The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPC Reso 13-24 Iron Horse Linear Park MND/MMR GPA Pd Rez Stg1&2 PD RESOLUTION NO. 13- 24 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN . RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE WITH A RELATED STAGE 1 AND 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE FUTURE IRON HORSE NATURE PARK AND OPEN SPACE PROJECT PLPA-2013-00044 WHEREAS, the City Council has entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement to acquire approximately 12.13 acres of land from Union Pacific Railroad with the intent of developing a public park; and WHEREAS, Zone 7 Water Agency owns approximately 22.8 acres adjacent to the proposed future park site that may be restored for and enhanced for open space and stream corridor uses; and WHEREAS, the implementation of a future park on the project site requires a General Plan Amendment to re-designate the proposed park site from having no General Plan land use designation to Parks/Public Recreation and to re-designate the Zone 7 parcels from having a split General Plan land use designation of Undesignated/Stream Corridor to Open Space/Stream Corridor; and WHEREAS, the implementation of the future park project requires that the park site be rezoned from "Unclassified" to "Planned Development" while the Zone 7 parcels do not require any rezoning action; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act certain projects are required to be reviewed for environmental impacts and when applicable, environmental documents prepared; and WHEREAS, an Initial Study was prepared for the Project, which includes a General Plan Amendment, Planned Development Rezone, amendment to the citywide Parks and Recreation Master Plan, and construction of a linear park, potential South San Ramon Creek realignment, and potential Iron Horse Regional Trail realignment on approximately 35 acres of land (12 acres to be owned by the City of Dublin as the public park and 23 acres owned by Zone 7 Water Agency); and WHEREAS, upon completion of the Initial Study it was determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures identified in the document will reduce impacts to a less then significant level. A Mitigated Negative Declaration dated August 2, 2013, was prepared and circulated with the Initial Study; and WHEREAS, the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ("Mitigated Negative Declaration") was circulated for public review from August 5, 2013 to September 4, 2013; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin received two comment letters during the public review period that have been incorporated into the Response to Environmental Comments dated September 5, 2013; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the Proposed Project on September 10, 2013 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the Project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did review and consider the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (including comments received), all said reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth and used its independent judgment prior to making a recommendation on the Project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Dublin Planning Commission does hereby recommend City Council adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for a General Plan Amendment and Planned Development Rezoning with a related Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan for the future Iron Horse Nature Park and Open Space project, with the draft City Council Resolution attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of September 2013 by the following vote: AYES: O'Keefe, Bhuthimethee, Goel, Kohli NOES: ABSENT: Do ABSTAIN: c4q%7 nning Commission Chair ATTEST: Assistant C munity Development Director G:IPA#12013IPLPA.-2013-00044 Iron Horse Park GPAIPC Mtg 09.10.20131Att 2 PCReso MND.doc 2 of 2 RESOLUTION NO. XX - 13 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE WITH A RELATED STAGE 112 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE FUTURE IRON HORSE NATURE PARK AND OPEN SPACE PROJECT PLPA-2013-00044 WHEREAS, the City Council has entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement to acquire approximately 12.13 acres of land from Union Pacific Railroad with the intent of developing a public park; and WHEREAS, Zone 7 Water Agency owns approximately 22.8 acres adjacent to the proposed future park site that may be restored for and enhanced for open space and stream corridor uses; and WHEREAS, the implementation of the future park project requires a General Plan Amendment to re-designate the proposed park site from having no General Plan land use designation to Parks/Public Recreation and to re-designate the Zone 7 parcels from having a split General Plan land use designation of Undesignated/Stream Corridor to Open Space/Stream Corridor; and WHEREAS, the implementation of the future park project requires that the park site be rezoned from "Unclassified" to "Planned Development" while the Zone 7 parcels do not require any rezoning action; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act certain projects are required to be reviewed for environmental impacts and when applicable, environmental documents prepared; and WHEREAS, an Initial Study was prepared for the Project, which includes a General Plan Amendment, Planned Development Rezone, amendment to the citywide Parks and Recreation Master Plan, and construction of a linear park, potential South San Ramon Creek realignment, and potential Iron Horse Regional Trail realignment on approximately 35 acres of land (12 acres to be owned by the City of Dublin as the public park and 23 acres owned by Zone 7 Water Agency) and WHEREAS, upon completion of the Initial Study it was determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures identified in the document will reduce impacts to a less then significant level. A Mitigated Negative Declaration dated August 2, 2013 was prepared and circulated with the Initial Study; and WHEREAS, the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ("Mitigated Negative Declaration") was circulated for public review from August 5, 2013 to September 4, 2013 (Exhibit A-1); and 1 of 3 EXHIBIT A TO ATTACHMENT 2 WHEREAS, the City of Dublin received two comment letters during the public review period that have been incorporated into the Response to Environmental Comments dated September 5, 2013 (Exhibit A-2); and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the Project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the Proposed Project on September 10, 2013 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard, and adopted Resolution xx-xx (incorporated herein by reference) recommending that the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the Project on at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report (incorporated herein by reference) was submitted recommending that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the Project; and WHEREAS, the City Council did review and consider the Mitigated Negative Declaration, all said reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth prior to taking action on the Project; and WHEREAS, the Mitigated Negative Declaration and related project and environmental documents, and all of the documents incorporated herein by reference, are available for review in the City Planning Division a Dublin City Hall, file PLPA-2013-00044 during normal business hours. The location and custodian of the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and other documents that constitute the record of proceedings for the Project is the City of Dublin Community Development Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA, 94568, file PLPA-2011- 00050. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED as follows: A. The Dublin City Council has reviewed and considered the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration including comments received during the public review period, prior to acting on the Project. B. The Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately describes the environmental impacts of the Project. On the basis of the whole record before it, the City Council finds that there is no substantial evidence that the Project as mitigated will have a significant effect on the environment. C. The Mitigated Negative Declaration has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines. 2of3 D. The Mitigated Negative Declaration is complete and adequate and reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis as to the environmental effects of the Project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that based on the above findings, the City Council adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration for PLPA-2013-00044, consisting of the Initial Study/Negative Declaration (attached as Exhibit A-1) and the Response to Environmental Comments (attached as Exhibit A-2), and adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (attached as Exhibit A-3), all of which are incorporated herein by reference. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this , by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 3 of 3 Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration Project: Iron Horse Linear Park Lead Agency: City of Dublin August 2013 EXHIBIT A-1 TO ATTACHMENT 2 Table of Contents Introduction...................................................................................................................2 Contact Person & Sponsor...........................................................................................2 Project Location and Context 2 ProjectDescription........................................................................................................3 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected.............................................................10 Determination................................................................................................................10 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts.......................................................................12 EarlierAnalyses.............................................................................................................13 Discussion of Checklist................................................................................................24 1. Aesthetics ...............................................................................................24 2. Agricultural Resources.........................................................................25 3. Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Analysis .............................................25 4. Biological Resources 27 5. Cultural Resources................................................................................30 6. Geology and Soils .................................................................................32 7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions..................................................................33 8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ....................................................33 9. Hydrology and Water Quality .....................................35 10. Land Use and Planning........................................................................37 11. Mineral Resources.................................................................................37 12. Noise.......................................................................................................37 13. Population and Housing 42 14. Public Services 42 15. Recreation...............................................................................................43 16. Transportation/Traffic.........................................................................43 17. Utilities and Service Systems...............................................................44 18. Mandatory Findings of Significance 45 �w Initial Study Preparers .................................................................................................47 Agencies and Organizations Consulted....................................................................47 References ......................................................................................................................47 Attachment 1-Biological Reconnaissance..................................................................48 Attachment 2- Preliminary Wetland Determination 49 Attachment 3- Acoustic Report...................................................................................50 List of Exhibits Exhibit 1: Regional Location........................................................................................6 Exhibit 2: Site Context..................................................................................................7 Exhibit3: Park Parcel....................................................................................................8 City of Dublin Environmental Checklist/ Initial Study Introduction This Initial Study has been prepared in accord with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and assesses the potential environmental impacts of implementing the proposed project described below. The Initial Study consists of a completed environmental checklist and a brief explanation of the environmental topics addressed in the checklist. Project Sponsor & Contact Person City of Dublin Parks and Community Services Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin CA 94568 (925) 833 6646 Attn: Rosemary Alex, Parks and Facilities Development Coordinator Project Location and Context The City of Dublin is comprised of approximately 14.59 square miles of land area lying in eastern Alameda County, also known as the Livermore-Amador Valley, or the Tri-Valley area. Surrounding jurisdictions include the City of San Ramon and unincorporated Contra Costa County to the north, unincorporated Alameda County to the east and west and the cities of Pleasanton and Livermore to the south. Exhibit 1 shows the location of Dublin in relation to surrounding communities and " other major features. The proposed Iron Horse Linear Park would be located in the approximate center of Dublin, generally located between Amador Valley Boulevard and the Dublin-San Ramon City Limit Line along the Iron Horse Trail and former Union Pacific Railroad tracks. The current location of the South San Ramon Creek forms the westerly boundary of the proposed municipal park. Another long, linear parcel of land owned by Alameda County is adjacent to the easterly boundary of the proposed park site. There is a portion of the proposed park that is on the south side of Amador Valley Boulevard. The proposed park is approximately 5,900 feet in length with a width ranging from approximately 100 to 150 feet. The total size of the park site is approximately 12.13 acres. The park site is Assessor Parcel Number 941-2768-006-02. City of Dublin Page 2 �` Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 Ow To the west of the proposed park site is a linear parcel of land owned by the Alameda County Flood Control District ("ACFCD" or "Zone 7 Water Agency"). This property is occupied by South San Ramon Creek, which is a flood control facility owned and operated by the District, and to the east of the creek lies the Iron Horse Regional Trail, which is operated by the East Bay Regional Park District. The total size of the land owned by Zone 7 is 22.82 acres and includes Assessor Parcel Numbers 941-0190-001-01, 941-0190-001-05, 941-0191-095-00, 941-0205-001-12, and 941-0205-001-63 (partial). The park site is vacant and was formerly a Union Pacific railroad track. The tracks were located on a small berm in the approximate center of the site with embankments on either side leading to small depressions. A railroad trestle remains on the site from the previous railroad use. Vegetation on the site consists primarily of non-native grasses, including but not limited to wild oats, ryegrass and ripgut brome. A number of oak and willow trees grow on the site. Due to previous grading of the corridor, a number of jurisdictional wetlands exist on the proposed park site, totaling 0.51 acres. Existing vehicle access to the proposed park site is limited to a gate on the north side of Amador Valley Boulevard. A number of informal pedestrian connections exist along the corridor from adjacent neighborhoods. An east-west underground gasoline and petroleum line maintained by Kinder- "' Morgan runs along the east side of the site, but outside the proposed park area. A Aw fiber optic underground conduit extends along the west side of the site within the proposed park area. Additionally there are overhead transmission lines operated by PG and E that run north and south along the property line shared by Zone 7 and the proposed park site. Surrounding land uses include single and multi-family residential dwellings and the City's Stagecoach Park to the east. The Iron Horse regional multi-use trail and south San Ramon Creek/Zone 7 Drainage canal to the west, with residential uses and Dublin High School further to the west. Residential and light industrial uses lie to the north within San Ramon. Residential uses have been constructed south of the proposed park site. Exhibit 2 shows the location of project site with surrounding uses and other features. Exhibit 3 shows the proposed park parcel of land. Project Description Background. Based on the City's Parks and Recreation Master Plan, the central portion of Dublin is currently underserved with local parks. The City's adopted ratio of parkland to population is 5 acres of parks per 1,000 residents. There is an estimated deficit of 12 acres of parkland in the central portion of Dublin. The availability of the City of Dublin Page 3 Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 vacant former Union Pacific property to become a City park would reduce this identified deficit. Proposed Park. Although no specific park design has been formally selected by the City of Dublin, the City has been exploring multiple concepts for future uses that could occur in the park and has developed a concept site plan with community participation and support. The City is aware of the close proximity of residential uses along the corridor and the concept site plan has a number of low-intensity uses that include a mix of quieter, passive uses near residential areas with a few nodes of more active uses. A limited number of small structures would be constructed on the park site, and several of the following uses are likely to be included in the future park plan: • Re-aligned Iron Horse Regional Trail • Realigned South San Ramon Creek Expanded Wetland Areas with Boardwalk Trails and Wildlife Viewing Platforms • Children's play area • Gathering space/outdoor classroom(s) • A nature interpretative area • Picnic areas ` Community garden • Children's garden • A riparian forest Protected and/or preserved wetlands • Public restrooms • Parking area The City is currently undertaking a comprehensive community outreach program to identify park designs and additional uses may ultimately be selected. The proposed park will likely include providing pedestrian and bicycle linkages with surrounding residential areas east and west of the site as well as a connection to Dublin High School and Stagecoach Park, a local City park. The park also is also expected to include realignment of the South San Ramon Creek and relocation of the Iron Horse Trail so that the creek and the trail could have a curvilinear route and pathway through the park rather than being linear and adjacent to the park (as currently exists). If the final park plan were to include the realignment of the creek and trail, the parcels that currently comprise the creek channel and regional trail would continue to be owned by the Zone 7, although they would be integrated into the park development and would function as an extension of the space. A small vehicle parking lot is expected to be provided adjacent to Amador Valley Blvd. Potable water and sewer lines would need to be extended to portions of the future park to support public restrooms. Recycled water lines would also be extended into portions of the project site for irrigation of future landscaped areas. The operational hours of the park are expected to be daily, sunrise to sunset. City of Dublin Page 4 Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 r City pprovals. The park site does not currently have a land use designation on the City's General Plan Land Use Map. The Zone 7 parcels are partially designated "Stream Corridor," but a portion of the parcels are also without a land use designation. An Amendment to the General Plan will be required to designate the park site as "Parks/Public Recreation," and the currently undesignated Zone 7 parcels should be designated "Open Space." Rezoning to the Planned Development (PD) Zoning District is also proposed to ensure consistency between the amended General Plan and site zoning. The new zoning district and new land use designation will allow Zone 7 to continue to operate and maintain South San Ramon Creek as a flood control facility and will � allow the Iron Horse Regional Trail to exist in its current location, including maintenance activities for the channel and access roads, and any future needs (although none are currently planned) for small facilities such as new gage houses or floodplain areas. The project also includes an amendment to the City's Park and Recreation Master Plan to include the proposed park in the Master Plan. a City of Dublin Page 5 Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 S A N e A a t o Martinez 4 4 .8 AY San 6eo Concord Rafael Richmond 580 Mill 101 Valley Walnut 24 Creek 4iM Berkeley 680 on Oakland q1 580 San Francisco �eaa S a N San w Leandro DUBLIN FRANCISCO eeo seo Daly City Livermore BAY 101 Pleasanton Hayward ... r 92 v 280 San Mateo Fremont 84 AW j Newark ffi Redwood City �r Half Moon 84 ... M Ba y Palo o ; # Alto o eeo 0 Z w a 0 65 tot U 680 i y 2eo Sunnyvale m Santa Clara an x Jose 101 T u 17 p �aa Exhibit 1 REGIONAL LOCATION CITY OF DUBLIN IRON HORSE PARK PROJECT o z 4 s 8 10 miles INITIAL STUDY patk . Aj- so AW xx mbY ro*' fr iM i 5,.. 1 s a 1 41, Ok aw .art �� ,: £s� �yz'�• .� � `�k4� Fyn•�.at'r��` "�, z r Ao a t ry 0,*�,% � � ✓ter � W. Xw a� X ,v3 a` a� CSC" Jg 3 w9 Exhibit 2 CITY OF DUBLIN IRON HORSE PARK PROJECT LOCAL CONTEXT INITIAL STUDY r ' � `'- ' `. to 'rr+.' ." • CL AlW CL CL CL As CD Ilk ty Ci XX Nk,K � R col � �f�• �'.• 1 1 (1 rx . s � �1/ � \�v. ' iti C • a }• �144�, 4 - c 1. Project description: Construction of a linear park, potential South San Ramon Creek realignment, and potential Iron Horse Regional Trail realignment on approximately 35 acres of land (12 acres to be owned by the City of Dublin as the public park and 23 acres owned by Zone 7 Water Agency). Proposed uses are primarily passive, but would also include some areas of higher activity recreation uses. Pedestrian and bicycle connections would be made with surrounding neighborhoods and Dublin High School. The development of the park may also include realignment of the Iron Horse Trail and the existing Zone 7 watercourse within the park. Construction of the park would require approval of a General Plan Amendment and rezoning by the City of Dublin as well as an amendment to the City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan. 2. Lead agency: City of Dublin 3. Contact persons: Rosemary Alex, Parks & Facilities Development Coordinator 4. Project location: East side of the Iron Horse Multi-Use Trail, generally between Amador Valley Boulevard and City Limit 5. Project sponsor: City of Dublin 6. General Plan designation: Existing: "Stream Corridor' (Zone 7 Water Agency parcels) and Undesignated (A portion of Zone 7 �•• parcels and Union Pacific-future City of Dublin- parcels) Proposed: "Open Space" (A portion of Zone 7 parcels) �rw and "Parks/Public Recreation" (Union Pacific— future City of Dublin- parcels) 7. Zoning: Existing: Unclassified Proposed: PD-Planned Development S. Other public agency required approvals: - Zone 7 Water Agency (encroachment onto District property) - California Department of Fish & Wildlife (potential Streambed Alteration Agreement) - Regional Water Quality Control Board (Clean Water Certification) - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (404 Wetland Permit) City of Dublin Page 9 Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "potentially significant impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. aftw X Aesthetics - Agricultural X Air Quality/GHG Resources Emissions X Biological X Cultural Resources X Geology/Soils Resources X Hazards and X Hydrology/Water - Land Use/ Hazardous Quality Planning Materials - Mineral Resources X Noise - Population/ Housing - Public Services - Recreation X Transportation/ Circulation X Utilities/Service - Mandatory Systems Findings of Significance Determination (to be completed by Lead Agency): On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration will be prepared. X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A Mitigated Negative Declaration will be prepared. _I find that although the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier VW document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis as described on the attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless „ mitigated.” An Environmental Impact Report is required, but must only analyze the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because all potentially City of Dublin Page 10 Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed on the proposed project. r Signature: � i Date: Z.. Printed Name: z ' -3 �^ a<°U� For: _ c? 7rrV�-w n i I I I City of Dublin Page 11 Initial Study/Iron Norse Park Project August 2013 ■ Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "no impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the vow parenthesis following each question. A "no impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply M does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "no impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general factors (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) In some instances, an "LS, Less-than-Significant Impact" response may reflect that a specific environmental topic has been analyzed in a previous CEQA document and appropriate mitigation measures have been included in a previous CEQA document to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. In a few instances, some previously analyzed topics have been determined to be significant and unavoidable and mitigation of such impact to a less-than- significant level is not feasible. 3) All answers must take account of the whole action, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 4) 'Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "potentially significant impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 5) 'Negative Declaration: Less-Than-Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" �' implies elsewhere the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "potentially significant effect" to a "less than significant impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how *' they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. City of Dublin Page 12 Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 Environmental Impacts (Note: Source of determination listed in parenthesis. See listing of sources used to determine each potential impact at the end of the checklist) Earlier Analyses Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to tiering, a program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Reference CEQA Guideline Section 15063 (c)(3)(d). This Initial Study does not rely on earlier CEQA analyses. City of Dublin Page 13 Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 Environmental Impacts (Note: Source of determination listed in parenthesis. See listing of sources used to determine each potential impact at the end of the checklist) Note: A full discussion of each item is found following Potentially Less Than Less than No the checklist. Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation 1.Aesthetics. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic X vista? (Source: 1,9) b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including but not limited to trees,rock outcroppings,and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? X (Source: 1,9) c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? X (Source: 9) . d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime X views in the area?(Source: 9) 14„ 2. Agricultural and Forestry Resources Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance,as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland X Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to a non- agricultural use? (Source: 1,9, 11) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agriculture use, X or a Williamson Act contract?(Source: 1, 11) c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due to their location or nature,could result in conversion of farmland to a non- X agricultural use?(Source: 1,9) d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?(7) X e) Involve other changes in the existing environment that,due to their location or nature,could result in conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural X use or conversion of forestland to a non-forest use?(7) City of Dublin Page 14 ' " Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation 3.Air Quality(Where available,the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district may be relied on to make the following determinations). Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Ow applicable air quality plan? (Source: 2, 11) X b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute d' substantially to an existing or projected air X quality violation?(Source: 2) " c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable X federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? (2) d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant " concentrations? (Source: 2, 11) X e)Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial X number of people?(Source: 9) 4.Biological Resources. Would the project a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a candidate,sensitive,or special X -- status species in local or regional plans,policies or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?(Source: 3,9) b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies or X w regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Source: 3,4,9) City of Dublin Page 15 Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation c)Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to X marsh,vernal pool,coastal,etc.) through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption or other means? (Source: Source: 3,4) ,. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife " species or with established native resident or X migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Source: 3,9) e)Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,such as tree X protection ordinances?(Source: 1, 11) f) Conflict with the provision of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,Natural Community X Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? (Source: 8) 5.Cultural Resources. Would the project a) Cause a substantial adverse impact in the significance of a historical resource as defined in X Sec. 15064.5? (Source: 1, 11) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource X pursuant to Sec. 15064.5 (Source: 1,4) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource,site or unique geologic X feature? (Source: 1,9) d) Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside of a formal cemetery?(1,9) X 6.Geology and Soils. Would the project a) Expose people or structures to potential �. substantial adverse effects,including the risk of loss,injury,or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated on the most recent Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist or based on other X substantial evidence of a known fault(Source: 1, 11) City of Dublin Page 16 Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation ii) Strong seismic ground shaking(1, 11) X iii) Seismic-related ground failure,including X liquefaction? (1, 11) iv) Landslides? (1,2,4,5) X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of X topsoil? (Source: 1,9, 11) c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- X or off-site landslide,lateral spreading, subsidence,liquefaction or similar hazards (Source: 9) d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code(1994), X creating substantial risks to life or property? A" (Source: 11) e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available X for the disposal of wastewater? (Source: 10) 7.Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,either directly or indirectly,that may have a significant X impact on the environment? (Source: 5) b) Conflict with an applicable plan,policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the X emissions of greenhouse gases? (Source: 5) 8.Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,use or X disposal of hazardous materials (Source: 6) b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable X upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Source: 6) c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials or acutely hazardous materials, substances,or waste within one-quarter mile of X an existing or proposed school? (Source: 6, 11) City of Dublin Page 17 Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation d)Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Sec.65962.5 and,as a result, X would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?(Source: 11) O,„ e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted within two miles of a public airport of public use X airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Source: 11) f) For a project within the vicinity of private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for X �. people residing or working in the project area? (Source: 11) g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with the adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? X (Source: 108) h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to X urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (Source: 10) 9.Hydrology and Water Quality. Would the project: a)Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (Source: 10, I l) X "w b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer X volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g. the production rate of existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? (17) c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,in a manner X which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? (Source: 10) City of Dublin Page 18 Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or areas,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,or substantially X increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?(Source: 9, 10) e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide X ' substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (Source: 4,7) f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X (Source: 10, 11) g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other X flood delineation map? (Source: 11) h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood X flows? (Source: 11) i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of w loss,injury,and death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a X levee or dam? (11) j) Inundation by seiche,tsunami or mudflow? (9) X 10.Land Use and Planning. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? X (Source: 1) b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project(including but not limited to the X general plan,specific plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?(Source: 1) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X (11) 11.Mineral Resources. Would the project a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the X region and the residents of the state? (Source: 1) City of Dublin Page 19 Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general Plan,specific plan X or other land use plan? (Source: 1) 12.Noise. Would the proposal result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the X local general plan or noise ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies? (7) b) Exposure of persons or to generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise X levels? (Source: 7) c)A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above existing X levels without the project? (7) d)A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above X levels existing without the project? (7) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use X airport,would the project expose people residing or working n the project area to excessive noise levels?(11) f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the project expose people X residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Source: 11) 13.Population and Housing. Would the project a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, X either directly or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (Source: 1,9) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement X housing elsewhere? (9) c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement of X housing elsewhere?(Source: 9) City of Dublin Page 20 Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 A Potentially Less Than Less than No Aw Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact w Mitigation 14.Public Services. Would the proposal: a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities,need for new or physically altered government facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service rations, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services?(Sources: 10) Fire protection X Police protection X Schools x Parks X Other public facilities X Solid Waste X 15.Recreation: a)Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or recreational facilities such that substantial physical X deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated (Source: 8, 11) b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an X adverse physical effect on the environment? (Source: 8, 11) 16.Transportation and Traffic. Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan,ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system,taking X into account all modes of transportation, including mass transit and all non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system,including but not limited to intersections,streets,highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths and mass transit? (10) b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service standard established by the County Congestion Management Agency for X designated roads or highways? (10) City of Dublin Page 21 Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 40 Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Miti ation c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in the location that results in substantial X safety risks? (11) d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature(e.g. sharp curves or dangerous X intersections) or incompatible uses,such as farm equipment?(10) e) Result in inadequate emergency access?(10) X f) Conflict with adopted policies,plans or programs regarding public transit,bicycle or pedestrian facilities or otherwise decrease the performance X of safety of such facilities?(10) 17.Utilities and Service Systems. Would the project a)Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control X ZOO Board? (10) b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion 40 of existing facilities,the construction of which X could cause significant environmental effects? (10) c)Require or result in the construction of new storm X water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (10) d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve X the project from existing water entitlements and resources,or are new or expanded entitlements 4" needed? (10) e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve X the project's projected demand in addition to the providers existing commitments? (10) f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted X capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (11) g)Comply with federal,state and local statutes and X regulations related to solid waste? (11) City of Dublin Page 22 Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 w Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation 18.Mandatory Findings of Significance. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, X ,,. cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a " plant or animal community,substantially reduce . the number of or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but cumulatively o considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" X means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects). c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly? X Sources used to determine potential environmental impacts 1) City of Dublin General Plan,updated through February,2013 2) BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines 3) LSA,Biological Resources Reconnaissance,February,2013 4) WRA,Wetland Delineation Report,May 2013 5) City of Dublin Climate Action Plan,October 2010 6)Treadwell & Rollo,Phase I ESA,March 2013 7) RGDL Acoustic Report,August 2013 8) City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan,2006 9) Site Visit 10) Discussion with City staff or service provider imp 11) Other Source City of Dublin Page 23 °" Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 Attachment to Initial Study Discussion of Checklist Legend PS: Potentially Significant LS/M:Less Than Significant After Mitigation LS: Less Than Significant Impact NI: No Impact 1. Aesthetics Project Impacts a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista? NI. The site provides limited views of the Dougherty Hills area just east of the site. Most views from the site are limited by existing fences along the corridor. If approved and constructed, there would be no changes to scenic vistas or views to or from the future park site since there only limited and small-scale recreation structures constructed on the site that would not significantly block existing views. The future park would expand opportunities for residents and visitors to access views of the Dougherty Hills and no impact would occur with respect to this topic. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including state scenic highway? NI. Although a park development plan has yet to be finalized, the intent of the park is to preserve natural features, including wetlands and trees, to the fullest extent feasible. State and County designated scenic highways in the Dublin Planning area include Tassajara Road and the I-580 freeway. The project site is not located adjacent to or near either of these two roadways. There would therefore be no impact with substantial damane to scenic resources, including any adjacent to a scenic highway. c) Substantially degrade existing visual character or the quality of the site? NI. The intent of the proposed project is to enhance the condition of the former railroad area through enhanced landscaping, installation of recreational facilities and improving vehicular and pedestrian access to the park. This would not represent a degradation of the visual character of the site and no impacts would result. d) Create new sources of significant amounts of light or glare? LS/M. No lights currently exist within the proposed park property. Although a final design of the park is not completed, exterior lighting fixtures for safety and security could be installed. If not properly mitigated, light fixtures could cast unwanted light and glare onto adjacent properties. This would be a significant impact and will be reduced to a level of less-than-significance be adherence to the following measure: City of Dublin Page 24 Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 Mitigation Measure AES-1 (light and glare impacts). As part of the Building Permit submittal, the City shall submit lighting details and a photometric plan for review and approval. At minimum, the submittal shall include: a) A lighting plan illustrating the approximate location of all exterior light fixtures to be placed on the project site. b) Design details for cut-off lenses on the fixtures or other similar techniques to directed light to the intended area of illumination and to prevent off-site glare impacts on project site and adjacent buildings and properties. c) A photometric plan demonstrating lighting levels required to provide adequate safety and security onsite and also demonstrating that light will not spill over the site onto adjacent streets or properties. 2. Agricultural and Forestry Resources Project Impacts a-c) Convert Prime Farmland, conflict with agricultural zoning or uses, conflict with a Williamson Act contract or convert prune farmland to a non-agricultural use? NI. The project site is a former railroad corridor and was not historically used or zoned for agricultural production. No Williamson Act Land Conservation contracts are present on the site. There would be no impacts with respect to this topic. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to a non forest use? NI. No forested lands are present on the project and no impact would result with respect to this topic. -O» e) Involve other changes which, due to their location or nature, could result of forest land to a non forest use? NI. See item "d," above. a 3. Air Quality Project Impacts a) Would the project conflict or obstruct implementation of an air quality plan? LS. Although the proposed park is not currently designated on the Dublin General Plan which serves as the basis of the regional Clean Air Plan, the proposed park would further goals of the Clean Air Plan by encouraging bicycle and pedestrian use in Dublin. The proposed park would not increase the population of Dublin or add other uses that would be associated with significant vehicle trips. No impacts are therefore anticipated with respect to conflicts to or obstructions of the Clean Air Plan. b,c) Would the project violate any air quality standards or result in cumulatively considerable air pollutants? LS/M. Although the operation of the proposed park, once City of Dublin Page 25 August 2013 Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project VA constructed, would not generate significant air emissions since minimal vehicle trips would be generated (see Transportation and Circulation section of this Initial Study), construction activities could generate potentially significant emissions. These impacts would include generation of fugitive dust from site grading and from construction equipment that could impact nearby residents, users of Iron Horse Trail and Stagecoach Park and students at Dublin High School. Adherence to the following measure will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level: Mitigation Measure AIR-1. The project construction contractor shall adhere to the following measures to reduce fugitive dust and construction equipment fumes. These measures shall be included within project plans and specifications that are reviewed through the Building Permit and Site Improvement Permit process. 1) During grading and construction, all exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day, as necessary, to prevent wind-blown dust. 2) Stockpiled earthern material shall be covered. 3) All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. 4) All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed. 5) Vehicle speeds on unpaved roads or areas shall be limited to 15 mph. 6) Idling times shall be minimized by either shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes. Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. 7) All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. d) Expose sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations? LS/M. Adherence to Mitigation Measure AIR-1 will reduce short-term construction air quality impacts to a less-than-significant level. No significant pollutants are anticipated to be generated with respect to long-term operational use of the proposed since proposed uses would be primarily passive recreational uses. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? NI. None of the proposed uses within the park would generate substantial amounts of odors that could affect nearby residents. No impacts are therefore anticipated with respect to this topic. City of Dublin Page 26 Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 4. Biological Resources ' Project Impacts a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species? LS/M. The following analysis is based on a biological reconnaissance of the site conducted by LSA biological consultants ("Results of Reconnaissance-level Biological Survey for Union Pacific Railroad Parcels, Dublin, Alameda County," dated February 26, 2013). This report is included as Attachment 1 to this Initial Study. This report is incorporated herein by reference and is available for review at the Dublin Community Development Department during normal business hours Site conditions. The dominant topographical feature on the site is an abandoned UPRR railroad grade topped with crushed gravel and cobble. Both embankments of the grade are covered in non-native annual grassland dominated by wild oat (Avena fatua), rye grass (Festuca perennis), and ripgut grass (Bromus diandrus). Beardless wild rye (Elymus triticoides), a native grass, is present in small amounts. Non-native ruderal forbs growing throughout the parcel include bristly ox-tongue (Picris echioides), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), and mustard (Brassica sp.). Several aw linear depressions in the borrow ditches on both sides of the railroad grade were full of water during the January 2013 survey. The largest of these was an approximately 450-foot-long by 50-foot-wide pool in the eastern borrow ditch approximately 765 feet north of Amador Valley Boulevard. Seasonal wetland plant species observed growing in and around these depressions include spiny cocklebur (Xanthium spinosum), salt grass (Distichlis spicata), curly dock (Rumex crispus), fat-hen (Atriplex prostrata), nutsedge (Cyperus eragrostis), and swamp prickle grass (Crypsis schoenoides). A stand of woody vegetation dominated by arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis) and sandbar willow (Salix exigua) is present on the western side of the railroad grade approximately 300 feet north of Amador Valley Boulevard. A few immature valley oaks (Quercus lobata) and coast live oaks (Q. agrifolia) grow along the top of the " grade adjacent to the willow stand. Several oaks and willows are also present on the eastern side of the grade north of the larger stand of riparian woodland. A few small trees and shrubs of various native and non-native species grow along the western site boundary at the southern end of the parcel near Alamo Creek. Species observed in this area include walnut (Juglans sp.), Italian buckthorn (Rhamnus alaternus), coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), silver wattle (Acacia dealbata), and coast live oak. Special-status plants. Based on the results of the CNDDB search and observed habitat conditions in October 2006 and January 2013, LSA identified four special- status plant species as potentially occurring in the vicinity (see Table A located in Attachment 1). Two of these have been recorded in the general vicinity of the parcel: Diablo helianthella (Helianthella castanea) and Congdon s tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii). Diablo helianthella is not expected to occur due to the absence of chaparral and oak woodland. Congdon's tarplant (rare plant rank 1B) is known to occur within the Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, less than 1 mile east of the parcel, and also along Dougherty Road, approximately 1 City of Dublin Page 27 Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 mile north-northeast of the parcel. This species typically occurs in annual AW grassland,but is also known to occur in ruderal vegetation adjacent to annual grassland or that were once annual grassland. Habitat for this species is present in the grassland along the railroad grade. Since the January 2013 survey was conducted outside the blooming period for the species (May to October), there is some potential for this species to occur on the parcel. Focused surveys during the blooming period are necessary to confirm the presence or absence of this species SVecial-status animals. The CNDDB contains records for 9 special-status animal species in the vicinity of the parcel and habitat is present for another (loggerhead shrike [Lanius ludovicianus]) (Table A of Attachment 1). Seven of these species are not expected to occur due to the lack of habitat and/or surrounding development. This group includes the following four listed species: California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii), Alameda whipsnake (Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus) and San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes rnacrotis mutica). California tiger salamander has been recorded at Camp Parks less than one mile east of the site. The seasonal pools adjacent to the railroad grade resemble moderate-quality breeding habitat for the species. However, historic and ongoing disturbance on the parcel (e.g., railroad maintenance, vegetation management, pedestrians and pets) its small size and the parcel's isolation from the more extensive grasslands east of Dougherty Road make it highly unlikely that the species is present. California red-legged frog has been recorded from the upper reaches of Alamo Creek in the San Ramon Valley, but has not been observed in the lower, urbanized reach west of Dougherty Road due to decreased habitat quality from surrounding urbanization. San Joaquin kit fox have not been found during several intensive surveys in the Dublin/San Ramon area, and are presumed absent from the area. The parcel is completely isolated from the closest occupied Alameda whipsnake habitat which is located over seven miles from the site. Although not detected during either survey, loggerhead shrike (California Species of Special Concern) could potentially nest in the oaks and willows northwest of Amador Valley Boulevard and the grassland on either side of the railroad grade provides foraging habitat. Other native bird species may also be present on the site, including white-tailed kite, Anna's hummingbird, western scrub-jay, chestnut-backed chickadee, bushtit, American robin, California towhee, and house finch. Two California ground squirrel burrow complexes provide marginal habitat for burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia; California Species of Special Concern), although dense weed cover may limit their suitability for nesting.Both of these species are known to occur in the extensive grasslands east of Dougherty Road (i.e., Camp Parks) and in the Dougherty Valley. Construction of the proposed park and disturbance of the ground could result in significant impacts to a number of special-status plant and wildlife species, including Congdon's tarplant,burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike and other native bird species. Adherence to the following measures will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure BI0-1. A qualified botanist shall conduct a focused Congdon's tarplant botanical survey during its blooming period (May to October) in accordance with CDFW protocols and as recommended in the EACCS. If Congdon's tarplant species are found on the site, no City of Dublin Page 28 ' Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 construction shall occur on that portion of the site containing tarplants and a 50-foot wide buffer area shall be maintained around the perimeter of tarplants. The width and location of the buffer may be adjusted by a qualified biologist in consultation of California Fish &Wildlife (CDFW) staff. Alternatively, if avoidance is not feasible, alternative areas shall be identified, on or off of the site, with the same hydrological conditions as the site. Tarplant seeds shall be collected from the park site prior to grading and replanted in the alternative location. Mitigation Measure BIO-2. Further surveys for burrowing owl shall be completed prior to grading in accordance with the recently revised Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation issued by the CDFW in March 2012. If burrowing owls are found breeding and/or wintering on the site, burrows shall be avoided during the breeding season and a suitable buffer area shall be established round each nest, as determined by a qualified biologist, or suitable off-site habitat shall be provided such as easements as recommended in the EACCS. In addition, any occupied burrows shall be avoided through the establishment of exclusion zones during construction. The location and widths of such exclusion zones shall be ' determined by a qualified biologist. Mitigation Measure BIO-3. If future development plans include tree removals, such activities should be conducted during the non-nesting season (September 1 to January 31), if feasible. Depending on the nature and location of proposed work, pre-construction surveys may be Aw necessary to avoid impacts to nesting birds, as determined by a qualified biologist. Such surveys shall be conducted within 7 days prior to the start of work from February to May (since there is a higher potential for birds to initiate nesting during this period), and within 15 days prior to the start of work from June to August. If nesting birds are found, a buffer area ` around each nest shall be established under the direction of a qualified �r biologist and the buffer area shall remain as directed by the biologist. b, c) Have a substantial adverse impact on riparian habitat or federally protected wetlands? LS/M. Approximately 0.51 acres of the proposed park site have been identified as jurisdictional wetlands under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. This is based on a wetlands delineation prepared by the firm of WRA biological consultants in May, 2013. This report is included as Attachment 2 to this Initial Study. Riparian vegetation identified within wetland areas included wild oat, ripgut brome, bristly ox-tongue, prickly lettuce, curly dock, fat hen and rabbitsfoot grass. Grading, filling or other actions that could be taken as part of the project to disturb this jurisdictional wetland would be a potentially significant impact. Adherence to the following will ensure that impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and riparian habitat are reduced to a less-than-significant level: Mitigation Measure BI0-4. Jurisdictional wetlands on the site shall be avoided during construction and operation of the proposed park. A suitable buffer and protection devices shall be incorporated into the final City of Dublin Page 29 Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 park plan. If avoidance is not feasible, on-site jurisdictional wetlands shall be replaced at a 3:1 ratio, as recommended in the EACCS, as close to the ° park as practicable and where suitable habitat exists. Alternatively, the WW City may purchase credits in an off-site wetland mitigation bank at a 3:1 ratio. 40 In accordance with existing regulatory requirements for protection of sensitive species and habitats, necessary permits shall be obtained by the City from appropriate biological regulatory agencies, including but not limited to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, California Department of Fish and Wildlife and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. d) Interfere substantially with movement of native fish or wildlife species? LS/M. The proposed park site presently allows full north-south access for wildlife traversing the area as well as for native fish species using the Zone 7 watercourse. Future park improvements could substantially block or impeded existing fish or wildlife movement. Adherence to the following measure will ensure that substantial movement of native fish or wildlife will not be blocked. Mitigation Measure BI0-5. Prior to the preparation of construction documents, final park design plans shall be reviewed by a qualified biologist to ensure that substantial blockage of native fish or wildlife will not occur. If necessary, park plans shall be required to be changed to M ensure that fish and wildlife movement is maintained. e, f) Conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources or any adopted Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans? LS. The City of Dublin lies within the Eastern Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS) planning area. The EACCS is not a Habitat Conservation or Natural Community Conservation Plan. The General Plan revisions will be consistent with local City of Dublin biological resource protection policies, as well as applicable objectives, policies, and programs contained in the EACCS document. Key objectives of the EACCS include comprehensive conservation of special-status species in eastern Alameda County, contribution to recovery of threatened species, establishing mitigation thresholds, and others. Future development is required to comply with all City policies, ordinances and requirements protecting biological resources, including impacts to heritage trees. A less-than-significant impact would therefore result with respect to this topic. 5. Cultural Resources Project Impacts a) Cause substantial adverse change to significant historic resources? LS. With one exception, the project site contains no structures. The one exception is an older City of Dublin Page 30 Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 railroad trestle that serves to bridge an existing drainage channel in the approximate center of the proposed park site. The existing trestle structure is expected to be incorporated into the final park design and could become a crossing for the realigned Iron Horse Regional Trail. If the trestle is maintained, it will need to be assessed for safety purposes and examined for potential toxicity due to the fact that it has likely been treated with creosote and other chemical wood preservatives over its lifetime. If the trestle remains and is incorporated into the park, this could result in a significant health risk to the public. Adherence to the following measure will ensure that the trestle is suitable for public use: Mitigation Measure CULT-1. Prior to reuse of the existing trestle, the structure shall be examined by a Registered Environmental Assessor (REA) to ensure that the level of chemicals and other substances on and Aw adjacent to the structure are below applicable local, state and federal exposure standards for human and animals. The REA shall recommend specific feasible measures to reduce the level of risk from identified hazards to the public. These measures shall be incorporated into the final park development plan. If the level of risk cannot be reduced to a generally recognized safe level, the trestle structure shall be removed and any area near the trestle shall be safely remediated. Necessary permits and approvals shall be obtained as necessary from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Alameda County Environmental Health Services Department or others. Necessary clearances shall be " secured from appropriate regulatory agencies prior to issuance of a grading plan for this portion o the project site. Should the trestle not be able to be retained, the removal of the trestle would not result in a significant impact to a historic structure, and the impact would be less than significant. Therefore, removal of the trestle would not result in a significant impact to a " historic structure. b-d) Cause a substantial adverse impact or destruction to archeological or paleontological resources, or human remains that may be interred outside of a formal cemetery? LS/M. The project site is located on relatively flat topography near Alamo Creek and other local watercourses. Typically, Native American villages are located close to such watercourses. Therefore, there is a medium to high potential for encountering historic, prehistoric, Native American or similar cultural resource during grading for the proposed park and other ground disturbing activities, This could include paleontological resources. Adherence to the following measure will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure CULT-2. Wording shall be added on final Joe construction plans and specifications for the proposed park to the effect that if archeological or Native American materials or artifacts are identified, work on that portion of the project shall cease until a resource City of Dublin Page 31 Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 MW protection plan conforming to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 and the Dublin Zoning Ordinance is prepared by a qualified archeologist and/or .. paleontologist and approved by the City of Dublin Community Development Director or an authorized representative. Project work may be resumed in compliance with such plan. If human remains are encountered, the County Coroner shall be contacted immediately and the provisions of State law carried out. 6. Geology and Soils Project Impacts a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse impacts, including loss, injury or death related to ground rupture, seismic ground shaking,ground failure, or landslides? LS. A small number of structures would be constructed as part of the ow proposed park, as identified in the Project Description of this Initial Study.' since the park would primarily contain passive recreational facilities. The park is also not envisioned by the City to provide major recreational facilities, as does other parks in Dublin. such as Emerald Glen Park in Eastern Dublin. Therefore, future exposure of a substantial number of people or major structures to injury or death from ground rupture, seismic ground shaking, ground failure or landslide is considered less-than-significant. b) Is the site subject to substantial erosion and/or the loss of topsoil? LS. Future development of the proposed park will be regulated by Section 7.2 ("Stream Corridors and Riparian Vegetation") of the Conservation Element of the Dublin General Plan that requires protection of Stream Corridors and Riparian Vegetation to minimize erosion into local creeks. The same Element includes 4W Guiding and Implementing Policies to minimize erosion into local bodies of water and to undertake erosion control methods. In addition, development projects, including the proposed park, are required to adhere to Best Management Practices (BMPs) as required by the Alameda "� County Clean Water program and enforced by the City of Dublin as part of normal and customary review of individual development projects. This will ensure insignificant impacts regarding substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. These BMPs typically include, but are not limited to, installation of silt fences, sandbags and similar measures to minimize substantial erosion and loss of topsoil. With adherence standard City requirements, this impact will be less- than-significant. c-d) Is the site located on soil that is unstable or expansive and that could result in potential ' lateral spreading, liquefaction, landslide or collapse? LS/M. The site is located near local streamcourses, including Alamo Creek and South San Ramon Creek. Generally, alluvial soils can be subject to liquefaction in the event of a seismic event, which could lead to damage to any permanent buildings on the site and other improvements, including, but not limited to, water and sewer pipes, sidewalks, retaining walls and other improvements. These improvements could City of Dublin Page 32 Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 be damaged in the event of loss of soil strength due to liquefaction or other soil MW hazards. Adherence to the following measure will reduce this impact to a less- than-significant level. 4W Mitigation Measure GEO-1. A soils and geotechnical report shall be commissioned by the City to identify the presence of liquefaction, expansive soils, the potential for differential settlement and other potential soil hazards that could damage park improvements. If such soil characteristics are found on the site, the report shall include detailed recommendations on how to reduce the risk of soil hazards to a less-than-significant level. This would typically include recommendations for enhanced building foundations, removal of incompetent soils, and similar measures. The recommendations of the soils report shall be implemented in final park development and construction plans. e) Have soils incapable of supporting on-site septic tanks if sewers are not available? NI. — All new projects are required by the City of Dublin to connect to the local sewer system, maintained by the Dublin San Ramon Services District. No impacts would therefore result with regard to septic systems. 7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Project Impacts a,b Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment or conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? NI. The proposed park would be a locally oriented park in the central area of Dublin, intended to serve the existing population in this portion of the community. Proposed uses would be largely passive and not intended to attract a large number of users. One small vehicle parking lot would be provided, however, it is anticipated that the majority of future users would access the park via bicycle or on foot. The amount of greenhouse gas emissions would be below the thresholds of significance published by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, which is 600 acres for a city park (source: Table 3-1, BAAQMD GHG screening criteria, May 2010). Therefore, the project would have no impact with respect to generation of greenhouses gasses. S. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Project Impacts a) Create significant hazards to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal hazardous materials? NI. City of Dublin crews would normally and customarily use fertilizers, herbicides and similar materials to maintain park landscaping. Similarly, there could also be limited quantities of building City of Dublin Page 33 Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 maintenance materials stored on the site, such as paints, solvents and similar materials. This is typical of all City of Dublin parks. No hazardous materials would be disposed on the project site. Overall, there would be no impact with respect to the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous material that would pose a significant hazard to the public or surrounding neighborhoods. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? LS/M. This portion of the Initial Study is based on an updated Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared on March 6, 2013 by the firm of Treadwell & Rollo ("Updated Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, County of Alameda and Union Pacific Right of Way, Dublin, California." This report is hereby incorporated by reference into this Initial Study. The Phase I " Environmental Site Analysis is available for review at the Dublin Community Development Department during normal business hours. Based on the findings of the Phase I report, there is one potential hazard on or adjacent to the site that could cause a significant hazard to the public and the environment as a result of project construction. This condition is deposit of chemicals and contaminants into site soils and possibly groundwater as a result of previous land uses and activities on the site. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment identifies a history of previous deposits of pesticides, herbicides, diesel fuel, creosote and heavy metals on the site as a result of previous uses on the site, primarily railroad uses. The Phase I report also notes that there is a recorded history of hydrocarbon leaks into the soil and groundwater from a nearby Kinder Morgan large-diameter gasoline and petroleum transmission pipeline located approximately 40 feet to the east of the proposed park site and parallel to the site. Grading of the park site to install park improvements could result in a release of hazardous materials into the environment that would be a potentially significant impact. Adherence to the following measure will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1. Prior to park construction, additional soil sampling shall be conducted to determine if contaminants above Environmental Screening Levels are present in the soil. If found, a remediation plan shall be prepared and approved by appropriate regulatory agencies, which may include the Regional Water Quality Control Board or the Alameda County Environmental Health Services Department. Remediation of contaminated material could include removal of contaminated material to an approved off-site location or similar measure. Remediation shall be completed per the approved plan and carried out by licensed contractors. The remediation plan shall include safety plans for workers and users of the Iron Horse Trail, as may be required. Necessary clearances shall be secured from appropriate regulatory agencies prior to the issuance of a grading plan. c) Emit hazardous materials or handle hazardous materials or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? NI. Although Dublin High School is located immediately west of the proposed park, City of Dublin Page 34 Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 �. approval and implementation of the project would have no impact with regard to this topic, since the future park is not anticipated to handle, store or release n. significant quantities of hazardous materials. d) Be listed on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied on the Cortese List and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or environment? NI. The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Cortese List of hazardous sites does not identify the proposed park site as contaminated as of July 3, 2013 (http:/ /w��nv.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search). No impact is anticipated with respect to this topic. e-f) Is the site located within an airport land use plan of a public airport or private airstrip? NI. The proposed park site is located well north of the Livermore Municipal Airport and is not within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) of this facility (see Livermore Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, 8/12). No other public or private airports or airstrips are located near the site. g) Interference with an emergency evacuation plan? NI. Development and operation of the proposed park will be required to be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan that also addresses emergency evacuation. The proposed park would include multiple access points to and from adjacent neighborhoods as well as Stagecoach Park and Dublin High School, to facilitate emergency evacuation. No impacts are anticipated with regard to this topic. h) Expose people and structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? NI. The site is located within a developed portion of Dublin and is not subject to wildland fires. No impacts are anticipated with respect to this topic. 9. Hydrology and Water Quality Project Impacts a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? NI. Construction and future operation of the proposed park would generate a small increase in wastewater from a small number of restroom facilities within the park. Wastewater collection, treatment and discharge of wastewater is provided by the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD). The District holds necessary waste discharge permits from the Regional Water Quality Control Board and other applicable agencies. Approval and implementation of the proposed park would not exceed waste discharge requirements imposed on DSRSD by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (source: Stan Kolodzie, DSRSD, 7/10/13). No impacts are expected with respect to this topic. b) Substantially deplete groundwater recharge areas or lowering of water table? NI. The park site is currently undeveloped and allows for groundwater recharge. The City of Dublin Page 35 Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 AW proposed park would not include a substantial amount of impervious surfaces, such as major buildings, parking lots or similar improvements, but would primarily remain as a passive, open space park. This would allow continued groundwater recharge on the site. Similarly, the proposed park would not generate a substantial demand for additional water sources that could deplete the local water table, since irrigation is proposed to be from recycled water not potable water. Therefore, the proposed project would not lower the local water table or substantially change the status of groundwater recharge areas and no impacts would occur. c) Substantially alter drainage patterns, including streambed courses such that substantial siltation or erosion would occur? LS/M. The existing Zone 7 channel within the project area may be rerouted into a more curvilinear route from the current linear channel to improve the character of the proposed park. The channel relocation may change the flow rate, amount of sediment deposited in the creek bottom and/or incise adjacent banks. These could be significant impacts with respect to existing streambed courses such that substantial siltation could occur. This impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with adherence to the following measure: Mitigation Measure HYD-1: If the existing Zone 7 channel is to be changed from it's present course, the City of Dublin shall have a qualified hydrologist prepare a hydrology and hydraulic analysis of the proposed rerouting to analyze the potential for a changed flow rate, deposition of erosion or incising of adjacent creek banks. Specific methods to reduce such effects shall be included in the report. The findings of the report shall be approved by the Zone 7 District Engineer and the recommendation of the report shall be incorporated into final park design plans. d,e) Substantially alter drainage patterns or result in flooding, either on or off the project site, create stormwater runoff that would exceed the capacity of drainage systems or add substantial amounts of polluted runoff? LS/M. Refer to item "c," above with respect to changes in stream course impacts. There would be no impact with respect to polluted runoff from the proposed park as noted in subsection "b." f) Substantially degrade water quality? NI. The City of Dublin requires all individual development projects, including the proposed park, to meet Best Management Practices to ensure that water quality would be protected. Best Management Practices are described above in Section 8c of this Initial Study. No impact is anticipated with regard to this topic. g-i) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped by a Flood Insurance Rate Map, or impede or redirect flood flow, including dam failure? NI. No housing is proposed as part of the project and no impacts would occur with respect to this topic. j) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflows? NI. There are expected to be no impacts with regard to seiche, tsunami or mudflows, since the project site is be located inland from major bodies of water, primarily San Francisco Bay, and no City of Dublin Page 36 Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 major steeply sloping areas are found within or adjacent to the park. Therefore, no impacts would occur with respect to this topic. 10. Land Use and Planning Project Impacts a) Physically divide an established community? NI. The proposed park site is presently vacant and does present a barrier between neighborhood east and west of the site. The proposed park would include a number of pedestrian and bicycle linkages with surrounding neighborhoods, Dublin High School and Stagecoach Park. The proposed park would provide new linkages that would strengthen ties with established neighborhoods and no impacts are anticipated with respect to this topic. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy or regulation? NI. Although a General Plan Amendment is being considered as part of the underlying project, the purpose of the Amendment is to designate the site as a public park in the absence of an existing General Plan land use designation. No other General Plan policies affecting environmental protections are proposed to be changed and no impacts would result with respect to this topic. c) Conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? NI. See Checklist Item 4 f. VW 11. Mineral Resources Project Impacts a, b) Result in the loss of availability of regionally or locally significant mineral resources? NI. No impacts would occur to any mineral resources, since no such resources are identified in the Dublin General Plan for this site. low 12. Noise Project Impacts a) Would the project expose persons or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established by the General Plan or other applicable standard: LS/M. Potential noise impacts of the proposed park has been analyzed in a report entitled "Environmental Noise Impact Report for the Iron Horse Linear Park, Dublin CS" dated July 11, 2013 prepared by Rosen, Goldberg, Der & Lewitz. This report is attached to the Initial Study as Attachment 3. Following is a summary of the findings of the RDGL report. Existing Noise Conditions. The proposed park would extend along the Iron Horse Regional Trail and include the former Union Pacific Right of Way. Residences are located on both sides of the proposed park with backyards that abut the project City of Dublin Page 37 Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 rte„ site. Along the western side of the site, backyards are approximately 100 feet from the Iron Horse Trail. On the eastern side, backyards are about 200 feet from the Iron Horse Trail. To quantify the existing noise environment, long-term noise measurements were made by RGDL staff for seven consecutive days at two locations (A and B on Figure 1 of the attached acoustic report) and short term, 15-minute noise measurements were made at four locations (1 through 4 on Figure 1). The measurement locations were primarily chosen to represent the existing conditions at residences near the proposed project. In general, average noise levels toward the north (location A) ranged from 45 to 55 dBA (Leq) whereas noise levels on the southern end (location B), near Amador Valley Boulevard, were slightly higher and ranged from about 45 to 60 dBA. Table 1 shows the results of the short term noise measurements. Table 1. Summary of Short-Term, 15 Minute Noise Measurements A-weighted Sound Level,dBA Location Date /Time L,q Lio L50 L90 CNEL* 1 1134 a.m. 39 41 37 35 51 2 1-May-13 47 49 44 38 52 12:33 a.m. 8-May-13 3 2:17 m 47 48 45 43 51 4 8-May-13 53 54 52 51 57 2:36 p.m. 8-May-13 5 3:17 y m 52 54 52 51 56 *CNEL calculated based on comparison with simultaneous measurement at 24-hour noise monitor location. Source: RGDL, 2013 At location 3, adjacent to homes on the west side of the project site, a dog barking generated a maximum noise level of 51 dBA, whereas a voice on the Iron Horse Trail was 49 dBA. An airplane flyover generated a maximum noise level of 60 dBA. At location 4, a distant truck generated a noise level of 52 dBA whereas a motorcycle generated a maximum level of 58 dBA. At Location 4 the sound of kids in the nearby park were 56 to 58 dBA though they were somewhat masked by wind noise which was about 55 dBA. At location 5, near the southern end of the site, distant traffic had a maximum noise level of 52 dBA. City Noise Standards. The Noise Element of the City's General Plan has policies regarding noise and land use compatibility. Table 2 provides guidelines for the compatibility of land uses with various noise exposures. The City uses the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) descriptor. A CNEL of 60 dBA or less is considered normally acceptable for residential land use. It should be noted that City of Dublin Page 38 Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 the City's compatibility standards are normally intended to be used for traffic and transit noise. aw Table 2. City of Dublin Land Use/Noise Compatibility Standards (decibels) Land Use Normally Conditionally Normally Clearly Acce table Acce table Unacce table Unacce table Residential 60 or less 60-70 70-75 75+ Lod in Facilities 60 or less 61-80 71-80 Over 80 �r Schools,churches, 60 or less 61-70 71-80 Over 80 nursin homes Neighborhood 60 or less 61-65 66-70 Over 70 arks Office/Retail 70 or less 71-75 76-80 Over 80 Industrial 70 or less 71-75 Over 75 Source: Dublin General Plan Noise Element, Table 9-1 Chapter 5.28 of the City of Dublin's Municipal Code prohibits "...loud, or disturbing, or unnecessary, or unusual or habitual noise or any noise which annoys or disturbs or injures or endangers the health, repose, peace or safety of any reasonable person of normal sensitivity present in the area." The noise ordinance states that it is appropriate to consider the level and character of the noise as well as the level and character of the background noise. Since the City's Noise Ordinance does not contain quantifiable noise level limits, it is not possible to apply the noise ordinance as a threshold for assessing project generated noise in the context of this noise study. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines require a determination of whether a project will generate a substantial increase in noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. CEQA does not specify a method for determining when a project would cause a significant increase in noise. Likewise, the City of Dublin does not have criteria for determining when a noise increase is significant. AW A recent FAA Draft Policy discusses screening and impact thresholds for increases in aircraft noise. These FAA thresholds are consistent with the thresholds that were adopted in CEQA document for the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan. Therefore, these thresholds are used to assess the significance of noise increases due to the project as follows—an increase in CNEL is significant if it is: 5 dBA or greater and future CNEL is less than 60 dBA • 3 dBA or greater and future CNEL is 60 dBA or greater and less than 65 dBA MW • 1.5 dBA or greater and future CNEL is 65 dBA or greater. ' Potential noise impacts. Noise sources associated with the proposed project would range from those that are typical for the existing trail such as people walking,jogging or biking to new uses such as children's play areas, outdoor City of Dublin Page 39 Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 classrooms and outdoor picnic areas. Typical maximum noise levels from trail users (joggers, bikers and people Aw strolling) range from 43 to 60 dBA at a distance of 10 feet. With the proposed project, the trail would meander and be as close as 25 feet from existing homes. Table 2 shows the estimated noise levels from the trail use at backyards of existing residences. Table 3. Estimated Noise Levels from Trail at the Nearest Backyards Noise Source Lmax (dBA) Bike* 44 Jogger* 44 Voice—normal** 40 Voice—raised** 47 L.VOice—shout** 70 * Noise Study for Alamo Creek Bike Path, 30 June 2003 ** "Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control", 3rd Ed., Cyril Harris 1998. Based on the noise measurements that were made for the Alamo Creek Bike Trail project, the Le due to the trail users would be 43 dBA at a distance of 10 feet from the center of the trail. This corresponds to an Leg of 35 dBA at a distance of 25 feet. If this level of activity occurs from 7 AM to 9 PM, then the DNL would be 34 dBA at the nearest backyards, estimated to be about 25 feet from the trail. For group activities, the level of noise would depend on the number of users and the proximity to homes. For example, a group activity, such as use of a play area where five children are playing continuously for 12 hours a day would generate an Leq of 52 dBA at a distance of 100 feet. The corresponding CNEL would be 49 dBA. The Noise Element of the City of Dublin's General Plan considers a CNEL of 60 dBA or less to be "normally acceptable" for neighborhood parks and residential development. The City's of Dublin's Noise Ordinance (Chapter 5.28) does not contain quantitative noise level limits. Existing noise levels along the project site range from a CNEL of 51 to 57 dBA due to ambient noise and trail use. This is considered "normally acceptable" for both park and residential uses. In the future, the noise from the proposed project will vary, depending upon the specific use and ultimate location of that use with respect to existing residences. For the purposes of this assessment, the uses are divided into two types: Trail use (biking, walking,jogging) and outdoor classrooms/play/picnic areas. The use of the bike trail would be similar to current use though the distance of the main trail to homes would decrease since the trail would likely meander from east to west (as opposed to its current location about 100 to 200 feet from homes). low City of Dublin Page 40 Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 Under the scenario where a trail comes within about 25 feet from a residential backyard, the CNEL would be 34 dBA. A CNEL of 34 dBA is well within the City's "normally acceptable" level of 60 dBA for residential use and would not result in a significant noise impact. The precise location of the outdoor classroom/play/picnic areas is not known at this time, but the concept site plan indicates that a likely distance would be about 100 feet from existing homes. An outdoor classroom, play or picnic areas with five children playing continuously, throughout the day, would generate a CNEL of 49 dBA at a distance of 100 feet. If the number of children increased to 10, the CNEL ' would increase to 52 dBA. Both these levels are considered "normally acceptable" for residential use according to the City's General Plan and would also not result in a significant noise impact. In order to generate noise levels greater than those considered normally acceptable (e.g. greater than 60 dBA (CNEL)) there would need to be approximately 75 children using the outdoor area if it is located 100 feet from the homes or the play area would need to be closer than 37 feet from the homes if there were only 10 children playing. In these instances, noise from the outdoor classroom/play/picnic area would be considered a significant impact. Adherence to the following measure will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure NOISE-1. The final development plan for the park shall include a restriction of classrooms, play areas and picnic areas to a minimum distance of 37 feet from the rear yard of existing residences w adjacent to the park. Potential permanent noise increases are addressed in item "a." above. Construction of the proposed park could result in substantial temporary increases in noise as a result of site grading and construction of structures on the site. Temporary construction noise could be considered significant to existing trail users and due to the close proximity of residences along major portions of the park site. Adherence to the following measure will reduce this impact to a less-than- significant impact by limiting hours and days of construction to normal daytime periods. b) Exposure of people to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? NI. The proposed park is anticipated to largely consist of natural uses rather than located in structures. Structures anticipated for the park will likely be small-scale, low-rise buildings that would not generate significant groundborne noise or vibration and no impacts would result. c,d) Substantial permanent or temporary increases in permanent in ambient noise levels? LS/M. Potential permanent noise increases are addressed in item "a." above. Construction of the proposed park could result in substantial temporary increases in noise as a result of site grading and construction of structures on the site. Temporary construction noise could be considered significant due to the close proximity of residences along major portions of the park site. Adherence to the City of Dublin Page 41 Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 �w following measure will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant impact by limiting hours and days of construction to normal daytime periods. Mitigation Measure NOISE-2. Construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 7:30 am to 6 p/m, Monday through Saturday, excluding state „�. or federal holidays. Hours of construction shall include delivery of materials and tune up of equipment. Hours of operation shall be included on construction plan and specifications. e,f) Be located within an airport land use plan area, within two miles of a public or private airport or airstrip? NI. The proposed park is not located within a 2-mile radius of any public or private airport or airstrip. 13. Population and Housing Project Impacts a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly? NI. The site is currently vacant and no housing units are proposed for site as part of the new park. No impacts are anticipated. b,c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing units or people requiring replacement housing?q g g. p NI. The site is vacant and no housing units or people would be displaced should the project be approved and constructed. No impacts are anticipated. AW 14. Public Services Project Impacts a) Fire protection? LS. The City of Dublin contracts with Alameda County Fire Department for fire suppression, emergency medical, rescue and fire inspection services. The closest fire station is located at 7494 Donohue Drive (Station #16), '" and this station would provide primary response to fire or rescue calls for service within the proposed park. Construction and operation of the proposed park would increase the calls for fire and emergency services to the Department, but not require any new fire stations or the expansion of an existing station (Bonnie Terra, ACFD, 7/3/13) so there would be a less-than- significant impact with respect to this topic. b) Police protection? LS. There could be a small increase in the number of calls for service to the Dublin Police Services Department based on future use of the proposed park. However, based on a discussion with the Dublin Police Services Department, there would not be a need for new police facilities to serve the proposed park or a need to expand existing police facilities (Tom McCarthy, Dublin Police Services, 7/10/13). A less-than-significant impact is anticipated with respect to police service. City of Dublin Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project Page u.. August 2013 13 c) Schools? NI. No residences would be constructed as part of the proposed park project so that no school-aged children would be generated that would require new classroom space or other educational facilities. No impacts would result with respect to this topic. d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? LS. The proposed park would be maintained by City of Dublin park maintenance crews. The park would be constructed to City engineering and construction standards to minimize the „ need for excessive maintenance so that a less than-significant impact would occur with respect to this topic. e) Solid waste generation? LS. See item 17, below. 15. Recreation Project Impacts a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks? NI. The proposed project would consist of a new City park in an existing underserved portion of Dublin. The proposed park would increase the number and types of parks for Dublin residents and would therefore not increase the use of other existing neighborhood and regional parks. No impacts would occur with respect to this topic. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of recreational facilities? NI. The proposed project does include construction of recreation and park facilities; the potential physical impacts of the proposed facilities are addressed in the resource topics throughout this IS. No impacts beyond those iw addressed elsewhere in the Initial Study would occur with respect to this topic. 16. Transportation/Traffic Project Impacts a, b) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial relative to existing traffic load and street; or exceed LOS standards established by the County CMA for designated roads? LS. Construction of the proposed park would result in increases in traffic on local roads, as Dublin residents travel to and from the park. Based on standard trip generation rates for parks published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) (9t' edition), the proposed park is anticipated to generate the following number of vehicle trips: Daily weekday trips: 28 trips • Weekday morning peak trips: 0.25 trips Weekday evening peak trips: 1.1 trips • Saturday daily trips: 147 trips • Sunday daily trips: 50 trips City of Dublin Page 43 Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 �w Based on a discussion with the City of Dublin traffic engineer, the addition of the above trips to the local roadway system, there would be a less-than- significant impact with respect to congestion on nearby local or regional roads or CMA-designated roadways (source: Obaid Khan, Dublin traffic engineer, 7/8/13). Since the proposed park would be located near the existing Iron Horse Trail, the number of vehicles accessing the proposed park could be less than anticipated using standardized rates, since a number of future users would be bicyclists or pedestrians. it is also anticipated that some park usage would come from nearby neighborhoods, whereby park users would walk or bicycle to the proposed park. This impact would therefore be less-than-significant. c) Result in a change of air traffic patterns? NI. The proposed park would have no impact on air traffic patterns since it would not include any airport or other features that could change air traffic patterns. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use? LS/M. A aim finalized site plan for the proposed park has not been prepared. It is unknown if the park development plan could increase traffic hazards, result in an incompatible use or create potential conflicts with existing driveways or nearby intersections. Since this is not known, such conditions could be created which would result in a potentially significant impact. Adherence to the following measure will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure TRANS-1. The final park development plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Dublin Traffic Engineer to assure that no traffic design hazards are created and that circulation for bike,jogging, walking and other park uses are not incompatible. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? NI. No impacts would occur with regard to emergency access. The preliminary description for the proposed park would include several pedestrian and bicycle connections with surrounding neighborhoods, Stagecoach Park and Dublin High School to ensure that adequate emergency access would be provided. f) Conflict with adopted policies,plans or programs regarding public transit, bicycle or pedestrian facilities or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? NI. The proposed park is intended to be neighborhood oriented, with minimum off-street parking and maximum walkways and bicycle paths. Therefore, the proposed project would further City policies to promote non- automobile uses and no impacts would result with respect to this topic. 17. Utilities and Service Systems Project Impacts ° a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB? LS/M. The Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) bases existing and future wastewater flows on land uses included in the Dublin General Plan. Since the proposed park use City of Dublin Page 44 Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 is not included in the General Plan Land Use Map, future wastewater flows are not currently included in the District's wastewater master planning. Based on a recent discussion with District staff (source: Stan Kolodzie, 7/10/13), the small incremental amount of wastewater generated from the park would likely not be considered significant that would exceed Regional Water Quality Control Board discharge standards; however, restroom facilities will need to include low-flow fixtures to limit the amount of future wastewater flow. This is included as a mitigation measure. With adherence to the following measure, this impact would be less-than-significant. Mitigation Measure UTIL-1: Future restrooms within the park shall be limited to "low flow" toilets. Water faucets shall be equipped with .� flow restrictors. b) Require new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities? LS/M. Based on recent discussions with DSRSD staff(Stan Kolodzie, 7/10/13), the District can provide adequate water and wastewater service to the proposed park without the need for new or expanded facilities, with adherence to Mitigation Measure UTIL-1. c) Require new storm drainage facilities? NI. Refer to Section 9c of this Initial Study. d) Are sufficient water supplies available? NI. The Dougherty Pipeline crosses Alamo Canal just east of the project location, which is critical for providing potable water to DSRSD for use by Dublin residents. If any park-related work is to be performed along the pipeline right of way, an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the District. However, based on discussions with DSRSD staff, as noted above, the District has adequate water supplies to serve the proposed park and no impact would result with respect to this topic. e) Adequate wastewater capacity to serve the proposed project? LS/M. See item "a," above. f) Solid waste disposal? NI. Since the proposed park would include largely passive uses with minimal numbers of users, the amount of solid waste anticipated to be generated would be less-than-significant. g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste NI. The existing service provider, Amador Valley Industries, will ensure adherence to federal, state and local solid waste regulations. No impact would result with respect to this topic. 18. Mandatory Findings of Significance a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal City of Dublin Page 45 Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 44 community, reduce the number of or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? No. The preceding analysis indicates that the proposed park would not have a significant adverse impact on cultural resources or have the potential to restrict the range of rare or endangered species, based on mitigation measures included in the Initial Study. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects). No, cumulative impacts of the proposed park would be minimal, since future users of the park would largely be local residents and trips to the park is anticipated to be primarily by non-automotive modes of transportation. This would substantially limit impacts of the project on traffic, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise generations and similar potential impacts. low c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No. Based on the preceding Initial Study, no substantial effects to human beings, either directly or indirectly have a� been identified from the proposed project. City of Dublin Page 46 Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 Initial Study Preparers Jerry Haag, Urban Planner, project manager and principal author Jane Maxwell, report graphics Agencies and Organizations Consulted The following agencies and organizations were contacted in the course of this Initial Study: City of Dublin Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner Rosemary Alex, Parks and Facilities Development Coordinator Obaid Khan, Senior Civil Engineer, Traffic Bonnie Terra, Fire Marshal Tom McCarthy, Police Chief Kit Faubion, Assistant City Attorney Dublin San Ramon Services District Stan Kolozdie, Staff Engineer Zone 7 Water Agency Elke Rank, Water Resources Planner References California Department of Toxic Substances Control, website,July 2013 Final Urban Water Management Plan, 2010 Update, Dublin San Ramon Services District, June 2011 Dublin General Plan, City of Dublin, Updated through 3/13 Dublin Historic Resources Identification Project, Page & Turnbull, 2004 Livermore Municipal Airport, Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission, August 2012 Parks and Recreation Master Plan, City of Dublin, 2006 update Sewer System Management Plan, Dublin San Ramon Services District, updated September 2005 City of Dublin Page 47 Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 Attachment 1- Biological Reconnaissance Report City of Dublin Page 48 Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 !§ S I L�.1 .4510 ICI I" INC BFRK ELEY I'R LS NO RIVERS I DL I- lAR ILA,:E 510. E Gb10 1 L CARLSBAD IRVINL R(D CK L I I' ItICN MC�f\D, C?.LII ORI\IA 1?8111 :,I 2S -n,3t1 I'AY FORT C:OIAANS PALM S P R IN CS SAN LUIS i_i I31SPU Via Email February 26,2013 Robin Donoghue Meyers Nave 401 Mendocino Avenue,#100 Santa Rosa,CA 95401 Subject: Results of Recormaissance-level Biological Survey Union Pacific Railroad Parcels, Dublin,Alameda County Dear Mr. Donoghue: LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA)has completed a reconnaissance-level biological survey of the two former Union Pacific Railroad(UPRR)right-of-way parcels in Dublin. LSA previously surveyed the northern parcel between Amador Valley Boulevard and the Alameda County line in October 2006 and presented the results in a letter report dated October 16, 2006. The purpose of the current survey was to confirm that habitat conditions on the northern parcel had not substantially changed since 2006 and to identify existing biological resources on the southern parcel between Interstate 580(I-580) and Dublin Boulevard. Specifically, we evaluated both parcels' potential to support special-status plant and/or animal species and determined if any sensitive habitats such as wetlands or drainages are present. This letter report includes the following: (1)a summary of relevant federal and State regulations pertaining to biological resources; (2)a description of the methods used to conduct the survey; (3)a discussion of biological resources and constraints on the northern parcel, and(4)a discussion of the same topics on the southern parcel. The biological resources discussion for each parcel is comprised of three components: (1)a description of the existing vegetation and wildlife, (2)a discussion of special-status plant and animal species known to occur in the area and their potential to occur on the parcel,and(3)a description of any jurisdictional waters and/or sensitive vegetation types observed on the parcel. REGULATORY CONTEXT The project site is located within the general geographical range of several sensitive plant communities and special-status plant and wildlife species. Biological resources on the project site may fall under the agency jurisdictions and regulations of the agencies listed below and described in more detail in Attachment A: 1. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS). Species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act, migratory birds. 2. California Department of Fish and Wildlife(CDFW). Species listed under the California Endangered Species Act. California Species of Special Concern, Streambed Alteration Agreements, migratory birds. 2/26/13(P:AMEY1301TioRpt.doc) PLANNING 1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES I DESIGN L S A ASSOCIATES, INC, 3. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps).Fill of waters/wetlands subject to the jurisdiction of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. 4. Regional Water Quality Control Board,(RWQCB). Water quality certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. 5. National Marine Fisheries Service(NMFS). Marine and anadromous species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act. METHODS Prior to visiting the parcels,LSA searched the California Natural Diversity Database(CNDDB)for records of special-status species within the Dublin U.S. Geological Survey(USGS)7.5-minute quadrangle and reviewed the previous report prepared for the northern parcel(LSA 2006). LSA biologist Matt Ricketts visited both parcels on January 24,2013 to assess current habitat conditions and evaluate the parcels' potential to support special-status plant and/or animal species. For the purposes of this report,special-status species are defined as follows: • Species that are listed, formally proposed, or designated as candidates for listing as threatened or endangered under the federal ESA • Species that are listed,or designated as candidates for listing,as rare,threatened, or endangered under CESA • Plant species assigned to California Rare Plant Ranks IA, 1B,and 2 • Animal species designated as Species of Special Concern • Species that meet the definition of rare,threatened, or endangered under Section 15380 of the CEQA guidelines • Considered to be a taxon of special concern by local agencies NORTHERN PARCEL Existing Conditions Most of the below information is adapted from our previous 2006 report since habitat conditions observed in January 2013 appeared relatively unchanged from our previous visit. Vegetation.The dominant topographical feature on the northern parcel is an abandoned UPRR railroad grade topped with crushed gravel and cobble.Both embankments of the grade are covered in non-native annual grassland dominated by wild oat(Avena fatua),rye grass(Festuca perennis),and ripgut grass (Bromus diandrus). Beardless wild rye(Elymus triticoides),a native grass, is present in small amounts.Non-native ruderal forbs growing throughout the parcel include bristly ox-tongue (Picris echioides), prickly lettuce(Lactuca serriola),and mustard(Brassica sp.). Several linear depressions in the borrow ditches on both sides of the railroad grade were full of water during the January 2013 survey. The largest of these was an approximately 450-foot-long by 50-foot-wide pool in the eastern borrow ditch approximately 765 feet north of Amador Valley Boulevard(see attached photo). Seasonal wetland plant species observed growing in and around these depressions include spiny cocklebur(Xanthium spinosum),salt grass(Distichlis spicata),curly dock(Rumex crispus), fat- 2/26/13(P:AML-Y1301\BioRpt.doc) 2 i_S f, A .,._ _..;. hen(Atripl(ax prostrata),nutsedge(Cyperus eragrostis), and swamp prickle grass(Crvpsis schoenoides). A stand of woody vegetation dominated by arroyo willow(Salix lasiolepis) and sandbar willow(Salix exigua) is present on the western side of the railroad grade approximately 300 feet north of Amador Valley Boulevard. A few immature valley oaks (Quercus lobata)and coast live oaks(Q. agi-ifolia) grow along the top of the grade adjacent to the willow stand. Several oaks and willows are also present on the eastern side of the grade north of the larger stand of riparian woodland. A few small trees and shrubs of various native and non-native species grow along the western site boundary at the southern end of the parcel near Alamo Creek. Species observed in this area include walnut( Uglans sp.), Italian buckthorn(Rhamnus alaternus),coyote brush(Baccharis pilularis), silver wattle(Acacia dealbata),and coast live oak. Wildlife.Most of the wildlife species observed on October 3,2006 and/or January 24,2013 were birds, with the following species observed within or flying over the parcel:ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus), great blue heron(Ardea herodias),turkey vulture(Cathartes aura), Cooper's hawk(Accipiter cooperii),red-shouldered hawk(Buteo lineatus),rock pigeon(Columba livia), mourning dove(Zenaida macroura),Anna's hummingbird(Calypte anna), belted kingfisher(Ceryle alcyon),red-breasted sapsucker(Sphyrapicus ruber),northern flicker(Colaptes auratus),American kestrel (Falco spar-verius),black phoebe(Sayornis nigricaM), western scrub jay(Aphelocoma californica),American crow(Corvus brachyrhynchos),ruby-crowned kinglet(Regulus calendula), hermit thrush (Catharus guttatus),American robin(Turdus migratorius), northern mockingbird (Himus polyglottos),yellow-rumped warbler(Setophaga coronata), common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas), Lincoln's sparrow(Melospiza lincolnii),white-crowned sparrow(Zonotrichia leucophrys), golden-crowned sparrow(Zonoo-ichia atricapilla),red-winged blackbird(Agelaius phoeniceus), lesser goldfinch(Spinus psaltria),and house finch(Haemorhous mexicanus). The dense grass and ruderal herbaceous cover of the abandoned right-of-way provides thermal and protective cover for a variety of native amphibians and reptiles.Although Sierran treefrog (Pseudacris sierra) and western fence lizard(Sceloporus occidentalis)were the only species detected during LSA's surveys, habitat is present for several other species that typically occur in or adjacent to residential neighborhoods,such as slender salamander(Batrachoseps attenuatos),western toad(Bufo boreas), southern alligator lizard(Elgaria rnulticarinatus), gopher snake (Pituophis eaten fer),and common garter snake (Thanrnophis sirtalis). California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi) activity was observed at two locations during the January 2013 survey: a small burrow complex in the western embankment of the west borrow ditch approximately 2,500 feet southeast of the Alameda/Contra Costa county line, and a larger burrow complex in the western embankment of the west borrow ditch approximately 450 feet northwest of Amador Valley Boulevard and below the stand of oaks(see attached photo). Evidence(burrows or runways)of Botta's pocket gopher(Thomomys bottae)and California vole(Microtus californica)was also observed throughout the grassland. Other common mammal species expected to occur include house mouse(Mus musculus), fox squirrel (Sciurus niger),northern raccoon(Procyon lotor), striped skunk(Mephitis mephitis), and black-tailed deer(Odocoileus he72101711S). 2/26/13(P:AMEY1301\13ioRpt.dcc) 3 LSA ASSOUTATLS, TNC. Special-status Species Plants.Based on the results of the CNDDB search and observed habitat conditions in October 2006 and January 2013, LSA identified four special-status plant species as potentially occurring in the vicinity(see attached Table A).Two of these have been recorded in the general vicinity of the parcel: Diablo helianthella(Helianthella castanea) and Congdon's tarplant(Centromadia par yi ssp. congdonii)(CDFW 2013).Diablo helianthella is not expected to occur due to the absence of chaparral and oak woodland. Congdon's tarplant(rare plant rank 1B)is known to occur within the Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, less than 1 mile east of the parcel,and also along Dougherty Road, approximately 1 mile north-northeast of the parcel.This species typically occurs in annual grassland, but is also known to occur in ruderal vegetation adjacent to annual grassland or that were once annual grassland(Preston 1999,LSA obs.).Habitat for this species is present in the grassland along the railroad grade. Since the January 2013 survey was conducted outside the blooming period for the species(May to October),there is some potential for this species to occur on the parcel. Focused surveys during the blooming period are necessary to confirm the presence or absence of this species. Animals.The CNDDB contains records for 9 special-status animal species in the vicinity of the parcel and habitat is present for another(loggerhead shrike[Lanius ludovicianus])(Table A). Seven of these species are not expected to occur due to the lack of habitat and/or surrounding development. This group includes the following four listed species: California tiger salamander(.4ntbystoma californiense), California red-legged frog(Rana draytonii),Alameda whipsnake(Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus)and San Joaquin kit fox(Vulpes macrotis mutica). California tiger salamander has been recorded at Camp Parks less than one mile east of the site.The seasonal pools adjacent to the railroad grade resemble moderate-quality breeding habitat for the species.However,historic and ongoing disturbance on the parcel(e.g.,railroad maintenance,vegetation management,pedestrians and pets) its small size and the parcel's isolation from the more extensive grasslands east of Dougherty Road make it highly unlikely that the species is present. California red-legged frog has been recorded from the upper reaches of Alamo Creek in the San Ramon Valley,but has not been observed in the lower,urbanized reach west of Dougherty Road due to decreased habitat quality from surrounding urbanization. San Joaquin kit fox have not been found during several intensive surveys in the Dublin/San Ramon area, and are presumed absent from the area(Sproul and Flett 1993).The parcel is completely isolated from the closest occupied Alameda whipsnake habitat which is located over seven miles from the site. Although not detected during either survey, loggerhead shrike(California Species of Special Concern) could potentially nest in the oaks and willows northwest of Amador Valley Boulevard and the grassland on either side of the railroad grade provides foraging habitat.The two California ground squirrel burrow complexes provide marginal habitat for burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia; California Species of Special Concern),although dense weed cover may limit their suitability for nesting. Both of these species are known to occur in the extensive grasslands east of Dougherty Road (i.e., Camp Parks) and in the Dougherty Valley(LSA obs.). Other Sensitive Biological Resources Jurisdictional Waters.Based on the presence of standing water and seasonal wetland plant species, several areas along the bottoms of the borrow ditches on either side of the railroad grade are likely subject to Corps jurisdiction under-Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and RWQCB jurisdiction under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act as wetlands of the United States and/or State. 2/26/13(P:ANIEY1301\13ioRpt.doc) 4 Other portions of the ditches that do not support wetland plants but show evidence of seasonal saturation may be considered other waters of the United States by these agencies. Sensitive Natural Communities. The CDFG tracks the occurrences of plant communities that are either known or believed to be of high priority for inventory in the CNDDB. The CNDDB contains no records of sensitive natural communities in the vicinity of the parcel,nor did LSA identify any such communities during its 2006 and 2013 reconnaissance surveys. Biological Constraints Congdon's Tarplant.As mentioned above, the parcel contains habitat for Congdon's tarplant. To confirm the presence or absence of this species,a qualified botanist would need to conduct a focused botanical survey during its blooming period(May to October)in accordance with CDFW protocols (CDFG 2009). The results of the survey could facilitate the avoidance of any on-site occurrences during project design. Burrowing Owl.Although habitat quality for burrowing owls on the parcel is marginal,its presence cannot entirely be ruled out without conducting additional surveys for this species in accordance with the recently revised Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation issued by the CDFW in March 2012 (CDFG 2012). If burrowing owls were found breeding and/or wintering on the parcel, loss of occupied burrows or suitable foraging habitat would likely be considered a significant impact under CEQA and instigation(e.g., preservation of suitable on-or off-site habitat)may be warranted. In addition, any occupied burrows would have to be avoided through the establishment of exclusion zones during construction. Loggerhead Shrike and Other Native Birds.Nests of all native bird species are protected under the federal MBTA and Section 3503 the California Fish and Game Code, which prohibits the take, possession, or needless destruction of the nest or eggs of any bird. The trees in the southern half of the parcel provide suitable nesting habitat for one special-status bird species(loggerhead shrike) as well as other native bird species such as white-tailed kite Anna's hummingbird, western scrub jay, chestnut-backed chickadee, bushtit,American robin, California towhee,and house finch, among others. If conducted during the nesting season(typically defined by CDFW as February 15 to September 1), removal of the trees could directly impact nesting birds by destroying active nests. Prolonged loud construction noise could also disturb nesting birds,resulting in nest abandontnent or failure. If future development plans include tree removals,such activities should be conducted during the non-nesting season (September 1 to January 31),if feasible.Depending on the nature and location of proposed work, pre-construction surveys may be necessary to avoid impacts to nesting birds. Such surveys should be conducted within 7 days prior to the start of work from February to May(since there is a higher potential for birds to initiate nesting during this period), and within 15 days prior to the start of work from June to August. Jurisdictional Waters.As mentioned above,the numerous pools within the borrow ditches on either side of the railroad grade, and potentially other areas within the ditches, are likely under Corps and RWQCB jurisdiction.Any fill or modification of these areas would require a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit from the Corps and Section 401 water quality certification from the RWQCB. To clarify the extent of Corps jurisdiction and more accurately depict jurisdictional boundaries, a formal wetland delineation in accordance with Corps methodology(Environmental Laboratory 1987, Corps 2008)would need to be conducted before applying for permits or designing project features around 2/26/13(P:A.MI✓Y13MBioRpt.doc) 5 LSA A9S0C:lArF+5, INC. existing wetlands. Alternatively,if future development is limited to uplands(i.e.,top of railroad grade), a formal delineation would not be required. SOUTHERN PARCEL Existing Conditions The southern UPRR parcel is an approximately 1,700-foot-long by 40-foot-wide strip of ruderal grassland located between Dublin Boulevard and the Iron Horse Regional Trail trailhead.The majority of the property is a concave borrow ditch, likely created during construction of the former railroad grade to the northeast which runs the length of the entire parcel.The parcel is bordered to the northeast by the Iron Horse Regional Trail and to the southwest by industrial development. Vegetation.The bottom of the ditch supports a mix of hydrophytic plant species typical of seasonal wetlands, annual grasses,and ruderal forbs. Seasonal wetland plants such as annual beard grass (Polyp09077 n7onspeliensis),spiny cocklebur,nutsedge,curly dock, salt grass,and fat-hen occur as dense patches in seasonally wet depressions and are also interspersed with ruderal plants and grasses in drier portions of the ditch. The banks of the ditch are dominated by wild oat and rye grass with scattered patches of prickly lettuce,a ruderal forb.Native vegetation on the parcel includes an approximately 100-foot-long by 30-foot-wide stand of beardless wild rye approximately 200 feet northwest of the southern end of the parcel and a small stand of willows(Salix sp.)next to a culvert in the central portion of the parcel. Wildlife.Wildlife activity on the southern parcel is lower than on the northern parcel due to its smaller size and increased disturbance levels associated with adjacent development. Species observed during LSA's January 24,2013 survey include Sierran treefrog(heard calling),black phoebe,western scrub jay, northern mockingbird, savannah sparrow,white-crowned sparrow,and western meadowlark(Sturnella neglecta). Botta's pocket gopher burrows were observed on the embankment northeast of the ditch. Special-status Species Of the three special-status plant or animal species discussed above as potentially occurring on the northern parcel (Congdon's tarplant,burrowing owl,and loggerhead shrike),only Congdon's tarplant has any potential to occur on the southern parcel.The lack of California ground squirrels and their burrows precludes use of the southern parcel by burrowing owls, and the paucity of nest sites and open grassland for foraging reduces the likelihood of loggerhead shrike nesting. The narrow width of the parcel and consequent exposure to higher noise levels and disturbance from trail users also reduces habitat suitability for shrikes.None of the remaining special-status species in Table A are expected to occur due to the disturbed condition of the parcel and its proximity to regular human activity.As on the northern parcel,focused surveys during the Congdon's tarplant blooming period (May to October) would be needed to confirm its presence or absence. Other Sensitive Biological Resources Jurisdictional Waters.The ditch that runs the length of the parcel may be under Corps jurisdiction as an"other water" of the United States.At a minimum,the depressions dominated by seasonal wetland plant species are likely wetlands of the State. 2126/13(P:AMEY1301\BioRpt.doc) Sensitive Natural Communities.Although the CNDDB contains no records of sensitive natural communities in the area,stands of beardless wild rye such as the one observed on the southern parcel are sometimes considered sensitive under CEQA. "Creeping rye grass' turfs"is recognized as a sensitive natural cornrnunity in the list of vegetation alliances recognized by CDFW(CDFG 2010) and impacts to high-quality examples of this community could be considered significant under CEQA. For a stand to be included in this vegetation alliance, beardless wild rye must comprise greater than 50 percent relative cover in the herbaceous layer(Sawyer et al.2009).The stand on the southern UPRR parcel is comprised of only about 20 percent relative cover of beardless wild rye, with the remaining portions comprised of rye grass,salt grass, and other annual grasses. Given the relatively low cover of beardless wild rye and the generally disturbed condition of the stand, it is unlikely to qualify as a sensitive natural community under CEQA. Biological Constraints The primary biological constraints to development of the southern parcel include Congdon's tarplant, nesting birds(protected under Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code), and jurisdictional wetlands and/or other waters of the United States. Focused botanical surveys to determine presence/absence of Congdon's tarplant would need to be conducted between May and October. A formal wetland delineation could be conducted to clarify the extent of Corps and RWQCB jurisdiction on the parcel at any time. A nesting bird survey would only need to be conducted if construction activities occurred during the nesting season(February 1 to August 31). We hope the above information will be useful in evaluating the land use potential of the two parcels. Please contact me or Malcolm Sproul,Principal-in-Charge, if you have any questions or require further information. Sincerely, LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. Matt Ricketts Senior Wildlife Biologist Attachments: Table A—Special-status Species Attachment A—Regulatory Context Site Photographs The common and scientific name of this species was recently changed fi-om creeping rye grass(Leymns triticoides)to beardless wild rye(Elymus triticoides),as per Baldwin et al.(2012). 2/26/13(PAMEY1301UoRpt.doc) 7 t.SA ASS 1)C,t AT E S, IN q. REFERENCES Baldwin, B.G., D.H. Goldman, D.J. Keil, R. Patterson, and T.J. Rosatti, eds. 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition. University of California Press, Berkeley. California Department of Fish and Game(CDFG).2009. Protocols for surveying and evaluating impacts to special status native plant populations and natural corrununities.November 24. CDFG.2010. List of Vegetation Alliances and Associations.Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program,California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA. September 2010. CDFG.2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. March 7. California Department of Fish and Wildlife(CDFW).2013. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), Commercial Version dated January 1,2013. Biogeographic Data Branch, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.Technical report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,Vicksburg, MS. LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA). 2006. Results of Biological Reconnaissance Survey, Union Pacific/Alameda County Parcels, Dublin. Prepared for City of Dublin Community Development Department. October 16. Preston, R.E. 1999. Preliminary Report on the Conservation Status of Congdon's Spikeweed (HeniLonia parryi subsp.congdonii)in the South and East San Francisco Bay Area and Monterey County, California. Unpubl.report prepared for U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura, CA.23 February. Sproul,M.J. and M.A. Flett. 1993. Status of the San Joaquin kit fox in the northwest margin of its range. 199') Transactions of the Western Section of The Wildlife Society 29:61-69. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers(Corps). 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region(Version 2.0). U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center,Vicksburg,MS. 2/26/13(PATv4EY1301\BioRpt.doc) 8 .._A ?C.?A i h S, ..Y Table A: Special-status Species Evaluated for the Union Pacific Railroad Parcels, Dublin,Alameda County,California Status* (Federal/State/ Species Other) Habitat/Blooming Period Discussion Plants Congdon's tarplant —/—/1B Alkaline soils in valley and May occur.Annual Centromadia parryi ssp. foothill grassland. Also grassland provides habitat. congdonii known to occur in ruderal Known to occur at Camp habitats. Elevation: 1-230 Parks less than 1 mile east m.Blooms May to of northern parcel. October. Diablo helianthella —/—/1B Rocky soils in Not expected to occur due to Helianthella castanea chaparral/oak woodland lack of rocky soils and interface. Elevation 60- chaparral. 1,300 m.Blooms March to June. Hairless popcorn-flower —/—/1 A Coastal salt marshes _and Not expected to occur due to Plagiobothrys glaber alkaline meadows. lack of salt marsh and/or Elevation: 5-180 m. alkaline meadows.Likely Blooms Marcy to May. extirpated in California. Oregon polemonium —/—/2 Coastal prairie,coastal Not expected to occur due to Polemoniuun carnetan scrub,and lower montane lack of habitat. coniferous forest. Elevation:0-1,830 m. Blooms April to September. Amphibians and Reptiles California tiger salamander FT/ST/CSC Grasslands and foothills Not expected to occur due to Ambystoma californiense that contain small mammal history of disturbance and burrows(for dry-season isolation from large blocks retreats)and seasonal of undisturbed grassland ponds and pools(for (e.g.,Camp Parks). breeding during the rainy season). California red-legged fi•og FT/—/CSC Ponds,streams,drainages Not expected to occur due to Rana draytonii and associated uplands; lack of aquatic habitat. requires areas of deep, still, Reach of Alamo Creek at and/or slow-moving water southern end of northern for breeding parcel too disturbed. Western pond turtle —/—/CSC Ponds,streams,drainages, Unlikely to occur due to Actinemys marmorata and associated uplands. lack of aquatic habitat. Reach of Alamo Creek at southern end of northern parcel too disturbed. Alameda whipsnake FT/ST/— Chaparral and sage scrub Not expected to occur due to Hasticophis lateralis with rock outcrops and an lack of chaparral. eulyxanthus abundance of prey species such as western fence lizard(Sceloporus occidentalis). P:AMEY1301\BioRpt.doc(02/26/13) 1.SA ASSOCf ATFS, INC. Status* (Federal/State/ Species Other) Habitat/Blooming Period Discussion Birds Burrowing owl —/—/CSC Open habitats(e.g., May occur in northern Athene cunicularia grasslands,agricultural parcel.Burrows and areas)with mammal foraging habitat present. burrows or other features (e.g.,culverts,pipes,debris piles)suitable for nesting and roosting. Loggerhead shrike —/—/CSC Open grasslands and May occur in northern Lanius ludovicianus woodlands with scattered parcel.Willows and oaks shrubs,fence posts,utility provide nest sites and lines,or other perches. grassland along railroad Nests in dense shrubs and grade suitable for foraging. lower branches of trees. Tricolored blackbird —/—/CSC Nests in dense vegetation Not expected to occur due to Agelaius tricolor near open water,forages in lack of dense emergent grasslands and agricultural marsh or other vegetation fields. suitable for nesting. Mammals Pallid bat —/—/CSC Roosts in eaves,tunnels, Not expected to occur due to Antroaous pallidus buildings,under bridges, lack of roosting habitat. and in tree hollows;forages over variety of habitats. San Joaquin kit fox FE/ST/— Annual grasslands with Not expected to occur due to Vulpes Inacrotis mutica scattered shrubby history of disturbance and vegetation.Loose-textured species' absence from soils required for digging Dublin/San Ramon area. burrows. American badger —/—/CSC Open,dry habitats(e.g., Not expected to occur due to Taxidea taxus grasslands)with friable surrounding disturbance soils. lack of connectivity to grassland habitat.No burrows observed during 2006 or 2013 surveys. *Status Codes FE=federally endangered 171'=federally threatened ST=State threatened IA=California Rare Plant Rank IA I B=California Rare Plant Rank I B 2=California Rare Plant Rank 2 CSC=California Species of Special Concern P:AMEY1301\BioRpt.doe(02/26/13) ATTACHMENT A: REGULATORY CONTEXT Federal Endangered Species Act The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS)has jurisdiction over federally listed threatened and endangered plant and animal species. The federal Endangered Species Act(ESA)protects listed species from harm or"take,"broadly defined as to"harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,wound,kill, trap, capture,or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct."An activity can be defined as a "take"even if it is unintentional or accidental.The USFWS has jurisdiction over federally listed plant and animal species with the exception of migratory fish which are under the jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries Service(NMFS)(formerly known as NOAA Fisheries). An endangered species is one that is considered in danger of becoming extinct throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A threatened species is one that is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future. Any activity that could result in the take of a federally listed species requires an ESA Section 10 take permit from the USFWS, or an ESA Section 7 consultation with the USFWS in conjunction with a federal permit process. Section 7 of the ESA requires other federal agencies involved in permitting projects that may result in take of federally listed species(e.g., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers)to consult with the USFWS prior to allowing any activities that may result in take. Clean Water Act The U.S.Army Corps of Engineers(Corps)is responsible under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act to regulate the discharge of fill material into waters of the United States. Waters of the United States and their lateral limits are defined in 33 CFR Part 3283(a)and include streams that are tributaries to navigable waters and their adjacent wetlands.The lateral limits of jurisdiction for a non-tidal stream are measured at the line of the ordinary high water mark(33 CFR 328.3[e])or the limit of adjacent wetlands(33 CFR 328.3[b]). Waters of the United States fall into two broad categories: wetlands and other waters. Wetlands include marshes,wet meadows, seeps, floodplains, basins,and other areas experiencing extended seasonal soil saturation. Seasonally or intermittently inundated features, such as seasonal ponds, ephemeral streams, and tidal marshes,are categorized as wetlands if they have hydric soils and support wetland plant communities. Other waters include waterbodies and watercourses such as rivers, streams, lakes, springs,ponds,coastal waters, and estuaries. Seasonally inundated waterbodies or watercourses that do not exhibit wetland characteristics are classified as other waters of the United States. In general, a project proponent must obtain a Section 404 permit from the Corps before placing fill or grading in wetlands or other waters of the United States. Prior to issuing the permit,the Corps is required to consult with the USFWS under Section 7 of the ESA if the project may result in the take of federally listed species. All Corps permits require water quality certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. In the San Francisco Bay Area,this regulatory program is administered by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board(RWQCB). Project proponents who propose to fill wetlands or other waters of the United States must apply for water quality certification from the RWQCB. The P:AMEY1301\BioRpt.doc(02/26/13) 1 LSA.ASSOGIA?LS, Iiv G. RWQCB has adopted a policy requiring mitigation for any loss of wetland, streambed, or other jurisdictional area. Migratory Bird Treaty Act The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act(MBTA), which is enforced by the USFWS, prohibits the taking, hunting, killing,selling, purchasing,etc. of migratory birds, parts of migratory birds,or their eggs and nests. As used in the MBTA,the term"take"is defined as"to pursue,hunt, shoot,capture, collect, kill,or attempt to pursue,hunt, shoot,capture,collect, or kill,unless the context otherwise requires."Most bird species native to North Arnerica are covered by this act. California Endangered Species Act The California Department of Fish and Wildlife' (CDFW)has jurisdiction over State-listed endangered,threatened,and rare plant and animal species under the California Endangered Species Act(CESA). CESA is similar to the federal ESA both in process and substance; it is intended to provide additional protection to threatened and endangered species in California. Species may be listed as threatened or endangered under both acts(in which case the provisions of both State and federal laws apply) or under only one act. A candidate species is one that the Fish and Wildlife Commission has formally noticed as being under review by CDFW for addition to the State list. Candidate species are protected by the provisions of CESA. Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act Under this Act(California Water Code Sections 13000-14920),the RWQCB is authorized to regulate the discharge of waste that could affect the quality of the State's waters.The RWQCB asserts jurisdiction over isolated waters and wetlands,as well as waters and wetlands that are regulated by the Corps. Therefore, even if a project does not require a federal permit, it may still require review and approval by the RWQCB if isolated waters or wetlands are present. When reviewing applications, the RWQCB focuses on ensuring that projects do not adversely affect the"beneficial uses"associated with waters of the State. In most cases,the RWQCB seeks to protect these beneficial uses by requiring the integration of waste discharge requirements (WDRs)into projects that will require discharge into-waters of the State. For most construction projects,the RWQCB requires the use of construction and post-construction best management practices(BMPs). California Environmental Quality Act The California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)applies to"projects"proposed to be undertaken or requiring approval by State and local government agencies. Projects are defined as having the potential to have physical impact on the environment. Under Section 15380 of CEQA,a species not included on any formal list"shall nevertheless be considered threatened or endangered if the species can be shown by a local agency to meet the criteria"for listing. With sufficient documentation,a species could be shown to meet the definition of threatened or endangered under CEQA and be considered a"de facto"threatened or endangered species. California Fish and Game Code The CDFW is also responsible for enforcing the California Fish and Game Code,which contains several provisions potentially relevant to construction projects. For example, Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code governs the issuance of Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreements by CDFW. Lake I Prior to January 1,2013,the CDFW was known as the California Department of Fish and Game(CDFG).For the purposes of this report,the"CDFG"abbreviation is only used to reference documents issued by the agency prior to 2012. P:\MEY1301\BtoRpt.doc(02/26/13) 2 ..e, ..,S0c;L%F_ NI, . or Streambed Alteration Agreements are required whenever project activities substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed,channel,or bank of any river, stream, or lake designated as such by CDFW. The Fish and Game Code also designates animal species as Fully Protected or Protected. Fully Protected animals and Protected animals may not be taken or possessed at any time. CDFW does not issue licenses or permits for take of these species except for necessary scientific research or live capture and relocation pursuant to a permit for the protection of livestock. Fully Protected species are listed in Sections 3511 (birds), 4700(mammals), 5050(reptiles and amphibians), and 5515(fish)of the Fish and Game Code,while Protected amphibians and reptiles are listed in Chapter 5, Sections 41 and 42. Section 3503 of the Fish and Game Code prohibits the take, possession,or needless destruction of the nest or eggs of any bird. Subsection 3503.5 specifically prohibits the take, possession, or destruction of any birds in the orders Falconiformes (hawks and eagles) or Strigiformes(owls)and their nests. These provisions, along with the federal MBTA, essentially serve to protect nesting native birds. Non-native species, including European starling,house sparrow,and rock pigeon,are not afforded any protection under the MBTA or California Fish and Game Code. California Species of Special Concern The CDFW maintains an administrative list of Species of Special Concern, defined as a"species, subspecies, or distinct population of an animal native to California that currently satisfies one or more of the following(not necessarily mutually exclusive) criteria: • is extirpated fi•om the State, or, in the case of birds, in its primary seasonal or breeding role; • is listed as federally,but not State-,threatened or endangered; • meets the State definition of threatened or endangered but has not formally been listed; • is experiencing, or formerly experienced, serious(noncyclical)population declines or range retractions(not reversed)that, if continued or resumed,could qualify it for State threatened or endangered status; • has naturally small populations exhibiting high susceptibility to risk from any factor(s),that if realized,could lead to declines that would qualify it for State threatened or endangered status." Species of Special Concern are generally included in a CEQA document analysis of project impacts. In contrast to species listed under the federal ESA or CESA Species of Special Concern have no formal legal status. California Rare Plant Ranks Special-status plants in California are assigned to one of five"California Rare Plant Ranks"by a collaborative group of over 300 botanists in government, academia, non-governmental organizations, and the private sector. This effort is jointly managed by the CDFW and the non-profit California Native Plant Society(CNPS). The five California Rare Plant Ranks currently recognized by the CNPS include the following: • Rare Plant Rank IA—presumed extinct in California. • Rare Plant Rank 1 B—rare,threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere. • Rare Plant Rank 2—rare,threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere. PAMEY1301\13ioRpt.doc(02/26/13) 3 1,SA AS S1)Ci t A P.S, INN, • Rare Plant Rank 3 —a review list of plants about which more information is needed. • Rare Plant Rank 4—a watch list of plants of limited distribution. Substantial impacts to plants ranked IA, 1B,and 2 are typically considered significant based on Section 15380 of the CEQA Guidelines depending on the policy of the lead agency. Plants ranked 3 and 4 may be evaluated by the lead agency on a case-by-case basis to determine significance thresholds under CEQA. P:AMEY7301\BioRpt.doc(02126/13) 4 t I Large seasonal pool on northern parcel,approximately 765 feet north ofAmador Valley Boulevard. r f California ground squirrel burrow complex on northern parcel,approximately 450 feet north of Amador Valley Boulevard. L S A Dublin UPRR Parcels Site Photographs P:AMCY 1 301 Ag\Site Photographs.edr(02/21/2013) P' 5�- Seasonal wetland vegetation in central portion of southern parcel. t, Willows in central portion of southern parcel. L S A Dublin UPRR Parcels Site Photographs P:AMEY1301\g\Site PhotographsAr(02/21/2013) Attachment 2- Preliminary Wetland Delineation City of Dublin Page 49 Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 Preliminary SeCtion 404 Determination DUBLIN IRON HORSE TRAIL DUBLIN, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared Far: Jerry Haag 2029 University Ave. Berkeley, California 94704 � a Contacts " E Tom Fraser fraser@wra-ca.com Date: May 2013 wr N R Id t.,FiTI 3 f. rNtLLTANTS 169 tG, f u,;S i-mn,:iswo €t3 I, Sun 1"„1i13::l, CA 94,DQ1 4, <„;= 0+19 f ca Cum) www.,mu-ca.com. This page intentionally left blank TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................1 1.1 Study Background.......................................................................................................... I 1.2 Regulatory Background................................................................................................. 1 2.0 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL JURISDICTIONAL AREAS.............. .................. ..................2 3.0 METHODS...........................................................................................................................2 3.1 Potential Section 404 Waters of the U.S.................................................................... 2 3.1.1 Wetlands ....................................................................................... 2 3.1.2 Other Waters of the U.S. ....................................................................................... 5 3.2 Difficult Wetland Situations in the Arid West.............................................................. 6 3.3 Areas Exempt from Section 404 Jurisdiction............................................................. 6 4.0 STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................6 5.0 RESULTS ............. ....................................... 9 5.1 Potential Section 404 Waters of the U.S.................................................................... 9 5.1.1 Wetlands ....... 9 5.1.2 Other Waters of the U.S. ........................................ ..................... 9 5.3 Areas Exempt from Section 404 Jurisdiction........................................................... 10 6.0 POTENTIAL CORPS OF ENGINEERS JURISDICTION...................................................10 7.0 REFERENCES .......................................................................................... 11 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Summary of Potential Section 404 Jurisdictional Areas Within the Study Area.............2 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A - Figures Figure 1. Study Area Location Map Figure 2. Aerial Photo of Study Area Figure 3. Soils Map Figure 4. Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S. Appendix B - Wetland Data Forms Appendix C - Representative Photographs of the Study Area Appendix D - Plant Species Observed Within the Study Area i 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Study Background The Dublin Iron Horse Trail site (Study Area) consists of 27.47 acres in Alameda County, California (Appendix A, Figure 1). The Study Area is bounded on the north by the City of Dublin/City of San Ramon City Limit Line, and on the south by Alamo Creek. Amador Valley Boulevard divides the Study Area into two parts, a northern and a southern parcel. The property is owned by the City of Dublin, is comprised of two former Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) right-of-way parcels, and now serves as the popular Ironhorse Trail corridor connecting Dublin with neighboring areas to the north. The paved multi-use trail and abandoned railroad bed, as well as aerial and underground utility lines, run adjacent to the relatively narrow Study Area. The City of Dublin is considering to expand park resources within the Study Area. WRA, Inc. was hired to conduct a routine wetland delineation within the Study Area as part of the City's due diligence process. On May 17, 2013, WRA conducted a routine wetland delineation in the Study Area to determine the presence of potential wetlands and waters subject to federal jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. This report presents the results of this delineation. 1.2 Regulatory Background Section 404 of the Clean Water Act Section 404 of the Clean Water Act gives the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) regulatory and permitting authority regarding discharge of dredged or fill material into "navigable waters of the United States". Section 502(7) of the Clean Water Act defines navigable waters as "waters of the United States, including territorial seas." Section 328 of Chapter 33 in the Code of Federal Regulations defines the term "waters of the United States" as it applies to the jurisdictional limits of the authority of the Corps under the Clean Water Act. A summary of this definition of"waters of the U.S_" in 33 CFR 328.3 includes (1) waters used for commerce; (2) interstate waters and wetlands; (3) "other waters" such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams, and wetlands; (4) impoundments of waters; (5) tributaries to the above waters; (6) territorial seas; and (7) wetlands adjacent to waters. Therefore, for purposes of the determining Corps jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act, "navigable waters" as defined in the Clean Water Act are the same as "waters of the U.S." defined in the Code of Federal Regulations above. The limits of Corps jurisdiction under Section 404 as given in 33 CFR Section 328.4 are as follows: (a) Territorial seas: three nautical miles in a seaward direction from the baseline; (b) Tidal waters of the U.S.: high tide line or to the limit of adjacent non-tidal waters; (c) Non-tidal waters of the U.S.: ordinary high water mark or to the limit of adjacent wetlands; (d) Wetlands: to the limit of the wetland. 1 2.0 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL JURISDICTIONAL AREAS Appendix A depicts the extent of Corps jurisdiction within the Study Area based on a wetland delineation conducted by WRA on May 17, 2013. The acreage of potential Section 404 jurisdictional areas is summarized in Table 1 below. Table 1. Summary of Potential Section 404 Jurisdictional Areas Within the Study Area "Potentially Potential Habitat Type Size (acres) Isolated"Areas Jurisdictional (acres) Waters of the U.S. (acres) Wetlands: f — I Seasonal Wetlands (PEMS) 0.51 N/A 0.51 TOTAL 0.51 N/A 0.51 3.0 METHODS Prior to conducting field surveys, reference materials were reviewed, including the Soil Survey of Alameda County (USDA 2013), the Alameda USGS 7.5' quadrangle, and aerial photographs of the site. A focused evaluation of indicators of wetlands and waters was performed in the Study Area on May 17, 2013. The methods used in this study to delineate jurisdictional wetlands and waters are based on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual("Corps Manual"; Environmental Laboratory 1987) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Arid West Region ("Arid West Supplement"; Corps 2008). The routine method for wetland delineation described in the Corps Manual was used to identify areas potentially subject to Corps Section 404 jurisdiction within the Study Area. A general description of the Study Area, including plant communities present, topography, and land use was also generated during the delineation visits. The methods for evaluating the presence of wetlands and other "waters of the U.S." employed during the site visit are described in detail below. 3.1 Potential Section 404 Waters of the U.S. 3.1.1 Wetlands The Study Area was evaluated for the presence or absence of indicators of the three wetland parameters described in the Corps Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and Arid West Supplement (Corps 2008). Section 328.3 of the Federal Code of Regulations defines wetlands as: "Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal 2 circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas." EPA, 40 CFR 230.3 and CE, 33 CFR 328.3 (b) The three parameters used to delineate wetlands are the presence of: (1) hydrophytic vegetation, (2) wetland hydrology, and (3) hydric soils. According to the Corps Manual, for areas not considered "problem areas" or"atypical situations": "....[E]vidence of a minimum of one positive wetland indicator from each parameter (hydrology, soil, and vegetation) must be found in order to make a positive wetland determination." Data on vegetation, hydrology, and soils collected at sample points during the delineation site visit was reported on Arid West Supplement data forms. Once an area was determined to be a potential jurisdictional wetland, its boundaries were delineated using GPS equipment and mapped on a topographic map. The areas of potential jurisdictional wetlands were measured digitally using ArcGIS software. Indicators described in the Arid West Supplement were used to make wetland determinations at each sample point in the Study Area and are summarized below. Vegetation Plant species observed in the Study Area were identified using Baldwin et al. (2012). Plants were assigned a wetland indicator status according to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers list of plant species that occur in wetlands (Lichvar 2012). Where differences in nomenclature occur between Baldwin et al. (2012) and Lichvar (2012), the species name as it occurred in Lichvar (2012) is listed in brackets. Wetland indicator statuses are based on the expected frequency of occurrence in wetlands as follows: OBL Always found in wetlands >99% frequency FACW(±) Usually found in wetlands 67-99% FAC Equal in wetland or non-wetlands 34-66% FACU Usually found in non-wetlands 1-33% UPL/NL Upland/Not listed (upland) <1% The presence of hydrophytic vegetation was then determined based on indicator tests described in the Arid West Supplement. The Arid West Supplement requires that a three-step process be conducted to determine if hydrophytic vegetation is present. The procedure first requires the delineator to apply the "50/20 rule" (Indicator 1; Dominance Test) described in the manual. To apply the "50/20 rule", dominant species are chosen independently from each stratum of the community. Dominant species are determined for each vegetation stratum from a sampling plot of an appropriate size surrounding the sample point. Dominants are the most abundant species that individually or collectively account for more than 50 percent of the total vegetative cover in the stratum, plus any other species that, by itself, accounts for at least 20 percent of the total vegetative cover. If greater than 50 percent of the dominant species has an OBL, FACW, or FAC status, ignoring + and - qualifiers, the sample point meets the hydrophytic vegetation criterion. 3 If the sample point fails Indicator 1 and both hydric soils and wetland hydrology are not present, then the sample point does not meet the hydrophytic vegetation criterion, unless the site is a problematic wetland situation. However, if the sample point fails Indicator 1 but hydric soils and wetland hydrology are both present, the delineator must apply Indicator 2. Indicator 2 is known as the Prevalence Index. The prevalence index is a weighted average of the wetland indicator status for all plant species within the sampling plot. Each indicator status is given a numeric code (OBL = 1, FACW = 2, FAC = 3, FACU = 4, and UPL = 5). Indicator 2 requires the delineator to estimate the percent cover of each species in every stratum of the community and sum the cover estimates for any species that is present in more than one stratum. The delineator must then organize all species into groups according to their wetland indicator status and calculate the Prevalence Index using the following formula, where A equals total percent cover: PI AOBL + 2AFACw + 3AFAC + 4AFACU + 5AUPL = AOBL +AFACw + AFAC + AFACU +AUPL The Prevalence Index will yield a number between 1 and 5. If the Prevalence Index is equal to or less than 3, the sample point meets the hydrophytic vegetation criterion. However, if the community fails Indicator 2, the delineator must proceed to Indicator 3. Indicator 3 is known as Morphological Adaptations. If more than 50 percent of the individuals of a FACU species have morphological adaptations for life in wetlands, that species is considered to be a hydrophyte and its indicator status should be reassigned to FAC. If such observations are made, the delineator must recalculate Indicators 1 and 2 using a FAC indicator status for this species. The sample point meets the hydrophytic vegetation criterion if either test is satisfied. Hydrology The Corps jurisdictional wetland hydrology criterion is satisfied if an area is inundated or saturated for a period sufficient to create anoxic soil conditions during the growing season (a minimum of 14 consecutive days in the Arid West region). Evidence of wetland hydrology can include primary indicators, such as visible inundation or saturation, drift deposits, oxidized root channels, and salt crusts, or secondary indicators such as the FAC-neutral test, presence of a shallow aquitard, or crayfish burrows. The Arid West Supplement contains 16 primary hydrology indicators and 10 secondary hydrology indicators. Only one primary indicator is required to meet the wetland hydrology criterion; however, if secondary indicators are used, at least two secondary indicators must be present to conclude that an area has wetland hydrology. The presence or absence of the primary or secondary indicators described in the Arid West Supplement was utilized to determine if sample points within the Study Area met the wetland hydrology criterion. 4 Soils The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) defines a hydric soil as follows: 'A hydric soil is a soil that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part." Federal Register July 13, 1994, U.S. Department of Agriculture, NRCS Soils formed over long periods of time under wetland (anaerobic) conditions often possess characteristics that indicate they meet the definition of hydric soils. Hydric soils can have a hydrogen sulfide (rotten egg) odor, low chroma matrix color, generally designated 0, 1, or 2, used to identify them as hydric, presence of redox concentrations, gleyed or depleted matrix, or high organic matter content. Specific indicators that can be used to determine whether a soil is hydric for the purposes of wetland delineation are provided in the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the U.S. (USDA 2010). The Arid West Supplement provides a list of 23 of these hydric soil indicators which are known to occur in the Arid West region. Soil samples were collected and described according to the methodology provided in the Arid West Supplement. Soil chroma and values were determined by utilizing a standard Munsell soil color chart (Gretag Macbeth 2000). Hydric soils were determined to be present if any of the soil samples met one or more of the 23 hydric soil indicators described in the Arid West Supplement. 3.1.2 Other Waters of the U.S. This study also evaluated the presence of "waters of the U.S." other than wetlands potentially subject to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Other areas, besides wetlands, subject to Corps jurisdiction include lakes, rivers and streams (including intermittent streams) in addition to all areas below the HTL in areas subject to tidal influence. Jurisdiction in non-tidal areas extends to the ordinary high water mark (OHW) defined as: "...that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as clear, natural line impresses on the bank, shelving, changes in the characteristics of the soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas." Federal Register Vol. 51, No. 219, Part 328.3 (e). November 13, 1986 Identification of the ordinary high water mark followed the Corps Regulatory Guidance Letter No. 05-05, Ordinary High Water Mark Identification (Corps 2005). 5 3.2 Difficult Wetland Situations in the Arid West The Arid West Supplement (Corps 2008) includes procedures for identifying wetlands that may lack indicators due to natural processes (problem areas) or recent disturbances (atypical situations). "Problem area" wetlands are defined as naturally occurring wetland types that periodically lack indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soil, or wetland hydrology due to normal seasonal or annual variability. Some problem area wetlands may permanently lack certain indicators due to the nature of the soils or plant species on the site. "Atypical situations" are defined as wetlands in which vegetation, soil, or hydrology indicators are absent due to recent human activities or natural events. The list of difficult wetland situations provided in the Arid West Supplement includes wetlands with problematic hydrophytic vegetation, problematic hydric soils, and wetlands that periodically lack indicators of wetland hydrology. In addition, the problem area and atypical situation sections of the Corps Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) were utilized to determine if any sample points taken within the Study Area met the criteria for a problem area or atypical situation. If any determination was based on less than three parameters, the rationale for the wetland determination was explained on the data sheets included in Appendix B. Although the Corps Manual and Arid West Supplement were utilized in the wetland determination, they do not provide exhaustive lists of the difficult situations that can arise during delineations in the Arid West. As a result, WRA interpreted the gathered data using best professional judgment and our knowledge of the ecology of the wetlands in the region. 3.3 Areas Exempt from Section 404 Jurisdiction Some areas that meet the technical criteria for wetlands or waters may not be jurisdictional under the Clean Water Act. Included in this category are some man-induced wetlands, which are areas that have developed at least some characteristics of naturally occurring wetlands due to either intentional or incidental human activities. Examples of man-induced wetlands may include, but are not limited to, irrigated wetlands, impoundments, or drainage ditches excavated in uplands, dredged material disposal areas, and depressions within construction areas. In addition, some isolated wetlands and waters may also be considered outside of Corps jurisdiction as a result of the Supreme Court's decision in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. United States Army Corps of Engineers (531 U.S. 159 (2001)). Isolated wetlands and waters are those areas that do not have a surface or groundwater connection to, and are not adjacent to a "navigable waters of the U.S.", and do not otherwise exhibit an interstate commerce connection. 4.0 STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION The Study Area is approximately 27.47 acres, located in Alameda County, California (Appendix A, Figure 1). Elevations range from approximately 330 to 350 feet NGVD. The property is approximately 6,000 feet north of the intersection of Interstates 580 and 680. The Study Area is relatively flat and narrow, approximately 5,800 linear feet in length and 150 linear feet to 200 linear feet in width. It is bounded by Alamo Creek to the south, and the City of Dublin/City of 6 San Ramon City Limit Line to the north. While outside of the Study Area, the Iron Horse Trail forms the boundary of the Study Area's western edge, and fencelines associated with residential housing developments form the eastern edge. The Alameda County Flood and Water Conservation District (ACFWD) Zone 7 Drainage Channel is located immediately west of Iron Horse Trail and is also outside of the Study Area. The entire Study Area consists predominantly of ruderal herbaceous vegetation typically associated with disturbed areas. Land use adjacent to the Study Area consists mostly of single- family and multi-family residential housing, and associated infrastructure. Dublin High School is located generally west of the Study Area, opposite the ACFWCD Zone 7 Drainage Channel, and several small parks are located in close proximity to the trail corridor marking the Study Area's western edge. Rolling hills associated with the Dougherty Valley are located generally east of the Study Area. An elevated earthen berm topped with gravel and debris runs along the center of the Study Area. This berm was constructed to support the UPRR railroad bed. A trestle crossing, approximately 50 feet in length, is located approximately 1,400 linear feet north of Amador Valley Boulevard. A linear borrow ditch is located immediately west of the former railroad bed. This feature contains several small linear depressions that may pond water during winter. A similar linear depression, also possibly a former borrow ditch, is located east of the abandoned railroad in the southernmost portion of the parcel located north of Amador Valley Boulevard. There are a number of underground and overhead utilities within the Study Area. An underground petroleum pipeline just east of the former UPRR railroad bed and extends along the entire length of the Study Area. An underground fiber-optic cable line is located immediately west of the railroad bed in the linear borrow ditch. An overhead power line also runs the length of the Study Area, just east of the Iron Horse Trail on a second, slightly elevated berm. Several storm drain lines cross the Study Area and discharge directly to the ACFWD Zone 7 Drainage Channel. Adjacent residential properties and Stagecoach Park, located immediately east of the Study Area, also have storm drainage lines that discharge directly onto the ground surface of the Study Area. Vegetation Vegetation within the Study Area consisted primarily of non-native annual grassland. Dominant vegetation in areas determined to be uplands include wild oat (Avena fatua, NL), rye grass (Festuca perennis, FAC), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus, NL), bristly ox-tongue (Helminthotheca echioides, FACU), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola, FACU), common mustard (Brassica nigra, NL), wild radish (Raphanus sativa, NL), Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus, NL), and fennel (Foeniculum vulgare, FACU). Potential seasonal wetlands growing in the linear depressions within the borrow ditch were dominated by hydrophytic plants, including nutsedge (Cyperus eragrostis, FACW), swamp prickle grass (Crypsis shoenoides, OBL), rough cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium, FAC), salt grass (Distichlis spicata, FAC), curly dock (Rumex crispus, FAC), fat hen (Atriplex prostrate, FACW), and rabbitsfoot grass (Polypogon monspeliensis, FACW). Hydrology Natural hydrological sources for the Study Area include precipitation and surface run-off from adjacent single-family and multi-family residential housing areas to the east. Several large hills 7 located east of the Study Area contribute drainage to these neighborhood areas, which is then conveyed across the Study Area mostly as sheet flow toward the ACFWCD Zone 7 Drainage Channel. Two culverts were observed along the eastern edge of the Study Area near the Stagecoach Park. These culverts connect directly to a drainage feature that crosses the abandoned railroad grade under a remnant trestle and discharges into the ACFWCD Zone 7 Drainage Channel through another culvert under the Iron Horse Trail. However, these culverts appeared to be partially blocked with sediment. A small, concrete-lined drainage ditch runs the length of Iron Horse Trail and discharges to the ACFWCD Zone 7 Drainage Channel. Soils The Alameda County Soil Survey (USDA 2013) indicates that the Study Area has four native soil types: Clear Lake clay, drained, 0 to 3 percent slopes; Sunnyvale clay loam over clay; Linne clay loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes; and Diablo clay, 7 to 15 percent slopes. These soil types are described in detail below and are shown in Appendix A, Figure 3: Clear Lake. The Clear Lake series consists of very deep, poorly drained soils that formed in fine textured alluvium derived from sandstone and shale. These soils occur in basins and in swales of drainageways. Permeability is slow to very slow and runoff is negligible to high. Depth to water table can vary greatly in these soils. A representative profile for this series consists of a dark gray (N 4/0)) clay surface layer 19-45 inches thick. This layer is underlain by grayish-brown clay that extends to a depth of 72 inches. These soils are listed as partially hydric on the US national hydric soils list (USDA 2005). Sunnyvale Clay Loam Over Clay. The Sunnyvale series consists of poorly drained soils on nearly level flood plains and basins. These soils formed in alluvium from mixed, but dominantly sedimentary rocks. Permeability and runoff are slow, though pumping has lowered water table in most areas so that now soil management is similar to somewhat poorly or moderately well drained soils. A representative profile for this series consists of dark gray (N/4) silty clay to 34 inches. This is underlain by gray (5Y 5/1) silty clay with yellowish brown (2.5 Y 6/4) mottles to 60 inches. These soils are listed as hydric on the US national hydric soils list (USDA 2005). Linne Clay Loam. The Linne series occur extensively and consists of moderately deep, well drained soils that formed in material weathered from fairly soft shale and sandstone. These soils are on mountainous uplands and foothills, and have slopes of five to 75 percent. Permeability is moderately slow and runoff is very rapid. A representative profile for this series consists of very dark grayish-brown (2.5Y 3/2) silty clay to eight inches. This is underlain by very dark gray (10YR 5/1) clay with dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) mottles to 19 inches. These soils are listed as partially hydric on the US national hydric soils list (USDA 2005). Diablo. The Diablo series consists of well drained soils on complex undulating, rolling to steep uplands with slopes of five to 50 percent. These soils formed in residuum weathered from shale, sandstone, and consolidated sediments. Permeability is slow and water runoff is slow when the soil is dry, medium to rapid when soils are moist. 8 A representative profile for this series consists of dark gray (5Y 4/1) silty clay to 15 inches. This is underlain by finely mixed gray (5Y 5/1) and olive gray (5Y 5/2) silty clay to 32 inches. These soils are listed as partially hydric on the US national hydric soils list (USDA 2005). 5.0 RESULTS Vegetation, soils and hydrology data collected during delineation site visits are reported on standard Corps Arid West Region data forms in Appendix B. Potential Section 404 jurisdictional areas are described in the following sections and depicted in Appendix A, Figure 4. Photographs of representative portions of the Study Area and sample points are shown in Appendix C. A list of plant species observed during the site visits is included in Appendix D. 5.1 Potential Section 404 Waters of the U.S. 5.1.1 Wetlands Seasonal wetlands (NWI classification = PEMC, palustrine emergent wetland, seasonally flooded) identified as potentially jurisdictional wetlands were present within linear depressional areas in the borrow ditches. Seasonal wetlands within the Study Area were dominated by facultative to obligate wetland species including nutsedge , swamp prickle grass, rough cocklebur, salt grass, curly dock, fat hen, and rabbitsfoot grass. Soils in areas identified as seasonal wetlands generally consisted of clay to clay loam textures. Redoximorphic features were few, faint to distinct sometimes within the upper 6 inches. Oxidized root channels were found along living roots in the deeper depressions, particularly located near the trestle drainage feature just east of Stagecoach Park (W-4; Appendix A, Figure 4). Sediment deposits and biotic crust were observed in areas prone to ponding, such as in the location of the trestle drainage feature. Surface soil cracks were also observed in the trestle bridge crossing area and linear depressions within the borrow ditch, however, these soil cracks were also observed in upland areas atop the elevated berm, within the petroleum line utility easement east of the elevated berm, and in disturbed areas adjacent residential housing along the eastern edge of the Study Area. Vegetation in seasonal wetlands also passed the FAC-neutral test. The border between seasonal wetland and upland communities was determined primarily by vegetation and hydric soil field indicators: areas dominated by upland vegetation species, and lacking sufficient redoximorphic features to meet hydric soil indicators were not included in the areas identified as potentially jurisdictional wetlands. Soils in the areas identified as uplands lacked facultative wetland and obligate plants as well as hydric soil indicators. These upland areas also lacked strong indicators of wetland hydrology. All wetlands mapped and presented in this report are likely to be considered jurisdictional by the Corps as they are directly connected to a "navigable waters of the U.S.". Study Area waters flow ultimately into Arroyo de la Leguna. 5.9.2 Other Waters of the U.S. No features identified as other waters of the U.S. were observed within the Study Area. Potential wetland features in deeper depressions and within the trestle drainage area were characterized as having ponded conditions for a significant duration due to presence of sediment deposits and areas comprised of bare ground. However, these wetland features exhibited vegetation coverage greater than five percent, and are therefore not considered other waters of the U.S. 9 5.2 Areas Exempt from Section 404 Jurisdiction There are no isolated wetlands or man-induced wetlands within the Study Area. All wetlands mapped and presented in this report are likely to be considered jurisdictional by the Corps as they were not created by human activities and are directly connected to a "navigable waters of the U.S." (Arroyo de la Laguna). 6.0 POTENTIAL CORPS OF ENGINEERS JURISDICTION The 27.47 acre Study Area has 0.51 acre of seasonal wetlands that may be considered jurisdictional under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The potential seasonal wetlands dominated by hydrophytic vegetation with FAC, FACW and OBL classified plants and contained hydric soil and wetland hydrology indicators. In addition, these areas are tributary to a "navigable waters of the U.S." and therefore meet the definition of jurisdictional wetlands for Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The conclusion of this delineation is based on conditions observed at the time of the field surveys conducted on May 17, 2013. 10 7.0 REFERENCES Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Department of the Army, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180-0631. Federal Register. November 13, 1986. Department of Defense, Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army, 33 CFR Parts 320 through 330, Regulatory Programs of the Corps of Engineers; Final Rule. Vol. 51, No. 219; page 41217. GretagMacBeth. 2000. Munsell Soil Color Charts, revised washable edition. Lichvar, RW. 2012. The National Wetland Plant List. Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Research and Development Center. Hanover, NH. October 2012. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2005. Regulatory Guidance Letter No. 05-05. Ordinary High Water Mark Identification. December 7. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0). September. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA). 2013. Web Soil Survey of Alameda County, California. Website accessed May 16, 2013. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA). 2005. Official List of US Hydric Soils. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA). 2010. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States: A Guide for Identifying and Delineating Hydric Soils, Version 7.0. In cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1980. Alameda. 7.5 minute topographic map. 11 Appendix A - Figures This page intentionally left blank S>r�abbaa Fai£6dJ Rau is - _.._• :..,,� a +t_ i Laki ry 1 � •A Rti,0414 i aCt. ♦ ta t�3 i ' $rfYe'ey. ;�Sd1hU{ t33'hiLNr4Yfd FTO; y a } 1 w C1 iSStS� � tarsr uvia in " jw I - rr�ae�scr 14,s gad wtea,an" �ertbnrttr : Alt, alf a�}iz a� . s91 s `y}�}.�..y'I,m 3�. )i 8111 \i ,.�. Study Area ft pZ p4 K s. rt y 3 8 M i s V'�F .,s 4; A €" a k`4, - •:..sip'F 't.a » P P� 1 c�a h A u�1r e 'I - b. Figure 1. Location Map of Study Area N wra W E S ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS Dublin Ironhorse Trail 0 0.75 1.5 Map Date:May 2013 Alameda County, California Miles Base Source:ESRI World Topo Path:L:\Acad 2000 Files\23000\23101\GIS\ArcMap\Fig 1 Location.mxd • ► • s • • • • 1 ► ► • as ► 1 ■ u A � u .r - 7 ✓ n a .8 F1M ol { g ff RK x low Mn A€. ^s z y on K,its pp 1 . a� .# }" vs i t' .a i AV�x s y { £ $ 3 4 _ Mx osE4 �' i � � ♦ xa:> �.�..`s ,� w: x` _. ... � :,i � tea~ Y'> ar .� ;� s 'z� � ;" ,r.� d �a ': ''� � 7 e H zfi ok,f' `. AF " r w oil "Y oo lip too r Is �, t ',t" "is 41 tF 3 �. an sy W, VIP Oyu M _ t f r WE a IF "�, �' " � � R � `�"•„,- `.? .tea,,..„::. '""='` � a � r� u a ,.NN i < Y4 ' AT s 3 s a Q3 W 'i a not Qv ton o : , aL ,. C) 0 0 _ o N S' (� O `fl LL M Cn EE i o CO " W L ` 7 ❑mom 0 n n En w m @ <o o m N S p d t{P S ` y n Z Ml 'f' ca x, i 0. �» ,r Sic 9"'El r �a v o a �Yr N (h r� N2a� 'air .tr d / �gftr"';r�+3f d w' ^ y L Q C 0 O z O U O_ L Co u> Q� (1) O II Y m CU O 0 O N 'S o �� N ti m 3 in ` C +.� Q Q C N T N W Q Z- I E U to o a ^Adaw N U m E gc � _ Q _ — (n U 3 � _ (Q 11 M, F 7 } W 4—• — fQ r CO O d N �@ m O Vyq " raf > i t= b. g' �L y Iii \ \ % a o0 & / m 0QE o � CN \ 0 _0 % f � k _} \ , § LL §/\ , m J m : 1 \�° � � ! ! � � ! \� � 2 � k � ` ! \ e 7 2 § § § _ ¥ \ « - ° e : a\ / \ p / :3/ $ f �} § » = \ a» G !fw } a / §ik � $ �\ § | \ co - Z \ \/ 22a / / o ® / \ ) \ � \ ` ~ \)} < \ / - \ ( E o ` ' \ ° \ ! § o }� § � ~ This page intentionally left blank Wetland Determination Data Form - Arid West Region Project/Site Dublin Iron Horse Trail City Dublin County Alameda Sampling Date 5/17/2013 Applicant/Owner City of Dublin(former UPRR parcels) State CA Sampling Point SP-U-1 Investigator(s) Mark Kalnins Section,Township,Range Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.)terrace Local Relief(concave,convex,none) flat Sl o ope(/o) 0 to 3 Subregion(LRR)LRR C(Medit.CA) Lat: 37.724852 Long: -121.924366 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name Clear Lake Clay NWI classification N/A Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on-site typical for this time of year? ®Yes [] No (If no,explain in remarks) Are any of the following significantly disturbed? ❑Vegetation ❑ Soil ❑ Hydrology Are"Normal Circumstances"present? ®Yes ❑ No Are any of the following naturally problematic? ❑Vegetation ❑ Soil ❑ Hydrology Y 9Y (If needed,explain any answers in remarks) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS-Attach site mal2 showin sam le oint locations transects importanit features etc Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ❑Yes ® No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? ❑Yes ®No within a Wetland? El Yes ® NO Wetland Hydrology Present? ❑Yes ®No Remarks: Photos 9359-9362MK. The sample point is located in alignment with underground oil pipeline,with evidence of compacted,variable soils. UPRR abandoned railroad is located immediately west,residential housing is located immediately east. GPS Point SP-U-1. The sample point is located in uplands. VEGETATION (use scientific names) TREE STRATUM Plot Size: Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet %cover Species? Status 1. Number of Dominant Species 1 (A) 2. that are OBL,FACW,or FAC? Total number of dominant 3. species across all strata? 2 4. (B) Tree Stratum Total Cover: %of dominant species that 50 (A/B) are OBL, FACW,or FAC? SAPLING/SHRUB STRATUM Plot Size: Prevalence Index Worksheet 1. Total%cover of Multioly bv7 2. OBL species x1 _ 3. FACW species x2 4• FAC species x3 Sapling/Shrub Stratum Total Cover. FACU species x4 HERB STRATUM Plot Size: UPL species x5 1. Festuca perennis 60 Y FAC Column Totals (A) (B) 2. Helminthotheca echioides 20 Y FACU Prevalence Index=B/A= 3. Distichlis spicata 10 N FAC 4. -- Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 5. ❑ Dominance Test is>50% 6. ❑ Prevalence Index is</=3.0' 7• ❑ Morphological adaptations(provide g, supporting data in remarks) Herb Stratum Total Cover: ❑ Problematic hydrophytic vegetation' (explain) WOODY VINE STRATUM Plot Size: 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology 1• must be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 2. Woody Vines Total Cover: Hydrophytic %Bare ground in herb stratum 10 Vegetation Present? [3 Yes ® No cover of biotic crust Remarks: Distichlis under Festuca. Festuca has 100%coverage immediately upslope of this sample point location on sideslope of earthen berm. The sample point does not contain a predominance of hydrophytic vegetation. US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West Sampling Point SP-U-1 SOIL Profile description:(Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features a Color(moist) % TYpe, Loc' Texture Remarks /o (inches) Color(moist) Clay loam no redoximorphic features p_g 10YR 3/1 100 8-14 10YR 3/1 100 Clay loam no redoximorphic features observed 'T e:C=Concentration,D=De letion,RM=Reduced Matrix. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining,RC=Root Channel,M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators:(Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: ❑ Histosol(Al) ❑Sandy Redox(S5) ❑ 1cm Muck(A9)(LRR C) ❑ Histic Epipedon(A2) ❑Stripped Matrix(S6) ❑2cm Muck(A10)(LRR B) ❑ Black Histic(A3) ❑Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1) ❑ Reduced Vertic(F18) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) ❑Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) ❑ Red Parent Material(TF2) ❑Stratified Layers(A5)(LRR C) ❑Depleted Matrix(F3) ❑Other(explain in remarks) ❑ 1 c Muck(A9)(LRR D) ❑Redox Dark Surface(F6) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) ❑Depleted Dark Surface(F7) ❑Thick Dark Surface(Al2) ❑Redox Depressions(F8) ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) ❑Vernal Pools(F9) 3Indicators of hydric vegetation and ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) wetland hydrology must be present. Restrictive Layer(if present): Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? ❑Yes ®No Remarks: No redoximorphic features were observed in the soil pit. No hydric soild field indicators are present at this sample point location. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators(2 or more required) Primary Indicators(any one indicator is sufficient) ❑Water Marks(131)(Riverine) ❑ Surface Water(Al) ❑ Salt Crust(611) ❑ Sediment Deposits(132)(Riverine) ❑ High Water Table(A2) ❑ Biotic Crust(B12) ❑ Drift Deposits(63)(Riverine) ❑Saturation(A3) ❑Aquatic Invertebrates(1313) ❑ Drainage Patterns(1310) ❑Water Marks(B1)(Nonriverine) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) ❑ Dry-Season Water Table(C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits(132)(Nonriverine) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots(C3) ❑Thin Muck Surface(C7) ❑Drift Deposits(B3)(Nonriverine) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) ❑Crayfish Burrows(C8) ❑Surface Soil Cracks(66) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in PLowed Soils(C6) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ Shallow Aquitard(D3) ❑Water-Stained Leaves(69) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Field Observations: Surface water present? ❑Yes ® No Depth(inches): Water table present? ❑Yes ® No Depth(inches): Saturation Present? ❑Yes ONO Depth(inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? ❑Yes ®No (includes capillary fringe) Describe recorded data(stream guage,monitoring well, aerial photos,etc.)if available. Remarks:No hydrology indicators are present at this sample point location. Soils surface cracks were observed,however,these soil cracks occur also on sideslopes of the adjacent earthen berm,and within disturbed portions of the buried utility line. Arid West US Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Determination Data Form - Arid West Region Project/Site Dublin Iron Horse Trail City Dublin County Alameda Sampling Date 5/17/2013 Applicant/Owner City of Dublin(former UPRR parcels) State CA Sampling Point SP-U-2 Investigator(s) Mark Kalnins Section,Township,Range Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.)terrace Local Relief(concave,convex,none) flat Slope(%) 0 to 3 Subregion(LRR)LRR C(Medit.CA) Lat: 37.724852 Long: -121.924366 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name Clear Lake Clay NWI classification N/A Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on-site typical for this time of year? ®Yes ❑ No (If no,explain in remarks) Are any of the following significantly disturbed? ❑Vegetation ❑ Soil ❑ Hydrology Are"Normal Circumstances"present? ®Yes ❑ No Are any of the following naturally problematic? ❑Vegetation ❑Soil ❑ Hydrology (If needed,explain any answers in remarks) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS-Attach site mal2 showina sam le point locations transects im ortant features etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? El Yes 0 N Is the Sampled Area Yes ONO Hydric Soil Present? ❑Yes 0 N within a Wetland? Wetland Hydrology Present? ❑Yes ®No Remarks: Photos 9366-9369MK. The sample point is located in alignment with underground cable,with evidence of nearby disturbance in recent aerial imagery. UPRR abandoned railroad is located immediately east,Iron Horse Trail is located immediately west. GPS Point SP-U-2. The sample point is located in uplands. VEGETATION (use scientific names) TREE STRATUM Plot Size: Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet %cover Species? Status t. Number of Dominant Species 1 (A) that are OBL,FACW,or FAC? 2 Total number of dominant 3' species across all strata? 2 (B) 4. %of dominant species that Tree Stratum Total Cover: are OBL, FACW,or FAC? 50 (A/B) SAPLING/SHRUB STRATUM Plot Size: Prevalence Index Worksheet 1. Total%cover of- Multioly by- 2. OBL species x1 3. FACW species x2 4. FAC species x3 Sapling/Shrub Stratum Total Cover. FACU species x4 HERB STRATUM Plot Size: UPL species x5 7. Festuca perennis 50 Y FAC Column Totals (A) (B) 2. Lactuca serriola 20 Y FACU Prevalence Index=B/A= 3. Distichlis spicata 15 N FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 4. Mellilotus indicus 5 N FACU ❑ Dominance Test is>50% 5. 6 ❑ Prevalence Index is</=3.0' 7. ❑ Morphological adaptations(provide 8. supporting data in remarks) Herb Stratum Total Cover: 90 ❑ Problematic hydrophytic vegetation' (explain) WOODY VINE STRATUM Plot Size: 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology 1. must be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 2. Woody Vines Total Cover: Hydrophytic %Bare ground in herb stratum 10 %cover of biotic crust Vegetation Present? Yes ® No Remarks: Avena fatua has 100%coverage immediately upslope of this sample point location on sideslopes of earthen berm. The sample point does not contain a predominance of hydrophytic vegetation. US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West SOIL Sampling Point SP-U-2 Profile description:(Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) I Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Loc' Texture Remarks 0-14 10YR 3/1 100 Clay loam no redoximorphic features 'Type:C=Concentration,D=De letion,RM=Reduced Matrix. 2Location:PL=Pore Lining,RC=Root Channel,M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators:(Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: ❑ Histosol(Al) ❑Sandy Redox(S5) ❑ 1cm Muck(A9)(LRR C) ❑ Histic Epipedon(A2) ❑Stripped Matrix(S6) ❑2cm Muck(A10)(LRR B) ❑ Black Histic(A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1) ❑ Reduced Vertic(F18) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) ❑Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) ❑ Red Parent Material(TF2) ❑ Stratified Layers(A5)(LRR C) ❑ Depleted Matrix(F3) ❑Other(explain in remarks) ❑ 1cm Muck(A9)(LRR D) ❑ Redox Dark Surface(F6) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface(F7) ❑Thick Dark Surface(Al2) ❑ Redox Depressions(F8) ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) ❑Vernal Pools(F9) 31ndicators of hydric vegetation and ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) wetland hydrology must be present. Restrictive Layer(if present): Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? ❑Yes ® No Remarks: No redoximorphic features were observed in the soil pit. No hydric soild field indicators are present at this sample point location. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators(2 or more required) Primary Indicators(any one indicator is sufficient) ❑Water Marks(131)(Riverine) ❑ Surface Water(Al) ❑ Salt Crust(1311) ❑ Sediment Deposits(132)(Riverine) ❑ High Water Table(A2) ❑ Biotic Crust(B12) ❑ Drift Deposits(63)(Riverine) ❑Saturation(A3) ❑Aquatic invertebrates(B13) ❑ Drainage Patterns(1310) ❑Water Marks(61)(Nonriverine) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) ❑ Dry-Season Water Table(C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits(82)(Nonriverine) ❑Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots(C3) ❑Thin Muck Surface(C7) ❑Drift Deposits(63)(Nonriverine) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) ❑ Crayfish Burrows(C8) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks(136) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in PLowed Soils(C6) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ Shallow Aquitard(D3) ❑Water-Stained Leaves(139) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Field Observations: Surface water present? ❑ Yes ® No Depth(inches): Water table present? ❑ Yes ® No Depth(inches): Saturation Present? ❑Yes ® No Depth(inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? ❑Yes ®No (includes capillary fringe) Describe recorded data(stream guage,monitoring well,aerial photos,etc.)if available. Remarks:No hydrology indicators are present at this sample point location. US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West Wetland Determination Data Form - Arid West Region Project/Site Dublin Iron Horse Trail City Dublin Count Alameda County Sampling Date 5/17/2013 Applicant/Owner City of Dublin(former UPRR parcels) State CA Sampling Point SP-W-3 Investigator(s) Mark Kalnins Section,Township,Range Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.)terrace Local Relief(concave,convex,none) flat Sl o ope(/°) 0 to 3 Subregion(LRR)_LRR C(Medit.CA) Lat: 37.722460 Long: -121.922256 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name Clear Lake Clay NWI classification N/A Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on-site typical for this time of year? ®Yes ❑ No (If no,explain in remarks) Are any of the following significantly disturbed? ❑Vegetation ❑ Soil ❑ Hydrology Are"Normal Circumstances"present? ®Yes ❑ No Are any of the following naturally problematic? ❑Vegetation ❑Soil ❑ Hydrology Y 9Y (If needed,explain any answers in remarks) UM , ARY OF F NDINGS-Attach site mal3showing sam le oint locations transects im octant eatures etc Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ®Yes ❑ No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? ®Yes [] No within a Wetland? ®Yes ❑ No Wetland Hydrology Present? ®Yes ❑ No Remarks: Photos 9371-9375MK. The sample point is located in alignment with underground cable,with evidence of nearby disturbance in recent aerial imagery. UPRR abandoned railroad is located immediately east,Iron Horse Trail is located immediately west. GPS Point SP-W-2. The sample point is located in wetlands. VEGETATION (use scientific names) TREE STRATUM Plot Size: Absolute Dominant Indicator cover Species? Status Dominance Test Worksheet 1• Number of Dominant Species 3 (A) 2• that are OBL, FACW,or FAC? 3. Total number of dominant 4. species across all strata? 3 (B) Tree Stratum Total Cover: of dominant species that 100 (A/B) are OBL, FACW,or FAC? SAPLING/SHRUB STRATUM Plot Size: Prevalence Index Worksheet 1. _ Total%cover of _ Multiply bw 2• OBL species x1 3. FACW species x2 4. FAC species x3 SaplinglShrub Stratum Total Cover: FACU species x4 HERB STRATUM Plot Size: UPL species x5 1. Polypogon monspeliensis 30 Y FAC Column Totals (A) (B) 2. Festuca perennis 20 y_ F_ ACW Prevalence Index=B/A= 3. Leymus triticoides 20 Y_ FAC 4. Avena fatua 10 N NL Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 5, Melllotus indicus 10 N FACU ® Dominance Test is>50% 6. Rumex crispus 5 N FAC Prevalence Index is</=3.0' 7. ❑ Morphological adaptations(provide 8. supporting data in remarks) Herb Stratum Total Cover: 95 ❑ Problematic hydrophytic vegetation'(explain) WOODY VINE STRATUM Plot Size: 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology 1• must be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 2. Woody Vines Total Cover: Hydrophytic %Bare ground in herb stratum 0 cover!o° of biotic crust Vegetation Present? ❑Yes ® No Remarks: The sample point contains a predominance of hydrophytic vegetation. US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West Sampling Point SP-W-3 SOIL Profile description:(Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features Remarks (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % TYpe, Loc' Texture 0.7 10YR 4/1 70 7.5YR 4/6 30 C M Loam ORs on live roots 7-14 10YR 3/1 100 Clay loam no red oximorphic features observed 'T e:C=Concentration,D=De letion,RM=Reduced Matrix. 2Location:PL=Pore Lining,RC=Root Channel, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators:(Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histosol(Al) ❑ Sandy Redox(S5) ❑ 1 c Muck(A9)(LRR C) ❑ Histic Epipedon(A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix(S6) ❑2cm Muck(A10)(LRR B) ❑Black Histic(A3) ❑Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1) ❑Reduced Vertic(F18) ❑Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) ❑ Red Parent Material(TF2) ❑Stratified Layers(A5)(LRR C) ®Depleted Matrix(F3) ❑Other(explain in remarks) ❑ 1 c Muck(A9)(LRR D) ❑ Redox Dark Surface(F6) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) ❑Depleted Dark Surface(F7) ❑Thick Dark Surface(Al2) ❑Redox Depressions(F8) 'Indicators of h dric vegetation and [I ve et Sandy Mucky Mineral(Si) ❑Vernal Pools(F9) wetland hydrology v 9 t present. ❑Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) Restrictive Layer(if present): Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? ❑Yes ®No Remarks: Redoximorphic features were observed in the upper part of the soil pit. The sample point met the F3 Depleted Matrix hydric soild field indicators. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators(Z or more required) Primary Indicators(any one indicator is sufficient) ❑Water Marks(B1)(Riverine) ❑ Surface Water(Al) ❑Salt Crust(1311) ❑ Sediment Deposits(132)(Riverine) ❑ High Water Table(A2) ❑ Biotic Crust(612) ❑ Drift Deposits(133)(Riverine) ❑Saturation(A3) ❑Aquatic Invertebrates(1313) ❑ Drainage Patterns(1310) ❑Water Marks(61)(Nonriverine) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) ❑ Dry-Season Water Table(C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits(132)(Nonriverine) ®Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots(C3) ❑Thin Muck Surface(C7) ❑ Drift Deposits(63)(Nonriverine) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) [3 Saturation Burrows(C8) ® Surface Soil Cracks(66) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in PLowed Soils(C6) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(67) ❑Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ Shallow Aquitard(D3) ❑Water-Stained Leaves(69) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Field Observations: Surface water present? ❑Yes ® No Depth(inches): Water table present? ❑Yes ® No Depth(inches): Saturation Present? ❑Yes ONO Depth(inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? ®Yes ❑ No (includes capillary fringe) Describe recorded data(stream guage,monitoring well,aerial photos,etc.)if available. Remarks:Hydrology indicators B6 Surface Soil Cracks,and C3 Oxidized Rhizospheres Along Living Roots were met. Arid West US Army Corps of Engineers Appendix C - Representative Photographs of the Study Area This page intentionally left blank ti ` 4+ 3 0 Z> Above: Photo shows railroad trestle crossing drainage feature, looking west. Below Photo shows evidence of ponding under railroad wra trestle crossing. ENV$RONMENIAt CONSOtIANYS Photographs taken May 17,2013 F Above: Photo showing sample point SP-U-1 in foreground, looking south. This sample point is located within a buried pipeline easement. wra x Below: Photo showing sample point SP-U-2 in foreground, looking north. Abandoned UPRR earthen fNVik C}NMEN1At e�-OhiSUtTANiS berm is on the right. Photographs taken May 17, 2013 Mz� h F Y 2 �k i Above: Photo showing seasonal wetland feature W-3, looking south-southwest. wra Photographs taken May 17,2013 £ ;? t�rtncw, artassr�" This page intentionally left blank Appendix D — Plants Observed Within the Study Area This page intentionally left blank Appendix D. Plants observed by WRA at the Dublin Iron Horse Trail Study Area, May 17, 2013. SCIENTIFIC NAME WETLAND COMMON NAME INDICATOR STATUS -AW Atriplex prostrate fat hen FACW Avena fatua wild oats NL Brassica nigra black mustard NL Bromus diandrus ripgut brome NL Carduus pycnocephalus Italian thistle NL Crypsis schoenoides swamp pricklegrass OBL Cyperus eragrostis nutsedge FACW Distichlis spicata salt grass FAC Festuca perennis Italian rye FAC Foeniculum vulgare fennel FACU Helminthotheca echioides bristly ox-tounge FAC Hordeum marinum ssp. gussoneanum Mediterranean barley FAC Lactuca serriola prickly lettuce FACU Lepidium latifolium broadleaved pepperweed FACW Leymus triticoides beardless lyme grass FAC Melilotus indicus indian sweet-clover FACU Polypogon monspeliensis rabbitsfoot grass FACW Raphanus sativa wild radish NL Rumex crispus curly dock FAC Xanthium strumarium =roughcocklebur FAC D-1 Attachment 3- Acoustic Report City of Dublin Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project Page 50 August 2013 ROSEN GOLDBERG DER & LEWIT2, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE IMPACT REPORT FOR: Iron Horse Linear Park Dublin, CA RGDL Project#: 13-029 PREPARED FOR: Jerry Haag, Urban Planner 2029 University Avenue Berkeley, CA 94704 PREPARED BY: Alan Rosen Harold S. Goldberg, P.E. DATE: 30 July 2013 1100 Larkspur Landing Circle#375 Larkspur CA 94939% Tel 415 464 0150 Fax 4154640155* RGDLacoustics.com 1 Iron Horse Linear Park, Dublin, CA 30 July Page ge 1 Environmental Noise Impact Report 1. Introduction The proposed project is the development of a new linear park along the Iron Horse Trail and former Union Pacific Railroad tracks extending from the Dublin-San Ramon City Limit Line to just south of Amador Valley Blvd. Although no specific design has been selected by the City, there are a variety of possible uses that are being considered such as children's play areas, outdoor classrooms, picnic areas, and community gardens. The project site is adjacent to residential homes on both sides as well as the existing Dublin High School athletic fields. This report evaluates potential impact of the noise from likely project uses and provides recommendations for noise mitigation measures if noise levels are expected to exceed applicable standards. 2. Environmental Noise Fundamentals Noise can be defined as unwanted sound. It is commonly measured with an instrument called a sound level meter. The sound level meter captures the sound with a microphone and converts it into a number called a sound level. Sound levels are expressed in units of decibels. To correlate the microphone signal to a level that corresponds to the way humans perceive noise, the A-weighting filter is used. A-weighting de-emphasizes low-frequency and very high-frequency sound in a manner similar to human hearing. The use of A-weighting is required by most local General Plans as well as federal and state noise regulations (e.g. Caltrans, EPA, OSHA and HUD). The abbreviation dBA is sometimes used when the A-weighted sound level is reported. Because of the time-varying nature of environmental sound, there are many descriptors that are used to quantify the sound level. Although one individual descriptor alone does not fully describe a particular noise environment, taken together, they can more accurately represent the noise environment. The maximum instantaneous noise level (Lmax) is often used to identify the loudness of a single event such as a car passby or airplane flyover. To express the average noise level the Leq (equivalent noise level) is used. The Leq can be measured over any length of time but is typically reported for periods of 15 minutes to 1 hour. The background noise level (or residual noise level) is the sound level during the quietest moments. it is usually generated by steady sources such as distant freeway traffic. It can be quantified with a descriptor called the L90 which is the sound level exceeded 90 percent of the time. To quantify the noise level over a 24-hour period, the Day/Night Average Sound Level (DNL or Ldn) or Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is used. These descriptors are averages like the Leq except they include a 10 dB penalty during nighttime hours (and a 5 dB penalty during evening hours in the CNEL) to account for people's increased sensitivity during these hours. ROSEN GOLDBERG DER H[ LEWITZ,INC. 1100 Larkspur Landing Circle#375 a Larkspur CA 94939<Tel 415 464 0150 4 Fax 415 464 0155 a RGDLacoustics.com Iron Horse Linear Park, Dublin, CA Page 2 Environmental Noise Impact Report 30 July 2013 In environmental noise, a change in noise level of 3 dB is considered a just noticeable difference. A 5 dB change is clearly noticeable, but not dramatic. A 10 dB change is perceived as a halving or doubling in loudness. 3. Acoustical Criteria 3.1.City of Dublin General Plan The Noise Element of the City's General Plan has policies regarding noise and land use compatibility. Table 1 provides guidelines for the compatibility of land uses with various noise exposures. The City uses the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) descriptor. A CNEL of 60 dBA or less is considered normally acceptable for residential land use. It should be noted that the City's compatibility standards are normally intended to be used for traffic and transit noise. Table 1: Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE(d8) Land Use Category Normally Conditionally Normally Clearly Acceptable Acceptable _Unacceptable _Unacceptable (Noise Insulation) Features Required Residential 60 or less 60-70 70-75 Over 75 Motels,hotels 60 or less 60.70 70.80 Over 80 Schools,churches,nursing 60 or less 60.70 70-80 Over 80 homes Neighborhood parks 60 or less 60.65 65-70 Over 70 Offices: retail commercial 70 or less 70.75 75-80 Over 80 Industrial 70 or less 70.75 Over 75 Conditionally acceptable exposure requires noise insulation features in building design.Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice. 3.2.City of Dublin Noise Ordinance Chapter 5.28 of the City of Dublin's Municipal Code prohibits "...loud, or disturbing, or unnecessary, or unusual or habitual noise or any noise which annoys or disturbs or injures or endangers the health, repose, peace or safety of any reasonable person of normal sensitivity present in the area". The noise ordinance states that it is appropriate to consider the level and character of the noise as well as the level and character of the background noise. Since the City's Noise Ordinance does not contain quantifiable noise level limits, it is not possible to apply the noise ordinance as a threshold for assessing project generated noise in the context of this noise study. ROSEN GOLDBERG DER& LEWITZ,INc. 1100 Larkspur Landing Circle#375* Larkspur CA 94939�Tel 415 464 0150 a Fax 415 464 0155� RGDLacoustics.com 3 Iron Horse Linear Park, Dublin, CA 30 July Page ge 3 Environmental Noise Impact Report 3.3.Increase in Noise The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines require a determination of whether a project will generate a substantial increase in noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. CEQA does not specify a method for determining when a project would cause a significant increase in noise. Likewise, the City of Dublin does not have criteria for determining when a noise increase is significant. A recent FAA Draft Policy' discusses screening and impact thresholds for increases in aircraft noise. These FAA thresholds are consistent with the thresholds that were adopted in CEQA document for the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan.2 Therefore, these thresholds are used to assess the significance of noise increases due to the project as follows — an increase in CNEL is significant if it is; • 5 dBA or greater and future CNEL is less than 60 dBA. or • 3 dBA or greater and future CNEL is 60 dBA or greater and less than 65 dBA. or • 1.5 dBA or greater and future CNEL is 65 dBA or greater. 4. Existing Noise Environment The proposed Park runs along the Iron Horse Regional Trail and Union Pacific Right of Way. The South San Ramon Creek forms the westerly boundary of the proposed Park. Residences are located on both sides of the proposed park with backyards that abut the project site. Along the western side of the site, backyards are about 100 feet from the Iron Horse Trail. On the eastern side, backyards are about 200 feet from the Iron Horse Trail. To quantify the existing noise environment, long-term noise measurements were made for seven consecutive days at two locations (A and B on Figure 1) and short term, 15-minute noise measurements were made at four locations (1 through 4 on Figure 1). The measurement locations were primarily chosen to represent the existing conditions at residences near the proposed project. Figures 2 and 3 show the daily variation in noise levels at each of the long-term monitor locations. In general, average noise levels toward the north (location A) ranged from 45 to 55 dBA (Leg) whereas noise levels on the southern end (location B), near the road, were slightly higher and ranged from about 45 to 60 dBA. FAA Order 1050.1 E, CHG 1, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, 10 March 2006. 2 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR, September 2010, SCH#20100022005. R05EN GOLDBERG DER He LEWITZ,INC. 1100 Larkspur Landing Circle#375+Larkspur CA 94939 Tel 415 464 0150 Fax 415 464 0155 RGDLacoustics.com Iron Horse Linear Park, Dublin, CA Page 4 Environmental Noise Impact Report 30 July 2013 Table 1 shows the results of the short term noise measurements. At location 3, adjacent to homes on the west side of the project site, a dog barking generated a maximum noise level of 51 dBA, whereas a voice on the Iron Horse Trail was 49 dBA. An airplane flyover generated a maximum noise level of 60 dBA. At location 4, a distant truck generated a noise level of 52 dBA whereas a motorcycle generated a maximum level of 58 dBA. Location 4 the sound of kids in the nearby park were 56 to 58 dBA though they were somewhat masked by wind noise which was about 55 dBA. At location 5, near the southern end of the site, distant traffic had a maximum noise level of 52 dBA. Figure 1: Noise Measurement Locations �, y _ x r, ROSEN GOLDBERG DER& LEWITZ,INc. 1100 Larkspur Landing Circle#375 a Larkspur CA 94939 Tel 415 464 0150 Fax 415 464 0155 RGDLacoustics.com Iron Horse Linear Park, Dublin, CA Page 5 Environmental Noise Impact Report 30 July 2013 Figure 2: Long Term Noise Measurement at Location A S.ID� w L 67 d kba" 40 30 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 N 650 b 0 N d'0 C w N dr0 t0 (6 N w 0 65 N 6'0 b b N dd b 60 N w tl b N Wad TFU Fri Sat Sn Nbn TUB V1hd 5'1/13 57113 SIN13 54113 5'5113 56113 57/13 5'8113 Tare of Day Figure 3: Long Term Noise Measurement at Location B 100 F' , , _ _ ; 90 e0 70 t 50 a 40 _ 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 N bri b ld N rd ti fd N dd b (d N td b ld N fd b fd N �0 ti ld N dri b Gj N V\bd TFu Fri Sat S l Ntn TUB V\kd 511/13 57113 53113 5'4113 515113 5613 -97/13 5(8(13 Tirre of Day ROSEN GOLDBERG DER& LEWITZ,INC. 1100 Larkspur Landing Circle#375 4 Larkspur CA 94939 e Tel 415 464 0150 a Fax 415 464 0155 RGDLacoustics.com Iron Horse Linear Park, Dublin, CA Page 6 Environmental Noise Impact Report 30 July 2013 Table 1: Summary of Short-Term, 15 Minute Noise Measurements Location Date /Time A-weighted Sound Level, dBA Leq L10 L50 L90 CNEL* 1 1-May-13 39 41 37 35 51 11:34 a.m. 2 1-May-13 47 49 44 38 52 12:33 a.m. 3 8-May-13 47 48 45 43 51 2:17 p.m. 4 8-May-13 53 54 52 51 57 2:36 p.m. 5 8-May-13 52 54 52 51 56 3:17 p.m. *CNEL calculated based on comparison with simultaneous measurement at 24-hour noise monitor location. 5. Analysis 5.1. Project Generated Noise Noise sources associated with the proposed project would range from those that are typical for the existing trail such as people walking, jogging or biking to new uses such as children's play areas, outdoor classrooms and outdoor picnic areas. Typical maximum noise levels from trail users Qoggers, bikers and people strolling) range from 43 to 60 dBA at a distance of 10 feet. With the proposed project, the trail would meander and be as close as 25 feet from existing homes. Table 2 shows the estimated noise levels from the trail use at backyards of existing residences. Table 2: Estimated Noise Levels from Trail at the Nearest Backyards Noise Source Lmax dBA Bike* 44 Jogger* 44 Voice — normal** 40 Voice — raised** 47 Voice —shout** 70 *Noise Study for Alamo Creek Bike Path, 30 June 2003 **"Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control", 3`d Ed.,Cyril Harris 1998. ROSEN GOLDBERG DER& LEWITZ,INC. 1100 Larkspur Landing Circle#375 7 Larkspur CA 94939 _ Tel 415 464 0150.ti Fax 415 464 0155 ,--RGDLacoustics.com Iron Horse Linear Park, Dublin, CA Page 7 Environmental Noise Impact Report 30 July 2013 Based on the noise measurements that were made for the Alamo Creek Bike Trail project, the Leq due to the trail users would be 43 dBA at a distance of 10 feet from the center of the trail. This corresponds to an Leq of 35 dBA at a distance of 25 feet. If this level of activity occurs from 7 AM to 9 PM, then the DNL would be 34 dBA at the nearest backyards, estimated to be about 25 feet from the trail. For group activities, the level of noise would depend on the number of users and the proximity to homes. For example, a group activity, such as use of a play area where five children are playing continuously for 12 hours a day would generate an Leq of 52 dBA at a distance of 100 feet. The corresponding CNEL would be 49 dBA. 5.2. Impact Assessment 1. Would the proposal result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? The Noise Element of the City of Dublin's General Plan considers a CNEL of 60 dBA or less to be "normally acceptable" for neighborhood parks and residential development. The City's of Dublin's Noise Ordinance (Chapter 5.28) does not contain quantitative noise level limits. Existing noise levels along the project site range from a CNEL of 51 to 57 dBA due to ambient noise and trail use. This is considered "normally acceptable" for both park and residential uses. In the future, the noise from the proposed project will vary, depending upon the specific use and ultimate location of that use with respect to existing residences. For the purposes of this assessment, the uses are divided into two types: Trail use (biking, walking, jogging) and outdoor classrooms/play/picnic areas. The use of the bike trail would be similar to current use though the distance of the main trail to homes would decrease since the trail would likely meander from east to west (as opposed to its current location about 100 to 200 feet from homes). Under the scenario where a trail comes within about 25 feet from a residential backyard, the CNEL would be 34 dBA. A CNEL of 34 dBA is well within the City's "normally acceptable" level of 60 dBA for residential use. ROSEN GOLDBERG DER& LEWITZ,INC. 1100 Larkspur Landing Circle#375-Larkspur CA 94939®Tel 415 464 0150 4- Fax 415 464 0155. RGDLacoustics.com Iron Horse Linear Park, Dublin, CA Page 8 Environmental Noise Impact Report 30 July 2013 The precise location of the outdoor classroom/play/picnic areas is not known at this time, but the concept site plan indicates that a likely distance would be about 100 feet from existing homes. An outdoor classroom, play or picnic areas with five children playing continuously, throughout the day, would generate a CNEL of 49 dBA at a distance of 100 feet. If the number of children increased to 10, the CNEL would increase to 52 dBA. Both these levels are considered "normally acceptable" for residential use according to the City's General Plan. In order to generate noise levels greater than those considered normally acceptable (e.g. greater than 60 dBA (CNEL)) there would need to be about 75 children using the outdoor area if it is located 100 feet from the homes or the play area would need to be closer than 37 feet from the homes if there were only 10 children playing. In these instances, noise from the outdoor classroom/play/picnic area would be considered a significant impact. Mitigation 1: Restrict classroom, play and picnic areas so they are no closer than 37 feet from existing residences. 2. Would the proposal result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above existing levels without the project? The contribution in noise from the use of the trail alone would increase the CNEL at the closest residences by less than 1 dBA. Therefore, the increase in noise from the use of the trail will result in a less than significant impact. However, noise from the outdoor classroom/play/picnic areas could increase the CNEL in excess of 5 dBA if located within 75 feet of residences (presuming 10 children playing). If there are 5 children playing, the distance decreases to 55 feet. This is a significant impact. Mitigation 2: See Mitigation 1 ROSEN GOLDBERG DER& LEWITZ,INC. 1100 Larkspur Landing Circle#375 t Larkspur CA 94939$Tel 415 464 0150�Fax 415 464 0155- RGDLacoustics.com September 5, 2013 City of Dublin Iron Horse Nature Park and Open Space (Linear Park) Project PLPA-2013-00044 Response to Environmental Comments Introduction The City of Dublin issued a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for this project on August 5, 2013 for a 30-day period to ensure California Environmental Quality Act compliance. The project being analyzed in the MND is the construction of a linear park, potential South San Ramon Creek realignment, and potential Iron Horse Regional Trail realignment on approximately 35 acres of land (12 acres to be owned by the City of Dublin as the public park and 23 acres owned by Zone 7 Water Agency). Proposed uses are primarily passive, but would also include some areas of higher activity recreation uses. Pedestrian and bicycle connections would be made with surrounding neighborhoods and Dublin High School. The development of the park may also include realignment of the Iron Horse Trail and the existing Zone 7 watercourse within the park. Construction of the park would require approval of a General Plan Amendment and rezoning by the City of Dublin as well as an amendment to the City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan. The Iron Horse Nature Park and Open Space (Linear Park) is located in the approximate center of Dublin, generally located between Amador Valley Boulevard and the Dublin-San Ramon City Limit Line along the Iron Horse Trail and former Union Pacific Railroad tracks. Changes and Modifications to the Initial Study The following changes to the Initial Study are made by reference and included in the document. 1. Exhibit 3 contained in the Initial Study will be changed from a view of the Proposed Park Site to the Conceptual Park Master Plan that has been developed for the project site. 2. Paragraph 4 on page 4 will be amended to read"A small vehicle parking lot with a maximum capacity for 15 vehicles is expected to be provided adjacent to Amador Valley Boulevard in the location shown in the Conceptual Park Master Plan." EXHIBIT A-2 TO ATTACHMENT 2 City of Dublin Page 2 Response to Comments-Iron Horse Nature Park and Open Space(Linear Park) September 5,2013 Comment Letters and Responses Two comment letters were received, as follows: Letter No. Commenter Date A-Local Agencies A-1 Dublin San Ramon Services District 8/15/13 B-Interested Persons B-1 John Whitehead 8/27/13 Copies of these letters are annotated and attached. Each response corresponds numerically to the number of responses. City of Dublin Page 3 Response to Comments-Iron Horse Nature Park and Open Space(Linear Park) September 5,2013 Annotated Comment Letters 0811512013 15:58 P.0011001 - � O DUBLIN 7051 Dublin Boulevard SAN Dublin,California 94568 SERVICES N a IP,��,,,,,, Phone:925 828 0515 a toO ,l L, FAX:925 829 1180 DISTIUCT `RMC9 1953 www.darad.com August 15,2013 Via Fax Kristi Bascom,Principal Planner City of Dublin, Community Development Dept. 100 Civic Plaza Dublin,CA 94568 Subject: Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Iron Horse Linear Park(PLPA-2013-00044) Dear Ms.Bascom: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Iron Horse Linear Park Project(Notice of Intent). This proposed project is within the service area where Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) currently provides potable water service, recycled water service and wastewater collection service. DSRSD has identified no impacts or necessary mitigations beyond those identified in the Notice of Intent. We noted that the Initial Study states, "Potable water and sewer lines would need to be extended to portions of the future park to support public restrooms. Recycled water lines would also be extended into portions of the project site for irrigation of future landscaped areas." We also noted that plans for this park would include flow restrictors to minimize potable water consumption and "low flow" toilets to minimize future wastewater flow. This is Mitigation Measure UTIL-1. DSRSD agrees that development of Iron Horse Linear Park will have a less than significant impact on utilities and service systems with this mitigation measure. We also note the proposed use of recycled water on landscape irrigation to conserve potable water supplies. DSRSD does not deem any additional mitigation will be needed beyond those specified in the Notice of Intent for the District's potable water,recycled water or wastewater collection services to the community. We feel that the joint planning effort done between the City of Dublin and DSRSD has successfully identified those areas of concern and planned reasonable solutions to those areas. Sincerely, ..f' . STANLEY OLOD ,P.E. Associate Engineer SK/ST cc: Dave Requa,DSRSD Rhodora Biagtan,DSRSD DuOan Ban Raman SeMan DlatrW Is a MOC BndW Received T`i m e$ Aug. 15. *52 013°" 3: 5 8 P M'°N o. 10 3 0'f DuDlin\20 MCommeats on initlal Study Mit Nea Dec-Iron Horse Linear Park-9-2-I3.doo 2013Aug27 RECEIVED Kristi Bascom AUG 2 7 2013 Principal Planner City of Dublin DUBLIN PLANTING Community Development Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin,CA 94568 Dear Ms. Bascom, Here are my comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Iron Horse Linear Park. My name is John Whitehead,and in 19981 purchased my residence at the end of Conestoga Lane in Dublin. My home borders directly on the County-owned Kinder-Morgan pipeline property just south of Amador Valley Blvd,very close to the proposed traiihead facilities which are expected to include restrooms and a small parking lot. Comment 1 While I am very much in favor of the proposed park, I am concerned that the potential negative impacts upon me personally could be unfair and greater than on other residents near the park. I look forward to enjoying a reasonable degree of privacy for decades to come,in addition to benefiting from the -proximity to this wonderful new park. My greatest concerns are the potential for future growth of the parking lot toward my residence,and the potential for tobacco smoke to blow directly toward me. My concerns are explained in detail below,along with suggestions for improving the Mitigated Negative Declaration document(PLPA-2013-00044). Comment 2 Other than general site diagrams to indicate the park location,the entire document Is only words,so a plan (map)for the park should be included to support various statements that Impacts will be low, It is impossible to tell,for example,how far the parking lot and restrooms would be from the fence on my side. Comment 3 , A"small vehicle narking lot"is mentioned on page 4. Please Indicate the maximum number of parking spaces, i.e.15 spaces as recently explained to me by Rosemary Alex of the Dublin Parks Department. Also please add a statement that the parking lot borders will remain at least 125 feet(what's the right number?)from existing residential properties. Comment 4 Park hours are indicated as sunrise to sunset,also on page 4. There needs to be an explanation of how the hours would be enforced. In particular,there should be a means to prevent use of the parking lot at night. While the likelihood of people loitering after dark might be low, I presently enjoy cool evening j breezes through my screen door and windows,without any smoke from tobacco or diesel engines for example,and currently there Is no localized noise from people talking or cars coming and going. i i Comment 5 Item 1(a)(Aesthetics pages 14 and 24).says there would be no impact on a scenic vista. Presently,when standing in my open doorway, I regularly enjoy the serene and very wide view of the distant hills to the south and west because my eye level Is above the fence. The view from my doorway and windows includes open space and welcome trail users in the foreground,plus rooftops of houses beyond 300 feet away. Therefore,I feel that Item 1(a)should be changed to Indicate that vistas are not"limited,"and that mitigation will be done. The Parks Department plan shows a row of trees that would block my view of the parking lot and restrooms. At the same time,I would not want those trees to be large enough and close enough to me to block my view of the distant hills. As noted already as mitigation for Item 1(d),I look forward to not having any lights shining directly toward my residence. Comment 6 Item 3(Air Quality, pages 15 and 25-26)should be changed to point out that outdoor tobacco smoke has been defined as a nuisance by the City of Dublin(Municipal Code 5.56.160). It should be stated that the new park will be entirely"non-smoking,"with a plan for signage and enforcement. Presently I enjoy clean air coming across the vacant land with the prevailing breezes,while tobacco smoke is full of toxins that immediately give me headaches, Even New York City for example has outlawed tobacco smoke in all public parks(signs are posted),and there is similarly no excuse to condone It in Dublin. Merely going with the flow of existing law is not good enough,because existing law(5.56,050.C.2) permits tobacco smoke in parks larger than 8 acres(per the definition of"community park"). Presumably there was an assumption that residences are far away from such large parks,but that is obviously not true for the long and narrow Iron Horse linear Park,despite being larger than 8 acres. A related concern is that sometimes wind is lined up perfectly with the Iron Horse Trail,so trail users cannot escape the plume of smoke from a tobacco user on or near the trail. Signage prohibiting tobacco use is very helpful,so that concerned citizens can simply point to the signs instead of having a mere "difference of opinion"with tobacco users. When enjoying the Iron Horse Trail north of Amador Valley Blvd.,I have encountered underage people smoking tobacco on their walk to Dublin High School,which should never happen. Comment 7 Item 12(Noise.pages 20 and 37-42 plus Attachment 3)should explain that the measured noise on the site is mostly continuous smooth background sound from distant freeways. It needs to be acknowledged that the local noise of cars coming and going and revving up engines in a parking lot is a completely different kind of noise which does have an Impact,even if the decibel level is the same as or even less than the distant background noise. The appropriate mitigation is to ensure that hours are limited by parking lot gates or other enforcement,and that there is no future growth of the"small vehicle parking lot" Item 16(f)(Transportation/Traffic pages 21-22 and 43-44)says there will be no impact on the safety or Comment 8 I i performance of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. This item should state that the park plan Includes some changes to the Iron Horse Trail,which is a regional transportation corridor for bicycle traffic. Mitigation I for proposed changes should be done based on outreach to residents and trail users,given that many people bicycle on the Iron Horse Trail with a need to arrive at work on time, i i Comment 9 Item 18(b)(Mandatory Findings of Significance oases 23 and 45-46)says there will be no impacts from the effects of probable future projects. Please Include a clear statement in this Item that future expansion of the parking lot will not be accepted,or at least say that possible expansion is not covered by this Mitigated Negative Declaration. My concern is that if the park becomes popular as expected, there will be community pressure to expand the parking lot toward my residence,i.e.a"probable future project." In conclusion.thank you for reading my comments and for Incorporating my concerns into the planning for the Iron Horse Linear Park. I look forward to all the positive aspects of this future park,including meeting friendly people who are using the park near my residence for wholesome purposes with minimal negative impacts. Sincerely, aVa _ John Whitehead 6627 Conestoga Lane Dubl€n, CA 94568 (925)828-1824 (925)423-4847(at work,best for messages) i f City of Dublin Page 8 Response to Comments-Iron Horse Nature Park and Open Space(Linear Park) September 5,2013 The following are responses to each of the comments. Letter from DSRSD: Comment: The District supports the proposed project and agrees that the development of the Iron Horse Nature Park and Open Space (Linear Park) will have a less than significant impact on utilities and service systems with the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures. Response: DSRSD support of the project is noted and no further response is needed. Letter from John Whitehead Comment 1: The commenter is concerned about growth (expansion) of the parking lot and the potential for tobacco smoke to blow towards the commenter's dwelling. Response: The parking lot designed for the park will accommodate a maximum of 15 parking spaces. Should any future expansion be proposed to the parking area that is not in substantial conformance with the Conceptual Park Master Plan (Revised Exhibit 3 to the MND), future analysis and an accompanying CEQA document would need to be completed. Comment 2: The commenter notes that a site plan for the park should be included in the document to better demonstrate potential impacts. Response: City of Dublin Staff have been working with park designers and the community to select a site development plan for the park that best balances anticipated recreation opportunities for the public and privacy needs for the residents closest to the proposed park. Exhibit 3 of the MND has been revised to provide more detail on the resulting proposed park design. The Planned Development Ordinance that is recommended for approval describes the future permitted uses in the park, which include "a public park with a mix of low-intensity, passive recreation uses near existing residential areas and a few nodes of more active uses at key locations, public open space, stream corridor, and a regional multi-use trail." Comment 3: The commenter requests confirmation that the maximum number of parking spaces constructed as part of the park would be 15 and that there would be a minimum 125 foot buffer from existing residential properties. Resl)onse: The MND will be amended to state that "A small vehicle parking lot with a maximum capacity for 15 vehicles is expected to be provided adjacent to Amador Valley Boulevard in the location shown in the Conceptual Park Master Plan." City of Dublin Page 9 Response to Comments-Iron Horse Nature Park and Open Space(Linear Park) September 5,2013 Comment 4: How will hours of operation, identified as sunrise to sunset, be enforced? There should be a means of preventing use of the proposed parking lot during nighttime hours to minimize noise from diesel engines. There is currently no localized noise from people talking or vehicles? Response: The posted public park hours will be sunrise to sunset. As with any other public park in the City of Dublin, violations are subject to enforcement by Dublin Police Services. Comment 5: The commenter is concerned that future park improvements, specifically a row of trees, could block his views of distant hills from his house. Response: Consistent with CEQA, the issue of potential blockage of views is limited to blockage of views from public parks, playgrounds and other vista points, not private dwellings. Therefore there is no need to change the conclusion of the Initial Study. As the specific design details are developed at the time of park construction, City Staff will take a look at the tree species to be planted along the park perimeter. Comment 6: A concern is raised regarding potential air quality impacts from tobacco smoke affecting the commenter. Response: The City of Dublin prohibits smoking in any City park. "No Smoking" signs will be posted and violations are subject to enforcement by Dublin Police Services. The Iron Horse Regional Trail is a facility operated by the East Bay Regional Park District, which their own policies related to smoking. Comment 7: The commenter requests the noise section of the Initial Study should explain that the existing noise measurements taken on the site mostly consist of smooth background noise from distant freeways. The anticipated noise of cars coming and going and revving engines in the proposed parking lot does have an impact, even if the decibel level is the same or less than distant background noise. The suggested mitigation is to ensure that park hours of operation are limited by parking gates or other enforcement and there is no enlargement of the proposed parking lot. Response: The acoustic report prepared for the project by the firm of RGDL (Attachment 3 to the Initial Study) includes a brief discussion of the sources of existing noise in the neighborhood that was recorded in early May, 2013. Page 4 of the RGDL report notes that a motorcycle passing the project area generated a noise event of 58 decibels (DBA). This noise level is generally equivalent or perhaps noisier than a standard passenger vehicle, so that at a measured event of 58 decibels, this noise is lower than the City noise standard of 60 decibels for residential areas. Therefore, future noise from the proposed small (15-vehicle) parking lot is not anticipated to be a significant noise impact or community nuisance. However, if a consistent and on-going noise issue becomes apparent at the park site, Parks and Community Services Staff shall be notified to investigate if there are City of Dublin Page 10 Response to Comments-Iron Horse Nature Park and Open Space(Linear Park) September 5,2013 operational issues. Individual violators are subject to enforcement by Dublin Police Services. Comment 8: The commenter notes that these could be some changes to the current alignment of the Iron Horse Trail. There should be mitigation measures included based on outreach to residents and trail users of the proposed changes since many people on bicycle use the Trail for commuting and need to arrive at work on time. Response: The Initial Study notes that there could be minor changes to the existing alignment of the iron Horse Trail to better integrate the function of the Trail with the proposed park. However, any changes to the alignment of the Iron Horse Trail would be minor and would not significantly impact local commuters and times to work. Comment 9: The commenter requests that a clear statement be made that a future expansion of the proposed parking lot will not be accepted, or at lease say that possible expansion is not covered by the Mitigated Negative Declaration. If the park becomes popular, there could be community pressure to expand the parking lot toward the commenter's residence. Response: The MND will be amended to state that "A small vehicle parking lot with a maximum capacity for 15 vehicles is expected to be provided adjacent to Amador Valley Boulevard in the location shown in the Conceptual Park Master Plan." � N � a o u cz o � . .� o O gg uQ 5 QCS to � ICI O '" 00 v UcliQ Chu C) bz v o o 2 v 2 4. on b0 o v ,4 4- d Q. 0) bA by •� Q" v O v CZ p u TS '� s. O O v m u O m N N cz p +, N 7j R+ V C cn CU O m u O a� Q" ! ;.., M Q" , p O O v ¢ U v o � r Q + O u cz EXHIBIT A-3 TO ATTACHMENT 2 N O 01 ca IL Li O CcS V 'C1 bA 4L �+ � bA .0 O A �Or �i bA is Q O ^CS � N sue, Q) CIS cn M '� — O +� " Q. u �.7 N IV u 00 � ++ v ' b.0 m m m . CZ u Y bA vOi '� ¢ N v ,S] bA 'u 4; p 4, O T3 d O C c 2 O O _ 'S O '_ .O N .O "� A � � O O u � O � � w r Q v m � G u O u m > m , cn �, +, p, M cn CU=O -cl U u 2 O m mfg P, '- � U M m m i� CL O C� V V O o bA u u u bA O v O .0 cz R-+ °u bD L'" °u bA o a w v v � x QuQQ QuQQ bA � ° •U � U � ;j o v O QUcnQ Chu � w O O m v; O 't� p m o c O O N .4 O O2) xi N N E O W e1 uo ¢+ + u c� N C O u C3 m O N p Q 0p Q c p � v � o � a� r m -o v '" a, 3 Z 4 w �a Q u .2 v °v o o 3 � b �w v Q• x v 3 0 �0 . Y o o .0 o � �° oil � � LO M ti p w U r. 5 y o U v -W s c`o 0 .fl + P.U W '+4 o tC F cb 0 tt +, cb 4. ;, :- A bIJ C!) � O` � U a) CL LO O .r RS � U ..w i. i O � w O � O � � m c� o °v r m v " O ::s V) 3 � a CauCaQ I � I ) U -- C� C5 U cn CS + cb by O Q) N N aJ v ;� . ca — aJ m O v p i w '�3 O «S O O O of E v 'C7 L3 C7 7:� aJ i, m y �, r c� :0 y ca C5 41 3 +�. U CM aJ "n -5 W ca u a) u o bO a CZ v O o aJ p E� v _p v S�, O m � cC O .� v cn 3 -� 4, a o N v a� u v p v 'C o 4, m cn .� S. cn a1 O o, s� u O O c •c m m m u p + v Ln CA 4-1 w aJ p o v v 2 is o v u a ul -Cj ca v, O fl Cn 0 U a� c� 0 c� v UO y � v ' �. v to tC c� 3 w uu -0 '7� to uu I o v � � QUQQ c I � U ^, o v -- L� Cl U US u O + O U a v «t a) C1 L bA " s,cz u a)D m a) O (z C) � Q cz aJ � � ( � u � � � bA U d ee - v v o o .� � cnn z o o m bCU O U . �o 0 LO C) U)Q" u o w v uu u ai �« O p m o c C3 N U p b0 — aJ "" QJ n5 aJ bbA -� U ^,_S �� a1 GO� O +, m �, .., m '� 10 aw 0 ., ca m a) N as� O — — m (1) m m 0 v tq a� t; bO � bil " cr i 3 w u 'd bA u C � � � QUcnQ C u +� v O u (z a m — m 0 f 4 O pad y '�� -� •� �, °; Q. '� .� v 3 c'n Q L--+ , -p "� s N N Q w co cu cz Ca ll::l aui u ¢+ p '�' u au S�, `�• V p �H-1 p o, 'L� u Q, Q CL ,u r- I ;V� ^U w CZ M LO In cis a)cC p W 0 u — x sue, u �O •v Lu" C3 N .` .tm CL 'd cn v U Z v + O �s a1� u ObA co c� �+, cn T3 Z o W �.ILI w +� O cz m a) 0 U a� rn c� a a 0 u u O o v v v � uu u .. m CA �' .-' C00 0 ;.4 QUcn Q U US Q Q U cn u ° CL ct o r � '� o °p o o N rn a)14, Qj o Q, w ct Y O U U O .0 O p w +- u ° ap G O d v w 5 v o O O 0 O O Q 'aJ u � u cn b.0 0 U U U U 00 i m cd 41 LA Ln lu U U-) Qj 75 175 aj �t- u U-) u U-) 11. 0 cu CL) cz cz a) .C5 ;� '.6 u 75 75 a, C) 4, a,. Uz U 4u u cz m — •- C) . C) ct M C) a) m cz C) -4- E u 4-J U-) C) 0 75 75 Or_ a) C) 6 u -d V) Iz a, blo (A C) CA 0 C) 0 u a) US m u C) (:) — �-4 r, � v) a- cz -u b.0 ca �5 i V 4 > u C) a) Q) X V-) u m ca cu 0 M \ § � % � « � � \ cu _ '�7 0 u = § .§ ? \ © ) $ \ \ d 2 § .§ P-4 \ � { Q � � _ � Q u 2 = / � ° § CP ƒ § ' ® _ IL � = c 0) \ $ \ k 2 k U C / 2 § k w } C c ) 2 ƒ2 2 u a ƒ / k / / / $ k / / \ 'ƒ / § \ e u $ I < t $ ƒ,ƒ2 '� t { / / < u . a