# General plan documents — alameda_county-california Assembled by OpenPublica from the documents it serves for this government. Each section below is a separate publication by the government; page anchors (``) refer to pages of that section's own source PDF, linked in its heading. **Contains 3 documents.** OpenPublica has pinned these slots for this government: conservation, ej, open_space. That is what we have looked for, not a statement that the government publishes nothing else — a plan element absent here may simply not have been reviewed yet. Last reviewed 2026-08-09. --- ## Conservation — Conservation Element - Source: https://www.acgov.org/cda/planning/generalplans/documents/Conservation_Element_1994.pdf - Pages: 104 - Covers: conservation - **Transcription findings were recorded for this document;** check figures against the source. # CONSERVATION ELEMENT ## OF THE # ALAMEDA COUNTY GENERAL PLAN | | Volume | | :--- | :--- | | Conservation Element | Ia | | Seismic Safety Element | Ib | | Safety Element | II | | Noise Element | II | | Final EIR | III | | Appendix | IV | Adopted By Alameda County Board of Supervisors November 23, 1976 | AMENDED MAY 5, 1994 | | :--- | | BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESOLUTION 94-272 | | (see insert for text changes) | (blank page) # AMENDMENTS TO ALAMEDA COUNTY CONSERVATION ELEMENT ### (Adopted November 23, 1976) ### Amended May 5, 1994 ### Board of Supervisors Resolution 94-272 New language is indicated in *italics*; deletions are shown in ~~strikeout~~. All references to "Livermore-Amador Planning Unit" or "LAPU" have been replaced with "East County Area." References are found in the following locations: Page 1-7, third heading, first and second sentences in third paragraph, first and last sentences in fourth paragraph Page 1-9, Heading b), first sentence in second paragraph Page 1-11, First sentence of first paragraph , first sentence of fifth paragraph Page 1-61, Heading following third paragraph, first and last sentences of fourth paragraph Page 1-72, Heading following first paragraph, first sentence of second paragraph, first sentence of second paragraph Page 1-73, first sentence of third paragraph, first sentence of fourth paragraph Page 1-7, Heading and paragraph under "Livermore-Amador Planning Unit" have been modified to read as follows: ~~Livermore-Amador Planning Unit~~ *East County Area* The ~~Livermore-Amador Planning Unit (LAPU)~~ *East County Area* consists of 264,530 acres and represents about 56 percent of the land area in Alameda County. ~~About six percent, or 14,620 acres, is incorporated into the Cities of Livermore or Pleasanton.~~ The boundaries of the ~~LAPU~~ *East County Area* are defined by the County line near Bethany Reservoir to the north and Mt. Boardman to the south, and by Monument Peak to the west and Dublin to the County line at the northwest. The area stretches from the East Bay Hills (Sunol and Pleasanton Ridges) to the Eastern Units of the Diablo Range western edge of the San Joaquin Valley. # 1 - CONSERVATION ELEMENT ### I. INTRODUCTION A. Authority B. Components of the Conservation Element C. Methods D. County-City Coordination ### II. INVENTORY OF RESOURCES A. Physiographic Description B. Generalized Geology C. Agriculture and Soil Resources Management D. Vegetation and Wildlife Resources E. Hydrologic Resources F. Mineral Resources ### III. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR CONSERVATION OF RESOURCES ### IV. IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM Appendix A Resolutions of Adoption of Conservation Element of the General Plan # I - CONSERVATION ELEMENT ### I. INTRODUCTION A. Authority B. Components of the Conservation Element C. Methods D. County-City Coordination ### II. INVENTORY OF RESOURCES A. Physiographic Description B. Generalized Geology C. Agriculture and Soil Resources Management D. Vegetation and Wildlife Resources E. Hydrologic Resources F. Mineral Resources ### III. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR CONSERVATION OF RESOURCES ### IV. IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM Appendix A Resolutions of Adoption of Conservation Element of the General Plan (blank page) # 1-CONSERVATION ELEMENT ## I. INTRODUCTION ### A. Authority Government Code Section 65302 (d) requires a conservation element of all city and county general plans, as follows: > A conservation element for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources including water and its hydraulic force, forests, soils, rivers and other waters, harbors, fisheries, wildlife, minerals, and other natural resources. That portion of the conservation element including waters shall be developed in coordination with any county-wide water agency and with all district and city water agencies which have developed, served, controlled or conserved water for any purpose for the county or city for which the plan is prepared. The conservation element may also cover: > > (a) the reclamation of land and waters. > > (b) flood control. > > (c) prevention and control of the pollution of streams and other waters. > > (d) regulation of the use of land in stream channels and other areas required for the accomplishment of the conservation plan. > > (e) prevention, control and correction of the erosion of soils, beaches and shores. > > (f) protection of watersheds. > > (g) the location, quantity and quality of the rock, sand, and gravel resources. The conservation element of the County's General Plan is a long-range plan with the following major goals: * quality in the natural resource base; * quality in the environment to provide attractive, safe, and satisfying places to live, work, and plan; and * quality in the standard of living. B. Components of the Conservation Element The planned management of resources in Alameda County involves research in several areas: * identification of natural resources; * assessment of the degree of development and utilization of those resources; * identification of areas of critical concern; * determination of the carrying capacity or development potential of each resource; * establishment of development and utilization criteria for each resource; and * development of goals and policies for resource conservation; design of implementation program. In a metropolitan county such as Alameda County, a significant portion of the flat area has been committed to urban and industrial uses, often without consideration of consequences to natural resources. Economic decisions for resource development and conservation must be carefully examined in the future to prevent further deterioration of the environment. Decisions on resource development must be balanced with the need for preserving and maintaining a diverse and aesthetic environment. The objective of the conservation element is to provide economic and environmental information critical to the development of resources, land use, and the preservation of environmental balance. It should also provide an education as well as sensitivity to valuable renewable and non-renewable resources. C. Methods The California State Office of Planning and Research has issued guidelines for the preparation of the Conservation Element of the General Plan and in those Guidelines established a general methodology for developing the conservation element. The resources which are to be discussed in this conservation element are only limited by those resources present in Alameda County. The natural resources included for consideration here are: - Physiographic, topographic, and geologic resources - Agriculture and soil resources - Vegetation and wildlife resources - Water resources - Mineral resources - Other natural resources such as air and space Once the above resources have been adequately identified, the relationships between the resources will be analyzed and the areas of critical concern identified. The State Guidelines also indicate that the carrying capacity and development capacity of various land areas should be developed with the goal of minimizing the ecological disruption and conserving natural resources. The implication here is that the assessment of natural resources within an area should include a consideration of $the$ renewable $or$ non-renewable nature of the resource. Indeed this approach will be utilized in addition to designation of certain areas of the County as "Resource Management Area." D. County-City Coordination The major portion of County-City Coordination in the Conservation Element has taken place in the Solid Waste Management Technical Advisory Committee 1973-1975 which is described in the Preface to this element (page P-1). Other coordination has taken place in the preparation of the Hayward Area Shoreline Policies with the City of Hayward, also described in the preface. II. INVENTORY OF RESOURCES ### A. Physiographic Description of Alameda County Alameda County is located on the east side of southern San Francisco Bay. Within its boundaries is 735 miles of land and 77 square miles of bay. Elevations range from sea level along the 36 miles of bay shoreline to 3,817 feet in the Diablo Range south of Livermore. The County is approximately thirty-two miles in length in a north-south direction and 45 miles in width in an east-west direction. The County is a diverse combination of land types and forms ranging from salt water marshes along the bay plain to moderately high uplands and intermontaine valleys. Thus, the climate varies from a marine type along the bay fringes to fog-shrouded Redwood forest in the East Bay Hills, to arid range sites of open grassland savannah in the portion of the County adjacent to the San Joaquin Valley. Conditions vary depending upon the mean sea level, altitude, and the topography, as well as the distance from the ocean and bay. Overall climate-Mediterranean microclimates The Bay Plain varies from three miles in width at the north end of the County, in the Berkeley-Albany area, to eight miles at the south, near Fremont. The bay plain is composed of geologically recent fluvial and alluvial deposits of the late Cenozoic period. In this portion of the County is located the major portion of the high density urbanization which comprises the urban core of the Eden and Central Metropolitan Planning Units. The southerly and less densely populated part of the bay plain still retains much of the rural character of the past, although this is rapidly disappearing around the cities of Fremont, Newark, and Union City. In the South Bay vicinity are tidal flats and marshes, salt ponds, the Alameda Creek-Coyote Hills Regional Park, and portions of the South San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex. East of the Bay Plain are the East Bay Hills which are a part of the western and central portion of the Diablo Range. The County extends east through the Diablo Range to the western edge of the San Joaquin Valley. Within this area is located the Livermore and Amador Valleys, which are the largest of the intermontaine valleys in the coastal range. The eastern portion of the County varies from gently rolling terraces and alluvial plains to the steep to very steep V-shaped upland areas Well used and possibly historic trade routes, now permanent interstate freeways, exist through natural passes located east of Hayward, through Dublin Canyon and through Mission Pass in the Mission Hills east of Fremont. The highest points in the East Bay Hills are Monument Peak, 2,594 feet, and Mission Peak, 2,517 feet, both east of Fremont. The East Bay ridge provides a dramatic background for San Francisco Bay and the coastal plain on the west slopes and a scenic background on the east slopes for the Livermore-Amador Valley. The large intermontaine coastal valley, the Livermore and Amador Valley, is separated from the bay plain by eight miles of foothills in the north, east of Castro Valley, and about four miles in the Mission Pass area. # GENERALIZED GEOLOGIC AND GROUND WATER MAP OF ALAMEDA COUNTY ### WATER-BEARING UNITS **QUATERNARY ALLUVIUM** - Includes older alluvial fan deposits, (unconsolidated basin deposits, younger fluvial deposits, younger alluvial fan deposits, and stream channel waterial). Also included are dune sands, the Merritt sand and the Temescal formation. Comprise interbedded and interlensed, fine- to coarse-grained sands and gravels, silts, and clays. Clay and silt layers predominate in most of the area. The clean sands and gravels have the highest permeability and are the principal aquifers. Clay and silt layers have low permeability and form confining beds or lenses. **DEFORMED OLDER ALLUVIUM SEDIMENTS** - Includes the Livermore and Santa Clara formations of Plio-Pleistocene age and the Tassajara formation of upper Pliocene age. Poorly to moderately consolidated, clayey, silty, or sandy gravels, and silts and clays with thin tuffaceous beds. These sediments yield water to wells, but the high percentage of interstitial fines restricts permeability, thus limiting yield to wells. ### NONWATER-BEARING UNITS **TERTIARY ROCKS** - Include Hambre, Briones, Sobrante, Monterey, Temblor, Tice, Oursan, Neroly, Cierbo, Rodeo, Hambre, and Tice formations of Miocene age, and San Ramon and Kirker formations of Oligocene and upper Eocene age. Consist mainly of marine sandstone, siltstone, and shale with some chert, tuff, and conglomerate. Potable ground water, if any, occurs in secondary openings such as joints and fractures, although minor quantities of water may be recovered from near-surface rocks. The Orinda formation of Mio-Pliocene age consists of nonmarine claystone, siltstone, sandstone and conglomerate, with small amounts of tuff and limestone. The abundance of fines makes it essentially nonwater-bearing. **CRETACEOUS ROCKS** - Include the Oakland conglomerate and the Niles Canyon, Del Valle, and Shepherd Creek formations of the Panoche group. Comprise marine sandstone, shale, conglomerate, and siltstone, all of marine origin. Potable ground water, if any, occurs where secondary openings have been formed by fractures, joints, and shear zones, and where connate brines have been flushed from the rocks. **JURASSIC ROCKS** - Marine sedimentary rocks, composed mainly of the Franciscan formation. Composed primarily of graywacke (sandstone), with smaller amounts of interbedded siltstone and shale. Minor rock types include conglomerate, red and green chert, and volcanic and metamorphic rocks. Small amounts of potable water for local domestic use have been found in fractures, joints, and shear zones, and where connate brines have been flushed from the rocks. <
> Major ridgelines and peaks (East Bay Ridge, Mount Diablo, Mount Hamilton, and Arroyo del Valle) separates the County into three significant hydrologic units and two areas of minor hydrologic significance. All hydrologic units are extremely important when considering various aspects of water resources management. The hills surrounding the Livermore and Amador Valleys are predominately open primarily devoted to agriculture or some form of recreation. In the extreme northeastern corner of the County, a small flat area extends into the San Joaquin Valley. Some of this area is devoted to agricultural crop production; the foothill portion is similar to the grasslands of the Altamont vicinity and the Great Valley Foothills. Approximately fifty-six percent of the County contains hills with a slope of twenty-five percent or greater. The distribution of the area of 25 percent or greater slope is 34 percent in the western portion of the County and 72 percent in the eastern portion. With the exception of residential development in the Oakland and Berkeley hills, small developed portions in the Hayward hills, and minor development in the Pleasanton area, the major portion of the East Bay Ridge and Diablo Range in Alameda County remains undeveloped. Most of the undeveloped East Bay Ridge area is shown as open area on the County General Plan; and all the ridges on the north, east, south, and west sides of the Livermore-Amador Valley are undeveloped and shown as open space on the County General Plan. Much of the open use is presently utilized for some form of agriculture, depending on soil fertility, capability, and type. ### Central Metropolitan Planning Unit The Central Metropolitan Planning Unit consists of the cities of Alameda, Albany, Berkeley, Emeryville, Oakland, and Piedmont. In the 1968 Estimate of Existing Land Use, approximately ninety percent of the 51,030 acres in the planning unit were developed and in residential, commercial, industrial, public or semi-public, or vacant uses. All of the land area in the CMPU is incorporated; approximately 5,030 acres are in major parks and recreation uses, and 4,310 acres are vacant urban. The cities occupy the area from the crest of the East Bay Hills to the bayfront, from Albany to the northern limit of San Leandro, in a wide variety of densities and land uses. Approximately fifty-five to sixty percent of the population and industrial activity in the County is located in the CMPU. Eden Planning Unit Included in this planning unit are the cities of San Leandro and Hayward and the unincorporated communities of San Lorenzo and Castro Valley. The Eden Planning Unit consists of a total of 76,430 acres of which 27,890 acres are incorporated and 48,540 are unincorporated. Over 38,000 acres of this area are uncultivated and undeveloped. As described previously, the EPU occupies an area between the East Bay Hills and the San Francisco Bay. Most of the development is along the bay plain and is concentrated in the cities mentioned above. The southern portions of the eastern boundary of the planning unit is Sunol Ridge. Washington Planning Unit The Washington Planning Unit begins south of Hayward and includes the cities of Fremont, Newark, and Union City; the unincorporated area to the west; and a Rural-Recreation Area to the east of the foothills. The 1968 land use survey showed 91 percent of the 79,280 acres in this planning area incorporated into one of the three cities. In the same survey, 47,310 acres were designated as in agricultural and open uses, while 29,120 acres were assigned to residential, commercial, industrial and other uses. As in the other areas to the north in the County, the predominant area of urbanization in this planning unit is the bay plain between the foothills and the bay. Unique to this area is the Alameda Creek-Coyote Hills Regional Park near the edge of the bay and the adjacent South San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge to the south. Livermore-Amador Planning Unit The Livermore-Amador Planning Unit (LAPU) consists of 264,530 acres and represents about 56 percent of the land area in Alameda County. About six percent, or 14,620 acres, is incorporated into the Cities of Livermore or Pleasanton. The boundaries of the LAPU are defined by the County line near Bethany Reservoir to the north and Mt. Boardman to the south, and by Monument Peak to the west and Dublin to the County line at the northwest. The area stretches from the East Bay Hills (Sunol and Pleasanton Ridges) to the Eastern Units of the Diablo Range western edge of the San Joaquin Valley. Topography within the LAPU is quite varied and ranges from gently sloping lowlands to very steep canyons. Approximately seventy-two percent of the area has a slope of 25 percent or greater. Land-type divisions may be made based upon topography into at least three categories: upland site, terrace sites, or valley or lowland sites. The location of the boundary of each unit is different depending upon the basic information used in the interpretation. Basically, however, the LAPU consists of the northern section of the Diablo Range surrounding the Livermore, Amador, and Sunol Valleys. B. Generalized Geology of Alameda County:[^p14-1] The general geologic setting of Alameda County is shown on the Generalized Geologic and Ground Water Map of Alameda County. Active and potentially active fault traces are shown on a map in the Seismic Element of the County General Plan. ### a) Geology of the Western Portion of Alameda County The part of Alameda County which lies west of the active Calaveras Fault includes the East Bay Hills from Albany on the north to the Mission District east of Fremont. Also included in this area is the Bay Plain from the base of the foothills to the edge of the San Francisco Bay. The rocks in the hills are older and considerably more complex than the relatively recent alluvial deposits of the Bay Plain. The complexity of the rocks in the hills is a function of their history of deformation and diversity of type and characteristics. For example, in the Berkeley-Albany hills, the following formations have been identified: Mesozoic ultrabasic intrusive rocks, Franciscan, Eocene marine, Plicene volcanic, middle and/or lower Pliocene non-marine, and Pleistocene nonmarine. As one progresses south in the hills from Oakland to Fremont, the predominant formation becomes a sequence of upper Cretaceous marine sandstones and shales with strips of ultrabasic intrusive and metasedimentary rocks (Mesozoic), Pliocene volcanic, and middle and/or lower Pliocene nonmarine sediments occur along the western base of the hills. The East Bay hills are separated from the Bay Plain to the west by the active Hayward Fault system. The plain west of the foothills in Alameda County is comprised of Quaternary Alluvial deposits which have washed down from the hills and have been deposited on top of the older rock formations. One may visualize the process of formation of this plain as a progressive accumulation of layers of materials of varying composition and permeability. Some of the layers which have been identified in the Quaternary alluvial deposits have come directly from the hills and some are a result of sedimentation of clays and muds while the area was partially or wholly submerged. This layering has occurred in such a fashion around the creeks pouring into the bay that humps, or cones, have formed at San Leandro, San Lorenzo, and Alameda Creek. These cones which are presently sources of ground water for residential and agricultural uses are called the San Leandro, San Lorenzo, and Niles Cones, respectively. The alluvial deposits underlying the Bay Plain have been subdivided into several units by the U.S. Geological Survey (Helley and others, 1972) based upon variations in gross lithology and degree of induration. [^p14-1]: Adapted from David M. Hill, Geologist, Calif. St. Department of Water Resources for Evaluation of Environmental Constraints for Solid Waste Management Along the very western edge of the Bay Plain, the geologic formations do not alter appreciably from those mentioned in the previous paragraphs but the combined importance of the geologic, biologic, and man-interference with the bay and tidelands has resulted in both an interest-ing and sensitive environmental area. The historic marshes are undergoing a change to the characteristic plain, which is observed further inland. Indian shell mounds which were once located on the shores of the bay several centuries ago are now several miles from the shore. The bayshore areas are underlain chiefly by Younger Bay Mud, a predominantly soft gray silty clay (Goldman, 1969). The Younger Bay Mud locally contains lenses of fine, water saturated sand. ### b) Geology of Livermore-Amador Planning Unit The LAPU is located in the northwest-trending coastal range and is predominantly east of the active Calaveras Fault system. There are several unique features about the area. The upland sites which surround the Livermore Valley are composed of geologically older consolidated nonwater-bearing rock formations. This material also forms the foundation of the Livermore Valley at considerable depths. In the uplands area south of Livermore, the Franciscan Formation may be observed. This is the oldest formation and constitutes a major portion of the uplands. The Franciscan Formation is described as "graywacke, locally abundant red and green thin-bedded chert, siltstone and silty shale, minor conglomerate, limestone, blue-grey glaucophane-bearing schist and related metamorphic rocks. The Franciscan Formation in the Diablo Range is generally considered to be of Jurassic and possibly pre-Jurassic age."[[^p15-1]](#footnote-1) In the upland areas around Patterson Pass and the Carnegie Fault, a division occurs between the Franciscan and the younger Del Valle Formations. This area stretches between Corral Hollow and Interstate 580 and is a jumbled mixture of upper Cretaceous marine, upper Miocene marine, and middle and/or lower Pliocene non-marine sedimentary rocks. Recent geologic studies suggest that some of the fault systems in this complex area are potentially active (Wright, 1974). The region north of I-580 is underlain primarily by upper Cretaceous marine sedimentary rocks similar to those exposed in the East Bay Hills south of Castro Valley to Niles Canyon. Again in the uplands areas between Niles Canyon and Monument Peak, the Cretaceous and Miocene marine and middle and lower Pliocene non-marine formation units are found interspersed with each other. [^p15-1]: "Stratigraphic Nomenclature-San Jose Sheet" in Explanatory Data San Jose Sheet, Geologic Map of Calif. Calif. State Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Olaf P. Jenkins Edition, 2nd Printing, 1972 Cedar Mountain and along the portions of Cedar Ridge, Main Ridge and Apperson Ridge. The upland formations primarily consist of marine sedimentary and meta sedimentary rocks. Only small amounts of igneous rock are apparent. Examples of Mesozioc ultra basic intrusive rocks may be observed in the uplands near the southern end of Del Valle Reservoir and east of Calaveras Reservoir. The Livermore Valley was formed by an east to west downfold along the Calaveras Fault. The alluvial terraces and plains, recognizable at the mid-level elevations or rolling foothills north and south of Livermore constitute a second broad physiographic division of the LAPU area. This transition zone is divided into two areas based upon geologic units. The foothills north of Livermore on the south slopes of Mt. Diablo, and in the prominent foothills along Doolan, Collier, and Tassajara Creeks north of Livermore and Arroyo Las Positas are underlain by middle and/or lower Pliocene non-marine sedimentary rocks identified as the Orinda and Neroly Formations. The Orinda Formation has been subdivided into the Tassajara and Green Valley formations and is characterized by "red, gray, or brown, loosely consolidated sandstone and conglomerate, subordinate amounts of shale, claystone, limestone lenses, and tuffaceous bentonitic clay."[^p16-1] The Tassajara Formation, more appropriately associated with this area, consists of "brown to gray mudstone, andesitic sandstone, conglomerate, and minor bentonitic and pumiceous tuff."[^p16-1] The Orinda is basically a continental flood plain deposit with discontinuous marine beds at the base.[^p16-2] South of Livermore and Pleasanton the low foothills consist of Plio-Pleistocene non-marine sedimentary deposits of the Livermore gravel formation. The Livermore gravel is characterized by "loosely consolidated sand, gravel, clay, and local tuff beds (contains Pliocene fresh water invertebrate fauna and Pleistocene vertebrate fauna.)"(State of California, 1972.) The low lands of the Livermore Valley consist of recent alluvial deposits surrounding minor areas underlain by the Orinda and Livermore formations. Surficial portions of the alluvial sequence have been subdivided by the U.S. Geological Survey into several units based on gross lithologic characteristics and degree of induration (Helley and others, 1972). Studies by the California Department of Water Resources (1974) have revealed similar horizontal and vertical variations in the subsurface. Goundwater contained in the recent alluvial deposits and in the Livermore Formation represent a significant resource and minor amounts of ground water have also been produced from the Tassajara formation. [^p16-1]: "Stratigraphic Nomenclature - San Jose Sheet" in Explanatory Data San Jose Sheet, Geologic Map of Calif. Calif. State Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Olaf P. Jenkins Edition, 2nd Pringing, 1972 Cedar Mountain, and along the portions of Cedar Ridge, Main Ridge, and Apperson Ridge. [^p16-2]: Geologic Guide book of the San Francisco Bay Counties Bulletin 154, Calif. Division the Ibid foothills south of Livermore and Pleasanton, of Mines and Geology, 1951 (p. 143). Within the LAPU, at least 17 faults have been identified. Some show possible evidence of geologically recent movement. Some form groundwater barriers in Pleistocene materials and others appear to be old faults that affect only Pliocene or older bedrock materials. As mentioned above, the Livermore Valley has developed in an east-west dipping downfold or syncline terminating against the Calaveras Fault and the uplifted Pleasanton Ridge block. At the base of the Altamont Hills is the Greenville Fault which terminates near Arroyo Las Positas. In the southern section of the Altamont Foothills, the Patterson Pass, Tesla, Carnegie, and Corral Hollow Faults are found. The faults run parallel to each other between the Livermore and San Joaquin Valleys. East of Altamont Pass near Grant Line Road is the Midway Fault which is located in a local depression along Grant Line Road. The faults found in the upland hills between Tesla Creek and the Mission Hills (Monument Peak) are the Valle, Williams, Verone, Indian Creek, McGuire Peaks, Welch and Calaveras. Among these, the Calaveras and Verone-Williams-Valle Systems appear to be the most prominent. Within the lowlands of the Livermore Valley, several faults have been identified; they are the Livermore Fault and its branch, the Parks Fault, the Pleasanton Fault and its branches, and the northern section of the Calaveras Fault. In the vicinity of Dublin, the Gravel Pit and the Dublin Faults are observed in the foothills. Slope: The greater portion of the Livermore-Amador Planning Unit is in the greater than 30 percent slope category. In the valley lowlands, much of the land is level with from zero to five percent slope. The fringes of the foothills around the entire Livermore and Amador Valleys consist of 5-15 percent slope. In the foothills north of Livermore around Doolan and Collier Canyon and in the Altamont hills, the slopes are gentle, rarely exceeding 30 percent and generally falling within the 15-30 percent range. South of Livermore and Pleasanton, the Upland areas of the Diablo Range consist of a high proportion of 30-50 percent slope hills. Some ravines range to nearly 70 percent slope. Within the upland area, there are plateaus and canyons which fall into the 5-15 and 15-30 percent ranges; but these areas are minimal. Although slope considerations, alone, may severely limit development of a site, interpretation of the degree of constraint is included in the Soils Resources discussion, since interpretation of slope is included as part of the Soil Survey.[^p17-1] [^p17-1]: USDA, Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey: Alameda Area, California, March, 1966. ### C. Agriculture and Soil Resources Management ### Factors of Soil Formation[^p18-1] Soil has been defined as a dynamic natural body on the surface of the earth in which plants grow; it is composed of mineral and organic materials and living forms. Soils differ in their appearance, composition, management requirements, and productivity within short distances. The factors that influence soil development are 1) climate, 2) living organisms, 3) parent material, 4) relief, and 5) time. Every soil is affected to some extent by all five factors, but the relative importance of each factor in soil development varies from one soil to another. Climate.--The climate of the Alameda County Area is of two main types--oceanic and subhumid mesothermal. The oceanic type is characterized by cool, moist winters and cool summers with frequent sea breezes and early morning fog. The subhumid mesothermal type is characterized by cool, moist winters and hot dry summers. The boundary between the two types runs roughly in a southeast-northwest direction from the Calaveras Dam to Dublin. Differences in annual rainfall are associated with differences in relief and vary widely over short distances. For example, annual rainfall ranges from 8 inches in the northeastern corner of the Area to 25 inches at a point in the uplands 15 miles farther south. In the sections of low rainfall, many of the soils are calcareous and alkaline in reaction. In the sections of high rainfall, the soils are slightly acid to strongly acid. Soils formed under the oceanic climate are darker in most places and contain more organic matter than soils formed in similar material under the subhumid mesothermal climate. Also, soils that developed under low rainfall have accumulated carbonates in the upper portions, whereas the soils that developed under high rainfall have been leached of carbonates. Living organisms.--The vegetation of the Area was the most important part of the complex of living organisms that affected soil development. The activities of animals were of minor importance. Earthworms, insects, and bacteria were most active in soils containing a large amount of organic matter. In such soils they break down plant and animal remains to humus. The influence of native vegetation was greatest in the dark Clear Lake soils in the northern part of the Livermore Valley and in the basin areas. In the uplands this vegetation consisted of thick stands of perennial grasses, such as Needlegrass, and of scattered Oak; in the basin areas it consisted of perennial grasses, sedges, and willows. The Linne soils also exemplify the influence of native vegetation. They developed under thick stands of perennial grasses and scattered Oak. These soils are dark gray and contain a relatively large amount of organic matter. In contrast, the Gaviota soils developed under a sparse stand of grasses, Rabbitbrush, and California Sage and contain a small amount of organic matter. The Vallecitos soils have accumulated even a smaller amount of organic matter under a combined woodland-grassland type of vegetation. The percentage [^p18-1]: Soil Survey, Alameda Area, 1966, pp. 62-63. of woodland varied, but it consisted primarily of Blue Oak, California Live Oak, Black Oak, Laurel, California Buckeye, and other woody plants. Some scattered Digger Pine and Coulter Pine were on higher elevations and on the sheltered north-facing slopes of these soils. The understory consisted of California Fescue, Needlegrass, Blue Wildrye, and Millicgrass. This kind of vegetation did not favor the accumulation of large amounts of organic matter. The vegetation in the brush-covered areas consisted of Chamise, Manzanita, Ceanothus, Rabbitbrush, California Sage, and a sparse stand of grasses. Little organic matter has accumulated in the soils and land types in these areas. Farming in the area has affected and will affect the direction and rate of development of the soils. The soil-forming processes changed most by man's activities are the accumulation of organic matter and the leaching of soluble salts. The rate of accumulation of organic matter has been reduced, and in some soils, the organic matter has been depleted. Cultivation and grazing have almost eliminated the native perennial grasses, and annual grasses, forbs, and weeds have been introduced by settlers. The forage produced is removed continuously by grazing and by burning residue from dry-farmed grain. Artificial drainage of the basin areas has reduced the amount of organic matter in the soils by improving aeration and thus increasing the oxidation of the organic matter. In the well-drained soils in the valleys, the amount of organic matter may have been increased by the continual use of irrigated pasture. Even though the forage is removed, the root system is extensive and tends to increase the amount of organic matter in the soil. Also, soluble salts and some of the carbonates are leached from these soils by irrigation water and through improved drainage. Parent material.--The parent material of soils in the uplands consists of sedimentary and metasedimentary rocks of different composition and different geologic ages, intruded in some places by basic and ultrabasic igneous rocks. The sedimentary and metasedimentary rocks contain folds and faults in a very complex system. The sharp differences in the parent rocks tend to produce distinctive differences in soils. In areas where the parent material consisted of the hard, metasedimentary rocks, the soils are shallow, have a low content of organic matter, and contain gravel or chert fragments that weather slowly. The Vallecitos soils are an example. In areas where the parent material was interbedded sedimentary rock, the minerals weather easily because calcium carbonate is the principal cementing agent. In these areas the soils are usually deep, are fine textured, and have a calcareous subsoil. The Diablo soils are typical of this group. In areas where serpentine, the predominant intrusive rock, was the parent material, the Henneke soils developed. They are reddish brown throughout, are shallow, and have low fertility. The high terraces south of the Livermore Valley consists of poorly sorted gravel, sand, and clay that were deposited by fresh water: The deposits have a smooth surface that has a gentle incline of 10 to 30 degrees toward the valley. The Positas soils, which are low in fertility and have distinct B horizons, occur in this area. The parent material of soils in the valleys consists predominantly of recent alluvium. In the southern part of Livermore Valley, the alluvium is typically and medium textured and contains variable amounts of gravel. The gravel is predominantly quartz and is strongly resistant to weathering. The Livermore soils that developed in this alluvium have faint horizons. In the northern part of the Livermore Valley and in the Amador Valley, the soils developed from fine-textured alluvium. The streams are small, and they flow from areas that have fine-textured soils. Relief.--The Alameda Areas consists primarily of gently sloping to very steep uplands of the Mt. Diablo Range and of intermountain valleys. The northeastern corner of the Area is in the San Joaquin Valley. The slope and the size of the streams largely determine the texture of the soils in the valley. In areas adjacent to the larger streams, coarse-textured and gravelly soils, such as the Livermore and Pleasanton, have developed. The Pescadero and Solano soils formed on low terraces along the basins and basin rims. They have hogwallowed microrelief and an accumulation of salts and alkali. Soils, such as Gaviota, formed on the very steep slopes. They are shallow, and their horizons are faint. The Los Osos and Diablo soils occur in other upland areas and have characteristic landslide and seep areas formed at times when the soils were saturated. Time.--The soils of the Alameda Area range from young to very old. The Yolo and Sycamore soils are adjacent to the larger streams. They are young and show little horizon differentiation. These soils receive new sediments from floods that occur at frequent intervals. On the terraces and alluvial fans, the soils, such as Positas, are older. Their suface layer is leached of bases, and the B2t horizons have had a distinct increase in the content of clay. The soils in the uplands, such as the Vallecitos, also reflect greater age by their distinct horizon differentiation. ### Major Processes of Soil Formation[^p20-1] Several processes take place in the formation of soil horizons. The differentiation of horizons in most soils is the result of two or more of the following processes: (1) Accumulation of organic matter; (2) leaching of carbonates and soluble salts; (3) translocation of silicate clay materials; (4) reduction and transfer of iron; (5) accumulation of soluble salts and alkali. Organic matter has accumulated in the A horizon of all soils in the Alameda Area. Most of the organic matter is in the form of humus. The quantity is small in some soils but is fairly large in others. In such soils as Livermore very gravelly coarse sandy loam, the faint A horizon has a small amount of organic matter. In such soils as Clear Lake clay, the thick A horizon contains a fairly large amount of organic matter. [^p20-1]: Soil Survey, Alameda Area, 1966, pp. 62-63. Leaching of carbonates and salts has occurred in most of the soils in the Area. In some soils, the carbonates have been leached out of the solum; in other soils, the carbonates and salts have been leached only from the A horizon. Leaching has had little effect in the removal of carbonates from soils that are strongly calcareous throughout, and the calcium content has kept the clays flocculated. Translocation of silicate clay minerals has occurred in some soils in the Area. The clay films on ped faces and in root channels, as well as colloidal bridges between the sand grains, indicate the movement of silicate clay minerals from the A horizon. These soils have B horizons that range from faint to distinct. Reduction and transfer of iron has occurred in all of the poorly drained and imperfectly drained soils. This process, called gleying, has been important in horizon differentiation in the poorly drained Clear Lake clay soils. The gray colors in the deeper horizons of the wet soils indicate a reduction of iron oxide. The reduction is commonly accompanied by the transfer of iron. In some of the well-drained soils, iron has been transferred from the A horizon to the B and C horizons where it has been deposited, has been oxidized, and has given these horizons a reddish-brown color. In other soils, iron has been segregated within the deeper horizons and occurs as yellowish-red or reddish-brown mottles. These soils were formed under moderately good drainage. Drainage of soils in valleys and basins has been improved either by stream cutting, by artificial drainage, or by pumping water for irrigation or domestic use. Soluble salts accumulate in some soils or on the surface when water evaporates. Thus, salty soils commonly occur in low areas, and many have a periodically high or permanently high water table. A high water table or a perched water table exists naturally above an underlying, impervious stratum. May different kinds of salt occur in saline soils. The normally neutral, or nearly neutral, salts, such as the chlorides and sulfates of sodium, calcium, and magnesium, do not make the soil strongly alkaline; but an excessive amount of exchangeable sodium may cause a strongly alkaline reaction. The exchangeable cations in a soil greatly influence its properties. Calcium clays are mildly alkaline to moderately alkaline and are not easily dispersed. Conversely, sodium clays are strongly alkaline to very strongly alkaline and are more easily dispersed. If a high concentration of salt is maintained in the soil, the colloids are flocculated; but if drainage improves and excess salts are removed, the sodium clays become strongly alkaline or very strongly alkaline and are easily dispersed in water. As drainage in soils improves, the excessive amounts of salts are leached. The sodium clays, which are easily dispersed, are puddled or run together. Some of the colloids also move downward from the surface layer and accumulate in the layer beneath. After a long period, most of the fine material has accumulated in the B horizon, and mostly silt and sand are left in the A horizon. Weathering of minerals in the B horizon also contributes to its high content of clay. If leaching continues for a long time, the A horizon of the soil finally becomes acid. The B horizon becomes very slightly acid to strongly alkaline and has well-developed columnar structure. This horizon underlies a distinct leached A2 horizon. The soil generally has hogwallowed relief. Apparently, the horizon is eroded, and the B horizon is exposed in many places. Locally, the shallow depressions are called slickspots. ### DESCRIPTION OF THE SOILS[^p22-1] There are several land types and twenty-five different soil areas on the General Soil Map for Alameda County. The Miscellaneous land types are named primarily in terms of land form or in terms of material. The soils areas are named by the major series that occur within each area. A soil series is a group of soils that has about the same kind of profile, or sequence of layers. Except for different texture in the surface layer, all the members of one soil series have major horizons of layers that are similar in thickness, arrangement, and other important characteristics. Some soil areas on the General Soil Map have the same soil series for which they are named, but differ by properties or qualities of major importance to use and management. These are separated (or phased) by indicating differences such as slope, erosion, coarse fragment, drainage, salt and alkali or surface texture. In Alameda County, some of the soil series have been separated for major differences in slope and drainage. The soil series names in the area adjacent to the San Francisco Bay are tentative and may be changed in the future. Any changes in names will not affect the usefulness of the map because the soil properties and qualities do not change and the names are only a means of identifying the mapping units. The twenty-eight mapping units for Alameda County are organized into eight groups based on soil characteristics and qualities, and one group including the three miscellaneous types. The nine major groups and mapping units within each group are described below: Group I - Areas dominated by very deep, well drained, loamy soils on level to nearly level alluvial fans and low terraces. Yolo-Sorrento-Sycamore (drained) association Rincon-Zamora association Pleasanton-Livermore association Livermore association Group 2 - Areas dominated by deep, somewhat poorly drained, loamy soils of the low flood-plains and coastal plains. Sycamore association Baywood association, wet variant Group 3 - Areas dominated by very deep, slowly permeable soils on nearly level to gently rolling alluvial fans. Cropley-Rincon association Cropley-Rincon association, 2 to 9 percent slopes. Group 4 - Areas dominated by gray or dark gray, clayey soils of the basin rims and basins. Clear Lake-Sunnyvale association, drained Clear Lake association Sunnyvale-Castro association [^p22-1]: Generalized Soil Map, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, and ABAG (1966). Group 5 - Saline-Alkaline soils of the basin rims with moderately slow or slowly permeable subsoils. Solano-Pescadero association, eroded Group 6 - Undulating to very steep, shallow to moderately deep, gravelly and loamy soils developed to high terraces. Positas association, 2 to 15 percent slopes, eroded Positas-Perkins association, 15 to 30 percent slopes, eroded Positas-Perkins association, 30 to 60 percent slopes, eroded Group 7 - Areas dominated by clayey upland soils developed on soft shales and fine-grained sandstone. Diablo-Altamont association, 9 to 30 percent slopes, eroded Diablo-Altamont association, 30 to 50 percent slopes, eroded Altamont-San Benito association, 9 to 30 percent slopes, eroded Linne-Altamont association, 9 to 30 percent slopes, eroded Group 8 - Areas dominated by loamy, upland soils developed on sedi- mentary rock with some intrusions of oasic and ultra- basic igneous rock. Los Gatos-Gaviota association, 30 to 70 percent slopes, eroded Los Osos-Millsholm association, 9 to 30 percent slopes Los Osos-Millsholm association, 30 to 70 percent slopes, eroded Climara-Los Osos association, 30 to 50 percent slopes, eroded Henneke association, 50 to 75 percent slopes, severely eroded Vellecitos-Gaviota association, 30 to 70 percent slopes, eroded Group 9 - Other soils. Tidal Flats Made Soils, over bay mud Gravel pits ### Agricultural Resources The resource value of agricultural lands is derived primarily from the crops that are grown on them. The agricultural lands of Alameda County not only benefit from the climate, soils and water supply, but also the close proximity of both a large consumer area and a deep water port. Non-agricultural benefits of our agricultural resources include water management, recreation and visual/ aesthetic enjoyment. A secondary benefit is derived from having the land in an open condition. Many farmers and ranchers in Alameda County provide multiple opportunities for the production and maintenance of other resources through their agricul- tural operations besides those which are of direct economic value to his agricultural or livestock operation. Such actions are complimentary to the balance of renewable resources as well as the production of a marketable com- modity and the conservation of non-renewable resources. Many farmers and ranchers permit more than one type of use of their land which doesn't inter- fere with their operations. Many of their regular annual activities (such as brush clearing, and controlled burning) improve habitat values for live- stock and crops, as well as game and non-game species. Such a multiplicity of complimentary uses is applied to federal lands under guidelines developed by the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management and also may apply to land in private ownership in Alameda County. Following mapping by the Soil Conservation Service of the soil types in Alameda County, several methods of rating the soils as to their potential for certain kinds of agricultural crop production were developed; two of the most commonly used national systems are the land capability classification groups and the "prime lands" systems. The capability classfication groups the twenty eight soil types in Alameda County into seventeen capability units which each show unique characteristics with respect to agricultural production. The simplified "prime lands" system designates lands as "prime agricultural," "prime rangeland" or "unique agricultural" based upon the agricultural potential of the land. These methods of rating agricultural lands allow farmers as well as government officials to identify, manage and protect the county's agricultural resources. ### Land Capability Classification The capability classification is an interpretative grouping made primarily for agricultural purposes. The classification begins with individual soils and groups them into different categories primarily on their ability to produce common cultivated crops and pasture plants without soil deterioration over a long period of time. The land capability classification provides three different levels of information. These are as follows: 1. Land Capability Classes - The broadest category placing all soils in eight capability classes. These are arranged from I to VIII with limitations in soil use and risks of soil damage increasing from I to VIII. 2. Land Capability Subclass - This category is a subdivision of the capability class to show the kind of limitation or hazard. Four subclasses are used: e (erosion), w (wetness), s (soil), and c (climate). These subclasses are subdivided by adding an Arbaic numeral which is designated as a unit. This numeral is used to show a secondary major limitation or to supplement the major limitation and is defined in terms of a significant soil property. 3. Land Capability Unit - This unit is a group of soils that are similar in use and management and provides the most specific information in Land Capability Classification. The capability unit is symbolized by a combination of the class, subclass and unit. In assigning soils to capability groupings, certain basic assumptions must be made. These assumptions are required to group souls consistently and to use the groupings properly. The assumptions for classifying the soils of Alameda County are: 1. Classification is based on the effects of combinations of climate and permanent soils characteristics on risks of soil damage, limitations in use, productive capacity, and soil management requirements. 2. A moderately high level of management is assumed - one that is practical and within the ability of a majority of the farmers and ranchers. 3. Soils considered feasible for improvement by drainage, irrigation, removing salts and/or exchangeable sodium, or by protecting from overflow are classified according to their continuing limitations in use, or the risk of soil damage, or both, after the improvements have been installed. 4. The capability classification of the soils in an area may be changed when major reclamation projects are installed. 5. Capability groupings may be changed as new information about the soils becomes available. PLATE I # SOIL ASSOCIATIONS AND CAPABILITY CLASSES[^p26-1] ### ALAMEDA COUNTY <
> THIS MAP IS INTENDED FOR GENERAL PLANNING. EACH DELINEATION MAY CONTAIN SOILS DIFFERENT FROM THOSE SHOWN ON THE MAP. USE DETAILED SOIL MAPS FOR OPERATIONAL PLANNING, AND ON-SITE INSPECTION FOR MORE DETAILED DECISIONS. 1 - See legend on following page. Source: U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service. June, 1966 NOTE: This is a generalized map to be used only for general purposes and will be supplemented by more detailed maps when available. [^p26-1]: See legend on following page. A land capability classification symbol is composed of three symbols that indicate the class, subclass and unit of the capability unit. ### Classes #### Land Suited for Cultivation and Other Uses Class I - Soils in Class I have few limitations that restrict their use. Class II - Soils in Class II have some limitations that reduce the choice of plants or require moderate conservation practices. Class III - Soils in Class III have severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants or require special conservation practices or both. Class IV - Soils in Class IV have very severe limitations that restrict the choice of plants, require very careful management, or both. #### Land Generally Not Suited for Cultivation Class V - Soils in Class V have little or no erosion hazard but have other limitations that are impractical to remove. Class VI - Soils in Class VI have severe limitations that make them generally unsuited for cultivation. Class VII - Soils in Class VII have very severe limitations that make them unsuited for cultivation. Class VIII - Soils and land forms in Class VIII have limitations that preclude their use for commercial plant production and restrict their use to recreation for wildlife, water supply, or aesthetic purposes. ### Subclasses #### (The Major Problem) e - erosion w - wetness s - soil limitation c - climatic limitation ### Units #### (The Secondary Problem) IIIe5 0 - Coarse underlying material 1 - Erosion hazard 2 - Drainage or overflow 3 - Slowly permeable subsoils 4 - Coarse textures 5 - Fine textures 6 - Salinity or alkali 7 - Stony or rocky 8 - Cemented layers or bedrock 9 - Low fertility or toxic elements 10 - Organic soils Following are the capability units found in Alameda County. Plate I also shows the mapping of these units. | | | | :--- | :--- | | Capability Unit I | Very deep, well drained moderately coarse to moderately fine textured, nearly level soils | | Capability Unit IIs4 | Very deep, well drained, coarse textured or gravelly soils, nearly level. | | Capability Unit IIs5 | Deep and very deep, well to moderately well drained, fine textured solid on nearly level slopes. | | Capability Unit IIe5 | Deep and very deep, well drained, moderately fine textured soils on gentle to moderate slopes. | | Capability Unit IIw2 | Very deep, imperfectly drained, moderately coarse to moderately fine textured soils with rapid to moderately slow permeability. | | Capability Unit IIIs5 | Very deep, poorly to imperfectly drained, slowly permeable fine and very fine textured basin soils. | | Capability Unit IIIs4 | Very deep, somewhat excessively drained very coarse textured soils on nearly level to moderate slopes. | | Capability Unit IVe1 | Medium textured, shallow soils over interbedded sedimentary rock on gently to moderately steep slopes. | | Capability Unit IVe3 | Shallow to moderately deep, medium textured soils with a very slowly permeable claypan or other tight subsoils on strong slopes. | | Capability Unit IVe5 | Moderately deep to deep, fine textured, well drained soils on moderately steep slopes. | | Capability Unit IVw6 | Saline-alkali soils occuring on the basin rims and basins. | | Capability Unit IVe3 | Moderately coarse to medium textured soils with slowly permeable subsoils and claypans on moderately steep slopes. | | Capability Unit VIIe1 | Shallow to moderately deep medium and moderately fine textured soils on steep to very steep slopes. | | Capability Unit VIIe3 | Shallow to moderately deep, moderately coarse to medium textured soils with slowly or very slowly permeable subsoils on steep to very steep slopes. | | Capability Unit VIIIs1 | Shallow, somewhat excessively drained soils on very steep upland. | | Capability Unit VIIIw6 | Tidal flats and very poorly drained soils of the basins. | ### Identifying Prime Agricultural Lands To preserve the productive capacity and aesthetic value of agricultural land resources a system of identifying prime agricultural lands has been established as a part of a nationwide program of the Soil Conservation Service. The best land for producing food, feed, fiber, forage and oil-seed crops is mapped as Prime Agriculture, Prime Range or Unique-Agriculture. The two "Prime" designations are based on the types of soils present as mapped in the Alameda County Soil Survey and the "Unique" designation is based on the use of the land as well. The specific criteria for grouping soils as Prime, Unique and other are provided by the Soil Conservation Service. (See Plate 2, page 14a.) #### Prime Agricultural Land Prime farmland is land best suited for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops, and also available for these uses (the land could be cropland, pastureland, rangeland, forest land, or other land but not urban builtup land or water). It has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields of crops economically when treated and managed, including water management, according to modern farming methods. The criteria set up for Alameda County is the same as that suggested by USDA-Soil Conservation Service. 1. Adequate moisture supply during the growing season. This can be either rainfall or by irrigation. 2. The soils have a pH between 4.5 and 8.4 in all horizons within a depth of 40" or in the root zone if the root zone is less than 40". This range of pH is favorable for growing a wide variety of crops without adding large amounts of amendments. 3. No water table or a water table that is maintained at a sufficient depth so as not to adversely affect a crop. 4. The soils can be managed so that, in all horizons within a depth of 40 inches or in the root zone if the root zone is less than 40", during part of each year the conductivity of saturation extract is less than 4mmhos/cm and the exchangeable sodium percentage (ESP) is less than 15. 5. The soils are not flooded frequently during the growing season (less often than once in 2 years). 6. The soil does not have a serious erosion hazard. 7. The soil has a permeability of at least 0.05 inches per hour in the upper 20 inches. 8. Less than 10 percent of the surface layer in these soils consists of rock fragments coarser than 3 inches. These soils present no particular difficulty in cultivating. Soil series in the Alameda Area (County) soil surveys that fit within this criteria are listed on Table 1. ### Prime Range Land Approximately one-half of the acreage of Alameda County is used for livestock production. The gross income from livestock in 1974 was about $4,700,000. Since livestock production is important to Alameda County, prime rangeland should be recognized and identified. The criteria used for prime range land[^] are: 1. Land capable of producing enough natural forage to feed one animal unit per acre for one month under normal conditions. The quantity of forage produced should be sufficient to feed the animal unit and provide enough cover the protect the soil resource year after year. 2. Land of less than 45 percent slopes. Soils that fit this criteria in Alameda County are listed on Table 1. Certain of these prime range soils also have a high value on the production of dryland grain and grain hay. These are: | Soil Series | Grain (100 lbs/acre) | Grain Hay (Tons) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | AaC | 25+ | 2+ | | DbC | 25+ | 2+ | | DvC | 25+ | 2+ | | LaC | 25+ | 2+ | | LtD | 25+ | 2+ | ### Unique Agricultural Land Unique farmland is land other than prime farmland that is used for the production of specific high value food and fiber crops. It has the special combination of soil quality, location, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high quality and/or high yields of a specific crop when treated and managed according to modern farming methods. Unique farmland has the following characteristics: 1. It is used for a specific high value crop. 2. It has an adequate moisture supply for the specific crop. 3. It combines favorable factors of soil quality, growing season, temperature, humidity, air drainage, elevation, aspect, or other conditions that favor the growth of a specific crop. (*Almost all of the hills and mountains in Alameda County are used for livestock production. Some of the areas are very steep or rocky or shallow soils, or any combination of limiting factors which do not make them prime range land -- but because of these limiting factors, their highest use is livestock and production.) [^]: *Almost all of the hills and mountains in Alameda County are used for livestock production. Some of the areas are very steep or rocky or shallow soils, or any combination of limiting factors which do not make them prime range land -- but because of these limiting factors, their highest use is livestock and production. TABLE 1 - PRIME AGRICULTURAL SOILS OF ALAMEDA COUNTY [^p31-1] | Soils Series | Water Dry | Water Irrig. | pH | Water Table | Salinity MMHOS/CM | Flood Hazard | Erosion Hazard | Permeability in./hr. | Surface Rock | Irrigated (2) Crops | Dryland Crops | Capa- bility Class | Storie Index | | :--- | :---: | :---: | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | BaA | X | X | 6.8-8.2 | >6.0' | NA | NA | Slight | .6-2.0 | No | Orchard, row, & Field crops, pasture | Grain and grain hay | I | 95 | | CdA | X | X | 6.5-8.2 | >6.0' | NA | NA | Slight | .05-.2 | No | Pasture, row & Field Crops | Grain and grain hay | IIs5 | 49 | | CdB | X | X | 6.5-8.2 | >6.0' | NA | NA | Slight | .05-.2 | No | Pasture, row & Field crops | Grain and grain hay | IIe5 | 46 | | CJA | X | X | 7.0-8.2 | >6.0' | NA | NA | Slight | .8-2.5 | No | Orchard, Vineyard, rose, row and field crops, pasture | Grain and grain hay | I | 95 | | DaA | X | X | 6.1-7.4 | >6.0' | NA | NA | Slight | .05-.2 | NA | Pasture, row & Field crops, roses | Grain and grain hay | IIs3 | 86 | | DaB | X | X | 6.1-7.4 | >6.0' | NA | NA | Slight | .05-.2 | NA | Pasture, row & Field crops, roses | Grain and grain hay | IIe3 | 81 | | Lg | X | X | 6.1-7.4 | >6.0' | NA | NA | Slight | 2.5-10.0 | Some | Vineyard, orchard, pasture | Grain | IIs4 | 63 | | OmA | X | X | 6.6-8.4 | >6.0' | NA | NA | Slight | .05-.2 | NA | Row and Field crops, pasture | Grain and grain hay | IIs5 | 50 | | PgA | X | X | 6.1-7.8 | >6.0' | NA | NA | Slight | .2-2.5 | Some | Vineyard, orchard, roses, row & field crops, pasture | Grain and grain hay | IIs3 | 68 | | PgB | X | X | 6.1-7.8 | >6.0' | NA | NA | Slight- moderate | .2-2.5 | Some | Vineyard, orchard, roses, row and field crops, pasture | Grain and grain hay | IIe3 | 58 | | Rc | X | X | 7.0-7.5 | >6.0' | NA | NA | Slight | .05-.8 | NA | Row & Field crops, orchard, roses | Grain and grain hay | IIs3 | 80 | | RdA | X | X | 7.0-7.5 | >6.0' | NA | NA | Slight | .05-.8 | NA | Row & Field crops, orchard, roses | Grain and grain hay | IIs3 | 68 | | RdB | X | X | 7.0-7.5 | >6.0' | NA | NA | Slight- moderate | .05-.8 | NA | Row & Field crops, orchard, roses | Grain and grain hay | IIIs5 | 65 | [^p31-1]: (footnote text missing from image) [^p31-2]: (footnote text missing from image) TABLE 1 (cont.) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Sl | X | X | 7.9-8.2 | <6.0' | NA | NA | Slight | .2-2.5 | NA | Row & Field crops pasture | Grain and grain hay | IIw2 | 65 | | Sm | X | X | 7.9-8.2 | <6.0' | NA | NA | Slight | .2-2.5 | NA | Row & Field crops pasture | Grain and grain hay | IIw3 | 61 | | Sn | X | X | 7.9-8.2 | >6.0' | NA | NA | Slight | .2-2.5 | NA | Row & Field crops pasture | Grain and grain hay | I | 81 | | So | X | X | 7.9-8.2 | >6.0' | NA | NA | Slight | .8-2.5 | NA | Row & Field crops, vineyard, roses, pasture, orchard | Grain and grain hay | I | 100 | | Sy | X | X | 7.9-8.2 | >6.0' | NA | NA | Slight | .05-2.5 | NA | Row & Field crops, pasture, roses | Grain and grain hay | IIs3 | 72 | | SsA | X | X | 8.0-8.2 | >6.0' | NA | NA | Slight | .2-.8 | NA | Row & Field crops, pasture | Grain and grain hay | I | 95 | | YmA | X | X | 7.4-8.2 | >6.0' | NA | NA | Slight | .8-2.5 | NA | Row & Field crops, pasture, roses, orchard, vineyard | Grain and grain hay | I | 100 | | YmB | X | X | 7.4-8.2 | >6.0' | NA | NA | Slight-moderate | .8-2.5 | NA | " | " | IIe1 | 90 | | Yo | X | X | 7.4-7.8 | >6.0' | NA | NA | Slight | .8-10.7 | NA | " | " | IIIs[^p32-3] | 80 | | Yr | X | X | 7.4-8.2 | >6.0' | NA | NA | Slight | .8-2.5 | NA | " | " | IIs4 | 75 | | Ys | X | X | 7.4-8.2 | >6.0' | NA | NA | Slight | .8-2.5 | NA | " | " | I | 95 | | Za | X | X | 7.4-8.2 | >6.0' | NA | NA | Slight | .2-.8 | NA | " | " | I | 95 | | Zc | X | X | 7.4-8.2 | >6.0' | NA | NA | Slight | .2-.8 | NA | " | " | I | 86 | [^p32-1]: Information taken from Soil Survey, Alameda Area, Ca. USDA-SCS, published 1966 and the 1975 Soil Survey of Western Alameda Co. (not published). [^p32-2]: Row crops include: cabbage, cauliflower, lettuce, romaine, miscellaneous vegetables. Field crops include: corn, tomatoes, cucumbers, irrigated wheat, oats, milo, sugar beets, alfalfa. Orchard crops include: walnuts, cherry, apricot, peach, miscellaneous deciduous fruits. ### TABLE 2 - PRIME RANGE SOILS [^p33-1] | Soil Series | Range Site | Normal Year's Forage Production | AUMs [^p33-2] Per Acre | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | AaC | Clayey | 3000 lbs/acre | 2.5 | | AaD | Clayey | 3000 | 2.5 | | AmE2 | Clayey Hills | 2700 | 2.1 | | ArD | Clayey Hills | 2700 | 2.1 | | AzD | Clayey | 3000 | 2.5 | | AzE2 | Clayey Hills | 2700 | 2.1 | | Cc | Clayey | 3000 | 2.5 | | DbC | Clayey | 3000 | 2.5 | | DbD | Clayey | 3000 | 2.5 | | DbE2 | Clayey Hills | 2700 | 2.1 | | DvC | Clayey | 3000 | 2.5 | | DvD2 | Clayey | 3000 | 2.5 | | LaC | Clayey | 3000 | 2.5 | | LaD | Clayey | 3000 | 2.5 | | LaE2 | Clayey Hills | 2700 | 2.1 | | LpF2 | Loamy Uplands | 2300 | 1.6 | | LsC | Loamy | 2500 | 1.9 | | LtD | Loamy | 2500 | 1.9 | | LtE2 | Loamy Uplands | 2300 | 1.6 | | LuD | Loamy | 2500 | 1.9 | | LuE2 | Loamy Uplands | 2300 | 1.6 | | SdD2 | Loamy | 2500 | 1.9 | | SdE2 | Loamy | 2300 | 1.6 | [^p33-1]: Taken from Alameda Area Soil Survey (1966), pages 42, 43, and 49 [^p33-2]: AUM = Forage Production (lb/ac) - 1000 lb/ac (Protection of soil from erosion) / 800 lb/ac (normal consumption of one Animal Unit in one month) PLATE 2 # PRIME AGRICULTURAL LANDS ## ALAMEDA COUNTY <
> THIS MAP IS INTENDED FOR GENERAL PLANNING. EACH DELINEATION MAY CONTAIN SOILS DIFFERENT FROM THOSE SHOWN ON THE MAP. USE DETAILED SOIL MAPS FOR OPERATIONAL PLANNING, AND ON SITE INSPECTION FOR MORE DETAILED DECISIONS ### LEGEND PA - Prime Agricultural Land PR - Prime Range Land UA - Unique Agricultural Land O - Other Land Source: U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service. June, 1966 NOTE: This is a generalized map to be used only for general purposes and will be supplemented by more detailed maps when available. Alameda County has crops and areas that fit into these criteria. Livermore very gravelly coarse sandy loam (Lm - IVs4) soil is used for high quality grape production. There are areas along the bay where the soils are classed as IIIw5 - Clear Lake clay, IIIw4 - Laugenour loam, and IVw6 - Willows clay, but due to intensive management and the favorable climate are able to produce two and three crops of high value vegetables per year (cauliflower, cabbage, lettuce, romaine, miscellaneous vegetables). Flowers and nursery stock are another high value crop that does not require prime agricultural soils, but a high degree of management and ideal growing climate. These unique crops of Alameda County are usually high in cash value and also lend an air of identification. Locating and mapping of these area of Alameda County will need to be done on an individual survey basis due to lack of information on specific types of soil and land involved. Plate 2 shows the extent of prime agricultural, prime range and unique agricultural lands in Alameda County. Notice that with the minor exception of the "unique" lands, these categories relate only to the soil types, not to the use of the land and consequently cover much developed land. Preliminary estimates of the acres of prime and unique lands in Alameda County are given below: | | | | :--- | :--- | | Prime agricultural lands | 130,969 acres | | Prime rangelands | 185,344 acres | | Unique croplands | 3,968 acres | | | 320,281 acres (68% or total) | | Other | 148,199 acres | | Total County acreage | 468,860 acres | | | | | Lands in Williamson Act Preserves | 180,487.71 acres | ### History of Agriculture in Alameda County The history of agriculture in the County dates back to the middle of the last century when early settlers discovered the potential of the rich soil and mild climate along the bay floodplain. In fact, it was the agricultural resources of the area which gave the Eden Township its name. Fruit culture and vegetable production soon gained prominence in both the Eden and Washington Townships. Wheat continued to be the mainstay in the Murray Township until it was discovered that the climate and valley soils were well suited to the production of quality wine grapes. The Livermore Valley has never been a large producer of wines, but it has long had recognition as an area for the production of high quality white wines. The importance of fresh fruit and vegetable production on the floodplain of the East Bay grew as the San Francisco area increased in population. This urban area provided an ideal market for the high yields of the fertile Alameda County plains. In recent times the relative importance of various agricultural commodities has changed. Urbanization of the western part of the County has eliminated most of the fruit and nut orchards. The Fremont and Union City areas are more specialized, concentrating on cole crops and lettuce. ### Trends in Agriculture An examination of the County Agricultural Commissioners' reports for the period 1950 through 1968 gives an indication of trends in agriculture in the County. The bulk of the income from agricultural commodities produced in the County is from irrigated crops and from livestock. About 4 percent of a total agricultural income of 36 million dollars in 1968 came from non-irrigated or dry-farmed crops. Irrigated crop acreage as reported by the Agricultural Commissioner, has gone from about 28,000 acres in 1950 to 19,500 in 1968. There was a peak of over 33,000 acres irrigated in 1955. Since 1955 there has been a steady decrease averaging about 1,000 acres of irrigated cropland per year. The largest decrease in acreage among irrigated crops between 1950 and 1968 was incurred by field crops, followed by fruit and nut crops, and then by row crops, which lost very little acreage. This would be expected when viewed from an economic point of view since field crops give a lower rate of return per acre than orchard and row crops. Since 1968 some other trends have been manifest. The acres in field crops declined slightly from 1968 to around 1971 and then showed a slight increase through 1975. The acres in fruit and nut crops and especially row crops have decreased through 1975. Cut flowers, bedding plants, vegetables and other nursery products grown in green houses have shown little change from 1968 through 1975. The count of livestock and poultry in Alameda County has seriously declined particularly in 1973 when a major poultry grower moved. Production of the relatively minor apiary products has been erratic in the last eight years as it always is but has shown neither a growth nor a decline trend. There are approximately 3,000 people directly employed in Alameda County agriculture excluding the many thousands indirectly employed such as at the canneries. Despite the downward trend in the number of acres in several types of agriculture, rising productivity and inflation have maintained the value of farm production in Alameda County at within 10% of the same point for the last eleven years. With acreage holding steady, the value of field crops has more than doubled between 1968 and 1975. While this value of vegetable crops slumped from 1968 to 1971, it has since remained relatively constant. Excluding the years 1973 and 1974, when unusually high per acre yields were obtained, the value of fruit and nut crops produced in Alameda County has remained rather constant. Nursery stock and products led by cut flowers, now the County's most valuable agricultural products, have grown steadily in the last decade. The value of poultry and livestock produced in Alameda County has remained relatively constant except for a very successful year in 1974 in spite of declining head counts. Table 3 gives the value of various crop types produced in Alameda County between 1968 and 1975. TABLE 3 VALUE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION BY TYPE OF CROP: ALAMEDA COUNTY, 1968-1975, ($MILLION) | Crop | 1968 | 1969 | 1970 | 1971 | YEAR 1972 | 1973 | 1974 | 1975 | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Field Crops | 2.381 | 2.532 | 2.608 | 3.217 | 2.635 | 3.606 | 4.907 | 5.312 | | Vegetable Crops | 9.078 | 6.145 | 7.452 | 5.525 | 5.130 | 5.503 | 5.280 | 5.954 | | Fruit and Nut Crops | 1.760 | 1.749 | 1.191 | 1.716 | 1.907 | 3.102 | 2.213 | 1.567 | | Nursery Products | 5.937 | 6.274 | 6.379 | 6.273 | 6.312 | 7.557 | 8.349 | 9.665 | | Cut Flowers | 10.200 | 10.437 | 9.488 | 10.481 | 10.127 | 10.588 | 10.549 | 11.238 | | Livestock and Poultry | 5.289 | 5.426 | 5.297 | 5.210 | 5.068 | 7.419 | 5.611 | 5.863 | | Livestock and Poultry Products | 1.632 | 1.346 | 0.711 | 1.780 | 0.973 | 2.357 | 0.320 | 0.195 | | Apiary Products | 0.019 | 0.038 | 0.018 | 0.022 | 0.031 | 0.055 | 0.046 | 0.048 | | **Total** | **36.295** | **33.946** | **33.144** | **34.225** | **32.183** | **40.186** | **37.274** | **39.841** | ### History of Urbanization in Alameda County A look at the way in which urbanization has progressed in each of the Sounty County planning units gives an indication of the impact this urbanization has had on agriculture in the County. The Central Metropolitan Planning Unit is not considered because it developed before the decline of agriculture in the County. Particular attention is given to irrigated lands, as opposed to dry farmed or grazing lands, because most of the urbanization has taken place on irrigable land, The loss of agricultural lands began with the expansion of Hayward and San Leandro during World War II. The Eden Planning Unit has been an area dominated by orchard crops of apricots, prunes and cherries before their demise under urban pressures. The 1966 crop survey done by the State Department of Water Resources showed only 300 acres of irrigated cropland remaining in an area approximately equal to the south half of the Eden Planning Unit. Most of the urban growth in the Washington Planning Unit has been since 1950 when it had a population of less than 20,000. The latest population estimate is 144,500 as of January 1, 1970. This growth in population resulted in a decrease of irrigated acreage from 18,000 acres in 1960 when the population was 60,926 to 8,300 acres in 1966 according to the State Department of Water and Resources report. The population in July 1966 was estimated to be 122,500. This is a loss of almost 10,000 acres of irrigated lands in six years with an increase in population of about 61,500 over the same time period. The Livermore-Amador Valley Planning Unit also shows a high recent growth pattern. It has increased from a population of about 16,000 in 1950 to 79,400 as of January 1, 1970. The State's report shows 6,400 acres as irrigated in 1960 when the population was 29,640, and the same irrigated acreage in 1966. The same report shows an increase in urban acreage of 2,800 acres, having increased from 7,400 in 1960 to 10,200 in 1966. Much of the development in the Livermore-Amador Valley occurred on non-irrigated lands and some lands not previously irrigated were brought into production between 1960 and 1966. As was pointed out above, the total irrigated acreage for Alameda County over the thirteen year period from 1955 to 1968 has gone from 33,000 acres to about 20,000 acres. Most of this decrease is attributable to urbanization. With the urbanization of County lands has come increased levels of air pollution. Whether or not air pollution has had a deleterious effect on agriculture is the subject of some debate and is being studied further by scientists of both pollution control and agricultural backgrounds. ### The Role of Agriculture in the Economy of the County The importance of agriculture to the economy of the County might best be evaluated by a review of the number of jobs and the amount of money involved. Data from the California State Department of Employment shows that there were 20,800 people employed either directly in agriculture or in food processing in Alameda County for the year 1968. Alameda County Planning Department projections to the year 1972 indicate employment of 21,400 in the same categories. These figures represent about 4.7% of total employment in the County for 1968 and an estimated 4.3% in 1972. The economic impact of agriculture includes the manufacture and distribution of farm supplies, processing of food and other agricultural products and distribution of farm commodities. The combined aspects of agriculture is terms "agribusiness". Agribusiness employs nearly 25% of all those employed in manufacturing in the County as there were 16,100 persons employed in Food and Kindred Products in addition to 4,700 employed directly by agriculture for a total of 20,800 out of a total manufacturing employment of 84,800 in 1968. The Food and Kindred Products portion of agribusiness had a payroll of over 100 million dollars in 1963 compared to about 500 million for all manufacturing. Alameda County owes a large share of its employment in food processing to its strategic location and port facilities. Many of the products grown in the Central Valley and shipped through Alameda County are processed here before shipment to markets throughout the world via the Port of Oakland. The annual gross income of agricultural products in the County has not varied much since 1945, even with the decrease in agricultural lands. Gross income hit a peak in 1952 of over 38 million dollars and was between 31-33 million from 1961 to 1965. The 1968 figure was 36 million dollars. The true value of these figures is distorted to the extent that inflation has affected dollar values. The reason for the apparent paradox--a decrease in agricultural land with no decrease in gross income--is explained by the fact that land use is intensified and yields are increased by use of new varieties and technological improvements as pressure for other land uses increases. Indicative of this trend is the fact that greenhouse and nursery stock production grossed 7.3 million dollars in 1950 and 16.1 million dollars in 1968. Population pressures affect ornamental horticulture less than any other agricultural enterprise because it requires very little land and has a very high rate of return per acre. ### LOCATION OF MAJOR AGRICULTURAL ENTERPRISES #### Greenhouse and Nursery Stock Some of the greenhouse industry is interspersed with urban development in San Lorenzo, San Leandro and Hayward. Fremont and Union City also have an appreciable greenhouse industry. There are several factors working against the greenhouse industry. Among these are land prices age of producer, lack of modern equipment and smog. Smog has a serious effect on carnations and orchids. #### Grapes The production of wine grapes has continued in the County since the days of the missions and it looks as though they will remain for a long period of time. There were 500 acres planted near Sunol this year and 500 acres more are planned for next year. Wines produced in Livermore Valley are widely known for their quality. Added to the value of the grapes and wine is the scenic beauty of the vineyards and the prestige value of producing some of the worlds finest wines. #### Row Crops About 75 percent of the Alameda County row crops mapped by the Department of Water Resources in 1966 were in the Fremont-Alvarado areas while the remainder was in the Livermore-Amador Valley. In addition to these areas, the portion of the County which touches the floor of the Central Valley is primarily used for row crops. The Fremont-Alvarado area warrants special mention here as it is one of only four areas in the State in which head lettuce can be raised throughout the summer. All four areas, which have a coastal climate in combination with prime soils and adequate water, are presently under heavy pressure from forces of urbanization. #### Hay and Grain Dry farmed hay and grain acreage is holding steady as most of these crops are grown in the hill areas away from urban pressure. Irrigated pasture and alfalfa are being converted to urban use or to more intensive agricultural uses. In both the Livermore and the Washington Planning Unit the acreage of pasture and alfalfa combined decreased about 30% between 1960 and 1966 according to the State Report. ### Livestock Production Over half of the total area of the County is presently in range land is shown as uncultivated agriculture on the General Plan. Since there is not likely to be much decrease in range land in the near future, the livestock industry, with the exception of dairying, is expected to remain stable. ### Poultry Production During World War II there was a large poultry industry centered in the Castro Valley-Hayward area on several thousand family farms; however, between 1950 and 1968 both egg and meat production in the County have been reduced to less than half the 1950 level having gone from 7.5 million to 3.6 million dollars gross income. ## D. Vegetation and Wildlife Resources ### 1. Classification of Natural Communities - Shoreline Area The western portion of Alameda County consists of an urban corridor running between Berkeley and Fremont with a narrow fringe of marshlands along the Bay and considerable open space in the East Bay Hills. Of the 206,740 acres in the Central Metropolitan, Eden, and Washington Planning Units, approximately 80,810 acres would fall into the land use categories of uncultivated/undeveloped or major parks and recreation. Conditions in the East Bay Hills are similar to that found in the lowland hills in the Livermore Valley. The plant-animal-human interference patterns will be discussed. Numerous Environmental Impact Reports prepared by cities and the County on projects located in the Hills describe localized environmental settings. Also of great utility and importance is the report done for the City of Hayward, the Hayward Hill Study[^p41-1] This report contains detailed discussions of all natural physical-biological conditions unique to the Hill Area in Alameda County. Less often mentioned, but more in need of reduction of all forms of pressure from human interference (through coordinated planning), is the narrow and fragile Bay marshland lying between San Leandro and Fremont. The remnants of what was once an undisturbed system of marshes and estuaries provides the diversity of habitat necessary to support many species of aquatic and terrestrial animals. The extensive salt evaporation ponds have provided a unique and sensitive habitat. The abundance of animal life in this rich habitat is a continuing proof of the health and vitality of the area. ### Introduction[^p41-2] Historically, most of the Hayward Shoreline Study Area was subject to tidal action, either as mudflats or salt marsh. The remainder were uplands probably covered with grassland or brush. Old accounts tell of abundant marine life in the Bay, including sea otters and salmon. The present land use is dominated by man's activities; the marine life is vulnerable to man's pollution of the Bay. Most of the original salt marsh has been diked off from tidal action and thus destroyed. In the portion north of the San Mateo Bridge, the diked areas are mainly dry and are used for sanitary landfill and grazing. In the portion south of the San Mateo Bridge, most of the diked land is in salt ponds. The shoreline environment or ecosystem (involving the interrelationship of organisms and environment) consists of many parts: open water in the Bay; mudflats exposed at low tides; shoreward stands of cordgrass; and landward, pickleweed. The vegetation serves as the broad food base for marsh and bay animals, and as habitat for many species. Six different ecosystems have been recognized in the Shoreline Area: SHALLOW BAY WATER, TIDAL MUDFLATS, SALT MARSH, SALT PONDS AND DIKES, MINOR MISCELLANEOUS HABITATS (dry dikes areas and seasonal fresh water ponds, and upland habitats: fields and pastures, isolated hills, and residential-industrial areas). [^p41-1]: Hayward Planning Department, Hayward Hill Area Study, April, 1971. [^p41-2]: This report is excerpted from Hayward Shoreline Environmental Analysis. It is entitled "Ecology" written by John Werminski. ### SHALLOW BAY WATER AND TIDAL MUDFLATS These two important habitats are represented by some 9,500 acres in the planning area. In some respects the open bay and mudflat areas appear to be distinct entities, but on the other hand, they are united by a number of physical and biological circumstances into a larger ecological unit which is difficult to subdivide. The bay shoreline environment is dominated by a tidal rhythm that consists of two high tides of unequal magnitude and two low tides also of different heights during the course of a 25-hour "lunar day." Although this constant movement of tremendous quantities of salt water affects the open bay, tidal influences are most dramatic along the strip of periodically-exposed mudflats - the intertidal zone. The shallow bayshore waters of the planning area teem with a wide variety of minute marine organisms that form the first links or base levels of food chains and energy pyramids that eventually incorporate all the larger fish, birds, and mammals that live, feed, and die along the edge of the bay. The microscopic planktonic plant life is dominated by diatoms, with over 25 genera found in San Francisco Bay. In terms of minute animals life, protozoans are similarly quite abundant - sometimes to the degree of twenty thousand per quart of salt water - and include at least six different genera, mainly ciliated and flagellated forms. In addition, Harvey (1971) recognizes four major groups of planktonic invertebrate animals in the bay that feed on the microscopic marine life and in turn are preyed upon by larger forms. They are (1) polychaete larvae (segmented worms), (2) copepods (crustaceans) - the most abundant, in concentrations of up to 75 per quart, (3) fish larvae, and (4) snail larvae. Also, there are two ecologically important types of shrimp that inhabit the local waters: the Black-tail Shrimp (Crago nigricauda), and the Bay Shrimp (Crago franciscorum), once highly prized for human food. About 125 species of fish have been reported from San Francisco Bay, some of which are known to be quite abundant. Great numbers of Striped Bass (Roccus saxatilis) come through the bay to spawn, as do some Steelhead Trout (Salmo Gairdnerii). Certain bait fish like Northern Anchovy (Engraulis mordax) and bottom fish like shiner Seaperch (Cymatogaster aggregata) are very numerous as well. While there is evidence that the diversity of fish species decreases southward in San Francisco Bay, at least twenty South Bay fish attain some degree of commonness. Seventy species were found by the California Department of Fish and Game in a 1963-66 study in the central and south parts of the bay. At the closest station, although seven miles northwest of Hayward, from 2 to 17 species were found per month by sample (average 9). Those in greatest numbers were the Northern Anchovy, Pacific Herring, Jacksmelt, Shiner Perch (May, December) and English Sole. The thriving community of organisms that live on and in the bay muds is a major element of the shoreline environment. Here as in the shallow water, plants and animals range from microscopic to moderate-sized forms. Many of them serve as initial or intermediate steps or links in chains of food, transfers of energy, and in webs of interrelationship which often extend beyond the muds to the open water or may reach inland to the bay plain. PLATE 3 SALMON AND STEELHEAD TROUT IN SAN FRANCISCO BAY <
> Source : S. F. Bay Conservation and Development Commission, San Francisco Bay Plan Supplement, page 48. Like the shallow water, the moist bay muds are inhabited by large numbers of small, relatively simple forms of life. Single-celled blue-green algae may abound on the surface, and types of multicellular red algae and green algae (such as the conspicuous Sea Lettuce, (Ulva sp.) may be found in quantity as well. Even so, the chief photosynthetic organisms are probably benthic (bottom-dwelling) diatoms, found within the upper centimeter of the muds. Well over one hundred species of invertebrates have been collected from San Francisco Bay muds. Among these are certain roundworms (nematodes), ribbon worms (nemerteans), and such segmented worms (annelids) as Nereis diversicolor and the Pile Worm, Neanthes succinea. Crustacens present in or around the muds include small amphipods (such as Ampelisca milleri), commercial crabs (Cancer magister), and Shore Crabs (Hemigrapsus oregonensis), with barnacies (Balanus spp.) living on nearby objects. The east shore community of burrowing animals includes a number of moluscs - both "filter feeders" (strainers) such as mussels and clams the commonest species being the Macoma inconspicus, and "deposit feeders" (that ingest mud) like the California Horn Snail (Certhidea californica). The complex biological environment that has been outlined above is indispensable for supporting the huge populations of waterfowl that seasonally visit the shallow waters and mudflats of San Francisco Bay. Cogswell (1973) lists 94 species of waterfowl that have been observed in the Hayward shoreline planning area; of these, 72 can be expected in the bay or on the tideflats. They range from rare winter visitants like Whistling Swans (Olor columbianus) and Snow Geese (Chen hyperborea) that are only irregularly seen to massive flocks of Western Sandpipers (Ereunetes mauri) that at times may number one hundred thousand or more. In many respects the highly-conspicuous waterfowl population seems to dominate the total wildlife picture along the edge of the bay. Annually the Pacific Flyway deposits additional hundreds of thousands of migrating birds to whom San Francisco Bay is a vitally important feeding and resting area. Some pass through in spring and fall, while others stay to winter in the shelter of the bay. When these are temporarily added to the resident breeding waterfowl population, the numbers of birds found locally can attain remarkable proportions: densities of up to twenty thousand shorebirds per shoreline mile have been reported. In all, South Bay shoreline habitats supply food, shelter, and resting places through the winter for perhaps seventy percent of all the diving ducks and shore birds of the Pacific Flyway. The South Bay and within it, the Hayward Shoreline area supports major segments of these large numbers. While the implications of such sheer numbers can be staggering, the dynamic, ever-changing nature of the waterfowl population is equally as impressive from an ecological point of view. The over-all population is always in a state of flux - a dynamic equilibrium - as the component species alternately arrive and leave to add or subtract their numbers from the total, and so from week to week the waterfowl picture changes in terms of dominant types and relative numbers. Even during the course of a day the shorebirds shift from place to place within a given area as the tidal rhythm superimposes itself upon the longer seasonal cycle. As was mentioned earlier, waterfowl ecology in our area is inextricably bound to the bayshore muds and shallows with their diversity of invertebrates and fish. Since most waterfowl seem to be capable of detecting differences between the two common shore area habitats, one of the most useful ways to distinguish bay water from tideflats is by a comparison of their bird populations. As a rule, the open bay waters are visited by loons, greves, pelicans, cormorants, geese, mergansers, phalaropes, and terns, and are also preferred by most diving ducks; when disturbed, several of the "dabbling" ducks will leave shore to congregate in floating "rafts" on the water as well. Conversely, tideflats host herons, egrets, plovers, avocets, stilts, and probing shorebirds. The environmental importance of the bay water-tideflat complex is considerable. Plant productivity for the mudflats may in places exceed two thousand pounds per surface acre, a figure which - in the absence of pollutants in excessive sedimentation - could even be increased. Together, the phytoplankton and bottom-dwelling vegetation of the water and mud operate as an "interdependent biochemical factory" that harnesses solar energy, releases oxygen, absorbs carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfides, and fixes carbonates, nitrates, and phosphates. Much of this material is transformed through a variety of channels and organisms to ultimately provide the wealth of invertebrate and vertebrate animal life that characterizes the bayshore environment. The ebb and flow of tides maintain a vital circulation system that disperses nutrients that come from within and beyond the shoreline area. ### SALT MARSH At one time the salt marsh habitat was one of the dominant elements of the Hayward shoreline, both in terms of the area it covered and in its ecological significance. Today in the planning area, less than four hundred acres remain - about five percent of the original total - that still deserve this designation. There are two major salt marsh areas, encompassing approximately 250 acres, located north and south of the mouth of the Alameda Creek Flood Control channel. A third diked marsh of moderate extent has been mapped northwest of Turk Island, along Plumber Slough, elsewhere, lesser strips and patches can be found along some of the creek channels and bordering parts of the bay. Salt marshes generally occur at levels slightly higher than (and inland from) the tideflats but, like the mudflats, exist in a "not-quite-water, not-quite-land" situation. The environmental rigors of a salt marsh community include, among others, regular fluctuations of temperature and tide. To plants and animals alike, the salt marsh is a "chemical desert" with a scarcity of fresh water, a salty, alkaline soil, and an exposure to the drying effects of wind and evaporation - conditions which in many ways are as severe to life as those of a climatic desert. Salt Marsh Vegetation Most types of Bay Area vegetation, whether native or introduced, would find such environmental conditions prohibitively hostile. But in the salt marshes, two major plant associations have evolved to utilize and flourish under these circumstances; together, they form the basis of a remarkably rich and productive habitat. In our area each of these associations is dominated by a single plant species: generally speaking, most salt marsh acreage consists of a solid, dense groundcover of Pickeweed (Salicornia sp.), with strips of Cordgrass (Spartina foliosa) occupying the shallow sloughs. Studies have shown that substratas usually have a lower shear strength and dry density under Cordgrass than under a Pickelweed marsh, and that soil erodibility and moisture content tend to be higher when associated with Cordgrass than with Pickelweed. Cordgrass is tremendously important in the economy of a salt marsh because of its extremely high productivity. Termed the "staff of life" for bay animals, it helps purify the air and produces five to ten times more nutrient material and oxygen per acre than well-known commercial crops such as wheat. Although it provides habitat and foraging niches for certain animals, Cordgrass become most ecologically valuable when it decomposes, thereby releasing nutrients that are washed into intertidal water to feed invertebrates and fertilize algae beds. Unlike Cordgrass, which can endure up to 21 hours of continuous submergence, Pickleweed - the most widespread salt marsh plant - is less water tolerant and begins its best growth at the average high tide line. Its curious, succulent stems are characteristic of bayshore soils with salt contents as high as 6[^1/2] percent, and its root masses give stability to the banks of brackish channelways. <
> Wildlife of the Salt Marshes A variety of insects can be found in or around the salt marshlands, including moths, butterflies, beetles, ants, wasps, bumblebees, and the like. As its name implies the Salt Marsh Fly (Ephydra spp.) lives only around the marshes and salt ponds; likewise, the Salt Marsh Mosquito (Aedes Squanmiger, A. dorsalis) lays its eggs in quiet marshland ponds away from tidal currents. Some salt marshes around San Francisco Bay play host to common shallow water fish such as anchovies, smelt, sculpin, and surfperch at high tide, with Three-spine Stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) sometimes remaining in nearby sloughs and potholes; however, it is not known if such species inhabit marshlands of the planning area. Similarly, Gopher Snakes (Pituophis catenifer) are reputed to invade upper salt marsh areas in the South Bay, but observations have not confirmed this along the Hayward shore. In the planning area some 27 species of birds have been observed in salt marsh habitat, and at least eight others - perhaps more - may be found there from time to time as well. Over half of these are waterbirds, including a relatively high proportion of "wading" birds, probing shorebirds, and rails, while the rest are species usually associated with adjacent inland areas, such as hawks, insectivorous birds, and others. Two of these birds, the Clapper Rail (Rallus longirostris) and a subspecies of Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia pusillula), are critically dependent upon the salt marsh habitat for their survival. An estimated thirty to fifty Clapper Rails - officially listed by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service as an endangered species - live in the patches of salt marsh at the mouth of the Alameda Creek channel, where they nest amidst the Pickleweed. Cogswell (1973) believes the Black Rail (Laterallus jamaicensis), rare to our area, may occur there as well. The Song Sparrow subspecies, also a local resident, is restricted in its range to salt marshlands and adjacent dikes about San Francisco Bay from Richmond southward; probably their total population in the planning area is at least three to four hundred. In addition, the bulk of the planning area lies between the known ranges of a rare species of Salt Marsh Harvest Mice (Reithrodontomys spp.), the Red-bellied Harvest Mouse (R. raviventris), endemic to South Bay San Francisco, San Pablo and Suisun Bay salt marshes, and a close relative, the Western Harvest Mouse (R. megalotis), which is widespread over most of western United States. Interestingly, the Red-bellied Harvest Mouse feeds on Pickleweed, drinks salt water, and excretes salt with its urine. By elimination of its habitat, this species is threatened with extinction. In our area, Harvey (1971) suggests that one of the two may possibly inhabit the salt marshes at the channel mouth of Alameda Creek. Ecological Overview Despite their spatial limitations, the strips and patches of salt marsh along the Hayward shoreline occupy a prominent place in the over-all environmental picture of the planning area. They support a wealth of interrelated - and sometimes specially adapted - organisms that range from inconspicuous algae growing on Pickleweed stems to graceful Marsh Hawks soaring overhead. They have served as part of a special "evolutionary laboratory" that today provides sanctuary for several rare and endangered species. And their luxuriant swaths of Cordgrass have helped earn the salt marshes their position as the most productive type of natural vegetation in North America. For the ecological reasons outlined above, salt marshes should be given very high environmental priority in any plan for the use of bayshore lands. ## SALT PONDS AND DIKES ### Salt Production Around South San Francisco Bay, much of what were formerly inland tidelands have been diked to create evaporating ponds for salt extraction. In the planning area, slightly over five thousand acres are presently in diked and ponded areas, and additional land, now dry, can be recognized as prior salt pond sites. Salt ponds represent one of the most variable planning area habitats from the standpoint of the plant and animal life they are capable of supporting. Dissolved oxygen levels in the water increase and decrease significantly through time, creating a problem for pond life that is aggravated at night because aquatic plants consume, rather than release, oxygen in the dark, thereby further reducing the amount of this vital gas. In fact, decaying organisms can totally deplete the available oxygen at times, locally creating what is termed an "anoxic" situation. The availability of nutrients may likewise beomce a limiting factor for life and growth, as nutrient materials are rapidly assimilated by plants and animals in the low salinity ponds and remain "tied up" there until they are eventually released by bacterial action. All of these elements contribute to the rigors of the salt pond environment. Even so, an interesting diversity of living forms inhabit at least some of the salt ponds. Probably the major food-producing organisms are a variety of algae and dinoflagellates. Rotifers, roundworms, and Mud Snails (Nassarius sp.) are among the invertebrate animals that flourish in some of the salt ponds, feeding on the algae and on each other. Other common to abundant organisms include Scuds or Fairy Shrimp (Callianassa sp.), Brine Shrimp (Artemia salina), copepods, Waterboatman (Trichocorixa reticulata), Brine Flies (Ephydra cineria), seed shrimp, and polychaete worms. Certain fish may also inhabit the salt ponds. Threespine Sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus) are sometimes prevalent in low-salinity waters, while Topsmelt (Atherinops affinis) are capable of tolerating slightly high salt concentrations. Above six percent salinity the last remaining fish perish. The mudsucker, (Gillichthys mirabilis) survives in salty water and has been grown commercially as bait fish in some of the Leslie Salt Company ponds. <
> WHITE PELICAN CLAPPER RAIL (RARE AND ENDANGERED) LEAST TERN (RARE AND ENDANGERED) SONG SPARROW (RARE AND ENDANGERED) BLACK-NECKED STILT BUFFLEHEAD RED-BELLIED HARVEST MOUSE (RARE AND ENDANGERED) Waterfowl of the Salt Ponds Of vertebrate animals that inhabit the salt pond areas, birds are by far the most conspicuous. In one study of five ponds during a two-year period (Anderson, 1970), over three hundred thousand birds were sighted in an area of about 2,500 acres. Comparable waterfowl abundance can be demonstrated in the Hayward shoreline planning area - ducks have been seen in concentrations of over ten thousand per square mile on local low-salinity ponds, while 17,000 Ruddy Ducks (Oxyura jamaicensis) have been sighted in one day on two salt ponds south of the old Alameda Creek channel. Bird diversity also tends to be unusually high in the salt pond habitat. Of the 94 waterbirds that have been observed in the planning area, better than 65 - over seventy percent - have been sighted in salt pond areas; and interestingly, at least a dozen "land" birds can be found here at times as well. Most salt pond birds also spend a good deal of time locally in other types of habitat. A large number of "open bay" species visit the ponds, including greves, geese, cormorants, phalaropes, Bonaparte's Gulls (Larus philadelphia), and terns, while Scaup (Aythya sp.) and other ducks feed heavily on the ponds, especially in rough weather. Similarly, many mudflat birds - such as herons, egrets, plovers, probing shorebirds, American Avocets (Recurvirostra americana), Black-necked Stilts (Himantopus mexicanus), and gulls - can be found in salt pond areas, especially during periods of high tide. Black-bellied Plovers, and nearly all the species of Sandpipers (i.e., the bulk of the tideflat feeders) use the salt ponds during high tide periods primarily for roosting. A few birds even show strong preference for the salt pond habitat such as the White Pelican (Pelecanus erythrorynchos) and the Eared Grebe (Podiceps caspicus) and the Bufflehead (Bucephala albeola), a diving duck, also occur most regularly on salt ponds, particularly those of middle-range salinities where Brine Shrimp abound. Also, all of the world's three existing phalarope species - the Red Phalarope (Phalaropus fulicarius), Wilson's Phalarope (Steganopus tricolor), and the Northern Phalarope (Lobipes lobatus) - occur on salt ponds of the Hayward area shoreline as migrants, two of them seeming to show marked preference for those ponds over other local habitats. Recent studies of the relationship between salt ponds and wildlife have revealed some interesting facts about the food sources of salt pond waterfowl. Greves, for instance, were found to ingest quantities of Brine Shrimp; shorebirds ate considerable numbers of Brine Fly larvae and puparla; Water-boatman appear to be a key food item of phalaropes; and polychaete worms were an important source of nourishment to Willets. Some birds exhibited dietary habits that may restrict them to certain of the ponds; as one example, certain ducks consumed rather high proportions of Widgeon Grass seeds, which in turn are produced only in ponds of relatively low salinity. In any event, waterbirds are not evenly distributed along the salt pond salinity sequence. Dabbling ducks, Coots, and fish-eating birds (such as terns, egrets, mergansers, and pelicans) prefer waters with the lowest salt content. On the other hand, diving ducks, grebes, phalaropes, and Bonaparte's Gulls demonstrate a high degree of salinity tolerance and a preference for food items existing in ponds of higher salinity. Shorebirds, however, will use for roost purposes ponds that are shallow enough for wading, irrespective of salinity. Harvey (1973) has tentatively ranked salt ponds of the planning area according to relative wildlife value. Based on cursory observation he would, in general, rank the ponds between Coyote Hills Slough and Alameda Creek as highest in wildlife value. The western section of ponds between Alameda Creek and the San Mateo Bridge were ranked as of moderate value, and those of the eastern portion were thought to have a low value. Also, the ponds north of the approach to the San Mateo Bridge appeared to be of moderate value. However, it was explained that a study over at least a year's time would be necessary to confirm these estimated evaluations of the ponds. ### The Dike Environment Of 28 plants that were found growing on the dikes of the salt ponds, 21 of them are alien (not native to the area). For the most part these are plants that colonize disturbed areas, and that are able to successfully compete for space against native species by virtue of their modifications for enduring drought, their high reproductive rates, and in most cases by an annual (single growing season) life style. That three-fourths of these plants are adapted to the man-made dike environment tells us, in effect, that their presence is more the result of human intervention in the area than of any inherent biological richness of this particular habitat. This situation contrasts clearly with that of the salt marsh, where the entire habitat is dominated by native plants such as Cordgrass and Pickleweed. Transition plants found between marsh and dike - such as Marsh Grindelia, Fat Hen, and Alkali Heath - are native to California as well. Unlike many of the aliens, these natives represent stable forms whose long-term presence in the region has allowed them to integrate into complex ecological associations; as an example, Marsh Grindelia is a valuable forage plant for many insects, such as bees and butterflies, and also for seed-eating birds. For such reasons, as well as for their historical significance, the native plants must be regarded as important and valuable members of the natural community. In our area certain waterbirds - avocets, Black-necked Stilts, Forster's Terns, and Snowy Plovers - frequently nest on dikes; and from a regional standpoint, several Caspian Tern nesting colonies on salt pond dikes in San Francisco Bay are important ones in North America. Whether for nesting or for roosting, one main reason that dikes are useful for waterfowl is because of their isolation. Cogswell (1973) believes that such areas, protected from disturbance by humans, dogs, motor vehicles, and the like, are one of the most critical habitat features for probing shorebirds in a metropolitan area. ### TYPICAL SLOUGH - SALT POND LEVEE CROSS SECTION[^p52-1] <
> [^p52-1]: SOURCE: ADAPTED FROM TUDOR - 1972 ### Ecological Overview In the last analysis, the planning area's salt pond-dike system is something of a biological anomaly. The levees, power lines, and concentrations of brine underscore the highly altered nature of this environment, which has been described as "an intricate and fascinating system, a part of the largest solar evaporation plant complex in the world, and a colorful and important segment of the industrial community of the San Francisco Bay Region." As a setting for life, the value of this habitat can be exceedingly variable, ranging from barren, salt-encrusted margins of some of the ponds to spectacular displays of pelicans, egrets, and herons that can be found in season - at the right places. The areas on and around the dikes are home to a curious sequence of high-adopted plants that live under conditions which are prohibitive to the vast majority of members of the plant kingdom. Besides serving as a wildlife habitat, salt pond areas have several other values that extend beyond the limitations of salt production. They support compatible commercial enterprises like brine shrimp production and marketing of bait fish. Waterfowling leases are an additional area of economic and recreational interest; in our area, duck hunters visit Leslie Salt Company ponds as well as the gun club ponds to the east of them. ### MINOR MISCELLANEOUS HABITATS Limited acreages of two other habitat types occur in the planning area: diked dry areas and freshwater ponds. Because they play relatively minor roles in the overall ecological pitcure, they will be treated briefly here. ### Dry Diked Areas and Dumps About 1,700 acres of planning area terrain are presently diked off and relatively dry. Since some of this area is composed of previous salt ponds, relatively high salinity can be a limiting environmental factor. For this reason and because of their aridity, Harvey (1973) considers these areas to be particularly low in ecological value since they lack much life; but he notes that, like low-value salt ponds, they serve as open-space areas that do not contribute greatly to air pollution and do not restrict air movement - thus are ecologically more valuable in their present state than they would be if urbanized. Of some interest is the dump at the end of West Winton Avenue, which belongs to this general habitat type. As a rule, sanitary fills tend to smell bad and are unsightly; in addition, rainfall-leaching (and flood-leaching) in dump areas can result in seepage of polluted water and contamination of the environment. Despite these detrimental impacts, however, considerable wildlife may be attracted to disposal sites. While sanitary fills are never balanced ecosystems - vegetation cannot find a foothold in an active site - the fill does contribute a supporting food niche to adjacent habitats. In particular, hordes of gulls are commonplace - up to 13,000 of these birds have been reported in winter at the Winton Avenue site. ### Seasonal Freshwater Ponds and Related Habitats Limited amounts of shallow freshwater habitat are present in the planning area, the exact acreage varying with the time of year. This important, non-saline aquatic element is provided primarily by gun club ponds, the oxidation ponds of the sewage treatment plant, and winter floodplain accumulations. Freshwater habitats in general - ponds, marshes, or others - often contain a variety of green plants which, in turn, support a diverse pyramid of life, from aquatic micro-organisms to the larger, more conspicuous forms. ### "Upland" Areas In addition to its other major habitats, the Hayward shoreline planning area contains over two thousand acres of land which have been collectively termed "upland" terrain. These uplands occupy an irregular strip along the northeastern boundary of the planning area behind the mudflats, salt marshes and salt ponds; essentially they are part of the extensive "bay plain" region upon which San Lorenzo, Hayward, and Alvarado have been built. They include land now in residential or industrial use (not discussed here) and also grassy or weedy land which now lies fallow. Much of the area is underlain by a substratum which is too high - in some cases only by a matter of a few feet - for tide flooding. While parts of it may be flooded by winter rains, the land is comparatively dry. Salt or brackish water often lies only a short distance below ground level, so that deep-rooted plants do not grow well. Prolonged exposure to sun and wind are other limiting physical elements of the fallow upland habitat. In terms of component vegetation the open upland areas closely resemble the dikes, except that many of the native salt-tolerant species may be absent. As on the dikes, several important non-native grass species are joined by a diverse group of other non-native herbaceous plants, resulting in a 'weedy' groundcover that extends beyond the fields and pastures to re-invade the fringes of adjacent developed areas. Fields and other undeveloped upland areas are capable of providing habitat for an interesting variety of animals. A wide variety of insects are found here. Reptiles include the Western Fence Lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis) and the Gopher Snake (Pituophis catenifer). A large proportion of the planning area's 'land bird' species are associated with relatively undeveloped upland habitats, and a number of water birds sometimes find their way into the area as well. Common mammals to be expected include, among other, Black-tailed Jack Rabbits (Lepus californicus), Gophers (Thomomys bottae), California Ground Squirrels (Citellus beecheyi), and California Meadow Mice (Microtus californicus). In the uplands, as elsewhere, an interlocking web of life binds many of these forms together. ### Isolated Hills Near the southern boundary of the planning area a pair of small hills rise conspicuously above the bay plain. Physiographically these are a northern extension of the Coyote Hills, and the most prominent of the two, known as Turk Island, attains a maximum elevation of only 116 feet above sea level. Even so, this difference in height, slope, and substrata - and perhaps in human land use - is sufficient to produce a marked change in the vegetation of these areas and to permit many wildflowers and other plants to flourish on these low hills that may be absent or uncommon elsewhere in the planning area. For the most part, the plants of these hills are quite typical of grasslands throughout the coast ranges of central California and are therefore not actually rare or endangered species. But in the larger sense, the isolated nature of the hills places them in an ecological situation which - in its undeveloped state - is quite uncommon along the shore of San Francisco Bay. Well over forty different kinds of plants are found on or at the foot of the hills. In a vegetational sense, then, the hills should be ranked among the richest and most diverse of habitats to be found in the planning area. *** ### Planning Implications In the Hayward Shoreline area are major habitats that are more valuable than others. The salt marsh is most valuable, followed by open water, mudflats, and some salt ponds. Upland areas and dry diked areas rank lowest. From every ecological standpoint, the small patches of salt marsh at the end of the Alameda Flood Control channel should remain inviolate. Because of the dependence of several rare species on this specific habitat (including the Clapper Rail, a subspecies of Song Sparrow, and possibly the Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse) and because of the extremely high productivity of its biological system, the existing salt marsh areas should definitely be retained. Other suitable shoreline areas (such as some low-salinity salt ponds) should be encouraged to revert to this habitat form. Other areas exposed to tidal action - the mudflats and open waters - should be exempted from further development. They are necessary for the support of large, attractive migratory waterfowl populations, and they are instrumental in the circulation of nutrients upon which the bay's fishery depends. Diking of the bay greatly diminished wildlife values in many areas and continued filling would be unwise. Sanitary filling destroys habitats of biological worth. If salt production is curtailed, low-salinity ponds may be re-exposed to tidal action through dike breaching and in a relatively short time should revert to high-quality salt marsh. Some low to moderate salinity salt ponds should be retained since a wide variety of water birds use them. Salt pond dikes possess a biological value primarily as root sites and should not be disturbed. Freshwater habitat is nearly absent in the planning area. Any increase in the acreage of freshwater ponds would be desirable and highly beneficial to wildlife. The residential and industrial areas of the "uplands" have low ecological values, however the isolated hills in the southern portion, in particular, contain biological features (an uncommon plant assemblage) that merit their preservation. The wildlife habitat should be preserved as there is little likelihood that the waterfowl using the existing habitat will go elsewhere. A reduction in habitat almost always demands a further reduction in animal numbers. The planning area could continue to support limited salt production as well as other compatible enterprises such as brine shrimp harvesting, bait fish marketing, and perhaps waterfowl hunting leases. Shoreline access must be supervised, limited, and directed to avoid disturbing some areas of water fowl concentration. ### D. Vegetation and Wildlife Resources (Continued) #### 2. Biotic Resources of Livermore-Amador Planning Unit: #### a. Introduction Approximately seventeen thousand acres of the Livermore-Amador Planning Unit is developed in urban uses. The remaining 247,490 acres are in various agricultural and open uses. Valley lowlands and some of the rolling foothills around the lowlands are intensively cultivated for field and row or fruit crops. Upland areas are extensively farmed for cattle grazing or left in open space because of limitations inherent. The upland areas provide suitable habitats for many species of plants and animals in Alameda County. This section will discuss the biotic resources in Alameda County and specifically the biotic resources in the Livermore-Amador Planning Unit. The preservation of natural resources begins with an understanding of the composition of natural communities and how those communities are classified. Our discussion will define the common natural communities found in the Livermore area. Resource conservation objectives will be presented to reflect the important areas in which policy should be developed. ### b. Classification of Natural Communities - Inland Areas: The mapping of all natural communities in any area would result in a map showing a mosaic of associations of various indigenous plants and animals. The distribution of plants and animals is determined by a variety of physical/environmental factors. Conditions such as moisture, temperature, humidity, rainfall, evaporation, slope, geology, and soils, to mention a few, are all variables affecting plant and animal populations. Distribution of plants and animals is also determined by social factors. Adaptation, feeding or nutrient require- ments, range, cover, food chains, and discrete inter-species activity will affect the composition of associations. Convenient systems of classification of natural communities based upon the frequently observed association of plant and animal species have been developed and documented. One system, developed by A. C. Smith, divided natural communities found in Alameda County into freshwater marsh, grassland, riparian (stream), woodland, broad leaf evergreen forest, oak woodland, and chaparral (brushland). Other systems of classi- fication exist which describe the association or consociation of plants and animals based upon individual size and distribution, physical habitat, or functional attributes of the species; but for the ease of understanding in this presentation, the system devised by Smith will be used. It should be mentioned early that human interference plays a very important role in the evolution and adaptation of plant and animal associations. In many instances, the extensive or intensive use of the land by man arrests or changes the natural species inter-action significantly. Introduction of exotic species by early settlers has resulted in their out-competing the native species. Land development and its impact on the surrounding ecosystems is also not an insigni- ficant agent of change and interruption. When assessing the ecological status of the communities exhibited in the County, a number of principles must be kept in mind. Smith bases his breakdown on the dominant or indicator species present in the community. Dominant species are commonly thought to control the nature and functioning of the entire community.[^p56-1] Dominant species may represent *** [^p56-1]: See Odum, E, P., Fundamentals of Ecology, Third Edition, 1971, Saunders, Philadelphia. a climax or subclimax condition of vegetation development. Ecosystem development occurs in a series of stages or successions which is reflected in the changing structure of the community in time. Stages in the succession leading to a stable condition known as a climax community may occur as an orderly process of change. Changing physical factors which result from the growth and development of community diver- sity cause the disequilibrium which causes the succession to occur. Climatic climax communities are highly diversified yet organized asso- ciations of plants and animals which are in equilibrium with the climate. A climax community is a terminal community. The biotic communities described in Alameda County herein have undergone direct manipulation by man for several centuries. The direct inter- action between man and nature usually arrests the process of natural succession to a climax community; what we see today in many areas are subclimax communities. The best example of this is intensive and extensive agriculture in many lowland sections of the Livermore-Amador Planning Unit. There are eight different biotic communities in Alameda County as identified by Smith. The lowlands of the Livermore Valley are dominated by urban and rural communities and on the fringe give way to grassland; riparian woodland and freshwater marsh communities may be found at various spots along the major drainages in the Valley. Among the easiest communities to identify are the urban, rural culti- vated areas and the riparian woodland. Riparian communities may or may not be developed to the extent indicated in Table 1-5, depending upon whether there is enough water flowing in the drainage to support the indicator species. Where the drainage flow is seasonal, the vegetation will more closely resemble the surrounding community; for example, grassland or oak woodland. The Grassland community is relatively easy to identify from the indicator species listed in Table 1-5. Careful scrutiny will reveal that some fields thought to be grassland at a distance are actually dry farmed field crops. There are exten- sive areas within the Livermore lowlands which are moderately productive when dry-farmed for field crops such as wheat or barley. True grass- land may be observed in those areas which are not farmed and which don't contain scattered oak. Intermediary between the grassland community and the broadleaf evergreen forests is the oak woodlands. The eastern end of Alameda County receives only about eleven inches of rainfall per year, compared to fourteen inches in Livermore and twenty-six inches in Oakland. The arid condition of the foothills in the Altamont area provides an ideal climate for the oak woodland. This prairie or savannah type of community is exemplified by the predominance of grassland with scattered oak (Quercus agrifolia) occurring throughout the area, frequently in the bottom of gullies through which seasonal rainfall drains. A good example of the oak woodland would be Brushy Peak northeast of Livermore. The foothills south of Livermore and Pleasanton also contain many examples of this community. TABLE 1-5. Lowland Biotic Communities of Livermore Valley | | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | I. | Urban | Cities, towns, subdivisions, parks, etc. | Introduced trees and shrubs; House Finch, English Sparrow, Norway Rat, House Mouse, Cockroach. | | II. | Rural | Cultivated crop lands and pasture. | All varieties of truck and row crops, fruit crops; Barn Owl, Sparrow Hawk, Brewers' Blackbird, Gopher, Vole, Gopher Snake, Alfalfa, Cabbage Butterfly. | | III. | Riparian Woodland | In wooded canyons along stream courses. | Western Sycamore, Fremont Cottonwood, Red Willow, Arroyo Willow, Big Leaf Maple; see appendix for faunal indicator species. | | IV. | Grassland | Non-cultivated areas in Livermore Valley and adjacent hills. | Blue Bunch Grass, Calif. Oat Grass, Foothill Sedge, brome grass, wild oats; see appendix for faunal indicator species. | | V. | Freshwater Marsh | Scattered areas around springs, ponds, and sluggish streams. | Common Tule, Calif. Bulrush, Common Cattail, sedge; Longbilled Marsh Wren, Red-winged Blackbird, Yellowthroat, garter snakes, etc. see appendix. | Grassland extends over much of the Altamont area from Brushy Peak to the Arroyo Seco drainage. Higher in the hills south of Livermore the environmental conditions change significantly and grassland and oak woodland give way to the broadleaf evergreen forests and chaparral. In this section of the County, the topography becomes steep to very steep in the northwest-trending hills which form the drainage for Arroyo del Valle and Alameda Creek. In this vicinity in the mid-elevations the mosaic of broadleaf evergreen forest, chaparral and grassland oak woodland is found. Chaparral is found in the higher and drier usually west-facing slopes of the uplands. Indicator species such as Scrub Oak, Chamise, Buckbrush, California Coffee Berry, Manzanita (spp.), and wild lilac (Ceanothus) form a mixed assemblage in this community which is easily recognized. Factors such as elevation, steepness of slope, rainfall, and exposure determine the amount of dessication or evapotranspiration that occurs; and it also determines, along with the soil present, the type of vege- tatlon which occurs in the uplands. The slopes with northeastern exposure undergo less direct sun and direct wind and thus provide a microclimate suitable for the species found in the broadleaf evergreen forest. ### TABLE 1-5 . Upland Biotic Communities of the Livermore Valley | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | VI. Oak Woodland | Inner coastal ranges from 400 to 3000 feet; rolling hills along north and south edge of Livermore Valley lowlands. | At lower elevations, Valley Oak, Coast Live Oak; Blue Oak, Digger Pine, at higher elevations. Throughout: Holly-leaf Cherry; Calif. Coffee Berry, Calif. Buckeye, Poison Oak. | | VII. Chaparral | Higher dry slopes and ridges generally throughout the area. | Chamise, Scrub Oak, Holly-leaf Cherry, Buckbrush, Calif. Coffee Berry, manzanita, wild lilac. | | VIII. Broadleaf Evergreen Forest | On higher hills from 200 to 2500 feet in Diablo Range | Tanoak, Calif. Laurel, Madrone, Calif. Buckeye, Golden Chinquapin, Coast Live Oak, Douglas Fir, Digger Pine. | The term microclimate is appropriately used to describe the occurence of stands of each of these communities, since the above locational patterns may be observed throughout the upland areas of the County. At higher elevations in the upland areas, the broadleaf evergreen forest and the oak savannah blend into the modest stands of Digger Pine, Bishop Pine, and Monterey Pine. Elevations in the higher upland areas range up to 4000 feet; rainfall increases to nearly 30 inches per year at these elevations. For the most part, however, xeric conditions pre- vail over most of the upland areas in southern Alameda County. ### Expression of Natural Communities in the Livermore-Amador Planning Unit Urban In the cities of Livermore and Pleasanton and the unincorporated but developed areas of Dublin, Sunol, and Castlewood, native and alien species are easily observed. Rural Adjacent to the cities, the cultivated fields form a buffer zone around developed areas. Crops such as barley, wheat, alfalfa, grapes, and others are produced in the Livermore Valley. Vegetation in the fields is almost exclusively economic crops while weeds and herbs occupy the fringes and irrigation canals. A large portion of the Valley is dry farmed field crops, especially in the area north of Livermore and Interstate 580. Riparian Woodland In the Livermore Valley, a modified riparian woodland is best exhibited in the Arroyo del Valle drainage. Other watercourses such as the Arroyo Mocho, Arroyo Seco, and Arroyo Las Positas exhibit various stages of riparian woodland due to the low rainfall runoff patterns in the eastern part of the Livermore Valley. Upland sections of the Arroyo del Valle and the Alameda Creek drainage above Sunol offer greater potential for riparian woodland development. Grassland In the lowlands and the rolling foothills adjacent to the cultivated agriculture, grassland communities abound. Perhaps the best example of this community is in the rolling foothills north of Livermore in Doolan and Collier Canyons extending east through the Altamont foothills and south to Arroyo Seco. Isolated stands of oak savannah may also be observed in the Altamont hills (i.e., Brushy Peak) which may be observed on aerial photos. In the upland areas south of Livermore, isolated grassy clearings may be observed interspersed with the broadleaf evergreen forests and chaparral communities. In the Altamont hills, the hot dry slopes are exposed to the afternoon sun and frequently to strong drying winds. Numerous animals favor this community and all occupy important levels in natural energy chains and food webs. Arthropods, such as spiders, and insects, such as beetles, grasshoppers, bees, crickets, and flies, forage on the plants, decaying animal matter, and each other. Spadefoot and western toads may be found in the larger ravines where moisture is present. Lizards inhabiting the grassland include Gilbert's skink, western fence lizard, and leopard lizard. Rock outcroppings, solitary stones, burrows, and other surface objects offer shelter for these species. Insects and, to a lesser extent, bird eggs are taken for food by these reptiles. Other reptiles such as the western rattlesnake, common king snake, western and Alameda striped racer, and gopher snake may be observed in the rock outcroppings or rodent burrows. The grassland habitat shows a limited resident population of bird species, primarily due to the lack of shelter from predators. Examples of ground nesting species which are inhabitants are the western meadowlark, savannah sparrow, killdeer, and burrowing owl. The grasslands are important for many species which, though roosting and nesting elsewhere, are dependent upon the abundant supply of seeds and arthropods or insects. Raptors, such as red-tailed hawk, sparrow hawk, prairie falcon, and great horned owl, also depend upon the grassland to provide suitable hunting grounds for their diet of rodents and small birds. Land use in the North Livermore Area is predominantly agricultural; dry-farmed field crops and grazing constitute the major agricultural uses. In the foothills surrounding the flat areas, suitable habitat for many wildlife species exists. Immeasurable open space values are apparent in the seasonally changing vistas one obtains from the scenic routes in the area. Urban development of the area will reduce open space values. Development will also constrain the wildlife habitats significantly since many species inhabiting the Valley utilize the grassland range as a food source. Freshwater Marsh Species in this community may be observed in the Arroyo de la Laguna watercourse west of Pleasanton. It may also be observed in the stock ponds distributed throughout the planning area and along the fringes of Lake del Valle, San Antonio Reservoir, and Calaveras Reservoir. Oak Woodland Perhaps the most common triad of communities observed in the upland areas of the Livermore Valley are the grassland, chaparral, and the oak woodland communities. Each of these, along with stands of broadleaf evergreen forests form the mosaic patterns observed in aerial photos. The oak woodland is sometimes called oak savannah because of its resemblance to the savannahs of other arid regions. In this community, the Valley Oak and the Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia, Q. lobata) predominate and form an open canopy under which grasses and herbs common to grassland communities grow. Other species associated with the Oak savannah are Holly-leaf Cherry, California Coffee Berry, Buckeye, and Poison Oak. An isolated example of this community would be the Brushy Peak area, although it may be observed throughout the upland areas south of Livermore. Chaparral Southwest- and west-facing slopes are subject to a greater degree of dessication than others since they absorb the full impact of the sun. Rainfall may be between 14 and 25 inches annually, most occurring in January, February, or March. In these areas, the chaparral community appears. Such species as chamise, Scrub Oak, Holly-leaf Cherry, Buck- brush, California Coffee Berry, various species of manzanita, and wild lilac (Ceanothus) characterize this community. In the chaparral, there are species which closely associate with one another such as California Coffee Berry, California Sagebrush, and Sticky Monkey-flower. Other similar associations may be observed in the chaparral and oak woodland. Chaparral brushland may be observed in the upland areas south of Liver- more. It is easily recognized by the presence of manzanita. Broadleaf Evergreen Forest Examples of this community are widely distributed and locally abundant on northeast- and east-facing slopes between 200 and 2500 feet in the upland areas south of Livermore and Pleasanton. Similar conditions prevail in the East Bay Hills where the species characteristic of this community may also be observed together. Species such as Tan-bark Oak, California Bay Laurel, Madrone, California Buckeye, and Coast Live Oak typify the overstory in this community. Rainfall usually averages between 25 and 40 inches annually; evapora- tion or evapotranspiration from ground surface and plant leaf surfaces is reduced by the northeast-facing slope and the shade of the overstory of trees. There are also important faunal species associated with the individual plant communities in Alameda County. This has been avoided because it is more desirable to point out that, while one community or another may provide prime or even suitable habitat for a species, the range of associated species is distributed over two or more plant communities. Each animal needs minimum conditions for survival which may include a portion of several plant communities. Frequently, the borders between each plant community, called an ecotone, contains the most animal activity since it offers the best of both environments. Predator-prey inter-action may be observed in the ecotones becasue of this higher amount of activity. Any list of wildlife species would then not be complete without showing food web inter-action and range characteristics. ### TABLE 1-6 From: The Natural History of the San Francisco Bay Region, A. C. Smith #### BIOTIC COMMUNITIES OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGION | COMMUNITY | LOCATIONS AND EXAMPLES | CHARACTERISTIC PLANTS | CHARACTERISTIC ANIMALS | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | I. Urban | Cities, towns, and subdivisions enclosing parks, cemeteries, vacant lots, and some extensive eucalyptus forests. | Great variety of introduced trees, shrubs, and garden flowers. | House Finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), English Sparrow (Passer domesticus), Norway Rat (Rattus norvegicus), House Mouse (Mus musculus), American Cockroach (Periplanata americana). | | II. Rural | Cultivated crop lands and pasture lands; mostly in Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Solano, Napa, Sonoma, eastern Contra Costa, and eastern Alameda Counties. | Alfalfa, truck crops, prune, apricot, pear, grape vines, eucalyptus, willows, and poplars. | Barn Owl (Tyto alba), Sparrow Hawk (Falco sparverius), Brewer's Blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephalus), Botta Pocket Gopher (Thomomys bottae), Calif. Vole (M. californicus), Gopher Snake (P. catenifer), Alfalfa Butterfly (Colias eurytheme), Cabbage Butterfly (Pieris rapae). | | III. Riparian Woodland | Throughout the area in wooded canyons and along valley watercourses where not destroyed by man. (A) In drier interior ranges of Santa Clara, Alameda, Contra Costa, and Napa Counties. Examples - Pacheco Creek Canyon and Alum Rock Canyon. (B) In ranges west of Santa Clara Valley, north of San Francisco Bay, and in moister canyons of the northern Diablo Range. Examples - Pescadero Creek Canyon. | (A) Western Sycamore (Platanus racemosa), Fremont Cottonwood (Populus fremonti), Red Willow (Salix laevigata), Arroyo Willow (S. lasiolepis). (B) Boxelder (Acer negundo), Big Leaf Maple (A. macrophyllum), White Alder (Alnus rhombifolia), Red Alder (A. rubra), (restricted to within 30 miles of the coast). | Downy Woodpecker (Dendrocopos pubescens), Yellow Warbler (Dendroica petechia), Yellow-breasted Chat (Icteria virens), Raccoon (Procyon lotor), Western Pond Turtle (Clemmys marmorata), Calif. Newt (Taricha torosa), Lorquin's Admiral (Basilarchia lorquini), Mourning Cloak (Nymphalis antiopa), Box Elder Bug (Leptocoris trivittatus), Spotted Tree Borer (Synaphaeta guexi). | TABLE 1-6[^p64-1]. BIOTIC COMMUNITIES OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGION (Continued) | COMMUNITY | LOCATIONS AND EXAMPLES | CHARACTERISTIC PLANTS | CHARACTERISTIC ANIMALS | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | IV. Grassland | Scattered bits of coastal prairie on hills or in glades along the coast; scattered remnants of valley grassland in coastal valleys of Napa, Alameda, and Santa Clara Counties and in the Great Central Valley which enters our area in Solano County and the northeastern tip of Contra Costa County. Examples - Point Reyes and noncultivated areas in Livermore Valley and adjacent hills. | Blue Bunch Grass (Festuca idahoensis), Calif. Oat Grass (Danthonia californica), Foothill Sedge (Carex tumulicola), brome grass (Bromus spp.) wild oats (Avena spp.) | Western Meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), Horned Lark (Eremorphila alpestris), Calif. Ground Squirrel (Citellus beecheyi), Black-tailed Jack Rabbit (Lepus californicus), Calif. Vole (Microtus californicus), Gopher Snake (Pituophis catenifer), Field Crickett (Acheta assimilis). | | V. Freshwater Marsh | Scattered areas along coast, in back of salty areas. Around springs, ponds, along sluggish streams in Santa Clara, Contra Costa, Napa, Solano Counties. Examples - Searsville Lake; Bear Creek near Point Reyes Station. | Common Tule (Scirpus acutus), Calif. Bulrush (Scirpus californicus), Common Cat-tail (Typha latifolia), sedge (Carex senta and other spp.). | Long-billed Marsh Wren (Telmatodytes palustris), Redwinged Blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), Yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas), garter snakes (Thamnophis spp.), Pacific Tree Frog (Hyla regilla), predaceous diving beetles (Dytiscus spp.), a water scavenger beetle (Hydrophilus triangularis), a giant water bug (Lethocerus americanus). | | VI. Oak Woodland | Inner coastal ranges from 400 to 3,000 ft.; Napa, Solano, Contra Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara Counties. Examples - rolling hills along both edges of Santa Clara Valley and along Hwy. 101 in Marin County. | At lower elevations: Valley Oak (Quercus lobata), Coast Live Oak (Q. agrifolia). At higher elevations: Blue Oak (Q. douglasi), Digger Pine (Pinus sabiniana). Throughout: Holly-Leaf Cherry (Prunus ilicifolia), Calif. Coffee Berry (Rhamnus californica), Calif. Buckeye (A. californica), Poison Oak (Rhus diversiloba). | Acorn woodpecker (Melanerpes formicivorus), White-breasted Nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis), Brush Mouse (Peromyscus boylei), Calif. Ground Squirrel (Citellus beecheyi), Calif. Sister (Heterochroa california), Calif. Oak Moth (Phryganidea californica), Calif. Prionus (Prionus californicus). | [^p64-1]: 1-61. ## E. Hydrologic Resources[^p65-1] ### Major Drainage Basins and Water Courses ### Central Metropolitan Planning Unit The Central Metropolitan Planning Unit (CMPU) is divided into a number of small watersheds which are defined by the natural topographic features of the region. The drainage patterns of the unit are characterized by a series of northeast- to southwest-trending linear drainage basins which extend from the ridges of the Oakland Hills, a part of the Diablo Range, across the urbanized alluvial plain to San Francisco Bay. The water-courses which transport runoff from each watershed are typically southwesterly-flowing creeks which have eroded canyons in the hill areas and exhibit a meandering form on the flatter gradient of the alluvial plain. Named creeks which drain these linear basins include El Cerrito, Codornices, Temescal, Glen Echo, Trestle Glen, Sausal, Peralta, Courtland, Seminary, Lion, Arroyo Viejo, Elmhurst, and Stonehurst. A number of these creeks empty into Lake Merritt, Damon Slough, or East Creek Slough which subsequently drain to San Francisco Bay via San Leandro Bay or the Oakland Estuary. Most of the land area of these watersheds is located within the political boundaries of Alameda County and the CMPU with the exception of Codornices Creek which is located on the county line and serves portions of Contra Costa County. The lower reaches of San Leandro Creek, which drain a large portion of the Eden Planning Unit, traverse the southern section of the CMPU and eventually empty into San Leandro Bay. The island City of Alameda, partially formed from artificial bay fill, is essentially flat and contains no major natural streams. Runoff is transported to surrounding receiving waters by an urban storm drainage system consisting of canals and underground conduits. ### Eden Planning Unit The Eden Planning Unit (EPU) has varied physiographic characteristics which result in the definition of two major hydrologic units along with a number of small drainage basins. These units include the basins of San Leandro Creek, San Lorenzo Creek, Sulphur Creek, Ward Creek, and Old Alameda Creek. [^p65-1]: Compiled by Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation Division, Public Works Agency. The San Leandro Creek Basin is located east of the City of Oakland with its main axis generally in a north-south direction. The lower reach of the creek which crosses the alluvial plain flows in a westerly direction between the cities of San Leandro and Oakland for a distance of 4.5 miles and eventually drains into San Leandro Bay. Ninety percent of the forty-eight square-mile basin is located in a mountainous area of the Diablo Range upstream from Lake Chabot and Upper San Leandro Reservoir which are owned and operated by EBMUD. Elevations in the area reach 2,000 feet; and approximately forty percent of the total watershed is located in Contra Costa County. Land use in the basin ranges from undeveloped watershed lands in the mountainous area to agricultural, residential, and light industrial in the urban area on the alluvial plain. The 45 square-mile San Lorenzo Creek Basin is located east and south of the San Leandro unit and encompasses an expansive watershed in the hills east of San Leandro and Hayward. San Lorenzo Creek, the major watercourse in the basin, originates in the upper watershed near Route 580 and traverses the alluvial bay plain through Hayward and San Lorenzo before emptying into San Francisco Bay. Important tributaries to San Lorenzo Creek are Palomares Creek which drains the canyon bounded by Sunol and Walpert Ridges, Hollis Creek, Eden Creek, Crow Canyon Creek, Cull Creek, Castro Valley Creek, and Tanglewood Creek. Maximum elevation in the hill area which comprises the largest section of the basin is approximately 1,950 feet above mean sea level. Land development in the upper watershed of the basin is limited to ranches with some residences located adjacent to roads which parallel the major tributaries. In contrast to the rural nature of the upper basin, the lower section is being intensively developed for commercial, industrial, and residential use with some remnants of agricultural operations still evident. The smaller basins which drain the remainder of EPU encompass portions of the hill area west of Walpert Ridge and the alluvial plain. Sulphur Creek and Ward Creek basins originate at Walpert Ridge and eventually empty to San Francisco Bay. Other named watercourses which drain small linear basins generally in an east-to-west direction include the Ashland-Washington Drainage canal, Bockman Canal, Mr. Eden Creek, and the Old Alameda Creek. These basins are essentially urban in nature and serve the developing areas between the bay and the base of the hills in the cities of San Leandro and Hayward. ### Washington Planning Unit The Washington Planning Unit (WPU) in southern Alameda County is generally characterized by numerous small hydrologic units with the exception of the lower reach of Alameda Creek which drains the largest watershed in the County and traverses the WPU. Most of the natural watercourses in the WPU originate in the vicinity of the ridge of the Mission Hills in the western portion of the unit which reach an elevation of 2,517 feet above mean sea level at Mission Peak. After traveling down the western slope of the hills, the streams emerge onto the alluvial plain and eventually empty into one of the sloughs which meander among the diked salt ponds and then converge with the receiving waters of San Francisco Bay. The Dry Creek Basin which encompasses an area of approximately ten square miles is located northeast of the Decoto District of Union City. Dry Creek conveys runoff from this basin to a confluence with Alameda Creek southwest of Decoto. Crandall Creek, which drains a basin in Fremont north of Newark, also discharges to Alameda Creek. Named creeks which drain the western slopes of the hills and the developing alluvial plain and do not discharge into Alameda Creek include Mission Creek, Canada del Aliso, Agua Caliente Creek, Agua Fria Creek, Toroges Creek, and Scott Creek. The channels which provide the main outlet to the bay for this drainage include Newark Slough, Plummer Creek, Mowry Slough, Mud Slough, and Coyote Creek. The Alameda Creek Basin is largely composed of land located within the Livermore-Amador Planning Unit; however, Alameda Creek conveys all surface runoff from this basin through the WPU. Therefore, this major watercourse has a hydrologic significance, particularly for groundwater, which greatly exceeds the provision of local surface drainage in the WPU. After emerging from Niles Canyon, Alameda Creek flows along a westerly course for approximately twelve miles to an outlet in San Francisco Bay near Coyote Hills. Prior to the recent completion of the Alameda Creek Federal Project by the Corps of Engineers, the creek flowed in an ill-defined channel along a tortuous course across the plain and emptied through Patterson Creek. The improved flood channel has relieved the local flood plain area from the frequent and damaging floods which plagued it in the past. This former meandering pattern and frequent flooding were important factors in the development of the waterbearing geologic formations which underlie the WPU and now comprise a most important water supply resource. ### Livermore-Amador Planning Unit The Livermore-Amador Planning Unit may be divided into two major hydro- logic units or water basins which extend past the political boundaries of Alameda County. They are the Livermore Hydrologic Unit and the Sunol Hydrologic Unit. The entire area is confined within the Diablo Range and extends over 675 square miles, or 430,000 acres. All streams and creeks flow together in the Livermore Valley near Pleasanton in Arroyo de la Laguna which then flows into Alameda Creek near Sunol and out of the Planning Unit through Niles Canyon. Of the total area land which drains into the Livermore Valley, approximately thirty-five per- cent is in Santa Clara County in the Mount Hamilton Vicinity. Ten percent of the drainage basin lies in Contra Costa County on the southwestern slopes of Mt. Diablo. The two water basins in the LAPU (Livermore and Sunol) may also be distinguished on the basis of geology, soil infiltra- tion characteristics, and physiography. The geographic area comprising the Livermore Unit extends south to the highlands surrounding San Antonio Valley (T7S, R5E) in Santa Clara County. In this vicinity, the headwaters of the del Valle originate. Runoff from the surrounding hills flows northwest in the drainage and out into the Livermore Valley where it joins with the Arroyo de la Laguna near Interstate 680 and Bernal west of Pleasanton. This unit extends north to include the area of Dublin and San Ramon and the Alamo, the South San Ramon, and Tassajara Creeks which flow out of the Upper Amador Valley. The major creeks within this drainage unit are the Arroyo del Valle, Arroyo Mocho, Arroyo Seco, and the Arroyo Las Positas. Other creeks include the Altamont Creek, Cayetano, Collier, Tassajara, South San Ramon, and Alamo Creeks. All of the above flow together into the Arroyo de la Laguna which flows in a southeast direction near Interstate 680 west of Pleasanton and out of the basin north of Verona. There are six different physiographic areas recognized in the Livermore Hydrologic Unit. Clockwise from north to west they are the Orinda upland, Dublin upland, Altamont upland, Livermore Valley, Livermore upland, and Livermore highland. These physiographic areas are based upon elevation, slope, geologic formations, and soils, and relate directly to the hydrologic significance and importance of the area. The Orinda upland, the Dublin upland, the Altamont upland, and the Livermore upland and highland all share a common feature of containing rock formations that are essentially low or nonwater-bearing. They range in elevation generally above 1,500 feet MSL and are as high as 3,500 feet MSL south of Livermore. The upland and highland areas serve as the collection funnel for the precipitation in the foothills and mountains. The elevations of the hills in the Livermore Highlands (4,000') play a very important role in the condensation of rainfall since the moisture-laden clouds release more water as they rise and cool. Rainfall maps showing lines of mean annual precipitation (EMAP) demonstrate an increase in rainfall with elevation especially around the peaks and ridges in the watershed. The Livermore Valley is geologically different than the surrounding uplands and highlands. It is composed of two distinct water-bearing formations that are the major reservoir for water storage. Historically, the ground water basin reservoir has provided domestic and agricultural supplies to the Valley inhabitants. ### Sunol Hydrologic Unit The Sunol Valley is located south of the Livermore Valley. The hydrologic unit encompasses the headwaters of the Alameda, Isabel, Arroyo Hondo, and Smith Creeks around Mt. Hamilton. All precipitation falling in these hills drains through the Arroyo Hondo into Calaveras Reservoir; water draining in the Alameda Creek system joins the Arroyo Hondo north of Calaveras Reservoir and flows into Sunol Valley. Within this Sunol Unit, six physiographic areas may be distinguished: Sinbad upland, Vallecitos Valley, La Costa Valley, Sunol Valley, Sunol upland, and Sunol highland. The Sinbad upland drains southeast, entering Sunol Valley in the north end. The eastern boundary of this densely wooded ravine is Pleasanton Ridge. Surface materials are underlain by the consolidated upper Cretaceous marine formations (nonwater-bearing). Vallecitos Valley, northeast of Sunol Valley, is a small drainage (about one mile square) through which Vallecitos Creek drains. La Costa Valley is partially occupied by San Antonio Reservoir managed by San Francisco Water Department. The Reservoir covers nearly half of the original shallow alluvial valley. Surrounding both Vallecitos and La Costa Valleys is the Sunol upland composed of the water-bearing Livermore Formation. Small areas on the eastern rim of the Sunol Unit are also Sunol upland as indicated on the map. Sunol highland borders Sunol Valley and covers the remaining southern extension of the hydrologic unit. It is composed of nonwater-bearing rocks of the Franciscan Formation. The steep mountainous region drains in a northwesterly direction, as does the Livermore Unit. Elevations reach 4,000 feet MSL on Mt. Hamilton. The Sunol Valley is the confluence of the streams in the Sunol Unit. It is the largest valley in the Unit and is composed of a thick layer (about 160 feet) of alluvium underlain by less pervious nonwater-bearing rock. Near Sunol, Alameda Creek meets and is joined by Arroyo de la Laguna. As Alameda Creek flows out of the Sunol Unit, it must cross Sunol Dam. Sunol Dam has been constructed so that it completely blocks the flow of water out of the Livermore and Sunol Units; thus, ground water must first rise to the surface prior to leaving Sunol Unit and entering Alameda Creek as it flows through Niles Canyon. ### Precipitation and Runoff Patterns Precipitation in Alameda County is highly seasonal with almost ninety percent of the annual precipitation occurring during the six-month period of November through April. Most of the precipitation occurs as rainfall in a series of general storms which affect all portions of the County; however, variations in local physiography strongly influence the intensity and amount of precipitation. As illustrated on the accompanying isohyetal map, precipitation patterns within the County vary with elevation, proximity to major water bodies, wind direction, and the different relationships among these major climatic influences. Mean annual precipitation (MAP) on the bay plain along the western boundary of the County increases in a southwest to northeast trend and ranges from 13 inches MAP in the Fremont area to 21 inches MAP in Berkeley. As elevations increase on the western slopes of the Diablo Range, orographic lifting occurs which results in cooling of the air, reduction in water-holding capacity, and increases in total precipitation. Maximum MAP in the Diablo uplands east of the bay plain ranges from 27 inches in the hills above Oakland to 25 inches in the Hayward hill area. The Valpe Ridge area in the southeast portion of the County is the wettest area with approximately thirty inches MAP. The Livermore-Amador Valley has a relatively uniform pattern of rainfall which decreases from a value of 18 inches MAP immediately east of the Pleasanton Ridge to 13 inches east of Livermore. The mountainous area in the eastern section of the County is an arid region which receives as little as ten inches MAP. Runoff in Alameda County is derived from precipitation on the various drainage basins and from imported water released into the natural watercourses. The direct relationship between precipitation and runoff results in yearly and seasonal runoff patterns which are similar to rainfall variations. Thus, under natural conditions, streams in the County exhibit highest flows during the winter storm season and are essentially dry during the summer. Imported water discharged into streams in the Livermore Valley, diversions, and water storage reservoirs have altered the natural runoff characteristics of the major watercourses in the County. Stream flow measured at various locations in the large drainage basins indicate the magnitude of runoff and are presented in Table 1-7 The smaller basins on the Bay Plain are drained by ephemeral streams which exhibit high flows immediately following major storms and minimal or no flow during dry weather. No runoff records are available for these streams. TABLE 1-7 RECORDED ANNUAL DISCHARGE OF VARIOUS STREAMS IN ALAMEDA COUNTY[^p71-1] | Stream | Location | Area (Miles[^p71-2]) | Years of Record | Mean Annual Discharge (acre-feet) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **Alameda Creek Basin** | | | | | | Arroyo Mocho | Livermore | 38.2 | 1912-1930 | 2,920 | | Arroyo Mocho | Pleasanton | 141 | 1962-1972 | 9,640 | | Arroyo del Valle | Above Reservoir | 126 | 1963-1972 | 18,760 | | Arroyo del Valle[^p71-2] | Livermore | 147 | 1912-1930 1957-1968 | 21,450 | | Arroyo de la Laguna | Pleasanton | 405 | 1912-1930 | 30,790 | | Alameda Creek[^p71-3] | Niles | 633 | 1891-1962 | 89,050 | | Alameda Creek[^p71-3] | Niles | 633 | 1963-1972 | 63,180 | | Dry Creek | Union City | 9.41 | 1916-1919 1959-1972 | 1,170 | | **Other Basins** | | | | | | San Lorenzo Creek[^p71-4] | Hayward | 37.5 | 1946-1972 | 10,140 | | Castro Valley Creek | Hayward | 5.51 | 1971-1972 | 1,090 | [^p71-1]: United States Geological Survey, Water Resources Data for California, Part 1, Surface Water Records, 1972 [^p71-2]: Beginning in 1968, discharges at this station were regulated by Del Valle Reservoir. Water from the South Bay Aqueduct can be pumped to the reservoir and released for downstream percolation. [^p71-3]: Flow regulated by Calaveras Reservoir beginning in 1916, San Antonio Reservoir beginning in 1965, and Del Valle Reservoir. Imported water affected flow beginning in 1962. [^p71-4]: Flow partially regulated by Cull Creek Reservoir beginning in 1962 and Don Castro Reservoir beginning in 1965. <
> SOURCE: Rantz, S. E., Mean Annual Precipitation and Precipitation Depth Duration-Frequency Data for the San Francisco Bay Region, California, USGS, S.F. Bay Region Environment and Resources Planning Study, Basic Data Contribution 32, 1971. The various diversions, impoundments, exports, and imports which modify the natural runoff in the Alameda Creek Basin have a significant impact on the water supply systems of both the Livermore-Amador and Washington Planning Units. The major effects of the modifications in the natural runoff regime have been a reduction in peak storm flows and total annual discharge and a sustainment of greater than natural stream flow during the dry season. Major benefits accruing from these alterations include direct use of natural runoff for water supply through storage in and distribution from surface reservoirs and increases in recharge capability to groundwater aquifers. Lakes, Reservoirs, and Other Surface Water Storage Surface water resulting from precipitation or imports may be stored in a variety of facilities of either natural or man-made origin. Natural surface storage is accomplished by lakes, ponds, marshes, and bogs while man-made facilities include concrete and earth-fill dam-created reservoirs, enclosed steel and concrete reservoirs, and diked areas. The relative absence of any significant natural surface storage in the County and the seasonal nature of prevailing precipitation patterns have necessitated the construction of many surface storage basins in appropriate locations. Artificial storage of surface water in Alameda County is instituted for numerous purposes and is accomplished through techniques dictated by natural physiographic characteristics and the objectives of the impoundment. Enclosed storage tanks are commonly constructed as integral parts of urban water supply systems to provide pressure regulation, meet peak demands, and provide emergency supplies. Many such tanks of varying sizes are located throughout the developed areas of the County. Unenclosed storage reservoirs range from small siltation basins and stock ponds to large multipurpose reservoirs located on major watercourses. Important characteristics of the major reservoirs in the County are presented in Table 1-8. An extensive area of unique artificial water storage facilities is located in southwestern Alameda County in the bay tidelands region. Miles of dikes have been constructed in the area to create thousands of acres of evaporative salt ponds. Salt concentrations in bay water are increased through natural processes of evaporation until a sufficiently dense solution is obtained to precipitate salt crystals which are then harvested. In addition to their economic value, these ponds provide a valuable wildlife habitat for migratory and resident shorebirds and waterfowl. Small stock ponds, silt basins, and stormwater retention ponds are found throughout the County. The majority of the stock ponds are located in the foothill regions to serve the extensive grassland areas utilized for grazing while silt and stormwater retention basins are becoming more prevalent in urban areas. No major natural lakes exist in the County and few natural ponds are found. Lake Merritt (160-acre surface area), in Oakland, and Lake Elizabeth (63-acre surface area), in Fremont, are natural receiving bodies for local creeks which have been somewhat modified for flood control and recreation purposes. San Francisco Bay, although essentially an inland extension of the Pacific Ocean, may be considered a natural surface storage area along with the tidal salt marshes remaining along the interface between land and water. TABLE 1-8. ### MAJOR SURFACE RESERVOIRS IN ALAMEDA COUNTY | Name | Stream | Capacity (acre ft.) | Agency[^p74-1] | Major Purpose | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Del Valle | Arroyo Del Valle | 77,000 | DWR | Water supply, recreation flood control | | Bethany | Calif. Aqueduct | 4,850 | DWR | Water supply | | Calaveras | Calaveras | 100,000 | SFWD | Water supply | | San Antonio | La Costa | 51,000 | SFWD | Water supply | | Chabot | San Leandro | 10,000 | EBMUD | Water supply, recreation | | Upper San Leandro | San Leandro | 41,000 | EBMUD | Water supply | | Cull | Cull | 295 | ACFCWCD | Recreation, water conservation | | Don Castro | San Lorenzo | 380 | ACFCWCD | Recreation, water conservation | [^p74-1]: DWR - Department of Water Resources SFWD - San Francisco Water District EBMUD - East Bay Municipal Utility District ACFCWCD - Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District #### Groundwater Resources #### Central Metropolitan Planning Unit The Central Metropolitan Planning Unit does not contain any significant groundwater resources utilized for water supply. Although there are wells in the area which are mainly operated by industrial concerns for their various needs, total yield of groundwater is not significant. Data on groundwater in the area and the subsurface geology has not been compiled or studied in a systematic manner at this time. #### Eden Planning Unit Groundwater resources in the remainder of Alameda County have been the subject of numerous studies by various groups and agencies in recent years. The latest studies have been prepared and coordinated by the State Department of Water Resources to assist local agencies in developing efficient and productive means of groundwater management. The Bay Plain is basically composed of an alluvial area near the high-lands and marshlands adjacent to the bay. The alluvial area is composed of coalescing alluvial cones which have been deposited by streams in the area. The San Leandro Cone underlies the EPU and contains water-bearing strata at various depths and locations. Water bearing sand and gravel layers extend to a depth of approximately one thousand feet below the Bay Plain and are divided into upper and lower zones. The upper zone contains two major aquifers which are located at depths of sixty feet and two hundred fifty feet and are equivalent to the Newark and Centerville Aquifers of the Niles subarea. The lower zone occupies a depth below 400 feet and contains a much higher percentage of permeable material than the low yield upper zone. Nearly all of the high yielding wells in the area utilize the deep zone. Southward sloping groundwater contours indicate that minor amounts of groundwater in the upper zone of the San Leandro Cone may migrate in a southerly direction to the Newark Aquifer in the Niles subarea. Replenishment of these aquifers is accomplished primarily through percolation from the streambeds of San Leandro and San Lorenzo Creeks. The City of Hayward formerly maintained a 30-acre well field to supply its service area. Population growth in the city resulted in the development of a new water source, imports purchased from the San Francisco Water Department, and termination of dependence on local groundwater beginning in 1950.[^p75-2] Wells in the area are currently maintained by agricultural and industrial users, and no groundwater is being utilized for a municipal supply. In spite of the current absence of municipal use of the aquifers in the EPU, a significant and valuable groundwater resource does exist. The integrity and quality of this resource should be maintained to provide a viable alternative source to potentially meet unknown future needs. ### Washington Planning Unit[^p75-3] One major groundwater subarea of great importance to the local water supply and three subareas of lesser significance are located within the Washington Planning Unit. The Niles subarea is the major basin and includes the surficial area of the Alameda Creek alluvial fan and also extends under San Francisco Bay and the Bay Plain. The Dry Creek, Mission, and Warm Springs subareas are smaller groundwater areas in the Washington Planning Unit. [^p75-1]: Department of Water Resources. Bulletin No. 118-1. Evaluation of Groundwater Resources, South Bay. Appendix A: Geology. 1967. [^p75-2]: Hayward Water Department. "Outline of History of Hayward Water System." 1974. [^p75-3]: Department of Water Resources. Bulletin No. 118-1. Evaluation of Groundwater Resources - South Bay, Volume 1: Fremont Study Area 1968. Volume II: Additional Fremont Study Area 1973. Appendix A: Geology 1967. Two major geologic formations, the Santa Clara Formation and Quaternary alluvium, comprise the important water-bearing deposits in the region. The Santa Clara Formation of Plio-Pleistocene age is composed of poorly sorted sandstone, siltstone, and clay with evidence of well-sorted gravel lenses in exposures of the formation in the Mission Upland. These very permeable beds could account for high well production in the Mission Upland. Quaternary alluvium of Pleistocene to Recent age is composed of unconsolidated gravel, sand, silt, and clay deposited by streams draining the upland areas. Major aquifers are formed by sand and gravel deposits with high permeability while aquicludes are formed by silt and clay layers exhibiting relatively low permeability. The Niles subarea is the most important groundwater area in terms of production in Alameda County. The subarea is characterized by a series of flat aquifers separated by clay aquicludes. Major aquifers have been identified as the Newark Aquifer (between 60 and 140 feet below the surface), Centerville Aquifer (between 180 and 200 feet), and the Fremont Aquifer (between 300 and 390 feet). Additional highly productive deeper aquifers which are unnamed are located below the 400 foot level. The Hayward Fault creates a partial barrier to groundwater movement from east to west across the fault which is demonstrated by large variations in groundwater levels on different sides of the barrier. The area east of the fault is composed of extremely permeable material, and the absence of aquicludes makes the region a forebay for recharge of the various shallow and deep aquifers. Recharge of the groundwater basin is accomplished by percolation of precipitation, storm runoff or streamflow, imported water, and applied water and excess of subsurface inflow over outflow. The most important single recharge facility for the Niles subarea is Alameda Creek and adjacent gravel pits. Storm runoff and imported water are recharged through the permeable streambed and gravel pits in a program managed by the Alameda County Water District (ACWD). Currently, water is pumped into the pits, and dikes and Fabridams (1 complete, 1 under construction) are provided in the streambed to maximize recharge of the basin. A serious salt water intrusion problem has developed in the basin over the past half century as a result of overpumping and breaks in the upper Newark Aquiclude. Continuous overdrafting of the basin has altered the hydraulic groundwater gradient from a bayward situation to a landward orientation. Intrusion of saline water from the bay and salt ponds is caused by breaks in the clay cap and slow percolation through the clay cap itself. Under the landward hydraulic gradient, saline water moves eastward toward the forebay where it may enter deeper aquifers. At first, only the Newark Aquifer experienced serious degradation; but as years passed, the deeper Centerville and Fremont Aquifers began to exhibit contamination and the groundwater supply was seriously threatened. In addition to the saline intrusion through breaks and slow percolation through the aquiclude, it has been shown that abandoned, unsealed, or improperly sealed wells are permitting degraded water from the upper aquifer to flow into deeper aquifers. A County ordinance controlling drilling and sealing of wells has been enacted and is being administered by ACWD in its service area, the City of Berkeley in Berkeley, and by ACFCWCD in the remainder of the County. Difficulty in locating abandoned wells makes it improbable that a complete elimination of intrusion through wells will be achieved. Reductions in the rate of saline intrusion have recently been achieved because of the improved recharge program and use of imported water. Annual amounts of saline water intrusion at 21,000 ppm equivalent salinity have been reduced from 8,600 acre-feet in 1961-62 to 1,100 acre feet in 1968-69. At such time when zero intrusion is achieved, substantial danger to the basin will remain because of the continuing presence of saline water in the basin and the probability of future dry period being accompanied by further intrusion. Current plans of ACWD to protect the basin from saline intrusion consist of the construction of a pumping barrier anchored to the nonwater-bearing rocks comprising the Coyote Hills to form a protective arc of wells surrounding the important production areas of the Newark Aquifer. Pumping will remove some saline water now in the aquifer while creating a gradient to prevent further inland movement of degraded water. The Dry Creek subarea extends from the hillfront where Dry Creek emerges for a distance of three miles to the southwest. The maximum thickness of the recently deposted alluvial fan is 350 feet; and the sand and fine gravel aquifers are thin and discontinuous. Recharge occurs at the eastern edge of the subarea by percolation from Dry Creek. Water levels are usually high in the area, but well production is not particularly good in most cases. The Mission subarea encompasses exposed portions of the Santa Clara Formation in the Mission Upland and a small alluvial area immediately east of the Hayward Fault. Maximum thickness of the formation is estimated at 500 feet with high percentages of gravel found throughout the formation. Stratification and a 30 degree eastward dip of the formation precludes any westward flow of groundwater. A northwesterly gradient does exist from the Mission subarea to the Niles alluvium, but contributions to the alluvium are minor. Recharge occurs from percolation of streamflow and precipitation. The Warm Springs Alluvial Apron and certain sediments farther west constitute the Warm Springs subarea. Aquifers in the basin are thin, fine-grained, and exhibit low productivity. Recharge is limited because of low permeability; and although some groundwater from the basin moves west into the Niles subarea, total contributions are negligible. Importance of the groundwater resource underlying the WPU cannot be overemphasized. The Alameda County Water District which serves Fremont, Newark, and Union City, and Citizens Utility Company which distributes supplies to Niles and Decoto each utilize groundwater as their main water supply source. Additionally, many industrial and agricultural operations maintain private wells in the groundwater basin. Rapidly increasing demands have necessitated the development of new sources which include South Bay Aqueduct water from the State and water purchased from the San Francisco Water Department. These supplemental sources are not sufficient to meet all requirements without major use of the groundwater resources. Currently, most groundwater production is from the forebay area east of the Hayward Fault which is uncontaminated by saline intrusions. In 1973-74, production from the eastern area was estimated to be 18,200 acre-feet compared to a western area yield of 16,200 acre-feet. By 1995, it is anticipated that the WPU will require 80,000 acre-feet of water per year of which 25,000 acre-feet will be provided by the groundwater resource. In addition, the groundwater basin will serve as a storage facility for much of the 42,000 acre-feet to be imported from the State. Much of this imported water will be recharged to the basin through artificial facilities and subsequently pumped for municipal distribution. Thus, it is quite important to institute sound groundwater management practices to insure the maintenance and improvement of the quality and quantity of this resource. ### Livermore-Amador Planning Unit[^p78-2] The two major hydrologic units of the Livermore-Amador Planning Unit, Sunol Valley and Livermore Valley, may be further divided into groundwater sub-basins based on hydrologic and geologic factors. The 15 sub-basins which have been identified comprise a valuable resource which is now utilized extensively for municipal, industrial, and agricultural water supply. The various physiographic areas of the LAPU contain both nonwater-bearing and water-bearing geologic formations. Nonwater-bearing formations are exposed in the Diablo Range and are located at depths of 1,000 feet below the Livermore Valley and several hundered feet below the Sunol Valley. Water-bearing materials are found on the valley floor in Livermore, Sunol, LaCosta, and Vallecitos Valleys and in adjacent uplands to the south, west, and north of the Livermore Valley. The three significant water-bearing formations in order of importance are the alluvial valley fill, the Livermore Formation, and the Tassajara Formation. The Tassajara Formation is located north of the Livermore Valley and beneath the central portions of the valley at depths ranging from 200 to 750 feet. The water-bearing sandstone in the formation has a relatively low permeability and yields low quantities of moderately good quality waters suitable for limited stock, domestic, and irrigation use. There are no significant hydrologic connections between the Tassajara Formation and overlying materials. [^p78-1]: City of Fremont, Conservation Element of the General Plan, 1973. [^p78-2]: Department of Water Resources. Bulletin No. 118-2. Evaluation of Groundwater Resources: Livermore and Sunol Valleys. 1974. The geologically younger Livermore Formation occurs beneath the floors of the Livermore and Sunol Valleys at depths ranging from 30 to 400 feet and is exposed on the south and east side of the Livermore Valley and on the east side of Sunol Valley. The clayey gravel aquifers in the formation yield significant quantities of good quality water in the eastern section of the Livermore Valley for municipal, industrial, and agricultural users. The Valley fill alluvial materials which overly the Tassajara and Livermore Formations are composed of Holocene Age unconsolidated gravel, sand, silt, and clay that range in thickness from a few feet to almost 400 feet. The upper aquifer in the alluvium is unconfined while lower aquifers are leaky or semi-confined. Wells in this formation produce groundwater of a generally good quality suitable for high capacity uses. Increasing intensity of groundwater use over the past century in the LAPU resulted in an excess of removal over recharge which produced reductions in groundwater levels. During the late 1950's and early 1960's, groundwater levels in the central Livermore Valley were lowered from an average elevation of 250 feet to 280 feet. Lower water levels and water reuse also caused degradation of water quality in some sub-basins. Recent implementation of improved groundwater recharge management practices has reversed the quantitative imbalance and will restore supplies if continued. The major groundwater reservoirs in LAPU are located in the central and western portions of the Livermore Valley and include the Bernal, Amador, and Mocho sub-basins. Over one hundred wells are operated in this region to provide large quantities of water for major users in the basin. Yield from sub-basins in the Sunol Valley is generally low because of availability of SFWD water, a small producing area, thin alluvium, and confining space of small valleys. Other than the Sunol Filter Galleries which collect sub-basin groundwater to augment SFWD supplies, extraction from wells is negligible. Variations in the mineral content of groundwater in different sub-basins and movement of groundwater between basins are important in analyzing the quality of the water supply source. Horizontal movement of groundwater is controlled by fault locations, variations in aquifer thickness, and different permeability of aquifer materials while verticle movement is determined by hydraulic continuity between water-bearing formations and internal stratification. Groundwater movement in the Livermore Valley generally occurs downslope toward the longitudinal axis of the valley and then in a westerly direction to the Bernal sub-basin. Because of withdrawals from deep wells in the Bernal sub-basin, subsurface outflow to the Sunol basin does not occur. While the mineral quality of groundwater in the Livermore and Sunol Valleys is generally adequate for most beneficial uses, there are exceptions in some areas. Groundwater quality is usually dependent upon the source of replenishment and character of subsurface sediments. The central and southern portions of the Livermore Valley are recharged from streamflow of the Arroyo Mocho and Arroyo Del Valle which exhibit good quality magnesium bicarbonate and calcium bicarbonate waters. The eastern area of the Livermore Valley contains some groundwater of poor quality sodium chloride character. The major source of this mineral is recharge from Altamont Creek. Another area of poor quality sodium chloride and sodium sulfate water occurs southeast of Dublin. Excessive concentrations of nitrate, boron, and total dissolved solids are found in various sites throughout the Livermore Valley and frequently are high enough to render groundwater undesirable for domestic or industrial use. Groundwater quality in the Sunol Valley is usually adequate for irrigation purposes although some excessive nitrate concentrations (greater than 44 ppm) are evident in some shallow wells. Recharge of the groundwater basin is accomplished by infiltration and percolation of precipitation, streamflow, and applied water. Subsurface inflow provides a limited source of replenishment where wells penetrate both the alluvium and the underlying Tassajara and Livermore Formations and where stream channels intercept the Livermore Formation. A balance of recharge with consumption must be achieved to maintain the productivity and quality of the groundwater resource. This has recently been accomplished in LAPU under the overall management of Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District with cooperation from the four water retailers in the area (City of Pleasanton, Valley Community Services District, City of Livermore, and California Water Service Company). The imposition of independent pumping quotas on municipal users of groundwater, the availability of imported waters through the South Bay Aqueduct and Del Valle Reservoir of the State Water Project, and the use of artificial recharge have all contributed to the restoration of a positive balance in the groundwater basin. Groundwater pumpage in the Livermore Valley averaged 23,900 acre-feet annually from 1961 to 1970 with municipal and industrial users averaging 11,450 acre-feet and irrigated agriculture 12,450 acre-feet. As agricultural land use diminishes in response to expanding urban development, it can be expected that agricultural pumpage will decrease. Increases in urban demand will largely be accommodated through direct use of imported water following treatment. ### Water Quality Management Conditions The management of water quality in Alameda County is a complex problem which must be approached with an understanding of the systematic nature of the hydrologic cycle. It is only possible to achieve desired water quality through a program which acknowledges the interactions involved and implements procedures to manage the resource on a regional basis. Toward this end, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board was established to formulate water quality objectives and policies and to enforce specific regulations and requirements. The Bay Area Sewage Service Agency was subsequently created to deal with the specific problems of wastewater treatment and disposal. Numerous other agencies in Alameda County have concerns for water quality on both a comprehensive and local level depending on their jurisdiction and purpose. Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is the only existing county-wide agency with concerns for the quality of both surface and groundwater resources. Of course, all of the water supply agencies and State and County Public Health Departments are concerned with the quality of sources and various cities and agencies involved in the provision of aquatic recreation are cognizant of the situation as it affects their facilities. Governmental agencies assigned to protect fish and wildlife resources are also constantly alert to alterations in water quality which could affect aquatic ecosystems. Water quality problems in Alameda County may be divided into three inter-dependent categories: bay water, land based surface water, and groundwater. Desirable levels of water quality are based primarily on the current use of the water but also must consider man's potential needs and technological abilities. Once standards are established, a difficult task which is constantly being modified by new information, and it is established that a problem does exist it is necessary to identify sources and implement programs to eliminate or mitigate the source. The key primary carriers of pollutants are surface creeks and lakes which replenish groundwater basins and subsequently discharge to the bay. Current major sources of pollutants include wastewater treatment plants, direct sewage discharges, urban runoff, irrigation waters, industrial effluent, accidental oil and chemical spills, and dredging. Water quality problems resulting from these sources include dissolved oxygen depletion, health hazards from high bacteriological concentrations, biostimulation, toxicity, pesticide accumulation, and excess floatable hydrocarbons. The major water quality problem on the heavily populated Bay Plain of Alameda County is the discharge of effluent from wastewater treatment plants to the bay. This is a two-part problem which includes the level of treatment of wastewater and the location of outfalls. In order to achieve desired protection and enhancement of bay waters and meet long range and immediate state and federal water quality objectives and requirements, it is necessary to upgrade treatment of wastewater to a "secondary" level and limit discharges of effluent to the central bay where adequate flushing action is available. Programs are now being planned by Special District No. 1 of EBMUD and the East Bay Dischargers (a joint group of wastewater collection and treatment agencies including the City of Hayward, Oro Loma Sanitary District, Castro Valley Sanitary District, City of San Leandro, and Union Sanitary District) which will provide a secondary level of treatment and an interceptor sewer to transport treated effluent to an outfall in the central bay.[^p81-1] [^p81-1]: Jenks and Adamson/Kennedy Engineers. East Bay Dischargers Water Quality Management Program. 1972. A significant water quality problem which is beginning to be recognized in urban areas is the high pollutant load contributed by urban storm runoff. Pollutants from an urban environment range from nutrient chemicals and pesticides of floatable hydrocarbons and oxygen demanding organic matter. The quantities of pollutants involved probably far exceed point source contributions such as wastewater treatment plants and industrial dischargers. The difficulties and cost involved in controlling such a complex source are immense; but, nonetheless, improvement programs may be attempted in future years. Quality of the EBMUD water supply sources and the City of Hayward sources are dependent upon conditions in the watersheds from where their supply is imported. Quality of the groundwater source managed by ACWD in the Washington Planning Unit was discussed earlier to some extent with regard to saltwater intrusion. However, another important factor affecting groundwater quality in the Washington Planning Unit is the quality of replenishment waters. While much of the recharge in WPU is from local precipitation and runoff and imported sources, a significant portion is generated from the Alameda Creek basin located largely in LAPU. Thus, the quality of surface runoff in this basin is important to the water resource in the Niles Cone as well as the groundwater reservoirs in the Livermore Valley. The quality of surface runoff from the Alameda Creek Basin is generally good except during periods of low flow when natural or imported water runoff is insufficient to dilute wastewater discharges from treatment plants in the valley. The City of Livermore wastewater treatment plant and the Valley Community Services District plant discharge significant amounts of effluent to Arroyo Las Positas and the Alamo Canal, respectively, which have the potential to degrade surface water in downstream areas and groundwater basins in both the Livermore-Amador and Washington Planning Units. Additional treated effluent is disposed by irrigation of rangeland with effluent and evaporation from ponds. The high salt content of the effluent is the most significant problem as it probably contributes to excessive mineral concentrations in groundwater. The Livermore-Amador Valley Water Management Agency (LAVWMA) is currently considering alternative plans for wastewater management in LAPU. Alternatives suggested in the "Water Quality Management Plan for the Alameda Creek Watershed Above Niles" by Brown and Caldwell include transport of treated effluent from valley by pipeline, demineralization of effluent and/or the water supply, dilution with imported water, and reclamation of treated wastewater. The recommended plan involves the conveyance of treated wastewater to a storage reservoir in Doolan Canyon where it would be released in a stream during wet weather and disposed on land during dry seasons. The Army Corps of Engineers, in coordination with the County Public Works Department, is presently studying the flood plain problems of Alameda Creek and its tributaries. Infiltration and runoff of unconsumed agricultural irrigation waters are problems which occur wherever agricultural land use is prevalent. High nutrient and salt loads from fertilizers and concentrations of pesti- cides are common constituents of such waters. This source of degradation is particularly significant in the Livermore Valley where a closed ground- water basin and adverse salt balance already exist. Other liquid and solid waste materials which can contribute to degradation include septic tanks, cesspools, and authorized or unauthorized land disposal of solid waste. ### F. Mineral Resources Alameda County is located within the Coast Ranges, a system of northwest-trending longitudinal mountain ranges and valleys which are comprised of Mesozoic and Cenzoic rocks controlled by faulting and folding.[^p84-1] Found extensively in the Coast Ranges, the Franciscan Formation is prominent in the southeastern part of the County. The Franciscan Formation is an assemblage of Upper Jurassic to Upper Cretaceous rocks consisting of sandstone and a variety of rock types such as graywacke, dark shale, limestone, chert, basalt, diabase, ultra-basics, serpentine, and schist.[^p84-2] Adjoining the Franciscan rocks are marine sedimentary rocks of lower Cretaceous to mid-Tertiary ages. These rocks consist primarily of sandstone and shale with some conglomerate. Deposits of Plio-Pleistocene and Recent age are also prevalent in the County. These deposits of soil, gravel, and sand are located along the coastal plain and valleys, especially in the Livermore Valley area.[^p84-3],[^p84-4] Alameda County contains a variety of minerals both metallic and non-metallic. Major mineral resources are: sand and gravel, salt, stone, petroleum, and clays. The following minerals are present in the County, and extraction has been reported: asbestos, bromine, chromite, coal, copper, gold, lead, lime, magnesite, magnesium compounds, manganese, potash (potassium salts), pyrite, silica (molding or specialty sand), silver, soapstone, and travertine.[^p84-5] Prior to 1857, coal was discovered at Tesla in Corral Hollow in the eastern part of the County. From 1897 to 1902, sub-bituminous coal was extracted from steeply-dipping Eocene beds at the rate of more than 70,000 tons per year. In all, 350,000 tons were mined; and no production has been reported since 1904.[^p84-6] Two mines yielded pyrite ore, the Alma mine (1891-1921) and the Leona mine (1895-1934). The ore contained sulfur, iron, copper, gold, silica, and silver. During the period 1929 to 1935, more than 375,000 pounds of copper valued at more than $53,000 was leached out of the pyrite ore. In addition to being present in pyrite ore from Leona Heights, gold was also found in some of the quartz stringers in the shales and schists of the west flank of the Berkeley Hills and the slopes north of Berkeley.[^p84-7] Small deposits of several minerals were exploited in the early 1900's. A small tonnage of short-fiber asbestos was produced in 1915 and 1918. The southeastern part of the County near Cedar Mountain produced chromite in small quantities, and no production has been reported since 1904. Present as coarse crystalline galena in 100-pound lumps, lead production in 1902 was 1,500 pounds. Hydrous magnesium silicate, commonly called talc, soapstone, or steatite, has been produced in Alameda County. Soapstone is the impure, massive variety of the mineral, containing as little as 50 percent talc. Production of soapstone occurred in 1908 and 1910.[^p84-8] [^p84-1]: (footnote text not provided on page) [^p84-2]: (footnote text not provided on page) [^p84-3]: (footnote text not provided on page) [^p84-4]: (footnote text not provided on page) [^p84-5]: (footnote text not provided on page) [^p84-6]: (footnote text not provided on page) [^p84-7]: (footnote text not provided on page) [^p84-8]: (footnote text not provided on page) Salt-plant bitterns are no longer being used as a source material for bromine, magnesite, artificial or synthetic gypsum, magnesium compounds, and potash (potassium salts). Bromine was produced until recently when the FMC Corporation discontinued its processing of bittern in Alameda County. Magnesium compounds once formed an important part of the County's total mineral production. Magnesite[^p85-9] was also obtained from pockets and veins associated with a body of serpentine at Cedar Mountain and on Rocky Ridge, but there has been no production since 1917. From 1894 to 1922, manganese was produced intermittently with the largest annual production in 1918. There was no production from 1923 to 1941, but 310 long tons valued at $11,296 were produced during 1942-1945. Manganese ore occurs in chert of the Franciscan Formation in approximately 30 localities in Alameda County in the Arroyo Mocho Valley area and Altamont Pass.[^p85-10] The Ladd mine in eastern Alameda County is the largest in the state.[^p85-11] Natural minerals called "ochers" have been used as paint pigments. These natural pigments have gradually been replaced by synthetic ones, and production of natural pigments in Alameda County has not occurred in more than a year. Oyster shell deposits of Late Quaternary age are a raw material of high lime content. Shells were once calcined to produce lime and have been used in the manufacture of cement. Crushed shell has been used as poultry grit and for soil conditioning. Between 1924 and 1969, 30,000,000 tons of oyster shells were dredged from the San Francisco Bay. Most of this dredging occurred in the vicinity of the San Mateo Bridge, east of the main ship channel. Dredging also occurred south of the Dumbarton Bridge.[^13,14] ### Salt The salt industry of Alameda County is centered at Newark and is based on the age-old method of solar evaporation which has been perfected and modernized. Three environmental factors have contributed to the success of this method. The lack of rain during the summer months and the summer winds cause high evaporation. The many acres of salt marsh provide low-lying land on which the necessarily large acreage of evaporating ponds may be constructed. These salt marshes are at or close to sea level, thereby minimizing pumping; and the clay soil minimizes leakage. Also, Bay Area industries provide a ready market.[^15,16] Sea water yields common salt, magnesium compounds, artificial gypsum, bromine, and potassium salts. Sea water averages 3.45 percent salts. Bay water averages only 2.8 percent salts, as it has been diluted with fresh water.[^p85-17] The difficulty in salt recovery is to extract sodium chloride (NaCl) with minimal contamination from other salts which affect taste and deliquescence. These bittern salts became important during World War I when a shortage of chemicals created new interest in bittern, the waste product of salt recovery. The salt companies have not been involved in the recovery of bittern salts since 1926.[^p85-18] Synthetic gypsum, magnesium compounds, potassium salts, and bromine are no longer being produced from bittern in Alameda County. SAND AND GRAVEL DEPOSITS, ALAMEDA COUNTY QUARRY PERMITS, ALAMEDA COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT | NAME - LOCATION | TYPE | ROCK TYPES, SOURCE | GENERAL FEATURES | OPERATOR | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | ALAMEDA CREEK Niles-Centerville Area | Shallow alluvial cone deposits of ancestral Alameda Creek | Graywacke, vein quartz, chert, siltstone, greenstone, schist, granitic rock derived from So. Coast Ranges | Overburden ranges from 3-40' thick. No replenishment of deposit. Sub-angular to sub-rounded gravel, most less than 4". Deposit slightly deficient in fine sand. | Kaiser Sand & Gravel, Oak. Niles Sand & Gravel, Niles Pacific Cement & Agg., S.F. Rhodes & Jamieson, Ltd., Oak | | ARROYO DEL VALLE; ARROYO DEL MOCHO Livermore-Pleasanton Area | Present stream channels and ancestral alluvial fan deposits | Graywacke, vein quartz, chert, siltstone, greenstone serpentine, schist derived from Southern Coast Ranges | Overburden ranges from 0' in streambed to 35' in the fan. Gravel size from 6 to 10"; No replenishment on fan; replenishment in stream beds. Sub-angular to sub-rounded gravel. | California Rock & Gravel, SF. Consumers Rock & Cement Co. Continental Land Co., Inc. Deetz Sand & Gravel, Pleas. Kaiser Sand and Gravel Niles Sand & Gravel, Niles Oliver de Silva Co. Pacific Cem. & Aggregates Rhodes-Jamieson, Lts., Oak. | | CALAVERAS CREEK near Sunol | Streambed and adjacent flood plain deposits | Metagraywacke, chert, schist from Southern Coast Ranges | No overburden in stream bed to a few feet on flood plain. No replenishment. Maximum size usually 8". Some clay in the fine fraction | Concrete Service Co, San Jose Santa Clara Sand & Gravel | urces: Mineral Resources of California, 1966 Sand and Gravel in Central California, 1964 PD - 7-75 The extraction of sodium chloride may involve as many as ten concentrating ponds. The brine in the last pond is approximately 21.5 percent salts and has taken four to five years to reach this concentration. After the winter rains, the brine flows into crystallizing ponds; and the bittern is drained off. Four to six inches of salt forms during the evaporation season. Crude salt, which is 99.50 percent sodium chloride, is harvested from September to late December.[^p87-19] Salt is a low-priced commodity; overland bulk shipment contributes heavily to its cost. Therefore, processing plants are located close to the producing ponds. The Oliver Brothers Salt Company produces crude industrial salt from approximately 200 acres of ponds. Production varies due to environmental factors but averages 10,000 tons per year. The Oliver Brothers Salt Company is not engaged in refining. The Morton Salt Company does not recover salt from bay water. It refines and processes the crude salt obtained from the other companies. The Leslie Salt Company is the largest producer in the Bay Area and is also involved in refining. Its recovery and processing operations cover approximately 25,740 acres in the south bay and more than 22,000 acres in Alameda County. Salt ponds cover about 20,500 of these acres. Leslie Salt Company averages 560,000 tons per year from its Alameda County operations. It produces all grades including table salt and pressed blocks.[^p87-20] One of man's most important commodities, salt has many uses. In industry, it is utilized as a refrigeration agent, as a chemical in manufacturing, as a raw material for the manufacture of chemical products, and as a preservative and seasoning for food. The agricultural, metallurgical, and ceramic industries use salt. For medicine, salt in solution and as a solid is applied externally and internally. Historically, salt has been used as a preservative and a dietary element for centuries. Some cultures have attributed religious significance to it, and others have used salt as a form of currency.[^p87-21] Salt production is a principal industry in Alameda County. The contiguity of the salt ponds to the largest processing plant at Newark insures their existence in the foreseeable future. In 1972, the Congress approved a 21,662-acre National Wildlife Refuge in the South San Francisco Bay Area. Included in the Refuge are 12,243 acres of Leslie Salt Company property, most of which is now used for salt recovery. The company has been assured that continued salt production is considered compatible with the Refuge. The Refuge is not expected to impede salt harvesting operations in that area.[^p87-22] ### Stone "Stone" may be defined as material which has been broken or quarried from larger masses of rock. It is obtained from the ordinary rocks that make up the earth's crust. As the use of dimension stone has declined and dwindled, the production of crushed and broken stone has increased. The industry defines crushed and broken stone as all stone in which the shape is not specified, such as material used as aggregate, railroad ballast, and riprap.[^p87-23] [^p87-19]: 19 [^p87-20]: 20 [^p87-21]: 21 [^p87-22]: 22 [^p87-23]: 23 Production of stone has varied in the last decade from 1,461,000 short tons in 1963 to 2,924,000 short tons in 1965. Production in 1971 totaled 1,871,000 short tons. Five quarries in Alameda County are producing crushed and broken rock. The Dumbarton Quarry at Newark mines redrock, a term for the volcanics and ferruginous chert and shale of the Franciscan Formation; redrock is used for road base and for general purpose fill.[^p88-24] The San Leandro Rock Company's quarry on Lake Chabot Road produces redrock and decomposed granite. Decomposed granite is a mass of quartz grains, clay, and partially decomposed grains of feldspar and ferro-magnesian minerals and is used in relatively non-exacting uses.[^p88-25] Conglomerate is a miscellaneous stone material. Composed of classic sedimentary rock which contains hard, well-rounded pebbles of chert and volcanic rock in a matrix of sand and finer-grained material, conglomerate is widespread in small lenses in the Franciscan Formation. It is an excellent material for road base and general fill purposes.[^p88-26] The La Vista Quarry in Hayward mines conglomerate as does Oliver De Silva, Inc. in the Dublin area. The Leona Quarry in Leona Heights produces a material which is as hard as granite[^p88-1], called rhyolite or "blue rock." Leona Rhyolite is a volcanic rock of Tertiary Age found on the crest of the Berkeley Hills. It is of high strength and is a major source of fill and base rock.[^p88-27] ### Petroleum The commercial production of petroleum in Alameda County is a recent event when it is compared with the long history of the salt, sand and gravel, stone, and clay industries. Yet, in 1970, petroleum ranked as the fourth most valuable mineral produced in the County, ahead of clays. And, there was an average of 6 producing oil wells.[^p88-28] At present, 7 wells are producing high-grade crude at the rate of 275 barrels per day.[^p88-29] ### Clays Clay is a natural, earthy, fine-grained material which develops plasticity when a limited amount of water is mixed with it, a reversible process. When subjected to prolonged and intense heating, clay becomes hard and immune to moisture.[^p88-30] The recovery of useful clays in Alameda County began at Corral Hollow and was incidental to early local mining operations. High-grade fire clays became the basis for a successful clay industry from 1897 to 1912. Large-scale open pit mining was not possible at Tesla due to the steeply dipping beds. Though the clay was of excellent quality, mining was discontinued because of the high costs associated with underground mining.[^p88-31] *** [^p88-1]: Representative of Gallagher and Burk, Inc. [^p88-24]: (Not listed on page) [^p88-25]: (Not listed on page) [^p88-26]: (Not listed on page) [^p88-27]: (Not listed on page) [^p88-28]: (Not listed on page) [^p88-29]: (Not listed on page) [^p88-30]: (Not listed on page) [^p88-31]: (Not listed on page) Fire clay is composed primarily of kaolinite-group minerals. Its most important characteristic is refractoriness, a high resistance to heat. This type of clay is used in ceramic products including common brick, art pottery, sewer pipe, and ornamental tile.[^p89-32] Miscellaneous or common clay deposits are comprised of low-grade alluvial clays, shales, soil materials, and less pure clays of any other clay groups. Common clays are used in the manufacture of heavy clay products such as building brick, structural tile, and sewer pipe. Often miscellaneous clay is blended with other types to make higher-grade ceramic products. Large quantities are also used in making portland cement and in the manufacture of expanded shale light-weight aggregate.[^p89-33] Deposits of common clay suitable for the manufacture of brick, sewer pipe, and roofing tile are located in the Livermore Valley and on the Niles alluvial cone.[^p89-34] The clay has been mined by surface methods. Shale material in the Fremont-Sunol area is of high quality due to its consistency, lightness, strength, and high degree of utility. These expansible shales are processed in rotary kilns by intense thermal treatment in order to produce light-weight aggregate.[^p89-35] Average annual production of shale is presently 200,000 tons per year.[^p89-36] Sand and Gravel Alameda County is a principal source of aggregate materials for the San Francisco Bay Area. Much of the sand and gravel used in the Bay Area is obtained from open pit mines in deposits near Fremont and Pleasanton.[^p89-37] Sand and gravel is the County's most valuable mineral resource. Sand is defined commercially as a term applying to rock or mineral fragments which range in size from .003 of an inch to .25 of an inch. Gravel consists of rock and mineral fragments ranging in size from more than .25 of an inch to a maximum of 3.5 inches. Sand and gravel are natural detrital stone materials which usually require only sizing and washing before marketing. Aggregate material is comprised of crushed stone, sand, or gravel used in such materials as concrete, macadam, plaster, terrazzo, road metal, and railroad ballast. This inert, fragmental material is bound into a conglomerate mass by cementing materials. Special sands are high-quality silica sands.[^p89-38],[^p89-39] Sand and gravel are low-priced commodites which cannot be transported any great distances due to high costs of trucking. In 1969, the maximum truck haul which was economically feasible was 43 miles, when the closest source was depleted; and the average maximum haul was 30 miles. Therefore, the principal markets are the large population centers close to the deposits.[^p89-40] According to Harold B. Goldman of the California Division of Mines and Geology, the pit sand deposits will most probably be exhausted before bay sources are able to be exploited economically. Deposits west and south of Alameda Naval Air Station are estimated by the Army Corps of Engineers to contain 10,000,000 cubic yards of sand for hydraulic fill, and deposits west of Bay Farm Island contain 60,000,000 cubic yards of sand.[^p89-41] At present there are no operations in the Tesla Formation deposit in eastern Alameda County. These Eocene or early Tertiary deposits contained specialty sands and were a source of supply for the foundry industry. Obtained from sedimentary sandstone formations at the old Tesla coal mine, the foundry sand contained 70 to 95 percent quartz sand and 5 to 30 percent feldspar. The Tesla Formation deposit was the only example of underground mining of aggregate material in the County.[^42,43] Most of Alameda County's sand and gravel production is obtained from stream channel and alluvial fan deposits. The material in stream deposits is very suitable for aggregate due to the water's abrasive action during stream transport. Soft materials are ground up; the concentrated firmer particles are rounded. Rounded particles are desirable because they give a more workable mix with less cement and care than concrete made with angular materials. An alluvial fan deposit is composed of loose rock materials put down by a stream which flows from the mountains and enters an adjacent valley or plain. The abrupt change in gradient causes the bulk of the stream load to be deposited in a crudely stratified mass. Such deposits contain lenticular beds of poorly sorted sand and gravel interbedded with silt and clay. Desirable deposits are those which are free from thick clay lenses.[^44,45] The primary deposits in Alameda County are: Alameda Creek in the Niles- Centerville area; Arroyo Del Valle, Arroyo Del Mocho in the Livermore- Pleasanton area; and Calaveras Creek near Sunol.[^p90-46] In 1970, there were 15 mines operating, and total production was 9,427,000 short tons. This production increased to 10,477,000 short tons in 1971. Mineral Resources - Footnotes 1. California Division of Mines and Geology, Bulletin 191, p. 35. 2. California State Department of Public Works, Geology - Appendix H, p. 16. 3. Goldman, Sand and Gravel in California, Part B - Central California, pp. 9, 10. 4. Davis, "Mines and Mineral Resources of Alameda County," pp. 280. 5. Ibid., pp. 280, 284. 6. Ibid., pp. 295, 296, Table 4. 7. Ibid., pp. 296, 297. 8. Ibid., pp. 285, 287, 298, 338. 9. Ibid., p. 299. 10. Ibid., pp. 301, 302. 11. Taliaferro, "Geology of the San Francisco Bay Counties," Bulletin 154, p. 123. 12. Bowen, Rocks and Minerals of the San Francisco Bay Region, p. 22. 13. Goldman, "Salt, Sand, and Shells: Mineral Resources of the San Francisco Bay," pp. 35-38. 14. Bowen, Op. Cit., p. 60. 15. Goldman, Op. Cit., "Salt, Sand, and Shells: Mineral Resources of the San Francisco Bay." p. 39. 16. Ver Planck, "Salines in the Bay Area," Bulletin 154, p. 219. 17. Goldman, Op. Cit., p. 38. 18. Ver Planck, Op. Cit., pp. 221-222. 19. Goldman, Op. Cit., p. 39. 20. Information was obtained from company spokesmen during November, 1973. 21. Davis, Op. Cit., p. 314. 22. Goldman, Op. Cit., p. 40. 23. California Division of Mines and Geology, Bulletin 191, pp. 392, 393. 24. ABAG, Regional Geology, p. 12. 25. California Division of Mines and Geology, Op. Cit., p. 39. 26. California Division of Mines and Geology, Op. Cit., p. 398. 27. ABAG, Op. Cit., pp. 19-20. 28. Mitko and Stock, "The Mineral Industry of California". 29. Alameda County Zoning Administrator 30. California Division of Mines and Geology, Op. Cit., p. 126. 31. Ibid., pp. 129, 131. 32. Ibid., p. 127. 33. Ibid., p. 128. 34. Turner, "Clay and the Ceramic Industry of the San Francisco Bay Counties," Bulletin 154, p. 252. 35. Alameda County Planning Department, Quarry Permit #46. 36. Mr. Jerry Clewball, Kaiser Sand and Gravel Company. 37. Goldman, Op. Cit., p. 40. 38. Turner, "The Building Stone and Aggregate Industry of the San Francisco Bay Counties," Bulletin 154, p. 235. 39. California Division of Mines and Geology, Op. Cit., pp. 361, 362. 40. Goldman, Op. Cit., pp. 34, 35. 41. Loc. Cit. 42. Turner, Op. Cit., p. 238. 43. California Division of Mines and Geology, Op. Cit., pp. 371, 372. 44. Goldman, Sand and Gravel in California, Part B - Central California, pp. 7-10. 45. California Division of Mines and Geology, Op. Cit., pp. 362-367. 46. Goldman, Op. Cit., pp. 16, 20, 25. Mineral Resources - Bibliography Davis, Fenelon F.; "Mines and Mineral Resources of Alameda County"; California Journal of Mines and Geology; vol. 46, no. 2; pp. 281-346; 1950. Goldman, Harold B., California Division of Mines and Geology; Sand and Gravel in California, Part B - Central California; Bulletin 180-B; 1964. Goldman, Harold B.; "Salt, Sand, and Shells: Mineral Resources of the San Francisco Bay"; Geologic and Engineering Aspects of San Francisco Bay Fill, California Division of Mines and Geology; pp. 31-40; 1969. California Department of Public Works; Geology, Appendix H of Report to the Water Project Authority of the State of California on Feasibility of Construction by the State of Barriers in the San Francisco Bay System; Part II, Regional Geology, pp. 15-19; 1955. California Division of Mines and Geology: - Mineral Information Service Bulletin/California Geology; 1958-1973; - Mineral Resources of California, Bulletin 191, 1966; - Geologic Guidebook of the San Francisco Bay Counties, Bulletin 154, Part V - Mineral Industry; 1951; - Minerals of California, Bulletin 189, 1966. Mitko, Francis C. and Stock, John A.; "The Mineral Industry of California"; U. S. Bureau of Mines, Minerals Yearbook 1970, Volume II, Area Reports: Domestic. Bowen, Oliver E., Jr.; Rocks and Minerals of the San Francisco Bay Region; 1966. Leslie Salt Company, Annual Report, 1972. Association of Bay Area Governments, Regional Geology, 1968. Alameda County Planning Department, Quarry Permits. ### III. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR CONSERVATION OF RESOURCES #### A. Water Resources **Goal:** To insure and maintain a continuing supply of high water quality for the citizens of Alameda County. **Objectives:** 1. To insure sufficient water supplies of high quality for all beneficial uses. 2. To conserve ground water resources and prevent overdraft of existing ground water supplies. 3. To define areas of periodic flooding and reduce loss through the application of sound land use planning. 4. To reduce man-caused stream and ground water pollution and general resource degeneration through cumulative impacts on surface and ground water systems. 5. To maintain all water resources in their highest quality. 6. To educate government, business and citizens to assist in the conservation of water and energy and to minimize pollution. 7. Through sound design of drainage systems throughout the County and by regulation of land use, erosion of soil caused by water could be controlled. 8. To achieve coordination of state, regional and local water management agencies and policies throughout the County. #### B. Vegetative and Wildlife Resources **Goal:** To protect and enhance wildlife habitats and natural vegetation areas in Alameda County. **Objectives:** 1. To identify areas of critical or sensitive concern for wildlife and vegetation. 2. To maintain and, if necessary, restore deteriorating environments to a level of diversity appropriate in this area of California. 3. To identify the principles of resource management as criteria for resource evaluation. 4. To educate government, business and citizens to conserve and protect wildlife resources. ### C. Minerals, Extractive Resources Goal: To insure extraction of minerals and reclamation of land to the fullest extent possible consistent with sound management policies. Objectives: 1. To provide access to minerals through identification of the resource. 2. To permit extraction only when not detrimental to other valuable resources. 3. To utilize lower quality sources by methods which minimize environmental costs. 4. To increase recycling of mineral commodities such as metals. 5. To work with government and the extractive industries to improve mineral extraction policies and practices. ### D. Agriculture and Soils Resources Management Goal: To protect and maintain soils in Alameda County in such a manner to be beneficial to agricultural and open uses. Objectives: 1. To conserve soil resources for agricultural productivity. 2. To preserve in agricultural use those areas of prime agricultural lands capable of producing a wide variety of valuable crops. 3. To guide urban development towards less productive land. 4. To join with the U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service and Agricultural Agencies in developing rational criteria for resource management and land development. Goal: To protect and maintain the soil resources in Alameda County in such a manner as to be beneficial to all land users. Objectives: 1. To set up rational land use and development guidelines to protect soil resources. 2. To set up rational land use and development guidelines to protect the soil resources in agricultural areas. 3. To set up rational guidelines to control non-point source pollution. Goal: To protect agriculture and agricultural lands. Objectives: 1. To preserve agricultural lands. 2. To promote sound land use management on agricultural lands. 3. To identify lands with little or no agricultural value for urban development provided that they otherwise meet urban development criteria. 4. To support a concept of multiple use of agricultural and grazing lands as a means of preserving economic and environmental values of the land. ### E. Other Natural Resources Goal: • To insure and maintain the highest possible air quality in the County. • To insure measures which conserve energy. Objectives: 1. In areas of critical air pollution to attempt to restore and prevent further degradation of air quality. 2. To achieve coordination of air quality policies and regulations at the federal, state, regional and local level. 3. To educate government, business and citizens to assist in reducing poor air quality through alternate means of travel or by reduced use of internal combustion engines. 4. To investigate and implement measures to conserve energy. IV. IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM A. Maintain data files and continue to update plan element resource information on a County-wide basis in coordination with cities. Implementation: * Resource mapping program * City/County coordination * Environmental data center * Computer mapping program B. Assessment of the degree of utilization and potential of resources. Implementation: * Renewable and non-renewable natural resources * Areas of critical concern * Land use studies * Open space element implementation * Zoning Ordinance C. Protection of areas of critical concern. Implementation: * Specific plans for areas of environmental significance * Flood plain zoning * Subdivision Ordinance D. In coordination with the General Plan and Open Space Element guide and control resource development and utilization through revision of legislative standards. E. Establish zoning that reflects relationship to conservation and resource management principles. F. Preservation of Agricultural Lands Implementation: * Describe and identify agricultural lands (prime agricultural land, special purpose agricultural land, prime rangeland, lands with agricultural as the highest use.) * Maintain the Williamson Act for property owners who wish to stay in agricultural preserves. * Modify tax structure on agricultural lands. Tax on land's capability to produce, and make agricultural lands in Alameda County competitive with agricultural lands in other counties of California. * Develop a system of compensation to agricultural producers in those agricultural lands in close proximity to urbanization designated by the County to be maintained in agricultural production. - Set up an agricultural advisory committee composed of farmers and ranchers, representatives of conservation agencies, and planners to develop recommended land use and development guidelines. - Set up subcommittee to the agricultural advisory committee to develop recommended guidelines, to make recommendations on multiple uses appropriate to agricultural lands; to make recommendations regarding agricultural land preservation, and to provide readily available information on sound land use management. - Use the United States Department of Agricultural, Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey of Alameda County to identify lands with little or no agricultural value. The agricultural advisory committee would develop criteria (for determining agricultural value). - Alameda County, working with the Association of Bay Area Governments under the Environmental Management Program (208 Study) will establish guidance and provide implementation measures for non-point source pollution. ### G. Citizen Education and Participation in Conservation of Resources. Implementation: - Set up educational forums and workshops - Encourage resource conservation education in schools ### H. Use of the Conservation Element. The Conservation Element is a public document intended to be used as a policy guidelines. It is expressly understood that the planning agency shall investigate and make recommendations to the Planning Commission upon reasonable and practical means for putting into effect the General Plan or part thereof, in order that it will serve as a pattern and guide for the orderly physical growth and development and the preservation and conservation of open space land of the County and as a basis for the efficient expenditure of its funds relating to the subjects of the general plan; the measures recommended may include plans, regulations, financial reports and capital budgets. The purpose of such review is to avoid duplication of regulation, to fully evaluate the necessity for the proposal, and to preclude placing an unnecessary or excessive burden on either the public or private sectors of the consumer. The result of such a review shall be public information in the interest of promoting public interest and understanding of the general plan and regulations relating to it. COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION HAYWARD, CALIFORNIA RESOLUTION NO. 11134 - At meeting held September 29, 1975 Introduced by Commissioner Lois Rusteika Seconded by Commissioner James Zeno WHEREAS pursuant to the provisions of the Planning Law (Title 7 of the Government Code) it is the function and duty of the County Planning Agency of Alameda County, California, to prepare and of the County Planning Commission to approve a comprehensive long-term general plan for the physical development of the County, such plan to be known as the General Plan, and to provide that the Board of Supervisors of Alameda County may adopt all or any part of said General Plan or any subject thereof for all or any part of the County; and WHEREAS Alameda County has an official general plan entitled GENERAL PLAN, COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, approved by resolution of the County Planning Commission on July 26, 1965, and amended on December 27, 1966, June 16, 1969, September 17, 1973, January 14, 1974, and April 22, 1974, and adopted by the Board of Supervisors on May 26, 1966, and amended on February 23, 1967, August 28, 1969, December 18, 1973, January 29, 1974, June 6, 1974, October 10, 1974, and December 19, 1974, for the incorporated and unincorporated area of the County of Alameda including elements and other material listed above and proposals developed in the planning program sponsored by the cities within Alameda County; and WHEREAS said Planning Law provides that a General Plan shall include a CONSERVATION ELEMENT, SEISMIC SAFETY ELEMENT, SAFETY ELEMENT, AND NOISE ELEMENT; and WHEREAS the State Planning Law requires that a Conservation Element be adopted by December 31, 1973, and the State has granted an extension to Alameda County to September 20, 1975, to complete the Seismic Safety Element, Safety Element, and Noise Element; and WHEREAS this County Planning Agency in coordination with cities and public and quasi-public agencies in the County has prepared a text containing objectives and principles and required maps for the above named elements for the incorporated and unincorporated areas of the County; and WHEREAS this County Planning Commission on September 29, 1975, at a public hearing continued from September 15, September 2, and August 18, 1975, considered the proposed CONSERVATION ELEMENT, SEISMIC SAFETY ELEMENT, SAFETY ELEMENT, AND NOISE ELEMENT; and WHEREAS public testimony was taken at the public hearings from those in favor of and those in opposition to the proposed plan changes: Now Therefore BE IT RESOLVED that this Planning Commission recommends to the Board of Supervisors that the General Plan be amended to include the CONSERVATION ELEMENT, SEISMIC SAFETY ELEMENT, SAFETY ELEMENT, AND NOISE ELEMENT. ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Enos, Rusteika, Zeno, and Chairman Carpenter. NOES: Commissioners Kauffman and Spiliotopoulos. ABSENT: None. ABSTAINED: None. WILLIAM H. FRALEY - PLANNING DIRECTOR & SECRETARY COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OF ALAMEDA COUNTY and approved by the following vote, Seconded by Supervisor Bates Ayes: Supervisors Bates, Bort and Chairman Cooper - 3 Noes: Supervisors Murphy and Santana - 2 Excused or Absent: Supervisors None THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED: NUMBER 165122 ### ADOPT CONSERVATION ELEMENT, SEISMIC SAFETY ELEMENT, SAFETY ELEMENT AND NOISE ELEMENT WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Alameda County held a noticed public hearing on January 8, 1976 as required by law on the Conservation Element, Seismic Safety Element, Safety Element and Noise Element of the General Plan of the County of Alameda; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Board of Supervisors does hereby adopt said elements and concurs without modification of the Alameda County Planning Commission as set for in its resolution no. 11134, adopted on the 29th day of September, 1975. ek I CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING IS A CORRECT COPY OF A RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA JAN - 8 1976 ATTEST: JAN - 8 1976 JACK K. POOL, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS BY: [signature] THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OF ALAMEDA COUNTY HAYWARD, CALIFORNIA RESOLUTION NO. 76-120 - At meeting held September 13, 1976 Introduced by Commissioner George Spiliotopolous Seconded by Commissioner William E. Carpenter WHEREAS pursuant to the provisions of the Planning Law (Title 7 of the Government Code), it is the function and duty of the County Planning Agency to approve a comprehensive long-term general plan for the physical development of the County, such plan to be known as the General Plan, and to provide that the Board of Supervisors of Alameda County may adopt all or any part of said General Plan or any subject thereof for all or any part of the County; and WHEREAS said Planning Law provides that a General Plan shall include a Conservation Element; and WHEREAS the Board of Supervisors adopted a Conservation Element of the Alameda County General Plan by Resolution No. 165122 on January 8, 1976; and WHEREAS this County Planning Agency in coordination with cities and public and quasi-public agencies in the County has prepared an amendment to said conservation element for the incorporated and unincorporated areas of the County as directed by the Alameda County Board of Supervisors on January 8, 1976; and WHEREAS this County Planning Commission on September 13, 1976, at a public hearing continued from August 23, 1976 considered the proposed amendments to the CONSERVATION ELEMENT; and WHEREAS public testimony was taken at the public hearings from those in favor of and those in opposition to the proposed plan changes: Now Therefore BE IT RESOLVED that this Planning Commission recommends to the Board of Supervisors that the CONSERVATION ELEMENT, of the Alameda County General Plan be amended to include the proposed plan changes. ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Carpenter, Enos, Kauffman, Bernhardt, Shockley, Spiliotopoulos, and Chariman Rusteika. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. WILLIAM H. FRALEY - PLANNING DIRECTOR & SECRETARY COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OF ALAMEDA COUNTY RICHARD J. MOORE, County Counsel By [signature] Deputy # THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA On motion of Supervisor Bort, Seconded by Supervisor Bates and approved by the following vote, Ayes: Supervisors Bates, Bort, and Chairman Cooper - 3 Noes: Supervisors None Excused or Absent Supervisors Murphy and Santana - 2 THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED: NUMBER 169797 ## AMEND CONSERVATION ELEMENT OF THE ALAMEDA COUNTY GENERAL PLAN WHEREAS, this Board of Supervisors has received Resolution No. 76-120 from the County Planning Commission of Alameda County, relating to its intention to consider amendments to the official general plan entitled GENERAL PLAN, COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, to amend the Conservation Element; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Planning Law (Title 7 of the Government Code), it is the function and duty of the County Planning Agency to approve a comprehensive long-term general plan for the physical development of the County, such plan to be known as the General Plan, and to provide that the Board of Supervisors of Alameda County may adopt all or any part of said General Plan or any subject thereof for all or any part of the County; and WHEREAS, said Planning Law provides that a General Plan shall include a Conservation Element; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors adopted a Conservation Element of the Alameda County General Plan by Resolution No. 165122, adopted on January 8, 1976; and WHEREAS, the County Planning Agency in coordination with cities and public and quasi-public agencies in the County has prepared an amendment to said conservation element for the incorporated and unincorporated areas of the County as directed by this Board on January 8, 1976; and WHEREAS, the Alameda County Planning Commission on September 13, 1976, at a public hearing continued from August 23, 1976, considered the proposed amendments to the Conservation Element; and WHEREAS, public testimony was taken at the public hearings from those in favor of and those in opposition to the proposed plan changes; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Section 65355 of the Government Code of the State of California, this Board held a public hearing on the above matter on November 23, 1976; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Board of Supervisors does and it hereby adopts the amendments to the General Plan of the County of Alameda, State of California, to include the proposed plan changes in the CONSERVATION ELEMENT. I CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING IS A CORRECT COPY OF A RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA NOV 2 3 1976 ATTEST: JUN 2 3 1977 JACK K. POOL, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS BY: [signature] (blank page) (blank page) --- ## Open Space — Open Space Element - Source: https://www.acgov.org/cda/planning/generalplans/documents/Open Space Element 1994.pdf - Pages: 31 - Covers: open_space # OPEN SPACE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN: COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AMENDED MAY 5, 1994 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESOLUTION 94-272 (see insert for text changes) MAY 30, 1973 <
> We hereby certify that the County Planning Commission of Alameda County did, on the 18th day of January, 1973, approve by resolution an element of the General Plan, consisting of both a map and text entitled "OPEN SPACE ELEMENT OF THE ALAMEDA COUNTY GENERAL PLAN, Parts I and II, Policies and Plan," and the document on which this certificate is recorded is a part thereof. John P. Gardella John P. Gardella, Chairman William H. Fraley William H. Fraley, Secretary We hereby certify that the Board of Supervisors of Alameda County did, on the 30th day of May, 1973, adopt by resolution an element of the General Plan, consisting of both a map and text entitled, "OPEN SPACE ELEMENT OF THE ALAMEDA COUNTY GENERAL PLAN, Parts I and II, Policies and Plan," and the document on which this certificate is recorded is a part thereof. Joseph P. Bort Joseph P. Bort, Chairman Jack K. Pool Jack K. Pool Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Alameda # AMENDMENTS TO # ALAMEDA COUNTY OPEN SPACE ELEMENT ### (Adopted May 30, 1973) ### Amended May 5, 1994 ### Board of Supervisors Resolution 94-272 New language is indicated in *italics*; deletions are shown in ~~strikeout~~. Page 3, Paragraph under heading "Definitions: Types of Open Space" has been modified to read as follows: > The Open Space Plan is based on the adopted Alameda County General Plan. This Open Space Plan *which addresses the area west of the Pleasanton/Dublin ridgeline*, designates three major types of open space: cultivated agriculture, uncultivated agriculture, and major parks and recreation. Secondary categories of open space in the General Plan include selected extensive industrial uses such as salt ponds and gravel pits. *Specific open space diagram and policies for the East County area are contained in the East County Area Plan (refer to Policies 55A through 74 and Implementation Programs IA and 21A through 29).* In the development of the Open Space Plan, all General Plan open space proposals as described above were included, and slightly modified in a few instances when necessary to implement proposed open space policies. The Scenic Route Element of the General Plan and proposed trail systems have also been used as a basis for the provision of open space connectors. Page 4, Paragraph under heading "Primary Types of Open Space" has been modified to read as follows: > 1) Agricultural Open Space: > > All areas indicated as ~~cultivated or uncultivated agriculture~~ on the County General Plan are considered as Agricultural Open Space in the Open Space Plan and are designated for ~~permanent retention~~ *preservation*. Certain areas, indicated on the General Plan for future urban uses, will be designated *or used* as interim agricultural open space as a means of preservation prior to the need for urban development. Page 9, Paragraph under heading "Include Existing, Potential, and Depleted Wildlife Habitats" has been modified as follows: > Existing and potential marine and wildlife habitats should be preserved in a natural, undeveloped state as part of the open space plan, as a means of preserving and attracting wildlife. Depleted habitats adaptable to restoration should also be included as open space. ~~All habitats should be~~ *Habitats* established as sanctuaries or refuges *should be closed to the public, except for ecological study in selected areas.* Page 10, Paragraph under heading "**Limit Development Within Open Space Areas**" has been revised to read as follows: > Development within open space areas should be permitted in selected areas and should be limited to facilities *allowed by the applicable land use designation* ~~needed in conjunction with low density recreation areas or to selected public facilities.~~ Page 10, Paragraph under heading "**Prohibit High Density Commercial Recreation Uses in Open Space Areas**" has been revised to read as follows: > Resort type high density commercial recreation and accessory uses should be prohibited in all open space areas, *although visitor-serving commercial facilities (such as wineries, bed and breakfast inns) will be allowed in appropriate agricultural areas.* Urban type facilities, such as motels, restaurants, and places of entertainment should be located in ~~highway~~ commercial or urban business districts. Page 13, Paragraph under heading "**Limit Development in Agricultural Areas**" has been revised to read as follows: > Agricultural areas should be free of urban type *residential* development~~with~~. *One single family home and one secondary unit per parcel are allowed with additional dwellings permitted only for those persons involved in agricultural production.* Page 18, the first paragraph under the title "**The Open Space Plan**" has been modified to read as follows: > The Open Space Plan map includes all the major park and recreation and agricultural areas indicated on the County General Plan which have been redefined and redesignated into four major categories. *The Open Space map covers only the area west of the Pleasanton/Dublin ridgeline. Open space in the East County area is addressed in the East County Area Plan, including an open space diagram. The East County Area Plan also contains policies and programs concerning open space in the East County area, which supplement the countywide open space policies contained in this Element.* Included within the Open Space Plan are Scenic Route Element and Recreation Element policies and plans. Page 18, the second paragraph under heading "**Description of the Open Space Plan**" has been modified to read as follows: > Based on the County General Plan, the emphasis of the Open Space Plan is to ~~limit spread of urban areas~~ *identify areas that are less appropriate for urban development* and protect significant scenic and ecological resources for the health, welfare, and enjoyment of the residents of the County. ~~Because the focus of the plan is on the non-urban areas of County-wide or regional significance, it is presented on a County-wide level rather than by planning unit.~~ *The description on the Open Space Plan for the area west of the Pleasanton/Dublin ridgeline* is in terms of the four major components; agricultural open space, preserves, residential open space, and connecting open space corridors. *Refer to the East County Area Plan for the Open Space Diagram and policies for the East County area.* Page 18, Paragraph under heading "**Agricultural Open Space**" has been modified to read as follows: ~~The plan indicates the major portion of agricultural open space in the Livermore-Amador Valley, where all the land outside the area designated for urban uses on the General Plan except major parks and recreation, quarries, salt ponds, and water bodies are indicated as agricultural open space. Cultivated agricultural open space is separately designated from uncultivated agriculture on the Open Space Plan.~~ There are two agricultural open space areas indicated in the East Bay ridge. One is immediately north and south of ~~Route~~ Interstate 580, east of Castro Valley and Palomares Road, the other in the Mission Pass-Andrade Road area. General Plan agricultural open space in the ~~three~~ adjacent *Contra Costa and Santa Clara* counties in the vicinity of the Alameda County boundary is indicated as "borrowed agricultural open space" on the county open space plan. *Agricultural open space in the East County area is shown on the East County Area Plan Open Space Diagram.* Page 18, the paragraph under the heading "**Preserves**" has been modified to read as follows: Preserves are permanent open space areas of irreplaceable natural or environmental resources or areas of outstanding beauty and consist primarily of existing and proposed major park and recreation areas shown on the County General Plan *for the area west of the Pleasanton/Dublin ridgeline*, which in turn include watershed lands and other public owned non-recreation lands. *Refer to the East County Area Plan for open space policies for preserves in the East County area.* On the East Bay ridge north of Castro Valley, Roundtop Regional, Joaquin Miller, and Tilden Regional Parks, as well as East Bay ~~Water~~ Municipal Utility District watershed lands, are considered preserves. In addition, adjacent portions of Regional Park and watershed lands in Contra Costa County are considered "borrowed preserves," since they serve the same function, although lying outside the County. Page 19, the first paragraph has been modified to read as follows: In the Hayward area of the East Bay ridge, Garin and the ~~proposed Myers Park~~ *Dry Creek Pioneer Parks* are designated as preserves~~, while in the ridge area south of Mission Pass Freeway in Fremont, all lands east of Monument and Mission Peaks and east to include Sunol Park and San Francisco Water district lands are all designated as preserves.~~ Amendments to the Alameda County Open Space Element Board of Supervisors Resolution 94-272, May 5, 1994 Page 19, the fourth and fifth paragraphs have been deleted as follows: > ~~In the southern part of the Livermore-Amador Valley, Arroyo Del Valle, the Mines Road area and Tesla Geological areas are designated as preserves. The Arroyo Del Valle Reservoir preserve area is planned for more intensive active recreational use, such as hiking, camping, and nature study.~~ > > ~~In the most northern portion of the Livermore-Amador Valley, preserve areas include Doolan Canyon, Brushy Peak, and the Old River Area, all also planned for future recreational use. Major park and recreation areas in Contra Costa, San Joaquin, and Santa Clara Counties, abutting Alameda County all are considered as "borrowed preserves."~~ Page 19, the sixth paragraph has been modified to read as follows: > Throughout the County, smaller park and recreation areas designated as preserves include: Oakland's Lakeshore and Temescal Parks, *and Fremont's Central Park*; ~~and Shadowcliff Park in Pleasanton.~~ Page 19, the paragraph under the heading "Residential-Canyon Open Space" has been modified to read as follows: > All General Plan existing and proposed suburban density area in slope lands exceeding twenty-five percent are included in the residential hill-canyon area open space area designation *on the Open Space Plan Map. Refer to the East County Area Plan for open space policies for the East County area.* Hill area residential includes both low density estate-type development and higher density cluster residential with surrounding open space. Canyon areas adjacent to the developable portions of the hill residential areas have been indicated for preservation as part of the open space plan. The **Open Space Plan Map** which follows page 20 has been modified to remove the area covered by the East County Area Plan. The East County Area Plan Land Use Diagram and policies should be consulted for open space designations and specific policies for the East County area. <
> # OPEN SPACE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN: COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA ### MAY 30, 1973 ### Preface Rapid depletion of natural resources, as a result of competitive demand for land, has brought to the attention of citizen and government alike the need for permanently preserving open space land in and near urban areas. The Open Space Element of the Alameda County General Plan presents policy proposals for the protection and preservation of major open areas within the County. The objectives, principles, and standards, and the Open Space Plan map are intended to serve as policy guides for the retention of open spaces by city, county, regional, and state agencies, as well as private land owners. The Open Space Plan is a part of, and coordinated with the policies and land use and circulation elements of the County General plan and city general and master plans. It also includes policies and plans included in the Scenic Route Element of the General Plan. The emphasis on the Open Space Plan is county-wide, and, as such, is a component of the regional open space system. Elements of open space at the local level, including major city parks which are included in the county plan, are properly a function of the city open space plans. Included within the county Open Space Plan are proposals for open space surrounding communities, agricultural open space, as well as Bay, shoreline, and woodland preserves. A system of recreation trails and scenic routes is proposed to connect major park and recreation facilities within the buffers and preserves. The county Open Space Plan presents a slightly different emphasis than the typical park and recreation or open space plan, in that it is intended to relate open space to the ecological needs of the human community, since it is becoming increasingly evident that open space is vital to ecological survival. The Plan, therefore, goes further than indicating park and recreation needs or preserving scenic resources; it is also concerned with the preservation of the ecological system. The Plan is also intended to serve as a means of coordinating open space policies and plans of other jurisdictions at every level on a continuing basis. Each agency with jurisdiction within the county concerned with open space and recreation as well as jurisdictions in adjacent counties, has had the opportunity of reviewing and commenting upon the Plan; and recommendations for changes and additions have been included. A unified approach by federal, state, regional, and local agencies should result in policies and a Plan acceptable to all. An Open Space Plan for Alameda County, endorsed by all involved agencies, forms the basis for an action program, including acquisition of land and development of legislation for the protection of all open space lands designated in the Plan. Table of Contents iii **Preface** 1 # PART ONE: OPEN SPACE POLICIES 2 **Introduction** 3 **The Open Space Plan** 3 **Definitions: Types of Open Space** 4 Primary Types of Open Space 6 **Analysis of Need** 8 **Open Space Objectives** 9 **Open Space Principles** 9 General Open Space Principles 12 Principles for Park and Recreation Areas 13 Principles for Agricultural Open Space 14 Principles for Shoreline and Bay Open Space 17 # PART TWO: THE OPEN SPACE PLAN 18 **The Open Space Plan** 18 **Description of the Open Space Plan** 21 **The Open Space Plan Map** 22 **Appendix A** Resolutions of Open Space Element of the General Plan Adoption <
> # PART ONE: ## OPEN SPACE POLICIES # Introduction ### Purposes The Open Space Element, consisting of plan and map, is designed to serve as a guide for the establishment of programs and legislation dealing with the preservation and enhancement of open space in the county. As an element of the General Plan, the Open Space Plan is intended to establish official basic policy regarding: 1. Objectives, principles, and general standards for the preservation and enhancement of land and water open space. 2. Definition and designation of the several types of open space. 3. Coordination of open space proposals and programs among all levels of government: federal, state, regional, county, city, and special districts, and between local governments and private land holders. 4. Guidance to all public and quasi-public jurisdictions in the development of more detailed open space plans to supplement the county open space plan. 5. Guidance to private land holders in fulfilling open space plan objectives. 6. Employment of all available, appropriate open space preservation legislation. 7. Development of legislative measures and official programs to protect land and water open space. The Open Space Plan is also intended to serve as a means of informing citizens of the county of the need for prompt and effective action, regarding the preservation of open space. # The Open Space Plan ### Definitions: ### Types of Open Space The Open Space Plan is based on the adopted Alameda County General Plan, which designates three major types of open space: cultivated agriculture, uncultivated agriculture, and major parks and recreation. Secondary categories of open space in the General Plan include selected extensive industrial uses such as salt ponds and gravel pits. In the development of the Open Space Plan, all General Plan open space proposals as described above were included, and slightly modified in a few instances when necessary to implement proposed open space policies. The Scenic Route Element of the General Plan and proposed trail systems have also been used as a basis for the provision of open space connectors. ### Primary Types of Open Space For the purposes of policy and plan consideration, four ptimary types of open space are proposed. Although they include General Plan open space in the aforementioned categories, they have been redefined in accordance with their role in providing open space. The four primary types are: 1) Agricultural Open Space, 2) Preserves, 3) Residential-Canyon Open Space, and 4) Connecting Open Space Corridors. Connecting Corridors, consisting of linear open space corridors adjacent to rapid transit and scenic circulation routes and trails which form a continuous system of open space, would connect to all the other types of open space. The purpose of definition by type is to assist in the development and implementation of the open space plan. Schematic sketches of the types of open space are shown on Plates 1 through 4. Detailed descriptions of each of the primary types of open space are on pages 4 and 5. ### Secondary Types of Open Space Secondary types of open space include: 1) Those shown on the County General Plan as: a) Intensive industrial such as salt ponds and quarries b) Public use such as cemetaries or Camp Parks c) Airports These are important for their value in providing breaks in the urban development pattern. Their low density open character must be protected against high density uses. 2) Borrowed Open Space: a) Open space in adjacent counties which provide a continuation of open space beyond the Alameda County boundaries. ### Primary Types of Open Space 1) Agricultural Open Space: All areas indicated as cultivated or uncultivated agriculture on the County General Plan are considered as Agricultural Open Space in the Open Space Plan and are designated for permanent retention. Certain areas, indicated on the General Plan for future urban uses, will be designated as interim agricultural open space as a means of preservation prior to the need for urban development. 2) Preserves: Preserves are permanent open spaces which possess irreplaceable natural resources and include: a) woodland areas or areas with outstanding topography, geology, vegetation, or wildlife habitat; b) San Francisco Bay and shoreline. Preserves would include all major park and recreation areas shown on the County General Plan and all watershed areas. Major urban parks are also termed preserves, since they not only furnish important recreation areas for urban dwellers, but also provide terminal points for connectors to non-urban open space. <
> <
> <
> <
> 3) Residential-Canyon Open Space: Areas within the General Plan designated for combined residential-open space uses are primarily in hill areas where natural wooded canyons, designated as Major Park areas, are interspersed with gently sloping areas suitable for very low density residential uses. The function of canyon areas, designated on the General Plan as Major Park and Recreation Areas, is to provide scenic attraction, preserve topography and planting, provide recreation and trails areas, and provide a measure of erosion and flood control. The preservation of ridge lines, canyons, significant stands of trees, and watercourses is of paramount importance to the protection of hill areas. 4) Connecting Open Space Corridors: Connecting open space corridors include the protected areas adjacent to scenic routes or rapid transit lines and connecting trails. Connecting scenic route corridors often will have trails in the adjacent open space, as well as turnouts, viewpoints, and picnic areas. Connecting trails may be adjacent to scenic routes or in utility line easements, as well as in canyon open spaces adjacent to residential areas. A major function of connecting open space corridors is to provide access to rural open space from urban open spaces. # Analysis of Need ### Demand for Land Rapid population increases result in rapid consumption of land for living, working, and leisure needs. Although the County, in 1970, was developed to only sixty percent of the 1990 holding capacity indicated on the General Plan, open areas are constantly being threatened by development proposals contrary to adopted plan policies, primarily because the land is less expensive, and is available. In urban areas, the lack of open space in and around communities has become a critical issue. Expanding development has resulted in the merging of cities and has recently begun to threaten hill area open space and the Bay, the only open areas remaining ro provide relief from urbanization. Limited amounts of open space in and around metropolitan areas and in more rural areas are needed for public access and recreation, but just as vital are the large amounts of open space required so that metropolitan areas will not become overpopulated and congested with resulting air and water pollution. ### Need For Intelligent Choice of Uses For Land Increased demands for developable land in many instances has brought pressures for changes in designation of County General Plan land use to the detriment of planned open space. Demand for changes in urban land use in present and future urban areas, for instance from industrial to residential, makes necessary the designation of additional agricultural or open land for industrial uses as a replacement with additional industrial required to accommodate the needs created by the newly designated residential area. A continued trend in this direction could substantially minimize rhe available open space surrounding communities. Changes from agricultural to unplanned highway commercial uses in isolated rural areas has the effect of forming nuclei of unplanned communities, which encourage requests for development as a result of artificial inflation of land prices adjacent to unplanned commercial development. The County General Plan is intended to establish official, consistant policy so that equitable and coordinated use of land will be made. If planned and properly implemented through various legislative programs, open space can remain intact and free from intrusion of development and provide a method of controlling growth. ### Need for Maintenance of the Ecological System One of the major factors of consideration in an open space study is the critical need for preservation of the ecological system, both the living portion of the system — plants, man, and animal — and the non-living portion, or the habitat — land, water, and air. The living and non-living portions must be kept in balance so that man, animal, and plants can thrive. It is becoming generally accepted among scientists that the two basic threats to man's survival are: first, the depletion of resources by overpopulation; and second, the destruction of the environment through production of toxic material on land and in the air and water that destroys living things. Overpopulation in the extreme can result in replacement of fertile agricultural land by urban uses, thus removing the food supply, or cause depletion of minerals and other natural resources for the production of material. At the same time, the byproducts of production such as processing residue often contaminate the air, while vehicle exhaust is responsible for the major portion of air pollution. While we have not yet exhausted the land, our rate of population growth has resulted in filling the atmosphere and waters with pollutants to such an extent that efforts to control cannot keep pace with increasing population and volumes of contamination. Retention of land and water open space also provides for survival of plant life, a prime source of oxygen necessary for the survival of man and animal. Maintenance of volume and surface of water bodies assists in the production of oxygen and the dissolution of water and air pollution. Natural open space areas, therefore, are of vital importance to human and animal survival by provision of oxygen, as well as provision of agricultural land for food growth and areas for recreation and visual amenity. Without setting limits to the spread of urban areas, there are other serious overpopulation consequences such as congestion in transportation systems, resulting in inefficient use of time and public expenditures and higher noise levels that tend to promote human fatigue and inefficiency. If limits are not set, the point is reached where each further acre that is developed does not mean progress, but rather, signifies a step toward ill health and higher mortality rates. If the public fails to halt overpopulation, then by default, it also fails to provide a decent living environment that it individually and collectively spends its working hours seeking to achieve. If therefore follows that the urban area reaches a point where each additional acre developed for urban use is a liability rather than an asset. These areas, in turn, must be evaluated according to their open space useage rather than according to opinion of appraisers for value as urban use. Since urban uses, in these instances, would be detrimental and should not be permitted, the evaluation of land on "potential urban" is unfair to the landowner and public alike. It is unfair to the landowner when translated to taxes, and unfair to the public since the landowner will eventually wish to realize the high value that has unjustifiably been placed on his land by others. ### Need for Protection and Enhancement of Communities Provision of open space surrounding communities provides both protection from the ill effects of high density urban development as well as enhancement in the form of visual open space background to the urban area. Protection is provided in the form of climate and noise control and maintenance of clean air, while enhancement is provided when open space and wooded areas are viewed from urban areas. In many instances in Alameda County, slope and ridge open space provide effective backgrounds to urban areas. Within the open space, areas of natural beauty are preserved for the enjoyment and study of plant and animal life and geological formations, as well as for recreational opportunities. Open space surrounding communities also provide community identity. A waterfront community on San Francisco Bay or hillside community, for example, provides a source of community pride and identity not found in communities that endlessly merge, one with another, with no line of demarcation except a boundary sign. # Open Space Objectives * To provide for the designation, protection, preservation and enhancement of open space on a continuing, permanent basis in Alameda County. * To relate open space to existing and proposed urban land uses in such a manner as to enhance living conditions in the entire county. * To indicate areas to be maintained as open space and to relate such areas to open space plans and proposals of adjacent counties and to the region. * To provide for permanent separation and identification of communities through use of open space that will include park and recreation areas coordinated with a continuous system of trails and scenic tours. * To provide open space recreation and study areas for the enjoyment and education of all people in the county. * To provide a continuous system of open space for the preservation, enhancement, and protection of natural scenic features and preservation and protection of watershed and wildlife areas and agricultural areas. * To preserve and protect the existing bay shoreline by limiting bay fill to public recreation and other selected uses in accordance with adopted regional plans and to protect marine and wildlife habitats by retention of marshlands and water fishery areas. * To provide a healthful environment and to maintain and improve climate by minimizing air and water pollution, reducing population congestion and traffic congestion by preservation of natural open areas, including San Francisco Bay. * To assist in stabilizing open space property values and to enhance the urban and rural economy of Alameda County by containing urban growth through the preservation of recreational, agricultural, and other productive open space. * To provide legal basis for retaining open space through means that will be economically feasible for public and private interests. # Open Space Principles ## General Open Space Principles ### Recognize Assets of Open Space to the County Open space should be recognized as necessary and permanent, being vital to the health, enjoyment, and well-being of the citizens of the county. Open space should be recognized as a necessary means of permanent protection against excessive urban sprawl, overpopulation and consequent pollution, congestion, and uneconomic provision of public facilities and utilities. ### Provide a Coordinated System of Open Space A coordinated system of public and private open space and major park and recreation areas should be provided throughout the county and should connect to open space of adjacent counties. All major areas of public open space should be connected by trails and scenic routes. ### Provide an Equitable Disttribution of Open Space Within the limits of availability, an equitable geographic distribution of open space throughout the county should be provided for the benefit of all the residents. ### Preserve Large, Continuous Areas of Open Space Large, continuous areas of open space, protected from intrusion by development should be preserved. Examples would be San Francisco Bay, the East Bay hills, and the hills surrounding the Livermore-Amador Valley. ### Provide A Variety of Open Space for Specific Open Space Uses A variety of open space should be provided, including open space for public use and enjoyment and for protection of agriculture, wildlife habitat, and scenic values. ### The Open Space Plan Should: #### Include Areas of Irreplaceable Natural and Man-made Resources The open space plan should include areas of irreplaceable natural and man-made resources, including areas of topographical, geographical, or historical significance; land and water areas of outstanding natural scenic qualities; and outstanding views of natural or man-made significance. Such irreplaceable areas should be designated as permanent open space on the plan. #### Provide Open Space Around Each Community Where still feasible, open space surrounding each community should be provided to limit urban development and provide community identity by permanent protection from continuous urban land uses. Open space surrounding communities would include permently protected watersheds, woodlands, agricultural lands, marshlands, and water bodies. #### Provide Park and Recreation and Nature Areas in Open Space Adjacent to Each Community Because of increasing demand per capita for park, recreation, and nature areas in or near metropolitan population centers, selected portions of easily accessible open space surrounding communities should be utilized for leisure time facilities. #### Include Observation Areas Observation areas from which outstanding vistas are available should be included as permanent elements of the open space plan and be coordinated with hiking trails or scenic routes. #### Include Natural Ridgelines and Slope Areas Natural ridgelines, and slopes in excess of twenty-five percent in grade, should be left open permanently to eliminate mass grading. #### Include Existing, Potential, and Depleted Wildlife Habitats Existing and potential marine and wildlife habitats should be preserved in a natural, undeveloped state as part of the open space plan, as a means of preserving and attracting wildlife. Depleted habitats adaptable to restoration should also be included as open space. All habitats should be established as sanctuaries or refuges and closed to the public, except for ecological study in selected areas. #### Include Quasi-Public Lands as Permanent Open Space Quasi-public lands valuable for open space, such as watersheds, should be designated as permanent open space. Sale of watershed lands should be legislatively prohibited; or use, for other than low density recreation use or selected clustered recreational use, should be prohibited. Agencies controlling such lands should be encouraged to establish and adopt policies and long-range plans for multiple open space uses where feasible within their jurisdiction. ### Limit Development Within Open Space Areas Development within open space areas should be permitted in selected areas and should be limited to facilities needed in conjunction with low density recreation areas or to selected public facilities. ### Prohibit High Density Commercial Recreation Uses in Open Space Areas Resort type high density commercial recreation and accessory uses should be prohibited in all open space areas. Urban type facilities, such as motels, restaurants, and places of entertainment should be located in highway commercial or urban business districts. ### Encourage Appropriate Low Intensity Commercial Recreation Areas in Selected Open Space Areas Appropriate low density commercial recreation areas should be encouraged by local recreation and park districts in the vicinity of urban areas. ### Provide Low Intensity Commercial Recreation in a Manner to Preserve the Quality of Open Space Low density commercial recreation, when permitted, should not intrude into areas of scenic beauty or require new roads or serve to attract other non-open space uses. Commercial recreation activities that require extensive grading or result in scarring or erosion of the land should be prohibited. ### Protect Open Space From Intrusion by Public Projects Planned open space should be protected from intrusion by massive public works projects, such as freeways and airports, wherever possible. Proposed projects, such as reservoirs and aqueducts, should be designed to permit compatible recreation development. ### Locate Power, Research, or Defense Projects in Urban Areas Where Feasible Installation of large scale nuclear power plants, nuclear research projects, or defense installations, requiring large shoreline or inland areas, should only be located in open space areas when no alternative within urban areas is feasible; facilities should be located in such a manner as to cause a minimum of interference to natural resources and wildlife. ### Utility Lines to be Consolidated and Located to Avoid Scenic Areas Wherever feasible, power and pipe utility lines. should be consolidated to prevent further severence of open space lands. Utility lines and aqueducts in open space areas should be located so as to avoid areas of outstanding beauty. ### Convey Surplus or Excess Government Lands to Other Open Space Uses Large scale government installations in planned open space areas should be converted to other, acceptable open space uses when no longer required by the federal government. Such lands should be kept free of urban development whether required by public or private interests. ### Convert Excess Federal, State, and Local Parcels in Urban Areas to Open space Uses Whenever feasible, local agencies should acquire excess Federal, State, and local parcels in open areas for open space uses where they would enhance the county or local open space plan. ### Natural Resources Within Open Space Areas Should be Permanently Protected Within open space areas, either publicly or privately owned, removal of mature trees should not be permitted without the permission of the local authority. Alteration of streambeds or bodies of water and adjacent vegetation should be permitted only as a means of erosion or flood control, as permitted by the adopted plans of regional or local jurisdictions, and in such a manner to enhance water courses, scenic shoreline and marshlands within the county. ### Control Removal of Mineral Deposits and Earth Removal of mineral deposits and earth through mining and grading should be carefully controlled as a means of preserving the natural quality of scenic open space areas. Quantity limits and standards for removal and restoration of land to the original condition should be established where such operations are permitted. #### Protect Open Space Areas From Hazards of Fire Effort should be made by private citizens and government to protect vegetation and wildlife from the hazards of uncontrolled burning of woodland and grass areas. Burned out areas should be seeded as soon as possible to prevent erosion. #### Coordinate Open Space Plans With General Plan of Other Agencies Open space plans should be coordinated with state, regional, county, city, and recreation and park district general and master plans. Open space links to adjacent counties should be provided by coordination of county, city, and recreation and park district general and master plans. Open space links to adjacent counties should be provided by coordination of county general plans and regional plans. #### Provide Open Space Circulation in Accord with Adopted Plans; Access Roads to be Kept to a Minimum Circulation in open space areas should be in accord with adopted plans and new access roads should be kept to a minimum. All circulation routes should follow adopted county scenic route policies and principles. ### Implementation Principles General Open Space #### Guide and Control Preservation of Open Space Through Legislative Standards As a means of implementing local, regional, and state plans and protecting and enhancing open space, including San Francisco Bay, additional city, county, regional, and state legislation should be adopted to control preservation of open space. #### Strengthen Local Control of Open Space State legislation should be adopted that will establish local control of private open space land when such areas are indicated as open space on appropriate city, county, and regional general plans. #### Establish Zoning That Bears a Relationship to Open Space Uses Zoning that bears a reasonable relationship to open space uses that should continue, or that should be encouraged, should be established. Areas for open space uses, such as grazing, should be zoned for large minimum parcel sizes. #### Protect Open Space Areas From Erosion; Restore Eroded Areas A program to include methods of protecting open space areas from the hazards of erosion should be established and implemented. The program should include such measures as replanting, reforestation, and land sculpturing, to restore eroded areas to original conditions. Where necessary, flood control improvements that are compatible with the natural area should be established. #### Improve Controls on Smog Producing Agents As a means of protecting the health of the community and preserving vegetation and wildlife in open space areas and achieving a clear atmosphere, continued efforts to improve controls on industrial and vehicular smog producing agents should be pursued at all levels of government. #### Establish and Implement Maximum Holding Capacity in Relation to Environmental Resources Maximum holding capacity, in relation to environmental resources and measures to limit growth within the maximum, should be established as a means of protecting community health and to protect natural resources. ### Principles for Park and Recreation Areas **Designate Adequate Park and Recreation Area to Serve Population Throughout Plan Period** Sufficient major park and recreation areas should be acquired to serve the needs of the county throughout the plan period. **Existing and Future Park and Recreation Areas Should be Designated as Permanent Open Space** Existing park and recreation areas of community, county, regional, or state scale should be retained as permanent open space. Areas designated for future park and recreation areas should also be retained as permanent open space. **Recreation and Park Areas Accessible to Each Community Should Be Provided** To provide for close-in leisure time facilities, recreation and park areas should be provided within the open space surrounding each city or community. Recreation trails should be provided throughout the public open space surrounding each community to connect with recreation areas. **Provide a Variety of Major Park and Recreational Areas to Accommodate a Range of Facilities** A variety of major park and recreational areas to accommodate a range of facilities, including those for short duration visits near the urban area to weekend vacation needs in the more rural areas. All facilities should be of a character compatible to the natural environment. **Provide Recreation Opportunities For All People** A range of facilities to provide leisure time enjoyment for all age and economic groups should be included within each park and recreation area. **Provide Major Park and Recreation Facilities in Areas of Outstanding Beauty** Wherever possible, major park and recreation areas should be designated in areas of outstanding beauty, which include vegetation, streambeds or water bodies, unusual topography or viewpoints. **Establish Ecological Preserves in Major Park Areas; Limit Public Use** Ecological preserves should be established within major park areas to preserve existing vegetation and wildlife in the natural habitat. Public use should be primarily for study and limited in such a manner to preserve the natural conditions. **Limit Development of Facilities Within Major Park and Recreation Areas** Development of Recreational Facilities in major park and recreation areas should be confined to selected accessible areas as a means of preserving larger park areas in an open state for future generations. ### Implementation Principles Park and Recreation Areas **Encourage Cooperation and Coordination Between Public Agencies in the Planning and Implementation Principles Park and Recreation Facilities** Cooperation and coordination between public agencies at every level in the planning and implementation of park and recreation facilities within open space should be encouraged as a means of providing a variety of park and recreation areas and activities to avoid duplication and to provide an integrated system. Facilities should be suitable to the natural characteristics of the land and climate. **Develop Site and Architectural Design Standards Compatible With Major Park and Recreation Environment** Site and Architectural design standards that provide aesthetic compatibility with the natural environment of major park and recreation areas should be established. Encourage Acquisition of Areas Designated as Major Parks and Recreation on Adopted Plans Appropriate state, regional, and local agencies should be encouraged to acquire areas designated on the General Plan and the Open Space Plan for major parks and recreation area use as soon as possible. Encourage Dedication of Land or Easements by Private Property Owners in Designated Open Space Areas for Recreational Facilities and Trails Dedication of land or easements by private property owners within areas designated for open space for use as recreation facilities or trails should be encouraged as a means of supplementing the public recreation and trail system. Scenic Route Element Recommendations Should be Implemented Recommendations regarding scenic routes and trails included in the Scenic Route Element should be implemented as soon as possible. ### Principles for Agricultural Open Space #### Designate Agricultural Open Space As a means of limiting urban growth and preserving agricultural lands and other natural resources, all areas shown as cultivated and uncultivated agriculture on the County General Plan should be designated as permanent agricultural open space on the Open Space Plan. #### Limit Development in Agricultural Areas Agricultural areas should be free of urban type development with dwellings permitted only for those persons involved in agricultural production. #### Coordinate Agricultural Open Space Plans With Plans of Cities and Adjacent Counties Agricultural open space plans should be coordinated with plans of cities within the county and adjacent counties to provide continuity and establish common policy for property owners with lands crossing city or county lines. #### Stimulate Agricultural Production in the County; Encourage Retention of Unique Crops All means that will stimulate the continuance of well diversified and efficient agricultural production in the county should be promoted. Encouragement should be given to the retention of unique crops endemic to specific agricultural areas ### Implementation Principles Agricultural Open Space #### Provide Retention of Agricultural Lands in Large Holdings Through Zoning To discourage division of large agricultural holdings into smaller Parcels too small for basic uses permitted by zoning, minimum parcel sized of 500, 250, or 100 acres should be required in lands used for grazing and agriculture. ### Principles for Shoreline and Bay Open Space The Open Space Plan includes policies relating to preservation of the Bay and shoreline as adopted by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission in 1968.[^p23-1] Policies relating to development, adopted in the BCDC Plan, are not included in the Open Space Plan at this time, pending resolution of some that are not applicable to the Alameda County Shoreline and waters. In addition to those BCDC environmental policies noted above, the following ecological and developmental policies are included in the Open Space Plan. #### Preserve Natural Ecological Habitats in Shoreline Areas Outstanding natural ecological habitats in shoreline areas of the County should be designated for protection and maintenance as wildlife preserves as a means of protecting marine and wildlife and to permit ecological studies. #### Provide Continuity in Shoreline Open Space Wherever possible, continuous shoreline open space, both public and private, should be provided; all public shoreline open space should be connected by continuous systems of trails and scenic routes to provide public access to San Francisco Bay. #### Designate Unique Waterfront Areas for Public Use Designate and preserve outstanding topographical, geological, or historical areas suitable for recreation or viewpoints on the Bay shoreline for public use. Priority waterfront land uses, such as industrial and residential, should be located in such a manner to preserve unique waterfront areas. #### Locate Shoreline Routes Inland Any proposed circulation routes paralleling the shoreline should be located inland; no routes on existing water surfaces, whether by means of filling, diking, or floating of structures should be permitted. Inland shoreline circulation routes should be located in such a manner as to take advantage of providing shoreline views without disrupting planned shoreline open space. Wherever possible, existing shoreline routes should be expanded to prevent bay fill and avoid removal of existing urban uses. Alternative modes of transportation should be adopted to discourage construction of new or expansion of existing shoreline routes. #### Bay or Marsh Filling and Development Should Not Be Permitted Except in Selected Areas for Recreational Use Even though demand for public and private uses of the Bay and shoreline will intensify, filling of bay or marshland or development of major shoreline uses, other than public park and recreation in selected areas, should not be permitted. #### Fill for Airport Extensions Should be Prohibited; Alternate Methods of Handling Air Traffic Should be Explored Continued bay fill to accommodate additional and larger aircraft should be prohibited pending completion of regional studies. The regional study should include determination of the possibilities of alternate inland locations for major airports with existing airports located adjacent to the Bay for short range and transbay flights and as urban stations for the transfer of surface or air passengers to new inland national and international airports. #### Provide For Orderly Transition of Phased Out Salt Extraction Areas to Uses Compatible With the Open Space Plan Salt extraction areas, which will be operative through the plan period, should be designated as permanent open space. Areas that will not be active through the plan period should be phased out according to a planned program in such a manner as to maintain salt production cycles. Phased out areas should be converted to uses permitted within waterfront open spaces such as wildlife refuges or recreation areas. No filling of salt extraction areas should be permitted except for recreation purposes in selected areas as indicated on adopted local or regional plans. [^p23-1]: San Francisco Bay Plan, Part III, "The Bay As Resource," San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, January, 1969. Dredging Should he Permitted Only to Maintain Navigation Routes; Spoils Should Not be Used for Fill Except as permitted by regional policy, dredging or removal of sedimentarion from the Bay floor for purposes other than maintaining established navigational routes and docking areas should not be permitted where it would modify the existing shoreline, disturb existing ecological balances, or interfere with underground water supply. Spoils from dredging should be deposited in accord with the adopted regional plan and should not be used for fill, except as shown on the regional plan. Water Transportation Should be Encouraged as an Alternate to the Construction of Additional Transportation Routes on Bay Fill As a means of minimizing the need for construction of additional bridges and causeways or developing fill areas for barriers or freeways, various forms of water and air transportation should be encouraged for trans-bay travel. Such forms could include the ferry, hydrofoil, hovercraft, and helicopter. Any proposal for development of facilities for traffic routes on the Bay surface in connection with water barriers or utility lines of any kind should be subject to regional review and approval. Local, Regional, State, and Federal Agencies Should Coordinate Policies and Plans for Preservation of San Francisco Bay and Shoreline All agencies with jurisdiction over San Francisco Bay and shoreline should coordinate and adopt policies and plans to insure preservation of bay and shoreline in accordance with an adopted regional plan as a means of minimizing conflicting demand for uses. ## Implementation Principles Shoreline and Bay Open Space ### Encourage Private Shoreline Land Owners to Permit Public Access and Use Owners of private shoreline lands, which extend over large waterfront areas or which possess unique natural characteristics, should be encouraged to provide public access and use within their holdings. ### Develop and Adopt Local Recreation Plans As a means of preserving open space adjacent to San Francisco Bay, local recreation plans should be developed and adopted to supplement open space portions of the regional Bay plan. Local plans should provide integrated shoreline park and recreation systems connected by trails, shoreline scenic routes, and turnouts. The development of water oriented recreation facilities should be encouraged. ### Participate in Development of a Regional Port Plan As a means of limiting waterfront land planned and used for port purposes, and to ensure the most efficient use of such land, the county should participate in a regional plan for port development and redevelopment. ### Participate in Development of a Regional Airport Plan To prevent unnecessary expansion of existing airports into Bay waters, the county should participate in a regional plan for airport development. ### Continue to Require Adequate Provision for the Elimination of Bay Water Pollution As a means of preventing pollution of Bay waters in the immediate future, adequate treatment of wastes prior to discharge should be required; for long range elimination of Bay pollution, alternate methods of waste disposal should be explored by a federal, state, or regional agency. <
> # PART TWO: THE OPEN SPACE PLAN # The Open Space Plan The Open Space Plan map includes all the major park and recreation and agricultural areas indicated in the County General Plan which have been redefined and redesignated into four major categories. Included within the Open Space Plan are Scenic Route Element and Recreation Element policies and plans. ### Description of the Open Space Plan The Open Space Plan is a graphic description of the application of open space objectives and principles to the natural resources of the County. As a major basis for plan preparation, a series of background maps indicating natural resources were prepared. Based on the County General Plan, the emphasis of the Open Space Plan is to limit spread of urban areas and protect significant scenic and ecological resources for the health, welfare, and enjoyment of the residents of the County. Because the focus of the plan is on the non-urban areas of County-wide or regional significance, it is presented on a County-wide level, rather than by planning unit. The description is in terms of the four major components; agricultural open space, preserves, residential open space, and connecting open space corridors. ### Agricultural Open Space The plan indicates the major portion of agricultural open space in the Livermore-Amador Valley, where all of the land outside the area designated for urban uses on the General Plan except major park and recreation, quarries, salt ponds, and water bodies are indicated as agricultural open space. Cultivated agricultural open space is separately designated from uncultivated agriculture on the Open Space Plan. There are two agricultural open space areas indicated in the East Bay ridge. One is immediately north and south of Route 580, east of Castro Valley and Palomares Road, the other in the Mission Pass-Andrade Road area. General Plan agricultural open space in the three adjacent counties in the vicinity of the Alameda County boundary is indicated as "borrowed agricultural open space" on the county open space plan. ### Preserves Preserves are permanent open space areas of irreplaceable natural or environmental resources or areas of outstanding beauty and consist primarily of existing and proposed major park and recreation areas shown on the County General Plan, which in turn include watershed lands and other public owned non-recreation lands. On the East Bay ridge north of Castro Valley, Roundtop Regional, Joaquin Miller, and Tilden Regional Parks, as well as East Bay Water lands, are considered preserves. In addition, adjacent portions of Regional Park and watershed lands in Contra Costa County are considered "borrowed preserves," since they serve the same function, although lying outside the County. In the Hayward area of the East Bay ridge, Garin and the proposed Myers Park are designated as preserves, while in the ridge area south of Mission Pass Freeway in Fremont, all lands east of Monument and Mission Peaks and east to include Sunol Park and San Francisco Water District lands are all designated as preserves. The Fremont salt pond and water and marsh area proposed for acquisition by the Department of Interior as a National Wildlife Refuge and the adjacent Coyote Hills-Alameda Creek Aquatic Park are also indicated as preserve areas. One of the most important East Bay preserve areas is San Francisco Bay and its more than thirty miles of shoreline, including existing and proposed waterfront recreation areas. In the southern part of the Livermore-Amador Valley, Arroyo Del Valle, the Mines Road area and Tesla Geological areas are designated as preserves. The Arroyo Del Valle Reservoir preserve area is planned for more intensive active recreational use, such as hiking, camping, and nature study. In the most northern portion of the Livermore-Amador Valley, preserve areas include Doolan Canyon, Brushy Peak, and the Old River Area, all also planned for future recreational use. Major park and recreation areas in Contra Costa, San Joaquin, and Santa Clara Counties, abutting Alameda County all are considered as "borrowed preserves." Throughout the County, smaller park and recreation areas designated as preserves include: Oakland's Lakeshore and Temescal Parks, Fremont's Central Park, and Shadowcliff Park in Pleasanton. ### Residential-Canyon Open Space All General Plan existing and proposed suburban density area in slope lands exceeding twenty-five percent are included in the residential hill-canyon open space area designation. Hill area residential includes both low density estate-type development and higher density cluster residential with surrounding open space. Canyon areas adjacent to the developable portions of the hill residential areas have been indicated for preservation as part of the open space plan. ### Connecting Open Space Corridors Scenic Routes and trails provide the two major components of the connecting open space corridor system within the open space plan. Scenic Routes afford pleasurable driving between scenic and recreational areas. Along selected corridors in particularly scenic areas, riding and hiking trails are indicated to connect to trails within preserves. Aqueduct and utility right-of-way lines also provide trailroutes as would easements over private property. Strips of land adjoining surface areas of the rapid transit route are also indicated as non-recreational connecting corridors. ALAMEDA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Joseph P. Bort, Chairman Fred F. Cooper, Vice-Chairman Thomas H. Bates Robert E. Hannon John D. Murphy ALAMEDA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION John P. Gardella, Chairman Martin C. Kauffman, Vice-Chairman William E. Carpenter Edward E. Enos Jack Holland, Jr. Lois Rusteika James Zeno Advisory Members John D. Murphy, for the Board of Supervisors Thomas Fennone, for the County Counsel Harry R. Kolander, for the Director of Public Works Victor Taugher, Building Official May, 1973 # Appendix A ## Resolutions of Open Space Element of the General Plan Adoption ALAMEDA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 10796 – At the meeting held January 16, 1973 Introduced by Commissioner William E. Carpenter Seconded by Commissioner Edward E. Enos WHEREAS pursuant to the provisions of the Planning Law (Title 7 of the Government Code) it is the function and duty of the County Planning Agency of Alameda County, California, to prepare and of the County Planning Commission to approve a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the County, such plan to be known as the General Plan and to provide that the Board of Supervisors of Alameda County may adopt all or any part of the County; and WHEREAS said Planning Law requires that on or before June 30, 1973, every city and County shall prepare, adopt and submit to the Secretary of the Resources Agency a local open space plan for the comprehensive and long-range preservation and conservation of open space land within its jurisdiction; and WHEREAS this County Planning Agency in coordination with cities and public and quasi-public agencies in the County has prepared a text containing objectives, and principles for an Open Space Element of the Alameda County General Plan and a plan map for the incorporated and unincorporated areas of the County indicating areas designated for open space which in the judgment of the Planning Agency related to the physical development of the County; and WHEREAS this Planning Commission considered said text and plan map as the Open Space Element of the GENERAL PLAN, COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, at the seven public hearings on September 21, 1970, October 26, 1970, November 30, 1970, January 25, 1971, March 15, 1971, November 14, 1972, January 16, 1973 in the Auditorium of the Public Works Building, 399 Elmhurst Street, Hayward; and WHEREAS, proposals contained in said Element have been generally endorsed by the cities and quasi-public agencies within Alameda County, and generally supported by those in attendance at the public hearings; and WHEREAS, it satisfactorily appears to this Commission that the public interest, necessity, convenience and general welfare will best be served by the adoption of said Element: Now Therefore BE IT RESOLVED that the County Planning Commission does hereby approve and recommend adoption of the Open Space Element of the Alameda County General Plan, Parts I and II (Policies and Plan) to the Board of Supervisors and that analysis, background reports, and the Interim Open Space Plan, Open Space Plans and Regulations, June, 1972, be transmitted as supporting material, together with a notion that the State Planning and Zoning Law requires adoption of the Open Space Element by June 30, 1973, and that the law also provides that open space implementing ordinances and the Conservation Element also be adopted by June 30, 1973 and that work on these by the Planning staff cannot be completed until Open Space Policies and Plan are adopted; and BE IT ALSO RESOLVED that the County Planning Commission urges the Board of Supervisors to sponsor appropriate legislative amendments which compensate land owners for property which may be held voluntarily or by reason or zoning or designation of the General Plan as open space. ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE AYES: Commissioners Holland, Gardella, Enos, Rusteika, Carpenter, Zeno NOES: Commissioner Kauffman ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None WILLIAM H. FRALEY – PLANNING DIRECTOR & SECRETARY ALAMEDA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA STATE OF CALIFORNIA On motion of Supervisor Cooper, Seconded by Supervisor Bates, and approved by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Bates, Cooper and Chairman Bort – 3 NOES: Supervisor Murphy – 1 EXCUSED: Supervisor Hannon – 1 THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED: NUMBER 148757 ADOPT OPEN SPACE ELEMENT – GENERAL PLAN WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Planning Law (Title 7 of the Government Code) it is the function and duty of the County Planning Agency of Alameda County, California, to prepare and of the County Planning Commission to approve a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the County. such plan to be known as the General Plan and to provide that the Board of Supervisors of Alameda County may adopt all or any part of said General Plan or any subject thereof for all or any part of the County; and WHEREAS, said Planning Law requires that on or before June 30, 1973, every city and County shall prepare, adopt and submit to the Secretary of the Resources Agency a local open space plan for the comprehensive and long-range preservation and conservation of open space land within its jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, said County Planning Agency in cooperation with cities and public and quasi-public agencies in the County has prepared a text containing objectives, and principles for an Open Space Element of the Alameda County General Plan and a plan map for the incorporated and unincorporated areas of the County indicating areas designated for open space which in the judgment of the Planning Agency relates to the physical development of the County; and WHEREAS, after holding public hearings thereon in the manner prescribed by law, the County Planning Commission has recommended to this Board of Supervisors that the public interest, necessity, convenience and general welfare will be best served by the adoption of the Open Space Element of the Alameda County General Plan, Parts I and II (Policies and Plan) by June 30, 1973, as required by the State Planning and Zoning Law; and WHEREAS, proposals contained in said Element have been generally endorsed by the cities and quasi-public agencies within Alameda County, and generally supported by those in attendance at the public hearings; and WHEREAS, this Board of Supervisors did hold public hearings to consider the adoption of said element of the General Plan, notice of which was duly given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, after hearing all those who wished to be heard in connection with said matter, it satisfactorily appears to this Board of Supervisors that the public interest, necessity, convenience and general welfare will be best served by the adoption of said element of the General Plan; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Board of Supervisors does and it hereby adopts the OPEN SPACE ELEMENT OF THE ALAMEDA COUNTY GENERAL PLAN, Parts I aud II (Policies and Plan), as shown on the attached Exhibit "A". Planning Staff William H. Fraley, Planning Director John J. Thomas, Principal Planner Betty Croly, Senior Planner, Advance Planning and Research Bruce C. Fry, Senior Planner, Current Planning Richard P. Flynn, Zoning Administrator | | | | :--- | :--- | | William Allin | Vivian Howell | | Pauline Bielaski | Arnold Jonas | | Richard Dunann[^p30-1] | Raymond Lincoln | | Ruth Dunann[^p30-1] | Harold Manley | | Roseline Christiansen | Adolph Martinelli | | Karen Corso | Jessica Persoff | | Laurence Danielson | Georgia Rubiolo | | Beverly Davis | Susan Taylor | | Kenneth Decker | Kirk McKinley | | Ronald Eggers | Stephen Richards | | Michael Henn | | [^p30-1]: Retired Alameda County Planning Department Public Works Building, Room 136 399 Elmhurst Street Hayward, California 94544 (415) 783-5800 We hereby certify that the County Planning Commission of Alameda County did, on the 16th day of January, 1973, approve by resolution this element of the General Plan, consisting of both a map and text entitled, "OPEN SPACE ELEMENT OF THE ALAMEDA COUNTY GENERAL PLAN, Parts I and II, Policies and Plan," and the document on which this certificate is recorded is a part thereof. John P. Gardella John P. Gardella, Chairman William H. Fraley William H. Fraley, Secretary We hereby certify that the Board of Supervisors of Alameda County did, on the 24th day of May, 1973, adopt by resolution an element of the General Plan, consisting of both a map and text entitled, "OPEN SPACE ELEMENT OF THE ALAMEDA COUNTY GENERAL PLAN, Parts I and II, Policies and Plan," and the document on which this certificate is recorded is a part thereof. Joseph P. Bort Joseph P. Bort, Chairman Jack K. Pool Jack K. Pool Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Alameda <
> # OPEN SPACE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN: COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA The Open Space Plan Map ### Primary Open Space #### Agricultural Open Space Cultivated Uncultivated #### Preserves Land Water #### Residential - Canyon Open Space #### Connecting Open Space Corridors Scenic Routes: Existing Roadway Proposed Roadway Scenic Route Corridors Corridors of Outstanding Scenic Beauty Riding and Hiking Trails State Riding and Hiking Trail ### Secondary Open Space Quarries, Airports, Selected Public Uses ### Borrowed Open Space Preserve Agriculture <
> --- ## Environmental Justice — Environmental Justice Element - Source: https://www.acgov.org/cda/planning/generalplans/documents/EJElement_adoptedAug2024.pdf - Pages: 144 - Covers: ej - **Transcription findings were recorded for this document;** check figures against the source. <
> # ALAMEDA COUNTY ## Environmental Justice Element **ADOPTED AUGUST 2024** INTENTIONALLY BLANK <
> # ALAMEDACOUNTY ## Environmental Justice Element **ADOPTED AUGUST 8, 2024** Resolution R-2024-600 <
> COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY • PLANNING DEPARTMENT 224 W. Winton Avenue, Room 111, Hayward, CA 94544 *in partnership with Alameda County Health’s Public Health Department* <
> Dig Deep Food Hub in Castro Valley. Mural design by Bobby Arte. # Contents # ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ELEMENT ### **1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................1-1**       1.1 Vision and Purpose .................................................................................................................................................1-2       1.2 A Brief History of Environmental Justice .........................................................................................................1-3       1.3 Senate Bill 1000 ........................................................................................................................................................1-4       1.4 County EJ Initiatives .................................................................................................................................................1-5       1.5 Relationship to Other General Plan Elements and Plans .........................................................................1-8       1.6 Community Engagement .....................................................................................................................................1-10 ### **2. Priority Communities ...........................................................................................................................................2-1**       2.1 Methodology for Identifying Priority Communities ...................................................................................2-2       2.2 Priority Communities ............................................................................................................................................2-5 ### **3. Existing Conditions ...............................................................................................................................................3-1**       3.1 Population and Socioeconomic Characteristics (Pre-pandemic) ...........................................................3-2       3.2 Pollution and Air Quality ....................................................................................................................................3-12       3.3 Access to Public Facilities ...................................................................................................................................3-21       3.4 Safe and Sanitary Homes & Neighborhoods ................................................................................................3-32       3.5 Access to Healthy Food .......................................................................................................................................3-37       3.6 Health and Physical Activity ..............................................................................................................................3-42       3.7 Civic Engagement .................................................................................................................................................3-47 ### **4. Goals, Policies, and Actions ...............................................................................................................................4-1**       Centering Environmental Justice ............................................................................................................................... 4-3       Pollution and Air Quality ............................................................................................................................................... 4-5       Access to Public Facilities .............................................................................................................................................. 4-8       Safe and Sanitary Homes & Neighborhoods ..........................................................................................................4-11       Access to Healthy Food ................................................................................................................................................4-13       Health and Physical Activity .......................................................................................................................................4-16       Civic Engagement ...........................................................................................................................................................4-21 ### **5. Implementation and Monitoring ........................................................................................................................5-1** ### **6. References .............................................................................................................................................................6-1** # APPENDICES A. Implementation Table of Environmental Justice Element Actions B. Community Engagement Plan # FIGURES | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | FIGURE 2-1 | Map of Unincorporated Alameda County Environmental Justice Priority Communities with Census Tract numbers................................................................................................................................................2-6 | | | FIGURE 2-2 | Map of Ashland .................................................................................................................................................................. 2-9 | | | FIGURE 2-3 | Map of Cherryland ........................................................................................................................................................... 2-11 | | | FIGURE 2-4 | Map of Hayward Acres ................................................................................................................................................. 2-13 | | | FIGURE 2-5 | Map of San Lorenzo.......................................................................................................................................................... 2-15 | | | FIGURE 2-6 | Map of Castro Valley ....................................................................................................................................................... 2-17 | | | FIGURE 3-1 | 2020 Populations Estimates and Population Growth for Priority Communities...................................3-3 | | | FIGURE 3-2 | Air Pollution Indicators by Percentile ......................................................................................................................3-14 | | | FIGURE 3-3 | Water Pollution Indicators by Percentile ..............................................................................................................3-15 | | | FIGURE 3-4 | San Lorenzo Creek and the San Lorenzo Creek Watershed .........................................................................3-20 | | | FIGURE 3-5 | Urban Tree Canopy in and near the Priority Communities............................................................................3-18 | | | FIGURE 3-6 | Parks in and near Priority Communities ................................................................................................................3-23 | | | FIGURE 3-7 | BART Stations and Bus Stops in and Near Priority Communities ..............................................................3-26 | | | FIGURE 3-8 | Law Enforcement Stations near Priority Communities ..................................................................................3-28 | | | FIGURE 3-9 | Public Schools in and Near Priority Communities.............................................................................................3-29 | | | FIGURE 3-10 | Supermarkets in and near Priority Communities ...............................................................................................3-39 | | # TABLES | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | TABLE 1-1 | Plan Consistency................................................................................................................................................................... 1-8 | | | TABLE 2-1 | Pollution Burden and Population Characteristics used in CalEnviroScreen ...............................................2-3 | | | TABLE 2-2 | Cal EnviroScreen 4.0 Scores for Priority Community Census Tracts.............................................................. 2-4 | | | TABLE 2-3 | Geographic Units for Priority Communities and Reference Populations.....................................................2-5 | | | TABLE 3-1 | Race and Ethnicity................................................................................................................................................................ 3-4 | | | TABLE 3-2 | Highest Educational Attainment Indicators..............................................................................................................3-5 | | | TABLE 3-3 | Poverty and Income ............................................................................................................................................................3-6 | | | TABLE 3-4 | Severely Housing-Cost Burdened Households.......................................................................................................3-7 | | | TABLE 3-5 | Labor Force Participation/Unemployment ............................................................................................................. 3-8 | | | TABLE 3-6 | Asthma Emergency Department Visits .......................................................................................................................3-9 | | | TABLE 3-7 | Heart Attack Emergency Department Visits...........................................................................................................3-10 | | | TABLE 3-8 | Rates of Low Birth Weight Births..................................................................................................................................3-11 | | | TABLE 3-9 | Urban Tree Canopy Cover...............................................................................................................................................3-20 | | | TABLE 3-10 | Examples of Public Facilities ...........................................................................................................................................3-21 | | | TABLE 3-11 | Park Proximity and Park Access...................................................................................................................................3-24 | | | TABLE 3-12 | Access to BART and Bus Stops....................................................................................................................................3-25 | | | TABLE 3-13 | Crime Rates in 2020 ..........................................................................................................................................................3-27 | | | TABLE 3-14 | Percentage of Residents Living 5 or 10 Minutes by Foot to a School.........................................................3-30 | | | TABLE 3-15 | Housing Tenure ...................................................................................................................................................................3-33 | | | TABLE 3-16 | Children’s Lead Risk from Housing .............................................................................................................................3-34 | | | TABLE 3-17 | Overcrowded Housing.......................................................................................................................................................3-35 | | | TABLE 3-18 | Population within 0.5 Miles of a Grocery Store....................................................................................................3-39 | | | TABLE 3-19 | Life Expectancy at Birth ....................................................................................................................................................3-43 | | | TABLE 3-20 | Mortality Rate........................................................................................................................................................................3-44 | | | TABLE 3-21 | COVID Mortality Rates ......................................................................................................................................................3-45 | | | TABLE 3-22 | Linguistic Isolation ..............................................................................................................................................................3-48 | | | TABLE 5-1 | Catalyzing Actions ............................................................................................................................................................... 5-4 | | <
> # Acknowledgments The Project Team is deeply grateful to the many residents of unincorporated Alameda County who made time to share their knowledge, lived experience, and priorities with us, and to the participants and organizers of the Ashland Cherryland Healthy Communities Collaborative, whose partnership was essential to the success of this project. The Project Team would like to thank the Alameda County Board of Supervisors and their staff, the Planning Commission, the Public Health Commission, the Eden Area Municipal Advisory Council, the Castro Valley Municipal Advisory Council, and the many other County, government agency, and CBO staff who provided additional guidance, feedback, and content throughout the development and adoption process. Your participation was invaluable to the creation of this Environmental Justice Element and will continue to be instrumental throughout its implementation. # Land Acknowledgment The unincorporated communities of Ashland, Cherryland, Hayward Acres, San Lorenzo, and Castro Valley (the “Priority Communities” of this Environmental Justice Element) are located in the traditional Jalquin/Irgin territory of the Chochenyo-speaking Ohlone people. Ohlone is an umbrella term given to a collective of various tribes, bands, and territories of Indigenous people. The land of the Priority Communities was and continues to be of great importance to the Ohlone people, often being the site of celebrations or religious ceremonies (Chabot College n.d.). Despite their forced removal from these unceded lands, many Ohlone people continue to live in relationship with their ancestral land. Every member of the Priority Communities benefits from the use and continued occupation of this land. The County recognizes the importance of acknowledging this occupation and the continued impact it has on Indigenous communities. We acknowledge the land, the history, and the presence of the Ohlone people whose connection to this land still exists, who still live in our communities, and to whom this land belongs. As part of our effort to prioritize equity, we look to our work to correct the harms of the past. We stand in solidarity with all Indigenous people and their right to self-determination and justice. We commit to working toward the healing of the generational trauma, theft, and dispossession native peoples have faced and continue to face. *This draft land acknowledgement will continue to be developed consistent with Action EJ1.1B.* <
> # Board of Supervisors Nate Miley, District 4, Board President David Haubert, District 1, Board Vice President Elisa Márquez, District 2 Richard Valle, District 2 (former Supervisor) Lena Tam, District 3 Wilma Chan, District 3 (former Supervisor) Dave Brown, District 3 (former Supervisor) Keith Carson, District 5 # Planning Commission Ryan Nielsen, District 1 Rodney B. Zeisse, District 1 Jim F Goff, District 1 (former Commissioner) Dimitris Kastriotis, District 1 (former Commissioner) Janett Hernandez, District 2 Lawrence Ratto, District 2 (former Commissioner) Dr. Hal G. Gin, District 3 Jeffrey Moore, District 4 Marc Crawford, District 4 Andy Kelley, District 5 # Public Health Commission Mifta Chowdhury, Boardwide Juliana Van Cleve, Boardwide David G. Morris, Boardwide Ghilamichael Andemeskel, Boardwide Harsha Ramchandani, District 1 Rajiv Narayan, District 1 David Hurst, District 1 Ammar A. Bhaiji, District 2 Jatinderpal K. Sahi, District 2 Nestor Castillo, District 2 Greg Boller, District 3 Njeri Gathuka, District 3 Dr. Jim Meyers, District 3 Rebekah R. Varela, District 3 Gary C. Howard, District 4 Zhonnet Harper, District 4 Sally A. Miskelly, District 5 Koren G. Temple Perry, District 5 Mitzy De La Pena Medina, District 5 Jason A. Budge, District 5 Joseph Engeda (former Commissioner) Helene Hoenig (former Commissioner) # Municipal Advisory Councils ### EDEN AREA MAC MEMBERS Warren Cushman Mimi Dean Tyler Dragoni Jennifer Esteen Aida Sizova Diane Wydler Donald Clowser (former Member) Michael Freed (former Member) Jennifer Ong (former Member) ### CASTRO VALLEY MAC MEMBERS Al Padro Bill Mulgrew Chuck Moore Ilya Prokopoff Ken Carbone Shannon Killebrew Tojo Thomas # EJ Element County Project Team Sandra Rivera, Director, Community Development Agency Albert Lopez, Director, CDA – Planning Department Elizabeth McElligott, CDA – Planning Department Alison Abbors, CDA – Planning Department Sophie McGuinness, CDA – Planning Department Olivia Ortiz, CDA – Planning Department Rob Bennaton, CDA – Planning Department Andy Nelsen, ACH – Public Health Department Tram Nguyen, ACH – Public Health Department Matt Beyers, ACH - Community Assessment, Planning, and Evaluation Sandi Galvez, ACH – Public Health Department Claudia Albano, Board of Supervisors District 4 # Consultant Team Environmental Science Associates Envirocom Communication Strategies Tiburcio Vasquez Health Center (TVHC): Sandra A. Rodriguez and Caroline Sison TVHC Promotores: Alda Ruth Pacheco, Beatriz Gomez Jimenez, Julieta Martinez, Maria Del Rocio Tapia de Zendejas, Maria Gonzalez, Maria Guadalupe Perez, Maricela Haro, Nancy Respaldiza, Priscila Smith, Silvia Suarez Tello # Acknowledgments ## With gratitude to participants of the Ashland Cherryland Healthy Communities Collaborative (ACHCC) Environmental Justice Bucket: Aleida Andrino-Chavez, Alameda County Transportation Commission Alexa Young, Alameda County Probation Department Alexandra Boskovich, Alameda County Community Food Bank Alina Farooq, Resources for Community Development Aliyah Bey, Mandela Partners Amani Dunham, San Lorenzo Unified School District Amber Lo, Public Works Agency Amos White, 100k Trees for Humanity and Alameda County Agricultural Advisory Committee Ann E. Maris, PhD, Friends of San Lorenzo Creek Annette Laverty, ACH – Public Health Department April Williamson, CDA – Healthy Homes Department Arlene Nehring, Eden United Church Ben Gomberg, Alameda County Library Breann Gala, Resources for Community Development Bruce King, Friends of San Lorenzo Creek Corrine Lee, Alameda County Probation Department Dani Solis, Bike East Bay Danielle Wilson, Alameda County Library Dave Thompson, My Eden Voice! David Campbell, Bike East Bay Denise Turner, Alameda County Transportation Commission Diana Maravilla, San Lorenzo Unified School District Diana Tapia, Tiburcio Vasquez Health Center Diane Castleberry, AC Transit Dianne Lafaurie, Tiburcio Vasquez Health Center Ed Labayog, CDA – Planning Code Enforcement Eileen Dalton, CDA – Economic and Civic Development Department Erik Sakamoto, ACH – REACH Ashland Youth Center Gabriela Rueda, ALL IN Alameda County Hilary Bass, Alameda County Sheriff’s Office Holly Felix, CDA – Planning Code Enforcement Jabari Gray, ACH – REACH Ashland Youth Center Jenny Wang, ACH – Public Health Department Jim Browne, Public Works Agency Joaquin Newman, Alameda County Office of Education Julia Havili, Deputy Sheriffs' Activities League Julie Hadnot, ALL IN Alameda County Julio Contreras, My Eden Voice! Kate Conn, Alameda County Library Kristin Perrault, CDA – Economic and Civic Development Department Larissa Estes, ALL IN Alameda County Leo Esclamado, My Eden Voice! Lisa Perry, Deputy Sheriffs' Activities League Lorraine Marcille, Alameda County Library Maria Dominguez, Alameda County Health Marty Neideffer, Alameda County Sheriff’s Office Marvin Wiser, Eden United Church Matt Turner, Hayward Area Recreation and Park District (consultant) Melanie Muller, YMCA of the East Bay Michael Williams, Hayward Area Recreation and Park District Molly Hitchings, Alameda County Library Nori Grossman, ACH – Public Health Department Pam Glassoff, Eden I&R Rachel Paras, ACH – Public Health Department Rosemary Vazquez, Cherryland Elementary FRC Sabine Dabady, Mandela Partners Sandra Macias, La Familia Sandra Rodriguez, ACH – Public Health Department Santi Soumpholphakdy, ACH – REACH Ashland Youth Center Sebastian de la Rosa, YMCA of the East Bay Selena Perez Tejeda, Eden United Church Sheila Burks, Alameda County Community Food Bank Soni Johnson, CDA – Healthy Homes Department Stephen Marea, Bike East Bay Susan McCue, CDA-Economic and Civic Development Department Teresita DeJesus, Padres Guerreros Thomas Omolo, Hayward Area Recreation and Park District Vicente Zuniga, Hayward Area Recreation and Park District Yuliana Wiser-León, Eden United Church <
> ## With additional thanks to: Alesia Hsiao, Bay Area Air Quality Management District Aileen Mendoza, ACH - Environmental Health Department Alicia Parker, Bay Area Air Quality Management District Alison Kirk, Bay Area Air Quality Management District Aneeka Chaudhry, Alameda County Health Anissa Basoco-Villarreal, Social Services Agency Anna Lee, Bay Area Air Quality Management District Ashley Strasburg, Board of Supervisors District 4 Austin Bruckner, Board of Supervisors District 4 Avalon Schultz, City of San Leandro Barisha Spriggs, Ashland Community Association Ben Cooper, StopWaste Carol Lee, GSA - Office of Sustainability Chas Pisano, Ashland Community Association Chris Hunter, StopWaste Cindy Torres, Cherryland Community Association Daniel Brodie, Alameda County Sheriff's Office Daniel Woldesenbet, Public Works Agency David Gehrke, Castro Valley Eden Area Chamber of Commerce David Ralston, Bay Area Air Quality Management District Eileen Ng, Alameda County Health Emily Sadigh, GSA - Office of Sustainability Erik Pearson, City of Hayward Ernesto Sarmiento, Downtown Streets Team Hoi-Fei Mok, City of San Leandro Idania Zamora, Bay Area Air Quality Management District Jackie Greenwood, ACH – Environmental Health Department Jade Le, La Familia Jamesine Rogers Gibson, BAAQMD Jared Savas, CDA – Economic and Civic Development Department Jennifer Pearce, CDA – Housing & Community Development Department Jessica Blakemore, Alameda County Health Jody London, Contra Costa County Julie Yim, Board of Supervisors District 3 Kathleen Willkom-Nicholas, ACH - Public Health Department Kathryn Woolbright, ACH - Emergency Medical Services Khalilha Haynes, City of Oakland Kimberly Gasaway, General Services Agency Kimi Watkins-Tartt, ACH – Public Health Department Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland Larry Brooks, CDA – Healthy Homes Department Latoya Reed-Adjei, AC Workforce Development Board Leigha Schmidt, City of Hayward Lily Maclver, Bay Area Air Quality Management District Lisa Erickson, ACH- Healthy Schools and Communities Lynn Peralta, Social Services Agency Marcus Cox, Alameda County Sheriff’s Office Marcus Reynolds, Alameda County Sheriff’s Office Mary Thomas, City of Hayward Michael Buckhout, Alameda County Sheriff’s Office Michael Flemming, CDA – Planning Department Michael Galvan, Community Resources for Independent Living Hayward Michelle Starratt, CDA – Housing & Community Development Department Nicole Grucky, City of Hayward Pegah Shahmirzadi, Alameda County Health Preston Lam, ACH – Emergency Medical Services Rachel Kippen, GSA – Office of Sustainability Rachel Osajima, Alameda County Arts Commission Rick Hatcher, Hayward Area Recreation and Park District Rodrigo Orduña, CDA – Planning Department Ron Browder, ACH – Environmental Health Department Ruben Pola, Alameda County Sheriff’s Office Sarah Church, GSA – Office of Sustainability Sarina Hill, ACH – Behavioral Health Department Shukura Reynolds, Social Services Agency Silin Huang, Board of Supervisors District 3 Tom McKimmy, General Services Agency Tona Henninger, Board of Supervisors District 4, Chief of Staff Tuere Anderson, Alameda County Health Wendy Goodfriend, BAAQMD William Chin, CDA – Planning Department The Project Team would like to thank the Ashland Cherryland Healthy Communities Collaborative EJ Bucket participants and other partners who provided verbal or written input via meetings or individually during the development of the Environmental Justice Element. <
> # G # Glossary and Abbreviations ## Glossary and Abbreviations | TERM/ABBREVIATION | DEFINITION | | :--- | :--- | | 211alamedacounty.org | A community non-profit established to assist people in obtaining information about community resources and how to access them | | AAA | Area Agency on Aging, the local arm of a national aging network. Alameda County's AAA is housed in the Social Services Agency, within the Adult and Aging Services department. | | AB 551 | 2013 California Assembly Bill that created the Urban Agriculture Incentive Zones (UAIZ) Act, which promotes small-scale commercial or noncommercial agricultural use on vacant, unimproved, or blighted lands in urban areas | | AC Transit | Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District, public transit agency serving the western portions of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties | | BHD (ACH-BHD) | Behavioral Health Department, a department of Alameda County Health | | ACCFB | Alameda County Community Food Bank | | ACH | Alameda County Health | | ACHCC | Ashland Cherryland Healthy Communities Collaborative | | ACNS | Alameda County Nutrition Services | | ACOE | Alameda County Office of Education is one of 58 county offices of education in California. ACOE is a regional agency that provides educational leadership, resources, and customized services to assist school Alameda County school districts. | | ACRCD | Alameda County Resource Conservation District | | Alameda County Flood Control & Water Conservation District | A local entity that plans, designs, constructs, and maintains Western Alameda County's flood control systems such as natural creeks, channels, levees, pump stations, dams, and reservoirs. | | Alameda County Tree Ordinance | Ordinance number O-2016-66, last revised in 2016, which provides protection and preservation for all trees located within the unincorporated Alameda County right-of-way. | | ALL IN ALAMEDA COUNTY | An Alameda County initiative addressing issues of poverty through collaboration across sectors and with community, focused on basic needs, economic development, and quality education; in 2022, the BOS approved the transfer of ALL IN Alameda County staff to the Alameda County Social Services Agency (SSA) | | ALL IN EATS | All In Eats promotes a Circular Food Economy that grows nourishing food, designs out waste and pollution, regenerates natural ecosystems, keeps economics local, and prioritizes equity; ALL IN convenes the ALL IN Eats Working Group, and the Alameda County BOS has charged DSAL with implementing ALL IN Eats programming and operations | | AMI | Area Median Income, describes the midpoint of an area's income distribution, where 50 percent of households earn above the median figure while 50 percent earn less than the median | | APEZ | Air Pollution Exposure Zone | | ASCO | Alameda County Sheriff's Office | | BAAQMD | Bay Area Air Quality Management District | | BART | Bay Area Rapid Transit, the main regional public transportation rail system in the Bay Area, providing direct access to San Francisco, Oakland, and other major employment centers | | BayREN | Bay Area Regional Energy Network | | Bike East Bay | A non-profit organization dedicated to promoting healthy, sustainable communities by making bicycling safe, fun, and accessible | | BIPOC | Black, Indigenous, and People of Color | | BPMP | Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | | BOS | Alameda County Board of Supervisors | | CalEPA | California Environmental Protection Agency | | TERM/ABBREVIATION | DEFINITION | | :--- | :--- | | CalFresh | Monthly financial assistance program for purchasing food available to low-income California residents. Federally known as SNAP, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program | | Caltrans | California Department of Transportation | | CAO | Alameda County's County Administrator's Office | | CARB | California Air Resources Board | | Castro Valley MAC | Castro Valley Municipal Advisory Council, an advisory body to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors made up of residents of the unincorporated community of Castro Valley that advocate for local changes on behalf of their community. | | CAT (ACSO-CAT) | Community Assessment and Transport Team, a project of the Alameda County Sheriff's Department | | CBO | Community-based organization. CBOs generally operate at the local level to meet unique community needs. Examples include non-profit organizations, neighborhood groups, or recreational clubs | | CCAP | Community Climate Action Plan | | CDA | Alameda County Community Development Agency | | CDP | Census Designated Place, a closely settled community that is locally recognized by name but not formally incorporated as a city | | Census Tracts | A geographic area populated by about 1,200 to 8,000 people; this classification system, established by the US Census Bureau, provides a means to present and compare population data between areas of similar size | | CES | CalEnviroScreen is an interactive online tool used for filtering and visualizing data by geography (city, county, district) and various indicators such as pollution burden and population characteristics | | CHP | California Highway Patrol | | CHWE | Community Health and Wellness Element for Ashland and Cherryland | | CIP | Capital Improvement Plan, a five-year plan for preserving and enhancing Alameda County's public infrastructure | | Circular Food Economy | An ALL IN EATS approach designed to nourish the community, mitigate food waste, regenerate natural ecosystems, and prioritize equity | | Cleanup Sites | Places that are contaminated with harmful chemicals and need to be cleaned up by the property owners or government (OEHHA) | | CNAP | County Nutrition Action Partnership | | Co-benefits | Positive effects that a policy or measure aimed at one objective might have on other objectives | | Complete streets | Streets designed and operated to enable safe use and support mobility for all users (USDOT) | | Compounded Health Risks | Hazards that may be less acute on their own but become harmful to human health when they coincide with other health risks | | Computer Literacy | The ability to effectively use computers and related technology | | COVID-19 | An acute disease in humans caused by a coronavirus, which is characterized mainly by fever and cough and is capable of progressing to severe symptoms and in some cases death, especially in older people and those with underlying health conditions. It was identified in 2019 and became a recognized pandemic in 2020 | | CVUSD | Castro Valley Unified School District | | D3 | Alameda County's third supervisorial district, which includes the unincorporated communities of San Lorenzo and Hayward Acres, and the cities of Alameda, San Leandro, and a portion of Oakland. | # Glossary and Abbreviations | TERM/ABBREVIATION | DEFINITION | | :--- | :--- | | D4 | Alameda County's fourth supervisorial district, which includes the unincorporated communities of Ashland, Castro Valley, Cherryland, El Portal Ridge, Fairmont Terrace, Fairview and Hill Crest Knolls, portions of the City of Oakland, and portions of the City of Pleasanton. | | DAC | Disadvantaged Communities, a classification created by the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) under SB 535, signifying a low-income area disproportionately affected by environmental pollution and other hazards that can lead to negative health effects, exposure, or environmental degradation | | DEI | Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion | | DSAL | Alameda County Deputy Sheriffs Activities League, a nonprofit organization created to unite Alameda County Sheriff's Office (ACSO) personnel, citizens, and youth of Alameda County in the pursuit and implementation of initiatives that reduce crime, improve the lives of area residents, and enhance the health of the community. | | EALI | Eden Area Livability Initiative, a Strategic Plan created to establish a shared vision for creating and sustaining a livable community in the Eden Area | | EBRPD | East Bay Regional Park District | | ECD (CDA – ECD) | Economic and Civic Development Department, a department of the Alameda County Community Development Agency | | ECE | Early Care and Education Program | | Ecosystem services | The life-sustaining and life-enhancing benefits provided by nature | | Eden Area | Includes the unincorporated communities of Ashland, Cherryland, Fairview, Hayward Acres and San Lorenzo, as defined by the Alameda County General Plan | | Eden Area MAC | Eden Area Municipal Advisory Council, an advisory body to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors made up of residents of the unincorporated communities of Ashland, Cherryland, Hayward Acres, and San Lorenzo that advocate for local changes on behalf of their communities | | Educational Attainment | The highest level of education a person has completed | | EHD (ACH-EHD) | Environmental Health Department, a department of Alameda County Health | | EJ (Environmental Justice) | Environmental justice, defined by the California Environmental Justice Alliance as "the basic right of people to live, work, go to school, and pray in a healthy and clean environment, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, age, culture, ability, nationality, or income" (California Environmental Justice Alliance 2018) | | EPA | United States Environmental Protection Agency | | EO 12898 | Executive Order 12898 directs federal agencies to consider environmental justice, particularly on the environmental and human health effects of federal decisions on minority and low-income populations | | Equality | Equality means that everyone is treated the same way, regardless of need, individual difference, context, or outcome | | Equity | Equity means that everyone, regardless of identity, has fair and equal access to the resources, opportunities, and outcomes that enable them to attain their full potential for health and well-being | | Food Insecurity | A lack of consistent access to food for every person in a household to live an active, healthy life | | Friends of San Lorenzo Creek | A 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that advocates for the health of San Lorenzo Creek, promoting cleanups, restoration, and public awareness, and encouraging public agencies and community organizations take cooperative and individual responsibility for the creek | | GCR | The Government and Community Relations Agency (GCR) of Alameda County serves as the primary liaison between the Alameda County Social Services Agency (ACSSA) and federal, state, and local government entities and community organizations on issues affecting social services. | | TERM/ABBREVIATION | DEFINITION | | :--- | :--- | | General Plan | Alameda County’s General Plan is a long-range policy document, required by state law and approved by the Board of Supervisors, that guides physical, economic, and environmental growth in the unincorporated communities of Alameda County. | | General Plan Element | State law requires local county and city general plans to include topical categories known as “elements.” There are currently seven mandatory general plan elements for all local jurisdictions: land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, noise, and safety. Jurisdictions that meet specific criteria are also required to have general plans that include environmental justice and/or air quality elements. | | Green Zone | A place-based strategy that uses community-led solutions to transform areas overburdened by pollution into healthy thriving neighborhoods (California Environmental Justice Alliance) | | Groundwater threats | Stressors that affect ground water condition include application of pesticides and fertilizers to the land, waste from livestock and other animals, landfills, mining operations, and unintentional releases such as chemical spills or leaks from storage tanks (EPA) | | GSA | Alameda County General Services Agency | | HARD | Hayward Area Recreation and Park District | | Hazard | A known danger or risk | | Hazardous Waste | Waste with properties that make it potentially dangerous or harmful to human health or the environment. Can include liquids, solids, or contained gases (Department of Toxic Substances Control) | | HCD (CDA – HCD) | Housing and Community Development, a department of the Alameda County Community Development Agency | | Healthy Homes (CDA – Healthy Homes) | Healthy Homes Department, a department of the Alameda County Community Development Agency | | HSC (ACH-HSC) | Healthy Schools and Communities, a department of Alameda County Health | | Heat island effect | A term describing a measurable increase in ambient air temperature in urbanized areas, caused by combination of heat-absorptive surfaces (such as dark pavement and roofing), heat-generating activities (such as engines and generators) and the absence of vegetation (which provides evaporative cooling) (CalEPA) | | Housing Tenure | The legal and financial relationship you have with your home; classified most commonly as owning or renting | | HPI | California Healthy Places Index, a data platform for exploring local factors that predict life expectancy and comparing community conditions across the state | | HUD | U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development | | HUSD | Hayward Unified School District | | Indo-European Languages | Indo-European is a large family of related languages that includes Indo-Iranian, Greek, Baltic, Celtic, Romance, Germanic, and Slavic languages | | Intersectional | Relating to the interconnected nature of social categorizations such as race, class, and gender as they apply to an individual or group, regarded as creating overlapping and interdependent systems of discrimination or disadvantage | | ITD | Alameda County Information Technology Department | | Land use | General term describing human uses of the land | | Latinx | Term in American English that is used to refer to people of Latin American cultural or ethnic identity in the United States | | Lead Contamination | Lead can be found in atmospheric suspended particles, water, and soil; human activities related to lead release into the environment include but are not limited to mining, smelting, refining and informal recycling of lead, use of leaded petrol, production and recycling of lead-acid batteries and paints, soldering, ceramics manufacturing, electronic waste, and lead use in (old) water pipes (Pan American Health Organization) | # Glossary and Abbreviations | TERM/ABBREVIATION | DEFINITION | | :--- | :--- | | Limited English-Speaking Household/ Linguistic/ Language Isolation | A household where all members of 14 years old and over have some difficulty with English | | MEHKO | Microenterprise Home Kitchen Operation | | MEV | My Eden Voice!, a non-profit dedicated to advocating for policies that benefit the unincorporated areas of Alameda County | | Municipal services | Basic services (e.g., law enforcement, roads, fire department, library, etc.) provided by a local government to its residents | | Nature-based solutions | Sustainable planning, design, environmental management, and engineering practices that weave natural features or processes into the built environment to promote adaptation and resilience | | OEHHA | Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment | | Ohlone | An umbrella term given to a collective of various tribes, bands, and territories of people indigenous to the greater San Francisco and Monterey Bay Areas | | OPR | California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research | | Ordinance | A piece of legislation enacted by a municipal authority | | Overcrowded Households | Dwellings that house more than one occupant per room (excluding bathrooms) (US Census Bureau) | | Pandemic | A widespread occurrence of an infectious disease over a whole country or the world at a particular time | | Percentile | A comparison score between a particular score and the scores of the rest of a group | | PHD (ACH – PHD) | Public Health Department, a department of Alameda County Health | | Planning Department (CDA – Planning) | Planning Department, a department of the Community Development Agency | | PM/P.M2.5 | Particulate matter; P.M2.5 refers to particles that have a diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less and often come from emissions from the combustion of gasoline, oil, or diesel fuel | | Pollution Burden | Represents the potential exposures to pollutants and the adverse environmental conditions caused by pollution; pollution Burdens can impact public health, community exposure, and environmental quality (CalEnviroScreen) | | Population Characteristics | Biological traits, health status, or community characteristics that can increase pollution vulnerability (CalEnviroScreen) | | Priority Communities | For the purposes of this EJ Element, Alameda County's Priority Communities include the unincorporated communities of Ashland, Cherryland, Hayward Acres, and parts of Castro Valley and San Lorenzo | | Promotores | A lay community member who receives special training to provide peer-to-peer health education in their community | | Public right-of-way | Typically, a strip of land containing the public street, sidewalks, and utilities | | PWA | Alameda County Public Works Agency | | Quimby Act | California Government Code Section 66477 establishes a standard of 3 acres of parks for every 1,000 residents | | REACH | REACH Ashland Youth Center is an Ashland-based youth center sponsored by the ACH Healthy Schools and Communities department (HSC). REACH brings no-cost Recreation, Education, Arts, Career, and Health programs to empower youth ages 11 to 24 and no-cost child-care and food distribution services to support the Ashland community. | | San Lorenzo Creekway | A proposed five-mile-long multi-use pedestrian and bicycle facility along Alameda County's existing San Lorenzo Creek channel maintenance road; project of the Hayward Area Recreation and Park District and the Alameda County Flood Control & Water Conservation District | | TERM/ABBREVIATION | DEFINITION | | :--- | :--- | | SB 1000 | 2016 California Senate Bill that requires counties and cities with disadvantaged communities (as defined by SB 1000) to integrate EJ policies and programs into their general plans | | SB 535 | 2012 California Senate Bill that established initial requirements for minimum funding levels to Disadvantaged Communities (DACs); the legislation gives CalEPA the responsibility for identifying those communities | | Severely Overcrowded | Dwellings housing more than 1.5 occupants per room (excluding bathrooms) (US Census Bureau) | | SLZUSD | San Lorenzo Unified School District | | SSA | Alameda County Social Services Agency | | StopWaste | A public agency governed by the Alameda County Waste Management Authority, the Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board, and the Energy Council that helps businesses, residents, and schools waste less, recycle more, and use water, energy, and other resources efficiently | | Systemic Oppression | Human-created injustices that exist at the institutional level through established policies or practices; these injustices manifest throughout social, economic, and political realms of society (National Equity Project) | | Systemic Racism | Policies and practices that exist throughout a whole society or organization and that result in and support a continued unfair advantage to some people and unfair or harmful treatment of others based on race | | Tree Advisory Board | Consisting of Alameda County residents appointed by the County Board of Supervisors, the Tree Advisory Board advises the Director of Public Works and makes recommendations to the County Board of Supervisors on matters related to trees | | Tree Program | A program through which the Alameda County Public Works Agency oversees the planting, maintenance, and preservation of trees within the County-maintained public right-of-way | | TVHC | Tiburcio Vasquez Health Center | | UCCE Alameda County | University of California Cooperative Extension Office Alameda County, a network of UC research and educators who bridge UC research with local communities | | Unincorporated community | An area of Alameda County that is not within the boundaries of an incorporated city | | UTC | Urban Tree Canopy: the area of a community that is covered by trees' crowns, as viewed from above. Often expressed as a percentage of total land area. | | USPS | United States Postal Service | | Watercourse | A channel through which water flows continuously or intermittently in a definite direction and course | | Watershed | A land area that channels rainfall and snowmelt to creeks, streams, and rivers, and eventually to outflow points such as reservoirs, bays, and the ocean (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) | | Watercourse Protection Ordinance | Chapter 13.12 of the Alameda County Code of Ordinances safeguards and preserves watercourses, protects lives and property, prevents damage due to flooding, protects drainage facilities, controls erosion and sedimentation, restricts discharge of polluted materials and enhances recreational and beneficial uses of watercourses | | WIC | The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children | | Zoning | The classification of land according to restrictions placed on its use and development | <
> # 1 sectionone # Introduction Like many jurisdictions throughout California, Alameda County is charting a path toward greater equity in its unincorporated communities by preparing an environmental justice (EJ) chapter or "element" in the County's General Plan. Developed in close collaboration with community members, County staff, and other partners, the goals, policies, and actions in this EJ Element address community-identified issues related to reducing pollution, improving air quality, promoting equitable access to health-inducing benefits, and increasing civic engagement in the unincorporated communities. Addressing longstanding environmental injustices requires community-centered, intersectional action. This EJ Element represents a shared value statement between the community and Alameda County, and affirms the commitment of the County and its agencies and departments to work cooperatively toward a just and inclusive future for the residents of the unincorporated communities. # 1.1 Vision and Purpose *In response to state law, the purpose of this Environmental Justice (EJ) Element is to ensure that land use policy and decision-making in unincorporated Alameda County support healthy and equitable community development. The EJ Element outlines a long-range vision for community health and wellness where all residents have equitable access to social, economic, environmental, and community benefits.* Communities with **environmental justice (EJ)** concerns face longstanding social, economic, and environmental disparities resulting from a legacy of discriminatory policies and unjust **land use** practices. Historic and ongoing environmental injustices perpetrated by government institutions and private industry have contributed to environmental burdens that disproportionately impact low-income and **BIPOC** (Black, Indigenous, and People of Color) communities. These environmental burdens affect health outcomes, food access, public safety, economic opportunities, and many other essential community and individual functions. The **unincorporated communities** of Alameda County rely on the County government for **municipal services** and local land use decisions. As a result, Alameda County agencies and decisionmakers play a key role in addressing historic discrimination and disenfranchisement, improving environmental health, and investing in the unincorporated communities so that all residents have access to opportunities that enable them to thrive. The Alameda County General Plan is the key land use document guiding long-range physical, economic, and environmental growth in the County’s unincorporated communities. This EJ Element, a chapter of the County’s General Plan, establishes goals, policies, and actions that center **equity** and provide an environmental justice-centered foundation for future growth and community development in the unincorporated areas. Created in collaboration with community and through a partnership between the Community Development Agency (**CDA**) and Alameda County Health’s Public Health Department (**ACH - PHD**), the EJ Element updates and replaces the Ashland and Cherryland Community Health and Wellness Element (**CHWE**), which was adopted by the Alameda County Board of Supervisors in 2015. The EJ Element expands the geography and scope of the CHWE to reflect current social and environmental vulnerabilities and to include additional topics identified through the community engagement processes. Addressing environmental injustice requires an **intersectional** approach and a recognition that systems of oppression – and their solutions – do not exist in isolation from one other. This EJ Element represents a shared value statement between the community and Alameda County, and affirms the commitment of the County and its agencies and departments to work cooperatively toward a just and inclusive future for the residents of the unincorporated communities. ### What is EJ? The California Environmental Justice Alliance (2018) defines EJ as "the basic right of people to live, work, go to school, and pray in a healthy and clean environment, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, age, culture, ability, nationality, or income." ### What is Equity? **Equity**, in the context of this EJ Element, means that everyone, regardless of identity, has fair and equal access to the resources, opportunities, and outcomes that enable them to attain their full potential for health and well-being. Equity differs from **equality**, in which everyone is treated the same way regardless of need, individual difference, context, or outcome. <
> # 1.2 A Brief History of Environmental Justice Long before the term “environmental justice” became commonplace, low-income residents and BIPOC and immigrant communities experienced **systemic oppression**, bearing disproportionate impacts of environmental burdens and related health problems. Systemic oppression is when the laws and regulations of a community result in the unequal treatment of a specific group, including, but not limited to, unequal access to health care, food, public transit, and safe and sanitary homes and neighborhoods. As Europeans colonized the land now known as the state of California, they enacted systems of oppression and State-sponsored policies that continue to harm California’s diverse Indigenous populations, damaging the centuries-long relationship between the local lands and their original Indigenous stewards. In the late 19th century, Chinese descendants living in San Francisco were harmed by racially-motivated policies that sought to relocate them from their homes. This pattern of oppression carried on well into the 20th century. In 1913, the California Alien Land Law (also known as the Webb-Haney Act) primarily targeted Chinese, Indian, Japanese, and Korean immigrant farmers, denying them the right to own land in California. In 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066 resulting in the forcible relocation and imprisonment of tens of thousands of Japanese Americans throughout the Western states. ### Bolded Terms All **bolded** words and acronyms throughout the EJ Element are defined in the Glossary at the beginning of this EJ Element, and some terms are also defined in sidebars for convenience. ### Systemic Oppression The National Equity Project describes **systemic oppression** as human created injustices that exist at the institutional level through established policies or practices. These injustices manifest throughout social, economic, and political realms of society. During World War II, the then-unincorporated area known as Russell City was one of the only areas in Alameda County where Black residents were allowed to live. Residents of Russell City, an area now part of the city of Hayward, were denied basic public infrastructure like water and sewer lines by County authorities. This denial of essential public services in low-income, BIPOC and immigrant communities compounded over time, producing disproportionate health burdens among residents throughout the area. Historic government policies and their impacts on current patterns of racial segregation in the unincorporated Alameda County communities is discussed in detail in the County’s 2023-2031 Housing Element (Appendix F: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Assessment, Section F.6 A History of Housing in Unincorporated Alameda County.) The EJ movement began to gain national public support in the 1980s when grassroots organizers in North Carolina revealed that low-income and BIPOC communities were more likely to live in areas that were environmentally hazardous. In 1992, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (**EPA**) began using the term “environmental justice” and established an EPA Office of Environmental Justice. In 1994, President Bill Clinton issued Executive Order 12898, directing federal agencies to consider EJ, and draw attention to the environmental and human health effects of federal decisions on BIPOC and low-income populations. # 1.3 Senate Bill 1000 Recognizing the impact of planning policies on community health and equitable outcomes, California lawmakers approved **SB 1000** in 2016 to incorporate EJ principles into planning documents and increase citizen involvement in public decision-making. SB 1000 requires cities and counties that have “disadvantaged communities” to incorporate EJ policies into their general plans. SB 1000 outlines a screening method that jurisdictions must use to identify disadvantaged communities for the purposes of the legislation. For more information about the screening process, see page 2-2. Based on SB 1000 criteria for determining EJ communities, as defined below, five neighboring unincorporated communities in Alameda County have been identified as the focus, or **Priority Communities**, of this EJ Element: Ashland, Cherryland, Hayward Acres, San Lorenzo, and parts of Castro Valley. These Priority Communities are described in detail in **Section 2**, *Priority Communities*, of this Element. <
> SB 1000 requires that EJ elements identify goals and policies to reduce the unique or **compounded health risks** in disadvantaged communities, prioritize improvements and programs that meet the needs of those communities, and promote civic engagement in the public decision-making process. The policies and programs in this EJ Element are designed to meet the requirements of SB 1000 and address and correct the disproportionate environmental burdens faced by the Priority Communities. SB 1000 requires jurisdictions to consider, at minimum, six key topics to inform EJ policy development. These six topics serve as a guide for the vision and goals of Alameda County's EJ Element and are defined in detail in **Section 3**, *Existing Conditions*. These topics include: | | | | | |---|---|---|---| | <
> | Pollution and Air Quality | <
> | Access to Healthy Food | | <
> | Access to Public Facilities | <
> | Health and Physical Activity | | <
> | Safe and Sanitary Homes & Neighborhoods | <
> | Civic Engagement | # 1.4 County EJ Initiatives The County has made progress over the past 20 years to address health burdens faced by residents in the Priority Communities through local initiatives and resources that increase equity and improve residents’ quality of life. The initiatives and programs outlined below are recent developments in the Priority Communities that improve communication between community members, community-based organizations, and the County, drive equitable change, and provide access to resources for healthy lifestyles. ### Ashland Cherryland Healthy Communities Collaborative (est. 2005) The Ashland Cherryland Healthy Communities Collaborative (**ACHCC**) includes over 30 local agencies and community-based organizations that provide services in Ashland, Cherryland, and neighboring urban unincorporated communities. The Collaborative’s work has evolved over time in response to community priorities; initially called the Ashland-Cherryland Violence Prevention Collaborative (ACVPC), the name was changed in 2014 to reflect the group’s goal of improving community health and wellness through interdepartmental and interdisciplinary efforts. (For more information on the ACHCC, refer to the callout box on page 3-16.) ### Eden Area Livability Initiative (active 2004–2019) Active in two phases from 2004 through 2019 and spearheaded by Alameda County Supervisor Nate Miley, the Eden Area Livability Initiative (**EALI**) offered a shared vision to form and sustain a livable community in the urban unincorporated areas of the county. This initiative facilitated partnerships between the community, the County, and the broader public sector organizations with a stake in the incorporated urban communities. Summary reports for EALI Phases I and II can be viewed at www.acgov.org/edenareavision/documents.htm.. The following are some of the key achievements that emerged from, or were catalyzed by, the EALI Initiative: * **REACH Youth Center (opened 2013).** A youth center in Ashland was selected as a priority for immediate action during EALI Phase 1. After a decade of planning, the Ashland **REACH** youth community center opened in 2013 to local youth as a center for learning, empowerment, and healthy living. The dynamic 31,500-square-foot facility includes a community clinic, library, day care, fitness center, and café. The site now offers youth from all over the unincorporated area a safe place to access vital resources for this historically under-resourced community ([reachashland.org](https://reachashland.org)). <
> * **The Ashland and Cherryland Community Health and Wellness Element (adopted 2015).** The Ashland and Cherryland CHWE arose from a list of suggested projects of Phase I of EALI. The CHWE was adopted as an optional element of the Alameda County General Plan to address gaps in the county's existing public health policies with special consideration for the needs of residents in Ashland and Cherryland. This updated EJ Element builds upon goals, policies, and actions outlined in the existing CHWE along with additional topics identified through community engagement processes (Community Health and Wellness Element of the Alameda County General Plan, [acgov.org](https://acgov.org)). * **My Eden Voice! (established 2018).** Initially a project of County Supervisor Nate Miley's office and catalyzed by EALI Phase II, My Eden Voice! (**MEV**) is now an independent organization that advocates for policies that benefit the historically disadvantaged communities in the unincorporated areas of Alameda County. The organization campaigns on behalf of these communities to hold county decisionmakers accountable for advancing policy changes that promote equity and justice ([myedenvoice.org](https://myedenvoice.org)). * **Cherryland Community Center (opened 2020).** The Hayward Area Recreation and Parks District’s Cherryland Community Center, which opened its doors in 2020, emerged from EALI Phase I. Adjacent to the Meek Estate in Cherryland, the Cherryland Community Center is a state-of-the-art facility that houses multi-use and community rooms, a Pre-K activity room, an Alameda County Library Annex, a catering kitchen and a reception room. # Dig Deep Farms (established 2010) and Dig Deep Farms Food Hub (established 2020) <
> Dig Deep Farms was established in 2010 by the Alameda County Deputy Sheriffs’ Activities League (**DSAL**), a nonprofit created to encourage communication and collaboration between community members and the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office ([acdsal.org/farms](https://acdsal.org/farms)). In recognition of the importance of food as medicine, the farming program operates six urban farms throughout Alameda County and trains and hires local residents to grow nutritious food and learn about permaculture and urban farming. The Dig Deep Farms Food Hub is a certified community commercial kitchen, food aggregation, and distribution center that acts as the home base for DSAL’s Food as Medicine and Food Recovery programs. With combined efforts from multiple community organizations, Dig Deep Farms and the Food Hub offer workforce re-entry opportunities and provide nutritious food to those in need while reducing food waste. ## Eden Area Municipal Advisory Council (established 2020) The Alameda County BOS established the Eden Area Municipal Advisory Council (**Eden MAC**) in 2020 as a formal structure for public representation and engagement in the unincorporated communities of Ashland, Cherryland, Hayward Acres, and San Lorenzo. A MAC is a Brown Act body[^p29-1] that represents an unincorporated area and advises a county BOS. MAC members are appointed by, and serve as an advisory body to, the Alameda County BOS on land use issues and other topics impacting their community. In urban unincorporated Alameda County, the community of Castro Valley has had its own MAC since 1981, and the Fairview MAC was established in 2017. The 2020 establishment of the Eden MAC uplifts the voices of Eden Area residents and highlights the importance of civic engagement in the public decision-making process. ## Alameda County Reparations Commission (2023) Over the last several years across our country and nationally, there have been increased conversations about the role of historic institutional racism and structural barriers that remain in our society and institutions. On March 28, 2023, as part of Alameda County's efforts to engage in this dialogue, the Board of Supervisors voted to approve the formation of a Reparations Commission to address the legislative, social, and economic inequities faced by African Americans in Alameda County. The Commission will be tasked with facilitating listening sessions, recording key takeaways from the listening sessions, and gathering research to formulate and present a draft action plan to the Board of Supervisors Ad Hoc Reparations Committee, for final approval by the full Board. The Reparations Commission has 15 members, with each Supervisor appointing three members. ## Russel City Apology (2023) Russell City, a community formerly located in an unincorporated area of Alameda County on the western shoreline of Hayward, was ignored and eventually erased to make way for an industrial business park development. On June 27, 2023, the Board of Supervisors adopted a Resolution to formally recognize and apologize for the County's role in the seizure and destruction of Russel City during the 1950s and 1960s and the harm caused to the individuals, families, and descendants impacted by the seizure and destruction of Russell City.[^p29-2] <
> [^p29-1]: The Brown Act (California Government Code § 54950 et seq.) was enacted in 1953 to guarantee the public's right to attend and participate in meetings of local legislative bodies. It governs local agencies, legislative bodies of local government agencies created by state or federal law and any standing committee of a covered board or legislative body, and governing bodies of non-profit corporations formed by a public agency. [^p29-2]: https://www.acgov.org/board/bos_calendar/documents/DocsAgendaReg_06_27_23/GENERAL%20ADMINISTRATION/Set%20Matter%20Calendar/352870.pdf # 1.5 Relationship to Other General Plan Elements and Plans State law requires that all local jurisdictions have a general plan that contains seven elements: Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Open Space, Conservation, Safety, and Noise. In addition to these seven elements, jurisdictions that meet certain criteria, like Alameda County, are also required to prepare an EJ element. The General Plan expresses the County's vision for the future and is the roadmap for achieving the community's desired quality of life. It is an assessment of current and future needs, and the resources needed to implement the goals and policies established in the General Plan. Alameda County's General Plan focuses on the unincorporated portions of the county; cities within the County have their own, separate general plans. In accordance with state law, the goals, policies, and actions outlined in this EJ Element are consistent with all other elements of the Alameda County General Plan, as well as with other regional and local plans, as described below. These documents are all accessible on the County's General Plan, Specific Plans & Ordinances webpage (https://www.acgov.org/cda/planning/generalplans/index.htm). The County began development of this EJ Element directly in advance of updates to its Community Climate Action Plan, Safety Element, and Housing Element. These and all future General Plan updates will be informed by the EJ Element, ensuring that EJ considerations are incorporated, and that each element is consistent and mutually reinforcing. **Table 1-1** describes several County plans and their EJ-related components. #### TABLE 1-1 Plan Consistency | RELATED PLAN | PLAN DESCRIPTION | RELATED EJ TOPICS | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | *Legend:* | <
> *Pollution and Air Quality* <
> *Access to Healthy Food* | <
> *Access to Public Facilities* <
> *Health and Physical Activity* | <
> *Safe and Sanitary Homes & Neighborhoods* <
> *Civic Engagement* | | **ALAMEDA COUNTY GENERAL PLAN:** | | | | **Eden Area General Plan** | The Eden Area General Plan includes land use and circulation elements, as well as area-specific goals, policies, and programs pertaining to open space, conservation, safety, and noise for the Eden Area, which includes the communities of Ashland, Cherryland, Hayward Acres, San Lorenzo, and Fairview. | <
> | | **Castro Valley General Plan** | The Castro Valley General Plan contains land use and circulation elements for Castro Valley, as well as area-specific goals, policies, and programs pertaining to open space, conservation, safety, and noise. | <
> | | **Housing Element *(Update in Progress)*** | The General Plan Housing Element is the primary housing policy document for the unincorporated portions of the County. It provides a comprehensive strategy for promoting the development, preservation, and rehabilitation of safe, decent, and affordable housing for all residents. | <
> | | **Open Space Element** | The General Plan Open Space Element designates four major types of open space: agricultural open space, preserves, residential-canyon open space, and connecting open space corridors. The Open Space Element includes policies that dictate the development and management of the designated open spaces. | <
> | | RELATED PLAN | PLAN DESCRIPTION | RELATED EJ TOPICS | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Legend: | 💨 *Pollution and Air Quality*
🥗 *Access to Healthy Food* | 🏛️ *Access to Public Facilities*
🏃 *Health and Physical Activity* | 🏠 *Safe and Sanitary Homes & Neighborhoods*
🗣️ *Civic Engagement* | | **Conservation Element** | The General Plan Conservation Element addresses the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources including groundwater, forests, soils, waterbodies, wildlife, minerals, and other natural resources. | 💨 🥗 🏃 | | **Safety Element (*Update in Progress*)** | The General Plan Safety Element includes descriptive information, analysis, and policies pertaining to the County's geologic, seismic, flood, and fire hazards. The Safety Element aims to minimize human injury, loss of life, property damage, and economic and social dislocation due to natural and human-made hazards and the worsening effects of climate change. | 💨 🏠 | | **Noise Element** | The General Plan Noise Element addresses the standards and limitations concerning acceptable noise levels. Alameda County aims to provide its residents and wildlife with an environment free from excessive noise pollution. | 🏛️ 🏠 🏃 | | **Recreation Plan** | The General Plan Recreation Plan establishes an official guide for the development of various levels of parks and recreation systems, and for the directing of land use zoning and other public and private actions toward the common goal of providing adequate and appropriate parks and recreation areas to serve all the people of Alameda County. | 💨 🏛️ 🏠 🥗 🏃 | | **Community Climate Action Plan (*Update in Progress*)** | The Community Climate Action Plan outlines a course of action to reduce community-wide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions generated within the unincorporated areas. Successful implementation of the Community Climate Action Plan will help the County reduce GHGs in accordance with State law and build community resilience to the effects of climate change. | 💨 🏛️ 🏠 🥗 🏃 🗣️ | | **RELEVANT SPECIFIC PLANS:** | | | | **Ashland and Cherryland Business District Specific Plan** | The Ashland and Cherryland Business District Specific Plan provides a vison for the economic revitalization of the business area. Prioritizing mixed-use and high-density development, this plan aims to transform the Plan area into a regional destination that fosters community building and local pride. | 🏛️ 🥗 🏃 🗣️ | | **Castro Valley Central Business District Specific Plan (*Update in Progress*)** | The Castro Valley Central Business District Specific Plan outlines the development goals for the primary commercial area in Castro Valley. The Plan aims to make the Central Business District a focal point of the community with abundant jobs, residential development, businesses, and transportation options. | 🏛️ 🥗 🗣️ | | **San Lorenzo Village Center Specific Plan** | The San Lorenzo Village Center Specific Plan aims to revitalize the economic health of the Village Center and connect the community to essential goods and services. The Plan connects existing public facilities and an expanded retail area to encourage economic growth and facilitate wellness within the community. | 🏛️ 🥗 🏃 🗣️ | # 1.6 Community Engagement This EJ Element was developed through an extensive community engagement process. EJ-focused meetings with partner agencies, bilingual (Spanish/English) community EJ workshops, and a bilingual (Spanish/English) EJ community survey provided a variety of engagement options. The feedback the County received was key to identifying priority EJ issues and guiding the development of goals, policies, and actions in this EJ Element. The County also partnered with local community engagement experts including the Tiburcio Vasquez Health Center (**TVHC**), whose **Promotores** peer educator team led a bilingual, grassroots effort to distribute the survey and advertise workshops in the Priority Communities. In response to the ongoing COVID pandemic, most partner agency meetings and community workshops were held virtually. These virtual engagement meetings were informative and interactive, and provided opportunities for the development of community-based solutions. The following provides information regarding community engagement activities; input received from community engagement is summarized by EJ topic in Section 3. Presentations and meeting materials, including summaries of each meeting, as well as the survey results, are provided in detail in **Appendix B** and are also posted on the County’s website: [https://www.acgov.org/cda/planning/generalplans/engagement.htm](https://www.acgov.org/cda/planning/generalplans/engagement.htm). ## Partner Agency Meetings The Ashland Cherryland Healthy Communities Collaborative (**ACHCC**) EJ Bucket met in monthly virtual meetings over the course of the EJ Element planning process to guide the development of the EJ Element. In these interactive meetings, participating service provider staff shared information, ideas, and perspectives that informed the development of the EJ Element and the Implementation Plan. The ACHCC EJ Bucket also helped the County develop community engagement strategies to increase Priority Community participation in the EJ process. ## Community Survey The County gathered additional information about EJ issues of concern to Priority Community residents via an online survey. Community members were able to access the survey from May 1 through August 31, 2022, in either English or Spanish. The County received 29 responses in English, and 22 responses in Spanish. The survey responses were used to inform the issues presented in Section 3 for each EJ topic, and to inform the civic engagement process. ### The Ashland Cherryland Healthy Communities Collaborative (ACHCC) The ACHCC was established by Alameda County Supervisor Nate Miley in 2008 to coordinate efforts, build capacity, and leverage resources in Ashland and Cherryland. With an expanded geographic focus, today’s ACHCC is a coalition of staff from County agencies, Special Districts, and local community-based organizations such as La Familia, **Bike East Bay**, Resources for Community Development, and others that provide services in the urban unincorporated communities of Ashland, Cherryland, Hayward Acres, San Lorenzo, and Castro Valley. The ACHCC is currently made up of two “buckets”: a Basic Needs Bucket, which focuses on immediate needs like food distributions and vaccination clinics, and an EJ Bucket, which focuses on long-range, upstream issues impacting community health and wellness. Throughout 2022, the ACHCC EJ Bucket met monthly to identify community needs and assets, co-create EJ policy recommendations, and provide feedback on how to effectively implement the EJ Element. ## Community Workshops ### WORKSHOP #1 The first EJ Element community workshop was held on May 19, 2022. In response to ongoing public health concerns surrounding the **COVID-19** pandemic, this was a virtual meeting with 55 participants in attendance and included consecutive Spanish-language interpretation. The workshop introduced EJ principles and outlined key findings and data related to EJ topics and local concerns in the Priority Communities. During the workshop, participant feedback was gathered to help the County better understand how EJ issues affect the community members personally. Participants were asked questions related to each of the six required EJ topics. Following the presentation, an open Q&A forum provided an opportunity for participants to ask general questions and provide comments. Feedback provided by the community at the workshop was used to confirm the data presented in Section 3 for each EJ topic. Section 3 includes a summary of community input under the analysis for each EJ topic. ### WORKSHOP #2 The second community workshop was held on August 25, 2022. This virtual meeting had 94 people in attendance and included consecutive Spanish-language interpretation. The meeting began with an introduction to the EJ Element workplan and schedule, followed by a description of the County's responsibilities as they relate to SB 1000. The remainder of the workshop was organized into three different sections. Each section included a presentation of two required EJ topics, including community concerns related to those topics, followed by small group discussions in breakout rooms. During the breakout discussions, facilitators used an interactive digital collaboration platform to organize discussions, record community concerns and potential policy solutions. After each breakout, facilitators shared out highlights from their breakouts. Feedback provided by the community at the workshop was used to inform the development of policies and actions presented in **Section 4**, *Goals, Policies, and Actions*. ### WORKSHOP #3 – PUBLIC DRAFT REVIEW The draft EJ Element was released on May 5, 2023, and a third community workshop to review the draft was held on May 25, 2023. This virtual meeting had 67 people in attendance and included simultaneous Spanish-language interpretation. The workshop began with a brief review of the Priority Communities and the EJ Element project and schedule. The remainder of the workshop reviewed key draft policies and actions, along with the community concerns that they aimed to address. After each topic area, participants took a brief poll indicating whether or not the measures responded to their concerns. Attendees also shared feedback on the draft measures verbally or via chat. The presentation included information about additional opportunities to comment on the public draft and links to an interactive online engagement platform. ## Public Meetings Staff introduced the EJ Element project to local decision-making bodies and provided regular updates at a series of public meetings in 2021 and 2022. In addition to community workshops, residents and community leaders had opportunities to comment on the public draft EJ Element at formal meetings of the Board of Supervisors’ Unincorporated Services Committee (May 24, 2023), the Castro Valley MAC (June 12, 2023), the Eden Area MAC (July 11, 2023), and the Planning Commission (July 17, 2023). Feedback provided during the public draft review period was analyzed and integrated into the final draft of the EJ Element. <
> # 2 sectiontwo # Priority Communities This section outlines the methodology used to identify Alameda County's EJ Priority Communities—the unincorporated communities of Ashland, Cherryland, Hayward Acres, San Lorenzo, and southwestern Castro Valley. It also describes the Priority Communities and establishes the context of this planning effort. # 2.1 Methodology for Identifying Priority Communities The County identified the Priority Communities using the multi-step screening process described in the EJ Element guidelines released by the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (**OPR**) (OPR 2020). First, the County used CalEnviroScreen 4.0, a data tool developed by California Environmental Protection Agency's (**CalEPA**) Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (**OEHHA**). **Table 2-1** lists the **pollution burden** and **population characteristics** used by the State to determine environmental impacts and to produce a numerical score for each **census tract** in the State (OEHHA 2022). As defined in Senate Bill (**SB**) **535** (de Leon 2012), a census tract that scores at or above 75 percent on the CalEnviroScreen tool is considered a disadvantaged community (also known as a "**DAC**"). No census tracts in unincorporated Alameda County meet the SB 535 definition of a DAC. Next, the OPR EJ Guidelines direct jurisdictions to identify any low-income communities[^p36-3] that are disproportionately affected by environmental pollution (OPR 2020, 10). All of Ashland, Cherryland, and Hayward Acres meet this definition, in addition to several tracts in southwestern Castro Valley and most of San Lorenzo. **Table 2-2** provides the total CalEnviroScreen score for Priority Communities census tracts (see the CalEnviroScreen 4.0 **Percentile** column) and a breakdown of how each census tract in these areas scores for each pollution burden indicator. Scores of 75 or higher are highlighted in the table, as they indicate a disproportionate impact. As shown in Table 2-2, disproportionate impacts are found in pollution burdens related to **cleanup sites, groundwater threats, diesel particulate matter (PM), traffic**, and **household lead contamination** (see Glossary for definitions of each pollution indicator). Section 3 discusses environmental impacts associated with each of these pollution burdens. ### CalEnviroScreen **CalEnviroScreen** compiles many data sources to provide insight into the disparities between communities throughout the state. CalEnviroScreen uses **Pollution Burden** indicators and **Population Characteristics** to identify EJ communities. **Pollution burden** represents the potential exposures to pollutants and the adverse environmental conditions caused by pollution. Pollution Burdens can impact public health, community exposure, and environmental quality (CalEnviroScreen). **Population characteristics** are indicators that represent biological traits, health status, or community characteristics that can increase pollution vulnerability (CalEnviroScreen). ### Census Tract All areas of a county are divided into census tracts. A census tract is a small area with a population size between 1,200 and 8,000 people. The purpose of a census tract is to provide a means to present and compare population data between areas of similar size (US Census Bureau n.d.). *** [^p36-3]: Low-income communities are defined as the census tracts that are either at or below 80 percent of the statewide median income, or at or below the threshold designated as low-income by the California Department of Housing and Community Development's (HCD) Revised 2021 State Income Limits. Low-income definitions per Assembly Bill (AB) 1550 (Gomez, Chapter 369, Statutes of 2016). In the final step in the EJ community screening process, OPR directs jurisdictions to incorporate and analyze community-specific data and examine for additional pollution burden and health risk factors. Following these prescribed steps, including collaboration with residents and other stakeholders, Alameda County identified the communities of Ashland, Cherryland, Hayward Acres, and San Lorenzo (known collectively as the **"Eden Area"**), and several census tracts in southwestern Castro Valley as its **EJ Priority Communities**. #### TABLE 2-1 Pollution Burden and Population Characteristics used in CalEnviroScreen | POLLUTION BURDENS | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **Exposure Indicators** | | **Environmental Effect Indicators** | | • Ozone
• PM2.5 (Fine Particulate Matter)
• Children’s Lead Risk from Housing
• Diesel Particulate Matter | • Drinking Water Contaminants
• Pesticide Use
• Toxic Releases from Facilities
• Traffic Impacts | • Cleanup Sites
• Groundwater Threats
• Hazardous Waste Generators and Facilities
• Impaired Water Bodies
• Solid Waste Facilities | | **POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS** | | | | **Sensitive Population Indicators** | **Socioeconomic Factor Indicators** | | | • Asthma
• Cardiovascular Disease
• Low-Birth-Weight Infants | • Educational Attainment
• Housing Burden
• Linguistic Isolation | • Poverty
• Unemployment | ### Percentiles vs. Percentages *Percentages* are different from *percentiles*. A *percentage* represents a number as a fraction of 100. For example, a student who takes an exam and answers 75 out of 100 questions correctly has earned a score of 75 percent (or 75%) on the exam. A *percentile* is a way of ranking things in order from 0 to 100. For example, if a student takes an exam and is placed in the 75th percentile, that means that the student earned a higher score than 75 percent of other students who took the same exam. Using percentiles is particularly helpful when discussing EJ, as it helps to understand which communities are more impacted than others and where injustices exist. This report uses percentile scores to compare conditions in one geographic area in relation to others. Communities in the top 25 percent of CalEnviroScreen for a pollution burden mean that they score worse than at least 75 percent of other census tracts in the state. ### Eden Area The Eden Area includes the unincorporated communities of Ashland, Hayward Acres, Cherryland, Fairview and San Lorenzo. While these areas vary widely in their populations and physical appearance, they have many commonalities, interconnected histories, and are interdependent economically (Eden Area General Plan 2010). # Priority Communities ### TABLE 2-2 Cal EnviroScreen 4.0 Scores for Priority Community Census Tracts | PRIORITY COMMUNITY | CENSUS TRACTS | AB 1550 LOW-INCOME COMMUNITY[^p38-d] | POPULATION | CAL ENVIROSCREEN 4.0 PERCENTILES | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | | | | CES 4.0 OVERALL | POLLUTION BURDEN | POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS | CLEANUP SITES | GROUNDWATER THREATS | HAZARDOUS WASTE | IMPAIRED WATER BODIES | SOLID WASTE FACILITIES | OZONE | PM2.5 | DIESEL PM | TOXIC RELEASES INVENTORY | TRAFFIC | PESTICIDES | DRINKING WATER | LEAD FROM HOUSING | | Ashland | 6001433700 | Yes | 3,503 | 62 | 47 | 66 | 17 | 87 | 53 | 12 | 0 | 11 | 31 | 95 | 48 | 86 | 0 | 5 | 89 | | | 60014338(01) 60014338(02)[^p38-a] | Yes | 8,179 | 62 | 41 | 72 | 26 | 73 | 57 | 12 | 0 | 11 | 29 | 96 | 48 | 64 | 0 | 4 | 84 | | | 6001433900 | Yes | 7,685 | 69 | 27 | 95 | 0 | 56 | 27 | 12 | 0 | 11 | 30 | 98 | 47 | 65 | 0 | 4 | 80 | | | 6001434000 | Yes | 5,334 | 70 | 37 | 88 | 4 | 83 | 31 | 12 | 0 | 11 | 28 | 99 | 47 | 70 | 0 | 4 | 91 | | Castro Valley (southwestern) | 6001430500 | Yes | 5,987 | 57 | 39 | 64 | 0 | 74 | 19 | 59 | 0 | 11 | 29 | 90 | 47 | 77 | 0 | 4 | 82 | | | 6001430900 | Yes | 5,309 | 54 | 35 | 63 | 72 | 75 | 64 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 31 | 67 | 47 | 42 | 0 | 4 | 76 | | | 6001431000 | Yes | 2,777 | 66 | 60 | 63 | 70 | 83 | 72 | 12 | 0 | 12 | 31 | 90 | 47 | 94 | 0 | 4 | 87 | | | 6001431100 | Yes | 3,561 | 37 | 30 | 41 | 19 | 45 | 41 | 12 | 0 | 14 | 31 | 65 | 48 | 89 | 0 | 4 | 80 | | | 6001431200 | No | 5,547 | 36 | 45 | 32 | 47 | 96 | 81 | 12 | 0 | 12 | 29 | 68 | 48 | 88 | 0 | 5 | 49 | | Cherryland | 6001435500 | Yes | 3,983 | 73 | 45 | 86 | 47 | 95 | 76 | 12 | 0 | 12 | 27 | 83 | 49 | 47 | 0 | 7 | 82 | | | 6001435601 | Yes | 5,662 | 64 | 38 | 78 | 78 | 85 | 54 | 12 | 0 | 12 | 31 | 75 | 50 | 10 | 0 | 7 | 89 | | | 6001435602 | Yes | 5,453 | 43 | 23 | 56 | 26 | 89 | 32 | 12 | 0 | 11 | 30 | 65 | 49 | 16 | 0 | 7 | 87 | | | 6001436300 | Yes | 9,444 | 64 | 49 | 68 | 90 | 67 | 64 | 12 | 0 | 12 | 27 | 96 | 53 | 41 | 0 | 7 | 83 | | | 6001435700[^p38-b] [^p38-c] | Yes | 5,231 | 63 | 38 | 75 | 8 | 60 | 31 | 12 | 0 | 11 | 31 | 94 | 50 | 94 | 0 | 5 | 88 | | Hayward Acres | 6001436200 | Yes | 4,266 | 70 | 35 | 90 | 44 | 28 | 40 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 32 | 90 | 52 | 97 | 0 | 7 | 70 | | San Lorenzo | 6001435800 | No | 5,543 | 51 | 36 | 58 | 0 | 41 | 47 | 12 | 0 | 11 | 31 | 90 | 50 | 95 | 0 | 4 | 89 | | | 6001435900[^p38-c] | Yes | 5,371 | 51 | 36 | 58 | 19 | 68 | 85 | 83 | 0 | 11 | 31 | 36 | 53 | 28 | 0 | 4 | 84 | | | 6001436000[^p38-c] | Yes | 5,036 | 41 | 27 | 30 | 0 | 55 | 63 | 83 | 0 | 11 | 31 | 42 | 53 | 21 | 0 | 4 | 87 | | | 6001436100[^p38-c] | Yes | 5,977 | 47 | 30 | 56 | 17 | 40 | 19 | 12 | 0 | 11 | 31 | 82 | 51 | 98 | 0 | 5 | 76 | SOURCE: CalEnviroScreen 4.0. NOTES: ª Census tract 6001433800 was divided in 2020: 6001433801 and 6001433802. CES 4.0 presents data for 6001433800. ᵇ Census tract 6001435700 includes portion of both Cherryland and San Lorenzo. ᶜ The Board of Supervisors added these census tracts at the time of EJ Element adoption, designating the entire Eden Area as a "Priority Community" for the purposes of EJ Element implementation. Because the data in Chapter 3 were gathered early in EJ Element development, census tract 6001435700 is excluded from some Chapter 3 data tables, as noted in applicable tables; ᵈ Consistent with revised 2021 State Income Limits per Assembly Bill 1550. [^p38-a]: Census tract 6001433800 was divided in 2020: 6001433801 and 6001433802. CES 4.0 presents data for 6001433800. [^p38-b]: Census tract 6001435700 includes portion of both Cherryland and San Lorenzo. [^p38-c]: The Board of Supervisors added these census tracts at the time of EJ Element adoption, designating the entire Eden Area as a "Priority Community" for the purposes of EJ Element implementation. Because the data in Chapter 3 were gathered early in EJ Element development, census tract 6001435700 is excluded from some Chapter 3 data tables, as noted in applicable tables; [^p38-d]: Consistent with revised 2021 State Income Limits per Assembly Bill 1550. ## 2.2 Priority Communities The EJ Priority Communities are described below and shown in **Figure 2-1**. Four of the Priority Communities—Ashland, Cherryland, Hayward Acres, and San Lorenzo—are in a region known as the **“Eden Area.”** This EJ Element compares data for the Priority Communities with data for Alameda County as a whole, including the fourteen incorporated cities, and, in the case of southwestern Castro Valley, with data for the larger Castro Valley **census designated place (CDP)**. This comparison highlights disproportionate health outcomes and environmental burdens in the Priority Communities. **Table 2-3** lists the tracts for each Priority Community. Where applicable, census tracts are paired with a CDP and/or the County (marked under the Reference Populations column). Overall, these pairings, or comparisons, serve as the framework that all tables and maps will use in Section 3. The tables use CDP data for Ashland, Cherryland, and San Lorenzo, and census tract data for Hayward Acres and southwestern Castro Valley. Although Hayward Acres is a distinct community, it is part of the San Lorenzo CDP; throughout this EJ Element, data for Hayward Acres are included in the data for the San Lorenzo CDP and are also presented separately as a subset of the San Lorenzo CDP to highlight the unique needs of that community. ### Census Designated Place A CDP is a grouping of unincorporated census tracts locally recognized and identified by name (comparable to a city). The purpose of CDPs is to provide a means of comparing and presenting data for well-known unincorporated communities (US Census Bureau). #### TABLE 2-3 Geographic Units for Priority Communities and Reference Populations | NEIGHBORHOOD OR PLACE | PRIORITY COMMUNITIES CENSUS TRACTS | PRIORITY COMMUNITIES CENSUS DESIGNATED PLACE | REFERENCE POPULATION LOCAL | REFERENCE POPULATION REGIONAL | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Ashland | 4337, 4338.01, 4338.02, 4339, 4340 | Ashland CDP | n/a | Alameda County (all) | | Cherryland | 4356.01, 4356.02, 4355, 4363, 4357[^p39-a] [^p39-b] | Cherryland CDP | n/a | Alameda County (all) | | San Lorenzo | 4357[^p39-a] [^p39-b], 4358, 4359[^p39-b], 4360[^p39-b], 4361[^p39-b] | San Lorenzo CDP | n/a | Alameda County (all) | | Hayward Acres[^p39-c] | 4362 | n/a [^p39-c] | San Lorenzo CDP | Alameda County (all) | | Castro Valley [Southwest] | 4305, 4309, 4310, 4311, 4312 | n/a | Castro Valley CDP or all Castro Valley Census Tracts | Alameda County (all) | NOTE: [^p39-a] Census tract 6001435700 includes a portion of Cherryland and a portion of San Lorenzo. [^p39-b] The Board of Supervisors added these census tracts at the time of EJ Element adoption, designating the entire Eden Area as a “Priority Community” for the purposes of EJ Element implementation. *Because the data in Chapter 3 were gathered early in EJ Element development, census tract 6001435700 is excluded from some Chapter 3 data tables, as noted in applicable tables.* [^p39-c] Hayward Acres is part of the San Lorenzo CDP. Data for Hayward Acres are included in the data for the San Lorenzo CDP throughout this EJ Element. Hayward Acres data are also presented separately as a subset of the San Lorenzo CDP to highlight the unique needs of that community. [^p39-a]: Census tract 6001435700 includes a portion of Cherryland and a portion of San Lorenzo. [^p39-b]: The Board of Supervisors added these census tracts at the time of EJ Element adoption, designating the entire Eden Area as a “Priority Community” for the purposes of EJ Element implementation. *Because the data in Chapter 3 were gathered early in EJ Element development, census tract 6001435700 is excluded from some Chapter 3 data tables, as noted in applicable tables.* [^p39-c]: Hayward Acres is part of the San Lorenzo CDP. Data for Hayward Acres are included in the data for the San Lorenzo CDP throughout this EJ Element. Hayward Acres data are also presented separately as a subset of the San Lorenzo CDP to highlight the unique needs of that community. <
> FIGURE 2-1 Map of Unincorporated Alameda County Environmental Justice Priority Communities with Census Tract numbers <
> # Ashland Ashland is an unincorporated community and CDP located in Alameda County’s Eden Area, directly south of the city of San Leandro. As shown in Figure 2-2, The community is roughly bounded by Hesperian Boulevard to the west, Interstate (I-) 580 to the east, 150th Avenue to the north, and San Lorenzo Creek to the south, where it meets the Cherryland community. Ashland is named for the Oregon ash trees that once flourished there. In the 1890s, people could ride an electric streetcar from Oakland to Hayward, passing through Ashland’s orchards and farms. By the 1930s, greenhouses and nurseries replaced most farms. The site of Bayfair Mall was once an automobile racetrack. Following World War II, the nurseries gradually led to housing developments for the community’s booming population (Castro Valley/Eden Area Chamber of Commerce n.d.). In the 1950s, the Ashland, Cherryland, and San Lorenzo communities were divided by the construction of major interstate freeways, including I-580 and I-238, and State Route 185, which crosscut the community. The heavily trafficked freeways have exposed community members to pollutants and the resulting negative health effects—a primary EJ issue for the Ashland community (*Final Report I-580 Design Alternatives Assessment 2020*). Today, Ashland is a diverse community. According to the American Community Survey, the area is home to a higher percentage of people who primarily speak a language other than English at home compared to the other Priority Communities (Alameda County Community Action Partnership 2022). Ashland has a population of about 24,000 people (as of the 2020 Census count), with the second-highest population density of the Priority Communities, after Hayward Acres (United States Census Bureau 2020). Ashland is primarily zoned for low- to medium-density residential with some areas of higher density; commerce is centered in the Ashland Cherryland Central Business District along the major arterial of E. 14th Street. The REACH Ashland Youth Center is an active hub of the community, serving youth from all over Alameda County and playing host to several annual community events (Castro Valley/Eden Area Chamber of Commerce n.d.). Ashland is directly adjacent to the Bay Fair Bay Area Rapid Transit (**BART**) Station, with direct lines to many nearby cities, including Oakland, San Francisco, and Fremont. <
> <
> <
> <
> Source: Alameda County CDA digital 2024 FIGURE 2-2 **Map of Ashland** ## Cherryland Cherryland is an unincorporated community and CDP in Alameda County’s Eden Area, directly north of Hayward. As shown in Figure 2-3, Foothill Boulevard borders the community to the east, San Lorenzo Creek to the north, the railroad tracks west of Meekland Avenue to the west, where it meets San Lorenzo, and A Street to the south. As with Ashland, the proximity of major freeways such as I-238 to the north, I-880 to the west, and I-580 to the northeast contributes to air and noise pollution, representing a primary EJ issue for Cherryland. Cherryland was named for the cherry orchards common in the area in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. William Meek, whose historic mansion still stands on Hampton Road, owned the entire area from A Street to Lewelling Boulevard and Mission Boulevard to Meekland Avenue, totaling almost 3,000 acres. Around 1910, Meek’s descendants began subdividing the property. Throughout the 1920s and 1930s, the orchards were replaced by homes with small orchards or chicken farms. Over the years, those small orchards and farms were sold to make way for more homes (Castro Valley/Eden Area Chamber of Commerce n.d.). Today, Cherryland has a population of 15,808 (U.S. Census Bureau 2020). Like Ashland, Cherryland is home to a diverse population. After Ashland, Cherryland has the second largest percentage of the population who primarily speak a language other than English at home. Cherryland is zoned primarily for low- to medium-density residential with some areas of higher density; commerce is centered in the Ashland Cherryland Central Business District along the major arterial of Mission Boulevard. The Hayward Area Recreation and Parks District’s new Cherryland Community Center features various community resources, including multi-use meeting spaces, a reception room, and a catering kitchen. <
> <
> <
> <
> FIGURE 2-3 Map of Cherryland # Hayward Acres Hayward Acres is an unincorporated community in Alameda County’s Eden Area between San Lorenzo and the city of Hayward. Hayward Acres comprises a single census tract. It is distinct from the community of San Lorenzo, but it is included in the San Lorenzo CDP. As shown in **Figure 2-4**, Hesperian Boulevard borders the area on the west, Hathaway Avenue on the east, Bartlett Avenue to the north, and West A Street to the south. The I-880 runs directly through the community in residential-zoned areas. As in Ashland and Cherryland, air and noise pollution exposure from I-880 are major EJ issues in the community of Hayward Acres (CalEnviroScreen 2022). Hayward Acres is the smallest of all the Priority Communities yet has the highest population density. According to the 2019 American Community Survey, Hayward Acres has nearly 4,300 residents in only 0.24 square miles (Alameda County Community Action Partnership 2022). Most of the community is zoned for medium-density residential at 12 units per acre, with some retail and commercial **zoning** on the western side of the community along Hesperian Boulevard. Hayward Acres has the highest proportion of Latinx residents at almost 58 percent (Alameda County Community Action Partnership 2022). <
> <
> <
> <
> Source: Alameda County CDA digital 2024 FIGURE 2-4 **Map of Hayward Acres** ## San Lorenzo San Lorenzo is the westernmost unincorporated community in Alameda County. The San Lorenzo CDP includes Hayward Acres, which is considered a separate community. As shown in Figure 2-5, San Lorenzo is bound by Ashland and Cherryland to the east, the city of San Leandro and the San Lorenzo Creek to the north, San Francisco Bay to the west, and Hayward Acres and the city of Hayward to the south. I-880 and Hesperian Boulevard run through San Lorenzo’s eastern side. San Lorenzo is located on the Rancho San Lorenzo Mexican land grant given to Don Guillermo Castro in 1841. From the mid-19th century to the mid-20th century, San Lorenzo was mostly farmland and a significant center of production of fruit and flowers. Many early European colonizers were buried in Pioneer Cemetery, including Moses Wicks, who brought oysters from the East Coast to be “planted” in San Leandro Bay. In 1944, under contract to the U.S. Navy, David Bohannon's Greenwood Company began constructing San Lorenzo Village, a planned community of two- and three-bedroom homes for workers in the East Bay's war industries. Development of San Lorenzo Village included construction of schools, churches, parks, and retail centers. The community has retained its legacy of a ‘bedroom community’ as it is mainly zoned for single-family residential uses. There are, however, commercial and retail zones along Hesperian Boulevard and industrial uses on the western side near San Francisco Bay. The entire San Lorenzo CDP, including Hayward Acres, is home to approximately 29,600 residents (U.S. Census Bureau 2021). Over the last decade, San Lorenzo has seen the most dramatic demographic and economic changes out of the Priority Communities. These changes are characterized by an increase in Latinx and Asian populations and a simultaneous decrease in the poverty rate. San Lorenzo includes a commercial core of San Lorenzo Village and surrounding residential development. The San Lorenzo Library is a major hub for the community. <
> <
> <
> FIGURE 2-5 **Map of San Lorenzo** # Castro Valley Castro Valley is the largest community in unincorporated Alameda County. It includes the urbanized Castro Valley CDP and the rural Castro Valley Canyonlands. As shown in Figure 2-6, the Castro Valley CDP is loosely bounded to the south by the unincorporated community of Fairview and the city of Hayward, to the west by Foothill Boulevard and I-580, to the north by Lake Chabot Regional Park and Cull Canyon Regional Recreation Area, and to the east by Crow Canyon, Eden Canyon, and Hollis Canyon. Castro Valley was known for ranching and chicken farming in the early 20th century until residential real estate development began urbanizing the community in the 1950s. As pictured in Figure 2-6, southwestern Castro Valley has been identified as part of the County’s EJ Priority Communities because they meet the definition of low-income areas particularly burdened by pollution. Almost half of all stationary sources of pollution in the Priority Communities are located southwestern Castro Valley, including gas stations and dry cleaners (Eden Area Community Profile 2013). Additionally, the I-580, running east–west through southwestern Castro Valley and north–south along the western boundary, contributes to air pollution in the area. Castro Valley is home to approximately 66,500 residents overall (U.S. Census Bureau 2021), and the EJ Priority Community census tracts in southwestern Castro Valley are home to approximately 23,181 residents. Castro Valley is primarily zoned for single-family residential homes and is mainly known as a commuter area, with many community members leaving daily for work, mainly in Oakland, Hayward, or San Francisco. Commuting from Castro Valley is assisted by the Castro Valley BART station. Many of those who work within the community are employed in the healthcare industry, particularly at the County’s Fairmont Hospital and the Eden Medical Center and Hospital operated by Sutter Health. In addition to the many neighborhoods, the area also includes the Castro Valley Central Business District along Castro Valley Boulevard. The Castro Valley Library and Castro Valley Boulevard shopping areas are major hubs of community activity. <
> <
> Image of the Castro Valley Library with artwork created by Eric Powell. From the Alameda County Art Collection. Photo: Sibila Savage. Artwork copyright the artist. <
> FIGURE 2-6 **Map of Castro Valley** <
> # 3 sectionthree # Existing Conditions This section presents an analysis of existing conditions in the Priority Communities, beginning with population and socioeconomic data, and then by SB 1000 EJ topic: Pollution and Air Quality, Public Facilities, Food Access, Safe and Sanitary Homes and Neighborhoods, Health and Physical Activity, and Civic Engagement. Historical and structural inequities have created unique issues and disproportionate environmental burdens within the Priority Communities. Understanding the existing environmental, social, and economic conditions impacting community health and wellness in the Priority Communities is an essential first step in the development of responsive environmental justice policies. # 3.1 Population and Socioeconomic Characteristics (Pre-pandemic) Population and socioeconomic characteristics are factors that often influence community health outcomes. Specifically, populations that face lower **educational attainment**, linguistic isolation, poverty, unemployment, and housing burdens are often at a greater risk of experiencing poor health (California Environmental Justice Alliance 2018). Alameda County’s Priority Communities meet the state’s EJ element criteria because they share some environmental, socioeconomic, and geographic factors. Many residents of the Priority Communities entered the COVID-19 pandemic already economically vulnerable. In particular, Ashland, Cherryland, and Hayward Acres had substantially higher rates of poverty and income deficiency, unemployment, and severe housing cost burden. More than 1 in 5 low-income households within Ashland, Cherryland, Hayward Acres, and southwestern Castro Valley were paying more than half of their income for housing costs. Rates of poverty and income deficiency in southwestern Castro Valley were also higher than the County average. It is important to note that these data were gathered between 2016 and 2020; therefore, the harmful economic impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic are not reflected in this section. This section makes a variety of comparisons between Priority Communities and Alameda County as a whole in order to highlight the disproportionate environmental burdens faced by the Priority Communities. This comparison process aims to show the immediate needs and changes required to thoroughly address all aspects of EJ. The data presented below also illustrate that although communities neighbor one another, community members experience dramatic differences in lifestyle, health, and overall wellbeing. ### Existing Conditions The existing conditions related to each of the six EJ topics are structured as follows: * **Context:** Provides a brief introduction to the environmental justice topic to define what it is and why it is important for the Priority Communities. * **Existing Conditions:** Describes the current impacts, burdens, and harms experienced by the Priority Communities including health effects and access to resources. The existing conditions are separated into subsections that cover specific issues. * **Key Takeaways:** Lists notable findings from the existing conditions analysis as they relate to each EJ topic. Information contained in this section informed the goals, policies, and actions in Section 4 of this EJ Element. # Population and Density The 2020 US Census found population gains in the Priority Communities that are roughly comparable to overall County growth. Figure 3-1 provides current population estimates and growth for the Priority Communities and Alameda County. As of 2020, the population of Alameda County was estimated to be 1,682,583, indicating a growth of about 23.5 percent from 2000. In 2020, the combined population for the Priority Communities was 93,360, which is about 5.5 percent of the County’s population. For the Priority Communities, growth ranged from about 7.8 percent in Castro Valley to about 25.4 percent in Hayward Acres. **FIGURE 3-1 2020 Populations Estimates and Population Growth for Priority Communities** <
> SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Decennial Census Table DP-01; 2020 Decennial Census Table P-01. NOTES: CDP = Census Designated Place. Hayward Acres is part of the San Lorenzo CDP. Population data for Hayward Acres are a subset of population data for the San Lorenzo CDP. <
> # Race and Ethnicity Civil rights activist Benjamin Chavis coined the term “environmental justice” in 1982. The term refers, in part, to a form of systematic racism where the health hazards created from environmental policymaking disproportionately impact BIPOC communities (Greenpeace USA). However, communities have experienced uneven impacts of environmental burdens and related health problems long before the creation of the term. Building upon extensive research in the field of public health and environmental science, the California Environmental Protection Agency’s OEHHA and their CalEnviroScreen 4.0 tool exhibit the extent to which communities experience health problems due to their proximity and exposure to hazardous pollutants. The residents of the Priority Communities are predominantly BIPOC, with a significant Latinx population. **Table 3-1** provides 2020 Census data for race and ethnicity in the Priority Communities and Alameda County overall. All the Priority Communities have higher percentages of Latinx residents than the County’s overall percentage of 23.4 percent; the Latinx population represents the largest group in all Priority Communities except southwestern Castro Valley, where White residents represent the largest racial grouping. Cherryland and Hayward Acres are predominantly Latinx with 58.1 percent and 64.3 percent, respectively. Black or African Americans residents make up 16.6 percent of Ashland’s population and approximately 12 percent of the populations of both Hayward Acres and southwestern Castro Valley, as compared to the overall County rate of 9.8 percent. Native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders also make up higher percentages of population in the Priority Communities than of the County overall. While Asian residents represent a sizable percentage of the population in most of the Priority Communities, the percentage of Asian residents is lower in all of the Priority Communities than the County overall. ##### TABLE 3-1 Race and Ethnicity | NEIGHBORHOOD OR PLACE | WHITE | BLACK OR AFRICAN AMERICAN | AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE | ASIAN | NATIVE HAWAIIAN AND OTHER PACIFIC ISLANDER | SOME OTHER RACE | TWO OR MORE RACES | LATINX | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Ashland | 15.1% | 16.6% | 1.8% | 23.4% | 1.3% | 28.5% | 13.3% | 44.3% | | Cherryland | 19.8% | 8.7% | 2.5% | 13.9% | 1.9% | 38.6% | 14.6% | 58.1% | | San Lorenzo | 24.9% | 5.2% | 1.6% | 28.2% | 1.2% | 24.9% | 14.0% | 42.2% | | Hayward Acres[^p56-a] | 16.2% | 12.1% | 1.7% | 10.4% | 1.4% | 43.7% | 14.4% | 64.3% | | Castro Valley (southwestern) | 35.0% | 12.3% | 1.3% | 23.1% | 0.9% | 13.2% | 14.3% | 27.4% | | Castro Valley CDP Reference | 40.3% | 6.4% | 0.9% | 30.8% | 0.5% | 8.0% | 13.2% | 19.3% | | Alameda County Reference | 31.1% | 9.8% | 1.2% | 32.4% | 0.8% | 13.3% | 11.3% | 23.4% | SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census, Tables P1 and P2. NOTES: CDP = Census Designated Place. ᵃ Hayward Acres is part of the San Lorenzo CDP. Data for Hayward Acres are included in the data for the San Lorenzo CDP throughout this EJ Element. Hayward Acres data are also presented separately as a subset of the San Lorenzo CDP to highlight the unique needs of that community. [^p56-a]: Hayward Acres is part of the San Lorenzo CDP. Data for Hayward Acres are included in the data for the San Lorenzo CDP throughout this EJ Element. Hayward Acres data are also presented separately as a subset of the San Lorenzo CDP to highlight the unique needs of that community. # Educational Attainment Educational attainment refers to the highest level of education that a person has completed. Formal educational attainment, as measured by the final degree or certificate earned for those over 25 years of age, is highly correlated with better health outcomes. According to the OEHHA, people with more educational attainment tend to have higher incomes and health insurance and tend to live in areas that are less affected by air pollution and other environmental toxins. **Table 3-2** presents five educational attainment indicators for the Priority Communities, ranging from less than a high-school education at the lowest, through a graduate or professional degree at the highest. As shown in Table 3-2, the percentage of the population without a high school education is considerably higher than the overall County percentage of 11.2 in all but one of the Priority Communities (southwestern Castro Valley and the Castro Valley CDP Reference). About 22 percent of Hayward Acres residents, and about 26 percent of both Ashland and Cherryland residents, have not obtained a high school diploma, while in San Lorenzo 12.9 percent of residents have not obtained a high school diploma. In southwestern Castro Valley, as in the County overall, 11.2 percent of residents do not have a high school diploma. Additionally, fewer residents within the Priority Communities have obtained post-secondary degrees or certificates. Whereas about 55 percent of County residents overall have associate, bachelor, or post-graduate degrees, Priority Community tracts range from 23 percent for Hayward Acres to about 52 percent for the Castro Valley CDP Reference. ### TABLE 3-2 Highest Educational Attainment Indicators | NEIGHBORHOOD OR PLACE | LESS THAN A HIGH SCHOOL EDUCATION | HIGH SCHOOL DEGREE AS HIGHEST LEVEL | 2-YEAR COLLEGE DEGREE AS HIGHEST LEVEL | BACHELOR'S DEGREE AS HIGHEST LEVEL | GRADUATE OR PROFESSIONAL DEGREE AS HIGHEST LEVEL | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Ashland | 26.3% | 47.5% | 6.7% | 14.4% | 5.1% | | Cherryland | 26.4% | 47.6% | 7.9% | 13.8% | 4.2% | | San Lorenzo | 17.1% | 50.6% | 8.4% | 19.6% | 4.4% | | Hayward Acres[^p57-a] | 22.1% | 55.0% | 6.6% | 14.6% | 1.8% | | Castro Valley (southwestern)[^p57-b] | 11.2% | 46.8% | 7.7% | 22.6% | 11.7% | | Castro Valley CDP Reference | 8.6% | 39.2% | 8.9% | 27.8% | 15.5% | | Alameda County Reference | 11.2% | 33.7% | 6.4% | 28.1% | 20.6% | SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, 2015-2019 American Community Survey, Table S1501. NOTES: These indicators refer to population over 25 years old. CDP = Census Designated Place. ᵃ Hayward Acres is part of the San Lorenzo CDP. Data for Hayward Acres are included in the data for the San Lorenzo CDP; ᵇ Presented as a simple percentage for the combined census tracts. [^p57-a]: Hayward Acres is part of the San Lorenzo CDP. Data for Hayward Acres are included in the data for the San Lorenzo CDP; [^p57-b]: Presented as a simple percentage for the combined census tracts. # Poverty and Income The Census Bureau's definition of poverty varies by household size. In 2022, the Federal Poverty level for an average family of four is $27,750, and $13,590 for a one-person household. Table 3-3 provides median income and estimates of the percentage of households living below the federal poverty line. According to the Census Bureau, the median household income for Alameda County was approximately $104,888. Among the Priority Communities, median household incomes vary from $56,223 in Hayward Acres to $91,319 in San Lorenzo. In data collected between 2016 and 2020, the percentage of the population with incomes below the federal poverty level was higher in all of the Priority Communities than in the County overall. At 7.6 percent, only San Lorenzo had lower levels of poverty than the overall County’s level of 9.3 percent. Poverty was significantly higher than the County reference in Ashland (15.4 percent), Hayward Acres (14.4 percent), and Cherryland (14.9 percent). It is important to note that because these data were collected during 2016–2020, they do not reflect the economic harm caused by COVID-19. Between 2016 and 2020, percentages of the population with incomes below 200 percent of the federal poverty level in Ashland (35.4 percent), Cherryland (29.3 percent), and Hayward Acres (34.0) percent were markedly higher than the County reference of 19.8 percent. Southwestern Castro Valley was somewhat higher than the County reference at 22.8 percent, and San Lorenzo was lower than the County reference at 13.9 percent. #### TABLE 3-3 Poverty and Income | NEIGHBORHOOD OR PLACE | PERCENTAGE OF THE POPULATION LIVING BELOW TWO TIMES THE FEDERAL POVERTY LEVEL | PERCENTAGE OF THE POPULATION LIVING BELOW THE FEDERAL POVERTY LEVEL | MEDIAN INCOME ($) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Ashland | 35.4% | 15.4% | 66,570 | | Cherryland | 29.3% | 14.9% | 73,429 | | San Lorenzo | 13.9% | 7.6% | 91,319 | | Hayward Acres[^p58-a] | 34.0% | 14.4% | 56,223 | | Castro Valley (southwestern)[^p58-b] | 22.8% | 12.7% | 83,659 | | Castro Valley CDP Reference | 15.4% | 7.7% | 113,150 | | Alameda County Reference | 19.8% | 9.3% | 104,888 | SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, 2015-2019 American Community Survey, Table S1701, S1903. NOTES: CDP = Census Designated Place. [^p58-a] Hayward Acres is part of the San Lorenzo CDP. Data for Hayward Acres are included in the data for the San Lorenzo CDP; [^p58-b] Presented as a simple percentage for the combined census tracts.. [^p58-a]: Hayward Acres is part of the San Lorenzo CDP. Data for Hayward Acres are included in the data for the San Lorenzo CDP; [^p58-b]: Presented as a simple percentage for the combined census tracts.. # Severe Housing Cost Burden The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (**HUD**) defines households paying 30 percent or more of their income for housing costs as “Housing Cost Burdened” and those paying 50 percent or more as “Severely Housing Cost Burdened.” HUD recognizes that the burden of housing costs has a larger impact on households with lower incomes; therefore, Housing Cost Burden is usually reported within various income levels. **Table 3-4** presents low-income households that are severely housing cost burdened. A higher percentile score translates to a greater housing cost burden. Low Income is defined as 80 percent of area median income (**AMI**), or $89,600 for a family of four. The percentage of severely housing cost burdened low-income households was substantially higher than the County rate of 15.7 percent in all of the Priority Communities except for San Lorenzo, ranging from 20 percent in Cherryland to 23 percent in Ashland. #### TABLE 3-4 Severely Housing-Cost Burdened Households | NEIGHBORHOOD OR PLACE | PERCENT OF HOUSEHOLDS IN A CENSUS TRACT THAT ARE BOTH LOW INCOME AND SEVERELY BURDENED BY HOUSING COSTS | HOUSING BURDEN - PERCENTILE SCORE[^p59-c] | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Ashland [^p59-a] | 23.0% | 74th | | Cherryland [^p59-a] | 20.0% | 63rd | | San Lorenzo [^p59-b] | 12.1% | 24th | | Hayward Acres [^p59-c] | 20.2% | 64th | | Castro Valley (southwestern)[^p59-a] | 21.0% | 64th | | *Castro Valley CDP Reference*[^p59-b] | *14.0%* | *33rd* | | *Alameda County Reference*[^p59-b] | *15.7%* | *43rd* | SOURCE: OEHHA, CalEnviroScreen 4.0. NOTES: A higher percentile score equals a greater housing cost burden. See definition of Percentile in the Glossary. CDP = Census Designated Place. [^p59-a] Ashland, Cherryland, and southwestern Castro Valley are presented as population-based weighted average of census tract data. [^p59-b] San Lorenzo CDP and Castro Valley CDP Reference and Alameda County Reference are presented as population-based weighted average of census tracts within CDP or County boundary. [^p59-c] Hayward Acres is part of the San Lorenzo CDP. Data for Hayward Acres are included in the data for the San Lorenzo CDP. *** <
> [^p59-a]: Ashland, Cherryland, and southwestern Castro Valley are presented as population-based weighted average of census tract data. [^p59-b]: San Lorenzo CDP and Castro Valley CDP Reference and Alameda County Reference are presented as population-based weighted average of census tracts within CDP or County boundary. [^p59-c]: Hayward Acres is part of the San Lorenzo CDP. Data for Hayward Acres are included in the data for the San Lorenzo CDP. # Unemployment and Labor Force Participation According to the OEHHA, unemployment results in a lack of access to health care and insurance, leading to poor health. Poor health can make it harder to find a job, stay employed, and can be a source of financial and emotional stress. Generally, participation in the formal workforce is viewed through two measurements: 1. Labor Force Participation (how many of those eligible to work are working or seeking work) 2. Unemployment (how many of those participating in the labor force are out of work and looking for work) Table 3-5 presents unemployment rates for the Priority Communities and Alameda County as a whole. Labor force participation between Alameda County and the Priority Communities are roughly within the same range between about 70 percent and 80 percent. However, when looking at unemployment rates, residents in Ashland, Cherryland, and Hayward Acres experience higher unemployment rates—nearly double that of the County. These data were gathered prior to the COVID-19 pandemic and, therefore, do not accurately reflect the impact of the pandemic on the current economy. ### TABLE 3-5 Labor Force Participation/Unemployment | NEIGHBORHOOD OR PLACE | LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION: PERCENTAGE OF THE POPULATION AGED 16-64 WORKING OR ACTIVELY LOOKING FOR WORK | PERCENTAGE OF THE POPULATION OVER THE AGE OF 16 THAT IS UNEMPLOYED | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Ashland | 75.5% | 7.3% | | Cherryland | 70.3% | 7.6% | | San Lorenzo | 75.5% | 4.7% | | Hayward Acres [^p60-a] | 73.4% | 7.6% | | Castro Valley (southwestern) [^p60-b] | 78.4% | 4.0% | | Castro Valley CDP Reference | 78.4% | 4.2% | | Alameda County Reference | 76.6% | 4.6% | SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, 2015-2019 American Community Survey. NOTES: CDP = Census Designated Place. [^p60-a] Hayward Acres is part of the San Lorenzo CDP. Data for Hayward Acres are included in the data for the San Lorenzo CDP. [^p60-b] Presented as a simple percentage for the combined census tracts.. [^p60-a]: Hayward Acres is part of the San Lorenzo CDP. Data for Hayward Acres are included in the data for the San Lorenzo CDP. [^p60-b]: Presented as a simple percentage for the combined census tracts.. ## Sensitive Populations CalEnviroScreen 4.0 defines sensitive populations as populations with physiological conditions that result in increased vulnerability to pollutants. Sensitive individuals may include those with impaired physiological conditions, such as people with heart disease or asthma. The CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Sensitive Population Indicators identify higher rates of asthma, heart disease, and infants with low birth weight in the Priority Communities. Pollution exposure and limited access to health care, healthy foods, and physical activity are likely contributors to these outcomes. Data pertaining to the CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Sensitive Population Indicators throughout the unincorporated communities are included below. ### ASTHMA Asthma is a condition that can make it difficult to breathe. Some individuals with asthma may experience minor symptoms such as coughing while others could experience major problems that can limit their ability to enjoy daily activities. In severe cases, it can lead to life-threatening asthma attacks. Asthma cannot be cured, but its symptoms can be treated. Air pollutants, exhaust fumes, and chemical irritants are thought to increase chances of developing asthma. Common triggers for asthma include exposure to air pollution and contaminants and physical activity. However, although asthma inflames the airways, regular exercise can actually decrease inflammation and improve lung capacity. Table 3-6 shows rates of emergency department visits for asthma. These rates are substantially higher in Hayward Acres, Cherryland, and Ashland than in the overall County. The rate for San Lorenzo is slightly higher than that of the County. For southwestern Castro Valley, the asthma rate is lower than that of the County but higher than that of the Castro Valley CDP reference. #### TABLE 3-6 Asthma Emergency Department Visits | NEIGHBORHOOD OR PLACE | AGE-ADJUSTED RATE OF VISITS FOR ASTHMA PER 10,000 PEOPLE | ASTHMA VISIT RATE - PERCENTILE SCORE | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Ashland [^p61-a] | 82.5 | 87th | | Cherryland [^p61-a] | 87.6 | 89th | | San Lorenzo [^p61-b] | 71.5 | 79th | | Hayward Acres [^p61-c] | 95.6 | 91st | | Castro Valley (southwestern)[^p61-a] | 59.5 | 69th | | Castro Valley CDP Reference[^p61-b] | 49.5 | 56th | | Alameda County Reference[^p61-b] | 66.4 | 76th | SOURCE: OEHHA, CalEnviroScreen 4.0 NOTES: CDP = Census Designated Place. [^p61-a] Ashland, Cherryland, and southwestern Castro Valley are presented as population-based weighted average of census tract data. [^p61-b] San Lorenzo and Castro Valley CDP Reference and Alameda County Reference are presented as population-based weighted average of census tracts within CDP or County boundary. [^p61-c] Hayward Acres is part of the San Lorenzo CDP. Data for Hayward Acres are included in the data for the San Lorenzo CDP. [^p61-a]: Ashland, Cherryland, and southwestern Castro Valley are presented as population-based weighted average of census tract data. [^p61-b]: San Lorenzo and Castro Valley CDP Reference and Alameda County Reference are presented as population-based weighted average of census tracts within CDP or County boundary. [^p61-c]: Hayward Acres is part of the San Lorenzo CDP. Data for Hayward Acres are included in the data for the San Lorenzo CDP. ### CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE Cardiovascular disease or heart disease affects the blood vessels of the heart, which can result in heart attacks, strokes, and many other disorders affecting the heart and brain. Several factors can contribute to cardiovascular disease such as poor diet or lack of access to healthy foods, smoking, lack of safe and affordable spaces to recreate, and exposure to air pollution. Table 3-7 provides the rates of emergency department visits for heart attacks, which are considerably higher in Cherryland, Hayward Acres, and San Lorenzo than the County. The rate of cardiovascular disease in Ashland, while higher than that of the County, is lower than the other areas. The rate in southwestern Castro Valley is comparable to that of the County reference. #### TABLE 3-7 Heart Attack Emergency Department Visits | NEIGHBORHOOD OR PLACE | AGE-ADJUSTED RATE OF VISITS FOR HEART ATTACK PER 10,000 PEOPLE | HEART ATTACK VISITS - PERCENTILE SCORE | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Ashland [^p62-a] | 14.7 | 63rd | | Cherryland [^p62-a] | 17.0 | 76th | | San Lorenzo [^p62-b] | 15.3 | 66th | | Hayward Acres [^p62-c] | 17.9 | 80th | | Castro Valley (southwestern)[^p62-a] | 12.2 | 47th | | _Castro Valley CDP Reference_[^p62-b] | _11.6_ | _42nd_ | | _Alameda County Reference_[^p62-b] | _12.1_ | _44th_ | SOURCE: OEHHA, CalEnviroScreen 4.0 NOTES: CDP = Census Designated Place. [^p62-a] Ashland, Cherryland, and southwestern Castro Valley are presented as population-based weighted average of census tract data. [^p62-b] San Lorenzo and Castro Valley CDP Reference and Alameda County Reference are presented as population-based weighted average of census tracts within CDP or County boundary. [^p62-c] Hayward Acres is part of the San Lorenzo CDP. Data for Hayward Acres are included in the data for the San Lorenzo CDP. <
> [^p62-a]: Ashland, Cherryland, and southwestern Castro Valley are presented as population-based weighted average of census tract data. [^p62-b]: San Lorenzo and Castro Valley CDP Reference and Alameda County Reference are presented as population-based weighted average of census tracts within CDP or County boundary. [^p62-c]: Hayward Acres is part of the San Lorenzo CDP. Data for Hayward Acres are included in the data for the San Lorenzo CDP. ### LOW-BIRTH-WEIGHT INFANT BIRTHS Low-birth-weight infants are categorized as weighing 5.5 pounds or less at birth. Environmental toxins such as lead and air pollution, poverty and maternal chronic health conditions are all contributors to the likelihood of a low birthweight birth, as is lack of access to appropriate prenatal care. low-birth-weight infants are at greater risk of death and long-term disability. Additionally, low birth weight can be associated with language impairment, lowered educational achievement, and a number of chronic health conditions. **Table 3-8** provides the rates of low-birth-weight infant births. In Alameda County overall, low birth weights account for 5.6 percent of singleton births. Among the Priority Communities, Ashland (6.2 percent) and San Lorenzo (7.2 percent) exceed the County rate, with other areas at or below that marker. #### TABLE 3-8 Rates of Low Birth Weight Births | NEIGHBORHOOD OR PLACE | PERCENT LOW BIRTH WEIGHT BIRTHS (SINGLETON BIRTHS ONLY) | | :--- | :--- | | Ashland [^p63-a] | 6.2% | | Cherryland [^p63-a] | 5.4% | | San Lorenzo [^p63-b] | 7.2% | | Hayward Acres [^p63-c] | 5.7% | | Castro Valley (southwestern)[^p63-a] | 5.4% | | Castro Valley CDP Reference[^p63-b] | 4.6% | | Alameda County Reference[^p63-b] | 5.6% | SOURCE: OEHHA, CalEnviroScreen 4.0 NOTES: CDP = Census Designated Place. [^p63-a] Ashland, Cherryland, and southwestern Castro Valley are presented as population-based weighted average of census tract data. [^p63-b] San Lorenzo and Castro Valley CDP Reference and Alameda County Reference are presented as population-based weighted average of census tracts within CDP or County boundary. [^p63-c] Hayward Acres is part of the San Lorenzo CDP. Data for Hayward Acres are included in the data for the San Lorenzo CDP. <
> [^p63-a]: Ashland, Cherryland, and southwestern Castro Valley are presented as population-based weighted average of census tract data. [^p63-b]: San Lorenzo and Castro Valley CDP Reference and Alameda County Reference are presented as population-based weighted average of census tracts within CDP or County boundary. [^p63-c]: Hayward Acres is part of the San Lorenzo CDP. Data for Hayward Acres are included in the data for the San Lorenzo CDP. # 3.2 Pollution and Air Quality ## Context Healthy environments, at home and in a community, are essential to our individual and collective health and wellbeing. A healthy environment with clean air, safe water, uncontaminated soil, and access to nature, is integral to the full enjoyment of basic human rights. Air pollution is the world’s largest single environmental risk to health – some 7 million people across the world die each year due to everyday exposure to poor air quality (UN Environment Programme 2022). In the Priority Communities, air pollution ranks as the most significant source of pollution. Soil and water contamination also pose a risk globally and to the Priority Communities. Healthy environments are characterized not only by the absence of pollution, but also by the presence of and access to nature and beneficial natural systems. Natural features like creeks and vegetation are a source of essential **ecosystem services**, or the life-sustaining and life-enhancing benefits provided by nature. Trees, for example, provide a wide variety of benefits ranging from reducing pollution and providing cooling shade to improving public health and social cohesion. Community members within Alameda County do not experience the exposure to or protection from hazards and contaminants equally, and do not have equal access to nature and its benefits. Due to historic and existing discriminatory housing and planning policies, BIPOC and low-income communities are more likely to be located next to and directly affected by pollution and poor air quality, and are more likely to live in neighborhoods with less access to nature. Sensitive populations such as children, the elderly and those with prior health conditions are more vulnerable to the effects of pollution. Exposure to pollution can cause, or worsen, negative health outcomes, making people too sick to go to work, go to school, or simply go outside. Reducing pollution, improving the quality of the air, water and soil, and increasing access to beneficial natural systems in the Priority Communities are vital to ensuring that healthy environments are accessible to all. <
> Identifying disproportionate distribution of pollution burdens and exploring the critical role of nature and natural systems in a community is essential to creating policy that contributes to a healthy environment. This section explores local levels of air, water, and soil pollution, and the health risks associated with that pollution. It also explores the important role that San Lorenzo Creek and the urban tree canopy play in promoting health and well-being in the Priority Communities. # Air Pollution Air quality refers to how clean or polluted the air is. Air pollution is defined as the contamination of air due to the presence of a substance that has harmful effects. Air quality has a significant impact on a community’s health outcomes. According to the World Health Organization, exposure to air pollution can lead to serious conditions such as strokes, lung cancer, and heart disease. Often, pollution exposure is dependent on the distance between pollution sources and homes, workplaces, and transit routes. There are four types of air pollution sources: * Mobile sources such as cars, trucks, trains, planes, and buses * Stationary sources such as power plants, oil refineries, and industrial facilities * Agricultural areas, cities, and wood-burning fireplaces * Natural sources such as wildfires and wind-blown dust Many air pollutants are regulated by state, federal, and local agencies such as the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (**BAAQMD**). The main pollutants of concern for the Priority Communities are diesel particulate matter (“diesel **PM**”) and pollution resulting from traffic density. Figure 3-2 shows the three air pollution indicators by percentile: **diesel PM, traffic impacts, and toxic releases**. Diesel PM and traffic impacts are disproportionate in the Priority Communities and represent the key air pollution sources in the area. The Priority Communities are in the 85^th percentile on average for diesel PM, while the overall County is in the 65^th percentile for diesel PM. In other words: compared to all eligible census tracts in California, the Priority Communities are within the top 20 percent for exposure to diesel PM. San Lorenzo, Castro Valley, and Ashland are in the 95^th, 75^th, and 69^th percentiles for Traffic Density/Impacts, respectively. By contrast, between the 47^th and 52^nd percentiles, toxic releases in the Priority Communities average just below the state median and are not considered disproportionate as compared with the overall county. <
> Ashland Community Identifier Mural. Artist: Nico Berry. From the Alameda County Art Collection. Photo: Paul Kuroda. <
> SOURCE: CalEnviroScreen 4.0 NOTE: Statistics are presented as population-based weighted average of percentile data from CalEnviroScreen 4.0. FIGURE 3-2 **Air Pollution Indicators by Percentile** ## Diesel Particulate Matter Diesel PM is a complex mixture of extremely small particles and gases. Diesel PM pollution is made up of hundreds of different chemicals released into the air as exhaust from trucks, buses, trains, ships, and other equipment that use diesel engines. Exposure to diesel PM is most common in cities and industrial areas near ports, rail yards, and freeways. The small particles can travel deeper into the lungs causing eye irritation, throat and heart disease, and lung cancer. **Figure 3-2** shows Ashland in the 97[^th] percentile and both San Lorenzo and Hayward Acres in the 90[^th] percentile for diesel PM pollution (CalEnviroScreen 4.0 2022). Children, the elderly, and people suffering from cardiopulmonary disease, asthma, and chronic illness are the most vulnerable to diesel PM exposure. ## Traffic Density Traffic density is a measurement that records the number of vehicles that utilize roadways. Measuring traffic density gives insight into the impacts that result from vehicle traffic, including air pollution. This pollution contributes to negative health outcomes for individuals living near areas with high traffic density. As shown in Figure 3-2, San Lorenzo, Castro Valley, and Ashland are placed in the 95[^th], 75[^th], and 69[^th] percentiles for Traffic Density/Impacts, respectively (CalEnviroScreen 4.0 2022). However, the County overall is in the 54[^th] percentile; this disparity demonstrates the excessive pollution burden placed on the Priority Communities. # Water Pollution and Groundwater Threats Water pollution occurs when harmful substances, often chemicals or microorganisms, contaminate a body of water, degrading the water quality and rendering it toxic to humans or the environment. Although natural phenomena can cause water contamination, a considerable amount of water contamination originates from human activity. Some sources of water contamination that originate from human activity include sewage, pesticides, and chemicals from industrial operations (CDC 2022). Groundwater is water held underground in the soil or beneath the land surface. Groundwater threats are an indicator of water pollution. While the Priority Communities’ drinking water does not come from groundwater but from surface water from the Mokelumne River **watershed** in the Sierra Nevada supplied by the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), EBMUD’s service area, including the Priority Communities, overlies a groundwater basin known as the East Bay Plain Subbasin. This subbasin may act as a supplemental source of water supply to help protect EBMUD customers against severe water rationing in the event of a prolonged extreme drought or emergency. Like the County overall, the Priority Communities rank higher than much of the state for groundwater threats. Groundwater threats are significant in Ashland, Castro Valley, and Cherryland, ranging from the 70^th to 80th percentiles. Figure 3-3 shows groundwater threats as a water pollution indicator by percentile. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 groundwater threat scores are based on information about the type of site and how close it is to neighborhoods where people live. The Priority Communities average at about the 71st percentile, meaning that they are within the top 30 percent of groundwater-threatened communities in the state. <
> SOURCE: CalEnviroScreen 4.0 NOTE: Statistics are presented as population-based weighted average of percentile data from CalEnviroScreen 4.0. FIGURE 3-3 **Water Pollution Indicators by Percentile** # Natural Environment Urban trees, creeks, and other natural features provide humans, wildlife, and our shared environment with a wide range of life-sustaining and life-enhancing benefits, also called "**ecosystem services[^p68-4]**." This section explores the important role of San Lorenzo Creek and urban trees in supporting health, well-being, and resilience in the Priority Communities. ### SAN LORENZO CREEK Urban creeks provide multiple benefits to the communities through which they flow, including shade and cooling, flood alleviation, increased biodiversity and wildlife habitat, recreation and active transportation opportunities, access to nature and open space, and opportunities to connect to local ecosystems and participate in creek stewardship. San Lorenzo Creek is a defining natural feature of the Priority Communities, flowing along the southern border of Castro Valley, through the City of Hayward, through Cherryland, and then along the Cherryland/Ashland border and the northern border of San Lorenzo before draining into the bay. FIGURE 3-4 San Lorenzo Creek and the San Lorenzo Creek Watershed <
> [^p68-4]: https://www.fs.usda.gov/ccrc/topics/ecosystem-services At 48 square miles, the San Lorenzo Creek Watershed (**Figure 3-4**) is one of the largest **watersheds** draining to the eastern shore of San Francisco Bay. The middle and lower portions of the San Lorenzo Creek Watershed, which flow through the Priority Communities, drain primarily urban areas, so surface runoff carrying potentially harmful pollutants is a significant concern that affects the health of the creek and eventually the bay. These pollutants include fertilizers, pesticides, animal waste, heavy metals, and gas and oil. The creeks also transport a significant amount of litter to the shoreline and the bay, particularly lightweight plastic products. Natural drainage in the lower and middle watershed areas has been greatly altered and much of its course through the Priority Communities is channelized, including the portion of the creek that starts at Mission Boulevard and runs in a concrete channel 4.6 miles to the bay.[^p69-5] <
> Several local agencies and organizations have active roles in the management, protection, or public use of San Lorenzo Creek. Along with other **watercourses** in unincorporated County, San Lorenzo Creek is subject to the Alameda County **Watercourse Protection Ordinance**[^p69-6], which is administered and enforced by the General Manager of the **Alameda County Flood Control & Water Conservation District** and Director of the Alameda County Public Works Agency. In partnership with the Hayward Area Recreation and Park District (HARD), the Alameda County Flood Control & Water Conservation District is currently proposing a **“San Lorenzo Creekway”** project[^p69-7] that would transform the County’s existing maintenance road along the San Lorenzo Creek channel into an approximately five-mile-long multi-use pedestrian and bicycle facility. **Friends of San Lorenzo Creek**[^p69-8], a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, is active in advocating for the health of San Lorenzo Creek, promoting cleanups, restoration, and public awareness, and encouraging public agencies and community organizations take cooperative and independent responsibility for the creek. [^p69-5]: https://acfloodcontrol.org/the-work-we-do/resources/san-lorenzo-creek-watershed/ [^p69-6]: https://library.municode.com/ca/alameda_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT13PUSE_CH13.12WAPR [^p69-7]: https://www.haywardrec.org/1924/San-Lorenzo-Creekway-Master-Plan [^p69-8]: www.friendsofsanlorenzocreek.org ## URBAN TREE CANOPY COVER Trees offer a wide range of environmental and health-related benefits that can help mitigate many negative aspects of living in the built environment. For example, research has linked tree planting along highways and roadways with reductions in air pollution[^p70-9]. Increasing **urban tree canopy (UTC)**, or the area of a community. that is covered by trees' crowns, as viewed from above, can help mitigate the **heat island effect**, decrease stormwater runoff, decrease energy bills, sequester carbon, increase property values, and make communities more resilient to heat waves. Access to trees also benefits communities by encouraging physical activity, improving mental health, reducing stress, and promoting social cohesion. Conversely, inequitable distribution of trees and their benefits negatively impacts local ecosystems, public health, and community resilience to climate impacts. Figure 3-5 shows urban tree canopy cover (tree and shrub canopy greater than or equal to 15 feet in height at a resolution of 1x1 meter) in and near the Priority Communities according to an April 2023 dataset from East Bay Regional Parks, CALFIRE, USGS, Tukman Geospatial, and NV5 ### Heat Island Effect In urbanized areas, a combination of heat-absorptive surfaces (such as dark pavement and roofing), heat-generating activities (such as engines and generators), and the absence of vegetation (which provides evaporative cooling) causes a measurable increase in ambient air temperature known as the **"heat island effect"** (CalEPA). FIGURE 3-5 Urban Tree Canopy in and near the Priority Communities <
> [^p70-9]: https://www.epa.gov/sciencematters/throwing-shade-exploring-benefits-trees ### PUBLIC TREES Through its **Tree Program**, which includes the **Alameda County Tree Ordinance** and **Tree Advisory Board**, the Alameda County Public Works Agency (PWA) has oversight of tree planting, maintenance, and preservation within the unincorporated County-maintained **public right-of-way**, or the strip of land that contains the public street, sidewalks, and utilities. The Alameda County Tree Ordinance, last revised in 2016, provides protection and preservation for all trees located in the County right-of-way. The Tree Advisory Board, made up of Alameda County residents appointed by the County Board of Supervisors, advises the Director of Public Works and makes recommendations to the County Board of Supervisors on matters related to trees. The Tree Program also offers a free, downloadable Alameda County Recommended Tree List, which was last revised in 2018. Property owners in unincorporated Alameda County are responsible for maintaining trees in the public right-of-way adjacent to their properties and must obtain permits or work with a permitted contractor before planting, pruning, or removing trees in the public right-of-way. ### PRIVATE TREES Alameda County does not currently have a program to promote the planting, care, or preservation of trees on private property. Generally, property owners in unincorporated Alameda County can plant, prune, and remove trees on their own property without a permit. **Table 3-9** displays urban tree canopy (UTC) in the Priority Communities as a percentage of the total land area in each geography. Among the Priority Communities, Hayward Acres has the lowest UTC at 9%, half the percentage of UTC relative to County overall (18%) and less than half the percentage of UTC in wider unincorporated Alameda County (22%). Ashland (11%), San Lorenzo (12%), and Cherryland (13%) also have notably low percentages of UTC. UTC in southwestern Castro Valley is (14%), lower than the overall County percentage (18%) and significantly lower than the Castro Valley CDP Reference (20%). ### The Eden Area’s Giant Bay Laurel Tree A large California bay laurel tree (*Umbellularia californica*), located on private property on Lewelling Boulevard in Ashland near the San Lorenzo border, was identified in the 1998 Ashland and Cherryland Cultural Resources Survey[^p71-10] as “eligible for local listing only” as a historic resource, although it has not been nominated for the County Historical Register. By some estimates, this tree may be more than 1000 years old[^p71-11]. *Photo source: Google Maps, 2024* <
> [^p71-10]: https://www.acgov.org/cda/planning/landuseprojects/documents/ashlandcherrylandsurvey.pdf [^p71-11]: https://www.sfbac-history.org/Meek-History.html ### Existing Conditions #### TABLE 3-9 Urban Tree Canopy Cover | NEIGHBORHOOD OR PLACE | URBAN TREE CANOPY (UTC) | | :--- | :--- | | Ashland | 11% | | Cherryland | 13% | | San Lorenzo | 12% | | Hayward Acres [^p72-a] | 9% | | Castro Valley (southwestern) | 14% | | Castro Valley CDP Reference | 20% | | Unincorporated Alameda County Reference [^p72-b] | 22% | | Alameda County Reference [^p72-b] | 18% | SOURCE: East Bay Regional Parks, CALFIRE, USGS, Tukman Geospatial, NV5 "Alameda and Contra Costa County Canopy Cover" Version: 4/1/2023 https://vegmap.press/alcc_cover_datasheet. LIMITATIONS: The lidar-derived dataset used for this analysis provides a depiction of tree and shrub canopy greater than or equal to 15 feet in height at a resolution of 1x1 meter. Note that this dataset may include errors and 'false positives' – pixels that indicate vegetation that don't have vegetation. For example, distribution and transmission lines were not distinguished from vegetation and are mapped as vegetation in this dataset. NOTES: CDP = Census Designated Place; UTC = urban tree canopy. Data generated using exact boundaries of CDP or communities. [^p72-a] Hayward Acres is part of the San Lorenzo CDP. Data for Hayward Acres are included in the data for the San Lorenzo CDP; [^p72-b] Unincorporated Alameda County Reference and Alameda County reference include regional park land, watershed land, and large areas of undeveloped rural land. These reference areas have inherently different tree canopy potential from the urbanized Priority Communities, so the comparison between these areas may not yield instructive conclusions. # Key Takeaways * Compared to all analyzed census tracts in California, the Priority Communities are within the top 20 percent of communities impacted by diesel particulate matter air pollution. * With the exception of Cherryland, environmental and health impacts resulting from traffic are higher in the Priority Communities than in the County overall, and particularly high in Hayward Acres and San Lorenzo. * Rates of emergency department visits for asthma (Table 3-6), a condition that can be triggered or exacerbated by air pollution and exhaust fumes, are substantially higher for Hayward Acres, Cherryland, and Ashland compared to the county overall. * Groundwater threats within Ashland, Castro Valley, and Cherryland fall withing the 70th to 80th percentiles according to CalEnviroScreen 4.0, meaning that the threats faced by these communities are disproportionate when compared to the rest of the state. * Litter and surface runoff carrying potentially harmful pollutants (fertilizers, pesticides, animal waste, heavy metals, and gas and oil) are a significant concern in the lower and middle San Lorenzo Creek Watershed. * Ashland, Cherryland, San Lorenzo, Hayward Acres, and southwestern Castro Valley have notably low urban tree canopy cover compared to the County overall. * Property owners in unincorporated Alameda County can plant, prune, and remove trees on their own property without a permit. <
> [^p72-a]: Hayward Acres is part of the San Lorenzo CDP. Data for Hayward Acres are included in the data for the San Lorenzo CDP; [^p72-b]: Unincorporated Alameda County Reference and Alameda County reference include regional park land, watershed land, and large areas of undeveloped rural land. These reference areas have inherently different tree canopy potential from the urbanized Priority Communities, so the comparison between these areas may not yield instructive conclusions. # 3.3 Access to Public Facilities ## Context Senate Bill 1000, the legislation that guides the development of this EJ Element, broadly defines "public facilities" to include "public improvements, public services, and community amenities" such as parks, public schools, public transportation, and basic infrastructure (see **Table 3-10** for a more comprehensive list). Public facilities provide communities with valuable opportunities that promote childhood development, safety, health, and community engagement. TABLE 3-10 **Examples of Public Facilities** | PUBLIC SERVICES | COMMUNITY AMENITIES | PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | • Transit services and facilities
• Hospitals and emergency medical/trauma centers
• Emergency services and public safety | • Government buildings
• Parks, open space, trails, and greenbelts
• Recreation facilities (including senior and youth centers) and community centers
• Daycare centers
• Libraries, museums, cultural centers, science centers | • Water distribution, treatment, and drainage facilities
• Solid waste, liquid waste, recycling, and composting facilities
• Streets and roads
• Public utilities
• Flood control structures | Compared to the rest of the County, the Priority Communities have disproportionately low access to and utilization of public facilities (HPI 2020). Public facilities play an important role in the health and overall wellbeing of community members. Establishing equitable access to public facilities through policy and programmatic improvements can help ensure that all community members are able to experience their benefits. In order to create policy that makes a measurable impact, we must first understand the issues surrounding access to public facilities in the Priority Communities. This section will discuss access to a range of public facilities in Alameda County. Access to parks, recreation and open spaces is described in the Health and Physical Activities section as it relates more directly to that topic. <
> # Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Parks are natural or semi-natural open spaces set aside for outdoor recreation, leisure, or preservation. Parks are important because they provide community gathering spaces, valuable greenspace, and many more benefits to community members wellbeing. The Hayward Area Recreation and Park District (**HARD**) and the East Bay Regional Park District (**EBRPD**) provide parks, open space, and recreation services within the Priority Communities and in the surrounding area. As of July 2021, there were 25 officially designated public parks within or immediately adjacent to the Priority Communities. Most of them are less than 12 acres in size (roughly equivalent to 7 soccer fields) and are relatively small in comparison to parks in surrounding communities. Southwestern Castro Valley is adjacent to two large regional parks, Lake Chabot Regional Park (approximately 1,755 acres) and Don Castro Regional Recreation Area (approximately 101 acres), both operated by EBRPD. **Figure 3-6** shows officially designated parks within and near the Priority Communities according to the July 2021 GreenInfo California Protected Areas Database (CPAD). Parks under development and newer parks, such as HARD’s Via Toledo Park and Sunset Futsal Courts, are not reflected in the data shown on this map. ## Hayward Area Recreation and Park District (HARD) HARD operates numerous parks and community centers in the Priority Communities, including (but not limited to): * Adobe Park * Ashland Community Center * Carlos Bee Park * Cherryland Community Center * Hesperian Park * Jack Holland Park * Sunset Futsal Courts * Sunset Swim Center * Via Toledo Park <
> <
> FIGURE 3-6 **Parks in and near Priority Communities** # Park Access and Proximity California’s **Quimby Act** (Government Code Section 66477) established a state standard of 3 acres of parks for every 1,000 residents. The California Healthy Places Index (**HPI**), a public database used in the field of public health to assess conditions contributing to health or disease by place, sets a standard of park proximity at 0.5 miles for all residents. These standards may not be sufficient in low-income urban neighborhoods where other recreational opportunities are limited for residents and where physical and social barriers to pedestrian mobility frequently occur. For example, residents who live more than 0.5 miles from a quality park may experience the distance as a physical barrier (especially seniors, people with disabilities, and people without access to a reliable means of transportation). Low-income neighborhoods also have fewer resources than wealthier communities to subsidize recreational programs like intramural sports and organized recreational events like 5K races and marathons. **Table 3-11** displays both park proximity (the percentage of residents living within 0.25 miles and 0.5 miles of a park) and park access (park acreage per 1,000 people) for the Priority Communities. More than 90 percent of residents of 3 of the 5 Priority Communities live within 0.5 miles of a park, while Cherryland (86.6 percent) falls below that mark. Fewer than half the residents of all areas except Ashland (67.3 percent) live within 0.25 miles of a park. TABLE 3-11 **Park Proximity and Park Access** | NEIGHBORHOOD OR PLACE | POPULATION PERCENTAGE WITHIN 0.5 MILES OF PARKS | POPULATION PERCENTAGE WITHIN 0.25 MILES OF PARKS | ACRES PER 1,000 POPULATION | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Ashland | 98.4% | 67.3% | 0.24 | | Cherryland [^p76-a] | 86.6% | 47.9% | 0.74 | | San Lorenzo | 91.3% | 44.7% | 1.82 | | Hayward Acres [^p76-b] | 100.0% | 37.4% | 0.00 | | Castro Valley (southwestern) | 96.7% | 40.7% | 1.88 | | Castro Valley CDP Reference | 91.7% | 45.6% | 28.46 | | Alameda County Reference | — | — | 46.60 | SOURCE: Esri 2020 Demographics, with open-access park data from CPAD 2019b. NOTE: Parks under development or newer parks, such as HARD’s Via Toledo Park, are not reflected in these data. Data generated using exact boundaries of communities and/or PCs. [^p76-a] Excluding census tract 6001435700; [^p76-b] Hayward Acres is part of the San Lorenzo CDP. Data for Hayward Acres are included in the data for the San Lorenzo CDP. Access to parks measured by park acreage per 1,000 residents tells us how much park land is available within each Priority Community. There are no parks at all within Hayward Acres, although there are parks nearby. Ashland offers 0.24 acres of parks for every 1,000 residents, while Cherryland offers 0.74 acres per 1,000 people. None of the Priority Communities meets the requirements for the Quimby Act (3 acres of park for every 1,000 residents). HARD has initiated a community outreach process to solicit input on plans for four new parks along an approximately 1.5-mile stretch of the East 14th Street/Mission Boulevard corridor, between 159th Avenue and Mattox Road in Ashland: the Ashland-Mateo Street Neighborhood Park, Ashland Common, Ashland-East 14th Street Park, and Mission & Mattox Park. These new facilities will range in size from 0.8 to 2.6 acres. HARD will also construct and operate a new community center in the Madrone Terrace housing development on East 14th, adjacent to the planned Ashland-East 14th Street Park. In addition, HARD is working with the Alameda County Public Works Agency to confirm funding for a multi-use trail along San Lorenzo Creek that will connect the Bay Trail in the west to Don Castro Park in the east. ## Public Transportation Access Access to safe, reliable public transportation is essential to urban life and is especially important when automotive transport is not available or financially attainable for residents. For many, public transportation is necessary for commuting to work or school and for accessing essential services such as medical care and shopping. Transit access has been linked to better physical and mental health, increased physical activity, lower unemployment, better access to medical care, and greater resilience during disasters. At the same time, quality public transportation lessens automotive dependency, decreasing greenhouse gas emissions and unhealthy automotive exhaust locally. The Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) rail system is the main regional public transportation system in the Bay Area, providing direct access to San Francisco, Oakland, Fremont and other major employment centers in the Bay Area. Few residents of the Priority Communities are within walkable distance to a BART station. Figure 3-7 shows locations for BART stations and bus stops in and near the Priority Communities. Table 3-12 identifies the [^p76-a]: Excluding census tract 6001435700 [^p76-b]: Hayward Acres is part of the San Lorenzo CDP. Data for Hayward Acres are included in the data for the San Lorenzo CDP. percentage of the population of each Priority Community within 0.25 miles (approximately a 5-minute walk) and 0.5 miles (approximately a 10-minute walk) of BART and bus stops. The Bay Fair BART station is located within the city of San Leandro, adjacent to the northern boundary of Ashland, and the Hayward BART station is within the city of Hayward, approximately 0.5 miles south of Cherryland. The Castro Valley BART station is located in southwestern Castro Valley. About one quarter of residents of southwestern Castro Valley live within 0.5 miles of the Castro Valley BART station, and 14 percent of Ashland residents live within 0.5 miles of the Bay Fair station. The remainder of the residents of the Priority Communities do not live within walking distance of a BART station. <
> The Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (**AC Transit**) is a public transit agency that provides bus service to western Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, including to the Priority Communities. The percentage of Priority Community residents within 0.25 miles of an AC Transit Bus Stop ranges from approximately 77 percent in Hayward Acres to 92 percent in Ashland. In 3 of the 5 communities, less than 80 percent of the population live within 0.25 miles of a bus stop. #### TABLE 3-12 Access to BART and Bus Stops | NEIGHBORHOOD OR PLACE | POPULATION PERCENTAGE WITHIN 0.5 MILES OF BART STATION | POPULATION PERCENTAGE WITHIN 0.25 MILES OF BUS STOP | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Ashland | 14.3% | 91.8% | | Cherryland [^p77-a] | 1.1% | 78.6% | | San Lorenzo | 0.0% | 84.2% | | Hayward Acres[^p77-b] | 0.0% | 77.4% | | Castro Valley (southwestern) | 24.9% | 77.8% | | Castro Valley CDP Reference | 8.7% | 48.0% | | Alameda County Reference | — | — | SOURCE: Esri 2020 Demographics, with BART locations from BART and bus stop locations from AC Transit. NOTE: [^p77-a] Excluding census tract 6001435700; [^p77-b] Hayward Acres is part of the San Lorenzo CDP. Data for Hayward Acres are included in the data for the San Lorenzo CDP. [^p77-a]: Excluding census tract 6001435700 [^p77-b]: Hayward Acres is part of the San Lorenzo CDP. Data for Hayward Acres are included in the data for the San Lorenzo CDP. <
> FIGURE 3-7 **BART Stations and Bus Stops in and Near Priority Communities** # Law Enforcement The Priority Communities are served by the Alameda County Sheriff's Office (**ASCO**). California Highway Patrol (**CHP**) provides traffic enforcement on county roads, state routes, and interstate freeways in the Priority Communities, and the Hayward Police, San Leandro Police, and other neighboring jurisdictions provide mutual aid to the Sheriff for serious crimes in the Priority Communities. ### CRIME HOT SPOTS Crime activity, such as property theft and assaults, can have significant impacts on the health and well-being of communities. Crime activity is also associated with poor social cohesion and premature death rates. ACSO reports Alameda County crime data through the Alameda County Data Sharing Initiative Database. For the 2020 calendar year, ACSO reported 7,839 total crimes in the five Priority Communities. In ACSO’s entire service area, which includes all unincorporated areas of Alameda County, ACSO reported 10,112 crimes in the 2020 calendar year. In other words, approximately 77 percent of crimes reported by ACSO in unincorporated Alameda County in 2020 occurred in the Priority Communities. Table 3-13 identifies the number of reported crimes and crime rates for the Priority Communities and the overall ACSO service area, which includes all of unincorporated Alameda County. Data are presented at the CDP or community level (in the case of Hayward Acres). #### TABLE 3-13 Crime Rates in 2020 | NEIGHBORHOOD OR PLACE | POPULATION (2020) | CRIME REPORTS | CRIME RATE (PER 1,000) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Ashland | 23,823 | 2,282 | 96 | | Castro Valley | 66,441 | 2,917 | 44 | | Cherryland | 15,808 | 1,221 | 77 | | San Lorenzo | 29,581 | 1,181 | 40 | | Hayward Acres ᵃ | 4,176 | 238 | 57 | | ACSO service area (includes all of unincorporated Alameda County) | 152,107 | 10,112 | 66 | SOURCE: Alameda County Sheriff's Office (2023) NOTE: CDP data are presented for Ashland, Castro Valley, Cherryland, and San Lorenzo. ᵃ Hayward Acres data is presented by census tract. Hayward Acres is part of the San Lorenzo CDP. Data for Hayward Acres are included in the data for the San Lorenzo CDP. Crime rates are shown as the number of crime reports per 1000 residents. Of the five communities, only Ashland and Cherryland have crime rates that are higher than those of the overall unincorporated ASCO service area (96 in Ashland and 77 in Cherryland as compared to 66 for the entire ASCO service area). Castro Valley and San Lorenzo have crime rates that are significantly lower than ACSO's overall service area, while the rate for Hayward Acres is somewhat lower. ### PROXIMITY TO LAW ENFORCEMENT STATIONS Proximity to law enforcement (Sheriff or Police) stations can have an impact on the health and wellbeing of communities. Living in a safe neighborhood, equitably protected by local authorities, can influence healthy choices and behaviors, increase the perception of community safety, and reduce the total crime rate across the community. While the presence of law enforcement may increase feelings of safety for some community members, it is important to note that other community members – particularly BIPOC residents and members of historically marginalized communities – may experience distrust of law enforcement[^p79-12]. **Figure 3-8** shows the nearest police stations and Sheriff stations to the Priority Communities. There are two law enforcement stations within a 1-mile radius of the Priority Communities. The Eden Township Sheriff's Substation is located in the northwesternmost corner of Castro Valley, near Castro Valley's border with Ashland and the city of San Leandro. The Hayward Police station is located in the city of Hayward near the border of Cherryland. While not having patrol responsibilities in the Priority Communities, the Hayward Police jurisdiction is adjacent to the community of Cherryland and the Hayward Police department has a close working relationship with ASCO. [^p79-12]: Alameda County Deputy Sheriffs' Activities League "Community Capitals Policing": https://www.acdsal.org/about <
> FIGURE 3-8 **Law Enforcement Stations near Priority Communities** ### COMMUNITY CAPITALS POLICING Establishing trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve is crucial as jurisdictions work to address centuries of systemic injustice experienced by BIPOC residents. Alameda County’s law enforcement landscape in the Priority Communities includes the Alameda County Deputy Sheriffs’ Activities League (DSAL), a nonprofit organization that seeks to build trust by connecting Alameda County Sheriff’s Office (ACSO) personnel, residents, and youth in positive experiences that enhance the health of the community. DSAL’s approach to policing is guided by the Community Capitals Framework, which prioritizes strategic investments in the community’s natural, human, social, economic, built, political, and cultural capitals. Within the Priority Communities, DSAL provides free or low-cost programs related to health and wellness. Programs include a food hub and food distribution events, re-entry internships in urban farming and food production, a youth soccer league, and other sports, music, dance, and fitness classes held at local schools and community facilities. # Schools The Priority Communities are served by three school districts. The San Lorenzo Unified School District serves all of San Lorenzo and Ashland, the northern portion of Cherryland, and most of El Portal Ridge along the western boundary of Castro Valley. The Hayward Unified School District serves the southern portion of Cherryland and the Castro Valley south of I-580. Castro Valley Unified School District serves the remainder of Castro Valley north of I-580. Safe, walkable routes to schools are important contributors to community health, providing physical activity daily to children and their parents as an integral part of the school commute, and reducing automobile trips to and from schools. As **Figure 3-9** shows, there are large areas within the Priority Communities that are without walkable access to schools. NOTE: Data for this section were accessed and analyzed prior to the June 2022 closure of Strobridge Elementary School. <
> FIGURE 3-9 **Public Schools in and Near Priority Communities** Table 3-14 indicates the percentage of residents who live within 0.25 to 0.5 miles (5 to 10 minutes by foot) of a public school. San Lorenzo and Hayward Acres score highest with their entire population within a 10-minute walk of a school. 77.9 percent of Ashland residents and 82.8 percent of Cherryland residents live within a 10-minute walk of a public school. Southwestern Castro Valley has the lowest school pedestrian access at 63.5 percent within a 10-minute walk of a school, not adjusted for the June 2022 closure of Strobridge Elementary by the Hayward Unified School District. After June 2022, students in the former Strobridge Elementary School service area, located in southwestern Castro Valley south of I-580, will attend either Cherryland Elementary or Fairview Elementary. <
> #### TABLE 3-14 Percentage of Residents Living 5 or 10 Minutes by Foot to a School | NEIGHBORHOOD OR PLACE | % RESIDENTS WITHIN 0.25 MILES (5-MINUTE WALK) OF A PUBLIC SCHOOL | % RESIDENTS WITHIN 0.5 MILES (10-MINUTE WALK) OF A PUBLIC SCHOOL | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Ashland | 40.7% | 77.9% | | Cherryland [^p82-a] | 42.2% | 82.8% | | San Lorenzo | 53.7% | 100.0% | | Hayward Acres[^p82-b] | 59.8% | 100.0% | | Castro Valley (southwestern) | 13.9% | 63.5% | | *Castro Valley CDP Reference* | *24.4%* | *66.6%* | | *Alameda County Reference* | — | — | *SOURCE: Esri 2020 Demographics, with school locations from CDE 2020–2021.* *NOTE: These data have not been adjusted for the June 2022 closure of Strobridge Elementary School. [^p82-a] Excluding census tract 6001435700; [^p82-b] Hayward Acres is part of the San Lorenzo CDP. Data for Hayward Acres are included in the data for the San Lorenzo CDP.* <
> ## Libraries The Alameda County Library system has two libraries located within the Priority Communities. The Castro Valley Library and the San Lorenzo Library provide the surrounding communities with modern facilities and resources such as free computers, Wi-Fi, books, CDs, and DVDs in addition to services and programs for all ages. [^p82-a]: Excluding census tract 6001435700 [^p82-b]: Hayward Acres is part of the San Lorenzo CDP. Data for Hayward Acres are included in the data for the San Lorenzo CDP. ### Key Takeaways * None of the Priority Communities meets the requirements for the Quimby Act, which established a state standard of 3 acres of parks for every 1,000 residents * A majority of residents of the Priority Communities do not live within a walkable distance to a BART station. * In 2020, approximately 77 percent of crimes reported by ACSO in unincorporated Alameda County occurred in the Priority Communities. * There are three law enforcement stations within a 1-mile radius of the Priority Communities; however, only the Eden Township Sheriff's Substation is located within a Priority Community (in southwestern Castro Valley, bordering Ashland.) <
> # 3.4 Safe and Sanitary Homes & Neighborhoods ## Context Safe and sanitary homes, neighborhoods and living conditions are an integral part of healthy living environments. Housing location, quality, affordability, and stability are directly related to an individual's quality of life. Ensuring that all community members can live in safe and sanitary homes and neighborhoods is an important part of EJ. The Priority Communities experience exposure to and harm from unsafe and unsanitary housing conditions and neighborhoods. Hazardous building materials, inadequate insulation, air quality and filtration issues, mold, and poor building maintenance, trash and unsanitary street conditions can lead to serious health concerns for these Alameda County residents. In order to create policy that improves the health and safety of homes and neighborhoods, we first must understand the conditions of homes and neighborhoods in the Priority Communities. This section will discuss housing characteristics and summarize community input pertaining to the topic of safe and sanitary homes. <
> # Household Characteristics/Tenure **Housing tenure** refers to whether households own or rent their primary residence. Households that rent their homes have limited control over rent price changes, which puts the stability of their living situation at risk. Additionally, renters have restricted influence when it comes to the quality and maintenance of their homes. In areas of high housing demand, some landlords may ignore making housing repairs in order to drive tenants out more quickly and resell or re-lease the property for a higher profit. Because of these factors, areas with large populations of renters can face issues of housing security, affordability, and safe living conditions. These impacts are important to acknowledge because they affect community mental health, physical health, safety, and quality of life. **Table 3-15** provides the percentage of homeowners and renters in the Priority Communities. The majority of the residents of the Priority Communities are renters, with the sole exception of San Lorenzo, where 74.0 percent of households own their home. The highest concentrations of renter-occupied homes are found in Hayward Acres (84.7 percent), Cherryland (75.4 percent) and Ashland (63.8 percent). Southwestern Castro Valley has a majority of renters at 56.9 percent. By comparison, County housing tenure overall is 53.5 percent owner occupied, and 46.5 percent of homes countywide are renter occupied. #### TABLE 3-15 Housing Tenure | NEIGHBORHOOD OR PLACE | OWNER OCCUPIED | RENTER OCCUPIED | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Ashland | 36.2% | 63.8% | | Cherryland [^p85-a] | 24.6% | 75.4% | | San Lorenzo | 74.0% | 26.0% | | Hayward Acres [^p85-b] | 15.3% | 84.7% | | Castro Valley (southwestern) | 43.1% | 56.9% | | Castro Valley CDP Reference | 71.3% | 28.7% | | Alameda County Reference | 53.5% | 46.5% | SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, 2015-2019 American Community Survey, Table B25003 NOTES: Data calculated as simple percentages for each exact area. [^p85-a] Excluding census tract 6001435700; [^p85-b] Hayward Acres is part of the San Lorenzo CDP. Data for Hayward Acres are included in the data for the San Lorenzo CDP. [^p85-a]: Excluding census tract 6001435700 [^p85-b]: Hayward Acres is part of the San Lorenzo CDP. Data for Hayward Acres are included in the data for the San Lorenzo CDP. # Children’s Lead Risk from Housing Lead is a toxic metal that has been used in many products over time. Even in small amounts, lead can have harmful effects on the body, which may lead to lifelong learning, behavioral, reproductive, cardiovascular, and other health problems. Children under six years old are at greatest risk of harmful health effects from lead poisoning, both because age-appropriate behaviors are more likely to cause children to ingest lead and because lead impacts the development of the brain and nervous systems of growing children. Lead exposure is not equal for all children. In Alameda County, children from BIPOC and low-income households continue to bear a disproportionate burden of lead exposure primarily through contact with deteriorating lead-based paint from older housing. The lead risk indicator consists of a score that combines the percentage of households within each Priority Community that have a likelihood of lead-based paint hazards from the age of housing with the percentage of households that are both low-income and have children under 6 years old. Higher scores indicate a higher lead risk to children. Table 3-16 summarizes the scores and percentiles for each geography. The percentiles, which rank the scores on a scale of 1 to 100, provide a useful means of comparing the relative risk of lead exposure between communities. ##### TABLE 3-16 Children's Lead Risk from Housing | NEIGHBORHOOD OR PLACE | CHILDREN'S LEAD RISK FROM HOUSING - SCORE | CHILDREN'S LEAD RISK FROM HOUSING - PERCENTILE | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Ashland [^p86-a] | 75.8 | 86th | | Cherryland [^p86-a] | 75.4 | 85th | | San Lorenzo [^p86-b] | 75.2 | 85th | | Hayward Acres [^p86-c] | 62.7 | 70th | | Castro Valley (southwestern) [^p86-a] | 64.8 | 73rd | | Castro Valley CDP Reference[^p86-b] | 48.4 | 49th | | Alameda County Reference[^p86-b] | 50.4 | 52nd | SOURCE: OEHHA, CalEnviroScreen 4.0 NOTES: [^p86-a] Ashland, Cherryland, and southwestern Castro Valley are presented as household-based weighted average of census tract data for tracts listed in Table 2-1, excluding census tract 6001435700. [^p86-b] San Lorenzo and Castro Valley CDP Reference and Alameda County Reference are presented as household-based weighted average of census tracts within CDP or County boundary. [^p86-c] Hayward Acres is part of the San Lorenzo CDP. Data for Hayward Acres are included in the data for the San Lorenzo CDP Children in the Priority Communities have a higher risk of lead exposure than in the County as a whole. All the Priority Communities are within the top 30th percentile statewide for children’s lead risk. Hayward Acres ranks lower in risk than other Priority Communities, but still substantially higher than the County as a whole. These data suggest key differences in the combination of older homes, low-income households, and young children in the Priority Communities compared to the overall County reference population. [^p86-a]: Ashland, Cherryland, and southwestern Castro Valley are presented as household-based weighted average of census tract data for tracts listed in Table 2-1, excluding census tract 6001435700. [^p86-b]: San Lorenzo and Castro Valley CDP Reference and Alameda County Reference are presented as household-based weighted average of census tracts within CDP or County boundary. [^p86-c]: Hayward Acres is part of the San Lorenzo CDP. Data for Hayward Acres are included in the data for the San Lorenzo CDP # Housing Overcrowding The Census Bureau defines **overcrowded households** as dwellings that house more than one occupant per room (excluding bathrooms). Dwellings housing more than 1.5 occupants per room are considered **severely overcrowded**. Overcrowded housing conditions contribute to poor health outcomes, deterioration of housing stock, lowered academic achievement in children, and other concerns. During the pandemic, overcrowded housing conditions are presumed to have contributed to the spread of COVID-19 in lower-income communities and communities of color in Alameda County. Overcrowded housing is quite common in the Priority Communities. Four of the five Priority Communities exceed the County average of 5 percent overcrowded households. Ashland and Cherryland more than double the County average. In Hayward Acres, there are three times as many overcrowded units, per 100, when compared to the County overall. Among the Priority Communities, only southwestern Castro Valley, at 4.6 percent, is below the County rate of 5 percent. Severe overcrowding occurs at comparatively high rates in Ashland, Cherryland and Hayward Acres. Table 3-17 provides the percentage of households that are overcrowded and extremely overcrowded. It is important to acknowledge that there can be a cultural component to overcrowding, as many cultures value multigenerational households. #### TABLE 3-17 Overcrowded Housing | NEIGHBORHOOD OR PLACE | PERCENT OF HOUSEHOLDS THAT ARE OVERCROWDED | PERCENT OF HOUSEHOLDS THAT ARE SEVERELY OVERCROWDED | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Ashland | 10.9% | 4.4% | | Cherryland [^p87-a] | 11.9% | 7.4% | | San Lorenzo | 8.0% | 2.3% | | Hayward Acres [^p87-b] | 15.3% | 4.4% | | Castro Valley (southwestern) | 4.6% | 1.8% | | *Castro Valley CDP Reference* | *3.0%* | *1.0%* | | *Alameda County Reference* | *5.0%* | *2.8%* | SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, 2015-2019 American Community Survey, Table B25014. NOTES: Data calculated as simple percentages for each exact area. [^p87-a] Cherryland data excludes census tract 6001435700. [^p87-b] Hayward Acres is part of the San Lorenzo CDP. Data for Hayward Acres are included in the data for the San Lorenzo CDP. [^p87-a]: Cherryland data excludes census tract 6001435700. [^p87-b]: Hayward Acres is part of the San Lorenzo CDP. Data for Hayward Acres are included in the data for the San Lorenzo CDP. # Key Takeaways * The majority of the residents of the Priority Communities are renters, with the sole exception of San Lorenzo. Communities with high populations of renters can face issues with housing security, affordability, and safe living conditions. * All of the Priority Communities have a higher lead risk to children than the County as a whole. * Overcrowded housing is quite common in the Priority Communities. Four of the five Priority Communities exceed the County average of 5 percent overcrowded households. It is important, however, to acknowledge that there can be a cultural component to overcrowding, as many cultures value multigenerational households. <
> # 3.5 Access to Healthy Food ## Context Healthy food access means that we can safely and easily get to sources of nutritious, high-quality food (e.g., fresh fruits and vegetables, meats with lower fat content, and wholegrains) that fit our cultural preferences and budgets. Healthy food is essential to the health, economy, and culture of thriving and sustainable communities. Access to both healthy and affordable food sources affect quality of life. And food access goes beyond just the physical ability to get both nutritious and culturally appropriate food, but also the knowledge that access to these food sources is dependable. When we can’t reliably get enough nutritious food, we may turn to the most affordable, accessible, and filling foods we can find, such as fast food or highly processed snack-foods and beverages, which tend to be high in calories, sodium, sugars, and additives and low in nutrients. These foods can put us at risk for chronic health conditions such as Type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease, hypertension, asthma, and some types of cancer. Creating consistent opportunities for people within the Priority Communities to buy, prepare, and eat healthy food is important in promoting equity. In order to create policy that improves access to healthy foods for the Priority Communities, we must first understand the issues surrounding this topic for the Priority Communities. This section provides information related to food insecurity, access to grocery stores, and urban agriculture in the Priority Communities. <
> # Food Insecurity **Food insecurity** can be defined as a lack of consistent access to food for every person in a household to live an active, healthy life. Poverty, unemployment, race, and housing cost burden are associated with food insecurity, indicating that food security is likely to be a concern for some Priority Community residents. People impacted by food insecurity may not know when or where they will get their next meal and may need to choose between buying food and other critical expenses like rent or medicine. According to the Alameda County Community Food Bank (**ACCFB**), “Food insecurity and poor nutrition cause harmful outcomes in all stages of life, including poor physical, emotional and developmental outcomes.” Food insecurity can exacerbate, or increase the risk of, diet-sensitive illnesses like diabetes and high blood pressure. An over-supply of unhealthy food options (foods high in calories, sodium, sugars, and additives) in a community can also contribute to higher rates of diet-sensitive diseases. Businesses offering unhealthy food items are often over-concentrated in BIPOC and lower-income communities, while these same communities are less likely to have access to outlets like grocery stores that offer healthy foods (fresh fruits and vegetables, whole grains, meats with lower fat content.) This disparity impacts community and individual health and wellness and can contribute to economic and public health challenges. # Access to Grocery Stores One key indicator of healthy food access is the density of fuller-service food stores such as supermarkets or healthy food outlets like farmers’ markets. Living near a supermarket or farmers’ market can encourage better nutrition, lower costs of obtaining food, reduce chronic diseases, and lower the risk of food insecurity. <
> **Figure 3-10** displays farmers’ markets and fuller-service food stores such as supermarkets and grocery stores in and near the Priority Communities. There are notable gaps in southwestern Castro Valley and Cherryland. It is important to acknowledge that farmers’ markets have limited hours and days of operations; some of the food outlets on the map may not provide culturally appropriate foods that appeal to the entire diverse population of the area; and the data source for this map may not have included all stores where Priority Community residents shop for food. **Table 3-18** shows the percentage of residents living within 0.5 miles of a grocery store/supermarket or fuller-service food store. Only 30.1 percent of Cherryland residents and 46.4 percent of San Lorenzo residents live within walking distance of a grocery store. That proportion is 60.0 percent in southwestern Castro Valley, and 76.7 percent in Ashland. <
> Source: ACPHD CAPE, with data from Alameda County Environmental Health 2021-12 **FIGURE 3-10 Supermarkets in and near Priority Communities** ### TABLE 3-18 Population within 0.5 Miles of a Grocery Store | NEIGHBORHOOD OR PLACE | POPULATION PERCENTAGE WITHIN 0.5 MILES OF A GROCERY STORE | | :--- | :--- | | Ashland | 76.7% | | Cherryland [^p91-a] | 30.1% | | San Lorenzo | 46.4% | | Hayward Acres[^p91-b] | 100.0% | | Castro Valley (southwestern) | 60.0% | | Castro Valley CDP Reference | 28.8% | | Alameda County Reference | 39.6% | SOURCE: Esri 2020 Demographics, with supermarket locations from ACH- Environmental Health Department, December 2021. [^p91-a]: Cherryland data excludes census tract 6001435700. [^p91-b] Hayward Acres is part of the San Lorenzo CDP. Data for Hayward Acres are included in the data for the San Lorenzo CDP. # Local Food Production Local food production in home gardens, community gardens, and urban farms can improve access to fresh fruits, vegetables and culturally appropriate foods and can increase household food and nutritional security. In addition to its direct benefits related to food access, local food production is associated with many **co-benefits** including access to open space, improved mental and physical health, environmental and climate benefits, economic opportunity, and community connectivity. Residents of the Priority Communities with access to land may also choose to grow food in their own yards or on private urban farm sites for personal use or for profit. Alameda County’s zoning ordinance supports urban farming and gardening by allowing field crops, orchards, and gardens as primary uses in all residential zoning districts. Priority Community residents who wish to keep livestock (chickens, etc.) in residential zoning districts may apply for an Animal Fanciers Permit through Alameda County Animal Services, a unit of the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office. <
> # Key Takeaways * Only about 30 percent of Cherryland residents and 47 percent of San Lorenzo residents live within walking distance of a supermarket. In southwestern Castro Valley, that proportion is 60 percent for residents and in Ashland it is 77 percent. * The Alameda County Community Food Bank (ACCFB) concluded that people of color and neighborhoods with high renter populations experience hunger disproportionately in Alameda County, which define the majority of the Priority Communities. <
> <
> Mural design by Tiffany King & Greg Duggan. Painted by youth artists from the REACH Ashland Youth Center Arts & Creativity Program. <
> # 3.6 Health and Physical Activity ## Context Physical activity has a direct impact on the long-term health and wellbeing of community residents. Considering the importance of physical activity to the health and success of a community, it is important that opportunities to participate in such activities are presented equitably across Alameda County. People who are physically active are likely to have a higher life expectancy and lower risk for heart disease, stroke, Type 2 diabetes, some cancers, and other health-related illnesses. Engaging in physical activity is associated with better mental, emotional, and social wellbeing. Mental health refers to cognitive, behavioral, and emotional wellbeing—it is all about how people think, feel, and behave, which determines their outcomes in life. Mental health plays a large role in daily life, relationships, and physical health. Preserving and encouraging a culture of sound mental health systems and foundations allows communities to have productive, efficient, and notably, happy or content residents. In turn, this allows further opportunities for social interactions, which strengthens social cohesion, which then strengthens the social and cultural foundations for healthy, livable communities. In order to create policy that better promotes physical activity and supports the physical, mental and emotional health of the Priority Communities, we must first understand the barriers to health and physical activity. This section describes the role of the built environment and the existing conditions in the Priority Communities on this topic, as well as perspectives from the community. <
> <
> # The Built Environment The built environment plays an important role in determining how communities can perform physical activity. For example, communities with built environments that have ample green or open spaces, such as parks and fields, pedestrian/bicycle paths, and playgrounds, support healthy, active forms of transportation and exercise. A community's ability to perform physical activity then influences community health, particularly relating to chronic diseases, which are long-term illnesses that often do not resolve readily or are not fully curable. Chronic disease includes asthma, cancer, diabetes, stroke, heart disease and hypertension, among others. Physical activity and active lifestyles, proper nutrition and reduced exposure to harm can help reduce the risk of chronic diseases (CDC 2022). In the Priority Communities, the built environment is negatively impacted by historical discriminatory land use practices (for example, racial covenants), and historical disinvestment. Combined with forms of harmful social structures (e.g., **systemic racism**), these practices create an environment that can discourage physical activity, and thus, fewer opportunities for exercise and recreation. Convenient and safe, equitable access for all ages, races, and classes to these spaces has a direct correlation to increased exercise and physical activity. The Public Facilities section above provides information related to the Priority Communities' access to safe spaces and places to engage in physical activity. <
> # Life Expectancy & Mortality Rate Life expectancy is a good overall measure of health. It measures the average lifespan of the population at a particular point in time and is not predictive. Table 3-19 provides the life expectancy at birth for the Priority Communities. All but San Lorenzo have considerably lower life expectancies than Alameda County overall. ##### TABLE 3-19 Life Expectancy at Birth | NEIGHBORHOOD OR PLACE | LIFE EXPECTANCY AT BIRTH (YEARS) | | :--- | :--- | | Ashland | 78.9 | | Cherryland [^p95-a] | 77.9 | | San Lorenzo | 82.5 | | Hayward Acres[^p95-b] | 73.7 | | Castro Valley (southwestern) | 79.5 | | Castro Valley CDP Reference | 83.9 | | Alameda County | 82.9 | SOURCE: ACPHD CAPE, with data from California Comprehensive Death Files, 2018-2020. NOTE: [^p95-a] Cherryland data excludes census tract 6001435700. [^p95-b] Hayward Acres is part of the San Lorenzo CDP. Data for Hayward Acres are included in the data for the San Lorenzo CDP. [^p95-a]: Cherryland data excludes census tract 6001435700. [^p95-b]: Hayward Acres is part of the San Lorenzo CDP. Data for Hayward Acres are included in the data for the San Lorenzo CDP. Table 3-20 provides the mortality rates for the Priority Communities compared to the County overall. While multiple environmental, socioeconomic, and other factors influence mortality, the mortality rate presents an additional measure for comparison purposes between the Priority Communities and the County as a whole. As shown in Table 3-20, the mortality rate for stroke is considerably higher than the County in all Priority Communities with the exception of San Lorenzo. The mortality rate for chronic lower respiratory diseases is also considerably higher than the County for all Priority Communities. ### TABLE 3-20 Mortality Rate | NEIGHBORHOOD OR PLACE | MORTALITY RATE | | :--- | :--- | | Ashland | 735.2 | | Cherryland [^p96-a] | 796.5 | | San Lorenzo | 580.2 | | Hayward Acres[^p96-b] | 1,108.2 | | Castro Valley (southwestern) | 697.2 | | *Castro Valley CDP Reference* | *524.9* | | *Alameda County* | *558.7* | SOURCE: ACPHD CAPE, with data from California Comprehensive Death Files, 2018–2020. NOTES: Mortality presented as an age-adjusted rate per 100,000 persons. ᵃ Cherryland data excludes census tract 6001435700. ᵇ Hayward Acres is part of the San Lorenzo CDP. Data for Hayward Acres are included in the data for the San Lorenzo CDP. <
> [^p96-a]: Cherryland data excludes census tract 6001435700. [^p96-b]: Hayward Acres is part of the San Lorenzo CDP. Data for Hayward Acres are included in the data for the San Lorenzo CDP. # COVID Mortality Rates **Table 3-21** reports COVID Deaths and displays a death rate per 100,000 population from COVID-19 through December 2021. With the exception of San Lorenzo, the Priority Communities experienced higher death rates from COVID-19 than the County overall. In Priority Community census tracts with populations greater than 15,000, death rates ranged from 15 percent higher than the County rate in southwestern Castro Valley to 62 percent higher in Ashland. ##### TABLE 3-21 COVID Mortality Rates | NEIGHBORHOOD OR PLACE | COVID-19 DEATHS | POPULATION | COVID DEATH RATE PER 100,000 POPULATION | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Ashland | 36 | 23,228 | 155.0 | | Cherryland [^p97-a] | 20 | 15,634 | 127.9 | | San Lorenzo | 22 | 25,236 | 87.2 | | Hayward Acres[^p97-b] | 18 | 4,149 | 433.8 | | Castro Valley (southwestern) | 26 | 23,745 | 109.5 | | *Castro Valley CDP Reference* | *47* | *64,280* | *73.1* | | *Alameda County Reference* | *1,575* | *1,648,969* | *95.5* | SOURCE: ACPHD CAPE, with data from CalREDIE through December 31, 2021. NOTES: Rates per 100,000 with a population of less than 20,000 should be interpreted with caution. Hayward Acres has a high death rate due to the number of long-term care facilities in the community. [^p97-a] Cherryland data excludes census tract 6001435700. [^p97-b] Hayward Acres is part of the San Lorenzo CDP. Data for Hayward Acres are included in the data for the San Lorenzo CDP. These disparities are not unexpected, given the racial/ethnic makeup of the populations in the Priority Communities, the relatively high poverty rates in those communities, and the enduring health impacts of systemic inequities. Disproportionately high Alameda County COVID-19 mortality rates among African Americans (210.6), Pacific Islanders (231.7) and Latinx (110.6) correspond to national level data as well. Specific factors contributing to this disparity include lack of adequate access to health care, higher prevalence of underlying conditions such as heart disease and asthma, disproportionate levels of stress, greater likelihood of living in overcrowded households, and disproportionate employment in sectors that require in-person work. Each of these factors disproportionately impacts African American, Latinx, and Pacific Islander communities due to inequitable access to health care, housing, and employment opportunities. Note that the mortality rate in Hayward Acres reflects the presence of long-term care facilities in that area along with a small overall population. Higher COVID-19 death rates are to be expected in those facilities, since they house older, sicker patients in general. [^p97-a]: Cherryland data excludes census tract 6001435700. [^p97-b]: Hayward Acres is part of the San Lorenzo CDP. Data for Hayward Acres are included in the data for the San Lorenzo CDP. # Key Takeaways * All of the Priority Communities, except San Lorenzo, have considerably lower life expectancies than Alameda County. * The rates of emergency department visits for heart attack, are notably higher in Ashland, Cherryland, Hayward Acres, and the San Lorenzo than in the rest of the county. (See Table 3-7, *Heart Attack Emergency Department Visits*) * Among the Priority Communities, Ashland (6.2 percent) and San Lorenzo (7.2 percent) exceed the County rate of low birth rates, with other areas at or below that marker. (See Table 3-8, *Rates of Low Birth Weight Births*.) <
> Utility Box Art Program managed by the Alameda County Arts Commission. Artwork by Vanessa Marsh for the Hesperian Blvd Corridor Improvement Project in San Lorenzo. Artwork copyright the artist. # 3.7 Civic Engagement ## Context Equitable and effective planning and decision-making processes prioritize the meaningful involvement of the community members that will be directly impacted. Civic engagement is a vital aspect of EJ, and it is a necessary inclusion in EJ Elements. Civic engagement allows for the investment of the community in solution finding, while broadening opportunities to hold decision-makers accountable. Partnerships made with community groups will also allow for the success and advancement of EJ goals. In order to create policy that promotes effective and inclusive civic engagement, we must first understand the barriers to and community preferences for engaging in community and public processes. This information has been captured in part from existing data sources, but the majority of findings have been identified from surveying community members who have attended County-run public meetings or have not attended due to various factors. This section presents information and community feedback to help inform the preparation of goals, policies, and actions. <
> # Linguistic Isolation EJ seeks to promote the participation of Priority Communities in public decision-making processes. Language is a barrier for many people. Without English fluency, it can be very difficult to easily access government and community programs and processes in Alameda County, and take part in decisions that impact ones' health, wellbeing, or financial/economic opportunity. Take this document, for example. Who can read it? Who is able to access the ideas and concepts held in it, and who is then able to hold Alameda County accountable for making them happen? The County can take steps to remove **linguistic, or language isolation**, as a barrier, such as offering online translated versions of documents and providing translation services at public meetings. ### Linguistic, or Language, Isolation **Linguistic, or language, isolation** is when there are households with individuals over the age of 14 that have limited English-speaking capability. Table 3-22 presents the percentage of households that speak limited English, and the languages that those households speak. Ashland, Cherryland, Hayward Acres, and San Lorenzo have higher rates of households that speak limited English, ranging from about 10 to 16 percent compared to the County' reference of about 8 percent. Limited English-speaking households speaking Spanish in Ashland, Cherryland, and Hayward Acres range from about 51 to 81 percent, while the County is reported at about 29 percent. Limited English-speaking households speaking Asian and Pacific Island Languages in San Lorenzo is 75 percent, while the County is reported at about 58 percent. #### TABLE 3-22 Linguistic Isolation | NEIGHBORHOOD OR PLACE | PERCENTAGE LIMITED ENGLISH-SPEAKING HOUSEHOLDS | LIMITED ENGLISH-SPEAKING HOUSEHOLDS SPEAKING: SPANISH | LIMITED ENGLISH-SPEAKING HOUSEHOLDS SPEAKING: OTHER INDO-EUROPEAN LANGUAGES | LIMITED ENGLISH-SPEAKING HOUSEHOLDS SPEAKING: ASIAN AND PACIFIC ISLAND LANGUAGES | LIMITED ENGLISH-SPEAKING HOUSEHOLDS SPEAKING: OTHER LANGUAGES | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Ashland | 16.3% | 51.7% | 7.0% | 37.5% | 3.8% | | Cherryland | 14.3% | 75.4% | 5.0% | 19.7% | 0.0% | | San Lorenzo | 10.4% | 18.2% | 6.8% | 75.0% | 0.0% | | Hayward Acres[^p100-a] | 13.4% | 81.8% | 4.1% | 5.3% | 8.8% | | Castro Valley (southwestern) | 7.6% | 20.5% | 17.3% | 55.2% | 6.9% | | _Castro Valley CDP Reference_ | _7.6%_ | _16.5%_ | _14.8%_ | _63.5%_ | _5.2%_ | | _Alameda County Reference_ | _8.6%_ | _29.3%_ | _8.4%_ | _58.1%_ | _4.2%_ | SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, 2015–2019 American Community Survey, Table S1602. NOTES: CDP = Census Designated Place; Data calculated as simple percentages for each exact area. [^p100-a] Hayward Acres is part of the San Lorenzo CDP. Data for Hayward Acres are included in the data for the San Lorenzo CDP throughout this EJ Element. Hayward Acres data are also presented separately as a subset of the San Lorenzo CDP to highlight the unique needs of that community. [^p100-a]: Hayward Acres is part of the San Lorenzo CDP. Data for Hayward Acres are included in the data for the San Lorenzo CDP throughout this EJ Element. Hayward Acres data are also presented separately as a subset of the San Lorenzo CDP to highlight the unique needs of that community. ### Key Takeaways * All Priority Communities, with the exception of Castro Valley, have higher percentages of households with limited English speakers than the county as a whole. * High rates of limited English-speaking households that speak Spanish are found in Ashland, Cherryland and Hayward Acres compared to the county as a whole. * High rates limited English-speaking households that speak Asian and Pacific Island languages are found in San Lorenzo compared to the county as a whole. <
> Utility Box Art Program managed by the Alameda County Arts Commission. Artwork by Miriam Klein Stahl for the East 14^th St Corridor Improvement Project in Ashland. Artwork copyright the artist. <
> # 4 sectionfour # Goals, Policies, and Actions The goals, policies, and actions identified in this chapter were developed through thorough analysis of existing conditions and extensive community engagement. They offer a high-level, community-driven vision for improving health and wellness in the Priority Communities. Key measures called “Catalyzing Actions” are high-priority, systemic improvements that would enable the County to more effectively implement other actions in this Environmental Justice Element. The goals, policies, and actions are organized by topic: <
> **Centering EJ** <
> **Pollution and Air Quality** <
> **Access to Public Facilities** <
> **Safe and Sanitary Homes** <
> **Access to Healthy Food** <
> **Health and Physical Activity** <
> **Civic Engagement** ## Goals, Policies, and Actions The Environmental Justice Element serves as a high-level, community-driven vision to guide County decision-making, budgeting, and program initiatives, and as a platform for future collaborative efforts to improve health and wellness in Alameda County’s unincorporated-area Priority Communities. As required by SB 1000, the measures outlined in this chapter prioritize improvements and programs that reduce the unique or compounded health risks in the Priority Communities and address Priority Community needs across the categories of: reducing pollution and improving air quality, promoting civic engagement in public decision-making, and improving access to public facilities, safe and sanitary homes, health and physical activity, and healthy food. The goals, policies, and actions identified in this chapter are intended to offer a broad perspective on the subjects addressed in each section and reflect the diversity of community input received throughout the development of the EJ Element. Implementation of these measures will require ongoing collaboration between a variety of County Agencies. In some cases, implementation of a particular action may require additional direction from the Board of Supervisors or Agency Directors. Measures in this EJ Element are not intended to dictate the policies or actions of special districts or other non-County service providers, but rather to highlight opportunities for collaboration with these external stakeholders. To guide implementation of measures that can make demonstrable improvements in community health and wellness, key measures in this EJ Element are identified as **Catalyzing Actions**. Catalyzing Actions are high-priority, systemic changes that would establish frameworks and structures to enable the County to more effectively implement other actions in this Environmental Justice Element. ### Catalyzing Actions Actions identified by the star symbol are **Catalyzing Actions**. These high-priority, systemic measures seek to establish frameworks and structures that would enable the County to more effectively implement other actions in this Environmental Justice Element. The measures in this chapter are organized by SB 1000 topic area, with the addition of a topic called “Centering Environmental Justice”. Each topic includes a goal, followed by policies and their related actions. **Goals** guide policies and actions. Goals describe the results and positive outcomes that the policies and actions will contribute to creating. * **Policies** describe strategic solutions that will address issues identified by the community and the existing conditions analysis. * **Actions** are directives tied to policies. Actions refer to specific steps that can be taken to advance EJ policies in the Priority Communities. The star symbol next to an Action indicates that it is a Catalyzing Action. **Section 5**, *Implementation and Monitoring*, of this EJ Element includes an implementation plan to facilitate the process of prioritizing measures and incorporating goals, policies, and actions outlined in this section into community processes. Catalyzing Actions and Implementation strategies are discussed further in Chapter 5 of this EJ Element. # Centering Environmental Justice Consistent with Vision 2026,[^p105-13] Alameda County seeks to demonstrate its commitment to health and wellness in the Priority Communities by centering equity and EJ in the General Plan and in County decision-making processes. By acknowledging past and ongoing harms as a necessary first step toward achieving practical change, the policies and actions in this section aim to embed equity and accountability as a central framework for County actions impacting the Priority Communities. ### Goal EJ1. The County will center environmental justice, equity, and accountability in relevant decision-making processes. **Policy EJ1.1** Acknowledge historical and ongoing harms, working with Priority Community residents to identify and implement appropriate remedies. **Action EJ1.1A** The County will continue the process, initiated by Supervisor Nate Miley in 2022 and furthered by the establishment of the Alameda County Reparations Commission, of exploring the local historical context of racial discrimination, inequity, and injustice through historical research and interviews with those impacted; considering formal apologies for the County’s role, past or present, in perpetuating harm; and exploring national, state, and local reparations by engaging representatives from the State’s Reparations Commission, local jurisdictions, and community members. **Action EJ1.1B** With input from local Indigenous communities, the CDA Planning Department will draft a land acknowledgment and offer it to County Board of Supervisors and Commissions as a standard meeting opening. **Policy EJ1.2** Integrate Environmental Justice principles into zoning, the General Plan, and related land use strategies and approaches. **Action EJ1.2A** The CDA Planning Department will develop a process to ensure that future relevant General Plan updates prioritize equity and the unique or compounded health risks faced by the Priority Communities, ensuring that the Environmental Justice principles central to this EJ Element are integrated into future General Plan updates. ### Green Zones Green Zones are a place-based strategy that uses community-led solutions to transform areas overburdened by pollution into healthy thriving neighborhoods. *California Environmental Justice Alliance*[^p105-14] **Action EJ1.2B** The CDA Planning Department will work with residents to establish a **“Green Zone”**, consisting of the Priority Communities, with the goal of reducing environmental hazards, preventing pollution, and promoting positive health outcomes by fostering vibrant and livable neighborhoods, a diverse mix of uses, healthy food access, reduced air pollution, physical activity, **complete streets**, and more local jobs through focused economic development and community-building strategies. [^p105-13]: ACVOG Vision 2026: https://vision2026.acgov.org/. [^p105-14]: https://caleja.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/GREENZONES.2015.30MB.pdf **Policy EJ1.3** Pursue strategies that increase diversity, equity, and inclusion in the Priority Communities. ✪ **Action EJ1.3A** With special attention to the Priority Communities, the ACH Policy Group, a cross-functional team led by the ACH Policy Team, will consider creation of a County Health Equity in All Policies Strategy Plan that contains a list of simple actions and protocols that help institutionalize and standardize how to incorporate health into county policies, programs, and operations. **Action EJ1.3B** The County will invest in improvements and programs that reduce unique or compounded health risks and that promote civic engagement in the public decision-making process in the Priority Communities. **Policy EJ1.4** Actively implement this EJ Element in partnership with Priority Community residents. **Action EJ1.4A** The CDA Planning Department will establish an EJ Implementation Technical Advisory Committee or similar group ("EJ Implementation TAC"), staffed by County Agencies and Departments that have implementation responsibilities identified under this EJ Element. **Action EJ1.4B** The EJ Implementation TAC will work with the community to set implementation goals, develop mechanisms for implementation monitoring and reporting, and establish strategies for accountability and ongoing community engagement in the implementation process. Beginning in 2025, the TAC will provide annual reports to the Board Unincorporated Services Committee and the Planning Commission regarding the progress of EJ Element implementation. **Action EJ1.4C** The CDA Planning Department will work with relevant partners to translate the final, adopted EJ Element into Spanish and, at minimum, to provide translated summaries of the EJ Element in other commonly-spoken languages.. <
> # Pollution and Air Quality Exposure to environmental toxins in the air, water, and soil can contribute to disproportionate poor health outcomes. Reducing pollution and promoting a healthy environment will both support a thriving community and reduce disparate health and environmental impacts. The policies and actions in this section aim to reduce pollution and improve environmental conditions by promoting urban greening, protecting vulnerable populations from pollution, and educating the public about pollution prevention. ### Goal EJ2. The County will ensure equitable distribution of environmental benefits so that the Priority Communities are not disproportionately impacted by poor air quality or other environmental hazards. ## Urban Greening and Nature-Based Solutions **Policy EJ2.1** Invest in the study, maintenance, expansion, and protection of urban forests and **nature-based solutions** in the Priority Communities as a central strategy to combat pollution, improve human and ecosystem health, increase climate resilience, and promote access to nearby nature for all, with a goal of achieving at least 20% **urban tree canopy** (UTC) cover throughout the Priority Communities by 2050. * **Action EJ2.1A** The Community Development Agency will work with relevant County and community partners to develop, adopt, and implement an Urban Greening Master Plan that guides the County's future urban greening investments. The Plan will expand upon the 2015[^p107-15] draft *Urban Greening Master Plan for Ashland and Cherryland*[^p107-15] and will establish baseline canopy coverage via an urban tree canopy assessment; outline specific and measurable tree planting goals, timelines, and monitoring mechanisms; identify tree planting opportunity sites; secure funding; address tree maintenance and lifecycle considerations; and center and engage the Priority Communities in plan development and implementation. **Action EJ2.1B** The Community Development Agency will explore strategies to increase tree protections on private property that consider both the benefits of a healthy urban tree canopy and concerns about preserving private property rights, and will report its findings to the Municipal Advisory Councils, the Agricultural Advisory Committee, the Planning Commission, and the Board Unincorporated Services Committee. Strategies may include private property tree protection ordinances, Heritage, Protected, or Native tree designations, or tree stewardship incentives. ### Nature-Based Solutions Nature-based solutions are sustainable planning, design, environmental management, and engineering practices that weave natural features or processes into the built environment to promote adaptation and resilience. Nature-based solutions use natural features and processes to: * Combat climate change * Reduce flood risk * Improve water quality * Restore and protect wetlands * Reduce urban heat * Add recreational space *SOURCE: https://www.fema.gov/emergency-managers/risk-management/climate-resilience/nature-based-solutions* *** [^p107-15]: https://district4.acgov.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2021/11/AshCherryPublicDraftUrbGreenPlan2015.pdf ***Action EJ2.1C*** The Public Works Agency will identify funding to inventory existing street trees and other trees in the public right-of-way and identify areas where there is a disproportionate urban greening deficit or need within the Priority Communities. ***Action EJ2.1D*** The Public Works Agency will update its Alameda County Recommended Tree List[^p108-16] to become a resource for tree planting in the Priority Communities and elsewhere in the urban unincorporated areas, with special consideration for native trees, trees that will thrive in a warming climate, and trees that provide co-benefits such as pollution abatement, water conservation, shade, and/or habitat for native wildlife. ***Action EJ2.1E*** The Public Works Agency will identify funding and partnerships, and seek input from residents, to evaluate and revise its Tree Program in support of community tree resources in the public right-of-way. ***Action EJ2.1F*** The County will cultivate creative partnerships with neighboring jurisdictions and other entities to increase urban greening capacity in the Priority Communities. ## Pollution Reduction and Education **Policy EJ2.2** Establish protections that limit **sensitive receptors'** exposure to air pollution. * ***Action EJ2.2A*** The Community Development Agency will partner with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), California Air Resources Board (CARB), Caltrans, and neighboring cities within the county to develop ways to minimize air pollution exposure in areas of the county, including the Priority Communities, that are disproportionately impacted by air quality concerns. | Sensitive Receptors | | :--- | | California Air Resources Board (CARB) definitions:

**Sensitive Receptors:** Children, the elderly, asthmatics, and others who are at a heightened risk of negative health outcomes due to exposure to air pollution. | ***Action EJ2.2B*** The Community Development Agency will work with other members of the established partnership to create an Air Pollution Exposure Zone (APEZ) Ordinance to be adopted by each member jurisdiction and applied to areas where sensitive receptors interface with or directly abut freeways. **Policy EJ2.3** Distribute educational and preventative information regarding asthma and pollution-related illnesses to residents and businesses in the Priority Communities. ***Action EJ2.3A*** Alameda County Health, through the Public Health Department, will prioritize implementation of the Asthma Start Program[^p108-17] in the Priority Communities, including coordination with the San Lorenzo Unified School District, the Hayward Unified School District, and the Castro Valley Unified School District. ***Action EJ2.3B*** Alameda County Health will consider partnering with BAAQMD to develop technical assistance resources to help businesses in the Priority Communities reduce air pollution and comply with air quality regulations. **Policy EJ2.4** Support programs that decrease soil and water pollution. ***Action EJ2.4A*** CDA Code Enforcement will continue to respond to complaints of soil importing to ensure that owners of parcels over 1 acre are aware of the Soil Importing Ordinance and to provide assistance to obtain compliance if necessary. Code Enforcement will continue to promote awareness as a preventative measure by doing periodic outreach and education such as targeted mailings and website updates. [^p108-16]: https://www.acpwa.org/acpwa-assets/docs/programs-services/streets-roads/Tree-Program/RECOMMENDEDTREELIST-2018.pdf [^p108-17]: https://acphd.org/asthma/ **Action EJ2.4B** The CDA Healthy Home Department will prioritize implementation of its Lead Week Program in the Priority Communities. **Action EJ2.4C** The Community Development Agency will partner with the Alameda County Resource Conservation District and the University of California Cooperative Extension (UCCE) to seek resources for urban soil management, soil lead exposure prevention, and soil health programming to the Priority Communities. **Action EJ2.4D** Alameda County Health, through the Environmental Health Department, will continue to refer new and established businesses to the appropriate regulating entity such as the Department of Toxic Substances Control, in order to inform businesses of regulations associated with environmental pollution. **Action EJ2.4E** The County will continue to minimize the use of synthetic fertilizers in favor of compost and mulch application, implement integrated pest management (IPM) and vegetation management practices to minimize herbicide and pesticide use in alignment with the Board-adopted IPM policy, and encourage use of IPM practices in non-County public spaces in the Priority Communities. **Action EJ2.4F** The County will ensure that residents and businesses are provided with education and convenient opportunity to properly dispose of hazardous items by connecting residents to StopWaste’s Household Hazardous Waste Program. **Action EJ2.4G** The CDA Planning Department will offer to Alameda County Health, through the Public Health Department, for review and comment, all environmental documents required under CEQA and prepared with the County as the lead agency (Negative Declarations, Mitigated Negative Declarations, and Environmental Impact Reports). **Policy EJ2.5** Support prevention and clean-up of litter and illegal dumping in the Priority Communities. **Action EJ2.5A** The County will continue to cultivate creative partnerships and programmatic solutions related to prevention and clean-up of litter and illegal dumping in the Priority Communities, including supporting the ongoing work of the Alameda County Illegal Dumping Taskforce. **Action EJ2.5B** CDA Code Enforcement will establish reporting contacts with Union Pacific Railroad to support abatement of health and safety issues along railroad property. **Policy EJ2.6** Decrease air pollution and improve air quality in the Priority Communities, including reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions consistent with the Community Climate Action Plan. **Action EJ2.6A** In any future updates to the County’s Community Climate Action Plan and Safety Element, the CDA Planning Department will uplift the needs of Priority Community residents through policies and programs that address key concerns identified through ongoing community engagement. **Action EJ2.6B** In collaboration with BAAQMD, the County will take steps to reduce tailpipe emissions in the Priority Communities through participation in the Air Resources Board’s Community Air Protection Program and other relevant programs. **Action EJ2.6C** The County will consult with BAAQMD, the City of Hayward, and the Hayward Executive Airport (HEA) to review activities, noise impacts, and emissions estimates for the facility and, where appropriate, identify potential mitigation measures that might be effective in reducing risks associated with exposure to aircraft-related air and noise pollutants in unincorporated communities surrounding the HEA. **Action EJ2.6D** The Alameda County Library will circulate air quality sensors to enable Priority Community members to learn about indoor air quality monitoring. # Access to Public Facilities Public facilities (including public amenities and public infrastructure) are critical to establishing and sustaining healthy, connected, and dynamic communities. Some Public Facilities in the Priority Communities, such as libraries, streetscape infrastructure, and the REACH Ashland Youth Center, are owned by the County and accountable to the BOS. Other key Public Facilities serving the Priority Communities, such as public schools, parks, and public transportation infrastructure, are owned by non-County special districts; projects and policies that involve these non-County facilities rely on partnerships between the County and the managing entities. The policies and actions in this section seek to promote equitable access to public facilities and public amenities by centering the needs of the Priority Communities in County decisions around public infrastructure and public services. ### Goal EJ3. Residents of the Priority Communities will have equitable access to high-quality public facilities, community amenities, and public improvements that prioritize their needs and facilitate health and wellbeing. **Policy EJ3.1** Accommodate areas of the Priority Communities that are underserved by public facilities through equitable investment in and expanded operations of public facilities, public amenities, and public infrastructure. > **Action EJ3.1A** The County will adopt policies to improve transparency in the infrastructure planning process, and will highlight the needs of the Priority Communities in infrastructure project planning and implementation. > > **Action EJ3.1B** The County will explore strategies to equitably fund development of County-owned public facilities in the Priority Communities. Examples include, but are not limited to, grants, property transfer taxes, building vacancy taxes, tax increment financing, and development impact fees. > > **Action EJ3.1C** The County will encourage County Agencies serving unincorporated areas to locate their public-facing facilities within the Priority Communities. > > **Action EJ3.1D** The County will look for resources to expand hours of operation for the Libraries, the REACH Ashland Youth Center, and other public facilities in the Priority Communities. > > **Action EJ3.1E** The County will pursue the development of vacant, underutilized, and/or blighted sites. **Policy EJ3.2** Support the development and ongoing work of **community hubs** in the Priority Communities. > **Action EJ3.2A** The CDA Planning Department and Alameda County Health will engage with and help facilitate County support of new or existing community hub projects in the Priority Communities, including efforts to: assess neighborhood needs and assets, identify physical spaces, identify funding opportunities, explore partnerships, develop programming, and other considerations. Examples of types of community hubs include family resource centers, community centers, resilience hubs, navigation centers, and other models. **Policy EJ3.3** Encourage use of public school campuses as amenities for the broader community. **Action EJ3.3A** With a focus on areas of the Priority Communities with higher density and relatively low access to parks and open space, the County will coordinate with the Priority Community school districts, partner organizations, and community members to explore the feasibility of opening and activating public school campuses for community use outside of regular school hours. **Policy EJ3.4** Improve access to public transportation services in the Priority Communities. **Action EJ3.4A** The CDA Planning Department will partner with AC Transit to perform a needs assessment to determine public transportation needs and barriers in the Priority Communities. **Action EJ3.4B** The CDA Planning Department will collaborate with AC Transit to address public transportation gaps identified in the Priority Community needs assessment with additional routes, improved frequency, increased safety, and other measures as needed. **Action EJ3.4C** The Public Works Agency will support infrastructure improvements to ensure that bus stops in the Priority Communities have shade structures, garbage cans, benches, lighting, and other amenities, as needed, to ensure that bus stops are safe and functional. **Action EJ3.4D** The CDA Planning Department will coordinate with 211alamedacounty.org to ensure that Priority Communities residents have access to a variety of transportation related resources that meet their mobility needs. **Policy EJ3.5** Create and maintain a safe, comfortable, and continuous pedestrian network that provides access to all users, particularly disabled users, seniors, and children by closing sidewalk gaps, improving pedestrian crosswalks at intersections, and implementing traffic calming and streetscape improvements.[^p111-18] **Action EJ3.5A** As recommended in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP), the Public Works Agency will develop and report progress in meeting the BPMP’s goals. **Action EJ3.5B** In updating its Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP), the Public Works Agency will engage residents to identify and prioritize solutions to pedestrian safety issues impacting walkability in the Priority Communities. **Action EJ3.5C** The Public Works Agency will engage Priority Community residents when updating its Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program guidelines to ensure that this program meets Priority Community needs. **Action EJ3.5D** The Public Works Agency will include bike and pedestrian improvements for the Priority Communities in the Capital Improvement Plan. **Action EJ3.5E** The County will adopt a Vision Zero policy committing to eliminate traffic fatalities by designing safer streets, educating the public on traffic safety, enforcing existing traffic laws, and implementing new life-saving policies. **Action EJ3.5F** The County will continue to advocate for funding and fund transportation infrastructure, which may include street improvements, sidewalk improvements, public parking, public transportation, bike and pedestrian circulation. **Action EJ3.5G** The Public Works Agency will synchronize traffic signals around schools and parks to ensure traffic flow and safety. [^p111-18]: https://www.acpwa.org/programs-services/transportation/bike.page **Action EJ3.5H** Consistent with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, the Public Works Agency will Incorporate Universal Design into the design process and achieve full American with Disabilities Act (ADA) public right-of-way compliance. Universal Design focuses on designing environments and buildings to be accessible to people of all ages and abilities. **Action EJ3.5I** The County will continue to support and enhance the Safe Routes to School Program. **Action EJ3.5J** The Sheriff's Office will partner with the California Highway Patrol, which has primary responsibility for traffic enforcement in unincorporated Alameda County, to identify streets where speeding/reckless driving is high and where previous accidents, injuries, and fatalities for all modes of transportation have occurred, especially near schools and parks; strengthen traffic enforcement in those areas; and transmit these traffic safety data to the Public Works Agency for action. **Action EJ3.5K** The County will create street lighting standards to ensure that new development and redevelopment projects incorporate pedestrian-scale lighting in the design of streets, parks, and public spaces, including an incentives program to encourage existing development to provide these improvements, and incorporating the guidelines in all public works projects and the capital improvement program (CIP). **Policy EJ3.6** Support and collaborate in the development of a comprehensive and integrated system of parks, plazas, playgrounds, trails and open spaces that addresses existing deficits in the Priority Communities. **Action EJ3.6A** The Public Works Agency will partner with park districts in utilization of county-owned properties for recreational purposes. **Action EJ3.6B** CDA Planning will offer to collaborate with the Hayward Area Recreation and parks District (HARD) to engage Priority Community residents in the location, design, and programming of new parks and green space that respond to the community’s specific needs. **Action EJ3.6C** The County will encourage development of public pools in the Priority Communities . **Action EJ3.6D** The County will actively participate in the creation of pocket parks and other small green spaces in the Priority Communities. **Action EJ3.6E** The County will encourage multi-use connector trails in the Priority Communities. **Action EJ3.6F** The County will continue to collaborate with the Hayward Area Recreation and Parks District (HARD) to seek funding opportunities and establish funding mechanisms to support the development of new parks and recreation facilities in the Priority Communities. # Safe and Sanitary Homes & Neighborhoods Access to safe, sanitary, stable housing is critical to individual and community health and wellness, forming the foundation of a livable neighborhood. Housing is a complex, intersectional topic that is addressed in multiple Elements of the County’s General Plan, including the Castro Valley and Eden Area General Plans, and the Housing Element, the Safety Element, and the Community Climate Action Plan (**CCAP**), all of which were also being updated concurrent with this EJ Element. This EJ Element seeks to complement, but not duplicate, housing policies in other elements of the General Plan. The EJ Element community engagement process yielded extensive feedback on the topic of Safe and Sanitary Homes and Neighborhoods, and several housing-related policy recommendations are addressed in this section. The remainder of the housing-related community feedback gathered during the EJ Element engagement process is addressed in either the Housing Element, the Safety Element, or the CCAP, with special consideration given to the needs of the Priority Communities. ### Goal EJ4. The Priority Communities will be livable neighborhoods where all residents have access to safe and sanitary housing. **Policy EJ4.1** Address the unique and compounded housing challenges faced by Priority Community residents in any future updates to the General Plan Housing Element. **Action EJ4.1A** In any future updates to the County’s Housing Element, the Planning Department will work with partners including Alameda County Health, through the Housing and Homelessness Services Department, to address the needs of Priority Community residents through policies and programs that expand housing affordability and accessibility, combat gentrification, protect renters, increase amenities in high-density areas, and address other key concerns identified through ongoing community engagement. **Policy EJ4.2** Pursue customer service-oriented improvements to the County’s permitting, code enforcement, and public maintenance request processes.. **Action EJ4.2A** CDA Code Enforcement and the Public Works Agency will implement customer service-oriented improvements to streamline and increase awareness of public reporting processes for zoning code violations (CDA) and public infrastructure maintenance issues (PWA). **Action EJ4.2B** CDA Code Enforcement will develop an online code enforcement complaint form. **Action EJ4.2C** CDA Code Enforcement will establish an online complaints portal that allows community members to look up the status of code enforcement complaints. **Action EJ4.2D** CDA Code Enforcement, which is primarily complaint-based with limited capacity to conduct pro-active inspections, will consider the feasibility of expanding its pro-active inspection services as resources allow. **Action EJ4.2E** CDA Code Enforcement will develop protocols to address code enforcement violations occurring on weekends and evenings. ***Action EJ4.2F*** Upon adoption by the Board of Supervisors, the County will seek to implement the adopted recommendations of the July 2023 Alameda County Development Services Process Review report[^p114-19]. **Policy EJ4.3** Improve access to lead poisoning prevention and healthy housing services in the Priority Communities. ✪ ***Action EJ4.3A*** The County will seek to expand the geography of the Lead Poisoning Prevention Joint Powers Authority to include the unincorporated communities. **Policy EJ4.4** Encourage property owners pursuing new developments or renovations to design and construct buildings for healthful living and working conditions, including enhanced internal circulation, healthy building materials, design for universal accessibility, and mechanical and HVAC systems that enhance indoor air quality and employee comfort. ***Action EJ4.4A*** The CDA Healthy Homes Department and the PWA Building Department will collaborate to create healthy building materials fact sheets that can be provided to property owners and contractors when applying for building permits. ***Action EJ4.4B*** The PWA Building Department will enforce existing indoor air quality standards contained in the County’s building codes and will work with CDA Healthy Homes Department to develop indoor air quality guidance for property owners and contractors. <
> [^p114-19]: https://www.acgov.org/board/bos_calendar/documents/DocsAgendaReg_8_10_23/GENERAL%20ADMINISTRATION/Regular%20Calendar/Item_2_Baker_Tilly_Permit_Process_rpt.pdf # Access to Healthy Food The County can contribute to health and wellness in the Priority Communities by facilitating access to healthy food resources like grocery stores, nutrition education programming, and urban gardening opportunities, and by encouraging residents to participate in food policy implementation. The policies and actions in this section support an equitable and healthy food system and promote access to culturally appropriate, healthy foods in the Priority Communities. ### Goal EJ5. The Priority Communities will support a thriving local food economy where all residents have reliable access to affordable, healthy, and culturally appropriate food. **Policy EJ5.1** Actively encourage development of, and facilitate access to, healthy food retail outlets and purveyors of other basic goods such as grocery stores, healthy corner stores, and farmers’ markets in the Priority Communities. > **Action EJ5.1A** The Economic and Civic Development Department (ECD) will work with food retail outlets (e.g., grocery stores, farmers’ markets) to understand their criteria for establishing businesses in communities. ECD will utilize this information to help identify parcels for development, encourage applications, and work with the Planning Department to address barriers to the establishment of food retail outlets. > > **Action EJ5.1B** Alameda County Health, through the Public Health Department, will prioritize implementation of the Alameda County Nutrition Services (ACNS) Healthy Retail Program in the Priority Communities. The Healthy Retail Program collaborates with corner store owners in neighborhoods of greater need to help shift demand and increase access to and consumption of healthy foods. > > **Action EJ5.1C** The Planning Department will engage residents and consult with the Economic and Civic Development Department in any decision-making processes related to the regulation of fast food in the Priority Community, such as changes to the 1999 *Policy for Drive-in Restaurants in Ashland, Cherryland, and San Lorenzo*, including developing definitions of key terms. > > **Action EJ5.1D** ALL IN Alameda County (ALL IN) will seek funding and partnerships to support a healthy store conversion mini-grant program through ALL IN’s *Healthy Food, Healthy Families* initiative. > > ✪ **Action EJ5.1E** The Economic and Civic Development Department (ECD) will conduct an economic development market analysis for the unincorporated areas to identify gaps and propose implementation strategies. **Policy EJ5.2** Increase food security, access to nutrition education, and food assistance programming for vulnerable groups, including seniors, people with disabilities, unhoused residents, people with limited English proficiency, and the re-entry community. **Action EJ5.2A** Alameda County Health and Social Services Agency will partner with DSAL/All In Eats Operations, 211alamedacounty.org, and the Alameda County Community Food Bank to ensure that Priority Community food assistance and nutrition resources are accurately reflected on http://211alamedacounty.org/ and promoted through a variety of outreach channels. **Action EJ5.2B** Alameda County Health and Social Services Agency will undertake a coordinated effort to expand participation in food assistance programs (e.g., CalFresh, WIC, MarketMatch, School Lunch, School Breakfast, Summer Food Program, senior programs) in the Priority Communities by engaging trusted local messengers in hyper-local outreach initiatives. <
> **Action EJ5.2C** Alameda County Health, through the Public Health Department's Nutrition Services, will partner with County Nutrition Action Partnership (CNAP) which includes University of California Cooperative Extension (UCCE) and AAA (Area on Aging) and other CBOs/entities (e.g. ACCFB, SLZUSD) to promote nutrition education and physical activity with the goal for policy, systems, and environmental change (PSE) to serve Priority Community residents through local partnerships and culturally competent initiatives held at accessible locations. **Action EJ5.2D** The Social Services Agency will partner with the Alameda County Community Food Bank, local school districts, faith-based organizations, and others to evaluate existing emergency food distribution locations and optimize site selections, distribution methods, and hours of operation to meet the needs of Priority Community residents. **Action EJ5.2E** The Social Services Agency will partner with local farmers' markets to increase market attendance and use of CalFresh/WIC/Market Match through focused, multilingual outreach efforts in the Priority Communities. **Action EJ5.2F** All In EATS will continue partnering with community-based health clinics in the Priority Communities to provide prescriptions (vouchers) for fresh produce to eligible patients through its Food Is Medicine Program. **Action EJ5.2G** The County will work with the Alameda County Community Food Bank, local school districts, faith-based organizations, and other emergency food providers to increase their capacity to meet Priority Community needs in case of disaster or future pandemics. **Policy EJ5.3** Promote, incentivize, and remove barriers to urban agriculture in the Priority Communities. **Action EJ5.3A** DSAL will consider collaborating with HARD, school districts, faith-based organizations, and other major landholders in the Priority Communities to identify sites suitable for urban agriculture and explore options, funding, and partnerships to establish community gardens, urban farms, school gardens, and other community-oriented urban agriculture activities on those lands. ✪ **Action EJ5.3B** The CDA Planning Department and ACSO – Animal Services will collaborate to review and modernize existing ordinances and regulations related to urban agriculture and animal husbandry, consider best policy practices, and explore opportunities for coordination, clarification, and improvements that remove barriers to urban agriculture in the Priority Communities. **Action EJ5.3C** The Planning Department will create incentives that encourage developers of new or remodeled multifamily residential sites to include shared, uncovered open spaces for food growing (e.g. community gardens, rooftop gardens) in their projects. **Action EJ5.3D** As permitted under AB 551 (Ting 2013), the Planning Department will pursue the creation of Urban Agriculture Incentive Zones to encourage small-scale agricultural use of vacant lands in the urban unincorporated communities. **Policy EJ5.4** Strengthen and expand existing partnerships to ensure that garden education programs meet the needs of Priority Community residents. **Action EJ5.4A** The Community Development Agency and Alameda County Health will partner with University of California Cooperative Extension (UCCE) Alameda County to center equity and the needs of the Priority Communities in the design and implementation of local UCCE programs including Master Gardener, Urban Integrated Pest Management, and Urban Agriculture. **Action EJ5.4B** The County will support and promote participation in garden education programs managed by HARD, UCCE, DSAL, Alameda County Resource Conservation District (RCD), and local schools that provide gardening and nutrition education to Priority Community members of all ages. **Policy EJ5.5** Pursue partnerships to increase healthy food access for Priority Community youth. **Action EJ5.5A** The Social Services Agency will partner with local school districts and the Alameda County Community Food Bank to optimize school-based emergency food distribution to serve the needs of Priority Community youth and their families. **Action EJ5.5B** DSAL/ALL IN EATS Operations will consider partnering with Priority Community school districts to seek funding to expand youth agricultural education opportunities and school garden sites at local public schools. **Action EJ5.5C** DSAL/ALL IN EATS Operations will consider partnering with Priority Community school districts and the University of California Cooperative Extension (UCCE) to support and enhance school garden curricula. **Policy EJ5.6** Promote a thriving local food economy in the Priority Communities. ✪ **Action EJ5.6A** The County will work to transition the All In Eats Circular Food Economy programs, incubated by the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office and the Deputy Sheriff’s Activities League, into the future by partnering with community-based organization (CBO) partners and others. **Action EJ5.6B** Alameda County Health, through the Environmental Health Department, will offer educational materials for its Microenterprise Home Kitchen Operation (MEHKO) program in multiple languages in order to support diverse home-based food businesses. **Action EJ5.6C** The Economic and Civic Development Department will explore creation of permanent and pop-up incubator spaces for small businesses with a special emphasis on food businesses. **Action EJ5.6D** The County will support the establishment of a food policy council made up of Priority Community stakeholders. # Health and Physical Activity <
> Convenient access to physical activity opportunities, medical and mental healthcare, supportive social services, and financial wellness programs can bolster community health, prevent illness, improve physical and mental wellness, and address social risk factors that exacerbate health disparities in the Priority Communities. The following policies and actions seek to identify and remove barriers that Priority Community residents may experience when accessing resources essential to social, financial, physical, and mental health. **Goal EJ6.** Physical activity opportunities, medical and mental healthcare, supportive social services, and financial wellness programs will be convenient and accessible to all Priority Community residents. ## Physical Activity **Policy EJ6.1** Reduce barriers to park and recreation access in the Priority Communities. * **Action EJ6.1A** The County will coordinate with the Hayward Area Recreation and Parks District (HARD) and Priority Community residents to identify and reduce barriers to utilizing local park resources or physical activity programming, such as cost, access, or safety concerns. **Policy EJ6.2** Partner with recreation providers to encourage physical activity for all community members through inclusive and culturally appropriate physical activity programming. **Action EJ6.2A** The County will organize or participate in recurring health and physical activity events in the Priority Communities, encouraging partnerships between County agencies, local CBOs, businesses, and others to design events that meet community needs. Examples include annual running events and wellness fairs, pop-up exercise classes or walking groups, and hikes led by park representatives or local officials. **Policy EJ6.3** Support programs and partnerships that connect Priority Community residents to nearby green spaces, parks, and hiking trails. **Action EJ6.3A** Alameda County Health will explore opportunities to connect Priority Community youth and adults to local parks through partnerships with the East Bay Regional Parks District, the Hayward Area Recreation and Parks District, REACH Ashland Youth Center, local school districts, and others, including exploring development of a bus scholarship or parks transportation program. **Action EJ6.3B** The San Lorenzo Library and Castro Valley Library will seek collaborations with HARD, the Priority Community school districts, or other partners to develop seasonal story walks in Priority Community parks and/or schools. **Policy EJ6.4** Promote safe, walkable neighborhoods through holistic, relationship-based public safety models that facilitate social cohesion, racial equity, protection in aging, and trust. **Action EJ6.4A** The Sheriff's Office (ACSO) will deepen its relationship-building efforts in Priority Communities through continued and expanded application of ACSO’s Community Capitals Policing model. ***Action EJ6.4B*** With community input, the Sheriff’s Office will explore options for additional substation(s) in the Priority Communities. ✪ ***Action EJ6.4C*** The Alameda County Sheriff’s Office will consider convening a diverse working group of community members and stakeholders to develop a community-centered and equity-focused approach to crime reduction and violence prevention in the Priority Communities. ***Action EJ6.4D*** Alameda County Health will identify local resources and programs that address and prevent injury, violence, and trauma and distribute related information at all County operated offices and clinics. **Policy EJ6.5** Promote Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED), incorporating principles of landscape, building, and urban design to reduce crime and promote active use of public spaces in neighborhoods and commercial areas at all times of the day to provide “eyes-on-the-street.” ***Action EJ6.5A*** The CDA Planning Department will engage community members and relevant stakeholders to develop a CPTED program to help property owners reduce the chance of crime on their properties. Services offered by the CPTED program may include guidance fact sheets, opt-in CPTED property assessments with trained staff, and other services as determined through stakeholder feedback. ***Action EJ6.5B*** CDA Code Enforcement will enforce the existing sign ordinance in order to keep businesses’ window area uncovered to improve eyes-on-the-street visibility. # Physical Health, Mental Health, and Supportive Social Services **Policy EJ6.6** Support collection and reporting of disaggregated unincorporated community data to improve public health data collection in the Priority Communities. ✪ ***Action EJ6.6A*** As part of its ongoing monitoring efforts, Alameda County Health will prioritize disaggregating unincorporated data on health factors and outcomes in order to establish a baseline of descriptive health data for the Priority Communities. ***Action EJ6.6B*** Alameda County Health will provide to the Board of Supervisors a regular Countywide health status report, including a highlight on unincorporated Alameda County, at least every three years beginning in 2025. **Policy EJ6.7** Pursue equitable distribution of, and improved access to, medical and mental health care and supportive services in the Priority Communities. ✪ ***Action EJ6.7A*** The Planning Department will create objective development standards for outpatient healthcare, mental health, and supportive social service facilities in order to decrease discretionary review and remove barriers to development of these facilities in the Priority Communities. ***Action EJ6.7B*** The Planning Department will collaborate with developers of new health and medical facilities to select transit-rich locations serving the Priority Communities. ***Action EJ6.7C*** Alameda County Health will collaborate with mobile healthcare clinics to implement and coordinate services with primary care clinics in order to serve high-density and high-need areas of the Priority Communities. ***Action EJ6.7D*** Alameda County Health, through the Public Health Department and Behavioral Health Department, will promote the co-location of health care and mental health services in the Priority Communities to increase access to complete care by identifying potential locations for coordinated services. **Action EJ6.7E** Alameda County Health, through the Behavioral Health Department, will publicize existing services in the Priority Communities to destigmatize mental health treatment and promote preventative care. **Action EJ6.7F** The County will continue to support the work of 211alamedacounty.org to link the residents of the unincorporated areas with resources related to health, human services, housing, transportation, and disaster services. **Action EJ6.7G** Alameda County Health, through Public Health Department, will implement community health improvement plans in the Priority Communities, including, but not limited to, its Chronic Disease Prevention Plan and Strategic Plan for Oral Health. ✪ **Action EJ6.7H** The County will pursue policies and programs that ensure healthcare for all with a focus on providing preventive and supportive services to vulnerable populations. **Policy EJ6.8** Support access to health and supportive services in the Priority Communities for vulnerable groups, including seniors, people with disabilities, unhoused residents, people with limited English proficiency, and the re-entry community. **Action EJ6.8A** The County will pilot a collaborative program with partners such as assisted living facilities, senior centers, senior groups, faith groups, CBOs, and other service providers to locate funding and deliver health-related programming, classes, and/or services that address the needs of seniors, people with disabilities, and house-bound residents of the Priority Communities. **Action EJ6.8B** Alameda County Health will evaluate the efficacy of the Healthcare for the Homeless program in the Priority Communities and expand and improve the program as needed to meet the needs of the Priority Communities’ unhoused residents. **Action EJ6.8C** Housing and Community Development will continue to collaborate with EveryOne Home and the Alameda County Health Housing and Homelessness Services Department to implement the Home Together 2026 Community Plan in the Priority Communities, including the provision of permanent supportive housing. **Action EJ6.8D** The Probation Department will expand programs, strengthen collaborations, and leverage public facilities and existing community events to support reintegration of previously incarcerated youth and adults in the Priority Communities through job training, mental health services, educational workshops, and physical activities like recreational sports leagues. This includes community outreach and contracting with providers and County Agencies who offer transitional housing, job training, mental health services, educational workshops, and/or other physical health and wellness activities. **Action EJ6.8E** Alameda County Health, through its Communications Team, will collaborate with regional healthcare providers to ensure that resources and outreach materials are available in languages that are appropriate for Priority Community residents. **Action EJ6.8F** Alameda County Health and Social Services Agency will seek to hire bilingual/bicultural or multilingual/multicultural staff to support cultural congruency and the elimination of barriers for individuals with limited or no English proficiency to access healthcare resources. **Action EJ6.8G** Alameda County Health will work with and support community groups in offering training on health and wellness, including prevention of early level diabetes and hypertension, disease management, and stress management through meditation. **Action EJ6.8H** The Probation Department and/or its contracted providers will coordinate with and support community groups to promote justice through dialogue between victims and offenders of crime (“restorative justice”), and provide trauma support services, including efforts to support the re-integration of formerly incarcerated residents back into community life. **Policy EJ6.9** Pursue a collaborative, community-based, and trauma-informed approach to mental health care and response in the Priority Communities. ✪ **Action EJ6.9A** Alameda County Health, with the Behavioral Health Department as the lead, will conduct a needs assessment to examine gaps in mental health and addiction recovery services and infrastructure in the Priority Communities, and present the findings to County decision-making bodies. **Action EJ6.9B** Utilizing the needs assessment, Alameda County Health will partner with the Sheriff’s Office, local mental health healthcare providers, schools, and CBOs to develop and implement a plan to address unmet mental health needs in the Priority Communities, including considering innovative strategies like horticultural therapy. **Action EJ6.9C** Alameda County Health and the Sheriff’s Office will expand upon the work of the Community Assessment and Transport (CAT) Team to continue to provide mobile mental health crisis intervention as an alternative to law enforcement response. **Action EJ6.9D** Alameda County Health will partner with and support community groups in offering training on healthy relationships, addressing positive relationship skills, nonviolent communication, violence prevention, anger management, and conflict resolution. **Policy EJ6.10** Limit Priority Community residents’ exposure to secondhand smoke and vapors and reduce youths’ exposure to, and interest in, alcohol, tobacco and other drugs. **Action EJ6.10A** CDA Code Enforcement will continue to enforce Chapter 3.58 “Tobacco Retailers” and Chapter 3.59 “Prohibition on The Sale of Electronic Smoking Devices” of the County Code of Ordinances. Provisions of these ordinances include a prohibition on the sale of flavored tobacco products and electronic smoking devices; a prohibition on new tobacco retail licenses within 1000 feet of a youth-populated area and/or 500 feet of another tobacco retailer; and population-based limitations on tobacco retailer license density to one per 2,500 residents. **Action EJ6.10B** CDA Code Enforcement and the ACH Public Health Department will continue to enforce Chapter 6.74 of the County Code of Ordinances, the “Prohibition on Smoking in and Around Multi-Unit Residences.” **Action EJ6.10C** The County will continue to participate in the Alameda County Tobacco Retail Enforcement Network, whose purpose is to collaborate to share information and promote uniform enforcement of tobacco retail regulations across greater Alameda County. # Financial Wellness **Policy EJ6.11** Prioritize provision of childcare services as needed within the Priority Communities to support low- and middle-income families and local economic development. > **Action EJ6.11A** Alameda County Health will partner with First5 Alameda County and the Social Services Agency to perform a needs assessment within the Priority Communities to evaluate the gaps in services experienced by families seeking childcare. **Policy EJ6.12** Connect Priority Community residents to local public sector jobs. > **Action EJ6.12A** The Alameda County Workforce Development Board will create inroads to local public sector training and career opportunity for Priority Community residents, by connecting with employers, training providers, contracted service providers, and other workforce development stakeholders. **Policy EJ6.13** Reduce use of predatory financial services and promote wealth building and economic inclusion in the Priority Communities. > ✪ **Action EJ6.13A** The CDA Economic and Civic Development Department will promote access to mainstream, culturally competent financial services among unbanked community members, BIPOC residents, limited English-speakers, and low- and moderate-income households. > > **Action EJ6.13B** The County will seek to attract culturally competent wealth-building programs and services to the Priority Communities, such as those that teach financial literacy, promote first-time home buying, and help residents repair or build credit. <
> Utility Box Art Program managed by the Alameda County Arts Commission. Artwork by Miriam Klein Stahl for the East 14th St Corridor Improvement Project in Ashland. Artwork copyright the artist. # Civic Engagement Civic engagement in public decision-making and policy implementation is key to improving health and wellness in the Priority Communities. Inclusive, accessible engagement opportunities and transparent, responsive public processes empower residents to drive policy decisions and resource allocation that shape their communities and their lives. The policies and actions in this section promote unincorporated community identity and ongoing civic engagement in County decision-making, with a focus on structural improvements that center and respond to the concerns of Priority Community residents. ### Goal EJ7. Alameda County will embrace an equitable and comprehensive approach to civic engagement, encouraging and enabling Priority Community residents to participate in the public decision-making processes that impact their health and well-being. **Policy EJ7.1** Support strategies and structures that enhance local governance, local leadership, and civic engagement in the unincorporated communities of Alameda County. * **Action EJ7.1A**. The County will consider exploring organizational changes focused on coordinating, enhancing, and improving public services and civic life in unincorporated Alameda County including potentially establishing a centralized **Office of Unincorporated Services.** * **Action EJ7.1B** The County will consider establishing an Unincorporated Youth Commission to encourage youth civic engagement and participation in public decision-making processes impacting the unincorporated communities of the County. * **Action EJ7.1C** The County will consider ways to support the ongoing work of the Ashland Cherryland Healthy Communities Collaborative. * **Action EJ7.1D** District 3 and District 4 will consider exploring options to improve Priority Community representation on the Eden Area MAC and Castro Valley MAC. ## Office of Unincorporated Services An Office of Unincorporated Services could act as the equivalent of a City Manager's Office in unincorporated Alameda County. The scope of this position would be determined by the Board of Supervisors and the County Administrator and might include, for example: * Ensuring effective delivery of services to the unincorporated communities * Providing management direction and support for the planning, implementation, and evaluation of all programs serving the unincorporated communities * Ensuring coordination and consistency in implementing policies and programs approved by the Board of Supervisors * Facilitating effective and accessible engagement of unincorporated residents in County processes **Action EJ7.1E** District 3 and District 4 staff will encourage community members and community organizations to schedule meet-and-greets or community walks in the Priority Communities to facilitate resident engagement with their elected County Supervisors. Out of these efforts, the County will seek to build community leadership capacity and cultivate future community leaders. **Action EJ7.1F** District 3 and District 4 will make efforts to develop a pool of community members from the Priority Communities for participation in the **Alameda County Citizens Academy** and other County Boards and Commissions. ✪ **Action EJ7.1G** The County will consider requiring County Agencies and Departments to set a practice of seeking input from the relevant MAC(s) for projects, policies, and other efforts with potential to impact the County's unincorporated communities. **Action EJ7.1H** The County will establish a process for conveying the proceedings of the Municipal Advisory Council meetings, including decisions, discussion, and public comments, to the Planning Commission to ensure that the Planning Commission has the full benefit of community input while weighing recommendations to the Board of Supervisors. **Action EJ7.1I** The County will seek ways to strengthen the capacity of grassroots base-building groups in the Priority Communities so they can more effectively advocate on behalf of their communities' needs. **Policy EJ7.2** Invest in tools, strategies, and resources that enable and encourage Priority Community resident participation in County-led civic engagement processes. ✪ **Action EJ7.2A** Using lessons learned and infrastructure from the COVID-19 pandemic, the County will develop, train, and provide technological support to a cadre of outreach workers/Promotores or contracted community-based organizations that County agencies can engage on an as-needed basis to support equity-focused outreach efforts in the unincorporated communities, centering language access and cultural relatability. **Action EJ7.2B** The Community Development Agency will develop and maintain a centralized contact list for community outreach, including businesses, organizations, residents, etc., that can be used and repurposed for County-initiated projects in the unincorporated communities. ✪ **Action EJ7.2C** The Community Development Agency will explore creation of a Communications & Engagement Officer position to support CDA's outreach activities, engagement, social media, events, volunteer activities, and other civic engagement efforts in the unincorporated communities. **Action EJ7.2D** The Community Development Agency will increase use of digital engagement tools to increase civic engagement opportunities. **Action EJ7.2E** The Community Development Agency will adopt standards of trauma-informed practice for public-facing staff and contractors. **Policy EJ7.3** Enable and encourage Priority Community residents to participate in public processes by prioritizing language and disability access in public meetings, public programs, and public documents. ✪ **Action EJ7.3A** With community input and in compliance with the Brown Act, the County will establish a public meeting Accessibility Standard that applies to all County-led public meetings, with a focus on language equity and ADA accessibility. ✪ **Action EJ7.3B** The County will consider requiring its Agencies and Departments to provide public-facing programs and publications in multiple languages. # Alameda County Citizens' Academy A free, six-session interactive program that provides insight into County services and operations and offers opportunities for civic engagement in the County. The Alameda County Citizens Academy is a program of civic engagement and increases ongoing citizen participation in County government. **Policy EJ7.4** Support and expand placemaking efforts in the Priority Communities to strengthen unincorporated community identity and pride. **Action EJ7.4A** The Alameda County Arts Commission will prioritize community engagement in its continued efforts to install public art projects in the Priority Communities, including through qualifying County capital projects and temporary projects such as the County’s ongoing Utility Box Art Program and Street Banner Program. **Action EJ7.4B** The County will continue its support of the ACH Healthy Schools and Communities-operated REACH Ashland Youth Center's Arts & Creativity Program youth murals projects, in partnership with Alameda County Office of Education. **✪ Action EJ7.4C** The Community Development Agency will assist District 4 staff to pursue opportunities to improve unincorporated-area identity by requesting changes to USPS mailing address “Place Names” in the Eden Area and Castro Valley. **Action EJ7.4D** The Economic and Civic Development Department will continue to foster community partnerships to support public events that uplift civic engagement and small businesses in the Priority Communities, including by continuing to organize, and seeking opportunities to expand, the annual Ashland Cherryland FamFest event in collaboration with County Departments, health service providers, and community organizations. **Policy EJ7.5** Promote technological literacy and access in the Priority Communities to build skills and encourage participation in civic life. **Action EJ7.5A** The Community Development Agency will develop an outreach strategy to help low-income Priority Community residents access affordable internet and devices via the federal Affordable Connectivity Program or other relevant programs. **Action EJ7.5B** The County will continue to establish and host free community Wi-Fi hotspots at public facilities in the Priority Communities. **Action EJ7.5C** The County will seek opportunities to increase free access to public computer stations at public facilities in the Priority Communities. **Action EJ7.5D** The San Lorenzo and Castro Valley Libraries will seek partnerships with HARD, local school districts, CBOs, and private sector partners to provide technology classes in the Priority Communities for diverse ages, languages, and skill levels, with subjects ranging from basic computer literacy and typing, to programming and coding, to Zoom participation. **Policy EJ7.6** Actively engage the community in the capital improvement decision-making process and in the implementation of capital improvement plans. **✪ Action EJ7.6A** The County will increase MAC and community participation in the Capital Improvement and Budget Planning process. **Action EJ7.6B** The Public Works Agency will conduct project workshops in the Priority Communities and gather community feedback. **Action EJ7.6C** The Public Works Agency will publish implementation timelines, project updates, staff contact information, and other resources that will facilitate ongoing community engagement in the Agency’s Capital Improvement Program. **✪ Action EJ7.6D** In consultation with the community, the Public Works Agency will adopt a Community Engagement Policy that sets a standard for how the Agency will engage with the community about projects, programs, or decisions with potential to impact community health and wellness. # 5 <
> sectionfive # Implementation and Monitoring This section recommends strategies that will advance EJ Element implementation through thoughtful consideration of Catalyzing Actions, structured collaboration among stakeholders, and ongoing engagement of Priority Community residents. <
> # Interagency Implementation Committee The EJ Element identifies goals, policies, and actions for improving Priority Community health and wellness across a broad range of Alameda County departments, agencies, and programs. Implementation of these measures will require ongoing collaboration and communication between County actors, external partners, and the community. In order to ensure progress and accountability, implementation will be driven by a Technical Advisory Committee or similar group (“EJ Implementation TAC”), made up of the County Agencies and Departments that have implementation responsibilities identified under this EJ Element. With staff support from the Planning Department, the EJ Implementation TAC will: * Act as a conduit to the various agencies and departments that have implementation responsibilities under the EJ Element * Set implementation goals in response to community feedback, available funding and resources, and shifting internal and external priorities * Establish strategies for ongoing engagement of and accountability to the Priority Communities * Develop mechanisms for implementation monitoring and reporting, such as regular EJ implementation updates to Board of Supervisors subcommittees, the Planning Commission, and MACs * Determine its own structure, membership, and schedule based on implementation needs over time <
> Pacific Apparel Mural in Ashland. Design by Tiffany King & Greg Duggan. Created by youth artists from the Arts& Creativity Program at the REACH Ashland Youth Center. # Catalyzing Actions <
> Catalyzing Actions are high-priority, systemic changes that would establish frameworks and structures to enable the County to more effectively implement other actions in this Environmental Justice Element. The list of Catalyzing Actions may help to inform the work of the EJ Implementation TAC as it engages the public to prioritize implementation of measures in the EJ Element. Table 5-1 presents 30 identified Catalyzing Actions with additional information to assist the EJ Implementation TAC and responsible County Agencies with their implementation planning: * **Lead Agency.** This column identifies the lead County agency/ies or department/s responsible for the implementation of each action. While other County departments or external partners may support its implementation, the Lead Agency (or Agencies) has primary responsibility for determining next steps and moving the action forward. In limited cases where no Lead Agency is immediately identifiable, "no lead specified" may be listed in this column; for these actions, a Lead Agency will be identified during the implementation process. * **Potential Partners.** This column identifies the County departments, local and regional agencies, and other partners that have authority, influence, or knowledge to assist with implementation of the associated action. In some cases, several coordinating partners are shown as there may be joint responsibility and/or interest for implementation. * **Cost Estimate.** This column provides a relative cost estimate for implementing the associated action using dollar signs ($). One dollar sign ($) indicates that the action is lower cost, based on the assumption that it would require the use of existing staff time. Two dollar signs ($$) indicate the action may require additional time and resources, such as hiring new staff. Three dollar signs ($$$) indicate the action may be part of a capital improvement project and/or include construction. * **Timeframe.** This column identifies the target timeframe for the action to be implemented, and uses “Short,” “Mid,” and “Long” timeframes. A “short” timeframe indicates the action may be implemented in the near term, within 1 to 3 years. A “mid” timeframe indicates a period of 3 to 5 years for implementation, and “long” refers to projects that may require more than 5 years to implement. A complete implementation table of all EJ Element goals, policies, and actions is available in Appendix A). ### TABLE 5-1 Catalyzing Actions | CATALYZING ACTION NO. | CATALYZING ACTION TEXT | LEAD COUNTY AGENCY | POTENTIAL PARTNERS | COST ESTIMATE | TIME-FRAME | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Action EJ1.2B | The CDA Planning Department will work with residents to establish a "Green Zone", consisting of the Priority Communities, with the goal of reducing environmental hazards, preventing pollution, and promoting positive health outcomes by fostering vibrant and livable neighborhoods, a diverse mix of uses, healthy food access, reduced air pollution, physical activity, complete streets, and more local jobs through focused economic development and community-building strategies. | • CDA – Planning Department | • CDA – Economic and Civic Development | $ | MID | | Action EJ1.3A | With special attention to the Priority Communities, the ACH Policy Group, a cross-functional team led by the ACH Policy Team, will consider creation of a County Health Equity in All Policies Strategy Plan that contains a list of simple actions and protocols that help institutionalize and standardize how to incorporate health into county policies, programs, and operations. | • Alameda County Health (ACH) – Policy Team | | $ | MID | | Action EJ2.1A | The Community Development Agency will work with relevant County and community partners to develop, adopt, and implement an Urban Greening Master Plan that guides the County's future urban greening investments. The Plan will expand upon the 2015 draft Urban Greening Master Plan for Ashland and Cherryland and will establish baseline canopy coverage via an urban tree canopy assessment; outline specific and measurable tree planting goals, timelines, and monitoring mechanisms; identify tree planting opportunity sites; secure funding; address tree maintenance and lifecycle considerations; and center and engage the Priority Communities in plan development and implementation. | • Community Development Agency | • Public Works Agency | $$ | MID | | Action EJ2.2A | The Community Development Agency will partner with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), California Air Resources Board (CARB), Caltrans, and neighboring cities within the county to develop ways to minimize air pollution exposure in areas of the county, including the Priority Communities, that are disproportionately impacted by air quality concerns. | • Community Development Agency | • Alameda County Health
• BAAQMD
• CARB
• Caltrans | $$ | MID | | CATALYZING ACTION NO. | CATALYZING ACTION TEXT | LEAD COUNTY AGENCY | POTENTIAL PARTNERS | COST ESTIMATE | TIME-FRAME | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Action EJ3.1B | The County will explore strategies to equitably fund development of public facilities in the Priority Communities. Examples of strategies include, but not limited to, grants, property transfer taxes, building vacancy taxes, tax increment financing, and development impact fees. | • No lead specified | | $$ | MID | | Action EJ3.2A | The CDA Planning Department and Alameda County Health will engage with and help facilitate County support of new or existing community hub projects in the Priority Communities, including efforts to: assess neighborhood needs and assets, identify physical spaces, identify funding opportunities, explore partnerships, develop programming, and other considerations. Examples of types of community hubs include family resource centers, community centers, resilience hubs, navigation centers, and other models. | • CDA – Planning
• Alameda County Health | • General Services Agency – Office of Sustainability
• Local school and parks districts
• Deputy Sheriffs’ Activities League | $$-$$$ | MID | | Action EJ3.5E | The County will adopt a Vision Zero policy committing to eliminate traffic fatalities by designing safer streets, educating the public on traffic safety, enforcing existing traffic laws, and implementing new life-saving policies. | • Board of Supervisors
• Public Works Agency | | $ | MID | | Action EJ4.3A | The County will seek to expand the geography of the Lead Poisoning Prevention Joint Powers Authority to include the unincorporated communities. | • Board of Supervisors
• CDA – Healthy Homes Department | | $$ | SHORT | | Action EJ5.1E | The Economic and Civic Development Department (ECD) will conduct an economic development market analysis for the unincorporated areas to identify gaps and propose implementation strategies. | • CDA – Economic and Civic Development Department | | $$ | MID | | Action EJ5.2C | Alameda County Health, through the Public Health Department's Nutrition Services, will partner with County Nutrition Action Partnership (CNAP), which includes University of California Cooperative Extension (UCCE) and AAA (Area on Aging) and other CBOs/entities (e.g. ACCFB, SLZUSD) to promote nutrition education and physical activity with the goal for policy, systems, and environmental change (PSE) to serve Priority Community residents through local partnerships and culturally competent initiatives held at accessible locations. | • ACH – Public Health Department | • University of California Cooperative Extension | $$ | MID | ## Implementation and Monitoring | CATALYZING ACTION NO. | CATALYZING ACTION TEXT | LEAD COUNTY AGENCY | POTENTIAL PARTNERS | COST ESTIMATE | TIME-FRAME | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Action EJ5.3B | The CDA Planning Department and ACSO – Animal Services will collaborate to review and modernize existing ordinances and regulations related to urban agriculture and animal husbandry, consider best policy practices, and explore opportunities for coordination, clarification, and improvements that remove barriers to urban agriculture in the Priority Communities. | • CDA – Planning Department
• ACSO – Animal Services | • Deputy Sheriffs' Activities League | $$ | MID | | Action EJ5.6A | The County will work to transition the All In Eats Circular Food Economy programs, incubated by the Alameda County Sheriff's Office and the Deputy Sheriff's Activities League, into the future by partnering with community-based organization (CBO) partners and others. | • No lead identified | | $$$ | ONGOING | | Action EJ6.1A | The County will coordinate with the Hayward Area Recreation and Parks District (HARD) and Priority Community residents to identify and reduce barriers to utilizing local park resources or physical activity programming, such as cost, access, or safety concerns. | • No lead specified | • CDA
• Alameda County Health
• PWA
• Deputy Sheriffs' Activities League
• HARD | $$ | MID | | Action EJ6.4C | The Alameda County Sheriff's Office will consider convening a diverse working group of community members and stakeholders to develop a community-centered and equity-focused approach to crime reduction and violence prevention in the Priority Communities. | • Alameda County Sheriff's Office | • Alameda County Health | $$ | MID | | Action EJ6.6A | As part of its ongoing monitoring efforts, Alameda County Health will prioritize disaggregating unincorporated data on health factors and outcomes in order to establish a baseline of descriptive health data for the Priority Communities. | • Alameda County Health | | $ | ONGOING | | Action EJ6.7A | The Planning Department will create objective development standards for outpatient healthcare, mental health, and supportive social service facilities in order to decrease discretionary review and remove barriers to development of these facilities in the Priority Communities. | • CDA – Planning Department | • Alameda County Health | $$ | MID | | Action EJ6.7H | The County will pursue policies and programs that ensure healthcare for all with a focus on providing preventive and supportive services to vulnerable populations. | • No lead identified | | $ | ONGOING | | CATALYZING ACTION NO. | CATALYZING ACTION TEXT | LEAD COUNTY AGENCY | POTENTIAL PARTNERS | COST ESTIMATE | TIME-FRAME | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Action EJ6.9A | Alameda County Health, with the Behavioral Health Department as the lead, will conduct a needs assessment to examine gaps in mental health and addiction recovery services and infrastructure in the Priority Communities, and present the findings to County decision-making bodies. | • ACH –Behavioral Health Department | • Alameda County Sheriff’s Office – Behavioral Health Unit | $$ | MID | | Action EJ6.13A | The Economic and Civic Development Department will promote access to mainstream, culturally competent financial services among unbanked community members, BIPOC residents, limited English-speakers, and low- and moderate-income households. | • CDA – Economic and Civic Development Department | | $ | ONGOING | | Action EJ7.1A | The County will consider exploring organizational changes focused on coordinating, enhancing, and improving public services and civic life in unincorporated Alameda County including potentially establishing a centralized Office of Unincorporated Services. | • County Administrator's Office | • Board of Supervisors | $$$ | LONG | | Action EJ7.1B | The County will consider establishing an Unincorporated Youth Commission to encourage youth civic engagement and participation in public decision-making processes impacting the unincorporated communities of the County. | • No lead specified | • Alameda County Health | $$ | MID | | Action EJ7.1D | District 3 and District 4 will consider exploring options to improve Priority Community representation on the Eden Area MAC and Castro Valley MAC. | • Board of Supervisors District 3 and District 4 | | $ | ONGOING | | Action EJ7.1G | The County will consider requiring County Agencies and Departments to set a practice of seeking input from the relevant MAC(s) for projects, policies, and other efforts with potential to impact the County’s unincorporated communities. | • Board of Supervisors | | $ | SHORT | | Action EJ7.2A | Using lessons learned and infrastructure from the COVID-19 pandemic, the County will develop, train, and provide technological support to cadre of outreach workers/Promotores or contracted community-based organizations that County agencies can engage on an as-needed basis to support equity-focused outreach efforts in the unincorporated communities, centering language access and cultural relatability. | • No lead specified | • Alameda County Health
• Community Development Agency | $$ | MID | | Action EJ7.2C | The Community Development Agency will explore creation of a Communications & Engagement Officer position to support CDA’s outreach activities, engagement, social media, events, volunteer activities, and other civic engagement efforts in the unincorporated communities. | • Community Development Agency | | $$ | ONGOING | ## Implementation and Monitoring | CATALYZING ACTION NO. | CATALYZING ACTION TEXT | LEAD COUNTY AGENCY | POTENTIAL PARTNERS | COST ESTIMATE | TIME-FRAME | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Action EJ7.3A | With community input and in compliance with the Brown Act, the County will establish a public meeting Accessibility Standard that applies to all County-led public meetings, with a focus on language equity and ADA accessibility. | • Board of Supervisors | | $ | SHORT | | Action EJ7.3B | The County will consider requiring its Agencies and Departments to provide public-facing programs and publications in multiple languages. | • Board of Supervisors | | $ | ONGOING | | Action EJ7.4C | The Community Development Agency will assist District 4 staff to pursue opportunities to improve unincorporated-area identity by requesting changes to USPS mailing address “Place Names” in the Eden Area and Castro Valley. | • Community Development Agency
• Board of Supervisors District 4 | | $$ | SHORT | | Action EJ7.6A | The County will increase MAC and community engagement in the Capital Improvement and Budget Planning process. | • No lead specified | | $ | SHORT | | Action EJ7.6D | In consultation with the community, the Public Works Agency will adopt a Community Engagement Policy that sets a standard for how the Agency will engage with the community about projects, programs, or decisions with potential to impact community health and wellness. | • Public Works Agency | | $ | MID | A complete implementation table of all EJ Element goals, policies, and actions is available in Appendix A. <
> Artwork at the Alameda County Juvenile Justice Center created by artists Susan Dannenfelser and Kirk Beck. From the Alameda County Art Collection. Photo by Sibila Savage. Artwork copyright the artists. <
> # References <
> Window mural design by Michael Wertz, 2023. Painted by youth artists from the Arts& Creativity Program at the REACH Ashland Youth Center. Commissioned by Alameda County Library, San Lorenzo Branch. # Section 1 References Alameda County Community Development Agency. n.d. General Plan, Specific Plans & Ordinances. Accessed November 8, 2022. http://www.acgov.org/cda/planning/generalplans/index.htm. Alameda County Eden Area Livability Initiative. n.d. Integrated Strategic Vision & Plan For the Unincorporated Urban Areas of Alameda County: Ashland, Castro Valley, Cherryland, Fairview, and San Lorenzo. Accessed November 3, 2022. https://www.acgov.org/edenareavision/index.htm. Alameda County. 2005. *A Lifetime Commitment to Violence Prevention: The Alameda County Blueprint. Overview.* July 2005. Accessed November 3, 2022. https://www.acgov.org/government/documents/AC_VP_Blueprint_7_06_05_Overview.pdf. California Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General. 2023. SB 1000 – Environmental Justice in Local Land Use Planning. February 14, 2023. Accessed February 23, 2023. https://oag.ca.gov/environment/sb1000. California Environmental Justice Alliance. 2018. *SB1000 Implementation Toolkit.* August 9, 2018. Accessed November 15, 2022. https://caleja.org/2017/09/sb-1000-toolkit-release/. California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2022. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Indicator Maps. Accessed November 10, 2022. https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-40. Eden Area Municipal Advisory Council. n.d. Home. Accessed November 3, 2022. https://edenareamac.wordpress.com/. My Eden Voice. n.d. Home. Accessed November 3, 2022. https://www.myedenvoice.org/. National Equity Project. n.d. The Lens of Systemic Oppression. Accessed November 3, 2022. https://www.nationalequityproject.org/frameworks/lens-of-systemic-oppression#:~:text=Systemic%20oppression%20is%20systematic%20and,%2C%20language%2C%20etc. Office of Planning and Research. 2020. *General Plan Guidelines.* CHAPTER 4: Required Elements. Accessed November 9, 2022. https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20200706-GPG_Chapter_4_EJ.pdf. REACH Ashland Youth Center. 2021. About. July 2, 2021. Accessed November 3, 2022. https://reachashland.org/who-we-are/. StopWaste. n.d. Food Rescue and Job Training: The Food Hub at Dig Deep Farms. Accessed November 3, 2022. https://www.stopwaste.org/resource/alameda-county-deputy-sheriffs-activities-league-dsal. United States Census Bureau. 2022. Census Designated Places. March 28, 2022. Accessed November 9, 2022. https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/bas/information/cdp.html#:~:text=CDPs%20are%20a%20statistical%20geography.well%2Dknown%2C%20unincorporated%20communities. United States Census Bureau. n.d. Census tracts. Accessed November 8, 2022. https://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/education/CensusTracts.pdf. # Section 2 References Alameda County Community Action Partnership. 2022. Data Profile: Ashland, Castro Valley, Cherryland, Fairview, Hayward Acres, and San Lorenzo. https://cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/Unicorp.-Area-of-Alameda-County-Data-Profile.pdf. Alameda County Community Development Agency. 2010. *Eden Area General Plan.* https://www.acgov.org/cda/planning/generalplans/documents/00_GP_Cover.pdf. Alameda County Transportation Commission and Metropolitan Transportation Commission. 2020. *I-580 Design Alternatives Assessment, Final Report.* https://www.alamedactc.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/580-DAA_Final-Report_FinalSubmittal3_30_20_MTC.pdf. California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2022. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Indicator Maps. Accessed November 10, 2022. https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-40. California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. n.d. SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities. Accessed February 23, 2023. https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/sb535. Castro Valley/Eden Area Chamber of Commerce. n.d. Ashland District. https://www.edenareachamber.com/ashland/. Castro Valley/Eden Area Chamber of Commerce. n.d. Cherryland District. https://www.edenareachamber.com/cherryland/. Chabot College. n.d. Ohlone Land Acknowledgement. Accessed November 13, 2022. https://www.chabotcollege.edu/ip/land-acknowledgement.php. Halley, William. 1876. The Centennial Year Book of Alameda County, California. January 1, 1876. Internet Archive. Accessed November 15, 2022. https://archive.org/details/centennialyearbo00hall/page/n513/mode/2up. Office of Planning and Research. 2020. *General Plan Guidelines*. CHAPTER 4: Required Elements. Section 4.8, Environmental Justice Element. Accessed November 11, 2022. https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20200706-GPG_Chapter_4_EJ.pdf. United States Census Bureau. 2020. Quick Facts: Ashland CDP, California. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/ashlandcdpcalifornia/PST045221. United States Census Bureau. 2021a. Quick Facts: Castro Valley CDP, California. Accessed February 23, 2023. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/castrovalleycdpcalifornia/PST045222. United States Census Bureau. 2021b. Quick Facts: San Lorenzo CDP, California. Accessed February 23, 2023. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/sanlorenzocdpcalifornia. Urban Strategies Council and Alameda County. 2013. Eden Area Community Profile. Accessed November 14, 2022. https://www.acgov.org/edenareavision/documents/EALICommunityProfile.pdf. United States Environmental Protection Agency. May 6, 2020. Throwing Shade: Exploring the Benefits of Trees. Accessed November 15, 2023. https://www.epa.gov/sciencematters/throwing-shade-exploring-benefits-trees. # Section 3 References Alameda County Code of Ordinances. Chapter 13.12-Watercourse Protection. Accessed September 25, 2023. https://library.municode.com/ca/alameda_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT13PUSE_CH13.12WAPR. Alameda County Deputy Sheriffs' Activities League. Community Capitals Policing. Accessed January 4, 2024. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Q06HRbTTloOkztzVZfwBXIIfIByT-Ccx/view. Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. 2023. San Lorenzo Creek Watershed. Accessed September 23, 2023. https://acfloodcontrol.org/the-work-we-do/resources/san-lorenzo-creek-watershed/. California Environmental Justice Alliance. 2018. SB100 Implementation Toolkit. August 9, 2018. Accessed November 15, 2022. https://caleja.org/2017/09/sb-1000-toolkit-release/. California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), Urban Heat Island Index for California. 2023. Accessed September 25, 2023. https://calepa.ca.gov/climate/urban-heat-island-index-for-california/. California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) and Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2021. Update to the California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool: CalEnviroScreen 4.0. October 2021. https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen40reportf2021.pdf. California Healthy Places Index (HPI). 2020. About the HPI. https://www.healthyplacesindex.org/about-hpi. Center for Disease Control. 2022. Physical Inactivity. https://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/resources/publications/factsheets/physical-activity.htm. East Bay Regional Parks, CALFIRE, USGS, Tukman Geospatial, NV5 "Alameda and Contra Costa County Canopy Cover" Version: 4/1/2023. Accessed September 25, 2023. https://vegmap.press/alcc_cover_datasheet. Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). 2021. New study reveals large and unequal health burden from air pollution in California's Bay Area. March 31, 2021. Accessed April 28, 2022. https://www.edf.org/media/new-study-reveals-large-and-unequal-health-burden-air-pollution-californias-bay-area. Friends of San Lorenzo Creek. December 2017. Accessed September 25, 2023. http://www.friendsofsanlorenzocreek.org/. Greenpeace. n.d. Environmental Justice. https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/issues/environmental-justice/. Hayward Area Recreation and Park District. San Lorenzo Creekway Master Plan. Accessed September 25, 2023. https://www.haywardrec.org/1924/San-Lorenzo-Creekway-Master-Plan. U.S. Census Bureau. 2021. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) About Language Use. https://www.census.gov/topics/population/languageuse/about/faqs.html#:~:text=A%20%22limited%20English%20speaking%20household%22%20is%20one%20in,definition%2C%20Englishonly%20households%20cannot%20belong%20to%20this%20group. U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Forest Service Climate Resource Center. Ecosystem Services. Accessed September 25, 2023. https://www.fs.usda.gov/ccrc/topics/ecosystem-services. UN Environment Programme. 2022. Healthy Environment, Healthy People. https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/healthy-environment-healthy-people. # Section 4 References Alameda County. ACGOV Vision 2026. Accessed January 8, 2024. https://vision2026.acgov.org/. Alameda County Healthy Homes Department. Lead Week. Accessed January 8, 2024. https://achhd.org/leadweek/. Alameda County ACH Public Health Department. Asthma Start Program. Accessed January 8, 2024. https://acphd.org/asthma/. Alameda County Public Work Agency. Alameda County Recommended Tree List (Revised July 2018.) Accessed January 8, 2024. https://www.acpwa.org/acpwa-assets/docs/programs-services/streets-roads/Tree-Program/RECOMMENDEDTREELIST-2018.pdf. Alameda County Public Works Agency. Bike & Pedestrian Program – Programs & Services. Accessed January 8, 2024. https://www.acpwa.org/programs-services/transportation/bike.page. Alameda County Resource Conservation District. Urban Agriculture. Accessed January 9, 2024. https://acrcd.org/projects/urban-farms/. Baker Tilly. July 2023. Alameda County, California Development Services Process Review. https://www.acgov.org/board/bos_calendar/documents/DocsAgendaReg_8_10_23/GENERAL%20ADMINISTRATION/Regular%20Calendar/Item_2_Baker_Tilly_Permit_Process_rpt.pdf. California Environmental Justice Alliance. Green Zones Across California: Transforming Toxic Hotspots into Healthy Hoods. 2015. Accessed January 8, 2024. https://caleja.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/GREENZONES.2015.30MB.pdf. Mandela Partners. Urban Greening Master Plan – Ashland and Cherryland. Public Draft September 2015. Accessed January 8, 2024. https://district4.acgov.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2021/11/AshCherryPublicDraftUrbGreenPlan2015.pdf. University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources. UC Cooperative Extension Alameda County. Accessed January 8, 2024. https://cealameda.ucanr.edu/. (blank page) <
> # A ANTHONY CHABOT R FAIRMON DGE EAST BAY G AL P # Appendix <
> ### Appendix A: Implementation Table of Environmental Justice Element Actions ### Appendix B: Community Engagement Plan Available at https://www.acgov.org/cda/planning/generalplans/index.htm