restore is mnd draft reva v4

8/14/2019 restore IS MND Draft revA v4

1/26

CONTENTS

1 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PROCESS 3

1.1 Introduction 31.2 Discretionary Action Subject to CEQA review 3

1.3 Purpose and Objective 3

1.4 Approach 3

2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 4

2.1 Background 4

2.2 Proposed Project Location 4

2.3 Proposed Project Description 5

2.4 System Installation 6

2.5 Project Alternatives Evaluated and Rejected 7

2.6 Regulatory Approvals and Permit Requirements 8

3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 9

3.1 Aesthetics 10

3.2 Agricultural Resources 11

3.3 Air Quality 12

3.4 Biological Resources 17

3.5 Cultural Resources 20

3.6 Geology and Soils 22

3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 24

3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 26

3.9 Land Use Planning 29

3.10 Mineral Resources 31

3.11 Noise32

3.12 Impacts 33

3.13 Population and Housing 343.14 Public Services 35

3.15 Recreation 36

3.16 Transportation and Traffic 37

3.17 Utilities and Service Systems 39

3.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance 40


2/26

4 REFERENCES 43

4.1 Bibliography 43

4.2 Persons Consulted 43

4.3 Document Preparers 43

FIGURES

TABLES

APPENDICES


3/26

1 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PROCESS

1.1 INTRODUCTION

Whenever a public agency undertakes a discretionary action, it must determine whether the action is

subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A discretionary action is one where a

governmental agency can use its judgment in deciding whether and how to carry out or approve a project.A project subject to such judgmental controls is called a discretionary project (Title 14. California Code

of Regulations, Section 15357). If CEQA applies to the project, the agency must evaluate the potential

effects of the project on the environment.

An Initial Study provides the Lead Agency with a basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental

Impact Report or a Negative Declaration for a proposed project. The Initial Study process also enables the

applicant or Lead Agency to modify the project to avoid or reduce adverse impacts, thereby enabling the

project to qualify for a Negative Declaration. When mitigation measures proposed in the Initial Study are

incorporated into the project, before the Lead Agencys approval and before circulation to the public, a

Mitigated Negative Declaration may be adopted by the agency.

1.2 DISCRETIONARY ACTION SUBJECTTO CEQA REVIEW

Ohlone College proposes to (1) repair and rehabilitate water damage to campus facilities; and (2) install

subsurface hydrologic improvements to improve groundwater flow in the subsurface to alleviate flooding

of campus facilities.

The proposed repairs to existing facilities and replacement of damaged or non-functioning drainage and

related structures would not change the function of the facilities, would not create any expansions or

alterations to the existing uses and, would pose no impact on the environment. Consequently, the

proposed repairs, replacement and reconstruction activities are exempt from CEQA review by sections

15301 (Existing Facilities), 15302 (Replacement or Reconstruction) and 15304 (Minor Alterations to

Land) of Article 19, Categorical Exemptions, of the CEQA guidelines and are not included in the scope of

this document.

therefore, the primary focus subject of this document.


4/26

2.3 PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION

aged by water infiltration and intrusion and replace or repair damaged or non-functioning subsurface

drainage systems. The repairs are exempt from CEQA review as discusde proposed subsurface hydrologic

improvements would reduce the potential for groundwater intrusion into the College buildings by routing

a portion of the groundwater past the buildings that are vulnerable to subsurface water intrusion. Theproposed system would include a northern and southern drain, each consisting of non-perforated and

perforated pipe segments installed at 80 to 100 feet below grade, and connecting to an infiltration gallery

to transport groundwater around the campus structures via gravity. The perforated and non-perforated

drain pipes would most likely be high-density polyethylene (HDPE) of a thickness that can withstand the

stress of drawing them into placeinstalling them via the horizontal directional drilling (HDD). Alterve

sufficient rigidity and strength to withstand the pressures at the depth of 80 to 100 feet of theation

2.

A horizontal drain consi

A horizontal drain consi

2.3.2 Access Ports


5/26

2.4.4 Trenching

2.6 REGULATORY APPROVALSAND PERMIT REQUIREMENTS

Activities within Agency's

Jurisdiction

Agency Action/Requirement

Ohlone College Board of Trustees Project approval. CEQAcompliance.

Project approval

Approval.

Enforce of air quality plans and

compliance with CEQA

Guidelines.

Plan review and approval

Review and approval

Consultation. Compliance with

State Historic Preservation Act.


6/26

3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Potential Impact(s) Mitigation Measure(s)

No significant impactswere identified.

None required

2. Agriculture

Resources

No impacts were identified None required

3. Air Quality for detailed discussion) No

other significant impacts

were identified

A2.1

No impacts were identified None required

5. Cultural Resources No significant impactswere identified.

None required

6. Geology / Soils No significant impacts

were identified.

None required

7. Hazards & Hazardous

MaterialsNo impacts were identified None required

8. Hydrology and Water

Quality

No significant impacts

were identified.

None required

9. Land Use Planning No impacts were

identified.

None required

10. Mineral Resources No impacts were

identified.

None required

11. Noise No significant impacts

were identified.

None required

12. Population / Housing No impacts were

identified.

None required

13. Public Services No impacts were

identified.

None required

14. Recreation No impacts wereidentified.

None required

15. Transportation/Traffic No impacts were

identified.

None required

16. Utilities / ServiceSystems

No impacts wereidentified.

None required

17. Mandatory Findings

of Significance

No significant impacts

were identified.

None required


7/26

Less-Than-

Significant

with

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact No Impact

2. Substantially damage scenic resources,

including, but not limited to, trees, rock

outcroppings, and historic buildings within a

state scenic highway?

3. Substantially degrade the existing visual

character or quality of the site and its

surroundings?

4. Create a new source of substantial light or

glare, which would adversely affect day or

nighttime views in the area?

Substantan-Significant Impact.

Item 4. No Impact.

3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES

Less-Than-

Significant

withMitigation

Incorporated

Less-Than-Significant

Impact No Impact

2. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural

use, or a Williamson Act contract?

3. Involve other changes in the existing


8/26

environment which, due to their location or

nature, could result in conversion of

Farmland, to non-agricultural use?

Less-Than-

Significant

withMitigation

Incorporated


Impact No Impact

2. Violate any air quality standard or contribute

substantially to an existing or projected air

quality violation?

3. Result in a cumulatively considerable net

increase of any criteria pollutant for which

the project region is non-attainment under anapplicable federal or state ambient air quality

standard (including releasing emissionswhich exceed quantitative thresholds for

ozone precursors)?

4. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial

pollutant concentrations?

5. Create objectionable odors affecting a

substantial number of people?

3.3.2 Impacts

or obst


9/26

Violate n-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.

PM10 Emissions

utant of greatest concern with respect to construction activities. There are a number of feasible controlmeasures that can be reasonably implemeedol measures rather than detailed quantification of emissions

(BAAQMD, 1999, p.14). The BAAQMD has identified a set of feasible PM10 control measures for

construction activities. The determatQMD CEQA Guidelines (as appropriate, depending on the size of

the project area) are implemented, then air pollutant emissions from construction activities would be

considered a less than significant impact (BAAQMD, 1999, p.15). Table 3-2 provides the Basic Control

Measures (from Table 2 ofhe10

Applicable to Proposed Project?

YesCover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or

require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard.

Yes

Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil

stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging

areas at construction sites.

NoSite is paved

Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking

areas and staging areas at construction sites.

Yes

Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material iscarried onto adjacent public streets.

Yes (however, no visible soil is expected onadjacent streets)

No. Applicable to construction areas greater

than 4 acres

Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply (non-toxic) soil binders

to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.).


than 4 acres

Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph. No. Applicable to construction areas greater than 4 acresInstall sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt

runoff to public roadways.


than 4 acres

Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. No. Applicable to construction areas greater

than 4 acres

No.Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds

(instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph.

No.

Limit the area subject to excavation, grading and other

construction activity at any one time.

YesConstruction activities will be

conducted one pipe segment at a time.

Implementation of BAAQMD Fa

x (BAAQMD,1999, p. 16). Table 3-3 compares the total project emissions to these emission thresholds.


10/26

Table 3-3. Air Emissions from Construction Operations Compared to BAAQMD CEQA

Significance Thresholds

Total Project Operation Emissions BAAQMD Significance Threshold

(lbs/day)

3.6 80

ROG 15 80

NO 80

B

B

Construction emissions will not reach the significance thresholds established in the BAAQMD CEQA

Guidelines; thus, the project will not substantially contribute to an existing or projected air quality

violation. Likewise the project will not violate any air quality standard, as it will be conducted in

compliance with all applicable BAAQMD regulations, permit conditions and will include appropriate

controls during construction activities.

Expose san-Significant Impact with Mitigation.

nit equipment idling to minimize air emissions.

MITIGATION MEASURE A2: Stage equipment exhaust away from building air intakes.

ns.

Create oan-Significant Impact with Mitigation.

Stage equipment exhau

Instruct equipment op

Less-Than-

Significant

with

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact No Impact

2. Have a substantial adverse effect on any

riparian habitat or other sensitive natural

community identified in local or regional


11/26


12/26

Have a san-Significant Impact.

rikirke, listed as an endangered species in California, has been identified as having a potential presence in

the general vicinity of the proposed project based on available on foode and t been observed on the site ;

however, the activity footprint would be l imited to an opening with a diameter of 36 inches (Figure 5) andwould be of short duration. While the activity may create a short-term disturbance during installation of

the drainage pipe, it is not likely to have a significant effect on the avian species, which would avoid the

small area for a short duration.

Three additional species (California Red-legged Frog, California Tiger Salamander, and Western Pond

Turtle) may be foud 100 feet from the Upper Pond and 500 feet from the South Pond and would be of

short duration, therefore, these activities would not impact these species.s, policies, or regulations or by

the California Dept. of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. No Impact.

of Ripa

Interferct.

No Impact.

CiIt is not anticipated that any such classification of tree will be removed during the project. Therefore

the proposed project would have no impact on such plans or ordinances.

Conflictct.

prd therefore it will not conflict with any adopted protection plansa

Less-Than-

Significant

with

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact No Impact

2. Cause a substantial adverse change in the

significance of an archaeological resourcepursuant to 15064.5?

3. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique

paleontological resource or site or unique

geologic feature?

4. Disturb any human remains, including thoseinterred outside of formal cemeteries?


13/26

nmgle and Colonial Revival styles. This house is on the City of Fremont list of primary historic resources.A "planted alameda" of olive trees (Olive Alley) runs perpendicular from Mission Boulevard eastward to

and just past the historic structure. These trees are probably roughly contemporaneous with the house and

thus about 100 years old.

Although no surface manifestations have been reported, there is evidence that a buried archaeological site

may exist on Ohlone College property, in an orchard near Mission Boev

a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in 15064.5 . Less-

Than-Significant with Mitigation Incorporated

ystem (Figure 2). No modifications to the structure aould occur asation.

MITIGATION MEASURE C1: Obtain approval for trenching in the "planted alameda" historic

landscape from the State Historic Preservation Officer prior to beginning of construction activities.

verse ch

surface, they aresubsurface are unlikely to be found at these depths, therefore the project would not cause

disturbanc

f trenchingate

If archaeological res

Item 3. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic

feature. No Impact.

Disturb an-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.

f trenching

If human remains are tact the State Historic Preservation Officer and consult with the BbtaA as

necessaryprior to

Less-Than-

Significant

with

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact No Impact

i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as


14/26

delineated on the most recent Alquist-

Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map

issued by the State Geologist for the area

or based on other substantial evidence of

a known fault? Refer to Division ofMines and Geology Special Publication

42.ii.Strong seismic ground shaking?

iii. Seismic-related ground failure, includingliquefaction?

iv. Landslides?

2. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss

of topsoil?

3. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is

unstable, or that would become unstable as a

result of the project, and potentially result in

on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,

subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?

4. Be located on expansive soil, as defined inTable 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code

(1994), creating substantial risk to life or

property?

5. Have soils incapable of adequately

supporting the use of septic tanks or

alternative wastewater disposal systems

where sewers are not available for the

disposal of waste water?

3.5.2 Impacts

3.6 HAZARDSAND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

Less-Than-

Significant

with

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact No Impact

2. Create a significant hazard to the public or

the environment through reasonably


15/26

foreseeable upset and accident conditions

involving the release of hazardous materials

into the environment?

3. Emit hazardous emissions or handle

hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,

substances, or waste within mile of an

existing or proposed school?

4. Be located on a site which is included on a

list of hazardous materials sites compiledpursuant to Government Code Section

65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a

significant hazard to the public or the

environment?

5. For a project located within an airport land

use plan or, where such a plan has not been

adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or

public use airport, would the project result ina safety hazard for people residing or

working in the project area?

6. For a project within the vicinity of a private

airstrip, would the project result in a safety

hazard for people residing or working in the

project area?

7. Impair implementation of or physically

interfere with an adopted emergency

response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

8. Expose people or structures to a significant

risk of loss, injury or death involving

wildland fires, including where wildlands areadjacent to urbanized areas or where

residences are intermixed with wildlands?

Create act

Create a

Emit hazct.

acutely hazardous materials or substances.


16/26

Be located No Impact.

The proposed project would not be located on sited listed pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5,

is not within an airport land use plan or within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, and is notwithin the vicinity of a private airstrip.

Expose pct.

Less-Than-

Significant

with

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact No Impact

2. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or

interfere substantially with groundwaterrecharge such that there would be a net

deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the

local groundwater table level (e.g., the

production rate of pre-existing nearby wells

would drop to a level which would not

support existing land uses or planned uses for

which permits have been granted?

3. Substantially alter the existing drainagepattern of the site or area, including through

the alteration of the course of a stream or

river, or substantially increase the rate or

amount of surface runoff in a manner which

would result in erosion and/or sedimentation

on- or off-site?

4. Substantially alter the existing drainage

pattern of the site or area, including through

the alteration of the course of a stream or

river, or substantially increase the rate or

amount of surface runoff in a manner whichwould result in flooding on- or off-site?

5. Create or contribute runoff water which

would exceed the capacity of existing orplanned stormwater drainage systems or

provide substantial additional sources of

polluted runoff?

6. Otherwise substantially degrade water


17/26

quality?

7. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard

area as mapped on a Federal Flood HazardBoundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or

other flood hazard delineation map?

Groundwater

3.7.2 Impacts

ater qualImpact with Mitigation.

eant practices would be implemented to ensure that construction soil and drilling fluids do not enter

stormwater conveyances. All drilling fluids would be containerized and recirculated. Soil cuttings would

be coaiRegional Water Quality Control Board )R(RWQCB) if the construction area were to exceed the

threshold for notification (1 acre).

THIS SHOULD BE A MITIGATIONllwould develop and a Storm WaLess-Than-Significant Impact.

ined to alter the flow pattern of the subsurface water flow so as to reduce the potential infiltration of water

into the building structures of the College, the resulting change in pattern is not anticipated to have any

effect outside the boundaries of the College campus. There would be no net increase or decrease in the

volume of groundwater flowing throughing nearby wells would not experience any decrease inproduction rates.

Createct

tormwater drainageewer system.

Otherwisn-Significant Impact.

Place ho


18/26

Less-Than-

Significant

with

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact No Impact

2. Conflict with applicable environmental plan,

policy, or regulation of an agency with

jurisdiction over the project (including, but

not limited to the general plan, specific plan,

local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)

adopted for the purpose of avoiding or

mitigating an environmental effect?

3. Conflict with any applicable habitat

conservation plan or natural community

conservation plan?

3.8.2 Impacts

Less-Than-

Significant

with

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact No Impact

2. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site

delineated on a local general plan, specific

plan, or other land use plan?


19/26

Less-Than-

Significant

with

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact No Impact

2. Exposure of persons to or generation ofexcessive groundborne vibration or

groundborne noise levels?

3. A substantial permanent increase in ambient

noise levels in the project vicinity above

levels existing without the project?

4. A substantial temporary or periodic increase

in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity

above levels existing without the project?

5. For a project located within an airport land

use plan or, where such a plan has not been

adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport orpublic use airport, would the project expose

people residing or working in the project area

to excessive noise levels?

6. For a project within the vicinity of a private

airstrip, would the project expose people

residing or working in the project area toexcessive noise levels?


20/26

shall be would be implemented where practicable: (1) all construction equipment to be powered by

internal combustion engines that are properly muffled and maintained; (2) prohibit unnecessary idling of

internal combustion engines, and (3) selected quiet construction equipment whenever possible.

(1) all construction equipment powered by internal com

No Impact.


with

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact No Impact

2. Displace substantial numbers of existing

housing, necessitating the construction of

replacement housing elsewhere?

3. Displace substantial numbers of people,

necessitating the construction of replacement

housing elsewhere?


21/26

Less-Than-

Significant

with

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact No Impact

2. Police protection?

3. Schools?

4. Parks?

5. Other public facilities?

Schools? Pa

Less-Than-

Significantwith

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact No Impact

2. Does the project include recreational

facilities or require the construction or

expansion of recreational facilities which


22/26

might have an adverse physical effect on the

environment?

Would thn Significant Impact.

Does then Significant Impact.


23/26

Less-Than-

Significant

with

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact No Impact

2. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a

level of service standard established by the

county congestion management agency fordesignated road or highways?

3. Result in a change in air traffic patterns,

including either an increase in traffic levels

or a change in location that results in

substantial safety risks?

4. Substantially increase hazards due to a design

feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous

intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm

equipment)?

5. Result in inadequate emergency access?

6. Result in inadequate parking capacity?

7. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or

programs supporting alternative

transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle

racks)?

Cause an in

During the construction phase of the project, additional vehicles would be entering the project site,

including a drilling rig, a water truck, forklifts, bulldozers, two or more diesel trucks or gasoline trucks

and a number of passenger automobiles. All vehicles, excluding the trucks and automobiles, wouldremain at the site during the construction activities and would not impact traffic on the nearby roadways

and intersections. The remaining trucks and vehicles would be used for project support and may make

limited day trips during the construction phase of the project. The increase in traffic due to the project

vehicles would be minimal and would not result in a change in traffic patterns or levels. The proposed

project would cause no change in local air traffic patterns.


24/26

3.16 UTILITIESAND SERVICE SYSTEMS

Less-Than-

Significant

with

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact No Impact

2. Require or result in the construction of new

water or wastewater treatment facilities

or expansion of existing facilities, theconstruction of which could cause

significant environmental effects?

3. Require or result in the construction of new

stormwater drainage facilities or expansion

of existing facilities, the construction of

which could cause significant environmentaleffects?

4. Have sufficient water supplies available

to serve the project from existing

entitlements and resources, or are new

or expanded entitlements needed?

5. Be served by a landfill with sufficientpermitted capacity to accommodate the

projects solid waste disposal needs?

6. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes

and regulations related to solid waste?

No Impact.

Require


25/26

No Impact.

Be serven-significant Impact.

Complyct.

Less-Than-

Significant

with

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact No Impact

3. Does the project have environmental effects

which will cause substantial adverse effects

on human beings, either directly or

indirectly?

Does thehan Significant Impact.

eironment, including These impacts would be temporary in nature and would be mitigated to less than

ctions xx and xx. to a level of non-significance.

Item 2. Less-Than-Significant Impact.

te problems associated with rain infiltration into campus facilities. These repairs would complement the

proposed project, as they would return the facilities to their intended conditions, while the subsurface

improvements would prevent future water damage.


26/26

4.2 PERSONS CONSULTED

4.3.1 Connection to infiltration gallery.

restore is mnd draft reva v4

Documents