Agenda packet — Vallejo City Council, March 24, 2026 (part 13 of 21)

Vista Cove Biological Resources Technical Report WRA, Inc.

February 2024 Page 26
Mitigation Measure BIO-1a: To avoid adverse effects to the active nests of special-status and other native bird species, tree removal, vegetation removal, and initial ground disturbance should be prioritized to occur during the non-nesting season, between September 1 through January 31.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1b: A pre-construction nest survey for white-tailed kite, northern harrier, short-eared owl, and other native bird species shall be conducted prior to initial ground disturbance, including tree removal or vegetation removal if it begins during the nesting bird season (defined as February 1 through August 31). If active nests (containing eggs, chicks or young) are discovered during these surveys, a qualified biologist shall establish a species-specific no-work buffer around the active nest. Work may resume in the buffer after the nesting season ends or a qualified biologist confirms the nest is inactive.

Implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce potential impacts to white-tailed kite, northern harrier, and short-eared owl to a level that is less than significant.

Silver-Haired Bat, Hoary Bat, and Other Roosting Bat Species The Proposed Project has the potential to impact silver-haired bats and hoary bats, both are Western Bat Working Group (WBWG) Medium Priority species. For bat species, the WBWG designates conservation status for species of bats, and those with a high or medium-high priority are typically given special consideration under CEQA. Future activities within the Project Area including tree removal may affect these species during their maternity roosting season (typically between March 1 – August 31). No potential hibernation roosts are present within the Project or Study Area.

The following section presents recommendations to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts to the silverhaired bat and hoary bat.

Potential Impact BIO-2: The removal of trees within the Project Area could result in direct mortality of silver-haired bat and hoary bat adults and maternity roosts, which would be considered a significant impact. Impacts to active maternity roosts of this species and their pups could occur during the removal of trees, vegetation, or other ground-disturbing activities in proximity to roost sites. These activities could result in the direct removal or destruction of active roosts, as well as generate audible, vibratory and/or visual disturbances that might indirectly result in roost abandonment.

To reduce potential impacts to the silver-haired bat and hoary bat to a less-than-significant level, the following measures shall be implemented:

Mitigation Measure BIO-2a: To avoid adverse effects to maternity roosts of special-status and other bat species, tree removal, vegetation removal, and initial ground disturbance should be prioritized to occur outside the maternity roosting season, between September 1 through April 30. Large trees ((DBH > 24 inches) removed during this season (September 1 – April 30) shall be cut using a two-phased system where branches and limbs are cut and left on the ground overnight prior to chipping or removal from the site.

Page 1159 of 2600 ends

Vista Cove Biological Resources Technical Report WRA, Inc.

February 2024 Page 27
Mitigation Measure BIO-2b: During the maternity roost season (May 1 – August 31), at least 30 days prior to the removal of any large tree (DBH > 24 inches) a bat roost assessment shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if potential roost habitat is present.

If no maternity roost habitat is present, trees shall be removed using a two-phased cut.

Cut branches and limbs shall be left on the ground overnight prior to chipping or removal from the site.

If potential maternity roosting habitat is present, the qualified biologist shall conduct an emergence survey to determine if the roost is occupied or assume the roost is occupied and establish a no-work buffer. If an emergence survey is conducted and does not detect bats, the tree may be removed with no further measures required to protect roosting bats. If roosting bats are detected, or the tree is assumed to be an active roost, the tree shall be given a 100-foot no work buffer and shall be avoided until after the maternity roosting season is complete. Once the maternal roosting season is complete, tree removal shall follow the two-phase approach for tree removal.

Implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce potential impacts to the silver-haired bat and hoary bat to a level that is less than significant.

7.2 Sensitive Natural Communities and Land Cover Types
This section addresses the question:
b) Does the Project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Sensitive natural communities within the Project Area include seasonal wetland.

The Proposed Project is designed to avoid and minimize impacts to sensitive natural communities. The design plans account for total avoidance of the toyon chapparal land cover type, keeping the area south of the freshwater marsh as open space. Additionally, the Project plans to avoid the intermittent stream, freshwater marsh, and riparian vegetation. However, the Proposed Project would convert the seasonal wetland into a stormwater basin within the Project Area. Although the stormwater basin would be vegetated and seasonally inundated, it is a loss of the seasonal wetland and considered a permanent impact. A Section 404 CWA permit from the Corps and Section 401 CWA certification from the RWQCB may be required for conversion of the seasonal wetland. Additionally, because of the proximity of the riparian and freshwater marsh land cover types to the construction footprint, the Vista Cove Project could result in increased sedimentation to the freshwater marsh or damage to roots of riparian trees. Potential impacts and mitigation measures to avoid impacts to these sensitive natural communities are described below.

Potential Impact BIO-3: The proposed conversion of 0.49 acre of seasonal wetland to a stormwater basin for the development will result in fill and permanent loss of the seasonal wetland within the Project Area.

Page 1160 of 2600 ends

Vista Cove Biological Resources Technical Report WRA, Inc.

February 2024 Page 28
Potential Impact BIO-4: Temporary impacts associated with construction activities adjacent to the riparian and freshwater marsh land cover types may result increased sedimentation into freshwater marsh, trimming of riparian vegetation, or exposure of riparian tree roots.

To reduce potential impacts to the seasonal wetland, riparian, and freshwater marsh to a less-thansignificant level, the following measures shall be implemented:

Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Compensatory mitigation for permanent loss of the seasonal wetland shall be required. Mitigation may be satisfied through purchase of mitigation bank credits from an approved mitigation bank, payment of in-lieu fees to an approved public agency or conservation organization (e.g. local land trust), for implementation of compensatory mitigation projects, or via a permittee responsible mitigation involving creation, restoring, or enhancing analogous habitat. The ratio for acres of mitigation to acres impacted shall be 1:1.

Mitigation Measure BIO-4a: Prior to ground disturbing activities, construction fencing or flagging shall be installed to delineate the riparian and freshwater marsh boundaries. The fencing will be checked regularly during construction activities to ensure that the fencing remains intact and functional, and that encroachment has not occurred into the sensitive habitat or boundary; any repairs to the fence or encroachment correction will be conducted immediately. At the end of the Project all temporary flagging, fencing, or other materials would be removed from the work areas and vicinity of the channel.

Mitigation Measure BIO-4b: Erosion control measures would be utilized throughout all phases of the Project where sediment runoff from construction may potentially enter nearby waters. Appropriate sediment and erosion control BMPs (e.g., use of silt fencing and/or straw waddles around the perimeter of the construction zone) will be implemented during and following construction to minimize surface runoff originating from the Project and thereby protect water quality of the freshwater marsh. Erosion control structures would be monitored for effectiveness and would be repaired or replaced as needed.
i. Prior to construction, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be developed. The plan would include the implementation and maintenance of erosion control measures.
ii. Prior to construction, an Accidental Spill Prevention and Cleanup Plan would be prepared. This plan would include required spill control absorbent material, for use beneath stationary equipment, to be present on-site and available at all times.
iii. No fueling, cleaning, or maintenance of vehicles or equipment would take place within any areas where an accidental discharge may cause hazardous materials to enter waterways.
iv. Any equipment or vehicles used for the Project would be checked and maintained daily to prevent leaks of fluids that could be deleterious to aquatic habitats.

Page 1161 of 2600 ends

Vista Cove Biological Resources Technical Report WRA, Inc.

February 2024 Page 29
v. All equipment would be cleaned before arriving on the site and before removal from the site to prevent spread of invasive plants. vi. To avoid establishment of invasive, non‐native plant species on or adjacent to the Project Area, the following measures will be implemented:

1. Vegetation disturbances will be limited to those areas identified on construction plans and maps as slated for development or construction staging.

2. Erosion and sediment control materials will be certified as weed‐ free.
vii. Staging and storage areas for equipment, materials, fuels, lubricants and solvents, would be located outside of the stream channel banks and outside of nearby waters.
viii. Stationary equipment such as motors, pumps, and generators, located adjacent to aquatic features would be positioned over secondary containment sufficient to arrest a catastrophic failure. ix. Stockpiles of excavated soil or other would be covered when not in active use (i.e. would not be used or moved for 72 hours). All trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials would be covered.

Mitigation Measure BIO-4c: In order to protect trees adjacent to the Project Area:
i. Trees not proposed for removal but adjacent to Project activities shall have orange construction fencing installed at the dripline. This shall be known as the tree protection zone (TPZ).
ii. Work within the TPZ shall be minimized to the maximum extent feasible. iii. If work must occur within the TPZ, the fence can be removed temporarily, the tree trunk shall be wrapped in a waddle, and the fence shall be placed back as soon as work is completed.
iv. All equipment and stockpiles must be in designated staging areas away from all TPZ.
v. All trees to be removed shall be felled away from any trees to be avoided. vi. If trees not proposed for removal require pruning, pruning shall follow ANSI A300 standards or be performed by a certified arborist.
vii. If any roots are exposed from trees to be avoided, roots can be pruned up to the diameter of 2 inches and pruned at 90-degree angles. The roots shall be covered by a damp burlap sack or damp towel while exposed.

Implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce this potential impact to seasonal wetland, freshwater marsh, and riparian land covers to a level that is less than significant.

7.3 Aquatic Resources
This section analyzes the Project’s potential impacts and mitigation for wetlands and other areas presumed or determined to be within the jurisdiction of the Corps or BCDC in reference to the significance threshold outlined in CEQA Appendix G, Part IV (c):

Page 1162 of 2600 ends

Vista Cove Biological Resources Technical Report WRA, Inc.

February 2024 Page 30
c) Does the Project have the potential to have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means;
The Proposed Project is designed to avoid the freshwater marsh in the southern half of the Study Area and the intermittent stream within the Project Area. Both of which are potential Waters of the U.S. and State and the intermittent stream is potentially jurisdictional under CFGC 1602. Potential temporary impacts and mitigation measures for the freshwater marsh are described above (Potential Impact and Mitigation Measure BIO-4). No impacts are anticipated to the intermittent stream. Approximately 0.42 acre of seasonal wetland will be permanently impacted by Project construction as a result of conversion to a stormwater basin. Potential impacts and mitigation measures are discussed above in Potential Impact and Mitigation Measures BIO-3 and BIO-4. No additional impacts beyond those previously described are anticipated.

The implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-3, BIO-4a, and BIO-4b will reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

7.4 Wildlife Corridors
This section analyzes the Project’s potential impacts and mitigation for habitat corridors and linkages in reference to the significance threshold outlined in CEQA Appendix G, Part IV (d):
d) Does the Project have the potential to interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites; As noted in Section 5.3, no portions of the Study Area provide connectivity between areas of suitable habitat (Caltrans 2010), and the Study Area does not contain nursery sites. No impact will occur to migratory corridors for terrestrial and aquatic species.

7.5 Local Policies and Ordinances
This section analyzes the Project’s potential impacts and mitigation based on conflicts with local policies and ordinances in reference to the significance threshold outlined in CEQA Appendix G, Part IV (e):
e) Does the Project have the potential to conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; Local plans and policies related to biological resources examined in this analysis are:
• City of Vallejo General Plan, and
• City of Vallejo Tree Ordinance
The Proposed Project is consistent with the City of Vallejo General Plan regarding protecting sensitive natural resources, when possible, and no conflict will occur related to these local policies. However, the removal of trees as a part of the Proposed Project will require compliance with the City of Vallejo Tree

Page 1163 of 2600 ends

Vista Cove Biological Resources Technical Report WRA, Inc.

February 2024 Page 31
Ordinance. The Proposed Project will provide an Arborist Report prior to construction and will plant replacement trees according to the City of Vallejo Tree Ordinance, therefore no conflict with the tree ordinance will occur.

Tree removal may be required for the Proposed Project, as needed for construction and access. Some of the trees removed may be classified as "significant trees” or otherwise protected by local ordinances. The City of Vallejo Tree Ordinance requires tree removal permits for any significant tree. An arborist report (WRA 2023) in compliance with the City’s Tree Ordinance has been prepared and up to 47 significant trees are anticipated to be removed for the Proposed Project. The proposed Project will follow the Tree Ordinance and replanting requirements. There is no potential conflict with the local tree ordinance.

7.6 Habitat Conservation Plans
This section analyzes the Project’s potential impacts and mitigation based on conflicts with any adopted local, regional, and state habitat conservation plans in reference to the significance threshold outlined in CEQA Appendix G, Part IV (f):
f) Does the Project have the potential to conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

The Project Area is not within an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan, therefore, there is no conflict with adopted conservation plans.

Page 1164 of 2600 ends

Vista Cove Biological Resources Technical Report WRA, Inc.

February 2024 Page 32

8.0 REFERENCES
Bechard, M. J., C. S. Houston, J. H. Sarasola and A. S. England. 2010. Swainson's Hawk (Buteo swainsoni), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/265 Beier, P., and S. Loe. 1992. A checklist for evaluating impacts to wildlife movement corridors. Wildlife Society Bulletin 20(4):434–440.

Black, S. H., and D. M. Vaughan. 2005. Species Profile: Speyeria callippe callippe. 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.

Buehler, D. 2000. Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), The Birds of North America (P. G. Rodewald, Ed.).

Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America:
https://birdsna.org/Species-Account/bna/species/baleag.

Bulger, J.B., S.J. Norman, and R.B. Seymour. 2003. Terrestrial Activity and Conservation of Adult California Red-legged Frogs (Rana aurora draytonii) in Coastal Forests and Grasslands. Biological Conservation 110 (2003) 85–95.

Bumble Bee Watch. 2023. Bumble Bee Sightings Map. Online at: bumblebeewatch.org Accessed on January 2023.

Cameron, S.A., H. C. Lim, J. D. Lozier, and R. Thorp. 2016. Test of the invasive pathogen hypothesis of bumble bee decline in North America. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(16), 4386-4391.

Cameron, S. A., Lozier, J. D., Strange, J. P., Koch, J. B., Cordes, N., Solter, L. F., & Griswold, T. L. 2011.

Patterns of widespread decline in North American bumble bees. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(2), 662-667.
[CDFG] California Department of Fish and Game. 2019. 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. Environmental Services Division, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento, California. [CDFG] California Department of Fish and Game. 2019. A Field Guide to Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreements, Sections 1600-1607. Environmental Services Division, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento, California.
[CDFW] California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2024a. California Natural Community List.

Biogeographic Data Branch. Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program, Sacramento, California. Most recently accessed February 2024.
[CDFW] California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2024b. California Natural Diversity Database.

Biogeographic Data Branch, Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program, Sacramento,

Page 1165 of 2600 ends

Vista Cove Biological Resources Technical Report WRA, Inc.

February 2024 Page 33
California. Available online at: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data; most recently accessed: February 2024.
[CDFW and Caltrans] California Department of Fish and Wildlife and California Department of Transportation. 2024. California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project: A Strategy for Conserving a Connected California. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento, CA. [Caltrans] California Department of Transportation. 2010. California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project: A Strategy for Conserving a Connected California. Prepared for California Department of Transportation, California Department of Fish and Game, and Federal Highways Administration.

Available online at: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Planning/Connectivity/CEHC.

Most recently accessed: August 2022.
[CNPS] California Native Plant Society. 2024a. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v9-01 1.5). Sacramento, California. Online at: http://rareplants.cnps.org/; most recently accessed:

February 2024.
[CNPS] California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2024b. A Manual of California Vegetation, Online Edition.

Available online at: http://vegetation.cnps.org. Most recently accessed: February 2024. [CCH1] Consortium of California Herbaria 1. 2024. CCH1: Featuring California Vascular Plant Data from the Consortium of California Herbaria and Other Sources. Data provided by the Consortium of California Herbaria. Available online at: http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/consortium/; most recently accessed: February 2024.
[CCH2] Consortium of California Herbaria 2. 2024. CCH2 Portal. Online at:
http://cch2.org/portal/index.php; most recently accessed: February 2024. [Cornell] Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 2024. eBird: An online database of bird distribution and abundance.

Available online at: Ithaca, NY. http://www.ebird.org. Most recently accessed: February 2024.

Dunk, JR. 1995. White-tailed Kite (Elanus leucurus), The Birds of North America Online (A Poole, Ed.).

Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online:
http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/178.

Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corp of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Department of the Army, Waterways Experiment Station, Technical Report Y-87-1, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Google Earth. 2024. Aerial Imagery 1985-2022. Most recently accessed: February 2024.

Goulson, D. 2010. Bumblebees: behaviour, ecology, and conservation. Oxford University Press on Demand.

Hatfield, R., Jepsen, S., Thorp, R., Richardson, L. & Colla, S. 2015. Bombus crotchii. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T44937582A46440211. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-

2.RLTS.T44937582A46440211.en. Accessed on 09 January 2023.

Hilty, J. A., W. Z. Lidicker Jr, and A. M. Merenlender. 2019. Corridor Ecology: Linking Landscapes for Biodiversity Conservation. Second Edition. Island Press.

Page 1166 of 2600 ends

Vista Cove Biological Resources Technical Report WRA, Inc.

February 2024 Page 34
Holland, R. F. 1986. Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of California. State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.

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

Report prepared for the California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova, California.

Jepsen, S., D.F. Schweitzer, B. Young, N. Sears, M. Omes, and S. Hoffman Black. 2015. Conservation Status and Ecology of the Monarch Butterfly in the United States. Prepared for the U.S. Forest Service. Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation , Portland, OR.

Kochert, M., K. Steenhof, C. McIntyre, E. Craig. 2002. Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos). Pp.1-44 in A. Poole, F. Gill, eds. The Birds of North America, Vol. 684. Philadelphia: The Birds of North America.

Leong, K.L.H., W.H. Sakai, W. Bremer, D. Feuerstein, and G. Yoshimura. 2004. Analysis of the pattern of distribution and abundance of monarch overwintering sites along the California coastline. Pages 177-185 in The Monarch Butterfly: Biology and Conservation, K. Oberhauser and M. Solensky (eds). Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.

Lichvar, R. W., and S. McColley. 2008. A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States. A Delineation Manual.

ERDC/CRREL TR-08-12. Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. Page 84. Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, ERDC/CRREL TR-08-12, Hanover, New Hampshire.

Meese, R.J., E.C. Beedy and W.J. Hamilton, III. 2014. Tricolored Blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), The Birds of the World Online (A Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of the World Online: https://birdsoftheworld.org/bow/species/tribla/cur/introduction ; Accessed February 2024.
[NMFS] National Marine Fisheries Service. 2024. Essential Fish Habitat Mapper. Available online at:
https://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/efhmapper. Most recently accessed: August 2022. [NETR] Nationwide Environmental Title Research. 2024. Historic Aerials. Available online at:
http://www.historicaerials.com/; most recently accessed: February 2024.

NatureServe. 2024. NatureServe Conservation Status. Available online at:
http://explorer.natureserve.org/ranking.htm. Most recently accessed: January 2024.

Pierson, ED and WE Rainey. 1998. Distribution, Status and Management of Townsend’s Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) in California. Department of Fish and Game. BMCP Technical Report Number 96-7.

Poulin, Ray, L. D. Todd, E. A. Haug, B. A. Millsap and M. S. Martell. 2011. Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia), The Birds of the World Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of the World Online:
https://birdsoftheworld.org/bow/species/burowl/cur/introduction ; Accessed February 2024.

Page 1167 of 2600 ends

Vista Cove Biological Resources Technical Report WRA, Inc.

February 2024 Page 35
[SFEI] San Francisco Estuary Institute. 2024. California Aquatic Resource Inventory (CARI) version 0.3.

Available online at: https://www.sfei.org/data/california-aquatic-resource-inventory-cariversion-03-gis-data#sthash.9SjW0wBH.dpbs. Most recently accessed: February 2024.

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

Soulé, M. E., and J. Terbough. 1999. Conserving nature at regional and continental scales - a scientific program for North America. BioScience 49(10):809–817.
[SWRCB] State Water Resources Control Board. 2019. State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State, May 14, 2019.

Stebbins, R. C. 2003. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians, Third edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA and New York, NY.

The City of Vallejo. 2020. The City of Vallejo General Plan 2040. August 19, 2020.

Thomson, R. C., A. N. Wright, and H. B. Shaffer. 2016. California amphibian and reptile species of special concern. Co-published by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and University of California Press, Oakland, California.
[Corps] U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0). Page 135. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, ERDC/EL TR-08-28, Vicksburg, Mississippi. [USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2024a. National List of Hydric Soils. Natural Resources Conservation Service. Online at:
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/soils/use/hydric/; most recently accessed:

February 2024.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2024b. Web Soil Survey. Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Available online at: https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/; most recently accessed:

February 2024.
[USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2021. Benicia Quadrangle, California. 7.5-minute topographic map. [USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2024. National Wetlands Inventory. Available online at:
http://www.fws.gov/nwi. Most recently accessed: February 2024. [USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the California Red-Legged Frog; Final Rule. Federal Register 75(51): 12816-12959. March 17.
[WRA] WRA, Inc. 2023. Sancerra Vista Cove Development Project – Arborist Tree Survey and Report.

Prepared for Sancerra. March 2.

Page 1168 of 2600 ends

Vista Cove Biological Resources Technical Report WRA, Inc.

February 2024 Page 36
White, C., N. Clum, T. Cade and W. Hunt. 2002. Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus). In: The Birds of North America, No. 660, A. Poole and F. Gill, eds. The Birds of North America, Inc. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Accessed online on July 21, 2022 at http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/BNA/ Williams, P.H., R.W. Thorp, L.L. Richardson, and S.R. Colla. 2014. Bumble bees of North America: an Identification Guide. Princeton University Press. 208 pp. [WBWG] Western Bat Working Group. 2024. Western Species Accounts. Available online at:
http://wbwg.org/western-bat-species/. Most recently accessed: February 2024.

Zeiner, D.C., W.F.Laudenslayer, Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. White, eds. 1988-1990. California's Wildlife. Vol. IIII. California Depart. of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California.

Page 1169 of 2600 ends

Vista Cove Biological Resources Technical Report WRA, Inc.

February 2024 Appendix A – Figures
APPENDIX A – FIGURES

Page 1170 of 2600 ends

Vista Cove Biological Resources Technical Report WRA, Inc.

February 2024 Appendix A – Figures
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.

Page 1171 of 2600 ends

I::
ga,
~
'/"
~ (A ~
::1
!
' / 6
to
! !
_j
~ .c
~ Sources: National Geographic, WRA I Prepared By: gillespie, 2/26/2024 Port
Costa
Figure 1. Study Area Regional Location Map
Sancerra Vista Cove
Vallejo, California
0 0.5 1
CiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiI:===:::iMiles
noma
5KA6G5l5LAND
NA'IAL SECU'llTY
G'lOUP ACTflJTY -fNAPA

COAJRPORT
N
A

Page 1172 of 2600 ends

~ "C
1 .:;
Sensitive Land Cover
- Intermittent Stream: (0.05 ac.)
- Seasonal Wetland : (0.49 ac.)
- Freshwater Marsh: (0.12 ac.)
- Riparian: (0.91 ac.)
- Toyon Chaparral: (1.24 ac.)
Non-sensitive Land Cover Type
- Coyote Brush Scrub: (0.43 ac.)
- Poison Oak Scrub: (0.91 ac.)
D Non-native Grassland: (12.70 ac.)
- Artichoke Thistle Field: (3.29 ac.)
i,,.;.....-11.1111!1!!1!1~--- -,.....,."""",.....,.,._..,....._......,...,...-=-__,.......,..,,.,,. ._-----____:=:::===::!:::J!IC:::l•m ••■ Sources: USDA NAIP Imagery 2020, USDA, WRA I Prepared By: gillespie, 2/26/2024 Figure 2. Land Cover Types within the Study Area
N
0 100 200 J,,. Sancerra Vista Cove
Vallejo, California c;;;;;;=;:c::==::JFeet f'\

Page 1173 of 2600 ends

Figure 2. Land Cover Types within the Study Area
0 100
Sensitive Land Cover
- Intermittent Stream: (0.0S ac.)
- Seasonal Wetland : (0.49 ac.)
- Freshwater Marsh: (0.12 ac.)
- Riparian: (0.91 ac.)
- Toyon Chaparral: (1.24 ac.)
Coyote Brush Scrub: (0.43 ac.)
C] Non-native Grassland: (12.70 ac.)
- Artichoke Thistle Field: (3.29 ac.)
N
200 J,. Sancerra Vista Cove
Vallejo, California Ciiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii.C::==::JFeet f'\

Page 1174 of 2600 ends

Figure 3. Soils Map
Sancerra Vista Cove
Vallejo, California
c:J Study Area: (20.13 ac.)
- DIC: Dibble-Los Osos clay loams, 2 to 9 percent slopes DIE: Dibble-Los Osos clay loams, 9 to 30 percent slopes DIF2: Dibble-Los Osos clay loams, 30 to 50 percent slopes, eroded 0 200
c::==:r::::==::JFeet
100
N
A

Page 1175 of 2600 ends

Impact Type
Permanent
~ Permanent "C
1 Temporary
.:;
Impact Type
',N Permanent Impact: (8.21 ac.)
><X Temporary Impact: (2.10 ac.)
Sensitive land Cover
- Intermittent Stream: (0.05 ac.)
- Seasonal Wetland: (0.49 ac.)
- Freshwater Marsh: (0.12 ac.)
- Riparian: (0.91 ac.)
- Toyon Chaparral: (1.24 ac.)
Non-sensitive land Cover Type
- Coyote Brush Scrub: (0.43 ac.)
- Poison Oak Scrub: (0.91 ac.)
D Non-native Grassland: (12.70 ac.)
- Artichoke Thistle Field: (3.29 ac.)
Land Cover Type Sensitive Acres
Coyote Brush Scrub No 0.42
Non-native Grassland No 7.31
Non-native Grassland No 2.10
j i,,.:.._.-..11!1!!1!!1!11!14 ......... - ...... _ ,....,"""'".....,.,........,. ..... -...., .... _._ ..... ...,.,,.,,...~ -...:_ __ _:==========:!::l!IC:::!:•ll!•c :111•• Sources: USDA NAIP Imagery 2020, USDA, WRA I Prepared By: gillespie, 2/26/2024 Permanent Seasonal Wetland Yes 0.48
Figure 4. Proposed Impacts within the Study Area
Sancerra Vista Cove
Vallejo, California
0 200
c;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;:r==:::iFeet
100

Page 1176 of 2600 ends

Vista Cove Biological Resources Technical Report WRA, Inc.

February 2024 Appendix B – Species Observed in and around the Study Area APPENDIX B – SPECIES OBSERVED WITHIN THE STUDY AREA

Page 1177 of 2600 ends

Vista Cove Biological Resources Technical Report WRA, Inc.

February 2024 Appendix B – Species Observed in and around the Study Area

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 1178 of 2600 ends

Appendix B-1. Plant species observed within the Study Area on February 28 and July 14, 2022 Rare Invasive Wetland
Scientific name Common name Life form Origin Status1 Status2 indicator (AW 2020)3
Amsinckia intermedia Common fiddleneck annual herb native - - - Amsinckia lycopsoides Tarweed fiddleneck annual herb native - - - Avena barbata Slim oat annual, perennial grass native - Moderate - Avenafatua Wildcats annual grass native - Moderate -
Baccharis pilularis Coyote brush shrub native - - -
Bellardia trixago Mediterranean lineseed annual herb native - Limited - Bolboschoenus maritimus ssp.
paludosus Saltmarsh bulrush perennial grasslike herb native - - OBL non-native
Brassica nigra Black mustard annual herb (invasive) - Moderate - non-native
Briza minor Little rattlesnake grass annual grass (invasive) - - FAC Bromus diandrus Ripgut brome annual grass non-native - Moderate - Bromus hordeaceus Soft chess annual grass native - Limited FACU Calandrinia menziesii Red maids annual herb native - - FACU Calendula arvensis Field marigold annual herb native - - - Copse/la bursa-pastoris Shepherd's purse annual herb native - - FACU Cardamine cf hirsuta Hairy bitter cress non-native annual herb - - FACU Carduus pycnocephalus ssp.
pycnocephalus Italian thistle annual herb native - Moderate - Chlorogalum pomeridianum Amole perennial herb native - - - Cirsium vu/gore Bullthistle perennial herb native - Moderate FACU Cortaderia sel/oana Pampas grass perennial grass - - High FACU non-native
Crassula connata Sand pygmy weed annual herb (invasive) - - FAC B-1

Page 1179 of 2600 ends

Rare Invasive Wetland
Scientific name Common name Life form Origin Status1 Status2 indicator (AW 2020)3
non-native
Cynara cardunculus ssp. flavescens Artichoke thistle perennial herb (invasive) - Moderate - Cyperus eragrostis Tall cyperus perennial grasslike herb - - - FACW Dittrichia graveolens Stinkwort annual herb native - Moderate - Elymus caput-medusae Medusa head annual grass native - High - non-native
Elymus triticoides Beardless wild rye perennial grass (invasive) - - FAC Erigeron canadensis Canada horseweed native annual herb - - FACU Erodium botrys Big heron bill annual herb native - - FACU non-native
Erodium cicutarium Red stemmed filaree annual herb (invasive) - Limited - Erodium moschatum Whitestem filaree annual herb native - - - non-native
Euphorbia pep/us Petty spurge annual herb (invasive) - - - Festuca bromoides Brome fescue annual grass non-native - - FACU non-native
Festuca myuros Rattail sixweeks grass annual grass (invasive) - Moderate FACU non-native
Festuca perennis Italian rye grass annual, perennial grass (invasive) - Moderate FAC Ficus carica Common fig tree native - Moderate FACU
Foeniculum vulgare Fennel perennial herb non-native - High - Galium aparine Cleavers annual herb non-native - - FACU non-native
Geranium dissectum Wild geranium annual herb (invasive) - Limited - Geranium mo/le Crane's bill geranium annual, perennial herb native - - - non-native
Helenium puberulum Sneezeweed perennial herb (invasive) - - FACW non-native
Helminthotheca echioides Bristly ox-tongue annual, perennial herb (invasive) - Limited FAC B-2

Page 1180 of 2600 ends

Rare Invasive Wetland
Scientific name Common name Life form Origin Status1 Status2 indicator (AW 2020)3
Hemizonia congesta ssp. luzulifolia Woodrush tarweed annual herb native - - - non-native
Heteromeles arbutifolia Toyon shrub (invasive) - - -
Holcus lanatus Common velvetgrass perennial grass native - Moderate FAC non-native
Juncus effusus Common bog rush perennial grasslike herb (invasive) - - FACW non-native
Juncus mexicanus Mexican rush perennial grasslike herb (invasive) - - FACW Juncus xiphioides Iris leaved rush perennial grasslike herb native - - OBL Ligustrum lucidum Glossy privet tree, shrub native - Limited - Lupinus succulentus Arroyo lupine annual herb native - - - non-native
Lysimachia arvensis Scarlet pimpernel annual herb (invasive) - - FAC Malva sp. Mallow annual herb non-native - - -
Marah fabacea California man-root perennial herb, vine non-native - - - Maytenus boaria Mayten tree, shrub non-native - Watch - Medicago polymorpha Bur clover non-native (invasive) annual herb - Limited FACU Nasturtium officinale Watercress perennial herb (aquatic) non-native - - OBL non-native
Oxalis pes-caprae Bermuda buttercup perennial herb (invasive) - Moderate - non-native
Phalaris aquatica Harding grass perennial grass (invasive) - Moderate FACU non-native
Phoradendron leucarpum American mistletoe shrub (parasitic) (invasive) - - - non-native
Prunus cerasifera Cherry plum tree (invasive) - Limited - Prunus dulcis Almond tree native - - -
non-native
Pseudognaphalium luteoalbum Jersey cudweed annual herb (invasive) - - FAC B-3

Page 1181 of 2600 ends

Rare Invasive Scientific name Common name Life form Origin Status1 Status2 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak tree non-native - -
Raphanus sativus Wild radish annual, biennial herb native - Limited non-native
Rubus armeniacus Himalayan blackberry shrub (invasive) - High Rumex crispus Curly dock non-native (invasive) perennial herb - Limited Rumex pulcher Fiddleleaf dock perennial herb native - - Salix laevigata red willow tree, shrub native - -
Salix lasiolepis Arroyo willow tree, shrub native - -
Sanicula bipinnatifida Purple sanicle native perennial herb - - Schoenoplectus americanus Chairmaker's bulrush perennial grasslike herb native - - Sisyrinchium bellum Blue eyed grass perennial herb native - - non-native
Sonchus oleraceus Common sow thistle annual herb (invasive) - - Stipa pu/chra Purple needle grass perennial grass native - - Toxicodendron diversilobum Poison oak vine, shrub non-native - - Typha sp. - - native - -
Vicia sativa Spring vetch annual herb, vine non-native - - All species identified using the Jepson eF/ora [Jepson Flora Project (eds.) 2022]; nomenclature follows Jepson eF/ora [Jepson Flora Project (eds.) 2022] 1 California Native Plant Society. 2022. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v9-01 1.5). Sacramento, California. Online at:
http://rareplants.cnps.org/; most recently accessed: March 2022 FE: Federal Endangered
FT: Federal Threatened
SE:

ST:

SR:

State Endangered
State Threatened
State Rare
Rank 1A:Plants presumed extinct in California
Rank 1B:Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere Rank 2: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere B-4
Wetland
indicator (AW
2020)3
-
-
FAC
FAC
FAC
FACW
FACW
-
OBL
FACW
UPL
-
FACU
-
FACU

Page 1182 of 2600 ends

B-5
Rank 3: Plants about which we need more information – a review list Rank 4: Plants of limited distribution – a watch list
2 California Invasive Plant Council. 2022. California Invasive Plant Inventory Database. California Invasive Plant Council, Berkeley, CA. Online at: http://www.calipc.org/paf/; most recently accessed: March 2022 High: Severe ecological impacts; high rates of dispersal and establishment; most are widely distributed ecologically.

Moderate: Substantial and apparent ecological impacts; moderate-high rates of dispersal, establishment dependent on disturbance; limitedmoderate distribution ecologically Limited: Minor or not well documented ecological impacts; low-moderate rate of invasiveness; limited distribution ecologically Assessed: Assessed by Cal-IPC and determined to not be an existing current threat 3 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2020. National Wetland Plant List, version 3.5. Engineer Research and Development Center. Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH. Online at: http://wetland-plants.usace.army.mil/; most recently accessed: March 2022 OBL: Almost always found in wetlands
FACW: Usually found in wetlands
FAC: Equally found in wetlands and uplands
FACU: Usually not found in wetlands
UPL: Almost never found in wetlands
NL: Not listed, assumed almost never found in wetlands
NI: No information; not factored during wetland delineation

Page 1183 of 2600 ends

B-6
Appendix B-2. Wildlife Species Observed within the Study Area on February 28 and July 14, 2022 Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status1
Mammals
Canis latrans Coyote -
Odocoileus hemionus californicus California mule deer - Sus scrofa Feral hog -
Thomomys bottae Botta’s pocket Gopher -
Birds
Aphelocoma californica California scrub-jay -
Buteo jamaicensis Red-tailed hawk -
Buteo lineatus Red-shouldered hawk -
Calypte anna Anna’s hummingbird -
Cathartes aura Turkey vulture -
Colaptes auratus Northern flicker -
Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow -
Elanus leucurus White-tailed kite FP
Haemorhous mexicanus House finch -
Melozone crissalis California towhee -
Mimus polyglottos Northern mockingbird -
Sayornis saya Say’s phoebe -
Setophaga coronata Yellow-rumped warbler -
Zenaida macroura Mourning dove -
Zonotrichia atricapilla Golden-crowned sparrow -

Page 1184 of 2600 ends

Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status1
Invertebrates
Bombusspp. Bumblebee -
Apis mellifera European honeybee -
1Key to Conservation Status:

FP CDFW Fully Protected Species
B-7

Page 1185 of 2600 ends

Vista Cove Biological Resources Technical Report WRA, Inc.

February 2024 Appendix C – Potential for Special-status Species to Occur in the Study Area APPENDIX C – POTENTIAL FOR SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES TO OCCUR IN THE STUDY AREA

Page 1186 of 2600 ends

Vista Cove Biological Resources Technical Report WRA, Inc.

February 2024 Appendix C – Potential for Special-status Species to Occur in the Study Area

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 1187 of 2600 ends

C-1
Appendix C. Potential for Special-status Species to Occur in the Study Area. Special-status plant and wildlife species table with the potential to occur within the vicinity of the Study Area (Cuttings Wharf, Cordelia, Fairfield South, Mare Island, Benicia, Vine Hill, Richmond, Briones Valley, and Walnut Creek USGS 7.5’ topographic quadrangles). Results include database searches of California Native Plant Society Rare and Endangered Plant Inventory, California Natural Diversity Database, Information Planning and Conservation, as well as U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Threatened and Endangered Species Lists.

SPECIES STATUS HABITAT POTENTIAL TO OCCUR RECOMMENDATIONS Plants
bent-flowered
fiddleneck
Amsinckia lunaris
Rank 1B.2 Cismontane woodland, coastal
bluff scrub, valley and foothill
grassland. Elevation ranges from
10 to 1640 feet (3 to 500 meters).

Blooms Mar-Jun.

Unlikely. Although the Study Area contains grassland
habitat, the site has been historically disturbed, and in some areas, it receives modern anthropogenic
disturbance, including mowing, discing, and offhighway vehicle use. The grassland is dominated by a very dense cover of non-native and invasive species.

Few native species are present, indicating that the
grassland is poor quality habitat, and is therefore
unlikely to support this species.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

California androsace
Androsace elongata
ssp. acuta
Rank 4.2 Chaparral, cismontane woodland,
coastal scrub, meadows and
seeps, pinyon and juniper
woodland, valley and foothill
grassland. Elevation ranges from
490 to 4280 feet (150 to 1305
meters). Blooms Mar-Jun.

Unlikely. Although the Study Area contains grassland
habitat, the site has been historically disturbed, and in some areas, it receives modern anthropogenic
disturbance, including mowing, discing, and offhighway vehicle use. Few native species are present, indicating that the grassland is poor quality habitat,
and is therefore unlikely to support this species.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.
slender silver moss
Anomobryum
julaceum
Rank 4.2 Broadleafed upland forest, lower
montane coniferous forest, north
coast coniferous forest. Elevation
ranges from 330 to 3280 feet
(100 to 1000 meters).

Unlikely. This species is known from mesic to
perennially wet sandstone (K. Kellman, pers. com.),
and such habitat is absent from the Study Area.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.
pallid manzanita
Arctostaphylos pallida

FT, SE,
Rank 1B.1
Broadleafed upland forest,
chaparral, cismontane woodland,
closed-cone coniferous forest,
coastal scrub. Elevation ranges
from 605 to 1525 feet (185 to
465 meters). Blooms Dec-Mar.

No Potential. This species occurs on uplifted marine
terraces on siliceous shale or thin chert (CDFW 2024b), and such substrate is absent from the Study Area.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

Page 1188 of 2600 ends

C-2

SPECIES STATUS HABITAT POTENTIAL TO OCCUR RECOMMENDATIONS alkali milk-vetch
Astragalus tener var.
tener
Rank 1B.2 Playas, valley and foothill
grassland, vernal pools. Elevation
ranges from 5 to 195 feet (1 to 60
meters). Blooms Mar-Jun.

No Potential. The Study Area does not contain vernal
pools or alkaline soils necessary to support this
species.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.
crownscale
Atriplex coronata var.
coronata
Rank 4.2 Chenopod scrub, valley and
foothill grassland, vernal pools.

Elevation ranges from 5 to 1935
feet (1 to 590 meters). Blooms
Mar-Oct.

No Potential. The Study Area does not contain vernal
pools or alkaline soils necessary to support this
species.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.
vernal pool smallscale
Atriplex persistens
Rank 1B.2 Vernal pools. Elevation ranges
from 35 to 375 feet (10 to 115
meters). Blooms Jun-Oct.

No Potential. The Study Area does not contain vernal
pools necessary to support this species.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.
big-scale balsamroot
Balsamorhiza
macrolepis
Rank 1B.2 Chaparral, cismontane woodland,
valley and foothill grassland.

Elevation ranges from 150 to
5100 feet (45 to 1555 meters).

Blooms Mar-Jun.

Unlikely. Although the Study Area contains grassland
and chaparral habitat, the site has been historically
disturbed, and in some areas it receives modern
anthropogenic disturbance, including mowing, discing,
and off-highway vehicle use. The grassland is
dominated by a very dense cover of non-native and
invasive species. Few native species are present,
indicating that the grassland is poor quality habitat
and is therefore unlikely to support this species. Based on historic aerial imagery (NETR 2024), chaparral did
not start establishing in the Study Area until the
1980s. As there are no occurrences of this species in
the immediate vicinity, the Study Area is unlikely to
have a historic seedbank containing this species and is unlikely to have been colonized by it.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.
big tarplant
Blepharizonia plumosa
Rank 1B.1 Valley and foothill grassland.

Elevation ranges from 100 to
1655 feet (30 to 505 meters).

Blooms Jul-Oct.

No Potential. The Study Area does not contain alkaline
soils necessary to support this species.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

Page 1189 of 2600 ends

C-3

SPECIES STATUS HABITAT POTENTIAL TO OCCUR RECOMMENDATIONS Mt. Diablo fairylantern
Calochortus pulchellus
Rank 1B.2 Chaparral, cismontane woodland,
riparian woodland, valley and
foothill grassland. Elevation
ranges from 100 to 2755 feet (30
to 840 meters). Blooms Apr-Jun.

Unlikely. Although the Study Area contains grassland
and chaparral habitat, the site has been historically
disturbed, and in some areas, it receives modern
anthropogenic disturbance, including mowing, discing,
and off-highway vehicle use. The grassland is
dominated by a very dense cover of non-native and
invasive species. Few native species are present,
indicating that the grassland is poor quality habitat
and is therefore unlikely to support this species. Based on historic aerial imagery (NETR 2024), chaparral did
not start establishing in the Study Area until the
1980s. As there are no occurrences of this species in
the immediate vicinity, the Study Area is unlikely to
have a historic seedbank containing this species and is unlikely to have been colonized by it.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

Oakland star-tulip
Calochortus
umbellatus
Rank 4.2 Broadleafed upland forest,
chaparral, cismontane woodland,
lower montane coniferous forest,
valley and foothill grassland.

Elevation ranges from 330 to
2295 feet (100 to 700 meters).

Blooms Mar-May.

Unlikely. Although the Study Area contains grassland,
forest, and chaparral habitat, the site has been
historically disturbed, and in some areas, it receives
modern anthropogenic disturbance, including
mowing, discing, and off-highway vehicle use. The
grassland is dominated by a very dense cover of nonnative and invasive species. Few native species are present, indicating that the grassland is poor quality
habitat and is therefore unlikely to support this
species. Based on historic aerial imagery (NETR 2024),
chaparral did not start establishing in the Study Area
until the 1980s. As there are no occurrences of this
species in the immediate vicinity, the Study Area is
unlikely to have a historic seedbank containing this
species and is unlikely to have been colonized by it.

Forested areas are too shady to support this species.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.
coastal bluff morningglory
Calystegia purpurata
ssp. saxicola
Rank 1B.2 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal
dunes, coastal scrub, north coast
coniferous forest. Elevation
ranges from 0 to 345 feet (0 to
105 meters). Blooms (Mar)AprSep.

No Potential. The Study Area does not contain coastal
habitats necessary to support this species.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

Page 1190 of 2600 ends

C-4

SPECIES STATUS HABITAT POTENTIAL TO OCCUR RECOMMENDATIONS Lyngbye's sedge
Carex lyngbyei
Rank 2B.2 Marshes and swamps. Elevation
ranges from 0 to 35 feet (0 to 10
meters). Blooms Apr-Aug.

Unlikely. Although the Study Area contains a marsh,
this species is known from brackish habitats, which are absent from the Study Area.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

Tiburon paintbrush
Castilleja affinis var.
neglecta

FE, ST,
Rank 1B.2
Valley and foothill grassland.

Elevation ranges from 195 to
1310 feet (60 to 400 meters).

Blooms Apr-Jun.

No Potential. The Study Area does not contain
serpentine soils necessary to support this species.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.
johnny-nip
Castilleja ambigua var.
ambigua
Rank 4.2 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal
prairie, coastal scrub, marshes
and swamps, valley and foothill
grassland, vernal pools. Elevation
ranges from 0 to 1425 feet (0 to
435 meters). Blooms Mar-Aug.

Few native species are present, indicating that the
grassland is poor quality habitat and is therefore
unlikely to support this species.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

Congdon's tarplant
Centromadia parryi
ssp. congdonii
Rank 1B.1 Valley and foothill grassland.

Elevation ranges from 0 to 755
feet (0 to 230 meters). Blooms
May-Oct(Nov).

Unlikely. Although the Study Area contains grassland
habitat, it does not contain alkaline soils typical of this species. The nearest modern occurrence of this
species is 7 miles southeast of the Study Area. No
species of Centromadia were observed during site
visits.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.
pappose tarplant
Centromadia parryi
ssp. parryi
Rank 1B.2 Chaparral, coastal prairie,
marshes and swamps, meadows
and seeps, valley and foothill
grassland. Elevation ranges from
0 to 1380 feet (0 to 420 meters).

Blooms May-Nov.

Unlikely. Although the Study Area contains marsh
habitat, it is too consistently inundated to support this species. Additionally, the Study Area does not contain
alkaline soils, on which this species often occurs
(CDFW 2024b). The nearest occurrence of this species
is approximately 6 miles northeast of the Study Area.

No species of Centromadia were observed during site
visits.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

Point Reyes salty
bird's-beak
Chloropyron
maritimum ssp.
palustre
Rank 1B.2 Marshes and swamps. Elevation
ranges from 0 to 35 feet (0 to 10
meters). Blooms Jun-Oct.

No Potential. Although the Study Area contains a
marsh, it does not contain a tidal marsh, which is
necessary to support this species.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

Page 1191 of 2600 ends

C-5

SPECIES STATUS HABITAT POTENTIAL TO OCCUR RECOMMENDATIONS soft salty bird's-beak
Chloropyron molle ssp.
molle

FE, SR,
Rank 1B.2
Marshes and swamps. Elevation
ranges from 0 to 10 feet (0 to 3
meters). Blooms Jun-Nov.

No Potential. Although the Study Area contains a
marsh, it does not contain a tidal marsh, which is
necessary to support this species.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

Bolander's waterhemlock
Cicuta maculata var.
bolanderi
Rank 2B.1 Marshes and swamps. Elevation
ranges from 0 to 655 feet (0 to
200 meters). Blooms Jul-Sep.

Unlikely. Although the Study Area contains a marsh,
based on historic aerial imagery (NETR 2024), it is
recently developed and appears to persist as a result
of residential runoff. As such, it is low quality habitat.

In addition, all occurrences in the vicinity of the Study Area occur in tidal marsh, which is absent from the
Study Area.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

Franciscan thistle
Cirsium andrewsii
Rank 1B.2 Broadleafed upland forest,
coastal bluff scrub, coastal
prairie, coastal scrub. Elevation
ranges from 0 to 490 feet (0 to
150 meters). Blooms Mar-Jul.

Unlikely. Although the Study Area contains forest
habitat, it is too shady to support this species.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

Suisun thistle
Cirsium hydrophilum
var. hydrophilum
FE, Rank
1B.1
Marshes and swamps. Elevation
ranges from 0 to 5 feet (0 to 1
meters). Blooms Jun-Sep.

No Potential. Although the Study Area contains a
marsh, it does not contain a tidal marsh, which is
necessary to support this species.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.
western leatherwood
Dirca occidentalis
Rank 1B.2 Broadleafed upland forest,
chaparral, cismontane woodland,
closed-cone coniferous forest,
north coast coniferous forest,
riparian forest, riparian
woodland. Elevation ranges from
80 to 1395 feet (25 to 425
meters). Blooms Jan-Mar (Apr).

Unlikely. Although the Study Area contains forest
habitat, based on historic aerial imagery (NETR 2024),
the forest is recently established. As there are no
occurrences of this species in the immediate vicinity,
the Study Area is unlikely to have a historic seedbank
containing this species and is unlikely to have been
colonized by it.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.
dwarf downingia
Downingia pusilla
Rank 2B.2 Valley and foothill grassland,
vernal pools. Elevation ranges
from 5 to 1460 feet (1 to 445
meters). Blooms Mar-May.

No Potential. The Study Area does not contain vernal
pools necessary to support this species.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.
small spikerush
Eleocharis parvula
Rank 4.3 Marshes and swamps. Elevation
ranges from 5 to 9910 feet (1 to
3020 meters). Blooms (Apr)JunAug (Sep).

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

Page 1192 of 2600 ends

C-6

SPECIES STATUS HABITAT POTENTIAL TO OCCUR RECOMMENDATIONS streamside daisy
Erigeron biolettii
Rank 3 Broadleafed upland forest,
cismontane woodland, north
coast coniferous forest. Elevation
ranges from 100 to 3610 feet (30
to 1100 meters). Blooms Jun-Oct.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

Mt. Diablo buckwheat
Eriogonum truncatum
Rank 1B.1 Chaparral, coastal scrub, valley
and foothill grassland. Elevation
ranges from 10 to 1150 feet (3 to
350 meters). Blooms Apr-Sep
(Nov-Dec).

No Potential. This species has a restricted range to
Mount Diablo, approximately 15 miles southeast of
the Study Area. Additionally, the Study Area does not
contain alkaline soil necessary to support this species.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

Jepson's coyote-thistle
Eryngium jepsonii
Rank 1B.2 Valley and foothill grassland,
vernal pools. Elevation ranges
from 10 to 985 feet (3 to 300
meters). Blooms Apr-Aug.

No Potential. The Study Area does not contain vernal
pools necessary to support this species.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.
cut-leaved
monkeyflower
Erythranthe laciniata
Rank 4.3 Chaparral, lower montane
coniferous forest, upper montane
coniferous forest. Elevation
ranges from 1610 to 8695 feet
(490 to 2650 meters). Blooms
Apr-Jul.

No Potential. The nearest recorded occurrence is a
cultivated specimen from 1901 in Berkeley, California.

Wild populations of this species are known from the
western Sierra Nevada and adjacent foothills, far from
the Study Area.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

San Joaquin
spearscale
Extriplex joaquinana
Rank 1B.2 Chenopod scrub, meadows and
seeps, playas, valley and foothill
grassland. Elevation ranges from
5 to 2740 feet (1 to 835 meters).

Blooms Apr-Oct.

No Potential. The Study Area does not contain alkaline
soils necessary to support this species.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.
minute pocket moss
Fissidens pauperculus
Rank 1B.2 North coast coniferous forest.

Elevation ranges from 35 to 3360
feet (10 to 1024 meters).

No Potential. The Study Area does not contain north
coast coniferous forest necessary to support this
species.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.
fragrant fritillary
Fritillaria liliacea
Rank 1B.2 Cismontane woodland, coastal
prairie, coastal scrub, valley and
foothill grassland. Elevation
ranges from 10 to 1345 feet (3 to
410 meters). Blooms Feb-Apr.

Unlikely. Although the Study Area contains grassland
and marsh habitat, it is too consistently inundated to
support this species.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

Page 1193 of 2600 ends

C-7

SPECIES STATUS HABITAT POTENTIAL TO OCCUR RECOMMENDATIONS Diablo helianthella
Helianthella castanea
Rank 1B.2 Broadleafed upland forest,
chaparral, cismontane woodland,
coastal scrub, riparian woodland,
valley and foothill grassland.

Elevation ranges from 195 to
4265 feet (60 to 1300 meters).

Blooms Mar-Jun.

Forested areas are too shady to support this species.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.
hogwallow starfish
Hesperevax caulescens
Rank 4.2 Valley and foothill grassland,
vernal pools. Elevation ranges
from 0 to 1655 feet (0 to 505
meters). Blooms Mar-Jun.

No Potential. The Study Area does not contain vernal
pools necessary to support this species.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.
woolly rose-mallow
Hibiscus lasiocarpos
var. occidentalis
Rank 1B.2 Marshes and swamps
(freshwater) Elevation ranges
from 0 to 395 feet (0 to 120
meters). Blooms June-Sep.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

Loma Prieta hoita
Hoita strobilina
Rank 1B.1 Chaparral, cismontane woodland,
riparian woodland. Elevation
ranges from 100 to 2820 feet (30
to 860 meters). Blooms MayJul(Aug-Oct).

No Potential. The Study Area does not contain
serpentine soils necessary to support this species.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

Page 1194 of 2600 ends

C-8

SPECIES STATUS HABITAT POTENTIAL TO OCCUR RECOMMENDATIONS Santa Cruz tarplant
Holocarpha
macradenia

FT, SE,
Rank 1B.1
Coastal prairie, coastal scrub,
valley and foothill grassland.

Elevation ranges from 35 to 720
feet (10 to 220 meters). Blooms
Jun-Oct.

Few native species are present, indicating that the
grassland is poor quality habitat and is therefore
unlikely to support this species.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.
coast iris
Iris longipetala
Rank 4.2 Coastal prairie, lower montane
coniferous forest, meadows and
seeps. Elevation ranges from 0 to
1970 feet (0 to 600 meters).

Blooms Mar-May(Jun).

Few native species are present, indicating that the
grassland is poor quality habitat and is therefore
unlikely to support this species.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

Carquinez goldenbush
Isocoma arguta
Rank 1B.1 Valley and foothill grassland.

Elevation ranges from 5 to 65
feet (1 to 20 meters). Blooms
Aug-Dec.

No Potential. The Study Area does not contain alkaline
soils necessary to support this species.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

Southern California
black walnut
Juglans californica
Rank 4.2 Chaparral, cismontane woodland,
coastal scrub, riparian woodland.

Elevation ranges from 165 to
2955 feet (50 to 900 meters).

Blooms Mar-Aug.

No Potential. The Study Area is well outside of the
known range of this species, which is restricted to
Southern California.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

Contra Costa
goldfields
Lasthenia conjugens
FE, Rank
1B.1
Cismontane woodland, playas,
valley and foothill grassland,
vernal pools. Elevation ranges
from 0 to 1540 feet (0 to 470
meters). Blooms Mar-Jun.

No Potential. The Study Area does not contain vernal
pools necessary to support this species.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

Ferris' goldfields
Lasthenia ferrisiae
Rank 4.2 Vernal pools. Elevation ranges
from 65 to 2295 feet (20 to 700
meters). Blooms Feb-May.

No Potential. The Study Area does not contain vernal
pools necessary to support this species.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

Page 1195 of 2600 ends

C-9

SPECIES STATUS HABITAT POTENTIAL TO OCCUR RECOMMENDATIONS Delta tule pea
Lathyrus jepsonii var.
jepsonii
Rank 1B.2 Marshes and swamps. Elevation
ranges from 0 to 15 feet (0 to 5
meters). Blooms May-Jul(AugSep).

No Potential. The Study Area does not contain tidally
influenced marshes necessary to support this species.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.
legenere
Legenere limosa
Rank 1B.1 Vernal pools. Elevation ranges
from 5 to 2885 feet (1 to 880
meters). Blooms Apr-Jun.

No Potential. The Study Area does not contain vernal
pools necessary to support this species.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.
bristly leptosiphon
Leptosiphon acicularis
Rank 4.2 Chaparral, cismontane woodland,
coastal prairie, valley and foothill
grassland. Elevation ranges from
180 to 4920 feet (55 to 1500
meters). Blooms Apr-Jul.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.
large-flowered
leptosiphon
Leptosiphon
grandiflorus
Rank 4.2 Cismontane woodland, closedcone coniferous forest, coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes, coastal
prairie, coastal scrub, valley and
foothill grassland. Elevation
ranges from 15 to 4005 feet (5 to
1220 meters). Blooms Apr-Aug.

Few native species are present, indicating that the
grassland is poor quality habitat and is therefore
unlikely to support this species.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

Page 1196 of 2600 ends

C-10

SPECIES STATUS HABITAT POTENTIAL TO OCCUR RECOMMENDATIONS Jepson's leptosiphon
Leptosiphon jepsonii
Rank 1B.2 Chaparral, cismontane woodland,
valley and foothill grassland.

Elevation ranges from 330 to
1640 feet (100 to 500 meters).

Blooms Mar-May.

Unlikely. Although the Study Area contains grassland
habitat, the site has been historically disturbed, and in some areas it receives modern anthropogenic
disturbance, including mowing, discing, and offhighway vehicle use. The grassland is dominated by a very dense cover of non-native and invasive species.

Few native species are present, indicating that the
grassland is poor quality habitat and is therefore
unlikely to support this species.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.
woolly-headed
lessingia
Lessingia hololeuca
Rank 3 Broadleafed upland forest,
coastal scrub, lower montane
coniferous forest, valley and
foothill grassland. Elevation
ranges from 50 to 1000 feet (15
to 305 meters). Blooms Jun-Oct.

Few native species are present, indicating that the
grassland is poor quality habitat and is therefore
unlikely to support this species.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

Mason's lilaeopsis
Lilaeopsis masonii
SR, Rank
1B.1
Marshes and swamps, riparian
scrub. Elevation ranges from 0 to
35 feet (0 to 10 meters). Blooms
Apr-Nov.

No Potential. Tidal marsh is absent from the Study
Area.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

Delta mudwort
Limosella australis
Rank 2B.1 Marshes and swamps, riparian
scrub. Elevation ranges from 0 to
10 feet (0 to 3 meters). Blooms
May-Aug.

No Potential. Tidal marsh is absent from the Study
Area.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

Hall’s bush-mallow
Malacothamnus hallii
Rank 1B.2 Chaparral, coastal scrub.

Elevation ranges from 35 to 2495
feet (10 to 760 meters). Blooms
(Apr)May- Sep(Oct).

Unlikely. The Study Area was historically grassland,
which is not suitable habitat for this species. Based on historic aerial imagery, shrub stands did not begin
establishing in the Study Area until the 1980s. The
nearest occurrence of this species is located
approximately 15 miles southeast, across the
Carquinez Strait/Suisun Bay. It is unlikely that this
species could have colonized the Study Area from that
distance and across the geographic and urban
development barriers that are present.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

Page 1197 of 2600 ends

C-11

SPECIES STATUS HABITAT POTENTIAL TO OCCUR RECOMMENDATIONS Oregon meconella
Meconella oregana
Rank 1B.1 Coastal prairie, coastal scrub.

Elevation ranges from 820 to
2035 feet (250 to 620 meters).

Blooms Mar-Apr.

No Potential. The Study Area does not contain coastal
habitats necessary to support this species.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

San Antonio Hills
monardella
Monardella antonina
ssp. antonina
Rank 3 Chaparral, cismontane woodland.

Elevation ranges from 1050 to
3280 feet (320 to 1000 meters).

Blooms Jun-Aug.

Unlikely. Although the Study Area contains chaparral
habitat, based on historic aerial imagery (NETR 2024),
chaparral did not start establishing in the Study Area
until the 1980s. As there are no occurrences of this
species in the immediate vicinity, the Study Area is
unlikely to have a historic seedbank containing this
species and is unlikely to have been colonized by it.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

Antioch Dunes
evening-primrose
Oenothera deltoides
ssp. howellii

FE, SE,
Rank 1B.1
Inland dunes. Elevation ranges
from 0 to 100 feet (0 to 30
meters). Blooms Mar-Sep.

No Potential. The Study Area does not contain inland
dunes necessary to support this species.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

Marin knotweed
Polygonum marinense
Rank 3.1 Marshes and swamps. Elevation
ranges from 0 to 35 feet (0 to 10
meters). Blooms (Apr)MayAug(Oct).

No Potential. Although the Study Area contains a
marsh, it is not tidal or brackish.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

California alkali grass
Puccinellia simplex
Rank 1B.2 Chenopod scrub, meadows and
seeps, valley and foothill
grassland, vernal pools. Elevation
ranges from 5 to 3050 feet (2 to
930 meters). Blooms Mar-May.

No Potential. The Study Area does not contain vernal
pools necessary to support this species.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

Lobb's aquatic
buttercup
Ranunculus lobbii
Rank 4.2 Cismontane woodland, north
coast coniferous forest, valley
and foothill grassland, vernal
pools. Elevation ranges from 50
to 1540 feet (15 to 470 meters).

Blooms Feb-May.

No Potential. The Study Area does not contain
seasonally ponded areas necessary to support this
species.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.
chaparral ragwort
Senecio aphanactis
Rank 2B.2 Chaparral, cismontane woodland,
coastal scrub. Elevation ranges
from 50 to 2625 feet (15 to 800
meters). Blooms Jan-Apr (May).

No Potential. The Study Area does not contain alkaline
soils necessary to support this species.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

Page 1198 of 2600 ends

C-12

SPECIES STATUS HABITAT POTENTIAL TO OCCUR RECOMMENDATIONS long-styled sandspurrey
Spergularia
macrotheca var.
longistyla
Rank 1B.2 Marshes and swamps, meadows
and seeps. Elevation ranges from
0 to 835 feet (0 to 255 meters).

Blooms Feb-May.

No Potential. The Study Area does not contain alkaline
soils necessary to support this species.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.
northern slender
pondweed
Stuckenia filiformis
ssp. alpina
Rank 2B.2 Marshes and swamps. Elevation
ranges from 985 to 7055 feet
(300 to 2150 meters). Blooms
May-Jul.

No Potential. This species occurs in clear, shallow
water (CDFW 2024b), which is absent from the Study
Area.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

California seablite
Suaeda californica
FE, Rank
1B.1
Marshes and swamps. Elevation
ranges from 0 to 50 feet (0 to 15
meters). Blooms Jul-Oct.

No Potential. Tidal marsh is absent from the Study
Area.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

Suisun Marsh aster
Symphyotrichum
lentum
Rank 1B.2 Marshes and swamps. Elevation
ranges from 0 to 10 feet (0 to 3
meters). Blooms (Apr)May-Nov.

No Potential. Tidal marsh is absent from the Study
Area.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.
two-fork clover
Trifolium amoenum
FE, Rank
1B.1
Coastal bluff scrub, valley and
foothill grassland. Elevation
ranges from 15 to 1360 feet (5 to
415 meters). Blooms Apr-Jun.

Few native species are present, indicating that the
grassland is poor quality habitat and is therefore
unlikely to support this species.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.
saline clover
Trifolium hydrophilum
Rank 1B.2 Marshes and swamps, valley and
foothill grassland, vernal pools.

Elevation ranges from 0 to 985
feet (0 to 300 meters). Blooms
Apr-Jun.

No Potential. The Study Area does not contain vernal
pools or alkaline soils necessary to support this
species.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.
oval-leaved viburnum
Viburnum ellipticum
Rank 2B.3 Chaparral, cismontane woodland,
lower montane coniferous forest.

Elevation ranges from 705 to
4595 feet (215 to 1400 meters).

Blooms May-Jun.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

Page 1199 of 2600 ends

C-13

SPECIES STATUS HABITAT POTENTIAL TO OCCUR RECOMMENDATIONS Birds
Golden eagle
Aquila chrysaetos

FP, BGEPA
Occurs year-round in rolling
foothills, mountain areas, sagejuniper flats, and deserts. Cliffwalled canyons provide nesting habitat in most parts of range;
also nests in large trees, usually
within otherwise open areas.

Unlikely. The nearest documented breeding
occurrence of this species was 1.8 mi north of the
Study Area in 1987 (CDFW 2024b). There are dozens of
historic and recent occurrences in the vicinity of the
Study Area (CDFW 2024b, Cornell 2024). There is
potential foraging habitat within the Study Area in the form of nonnative annual grasslands and scrub
communities, however during the site visit on
February 28, 2022, no ground squirrel burrows were
observed. There is no suitable nesting habitat within
the Study Area. Although golden eagles may fly over
the Study Area, they are unlikely to forage or nest
within the Study Area.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

Bald eagle
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus

SE, FP,
BGEPA
Occurs year-round in California,
but primarily a winter visitor;
breeding population is growing.

Nests in large trees in the vicinity
of larger lakes, reservoirs and
rivers. Wintering habitat
somewhat more variable but
usually features large
concentrations of waterfowl or
fish.

Unlikely. The nearest documented breeding
occurrence of this species was over 10 mi south of the
Study Area in 2006 (CDFW 2024b). There are no other
occurrences within 60 miles of the Study Area (CDFW
2024b). The Study Area lacks suitable foraging and
nesting habitat for this species. There are no large
bodies of freshwater in the Study Area.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

Northern harrier
Circus hudsonius
SSC
Year-round resident and winter
visitor. Found in open habitats
including grasslands, prairies,
marshes and agricultural areas.

Nests on the ground in dense
vegetation, typically near water
or otherwise moist areas. Preys
on small vertebrates.

Moderate Potential. The nearest documented
breeding occurrence of this species was less than 1
mile southeast of the Study Area in 2004 in the Benicia State Recreation Area (CDFW 2024b). The Benicia
State Recreation Area is a 200-acre tidal wetland that
could act as source population to the Study Area.

Additionally, the Study Area contains suitable foraging and nesting habitat for this species. There is moderate potential this species will use the Study Area for
foraging and nesting.

Work windows or preconstruction surveys. See
Section 7 for a discussion
of mitigation measures.

Page 1200 of 2600 ends

C-14

SPECIES STATUS HABITAT POTENTIAL TO OCCUR RECOMMENDATIONS Swainson's hawk
Buteo swainsoni
ST
Summer resident in California’s
Central Valley and limited
portions of the southern
California interior. Nests in tree
groves and isolated trees in
riparian and agricultural areas,
including near buildings. Forages
in grasslands and scrub habitats
as well as agricultural fields,
especially alfalfa. Preys on
arthropods year-round as well as
smaller vertebrates during the
breeding season.

Unlikely. The nearest documented breeding
occurrence of this species was over 9 mi north of the
Study Area in 2004 (CDFW 2024b). Swainson’s hawk is
documented to occur in the region on occasion during
migration (Cornell 2024). The Study Area contains
suitable foraging in the form of grasslands, but this
species is not known to nest in the vicinity and may
only occasionally pass through during migration.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

American peregrine
falcon
Falco peregrinus
anatum
FP
Year-round resident and winter
visitor. Occurs in a wide variety of
habitats, though often associated
with coasts, bays, marshes and
other bodies of water. Nests on
protected cliffs and also on manmade structures including buildings and bridges.

Unlikely. This species has been documented foraging
within 2 miles of the Study Area (Cornell 2024). The
Study Area contains foraging habitat, but no nesting
habitat such as cliffs, bridges, or other tall structures.

Foraging habitat within the Study Area is not primary
as this species is most likely to forage in the marshland to the east and south. It is unlikely this species could be found in the Study Area other than occasional
foraging.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

White-tailed kite
Elanus leucurus
CFP
Year-round resident in coastal
and valley lowlands with
scattered trees and large shrubs,
including grasslands, marshes
and agricultural areas. Nests in
trees, of which the type and
setting are highly variable. Preys
on small mammals and other
vertebrates.

Moderate Potential. There have been numerous
historic and recent documented occurrences of this
species (Cornell 2024),and one potential nest within 2
miles of the Study Area (CDFW 2024b). The Study Area
contains suitable foraging in the form of grasslands
and shrublands. Additionally, there are large oak trees that are suitable nesting habitat. This species was
observed foraging within the Study Area on February
28, 2022. There is a moderate potential for this
species to nest within the Study Area.

Work windows or preconstruction surveys. See
Section 7 for a discussion
of mitigation measures.

Page 1201 of 2600 ends

C-15

SPECIES STATUS HABITAT POTENTIAL TO OCCUR RECOMMENDATIONS Short-eared owl
Asio flammeus
SSC
Occurs year-round, but primarily
as a winter visitor; breeding very
restricted in most of California.

Found in open, treeless areas
(e.g., marshes, grasslands) with
elevated sites for foraging
perches and dense herbaceous
vegetation for roosting and
nesting. Preys mostly on small
mammals, particularly voles.

Moderate Potential. There are several documented
occurrences of this species within 5 miles of the Study Area (Cornell 2024), although no CNDDB occurrences
within 5 miles (CDFW 2024b). The Study Area contains
suitable nesting habitat in the form of grasslands and
shrublands. The adjacent Benicia State Recreation
Area provides foraging habitat for this species. The
nearest confirmed population is at Suisun Marsh
approximately 7 miles east of the Study Area (Shuford
and Gardali 2008; CDFW 2024b).

Work windows or preconstruction surveys. See
Section 7 for a discussion
of mitigation measures.

Burrowing owl
Athene cunicularia
SSC
Year-round resident and winter
visitor. Occurs in open, dry
grasslands and scrub habitats
with low-growing vegetation,
perches and abundant mammal
burrows. Preys upon insects and
small vertebrates. Nests and
roosts in old mammal burrows,
most commonly those of ground
squirrels.

Unlikely. There have been numerous documented
occurrences of this species within 5 miles of the Study Area during wintering and migration periods (Cornell
2024), and 2 wintering occurrences about 4 miles from
the Study Area in CNDDB (CDFW 2024b). The Study
Area contains suitable foraging habitat in the form of
grasslands and shrublands and may be observed
foraging during winter or migration periods. During
the site visit on February 28, 2022, no ground squirrel burrows were observed. Therefore, the Study Area
lacks the mammal burrows necessary for occupation
or nesting by this species and it is unlikely to nest
within the Study Area.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

California Ridgway's
rail
Rallus obsoletus
obsoletus

FE, SE, FP
Year-round resident in tidal
marshes of the San Francisco Bay
estuary. Requires tidal sloughs
and intertidal mud flats for
foraging, and dense marsh
vegetation for nesting and cover.

Typical habitat features abundant
growth of cordgrass and
pickleweed. Feeds primarily on
mollusks and crustaceans.

No Potential. The Study Area does not contain any
tidal marshes, sloughs, or intertidal mud flats that can support foraging or nesting for this species and is
greater than 700 feet from tidal marsh habitats.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

Page 1202 of 2600 ends

C-16

SPECIES STATUS HABITAT POTENTIAL TO OCCUR RECOMMENDATIONS California black rail
Laterallus jamaicensis
coturniculus
ST, FP
Year-round resident in marshes
(saline to freshwater) with dense
vegetation within four inches of
the ground. Prefers larger,
undisturbed marshes that have
an extensive upper zone and are
close to a major water source.

Extremely secretive and cryptic.

No Potential. The Study Area does not contain any
marshes, sloughs, or intertidal mud flats that can
support foraging or nesting for this species and is
greater than 700 feet from marsh habitats.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

Yellow rail
Coturnicops
noveboracensis
SSC
Summer resident in eastern
Sierra Nevada in Mono County,
breeding in shallow freshwater
marshes and wet meadows with
dense vegetation. Also a rare
winter visitor along the coast and
other portions of the state.

Extremely cryptic.

No Potential. The Study Area does not contain any
marshes or sloughs that can support foraging or
nesting for this species.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

Tricolored blackbird
Agelaius tricolor

ST, SSC
Nearly endemic to California,
where it is most numerous in the
Central Valley and vicinity. Highly
colonial, nesting in dense
aggregations over or near
freshwater in emergent growth
or riparian thickets. Also uses
flooded agricultural fields.

Abundant insect prey near
breeding areas essential.

Unlikely. The Study Area has 0.42 acres of seasonal
wetland that will be impacted and 0.94 acres of
riparian habitat that will not be impacted. The
seasonal wetland lacks riparian thickets or tall, dense emergent vegetation suitable to support nesting for
this species. The riparian habitat present in the Study Area is dense tree canopy and not suitable for this
species.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

Yellow-headed
blackbird
Xanthocephalus
xanthocephalus
SSC
Summer resident. Breeds
colonially in freshwater emergent
wetlands with dense vegetation
and deep water, often along
borders of lakes or ponds.

Requires abundant large insects
such as dragonflies; nesting is
timed for maximum emergence
of insect prey.

No Potential. The seasonal wetland in the Study Area
lacks riparian thickets or tall, dense emergent
vegetation suitable to support nesting for this species.

The Study Area does not have deep water features
suitable for this species.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

Page 1203 of 2600 ends

C-17

SPECIES STATUS HABITAT POTENTIAL TO OCCUR RECOMMENDATIONS San Pablo song
sparrow
Melospiza melodia
samuelis
SSC
Year-round resident of tidal
marshes along the north side of
San Francisco and San Pablo
Bays. Typical habitat is
dominated by pickleweed, with
gumplant and other shrubs
present in the upper zone for
nesting. May forage in areas
adjacent to marshes.

No Potential. The Study Area does not contain any
tidal marshes, sloughs, or intertidal mud flats that can support nesting for this species. The nearest
occurrence for this species is over 3.5 miles west of
the Study Area (CDFW 2024b; Cornell 2024). The Study
Area is outside the known range of this species.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

Suisun song sparrow
Melospiza melodia
maxillaris
SSC
Year-round resident of brackishwater marshes along Suisun Bay.

Inhabits cattails, tules, bulrushes
and other emergent vegetation,
including pickleweed. Nests
typically placed in shrubs.

Unlikely. The Study Area does not contain any tidal
marshes, sloughs, or intertidal mud flats that can
support nesting for this species. However, the Study
Area is near tidal marsh habitat and this species could forage in the Study Area. This species has been
documented in the Benicia State Recreation Area
(CDFW 2024b, Cornell 2024). The Study Area is within
the known range of this species, but over 700 feet
from typical habitat.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

Alameda song
sparrow
Melospiza melodia
pusillula
SSC
Year-round resident of salt
marshes bordering the south arm
of San Francisco Bay. Inhabits
primarily pickleweed marshes;
nests placed in marsh vegetation,
typically shrubs such as
gumplant.

No Potential. The Study Area does not contain any
tidal marshes, sloughs, or intertidal mud flats that can support nesting for this species. Additionally, the
Study Area is outside the current range of this species.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

Saltmarsh common
yellowthroat
Geothlypis trichas
sinuosa
SSC
Resident of the San Francisco Bay
region, in fresh and saltwater
marshes. Requires thick,
continuous cover down to water
surface for foraging; tall grasses,
tule patches, willows for nesting.

Unlikely. The Study Area does not contain any tidal
marshes, sloughs, or intertidal mud flats that can
support nesting for this species. However, the Study
Area is near marsh habitat and this species could
forage in the Study Area. This species has been
documented in the Benicia State Recreation Area
(CDFW 2024b, Cornell 2024).

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

Page 1204 of 2600 ends

C-18

SPECIES STATUS HABITAT POTENTIAL TO OCCUR RECOMMENDATIONS Bank swallow
Riparia riparia
ST
Summer resident in riparian and
other lowland habitats near
rivers, lakes and the ocean in
northern California. Nests
colonially in excavated burrows
on vertical cliffs and bank cuts
(natural and manmade) with finetextured soils. Historical nesting range in southern and central
areas of California has been
eliminated by habitat loss.

Currently known to breed in
Siskiyou, Shasta, and Lassen Cos.,
portions of the north coast, and
along Sacramento River from
Shasta Co. south to Yolo Co.

No Potential. There have been no documented
occurrences of this species within 10 miles of the
Study Area (CDFW 2024b; Cornell 2024). The Study
Area does not contain suitable nesting habitat near
rivers, lakes, or the ocean for this species.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

Western snowy plover
Charadrius nivosus
nivosus

FT, SSC
Federal listing applies only to the
Pacific coastal population. Yearround resident and winter visitor.

Occurs on sandy beaches, salt
pond levees, and the shores of
large alkali lakes. Nests on the
ground, requiring sandy, gravelly
or friable soils.

No Potential. The Study Area does not contain any
tidal sandy beaches, salt ponds, or alkali lakes that can support foraging or nesting for this species.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

California least tern
Sterna antillarum
browni

FE, SE, FP
Summer resident along the coast
from San Francisco Bay south to
northern Baja California; inland
breeding also very rarely occurs.

Nests colonially on barren or
sparsely vegetated areas with
sandy or gravelly substrates near
water, including beaches, islands,
and gravel bars. In San Francisco
Bay, has also nested on salt pond
margins.

No Potential. The Study Area does not contain any
tidal sandy or gravely beaches or salt ponds that can
support foraging or nesting for this species.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

Page 1205 of 2600 ends

C-19

SPECIES STATUS HABITAT POTENTIAL TO OCCUR RECOMMENDATIONS Amphibians and Reptiles
Foothill yellow-legged
frog
Rana boylii

SE, SSC
Found in or adjacent to rocky
streams in a variety of habitats.

Prefers partly-shaded, shallow
streams and riffles with a rocky
substrate; requires at least some
cobble-sized substrate for egglaying. Needs at least 15 weeks to attain metamorphosis. Feeds on
both aquatic and terrestrial
invertebrates.

No Potential. The Study Area does not contain any
rocky streams that can support foraging, basking, or
breeding for this species.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

California red-legged
frog
Rana draytonii

FT, SSC
Lowlands and foothills in or near
permanent sources of deep
water with dense, shrubby or
emergent riparian vegetation.

Requires 11 to 20 weeks of
permanent water for larval
development. Associated with
quiet perennial to intermittent
ponds, stream pools and
wetlands. Prefers shorelines with
extensive vegetation. Disperses
through upland habitats after
rains.

Unlikely. The riparian and seasonal wetland habitat
within the Study Area are not historical. They were
created as a result of stormwater runoff from the
housing development to the west of the Study Area.

Additionally, the Study Area is significantly isolated
from nearby populations to the northeast by large
residential developments and Interstate 780, and from
populations to the south by Carquinez Strait. The
nearest recent occurrence was in 2007 approximately

3.7 miles away (CDFW 2024b).

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

Page 1206 of 2600 ends

C-20

SPECIES STATUS HABITAT POTENTIAL TO OCCUR RECOMMENDATIONS California tiger
salamander - central
California DPS
Ambystoma
californiense pop. 1
FT, ST
Restricted to grasslands and lowelevation foothill regions in California (generally under 1500
feet) where it uses seasonal
aquatic habitats for breeding.

The salamanders breed in natural
ephemeral pools, or ponds that
mimic ephemeral pools, and
occupy substantial areas
surrounding the breeding pool as
adults. They survive hot, dry
summers by living underground
in burrows (e.g., ground
squirrels). During wet periods,
the salamanders may emerge
from refugia and feed in the
surrounding grasslands.

No Potential. The seasonal wetland habitat within the
Study Area is not historical. It was created as a result of stormwater runoff from the housing development
to the west of the Study Area. The Study Area has
significant dispersal barriers including large residential developments and Interstate 780 to the north, and
Carquinez Strait to the south. Lastly, the Study Area is over 9 miles from the nearest breeding occurrence
(CDFW 2024b), much farther than the known dispersal
distance of 1.3 miles.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

Alameda whipsnake
Masticophis lateralis
euryxanthus
FT, ST
Inhabits chaparral and foothillhardwood habitats in the eastern Bay Area. Prefers south-facing
slopes and ravines with rock
outcroppings where shrubs form
a vegetative mosaic with oak
trees and grasses and small
mammal burrows provide
basking and refuge.

No Potential. The Study Area does not contain any
rock outcroppings that can support foraging, basking,
or breeding for this species. This species is not known to occur in Solano County.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

Giant garter snake
Thamnophis gigas
FT, ST
Prefers freshwater marsh and
low gradient streams. Has
adapted to drainage canals and
irrigation ditches. This is the most
aquatic of the garter snakes in
California.

No Potential. The Study Area does not contain aquatic
habitats for this species, and no freshwater is present in the summer. The Study Area is outside of the known
range for this species.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

Page 1207 of 2600 ends

C-21

SPECIES STATUS HABITAT POTENTIAL TO OCCUR RECOMMENDATIONS Northern California
legless lizard
Anniella pulchra
SSC
Found in loose soils or leaf litter
with plant cover such as beach
dune, sandy washes, stream
terraces, chaparral, and pine-oak
woodlands. Requires some soil
moisture. Occasionally found in
suburban gardens. Preys upon
invertebrates.

No Potential. The Study Area does not contain any
friable soils that can support foraging, breeding, or
protection for this species. Additionally, the Study
Area is outside the current range of this species.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

Western pond turtle
Emys marmorata

FPT, SSC
A thoroughly aquatic turtle of
ponds, marshes, rivers, streams
and irrigation ditches with
aquatic vegetation. Require
basking sites such as partially
submerged logs, vegetation mats,
or open mud banks, and suitable
upland habitat (sandy banks or
grassy open fields) for egg-laying.

Unlikely. The Study Area does not contain aquatic
habitat for this species as freshwater is only seasonal.

Additionally, the seasonal wetland is not historical as it was created because of the housing development to
the west of the Study Area. The Study Area has
significant dispersal barriers to nearby populations 4
miles to the north including large residential
developments and Interstate 780 to the north, and
Carquinez Strait to the south.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

Mammals
American badger
Taxidea taxus
SSC
Most abundant in drier open
stages of most shrub, forest, and
herbaceous habitats, with friable
soils. Requires friable soils and
open, uncultivated ground. Preys
on burrowing rodents.

No Potential. The Study Area is isolated from large
contiguous grasslands by housing developments and
Interstate 780. The nearest occurrence is almost 14
miles away both of which date back to 1911 and 1925
(CDFW 2024b). Furthermore, during the site visit on
February 28, 2022, no badger burrows were found and
only a couple of gopher burrows were observed
indicating a limited food resource.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

Big free-tailed bat
Nyctinomops macrotis
SSC,
WBWG
Med
Occurs rarely in low-lying arid
areas. Requires high cliffs or
rocky outcrops for roosting sites.

No Potential. The Study Area does not contain any
cliff or rock outcrops that can support this species. The Study Area is outside the home range of this species
which is known to occur in the state of Colorado
(USFWS 2024b). However, vagrants have been
documented in Alameda and San Diego Counties in
rare cases (CDFW 2021).

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

Page 1208 of 2600 ends

C-22

SPECIES STATUS HABITAT POTENTIAL TO OCCUR RECOMMENDATIONS Pallid bat
Antrozous pallidus
SSC,
WBWG
High
Found in a variety of habitats
ranging from grasslands to mixed
forests, favoring open and dry,
rocky areas. Roost sites include
crevices in rock outcrops and
cliffs, caves, mines, and also
hollow trees and various
manmade structures such as
bridges, barns, and buildings
(including occupied buildings).

Roosts must protect bats from
high temperatures. Very
sensitive to disturbance of
roosting sites.

Unlikely. The nearest documented occurrence of this
species was ~13 mi north in 2007, in addition to
several historic occurrences (pre-1940) south of the
Study Area (CDFW 2024b). The Study Area contains
suitable foraging habitat for this species. However,
there is no suitable roosting habitat as this species is very sensitive to disturbance. The few large trees
within the Study Area are directly adjacent (~330 ft) to Interstate 780 and exposed to predators, wind, and
temperature fluctuations. Additionally, this species
typically roosts in crevices of rocks, caves, and mines which are absent from the Study Area. This species
could be found in the Study Area foraging but not
roosting.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

Townsend's big-eared
bat
Corynorhinus
townsendii
SSC,
WBWG
High
Associated with a wide variety of
habitats from deserts to higherelevation mixed and coniferous forests. Females form maternity
colonies in buildings, caves and
mines, and males roost singly or
in small groups. Foraging typically
occurs at edge habitats near
wooded areas, e.g. along
streams.

Unlikely. The Study Area does contain suitable
foraging habitat for this species. However, there is no suitable roosting habitat as this species typically roosts in caves, mines, and buildings. It is unlikely this species could be found in the Study Area other than
occasional foraging.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

Silver-haired bat
Lasionycteris
noctivagans
WBWG
Med
Primarily a forest dweller, feeding
over streams, ponds, and open
brushy areas. Summer habitats
include a variety of forest and
woodland types, both coastal and
montane. Roosts in hollow trees,
snags, buildings, rock crevices,
caves, and under bark.

Moderate Potential. The Study Area does contain
suitable foraging and roosting habitat for this
migratory species. Large oak trees are present within
the Study Area that could provide maternity or dayroost habitat.

Work windows or preconstruction surveys. See
Section 7 for a discussion
of mitigation measures.

Page 1209 of 2600 ends

C-23

SPECIES STATUS HABITAT POTENTIAL TO OCCUR RECOMMENDATIONS Hoary bat
Lasiurus cinereus
WBWG
Med
Prefers open forested habitats or
habitat mosaics, with access to
trees for cover and open areas or
habitat edges for feeding. Roosts
in dense foliage of medium to
large trees. Feeds primarily on
moths.

Moderate Potential. The Study Area does contain
suitable foraging and roosting habitat for this species.

Large oak trees are present within the Study Area.

Work windows or preconstruction surveys. See
Section 7 for a discussion
of mitigation measures.

San Francisco duskyfooted woodrat
Neotoma fuscipes
annectens
SSC
Forest habitats of moderate
canopy and moderate to dense
understory. Also, in chaparral
habitats. Constructs nests of
shredded grass, leaves, and other
material. May be limited by
availability of nest-building
materials.

No Potential. The Study Area is outside of this
subspecies range. This subspecies does not occur
north of San Pablo or Suisun Bays.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

Suisun shrew
Sorex ornatus sinuosus
SSC
Tidal marshes of the northern
shores of San Pablo and Suisun
Bays. Require dense low-lying
cover and driftwood and other
litter above the mean hightide
line for nesting and foraging.

No Potential. The Study Area does not contain any
salt or brackish wetlands that can support this species.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

Salt-marsh wandering
shrew
Sorex vagrans
halicoetes
SSC
Salt marshes of the south arm of
San Francisco Bay. Medium high
marsh 6 to 8 feet above sea level
where abundant driftwood is
scattered among Salicornia.

No Potential. The Study Area does not contain any
salt or brackish wetlands that can support this species.

The Study Area is outside the current range of this
species.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

San Pablo vole
Microtus californicus
sanpabloensis
SSC
Saltmarshes of San Pablo Creek,
on the south shore of San Pablo
Bay. Constructs burrow in soft
soil. Feeds on grasses, sedges and
herbs. Forms a network of
runways leading from the
burrow.

No Potential. The Study Area does not contain any
salt or brackish wetlands that can support this species.

The Study Area is outside the current range of this
species.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

Page 1210 of 2600 ends

C-24

SPECIES STATUS HABITAT POTENTIAL TO OCCUR RECOMMENDATIONS Salt-marsh harvest
mouse
Reithrodontomys
raviventris

FE, SE, FP
Endemic to emergent salt and
brackish wetlands of the San
Francisco Bay Estuary.

Pickleweed marshes are primary
habitat; also occurs in various
other wetland communities with
dense vegetation. Does not
burrow, builds loosely organized
nests. Requires higher areas for
flood escape.

No Potential. The Study Area does not contain any
salt or brackish wetlands that can support this species.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

Fish
Sacramento splittail
Pogonichthys
macrolepidotus
SSC
Formerly endemic to the lakes
and rivers of the Central Valley,
but now confined to the
Sacramento Delta, Suisun Bay
and associated marshes. Occurs
in slow-moving river sections and
dead-end sloughs. Requires
flooded vegetation for spawning
and foraging for young. A
freshwater species, but tolerant
of moderate salinity (10-18 parts
per thousand).

No Potential. The Study Area does not contain any
stream or rivers. Only one intermittent stream and
ephemeral drainage is present.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

Delta smelt
Hypomesus
transpacificus
FT, SE
Lives in the Sacramento-San
Joaquin estuary in areas where
salt and freshwater systems
meet. Occurs seasonally in Suisun
Bay, Carquinez Strait and San
Pablo Bay. Seldom found at
salinities > 10 ppt; most often at
salinities < 2 ppt.

No Potential. The Study Area does not contain any
estuarine habitat.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

Page 1211 of 2600 ends

C-25

SPECIES STATUS HABITAT POTENTIAL TO OCCUR RECOMMENDATIONS Sacramento perch
Archoplites
interruptus
SSC
(Only within native range)
Historically found in the sloughs,
slow-moving rivers, and lakes of
the Central Valley. Prefer warm
water. Aquatic vegetation is
essential for young. Tolerate
wide range of physio-chemical
water conditions.

No Potential. The Study Area does not contain any
stream or rivers. Only one intermittent stream and
ephemeral drainage is present.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

Longfin smelt
Spirinchus thaleichthys

FPE, ST
Euryhaline, nektonic and
anadromous. Found in open
waters of estuaries, mostly in
middle or bottom of water
column. Prefer salinities of 15 to
30 ppt but can be found in
completely freshwater to almost
pure seawater.

No Potential. The Study Area does not contain any
estuarine habitat
No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

Green sturgeon –
Southern DPS
Acipenser medirostris
pop. 1
FT
Spawn in the Sacramento River
and the Feather River. Spawn at
temperatures between 8-14
degrees C. Preferred spawning
substrate is large cobble, but can
range from clean sand to
bedrock.

No Potential. The Study Area does not contain any
stream or rivers. Only one intermittent stream and
ephemeral drainage is present.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

Steelhead - central
California coast DPS
Oncorhynchus mykiss
irideus pop. 8
FT
They are born in freshwater
streams, where they spend their
first 1-3 years of life. They then
emigrate to the ocean where
most of their growth occurs.

After spending between one to
four growing seasons in the
ocean, steelhead return to their
native freshwater stream to
spawn.

No Potential. The Study Area does not contain any
stream or rivers. Only one intermittent stream and
ephemeral drainage is present.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

Page 1212 of 2600 ends

C-26

SPECIES STATUS HABITAT POTENTIAL TO OCCUR RECOMMENDATIONS Invertebrates
Callippe silverspot
butterfly
Speyeria callippe
callippe
FE
Two populations in San Bruno
Mountain and the Cordelia Hills
are recognized. Hostplant is
Viola pedunculata, which is found
on serpentine soils. Most adults
found on east-facing slopes;
males congregate on hilltops in
search of females.

Unlikely. The nearest population is in Cordelia Hills
approximately 3 miles north (CDFW 2024b). The
hostplant for this species (Viola pedunculata) was not
observed within the Study Area during the February
and July site visits. The majority of the Study Area is dominated by non-native grassland, artichoke thistle,
and ruderal weeds (fennel, mustards) limiting the
potential of the hostplant occurring within the site.

Additionally, minimal nectar producing flowering
plants occur within the Study Area as a food source.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

Monarch - California
overwintering
population
Danaus plexippus pop.
1 FC
Roosts are located in windprotected tree groves, with
nectar and water sources nearby,
and are often on south,
southwest, or west facing slopes
which may provide more
favorable temperature regimes
and wind protection.

Unlikely. There are no tree groves suitable for
supporting monarch winter roosting in the Study Area.

Minimal nectar producing flowering plants occur
within the Study Area as a food source. This species
may forage for nectar or migrate through the Study
Area.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

Valley elderberry
longhorn beetle
Desmocerus
californicus dimorphus
FT
Occurs only in the central valley
of California, in association with
blue elderberry (Sambucus spp.).

Prefers to lay eggs in elderberry 2
to 8 inches in diameter; some
preference shown for
""stressed"" elderberry.

No Potential. There are no documented occurrences
of this species within 9 miles (CDFW 2024b).

Additionally, no elderberry shrubs were observed
within the Study Area during the February 28, 2022
site visit.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

Crotch bumble bee
Bombus crotchii
SC
Range largely restricted to
California, favoring grassland and
scrub habitats. Typical of bumble
bees, nests are usually
constructed underground.

Unlikely. The single documented occurrence of this
species within 60 miles was over 13 miles away across
the Carquinez Strait in 2015 (CDFW 2024b). The Study
Area contains foraging and nesting habitat for this
species. However, limited food resources (nectar
producing flowers) and no ground squirrel burrows
were observed within the Study Area during the
February and July site visits.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

Page 1213 of 2600 ends

C-27

SPECIES STATUS HABITAT POTENTIAL TO OCCUR RECOMMENDATIONS Western bumble bee
Bombus occidentalis
SC
Formerly common throughout
much of western North America;
populations from southern British
Columbia to central California
have nearly disappeared (Xerces
2015). Occurs in a wide variety of
habitat types. Nests are
constructed annually in preexisting cavities, usually on the ground (e.g., mammal burrows).

Many plant species are visited
and pollinated.

No Potential. All documented occurrences of this
species within 60 miles have been historic with the
most recent being in the 1950s (CDFW 2024b), and the
Study Area is outside of the current known range
(CDFW 2023).

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

Vernal pool fairy
shrimp
Branchinecta lynchi
FT
Endemic to the grasslands of the
Central Valley, central coast
mountains, and south coast
mountains, in astatic rain-filled
pools. Inhabit small, clear-water
sandstone-depression pools and
grassed swale, earth slump, or
basalt-flow depression pools.

No Potential. There are no vernal pool or vernal swale
habitat is present within the Study Area.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

Conservancy fairy
shrimp
Branchinecta
conservatio
FE
Endemic to the grasslands of the
northern two-thirds of the
Central Valley; found in large,
turbid pools. Inhabit astatic pools
located in swales formed by old,
braided alluvium; filled by
winter/spring rains, last until
June.

No Potential. There is no vernal pool or vernal swale
habitat present within the Study Area.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.

Page 1214 of 2600 ends

C-28

SPECIES STATUS HABITAT POTENTIAL TO OCCUR RECOMMENDATIONS California freshwater
shrimp
Syncaris pacifica
FE, SE
Endemic to Marin, Napa, and
Sonoma counties. Found in low
elevation, low gradient streams
where riparian cover is moderate
to heavy. Shallow pools away
from mainstream flow. Winter:
undercut banks with exposed
roots. Summer: leafy branches
touching water.

No Potential. The Study Area does not contain any
stream or rivers that are capable of supporting this
species and is out of the known range of this species.

Only one intermittent and one ephemeral drainage
are present.

No further actions are
recommended for this
species.
* Key to status codes:

BGEPA Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
CFP California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Fully Protected Species FC Federal Candidate
FE Federal Endangered
FPE Federal Proposed Endangered
FPT Federal Proposed Threatened
FT Federal Threatened
SE State Endangered
SC State Candidate
SSC California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Species of Special Concern ST State Threatened
WBWG High Western Bat Working Group – High Priority
WBWG Med Western Bat Working Group – Medium Priority
California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR)
Rank 1A CRPR 1A: Plants presumed extinct in California
Rank 1B CRPR 1B: Plants rare, threatened or endangered in California and elsewhere Rank 2A CRPR 2A: Plants presumed extirpated in California, but more common elsewhere Rank 2B CRPR 2B: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere Rank 3 CRPR 3: Plants about which CNPS needs more information (a review list) Rank 4 CRPR 4: Plants of limited distribution (a watch list) Threat Ranks

0.1 Seriously threatened in California

0.2 Moderately threatened in California

0.3 Not very threatened in California

Page 1215 of 2600 ends

C-29
**Potential species occurrence definitions:

Present. Species was observed on the site during site visits or has been recorded (i.e. CNDDB, other reports) on the site recently.

High Potential. All of the habitat components meeting the species requirements are present and/or most of the habitat on or adjacent to the site is highly suitable. The species has a high probability of being found on the site.

Moderate Potential. Some of the habitat components meeting the species requirements are present, and/or only some of the habitat on or adjacent to the site is unsuitable. The species has a moderate probability of being found on the site.

Unlikely. Few of the habitat components meeting the species requirements are present, and/or the majority of habitat on and adjacent to the site is unsuitable or of very poor quality. The species has a low probability of being found on the site.

No Potential. Habitat on and adjacent to the site is clearly unsuitable for the species requirements (foraging, breeding, cover, substrate, elevation, hydrology, plant community, site history, disturbance regime).

Page 1216 of 2600 ends

Vista Cove Biological Resources Technical Report WRA, Inc.

February 2024 Appendix D– Project Plans
APPENDIX D. PROJECT PLANS

Page 1217 of 2600 ends

Vista Cove Biological Resources Technical Report WRA, Inc.

February 2024 Appendix D– Project Plans

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 1218 of 2600 ends

Figure 3. Soils Map
Sancerra Vista Cove
Vallejo, California
c::::J Study Area: (20.13 ac.)
DIC: Dibble-Los Osos clay loams, 2 to 9 percent slopes
DIE: Dibble-Los Osos clay loams, 9 to 30 percent slopes DIF2: Dibble-Los Osos clay loams, 30 to SO percent slopes, eroded 0 200
c:::::==:r::::==::JFeet
100
N
A

Page 1219 of 2600 ends

Impact Type
Permanent
Permanent
Temporary
Permanent
Impact Type
'-N Permanent Impact: (8.21 ac.)
)(X Temporary Impact: (2.10 ac.)
Sensitive land Cover
- Intermittent Stream: {0.05 ac.)
- Seasonal Wetland: {0.49 ac.)
- Freshwater Marsh: (0.12 ac.)
- Riparian: (0.91 ac.)
- Toyon Chaparral: {1.24 ac.)
Non-sensitive land Cover Type
Coyote Brush Scrub: {0.43 ac.)
- Poison Oak Scrub: {0.91 ac.)
c::::J Non-native Grassland: (12.70 ac.)
- Artichoke Thistle Field: (3.29 ac.)
Land Cover Type Sensitive Acres
Coyote Brush Scrub No 0.42
Non-native Grassland No 7.31
Non-native Grassland No 2.10
Seasonal Wetland Yes 0.48
Figure 4. Proposed Impacts within the Study Area
Sancerra Vista Cove
Vallejo, California
0 200
CiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiI:==:::iFeet
100

Page 1220 of 2600 ends

Page 1221 of 2600 ends

Page 1222 of 2600 ends

Page 1223 of 2600 ends

ST:

SR:

Page 1224 of 2600 ends

Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status1
Invertebrates
Bombusspp. Bumblebee -
Apis mellifera European honeybee -
1Key to Conservation Status:

FP CDFW Fully Protected Species
B-7

Page 1225 of 2600 ends

February 22, 2023
Attn: Scott Covington
Sancerra
2618 San Miguel Drive, Suite 1223
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Re: Sancerra Vista Cove Development Project - Arborist Tree Survey and Report Dear Scott Covington:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you of the results of an arborist survey performed on October 12, 2022, near the east end of Shady Lane in the City of Vallejo, Solano County, California, including Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN) 007-912-010, 007-917-117, and 007-917-118 (Study Area, see Figure 1 in the attachments). The survey was conducted by WRA's !SA-Certified Arborist (#WE9541A) and Tree Risk Assessment Qualified (TRAQ) arborist Kevin Schwartz (Arborist) for the purpose of documenting all trees with a diameter at breast height (DBH) greater than 6 inches within the Study Area and outside of the riparian area (see Figure 2 in the attachments). The tree inventory and arborist report are provided as part of the planning process for the Vista Cove Development Project (Project) consistent with the City of Vallejo's Zoning Code Chapters 16.504.07 and 16.701.02 of Title 16. The proposed Project will require tree protection, removal, and replacement. Anticipated tree impacts presented in this report may be subject to change with further design development.

Regulatory Background
Title 16 of the City of Vallejo Zoning Code (Zoning Code) details protections, restrictions, permits, and violations surrounding the removal or disturbance of Significant Trees from any parcel of property in the City. Details of the Zoning Code can be found below:

16.701.02 LAND USE TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
Significant Tree. Any tree or stand of trees on private property having either a height of twentyfive feet measured above ground level, or a diameter of ten or more inches.

16.504.07 TREE PROTECTION
A. Preserving Trees During Construction. The following measures are required to protect trees during construction in addition to any that may be recommended by an arborist hired by the applicant and imposed as a condition of approval:
~ WRA, Inc. I 4225 Hollis Street, Emeryville, CA 94608
"~
1

Page 1226 of 2600 ends

1. Tree Inventory. Identify trees to be preserved on a tree inventory plan with type of tree and condition prior to construction, or permit submittal or as part of entitlements, whichever is first.

2. Existing Trees. Existing mature trees shall be preserved in non-residential zoning districts if they are over 24 inches in diameter measured 4 feet 6 inches above natural grade.

However, trees meeting the above criteria may be removed on a limited basis with the permission of the Director upon submittal of an Arborist's report which determines that the tree is in poor health and not likely to survive; if the trees constitute a high fire hazard or a threat to persons, structures, or property; or, if they impede public works projects. Trees to be removed shall be shown on the Landscaping and Irrigation Plan and detailed on a tree inventory chart. The Arborist's Report shall provide guidance on the following requirements:
a. Construct fencing around the drip line of each tree or group of trees to be retained; b. No fill, grading, or construction shall be permitted within the drip line of any tree (or within 6 feet of the trunk, whichever is greater) designated for preservation except as may be recommended by an arborist or forester.
c. Trenching shall be prohibited within the tree drip line, and any required utility line within the tree drip line shall be installed by boring or drilling through the soil. Where necessary for access in the vicinity of trees designated for preservation, paving within the drip line shall use porous materials such as gravel, loose boulders, cobbles, wood chips, or bark mulch.
d. As an option, establish an incentive program in the construction contract to encourage workers, particularly bulldozer drivers, to maximize caution when working near trees (such as a fine for each damaged tree or subtract the fine from a bonus to be divided among all construction workers at the end of the project). e. Alternate methods to the standards above that are recommended by the Arborist may be implemented.

B. Removal of Trees. The Director may approve the removal of trees based on a determination that there is no feasible alternative design for developing the site and based on report and recommendation by a qualified arborist submitted by the applicant including information as to whether:

1. The tree is in poor health and cannot be saved;

2. The tree is a public nuisance, causing damage to public utilities or streets and sidewalks that cannot be mitigated by some other means (such as root barriers etc.);

3. The tree is in danger of falling and cannot be saved by some other means (such as pruning);

4. The tree is damaging existing private improvements on the lot (e.g., building foundation, wall, patio, deck, roof, retaining wall, etc.);

5. The tree species has been identified as fire prone including Blue gum eucalyptus (Eucalyptus g/obu/us), Monterey pines (Pinus radiata), Juniper (Cupressaceous) Tree of ~ WRA, Inc. I 4225 Hollis Street, Emeryville, CA 94608
"~
2

Page 1227 of 2600 ends

Heaven (Ailanthus altissima), Black acacia (Acacia melanoxylon), and bamboo and is located within 100 feet of structures; or

6. The tree species is known to develop weaknesses that affect its health or the safety of people and property (e.g., short-lived, weak-wooded and subject to limb breakage, shallow- rooted and subject to toppling).

C. Replacement of Significant Trees Required. Trees shall be replaced at a ratio of at least 3 new trees for every tree removed except for the fire-prone species identified above. The minimum size of a replacement tree shall be 15 gallons. Exception to this requirement may be approved by the Director when site conditions warrant. Replacement trees shall be planted in the following order of priority:

1. On the Study Area;

2. On any adjacent property subject to approval of the owner; or

3. In the public right-of-way adjacent to the property subject to approval of the Director of Public Works.

Methods
On October 12, 2022, the Study Area was traversed on foot by the Arborist to inventory all trees with a DBH of 6 inches or greater within the Study Area, not including the riparian protection zone (Figure 2). Relevant information was recorded for each surveyed tree, including:
• Tree Number - corresponds to a round aluminum tag affixed to each protected tree. • Species - common and scientific name of the tree.
• Trunk DBH - was calculated for surveyed trees by measuring the trunk diameter at 4.5 feet (54 inches) above the ground on the high side of the trunk. For multi-trunk trees, DBH was calculated by measuring each individual trunk and calculating the sum of trunk diameters. • Max Drip -Dripline radii were recorded to the nearest foot measuring from the center of the trunk to the edge of dripline mapped, approximating the maximum distance in feet from the trunk to the edge of the branches.
• Condition Rating - rated poor, fair, or good considering both the health and structure of the tree. A rating of fair-good or good indicates no significant condition concerns. • Health Rating - rated poor, fair, or good considering the overall health of the tree. A rating of fair-good or good indicates no significant health concerns. • Structure Rating - rated poor, fair, or good considering the structure of the tree. A rating of fair-good or good indicates no significant structure concerns. • Health - specific comments contributing to the condition, health, and structure ratings were noted (e.g. major decay/dieback, dead, multiple dead trunks, poor growth form, lean, unknown abiotic disorder, lean, cankers).
• Comments - comments regarding the tree assessment, access, and whether the tree should be removed or not.

Surveyed tree locations within the Study Area were recorded using sub-meter accuracy GPS. Trees were tagged with aluminum tree tags with a unique identifying number. Two trees (#560 and ~ WRA, Inc. I 4225 Hollis Street, Emeryville, CA 94608
"~
3

Page 1228 of 2600 ends

#563) were inaccessible to tag because the shrubs or Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) were too dense to access the trunk. Anticipated tree impacts were determined based on a limit of work provided by DK Engineering on December 14, 2022. Final tree impacts may differ from the ant icipated impacts presented in this report wit h furt her project design development.

This Arborist Tree Survey and Report includes the following figures and table as attachments:
• Figure 1, entitled "Study Area Regional Location Map" shows the project location. • Figure 2, entitled "Tree Survey Study Area" contains the locations of the trees on an aerial image of the Study Area.
• Table A, entitled "Tree Evaluation", summarizes the results of the tree evaluation for all surveyed trees.

Additional summary tables are provided in the following sections.

Summary of Tree Evaluation
Location, Species Makeup, Number of Trees, and Age:

The Study Area is located south of Interstate 780 off Shady Lane and Wildflower Avenue in the City of Vallejo, Solano County, California. The subject trees found were native and horticultural species. The horticultural species had been planted as part of the landscaping along Shady Lane and a few scattered fruit trees were found in the southern part of the Study Area. The native species were found scattered around the property.

A total of 83 trees were surveyed within the Study Area, of which 57 trees meet the Significant Tree definition under the local ordinance. Four non-native tree species were identified during the survey, including: two strawberry trees (Arbutus 'Marina'), one apple tree (Ma/us sp.), three Monterey pines (Pinus radiata), and two cherry trees (Prunus sp.). Three native tree species were identified during the survey, including: one toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), 73 coast live oaks (Quercus agrifolia), and one valley oak (Quercus /obata). The diameters of surveyed trees ranged from 6 to 43.2 inches.

All tree numbers and their associated attributes are recorded in the Tree Evaluation Table (Table A in the attachments). The surveyed trees varied in age from young to mature.

Tree Condition, Health, and Structure:

The health of the trees was rated from poor to good. Most of the trees were in good condition, good health, and had good structure. Only one apple tree was in poor health having major decay and dieback. This apple tree was a small tree outside of the development footprint and poses no risk.
~ WRA, Inc. I 4225 Hollis Street, Emeryville, CA 94608
"~
4

Page 1229 of 2600 ends

Root Protection Zones and Potential Impacts:

Using the max drip line, the Arborist estimated the area of root protection zone (RPZ) that would be impacted by t he Project for each tree.

Of the 83 trees surveyed, a total of 69 trees are anticipated to require removal (0.76 acre of RPZ would be impacted for these 69 trees), three trees would not be removed but would have RPZ impacts (0.01 acre), and 11 trees would be entirely avoided (Table 1, below). The three trees with only RPZ impacts would have 24% to 38% of the RPZ impacted. Impacts to these three trees could be avoided with appropriate tree protection measures.

Of the 69 trees that are anticipated to require removal, 47 of these trees (2'.10" DBH) meet the Significant Tree definition (0.60 acre of RPZ would be impacted for these 47 Significant Trees). Of the three trees that would not be removed but would have RPZ impacts, two meet the Significant Tree definition ( <0.01 acre of RPZ).

Table 1. Tree Survey Summary
Description Number of trees RPZ Impact Area
(Acre)
All Surveyed Trees (2'. 6" DBH)
All Trees Surveyed 83 N/A
Trees Requiring Removal 69 0.76 acre
Trees Avoided but with RPZ Impacts 3 0.01 acre
Surveyed Trees Avoided 11 N/A
Significant Trees (2'.10" DBH)
Significant Trees Surveyed 57 N/A
Anticipated Significant Trees Requiring Removal 47 0.60 acre Significant Trees Avoided but with RPZ Impacts 2 <0.01 acre Significant Trees Avoided 8 N/A
Replacement Tree Requirements
According to Title 16.504.07 of the Zoning Code of the City of Vallejo, replacement of Significant Trees shall be required at a ratio of at least three new trees for every tree removed. While Monterey pine is a fire-prone species it is more than 100 feet from buildings and, thus, may still require mitigation in the form of tree replacement. The minimum size of a replacement tree shall be 15 gallons. Exception to this requirement may be approved by the Director when site conditions warrant. Replacement trees shall be planted in the following order of priority:

1. On the Study Area;

2. On any adjacent property subject to approval of the owner; or ~ WRA, Inc. I 4225 Hollis Street, Emeryville, CA 94608
"~
5

Page 1230 of 2600 ends

3. In the public right-of-way adjacent to the property subject to approval of the Director of Public Works.

Table 3, below, shows the number of replacement trees that may be required to compensate for the anticipated removal of 47 Significant Trees protected under the local ordinance. A total of 141 replacement trees may be required. Selection of replacement trees should be done with approval of the City of Vallejo Public Works Director and in accordance with Chapter 16.504.09 WaterEfficient Landscape Requirements, Section G. Specific Requirements for Landscape Documentation Package, 3. Landscape Design Plan a. Plant material :
a. Plant material. Any plant not within a "required landscaped area," may be selected for the landscape, providing the estimated total water use in the landscape area does not exceed the maximum applied water allowance. Plants to be located within a required landscaped area must be of a drought tolerant variety. Methods to achieve water efficiency shall include one or more of the following:
i. Protection and preservation of native species and natural vegetation; ii. Selection of water-conserving plant, tree and turf species, especially local native plants;
iii. Selection of plants based on local climate suitability, disease and pest resistance;
iv. Selection of street trees based on city of Vallejo approved street tree list and size at maturity as appropriate for the planting area;
v. Selection of plants from local and regional landscape program plant lists. vi. Selection of plants from local Modification Plan Guidelines.

Table 3. Summary of Anticipated Replacement Plantings Required for Significant Tree Removal Species Number of Significant Trees Number of Replacement Minimum Plant Size Requiring Mitigation Trees Anticipated2 strawberry tree 1 3
Monterey pine1 2 6
plum or cherry 2 6
coast live oak 42 126
Total 47 141
1Monterey pine trees are a fire prone species that may not require replacement planting. 2Replacement tree species can be different from the tree species proposed tor removal.

Limitations
15 gallon pot
• This assessment is based upon conditions observed during the date of the site visit. Tree conditions change over time and, as they change, this report may need to be revised. ~ WRA, Inc. I 4225 Hollis Street, Emeryville, CA 94608
"~
6

Page 1231 of 2600 ends

• The result of the evaluations for trees for which more detailed examination and/or testing and risk assessment is recommended (including aerial inspection, decay mapping and/or root examination) is provisional, pending the outcome of these studies. • Tree condition assessments were based on visual observations from the ground level. • The Arborist did not conduct any root excavation, coring, or aerial inspection to assess above ground conditions. Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly contribute to the structural failure or decline in the health of a tree and therefore affect the appraised value.
• There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that problems or deficiencies in surveyed trees may not arise in the future.
• This report does not include a tree protection plan describing construction-related tree avoidance and protection measures for trees selected for preservation.

Arborist Disclosure Statement
The following statement pertains to The Arborist work and this report:
• Arborists are tree specialists who use their education, knowledge, training and experience to examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to reduce the risk of living near trees. Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of the Arborist, or to seek additional advice.
• Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree. Trees are living organisms that fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often hidden within trees and below ground. Arborists cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances, or for a specified period of time. Likewise, remedial treatments, like any medicine, cannot be guaranteed.
• Treatment, pruning and removal of trees may involve considerations beyond the scope of the Arborist's services such as property boundaries, property ownership, site lines, disputes between neighbors, and other issues. Arborists cannot take such considerations into account unless complete and accurate information is disclosed to the Arborist. An Arborist should then be expected to reasonably rely upon the completeness and accuracy of the information provided.
• Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live near trees is to accept some degree of risk.

Certification of Performance
WRA, Inc. certifies:
• That we have personally inspected the tree(s) and/or the property referred to in this report and have stated our findings accurately. The extent of the evaluation is stated in this report;
WRA, Inc. I 4225 Hollis Street, Emeryville, CA 94608 7

Page 1232 of 2600 ends

• That we have no current or prospective interest in the vegetation, or the property, that is the subject of this report, and we have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved;
• That the analysis, opinions and conclusions stated herein are our own, and are based on current scientific procedures and facts;
• That our compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined conclusion that favors the cause of the client or any other party, nor upon the results of the assessment, the attainment of stipulated results, or the occurrence of any subsequent events;
• That our analysis, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared according to commonly accepted Arboricultural practices; • That no one provided significant professional assistance to the consultant, except as indicated within the report.

Please feel free to contact me, or Patricia Valcarcel, Principal for the WRA Project, if you have any questions or concerns. We are available to provide additional arborist services such as tree preservation recommendations, monitoring, or other services as requested.

Sincerely yours,
Kevin Schwartz, Ph.D.

ISA Certified Arborist #9541A
ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor
Kevin.Schwartz@)wra-ca.com
Attachments:

Figure 1. Study Area Regional Location Map
Figure 2. Tree Survey Study Area
Table A. Tree Evaluation
WRA, Inc. I 4225 Hollis Street, Emeryville, CA 94608 8

Page 1233 of 2600 ends

1::
~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
1 ~ §
N
I
1 u:
,,
~
!
.:;
.c
&
Sources: National Geographic, WRA I Prepared By: rochelle, 1/10/2023 Figure 1. Study Area Regional Location Map
0 0.5
Port
Costa
1 Sancerra Vista Cove
Vallejo, California c;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;:c==::::J Miles N
A
oma
S11:AGGSl$t.AM)
~A.VAt. srwcirrr (; OUPACTT/lrt
HMcule
Pinole•
0 EI Sobrante
hmond_ l.rrr•• Oa
H °y,'alnutC
(t)wra

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS

Page 1234 of 2600 ends

* Trees with DBH >/= 10" are
Significant Trees protected under
the local ordinance.

Figure 2. Tree Survey Study Area
Sancerra Vista Cove
Vallejo, California
c::J Study Area
,II - - - • ■ 1 Limit of Grading
~
---- Riparian Protection Zone
Root Protection Zone (RPZ)
B RPZ Impacts
Surveyed Trees
&. Avoided (~10" DBH)
~ Avoided (<10" DBH)
0 Impacted within RPZ (~10" DBH)
~ Impacted within RPZ (<10" DBH)
0 Potential Removal (~10" DBH)
~ Potential Removal (<10" DBH)
N
0 500
~=======~================:::i Feet
250 A

Page 1235 of 2600 ends

Table A. Tree Evaluation
# Tag_ID Species Common Name Multistem DBH_1 DBH_2 DBH_3 DBH_4 DBH_5 DBH (SUM) Dripline_1 Dripline_2 RPZ_
FT
RPZ
(ac)
RPZ
(sqft)
Impact
(ac)
Impact
(sqft) Impact (%) Condition
General
Health Structure Health_1 Health_2 Comment
1 501 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak yes 11.6 7.1 0 0 0 18.7 13 17.2 17 0.02 929 0.021 929 100% Good Good Good 2 502 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak yes 12.2 13.6 7 10.4 0 43.2 19.3 13.8 19 0.03 1170 0.027 1170 100% Good Good Good 3 503 Arbutus 'Marina' strawberry tree no 9.5 0 0 0 0 9.5 14.8 15 15 0.02 707 0.016 707 100% Good Good Good 4 504 Arbutus 'Marina' strawberry tree no 11.3 0 0 0 0 11.3 17 15 17 0.02 908 0.021 908 100% Good Good Good 5 505 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak yes 8.3 11.4 7.7 7.6 6.2 41.2 18 15 18 0.02 1018 0.023 1018 100% Good Good Good 6 506 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak no 11 0 0 0 0 11 12 15 15 0.02 707 0.016 707 100% Good Good Good 7 507 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak yes 3 5 0 0 0 8 9 7 9 0.01 254 0.006 254 100% Good Good Good 8 508 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak yes 5.8 4 5 3.5 3 21.3 8 8 8 0.00 201 0.005 201 100% Good Good Good 9 509 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak yes 11 10 5 0 0 26 9 9 9 0.01 254 0.002 96 38% Good Good Fair included bark 10 510 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak yes 8 7 0 0 0 15 8 9 9 0.01 254 0.006 254 100% Good Good Good 11 511 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak yes 5.5 2.2 2.2 1.5 1.5 12.9 8 7 8 0.00 201 0.005 201 100% Good Good Good 12 512 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak yes 5.5 3 0 0 0 8.5 7 6 7 0.00 154 0.004 154 100% Good Good Good 13 513 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak yes 9.3 4.3 0 0 0 13.6 9 9 9 0.01 254 0.006 254 100% Good Good Good 14 514 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak yes 11 5 0 0 0 16 15 14 15 0.02 707 0.016 707 100% Good Good Good 15 515 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak yes 13 9 8 0 0 30 18 18 18 0.02 1018 0.000 0 0% Good Good Good 16 516 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak yes 5 5 4 4 1 19 8 9 9 0.01 254 0.006 254 100% Good Good Good 17 517 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak yes 3 3 1 1 1 9 8 7 8 0.00 201 0.005 201 100% Good Good Good 18 518 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak yes 8 4 0 0 0 12 9 9 9 0.01 254 0.006 254 100% Good Good Fair 1 trunk growing thru fence 19 519 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak yes 13 13 11 0 0 37 16 18 18 0.02 1018 0.006 249 24% Good Good Good trunk outside prprty boundary 20 520 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak yes 2.8 2.2 2 1.5 1 9.5 7 7 7 0.00 154 0.004 154 100% Fair Fair Good minor decay/dieback unk abiotic disorder 21 521 Heteromeles arbutifolia toyon yes 2.1 2.2 2 2 1.5 9.8 8 7 8 0.00 201 0.002 70 35% Fair Fair Fair minor decay/dieback 22 522 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak yes 6.7 10.7 0 0 0 17.4 13 14 14 0.01 616 0.014 616 100% Good Good Good 23 523 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak yes 3.5 1.5 1 1 1 8 4.5 5 5 0.00 79 0.002 79 100% Good Good Good 24 524 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak no 6 0 0 0 0 6 7 5 7 0.00 154 0.004 154 100% Good Good Good 25 525 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak yes 5.2 4.5 3.6 0 0 13.3 7 6 7 0.00 154 0.004 154 100% Good Good Good 26 526 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak no 6.6 0 0 0 0 6.6 9 9 9 0.01 254 0.006 254 100% Good Good Good 27 527 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak yes 6.2 7.1 5 0 0 18.3 6 9 9 0.01 254 0.006 254 100% Good Good Good 28 528 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak yes 8 2 0 0 0 10 9 12 12 0.01 452 0.010 452 100% Good Good Good 29 529 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak yes 12.5 8 4 3 3 30.5 15 18 18 0.02 1018 0.023 1018 100% Good Good Good 30 530 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak no 6.9 0 0 0 0 6.9 12 5 12 0.01 452 0.010 452 100% Good Good Good 31 531 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak yes 6.2 4.1 0 0 0 10.3 4 15 15 0.02 707 0.016 707 100% Good Good Fair 32 532 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak yes 8 6 4 0 0 18 12 10 12 0.01 452 0.010 452 100% Good Good Good 33 533 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak no 8 0 0 0 0 8 9 8 9 0.01 254 0.006 254 100% Good Good Good 34 534 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak no 9 0 0 0 0 9 12 10 12 0.01 452 0.010 452 100% Good Good Good 35 535 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak no 8 0 0 0 0 8 8 8 8 0.00 201 0.005 201 100% Good Good Good 36 536 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak no 6.1 0 0 0 0 6.1 8 7 8 0.00 201 0.005 201 100% Good Good Good 37 537 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak yes 8.5 4.5 2 0 0 15 10 10 10 0.01 314 0.007 314 100% Good Good Good 38 538 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak no 9 0 0 0 0 9 13 9 13 0.01 531 0.012 531 100% Good Good Good 39 539 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak no 6.4 0 0 0 0 6.4 10 8 10 0.01 314 0.007 314 100% Good Good Good 40 540 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak no 9 0 0 0 0 9 10 12 12 0.01 452 0.010 452 100% Good Good Good 41 541 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak no 6.4 0 0 0 0 6.4 8 7 8 0.00 201 0.005 201 100% Good Good Good 42 542 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak no 8.3 0 0 0 0 8.3 11 8 11 0.01 380 0.009 380 100% Good Good Good 43 543 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak no 9 0 0 0 0 9 10 12 12 0.01 452 0.010 452 100% Good Good Good 44 544 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak yes 13.5 6 4 0 0 23.5 14 12 14 0.01 616 0.014 616 100% Good Good Good 45 545 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak no 6.2 0 0 0 0 6.2 8 7 8 0.00 201 0.005 201 100% Good Good Good 46 546 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak yes 12.7 9.8 11.8 9 9 52.3 15 18 18 0.02 1018 0.023 1018 100% Good Good Good 47 547 Pinus radiata Monterey pine no 9.1 0 0 0 0 9.1 9 9 9 0.01 254 0.006 254 100% Good Good Good 48 548 Pinus radiata Monterey pine no 13.8 0 0 0 0 13.8 11 11 11 0.01 380 0.009 380 100% Fair Fair Good minor decay/dieback 49 549 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak yes 6.2 7 6 5.5 3 27.7 14 13 14 0.01 616 0.014 616 100% Good Good Good 50 550 Quercus lobata valley oak no 11.2 0 0 0 0 11.2 12 12 12 0.01 452 0.000 0 0% Good Good Good 51 551 Pinus radiata Monterey pine yes 7.7 7 6.5 0 0 21.2 8 7 8 0.00 201 0.005 201 100% Good Good Good 52 552 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak no 10.2 0 0 0 0 10.2 10 8 10 0.01 314 0.000 0 0% Good Good Good 53 553 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak no 7.7 0 0 0 0 7.7 8 8 8 0.00 201 0.000 0 0% Good Good Good 54 554 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak no 10.5 0 0 0 0 10.5 12 10 12 0.01 452 0.000 0 0% Good Good Good 55 555 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak no 6.5 0 0 0 0 6.5 8 7 8 0.00 201 0.000 0 0% Good Good Good 56 556 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak yes 4.8 4.8 3.5 0 0 13.1 7 7 7 0.00 154 0.000 0 0% Good Good Good 57 557 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak no 14 0 0 0 0 14 12 12 12 0.01 452 0.000 0 0% Good Good Good 58 558 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak yes 8 7.7 0 0 0 15.7 10 8 10 0.01 314 0.000 0 0% Good Good Good 59 559 Malus sp. apple yes 4 4 3 3.6 3 17.6 7 8 8 0.00 201 0.000 0 0% Fair Poor Good major decay/dieback 60 560 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak no 8 0 0 0 0 8 9 9 9 0.01 254 0.000 0 0% Good Good Good Too dense shrubs to tag 61 561 Prunus sp. plum cherry yes 8 6 5 5 4 28 10 8 10 0.01 314 0.007 314 100% Fair Good Good minor decay/dieback 62 562 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak yes 7.5 6 0 0 0 13.5 7 8.5 9 0.01 227 0.005 227 100% Good Good Good 63 563 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak yes 8 5 0 0 0 13 9 9 9 0.01 254 0.006 254 100% Good Good Good inaccessible due to RUAR, no tag 64 564 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak yes 5.6 7 6 6 3 27.6 10 9 10 0.01 314 0.007 314 100% Good Good Good 65 565 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak yes 5.6 6 0 0 0 11.6 10 8 10 0.01 314 0.007 314 100% Good Good 66 566 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak yes 7.6 8 6.5 6.7 5.4 34.2 9 9 9 0.01 254 0.006 254 100% Good Good Good 67 567 Prunus sp. plum cherry yes 5.5 4.5 4 3.5 3 20.5 8 7 8 0.00 201 0.005 201 100% Fair Fair Good minor decay/dieback 68 568 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak yes 9.7 7.6 0 0 0 17.3 10 9 10 0.01 314 0.007 314 100% Good Good Good 69 569 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak yes 16.4 11.8 0 0 0 28.2 19 15 19 0.03 1134 0.026 1134 100% Good Good Good 70 570 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak yes 15.3 7 0 0 0 22.3 15 18 18 0.02 1018 0.023 1018 100% Good Good Good 71 571 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak yes 5 5.5 4 0 0 14.5 8 9 9 0.01 254 0.006 254 100% Good Good Good 72 572 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak yes 15 7 0 0 0 22 15 19 19 0.03 1134 0.026 1134 100% Good Good Good 73 573 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak no 9 0 0 0 0 9 10 8 10 0.01 314 0.007 314 100% Good Good Good 74 574 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak yes 10.2 7.4 0 0 0 17.6 10 12 12 0.01 452 0.010 452 100% Good Good Good 75 575 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak yes 7.2 18 0 0 0 25.2 15 15 15 0.02 707 0.016 707 100% Good Good Good 76 576 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak yes 9.2 5.2 3.5 4 3.8 25.7 15 10 15 0.02 707 0.016 707 100% Fair Good Good 77 577 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak no 11.4 0 0 0 0 11.4 10 9 10 0.01 314 0.007 314 100% Good Good Good 78 578 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak yes 3.4 4 3.6 3.5 0 14.5 6 7 7 0.00 154 0.004 154 100% Fair Fair Good 79 579 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak yes 9 10.8 13.5 0 0 33.3 18 14 18 0.02 1018 0.023 1018 100% Good Good Good 80 580 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak yes 11 7.2 8.7 12 0 38.9 20 15 20 0.03 1257 0.029 1257 100% Good Good Good 81 581 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak yes 8.5 7 12.5 8 0 36 20 18 20 0.03 1257 0.029 1257 100% Good Good Good 82 582 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak yes 3.8 7 8 4 0 22.8 15 14 15 0.02 707 0.016 707 100% Good Good Good 83 583 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak yes 3.5 3.6 2.6 3 0 12.7 10 10 10 0.01 314 0.007 314 100% Good Good Good

Page 1236 of 2600 ends

CARLSBAD
CLOVIS
IRVINE

LOS ANGELES

PALM SPRINGS

POINT RICHMOND

RIVERSIDE

ROSEVILLE

SAN LUIS OBISPO
157 Park Place, Pt. Richmond, California 94801 510.236.6810 www.lsa.net

MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 17, 2025
TO: Cesar Orozco, Principal Planner
City of Vallejo
FROM: John Kunna, Associate/Senior Biologist
Florentina Craciun, AICP Associate/Environmental Planner SUBJECT: Third-Party Review of Biological Resources Report for the Vista Cove Project in Vallejo, California

INTRODUCTION
LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) completed a peer review of the Biological Resources Technical Report (BRTR) prepared for the Vista Cove Project (project) by WRA Environmental Consultants (WRA) in February 2024 to determine whether the report complies with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and conforms to accepted methodologies and procedures (industry standards).

LSA relied on the information presented in the BRTR and did not collect additional data or conduct additional site surveys. Therefore, LSA cannot include an opinion evaluating to what extent the presented information is representative of the current project site conditions.

LSA peer reviewed the BRTR with respect to the following parameters:
• Adequate description of the proposed project and project site to analyze potential impacts to biological resources
• Adequate description of the existing setting, including the location of known on-site resources and features, resources, and features in the project vicinity, and applicable federal, State, regional, and local regulations
• Appropriate assumptions if and where project- and site-specific information is unavailable • Appropriate analytical methodology, assumptions, and significance thresholds for analyzing project impacts in conformance with CEQA and current professional standards • Results, determinations of significance, and adequacy of any proposed mitigation measures LSA

Page 1237 of 2600 ends

3/17/25 (P:\2024\20241845 CYV Vista Cove Project\TECHNICAL\Bio\Peer Review\Bio Peer Review Memo Vista Cove_LSAPeerReview.docx) 2

METHODS
LSA reviewed the BRTR1 as well as the December 2024 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Special Animals List2 for updated legal/protection status of wildlife species. LSA also conducted an updated search of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB).3

RESULTS/PEER REVIEW
The following presents LSA’s peer review of the BRTR in the order each section appears in the BRTR.

Section 1.0: Introduction
• Overview and Purpose: This section adequately describes the purpose and limitations of the BRTR. The project location is described adequately in text and on figures. • Project Description: This section defines the 20.13-acre study area as well as the 10.4-acre project area. The proposed project description text is brief, but it is adequate for the purpose of analyzing impacts to biological resources. This section does contain one sentence that is partially redundant and unclear: “The Project is development for a 10. 40-acre property.” • Summary of Results: This section adequately summarizes the results and conclusion. It includes the statement that one special-status bird species has the potential to occur within the study area. However, later in the document, Section 5.0 and Table 3 list five special-status wildlife species that have a moderate or high potential to occur within the study area. LSA recommends this omission is clarified.

Section 2.0: Regulatory Background
This section adequately summarizes relevant laws and regulations and explains them in the context of the biological assessment.

Section 3.0: Assessment Methodology
• Literature Review and Database Searches: WRA reviewed all the relevant literature necessary to characterize the nature and extent of biological resources in the study area. • Site Visits: The surveys, as described, conform to industry standards and are sufficient. • Vegetation Communities and Other Land Cover Types: This section provides a thorough description of the methods used to map and classify vegetation communities and other land cover types on the site. The methodology is appropriate. 1 WRA Environmental Consultants. 2024. Vista Cove Biological Resources Technical Report. February. 2 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2024. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) Special Animals List. December. Sacramento, CA. 3
CDFW. 2024. CNDDB – Commercial version dated December 1, 2024.

LSA

Page 1238 of 2600 ends

3/17/25 (P:\2024\20241845 CYV Vista Cove Project\TECHNICAL\Bio\Peer Review\Bio Peer Review Memo Vista Cove_LSAPeerReview.docx) 3 • Special-Status Species: This sections provides an adequate description of the methods used to determine each special-status species’ potential to occur on the site. This section would benefit from a clarification that for special-status bird species, the potential to occur is actually the potential to nest within the study area.
• Wildlife Corridors and Native Wildlife Nursery Sites: The methodology used to assess wildlife corridors and nursery sites was appropriate.

Section 4.0: Ecological Setting
• Soils and Topography: This section describes the soils mapped in the study area in sufficient detail.
• Climate and Hydrology: This section provides sufficient background on the climate at the site.

The discussion of the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) and how it was ground-truthed is adequate.
• Land Use: This section describes the existing conditions in sufficient detail and accurately references the figures for a visual representation.

Section 5.0: Assessment Results
• Vegetation Communities and Other Land Cover: Table 2 provides a summary of the vegetation communities and land cover. The more detailed text and photographs in this section for each landcover type are accurate and adequate.
• Special-Status Species:
○ Plants: This section provides adequate justification for the conclusion that no special-status plant species are likely to occur in the study area and that further surveys are not warranted.
○ Wildlife: This section provides justification for the conclusion that five special-status wildlife species have potential to occur in the study area. It also provides more detail on three special-status wildlife species (pallid bat, burrowing owl, and Crotch bumble bee) that were determined to be unlikely to occur in the study area.

According to Appendix C, several other wildlife species were also determined to be unlikely to occur in the study area but are not discussed in further detail in this section.

Since the time of the writing of the BRTR, the California Fish and Game Commission voted to protect the western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaeae) as a “candidate” species under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA).
• Wildlife Corridors and Native Wildlife Nursery Sites: This section adequately explains why the study area does not contain a wildlife corridor, essential fish habitat, native wildlife nursery sites, or designated critical habitat.

LSA

Page 1239 of 2600 ends

3/17/25 (P:\2024\20241845 CYV Vista Cove Project\TECHNICAL\Bio\Peer Review\Bio Peer Review Memo Vista Cove_LSAPeerReview.docx) 4 Section 6.0: Analytical Methodology and Significance Threshold Criteria This section outlines the six biological resource categories covered by Appendix G, Section IV, of the State CEQA Guidelines. It adequately defines significant impact and substantial adverse effect.

Section 7.0: Impacts and Mitigation Evaluation
• Special-Status Species: This section provides reasonable and prudent measures to reduce impacts to a less than significant level for the five special-status wildlife species that have a moderate or higher potential to occur in the study area • Sensitive Natural Communities and Critical Habitat: This section provides reasonable and prudent measures to reduce impacts to the seasonal wetland, freshwater marsh, and riparian area to a less than significant level.
• Aquatic Resources: This section describes how impacts to the freshwater marsh and intermittent stream will be avoided. It states that the previously described Mitigation Measures BIO-3, BIO-4a, and BIO-4b will reduce impacts to a less than significant level. LSA agrees with these conclusions.

This section also refers to the wetlands or other areas that may be in the jurisdiction of “BCDC.” The acronym is not defined, but presumably refers to the Bay Conservation and Development Commission. The BCDC is not mentioned elsewhere in the text, and the site is not within BCDC jurisdiction, so it is assumed this is a typographical error and refers to the CDFW, not the BCDC. • Wildlife Corridors: LSA agrees with the conclusion that the project is not likely to interfere substantially with the movement of wildlife species or impact nursery sites and, therefore, mitigation measures are not required.
• Local Policies and Ordinances: This section references measures related to the planting of replacement trees. LSA agrees if these measures are implemented, there will be no conflict with local policies and ordinances.
• Habitat Conservation Plans: LSA agrees that the study area is not in an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Communities Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan and that, therefore, there would be no conflict or impact.

Section 8.0: References
All references in this section appear to have been cited accurately.

Appendix A: Figures
The figures adequately depict the study area in sufficient detail.

LSA

Page 1240 of 2600 ends

3/17/25 (P:\2024\20241845 CYV Vista Cove Project\TECHNICAL\Bio\Peer Review\Bio Peer Review Memo Vista Cove_LSAPeerReview.docx) 5 Appendix B: Species Observed Within the Study Area
Appendix B-1. Plant Species Observed
The number of plant species detected indicates that the biologists thoroughly inventoried the study area during the site visits.

However, the table has several errors. For five species (Cardamine cf. hirsuta, Erigeron canadensis, Medicago polymorpha, Rumex crispus, and Sanicula bipinnatifida), the Life Form and Origin columns were transposed.

Ten native plant species (Crassula connata, Galium aparine, Helenium puberulum, Heteromeles arbutifolia, Juncus effusus, Juncus mexicanus, Marah fabacea, Nasturtium officinale, Phoradendron leucarpum, and Quercus agrifolia) were incorrectly identified as nonnative.

Conversely, 19 nonnative species (Avena barbata, Avena fatua, Bellardia trixago, Bromus hordeaceus, Calendula arvensis, Capsella bursa-pastoris, Carduus pycnocephalus ssp. pycnocephalus, Cirsium vulgare, Dittrichia graveolens, Elymus caput-medusae, Elymus triticoides, Erodium botrys, Erodium moschatum, Ficus carica, Geranium molle, Holcus lanatus, Ligustrum lucidum, Raphanus sativus, and Rumex pulcher) were misidentified as native.

For two species (Cortaderia selloana and Cyperus eragrostis), the Origin column was blank.

For one species (Typha sp.), the Common Name and Life Form columns were blank.

Appendix B-2. Wildlife Species Observed
This table notes that bumble bees were observed. Presumably, these could not be identified to species. Several species of bumble bee in California have a protected conservation status, but the conservation status column was left blank where it should have been marked as unknown.

The table also notes that Botta’s pocket gopher was observed in the study area. The absence of ground squirrel burrows was one of the justifications for the Crotch bumble bee’s occurrence to be considered unlikely. However, gophers also create burrows that could be used by bumble bees.

Appendix C: Potential For Special-Status Species to Occur in the Study Area This table provides an adequate analysis of the potential for special-status wildlife species to occur in the study area as well as recommendations for further actions.

The table states that the most recent occurrences for western bumble bee within 60 miles are from the 1950s, but a review of the CNDDB indicates that within 5 miles of the study area, Occurrence #179 is based on a collection made in 1962, and Occurrence #181 is based on a collection made in 1964.

Appendix D: Project Plans
The project plans are sufficiently detailed to provide a basis for determining potential impacts to protected biological resources.

LSA

Page 1241 of 2600 ends

3/17/25 (P:\2024\20241845 CYV Vista Cove Project\TECHNICAL\Bio\Peer Review\Bio Peer Review Memo Vista Cove_LSAPeerReview.docx) 6

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Generally, the efforts of the study are thorough and adequate and conform to industry standards.

The errors in the BRTR are unlikely to significantly change the conclusions regarding potential impacts or the proposed mitigation measures.

Please contact me at (510) 462-1326 or via email at [email protected] if you have any questions regarding this document.

LSA

Page 1242 of 2600 ends

CARLSBAD
CLOVIS
IRVINE

LOS ANGELES

PALM SPRINGS

POINT RICHMOND

RIVERSIDE

ROSEVILLE

SAN LUIS OBISPO
157 Park Place, Pt. Richmond, California 94801 510.236.6810 www.lsa.net

MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 17, 2025
TO: Cesar Orozco, Principal Planner
City of Vallejo
FROM: John Kunna, Senior Biologist
Florentina Craciun, AICP | Associate/Environmental Planner SUBJECT: Third-Party Review of Arborist Report for the Vista Cove Project in Vallejo, California.

INTRODUCTION
LSA completed a peer review of the Sancerra Vista Cove Development Project – Arborist Tree Survey and Report (ATSR) prepared by WRA dated February 22, 2023, to determine whether the report conforms to accepted methodologies and procedures (industry standards).

LSA relied on the information presented in the reviewed ATSR and did not collect additional data or survey the site. Therefore, LSA cannot include an opinion evaluating to what extent the presented information appears to be representative of the current project site conditions.

LSA peer reviewed the ATSR with respect to the following parameters:
• Adequate analysis of potential impacts to trees
• Adequate description of the applicable regulations
• Appropriate methodology, assumptions, and limitations

METHODS
LSA reviewed the ATSR.1 LSA also reviewed the City of Vallejo’s Zoning Code Chapters 16.504.07 (tree protection) and 16.701.02 (Land use terms and definitions) of Title 16. LSA used the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) website2 to verify the credentials of the arborist. 1 WRA, Inc. 2023. Sancerra Vista Cove Development Project – Arborist Tree Survey and Report. February 22. 2 International Society of Arboriculture (ISA). n.d. Verify an ISA Credential. Website:
https://www.treesaregood.org/findanarborist/verify
LSA

Page 1243 of 2600 ends

3/17/25 (P:\2024\20241845 CYV Vista Cove Project\TECHNICAL\Bio\Peer Review\Arborist Peer Review Memo Vista Cove Vallejo.docx) 2

RESULTS/PEER REVIEW
The following presents LSA’s peer review of the ATSR in the order each section appears.

Introduction
The first paragraph adequately describes the location of the site. The paragraph also provides the arborist’s certifications and the purpose of the report.

Regulatory Background
This section accurately describes the relevant municipal codes.

Methods
This section describes the methods used in sufficient detail. The methods, as described, are appropriate and conform to industry standards.

Summary of Tree Evaluation
The text adequately describes the results of the survey, and a summary is provided in Table 1. No table 2 is presented or references, but Table 3 provides a suitable summary of anticipated number of trees that may be required to be planted as mitigation for tree removal. LSA suspects the omission of a Table 2 is a simple typographical error.

Limitations
This section adequately describes the limitations of the report.

Arborist Disclosure Statement
This statement is sufficient and conforms to industry standards.

Certification of Performance
This statement is sufficient and conforms to industry standards.

Attachments
Figure 1. Study Area Regional Location Map
This map adequately shows the location of the Study Area in the regional context.

Figure 2. Tree Survey Study Area
This map adequately shows al of the surveyed trees and classifies them according to size and whether they may be impacted. LSA found the use of the “RPZ” abbreviation for Root Protection Zone to be possibly confused with the Riparian Protection Zone, particularly for tree #521, which is on the limits of grading of the Riparian Protection Zone. Cross-referencing with the tree table eliminated the confusion.

LSA

Page 1244 of 2600 ends

3/17/25 (P:\2024\20241845 CYV Vista Cove Project\TECHNICAL\Bio\Peer Review\Arborist Peer Review Memo Vista Cove Vallejo.docx) 3 Table A. Tree Evaluation
This table is generally sufficient. It contains one unidentified abbreviation (“RUAR”), but this does not affect the conclusions of the report.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Generally, the efforts of the study appear to be thorough and adequate and conform to industry standards.

It may help to clarify that Prunus sp. refers to an escaped or hybridized tree cultivar that may commonly be called either plum or cherry. On page 4, two “cherry” trees are mentioned in the text, on page 6 two “plum or cherry” trees are included in Table 3, and Table A provides the details for two “plum cherry” trees. The trees are all accurately identified as non-native, so inconsistent use of common names is not a major issue.

LSA recommends that the City of Vallejo accept the ATSR.

Please contact me at (510) 462-1326 or via email at [email protected] if you have any questions regarding this document.

LSA

Page 1245 of 2600 ends

VISTA COVE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT P ROJECT

V ALLEJO, C ALIFORNIA

I NITIAL S TUDY /SUBSEQUENT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION N OVEMBER 2025
P:\2024\20241845 CYV Vista Cove Project\PRODUCTS\Subsequent MND\Vista Cove Admin Printcheck Draft_251104.docx (11/04/25) This page intentionally left blank

Page 1246 of 2600 ends

I NITIAL S TUDY /SUBSEQUENT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION N OVEMBER 2025

VISTA COVE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT P ROJECT

V ALLEJO, C ALIFORNIA
P:\2024\20241845 CYV Vista Cove Project\PRODUCTS\Subsequent MND\Vista Cove Admin Printcheck Draft_251104.docx (11/04/25)

APPENDIX D

CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT

Page 1247 of 2600 ends

March 2025

CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT

VISTA COVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

VALLEJO, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
LSA

Page 1248 of 2600 ends

March 2025

CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT

VISTA COVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

VALLEJO, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:

Cesar Orozco, Principal Planner
City of Vallejo
Planning and Development Services
555 Santa Clara Street
Vallejo, California 94590
Prepared by:

Riordan Goodwin, RA and Cassidy Sharp, RPA
LSA
1500 Iowa Avenue, Suite 200
Riverside, California 92507
(951) 781-9310
LSA Project No. 20241845
National Archaeological Database Information:

Type of Study: Record Search, Archaeological Survey
USGS Quadrangle: Benicia, California
Acreage: 20
LSA

Page 1249 of 2600 ends

CULTURAL RE SOURCE S A SS ESSMENT
MARCH 2025

VI STA CO VE DE VELOPMENT PROJECT

VALLEJO , CALIFORNIA

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
LSA
LSA conducted a cultural resources assessment for the Vista Cove Development Project (project) in Vallejo, Solano County, California. The assessment included a record search, archival research, field surveys, and this report. The subject property is approximately 20 acres. As the Lead Agency for the project, the City of Vallejo (City) required this study as part of the environmental review process to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The purpose of the study is to provide the City with the necessary information and analysis to determine, as mandated by CEQA, whether the proposed project would cause substantial adverse changes to any historical/archaeological resources that may exist in or around the project area. To identify and evaluate such resources, LSA conducted a historical/archaeological resource records search, conducted historical background research, and carried out pedestrian field surveys.

No cultural resources within or adjacent to the project area were identified. Although eight historic resources were documented less than 0.5 miles away, the severe slopes and adjacent developments indicate that project parcel retains low potential for in situ subsurface cultural resources. Based on the site sensitivity LSA recommends that the following measures be implemented: (1) Workers Environmental Awareness Program; (2) Unknown Discovery of Archaeological Resources; and (3) Protocol for Human Remains Discovery.

P:\2024\20241845 CYV Vista Cove Project\TECHNICAL\Cultural Resources\Report&Figures\Old\Cultural Resources Assessment 20241845_Clean.docx (03/26/25)

Page 1250 of 2600 ends

CULTURAL RE SOU RCE S A SS ESSMENT
MARCH 2025

VI STA CO VE DE VELOPMENT PROJECT

VALLEJO , CALIFORNIA LSA

TABLE OF CONTENTS
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... i INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1 SETTING ...................................................................................................................... 3 Current Natural Setting ................................................................................................................. 3 Climate and Watershed ...................................................................................................................... 3 Flora and Fauna .................................................................................................................................. 3 Geology ............................................................................................................................................... 3 Cultural Setting .............................................................................................................................. 3 Prehistory ........................................................................................................................................... 3 Ethnography ....................................................................................................................................... 4 History ................................................................................................................................................ 4 Methods ........................................................................................................................................ 5 Record Search ..................................................................................................................................... 5 Additional Research ............................................................................................................................ 5 Archaeological Field Survey ................................................................................................................ 5 RESULTS ..................................................................................................................... 6 Record Search ................................................................................................................................ 6 Additional Research ............................................................................................................................ 6 Archaeological Field Survey ........................................................................................................... 6 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................. 7 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 10 FIGURE
Figure 1: Regional and Project Location ................................................................................................. 2

APPENDIX
A: RECORD SEARCH BIBLIOGRAPHY
P:\2024\20241845 CYV Vista Cove Project\TECHNICAL\Cultural Resources\Report&Figures\Old\Cultural Resources Assessment 20241845_Clean.docx (03/26/25) ii

Page 1251 of 2600 ends

CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
MARCH 2025

VISTA COVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

VALLEJO, CALIFORNIA

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
CEQA
City
County
MLD
NAHC
NWIC
PRC
project
California Environmental Quality Act
City of Vallejo
County of Solano
Most Likely Descendant
Native American Heritage Commission
Northwest Information Center
Public Resources Code
Vista Cove Development Project
LSA
P:\2024\20241845 CYV Vista Cove Project\TECHNICAL\Cultural Resources\Report&Figures\Old\Cultural Resources Assessment 20241845_Clean.docx (03/26/25) iii

Page 1252 of 2600 ends

CULTURAL RE SOURCE S A SS ESSMENT
MARCH 2025

INTRODUCTION

VI STA CO VE DE VELOPMENT PROJECT

VALLEJO , CALIFORNIA LSA
At the request of the City of Vallejo (City), LSA performed a cultural resources study on approximately 20 acres of land in Vallejo, Solano County, California (see Figure 1). The subject property of the study, Assessor's Parcel Numbers 0079-171-170, 0079-220-070, and a portion of 0079-120-100, is at the northeast corner of Shady Lane and Wildflower Street in Township 3 North, Range 3 West, Section 28, Mt. Diablo Baseline and Meridian, as depicted on the United States Geological Survey Benicia, California 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map. The study is part of the environmental review process for residential development. The City, as Lead Agency for the project, required the study in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code [PRC] § 21000, et seq.).

LSA performed this study to provide the City with the necessary information and analysis to determine, as mandated by CEQA, whether the proposed project would cause substantial adverse changes to any historical/archaeological resources that may exist in or around the project area. To identify and evaluate such resources, LSA conducted a historical/archaeological resources record search, pursued a historical background research, and carried out pedestrian field surveys. This report is a complete account of the methods, results, and final conclusion of the study.

P:\2024\20241845 CYV Vista Cove Project\TECHNICAL\Cultural Resources\Report&Figures\Old\Cultural Resources Assessment 20241845_Clean.docx (03/26/25) 1

Page 1253 of 2600 ends

LSA l=l Project Location
$ 1000 2000
FEET
SOURCE: Benicia CA, 7.5' Quad (USGS 1980)
l:\2024\20241845\GIS\Pro\Vista Cove Planned Development Project\Vista Cove Planned Development Project.aprx (1/29/2025) FIGURE 1
Vista Cove Planned Development Project
Project Location

Page 1254 of 2600 ends

CULTURAL RE SOURCE S A SS ESSMENT
MARCH 2025

CURRENT NATURAL SETTING
Climate and Watershed

SETTING

VI STA CO VE DE VELOPMENT PROJECT

VALLEJO , CALIFORNIA LSA
The project region is characterized by the coastal climate, with mild summers and winters. Rainfall averages 24 inches annually. The project area is transected by two ephemeral drainages, which drain to Benicia State Park in the east, where stormwater runoff converges and is directed to the Carquinez Strait (DK Engineering 2023).

Flora and Fauna
At an elevation of approximately 250 feet, the project is just within the Lower Sonoran Life Zone of California (Schoenherr 1992), which ranges from below sea level to 3,500 feet. Monterey pine, coast live oak, poison oak, and other native species were noted on the property (particularly xeric grasses, oats, barley, and brome). Extensive fauna are known locally, including many endemic species of reptiles, birds, and insects.

The coastal environment of California hosted a rich variety of abundant floral and fauna I resources that fostered a particularly dense Native American occupation of this region during prehistoric times, especially the coastal corridor within a day's "commuting" distance of fresh water.

Geology
Vallejo is within the Coast Ranges geomorphic province of California. The geological setting along the Coast Ranges is notably different between the East and West sides of the San Andreas fault.

Vallejo lies to the east of the San Andreas fault, which is characterized by Mesozoic rocks of the Franciscan Complex, the Great Valley Sequence, and the Jurassic Coast Range ophiolite.

According to maps by Wagner and Gutierrez (2010), the boundaries of this project are situated within the Upper Great Valley Sequence, which dates to the Late Cretaceous. The Upper Great Valley Sequence (Ku) consists of sandstone, siltstone, shale, and minor conglomerate.

CULTURAL SETTING
Prehistory
Chronologies of prehistoric cultural change in Northern California area have been attempted numerous times, and several are reviewed in Moratto (2004). No single description is universally accepted, as the various chronologies are based primarily on material developments identified by researchers familiar with sites in a particular region and variation exists essentially due to the differences in those items found at the sites. Small differences occur over time and space, which combine to form patterns that are variously interpreted.

One of the regional chronologies commonly referenced in the archaeological literature is Meyer and Rosenthal, White, and Sutton (2007) modified from Fredrickson (1974). The earliest period is the Lower Archaic (10,000 to 6,000 A.D.), followed by the Initial Middle Archaic (6,000 to 4,500 BP), P:\2024\20241845 CYV Vista Cove Project\TECHNICAL\Cultural Resources\Report&Figures\Old\Cultural Resources Assessment 20241845_Clean.docx (03/26/25) 3

Page 1255 of 2600 ends

CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
MARCH 2025

VISTA COVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

VALLEJO, CALIFORNIA LSA
Terminal Middle Archaic (4,500 to 2,500 BP), Upper Archaic (2,500 to 1,300 BP) and, finally, the Emergent (1,200 to 200 BP).

Ethnography
The project is within the traditional cultural territory of the Patwin (Johnson, 1978; Kroeber, 1925).

Tribal territories were somewhat fluid and changed over time. Like other Native American groups in Northern California, they were semi-nomadic hunter-gatherers who subsisted by exploitation of seasonably available plant and animal resources. The first written accounts of Native American groups in California were by Spanish missionaries in the late 18th century. Later documentation of the Patwin was by Powers (1877), Barrett (1908), Merriam (1929), and many others.

With the Spanish intrusion came a drastic change in lifestyle for the Native Americans of California.

Incorporation of the indigenous populations into the mission system involved conflict, forced labor, and relocation along with decimation by European diseases, all of which led to the disruption of native cultures and changes in subsistence and land use practices. Cattle ranches/farms were established on or near ancestral Native American villages, primarily in the major drainages conducive to horticulture and animal husbandry. Water was diverted for irrigation and stock. Within a short time, the missions controlled many ranchos where Indians lived and worked.

History
In California, the historic era is generally divided into three periods: the Spanish Period (1769-1821), the Mexican Period (1821-1848), and the American Period (1848-present). As there were no resources within the project site the historic context focuses on the County and local community during the American Period.

Solano County was created from part of the Sonoma territory in 1850 by the first elected Legislature of the territory of California. Solano County is therefore one of the original 27 counties in California.

General Vallejo, an instrumental figure in shaping Alta California, requested that this county was named after Chief Solano, a Suisun and Patwin leader who presided over this land prior to California's statehood. Seven of the 12 townships created during Solano County's early days have incorporated into cities. These include Benicia (1850 and 1851), Vallejo (1868), Suisun City (1856), Dixon (1878), Vacaville (1892), Rio Vista (1893), and Fairfield (1903) (Solano County website, February 2025).

Vallejo
The region that became Vallejo was first mapped by Spanish colonizers in 1775. However, this area remained largely unshaped by colonial influence until 1844, when General Vallejo received this area as a part of the larger Rancho Soscol land grant. General Vallejo donated land and funds for the construction of a capital city, named Vallejo, in the newly annexed state of California in 1851. Vallejo served as a temporary capitol until Benecia was formally recognized as the capital in 1853. Mare Island became the country's first permanent naval station on the West Coast in September 1854.

Vallejo formally incorporated in 1868 and experienced booms of growth reflecting periods of naval growth during the Spanish-American War and World War I (Vallejo Naval and Historical Museum website, February 2025).

P:\2024\20241845 CYV Vista Cove Project\TECHNICAL\Cultural Resources\Report&Figures\Old\Cultural Resources Assessment 20241845_Clean.docx (03/26/25) 4

Page 1256 of 2600 ends

CULTURAL RE SOURCE S A SS ESSMENT
MARCH 2025

METHODS
Record Search

VI STA CO VE DE VELOPMENT PROJECT

VALLEJO , CALIFORNIA LSA
On September 6, 2024, a cultural resources record search was conducted for the current project area at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) at Sonoma State University. The NWIC houses the pertinent archaeological site and survey information necessary to determine whether cultural resources are recorded within the study area boundaries and which specific areas have been previously surveyed in Solano County. The research included a review of all recorded historic and prehistoric archaeological sites within one mile of the project, as well as a review of known cultural resource survey and excavation reports.

Additional Research
In February 2025, Cassidy Sharp reviewed online historic period aerial photographs and maps (NETR Online 2025).

Archaeological Field Survey
On January 20, 2025, LSA Archaeologist Kendra Kolar surveyed the project area for any cultural residues (prehistoric or historic artifacts, deposits, or features). Linear transects at 20- to30-meter- (65.6- to 98.4-foot) intervals were used to systematically examine the surface. Particular attention was given to all areas of potentially native (undisturbed) soils, exposed rocks, and rodent aprons.

P:\2024\20241845 CYV Vista Cove Project\TECHNICAL\Cultural Resources\Report&Figures\Old\Cultural Resources Assessment 20241845_Clean.docx (03/26/25) 5

Page 1257 of 2600 ends

CULTURAL RE SOURCE S A SS ESSMENT
MARCH 2025

RECORD SEARCH

RESULTS

VI STA CO VE DE VELOPMENT PROJECT

VALLEJO , CALIFORNIA LSA
Data from the NWIC indicate there have been nine previous cultural resources studies conducted within the 0.5-mile study radius, three of which included portions of the project area (see Appendix A). Although no cultural resources were recorded within the project area, eight are documented within 0.5 mile. All eight of these are from historic age resources, including four buildings (Bordoni Ranch, built post-1868, as 48-000717, a 1910 residence at 1569 Columbus Parkway as 48-001030, an adjacent 1910 residential and storage building at 1545 Columbus Parkway as 48-001031, and a 1925 bungalow at 1241 Lewis Avenue as 48-001033) and five sites (48-000716 is pre-1867 township boundary marking field stones, 48-000717 is Bordoni Ranch, built post-1868, St. Vincent's Cemetery, which dates to the 19th century, is 48-001040, and 48-002056 and 48-002057 are the same historic refuse dump). Bordoni Ranch (48-000717) is listed as both a historic site and as a historic building.

Bordoni Ranch (48-000717) and the historic refuse dump (48-002056) are the nearest historic resources to the project site, within 0.25 mile of the project boundary.

Additional Research
No buildings or structures are present within the project area in historic period aerial photos or indicated on maps dating back to 1948. According to these aerials, the nearby housing development completed construction sometime between 1982 and 1987 (NETR Online 2025).

ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELD SURVEY
The field survey revealed that there was light disturbance in some areas of the project site, as modern refuse was found in various locations. Overall visibility varied in the accessed portions of the project area, but was generally limited by the vegetation cover, ranging overall from fair to nonexistent. No cultural resources were identified.

Areas of visible soil were found in the previous year's plowed firebreak lines and in the dirt access road entering the north end of the project area from the adjacent development. Visibility in the southern end of the project area was very limited by grass, thistle, and fennel, with the only visible soil in rodent burrow aprons. Access was inhibited by dense vegetation at the bottom of both drainages the very steep and densely vegetated slope on the south side of the southern drainage.

Observed soil was consistently reddish-brown to brown with little to no gravel. No bedrock outcrops were observed in surveyed areas. Modern refuse was noted throughout the project area.

P:\2024\20241845 CYV Vista Cove Project\TECHNICAL\Cultural Resources\Report&Figures\Old\Cultural Resources Assessment 20241845_Clean.docx (03/26/25) 6

Page 1258 of 2600 ends

CULTURAL RE SOURCE S A SS ESSMENT
MARCH 2025

RECOMMENDATIONS

VI STA CO VE DE VELOPMENT PROJECT

VALLEJO , CALIFORNIA LSA
Through the various avenues of research, this study did not identify cultural resources within or adjacent to the project. Although eight historic resources were documented less than 0.5 mile away, the severe slopes and adjacent developments indicate that project parcel retains low potential for in situ subsurface cultural resources. Therefore, no further investigation or monitoring are recommended and Standard Conditions (CEQA California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15064.5 [e and f] as outlined below apply.

Standard Condition -1
Standard Condition -2
Unknown Discovery of Archeological Resources
Should an archaeological deposit be encountered during project subsurface construction activities, all ground-disturbing activities within 25 feet shall be redirected and a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards for Archaeology contacted to assess the situation, determine if the deposit qualifies as a historical resource, consult with agencies as appropriate, and make recommendations for the treatment of the discovery.

If the deposit is found to be significant (i.e., eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources), the project applicant shall be responsible for funding and implementing appropriate mitigation measures. Mitigation measures may include recording the archaeological deposit, data recovery and analysis, and public outreach regarding the scientific and cultural importance of the discovery. Upon completion of the selected mitigations, a report documenting methods, findings, and recommendations shall be prepared by the qualified archaeologist and submitted to the City of Vallejo for review, and the final report shall be submitted to the Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University.

Significant archaeological materials shall be submitted to an appropriate local cu ration facility and used for future research and public interpretive displays, as appropriate.

Protocol for Human Remains Discovery
In the event that Native American human remains are found during development of the proposed project and the Confederated Villages of Lisjan Nation (Tribe) or a member of the Tribe is determined to be the Most Likely Descendent (MLD), the following provisions shall apply:
• The Medical Examiner shall immediately be notified, ground disturbing activities in that location shall cease within 25 P:\2024\20241845 CYV Vista Cove Project\TECHNICAL\Cultural Resources\Report&Figures\Old\Cultural Resources Assessment 20241845_Clean.docx (03/26/25) 7

Page 1259 of 2600 ends

CULTURAL RE SOURCE S A SS ESSMENT
MARCH 2025

VI STA CO VE DE VELOPMENT PROJECT

VALLEJO , CALIFORNIA LSA
feet of the discovery and the Tribe shall be allowed,
pursuant to California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097 .98(a) to inspect the site of the discovery and make determinations as to how the human remains and grave
goods should be treated and disposed of with appropriate dignity.
• The Tribe shall complete its inspection and make its MLD recommendation within forty-eight (48) hours of getting access to the site. The Tribe shall have the final
determination as to the disposition and treatment of
human remains and grave goods. Said determination may
include avoidance of the human remains, reburial on-site or reburial on tribal or other lands that will not be disturbed in the future.
• The Tribe may wish to rebury said remains and grave goods or ceremonial and cultural items on or near the site of their discovery, in an area which will not be subject to future disturbances over a prolonged period of time. Reburial of human remains shall be accomplished in compliance with
California PRC Sections 5097.98(a) and (b). The term
"human remains" encompasses more than human bones
because the Tribe's traditions call for the burial of
associated cultural items with the deceased (funerary
objects), and/or the ceremonial burning of Native American human remains, funerary objects, grave goods, and animals.

Ashes, soils, and other remnants of these burning
ceremonies, as well as associated funerary objects and
unassociated funerary objects buried with or found near the Native American remains are to be treated in the same
manner as bones or bone fragments that remain intact.
• Unless otherwise required by law, the site of any reburial of Native American human remains shall not be disclosed and will not be governed by public disclosure requirements of the California Public Records Act (California Government Code Section 6250 et. seq). The Medical Examiner shall
withhold public disclosure of information related to such reburial pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in California Government Code Section 6254(r). The Tribe will require that the location for reburial is recorded with the California Historic Resources Inventory System (CHRIS) on a form that is acceptable to the CHRIS center. The Tribe may also suggest that the landowner enter into an agreement P:\2024\20241845 CYV Vista Cove Project\TECHNICAL\Cultural Resources\Report&Figures\Old\Cultural Resources Assessment 20241845_Clean.docx (03/26/25) 8

Page 1260 of 2600 ends

CULTURAL RE SOURCE S A SS ESSMENT
MARCH 2025

VI STA CO VE DE VELOPMENT PROJECT

VALLEJO , CALIFORNIA LSA
regarding the confidentiality of site information that will run with title on the property.
• Treatment of all cultural items, including ceremonial items and archaeological items will reflect the religious beliefs, customs, and practices of the Tribe. All cultural items, including ceremonial items and archaeological items, which may be found at a Project site should be turned over to the Tribe for appropriate treatment, unless otherwise ordered by a court of agency of competent jurisdiction. The project applicant should waive any and all claims to ownership of Tribal ceremonial and cultural items, including
archaeological items, which may be found on a project site in favor of the Tribe. If any intermediary (e.g., an
archaeological retained by the project applicant) is
necessary, said entity or individual shall not possess those items for longer than is reasonably necessary, as
determined solely by the Tribe.
• If additional significant sites or sites not identified as significant in the environmental review process, but later determined to be significant are located within a project impact area, such sites will be subjected to further
archaeological and cultural significance evaluation by the project applicant, Solano County and the Tribe to determine if additional mitigation measures are necessary to treat sites in a culturally appropriate manner consistent with CEQA requirements for mitigation of impacts to cultural resources. If there are human remains present that have been identified as Native American, all work will cease for a period of up to 30 days in accordance with Federal Law.

P:\2024\20241845 CYV Vista Cove Project\TECHNICAL\Cultural Resources\Report&Figures\Old\Cultural Resources Assessment 20241845_Clean.docx (03/26/25) 9

Page 1261 of 2600 ends

CULTURAL RE SOURCE S A SS ESSMENT
MARCH 2025
Barret, Samuel A.

REFERENCES

VI STA CO VE DE VELOPMENT PROJECT

VALLEJO , CALIFORNIA LSA
1908 The Ethnography of Pomo and Neighboring and Neighboring Indians. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 6 (1).

DK Engineering
2023 Drainage Study for Vista Cove in Vallejo, California.

Frederickson, David A.
1974 Cultural Diversity in Early Central California: A View From The North Coast Ranges .

The Journal of California Anthropology.

Johnson, Patti J.
1978 Patwin In California, R.F. Heizer, ed. pp. 350-360. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8, W.C. Sturtevant, general ed. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Kroeber, Alfred L.
1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin No. 78 Smithsonian Institute, Washington D.C. Reprinted in 1976, Dover Publications, New York.

Kroeber, Alfred L.
1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin No. 78 Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institute. Reprinted in 1976, New York: Dover Publications.

Merriam, C. Hart
1929 The Cop-eh of Gibbs. American Anthropologist, 31(1).

Meyer, Jack and Jeffrey S. Rosenthal
1997 Archaeological and Geoarchaeological Investigations at Eight Prehistoric Sites in the Los Vaqueros Reservoir Area, Contra Costa County, California. Los Vaqueros Project Final Report #7. Anthropological Studies Center, Sonoma State University Academic Foundation, Inc., Rohnert Park.

Moratto, Michael J.
2004 California Archaeology. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida. Reprinted by Coyote Press in 2004.

NETR Online
2025 Various historic period aerial photograph showing the project area. Website:
https://historicaerials.com/ (accessed February 2025).

P:\2024\20241845 CYV Vista Cove Project\TECHNICAL\Cultural Resources\Report&Figures\Old\Cultural Resources Assessment 20241845_Clean.docx (03/26/25) 10

Page 1262 of 2600 ends

CULTURAL RE SOURCE S A SS ESSMENT
MARCH 2025
Powers, Stephen

VI STA CO VE DE VELOPMENT PROJECT

VALLEJO , CALIFORNIA LSA
1877 Tribes of California. Contributions to North American Ethnology 3. USG&G Survey of the Rocky Mountain Region.

Rosenthal, J.D., G. White and M. Q. Sutton
2007 The Central Valley: A View from the Catbird's Seat. In Colonization, Culture, and Complexity: California's Chaotic Prehistory. T.L. Jones and K. Klarr, editors. Alta Mira Press.

Schoenherr, Allan A.
1992 A Natural History of California. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.

Solano County California
2025 Solano County History. Website: https://www.solanocounty.com/about/history.asp (accessed February 2025).

United States Geological Survey Topographic Maps
1980 Benecia, Calif. 7.5 minute quadrangle.

Vallejo Naval and Historical Museum
2025 Vallejo History. Website: https://vallejomuseum.net/vallejo-history/ (accessed February 2025).

Wagner, David L., and Carlos I. Gutierrez, California Geological Survey 2010 Preliminary Geologic Map of the Napa, California 30-minute by GO-minute quadrangle. Map scale 1 :100,000
P:\2024\20241845 CYV Vista Cove Project\TECHNICAL\Cultural Resources\Report&Figures\Old\Cultural Resources Assessment 20241845_Clean.docx (03/26/25) 11

Page 1263 of 2600 ends

CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
MARCH 2025

APPENDIX A

VISTA COVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

VALLEJO, CALIFORNIA

RECORD SEARCH BIBLIOGRAPHY
LSA
P:\2024\20241845 CYV Vista Cove Project\TECHNICAL\Cultural Resources\Report&Figures\Old\Cultural Resources Assessment 20241845_Clean.docx (03/26/25)

Page 1264 of 2600 ends

Report List
Report No. Other IDs Year Author(s) Title Affiliation Resources S-005083 1977 Cultural Resource Assessment of Historical Structures on the Southampton Properties,
Benicia, California.

Voided - ASC #341 Ann S. Peak and Associates
S-005091 1977 Archaeological Assessment of Area 5 (Glen Cove), City of Vallejo, Solano County,
California.

Voided - ASC #349 David Chavez 48-000082, 48-000083
S-005893 1983 Archaeological Evaluation of a Proposed
Structure Widening and Ramp Revision on
State Route 780 (P.M. 5.7/6.5), Solano
County, California, 10102-297501
California Department of
Transportation
Caltrans - 10102- Roy A. Littlefield
297501;
Voided - S-6186
S-005893a 1983 First Addendum Archaeological Survey
Report for the Proposed Structure Widening
and Ramp Revision on State Route 780 (P.M.

5.7/6.5), Solano County, California
California Department of
Transportation
Roy A. Littlefield
S-006186 Voided-see S-5893a
S-009124 1987 A Cultural Resources Study for the Vaca
Dixon-Moraga 230 kV Transmission Line
Reconductoring Project, Contra Costa, Napa,
and Solano Counties, California
Hager/Holson and
Associates
John Holson and Lori
Hager
48-000067, 48-000068, 48-000076,
48-000159, 48-000160, 48-000161,
48-000162, 48-000163, 48-000164,
48-000167, 48-000168, 48-000169,
48-001001, 48-001003, 48-001004,
48-001005, 48-001006, 48-001007

Page 1 of 4 ends

Page 1265 of 2600 ends

Report List
Report No. Other IDs Year Author(s) Title Affiliation Resources S-019263 1991 Finding of Effect Report, Benicia-Martinez Bridge System Improvement Project, Contra
Costa and Solano Counties, California, CC680 21.2/21.5, SOL-680 0.0/13.1, SOL-780

0.7/7.2, SOL-80 10.8/14.2, 04193-006010
California Department of
Transportation
07-000859, 07-002039, 07-002040,
07-002041, 07-002042, 07-002043,
07-002044, 07-002045, 07-002046,
07-002047, 07-002048, 07-002049,
07-002050, 07-002051, 07-002052,
07-002053, 07-002054, 07-002543,
07-002545, 48-000103, 48-000114,
48-000179, 48-000180, 48-000385,
48-000445, 48-000446, 48-000447,
48-000448, 48-000449, 48-000450,
48-000451, 48-000452, 48-000453,
48-000454, 48-000455, 48-000456,
48-000457, 48-000458, 48-000459,
48-000460, 48-000463, 48-000464,
48-000465, 48-000466, 48-000467,
48-000468, 48-000469, 48-000470,
48-000471, 48-000472, 48-000473,
48-000474, 48-000475, 48-000476,
48-000477, 48-000478, 48-000479,
48-000480, 48-000481, 48-000482,
48-000483, 48-000484, 48-000485,
48-000486, 48-000487, 48-000488,
48-000489, 48-000490, 48-000491,
48-000492, 48-000500, 48-000536,
48-000539, 48-000542, 48-001030,
48-001031, 48-001032, 48-001033,
48-001034, 48-001035, 48-001036,
48-001037, 48-001038, 48-001039,
48-001040, 48-001041, 48-001042,
48-001043, 48-001044, 48-001045,
48-001046, 48-001047, 48-001048,
48-001049, 48-001050, 48-001051,
48-001052, 48-001053, 48-001054,
48-001055, 48-001056, 48-001057,
48-001058, 48-001059, 48-001062,
48-001094, 48-001095, 48-001096,
48-001097, 48-001098, 48-001099,
48-001100, 48-001101, 48-001107,
48-001111, 48-001112, 48-001113,
48-001114, 48-001115, 48-001116,
48-001117, 48-001118, 48-001119,
48-001120, 48-001121, 48-001122,
48-001123, 48-001124, 48-001125,
48-001126
Caltrans - 04193-
006010;

OHP PRN -
FHWA890809A;
Voided - S-22300;
Voided - S-25518

Page 2 of 4 ends

Page 1266 of 2600 ends

Report List
Report No. Other IDs Year Author(s) Title Affiliation Resources S-019263a 1990 FHWA890809A Re: Benicia-Martinez Bridge
Project, IR-680-1 (), IR-780-1 ()
California Office of Historic
Preservation
Bruce E. Cannon,
Kathryn Gualtieri, Mara
Melandry, and C.

Thomas Hosley
S-019263b 1988 An Evaluation of the Southern Pacific
Martinez-Benicia Bridge
California Department of
Transportation
John W. Snyder
S-019263c 1991 Section 3.4 "Alternatives Considered and Eliminated from Consideration" from
Preliminary Draft - "Project Description of
Benicia-Martinez Bridge System Project"
Dames and Moore
S-019263d 1989 Historic Properties Survey Report, BeniciaMartinez Bridge System Improvement Project in Contra Costa and Solano Counties, CC680 21.2/21.5, SOL-680 0.0/13.1, SOL-780

0.7/7.2, 04193-006010
John Holson Caltrans, District 4
S-019263e 1989 Archaeological Survey Report for the BeniciaMartinez Bridge System Improvement Project, 10-SOL-680 P.M. 0.0/13.1, 10-SOL780 P.M. 0.7/7.4, SOL-080 P.M. 0.8/3.7 and

10.8/14.2, 04-CC-680 P.M. 21.0/25.5 04193-
006010
John Holson Caltrans
S-019263f 1988 Historic Architectural Survey Report BeniciaMartinez Bridge System Improvement Project, 11-Sol-680, 11-Sol-780, 4-CC-680,
04193-006010
California Department of
Transportation
Gregory King, Stephen
D. Mikesell, Gloria Scott,
and John Snyder
S-019263g 2002 Benicia-Martinez Bridge System
Improvements Project Addendum,
Archaeological Survey Report - Maritime
Archaeology, Contra Costa and Solano
Counties; 04-SOL-680 PM 0.0/13.1, 04-SOL780 PM 0.7/7.4, 04-SOL-80 PM 0.8/3.7,

10.8/14.2, 04-CC-680 PM 21.0/25, EA 04193-
006010
James M. Allan William Self Associates, Inc.

S-019263h 1989 Benicia-Martinez Bridge System
Improvement Project
California Office of Historic
Preservation
Kathryn Gualtieri
S-030414 2005 A Cultural and Paleontological Resources
Study and Historical Evaluation for the
Bordoni Ranch Project, Vallejo, Solano
County, California.

Andrew Pulcheon and LSA Associates, Inc.

Sara Palmer
48-000716, 48-000717
S-031730 2006 Collocation ("CO") Submission Packet, FCC Form 621, PGE Glen Cove, SF-17100A
Lorna Billat Earth Touch, Inc.

Page 3 of 4 ends

Page 1267 of 2600 ends

Report List
Report No. Other IDs Year Author(s) Title Affiliation Resources S-034162 2007 Historic Archaeological Testing at CA-SOL449H, The Miller/Bordoni Ranch, Vallejo, Solano County, California
Sunshine Psota Holman & Associates 48-000717
S-034313 2007 Cultural Resource Inventory for the 3
Cemeteries Project: All Souls Cemetery,
Solano County, California
PAR Environmental
Services, Inc.

Marshall Reed Millett
S-051545 1990 Shipwrecks, Mortars, and Fish Traps Along the Carquinez Straits
California Department of
Parks and Recreation
Jim Woodward 48-000083
S-051546 1979 Benicia S.R.A.-Field Report (Unrecorded
Historic Sites)
Larry Felton

Page 4 of 4 ends

Page 1268 of 2600 ends

VISTA COVE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT P ROJECT

V ALLEJO, C ALIFORNIA

Page 1269 of 2600 ends

I NITIAL S TUDY /SUBSEQUENT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION N OVEMBER 2025

VISTA COVE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT P ROJECT

V ALLEJO, C ALIFORNIA
P:\2024\20241845 CYV Vista Cove Project\PRODUCTS\Subsequent MND\Vista Cove Admin Printcheck Draft_251104.docx (11/04/25)

APPENDIX E

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND PEER REVIEW

Page 1270 of 2600 ends

Copyright © 2022 by ENGEO Incorporated. This document
may not be reproduced in whole or in part by any means
whatsoever, nor may it be quoted or excerpted without the express written consent of ENGEO Incorporated.

VALLEJO PROPERTIES – VISTA COVE

VALLEJO, CALIFORNIA

PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION

SUBMITTED TO
Mr. Adam Smith
Sancerra
2618 San Miguel Drive, Suite 1223
Newport Beach, CA 92660

PREPARED BY
ENGEO Incorporated
September 12, 2022

PROJECT NO
20164.000.001
B\IGf.O
-E:lt,-;tE'xc•~-

Page 1271 of 2600 ends

GEOTECHNICAL

ENVIRONMENTAL

WATER RESOURCES

CONSTRUCTION SERVICES

COASTAL/MARINE GEOTECHNICS
2010 Crow Canyon Place, Suite 250  San Ramon, CA 94583  (925) 866-9000  Fax (888) 279-2698 www.engeo.com
Project No.
20164.000.001
September 12, 2022
Mr. Adam Smith
Sancerra
2618 San Miguel Drive, Suite 1223
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Subject: Vallejo Properties – Vista Cove
Wildflower Avenue
Vallejo, California

PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION
Dear Mr. Smith:

With your authorization, we have completed this preliminary geotechnical exploration for the proposed development of the Vallejo Properties – Vista Cove development located in Vallejo, California. The accompanying report presents the results of our site exploration and preliminary geotechnical conclusions and recommendations for the project.

Based on our initial assessment, the proposed residential development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The main geotechnical and geologic concerns for the proposed development includes stability of graded slopes, corrective grading for planned building sites, and the presence of moderate to highly expansive soil and bedrock. A design-level exploration should be conducted prior to site development once final land plans have been prepared.

We are pleased to have been of service on this project and are prepared to consult further with you and your design team as the project progresses. If you have any questions regarding the contents of this report, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,
ENGEO Incorporated
Jacob White, CEG Robert H. Boeche, CEG
jw/af/rhb/ar
ENGEO
-Expect Excellence-----------------------

Page 1272 of 2600 ends

Sancerra Vallejo Properties – Vista Cove
20164.000.001 Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration
i of ii September 12, 2022

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

1.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................. 1

1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE .................................................................................................... 1

1.2 PROJECT LOCATION........................................................................................................ 1

1.3 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................... 1

2.0 REGIONAL GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY ......................................................... 2

2.1 REGIONAL GELOGIC SETTING......................................................................................... 2

2.2 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY ............................................................................................ 2

3.0 FIELD EXPLORATION AND GEOLOGIC MAPPING.......................................... 3

3.1 EXPLORATION AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ........................................................ 3

3.2 HISTORIC AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH REVIEW ................................................................... 4

3.3 SITE RECONNAISSANCE AND GEOLOGIC MAPPING................................................... 4

3.3.1 Existing Fill (Qaf).................................................................................................... 4

3.3.2 Colluvial Deposits (Qc) .......................................................................................... 4

3.3.3 Landslide Deposits (Qls)........................................................................................ 5

3.3.4 Panoche Formation (Kp)........................................................................................ 5

3.4 LABORATORY TESTING................................................................................................... 6

3.5 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS ....................................................................................... 6

4.0 PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................... 6

4.1 SLOPE STABILITY ............................................................................................................. 6

4.2 EXPANSIVE SOIL AND BEDROCK MATERIALS ............................................................. 6

4.3 COMPRESSIBLE SOIL AND SOFT COLLUVIAL DEPOSITS........................................... 7

4.4 SOIL CREEP....................................................................................................................... 7

4.5 BEDROCK RIPPABILITY ................................................................................................... 7

4.6 SEISMIC HAZARDS ........................................................................................................... 7

4.6.1 Ground Rupture ..................................................................................................... 7

4.6.2 Ground Shaking ..................................................................................................... 8

4.6.3 Liquefaction/Clay Soil Softening ............................................................................ 8

4.6.4 Seismically Induced Landsliding ............................................................................ 8

4.7 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS............................................................................ 8

4.8 SOIL CORROSION POTENTIAL........................................................................................ 9

5.0 PRELIMINARY EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS...................................... 9

5.1 GRADING, DEMOLITION, AND STRIPPING..................................................................... 9

5.2 CORRECTIVE GRADING................................................................................................. 10

5.3 SELECTION OF MATERIALS .......................................................................................... 10

5.4 GRADED SLOPES AND SLOPE STABILIZATION.......................................................... 10

5.5 PLACEMENT OF FILL...................................................................................................... 11

6.0 PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS.................................... 12

7.0 PRELIMINARY RETAINING WALL RECOMMENDATIONS............................. 12

8.0 STORMWATER INFILTRATION AND BIORETENTION AREAS ..................... 13

9.0 PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN ............................................................... 14 ENGEO
Expect Excellence

Page 1273 of 2600 ends

Sancerra Vallejo Properties – Vista Cove
20164.000.001 Geological Feasibility Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
ii of ii September 12, 2022

10.0 FUTURE STUDIES ............................................................................................ 14

11.0 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS ....................................... 14

SELECTED REFERENCES

FIGURES
APPENDIX A – Boring Logs
APPENDIX B – Laboratory Test Data by ENGEO
APPENDIX C – Laboratory Test Data by CERCO
ENGEO
Expect Excellence

Page 1274 of 2600 ends

Sancerra Vallejo Properties – Vista Cove
20164.000.001 Preliminary Geotehnical Exploration
Page | 1 September 12, 2022

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
We prepared this preliminary geotechnical exploration report for the proposed Vista Cove development in Vallejo, California. Based on the findings of our feasibility study dated April 29, 2022, we provided the following scope of services. • Reviewed the findings in our previous feasibility study for the site. • Performed subsurface exploration, including two dry-cored borings, 13 exploratory test pits, and one exploratory trench to identify the possible presence of landslide deposits crossing the development site and characterize the general site geology. • Provided our preliminary conclusions and recommendations for site grading, foundation design, retaining walls, and preliminary pavement recommendations for the proposed development.

We prepared this report exclusively for you and your design team consultants. ENGEO should review any changes made in the character, design, or layout of the development to modify the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report, as necessary. This document may not be reproduced in whole or in part by any means whatsoever, nor may it be quoted or excerpted without the express written consent of ENGEO.

1.2 PROJECT LOCATION
The site is located just east of Wildflower Avenue and Shady Lane, as shown in the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. The Property is approximately 30 acres in area and is identified by Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 0079-171-170, 0079-120-100, and a portion of 0079-220-070. The Property is currently undeveloped, open space located on the hillside of a residential development in the Glen Cove area of Vallejo. Development plans indicate that approximately 18 acres are planned for residential development, 9 acres are to be dedicated to the City by the developer as open space, and 3 acres are to be dedicated to the developer by the City. The southern portion of the site is generally lower in elevation and increases in elevation towards the west. Elevations range from approximately Elevation 70 feet above mean sea level (msl) in low-lying areas (eastern portion of the site) up to approximately Elevation 290 feet msl (southwestern boundary of the site).

Vegetation on most of the site generally consists of weeds and grasses, with trees and wetland vegetation lining the two drainages that cross the site.

The upslope development (Glen Cove Hills) was constructed in the early 1980s, with significant cuts and fills to achieve the current site grades. A fill slope approximately 50 feet high and 2:1 (horizontal: vertical) was observed along the southwestern portion of the property. There are two storm drain outlets from Glen Cove Hills that were actively flowing during our site visit, Water is collected and conveyed within the two drainages that bisect the site west to east.

1.3 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Based on the conceptual plan received via email on August 4, 2022, from dk Engineering, the project will include cuts and fills of up to 24 feet with graded slope configurations as steep as 2:1 (horizontal: vertical) and up to 46 feet tall. Retaining walls (up to 12 ½ feet in height) are shown in several areas at the top of fill slopes and the base of planned cut slopes. The current development plan depicts 52 single-family units, as shown in the Site Plan, Figure 2. Access to the project is depicted off Shady Lane and Wildflower Avenue. Development is anticipated to include roadway construction, underground utilities, and stormwater detention basins associated with the project.

ENGEO
Expect Excellence

Page 1275 of 2600 ends

Sancerra Vallejo Properties – Vista Cove
20164.000.001 Preliminary Geotehnical Exploration
Page | 2 September 12, 2022

2.0 REGIONAL GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY

2.1 REGIONAL GELOGIC SETTING
The project site is situated regionally within the Coast Ranges Province. The Coast Ranges Province has a complex geological history. The Coast Ranges are characterized by complex folding and faulting that has resulted in a series of northwest-trending mountain ranges and intervening valleys. Active faulting found in the Coast Ranges has developed in response to the relative motion along the transform boundary between the North American and Pacific Tectonic Plates which, in total, is considered to be approximately 5 cm per year (Argus and Gordon, 1991). Strain associated with the relative motion of the two plates is distributed across a broad area from the San Gregorio fault offshore to just east of the Sierra Nevada. The San Andreas fault accommodates a significant portion of the relative plate motion with a geologic slip rate of approximately 2.5 to 3 cm per year.

The remaining relative plate motion is partitioned along a series of faults within the broad zone of deformation with the highest slip rates occurring on faults adjacent to the San Andreas fault. In the San Francisco Bay Area, these faults include the Hayward, Rogers Creek, Calaveras, Concord, Green Valley, and Greenville faults, as well as other shorter fault segments.

More specifically, the site is located in the hills approximately 1 mile north of Southhampton Bay and Dillon Point on the north side of the Carquinez Strait. Based on geologic mapping by Dibblee (2005), the site is underlain by upper Cretaceous Panoche formation (Figure 3). We also reviewed regional geologic mapping by Crane (1988) and Graymer (1999). Dibblee maps the Southampton fault approximately 500 feet east of the site boundary. This same fault is mapped by Crane as a west-dipping thrust fault, and shown as concealed below Bay Mud deposits by Graymer. The Southampton fault is depicted on the USGS Quaternary Fault and Fold Database (Bryant, 2017) consistent with Dibblee, about 500 feet east of the site, and is described as an undifferentiated Quaternary aged reverse right-lateral fault. Crane also maps the axis of a north-trending syncline through Southampton Bay east of the site. Based on interpretations by Crane, this syncline may represent the northward continuation of the Martinez syncline. Bedding at the site is mapped with a northwest strike and dipping from 35 to 45 degrees to the west.

Regional landslide mapping by Nilsen (1975) and Bortugno (1987) was reviewed as part of our study. Landslide mapping by Bortugno is depicted in Figure 5. Bortugno maps the landslides flanking the north dipping slope, just south of the proposed development area, and a larger landslide (queried) crossing through the center of the development area. Nilsen (1975) maps a landslide upslope of Silktree Lane and the existing Glen Cove Development and does not depict any landslides crossing the development area. The California Geological Survey (CGS) provides an online “Landslide Inventory” GIS database. Consistent with the queried landslide mapped by Bortugno (Figure 2), the CGS identifies the area with a “?” meaning the landslide deposit is uncertain or questionable.

2.2 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY
The site is not located within a State of California Earthquake Fault Hazard Zone for active faults and no signs of recent faulting were observed during our site reconnaissance mapping. The San Andreas fault represents an active plate boundary that is expected to produce the maximum probable earthquake for the region. Other active faults of coastal California are lesser-order features of the same stress-strain system. The Greenville and Concord/Green Valley faults are mapped approximately 3.5 miles east of the site, the West Napa fault is located about 6 miles to the northwest, the Hayward-Rodgers Creek fault is mapped approximately 11 miles southwest from the site, and the San Andreas fault is mapped approximately 29 miles from the site.

ENGEO
Expect Excellence

Page 1276 of 2600 ends

Sancerra Vallejo Properties – Vista Cove
20164.000.001 Preliminary Geotehnical Exploration
Page | 3 September 12, 2022
Numerous small earthquakes occur every year in the nearby San Francisco Bay Region, and larger earthquakes have been recorded and can be expected to occur in the future. Figure 4 shows the approximate locations of these faults and significant historic earthquakes recorded within the region.

Historically, strong earthquakes (>M7) have occurred in the nearby Bay Area with many low-magnitude earthquakes recorded every year. It should therefore be expected that the site will be subjected to moderate to severe ground shaking at some point during the project design lifetime.

The 2014 Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities evaluated the regional seismicity of the Bay Area and published their results as The Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 3 (UCERF3). The Working Group periodically attempts to summarize seismic risk in California with time-dependent earthquake rupture forecasts, in which the probabilities of future events are conditioned upon the dates of previous earthquakes. According to UCERF3, there is an aggregated 72 percent probability of 6.7 MW or greater earthquake on an active Bay Area fault over the next 30 years.

3.0 FIELD EXPLORATION AND GEOLOGIC MAPPING

3.1 EXPLORATION AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Our supplemental exploration included drilling two continuous “dry-core” borings within a queried landslide area to confirm the presence or absence of landsliding. The borings were drilled on August 4 and 5, 2022, utilizing a track-mounted CME-55 drill rig to a maximum depth of up to 50 feet below ground surface (bgs). Additionally, 13 test pits and one trench were excavated within the proposed development and adjacent hillslopes utilizing a tracked excavator (Figure 2).

The test pits and trench were excavated on July 13 and 14, 2022, to a maximum depth of approximately 11 feet bgs.

In Boring 1-B1, colluvial soil was encountered to a depth of 3 feet bgs. Extremely weak to weak mudstone bedrock (Kp) interbedded with strong indurated sandstone and shale was encountered from 3 feet to the bottom of the boring. The bedrock was closely fractured to crushed in zones, partially due to the method of drilling. Very hard drilling was encountered at 17½ feet to 25 feet bgs. No features indicative of landsliding were observed in the recovered core samples.

In Boring 1-B2, colluvial soil consisting of very stiff fat clay was encountered to a depth of 6 feet bgs. Extremely weak to weak mudstone bedrock (Kp) interbedded with strong to very indurated sandstone and siltstone was encountered from 6 feet to the bottom of the boring. The bedrock was closely fractured to crushed in zones, partially due to the method of drilling. Very hard drilling (interpreted as very strong sandstone interbeds) was encountered at 10 feet to 13 feet, 15½ to 22½ feet, and 40 to 45 feet bgs. No features indicative of landsliding were observed in the recovered core samples.

Test Pits 1-TP1 through 1-TP9 were excavated in the previously mapped queried landslide area crossing the site. Stiff to very stiff colluvial deposits consisting of lean to fat clay were encountered to a depth of up to 9 feet. Underlying the colluvial deposits (gradational contact), weak to very weak interbedded sandstone, siltstone, and mudstone were encountered to the depth of excavation. No features indicative of landsliding were observed within the test pit excavations.

ENGEO
Expect Excellence

Page 1277 of 2600 ends

Sancerra Vallejo Properties – Vista Cove
20164.000.001 Preliminary Geotehnical Exploration
Page | 4 September 12, 2022
Test Pits 1-TP10 through 1-TP13 were excavated in planned development areas to characterize bedrock structure and thickness of colluvial deposits. Stiff to very stiff colluvial deposits consisting of lean to fat clay were encountered to a depth of up to 7 feet. Underlying the colluvial deposits (gradational contact), weak to very weak interbedded sandstone, siltstone, and mudstone were encountered to the depth of excavation.

Trench 1-T1 was excavated in the upslope portion of the previously mapped queried landslide area crossing the site. The trench extended approximately 110 feet and up to 10 feet deep.

Colluvial deposits up to approximately 9 feet thick were observed in gradational contact with the underlying bedrock. The colluvium consisted of lean to fat stiff clay. The underlying bedrock consisted of weak interbedded sandstone and claystone with bedding ranging from north 8 east to north 33 east and dipping 32 to 45 degrees west. No features indicative of landsliding were observed during exploration, such as graben fills, fracture fills, dilated bedrock, prominent shearing, or gouge.

An ENGEO Geologist logged the borings, test pits, and trench in the field. The exploration logs are included in Appendix A of this report. The trench log is included in Figure 9. The logs depict subsurface conditions encountered at the time of our exploration; however, subsurface conditions will vary with time.

3.2 HISTORIC AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH REVIEW
We reviewed stereo-paired aerial photographs as part of our study to observe the presence of geomorphic features indicative of landsliding at the site. We reviewed the photographs for features such as linear discontinuities in the rock or soil, offset drainages, linear scarps, topographic lows, and/or vegetation patterns or breaks in slope. Features indicative of landsliding were observed in several photographs spanning years from 1937 to 1989 for Landslides 1 through 6.

3.3 SITE RECONNAISSANCE AND GEOLOGIC MAPPING
Surface geologic mapping, based on photo review and site reconnaissance, was performed as part of this study, as depicted in Figure 2 and interpreted on cross sections in Figure 6. Mapping was supplemented by subsurface findings, as described in subsequent sections of the report. Site mapping focused on bedrock exposures, existing fills, landsliding, and geomorphological features to provide a preliminary surface geologic map. Below are descriptions of the geologic units observed during mapping at the site, as shown in Figure 2.

3.3.1 Existing Fill (Qaf)
Existing fills (Qaf) are mapped along the west side of the site and are associated with mass grading for the Glen Cove development (Figure 2). The existing fills observed during our site reconnaissance and in 1981 aerial photographs appear to generally be derived from local bedrock cuts typical of the area.

3.3.2 Colluvial Deposits (Qc)
Colluvium (Qc) generally overlies the low-lying portions of the site, specifically the two drainages that cross the site and a small swale along the north side of the site. Colluvium is material that erodes from ridgelines and slopes, is transported predominantly by sheet wash, and accumulates in the adjacent swales. Colluvial deposits are typically compressible and weak, and based on our experience in the area, have the potential to be expansive. Colluvium was encountered across the site during our exploration and up to 10 feet thick as observed in 1-TP3.

ENGEO
Expect Excellence

Page 1278 of 2600 ends

Sancerra Vallejo Properties – Vista Cove
20164.000.001 Preliminary Geotehnical Exploration
Page | 5 September 12, 2022

3.3.3 Landslide Deposits (Qls)
As previously discussed, published geologic mapping by Bortugno (1987) shows a queried landslide area crossing through the site, Figure 5. Based on our field exploration, no features indicative of landsliding were observed in the borings, test pits, or trench. Topographic lows in this area are likely related to differential weathering and bedrock structure and are generally consistent in bedding observed in the excavations. Based on a review of the published maps, interpretation of aerial photographs, and our subsurface exploration, we identified six landslide areas adjacent to or within the property, included in Figure 2. The landslides at the site are classified as shallow soil creep/earthflows, shallow landslide deposits, and deep-seated bedrock landslides. Soil creep earthflows are generally slow-moving shallow landslides that typically mobilize during significant rainfall events and usually include the overlying surface soil. Shallow landslides at the site are characterized by rotational failures predominantly including surficial and colluvial soil, and may affect some portion of upper weathered bedrock units and likely up to 20 feet deep. Deep-seated bedrock landslides involve primarily rock, but may also include some surficial soil material, and are likely 30 to 50 feet deep. No landslide deposits were encountered in excavations or borings during our exploration.

It is our opinion that the identified landslide areas have a relatively high likelihood of experiencing instability. Conceptual mitigation measures are provided below for identified landslide areas that have been designated Landslide Areas 1 through 6 in Figure 2 for discussion purposes. The relationship of each landslide area to the planned development and conceptual mitigation measures for each landslide area is summarized in Table 3.3.3-1.

TABLE 3.3.3-1: Preliminary Landslide Classification

LANDSLIDE

DESIGNATION

LANDSLIDE

CLASSIFICATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES
1 Deep-Seated Bedrock;
Wedge Failure
Upper portion of slide crossing
proposed open space area.

Outside of development area,
no mitigation required.
2 Deep-Seated Bedrock
Off site within Benicia State
Rec Area and not affecting
current site development.

Outside of development area,
no mitigation required.
3 Shallow; Rotational Off site and not affecting
current site development.

Outside of development area,
no mitigation required.
4 Shallow; Rotational
Predominantly within open
space parcel with portion on
the east crossing into planned
balance area.

Remove landslide deposits
from portion within
development area.
5 Shallow; Rotational
Outside of proposed
development area and project
boundary.

Outside of development area
and project boundary, no
mitigation required.
6 Soil Creep/ Earthflow
Predominantly within open
space parcel with portion on
the east crossing into planned
balance area.

Remove landslide material
from portion within
development area.

3.3.4 Panoche Formation (Kp)
Bedrock at the site consists of interbedded sandstone, siltstone, claystone, shale, and mudstone of the Cretaceous Great Valley Sequence Panoche Formation (Kp). Based on our experience with similar projects in the area, bedrock exposures along Shady Lane, and our subsurface ENGEO
Expect Excellence

Page 1279 of 2600 ends

Sancerra Vallejo Properties – Vista Cove
20164.000.001 Preliminary Geotehnical Exploration
Page | 6 September 12, 2022
exploration, the bedrock is generally well cemented, extremely weak to strong, and beds of more well indurated sandstones are common. Regional bedding is depicted striking northwest and dipping 35 to 45 degrees west. We collected measured bedding orientations on bedrock exposures adjacent to Shady Lane, and within test pit excavations, observed bedding striking from north 3 degrees west to north 65 east and dipping 32 to 60 degrees to the west.

3.4 LABORATORY TESTING
We performed percent passing #200 sieve (ASTM D1140), Atterberg limits (ASTM D4318), and hydrometer (ASTM D422) testing. Individual test results are also included in Appendix B.

3.5 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS
No groundwater was encountered within the test pits, trench, and borings. The two drainages crossing the site were observed to have consistent water flow from two storm drain outlet locations associated with the existing Glen Cove Hills development. Additionally, two seepage areas were observed during our site reconnaissance, as depicted in Figure 2. The seeps were identified by saturated ground surfaces and dense vegetation. Fluctuations in groundwater levels occur seasonally and over a period of years because of variations in precipitation, temperature, irrigation, and other factors. Future irrigation may cause an overall rise in groundwater levels.

4.0 PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS
It is our opinion from a geotechnical and geologic viewpoint that the proposed development is feasible provided the preliminary conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into future planning for the development. The main geotechnical and geologic concerns for the proposed development include (1) stability of graded slopes, (2) corrective grading for planned building sites, and (3) presence of moderate to highly expansive soil and bedrock.

Supplemental design-level geotechnical exploration should be performed to provide site-specific recommendations for site preparation, remedial and design grading, foundation design, site improvements, and drainage. The supplemental exploration should further characterize subsurface conditions to determine mitigation measures to address geotechnical and geologic hazards.

4.1 SLOPE STABILITY
Proposed graded slopes at the site (Figure 2) are depicted as 2:1 (horizontal: vertical) and up to 46 feet tall with intermittent benches. Based on our experience and geologic conditions at the site, proposed cut slopes will require reconstruction as drained, engineered fill slopes. In general, 2:1 cut and fill slopes will require keyway buttresses and geogrid reinforcement for construction.

Slope stability analysis should be performed during design-level geotechnical study and once final development plans are available to determine corrective grading configurations.

4.2 EXPANSIVE SOIL AND BEDROCK MATERIALS
The soil and bedrock at the site generally exhibit moderate to high shrink/swell potential with variations in moisture content. The results of Atterberg Limits determination show plasticity indices (PIs) ranging from 18 to 40, which is considered moderate to highly expansive when subject to changes in moisture content. Expansive soil and bedrock materials left unmitigated may shrink ENGEO
Expect Excellence

Page 1280 of 2600 ends

Sancerra Vallejo Properties – Vista Cove
20164.000.001 Preliminary Geotehnical Exploration
Page | 7 September 12, 2022
and/or swell adversely impacting site improvements, such as slabs-on-grade, pavements, and structures on shallow foundations. Our recommendations to mitigate adverse effects of expansive soil and bedrock are discussed in subsequent portions of this report.

4.3 COMPRESSIBLE SOIL AND SOFT COLLUVIAL DEPOSITS
The colluvial deposits encountered during our exploration included soft or compressible materials over bedrock. To minimize settlement of the softer colluvium due to building loads or engineered fill loads, corrective grading measures should include the removal of compressible materials down to a hard material/bedrock. We anticipate colluvium removals of up to approximately 10 feet to achieve this recommendation. Figures 2 and 6 show the general locations of the colluvium. The anticipated depth of removal of soft and compressible soil should be determined during design-level studies.

4.4 SOIL CREEP
Colluvial soil on steeper slopes is subject to soil creep. Soil creep is the slow downslope movement of soil that occurs with the annual cycle of wetting and drying under the influence of gravity. The potential for adverse impacts from soil creep can be minimized by benching through surficial soil during fill placement, as recommended in this report, or by design of drilled pier foundation systems to accommodate lateral loads from soil creep.

4.5 BEDROCK RIPPABILITY
Based on field observations during excavation of test pits, trench, borings, and experience on projects in the immediate vicinity, we opine that in general bedrock units at this site should be considered rippable with conventional heavy construction equipment (such as a D-8 Bulldozer).

Localized well-cemented beds and occasional well-cemented concretions may be encountered that will require more ripping effort. Trenching for utilities should be possible with conventional equipment. As noted above, localized well-cemented beds may be encountered that may necessitate use of heavy equipment such as track-mounted excavators.

In general, all soil and bedrock materials observed on the site appear suitable for use as engineered fill, if properly processed. If rocks greater than 6 inches in diameter are encountered during grading, these should be placed in accordance with recommendations provided in Section 5.3 – Selection of Materials.

4.6 SEISMIC HAZARDS
Potential seismic hazards resulting from a nearby moderate to major earthquake can generally be classified as primary and secondary. The primary effect is ground rupture, also called surface faulting. The common secondary seismic hazards include ground shaking, ground lurching, soil liquefaction, and lateral spreading. These hazards are discussed in the following sections. Based on topographic and lithologic data, the risk from regional subsidence or uplift, tsunamis, or seiches is considered low at the site.

4.6.1 Ground Rupture
Since there are no known active faults crossing the site and the property is not within a State of California Earthquake Fault Hazard Zone, the likelihood of primary fault ground rupture is considered remote.

ENGEO
Expect Excellence

Page 1281 of 2600 ends

Sancerra Vallejo Properties – Vista Cove
20164.000.001 Preliminary Geotehnical Exploration
Page | 8 September 12, 2022

4.6.2 Ground Shaking
An earthquake of moderate to high magnitude generated within the San Francisco Bay Region could cause considerable ground shaking at the site, similar to that which has occurred in the past. To mitigate the shaking effects, all structures should be designed using sound engineering judgment and the current California Building Code (CBC) requirements, as a minimum.

4.6.3 Liquefaction/Clay Soil Softening
Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon under which saturated, cohesionless, loose soil experience a temporary loss of shear strength when subjected to the cyclic shear stresses caused by earthquake ground shaking. The soil materials encountered within the site generally consist of clayey soil and bedrock that are not susceptible to liquefaction.

4.6.4 Seismically Induced Landsliding
Seismically induced landslides are triggered by earthquake ground shaking. The risk of this hazard is greatest in the late winter when groundwater levels are highest and hillside colluvium is saturated. As with all slopes in the region, this risk is also present at the site to varying degrees depending on the slope conditions and time of year. The hazard of seismically induced landslides to the proposed structures can be best mitigated by properly engineered stabilization of planned slopes, as recommended in this report.

4.7 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
Based on the subsurface conditions observed during exploration, we preliminarily characterized the site as Site Class C. We provide the 2019 CBC seismic design parameters in the table below, which include design spectral response acceleration parameters based on the mapped Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) spectral response acceleration parameters. Future design-level studies should include evaluation of the shear-wave velocity of the subsurface to confirm site class.

TABLE 4.7-1: 2019 CBC Seismic Design Parameters (Latitude: 38.082173, Longitude: -122.200268)

PARAMETER VALUE
Site Class C
Mapped MCER Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Periods, SS (g) 1.5 Mapped MCER Spectral Response Acceleration at 1-second Period, S1 (g) 0.6 Site Coefficient, Fa 1.2
Site Coefficient, Fv 1.4
MCER Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Periods, SMS (g) 1.8 MCER Spectral Response Acceleration at 1-second Period, SM1 (g) 0.84 Design Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Periods, SDS (g) 1.2 Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 1-second Period, SD1 (g) 0.56 Mapped MCE Geometric Mean (MCEG) Peak Ground Acceleration, PGA (g) 0.5 Site Coefficient, FPGA 1.2
MCEG Peak Ground Acceleration adjusted for Site Class effects, PGAM (g) 0.6 ENGEO
Expect Excellence

Page 1282 of 2600 ends

Sancerra Vallejo Properties – Vista Cove
20164.000.001 Preliminary Geotehnical Exploration
Page | 9 September 12, 2022

4.8 SOIL CORROSION POTENTIAL
We collected two samples during our exploration and transported them to CERCO Analytical and tested for concentrations of water-soluble sulfate and chloride (Cl) in accordance with ASTM D4327. The sample locations are specified in the attached analytical results, Appendix C.

The soluble sulfate concentrations were 92 ppm (0.03% by weight) and “none detected”. The 2019 California Building Code references the 2014 American Concrete Institute Manual, (ACI 318-14) Chapter 19, Sections 19.3 for concrete requirements based on sulfate exposure. In accordance with ACI criteria, the soil is classified as Exposure Class S0. Cement type and water-cement ratio are not specified for this range.

The results for chloride concentration in the samples were 92 and 110 ppm. For concrete in direct contact with soil containing concentrations of chloride ions in excess of 500 ppm, the Post-Tensioning Institute (PTI) recommends additional protection from corrosion for the tendons and reinforcing. The results show levels of chloride that do not exceed 500 ppm. Therefore, preliminarily, no additional measures are specified beyond the standard measures specified by ACI 318-14 and 423.7.

A full evaluation of possible corrosion impacts to site improvements has not been conducted on site soil because of the volume of cut and fill that will be necessary to bring the site to design grades. Once design grades are achieved, supplemental testing can be performed and a corrosion specialist can be retained.

5.0 PRELIMINARY EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 GRADING, DEMOLITION, AND STRIPPING
The following preliminary recommendations are for initial land planning and preliminary estimating purposes. Final recommendations regarding site grading and foundation construction will be provided after design-level exploration has been undertaken. Grading should begin with the removal of existing structures, if any, including their foundations. Underground structures, such as buried pipes, septic tanks, and leach fields, if any, which will be abandoned or are expected to deteriorate, should be removed from the project site entirely.

All existing artificial fill, vegetation, and soft or compressible soil should be removed, as necessary, for project requirements. The depth of removal of these materials should be determined by the geotechnical engineer’s qualified representative in the field at the time of grading. Evaluation of unsuitable deposits should be performed during grading by sampling and laboratory analyses.

Areas to receive fill or structures and those areas that serve as borrow for fill should be stripped of existing vegetation. Topsoil is estimated to be from 3 to 6 inches in thickness depending on location. Tree roots should be removed to a depth of at least 3 feet below finished grade in cut areas and 3 feet below original grade in fill areas. Subject to approval by the landscape architect, strippings and organically contaminated soil that are not suitable for use as engineered fill may be used in landscape areas. Any topsoil that will be retained for future use in landscape areas should be stockpiled in areas where it will not interfere with the mass grading.

ENGEO
Expect Excellence

Page 1283 of 2600 ends

Sancerra Vallejo Properties – Vista Cove
20164.000.001 Preliminary Geotehnical Exploration
Page | 10 September 12, 2022
Within the development areas, excavations resulting from demolition and stripping which extend below final grades should be cleaned to firm undisturbed soil, as determined by the geotechnical engineer's representative. Following clearing and grubbing, all depressions in areas to be filled should be scarified, moisture conditioned, and backfilled with compacted engineered fill. The requirements for backfill materials and placement procedures are the same as those for engineered fill, as described in Section 5.5 – Placement of Fill.

5.2 CORRECTIVE GRADING
Based on the proposed site grading and slopes, corrective grading, including removal of compressible colluvium, excavation of buttress keyways, cut and cut-fill lot excavation, differential fill excavation, and construction of subsurface drainage facilities, is anticipated. Keyway and subdrain configurations should be provided during design-level studies and based on final development plans, including corrective grading plans and cross sections. Typical keyway and subdrain details are included in Figures 7 and 8.

5.3 SELECTION OF MATERIALS
With the exception of the organically contaminated near-surface material, the site soil and rocks containing less than 3 percent organics are suitable for use as engineered fill. Imported fill material should meet the above requirements and have a plasticity index (PI) similar to on-site soil material.

Placement of oversized rock in the fill should be done according to the following specifications. • During grading, rock fragments up to 6 inches in maximum size should be placed in the deeper fill areas. No rock fragments larger than 6 inches in diameter shall be placed in the upper 10 feet of finished grade.
• If oversized rock fragments are encountered, these should not exceed 18 inches in any dimension if placed at selective landscape areas. Larger rock sizes should be broken mechanically, either by the heavy bulldozers rolling on them or by a pneumatic hammer mounted on a backhoe. The rock should be spread and mixed with fines and should not be allowed to nest. Engineered fill consisting of rock fragments only is not allowed. The rock should be mixed with fines at a ratio of 1 to 10, or one load of rock fragments to 10 loads of fines, as approved by ENGEO during grading.

5.4 GRADED SLOPES AND SLOPE STABILIZATION
The following preliminary guidelines may be used when considering slope gradients, heights, and retaining walls:
• In general, graded 2:1 (horizontal: vertical) slopes may be constructed up to 10 feet in vertical height. If higher vertical 2:1 slopes are planned, 2:1 slopes up to a maximum vertical height of 30 feet high may be constructed using geogrid reinforcement. Slopes exceeding 30 feet in height should include benches and/or concrete ditches, as designed by the civil engineer. • Graded 2½:1 slopes (unreinforced with geogrid) may be constructed up to 15 feet in vertical height. If higher vertical slopes are planned, 2½:1 slopes up to a maximum vertical height of 30 feet high may be constructed using geogrid reinforcement. Slopes exceeding 30 feet in height should include benches and/or concrete ditches, as designed by the civil engineer.

ENGEO
Expect Excellence

Page 1284 of 2600 ends

Sancerra Vallejo Properties – Vista Cove
20164.000.001 Preliminary Geotehnical Exploration
Page | 11 September 12, 2022
• Graded 3:1 slopes, or flatter, may exceed 30 feet and do not require benches and/or concrete ditches. Major slopes exceeding 50 feet in vertical height should include a minimum 20-foot-wide debris bench along the base of slope.
• Graded cut and fill slopes exceeding 30 feet in height should include benches and/or concrete ditches, as designed by civil engineer.

The above guidelines may be considered in combination with vertical retaining wall systems, such as MSE retaining walls; however, such walls upon shallow foundations with downslope conditions will require greater embedment than walls with level foreground at slope bottoms. As an alternative to the slope gradient recommendations described above, if steeper slope gradients exceeding the above-noted maximum vertical heights are desired, such slopes could be specially designed using appropriate geogrid reinforcement. Geogrid reinforced slopes should be designed and may include primary and secondary geogrid reinforcement layers. As a general design consideration for geogrid reinforced slopes, if selected the primary horizontal reinforcement would extend on the order of 1.5 times the total vertical height of the slope, comprising the outer geogrid reinforced buttress zone of the slope; the typical vertical spacing of geogrid layers would be anticipated ranging from 1½- to 2½-foot spacing, depending on the total vertical slope height.

Specific slope recommendations should be provided during design level studies and once final plans are available.

All major cut slopes should be reviewed by an ENGEO Certified Engineering Geologist for slope conditions that might be detrimental to slope stability. If areas of instability are identified during grading, such as adverse bedrock orientation or structure or groundwater seepage conditions, these cut slopes may require overexcavation and reconstruction; if necessary supplemental recommendations to mitigate cut slopes would be provided during construction.

5.5 PLACEMENT OF FILL
After removal of soft soil and loose fill, the exposed non-yielding surface of all areas to receive minor fills, secondary slabs-on-grade, or pavements should be scarified to a depth of 12 inches, moisture conditioned, and recompacted to provide adequate bonding with the initial lift of fill. All fill should be placed in thin lifts. The lift thickness should not exceed 8 inches or the depth of penetration of the compaction equipment used, whichever is less. Test procedures should be determined in accordance with ASTM D1557. Additional samples will be collected during site grading and transported to our laboratory for compaction curve testing.

TABLE 5.5-1: Fill Placement Specifications

LOCATION MINIMUM RELATIVE

COMPACTION

MINIMUM MOISTURE
CONTENT (percent
above optimum)
General Fill (< 50 feet deep) 90 3
General Fill (≥ 50 feet deep) 95 2
Keyway 95 2
ENGEO
Expect Excellence

Page 1285 of 2600 ends

Sancerra Vallejo Properties – Vista Cove
20164.000.001 Preliminary Geotehnical Exploration
Page | 12 September 12, 2022

6.0 PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS
The following preliminary foundation recommendations are provided for planning purposes and should be evaluated once the final foundation layouts are provided.

It is our opinion that the proposed residential structures can be supported on structural mat foundations (such as post-tensioned mat foundations) provided that the structures are located on level ground and at least 10 feet from the top of slopes. A minimum mat thickness of 10 inches should be considered; however, the actual thickness and perimeter embedment recommendations should be determined by the structural engineer based on structural calculations.

7.0 PRELIMINARY RETAINING WALL RECOMMENDATIONS
Unrestrained walls constructed on level foreground should be designed for active lateral fluid pressure considering drained conditions, using the parameters below.

TABLE 7.0-1: Retaining Wall Design Parameters
BACKFILL SLOPE CONDITION ACTIVE PRESSURE (pcf)
Level 50
3:1 60
2:1 70
Passive pressures acting on shallow foundations and keyways may be assumed as 250 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) provided that the area in front of the retaining wall is level for a distance of at least 10 feet or three times the depth of foundation and keyway, whichever is greater. The upper 1 foot of soil should be excluded from passive pressure computations unless it is confined by pavement or a concrete slab. The friction factor for sliding resistance may be assumed as 0.35.

It is recommended that retaining wall footings be designed using an allowable bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf) in engineered fill. The footings should be at least 24 inches below lowest adjacent grades. Walls adjacent to sloping terrain should be supported on deep foundations, such as drilled piers.

Based on review of the conceptual site plan, mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) retaining walls may be feasible for many of the site retaining walls. MSE walls function as gravity structures relying on self-weight of segmental blocks at the wall face and reinforced soil mass behind the segmental blocks to resist the destabilizing forces of the retained soil. The soil reinforcement consists of geogrid reinforcement.

The following preliminary soil criteria should be incorporated into the MSE wall design.

TABLE 7.0-2: MSE Wall Design Soil Material Parameters
CONDITION COHESION (c’)
(pcf)
FRICTION ANGLE (’)
(degrees)
UNIT WEIGHT ()
(pcf)
Reinforced Fill 0 28 120
Retained Soil 0 28 120
Foundation Fill 0 28 120
ENGEO
Expect Excellence

Page 1286 of 2600 ends

Sancerra Vallejo Properties – Vista Cove
20164.000.001 Preliminary Geotehnical Exploration
Page | 13 September 12, 2022
The geotechnical engineer should be consulted on seismic design recommendations for walls that are taller than 6 feet in retained height, tiered retaining wall configurations, or where surcharge loading is present.

All retaining walls should be provided with drainage facilities to prevent the build-up of hydrostatic pressures behind the walls. Wall drainage may be provided using a 4-inch-diameter perforated pipe embedded in Class 2 permeable material, or free-draining gravel surrounded by synthetic filter fabric. The width of the drain blanket should be at least 12 inches. The drain blanket should extend to about 1 foot below the finished grades. As an alternative, prefabricated wall drain panels can be used. The upper 1 foot of wall backfill should consist of on-site clayey soil. Collector perforated pipes should be directed to an outlet approved by the civil engineer.

All backfill should be placed in accordance with the recommendations provided above for engineered fill. Light equipment should be used during backfill compaction to reduce possible overstressing of the walls.

8.0 STORMWATER INFILTRATION AND BIORETENTION AREAS
Due to the density of the site soil and fines content, the near-surface site soil is expected to have a low to moderate permeability value for stormwater infiltration in grassy swales or permeable pavers, unless subdrains are installed. Therefore, best management practices should assume that limited stormwater infiltration will occur at the site.

If bioretention areas are implemented, we recommend that, when practical, they be planned a minimum of 10 feet away from structural site improvements, such as buildings, streets, retaining walls, and sidewalks/driveways. When this is not practical, bioretention areas located closer to structural site improvements can either:

1. Be constructed with structural side walls capable of withstanding the loads from the adjacent improvements, or

2. Incorporate filter material compacted to between 85 and 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM D1557, latest edition) and a waterproofing system designed to reduce the potential for moisture transmission into the subgrade soil beneath the adjacent improvement.

In addition, one of the following options should be followed.

1. We recommend that bioretention design incorporate a waterproofing system lining the bioswale excavation and a subdrain, or other storm drain system, to collect and convey water to an approved outlet. The waterproofing system should cover the bioretention area excavation in such a manner as to reduce the potential for moisture transmission beneath the adjacent improvements.

2. Alternatively, and with some risk of movement of adjacent improvements, if infiltration is desired, we recommend the perimeter of the bioretention areas be lined with an HDPE tree root barrier that extends at least 1 foot below the bottom of the bioretention areas/infiltration trenches.

Site improvements located adjacent to bioretention areas that are underlain by base rock, sand, or other imported granular materials, should be designed with a deepened edge that extends to the bottom of the imported material underlying the improvement. Given the nature of bioretention systems and possible proximity to improvements, we recommend ENGEO be retained to review design plans.

ENGEO
Expect Excellence

Page 1287 of 2600 ends

Sancerra Vallejo Properties – Vista Cove
20164.000.001 Preliminary Geotehnical Exploration
Page | 14 September 12, 2022

9.0 PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN
The following preliminary pavement section has been determined for an assumed R-value of 5, and in accordance to the design methods contained in Chapter 630 of Caltrans Highway Design Manual.

TABLE 9.0-1: Preliminary Pavement Section
TRAFFIC INDEX AC (inches) AB (inches)

5.0 3.0 10.0

6.0 3.5 13.0

7.0 4.0 16.0
Notes: AC – Asphalt Concrete
AB – Caltrans Class 2 aggregate base (R-value of 78 or greater) The above preliminary pavement sections are provided for estimating only. We recommend the actual subgrade material be tested for R-value and the traffic index, and minimum pavement section(s) should be confirmed by the civil engineer and the City of Vallejo.

10.0 FUTURE STUDIES
As previously discussed, a site-specific design-level geotechnical exploration should be performed as part of the design process. The exploration would include additional borings and laboratory soil testing to provide data for preparation of specific recommendations regarding grading, foundation design, and drainage for the proposed development. The exploration will also allow for more detailed evaluations of the geotechnical concerns discussed in this report and afford the opportunity to provide recommendations regarding techniques and procedures to be implemented during construction to mitigate potential geotechnical/geological hazards. Slope stability analyses should be performed during design-level geotechnical study and once final development plans are available to determine corrective grading configurations.

11.0 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS
This report presents geotechnical recommendations for design of the improvements discussed in Section 1.3 for the proposed development. If changes occur in the nature or design of the project, we should be allowed to review this report and provide additional recommendations, if any. It is the responsibility of the owner to transmit the information and recommendations of this report to the appropriate organizations or people involved in design of the project, including but not limited to developers, owners, buyers, architects, engineers, and designers. The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are solely professional opinions and are valid for a period of no more than 2 years from the date of report issuance.

We strived to perform our professional services in accordance with generally accepted principles and practices currently employed in the area; there is no warranty, express or implied. There are risks of earth movement and property damages inherent in building on or with earth materials.

We are unable to eliminate all risks; therefore, we are unable to guarantee or warrant the results of our services.

ENGEO
Expect Excellence

Page 1288 of 2600 ends

Sancerra Vallejo Properties – Vista Cove
20164.000.001 Preliminary Geotehnical Exploration
Page | 15 September 12, 2022
This report is based upon field and other conditions discovered at the time of report preparation.

We developed this report with limited subsurface exploration data. We assumed that our subsurface exploration data is representative of the actual subsurface conditions across the site.

Considering possible underground variability of soil, rock, stockpiled material, and groundwater, additional costs may be required to complete the project. We recommend that the owner establish a contingency fund to cover such costs. If unexpected conditions are encountered, notify us immediately to review these conditions and provide additional and/or modified recommendations, as necessary.

Our services did not include excavation sloping or shoring, soil volume change factors, flood potential, or a geohazard exploration. In addition, our geotechnical exploration did not include work to determine the existence of possible hazardous materials. If any hazardous materials are encountered during construction, then notify the proper regulatory officials immediately.

This document must not be subject to unauthorized reuse, that is, reusing without our written authorization. Such authorization is essential because it requires us to evaluate the document’s applicability given new circumstances, not the least of which is passage of time.

Actual field or other conditions will necessitate clarifications, adjustments, modifications, or other changes to our documents. Therefore, we must be engaged to prepare the necessary clarifications, adjustments, modifications, or other changes before construction activities commence or further activity proceeds. If our scope of services does not include on-site construction observation, or if other persons or entities are retained to provide such services, we cannot be held responsible for any or all claims arising from or resulting from the performance of such services by other persons or entities, and from any or all claims arising from or resulting from clarifications, adjustments, modifications, discrepancies, or other changes necessary to reflect changed field or other conditions.

ENGEO
Expect Excellence

Page 1289 of 2600 ends

Sancerra Vallejo Properties – Vista Cove
20164.000.001 Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration
September 12, 2022

SELECTED REFERENCES
Bortugno, E.J., 1987, Landslide Hazards in the Benicia-Vallejo Area, Solano County, California:

Landslide Hazard Identification Map No. 8; OFR 86-17, scale 1:24,000, Plates A – D.

Bryant, W.A., compiler, 2017, Fault Number 481, Southampton Fault, in Quaternary Fault and Fold Database of the United States: U.S. Geological Survey website, https://earthquakes.usgs.gov/hazards/qfaults.

Crane, R., 1988, Geologic Map of the Benicia Quadrangle, Geology of the Mount Diablo Region, in Guidebook for 1988 Pacific Section NCGS Convention.

Dibblee, T.W. and Minch, J.A., 2005, Geologic Map of the Benicia Quadrangle, Contra Costa and Solano Counties, California: Dibblee Geological Foundation, Dibblee Foundation Map DF-146, scale 1:24,000.

Graymer, R.W., et al, 1999, Geology of the Cordelia and the Northern Part of the Benicia 7.5 Minute Quadrangles, USGS, Open File Report 99-162.

Jennings, C. W.; 1994 Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas, California Division of Mines and Geology, Map No. 6.

Jennings, C.W., and Bryant, W.A., 2010, Fault Activity Map of California: California Geological Survey Geologic Data Map No. 6, map scale 1:750,000.

Nilsen, T. H., 1975, Preliminary Photointerpretation Map of Landslide and Other Surficial Deposits, Benicia Quadrangle, USGS Open-File Map 75-277-4.

Various Aerial Photographs Reviewed; 08-20-37 ABO-52-78 and ABO-52-77; 06-29-57 ABO-33T-29 and ABO-33T-28; 06-21-65 SOL 49-30 and SOL 49-31; 03-21-70 2830-1-60 and 2830-1-59; 07-10-73 3594-1-120 and 3594-1-121; 02-20-81 GSVEZR 2-20 and GSVEZR 2-21; 07-18-89 AV3601-3-16 and AVR3601-3-17.

Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, 2013, The Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 3 UCERF 3, USGS Open File Report 2013.

ENGEO
Expect Excellence

Page 1290 of 2600 ends

FIGURES
FIGURE 1: Vicinity Map
FIGURE 2: Site Plan
FIGURE 3: Regional Geologic Map
FIGURE 4: Regional Faulting and Seismicity
FIGURE 5: Regional Landslide Map
FIGURE 6: Cross Sections
FIGURE 7: Typical Keyway and Benching Detail
FIGURE 8: Subdrain Details
FIGURE 9: Trench Log 1-T1

Page 1291 of 2600 ends

,i
. .,
O'
~
§
8 ';
" "
~
A
N
0 1,000 2,000
FEET
@ BASEMAP SOURCE GOOGLE EARTH MAPPING SERVICE 10/1212020 ENGEO
Expect Excellence

VICINITY MAP

VALLEJO PROPERTIES - VISTA COVE

VALLEJO, CALIFORNIA
PA- - : C, : 'JPF-ING p::io.,:::c-:. : 0000 -o :: 1999 \ 2016.:l. ::o 64000001 ,e, ::: o - :::cH .:016 L - C, ::)(.Ap::i x LA rQLJ -: V C NI - u::: ::i: ',LA MO=--::: !{EP::i
PROJECT \JO. 20164 000.001
SCALE: AS SHOWN 1
DRAWN BY: NLK CHECKED BY: AHF

Page 1292 of 2600 ends

COPYRIGHT 0 2022 BY ENGEO INCORPORATED. THIS DOCUMENT MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED IN WHOLE OR IN PART BY ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER, NOR MAY IT BE QUOTED OR EXCERPTED WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF ENGEO INCORPORATED.

EXPLANATION
ALL LOCATIONS AR£ APPROX/MAT£
1-B2h
--q,-6'

BORING SHOWING DEPTH TO
BEDROCK (ENGEO, 2022)
1-TP13Ji:J.. TEST PIT SHOWING DEPTH TO
--qir-5, BEDROCK (ENGEO, 2022)
C C" ♦ ♦ CROSS SECTION
i-1 ........ 1 .... -T .... 1----11 TRENCH (ENGEO, 2022)

GEOLOGIC CONTACT
6~
Qaf
Qc
Kp

GEOLOGIC ATTITUDE

EXISTING FILL

COLLUVIUM

PANOCHE FORMATION BEDROCK
~
.,,.--
I~ "" I ...... __ ..,,,
.,,.--"" I -------..... I ...... __ ..,,,
..
.. ~ oca.-~
I
.. ..

I
.. ..

I
..
i .. .. I
.. ..

SOIL CREEP/ EARTH FLOW
SEEP

SHALLOW LANDSLIDE

DEPOSIT

DEEP SEATED LANDSLIDE

DEPOSIT

LANDSLIDE DESIGNATION

SOUTHAMPTON FAULT (USGS)
SITE
FILE PATH: G:\Orofting\ PROJECTS\_ 20000 to 2 1999\20164\ 20 164000001\GEOTECH\GEX- 08 22\ACAD- 201 6400000LGEX_ 2 _ 0822.dwg SAVE DATE: 9/ 6/20 22 11 :07:52 AM SAVED BY: CCulbertson ' I
I
I
\
/
\
'
-- -- --. --
' ......
---
BAS£ MAP SOURCE: DK ENGINEERING 2022, 2018 LIDAR TOPOGRAPHY E
- Expect ExcellenceSITE PLAN

VALLEJO PROPERTIES - VISTA COVE

VALLEJO, CALIFORNIA
A
N
0 150
FEET
PROJECT NO.: 20164.000.001 FIGURE NO.

SCALE: AS SHOWN 2
ORA BY: CC CHECKED BY: HF

ORIGI NAL FIGURE PRINTED IN COLOR

Page 1293 of 2600 ends

Kp
> '
~
:::, 1 ?
>
~;.
~ 0
=,
23/ 0
w ·1 "'
,_
..
>
0-
0 z
g
B
'/
n "
/
j
>
,_
/
..

Kp
•J
w
rn " ~
0 x z
,_
.. " ~
~ ~ " / 'I" ,.,
> \'I.. -... u '
g
n
> '
~ :':.
ii'
0-
0 u
3':
8 '; 0
in
"
--R-,..Q ...... .._._(I: ___
... ,..,,
A
N
1,000 2,000
FEET
Kp
\
\ '°\
I
I
I
I

EXPLANATION

ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE
~ ARTIFICIAL FILL
~ ALLUVIAL GRAVEL, SAND AND CLAY
I Qbm I BAY MUD
r;;:-, PANOCHE FORMATION- CLAY SHALE, DARK GRAY
L....:'.'...J MICACEOUS, BEDDED, INCLUDES THIN SAND STONE ~ BASEMAP SOURCE DIBBLEE (DF-146; 2005)
fENGEO
8 Expect Excellence

REGIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP

VALLEJO PROPERTIES - VISTA COVE

VALLEJO, CALIFORNIA
PAT..i; C: .,JRAr- '\C\PO;JJEc-:: _:0000 TO 21999\:0164\:0 1 6A.OOOOO ,CEO"'TC- ,:o 64-Gt:X.AP;:JX LAYOu-r: GEOLOG C U':E"<': NLAv o-'tKtR~
PROJECT \J O. 20164 000.001
SCALE: AS SHOWN
DRAWN BY: NLK CHECKED BY:AHF
3

Page 1294 of 2600 ends

BASE MAP SOURCE

ESRI, GEBCO, DELORME, NATURALVUE
COLOR HILLSHADE IMAGE BASED ON THE NATIONAL ELEVATION DATA SET (NED) AT 30 METER RESOLUTION U.S.G.S. QUATERNARY FAULT DATABASE, 2018
U.S.G.S. HISTORIC EARTHQUAKE DATABASE (1800-PRESENT)
OLUSA
0 8 16
Miles

EXPLANATION

ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE
'-- EARTHQUAKE

SACRAMENTO
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

STANISLAUS
. .
�
.
:to&
·
·
.. � - .. �
·=-- W, · 1/�
. . MERCED
�---.,,......,,,,_��-----"--
ENGEO
Expect Excellence

REGIONAL FAULTING AND SEISMICITY

VALLEJO PROPERTIES - VISTA COVE

VALLEJO, CALIFORNIA
♦ MAGNITUDE 7+
• MAGNITUDE 6-7
• MAGNITUDE 5-6

QUATERNARY FAULTS

BASED ON TIME OF MOST RECENT

SURFACE DEFORMATION
--
HISTORICAL (<150 YEARS), WELL

CONSTRAINED LOCATION

HISTORICAL

MODERATELY

LOCATION
(<150 YEARS),

CONSTRAINED
HISTORICAL (<150 YEARS),

INFERRED LOCATION
LATEST QUATERNARY (<15,000 -- YEARS), WELL CONSTRAINED

LOCATION
LATEST QUATERNARY (<15,000
--- YEARS), MODERATELY

CONSTRAINED LOCATION
LATEST QUATERNARY (<15,000

YEARS), INFERRED LOCATION
LATE QUATERNARY (<130,000 -- YEARS), WELL CONSTRAINED

LOCATION
LATE QUATERNARY (<130,000
--- YEARS), MODERATELY

CONSTRAINED LOCATION
LATE QUATERNARY (<130,000

YEARS), INFERRED LOCATION
MIDDLE AND LATE QUATERNARY -- (<750,000 YEARS), WELL

CONSTRAINED LOCATION

MIDDLE AND LATE QUATERNARY
(<750,000 YEARS), MODERATELY

CONSTRAINED LOCATION

MIDDLE AND LATE QUATERNARY
(<750,000 YEARS), INFERRED

LOCATION

UNDIFFERENTIATED
-- QUATERNARY(<1. 6 MILLION YEARS),
�

WELL CONSTRAINED LOCATION

GREAT VALLEY FAULT ZONE
PROJECT NO. 20164.000.001
FIGURE NO.

SCALE: AS SHOWN
DRAWN BY: CC CHECKED BY AHF
4 PATH : G: \DRAFT ING \ PROJ ECTS \ _20000 TO 21999\20 16 4\ 20164000001 \ GEOTECH \201 64 - GEX.APRX ORIGINAL FIGURE PRINTED IN COLOR LAYOUT: tAULT&SEISMIC ITY USER : NLAMOTTEKERR
A
N

Page 1295 of 2600 ends

w
rn
~
0 z rway
~ aeon ~-
in
" "

CARQUINEZ
BRIDGE
1·--C-A--R--n
I "t"'-.. - .... ·lj ... / ~ ,, I'
A
N
0 1,000 2,000
FEET
~ BASEMAP SOURCE: LANDSLIDE HAZARD IDENTIFICATION MAP NO.8 (BORTUNGO, 1987)

EXPLANATION

ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE
@ DEFINITE LANDSLIDE
@ PROBABLE LANDSLIDE
(:J QUESTIONABLE LANDSLIDE
@ EARTHFLOW
, SMALL LANDSLIDE
PROJECT \JO. 20164 000.001 fENGEO REGIONAL LANDSLIDE MAP

VALLEJO PROPERTIES - VISTA COVE

VALLEJO, CALIFORNIA
SCALE: AS SHOWN
8 Expect Excellence
PAT..i; C: .,JRAr- '\C\PO;JJEc- :: _:0000 TO 21999\:0164\:0 1 6A.OOOOO ,CEO"'TC- ,: o 64-Gt:X.AP;:JX LAYOu-r: GEOLOG C U':E"<': NLAvo-'t Kt R~
DRAWN BY: NLK CHECKED BY:AHF
5

Page 1296 of 2600 ends

B
50 0
100
C C'
0 180

SECTION C-C'
1"=50'

EXISTING GROUND SURFACE
Kp
Qc
0 0
50 150
200
0 50
200

SECTION B-B'
1"=50'
1400
B'

EXISTING GROUND SURFACE
Kp
?
Qc
?
?
0 850

SECTION A-A'
1"=50'

EXISTING GROUND SURFACE
Kp
?
?
?
Qaf
Qc
Qc

PROPOSED GROUND SURFACE

RECOMMENDED CORRECTIVE GRADING (TYPICAL)

GEOLOGIC CONTACT (TYPICAL)

RECOMMENDED SUBDRAIN (TYPICAL)

PROPOSED GROUND SURFACE

RECOMMENDED SUBDRAIN (TYPICAL)
(TYPICAL)

GEOLOGIC CONTACT

RECOMMENDED CORRECTIVE GRADING (TYPICAL)

GEOLOGIC CONTACT (TYPICAL)

PROPOSED GROUND SURFACE

RECOMMENDED SUBDRAIN (TYPICAL) RECOMMENDED CORRECTIVE GRADING (TYPICAL)

RECOMMENDED CORRECTIVE GRADING (TYPICAL)
100 100
150
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300 1350 50 100
150
200
A
0 A'
0 50
100
150
200
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 0 50
100

CROSS SECTIONS

VALLEJO PROPOERTIES - VISTA COVE

VALLEJO, CALIFORNIA
20164.000.001
AS SHOWN 6
Qc
Qaf

REMOVAL AREA

PANOCHE FORMATION BEDROCK

COLLUVIUM

EXISTING FILL

EXPLANATION
Kp
0 0

SCALE IN FEET
50 50 r.nrfl r.u- ~) ?r.~~ n'r' rnGrn INCORrORHrn. TIIIS O~CINr,T MAY IJOT nr Rf"PR:Jlllt:rn IN l'IIIOl r OR IN PA<T nY MJY fr.,ris WIIATsnrvr-R, lfflR MAY IT nr Q .. nr-n OR nr:rnrTrn WITIIDU- T Ir ,xrRr-ss wmnrn cmisrrn n, rtl~r,J Nf::J"l"ORHrn FI_E p,\TC :,,dj··9\'RCcEGTS\ OJC8J lo 2ll?r8\2CIC·l\2016•·JC),:Cr-_,cE8F~H\~0 '.'-C82~\2CIC·DC8JCI-C-GPCSS-S"nrn~-032'.,·,·~ jffl
10 ~ w
..,,. ""
'' a
I
.,
" g " ,:
'..-1
7 -
I
" &;

1.1 :;;
;:: !'1

ELEVATION IN FEET
,_/
I
l' \ l :
. I
' I J :
.I i I~ ~--
j i
' I
J /
) / -----. , I
I I /
/1I /
H---
__ j

ELEVATION IN FEET
/.-.
>'
., i
I
I
I
I
I
I
' I
' I
' I
I
I
I
I
I
I

ELEVATION IN FEET
,/
{ i
I
I
/
)• /
l i / / J, / i 7
v_ I / J
l' / Ii' / lj
r
I
i /j
I
r] /
i / I •
J /
I :/
~·
(; i •
,,
I
I
,'

I I I I
' I I
I
{ : /' I
I !k
i
i1 :
' I
I I
I
I
i i
\\·~.i \ • I
I
' I I I
)~/
I I
I
I I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
'"
\\ I
'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

ELEVATION IN FEET
----FEJ
" &;
"' :i;
;:: "' .,
'
I
I
I
D/-- C/6/2•:•~2 eC•L2" '"Isl 5/-VEJ EJ"·'c ~:, L>,dsrn

ELEVATION IN FEET
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ir----
""
,.I ,/ /
__ ) )
1_/1
I
! I
I
f I
I
ii
I
j,
fl
I I
I,
I I
·- ·-- ,I i
/!
' I
1 i
I
I I I
I
I
f
I I I
I J
I
~-
I
',\ ii

I I I I
\, J I I
··~JI /
' ·1 I I I /
. I t /
' I ,-- _,,,
I
\ /
i
I
I

ELEVATION IN FEET

Page 1297 of 2600 ends

COPYRIGHT C> 2022 BY ENGEO INCORPORATED. THIS DOCUMENT t.1AY NOT BE REPRODUCED IN WHOLE OR IN PART BY ANY t.1EANS WHATSOEVER, NOR t.1AY IT BE QUOTED OR EXCERPTED WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF ENGEO INCORPORATED. -f 0----------------------------------------------------------------------. ~
t
2 tti
','
i
~
f
i
i
I
I_.
...,
u,
" ...
,::;-
g
O>
§
0 g
I
...,
,(.
j
I~
"' ,;!
f"'
6 ~ ]
VARIES
t

ORIGINAL GROUND

PROPOSED GRAD

ENGINEERED FILL PLACED

IN ACCORDANCE WITH

PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS
ENGEO
-Expect ExcellenceI 20· I f-- MINIMUM--!

SUBDRAIN (TYPICAL)
(SEE FIGURE 8)

BENCH INTO FIRM MATERIAL

AS RECOMMENDED BY THE

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER

DURING GRADING

TYPICAL KEYWAY AND BENCHING DETAIL

VALLEJO PROPERTIES - VISTA COVE

VALLEJO, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO.: 20164.000.001
SCALE: NO SCALE
DRAWN BY: CC CHECKED BY: AH F
FIGURE NO.
7 ORIGINAL FIGURE PRINTED IN COLOR

Page 1298 of 2600 ends

,_
3 u,
z
0 " 3
I:=
~ u,
~ Q.
i':i
w
iC
,_
::,
0 :,:
,_
~
0 w
~
f5
" i':i
"' 0
8 ,_
0 ::,
0 w "'
!::
>-
«
::,
~
0 :,:
3'
;::
8 " ::,
0 0 "' ei "'
w "' ,_
0 z
~ ::,
,_
3 ::,
::,
" 0
0 u,
~
8 ~ 0
Q. "' 0
" ;::
8 '-' z
w
1;;
N
N
0 N
e
DRAINAGE COMPOSITE WITH 6OZ.

DRAINAGE FABRIC ON BOTH SIDES,
SUCH AS SKAPS TRANSNET TN220 OR

EQUIVALENT MATERIAL PRE-APPROVED

BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER
FILTER MEDIUM* ~o
vDQ QOD
OQ 0
Jo

COMPACTED
FILL
2% MIN. SLOPE
BASE OF KEYWAY 18" MIN.
6" PERFORATED PIPE PER
SPECIFICATIONS. PLACED

PERFORATIONS DOWN
KEYWAY SUBDRAIN - OPTION 1
*FILTER MEDIUM

ALTERNATIVE A
CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL

MATERIAL SHALL CONSIST OF CLEAN, COARSE SAND AND GRAVEL OR CRUSHED STONE, CONFORMING TO THE FOLLOWING GRADING REQUIREMENTS:

SIEVE SIZE
1"
3/4"
3/8"
#4
#8
#30
#50
#200
% PASSING SIEVE
100
90-100
40-100
25-40
18-33
5-15
0-7
0-3

ALTERNATIVE B

CLEAN CRUSHED ROCK OR GRAVEL WRAPPED IN FILTER FABRIC

ALL FILTER FABRIC SHALL MEET THE FOLLOWING MINIMUM AVERAGE ROLL VALUES UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED BY ENGEO:

GRAB STRENGTH (ASTM D-4632) ______ 180 lbs
MASS PER UNIT AREA (ASTM D-4751) 6 oz/yd 2
APPARENT OPENING SIZE (ASTM D-4751) 70-100 U.S. STD. SIEVE FLOW RATE (ASTM D-4491) 80 gal/min/ft
PUNCTURE STRENGTH (ASTM D-4833) 80 lbs
G: Drafting PROJECTS _20000 to 21999 20164 20164000001 GEOTECH GEX-0822 20164000001-8-SubdrainDetoils-0822.dwg KEYWAY SUBDRAIN -OPTION 2
0 -Expect ExcellenceCOMPACTED FILL
6" PERFORATED PIPE

SWALE SUBDRAIN
NOTES:

1. ALL PIPE JOINTS SHALL BE GLUED

2. ALL PERFORATED PIPE PLACED PERFORATIONS DOWN

3. 1% FALL (MINIMUM) ON ALL TRENCHES AND DRAIN LINES

SUBDRAIN DETAILS

VALLEJO PROPERTIES -VISTA COVE

VALLEJO, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO.: 20164.000.001
SCALE: NO SCALE
DRAWN BY: CC CHECKED BY: AH F
FIGURE NO.
8 ORIGINAL FIGURE PRINTED IN COLOR

Page 1299 of 2600 ends

0 5
b 0

SCALE IN FEET
u+uu
I
-----
BEDDING 200140W --"
0 I , C1
I
CD
BEDDING 213/38W

WELL-INDURATED SANDSTONE
IJ+2D
I
DI 23
I
BEDDING 197132W
'
o+.j:...,
I DI 4D
I
---
---- --------
0+43
I
------------
1-T1
TREr~D 29.5'
D+:---=,.:-1
I
--- ---- -
::::-:::;=::-::>"}~~~~-------------- BEDDING 206/39W - ._ ____ _ ---- ----------------
BEDDING 198135W j
WELL-INDURATED SANDSTONE j -
BEDDING 205140W
1-T1 EXPLANATION
CD CLAY, dark brown, stiff, dry, blocky pedogenic structure, organic material and roots present at surface thinning out with depth (COLLUVIUM)
CLAY, brown to light reddish brown,stiff, moist, blocky pedogenic structures, very thin rootlets, grades to residual soils in areas of weak claystone, gradational contact with underlying bedrock (COLLUVIUM).

SANDSTONE interbedded with CLAYSTONE, light brown to grayish brown, fineilrained sandstone, moderately to well indurated interbedded with grey to greyish brown claystone, highly fractured, weak, with FeO staining, moderately to completely weathered (PANOCHE FORMATION)
DI 7D
I
U I ,- =i
I
• BEDDING 212145W ·'

WELL-INDURATED SANDSTONE
1-~r,
I
3 ENGE.O
-Expect ExcallenceTRENCH LOG 1-T1

VALLEJO PROPERTIES-VISTA COVE

VALLEJO, CALIFORNIA
0 ROJE:T NC.: 20164.000.001 FIGU<E ~O
SCAL~: AS SHOWN 9 CR GINAL FIGURE PRI\TED lr1 CC_Oli

Page 1300 of 2600 ends

Vallejo City CouncilMarch 24, 2026

Vallejo City Council
March 24, 2026