11/2021 IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/ADIDWTRSNBAR5DNXAX4KBMD2BQ/resources 10/17 Allen's
Hummingbird
BCC Rangewide
(CON) (This is a
Bird of
Conservation
Concern (BCC)
throughout its
range in the
continental USA
and Alaska.)
Bald Eagle
Non-BCC
Vulnerable (This is
not a Bird of
Conservation
Concern (BCC) in
this area, but
warrants attention
because of the
Eagle Act or for
potential
susceptibilities in
oshore areas
from certain types
of development or
activities.)
Black
Oystercatcher
BCC Rangewide
(CON) (This is a
Bird of
Conservation
Concern (BCC)
throughout its
range in the
continental USA
and Alaska.)
Black Rail
BCC Rangewide
(CON) (This is a
Bird of
Conservation
Concern (BCC)
throughout its
range in the
continental USA
and Alaska.)
Black Skimmer
BCC Rangewide
(CON) (This is a
Bird of
Conservation
Concern (BCC)
throughout its
range in the
continental USA
and Alaska.)
5/11/2021 IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/ADIDWTRSNBAR5DNXAX4KBMD2BQ/resources 11/17 Black Turnstone
BCC Rangewide
(CON) (This is a
Bird of
Conservation
Concern (BCC)
throughout its
range in the
continental USA
and Alaska.)
Burrowing Owl
BCC - BCR (This is a
Bird of
Conservation
Concern (BCC) only
in particular Bird
Conservation
Regions (BCRs) in
the continental
USA)
Clark's Grebe
BCC Rangewide
(CON) (This is a
Bird of
Conservation
Concern (BCC)
throughout its
range in the
continental USA
and Alaska.)
Common
Yellowthroat
BCC - BCR (This is a
Bird of
Conservation
Concern (BCC) only
in particular Bird
Conservation
Regions (BCRs) in
the continental
USA)
Golden Eagle
Non-BCC
Vulnerable (This is
not a Bird of
Conservation
Concern (BCC) in
this area, but
warrants attention
because of the
Eagle Act or for
potential
susceptibilities in
oshore areas
from certain types
of development or
activities.)
5/11/2021 IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/ADIDWTRSNBAR5DNXAX4KBMD2BQ/resources 12/17 Lewis's
Woodpecker
BCC Rangewide
(CON) (This is a
Bird of
Conservation
Concern (BCC)
throughout its
range in the
continental USA
and Alaska.)
Long-billed Curlew
BCC Rangewide
(CON) (This is a
Bird of
Conservation
Concern (BCC)
throughout its
range in the
continental USA
and Alaska.)

SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Marbled Godwit
BCC Rangewide
(CON) (This is a
Bird of
Conservation
Concern (BCC)
throughout its
range in the
continental USA
and Alaska.)
Nuttall's
Woodpecker
BCC - BCR (This is a
Bird of
Conservation
Concern (BCC) only
in particular Bird
Conservation
Regions (BCRs) in
the continental
USA)
Oak Titmouse
BCC Rangewide
(CON) (This is a
Bird of
Conservation
Concern (BCC)
throughout its
range in the
continental USA
and Alaska.)
5/11/2021 IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/ADIDWTRSNBAR5DNXAX4KBMD2BQ/resources 13/17 Rufous
Hummingbird
BCC Rangewide
(CON) (This is a
Bird of
Conservation
Concern (BCC)
throughout its
range in the
continental USA
and Alaska.)
Short-billed
Dowitcher
BCC Rangewide
(CON) (This is a
Bird of
Conservation
Concern (BCC)
throughout its
range in the
continental USA
and Alaska.)
Song Sparrow
BCC - BCR (This is a
Bird of
Conservation
Concern (BCC) only
in particular Bird
Conservation
Regions (BCRs) in
the continental
USA)
Spotted Towhee
BCC - BCR (This is a
Bird of
Conservation
Concern (BCC) only
in particular Bird
Conservation
Regions (BCRs) in
the continental
USA)
Tricolored
Blackbird
BCC Rangewide
(CON) (This is a
Bird of
Conservation
Concern (BCC)
throughout its
range in the
continental USA
and Alaska.)
5/11/2021 IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/ADIDWTRSNBAR5DNXAX4KBMD2BQ/resources 14/17 Whimbrel
BCC Rangewide
(CON) (This is a
Bird of
Conservation
Concern (BCC)
throughout its
range in the
continental USA
and Alaska.)
Willet
BCC Rangewide
(CON) (This is a
Bird of
Conservation
Concern (BCC)
throughout its
range in the
continental USA
and Alaska.)
Wrentit
BCC Rangewide
(CON) (This is a
Bird of
Conservation
Concern (BCC)
throughout its
range in the
continental USA
and Alaska.)
Yellow-billed
Magpie
BCC Rangewide
(CON) (This is a
Bird of
Conservation
Concern (BCC)
throughout its
range in the
continental USA
and Alaska.)
Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds.

Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize impacts to all birds at any location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly important when birds are most likely to occur in the project area. When birds may be breeding in the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and avoiding their destruction is a very helpful impact minimization measure. To see when birds are most likely to occur and be breeding in your project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures or permits may be advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of infrastructure or bird species present on your project site.

What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specied location? The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location. 5/11/2021 IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/ADIDWTRSNBAR5DNXAX4KBMD2BQ/resources 15/17 The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and ltered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identied as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to oshore activities or development.

Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area. It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the AKN Phenology Tool.

What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specied location?
The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derived from a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets .

Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information becomes available. To learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and how to interpret them, go the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me about these graphs" link.

How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering, migrating or present year-round in my project area? To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding, wintering, migrating or year-round), you may refer to the following resources: The Cornell Lab of Ornithology All About Birds Bird Guide, or (if you are unsuccessful in locating the bird of interest there), the Cornell Lab of Ornithology Neotropical Birds guide. If a bird on your migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it, if that bird does occur in your project area, there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe specied. If "Breeds elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in your project area.

What are the levels of concern for migratory birds?
Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern:

1. "BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern throughout their range anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Pacic Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands);

2. "BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA; and

3. "Non-BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on your list either because of the Eagle Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non-eagles) potential susceptibilities in oshore areas from certain types of development or activities (e.g. oshore energy development or longline shing).

Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, eorts should be made, in particular, to avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC species of rangewide concern. For more information on conservation measures you can implement to help avoid and minimize migratory bird impacts and requirements for eagles, please see the FAQs for these topics.

Details about birds that are potentially aected by oshore projects For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species and groups of bird species within your project area o the Atlantic Coast, please visit the Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also oers data and information about other taxa besides birds that may be helpful to you in your project review.

Alternately, you may download the bird model results les underlying the portal maps through the NOAA NCCOS Integrative Statistical Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf project webpage.
5/11/2021 IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/ADIDWTRSNBAR5DNXAX4KBMD2BQ/resources 16/17 Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use throughout the year, including migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this information. For additional information on marine bird tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study and the nanotag studies or contact Caleb Spiegel or Pam Loring.

What if I have eagles on my list?
If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur.

Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of birds of priority concern. To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for identifying what other birds may be in your project area, please see the FAQ "What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specied location". Please be aware this report provides the "probability of presence" of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s) that overlap your project; not your exact project footprint. On the graphs provided, please also look carefully at the survey eort (indicated by the black vertical bar) and for the existence of the "no data" indicator (a red horizontal bar). A high survey eort is the key component. If the survey eort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In contrast, a low survey eort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack of certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might be there, and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list helps you know what to look for to conrm presence, and helps guide you in knowing when to implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts from your project activities, should presence be conrmed. To learn more about conservation measures, visit the FAQ "Tell me about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds" at the bottom of your migratory bird trust resources page.

Facilities
National Wildlife Refuge lands
Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must undergo a 'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to discuss any questions or concerns.

THERE ARE NO REFUGE LANDS AT THIS LOCATION.

Fish hatcheries
THERE ARE NO FISH HATCHERIES AT THIS LOCATION.

Wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory
5/11/2021 IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/ADIDWTRSNBAR5DNXAX4KBMD2BQ/resources 17/17 Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes.

For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District.

Please note that the NWI data being shown may be out of date. We are currently working to update our NWI data set. We recommend you verify these results with a site visit to determine the actual extent of wetlands on site.

This location overlaps the following wetlands:

Data limitations
The Service's objective of mapping wetlands and deepwater habitats is to produce reconnaissance level information on the location, type and size of these resources. The maps are prepared from the analysis of high altitude imagery. Wetlands are identied based on vegetation, visible hydrology and geography. A margin of error is inherent in the use of imagery; thus, detailed on-the-ground inspection of any particular site may result in revision of the wetland boundaries or classication established through image analysis.

The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of the imagery, the experience of the image analysts, the amount and quality of the collateral data and the amount of ground truth verication work conducted.

Metadata should be consulted to determine the date of the source imagery used and any mapping problems.

Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since the date of the imagery or eld work. There may be occasional dierences in polygon boundaries or classications between the information depicted on the map and the actual conditions on site.

Data exclusions
Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because of the limitations of aerial imagery as the primary data source used to detect wetlands. These habitats include seagrasses or submerged aquatic vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subtidal zones of estuaries and nearshore coastal waters.

Some deepwater reef communities (coral or tubercid worm reefs) have also been excluded from the inventory.

These habitats, because of their depth, go undetected by aerial imagery.

Data precautions
Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may dene and describe wetlands in a dierent manner than that used in this inventory. There is no attempt, in either the design or products of this inventory, to dene the limits of proprietary jurisdiction of any Federal, state, or local government or to establish the geographical scope of the regulatory programs of government agencies. Persons intending to engage in activities involving modications within or adjacent to wetland areas should seek the advice of appropriate federal, state, or local agencies concerning specied agency regulatory programs and proprietary jurisdictions that may aect such activities.

FRESHWATER EMERGENT WETLAND
PEM1Ch
A full description for each wetland code can be found at the National Wetlands Inventory website Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
Acanthomintha duttonii
San Mateo thorn-mint
PDLAM01040 Endangered Endangered G1 S1 1B.1
Accipiter cooperii
Cooper's hawk
ABNKC12040 None None G5 S4 WL
Accipiter striatus
sharp-shinned hawk
ABNKC12020 None None G5 S4 WL
Agelaius tricolor
tricolored blackbird
ABPBXB0020 None Threatened G1G2 S1S2 SSC
Allium peninsulare var. franciscanum
Franciscan onion
PMLIL021R1 None None G5T2 S2 1B.2
Ambystoma californiense
California tiger salamander
AAAAA01180 Threatened Threatened G2G3 S2S3 WL
Amsinckia lunaris
bent-flowered fiddleneck
PDBOR01070 None None G3 S3 1B.2
Aneides niger
Santa Cruz black salamander
AAAAD01070 None None G3 S3 SSC
Anniella pulchra
Northern California legless lizard
ARACC01020 None None G3 S3 SSC
Antrozous pallidus
pallid bat
AMACC10010 None None G4 S3 SSC
Aquila chrysaetos
golden eagle
ABNKC22010 None None G5 S3 FP
Ardea herodias
great blue heron
ABNGA04010 None None G5 S4
Asio flammeus
short-eared owl
ABNSB13040 None None G5 S3 SSC
Astragalus tener var. tener
alkali milk-vetch
PDFAB0F8R1 None None G2T1 S1 1B.2
Athene cunicularia
burrowing owl
ABNSB10010 None None G4 S3 SSC
Atriplex depressa
brittlescale
PDCHE042L0 None None G2 S2 1B.2
Atriplex minuscula
lesser saltscale
PDCHE042M0 None None G2 S2 1B.1
Balsamorhiza macrolepis
big-scale balsamroot
PDAST11061 None None G2 S2 1B.2
Bombus caliginosus
obscure bumble bee
IIHYM24380 None None G4? S1S2
Quad IS (San Leandro (3712262) OR Hayward (3712261) OR Dublin (3712168) OR Redwood Point (3712252) OR Newark (3712251) OR Niles (3712158) OR Palo Alto (3712242) OR Mountain View (3712241) OR Milpitas (3712148)) Query Criteria:

Report Printed on Tuesday, May 11, 2021
Commercial Version -- Dated May, 1 2021 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 1 of 6 Information Expires 11/1/2021
Selected Elements by Scientific Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
Bombus crotchii
Crotch bumble bee
IIHYM24480 None Candidate
Endangered
G3G4 S1S2
Bombus occidentalis
western bumble bee
IIHYM24250 None Candidate
Endangered
G2G3 S1
Campanula exigua
chaparral harebell
PDCAM020A0 None None G2 S2 1B.2
Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii
Congdon's tarplant
PDAST4R0P1 None None G3T1T2 S1S2 1B.1
Charadrius nivosus nivosus
western snowy plover
ABNNB03031 Threatened None G3T3 S2 SSC
Chloropyron maritimum ssp. palustre
Point Reyes salty bird's-beak
PDSCR0J0C3 None None G4?T2 S2 1B.2
Chorizanthe robusta var. robusta
robust spineflower
PDPGN040Q2 Endangered None G2T1 S1 1B.1
Circus hudsonius
northern harrier
ABNKC11011 None None G5 S3 SSC
Cirsium fontinale var. fontinale
fountain thistle
PDAST2E161 Endangered Endangered G2T1 S1 1B.1
Cirsium praeteriens
lost thistle
PDAST2E2B0 None None GX SX 1A
Clarkia concinna ssp. automixa
Santa Clara red ribbons
PDONA050A1 None None G5?T3 S3 4.3
Coccyzus americanus occidentalis
western yellow-billed cuckoo
ABNRB02022 Threatened Endangered G5T2T3 S1
Collinsia corymbosa
round-headed Chinese-houses
PDSCR0H060 None None G1 S1 1B.2
Collinsia multicolor
San Francisco collinsia
PDSCR0H0B0 None None G2 S2 1B.2
Corynorhinus townsendii
Townsend's big-eared bat
AMACC08010 None None G4 S2 SSC
Coturnicops noveboracensis
yellow rail
ABNME01010 None None G4 S1S2 SSC
Danaus plexippus pop. 1
monarch - California overwintering population
IILEPP2012 Candidate None G4T2T3 S2S3
Dicamptodon ensatus
California giant salamander
AAAAH01020 None None G3 S2S3 SSC
Dipodomys venustus venustus
Santa Cruz kangaroo rat
AMAFD03042 None None G4T1 S1
Dirca occidentalis
western leatherwood
PDTHY03010 None None G2 S2 1B.2
Egretta thula
snowy egret
ABNGA06030 None None G5 S4
Report Printed on Tuesday, May 11, 2021
Commercial Version -- Dated May, 1 2021 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 2 of 6 Information Expires 11/1/2021
Selected Elements by Scientific Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
Elanus leucurus
white-tailed kite
ABNKC06010 None None G5 S3S4 FP
Emys marmorata
western pond turtle
ARAAD02030 None None G3G4 S3 SSC
Eremophila alpestris actia
California horned lark
ABPAT02011 None None G5T4Q S4 WL
Eryngium aristulatum var. hooveri
Hoover's button-celery
PDAPI0Z043 None None G5T1 S1 1B.1
Eryngium jepsonii
Jepson's coyote-thistle
PDAPI0Z130 None None G2 S2 1B.2
Eumops perotis californicus
western mastiff bat
AMACD02011 None None G4G5T4 S3S4 SSC
Euphydryas editha bayensis
Bay checkerspot butterfly
IILEPK4055 Threatened None G5T1 S1
Extriplex joaquinana
San Joaquin spearscale
PDCHE041F3 None None G2 S2 1B.2
Fritillaria liliacea
fragrant fritillary
PMLIL0V0C0 None None G2 S2 1B.2
Geothlypis trichas sinuosa
saltmarsh common yellowthroat
ABPBX1201A None None G5T3 S3 SSC
Gilia millefoliata
dark-eyed gilia
PDPLM04130 None None G2 S2 1B.2
Gonidea angulata
western ridged mussel
IMBIV19010 None None G3 S1S2
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
bald eagle
ABNKC10010 Delisted Endangered G5 S3 FP
Helianthella castanea
Diablo helianthella
PDAST4M020 None None G2 S2 1B.2
Hesperolinon congestum
Marin western flax
PDLIN01060 Threatened Threatened G1 S1 1B.1
Hoita strobilina
Loma Prieta hoita
PDFAB5Z030 None None G2? S2? 1B.1
Holocarpha macradenia
Santa Cruz tarplant
PDAST4X020 Threatened Endangered G1 S1 1B.1
Horkelia cuneata var. sericea
Kellogg's horkelia
PDROS0W043 None None G4T1? S1? 1B.1
Lasiurus cinereus
hoary bat
AMACC05030 None None G3G4 S4
Lasthenia conjugens
Contra Costa goldfields
PDAST5L040 Endangered None G1 S1 1B.1
Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus
California black rail
ABNME03041 None Threatened G3G4T1 S1 FP
Report Printed on Tuesday, May 11, 2021
Commercial Version -- Dated May, 1 2021 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 3 of 6 Information Expires 11/1/2021
Selected Elements by Scientific Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
Lepidurus packardi
vernal pool tadpole shrimp
ICBRA10010 Endangered None G4 S3S4
Linderiella occidentalis
California linderiella
ICBRA06010 None None G2G3 S2S3
Malacothamnus arcuatus
arcuate bush-mallow
PDMAL0Q0E0 None None G2Q S2 1B.2
Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus
Alameda whipsnake
ARADB21031 Threatened Threatened G4T2 S2
Melospiza melodia pusillula
Alameda song sparrow
ABPBXA301S None None G5T2? S2S3 SSC
Microcina lumi
Lum's micro-blind harvestman
ILARA47050 None None G1 S1
Monolopia gracilens
woodland woollythreads
PDAST6G010 None None G3 S3 1B.2
Myotis yumanensis
Yuma myotis
AMACC01020 None None G5 S4
Navarretia prostrata
prostrate vernal pool navarretia
PDPLM0C0Q0 None None G2 S2 1B.2
Neotoma fuscipes annectens
San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat
AMAFF08082 None None G5T2T3 S2S3 SSC
Northern Coastal Salt Marsh
Northern Coastal Salt Marsh
CTT52110CA None None G3 S3.2
Nycticorax nycticorax
black-crowned night heron
ABNGA11010 None None G5 S4
Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 8
steelhead - central California coast DPS
AFCHA0209G Threatened None G5T2T3Q S2S3
Phalacrocorax auritus
double-crested cormorant
ABNFD01020 None None G5 S4 WL
Plagiobothrys chorisianus var. chorisianus
Choris' popcornflower
PDBOR0V061 None None G3T1Q S1 1B.2
Plagiobothrys glaber
hairless popcornflower
PDBOR0V0B0 None None GX SX 1A
Polemonium carneum
Oregon polemonium
PDPLM0E050 None None G3G4 S2 2B.2
Polygonum marinense
Marin knotweed
PDPGN0L1C0 None None G2Q S2 3.1
Puccinellia simplex
California alkali grass
PMPOA53110 None None G3 S2 1B.2
Rallus obsoletus obsoletus
California Ridgway's rail
ABNME05011 Endangered Endangered G3T1 S1 FP
Rana boylii
foothill yellow-legged frog
AAABH01050 None Endangered G3 S3 SSC
Report Printed on Tuesday, May 11, 2021
Commercial Version -- Dated May, 1 2021 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 4 of 6 Information Expires 11/1/2021
Selected Elements by Scientific Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
Rana draytonii
California red-legged frog
AAABH01022 Threatened None G2G3 S2S3 SSC
Reithrodontomys raviventris
salt-marsh harvest mouse
AMAFF02040 Endangered Endangered G1G2 S1S2 FP
Riparia riparia
bank swallow
ABPAU08010 None Threatened G5 S2
Rynchops niger
black skimmer
ABNNM14010 None None G5 S2 SSC
Sanicula maritima
adobe sanicle
PDAPI1Z0D0 None Rare G2 S2 1B.1
Scapanus latimanus parvus
Alameda Island mole
AMABB02031 None None G5T1Q SH SSC
Senecio aphanactis
chaparral ragwort
PDAST8H060 None None G3 S2 2B.2
Serpentine Bunchgrass
Serpentine Bunchgrass
CTT42130CA None None G2 S2.2
Setophaga petechia
yellow warbler
ABPBX03010 None None G5 S3S4 SSC
Sorex vagrans halicoetes
salt-marsh wandering shrew
AMABA01071 None None G5T1 S1 SSC
Spergularia macrotheca var. longistyla
long-styled sand-spurrey
PDCAR0W062 None None G5T2 S2 1B.2
Spirinchus thaleichthys
longfin smelt
AFCHB03010 Candidate Threatened G5 S1
Sternula antillarum browni
California least tern
ABNNM08103 Endangered Endangered G4T2T3Q S2 FP
Streptanthus albidus ssp. peramoenus
most beautiful jewelflower
PDBRA2G012 None None G2T2 S2 1B.2
Stuckenia filiformis ssp. alpina
slender-leaved pondweed
PMPOT03091 None None G5T5 S2S3 2B.2
Suaeda californica
California seablite
PDCHE0P020 Endangered None G1 S1 1B.1
Taxidea taxus
American badger
AMAJF04010 None None G5 S3 SSC
Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia
San Francisco gartersnake
ARADB3613B Endangered Endangered G5T2Q S2 FP
Trifolium amoenum
two-fork clover
PDFAB40040 Endangered None G1 S1 1B.1
Trifolium hydrophilum
saline clover
PDFAB400R5 None None G2 S2 1B.2
Tryonia imitator
mimic tryonia (=California brackishwater snail)
IMGASJ7040 None None G2 S2
Report Printed on Tuesday, May 11, 2021
Commercial Version -- Dated May, 1 2021 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 5 of 6 Information Expires 11/1/2021
Selected Elements by Scientific Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
Valley Needlegrass Grassland
Valley Needlegrass Grassland
CTT42110CA None None G3 S3.1
Valley Oak Woodland
Valley Oak Woodland
CTT71130CA None None G3 S2.1
Vulpes macrotis mutica
San Joaquin kit fox
AMAJA03041 Endangered Threatened G4T2 S2
Record Count: 106
Report Printed on Tuesday, May 11, 2021
Commercial Version -- Dated May, 1 2021 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 6 of 6 Information Expires 11/1/2021
Selected Elements by Scientific Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
5/11/2021 CNPS Inventory Results
www.rareplants.cnps.org/result.html?adv=t&cnps=1A:1B:2A:2B:3&fesa=FE:FT:FC:None&cesa=CE:CT:CR:None&quad=3712262:3712261:3712168:3… 1/3 *The database used to provide updates to the Online Inventory is under Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants construction. View updates and changes made since May 2019 here.

Plant List
46 matches found. Click on scientific name for details
Search Criteria
California Rare Plant Rank is one of [1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 3], FESA is one of [Endangered, Threatened, Candidate, Not Listed], CESA is one of [Endangered, Threatened, Rare, Not Listed], Found in Quads 3712262, 3712261, 3712168, 3712252, 3712251, 3712158, 3712242 3712241 and 3712148; Modify Search Criteria Export to Excel Modify Columns Modify Sort Display Photos Scientific Name Common Name Family Lifeform Blooming
Period
CA Rare
Plant
Rank
State
Rank
Global
Rank
Acanthomintha duttonii San Mateo thornmint Lamiaceae annual herb Apr-Jun 1B.1 S1 G1 Allium peninsulare var.
franciscanum Franciscan onion Alliaceae perennial
bulbiferous herb (Apr)May-Jun 1B.2 S2 G5T2
Amsinckia lunaris bent-flowered
fiddleneck Boraginaceae annual herb Mar-Jun 1B.2 S3 G3
Arctostaphylos
regismontana
Kings Mountain
manzanita Ericaceae perennial evergreenshrub Dec-Apr 1B.2 S2 G2 Astragalus tener var.
tener alkali milk-vetch Fabaceae annual herb Mar-Jun 1B.2 S1 G2T1 Atriplex depressa brittlescale Chenopodiaceae annual herb Apr-Oct 1B.2 S2 G2 Atriplex minuscula lesser saltscale Chenopodiaceae annual herb May-Oct 1B.1 S2 G2 Balsamorhiza macrolepis big-scale
balsamroot Asteraceae perennial herb Mar-Jun 1B.2 S2 G2 Campanula exigua chaparral harebell Campanulaceae annual herb May-Jun 1B.2 S2 G2 Centromadia parryi ssp.
congdonii Congdon's tarplant Asteraceae annual herb MayOct(Nov) 1B.1 S1S2 G3T1T2 Chloropyron maritimum
ssp. palustre
Point Reyes bird'sbeak Orobanchaceae annual herb
(hemiparasitic) Jun-Oct 1B.2 S2 G4?T2
Cirsium fontinale var.
fontinale
Crystal Springs
fountain thistle Asteraceae perennial herb (Apr)May-Oct 1B.1 S1 G2T1 Cirsium praeteriens lost thistle Asteraceae perennial herb Jun-Jul 1A SX GX Collinsia corymbosa round-headed
Chinese-houses Plantaginaceae annual herb Apr-Jun 1B.2 S1 G1 Collinsia multicolor San Francisco
collinsia Plantaginaceae annual herb (Feb)MarMay 1B.2 S2 G2 5/11/2021 CNPS Inventory Results
www.rareplants.cnps.org/result.html?adv=t&cnps=1A:1B:2A:2B:3&fesa=FE:FT:FC:None&cesa=CE:CT:CR:None&quad=3712262:3712261:3712168:3… 2/3 Dirca occidentalis western
leatherwood
Thymelaeaceae perennial
deciduous shrub
Jan-Mar(Apr) 1B.2 S2 G2
Eryngium aristulatum
var. hooveri
Hoover's buttoncelery Apiaceae annual / perennial
herb (Jun)Jul(Aug) 1B.1 S1 G5T1
Eryngium jepsonii Jepson's coyote
thistle Apiaceae perennial herb Apr-Aug 1B.2 S2? G2?
Extriplex joaquinana San Joaquin
spearscale Chenopodiaceae annual herb Apr-Oct 1B.2 S2 G2 Fritillaria liliacea fragrant fritillary Liliaceae perennial bulbiferous herb Feb-Apr 1B.2 S2 G2
Helianthella castanea Diablo helianthella Asteraceae perennial herb Mar-Jun 1B.2 S2 G2 Hesperolinon congestum Marin western flax Linaceae annual herb Apr-Jul 1B.1 S1 G1 Holocarpha macradenia Santa Cruz
tarplant Asteraceae annual herb Jun-Oct 1B.1 S1 G1
Lasthenia conjugens Contra Costa
goldfields Asteraceae annual herb Mar-Jun 1B.1 S1 G1
Lessingia hololeuca woolly-headed
lessingia Asteraceae annual herb Jun-Oct 3 S2S3 G3?
Malacothamnus arcuatus arcuate bushmallow Malvaceae perennial evergreen shrub Apr-Sep 1B.2 S2 G2Q
Malacothamnus
davidsonii
Davidson's bushmallow Malvaceae perennial
deciduous shrub Jun-Jan 1B.2 S2 G2
Malacothamnus hallii Hall's bush-mallow Malvaceae perennial evergreen shrub
(Apr)MaySep(Oct) 1B.2 S2 G2
Micropus amphibolus Mt. Diablo
cottonweed Asteraceae annual herb Mar-May 3.2 S3S4 G3G4 Monardella antonina ssp.
antonina
San Antonio Hills
monardella Lamiaceae perennialrhizomatous herb Jun-Aug 3 S1S3 G4T1T3Q Monolopia gracilens woodland
woolythreads Asteraceae annual herb (Feb)Mar-Jul 1B.2 S3 G3 Navarretia myersii ssp.
myersii
pincushion
navarretia Polemoniaceae annual herb Apr-May 1B.1 S2 G2T2 Navarretia paradoxiclara Patterson's
navarretia Polemoniaceae annual herb May-Jun(Jul) 1B.3 S2 G2 Navarretia prostrata prostrate vernal
pool navarretia Polemoniaceae annual herb Apr-Jul 1B.1 S2 G2 Plagiobothrys
chorisianus var.
chorisianus
Choris'
popcornflower Boraginaceae annual herb Mar-Jun 1B.2 S1 G3T1Q Plagiobothrys glaber hairless
popcornflower Boraginaceae annual herb Mar-May 1A SH GH Polemonium carneum Oregon
polemonium Polemoniaceae perennial herb Apr-Sep 2B.2 S2 G3G4 Puccinellia simplex California alkali
grass
Poaceae annual herb Mar-May 1B.2 S2 G3
Senecio aphanactis chaparral ragwort Asteraceae annual herb Jan-Apr(May) 2B.2 S2 G3 Spergularia macrotheca
var. longistyla
long-styled sandspurrey
Caryophyllaceae perennial herb FebMay(Jun) 1B.2 S2 G5T2 Streptanthus albidus
ssp. peramoenus
most beautiful
jewelflower Brassicaceae annual herb (Mar)AprSep(Oct) 1B.2 S2 G2T2 Stuckenia filiformis ssp.
alpina
slender-leaved
pondweed
Potamogetonaceae perennial
rhizomatous herb
May-Jul 2B.2 S2S3 G5T5
5/11/2021 CNPS Inventory Results
www.rareplants.cnps.org/result.html?adv=t&cnps=1A:1B:2A:2B:3&fesa=FE:FT:FC:None&cesa=CE:CT:CR:None&quad=3712262:3712261:3712168:3… 3/3 Search the Inventory
Simple Search
Advanced Search
Glossary
Information
About the Inventory
About the Rare Plant Program
CNPS Home Page
About CNPS
Join CNPS
Contributors
The Calflora Database
The California Lichen Society
California Natural Diversity Database
The Jepson Flora Project
The Consortium of California Herbaria
CalPhotos
Questions and Comments
[email protected]
(aquatic)
Suaeda californica California seablite Chenopodiaceae perennial evergreen shrub Jul-Oct 1B.1 S1 G1
Trifolium amoenum two-fork clover Fabaceae annual herb Apr-Jun 1B.1 S1 G1 Trifolium hydrophilum saline clover Fabaceae annual herb Apr-Jun 1B.2 S2 G2 Tropidocarpum
capparideum
caper-fruited
tropidocarpum Brassicaceae annual herb Mar-Apr 1B.1 S1 G1 Suggested Citation
California Native Plant Society, Rare Plant Program. 2021. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (online edition, v8-03 0.39). Website http://www.rareplants.cnps.org [accessed 11 May 2021]. © Copyright 2010-2018 California Native Plant Society. All rights reserved.

Appendix C
Potential for Special-Status Species to Occur
in the Project Site
Appendix C
Potential for Special-Status Species to Occur in the Project Site C-1
Scientific Name/Common
Name

FESA/CESA/
CRPR or Other
State Status*
General Habitat Description Potential to
Occur Rationale
Invertebrates
Bombus crotchii
crotch bumblebee --/SCE/--/--
Crotch bumble bee occurs in grassland and scrub
habitats (CDFW 2019). New colonies are initiated
by solitary queens, generally in the early spring,
which typically occupy abandoned rodent
burrows (CDFW 2019). This species is a generalist
forager and have been reported visiting a wide
variety of flowering plants. A short-tongued
bumble bee; food plants include Asclepias spp.,
Antirrhinum spp., Clarkia spp., Eschscholzia spp.,
Eriogonum spp., Chaenactis spp., Lupinus spp.,
Medicago spp., Phacelia spp., and Salvia spp.
(Koch et al. 2012). The flight period for queens in
California is from February to October. New
queens hibernate over the winter and initiate a
new colony the following spring (CDFW 2019).

Rare throughout its range and in decline in the
Central Valley and southern California (CDFW
2019).

Will not occur
Some select food plants are
present on site for western
bumble bee, however vegetation
onsite is routinely managed and
potential food plants are unlikely
to persist. The nearest recorded
occurrence for this species is 9
mile west of the project site and
is from 1909. The area has since
been developed and it is unlikely
that this population is still extant
(CNDDB 2021)
Bombus occidentalis
Western bumble bee --/SCE/--
Bumble bees are primitively eusocial insects that
live in underground colonies made up of one
queen, female workers, and reproductive
members of the colony. New colonies are
initiated by solitary queens, generally in the early
spring, and typically occupy abandoned rodent
burrows (Thorp et al. 1983). Western bumble
bee is a generalist forager and has been reported
visiting a wide variety of flowering plants; select
food plants include Melilotus spp., Cirsium spp.,
Trifolium spp., Centaurea spp., Eriogonum spp.,
and Chrysothamnus spp. (Koch et al. 2012). This
species has a short tongue and typically prefers
open flowers with short corollas but is known to
chew through the base of flowers with long
corollas. The flight period for queens in California
Will not occur
Some select food plants are
present on site for western
bumble bee, however vegetation
onsite is routinely managed and
potential food plants are unlikely
to persist. This species is
currently rare across its range
and is in decline in California and
is limited to high elevation
meadows in the Sierra Nevada
and small coastal populations
(CDFW 2019). There is a
historical occurrence in the
CNDDB dated 1971 that includes
the project site; however, this
occurrence is nonspecific with no
Appendix C (cont.)
Potential for Special-Status Species to Occur in the Project Site C-2
Scientific Name/Common
Name

FESA/CESA/
CRPR or Other
State Status*
General Habitat Description Potential to
Occur Rationale
is from early February to late November, peaking
in late June and late September. Rare throughout
its range and in decline west of the Sierra Nevada
crest.
exact location (CDFW 2021).

There are no recent CNDDB
records of this species and no
published information as to
where known populations
currently persist in California
along the coast. Additionally,
there are no observations in the
iNaturalist database for this
species near the project site
(iNaturalist 2020).

Danaus plexippus pop. 1
monarch - California
overwintering population

FCE/--/--
Roosts in wind protected tree groves, especially
with Eucalyptus sp., Pinus radiata, Cupressus sp.,
with nectar and water sources nearby. Winter
roost sites extend along the coast from
Mendocino County to Baja California (Nail et al.
2019)
Will not occur
There are no suitable wind
protected tree groves on the
project site; trees on the site are
too scattered to provide wind
protection.

Euphydryas editha bayensis
Bay checkerspot butterfly FT/--/--
Inhabits shallow, serpentine-derived soil with
current populations in San Francisco, San Mateo
and Santa Clara counties. Larvae require dwarf
plantain (Plantago erecta) initially, and then
transfer to exerted Indian paintbrush (Castilleja
exserta) or purple owl’s clover (Castilleja exserta
spp. exerta). Adults emerge in early spring lay
eggs during flight season from late February to
early May (Black and Vaughan 2005).

Will not occur
The project is outside of this
species current range and there
is no suitable serpentine soil in
the project site. While dwarf
plantain is present on the
project, there is no Indian
paintbrush or purple owl’s clover
on the site.

Lepidurus packardi
vernal pool tadpole shrimp FE/--/--
Vernal pools from 54 square feet to 89 acres,
containing clear- to highly-turbid water. Its
known range is within the Central Valley of
California and in the San Francisco Bay area
(USFWS 2005a).

Will not occur There is no suitable vernal pool
habitat in the project site.

Fishes
Hypomesus transpacificus
Delta smelt FT/--/--
Delta smelt spawn in shallow, fresh or slightly
brackish water upstream of the mixing zone.

Most spawning happens in tidally-influenced
Will not occur There is no suitable aquatic
habitat in the project site.

Appendix C (cont.)
Potential for Special-Status Species to Occur in the Project Site C-3
Scientific Name/Common
Name

FESA/CESA/
CRPR or Other
State Status*
General Habitat Description Potential to
Occur Rationale
backwater sloughs and channel edgewaters.

Although spawning has not been observed in the
wild, the eggs are thought to attach to substrates
such as cattails, tules, tree roots and submerged
branches. Delta smelt are found only from the
Suisun Bay upstream through the Delta in Contra
Costa, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Solano and Yolo
counties (USFWS 1995).

Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus
central California coast
Steelhead DPS

FT/--/--
Steelhead spawn in rivers and streams with cool,
clear, water and suitable substrate. This distinct
population segment includes all naturally
spawned anadromous O. mykiss (steelhead)
populations below natural and manmade
impassable barriers from the Russian River to
Aptos Creek, Santa Cruz County and their
tributaries, including drainages from the San
Francisco and San Pablo Bays and their
tributaries (NOAA 2006).

Will not occur There is no suitable aquatic
habitat in the project site.

Spirinchus thaleichthys
Longfin smelt FC/ST/--
The longfin smelt is a pelagic estuarine fish that
spawns in freshwater and then moves
downstream to brackish water to rear. They
usually live for 2 years, spawn, and then die,
although some individuals may spawn as 1- or 3-
year-old fish before dying. Longfin smelt in the
Bay-Delta may spawn as early as November and
as late as June, although spawning typically
occurs from January to April. The known range of
the longfin smelt extends from the San Francisco
Bay-Delta in California northward to the Cook
Inlet in Alaska. Longfin smelt have been observed
as far upstream as Isleton in the Sacramento
River, Santa Clara shoal in the San Joaquin
system, Hog Slough off the South-Fork
Mokelumne River, and in Old River south of
Indian Slough (USFWS 2016).

Will not occur There is no suitable aquatic
habitat in the project site.

Appendix C (cont.)
Potential for Special-Status Species to Occur in the Project Site C-4
Scientific Name/Common
Name

FESA/CESA/
CRPR or Other
State Status*
General Habitat Description Potential to
Occur Rationale
Amphibians
Ambystoma californiense
California tiger salamander FT/--/SSC
California tiger salamanders are generally
restricted to vernal pools and seasonal ponds,
including many constructed stock ponds, in
grassland and oak savannah plant communities
from sea level to about 1,500 feet in central
California. This species spends the majority of its
life in upland areas in the vicinity of suitable
breeding ponds, where it inhabits rodent
burrows. In order to provide suitable habitat for
this species, suitable breeding habitat must be
present in combination with suitable upland
habitat. In the Coastal region, populations are
scattered from Sonoma County in the northern
San Francisco Bay Area to Santa Barbara County,
and in the Central Valley and Sierra Nevada
foothills from Yolo to Kern counties (USFWS
2017a).

Will not occur
There is no suitable freshwater
breeding habitat in or near the
project site. The site is developed
and surrounded by developed
areas.

Aneides niger
Santa Cruz black salamander --/--/SSC
Occurs in deciduous woodlands, coniferous
forests, grasslands. Typically found under surface
debris such as logs, talus and other debris. Young
develop in the egg directly to the terrestrial
stage. Endemic to California in the San Francisco
Peninsula to southern San Mateo county (Lannoo
2005).

Will not occur
There is no suitable woodland or
grassland habitat in or near the
project site. The site is developed
and surrounded by developed
areas.

Dicamptodon ensatus
California giant salamander --/--/SSC
Endemic to California and occurs in wet coastal
forests near clear, cold perennial streams below
3,000 feet above msl. Larval stage transforms to
adult stage after approximately 18-24 months.

Typically found on the surface on rainy nights or
wet days while foraging. Will eat anything that it
can overpower and fit into its mouth, such as
slugs, rodents, other amphibians and reptiles
(Kucera 1997).

Will not occur
There is no suitable freshwater
stream breeding habitat in or
near the project site. The site is
developed and surrounded by
developed areas.

Appendix C (cont.)
Potential for Special-Status Species to Occur in the Project Site C-5
Scientific Name/Common
Name

FESA/CESA/
CRPR or Other
State Status*
General Habitat Description Potential to
Occur Rationale
Rana boylii
foothill yellow-legged frog --/SE/SSC
The foothill yellow-legged frog occurs along the
coast ranges from Oregon to Los Angeles and
along the western side of the Sierra Nevada. This
species uses perennial rocky streams in a wide
variety of habitats up to 6,400 feet above msl.

This species rarely ventures far from water, is
usually found basking in the water, or under
surface debris or underground within 165 feet of
water. Eggs are laid in clusters attached to gravel
or rocks along stream margins in flowing water.

Tadpoles typically require up to four months to
complete aquatic development. Breeding
typically follows winter rainfall and snowmelt,
which varies based upon location (Jennings and
Hayes 1994).

Will not occur
There is no suitable freshwater
stream breeding habitat in or
near the project site. The site is
developed and surrounded by
developed areas.

Rana draytonii
California red-legged frog FT/--/SSC
The California red-legged frog occupies a distinct
habitat, combining both specific aquatic and
riparian components. The adults require dense,
shrubby or emergent riparian vegetation closely
associated with deep (greater than 2 1/3-foot
deep) still or slow-moving water. The largest
densities of California red-legged frogs are
associated with deep-water pools with dense
stands of overhanging willows (Salix spp.) and an
intermixed fringe of cattails (Typha latifolia).

Well-vegetated terrestrial areas within the
riparian corridor may provide important
sheltering habitat during winter. California redlegged frogs aestivate (enter a dormant state during summer or dry weather) in small mammal
burrows and moist leaf litter. They have been
found up to 100 feet from water in adjacent
dense riparian vegetation. Studies have indicated
that this species cannot inhabit water bodies that
exceed 70° F, especially if there are no cool, deep
Will not occur
There is no suitable freshwater
breeding habitat in or near the
project site. The site is developed
and surrounded by developed
areas.

Appendix C (cont.)
Potential for Special-Status Species to Occur in the Project Site C-6
Scientific Name/Common
Name

FESA/CESA/
CRPR or Other
State Status*
General Habitat Description Potential to
Occur Rationale
portions (USFWS 2002).

Reptiles
Anniella pulchra
Northern California legless
lizard
--/--/SSC
A fossorial species that occupies loose soil in
stabilized dunes, coastal scrub, chaparral and oak
woodlands. Found in loose friable (usually sandy)
soils under leaf litter or other debris where
vegetation is sparse along beaches, chaparral,
pine-oak woodland, stream terraces and riparian.

Highly dependent on soil moisture (Jennings and
Hayes 1994).

Will not occur
There is no suitable soils or
habitat in or near the project
site.

Coluber (=Masticophis)
lateralis euryxanthus
Alameda whipsnake

FT/ST/--
Inhabits chaparral and scrub communities and
utilizes adjacent grasslands, oak savannah, and
oak-bay woodlands. Fast and active foraging
snake with keen vision that pursues lizards, but
also eats frogs, snakes and birds by day (USFWS
2005). Favors sunny slopes with rock outcrops.

Currently known from 5 isolated populations in
Contra Costa, Alameda, San Joaquin and Santa
Clara counties (USFWS 2005b).

Will not occur
There is no suitable chaparral or
other scrub habitat in or near the
project site.

Emys marmorata
western pond turtle --/--/SSC
Turtle that inhabits slow-moving water with
dense submerged vegetation, abundant basking
sites, gently sloping banks, and dry clay or silt
soils in nearby uplands. Turtles will lay eggs up to

0.25-mile from water, but typically go no more
than 600 feet (Jennings and Hayes 1994).

Will not occur
There is no suitable aquatic
habitat in or near the project
site.

Thamnophis sirtalis
tetrataenia
San Francisco gartersnake

FE/SE/FP
Endemic to the San Joaquin and Sacramento
Valley floors. Inhabits agricultural wetlands and
other waterways such as irrigation and drainage
canals, sloughs, ponds, small lakes, low gradient
streams, and adjacent uplands. Requires
adequate water during its active season (early
spring through mid-fall) to provide food and
cover, emergent, herbaceous wetland vegetation
for foraging and cover, grassy banks and
openings in waterside vegetation for basking,
Will not occur
There is no suitable aquatic
habitat in or near the project
site.

Appendix C (cont.)
Potential for Special-Status Species to Occur in the Project Site C-7
Scientific Name/Common
Name

FESA/CESA/
CRPR or Other
State Status*
General Habitat Description Potential to
Occur Rationale
and higher elevation uplands for cover and
refuge from flood waters during its dormant
season (winter). Inhabits small mammal burrows
and other soil crevices with sunny exposure
along south and west facing slopes, above
prevailing flood elevations when dormant.

Primarily found in marshes and sloughs as well as
slow-moving creeks but absent from large rivers
(USFWS 2017b).

Birds
Accipiter cooperii
Cooper’s hawk --/--/WL
Nests in woodlands and urban trees. Preys on
medium-sized birds and small mammals. Forages
in open woodland and habitat edges. Dense
stands of live oak, riparian deciduous, or other
forest habitats near water used most frequently
(Zeiner et al. 1988-1990).

Will not occur
There is no suitable nesting or
foraging habitat in or adjacent to
the project site.

Accipiter striatus
sharp-shinned hawk --/--/WL
Primarily found in dense woodland habitat on
north facing slopes. Prefers riparian areas,
nesting sites are generally within 275 feet of
water. Forges in edges along forested habitat and
brushy pastures (Zeiner et al. 1988-1990).

Will not occur
There is no suitable nesting or
foraging habitat in or adjacent to
the project site.

Agelaius tricolor
tricolored blackbird FC/ST/SSC
Common locally throughout central California.

Nests and seeks cover in emergent wetland
vegetation, specifically cattails and tules, but may
also use riparian vegetation. Nesting area must
be large enough to support a minimum colony of
50 pairs as they are a highly colonial species.

Forages on ground in croplands, grassy fields,
flooded land, and edges of ponds (Shuford and
Gardali 2008).

Will not occur
There is brackish marsh with
emergent wetland vegetation
adjacent to the site, however the
marshes are likely too small to
provide breeding habitat to
support a nesting colony and the
proximity of the marsh habitat to
ongoing disturbance on the site
renders the marsh unlikely to be
used by this species. In addition,
tri-colored blackbird has not
been observed in or near the site
during multiple biological surveys
conducted by HELIX on the
Appendix C (cont.)
Potential for Special-Status Species to Occur in the Project Site C-8
Scientific Name/Common
Name

FESA/CESA/
CRPR or Other
State Status*
General Habitat Description Potential to
Occur Rationale
project site and on adjacent
parcels with more suitable
habitat.

Aquila chrysaetos
Golden eagle --/--/FP
Typically occurs in rolling foothills, mountain
areas, deserts and other open habitats up to
3,822 m amsl. Typically nests on cliff ledges or
large trees in open areas in canyons. Will
occasionally use other tall structures for nesting,
such as electrical transmission towers. Prey
consists mostly of rodents, carrion, birds, reptiles
and occasionally small livestock (Zeiner et al.
1990).

Will not occur
(nesting)
Golden eagle was observed flying
over the site during a biological
survey on February 20, 2020.

However, there is no suitable
nesting habitat on or adjacent to
the site for this species and it is
unlikely that golden eagle would
use the site for foraging due to
its small size and high level of
disturbance. Abundant foraging
habitat for golden eagle is
present in open lands to the west
and northwest of the site.

Asio flammeus
short-eared owl --/--/SSC
Nests on the ground in tall herbaceous
vegetation in grassland and open habitat. Feeds
almost exclusively on voles (Microtus spp.).

Range and abundance are linked closely to cycles
in vole populations (Shuford and Gardali 2008).

Will also use manmade structures for nesting or
refuge, such as culverts.

Will not occur
There is no suitable grassland
nesting or foraging habitat in or
adjacent to the project site. The
nearest documented occurrence
was recorded 9.15 miles west of
the site on Bair Island in 1977
(CNDDB 2021).

Athene cunicularia
burrowing owl --/--/SSC
Inhabits open habitats including arid grasslands,
pastures, disturbed areas, and deserts. Occupies
burrows of small mammals, especially California
ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi), or
artificial burrows such as pipes and culverts.

Hunts from low perches, fence posts, and
mounds. Breeds from Marsh through August
(CDFW 2012).

May occur
Marginal nesting habitat is
present in and adjacent to the
project site consisting of ground
squirrel burrows in ruderal
habitat dominated by annual
grasses and forbs. This species
was documented in the CNDDB
along the Hetch Hetchy
Aqueduct adjacent to the site in
2012 (CDFW 2019). Although
site disturbances associated
with remediation activities likely
Appendix C (cont.)
Potential for Special-Status Species to Occur in the Project Site C-9
Scientific Name/Common
Name

FESA/CESA/
CRPR or Other
State Status*
General Habitat Description Potential to
Occur Rationale
preclude this species from using
the site, there is a potential it
could occupy ground squirrel
burrows on and adjacent to the
site.

Charadrius nivosus nivosus
western snowy plover FT/--/SSC
Federal listing applies only to coastal populations
that nest on sand beaches above the high tide
line. Interior populations nest on barren to
sparsely vegetated flats along the shores of lakes,
braided river systems, salt ponds, and
agricultural sumps. Adults feed on insects and
brine shrimp (Shuford and Garaldi 2008).

Will not occur
There is no suitable nesting or
foraging habitat in or adjacent to
the project site.

Circus hudsonius
northern harrier --/--/SSC
Inhabits a variety of treeless habitats including
freshwater marsh, brackish- and saltwater
marsh, wet meadows, lake margins, grasslands,
croplands, desert sinks, and sagebrush flats.

Builds nests on large mounds of vegetation
between March and August. Forages in most
open habitats (Shuford and Gardali 2008).

Will not occur
There is no suitable nesting
habitat in the project site and
very limited foraging habitat
since the site’s vegetation is
maintained. This species was not
observed onsite during any of
the biological surveys.

Coccyzus americanus
occidentalis
western yellow-billed cuckoo

FT/SE/--
Occurs at isolated sites in Sacramento Valley in
northern California, and along Kern and Colorado
River systems in southern California. Frequents
valley foothill and desert riparian habitats.

Inhabits open woodlands with clearings, and
riparian habitats with dense understory foliage
along slow-moving drainages, backwaters, or
seeps. Prefers dense willows for roosting but will
use adjacent orchard in the Sacramento Valley.

Typically requires expansive riparian habitat for
nesting (Zeiner et al. 1990).

Will not occur
There is no suitable nesting or
foraging habitat in or adjacent to
the project site.

Coturnicops noveboracensis
Yellow rail --/--/SSC
An uncommon winter migrant in California uses
marsh and deep grass habitat. Forages and
breeds in shallow marshes, wet meadows.

Winters in drier fresh and brackish marshes. Will
also use hayfield and rice fields or other deep
Will not occur
There is no suitable nesting or
foraging habitat in or adjacent to
the project site.

Appendix C (cont.)
Potential for Special-Status Species to Occur in the Project Site C-10
Scientific Name/Common
Name

FESA/CESA/
CRPR or Other
State Status*
General Habitat Description Potential to
Occur Rationale
grass habitat during the winter.

Elanus leucurus
white-tailed kite --/--/FP
Forages over open grasslands, savannahs,
marshes, and cultivated fields. Nests in trees in
a variety of locations including isolated trees,
and edges and interior of stands (Zeiner et al.
1990).

Present
(foraging)
A pair was observed foraging
over the project site and
defending their territory from a
red-tailed hawk during the
biological survey on April 4,
2019 and again on February 28,
2020. Although there are
potentially suitable nest trees,
this species would not be
expected to nest in the project
site with the high levels of
ongoing disturbance associated
with the remediation activities.

However, the pair of whitetailed kites may use nest trees in proximity to the site.

Eremophila alpestris actia
California horned lark --/--/WL
Occurs along the coast from Sonoma to San
Diego County. Found in grasslands and other
open habitats with low, sparse vegetation,
generally where trees and large shrubs are
absent (Zeiner et al. 1990).

Will not occur
There is no suitable nesting or
foraging habitat in or adjacent to
the project site.

Geothlypis trichas sinuosus
saltmarsh common
yellowthroat
--/--/SSC
Breeds in brackish- and freshwater marsh and
woody swamps between mid-March and late
July. Inhabits breeding habitat year-round. Builds
nests close to the ground in grasses, tules,
cattails, or shrubs (Shuford and Gardali 2008).

Will not occur
There is no suitable salt marsh
habitat in the project site.

Suitable nesting habitat is
present in small isolated saline
emergent wetland ponds near
the project site; however, this
species has not been observed
on the project site or in the
adjacent marsh during multiple
biological surveys in 2019, 2020
and 2021.

Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Bald eagle FD/SE/FP Requires large bodies of water with an abundant fish population. Feeds on fish, carrion, small Will not occur There is no suitable nesting or foraging habitat in or adjacent to Appendix C (cont.)
Potential for Special-Status Species to Occur in the Project Site C-11
Scientific Name/Common
Name

FESA/CESA/
CRPR or Other
State Status*
General Habitat Description Potential to
Occur Rationale
mammals, and water-fowl. Nests are usually
located within a 1-mile radius of water. Nests are
most often situated in large trees with a
commanding view of the area (Zeiner et al.
1990).
the project site.

Laterallus jamaicensis
coturniculus
California black rail
--/ST/FP
Inhabits brackish marsh, primarily in the upper
marsh zone dominated by alkali heath (Frankenia
salina), cattail, and rush (Juncus); prefers lower
salinity environments. Forage on the ground,
under cover of dense vegetation (USFWS 2013).

Will not occur
There is no suitable nesting or
foraging habitat in or adjacent to
the project site.

Melospiza melodia pusillula
Alameda song sparrow --/--/SSC
Endemic to the tidal salt marshes around the
southern margins of San Francisco Bay, especially
near Dumbarton Point in Alameda County.

Inhabits tidally-influenced areas with vegetation
tall enough to keep nests above high tides, and
openings to allow foraging on the ground.

Adapted to highly saline environments (Shuford
and Gardali 2008).

Will not occur
This species was observed
adjacent to the site during a site
visit on February 28, 2020. There
is no suitable nesting or foraging
habitat in or adjacent to the
project site.

Phalacrocorax auratus
double-crested cormorant --/--/WL
Found along the entire coast of California and on
inland lakes, in fresh, salt and estuarine waters.

Roosts overnight beside water on offshore rocks,
islands, steep cliffs, dead branches of trees and
manmade structures (Zeiner et al. 1990).

Will not occur
There is no suitable nesting or
foraging habitat in or adjacent to
the project site.

Rallus obsoletus obsoletus
California Ridgway’s rail FE/SE/FP
Salt-water and brackish marshes traversed by
tidal sloughs in the vicinity of San Francisco Bay.

Associated with abundant growths of pickleweed
but feeds away from cover on invertebrates from
mud-bottomed sloughs.

Will not occur
There is no suitable nesting or
foraging habitat in or adjacent to
the project site.

Riparia riparia
bank swallow --/ST/--
Primarily inhabits riparian and other lowland
habitats west of the deserts during the spring-fall
period. In summer, restricted to riparian,
lacustrine, and coastal areas with vertical banks,
bluffs, and cliffs with fine-textured or sandy soils,
into which it digs nesting holes. In California,
bank swallow primarily nests from Siskiyou,
Will not occur
There are no suitable vertical
banks, bluffs, or cliffs with fine
textured soil and holes in or near
the project site.

Appendix C (cont.)
Potential for Special-Status Species to Occur in the Project Site C-12
Scientific Name/Common
Name

FESA/CESA/
CRPR or Other
State Status*
General Habitat Description Potential to
Occur Rationale
Shasta and Lassen Counties south along the
Sacramento River to Yolo County. Also nests
locally across much of state.

Rynchops niger
black skimmer --/--/SSC
Nests unvegetated sites on gravel bars, low islets
and sandy beaches. Nests in colonies of 200
individuals or less (Burger 1981).

Will not occur
There is no suitable nesting or
foraging habitat in or adjacent to
the project site.

Setophaga petechia
yellow warbler --/--/SSC
Found in riparian areas in close proximity to
water, also nests in montane shrubbery in open
conifer forests in the Cascades and Sierra
Nevada. Nests and forages in willow (Salix sp.)
shrubs and thickets and in other riparian plants
including cottonwoods (Populus sp.), sycamores
(Platanus sp.), ash (Fraxinus sp.), and alders
(Alnus sp.) (Browning 1994).

Will not occur
There is no suitable nesting or
foraging habitat in or adjacent to
the project site.

Sterna antillarum browni
California least tern FE/SE/--
Breeding season resident of California, typically
present between April and August. Naturally nest
in large colonies on sandy beaches and dunes,
but often displaced to other bare areas such as
mud and sand flats, landfills, and airports.

Forages on fish from estuaries, lagoons, and
nearshore ocean (USFWS 1985).

Will not occur
There is no suitable sandy beach,
dune, or mudflat habitat in or
adjacent to the project site.

Mammals
Antrozous pallidus
pallid bat --/--/SSC
Occurs throughout California except for the high
Sierra Nevada and the northern Coast Ranges.

Habitats include grasslands, shrublands,
woodlands, and forests from sea level to
6,000 feet. Most common in open, dry habitats
with rocky areas for roosting; roosts also include
cliffs, abandoned buildings, bird boxes, and
under bridges (Bolster, ed. 1998).

Will not occur
There is no suitable roosting or
foraging habitat in the project
site.

Corynorhinus townsendii
Townsend's big-eared bat --/--/SSC
Widely distributed throughout California except
alpine and subalpine habitats. This species eats
moths, beetle and other insects which it catches
on the wing or by gleaning from vegetation.

Will not occur
There is no suitable roosting or
foraging habitat in the project
site.

Appendix C (cont.)
Potential for Special-Status Species to Occur in the Project Site C-13
Scientific Name/Common
Name

FESA/CESA/
CRPR or Other
State Status*
General Habitat Description Potential to
Occur Rationale
Typically found near water since it is poor at
concentrating its urine. This species uses caves,
mines, tunnels, buildings and human made
structures for roosting. Maternity roosts are
typically in warm sites. Hibernation sites are
typically cold, but not freezing. This species is
very sensitive to disturbance and may abandon
its roost after one visit (Zeiner et al. 1990).

Eumops perotis californicus
western mastiff bat --/--/SSC
Found throughout California and the
southwestern U.S. to west Texas. Roosts in
natural crevices in large outcrops of granite,
sandstone, or basalt, on cliff faces, among
boulders, and in appropriately proportioned
cracks in buildings. Roosts are at least 10 feet
above the ground (Bolster 1998).

Will not occur
There is no suitable roosting or
foraging habitat in the project
site.

Neotoma fuscipes annectens
San Francisco dusky-footed
woodrat
--/--/SSC
This species is widespread and inhabits a wide
range of habitats in California with canopy
closure and a dense understory such as oak
woodlands or riparian forests. Builds nests that
may be as large as 8 feet wide and 8 feet tall.

Nests are typically built at the base of trees,
stumps, shrubs or other structures. Woodrats
will defend their nests from competitors. Diet
consists mainly of vegetation, such as leaves,
grasses, flowers, and acorns. May also eat fungi
(Zeiner et al. 1990).

Will not occur There is no suitable woodland
habitat in the project site.

Appendix C (cont.)
Potential for Special-Status Species to Occur in the Project Site C-14
Scientific Name/Common
Name

FESA/CESA/
CRPR or Other
State Status*
General Habitat Description Potential to
Occur Rationale
Reithrodontomys raviventris
salt marsh harvest mouse FE/SE/--
Endemic to tidal and brackish marsh habitat in
the San Francisco Bay region. Favors dense
(100-percent) cover of perennial marsh
vegetation 30-50 cm tall, at least 60-percent
pickleweed (Sarcocornia sp.), fat hen (Atriplex
patula), and alkali heath (Frankenia salina),
without large amounts of saltgrass (Distichlis
spicata), brass buttons (Cotula coronopifolia), or
monocots (Typha, Schoenoplectus, or
Bolboschoenus) which do not provide suitable
vegetation structure (USFWS 1984b). May utilize
adjacent grasslands for foraging during spring
and early summer. Populations require at least
150 acres of suitable habitat (USFWS 2010a).

Will not occur
The project site lacks tidal and
brackish marsh habitat and also
does not contain any pickleweed.

There are also no suitable tidal or
brackish marsh habitats with
pickleweed adjacent to the site.

The brackish wetland habitat
adjacent to the site is dominated
by monocots (Typha and
Schoenoplectus) and is not
suitable habitat for salt marsh
harvest mouse. Therefore, there
is no suitable habitat for this
species on or adjacent to the
project site and no potential for
it to occur or be impacted by the
project.

Scapanus latimanus parvus
Alameda Island mole --/--/SSC
Only occurs on Alameda Island. Found in annual
and perennial grasslands and prefers moist,
friable soils and avoids flooded soils (Hall 1981).

Will not occur
There is no suitable habitat for
this species on the project site.

Site is outside of the species
range.

Sorex vagrans halicoetes
salt-marsh wandering shrew --/--/SSC
Inhabits the middle zone of coastal salt marsh
that is inundated only at high tide and is
characterized by a dense cover of pickleweed
(Sarcocornia sp.) 30-60 cm tall, with driftwood
and other debris lying directly on the vegetation.

Uses high marsh as refuge from spring tides, and
forages in low marsh only during low tide. Shares
habitat affinities with salt marsh harvest mouse
and California clapper rail, but uses a narrower
range of habitats (Bolster, ed. 1998).

Will not occur There is no suitable habitat for
this species on the project site.

Taxidea taxus
American badger --/--/SSC
Inhabits drier open stages of most shrub, forest,
and herbaceous habitats with loose, friable soils.

Preys on a wide variety of mammals, reptiles,
birds, and carrion, and hunts mostly by digging
Will not occur There is no suitable habitat for
this species on the project site.

Appendix C (cont.)
Potential for Special-Status Species to Occur in the Project Site C-15
Scientific Name/Common
Name

FESA/CESA/
CRPR or Other
State Status*
General Habitat Description Potential to
Occur Rationale
out fossorial prey. Occasionally takes prey on the
surface. Not tolerant of cultivation. No longer
occur in the Central Valley except in the extreme
western edge (Williams 1986).

Vulpes macrotis mutica
San Joaquin kit fox FE/ST/--
Inhabits grasslands, agricultural areas, playas,
and scrublands. Formerly widespread in the
Central Valley; now primarily found in foothills at
the margins of the Central Valley and in the
interior Coast Ranges. Uses natural and artificial
burrows with entrances between 8 and 10 inches
in diameter and occupies many different burrows
in a single season (USFWS 2010b).

Will not occur There is no suitable habitat for
this species on the project site.

Plants
Acanthomintha duttonii
San Mateo thorn-mint FE/SE/1B.1
An annual herb found in serpentinite soils in
valley and foothill grasslands, and chaparral,
from 50 to 300 meters in elevation. Blooms April
to June (CNPS 2021).

Will not occur
There is no suitable habitat for
this species on the project site.

Allium peninsulare var.
franciscanum
Franciscan onion
--/--/1B.2
A perennial bulbiferous herb found on volcanic,
and often serpentine, clay soils in cismontane
woodland and valley and foothill grassland from
52 – 305 meters elevation. Blooms (April) May –
June (CNPS 2021).

Will not occur
There is no suitable habitat for
this species on the project site.

Amsinckia lunaris
bent-flowered fiddleneck --/--/1B.2
An annual herb found in coastal bluff scrub,
cismontane woodland, and valley and foothill
grassland from 3 – 500 meters elevation. Blooms
March – June (CNPS 2021).

Will not occur
There is no suitable habitat for
this species on the project site.

Arctostaphylos regismontana
Kings Mountain manzanita --/--/1B.2
A perennial evergreen shrub found on granitic or
sandstone soils in broadleafed upland forest,
north coast coniferous forest, and chaparral from
305 – 735 meters elevation. Blooms December –
April (CNPS 2021).

Will not occur
There is no suitable habitat for
this species on the project site.

Astragalus tener var. tener
alkali milk vetch --/--/1B.2
An annual herb found in alkaline playas, clay soils
in valley and foothill grasslands, and vernal pools,
from 1 to 60 meters in elevation. Currently
Will not occur
There is no suitable habitat for
this species on the project site.

Appendix C (cont.)
Potential for Special-Status Species to Occur in the Project Site C-16
Scientific Name/Common
Name

FESA/CESA/
CRPR or Other
State Status*
General Habitat Description Potential to
Occur Rationale
known to occur in Alameda, Napa, Solano, and
Yolo counties. Blooms March to June (CNPS
2021).

Atriplex depressa
brittlescale --/--/1B.2
An annual herb found on alkaline, clay soils in
chenopod scrub, meadows, seeps, playas, vernal
pools, and valley and foothill grasslands from 1 –
320 meters elevation. Blooms April – October
(CNPS 2021).

Will not occur
There is no suitable habitat for
this species on the project site.

Atriplex minuscula
lesser saltscale --/--/1B.1
An annual herb found on sandy alkaline soils in
chenopod scrub, playas, and valley and foothill
grasslands in the Central Valley from 15 – 200
meters elevation. Blooms May – October (CNPS
2021).

Will not occur
There is no suitable habitat for
this species on the project site.

Balsamorhiza macrolepis
big-scale balsamroot --/--/1B.2
A perennial herb found on slopes in chaparral,
cismontane woodland, and valley and foothill
grassland, sometimes in serpentine soil.

Elevation range 45 – 1,555 meters. Blooms
March – June (CNPS 2021).

Will not occur
There is no suitable habitat for
this species on the project site.

Campanula exigua
chaparral harebell --/--/1B.2
An annual herb found on rocky, usually
serpentine, soils in chaparral from 275 – 1,250
meters elevation in the Diablo Range. Blooms
May – June (CNPS 2021).

Will not occur
There is no suitable habitat for
this species on the project site.

Project site is outside of species
range.

Appendix C (cont.)
Potential for Special-Status Species to Occur in the Project Site C-17
Scientific Name/Common
Name

FESA/CESA/
CRPR or Other
State Status*
General Habitat Description Potential to
Occur Rationale
Centromadia parryi ssp.
congdonii
Congdon’s tarplant
--/--/1B.1
An annual herb found on alkaline soils in valley
and foothill grassland, from 0 to 240 meters
elevation. Currently known to occur in Alameda,
Contra Costa, Monterey, San Luis Obispo, Santa
Clara, and San Mateo counties. Blooms May to
November (CNPS 2021).

Will not occur
There is no suitable habitat for
this species on the project site.

Much of the surface soil on the
site has been disturbed and/or
removed due to soil remediation
and vegetation is regularly
maintained. This species was not
observed on the project site
during focused botanical surveys
conducted during the blooming
season in May and June 2019 and
has never been observed on the
site during any of the biological
surveys.

Chloropyron maritimum ssp.
palustre
Point Reyes salty bird’s-beak
--/--/1B.2
An hemiparasitic annual herb found in coastal
marshes and swamps, from 0 to 230 meters in
elevation. Currently considered to be extirpated
in the South Bay including Alameda County.

Blooms June to October (CNPS 2021).

Will not occur There is no suitable habitat for
this species on the project site.

Chorizanthe robusta var.
robusta
robust spineflower
FE/--/1B.1
An annual herb found on sandy or gravelly soils
in maritime chaparral, openings in cismontane
woodland, coastal dunes, and coastal scrub from
3 – 300 meters elevation. Currently known only
from Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties and
possibly San Francisco County. Blooms April –
September (CNPS 2021).

Will not occur
There is no suitable habitat for
this species on the project site.

Only recorded occurrences in the
vicinity of the project site are
from 1894 and 1882.

Cirsium fontinale var.
fontinale
fountain thistle
FE/SE/1B.1
A perennial herb found in serpentinite seeps in
chaparral openings, cismontane woodlands,
meadows, seeps, and valley and foothill
grasslands from 45 to 175 meters elevation.

Blooms (April) May – October. Known only from
the vicinity of Crystal Springs Reservoir (CNPS
2021)
Will not occur There is no suitable habitat for
this species on the project site.

Collinsia corymbosa
round-headed Chinese- --/--/1B.2 An annual herb found in coastal dunes from 0 –20 meters elevation. Blooms April – June (CNPS Will not occur There is no suitable habitat for this species on the project site.

Appendix C (cont.)
Potential for Special-Status Species to Occur in the Project Site C-18
Scientific Name/Common
Name

FESA/CESA/
CRPR or Other
State Status*
General Habitat Description Potential to
Occur Rationale
houses 2021).

Collinsia multicolor
San Francisco collinsia --/--/1B.2
An annual herb found in closed-cone coniferous
forest and coastal scrub from 30 – 250 meters
elevation, sometimes on serpentine soil. Blooms
(February) March – May (CNPS 2021).

Will not occur There is no suitable habitat for
this species on the project site.

Dirca occidentalis
western leatherwood --/--/1B.2
A perennial deciduous shrub found in mesic
microsites in broadleafed upland forest, closedcone coniferous forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland, North Coast coniferous forest,
riparian forest, and riparian woodland from 25 –
425 meters elevation. Blooms January – March
(April) (CNPS 2021).

Will not occur
There is no suitable woodland
and chaparral habitat for this
species on the project site.

Eryngium aristulatum
var. hooveri
Hoover’s button-celery
--/--/1B.1
An annual or perennial herb found in vernal
pools, from 3 to 45 meters in elevation. Currently
known to occur in Alameda, San Benito, San
Diego, and San Luis Obispo counties. Blooms
June to August (CNPS 2021).

Will not occur
There is no suitable habitat for
this species on the project site.

The small seasonal wetlands are
not suitable habitat for this
species. In addition, this species
was not observed on the project
site during focused botanical
surveys conducted during the
blooming season in June 2019
and has never been observed on
the site during any of the
biological surveys.

Eryngium jepsonii
Jepson's coyote-thistle --/--/1B.2
A perennial herb on clay soils in vernal pools and
valley and foothill grassland from 3 – 300 meters
elevation. Blooms April – August (CNPS 2021).

Will not occur There is no suitable habitat for
this species on the project site.

Appendix C (cont.)
Potential for Special-Status Species to Occur in the Project Site C-19
Scientific Name/Common
Name

FESA/CESA/
CRPR or Other
State Status*
General Habitat Description Potential to
Occur Rationale
Extriplex joaquiniana
San Joaquin spearscale --/--/1B.2
An annual herb found in chenopod scrub,
meadows and seeps, playas, and valley and
foothill grassland (alkaline), from 1 to 835 meters
in elevation. Currently known to occur in
Alameda, Contra Costa, Colusa, Fresno, Glenn,
Merced, Monterey, Napa, San Benito, Santa
Clara, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, Solano,
Tulare, and Yolo counties. Blooms April to
October (CNPS 2021).

Will not occur There is no suitable habitat for
this species on the project site.

Fritillaria liliacea
fragrant fritillary --/--/1B.2
A perennial bulbiferous herb found usually on
serpentine soils in cismontane woodland, coastal
prairie, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill
grassland from 3 – 410 meters elevation. Blooms
February – April (CNPS 2021).

Will not occur
There is no suitable habitat or
soils for this species on the
project site.

Gilia millefoliata
dark-eyed gilia --/--/1B.2
An annual herb found on coastal dunes from 3 –
30 meters elevation. Blooms April – June (CNPS
2021).

Will not occur
There is no suitable dune habitat
for this species on the project
site.

Helianthella castanea
Diablo helianthella --/--/1B.2
A perennial herb found on rocky, azonal soils in
partial shade, in broadleafed upland forest,
chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub,
riparian woodland, and valley and foothill
grassland from 60 – 1,300 meters elevation.

Blooms March – June (CNPS 2021).

Will not occur
There is no suitable habitat or
soils for this species on the
project site.

Hesperolinon congestum
Marin western flax
FT/ST/1B.1
An annual herb occurs in chaparral, valley and
foothill grassland. Usually occurs in serpentinite
soil from 5 – 370 meters elevation. Blooms April
– July (CNPS 2021).

Will not occur
There is no suitable habitat or
soils for this species on the
project site.

Hoita strobilina
Loma Prieta hoita
--/--/1B.1 A perennial herb found usually on serpentine soils in mesic microsites in chaparral, cismontane
woodland, and riparian woodland from 30 – 860
meters elevation. Presumed extirpated from
Alameda County. Blooms May – July (August –
October) (CNPS 2021).

Will not occur
There is no suitable habitat or
soils for this species on the
project site.

Holocarpha macradenia FT/SE/1B.1 An annual herb found on sandy clay soils in Will not occur There is no suitable habitat or Appendix C (cont.)
Potential for Special-Status Species to Occur in the Project Site C-20
Scientific Name/Common
Name

FESA/CESA/
CRPR or Other
State Status*
General Habitat Description Potential to
Occur Rationale
Santa Cruz tarplant coastal prairie, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grassland from 10 – 220 meters
elevation. All known natural occurrences are in
Santa Cruz County. Blooms June – October (CNPS
2021).
soils for this species on the
project site.

Horkelia cuneata var. sericea
Kellogg's horkelia
--/--/1B.1 A perennial herb found in sandy or gravelly
openings in closed-cone coniferous forest,
maritime chaparral, coastal dunes, and coastal
scrub from 10 – 200 meters elevation. Extirpated
from the San Francisco Bay Area except for 1
location in San Mateo County. Blooms April –
September (CNPS 2021).

Will not occur
There is no suitable habitat or
soils for this species on the
project site.

Lasthenia conjugens
Contra Costa goldfields FE/--/1B.1
An annual herb found in alkaline playas, valley
and foothill grassland, vernal pools, and
cismontane woodland, from 0 to 470 meters in
elevation. Currently known to occur in Alameda,
Contra Costa, Marin, Monterey, Napa, Solano,
and Sonoma counties. Blooms March to June
(CNPS 2021).

Will not occur There is no suitable habitat for
this species on the project site.

Malacothamnus arcuatus
arcuate bush-mallow --/--/1B.2
A perennial evergreen shrub found in chaparral
and cismontane woodland from 15 to 355 meters
elevation. Blooms April to September (CNPS
2021)
Will not occur There is no suitable habitat for
this species on the project site.

Malacothamnus davidsonii
Davidson's bush-mallow --/--/1B.2
A perennial evergreen shrub found in chaparral,
coastal scrub, riparian woodland and cismontane
woodland from 185 to 1140 meters elevation.

Blooms June to January (CNPS 2021)
Will not occur There is no suitable habitat for
this species on the project site.

Malacothamnus hallii
Hall’s bush-mallow --/--/1B.2
A perennial evergreen shrub found in chaparral
and coastal scrub from 10 – 760 meters
elevation. Blooms (April) May – September
(October) (CNPS 2021).

Will not occur There is no suitable habitat for
this species on the project site.

Monolopia gracilens
woodland woollythreads --/--/1B.2
An annual herb found on serpentine soils in
broadleafed upland forest, chaparral, cismontane
woodland, North Coast coniferous forest, and
Will not occur
There is no suitable habitat or
soils for this species on the
project site.

Appendix C (cont.)
Potential for Special-Status Species to Occur in the Project Site C-21
Scientific Name/Common
Name

FESA/CESA/
CRPR or Other
State Status*
General Habitat Description Potential to
Occur Rationale
valley and foothill grassland from 100 – 1,200
meters elevation. Blooms (February) March –
July (CNPS 2021).

Navarretia paradoxiclara
Patterson’s navarretia --/--/1B.3
An annual herb found on serpentine soils in
vernally mesic meadows and seeps, from 150 to
430 meters in elevation. Currently known to
occur in Calaveras and Tuolumne counties.

Blooms May to July (CNPS 2021).

Will not occur There is no suitable habitat for
this species on the project site.

Plagiobothrys chorisianus var.
chorisianus
Choris' popcornflower
--/--/1B.2
An annual herb found in mesic microsites in
chaparral, coastal prairie, and coastal scrub from
3 – 160 meters elevation. Currently known from
locations on the coast between Salinas and San
Francisco. Blooms March – June (CNPS 2021).

Will not occur There is no suitable habitat for
this species on the project site.

Plagiobothrys glaber
hairless popcornflower --/--/1A
An annual herb found in alkaline meadows and
seeps and coastal salt marshes, from 15 to
180 meters in elevation. Formerly known to
occur in Alameda, Marin, San Benito, and Santa
Clara counties; now presumed extinct in
California and rare elsewhere. Blooms March to
May (CNPS 2020).

Will not occur There is no suitable habitat for
this species on the project site.

Polemonium carneum
Oregon polemonium --/--/2B.2
A perennial herb found in coastal prairie, coastal
scrub, and lower montane coniferous forest from
0 – 1,830 meters elevation. Blooms April –
September (CNPS 2021).

Will not occur There is no suitable habitat for
this species on the project site.

Puccinellia simplex
California alkali grass --/--/1B.2
An annual herb found in alkaline, vernally mesic
sinks, flats, and lake margins in chenopod scrub,
meadows, seeps, vernal pools, and valley and
foothill grasslands from 2 – 930 meters elevation.

Blooms March – May (CNPS 2021).

Will not occur There is no suitable habitat for
this species on the project site.

Sanicula maritima
adobe sanicle --/SR/1B.1
A perennial herb found on serpentine clay soils in
chaparral, coastal prairie, meadows, seeps, and
valley and foothill grassland from 30 – 240
meters elevation. Currently known only from
Monterey and San Luis Obispo Counties. Blooms
Will not occur
There is no suitable habitat or
soils for this species on the
project site.

Appendix C (cont.)
Potential for Special-Status Species to Occur in the Project Site C-22
Scientific Name/Common
Name

FESA/CESA/
CRPR or Other
State Status*
General Habitat Description Potential to
Occur Rationale
February – May (CNPS 2021).

Senecio aphanactis
chaparral ragwort --/--/2B.2
An annual herb found in chaparral, cismontane
woodland, and coastal scrub, from 15 to
800 meters in elevation. Currently known to
occur in Alameda, Contra Costa, Fresno, Los
Angeles, Merced, Monterey, Orange, Riverside,
San Benito, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Santa
Cruz, San Diego, San Luis Obispo, Solano, and
Ventura counties. Blooms January to May (CNPS
2020).

Will not occur There is no suitable habitat for
this species on the project site.

Stuckenia filiformis ssp. alpina
slender-leaved pondweed --/--/2B.2
A perennial herb found in shallow freshwater
marshes and swamps, from 300 to 2,150 meters
in elevation. Currently known to occur in
Alameda, Butte, Contra Costa, El Dorado, Lassen,
Mariposa, Merced, Modoc, Mono, Nevada,
Placer, San Mateo, Shasta, Sierra, Solano, and
Sonoma counties. Blooms May to July (CNPS
2020).

Will not occur There is no suitable habitat for
this species on the project site.

Spergularia macrotheca var.
longistyla
long-styled sand-spurrey
--/--/1B.2
Annual herb. Occurs in marshes and swamps,
meadows and seeps and hot springs. Occurs in
alkaline conditions. Elevation: 0 – 255 m amsl.

Flowering period February – May (CNPS 2021).

Will not occur There is no suitable habitat for
this species on the project site.

Streptanthus albidus ssp.
peramoenus
most beautiful jewelflower
--/--/1B.2
An annual herb found on serpentine soils in
chaparral, cismontane woodland, and valley and
foothill grassland from 95 – 1,000 meters
elevation. Blooms (March) April – September
(October) (CNPS 2021).

Will not occur
There is no suitable habitat or
soils for this species on the
project site.

Stuckenia filiformis ssp. alpina
slender-leaved pondweed --/--/2B.2
A perennial rhizomatous aquatic herb found in
marshes, swamps, and other shallow freshwater
habitats from 300 – 2,150 meters elevation.

Blooms May – July (CNPS 2021).

Will not occur There is no suitable habitat for
this species on the project site.

Suaeda californica
California seablite FE/--/1B.1
A perennial evergreen shrub found in coastal salt
marshes and swamps from 0 – 15 meters
elevation. Nearly extirpated from the Bay Area;
Will not occur There is no suitable habitat for
this species on the project site.

Appendix C (cont.)
Potential for Special-Status Species to Occur in the Project Site C-23
Scientific Name/Common
Name

FESA/CESA/
CRPR or Other
State Status*
General Habitat Description Potential to
Occur Rationale
most known occurrences are in Morro Bay.

Blooms July – October (CNPS 2021).

Trifolium amoenum
two-fork clover FE/--/1B.1
An annual herb found in coastal bluff scrub and
valley and foothill grassland from 5 – 415 meters
elevation; sometimes on serpentine soils. Most
records are historic; recent rediscoveries are
uncertain. Blooms April – June (CNPS 2021).

Will not occur
There is no suitable habitat or
soils for this species on the
project site.

Trifolium hydrophilum
saline clover --/--/1B.2
An annual herb found in marshes and swamps,
mesic alkaline valley and foothill grassland, and
vernal pools, from 0 to 300 meters in elevation.

Currently known to occur in Alameda, Contra
Costa, Lake, Monterey, Napa, Sacramento, San
Benito, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo,
Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Solano, Sonoma, and
Yolo counties. Blooms April to June (CNPS 2021).

Will not occur
There is no suitable habitat for
this species on the project site.

Much of the surface soil on the
site has been disturbed and/or
removed due to soil remediation
and vegetation is regularly
maintained. This species was not
observed on the project site
during focused botanical surveys
conducted during the blooming
season in April, May and June
2019 and has never been
observed on the site during any
of the biological surveys
including in April 2021.

Tropidocarpum capparideum
caper-fruited tropidocarpum --/--/1B.1
An annual herb found on alkaline hills in valley
and foothill grassland from 1 – 455 meters
elevation. Formerly presumed extinct;
rediscovered in 2000 on Fort Hunter Liggett in
Monterey County. Currently known only from
Monterey, San Luis Obispo, and Fresno Counties.

Blooms March – April (CNPS 2021).

Will not occur There is no suitable habitat for
this species on the project site.

Appendix C (cont.)
Potential for Special-Status Species to Occur in the Project Site C-24
Scientific Name/Common
Name

FESA/CESA/
CRPR or Other
State Status*
General Habitat Description Potential to
Occur Rationale
Sensitive Natural Habitats
Northern Coastal Salt Marsh --/--/--; G3, S3.2
A highly productive community of salt-tolerant,
winter-dormant species that occurs in areas
subject to daily tidal inundation by salt water.

Occurs along sheltered margins of bays and
estuaries. Vegetation is typically stratified
horizontally, with cordgrass (Spartina) in the
lowest zone, pickleweed (Sarcocornia) in the
middle zone, and alkali heath (Frankenia salina)
and gumplant (Grindelia) dominant in the upper
zone (Holland 1986).

Not present Northern coastal salt marsh
habitat is not present on site.

Note: Bold font indicates a species with the potential to occur in the project site; these species are evaluated in detail in the body of the report. *FESA=Federal Endangered Species Act; CESA=California Endangered Species Act; FE – FESA endangered; FT – FESA threatened; FC – FESA candidate; FD – FESA delisted; SE – CESA endangered; ST – CESA threatened; FP – Fully Protected; SSC – state species of special concern; CRPR – California Rare Plant Rank (see definitions of CRPR rankings below) CNPS ratings:
1A = Presumed extirpated in California and rare elsewhere 1B = Rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere 1B.1 = Seriously endangered in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened / high degree and immediacy of threat) 1B.2 = Fairly endangered in California (20-80% occurrences threatened) 1B.3 = Not very endangered in California (fewer than 20% of occurrences threatened) 2B = Rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere. 2B.2 = Fairly endangered in California (20-80% occurrences threatened) Global and State rankings in descending order of sensitivity (1=critically imperiled; 5=demonstrably secure).

Status in the Project site is assessed as follows. Will Not Occur: Species is either sessile (i.e., plants) or so limited to a particular habitat that it cannot disperse on its own and/or habitat suitable for its establishment and survival does not occur on the project site; Not Expected: Species moves freely and might disperse through or across the project site, but suitable habitat for residence or breeding does not occur on the project site, potential for an individual of the species to disperse through or forage in the site cannot be excluded with 100% certainty; Presumed Absent: Habitat suitable for residence and breeding occurs on the project site; however, focused surveys conducted for the current project were negative; May Occur: Species was not observed on the site and breeding habitat is not present but the species has the potential to utilize the site for dispersal; High: Habitat suitable for residence and breeding occurs on the project site and the species has been recorded recently on or near the project site, but was not observed during surveys for the current project; Present: The species was observed during biological surveys for the current project and is assumed to occupy the project site or utilize the project site during some portion of its life cycle.

Appendix D
Plant and Wildlife Species Observed
in the Project Site
Appendix D
Plant and Wildlife Species Observed in the Project Site D-1
Table D-1. Plant Species Observed in the Project Site
Family Species Name Common Name Status1
Native
Asteraceae Baccharis pilularis coyote brush --
Centromadia pungens ssp. pungens common tarweed --
Lasthenia californica California goldfields --
Layia sp. tidy tips --
Pseudognaphalium canescens everlasting --
Boraginaceae Plagiobothrys sp. popcorn flower --
Chenopodiaceae Atriplex lentiformis quail saltbush --
Cyperaceae Cyperus eragrostis tall flatsedge --
Schoenoplectus californicus California bulrush --
Fabaceae Acmispon americanus Spanish lotus --
Lupinus succulentus arroyo lupine --
Vicia 1mericana American vetch --
Fagaceae Quercus agrifolia coast live oak --
Frankeniaceae Frankenia salina alkali-heath --
Iridaceae Sisyrinchium bellum blue-eyed grass --
Juncaceae Juncus bufonius toad rush --
Onagraceae Epilobium brachycarpum annual fireweed --
Papaveraceae Eschscholzia californica California poppy -- Pinaceae Pinus radiata Monterey pine --
Plantaginaceae Plantago erecta California plantain --
Poaceae Hordeum brachyantherum meadow barley --
Distichlis spicata saltgrass --
Elymus triticoides beardless wild rye --
Salicaceae Salix laevigata red willow --
Typhaceae Typha latifolia common cattail --
Non-Native
Aizoaceae Carpobrotus edulis hottentot-fig High
Mesembryanthemum nodiflorum slender-leaved iceplant --
Apiaceae Foeniculum vulgare fennel High
Arecaceae Washingtonia robusta Mexican fan palm --
Asteraceae Cirsium vulgare bull thistle Moderate
Cotula coronopifolia common brassbuttons Limited
Dittrichia graveolens stinkwort Moderate
Erigeron bonariensis flax-leaf fleabane --
Helminthotheca echioides bristly ox-tongue Limited
Silybum marianum milk thistle Limited
Sonchus oleraceus common sow thistle --
Brassicaceae Brassica rapa common mustard Limited
Lepidium latifolium perennial pepperweed High
Raphanus sativus wild radish Limited
Chenopodiaceae Salsola soda alkali Russian thistle Moderate Fabaceae Medicago polymorpha burclover Limited
Melilotus indicus Indian sweet clover --
Trifolium hirtum rose clover Limited
Appendix D (cont.)
Plant and Wildlife Species Observed in the Project Site D-2
Family Species Name Common Name Status1
Fagaceae Quercus suber cork oak --
Geraniaceae Erodium cicutarium redstem filaree Limited
Geranium dissectum cutleaf geranium Limited
Lythraceae Lythrum hyssopifolia Hyssop loosestrife Limited Malvaceae Malva parviflora cheeseweed --
Myrsinaceae Lysimachia arvensis scarlet pimpernel --
Oleaceae Fraxinus uhdei Shamel ash --
Oxalidaceae Oxalis pes-caprae sourgrass Moderate
Plantaginaceae Linaria bipartita split-lip toadflax --
Plantago coronopus cutleaf plantain --
Poaceae Avena fatua wild oats Moderate
Brachypodium distachyon false purple brome Moderate
Bromus diandrus common ripgut grass Moderate
Bromus hordeaceus soft brome Limited
Bromus madritensis ssp. Rubens red brome --
Cortaderia selloana white pampasgrass High
Crypsis schoenoides Swamp picklegrass --
Festuca myuros fescue --
Festuca perennis Italian ryegrass --
Hordeum marinum ssp. gussoneanum Mediterranean barley -- Hordeum murinum hare barley Moderate
Poa annua annual blue grass --
Polygonaceae Rumex pulcher fiddle dock --
Rosaceae Rubus armeniacus Himalayan blackberry High
Sapindaceae Cupaniopsis anacardioides carrotwood -- 1 Status for native species is California Rare Plant Rank; Status for non-native species is California Invasive Plant Council invasiveness rating Appendix D (cont.)
Plant and Wildlife Species Observed in the Project Site D-3
Table D-2. Wildlife Species Observed in the Project Site Order/Family Species Name Common Name Status1
Amphibians
Anura
Hylidae Pseudacris sierra Sierran treefrog --
Reptiles
Squamata
Colubridae Thamnophis sirtalis infernalis California red-sided garter snake -- Birds
Accipitriformes
Accipitridae Accipiter cooperii Cooper’s hawk WL
Aquila chrysaetos Golden eagle FP
Buteo jamaicensis red-tailed hawk --
Elanus leucurus white-tailed kite FP
Anseriformes
Anatidae Anas platyrhynchos mallard --
Branta canadensis Canada goose --
Caprimulgiformes
Trochillidae Calypte anna Anna’s hummingbird --
Cathartiformes
Cathartidae Cathartes aura turkey vulture --
Charadriiformes
Charadriidae Charadrius vociferous killdeer --
Columbiformes
Columbidae Columbia livia rock pigeon --
Zenaida macroura mourning dove --
Facloniformes
Falconidae Falco columbarius Merlin WL
Falco sparverius American kestrel --
Passeriformes
Corvidae Aphelocoma californica California scrub-jay -- Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow --
Corvus corax common raven --
Emberizidae --
Fringillidae Haemorhous mexicanus house finch --
Hirundinidae Tachycineta bicolor tree swallow
Icteridae Agelaius phoeniceus red-winged blackbird --
Sturnella neglecta western meadowlark --
Mimidae Mimus polyglottos northern mockingbird --
Parulidae Setophaga coronate yellow-rumped warbler --
Passerellidae Melospiza melodia Song sparrow SSC
Passerculus sandwichensis savannah sparrow --
Zonotrichia atricapilla golden-crowned sparrow --
Zonotrichia leucophrys white-crowned sparrow --
Sturnidae Sturnus vulgaris European starling --
Tyrannidae Sayornis nigricans black phoebe --
Sayornis saya Say’s phoebe --
Appendix D (cont.)
Plant and Wildlife Species Observed in the Project Site D-4
Order/Family Species Name Common Name Status1
Mammals
Carnivora
Canidae Urocyon cinereoargenteus gray fox --
Lagomorpha
Leporidae Lepus californicus black-tailed jackrabbit -- Rodentia
Geomyidae Thomomys bottae Botta’s pocket gopher --
Sciuridae Otospermophilus beecheyi California ground squirrel -- 1 FP=Fully Protected Appendix E
Arborist Letter Report
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
11 Natoma Street
Folsom, CA 95630
916.365.8702 tel
619.462.0552 fax
www.helixepi.com
April 5, 2019
Mr. Glenn Brown, VP Entitlements
Integral Communities
500 La Gonda Way, Suite #102
Danville, CA 94526
RE: Certified Arborist Tree Inventory for the FMC Willow Project Site, City of Newark, California
On behalf of Integral Communities, HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) conducted an inventory of trees protected under Chapter 8.16 of the City of Newark Municipal Code, entitled Preservation of Trees on Private Property, for the FMC Willow Project. This technical memorandum documents the results of the tree inventory.

The City of Newark protects trees as windbreaks essential to public health and safety. The City of Newark Municipal Code Chapter 8.16.02 requires that a permit be obtained from the Public Works Director to cut down, destroy, remove, or move trees when growing on any parcel except developed residential parcels less than ten thousand square feet in area. A tree is defined in the ordinance as any live perennial woody plant with at least one well-defined stem 6 inches or greater in diameter measured at 48 inches above grade (dbh). The purpose of the tree inventory was to document existing trees in the project site in support of an application for tree removal from the Public Works Director, if such a permit is necessary.

PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The project site is in west-central Newark, at the western terminus of Enterprise Drive; the street address is 8787 Enterprise Drive. The project site comprises all or part of the following City of Newark Assessor’s parcels: 537-852-1-2, 537-852-2-7, and 92-100-5. The total area of the project site is 24 acres.

Refer to Attachment A for a regional location map.

The project site is a former industrial chemical plant that was active until the 1990s. The site has been subject to remediation for environmental contamination and the entire site is currently in a disturbed condition, with gravel driveways, concrete pads, and extensive evidence of grading and placement of fill and soil stockpiles. Vegetation in the site is predominantly weedy grasses and forbs with ornamental Letter Report to Mr. Glenn Brown Page 2 of 3
April 5, 2019
trees around the perimeter. The proposed project is transit-oriented residential development and a park. The entire project site would be developed.

METHODS
An inventory of trees in the project site was conducted on April 4, 2019 by International Society of Arboriculture Certified Arborist George Aldridge (WE-11778A). All woody plants in the project site meeting the City’s definition of a tree were assessed. The locations of all trees with one or more trunks with a diameter of 6 inches or greater when measured at 48 inches above ground level were recorded using an EOS Systems Arrow 100 GNSS receiver. Each tree included in the inventory was identified with a numbered metal tag.

In addition to measured diameter, trees were assessed for dripline radius, height, structural condition, and health. Structure and health were assessed by a visual inspection of trunk, foliage, and root crown.

Each tree was assigned an overall rating on a scale of 0 (dead), 1 (severe decline), 2 (declining), 3 (fair), 4 (good), or 5 (excellent). Height and dripline were visually estimated. A Tree Location Map documenting the location of each tree in the inventory is included as Attachment B; the survey data are compiled in Attachment C. Criteria used for assessing health and structure of trees are provided in Attachment D.

RESULTS
A total of 34 trees meeting the size threshold for protection were identified in the project site; two of these are dead. The condition of the 32 live trees ranged from good to declining. Tree species present included Monterey pine (Pinus radiata), shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei), carrotwood (Cupaniopsis anacardioides), cork oak (Quercus suber), Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), and Mexican fan palm (Washingtonia robusta).

SUMMARY
A total of 32 trees meeting the City of Newark Municipal Code definition of protected trees were identified in the project site. These trees do not provide a windbreak on which a substantial number of people depend, and therefore are eligible for removal to facilitate development of the proposed project.

A permit would likely be required from the City of Newark Public Works Director prior to removal, destruction, or transplantation of any trees included in the inventory. If you have any questions or comments regarding the results of the survey, please do not hesitate to contact me by e-mail at [email protected] or by phone at (916) 365-8700 x 102.

Sincerely,
Stephen Stringer
Senior Biologist, Certified Arborist
Letter Report to Mr. Glenn Brown Page 3 of 3
April 5, 2019
Attachments:

Attachment A. Arborist Survey Map
Attachment B. Arborist Survey Datasheets
Attachment C. Assessment Criteria
Attachment A
Arborist Survey Map
!(!(!(!( !(!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!( !( !(!(!(
!(
92 91
90 89
88 87
86 85
84 83
82 81 80
79 78
77 76
75 74
73 72
71 70
69 68
66 65
64 63
62 61
60 59
67 Attachment A
Tree Map
S:\PROJECTS\I\IPQ-ALL\IPQ-37 Willow\GIS\MXD\Arborist Report\AttA_TreeMap.mxd IPQ-37 1/31/2020 - Danielv Source: DigitalGlobe 2017, Alameda County 2018, HELIX 2019 K
FMC Willow
0 250 Feet
Project Site (±22.16 Acres)
!( Tree Point
Willow Street
Enterprise Drive
San Mateo County Railroad Tracks
Attachment B
Arborist Survey Datasheets
Tree Inventory Survey at FMC Willow, Newark, CA | April 5, 2019 | Attachment B B-1 Table B-1. Tree Inventory Data
Tag # Species DBH
(in.)
Dripline
(ft.)
Height
(ft.) Health1 Struct1 Rating2 Notes3
59 Quercus suber (cork oak) 14.0,

12.2 18 15 G G 4 shaded
60 Quercus suber (cork oak) 15.5 18 15 G G 4
61 Pinus radiata (Monterey pine) 17.2 18 25 G F 3 leans; OL 62 Pinus radiata (Monterey pine) 14.6 15 25 G G 4
63 Pinus radiata (Monterey pine) 16.9 15 15 G P 3 topped 64 Pinus radiata (Monterey pine) 12.5 10 15 G P 3 topped; OL 654 Quercus agrifolia (coast live oak) 24.2 18 30 G G 4 66 Cupaniopsis anacardioides (carrotwood) 19.8 15 15 F F 3 CL; NS 67 Cupaniopsis anacardioides (carrotwood) 16.9 15 15 G G 4 68 Cupaniopsis anacardioides (carrotwood) 16.5,

14.5 15 20 F G 3 NS
69 Fraxinus uhdei (shamel ash) 23.4 16 30 G F 3 leans; OPC 70 Fraxinus uhdei (shamel ash) 18.5 9 25 G P 3 TC
71 Fraxinus uhdei (shamel ash) 20.7 12 20 G P 3 leans; TC 72 Fraxinus uhdei (shamel ash) 19.9 15 20 G F 3 TC
73 Fraxinus uhdei (shamel ash) 20.0 10 20 G P 3 TC; DBF 74 Pinus radiata (Monterey pine) 15.9 10 15 F P 2 split; DC; TC 75 Pinus radiata (Monterey pine) 15.8 15 30 P F 2 leans; DB; BS
76 Pinus radiata (Monterey pine) 23.6 10 12 G P 3 FO
77 Pinus radiata (Monterey pine) 16.8 -- -- -- -- 0 dead 78 Pinus radiata (Monterey pine) 15.3 12 20 G G 4
79 Pinus radiata (Monterey pine) 25.9 10 15 F P 2 FO; DB; TC 80 Pinus radiata (Monterey pine) 15.8 12 9 F P 2 topped; BS; OPC
81 Pinus radiata (Monterey pine) 8.4 12 8 G G 4
82 Pinus radiata (Monterey pine) 9.0, 8.2 10 15 F F 3 leans; BS; CDL
83 Washingtonia robusta (Mexican fan palm) 18.0 5 12 G G 4 84 Pinus radiata (Monterey pine) 8.7 -- -- -- -- 0 dead 85 Pinus radiata (Monterey pine) 33.4 20 20 P P 2 leans; DB; BS; OL
86 Pinus radiata (Monterey pine) 20.8 18 25 G F 3 leans; CDL 87 Quercus agrifolia (coast live oak) 6.0, 5.0,

4.1 8 15 G G 4
88 Washingtonia robusta (Mexican fan palm) 18.0 5 8 G G 4 89 Pinus radiata (Monterey pine) 18.6 15 20 F P 2 leans; DB; ESR
90 Pinus radiata (Monterey pine) 15.8 12 20 F F 2 leans; DB; BS
91 Pinus radiata (Monterey pine) 20.2 15 30 GF G 3 DB
Tree Inventory Survey at FMC Willow, Newark, CA | April 5, 2019 | Attachment B B-2 Tag # Species DBH
(in.)
Dripline
(ft.)
Height
(ft.) Health1 Struct1 Rating2 Notes3
92 Quercus agrifolia (coast live oak) 6.0,

3.0(x5)
6 10 G G 4
1G=Good; F=Fair; P=Poor
22=declining – may die within 5 years; 3=fair – health or structural issues but likely to survive more than 5 years; 4=good; 5=excellent 3BS=bleeding sap; CDL=co-dominant leaders; CL=crossing limbs; DB=dieback; DBF=decayed branch failures; DC=decayed cavities; ESR=exposed structural roots; FO=fallen over; NS=nutrient stress; OL=overloaded limbs; OPC=old pruning cuts; TC=topping cuts Attachment C
Assessment Criteria
Tree Survey at FMC Willow, Newark, CA | April 1, 2019 | Attachment C C-1 The following tables provide summaries of the criteria used for rating the health and structure of trees in the survey. Overall tree ratings were based on the individual ratings for health and structure.

Health
Health is an indication of the overall vigor and vitality of the tree expressed as a rating of Good, Fair, or Poor. Ratings for health were based on the criteria in Table D-1.

Table D-1. Criteria for Rating Tree Health
Good Little or no Evidence of Stress, Disease, Infestation, or Nutrient Deficiency. Foliage (if present on deciduous species) is of average or better density, size, and color for the species; foliage in the canopy is evenly distributed; twig elongation and bud density are normal for the species; there is no evidence of dieback; there is little or no epicormic growth (water sprouts); there are not excessive numbers of galls or excessive evidence of herbivory; callusing, if present, is vigorous; bark is healthy and intact; there are no signs of senescence.

Fair Moderate Evidence of Stress, Disease, Infestation, or Nutrient Deficiency. Foliage is below average density, size, or color for the species; foliage density may be lower in some parts of the canopy; twig elongation and bud density may be moderately reduced; some evidence of dieback may be present; some epicormic growth may be present; gall or herbivore load is higher than average for the species; callusing of old wounds is not welldeveloped; there may be evidence of small areas of infection such as bark swelling or sloughing; the tree may be over-mature or beginning to senesce.

Poor Abundant Evidence of Stress, Disease, Infestation, or Nutrient Deficiency. Foliage and/or buds are sparse; leaves are reduced in size or of unhealthy color; the canopy is sparse and underdeveloped; there is widespread evidence of dieback; twig elongation is severely reduced; there is abundant epicormic growth; gall load, insect exit holes, or evidence of herbivory is severe; old wounds are not callused; there is widespread evidence of bark swelling, splitting, or sloughing in the root crown, trunk, or major limbs; the tree is senescent.

Structure
Structure is an indication of the structural stability and failure potential of the tree expressed as a rating of Good, Fair, or Poor. Ratings for structure were based on the criteria in Table D-2.

Table D-2. Criteria for Rating Tree Structure
Good Low Potential for Failure. No wounds, cavities, decay, or indications of hollowness evident in the root crown, trunk, or major limbs; no exposed anchor roots or circling roots; no codominant branching or multiple trunk attachments; no crossing limbs; little or no included bark at branch attachments; no dead major limbs; no major limb failures; no overburdened limbs; no excessive or unnatural lean; proper development of trunk taper; structure is more or less symmetrical.

Fair Moderate Potential for Failure. Small to moderate wounds, cavities, decay, or indications of hollowness may be present in the root crown, trunk, or major limbs; minor exposure of Tree Survey at FMC Willow, Newark, CA | April 1, 2019 | Attachment C C-2 anchor roots; no circling roots; codominant trunks or multiple trunk attachments are present but included bark is absent or not well-developed; no large crossing limbs are present; small or medium-sized dead limbs may be present in the canopy; no large limb failures; limbs may be slightly overburdened; natural or only minor lean is evident with well-developed reaction wood; canopy development may be slightly to moderately asymmetrical.

Poor High Potential for Failure. Significant wounds, cavities, decay, or indications of hollowness evident in the root crown, trunk, or major limbs; anchor roots are exposed or the tree has lost anchorage; circling roots are present; codominant branching or multiple trunk attachments are present; large crossing limbs are present; significant amounts of included bark are present at trunk and branch attachments; large dead limbs are present in the canopy; evidence of past large limb failures; overburdened limbs; poor trunk taper; excessive or unnatural lean or drastically unbalanced canopy development.

Appendix F
Representative Site Photos
FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
Representative Site Photos
Appendix F
Photo 1. View of ruderal/disturbed habitat on the project site. Taken May 13, 2020.

Photo 2. View of developed habitat on the project site. Taken May 13, 2020.

FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
Representative Site Photos
Appendix F
Photo 3. Trees bordering the eastern edge of the project site. Taken May 13, 2020.

Photo 4. Photo of the western portion of the project site showing vehicles and equipment/supplies associated with active remediation activity. Taken April 26, 2021.

FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
Representative Site Photos
Appendix F
Photo 5. Photo of trees located in the center of the project site. Taken April 26, 2021.

Photo 5. Photo of Seasonal Wetland C, in the western portion of the project site. Taken April 26, 2021.

FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
Representative Site Photos
Appendix F
Photo 5. Photo of California ground squirrel burrows in the project site. Taken April 26, 2021.

Photo 5. Photo of recently remediated area in western portion of the project site. Taken April 26, 2021.

Appendix G
Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse
Habitat Assessment
2246 Camino Ramon
San Ramon, CA 94583
Phone: (925) 789-7459
1 Stephen Stringer June 9, 2020
11 Natoma Street
Suite 155
Folsom, CA 95630
SUBJECT: FMC Willow Property, Newark, California: Habitat Assessment for Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse
Dear Mr. Stringer,
Per your request, Dr. Gretchen Padgett-Flohr, a 10(a)(1)(A) Salt Marsh Harvest Mousepermitted mammalogist (PRT # TE006112-8) conducted a habitat assessment for Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris) on Tuesday, May 1st, 2018, at the property known FMC Willow (Project Site) located in the City of Newark, Alameda County, California. This report summarizes the results of the habitat assessment for the Property.

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
FMC Willow Project Site is located at the terminus of Enterprise Drive in Newark (Figure 1), California. The Property is located in the southwestern portion of the San Francisco Bay in the City of Newark, California and is within the Dumbarton Transit Oriented Development Specific Plan Area, which is comprised of former industrial parcels planned for future transit-oriented development. The project site is a former industrial chemical plant that was active until the 1990s. Following ongoing soil remediation activities, the site is barren except for some remnant cement pads and cement and asphalt roads.

At the time of the biological reconnaissance survey on June 3, 2020, remediation was ongoing in the western portion of the site. The Project Site is located within a former industrial area that is rapidly being converted to mixed residential uses. The project site is bound on the north by the San Mateo Transit District (SamTrans) railroad corridor and industrial development beyond, to the east by a vacant parcel planned for development, and to the south and west by residential and mixed-use development currently under construction.

The Project Site contains no natural biological communities. Following extensive soil remediation that included the export of contaminated soils and import of clean fill, the majority of the site is disturbed, but is vegetated by weedy species typical of the region. Soil remediation is on-going in the western portion of the site. Currently, the Project Site supports three vegetation communities/land covers: ruderal/disturbed, developed and seasonal wetland.

Seasonal wetlands in the Project Site occur within constructed ditches and depressions formed as a result of former construction activity that hold water for sufficient duration to form wetland conditions. The seasonal wetlands contain facultative (FAC) and facultative wetland (FACW) hydrophytic species such as salt grass (Distichlis spicata) and rabbit’s foot grass (Polypogon monspeliensis).
2246 Camino Ramon
San Ramon, CA 94583
Phone: (925) 789-7459
2 SPECIES OF INTEREST
Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris)
Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse (SMHM) is a federal- and
state-listed endangered species endemic to the salt
and brackish marshes of the San Francisco Bay and
the Napa, Petaluma, San Pablo, and Suisun Bay salt
marshes. Current literature suggests that SMHM
evolved in the San Francisco Bay Area from parental
stock of harvest mice approximately 25,000 years
ago (Nelson et al. 1984).

Harvest mice (Reithrodontomys spp.) in general, are
small, delicate mice with nearly nude tails and the genus is easily identified by the distinctive pronounced groove on the upper incisors (Jameson and Peters 1986), which other small rodent genera [e.g. house mouse (Mus musculus)] do not exhibit. SMHM measure approximately 118 to 175 mm in total (adult) length and display a venter that varies from white to red throughout the range of the species (Fisler 1965). The average lifespan in the wild is approximately one year, although SMHM have been known to live for up to three years under laboratory conditions (Fisler 1965).

The federal and state listing of Reithrodontomys raviventris includes two subspecies:

Reithrodontomys raviventris raviventris (the southern subspecies) and Reithrodontomys raviventris halicoetes (the northern subspecies). R. r. halicoetes is found in Marin County, and throughout the Petaluma, Napa, and Suisun Bay marshes. The North Bay marshes inhabited by this subspecies experience a higher variation in salinity levels, but have a lower average salinity than that found in the South San Francisco Bay. The North Bay has experienced an increase in salinity with a corresponding increase in halophytic vegetation [e.g. pickleweed (Salicornia [= Sarcocornia] virginica) over the last 150 years, due to diking and filling of the marshes and reduced river flows into the Delta from upstream dams and water diversions of the San Joaquin and Sacramento Rivers.

Evolving under slightly different environmental conditions than its southern counterpart, R. r. halicoetes exhibits slightly different characteristics and is genetically distinct from the disjunct southern subspecies (Fisler 1965). Two important behavioral and physiological differences between the two subspecies are that R. r. halicoetes has the ability to drink seawater, but does not have the ability to become torpid. In addition to these behavioral and physiological differences, R. r. halicoetes does not have the red belly that gave the southern subspecies its name. The northern subspecies generally has a white-gray/white venter, with some clinal variation and is therefore much more challenging to differentiate from the sympatric western harvest mouse (R. megalotis). In general, the North Bay subspecies has a tail-to-body ratio that is greater than 100 percent, although there is a certain amount of variation in this particular trait. The Collinsville population of SMHM is 2246 Camino Ramon
San Ramon, CA 94583
Phone: (925) 789-7459
3 the most extreme case, exhibiting a tail-to-body ratio in the 115 to 130 percent range in one study conducted in the area (G. Padgett-Flohr, unpub. data).

In contrast, the South Bay, where the southern subspecies (R. r. raviventris) is found, has little variation in salinity, but the average salinity level is much higher than that in the North Bay. R. r. raviventris does not drink sea water, but it does possess the ability to enter a state of torpor (Fisler 1965). The southern subspecies was named for its distinctive red belly, although this characteristic can show variation and is consistent only in the Alviso area of the southernmost part of the Bay. Tail-to-body ratios of the southern subspecies tend to fall under 100 percent, although this measurement can have large variation and is not considered to be a diagnostic characteristic.

Past studies have shown that optimal habitat for SMHM is a thick cover of pickleweed complexly interwoven with other halophytic plants such as fat hen (Atriplex patula), and alkali heath (Frankenia grandifolia) (Shellhammer et al. 1982; Shellhammer 1984; and Johnson et al. 1984). In diked marshes particularly, SMHM are highly dependent on plant cover. In addition to vegetation density, the salinity level in pickleweed is also an important component of the microhabitat and mid-range levels of salinity in pickleweed has been shown to be correlated with the presence of SMHM in diked marshes (Padgett-Flohr and Isakson 2003). SMHM were found to be absent from sites with low salinities, and infrequent in areas where pickleweed was high in salinity (Padgett-Flohr and Isakson 2003). Pickleweed height was formerly considered to be a key habitat requirement of SMHM; however, during her study conducted at New Chicago Marsh in 1996, Dr. Padgett-Flohr tested this variable using a random sampling scheme and found that this correlation was not supported (Padgett-Flohr SJSU Senior Thesis 1996). There was no significant association between SMHM and pickleweed height. Geissel et al. (1988) found that the height of a pickleweed plant is inversely correlated to the salinity level within the plant, meaning that the more saline the plant the shorter the plant. As Padgett-Flohr and Isakson demonstrated (2003), SMHM presence is statistically correlated with pickleweed containing a mid-range level of salinity (500 to 699 mmol/kg Cl-
). Mid-range levels of salinity can typically only be achieved by regular tidal influence. Diked marshes lacking tidal influence become either freshwater or hypersaline (Zedler and Adam 2002; Gedan et al. 2009) and do not provide the salinity levels that SMHM need or can tolerate.

SMHM therefore, require habitat that is dominated by dense, contiguous stands of halophytic vegetation that retains a mid-range level of salinity. Recurrent, but shallow flooding by saline water is likely needed to maintain habitat conditions that favor SMHM (Padgett-Flohr and Isakson 2003; USFWS 2013).

METHODS
Background and Research
The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) was queried to identify all documented occurrences of SMHM within 5 miles of the Property over the last 30 years. 2246 Camino Ramon
San Ramon, CA 94583
Phone: (925) 789-7459
4 Field Visit
Dr. Padgett-Flohr conducted a site visit and habitat assessment of the Property on May 1st, 2018. The entire site was surveyed on foot and assessed for potential suitability for SMHM.

RESULTS
Background and Research
The CNDDB documents 20 geographic occurrences of SMHM within 5 miles of the Project Site. One occurrence record reports 34 SMHM captured in 1989 at the Mayhews Landing site east of the junction of Jarvis Road and Thornton Avenue in Newark which is located 0.44 mile from the Project Site. In 2001, 36 SMHM were reported captured during studies at Don Edwards National Wildlife Refuge south of Highway 84. Eighteen additional occurrences, are reported from 1971 and 1991 ranging from 1.45 to 4.96 miles from the Project Site as shown in Figure 2. These 18 occurrences represent multiple individual SMHM as each reported occurrence was the result of SMHM trapping surveys. Captures at each geographic location where occurrences were reported ranged between 1 and 36 SMHM captured.

Field Visit
The majority of the Project Site is highly altered and is dominated by non-native grasses (Attachment A, Photographs 1 through 4) reflecting its past historical anthropogenic disturbances from industrial use. There is no pickleweed present on the site. There is no potential for SMHM to occur on the Property.

CONCLUSION
There is no potential for SMHM to occur on the Project Site due to the lack of suitable habitat. The construction of this Project will not impact the species in any way.

Sincerely,
Dr. Gretchen Padgett-Flohr
(925) 789-7459
2246 Camino Ramon,
San Ramon, CA 94583
Figure 1: FMC Willow Property
Newark, California
±
_^
5 !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( CNDDB Salt-marsh Harvest Mouse
FMC Property
1-mile Radius
2-mile Radius ± 5-mile Radius
0 1 2
Miles
2246 Camino Ramon
San Ramon, CA 94583
Figure 2: CNDDB Salt-marsh Harvest
Mouse Occurrences within 5-miles of
FMC Willow Property
Newark, California
6 2246 Camino Ramon
San Ramon, CA 94583
Phone: (925) 789-7459

REFERENCES
Brown, S. K. 2003. Development of a molecular diagnostic technique to Identify salt marsh harvest mice (Reithrodontomys raviventris) and western harvest mice (Reithrodontomys megalotis) in Suisun Marsh, California. Thesis, California Polytechnic University, San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo, USA.

Fisler, G.F. 1965. Adaptations and Speciation in Harvest Mice of the Marshes of San Francisco Bay.

University of California Publications in Zoology 77:1-108.

Fisler, G.F. 1963. Effects of saltwater on food and water consumption and weight of harvest mice.

Ecology 44:604–608.

H.T. Harvey & Associates. 2017. Lower Coyote Creek Flood Control Project Reach 1A Marsh Management Area Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse Monitoring Report 2016.

Jameson, E.W. jr., Peeters. 1988. California Mammals. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.

Johnson, V. and H.S. Shellhammer. 1988. The Ecology of the Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris) in a Diked Marsh and Adjacent Grasslands in Palo Alto, California.

Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Section, Sacramento, California. 29 pp.

Nelson, K., R.J. Baker, H.S. Shellhammer, and R.K. Chesser. 1984. Test of Alternative Hypotheses Concerning the Origin of Reithrodontomys raviventris: Genetic Analysis.

Padgett-Flohr, G.E. and L. Isakson. 2003. A Random Sampling of Salt Marsh Harvest Mice in a Muted Tidal Marsh. Journal of Wildlife Management 67(3):646-653.

Shellhammer, H.S., R. Jackson, W. Davilla, A.M. Gilroy, H.T. Harvey, and L. Simons. 1982. Habitat Preferences of Salt Marsh Harvest Mice (Reithrodontomys raviventris). The Wasmann Journal of Biology 40(1-2):102-114.

Shellhammer, H. 1984. Identification of Salt Marsh Harvest Mice. Reithrodontomys raviventris, in the Field and With Cranial Characteristics. California Department Fish and Game Bulletin: 70(2):113-120.

Shellhammer, H.S., R. Duke, and M.C. Orland. 2010. Use of brackish marshes in the South San Francisco Bay by salt marsh harvest mice. California Department of Fish Game Bulletin 96(4):256–259.

Shellhammer, H.S. 2012. Mammals of China Camp State Park and Rush Ranch Open Space Preserve. San Francisco Estuary Watershed Science: https://10.15447/sfews.2012v10iss2art5 Smith, K.R., L. Barthman–Thompson, Wm.R. Gould, and K.E. Mabry. 2014. Effects of Natural and Anthropogenic Change on Habitat Use and Movement of Endangered Salt Marsh Harvest Mice. PLoS One; October 2014; Vol. 9 (10). e108739
Smith, K.R., M.K. Riley, L. Barthman–Thompson, I. Woo, M.J. Statham, S. Estrella, and D.A. Kelt. 2018.

Toward Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse Recovery: A Review. San Francisco Estuary and Watershed.

Volume 6 (2), Article 2.

Statham, M.J., S. Aamoth, L. Barthman-Thompson, S. Estrella, S. Fresquez, L.D. Hernandez, R. Tertes, and B.N. Sacks. 2016. Conservation Genetics of the Endangered San Francisco Bay Endemic Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris). Conservation Genetics 17:1055. doi:

10.1007/s10592-016-0843-4).
7 2246 Camino Ramon
San Ramon, CA 94583
Phone: (925) 789-7459
8 Sustaita D., P.Q. Finfrock, L. Patterson, L. Barthman-Thompson, and S. Estrella. 2011. Salt marsh harvest mouse demography and habitat use in the Suisun Marsh, California. Journal of Wildlife Management 75(6):1498–1507.

Sustaita D, S.K. Brown, L. Barthman-Thompson, S. Estrella, L. Patterson, P.Q. Finfrock, and F.X.

Villablanca. 2018. Distinguishing between northern salt marsh and western harvest mice. Journal of Wildlife Management 82(4):723–733.

Trombley, S. and K.R. Smith. 2017.Potential Evidence of Communal Nesting Mate Guarding or Biparental Care in the Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse - Reithrodontomys raviventris halicoetes. California Fish and Game 103(1):15-20.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Fed. Reg. 50 CFR Part 1, September 18, 1985 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Recovery Plan for Tidal Marsh Ecosystems of Northern and Central California. Sacramento, California. xviii + 605 pp.

Zedler, J. and P Adam. 2002. Saltmarshes. Chapter In: Handbook of Ecological Restoration. M.R. Perrow and A.J. Davy (eds). Pp. 238-266.
2246 Camino Ramon
San Ramon, CA 94583
Phone: (925) 789-7459
10 Attachment A: Representative Photographs
A - 1 June 2020
Representative Photographs
Photograph 1:

The Property is
dominated by
ruderal
vegetation.

June 2020
Photograph 2:

Wetlands in
Hetch Hetchy
Row.

June 2020
A - 2 June 2020
Photographs Continued
Photograph 3:

Soil remediation
is on-going in
the western
portion of the
site.

June 2020
Photograph 4:

Wetland along
southwestern
portion of the
Property.

June 2020.

Appendix D
Cultural Resources Assessment
for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
FMC Willow and Grand Park
Project
Cultural Resources Assessment
Prepared for:

City of Newark
Community Development Department
37101 Newark Boulevard
Newark, CA 94560
Prepared by:

HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
11 Natoma Street, Suite 155
Folsom, CA 95630
December 2021
This page intentionally left blank
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page

1.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND...................................................................................................................1

1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................1

1.2 Project Description .............................................................................................................1

1.2.1 Project Location.....................................................................................................1

1.2.2 Project Setting........................................................................................................1

1.2.3 Proposed Project....................................................................................................2

1.3 Area of Potential Effects.....................................................................................................3

2.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK.............................................................................................................3

2.1 California Environmental Quality Act .................................................................................3

2.2 California Register of Historical Resources.........................................................................3

2.3 Native American Heritage Commission..............................................................................4

2.4 Government Code Sections 6254(r) and 6254.10 ..............................................................4

2.5 Health and Safety Code, Sections 7050 and 7052 ..............................................................5

2.6 Penal Code, Section 622.5 ..................................................................................................5

2.7 Newark General Plan ..........................................................................................................5

3.0 CULTURAL SETTING..........................................................................................................................5

3.1 Prehistoric Background.......................................................................................................6

3.2 Ethnographic Background...................................................................................................8

3.3 Historic Background............................................................................................................9

3.4 City of Newark...................................................................................................................10

3.4.1 History of the Project Area ..................................................................................11

4.0 RECORD SEARCHES ........................................................................................................................12

4.1 Northwest Information Center Record Search.................................................................12

4.1.1 Previous Studies...................................................................................................13

4.1.2 Previously Documented Resources .....................................................................15

4.2 Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File Search....................................15

5.0 PEDESTRIAN SURVEY......................................................................................................................16

5.1 FMC Willow Area of Potential Effects...............................................................................16

5.2 Grand Park Area of Potential Effects................................................................................17

6.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS..........................................................................................17

6.1 Summary...........................................................................................................................17

6.2 Recommendations............................................................................................................18

6.2.1 Accidental Discovery of Cultural Resources ........................................................18

6.2.2 Accidental Discovery of Human Remains............................................................18

7.0 REFERENCES...................................................................................................................................20 Cultural Resources Assessment for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 ii

LIST OF APPENDICES
A Figures
B Native American Correspondence
C Photographs

LIST OF TABLES
No. Title Page
Table 1. Previous Studies Conducted Within the Study Area.....................................................................13 Table 2. Previously Documented Resources within the Study Area...........................................................15 Cultural Resources Assessment for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 iii

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX), under contract to The Willow Project Owner, LLC, has prepared this Cultural Resources Assessment to determine whether historical resources may be affected by implementation of the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project in the City of Newark, Alameda County, California. The project will create ground disturbances that would have the potential to affect historic properties if they exist within the proposed project area. This assessment is based on the results of an archival records search, Native American coordination, and an intensive pedestrian survey of the project area. The proposed project would redevelop the 22.1-acre area into a 370-unit multi-family community including a mixed-use area of 4,000 square feet (sf) of retail and 90 affordable units (plus 1 manager unit), a 5-acre community park (Grand Park), and a 1,485-sf community building, along with approximately 1.8 acres set aside for a future transit station (including 0.1 acre of area for water quality management and 0.6 acre for public roads). The project would also provide a 20-foot-wide trail corridor, containing a 12-foot-wide multi-purpose trail, that would transect the Grand Park and run along Enterprise Drive to Willow Street and is anticipated to be eligible to be part of the regional San Francisco Bay Trail.

Results from the record search indicate that no resources have been previously recorded within the project’s Areas of Potential Effect (APE), although tracks associated with the historic Dumbarton Cutoff portion of the Southern Pacific Railroad are located adjacent to the APE. The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) conducted a search of their Sacred Lands File for the presence of Native American sacred sites or human remains in the vicinity of the APE. The search failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the APE. The proposed project includes General Plan and Specific Plan amendments, and formal invitations to participate in the Senate Bill (SB) 18 consultation process on the proposed project were sent by the City to the same six tribal representatives. Each tribe was provided a brief description of the project and its location, the contact information for the City’s authorized representative, and a notification that the tribe has been invited to consult with the City on this project in accordance with Government Code Section 65352.3. As of December 2021, no tribe has responded requesting consultation under SB 18.

The entire 22.1-acre project APE (consisting of the 17.1-acre FMC Willow APE and the 5-acre Grand Park APE) was fully surveyed for archaeological resources. The entire APE is flat, and its eastern portion is almost entirely overgrown with grass. The FMC Willow APE is also bisected from east to west by the Hetch Hetchy pipeline ROW, a 100-foot-wide corridor that has been excluded from the project and is not part of the APE. The Grand Park APE is almost completely covered in the remains of concrete industrial pads and asphalt access roads and includes areas that are currently used for staging construction equipment and materials. No prehistoric or historic resources were found during the surveys.

The results of this assessment indicate there would be no impacts to significant cultural resources of prehistoric or historic age by the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project, and therefore no additional studies, archaeological work, or construction monitoring are recommended. However, HELIX recommends that procedures be in place to address unanticipated discoveries of cultural materials and human remains during construction.

Cultural Resources Assessment for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 iv
This page intentionally left blank
1 1.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND

1.1 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of a cultural resources assessment conducted by HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) for the proposed development of a 370-unit multi-family community and mixeduse area (proposed project) on an approximately 22.1-acre area in the City of Newark, Alameda County, California. Development of this project is proposed by The Willow Project Owner, LLC for property within the Dumbarton Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Specific Plan.

Cultural resources investigations conducted in support of this project are subject to provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as defined by Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, with the City of Newark Community Development Department (City) acting as the Lead Agency. This report documents HELIX’s efforts to assess the potential of ground disturbances associated with this project to impact cultural resources that meet the criteria of significance under CEQA. This assessment is based on the results of an archival records search, Native American outreach, and an intensive pedestrian survey of the proposed project area.

1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

1.2.1 Project Location
The proposed project area is located within the City of Newark in southwestern Alameda County, northwest of the intersection of Willow Street and Enterprise Drive (Figure 1; figures can be found within Appendix A). The majority of the proposed project area is located in Sections 2 and 11 of Township 5 South and Range 2 West as shown on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute “Newark” quadrangle map (Figure 2). The western portion of the area has not been sectioned. The proposed project would be located on Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 092-0100-013, 092-0100-014, 537-0852-028, 537-0852-029, 537-0852-030, and 537-0852-031.

1.2.2 Project Setting
The project area is a former industrial chemical plant that was active until the 1990s. Subject to years of soil remediation activities, the area is barren except for remnant cement pads and cement and asphalt roads. The project area is bordered by the SamTrans railroad corridor to the north, residential development to the west, Enterprise Drive and planned mixed use developments to the south, and Willow Street to the east. The Hetch Hetchy pipeline right-of-way (ROW), owned and operated by the City and County of San Francisco Public Utility Commission (SFPUC), transects the project area. Part of the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge is approximately 1,000 feet northwest of the project area, on the other side of the existing SamTrans railroad tracks. The surrounding land uses are characterized by existing and former industrial parcels, railroad, and residential and mixed-use development.

Cultural Resources Assessment for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 2 Terrain in the project area and surrounding area has been altered by industrial development, and most existing topographic relief is the result of fill for the railroad and industrial pads, excavation of artificial basins and channels, and diking of tidelands. The project area currently consists of leveled industrial pads, asphalt roads, and railroad embankments. Terrain in the area surrounding the project area is essentially flat. Elevations on the project area are between 9 feet and 12 feet above mean sea level from west to east.

1.2.3 Proposed Project
The proposed project would redevelop the 22.1-acre area into a 370-unit multi-family community including a mixed-use area of 4,000 square feet (sf) of retail and 90 affordable units (plus 1 manager unit), a 5-acre community park (Grand Park), and a 1,485-sf community building, along with approximately 1.8 acres set aside for a future transit station (including 0.1 acre of area for water quality management and 0.6 acre for public roads). The project would also provide a 20-foot-wide trail corridor, containing a 12-foot-wide multi-purpose trail, that would transect the Grand Park and run along Enterprise Drive to Willow Street and is anticipated to be eligible to be part of the regional San Francisco Bay Trail.

The proposed Grand Park would be located in the western portion of the project area and would extend from Enterprise Drive to the south to the SamTrans railroad corridor to the north. The park would include a variety of amenities, including walking paths and a connection to the regional San Francisco Bay Trail, a sports field, small and large dog parks, multiple play areas for children of different age groups, a restroom and drinking fountains, a gazebo, a seating area for weddings, wildflower gardens and retention basins, lawn games, and a variety of other seating areas. A park access road with designated parking spaces and a vehicle turnaround runs roughly north/south through most of the park.

The Hetch Hetchy ROW is a 100-foot-wide corridor that transects the project area. Approximately 7 acres of the project area lies north of the Hetch Hetchy ROW, and approximately 15 acres of the project area lies south of the Hetch Hetchy ROW.

1.2.3.1 Grading
The entire 22.1-acre project area would be disturbed during site preparation and grading. In preparing the area for construction, approximately 42,000 sf of concrete and 296,000 sf of asphalt remaining on the project area would be demolished and removed. Any remaining debris and vegetation within the area to be disturbed would be cleared, and the area would be graded. Site grading and preparation would require approximately 22,100 cubic yards of cut, and approximately 99,800 cubic yards of fill.

Therefore, approximately 77,700 cubic yards of clean soil would be imported to attain the minimum elevation for lots required by the City of Newark.

Cultural Resources Assessment for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 3 1.3 AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS
The Area of Potential Effects (APE) for the proposed project is defined as the geographic area where project activities may directly or indirectly cause changes in the character or use of historical resources (i.e., cultural resources that meet the criteria of significance under CEQA) of prehistoric or historic age, if any such resources exist. The 22.1-acre overall APE for the proposed project, which consists of the 17.1- acre FMC Willow APE and the 5-acre Grand Park APE, corresponds to the 22.1-acre project area and would be entirely disturbed by site preparation and grading. The APE is shown on an aerial overview map (Figure 3).

2.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

2.1 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
Pursuant to CEQA, an historical resource is a resource listed in, or eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). In addition, resources included in a local register of historic resources, or identified as significant in a local survey conducted in accordance with state guidelines, are also considered historic resources under CEQA, unless a preponderance of the facts demonstrates otherwise. According to CEQA, the fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined eligible for listing in, the CRHR, or is not included in a local register or survey, shall not preclude a Lead Agency, as defined by CEQA, from determining that the resource may be an historic resource as defined in California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5024.1.7.

CEQA applies to archaeological resources when (1) the archaeological resource satisfies the definition of an historical resource, or (2) the archaeological resource satisfies the definition of a “unique archaeological resource.” A unique archaeological resource is an archaeological artifact, object, or site that has a high probability of meeting any of the following criteria (PRC Section 21083.2(g)):

1. The archaeological resource contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and there is a demonstrable public interest in that information.

2. The archaeological resource has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type.

3. The archaeological resource is directly associated with a scientifically-recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.

2.2 CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES
Created in 1992 and implemented in 1998, the CRHR is “an authoritative guide in California to be used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify the state’s historical resources and to indicate what properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change” (PRC Section 5024.1(a)). Certain properties, including those listed in or formally determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and California Historical Landmarks (CHLs) numbered 770 and higher, are automatically included in the CRHR. Other properties recognized under the California Points of Historical Interest program, identified as significant in historic Cultural Resources Assessment for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 4 resources surveys, or designated by local landmarks programs may be nominated for inclusion in the CRHR.

A resource, either an individual property or a contributor to a historic district, may be listed in the CRHR if the State Historical Resources Commission determines that it meets one or more of the following criteria, which are modeled on NRHP criteria (PRC Section 5024.1(c)):
1) It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage.
2) It is associated with the lives of persons important in our past. 3) It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction; represents the work of an important creative individual; or possesses high artistic values. 4) It has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory.

Resources nominated to the CRHR must retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historic resources and to convey the reasons for their significance. It is possible that a resource whose integrity does not satisfy NRHP criteria may still be eligible for listing in the CRHR. A resource that has lost its historic character or appearance may still have sufficient integrity for the CRHR if, under Criterion 4, it maintains the potential to yield significant scientific or historical information or specific data. Resources that have achieved significance within the past 50 years also may be eligible for inclusion in the CRHR, provided that enough time has lapsed to obtain a scholarly perspective on the events or individuals associated with the resource.

2.3 NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
PRC Section 5097.91 established the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), whose duties include the inventory of places of religious or social significance to Native Americans and the identification of known graves and cemeteries of Native Americans on private lands. Under PRC Section 5097.9, a State policy of noninterference with the free expression or exercise of Native American religion was articulated along with a prohibition of severe or irreparable damage to Native American sanctified cemeteries, places of worship, religious or ceremonial sites, or sacred shrines located on public property. Section PRC Section 5097.98 specifies a protocol to be followed when the NAHC receives notification of a discovery of Native American human remains from a county coroner.

2.4 GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 6254(R) AND 6254.10
These sections of the California Public Records Act were enacted to protect archaeological sites from unauthorized excavation, looting, or vandalism. Section 6254(r) explicitly authorizes public agencies to withhold information from the public relating to “Native American graves, cemeteries, and sacred places maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission.” Section 6254.10 specifically exempts from disclosure requests for “records that relate to archaeological site information and reports, maintained by, or in the possession of the Department of Parks and Recreation, the State Historical Resources Commission, the State Lands Commission, the Native American Heritage Commission, another state agency, or a local agency, including the records that the agency obtains through a consultation process between a Native American tribe and a state or local agency.” Cultural Resources Assessment for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 5 2.5 HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE, SECTIONS 7050 AND 7052
Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5 declares that, in the event of the discovery of human remains outside of a dedicated cemetery, all ground disturbance must cease and the county coroner must be notified. Section 7052 establishes a felony penalty for mutilating, disinterring, or otherwise disturbing human remains, except by relatives.

2.6 PENAL CODE, SECTION 622.5
Section 622.5 of the Penal Code provides misdemeanor penalties for injuring or destroying objects of historic or archaeological interest located on public or private lands, but specifically excludes the landowner.

2.7 NEWARK GENERAL PLAN
Goal LU-5 of the Newark General Plan is to identify, preserve, and maintain historic structures and sites to enhance Newark's sense of place and create living reminders of the city's heritage. The following policies and actions are relevant to the types of cultural resources that may be found in the project site:

Policy LU-55, Native American Resources: Coordinate with local tribal representatives and the Native American Heritage Commission to ensure the protection of Newark’s Native American resources and to follow appropriate mitigation, preservation, and recovery procedures in the event that important resources are identified during development.

Action LU-5.D, Historic Inventory: Maintain and periodically update a list of Newark’s historic sites and structures.

Action LU-5.E, State and Federal Register Listings: Work with property owners seeking to place their properties on the National Register of Historic Places, the California Points of Historical Interest, California Historical Landmarks, or the California Register of Historical Resources.

3.0 CULTURAL SETTING
Following is a brief overview of the prehistoric, ethnographic, and historic backgrounds that provide a context in which to understand the relevance of sites found in and around the APE. This section is not intended to be a comprehensive review of the current resources available; rather, it serves as a general overview.

Further details can be found in ethnographic studies, mission records, and major published sources, including Beardsley (1948), Bennyhoff (1950), Fredrickson (1973 and 1974), Kroeber (1925), Chartkoff and Chartkoff (1984), and Moratto (1984).

Cultural Resources Assessment for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 6 3.1 PREHISTORIC BACKGROUND
The San Francisco Bay Area supported a dense population of hunter-gatherers over thousands of years, leaving a rich and varied archaeological record. The Bay Area was a place of incredible language diversity, with seven languages spoken at the time of Spanish settlement in 1776. The diverse ecosystem of the Bay and surrounding lands supported an average of three to five persons per square mile but reached eleven persons per square mile in the North Bay (Milliken 1995). At the time of Spanish contact, the Native Americans living in the Bay Area were organized into local tribelets that defended fixed territories under independent leaders. Typically, individual Bay Area tribelets included 200 to 400 people distributed among three to five semi-permanent villages, within territories measuring approximately 10 to 12 miles in diameter (Milliken 1995).

Early archaeological investigations in central California were conducted at sites located in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta region. The first published account documents investigations in the Lodi and Stockton area (Schenck and Dawson 1929). The initial archaeological reports typically contained descriptive narratives, with more systematic approaches sponsored by Sacramento Junior College in the 1930s. At the same time, University of California at Berkeley excavated several sites in the lower Sacramento Valley and Delta region, which resulted in recognizing archaeological site patterns based on variations of inter-site assemblages. Research during the 1930s identified temporal periods in central California prehistory and provided an initial chronological sequence (Lillard and Purves 1936; Lillard, et. al. 1939). In 1939, Lillard noted that each cultural period led directly to the next and that influences spread from the Delta region to other regions in central California (Lillard, et al. 1939). In the late 1940s and early 1950s, Beardsley documented similarities in artifacts among sites in the San Francisco Bay region and the Delta and refined his findings into a cultural model that ultimately became known as the Central California Taxonomic System (CCTS). This system proposed a uniform, linear sequence of cultural succession (Beardsley 1948 and 1954). The CCTS system was challenged by Gerow, whose work looked at radiocarbon dating to show that Early and Middle Horizon sites were not subsequent developments but, at least partially, contemporaneous (1954; 1974; Gerow with Force 1968).

To address some of the flaws in the CCTS system, Fredrickson (1973) introduced a revision that incorporated a system of spatial and cultural integrative units. Fredrickson separated cultural, temporal, and spatial units from each other and assigned them to six chronological periods: Paleo-Indian (10000 to 6000 B.C.); Lower, Middle and Upper Archaic (6000 B.C. to A.D. 500), and Emergent (Upper and Lower, A.D. 500 to 1800). The suggested temporal ranges are similar to earlier horizons, which are broad cultural units that can be arranged in a temporal sequence (Moratto 1984). In addition, Fredrickson defined several patterns—a general way of life shared within a specific geographical region. These patterns include:
• Windmiller Pattern or Early Horizon (3000 to 1000 B.C.); • Berkeley Pattern or Middle Horizon (1000 B.C. to A.D. 500); and, • Augustine Pattern or Late Horizon (A.D. 500 to historic period).

Brief descriptions of these temporal ranges and their unique characteristics follow.

Cultural Resources Assessment for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 7 Windmiller Pattern or Early Horizon (3000 to 1000 B.C.) Characterized by the Windmiller Pattern, the Early Horizon was centered in the Cosumnes district of the Delta and emphasized hunting rather than gathering, as evidenced by the abundance of projectile points in relation to plant processing tools. Additionally, atlatl, dart, and spear technologies typically included stemmed projectile points of slate and chert but minimal obsidian. The large variety of projectile point types and faunal remains suggests exploitation of numerous types of terrestrial and aquatic species (Bennyhoff 1950; Ragir 1972). Burials occurred in cemeteries and intra-village graves. These burials typically were ventrally extended, although some dorsal extensions are known with a westerly orientation and a high number of grave goods. Trade networks focused on acquisition of ornamental and ceremonial objects in finished form rather than on raw material. The presence of artifacts made of exotic materials such as quartz, obsidian, and shell indicate an extensive trade network that may represent the arrival of Utian populations into central California. Also indicative of this period are rectangular Haliotis and Olivella shell beads, and charmstones that usually were perforated.

Berkeley Pattern or Middle Horizon (1000 B.C. to A.D. 500) The Middle Horizon is characterized by the Berkeley Pattern, which displays considerable changes from the Early Horizon. This period exhibited a strong milling technology represented by minimally shaped cobble mortars and pestles, although metates and manos were still used. Dart and atlatl technologies during this period were characterized by non-stemmed projectile points made primarily of obsidian.

Fredrickson (1973) suggests that the Berkeley Pattern marked the eastward expansion of Miwok groups from the San Francisco Bay Area. Compared with the Early Horizon, there is a higher proportion of grinding implements at this time, implying an emphasis on plant resources rather than on hunting.

Typical burials occurred within the village with flexed positions, variable cardinal orientation, and some cremations. As noted by Lillard, the practice of spreading ground ochre over the burial was common at this time (Lillard, et al. 1939). Grave goods during this period are generally sparse and typically include only utilitarian items and a few ornamental objects. However, objects such as charmstones, quartz crystals, and bone whistles were occasionally present, which suggests the religious or ceremonial significance of the individual (Hughes 1989). During this period, larger populations are suggested by the number and depth of sites compared with the Windmiller Pattern. According to Fredrickson (1973), the Berkeley Pattern reflects gradual expansion or assimilation of different populations rather than sudden population replacement and a gradual shift in economic emphasis.

Augustine Pattern or Late Horizon (A.D. 500 to Historic Period) The Late Horizon is characterized by the Augustine Pattern, which represents a shift in the general subsistence pattern. Changes include the introduction of bow and arrow technology; and most importantly, acorns became the predominant food resource. Trade systems expanded to include raw resources as well as finished products. There are more baked clay artifacts and extensive use of Haliotis ornaments of many elaborate shapes and forms. Burial patterns retained the use of flexed burials with variable orientation, but there was a reduction in the use of ochre and widespread evidence of cremation (Moratto 1984). Judging from the number and types of grave goods associated with the two types of burials, cremation seems to have been reserved for individuals of higher status, whereas other individuals were buried in flexed positions. Johnson (1976) suggests that the Augustine Pattern Cultural Resources Assessment for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 8 represents expansion of the Wintuan population from the north, which resulted in combining new traits with those established during the Berkeley Pattern.

Central California research has expanded from an emphasis on defining chronological and cultural units to a more comprehensive look at settlement and subsistence systems. This shift is illustrated by the early use of burials to identify mortuary assemblages and more recent research using osteological data to determine the health of prehistoric populations (Dickel et al. 1984). Although debate continues over a single model or sequence for central California, the general framework consisting of three temporal/cultural units is generally accepted, although the identification of regional and local variation is a major goal of current archaeological research.

3.2 ETHNOGRAPHIC BACKGROUND
At the time of European contact, the general Newark area was occupied by various tribelets that were part of the Ohlone (previously Costanoan) tribe of California Native Americans (Levy 1978). The Ohlone group designates a language family consisting of eight branches of the Ohlone language that are considered too distinct to be dialects, with each being related to its geographically adjacent neighbors.

These groups lived in approximately 50 separate and politically autonomous tribelet areas, each with one or more permanent villages, between the North San Francisco Bay and the lower Salinas River (Levy 1978).

The various Ohlone tribes subsisted as hunter-gatherers and relied on local terrestrial and marine flora and fauna for subsistence (Levy 1978). The predominant plant food source was the acorn, but they also exploited a wide range of other plants, including various seeds, buckeye, berries, and roots. Protein sources included grizzly bear, elk, sea lions, antelope, and black-tailed deer as well as smaller mammals such as raccoon, brush rabbit, ground squirrels, and wood rats. Waterfowl, including Canadian geese, mallards, green-winged teal, and American widgeon, were captured in nets using decoys to attract them. Fish also played an important role in the Ohlone diet and included steelhead, salmon, and sturgeon (Jones 2007).

The Ohlone constructed watercraft from tule reeds and possessed bow and arrow technology. They fashioned blankets from sea otter pelts, fabricated basketry from twined reeds of various types, and assembled a variety of stone and bone tools in their assemblages. Ohlone villages typically consisted of domed dwelling structures, communal sweathouses, dance enclosures, and assembly houses constructed from thatched tule reeds and a combination of wild grasses, wild alfalfa, and ferns.

The Ohlone were politically organized into autonomous tribelets that had distinct cultural territories.

Individual tribelets contained one or more villages with several seasonal camps for resource procurement within the tribelet territory. The tribelet chief could be either male or female, and the position was inherited patrilineally, but approval of the community was required. The tribelet chief and council were essentially advisors to the community and were responsible for feeding visitors, directing hunting and fishing expeditions, ceremonial activities, and warfare on neighboring tribelets.

The Gold Rush brought disease to the native inhabitants, and by the 1850s, nearly all the Ohlone had adapted in some way or another to economies based on cash income. Hunting and gathering activities continued to decline and were rapidly replaced with economies based on ranching and farming.

Cultural Resources Assessment for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 9 3.3 HISTORIC BACKGROUND
The history of the San Francisco Bay Area can be divided into several periods of influence; pertinent historic periods are briefly summarized below.

Spanish Mission Period
The most drastic and permanent change came to the local Ohlone way of life with the establishment of the Spanish Mission system. By the early 1800s, the mission fathers began a process of cultural change that brought the majority of local Native Americans into the missions. At the expense of traditional skills, the neophytes were taught the pastoral and horticultural skills of the Hispanic tradition. If the Native Americans tried to escape, the Spanish missionaries traveled into valley regions to recapture them and recruit inland Native Americans for the coastal missions. In 1834, the Mission system was officially secularized, and most of the mission Native American population dispersed to local ranches, villages, or nearby pueblos. Following the collapse of the mission system, many of the local Native Americans returned to northern California, bringing with them language and agricultural practices learned from the Spanish. During the latter half of the 19th century, the size of all Native American populations dwindled dramatically, due to the spread of European settlements and the diseases the Europeans brought with them (Mission San Jose 2020).

Mexican Period
With the declaration of Mexican independence in 1821, Spanish control of Alta California ended, although little change occurred. Political change did not take place until mission secularization in 1834, when Native Americans were released from missionary control and the mission lands were granted to private individuals. Shoup and Milliken (1999) state that mission secularization removed the social protection and support on which Native Americans had come to rely. It exposed them to further exploitation by outside interests, often forcing them into a marginal existence as laborers for large ranchos. Following mission secularization, the Mexican population grew as the native population continued to decline. Anglo-American settlers began to arrive in Alta California during this period and often married into Mexican families, becoming Mexican citizens, which made them eligible to receive land grants. In 1846, on the eve of the U.S.-Mexican War (1846 to 1848), the estimated population of Alta California was 8,000 non-natives and 10,000 natives. However, these estimates have been debated.

Cook (1976) suggests the Native American population was 100,000 in 1850; the U.S. Census of 1880 reports the Native American population as 20,300.

European Expansion
In 1848, as a result of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, California became a United States territory. Also in 1848, John Marshall found gold at Sutter’s Mill in Coloma, which marked the start of the Gold Rush.

The influx of miners and entrepreneurs increased the population of California, not including Native Californians, from 14,000 to 224,000 in just four years. This massive jump in population allowed California to meet the requirements to petition for statehood resulting in California becoming a state in 1850. At this point, large numbers of American businessmen, ranchers, orchardists, farmers, entrepreneurs, immigrants, religious groups, and anyone else who could make the trip by boat or overland flocked to California. Drawn by the benign climate, fertile land, access to ports for shipping and Cultural Resources Assessment for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 10 trade, and a vast array of business opportunities, Euro-Americans flocked to California. More came each decade, establishing businesses, farms, and ranches, creating commercial and industrial ventures and buying up land from the Mexican families to subdivide and create towns and cities. Cities such as San Francisco and Sacramento benefited greatly from the newcomers and the business developments, becoming more diverse and economically successful with each decade.

3.4 CITY OF NEWARK
The city of Newark is located within Alameda County, California and comprised of approximately 14 square miles of land. Newark was incorporated on September 22, 1955 and is part of what is referred to as the “Tri-City” area which includes Newark, Fremont and Union City. In 2015, the city’s population was approximately 44,000 people. The development of Newark followed the same patterns of change and growth as did most of California during the Mexican and American periods. After California statehood, the American presence in the San Francisco Bay region increased steadily. The following is excerpted from City of Newark (2020).

By the early 1850s, small landings were under construction along the San Francisco Bay area in the vicinity of Newark. In 1853, Mayhew's Landing included warehouses for wheat, hay, and coal and by 1856 the Mayhew Ranch included 1,500 acres of farmland extending inland to presentday I-880. Less than 20 years later, the Perrin brothers acquired the old Mayhews Ranch and extended their holdings to include property stretching from today's Jarvis Avenue on the north to south of Thornton Avenue. The Perrin brothers' "development project," the Green Point Dairy and Transportation Company, set the tone for future development. It was the Perrin brothers who first drew up plans to subdivide the Green Point Dairy into a townsite (located in the general vicinity of Thornton and Jarvis Avenues).

Early swamp reclamation was started by E. Beard who patented the land in the area. Mr. Beard required capital and, in 1872, he sold 20,000 acres of swampland for $300,000 to Mr. J. Ross Browne. Mr. Browne outlined his swamp lands project before the State legislature on February 3, 1872. At this point, Mr. Browne referred to the proposed town site as "Cralvo" or "Cariboo." Browne created a circular that was distributed around Europe to promote the swamp lands project. An English capitalist bought an interest in the property and hired J. Barr Robertson (a Scotsman) to oversee his interests. Robertson was a director of the California Land Investment Co., Ltd., London, England. Robertson then bought out the interest that Mr. Browne had in the land. The name 'Newark' was chosen by Robertson, who named it after the castle "Newark" in Port Glasgow, Scotland.

Work started on a railroad through the townsite from Dumbarton Point in 1875. That project was under-financed and never progressed beyond initial grading. In 1876, the railroad, together with the Green Point Dairy, were purchased by a San Francisco capitalist, Alfred Davis, and a Comstock millionaire, Jim Fair. They not only completed the South Pacific Coast Railroad, from Dumbarton Point south all the way to Santa Cruz, but also moved the town site to coincide with the curve on the railroad where the Railroad turned south toward San Jose. Soon, a railroad station, roundhouse, and railroad shop buildings were being erected in the center of Newark in the area between Thornton Avenue, Sycamore Street, and Carter Avenue.

Cultural Resources Assessment for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 11 Eventually, the railroad was extended north from Newark to Alameda, providing direct ferry service to San Francisco.

The completion of the railroad precipitated additional development in Newark. Hotels and stores were soon erected, along with some of the first manufacturing industries, including a railroad car building firm operated by Thomas and Martin Carter and a foundry which later manufactured Wedgewood stoves. These enterprises joined the production of salt, which had been underway in the Newark area since the 1850s. Acquisitions and mergers of salt production companies throughout the Bay area ultimately resulted in formation of the Arden Salt Company, predecessor to Leslie Salt Company and today's Cargill Salt.

The city of Newark lies close to Silicon Valley with its high-tech companies and digital technology. Over the twentieth century, industrial growth within and surrounding Newark, added to the economic base Various manufacturing companies were within the Newark area including the Wedgewood Company that manufactured stoves from the 1910s until the 1940s and Peterbilt which manufactured trucks in Newark from the early 1960s to the mid-1980s. In 1956, Trailmobile moved its manufacturing and assembly facility from Berkeley to a site adjacent to the Peterbilt factory. The facility was closed in 1975 and the company moved its operations to Illinois. From the mid-1950s through the early 1960s, the A.O.

Smith Corporation of Illinois built residential and commercial grade glass-lined water heaters at a large manufacturing facility located in Newark on Sycamore Street. The plant was later acquired by the National Steel Corporation which continued the water heater manufacturing operations until the early 1970s.

In the early 1950s subdivisions in Southern Alameda County began talks of incorporation. In 1953, a group representing the chambers of commerce of Centerville, Irvington, Mission San Jose, Niles, Warm Springs, and Newark commissioned a study to incorporate all six communities into one large city. During the hearings Centerville and Niles began pressuring Newark into accepting an industrial zoning for the entire town of Newark so that it would become the major industrial area for the new Southern Alameda County city. However, the Newark Chamber of Commerce began its own movement to incorporate just Newark, and in September 1955 Newark was incorporated as the first new city in Alameda County in 47 years. Because of these efforts, Newark has built the Newark Mall, with its jobs and tax revenues, completed the Dumbarton Bridge and maintained and improved much of the Nimitz Freeway (City of Newark 2020).

3.4.1 History of the Project Area
The following history of the project area has been adapted from the History and Operations section of Proposed Final Remedial Actions and Cleanup Standards: FMC Corporation, Newark, California (England Geosystems, Inc. 2001).

FMC and predecessor companies manufactured chemicals at the project area from 1929 through 1995.

The Sierra Magnesite Company first began chemical production at the site in 1929, manufacturing bromine and ethylene dibromide (EDB) from seawater bittern, and quick lime from oyster shells. EDB was manufactured primarily for agricultural use as a soil fumigant, while quicklime is used in a variety of manufacturing processes, including steel, cement, and glass. Sierra Magnesite became California Cultural Resources Assessment for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 12 Chemical Company in 1934. California Chemical Company subsequently merged into Westvaco Chlorine Products Corporation in 1937.

In 1942, a pilot plant for a copper-based catalyst (1707 Catalyst) was built on land which was leased from Leslie Salt Company, and a plant for the full production of the catalyst was subsequently constructed. These catalyst plants were closed in 1944. Westvaco Chlorine Products Corporation merged with Food Machinery Corporation in 1948 to form Food Machinery and Chemical Corporation (later shortened to FMC Corporation).

A phosphate plant and phosphoric acid plant were constructed in 1950. Between 1955 and 1959, full scale manufacturing of the 1707 Catalyst was performed at the location of the former pilot plant. Leslie Salt Company assumed management of the property when the lease was terminated. The bromine towers and EDB plant were shut down, and the associated manufacturing facilities were removed in 1968.

In the mid-1960s, a small plant was constructed for manufacture of a proprietary catalyst; this facility was shut down in 1976. During that same year, a hydrogen peroxide (and other chemicals) distribution facility was constructed. FMC acquired an adjacent parcel from Designed Building Systems, Inc. (DBS) on August 16, 1988. The phosphate plant and phosphoric acid plant were shut down in 1994 and 1995, respectively. All former phosphate plant and phosphoric acid plant manufacturing facilities were removed by the end of 1996, and two 100,000-gallon fuel oil storage tanks were removed in 1999.

The project area is comprised of former industrial parcels and is not currently associated with any land use. Clean-up operations at the area began in the 1970s. Soil remediation activities in compliance with cleanup Order R2-2015-0017 from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Region were completed between August 2019 and December 2019, in which all excavated areas were backfilled with clean imported material to grades specified in approved workplans. No buildings remain within the project APE, and it is largely barren post-remediation. The City of San Francisco maintains a right-of-way for the Hetch-Hetchy Pipeline that bisects the project area.

4.0 RECORD SEARCHES

4.1 NORTHWEST INFORMATION CENTER RECORD SEARCH
A records search addressing the project area and a 0.5-mile radius beyond the project area boundary (together referred to as the study area) was conducted on April 17, 2018 at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) in Rohnert Park by HELIX Archaeologist Katherine D. Thomas, M.A., RPA. Sources of information included previous survey and cultural resources files; the NRHP; the CRHR; the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility; the OHP Directory of Properties in the Historic Property Data File; and historical topographic maps and aerial photographs.

Cultural Resources Assessment for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 13 4.1.1 Previous Studies
The records search identified 18 previous cultural resources studies that have been conducted within the study area (Table 1).

Table 1. Previous Studies Conducted Within the Study Area Report Year Author Affiliation Title
S-000814 1977 Peter Banks, David A.

Fredrickson
Archaeological
Laboratory, California
State College, Sonoma
An Archaeological Investigation of Project #3,
Zone 5 and Zone 6 of the Alameda County
Flood Control and Water Conservation District
S-000898 1976 Edward M. Love,
Miley Paul Holman,
David Chavez
None An Archaeological Reconnaissance of the
Proposed Pipeline Routes and Reservoir
Locations, Livermore-Amador Valley Water
Management Agency, Alameda County,
California
S-002597 1981 Miley Paul Holman Holman & Associates Archaeological subsurface testing of the Mayhew Landing Project, Newark, California
S-005858 1982 Miley Paul Holman Holman & Associates A report of a preliminary archaeological field reconnaissance of 9 development areas inside
the City of Newark, Alameda County, California
S-007554 1985 Robert Cartier Archaeological Resource
Management
Cultural Resource Evaluation of the Hickory
Street Industrial Development in the City of
Newark, County of Alameda
S-012967 1973 Thomas L. Jackson Adan E. Treganza
Anthropology Museum,
California State
University, San Francisco
An Archaeological Impact Evaluation of the
Proposed East Bay Dischargers Water Quality
Management Interceptor Pipeline
S-012967a 1973 Thomas L. Jackson Adan E. Treganza
Anthropology Museum,
California State
University, San Francisco
An Archaeological Impact Evalutation of the
Proposed East Bay Dischargers Water Quality
Management Interceptor Pipeline
S-015742 1985 William Roop,
Katherine Flynn, Jeff
Parsons
Archaeological Resource
Service
Cultural Resources Evaluation of a Proposed
Earth Channel, Site 13, Zone 5, Line 1, a Project
of the Alameda County Flood Control and
Water Conservation District in the City of
Newark, California
S-033248 2006 Allen G. Pastron,
Andrew Gottsfield,
Jennifer Redmond
Archeo-Tec Archival Literature Review and Surface Survey for the Newark Pump Station Project, City of
Newark, Alameda County, California
S-033249 2006 Allen G. Pastron,
Andrew Gottsfield,
Jennifer Redmond
Archeo-Tec Archival Literature Review for the
Willow/Central Avenue Sewer Rehabilitation
Project, City of Newark, Alameda County,
California
S-036481 2009 Adrian Whitaker, Phil
Kaijankowski, Jack
Meyer, Brian Byrd
Far Western
Anthropological
Research Group, Inc.

Archaeological Survey Report for the
Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project, San Mateo
and Alameda Counties, California
S-039019 2007 Colin I. Busby Basin Research
Associates, Inc.

Archaeological Records Search and Field
Review, 42 Acre Property, Willow Street and
Vicinity, City of Newark, Alameda County
S-039227 2012 Colin I. Busby Basin Research
Associates, Inc.

Archaeological Monitoring Summary Report -
SFPUC BDPL 5, East Bay Segment, Alameda
County
S-039227a 2010 None cited Basin Research Associates Archaeological Monitoring Plan (AMP), East Bay (Irvington Portal to Newark Valve House),
Cultural Resources Assessment for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 14 Report Year Author Affiliation Title
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
(SFPUC) Water System Improvement Program
(WSIP), Bay Division Pipeline Reliability
Upgrade Project, Bay Division Pipeline No. 5
(BDPL No. 5)
S-039227b 2011 Colin I. Busby Basin Research
Associates, Inc.

Eastbay - Unexpected Discovery of Post-1900
Historic Period Artifacts, July 11, 2011, STA
77+70 to STA 77+82, BDPL 5, Alameda County
S-039604 2012 Adrian Whitaker,
Phillip Kaijankoski,
Jack Meyer, Brian
F. Byrd, Sharon A.

Waechter
Far Western
Anthropological
Research Group, Inc.

Archaeological Survey Report for the
Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project, San Mateo
and Alameda Counties, California
S-040929 2013 None cited Basin Research Associates Archaeological Data Recovery Report (SMA83) (ADRR) and Final Archaeological Resources Report (FARR), San Francisco Public Utilities
Commission, Water System Improvement
Program, Bay Division Pipeline Reliability
Upgrade Project, East Bay and Peninsula Bay
Division Pipeline No. 5, Alameda and San
Mateo Counties, California
S-043676 2014 Kirk Ranzetta,
Leesa Gratreak,
Patience Stuart,
Katherine Du Tiel,
Robin Scheswohl,
Frances Kaplan
URS Corporation; SFPUC Historic American Engineering Record, Bay Crossing Reach of the Bay Division Pipelines #1
& 2 (Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct), HAER No. CA366
Two survey reports (S-00898 and S-036481) examined portions of the current APE; these are described below.

S-000898: This study, conducted in 1976, examined several proposed pipeline routes and reservoir locations for the Livermore-Amador Valley Water Management Agency. One of the pipeline route alternatives included the Hetch-Hetchy Aqueduct right-of way, which bisects the APE. No cultural resources were documented in the vicinity of the APE during this study.

S-036481: This study was conducted in 2009 in support of the Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project, which proposes to improve the existing railroad corridor between the West Bay and the East Bay. The study did not document or address any cultural resources in the vicinity of the APE other than the Dumbarton Cutoff portion of the Southern Pacific Railroad (see Section 4.1.2 below), but it did provide a geoarchaeological analysis of the cultural sensitivity of the area. The authors determined that the site of the proposed Newark Station, located west of the current APE, is situated on older Holocene alluvial fan deposits that date to the middle Holocene or earlier. As such, the area has a moderate potential to contain buried archaeological materials.

Three other reports (S-033249, S-39227, and S-43676) included portions of the APE in their study areas, but these studies documented only a literature review, construction monitoring, and Historic American Engineering Record respectively. None involved surveys of the APE.

Cultural Resources Assessment for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 15 4.1.2 Previously Documented Resources
Results from the search indicate that no previously recorded cultural resources are located within the APE, although tracks associated with the Dumbarton Cutoff portion of the Southern Pacific Railroad (P01-001783) are located adjacent to the APE (Table 2).

Table 2. Previously Documented Resources within the Study Area Primary Trinomial Description Year Recorder Affiliation P-01-001783 CA-ALA-623H Southern Pacific Railroad
Dumbarton Cutoff 1996 John Snyder P.S. Preservation Services P-01-001783: The Dumbarton Cutoff segment of the Southern Pacific Railroad, located immediately north of the APE, was recorded in 1996 by John Snyder. Snyder recommended the line eligible for the NRHP at the local level of significance in transportation and engineering. He found that under Criterion A, it is associated with system-wide improvements to the Southern Pacific Railroad that made it the standard railroad of the West and is inextricably linked with both the economic growth of San Francisco and national defense efforts during both world wars. Under Criterion B, it is associated with the life of E.H. Harriman, who drove the modernization of the Southern Pacific during the early twentieth century.

Under Criterion C, contributive elements of the Cutoff, including its bridges, are representative examples of their type, period, and method of construction. Snyder also found that overall, the line retains integrity of location, setting, feeling, and association. SamTrans purchased the Dumbarton Cutoff from the Southern Pacific Railroad in 1994, although the segment has not been used since 1982.

In 2017, HELIX conducted a pedestrian survey of the area west of the current APE. The survey identified a railroad spur that diverges from the Dumbarton Cutoff approximately 1700 feet west of the APE, runs eastward parallel to the main track, and then curves to the south, terminating about 150 feet west of the APE. HELIX evaluated the spur as a potential contributor to the Dumbarton Cutoff, but recommended it did not contribute to the characteristics that qualify the Dumbarton Cutoff for listing on the NRHP.

4.2 NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION SACRED LANDS

FILE SEARCH
A Sacred Lands File (SLF) search request was submitted to the NAHC on November 3, 2017. On November 17, 2017, a response was received from the NAHC indicating that the results of the SLF record search were negative for the project APE. Included with the response was a list of the following six Native American tribal representatives who may have additional information pertaining to the project which is contained in Appendix B:
• Andrew A. Galvan, The Ohlone Indian Tribe;
• Ann Marie Sayers, Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan; • Irenne Zwierlein, Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista; • Katherine Erolinda Perez, North Valley Yokuts Tribe;
• Rosemary Cambra, Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the SF Bay Area; and • Tony Cerda, Costanoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe.

Cultural Resources Assessment for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 16 4.3 SENATE BILL 18 TRIBAL CONSULTATION
Senate Bill (SB) 18 requires that the City initiate consultation with any tribes listed on the NAHC’s official contact list for an amendment of a General Plan and Specific Plan. SB 18 requires the City to send a letter to each contact on the NAHC’s SB 18 list, extending an invitation for consultation. Tribes have 90 days from receipt of the letter to request consultation. The City must also send a notice to all contacts 45 days prior to adopting or amending the General Plan and Specific Plan regardless of whether prior consultation has taken place, but the notice does not initiate a new consultation process. Lastly, the City must send notice of a public hearing to all tribes who have filed a written request for such notice as least 10 days prior to the hearing. For the City of Newark, the six tribes listed in Section 4.2 above previously submitted general request letters, requesting such noticing.

The proposed project includes General Plan and Specific Plan amendments, and formal invitations to participate in the SB 18 consultation process on the proposed project were sent by the City to six tribal representatives listed in Section 4.2 on October 20, 2020. Each tribe was provided a brief description of the project and its location, the contact information for the City’s authorized representative, and a notification that the tribe has been invited to consult with the City on this project in accordance with Government Code Section 65352.3. As of December 2021, no tribe has responded requesting consultation under SB 18. The Native American correspondence relevant to the current analysis is contained in Appendix B.

5.0 PEDESTRIAN SURVEY

5.1 FMC WILLOW AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS
On May 6, 2020, HELIX Staff Archaeologist Katherine D. Thomas, M.A, RPA conducted an intensive pedestrian survey to characterize any prehistoric or historic-era archaeological resources located within the FMC Willow portion of the APE. The survey consisted of a pedestrian walk-over of all accessible portions of the APE in parallel transects spaced at 15-meter intervals. During the survey, the ground surface was examined for the presence of historic-era artifacts (e.g., metal, glass, ceramics), prehistoric artifacts (e.g., flaked stone tools, tool-making debris), and other features that might represent human activity that took place more than 50 years ago. Representative photographs of the APE are found in Appendix C.

Survey conditions were poor, with less than 20% surface visibility due to heavy grass cover in areas that were not capped by asphalt or industrial pads (Photograph 1). The entire FMC Willow portion of the APE is flat, and its eastern portion is almost entirely overgrown with grass (Photographs 2 and 3). The eastern portion is also bisected from east to west by the Hetch Hetchy pipeline ROW, a 100-foot-wide corridor that has been excluded from the project and is not part of the APE except for where the proposed Hickory Street extension crosses the Hetch Hetchy ROW within an existing 80-foot easement.

In contrast, the western portion of the FMC Willow APE is almost completely covered in the remains of concrete industrial pads and asphalt access roads, some of which are lined with trees (Photographs 4 Cultural Resources Assessment for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 17 and 5). The western section also includes areas that are currently used for staging construction equipment and materials (Photograph 6).

No historic-era resources were found within the FMC Willow APE, although approximately 30 feet north of the northern border of the APE is the Dumbarton Cutoff (P-01-001783), a railroad grade that was formerly a component of the Southern Pacific Railroad and is now owned by SamTrans. The Dumbarton Cutoff has previously been evaluated for significance and was recommended eligible for listing in the NRHP.

No prehistoric resources have been previously recorded within the FMC Willow APE or a 0.50-mile radius around the APE, and none were identified during the field survey. Given its history of industrial use and previous ground disturbance, the APE is considered to have a low sensitivity for prehistoric resources.

5.2 GRAND PARK AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS
On April 26, 2021, HELIX Archaeologist Katherine D. Thomas surveyed the APE for the Grand Park portion of the project. The Grand Park APE partially developed land surrounded by industrial and commercial buildings in the western section of the City of Newark. The APE has been partially paved, and there is very little surface visibility present (Photograph 7). Additionally, the unpaved areas are covered in grass, gravel, and equipment that further obscures the surface. A portion of the railroad spur evaluated by HELIX and found ineligible in 2017 is visible in the northern portion of the APE (Photograph 8). The Grand Park APE is completely flat, with the exception of a small, raised area that has been recently created using fill from work being done elsewhere on the parcel. The APE used to contain a warehouse, but that has been removed (Photograph 9), and the APE is currently being used for equipment storage (Photograph 10).

No historic age or pre-contact resources have been previously recorded within the APE, and none were found during the field survey. Therefore, the Grand Park portion of the APE is considered to have a very low sensitivity for historic age or pre-contact resources.

6.0 SUMMARY AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 SUMMARY
HELIX has assessed the APE for the presence/absence of cultural resources that may be impacted by the proposed project. No prehistoric or historic-era resources have been previously recorded within the FMC Willow and Grand Park APEs, and none were identified during the pedestrian survey. Given the project area’s disturbed setting and long history of industrial use, we conclude that there is a low potential of identifying Native American resources and a low to moderate potential of identifying historic-period resources during ground-disturbing activities associated with the proposed project.

Cultural Resources Assessment for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 18 A search of the NAHC’s Sacred Lands File returned a negative result, suggesting that there are no known Native American resources in the immediate vicinity, and to date, no responses have been received from the Native American individuals who were contacted about the proposed project. The results of this assessment indicate there would be no impacts to significant cultural resources of prehistoric or historic age by the proposed project, and therefore no additional studies, archaeological work, or construction monitoring are recommended. However, HELIX recommends that procedures be in place to address unanticipated discoveries during construction. These, as well as procedures to address the accidental discovery of human remains, are provided below.

6.2 RECOMMENDATIONS

6.2.1 Accidental Discovery of Cultural Resources
In the event that cultural resources are exposed during ground-disturbing activities, construction activities should be halted in the immediate vicinity of the discovery. If the site cannot be avoided during the remainder of construction, an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards should be retained to evaluate the find’s significance under CEQA. If the discovery proves to be significant, additional work, such as data recovery excavation, may be warranted and should be discussed in consultation with the City.

6.2.2 Accidental Discovery of Human Remains
Although considered highly unlikely, there is always the possibility that ground disturbing activities during construction may uncover previously unknown human remains. In the event of an accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, PRC Section 5097.98 must be followed. Once projectrelated earthmoving begins and if there is a discovery or recognition of human remains, the following steps shall be taken:

1. There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the specific location or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the County Coroner is contacted to determine if the remains are Native American and if an investigation of the cause of death is required. If the coroner determines the remains are Native American, the coroner shall contact the NAHC within 24 hours, and the NAHC shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the “most likely descendant” of the deceased Native American. The most likely descendant may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains, and any associated grave goods as provided in PRC Section 5097.98, or

2. Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or his/her authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity either in accordance with the recommendations of the most likely descendent or on the project area in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance:
• The NAHC is unable to identify a most likely descendent or the most likely descendent failed to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being notified by the commission; • The descendent identified fails to make a recommendation; or, Cultural Resources Assessment for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 19 • The landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendent, and the mediation by the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.

Cultural Resources Assessment for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 20 7.0 REFERENCES
Addiego, Frank 2015. “Images of America: Newark.” Arcadia Publishing, California.

Beardsley, R.K. 1948. “Cultural Sequences in Central California Archaeology.” American Antiquity 14:1-

28. 1954. Temporal and Areal Relationships in Central California Archaeology. Berkeley: University of California Archaeological Survey Reports 25.

Bennyhoff, J. 1950. Californian Fish Spears and Harpoons. University of California Anthropological Records 9(4):295-338.

Bureau of Reclamation. 2009. California’s Central Valley Project: Historic Engineering Features to 1956:

A Multiple Property Documentation Form. On file at the Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento.

California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Region. 2015. Adoption of Site Cleanup Requirements and Recession of Order No. R2-2002-0060 for: FMC Corporation for the property located at: 8787 Enterprise Drive, Newark, Alameda County. May 21.

City of Newark. 2020. Newark’s Roots. Electronic resource, http://www.newark.org/vistors/history, accessed online May 2020.

Chartkoff J.L. and K.K. Chartkoff. 1984. The Archaeology of California. Menlo Park. Stanford University Press.

Dickel, D.N., P. D. Schulz, and H.M. McHenry. 1984. “Central California: Prehistoric Subsistence Changes and Health.” In Paleopathology at the Origins of Agriculture, edited by Mark Nathan Cohen and George J. Armelagos, pp. 439–462. Academic Press, Inc., Orlando, FL.

England Geosystem, Inc. 2001. Proposed Final Remedial Actions and Cleanup Standards: FMC Corporation, Newark, California. Submitted by FMC Corporation, Philadelphia, PA. Submitted to the State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Oakland, CA.

Fredrickson, D.A. 1973. Early Cultures of the North Coast Ranges, California. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis.

Gerow, B.A. 1954. The Problem of Cultural Sequences in Central California Archaeology. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences. 1974. “Comments on Fredrickson’s Cultural Diversity.” The Journal of California Anthropology 1(2):239-246.

Gerow, B.A., with R. Force. 1968. An Analysis of the University Village Complex with a Reappraisal of Central California Archaeology. Stanford University Press. Stanford., California.

Cultural Resources Assessment for the FMC Willow and Grand Park Project | December 2021 21 Historic Aerials, “Newark, CA,” historic aerial photographs and USGS quadrangle maps – 1899-2012, www.historicaerials.com.

Hughes, R.E. (editor). 1994. Toward a New Taxonomic Framework for Central California Archaeology:

Essays by James A. Bennyhoff and David A. Fredrickson. Assembled and edited by Richard E.

Hughes. Contributions of the University of California No. 52, Archaeological Research Facility, Berkeley, CA.

Johnson, J.J. 1976. Archaeological Investigations at the Blodgett Site (CA-SAC-267), Sloughhouse Locality, California. Report to the U.S. National Parks Service, Western Regional Office, Tucson, AZ.

Jones, Terry L. and Katheryn A. Klar. 2007. California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture and Complexity.

Altamira Press, a division of Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.

Kroeber, A.L. 1925. Handbook of the Indians of California. Bulletin 78. Bureau of American Ethnology.

Washington, DC. Smithsonian Institution.

Lillard, J.B., R.F. Heizer, and F. Fenenga. 1939. An Introduction to the Archaeology of Central California.

Sacramento Junior College, Department of Anthropology, Bulletin 2. Sacramento.

Lillard, J.B. and W.K. Purves. 1936. “The Archaeology of the Deer Creek-Cosumnes Area, Sacramento Co., California.” Sacramento. Sacramento Junior College, Department of Anthropology Bulletin 1.

Mission San Jose. 2020. The Story of the Mission San Jose. Electronic resource, https://missionsanjose.org/history, accessed May 2020.

Moratto, M.J. 1984. California Archaeology. San Diego. Academic Press.

Ragir, S.R. 1972. The Early Horizon in Central California Prehistory. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility 15. Berkeley, CA.

Schenck, W.E., and E.J. Dawson. 1929. “Archaeology of the Northern San Joaquin Valley.” American Archaeology and Ethnology 25:286-413.

Snyder, John W. 1996. Update to P-01-001783/P-41-001877, the Southern Pacific Railroad. On file at the Northwest Information Center, Rohnert Park, CA.

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division, National Register “Bulletin No. 16, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation,”, Washington D.C.

Appendix A
Figures

ALAMEDA
COUNTY

SAN MATEO
COUNTY

SANTA CLARA
COUNTY
Palo Alto San Jose
East Palo Alto
Menlo Park
Sunnyvale
Mountain View
Los Altos
Santa Clara
Hayward
Redwood City
Newark
Union City
Fremont
Stanford
Sunol
Figure 1
Project Vicinity Map
S:\PROJECTS\I\IntegralCommunities_00357\IPQ-37 Willow\GIS\MXD\Cultural\May2021\Fig1_Vicinity.mxd 00357.00037.001 5/28/2021 -DY Source: Base Map Layers (Esri, USGS, NGA, NASA) K
FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
0 2 Miles

ALAMEDA

CONTRA COSTA
MARIN
MERCED
NAPA
SAN

FRANCISCO

SAN JOAQUIN
SAN
MATEO

SANTA CLARA

SANTA CRUZ
SOLANO
SONOMA

STANISLAUS

PROJECT AREA

PROJECT AREA
?E84
?E238
?E237
?E82
§¨¦880
§¨¦680 Willow Street
£¤101
Figure 2
Project Location Map
Source: NEWARK 7.5' Quad (USGS) K
FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
0 2,000 Feet
Project Boundaries
FMC Willow Portion
Grand
Park Portion
Areas of Potential Effect Map
S:\PROJECTS\I\IntegralCommunities_00357\IPQ-37 Willow\GIS\MXD\Cultural\May2021\Fig3_APE.mxd 00357.00037.001 5/28/2021 -DY Source: Aerial (Maxar, 2019) K
FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
0 300 Feet
Area of Potential Effects
SamTrans Railroad
Hetch Hetchy Pipeline ROW
Willow Street
Enterprise Drive
Hickory Street
Grand
Park Portion
FMC Willow Portion
Figure 3
FMC Willow Portion
Appendix B
Native American Correspondence

1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

CITY OF NEWARK, CALIFORNIA
37101 Newark Boulevard • Newark, California 94560-3796 • (510) 578-4330 • FAX (510) 578-4265 October 20, 2020
Andrew Galvan, Chairperson
The Ohlone Indian Tribe
P.O. Box 3152
Fremont, CA 94539
Subject: Native American Cultural Resources Consultation for the FMC Willow and Bayside Grand Park Projects Pursuant to Government Code Section 65352.3
Dear Chairperson Galvan:

The City of Newark formally invites you to request consultation pursuant to Senate Bill 18 (SB 18; Government Code Section 65352.3) regarding the FMC Willow and Bayside Grand Park projects within the Dumbarton Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Specific Plan area in the City of Newark, California.

SB 18 requires local governments to consult with California Native American Tribes about local land use planning decisions for the purpose of protecting traditional tribal cultural places and sacred sites. Both proposed projects would require an Amendment to the City of Newark General Plan and therefore are subject to the requirements of SB 18.

Project Locations and Descriptions
The proposed project sites are located within the City of Newark in southwestern Alameda County, northwest of the intersection of Willow Street and Enterprise Drive. The proposed FMC Willow Project would be located on Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 092-0100-005 and on portions of APNs 537-0852-001-08 and 537-0852-002-09. The majority of the proposed FMC Willow project sites is located in Sections 2 and 11, of Township 5 South, and Range 2 West of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute “Newark” quadrangle map (quad). The western portion of the FMC Willow site and the Bayside Grand Park site are unsectioned (unsurveyed).

The Bayside Grand Park Project would be located primarily on APNs 537-0852-001-02 and 537-0852-07, with a small portion within APN 537-0852-08. A small portion of the Bayside Grand Park located along the western edge of the proposed project site is currently zoned for parks and recreational use. The remainder of the project site is not currently designated for parks and recreational use and will require a General Plan Amendment (see Figure 3 for the existing General Plan land use designations and proposed changes). We are inviting you to consult on the portion of the proposed Bayside Grand Park project site that requires a General Plan Amendment from Community Commercial and Public Institutional to Parks and Recreational Facilities as indicated on Figure 3.
2 Letter to Andrew Galvan, Chairperson
The Ohlone Indian Tribe
Both project sites are vacant following soil remediation that removed industrial contaminants that were remnants of prior uses. The proposed FMC Willow Project would redevelop a former industrial, approximately 18-acre site into a multi-family residential community including a mixed-use area with retail and affordable residential units, a community building with townhouses, a bus transit station, and medium/high-density residential units in six planning areas. The project would also provide a trail along the northern boundary of the project site that is eligible to be part of the regional San Francisco Bay Trail, a bicycle and pedestrian trail that will eventually allow continuous travel around the shoreline of San Francisco Bay. The Bayside Grand Park Project would redevelop a former industrial site to establish a 5- acre park with open space and recreational opportunities to serve the surrounding community.

Prior Surveys of Cultural Resources and Prior Notification On May 6, 2020, HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) Staff Archaeologist Katherine D. Thomas, M.A, RPA conducted an intensive pedestrian survey to characterize any prehistoric or historic-era archaeological resources located within the Areas of Potential Effect (APE). The survey consisted of a pedestrian walk-over of all accessible portions of the APE in parallel transects spaced at 15-meter intervals. During the survey, the ground surface was examined for the presence of historic-era artifacts (e.g., metal, glass, ceramics), prehistoric artifacts (e.g., flaked stone tools, tool-making debris), and other features that might represent human activity that took place more than 50 years ago. No historic-era resources were found within the APE, although approximately 30 feet north of the northern border of the APE is the Dumbarton Cutoff (P-01-001783), a railroad grade that was formerly a component of the Southern Pacific Railroad and is now owned by SamTrans. The Dumbarton Cutoff has previously been evaluated for significance and was recommended eligible for listing in the NRHP. No prehistoric resources have been previously recorded within the APE or a 0.50-mile radius, and none were identified during the field survey. Given its history of industrial use and previous ground disturbance, the APE is considered to have a low sensitivity for prehistoric resources.

A Sacred Lands File (SLF) search request was submitted to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on November 3, 2017 for the FMC Willow project. On November 17, 2017, a response was received from the NAHC indicating that the results of the SLF record search were negative for the project Area of Potential Effect (APE). Included with the response from the NAHC was a list of six Native American tribal representatives who may have additional information pertaining to the project. On November 28, 2017, HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) sent information request letters to each of the representatives listed asking for any additional information they may have. HELIX noted that the request was for informational purposes only. To date, no responses have been received from any of the tribal representatives.
3 Letter to Andrew Galvan, Chairperson
The Ohlone Indian Tribe
Conclusion
We are inviting you to consult with us regarding the potential for these projects to impact known ancestral tribal sites or cultural resources in accordance with Government Code Section 65352.3. If ancestral tribal sites or cultural resources are known to occur within the projects’ APE, your prompt response to request consultation, in writing, with the City of Newark for the purpose of identifying potentially significant impacts of the projects, alternatives to the projects as proposed, and recommended mitigation measures would be much appreciated.

Lead Agency Contact
City of Newark Community Development Department
Art Interiano, Deputy Community Development Director
37101 Newark Boulevard
Newark, CA 94560
[email protected]
Please contact me directly by e-mail or mail as noted above should you wish to consult with us on either or both projects in accordance with Government Code Section 65352.3.

Sincerely,
Art Interiano
Deputy Community Development Director
Enclosures:

Figure 1 – Vicinity Map
Figure 2 – Project Locations Map
Figure 3 - General Plan Land Use Changes Map
Figure 4 – Areas of Potential Effect Map
1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

CITY OF NEWARK, CALIFORNIA
37101 Newark Boulevard • Newark, California 94560-3796 • (510) 578-4330 • FAX (510) 578-4265 October 20, 2020
Ann Marie Savers, Chairperson
Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan
P.O. Box 28
Hollister, CA 95024
Subject: Native American Cultural Resources Consultation for the FMC Willow and Bayside Grand Park Projects Pursuant to Government Code Section 65352.3
Dear Chairperson Savers:

The Bayside Grand Park Project would be located primarily on APNs 537-0852-001-02 and 537-0852-07, with a small portion within APN 537-0852-08. A small portion of the Bayside Grand Park located along the western edge of the proposed project site is currently zoned for parks and recreational use. The remainder of the project site is not currently designated for parks and recreational use and will require a General Plan Amendment (see Figure 3 for the existing General Plan land use designations and proposed changes). We are inviting you to consult on the portion of the proposed Bayside Grand Park project site that requires a General Plan Amendment from Community Commercial and Public Institutional to Parks and Recreational Facilities as indicated on Figure 3.
2 Letter to Ann Marie Savers, Chairperson
Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan
Both project sites are vacant following soil remediation that removed industrial contaminants that were remnants of prior uses. The proposed FMC Willow Project would redevelop a former industrial, approximately 18-acre site into a multi-family residential community including a mixed-use area with retail and affordable residential units, a community building with townhouses, a bus transit station, and medium/high-density residential units in six planning areas. The project would also provide a trail along the northern boundary of the project site that is eligible to be part of the regional San Francisco Bay Trail, a bicycle and pedestrian trail that will eventually allow continuous travel around the shoreline of San Francisco Bay. The Bayside Grand Park Project would redevelop a former industrial site to establish a 5- acre park with open space and recreational opportunities to serve the surrounding community.

A Sacred Lands File (SLF) search request was submitted to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on November 3, 2017 for the FMC Willow project. On November 17, 2017, a response was received from the NAHC indicating that the results of the SLF record search were negative for the project Area of Potential Effect (APE). Included with the response from the NAHC was a list of six Native American tribal representatives who may have additional information pertaining to the project. On November 28, 2017, HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) sent information request letters to each of the representatives listed asking for any additional information they may have. HELIX noted that the request was for informational purposes only. To date, no responses have been received from any of the tribal representatives.
3 Letter to Ann Marie Savers, Chairperson
Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan
Conclusion
We are inviting you to consult with us regarding the potential for these projects to impact known ancestral tribal sites or cultural resources in accordance with Government Code Section 65352.3. If ancestral tribal sites or cultural resources are known to occur within the projects’ APE, your prompt response to request consultation, in writing, with the City of Newark for the purpose of identifying potentially significant impacts of the projects, alternatives to the projects as proposed, and recommended mitigation measures would be much appreciated.

Sincerely,
Art Interiano
Deputy Community Development Director
Enclosures:

Figure 1 – Vicinity Map
Figure 2 – Project Locations Map
Figure 3 – General Plan Land Use Changes Map
Figure 4 – Areas of Potential Effect Map
1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

CITY OF NEWARK, CALIFORNIA
37101 Newark Boulevard • Newark, California 94560-3796 • (510) 578-4330 • FAX (510) 578-4265 October 20, 2020
Irenne Zwierlein, Chairperson
Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista
789 Canada Road
Woodside, CA 94062
Subject: Native American Cultural Resources Consultation for the FMC Willow and Bayside Grand Park Projects Pursuant to Government Code Section 65352.3
Dear Chairperson Zwierlein:

The Bayside Grand Park Project would be located primarily on APNs 537-0852-001-02 and 537-0852-07, with a small portion within APN 537-0852-08. A small portion of the Bayside Grand Park located along the western edge of the proposed project site is currently zoned for parks and recreational use. The remainder of the project site is not currently designated for parks and recreational use and will require a General Plan Amendment (see Figure 3 for the existing General Plan land use designations and proposed changes). We are inviting you to consult on the portion of the proposed Bayside Grand Park project site that requires a General Plan Amendment from Community Commercial and Public Institutional to Parks and Recreational Facilities as indicated on Figure 3.
2 Letter to Irenne Zwierlein, Chairperson
Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista
Both project sites are vacant following soil remediation that removed industrial contaminants that were remnants of prior uses. The proposed FMC Willow Project would redevelop a former industrial, approximately 18-acre site into a multi-family residential community including a mixed-use area with retail and affordable residential units, a community building with townhouses, a bus transit station, and medium/high-density residential units in six planning areas. The project would also provide a trail along the northern boundary of the project site that is eligible to be part of the regional San Francisco Bay Trail, a bicycle and pedestrian trail that will eventually allow continuous travel around the shoreline of San Francisco Bay. The Bayside Grand Park Project would redevelop a former industrial site to establish a 5- acre park with open space and recreational opportunities to serve the surrounding community.

A Sacred Lands File (SLF) search request was submitted to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on November 3, 2017 for the FMC Willow project. On November 17, 2017, a response was received from the NAHC indicating that the results of the SLF record search were negative for the project Area of Potential Effect (APE). Included with the response from the NAHC was a list of six Native American tribal representatives who may have additional information pertaining to the project. On November 28, 2017, HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) sent information request letters to each of the representatives listed asking for any additional information they may have. HELIX noted that the request was for informational purposes only. To date, no responses have been received from any of the tribal representatives.
3 Letter to Irenne Zwierlein, Chairperson
Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista
Conclusion
We are inviting you to consult with us regarding the potential for these projects to impact known ancestral tribal sites or cultural resources in accordance with Government Code Section 65352.3. If ancestral tribal sites or cultural resources are known to occur within the projects’ APE, your prompt response to request consultation, in writing, with the City of Newark for the purpose of identifying potentially significant impacts of the projects, alternatives to the projects as proposed, and recommended mitigation measures would be much appreciated.

Sincerely,
Art Interiano
Deputy Community Development Director
Enclosures:

Figure 1 – Vicinity Map
Figure 2 – Project Locations Map
Figure 3 – General Plan Land Use Changes Map
Figure 4 – Areas of Potential Effect Map
1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

CITY OF NEWARK, CALIFORNIA
37101 Newark Boulevard • Newark, California 94560-3796 • (510) 578-4330 • FAX (510) 578-4265 October 20, 2020
Katherine Erolinda Perez, Chairperson
North Valley Yokuts Tribe
P.O. Box 717
Linden, CA 95236
Subject: Native American Cultural Resources Consultation for the FMC Willow and Bayside Grand Park Projects Pursuant to Government Code Section 65352.3
Dear Chairperson Perez:

The Bayside Grand Park Project would be located primarily on APNs 537-0852-001-02 and 537-0852-07, with a small portion within APN 537-0852-08. A small portion of the Bayside Grand Park located along the western edge of the proposed project site is currently zoned for parks and recreational use. The remainder of the project site is not currently designated for parks and recreational use and will require a General Plan Amendment (see Figure 3 for the existing General Plan land use designations and proposed changes). We are inviting you to consult on the portion of the proposed Bayside Grand Park project site that requires a General Plan Amendment from Community Commercial and Public Institutional to Parks and Recreational Facilities as indicated on Figure 3.
2 Letter to Katherine Erolinda Perez, Chairperson
North Valley Yokuts Tribe
Both project sites are vacant following soil remediation that removed industrial contaminants that were remnants of prior uses. The proposed FMC Willow Project would redevelop a former industrial, approximately 18-acre site into a multi-family residential community including a mixed-use area with retail and affordable residential units, a community building with townhouses, a bus transit station, and medium/high-density residential units in six planning areas. The project would also provide a trail along the northern boundary of the project site that is eligible to be part of the regional San Francisco Bay Trail, a bicycle and pedestrian trail that will eventually allow continuous travel around the shoreline of San Francisco Bay. The Bayside Grand Park Project would redevelop a former industrial site to establish a 5- acre park with open space and recreational opportunities to serve the surrounding community.

The Hetch Hetchy Right-of-Way (ROW) is a 100-foot wide corridor that transects the FMC Willow Project site and runs along the northeast corner of the Bayside Grand Park Project site. Approximately 8 acres of the FMC Willow Project site lies north of the Hetch Hetchy ROW, and approximately 10 acres of the FMC Willow Project site lies south of the Hetch Hetchy ROW. The only development proposed within the 100- foot Hetch Hetchy ROW is the proposed extension of Hickory Street that would cross the Hetch Hetchy ROW within an existing 80-foot easement to provide access to the proposed bus transit station.

A Sacred Lands File (SLF) search request was submitted to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on November 3, 2017 for the FMC Willow project. On November 17, 2017, a response was received from the NAHC indicating that the results of the SLF record search were negative for the project Area of Potential Effect (APE). Included with the response from the NAHC was a list of six Native American tribal representatives who may have additional information pertaining to the project. On November 28, 2017, HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) sent information request letters to each of the representatives listed asking for any additional information they may have. HELIX noted that the request was for informational purposes only. To date, no responses have been received from any of the tribal representatives.
3 Letter to Katherine Erolinda Perez, Chairperson
North Valley Yokuts Tribe
Conclusion
We are inviting you to consult with us regarding the potential for these projects to impact known ancestral tribal sites or cultural resources in accordance with Government Code Section 65352.3. If ancestral tribal sites or cultural resources are known to occur within the projects’ APE, your prompt response to request consultation, in writing, with the City of Newark for the purpose of identifying potentially significant impacts of the projects, alternatives to the projects as proposed, and recommended mitigation measures would be much appreciated.

Sincerely,
Art Interiano
Deputy Community Development Director
Enclosures:

Figure 1 – Vicinity Map
Figure 2 – Project Locations Map
Figure 3 – General Plan Land Use Changes Map
Figure 4 – Areas of Potential Effect Map
1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

CITY OF NEWARK, CALIFORNIA
37101 Newark Boulevard • Newark, California 94560-3796 • (510) 578-4330 • FAX (510) 578-4265 October 20, 2020
Rosemary Cambra, Chairperson
Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the SF Bay Area
P.O. Box 360791
Milpitas, CA 95036
Subject: Native American Cultural Resources Consultation for the FMC Willow and Bayside Grand Park Projects Pursuant to Government Code Section 65352.3
Dear Chairperson Cambra:

The Bayside Grand Park Project would be located primarily on APNs 537-0852-001-02 and 537-0852-07, with a small portion within APN 537-0852-08. A small portion of the Bayside Grand Park located along the western edge of the proposed project site is currently zoned for parks and recreational use. The remainder of the project site is not currently designated for parks and recreational use and will require a General Plan Amendment (see Figure 3 for the existing General Plan land use designations and proposed changes). We are inviting you to consult on the portion of the proposed Bayside Grand Park project site that requires a General Plan Amendment from Community Commercial and Public Institutional to Parks and Recreational Facilities as indicated on Figure 3.
2 Letter to Rosemary Cambra, Chairperson
Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the SF Bay Area
Both project sites are vacant following soil remediation that removed industrial contaminants that were remnants of prior uses. The proposed FMC Willow Project would redevelop a former industrial, approximately 18-acre site into a multi-family residential community including a mixed-use area with retail and affordable residential units, a community building with townhouses, a bus transit station, and medium/high-density residential units in six planning areas. The project would also provide a trail along the northern boundary of the project site that is eligible to be part of the regional San Francisco Bay Trail, a bicycle and pedestrian trail that will eventually allow continuous travel around the shoreline of San Francisco Bay. The Bayside Grand Park Project would redevelop a former industrial site to establish a 5- acre park with open space and recreational opportunities to serve the surrounding community.

A Sacred Lands File (SLF) search request was submitted to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on November 3, 2017 for the FMC Willow project. On November 17, 2017, a response was received from the NAHC indicating that the results of the SLF record search were negative for the project Area of Potential Effect (APE). Included with the response from the NAHC was a list of six Native American tribal representatives who may have additional information pertaining to the project. On November 28, 2017, HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) sent information request letters to each of the representatives listed asking for any additional information they may have. HELIX noted that the request was for informational purposes only. To date, no responses have been received from any of the tribal representatives.
3 Letter to Rosemary Cambra, Chairperson
Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the SF Bay Area
Conclusion
We are inviting you to consult with us regarding the potential for these projects to impact known ancestral tribal sites or cultural resources in accordance with Government Code Section 65352.3. If ancestral tribal sites or cultural resources are known to occur within the projects’ APE, your prompt response to request consultation, in writing, with the City of Newark for the purpose of identifying potentially significant impacts of the projects, alternatives to the projects as proposed, and recommended mitigation measures would be much appreciated.

Sincerely,
Art Interiano
Deputy Community Development Director
Enclosures:

Figure 1 – Vicinity Map
Figure 2 – Project Locations Map
Figure 3 – General Plan Land Use Changes Map
Figure 4 – Areas of Potential Effect Map
1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

CITY OF NEWARK, CALIFORNIA
37101 Newark Boulevard • Newark, California 94560-3796 • (510) 578-4330 • FAX (510) 578-4265 October 20, 2020
Tony Cerda, Chairperson
Coastanoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe
244 E. 1st Street
Pomona, CA 91766
Subject: Native American Cultural Resources Consultation for the FMC Willow and Bayside Grand Park Projects Pursuant to Government Code Section 65352.3
Dear Chairperson Cerda:

Letter to Tony Cerda, Chairperson
Coastanoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe
2 Both project sites are vacant following soil remediation that removed industrial contaminants that were remnants of prior uses. The proposed FMC Willow Project would redevelop a former industrial, approximately 18-acre site into a multi-family residential community including a mixed-use area with retail and affordable residential units, a community building with townhouses, a bus transit station, and medium/high-density residential units in six planning areas. The project would also provide a trail along the northern boundary of the project site that is eligible to be part of the regional San Francisco Bay Trail, a bicycle and pedestrian trail that will eventually allow continuous travel around the shoreline of San Francisco Bay. The Bayside Grand Park Project would redevelop a former industrial site to establish a 5- acre park with open space and recreational opportunities to serve the surrounding community.

A Sacred Lands File (SLF) search request was submitted to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on November 3, 2017 for the FMC Willow project. On November 17, 2017, a response was received from the NAHC indicating that the results of the SLF record search were negative for the project Area of Potential Effect (APE). Included with the response from the NAHC was a list of six Native American tribal representatives who may have additional information pertaining to the project. On November 28, 2017, HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) sent information request letters to each of the representatives listed asking for any additional information they may have. HELIX noted that the request was for informational purposes only. To date, no responses have been received from any of the tribal representatives.
3 Letter to Tony Cerda, Chairperson
Coastanoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe
Conclusion
We are inviting you to consult with us regarding the potential for these projects to impact known ancestral tribal sites or cultural resources in accordance with Government Code Section 65352.3. If ancestral tribal sites or cultural resources are known to occur within the projects’ APE, your prompt response to request consultation, in writing, with the City of Newark for the purpose of identifying potentially significant impacts of the projects, alternatives to the projects as proposed, and recommended mitigation measures would be much appreciated.

Sincerely,
Art Interiano
Deputy Community Development Director
Enclosures:

Figure 1 – Vicinity Map
Figure 2 – Project Locations Map
Figure 3 – General Plan Land Use Changes Map
Figure 4 – Areas of Potential Effect Map
Newark
Fremont
Palo Alto
Union City
Menlo Park
East Palo Alto

ALAMEDA COUNTY

SANTA CLARA COUNTY

SAN MATEO COUNTY
Figure 1
Vicinity Map
S:\PROJECTS\I\IPQ-ALL\IPQ-37 Willow\GIS\MXD\Fig1_Vicinity.mxd IPQ-28.29.30.31 5/4/2020 - DanielV Source: Base Map Layers (Esri, USGS, NGA, NASA)
K
FMC WIllow Project
0 2 Miles

ALAMEDA

CONTRA COSTA
MARIN
MERCED
NAPA
SAN

FRANCISCO

SAN JOAQUIN
SAN
MATEO

SANTA CLARA

SANTA CRUZ
SOLANO
SONOMA

STANISLAUS

PROJECT SITE

PROJECT SITE
?E84
?E238
?E237
?E82
§¨¦880
§¨¦680 Willow Street
£¤101
Figure 2
Project Location Map
S:\PROJECTS\I\IPQ-ALL\IPQ-37 Willow\GIS\MXD\Cultural\Fig2_ProjectLocationMap.mxd Source: Base Map Layers (USGS, NGS)
K
FMC Willow Project
0 2,000 Feet
Project Boundaries
FMC Willow Project
Bayside Grand
Park Project
FMC Willow and Bayside Grand Park Projects
General Plan Land Use Changes
Figure 3
Source: CBG Civil Engineers 2020

BAYSIDE

GRAND PARK

BAYSIDE

GRAND PARK
Areas of Potential Effect Map
S:\PROJECTS\I\IntegralCommunities_00357\IPQ-37 Willow\GIS\MXD\Cultural\May2021\Fig3_APE.mxd 00357.00037.001 5/28/2021 -DY Source: Aerial (Maxar, 2019) K
FMC Willow and Bayside Park Projects
0 300 Feet
Area of Potential Effects
SamTrans Railroad
Hetch Hetchy Pipeline ROW
Willow Street
Enterprise Drive
Hickory Street
Grand
Park Project
FMC Willow Project
Figure 4
FMC Willow Project
Appendix C
Photographs
FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
Photographs
Appendix C
Photograph 1: Overview of the FMC Willow APE showing poor ground surface visibility, looking west.

Photograph 2: Overview of the eastern portion of the FMC Willow APE, looking north.

FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
Photographs
Appendix C
Photograph 3: Overview of the eastern portion of the FMC Willow APE, looking east.

Photograph 4: Overview of the western portion of the FMC Willow APE, looking south.

FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
Photographs
Appendix C
Photograph 5: Overview of the western portion of the FMC Willow APE, looking northeast.

Photograph 6: Construction equipment and materials staging in the western portion of the FMC Willow APE, looking west.

FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
Photographs
Appendix C
Photograph 7: Example of surface visibility in the Grand Park APE, looking northeast.

Photograph 8: View of Southern Pacific Railroad split off into the Grand Park APE, looking southeast.

FMC Willow and Grand Park Project
Photographs
Appendix C
Photograph 9: Location of a former warehouse in the Grand Park APE, looking southeast.

Photograph 10: Overview of western portion of the Grand Park APE, looking southeast.

Appendix E
Due Diligence Geotechnical Investigation
for the FMC - Willow Parcel

BERLOGAR STEVENS & ASSOCIATES

DUE DILIGENCE GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

FMC - WILLOW PARCEL

ENTERPRISE DRIVE AT HICKORY STREET

NEWARK, CALIFORNIA
For

THE WILLOW PROJECT OWNER, LLC
August 22, 2018
Job No. 3983.100
SOIL ENGINEERS ENGINEERING GEOLOGISTS 5587 SUNOL BOULEVARD, PLEASANTON, CA 94566 (925) 484-0220 FAX: (925) 846-9645 Via E-Mail Only
August 22, 2018
Job No. 3983.100
Mr. Glenn Brown
The Willow Project Owner, LLC
500 La Gonda Way, Suite 102
Danville, California 94526
Subject: Due Diligence Geotechnical Investigation
FMC – Willow Parcel
Enterprise Drive at Hickory Street
Newark, California
Dear Mr. Brown:

Berlogar Stevens & Associates (BSA) is pleased to present our Due Diligence Geotechnical Investigation report for the FMC - Willow Parcel, in Newark, California. The scope of this investigation, our geotechnical engineering conclusions regarding the soils, groundwater and geologic conditions at the site, and our preliminary recommendations related to site grading, underground utilities, building foundations and pavements, are presented below.

PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT
It is our understanding that the site will be redeveloped with a change in usage from industrial to residential, with a portion of the site designated for a future public park. The details of the residential development have not been defined; based on current housing trends the development could range from one- to three-story wood frame, single-family detached to two- and three-story multi-unit residential dwellings. Redevelopment of the site will require clearing of the remnants of the industrial complex that previously occupied the site, import of fill to raise site grades up to approximately 5 feet above existing grades, and construction of underground utilities and roads.

PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES
The purpose of this Due Diligence Geotechnical Investigation was to identify soil and groundwater conditions, as well as potential geologic hazards, based on review of readily available published geologic maps and reports, information held in our files from past geotechnical investigations on adjoining and nearby properties, and unpublished consultant reports on adjoining and nearby properties. The potential impacts of the soil and groundwater conditions, as well as geologic hazards on the proposed redevelopment of the site as a residential

BERLOGAR

STEVENS &

ASSOCIATES
August 22, 2018
Job No. 3983.100

Page 3 ends

Newark City CouncilJuly 23, 2026

Newark City Council
July 23, 2026