Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.1 AlmoCrkBkePthCont03-08File # CITY CLERK AGENDA STATEMENT CTTY COUNCTL MEETZNG DATE: August Z9~ 2003 SUBJECT: Adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Award of Contract No. 03-08, Alamo Creek Bike Path, Amador Valley Boulevard to North City Limits Report Prepared by: Lee $. Thompson, Public Works Director ATTACHMENTS: 1) Resolution Adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Awarding Contract No. 03-08 for the Alamo Creek Bike Path Project, Amador Valley Boulevard to North City Limits, along with Exhibit A. Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) Exhibit B. Letters commenting on MND and responses to comments Exhibit C. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 2) Bid Results 3) General Plan Figure 5-3a, Bikeways Diagram 4) Excerpts from Minutes February 25, 1985, City Council Meeting 5) February 25, 1985, City Council Agenda Statement, Item 4.4. 6) Excerpts from Minutes of February 23, 1987, City Council Meeting 7) May 20, 2003, City Council Agenda Statement, Item 7.1 RECOMMENDATION:~[~Adopt resolution adopting Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and awarding ContraCt No. 03-08 to GradeTech, Inc. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: Budget for this prOject: FY 2002-03 Salaries/Design/Misc: $ 14,824 Improvements: $ 0 TOTAL: $ 14,824 FY 2003-04 Total Budget Low Bid $ 11,270 $ 26,094 $ 230,000 $ 230,000 $ 156,639.50 $ 241,270 $ 256,094 $ 156,639.50 COPIES TO: g:h-niscprojXAlamo Creek Bike Path~AS award GradeTech, Inc. ITEM NO. This project is funded through a Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) grant from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District in the amount of $107,000, Measure B Pedestrian & Bicycle Fund in the amount of $126,329 and General Fund in the amount of $22,765. Failure to meet the TFCA funding guideline requirement of expending all TFCA funds programmed to the project by October 9, 2003, will result in the loss of the TFCA grant. DESCRIPTION: The Alamo Creek Bike Path project would construct a pedestrian and bicycle path along Alamo Creek between Amador Valley Boulevard and the north City limits ("the Path"). This project will pave the existing Zone 7 Water Agency's maintenance road along the west side of Alamo Creek, with the exception of the portion of the road within Alamo Creek Park. The asphalt concrete Path will be approximately 12 feet wide running along the existing concrete v-ditch. This project will also include the construction of a raised pedestrian crosswalk on Willow Creek Drive. This Path will provide access to the Iron Horse Trail system via a future bike lane on Amador Valley Boulevard. Historical Background of the Proposed Alamo Creek Bike Path ~?he Council is in receiPt of a letter dated August 5, 2003, from Allan C. MoOre, who represents David and Terry Davis, which addresses certain land use issues pertaining to the Path. Mr. Moore's letter contains a discussion of some of the history surrounding the Path and the issue of public access to the Alamo Creek corridor. In response, Staff provides information in this section to assist the Council and the public in understanding the Path's history. Initially, it should be noted that since at least 1992, the City's General Plan has stated the City's intent to complete the Path in this location, and the City has acted accordingly. In 1992, the Alamo Creek path segment that is the subject of the project was included as a bikeway in the City's General Plan. An implementing policy in the General Plan specifically states that the segment shall be completed. (See General Plan [updated to November 5, 2002] pp. 48, 54, Figure 5-3a.) In addition, in 1994, after extensive public involvement in the planning process, the City adopted the City's Parks and Recreation Master Plan, where pursuant to the General Plan the City's long-term recreation planning is set forth (see General Plan [updated to Nov. 5, 2002] p. 31). The goal of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan was to "create a continuous network of paths, walks, and trails, thereby providing a recreational resource of routes and linear open spaces enabling the public to travel by non-motorized modes throughout the Dublin community." (Parks and Recreation Master Plan (1994) ["Master Plan"], p. 29.) One of the implementing policies specifically states that the Path segment along Alamo Creek should be completed. (See Master Plan pp. 30-31.) Furthermore, the project has been in the City's Capital Improvement Plan since Fiscal Year 1994-1995. Mr. Moore's letter states that, "at the time of the original .approvals of the subdivisions surrounding and near Alamo Creek Park, the City Council specifically considered public access to the Alamo Creek area." To support this statement, Mr. Moore references the minutes from a 1985 City Council meeting, in which the Council "specifically opposed development of trails adjacent to Zone 7 facilities because of security and maintenance issues." But review of the minutes and associated Staff Report (Attachments 4 and 5) discloses that the City was concerned not about security and maintenance in general, but rather the security and maintenance expenses to the City of Zone 7's development of its creek properties for residential use. Those issues were subsequently resolved, and the City operates a number of trails on Zone 7 property pursuant to various license agreements. Page 2 ~ Mr. Moore's letter also references the minutes of a February 23, 1987, Council meeting. At that meeting, on the Council's consent agenda was the approval of the 1987 License Agreement between the City and Zone 7, the owner of the creek corridor. A citizen requested that the item be pulled from the consent calendar and asked the Council to reconsider its decision to reject the Parks and Recreation Commission recommendation to fully develop Alamo Creek adjacent to Alamo Creek Park for recreational use. When the initial planning for Alamo Creek Park was completed, the City considered more extensive development of the park adjacent to Alamo Creek, but this option was rejected. Mr. Moore states that these minutes confirm that Staff and Council confirmed that certain portions of Alamo Creek should not be used or accessed by the public. Mr. Moore then asks why, if the steep slopes of the creek and the effect on the environment were a concern then, they are not a concern now. But review of the minutes (Attachment 6) discloses that the discussion concerned not public access to the creek corridor in general, but rather access to the creek bottom itself. Furthermore, the entire discussion involved only those portions of Alamo Creek that are in what is now Alamo Creek Park. It did not involve those portions of the Path to the south and north of Alamo Creek Park. Background on the Bike Path Construction Proiect In FY 2000-2001, Staff submitted a Transportation for Clean Air (TFCA) Program application for grant funding of the Alamo Creek Bike Path project. On February 22, 2001, the City and 'the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency entered into an agreement to program $107,000 of TFCA funds for the Path project. The project has appeared in the City's Five-Year Capital Improvement Program since FY 1994-95. This project was identified in the 2000-2005 Capital Improvement Program to begin construction in FY 2001- 2002. Due to Staff workload and coordination issues with Zone 7, Staff had requested an extension to expend the TFCA funds from October 9, 2002, to October 9, 2003. The proposed bike path has also been identified in the City's General Plan since September 1992, as well as in the Alameda Countywide Bicycle Plan, Volume 1 (dated July 2001), prepared for the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency. At the May 6, 2003, Council meeting, Staff sought authorization to solicit bids for the Alamo Creek Bike Path. After heating from residents living along the proposed Path, the item was continued. Some of the concerns express by the residents included loss of privacy to adjacent property owners, disruption of wildlife along Alamo Creek, and potential noise problems from motorized scooters and children loitering on the Path. The Council scheduled and attended a field trip to the project site to view some of the concerns firsthand on Monday, May 12, 2003. The residents expressed a number of concerns during the May 12th site visit. Staff responded to those concerns in a Staff Report presented at the May 20, 2003, Council meeting (Attachment 7.) On May 20, 2003, the City Council approved a Notice of Exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)and authorized Staff to solicit bids. On June 3, 2003, the City Council directed Staff to iprepare an Initial Study for the proposed Alamo Creek Bike Path project and return to Council with the apPropriate environmental findings when Staff returned with the project to award the contract. It was anticipated that the contract would be awarded in August. Consistent with this direction, the Council is now being requested to take action on the environmental document and the contract award. Environmental Review Staff worked with several consultants and prepared an Initial Study that reviewed possible environmental impacts including, but not limited to, air quality, biological resources hazards and noise. The findings Page 3 %~ in the Initial Study concluded that although the Alamo Creek Bike Path project couM have a significant effect on the environment, there would not be a significant effect because mitigation measures will be incorporated into the project (see Exhibit A of the Resolution). Thus, Staff prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. Four mitigation measures were identified to reduce the impact to the environment to less than significant. These mitigation measures are described in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (see Exhibit C of the Resolution). On July 7, 2003, the City filed a Notice of Availability of Environmental Document to begin the 30-day comment period of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, which ended August 5, 2003. During this period, a total of eight. (8) letters were received commenting on the project (see Exhibit B of the Resolution). Staff has prepared written responses to these comments, included on Exhibit B of the Resolution. The comments received reflect four major concerns: privacy, noise, public safety, and biology. Some of the comments note that the Path will be constructed adjacent to residences along Oxford Circle that have minimal set-backs from the Zone 7 property and actually face the Creek and the Path (Oxford Circle is fronted by garages and residents travel pathways to reach their front doors.) Therefore, the comments argue that Path users will be able to look directly into yards and living areas of the residences. While acknowledging this comment, the responses to comment note that this is not an environmental impact under CEQA and, therefore, it is not further considered in the CEQA documentation. The comments are correct that the residences will face the Path directly, but there is existing fencing and vegetation along the corridor adjacent to Oxford Circle that provides a measure of privacy. Noise is considered an environmental impact under CEQA, and some of the comments concern potential noise from the use of the Path by the public. One comment letter includes a study by an acoustical 'engineering firm, Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc., which concludes that noise levels associated with public use of the Path are expected to be between 50 dB and 55 dB. This is somewhat greater than the average dB rating of 34 determined in the Initial Study. As noted in the responses to comments, this amount is considered "normally acceptable" under the Noise Element of the City's General Plan and this level of increased noise is therefore not considered to be significant. The comments raise several issues in the realm of public safety. First, it has been suggested that the Path will result in crime because of the secluded nature of the Path. Consistent with other public trails within the City, the Police Department does not anticipate a significant increase in calls for service from the-Path. In addition, the Path will be closed between dusk and dawn, which will further limit the activity. Second, it is suggested that there is a risk to children from drowning in the creek. As noted in the responses to comments, summer water levels in the creek are very low. During the winter, when water levels tend to be higher and can rise rapidly during storms, the City anticipates closing the Path during significant rain storms to lessen the danger of the creek. The City also consulted with Zone 7, who indicated that the agency is not aware of any accidental drownings along other creekside paths in the City. Several issues fiave been raised with respect to biological resources, which the Initial Study found would not be significantly affected by the Path project. The comments request information on the creation of the creek buffer, question whether biological significance should be based on the presence of surrounding development, and raise concerns about the effects of increased human disturbance in the creek corridor. The responses to comments provide the requested background information, which shows that a public bicycle path was envisioned along the eastern bank of Alamo Creek as part of the larger residential development of the Villages of Alamo Creek, approved by the City in 1986. The responses also confirm that the initial study described and analyzed the potential for public use to cause significant biological impacts to the creek corridor. The responses confirm that the presence of surrounding development was Page 4 c~ not the basis for the finding of no significant biological impacts. Instead, the finding was based on the nature of the Path construction and use, in that no grading, construction or use of the Path is proposed in the creek or on its banks, or in natural habitat areas. Similarly, neither construction nor use of the Path will interfere with the movement or migration of species. After reviewing the comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration and preparing responses to environmental issues raised in the comments, Staff recommends that the Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration based on findings that the Path project as mitigated will clearly have no significant effect on the environment and that an EIR is not required, as further set forth in the attached draft Resolution. Construction Contract A total of two bids were received (Attachment 2). The low bidder is GradeTech, Inc., with a low bid of $156,639.50. The contractor is scheduled to start work the week of September 8, 2003, and complete the bike path pavement by September 30th in order to expend the TFCA funds by October 9, 2003. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and all comments received during the public comment review period for the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Responses have been provided to these comments and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared. Staff has checked references and bonding requirements for GradeTech, Inc. Therefore, Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. and award Contract No. 03-08, Alamo Creek Bike Path, Amador Valley Boulevard to North City Limits, to GradeTech, Inc. Page 5 c~)'~ RESOLUTION NO. - 03 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND AWARDING CONTRACT NO. 03-08, ALAMO CREEK BIKE PATH PROJECT, AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD TO NORTH CITY LIMITS WHEREAS, the City of Dublin proposes to construct a 12-foot wide public bicycle path along the westerly side of Alamo Creek between Amador Valley Boulevard and the northerly Dublin City limits on an existing gravel maintenance road; and WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of constructing and operating the bicycle path. Based on the Initial Study, the City prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration dated July 2003 (attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference) and circulated it for public review from July 7, 2003, through August 5, 2003; and WHEREAS, the City received eight letters commenting on the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Although not required by CEQA, the City prepared written responses to the comments. The comment letters and the City's responses are attached as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference. The responses provide the City's good faith, reasoned analysis of the environmental issues raised in the comments, including but not limited to the following, 1. The bike path project involves minor physical improvements related to paving the existing Zone 7 gravel maintenance road. These improvements are described and analyzed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and mitigation measures are proposed for identified potentially significant construction impacts, for example, air quality and noise. The City concluded that potential physical and construction impacts will be less than significant. 2. The bike path would open the imprOved maintenance road for public use for pedestrian and non-motorized bicycle use; Zone 7 maintenance trucks would continue to use the paved path. Much of the public testimony and comments on the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration addressed the potential environmental effects of public use of the bike.path, such as increased noise to adjoining residents, potential disturbance of wildlife, increased crime and police calls, and potential safety hazards to path users from waters in the creek. The public use issues analyzed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration were considered again as responses were prepared to individual comments. The City concluded that potential impacts related to public use of the path will be less than significant. 3. CEQA provides a low threshold for preparation of an EIR. The City appropriately reviewed the project and comments submitted on the Mitigated Negative Declaration under the fair argument standard to determine if there was substantial evidence of a fair argument that the bike path project could have a significant effect on the environment, thus requiring preparation of an EIR rather than the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Using this standard, the City determined that although the project is controversial, neither the project as analyzed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration nor public comments on the document met the fair argument standard, and no EIR was required. The comments often reflected disagreement with the project and varying opinions about its effects, but the opinions were not supported by substantial evidence to meet the fair argument standard. 4. Preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration was appropriate under CEQA because there is n° substantial evidence that the project as mitigated could result in significant or potentially significant environmental effects; and WHEREAS, the proposed bike path is shown on the adopted General Plan Circulation Element Bikeways map, Figure 5-3a; and WHEREAS, the proposed bike path was among the CIP projects reviewed by the Planning Commission and found consistent with the General Plan pursuant to Government Code sections 65401 and 65402 through Resolution 03-28, dated June 10, 2003; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin did, on August 5, 2003, publicly open, examine, and declare all sealed bids for doing the work described in the approved Plans, Specifications, and Modifications for Contract No. 03-08, Alamo Creek Bike Path Project - Amador Valley Boulevard to North City Limits, authorized by the City Council on May 20, 2003, which Plans, Specifications, and Modifications are hereby expressly referred to for a description of said work and for all particulars relative to the proceedings under the request for bids; and WltEREAS, said bids were submitted to the City Engineer, who prepared a Staff Report reviewing the project and recommending that the bid hereinafter mentioned is the lowest and best bid for doing said work; and WltEREAS, the City Council considered the Staff Report, the Mitigated Negative Declaration, comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration and responses thereto, and all written and oral testimony at a duly noticed public hearing on August 19, 2003; and WHEREAS, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, as required by CEQA, is contained in attached Exhibit C, and is incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the location and custodian of the documents which constitute the record of proceedings for the project is the City of Dublin Public Works Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568, Attn: Steven Yee. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby finds as follows: A. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution. B. The potential environmental effects of the Alamo Creek Bicycle Path project have been analyzed in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, which determined that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment with the apPlication of mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The mitigation measures are also reflected in a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, which ensures that they will be implemented through the bike path project. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City that the project as mitigated could 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. 2 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 proposed bicycle path. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that based on the aforementioned findings, the City Council hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Alamo Creek Bicycle Path project, consisting of Exhibits A and B, as described heretofore and incorporated herein by reference. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program set forth in Exhibit C, which is incorporated herein by reference. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby awards City of Dublin Contract No. 03-08 to the lowest responsible bidder therefor, to wit, Grade Tech, Inc., at a bid of One Hundred Fifty-Six Thousand, Six Hundred Thirty-Nine Dollars and Fifty Cents ($156,639.50), the particulars of which bid are on file in the Office of the City. pASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of August, 2003. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Mayor City Clerk g:kniscprojLAlamo Creek Bike Pathkreso award Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration Project: Alamo Creek Bicycle Trail Lead Agency: City of Dublin July 2003 CITY OF DUBLIN 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California 94568 WebSite: http://www, ci.dublin ca. us MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project Title: Alamo Creek Bicycle Path Description of Project: Construction of a 12-foot wide public bicycle path along the westerly side of Alamo Creek in the City of Dublin along an existing Zone 7 Water Agency maintenance read. A median break and raised crossWalk would be constructed where the path crosses Willow Creek Drive. Project Location: Between Amador Valley Boulevard to the south to the Dublin City limit line t, north (approximately 0.9 miles in length). Name of Proponents: City of Dublin, Public Works Department Determination: I hereby find that although the above Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there VVILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made and incorporated into the project, and because a Mitigated Negative Declaration will be adopted that mitigates any project-related im paCts of this project to a level of insignificance through the adoption of mitigation measures and a Mitigation Monitoring Program. Lee Thqmpson, Public Works Director July 7, 2003 Date Copies of the Initial Study documenting the reasons to support the above finding are available at the City of Dublin, Public Works Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 945'68, or by calling (925) 833-6630. Attachments Date Published: Date Posted: Date Notice Mailed: Considered by: On: July 7, 2003 July 7, 2003 July 3, 2003- N.O.D. filed: Council Resolution No.' Area Code [925) · City Manager 833-6650 - City Council 833-6650 - Personnel 833-6605 - Economic Development 833-6650 Finance 833-6640 - Public Works/Eng neering ~133-66~0 - Parks & Community Services 833-6645 - Police 833-6670 Planning/Code EnfOrcement 833-6610 . Building Inspection 833-6620 · Fire Prevention Bureau 833-6606 Pdnted on Recycled Paper Table of Contents · Introduction .................................................................................................................. 2 Applicant/Contact Person ........................................................................................... 2 Project Location and Context ...................................................................................... 2 Project Description .................... '. ................................................................................... 2 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ............................................................. 12 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ....................................................................... 14 Attachment to Initial Study ................................................................. i ....................... 25 1. Aesthetics ............................................................................................... 25 2. Agricultural Resources ......................................................................... 26 3. Air Quality ............................................................................................. 26 4. Biological Resources ............................................................................. 30 5. Cultural Resources ................................................................................ 34 6. Geology and Soils .................................................................................. 34 7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................. 2.35 8. Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................ 37 9. Land Use and Planning ........................................................................ 38 10. Mineral Resources ................................................................................. 40 11. Noise .............................................................................. ' ......................... 40 12. Population and Housing ...................................................................... 48 13. Public Services ....................................................................................... 49 14. Recreation ........................ .' ...................................................................... 50 15. Transportation/Traffic ......................................................................... $1 16. Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................... 52 17. Mandatory Findings of Significance .................................................. 53 Initial Study Preparers .................................................................................................. 54 Agencies and Organizations Consulted .................................................................... 54 References ................................................................................................................... 54 City of Dublin Environmental Checklist/ Initial Study Introduction This Initial Study has been prepared in accord with the provisions of the Cali£ornia 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. Applicant/Contact Person City o£ Dublin Public Works Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin CA 94568 At-tn: Steven Yee Project Location and Context The project area is located along Alamo Creek, a major water course in. southern Alameda County. The bicycle path is proposed to traverse the westerly side of Alamo Creek between Amador Valley Boulevard and the northerly Dublin City limits, a length of approximately 0.90 mile. Exhibit 1 depicts the regional location of Dublin and Exhibit 2 shows the location of the project site in context with Alamo Creek and nearby streets. The project area is located on a relatively level grade adjacent to the west bank of Alamo Creek. Surrounding land uses include the Dougherty Hills Open Space area southwest of the proposed bicycle path, just north of Amador Valley Boulevard, and residential dwellings east and west of the proposed path. The path would also extend along the westerly edge of Alamo Creek Park along an existing gravel pathway. Alamo Creek Park is located approximately midway along the north-south extent of the path. A mix o£ native and introduced trees, shrubs and ground cover exists along the proposed path right-of-way. These are further described in the Biological Resources section of the Initial Study (Section 4). Project Description The proposed project involves converting an existing gravel access road to a paved public bicycle path adjacent to that portion of Alamo Creek identified above. Exhibit 3 depicts the location of the proposed path and Exhibit 4 shows a typical cross section design of the proposed path. Detailed engineering project plans are available for public City of Dublin Initial Study/Alamo Creek Bicycle'Path Page 2 July 2003 review in the Dublin Public Works Department, 100 Civic Plaza, during normal business hours. A 15-foot wide (approxLmately) gravel access road currently exists in the location planned for the path which has been constructed and is used by Zone7 of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District ("Zone 7') for maintenance of Alamo Creek. Existing maintenance activities undertaken by Zone 7 District staff include a combination of routine, monthly inspections of Alamo Creek and more intensive maintenance and repair activities, including but not limited to trash and debris removal, vegetation control, removal of silt, and slope bank repair. The Zone 7 access road is presently gated and locked to preclude public access. The City of Dublin proposes to pave this existing road as a public access path for bicyclists, pedestrians, joggers and similar non-motorized modes of transportation, including skateboarders, in-line skaters and similar recreational modes of travel. The City of Dublin will post a list at path entrances identifying permitted and prohibited activities along the pathway. Uses along the Path would be governed by Chapter 5.100 of the Dublin Municipal Code (Parks and Recreation areas and Facilities). Generally, prohibited uses along the path would include archery, operation of powered model crafts, camping, golfing, swimming or bathing, picnicking except in designated areas, use of electrical amplifying equipment, use of fireworks, littering, unleashed dogs, use of autos, trucks, motorcycles, or consumption of alcoholic beverages. The existing gravel road would be paved with asphalt concrete, with the exception of that portion of the path traversing Alamo Creek Park which would remain a gravel pathway, to accommodate bikers, walkers and joggers. The location of the proposed path would not change from its current Zone 7 maintenance road alignment. No grading of existing slopes adjacent to Alamo Creek would occur. Overgrown vegetation adjacent to the creek would be removed to reduce fire hazards. Construction activities are anticipated to include excavation and removal of the top 2 inches of twelve (12) feet of the existing maintenance road. Asphaltic concrete paving 5 inches deep Would be placed to create the bicycle path. The remaining 3 inches of the existing Zone 7 maintenance road would then be recompacted. A four-inch wide stripe would be painted 'along the westerly edge of the paved path adjacent to the v-ditch. The existing crossing of Willow Creek Road would be modified to remove a portion of the raised landscaped median to allow for a new 10-foot wide raised crosswalk in this location. Pavement markings and bike path signs would then be added. Equipment anticipated to be used by the City of Dublin contractor include a grader, front loader, dump trucks, a paving machine and other miscellaneous trucks. Existing gates at proposed path crossings at Amador Valley-Boulevard, Alamo Creek Park, Willow Creek Park and Crossridge Road would remain in place. Gates would be open, but the path would be closed to public access between one hour after dusk and dawn, similar to all other Dublin parks. The project would also include constructing a break in the existing raised median within the center of.Willow Creek Drive where the path would intersect this road to allow users to cross the road. A raised crosswalk would be built across Willow Creek City of Dublin Page 3 Initial Study/Alamo Creek Bicycle Path July 2003 Drive to provide for a safe crossing of this street. Signs would also be installed by the City at this crossing to promote pedestrian and bicycle safety. Exhibit 4 shows the pfc{posed design of the Willow Creek Drive road crossing. No overhead lights would be installed along the path. Bicycle path identification signs would be posted at entrances at Amador Valley Boulevard, Alamo Creek Park, Willow Creek Drive and Crossridge Road. Signs would also be posted identifying permitted and prohibited uses along the path, similar to signs posted within City of Dublin parks. The proposed Alamo Creek Path is anticipated to be a local pathway, used by local Dublin residents and visitors. However, there would be a connection to other regional paths in the Dublin area via a proposed Class II bikeway on Amador Valley Boulevard immediately south of the proposed path. The path is anticipated to be funded through a combination of grants from (1) the Transportation Fund for Clean Air, provided by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and (2) Alameda County Measure B monies provided through the PedeStrian and Bicycle Fund. If this project is approved, the City of Dublin anticipates start of construction in the Fall of 2003. An estimated two months would be.required for actual constructed of improvements identified above. City of Dublin Page 4 Initial Study/Alamo Creek Bicycle path July 2003 Rafael Valley San Francisco Richmond Half Moon Bay San Mateo Berkeley Redwood Martinez Concord / Walnut ,~mek · \ DUBLIN Hayward Fremont Livermore easantcn / Palo Alto Sunnyvale Santa Clara Jose CITY OF DUBLIN ALAMO CREEK TRAIL NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 5 N Exhibit 1 REGIONAL LOCATION 0 2 .4 6 8 10 rnfles Rd. Haciende Dr. Arnold Rd. Page 6, Page 7 Elevation: EXlST~.~ ZO.E 7 MAINTE.ANCE ROAD · . PROPOSED BIKE PATH '"'1~--- I HILL ~ , ' '~2" " ~IS~NG (N~ 5 AC Plan view of detail at Willow Creek Drive: v.v:':v.- i.v.v":.v.v.v.v.-.v, v:.v.v M~ : ':: :':':;:':' :~ ~:i:':':':':':':':':" :: :: :: :: :, :.:~;.;- .:.:.:-:-:.:.:.:-::::.':::::::~",~ ........ , ................. -.-.-.-...-.~ '.~ ~ "~:' ',~'.:,:'.~'.~",~., : -.-. '... :'" ',' ..,, .-. '.'. '.' ' "..-' .* ,j , ~i -d · ~..I/. ~U~lt~l~.l~.. ~' ,' '' . 4 · *' · * ' · -':: 2:; ' ' ~..' ':,' .-~ANO T~. ~AL, · '...~," PROPOSE~ CROSS W~ALK -.'.LT~' :~:'.. ,~' '.': ~.' ; . ~ ° .~~4~-~ . .'- -o -,.-',~ .].~., ~.~..,,~, '. · '.m~l m~ mllS~.. ', .;.. ~.... . .'.\_ - : - .~J ,,, .,.. _- ' ' " ..~'~ J~ *'I3JRR~IT~I~ [ ' -4 '..tu~3-~.~..u~. . .. ~ ~ ~ ' .' .,..~.~,l""l' ', * · . '. -.q~ ..... .. ~ % .- '. .' .' · '~-'-' -' - '. ~.~'., · ,; .. :~.' . :..',.. ,.. ; - .. ~...;..~ ; .... · .....: -..': .'., :~ .... , '..~ ~., .- . · "'~' .... '"' ' ! I ' ' ...... ' : "? '"'*: "; %.:.:.:.:.:..:?:.:~:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:;:.:.:.:.:.~~. ~_~,,, · . . :~:-:-:+:.:':.:-:.:-:-:-:.:-:.:.:.:.:.:~.~.:.~ .:.:.:.:.:.~ '-'-'- -~-' ' ' i '-'-%*,,: ~.'.'.'.'-'-'-'-' ..... -'/-'-'-' CURB IRTO ' .t.'..% ................. ~ .~ ..... '*~*'.'. .-::.?,,~..~....o._~...... ....... -.:,,zv.v.- (E) 6- pe,~s(m,) ~-...-~v. .............. ~...'.,;,,:-.:v .'.'.'.'.'.'. '..'.'.'. ~, ,~'. .... '.'.'.'.'.'.' ' '. o'.'.'.'.'.': - '. '.' '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.".'. .... ~' ir--_' ....... -:.:-:.:-:-:~ .................. ~-:.:.:.:-:.', 61 :'~:-:-:-:-~ ........ ,...v.-.-.<.,..-.~ -:/X-:-:-:-:-:. -~v.v.-,v.v.-.v.v.:.:.:.v.v.v.v.v.v.v,v.v.-. ~ .:.~¢x~'~-~.'~.-.-.v.v.-.v.v.v.. .v.*.v.*.v.*.-.-.-.v.- .... v.v,-.*.v.v.v.*.v.v.v. ~ .-... ~ ,~ (Ey.-.v.-..*...v.v.v.v.v.v.v .:-:-:-:-:-:-: NO'~ ' ' .... "" 'EXISTING MEDIAN ~: ':*:':':*:-:':':':':':':'.'.':-:':-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:.:-:.:-:-: -.'.'.'.'.*.'. im~G^'no~ TO a~ ~ECae'~O TO i · ~ .'-*-'-'*'-'-**'.'*'-'.'-'-'-'-'-*-'.*.'*'-'.*-'.'.'.'.'.*.'.:.'-'.'.'.*.'. · .-.*.-.-.-.-. ~n~AY~N~ d ~ v.*.'.'.'.'.v.*.v.v.v.*.v.-.*.*.-.-.v.*.-.v.v...*.v.-. ..... _..c~_,_s..~.~ ~Y ~^~ ma, I -- 'v.'.v.v:.v.v.v.v.-.v.v.v.-. ......... '- PAVEUENT AND ~ REMOVE 01~0~ 0¢ AU. YEGt'TATION, IRRIC-A]~ON ~ DE:Ut~ OR EXCES~ MA*I~IALS, SOURCE: PERMCO Engineering and Management, 2-11-2003. CITY OF DUBLIN ALAMO CREEK TRAIL NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 8 Exhibit 4 PROPOSED TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS (E) = Existing (N) = New Shady Creek cITy OF DUBLIN ALAMO CREEK TRAIL NEGATIVE DECLARATION Fall Creek Road Wildwood Road Page 9a Exhibit 5a SITE PHOTOS Fall Creek Road Wildwood CITY OF DUBLIN ALAMO CREEK TRAIL NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page· 9b Exhibit 5b SITE PHOTOS Shady Creek Road CITY OF DUBLIN ALAMO CREEKTRAIL NEGATIVE DECLARATION Fall Creek Road Wildwood Page 9c Exhibit 5c SITE PHOTOS Shady Creek CITY OF DUBLIN ALAMO CREEK TRAIL NEGATIVE DECLARATION Fall Creek Road Wildwood Road Page 9d Exhibit 5d SITE PHOTOS Page 10 not used City of Dublin Page 10 Initial Study/Alamo Creek Bicycle Path July 2003 1. Project description: 2. Lead agency: Construction of a 12-foot wide public bicycle path along the westerly side of Alamo Creek in the City of Dublin. A median break and raised crosswalk ,would be constructed where the path crosses Willow Creek Drive. Ciw of Dublin Pul~lic Works Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin CA 94568 3. Contact person: Steven Yee, P.E. Associate Civil Engineer (925) 833 6630 4. Project location: Between Amador Valley Boulevard to the south to the Dublin City limit line to the north (approximately 0.9 miles in length). 5. Project sponsors: City of Dublin 6. General Plan designation: Stream Corridor (within Alamo Creek right-of-way); Medium Density Residential to the east; combination of Open Space, NIP-Neighborhood Park and Medium Density Residential to the west and Medium Density Residential to the south. 7. Zoning: PD-Planned Development 8. Public agency required approvals: · Approval of Negative Declaration (City of Dublin) · Encroachment Permit (Zone 7 Water Agency) City of Dublin Initial Study/Alamo Creek Bicycle Path Page 11 July 2003 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The enviror~mental 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. - Aesthetics - Agricultural X Air Quality Resources X Biological ' X Cultural Resources - Geology/Soils Resources - Hazards and X Hydrology/Water - Land Use/ Hazardous Quality 'Planning Materials Mineral Resources X Noise - Population/ Housing Public Services - Recreation - Transportation/ Circulation Utilities/Service Mandatory Systems' Findings of Significance City of Dublin Page 12 Initial Study/Alamo Creek Bicycle Path July 2003 Determination (to be completed bY Lead Agency): On the basis of this initial evaluation: ~ I find that the proposed project could not have a sigrdficant effect on the environment and the previous Negative Declaration certified for this project by the City of Dublin adeqUately addresses potential impacts. X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a sigrdficant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A 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 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 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. Signature: Printed Name: Date: For: City of Dublin Initial Study/Alamo Creek Bicycle Path Page 13 July 2003 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 parenthesis following each question. A "no impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply 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) 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. 3) "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. 4) "Less Than Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" implies 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 Dub lin Page 14 Initial StUdy/Alamo Creek Bicycle Path July 2003 Environmental Impacts (Note: Source of determination listed in parenthesis. See listing of sources at end of checklist used to determine each potential impact) Note: A full discussion of each item is found following the checklist. I. Aesthetics. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista? (Soume: 5) b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Source: 5) c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Source: 5) d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Source: 5) II. Agricultural Resources 'Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as showing on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to a non-agricultural use? (Source: 1,5) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agriculture use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Source: l, 5) c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use? (Source: 5) III. 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 applicable air quality plan? (Source: 6) b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Source: 6) Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact' With Impact Mitigation X X X i X X X X X City of Dublin Initial Study/Alamo Creek Bicycle Path Page 1 b July 2003 c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? (62) d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Source: 5, 6) e) Create objectionable odors? (Source: 6) IV. Biological Resources. WouM the project a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special 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: 2) b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified 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: 2) c) Have a substantial adverse impact on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption or other means? (Source: 2) d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery Sites? (Source: 2) e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biOlogical resources, such as tree protection ordinances? (Source: 1) Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant ~ Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation X X X X X X X X City of Dublin Initial Study/Alamo Creek Bicycle Path Page 16 July 2003 f) Conflict with the provision of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? (Source: 1) V. Cultural Resources. WouM the project a) Cause a substantial adverse impact in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Sec. 15064.5? (Source: 6) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to Sec. 15064.5 (Source: 6) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or unique geologic feature? (Source: 5) d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of a formal cemetery? (Source: 6) VI. 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 Alquist-Priolo Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist or based on other known evidence of a known fault (Source: 1, 6) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking (2) iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? (6) iv) Landslides? (6) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (5, 6) 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- and off-site landslide, lateral .spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or similar hazards (Source: 12) d) Be located on expansive Soil, as defined in Table 13-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? (Source: 6) City of Dublin Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation X X X X X X X X X X X. X · Page 17 Initial Study/Alamo Creek Bicycle Path July 2003 e) Have soils capable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste? (Source: 6) VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or'the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials (Source: 5, 6) b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous into the environment? (Source: 52) c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Source: 5, 67) d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Sec. 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Source: 6) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such plan has not been adopted, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Source: 5) f) For a project within the vicinity of private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Source: 5) g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with the adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Source: 4) ILess Than Less than No Potentially SignificantSignificant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation X X X. X X X X X City of Dublin Initial Study/Alamo Creek Bicycle Path Page 18 July 2003 h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk Of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (Source: 4) VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (Source: I, 4) b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g. the production rate of existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? (Source: 4) c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the aeration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? (Source: 4, 5) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or areas, including through the alteration of a course or stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? (Source: 5, 6) e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (Source: 4) f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (Source: 4) g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Flood Hazard Boundary Or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map? (Source: 6) PotentiallyLess Than Less than No SignificantSignificant Significant Impact Impact With Impact ..Mitigation X X X X X X X X City of Dublin Page19 Initial Study/Alamo Creek Bicycle Path July 2003 h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which impede or redirect flood flows? (Source: 6) i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, and death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (1) j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow? (1) IX. Land Use and Planning. WouM the project: a) Physically divide an established community? (Source: 1, 5) 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 general plan, specific plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Source: 1,.5) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (1) X. Mineral Resources. WouM the project a) Result in the lOss of availability of a knoWn mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Source: 1) b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general Plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Source: 1) XI. Noise. WouM the proposal result in: a) 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? (Source: 3) b) Exposure of persons or to generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Source: 3) c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above existing levels without the project? (Source: 3 6) Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant. Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation X X X X X X X X X X X City of Dublin Initial Study/Alamo Creek Bicycle Path Page 20 July 2003 d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels without the project? (Source:3) 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 airport, would the project expose people residing or working n the project area to excessive noise levels? (Source: 5) f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Source: 5) XII. Population and Housing. Would the project a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (Source: 6) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (5) c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the replacement of housing elsewhere? (Source: 5) XIII. 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, 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: 4) Fire protection Police protection Schools Parks Solid Waste Other public facilities City of Dublin PotentiallyLess Than Less than No SignificantSignificantSignificant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation X X X X X X X : X X X X X Page 21 Initial Study/Alamo Creek Bicycle Path July 2003 XI¥. Recreation: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated (Source: 4) b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Source: 4) XV. Transportation and Traffic. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads or congestion at intersections)? (Source: 4, 5) b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the County Congestion Management Agency for designated roads or highways? (4) c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (5) d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses, such as farm equipment? (4,5) e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (4) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (5) g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans 'or programs supporting alternative transportation (such as bus turnouts and bicycle facilities) (1) PotentiallyLess Than Less than No SignificantSignificantSignificant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation X X X X X X X X X City of Dublin Initial Study/Alamo Creek Bicycle Path Page 22 July 2003 XVI. Utilities and Service Systems. Would the project a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (4) b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (4) c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (4) d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing water entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (5, 6) e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected · demand in addition to the providers existing commitments? (4) f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (1) g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (1) XVI. 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 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? Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation X X X X X X X X City of Dublin Initial Study/Alamo Creek Bicycle Path Page 23 July 2003 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). c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? PotentiallyLess Than Less than No SignificantSignificant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation X X Sources used to determine potential environmental impacts 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Dublin General Plan Biological analysis prepared by LSA Associates (June 2003) Acoustic analysis prepared by Rosen, Goldberg & Der (June 2003) Discussion with City staff or service provider Site visit (June '11, 2003) Other Source XVII. Earlier Analyses a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. N/A City of Dublin Initial Study/Alamo Creek Bicycle Path Page 24 July 2003 Attachment to Initial Study Discussion of Checklist 1. Aesthetics Environmental Setting The project site is located-in a primarily urban and open space area of central Dublin. Surrounding land uses include medium density residential dwellings (attached and detached housing types), Alamo Creek Park and the Dougherty Hills Open Space area immediately southwest of the project site. Exhibit 5 includes photographs of the project area that shows existing typical aesthetic conditions within the project area. A number of sources of light exist adjacent to the project area, including house and yard lights from nearby dwellings and lights within Alamo Creek Park. The existing Zone 7 maintenance road is not lighted. Project Impacts a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista? NI. The proposed project would convert a gravel utility maintenance road to a paved bicycle path. No structures or similar above-ground structures would be Constructed with the exception of minor traffic safety signs at path crossings of local roads. Therefore, in the absence of any structures or facilities that would block an existing view of a scenic vista, there would be no impact with regard to this topic. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including state scenic highway? NI. The proposed project is not located adjacent to a state or local scenic'highway, so there would be no impact with regard to impacts to scenic highways. Similarly, since the proposed project would not include removal o£. any existing heritage trees along the road right-of-way or the construction of any above ground structures, no impact would result to existing scenic resources near the project site. c) Substantially degrade existing visual character or the quality of the site? NI. Since no above-ground structures are proposed to be constructed as part of the proposed project, there would be no impact with regard to degrading the visual character of the area surrounding the proposed Alamo Creek Bicycle Path. d) Create light or glare? NI. The project does not include installation of exterior lighting, since the path would be closed during late evening and nighttime hours. No impact would therefore result. City of Dublin nitial Study/Alamo Creek Bicycle Path Page 25 July 2003 2. Agricultural Resources Environmental Setting The project area is located within the central portion of Dublin and includes a stream bank with adjacent residences, a City park and open space adjacent. No crops are produced on the property and no Williamson Act Land Conservation Agreements have been recorded on properties within or abutting the proposed public path. Project Impacts a,c) Convert prime farmland to a non-agricultural use or involve other changes which could result in conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use ? NI. Although the project site may be underlain by prime agricultural soils, it has been converted to urban uses for a City park and residential land uses, so there would be no impact with regard to conversion of prime agricultural soils or farmland to a non-agricultural use. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a WilIiamson Act contract? NI. The project site is'not encumbered with a Williams°n Act Agreement, so there would be no impact with regard to thistOpic. 3. Air Quality Environmental Setting The project is within the Amador Valley, a part of the Livermore sub-regional air'basin distinct from the larger San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The Livermore sub-air basin is surrounded on all sides by high hills or mountains. Significant breaks in the hills surrounding the air basin are Niles Canyon and the San Ramon Valley, which extends northward into Contra Costa County. The terrain of the Amador Valley influences both the climate and air pollution potential of the sub-regional air basin. As an inland, protected valley, the area has generally lighter winds and a higher frequency of calm conditions when compared to the greater Bay Area. The occurrence of episodes of high atmospheric stability, known as inversion conditions, severely limits the ability of the atmosphere to disperse pollutants vertically. Inversions can be found during all ~easons in the Bay Area, but are'particularly prevalent in the summer months when they are present about 90% of the time in both morning and afternoon. According to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, air pollution potential is high in the Livermore-Amador Valley, especially for ozone in the summer and fall. High temperatures increase the potential for ozone, and the valley not only traps locally generated pollutants but can be the receptor of ozone and ozone precursors from upwind portions of the greater Bay Area. Transport of pollutants also occurs between the Livermore Valley and the San Joaquin Valley to the east. - City of Dublin Page 26 Initial Study/Alamo Creek Bicycle Path July 2003 During the winter, the sheltering effect of terrain and its inland location results in frequent surface-based inversions. Under these conditions pollUtants such as carbon monoxide from automobiles and particulate matter generated by fireplaces and agricultural burning can become concentrated. Ambient air quality standards Both the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board have established ambient air quality standards for common pollutants. These ambient air quality standards are levels of contaminants which represent safe levels that avoid specific adverse health effects associated with each pollutant. The ambient air quality standards cover what are called "criteria" pollutants because the health and other effects of each pollutant are described in criteria documents. The federal and California ambient air quality standards are summarized in Table 1 for important pollutants. The federal and state ambient standards were developed independently with differing purposes and methods, although both federal and state Standards are intended to avoid health-related effects. As a result, the federal and state standards differ in some cases. In general, the California state standards are more stringent. This is particularly true for ozone and PM10. Table 1. Federal and State Ambient Air Quality .Standards Pollutant Averaging Federal State . Time Primary Standard Standard Ozone 1-Hour 0.12 PPM 0.09 PPM 8-Hour 0.08 PPM -- Carbon Monoxide 8-Hour 9 PPM 9.0 PPM, . , 1-Hour 35 PPM 20.0 PPM Nitrogen Dioxide Annual Average 0.05 PPM -- 1-Hour -- 0.25 PPM Sulfur Dioxide Annual Average 0.03 PPM -- 24-Hour 0.14 PPM 0.05 PPM 1-Hour -- 0.25 PPM PM~0 Annual Average 50 Ug/m3 30 ug/m3 24-Hour 150 ug/m3 50 ug/m3 PM2.5 Annual 15 ug/m3 -- 24-Hour 65 u-'m3g/' -- PPM = Parts per Million g/m3 = Micrograms per Cubic Meter Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District Ambient air quality The project is within the nine, coun~ Bay Area Air Basin. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) operates a network of air quality monitoring sites in the region, including one in central Livermore on Old First Street. Table 2 shows a City of Dublin Page 2, Initial Study/Alamo Creek Bicycle Path July 2003 summary of,air quality data for this monitoring site for the period 1995-1999. Data are shown, for ozone, carbon monoxide, PM~0 and nitrogen dioxide. The number of days exceeding each standard are shown for each year. Table 2. Air Quality Data for Livermore, 1995-1999 Pollutant Standard Days Exceeding Standard In: 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Ozone Federal 1-Hour 7 8 0 6 2 Ozone State 1-Hour 20 22 3 21 14 Ozone Federal 8-Hour 11 10 0 10 5 Carbon State/Federal 0 0 0 0 0 Monoxide 8-Hour PM~0 State 24-Hour 6 6 12 12 18 ?M~0 Federal 24-Hour~ 0 0 0 0 0 Nitrogen State 1-Hour 0 0 0 0 0 Dioxide Source: Air Resources Board Aerometric Data Anal' zsis and Management System (ADAM) Table 2 shows that concentrations of carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide at the Livermore monitoring site meet state/federal standards. Ozone concentrations exceed both the state and federal standards, and exhibit wide variations from year-to-year related to meteorological conditions. Years where the summer months tend to be warmer than average tend to have higher average ozone concentrations while years with cooler than average temperatures tend to have lower average ozone concentrations. Levels of PM~0 at Livermore meet the federal ambient standards but exceed the more stringent state standard. Attainment status The federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act of 1988 require that the State Air Resources Board, based'on air quality monitoring data, designate air basins within the state where the federal or state ambient air quality standards are not met as "nonattainment areas." Because of the differences between the federal and state standards, the designation of nonattainment areas is different under the federal and state legislation. The Bay Area is currently, a nonattainment area for the federal 1-hour ozone standard. Under the California Clean Air Act the Bay Area is a nonattainment area for ozone and PM10. City of Dublin Page 28 Initial Study/Alamo Creek Bicycle Path July 2003 To meet federal Clean Air Act requirements, the District has adopted an Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan. In addition, to meet California Clean Air Act requirements, the District has also adopted and updated a Clean Air Plan addressing the California' ozone standard. The control strategy contained in these' plans include new limits on emissions from industry, prohibitions on sources of hydrocarbons, regional transit and HOV programs, buy back programs for older vehicles and educational programs. The California Legislature, when it passed the California Clean Air Act in 1988, recognized the relative intractability of the PM~0 problem with respect to the state ambient standard and excluded it from the basic planning requirements of the Act. The Act did require the CARB to prepare a report to the Legislature regarding the prospect of achieving the State ambient air quality standard for PM~0. This report recommended a menu of actions, but did not recommend imposing a planning process similar to that for ozone or other pollutants for achievement of the standard within a certain period of time. Project Impacts a) Would the project conflict or obstruct implementation of an air quality plan ? NI. The proposed project would be consistent with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's Clean Air Plan and other regional transportation planning goals by promoting non-automotive transit modes. A portion of the proposed project construct/on budget would be funded by an Air Quality District grant. No impacts are therefore anticipated. b) Would the project violate any air quality standards? LS/M. Construction of the proposed bicycle path may violate regional air quality standards in the short-term due to potential wind-borne erosion of dust during the construction process. This could be a potentially significant impact that could be reduced to a less-than- significant level by adherence to the following mitigation measure: Mitigation Measure 1. A dust control plan shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and included in project plans and specifications that complies with standards recommended by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District to minimize wind-borne erosion potential. The dust control plan shall be approved by the City of Dublin Director of Public Works and shall include, at a minimum, frequent watering of unprotected areas during path construct/on. c) Would the project result in cumulatively considerable air pollutants ? NI. The proposed project would not generate additional automobile trips over existing conditions. The project would also not involve any manufacturing or processing that would generate air pollutants. No impacts are therefore anticipated. d,e) Expose sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations or create objectionable odors? NI. Since the project area is located in an open space and residential area with no significant generation of major pollutants, there would be no impact with regard to exposure of sensitive receptors to signifiCant pollution levels. No impacts City of Dublin - Page 29 Initial Study/Alamo Creek Bicycle Path July 2003 are anticipated with regard to creation of objectionable odors, since the project would not involve commercial or industrial processes. 4. Biological Resources Environmental Setting Alamo Creek, along the route of the proposed bike path, is located within a fenced corridor which is bordered by both residential development and open space. The open space component includes an approximately 1,400-foot-long segment located on the west side of the creek immediately north of Amador Valley Boulevard. The creek corridor at this location is bordered by a steeply sloping hillside which is part of Dougherty Hills Open Space area. Habitat types within the fenced .creek corridor include non-native grassland, valley oak woodland, native restoration plantings, and Alamo Creek. Nofi-Native Grassland: Non-native grassland is the most common habitat type within the creek corridor. It is present on both banks and can be found along the entire corridor. This area is composed almost entirely of introduced annual grasses. Several patches of native wildrye and the introduced perennial Harding grass are present within the non-native grassland. Many shrubs and trees grow within the grassland at a low density, some of which are native to the site and others which are native to the East Bay but have been planted at this location. The grassland has a ruderal (weedy) appearance where broadleaf herbaceous annuals form a greater percentage of the plant cover. Non-native grassland is home to a variety of small vertebrate species including Botta pocket gopher, western harvest mouse, California vole, western fence lizard, gopher snake, and common racer. Many bird species feed in the grassland and .retreat to adjacent vegetation for cover. This group includes California quail, mourning dove, starling, scrub jay, and robin. These areas of grassland are too small to support bird species which are solely dependent on grassland habitat. Several avian and mammalian predators, including red-tailed hawk, American kestrel, barn owl, coyote and house cat also forage in these grasslands. House cats are particularly numerous and were observed during all field visits. Valley Oak Woodland. Valley oak woodland is present at scattered locations within the 'corridor. These mature valley oak trees are part of the original tree cover which existed along this portion of Alamo Creek prior to European settlement of the East Bay. A few California buckeye also grow with the valley oak. Understory vegetation is largely cOmposed of annual grasses found in the non-native grassland. It is likely shrubs and young oaks were present prior to the introduction of cattle grazing. With the elimination of grazing young oaks are becoming established and it is likely native shrubs will become more common. Bird species associated with the valley oak woodland include Nuttall's woodpecker, plain titmouse, bushtit, white-breasted nuthatch, BullOck's oriole, and lesser goldfinch. The introduced fOx squirrel has replaced the native gray squirrel and is the mostvisible mammal in this habitat, type. The acorn crop is an important food source for wildlife City of Dublin Page 30' Initial Study/Alamo Creek Bicycle Path July 2003 and in addition to fox squirrels, California ground squirrels, black-tailed deer and scrub jays favor this food source. Restoration Plantings. The upper banks and where riprap is not present, the mid-slope banks, on both sides of the creek have been planted with a variety of native Californian shrubs and trees. An irrigation system was installed to provide water to these plants. The success of these plantings has varied but in many locations dense shrub thickets are present and trees exceed thirty feet in height. Valley oak and coast live oak seedlings. and saplings are common in the planted areas. On the west side of the creek where the existing gravel access road is located the plantings line many portions of both sides of the rOad. The shrubs and trees are tall enough that they screen views of the creek from the road. Wildlife observed within this habitat type include California quail, mourning dove, starling, robin, mockingbird, California ground squirrel, black-tailed deer, and western fence lizard. Alamo Creek. Alamo Creek is a perennial stream, due in large part to runoff from upstream urban development. The channel is largely free of emergent aquatic vegetation and woody plants. Tules and cattail grow at a few locations and scattered willow are present adjacent to the channel. Their absence is likely due to active management by Zone 7 to keep them from becoming established. Aquatic plants, such as watercress, grow in the quiet water portions of the channel. Large segments of the creek banks are lined with rock riprap, which in some cases extend almost to the top-of- bank. These areas do not support a vegetative cover. Alamo Creek is inhabited by many aquatic species. Two fish: mosquito fish and a species of carp, were observed in the creek. Crayfish and a freshwater clam are also present in the stream. A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service protocol level California red- legged frog survey of this reach of Alamo Creek (two days, two nights) was conducted in June, 2003 by LSA Associates. Amphibians observed were bullfrog and' pacific treefrog. No red-legged frogs were detected. Other species associated with the creek which were observed include great egret, black-crowned night heron, mallard, killdeer, belted kingfisher, black phoebe, tree swallow, raccoon, and garter snake. Special status species The California Natural Diversity Data Base was searched to determine what special status species could be present in the project area. Potential occurrence on-site was evaluated based on habitat types present within the creek corridor and the existing level of disturbance from human activity that is occurring. Species that could potentially occur include California red-legged frog, western pond turtle, and white-tailed kite As noted above, a protocol level survey for California red-legged frog did not detect this specieS. Western Pond turtle were also not observed during the creek surveys. White- tailed kite, a California fully protected species, could forage in the grassland areas. California tiger salamander, would not occur at this location due to the extensive surrounding deVelopment and lack of a suitable seasonal breeding pond. The past disturbance of the majority of the creek banks makes this area unsuitable for any of the special status plants found in the Dublin vicinity. City of Dublin Page 31 Initial Study/Alamo Creek Bicycle Path July 2003 Observed wildlife species The following wildlife species were observed by LSA Associates during their field visits Birds Great Egret Black-crowned Night-heron Mallard Red-shouldered Hawk Red-tailed Hawk American Kestrel Ring-necked Pheasant California Quail Killdeer Rock Dove Mourning Dove Barn Owl Anna's Hummingbird Belted Kingfisher Nuttall's Woodpecker Black Phoebe Western Scrub-jay Tree Swallow Northern Rough-winged Swallow Cliff Swallow Barn Swallow Oak Titmouse Bushtit White-breasted Nuthatch American Robin Northern Mockingbird European Starling Wilson's Warbler Brown-headed Cowbird Lesser GoldfinCh Red-win's .Oriole House Sparrow Mammals Raccoon (tracks) Fox Squirrel Coyote (scat) Black-tailed (Mule) Deer California Ground Squirrel Project Impacts a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species? NI. Construction of the bike path will take place entirely within the existing bed of the Zone 7 access road. The existing access road is approximately 15 feet wide and the bike path would be 12 feet wide. The 12-foot bike path would border the existing concrete v-ditch along the western edge of the access road. The remaining three feet of access road, which is the portion on the creek side of the road, would be recompacted. There would be no grading or other types of disturbance of the creek.bank associated with construction of the bike path. Vegetation removal would be limited to pruning tree and shrub growth whiCh extends onto the existing roadbed for fire safety purposes. City of Dublin Page 32 Initial Study/Alamo Creek E~icycle Path July 2003 b, c) d) Wildlife species which are not adaptable to human activity have previously moved or been forced out of this reach of Alamo Creek when residential development took place. Opening the access road to use by pedestrians, dog walkers and bicyclists would increase the level of human disturbance in the immediate vicinity of the path. This disturbance would cause wildlife species which are less tolerant of human activity to withdraw from the vicinity Of the path during its hours of use. Such species would likely still make use of this area when people are not present. Species for which this is likely to occur include great egret, red-tailed hawk, ring-necked pheasant, California quail and belted kingfisher. Nocturnal use of this area by wildlife will not change. More secretive species such as coyote will continue to forage in the creek corridor under the cover of darkness. Construction of the bicycle path would not affect California red-legged frogs. No red-legged flogs were detected during the protocol level survey of this portion of Alamo Creek. The closest record of red-legged frog from Alamo Creek is four miles upstream in an undeveloped reach of the creek at the southern terminus of Lawrence Road in Danville. Despite intensive surveys of Alamo Creek downstream from this point to the Contra Costa-Alameda County line since at least 1991, no red-legged frogs have been detected in this portion of the stream and based on these results none are expected to occur on the project site. Based on the above, construction of the proposed Alamo Creek bicycle path would have no impact on candidate, sensitive, or special-status plant or animal species. Have a substantial adverse impact on riparian habitat or federally protected wetlands? NI. No impacts would result to wetlands or riparian habitat, since the proposed project would be constructed on an existing Zone 7 access road and would not extend into any natural habitat area. Interfere with m.ovement of native fish or wildlife species ? NI. The proposed project would not include construction of anyimprovements into Alamo Creek that would interfere with movement or migration of fish or wildlife species. No impacts are therefore anticipated with regard to interference with movement of fish or wildlife species. Conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources or any adopted Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans ? NI. The project area is not located within the boundaries of any Habitat ConserVation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan. No impacts would therefore result. City of Dublin Page 33 Initial Study/Alamo Creek Bicycle Path July 2003 5. Cultural Resources Environmental Setting The project area has been developed as a gravel access road for the Zone 7 water agency. No structures, historic or otherwise, exist along the Alamo Creek corridor. Surrounding uses include residential development and Alamo Creek. Project Impacts a) Cause substantial adverse change to significant historic resources? .NI. The project area has been previously developed with a gravel access road for Zone 7. The road has no historic value. There will therefore be no impacts with regard to historic resources. b, c) Cause a substantfal adverse impact or destruction to archeoIogical or paleontological resources ? LS/M. There is a remote but potentially significant possibility that construction activities, including grading and excavation, may uncover significant archeological and/or paleontological resources on the site. This is based on the location of the project area near a regionally significant creek. Historically, creeks, bays and other bodies of water in California were settled by Native Americans and earlier inhabitants. Adherence to the following mitigation measure will reduce this potential impact to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure 2: If archeological, paleontological, Native American, or historic resources materials or artifacts are identified during project construction, work on the project shall cease until a resource protection plan conforming to CEQA Section 15064.5 is prepared by a qualified archeologist and/or paleontologist and approved by the Dublin Community Development Director. 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. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of a formal cemetery? LS/M. This impact is addressed under subsection "c," above. 6. Geology and Soils Environmental Setting Geology and soils The project area is located in the central portion of the Coast Ranges geomorphic province. The Coast Ranges are characterized by a series of parallel, northwesterly trending, folded and faulted mountain chains. A dominant structural feature is Mt. Diablo, located approximately nine miles north of the project area. The project area does not lie within an Earthquake Fault Zone (formerly Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone). Major active faults in the region that influence earthquake susceptibility include the San Andreas, Hayward, Calaveras, and Greenville Faults. City of Dublin Page 34 Initial Study/Alamo Creek Bicycle Path July 2003 Topographically, the project area is relatively flat, with a gradual slope to the south. Alamo Creek banks exist just east of the proposed path, which have a steep slope to the bottom of the creek. 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. Similar to many areas of California, the project area is likely subject to ground shaking caused by movement along the regional faults identified above. Under moderate to severe seismic events, which are probable in the Bay Area over the next 30 years, the project area would be subject to moderate to severe ground shaking. HoweVer, since no permanent structures are proposed to be built as part of the path, no impacts would result to any structures. There is a less-than-significant risk of injury or death to future path users, since slope areas exist adjacent to portions of the proposed path right-of- way. Portions of the slope areas adjacent to residential development have been constructed as part of adjacent residential development and are not anticipated to create a severe hazard. Natural slope areas located within the Dougherty Hills Open Space area are not located immediately adjacent to the proposed path that result in a significant impact to future path users. Since project area is not located within an Earthquake Fault Zone (formerly Alquist-Priolo Zone), the potential for ground rupture is anticipated to be minimal. b) Is the site subject to substantial erosion and/or the loss of topsoil? LS/M. Construction of the proposed bicycle path could lead to erosion of top soil from grading and paving activities. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 1 would reduce wind borne erosion impacts to a less-than-significant level. c-d) Is the site located on soil that is unstable or expansive or result in potential lateral spreading, liquefaction, landslide or collapse? NI. Although the project site is located in an alluvial area that is flat, the project proposes no permanent structures that would be significantly damaged by unstable or expansive soils. As part of the proposed construction project, the existing gravel road would be compacted to ensure a stable base for the paved path. No impacts are therefore anticipated. e) Have soils incapable of supporting on-site septic tanks if sewers are not available? NI. No sanitary facilities are proposed as part of the Alamo Creek Path project, so there would be no impacts with regard to septic systems. 7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Environmental Setting The project area is characterized by an existing regional creek (Alamo Creek) and an unpaved gravel roadway adjacent to the creek. No existing uses that use, store or handle hazardous or potentially hazardous materials have been observed within or adjacent to the project area. City of Dub lin Initial Study/Alamo Creek Bicycle Path Page 35 July 2003 Project Impacts a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? NI. The proposed project includes construction of a bicycle path within the central portion of Dublin. No impacts are anticipated since no hazardous materials would be used, stored or transported as part of the proposed project. 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? NI. The proposed Project involves construction of a bicycle path and would not include release of hazardous materials into the atmosphere, water or soil near the project site. No impacts are therefore anticipated. 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. The proposed project involves construction of a bike path through a residential and open space area. No handling or emission of hazardous materials would occur as part of the proposed project so there would be no impact with regard to this topic. d) Is the site listed as a hazardous materials, site? NI. The project site is not listed by the' State Department of Toxic and Substances Control Agency as a contaminated site as of June 9, 2003. There would therefore be no impact. e,f) Is the site located within an airport Iand use plan of a public airport or private airstrip? NI. The project area is not located near a public or private airport, airfield or airstrip. No impacts are therefore anticipated regarding airport safety 'issues. g) Interference with an emergency evacuation plan? NI. The proposed project Would be' located along Alamo Creek with multiple access points, including gates at the proposed path and Amado.r Valley BOulevard, Alamo Creek Park, Willow-Creek Drive and Crossridge Road for emergency evacuation. The proposed project would not block any existing or proposed roadways. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated with regard to interference with emergency evacuation plans. h) Expose people and structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires or where residences are intermixed with wiIdlands? LS/M. Portions of the areas adjacent to the proposed Alamo Creek bicycle path are covered by native and non-native plant material. Allowing increased public use of the path could increase the potential for fire danger, especially during summer months when vegetation is dry. Adherence to the following mitigation measure would reduce fire impacts to a less-than-significant level: Mitigation Measure 3: Maintenance crews shall under take a vegetation control plan as follows: a) Along the southerly portion of the path (Amador Valley Boulevard to Alamo Creek Park), combustible material (dry grass and vegetation) on the residential side of the path shall be cut down to a maximum height of four inches above grade for a distance of 12 feet from the westerly edge of the City of Dublin Initial Study/Alamo Creek Bicycle Path Page 36 July 2003 path. Trees shall be limbed to maintain a clear space of six feet above the path on the westerly side of the path. On the easterly (creek) side of the path, dead weeds and tree branches shall path (Alamo Creek Park to City limits), dead weeds and tree branches shall be removed. Along the westerly (non-creek side), dead grass and dead shrubbery shall be cut back to a maximum height of four inches and limbs cut within six feet of the grotmd only for that portion of the path adjacent to wooden fencing. No maintenance is required adjacent to existing condominiums with an ornamental iron fence adjacent to the path. The above maintenance program shall be undertaken on a yearly basis and approved by the City of Dublin Fire Prevention Bureau.. 8. Hydrology and Water Quality Environmental Setting The project area is located adjacent to Alamo Creek, which is a major regional water feature and drainage facility in eastern Alameda County and portions of southerly Contra Costa County. Stormwater runoff from the existing Zone 7 maintenance road flows into Alamo Creek from an existing v-ditch which runs along the westerly side of the road. Alamo Creek flows into the regional storm drain facilities maintained by Zone 7 for ultimate disposal into San Francisco Bay. The proposed Alamo Creek Path area is not located within a 100-year flood plain, although the adjacent Alamo Creek. charmel contain 100-year flood waters. This is based on information shown on Federal Emergency Management Agency's Flood Insurance Rate Map, CP# 060705 000lB. Project Impacts a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? NI. Construction of the proposed path would have no impact with regard to water quality violations or waste discharge requirements since no changes to stormwater runoff patterns would Change from current conditions. There would be no waste discharge from the proposed project, since no sardtary sewer facilities would be included as part of the project. b) lc) Substantially deplete groundwater recharge areas or lowering of water table? NI. No impacts are anticipated with regard to depletion of groundwater resources, since the project would not require use of any water resources. Similarly, no impacts are anticipated with regard to overcovering groundwater recharge areas since minimal amounts of new impervious surfaces would be created as part of the path project. Substantially alter drainage patterns, including streambed courses such that substantial siltation or erosion would occur? LS. Less-than-significant impacts are anticipated with regard to substantial changes of existing site drainage patterns, since the proposed paved path would cover an existing gravel maintenance road. Given the small City of Dublin Page 37 Initial Study/Alamo-Creek Bicycle Path July 2003 d) e) f) g), h, i) j) amount of surface area proposed to be paved and the existing compacted surface of the maintenance road, any increases in the amount of surface water runoff would be minor. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 1 would ensure that no significant erosion would occur with construction of the proposed project. Substantially alter drainage patterns or result in flooding, either on or off the project site? NI. No impacts or changes to drainage patterns are anticipated since the path would pave an existing gravel maintenance road adjacent to Alamo Creek. The direction of stormwater runoff into the existing v-ditch along the west side of the road would not change The project area is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area and existing stormwater runoff does not result in flooding on or adjacent to the project area. Create stormwater runoff that would exceed the capacity of drainage systems or add substantial amounts of polluted runoff?. LS. Less-than-significant increases in the quantity, direction and velocity of stormwater runoff over current conditions is anticipated, since the amount of asphalt concrete paving for the bicycle path would be minor. Substantially degrade water quality? LS/M. No changes are proposed to existing stormwater runoff patterns and no impacts are anticipated with regard to long-term degradation of water quality into Alamo Creek or other nearby bodies of water. However, construction of the proposed project could result in.significant short-term impacts to surface water quality standards. Such impacts could result from cleanout of construction equipment into Alamo Creek. The following mitigation measure is recommended to reduce this potential short-term impact to a less-than- significant level: Mitigation Measure 4: Project staging and equipment clean-out areas shall be located away from Alamo Creek and other bodies of water to preclude runoff of construction debris and cleanout water into local surface waters. Place housing within a lO0-year flood hazard area as mapped by a Flood Insurance Rate Map? NI. The project area is not located within a 100-year flood 15lain and does not involve construction of housing units, so there would be no impact with regarding to placement of housing within a 100-year flood plain. Place within a lO0-year flood hazard boundary structures that impeded or redirect flood flow; including dam failures? NI. Since the project area not located within a 100-year flood plain, no impacts no impacts are anticipated with regard to impedance of flood waters or flows. Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflows? NI. The project site is located well inland from San Francisco Bay and is not near any major inland lakes or other bodies of water that could result in an impact related to seiche. No impacts are therefore anticipated in this regard. 9. Land Use and Planning City of Dublin Initial Study/Alamo Creek Bicycle Path Page 38 July 2003 Environmental Setting Existing land uses The project area is located in the central portion of Dublin and is presently contains a 12-foot wide gravel maintenance road owned by Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Zone 7. Surrounding land uses include medium density residential uses, Alamo Creek Park and the Dougherty Hills Open Space area southwest of the project area. Regulatory framework Land uses within Dublin are regulated by the Dublin General Plan. The General Plan presently designates the project area for a combination of "Medium Density Residential," "Open Space" and "Neighborhood Park" land uses. No changes to existing General Plan land use designations are proposed as part of the project. The project area is zoned "PD-Plarmed Development." The Plarmed Development zoning encompasses the Alamo Creek corridor area as well as adjacent residential development on both sides of the Creek. The Dublin City Council Resolulion approving the Planned Development for the Villages of Alamo Creek (PA 84-041, Resolution 31-86) included Condition 26.d: "through the Site Development Review process, the project developer shall investigate the feasibility of leaving portions of the creek accessible as useable open space in conjunction with a joint use program between the City and Zone7.' Project Impacts a) Physically divide an established community? LS. The proposed path would traverse an existing right-of-way presently used by Zone 7 Water District for creek maintenance purposes. Approval and construction of the proposed bicycle path would increase activity within the project area where none presently exists, except for occasional trespassers. Use of the proposed path would increase noise adjacent to those residences located immediately adjacent to the westerly edge of the proposed bicycle path. These potential impacts have been addressed in Section 11 of this Initial Study (Noise). In some instances where residences have been constructed in close proximity to the Zone 7 maintenance road, there could be a reduction in back year and back patio privacy presently enjoyed by residents. However, construction of the proposed path would not divide an existing community or residential subdivision adjacent to the proposed path. A less-than- significant impact is therefore anticipated. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation? NI. The proposed project would be consistent with existing Dublin General Plan. Figures 5-2 and 5.3 contained in the Land Use and Circulation Element identifies a future Class I bike path (separate bike path from adjacent roads) along the west side of Alamo Creek extending from the near to the southerly City limit line along the 1-580 freeway to the northerly City limit line. Implementing Policy 5.4 of the same elements mandates that the City complete the bikeway system as shown on Figure 5.3. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the Dublin General Plan and no impact would result. Similarly, there would be no impact with regard to City of Dublin Page 39 Initial Study/Alamo Creek Bicycle Path July 2003 inconsistency with the existing Planned Development zoning of the project area, since a condition of PD approval required, at minimum, investigation of public use of the creek area. c) Conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? NI. No such plan has been adopted within the City of Dublin. There would therefore be no impact to a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan for the proposed project. 10. Mineral Resources Environmental Setting The project area contains no known mineral resources. Project Impacts a, b) Result in the loss of availability of regionally or locally significant mineral resources? NI. The City of Dublin does not indicate that significant deposits of minerals exist in the project area, so no impacts would occur. 11. Noise Environmental Setting 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 Iow-frequency and very high,frequency sound in a manner similar to human hearing. The use of A-weighting is reqUired by the City of Dublin's Genera Plan as well as other federal and state noise regulations (e.g. Caltrans, EPA, OSHA and HUD). The abbreviation dBA is often 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 (Lm~) 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 Le can be measured over any length of time bu~ is typically reported for periods of 1~ 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 Lg0 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 Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is used. These descriptors are City of Dublin Page 40 Initial Study/Alamo Creek Bicycle Path July 2003 averages like the Leq except they include a 10 dBA penalty during nighttime hours (and a 5 dBA penalty during evening hours in the CNEL) to account for peoples increased sensitivity during these hours. Sound levels from multiple sources combine in a logarithmic manner since the levels are expressed in decibels. For example, two sound sources, each with a sound level of 40 dBA, would have a combined sound level of 43 dBA. If the sound level of the two sources differ greatly(more than 10 dBA) the combined sound level is equal to the. greater of the two sound levels. For example a sound level of 55 dBA combined with a sound level of 40 dBA equals 55 dBA. In environmental noise, a change in noise level of 3 dBA is considered a just noticeable difference. A 5 dBA change is clearly noticeable, but not dramatic. A 10 dBA change is perceived as a halving or doubling in loudness. Existing noise environment The project area is located along the west side of Alamo Creek between Amador Valley Boulevard and the end of Crossridge Road in Dublin. The residences on the west side of the path have backyards that abut the property line with the existing Zone 7 roadway. The residences on the east side of the path lie beyond the creek and frontage roads. To quantify the existing noise environment a continuous 67 hour noise measurement was conducted at Location I (see Exhibit 6) from Saturday, 14 June 2003 to Tuesday, 17 June 2003. Exhibits 7 and 8 show the measured average noise level (Le_) and the background noise level (Lg0). Distant traffic and wmd m the trees dominated the background noise levels and the average noise level most of the time. During some periods, single events caused the L~.q to increase temporarily. These could have been aircraft flyoVers or activities in the baclkyards of nearby residences. These single events howeVer did not influence the background noise level (Lg0). To document the noise levels from single events, 15-minute, attended noise measurements were conducted at three locations along the proposed bicycle path. During these measurements the noise sources were observed and the sound levels noted. The results are summarized in Table 3. The noise measurement locations were chosen to represent the noise environment at the homes that would be closest the bike path. During the short-term noise measurements, the weather was clear and breezy. Average wind speeds in Livermore were reported to be 12 to 18 mph. The noise measurement locations, however, were protected from winds by the terrain, trees and adjacent homes. Table 3. Short-Tet:m Noise Measurement Results City of Dublin Page 41 Initial Study/Alamo Creek Bicycle Path July 2003 17 June 2003 Location Time Leq Lg0 Noise Source and Lm~ (dBA) 54 car passby across creek 54 - 58 Birds 50 Leaf blower across creek to north 53 - 55 Wind in trees 58 Bird 46 Distant traffic during lull in wind 51 General aviation, high altitude 1 1:30 - 1:45 PM 49 46 50 - 54 Bird chirps 45 Distant traffic 56 General aviation, high altitude Voices of children from nearby 48 house 51 General aviation, high altitude 50 - 55 Wind in trees 60 General aviation, high altitude 53 - 55 Wind in trees 2 12:45 - 1:00 PM 50 47 46 Distant traffic during lull in wind ' 59 General aviation, high altitude 51 General aviation,' high altitude 51 Distant car revving engine · . 49 Wind in trees 50 - 53 Wind in trees 52 Car across creek 57 - 61 Jet, high altitude 3 2:45 - 3:00 PM 51 47 54 Bird chirping across creek 54 Wind in trees 47 Distant traffic during lull in wind 61 Gust of wind in trees 62 Gust of wind in trees 64 Jet, high altitude Note: Maximum noise levels were measured with the "fast" time-weighting. Source: Rosen, Goldberg & Der Although it was breezy during the short-term noise measurements, the long-term noise measurement included times when the wind was calm and ambient noise levels were lower. These lower noise levels are representative for the whole length of the path when winds are calm. Regulatory framework The Noise Element of the General Plan identifies the following primary community- wide noise Dublin: aircraft traffic noise and noise generated by the BART line that runs along the 1-580 freeway. The Noise Element identifies the following maximum noise exposure levels by land use type. Table 4. City of Dublin Land Use/Noise Compatibility Standards (decibels) City of Dublin Initial Study/Alamo Creek Bicycle Path Page 42 July 2003 Land Use Normally I Conditionally Normally Clearly AcceptableI Acceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable Residential. 60 or less 60-70 70-75 75+ Lodging Facilities 60-70 70-80 80+ _ Schools, churches, 60-70 70-80 80+ __ nursing homes Neighborhood 60 or less 60-65 65-70 70+ parks Office/Retail 70 or less 70-75 75-80 80+ industrial 70 or less 70-75 75+ -- Source: Dublin General Plan Noise Element, Table 9~1 In addition to the above, the City of Dublin enforces the State of California interior multi-family residential noise sthndard of CNEL 45 dBA. 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? NI. The major noise source associated with the normal operation o£ the bike path would' be the voices of people using the path and the sound of bicycles or footsteps. To quantify the typical path activity and noise levels, operations o£ the Larkspur/Corte Madera Bike Path in Corte Madera, California were examined as a comparable facility. This path is similar to the proposed Alamo Creek Bike Path in that it is paved, passes by homes and serves a residential community. Usage figures for similar path facilities in 'the City of Dublin are not available. Noise levels were measured at a setback of 10 feet from the centerline of the path. During a 45 minute period 26 "pass-by events" were observed (a pass-by event is when an individual or group of bikers, walkers or joggers passed by the noise measurement location). The measured L~ are shown in Table 5, Table 5. Noise Measurements at Larkspur/Corte Madera Bike Path 17 June 2003, 5:45 - 6:30 PM Pass-by (dBA) 6 teenagers, ~talking loudly 75 bike 53 jogger 51 bike 52 jogger 52 jogger 51 2 bikes 50 jogger 52 electric wheelchair ' 60 3 kids, 2 on bikes, 1 walking, talking 60 stroller 48 City of Dublin Page 43 Initial Study/Alamo Creek Bicycle Path July 2003 2 people, talking 60 person 2 dogs 53 1 bike, 1 jogger, clearing throat 55 walker 43 2 people, talking 52 bike 49 2 bikes, clearing throat 52 bike 51 Note: Maximum noise levels were measured with the "fast" time-weighting. Source: Rosen, Goldberg & Der Use of the proposed Alamo Creek Bike Path is anticipated to generate similar noises. Since the measurements in Corte Madera were made 10 feet from the path whereas residences in Dublin are located at least 25 feet from the Proposed path, the noise levels in Dublin will be approximately 8 dBA quieter than those in Table 5. Estimated maximum noise levels from the Alamo Creek Bike Path are shown in Table 6. These noise levels are calculated for a person standing at the rear property 'line of the backyards closest to the path. Table 6. Estimated Noise Levels from Alamo Creek Bike Path at Nearest Backyards Noise Source L~,~ (dBA) Bike* 44 Jogger* 44 Electric wheelchair* 52 Voice - normal** 40 Voice - raised** 47 Voice - shout** 70 * Source: Measurements at the Larkspur/Corte Madera Bike Path. ** Source: "Handbook of Acoustioal Measurements and Noise Contro~, 3rd Ed., Cyril Harris 1998. To assess the audibility of the proposed bike path noise sources, noise levels from the Corte Madera path was compared to the background noise levels measured at the Dublin project site. The anticipated sounds of bikes, joggers and normal speech would be audible to surrounding properties but would be comparable in level to the other existing ambient noises. The sound from shouting voices would be distinctly audible and could briefly interfere with conversation in the backyard. Inside the homes the loudest path noises would not be expected to interfere with noise sensitive activities such as conversation or television viewing. Gasoline-powered vehicles would likely generate noise levels in excess of those identified in Tabl'e 6, however, these vehicles would not be allowed on the proposed path, except for maintenance vehicles, which already use the maintenance road. Based on the noise measurements in Corte Madera, the Le_ attributable to the path users is 43 dBA at a distance of 10 feet from the center of the path. This City of Dublin Page 44 Initial Study/Alamo Creek Bicycle Path July 2003 b) c) d) e, f) corresponds to an Le of 35 dBA at the nearest backyards in the Alamo. Creek Bike Path project area. If ~is level of activity occurs along the proposed bike path from 7 AM to 9 PM, then the DNL would be 34 dBA at the nearest backyards. This projected noise level is within tahe "normally acceptable" exterior noise exposure level for residential used as set forth in the Noise Element of the Dublin General Plan and there would be no impact. Exposure of people to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? LS. Anticipated construction activities associated with the construction of the proposed path could generate limited and short-term groundborne vibration as a result o£ compaction activities. This activity would occur during normal business hours and would be less-than-significant. Substantial increases in permanent in ambient noise levds? LS. The contribution in noise from the use of the bike path would increase the CNEL at the closest residences by less than 1 dBA. Therefore, the increase in noise from the use of the path will result in a less than significant impact. Substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels without the project? LS. Construction of the project could result in short- term noise and vibration due to ground compaction, operation of construction vehicles on the site and similar construction activities. Adherence to City requirements for hours of construction would ensure that short-term construction impacts would be less-than-significant. For a project located within an airport land use plan, would the project expose people to excessive noise levels? NI. The project site is not located near any public or private airport or airstrip. No impacts are therefore anticipated in terms of airport noise. City of Dublin Page 45 Initial Study/Alamo Creek Bicycle Path July 2003 EXHIBIT6 : Noise Measurement [ocabons ~e:~' .C~eek Rd N ~age 46 EXHIBIT 7 .' Long-Term Noise Measurement at Location 2 - Averaqe Noise Level" Saturday 14 June 2003, ..... Sunday 15 June 2003 j J Monday 16 June 2003 i"="' Tuesday 17June 2003 60 /~ ,. ...i ;. ., , , ..,, _,. :.. ~ ,~ ~/~ . ~ · ..°: , . '-. ..'.~....: -. , ~,/'; ~ ~. ,-. .: , ~ ..~...,..... .... ~?"-':." .,,. ... ,.-. "".'~, 4.0 ........,-., : EXHIBIT 8: Long-Term Noise Measurement at Location 2 - Backc round Noi,, Le'_'els 7'0 ~ ~S~ay 14 June 2003 ..... Su~y 15 June 2003 " Money 16 June 20~ ~ Tuesday 17 June 2003 60 Time Page 47 12. Population and Housing Environmental Setting Population The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the Council of Governments organization responsible for preparing and tracking population and demographic changes within the Bay Area region anticipates that the Bay Area will continue to grow at a steady rate. Factors contributing to this growth include a favorable climate, recreational activities, top universities and career opportunities. Over the next 20 years, the population is expected to increase to more than 8 million persons, a 16% increase over the current (2002) population. Population increases are expected to be primarily due to increases in births and longer life expectancies rather than significant in-migration. Table 7 depicts anticipated comparative growth in the Bay Area, Alameda County and Dublin. Table 7. Regional, County and Dublin Total Population (Pop) & Household (HH) Projectionsm 2000 2010 2020 Pop. HHs Pop. HHs Pop. HHs Region 6,783,760 2,466,019 7,513,800 2,697,080 8,014,100 2,894,370 Alameda 1,443,741 523,366 1,588,900 526,010 1,669,400 595,400 Co. Dublin 30,007 9,335 47,500 15,330 57,900 19,260 Source: ABAG ~ Alameda County's growth is expected to reach a level of 1.67 million over the next 20 years, making it the second most populous county in the ABAG region behind Santa Clara County. ABAG notes that the Tri-Valley areas are anticipated to experience the highest growth rates in Alameda County over the next 20 years. Project Impacts a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directlY or indirectly? NI. Approval of the proposed project would have no impact on population growth, either adjacent to the project area or in the City of Dublin. No residential development is proposed as part of the project and lands surrounding the proposed path have already been developed for residential use at General Plan densities or are owned by the City for open space purposes. City of Dublin Page 48 Initial Study/Alamo Creek Bicycle Path July 2003 b,c) Would the project dis. p lace substantial numbers o~f existing housing units or' p eo p lee. NI. The proposed project would not affect existing residential units, since none presently within the project area. No impacts would therefore occur with regard to population displacement. 13. Public Services Environmental Setting The following provide essential services to the community: Fire Protection. Fire protection services are provided by the Alameda County Fire Department, which is the contract fire agency for the City of Dublin. The Department provides fire suppression, emergency medical response, fire prevention, education, building inspection services and hazardous material control. Police Protection: Police and security protection is provided by the Alameda County Sheriff, on a contract basis to the City of Dublin, which maintains a 24-hour security patrol throughout the community. Other services provided include crime prevention, investigation services, youth services and traffic control. · Schools. The Dublin Unified School District provides K-12 educational services to the community. · Maintenance. Maintenance of streets, roads and other governmental facilities are the responsibility of the City of Dublin. Solid Waste: Solid waste service is provided by the Dublin/Livermore Disposal Company, which provides residential and commercial solid waste and recycling pick-up. Project Impacts a) Fire protection? LS. Approval of the proposed project would have less-than- significant impacts to the Alameda County Fire Department. Construction of the proposed bicycle path would increase calls for service for fire and emergency medical services due to allowing public use of this path. Public use of the path would also increase fire danger from adjacent dry weeds and vegetation. Based on a discussion with the City of Dublin Fire Marshal, the path is located within the five minute or less emergency response time area of Dublin Fire Station 16, located on Amador Valley Boulevard near Starward Drive, and would result in a less- than-significant impact. Adherence to MitigatiOn Measure 3 would reduce the potential for wildland fire to a less-than-significant level. b) Police protection? LS. Approval and construction of the proposed bicycle path would increase calls for police service to the area. However, since as noted in the City of Dublin Initial Study/Alamo Creek Bicycle Path Page 49 July 2003 c) d) e) project description, the p~th would be closed to the public during late evening and nighttime hours, impacts to the Dublin Police Department are anticipated to be less-than-significant. Based on information supplied by the Dublin Police Depar~,*rnent (memorandum from Lt. Glenn Moon to Lee Thompson, 5/14/03), and confirmed in a phone call with Rose Macias, Police Department Community Safety Assistant, 6/16/03), calls for police service from other existing public recreational paths in the City of Dublin (Martin Creek Path, Iron Horse Path and Tassajara Creek Path), a significant number of calls for service have not been recorded. Schools ? NI. There would be no impact to school service should the proposed project be approved and constructed, since it does not include a residential component that could generate school-aged children. Other governmental service, including maintenance of public facilities ? LS. Minor but less-than-significant impacts to City of Dublin maintenance services would result with construction of the proposed project, since the City would be responsible for maintaining both the new Alamo Creek Bicycle Path as well as vegetation control adjacent to the creek. Since the path improvement would be built to City standard, no major maintenance would be required for a nttrnber of years. Solid waste generation ? LS. Less-than-significant impacts regarding generation of solid waste is anticipated since the proposed project would not contain a permanent population nor would services be offered along the path, such as food service, that would generate solid waste. Litter control along the path would be the responsibility of the City. 14. Recreation Environmental Setting The nearest public park to the project site is Alamo Creek Park, consisting of 8 acres of land located just west of Dougherty Road south of Willow Creek Drive. The Dublin General Plan identifies Amador Valley Boulevard as a Class II Bikeway, which consists of a dedicated bicycle lane adjacent to vehicle travel lanes. Regional park facilities are provided by the East Bay Regional Park District. Project Impacts a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional par~? LS. Increased but less-than-significant impacts to neighborhood parks would occur should the proposed project be approved and constructed. The proposed Alamo Creek Bicycle Path would extend through Alamo Creek Park via an existing gravel path. Construction of the proposed path would increase usage of this 8-acre local park. According to the City of Dublin Parks and Community Services Department, increased use of park caused by the Alamo Creek Path would not be a significant impact on the park (personal communication, Diane Lowart, City of Dublin Director of Parks and Community Services 6/13/03). City of Dublin Initial Study/Alamo Creek Bicycle Path Page 50 July 2003 b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of recreational facilities? NI. The proposed path would be a recreational feature identified in the Dublin General Plan. No impacts are therefore anticipated. 15. Transportation/Traffic Environmental Setting Local access to the project area from city roadways is provided by Amador Valley BOulevard, an east-west 4-lane divided roadWay, just south of the proposed path. A second access point is provided just north of Willow Creek Road and along the southerly edge of Alamo Creek Park. Access to the path would a so be provided at the cul-de-sac terminus of Crossridge Road. Project Impacts a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial to existing traffic load and street capacity? LS. The proposed project would facilitate bicycle and other non-auto modes of transit circulation in the.City of Dublin..It is possible that minor and less-than- significant auto trips could be caused by individuals driving to a path access point. However, these would likely occur during non-peak days and hours so that less- than-significant regarding traffic increases would occur. b) c) d) Exceed,.either individUally or cumulatively, a LOS standard established by the County CMA for designated roads)? NI. Since the proposed project would generate few if any new vehicular trips, no imPacts to CMA routes are anticipated. Change in air traffic patterns? NI. The propOsed project would have no impact on air traffic patterns, since it involves approval and construction of a recreational path. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use? NI. All design aspects of the proposed project will meet City of Dublin and other applicable engineering design standards to ensure there would be no impact with regard to design hazards. Proposed improvements include installation of pathway delineators on the path slope area immediately south of the path terminus at Crossridge Road to ensure that bicyclists do not run off the road and into Alamo Creek. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? NI, Access gates to the proposed path would be located along Amador Valley Boulevard, Alamo Creek Park, Willow Creek Road and Crossridge Road so that adequate emergency access could be provided by the Dublin Police and Fire Departments. No impacts would therefore occur. f) Inadequate parking capacity? LS. Less-than-significant impacts to parking would result, since the proposed path would not be a regional facility, but a local bike path that would generally be accessed by bicyclists or pedestrians. A parking lot is available within Alamo Creek Park as well as on-street parking near other access points. City of Dublin Initial Study/Alamo Creek Bicycle Path Page 51 July 2003 g) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? NI. The purpose of the proposed project is to encourage bicycle and other non-auto modes of transit. No impacts would therefore occur. 16. Utilities and Service Systems Environmental Setting The project area is 'served by the following service providers: · Water supply: Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) and Zone 7 · Sewage collection and treatment: Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) · Storm drainage: City of Dublin (local facilities), Zone 7 (regional facilities) · Electrical and natural gas power:'Pacific Gas and Electric Co. · Communications: Southwestern Bell (formerly Pacific Bell). Project Impacts a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB? NI. The proposed project would not require use of sewer service. No impacts would therefore result. b) Require new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities ? NI. The proposed project would not require use of water or sewer service. No impacts would therefore result. c) Require new storm drainage facilities ? NI. An existing v-ditch and related storm drain facilities already exist adjacent to the proposed Alamo Creek Path. No new storm drain facilities are required and no impacts that would result. d) Are sufficient water supplies available? NI. Since no water service would be required to serve the proposed project, no impact to water supplies are anticipated. e) Adequate wastewater capacity to serve the proposed project? LS. See response to "a,' above. e, 0 Solid waste disposal? NI. Small quantities of solid waste would be generated by the proposed project, which would be limited since no goods or services would be offered along the route of the proposed path. No impacts are therefore anticipated. g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? NI. No impacts are anticipated since the amount of solid waste to be generated by this project would be very small. City of Dublin Page 52 Initial Study/Alamo Creek Bicycle Path July 2003 17. 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 community, reduce the number of or restrict the range ora 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 project will not have a significant adverse impact on overall environmental quality, including biological resources or cultural resources. b) c) 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, the proposed project involves construction of a recreational path adjacent to Alamo Creek is within an urbanized, developed area. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No. No such impacts have been discovered in the course of preparing this Initial Study. City of Dublin Page 53 Initial Study/Alamo Creek Bicycle Path July 2003 Initial Study Preparers ierry Haag, Urban Planner, project manager Malcolm Sproul, LSA Associates, biological resources Gretchen Zantinger, LSA Associates, biological resources Alan T. Rosen, Rosen, Goldberg and Der, acoustics Harold Goldberg, Rosen, Goldberg and Der, acoustics Jane Maxwell, report graphics Agencies and Organizations Consulted The following agencies and organizations were contacted in the course of this Initial Study: citj/ of Dublin Lee Thompson, Director of Public Works Steven Yee, Associate Civil Engineer Ray Kuzbari, Traffic Engineer Jeri Ram, AICP, Planning Manager Diane Lowart, Director of Parks and Community Services Scott McMillan, Fire Department Rose Macias, Police Department Zone 7 -Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Joe Sero, Engineer References Dublin General Plan, City of Dublin, updated through 11/5/02 City of Dublin Page 54 initial Study/Alamo Creek Bicycle Path July 2003 Gray Davis' GOVERNOR STATE OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR'S OFFICE of PLANNING AND RESEARCH Tad Finney INTERIM DI1LECTOR AUgUSt 6, 2003 ~ ,q~ Steven Yee City of Dublin ~O[~ 0 7 2003 100 Civic Plaza Dubl/n, CA 94568 P[J MC WORKS Subject: Alamo Creek Bike Path SCH#: 2003072026 Dear Ste~,.en Yee: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Negative Declaration 'to selected state agencies for review. On the enclosed Docm~ent Details Report pleas~ note that the Clearinghouse has listed the state agencies that reviewed your document. The review period closed on August 5, 2003, and the comments from the responding agency (les) is (are) enclosed. If this comment package is not in order, please notify the State Clearfl~ghouse immediately. Please refer to the project's ten-digit State Clearinghouse number in furore correspondence so that we may respond promptly. Please note that Section 21104(c) of the California Public Resources Code states that: "A responsible or other public agency shall only make substantive commems regarding those activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or which are required to be carried out or approved by the agency. Those comments shall be supported by specific documentation." These comments are forwarded for use in preparing your fmaI environmental document. Should you need more information or olarificafion of the enclosed comments, we recommend that you contact the commenting agency directly. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact the State Clearinghouse at (9 t 6) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the em,/ronmental review process. Sin. cerety, Terry Roberts Director, State Clearinghouse Enclosures cc: Resources Agency I400 TENTH STFCEET P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 916-322-2318 FAX 916-324-9936 www.opr.c~.gov SCH# Project Title Lead Agency 2003072026 Alamo Creek Bike Path Dublin, City of Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base Type Description Neg Negative Declaration Construction of a bicycle path on the west side of Alamo Creek on an existing water agency maintenance road. Lead Agency Contact Name Steven Yee Agency City of Dublin Phone 925-833-6630 ernail Address 100 Civic Plaza City Dublin ~ax State CA Zip 94568 Project Location County Alameda City Region Cross Streets Parcel No. Township Dublin Amador Valley Blvd. Range Section Base Proximity to: Highways Airports Railways Waterways Schools Land Use 58O Alamo Creek Mix of higher density residential and stream candor (Alamo Creek) Project Issues Aesthetic/Visual; Air Quality; Archaeologic-Historic; Forest Land/Fire Hazard; Flood Plain/Flooding; Geologic/Seismic; Noise; Public Services;'Solid Waste; Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading; Toxic/Hazardous; Traffic/Circulation; Vegetation; Water Quality; Wildlife; Landuse Reviewing Agencies Caltrans, Division of Aeronautics; Department of Boating and Waterways; Department of Fish and Game Region 3; Department of Parks and Recreation; California Highway Patrol; Caltrans, District 4; Air Resources Board, Transportation Projects; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 2; Native American Heritage Commission Date Received 07/07/2003 Start of Review 07/07/2003 End of Review 08/05/2003 No[e: Blanks in data fields resutt from insufficient information provided by ,ead agency. AUG-05-20~l~ 17:0S FISH & GAME DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND ~T OFfiCE ~OX &7 YOU~I~E. CALIFORNI~ (707} 9~65~ GRAY ~AVIE:, ~overnar Mr. Steven Yee City of Dublin Planning Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, California 94568 Via Fax: (925) 833-6628 Dear Mr. Yee: August 5, 2003 Alamo Creek Bicycle Path .Mi=igated Negative Declaration city of Dublin, Alameda County SCH $ 2003072026 Department of Fish and Game (DFG) personnel have reviewed tSe above-named document. The project, as proposed, would construct a 0.9-mile long, 12-foot wide public bicycle path on the westerly side of Atar~o Creek. The path would be constructed along an existing Zone 7 Water Agency maintenance road between Amador Valley Boulevard to the south to the Dublin City limit to the The determination in the Initial Studyr page 16, concludes that no .impacts will occur to biological resources as a result of the pro~ect. This determination is based primarily on the statements on page 31, ~The past disturbance of the majority of the creek banks makes this area unsuitable for any of the special status plants found in the Dublin vicinity,~ and on page 33, ~Wiidlife species which are not adapted to human activity have previously moved or been forced out of this reach of Alamo Creek when residential development took place." The City of Dublin has not provided information about t'he status of the creek buffer in relation to the surrounding permitted developments as requested by DFG. This reach of Alamo Creek has been planted presumably to mitigate impacts associated with some previously permitted development or other impact to the creek. The City should provide background inforr~ation to indicate whether the buffer area was conserved without provisions for public access as a part of 'the project description for the surrounding developments or specifically as a mitigation measure to reduce impacts on the environraent. ~UG-05-2003 17:06 FISH & GaME ~r. Steven AugUst 5, 2003 Page 2 Impacts to creeks and Wetlands should be avoided where possible. Impact~ include, but are not limited to, changes in hydrology, road crossing's, culverts, channe!ization, r%p rap, and loss of adequate buffers. Unavoidable impacts ~houtd be identified and mitigation provided acknowledging =ha~ resources, particularly wetlands and waters, within the developed area will continue to have value from a water quality perspective- The ability of the wetland 'and open space features within developments to provide habitat for a sustainable population of native wildlife in the area should be recognized as limited. These species are often sensitive to hnunan disturbance and depend on the ability =o disperse t.6 expand and recolonize parts of their range from which they had been extirpated- If the City is to assume that there is no significant biological value along this reach of Alarao Creek because it is surrounded by development and, =herefore, no significant biological impacts will occur as a'result of this project, then the City must be consisten~ and not allow future development to mitigate impacts to wildlife and plants by conserving creeks which will be surrounded by development. ' ' ro'ect, the construction of the bicycle path Regarding this p ] ......... ~-~ce further degrading this wl!l s~gn~f Y ....... ' ~^ ~iti~ate impacts, the . e Alamo Creek corr~uc~. ~ .... reach of th ......... ~ ~n ~=rmetuity through a applicant.should ennanCeent ananOe uiva£enEP~u~=~ t__52~=of=~,9~,, A!arao Creek . conservat=on easem , .q . - ...... ~ ~hannel bottom and enhance the area ~cz ~=~-~ ~ ...... ~nnal planting snoui~ invasive plant and enema± spec~ u~ ==~T .... ._t - considered as components of a proposa~ to mztzgau~ b= ...... t to less than szgnificant. impacts zrom unis pro~= We are available to address our concerns in more de~aii. To arrange a meeting, please contact Janice Gan, Environmental Scientist, at (209) 835-69!0; or Sco=t Wilson, Habitat Conservation Supervisor, at (707) 944-5584. Sincerely, ~W. Floerk zb cc: See neXu page FISH &GRME Mr. Steven Yee August 5, 2003 Page 3 Regional Water Resources Control Board 1515 Clay Street, Suite !400 Oakland, CA 94612 Via Fax: (510) 622-2300 U. S. Army Corps of Engineers South Section Chief 333 Market Street, 8=~ Floor San Francisco, CA 94105-2197 Via Fax: (415) 977-8464 State Clearinghouse Post office Box 3044 Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 Via Fax: (916) 323-30!8 TOTAL P. 03 DUBLIN SAN RAlVlON SERVICES DISTRICT 7051 Dublin Boulevard Dublin, California 94568 FAX: 925 829 1180 925 828 0515 Mr. Lee Thompson City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 S ubj ect: July 17, 2003 Alamo Creek Bicycle Trail Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Dear Mr. Thompson: Thank you for allowing Dublin San Ramon Se~wices District(District) the opportunity to review and comment on the City of Dubtin's Alamo Creek Bicycle Trail Project. With local and regional issues surrounding the Tri-Valley area, we appreciate that our comments are being considered. While this project does not affect the District, it is supported and appreciated. Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above subject matter. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at (925) 875-2250. Sincerely, ~ ~ GREGORY TAYLOR Sr. Engineering Technician/GIS Specialist GT:jg Cc: David Behrens H:kENGDEPT\CEQA\crms_neg_dec_alamo_crk trail.doc The Dublin San Ramon Ser,Ace$ Dist~ct is a Public Entity ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT 5997 PARKSIDE DRIVE PLEASANTON. CALIFORNIA 94588-5127 August 5, 2003 PHONE (925] 484-2600 FAX (925} 462-3914 ~B. CB~,VED AU(; O ? 2003 P~B~C WORKS Mr. Lee Thompson Public Works Director City of Dublin Public Works Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Re: Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study for Alamo Creek Bicycle Path Dear Mr. Thompson: Zone 7 has reviewed the referenced CEQA document and we have several comments which are made in the context of Zone 7's responsibilities to provide wholesale treated water, untreated water for agriculture and irrigated turf, flood protection, and groundwater management in the Livermore-Amador Valley. Our' comments are as follows: The City of Dublin plans to construct an asphalt concrete bike trail over Zone 7's access road along the west side of Alamo Creek between Amador Valley Boulevard and the Alameda and Contra Costa County line. This reach of Alamo Creek is fully improved and is a Zone 7 flood control facility; however, it is not currently accessible to the public. Therefore, the City will need to obtain a modification to an existing license agreement with Zone 7, last modified on September 19, 2000, prior to giving the Contractor a note to proceed with the work. in lieu of obtaining a modification to the existing license agreement between the City and Zone 7, we offer as an option for your consideration, the preparation of a license agreement that Would cover all channels within the City. If this option is chosen, the new genera[license agreement would also supercede the existing agreement. This project is described as including excavation and paving of approximately 1.3 acres. The project may be considered by the State 'Water Resources Control Board as construction activity subject to coverage under an NPDES general permit for storm water discharges. NPDES permit coverage is necessary, Zone 7 will require a copy of the Notice of intent (NOl) that will be sent to the State Water Resources Control Board. If Mr. Lee Thompson August 5, 2003 Page 2 Paragraph 4, page 3 of the Initial Study, states the following: "Construction activities include excavation and removal of the top 2 inches of twelve (12) feet of the existing maintenance road. The remaining 3 inches of the existing Zone 7 maintenance road would then be compacted. A four-inch wide stripe would be painted along the westerly edge of the paved path adjacent to the V-ditch." This description is not what Exhibit 4; page 8, of the Initial Study, shows as a typical cross section. Exhibit 4 shows the existing 6 inches of aggregate base rock left in place and five inches of new asphalt concrete placed on top of the existing base rock. The cross section indicates that any excess rock be used to back the shoulder of the asphalt pathway. The project description should be consistent with Exhibit 4. Note that Zone 7's requirements for access roads are a minimum depth of 18-inches of subgrade and 6 inches of aggregate base rock be compacted to a relative compaction of not less than 95 percent. Page 32 of the Initial Study states the following: '¥egetation removal would be limited to pruning tree and shrub growth which extends into the existing road bed for fire safety purposes." Note that construction and maintenance of these facilities, including vegetation control, monthly roadway sweeping and litter removal, will need to comply'with the license agreement. Please feel free to contact me at (925) 484-2600, ext. 400, or Jack Fong at ext. 245 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Advance .Planniag Section JPH:JF:jr CC: Ed Cummings John Mahoney Joe Seto Terry Anderson Mona Olmsted Jack Fong P:b~dvplanlCEQg-.~lamoCreekBicycleTrail. doc Accord To City of Dublin Public Works Department Attention Lee Thompson 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, Ca. 94568 From Colleen Long 7446 Oxford Circle Dublin, Ca., 94568 Dated 7-16-03 -TJ ~:~ J~ COLLEEN LONG REALTOR® JUL. 1 8 Z003 P[JBLIC WORKS Regarding: Proposed Alamo Creek Bicycle Path Project Dear Ms. Thompson, I am a creek side resident of the Woodlands in Dublin, and also the Re/Max Accord resident real estate specialist for our area, It has been my highest priority for the last eight years to maintain property values for our beautiful complex. The focus of my marketing to maintain the highest return for my clients has been the pr/stine and peaceful atmosphere which we all enjoy. I am shocked, and dismayed that a proposal to extend a bike trail thru our area could even be considered! Many of my friends and neighbors have expressed the obvious concerns, such as safety, env/ronmental impact, fire hazards and vandalism. These are ali serious issues by themselves! As a real estate professional, I am concerned about our future property values ff this proposal comes to pass. t feel very strongly that these prime location lots that we all paid a higher premimu for, w/th the assurance that the creek side location would remain untouched, is definitely going to be impacted in a negative way. Please re-consider this matter, and keep tiffs most un/que wilderness untouched as promised. Thank you for your consideration, i can be contacted at the numbers below. Colleen Long 350 Montgomery St. · San Ramon, CA 94583 · Office: (925) 242-1289 Fax: (925) 833-7190 · E-Maih'colleenlong43 @ cs.com · Website: www.colleenlong.corn Each Office independently Owned & Operated July 17, 2003 2003 Dear Ms. Thompson, This letter is in regards to the proposed construction of the public bicycle path along the western side of Alamo Creek in the Dublin. 'I.'ha~e'been.a resident in the. Torrey Pines Condominium Estates since 1991. One of my greatest pleasures is to walk along the sidewalk along the creek and obs~e the wildlife, t am abso}utely OPPOSED to disrupting this beautiful, natural Eeo-system. I love observing the ducks, herons, deer, mustcrats, etc. To observe them from the safe distance cf..the sidewalk ensures -t-heir safety. If people get too close, the animals will leave. Also where people travel, they leave garbage, lots of it. I see it every day up in hills on the hiking trail. I also have grave concerns about safety not only for children who could drown in the -'creek but-als0 for thc distinct'possibil/ty'ofcrime. The Dublin police cannot easily patrol this area. We have akeady had instances of drag dealing in the Alamo Creek Park, which was eradicated.by.increased poliee~patrolS: Thi~. trail is Very secluded, and I have already seen young teenage boys on the trail acting very suspicious. I am convinced drag dealing and the crimes that usually accompany such activity will manifest in..such.seclusion. Iron Horse Trail is very close by and it should suffice the needs of bicyclists. They also can cycle on the bike trail on Dougherty along Camp Parks. Please leave these natural areas undisturbed!! !! !! Please listen to the voice of the people who live in this neighborhood. We employ the politicians; they are our servants. Politicians who don't listen to the people will £md themselves unemployed after the next electioa Sincerely, Jacqt~eline Osterloh 7730 Chantilly Drive Dublin pAtRiCK J. MCMAHON LAW OFFICES OF A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION PUbLiC DANVILLE OFFICE Danville By Hand-Delive~Ty August 5, 2003 Lee Thompson Public Works Director City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Re: Proposed'Alamo Creek Bicycle Path Project Comments on.the Mitigated Negative Declaration (M2VD) Dated 7/3/03 Dear Mr. Thompson: Our law offices represent David and Terry Davis ("Davis family") and continue to work with other families and interested neighbors ("concerned neighbors") in the Alamo Creek area, with regard to the City's consideration of the Alamo Creek Bicycle Path Proj eot ("Path"). We have receiyed and reviewed the City's July 7, 2003 "Notice of Availability of Environmental Document," and the accompanying Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") dated July, 2003. Please accept these comments on the MND on behalf' of the Davis family and certain other concerned neighbors. ~ rThe Davis family and concerned neighbors have appeared at previous City Council hearings, including the most recent .hearing on May 20, 2003, and have submitted and testified to numerous significant effects on the environment which will be caused by the proposed Path. We hereby request that all public comments previously subrdtted, orally or in writing, at or before such hearings, be made parr of the Admim'strative Record for the City's review of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). F:\CLACMk35345kmnd I .ltr.wpd Attn: Lee Thompson Public Works Director City of Dublin August 5, 2003 Page 2 I. Project History and General Comments History As set forth below, the history of the proposed Path and its accompanying proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is particularly important in this matter. For several years, funds have been available to localjurisdictions in Alameda County through the Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA). The TFCA program manager in .Alameda County is the County's Congestion Management Agency (CMA). Procedurally, the CMA receives certain funding from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), and then forwards these funds to qualified cities pursuant to Transfer Agreements between the CMA and the city/applicant. The Transfer Agreements place strict conditions on the timing of spending the funding. Any money spent after the time limitations is not eligible for reimbursement under the Transfer Agreements. In February of 2000, the City of Dublin, without notice or opportunity to comment from local residents, and without any environmental study or review, submitted a funding application to the CMA for a specific project: the proposed Path. The CMA granted the City the amount of $107,000. The City proposed to utilize such monies, together with local funding from Measure B ($158,000) to complete the Path. FolloWing completion of the application and grant process, the City in 2003 held public hearings on the City's proposed solicitation of bids for the construction of the Path. The City still performed no environmental review for the project. The City claimed that the project was "exempt" from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and that no environmental review was required. On May 20, 2003, the City Council held a public hearing on the project. The Davis family, concerned neighbors, and other local residents appeared and set forth numerous significant environmental effects that will occur as a result of t_he Path. There was near unanimous testimony from the residents and concerned neighbors that the Path would cause significant impacts, including: increased traffic, noise, loss of privacy, and related health, safety and welfare impacts. The neighbors requested that these impacts be evaluated under CEQA, and preferably by an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). F:\CLACMk35345h'nndl .ltr,wpd Attn: Lee Thompson Public Works Director City of Dublin' August 5, 2003 Page 3 The staff report for the City Council hearing, however, stated: This project will be funded through a (TFCA) grant...Faiture to meet the TFCA funding guideline requirements of project completion by October 9, 2003 will result in the loss of the TFCA grant.2 Thus, the Council was (and is) faced with an October 9, 2003 deadline to complete the project, or risk losing the referenced grant funding. At the hearing, the Council voted 4-1 in favor of moving forward with the Project, without any environmental review. Immediately following the hearing, however, the City notified interested parties that it would withdraw its previous approval, and instead indeed perform certain environmental review as required by CEQA. The City then quickly prepared (and scheduled for hearing on August '19, 2003) a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). The City's MND now claims that there will be no impacts on the environment from the Path, because certain "mitigation measures" have been incorporated in the project that will prevent any such impacts. However, as shown below; these new "mitigation measures" do little or nothing to address the substantive concerns raised by residents at the earlier public hearings. We are now faced with a hearing on the project on August I9, 2003. We are concerned that, at that hearing, the Council may vote in favor of the Path (and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration) not for reasons of sound land use planning, but rather because there is a 'momentum" in favor of moving forward with the project," and "time is running out" on the strict deadline for utilizing grant funds (by October 9, 2003). We respectfully request that this project be viewed on its .merits, from a land use standpoint, i.e., as if no funding for theproject exists. Under such view, the City Council should take a close look at the sincere and valid comments made by the vast majority of residents living near the project, and consider whether the project makes sense. Following that process, if the Council nevertheless believes the project has merit, prior to approving the project the City should prepare an E!R, which would provide for meaningful mitigation measures to protect the community. 2See staff report ("Agenda Statement") dated~May 20, 2003, page 1. F:\CLACMk35345knmd 1 .ltr.wpd Attn: Lee Thompson Public Works Director City of Dublin August 5, 2003 Page 4 I. Specific Comments 1. The City_ Improperly Prepared a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration Rather than an Environmental Impact Report' (EIR) as Required by CEQA... Our Comment: A negative declaration is a statement that merely describes "the reasons why a proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment and therefore does not require the preparation of an EIR.''~' A mitigated negative declaration is a similar statement, which confirms that certain project revisions or mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project, which avoid or mitigate the impacts to a point where clearly no significant impacts may occur? In either case, such a determination can be made only if there is no substantial evidence in the entire administrative record before the lead agency that such an impact may occur. On the other hand, an environmental impact report (EIR) is required' whenever substantial evidence in'the record supports a fair argument that significant impacts may occur. Thus, even if other evidence in the record supports an opposite conclusion, the City must prepare an EIR. The fair argument standard creates a very low threshold for requiring preparation of an EIR.6 In fact, the standard is so low, that where qualified experts present conflicting evidence on the extent of potential impacts, the affected City must accept the evidence showing that a significant impact may result from the project. Uncontradicted opinion evidence submitted by an expert consultant, and demonstrating that significant impacts may occur, is generally conclusive evidence in favor of an EIR.? 3CEQA Guidelines (Guidelines) § 15371 4pulslic Resources Code (PFC) 21064.5; see also the specific requirements for a mitigated negative declaration set forth below in this correspondence. S?~c §21080¢)(I) 6See Remy, Thomas, Guide to Environmental Quality Act, 10t~ Ed. t999, at p.206, citing No Oil, Inc. v. City of LOX Angeles (1974) 13 Cal. 3d 68. ?See Kostka, Zische, Practice Under The California Environmental QuatityAct, January 2002 update, at § 6.32. F:\CLACMX35345\mndI .ltr.wpd Attn: Lee Thompson Public Works Director City of Dublin August 5, 2003 Page 5 In this case, it is clear that a "fak argument" can be made that significant environmental impacts may occur from the project, for the following reasons. A. Significant Impact: Increase In Use Of Trait The City has confirmed that currently, the baseline of use of the path is limited to Zone 7 personnel, approximately one trip per month. The City has taken the position that there will be little or no increase in use of the Path when opened to the public.8 Please reference in this regard the report dated August 1, 2003, from Abrams Associates (licensed Transportation, Traffic, Engineering, and Planning consultants) (hereinafter "Abrams Report," attached hereto).- Abrams Associates performed a specific site review and analysis of the potential for increase in use of the Path when opened. The Abrams Report concludes: "B used on our review of similar trail facilities, land-use patterns in the vicinity of the proposed project, and my site visit and digital photos we estimate that the proposed path would have an average patronage of approximately 150 to 200 people per day with about 20 to 30 people per hour during the peak hours of trail use." We believe that the City's estimation of"little or no increase" in public use of the trail is inherently inaccurate. We believe 'that an increase from only ! maintenance trip per month; to !50-200 trips per day, is a tremendous increase. We thus believe that the City's entire, subsequent analysis in its MND, which is based on the assumption of little or no increase in public use of the Path, is faulty and invalid. Clearly, the opening of the trail to public use will cause a significant increase in use. 8See Staff Report, May 20, 2003, at page 4: "The resuk of paving the access road to allow public access for walking and bicycling during limited daytime hours will have negligible impact beyond its current use." City Council members at the May 20, 2003 hearing informed the public that, because of current trespassers and illegal use of the trail, there will be no increase in use of the trail when formally opened to the public. F:\CLACMk35345\mndl .ltr. wpd Attn: Lee Thompson Public Works Director City of Dublin August 5, 2003 Page 6 B. Significant Impact: Increase in Noise The MND addresses Noise impacts at Section 11 (p. 40). The MND defines "noise" as "unwanted sound." The MND concludes that "the increase in noise from the use of the path will result in a less than significant impact," and thus the MND proposes no noise mitigation measures. Please reference in this regard the report dated August 4, 2003, from Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc. (consultants in acoustics) (hereinafter "Salter Report," attached hereto). Salter Associates evaluated the analysis in the MND, and commented on ks conclusions. The Salter Report states: "While the noise levels generated by the bike path are not expected to violate any City or State noise goals or standards, the project noise levels will be significantly above the existing background noise level and will have "informational content" (e.g., conversations) that does not exist with the existing noise sources (birds, wind in trees, distanI aircraft). This is due to the change in use along the residences: there are currently no people using the site of the proposed trail and there are expected to be approximately 150 to 200 people per day using the trail if constructed..." (Emphasis added.) The Salter Report concludes: "[The noise will be] ...significantly louder than the existing background level at the residences. Therefore, noise from the path is expected to be readily audible and conversations easily understandable to residents in their outdoor- use areas." (Emphasis added.) We believe that the noise impacts from the path will clearly be significant. F:\CLACMk35345knmd 1 .ltr.wpd Attn: Lee Thompson Public Works Director City of Dublin August 5, 2003 Page 7 C. Significant Impact: Loss of Privacy The proposed Path will be constructed directly adjacent to existing attached and single-family homes. The attached homes along Oxford Circle currently back up .directly to Oxford Circle (a street): the homes have no rear yards. The homes are immediately adjacent to each other: the homes have no side yards. The homes were designed so that the only available "private" open space area is the small front yard, immediately adjacent to the Path. Ti{ese homes further have living rooms and bedrooms fronting right along the Path. It is clear from the Abrams Report and Salter Report referenced above that there will be significant, increased use of the trail, and a significant noise increase. This increase in use will further invade the privacy of the residents along Oxford Circle and adjacent to the Path. Several residents have testii~ed regarding the fact that in certain areas Path users wilt be able to look directly into the front yards and/or living areas of the adjacent homes. The single-family homes along Shady Creek and Crossridge Road currently have trail and street traffic from the existing trail that extends at the north end of the cul-de-sac extending from the two roads. The Path will be constructed d/rectly behind these homes. D. Si_~nificant Health, Safety and Welfare Impacts. At the City Council hearings on the Path, several residents have testified to the effect that the Path will create significant health, safety and welfare impacts. Residents have personally stated that the Creek is deep and can rise quickly, causing a flood and drowning hazard to children and all users of the Path, and that the banks are steep and erosion in the area is hazardous.9 Residents have further stated that they are concerned about an increase in crime and an increase in trespassing on their property in the event the Path is opened to the public, t0 9This is not merely speculation by neighbors. As set forth herein, the City has recognized the flood and related dangers of the Creek in this area. l°Again, this is not merely speculation by neighbors. As set forth herein, the City has recognized the existence of trespassers on the existing trail, and the City has recognized the security issues that arise with opening the Path. F:\CLACMk35345knndt.ltr.wpd Attn: Lee Thompson Public WOrks Director City of Dublin August 5, 2003 Page 8 2. The Ci _ty's Mitigation Measures Do Not Address or Mitigate the Referenced Impacts. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines at §21064.5, a mitigated negative declaration (MND) is a declaration prepared when: an initial study identifies potentially significant effects on the environment, however: (1) revisions to the project would avoid or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects on the environment would occur; and (2) there is no. substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the enwronment. We Simply do not believe, based on the Abrams Report, the Salter Report, and all the evidence set forth herein, that the City's MND properly (1) identifies significant impacts on the environment; or (2) mitigates any of those impacts. As shown herein, the Davis family and concerned neighbors have consistently raised valid concerns regarding increased use of the Path, noise, privacy and related impacts. None of these impacts are identified as significant in the MND. None of these impacts are addressed with even minimal mitigation measures as part of the M-ND. We appreciate, your review and consideration of these comments. Very trul~y/~,7, Allan C.'~ Att. (1) Abrams Report dated August 1, 2003 (2) Salter Report dated August 4, 2003 F:\CLACMX35345hnnd 1 .Itr.wpd ~M A~RAM~ Abrams Associates Tran.qpor[ation · Traffic · Engineering - PJdnning August I. 2003 Mr. Allan C.. Moore Gag~2n; McCoy, McMahon & Armstrong 279 Front Strc, et Danville, CA 94526 Re: Forecasts of the Patronage for the Proposed Alamo City Bike Path (City File # 600-35) Dc. ar Mr. As per your request, I have reviewed the plan for the proposed public path along Alamo Creek and prepared some forecasts of the potential pau'onage that would be. expected tbr this type of path. Based on our review of similar wail facilities, land-USe patterns in the vicinity of the proposed project, and my site visit and digital photo~ we estimam that the proposed path would tiav,z an average patronage or approximatelyi 150 to 200 people per day witi~ about 20 to 30 people per hour during the peak hours o..f trail use. Please note that these estimates are intended to represent the average conditions since the patronage could vary tkroughout the year based on many factors such as weather, daylight savings time, whetht:r or not schools ar~ in session, crc. If there are any questions or comments, please don't hesitate to contact me at (925) 945-0201. Sincerely yours. Stephen C. Abrams CA Traffic Engineering License No 1852 2815 Mitchell Drive, ,Suite 120 ,, Walnut Creek, CA 94598 · (925) 945-0201 · Fax (925)945-7956 Attachment ! 0-8/04/2003 04:42 FA~ 415 Consultants in Acoustics & Audio/Visual System Design 130 Sutter Street Sen Francisco Ca[i[ornia 941D4 Tel: 415 397 0442 Fax: 415 397 0454 cmsalter@ cmsalter, com www.omsaimr, com Charles M S~[tar, PE DaSd R S~w~n~. FAES ~ony Ew Duester Tho~s A Schindler, PE ~nneth W Gm~n. PE Edc L Bmedhumt. PE J~hn C ~ag, PE MIcflael DToy. Dumnd R B~au[~ Ph.~ Ro~s A Philip N Sanders Jason R Duly Cfis~na L Mly~r Joey G D'Angel~ Julie A Bdan Br~stso ~c A Yee T~ JoshuE ~ Roar Kev~n M Po~l Chris~p~r A ~n~ Jeff Ctuke~ Paler Hols[ Ethan ~audi~ ~ene P~mela M VoM K~in Frye I~ Graven Ma~s O 3970454 Oho.riss M Sa CHARLES ~{ SALTER ASSOC ,,., ! 4 AugUSt 2003 Allan Moore Gagen, McCoy, McMahon & Armstrong 279 Front Street P.O. Box 218 Danville, CA 94526 via fax: 925.838.5985 Sttbj ecl:: Alamo Creek Bike Path Review of Negative Declaration CSA Project No: 03-0278 Dear Allaru As requested, we have reviewed the Noise section of the July 2003 Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration'.' for the Alamo Creek Bicycle Trail project. This letter summarizes our comments on the study. While the noise levels generated by the bike path are not expected to violate any City or State noise goals or standards, the project noise levels will be significantly abov~ the existing background noise level and will have "informational contenl" (e.g., oom,ersations) that does not exist with the current noise sources (birds, wind in trees, distant aircraft), This is due to the change in use along the residences: there are cmTemly no people using the site of the proposed trail and there are expected to be approximately 150 to 200 people per day using the trail if it constructed (as per the traffic report published by Abrams Associates on 1 August). The following summarizes the noise data from the negative declaration tzoise study. - The existing max/mm noise levels CL~) listed in the study are typically between 51 and 58 dBL The average noise level is 50 dB and the bag. kgrozmd noise level is 47 dB. The maximum noise levels may be somewhat overstated due to the use of"fast" thne-weighting, in lieu of "stow" time-weighting. The fast system is more typically used only for impulsive noises jackhammers, gunshots). Attachment 2 0~/04/2003 04:43 FAX 415 3970454 Allan Moore 4 August 2003 Page 2 CHARLES ~ ~ALTER ASS0C ~oo~ The types of noises measured were mostly "natural" noises such as birds ct~-ping and wind in trees. High altitude general aviation was also a noise source. · The bike path noise levels reported typically range from L~.~ 50 dB to 60 dB, with a high of 75 dB due to a group of teenagers talking loudly. The bike path noise data was measured at a distance of reft-feet. The r~pozt states that the residences near the Alamo Creek bike path are at least 25-feet from the path. However, we understand the outdoor use areas for the residences are only 15-feet from the path. We understa~_ d that the fence between the residences and the proposed bike path is chain link covered with vegetation; this assembly does not provide any discemable noise reduction. With the five-~oot greater disUmce (15-feet versus the ten-foot distance from the study's measurements), it is expected that the noise levels in the oumloor-use space due to bike path noise wilt be between L,,~× 50 dB and 55 dB. This is significantly louder titan the existing background noise level at the residences. Therefore, noise fi-om the patk is expected to be readily audible and conversations easily understandable to residents in their outdoor-use areas. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please give us a call. Sincerely, CHARLES ~[. SALTER ASSOCIATES, INC. Eric L. Broadhurst, P.E. Vice President ELB/mac Charlies 1~ S~l~er Assoc,=res In= 'i30,%l,~.te~'l:iiree~. Sa~-Fr,.taci~co Calil,9,~'lagz~0a 'fa,~ ~ '51: :,7 04.~2. la}( TO: ity of Dublin Public Works Department ATTENTION: FROM: Steven Yee Diane and David Cowden 7438 Oxford Circle Dublin, CA 94568 DATE: July 29, 2003 SUBJECT: RESPSONSE TO THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE ALAMO CREEK BICYCLE PATH Mitigated Negative Declaration Reference: Page 3, 5th Paragraph- "Existing gates at proposed path crossings at Amador Valley Boulevard, Alamo Creek Park, Willow Creek Park and Crossridge Road would remain in place. Gates would be open,, but the path would be closed to public access between one hour after dusk and dawn, similar to all other Dublin parks." CONTRADICTIVE STATEMENTS Agenda Statement, City Council Meeting Date: May 20, 2003 Reference: Page 2, 2no Item 5-Closure of path entrances at nights and/or during high water in the creek '_'En_trance gat? to the path.may be closed one ho. ur after sunnier and at times of...high water in thee creek. To d9 so,_maintenanc-e staff would be required to~_fl,ri.y~along the trail to ensure that no one would be locked in. Note that there is currently no maintenance staff available t~ the trail on weekends.' City Council Minutes May 20, 2003 "May 12th. The Staff Report and PowerPoint presentation was prepared to review and respond to · concerns voiced during the field trip, including: weed abatement along the path; graffiti along the path; slope sloughing on Dougherty Hills; median break and proposed crosswalks on Willow Creek Drive as not safe; ~cLosu.re of.path entrances at night and/or during high water in creekLerosion on Alamo Creek bank; illegal activities near trails; vehicles enterin~trail; and development in the Open space corridor." City Council Minutes May 2003 Reference: Volume 22, Page 309 "Another concern expressed was regarding security closures at night and at times of high water in the creek. It would be possible to close the pathway at night; the only problem would be the extra time incurred for the maintenance people on weekends. Right now, we can do the weekdays." The Mitigated Negative Declaration states "".Gates would be open, but the path would be closed to public access between one hour after dusk and dawn, similar to all other Dublin parks." The Council Agenda Statement states "Entrance gates to the path may be closed one hour after sunset and at times of high water in the creek. To do so, maintenance'staff would be required to drive along the trail to~nsnre that no one would be locked in. Note that there is currently no maintenance staff available to close the trail on weekends." Council Minutes State "...closure of path entrances at night and/or during high Water in creek..." We were assured in Council Meetings that the gates would be LOCKED on a daily basis at dusk and unlocked at dawn. CITY CLERK AGENDA STATEMENT C~rTY COUNCZL MEETING DATE: May 20~, 2003 ATTAINTS: 1) ~) Project Site Map Notice of Exemption Biological Reconnaissance Surv~ Fi~e Dcpa~hab~nt Report Police Department ~ RECO1V/MENDATION: 1) Approve Notice o£Exemption under 2002 California Environmental Quality Act (CF. QA), Soetion'1530.I, Class t[c), and'Section 15304, Class 40a), for. Alamo Creek Bike Path, Amaflm- ValleY Boulevard to North City I .imits Authorize Staff to advertise for bidS or provide Staff with alternative ~rcction FI.N.~A~tCIAL STA~i~I': Budget for this project: FY 2002-O3 FY' 2003-,,~., SalarieafDesi~is¢: $' 52,100 $ 7,100 Improvements: $ 107,00Q $ 99 000 TOTAL: $ 159,100 $ 106,100 Total Budget $ 59,2o0 $ 206.000 $ 265.2OO 'This p~oject'will be funded through a Tron. sportation Fund for Clean Air. (TFCA) grant from tt~ Bay Area Air Q~_~_a. lity Managem~t District in the' mount of $107,000 and through Pedestrian & Bicycle Fund in the amount of $158,200. Failure to, meet the TFCA ftmd~n~ guideline r~[u/reme~rl: of project completion by. October 9, 2003, will result in tho loss of' the TFCA grant~ Should this project not go forward, tvfea~ure Et fundS could be used on anoth~ project, DESCRIFrION: On May 6, 2003, the City Council continued the item for the authorization to solioit bid~ for the Alamo Creek Bike Path from Amaflor Yalley'Bon!evard to North City COPIES TO: g:~iseproj~tm Ore& Bike PathVk8 authorize 2 ITEM NO, ~ L~its afl= receiving concerns from rcsiOmIs Iivi~ ~o~ ~ ~os~ ~ S~ of ~e conc~ ~cl~' toss of p~r~y to ~~ pr~ ~ ~on of ~ ~ong ~o ~ ~d po~ti~ noise ~obl~s ~om ~t~. ~o~ ~d. c~ loi~ on ~e pa~ ~e Co~ s~ed~d ~ ~t~ a field ~p ~ .~ proj~t ~te ~ ~ ~m~ of ~e conc~ ~d on Mo~, M~ 12~. At the May 12th field trip, the following conemm~ were raised during the walkthrou~ mad Staffoffem the corresponding Conoems voiced ~n4n-~ May ,12m~_e~ ~ ~) Weed abatemont along-the path' 2) Graffiti along.the path 3) Slope sloughing on Donghe~y Hills Staff Commen_ts: Any weeds between the fence along p~ate property and the v-ditch will be abated. Where no fence exists between the v4itch and hillside, a 12' wide area shall be ms.intained by reanoving all-dead material only (green~ live trees and shrubs to remain). The Fire Department has no requ/rements for vegetation with/n creek banks except /'or removal of/lead mater/al. (See AttacI~ent 4) Zone 7 has been contacted regarding tho existing graffiti: Per the City's policy, subsequent gra~ti will be removed within one day of.notice. 4) Median break and proposed ca'osswalk on / ~-'ing high warm' in creek The original grading plan for fla~ subdivision moved [he creek away from +dx~ steep slope mad built a b~ch auder ~he slope to. catch any sloughing The_ crosswalk willbe str/ped 'W/fix ~gn~_g~ for both m~~4-a~l~l~[ There is~a~l ~ sun~t audat times of high wa~r in *,he creek. To do so, ma/ntenance staff wo~Itt~.b~e,-.reqaired to drive along the trail to ensure that no one would be .looked in~ Note that there is cutreatly no./ maintemmce st~ available to close the tra/l on / / weekends. ~av trom cm~c~-~d toward the v-ditch to reduce existing and fnrther erosion atthe top o£flae bank. 7) Illegal activities near trails According to the Dublin Police Depar~ent, there have been' very few calls for service near similar City ~'a/Is (see Afl2ohment 5). ~overnment departments ecp., nomic development recreati°n c~__m_u, pi_.t~. Hame > Gover..nmen.t > Text 0nty City' Council .Minutes May 20,2003 CLOSED SESSZON A closed session was held at 6:30 p.m., regarding: Conference with Legal Counsel 1. Anticipated Litigation - Government Code Section $4956.9(b) (1) Fac~s and Ci~umstances:.Govemment Code Section 54956.9 (b)(3)(B) East Dublin Properties Stage I Development Plan, Annexation and Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact' Report. A regular meeting of the Dublin City Council was held on Tuesday, May 20, 2003, in the Council Chambers of the Dubtin Civic Center. The meeting was called to order at 7:04 p.m., by-Mayor Lockhart. ROLL 'CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers McCormick, Oravetz, Sbranti, Zika and Mayor Lockhart. ABSENT: None. PLEDGE OF ALLEG]:ANCE Mayor Lockhart led the Councit, Staff and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag, REPORT ON CLOS;ED SESS3;ON ACT/:ON Mayor Lockhart advised that there was no action taken during the Closed Session. ACCEPTANCE OF G3;FS TO C~[T~ FROM ST. PATR3~Ci('S DAY SPONSORS 7:05 p.m. 3,1 (150-70) Parks & Community Services Manager Paul HcCreary presenbed the Staff Report and advised that the 2003 St, Patrick's Day Celebration was heid on Saturday and.Sunday, March 1.5-I7, in downtown Dublin. Inclement weather early on Sunday only marginally deterred attendance at the Festival,.which exceeded 40,000 peopie. The City received $25,000 in. sponsorships for the weekend, in addition, the City received overwhelming support in the .form of in-kind donations of goods and services. s modified by Council. APPROVAL OF NOTICE OF EXEMPTION AND AUTHORIZATION TO SOLICIT BIDS, CONTRACT NO. 03-08, ALAMO CREEK .BIKE PATH- AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD TO NORTH CITY LIMITS 11:00 p.m. 7..1 (600-35). Public Works Director Lee Thompson presented the Staff Report and PowerPoint. presentation and advised that at its May 6, 2003 meeting, the City Council. continued the item for the authorization to solicit bids for the Alameda Creek Bike Path from Amador Valley Boulevard to North City Limits after receiving concerns from residents living along the proposed path. Some of those concerns included loss of privacy to adjacent property owners, disruption of wildlife along Alamo Creek, and problems from motorized scooters and children potential noise-lo~ he Council. ct.-sitff~view some 0fthe concerns firs~h°~'o~v~°~t-a~,~~~ ~- ~[¢ [.~'y*~2;~.."~r~h~'~ep-ort and PowerPoint presentatmn was pr p //~rev.iew and respond to concerns voiced during.the field trip, including: weed abatement along the.path; graffiti along.the path; slope sloughing on Dougherty Hills; median break and. proposed, crosswalks on Willow Creek Drive as not safe; closure of path entrances ar night and/or during high water in creek; erosion on Alamo Creek bank; illegal activities near trails;-vehicles entering trail; and development in the o This project was identified in the 2000-2005 Capital Improvement Program to begin construction in FY 2001-2002'. Due to Staff workload and coordination issues with Zone 7, Staff requested an extension to expend the Transportation Fund for Clean Air. (TFCA) funds. The current TFCA funding guidelines require' the project to be completed by October 9, 2003. The project has appeared in the City's Five-Year Capital Improvement Program since FY 1994-95, and has also been identified in the City's General Plan since September 1992. Staff recommends that the Council approve the Notice of Exemption.under the 2002 California Environmental Quality Act, Section 1530'1, Class t(c), and Section 15304, Class 4(h), and authorize Staff to solicit bids for Contract No. 03- 08. During the PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Thompson stated that the first few pictures in the presentation showed.the limits of the pathway from Amador Valley Boulevard north of the City.limihs. Several photos showed that the existing locked trail, or maintenance road at this point, is about 15' wide. The westerly 12' would be paved. Note: Balance of testimony related to this i/em transcribed verbatim. Mr. Thompson stated: One of the items had to do with how much of the existing plant material had t.o.be removed for fire control. Fire Prevention Staff examined-the.trail and.made recommendations on what would be required along the trail. All of the weeds to be cleared would have to be cut.to no higher than four inches. Trees in the fire break area would need to be limbed up to 6'. Allthat area would be on the west side of the trail; the .east side of. the trail, which is in the creek, would not need plant material removed. Where 'there are no homes adjacent to the trail, the weeds .wOuld have to be knocked down to about twelve' on the west side; none on the.. east side. Any of the green shrubs or trees would not have to be cut. All of the weeds would have to be knocked down in those areas adjacent to homes, basically the total area from the path to.the fence. Cm. Zika asked: Would this have to be done if the trail was not there? Mt'. Thompson advised: Yes, it should be. Continuing his presentation, Mr. Thompson stated: During the field trip, a couple of areas of graffiti were noticed on retaining walls. If the City took it over, per the City's policy, the ~affiti would be removed within one day. The areas where there is green, irrigated ~oundcover would not have to.be cut. The next slide shows, an area where there was concern about landslide or sloughing of the. hilt above the trail. The whole cut pictured was caused by when the creek used to wind around directly into the base of that hill and it.cut down so that the hill. kept falling into the creek. When the Villages were first proposed, the Soils' Engineer' recommended that the creek .be relocated and the little oxbow was filled in and there was an area that is an area that is a fiat plain to catch any of the slough that comes off of the slope. The developer was required to put a fence around the top so that people using the open space park would not get too close to the top of that slope. There was concern about pedestrians crossing at Willow Creek, so Staff went north on theIron Horse Trail to see what the other cities have done. This pa~cular slide shows Prospect. Avenue in Danville, It has a sitrfilar residential area where people cross. What they've done is sign for crosswalk. They have stop signs for the bikes and peds, and in this case instead of painting the crosswalk, they actually raised it a.couple of inches, Here is an example on Linda Mesa Avenue in Danville. It' Mitigated Negative Declaration Reference: Page 4, 3rd Paragraph- "The proposed Alamo Creek' Path is anticipated to be a local pathway,, used by local . Dublin residents and vis/_to.r.~. However, there would be a connection to other regional paths in the Dublin area via a proposed Class II bikeway on Amador Valley Boulevard immediately south of the proposed path." CONTRADICTIVE STATEMENTS Agenda Statement, City Council Meeting Date: May 6, 2003 Reference: Page 2, 2nd paragraph- "The project would pave the existing gravel maintenance road along the west side of Alamo Creek and would not require the removal of any vegetation. Staff anticipated that this trail would be us~ed primarily as aiogg~ng and wa~lkin~ trail by the people livin~g. Sn thi.q n~.ighborhgcd~-. The pathway would ultimately connect to other trails, but would not be a major regional trail." City Council Minutes May 06, 2003 Reference: Page 11, 1s~ Paragraph- Staff anticipates that this trail would be u. sed primarily as a iogg/ng and walking trail by t~living in thi~ n~Sgh~he pathway woul4 ultimately ctnnect to other trails, but would not be a major regional trail." Agenda Statement, City Council Meeting Date: May 20, 2003 Reference: Page 3, Last Paragraph- "Although the project would pave the existing gravel maintenance road along the west side of Alamo Creek, it would not require the removal of any shrubs or trees. Dry grass will be cut. Staff anticipates that this trail would be..used prim~_!y_l as a iogging and walking trail bT~ the eop.~? living in t~d. The pathway would ultimately connect to other trails, bu~t w.o. ulS~-ot be a mai or regional ~ The Mitigated Negative Declaration states that the path would be "used by local Dublin residents and visitors." This is counter to the description by Council that "this trail would be used ~rimaril¥ as a ,iog~n~ and walking trail by the [}collie living in this neighborhood." C.ITY CLER. AGENDA STATEMENT CITY. COUNCIL MEETING DATE: MaY 6, 2003 SUIgJECT: Authorizatio~ to'Solicit Bids - Contract No. 03-08, Alamo Creek .Bike Path- Amador Valley Boulevard-to, North City Limits Report Prepared-by:- Lee $. T~mpson, Public 'Woblcs Director ATTACHMENTS: Project Site Map FI/~ANCIAL STATEMlgNT. ' Budget for this project: Salades/De~c:. Improveancnts: TOTAL:. FY2002-03 ..FY 2'003-04 ~ $ 52,100 $ 7,1.00 $ 59,200 '.$ o7,ooo.S. 99 oo,- $206oo0 $~159,!00" $' ~06;100" $ 265,200 This project wilt. bo funded through a Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA). grant l}om-the..Bay Area,~ Quality Management District in the amount .of $107,000 .and 'Measure ]3.Pedestrian. &'Bicyele 'lhm~ i~; tJae mount of $158,200. DESCRIPTION: The. Alamo .Creek Bike Path. project-would construct a i~edestrian mad bicy~!e path along Alamo Creek between the n6~h City Limits to Amador. Valley Boulevard. This project will pave the existing Zone 7 Water Ag~mcfs maintm~auce road along the west side of the Alamo Creek between north' City Limits and Amador Valley BouleVard with the exception of the portion of mad within Alamo Creek Park '(s~ attached location map). The aspl2alt ..concrete path -will. he approximately 12 feet wide and run along the existing concrete.v, ditch. This project was identified in the 2000-2005 Capital Improveanent Program to begin construction in FY 2001-2002. Due to Staff workload and eoordinaion issues with ZOne 7, Staffrequested an extension t~ expend-the TFCA funds. The current TFCA funding guidelines requires the project to 'be completed by October 9, 2003.' Staffis anticipating cxmstmction to start in lruue 2003 with' completion in August 2003. Staff recently sent out informational/totices to the Douglaerty Villages neighborhood and several negative comments have been received in return. g:huiscprojXklamo Creek Bike. Path~A8 authorize COPiES TO: ITEM. NO. 'The concerns have generally included loss of privacy, dim~banoe of wildlife, .and potential noise problems. w~uld not re, quire the r~moval of any vegetation. Staff antieipatez tha~ this trail woma oe us~ p. j.nm~.~. y a~ jog~rLg and walldng trail by ~e people living in this neighborhood. The pathway would ~t~iat~ly co~t~ othor ~ails, but would not be a major rogionalWaiL ~ . Staff reeomrnonds that the City Council authorize Staff to soHdt bids for Con/x-act No. 03-08, Alamo Crook Bike Path Project- Axuador Valley BoUlevard to lqorth City Lknits. Page 2 'The City of Dublin, California partment$ economic development recreation community . > ..G._o_v_e_r..n._.m_~n_g > Tex~...on_~l _C_Cp_r_r. _e.n.t__A. ~.n_d...~. .~_mr .e..._E_e_c.t.,~ ,.9_ffi__cj._a.. Is... H u_n.....c..i.p ~.L G .o.¢_e City Council Minutes May .06 2003 CLOSED SESSION A closed session was held at 6:30 p.m., regarding: 1, CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION (Subdivision (a) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code) - Name of case: City of Dublin v. Dublin Land Co., Alameda County Superior Court No. V-0:LS:[00-2 2, CONFERENCE WTTH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION (Subdivision (a) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code) - Name of case: Dubray v. City of Dublin, Alameda County Superior Court No. 20020'56128 3, CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION - Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code - One potential case 4. PUBLI;C EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION i. ~ (Government Code Section 54957) - Title: City Attorney ................ ~ ?"- ................................................ : .......................................................................................................................................... A regular meeting of the Dublin City Council was held on Tuesday, May 6, 2003, in the Council Chambers of the Dublin Civic Center. The meeting was called to order at 7:0:[ p.m., by Mayor Lockhart. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers McCormick, Oravetz, Sbranti, Zika and Mayor Lockhart. ABSENT: None. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Lockhart led the Council, Staff and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. .......................................... P~E~.O.R~E_QLN CLQ$_ED__SESSIO. BL AC_'['[ O. N Mayor Lockhart announced that no action was taken. REQUEST FOR SUPPORT OF PROGRAM "' OPERATION: WELCOME http://www.ci.dubl[n.ca.us/MinutesDet~dl.cfm?MinutesZD=0XW61532200326438&PL=g°w--. 6/2/2003 ~The City of Dublin, California Staff anticipates that this trail would be used primarily as a jogging and walking trail by the people living in this neighborhood. The pathway would ultimately connect to other trails, but would not be a major The hours propose ame as for parks, from dawn to one hour after dusk. Cm. Sbranti asked how tong the trail is from Amador Valley Boulevard to the end. Mr. Thompson stated it is almost a mile. Cm. Oravetz stated he thought it is a little more than a mile. Cm. Zika stated there is currently a chain link fence on part of it. Will there be one the length .of the trail? Mr. Thompson stated it is not chain link the whole way, but we could add this. Vm. McCormick asked if Zone 7 owns the road. Mr. Thompson stated it is on Zone 7 property and they use it for maintenance. Vm. HcCormick asked basically what's changing other than paving it? Mr. Thompson replied about once a month, or more if needed. Dale Meyers, Zone 7 General Manager, stated they have seasonaI crews that go through and spray weeds and when there are high waters they have crews watching for washouts. Once or twice a month is a high usage for this area. They hope to open up as many trails as possible. Livermore and Pleasanton have gone through similar discussions, It has been their experience that once the trails are open there have actually been very few complaints. Vm. McCormick asked who polices the trails? Mr. Meyers stated the local police departments. They depend on signs and chain link fences. The security is actually enhanced by having public access. .......................... Gm~-Sl~.Fant-i-...asl<e d-.-who---wo uld- b e4n.,-c-.har<je ~f-.t-h e--ma-i.ntena,nc~- ...................................... Mr. Thompson stated when we enter into an agreement we take over the maintenance and liability. http://www.ci.dublin.ca.us/MinutesDetait.cfm?MinuteslD=0XW61532200326438&PL=gow... 6/2/2003 CZTY CLERK AGENDA STATEMENT CrI'Y COUNCIL MEETING DATE: May 20, 2003 Aptwoval of Notice of Ex~aption and Authorizatioa to'Solicit Bids Contra~ No. 0~,08, A! .smo On~k ~ Path- Amador Valley R~ort Prepm'e.d by: Lgg ~..Thon~son, Publi~ Nrtwis D~r ATTAr: RECO~ATION: 1) Approw Notio~ ofEx~ ancl~ 2002 California Euvir~nmontal Qn~_fity A~ (CFt~A), Se~ion 15301, Class l (c), .im~l Section 15304, C~ ~), for ~o ~ B~ Au~o~e S~ m ~v~ f~ bi~ or ~de S~~ Budget for this proj e, ct: $ 59,20o s 206,oo(~. $ 265,2~o On M~y 6, 2003, ~ City Co~c~l c, onti~ ttm ii~mNArC~; D~ON:a~ to solioit bids for thz Alamo Creek Bike Path from ~ ¥~lley Boutovard to ____ COPIF~ TO: Vehicles cntcrinff trail ~) Issu~ of dowlopme~t in open spaco oonddor ~ and maintmsn~ v~hicles ~Iy will b~ allowed on lh~ trail. A f~.~ gate and rcmovabI~ bOlIard with a lock wflI'mstfict other vehicI~ from TI~ issue of creating pedestrian, bicy~lo, and coni~ is. addrca.scd in sm, re'al placos iR Dublin's C~n~ Pla~ Chapter 3, the Parks and Opera Spaoe Bl~mont, disotm~ ~ cr~ and sl0pos 3.1.B). The sang c. hap~ also contains Policy 3~3.D, ~romot~ the inchm/on of ~ Miring, and/or equcs~an tr~___"!~ wiflia d~sigaat~ open Blemmt of the Gmeral Plan, ~on*__.~. s a guiding polioy to ~romot~ accx~s to stream comidors 'for . passive moroafionat use . . . "(Polioy 7.i.,.~). Although tha~ ar, also potioios in tb~ F_lamom which ~ ~stricaag &wolopmaut on slolxa of ovor 30% and in dosigaated open apaoo ~ tho oroation of a raereatioaal trail along stroam corridor is not coosiderod Thom are s, wrat otb= Opon gpaco be~m ~ in~Iuding along Tassajam Cx~k ia the Bastem Dub~n S-'p~c Plan Area, ~ Canyon Cro~lc in Dublin's woatmll' ~jlls, also along portions of Atto Cre~ itsolf soulh Amsdor Valley Boul~ard. time Staff asked the Council to award a contract for construction of the Bike Path. We anticipate that Staff will bring .a proposed contract for constracfion of the Bike Path to the Council in August 2005." Mayor Lockhart further stated: "The Council has received information from residents near the proposed Alamo Creek Bike Path of their intention to file suit to challenge the Council's May ZO, g00$ approval of a Notice of Exemption for the proposed Alamo Creek Bike Path. Such information was received by the Council after the agenda for this meeting was posted. I therefore MOVE that the Council find there is a need to discuss the Notice of Exemption at tonight's meeting because of the possibility of litigation; that the need to take such action came to the a~ention of the City after the agenda was 'posted; and that an item be added to the agenda as Item 9.2 pursuant to Government Code Section 549 54.2 to read as follows: "Consideration of Rescission of Notice of ExemptiOn for Alamo Creek Bike Path." Mayor Lockhart advised that this motion required a 4/5 vote. On motion of Mayor Lockhart, seconded by Cm. Zika, and'by unanimous vote the City Council approved the addition of Item 9.2 "Consideration of Rescission of Notice of Exemption for Alamo Creek Bike Path" to the City Council agenda for discussion at this meeting. CONSIDERATION OF RESCISSION OF NOTICE OF EXEMPTION FOR ALAMO CREEK BIKE PATH This item v~as added fo the axenda, as Item 9.3 pu~rsuant fo Government code Section 64-954.2: City Manager Richard Ambrose presented the Staff Report~ and advised that, since'the May 20th Council meeting regarding this particular item, Staff has reviewed the action taken by the Council. In order to assure the residents in the community that the City is environmentally responsible, Staff has determined that it would be prudent to do some additional work which the Council has already authorized. Since the City is doing that work, it would be appropriate that the Council rescind its action approving the Notice of Exemption for the Alamo Creek Bike Path. Cm. Oravetz concurred that environmental issues should be looked at before the City proceeds. CiTY COUNCIL MIN[ITES ¥'OL~Jh;I'E 22 REGULAR MEETING June 3., 20(~3 PAGE 385 On motion of Cm. Sbranti, seconded by Vm. McCormick~ and by unanimous vote~ the City CounciI rescinded the May 20, 2003, Notice of Exemption for the Alamo Creek Bike Path. II.I There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:48 p.m. Meeting minutes taken and prepared by Fawn Holman, Deputy City Clerk. ATTEST: ~ L ~r Clerl~ CITY COUNCIL MINUTES V©LUME 22 REGU'LAR MEETkNG June 3~ PAGE 386 City of Dublin Alamo Creek Bike Path Response to Environmental Comments Introduction An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) dated July 2003 was prepared for this project and distributed for public review in July and August, 2003. The proposed project involves construction of a bicycle path along the westerly bank of Alamo Creek along an existing Zone 7 Water Agency maintenance road between Amador Valley Boulevard and the northerly city limits in the City of Dublin. Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and implementing CEQA Guidelines, after completion of the IS/MND, lead agencies are required to consult with and obtain comments from public agencies and organizations having jurisdiction by law over elements of the project and to provide the general public with an opportunity to comment on the environmental document. Although Lead Agencies are not required to respond to substantive comments on environmental issues raised during the MND review period, such responses are provided as a courtesy to commenters. As the lead agency for this project, the City of Dublin held a 30-day public review period between July 7, 2003 and August 5, 2003. This document contains all public comments received during the public review process regarding the IS/MND and responses to those comments. Included within the document is an annotated copy of the comment letter, identifying specific comments, followed by a response to that comment. Summary of IS/MND Comment Letters Comment letters were received by the City of Dublin during the public comment period on the IS/MND from the following agencies, organizations and other interested parties. No. Commenter Date Federal Agencies None State Agencies 1 Office of Planning and Research 8/8/03 2 Department of Fish and Game 8/5/03 No. Commenter Date Local Agencies 3 Dublin San Ramon Services District 7/17/03 4 Alameda County Flood Control & 8/5/03 Water Conservation District, Zone 7 Citizens 5 Colleen Long 7/16/03 6 Jacqueline Osterloh 7/17/03 7 Allan Moore (Gagen, McCoy et. al.) 8/5/03 8 Diane and David Cowden 8/5/03 Responses to Comments Letter 1: State Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Comment: State Clearinghouse has received the IS/MND and submitted the document to selected state agencies for review. The State review period ended on 8/7/03. Response: Comment acknowledged regarding completion of the public period. No further discussion is required. Letter 2: Department of Fish and Game Comment 2a: The City of Dublin has not provided information about the creek buffer in relation to surrounding permitted developments. This reach of Alamo Creek Was been presumably planned to mitigate impacts associated with previously permitted developments or other creek impacts. The City should provide background information to indicate whether the buffer area was conserved without provisions for public access or as a specific mitigation measure to reduce impacts on the environment. Response: In 1986, the City of Dublin approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project known as the Villages of Alamo Creek (SCH# 85091009 ). This environmental document considered the impacts of developing a project consisting of 1,165-unit residential dwellings, a neighborhood park, related ancillary commercial uses and relocation of a portion of Alamo Creek. The project site included then-vacant land on the east and west sides of Alamo Creek north of the current Iron Horse Trail, Alamo Creek Bicycle Path Environmental Response to Comments City of Dublin Page 2 August2003 west of Dougherty Road, east of the Dougherty Hills Open Space area, and south of the northerly Dublin City Limit line. The Biological Resource section of the Initial Study identified riparian and aquatic habitat loss along Alamo Creek as potentially significant impacts. Measures included in the document to mitigate impacts to riparian habitat included placement of temporary fencing during construction, preparation of an erosion and siltation control plan, implementation of a revegetation effort on reconstructed channel banks, securing of a Streambed Alteration Agreement with the Department of Fish and Game and minimization of human activity in the stream corridor itself. The environmental document did not include the establishment or maintenance of any buffer or restricted area adjacent to Alamo Creek. The Recreation section of the same document identified that the development of a bicycle system along the east side of Alamo Creek from Amador Valley . Boulevard to the northerly site boundary (i.e. the northerly City Limit) as a part of the project description. The document also noted that construction of the bikeway would serve the recreational needs of the future residents of the area. Therefore, the previous environmental document adopted by the City of Dublin in this portion of the City anticipated future use of the Alamo Creek corridor for recreational use and did not restrict use of the creek bank for this purpose. Comment 2b: Impacts to creeks and wetlands should be avoided where possible. Impacts and mitigation measures should acknowledge that wetlands and waters in developed areas continue to have value from a water quality perspective, but may be limited in their ability to provide habitat for native wildlife. If the City assumes there is no significant biological value along the creek because it is surrounded by development, future development should not be allowed to mitigate impacts by conserving creeks in development areas. Response: The Biological Resources section of the IS/MND describes vegetation and wildlife resources present within that portion of the Alamo Creek corridor proposed for the bicycle path. The document identifies species which are present and describes likely impacts which would occur if the existing Zone 7 maintenance road were to be converted to a bicycle path. These impacts were evaluated and found not to be significant. These conclusions were based on the fact that there is no grading or other disturbance proposed for the creek bank, that vegetation removal would be Alamo Creek Bicycle Path Environmental Response to Comments City of Dublin Page 3 August2003 limited, that use of the area by existing species would continue and that construction would not interfere with species movements or migration. Contrary to the commenter's assumption, the IS/MND did not find that there is no biological value along this reach of Alamo Creek because it is surrounded by development. The creek corridor does provide habitat for a variety of species and construction of the proposed bike path would not significant effect these species. The IS/MND identifies a group of diurnal (active during the day) species which would modify their specific areas of use depending on the level of human activity, but would continue to use the creek corridor. This impact was not considered significant. No species currently found within the creek corridor would be completely displaced. Comment 2c: Construction of the proposed bike path will significantly increase human disturbance, further degrading this reach of the Alamo Creek corridor. The applicant should enhance and protect in perpetuity, through a conservation easement, an equivalent area of Alamo Creek. Measures to stabilize creek banks, create a varied channel bottom andenhance opportunities for native plant species should be considered for mitigation to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. Response: The comment does not state how the IS/MND analysis is deficient and provides no details on the nature or extent of the claimed increase in human disturbance or how it will degrade the creek corridor. The IS/MND analysis does not identify any significant impacts on biological resources resulting from construction or future use of the proposed bike path. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required. Letter 3: Dublin San Ramon Services District · Comment: The proposed project does not affect the District. Response: Comment acknowledged. No further response required. Letter 4: Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Zone 7 Comment 4a: The City of Dublin will need to obtain a modification to the existing license agreement with Zone 7 to allow for this project to be implemented. As an option, the City may wish to have a license agreement with Zone 7 to cover all Zone 7 facilities within the City of Dublin. Alamo Creek Bicycle Path Environmental Response to Comments City of Dublin Page 4 August 2003 Response: Comment acknowledged. The City of Dublin Public Works Department staff is presently negotiating a master license agreement for all Zone 7 facilities in the City of Dublin. The agreement will be concluded prior to commencement of the Alamo Creek Bike Path project. Comment 4b: Due to the size of the proposed Project, the proposed project may be considered as a construction project by the State Water Resources Control Board and a Notice of Intent may need to be filed. Response: Public Works Department staff is prepared to file a Notice of Intent with the State Water Resources Control Board. Comment 4c: A discrepancy is noted between paragraph 4 of page 3 of the IS/MND document and Exhibit 4. The project description should be consistent with Exhibit 4. Response: Final construction plans and specifications for the Bike Path will be consistent with Zone 7 requirements per the terms of the license agreement between the City of Dublin and Zone 7. Comment 4d: All maintenance activities along the proposed Bike Path, including vegetation removal, pathway sweeping and litter control must comply with the terms of the license agreement. Response: Under the terms of the license agreement, all maintenance and related activities undertaken by the City of Dublin will be consistent with the terms of the license agreement. Le~er 5: Colleen Long Comment 5a: The commenter is shocked and dismayed regarding the proposal to extend a bike trail through the area. Friends and neighbors have expressed obvious concerns, including safety, environmental issues, fire hazard and vandalism. Response: The comment mentions but does not detail the "environmental issues" of concern for the bike trail. Anticipated environmental impacts of the proposed project have been addressed in the IS/MND. With adherence to Alamo Creek Bicycle Path Environmental Response to Comments City of Dublin Page 5 August 2003 the mitigation measures included in the IS/MND, no significant environmental impacts have been identified. Comment 5b: The commenter is concerned about future property values in the neighborhood if this proposal comes to pass. Property owners have paid a premium for their lots with assurances that the creekside location would remain untouched. With the proposed bike path, properties will be impacted in a negative way. Response: Comment acknowledged. These are opinions of the commenter regarding property values and are not comments on the environmental features of the proposed project. Letter 6: Jacqueline Osterloh Comment 6a: The commenter is opposed to the project due to impacts on the natural eco-system, including ducks, herons, deer and other species. Use of the area for people will increase the amount of garbage on the proposed trail. Response: The Biological Resources section of the IS/MND describes the existing biological setting and examines whether the project could substantially affect protected species. The analysis does not identify the wildlife noted in the comment as protected species, and does not identify significant impacts to protected species of plant or animal life in or near Alamo Creek due to the proximity of adjacent development. The project does not involve construction in natural habitat areas or in Alamo Creek. Although human activity on the proposed trail could increase generation of garbage and litter, litter and garbage will be periodically collected and disposed of by the City of Dublin Maintenance Department. Comment 6b: The commenter has concerns about safety of children who could drown in the creek and the possibility of increased crime. The proposed trail is secluded and cannot be easily patrolled by the Dublin Police Department. Response: In regard to child safety, the IS/MND notes that Alamo Creek is not in a 100-year flood plain, nor is the project anticipated to cause flood hazards. Zone 7 staff is not aware of a history of people drowning in other Zone 7 facilities in the District. The City also notes that the bike path will be closed Alamo Creek Bicycle Path Environmental Response to Comments City of Dublin Page 6 August 2003 by locking the existing gates during periods of major rainstorms to minimize risk of drowning. In regard to the possibility of increased crime, the Dublin Police Department, who was consulted during the preparation of the IS/MND, did not anticipate a significant increase in crime based on their experience with other public recreation paths in the City. Comment 6c: The Iron Horse Trail is close to Alamo Creek and should suffice for the needs of bicyclists. Bicyclists can also use the bike trail on Dougherty along Camp Parks. Response: Comment acknowledged. This is the commenter's opinion and is not a comment on the environmental features of the proposed project. Comment 6d: The commenter desires that the project area remain undisturbed. Response: Comment acknowledged. This is the commenter's opinion and is not a comment on the environmental features of the proposed project. The City notes, however, that although the level of improvements in the creek area is low, the proposed path route is not a natural, completely undisturbed area. Zone 7 actively manages vegetation control in the creek and large segments of the creek banks are lined with rip-rap. Further, the path is proposed atop an existing maintenance road that is traversed at least monthly by Zone 7 trucks. Some of the path route borders on open space, but the route also borders existing residential development. As noted in the IS/MND, the public "presence" will increase along the path, however, this increased use will still be low intensity use typical of walkers, joggers and bicyclists. As reflected in the IS/MND and in this and other responses, the City finds that use of the current maintenance road will increase, but there is no substantial evidence that the increase could cause significant environmental effects. Le~er 7: Allan Moore Comment 7a: The comment letter summarizes a history of the project and offers general comments with regard to traffic, noise, loss of privacy and related health, safety and welfare impacts of the project. The City is also urged to view the proposed project from a land use viewpoint as if no immediate funding source exists. Alamo Creek Bicycle Path Environmental Response to Comments City of Dublin Page 7 August 2003 Response: Comments on the history of the project are noted. Specific responses related to traffic, noise, loss of privacy and related health, safety and welfare impacts are included below. The comment regarding viewing the project from a land use viewpoint is not a comment on environmental topics and no response is required, although the City notes that a public trail has long been contemplated along this route, as reflected in the General Plan Circulation Element and the City's adopted Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Comment 7b: Instead of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, the City must prepare an Environmental Impact Report. Information presented with this letter indicates that a fair argument can be made that significant impacts may occur and, notwithstanding other evidence in the record, an EIR must then be prepared. Response: The commentor asserts that a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration is a mere statement of why a project will have no significant environmental effects, including through incorporation of mitigation measures, and does not require an Environmental Impact Report. The commentor further argues that under the fair argument standard the City should have prepared an Environmental Impact Report for the project rather than a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The comment is misleading to the extent it implies that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (Mitigated ND) consists of a simple conclusory statement. The draft Mitigated ND for the bike path project consists of an initial study with a project description, a completed CEQA Guidelines checklist of environmental impacts, and discussions of the checklist items. Far from being a "mere statement", the draft Mitigated ND circulated for public review exceeded 50 pages. The public comment letters and City responses will also be part of the Mitigated ND, which will be reviewed in its entirety by the City Council before deciding on the project. The City agrees that CEQA's fair argument standard applies when it decides whether to prepare a negative declaration or an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for a project. The City disagrees, however, that the fair argument standard was met in light of the whole record for the project. CEQA recognizes that projects may often be controversial, but that opinions, speculation and fears about the environmental effects of a project must still have a factual basis in order to be substantial evidence. Similarly, even comments from an expert are only as reliable or credible as their foundation evidence. As subsequent responses demonstrate, some of the asserted impacts are not environmental issues. In other instances, the commentor presents opinions and generalized concerns on various issues, but does not present Credible evidence on the potential occurrence and significance of Alamo Creek Bicycle Path Environmental Response to Comments City of Dublin Page 8 August 2003 those concerns. The City considered the project under the fair argument standard and determined that a Mitigated ND was the appropriate CEQA document for the bike path project. Comment 7C: The City has provided contradictory information as to anticipated use of the proposed Bike Path. A City Council staff report dated May 20, 2003 indicated that Zone 7 personnel use the existing maintenance road approximately one time per month. The staff report goes on to indicate that use of the maintenance road as a bike path would result in little or no increase in use of the path. A letter report from Abrams Associates (attached to the comment letter) indicates that there could be as many as 30 persons using the proposed bike path during peak hours. Based on this information, the City's estimate of use of the pathway that was included in the IS/MND is faulty and invalid. Response: The commenter is incorrect that the IS/MND assumes only minor increases of one trip per month on the proposed bike path. Page 43 of the IS/MND (Section 11, Noise) indicates that noise impacts are based on comparable noise events measured at a similar bike path that traverses Corte Madera and Larkspur in Marin County. Twenty-six pass-by trips were recorded on this comparable trail, which was then used to forecast noise impacts for the proposed Alamo Creek Bicycle Path. Although the factual foundation for the conclusions in their letter is scant and does not allow the reader to assess its credibility, City notes that this number of peak hour trips is consistent with the projections supplied by the commenter's own expert, Abrams Associates, as set forth in their letter of August 1, 2003. Nowhere does the IS/MND cite or reference the May 20, 2003 City Council staff report. The City further notes that increased use is not itself an environmental impact; instead, it is part of the project description and is assessed against the initial study checklist standards to determine if the increased use could, in turn, affect the environment. This analytic process in reflected in the IS/MND. Comment 7d: Based on a report prepared by Charles Salter Associates, acoustic consultants, implementation of the bike path will significantly increase noise levels above the existing background noise levels for residences adjacent to the pathway. Noise impacts will therefore be significant. A copy of the Salter report is attached to the comment letter. Response: The conclusion that noise impacts of the proposed project will be significant is not supported by the findings of the Salter report'primarily because the Salter report uses a different noise descriptor (Leq, maximum noise level)rather than 24-hour average noise level descriptors used in the Alamo Creek Bicycle Path Environmental Response to Comments City of Dublin Page 9 August 2003 IS/MND and the Noise Element of the Dublin General Plan. The Salter report states that the proposed bike path noise sources will be audible, which is also stated in the IS/MND. Clearly not all projects that create audible noise will also generate significant noise impacts. In assessing the anticipated increase in noise, the IS/MND uses an objective noise descriptor, DNL, which is a 24-hour average noise level similar to that used in the City of Dublin General Plan Noise Element. As stated in the IS/MND, noise from the proposed project would increase by less than 1 dB due to noise from the project and the DNL is clearly within the City's "normally acceptable" range for residential development and would therefore not exceed the City's outdoor noise exposure standards. The Salter report does not present any new evidence that the City's outdoor noise standard would be exceeded using a noise descriptor set forth in the Noise Element of the General Plan or that there would be a significant increase in average noise level over existing, ambient noise level. The Salter report also makes the statement that the project will generate sounds having informational content (such as conversations) that do not exist with current noise sources (birds, wind in trees, etc.). The City disagrees that voices do not exist in the study area. Although not specifically measured during site visits, people were observed in yard and patio areas creating audible voices. The Noise Element of the General Plan contains no standards that regulate informational content, only noise. The acoustic analysis completed for the IS/MND used a distance of 25 feet between the trail and the residences. This is the distance between the backyard fence line of the closest single family homes and the centerline of the trail. The individual patios of the multi-family residences are at least 35 feet from the centerline of the trail. These distances are based on the aerial photos in the project's engineering drawings dated June 2003. The comment letter states that outdoor use areas are only 15 feet from the trail. This might refer to a common landscaped area near one or two of the six multi-family buildings along the trail. Because of the closer distance, the noise levels from bike path activity would be approximately 4 dB greater than those at the 25-foot distance used in the IS/MND. Although this would make the noise in the area more audible, it could increase the existing DNL by less than 1 dB. Therefore, the noise impact in the closer outdoor use area would be less than significant. Comment 7e: The proposed bike path would be constructed adjacent to attached and detached single family residences, some of which have minimal or no adjacent yard areas and have bedrooms immediately adjacent to the Alamo Creek Bicycle Path Environmental Response to Comments City of Dublin Page10 August2003 proposed pathway. Use of the bike path would result in path users being able to look directly into front yards or living areas of adjacent homes. Response: Comment acknowledged. The privacy issues raised above are not environmental issues required to be addressed by CEQA and no further response in required. The City notes, however, that existing vegetation and fencing provides a measure of privacy along portions of the route where residences are closer to the proposed path. Comment 7e: Construction of the proposed path will create significant health, safety and welfare impacts, including the potential for drowning hazards to children, the potential for erosion and increases in crime and trespassing on their respective properties. Response: The proposed bike path would be closed during major rain storms to minimize drowning hazards. Based on a recent discussion with Zone 7 staff, there is no record of drowning accidents in Zone 7 facilities. During non-winter months, When use of the bike path would be expected to the highest, minimal water would be present in Alamo Creek. The proposed pathway would use an existing graded roadbed, which would be paved to minimize erosion potential. The issue of crime has been addressed in the IS/MND with the conclusion that the project would not result in significant increases in crime in this portion of the community based on the City's experiences with other creekside paths. Therefore, impacts related to health, safety and welfare would be less-than-significant. Comment 7f: The commenter does not believe, based on the Salter and Abrams reports that the IS/MND identifies all significant impacts and that mitigation measures set forth in the IS/MND will be sufficient to reduce such impacts to a less-than-significant level. Response: The commenter has not identified how the mitigations are deficient nor supplied substantive evidence that the IS/MND is deficient in terms of either the analysis of significance or adequacy of proposed mitigation measures. Letter 8: Diane and David Cowden: · Comment 8a: The commenters note that a discrepancy exists between the City Council staff report of 5/20/03 and the IS/MND regarding disposition of the Alamo Creek Bicycle path Environmental Response to Comments City of Dublin Page 11 August 2003 entry gates to the trail. The commenters were assured that gates would be locked from dusk to dawn but the IS/MND states that the gates would be open. Response: The IS/MND states that gates would be open, but the path would be closed to public access between one hour after dusk and dawn, similar to other Dublin parks. This statement is consistent with the Dublin Municipal Code, which provides that all parks and recreation areas shall be closed from one hour after sunset and shall remain closed until sunrise the following day. (DMC section 5.100.100.) The DMC does not specify the manner of enforcement of the restriction. While closure is enforced in some parks by posting signs, the Council has previously indicated that the closure for the Alamo Creek bicycle path will be enforced by closing the gates. Through this response, the City clarifies that the closure in the Project Description will be enforced through closing and locking the gates one hour after dusk and reopening the gates at dawn as previously directed by the City Council. Comment 8b: There is a discrepancy between the IS/MND which states that the path would be used by local Dublin residents and visitors and testimony given at the City Council that that path would be used primarily as a jogging and walking trail by people living in the neighborhood. Response: Comment acknowledged. There is no apparent discrepancy between these two sources as both anticipate low intensity use primarily by local residents. Alamo Creek Bicycle Path Environmental Response to Comments City of Dublin · Page 12 August 2003 V]LLAG~ Page 54 E REGULAR MEETING - FEBRUARY 25, 1985 A regular meeting of th~ City Council of the City of Dublin was held on Monday, February 25, i985.i.n the meeting room of the Dublin Library. The meeting was called to order at 7:3~ p.m. by Mayor Peter Snyder. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Hegarty, Jeffery, Mof£&tt, Vonheeder and Mayor Snyder. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Mayor led the Council, Staff and those present in the pledge of alleg- iance to the flag. STOP'SIGN REQUEST VIA ZAPATA @ LOS RANCHITOS COURT Mr. Joseph Hatchie, Jr., addressed the Council and expressed concern regarding speeding motorists in the vicinity of Via Zapata and Los Ranchitos Court. Mr. Hatchie cited an instance where a dog had recently bee'n run over, and over the weekend, a child had almost been hit. Mr. Hatchie requested that the City install stop s~gns, speed bumps, or use radar. Lt. Tom Shores indicated he would investigate the location and report back. CONSENT CALENDAR On motion of Cm.. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and bY unanimous vote, the Council took the following actions: Approved Minutes of Regular Meeting of February 11, 1985; Approved Warrant Register in the amount of $370,068..82; Denied claim of Joseph F. Martinez and directed Staff to notify insurance carrier and.claimant; Authorized City participation in the Production of a Senior Citizen's Gold Card'Directory; Related to a Senior Citizen's Center, authorized Staff to request a 1985 ~State.Bond Act RFP Packet and to conduct a needs assessment of Dublin Seniors; RegUlar Meeting ¢M- -30 On motio~ cf Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Hegarty~ amd by unanimous vote, the Council directed Staff to notify Zone 7 of opposition to the development of trails adjacent to those Zone 7 facilities within the City of Dublin, due to the additional security and maintenance expenses which would be incurred by the City. Staff was also directed to emphasize in the letter that Zone 7 maintain and keep the channel running through Dublin free of debris. CALIFORNIANS FOR BETTER TRANSPORTATION MEMBERSHIP ~Catifornians for Better Transportation (CBT) proposes to conduct a public awareness campaign regarding the deterioration of local streets and roads. The City has been invited to join CBT at a membership cost of $250. Cm. Jeffery stated she felt the letter from CBT was very enlightening, but questioned the use of public funds for education/lobbying. Cm. Jeffery questioned if this was a legal expenditure of funds. She felt there were other~options available; i.e. write to Governor Deukmejian in support of Senator Foran'.s bill. Dublin could support this group in ways other than financial. Cm. Moffatt questioned what the process would be after the $250 was paid. Consensus of vhe Council was for Staff vo investigate those concerns expressed and agendize for a future City Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING ESTABLISHMENT OF SPEED LI.MITS Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing. At the regular meeting on February 11, 1985, the City Council conducted a public hearing for the purpose of establishing speed limits on Specified streets. The California Office of .Traffic Safety has provided funding for a comprehensive Traffic Engineering Study. JHK & Associates is conducting the study of which the first element is the establishment of realistic speed limits. The California Vehicle Code (CVC) requires that on specified streets a traffic engineering study must be condUcted to establish appropriate speed limits, provided that radar is used as an enforcement method. When the following conditions exist, a study must be conducted: 1. Roadway width of more than &O feet. 2. More than one-half mile of uninterrupted length. 3. More than one traffic lane in each direction. The CVC also establishes the required by State Law, the following area: criteria to be utilized in the traffic engineering ~study must study. As include the- CM-&-31 Regular Meeting February 25, 1985 1. Measurement of existing Speeds of motorists. 2. Accident records. 3. .Situations not readily apparent to the driver. Based on these legal requirements, JHK & Associates have conducted a traffic engineering study. The law requires prevailing speeds to be a factor in establishing sPeed limits. An initial starting point is the 85th percentile speed. St'ate Law recognizes that the majority of drivers drive at a safe speed and that this must be a consideration in establishing speed limits. The Traffic Engineer then reviews road conditions and accident records. JHK & AssoCiates has considered these areas and based their recommendations on the required factors. NO public comments were made. Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing. On morion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading~and adopted ORDINANCE NO. 5 - 85 ESTABLISHING TR~AFFIC REGULATIONS PUBLIC HEARING ENEA PL'AZA PLAN~ED DEVELOPMENT REZONING APPLICATION Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing. John & Sal Enea, property owners, and Ron Findleton, their architect, are requesting the City to rezone approximately I6 net acres of property at Amador Plaza Road & Dublin~Boulevard from PD/C-O (Planned Development/Admin- istrative Offices) District to PD/C-1 (Planned Development/Retail Business) District. They are requesting the rezoaing to allow future consideration and development of a hotel, restaurant, two five-story office buildings, an addition to the-existing theater, shops and offices. Planning Director Tong explained the three primary issues related to the application: processing of Development Plans, Environmental considerations and .Design considerations. Mr. Tong explained that as a matter of policy, the Council should'decide at what point the Development Plans need to be processed. Staff identified three options which addressed this issue. As a part of the PD application, the applicants propose a reduction in the number of parking spaces required by the movie theaters. Instead of the 480 spaces typically required, the applicants propose 408 stalls with temporary provision of 50 stalls on an adjacent parcel. CM-4-32 Regular Meeting February 25, 1985 Related to'Design considerations, a primary benefit of a Planned Development is'typically superior, quality design, with better site design, landscaping, architecture, and signing than conventional zoning would produce. Since the applicants have nOt submitted information in sufficient detail to permit a.complete analysis, the City Will not know ~f there wiI1 be a superior quality design until the Development Plans are processed. Staff~felt that the best 'course'of action to folloTM would be tO.l) allow the applicant to process the theater ~additions Under the existing PD and 2)~ process the Development Plans for the overall site concurrently with the new PD application. The City would be provided with architectural drawings and more complete site plans and landscaping plans for review and approval. The development of the entire site would~be coordinated. The City· would see what the overall development would look like. This process avoids the piecemeal development approach used prior to incorporation. Ir'also avoids the situation Where a PD is granted allowing certain uses without the· benefit of D~evelopment Plans to show what the project will lock'like. jerry Lemm stated he felt this project was Zik,e a marriage with the City. The Enea Brothers have owned the property since 197~ and they now.want to develop the property in a way that the'City desires. They have been offered $600~000 per acre for the property. ~They have been approached .by numerous individuals and companies regarding the site~ They have had requests for various hotels, ~but £~eel that ±f a hotel ~Were to go in, it would have to be a first class hotel~ They feel this is a kay location and should be~developed · very carefUlly, as it is the last remaining parcel of this size in.Dub!in. Cm. Moffatt queSti°ned'how~l°ng 'the build out was expected to take. Mr. Lemm stated it· would probably be 10 to 12 years. The 2 ~retail buildings and 2 theater additions .wOuld be the first phase with office space probably'being next. Cm. Jeffery felt the plan needed more thought. A good business person should determine the tenants they want, and then go out and seek them. 'Cm. Jeffery stated she had a ~eal problem using a piecemeal approach, and questioned why they could not.submit a concept for the entire property. John Enea indicated, they would have to have an architect make a drawing of the entire 16 acres. This would not be feasible as they may not even get a hotel. They are asking to Come before the Council for approval after each phase. Cm. Jeffery question'ed why, 'if they only want to expand ~the theaters, are they.asking for the zoning now. Jerry L~mm gave an overview of the history of the property. Mayor Snyder Closed the public 'hearing. CM- -33 Regular Meeting February 25, 1985 Om. Vonheeder felt the City Council was losing site of what a Planned DeYelopment is. It allows the City to put more conditions on~a project.and it is to the.benefit of the. City to approve alPD in phases, cm~ Vonheeder stated she felt v~ry comfortable with being able to review the PD prior to each phase of development. ~m. Jeffery felt a PD is granted in trade for something that'the C~ty will get. In this ~case,~we~.need to know what the City can expect. Mayor Snyder questioned Staff regarding the process for an applicant applying for modifications if the entire PD is approved, and then they decide that a certai.n usage is economically Unfeasible. Mayor Snyder also expressed concern about the number of possible modifications that could be requested from now until the ultimate buildout. City Manager Ambrose stated he felt it was premature tO zone until there is a major te'nant. 'Mayor Snyder quesvionad if there was a Sincere intent to build on t~is site as soon as possible. Mr-. Lemm stated they want ~vo proceed with the 2~retaii offices-right away. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. HegartM~ and bM umajor~ity'vote,'the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 13 - 85 ADOPTING A NE.GATIVE. DECLARATION FOR PA 8~-O~0, ENEA PLAZA PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING and RESOLUTION NO. 1~ - 85 REQUIRING DEVELOPMENT PLANS BE SUBMITTED AND PROCESSED CONCURRENTLY WITH THE PLANNED ~EVELOPMENT REZONING CONCERNING PA 8~-0~0 ENEA PLAZA PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING Voting NO on this motion were Cm. Moffatt and Cm. Vonheeder. TRANSIT AUTHORITY JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT For the last year, the City has been participating with the Cities of Pleasanton and Livermore; and Alameda County in the development of a Joint E~ercise of Powers Agreement t'hat would-facilitate the provision of local bus service to each respective entitM. The Policy Committee has developed a final draft Transit Authority Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for City Council~review. This Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement has been reviewed by the City Attorney. City Manager Ambrose d~scussed the basic features, as contained in the Staff Report. Regular ~eeting February 25, 1985 Cm. Jeffery explained the p~ocess by.which the Transit Committee had gotten to this point with the JEPA. Cm. Jeffery answered various'questions and elaborated on certainpoints related to'the'JEPA' Cm. Jef£ery did not feel a need to appoint an alternate for the 2 members from Dublin due to the fact that if one.member is unable to attend, the other member has 2 voting rights ~ On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council approved in concept, with changes discussed, the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement. The Summary Report was discussed with regard to routes. Cm. Jeffery recommended 2.b. but indicated there was a need for public hearings. The timing of the public hearings was discussed. ST. PATRICK'S DAY CELEBRATION Saturday, March 16, 1985 is ~he 2nd Annual St. Patrick's Day Oelebration coordinated bM t~e Dublin/San Ramon ~Lion's Club. The days events include a parade through' Dublin, entertainment and community organization booths at Shannon Center and a dinner/dance ay Shannon Center. A. committee meeting is scheduled for February 28, 1985 tO finalize the arrangements. Dave Beighley, Chairman of the Lion's Club parade committee was present .in the audience. Cm. Jeffery stated it looked like a fun day was being planned. Mayor Snyder commented on the letter received from William Burnham inviting all Councilmembers to he a part of the parade. Ail Councilmembers were asked to contact Mr. Burnham indicating their wiZlingness to participate. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. 'Mo£fatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council approved the St. Patrick's Day Celebration; authorized utilization of police personnel, if necessary, for parade control; and authorized the ihstallation of a banner. POLZCE-SERVICES ANNUAL REPORT FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1984 Dublin Police Services prepared and presented an annual report of crime activity and officer workload for 198~. The repor~ compared 1984 statistics with 1953 and gave a percentage increase/decrease for evaluation assistance. City Manager Ambrose commented on how inclusive the report was. Cm. Moffatt questioned the types of duties assigned to the part time crime prevention assistant. ~CM-4-35 Regular Meeting February 25, 1995 'Cm. Jeffery had questions related tO narcotics siezed and narcotics enforcement activities. Cm. Hegarty commented on the high number of volunteer hours and asked what the City could do to recognize these volunteers and show its appreciation. Lt. Tom Shores indicated he felt~perhaps a picnic or similar type of activity would be nice. RECESS A short recess was called] reconvened. FISCAL YEAR 198~85 MID-YEAR FINANCIAL REVIEW Ail Councilmembers were present when the meeting Staff prepared and presented a report providing an overvi'ew of the City's financial condition at the mid-point of Fiscal Year 198~-85. The report reviewed both revenues and expenditures, as well as their impact on reserve funds. The Council received the relport and Cm. Jeffery stated she felt the report looked very good. 1985 ANNUAL PROPERTY & LIA~BILITY INSURANCE RENEWAL' The City's property and liability insurance is scheduled for renewal on March 1, 1985. The City[s Insurance Broker has outlined'options for the 1985-86 program. The current policy has no deductible. Cost proposals were obtained-~for similar coverage andalso policies offering $5,000 and $10,000 deductibles. Ben Fernandez addressed the Council and gave a brief synopsis of the insurance industry situation facing not only Dublin, but all municipalities. Cm. Hegarty questioned approximately how much Dublin had paid out in claims. Mr. Fernandez responded that he could not be specific, but ~approximately $200,000 had been reserved for claims. Mayor Snyder asked if the City should be working toward some kind of legislation to alleviate this.situation. Mr. Fernandez felt it would be wise for the City to work with the League of California Cities. On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the Council approYed Option A in Staff Report', a fully insured program with no deductible; authorized appropriate budget adjustment of $27,800; and authorized City Manager Ambrose to bind police professional liability insurance if available. ¢M-4-36 Regular Meeting February 25, 1985 OTHER BUSINESS Revenue & Taxation Committee Meeting cm. Jeffery reported that she would be attending a Revenue & Taxation Committee meeting in a couple of .weeks and asked if the Council felt it would be beneficial to request that the League look into setting up some type of risk management system. They could get like cities' together. Cm. Jeffery suggested some sort of resolution related to a self-insured program, She also felt the public needed to be aware of the deep pocket legislation. Traffic Signal, San Ramon Road @ A!costa Boulevard City Manager Ambrose reported that the Dublin and San Ramon Council Liaison Committees had reached an agreement that they wished to propose to their respective Councils regarding the funding of the traffic signal at San Ramon Road and Alcost. a Boulevard. The proposed cost distribution would provide that the City of Dublin would pay 100% of the construction'cost, which is estimated to be $130,000. The City of San Ramon would be responsible for assuming the energy and mainten- ance costs of the signal in perpetufty and for tke future reptaoement of the signal at such time that the equipment' necessitated replacement. On.motion of Cm. J.effery, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council' agreed to proceed wi'th the installation of the signal per the recommendation 'of the Liaison Committees. DSRSD Garbage Franchise Renewal City. Manager Ambrose reported that it had been brought to the City's attention-that DSRSD ±s in the process of renewing .their garbage franchise agreement with Oakland Scavenger, approximately 1 year before its:expira- tion. Since the City Council had, at a previous meeting, indicated a desire to proceed with a review .of the DSRSD services, Staff felt it would be appropriate' to send a letter to DSRSD requesting that they delay any con- side'ration regarding the renewal of their garbage franchise until represen- tatives of the Cities of Dublin and San Ramon have had an opportunity to discuss the matter with representatives of the District. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council directed Staff to send a letter to the Dublin San Ramon Services District requesting that they'delay any consideration regarding the renewal of their garbage franchise with Oakland Scavenger until represent'atives of the Cities of Dublin and San Ramon have had an opportunity to discuss the matter with representatives of the Disbrict. RegularMeeting ¢M-4-37 February 25, 1985 Harbor Bay Tour City Manager Ambrose reported that he had talked with the people regarding the HoVer Express tour and they indicated they could'accommodate Dublin after April. . . . . Camp Parks Activity City Manager Ambrose reported he had been contacted by a member of the press related to some kind of an agreement made between Alameda County, the Army and the Navy related to some type of exchange of Camp Parks property. Dougherty Hills Open Space Cm. Vonheeder questioned the status after the recenb field trip to the Dougherty Hills open space. City Manager Ambrose reported that Fire Chief Phillips has requested a little more t±me with ~egard to weed abatement. Dublin Connection Cm. Vonheeder requested further direction regarding the C±ty'.s reception for the Irish Marathon .Runner being planned. A room has.been tentati, vety reserved at Shannon Center on July 15th from 5:00 to 7:00 p.'m~ Lew Dory Cadillac - Appea~ Discussion was'held regarding the Planning Commission's recent decision to allow Lew Dory Cadillac a 90 day extension to meet the conditions set forth allowing them to open far business. Cm. Hegarty felt the Council should review the situation and reported that he would appeal the Planning Commission's decision. Staff was directed to notice a public hearing for the Council to hear the appeal at its regular meeting on March 11,'1985. Regular Meeting February 25, 1985 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, at 11:10 p.m., the meeting was adjourned to a special meeti'ng on. Monday,' March ~, 1985 at 7:00 p.m., for a stUdy session f'or't'985 City Goals & Objectives. ~"ity Cle~ cM- -39 Regular Meeting February.25, 1985 CITY OF DUBLIN AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 25, 198Y SUBJECT : Zone 7 Final Arroyo Management Plan Administrative Draft EXHIBITS ATTACHED : Notice of Public Hearing Zone 7 ArroYo Management Plan RECOMMENDATION ~See below FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None DESCRIPTION : At the City Council meeting of January 28, 1985, the City Council requested that the Park & Recreation Commission conduct a public hearing to solicit public comment regarding the trail system proposed in the Zone 7 Final Arroyo Management Plan. The public hearing was held at the February 12, 1985 meeting of the Park & Recreation Commission. Adjacent property owners were notified by mail. There were approximately 30 propervy owners in attendance as well as Vince Wong, Staff Engineer, Alameda County Flood Control.District. The areas of comment/concern are summarized as follows: 1. Location of Trails Propervy owners backing up to present Zone 7 maintenance roads were not in favor of the development of the trails sysvem. There was also concern as to why the maintenance roads located adjacent to Village Parkway were not included in the plan. 2. Security The proposed trails system would' be difficult to patrol and adjacent property owners were concerned with the security of-their property. 3. Maintenance The burden of maintaining the trail system would be placed on the City. The consensus was that the monies?needed to maintain the trails could be better spenv elsewhere. Liability Legal liability would be assumed by the City with the Alameda Flood Control District absolving themselves of any legal responsibility. The Park & Recreation Commission recommended that the property owners comments/concerns be transmitted to the City Council with no recommendation. It is Staff's recommendaticn that the City Council notify Zone 7 of its opposition to the development of trails adjacenn to those Zone 7 facilities within the City of Dublin, due to the additional security and maintenance expenses which would 'be incurred by the City. COPIES TO: Vince Wong, Z~_ ~--~-~ ~ CITY OF DUBLIN P.O. Box 2340 Dublin, CA 94568 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING (415) 829-4600 The City of Dublin Park and Recreation Commission, will hold a public hearing during Which they wi't.1 take comments from the public on the following, project: Project: Zone 7 Arroyo Management Plan Plan investigates the feasibility of and proposes a master plan for public trail access along the flood control channels and arroyos in Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control District. Project Location: Potential'trails are proposed in Zone 7 along the Alamo Canal, Dublin Creek and the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way. Project Proponent: Zone 7 Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 14'04 Concannon Blvd. Livermore, CA 94550 The hearing will be 'held on February 12, 198'5 at 7:30 p.m., at Shannon Community Center located at 11600 Shannon Avenue, Dublin. is matter. Any inte=es=ed person may appear and be heard on th Information o'n the above mentioned project may be reviewed in the' Recreation Department office, Shannon Center, 11600 Shannon Avenue, Dublin'.' If you have any questions or comments, contact the Dublin Recreation Department or call 829-493.2. Dated: February 1, 1985 REGULAR MEETING - February 23, 1987 'A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on Monday, February 23, 1987 in the meeting room of the Dublin Library. The meeting was called to order at 7:40 p.m. by Mayor Linda Jeffery. ROLL CALL PRESENT-. Jeffery. Councilmembers Hegarty, Moffatt, Snyder, Vonheeder and Mayor PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Mayor led the Council, Staff and those present in the pledge of alle- giance to the flag. TRIBUTE TO FRANK DAMERVAL Mayor Jeffery requested a moment of silence in tribute to Frank Damerval, a Trustee of the Amador Valley Joint High School DistriCt, who passed away on February 20th. PROCLAMATI ON Mayor Jeffery read a proclamation declaring March, 1987, as "ARC - Mental Retardation Awareness Month." The proclamation was presented to Mr. Ellis of ARC, who expressed his appreciation. CONSENT CALENDAR On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council took the following actions: Approved Minutes of Regular Meeting of February 9, 1987; Approved an amendment to the agreement with Taugher and Associates:for Building Law Enforcement Services, authorized Mayor Jeffery to execute said agreement, and approved a budget transfer in the amount of $18,250 for completion of the sign enforcement survey; Approved an agreement with MCE Corporation for Public Works Maintenance Services and authorized Mayor Jeffery to execute said agreement; . +. +.+. +. +. +. +. +.+.+.+.+.+.+.+. +. +.+. +.+.+.+.+.+.i. CM-5-69 Regular Meeting Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 12-87 ESTABLISHING A POLICY FOR THE REPAIR OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS DEEMED TO BE PEDESTRIAN HAZARDS and authorized Staff to advertise Contract 87-4 Annual Sidewalk Repair Program for bids; Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 13-87 FOR THE ACCEPTANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS, TRACT 4719 (DUBLINHILLS ESTATES) authorized Staff to accept letter of credit guaranteeing replacement of landscaping improvements, and authorized Staff to accept a maintenance bond at a future date; Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 14-87 ACCEPTANCE OF AMENDED FINAL MAP, TRACT NO. 4415 Authorized Staff to advertise for bids for Contract 87-3, Annual Slurry Seal Program; Awarded Contract No. 87-1 Dublin Blvd. Signal Interconnect to Steiny and Co., Inc., authorized Mayor Jeffery to execute agreement, and authorized Staff to negotiate for additional work originally contained in Phase II, provided the total contract amount does not exceed the $150,000 budget; Approved Financial Report for .period ending January 31, 1987; Approved Warrant Register in the amount of $404,268.56. Zev Kahn, resident of Harlan Road, reqUested that the item regarding the Agreement for Joint Use of Alamo Creek be removed from the consent calendar. Mr. Kahn stated that the Park and Recreation Commission had approved the plans which indicated a fully developed creek for use of the public. The City Council overturned this recommendation and elected to leave the creek under the control of Zone 7. Mr. Kahn asked the City Council to,reconsider or have Staff re-evaluate allowing use of the creek by visitors to the park. City Engineer Lee Thompson stated that several alternatives were considered, including grading a floodplain at the level of the creek which could be used as a playing field during the summer but would be under water.during the * +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* + * +* + * +. + * +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +, + * + * +* +* +* + * + * +* CM-5-70 Regular Meeting February 23, 1987 winter.. The final plan has the playing fields above the level of the creek and fences off the creek from general public use. The architect is nearly finished with the plan. Mr. Kahn questioned whether there was any way to get into the creek. Mr. Thompson responded that the creek is intended to be inaccessible. The joint use plan intensifies the landscaping within the channel and provides for a bridge and a permanent four-foot fence to ke'ep children out of the channel. Mayor Jeffery stated that this proposal would be environmentally better for the creek. Mr. Kahn stated that it would have been environmentally better not to have built the subdivision. The idea of leaving the creek open was to provide a natural preserve for use of scouts and so forth, such as that provided at Shannon Park. Cm. Moffatt stated that the purpose of the approved design was to keep small children out of the creek, but he thought there would be access. Mr. Thompson said that the landscape architect had originally recommended the 'floodplain design, leaving the creek open, but that with the joint use agreement, the City assumes liability for the creek. Mr. Kahn asked how much water was in the creek during the winter. Mr. Thompson stated that the creek was four to five feet deep in spots. Mayor Jeffery concurred. Mr. Kahn queStioned if gates could be placed in the fence and opened in the summer. Mr. Thompson stated that there would be gates for maintenance vehicle access but not for general public use. City Manager Ambrose stated that the banks of Alamo Creek are steep and hazardous, not like those of Shannon Creek. Recreation Director Diane Lowart stated that the architect had recommended the fence if the low/pond design was not adopted. On motion by Cm. Snyder:, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 15-87 APPROVING A LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, ZONE 7 FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, FOR JOINT USE OF ALAMO CREEK THROUGH DOUGHERTY PARK AND AUTHORIZING MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAME and authorized Mayor Jeffery to execute the agreement. *************************************************************************** CM-5-71 Regular Meeting February 23, 1987 HOUSING AUTHORITY TENANT MEMBER BOARD POSITIONS At the Housing Authority Meeting held earlier in the evening, the Housing Authority requested that the City Council appoint a subcommittee to review applications for tenant member positions on the Housing Authority Board of Directors. By unanimous vote, the Council appointed Cm. Snyder and Cm. Moffatt for this subcommittee. STATE PARK AND RIDE' LOT - SCARLETT COURT City Engineer Lee Thompson presented a letter submitted by Caltrans requesting permission to maintain the temporary parking lot constructed on Scarlett Court as part of the interchange improvements as a permanent park- and-ride facility. The State proposed to maintain the lot and that the California Highway Patrol would enforce normal park-and-ride lot regulations regarding 72-hour maximum parking. There wOuld be no user fees. This lot was constructed to replace on-street parking that was temporarily eliminated on Scarlett Court and was scheduled for demolition once Phase lB of the interchange improvements is completed. In response to a question from Cm. Moffatt regarding the number of cars that could be parked on the lot, Mr. Thompson stated that the lot had room for approximately 20 cars. Mayor Jeffery asked whether there woul. d be any restrictions.~regarding parking of trucks. Cm. Vonheeder asked whether the lot could be signed for weight restrictions. Mr. Thompson stated that a large truck~probably woUld not fit on the lot, but that the State coUld sign for an~ limit anything that became a problem. On motion by Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council approved allowing Caltrans to retain the lot as a park and ride facility following construction of the interchange improvements. PUBLIC HEARINGS INSTALLATION OF STOP SIGNS AT INTERSECTION OF CLARK AVENUE/MAPLE D~IVE/EBE~SBURG LANE Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. City Engineer Thompson presented the Staff report, which stated that the'City Council had received a Staff presentation at the meeting of February 9, 1987, which recommended installation of a STOP sign on Clark Avenue at this intersection. Public testimony at that hearing indicated a desire for a two-way or three-way STOP and also requested modification of the centerline striping on Clark~Avenue so that customers of Triple-A would turn left into *************************************************************************** CM-5-72 Regular Meeting February 23, 1987 The City Council directed Staff to prepare an Ordinance for a 3-way STOP intersection and also to make a recommendation regarding modification of the centerline. The City's Traffic Engineering firm, TJKM, concurred that the 3-way STOP might help to assign right-of-way and exercise additional control over turning movements at this intersection. They recommended breaks~in the double-yellow centerline at the two Triple-A driveways. No public testimony was received. Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. Cm. Snyder clarified that Staff understood authorization was also given to modify the centerline on Clark Avenue. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and on an urgency basis adopted ORDINANCE NO. 20-87 ESTABLISHING TRAFFIC REGULATIONS (3-Way STOP Intersection.at Clark Avenue/Maple Drive/Ebensburg Lane) ARROYO VISTA - REGULATION OF VEHICULAR TRAFFIC Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. City Engineer Thompson presented the staff report, which stated that Ophelia Basga!, Executive Director of the Dublin HOusing Authority, had submitted a letter to the City requesting that the City pursue the possibility of applying Section 21107.5 to Arroyo Vista. The streets within Arroyo Vista are private and therefore the State Vehicle Code cannot be enforced within the d~velopment. However, Section 21107.5 of the Vehicle Code permits a City Council to adopt a Resolutio'n allowing enforcement of the Vehicle Code on private streets if (1) the streets are generally open for public use, and (2) the streets connect with highways so as not to be distinguishable from a public road. The City's Traffic Engineering firm, TJKM, recommended installation of 25 m.p.h, speed limit signs and 15 m.p.h, curve warning signs, and also recommended that the STOP signs currently in place in the development be retained. TJKM also performed a speed survey within the development. Staff's recommendation was that the required findings could be met and that the City Council adopt the resolution regulating vehicular traffic within Arroyo Vista. No public testimony was received. Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. *+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+~+*+*+*+*+* CM-5-7.3 Regular Meeting February 23, 1987 On motion by Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Snyder, and by unanimous vote, the council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 16-87 REGULATING VEHICULAR TRAFFIC WITHIN ARROYO VISTA PURSUANT TO SECTION 21107.5 OF T~E CALIFORNIA VE~ICLE CODE ORDINANCES REPEALING CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION ORDINANCES' NO. 1-84 AND NO. 3-84 Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. City Manager Richard Ambrose presented the Staff report, which stated that, at the meeting of February 9, 1987, the City Council had directed the Assistant City Attorney to prepare two draft ordinances which would repeal the City's Campaign Contribution Ordinances No. 1-84 and No. 3-84. If either of these ordinances were adopted, the State Law regulating campaign contributions would be the law regulating campaign contributions in the City, with the exception that contributions to a candidate or a committee could not exceed $300. Because the Councilmembers'had the experience of seeking office, the City Attorney prepared two ordinances in order to give the City Council an option of establishing an election period beginning January 1 and ending December 31 or beginning July 1 and ending June 30 of an election year. Cm. Moffatt asked if the election period referred to the same cal-endar year as the election and whether contributions could only be received during that year. He gave the example of holding fund-.raisers after December 31st of the specified year. City Manager Ambrose stated'that this section applied to the $300 maximum for a one-year period. Cm. Snyder stated that this ties into the recording date. ~. Ambrose stated that it ties into their filing statements. Cm. Snyder questioned the effect a special election would have and whether the election period specified in the ~ordinance would change; for example, if the election were held in June rather .than in November. City Attorney Nave stated that this issue had not been addressed in the draft ordinance. Mayor Jeffery asked whether the election period could be set in the resolution calling for a special election. Mr. Ambrose stated that the persons running in the special election would have their own contributions and that contributions made to the previous office-holder's campaign would not count toward the total. CM-5-74 Regular Meeting February 23, 1987 Cm. Snyder stated that the council could decide which dates would be best for a November election but not for an election held at another time of year. Mr. Ambrose stated that it would be better to address the matter in the ordinance and tie the dates down to the filing period. There was no public testimony on this issue. City Attorney Nave stated that a separate ordinance could be adopted at the time of the special election but that it would be better to cover all situations in one document. Mr. Ambrose stated that the ordinance was drafted to coincide with the semiannual filing dates. Cm. Moffatt asked whether the special election would normally be held at the same time as a regular election. Mr. Ambrose stated that the special election could be held at any time within the time frame established by State Law. Cm. Moffatt asked how long the election process takes. Mr. Nave stated that the law requires a 120 day period. On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council continued this item to the meeting of March 9th and directed Staff to address special elections in the draft Ordinance. SPEED STUDIES REGARDING SAN RAMON ROAD, HANSEN DRIVE, BETLEN DRIVE, TAMARACK DRIVE, PENN DRIVE, DUBLIN BLVD., AND DOUGHERTY ROAD Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. Chris Kinzel of TJKM, the City's traffic engineering firm, presented the Staff report, which stated that the vehicle code sets a "prima fa¢ie" speed limit for residential streets that are less than 40 feet in width, have only one traffic lane in each direction, and have no more than one-half mile of uninterrupted length. The police department is permitted to use radar for enforcement of the speed limit on these streets° Some residential streets in the City of Dublin, however, were wider than 40 feet and therefore had to be surveyed in order for the police department to use radar for enforcement of the 25 m.p.h, speed limit. These streets were Hansen Drive west of Amarillo, Betlen Drive west of Circle Way, Tamarack Drive east of Villaqe Parkway, and Penn Drive north of King Way. Some non-residential streets were also surveyed because of changes in design'or traffic control. These were Dougherty Road north of Amador Valley Blvd., which was recently widened to four lanes, and Dublin Blvd. east of Sierra Court, which recently received a new traffic signal. San Ramon Road north of Silvergate had not been previously surveyed. The City's Traffic Engineering firm, TJKM, did not recommend any changes in speed limits from those previously established. *************************************************************************** CM-5-75 Regular Meeting February 23, 1987 No public testimony was received. Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted the survey ~esults and directed Staff to implement the recommended signage. BART PARK AND RIDE LOT Planning Director Larry Tong presented the Staff report, which stated that, at the meeting of January 26, 1987, Dave Burton had requested the City Council to ask BART for an EIR on the Park' and Ride Lot. This item was agendized for the February 9th meeting; however, JoAnne Bergeron Castro, representing the Chamber of Commerce, requested that this item be tabled until the meeting of February 23rd so that the Chamber Board of Directors could discuss the issue. The Dublin General Plan contains various policies regarding a BART facility at the end of Golden Gate Drive. The City identified mitigation measures in a November 25, 1986, letter to BART regarding (1) land use, (2) traffic, and (3) design. The BART Staff issued a preliminary response which stated (1) that BART agreed to enter into a joint use agreement to provide a mix of BART uses and retail/commercial uses; (2) that BART will request TJKM to prepare an additional traffic study to determine traffic effects.and potential mitigation measures; and (3) that BART has begun to re-design the facility to address the design concerns. BART Staff will meet with City Staff to discuss the project and mitigation measures after the additional traffic study has been prepared and the facility has been re-designed. The BART Board of Directors PostpOned consideration of the Negative Declaration that was previously scheduled for discussion in February.. The BART Board Engineering and Operations Committee will consider the Negative Declaration 'on March 24, 1987, and the Board will take action on March 26th. JoAnne Bergeron Castro stated that the'Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors had met on February llth and agreed to support the park and ride lot but due to its location, they felt an EIR was necessary. She requested that the City ask BART for an EIR regarding traffic impacts on Dublin Blvd. and said that the Chamber disagrees. with BART's statement that traffic would not be affected by the park and ride lot. Paul Moffatt said he had read an article which indicated the Chamber President wanted a traffic study. He asked Ms. Castro if the Chamber would be. interested in sharing in the cost of,the study. Ms. Castro stated that she felt they would not. Cm. Snyder asked whether the commute hour park and ride traffic had been discussed. He stated that the Chamber Board did not have sufficient information to request an EIR and that most park and ride traffic would be earlier or later than other commute traffic. People using the park and ride lot would generate additional benefits to businesses in Dublin. *************************************************************************** CM-5-76 Regular Meeting February 23, 1987 Cm. Hegarty stated that since a new analysis was being presented on MarCh 24th, the City would have an opportunity to request that the Negative Declaration not be allowed at that time. The impacts would have to be addressed to the satisfaction of the City. Cm. Snyder said that the Chamber Board should be aware that (1) BART has the right to condemn property but that they have been forthright in all discussions and have reduced the size of the lot from the original 14 acres to 7 acres at the request of the City, and (2) BART had been through a long negotiating process with Bedford on the basis that it was better to negotiate than to condemn. Cm. Vonheeder stated that the City Council had made the same comments as the Chamber. Mr. Tong. suggested that the Council request a clarification from BART or TJKM regarding the timing of the report on the traffic study. Bob Allen, representing the BART Board of Directors, said that he was attending the meeting as an observer only. Chris Kinzel of TJKM said that the purpose of the study was to provide a more complete analysis than the original environmental assessment. The more detailed analysis will address the points of concern and will be the same as an EIR regarding traffic impacts. TJKM's report.will be presented at the meeting of March 24th. Mayor Jeffery asked whether copies could be Provided to the City Council and Staff. Mr. Kinzel said that their work was a subcontract to Earthmetrics. Jack Hughes, a resident of Dublin, said he had attended the January 24th BART Board meeting and, after hearing the report presented by BART, felt that the BART staff had not been to Dublin. He stated that an additional 700 cars would have an impact on traffic and that he was happy that the City Council is interested in the situation. Dave Burton stated that when the lot was first discussed in 1978, it was a good idea. The situation has now changed. He said that the City needs BART but suggested that the station.be~moved one or two miles east. MaYor Jeffery said that the 1/2¢ ballot measure indicated one BART station and also showed the City Limit as it was prior to annexation. Mr. Burton asked why the City did not bring up using County property at Santa Rita Road or Hopyard Road and that people would not shop in a traffic jam situation. Bill Foster, a resident of Dublin, said that he was a proponent of Measure B, that he supported the BART station at the Golden Gate Drive location. He felt the station should serve the downtown area and that too much conCern was being expressed regarding the EIR. * +*+,+* +* +*+*+* +*+* +* +* +* +* +* +* +*+*+*+* +*+* +* +*+* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +*+* +* +* +* +* CM-5-77 Regular Meeting February 23, 1987 Mr. Burton asked how Staff could get a copy of the traffic impact report in time to react before the March 26th meeting. Bob Allen said that he normally gets the reports the Friday before a meeting and that he could get a copy to the City Staff approximately a week before the March 26th meeting. Mr. Tong stated that this would not be enough time for a City Council meeting but that the City Staff could comment. Mayor Jeffery asked what the City's options would'be if Staff disagrees with the report. Mr. Tong said that Staff could provide comments to the BART Directors suggesting sufficient mitigation measures. Cm. Vonheeder said that each City Council member would have to attend the BART meeting since there was not enough time to formulate a collective recommendation. City Attorney Nave stated that there is a 30-day period in which to challenge a Negative Declaration or EIR. Cm. Snyder aSked Mr.' Kinzel whether his report included a review of the number of private vehicles now parked in businesses' 10ts or streets that would be using.the park and ride lot. Mr. Kinzel stated that his report wOuld include that figure. Cm. Snyder said'that the Chamber needed to understand that the City has 'a concern regarding commuters' vehicles parked in shopping center lots, particularly Mervyn's. Cm. Hegarty stated that the City could not have a BART station without a parking lot. The Council agreed that the traffic impact report would have to be studied before an answer could be reached. 1987 FOUNDERS WEEK/SHAMROCK FESTIVAL Recreation Director Diane Lowart presented the Staff report, which stated that Founders Week festivities, normally held in September, will take place July 27 through August 2, 1987. This activity was organized primarily by the Historical Preservation Association in previous years, but a number of new activities have been proposed for 1987. The purpose of the expanded format is to raise funds for Dublin-based non-profit organizations and service clubs. Members of the steering committee for this event suggested that a representative from the City Council and City Staff also serve on the committee. Each c~mmittee member is to chair or co-chair one of the nine subcommittees and provide membership for the remaining eight subcommittees. * +* +* +, +, +* + * +* +* + * +, +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* + * +, +* +* +* +* $* + * + * +* +* +* + * +* +* + * +* + * CM-5-78 Regular Meeting February 23, 1987 Staff recommended that the City Council appoint a member of the Council and a staff member from the Recreation Department to serve on the steering committee with the understanding that additional 'representation from the City. is not possible. Tom McCormick stated that the organization that was formed for the fund- raising festival had decided to incorporate in order to provide a more solid Board of Directors as a basis for distributing funds to nonprofit groups. Cm. Snyder said that there is a lack of understanding regarding distribution of funds. The Lions organization gets 25% net, with the balance to the designated charity. He asked whether the charitable organization would get 75%. Mr. McCormick stated that the funds would go to the organization to use as they saw fit and that a way to control the funds is needed. Their attorney, Ralph Hughes, is working out the details. Cm. Vonheeder recommended that the Mayor and Ms. Lowart be the designated appointees to the steering committee. Cm. Moffatt is already on the committee through the Lions organization. Cm. Moffatt said that Ms. Lowart should be able to designate a member of her Staff to attend meetings due to time constraints. The City Council unanimously agreed that Mayor Jeffery and Ms. Lowart be appointed to serve on the Founders Week/Shamrock Festival steering committee. ESTABLISHMENT OF A SERVICE AUTHORITY FOR FREEWAY EMERGENCIES (SAFE) Assistant to the City Manager Paul Rankin presented the Staff report which stated that at the meeting of February 9, 1987, the City Council had requested consideration of the Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE). The State Legislature adopted a bill in 1985 which enables the creation of a SAFE program, which coordinates financing, implementation, operation, and maintenance of an emergency aid system. The Board of Supervisors of a County, joined by the majority of Cities having a majority of the pOpulation must pass resolutions to establish a SAFE. This program may include not only call boxes but also par~amedic services, airborne .medic patrols, and other emergency aid'systems. The call boxes provide direct communication between motorists and the California Highway Patrol and can be used to report accidents, hazards,' or disabled vehicles. The cost of the system depends upon.the technology used and is financed by a $1.00 surcharge on automobile registrations. The resolution prepared by Staff was based on a model provided by the City of Livermore and was amended to refer specifically to the freeway call box system. The resolution also urged evaluation of the potential to expand the service area. Cm. Moffatt asked whether there were any problems reported concerning vandalism or ongoing maintenance. * +, +* +* +, +* +*+* +.+. +, +* +* +* +. +* +* +*+*+*+* +*+* +*+* +* +* +* +* +*+* +* +*+*+* +*+* +* CM-5-79 Regular Meeting February 23, 1987 o"o ~. Rankin stated that research by the City of Livermore indicated vandalism was not a problem. The funding source for maintenance is the $1.00 surcharge on auto registrations. Mayor Jeffery questioned whether any research had been done on the .total freeway miles in Alameda County. Mr. Ra~kin responded that the mileage in this area was much less than that in some Southern California areas. Cm. Vonheeder asked whether the City would be able to designate which routes get. the call boxes first. She indicated there is more than enough funding. available. Mayor Jeffery suggested that the excess funds be used for air medics. Cm. Moffatt asked if each county-would have its own Authority. Mr. Rankin said that two members would come from the Board of Supervisors and the remaining five from cities, probably selected at the Mayors' Conference. On motion by Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 17-87 AGREEING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A SERVICE AUTHORITY FOR FREEWAY EMERGENCIES ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS DUES INCREASE City Manager Ambrose presented the Staff report, which stated that the City had received a letter from Councilmember Dick Spees, president of the Association of Bay Area Governments, transmitting the ABAG Fiscal Year 1987/88 budget, which included an approximately 3.5% dues increase. This increase would cost the City of Dublin $73.00 per year. On motion by Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council approved the 3.5% increase in Association of Bay Area Governments dues. LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES PROPOSED DUES'INCREASE City Manager Ambrose presented the Staff report, which Stated that the League of California Cities is proposing an increase of 6% in annual membership dues. The League of California Cities requested'that the City review and proposed increase and express the City's position to the East Bay Division of the League of California Cities. Cm. Vonheeder stated that the East Bay Division had already acted on this measure. *************************************************************************** CM-5-80 Regular Meeting February 23, 1987 OTHER BUSINESS ' STOP Signs' at Larkdale Ave. and Bristol Drive Cm. Moffatt requested that Staff relstudy the Larkdale/Bristol intersection, as residents of the area felt. that a four-way STOP was needed rather than the 2-way STOP installed recently on Larkdale. The two-way STOP does not alleviate the speeding problem. He asked if this issue could be placed on the agenda for the March 23rd meeting. Cm. Vonheeder stated that the problem on Bristol is. bstween Brighton and Larkdale and that a STOP sign at Larkdale would not help. Mayor Jeffery said she felt STOP signs would nOt help because Bristol is a short stretch followed by a long stretch. The Council agreed to place this issue on a future agenda. Rental of Fallon Sq.~ol Multipurpose Room Mr. Rankin discussed a recommendation from the State Allocation Board that Murray School District charge the City $2,174 per month to lease the Fallon School mult~ipurpose room. The City and the school district had alreadY agreed on $100 per month. The State Allocation Board initially recommended a $400 per month rental amount but then submitted a staff report which Stated the City should pay the full market value of $2,174 per month. It has been the State Board's policy.to recommend full market value when the school district has outstanding State loans. Murray School District owes the State approximately $10 million, which it has been paying back at.approximately $1 million per year. The school district has appealed the decision,' and the Board will hear the appeaI on Wednesday, February 25th, at 4.:00 p.m. in Sacramento. Sen. Lockyer's office has recommended a continuance. City Manager Ambrose stated that he'preferred to reach a decision at the hearing on February 25th. Cm. Hegarty asked if this situation would jeopardize the City's grant for building renovation. ~ . Ms Lowart stated that the grant could probably be transferred to another property. Mayor Jeffery asked why the Board had not asked for the money when the site was sold. Mr. Rankin stated that the school district's repayment scheduled would not be affected. The district is required to submit leases to the State Board for approval. The City Council concurred that the lease agreement would have t° be re- evaluated if the Board does not change its ruling. * +* +* +* +* +* +* +, +* +* +* +* +* +* +. +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +, +, +* +*.+, +, +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +, +* CM-5-81 Regular Meeting February 23, 1987 Guideline for Brown Act Bill Cm. Snyder asked a question with reference to the February 18th League Bulletin regarding guidelines for the Brown Act bill. Mr. Rankin said that the Deputy City Clerk may have requested this already and that he would ask her when she returns from a conference on Wednesday. P~gp0sed Cable TV Studio in Civic Center Cm. Hegarty stated that he would not be able to attend the Cable TV Board meeting on February 26th, but that Lee Horner should be advised of the Council's position regarding the Civic Center and that a decision needs to be made. The issue is on the Board's agenda for the February 26th meeting. Mr. Rankin said that the Council would be discussing the Civic Center at the adjourned meeting on March 2nd. Amador Valley Boulevard Repair Mayor Jeffery asked when the holes on Amador Valley Boulevard between 1-680 and Donohue Drive would be repaired. Mr. Ambrose said that the slurry seal applied in this area two years ago had not stayed in place and that a remove-and-replace process was required to repair the holes. 'The maintenance crew had begun repairing them that day (FebrUary 23) and would continue the repair as weather permitted. Senate Bill .13 Mayor Jeffery said that Senator Lockyer had called her in reference to the status of S.B. 13. It is the Senator's candid opinion that the bill is not likely to pass but that the Council should keep an eye on it anyway. Reimbursement for State-Mandated Costs Mayor Jeffery also said that the League of California Cities had sent the Council documentation on five court cases that the League had participated in. One case is the City of Los Angeles vs. the State of California concerning the extent to which the State reimbursed local~agencies for State-mandated costs. She asked whether Staff had reviewed that case. CM-5-82 Regular Meeting February 23, 1987 Mr. Ambrose responded that Staff had not had a chance to review it. Philosophically Staff supported it, but the City has not had a chance to file a claim because there is a minimum expense to be incurred before a claim can be filed, and the City has not had sufficient expenses to date in any of the State-mandated programs. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p..m. ATTEST: City Cle~ *+* +*+* +*+*+*+* +* +* +* +* +* +*+* +* +*+* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +*+* +. +* +* +* +* +* +* +*+* CM-5-83 Regular Meeting February 23, 1987 CTTY CLERK AGENDA STATEMENT CTTY COUNCIL MEETTNG DATE: May 20, 2003 SUBJECT: Approval of Notice of Exemption and Authorization to Solicit Bids Contract No. 03-08, Alamo Creek Bike Path- Amador Valley Boulevard to North City Limits Report Prepared by: Lee S.. Thompson, Public Works Director ATTACHMENTS: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Project Site Map Notice of Exemption Biological Reconnaissance Survey Fire Department Report Police Department Report RECOMMENDATION: 1) 2) Approve Notice of Exemption under 2002 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15301, Class l(c), and Section 15304, Class 4(h), for Alamo Creek Bike Path, Amador Valley Boulevard to North City Limits Authorize Staff to advertise for bids or provide Staffwith alternative direction FINANCLAL STATEMENT: Budget for this project: FY 2002-03 Salaries/Design/Misc: $ 52,100 $ 7,100 $ 59,200 Improvements: $ 107,000 $ 99,000 $ 206,000 TOTAL: $ 159,100 $ 106,100 $ 265,200 FY 2003-04 Total Budget 'This project will be funded through a Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) grant from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District in the mount of $107,000 and through the Measure B Pedestrian & Bicycle Fund in the amount of $158,200. Failure to meet the TFCA funding guideline requirement of project completion by October 9, 2003, will result in the loss of the TFCA grant. Should this project not go forward, Measure B funds could be used on another project. DESCRIPTION: On May 6, 2003, the City Council continued the item for the authorization to solicit bids for the Alamo Creek Bike Path from Amador Valley Boulevard to North City COPIES TO: g:kmiscprojkAlamo Creek Bike PathkAS authorize 2 ..1: Limits after receiving concerns from res/dents living along the proposed path. Some of those concems included loss of privacy to adjacent property owners, disruption of wildlife along Alamo Greek, and potential noise problems from motorized scooters and children loitering on the path. The Council scheduled and attended a field trip to the project site to view some of the concerns firsthand on Monday, May 12th. At the May 12th field trip, the following concerns were raised during the walkthrough, and Staff offers the corresponding responses: Concerns voiced during May 12th field trip: Staff Comments: 1) Weed abatement along the path Any weeds between the fence along private property and the v-ditch will be abated. Where no fence exists between the v-ditch and hillside, a 12' wide area shall be maintained by removing ali dead material only (green, live trees and shrubs to remain). The Fire Department has no requ/rements for vegetation within creek banks except for removal of dead material. (See Attachment 4) 2) Graffiti along the path Zone 7 has been contacted regarding the existing graffiti. Per the City's policy, subsequent graffiti will be removed within one day of notice. 3) Slope sloughing on Dougherty Hills The original grading plan for the subdivision moved the creek away from the steep slope and built a bench under the slope to catch any sloughing material. 4) Median break and proposed crosswalk on Willow Cre~k Drive not safe. The crosSWalk will be striped With advance signage for both motorists and trail users. There is good sight distance. 5) Closure of path entrances at nights and/or during high water in creek Entrance gates to the path may be closed one hour after sunset and at times of high water in the creek. To do so, maintenance staff would be required to drive along the trail to ensure that no one would be locked in. Note that there is currently no maintenance staff available to close the trail on weekends. 6) Erosion on Alamo Creek bank Zone 7 maintains slopes along the creek. Path will drain water away from creek banks and toward the v-ditch to reduce existing and further erosion at the top of the bank. 7) Illegal activities near trails According to the Dublin Police Department, there have been very few calls for service near similar City trails (see Attachment 5). Page 2 8) Vehicles entering trail 9) Issue of development in open space corridor Emergency and maintenance` vehicles only will be allowed on the trail. A fence gate and removable bollard with a leek will restrict other vehicles from accessing the trail. The issue of creating pedestrian, bicycle, and equestrian trails along open space and creek corridors is addressed in several places in Dublin's General Plan. Chapter 3, the Parks and Open Space Element, discusses preserving creeks and slopes over 30% as open space areas (Policies 3.1.A and 3.1.B). The same chapter also contains Policy 3.3.D, "promote the inclusion of hiking, biking, and/or equestrian trails within designated open space areas." In addition, Chapter 7, Conservation Element of the General Plan, contains a guiding policy to "promote access to stream corridors for passive recreational use "(Policy Ti.B). Although there are also policies in the Conservation Element which address restricting development on slopes of over 30% and in designated open space areas, the creation of a recreational trail along a stream corridor is not considered development. There are several other Open Space Stream Corridors in the City where a recreational trail has been created, including along Tassajara Creek in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area, along Martin Canyon Creek in Dubhn's western hills, and also along portions of Alamo Creek itself south of Amador Valley Boulevard. The Alamo Creek Bike Path project would construct a pedestrian and bicycle path along Alamo Creek between Amador Valley Boulevard and the north City limits. This project will pave the existing Zone 7 Water Agency's maintenance road along the west side of Alamo Creek, with the exception of the portion of the road within Alamo Creek Park (shown on Attachment 1). The asphalt concrete path will be approximately 12 feet wide rtmning along the existing concrete v-ditch. This project was identified in the 2000-2005 Capital Improvement Program to begin construction in FY 2001-2002. Due to Staff workload and coordination issues with ZOne 7, Staff requested an extension to expend the TFCA funds. The current TFCA funding guidelines require the project to be completed by October 9, 2003. If construction starts in July 2003, the project could be completed by September 2003. The project has appeared in the City's Five-Year Capital Improvement Program since FY 1994-95. It has also been identified in the City's General Plan since September 1992. Although the project would pave the existing gravel maintenance road along the west side of Alamo Creek, it would not require the removal of any shrubs or trees. Dry grass will be cut. Staff anticipates that this trail would be used primarily as a jogging and walking trail by the people hying in this neighborhood. The pathway would ultimately connect to other trails, but would not be a major regional trail. Page Staff has determined that the Alamo Creek Bike Path Project is exempt from the provisions of CEQA under Categorical Exemptions, Section 15301, Class l(c), and Section 15304, Class 4(h). Under Section 15301, Class 1 (c) of the CEQA Guidelines, minor public alterations of existing public facilities involving negligible use beyond that previously existing at the time of the agency's determination are exempt from the provisions of CEQA. The existing public fight-of-way is presently being used by Zone 7 personnel at least once a month to inspect and maintain Alamo Creek. Furthermore, access will be limited to daytime hours and closed during bad weather, and motorized scooters will not be allowed. The result of paving the access road to allow public access for walking and bicycling during limited daytime hours will have negligible impact beyond its current use. Although the maintenance road is currently closed to the public, allowing public access is considered a minor public alteration of the existing use. Under Section 15304, Class 4(h), the creation of bicycle lanes on existing public rights-of-way which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scerdc trees except for forestry and agricultural purposes, does not have a significant effect on the environment and is exempt from the provisions of CEQA. In response to concerns brought forth by some residents regarding the disruption of wildlife along Alamo Creek, Staff retained a biologist to conduct a biological reconnaissance survey (Attachment 3). The report states, "wildlife observed or expected to occur along or within the creek zone are species that can inhabit an area with human activitf' and, "wildlife species that are not adaptable to human activity have previously moved or been forced out of this reach of Alamo Creek". The report also states "opening the access road to use...will increase the level of human disturbance in the immediate vicinity of the pathway. This disturbance will cause wildlife species which are less tolerant of human activity to withdraw...during its hour of use. They should still make use of this area when people are not present." The City Council requested that Staff provide a comparison of creek and property setbacks for trails in the area. The following table outlines these comparisons: Iron Horse Trail (within Dublin City Limits): - South of Dougherty Road (Scarlett Place) - North of Dougherty Road (Park Sierra Apts) - North of Amador Valley Boulevard kon Horse Trail in San Ramon (south ofAlcosta Blvd) Martin Canyon Creek Trail Tassaj ara Creek ,Proposed Alamo Creek Path Setback to top creek bank Setback to fence at private property N/A 70 FT 2 FT 2 - 40 FT 5 FT 100 FT N/A 45 FT 0-100 FT 12-100 FT Wide sloping banks 8 FT 5 - 10 FT Varies, minimum 6 FT 5 -50FT Staff recommends that the City Council approve the Notice of Exemption under the 2002 California Env/ronmental Quality Act, Section 15301, Class t(c), and Section 15304, Class 4(h), and authorize Staff to solicit bids for Contract No. 03-08, Alamo Creek Bike' Path Project - Amador Valley Boulevard to North City Limits, or provide Staff with alternative direction. Page CITY OF DUBLIN 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, california 94568 Website: http ://www.ci.d ublin.ca, us NOTICE OF EXEMPTION TO: County Clerk - County of Alameda. FROM: City' of Dublin Public Works Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin CA 94568. PROJECT TITLE: Alamo Creek Bike Path -Amador Valley Boulevard to North City Limits PROJECT LOCATION: From. the intersection, of Alamo Creek and Amador Valley Boulevard,. continuing north along Alamo Creek approximately 0.9 .miles to the north City/County limit line, in Dublin, Alameda County, California 94568. PROJECT DE.SCRIPTION: Construction of a 12'-wide asphalt concrete bicycle path along. the west side of Alamo Creek on top of an existing. Alameda County Zone 7 Water Agency maintenance road from Amador Valley Boulevai'd north to the City Limits, approximately 0.9 mile in length. The City of Dublin, has determined that the. above project has the following exempt status: Categorical Exemption, Section 15301, Class 1(c) and Section 15304, Class 4(h). of the CEQA Guidelines.' Reasons why project is exempt: Under Section 15301,. Class 1(c) of the CEQA Guidelines, minor public alterations, of existing. public facilities involving negligible, use beYOnd, that previouslyexisting at the time of the agency's determination. Presently the. existing public right-of-way is being, used by Zone 7 personnel at least once a month to inspect and maintain Alamo Creek. The result of paving, it to allow public access for walking and bicycling dudng limited .daytime hours will have negligible. use beyond its current use. Access. will be limited to daytime hours and will be .closed during. bad weather. Motorized. scooters will not be allowed. Although the maintenance road is currently closed to the public there has been evidence of illegal 'entry to the fenced public right- of-way thus allowing, public access is considered minor public alteration. Area Code (925) · City Manager 833-6650 · City Council 833-6650 . Personnel Finance 833-6640 · Public Works/Engineering 833-6630 o Parks & Cornmun, PIadr~ing/Code Enforcern~nt 833-6610 · Building Inspection 833-6620 Printed on Recycied Paper Notice of Exemption: Alamo Creek Bike Pathl (continued) Under Section 15304, Class 4(h),. creation of bicycle lanes on existing public rights-of-way which, do not involve, removal, of healthy, mature,, scenic, trees except for forestry and agricultural purposes does. not have a significant effect on. the environment and. is exempt from the provisions, of CEQA. Telephone: (925). 833-6630 Signature: Date. of Signature: Date of Filing: Lee S. Thompson, Public Works Director May 21,2003 May 21, 2003 g:\miscproj~alamo ck blke path~Alamo ck xrn p. doc LSA LS.A ASSOCX~T~, 1~7 PAR~ PLACE J?T. I~IOI~OND, OALI~OI~I~IA ~4801 5~o.236.68to T~,L 5~o.'~36.348o FAX May 6, 2003 Mr. Ford Del Rosario City of Dublin Public Works Dept. 100 CiVic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Subject: Biological Reconnaissance Survey Alamo Creek Bike Trail, Dublin Dear Mr. Del Rosario: This letter presents the results of my reconnaissance level survey of the proposed route of the Alamo Creek bike trial in the City of Dublin. The segment of proposed trail I surveyed extends from Amador Valley Boulevard northbound to the County tine and a connection with Crossbridge Road. The proposed trail route.follows an existing Alameda County Flood Control District (ACFCD) access roaxi located on the west side of the creek. The crushed aggregate access road is approximately 15 feet wide. · I walked the entire length of the proposed bike trail route including the existing portion within Alamo Creek park which, connects the two proposed trail segments. The ACFCD access road is located above the creeks top of bank at varying dlstances from the creek depending on the meandering pattern of the creekbed. Existing residential development borders the access road to the west along approximately 3/4's of its length. The remaining area to the west of the access road is a st6eply sloping hillside Which ks part pfDpu..gherty Hills park. Th~ ACFCD access road is .loc~¢ed aDr~rO~Zlrn~!alx~ 30 feet above (higher than) the-creek and is setback from 50 to over 100 feet from the creeks iow flow line. The area between the access road and the creek has in most locations a 2:1 slope. The cre~kbank has a more gradual slope where the access road. is further away from the creek. Vegetation on the creekbank varies from'a mature valley oak. wOodland to ruderal annual grassland. Sapling valley oak and to a lesser extent coast live oak are present o'n the slope at many locations. A few arroyo willow grow along the edge o~rthe creek and .there is one thicket of California rose on the slope. Native trees and shrubs have been planted along both sides of the access road wkh a greater density planted along the road edge abbve the creek. These plants form a screen 'along many segments of the road so that views of the road from the creek are obscured or blocked. 5/6/.03(P:\CDU7300¢lK°sarioLtr5 -6-03.wpd) Wildlife obserVed (list attach.ed) or expected to occur along or within the creek zone are .species that can inhabit an area with human activity. Residential development borders essentially-all of the opposite (east) side of the creek and as noted ab6ve 3/4's of the west bank. Wildlife species which a~e not adaptable'to human activity have previously moved or been forced out of this reach of Alamo Creek. Construction of the bike trail will take place entirely within the existing bed of the ACFCD access road. The existing access road is 15 feet wide and the bike path will be t2 feet wide. The 12 foot bike path will border'the existing concrete v-ditch which borders the western edge of the access road. The remaining three feet of access road, which is the portion on the creek side of the road, will be . recompacted; There will be no grading or other disturbance of the creek bm~k associated with cons~'uc'liom of the bike path. · extends onto the ·existing roadbed. Opening the access road to use by pedestrians, dog walkers and bicyclists will increase the level of human disturbance in. the immediate vicinity' oflhe pathway. This disturbance will cause wildlife species which are less tolerant of human acti,vity to withdraw from the vicinity of the path duibng its hours of use. They'stiould still make use of this area when people are not present. Please let me kmow if you need additional information. Sincerely, ~SA ASSOCL~TES, INC. Malcolm J. Sproul Principal 5/6/03(P:\C. DU730kDelRosarioLtr5-6-O3.wpd) 2 Wildlife Species Observed - May 5, 2003 Alamo Creek Bike Trail, Dublin Birds Great Egret Black-crowned Night-heron Mallard Red-roiled Hawk American Kestrel Ring-necked 'Pheasant California Qttail Rock Dove Mourning Dove Arma's Hummingbird Belted Kingfisher Nuttall's Woodpecker Black Phoebe Western Scrub-j ay' Tree Swallow Northern RoUgh-winged Swallow Cliff'Swallow Barn Swallow Oak Titmouse Bushfit White-breasted NuThatch American Robin Northern Mockingbird .Europem~ Starling Wilson's Warbler Br~}¥~n~,h~eaded Cowbird. Lesser Goldfinch HOuse Sparrow. Mammals Raccoon (tracks) Coyote (scat) Black-tailed (Mule) Deer (tradks) 5/6/03 (P :\CD U73 0kDelRos arioL~'5-6-03 .wpd) 3 Fire Prevention Bureau MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: May 15, 2003 Steve Yee, Engineer '%. Bonrde S. Terra, Fire Inspector %),3 Removal of Vegetation along proposed addition to Alamo Creek Trail Attached you will find a copy of the City of Dublin/Alameda County Fire Removal Requirements for weeds and rubbish. With regards to the proposed extension of Alamo Creek Trail, the City or its contractor would be required to maintain the vegetation as follows. Maintains of vegetation consist of removal of all dead trees and trimming of weeds and other vegetation to a height of no more than four inches from the ground. On the southern porti.on of the proposed trail from Amador Valley Blvd. to the park the combustible vegetation (dry grass and shrubs) on the non-creek side should be maintained 12 feet back from the trail. Trees may be left but shall have low limbs trimmed to six feet from the ground. On the creek side of the trail Only dead material are to be removed. No other trimming will be required The northern point of the trail from the park to the City limits will require the following abatement. On the creek side of the trail again only removal of dead material will be done. On the non-creek side of the trail adjacent to the ornamental iron fence and condominiums no abatement will be required due to the fact that this area is being irrigated by the condominiums. Therefore, all of the vegetation in this area is live. However, on the same side but in the area adjacent to the wood fencing and the single family homes ail dead grasses and shrubbery is to be cut to a height of 4" and tree limbs cut to within 6' of. the ground. It should be noted that Heritage Trees will remain and no trimming will be required. If you require any clarification or further assistance regarding this matter please contact me. · ' .r ov aeQrar .. CmNTS -. · Weed, Rubbish, and Litter Abatement ' The foliowirtg are ~ minimum r~q~frement; for ~emov~ of wee~, rubbis~ ~d H~er. PIe~e'read.~e~ ~ Hg ~ more-~ one o~go~ may 'apply to .yo~ prope~. BUrning ~ not allowS, exoept ~ ~c~ app~Cafiom ~d ~n by p~.o~y. " RUBBISH, LITTER .AND DEBRIS [] "'"All Areas: Remove any rabbish~ gkarb~C, litter, j .ank, old b.uilding '.materials, or other items completely ~rom the property and appropriately dispose of them.. Maintained throughout the 'year. WEEDS AND OVlgRGRO~ VEGETATION · All. AreaS: Prune any overgrown'plants, shrubs or' 1tees; remove cuttings .ag_d dead tree limbs. Keep ail trees, shrubs, and o~her vegetation, .or portio, ns thereof adjacen~ to any bu/1 .~g or 'structure, f~ee from dead limbS, branches, and 'other combustible materials. Ivlain~ five feet (5') of vertical Clearance between roof surface and portions'of trees. Maintain roof of building or structure free of leaves, needles, twigs, or oiher combustible litter. Maintained'throughout the year. .. Urban: Abate all exterior fi.re hazards; complete abatement may include a combination of discing, · mowing, and spraying. Rem6ve from the property, all dead trees and nmiu~ 'weeds. and other vegetation at a height of'no more than four inches' (4"). NatiVe shrabbery should be cleared to a distance of at least fifteen feet (15') from the structure. Main~ trees Within one'hundred feet (I00') of any building, structure, or within ten feet (10') ~rom any ioadway, highway, street, alley, or driveway, so that no te~-y foliage, twigs, or branches are w/thin six feet (6') of the gmunch' The othe .mrise..required six fool (6')' foliage .clearance may be modified for specific F/re Resistive Pte~imge Trees .as defined and ~ther provided for in the. City of Dubtin V~rild~e Management.Plan. Remove any portion of a'tree ~h~. extJends within ten feet (10') of the outlet of a chimney or stovepipe. ~. Rurah. Parcels, one' acre Or less, shall require complete abatement of ali exterior fire hs.7~rc~s. .Parcels greater than one acre sh¢uld provide a rninimum twelve~foot (12').firebreak. Firebreaks are to follow as closely as practical., the property tine, xtong .one side ·of fence lines' ditches, and.on'top of ridges, or surrounding structures. Trees may be left within the ~'reb~eak and shall have iow limbs trimmed up .to a height of s'.m feet (6'). Al1 buildifigs and struc~es which are upon or adjoihk~g hazardous fire areas, shall be maintained with an effective firebreak by. removing and Cleating. away flammable vegetation and ~ombustible growth ~om within' dzi.rty feet (30')~ of such buildings or structures..' A f~6break of one hundred feet (1.00') may be required due to.~, topography, Or fuel. Where' practical, provide twelve-fOot (I2') firebreaks from inside fence line. along ail public roadways. Combustible storage, such as u~able lumber, COzd.fire wood, hay or s~.aw, shall be neatly 'stacked an all combusU~le grov~h shall be removed from within fifteen fee~ (i5') of'the stored nmterials.' Rm:al Residential: Remove from ~e prop~, ~o~as, ~ d¢~ ~ees~'~d m~.~nm~n. . fo~ ~¢hes..(4'~. Native .s~b~ shoed be 0I¢~ m a ~m~e of.~ i~ ~n f~t (15') of '~e. Rem0ve.~y po~on of a.~.br~ck wMch ~ends c~ey or stovepipe. Keep ~ ~S, 's~bs, ~d o~er vege~on adjust t0 or'ov~g~g ~y . b~g or smc~e ~ee 'of:d~d ~bS,. br~ches/or o~er ~mb~ble'mteM~s. provide ~elve-foot (12~) ~ebre~s ~om ~ide ~ence ~e ~ong.~ public roadways. Comb~fibt~ ~0rage, 's~h ~'usable .lmber,. cord' comb~le ~o~ '~ b~ r~oved tocamd less ~m ~hi~ 'f~ (30.') ~om s~ be r~ovod ~om ~e ~ope~. If you l~ave any questions, please contact the AIameda-'County. Fire Depa~i'tment ~ire PreVention Division, City of Dublin Division,:'i~t'925-833~6606. Police Services Department MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: May 14, 2003 Lee Thompson, Public Works Glenn Moon, Lieutenant~.~V?'· Alamo Creek Bike Path At the request of the City Council, research was completed regarding the existing trails of Martin Canyon Creek Trail, Iron Horse Trail and the Tassajara Creek Trail regarding calls for service. The period queried was for one year from May 2002 to May 2003. The following are the results of this study. Martin Canyon Creek Trail The Martin Canyon Creek area has always been open to the public, but became an official City of Dublin Trail in May 2001. The area is bordered by the streets of Silvergate Drive, Rolling Hills Drive, Martin Canyon Road, Bay Laurel Street, Dry Creek Drive and Inspiration Circle. There have been four (4) calls for service regarding activities along the trail during this study period. These calls were relating to juveniles playing paint ball wars in the creek area and similar disturbance calls related to juveniles making noise in the creek. There have been two (2) reported residential burglaries to residences that border the creek area. The residences were located on Dry Creek Drive and Rolling Hills Drive. There was no evidence from either investigation that access to the residence was made from the adjoining Creek area. Iron Horse Trail The Iron Horse Trail extends from the Dublin-Pleasanton Bart Station north to the Contra Costa County line and continues north to the City of Concord. tt encompasses two counties and travels through the cities of Dublin, San Ramon, Danville, Al.mo, Walnut Creek and Concord. In the City of Dublin, both residential and open areas border the trail as it crosses the City. The trail intersects Dublin Boulevard, Dougherty Road, and Anmdor Valley Boulevard and continues into Contra Costa County as it crosses Aleosta Boulevard. Dublin Police Services shares jurisdiction over the Iron Horse Trail with the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD). The EBRPD also .shares this arrangement with the or.her cities through which the Iron Horse Trail passes. There have been four (4) calls for services regarding the portion of the Iron Horse Trail that traverses the City of Dublin. The calls were for missing persons, injuries and motorized scooters utilizing the trail. There have been no residential burglaries to residences adjacent to the trail that could be attributed to access via the Iron Horse Trail. EBRPD Police were also contacted in order to research calls to their agency for service. During the one- year timeframe, there was only one call for service in the City of Dublin, involving a campsite along the trail. The remairdng calls were in the City of San Ramon and alt involved go-ped use on the trail. Tassajara Creek Trail The Tassajara Creek Trail is a newly-developed trail that has been open from one ~o two years extending from Dublin Boulevard north past Central Parkway and Gleason Drive to Casterson Drive. There are no residences that back up to the trail north of Central Parkway, but the trail is adjacent to housing between Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway. The Dublin Police have had no calls for service relating to the Tassajara Creek Trail.