Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
6.1 - 2373 Valley Christian Center
Page 1 of 9 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL DATE: February 5, 2019 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Christopher L. Foss, City Manager SUBJECT: Valley Christian Center: Planned Development Zoning Amendment and Site Development Review Permit (PLPA-2014-00052) Prepared by: Amy Million, Principal Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Valley Christian Center is requesting approval to modify the Planned Development Zoning for the campus. The Planned Development Zoning serves as the master plan to build-out the campus over time. The proposed amendments include the addition of a lighted athletic field and amphitheater with sound amplification, establishing a parking standard for the athletic field, and re-allocating the square footage allotted to various buildings/uses on the campus. The request also includes a Site Development Review Permit to construct the athletic field with a seating capacity of 600, a concession stand/ticket booth, and related site improvements including a plaza, amphitheater and landscaping. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Conduct the public hearing, deliberate, and a take the following actions: a) Adopt the Resolution Adopting a Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Valley Christian Center Project; b) Waive the reading and INTRODUCE an Ordinance Approving an Amendment to the Existing Planned Development Zoning for the Valley Christian Center; and c) Adopt the Resolution Approving a Site Development Review Permit for the Valley Christian Center Project. FINANCIAL IMPACT: No financial impact to the City. Any cost associated with processing the application is the responsibility of the Applicant. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Valley Christian Center is an approximate 51 -acre site located at 7500 Inspiration Drive, in the westerly area of Dublin. The site has a General Plan land use designation of Public/Semi-Public and has Planned Development Zoning (Ord. 7 -03). The site is comprised of four separate parcels (Parcel 1: 33.3 acres; P arcel 1a: 3.7 acres; Parcel 2: Page 2 of 9 1.4 acres; and Parcel 3: 12.7 acres) as shown in Figure 1 below. Parcel 1 is where most the existing and proposed campus improvements are located. No development is proposed on Parcels 2 and 3, with 8.02 acres of Parcel 3 tha t have been dedicated as a conservation easement which precludes development. The project site is surrounded by open space and residential land uses as shown in Table 1 below. Table 1: Surrounding Land Uses Location Zoning General Plan Land Use Current Use of the Property North Planned Development Low-Density Single Family Single Family Homes South N/A N/A Dublin Boulevard East Single Family Residential Single Family Residential Single Family Homes West Planned Development Open Space & Medium/High Density Residential Open Space & Condominiums Figure 1: Project Vicinity Page 3 of 9 The Applicant, Valley Christian Center, is proposing to add a lighted athletic field with sound amplification and related facilities including a concession stand and ticket bo oth along with site improvements including a plaza, amphitheater with amplification, and landscaping. The proposed athletic field and the related facilities will be used to support the school’s existing and future sports programs, including football, socce r, lacrosse and track. The Applicant also proposes to reallocate the square footage of various permitted uses on the campus, permit the continued use of several existing modular buildings, add a baseball diamond and a caretakers’ unit. The following is a brief overview of the requested entitlements. Please refer to the Planning Commission Staff Report and the chronological history for a complete analysis of the project (Attachments 1 & 2). ➢ Amendment to the existing Planned Development Zoning (Attachment 3). ➢ Site Development Review Permit for the athletic field, concession stand/ticket booth and related site improvements (Attachments 4 & 5). ➢ Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachments 6, 7, 8 & 9). September 4, 2018 Public Hearing (Continued) A Public Hearing was scheduled for the City Council meeting on September 4, 2018. Prior to opening the Public Hearing, the Applicant requested that the City Council continue this item in order for the Valley Christian Center to hold an open house and t o meet with the surrounding residents. September 11, 2018 Open House The Valley Christian Center hosted an open house on September 11, 2018. The event was open to all residents but focused on the Hacienda Heights neighborhood which is located immediately to the east. The meeting was attended by approximately 25 residents and included a tour of the campus as well as a presentation by the architect. In addition, City Staff was in attendance with the consultants that prepared the Environmental Noise Assessment and the Trip Generation, Traffic Circulation and Parking Analysis provided an overview of the studies and answered questions. The Q&A component of the meeting lasted approximately 75 minutes and residents expressed a variety of concerns about the proposed project, which primarily focused on noise, light and traffic impacts related to the proposed athletic field. The following is an overview of the main concerns raised by the residents: Noise Concerns The residents raised concerns about the level of noi se that will be generated by the use of proposed athletic field and associated public address (PA) system. Additionally, concerns were expressed that the noise analysis does not adequately factor in the unique topography, climate and wind conditions that would impact noise transmission in their neighborhood. Concern was also raised about the location where the noise measurements were taken. An environmental noise assessment was completed as part of the project review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to determine if the use of the field and PA system would create environmental impacts. The noise assessment was completed on the City’s behalf by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., using industry standards and in accordance with CEQA standards. Existing noise measurements were taken at the Page 4 of 9 nearest effected receptors located to the north and the east of the project site within the Hansen Ranch and Hacienda Heights neighborhoods. A summary of the noise measurements is shown in Table 4 of the Environmental Noise Assessment, which is attached to the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study (Attachment 7). The existing average noise level in the evening ranges from 48 to 50 dBA Leq. In order to estimate the noise level that would be gene rated by use of the proposed field and PA system, noise measurements were taken at Santa Teresa High School in San Jose, during a “rivalry” game between Santa Teresa High School and Oak Grove High School varsity teams. This sample game was considered to provide a conservative reading because it was attended by approximately 1,600 people, which exceeds both the originally proposed 1,100-person capacity and the reduced proposal of 600-person capacity of the proposed field and would result in more noise than generated at the proposed field. Based on these sample readings, use of the field and PA system are anticipated to increase noise by 1 dBA Leq resulting in a noise level of 49 to 51 dBA Leq at the nearest residences in the adjacent residential neighborhoods . The noise level in the neighborhood would remain below the 60 dBA CNEL exposure limits for residential uses in the General Plan. Staff asked the noise consultant to evaluate the residents’ concerns that wind and topography could increase the sports-related noise levels. The consultant applied assumptions regarding wind and topography and prepared a memo with their findings (Attachment 12). When accounting for a worst-case scenario that includes wind and topography, noise levels would increase by 4 to 5 d BA Leq, resulting in a noise level of 50 to 52 dBA Leq at the nearest residences. The noise level in the neighborhood would remain below the 60 dBA CNEL exposure limits for residential uses in the General Plan. While residents would experience a noticeable increase in noise, this increase would not result in a significant impact under CEQA that would require mitigation. The Valley Christian Center application does, however, propose to limit the times of day when the PA system can be used. Those limitations have been incorporated into the proposed Planned Development Zoning as use restrictions. The PD would allow use of the PA system until 8:00 pm Sunday-Thursday evenings and until 10:00 pm on Friday and Saturday evenings. The use of sound amplification at the amphitheater shall not commence before 10:00 am daily. Lighting Concerns The residents raised concerns about the impacts from the use of the proposed lights on the athletic field. The proposed lights vary in height from 60 to 70 feet tall and are interspersed around the field. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that was prepared for the Valley Christian Center in 2003 evaluated light impacts. The 2003 EIR concluded that light and glare could be a significant impact and required a mitigation measure to ensure that these impacts are less than significant. The existing mitigation measure requires that all exterior light fixtures be equipped with cut-off lenses, directed downward, and limited in height to the maximum necessary for adequate illumination to minimize excess light and glare (MM 4.1-2). This Mitigation Measure would continue to apply to this project. As part of the current project, a supplemental analysis was completed to determine if Page 5 of 9 the proposed athletic field lights would result in new or more significant light impacts than previously identified in the 2003 EIR. New impacts were identified, and a mitigation measure is proposed to reduce this impact to a less than significant level. The mitigation measure (MM AES-1) requires the applicant to submit a lighting plan, prior to building permit issuance for the athletic field, to demonstrate that no spillover of light or glare occurs. Similarly, the proposed Planned Development Zoning would regulate the use of lights at the athletic field consistent with the project description in the Initial Study and the project application. The PD would allow the use of light until 8:00 pm Sunday - Thursday evenings and until 10:00 pm on Friday and Saturday evenings. Traffic Concerns The residents raised concerns that football games would cause potential traffic congestion on Inspiration Drive, which could lead to traffic cutting through the residential neighborhoods. The 2003 EIR identified traffic impacts and mitigation measures to reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. This includes a mitigation measure to monitor cut through traffic and take steps to ensure that it does not increase (MM 4.10 -2). This mitigation measure would continue to apply to this project. A Trip Generation, Traffic Circulation, and Parking Analysis was prepared by Omni- Means, Ltd. to evaluate the current project could result in traffic impacts beyond those identified in the 2003 EIR. The traffic study assumed maximum attendance of 1,100 people at a football game. Vehicle trips for football games would occur during off-peak hours (6:00 pm - 7:00 pm and 9:00 pm - 10:00 pm). While there would be a noticeable increase in vehicle trips during these off -peak hours, the study concluded that these vehicle trips can be accommodated by the existing roadways. Supplemental mitigation measures have also been included (MM TRA -1 and TRA-2) to ensure that additional cut through traffic does not result from activities at Valley Christian, including use of the athletic field, and to ensure that parking is accommodated on site. These mitigation measures will be implemented in the Planned Development Zoning and Site Development Review (SDR) Permit. The Planned Development Zoning and SDR both prohibit varsity football games from occurring during peak traffic hours. The zoning further requires the applicant to hire a registered traffic engineer to prepare a Parking Management Plan. This plan is required to include measures to manage traffic that would cut through the neighborhood, and also include measures to ensure that parking can be accommodated on the Valley Christian site. October 2, 2018 Public Hearing (Continued) The project was scheduled for a Public Hearing on October 2, 2018. Prior to opening the Public Hearing, the Applicant requested that the City Council continue the item in order for the Valley Christian Center to continue its outreach efforts with the surrounding residents. The City Council voted unanimously to continue the Public Hearing to a date to be determined in the future. Since that time representatives on behalf of the Valley Christian Center, have met with several of the surrounding residents and HOA representatives. The Valley Christian Center has modified their project based on the concerns expressed by the residents (Attachment 10). The following is an overview of the proposed modifications to the project. These Page 6 of 9 modifications have been incorporated into the draft Ordinance for the Planned Development Zoning (Attachment 3) and the Site Development Review Conditions of Approval (Attachment 4). Capacity The proposed seating capacity within the bleachers has been reduced from 1,100 seats to 600 seats. The Valley Christian Center is designated as a North Coast Section (NCS) Division 5 school. The NCS standards require a minimum seating capacity of 600 seats to host a championship football game. The Valley Christian Center is requesting a seating capacity of 600 seats, which will allow the school to host a championship football game in the future. The running track around the field will be limited to eight lanes. The reduced number of bleacher seats also reduces the amount of parking that is required for the athletic complex. The new parking lot (Parking Lot F), which includes 111 parking spaces, is no longer required to be constructed in Phase 1. The parking standard for the athletic complex is 0.46 parking spaces per seat. The Valley Christian Center has committed to not lease the athletic complex to an outside party for music and/or entertainment. This restriction ha s been included in the Planned Development zoning (Attachment 3). Public Address System The Valley Christian Center has agreed to limit the use of the Public Address (PA) system at the athletic field to a maximum of 50 days per year. The sound amplific ation system cannot be used after 8:00 pm on weekdays (Monday - Thursday) and 10:00 pm on Friday and Saturday nights. Additionally, the PA system at the athletic field shall not be used on Sundays. These restrictions have been incorporated into the Planned Development zoning (Attachment 3). In addition, the Valley Christian Center has agreed to limit the use of the PA system at the amphitheater to a maximum of 15 days per year. The sound amplification system cannot be used after 8:00 pm on weekdays (Sund ay - Thursday) and 10:00 pm on Friday and Saturday evenings. The PA system at the amphitheater shall not be used before 10:00 am daily. These restrictions have been incorporated into the Planned Development Zoning (Attachment 3). The Applicant is also proposing modifications to the design of the PA system to reduce noise impacts. The original design was a sound system on light standards. The revised design positions the loudspeakers on stair railings or press box/scorer tables to more effectively project sound to the individuals in attendance. These modifications have been incorporated as Condition 18 of the Site Development Review Resolution (Attachment 4). Lighting The Applicant is proposing to use improved LED lighting technology that focuses the light on the playing field and does not result in any spill-over of stadium lighting off of the property. The proposed light fixtures will be encased within a box element that directs the lighting downward and prevents spill-over. Additionally, as required by Mitigation Measure AES-1, the Applicant is required to submit a detailed photometric analysis prior Page 7 of 9 to issuance of a building permit that ensures that there is no spill -over of stadium lighting. These changes have been incorporated into the Planned Develop ment zoning (Attachment 3) and as Condition 18 of the Site Development Review Resolution (Attachment 4). Amphitheater The amphitheater shall be limited to a maximum capacity of 450. This change has been incorporated into the Planned Development zoning (Attachment 3) and as Condition 18 of the Site Development Review Resolution (Attachment 4). Traffic Mitigation There is a Mitigation Measure that requires the Valley Christina Center to issue a yearly letter to students and parents requesting that no trips be made through the adjacent residential neighborhoods. Additionally, the Applicant proposes to post signs at athletic events to inform visitors that a left turn onto Inspiration Drive is restricted in order to eliminate cut-through traffic through the adjacent neighborhoods. The Valley Christian Staff will also direct traffic after games that have a projected attendance of 250 people or more. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW: The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on August 14, 2018 to review the proposed project. Six members of the public addressed the Planning Commission. Five people raised concerns about the potential impacts of the proposed athletic field, including light, noise and traffic. One member of the public spoke in support of the project. After reviewing the Staff Report, receiving presentations from Staff and the Applicant, and receiving public comment, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the project (Attachments 11 & 12). ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Development on the project site has been previously addressed in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Valley Christian Center Expansion Program (State Clearinghouse No. 200212070). On May 20, 2003, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution No. 92-03, certifying an EIR for the Valley Christian Center. Consistent with CEQA section 21166 and related CEQA Guidelines sections 15162/15163, the City prepared an Initial Study to determine whether additional environmental review was required for the proposed project. The Initial Study examined whether there were substantial changes to the proposed development, substantial changes in circumstances, or new information, any of which would result in new or more severe significant impacts than analyzed in the prior EIR or if any other CEQA standards for supplemental environmental review were met. The Initial Study determined that there were new potentially significant impacts associated with the project related to aesthetics, biological resources, noise, and transportation/traffic; therefore, a Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared to analyze those impacts. The environmental effects of the project are discussed in detail in the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. The project is subject to mitigations identified in the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Page 8 of 9 Declaration and the previously adopted EIR, as applicable. The City will monitor the Applicant’s compliance with mitigation measures as the project is constructed and operated under the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted in conjunction with the project approvals. The Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study was circulated for a public review period from June 12, 2018 to July 12, 2018. The City receive d two comment letters during the public review period. The City received additional letters following the close of the comment period. Though not required by CEQA, the City prepared a response to the comments. The response to comments includes a minor clarification to one of the mitigation measures, which is reflected in the final Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study is included as Attachment 7, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting P rogram is included as Attachments 8 and the Response to Comments is included as Attachment 9. The Response to Comments includes a response to comment letters that were received during the Public Comment Period in addition to letters that were received afte r the close of the Public Comment Period. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH: In accordance with the City’s policy, the Applicant installed a Planning Application Notice Sign along the project frontage. The sign includes details about the project and how to find out more information. Information about the project is also included on the City’s website. The Applicant conducted public outreach to the surrounding neighborhoods to discuss the proposed project. The City has also received comment letters regarding the project, which are included as Attachment 13. In accordance with State law, a public hearing notice was published in the East Bay Times and posted at several locations throughout the City. Notices were mailed to all property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the project site. Notices were also mailed to interested parties, which included the agencies and individuals that provided comments on the project. A copy of the Staff Report has been provided to the Applicant and posted to the City’s website. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Planning Commission Staff Report dated August 14, 2018 (without attachments) 2. Valley Christian Center Chronological History 3. Ordinance Amending the Planned Development Zoning District for the Valley Christian Center 4. Resolution Approving a Site Development Review Permit for the Valley Christian Center 5. Valley Christian Center Project Plans 6. Resolution Approving a Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Valley Christian Center Page 9 of 9 7. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Initial Study Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration 8. Exhibit B to Attachment 6 - Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program 9. Response to Comments January 2019 10. Letter from Guy Houston dated November 16, 2018 11. PC Resolution Nos. 18-18, 18-19 & 18-20 12. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated August 14, 2018 13. Public Comment Letters Page 1 of 10 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: August 14, 2018 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: Valley Christian Center Planned Development Zoning Amendment and Site Development Review Permit (PLPA-2014-00052) Prepared by:Martha Battaglia, Associate Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Valley Christian Center is requesting approval to modify the Planned Development Zoning for the campus. The Planned Development Zoning serves as the master plan to build out the campus over time. The proposed amendments include the addition of a lighted athletic field with sound amplification, establishing a parking standard for the field, and re-allocating the square feet associated with other various buildings/uses on the campus. The request also includes a Site Devel opment Review Permit to construct the athletic field, a concession stand/ticket booth and associated site improvements including a new parking lot, plaza and landscaping. The Planning Commission will review the proposed project and make a recommendation to the City Council. RECOMMENDATION: Conduct the public hearing, deliberate and a take the following actions: a) Adopt the Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a Resolution approving a Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigati on Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Valley Christian Center; b) Adopt the Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance amending the Planned Development Zoning District for the Valley Christian Center; and c) Adopt the Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a Resolution approving a Site Development Review Permit for the Valley Christian Center. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Valley Christian Center is an approximate 51 -acre site located at 7500 Inspiration Drive, which is in the westerly portion of Dublin. The site has a General Plan land use designation of Public/Semi-Public Facility, and Planned Development Zoning. The site is comprised of four separate parcels (Parcel 1: 33.3 acre; Parcel 1a: 3.7 acres; Parcel 2: 1.4 acres; and Parcel 3: 12.7 acres) as shown in Figure 1 below. Parcel 1 is where the majority of the campus improvements are located. No development is proposed on Parcels 2 and 3 with 8.02 acres of Parcel 3 that have been dedicated as a conservation easement which precludes development. The project site is surrounded by open space and residential land uses as shown in Table 1 below. Page 2 of 10 Table 1: Surrounding Land Uses Location Zoning General Plan Land Use Current Use of the Property North PD (Planned Development) Low-Density Single Family Single Family Homes South N/A N/A Dublin Boulevard East R-1 (Single Family Residential) Single Family Residential Single Family Homes West PD (Planned Development) Open Space & Medium/High Density Residential Open Space & Condominiums Figure 1: Project Vicinity Project History The Valley Christian Center was originally approved under a Conditional Use Permit issued by Alameda County in 1978, prior to incorporation of Dublin. Following incorporation the City granted approval for a number of school and church related buildings and supporting facilities, including sports fields and parking lots. Subsequently in 2003, the City Council approved Planned Development Zoning with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan. The intent of the Planned Development Zoning was to provide a master plan for future improvements on the site and to allow phased construction of improvements. Parcel 1A Parcel 1 Parcel 2 Parcel 3 Page 3 of 10 Following approval of the Planned Development Zoning, a number of buildings and other improvements have been constructed on the site. Please refer to Attachment 1 for a chronological history of the various entitlements that have been approved for the site. The following improvements/structures are currently located on the Valley Christian Center site as shown in Figure 2 below. • 14,400 square-foot Sanctuary/Fellowship Hall Building (which includes pre - school/day care uses); • 15,700 square-foot sanctuary; • 10,000 square-foot pre-school building; • 52,500 square-foot elementary school building; • 10,725 square-foot junior high school building; • 32,600 square-foot high school building; • 5,000 square-foot temporary modular Administration building; • 2,900 square-foot modular classrooms (2 classrooms); • Surface parking; • Two sports field areas; and • Asphalt play area which also accommodates overflow parking when necessary. Figure 2: Existing Improvements The Applicant is currently proposing to add a lighted athletic field with sound amplification and related facilities including a concession stand and ti cket booth along with site improvements including a parking lot, plaza and landscaping. The proposed athletic field and the supporting facilities will be used to support the schools existing sports programs, including football, soccer and track. The Applicant also proposes to reallocate the square footage of various permitted uses on the campus, and permit the continued use of several existing modular buildings and add a baseball diamond. The application includes a request for the following: Page 4 of 10 1. Amendment to the existing Planned Development Zoning and related Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan; and 2. Site Development Review Permit for the athletic field, concession stand/ticket booth and associated site improvements; and 3. Approval of a Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration. ANALYSIS: Planned Development Zoning Amendment The project site has Planned Development Zoning which identifies future uses and the location and size of future buildings and expansion of existing buildings. The following is a summary of the proposed amendments to the existing Planned Development Zoning as shown in the draft Ordinance. These amendments are intended to enable the Valley Christian Center to meet their current and future needs as the center grows and matures. Please refer to the proposed Ordinance amending the Planned Development Zoning. • Add an athletic field with lights and sound amplification and related supporting facilities including bleachers, ticket booth and concession stand as permitted uses. Restrictions on the use of the lights and sound amplification have been included to limit the impact to surrounding residents. Use of the lights and sound amplification can occur up until 8:00 pm Monday-Thursday and until 10:00 pm on Friday and Saturday nights. Amplification may be used during the day for football games, soccer games and track meets. • Add a caretaker unit to be occupied by a Valley Christian staff member. A Site Development Review Permit will be required prior to the caretaker unit being constructed. • Continue the use of two modular buildings as classrooms and a modular building as an administrative office and make them permitted uses (instead of a Conditional Use). The modular buildings shall be removed from the site upon occupancy of permanent structures to replace their use. • Minor modification to the western boundary of the PD and allow a future baseball diamond on Parcel 1a. • Re-allocate the square footage associated with various other buildings/uses on the campus. The proposal would add approximately 1,300 squa re feet to the total amount of development currently allowed. Please refer to Table 2 below for the proposed allocation. • Establish a parking requirement of 0.46 spaces per seat for the proposed athletic field based. This requirement was determined based on a Traffic and Parking Analysis (Attachment 2) prepared by Omni Means under direction and review of the City’s Transportation and Operations Manager. The PD restricts the use of the football field for games to times when the school and church are not in operation in order to ensure that adequate on -site parking is provided to meet the anticipated parking demand during football games. Page 5 of 10 Table 2: Existing and Proposed Development A Resolution recommending that the City Council approve the amendments to the Planned Development Zoning is included as Attachment 3 to this Staff Report with the Ordinance included as Attachment 4. Site Development Review Construction of the proposed athletic field, supporting facilities, plaza and landscaping are subject to Site Development Review as further discussed below. Site Layout The proposed athletic field will be located adjacent to Inspiration Drive (See Figure 2 below) where an existing sports field, a vacant undeveloped pad, and driveway and parking lot are located. The proposed athletic field includes a synthetic turf field that is approximately 204 feet wide by 440 feet long. An eight lane 400 meter oval track is proposed around the field. The field will include light standards that vary from 60 -70 feet tall (the height varies to accommodate grade differentials) and interspersed around the field. A Condition of Approval (Condition 18) has been included to ensure that the lights Building Use Approved PD – 2003 Proposed PD Amendment Difference (Approved – Proposed) A Sanctuary 90,000 SF 47,400 SF -42,600 SF A1 Pre-School/Day Care/Fellowship/Admi n. 14,400 SF 30,600 SF +16,200 SF A2 Fellowship/Sanctuary/ Admin. 0 SF 7,400 SF +7,400 SF D, 2 Pre-School/Daycare 11,000 SF 22,300 SF +11,300 SF 3 Jr. /Sr. High School 8,800 SF 10,725 SF +1,925 SF 4 Jr./Sr. High School 32,600 SF 32,600 SF 0 SF 5 Elementary School 52,500 SF 52,500 SF 0 SF B Jr. & Sr. High School/Admin./Sports 45,000 SF 52,075 SF +7,075 SF C Sports/School 15,000 SF 15,000 SF 0 SF E Senior Center/Counseling/ Club/Activity Center 30,000 SF 30,000 SF 0 SF F Church/School Assembly 6,000 SF 6,000 SF 0 SF Total 305,300 SF 306,600 SF +1,300 SF Page 6 of 10 and sound amplification are only used during the times permitted by the Planned Development Zoning. Bleachers are proposed along the southwest side of the athletic field away from Inspiration Drive. The proposed bleachers include 8 rows and have a seating capacity of 1,100 people. Bleacher seating is not proposed along the side of the field adjacent to Inspiration Drive. Retaining walls with heights of 3’-11’ are proposed around a portion of the field. This includes a 4’ section of wall near the bleachers and southern corner of the field edge. A 9’-11’ retaining wall is also located along the northwest portion of the field. To integrate the athletic field into the campus, a central plaza is proposed in the interior of the site between the existing sanctuary building, existing student center and the existing Junior/Senior High School. The central plaza includes a water feature, a 60’ tall cross, landscaping and outdoor seating. The cross is permitted under the existing zoning and the Planning Commission previously approved construction of the cross with the Site Development Review Permit for the s anctuary in 2010. However, the cross was never constructed. The proposed plaza creates a centerpiece to the campus that provides an outdoor gathering area. An outdoor amphitheater with a stage is also proposed on the interior of the site, southwest of the new athletic field. Figure 3. Proposed Location of the Athletic Field Proposed Athletic Field Proposed Bleachers Proposed Ticket Booth/Consession Stand Page 7 of 10 Facilities to support the athletic field, which include a concession stand, ticket booth, and restrooms, are located adjacent to the bleachers on the interior side of the field, opposite Inspiration Drive. The concessio n stand/ticket booth building is 11 feet tall with a flat “green” roof that incorporates landscaping into the roof. The design is simple and functional with white corrugated metal siding with large window openings for concession and ticket sales. “Valley Christian Center” letters will be painted on the corrugated metal as shown on Sheet A1.0 of Attachment 5. Figure 5. Proposed Concession Stand/Ticket Booth Landscaping New landscaping is proposed around the athletic field, amphitheater, parking lot, and central plaza. A green roof is also proposed on top of the concession stand/ticket booth. A total of 157 new trees are proposed to be planted. The majority of trees (91%) are 36” box trees. The remaining trees are 24” box. As shown on Sheets L1.3 and L1.4 of Attachment 5 there are a total of 130 existing trees in the vicinity of the proposed site modifications. Of these trees, 114 will be removed to accommodate the proposed athletic field and associated improvements. None of the trees proposed for removal are considered to be heritage trees. Shrubs are also proposed at the perimeter of the Figure 4. Athletic Field Aerial (view from Inspiration Drive into the campus) Inspiration Drive Page 8 of 10 athletic field and within the parking lot. The proposed landscaping palette is compatible with the existing plant species on the site. Please refer to Attachment 5, Sheet L4.0 for the proposed Landscape Plan. Figure 6. Central Plaza (View to the north towards Inspiration Drive) Parking The Valley Christian Center consists of three separate parking generating components: the sanctuary; the school facilities; and the new sports field. The number of parking spaces for the sanctuary and school facilities is based on the current Zoning Ordinance requirements (Chapter 8.76), and the parking requirement for the athletic field was determined based on a parking analysis and inco rporated into the Planned Development Zoning. Each parking generating use on the campus operate at different times. The campus has been designed to provide parking to meet the greatest demand for each individual use. The parking requirement for the athletic field to be 0.46 parking spaces per seat. The proposed athletic field has a seating capacity of 1,100 seats. Therefore, the applicant is required to provide a total of 506 spaces for the athletic field. The Valley Christian Center will expand in phases over time. The proposed athletic field will be constructed in Phase 1 along with additional parking spaces based on the findings of the parking study to increase the number of parking to meet the projected demand. A total of 511 parking spaces are proposed for Phase 1 to accommodate the athletic field. The parking provided on-site will increase to 530 spaces in Phase 3 and to 600 spaces in Phase 4 to accommodate the planned expansion of other facilities on the campus. A Resolution recommending that the City Council approve the Site Development Review Permit is included as Attachment 6 with the Draft City Council Resolution included as Attachment 7 (Exhibit A to Attachment 6). CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE: Page 9 of 10 The proposed athletic field and associated site improvements are consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation of Public/Semi-Public which allows community serving uses. The proposed athletic field and associated improvements are consistent with Public/Semi-Public land use and typical uses for a school. These uses and improvements are consistent with the Planned Development Zoning for the Valley Christian Center, as amended. REVIEW BY APPLICABLE DEPARTMENT AND AGENCIES: The Building Division, Fire Prevention Bureau, Public Works Department, and Dublin San Ramon Services District reviewed the project and provided Conditions of Approval where appropriate to ensure that the project is established in compliance with all local ordinances and regulations. Conditions of Approval from these departments and agencies have been included in the attached Resolution pertaining to the Site Development Review (Attachment 7). ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Development on the project site has been previously addressed in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Valley Christian Center Expansion Program (State Clearinghouse No. 200212070). On May 20, 2003, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution No. 92-03, certifying an EIR for the Valley Christian Center. Consistent with CEQA section 21166 and related CEQA Guidelines sections 15162/15163, the City prepared an Initial Study to determine whether additional environmental review was required for the proposed project. The Initial Study examined whether there were substantial changes to the proposed development, substantial changes in circumstances, or new information, any of which would result in new or more severe significant impacts than analyzed in the prior EIR or if any other CEQA standards for supplemental environmental review were met. The Initial Study determined that there were new potentially significant impacts associated with the project related to aesthetics, biological resources, noise, and transportation/traffic; therefore, a Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared to analyze those impacts. The environmental effects of the project are discussed in detail in the Supplemental MND for the project. The project is subject to mitigations identified in the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration and the previously adopted EIR, as applicable. The City will monitor the Applicant’s compliance with mitigation measures as the project is constructed and operated under the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted in conjunction with the project approvals. The Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study was circulated for a public review period from June 12, 2018 to July 12, 2018. The City received two comment letters during the public review period. Though not required by CEQA, the City prepared a response to the comments. The response to comments includes a minor Page 10 of 10 clarification to one of the mitigation measures, which is reflected in the final Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. A Resolution recommending that the City Council approve the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration is included as Attachment 8 with the Draft City Council Resolution included as Attachment 9 (Exhibit A to Attachment 8). The Initial Study/Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration is included as Attachment 10, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is included as Attachments 11 and the Response to Comments is included as Attachment 12. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH: In accordance with State law, a public hearing notice was published in the East Bay Times and posted at several locations throughout the City. Notices were mailed to all property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the project site. Notices were also mailed to interested parties, which included the agencies that provided comments on the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration. A copy of the Staff Report has been provided to the Applicant and posted to the City’s website. The project is also included on the City’s Project Development Website. The City required the Applicant to conduct public outreach to the surrounding neighborhoods to discuss their proposed plans. The Applicant met with the Hansen Ranch neighborhood and with the California Highlands neighborhood in August/September 2016. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Valley Christian Center Chronological History 2. Trip Generation, Traffic Circulation & Parking Analysis 3. Resolution Recommending that the City Council Adopt an Ordinance Amending the Planned Development Zoning 4. Exhibit A to Attachment 3. Draft City Council Ordinance Amending the Planned Development Zoning 5. Valley Christian Center Project Plans 6. Resolution Recommending that the City Council Approve the Site Development Review Permit 7. Exhibit A to Attachment 6. Draft City Council Resolution Approving a Site Development Review Permit 8. Resolution Recommending that the City Council to Adopt a Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration 9. Exhibit A to Attachment 8. Draft City Council Resolution Adopting the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration 10. Exhibit A to Attachment 8. Valley Christian Center Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration - Initial Study 11. Exhibit B to Attachment 8. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 12. Response to Comments regarding the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declarat ion Valley Christian Center Chronological History A Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of the Valley Christian Center was approved by Alameda County on January 25, 1978 (prior to the incorporation of the City of Dublin in 1982). On July 18, 1983, the Planning Commission approved a Site Development Review Permit to construct classrooms and related parking. On March 5, 1984, the Planning Commission approved a Site Development Review Permit for the construction of a second parking lot, a sports field, administration building, maintenance building and relocation of the Family Center building. On July 21, 1986, the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit/Site Development Review Permit to allow the construction of a 2,850 square foot addition to the existing sanctuary. On August 1, 1986, the Planning Commission approved a Site Development Review Permit to allow the construction of an expansion to the school facility. On March 7, 1988, the Planning Commission approved a Site Development Review Permit to construct a 31,766 square foot Family Center consisting of a gymnasium, locker rooms and class rooms. On April 17, 1996, the Planning Commission approved a Site Development Review Permit to allow for an expansion of the existing playfield. On August 11, 1998, the Planning Commissio n approved a Site Development Review Permit to allow two temporary modular classroom buildings to be located on the site. On April 22, 2003, the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review Permit to allow the construction of a temporary administration building and to extend the permit approval for the two modular classrooms. On May 20, 2003, the City Council certified an Environmental Impact Report (SCH 2002012070) for the Master Plan (Stage 1/Stage 2 Development Pla n) for the Valley Christian Center. On June 3, 2003, the City Council approved a Planned Development Rezone with a Stage 1/Stage 2 Development Plan for the Valley Christian Center which established a Master Plan for the phased construction of buildings and improvements on the property including a 90,000 square foot sanctuary building. On August 14, 2007, the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit for a minor amendment to the Stage 1/Stage Development Plan and a Site Development Review Permit for a temporary practice field and temporary weight/training building. On May 11, 2010, the Planning Commission approved a Site Development Review Permit to allow the construction of a 15,700 square-foot sanctuary, 60-foot-tall cross and related improvements. On May 25, 2010, the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit for a minor amendment to the Stage 1/Stage Development Plan and a Site Development Review Permit to allow a temporary modular classroom building. On June 18, 2013, the Community Development Director approved a Site Development Review Permit for façade renovations and a 1,925 square foot addition to the science building. 1 ORDINANCE NO. XX – 19 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN * * * * * * * * * * * * * * APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE EXISTING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING FOR THE VALLEY CHRISTIAN CENTER PLPA 2014-00052 (APN 941-0022-003, 004, 005 & 006) The Dublin City Council does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. RECITALS A. The Applicant, the Valley Christian Center, has requested approval of an amendment to the existing Planned Development Zoning District, and a Site Development Review Permit to construct a lighted athletic field with sound amplification , a concession stand/ticket booth and associated site improvements including a plaza and landscaping. These planning and implementing actions are collectively known as the “Valley Christian Center p roject” or the “Project”; and B. The project site is approximately 51 acres and is located at 7500 Inspiration Drive in the westerly portion of Dublin; and C. In 2003, the City Council approved Planned Development Zoning for the Valley Christian Center Campus (Ordinance No. 7-03), which serves as a master plan and established future uses and the location and size of future buildings and expansion of existing buildings. The intent of the Planned Development Zoning was to provide a plan for future improvements on the site and to allow phased construction of improvements; and D. The proposed amendments to the existing Planned Development Zoning include the addition of a lighted athletic field with sound amplification, establishing a par king standard for the field, minor adjustment to the western boundary, re-allocating the square feet associated with other various buildings/uses on the campus and permit the continued use of modular buildings on the site; and E. In 2003, the City Council adopted Resolution 92-03 certifying an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and adopted findings and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Valley Christian Center Expansion/Master Plan project; and F. The City prepared a modified Initial Study to determine whether supplemental environmental review was required for the currently proposed Valley Christian Center project under CEQA standards. The Initial Study examined whether there were substantial changes to the proposed development, substantial changes in circumstances, or new information, any of which would result in new or more severe significant impacts than analyzed in the prior Valley Christian Center EIR or whether any other standards for supplemental environmental review were met; and G. Upon completion of the Initial Study it was determined that there were new potentially significant impacts associated with the project related to aesthetics, biological resources, noise, and transportation/traffic; therefore, a Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration was 2 prepared to analyze those impacts and included mitigation measures to reduce the impacts to less than significant; and H. The Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study was circulated for public review from June 12, 2018 to July 12, 2018. The City of Dublin received two comment letters during the public review period and five additional comment letters after the public review period closed; and I. Following a public hearing on August 14, 2018, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 18-18 recommending that the City Council adopt the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and J. Following a public hearing on August 14, 2018, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 18-19, recommending that the City Council approve the amendment to the existing Planned Development Zoning District, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and K. A Staff Report, dated September 4, 2018, October 2, 2018 and February 5, 2019, and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the project, including the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration and the amendment to the Planned Development Zoning District for the City Council; and L. On September 4, 2018, the City Council was scheduled to hold a properly noticed public hearing on the project and the Amendment to the Planned Development Zoning for the Valley Christian Center and upon a request by the Applicant, continued the item to October 2, 2018; and M. On October 2, 2018, the City Council was scheduled to hold a properly noticed public hearing on the project and the Amendment to the Planned Development Zoning for the Valley Christian Center and upon a request by the Applicant, continued the item to a date uncertain; and N. On February 5, 2019, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the project, including the proposed amendment to the Planned Development Zoning District, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and O. The City Council adopted Resolution xx-19 adopting the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project; and P. The City Council considered the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration and related prior CEQA documents and all above referenced reports, recommendations, and testimony prior to taking action on the project. SECTION 2: FINDINGS A. Pursuant to Section 8.32.070 of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council finds as follows. 1. The Valley Christian Center project meets the purpose and intent of Chapter 8.32 in that it continues to provide a comprehensive master plan that creates a desirable use of land 3 that is sensitive to surrounding land uses by virtue of the layout and design of the site plan. 2. Development of the Valley Christian project under the amended PD-Planned Development zoning will be harmonious and compatible with existing and future development in the surrounding area in that the site provides facilities that will be used to support the school’s academic and sports programs. As conditioned, the school facilities will be operated in a manner as to reduce impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. B. Pursuant to Sections 8.120.050.A and B of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council finds as follows. 1. The amended PD-Planned Development zoning for the Valley Christian Center project will be harmonious and compatible with existing and potential development in the surrounding area in that the proposed site plan has taken into account sensitive adjacencies and will provide facilities to support the existing school. The proposed site plan has taken into account a land use type and density that is compatible with the adjacent areas and densities. 2. The project site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the amended zoning district being proposed in that the project site is relatively flat with improved public streets and utilities. The project site conditions are documented in the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study and prior certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and the project will implement all adopted mitigation measures, as applicable. There are no site conditions that were identified in the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study that will present an impediment to development of the site for the proposed campus development. 3. The amended PD-Planned Development zoning will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or be detrimental to the public heal th, safety and welfare in that the project will comply with all applicable development regulations and standards and will implement all adopted mitigation measures , as applicable. The project uses are compatible with surrounding uses. 4. The amended PD-Planned Development zoning is consistent with and in conformance with the Dublin General Plan, in that the existing church and school is consistent with the existing Public/Semi-Public land use designations for the site. SECTION 3. AMENDMENTS TO THE EXISTING STAGE 1 & STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1. Statement of proposed uses: Parcel 1. PD – Community Facility The following uses are added as a permitted use for Parcel 1. PD – Community Facility • Athletic field with lights and sound amplification. • Amphitheater with sound amplification. The amphitheater is limited to a maximum capacity of 450. • Facilities to support the athletic field, including but not limited to bleachers with a maximum of 600 seats, an 8 lane running track, a ticket booth and concession stand. These facilities shall not be used for music/entertainment events by non -Valley Christian organizations. 4 • One on-site residential caretaker unit to be occupied by a Valley Christian Center staff member. • Two modular buildings to be used as temporary classrooms (totaling up to 3,500 square feet). The modular buildings shall be removed from the site upon occupancy of the permanent structures • 5,000 square-foot modular building to be used as an administrative office until such time as the present administrative office building is expanded. 2. Statement of proposed uses: Parcel 1-A The following uses are added as a permitted use for Parcel 1-A. PD – Community Facility • Sports facilities, including but not limited to b aseball diamond and basketball court (without night game illumination and without public announcement system). • Facilities to support the sports facilities, including but not limited to dugouts, bleachers, ticket booth and concession stand. • Storage buildings/containers. 3. Site area, proposed densities, size and new area, Phasing Plan (Parcel 1 & 1-A) The square feet associated with the buildings/uses on campus are amended to read as follows (refer to the Site Plan for the general location of these facilities): Development of the project site may occur in phases over time provided that adequate parking is provided to support the development using shared parking. Modifications to the proposed size of individual buildings may be approved by the Community Developm ent Director. Letters and numbers shown in the table above do not imply sequence of timing or phasing. The remaining improvements are envisioned to be constructed in 4 phases as shown below and on the Site Plan. The location, size and configuration of buildings and improvements is conceptual in nature and may be adjusted. Building Land Use Building Size A Sanctuary 47,400 SF A1 Pre-School/Day Care/Fellowship/Administration 30,600 SF A2 Fellowship/Sanctuary/Administration 7,400 SF D, 2 Pre-School/Daycare 22,300 SF 3 Junior/Senior High School 10,725 SF 4 Junior/Senior High School 32,600 SF 5 Elementary School 52,500 SF B Junior & Senior High School/Administration/Sports 52,075 SF C Sports Support Facilities/School building 15,000 SF E Senior Center/Counseling/Club/Activity Center/Caretaker unit 30,000 SF F Church/School Assembly 6,000 SF Total 306,600 SF 5 Phase 1: Improvements as shown in the Phase 1 Site Plan and generally described below Phase 1 improvements include the following: • New athletic field & support facilities • New Central plaza & site improvmements • New caretaker unit Anticipated New building area (gross square feet): • C1 & C2 support facilities: 2,500 SF • Caretaker unit E-1: 1,000 SF Total: 3,500 SF Phase 1 Site Plan Phase 2: Improvements as shown in the Phase 2 Site Plan and generally described below Phase 2 improvements include the following: • Demolition of temporary office and classrooms • New Building C • Building A1 build-out • Building 2, D build-out 6 Anticipated New building area (gross square feet): • Building C: 12,500 SF • A1: : 16,200 SF • D,2: 12,300 SF Total: 41,000 SF Phase 2 Site Plan Phase 3: Improvements as shown in the Phase 3 Site Plan and generally described below Phase 3 improvements include the following: • West site access & parking adjacent to new Building B • Site improvements and new play areas, including a baseball diamond • New Building B • Removal of temporary storage containers • New storage B1 Anticipated New building area (gross square feet): • Building B – south: 28,200 SF • Storage B1: 1,000 SF Total: 29,200 SF 7 Phase 3 Site Plan Phase 4: Improvements as shown in the Phase 4 Site Plan and generally described below Phase 4 improvements include the following: • Building A build-out • New Building A2 • New Building E and parking • New Building B & site improvements Anticipated New building area (gross square feet): • Building A: 31,700 SF • Building A2: 7,400 SF • Building E: 29,000 SF • Building B: 22,875 SF • Building F: 6,000 SF Total: 96,975 SF West site access & parking 8 Phase 4 Site Plan 4. Parking/Traffic Standards: The following parking standards are added to apply to Parcel 1: • The parking requirement for the athletic field is 0.46 spaces per seat. • No other events, including but not limited to class sessions, school events or religions activities are permitted on the campus at the sa me time that a football game is held on campus. Other events may occur at the same time that the athletic field is in use for practices, soccer games, track meets as long as the required parking does not exceed the provided parking. • As required by Mitigation Measure T RA-2, prior to the issuance of a building permit for the athletic field, the Applicant shall retain a California-registered Traffic Engineer to prepare a Parking Management Plan for the operation of football games and other large activities (such as graduations) held at the proposed athletic field . The Parking Management Plan shall include measures to manage traffic that would cut through the neighborhood. The Parking Management Plan is subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director and the Public Works Director and shall be reviewed by the City periodically at the City’s discretion. • The Valley Christian Center shall post signs at athletic events to inform visitors that a left turn onto Inspiration Drive is restricted in order to eliminate cut through traffic through adjacent neighborhoods. 9 • Valley Christian Center Staff shall direct traffic after games and at other large events that have a projected attendance of 250 people or more. • Varsity football games and other large activities are prohibited from occurring on the athletic field during peak traffic hours (4:00 pm to 6:00 pm). 5. Amended Site Plan The site plan is amended as shown below: 10 6. Amended Landscape Plan The landscape plan is amended for a portion of Parcel 1 as shown below: 7. Development Standards for Lights/Public Address System • The amplification system at the athletic field shall not exceed 75dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet from each speaker (Mitigation Measure NOISE-1 from the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, June 2018 ). • The speakers for the athletic field shall be mounted on stair railings or press box/scorer tables and directed towards the bleachers. • The lights and sound amplification at the athletic field shall not be used after 8:00 pm on Monday through Thursday and after 10:00 pm on Friday and Saturday evenings. The lights and sound amplification shall not be used on Sundays. Amplified sound is permitted during the day for other sporting events including football games, soccer games and track meets. • The Public Address system at the athletic field shall be used a maximum of 50 times per year. 11 • The amplification system at the outdoor amphitheater shall not exceed 75 dBA at a distance of 50 feet from each speaker (Mitigation Measure NOISE -1 from the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, June 2018). • Amplified sound is allowed at the amphitheater for theatrical plays and lectures. Use of sound amplification at the amphitheater shall not commence before 10:00 am daily, and shall conclude by 8:00 pm on Sunday through Thursday and 10:00 pm on Friday and Saturday evenings. • The Public Address system at the amphitheater shall be used a maximum of 15 times per year. • Athletic field lights shall use LED or similar energy efficient technology with similar directional light capabilities. All lights fixtures shall be encased within a box element that directs the lighting downward to prevent light spill-over. Athletic field light levels shall be 0 foot candle at shared property lines with residential uses. SECTION 4. POSTING OF ORDINANCE The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in at least three (3) public spaces in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code of the State of California. SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days following its adopt ion. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin, on this _________ day of _____________ 2019, by the following votes: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: _____________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. xx – 19 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN * * * * * * * * * * * * * * APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT FOR THE VALLEY CHRISTIAN CENTER PROJECT PLPA 2014-00052 (APN 941-0022-003, 004, 005 & 006) WHEREAS, the Applicant, the Valley Christian Center, has requested approval of an amendment to the existing Planned Development Zoning District, and a Site Development Review Permit to construct a lighted athletic field with sound amplification, a concessi on stand/ticket booth and associated site improvements including a plaza and landscaping. These planning and implementing actions are collectively known as the “Valley Christian Center project” or the “Project”; and WHEREAS, the project site is approximately 51 acres and is located at 7500 Inspiration Drive in the westerly portion of Dublin; and WHEREAS, the project site is located within a Planned Development Zoning District; and WHEREAS, the project plans illustrate the proposed lighted athletic field, the concession stand/ticket booth, and associated site improvements consistent with the Planned Development zoning proposed as part of this project; and WHEREAS, the Site Development Review Permit application collectively defines this project and is available and on file in the Community Development Department; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State guidelines and City environmental regulations, require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared ; and WHEREAS, in 2003, the City Council adopted a Resolution certifying an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and adopted findings and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Valley Christian Center Expansion/Master Plan project (Resolution No. 92 -03, incorporated herein by reference); and WHEREAS, the City prepared a modified Initial Study to determine whether supplemental environmental review was required for the currently proposed Valley Christian Center project under CEQA standards. The Initial Study examined whether there were substantial changes to the proposed development, substantial changes in circumstances, o r new information, any of which would result in new or more severe significant impacts than analyzed in the prior Valley Christian Center EIR or whether any other standards for supplemental environmental review were met; and WHEREAS, upon completion of the Initial Study it was determined that there were new potentially significant impacts associated with the project related to aesthetics, biological resources, noise, and transportation/traffic; therefore, a Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared to analyze those impacts and included mitigation measures to reduce the impacts to less than significant; and 2 WHEREAS, the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study was circulated for public review from June 12, 2018 to July 12, 2018; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin received two comment letters during the public review period and five additional comment letters during the public review period closed; and WHEREAS, on August 14 2018, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 18-18 recommending that the City Council adopt the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project; and WHEREAS, on August 14, 2018, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 18-19 recommending that the City Council approve a n amendment to the existing Planned Development Zoning District and Resolution 18-20 recommending that the City Council approve the Site Development Review Permit for the Valley Christian Center, which Resolutions are incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and WHEREAS, on September 4, 2018, the City Council was scheduled to hold a properly noticed public hearing on the project and the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration and upon a request by the Applicant, continued the item to October 2, 2018; and WHEREAS, on October 2, 2018, the City Council was scheduled to hold a properly noticed public hearing on the project and the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration and upon a request by the Applicant, continued the item to a date uncertain; and WHEREAS, on February 5, 2019, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the project and Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated September 4, 2018, October 2, 2018 and February 5, 2019 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the project, including the amendment to the Planned Development Zoning District, Site Development Review Permit, and Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration for the City Council; and WHEREAS, on February 5, 2019 the City Council adopted Resolution xx-19 adopting the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program for the project; and WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and use independent judgment and considered all said reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby make the following findings and determinations regarding the Site Development Review Permit for the Valley Christian Center: A. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of Chapter 8.104 (Site Development Review) of the Zoning Ordinance, with the General Plan, and any applicable Specific Plans and design guidelines because: 1) the proposed project is consistent with the use of the property, which is used for a church and a school; 2) the proposed project 3 gives thoughtful consideration to the athletic field location, landscape design, on-site circulation, and parking; and 3) the proposed project will conform to the allowable uses as stated in the Planned Development Zoning Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan. B. The proposal is consistent with the provisions of Title 8, Zoning Ordinance because: 1) the facilities will be used to support the school’s sports programs, including but not limited to football, track, and soccer; 2) the athletic field and use of the facilities is consistent with typical uses for schools which include a variety of sports programs; and 3) adequate parking will be provided to support the athletic field. C. The design of the Project is appropriate to the City, the vicinity, surrounding properties, and the lot(s) in which the Project is proposed because: 1) the athletic field will be located on a portion of the site that is developed with an existing sports field , a vacant undeveloped pad and a parking lot; 2) the proposed athletic field is consistent with the use of the property; 3) the project is designed to include sufficient vehicular and pedestrian access, with parking to support the uses; 4) Mitigation Measures have been placed on the project to minimize impacts related to Light & Glare, Noise and Traffic to the surrounding neighborhood; and 5) as conditioned, the athletic field will be operated in a manner as to reduce impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. D. The subject site is suitable for the type and intensity of the approved development because: 1) the Stage 1/Stage 2 Planned Development Zoning has been amended to permit a lighted athletic field with sound amplification; and 2) the proposed project includes a new athletic field and supporting facilities to support the school’s sports programs, which is compatible with uses that are typical of a school; and 3) the facilities will be used as an additional program utilized by the existing school and will therefore not result in an increase in the number of students on the site. E. Impacts to existing slopes and topographic features are addressed because : 1) the project site is relatively flat; 2) the roadway and utility infrastructure to se rve the site already exists; and 3) future approval of grading and improvement plans will enable the site to be modified to suit the project, which will be developed for the site in accordance with City policies and regulations. F. Architectural considerations including the character, scale and quality of the design, site layout, the architectural relationship with the site and other buildings, screening of unsightly uses, lighting, building materials and colors and similar elements result in a project that is harmonious with its surroundings and compatible with other developments in the vicinity because: 1) a contemporary design theme has been established for the Valley Christian Center site and the proposed athletic field does not detract from the existing design theme; 2) the proposed athletic field has been situated in an area on the site which will not block any public views; and 3) the proposed project includes a central landscaped plaza, amphitheater and athletic field, which all provide useful outdoor areas for gathering, performing arts and athletics. G. Landscape considerations, including the location, type, size, color, texture and coverage of plant materials, and similar elements have been incorporated into the project to ensure visual relief, adequate screening and an attractive environment for the public because: 1) the plant palette is compatible with the existing plant species 4 on the site; 2) the project includes a central plaza area, which will provide comfortable outdoor gathering space for students and faculty; 3) landscaping will be provided around the athletic field to provide an adequate landscape buffer; and 4) the project landscaping conforms to the requirements of the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. H. The site has been adequately designed to ensure the proper circulation for bicyclist, pedestrians, and automobiles because: 1) access to the site is currently provided from exiting driveways on Inspiration Drive; 2) all infrastructure including, pathways, sidewalks, and lighting have been reviewed for conformance with City policies, regulations, and best practices and have been designed with multi-modal travel in mind; and 3) the project has been reviewed by the Public Works Department and the Fire Department and adequate access and circulation has been provided on -site. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council does hereby approve the Site Development Review Permit for the Valley Christian Center as shown on the project plans prepared by Goring & Straja Architects, BKF Engineers, Verde Design Landscape Architecture, and Michael J. O’Leary & Associates Landscape Architecture dated received on September 19, 2017 on file in the Community Development Department and included as Exhibit A to this Resolution, subject to the conditions included below, and other plans, text, color and materials boards relating to this SDR. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Unless stated otherwise, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to the issuance of building permits or establishment of use, and shall be subject to Planning Department review and approval. The following codes represent those departments/agencies responsible for monitoring compliance of the conditions of approval. [PL.] Planning, [B] Building, [PO] Police, [PW] Public Works [P&CS] Parks & Community Services, [ADM] Administration/City Attorney, [FIN] Finance, [F] Alameda County Fire Department, [DSR] Dublin San Ramon Services District, [CO] Alameda County Department of Environmental Health, [Z7] Zone 7. # CONDITION TEXT RESPON. AGENCY WHEN REQ’D Prior to: PLANNING 1. Approval. This Site Development Review (SDR) approval is for the Valley Christian Center located at 7500 Inspiration Drive (APN 941-0022-003, 004, 005 & 006) (PLPA-2014-00052). The SDR approval includes construction of a lighted athletic field with sound amplification, a concession stand/ticket booth and associated site improvements including a plaza and landscaping and shall be as generally depicted and indicated on the SDR project plans dated 9/18/2017 and as specified by the following Conditions of Approval for this project. PL Ongoing 2. Effective Date. This SDR approval becomes effective once the Planned Development Zoning District has been approved by City Council and is effective. PL Ongoing 3. Permit Expiration. Construction or use shall commence within one (1) year of Permit approval or the Site Development Review shall lapse and become null and void. If there is a dispute as to whether the Permit has expired, the City may hold a noticed public hearing to determine the matter. Such a determination may be processed concurrently with revocation proceedings in PL One Year After Effective Date 5 appropriate circumstances. If a permit expires, a new application must be made and processed according to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. 4. Time Extension. The original approving decision-maker may, upon the Applicant’s written request for an extension of approval prior to expiration, upon the determination that all Conditions of Approval remain adequate and all applicable findings of approval will continue to be met, grant an extension of the approval for a period not to exceed six (6) months. All time extension requests shall be noticed and a public hearing shall be held before the original hearing body. PL Prior to Expiration Date 5. Compliance. The Applicant/Property Owner shall operate this use in compliance with the Conditions of Approval of this Site Development Review Permit, the approved plans and the regulations established in the Zoning Ordinance. Any violation of the terms or conditions specified may be subject to enforcement action. PL On-going 6. Revocation of Permit. The Site Development Review approval shall be revocable for cause in accordance with Section 8.96.020.I of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Any violation of the terms or conditions of this permit shall be subject to citation. PL On-going 7. Requirements and Standard Conditions. The Applicant/ Developer shall comply with applicable City of Dublin Fire Prevention Bureau, Dublin Public Works Department, Dublin Building Department, Dublin Police Services, Alameda County Flood Control District Zone 7, Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority, Alameda County Public and Environmental Health, Dublin San Ramon Services District and the California Department of Health Services requirements and standard conditions. Prior to issuance of building permits or the installation of any improvements related to this project, the Developer shall supply written statements from each such agency or department to the Planning Department, indicating that all applicable conditions required have been or will be met. Various Building Permit Issuance 8. Required Permits. Applicant/Developer shall obtain all permits required by other agencies including, but not limited to Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Caltrans and provide copies of the permits to the Public Works Department. PW Building Permit Issuance and Grading Permit Issuance 9. Fees. Applicant/Developer shall pay all applicable fees in effect at the time of building permit issuance, including, but not limited to, Planning fees, Building fees, Traffic Impact Fees, TVTC fees, Dublin San Ramon Services District fees, Public Facilities fees, Dublin Unified School District School Impact fees, Fire Facilities Impact fees, Alameda County Flood and Water Conservation District (Zone 7) Drainage and Water Connection fees; or any other fee that may be adopted and applicable. Approved Development Agreement supersedes where applicable. Various Building Permit Issuance 10. Indemnification. The Applicant/Developer shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Dublin and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Dublin or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City of Dublin ADM On-going 6 or its advisory agency, appeal board, Planning Commission, City Council, Community Development Director, Zoning Administrator, or any other department, committee, or agency of the City to the extent such actions are brought within the time period required by Government Code Section 66499.37 or other applicable law; provided, however, that the Applicant’s/Developer's duty to so defend, indemnify, and hold harmless shall be subject to the City's promptly notifying the Applicant/Developer of any said claim, action, or proceeding and the City's full cooperation in the defense of such actions or proceedings. 11. Clarification of Conditions. In the event that there needs to be clarification to the Conditions of Approval, the Director of Community Development and the City Engineer have the authority to clarify the intent of these Conditions of Approval to the Applicant/Developer without going to a public hearing. The Director of Community Development and the City Engineer also have the authority to make minor modifications to these conditions without going to a public hearing in order for the Applicant/Developer to fulfill needed improvements or mitigations resulting from impacts to this project. PL, PW On-going 12. Clean-up. The Applicant/Developer shall be responsible for clean-up & disposal of project related trash to maintain a safe, clean and litter-free site. PL On-going 13. Modifications. Modifications or changes to this Site Development Review approval may be considered by the Community Development Director if the modifications or changes proposed comply with Section 8.104.100 of the Zoning Ordinance. PL On-going 14. Equipment Screening. All electrical equipment, fire risers, and/or mechanical equipment shall be screened from public view by landscaping and/or architectural features. Any roof-mounted equipment shall be completely screened from adjacent street view by materials architecturally compatible with the building and to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. The Building Permit plans shall show the location of all equipment and screening for review and approval by the Community Development Director. PL Building Permit Issuance 15. Temporary Promotional Banners and Balloons. Temporary Promotional Banner Signs and Balloons shall only be permitted after first securing an approved Temporary Promotional Sign Permit. All temporary on-site signage shall be subject to the sign regulations contained in the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance. PL On-going 16. Construction Trailer. The Applicant/Developer shall obtain a Temporary Use Permit prior to the establishment of any construction trailer, storage shed, or container units on the site. PL Establishment of the Temporary Use 17. Long-Term Bicycle Parking. Any exterior long term bicycle facility shall be designed to complement the location in which it is sited (i.e. building architecture or the landscaping areas). Final design and material shall be approval by Staff. PL Building Permit Issuance 18. Project Plan Revisions. The Site Development Review Permit plans shall be revised to be consistent with the project modifications outlined in the letter from Guy Houston dated November 16, 2018 and attached as Exhibit B including but not limited to: PL Building Permit Issuance 7 • The seating capacity for the athletic complex shall be a maximum of 600 seats. • The seating capacity for the amphitheater shall be a maximum of 450. • The running track around the field is limited to eight lanes. • The speakers for the Public Address System at the athletic complex shall be located on stair railings or press box/scorer tables and shall be directed towards the bleachers. • The athletic field lights shall be designed to be consistent with the attached letter and the Planned Development zoning. • Signs shall be posted at athletic events to inform visitors that a left hand turn onto Inspiration Drive is restricted in order to eliminate cut through traffic through the adjacent neighborhood. 19. Parking Management Plan. The Applicant shall retain a California-registered Traffic Engineer to prepare a Parking Management Plan for the operation of football games and other large activities (such as graduations) held at the proposed stadium. The Parking Management Plan shall include measures to manage traffic that would cut through the neighborhood. The Parking Management Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department and the Public Works Department and shall be reviewed by the City periodically at the City’s discretion. PL, PW Building Permit Issuance for the Athletic Field 20. Mitigation Monitoring Program. The Applicant/ Developer shall comply with the Valley Christian Center Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) adopted by City Council Resolution xx-xx, including all mitigation measures contained therein. The Supplemental MND is on file with the Community Development Department. PL On-going PLANNING - LANDSCAPE 21. Final Landscape and Irrigation Plan. Plans shall comply with Chapter 8.72 of the Zoning Ordinance and be generally consistent with the project plans attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A and date stamped received on September 19, 2017. A Final Landscape and Irrigation Plan prepared and stamped by a State licensed landscape architect or registered engineer shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Director. The landscape plans shall be prepared on an accurately surveyed topographic plan consistent with the architectural, site and civil plans and show location of utilities including street lights, fire hydrants, drain inlets, water meters, vaults, and transformers including locations of underground utilities including water, sewer and storm drain. Landscape and irrigation plans shall provide for a recycled water system. PL Approval of Final Landscape Plans 22. Site Improvements & Amenities. Site improvements and amenities, including light fixtures, shown on the landscape plans shall be clearly identified to include materials, colors, and finishes to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and City Engineer. PL Approval of Final Landscape Plans 23. Water Efficient Landscaping Regulations. The Applicant/Developer shall meet all requirements of the City of PL Approval of Final Landscape Plans 8 Dublin's Water-Efficient Landscaping Regulations, Chapter 8.88 of the Dublin Municipal Code. 24. Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance (WELO). The Applicant/Developer shall submit written documentation to the Public Works Department (in the form of a Landscape Documentation Package and other required documents) that the development conforms to the City’s WELO. PL, PW Approval of Final Landscape Plans 25. Sustainable Landscape Practices. The landscape design shall demonstrate compliance with sustainable landscape practices as detailed in the Bay-Friendly Landscape Guidelines by earning 60 points or more and meeting the 14 required practices in the Bay- Friendly Landscape Scorecard. PL Approval of Final Landscape Plans 26. Traffic Visibility Area. No fence, wall, hedge, sign or other structure, shrubbery, mounds of earth, or other visual obstruction shall be over 30 inches in height above the nearest curb elevation shall be erected, placed, planted or allowed to grow within the Traffic Visibility Area. PL, PW Approval of Final Landscape Plans 27. Landscape Screening. Landscape screening is of a height and density so that it provides a positive visual impact within three years from the time of planting. Screening, including the screening of utility areas from roadways, shall conform to Chapter 8.72 of the Dublin Municipal Code. PL Approval of Final Landscape Plans 28. Landscape Edges. Concrete curbs or bands shall be used at the edges of all planters and paving surfaces. The design width and depth of the concrete edge to be to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and City Engineer. PL, PW Approval of Final Landscape Plans 29. Landscape Borders. All landscaped areas in parking areas shall be bordered by a concrete curb that is at least 6 inches high and 6 inches wide. Curbs adjacent to parking spaces must be 12 inches wide. All landscaped areas shall be a minimum of 6 feet in width curb to curb. PL, PW Approval of Final Landscape Plans 30. Tree Composite Plan. The Applicant/Developer shall submit composite utility, lighting, joint trench, and tree plan to resolve potential conflicts. PL Approval of Final Landscape Plans 31. Landscape Maturity. The landscape plans shall show plants at the mature size and spaced to accommodate minimum spread adjacent to buildings, sidewalks, roads or other obstructions. In addition, plants shall be spaced to fill in location within six years. PL Approval of Final Landscape Plans 32. Plant Standards. That unless unusual circumstances prevail, all trees on the site shall be a minimum of 15 gallons in size. All trees that are on the exterior building perimeter shall be 24” box minimum, with at least 30% at 36” box or greater. All shrubs shall be 5 gallon minimum. PL Approval of Final Landscape Plans 33. Root Barriers & Tree Staking. The Landscape Plans shall provide details showing root barriers and tree staking will be installed that meet current City specifications. PL Approval of Final Landscape Plans 34. Existing Landscape Improvements. Existing landscape improvements adjacent to or within the project shall be shown and labeled on the plans. Protection notes shall be included to protect existing landscape improvements. PL Approval of Final Landscape Plans 35. Standard Plant Material, Irrigation and Maintenance Agreement. The Applicant/Developer shall complete and submit to the Dublin Planning Department the Standard Plant Material, Irrigation and Maintenance Agreement. PL Approval of Final Landscape Plans 9 36. Maintenance of Landscape. All landscape areas on the site shall be enhanced and properly maintained at all times. Any proposed or modified landscaping to the site, including the removal or replacement of trees, shall require prior review and written approval from the Community Development Director. PL On-going BUILDING CONDITIONS 37. Building Codes and Ordinances. All project construction shall conform to all building codes and ordinances in effect at the time of building permit. B Through Completion 38. Building Permits. To apply for building permits, Applicant/Developer shall submit five (5) sets of construction plans to the Building & Safety Division for plan check. Each set of plans shall have attached an annotated copy of these Conditions of Approval. The notations shall clearly indicate how all Conditions of Approval will or have been complied with. Construction plans will not be accepted without the annotated resolutions attached to each set of plans. Applicant/Developer will be responsible for obtaining the approvals of all participation non-City agencies prior to the issuance of building permits. B Issuance of Building Permits 39. Construction Drawings. Construction plans shall be fully dimensioned (including building elevations) accurately drawn (depicting all existing and proposed conditions on site), and prepared and signed by a California licensed Architect or Engineer. All structural calculations shall be prepared and signed by a California licensed Architect or Engineer. The site plan, landscape plan and details shall be consistent with each other. B Issuance of building permits 40. Air Conditioning Units. Air conditioning unit(s) and ventilation ducts shall be screened from public view with materials compatible to the main building. Units shall be permanently installed on concrete pads or other non-movable materials approved by the Chief Building Official and Director of Community Development. B Through Completion 41. Addressing a) Address signage shall be provided as per the Dublin Commercial Security Code. b) Addresses shall be illuminated and be able to be seen from the street, 4 inches in height minimum. Prior to Permitting Prior to Occupancy 42. Engineer Observation. The Engineer of record shall be retained to provide observation services for all components of the lateral and vertical design of the new structures, including nailing, hold-downs, straps, shear, roof diaphragm and structural frame of building. A written report shall be submitted to the City Inspector prior to scheduling the final frame inspection. B Scheduling the final frame inspection 43. Foundation. Geotechnical Engineer for the soils report shall review and approve the foundation design. A letter shall be submitted to the Building Division on the approval. B Permit Issuance 44. Cool Roofs. Flat roof areas shall have their roofing material coated with light colored gravel or painted with light colored or reflective material designed for Cool Roofs. B Through Completion 45. Accessory Structures. Building permits are required for all trash enclosures and associated amenities/structures (e.g., sculptures, playground equipment, etc.) and are required to meet the accessibility and building codes (for structural review). B Through Completion 10 46. Bicycle Parking. Short and long term bicycle parking racks shall be installed in locations meeting the requirements of the CAL Green Building Standards Code. B Prior to Occupancy 47. Clean Air Vehicle Parking. The project shall incorporate the requirements of the CAL Green Building Standards Code with: a) designated clean air vehicle parking stalls, b) electric vehicle charging stations, c) covered entries for buildings. B Prior to Occupancy 48. CASp. Applicant shall obtain the services of a Certified Access Specialist for the review of the construction drawing and inspections for the building interior and site exterior. A written report shall be submitted to the City prior to approval of the permit application. In Addition, a written report shall be submitted to the City Inspector prior to scheduling the final inspection. B Prior to Permitting and Occupancy 49. Temporary Fencing. Temporary Construction fencing shall be installed along the perimeter of all work under construction. B Through Completion 50. Construction trailer: Due to size and nature of the development, the applicant/developer, shall provide a construction trailer with all hook ups for use by City Inspection personnel during the time of construction as determined necessary by the Chief Building Official. In the event that the City has their own construction trailer, the applicant/developer shall provide a site with appropriate hook ups in close proximity to the project site to accommodate this trailer. The applicant/developer shall cause the trailer to be moved from its current location at the time necessary as determined by the Chief Building Official at the Applicant/Developer’s expense. B 51. Copies of Approved Plans. Applicant shall provide City with two (2) reduced (1/2 size) copies of the City of Dublin stamped approved plan. B 30 days after permit and each revision issuance FIRE PREVENTION 52. New Fire Sprinkler System & Monitoring Requirements In accordance with the Dublin Fire Code, fire sprinklers shall be installed in the building. The system shall be in accordance with the NFPA 13, the CA Fire Code and CA Building Code. Plans and specifications showing detailed mechanical design, cut sheets, listing sheets and hydraulic calculations shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval and permit prior to installation. This may be a deferred submittal. a) Sprinkler Plans. (Deferred Submittal Item). Submit detailed mechanical drawings of all sprinkler modifications, including cut sheets, listing sheets and calculations to the Fire Department for approval and permit prior to installation. b) All sprinkler system components shall remain in compliance with the applicable N.F.P.A. 13 Standard, the CA Fire Code and the CA Building Code. c) Underground Plans. (Deferred Submittal Item). Submit detailed shop drawings for the fire water supply system, including cut sheets, listing sheets and calculations to the Fire Department for approval and permit prior to installation. All underground and fire water supply system components shall be in compliance with the applicable F Building Permit Issuance 11 N.F.P.A. 13, 24, 20, 22 Standards, the CA Fire Code and the CA Building Code. The system shall be hydrostatically tested and inspected prior to being covered. Prior to the system being connected to any fire protection system, a system flush shall be witnessed by the Fire Department. d) Central Station Monitoring. Automatic fire extinguishing systems installed within buildings shall have all control valves and flow devices electrically supervised and maintained by an approved central alarm station. Zoning and annunciation of central station alarm signals shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval. The central station monitoring service shall be either certificated or placarded as defined in N.F.P.A. Standard No. 72. Assure the specific account is UL Certificated or Placarded and not just the monitoring station. e) Fire Protection Equipment shall be identified with approved signs constructed of durable materials, permanently installed and readily visible. 53. Fire Alarm (detection) System A Fire Alarm-Detection System shall be installed throughout the building so as to provide full property protection, including combustible concealed spaces, as required by NFPA 72. The system shall be installed in accordance with NFPA 72, CA Fire, Building, Electrical, and Mechanical Codes. If the system is intended to serve as an evacuation system, compliance with the horn/strobe requirements for the entire building must also be met. All automatic fire extinguishing systems shall be interconnected to the fire alarm system so as to activate an alarm if activated and to monitor control valves. Delayed egress locks shall meet requirements of C.F.C. a) Fire Alarm Plans. (Deferred Submittal Item). Submit detailed drawings of the fire alarm system, including floor plan showing all rooms, device locations, ceiling height and construction, cut sheets, listing sheets and battery and voltage drop calculations to the Fire Department for review and permit prior to the installation. Where employee work areas have audible alarm coverage, circuits shall be initially designed with a minimum 20% spare capacity for adding appliances to accommodate hearing impaired employees. b) Central Station Monitored Account. Automatic fire alarm systems shall be monitored by an approved central alarm station. Zoning and annunciation of central station alarm signals shall be approved by the Fire Department. c) Qualified Personnel. The system shall be installed, inspected, tested, and maintained in accordance with the provisions of NFPA 72. Only qualified and experienced persons shall perform this work. Examples of qualified individuals are those who have been factory trained and certified or are NICET Fire Alarm Certified. F Building Permit Issuance 12 d) Inspection & Testing Documentation. Performance testing of all initiating & notification devices in the presence of the Fire Inspector shall occur prior to final of the system. Upon this inspection, proof that the specific account is UL Certificated must be provided to the Fire Inspector. 54. Fire Extinguishers. Extinguishers shall be visible and unobstructed. Signage shall be provided to indicate fire extinguisher locations. The number and location of extinguishers shall be shown on the plans. Additional fire extinguishers maybe required by the fire inspector. Fire extinguisher shall meet a minimum classification of 2A 10BC. Extinguishers weighing 40 pounds or less shall be mounted no higher than 5 feet above the floor measured to the top of the extinguisher. Extinguishers shall be inspected monthly and serviced by a licensed concern annually. F Occupancy 55. Gate Approvals. Fencing and gates that cross pedestrian access and exit paths as well as vehicle entrance and exit roads need to be approved for fire department access and egress as well as exiting provisions where such is applicable. Plans need to be submitted that clearly show the fencing and gates and details of such. This should be clearly incorporated as part of the site plan with details provided as necessary. F Building Permit Issuance 56. FD Gate Key Box / Switch Manual Gates. Each manually operated gate that serves as a means of fire access shall have installed a Knox Key Box accessible from the entrance side of the gate. Where the locking method of the gate is by a chain a Knox padlock shall be installed on the chain. The key box door and necessary keys are to be provided to the fire inspector upon the final inspection. The inspector will then lock the keys into the box. Automatic Gates. All electrically controlled gates shall be provided with an emergency gate over-ride key switch for fire department access. F Occupancy 57. M Means of Egress. Exit signs shall be visible and illuminated with emergency lighting when the building is occupied. F Occupancy & On-going 58. Site Plan. The site plan needs to show sufficient detail to reflect an accurate and detailed layout of the site for review and record purposes. The site plan will need a scale that will allow sufficient details for review purposes and include, but not be limited to the following: • The site parking and circulation layout including fences, gates, fire lane locations and turnarounds. • Location of all fire appliances including fire hydrants, fire connections, fire sprinkler risers, and fire control valves. • The location of all building openings including the exit discharge pathway for building exits. Note the location of exit lighting for these pathways as well. • The location of any overhead obstructions and their clearances • The location of property lines and assumed property lines between buildings on the same property as well as any easements. F Building Permit Issuance 13 The site plan will also need to note the location and distance of fire hydrants that are along the property frontage as well as the closest hydrants to each side of the property that are located along the access roads that serves the property. In addition, the improved face of curb to face of curb or edge of pavement width of the access road that serves the property will need to be noted. 59. Fire Access. Fire access is required to be approved all-weather access. Show on the plans the location of the all-weather access and a description of the construction. Access road must be designed to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus. F Building Permit Issuance 60. Hydrants & Fire Flows. Show the location of any on-site fire hydrants and any fire hydrants that are along the property frontage as well as the closest hydrants to each side of the property that are located along the access roads that serves this property. Provide a letter from the water company indicating what the available fire flow is to this property. F Building Permit Issuance PUBLIC WORKS GENERAL CONDITIONS 61. Conditions of Approval. Developer shall comply with the City of Dublin Public Works Standard Conditions of Approval contained below (“Standard Condition”) unless specifically modified by Project Specific Conditions of Approval below. PW On-going PUBLIC WORKS – AGREEMENTS & BONDS 62. O&M Agreement. The requirements of Provision C.3 of the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit, Order No. R2- 2015-0049, require the property owner to enter into an Agreement with the City of Dublin to provide verification and assurance that all treatment devices will be properly operated and maintained and to guarantee the owner’s perpetual maintenance obligation for all storm drain inlet filters installed as part of the project. The Agreement shall be recorded against the property and shall run with the land. PW Final Occupancy PUBLIC WORKS – PERMITS 63. Encroachment Permit. Developer shall obtain an Encroachment Permit from the Public Works Department for all construction activity within the public right-of-way of any street where the City has accepted the street right of way. The encroachment permit may require surety for slurry seal and restriping. At the discretion of the City Engineer an encroachment permit for work specifically included in an Improvement Agreement may not be required. PW Start of Work 64. Grading Permit. Developer shall obtain a Grading Permit from the Public Works Department for all grading. PW Start of Work PUBLIC WORKS – SUBMITTALS 65. Submittals to non-City Agencies. Developer will be responsible for submittals and reviews to obtain the approvals of all participating non-City agencies. The Alameda County Fire Department and the Dublin San Ramon Services District shall approve and sign the Improvement Plans. PW Approval of Improvement Plans 66. Geotechnical Report. Developer shall submit a Design Level Geotechnical Report, which includes street pavement sections and grading recommendations. PW Approval of Grading Plans 67. Approved Plan Files. Developer shall provide Public Works Dept. a PDF format file of approved site plans, including grading, improvement, landscaping & irrigation, Joint trench & lighting. PW Approval of Site Plans 14 68. Master Files. Developer shall provide the Public Works Department a digital vectorized file of the “master” files for the project, in a format acceptable to the City Engineer. Digital raster copies are not acceptable. The digital vectorized files shall be in AutoCAD 14 or higher drawing format. All objects and entities in layers shall be colored by layer and named in English. All submitted drawings shall use Global Coordinate System of USA, California, NAD 83 California State Plane, Zone III, and U.S. foot. Stormwater Treatment Measures and Trash Capture: a. GIS point layer (shape file or feature class in geodatabase), specify the type of device, manufacturer, model, date measure was installed, OR b. EXCEL file (csv or text file) with the information noted above AND a coordinate location pair, such as (a) Latitude/Longitude, or (b) X/Y Coordinates in NAD 83 State Plane Zone 3 feet. PW Acceptance of Improvements PUBLIC WORKS – GRADING 69. Grading Plan. The Grading Plan shall be in conformance with the recommendation of the Geotechnical Report, and Site Development Review, and the City design standards & ordinances. In case of conflict between the soil engineer’s recommendation and the City ordinances, the City Engineer shall determine which shall apply. PW Approval of Grading Plans 70. Existing Condition Information. The construction drawing set shall provide all existing information along project perimeter and public street frontage, including existing curb elevations and gutter slopes along adjacent streets. PW Approval of Improvement Plans 71. Sections and Details. Construction drawings shall include necessary sections and details to clarify construction, as determined by the Public Works Department. PW Approval of Grading Plans 72. Grading and Drainage. Construction drawings shall include necessary information to clarify grading, drainage and overland release of runoff within open air areas such as plazas, parking areas, and landscape areas. PW Approval of Grading Plans 73. Storm Drain Inlet Markers. All on-site storm drain inlets must be marked with storm drain markers that read: “No dumping, drains to creek.” The stencils may be purchased from the Public Work Department. PW Approval of Improvement Plans 74. Erosion Control Plan. A detailed Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall be included with the Grading Plan submittal. The plan shall include detailed design, location, and maintenance criteria of all erosion and sedimentation control measures. In addition to the above requirements, the Erosion Control Plan should also include, the “Clean Bay Blueprint,” which can be found on the City website or at the following address http://www.dublin.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/13531 PW Issuance of Grading Permit PUBLIC WORKS – IMPROVEMENTS 75. Public Improvement Conformance. All public improvements shall conform to the City of Dublin Standard Plans, current practices, design requirements and as approved by City Engineer. PW Approval of Improvement Plans 15 76. Standard General Notes. Standard General Notes and project specific notes shall be shown on the construction drawing set in accordance with current Public Works standards. PW Approval of Improvement Plans 77. Curb Returns. Curb Returns on Inspiration Drive shall be 40- foot radius. All internal street curb returns shall be a minimum 20-foot radius, or as approved by the City Engineer. Curb ramp locations and design shall conform to the most current Title 24 and Americans with Disabilities Act requirements and as approved by the Public Works Traffic Engineer. PW Approval of Improvement Plans 78. Traffic Signing and Striping. Developer shall install all traffic signage, striping, and pavement markings as required by the Public Works Department. PW Certificate of Occupancy 79. Onsite Signing and Striping Plan. Construction drawings shall include signing and striping plans, subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. a. All parking spaces shall be double striped using 4” white lines set approximately 2 feet apart according to City standards and §8.76.070 (A) 17 of the Dublin Municipal Code. b. All compact-sized parking spaces shall have the word “COMPACT” stenciled on the pavement within each space. c. Accessible parking spaces shall conform to ADA standards per CBC 11B-208 and 11B-502.2. At least one of every six Accessible parking spaces shall be Van Accessible. Per CBC 11B-502.2, the stall width shall be a minimum of 12’-0” wide, and the adjacent accessible aisle shall be a minimum 5’ wide. d. 12”-wide concrete step-out curbs shall be constructed at each parking space where one or both sides abuts a landscaped area or planter. PW Building Permit Issuance and Improvement Plan Approval 80. Water and Sewer Facilities. Developer shall construct all potable and recycled water and sanitary sewer facilities required to serve the project in accordance with DSRSD master plans, standards, specifications and requirements. PW Certificate of Occupancy 81. Fire Hydrants. Fire hydrant locations shall be approved by the Alameda County Fire Department. PW Approval of Improvement Plans 82. Utility Locations. All electric, telephone, cable TV, and communications utilities, shall be placed underground in accordance with the City policies and ordinances. All utilities shall be sized to meet utility company standards. PW Approval of Improvement Plans PUBLIC WORKS – CONSTRUCTION 83. Public Works Standard Conditions of Approval. Applicant/Developer shall comply with the City of Dublin Public Works Standard Conditions of Approval contained below (“Standard Condition”) unless specifically modified by Project Specific Conditions of Approval above. PW On-going 84. Conditions of Approval. Applicant/Developer shall comply with the City of Dublin Title 7 Public Works Ordinance, which includes the Grading Ordinance, the City of Dublin Public Works Standards and Policies, the most current requirements of the State Code Title 24 and the Americans with Disabilities Act with regard to accessibility, and all building and fire codes and ordinances in effect at the time of building permit. All public improvements constructed by Developer and to be dedicated to PW On-going 16 the City are hereby identified as “public works” under Labor Code section 1771. Accordingly, Applicant/Developer, in constructing such improvements, shall comply with the Prevailing Wage Law (Labor Code. Sects. 1720 and following). PUBLIC WORKS – AGREEMENTS AND BONDS 85. Erosion Control Implementation. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall be implemented between October 1st and April 30th unless otherwise allowed in writing by the City Engineer. The Developer will be responsible for maintaining erosion and sediment control measures for one year following the City’s acceptance of the improvements. PW On-going as needed 86. Archaeological Finds. If archaeological materials are encountered during construction, construction within 100 feet of these materials shall be halted until a professional Archaeologist who is certified by the Society of California Archaeology (SCA) or the Society of Professional Archaeology (SOPA) has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation measures. PW On-going as needed 87. Construction Activities. Construction activities, including the idling, maintenance, and warming up of equipment, shall be limited to Monday through Friday, and non-City holidays, between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. except as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Extended hours or Saturday work will be considered by the City Engineer on a case- by-case basis. Note that the construction hours of operation within the public right of way are more restrictive. PW On-going as needed 88. Temporary Fencing. Temporary Construction fencing shall be installed along the perimeter of all work under construction to separate the construction operation from the public. All construction activities shall be confined within the fenced area. Construction materials and/or equipment shall not be operated or stored outside of the fenced area or within the public right-of-way unless approved in advance by the City Engineer. PW Start of Construction and On-going 89. Construction Noise Management Plan. Developer shall prepare a construction noise management plan that identifies measures to be taken to minimize construction noise on surrounding developed properties. The plan shall include hours of construction operation, use of mufflers on construction equipment, speed limit for construction traffic, haul routes and identify a noise monitor. Specific noise management measures shall be provided prior to project construction. PW Start of Construction Implementation, and On-going as needed 90. Traffic Control Plan. Closing of any existing pedestrian pathway and/or sidewalk during construction shall be implemented through a City approved Traffic Control Plan. PW Start of Construction and On-going as needed 91. Pest Control. Developer shall be responsible for controlling any rodent, mosquito, or other pest problem due to construction activities. PW On-going 92. Dust Control Measures. Developer shall be responsible for watering or other dust-palliative measures to control dust as conditions warrant or as directed by the City Engineer. PW Start of Construction an On-going as needed 17 93. Damage/Repairs. The Applicant/Developer shall be responsible for the repair of any damaged pavement, curb & gutter, sidewalk, or other public street facility resulting from construction activities associated with the development of the project PW Certificate of Occupancy PUBLIC WORKS – NPDES 94. Stormwater Requirements Checklist. Applicant shall submit an updated “Stormwater Requirements Checklist” and accompanying required documentation. PW Approval of Grading Plans 95. Stormwater Treatment. Planting within all bioretention areas or similar LID landscape-based stormwater treatment measures shall adhere to the guidelines summarized in the most current version of Appendix B to the C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance Handbook published by the Alameda County Clean Water Program. a. The synthetic sports field does not qualify as “self-treating” areas for stormwater treatment. If the applicant is intending to obtain credit for use of synthetic turf, applicant shall conduct a percolation study on the existing soil and demonstrate that it meets the C.3 requirements along with assuring the ground water depth is more than 10’ within the area. PW Approval of Grading Plans 96. Hydromodification Calculations. Applicant shall submit Hydromodification (HM) Control Submittals for review in accordance with current C.3 guidelines and Bay Area Hydrology Model (BAHM) report recommendations. PW Approval of Grading Plans 97. NOI and SWPPP. Prior to any clearing or grading, Developer shall provide the City evidence that a Notice of Intent (NOI) has been sent to the California State Water Resources Control Board per the requirements of the NPDES. A copy of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be provided to the Public Works Department and be kept at the construction site. PW Start of Any Construction Activities 98. SWPPP. The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall identify the Best Management Practices (BMPs) appropriate to the project construction activities. The SWPPP shall include the erosion and sediment control measures in accordance with the regulations outlined in the most current version of the ABAG Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook or State Construction Best Management Practices Handbook. The Developer is responsible for ensuring that all contractors implement all storm water pollution prevention measures in the SWPPP. PW SWPPP to be Prepared Prior to Approval of Grading Plans; Implementation Prior to Start of Construction and On-going as needed 99. Stormwater Management Plan. Construction Plans shall include a Stormwater Management Plan subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. PW Approval of Grading Plans 100. Trash Capture. Specific information is required on the construction plan set demonstrating how MRP Provision C.10 (trash capture) requirements are met. Trash capture devices to be used shall be listed and details shown on plans. Trash capture devices shall meet the full trash capture requirements of the SF Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board AND shall comply with maintenance and performance requirements of the Mosquito Abatement District. Approved Filters include a. United Stormwater (USW-1 modified), PW Approval of Improvement Plans and Building Permit Issuance 18 b. Advanced Solutions Stormtek ST3 (AS-1/ST3 or AS-2/ST3), c. Revel Environmental Manufacturing Inc. (REM-1), d. Or other approved equal. PUBLIC WORKS – SPECIAL CONDITIONS 101. Waste Enclosure Requirements Checklist. Applicant shall submit a “Waste Enclosure Requirements Checklist” for the project. A pdf fillable version of the checklist is available from the City of Dublin website at http://www.dublin.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/17027 PW Approval of Improvement Plans 102. Trash Enclosure. The proposed trash enclosures shall conform to City of Dublin Trash Enclosure Ordinance 7.98. a. Standard enclosures shall have a minimum inside usable floor of 18 feet wide by 10 feet deep with a min. of 6 feet high wall. b. The lowest part of the enclosure ceiling cannot be lower than 9 feet high. c. The concrete apron shall extend a minimum ten feet from the enclosure pad and be the width of the enclosure opening. d. The enclosure shall have a drain connected to the sanitary sewer. e. A hose bib shall be available for periodic wash down. f. The area around and inside the enclosure must be lit with a minimum of one-foot candle. g. The trash enclosure shall be architecturally designed to be compatible with the building. h. The doors must be designed with self-closing gates that can be locked closed and can also be held open with pin locks during loading. i. All trash bins used for this site shall be maintained within the trash bin enclosure(s) at all times. j. The enclosure shall have accessible route and entrance door. PW Building Permit Issuance 103. Lighting. a. The Applicant/Developer shall prepare a photometric plan to the reasonable satisfaction of the City Engineer, Director of Community Development, the City’s Consulting Landscape Architect and Dublin Police Services. b. The photometric plan shall show lighting levels which take into consideration, poles, low walls and other obstructions. c. Lighting used after daylight hours shall be adequate to provide for security needs. d. The parking lot lights shall also be designed to eliminate any pockets of high & low illuminated areas. PL, PW, PO Building Permit Issuance 104. Varsity Football Games. Varsity football games and other large activities are prohibited from occurring during peak traffic hours. PL, PW On-going DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT 105. Complete improvement plans shall be submitted to DSRSD that conform to the requirements of the Dublin San Ramon Services District Code, the DSRSD “Standard Procedures, Specifications DSRSD Building Permit Issuance 19 and Drawings for Design and Installation of Water and Wastewater Facilities”, all applicable DSRSD Master Plans and all DSRSD policies. 106. Domestic and fire protection waterline systems for Tracts or Commercial Developments shall be designed to be looped or interconnected to avoid dead end sections in accordance with requirements of the DSRSD Standard Specifications and sound engineering practice. DSRSD Building Permit Issuance 107. DSRSD policy requires public water and sewer lines to be located in public streets rather than in off-street locations to the fullest extent possible. If unavoidable, then public sewer or water easements must be established over the alignment of each public sewer or water line in an off-street or private street location to provide access for future maintenance and/or replacement. DSRSD Building Permit Issuance 108. The locations and widths of all proposed easement dedications for water and sewer lines shall be submitted to and approved by DSRSD. DSRSD Issuance of any grading permit, site work permit or building permit 109. All easement dedications for DSRSD facilities shall be by a separate instrument irrevocably offered to DSRSD or by offer of dedication on the Final Map. DSRSD Issuance of any grading permit, site work permit or building permit 110. Prior to issuance by the City of any Building Permit or Construction Permit by the Dublin San Ramon Services District, whichever comes first, all utility connection fees including DSRSD and Zone 7, plan checking fees, inspection fees, connection fees, and fees associated with a wastewater discharge permit shall be paid to DSRSD in accordance with the rates and schedules established in the DSRSD Code. DSRSD Building Permit Issuance 111. No sewer line or waterline construction shall be permitted unless the proper utility construction permit has been issued by DSRSD. A construction permit will only be issued after all of the items in Condition No. 155 have been satisfied. DSRSD Building Permit Issuance 112. The Applicant/Developer shall hold DSRSD, its Board of Directors, commissions, employees, and agents of DSRSD harmless and indemnify and defend the same from any litigation, claims, or fines resulting from the construction and completion of the project. DSRSD Ongoing 113. Above-ground backflow prevention devices/double detector check valves shall be installed on fire protection systems connected to the DSRSD water main. The Applicant shall collaborate with the Fire Department and DSRSD to size and configure the fire system. The Applicant shall minimize the number of backflow prevention devices/double-detector check valve through strategic placement and landscaping. DSRSD Building Permit Issuance and ongoing 114. Development plans will not be approved until landscape plans are submitted for DSRSD review and approval. DSRSD Approval of Final Landscape Plans 115. Grading for construction shall be done with recycled water. DSRSD During construction 20 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 5th day of February, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ______________________________ Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________ City Clerk PLEASE CLICK ON THE LINK BELOW FOR ATTACHMENT 5 3URMHFW3ODQV Attachment 5 Page 1 of 3 RESOLUTION NO. XX - 19 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ADOPTING A SUPPLEMENTAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE VALLEY CHRISTIAN CENTER PROJECT PLPA 2014-00052 (APN 941-0022-003, 004, 005 & 006) WHEREAS, the Applicant, the Valley Christian Center, has requested approval of an amendment to the existing Planned Development Zoning District, and a Site Development Review Permit to construct a lighted athletic field with sound amplification , a concession stand/ticket booth and associated site improvements including a plaza and landscaping. These planning and implementing actions are collectively known as the “Valley Christian Center project” or the “Project”; and WHEREAS, the project site is approximately 51 acres and is located at 7500 Inspiration Drive in the westerly portion of Dublin; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State guidelines and City environmental regulations, require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, in 2003, the City Council adopted a Resolution certifying an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and adopted findings and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Valley Christian Center Expansion/Master Plan project (Resolution No. 92 -03, incorporated herein by reference); and WHEREAS, the City prepared a modified Initial Study to determine whethe r supplemental environmental review was required for the currently proposed Valley Christian Center project under CEQA standards. The Initial Study examined whether there were substantial changes to the proposed development, substantial changes in circumst ances, or new information, any of which would result in new or more severe significant impacts than analyzed in the prior Valley Christian Center EIR or whether any other standards for supplemental environmental review were met; and WHEREAS, upon completion of the Initial Study it was determined that there were new potentially significant impacts associated with the project related to aesthetics, biological resources, noise, and transportation/traffic; therefore, a Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared to analyze those impacts and included mitigation measures to reduce the impacts to less than significant; and WHEREAS, the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study was circulated for public review from June 12, 2018 to July 12, 2018; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin received two comment letters during the public review period and five additional comment letters during the public review period closed ; and 2 of 3 WHEREAS, on August 14, 2018, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the project, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated August 14, 2018, and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the p roject and related Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Planning Commission and recommended adoption of the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and approval of the project; and WHEREAS, on August 14, 2018, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 18-18 (incorporated herein by reference) recommending that the City Council adopt the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project; and WHEREAS, on September 4, 2018, the City Council was scheduled to hold a properly noticed public hearing on the project and the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration and upon a request by the Applicant, continued the item to October 2, 2018 ; and WHEREAS, on October 2, 2018, the City Council was scheduled to hold a properly noticed public hearing on the project and the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration and upon a request by the Applicant, continued the item to a date uncertain; and WHEREAS, on February 5, 2019, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the project and Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report dated September 4, 2018, October 2, and February 5, 2019 and incorporated herein by reference described and analyzed the project and related Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration for the City Council and recommended adoption of the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and approval of the project; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration, as well as the prior Valley Christian Center EIR and all above-referenced reports, recommendations, and testimony before taking any action on the project. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin finds the following: A. The Dublin City Council has reviewed and considered the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration including comments received during the public review period, prior to taking action on the project. B. The Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately describes the environmental impacts of the project. On the basis of the whole record before it, the City 3 of 3 Council finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project as approved with mitigation will have a significant effect on the environment. C. The Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Dublin Environmental Regulations. D. The Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration is complete and adequate and reflects the City’s independent judgement and analysis as to th e environmental effects of the project. E. Following adoption of this Resolution, City staff is authorized and directed to file with the County of Alameda a Notice of Determination pursuant to CEQA. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that based on the above findings, the Dublin City Council adopts the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration (attached as Exhibit A) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (attached as Exhibit B) for t he project and the mitigation measures in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are imposed as conditions of approval for the project. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of February 2019 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Valley Christian Center Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration / Initial Study June 8, 2018 Planning Application Number: PLPA-2014-00052 City of Dublin Page 2 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 Table of Contents Background & Project Description 3 Environmental Checklist 12 Determination 13 Explanation of Environmental Checklist Responses 14 Environmental Impacts Checklist 16 Discussion of Checklist 28 Initial Study Preparers & Agencies/Organizations Contacted 91 Attachments 1 Biological Resources Assessment Report & Update (WRA, 2015 & 2018) 2 Noise Assessment (Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., 2018) 3 Traffic & Parking Analysis (Omni-Means, Ltd., 2015) List of Exhibits Exhibit 1: Regional Location Exhibit 2: Site Context Exhibit 3: Parcelization Exhibit 4: Proposed Athletic Stadium Exhibit 5: Preliminary Landscape Plan Exhibit 6: Building Sections Exhibit 7: Proposed Master Plan Note: All exhibits are included at the end of the document. List of Tables Table 1. Existing and Proposed Land Uses Table 2. Relevant California and National Ambient Air Quality Standards Table 3. Highest Measured Air Pollutant Concentrations at Livermore Station Table 4. Summary of Long-Term & Short-Term Noise Measurements (dBA) Table 5. City of Dublin Land Use/Noise Compatibility Standards Table 6. Summary of Short-Term Noise Measurements, Football game at Santa Teresa High School, San Jose, CA, 10/20/12 Table 7. Projected Noise Levels at Nearest Residences During Capacity Crowd Varsity Football Game at the Proposed Multi-purpose Field City of Dublin Page 3 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 Valley Christian Center Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study PLPA-2014-00052 June 8, 2018 Introduction This Initial Study has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”, Pub. Res. Code §§ 21000 et seq.,) and the CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs. title 14, §§ 15000-15387). This Initial Study analyzes whether any further environmental review is required for the proposed expansion of Valley Christian Center (“VCC”) under the standards of Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15163. Development of the project site has been previously analyzed in an Environmental Impact Report titled “Valley Christian Center Expansion Program (State Clearinghouse No. 200212070).” This EIR was certified by the City of Dublin on May 20, 2003 by City Council Resolution No. 92-03. This Initial Study analyzes whether proposed changes to the development program for the VCC would result in any new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts than those analyzed in the prior CEQA document or whether any of the other standards requiring further environmental review under CEQA are met. This Initial Study assesses program changes and development level activities to implement that program through a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan Amendment, Site Development Review (SDR) and other related entitlements for the property. Prior Environmental Impact Report In 2003, the City of Dublin certified an Environmental Impact Report for the VCC property. The VCC includes a church and related activities as well as a pre- school through grade 12 private school. The EIR analyzed the following improvements on the site, which would be phased over a number of years. • Expansion of the previously approved building area on the site to include up to a 90,000 square foot sanctuary building (with a seating capacity of 2,000), a pre-school, a fellowship hall and administration building (which could extend to 3 stories) a 1,000 square foot expansion to an existing pre- school, construction of a 45,000 square foot junior and senior high school administration building (3 stories), construction of a 15,000 square foot sports building, construction of a 30,000 square foo t senior activity center City of Dublin Page 4 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 (2 stories) and construction of a 6,000 square foot chapel building (2 stories). • Construction of up to 22 multi-family dwellings on the northwest corner of Dublin Boulevard and Inspiration Drive. This component was withdrawn from the project by the Applicant and was not approved by the City. • Construction of paved parking areas along the west side of Inspiration Drive near existing parking areas. • Installation of an LED-readout changeable message board sign on the south side of the administration building and mounted on the building. The sign was approved at a dimension of 12 feet wide and 30 inches tall. The 2003 EIR addressed the following environmental topics: • Aesthetics and Light and Glare • Air Quality • Biological resources • Cultural Resources • Geology and Soils • Hydrology and Water Quality • Land Use • Noise • Population, Housing and Employment • Transportation and Circulation • Utilities and Public Services • Parks and Recreation The 2003 EIR analyzed the potential effects of developing the site with residential uses and an alternative configuration of the VCC facility. The EIR found that the proposed residential development alternative would not meet the objectives of the project and was rejected as infeasible. The alternative that would relocate certain uses to the central and northern portions of the site was found to be the Environmentally Superior Alternative compared to the proposed project. The EIR identified a number of potentially significant impacts, but also recommended mitigation measures to reduce all impacts to a less-than- significant level. These are identified in the following Initial Study. No significant and unavoidable impacts were found. Applicant/Contact Person Valley Christian Center Attn: James Goring, Goring & Straja, project architect 7500 Inspiration Drive City of Dublin Page 5 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 Dublin, CA 94568 Phone: (510) 848-0895 Project Description Project location and context. The project site consists of approximately 51 acres of land located in the western portion of Dublin. Exhibit 1 shows the regional location of Dublin in the Bay area and Exhibit 2 shows the project site location in the context of the local roadways, freeways and other features. The site is generally rectangularly shaped and is located on the north side of Dublin Boulevard. Inspiration Drive provides access into the project site and extends through the site in a north-south direction. The site address is 7500 Inspiration Drive. Dublin Boulevard is the southern boundary of the site with the I -580 freeway located south of Dublin Boulevard. A combination of residential uses (located on Glengarry Lane, McPeak Lane and Brigadoon Lane) and open space exists west of the site. Single-family homes on Inspiration Circle and open spaces are located north of the site and single-family homes are located east of the site along Las Palmas Way and Bay Laurel Street. Project background and prior planning approvals. The Valley Christian Center was approved under a Conditional Use Permit issued by Alameda County in 1978, prior to the incorporation of Dublin in 1982. Following incorporation, the City granted approval for an elementary school in 1994, and expansion of a playfield in 1995. In 1998, the City approved a Site Design Review (SDR) application for placement of two temporary classrooms. As described above, the City approved a Master Plan for the site in 2003. Existing On-Site Development. Following approval of the Master Plan by the City in 2003, a number of buildings and other improvements have been constructed on the site. Table 1, below, summarizes exiting land uses on the site as well as proposed uses. VCC currently operates church facilities on the site on Sundays and some weekday evenings. Peak attendance for Sunday services is approximately 520 visitors with 40 employees also on the site. The private school on the site provides for pre-school through grade 12 educational services with an estimated enrollment of 790 students and a faculty and staff of 129. City of Dublin Page 6 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 Project Characteristics Overview. The application includes a request to the City of Dublin for amendments to the Valley Christian Center Master Plan that would include a lighted athletic field for football, soccer, track and other sports; construction of new buildings on the campus; expansion of existing buildings; and changes to on-site parking and landscaping. These are described below. Proposed Master Plan Changes. The Applicant is requesting the following changes to the Master Plan that would allow additional development on the VCC site. Table 1 summarizes existing land uses shown in square footage, the amount of development allowed under the approved Master Plan and the amount of development that would be allowed if the amended Master Plan is approved. As shown in the table, a number of approved uses would be rearranged on the site to allow the facility to meet current and future needs. There would be up to a 1,300 square foot addition in the total amount of development square footage from what is currently permitted. The ultimate size of the church sanctuary would be reduced by 42,600 square feet. School, fellowship, and administrative floor space would increase by up to 23,600 square feet. Space devoted to daycare use would expand by 11,300 square feet, and middle school and high school space would increase by 9,000 square feet. No increase in the student population is anticipated. Table 1. Existing and Proposed Land Uses Source: Project Applicant, 2018 Building (see Ex. 4) Land Use Existing Sq. Ft. Proposed Additional Sq. Ft. Proposed Total Sq. Ft. Approved Sq. Ft. (2003) Difference (Sq. Ft.) A Sanctuary 15,700 31,700 47,400 90,000 -42,600 A1 Pre-School/Day Care/Fellowship/ Admin. 14,400 16,200 30,600 14,400 +16,200 A2 Fellowship/Sanctuary/ Admin. 0 7,400 7,400 0 +7,400 D, 2 Pre-School/Daycare 10,000 12,300 22,300 11,000 +11,300 3 Jr. /Sr. High School 10,725 0 10,725 8,800 +1,925 4 Jr./Sr. High School 32,600 0 32,600 32,600 0 5 Elementary School 52,500 0 52,500 52,500 0 B Jr. & Sr. High School/Admin./Sports 0 52,075 52,075 45,000 +7,075 C Sports/School 0 15,000 15,000 15,000 0 E Senior Center/Counseling/ Club/Activity Center 0 30,000 30,000 30,000 0 F Church/School Assembly 0 6,000 6,000 6,000 0 Total 135,925 170,675 306,600 305,300 +1,300 City of Dublin Page 7 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 The Applicant is also proposing to add one caretaker dwelling unit on the site in the future. A Site Development Review Permit will be required prior to the caretaker unit being constructed. The site has been divided into four parcels as depicted on Exhibit 3. Parcel 1 (APN 941-0022-0040) is the largest parcel consisting of 33.3 acres of land located in the approximate center of the site. This parcel contains all school improvements, including buildings, athletic fields and parking. Parcel 1-A (APN 941-0022-003) is located on the northwest corner of the site and contains 3.7 acres of land that would be devoted to open space but would be converted to a baseball field as part of Phase 3. Parcel 2 (APN 941-0022-005) is located on the northwest corner of Inspiration Drive and Dublin Boulevard and contains 1.4 acres of land. Parcel 3 (APN 941- 0022-006) contains 12.7 acres of land located east of Inspiration Drive. This parcel includes 8.02 acres of land that has been dedicated as a conservation easement that precludes development. Parcels 2 and 3 are undeveloped and no development is proposed as a part of the project. Features of the proposed changes to the Master Plan include: • Football/Athletic Field. A major portion of the project would include converting an existing softball field and parking lot on the northeast portion of the campus to a football athletic field. The field would be constructed in an oval configuration as shown on Exhibit 4. The field would accommodate soccer, track and field and other similar outdoor activities. Improvements would include grading the site to construct a flat playing field with raised edges to accommodate seating. Metal bleacher seating for up to 1,100 people would be located on the southwest side of the field, nearest to the main campus. The main field would be synthetic material with a gravel running track on the outside of the playing field. It is anticipated that the field would be used during the academic year for a variety of sports activities, with the main use being football. The football season runs from approximately mid-August until mid-November. Up to six home games would be played; however, if the school qualifies for playoffs, an additional three games could for a total of nine games. Football practice would occur on Monday through Thursday from 3:00 pm to 5:30 pm with games scheduled for Friday evenings from 4:00 pm to 9:00 pm. Some Saturday evening games could be played between those hours as well. Attendance at football games is expected to average 400 visitors for most games. The attendance could increase to 600 visitors for homecoming and playoff games. The VCC junior varsity team would play at 4:00 pm. City of Dublin Page 8 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 Other sports including men’s varsity soccer and middle school soccer would be played throughout the year. These sporting events would most likely not result in major attendance. Men’s and women’s soccer practice would occur three days per week from 3:00 pm to 5:00 pm. Additionally, there would be one to two homes games per week from 3:30 pm to 5:30 pm with occasional Saturday afternoon games. The varsity soccer team would play five homes games per season with the possibility of additional playoff games. There would also be middle school soccer matches. Maximum attendance at these non-football events is anticipated to include up to 40 visitors and 40 players and coaches. Junior varsity men’s soccer games would occur between 3:30 and 5:30 pm. Invitation track meets would occur on Saturdays. These events could involve visitation by multiple schools. Track practice would occur Monday through Friday from 3:00 pm to 5:00 pm. One track meet per month is anticipated, which would occur on a weekday from 2:00 pm to 6:00 pm. Attendance is expected to include 40-60 athletes and 40-60 visitors. There would also be a maximum of two all-day track events per year that would include up to 100-200 athletes and 200 visitors. These invitational track meets would occur on Saturdays. VCC proposes using sound amplification during football games, track meets and other sporting events held on the proposed field. This would include the use of exterior speakers that would generally be directed onto the field. Use of amplified would cease no later than 10:00 pm. Exterior lights would be installed as part of the proposed athletic field to allow for nighttime activities. It is anticipated that lights would be used during football games, soccer matches and track and field events, generally on Friday and Saturday evenings. A condition of approval will be applied to the project requiring that the lights be turned off by 10:00 pm. • Softball/Athletic Field. The existing athletic field in the northwest portion of the site would be expanded to accommodate the existing softball field that would be relocated from the football field site. A small outdoor play area would be constructed just north of the softball field. This facility would only accommodate future VCC events. No permanent bleacher seats are proposed. • Central plaza. A plaza would be created in the approximate center of the campus, to be located north of Building 3 and east of Building 4. The intent of this feature is to serve as a central campus focal point and will include a mixture of hardscape and landscape features. A tall cross would be installed in the approximate center of the plaza. City of Dublin Page 9 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 • On-site school enrollment. School enrollment is not anticipated to increase above current enrollment levels. The estimated high school enrollment would be up to 750 students. Enrollment at the elementary and middle school is expected to be up to 400 students and the day care component would be capped at 156 students. • Parking. An existing parking lot would be removed in the northeast portion of the site to accommodate the proposed multi-sports field. Other portions of the site would be converted to permanent parking. There are currently 510 parking spaces on the site. With implementation of t he Master Plan, there would be 600 spaces on the site (540 permanent spaces on the site and 60 overflow spaces located east of Building B). The supply of parking spaces would vary with each phase of development. An existing parking lot will be eliminated to allow construction of the stadium facility; however, the Applicant will be providing additional parking at a new parking area. A total of 511 parking spaces are provided for Phases 1 & 2, 530 parking spaces for Phase 3 and 600 parking spaces for Phase 4. • Landscaping. The updated campus would include planting of trees, shrubs and groundcover around the periphery of the campus as well as adjacent to buildings and within parking lots. Exhibit 5 depicts the preliminary landscape plan for the campus. A number of existing trees would be removed to accommodate proposed improvements, but replacement tree plantings would occur. • On-site dwelling. One caretaker dwelling would be constructed on the site as part of later phases of development. The Stage 2 Development Plan is being amended as part of the current project to approve the use; however, a Site Development Review Permit will be required prior to construction of the unit. Buildings. Buildings on the site are subject to Site Development Review (SDR) by the Dublin Planning Commission. SDR approval is required prior to issuance of a building permit. SDR approval is also required for landscaping, walls and fences, signs and similar improvements. The Applicant has requested SDR approval for the football/athletic field facility, central plaza, and site modifications including landscaping. Exhibit 6 depicts building sections. Access and Circulation. Access to and from the site would continue to be provided by Inspiration Drive. Inspiration Drive provides two vehicular access City of Dublin Page 10 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 points to and from the site via Dublin Boulevard to the south and Bay Laurel Drive to the north. Water and Sewer Services: Utility services to support the proposed land use changes would continue to be supplied by the Dublin San Ramon Services District. This topic is described in the following Initial Study. Water Quality Protection. Proposed improvements on the project site will continue to be subject to Best Management Practices to support water quality standards as enforced by the City of Dublin. Project Grading. Portions of the project site, especially the proposed football field, would be graded to provide for a generally flat athletic field. Other portions of the site would also be graded to accommodate proposed improvements. Given the moderate to steep topography of the site, one or more retaining walls may be constructed. Preliminarily, it is anticipated that walls could extent to a height of 11 feet. Phasing. Proposed improvements would be constructed over a number of years that would extend until the year 2030. Exhibit 7 shows the proposed build-out of site improvements under the amended Master Plan. Requested land use entitlements. The following land use entitlements have been requested to allow implementation of the proposed project: • Planned Development Rezoning and Stage 1 & Stage 2 Development Plan amendment; • Conditional Use Permit to establish the parking requirement for the football/athletic field; • Minor Use Permit for Shared Parking; and • Site Development Review approval (football/athletic field, central plaza, parking lot modifications and landscaping). City of Dublin Page 11 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 1. Project description: The Applicant requests approval of an amendment to the approved Valley Christian Center Master Plan to allow for a lighted multi-purpose athletic field on the northeast portion of the existing campus, construction of a central plaza/quad area, construction of other new buildings on the campus and changes to on-site parking and landscaping. 2. Lead agency: City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94583 3. Contact person: Martha Battaglia, Dublin Planning Department (925) 833-6610 4. Project location: North of Dublin Boulevard at Inspiration Drive at 7500 Inspiration Drive 5. Project contact person: James Goring, Goring & Straja Architects (510) 848-0895 6. General Plan Land Use Public/Semi Public Designation: 8. Zoning PD-Planned Development 9. Other public agency necessary, potential and/or desired approvals: • Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan Amendment, Conditional Use Permit, Minor Use Permit and Site Development Review Permit (City of Dublin) • Grading Plans, Improvement Plans, and Building Permits (City of Dublin) • Sewer and water connections (DSRSD) • Encroachment permits (City of Dublin) • Notice of Intent (State Water Resources Control Board) City of Dublin Page 12 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below may 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 requiring preparation of a Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration. X Aesthetics - Agricultural Resources - Air Quality X Biological Resources - Cultural Resources - Geology/Soils - Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Materials - Hydrology/Water Quality - Land Use/ Planning - Mineral Resources X Noise - Population/ Housing - Public Services - Recreation X Transportation/ Traffic - Utilities/Service Systems - Tribal Cultural Resources - Mandatory Findings of Significance Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: ___ I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration will be prepared. ___ I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment and a Addendum will be prepared. ___ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A Mitigated Negative Declaration will be prepared. City of Dublin Page 13 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 _X__I find that although the proposed project may have a potentially significant effect, or a potentially significant effect unless mitigated, on the environment, but at least one or more effects: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards; and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on the attached sheets. A focused Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration is required, but it must only analyze the effects that meet the CEQA standards for supplemental review as identified in attached checklist. Signature: _______________________________ Date: __________ Printed Name: Martha Battaglia, Associate Planner For: City of Dublin Community Development Department City of Dublin Page 14 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers. Certain "no impact" answers are supported by the information sources the 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), or, in this case, there is no impact of the proposed project beyond that which was considered previously in the certified 2003 EIR (see explanation under Earlier Analysis section below). 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. It there are one or more "potentially significant impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" implies elsewhere the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "potentially significant effect" to a "less-than- significant impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less-than- significant level. 5. Earlier Analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a. Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b. Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c. Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less-than-Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which City of Dublin Page 15 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. d. A “No New Impact” finding means that there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to the impact area beyond what has been analyzed in 2003 EIR, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for the impact area. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be at tached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9. The explanation of each issue should identify: a. The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question. b. The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less- than-significant. Note: Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process. (See Public Resources Code section 21083.3.2.) Information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per Public Resources Code section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that Public Resources Code section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality. City of Dublin Page 16 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 Environmental Impacts (Note: Source of determination listed in parenthesis. See listing of sources used to determine each potential impact at the end of the checklist) Note: A full discussion of each item is found following the checklist. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No New Impact 1. Aesthetics. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (Source: 2, 6) X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Source: 2, 6) X c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Source: 6) X d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Source: 2, 6) X 2. Agricultural Resources . Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to a non- agricultural use? (Source: 2) X b) Conflict with existing zoning for agriculture use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Source: 2) X 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: 2) X 3. Air Quality (Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district may be relied on to make the following determinations). Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (Source: 1,4) X b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Source: 2, 8) X City of Dublin Page 17 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No New Impact 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? (2, 8) X d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Source: 2, 8) X e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Source: 2, 6) X 4. Biological Resources . Would the project a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special 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: 2,3) X 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: 2,3) X c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption or other means? (Source: Source: 2,3) X 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, 3) X City of Dublin Page 18 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No New Impact e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree protection ordinances? (Source: 2, 3) X 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: 2, 8) X 5. Cultural Resources. Would the project a) Cause a substantial adverse impact in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Sec. 15064.5 or listed or eligible for listing on the CA Register of Historic Places? (2) X b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to Sec. 15064.5 (Source: 2) X c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource, site or unique geologic feature? (Source: 2) X 6. Geology and Soils. Would the project a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: X i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault (Source: 2) X ii) Strong seismic ground shaking (2) X iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? (2) X iv) Landslides? (2) X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (Source: 2) X City of Dublin Page 19 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No New Impact 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- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or similar hazards (2) X d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? (2)(Source: 2) X e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? (Source: 1, 2) X 7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? (9) X b) Conflict with applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. X 8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials (Source: 2) X 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? (Source: 2) X c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Source: 2) X d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Sec. 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Source: 2, 8) X City of Dublin Page 20 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No New Impact e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted within two miles of a public airport of public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Source: 1, 2) X 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? X g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with the adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (1.2) X 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: 2, 7) X 9. Hydrology and Water Quality . Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (Source: 2) X 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? (2) X c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? (Source: , 72) X City of Dublin Page 21 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No New Impact d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or areas, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? (Source: 2, 7) X 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: 2) X f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (Source: 2) X g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map? (Source: 2, 7) X h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Source: 2, 7) X 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? (2, 7) X j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow? (2) X 10. Land Use and Planning. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? (Source: 1, 2,) X 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, 2) X c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (1, 2) X City of Dublin Page 22 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No New Impact 11. Mineral Resources . Would the project a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Source: 1, 2) X 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, 2) X 12. Noise. Would the proposal result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (1, 2,4) X b) Exposure of persons or to generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Source:2, 3) X c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above existing levels without the project? (2,4) X d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (2, 4) X 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? (2, 4) X 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: 2, 4) X 13. Population and Housing. Would the project City of Dublin Page 23 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No New Impact a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (Source: 1, 2) X b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (1, 2) X c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement of housing elsewhere? (Source: 6) X 14. Public Services. Would the proposal: a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service rations, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services? (Sources: 2,7) Fire protection X Police protection X Schools X Parks X Other public facilities X Solid Waste X 15. Recreation: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated (Source: 1, 2) X 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: 1, 2) X 16. Transportation and Traffic. Would the project: City of Dublin Page 24 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No New Impact 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)? (2,5) X b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the County Congestion Management Agency for designated roads or highways? (2,5) X 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? (2, 5) X d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses, such as farm equipment? (5) X e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (5) X f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (5) X g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (such as bus turnouts and bicycle facilities) (1,2) X 17. Tribal Cultural Resources. Would the project: a) Be listed or eligible for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources or be listed in a local register of historic resources, as defied in Pub. Resources Code sec. 5020.1 (k)? (2, 7) X b) Be a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria in subdivision (c) of Pub. Resources Code sec. 5024.1, including potential significance to any resources associated with a California Native American Tribe? (2, 7) X 18. Utilities and Service Systems. Would the project: City of Dublin Page 25 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No New Impact a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (2, 7) 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? (2, 7) X 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, 7) X d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing water entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (2, 7) X 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? (2, 7) X f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? (2) X g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (2) X 18. Mandatory Findings of Significance a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number of or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? X City of Dublin Page 26 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No New Impact 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). X c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X Sources used to determine potential environmental impacts 1. Dublin General Plan Amendment 2. VCC Final EIR, City of Dublin 2003 3. Biological Reconnaissance, WRA, July 2015, Updated March, 2018 4. Acoustic Analysis, Illingworth & Rodkin, June 2018 5. Parking & Traffic Analysis, Omni-Means, November 2015 6. Site Visit 7 Information from Service Provider 8. Other Source XVII. Earlier Analyses and Incorporation By Reference a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. The following Environmental Impact Report has been used in the preparation of the Initial Study. All are available for review at the City of Dublin Community Development Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin CA, during normal business hours. Each of the following documents are incorporated by reference into this Initial Study. Valley Christian Center Expansion Program EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 200212070). March 2003. City of Dublin Page 27 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 This Initial Study analyzes whether any further environmental review than that performed in this prior certified EIR are required for the proposed project under the standards of Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines section 15162 and 15163. This Initial Study analyzes whether the proposed changes to the VCC Master Plan Project will result in any new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts than those analyzed in the prior EIR or whether any other of the standards requiring further environmental review under CEQA are met. If the Initial Study determines that there are no new or substantially more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the prior EIR and no CEQA standard for subsequent or supplemental review is met, then the impact is identified as “No New Impact.” City of Dublin Page 28 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 Discussion of Checklist 1. Aesthetics Environmental Setting The project is located on a prominent knoll north of the Interstate 580 (I -580) freeway and Dublin Boulevard in the western portion of Dublin. The site has steeply sloping hillsides rising to an elevation of approximately 830 feet above sea level at the highest elevation on the site. Major features of the site include a number of buildings at the top of the knoll devoted to existing VCC operations. Buildings are largely screened by mature vegetation which has been planted on the campus. Inspiration Drive, the major access road to the site from Dublin Boulevard, is also noticeable from passers -by on the I-580 freeway and Dublin Boulevard. Views of the roadway are softened by mature trees planted adjacent to the road alignment. Lower portions of the site more visible from adjacent roadways are vacant and include native grasslands and low vegetation. Eastern facing side slopes are also vegetated with grasses. The project site is not located adjacent to an officially designed state highway, although I-580 is considered by Caltrans to be eligible for listing as a state scenic highway (source: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways). Existing light sources include streetlights along Inspiration Drive, parking lot lighting, building exterior lights and pathway lights. 2003 EIR The 2003 EIR identified the following potentially significant aesthetic impacts and mitigation measures: • Impact 4.1-1 identified a significant impact with respect to views of the project site from the I-580 freeway and from Dublin Boulevard since building proposed in the complex would be out of scale with other existing development in the western portion of Dublin. Mitigation Measure 4.1-1 required that the proposed senior center and chapel buildings on the site be restricted to one story constructed and set back from the top of the slope on the site. Consideration should also be given to reducing the apparent height by use of low rooflines use of earth tone colors and non-reflective surfaces. This mitigation also required that the residential component of the project be setback from Dublin Boulevard, restricted to single story construction on the south side of the site and City of Dublin Page 29 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 using extensive landscaping near the entrance and using earth tome colors and non-reflective surfaces. These measures reduced this impact to a less- than-significant level. • Impact 4.1-3 found that construction of the proposed project would increase the amount of light and potential glare due to parking and building lights. Lighting of the playfields would be an additional source of light and glare that could impact nearby residential areas. Mitigation Measure 4.1-2 required that exterior light fixtures be equipped with cut- off lenses, directed downward and limited in height to minimize excess light and glare. Future lighting of playfields is subject to a publicly noticed Planning Commission hearing. Adherence to these measures reduced this impact to a less-than-significant level. The proposed project will be required to adhere to all applicable mitigation measures identified above and other land use regulations dealing with aesthetics, visual conditions and light and glare. Project Impacts a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista? No New Impact. Approval and implementation of the proposed project would increase the amount of future buildings on the site above existing land use approvals by an estimated 1,300 square feet. Existing open sports fields would also be expanded to accommodate a wider variety of sports and outdoor activities. Since the higher elevations of the site have previously been developed for Valley Christian Center, the addition of approximately 1,300 square feet would not represent a significant impact. The Applicant is also proposing to preserve approximately 8 acres of the eastern-facing slope as a permanent non-buildable open space conservation area. With adherence to previous applicable mitigation measures and applicable regulations, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to scenic vistas beyond what has been analyzed in the 2003 EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including visual resources within state scenic highway? No New Impact. Future development under the amended Master Plan would largely occur within or adjacent to the existing development portion of the site at the top of the knoll. New development would not be significantly noticeable from the I-580 freeway or Dublin Boulevard due to the lower elevation of roadways as compared to the top of the knoll. City of Dublin Page 30 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 As noted in the Biological Resources section of this Initial Study, a small wetland area with associated riparian vegetation is located on the southwest corner of the site. Based on the proposed development plan, this existing scenic resource would not be developed or otherwise impacted by the proposed development. With adherence to previous applicable mitigation measures and applicable regulations, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to scenic resources beyond what has been analyzed in the 2003 EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. c) Substantially degrade existing visual character or the quality of the site? No New Impact. The proposed project would include limited new building construction (approximately 1,300 square feet), athletic fields, a central plaza and related improvements in close proximity to the existing VCC campus and at the top of the knoll. The Applicant is proposing to preserve approximately 8 acres of the eastern-facing slope as a permanent non- buildable open space conservation area. With the open space conservation easement to preclude additional development of buildings or improvements, there would be no new or more severe significant impact with respect to degradation of the visual character or quality of the site that was analyzed in the 2003 EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. d) Create light or glare? Less-than-Significant with Mitigation. The issue of light and glare was analyzed in the 2003 EIR. The EIR contained Mitigation Measure 4.1-2 that requires that exterior light fixtures be equipped with cut-off lenses, directed downward and limited in height to minimize excess light and glare. Future lighting of playfields is subject to a publically noticed Planning Commission and City Council hearings. The current project includes lighted playfields on the northeast portion of the main campus that would be used at night several times per year, which was not included in the 2003 approved Master Plan. There are residences just east of the project site that could be impacted by lighting at the currently proposed playfield. Therefore, the following mitigation measure would augment the existing Mitigation Measure 4.1-2 by requiring documentation that there will be no spillover of light and glare from the site onto adjacent residences: City of Dublin Page 31 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 Mitigation Measure AES-1. In addition to the requirements contained in 2003 EIR Mitigation Measure 4.1-2 to equip all exterior lighting with cut-off lenses, directed downward, limited in height and that lighting of playfields, the following shall also apply: a) Submittal of final playfield lighting plans to the City of Dublin Community Development Department prior to issuance of a building permit for the sports stadium to include detailed photometric drawings documenting that no spill over of light or glare would occur off the VCC project site. The photometric drawings shall be approved prior to the issuance of the building permit. The previous requirement for Planning Commission approval of lighting plans is no longer applicable. 2. Agricultural & Forestry Resources Environmental Setting The project site has been largely developed with the Valley Christian C enter for more than thirty years. The site is zoned “Planned Development” which is not an agricultural zoning district and no Williamson Act Land Conservation Agreement has been signed on the property. No crop production occurs on the site. Other than introduced, ornamental trees, no significant trees or forestry resources exist on the site. Previous EIR The topic of agricultural and forestry resources was identified as a less-than- significant impact in the 2003 EIR. 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? No New Impact. As noted in the Environmental Setting Section, the site is not used for agricultural production, is not zoned for agriculture and is not subject to a agricultural conservation easement. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to agricultural resources beyond what has been analyzed in the 2003 EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. City of Dublin Page 32 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 d,e) Involve other changes in the existing environment that, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use or conversion of forestland to a non-forest use? No New Impact. No significant forest resources exist on the site. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to forestry resources beyond what has been analyzed in the 2003 EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. 3. Air Quality Background. The project is located in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. Ambient air quality standards have been established at both the state and federal level. The Bay Area meets all ambient air quality standards with the exception of ground-level ozone, respirable particulate matter (PM10) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5). High ozone levels are caused by the cumulative emissions of reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOx). These precursor pollutants react under certain meteorological conditions to form high ozone levels. Controlling the emissions of these precursor pollutants is the focus of the Bay Area’s attempts to reduce ozone levels. Highest ozone levels in the Bay Area occur in the eastern and southern inland valleys that are downwind of air pollutant sources. High ozone levels aggravate respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, reduce lung function, and increase coughing and chest discomfort. Particulate matter is another problematic air pollutant in the Bay Area. Particulate matter is assessed and measured in terms of respirable particulate matter or particles that have a diameter of 10 micrometers or less (PM10) and fine particulate matter where particles have a diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less (PM2.5). Elevated concentrations of PM10 and PM2.5 are the result of both region-wide (or cumulative) emissions and localized emissions. High particulate matter levels aggravate respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, reduce lung function, increase mortality (e.g., lung cancer), and result in reduced lung function growth in children. The ambient air quality in a given area depends on the quantities of pollutants emitted within the area, transport of pollutants to and from surrounding areas, local and regional meteorological conditions, and the surrounding topography of the air basin. Air quality is described by the concentration of various pollutants in the atmosphere. Units of concentration are generally expressed in parts per million (ppm) or micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3). The project is located within the Livermore Valley. The Livermore Valley forms a small sub regional City of Dublin Page 33 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 air basin distinct from the larger San Francisco Bay Area air basin. The Livermore Valley 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 Livermore-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 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 seasons 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 (BAAQMD), air pollution potential is high in the Livermore 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. 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. National and state ambient air quality standards. As required by the Federal Clean Air Act, National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) have been established for six major air pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), particulate matter, including respirable particulate matter (PM10) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5), sulfur oxides, and lead. Pursuant to the California Clean Air Act, the State of California has established the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). Relevant current state and federal standards are summarized in Table 2. CAAQS are generally the same or more stringent than NAAQS. Air Quality Monitoring Data. The significance of a pollutant concentration is determined by comparing the concentration to an appropriate ambient air quality standard. The standards represent the allowable pollutant concentrations designed to ensure that the public health and welfare are protected, while including a reasonable margin of safety to protect the more sensitive individuals City of Dublin Page 34 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 in the population. BAAQMD monitors air quality conditions at more than 20 locations throughout the Bay Area. The closest monitoring station to the project site is in Livermore at the 793 Rincon Avenue monitoring station. Summarized air pollutant data for this station is provided in Table 3. This table shows the highest air pollutant concentrations measured at the station over the three -year period from 2012 through 2014. Note that BAAQMD discontinued monitoring of carbon monoxide in 2009 at this station. The data shows that ozone levels exceeded state or federal standards from 2012 through 2014. The PM2.5 24-hour standard was exceeded in 2013 and 2014. Ambient Air Quality Status. Areas with air pollutant levels that exceed adopted air quality standards are designated as “nonattainment” areas for the relevant air pollutants. Nonattainment areas are sometimes further classified by degree (marginal, moderate, serious, severe, and extreme for ozone, and moderate and serious for carbon monoxide and PM10) or status (“nonattainment-transitional”). Areas that comply with air quality standards are designated as “attainment” areas for the relevant air pollutants. “Unclassified” areas are those with insufficient air quality monitoring data to support a designation of attainment or nonattainment, but are generally presumed to meet the ambient air quality standard. State Implementation Plans must be prepared by states for areas designated as federal nonattainment areas to demonstrate how the area will come into attainment of the exceeded federal ambient air quality standard. The Bay Area is considered a marginal nonattainment area for ozone under the NAAQS and nonattainment for ozone under the CAAQS (both 1 -hour and 8- hour standards). The Bay Area is also designated as nonattainment for the 24- hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The Bay Area is also considered nonattainment for the State annual PM2.5 standard and the 24-hour PM10 standard. The region is designated attainment or unclassified for all other ambient air quality standards. Sensitive Receptors. There are groups of people more affected by air pollution than others. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has identified the following persons who are most likely to be affected by air pollution: children under 14, the elderly over 65, athletes, and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. These groups are classified as sensitive receptors. Locations that may contain a high concentration of these sensitive population groups include residential areas, hospitals, daycare facilities, elder care facilities, elementary schools, and parks. The Valley Christian Center site itself is the closest sensitive receptor since it currently contains a day care facility, elementary school and outdoor playgrounds. City of Dublin Page 35 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 Table 2. Relevant California and National Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Averaging Time California Standards National Standards Ozone 8-hour 0.070 ppm (137 µg/m3) 0.075 ppm (147µg/m3) 1-hour 0.09 ppm (180 µg/m3) — Carbon monoxide 1-hour 20 ppm (23 mg/m3) 35 ppm (40 mg/m3) 8-hour 9.0 ppm (10 mg/m3) 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) Nitrogen dioxide 1-hour 0.18 ppm (339 µg/m3) 0.100 ppm (188 µg/m3) Annual 0.030 ppm (57 µg/m3) 0.053 ppm (100 µg/m3) Sulfur Dioxide 1-hour 0.25 ppm (655 µg/m3) 0.075 ppm (196 µg/m3) 24-hour 0.04 ppm (105 µg/m3) 0.14 ppm (365 µg/m3) Annual — 0.03 ppm (56 µg/m3) Particulate Matter (PM10) Annual 20 µg/m3 — 24-hour 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3 Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Annual 12 µg/m3 12 µg/m3 24-hour — 35 µg/m3 Source: BAAQMD and EPA, 2015. Notes: ppm = parts per million mg/m3 = mil ligrams per cubic meter µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter Toxic Air Contaminants. Toxic air contaminants (TAC) are a broad class of compounds known to cause morbidity or mortality (usually because they cause cancer). TACs are found in ambient air, especially in urban areas, and are caused by industry, agriculture, fuel combustion, and commercial operations (e.g., dry cleaners). TACs are typically found in low concentrations, even near their source (e.g., diesel particulate matter near a freeway). Because chronic exposure can result in adverse health effects, TACs are regulated at the regional, state, and federal level. City of Dublin Page 36 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 Table. 3. Highest Measured Air Pollutant Concentrations at Livermore Station Pollutant Average Time Measured Air Pollutant Levels 2012 2013 2014 Ozone (O3) 1-Hour 0.102 ppm 0.096 ppm 0.093 ppm 8-Hour 0.090 ppm 0.077 ppm 0.080 ppm Carbon Monoxide (CO) 8-Hour ND ND ND Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 1-Hour 0.053 ppm 0.051 ppm 0.049 ppm Annual 0.010 ppm 0.011 ppm 0.010 ppm Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) 24-Hour ND ND ND Annual ND ND ND Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 24-Hour 31.1 ug/m3 40.1 ug/m3 42.9 ug/m3 Annual 6.6 ug/m3 8.4 ug/m3 7.6 ug/m3 Source: CARB, 2015. Notes: ppm = parts per million and ug/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter. Values reported in bold exceed ambient air quality standard. ND = No data. Diesel exhaust is the predominant TAC in urban air and is estimated to represent about three-quarters of the cancer risk from TACs (based on the Bay Area average). According to CARB, diesel exhaust is a complex mixture of gases, vapors and fine particles. This complexity makes the evaluation of health effects of diesel exhaust a complex scientific issue. Some of the chemicals in diesel exhaust, such as benzene and formaldehyde, have been previously identified as TACs by CARB, and are listed as carcinogens either under the state's Proposition 65 or under the Federal Hazardous Air Pollutants programs. CARB has adopted and implemented a number of regulations for stationary and mobile sources to reduce emissions of diesel particulate matter. Several of these regulatory programs affect medium and heavy duty diesel trucks that represent the bulk of diesel particulate matter emissions from California highways. These regulations include the solid waste collection vehicle rule, in-use public and utility fleets, and the heavy-duty diesel truck and bus regulations. In 2008, CARB approved a new regulation to reduce emissions of diesel particulate matter and nitrogen oxides from existing on-road heavy-duty diesel fueled vehicles. The regulation requires affected vehicles to meet specific performance requirements between 2012 and 2023, with all affected diesel vehicles required to have 2010 model-year engines or equivalent by 2023. These requirements are phased in over the compliance period and depend on the model year of the vehicle. City of Dublin Page 37 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 BAAQMD. The BAAQMD is the regional agency tasked with managing air quality in the region. At the state level, CARB (a part of the California Environmental Protection Agency) oversees regional air district activities and regulates air quality at the state level. The BAAQMD published CEQA Air Quality Guidelines are used in this assessment to evaluate air quality impacts of projects. Previous EIR The 2003 EIR identified the following potentially significant air quality impact and mitigation measure: • Impact 4.2-1 identified a significant short-term construction impact that included increased dustfall and locally elevated emissions of PM10 for downwind properties. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 4.2-1 reduced this impact to a less-than-significant level by requiring watering of active construction sites, watering of covering of stockpiled material, covering of haul trucks, paving or stabilizing unpaved access roads, sweeping all paved access roads, sweeping nearby streets on a daily basis, hydroseeding inactive construction areas, limiting on-site truck speeds to 15 miles per hour, installing sandbags to limit silt runoff onto adjacent streets, and replanting vegetation on disturbed areas as soon as possible. These measures reduced this impact to a less-than-significant level. The proposed project will be required to comply with the above mitigation measure as modified below in Mitigation Measure AIR-1. Project Impacts a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of an air quality plan? No New Impact. The proposed project would allow for a redistribution of uses on the site, many of which have been approved by the City for more than ten years. Limited expansion of school facilities would be allowed should the project be approved. The project also includes a new football and track stadium which was not been previously approved by the City. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Clean Air Plan is predicated on population projections for local agencies within the region based on ABAG’s regional population projections. The population projections are based on a compilation of local agency general plan documents. Development allowed under the proposed project would be generally consistent with the type and amount of development allowed under the Dublin General Plan and the approved VCC Master Plan. City of Dublin Page 38 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 The Applicant is proposing the construction of one on-site dwelling unit. The proposed dwelling would be occupied by VCC staff (caretakers), which would have the effect of slightly reducing vehicle trips to and from the site. With adherence to mitigation measures and other local and regional requirements, there would be no new or more severe significant impact with respect to a potential conflict with or obstruction of the regional Clean Air Plan than was analyzed in the 2003 EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. b) Would the project violate any air quality standards? Less-than-Significant with Mitigation. The 2003 EIR found that construction of the VCC project could violate air quality standards, which could be a potentially significant impact. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 4.2-1 reduced this impact to a less-than-significant level by requiring project grading contractors to comply with then current BAAQMD’s standards to minimize emission of dust and construction vehicle emission during grading operations. The BAAQMD has since adopted newer and more restrictive standards to reduce construction dust and construction vehicle emission and, as an additional mitigation measure; the Applicant shall adhere to the following to reduce this construction impact to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure AIR-1. The Applicant’s grading contractor(s) shall adhere to the most current Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) construction mitigation measures (Tables 8-1 and 8-2 or as may be updated at the time a grading permit is requested) as set forth in the May 2017 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, or as may be amended in the future and in effect at time of issuance of grading permit. Operational and mobile air quality impacts were analyzed in the 2003 EIR. The 2003 EIR found that construction of the project would fall below the BAAQMD daily emission threshold of 80 pounds per day and that this was a less-than-significant impact (Impact 4.2-2). The current project would include an additional 1,300 square feet of floor space above the amount of development analyzed in the 2003 EIR and approved by the City. This amount of development falls below the screening thresholds for pollutant screening size adopted by the BAAQMD (see Table 3-1 of the 2017 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines). Table 3.1 notes that high schools (the closest land use type shown on this table) with less than 311,000 square feet falls below the level of significance as adopted by the BAAQMD. City of Dublin Page 39 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 In addition to the above, and as documented in the Transportation and Traffic section of this Initial Study, implementation of the proposed project would generate 15 fewer vehicle trips in the am peak hour and 19 fewer trips in the pm peak hour period that was set forth in the 2003 EIR. With adherence to other local and regional requirements, there would be no new or more severe significant impacts with respect to violation of any air quality standard from operations than was analyzed in the 2003 EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for the impact from operations on this area. c) Would the project result in cumulatively considerable air pollutants? Less-than- Significant with Mitigation for construction and No New Impact for operations. See item “b.” d,e) Expose sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations or create objectionable odors? No New Impact. Existing users on the site include young children that are sensitive receptors, surrounded by single-family residential uses that would likely also contain sensitive air quality receptors. Proposed changes to the Master Plan as requested by the Applicant are generally minor in nature and would not generate significantly greater pollution concentrations that previously analyzed in the 2003 EIR. As documented in subsection “b” above, implementation of the proposed project would generate slightly fewer am and pm peak hour vehicle trips that was documented in the 2003 EIR. None of the existing or proposed uses would generate objectionable odors. Proposed uses would consist of new educational facilities, athletic fields and parking lots. With adherence to previous applicable mitigation measures and applicable regulations, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to scenic resources due to odors beyond what has been analyzed in the 2003 EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. 4. Biological Resources Environmental Setting A Biological Reconnaissance Analysis of the project site was completed in July 2015 by WRA. The WRA report is incorporated by reference into this Initial Study and is included as Attachment 1. The findings and conclusions of WRA’s 2015 report were reviewed and reconfirmed by WRA in March, 2018. City of Dublin Page 40 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 Biological communities. Six biological communities have been identified on the site, as follows: Developed Land. Developed land on the project site consists of all portions of the site not mapped as a natural community type, comprising approximately 35.68 acres. Developed land on the site includes school, church, and administrative buildings, sports facilities, parking areas, Inspiration Drive, and associated landscaping. Much of these developed areas contain planted exotic vegetation, including common landscape tree and shrub species such as Bradford pear (Pyrus calleryana ‘Bradford’), Raywood ash (Fraxinus angustifolia ‘Raywood’), Monterey pine (Pinus radiata), and oleander (Nerium oleander). Non-Native Annual Grassland/Ruderal Vegetation. Non-native annual grassland comprises the majority of the site (32.33 acres of the site) and is composed of a mix of non-native annual grasses and other predominantly non-native herbaceous species. This community is similar to the non-native grassland community described by Holland (1986). Non-native annual grassland site is dominated by slender oats (Avena barbata), Italian rye grass (Festuca perennis [Lolium multiflorum]), mouse barley (Hordeum murinum ssp. leporinum), and longbeak stork’s bill (Erodium botrys). Non-native grassland mapped on the site also includes dense stands of ruderal herbaceous species, including black mustard (Brassica nigra), short podded mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus) and poison hemlock (Conium maculatum), all of which are listed as having “moderate” potential to cause negative ecological impacts by the Cal -IPC (2015). Native plant cover is less than 5% within the non-native annual grassland. Wildlife species observed in this community on the site were turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), common raven (Corvus corax), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), and black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus). Coyote Brush Scrub. Coyote brush scrub is scattered in small, fragmented portions throughout the site, on both natural slopes and disturbed, previously graded areas. This community contains approximately 1.4 acres. The dominant plant in this community is coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis ssp. consanguinea) and the understory is dominated by the non-native grasses and forbs also observed non-native annual grassland/ruderal vegetation community. This community is similar to the Northern coyote brush scrub community described by Holland (1986) and the coyote brush scrub series described by Sawyer et al. (2009). City of Dublin Page 41 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 Riparian Woodland. The riparian woodland occupies a small area (approximately 0.57 acres of the site) near the southwest corner of the site. This community is considered a sensitive community in that it may contain protected species, similar to the central coast live oak riparian forest community described by Holland (1986). The riparian woodland consists of coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), valley oak (Quercus lobata), arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), and red willow (Salix laevigata). The understory consists of a mixture of native and non-native herbaceous species including California bulrush (Schoenoplectus californicus), tall flatsedge (Cyperus eragrostis), and fiddle dock (Rumex pulcher). Riparian woodland is considered sensitive under the CEQA and is protected by the California Fish and Game Code (Section 1600 et seq.). Coast Live Oak Woodland. Coast live oak woodland occupies a small (approximately 1.29 acre), fragmented area in the northeast corner of the site. This community is similar to the coast live oak woodland communit y described by Holland (1986) and is considered a sensitive biological community. Coast live oak woodland is dominated by coast live oak, but also consists of California bay (Umbellularia californica), valley oak, and California buckeye (Aesculus californica). The understory is dominated by non-native grasses and forbs also observed non-native annual grassland/ruderal vegetation community. A portion of the area mapped as coast live oak woodland in the west part of the site consists of planted oaks. Ephemeral Stream. An ephemeral stream exists within the southwestern corner of the site. The ephemeral stream is located in a concave, north to south drainage to the south and downhill from the baseball field and is approximately 462 lineal feet. The ephemeral stream appears to be the result of a culvert system that drains the hillside to the north, and could also potentially be fed by a seep. Water was present in the ephemeral stream during the site visit; however, the presence of a seep could not be confirmed, as the water appeared to originate from under a dense patch of poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), and Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus). The ephemeral stream was intermittent during the time of the site visit, flowing down the south-facing hill and into a rock-lined trapezoidal ditch, at which point the water appeared to become subsurface flow. The trapezoidal ditch parallels the property boundary and feeds into a culvert where it flows into Dublin Creek. This community is also considered to be significant. Special-status species. The project site does not contain woodland or scrub habitats or rocky outcroppings to support this species, nor is it adjacent to these necessary physical and biological conditions. Additionally, the site does not serve as a City of Dublin Page 42 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 corridor to existing suitable habitat because it is surrounded on three sides by suburban development, an effective barrier to dispersal that isolates the site from access by this species. In summary, no special-status wildlife species were observed during the May 20, 2015 site visit by WRA field biologists, and six special-status wildlife species have a moderate potential to occur on the project site. Previous CEQA documents The 2003 EIR identified the following significant biological impacts and contains the following mitigation measures. • Impact 4.3-1 found that development of the proposed residential component of the project on the southwest corner of the site would impact an existing wetland area. Other wetlands may also be found on the site. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 4.3-1 reduced this impact to a less-than- significant level by requiring a protocol level wetland delineation on the site. Based on the delineation, the development plan may be modified to avoid wetlands. If avoidance is not possible, alternative replacement wetlands shall be identified and secured at a 2:1 ratio with issuance of necessary permits from regulatory agencies. The current project does not include development on the southwest corner of the site. However, due to the potential of wetlands on-site, a new mitigation measure Mitigation Measure BIO-5 is included below. Project Impacts a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species? Less-than-Significant with Mitigation. Most of the project site is comprised of developed land and non-native annual grassland/ruderal vegetation. Although non-native annual grassland and developed land are not sensitive biological communities under CEQA, they may provide habitat for special status plant and wildlife species. Such species will require mitigation if found on the site. The site contains 1.29 acres of coast live oak woodland, which is potentially sensitive under the Oak Woodland Conservation Act and 0.57 acre of riparian woodland, which is potentially within the jurisdiction of the California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) under Sections 1600-1616 of California Fish and Game Code. Construction of proposed project improvements could result in both direct and indirect impacts to sensitive on-site biological resources. Construction of the proposed project could directly or indirectly impact on-site sensitive biological resources on the site, as follows: City of Dublin Page 43 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 Development of non-native grasslands. Future development of non-native grasslands could impact habitat for special-status birds and other mammals that forage or nest in this type of community. The following mitigation will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure BIO-1. No more than 14 days prior to ground disturbance and vegetation removal during the nesting season (February 1-August 31), the project Applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to perform pre-construction breeding bird surveys. If nests are found, they shall be flagged and protected with a suitable buffer. Buffer distance would vary based on species and conditions at the project site, but would usually be at least 50 feet and up to 250 feet for raptors. This measure shall not apply to ground disturbance of vegetation removal outside of the nesting season (September 1 to January 31). Removal of Coast Live Oak Woodland. Impacts to coast live oak woodlands as a result of construction could be significant and such impacts will be reduced to a less-than-significant impact by adherence to the following. Mitigation Measure BIO-2. Any on-site coast live oak lost or impacted as a result of project construction shall be replaced on site or in the immediate vicinity at a 2:1 (replacement: impacted) ratio. A Replacement Plan shall be prepared by a qualified biologist identifying the location of replacement habitat, replanting plans and long-term monitoring to ensure the success of the replacement habitat area. Necessary permits shall be obtained from local, state and federal biological resource agencies prior to commencement of replantings. Impacts to Special-Status plants. Of the 42 special-status plant species known to occur in the vicinity of the project site, one species, Congdon’s tarplant, has a moderate potential to occur on the site. Most of the species found in the review of background literature occur in high quality vernal pool habitat, in different plant communities, often at higher elevations, or in high quality grassland habitat. Due to the history of disturbance, and predominance of non-native ruderal species, the grassland and woodlands on the site are likely of too low quality to support the majority of these other special-status plant species. Congdon’s tarplant is considered to have a moderate potential to occur on the project site. Two tarplant individuals (Centromadia sp.) were observed in the northeast portion on the site in a disturbed ruderal field used for City of Dublin Page 44 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 heavy equipment storage. This area is an “island” of non-native annual grassland/ruderal vegetation surrounded by developed land. The tarplant individuals observed in this area during the site visit were unidentifiable to species level due to the timing of the site visit and the absence of mature inflorescences. Given the presence of Centromadia species in the region, it is unlikely, all though not impossible, that these individuals are not Condon’s tarplant and instead common tarweed, (Centromadia pungens ssp. pungens), a non- listed species. Due to the very low number of individuals present, and the presence of larger populations in the region, these two individuals do not represent a significant population and loss of these plants would not be considered significant. To ensure absence of a greater population on site, rare plant surveys for this species is recommended during the blooming season. The following measure is recommended to reduce this impact to a less-than- significant level. Mitigation Measure BIO-3. The project Applicant shall retain a qualified botanist to conduct rare plant surveys within construction zones on the site for Congdon’s Tarplant or for other species within the project site during the appropriate time of year in accordance with agency protocols. Impacts to special-status plants shall be avoided to the fullest extent feasible and habitat that supports special-status plant species shall be preserved. Rare plant surveys shall be conducted at the proper time of year when rare or endangered species are both evident and identifiable. Field surveys shall be scheduled to coincide with known blooming periods and/or during periods of physiological development that are necessary to identify the plant species of concern. If no special- status plant species are found, the proposed project would not have a significant impact to species and no additional mitigation is needed. If any of the species are found on-site and cannot be avoided, the following measures shall be required: a) Where surveys determine that special-status plant species are present within or adjacent to the proposed project site, direct and indirect impacts of the project on the species (e.g., Congdon’s tarplant and/or San Joaquin spearscale) shall be avoided where feasible through the establishment of activity exclusion zones, where no ground-disturbing activities shall City of Dublin Page 45 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 take place, including construction of new facilities, construction staging, or other temporary work areas. Activity exclusion zones for special-status plant species shall be established prior to construction activities around each occupied habitat site, the boundaries of which shall be clearly marked with standard orange plastic construction exclusion fencing or its equivalent. The establishment of activity exclusion zones shall not be required if no construction related disturbances would occur within 250 feet of the occupied habitat site. The size of activity exclusion zones may be reduced through consultation with a qualified biologist and with concurrence from California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) based on site-specific conditions. b) If exclusion zones and avoidance of impacts on a special- status plant species are not feasible, then the loss of individuals or occupied habitat of a special-status plant species shall be compensated for through the acquisition, protection, and subsequent management of other existing occurrences. Before the implementation of compensation measures, the project’s Applicant shall provide detailed information to the CDFW and lead agency on the quality of preserved habitat, location of the preserved occurrences, provisions for protecting and managing the areas, the responsible parties involved, and the other pertinent information that demonstrates the feasibility of the compensation. A mitigation plan identifying appropriate mitigation ratios shall be developed in consultation with, and approved by, the CDFW and the City prior to the commencement of any activities that would impact any special status plants. Impacts to California red-legged frog. There is no aquatic breeding for the California red-legged frog (CRLF) on the project site. However, CRLF may inhabit the wetland/riparian areas and uplands within the Study Area 200 feet of these wet areas. Construction of project improvements near or on riparian areas may be a significant impact on this protected species. The following measure shall be implemented for development near potential wetland areas of the site. Mitigation Measure BIO-4. For any development near on-site riparian areas, the project Applicant shall conduct pre-construction surveys for CRLF species. The survey shall be completed no more than 30 days prior to work within 200 feet of potential City of Dublin Page 46 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 wetland/wet areas on the site. If no species are found, no mitigation shall be required. If CRFL are found on the project site then the project Applicant shall provide information to support Section 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the project Applicant shall ensure no net loss of habitat that shall be achieved through avoidance, preservation, creation and/or purchase of credits. The final selected measures may be part of the Section 7 permitting process. The project Applicant shall obtain a biological opinion from the USFWS and comply with the conditions and mitigation requirements under the opinion to ensure that no net loss of habitat occurs. Mitigation may include, but would not be limited to on-site and off-site preservation and creation of CRLF habitat, purchase of credits at mitigation banks, payment of in-lieu fees approved by the agencies, or other agency approved and required mitigation measures. Avoidance measures may include the following or equivalent protective measures: a) To minimize disturbance of breeding and dispersing CRLF construction activity within CRLF upland habitat shall be conducted during the dry season between April 15 and October 15 or before the onset of the rainy season, whichever occurs first. If construction activities are necessary in CRLF upland habitat between October 15 and April 15, the project Applicant would contact the USFWS for approval to extend the work period. b) To minimize disturbance and mortality of adult and juvenile CRLF in aquatic habitat and underground burrows, the project Applicants should minimize the extent of ground- disturbing activities within these habitats by requiring the contractor to limit the work area to the minimum necessary for construction. In addition, the project Applicant should ensure that the contractor installs temporary exclusion fence between the construction work area and potential aquatic habitat for all construction within grasslands near aquatic habitat. A minimum buffer zone of 150 feet shall be maintained around CRLF aquatic habitat during construction. No staging, parking, material storage or ground disturbance shall be allowed in the buffer zone. The City of Dublin Page 47 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 buffer zone will be clearly defined with construction fencing prior to the initiation of construction activities and shall be maintained until completion of construction. c) The project Applicant should ensure that a qualified wildlife biologist monitors all construction activities within CRLF upland habitat to ensure no take of individual CRLF occurs during project construction. If a CRLF is found, then the monitor would immediately stop construction in that area and contact USFWS for development of a plan for how to proceed with construction. b, c) Have a substantial adverse impact on riparian habitat or federally protected wetlands? Less-than-Significant with Mitigation. The project contains an ephemeral stream that could be within the jurisdiction of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) under the Porter Cologne Act and Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. The conversion of ephemeral streams to developed land is a potentially significant impact under CEQA that could require mitigation efforts. Therefore, before continuing development on portions of the project area, a formal jurisdictional wetlands delineation is recommended to determine whether the potential seasonal wetlands are jurisdictional wetlands. The creek may also be subject to jurisdiction by CDFW under Sections 1600-1616 of California Fish and Game Code Mitigation Measure BIO-5. Prior to commencement of ground disturbing activities on Parcel 1 of the project site, the Applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to determine the potential presence of wetlands or other waters. If wetlands are found, the Applicant shall prepare a wetland mitigation plan acceptable to the Community Development Department that demonstrates compliance with the following: a) The project Applicant shall obtain all required resource agency permits and shall prepare and obtain approval of a wetland mitigation plan that ensures no net loss of wetland and water habitat. b) The wetland mitigation plan shall include measures for avoidance, minimization and compensation for wetland impacts. Avoidance and minimization measures may include the designation of buffers around wetland features to be avoided or project design measures. Compensation measures shall include the preservation and/or creation of wetlands or other waters. The final mitigation ratio (the amount of wetlands and other water created or preserved compared to the amount City of Dublin Page 48 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 impacted) shall be determined by the applicable resource agency(s). The wetland mitigation and monitoring plan shall include the following: - Description of wetland types and their expected functions and values; - Performance standards and monitoring protocol to ensure the success of the mitigation wetlands over a period of time to be determined by the resource agencies; - Engineering plans showing the location, size and configuration of wetlands to be created or preserved; -An implementation schedule showing the construction or preservation of mitigation areas shall commence prior to or concurrently with the initiation of construction; and -A description of legal protection of the preserved wetlands (such as dedication of fee title, conservation easement and/or an endowment held by an approved conservation organization, government agency or mitigation bank). d) Interfere with movement of native fish or wildlife species? No New Impact. The project site is located in an urban area of western Dublin that consists of a patchwork of developed residential areas interspersed with undeveloped, open areas. The site is bordered to the north by residential development and open space, to the east by residential development, to the south by I- 580 and to the west by residential development and open space. Since surrounding properties are largely developed, there is a very low probability that the site is used for wildlife or fish migration. No migratory corridors were observed on the site as part of the biological reconnaissance performed by WRA. With adherence to other local and regional requirements, there would be no new or more severe significant impacts with respect to interference with fish or wildlife corridors than was analyzed in the 2003 EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. e, f) Conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources or any adopted Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans? No New Impact. The project site lies within the Eastern Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS) planning area. The City of Dublin utilizes the Conservation Strategy as guidance for environmental permitting for public projects, and private development projects are encouraged to use the EACCS as a resource. The Conservation Strategy embodies a regional approach to permitting and mitigation for wildlife habitat impacts City of Dublin Page 49 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 associated with land development, infrastructure, and other activities. The Conservation Strategy is neither a Habitat Conservation Plan nor a Natural Community Conservation Plan, but is a document intended to provide guidance during the project planning and permitting process to ensure that impacts are offset in a biologically effective manner. A number of trees are present on the site, some likely protected under the provisions of the Dublin Heritage Tree Ordinance. Future individual development projects will be reviewed as part of Site Development Review (SDR) applications to ensure compliance with the Heritage Tree Ordinance. There may be a requirement for planting of replacement trees to satisfy the requirements of the ordinance. Compliance with the regulatory requirements of the Dublin Heritage Tree Ordinance will ensure impacts are less than significant. With adherence to other local and regional requirements, there would be no new or more severe significant impacts with respect to conflicts with local ordinances and policies as well as local Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans than was analyzed in the 2003 EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. 5. Cultural Resources Environmental Setting The 2003 EIR did not identify significant impacts on historic, cultural, Native American or other cultural resources. This conclusion was based on a cultural records search conducted at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) at Sonoma State University in 2002. The NWIC is affiliated with the California Office of Historic Preservation and is a repository for cultural reports in the Bay Area and coastal Northern California. The project site has been largely disturbed for the construction of buildings, parking lots, on-site roads and other improvements. Much of the undeveloped portions of the site will remain as undisturbed open space as part of the proposed project, as noted in the Project Description. On October 31, 2017, the Dublin Community Development Department sent a letter to Mr. Randy Yonemura of the Ione Band of Miwok Indian tribe informing the tribe of the City of Dublin’s intent to prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project as required by AB 52. As of the public date of this Initial Study, no response has been received by the City. This letter is hereby City of Dublin Page 50 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 incorporated by reference into this document and is available for review at the Dublin Community Development Department during normal business hours. Previous EIR. Two cultural resource impacts and an associated mitigation measure were contained in the 2003 EIR. • Impact 4.4-1 noted that on-site construction, including building foundations, utility lines and similar improvements could disturb archeological and/or Native American underground resources. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 4-1.1 reduced this impact to a less-than- significant level by requiring that work on the project shall cease until a resource protection plan prepared by a qualified archeologist consistent with CEQA Guideline Section 15064.5 (e) is prepared and implemented. If human remains are identified, the County Coroner was to be contacted. The proposed project will be required to comply with the above cultural resource mitigation measure. Project Impacts a) Cause substantial adverse change to significant historic resources or be listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources? No New Impact. All buildings on the site have been constructed since 1978 and would not qualify as historic resources. Generally, structures 50 years old and regional requirements and EIR Mitigation Measures, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to historic resources beyond what has been analyzed in the 2003 EIR. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. b-d) Cause a substantial adverse impact or destruction to archeological or paleontological resources, human remain or disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of a formal cemetery? No New Impact. A remote possibility exists that underground historic, pre -historic or human resources could be uncovered as part of project implementation. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 4.4-1 included in the 2003 EIR will be required as part of the project approval to reduce this impact to a less- than-significant level. With adherence to local requirements and EIR Mitigation Measures, there would be no new or more severe significant impacts with respect to impacts to archeological resources, paleontological or human remains outside of a formal cemetery than was analyzed in the 2003 EIR. City of Dublin Page 51 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 6. Geology and Soils Environmental Setting Soils, geologic and seismic conditions on the site and the immediate vicinity were analyzed in Chapter 4.5 of the 2003 EIR. The Geology section of the previous EIR noted that the project site is subject to moderate to severe ground shaking as a result of movement on regional faults including the Dublin Fault, believed to exist just east of the site; however, the project site is not located within an Earthquake Fault. The 2003 EIR also noted that portions of the site exhibite d characteristics of a large landslide. Landslide damage on the site were generally remediated by previous grading on the site for current site improvements. The EIR noted that previous landslide may not have been fully remediated. Previous CEQA documents The 2003 EIR contained two impacts and associated impacts dealing with geology and soils, as follows. • Impact 4-5-1 identified the potential for moderate to strong ground shaking on the project site during a seismic event. This could damage buildings, roads and other improvements with a risk to residents, employees and visitors. This was reduced to a less-than significant level by adherence to Mitigation Measure 4-5.1 that required completion of a site-specific geotechnical investigation for each future building on the site. Report(s) must address potential for seismic ground shaking, expansive site soils and the potential for future landslides. • Impact 4-5-2 found an impact with respect to the presence of expansive soils and landslides on the site that could damage foundations and other improvements. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 4.5-1 reduced this impact to a less-than-significant level. The proposed project will be required to comply with the above mitigation measures. 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? No New Impact. The previous 2003 EIR noted a significant impact (Impact 4-5-1) with respect to seismic ground shaking on the site that could result in damage to buildings and risk to residences, employees and visitors to the site. The same impact also referenced City of Dublin Page 52 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 potential damage to future site buildings and occupants from previous landslides that may have not been fully remediated. Mitigation Measure 4.5-1 contained in the 2003 EIR reduced impacts related to seismic activity, landsliding, ground failure and similar soil hazards to a less-than-significant level. Provisions included in this Mitigation Measure will be applied to the current project to reduce soil and seismic hazards to a less-than-significant level. With adherence to previous applicable mitigation measures and regulations, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to seismic hazards beyond what has been analyzed in the 2003 EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. b) Is the site subject to substantial erosion and/or the loss of topsoil? No New Impact. Construction of the proposed project would modify the existing ground surface and alter patterns of surface runoff and infiltration. These actions could result in a short-term increase in erosion and sedimentation off of the site into the local and regional drainage system. The Applicant will be required to prepare an erosion control plan, consistent with City of Dublin and Regional Water Quality Control Board standards to ensure that impacts related to substantial erosion and loss of topsoil would not be significant. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will also be required to be submitted to the Public Works Department to assure that there would be no long-term significant impacts with respect to erosion of polluted material. With adherence to previous applicable mitigation measures and applicable regulations, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to loss of top soil or significant erosion beyond what has been analyzed in the 2003 EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. c,d) Is the site located on soil that is unstable or expansive or result in poten tial lateral spreading, liquefaction, landslide or collapse? No New Impact. The 2003 EIR noted that portions of the project site may be subject to liquefaction during seismic events. As noted in subsection “a,” the site contains a historic landslide that may not have been fully repaired as a result of previous site grading. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 4.5 -1 will reduce impacts related to expansive soil, liquefaction, landslides and other soil hazards will be reduced to a less-than-significant level. With adherence to previous applicable mitigation measures and applicable regulations, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to City of Dublin Page 53 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 lateral spreading, liquefaction, landslide or similar hazards beyond what has been analyzed in the 2003 EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. e) Have soils incapable of supporting on-site septic tanks if sewers are not available? No New Impact. The proposed caretaker unit and other non-residential land uses that would be approved as part of this project would be connected to sanitary sewers provided by DSRSD, so there would be no impacts with regard to septic systems. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this topic than has been previously analyzed in the 2003 EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. 7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Environmental Setting Since certification of the Valley Christian Center EIR in 2003, the issue of contribution of greenhouse gasses to climate change has become a more prominent issue of concern as evidenced by passage of AB 32 in 2006. On March 18, 2010, amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines took effect which set forth requirements for the analysis of greenhouse gasses. The topic of the project’s contribution to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change was not analyzed in the 2003 EIR. Since the VCC EIR has been certified, the determination of whether greenhouse gasses and climate change needs to be analyzed for this proposed project is governed by the law on supplemental or subsequent EIRs (Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163). Greenhouse gas and climate change is not required to be analyzed under those standards unless it constitutes “new information of substantial importance,” which was not known and could not have been known at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete (CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15162 (a) (3).) Greenhouse gas and climate change impacts is not new information that was not known or could not have been known at the time the VCC EIR was certified. The issue of climate change and greenhouse gasses was widely known prior to the certification of the 2003 EIR. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was established in 1992. The regulation of greenhouse gas emissions to reduce climate change impacts was extensively debated and analyzed throughout the early 1990s. The studies and analyses of this issue resulted in the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. In the early and mid - 2000s, GHGs and climate change were extensively discussed and analyzed in California. In 2000, SB 1771 established the California Climate Action Registry for the recordation of greenhouse gas emissions to provide information about potential environmental impacts. Therefore, the impact of greenhouse gases on City of Dublin Page 54 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 climate change was known at the time of the certification of the VCC EIR in 2003. Under CEQA standards, it is not new information that requires analysis in a supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration. No supplemental environmental analysis of the project’s impacts on this issue is required under CEQA. Project Impacts a,b Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment or conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? No New Impacts. As discussed above, no additional environmental analysis is required under CEQA Section 21166. 8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Environmental Setting The VCC site is currently developed with a church, private school and associated land uses pursuant to permits granted by Alameda County (prior to City of Dublin incorporation) and the City of Dublin. Approximately half of the site has been disturbed to allow for development, which has occurred. The project site is located in western Dublin and is surrounded primarily by residential and open space areas. There are no industrial or similar uses near the site that could have the potential for use, transport or storage of hazardous materials. The facility currently uses small quantities of lawn and landscape care materials as well as building maintenance substances such as paints, solvents and similar materials. Such materials are normally and customarily used by this type of land use. The project site was not listed on the Cortese List of hazardous sites as of February 7, 2018. No public or private airports or airstrips exist near the site. Previous EIR The topic of hazards and hazardous materials was not included in the scope of the previous EIR for this project. Project Impacts a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? No Impact. There would be no impact with regard to transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials, City of Dublin Page 55 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 since the proposed project involves expansion of church and school uses and activities. There would be continued limited use, storage and transport of hazardous materials associated with the facility as is typical of these types of facilities which will be conducted in compliance with all applicable regulatory requirements. There would therefore be no significant impact with respect to this topic. 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? Less-than-Significant Impact. The project site has been largely developed with buildings, parking lots, on-site roads, pathways and similar improvements. The proposed project would result in 1,300 square feet of new building area and expanded athletic fields. Proposed improvements would generally be located in areas of the site that have been previously disturbed. The possibility of the release of contaminated soil and/or groundwater during future site grading would be low and less-than-significant. The project site is not listed by the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA) as a contaminated site as of February 28, 2018, nor is the site located near a major polluting land use, such as industrial facility, dry cleaning establishment or a similar use. The potential for release of hazardous materials from the use, storage or transport of hazardous materials would also be less-than-significant since only limited quantities of such materials are used, stored or transported on the site, which will be conducted in compliance with all applicable regulatory requirements. 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? Less-than-Significant Impact. Approval and implementation of the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact with respect to this topic. The site itself contains a school. However, as noted in subsection “b” above, there would be limited new ground disturbance and limited use of on-site hazardous materials. The site is not listed as a contaminated site on the Cal EPA Cortese List. This impact would be less-than-significant. d) Is the site listed as a hazardous materials site? No Impact. The VCC project site is not listed on the State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control as an identified hazardous site as of February 28, 2018. There is therefore no impact with regard to this topic. City of Dublin Page 56 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 e,f) Is the site located within an airport land use plan of a public airport or private airstrip? No Impact. The nearest airport to the site is Livermore Municipal Airport, located several miles southeast of the site. The VCC project site is not located in any airport safety or referral zones for a public or private airport or airstrip. There would be no impact with respect to this topic. g) Interference with an emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. The proposed project would include the expansion of an existing church and school complex on private land. No emergency evacuation plan would be affected since no roadways would be blocked. There would therefore be no impact with respect to this topic. h) Expose people and structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No Impact. The project site is located in western Dublin and is substantially surrounded by roadways, residential land uses and open space. The proposed expansion will be reviewed by the Alameda County Fire Department to ensure that required fire protection elements are incorporated into final building plans, including but not limited to provision of adequate water supply and pressure, installation of new fire hydrants that may be required, use of fire resistance building and landscape materials and other features. With adherence to the California Fire and Building Codes, there would be no impact with respect to this topic. 9. Hydrology and Water Quality Environmental Setting Local and regional drainage. The site is located on a relatively steep hill. The site is connected to the City of Dublin and Zone 7 regional drainage system. Stormwater from the project site is collected and transported off-site and ultimately flows south and west to San Francisco Bay. The project area is located within the jurisdiction of Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7). Zone 7 provides maintenance of regional drainage facilities within this portion of Alameda County. Surface water quality Water quality in California is regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), which controls the discharge of pollutants to water bodies from point and non -point sources. In the San Francisco Bay area, this program is administered by the San City of Dublin Page 57 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Federal regulations issued in November 1990 expanded the authority of the RWQCB to include permitting of stormwater discharges from municipal storm sewer systems, industrial processes, and construction sites that disturb areas larger than one acre of land area. The City of Dublin is a co-permittee of the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program (CWP). The CWP provides guidance to cities with respect to establishing programs to implement RWQCB requirements. The City of Dublin participates in the CWP and adheres to the regionally established guidelines. In 1994, the RWQCB issued a set of recommendations for New and Redevelopment Controls for Storm Water Programs. These recommendations include policies that define watershed protection goals, set forth minimum non- point source pollutant control requirements for site planning, construction and post-construction activities, and establish criteria for ongoing reporting of water quality construction activities. Watershed protection goals are based on policies identified in the San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), and the entire program relies on the implementation of Best Management Practices to limit pollutant contact with stormwater runoff at its source and to remove pollutants before they are discharged into receiving waters. The California Stormwater Quality Task Force has published a series of Best Management Practices handbooks for use in the design of source control; and treatment programs to achieve the water quality objectives identified by the Basin Plan for the beneficial uses of surface waters, groundwaters, wetland and marshes. Pursuant to Section 402 of the Clean Water Act and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, municipal stormwater discharges in the City of Dublin are regulated under the San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems NPDES Permit (MRP), Order No. R2-2015-0049, NPDES Permit No. CAS612008, adopted November 19, 2015. The MRP is overseen by the San Francisco RWQCB. Prov ision C.3 (New Development & Redevelopment) of the MRP addresses post -construction stormwater management requirements for new development and redevelopment projects that meet certain impervious surface area thresholds. Provision C.3 requires the incorporation of site design, source control, and low impact development stormwater treatment measures in development projects to minimize the discharge of pollutants in stormwater runoff and prevent non- stormwater discharges. Surface water quality is affected by a number of pollutants generated from existing structures, parking areas and open space uses on the project area, including but not limited to petrochemicals (oil and grease), yard and landscape chemicals (herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers), and similar sources. City of Dublin Page 58 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 Flooding The site lies approximately 540 feet above the valley floor and is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area. City of Dublin Public Works staff note no recent issues with drainage problems or flooding on or near the site (source: Michael O’Connor, Dublin Public Works Department, 3/6/18). Previous EIR The following impacts and mitigation measures were included in the 2003 EIR. • Impact 4-6.1 noted an impact with respect to short-term increases in the amount of soil erosion from the site as natural vegetation is removed for project improvements with the potential for wind and water erosion. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 4-6-1 reduced this impact to a less-than- significant level by requiring the preparation of an erosion and sedimentation control plan consistent with City of Dublin and Regional Water Quality Control Board standards. • Impact 4-6.2 identified an impact on surface water quality through the deposition of oil, grease and other chemicals from parking areas into nearby surface waters. This impact was reduced to a less-than-significant level by adherence to Mitigation Measure 4.6-2 that required the project developer to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan to ensure that Best Management Practices will be employed. • Impact 4.6-3 stated that construction of the project could impact downstream drainage facilities by increasing overall and peak storm flows. This impact was reduced to a less-than-significant level by adherence to Mitigation Measure 4.6-3 which required that the Applicant prepare a hydrology study for the project that documents the amount of current stormwater from the site, estimated amounts of increased flow and the ability of downstream facilities to accommodate any increases. If needed, improvements to downstream drainage facilities are to be identified as well as the Applicant’s financial responsibility to make needed improvements. The proposed project will be required to adhere to the above mitigation measures. Project Impacts a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? No New Impact. Adherence to mitigation measures set forth in the 2003 EIR and the Alameda County Clean Water Program as enforced by the City of Dublin will ensure that construction allowed by the proposed project would not City of Dublin Page 59 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 violate water quality standards or any waste discharge requirements. The project developer has installed on-site facilities to protect water quality including but not limited to use of bioretention areas, water quality basins and similar elements. With adherence to applicable regulations and mitigation measures, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to water quality standards or waste discharge requirements than what has been analyzed in the 2003 EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. b) Substantially deplete groundwater recharge areas or lowering of water table? No New Impact. The project site is substantially developed. The Applicant has committed to retaining an existing 8 acre vacant portion of the site located on the west side of Inspiration Drive in a conservation easement that would preclude future development. There would be no substantial depletion of existing groundwater recharge areas with adherence to previous Mitigation Measures, and other local and regional requirements. Therefore, there would be no new or more severe significant impacts with respect to depletion of groundwater recharge areas or lowering of the water table than was analyzed in the 2003 EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. c) Substantially alter drainage patterns, including streambed courses such that substantial siltation or erosion would occur? No New Impact. New impervious surfaces would be added to the project site to accommodate new buildings, parking areas, athletic fields and related improvements. Proposed improvements would be constructed of impervious surfaces that could increase stormwater runoff from the site that could change existing drainage patterns. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 4.6-3 will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level by requiring completion of a hydrology study to ensure that downstream drainage facilities can accommodate future runoff. The Mitigation Measure also requires the project developer to assist in funding any downstream improvements. Mitigation Measure 4.6-2 requires the project developer to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan to reduce the amount of polluted runoff from the site. With adherence to applicable EIR Mitigation Measures and other local and regional requirements, there would be no new or more severe significant impacts with respect to this topic than was analyzed in the 2003 EIR and no City of Dublin Page 60 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. d) Substantially alter drainage patterns or substantially increase surface water runoff that would result in flooding, either on or off the project site? No New Impact. As noted in subsection “c,” Mitigation Measure 4.6-3 contained in the 2003 EIR requires the developer to prepare a hydrology study to ensure that drainage facilities can accommodate downstream runoff and requires the developer to assist in financing any needed improvements to ensure that no on-site or off-site flooding would occur. With adherence to previous applicable mitigation measures and applicable regulations, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts beyond what has been analyzed in the 2003 EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. e) Create stormwater runoff that would exceed the capacity of drainage systems or add substantial amounts of polluted runoff? No New Impact. See subsections “c” and “d,” above. With adherence to EIR Mitigation Measures and other local and regional requirements, there would be no new or more severe significant impacts with respect to stormwater impacts and the local and regional drainage systems than was analyzed in the 2003 EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. f) Substantially degrade water quality? No New Impact. Refer to item “a” above. g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped by a Flood Insurance Rate Map? No New Impact. The project site lies outside of a 100-year flood hazard zone as mapped by FEMA. The only housing proposed on the site is a single caretaker unit. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in the previous CEQA documents. h, i) Place within a 100-year flood hazard boundary structures that impeded or redirect flood flow, including dam failures? No New Impact. Refer to item “g,” above. j) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflows? No New Impact. The project site is located well inland from San Francisco Bay or other major bodies of water to be impacted by a tsunami or seiche. The project site is located at the approximate summit of a local hill and would not be subject to mudflows from other adjacent properties. With adherence to applicable regulations, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to this topic beyond what has been analyzed in the 2003 EIR and no City of Dublin Page 61 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. 10. Land Use and Planning Environmental Setting The project site is occupied by the existing Valley Christian Center complex which includes a church, private school and similar accessory uses. Approximately one-half of the site is vacant. Surrounding uses are generally attached and detached dwellings. The City of Dublin General Plan designates this site as Public/Semi-Public. This land use designation allows for facilities and uses operated by a public agency or non-profit organization which can include but are not limited to schools, libraries, fire stations, post offices and similar uses. The site is zoned PD-Planned Development which permits a specific list of uses as contained in the PD-Planned Development Ordinance for this site. Previous EIR No significant land use impacts were identified in the 2003 EIR. Project Impacts a) Physically divide an established community? No New Impact. The VCC site is self-contained, with direct vehicular access from Dublin Boulevard via Inspiration Drive. The existing use has been on the site since the late 1970’s and none of the existing neighborhoods near the site would be physically divided should the project application be approved. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in the previous CEQA document. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation? No New Impact. Proposed land uses are fully consistent with the City of Dublin General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and no changes to these documents have been requested. The Applicant will be required to comply with all other land use policies and regulations as a condition of project approval. No impact would result. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in previous CEQA documents. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. City of Dublin Page 62 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 c) Conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No New Impact. No such plan has been adopted within the General Plan. There would therefore be no impact to a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan for the proposed project. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to applicable habitat conservation plan(s) beyond what has been analyzed in the VCC EIR, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is require d for this impact area. 11. Mineral Resources Environmental Setting No significant quantities of mineral resources exist on the project site according to the Dublin General Plan or the previous EIR that affects the project site. Project Impacts a, b) Result in the loss of availability of regionally or locally significant mineral resources? No New Impact. None of the City of Dublin land use regulatory documents or the 2003 EIR indicates that significant deposits of minerals exist on the project site, therefore no impacts would occur. 12. Noise Environmental Setting Noise background. Noise may be defined as unwanted sound. Noise is usually objectionable because it is disturbing or annoying. The objectionable nature of sound could be caused by its pitch or its loudness. Pitch is the height or depth of a tone or sound, depending on the relative rapidity (frequency) of the vibrations by which it is produced. Higher pitched signals sound louder to humans than sounds with a lower pitch. Loudness is intensity of sound waves combined with the reception characteristics of the ear. Intensity may be compared with the height of an ocean wave in that it is a measure of the amplitude of the sound wave. In addition to the concepts of pitch and loudness, there are several noise measurement scales which are used to describe noise in a particular location. A decibel (dB) is a unit of measurement which indicates the relative amplitude of a sound. The zero on the decibel scale is based on the lowest sound level that th e healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect. Sound levels in decibels are City of Dublin Page 63 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 calculated on a logarithmic basis. An increase of 10 decibels represents a ten-fold increase in acoustic energy, while 20 decibels is 100 times more intense, 30 decibels is 1,000 times more intense, etc. There is a relationship between the subjective noisiness or loudness of a sound and its intensity. Each 10 decibel increase in sound level is perceived as approximately a doubling of loudness over a fairly wide range of intensities. Technical terms are defined in Table 1 of the full acoustic report (see Attachment 2). There are several methods of characterizing sound. The most common in California is the A-weighted sound level (dBA). This scale gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which the human ear is most sensitive. Representative outdoor and indoor noise levels in units of dBA are shown in Table 2. Because sound levels can vary markedly over a short period of time, a method for describing either the average character of the sound or the statistical behavior of the variations must be utilized. Most commonly, environmental sounds are described in terms of an average level that has the same acoustical energy as the summation of all the time-varying events. This energy-equivalent sound/noise descriptor is called Leq. The most common averaging period is hourly, but Leq can describe any series of noise events of arbitrary duration. The scientific instrument used to measure noise is the sound level meter. Sound level meters can accurately measure environmental noise levels to within about plus or minus 1 dBA. Various computer models are used to predict environmental noise levels from sources, such as roadways and airports. The accuracy of the predicted models depends upon the distance the receptor is from the noise source. When the receptor is close to the noise source, the models are accurate to within about plus or minus 1 to 2 dBA. Since the sensitivity to noise increases during the evening and at night (because excessive noise interferes with the ability to sleep) 24-hour descriptors have been developed that incorporate artificial noise penalties added to quiet -time noise events. The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is a measure of the cumulative noise exposure in a community, with a 5 dB penalty added to evening (7:00 pm - 10:00 pm) and a 10 dB addition to nocturnal (10:00 pm - 7:00 am) noise levels. The Day/Night Average Sound Level (Ldn) is essentially the same as CNEL, with the exception that the evening time period is dropped and all occurrences during this three-hour period are grouped into the daytime period. Background on vibration. Ground vibration consists of rapidly fluctuating motions or waves with an average motion of zero. Several different methods ar e typically used to quantify vibration amplitude. One method is the Peak Particle Velocity (PPV). The PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of the vibration wave. In this report, a PPV descriptor with units of mm/sec City of Dublin Page 64 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 or in/sec is used to evaluate construction generated vibration for building damage and human complaints. Table 3 displays the reactions of people and the effects on buildings that continuous vibration levels produce. The annoyance levels shown in Table 3 should be interpreted with care since vibration may be found to be annoying at much lower levels than those shown, depending on the level of activity or the sensitivity of the individual. To sensitive individuals, vibrations approaching the threshold of perception can be annoying. Low-level vibrations frequently cause irritating secondary vibration, such as a slight rattling of windows, doors, or stacked dishes. The rattling sound can give rise to exaggerated vibration complaints, even though there is very little risk of actual structural damage. Construction activities can cause vibration that varies in intensity depending on several factors. The use of pile driving and vibratory compaction equipment typically generates the highest construction related groundbo rne vibration levels. Because of the impulsive nature of such activities, the use of the PPV descriptor has been routinely used to measure and assess groundborne vibration and almost exclusively to assess the potential of vibration to induce structural damage and the degree of annoyance for humans. The two primary concerns with construction induced vibration is the potential to damage a structure and the potential to interfere with the enjoyment of life . These concerns are evaluated against different vibration limits. Studies have shown that the threshold of perception for average persons is in the range of 0.008 to 0.012 in/sec PPV. Human perception to vibration varies with the individual and is a function of physical setting and the type of vibration. Persons exposed to elevated ambient vibration levels, such as people in an urban environment, may tolerate a higher vibration level. Structural damage can be classified as cosmetic only, such as minor cracking of building elements, or may threaten the integrity of the building. Safe vibration limits that can be applied to assess the potential for damaging a structure vary by researcher and there is no general consensus as to what amount of vibration may pose a threat for structural damage to the building. Construction induced vibration that can be detrimental to the building is very rare and has only been observed in instances where the structure is at a high state of disrepair and the construction activity occurs immediately adjacent to the structure. Existing noise environment. The Valley Christian Center is located west of Inspiration Drive and north of Dublin Boulevard in the western part of the City of Dublin. Currently, there are five buildings on the project site with existing sports fields located to the west of the buildings that are used for football, soccer, and baseball. Parking lots are located to the east, to the north, and to the south of City of Dublin Page 65 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 existing buildings. To the north and to the east of the project site, opposite Inspiration Drive, are single-family residences. Multi-family housing developments are located approximately 510 feet southwest of the project site. Designated open space is located to the northwest of the project site. Open parcels of land are also located along the southern boundary of the project site. A noise monitoring survey, consisting of two long-term and three short-term measurements, was performed at the site beginning on Wednesday May 6, 2015 and concluding on Monday May 11, 2015. Each measurement location is shown in the Acoustic Report (Attachment 2). The noise environment at the site and in the surrounding areas results primarily from vehicular traffic along I-580, as well as neighborhood traffic along Inspiration Drive and connecting roadways. Occasional aircraft associated with the Livermore Municipal Airport also contribute to the noise environment at the project site. Long-term noise measurement LT-1 was made along the northern boundary of the project site, approximately 75 feet south of the centerline of Inspirat ion Dive. LT-1 represented the existing noise environment near the location of the proposed multi-purpose recreation field. Hourly average noise levels at this location typically ranged from 48 to 60 dBA Leq during the day, and from 39 to 55 dBA Leq at night. The average community noise equivalent level from Wednesday May 6, 2015 through Monday May 11, 2015 ranged from 57 to 58 dBA CNEL during the weekdays and was 55 dBA CNEL on weekend days. LT-2 was positioned in the single-family residential development to the east of the project site. LT-2 was approximately 65 feet west of the intersection of Betlen Drive and Las Palmas Way and was approximately 210 feet east of the centerline of Inspiration Drive. This measurement represented the noise-sensitive receptors located to the east and to the north of the project site. Hourly average noise levels at this location typically ranged from 41 to 54 dBA Leq during the day, and from 37 to 52 dBA Leq at night. The average community noise equivalent level from Wednesday May 6, 2015 through Monday May 11, 2015 ranged from 52 to 54 dBA CNEL during the weekdays and ranged from 50 to 51 dBA CNEL on weekend days. The short-term noise measurements were made on Monday May 11, 2015 in ten- minute intervals starting at 12:20 pm. ST-1 was measured in the multi-family residential development located to the southwest of the project site. This measurement was made approximately 20 feet east of the intersection of Brigadoon Way and Sornoway Lane. The ten-minute average noise level measured at ST-1 was 53 dBA Leq(10), and the estimated average community noise equivalent level was 55 dBA CNEL. ST-2 was made in the single-family development to the northwest of the project site, approximately 30 feet south of the centerline of Mountain Rise Place. The ten-minute average noise level at ST-2 City of Dublin Page 66 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 was 50 dBA Leq(10), and the estimated average community noise equivalent level was 50 dBA CNEL. The final short-term measurement, ST-3, was made opposite Inspiration Drive from LT-1 and represented the single-family development located north of the project site. ST-3 was approximately 125 feet north of the centerline of Inspiration Drive, and the ten-minute average noise level measured at this location was 56 dBA Leq(10). The estimated average community noise equivalent level at ST-3 was 56 dBA CNEL. Table 4 summarizes the results for the short-term measurements. Table 4. Summary of Long-Term and Short-Term Noise Measurements (dBA) Noise Measurement Location (Date, Time) Lmax L(1) L(10) L(50) L(90) Leq(10) CNEL LT-1:northern boundary of the site, ~75 feet south of the centerline of Inspiration Drive (5/6/2015, 16:20- 5/11/2015, 13:10) 58-81a 56-74a 45-67a 41-57a 39-54a 47-62a 57- 58c 55d 40-72b 39-66b 38-62b 37-54b 35-52b 37-57b LT-2: ~65 feet from intersection of Betlen Drive and Las Palmas Way (5/6/2015, 16:40- 5/11/2015, 13:20) 43-79a 42-71a 40-64a 39-58a 37-54a 39-59a 52- 54c 50- 51d 37-69b 37-66b 37-57b 35-54b 33-52b 36-54b ST-1: ~20 feet east of the intersection of Brigadoon Way and Sornoway Lane (5/11/2015, 12:20- 12:30) 69 64 53 50 48 53 55 ST-2: ~30 feet south of the centerline of Mountain Rise Place (5/11/2015, 12:40- 12:50) 66 62 52 47 44 50 50 ST-3: ~125 feet north of the centerline of Inspiration Drive (5/11/2015, 13:00- 13:10) 71 67 57 53 51 56 56 a Range of noise levels measured during daytime hours (between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.). b Range of noise levels measured during nighttime hours (between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.). c CNEL measured on weekdays. d CNEL measured on weekends. Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, 2016 City of Dublin Page 67 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 Based on the measurements made in the vicinity of the project site, existing noise levels are below 60 dBA CNEL, which meets the City of Dublin’s noise exposure limits for residential land uses and schools. Regulatory setting The Noise Element of the Dublin General Plan identifies the following primary sources of noise in Dublin: traffic noise from freeways and major roadways within the community and noise generated by the BART line adjacent to the I-580 freeway. The Noise Element identifies the following maximum noise exposure levels by land use type. Table 5. City of Dublin Land Use/Noise Compatibility Standards (decibels) Land Use Normally Acceptable Conditionally Acceptable Normally Unacceptable Clearly Unacceptable Residential 60 or less 60-70 70-75 75+ Lodging Facilities 60-70 70-80 80+ -- Schools, churches, nursing homes 60-70 70-80 80+ -- Neighborhood parks 60 or less 60-65 65-70 70+ 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 The City of Dublin also enforces an interior noise standard of 45 decibels for residential dwellings. Previous EIR The 2003 VCC EIR identified the following noise impacts and mitigation measures. • Impact 4.8-1 found a short-term impact on surrounding residential projects due to construction noise. Mitigation Measure 4.8 -1 limited project construction noise by requiring future construction activities to adhere to a number of specific features, including but not limited to specific hours of construction, keeping noisy equipment away from nearby residences, ensuring that construction equipment is in good working order and designating a site noise coordinator to respond to complaints. Adherence to this measure reduced construction noise to a less-than-significant level. • Impact 4.8-2 noted a potentially significant impact with respect to noise impacts on residences that were previously proposed as part of project. City of Dublin Page 68 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 Mitigation Measure 4.8-2 reduced this impact to a less-than-significant level by requiring a site-specific acoustic study for all future Site Development Review applications and including any noise reduction recommendations into that portion of the project. • Impact 4.8-3 found that the main campus would be subject to potentially significant noise from the I-580 freeway. This was reduced to a less-than- significant level by adherence to Mitigation Measure 4.8-3, which required the completion of an acoustic analysis for the chapel portion o f the site and incorporation of report recommendations into the final design of the chapel. • Impact 4.8-4 identified a potentially significant impact with respect to future noise levels on surrounding uses during evening hours if night lighting were to be installed. Mitigation Measure 4.8-4 reduced this impact to a less-than-significant level by requiring an acoustic analysis prior to the commencement of evening activities and incorporation of report recommendations during future evening activities. The proposed project will be required to comply with applicable noise mitigation measures contained in the previous EIR. Project Impacts a,c) Would the project expose persons or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established by the General Plan or other applicable standard and result in a substantial increases in permanent in ambient noise levels? Less-than- Significant with Mitigation. The City of Dublin does not define a stationary equipment noise level standard. Therefore, for the purpose of this project, project-generated operational noise is compared to existing ambient conditions at the surrounding noise-sensitive receptors. Under conditions of the proposed project, a new baseball field would be located in the northwestern corner of the campus and a new multipurpose recreational field would be located in the northeastern corner of campus adjacent to Inspiration Drive. The new baseball field would be relocated approximately 360 feet northwest from the location of the existing multipurpose sports field. The new multipurpose recreational field would host football, soccer, and track and field sports activities. Currently, football practices are played on the existing multipurpose baseball field, while track and field activities occur off site. As part of the proposed project, a sound amplification system and lighting standards would also be installed at the new multipurpose recreational field. City of Dublin Page 69 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 An outdoor amphitheater is proposed on the interior of the site, southwest of the new multipurpose recreation field. This amphitheater can be used during the school year for lectures during regular school hours and for Northern California Bible College lectures during evening hours. These lectures would not require amplification or lighting. Sunday serv ices may elect to hold church services at the amphitheater, which would require amplification, and the amphitheater may also be used for outdoor theatrical plays during summer months. Following is an analysis of potential noise impacts from major project elements. Multipurpose sports field. The proposed plan for the new multipurpose recreational sports field includes hosting football games, as well as track and field events, that would include seating for spectators. From mid- August through mid-November, football practices would be held Monday through Thursday from 3:00 pm to 5:30 pm. Organized football games would include one scrimmage and up to six regular season games with the potential for an additional three playoff games. Football games would be held on Friday nights from 4:00 pm to 9:00 pm. The field is proposed to be lighted for night games until 10:00 pm and would require amplified sound until 10:00 pm. Football games would occasionally occur on Saturday nights from 4:00 pm to 9:00 pm. Lighting and amplified sound would be required for the Saturday night games as well. A Condition of Approval has been added to the project that allows the use of amplified sound and lighting on Friday and Saturday nights until 10:00 pm. The proposed stadium bleacher capacity is 1,100 seats. Two speakers for the public address (PA) system would be located at both ends of the bleachers on the southwestern side of the track. Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. (I&R) monitored noise levels during activities at the Santa Teresa High School football stadium in San Jose, CA. Noise measurements of a football game were made on October 20, 2012. The varsity football game between Santa Teresa High School and Oak Grove High School was considered to be the “rivalry” game of the football season. The attendance was estimated by the high school to be approximately 1,600 people. Measurements of 15-minute durations were made at several locations on the Santa Teresa High School campus and in the adjacent single-family neighborhoods at distances ranging from 425 to 740 feet from the center of the football field. These measurements were attended by a qualified noise technician who documented maximum noise levels resulting from the various sources of noise generated during a varsity football game on October 20, 2012, and during band practice on October 22, 2012. Football game activities were generally the primary noise City of Dublin Page 70 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 sources at measurement locations during the varsity game. During band practice, the band was audible and measurable in the absence of local traffic at all short-term measurement locations, but was typically at levels below other noise sources in the area. Table 6 summarizes the measurement results at the nearest locations about 425 feet from the center of the field during noisy interval s at the varsity football game on Saturday, October 20, 2012, including the average noise level (Leq) and background noise level (L90) measured during each interval, and the maximum noise levels measured during various noise-generating activities. Table 6. Summary of Short-Term Noise Measurements, Football Game at Santa Teresa High School, San Jose CA, 10/20/12 Location Average Noise Level, dBA Leq Typical Maximum Instantaneous Noise Levels, dBA Lmax Cheering/ Crowd PA System Whistles 425 feet, as measured from the center of the field 60 57 to 73 53 to 59 56 to 63 Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, 2016 The nearest residences to the proposed field are residences on Bay Laurel Street located about 490 feet north of the center of the field, and residences on Las Palmas Way located about 580 feet east of the center of the field. These residences are located substantially below the elevation of the proposed field. The intervening grading associated with the school itself and Inspiration Drive provides acoustical barriers created by the tops of the slopes between the proposed field and the residences. The attenuation provided by distance and the intervening topography was calculated using standard methods. Projected noise levels are summarized in Table 7. The existing average noise levels during the evening in the residential areas range from 48 to 50 dBA Leq. Noise from the football games would increase the average level by up to 1 dBA Leq at the nearest residences. The cheers would be intermittently audible because the levels would exceed the existing background level, but would fall within the overall range of existing ambient levels. Noise from football games would not cause a substantial increase in noise levels at the most affected residences. This is a less-than-significant impact. For the proposed project, calculations were made to assign a performance standard to the PA system selected by the Applicant, since a specific system has not yet been chosen. It is assumed that both speakers would be City of Dublin Page 71 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 operating simultaneously and that the noise levels from each speaker would be the same. Two speakers would be located at the multipurpose field. The speaker nearest the Bay Laurel Street residences would be approximately 500 feet south of the nearest rear yard. The speaker nearest to the Las Palmas Way residences would be approximately 500 west of the nearest rear yard. To ensure that the PA system would not exceed 55 dBA Lmax at the nearest residences, assuming attenuation provided by distance and the intervening topography, the amplification system should not exceed 75 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet. This limitation is required as a mitigation measure. Table 7. Projected Noise Levels at Nearest Residences During Capacity Crowd Varsity Football Game at the Proposed Multipurpose Recreational Field Location Average Noise Level, dBA Leq Typical Maximum Instantaneous Noise Levels, dBA Lmax Cheering/ Crowd PA System Whistles Bay Laurel home, 490 feet from the center of the field 42 39 to 55 35 to 41 38 to 45 Las Palmas home, 580 feet from the center of the field 40 37 to 53 33 to 39 36 to 43 Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, 2016 From mid-November to mid-February, men’s soccer would utilize the proposed multipurpose field. Practices would typically occur three days per week from 3:00 pm to 5:00 pm. Junior varsity and varsity games would be played one to two nights per week from 3:30 pm to 7:30 pm. While nighttime lighting would be required for these activities, these events would have a lower attendance than football games. The noise sources are similar in character to the football game, but with lower average and maximum instantaneous levels. VCC has indicated that they do not plan to use the amplification system for soccer games, but if they choose to in the future, the impact would be less-than-significant as long as the amplification system does not exceed 75 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet, as stated above. This limitation is required as a mitigation measure. Varsity soccer games would occasionally occur on Saturdays from 1:30 pm to 3:30 pm. Varsity women’s soccer would occur during the spring between mid- February and mid-May. Practices would typically occur Monday through Friday (depending upon game schedule) from 3:00 pm to 5:00 pm. A total of 12 home games would occur between 4:00 pm to 6:00 pm. Occasionally, a Saturday game would occur from 1:30 pm to 3:30. All soccer events would have significantly lower attendance than football games. Average City of Dublin Page 72 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 hourly noise levels resulting from soccer games are anticipated to be about 60 dBA Leq at a distance of 100 feet from the center of the field, with maximum noise levels from cheering and whistles as high as 67 dBA Lmax. At the nearest residences along Bay Laurel Street and Las Palmas Way, average hourly noise levels due to soccer games would be below 30 dBA Leq, with maximum instantaneous noise levels up to 36 dBA Lmax. This would not exceed the existing ambient levels and would be a less-than- significant impact. The field would also be used for track and field events during the springtime from mid-February to mid-May. Practices would occur on weekdays from 3:00 pm to 5:00 pm. One track meet per month is anticipated, which would occur on a weekday from 2:00 pm to 6:00 pm. Additionally, one invitational per month is anticipated on Saturday from 9:00 am to 6:00 pm. Track meets would require amplified sound, but not lighting. These events have much lower attendance than football games. The noise sources are similar in character to the football game, but with lower average and maximum instantaneous levels. It is assumed that a starter pistol would be used during track meets and track invitationals. Typical noise levels produced by a .22 caliber starter pistol would be approximately 79 dBA Lmax at 50 feet. From the approximate positions on the multipurpose field where the starter pistol would be used, the distances to the nearest residences would be approximately 435 feet to the Bay Laurel Street residences and approximately 475 feet to the Las Palmas Way residences. At these distances and assuming attenuation from intervening topography, the maximum instantaneous noise levels expected from the starter pistol would range from 42 to 43 dBA Lmax, which would not exceed range of existing ambient noise levels. This would be a less- than-significant impact. Noise from sports activities on the proposed multipurpose recreational sports field would cause a less-than-significant impact on residents in the area. Graduation ceremonies, which are currently held off-campus, could occur at the new multipurpose field. These special occasions would occur on Saturdays in the early afternoon. Noise from graduations would include cheering from the crowd and amplified sound. Attendance is expected to be less than football games; therefore, average and maximum instantaneous noise levels would be lower than those discussed for football games. Graduation ceremonies are not expected to increase existing ambient noise levels. This would be a less-than-significant impact. Relocated baseball field. The primary use for this field would be baseball. Baseball is currently played on the existing multi-purpose field. The new field would be relocated from the south side of Building 5 to the west side City of Dublin Page 73 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 of Building 5. The level of baseball activities on the field would be similar to existing, but football and soccer would be relocated to the new multipurpose recreational field. The nearest residences to the proposed location of the baseball field are located about 500 feet to the north on Inspiration Circle. An intervening hill would continue to buffer the residences. Noise levels from activities on the field would not change from the existing conditions. Neighbors to the southwest would be located further from the new field than from the existing field. Noise levels from the new field would be equal to or lower than from the existing field. The relocation of the baseball field would cause no additional noise impacts on residents in the area over existing conditions. Amphitheater Activities. Three types of events are anticipated at the outdoor amphitheater: theatrical plays during the summertime; daytime lectures during the school year by the Valley Christian Center schools and evening lectures by the Northern California Bible College; and church sermons on Sundays. Amplified sound would be required for the sermons and potentially during the theatrical plays. Locations around the amphitheater for the amplification system speakers were not provided at the time of this study, but for worst-case scenario calculation purposes, it is expected that a speaker would be located on each side of the seating area and at the stage. Figure 5, contained in the full acoustic report, shows the assumed worst- case scenario locations used for this study. The nearest residence along Bay Laurel Street would be approximately 540 feet from the outdoor amphitheater, and the nearest residence along Las Palmas Way would be approximately 860 feet from the outdoor amphitheater. At these distances and assuming attenuation from intervening topography, maximum instantaneous noise levels would remain at or below 55 dBA Lmax if the performance standard for the amplification system would not exceed 75 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet. This limitation is required as a mitigation measure. The following mitigation measure shall be followed to ensure consistency with City of Dublin exterior noise standards. Mitigation Measure NOISE-1. The following noise performance standard for Public Address (PA) systems shall be met by the Applicant. a. To ensure that a PA system would not exceed 55 dBA Lmax at the nearest residences, the amplification system at the new multipurpose field should not exceed 75 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet from each speaker. b. To ensure that the PA system would not exceed 55 dBA Lmax at the nearest residences, the amplification system at the new City of Dublin Page 74 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 outdoor amphitheater should not exceed 75 dBA at a distance of 50 feet from each speaker. b) Exposure of people to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? No New Impact. The construction of the project may generate perceptible vibration when heavy equipment or impact tools (e.g. jackhammers, hoe rams) are used. Construction activities would include site demolition, preparation work, foundation work, and new building framing and finishing. The proposed project would not require pile driving, which can cause excessive vibration. Ground-borne vibration levels exceeding 0.3 in/sec PPV would have the potential to result in a significant vibration impact. Table 7 contained in the full acoustic report (Attachment 2) presents typical vibration levels that could be expected from construction equipment at a distance of 25 feet. Construction activities, such as drilling, the use of jackhammers, rock drills and other high-power or vibratory tools, and rolling stock equipment (tracked vehicles, compactors, etc.) may generate substantial vibration in the immediate vicinity. Vibration levels would vary depending on soil conditions, construction methods, and equipment used. The single-family residences located to the east and to the north of the project site, opposite Inspiration Drive, are at least 160 feet from the project site . The multi- family residences located to the southwest are at least 385 feet from the project site. At these distances, vibration levels would be expected to be less than 0.1 in/sec PPV, which is below the 0.3 in/sec PPV significance threshold. According to the project Applicant, normal construction methods would be used to build the proposed project so there would be limited and less-than- significant generation of groundborne noise or vibration. With adherence to applicable regulations, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to ground vibration beyond what has been analyzed in the 2003 EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. d) Substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels without the project? Less-than-Significant with Mitigation. Noise impacts resulting from construction depend upon the noise generated by various pieces of construction equipment, the timing and duration of noise-generating activities, and the distance between construction noise sources and noise-sensitive areas. Construction noise impacts primarily result when construction activities occur during noise- sensitive times of the day (e.g., early morning, evening, or nighttime City of Dublin Page 75 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 hours), the construction occurs in areas immediately adjoining noise- sensitive land uses, or when construction lasts over extended periods of time. Where noise from construction activities exceeds 60 dBA Leq and exceeds the ambient noise environment by at least 5 dBA Leq at noise- sensitive uses in the project vicinity, the impact would be considered significant. Construction activities generate considerable amounts of noise, especially during earth-moving activities when heavy equipment is used. Table 8 contained in the full acoustic report (see Attachment 2) presents the typical range of hourly average noise levels generated by different phases of construction measured at a distance of 50 feet. Hourly average noise levels generated by excavation equipment associated with the project are calculated to range from 71 to 89 dBA Leq measured at a distance of 50 feet. Construction generated noise levels drop off at a rate of about 6 dBA per doubling of the distance between the source and receptor. Shielding by buildings or terrain can provide an additional 5 to 10 dBA noise reduction at distant receptors. Construction for the proposed project would include excavation, possibly some minor building construction, and foundation work for the lighting standards and the sound amplification system. Noise generated by construction activities would temporarily elevate noise levels at adjacent noise sensitive receptors. Conservatively, this would be considered a more severe impact than was included in the 2003 EIR since the current project includes an increase of up to 1,300 square feet of floor space over the approved Master Plan and a football stadium. The 2003 EIR contains Mitigation Measure 4.8-1 that mandates a number of features to reduce construction noise, including limitations on construction activities, placing noisy stationary equipment away from nearby residences, installation of mufflers and designation of a noise coordinator to respond to issues raised by neighbors. Mitigation Measure 4.8 -1 has been augmented to include the following additional measures to ensure construction noise impacts are mitigated to less-than-significant. Mitigation Measure NOISE-2. In addition to the measures required by 2003 EIR 4.9-1, the project Applicant shall prepare a construction noise management plan that identifies measures to be taken to minimize construction noise on surrounding sensitive receptors (e.g., residential uses and schools) and includes specific noise management measures to be included into project plans and specifications subject to review and approval by the City. These measures shall include, but not be limited to the following: City of Dublin Page 76 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 a) All construction equipment shall be equipped with mufflers and sound control devices (e.g., intake silencers and noise shrouds) no less effective than those provided on the original equipment and no equipment shall have an un- muffled exhaust. b) The contractor shall maintain and tune-up all construction equipment to minimize noise emissions. c) Stationary equipment shall be placed so as to maintain the greatest possible distance to the sensitive receptors. d) All equipment servicing shall be performed so as to maintain the greatest possible distance to the sensitive receptors. e) The project Applicant(s) shall provide, to the satisfaction of the City of Dublin Planning Department, a qualified “Noise Disturbance Coordinator.” The Noise Disturbance Coordinator shall be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. When a complaint is received, the Noise Disturbance Coordinator shall notify the City within 24 hours of the complaint and determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, malfunctioning muffler, etc.) and shall implement reasonable measures to resolve the compliant, as deemed acceptable by the Dublin Planning Department. If any notices are sent to residential units immediately surrounding the construction site by the City and all signs posted at the construction site shall include the contact name and the telephone number for the Noise Disturbance Coordinator. f) Select demolition method to minimize vibration, where possible (e.g. sawing masonry into sections rather than demolishing it by pavement breakers). g) The construction contractor shall limit all on-site noise producing construction activities, including deliveries and warming up of equipment, to the daytime hours of 7:30 am to 5:00 pm, Monday through Friday (excluding holidays) unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. e, f) For a project located within an airport land use plan, would the project expose people to excessive noise levels? No New Impact. The project site is not located within the planning area of any nearby airport land use plan. The closest airport to the project site is Livermore Municipal Airport, located several miles southeast of the site. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in the previous CEQA document. City of Dublin Page 77 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 13. Population and Housing Environmental Setting The project site is partially developed with the Valley Christian Church and school. Other portions of the site remain vacant. Previous EIR The 2003 EIR identified no specific population or housing impacts associated with the project. Project Impacts a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly? No New Impact. The project site has been planned for a combination of a religious facility, private school and related uses since 1978. The current proposal could result in construction of an increase of up to 1,300 square feet of floor space over the approved Master Plan. The previous EIR also analyzed the development of up to 22 dwellings on the site; however, the approved Master Plan does not include a residential component. The only residential use proposed as part of this project is a caretaker unit, which will not induce population growth; therefore, the impact is less significant. Proposed uses would include a new multi-use sports stadium, a baseball field, vehicle parking and similar uses. There would be no new or more severe impact with respect than was previously analyzed in the pervious CEQA document, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. b,c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing units or people ? No New Impact. The project site does not include any dwelling units and no impact would result with regard to displacement of dwellings or population on the site. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in the 2003 EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. 14. Public Services Environmental Setting The following provide essential services to the project site: City of Dublin Page 78 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 • Fire Protection. Fire protection services are provided by the Alameda County Fire Department. Alameda County provides fire suppression, emergency medical response, fire prevention, education, building inspection services and hazardous material control. The nearest station is Station 16, located northwest of the project area at 74940 Donohue Drive near downtown Dublin. • Police Protection: Police and security protection is provided by the Dublin Police Services. • Schools. The Dublin Unified School District provides public K-12 educational services for properties in the Dublin area. • Library Services: Alameda County Library service. • Maintenance. Maintenance of streets, roads and other governmental facilities are the responsibility of the City of Dublin. Previous CEQA document There is no applicable mitigation measures contained in 2003 VCC EIR addressing potential impacts to public services, since the previously proposed residential units were not approved as part of the project. Project Impacts a) Fire protection? No New Impact. Approval and implementation of the proposed project could increase the number of fire and emergency medical calls for service that would need to be responded to by the Alameda County Fire Department. The proposed project is required to adhere to the California Building Code, the California Fire Code and other state and local fire protection standards to minimize fire hazards. The existing complex currently includes water service for firefighting purposes, fire hydrants, fire extinguishers and similar fire protection features. The proposed project represents a minor increase in development compared to the approved Master Plan; therefore, the project would not result in a substantial change from the analyses and conclusions in the prior CEQA documents. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to fire protection than has been previously analyzed in the 2003 EIR. Based on discussions with Alameda County Fire Department Staff, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to fire service beyond that analyzed in previous CEQA documents (source: Bonnie Terra, Alameda County Fire Department, 8/28/17). City of Dublin Page 79 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 b) Police protection? No New Impact. Similar to fire protection, there could be a small increase in the number of calls for service to the Dublin Police Services; however, the amount of proposed additional square footage is relatively small. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to police protection than has been previously analyzed in the 2003 EIR. Based on discussions with Dublin Police Services Staff, there would be no new or substantially more severe impacts with respect to police service beyond that analyzed in the previous CEQA document (source: Chief Dennis Houghtelling, Dublin Police Services, 10/24/17). c) Schools? No New Impact. The only residential included as part of the project is one caretaker unit. Therefore, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in the 2003 EIR. d) Other governmental service, including maintenance of public facilities? No New Impact. Maintenance of public facilities would continue to be provided by the City of Dublin. New public facilities will be required to be designed to meet City of Dublin standards to ensure that no excessive wear or other impacts would occur with respect to public facilities. Therefore, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in the 2003 EIR. e) Adequate wastewater capacity to serve the project and other projects? No New Impact. See subsection 17 “a” and “b,” below. f, g) Solid waste generation? This impact was found to be less-than-significant in the 2003 EIR. The proposed project includes a small increase in the amount of allowable development on the site. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in the 2003 EIR. 15. Recreation Environmental Setting No City parks or other recreational facilities are located on the project site. Similarly, no parks or other recreational facilities are designated on the site in the Dublin General Plan. City of Dublin Page 80 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 The City of Dublin offers a range of park, recreation and cultural services to the public. Nearby City parks include the Dublin Heritage Park and Museum, Dolan Park and Mape Memorial Park. Regional park facilities are provided by the East Bay Regional Park Dist rict (EBRPD). The EBRPD maintains a large number of regional parks, trails and similar recreation facilities in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. Previous EIR No significant impacts with respect to parks or recreation were identified in the 2003 EIR. Project Impacts a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks? No New Impact. The proposed project would not increase the on-site permanent population, since the project would primarily involve recreational facilities. The one exception would be the future construction of one on-site caretaker unit. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in the 2003 EIR. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of recreational facilities? No New Impact. See item “a,” above. As noted in the Project Description, the Applicant is proposing to construct a major athletic field and improve other existing facilities for students of the private school. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in the 2003 EIR. 16. Transportation/Traffic Environmental Setting This section of the Initial Study is based on traffic analysis of the proposed project completed by the firm of Omni Means Planners and Engineers. The Omni Means report is hereby incorporated by reference into this Initial Study and is included as Attachment 3. Existing roadways Regional access to and from the site is provided by the I-680 freeway that provides north and south regional vehicular transportation and the I-580 freeway that provides east and west service. City of Dublin Page 81 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 Local roads serving the VCC project include Dublin Boulevard, Amador Valley Boulevard, San Ramon Road, Bay Laurel Street and Inspiration Drive. Existing transit service Transit service to the project area is provided by Livermore-Amador Valley Transit Authority (Wheels). Wheels that provides localized service to the site and surrounding communities. Regional access throughout the Bay Area is provided by the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) with a station located in West Dublin. Previous EIR The 2003 EIR identified the following impacts and mitigation measures with respect to traffic and transportation • Impact 4.10-1 noted an impact with respect to traffic congestion at the Silvergate Avenue and Dublin Boulevard intersection. Mitigation Measure 4.10-1 required the project Applicant to make a fair share contribution to funding traffic signals at Dublin Boulevard and Silvergate Drive and Dublin Boulevard and Inspiration Drive. With this action, Impact 4.10-1 was deemed to be less-than-significant. Both signals have been installed and are operational. • Impact 4.10-2 found an impact with respect to project traffic causing increased traffic on local streets near the project site. Mitigation Measure 4.10-2 reduced this impact to a less-than-significant level by requiring the Applicant to monitor peak hour turning movements at project driveways during a typical school day at six month periods to ensure that the project vehicles do not violate turning restrictions. If turning violations are found, more restrictions shall be imposed, as approved by the Public Works Director. • Impact 4.10-3 identified an impact with the project’s contribution to cumulative traffic, especially on Dublin Boulevard. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 4.10-3 reduced this impact to a less-than-significant level by requiring the project Applicant to widen Dublin Boulevard between Hansen Drive and Silvergate Drive from two to four lanes. This mitigation measure has been completed. Project Impacts a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial to existing traffic load and street capacity? No New Impact. The proposed updated Master Plan includes construction of a sports field which would host football games and other sporting events. Trip generation for football games, based on survey data of other high schools, indicates the proposed seating capacity of 1,100 seats City of Dublin Page 82 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 would generate 451 trips temporarily before and after the games. Football game trips would occur during time periods when background traffic volumes are low and the volumes would remain within the carrying capacity of the street network. Trip generation for non -football sporting events, including softball, soccer, lacrosse and track and field, would be low and would not be expected to have a substantial effect on traffic operating conditions. Based on the findings of the traffic analysis for the project (see Attachment 3), the proposed changes to the Master Plan would not result in new or more severe significant impacts than were analyzed in the 2003 EIR. Mitigation Measures included in the 2003 EIR have been implemented to minimize traffic at Dublin Boulevard intersections with Inspiration Drive and Hansen Drive. The widening of Dublin Boulevard near the project site has also been completed; therefore, no new or more severe impacts would occur from the project, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a LOS standard established by the County CMA for designated roads)? No New Impact. The 2003 EIR found a potentially significant impact with respect to cumulative traffic (see Impact 4.10-3 in the 2003 EIR). With adherence to Mitigation Measure 4.10 -3, also included in the 2003 EIR, this impact was deemed to be less-than- significant. Mitigation Measure 4.10-3 required the Applicant to make a fair share contribution to the widening of Dublin Boulevard near the project site to accommodate additional project traffic. This measure has been fulfilled. Proposed changes to the VCC Master Plan would generate the same or fewer peak hour trips as analyzed in the 2003 EIR based on the project traffic analysis. No new or more significant impacts would result with respect to cumulative traffic than previously analyzed in the 200 3 EIR. The major sporting events at the proposed stadium would occur after weekday peak hours or during weekends, so there will be no new impacts. A Condition of Approval has been added to the project that prohibits varsity football games from occurring during peak hours. c) Change in air traffic patterns? No New Impact. The proposed project would have no impact on air traffic patterns, since it involves the expansion of an approved church, school and similar semi-public facilities. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in the 2003 EIR. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or an incompatible use ? Less-than-Significant with Mitigation. In order to minimize school traffic City of Dublin Page 83 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 from intruding on the local neighborhood streets north of the school, vehicle turn restrictions are in place at two of the school’s three driveways (the north and middle driveways). Specifically, signs are posted prohibiting right turns in and left turns out on school days from 7:00 am to 5:00 pm. There are no turn restrictions at the school’s south driveway. Observations of vehicle turning movements during the am peak hour were conducted in 2001 for the 2003 draft EIR. The observed trips were 50 turns to/from the north (20 illegal turns from the north and middle driveways plus 30 legal turns from the south driveway). Recent (2015) traffic counts completed by Omni Means staff observed 29 turns to/from the north (14 illegal plus 15 legal) during the am peak hour. The current volume is lower than 2001, but accounting for a lower existing school population compared to the 2001 population, the percentage of trips to/from the north is nearly equal for both surveys: approximately 4.5 % of the total peak hour trips. This indicates the cut-through rate has not been increasing. It would also appear to reflect a fairly low cut-through rate, given that some of the trips are likely from residents of the neighborhood. Future school operations could increase the possibility of greater cut- through traffic. This could be a potentially significant impact and the following measure is recommended to reduce this impact to a less-than- significant level. Mitigation Measure TRA-1. The following steps shall be taken to ensure that project related traffic does not cut through adjacent neighborhoods as part of school operations: a) The school administration shall issue a letter to all students a minimum of one time per year advising household driver s not to use routes through adjacent neighborhoods. b) The Applicant shall continue monitoring local driving activities as required in the 2003 EIR Mitigation Measure 4.10-2 at the completion of development phases 2, 3 and 4 to ensure that the rate of cut though traffic does not increase. c) If it is determined that cut-through traffic has increased based on additional construction, increased enforcement of the illegal turns and/or prohibiting turns to/from the north at the southern driveway shall be implemented by the school with the oversight of the Dublin Public Works Department. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? No New Impact. The proposed project would maintain two driveways which provide adequate emergency access. No new or significantly more severe impacts are therefore anticipated with City of Dublin Page 84 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 respect to this topic than have been previously analyzed in prior CEQA documents. f) Inadequate parking capacity? Less-than-Significant with Mitigation. The proposed revised Master Plan would consist of three separate parking generating components: the sanctuary, the school facilities, and the new sports field activities. The parking requirements for each component have been calculated independently. A Conditional Use Permit is required by the Dublin Zoning Ordinance to establish a parking requirement for the football and multi-use sports field, since parking for this specific use is not established in the Zoning Ordinance. It is assumed the church, school, and sports field games would not be in use concurrently. To ensure this, a Minor Use Permit for shared parking is also being processed. The 2003 EIR for the approved expansion evaluated parking based on the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance. The parking requirements were evaluated for the Sunday worship space and for the weekday school uses. The highest parking space requirement was associated with the Sunday worship service. The required parking was calculated to be 667 spaces for the worship service based on 2,000 seats (at 1 required space per 3 seats). The existing parking supply consists of 510 striped spaces and the approved plan was to add 250 new paved and 100 unpaved overflow spaces for a total of 860 spaces. Therefore the parking supply met the Zoning Ordinance requirement, with a surplus of 193 spaces. For the current application, the City of Dublin Planning Staff has calculated the required number of parking spaces based on the current Zoning Ordinance requirements (see Table A-3 in Attachment 3). Pursuant to Chapter 8.76 (Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations) of the Zoning Ordinance, a sanctuary facility requires 1 space per 3 fixed seats plus 1 space per Sunday service classroom. The existing sanctuary containing 763 seats and requires 258 parking spaces, which is met with the current supply of 510 spaces An existing parking lot will be eliminated to allow construction of the stadium facility; however, the Applicant will be providing additional parking at a new parking area. The total number of parking spaces provided for Phases 1 and 2 is 511 parking spaces. Proposed Phase 3 would include the construction of the baseball field in the western side of the campus and would also add additional paved parking spaces for a total of 530 spaces. City of Dublin Page 85 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 The sanctuary expansion to 1,500 seats would occur in Development Phase 4. The Zoning Ordinance requires 504 spaces for the proposed sanctuary. The parking supply would increase from 530 spaces in Phase 3 to 600 spaces in Phase 4. Therefore, the parking requirement would be met, with a surplus of 96 spaces. Per Chapter 8.76 of the Zoning Ordinance, the parking requirement for the sanctuary is 0.33 parking spaces per seat. Recent parking surveys of the church identified a higher demand of 0.40 vehicles per person (220 vehicles for 560 people). Applying the surveyed rate to the proposed 1,500 seats equates to a parking demand of 600 vehicles if the church is fully occupied. With 600 spaces provided in Phase 4, demand based on the surveyed rate would be accommodated with maximum attendance. For the weekday school related parking demand, without the operation of a sports stadium, the proposed plan after build-out would require 395 parking spaces to satisfy the weekday school parking requirement. The proposed plan would provide a minimum of 511 spaces (Phases 1 and 2) and up to 600 spaces (Phase 4). Therefore, the proposed plan would meet the weekday parking requirement during all of the Development Phases. In summary, at full build-out, the proposed Master Plan revision would provide sufficient on-site paved parking that would be consistent with the Dublin Zoning Ordinance and the calculated parking for the football stadium, per the Omni-Means site specific study. Mitigation Measure TRA-2. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the football stadium, the Applicant shall retain a California- registered Traffic Engineer to prepare a Parking Management for the operation of football games and other large activities (such as graduations) held at the proposed stadium. The Parking Management Plan shall demonstrate that all parking for football games and other large activities can be safely accommodated on the site and avoid spill-over of parking on adjacent streets. Methods that could be included in the Parking Management Plan could include but are not limited to use of parking attendants before and during games and other large activities to implement valet parking, promotion of carpooling to games and limiting sales of admission tickets to correspond with estimated parking supply. The Parking Management Plan shall be approved by the City of Dublin Community Development Department and Public Works Department prior to the issuance of the building permit for the stadium. City of Dublin Page 86 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 g) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? No New Impact. The proposed project includes on-site pedestrian pathways and sidewalks as well as a sidewalk along Inspiration Drive from Dublin Boulevard to the main campus. Additionally, a Condition of Approval requires that bicycle parking be provided at each phase of development consistent with CAL Green Building Code. No new or more severe significant impacts to this topic would result than was previously analyzed in the 2003 EIR. 17. Tribal Cultural Resources Environmental Setting As noted in the Cultural Resources section of this Initial Study, the 2003 EIR did not identify significant impacts on historic, cultural, Native American or other cultural resources. The project site has been largely disturbed for the construction of buildings, parking lots, on-site roads and other improvements. Much of the undeveloped portions of the site will remain as undisturbed open space as part of the proposed project, as noted in the Project Description. Also, as noted in the Cultural Resources section of this document, on October 31, 2017, the Dublin Community Development Department sent a letter to Mr. Randy Yonemura of the Ione Band of Miwok Indian tribe informing the tribe of the City of Dublin’s intent to prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project as required by AB 52. As of the public date of this Initial Study, no response has been received by the City. This letter is hereby incorporated by reference into this document and is available for review at the Dublin Community Development Department during normal business hours. Previous EIR. Two cultural resource impacts and an associated mitigation measure were contained in the 2003 EIR. • Impact 4.4-1 noted that on-site construction, including building foundations, utility lines and similar improvements could disturb archeological and/or Native American underground resources. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 4-1.1 reduced this impact to a less-than- significant level by requiring that work on the project shall cease until a resource protection plan prepared by a qualified archeologist consistent with CEQA Guideline Section 15064.5 (e) is prepared and implemented. If human remains are identified, the County Coroner was to be contacted. The proposed project will be required to comply with the above cultural resource mitigation measure. City of Dublin Page 87 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 Project Impacts a) Listed or be eligible in the California Register of Historic Resources or in a local register of historic resources as defined in PRC Section 5020.1 (k)? No New Impact. The project site contains an existing church and school complex with no record of historic or Native American resources present. Future development will be required to adhere to Mitigation Measure 4.4-1 contained in the 2003 EIR. No new or more severe significant impacts to this topic would result than was previously analyzed in the 2003 EIR. b) Be a resource determined by the lead agency to be significant pursuant to subdivision (c) of the PRC section 5024.1, including the significance to a California Native American Tribe? No New Impact. The City contacted the tribal representative of the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Ltr. from M. Battaglia to R. Yonemura dated October 31, 2017). No response was received. There are no known significant Tribal Cultural Resources on the project site. If Native American artifacts are encountered during construction, work on the project shall cease until compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 is demonstrated. Work on the project may commence under the guidelines of an approved resource protection plan. The County Coroner is to be contacted if human remains are uncovered as required by State Law. With adherence to required regulatory requirements, there would be no new or more severe significant impacts to this topic beyond what has been analyzed in the 2003 EIR. 18. Utilities and Service Systems Environmental Setting The project area is served by the following service providers: • Water supply: Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD). • Sewage collection and treatment; recycled water: DSRSD. • Storm drainage: City of Dublin and Zone 7. • Solid waste service: Amador Valley Industries • Electrical and natural gas power: Pacific Gas and Electric Co. City of Dublin Page 88 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 Previous EIR No significant utility impacts were identified in the 2003 EIR. Project Impacts a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB? No New Impact The project site is located within the service area of DSRSD. The current campus receives water and wastewater service from DSRSD. Representatives of DSRSD have indicated that DSRSD facilities are adequate to accommo date any increased amount of wastewater generated by project construction (source: Stan Kolodzie, DSRSD, 9/13/17). With adherence to local and regional requirements, there would be no new or more severe significant impacts with respect to exceedances of wastewater treatment requirements than was analyzed in the 2003 EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. b) Require new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities? No New Impact. The water and wastewater facilities needed to serve the proposed project have been constructed as part of previous development on the project site. It is anticipated that minimal upsizing will be needed to accommodate proposed project changes. The surface of the proposed athletic field would be constructed of synthetic material to minimize water demand. Based on discussions with DSRSD, it has been determined that there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to new water or wastewater facilities than has been previously analyzed in the prior EIR, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. c) Require new storm drainage facilities? No New Impact. A local storm drain system currently exists on the site, as required by the City of Dublin as part of construction of previous development phases. The Applicant may be required to construct expansions or enlargements to the existing system, which would be minor. With adherence to local and regional requirements regarding drainage flows that would be applied by the City at the time of permit issuance, there would be no new or more severe significant impacts with respect to drainage facilities was analyzed in the 2003 EIR , and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. d) Are sufficient water supplies available? No New Impact. The current project receives domestic water from DSRSD. The proposed expansion of the campus may require small increases in the amount of water delivered to the site, but according to DSRSD, the District can provide addit ional water with City of Dublin Page 89 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 no significant impacts (source: Stan Kolodzie, DSRSD, 9/13/17). There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to water supply than has been previously analyzed in the prior EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. e) Adequate wastewater capacity to serve the proposed project? No New Impact. See response to “a,” above. f) Solid waste disposal? No New Impact. The site is within the franchise area of Amador Valley Industries (AVI). AVI provides residential and commercial solid waste pick-up and recycling services within the City of Dublin. The Applicant is currently receiving solid waste and recycling service from AVI and the amount of increased generation resulting from the proposed project would be minor and less-than-significant. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to solid waste disposal than has been previously analyzed in the prior EIR , and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No New Impact. The existing service provider will ensure adherence to federal, state and local solid waste regulations. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in the prior EIR. 18. Mandatory Findings of Significance a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fis h 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? Less than Significant with Mitigation. Potential impacts related to substantial reduction of fish or wildlife species or their respective species, reduce the range or number of endangered plant or animal species or eliminate examples of major period of California history or prehistory have been analyzed and mitigated in the 2003 VCC EIR. See subsection 4 of this Initial Study for a discussion of potential of impacts to biological resources and mitigation measures. With the implementation of mitigations measures under the 2003 Valley Christian Center EIR and this Supplemental MND, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on these resources. City of Dublin Page 90 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 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). Less Than Significant with Mitigation. No cumulatively considerable impacts were identified with the VCC project in 2004, as documented in the final EIR. The current project would make minor changes to the development program of the facility to replace an existing parking lot and undeveloped portions of the campus to a multi-use sports stadium and other minor changes. Based on the analysis in this Initial Study and with the implementation of mitigations measures under the 2003 Valley Christian Center EIR and this Supplemental MND, the project impact would be less than cumulatively considerable. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less-than-Significant with Mitigation. With the implementation of mitigations measures under the 2003 Valley Christian Center EIR and this Supplemental MND, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on human beings. City of Dublin Page 91 Initial Study/Valley Christian Center June 2018 Initial Study Preparers Jerry Haag, Urban Planner, project manager & author Robert Tuma, graphics Peter Galloway, Omni Means, traffic and parking Michael Thill, Illingworth & Rodkin, acoustics Carrie Janello, Illingworth & Rodkin, acoustics Sean Avent, WRA, biological resources. Agencies and Organizations Consulted The following agencies and organizations were contacted in the course of this Initial Study: City of Dublin Luke Sims, AICP, Community Development Director Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director Marnie Delgado, Senior Planner (former) Martha Battaglia, Associate Planner Andrew Russell, City Engineer Obaid Khan, Transportation & Operations Manager Tim Cremin, Assistant City Attorney Bonnie Terra, Alameda County Fire Department Chief Dennis Houghtelling, Dublin Police Services (former) California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Website Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) Stan Kolodzie, Senior Engineer Applicant Representatives Jim Goring, Goring & Straja Architects, project architects References Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Guidelines, Revised May 2017 Dublin General Plan, City of Dublin, Updated through 9/17 Valley Christian Center (VCC) Draft and Final EIRs, City of Dublin, 2003 i Biological Resources Assessment DUBLIN VALLEY CHRISTIAN CENTER DUBLIN, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared For: Mr. Jerry Haag, Urban Planner 2029 University Ave Berkeley, California 94704 (510) 644-2016 WRA Contact: Sean Avent avent@wra-ca.com (415) 454-8868 x1120 Date: June 15, 2015 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... iv 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1 2.0 REGULATORY BACKGROUND ......................................................................................... 1 2.1 Special-Status Species ............................................................................................ 1 2.2 Sensitive Biological Communities ............................................................................ 4 2.3 Relevant Local Policies, Ordinances, Regulations ................................................... 5 3.0 METHODS .......................................................................................................................... 6 3.1 Biological Communities ........................................................................................... 7 3.1.1 Non-Sensitive Biological Communities ...................................................... 7 3.1.2 Sensitive Biological Communities .............................................................. 7 3.2 Special-Status Species ............................................................................................ 8 3.2.1 Literature Review ...................................................................................... 8 3.2.2 Site Assessment ....................................................................................... 8 4.0 RESULTS ........................................................................................................................... 9 4.1 Biological Communities ........................................................................................... 9 4.1.1 Non-Sensitive Biological Communities .................................................... 10 4.2 Special-Status Species ...........................................................................................14 4.2.1 Plants ...................................................................................................... 14 4.2.2 Wildlife .................................................................................................... 14 5.0 SUMMARY AND RECCOMENDATIONS .......................................................................... 20 5.1 Biological Communities ..........................................................................................20 5.2 Special-Status Plant Species ..................................................................................20 5.3 Special-Status Wildlife Species ..............................................................................21 5.3.1 Special-Status Birds and Other Avian Species ........................................ 21 5.3.2 California red-legged frog ........................................................................ 22 6.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 22 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A – List of Observed Plant and Wildlife Species Appendix B – Potential for Special-Status Species to Occur in the Study Area Appendix C – Site Photographs iii LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Description of CNPS Ranks and Threat Codes ........................................................... 2 Table 2. Summary of Biological Communities in the Study Area ............................................. 10 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Location map. ............................................................................................................. 3 Figure 2. Biological communities within the Study Area. .......................................................... 11 Figure 3. Special-status plants within a five-mile radius of the Study Area. .............................. 15 Figure 4. Special-status plants within a five-mile radius of the Study Area. .............................. 16 LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AWS Alameda whipsnake CCR California Code of Regulations CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife (formerly California Department of Fish and Game [CDFG]) CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CESA California Endangered Species Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database CNPS California Native Plant Society Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CRLF California red-legged frog CTS California tiger salamander EIR Environmental Impact Report ESA Federal Endangered Species Act Inventory CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants OWHM Ordinary High Water Mark Rank California Rare Plant Rank RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SJKF San Joaquin kit fox USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service WRA WRA, Inc. iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to provide an analysis of natural community and special-status species at the Valley Christian Center located in Dublin, California. On May 20, 2015, WRA, Inc. (WRA) conducted a biological resources assessment within the Valley Christian Center. WRA observed five biological communities, 61 plant species and seven wildlife species. Two sensitive biological community types covering 1.86 acres in the Study Area were identified. No special-status wildlife or plant species were observed within the Study Area. Six special-status wildlife species and one special-status plant species have a moderate potential to occur within the Study Area. 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION On May 20, 2015, WRA, Inc. performed an assessment of biological resources at the approximately 54-acre Valley Christian Center (Project Area) and surrounding environs (Study Area) in Dublin, Alameda County, California (Figure 1). The Study Area is located in an urban area that consists of a patchwork of developed residential areas interspersed with undeveloped, open areas. The Study Area consists of an existing developed campus including pre-school through high school, church, and administrative buildings, sports facilities, and parking areas. The existing development is bordered to the north residential development and open space, to the east by residential development, to the south by the Interstate 580 Freeway, and to the west by residential development and open space. Valley Christian Center was originally developed under a Conditional Use Permit granted by Alameda County in 1978, prior to the incorporation of the area by the City of Dublin in 1982. The current development was approved under an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in 2003. The Valley Christian Center is proposing a modification of its Planned Development, including the rearrangement of its play fields and construction of new buildings and parking facilities. The purpose of the assessment was to gather information necessary to complete a review of biological resources under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This report describes the results of the site visit, which assessed the Study Area for the (1) potential to support special-status species; and (2) presence of other sensitive biological resources protected by local, state, and federal laws and regulations. If special-status species were observed during the site visit, they were recorded. Specific findings on the habitat suitability or presence of special-status species or sensitive habitats may require that protocol-level surveys be conducted. A biological resources assessment provides general information on the potential presence of sensitive species and habitats. The biological assessment is not an official protocol-level survey for listed species that may be required for project approval by local, state, or federal agencies. This assessment is based on information available at the time of the study and on-site conditions that were observed on the date of the site visit. 2.0 REGULATORY BACKGROUND The following sections explain the regulatory context of the biological assessment, including applicable laws and regulations that were applied to the field investigations and analysis of potential project impacts. 2.1 Special-Status Species Special-status species include those plant and wildlife species that have been formally listed, are proposed as endangered or threatened, or are candidates for such listing under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) or California Endangered Species Act (CESA). These acts afford protection to both listed and proposed species. In addition, California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW, formerly the California Department of Fish and Game, CDFG) Species of Special Concern, which are species that face extirpation in California if current population and habitat trends continue, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Birds of Conservation Concern, and CDFW special-status invertebrates, are all considered special-status species. Bat species are also evaluated for conservation status by the Western Bat Working Group (WBW G), a non-governmental entity. Although CDFW Species of Special Concern and WBWG- evaluated bats generally have no special legal status, they are given special consideration under CEQA. In addition to regulations for special-status species, most native birds in the 2 United States, including non-status species, are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA). Under this legislation, destroying active nests, eggs, and young is illegal. Plant species on the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Rare and Endangered Plant Inventory (Inventory) with California Rare Plant Ranks (Rank) of 1 and 2 are also considered special- status plant species and must be considered under CEQA. Rank 3 and Rank 4 species are afforded little or no protection under CEQA, but are included in this analysis for completeness. A description of the CNPS Ranks is provided below in Table 1. Table 1. Description of CNPS Ranks and Threat Codes California Rare Plant Ranks (formerly known as CNPS Lists) Rank 1A Presumed extirpated in California and either rare or extinct elsewhere Rank 1B Rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere Rank 2A Presumed extirpated in California, but more common elsewhere Rank 2B Rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere Rank 3 Plants about which more information is needed - A review list Rank 4 Plants of limited distribution - A watch list Threat Ranks 0.1 Seriously threatened in California 0.2 Moderately threatened in California 0.3 Not very threatened in California Critical Habitat Critical habitat is a term defined in the ESA as a specific geographic area that contains features essential for the conservation of a threatened or endangered species and that may require special management and protection. The ESA requires federal agencies to consult with the USFWS to conserve listed species on their lands and to ensure that any activities or projects they fund, authorize, or carry out will not jeopardize the survival of a threatened or endangered species. In consultation for those species with critical habitat, federal agencies must also ensure that activities or projects do not adversely modify critical habitat to the point that it will no longer aid in the species’ recovery. In many cases, this level of protection is similar to that already provided to species by the ESA jeopardy standard. However, areas that are currently unoccupied by the species but which are needed for the species’ recovery are protected by the prohibition against adverse modification of critical habitat. Figure 1. Study Area Location Map Dublin Valley Christian Center Alameda County, California Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\24000\24337\GIS\ArcMap\Location Map.mxd Map Prepared Date: 6/4/2015 Map Prepared By: MRochelle Base Source: Esri, National Geographic Data Source(s): WRA 0 1 20.5 Miles Map Extent Study Area 580 4 2.2 Sensitive Biological Communities Sensitive biological communities include habitats that fulfill special functions or have special values, such as wetlands, streams, or riparian habitat. These habitats are protected under federal regulations such as the Clean Water Act; state regulations such as the Porter-Cologne Act, the CDFW Streambed Alteration Program, and CEQA; or local ordinances or policies such as city or county tree ordinances, Special Habitat Management Areas, and General Plan Elements. Waters of the United States The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) regulates “Waters of the United States” under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Waters of the U.S. are defined in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) as waters susceptible to use in commerce, including interstate waters and wetlands, all other waters (intrastate waterbodies, including wetlands), and their tributaries (33 CFR 328.3). Potential wetland areas, according to the three criteria used to delineate wetlands as defined in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987), are identified by the presence of (1) hydrophytic vegetation, (2) hydric soils, and (3) wetland hydrology. Areas that are inundated at a sufficient depth and for a sufficient duration to exclude growth of hydrophytic vegetation are subject to Section 404 jurisdiction as “other waters” and are often characterized by an ordinary high water mark (OHWM). Other waters, for example, generally include lakes, rivers, and streams. The placement of fill material into Waters of the U.S generally requires an individual or nationwide permit from the Corps under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Waters of the State The term “Waters of the State” is defined by the Porter-Cologne Act as “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state.” The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) protects all waters in its regulatory scope and has special responsibility for wetlands, riparian areas, and headwaters. These waterbodies have high resource value and are vulnerable to filling. RWQCB jurisdiction includes “isolated” wetlands and waters that may not be regulated by the Corps under Section 404. Waters of the State are regulated by the RWQCB under the State Water Quality Certification Program which regulates discharges of fill and dredged material under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Projects that require a Corps permit, or fall under other federal jurisdiction, and have the potential to impact Waters of the State, are required to comply with the terms of the Water Quality Certification determination. If a proposed project does not require a federal permit, but does involve dredge or fill activities that may result in a discharge to Waters of the State, the RWQCB has the option to regulate the dredge and fill activities under its state authority in the form of Waste Discharge Requirements. Streams, Lakes, and Riparian Habitat Streams and lakes, as habitat for fish and wildlife species, are subject to jurisdiction by CDFW under Sections 1600-1616 of California Fish and Game Code. Alterations to or work within or adjacent to streambeds or lakes generally require a 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement. The term “stream”, which includes creeks and rivers, is defined in the California Code of Regulations (CCR) as “a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supports fish or other aquatic life [including] 5 watercourses having a surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation” (14 CCR 1.72). In addition, the term “stream” can include ephemeral streams, dry washes, watercourses with subsurface flows, canals, aqueducts, irrigation ditches, and other means of water conveyance if they support aquatic life, riparian vegetation, or stream- dependent terrestrial wildlife (CDFG 1994). “Riparian” is defined as “on, or pertaining to, the banks of a stream.” Riparian vegetation is defined as “vegetation which occurs in and/or adjacent to a stream and is dependent on, and occurs because of, the stream itself” (CDFG 1994). Removal of riparian vegetation also requires a Section 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFW . Oak Woodlands Conservation Act California Public Resources Code (PRC) 21083.4 requires each county in California to implement an oak woodland protection policy to mitigate for the loss of oak woodlands resultant from approved projects within their jurisdiction. In this policy, oak trees are defined as all native species of oaks larger than five inches DBH (diameter at breast height, or 4.5 feet above grade). At least one of four mitigation alternatives for significant conversions of oak woodlands are required in this regulation: 1) conserve oak woodlands through the use of a conservation easement, 2) plant an appropriate number of trees, including maintaining plantings and replacing dead or diseased trees, 3) contribute funds to the Oak Woodlands Conservation Fund, as established under Section 1363 (a) of the Fish and Game Code, and 4) other mitigation measures developed by the County. Other Sensitive Biological Communities Other sensitive biological communities not discussed above include habitats that fulfill special functions or have special values. Natural communities considered sensitive are those identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFW. The CDFW ranks sensitive communities as "threatened" or "very threatened" and keeps records of their occurrences in its California Natural Diversity Database (CDFW 2015). Sensitive plant communities are also identified by CDFW (CDFG 2003, 2007, 2009). CNDDB vegetation alliances are ranked 1 through 5 based on NatureServe's (2010) methodology, with those alliances ranked globally (G) or statewide (S) as 1 through 3 considered sensitive. Impacts to sensitive natural communities identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or those identified by the CDFW or USFWS must be considered and evaluated under CEQA (CCR Title 14, Div. 6, Chap. 3, Appendix G). Specific habitats may also be identified as sensitive in city or county general plans or ordinances. 2.3 Relevant Local Policies, Ordinances, Regulations City of Dublin General Plan Further documentation is required to satisfy the requirements of CEQA. The Study Area is located in the Primary Planning Area of the Dublin General Plan. The City of Dublin adopted a General Plan in 1985 to regulate land use and development in the community. The General Plan contains goals and guiding policies related to development. The Conservation Element (Chapter 7) of the Dublin General Plan contains policies that may apply to the Project, including stream corridor and riparian vegetation, and oak woodland protection. East Alameda County Conservation Strategy The Study Area is located in Conservation Zone 1 of the East Alameda County Conservation 6 Strategy (ICF 2010; EACCS). The EACCS is intended to provide an effective framework to protect, enhance, and restore natural resources in eastern Alameda County, while improving and streamlining the environmental permitting process for impacts resulting from infrastructure and development projects. The City of Dublin is a partner in the EACCS and uses the document to provide a baseline inventory of biological resources and conservation priorities during project-level planning and environmental permitting. However, the EACCS is a framework for guidance by regulatory agencies, and does not include incidental take permits for threatened or endangered species similar to that provided by a Habitat Conservation Plan. The EACCS includes provisions for “focal species”—species that are protected under federal and state laws. An objective of the EACCS is to protect and enhance the habitats of these species. City of Dublin Watercourse Protection Ordinance The City of Dublin regulates watercourses within the incorporated area of the City under Chapter 7.2 “Watercourse Protection” (Ord. 52-87 § 1), of the Dublin Municipal Code. The Watercourse Protection Ordinance requires development setbacks from watercourses, and prohibits a variety of activities within the floodway, bank or setback of a watercourse. City of Dublin Heritage Tree Ordinance The City of Dublin defines heritage trees as any oak, bay, cypress, maple, redwood, buckeye or sycamore tree having a trunk or main stem of twenty-four inches or more in diameter measured at four feet six inches above natural grade. Additionally, any tree preserved as part of an approved development plan, zoning permit, use permit, site development review, or subdivision map is protected as a heritage tree as is any tree planted as a replacement for an unlawfully removed tree. Heritage trees may not be removed unless a tree removal permit is granted or the removal is approved as part of other approved development permits. If a development site contains heritage trees that are to be preserved under an approved development plan, these trees must be protected during site development. A tree protection plan must be approved prior to commencement of work unless the Community Development Director of the City of Dublin has specifically waived this requirement (City of Dublin Municipal Code, Chapter 5.60, inclusive). 3.0 METHODS On May 20, 2015 the Study Area was traversed on foot to determine (1) plant communities present within the Study Area, (2) if existing conditions provided suitable habitat for any special- status plant or wildlife species, and (3) if sensitive habitats are present. All plant and wildlife species encountered were recorded, and are summarized in Appendix A. Plant nomenclature follows Baldwin et al. (2012) and subsequent revisions by the Jepson Flora Project (2013), except where noted. Because of recent changes in classification for many of the taxa treated by Baldwin et al. and the Jepson Flora Project, relevant synonyms are provided in brackets. For cases in which regulatory agencies, CNPS, or other entities base rarity on older taxonomic treatments, precedence was given to the treatment used by those entities. 7 3.1 Biological Communities Prior to the site visit, the Soil Survey of Alameda County, California [U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) web soil surveys], aerial imagery and previous reports from the site were examined to determine if any aquatic features were present in the Study Area examined to determine if any unique soil types that could support sensitive plant communities and/or aquatic features were present in the Study Area. Biological communities present in the Study Area were classified based on existing plant community descriptions described in the Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California (Holland 1986). However, in some cases it is necessary to identify variants of community types or to describe non-vegetated areas that are not described in the literature. Biological communities were classified as sensitive or non-sensitive as defined by CEQA and other applicable laws and regulations. 3.1.1 Non-Sensitive Biological Communities Non-sensitive biological communities are those communities that are not afforded special protection under CEQA, and other state, federal, and local laws, regulations and ordinances. These communities may, however, provide suitable habitat for some special-status plant or wildlife species and are identified or described in Section 4.1.1 below. 3.1.2 Sensitive Biological Communities Sensitive biological communities are defined as those communities that are given special protection under CEQA and other applicable federal, state, and local laws, regulations and ordinances. Applicable laws and ordinances are discussed above in Section 2.2. Special methods used to identify sensitive biological communities are discussed below. Wetlands and Waters The Study Area was surveyed to determine if any wetlands and waters potentially subject to jurisdiction by the Corps, RWQCB, or CDFW were present. The assessment was based primarily on the presence of wetland plant indicators, but may also include any observed indicators of wetland hydrology or wetland soils. Any potential wetland areas were identified as areas dominated by plant species with a wetland indicator status1 of OBL, FACW, or FAC as given on the Corps’ National Wetlands Plant List (Lichvar 2014). Evidence of wetland hydrology can include direct evidence (primary indicators), such as visible inundation or saturation, algal mats, and oxidized root channels, or indirect (secondary) indicators, such as a water table within two feet of the soil surface during the dry season. Some indicators of wetland soils include dark colored soils, soils with a sulfidic odor, and soils that contain redoximorphic features as defined by the Corps Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States (NRCS 2010). The preliminary waters assessment was based primarily on the presence of unvegetated, ponded areas or flowing water, or evidence indicating their presence such as a high water mark or a defined drainage course. Collection of additional data will be necessary to prepare a delineation report suitable for submission to the Corps. 1 OBL = Obligate, always found in wetlands (> 99% frequency of occurrence); FACW = Facultative wetland, usually found in wetlands (67-99% frequency of occurrence); FAC = Facultative, equal occurrence in wetland or non- wetlands (34-66% frequency of occurrence). 8 Other Sensitive Biological Communities The Study Area was evaluated for the presence of other sensitive biological communities, including riparian areas, sensitive plant communities recognized by CDFW and EACCS, and heritage trees. Prior to the site visit, aerial photographs, the List of Vegetation Alliances (CDFG 2009), and A Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer et al. 2009) were reviewed to assess the potential for sensitive biological communities to occur in the Study Area. All alliances within the Study Area with a ranking of 1 through 3 were considered sensitive biological communities and mapped. These communities are described in Section 4.1.2 below. 3.2 Special-Status Species 3.2.1 Literature Review Potential occurrence of special-status species in the Study Area was evaluated by first determining which special-status species occur in the vicinity of the Study Area through a literature and database search. Database searches for known occurrences of special-status species focused on the Dublin, Diablo, Livermore, Las Trampas Ridge, and Hayward USGS 7.5' quadrangles. The following sources were reviewed to determine which special-status plant and wildlife species have been documented to occur in the vicinity of the Study Area: •California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) records (CDFW 2015) •USFWS IpaC search •CNPS Inventory records (CNPS 2015) •eBird records •Fairy Shrimps of California’s Puddles, Pools and Playas (Eriksen and Belk 1999) •CDFG publication “California’s Wildlife, Volumes I-III” (Zeiner et al. 1990) •CDFG publication “Amphibians and Reptile Species of Special Concern in California” (Jennings 1994) •CDFG publication “California Bird Species of Special Concern” (Shuford and Gardali 2008) •A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians (Stebbins 2003) •Alameda County Breeding Bird Atlas (Richmond et al. 2011) •The East Alameda County Conservation Strategy (ICF 2010) 3.2.2 Site Assessment A site visit was made to the Study Area to search for suitable habitats for special-status species. Habitat conditions observed in the Study Area were used to evaluate the potential for presence of special-status species based on these searches and the professional expertise of the investigating biologists. The potential for each special-status species to occur in the Study Area was then evaluated according to the following criteria: •No Potential. Habitat on and adjacent to the site is clearly unsuitable for the species requirements (foraging, breeding, cover, substrate, elevation, hydrology, plant community, site history, disturbance regime). •Unlikely. Few of the habitat components meeting the species requirements are present, and/or the majority of habitat on and adjacent to the site is unsuitable or of very poor quality. The species is not likely to be found on the site. 9 •Moderate Potential. Some of the habitat components meeting the species requirements are present, and/or only some of the habitat on or adjacent to the site is unsuitable. The species has a moderate probability of being found on the site. •High Potential. All of the habitat components meeting the species requirements are present and/or most of the habitat on or adjacent to the site is highly suitable. The species has a high probability of being found on the site. •Present. Species is observed on the site or has been recorded (i.e. CNDDB, other reports) on the site recently. The site assessment is intended to identify the presence or absence of suitable habitat for each special-status species known to occur in the vicinity in order to determine its potential to occur in the Study Area. The site visit does not constitute a protocol-level survey and is not intended to determine the actual presence or absence of a species; however, if a special-status species is observed during the site visit, its presence was recorded and discussed. In cases where little information is known about species occurrences and habitat requirements, the species evaluation was based on best professional judgment of WRA biologists with experience working with the species and habitats. If necessary, recognized experts in individual species biology were contacted to obtain the most up to date information regarding species biology and ecology. If a special-status species was observed during the site visit, its presence is recorded and discussed in Section 4.2. For some species, a site assessment visit at the level conducted for this report may not be sufficient to determine presence or absence of a species to the specifications of regulatory agencies. In these cases, a species may be assumed to be present or further protocol-level special-status species surveys may be necessary. Special-status species for which further protocol-level surveys may be necessary are described in Section 5.0. 4.0 RESULTS The Study Area is located in an urban area that consists of a patchwork of developed residential areas interspersed with undeveloped, open areas. The Study Area is bordered to the north residential development and open space, to the east by residential development, to the south by the Interstate 580 Freeway, and to the west by residential development and open space. The majority of the site consists of developed land including school, church, and administrative buildings, sports facilities, parking areas and associated landscaping. The undeveloped portion of the Study Area is characterized by non-native annual grassland with ruderal stands of non- native mustards (Brassica nigra, and Hirschfeldia incana), and small portions of coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis ssp. consanguinea) scrub. The majority of the undeveloped portions of the Study Area have been previously disturbed, graded or mowed. Elevations of the Study Area range from approximately 820 to approximately 550 feet above sea level. The following sections present the results and discussion of the biological resources assessment within the Study Area. 4.1 Biological Communities Table 2 summarizes the area of each biological community type observed in the Study Area. There are six non-sensitive biological communities in the Study Area. Three sensitive biological communities are found in the Study Area: Riparian Woodland, Coast Live Oak Woodland, 10 and Ephemeral Stream. A description for each biological community is contained in the following sections. Biological communities within the Study Area are shown in Figure 2. Table 2. Summary of Biological Communities in the Study Area Community Type Area (acres) Non-Native Annual Grassland/Ruderal Vegetation 32.33 Developed Land 35.86 Coyote Brush Scrub 1.40 Riparian W oodland 0.57 Coast Live Oak W oodland 1.29 Ephemeral Stream 462 LF* Total Study Area Size 71.45 *this measurement is included within the 0.57-acre of riparian woodland 4.1.1 Non-Sensitive Biological Communities Developed Land Developed land within the Study Area consists of all portions of the Study Area not mapped as a natural community type. Developed land within the Study Area includes school, church, and administrative buildings, sports facilities, parking areas, Inspiration Drive, and associated landscaping. Much of these developed areas contain planted exotic vegetation, including common landscape tree and shrub species such as Bradford pear (Pyrus calleryana ‘Bradford’), Raywood ash (Fraxinus angustifolia ‘Raywood’), Monterey pine (Pinus radiata), and oleander (Nerium oleander). Non-Native Annual Grassland/Ruderal Vegetation Non-native annual grassland comprises the majority of the Study Area and is composed of a mix of non-native annual grasses and other predominantly non-native herbaceous species. This community is similar to the non-native grassland community described by Holland (1986). Non-native annual grassland within the Study Area is dominated by slender oats (Avena barbata), Italian rye grass (Festuca perennis [Lolium multiflorum]), mouse barley (Hordeum murinum ssp. leporinum), and longbeak stork’s bill (Erodium botrys). Non-native grassland mapped within the Study Area also includes dense stands of ruderal herbaceous species, including black mustard (Brassica nigra), short podded mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus) and poison hemlock (Conium maculatum), all of which are listed as having “moderate” potential to cause negative ecological impacts by the Cal-IPC (2015). Native plant cover is less than 5% within the non-native annual Dublin Valley Christian Center Alameda County, California Figure 2. Biological Communities within the Study Area Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\24000\24337\GIS\ArcMap\Biological Communties.mxd Map Prepared Date: 6/4/2015 Map Prepared By: MRochelle Base Source: Microsoft, 2010 Aerial Data Source(s): WRA Study Area (71.45 acres) Ephemeral Stream (462 linear ft.) Developed Land (35.86 acres) Non-native Annual Grassland/ Ruderal Vegetation (32.33 acres) Coyote Brush Scrub (1.40 acres) Coast Live Oak Woodland (1.29 acres) Riparian Woodland (0.57 acre) 0 150 300 Feet This page left blank intentionally 13 grassland. Wildlife species observed in this community in the Study Area were turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), common raven (Corvus corax), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), and black- tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus). Coyote Brush Scrub Coyote brush scrub is scattered in small, fragmented portions throughout the Study Area, on both natural slopes and disturbed, previously graded areas. This community is similar to the Northern coyote brush scrub community described by Holland (1986) and the coyote brush scrub series described by Sawyer et al. (2009). The dominant plant in this community is coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis ssp. consanguinea) and the understory is dominated by the non- native grasses and forbs also observed non-native annual grassland/ruderal vegetation community. This community is similar to the Northern coyote brush scrub community described by Holland (1986) and the coyote brush scrub series described by Sawyer et al. (2009). 4.1.2 Sensitive Biological Communities Riparian Woodland The riparian woodland occupies a small area near the southwest corner of the Study Area. This community is similar to the central coast live oak riparian forest community described by Holland (1986). The riparian woodland consists of coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), valley oak (Quercus lobata), arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), and red willow (Salix laevigata). The understory consists of a mixture and native and non-native herbaceous species including California bulrush (Schoenoplectus californicus), tall flatsedge (Cyperus eragrostis), and fiddle dock (Rumex pulcher). Riparian woodland is considered sensitive under the CEQA and is protected by the California Fish and Game Code (Section 1600 et seq.). Coast Live Oak Woodland Coast live oak woodland occupies a small, fragmented area in the northeast corner of the Study Area. This community is similar to the coast live oak woodland community described by Holland (1986). Coast live oak woodland is dominated by coast live oak, but also consists of California bay (Umbellularia californica), valley oak, and California buckeye (Aesculus californica). The understory is dominated by non-native grasses and forbs also observed non-native annual grassland/ruderal vegetation community. A portion of the area mapped as coast live oak woodland in the west part of the Study Area consists of planted oaks. Ephemeral Stream An ephemeral stream exists within the southwestern corner of the Study Area. The ephemeral stream is located in a concave, north to south drainage to the south and downhill from the baseball field. The ephemeral stream appears to be the result of a culvert system that drains the hillside to the north, and could potentially be fed by a seep as well. Water was present in the ephemeral stream during the site visit; however, the presence of a seep could not be confirmed, as the water appeared to originate from under a dense patch of poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), and Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus). The ephemeral stream was intermittent during the time of the site visit, flowing down the south-facing hill and into a rock-lined trapezoidal ditch, at which point the water appeared to become subsurface flow. The trapezoidal ditch parallels the property boundary and feeds into a culvert where it flows into Dublin Creek. 14 4.2 Special-Status Species 4.2.1 Plants Based upon a review of the resources and databases given in Section 3.2.1, 42 special-status plant species have been documented in the vicinity of the Study Area (Figure 3). The Study Area has the potential to support one of these species. Appendix B summarizes the potential for occurrence for each special-status plant species occurring in the vicinity of the Study Area. One special-status plant species, Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii) has a moderate potential to occur in the Study Area. The remaining species documented to occur in the vicinity of the Study Area are unlikely or have no potential to occur. The special-status plant species with moderate potential to occur in the Study Area is discussed below. Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii). CNPS Rank 1B.1. EACCS Focal Species. Moderate Potential. Congdon’s tarplant is an annual forb in the sunflower family (Asteraceae) that blooms from June to November. It occurs in terraces, swales, floodplains, grassland, and disturbed sites, sometimes alkaline, at elevations ranging from 0-990 feet (Baldwin et al. 2012, CDFW 2013, CNPS 2013). Congdon’s tarplant is known from 31 USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles in Alameda, Contra Costa, Monterey, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo, and Solano counties (CNPS 2013). Two tarplant individuals (Centromadia sp.) were observed in the northeast portion of the Study Area in a disturbed ruderal field used for heavy equipment storage. This area is mapped on Figure 2 as an island of non-native annual grassland/ruderal vegetation surrounded by developed land. The tarplant individuals observed in this area during the site visit were unidentifiable due to the timing of the site visit and the absence of mature inflorescences. To assure absence, rare plant surveys are recommended. 4.2.2 Wildlife Thirty-five special-status species of wildlife have been recorded in the vicinity of the Study Area (Figure 4). Appendix B summarizes the potential for each of these species to occur in the Study Area. No special-status wildlife species were observed in the Study Area during the site assessment. No special-status wildlife species have a high potential to occur in the Study Area, and six special-status wildlife species have a moderate potential to occur in the Study Area, including one EACCS focal species. Special-status wildlife species that have a moderate potential to occur in the Study Area are discussed below. In addition, Federal-listed species unlikely to occur within the Study Area but that are known to the region are further discussed. Species with a Moderate Potential to Occur within the Study Area White-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), CDFW Fully Protected Species. Kites occur in low elevation grassland, agricultural, wetland, oak woodland, and savannah habitats. Riparian zones adjacent to open areas are also used. Vegetative structure and prey availability seem to be more important than specific associations with plant species or vegetative communities. Lightly grazed or ungrazed fields generally support large prey populations and are often preferred to other habitats. Kites primarily feed on small mammals, although, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and insects are also taken. Nest trees range from single isolated trees to trees within large contiguous forests. Preferred nest trees are extremely variable, ranging from small shrubs (less than 10 ft. tall), to large trees (greater than 150 ft. tall). (Dunk 1995). The Study Figure 3. Special Status Plant Species Occurrences within 5-miles of Study Area Dublin Valley Christian Center Alameda County, California Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\24000\24337\GIS\ArcMap\CNDDB Plant.mxd Map Prepared Date: 6/4/2015 Map Prepared By: MRochelle Base Source: Esri, National Geographic Data Source(s): CNDDB June 2015 0 1 20.5 Miles Study Area 5-mile B u f f e r Congdon's tarplant Diablo helianthella hairless popcornflower Mt. Diablo buckwheat Oregon polemonium saline clover San Joaquin spearscale Figure 4. Special Status Wildlife Species Occurrences within 5-miles of Study Area Dublin Valley Christian Center Alameda County, California Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\24000\24337\GIS\ArcMap\CNDDB Wildlife.mxd Map Prepared Date: 6/4/2015 Map Prepared By: MRochelle Base Source: Esri, National Geographic Data Source(s): CNDDB June 2015 0 1 20.5 Miles Study Area Sensitive Occurrence #'s - Alameda whipsnake 7,10,17,21-23,31,32,35,38-44,46,50 64-67,71,73,75-81,83-85,90,91,94,124-127,135-144,154 - prairie falcon 468,470,491 5-mile B u f f e r American badger burrowing owl California horned lark California linderiella California red-legged frog California tiger salamander pallid bat San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat San Joaquin kit fox sharp-shinned hawk tricolored blackbird western pond turtle Yuma myotis white-tailed kite 17 Area contains grassland foraging habitat for this species, and shrubs and riparian vegetation may support nesting. Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), CDFW Species of Special Concern, USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern. A common resident of lowlands and foothills throughout California, this species prefers open habitats with scattered trees, shrubs, posts, fences, utility lines, or other perches. Nests are usually built on a stable branch in a densely-foliaged shrub or small tree. This species is found most often in open-canopied valley foothill hardwood, conifer, pinyon-juniper, or desert riparian habitats. While this species eats mostly arthropods, it also takes amphibians, small reptiles, small mammals or birds, and is also known to scavenge on carrion (Yosef 1996). The grasslands within the Study Area provide suitable foraging habitat for this species, and there is a moderate potential for this species to nest in shrubs or other dense woody vegetation. Grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum), CDFW Species of Special Concern. Grasshopper sparrow generally prefers moderately open grasslands and prairies with patchy bare ground. It selects different components of vegetation, depending on grassland ecosystem. This sparrow typically avoids grasslands with extensive shrub cover, although some level of shrub cover is important for birds in western regions (Vickery 1996). Grasshopper sparrow is a ground-nesting bird. This species feeds primarily on insects (Vickery 1996). This species has the potential to forage and nest within the grassland portions of the Study Area that are not mowed and provide suitable cover to conceal ground nests. Nuttall’s woodpecker (Picoides nuttallii), USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern. Nuttall’s Woodpecker, common in much of its range, is a year-round resident throughout most of California west of the Sierra Nevada. Typical habitat is oak or mixed woodland, and riparian areas (Lowther 2000). Nesting occurs in tree cavities, principally those of oaks and larger riparian trees. This species forages on a variety of arboreal invertebrates. The riparian habitats and coast live oak trees within the Study Area provide suitable habitat for foraging and nesting in this species. Oak titmouse (Baeolophus inornatus), USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern. This relatively common species is year-round resident throughout much of California including most of the coastal slope, the Central Valley and the western Sierra Nevada foothills. Its primary habitat is woodland dominated by oaks. Local populations have adapted to woodlands of pines and/or junipers in some areas (Cicero 2000). The oak titmouse nests in tree cavities, usually natural cavities or those excavated by woodpeckers, though they may partially excavate their own (Cicero 2000). Seeds and arboreal invertebrates make up the birds’ diet. The riparian habitats and coast live oak trees within the Study Area provide suitable habitat for foraging and nesting in this species. California red-legged frog (CRLF; Rana draytonii). Federal Threatened, CDFW Species of Special Concern, EACCS Focal Species. The current distribution of this species includes only isolated localities in the Sierra Nevada, northern Coast and Northern Traverse Ranges. It is still common in the San Francisco Bay Area and along the central coast (USFWS 2002). Aquatic breeding habitat consists of low-gradient fresh water bodies, including natural and manmade (e.g., stock) ponds, backwaters within streams and creeks, and marshes. Upland habitats include areas within 200 feet of aquatic and riparian habitat and are comprised of grasslands, woodlands, and/or vegetation that provide shelter, forage, and predator avoidance. These upland features provide feeding, and sheltering habitat for juvenile and adult frogs (e.g., shelter, shade, moisture, cooler temperatures, a prey base, foraging opportunities, and areas for 18 predator avoidance). Upland habitat can include structural features such as boulders, rocks, and organic debris (e.g. downed trees, logs), as well as small mammal burrows and moist leaf litter (USFWS 2010). Dispersal habitat includes upland or riparian habitats within 1 mile of each other that allow for movement between these sites. Dispersal habitat includes various natural and altered habitats such as agricultural fields, which do not contain barriers to dispersal. Moderate to high density urban or industrial developments, large reservoirs and heavily traveled roads without bridges or culverts are considered barriers to dispersal (USFWS 2010). The Study Area does not contain suitable pools for CRLF breeding habitat. However, the nearest breeding habitat is a stock pond 0.6 mile west of the Study Area, which contained CRLF tadpoles in 1995 (CDFW 2015). The riparian areas along the southern portion of the Study Area connect to this breeding pond, and CRLF may use this area as aquatic non breeding habitat. Additionally, CRLF may be found in adjacent uplands that provide shade or other shelter up to 200 feet from the wet portions of the riparian areas. Federal-listed Species Documented in the Vicinity but Unlikely to Occur within the Study Area San Joaquin kit fox (SJKF; Vulpes macrotis mutica). Federal Endangered, State Threatened, EACCS Focal Species. SJKF is found in the San Joaquin Valley and in surrounding foothills, from Alameda County east to Stanislaus County. It is a desert-adapted species which occurs mainly in arid, flat grasslands, scrublands, and alkali meadows where the vegetation structure is relatively short (generally less than 1.5 feet tall) (USFWS 1998). This species uses dens year-round and needs loose-textured soils suitable for burrowing (Grinnell et al. 1937). Kit fox prey consists primarily of kangaroo rats and other small rodents, as well as large insects and occasionally rabbits (USFWS 1998). SJKF has been extirpated from much of its historic range and is now only found in the southern and eastern portions of its historic range and a study by Sproul and Flett (1993) indicates that the species is absent west of the Altamont Hills. Although portions of the grassland habitat may be suitable for SJKF, there are no recent occurrences or observations in the area (CDFW 2015, Sproul and Flett 1993). Additionally, the Study Area is surrounded on three sides by development, rendering the site unlikely to be colonized by this species. Furthermore, no potential dens were observed during the May 2015 site visit. California Tiger Salamander (CTS; Ambystoma californiense), Federal Threatened, State Threatened Species, EACCS Focal Species. CTS is a California endemic species and historically occurred in grassland habitats throughout much of the state. This species inhabits valley and foothill grasslands and the grassy understory of open woodlands, usually within 1 mile of water (Jennings and Hayes 1994). CTS requires two primary habitat components: aquatic breeding sites and upland terrestrial refuge sites. Adult CTS spend most of their time underground in upland subterranean refugia. Underground retreats usually consist of ground- squirrel burrows, but also under logs and piles of lumber (Holland et al. 1990, Trenham 2001). CTS emerges from underground to breed and lay eggs primarily in vernal pools and other ephemeral water bodies. Adults migrate from upland habitats to aquatic breeding sites during the first major rainfall events, between November and February (Shaffer and Fisher 1991, Barry and Shaffer 1994), and return to upland habitats after breeding. Vehicular related mortality is an important threat to CTS populations (Barry and Shaffer 1994, Jennings and Hayes 1994). CTS will readily attempt to cross roads during migration, and roads 19 that sustain heavy vehicle traffic or barriers that impede seasonal migrations may have impacted CTS populations in some areas (Shaffer and Fisher 1991, Shaffer and Stanley 1992, Barry and Shaffer 1994). This species is unlikely to occur within the Study Area. Generally, CTS is rare in the hills west of Dublin (CDFW 2015). The nearest documented occurrence of this species to the Study Area is 2.5 miles southwest of the Study Area, across the insurmountable barrier to dispersal that is Interstate 580 (CDFW 2015). All other documented occurrences of the species within 5 miles of the Study Area are across the City of Dublin and are at least 4.3 miles from the site. CTS has been found a maximum of 1.3 miles from the nearest available breeding habitat, so these distant occurrences are not applicable to the Study Area (USFWS 2004). The nearest potential breeding pond is a stock pond 0.6 mile to the west of the Study Area. However, this pond and other ponds within 2.5 miles of this pond do not have any documented occurrences of CTS. Additionally, 95 % of non-dispersing CTS are found within 640 meters (0.4 mile) of breeding pools (Trenham and Shaffer 2005). If CTS is present at this stock pond, it is first unlikely that resident individuals of the pond will venture into the Study Area because the Study Area is over 0.4 mile from the pond. Second, it is also unlikely that CTS will successfully disperse into or through the Study Area due to distance from the pond to the Study Area, lack of suitable burrows within the Study Area to support aestivation (none were observed during the May 2015 site visit), and lack of connectivity to other breeding pools because the Study Area is surrounded by development in all directions except to the west. Therefore, it is unlikely that CTS will occur within the Study Area, and in the unlikely event that CTS does occur, avoidance and minimization measures for CRLF will be sufficient to avoid and minimize impacts to CTS individuals. Alameda Whipsnake (AWS; Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus), Federal Threatened Species, State Threatened Species, EACCS Focal Species. The range of the Alameda whipsnake is restricted to the inner Coast Range in western and central Contra Costa and Alameda Counties (USFWS 2006). The historical range of AWS has been fragmented into 5 disjunct populations: Tilden-Briones, Oakland-Las Trampas, Hayward-Pleasanton Ridge, Sunol- Cedar Mountain, and the Mount Diablo-Black Hills (USFWS 2006). The Alameda whipsnake is associated with scrub communities with a mosaic of open and closed canopy; woodland or annual grassland plant communities including mixed chaparral, chamise-redshank chaparral, coastal scrub; and annual grassland and oak woodlands that lie adjacent to scrub habitats that contain areas of rock outcroppings. Rock outcroppings are important as they are a favored location for lizard prey. Whipsnakes frequently venture into adjacent habitats, including grassland, oak savanna, and occasionally oak-bay woodland. The Study Area does not contain woodland or scrub habitats or rocky outcroppings to support this species, nor is it adjacent to these necessary physical and biological conditions. Additionally, the Study Area does not serve as a corridor to existing suitable habitat because it is surrounded on three sides by suburban development, an effective barrier to dispersal that isolates the Study Area from access by this species. In summary, no special-status wildlife species were observed during the May 20, 2015 site visit, and six special-status wildlife species have a moderate potential to occur within the Study Area. 20 5.0 SUMMARY AND RECCOMENDATIONS Three sensitive biological communities were identified within the Study Area: riparian woodland, coast live oak woodland and ephemeral stream. No special-status plant species and no special-status wildlife species were observed within the Study Area. One special-status plant species and six special-status wildlife species have a moderate potential to occur within the Study Area, one of which is an EACCS focal species. Most of the Study Area is dominated by non-native annual grassland and ruderal herbaceous stands, which are not sensitive habitats under CEQA. However, non-native annual grassland and ruderal herbaceous stands do provide habitat for some special-status plant and wildlife species. Institutional development is proposed to occur within the Study Area, though final plans have not yet been provided to WRA. Recommendations to avoid impacts to sensitive species and communities, including further studies, are therefore general in nature. Recommendations are discussed in the following sections. 5.1 Biological Communities Most of the Study Area is comprised of developed land and non-native annual grassland/ruderal vegetation. Although non-native annual grassland and developed land are not sensitive biological communities under CEQA, they may provide habitat for special-status plant and wildlife species. Such species will require mitigation if found on the site. However, the Study Area does contain 1.29 acres of coast live oak woodland, which is potentially sensitive under the Oak Woodland Conservation Act; 0.57 acre of riparian woodland, which is potentially within the jurisdiction of CDFW under Sections 1600-1616 of California Fish and Game Code; and 462 linear feet of ephemeral stream, which is potentially within the jurisdiction of the Corps under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the RWQCB under the Porter Cologne Act and Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. Additionally, trees within the riparian woodland, coast live oak woodland and developed area may be subject to the City of Dublin Heritage Tree Ordinance if part of an “approved development plan, zoning permit, use permit, site development review, or subdivision map” or if planted as “replacement for an unlawfully removed tree.” The Study Area contains an ephemeral stream that could be within the jurisdiction of the RWQCB under the Porter Cologne Act and Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. The conversion of ephemeral streams to developed land is a potentially significant impact under CEQA that could require mitigation efforts and regulatory permits. Therefore, before continuing development in the Study Area, a formal jurisdictional wetlands delineation is recommended to determine whether the potential seasonal wetlands in the Study Area are jurisdictional wetlands. The creek may also be subject to jurisdiction by CDFW under Sections 1600-1616 of California Fish and Game Code. 5.2 Special-Status Plant Species Of the 42 special-status plant species known to occur in the vicinity of the Study Area, one species, Congdon’s tarplant, has a moderate potential to occur in the Study Area. Most of the species found in the review of background literature occur in high quality vernal pool habitat, in different plant communities, often at higher elevations, or in high quality grassland habitat. Due to the history of disturbance, and predominance of non-native ruderal species, the grassland 21 and woodlands in the Study Area are likely of too low quality to support the majority of these other special-status plant species. Congdon’s tarplant is considered to have a moderate potential to occur within the Study Area. Two tarplant individuals (Centromadia sp.) were observed in the northeast portion of the Study Area in a disturbed ruderal field used for heavy equipment storage. This area is mapped on Figure 2 as an island of non-native annual grassland/ruderal vegetation surrounded by developed land. The tarplant individuals observed in this area during the site visit were unidentifiable to species level due to the timing of the site visit and the absence of mature inflorescences. Given the presence of other Centromadia species in the region, it is likely that these individuals are not Condon’s tarplant and instead common tarweed, (Centromadia pungens ssp. pungens), a non-listed species. Due to the very low number of individuals present, and the presence of larger populations of Congdon’s tarplant in the region, these two individuals do not represent a significant population and loss of these plants would not be considered significant under CEQA. To ensure absence of a greater population on-site, rare plant surveys for this species is recommended during the blooming season (May through October, peaking in August). 5.3 Special-Status Wildlife Species Of the 35 special-status wildlife species known to occur in the vicinity of the Study Area, six were determined to have the potential to occur in the Study Area. Most of the species found in the review of background literature occur in habitats not found in the Study Area. Habitat suitability for many grassland-associated species in the Study Area is reduced due to the sloped nature of the site, and surrounding development and Interstate 580 acting as a barrier to dispersal. These factors have also dramatically reduced or eliminated the potential for many riparian and aquatic species to occur on the site. Bats are also unlikely to roost within the Study Area due to the lack of suitable roost structures present, and the few trees that may support roosting are located in the riparian areas in the southern portion of the Study Area and will not be affected by future project activities. No vernal pool or equivalent habitats are present to support vernal pool crustaceans. Recommendations to reduce potential impacts to special- status species to a less-than-significant level are described below. 5.3.1 Special-Status Birds and Other Avian Species This assessment determined that seven additional special-status bird species may use the Study Area and immediately adjacent areas for either breeding and/or foraging. In addition, most commonly found native bird species are protected by the MBTA, California Fish and Game Code, and CEQA during the nesting season. If work is to be conducted during the nesting season (February 1 - August 31), pre-construction nesting bird surveys should be conducted no more than 14 days prior to initial ground disturbance to avoid impacting active nests, eggs, and/or young of ground-nesting birds. Nesting habitat may include grasslands, shrubs, trees, snags and buildings. If any active nests are found, a suitable buffer is established for protection of the nest and young. Buffer distance will vary based on species and conditions at the site, but is usually at least 50 feet, and up to 250 feet for raptors. Impacts to nesting birds can be 22 avoided if activities which may affect nesting are initiated outside of the nesting season (September 1 - January 31). 5.3.2 California red-legged frog There is no aquatic breeding or for CRLF within the Study Area. However, CRLF may inhabit the wet riparian areas and uplands within the Study Area 200 feet of these wet areas. Avoidance measures may include a worker education program and installation of a wildlife exclusion fence around the areas that could potentially contain CRLF. Impacts to these areas may require consultation with the USFWS and compensatory mitigation. 6.0 REFERENCES Baldwin, BG, DH Goldman, DJ Keil, R Patterson, TJ Rosatti, and DH Wilken (eds.). 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, second edition. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Barry, S. J. and H. B. Shaffer. 1994. The status of the California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma californiense) at Lagunita: a 50-year update. Journal of Herpetology 28:159-164. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2010. List of Vegetation Alliances and Associations. Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program, Sacramento, CA. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 1994. A Field Guide to Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreements, Sections 1600-1607, California Fish and Game Code. Environmental Services Division, Sacramento, CA. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2015. California Natural Diversity Database. Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch, Sacramento, CA. California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC). 2015. California Invasive Plant Inventory Database. California Invasive Plant Council, Berkeley, CA. Online at: http://www.cal- ipc.org/ip/inventory/index.php; most recently accessed: June 1, 2015. California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2015. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California. Online at: http://www.rareplants.cnps.org; most recently accessed: June 1, 2015. California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2015. A Manual of California Vegetation, Online Edition. http://www.cnps.org/cnps/vegetation/; searched on June 1, 2015. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. City of Dublin. 2015. Dublin Municipal Code Heritage Tree Ordinance. Chapter 5.6 (Ord. 5-02 § 2 (part): Ord. 29-99 § 1 (part)). Online at: http://www.codepublishing.com/ca/dublin.html; most recently accessed June 1, 2015 City of Dublin. 2014. City of Dublin General Plan. Community Development Department. 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA. Adopted February 11, 1985. Amended as of November 18, 2014. 23 Dunk, J. R. 1995. White-tailed Kite (Elanus leucurus). In The Birds of North America, No. 178 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. eBird. 2015. eBird: An online database of bird distribution and abundance [web application]. eBird, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. Available: http://www.ebird.org; most recently accessed; May 2015. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Department of the Army, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180- 0631. Erikson, CH and D Belk. 1999. Fairy Shrimps of California’s Puddles, Ponds and Playas. Mad River Press, Inc., Eureka, CA. Google Earth. 2015. Aerial Imagery 1993-2015. Most recently accessed: May 2015. Holland, RF. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. Prepared for the California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. ICF International. 2010. East Alameda County Conservation Strategy. Final Draft. October. (ICF 00906.08.) San Jose, CA. Prepared for: East Alameda County Conservation Strategy Steering Committee, Livermore, CA. Holland, D. C., M. P. Hayes, and E. McMillan. 1990. Late summer movement and mass mortality in the California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma californiense). Southwestern Naturalist 35:217-220. Jennings, M. R., and M. P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and reptile species of special concern in California. Final Report to the California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova, CA. 225 pp. Jepson Flora Project (eds.). 2015. Jepson eFlora. Online at: http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/IJM.html; most recently accessed June 1, 2015. Lichvar, R.W., M. Butterwick, N.C. Melvin, and W.N. Kirchner. 2014. The National Wetland Plant List: 2014 Update of Wetland Ratings. Phytoneuron 2014-41: 1-42 Lichvar, RW. 2012. The National Wetland Plant List. Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Research and Development Center. Hanover, NH. October 2012. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2010. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, version 7.0. In cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils, Fort Worth, TX. NatureServe. 2010. NatureServe Conservation Status. Available online at: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/ranking. 24 Richmond, B., H. Green, and D.C. Rice. 2011. Alameda County Breeding Bird Atlas. Golden Gate Audubon Society and Ohlone Audubon Society. Dakota Press, San Leandro, CA. Sawyer, J, T Keeler-Wolf and J Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation. California Native Plant Society, Berkeley, CA. Shaffer, H. B., and R. Fisher. 1991. Final report to the California Department of Fish and Game; California Tiger Salamander surveys, 1990-Contract (FG 9422). California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova, California. Shaffer, H. B., and S. Stanley. 1992. Final report to California Department of Fish and Game; California Tiger Salamander Surveys, 1991-Contract (FG 9422). California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova, California. Shuford, WD, and T Gardali (eds). 2008. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, and CDFG, Sacramento. Sproul, M.J. and M.A. Flett. 1993. Status of the San Joaquin kit fox in the northwest margin of its range. 1993 Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 29:61-69. Stebbins, RC. 2003. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians, third edition. The Peterson Field Guide Series, Houghton Mifflin Company, NY. Trenham, P.C. 2001. Terrestrial habitat use by adult California Tiger Salamanders. Journal of Herpetology 35:343-346. Trenham, P.C. and H.B. Shaffer. 2005. Amphibian upland habitat use and its consequences for population viability. Ecological Applications 15(4):1158-1168. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jurisdictional Determination Form Instructional Guidebook. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2015. Web Soil Survey. Online at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov; most recently accessed: June 3, 2015.. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2010. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 7.0. G. W. Hurt and L. M. Vasilas (eds.). In cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. [USFWS] United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. Information for Conservation and Planning Database. Available online at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/; most recently accessed: May 2015. 25 USFWS. 2010. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for California Red-legged Frog; Final Rule. Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 51. 12815-12959. USFWS. 2002. Recovery plan for the California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. USFWS. 1998. Recovery plan for upland species of the San Joaquin Valley, California, Region 1, Portland Oregon. 295 pp. Vickery, Peter D. 1996. Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/239 Zeiner, DC, WF Laudenslayer, Jr., KE Mayer, and M White. 1990. California's Wildlife, Volume I-III: Amphibians and Reptiles, Birds, Mammals. California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationships System, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. APPENDIX A LIST OF OBSERVED PLANT AND WILDLIFE SPECIES B-1 Appendix B. Species observed in the Study Area on May 20, 2015 Family Scientific Name Common Name Origin Plants Adoxaceae (Caprifoliaceae) Sambucus nigra ssp. caerulea [S. mexicana] blue elderberry native Agavaceae (Liliaceae) Chlorogalum pomeridianum var. pomeridianum common soap plant native Anacardiaceae Toxicodendron diversilobum poison oak native Apiaceae Conium maculatum poison hemlock non-native Apiaceae Foeniculum vulgare fennel non-native Apiaceae Torilis arvensis hedge parsley non-native Asteraceae Achillea millefolium common yarrow native Asteraceae Baccharis pilularis ssp. consanguinea coyote brush native Asteraceae Carduus pycnocephalus Italian thistle non-native Asteraceae Centaurea melitensis tocalote non-native Asteraceae Centaurea solstitialis yellow star thistle non-native Asteraceae Centromadia sp. tarweed native Asteraceae Cirsium vulgare bull thistle non-native Asteraceae Dittrichia graveolens stinkwort non-native Asteraceae Helminthotheca echioides [Picris e.] bristly ox-tongue non-native B-2 Family Scientific Name Common Name Origin Asteraceae Hypochaeris radicata hairy catsear non-native Asteraceae Lactuca serriola prickly lettuce non-native Asteraceae Pseudognaphalium luteoalbum [Gnaphalium l.] Jersey cudweed non-native Asteraceae Silybum marianum milk thistle non-native Asteraceae Sonchus asper ssp. asper prickly sow thistle non-native Asteraceae Sonchus oleraceus common sow thistle non-native Boraginaceae Amsinckia retrorsa rigid fiddleneck native Brassicaceae Brassica nigra black mustard non-native Brassicaceae Hirschfeldia incana short podded mustard non-native Brassicaceae Nasturtium officinale [Rorippa nasturtium-aquaticum] watercress native Caryophyllaceae Herniaria hirsuta var. cinerea hairy rupturewort non-native Cyperaceae Cyperus eragrostis tall flatsedge native Cyperaceae Schoenoplectus californicus California bulrush native Fabaceae Acmispon sp. lotus native Fabaceae Lupinus albifrons var. collinus silver lupine native Fabaceae Lupinus succulentus hollowleaf annual lupine native B-3 Family Scientific Name Common Name Origin Fabaceae Medicago polymorpha bur medic non-native Fabaceae Vicia villosa ssp. villosa winter vetch non-native Fagaceae Quercus agrifolia var. agrifolia coast live oak native Fagaceae Quercus lobata valley oak native Geraniaceae Erodium botrys longbeak stork's bill non-native Geraniaceae Geranium dissectum cutleaf geranium non-naitve Lauraceae Umbellularia californica California bay native Malvaceae Malva nicaeensis bull mallow non-native Myrsinaceae Lysimachia arvensis [Anagallis a.] scarlet pimpernel non-native Oleaceae Olea europaea olive non-native Orobanchaceae (Scrophulariaceae) Bellardia trixago Mediterranean lineseed non-native Papaveraceae Eschscholzia californica California poppy native Plantaginaceae Plantago lanceolata English plantain non-native Plantaginaceae Plantago major common plantain non-native Poaceae Avena barbata slender oat non-native Poaceae Cortaderia jubata Pampas grass non-native Poaceae Festuca arundinacea tall fescue non-native Poaceae Festuca perennis [Lolium multiflorum; L. perenne] Italian rye grass non-native B-4 Family Scientific Name Common Name Origin Poaceae Hordeum marinum ssp. gussoneanum Mediterranean barley non-native Poaceae Hordeum murinum ssp. leporinum mouse barley non-native Poaceae Polypogon monspeliensis rabbit's-foot grass non-native Poaceae Stipa pulchra purple needlegrass native Polygonaceae Rumex crispus curly dock non-native Polygonaceae Rumex pulcher fiddle dock non-native Rosaceae Prunus cerasifera cherry plum non-native Rosaceae Rubus armeniacus Himalayan blackberry non-native Rosaceae Rubus ursinus California blackberry native Salicaceae Salix laevigata red willow native Salicaceae Salix lasiolepis arroyo willow native Sapindaceae (Hippocastanaceae) Aesculus californica California buckeye native Animals Scientific Name Common Name Cathartes aura turkey vulture Corvus corax common raven Meleagris gallopavo wild turkey Melospiza melodia song sparrow B-5 Odocoileus hemonius black-tailed deer Sciurius niger fox squirrel Zenaida macroura mourning dove APPENDIX B POTENTIAL FOR SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES TO OCCUR IN THE STUDY AREA B-1 Appendix B. Potential for special-status plant and wildlife species to occur in the Study Area. List compiled from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Conservation and Planning Database, a search of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife Natural Diversity Database (CDFW 2015) and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants for the Dublin, Diablo, Livermore, Las Trampas Ridge, and Hayward USGS 7.5' quadrangles (CNPS 2015), a review of historical and current satellite imagery via Google Earth (2015) and a review of the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS 2010), and other CDFW lists and publications (Jennings and Hayes 1994, Zeiner et al. 1990, and Jameson and Peters 2004). SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS Mammals San Joaquin kit fox Vulpes macrotis mutica FE, ST, RP, EACCS Annual grasslands or grassy open stages with scattered shrubby vegetation. Need loose-textured sandy soils for burrowing, and suitable prey base. Unlikely. The Study Area contains and is adjacent to potentially suitable grassland habitat, and relatively recent (i.e., 1990s) CNDDB occurrences are present within ten miles of the Study Area to the northeast . However, a study in the general vicinity of the Study Area found this species to be absent west of the Altamont Hills (Sproul and Flett 1993). No further actions are recommended for this species. B-2 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS American badger Taxidea taxus SSC, EACCS Most abundant in drier open stages of most shrub, forest, and herbaceous habitats, with friable soils. Requires friable soils and open, uncultivated ground. Preys on burrowing rodents. Unlikely. Suitable grassland habitat for this species is located in portions of the Study Area. However, no signs of badger or California ground squirrels (a primary prey source) were observed during the May 2015 site visit. Additionally, the Study Area is surrounded on three sides by suburban development, rendering the site unlikely to be colonized, and the nearest documented occurrence is 4.7 miles northeast of the Study Area across the City of Dublin (CDFW 2015). No further actions are recommended for this species. Ringtail (ring-tailed cat) Bassariscus astutus CFP Is widely distributed throughout most of California, but absent from some portions of the Central Valley and northeastern California. The species is nocturnal, primarily carnivorous and is associated with a mixture of dry forest and shrubland in close association with rocky areas and riparian habitat, using hollow trees and cavities for shelter. Usually not found more than 1 km (0.6 mi) from permanent water. Unlikely. The riparian areas within the Study Area are scattered and not connected with larger contiguous riparian habitats favored by this species. No further actions are recommended for this species. B-3 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat Neotoma fuscipes annectens SSC Found in both chaparral and forest habitats with a moderate canopy and moderate to dense understory. Constructs nests of shredded grass, leaves, and other material. May be limited by availability of nest-building materials. Unlikely. Riparian habitats within the Study Area are fragmented and do not contain large areas of canopy cover. No woodrat nests were observed during the May 2015 site visit. No further actions are recommended for this species. Berkeley kangaroo rat Dipodomys heermanni berkeleyenis SSC Open grassy hilltops and open spaces in chaparral and blue oak/digger pine woodland. Needs fine, deep, well-drained soil for burrowing. No Potential. Presumed extinct. No further actions are recommended for this species. pallid bat Antrozous pallidus SSC, WBWG: High Occupies a variety of habitats at low elevation including grassland, shrubland, woodland, and forest. Most common in open, dry habitats and commonly roosts in fissures in cliffs, abandoned buildings, and under bridges Unlikely. Most trees in the Study Area are too small to be considered potential roosts, and all of the largest trees are located in the southern riparian areas and will not be affected by the Project. This species may forage over the Study Area. No further actions are recommended for this species. hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus WBWG: Medium Prefers open habitats or habitat mosaics, with access to trees for cover and open areas or habitat edges for feeding. Roosts in dense foliage of medium to large trees. Feeds primarily on moths. Requires water. Unlikely. Most trees in the Study Area are too small to be considered potential roosts, and all of the largest trees are located in the southern riparian areas and will not be affected by the Project. This species may forage over the Study Area. No further actions are recommended for this species. B-4 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii SC, SSC, WBWG: High Primarily found in rural settings in a wide variety of habitats including oak woodland and mixed coniferous- deciduous forest. Day roosts highly associated with caves and mines. Building roost sites must be cave like. Very sensitive to human disturbance. Unlikely. Typical undisturbed cavernous roost sites are not present in the Study Area; however, the species may forage over the Study Area. No further actions are recommended for this species. western mastiff bat Eumops perotis californicus SSC, WBWG: High Found in a wide variety of open, arid and semi-arid habitats. Distribution appears to be tied to large rock structures which provide suitable roosting sites, including cliff crevices and cracks in boulders. Unlikely. Typical rocky roost sites are not present in the Study Area; however, this species may forage over the Study Area. No further actions are recommended for this species. Birds golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos CFP, EPA, BCC, EACCS Resident in rolling foothills, mountain areas, sage-juniper flats, and desert. Cliff-walled canyons provide nesting habitat in most parts of range; also nests in large trees in open areas. Unlikely. The Study Area and surrounding areas do not contain rocky areas or large trees that comprise suitable nesting habitat. Additionally, the Study Area is over 5 miles from the nearest documented nesting occurrence (CDFW 2015). However, the Study Area provides foraging habitat, therefore individuals may occasionally fly over the Study Area. No further actions are recommended for this species. B-5 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis BCC Winter visitor. Frequents open habitats including grasslands, sagebrush flats, desert scrub, low foothills surrounding valleys and fringes of pinyon-juniper habitats. Preys on rodents and other vertebrates. Unlikely. The Study Area provides suitable foraging habitat for wintering birds; however this species does not breed in the region. No further actions are recommended for this species. Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsonii ST, BCC Summer resident in the region. Forages in grasslands and nests in the immediate vicinity, often in relatively isolated, trees or tree groves. Most of the California population breeds in the Central Valley. Forages on insects and rodents, also other vertebrates. Unlikely. The trees within the Study Area are generally too small to support nesting by this species. The Study Area is also west of this species’ typical range. No further actions are recommended for this species. northern harrier Circus cyaneus SSC Nests and forages in grassland habitats, usually in association with coastal salt and freshwater marshes. Nests on ground in shrubby vegetation, usually at marsh edge; nest built of a large mound of sticks in wet areas. May also occur in alkali desert sinks. Unlikely. The Study Area does not contain typical flat wetland habitats associated with nesting in the species. However, the Study Area provides foraging habitat, therefore individuals may occasionally fly over the Study Area. No further actions are recommended for this species. white-tailed kite Elanus leucurus CFP Year-round resident in coastal and valley lowlands with scattered trees and large shrubs, including grasslands, marshes and agricultural areas. Nests in trees, of which the type and setting are highly variable. Preys on small mammals and other vertebrates. Moderate Potential. The Study Area provides open foraging habitat, and the shrubs and riparian vegetation may support nesting. Work windows and/or pre-construction surveys. B-6 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS prairie falcon Falco mexicanus BCC Inhabits dry, open terrain, either level or hilly. Breeding sites located on cliffs. Forages far afield, even to marshlands and ocean shores. Unlikely. The Study Area and surrounding areas do not provide typical cliff nesting habitat. This species may forage within the vicinity of the Study Area. No further actions are recommended for this species. burrowing owl Athene cunicularia BCC, SSC, EACCS Inhabits, dry annual or perennial grassland, desert and scrubland characterized by low-growing vegetation. Subterranean nester, dependent upon burrowing mammals, most notably California ground squirrel. Unlikely. While the Study Area contains some flat mowed grassland suitable for burrowing owl, no suitably-sized burrows or ground squirrels were observed within the Study Area during the May 2015 site visit, effectively precluding presence. The majority of the grassland on the site is not short and is sloped, reducing its quality. Additionally, all documented burrowing owl occurrences in the vicinity of the Study Area are in the eastern portion of the City of Dublin in lowland areas; none are in the East Bay Hills where the Study Area is located, suggesting this species does not inhabit the region (CDFW 2015, Ebird 2015). No further actions are recommended for this species. B-7 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus BCC, SSC Found in broken woodlands, savannah, pinyon-juniper, Joshua tree and riparian woodlands, and desert oases, scrub, and washes. Prefers open country for hunting, with perches for scanning, and fairly dense shrubs and brush for nesting. Moderate Potential. Grassland foraging habitat is available within the Study Area and the Study Area contains some marginal shrub nesting habitat. Work windows and/or pre-construction surveys. tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor BCC, SSC, RP, EACCS Usually nests over or near freshwater in dense cattails, tules, or thickets of willow, blackberry, wild rose or other tall herbs. Nesting area must be large enough to support about 50 pairs. Unlikely. The Study Area provides no wetland nesting habitat for this species. This species may occur with other blackbird species in mixed flocks during the non-breeding season and may use the Study Area for foraging. No further actions are recommended for this species. grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum SSC Summer resident in the region. Breeds in open grassland habitats, generally with low- to moderate- height grasses and scattered shrubs. Moderate Potential. Suitable grassland habitat for breeding and foraging is located in the unmowed portions of the Study Area. Work windows and/or pre-construction surveys. yellow warbler Setophaga (Dendroica) petechia brewsteri BCC, SSC Frequents riparian plant associations. Prefers willows, cottonwoods, aspens, sycamores and alders for nesting and foraging. Also nests in montane shrubbery in open conifer forests. Unlikely. This species may fly through the Study Area, but there are no dense riparian areas to support nesting. No further actions are recommended for this species. B-8 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS yellow-billed magpie Pica nuttalli BCC Oak savanna with large trees and large expanses of open ground. The Central Valley floor, gentle slopes, and open park-like areas including along stream courses. Grasslands, pasture, or cultivated fields are needed for foraging. Unlikely. The Study Area does not contain the flat, grassland or savannah habitats typically associated with this species. No further actions are recommended for this species. oak titmouse Baeolophus inornatus BCC Oak woodland and savannah, open broad-leaved evergreen forests containing oaks, and riparian woodlands. Associated with oak and pine-oak woodland and arborescent chaparral. Moderate Potential. The oak trees at the southern portion of the Study Area provide foraging and nesting habitat for this species. Work windows and/or pre-construction surveys. Nuttall’s woodpecker Picoides nuttallii BCC Resident in lowland woodlands throughout much of California west of the Sierra Nevada. Typical habitat is dominated by oaks. Moderate Potential. The oak trees at the southern portion of the Study Area provide foraging and nesting habitat for this species. Work windows and/or pre-construction surveys. Lawrence's goldfinch Spinus (= Carduelis) lawrencei BCC Nests in open oak or other arid woodland and chaparral, near water. Nearby herbaceous habitats used for feeding. Closely associated with oaks. Unlikely. This species may fly through and occasionally forage in the Study Area, the Study Area does not contain extensive woodland or chaparral habitat to support nesting No further actions are recommended for this species. B-9 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS Reptiles and Amphibians California red-legged frog Rana draytonii FT, SSC, RP, EACCS Lowlands and foothills in or near permanent sources of deep water with dense, shrubby or emergent riparian vegetation. Requires 11 to 20 weeks of permanent water for larval development. Must have access to estivation habitat. Moderate Potential. The Study Area does not contain breeding habitat for this species, and the nearest breeding habitat is a stock pond 0.6 mile west of the Study Area. This species may use the wet within the Study Area as non-breeding habitat and may also be found in sheltered areas up to 200 feet from these wet areas (USFWS 2010). Avoidance and minimization measures and/or consultation with the USFWS. foothill yellow-legged frog Rana boylii SSC, EACCS Found in or near rocky streams in a variety of habitats. Feeds on both aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates. Unlikely. There is no suitable permanent stream habitat for this species in or adjacent to the Study Area. No further actions are recommended for this species. B-10 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS California tiger salamander Ambystoma californiense FE/FT, ST, RP, EACCS Populations in Santa Barbara and Sonoma Counties are currently listed as endangered, and the Central Valley populations are listed as threatened. Inhabits grassland, oak woodland, ruderal and seasonal pool habitats. Seasonal ponds and vernal pools are crucial to breeding. Adults utilize mammal burrows as estivation habitat. Unlikely. The Study Area does not contain suitable ponding aquatic features for breeding in this species, and the nearest potential breeding habitat is over 0.6 mile west of the Study Area. The Study Area does not lie within a corridor connecting breeding pools. This species is rare in the hills west of Dublin and the nearest docum ented occurrence is 2.5 miles south of the Study Area and across Interstate 580, a significant barrier to dispersal (Barry and Shaffer 1994, CDFW 2015). No further actions are recommended for this species. Pacific pond turtle Actinemys marmorata SSC Occurs in perennial ponds, lakes, rivers and streams with suitable basking habitat (mud banks, mats of floating vegetation, partially submerged logs) and submerged shelter. Unlikely. The Study Area does not contain aquatic habitat to support this species, and the nearest documented occurrence is 4.6 miles northeast of the Study Area, across the City of Dublin (CDFW 2015). No further actions are recommended for this species. B-11 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS Alameda whipsnake Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus FT, ST, RP EACCS Inhabits chaparral and foothill- hardwood habitats in the eastern Bay Area. Prefers south-facing slopes and ravines with rock outcroppings where shrubs form a vegetative mosaic with oak trees and grasses. Unlikely. No chaparral or foothill- hardwood habitat exists within or immediately around the Study Area, and the Study Area does not serve as a corridor to existing suitable habitat because it is surrounded on three sides by suburban development, creating an effective barrier to dispersal for this species. No further actions are recommended for this species. Blainville’s (coast) horned lizard Phrynosoma blainvillii (coronatum) SSC Frequents a wide variety of habitats, most common in lowlands along sandy washes with scattered low bushes. Prefers friable, rocky, or shallow sandy soils for burial; open areas for sunning; bushes for cover; and an abundant supply of ants and other insects. No Potential. The Study Area and vicinity do not contain any scrub-type habitats to support this species, and the Study Area is outside of this’ species current range (Zeiner et al. 1990). No further actions are recommended for this species. Invertebrates Valley elderberry longhorn beetle Desmocerus californicus dimorphus FT, SSI, RP Occurs only in the central valley of California, in association with blue elderberry (Sambucus nigra ssp. caerulea). Prefers to lay eggs in elderberry 2 to 8 inches in diameter; some preference shown for "stressed" elderberry. No Potential. While the Study Area does contain some elderberry bushes, all were recently planted, small, and in poor health. Additionally, the Study Area is outside of this species’ known range. No further actions are recommended for this species. B-12 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS vernal pool fairy shrimp Branchinecta lynchi FT, SSI, RP, EACCS Endemic to the grasslands of the Central Valley, central coast mountains, and south coast mountains, in astatic rain-filled pools. Inhabits small, clear-water sandstone-depression pools and grassed swale, earth slump, or basalt-flow depression pools. No Potential. The Study Area does not contain vernal pool habitat and the nearest documented occurrence is over 10 miles east of the Study Area (CDFW 2015). No further actions are recommended for this species. California linderiella Linderiella occidentalis SSI Seasonal pools in unplowed grasslands with old alluvial soils underlain by hardpan or in sandstone depressions. Water in the pools has very low alkalinity, conductivity, and TDS No Potential. The Study Area does not contain vernal pool habitat and the nearest documented occurrence of this species is 4.3 miles to the east across the City of Dublin (CDFW 2015). No further actions are recommended for this species. San Bruno elfin butterfly Callophrys mossii bayensis FE, SSI Inhabits coastal mountainous areas with grassy ground cover, mainly in the vicinity of San Bruno Mountain, San Mateo County. Colonies are located on steep, north-facing slopes within the fog belt. Larval host plant is Sedum spathulifolium. No Potential. The Study Area does not provide suitable habitat or host plants and is outside of the species’ normal range. No further actions are recommended for this species. Antioch efferian robberfly Efferia antiochi SSI Known only from Contra Costa County (Antioch) and Fresno County (Fresno). No Potential. The Study Area does not provide suitable habitat and is outside of the species’ known range No further actions are recommended for this species. Plants B-13 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS bent-flowered fiddleneck Amsinckia lunaris Rank 1B.2 Coastal bluff scrub, cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland. Elevation ranges from 10 to 1640 feet (3 to 500 meters). Blooms March-June. Unlikely. The Study Area does not contain coastal bluff scrub, gravelly slopes or serpentine substrate. The existing grassland habitat is heavily disturbed and of low quality. Potentially suitable cismontane woodland is small and fragmented. No further actions are recommended for this species. California androsace Androsace elongata ssp. acuta Rank 4.2 Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, meadows and seeps, pinyon and juniper woodland, valley and foothill grassland. Elevation ranges from 490 to 3940 feet (150 to 1200 meters). Blooms March-June. Unlikely. The Study Area does not contain chaparral, seeps, pinyon or juniper woodland. Potentially suitable coastal scrub habitat is small and fragmented, occurs in heavily disturbed areas, and is dominated by coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis ssp. consanguinea). The existing grassland habitat is heavily disturbed and of low quality. Potentially suitable cismontane woodland habitat is small and fragmented. No further actions are recommended for this species. slender silver moss Anomobryum julaceum Rank 4.2 Broadleafed upland forest, lower montane coniferous forest, north coast coniferous forest/damp rock and soil on outcrops, usually on roadcuts. Elevation ranges from 330 to 3280 feet (100 to 1000 meters). Unlikely. The Study Area does not contain coniferous forest, damp rock outcrops, or roadcuts. Potentially suitable broadleaved upland forest habitat is small and fragmented. No further action recommended for this species. B-14 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS Mount Diablo manzanita Arctostaphylos auriculata FE, SE, Rank 1B.3 Chaparral (sandstone), cismontane woodland. Elevation ranges from 440 to 2130 feet (135 to 650 meters). Blooms January-March. No Potential. No chaparral habitat or sandstone substrate exists within the Study Area. Potentially suitable cismontane woodland habitat is small and fragmented. In addition, this large perennial shrub was not observed during the site visit. No further action recommended for this species. Contra Costa manzanita Arctostaphylos manzanita ssp. laevigata Rank 1B.2 Chaparral (rocky). Elevation ranges from 1410 to 3610 feet (430 to 1100 meters). Blooms January-March (April). No Potential. The Study Area does not contain chaparral or rocky substrate, and it is out of the known elevation range of this species. The Study Area is well below the documented elevation range of the species. In addition, this large perennial shrub was not observed during the site visit. No further action recommended for this species. alkali milk-vetch Astragalus tener var. tener Rank 1B.2 Playas, valley and foothill grassland (adobe clay), vernal pools/alkaline. Elevation ranges from 0 to 200 feet (1 to 60 meters). Blooms March- June. Unlikely. The Study Area does not contain playa or vernal pool habitat. Undeveloped areas are generally on slopes. The existing grassland habitat is heavily disturbed and of low quality. No further action recommended for this species. B-15 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS crownscale Atriplex coronata var. coronata Rank 4.2 Chenopod scrub, valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools/alkaline, often clay. Elevation ranges from 0 to 1940 feet (1 to 590 meters). Blooms March-October. No Potential. The Study Area does not contain chenopod scrub, or vernal pool habitat. The existing grassland habitat is heavily disturbed and of low quality. No further action recommended for this species. brittlescale Atriplex depressa Rank 1B.2 Chenopod scrub, meadows and seeps, playas, valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools/alkaline, clay. Elevation ranges from 0 to 1050 feet (1 to 320 meters). Blooms April-October. No Potential. The Study Area does not contain chenopod scrub, meadow, seep, playa or vernal pool habitat. The existing grassland habitat is heavily disturbed and of low quality. No further action recommended for this species. lesser saltscale Atriplex minuscula Rank 1B.1 Chenopod scrub, playas, valley and foothill grassland/alkaline, sandy. Elevation ranges from 50 to 660 feet (15 to 200 meters). Blooms May- October. No Potential. The Study Area does not contain chenopod scrub, meadow, seep, playa, or alkali sink habitat. The existing grassland habitat is heavily disturbed and of low quality. No further action recommended for this species. B-16 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS big-scale balsamroot Balsamorhiza macrolepis Rank 1B.2 Chaparral, cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland/sometimes serpentine. Elevation ranges from 300 to 5100 feet (90 to 1555 meters). Blooms March-June. Unlikely. The Study Area does not contain chaparral habitat. Potentially suitable grassland habitat in the Study Area is heavily disturbed and of low quality. Potentially suitable cismontane woodland habitat is small and fragmented. Additionally the species was not observed during the site visit which was conducted during the species’ blooming period. No further action recommended for this species. Mt. Diablo fairy-lantern Calochortus pulchellus Rank 1B.2 Chaparral, cismontane woodland, riparian woodland, valley and foothill grassland. Elevation ranges from 100 to 2760 feet (30 to 840 meters). Blooms April-June. Unlikely. The Study Area does not contain chaparral habitat. The existing grassland habitat is heavily disturbed and of low quality. Potentially suitable riparian woodland and cismontane woodland is small and fragmented. This species was not observed during the site visit which was conducted during the species’ blooming period. No further action recommended for this species. B-17 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS Oakland star-tulip Calochortus umbellatus Rank 4.2 Broadleafed upland forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland, lower montane coniferous forest, valley and foothill grassland/often serpentine. Elevation ranges from 330 to 2300 feet (100 to 700 meters). Blooms March-May. Unlikely. The Study Area does not contain chaparral, coniferous forest, or serpentine substrate. Potentially suitable woodland habitat is small and fragmented. This species was not observed during the site visit. No further action recommended for this species. chaparral harebell Campanula exigua Rank 1B.2 Chaparral (rocky, usually serpentine). Elevation ranges from 900 to 4100 feet (275 to 1250 meters). Blooms May-June. No Potential. The Study Area does not contain chaparral habitat or serpentine soil. No further action recommended for this species. Congdon’s tarplant Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii Rank 1B.1, EACCS Valley and foothill grassland (alkaline). Elevation ranges from 0 to 750 feet (0 to 230 meters). Blooms May-October (November). Moderate Potential. A Centromadia species was observed but was unidentifiable at the time of the site visit. The closest occurrence of the species is approximately 2.6 miles from the Study Area. Rare plant surveys during the species’ blooming period are recommended. palmate-bracted bird's-beak Chloropyron palmatum FE, SE, Rank 1B.1 Chenopod scrub, alkaline flats, valley and foothill grassland/alkaline. Elevation ranges from 20 to 510 feet (5 to 155 meters). Blooms May- October. Unlikely. The Study Area does not contain chenopod scrub or alkaline flats. The existing grassland habitat is highly disturbed and of poor quality. No further action recommended for this species. B-18 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS Santa Clara red ribbons Clarkia concinna ssp. automixa Rank 4.3, County list Chaparral, cismontane woodland. Elevation ranges from 300 to 4920 feet (90 to 1500 meters). Blooms (April), May-June (July). Unlikely. The Study Area does not contain suitable evergreen forest habitat. Potentially suitable oak woodland habitat is small and fragmented. The species was not observed during the site visit. No further action recommended for this species. Hospital Canyon larkspur Delphinium californicum ssp. interius Rank 1B.2 Chaparral (openings), cismontane woodland (mesic), coastal scrub. Elevation ranges from 640 to 3590 feet (195 to 1095 meters). Blooms April-June. Unlikely. The Study Area does not contain chaparral or coastal scrub habitat. Potentially suitable cismontane woodland is small and fragmented. The species was not observed during the site visit. No further action recommended for this species. Mt. Diablo buckwheat Eriogonum truncatum Rank 1B.1 Chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland/sandy. Elevation ranges from 10 to 1150 feet (3 to 350 meters). Blooms April- September (November), (December). Unlikely. The Study Area does not contain chaparral habitat or sandy soils. Potentially suitable coastal scrub habitat occurs in heavily disturbed areas, and is dominated by coyote brush. The existing grassland in the Study Area is heavily disturbed and of low quality. No further action recommended for this species. B-19 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS San Joaquin spearscale Extriplex joaquiniana [Atriplex j.] Rank 1B.2, EACCS Valley and foothill grassland (alkaline, clay). Elevation ranges from 0 to 3200 feet (0 to 975 meters). Blooms March-April. Unlikely. Potentially suitable grassland in the Study Area is heavily disturbed and of low quality, and lacks sufficiently alkaline substrate. Study Area soils are neutral to mildly alkaline (USDA 2015). The species was not observed during the site visit. No further action recommended for this species. fragrant fritillary Fritillaria liliacea Rank 1B.2 Cismontane woodland, coastal prairie, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland/often serpentine. Elevation ranges from 10 to 1350 feet (3 to 410 meters). Blooms February-April. Unlikely. The Study Area lacks coastal prairie habitat, or serpentine substrate. Potentially suitable coastal scrub habitat is small and fragmented, occurs in heavily disturbed areas, and is dominated by coyote brush. Potentially suitable cismontane woodland is small and fragmented. Potentially suitable grassland is heavily disturbed and of low quality No further action recommended for this species. B-20 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS Diablo helianthella Helianthella castanea Rank 1B.2 Broadleafed upland forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, riparian woodland, valley and foothill grassland. Elevation ranges from 200 to 4270 feet (60 to 1300 meters). Blooms March-June. Unlikely. The Study Area does not chaparral habitat. Potentially suitable coastal scrub habitat is small and fragmented, occurs in heavily disturbed areas, and is dominated by coyote brush. Potentially suitable woodland habitat is small and fragmented. The existing grassland habitat is heavily disturbed and of low quality. This species was not observed during the site visit. No further action recommended for this species. Brewer’s western flax Hesperolinon breweri Rank 1B.2 Chaparral, cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland/usually serpentine. Elevation ranges from 100 to 3100 feet (30 to 945 meters). Blooms May-July. Unlikely. The Study Area does not contain chaparral or serpentine substrate. Potentially suitable cismontane woodland habitat is small and fragmented. The existing grassland habitat is heavily disturbed and of low quality. No further action recommended for this species. Loma Prieta hoita Hoita strobilina Rank 1B.1 Chaparral, cismontane woodland, riparian woodland/usually serpentine, mesic. Elevation ranges from 100 to 2820 feet (30 to 860 meters). Blooms May-July (August), (October). Unlikely. The Study Area does not contain chaparral or serpentine substrate. Potentially suitable woodland habitat is small and fragmented. The existing grassland habitat is heavily disturbed and of low quality. No further action recommended for this species. B-21 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS Santa Cruz tarplant Holocarpha macradenia FT, SE, Rank 1B.1 Coastal prairie, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland/often clay, sandy. Elevation ranges from 30 to 720 feet (10 to 220 meters). Blooms June-October. No Potential. The Study Area does not contain coastal prairie, or sandy soils. Potentially suitable coastal scrub habitat is small and fragmented, occurs in heavily disturbed areas, and is dominated by coyote brush. Potentially suitable grassland habitat is heavily disturbed and of low quality. All known Contra Costa County occurences are introduced; nearly half have failed (CDFW 2015). No further action recommended for this species. coast iris Iris longipetala Rank 4.2 Coastal prairie, lower montane coniferous forest, meadows and seeps/mesic. Elevation ranges from 0 to 1970 feet (0 to 600 meters). Blooms March-May. No Potential. The Study Area does not contain coastal prairie, coniferous forest, meadows or seeps. No further action recommended for this species. Northern California black walnut Juglans hindsii Rank 1B.1 Riparian forest, riparian woodland. Elevation ranges from 0 to 1440 feet (0 to 440 meters). Blooms April- May. Not Present. The species was not observed during the site visit. Only one confirmed, native occurrence appears viable as of 2003 (CDFW 2015). No further action recommended for this species. B-22 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS bristly Leptosiphon Leptosiphon acicularis Rank 4.2 Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal prairie, valley and foothill grassland. Elevation ranges from 180 to 4920 feet (55 to 1500 meters). Blooms April-July. Unlikely. The Study Area does not contain chaparral or coastal prairie. Potentially suitable woodland habitat is small and fragmented. The existing grassland habitat is heavily disturbed and of low quality. This species was not observed during the site visit. No further action recommended for this species. Hall's bush-mallow Malacothamnus hallii Rank 1B.2 Chaparral, coastal scrub. Elevation ranges from 30 to 2490 feet (10 to 760 meters). Blooms May- September (October). Unlikely. The Study Area does not contain chaparral habitat. Potentially suitable coastal scrub habitat is small and fragmented, occurs in heavily disturbed areas, and is dominated by coyote brush. The perennial shrub species was not observed during the site visit. No further action recommended for this species. woodland woolythreads Monolopia gracilens Rank 1B.2 Broadleafed upland forest (openings), chaparral (openings), cismontane woodland, north coast coniferous forest (openings), valley and foothill grassland/serpentine. Elevation ranges from 330 to 3940 feet (100 to 1200 meters). Blooms (February), March-July. Unlikely. The Study Area does not contain chaparral, coniferous forest or serpentine substrate. Potentially suitable woodland habitat is small and fragmented. The existing grassland habitat is heavily disturbed and of low quality. This species was not observed during the site visit. No further action recommended for this species. B-23 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS shining navarretia Navarretia nigelliformis ssp. radians Rank 1B.2 Cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools/sometimes clay. Elevation ranges from 250 to 3280 feet (76 to 1000 meters). Blooms April-July. Unlikely. The Study Area does not contain vernal pool habitat. The existing grassland is heavily disturbed and of low quality. Potentially suitable coastal scrub habitat is small and fragmented, occurs in heavily disturbed areas, and is dominated by coyote brush. Potentially suitable woodland habitat is small and fragmented. No further action recommended for this species. prostrate vernal pool navarretia Navarretia prostrata Rank 1B.1 Coastal scrub, meadows and seeps, valley and foothill grassland (alkaline), vernal pools/mesic. Elevation ranges from 10 to 3970 feet (3 to 1210 meters). Blooms April-July. No Potential. The Study Area does not contain, meadows, seeps or vernal pools, and lacks sufficiently alkaline substrate. The existing grassland habitat in the Study Area is heavily disturbed and of low quality. Potentially suitable coastal scrub habitat is small and fragmented, occurs in heavily disturbed areas, and is dominated by coyote brush. No further action recommended for this species. B-24 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS Mt. Diablo Phacelia Phacelia phacelioides Rank 1B.2 Chaparral, cismontane woodland/rocky. Elevation ranges from 1640 to 4490 feet (500 to 1370 meters). Blooms April-May. Unlikely. The Study Area does not contain chaparral habitat. Potentially suitable woodland habitat is small and fragmented. The Study Area is well below the documented elevation range for the species. hairless popcorn flower Plagiobothrys glaber Rank 1A Meadows and seeps (alkaline), marshes and swamps (coastal salt). Elevation ranges from 50 to 590 feet (15 to 180 meters). Blooms March- May. No Potential. The Study Area does not contain alkaline meadows, seeps, or coastal salt marshes and swamps. Repeated site disturbance renders occurrences of this species unlikely. This species is presumed extinct and has not been found since 1954 (CDFW 2015). No further action recommended for this species. Oregon polemonium Polemonium carneum Rank 2B.2 Coastal prairie, coastal scrub, lower montane coniferous forest. Elevation ranges from 0 to 6000 feet (0 to 1830 meters). Blooms April- September. Unlikely. The Study Area does not contain coastal prairie or coniferous forest. Potentially suitable coastal scrub habitat is small and fragmented, occurs in heavily disturbed areas, and is dominated by coyote brush. B-25 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS Lobb's aquatic buttercup Ranunculus lobbii Rank 4.2 Cismontane woodland, north coast coniferous forest, valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools/mesic. Elevation ranges from 50 to 1540 feet (15 to 470 meters). Blooms February-May. Unlikely. The Study Area does not contain coniferous forest or vernal pool habitat. Potentially suitable mesic woodland habitat is small and fragmented. The existing grassland habitat is xeric, heavily disturbed and of low quality. most beautiful jewel-flower Streptanthus albidus ssp. peramoenus Rank 1B.2 Chaparral, cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland/serpentine. Elevation ranges from 310 to 3280 feet (95 to 1000 meters). Blooms (March), April-September (October). No Potential. The Study Area does not contain serpentine substrate. Mt. Diablo jewelflower Streptanthus hispidus Rank 1B.3 Chaparral, valley and foothill grassland/rocky. Elevation ranges from 1200 to 3940 feet (365 to 1200 meters). Blooms March-June. Unlikely. The Study Area does not contain chaparral, or rocky soils. The grassland in the Study Area is heavily disturbed and of low quality. No further action recommended for this species. slender leaved pondweed Stuckenia filiformis ssp. alpina [Potamogeton f.] Rank 2B.2 Marshes and swamps (assorted shallow freshwater). Elevation ranges from 980 to 7050 feet (300 to 2150 meters). Blooms May-July. No Potential. The Study Area does not contain freshwater marshes or swamps. No further action recommended for this species. saline clover Trifolium hydrophilum [T. depauperatum var. hydrophilum] Rank 1B.2 Marshes and swamps, valley and foothill grassland (mesic, alkaline), vernal pools. Elevation ranges from 0 to 980 feet (0 to 300 meters). Blooms April-June. No Potential. The Study Area does not contain vernal pools, marshes, swamps or sufficiently alkaline substrate. Existing grassland habitat is xeric, heavily disturbed and of low quality. No further action recommended for this species. B-26 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE RECOMMENDATIONS coastal triquetrella Triquetrella californica Rank 1B.2 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal scrub on gravel or thin soil over outcrops. Elevation ranges from 30 to 330 feet (10 to 100 meters). Unlikely The Study Area does not contain coastal bluff scrub or gravelly soil. Potentially suitable coastal scrub occurs in heavily disturbed areas. No further action recommended for this species. caperfruit tropidocarpum Tropidocarpum capparideum Rank 1B.1 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal scrub/soil. Elevation ranges from 30 to 330 feet (10 to 100 meters). Unlikely. The existing grassland is heavily disturbed and of low quality, and lacks sufficiently alkaline soil. The closest documented occurrences are in the hills east of Livermore, and none are more recent than the 1930s. No further action recommended for this species. oval-leaved viburnum Viburnum ellipticum Rank 2B.3 Chaparral, cismontane woodland, lower montane coniferous forest. Elevation ranges from 710 to 4590 feet (215 to 1400 meters). Blooms May-June. Unlikely. The Study Area does not contain chaparral or coniferous forest. Potentially suitable woodland habitat is small and fragmented. No further action recommended for this species. * Key to status codes: FE Federal Endangered FT Federal Threatened BCC USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern SE State Endangered ST State Threatened SC State Candidate SSC CDFW Species of Special Concern SSI CDFW Special-Status Invertebrate B-27 CFP CDFW Fully Protected Animal WBWG Western Bat Working Group (High or Medium) Priority species RP Species included in a USFWS Recovery Plan or Draft Recovery Plan Rank 1A CRPR Rank 1A: Presumed extirpated in California and either rare or extinct elsewhere Rank 1B CRPR Rank 1B: Plants rare, threatened or endangered in California and elsewhere Rank 2B CRPR Rank 2B: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere Rank 3 CRPR Rank 3: Plants about which CNPS needs more information (a review list) EACCS Final East Alameda County Conservation Strategy (2010) Proposed Focal Species Species Evaluations: See evaluation definitions in Section 3.2.2 of the report. MEMORANDUM To: Jerry Haag, Urban Planner From: Sean Avent, WRA, Inc. avent@wra-ca.com cc: Date: March 5, 2018 Subject: Dublin Valley Christian Center Biological Site Conditions Update Background The purpose of this memorandum is to present the results of a site survey at the Valley Christian Center, in Dublin, Alameda County, California (Study Area) to determine the current state of the Study Area as compared to a prior survey in 2015. On May 20, 2015, WRA, Inc. (WRA) conducted a biological resources assessment (BRA) at the Study Area in support of the proposed Multi-purpose Sports Field Site Development Project (Project). The site visit assessed the Study Area for the (1) potential to support special-status species and (2) presence of other sensitive biological resources protected by local, state, and federal laws and regulations. During the 2015 assessment, WRA observed five biological communities, 61 plant species and seven wildlife species. Three sensitive biological community types covering 1.86 acres in the Study Area were identified, including ephemeral stream, and riparian woodland. However, no special-status wildlife or plant species were observed within the Study Area. Six special-status wildlife species and one special-status plant species were determined to have a moderate potential to occur within the Study Area. Given that over two and a half years have passed since the preparation of the BRA report, the City of Dublin, as CEQA Lead Agency, requested an update to confirm if existing conditions observed during the 2015 assessment had changed significantly. This memorandum is in direct response to the City’s request. Methods On March 5, 2018, WRA biologist Scott Yarger, who had conducted the 2015 site assessment, returned to the site to assess whether existing conditions had changed significantly since the 2015 site visit. Prior to the site visit, publically available aerial imagery (Google Earth 2018) was reviewed to investigate whether any observable substantive changes to the Study Area had occurred. During the site visit, the Study Area was traversed on foot to observe and document any significant changes to biological communities or habitats on site, with a particular focus on undeveloped areas, and areas containing potentially sensitive habitats including wetlands, streams and riparian areas. The site was additionally investigated for the presence of special- status plant and wildlife species during the site visit. Results Overall site conditions have not changed significantly since the 2015 site visit. The distribution and extent of sensitive biological communities, including ephemeral stream, riparian woodland, and coast live oak woodland have neither expanded nor decreased. Additional areas within the original Study Area but outside of the Project footprint were investigated for potential wetland conditions, in particular within the manmade stormwater detention basins along Inspiration Drive to the south of the existing campus facilities. However, based on percent cover of hydrophytic vegetation, lack of hydrology, and/or hydric soil parameters none of these areas were determined to be potential wetlands. No sensitive habitats or special-status plant or wildlife species were observed within the Project footprint. One special-status plant, Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii, CNPS Rank 1B), was observed inside the Study Area, but outside of the Project footprint, and is discussed below: Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii). CNPS Rank 1B.1. East Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS) Focal Species. Present. Congdon’s tarplant is an annual forb in the sunflower family (Asteraceae) that blooms from June to November. It occurs in terraces, swales, floodplains, grassland, and disturbed sites, sometimes alkaline, at elevations ranging from 0-990 feet (Baldwin et al. 2012, CDFW 2018, CNPS 2018). Congdon’s tarplant is known from 31 USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles in Alameda, Contra Costa, Monterey, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo, and Solano counties (CNPS 2018). During the 2015 site visit two tarplant individuals (Centromadia sp.) were observed in the northeast portion of the Study Area, within the Project footprint, in a disturbed ruderal field used for heavy equipment storage. The tarplant individuals observed in this area during the site visit were unidentifiable due to the timing of the site visit and the absence of mature inflorescences. The area where the two previous Centromadia sp. individuals were observed in 2015 was checked again in 2018 and no individuals were found at that location. During the 2018 site visit, approximately five individuals of the genus were observed in a man-made stormwater detention basin south of Inspiration Drive, between Inspiration Drive and Dublin Boulevard, outside of the Project footprint. A portion of one of the senesced annual plants was collected for identification, and it was determined to be Congdon’s tarplant. This population is located outside of the Project footprint, and is not anticipated to be impacted by the Project. Literature Cited Baldwin, BG, DH Goldman, DJ Keil, R Patterson, TJ Rosatti, and DH Wilken (eds.). 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, second edition. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. [CDFW] California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2018. California Natural Diversity Database. Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch, Sacramento, CA. [CNPS] California Native Plant Society. 2018. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California. Online at: http://www.rareplants.cnps.org; most recently accessed: March. Google Earth. 2018. Aerial Imagery 1993-2015. Most recently accessed: May 2015. [WRA] WRA, Inc. 2015. Biological Resources Assessment, Dublin Valley Christian Center, Dublin, Alameda County, California. Prepared for Jerry Haag, Urban Planner. June 15. VALLEY CHRISTIAN CENTER SPORTS FIELDS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE ASSESSMENT Dublin, California June 4, 2018 Prepared for: Jerry Haag Urban Planner 2029 University Avenue Berkeley, CA 94704 Prepared by: Carrie J. Janello and Michael S. Thill 1 Willowbrook Court, Suite 120 Petaluma, CA 94954 (707) 794-0400 Project: 15-090 1 INTRODUCTION As part of the Valley Christian Center Sports Fields Improvement Project, the existing sports fields would be expanded and relocated on the campus in Dublin, California. Currently, the multipurpose sports field is used for baseball and football and is located on the southwestern corner of the campus. The new proposed multipurpose baseball field would be relocated to the northwestern corner of the campus. A new multipurpose recreation field, which would include football, soccer, and track and field, would be relocated to the northeastern corner of campus, adjacent to Inspiration Drive. The new multipurpose recreation field would have light standards for winter soccer games running past 5:00 p.m. A sound amplification system would also be installed at the sports fields. Additionally, an outdoor amphitheater used for theatrical performances is proposed on the interior of the site, located southwest of the new multipurpose recreation field. The area surrounding the project site includes single- and multi-family residential land uses. In 2002, a CEQA study was conducted for the Valley Christian Expansion Project, which proposed to expand existing buildings on the site, to construct 22 multi-family dwelling units on the northwest corner of Dublin Boulevard and Inspiration Drive, to construct a new parking area along the west side of Inspiration Drive, and to add one LED-readout changeable message sign on the south side of the school administration building. As part of the 2002 project, a noise assessment was conducted, and the results of that assessment were reviewed as part of the proposed project. This report evaluates the project’s potential to result in significant impacts with respect to applicable CEQA guidelines. The report is divided into three sections: 1) the Setting Section provides a brief description of the fundamentals of environmental noise and vibration, summarizes applicable regulatory criteria, and discusses the results of the ambient noise monitoring survey completed to document existing noise conditions; 2) the General Plan Consistency Section discusses noise and land use compatibility utilizing policies in the City’s General Plan; and 3) the Impacts and Mitigation Measures Section describes the significance criteria used to evaluate project impacts, provides a discussion of each project impact, and presents mitigation measures , where necessary, to provide a compatible project in relation to adjacent noise sources and land uses. SETTING Fundamentals of Environmental Noise Noise may be defined as unwanted sound. Noise is usually objectionable because it is disturbing or annoying. The objectionable nature of sound could be caused by its pitch or its loudness. Pitch is the height or depth of a tone or sound, depending on the relative rapidity (frequency) of the vibrations by which it is produced. Higher pitched signals sound louder to humans than sounds with a lower pitch. Loudness is intensity of sound waves combined with the reception characteristics of the ear. Intensity may be compared with the height of an ocean wave in that it is a measure of the amplitude of the sound wave. In addition to the concepts of pitch and loudness, there are several noise measurement scales which are used to describe noise in a particular location. A decibel (dB) is a unit of measurement which 2 indicates the relative amplitude of a sound. The zero on the decibel scale is based on the lowest sound level that the healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect. Sound levels in decibels are calculated on a logarithmic basis. An increase of 10 decibels represents a ten-fold increase in acoustic energy, while 20 decibels is 100 times more intense, 30 decibels is 1,000 times more intense, etc. There is a relationship between the subjective noisiness or loudness of a sound and its intensity. Each 10 decibel increase in sound level is perceived as approximately a doubling of loudness over a fairly wide range of intensities. Technical terms are defined in Table 1. There are several methods of characterizing sound. The most common in California is the A- weighted sound level (dBA). This scale gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which the human ear is most sensitive. Representative outdoor and indoor noise levels in units of dBA are shown in Table 2. Because sound levels can vary markedly over a short period of time, a method for describing either the average character of the sound or the statistical behavior of the variations must be utilized. Most commonly, environmental sounds are described in terms of an average level that has the same acoustical energy as the summation of all the time-varying events. This energy-equivalent sound/noise descriptor is called Leq. The most common averaging period is hourly, but Leq can describe any series of noise events of arbitrary duration. The scientific instrument used to measure noise is the sound level meter. Sound level meters can accurately measure environmental noise levels to within about plus or minus 1 dBA. Various computer models are used to predict environmental noise levels from sources, such as roadways and airports. The accuracy of the predicted models depends upon the distance the receptor is from the noise source. Close to the noise source, the models are accurate to within about plus or minus 1 to 2 dBA. Since the sensitivity to noise increases during the evening and at night -- because excessive noise interferes with the ability to sleep -- 24-hour descriptors have been developed that incorporate artificial noise penalties added to quiet-time noise events. The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is a measure of the cumulative noise exposure in a community, with a 5 dB penalty added to evening noise levels (7:00 p.m. - 10:00 p.m.) and a 10 dB addition to nocturnal (10:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m.) noise levels. The Day/Night Average Sound Level (Ldn) is essentially the same as CNEL, with the exception that the evening time period is dropped and all occurrences during this three - hour period are grouped into the daytime period. Fundamentals of Groundborne Vibration Ground vibration consists of rapidly fluctuating motions or waves with an average motion of zero. Several different methods are typically used to quantify vibration amplitude. One method is the Peak Particle Velocity (PPV). The PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of the vibration wave. In this report, a PPV descriptor with units of mm/sec or in/sec is used to evaluate construction generated vibration for building damage and human complaints. Table 3 displays the reactions of people and the effects on buildings that continuous vibration levels produce. The annoyance levels shown in Table 3 should be interpreted with care since vibration may be found to be annoying at much lower levels than those shown, depending on the level of activity or 3 the sensitivity of the individual. To sensitive indi viduals, vibrations approaching the threshold of perception can be annoying. Low-level vibrations frequently cause irritating secondary vibration, such as a slight rattling of windows, doors, or stacked dishes. The rattling sound can give rise to exaggerated vibration complaints, even though there is very little risk of actual structural damage. Construction activities can cause vibration that varies in intensity depending on several factors. The use of pile driving and vibratory compaction equipment typically generates the highest construction related groundborne vibration levels. Because of the impulsive nature of such activities, the use of the PPV descriptor has been routinely used to measure and assess groundborne vibration and almost exclusively to assess the potential of vibration to induce structural damage and the degree of annoyance for humans. The two primary concerns with construction-induced vibration is the potential to damage a structure and the potential to interfere with the enjoyment of li fe. These concerns are evaluated against different vibration limits. Studies have shown that the threshold of perception for average persons is in the range of 0.008 to 0.012 in/sec PPV. Human perception to vibration varies with the individual and is a function of physical setting and the type of vibration. Persons exposed to elevated ambient vibration levels, such as people in an urban environment, may tolerate a higher vibration level. Structural damage can be classified as cosmetic only, such as minor cracking of building elements, or may threaten the integrity of the building. Safe vibration limits that can be applied to assess the potential for damaging a structure vary by researcher and there is no general consensus as to what amount of vibration may pose a threat for structural damage to the building. Construction-induced vibration that can be detrimental to the building is very rare and has only been observed in instances where the structure is at a high state of disrepair and the construction activity occurs immediately adjacent to the structure. 4 TABLE 1 Definition of Acoustical Terms Used in this Report Term Definition Decibel, dB A unit describing, the amplitude of sound, equal to 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound measured to the reference pressure. The reference pressure for air is 20 micro Pascals. Sound Pressure Level Sound pressure is the sound force per unit area, usually expressed in micro Pascals (or 20 micro Newtons per square meter), where 1 Pascal is the pressure resulting from a force of 1 Newton exerted over an area of 1 square meter. The sound pressure level is expressed in decibels as 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio between the pressures exerted by the sound to a reference sound pressure (e. g., 20 micro Pascals). Sound pressure level is the quantity that is directly measured by a sound level meter. Frequency, Hz The number of complete pressure fluctuations per second above and below atmospheric pressure. Normal human hearing is between 20 Hz and 20,000 Hz. Infrasonic sound are below 20 Hz and Ultrasonic sounds are above 20,000 Hz. A-Weighted Sound Level, dBA The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the A-weighting filter network. The A-weighting filter de-emphasizes the very low and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the frequency response of the human ear and correlates well with subjective reactions to noise. Equivalent Noise Level, Leq The average A-weighted noise level during the measurement period. Lmax, Lmin The maximum and minimum A-weighted noise level during the measurement period. L01, L10, L50, L90 The A-weighted noise levels that are exceeded 1%, 10%, 50%, and 90% of the time during the measurement period. Day/Night Noise Level, Ldn or DNL The average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition of 10 decibels to levels measured in the night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Community Noise Equivalent Level, CNEL The average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition of 5 decibels in the evening from 7:00 p.m.to 10:00 p.m. and after addition of 10 decibels to sound levels measured in the night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Ambient Noise Level The composite of noise from all sources near and far. The normal or existing level of environmental noise at a given location. Intrusive That noise which intrudes over and above the existing ambient noise at a given location. The relative intrusiveness of a sound depends upon its amplitude, duration, frequency, and time of occurrence and tonal or informational content as well as the prevailing ambient noise level. Source: Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control, Harris, 1998. 5 TABLE 2 Typical Noise Levels in the Environment Common Outdoor Activities Noise Level (dBA) Common Indoor Activities 110 dBA Rock band Jet fly-over at 1,000 feet 100 dBA Gas lawn mower at 3 feet 90 dBA Diesel truck at 50 feet at 50 mph Food blender at 3 feet 80 dBA Garbage disposal at 3 feet Noisy urban area, daytime Gas lawn mower, 100 feet 70 dBA Vacuum cleaner at 10 feet Commercial area Normal speech at 3 feet Heavy traffic at 300 feet 60 dBA Large business office Quiet urban daytime 50 dBA Dishwasher in next room Quiet urban nighttime 40 dBA Theater, large conference room Quiet suburban nighttime 30 dBA Library Quiet rural nighttime Bedroom at night, concert hall (background) 20 dBA Broadcast/recording studio 10 dBA 0 dBA Source: Technical Noise Supplement (TeNS), California Department of Transportation, September 2013. 6 TABLE 3 Reactions of People and Damage to Buildings from Continuous or Frequent Intermittent Vibration Levels Velocity Level, PPV (in/sec) Human Reaction Effect on Buildings 0.01 Barely perceptible No effect 0.04 Distinctly perceptible Vibration unlikely to cause damage of any type to any structure 0.08 Distinctly perceptible to strongly perceptible Recommended upper level of the vibration to which ruins and ancient monuments should be subjected 0.1 Strongly perceptible Virtually no risk of damage to normal buildings 0.3 Strongly perceptible to severe Threshold at which there is a risk of damage to older residential dwellings such as plastered walls or ceilings 0.5 Severe - Vibrations considered unpleasant Threshold at which there is a risk of damage to newer residential structures Source: Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, California Department of Transportation, September 2013. Regulatory Background - Noise The State of California and the City of Dublin have established regulatory criteria that are applicable in this assessment. The State of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Appendix G, are used to assess the potential significance of impacts pursuant to local General Plan policies, Municipal Code standards, or the applicable standards of other agencies. A summary of the applicable regulatory criteria is provided below. State CEQA Guidelines. CEQA contains guidelines to evaluate the significance of effects of environmental noise attributable to a proposed project. Under CEQA, noise impacts would be considered significant if the project would result in: (a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local General Plan or Noise Ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies; (b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels; (c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project; (d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project; 7 (e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or where such a plan has not been adopted within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, if the project would expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels; or (f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, if the project would expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. Of these guidelines, items (e) and (f) are not applicable because the project is not located within an airport land use plan or in the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, checklist items (e), and (f) are not carried forward for further analysis. CEQA does not define what noise level increase would be considered substantial. Typically, project-generated noise level increases of 3 dBA Ldn/CNEL or greater would be considered significant where exterior noise levels would exceed the normally acceptable noise level standard (60 dBA Ldn/CNEL for residential land uses). Where noise levels would remain at or below the normally acceptable noise level standard with the project, noise level increases of 5 dBA Ldn/CNEL or greater would be considered significant. City of Dublin General Plan. The City of Dublin’s General Plan Noise Element, which was amended in April 2013, establishes policies and methods of implementation for traffic noise, which the Noise Element identifies as the main source of noise in the City. Applicable policies and implementation measures presented in the General Plan are as follows: 9.2.1.A Guiding Policy 1. Where feasible, mitigate traffic noise to levels indicated by Table 9.1: Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments. Please note the following table is Table 9.1 contained in the Environmental Resources Management: Noise Element, amended as of October 6, 2015. 8 9.2.1.B Implementing Policies 4. Noise impacts related to all new development shall be analyzed by a certified acoustic consultant. 7. Review all non-residential development proposals within the projected CNEL 65 dBA contour for compliance with exterior noise transmission standards as required by the California Green Building Standards Code. City of Dublin Municipal Code. The City’s Municipal Code provides a definition for a noise violation and unreasonable noise within the City. The portions of the Municipal Code that are relevant for this project are as follows: Chapter 5.28.010 Findings. The City Council finds that the making, creation or maintenance of loud, unnecessary, unnatural, unusual or habitual noises which are prolonged, unusual, and unnatural in their time, place and use affect and are a detriment to the public health, comfort, safety, welfare, and prosperity of the residents of the city. The provisions of this chapter are enacted for the purpose of securing and promoting the public health, comfort, safety, welfare, and prosperity and the peace and quiet of the city and its inhabitants. (Ord. 4-84 § 1) Chapter 5.28.020 Unreasonable noise prohibited. A. It is unlawful and a nuisance for any person within the city persistently to maintain, emit, cause, mechanically or otherwise, or permit any animal owned by him or in his possession or control to make any loud, or disturbing, or unnecessary, or unusual or habitual noise or any noise which annoys or disturbs or injures or endangers the health, repose, peace or safety of any reasonable person of normal sensitivity present in the area. B. The standards which shall be considered in determining whether a violation of the provisions of this chapter exists shall include, but shall not be limited to the following: 1. The level, intensity, character and duration of the noise; 2. The level, intensity and character of background noise, if any; 3. The time when and the place and zoning district where the noise occurred; 4. The proximity of the noise to residential sleeping facilities; and 5. Whether the noise is recurrent, intermittent or constant. (Ord. 4-84 § 2) Chapter 5.28.030 Violation – Penalty. Each violation of this chapter shall constitute a separate offense, and persons violating this chapter shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction, shall be punished by a fine not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500) or by imprisonment in the county jail for a period not exceeding thirty (30) days, or both such fine and imprisonment. (Ord. 4-84 § 3) 9 Existing Noise Environment The Valley Christian Center is located west of Inspiration Drive and north of Dublin Boulevard in the western part of the City of Dublin. Currently, there are five buildings on the project site with existing sports fields located to the west of the buildings that are used for football, soccer, and baseball. Parking lots are located to the east, to the north, and to the south of existing buildings. To the north and to the east of the project site, opposite Inspiration Drive, are single-family residences. Multi-family housing developments are located approximately 510 feet southwest of the project site. Designated open space is located to the northwest of the project site. Open parcels of land are also located along the southern boundary of the project site. A noise monitoring survey, consisting of two long-term and three short-term measurements, was performed at the site beginning on Wednesday May 6, 2015 and concluding on Monday May 11, 2015. Each measurement location is shown in Figure 1. The noise environment at the site and in the surrounding areas results primarily from vehicular traffic along I-580, as well as neighborhood traffic along Inspiration Drive and connecting roadways. Occasional aircraft associated with the Livermore Municipal Airport also contribute to the noise environment at the project site. Long-term noise measurement LT-1 was made along the northern boundary of the project site, approximately 75 feet south of the centerline of Inspiration Dive. LT-1 represented the existing noise environment near the location of the proposed multi-purpose recreation field. Hourly average noise levels at this location typically ranged from 48 to 60 dBA Leq during the day, and from 39 to 55 dBA Leq at night. The average community noise equivalent level from Wednesday May 6, 2015 through Monday May 11, 2015 ranged from 57 to 58 dBA CNEL during the weekdays and was 55 dBA CNEL on weekend days. The daily trend in noise levels at LT-1 is shown in Figure 2. LT-2 was positioned in the single-family residential development to the east of the project site. LT-2 was approximately 65 feet west of the intersection of Betlen Drive and Las Palmas Way and was approximately 210 feet east of the centerline of Inspiration Drive. This measurement represented the noise-sensitive receptors located to the east and to the north of the project site. Hourly average noise levels at this location typically ranged from 41 to 54 dBA Leq during the day, and from 37 to 52 dBA Leq at night. The average community noise equivalent level from Wednesday May 6, 2015 through Monday May 11, 2015 ranged from 52 to 54 dBA CNEL during the weekdays and ranged from 50 to 51 dBA CNEL on weekend days. The daily trend in noise levels at LT-2 is shown in Figure 3. The short-term noise measurements were made on Monday May 11, 2015 in ten-minute intervals starting at 12:20 p.m. ST-1 was measured in the multi-family residential development located to the southwest of the project site. This measurement was made approximately 20 feet east of the intersection of Brigadoon Way and Sornoway Lane. The ten-minute average noise level measured at ST-1 was 53 dBA Leq(10), and the estimated average community noise equivalent level was 55 dBA CNEL. ST-2 was made in the single-family development to the northwest of the project site, approximately 30 feet south of the centerline of Mountain Rise Place. The ten-minute average noise level at ST-2 was 50 dBA Leq(10), and the estimated average community noise equivalent level was 50 dBA CNEL. The final short-term measurement, ST-3, was made opposite Inspiration Drive from LT-1 and represented the single-family development located north of the project site. 10 ST-3 was approximately 125 feet north of the centerline of Inspiration Drive, and the ten-minute average noise level measured at this location was 56 dBA Leq(10). The estimated average community noise equivalent level at ST-3 was 56 dBA CNEL. Table 4 summarizes the results for the short-term measurements. FIGURE 1 Proposed Plan Showing Noise Measurement Locations 11 FIGURE 2 Daily Variation in Noise Levels at LT-1 on the Northern Site Boundary, May 6 through May 11, 2015 FIGURE 3 Daily Variation in Noise Levels at LT-2 at Betlen Drive and Las Palmas Way, May 6 through May 11, 2015 12 TABLE 4 Summary of Long-Term and Short-Term Noise Measurements (dBA) Noise Measurement Location (Date, Time) Lmax L(1) L(10) L(50) L(90) Leq(10) CNEL LT-1: northern boundary of the site, ~75 feet south of the centerline of Inspiration Drive (5/6/2015, 16:20-5/11/2015, 13:10) 58- 81a 56- 74a 45- 67a 41- 57a 39- 54a 47- 62a 57-58c 55d 40- 72b 39- 66b 38- 62b 37- 54b 35- 52b 37- 57b LT-2: ~65 feet from intersection of Betlen Drive and Las Palmas Way (5/6/2015, 16:40-5/11/2015, 13:20) 43- 79a 42- 71a 40- 64a 39- 58a 37- 54a 39- 59a 52-54c 50-51d 37- 69b 37- 66b 37- 57b 35- 54b 33- 52b 36- 54b ST-1: ~20 feet east of the intersection of Brigadoon Way and Sornoway Lane (5/11/2015, 12:20-12:30) 69 64 53 50 48 53 55 ST-2: ~30 feet south of the centerline of Mountain Rise Place (5/11/2015, 12:40- 12:50) 66 62 52 47 44 50 50 ST-3: ~125 feet north of the centerline of Inspiration Drive (5/11/2015, 13:00-13:10) 71 67 57 53 51 56 56 a Range of noise levels measured during daytime hours (between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.). b Range of noise levels measured during nighttime hours (between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.). c CNEL measured on weekdays. d CNEL measured on weekends. Based on the measurements made in the vicinity of the project site, existing noise levels are below 60 dBA CNEL, which meets the City of Dublin’s noise exposure limits for residential land uses and schools. PLAN CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS Noise and Land Use Compatibility Future Exterior Noise Environment The future noise environment would continue to be dominated by traffic noise from I-580, Inspiration Drive, and the surrounding residential streets. In addition to the local traffic noise, Valley Christian Center has several activities on its campus that would also affect the noise environment, including church services on the weekends and school and sports during the weekdays. All of these existing activities would continue to affect the future noise environment. The proposed project changes to Valley Christian Center Sports Fields would not alter the noise environment, since as the nature of the activities and the hours of operation would not significantly change. Therefore, the noise environment would continue to range from 57 to 58 dBA CNEL during the weekdays and be 55 dBA CNEL during the weekends under future conditions, which meets the noise threshold for schools. No additional noise control measures are required. 13 NOISE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Significance Criteria The following criteria were used to evaluate the significance of environmental noise impacts resulting from the project: • A significant noise impact would be identified if the project would expose persons to or generate noise levels that would exceed applicable noise standards presented in the General Plan or Municipal Code. • A significant impact would be identified if the construction of the project would expose persons to excessive vibration levels. Groundborne vibration levels exceeding 0.3 in/sec PPV would have the potential to result in cosmetic damage to normal buildings. • A significant impact would be identified if traffic generated by the project or project improvements/operations would substantially increase noise levels at sensitive receivers in the vicinity. A substantial increase would occur if: a) the noise level increase is 5 dBA CNEL or greater, with a future noise level of less than 60 dBA CNEL, or b) the noise level increase is 3 dBA CNEL or greater, with a future noise level of 60 dBA CNEL or greater. • A significant noise impact would be identified if construction-related noise would temporarily increase ambient noise levels at sensitive receptors. Hourly average noise levels exceeding 60 dBA Leq, and the ambient by at least 5 dBA Leq, for a period of more than one year would constitute a significant temporary noise increase at adjacent residential land uses. Impact 1: Noise Levels in Excess of Standards. The proposed project is not expected to generate noise levels in excess of the standards established in the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code at nearby sensitive receptors. This is a less-than- significant impact. The City of Dublin does not define noise level standards for stationary sources of noise such as playfields or public address systems (PA systems). Therefore, for the purpose of this project, project-generated operational noise is compared to existing ambient conditions at the surrounding noise-sensitive receptors. Under conditions of the proposed project, a new baseball field would be located in the northwestern corner of the campus and a new multipurpose recreational field would be located in the northeastern corner of campus adjacent to Inspiration Drive. The new baseball field would be relocated approximately 360 feet northwest from the location of the existing multipurpose sports field. The new multipurpose recreational field would host football, soccer, and track and field sports activities. Currently, football practices occur on the existing multipurpose baseball field, while track and field activities occur off site. As part of the proposed project, a sound amplification system and lighting standards would also be installed at the new multipurpose recreational field. 14 An outdoor amphitheater is proposed on the interior of the site, southwest of the new multipurpose recreation field. This amphitheater can be used during the school year for lectures during regular school hours and for Northern California Bible College lectures during evening hours. These lectures would not require amplification or lighting. Sunday services may elect to hold church services at the amphitheater, which would require amplification, and the amphitheater may also be used for outdoor theatrical plays during the summertime months. Multipurpose Recreational Sports Field The proposed plan for the new multipurpose recreational sports field includes hosting football games, as well as track and field events, that would include seating for spectators. From mid- August through mid-November, football practices would be held Monday through Thursday from 3:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. Organized football games would include one scrimmage and up to six regular season games with the potential for an additional three playoff games. Football games would be held on Friday nights from 4:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. The field is proposed to be lighted for night games until 10:00 p.m. and would require amplified sound until 9:45 p.m. Football games would occasionally occur on Saturday nights from 4:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Lighting and amplified sound would be required for the Saturday night games as well. The proposed stadium bleacher capacity is 1,100 seats. Two speakers for the public address (PA) system would be located at both ends of the bleachers on the southwestern side of the track. Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. (I&R) monitored noise levels during activities at the Santa Teresa High School football stadium in San Jose, CA. Noise measurements of a football game were made on October 20, 2012. The varsity football game between Santa Teresa High School and Oak Grove High School was considered to be the “rivalry” game of the football season . The attendance was estimated by the high school to be approximately 1,600 people. Measurements of 15-minute durations were made at several locations on the Santa Teresa High School campus and in the adjacent single-family neighborhoods at distances ranging from 425 to 740 feet from the center of the football field. These measurements were attended by a qualified noise technician who documented maximum noise levels resulting from the various sources of noise generated during a varsity football game on October 20, 2012 and during band practice on October 22, 2012. Football game activities were generally the primary noise sources at the measurement locations during the varsity game. During band practice, the band was audible and measurable in the absence of local traffic at all short-term measurement locations but was typically at levels below other noise sources in the area. Table 5 summarizes the measurement results at the nearest locations about 425 feet from the center of the field during noisy intervals at the varsity football game on Saturday, October 20, 2012, including the average noise level (Leq) and background noise level (L90) measured during each interval, and the maximum noise levels measured during various noise-generating activities. 15 TABLE 5 Summary of Short-Term Noise Measurement Results, Football Game at Santa Teresa High School, San Jose, CA - October 20, 2012 Location Average Noise Level, dBA Leq Typical Maximum Instantaneous Noise Levels, dBA Lmax Cheering/ Crowd PA System Whistles 425 feet, as measured from the center of the field 60 57 to 73 53 to 59 56 to 63 The nearest residences to the proposed field are residences on Bay Laurel Street located about 490 feet north of the center of the field, and residences on Las Palmas Way located about 580 feet east of the center of the field. These residences are located substantially below the elevation of the field. The intervening grading associated with the school itself and Inspiration Drive provides acoustical barriers created by the tops of the slopes between the site for the proposed field and the residences. The attenuation provided by distance and the intervening topography was calculated using standard methods. Projected noise levels are summarized in Table 6. The existing average noise levels during the evening in the residential areas range from 48 to 50 dBA Leq. Noise from the football games would increase the average level by up to 1 dBA Leq at the nearest residences. The cheers would be intermittently audible because the levels would exceed the existing background level but would fall within the overall range of existing ambient levels. Noise from football games would not cause a substantial increase in noise levels at the most affected residences. This is a less-than-significant impact. For the proposed project, specific noise information regarding the PA system was not provided at the time of this study, and while the results estimated from the previous study indicates a less- than-significant impact due to the PA system, additional calculations were made to assign a performance standard to the selected PA system. It is assumed that both speakers would be operating simultaneously and that the noise levels from each speaker would be the same. Two speakers would be located at the multipurpose field, as shown in Figure 4. The speaker nearest the Bay Laurel Street residences would be approximately 500 feet south of the nearest rear yard. The speaker nearest to the Las Palmas Way residences would be approximately 500 west of the nearest rear yard. To ensure that the PA system would not exceed 55 dBA Lmax at the nearest residences, assuming attenuation provided by distance and the intervening topography, the amplification system should not exceed 75 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet. This limitation is required as a mitigation measure. 16 TABLE 6 Projected Noise Levels at Nearest Residences During Capacity Crowd Varsity Football Game at the Proposed Multipurpose Recreational Field Location Average Noise Level, dBA Leq Typical Maximum Instantaneous Noise Levels, dBA Lmax Cheering/ Crowd PA System Whistles Bay Laurel home, 490 feet from the center of the field 42 39 to 55 35 to 41 38 to 45 Las Palmas home, 580 feet from the center of the field 40 37 to 53 33 to 39 36 to 43 From mid-November to mid-February, men’s soccer would utilize the proposed multipurpose field. Practices would typically occur three days per week from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Junior varsity and varsity games would be played one to two nights per week from 3:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. While nighttime lighting would be required for these activities, these events would have a lower attendance than football games. The noise sources are similar in character to the football game, but with lower average and maximum instantaneous levels. VCC has indicated that they do not plan to use the amplification system for soccer games, but if they choose to in the future, the impact would be less-than-significant as long as the amplification system does not exceed 75 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet, as stated above. This limitation is required as a mitigation measure. Varsity soccer games would occasionally occur on Saturdays from 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m., and these games would require nighttime lighting only. Varsity women’s soccer would occur during the spring between mid-February and mid-May. Practices would typically occur Monday through Friday (depending upon game schedule) from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. A total of 12 home games would occur from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Occasionally, a Saturday game between 1:30 p.m. and 3:30 p.m. would occur. All soccer events would have significantly lower attendance than football games. Average hourly noise levels resulting from soccer games are anticipated to be about 60 dBA Leq at a distance of 100 feet from the center of the field, with maximum noise levels from cheering and whistles as high as 67 dBA Lmax. At the nearest residences along Bay Laurel Street and Las Palmas Way, average hourly noise levels due to soccer games would be below 30 dBA Leq, with maximum instantaneous noise levels up to 36 dBA Lmax. This would not exceed the existing ambient levels. This would be a less-than-significant impact. 17 FIGURE 4 Speaker Locations at the Proposed Multipurpose Field The field would also be used for track and field events during the springtime from mid-February to mid-May. Practices would occur on weekdays from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. One track meet per month is anticipated, which would be from 2:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Additionally, one invitational per month is anticipated from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Track meets would require both nighttime lighting and amplified sound. These events have much lower attendance than football games. The noise sources are similar in character to the football game, but with lower average and maximum instantaneous levels. It is assumed that a starter pistol would be used during track meets and track invitationals. Typical noise levels produced by a .22 caliber starter pistol would be approximately 79 dBA Lmax at 50 feet. From the approximate positions on the multipurpose field where the starter pistol would be used, the distances to the nearest residences would be approximately 435 feet to the Bay Laurel Street residences and approximately 475 feet to the Las Palmas Way residences. At these distances and assuming attenuation from intervening topography, the maximum instantaneous noise levels expected from the starter pistol would range from 42 to 43 dBA Lmax, which would not exceed range of existing ambient noise levels. This would be a less-than- significant impact. Noise from sports activities on the proposed multipurpose recreational sports field would cause a less-than-significant impact on residents in the area. 18 Graduation ceremonies, which are currently held off-campus, could occur at the new multipurpose field. These special occasions would occur on Saturdays in the early afternoon. Noise from graduations would include cheering from the crowd and amplified sound. Attendance is expected to be less than football games; therefore, average and maximum instantaneous noise levels would be lower than those discussed for football games. Graduation ceremonies are not expected to increase existing ambient noise levels. This would be a less-than-significant impact. Relocated Baseball Field The primary use for this field would be baseball. Baseball is currently played on the existing multi- purpose field. The new field would be relocated from the south side of Building 5 to the west side of Building 5. The level of baseball activities on the field would be similar to existing, but football and soccer would be relocated to the new multipurpose recreational field. The nearest residences to the proposed location of the baseball field are located about 500 feet to the north on Inspiration Circle. An intervening hill would continue to buffer the residences. Noise levels from activities on the field would not change from the existing conditions. Neighbors to the southwest would be located further from the new field than from the existing field. Noise levels from the new field would be equal to or lower than from the existing field. The relocation of the baseball field would cause no additional noise impacts on residents in the area over existing conditions. Amphitheater Activities Three types of events are anticipated at the outdoor amphitheater: theatrical plays during the summertime; daytime lectures during the school year by the Valley Christian Center schools and evening lectures by the Northern California Bible College; and church sermons on Sundays. Amplified sound would be required for the sermons and potentially during the theatrical plays. Locations around the amphitheater for the amplification system speakers were not provided at the time of this study, but for worst-case scenario calculation purposes, it is expected that a speaker would be located on each side of the seating area and at the stage. Figure 5 shows the assumed worst-case scenario locations used for this study. The nearest residence along Bay Laurel Street would be approximately 540 feet from the outdoor amphitheater, and the nearest residence along Las Palmas Way would be approximately 860 feet from the outdoor amphitheater. At these distances and assuming attenuation from intervening topography, maximum instantaneous noise levels would remain at or below 55 dBA Lmax if the performance standard for the amplification system would not exceed 76 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet. This limitation is required as a mitigation measure. Parking Lot Activity Currently, the Valley Christian Center has four main parking lots on site. With the proposed project, a portion of the parking lot located in the northeastern corner of campus would be used for the new multipurpose recreation field, reducing the size of the existing parking lot. Additionally, two new parking lots would be constructed near the new multi-purpose recreational field and near building E in the southeastern corner of campus, as shown in Figure 1. The expected parking lot traffic increase would be insignificant. Omni-Means Engineers & Planners, Ltd. provided existing and future projections of parking lot activity. With the increase in operational hours at the new 19 multi-purpose recreation field, the total increase in number of vehicles for the worst-case scenario is expected to be approximately 90 vehicles. This would result in a noise level increase of less than 1 dBA at the noise-sensitive receptors surrounding the project site near the multi-purpose recreation field. FIGURE 5 Assumed Speaker Locations at the Proposed Amphitheater 20 Mitigation Measure 1: The following noise performance standards for proposed PA systems shall be adhered to: • To ensure that the PA system would not exceed 55 dBA Lmax at the nearest residences, the amplification system at the new multipurpose field should not exceed 75 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet. • To ensure that the PA system would not exceed 55 dBA Lmax at the nearest residences, the amplification system at the new outdoor amphitheater should not exceed 76 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet. The incorporation of Mitigation Measure 1 would reduce the noise impact to a less-than-significant level. Impact 2: Exposure to Excessive Groundborne Vibration. Construction-related vibration would not be in excess of 0.3 in/sec PPV at the single- and multi-family residences in the vicinity of the project site. This is a less-than-significant impact. The construction of the project may generate perceptible vibration when heavy equipment or impact tools (e.g. jackhammers, hoe rams) are used. Construction activities would include site demolition, preparation work, foundation work, and new building framing and finishing. The proposed project would not require pile driving, which can cause excessive vibration. Ground-borne vibration levels exceeding 0.3 in/sec PPV would have the potential to result in a significant vibration impact. Table 7 presents typical vibration levels that could be expected from construction equipment at a distance of 25 feet. Construction activities, such as drilling, the use of jackhammers, rock drills and other high-power or vibratory tools, and rolling stock equipment (tracked vehicles, compactors, etc.) may generate substantial vibration in the immediate vicinity. Vibration levels would vary depending on soil conditions, construction methods, and equipment used. The single-family residences located to the east and to the north of the project site, opposite Inspiration Drive, are at least 160 feet from the project site. The multi-family residences located to the southwest are at least 385 feet from the project site. At these distances, vibration levels would be expected to be less than 0.1 in/sec PPV, which is below the 0.3 in/sec PPV significance threshold. This is a less-than-significant impact. 21 TABLE 7 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment PPV at 25 ft. (in/sec) Approximate Lv at 25 ft. (VdB) Pile Driver (Impact) upper range 1.158 112 typical 0.644 104 Pile Driver (Sonic) upper range 0.734 105 typical 0.170 93 Clam shovel drop 0.202 94 Hydromill (slurry wall) in soil 0.008 66 in rock 0.017 75 Vibratory Roller 0.210 94 Hoe Ram 0.089 87 Large bulldozer 0.089 87 Caisson drilling 0.089 87 Loaded trucks 0.076 86 Jackhammer 0.035 79 Small bulldozer 0.003 58 Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, United States Department of Transportation, Office of Planning and Environment, Federal Transit Administration, May 2006. Mitigation Measure 2: None required. Impact 3: Project-Generated Traffic Noise. The project-generated traffic would not result in a permanent noise level increase at the existing residential land uses in the project vicinity. This is a less-than-significant impact. A significant permanent noise increase would occur if the project would increase traffic noise levels at noise-sensitive receptors by 3 dBA CNEL or greater where ambient noise levels exceed the normally acceptable noise level standard. Where ambient noise levels are at or below the normally acceptable noise level standard, noise level increases of 5 dBA CNEL or greater would be considered significant. Ambient noise levels at the nearest single- and multi-family residences in the project vicinity are currently below 60 dBA CNEL, which meets the normally acceptable standard established in the City’s General Plan. So, a significant impact would occur if the noise levels increased by 5 dBA CNEL or greater. Trip generation information was reviewed1 to calculate the permanent noise increase attributable to project-generated traffic. Using the most conservative figures from the traffic report, the project is projected to generate 139 total new a.m. and 78 p.m. peak hour trips. Project trips under the 2002 EIR scenario were compared to the 2001 existing scenario to calculate the relative increase in traffic noise attributable to the proposed project. The comparison of the project trips under this scenario indicates that the project would increase traffic noise levels by less than 1 dBA Leq during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Daily average noise levels are also calculated to increase by less than 1 dBA CNEL. 1 Revised Draft Report, Trip Generation, Traffic, Circulation, and Parking Analysis for the Proposed Plan Changes at the Valley Christian Center in Dublin, CA. Omni – Means, Ltd. November 3, 2015. 22 Based on the trip generations prepared for the project, the greatest increases in traffic would occur during large events such as football games at the multi-purpose recreational field. The projected increase in average noise levels at a capacity football game was calculated by comparing traffic with the project to existing traffic volumes. Football event traffic noise levels are calculated to reach 43 dBA Leq at adjacent residential receptors located near the north school driveway during the 6:00 to 7:00 p.m. period as spectators arrive for football games on Inspiration Drive. Predicted noise levels at the south driveway are calculated to reach 41 dBA Leq at the school boundary nearest residential receptors located along Las Palmas Way. Existing ambient levels at these receptors during the same time period are approximately 50 dBA Leq. During the 10:00 to 11:00 p.m. hour, when spectators are leaving the game, existing ambient noise levels are slightly lower, typically about 48 dBA Leq at adjacent residential receptors. Predicted traffic noise levels at residential receptors near both the north and south driveway during the 10:00 to 11:00 p.m. hour would be the same as described above, reaching 43 dBA Leq and 41 dBA Leq, respectively. There will not be a noticeable increase during peak and evening traffic hours on the occasional nights per year when maximum attendance football games occur because predicted traffic noise from these events will be below existing ambient levels at adjacent residential receptors. The day/night average noise levels on event days would also not be substantially increased over existing conditions (increase would be less than 1 dBA CNEL). The increase in traffic noise levels associated with a typical football game, soccer game, or track and field meet would be lower. This is a less-than-significant impact. Mitigation Measure 3: None required. Impact 4: Temporary Construction Noise. Existing noise-sensitive land uses would potentially be exposed to a temporary increase in ambient noise levels due to project construction activities. The incorporation of construction best management practices as project conditions of approval would result in a less-than-significant temporary noise impact. Noise impacts resulting from construction depend upon the noise generated by various pieces of construction equipment, the timing and duration of noise-generating activities, and the distance between construction noise sources and noise-sensitive areas. Construction noise impacts primarily result when construction activities occur during noise-sensitive times of the day (e.g., early morning, evening, or nighttime hours), the construction occurs in areas immediately adjoining noise-sensitive land uses, or when construction lasts over extended periods of time. Where noise from construction activities exceeds 60 dBA Leq and exceeds the ambient noise environment by at least 5 dBA Leq at noise-sensitive uses in the project vicinity for a period exceeding one year, the impact would be considered significant. Construction activities generate considerable amounts of noise, especially during earth-moving activities when heavy equipment is used. Table 8 presents the typical range of hourly average noise levels generated by different phases of construction measured at a distance of 50 feet. Hourly average noise levels generated by excavation equipment associated with the project are calculated to range from 71 to 89 dBA Leq measured at a distance of 50 feet. Construction-generated noise levels drop off at a rate of about 6 dBA per doubling of the distance between the source and 23 receptor. Shielding by buildings or terrain can provide an additional 5 to 10 dBA noise reduction at distant receptors. Construction for the proposed project would include excavation, possibly some minor building construction, and foundation work for the lighting standards and the sound amplification system. Noise generated by construction activities would temporarily elevate noise levels at adjacent noise- sensitive receptors. Conservatively, this would be considered a significant impact. TABLE 8 Typical Range of Construction Noise Levels Domestic Housing Office Building, Hotel, Hospital, School, Public Works Industrial Parking Garage, Religious Amusement & Recreations, Store, Service Station Public Works Roads & Highways, Sewers, and Trenches I II I II I II I II Ground Clearing 83 83 84 84 84 83 84 84 Excavation 88 75 89 79 89 71 88 78 Foundations 81 81 78 78 77 77 88 88 Erection 81 65 87 75 84 72 79 78 Finishing 88 72 89 75 89 74 84 84 I – All pertinent equipment present at site. II – Minimum required equipment present at site. Source: United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1973, Legal Compilation on Noise, Vol. 1, p. 2-104. Mitigation Measure 4: In the Valley Christian Center Expansion Draft EIR from October 2002, the following mitigation measures were provided to reduce construction noise levels: • Limit construction time to be 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday-Saturday, except state and federal holidays. Exceptions may be grated in writing by the City Building Official for emergency or extenuating circumstances. • Noisy stationary equipment should be located away from the homes. • All construction equipment should be in good working order and the mufflers should be inspected for proper functioning. • Designate a construction noise coordinator. This coordinator shall be available to respond to complaints from neighbors and take appropriate measures to reduce noise. Additionally, the construction contractor shall implement the following construction best management practices to further reduce construction noise levels: 24 • Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines should be strictly prohibited. • Utilize "quiet" air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists. • Control noise from construction workers’ radios to a point where they are not audible at existing residences bordering the project site. • The contractor shall prepare a detailed construction plan identifying the schedule for major noise-generating construction activities. The construction plan shall identify a procedure for coordination with adjacent residential land uses so that construction activities can be scheduled to minimize noise disturbance. Implementation of all of the above measures would reduce construction noise levels emanating from the site, limit construction hours, and minimize disruption and annoyance. With the implementation of these measures, and recognizing that noise generated by construction activities would occur over a temporary period, the temporary increase in ambient noise levels would be less-than-significant. TRIP GENERATION, TRAFFIC CIRCULATION, AND PARKING ANALYSIS FOR THE PROPOSED PLAN CHANGES At The VALLEY CHRISTIAN CENTER In DUBLIN, CA Prepared For THE CITY OF DUBLIN FINAL REPORT November 17, 2015 Prepared by: Omni-Means, Ltd. Engineers & Planners 1901 Olympic Blvd., Suite 120 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 R6835TIA003 / 35-2272-39 Trip Generation, Traffic Circulation, & Parking Analysis For The Proposed Plan Changes At The Valley Christian Center In The City of Dublin, CA. FINAL REPORT PREPARED FOR: THE CITY OF DUBLIN November 17, 2015 PREPARED BY: OMNI-MEANS, LTD. ENGINEERS & PLANNERS 1901 OLYMPIC BOULEVARD, SUITE 120 WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596 (925) 935-2230 www.omnimeans.com 35-3526-34 (R2006TIA003.DOC) Valley Christian Center Plan Change Traffic Review Page 1 City of Dublin (R2006TIA003.DOC/35-3526-34) INTRODUCTION / SUMMARY The following report outlines the findings of a focused traffic analysis prepared for the City of Dublin regarding the proposed plan changes at the Valley Christian Center located at 7500 Inspiration Drive in the City of Dublin, CA. The Valley Christian Center comprises church and school facilities consisting of existing worship space, classrooms (K-12th grades), preschool/daycare service, administrative offices, and sports fields, as well as yet un-built components of the facilities approved in 2002. The applicant is seeking to amend the approved Master Plan that would change some aspects of the approved facilities. In order to identify likely vehicle traffic changes that would be associated with the proposed plan change, this study has compared the approved expansion with the proposed expansion in terms of trip generation and parking demand. Traffic circulation regarding possible intrusion into neighborhood streets and regional trip distribution were also evaluated. The proposed plan changes would primarily consist of reducing the approved sanctuary size, increasing the school size by a corresponding amount, and construction of a sports field. The net change in total building square footage between the currently approved plan and the proposed plan is approximately 1,300 additional square feet. Current published vehicle trip rates and surveyed rates of the existing school and Sunday service were compared to the trip rates used in the 2002 EIR. The calculated peak hour trip generation for the proposed plan is equal to or lower than the trips calculated for the approved plan. Therefore, the level of service analysis conducted for the 2002 report also addresses the proposed plan. The number of school driveways would decrease from three to two with the proposed plan. The school trips were reallocated to two driveways and evaluated. Level of service and queuing conditions would remain acceptable (LOS C or better). The school proposes to build a recreational sports field capable of hosting football games with spectator seating. Although infrequent, football games would temporarily generate up to 451 new trips before and after games based on maximum seating capacity of 1,100 persons. These trips would occur during off-peak hours when background traffic volumes are low and the volumes would remain within the carrying capacity of nearby roadways. The proposed plan would be constructed in a series of four Development Phases. Phase 1 would consist of the football stadium, while Phases 2-4 would consist of the school and sanctuary facilities. The supply of parking spaces will also vary with each Development Phase. The existing parking supply of 510 spaces will be reduced to 395 spaces for Phases 1 and 2. The supply will increase to 530 spaces in Phase 3 and to 600 spaces in Phase 4. Based on the City parking ordinances, adequate parking supply would be provided for the school and sanctuary facilities. Our surveys found a slightly higher parking demand rate for the Sanctuary worship service than the city code, but the demand would still be accommodated by the proposed total of 600 spaces since the Sanctuary would not be expanded until Phase 4. For the football games, the parking demand is calculated to be 506 vehicles based on a seating capacity of 1,100 persons. This would exceed the parking supply of 395 spaces in Phases 1 and 2 by 111 spaces. Although school personnel anticipate attendance of only 500-600 people during the first two Development Phases, in order to ensure adequate supply is provided the project should be conditioned to match parking supply to seating capacity by increasing the parking supply and/or reducing the number of seats in Phases 1 and 2. Valley Christian Center Plan Change Traffic Review Page 2 City of Dublin (R2006TIA003.DOC/35-3526-34) The regional distribution of trips based on zip codes of students indicates 73% are regional trips likely coming from I-580 via San Ramon Road and Dublin Boulevard and 275 are locally distributed trips. This distribution corresponds almost identically with the previous study which found 74% of trips were regional trips likely traveling to/from I-580. In order to minimize vehicle cut-through traffic in the neighborhood north of the school, turning restrictions are in place at two of the school’s three driveways. Surveys conducted in 2001 and again for this study identified approximately 4½ % of school trips (29 existing a.m. peak hour trips) travel through the neighborhood. The volumes are low, and it is likely some of the trips originate in the neighborhood, but future student population growth could increase the possibility of greater cut- through traffic. Therefore it has been recommended that the school provide an informational letter to parents at least once per year advising them to avoid using cut-through routes, and for the school to re-monitor cut-through traffic after completion of Phases 2, 3, and 4. Similar measures have also been recommended to address potential cut-through traffic during football games. Based on the findings of the traffic analysis, the proposed plan would not significantly impact traffic operating conditions with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. WEEKDAY TRIP GENERATION Comparison of Trip Generation Rates for Approved Plan Trip generation associated with the approved expansion was previously calculated in the traffic section of the Valley Christian Center Expansion Program (PA #00-017) Draft EIR.1 The trip generation table from the EIR is provided in Table A-1 attached. The EIR was prepared in 2002 and utilized the 6th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, which was current at the time of the report.2 The 9th Edition of the Trip Generation Manual now reflects the most up to date information.3 In order to evenly compare the original expansion plan to the proposed plan, the original plan trip generation has been recalculated using the ITE 9th Edition trip rates. The change in trips for the approved plan between the 6th Edition and 9th Edition is shown in Table 1. The 6th Edition rates resulted in 139 a.m. and 78 p.m. peak hour new trips. Based on current 9th Edition ITE trip rates, the originally approved expansion would generate 128 a.m. and 72 p.m. peak hour new trips, or 11 fewer am trips and 6 fewer pm trips. Therefore, the trip generation rate used in the 2002 EIR based on 6th Edition ITE rates remains the most conservative. Proposed Master Plan Changes from Approved Plan A table comparing the square footages associated with the existing facility, approved plan, and the proposed plan is provided in Table A-2 attached. (The proposed plan change would also include construction of a new multi-purpose sports field, which is evaluated in the following section.) In parcel 1, the proposed changes would result in a net increase of 1,300 square feet between the approved total of 305,300 square feet and the proposed total of 306,600 square feet. Overall, the proposed change would reduce the approved sanctuary size of 90,000 sq. ft. to 41,700 sq. ft. (a reduction of 32,600 sq. ft.) and increase the approved size of school and fellowship hall buildings by 33,900 sq. ft., for a net increase of 1,300 sq. ft. However, there would be no change in the anticipated student population (1,300 students) between the approved plan and proposed plan. The proposed master plan would be developed in four Development Phases. Phase 1 would consist of the football field. Phase 2 would consist of 41,000 sq. ft. of building space (Buildings C, A1, and D2). Phase 3 would consist of 29,200 sq. ft., (Building B South and B1). And Phase 4 would finish the plan with 96,975 sq. ft. (Building A, A2, E, B, & F). 1 City of Dublin, Valley Christian Center Expansion Program Draft EIR, October 2, 2002. 2 Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 6th Edition, 1997. 3 Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, 2012. Valley Christian Center Plan Change Traffic Review Page 3 City of Dublin (R2006TIA003.DOC/35-3526-34) Trip Generation for Approved Plan and Proposed Plan The 2002 EIR utilized ITE 6th Edition trip rates (the most current at the time) to generate vehicle trips for the school expansion. The ITE rates were selected after comparing them to a surveyed trip rate based on traffic counts conducted in 2001 at the Valley Christian Center school. The 2001 counts identified an a.m. peak hour trip rate of 0.83 trips per student. The EIR compared their surveyed rate to the ITE 6th Edition rate for a private K-12th grade school, which was 0.92 trips per student for the a.m. peak hour. The 2002 EIR used the ITE rates since they were higher in order to be conservative. The EIR applied the ITE rate for a High School land use since the school expansion would add only junior and senior high students. To identify the existing school trip rates, vehicle counts were conducted again for this study at the Valley Christian Center.4 The weekday morning surveys identified a total of 652 a.m. peak hour trips generated by the facility. At the time of the counts, the existing school population consisted of 792 students. The surveyed rate equates to 0.82 a.m. peak hour trips per student. The existing school trip rate is less than the previous surveyed rate, as well as the ITE rate used for the 2002 EIR traffic analysis. Since the 2002 EIR trip rate remains the most conservative rate, and the future student population is to remain unchanged from the 2002 EIR, the proposed plan is calculated to generate the same number of school trips as the approved plan. The school population and vehicle trips have decreased since the 2002 EIR, therefore the proposed plan change would increase trips compared to existing volumes, but would remain equal to the buildout trips calculated and evaluated for the level-of-service analysis in the 2002 EIR. The approved plan trips compared to the proposed plan trips are shown in Table 2. With the proposed plan, the north school driveway would be eliminated as a result of the new sports field. The driveway vehicle trips from this driveway were redistributed to the two remaining driveways and the operating conditions were evaluated. Levels of service would continue to operate acceptably (LOS C or better) and vehicle queues would continue to be accommodated within available lane storage lengths. It is noted that several components of the approved plan have been removed from the proposed plan, therefore the proposed plan will likely generate fewer trips than the approved plan. The 2002 EIR calculated 10 peak hour trips based on 10 additional administrative employees associated with the expansion. School personnel no longer anticipate an increase in administration employees above the 35 employees. Therefore, this component of the proposed plan would have 10 fewer peak hour trips compared to the 2002 EIR. The 2002 EIR also included trip generation for 30 apartment units intended for church staff housing in Parcel 2. The apartments were eventually withdrawn from the 2002 plan change request, but the apartment trips were included in the traffic study. The apartments were calculated to generate 15 a.m. peak hour trips and 19 p.m. peak hour trips. Since development of Parcel 2 is not included in the proposed plan, the proposed plan trips would be reduced by 15 a.m. peak hour trips and 19 p.m. peak hour trips than evaluated in the 2002 EIR. The trip generation findings are based on a student population of 1,300 students. Population levels above 1,300 students could generate higher trips than evaluated in the 2002 EIR traffic analysis. • If the population increases above 1,300 students, the number of vehicle trips could exceed the level evaluated in the 2002 EIR, therefore additional traffic impact analyses could be required. 4 Omni-Means, Surveys of existing Valley Christian Center AM, Afternoon, and Sunday site trips, May 12, 13,17, 2015. Valley Christian Center Plan Change Traffic Review Page 4 City of Dublin (R2006TIA003.DOC/35-3526-34) TABLE 1 COMPARISON OF APPROVED PLAN’S WEEKDAY TRIP GENERATION BASED ON 6TH EDITION ITE RATES (USED IN 2002 EIR) AND CURRENT 9TH EDITION ITE RATES Total New New Description Size A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour 2002 Approved Plan New Trips Based on ITE 6th Edition Rates (Used in 2002 EIR): Parcel 1: 325,300 sf 124 (86 in, 38 out) 59 (22 in, 37 out) Parcel 2: 30 units 15 (2 in, 13 out) 19 (13 in, 6 out) Total New Trips 139 (88 in, 51 out)* 78 (35 in, 43 out)* 2002 Approved Plan New Trips Based on ITE 9th Edition Rates (Current): Parcel 1: 325,300 sf 113 (79 in, 34 out) 53 (20 in, 33 out) Parcel 2: 30 units 15 (3 in, 12 out) 19 (12 in, 7 out) Total 128 (82 in, 46 out) 72 (32 in, 40 out) *ITE 6th Edition Rates Remain Most Conservative 2002 Approved Plan Total Trips: Existing 2001 Volumes: 1,063 (637 in, 426 out) 347 (208 in, 139 out) Parcel 1 Approved Trips (ITE 6th Edition): 124 (86 in, 38 out) 59 (22 in, 37 out) Parcel 2 Approved Trips (ITE 6th Edition): 15 (2 in, 13 out) 19 (13 in, 6 out) Total 2002 EIR Approved Plan Trips: 1,202 (725 in, 477 out) 425 (243 in, 182 out) Valley Christian Center Plan Change Traffic Review Page 5 City of Dublin (R2006TIA003.DOC/35-3526-34) TABLE 2 COMPARISON OF APPROVED PLAN TO PROPOSED PLAN WEEKDAY TRIP GENERATION BASED ON ITE RATES AND SURVEYED RATE TRIP GENERATION A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Approved Plan: Existing 2001 Volumes: 1,063 (637 in, 426 out) 347 (208 in, 139 out) Parcel 1 Approved Trips (ITE 6th Edition): 124 (86 in, 38 out) 59 (22 in, 37 out) Parcel 2 Approved Trips (ITE 6th Edition): 15 (2 in, 13 out) 19 (13 in, 6 out) 2002 EIR Approved Plan Trips:* 1,202 (725 in, 477 out) 425 (243 in, 182 out) Proposed Plan Based on ITE Rates: No change in population from Approved Plan (1,300 students); ITE 6th Edition more conservative than ITE 9th Edition; Therefore no change in trips from Approved Plan for Parcel 1. Parcel 2 withdrawn from Proposed Plan request. Existing 2001 Volumes: 1,063 (637 in, 426 out) 347 (208 in, 139 out) Parcel 1 Approved Trips (ITE 6th Edition): 124 (86 in, 38 out)_ 59 (22 in, 37 out) Proposed Plan Trips Based on the Most Conservative ITE Rates: 1,187 (723 in, 464 out) 406 (267 in, 176) Total Proposed Plan Trips Based on Surveyed Rates: 0.82 A.M. & 0.27 P.M. trips/student x 1,300 students Proposed Plan Trips Based on Surveyed Rates 1,066 (647 in, 419 out) 351 (211 in, 140 out) *2002 EIR Trips Remain Most Conservative Valley Christian Center Plan Change Traffic Review Page 6 City of Dublin (R2006TIA003.DOC/35-3526-34) SANCTUARY TRIP GENERATION The 2002 approved plan’s sanctuary size was 90,000 square feet with 2,000 seats. The proposed plan’s sanctuary size has been reduced to 57,400 square feet with 1,500 seats. Sunday trips were generated for the approved sanctuary size based on the ITE 6th Edition rates, then compared to the proposed plan using current ITE rates and surveyed rates. ITE 6th Edition rates for Sunday service were only available based on gross floor area. Applying the ITE 6th Edition rate of 9.49 trips per 1,000 square feet gross floor area (ksf gfa) to 90,000 square feet results in 854 Sunday peak hour trips for the approved sanctuary size. The current ITE 9th Edition trip rate is 12.04 trips per ksf gfa. Based on the change in ITE trip rates, the approved sanctuary size would generate 1,084 peak hour trips, or 230 additional trips compared to the old rate. The current ITE manual also now provides a rate based on the number of seats, which is 0.61 trips per seat. With an approved capacity of 2,000 seats, the approved sanctuary would be calculated to generate 1,220 trips based on the number of seats. With the proposed plan sanctuary size decreasing to 57,400 square feet and 1,500 seats, trip generation will be lower than the approved sanctuary size. Based on the current ITE rate per square foot, the proposed sanctuary size of 57,400 square feet would generate 691 trips, or 393 fewer trips than the approved sanctuary size. Based on the current ITE rate per seat, the proposed sanctuary size of 1,500 seats would generate 915 trips, for a decrease of 305 trips compared to the approved sanctuary size. Trip generation surveys we conducted of the Valley Christian Sunday service identified a substantially lower trip rate than the ITE rates. Our field surveys observed that the church trips tend to be spread over time beyond one hour. It is also likely that some of the ITE data reflects trip generation occurring between two services, when outbound and inbound trips for each service are creating a higher trip rate. Our surveys identified 196 Sunday peak hour trips with existing church attendance of 560 people. Therefore, the service has a surveyed trip rate of 0.35 peak hour trips per person, which is approximately one-half of the ITE rate per seat. Applying the surveyed rate to the approved plans’ 2,000 seat maximum results in 700 Sunday peak hour trips. Applying the surveyed rate to the proposed plans’ 1,500 seat maximum equates to 525 peak hour church trips, or 175 fewer trips with the proposed plan compared to the approved plan. The Sunday trip generation is shown in Table 3. • The proposed plan sanctuary size of 57,400 square feet and 1,500 seats is lower than the approved plan’s size of 90,000 square feet and 2,000 seats. Based on ITE rates and surveyed rates, the proposed sanctuary size will generate fewer trips than the approved sanctuary size, therefore no impacts would be associated with the sanctuary trip generation. Valley Christian Center Plan Change Traffic Review Page 7 City of Dublin (R2006TIA003.DOC/35-3526-34) TABLE 3 SUNDAY CHANGE IN TRIPS FOR PROPOSED PLAN FROM APPROVED PLAN Sunday Peak Hour Description Size Trip Rate Trips Approved Sanctuary (per ksf gfa) ITE 6th Edition Rate: 90,000 sf 9.49 trips/ksf 854 (435 in, 419 out) ITE 9th Edition Rate: 90,000 sf 12.04 trips/ksf 1,084 (531 in, 553 out) Proposed Sanctuary (per ksf gfa) ITE 9th Edition Rate: 57,400 sf 12.04 trips/ksf 691 (339 in, 352 out) Change from Approved: -32,600 sf -393 (-192 in, -201 out) _______________________________ Approved Sanctuary (per seat) ITE 9th Edition Rate: 2,000 seats 0.61 trips/seat 1,220 (610 in, 610 out) Proposed Sanctuary (per seat) ITE 9th Edition Rate per seat: 1,500 seats 0.61 trips/seat 915 (458 in, 457 out) Change from Approved: -305 (-152 in, -153 out) _______________________________ Approved Sanctuary (Surveyed Rate) Surveyed Rate: 2,000 persons 0.35 trips/person 700 (50 in, 650 out) Proposed Sanctuary (Surveyed Rate) Surveyed Rate: 1,500 persons 0.35 trips/person 525 (38 in, 487 out) Change from Approved: -175 (-12 in, -163 out) Proposed Sanctuary Size Reduction Results In Lower Trip Generation with Proposed Plan Than 2002 EIR Approved Plan. Valley Christian Center Plan Change Traffic Review Page 8 City of Dublin (R2006TIA003.DOC/35-3526-34) TRIP GENERATION FOR SPORTS FIELD COMPONENT OF PROPOSED PLAN The proposed plan includes construction of a multi-sports playing field capable of hosting football games as well as track and field events that would provide seating for spectators. Information regarding the sports activities was provided by school personnel. Organized football games would include 1 scrimmage and up to 6 regular season home games with the potential for an additional 3 playoff games between August and November. The field is proposed to be lighted for night games. If lighted, games would be played on Friday, with a junior varsity game beginning at 4:00 p.m. and a varsity game at 7:00 p.m.. Without lights, school personnel have indicated games would be played on a Saturday afternoon (junior varsity 11:00 a.m. and varsity 1:00 p.m.).5 The proposed stadium capacity is 1,100 seats. Based on trip generation surveys we have conducted for high school football stadiums, attendance of 1,100 people would generate the following trips before and after a game:6 1,100 attendees: 451 trips (pregame = 316 in, 135 out); (post-game = 75 in, 340 out). The outbound trips before games and inbound trips after games reflect dropping off and picking up of persons who attend the game. It is noted that the survey data is based on counts conducted at the highest attended games of the season (Homecoming) with about 1,500 persons. The counts therefore represent “worst case” maximum estimates for night football games. Also, the counts were conducted at high schools with established football programs. Valley Christian school personnel expect regular attendance to be considerably less due to the fact that they are part of a much smaller private league. Currently games are played offsite and draw approximately 200-500 attendees. Homecoming currently attracts 600 attendees. Attendance is expected to remain 500-600 persons for several years, then possibly increase to 600-1,000 persons in the future. Trip generation for night football games would occur during off-peak hours (6-7 p.m. and 9-10 p.m.). During these hours, volume increases would be noticeable to residents living on access roads, but background volumes are low at these times and the total volumes would remain within the capacity of the streets. Two intersections evaluated in the 2002 EIR that were not signalized (Dublin Bl./Silvergate Dr. and Dublin Bl./Inspiration Dr.) are now signalized and operating at optimal level of service conditions. As noted, football games would be limited to 7-10 evenings per year. Although limited in number, night games would occur when the turn restrictions intended to minimize cut-through traffic through the neighborhood to the north are not active (M-F 7 a.m. to 5 p.m.). Existing school cut-through traffic appears to be fairly low (refer to section below). However, it is possible some cut-through traffic could occur in the neighborhood before and after games. • In order to minimize the potential for cut-through traffic during football games, any of the following options could be implemented: Provide an informational letter to parents before the football season advising them to avoid using cut-through routes. Install temporary signing on football game days at the school driveways which activate the turn restrictions during football game times. Provide traffic control personnel at the school driveways to direct traffic toward the south on Inspiration Drive. 5 Valley Christian Center, Meeting with school personnel and athletic director, May 6, 2015. 6 George W. Nickelson, P.E., Concord High School Stadium Project, November 2005. Mills Associates, Clayton Valley High School Stadium Lighting Project Final Environmental Impact Report, April 2003. Valley Christian Center Plan Change Traffic Review Page 9 City of Dublin (R2006TIA003.DOC/35-3526-34) Sports events other than organized football games would generate a lower number of vehicle trips than football games. The field would be used for soccer matches and track & field events which currently use the school’s existing play fields. The men’s soccer season (November-February) and women’s soccer season (February-May) host approximately 12 varsity matches and 5 junior varsity matches per season.7 The matches are played in the afternoon/evening (3:00-5:00 p.m.). School personnel indicate soccer matches have historically drawn up to 60 offsite attendees. The track & field season (February- May) hosts approximately 1 meet per month (4 total), consisting of up to 60 athletes and 60 non-students in attendance. Regular track meets are usually held 2:00- 6:00 p.m. The proposed sports field’s 8-lane track would allow the school to host an Invitational track meet (one per season). These consist of up to 200 athletes and up to 200 attendees (400 total) and are held on a Saturday (9:00 a.m. - 7:00 p.m.). The sports field would be used for practices for football (fall), soccer (winter/spring), and track & field (spring). All practices are held in the afternoon/evening (approximately 3:00-5:30 p.m.). These would not be expected to generate any new trips, since these activities already occur on existing fields. Only the football games and Invitational track meets (if held) would generate new sports activity related vehicle trips. It is possible there would be one or two special event occasions per year, such as a graduation ceremony, which would draw high attendance. However, these would be very infrequent. 7 Valley Christian Center, email correspondence describing sports activities, May 28, 2015. Valley Christian Center Plan Change Traffic Review Page 10 City of Dublin (R2006TIA003.DOC/35-3526-34) EVALUATION OF TRAFFIC INTRUSION ONTO NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS In order to minimize school traffic from intruding on the local neighborhood streets north of the school as much as possible, vehicle turn restrictions are in place at two of the school’s three driveways (the north and middle driveways). Specifically, signs are posted prohibiting right turns in and left turns out on school days from 7:00 am to 5:00 pm. There are no turn restrictions at the school’s south driveway. Observations of vehicle turning movements during the a.m. peak hour were conducted in 2001 for the 2002 draft EIR. The observed trips were 50 turns to/from the north (20 illegal turns from the north and middle driveways plus 30 legal turns from the south driveway). Our recent counts observed 29 turns to/from the north (14 illegal plus 15 legal) during the a.m. peak hour. The current volume is lower than 2001, but accounting for a lower existing school population compared to the 2001 population, the percentage of trips to/from the north is nearly equal for both surveys: approximately 4½ % of the total peak hour trips. This indicates the cut-through rate has not been increasing. It would also appear to reflect a fairly low cut-through rate, given that some of the trips are likely from residents of the neighborhood. However, future student population growth could increase the possibility of greater cut-through traffic. In order to maintain as low a cut-through rate as possible, a combination of notification and monitoring procedures is recommended. • It is recommended that the school provide an informational letter to parents at least once per year advising them to avoid using cut-through routes. • The 2002 EIR recommended monitoring of the peak hour turning movements at the project driveways every six months (Mitigation Measure 4.10-2 (local streets)). Based on our recent surveys, the cut through rate does not appear to be increasing. However, it is recommended that the conditions be monitored again after the completion of Phases 2, 3, and 4. • If the cut-through rate goes up, increased enforcement of the illegal turns and/or prohibiting turns to/from the north at the southern driveway could be considered. Valley Christian Center Plan Change Traffic Review Page 11 City of Dublin (R2006TIA003.DOC/35-3526-34) REGIONAL TRIP DISTRIBUTION COMPARISON BETWEEN APPROVED & PROPOSED PLANS The regional distribution of vehicle trips evaluated in the 2002 EIR was based in part on church member and student residence locations provided by Valley Christian personnel. For comparison, student residence locations based on recent information were evaluated. The trip distribution based on the 2002 demographic data resulted in 28% to/from the north via I- 680, 13% to/from the south via I-680, 25% to/from the east via I-580, and 8% to/from the west via I- 580. There were 26% from within the City of Dublin. The total equates to 74% of the school traffic traveling to/from I-580 and likely traveling on San Ramon Road (between I-580 and Dublin Boulevard) and on Dublin Boulevard (between San Ramon Road and Inspiration Drive). Our evaluation of the recent zip code data indicates a nearly identical distribution of Valley Christian members. Approximately 28% of trips are via I-680 to/from the north, 12% via I-680 to/from the south, 24% are via I-580 to/from the east, and 9% are via I-580 to/from the west, and 27% are from within the City of Dublin. The total regional trips equates to 73% of the school trips traveling between I-580 and the school via San Ramon Road and Dublin Boulevard west of San Ramon Road. With the remaining 27% constituting local traffic distributed throughout the area. Although the percentage of trips to/from the freeway is high (73%) compared to local trips (27%), the distribution with the proposed plan would be similar to the approved expansion. Therefore, the level of service conditions evaluated in the 2002 EIR would also remain valid. Valley Christian Center Plan Change Traffic Review Page 12 City of Dublin (R2006TIA003.DOC/35-3526-34) PARKING ANALYSIS The proposed plan would consist of three separate parking generating components: the sanctuary, the school facilities, and the new sports field activities. The parking requirements for each component have been calculated independently. It is assumed the church, school, and sports field games will not be in use concurrently. The 2002 EIR for the approved expansion evaluated parking based on the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance. The parking requirements were evaluated for the Sunday worship space and for the weekday school uses. The highest parking space requirement was associated with the Sunday worship service. The required parking was calculated to be 667 spaces for the worship service based on 2,000 seats (at 1 required space per 3 seats). The existing parking supply consists of 510 striped spaces and the approved plan was to add 250 new paved and 100 unpaved overflow spaces for a total of 860 spaces. Therefore the parking supply met the zoning ordinance requirement, with a surplus of 193 spaces. For the proposed plan, the supply of parking spaces will vary with each phase of development. The existing parking supply of 510 spaces will be reduced to 395 spaces for Phases 1 and 2. The supply will increase to 530 spaces in Phase 3 and to 600 spaces in Phase 4.8 City of Dublin Planning Staff have calculated the required number of parking spaces based on the current zoning ordinance (see Table A-3 attached). The parking ordinance for sanctuary facilities requires 1 space per 3 seats plus 1 space per Sunday service classroom. The existing sanctuary containing 763 seats requires 258 parking spaces, which is met with the current supply of 510 spaces as well as the reduced supply of 395 spaces during Phases 1 and 2. The sanctuary expansion to 1,500 seats would occur in Development Phase 4. The Zoning Ordinance requires 504 spaces for the proposed sanctuary. The parking supply would increase from 530 spaces in Phase 3 to 600 spaces in Phase 4. Therefore, the parking requirement would be met, with a surplus of 96 spaces. The sanctuary parking requirement per the Dublin Zoning Ordinance equates to 0.33 parked vehicles per seat. It is noted, however, that our parking surveys of the church identified a higher demand of 0.40 vehicles per person (220 vehicles for 560 people). Applying the surveyed rate to the proposed 1,500 seats equates to a parking demand of 600 vehicles if the church is fully occupied. With 600 spaces provided in Phase 4, demand based on the surveyed rate would be accommodated with maximum attendance. For the weekday school related parking demand, the proposed plan after buildout would require 395 parking spaces to satisfy the weekday school parking requirement. The proposed plan would provide a minimum of 395 spaces (Phases 1 and 2) and up to 600 spaces (Phase 4). Therefore, the proposed plan would meet the weekday parking requirement during all of the Development Phases. 8 Goring & Straja Architects, Modification of Planned Development Valley Christian Center, Conceptual Phasing Plan, Sheet No. A1.4, 6/16/2015. Valley Christian Center Plan Change Traffic Review Page 13 City of Dublin (R2006TIA003.DOC/35-3526-34) TABLE 4 PARKING SUPPLY AND ZONING REQUIREMENTS FOR APPROVED & PROPOSED PLANS PARKING SUPPLY AND REQUIREMENTS Existing Supply: 510 Approved Plan Supply: Proposed Plan Supply: Existing 510 Existing 510 New Paved 250 Phases 1 & 2 395 Overflow 100 Phase 3 530 Total 860 Phase 4 600 Proposed Plan Parking Requirements: Zoning Ordinance Required Spaces Supply Sanctuary (Developed in Phase 4) 1,500 seats 1 space/seat = 500 spaces 4 Sunday Service Classrooms 1 space/classroom = 4 spaces = 504 spaces 600 spaces Surveyed Parking Rate 1,500 seats (people) 0.4 spaces/person = 600 spaces 600 spaces School (At buildout in Phase 4): = 395 spaces 395 spaces (Phase 1 &2 ) 600 spaces (Phase 4) Sports Field Football Games (Developed in Phase 1) No City Ordinance; parking rate is based on our surveys of football games at other schools. 1,100 seats 0.46 spaces/seat = 506 spaces *395 spaces Phases 1 & 2 530 spaces Phase 3 600 spaces Phase 4 *Parking space deficit of 111 spaces in Phases 1 & 2. See mitigation measures in report. Source: Goring & Straja Architects, Modification of Planned Development Valley Christian Center, Conceptual Phasing Plan, Sheet No. A1.4, 6/16/2015. Valley Christian Center Plan Change Traffic Review Page 14 City of Dublin (R2006TIA003.DOC/35-3526-34) PARKING DEMAND FOR SPORTS FIELD COMPONENT OF THE PROPOSED PLAN Parking demand associated with night football games has been evaluated based on parking surveys we have conducted in conjunction with other high school stadium projects. The surveys found a peak parking demand of 0.46 vehicles per attendee for football games. The stadium capacity is currently designed to be 1,100 seats. This results in a parking demand of 506 spaces based on maximum capacity. The sports field would be built in Phase 1 of the proposed plan, when the parking supply would consist of 395 spaces. The supply would not increase until Phase 3 (Year 2025) when 530 spaces would be provided. The total supply of 600 spaces would not be available until Phase 4 (Year 2030). Therefore a parking deficit of 111 spaces (506 – 395 = 111) would occur during Phases 1 & 2 based on maximum occupancy. Football games are currently played offsite. Valley Christian personnel state existing football games draw approximately 200-500 attendees for regular games and up to 600 attendees for special games such as Homecoming. Valley Christian personnel expect attendance to remain approximately 500-600 persons for several years, then possibly increase to 600-1,000 persons in the future. Although attendance is expected to be less than the stadium capacity of 1,100 seats for some time, football games would nevertheless be under parked based on the number of seats and the supply of 395 spaces through Phase 2 of the proposed plan. • In order to match the seating capacity parking demand with the parking supply, three alternative options are presented which would mitigate the stadium parking deficit: Construct the needed additional parking spaces in Phase 1 instead of later Phases. For example, building the parking lot adjacent to Building E would yield 53 spaces. Constructing an additional 58 spaces elsewhere would provide 506 spaces (395 Phase 2 spaces + 53 Building E spaces + 58 other spaces = 506 spaces). Or, Construct the stadium initially with a lower number of seats that matches the supply of 395 spaces in Phases 1 & 2, then expand the stadium seating to 1,100 seats after the Phase 3 parking supply of 530 spaces is constructed. With 395 spaces, the stadium could be constructed with a seating capacity of 859 seats (395 spaces / 0.46 spaces per seat = 859 seats). (Any combination of increased parking supply and fewer seats could be constructed as long as the parking demand rate of 0.46 vehicles per seat is accommodated.) Or, Since attendance is expected to be considerably less than 1,100 people initially, the available supply per Development Phase would appear to adequately serve the anticipated attendance growth projections. However, in order to be prepared to provide adequate parking conditions in the event attendance does increase sooner than expected, the school could prepare a Parking Management Plan, subject to City approval, for football games that could be implemented if necessary. Such plans could include providing parking attendants to manage parking in overflow areas to maximize parking efficiency; actively promote carpooling through school literature; altering game times to earlier in the day (when students are still on campus); or monitoring attendance and limiting tickets to the corresponding supply of parking spaces. Valley Christian Center Plan Change Traffic Review Page 15 City of Dublin (R2006TIA003.DOC/35-3526-34) Football games would generate the highest parking demand by the stadium on a regular basis. Only a special event, such as graduation, would be expected to draw similar attendance. Graduation ceremonies are currently held off site. School personnel indicate attendance is 600-850 attendees. Football games have a parking rate of 0.46 cars per attendee and the sanctuary has a surveyed parking rate of 0.40 spaces per attendee. Graduation ceremonies would be expected to have a similar parking demand rate. With 850 attendees, the highest parking rate equates to 391 spaces. With a minimum parking supply of 395 spaces (Phases 1 & 2), the expected maximum attendance of 850 attendees would be accommodated during all development phases. Moreover, the mitigation measures recommended above for football games to match the stadium seating capacity with the parking supply would also ensure the parking supply is adequate for graduation ceremonies and similar special events. Valley Christian Center Plan Change Traffic Review Page 16 City of Dublin (R2006TIA003.DOC/35-3526-34) FINDINGS The vehicle trip generation for the proposed plan was compared to the trips calculated in the 2002 EIR. The proposed plan trips were calculated using the 2002 EIR methodology, which was based on earlier ITE published data, as well as current ITE rates. The ITE rates were also compared to surveyed rates of the existing Valley Christian Center conducted for this study. There is no change in the proposed student population with the proposed plan and the 2002 EIR trip rates remain the most conservative, therefore the level of service analysis in the 2002 EIR also applies to the proposed plan. The proposed plan includes construction of a sports field which would host football games and other sports events. Trip generation for football games, based on survey data of other high schools, indicates the proposed seating capacity of 1,100 seats would generate 451 trips temporarily before and after the games. Football game trips would occur during time periods when background traffic volumes are low and the volumes would remain within the carrying capacity of the street network. Trip generation for non-football sporting events would be low and would not be expected to have a substantial effect on traffic operating conditions. School related traffic intrusion onto neighborhood streets north of the school was surveyed in the 2002 EIR and also in this study. Both surveys found the number of trips to/from the north to be relatively low (approximately 4½ % of the total school trips). Recommendations have been made to regularly remind parents to avoid cut-through routes. It is also recommended the conditions be monitored after each development phase is completed and, if necessary, implement additional turn restriction and/or enforcement measures. Similarly for football games, it is recommended the school notify parents and, if necessary, provide traffic control personnel to direct traffic away from the neighborhood. The distribution of vehicle trips was evaluated in the 2002 EIR based on zip code data of Valley Christian member zip codes. The 2002 report found that a majority (74%) of trips were regional trips to/from I-580 and I-680. The member demographics were evaluated again for this study based on zip codes for current members. The current data indicates a nearly identical distribution pattern, with 73% likely traveling to/from I-580 via San Ramon Road and Dublin Boulevard west of San Ramon Road, with the remaining 27% comprised of local trips. The proposed plan change was evaluated for parking space supply based on the City Zoning Ordinances as well as surveyed parking rates. The proposed plan’s parking supply will be different with each phase of development. The existing parking supply of 510 spaces will be reduced to 395 spaces for Phases 1 and 2, then increased to 530 spaces in Phase 3 and 600 spaces in Phase 4. The parking supply in each development phase would meet the zoning ordinance for the school and sanctuary. However, for football games, the parking demand with a stadium capacity of 1,100 seats is calculated to be 506 spaces. This would not be accommodated during development phases 1 or 2, when only 395 spaces would be provided. Recommendations to increase the parking supply, reduce the seating capacity, or provide a Parking Management Plan for Phases 1 and 2 have been made. The trip generation and parking demand findings, in conjunction with the recommended improvement measures, would mitigate the proposed plan traffic conditions to less than significant levels. Valley Christian Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Date August 2018 Project Name Valley Christian Center PLPA-2014-00052 Project Location The project site is located at 7500 Inspiration Drive (APN 941-0022-003, 004, 005 & 006) in the City of Dublin, CA in Alameda County. Project Applicant Roger Valci Valley Christian Center 7500 Inspiration Drive Dublin, CA 94568 State Clearinghouse Number 2002012070 Contact Martha Battaglia Associate Planner City of Dublin Community Development Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Phone: 925-833-6610 martha.battaglia@dublin.ca.gov EXHIBIT B City of Dublin Valley Christian Center: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that all public agencies establish monitoring and/or reporting procedures for mitigation measures (MMs) adopted as part of the project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant project impacts. The MMRP identifies the following for each MM: Timing. In each case, a timeframe for performance of the mitigation measure, or review of evidence that mitigation has taken place, is provided. The measures are designed to ensure that impact-related components of project implementation do not proceed without establishing that the mitigation is implemented or assured. All activities are subject to the approval of all required permits from local, state, and federal agencies with permitting authority over the specific activity. Responsible Party or Designated Representative. In each case, unless otherwise indicated, the Applicant is the Responsible Party for implementing the mitigation. The City or a Designated Representative will also monitor the performance and implementation of the mitigation measures. To guarantee that the mitigation measure will not be inadvertently overlooked, a supervising public official acting as the Designated Representative is the official who grants the permit or authorization called for in the performance. Where more than one official is identified, permits or authorization from all officials shall be required. The numbering system corresponds with the numbering system used in the Valley Christian Center Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study (dated June 2018) and the Valley Christian Center Environmental Impact Report (dated October 2002). The last column of the MMRP table will be used by the parties responsible for documenting when implementation of the MM has been completed. The ongoing documentation and monitoring of mitigation compliance will be completed by the City of Dublin. The completed MMRP will be kept on file at the City of Dublin Community Development Department. Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial Aesthetics, Light & Glare Valley Christian Center EIR (October 2002): MM 4.1-1. The proposed senior center and chapel buildings should be restricted to one story construction consistent with the County Scenic Route Element, and set back from the top of slope and distance of the building height to reduce visibility from the I-580 freeway. Consideration should also be given to reducing the apparent heights of the two buildings by designing low rooflines, using earth tone building colors, using non-reflective surfaces and appropriate landscape screening. For the residential component of the proposed project, consideration shall be given to providing a greater building setback from the Dublin Boulevard/Inspiration Drive intersection, limiting the building on the south side of the complex to a single story, using intensive landscaping on the corner to screen the residences and using earth tone colors and non-reflective surfaces. Site Development Review process Prior to approval of Site Development Review Permit for senior center and chapel City of Dublin Valley Christian Center EIR (October 2002): MM 4.1-2. Ensure that all exterior light fixtures be equipped with cut-off lenses, directed downward, and limited in height to the maximum necessary for adequate illumination to minimize excess light and glare. Notes on construction plans; site inspection Prior to issuance of building permit or other permit for development activities City of Dublin City of Dublin Valley Christian Center: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 4 Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial Valley Christian Center Supplemental MND (June 2018): AES-1. The final playfield lighting plans shall be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to issuance of a building permit for the sports stadium and shall include detailed photometric drawings documenting that no spillover of light or glare would occur off the VCC project site. Submittal of documentation, including photometric drawings Prior to issuance of building permit City of Dublin Air Quality Valley Christian Center EIR (October 2002): MM 4.2-1: The following measures are recommended, based on BAAQMD standards, to reduce construction impacts to a less-than-significant level. The following construction practices should be required during all phases of construction on the project site: a) Water all active construction areas as needed. b) Watering or covering of stockpiles of debris, soil, sand or other materials that can be blown away by wind. c) Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. d) Pave, apply water three times a daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. e) Sweep daily (preferably with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. Notes on construction plans; site inspections Prior to first grading, building or other permit for development activities; during construction City of Dublin City of Dublin Valley Christian Center: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 5 Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial f) Sweep streets daily (preferably with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. g) Hydroseed or apply non-toxic soil. h) Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply non- toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.). i) Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph. j) Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff. k) Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. Valley Christian Center Supplemental MND (June 2018): AIR-1: The Applicant’s grading contractor(s) shall adhere to the most current Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s construction mitigation measures (Tables 8-1 and 8-2 or as may be updated at the time a grading permit is requested) as set forth in the May 2017 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, or as may be amended in the future and in effect at time of issuance of grading permit. Notes on construction plans; site inspection Prior to first grading, building or other permit for development activities; during construction City of Dublin Biological Resources Valley Christian Center Supplemental MND (June 2018): MM Bio-1. Prior to the first grading, building, or other permit for development activities, the project Applicant shall prepare the documentation acceptable to the Submittal of documentation; notes on construction plans Prior to first grading building, or other permit for development activities City of Dublin City of Dublin Valley Christian Center: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 6 Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial Community Development Department that demonstrates compliance with the following: a) No more than 14 days prior to initial ground disturbance and vegetation removal during nesting season (February 1 – August 31), the project Applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to perform pre-construction breeding bird surveys. If any nests are found, they shall be flagged and protected with a suitable buffer. Buffer distances would vary based on species and conditions at the project site, but is usually at least 50 feet, and up to 250 feet for raptors. This mitigation measure does not apply to ground disturbance and vegetation removal activities that occur outside of the nesting season (September 1 – January 31). Valley Christian Center Supplemental MND (June 2018): MM Bio-2. Any on-site coast live oak lost or impacted as a result of project construction shall be replaced on site or in the immediate vicinity at a 2:1 (replacement: impacted) ratio. A Replacement Plan shall be prepared by a qualified biologist identifying the location of replacement habitat, replanting plans and long-term monitoring to ensure the success of the replacement habitat area. Necessary permits shall be obtained from local, state and federal biological resource agencies prior to commencement of replantings. Submittal of documentation; notes on construction plans; site inspection Prior to the first grading, building or other permit for development activities City of Dublin Valley Christian Center Supplemental MND (June 2018): Submittal of documentation; notes on Prior to the first grading, building or City of Dublin City of Dublin Valley Christian Center: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 7 Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial MM Bio-3. Prior to obtaining the first grading or building permit for development activities involving ground disturbance, the project Applicant shall prepare the documentation acceptable to the Community Development Department that demonstrates compliance with the following: a) Retain a qualified botanist to conduct rare plant surveys within the construction zone for Congdon’s tarplant or other species with potential habitat within the project area during the appropriate time of year in accordance with agency protocols. Impacts to special-status plant species shall be avoided to the fullest extent feasible and habitat that supports special-status plant species shall be preserved. Rare plant surveys shall be conducted at the proper time of year when rare or endangered species are both evident and identifiable. Field surveys shall be scheduled to coincide with known blooming periods, and/or during periods of physiological development that are necessary to identify the plant species of concern. If no special-status plant species are found, then the proposed project would not have any impacts to the species and no additional mitigation is needed. b) Where surveys determine that special-status plant species are present within or adjacent to the proposed project site, direct and indirect impacts of the project on the species (e.g. Congdon’s tarplant and/or San Joaquin construction plans; site inspection other permit for development activities; during construction; City of Dublin Valley Christian Center: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 8 Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial spearscale) shall be avoided where feasible through the establishment of activity exclusion zones, where no ground-disturbing activities shall take place, including construction of new facilities, construction staging, or other temporary work areas. Activity exclusion zones for special-status plant species shall be established prior to construction activities around each occupied habitat site, the boundaries of which shall be clearly marked with standard orange plastic construction exclusion fencing or its equivalent. The establishment of activity exclusion zones shall not be required if no construction related disturbances would occur within 250 feet of the occupied habitat site. The size of activity exclusion zones may be reduced through consultation with a qualified biologist and with concurrence from the California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) based on site-specific conditions. c) If exclusion zones and avoidance of impacts on a special-status plant species are not feasible, then the loss of individuals or occupied habitat of a special-status plant species shall be compensated for through the acquisition, protection, and subsequent management of other existing occurrences. Before the implementation of compensation measures, the project’s Applicant shall provide detailed City of Dublin Valley Christian Center: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 9 Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial information to the CDFW and lead agency on the quality of preserved habitat, location of the preserved occurrences, provisions for protecting and managing the areas, the responsible parties involved, and other pertinent information that demonstrates the feasibility of the compensation. A Mitigation Plan identifying appropriate mitigation measures shall be developed in consultation with and approved by, the CDFW and the City prior to the commencement of any activities that would impact any special status plants. Valley Christian Center Supplemental MND (June 2018): MM BIO-4. For any development near on-site riparian areas, the project Applicant shall conduct pre- construction surveys for California red-legged frog (CRLF) species. The survey shall be completed no more than 30 days prior to work within 200 feet of potential wetland/wet areas on the site. If no species are found, no mitigation shall be required. If CRLF are found on the project site, then the project Applicant shall provide information to support Section 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the project Applicant shall ensure no net loss of habitat that shall be achieved through avoidance, preservation, creation, and/or purchase of credits. The final selected measures may be part of the Section 7 permitting process. Submittal of documentation; notes on construction plans; site inspection Prior to the first grading, building or other permit for development activities; during construction City of Dublin City of Dublin Valley Christian Center: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 10 Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial The project Applicant shall obtain a biological opinion from the USFWS and comply with the conditions and mitigation requirements under the opinion to ensure that no net loss of habitat occurs. Mitigation may include, but would not be limited to on-site and off-site preservation and creation of CRLF habitat, purchase of credits at mitigation banks, payment of in-lieu fees approved by the agencies, or other agency approved and required mitigation measures. Avoidance measures may include the following or equivalent protective measures: a) To minimize disturbance of breeding and dispersing CRLF construction activity within CRLF upland habitat shall be conducted during the dry season between April 15 and October 15 or before the onset of the rainy season, whichever occurs first. If construction activities are necessary in CRLF upland habitat between October 15 and April 15, the project Applicant would contact the USFWS for approval to extend the work period. b) To minimize disturbance and mortality of adult and juvenile CRLF in aquatic habitat and underground burrows, the project Applicants should minimize the extent of ground-disturbing activities within the work area to the minimum necessary for construction. In addition, the project Applicant should ensure that the City of Dublin Valley Christian Center: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 11 Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial contractor installs temporary exclusion fence between the construction work area and the potential aquatic habitat for all construction within grasslands near aquatic habitat. A minimum buffer zone of 150 feet shall be maintained around CRLF aquatic habitat during construction. No staging, parking, material storage or ground disturbance shall be allowed in the buffer zone. The buffer zone will be clearly defined with construction fencing prior to the initiation of construction activities and shall be maintained until completion of construction. c) The project Applicant should ensure that a qualified wildlife biologist monitors all construction activities within CRLF upland habitat to ensure no take of individual CRLF occurs during project construction. If a CRLF is found, then the monitor would immediately stop construction in that area and contact USFWS for development of a plan for how to proceed with construction. Valley Christian Center Supplemental MND (June 2018): MM BIO-5. Prior to commencement of ground disturbing activities on the undeveloped and undisturbed portions of Parcel 1 of the project site, the Applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to determine the potential presence of wetlands or other waters. If wetlands are found, the Applicant shall prepare a Submittal of documentation; notes on construction plans Prior to first site grading or building permit for the southern portion of Parcel 1 City of Dublin City of Dublin Valley Christian Center: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 12 Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial wetland mitigation plan acceptable to the Community Development Department that demonstrates compliance with the following: a) Project Applicant shall obtain all required resource agency permits and shall prepare and obtain resource agency approval of a wetland mitigation plan that ensures no-net loss of wetland and water habitats. b) The wetland mitigation plan shall include measures for avoidance, minimization, and compensation for wetland impacts. Avoidance and minimization measures may include the designation of buffers around wetland features to be avoided, or project design measures. Compensation measures shall include the preservation and/or creation of wetland or other waters. The final mitigation ratios (the amount of wetlands and waters created or preserved compared to the amount impacted) shall be determined by the applicable resource agency(s). The wetland and mitigation monitoring plan shall include the following: a. Descriptions of wetland types, and their expected functions and values. b. Performance standards and monitoring protocol to ensure the success of the mitigation wetlands over a period to be determined by the resource agencies. City of Dublin Valley Christian Center: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 13 Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial c. Engineering plans showing the location, size and configuration of wetlands to be created or preserved. d. An implementation schedule showing that construction or preservation of mitigation areas shall commence prior to or concurrently with initiation of construction. e. A description of legal protection measures for the preserved wetlands (i.e. dedication of fee title, conservation easement and/or an endowment held by an approved conservation organization, government agency or mitigation bank). Cultural Resources Valley Christian Center EIR (October 2002): MM 4.4-1. If an archeological or Native American artifact is identified, work on the project site shall cease immediately until a resource protection plan conforming to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e) is prepared by a qualified archeologist and approved by the Community Development Director. Project work may be resumed in compliance with such plan. If human remains are encountered, the Country Coroner shall be contacted immediately. Notes on construction plans; site inspection During construction City of Dublin Geology and Soils City of Dublin Valley Christian Center: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 14 Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial Valley Christian Center EIR (October 2002): MM 4.5-1. A site specific geotechnical investigation shall be required for each building constructed as part of the proposed expansion by a California registered geologist or California registered engineering geologist. The report(s) shall address the potential for extension of the Dublin fault on the site, expansive soils and the potential for future landslides on the site. Specific measures to reduce seismic hazards, expansive soils and landslide hazards to a less-than-significant level shall be included in the report(s). Submittal of documentation Prior to first site grading or building permit City of Dublin Hydrology & Water Quality Valley Christian Center EIR (October 2002): MM 4.6-1. An erosion and sedimentation control plan shall be prepared by a California registered Civil Engineer for implementation throughout all phases of project construction. The plan should be prepared in accordance with the City of Dublin and RWQCB design standards and shall be approved by the Public Works Director prior to issuance of a grading permit. It is recommended that this plan, at a minimum include the following provisions: a) Existing vegetated areas should be left undisturbed until construction of improvements on each portion of the development site is actually ready to commence. Submittal of documentation; notes on construction plans Prior to issuance of grading permit. City of Dublin City of Dublin Valley Christian Center: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 15 Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial b) All disturbed areas should be immediately revegetated or otherwise protected from both wind and water erosion upon the completion of grading activities. c) Stormwater runoff should be collected into stable drainage channels, from small drainage basins, to prevent the buildup of large, potentially erosive stormwater flows. d) Specific measures should be implemented to control erosion from stockpiled earth and exposed soil. e) Runoff should be directed away from all areas disturbed by construction. f) Sediment ponds or siltation basins should be used to trap eroded soils before runoff is discharged into on-site or off-site drainage culverts and channels. g) To the extent possible, major site development work involving excavation and earth moving shall be scheduled during the dry season. Valley Christian Center EIR (October 2002): MM 4.6-2. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared by a California registered Civil Engineer to RWQCB and City of Dublin standards to ensure Best Management Practices will be employed to reduce surface water pollution to a less-than-significant level. The SWPPP shall be approved by the Public Works Director prior to issuance of a grading permit. Submittal of documentation; notes on construction plans Prior to issuance of grading permit City of Dublin City of Dublin Valley Christian Center: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 16 Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial Valley Christian Center EIR (October 2002): MM 4.6-3. The project Applicant shall submit a hydrology study for the proposed project, prepared by a California registered Civil Engineer, documenting the amount of current stormwater runoff from the site, estimated future quantities of runoff, and the ability of downstream facilities to accommodate increased stormwater quantities. The report shall also identify needed downstream improvements needed to accommodate increased storm flows and the Applicant’s financial participation in funding needed improvements, if required. Submittal of documentation; notes on construction plans Prior to issuance of grading permit City of Dublin Noise Valley Christian Center EIR (October 2002): MM 4.8-1. The construction noise reduction measures included in the Valley Christian Center EIR have been augmented by a revised Noise Mitigation Measure in the Valley Christian Center Supplemental MND (June 2018). Refer to MM NOISE-2 below. N/A N/A N/A Valley Christian Center EIR (October 2002): MM. 4.8-3. As part of the Site Development Review application for the chapel, an acoustic study shall be performed to identify specific noise exposure of the building and identify measures to reduce interior and exterior noise to acceptable levels. Appropriate mitigation may include, but is not limited to sound rated Submittal of documentation Prior to building permit City of Dublin City of Dublin Valley Christian Center: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 17 Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial windows, construction of sound walls or berms or using the building as a shield for outdoor spaces. Valley Christian Center EIR (October 2002): MM 4.8-4. An acoustical analysis shall be completed prior to commencement of evening outdoor activities to estimate noise effects on surrounding residential areas. If the anticipated noise levels would exceed City noise exposure levels, the acoustic report shall contain specific methods to reduce noise levels to acceptable levels. Submittal of documentation Prior to commencement of evening outdoor activities City of Dublin Valley Christian Center Supplemental MND (June 2018): MM NOISE-1. The following noise performance standard for Public Address (PA) systems shall be met by the Applicant: a) To ensure that the PA system would not exceed 55 dBA Lmax at the nearest residences, the amplification system at the new multipurpose field should not exceed 75 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet from each speaker. b) To ensure that the PA system would not exceed 55 dBA Lmax at the nearest residences, the amplification system at the new outdoor amphitheater should not exceed 75 dBA at a distance of 50 feet from each speaker. Notes on construction plans; site inspections Prior to City approval of the Public Address system; on-going City of Dublin Valley Christian Center Supplemental MND (June 2018): MM NOISE-2. The project Applicant shall prepare a construction noise management plan that identifies Submittal of documentation; notes on construction plans; site inspections Prior to first grading or building permit; during construction City of Dublin City of Dublin Valley Christian Center: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 18 Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial measures to be taken to minimize construction noise on surrounding sensitive receptors (e.g., residential uses and schools) and includes a site specific noise management measures to be included into project plans and specifications subject to review and approval by the City. These measures shall include, but not be limited to the following: a) All construction equipment shall be equipped with mufflers and sound control devices (e.g. intake silencers and noise shrouds) no less effective than those provided on the original equipment and no equipment shall have an un- muffled exhaust. b) The contractor shall maintain and tune-up all construction equipment to minimize noise emissions. c) Stationary equipment shall be placed so as to maintain the greatest possible distance to sensitive receptors. d) All equipment servicing shall be performed so as to maintain the greatest distance to the sensitive receptors. e) The project Applicant shall provide to the satisfaction of the Dublin Planning Division, a qualified “Noise Disturbance Coordinator.” The Noise Disturbance Coordinator shall be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. When a complaint is received, the Noise Disturbance Coordinator shall notify the City within 24 hours City of Dublin Valley Christian Center: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 19 Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial of the complaint and determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, malfunctioning muffler, etc.) and shall implement reasonable measures to resolve the complaint, as deemed acceptable by the Dublin Planning Division. If any notices are sent to residential units immediately surrounding the construction site by the City and all signs posted at the construction site shall include the contact name and the telephone number for the Noise Disturbance Coordinator. f) Select demolition method to minimize vibration, where possible (e.g. sawing masonry into sections rather than demolishing it by pavement breakers). g) The construction contractor shall limit all on-site noise producing construction activities, including deliveries and warming up of equipment, to the daytime hours of 7:30 am to 5:00 pm, Monday through Friday (excluding holidays) unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Public Services Transportation/Traffic Valley Christian Center EIR (October 2002): MM 4.10-1. The project sponsor shall contribute a fair- share contribution to the funding of traffic signals at the COMPLETED N/A N/A City of Dublin Valley Christian Center: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 20 Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial Dublin Boulevard/Silvergate Drive and Dublin Boulevard/Inspiration Drive. (Completed) Valley Christian Center EIR (October 2002): MM 4.10-2. Monitoring of the peak hour turning movements at project driveways shall be conducted on one typical school day every six months following the completion of the school expansion and reported to the City, to demonstrate that the expansion does not increase the rate of vehicles violating these restrictions. If the number of violators increases after the expansion, more stringent enforcement or other measures may be required by the school administration to limit the number of vehicles accessing the project site to or from Bay Laurel Street, as determined by the City of Dublin Public Works Director. Submittal of data to City Every 6 months (following completion of school expansion) City of Dublin Valley Christian Center EIR (October 2002): MM 4.10-3. The project sponsor shall make a fair share contribution toward the funding of the future widening of Dublin Boulevard between Hansen Drive and Silvergate Drive from two to four lanes. (Completed) COMPLETED N/A N/A Valley Christian Center Supplemental MND (June 2018): MM TRA-1. The following steps shall be taken to ensure that project related traffic does not cut through adjacent neighborhoods as part of the school operations: a) The school administration shall issue a letter to all students a minimum of one time per year Submittal of letter sent to the students to the City; submittal of data to City Minimum of one time per year City of Dublin City of Dublin Valley Christian Center: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 21 Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial advising household drivers not to use routes through adjacent neighborhoods. b) The Applicant shall continue monitoring local driving activities as required in the 2003 EIR Mitigation Measure 4.10-2 at the completion of development phase 2, 3 and 4 to ensure that the rate of cut through traffic does not increase. c) If it is determined that cut-through traffic has increased based on additional construction, increased enforcement of the illegal turns and/or prohibiting turns to/from the north at the southern driveway shall be implemented by the school with oversight by the Public Works Department. Valley Christian Center Supplemental MND (June 2018): MM TRA-2. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the football stadium, the Applicant shall retain a California- registered Traffic Engineer to prepare a Parking Management for the operation of football games and other large activities (such as graduations) held at the proposed stadium. The Parking Management Plan shall demonstrate that all parking for football games and other large activities can be safely accommodated on the site and avoid spill-over of parking on adjacent streets. Methods that could be included in the Parking Management Plan could include but are not limited to use of parking attendants before and during games and other large activities to implement valet parking, promotion of carpooling to games and limiting sales of Submittal of documentation Prior to building permit for the athletic field City of Dublin City of Dublin Valley Christian Center: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 22 Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial admission tickets to correspond with estimated parking supply. The Parking Management Plan shall be approved by the City of Dublin Community Development Department and Public Works Department prior to the issuance of the building permit for the stadium. Valley Christian Center Supplemental IS/MND Response to Comments January 2019 Planning Application Number: PLPA-2014-00052 City of Dublin Valley Christian Center Supplemental IS/ MND Response to Comments | Page 1 Valley Christian Center Supplemental IS/MND Response to Comments PLPA-2014-00052 Introduction The proposed project includes Planned Development Zoning to rearrange the approved uses on the Valley Christian campus over time. The proposed improvements will be constructed in four phases over approximately 20 years. The Planned Development Zoning serves as the master plan to build out the campus. The proposed amendments to the existing master plan include the addition of a lighted athletic field with sound amplification, establishing a parking standard for the athletic field and re-allocating the square feet associated to the various buildings/uses. The Applicant is also requesting a Site Development Review Permit to construct the athletic field, a concession stand/ticket booth and associated site improvements including a plaza and landscaping (Phase 1). Future phases will be considered at the time that they are submitted. An Initial Study/Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration tiers from the certified Environmental Impact Report for the existing Valley Christian Center Master Plan approved in 2003. The project site is located at 7500 Inspiration Drive in the westerly portion of Dublin (APN 941- 0022-003, 004, 005 & 006). The City circulated a Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration (Supplemental MND) for review from June 12, 2018 through July 12, 2018. CEQA does not require the City to prepare written responses to comments received on a Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration. The City has nevertheless prepared these written responses to address the general issues raised in the comment letters. Corrections and Modifications The response to comments also contain clarifications and minor corrections to information presented in the draft Supplemental MND. None of the clarifications or modifications in this document requires “substantial revision” of the Supplemental MND as defined in the Guidelines, therefore the City has determined that no recirculation is required. The following minor changes and modifications are hereby made to the Supplemental MND. Changes are shown in underline and strikeout. City of Dublin Valley Christian Center Supplemental IS/ MND Response to Comments | Page 2 Revised Mitigation Measure BIO-5. This measure is hereby amended by reference to read as follows: Mitigation Measure BIO-5. Prior to commencement of ground disturbing activities on the undeveloped and undisturbed portions of Parcel 1 of the project site, the Applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to determine the potential presence of wetlands or other waters. If wetlands are found, the Applicant shall prepare a wetland mitigation plan acceptable to the Community Development Department that demonstrates compliance with the following: a) The project Applicant shall obtain all required resource agency permits and shall prepare and obtain approval of a wetland mitigation plan that ensures no net loss of wetland and water habitat. b) The wetland mitigation plan shall include measures for avoidance, minimization and compensation for wetland impacts. Avoidance and minimization measures may include the designation of buffers around wetland features to be avoided or project design measures. Compensation measures shall include the preservation and/or creation of wetlands or other waters. The final mitigation ratio (the amount of wetlands and other water created or preserved compared to the amount impacted) shall be determined by the applicable resource agency(s). The wetland mitigation and monitoring plan shall include the following: a. Description of wetland types and their expected functions and values; b. Performance standards and monitoring protocol to ensure the success of the mitigation wetlands over a period of time to be determined by the resource agencies; c. Engineering plans showing the location, size and configuration of wetlands to be created or preserved; d. An implementation schedule showing the construction or preservation of mitigation areas shall commence prior to or concurrently with the initiation of construction; and e. A description of legal protection of the preserved wetlands (such as dedication of fee title, conservation easement and/or an endowment held by an approved conservation organization, government agency or mitigation bank). Comments Received for Supplemental MND/Initial Study The following comment letters were received by the City during the comment period (June 12, 2018 – July 12, 2018) and after the close of the public comment period: City of Dublin Valley Christian Center Supplemental IS/ MND Response to Comments | Page 3 Letter # Person/Agency Date 1 San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) July 5, 2018 2 CA Department of Transportation (Caltrans) July 10, 2018 3 Bruce Remington September 3, 2018 4 Rongfu Xiao September 5, 2018 5 Saxelby Acoustics September 17, 2018 6 Gigi Remington, Esq. September 26, 2018 7 Stuart Flashman, Esq. October 18, 2018 8 Norm Lewandowski November 15, 2018 Comment Letter No. 1: San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board Potential Impacts to Wetlands or Other Waters of the State WRA, Inc. performed an assessment of biological resources at the approximate 51 acre Valley Christian Center project site and the surrounding environs on May 20, 2015. The site visit assessed the Study Area for the 1) potential to support special-status species and 2) presence of other sensitive biological resources protected by local, state, and federal laws and regulations. During the 2015 assessment, WRA observed three sensitive biological community types covering 1.86 acres in the Study Area, including ephemeral stream and riparian woodland. An ephemeral stream exists within the southwestern corner of the Study Area. The location of the biological communities present within the Study Area (including the ephemeral stream) are shown on Figure 2 of the Biological Resource Assessment (page 11). On March 5, 2018, WRA returned to the site to assess whether existing conditions had changed significantly since the 2015 site visit. WRA determined that the site conditions have not changed significantly since the 2015 visit. The distribution and extent of sensitive biological communities, including the ephemeral stream, has not expanded or decreased. As part of the Biological Resource Assessment, the Study Area was surveyed to determine if any wetlands and waters are potentially subject to jurisdiction by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Regional Water Quality Control Board or the California Department of Fish & Wildlife were present. The preliminary waters assessment was based primarily on the presence of unvegetated, ponded areas of flowing water, or evidence indicating their presence such as a high water mark or a defined drainage course. As noted on page 7 of the Biological Resource Assessment, collection of additional data is necessary to prepare a delineation report suitable for submission to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Since wetlands and jurisdictional waters are potentially located within the southern portion of Parcel 1, the Supplemental MND includes City of Dublin Valley Christian Center Supplemental IS/ MND Response to Comments | Page 4 Mitigation Measure BIO-5 to address any potential significant impact of the project on these resources (pages 47-48). The proposed project will be developed in four phases over approximately 20 years. The initial phases of development are within the developed portions of the site, not where the potential wetlands are located. The Valley Christian Center is an existing developed campus that includes pre-school through high school, church, administrative buildings, sports facilities, and parking areas. Much of the development that is proposed in the initial phases includes additions to existing buildings. All proposed development is within the existing development envelope and already disturbed area of Parcel 1, except Building E and F which are part of the last development phase. Proposed buildings E and F, located in the southern portion of Parcel 1 outside the existing developed area, may have impacts to the potential wetland and waters on the site. Construction of these buildings will occur in the last phase of development in approximately 15-20 years. Prior to commencement of any ground-disturbing activities within the undisturbed and undeveloped area of Parcel 1, Mitigation Measure BIO-5 must be implemented. As described below, Mitigation Measure BIO-5 has been clarified to state that the requirements are triggered prior to commencement of any ground disturbing activities on the undeveloped and undisturbed portions of Parcel 1 as existed at the time of the Planned Development Zoning Amendment. The revised Mitigation Measure BIO-5 has been added to the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Therefore, the mitigation will be required for any activities that may potentially affect the wetlands or waters. Mitigation Measure BIO-5 complies with CEQA requirements. It requires a final formal delineation and determination of the presence of wetlands or waters in the southern portion of Parcel 1 prior to any ground-disturbing activities outside the existing developed area. This is appropriate because these activities are part of a later phase of a 20 year plan which is expected to occur more than 5 years after the approval of the Planned Development Zoning for the project. A formal wetlands delineation performed at this time would have to be redone at the time of development of the southern portion of Parcel 1, since a delineation approval is only effective for a maximum of 5 years. In addition, the plans for the southern portion of Parcel 1 are conceptual and not fully known at this time. The plans for development in the southern portion of Parcel 1 will require future approval of a Site Development Review before any ground- disturbing activities. So, any completion of a final wetlands delineation at this time would be premature. Mitigation Measure BIO-5 sets forth performance standards for the development of a wetland mitigation plan including: no net loss of wetlands or habitat; specific avoidance and minimization measures; compensation measures of at least a 1-to-1 replacement ratio or any greater mitigation ratio required by resource agencies; performance standards and monitoring protocol to ensure successful establishment and preservation of mitigation wetlands; implementation schedule; and legal protection of mitigation wetlands to assure their preservation over time. The Mitigation Measure included in the letter from the Regional Water Quality Control Board is not the full Mitigation Measure included in the Supplemental MND. The concerns raised by the City of Dublin Valley Christian Center Supplemental IS/ MND Response to Comments | Page 5 Regional Water Quality Control Board are addressed in the full mitigation measure as described above. No modification of the mitigation measure is required to comply with legal standards. Hydrology and Water Quality Pursuant to Section 402 of the Clean Water Act and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, municipal stormwater discharges in the City of Dublin are regulated under the San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems NPDES Permit (MRP), Order No. R2-2015-0049, NPDES Permit No. CAS612008, adopted November 19, 2015. The MRP is overseen by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Provision C.3 (New Development & Redevelopment) of the MRP addresses post-construction stormwater management requirements for new development and redevelopment projects that meet certain impervious surface area thresholds. Provision C.3 requires the incorporation of site design, source control, and low impact development stormwater treatment measures in development projects to minimize the discharge of pollutants in stormwater runoff and prevent non-stormwater discharges. MRP Provision C.3.g pertains to hydromodification management. All projects within the City of Dublin are required to comply with all MRP provisions. The first phase of development includes a stormwater control plan, which was reviewed by the City to verify consistency with the RWQCB requirements. City requirements will be imposed on each phase of development. Comment Letter No. 2: CA Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Vehicle Trip Reduction A Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program is not required for the project since the project does not have any new significant impact on traffic under CEQA supplemental review standards. Based on the findings of the traffic analysis prepared for the project, the proposed changes to the Master Plan would not result in new or more severe significant traffic impacts than were analyzed in the 2003 EIR. Mitigation Measures included in the 2003 EIR have been implemented to minimize traffic at Dublin Boulevard intersections with Inspiration Drive and Hansen Drive. The enrollment for the school is not anticipated to increase as a result of the project. With regard to TDM measures, the Valley Christian Center has a program in place to encourage carpooling. At the beginning of each school year a form is given to parents who are interested in carpooling. There are carpooling opportunities for pick-up, drop-off and extracurricular activities. Additionally, a Condition of Approval has been placed on the project that requires that bicycle parking be provided at each phase of development consistent with CAL Green Building Code. An analysis of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) is not required for this project. The final CEQA Guidelines on VMT analysis have not been adopted. The Natural Resources Agency released the final proposed Guidelines for review in July 2018. The final proposed Guidelines include a new City of Dublin Valley Christian Center Supplemental IS/ MND Response to Comments | Page 6 Section 15064.3 on VMT analysis and thresholds. New Guidelines Section 15064.3 states that they do not take effect until January 1, 2020 unless the lead agency adopts them earlier. The City of Dublin has not established any standards or thresholds on VMT. Therefore, VMT requirements have not yet been adopted and are not in effect at this time. The final Guidelines may change based on the comments received during the Natural Resources Agency formal administrative rulemaking process. Since there are no standards in effect on VMT analysis, no analysis of the project’s impacts on VMT is legally required. Outdoor Advertising Not applicable to the project – signage is not included in the application. Encroachment Permit Not applicable to the project – no work is proposed within the State right-of-way. Comment Letter No. 3: Bruce Remington Refer to the Illingworth & Rodkin response dated September 18, 2018 to concerns about noise attached to this Response to Comments document. Comment Letter No. 4: Rongfu Xiao Refer to the Illingworth & Rodkin dated September 18, 2018 response to concerns about noise attached to this Response to Comments document. Comment Letter No. 5: Saxelby Acoustics Refer to the Illingworth & Rodkin response dated January 11, 2019 to concerns about noise attached to this Response to Comments document. Comment Letter No. 6: Gigi Remington, Esq. Analysis & Mitigation of Noise Impacts At the early stage of the project, the City recognized a potentially significant issue with the proposed addition of a multi-use sports stadium on the site. Accordingly, through the City’s CEQA consultant, the firm of Illingworth & Rodkin (I&R) was retained to prepare a site-specific acoustic analysis of the proposed stadium. I&R is a firm that specializes in environmental noise assessment and mitigation. The firm has been in business for more than thirty years and has successfully completed more than 5,000 acoustic studies, including several sports stadiums. I&R prepared a detailed analysis to support the Initial Study, including taking measurements at several locations around the perimeter of the site, estimating additional noise to be generated by the operation of the stadium during football games based on noise from a football facility in San Jose and analyzed the estimated noise increases in light of City of Dublin’s Noise Element and Noise Ordinance standards. The football facility in San Jose used to estimate the noise that would be generated by the operation of the proposed stadium has a seating capacity of 1,600. The City of Dublin Valley Christian Center Supplemental IS/ MND Response to Comments | Page 7 original proposal by the Valley Christian Center had a seating capacity of 1,100; however, the seating has been reduced to 600 seats. Based on the new analysis, I&R Staff found that future noise from stadium operations would be below the City’s Noise Element exterior noise standards for residential areas. The City of Dublin did not rely on existing applicable regulations to analyze potential project noise, but completed a standard CEQA noise analysis. Therefore, the comment is not correct. Fair Argument Standard An EIR was previously prepared for the Valley Christian Center (VCC) Master Plan (State Clearinghouse No. 200212070) and was certified on May 20, 2003 by City Council Resolution No. 92-03. Since an EIR was certified for the VCC Master Plan, CEQA standards for supplemental environmental review apply to the proposed changes to the approved Master Plan. The Initial Study analyzes whether any further environmental review to the EIR is required for the proposed changes to the VCC Master Plan under these supplemental review standards (Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15163). The main question is whether there are any new or substantially more severe significant impacts from those analyzed in the EIR. The substantial evidence test, not the fair argument test, applies to that determination. Based on the substantial evidence test, the Initial Study determined that a Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration (SMND) should be prepared. Any claim of new or substantially more severe significant impacts raised by commenters must be based on substantial evidence, not fair argument. In general, the commenter has not presented substantial evidence of a new or substantially more severe impact from that analyzed in the EIR that was not studied in the SMND. The SMND further analyzed the project’s potential impacts on aesthetic, biological resources, noise and transportation and circulation. Therefore, the City proposes to adopt a SMND as allowed by CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. Since all new potentially significant supplemental impacts would be mitigated to a less-than- significant level, the City is not required to prepare an EIR under CEQA standards. Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report The Commenter asserts that the acoustic study prepared by I&R is inadequate since it did not account for windy conditions in the area during the month of May that would exacerbate noise for residences east of the project site and that noise measurement points were selected to provide the most favorable results for the project. I&R acoustic specialists note that the common practice for environmental noise assessments is to assume neutral weather conditions when predicting noise levels, particularly when the most affected residences are located close to the site, as noise impacts would be expected to occur at these closest receptors before distant receptors. The noise calculations for the VCC project assumed neutral weather conditions and a standard attenuation rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance between the noise source and receiver. At times, atmospheric conditions would affect the propagation of noise. In I&R’s experience, when City of Dublin Valley Christian Center Supplemental IS/ MND Response to Comments | Page 8 concurrently monitoring noise and atmospheric conditions as part of research-related projects, wind or temperature inversions could result in noise levels that are plus or minus 5 to 10 dBA relative to the noise levels during neutral weather conditions. For example, when receivers are downwind from a noise source, the measured noise level is higher than the noise level measured at the same distance on the upwind side. In Dublin, winds are predominantly from the west. During periods of warm weather, temperature inversions can develop in the evening and nighttime hours. Inversions occur when the earth begins to cool down under clear skies and calm winds, and this condition results in the bending of the sound rays that would have otherwise propagated into the atmosphere back toward the earth. These atmospheric conditions can contribute to situations where distant receivers would be able to distinguish noise from proposed events that would otherwise not normally be audible. However, audibility is not a significance threshold. At these distant receptors, audible sounds attributable to the project would not measurably contribute to ambient noise levels on an hourly average or daily average basis. As noted in the noise assessment, the nearest residences to the proposed field are residences on Bay Laurel Street located about 490 feet north of the center of the field, and residences on Las Palmas Way located about 580 feet east of the center of the field. These residences are located substantially below the elevation of the field. The intervening grading associated with the school itself and Inspiration Drive provides acoustical barriers created by the tops of the slopes between the site for the field and the residences. The attenuation provided by distance and the intervening topography was calculated using standard methods and estimated to range from 17 to 20 dBA. The existing average noise levels during the evening range from 48 to 50 dBA Leq in the residential areas. Noise from the football games under worst-case conditions, where the wind has increased football-related noise levels by up to 10 dBA, would range from 50 to 52 dBA Leq and would increase the average noise level by up to 4 to 5 dBA Leq. This would be a noticeable increase in ambient hourly average noise levels. The cheers would be audible because the levels would exceed the existing background level but would fall within the lower end of the overall range of existing ambient maximum noise levels which range from 55 to 75 dBA Lmax. When considering worst-case conditions (i.e., maximum crowd size of 1,600 spectators and the prevailing winds), the Ldn attributable to football is anticipated to reach 47 dBA at Bay Laurel residences and 46 dBA at Las Palmas residences. When added to the lowest ambient Ldn noise level measured during the noise survey (50 dBA Ldn at LT-2 on the weekend), the resultant increase in the daily average noise level is less than 2 dBA Ldn. Where noise levels would remain at or below the normally acceptable noise level standard with the project, noise level increases of 5 dBA Ldn/CNEL or greater would be considered significant. The worst-case conditions are based on a maximum crowd size of 1,600 spectators; however, the Valley Christian Center has modified their project from 1,100 seats to 600 seats. Therefore, the noise impact related to worst-case football games under worst-case weather conditions would be considered less-than-significant because noise from football games would not cause a substantial increase in day-night average noise levels at the most affected residences, nor exceed the City of Dublin’s noise and land use compatibility thresholds. City of Dublin Valley Christian Center Supplemental IS/ MND Response to Comments | Page 9 The commenter is incorrect in asserting that noise measurement locations were selected to somehow “fit” the noise model used by I&R. Noise measurement locations were selected in consultation with Dublin Community Development Department Staff to be the closest to the project site so that the maximum noise impact could be determined. In terms of potential distortions of noise impacts of a “hilltop effect,” see the above response. I&R employed standard CEQA methodology to measure and analyze potential noise from the project. With adherence to mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study, future project- related noise would be less-than-significant. VCC has committed to limiting the use of the Public Address (PA) system to a maximum of 50 dates per year, which includes both the use of a PA system at the stadium and the amphitheater. Additionally, the PA system would not be used on Sundays. The Applicant has also modified the design of the PA system reduce noise impacts. The original design was a sound system on light standards. The revised design positions the loudspeakers on stair railings or press/box scorer tables areas lower to grade level to more effectively project sound to the individuals in attendance and reduce noise spill-over into nearby neighborhoods. Comment Letter No. 7: Stuart Flashman, Esq. Mitigation of “Cut-through” Traffic The recent traffic analysis completed to assess the proposed project notes that the “cut-through” traffic rate from the VCC site has not significantly increased from what was observed in the 2003 EIR. Per the 2003 EIR, the school is required to issue a yearly letter to students and parents requesting that no trips be made through adjacent residential neighborhoods. In addition Mitigation Measure TRA-1 requires yearly monitoring of traffic operations by the City and would require specific, detailed steps be taken to reduce “cut-though” traffic. This is a specific measurable step that would be effective in reducing any significant “cut-through” traffic from the project. Additionally, signs would be posted at athletic events educating visiting teams of the policy to not “cut through” the residential neighborhoods. VCC Staff would direct traffic after games that are projected to have an estimated attendance of 250 people or more. Emergency Access The original project and the current expansion have been reviewed for emergency access adequacy by the Dublin Police Services and the Fire Prevention Bureau. The project complies with City requirements and provides two emergency access points. The potential for a very large public safety incident during a future football game is small and less-than-significant since the stadium would accommodate the largest attendees for a few evenings per year for a 4-5 hour period. Therefore, this potential impact would be less-than-significant. City of Dublin Valley Christian Center Supplemental IS/ MND Response to Comments | Page 10 Light Impacts The commenter is incorrect that the City is relying on mitigation measures from the 2003 EIR to reduce light and glare impacts. The SMND includes Mitigation Measure AES-1 that requires a detailed photometric analysis from the Applicant to ensure that there is no spill-over of stadium lighting off of the school property. The City deems this adequate, measureable mitigation for this potential impact. There would be no significant increase in the amount of parking lot lighting for the project, since much of the surface parking lot area would be replaced by the proposed sports stadium, so light impacts from parking lots would be less than existing conditions. The project would not contribute to a cumulative increase in night lighting in this part of Dublin, since the vast amount of growth has occurred in Eastern Dublin, approximately four miles from the project site. No significant growth has occurred in Western Dublin during the past few years. The Applicant is proposing to use improved LED lighting technology. The proposed technology focuses the light directly on the playing field and will not result in any spill-over of stadium lighting off of the property. This would be confirmed by the City-required photometric analysis. Contribution of Disorientation of Birds Using the Pacific Flyway A comprehensive biological analysis of the proposed project was completed in 2015 and updated in 2018 to identify any potential impacts for this topic. The recent analysis supplemented a similar biological review completed as part of the 2003 EIR. Neither analysis identified an impact of project lighting disorienting birds using the Pacific Flyway. The commenter overstates the impact of stadium night lighting on the environment. If approved and built, stadium lights would be in a use for a few hours per evening during the school year. This would not result in a significant lighting impact and would not contribute to regional light pollution during the late evening and night hours. Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report See Response to Comment Letter No. 6 (Gigi Remington, Esq.). Applicant Stadium Proposal The motive of the Applicant to request approval of the stadium is not the purview of the City of Dublin. The Applicant has followed normal City procedures and the City reviewed the proposal, as is done for all such applications. Regarding the commenter’s offer to negotiate with the Applicant for adequate mitigation measures, such negotiations are on-going and the results of the negotiations will be presented to the Dublin City Council at the next public hearing. The VCC has modified their proposal and reduced the seating capacity of the stadium from 1,100 seats to 600 seats. Additionally, the seating in the amphitheater would be limited to 450 seats. City of Dublin Valley Christian Center Supplemental IS/ MND Response to Comments | Page 11 Comment Letter No. 8: Norm Lewandowski Reliance on Outdated Traffic Report The commenter is incorrect, new traffic counts were collected in 2015 and used as the basis of the Traffic and Transportation section of the SMND. Traffic data was therefore not outdated. Cumulative Total Traffic on Dublin Boulevard As noted in the above response, new traffic counts along Dublin Boulevard were completed in 2015. Since uses of the main VCC campus would be essentially unchanged from current conditions, the Omni-Means report appropriately analyzed potential impacts of the proposed sports stadium. The report found that the peak hours of operation of the stadium would be in the late afternoon and early evening hours a few days per year. Since the peak use of the stadium would be later in the day than the typical PM peak hour, there would be minimal congestion on local roads and at key intersections near the VCC site. It should also be noted that since the completion of the Omni report, the applicant has reduced the size of the proposed stadium to a maximum of 600 seats, rather than the 1,100 seats originally analyzed. There is therefore no need to complete an environmental impact report. See Response to Comment Letter No. 6 (Gigi Remington, Esq.). I&R Noise Assessment Failed to Address Factors that Would Affect Noise Levels Please refer to the I&R response dated September 18, 2018 to concerns about noise attached to this Response to Comments document. Attachments: • Illingworth & Rodkin letter dated September 18, 2018 • Illingworth & Rodkin letter dated January 11, 2019 • Comments letters comment period (June 12, 2018 – July 12, 2018) 1. San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board 2. CA Department of Transportation 3. Bruce Remington 4. Rongfu Xiao 5. Saxelby Acoustics 6. Gigi Remington, Esq. 7. Stuart Flashman, Esq. 8. Norm Lewandowski 1 Willowbrook Court, Suite 120 Petaluma, California 94954 Tel: 707-794-0400 Fax: 707-794-0405 www.illingworthrodkin.com illro@illingworthrodkin.com September 18, 2018 Ms. Martha Battaglia Associate Planner City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 VIA E-MAIL: Martha.Battaglia@dublin.ca.gov SUBJECT: Valley Christian Center Sports Fields Improvement Project, Dublin, CA Responses to Comments Dear Ms. Battaglia: The following responses are provided to address written questions and comments submitted via e-mail by Mr. Bruce A. Remington, on September 3, 2018, and Mr. Rongfu Xiao, on September 5, 2018. Responses to Comments, Mr. Bruce A. Remington, September 3, 2018 Mr. Remington provided three comments focused on why the analysis did not account for the prevailing winds and topography. Common practice for environmental noise assessments is to assume neutral weather conditions when predicting noise levels, particularly when the most affected residences are located close to the site, as noise impacts would be expected to occur at these closest receptors before distant receptors. The noise calculations assumed neutral weather conditions and a standard attenuation rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance between the noise source and receiver. At times, atmospheric conditions would affect the propagation of noise. In our experience, when concurrently monitoring noise and atmospheric conditions as part of research-related projects, wind or temperature inversions could result in noise levels that are plus or minus 5 to 10 dBA relative to the noise levels during neutral weather conditions. For example, when receivers are downwind from a noise source, the measured noise level is higher than the noise level measured at the same distance on the upwind side. In Dublin, winds are predominantly from the west. During periods of warm weather, temperature inversions can develop in the evening and nighttime hours. Inversions occur when the earth begins to cool down under clear skies and calm winds, and this condition results in the bending of the sound rays that would have otherwise propagated into the atmosphere back toward the earth. These atmospheric conditions can contribute to situations where distant receivers would be able to distinguish noise from proposed events that would otherwise not normally be audible. However, audibility is not a significance threshold. At these distant Ms. Martha Battaglia September 18, 2018 Page 2 receptors, audible sounds attributable to the project would not measurably contribute to ambient noise levels on an hourly average or daily average basis. To illustrate this point further, the football source noise levels used in the analysis, which were measured during the “rivalry” game of the football season between Santa Teresa High School and Oak Grove High School varsity teams, with an attendance of approximately 1,600 people, have been adjusted up by 10 dBA to account for atmospherics. These source noise levels were already considered to be conservative, by 2 to 9 dBA Leq, as the typical attendance at proposed football games would range from 200 to 500 spectators and could reach 600 to 1,100 spectators during well attended playoff games. The adjusted noise levels are summarized below. Projected Noise Levels at Nearest Residences During Capacity Crowd Varsity Football Game at the Proposed Multipurpose Recreational Field (Including Atmospheric Effects +10 dBA) Location Average Noise Level, dBA Leq Typical Maximum Instantaneous Noise Levels, dBA Lmax Cheering/ Crowd PA System Whistles Bay Laurel home, 490 feet from the center of the field 52 49 to 65 45 to 51 48 to 55 Las Palmas home, 580 feet from the center of the field 50 47 to 63 43 to 49 46 to 53 As noted in the noise assessment, the nearest residences to the proposed field are residences on Bay Laurel Street located about 490 feet north of the center of the field, and residences on Las Palmas Way located about 580 feet east of the center of the field. These residences are located substantially below the elevation of the field. The intervening grading associated with the school itself and Inspiration Drive provides acoustical barriers created by the tops of the slopes between the site for the field and the residences. The attenuation provided by distance and the intervening topography was calculated using standard methods and estimated to range from 17 to 20 dBA. The existing average noise levels during the evening range from 48 to 50 dBA Leq in the residential areas. Noise from the football games under worst-case conditions, where the wind has increased football-related noise levels by up to 10 dBA, would range from 50 to 52 dBA Leq and would increase the average noise level by up to 4 to 5 dBA Leq. This would be a noticeable increase in ambient hourly average noise levels. The cheers would be audible because the levels would exceed the existing background level but would fall within the lower end of the overall range of existing ambient maximum noise levels which range from 55 to 75 dBA Lmax. CEQA does not define what noise level increase would be considered substantial. Typically, project- generated noise level increases of 3 dBA Ldn/CNEL or greater would be considered significant where exterior noise levels would exceed the normally acceptable noise level standard (60 dBA Ldn/CNEL for residential land uses). Where noise levels would remain at or below the normally acceptable noise level standard with the project, noise level increases of 5 dBA Ldn/CNEL or greater would be considered significant. Ms. Martha Battaglia September 18, 2018 Page 3 When considering worst-case conditions (i.e., maximum crowd size of 1,600 spectators and the prevailing winds), the Ldn attributable to football is anticipated to reach 47 dBA at Bay Laurel residences and 46 dBA at Las Palmas residences. When added to the lowest ambient Ldn noise level measured during the noise survey (50 dBA Ldn at LT-2 on the weekend), the resultant increase in the daily average noise level is less than 2 dBA Ldn. Where noise levels would remain at or below the normally acceptable noise level standard with the project, noise level increases of 5 dBA Ldn/CNEL or greater would be considered significant. Therefore, the noise impact related to worst-case football games under worst-case weather conditions would be considered less-than-significant because noise from football games would not cause a substantial increase in day-night average noise levels at the most affected residences, nor exceed the City of Dublin’s noise and land use compatibility thresholds. Responses to Comments, Mr. Rongfu Xiao, September 5, 2018 Mr. Xiao echoed Mr. Remington’s comments regarding the prevailing winds and asked why the measurements were made in May and why the measurement position LT-2 was selected. As noted in the noise assessment, noise levels were measured in May 2015. The weather conditions during the survey primarily consisted of partly cloudy skies, light to moderate winds from the west, and mild temperatures. Based on our experience with community noise throughout the Bay Area, the ambient noise measurements made in the spring could be used to represent noise levels in the fall. As demonstrated on the average wind speed graphic provided as part of Mr. Remington’s PowerPoint presentation, the average wind speed in the spring is very similar to the average wind speed in the fall. Therefore, the measurements made in the spring were considered to credibly represent the ambient noise environment. LT-2 was positioned in the single-family residential development to the east of the project site approximately 65 feet west of the intersection of Betlen Drive and Las Palmas Way and was approximately 210 feet east of the centerline of Inspiration Drive. This measurement location was selected to represent the existing noise environment without the project at the nearest, and most- affected, receptors located to the east of the project site. Mr. Xiao’s comment is that the measured noise levels at this location were low as compared to other locations within the Las Palmas Drive neighborhood. When assessing an impact, the noise levels with the project are compared to the existing noise level without the project. The potential for noise impacts are greatest where the ambient noise level is lowest. ♦ ♦ ♦ This completes our response letter. Please feel free to contact us with any questions or concerns. Sincerely yours, Michael S. Thill Principal Consultant ILLINGWORTH & RODKIN, INC. (15-090) 429 East Cotati Avenue Cotati, California 94931 Tel: 707-794-0400 Fax: 707-794-0405 www.illingworthrodkin.com illro@illingworthrodkin.com January 11, 2019 Ms. Amy E. Million Principal Planner City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 VIA E-MAIL: amy.million@dublin.ca.gov SUBJECT: Valley Christian Center Sports Fields Improvement Project, Dublin, CA Responses to Saxelby Acoustics Comments Dear Ms. Million: The following responses are provided to address comments submitted by Saxelby Acoustics on September 17, 2018. The primary comments on the Valley Christian Center Sports Fields Improvement Project noise assessment were that, “No calculation data is provided so it is impossible to determine how the additional noise attenuation 17 dBA was estimated. Additionally, it does not appear that any correction for downwind propagation or temperature inversion was included in the calculations.” In response to the first comment, and as stated in our noise assessment, the attenuation provided by the intervening topography was calculated using standard methods and conservatively estimated to range from 17 to 20 dBA at the nearest receptors to the north and east. Calculations are provided as Attachment 1. The first calculation made was the Fresnel number, which was calculated using the following formula: N = (2/λ)(x + y - z) Where: N = Fresnel number (dimensionless) x+y = path length over barrier, feet z = straight-line distance between source and receiver, feet λ = wavelength of sound, feet The insertion loss of the barrier (ILbarrier) was then calculated using the following formula: ILbarrier = 10 log [3+10N] Ms. Amy E. Million January 11, 2019 Page 2 In response to the second comment, and as stated in our prior responses to public comments1, it is common practice that neutral weather conditions are assumed when predicting noise levels for CEQA noise assessments. One example of a guidance document supporting this methodology is the Technical Noise Supplement (TeNS Manual) published by Caltrans2. In this document, Caltrans recommends that noise measurements should not be made when wind speeds are more than 11 mph and noise analyses are always made for zero-wind conditions. ♦ ♦ ♦ This completes our response letter. Please feel free to contact us with any questions or concerns. Sincerely yours, Michael S. Thill Principal Consultant ILLINGWORTH & RODKIN, INC. (15-090) 1 Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., 2018. Valley Christian Center Sports Fields Improvement Project, Dublin, CA, Responses to Comments, September. 2 Caltrans, 2013. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. September. Ms. Amy E. Million January 11, 2019 Page 3 Attachment 1 – Noise Barrier Insertion Loss Calculations cOctave Bandλ 2/λNN*λd1*(d2+t)*d K ILbarrierAVG attenuationd 580.001128.22 63 17.91 0.11 2.2336 40.0 46400000.0 0.5836 16 26.51d1 200.00125 9.03 0.22 4.4318 40.0 0.5836 19d2 190.00250 4.51 0.44 8.8635 40.0 0.5836 22t 210.00500 2.26 0.89 17.7270 40.0 0.5836 251000 1.13 1.77 35.4541 40.0 0.5836 2870.00 2000 0.56 3.55 70.9082 40.0 0.5836 314000 0.28 7.09 141.8163 40.0 0.5836 348000 0.14 14.18 283.6327 40.0 0.5836 37cOctave Bandλ 2/λN ILbarrierAVG attenuationd 580.001128.22 63 17.91 0.11 2.2336 14 24.14d1 410.00125 9.03 0.22 4.4318 17d2 190.00250 4.51 0.44 8.8635 20Use 20 dB for Las Palmas Receptors500 2.26 0.89 17.7270 2370.00 1000 1.13 1.77 35.4541 262000 0.56 3.55 70.9082 294000 0.28 7.09 141.8163 328000 0.14 14.18 283.6327 35INPUTSThick Barrier w/ K Degrees FThin Barrier No KDegrees FFresnel # Atmospheric Correction Factor Insertion Loss of Barrier N=(2/λ)(d1+t+d2-d)K=exp^[-.0005*sqrt((d1*d2*d)(Nλ))] IL=10log[3+30NK] cOctave Bandλ 2/λNN*λd1*(d2+t)*d K ILbarrierAVG attenuationd 490.001128.22 63 17.91 0.11 1.6752 30.0 20580000.0 0.6609 16 25.81d1 400.00125 9.03 0.22 3.3238 30.0 0.6609 18d2 100.00250 4.51 0.44 6.6476 30.0 0.6609 21t 5.00500 2.26 0.89 13.2953 30.0 0.6609 241000 1.13 1.77 26.5906 30.0 0.6609 2770.00 2000 0.56 3.55 53.1811 30.0 0.6609 304000 0.28 7.09 106.3623 30.0 0.6609 338000 0.14 14.18 212.7245 30.0 0.6609 36cOctave Bandλ 2/λN ILbarrierAVG attenuationd 490.001128.22 63 17.91 0.11 1.1168 12 21.25d1 400.00125 9.03 0.22 2.2159 14d2 100.00250 4.51 0.44 4.4318 17Use 17 dB for Bay Laurel Receptors500 2.26 0.89 8.8635 2070.00 1000 1.13 1.77 17.7270 232000 0.56 3.55 35.4541 264000 0.28 7.09 70.9082 298000 0.14 14.18 141.8163 32Fresnel # Atmospheric Correction Factor Insertion Loss of Barrier N=(2/λ)(d1+t+d2-d)K=exp^[-.0005*sqrt((d1*d2*d)(Nλ))] IL=10log[3+30NK]Degrees FINPUTSThick Barrier w/ K Degrees FThin Barrier No K -XO\ Sent via electronic mail: No hardcopy to follow &LW\RI'XEOLQ&RPPXQLW\'HYHORSPHQW'HSDUWPHQW $771 0DUWKD%DWWDJOLD PDUWKDEDWWDJOLHV#GXEOLQFDJRY &LYLF3OD]D 'XEOLQ&$ 6XEMHFW 6DQ)UDQFLVFR%D\5HJLRQDO:DWHU4XDOLW\&RQWURO%RDUG&RPPHQWVRQWKH ,QLWLDO6WXG\0LWLJDWHG1HJDWLYH'HFODUDWLRQIRUWKH9DOOH\&KULVWLDQ&HQWHU 0DVWHU3ODQ 3$ &LW\RI'XEOLQ$ODPHGD&RXQW\&DOLIRUQLD 6&+1R 'HDU0V%DWWDJOLD 6DQ)UDQFLVFR%D\5HJLRQDO:DWHU4XDOLW\&RQWURO%RDUG :DWHU%RDUG VWDIIDSSUHFLDWHVWKH RSSRUWXQLW\WRUHYLHZWKHInitial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Valley Christian Center Master Plan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¶VQHZLPSHUYLRXVVXUIDFHV &RPPHQW7KH,601'ODFNVVXIILFLHQWGHWDLOZLWKUHVSHFWWRSRWHQWLDOLPSDFWVWR ZHWODQGVRURWKHUZDWHUVRIWKH6WDWHDWWKH3URMHFWVLWHDQGGRHVQRWGHVFULEHFRQFUHWH PLWLJDWLRQPHDVXUHVIRUWKRVHLPSDFWV %DVHGRQWKHGLVFXVVLRQRISRWHQWLDOLPSDFWVWRULSDULDQKDELWDWVRUZHWODQGVRQSDJHWKURXJK RIWKH,601'WKH,601'GRHVQRWSURYLGHVXIILFLHQWLQIRUPDWLRQWRDGHTXDWHO\DVVHVVWKH 3URMHFW¶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¶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¶VLPSDFWVWR MXULVGLFWLRQDOZDWHUVDQGWRSURYLGHPRUHGHWDLOVUHODWHGWRFRQFUHWHPLWLJDWLRQSURSRVDOVIRU WKRVHLPSDFWVLWLVOLNHO\WKDWWKH,601'ZLOOQRWEHDGHTXDWHWRVXSSRUWWKHLVVXDQFHRI&:$ 6HFWLRQFHUWLILFDWLRQIRUWKH3URMHFW &LW\RI'XEOLQ&RPPXQLW\'HYHORSPHQW'HSDUWPHQW 9DOOH\&KULVWLQ&HQWHU3URMHFW,601' ,I\RXKDYHDQ\TXHVWLRQVSOHDVHFRQWDFWPHDW RUYLDHPDLODW EZLQHV#ZDWHUERDUGVFDJRY 6LQFHUHO\ %ULDQ:LQHV :DWHU5HVRXUFHV&RQWURO(QJLQHHU 6RXWKDQG(DVW%D\:DWHUVKHG6HFWLRQ FF 6WDWH&OHDULQJKRXVH VWDWHFOHDULQJKRXVH#RSUFDJRY &'):$WWQ 0DUFLD*UHIVUXG PJUHIVUXG#GIJFDJRY Brian Wines Digitally signed by Brian Wines Date: 2018.07.05 14:06:02 -07'00' STATE OF CALIFORNIA------- CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN Jr., Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 4 OFFICE OF TRANSIT AND COMMUNITY PLANNING P.O. BOX 23660, MS-10D OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660 PHONE (510) 286-5528 FAX (510) 286-5559 TTY 711 www.dot.ca.gov Making Conservation a California Way of Life “Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California’s economy and livability” July 10, 2018 Martha Battaglia City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 SCH # 2002012070 GTS # 04-ALA-2018-00304 GTS I.D. 11031 ALA - 580 - 22.454 Valley Christian Center – Mitigated Negative Declaration Dear Martha Battaglia: Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the above referenced project. In tandem with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC) Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), Caltrans’ mission signals a modernization of our approach to evaluate and mitigate impacts to the State Transportation Network (STN). Caltrans’ Strategic Management Plan 2015-2020 aims to reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) by tripling bicycle and doubling both pedestrian and transit travel by 2020. Our comments are based on the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). Project Description The Valle Christian Center has applied for a Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan to rearrange the approved uses on the campus. The application includes a request for amendments to the Valley Christian Center Master Plan that would include a lighted athletic field with sound amplification for football, soccer, track and other sports; construction of new buildings on the existing Valley Christian Center campus; expansion of existing buildings; and changes to on-site parking and landscaping. In addition, a modification to the allocation of square feet (sf) associated with the various uses is included to allow the Valley Christian Center to meet their current and future needs. This would result in 1,300 additional sf, but no increase to student population. School enrollment is not anticipated to increase above current enrollment levels. The estimated high school enrollment would be up to 750 students. Enrollment at the elementary and middle school is expected to be up to 400 students and the day care component would be capped at 156 students. There are currently 510 parking spaces on the site. With implementation of the Master Plan, there would be 600 spaces on the site (540 permanent spaces on the site and 60 overflow spaces). It is anticipated that the proposed improvements would be built in phases over a period extending to Martha Battaglia, City of Dublin July 10, 2018 Page 2 “Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California’s economy and livability” approximately 2030. The project is adjacent to Interstate (I)-580 and access is provided via the Interstate (I)-580 / Foothill Road interchange,1.5 miles from the project. Project Clarification Please clarify the enrollment capacity before and after the completion of the project. Vehicle Trip Reduction From Caltrans’ Smart Mobility 2010: A Call to Action for the New Decade, the project site is identified as Place Type 4: Suburban Communities (Neighborhoods) where location efficiency factors, such as community design, are weak or moderate and regional accessibility varies. Given the project’s increase in parking, the project should include a robust Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program to reduce VMT and greenhouse gas emissions. Such measures will be critical in order to facilitate efficient transportation access to and from the school and reduce transportation impacts associated with the project. The measures listed below, some with the potential for student-led programs, will promote smart mobility and reduce regional VMT. • Project design to encourage walking, bicycling and convenient transit access; • Carpool and clean-fuel parking spaces conveniently located to encourage carpooling and clean-fuel vehicles; • Lower parking ratios; • Charging stations and designated parking spaces for electric vehicles; • Secured bicycle storage facilities; • Fix-it bicycle repair station(s); • Subsidize transit passes on an ongoing basis; • Transportation and commute information kiosk; • Outdoor areas with patios, furniture, pedestrian pathways, picnic and recreational areas; • Showers, changing rooms and clothing lockers for bike commuters; • Bicycle route mapping resources and bicycle parking incentives; • Employee transportation coordinator; • Participation in the 511.org SchoolPool RideMatch service to promote walking, biking and carpooling to school; • Emergency Ride Home program; • Participation/Formation in/of a Transportation Management Association (TMA) in partnership with other developments in the area; and • Aggressive trip reduction targets with annual Lead Agency monitoring and enforcement. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs should be documented with annual monitoring reports by an onsite TDM coordinator to demonstrate effectiveness. If the project does not achieve the VMT reduction goals, the reports should also include next steps to take in order to achieve those targets. Also, reducing parking supply can encourage active forms of transportation, reduce regional VMT, and lessen future transportation impacts on I-580 and other nearby State facilities. These smart growth approaches are consistent with the MTC’s Regional Transportation Plan/SCS goals and would meet Caltrans Strategic Management Plan sustainability goals. For additional TDM options, please refer to the Federal Highway Administration’s Integrating September 3, 2018 VIA EMAIL: council@dublin.ca.gov Dublin City Council 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 RE: Valley Christian Center Planned Development Zoning Amendment and Site Development Review Permit (PLPA-2014-00052) for the Project site located at 7500 Inspiration Drive Dear City Council Members: I have a PhD in nuclear physics and am the Discovery Science Program Manager, a senior scientist and Distinguished Member of the Technical Staff at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL). I am also a fellow of the American Physical Society (APS), recipient of the APS Excellence in Plasma Physics award (Dawson award), recipient of the American Nuclear Society Excellence in High Energy Density Physics award (Teller award), and author/coauthor of over 400 in the scientific literature on nuclear physics, plasma physics, high pressure materials science, and laboratory astrophysics. I am writing to you regarding my concerns over the Valley Christian Center’s (VCC) plans to develop a stadium, which will be situated about 500 feet away from our property. The increased noise levels projected to result from this development have not been adequately assessed or analyzed. Three points need to be raised as follows: 1. In their report, VCC say that they accounted for sound attenuation due to distance and topography, and conclude that the increased noise level from the project would be up to 1 dB. They do not mention the effects of wind and temperature gradients. For noise from VCC traveling downwind, the effect of wind can cause refraction (or bending) of the sound waves downwards towards the ground, enhancing the sound strength that reaches the surrounding neighborhoods. Our initial estimates, based on published scientific literature suggest, depending on frequency, that the noise level increase due to wind on the downwind side could be up to ~10 dB, compared to the case of no wind. This wind effect could enhance significantly the 1 dB noise level estimate given in the VCC reports to 10 dB. The two relevant scientific papers are attached. 2. There is potential sound amplification due to a “wind tunnel effect” from the surrounding roads, bounded on either side by houses which act like the walls of a wind tunnel. Consequently, sound may be able to travel much further into the surrounding neighborhoods than one might otherwise assume, which is an effect not taken into consideration in the VCC reports. 3. The VCC calibration measurements of noise level vs distance were done on flat land near San Jose, whereas VCC sits 100-200 ft above the affected neighborhoods in west Dublin in hilly land, enhancing the distance that noise produced at VCC above us can propagate into our neighborhoods. Based on my initial review of various related reports posted on the City’s website, I believe that further substantive study and analysis of this development project relating to the effects on noise propagation of wind, temperature, and the “wind tunnel effect” is essential prior to final approval. Therefore, I request that City Council postpone making a decision during its September 4th meeting and send the matter back 2 to the Planning Commission for further review and analysis, based on the scientific deficiencies in the noise analysis of this project. Sincerely, /Bruce A. Remington/ Bruce A. Remington 11221 Las Palmas Ct. Dublin, CA 94568 cc: Chris Foss, City Manager, City of Dublin, via email chris.foss@dublin.ca.gov Caroline P. Soto, City Clerk, City of Dublin, via email caroline.soto@dublin.ca.gov Encl: David C. Pridmore-Brown, Sound Propagation in a Temperature- and Wind-Stratified Medium; The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 34, 438 (1962) K.B. Rasmussen, Outdoor Sound Propagation Under the Influence of Wind and Temperature Gradients; Journal Sound and Vibration M(2), 321-335 (1986) Three (3) viewgraphs on Sound Effects Due to Wind Journal of Sound and Vibration (1986) M(2), 321-335 OUTDOOR SOUND PROPAGATION UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF WIND AND TEMPERATURE GRADIENTS K. B. RASMUSSEN~ Danish Acoustical Institute, c/o Technical University of Denmark DK-2800 Lyngby, Denmark (Received 27 October 1984, and in revised form 26 February 1985) The situation investigated is sound propagation from a monopole point source located over an impedance surface. The sound propagation is assumed to be influenced by wind and temperature gradients. A very accurate calculation method for taking into account the effect of wind and temperature gradients on sound propagation oufdoors is presented and used for verification of a new approximate calculation model. This comparison shows that the approximate model is accurate. A series of loudspeaker measurements has been carried out over a grass-covered ground for distances up to 80 m. The measurements were carried out for a wind speed of 2-2.5 m/s measured 10 m above the ground. The measured data agree very well with the calculated results. Furthermore the results from the approxi- mate calculation model agree with results from previous investigations [ 1,2]. Hence, the main conclusion is that a simple and powerful approximate model for sound propagation under the influence of wind and temperature gradients has been developed. However, the influence of turbulence is not taken into account in this paper, and the wind and temperature gradients are assumed to be constant as functions of height. 1. INTRODUCTION In recent years a substantial effort has been made in order to develop theoretical models for sound propagation outdoors. The starting point is usually a monopole point source over a locally reacting impedance plane. Appropriate models for the description of the acoustic ground impedance exist and are still being developed [3-61. Efficient and accurate approximate solutions for a monopole point source over an impedance plane have been developed, too. Hence, the calculation of sound propagation over plane ground represents no major problem so long as atmospheric effects may be ignored. A number of efficient calculation models for taking the effect of terrain profile into account have also been developed [7,8]. Thus one of the remaining problems is to take the influence of atmos- pheric effects into account. These effects are atmospheric absorption, the influence of wind and temperature gradients, and of turbulence in the atmosphere. Atmospheric absorption is today considered to be well known as a function of relative humidity and temperature. It may be considered as an extra contribution to attenuation versus distance apart from the basic spherical spreading. The atmospheric absorption is, however, frequency-dependent. The influence of atmospheric turbulence on sound propagation outdoors has not been investigated to very large extent, but some preliminary investigations have been performed [9]. As regards the influence of wind and temperature gradients most of the previously developed calculation models are very crude and inaccurate [lo]. In the following sections a new and powerful calculation model will be introduced. Comparisons are made with tedious, but precise, calculations as well as measured data t Presently with Bdegaard & Danneskiold-Sams#e, Kroghsgade 1, DK-2100 Copenhagen 8, Denmark. 321 0022-460X/86/020321 + 15 $03.00/O @ 1986 Academic Press Inc. (London) Limited 322 K. B. RASMUSSEN from outdoor measurements using a loudspeaker as source. The influence of turbulence is ignored in this paper. 2. THEORY 2.1. PRECISE THEORY The analysis given in this section follows those of Pridmore-Brown [ 1 l] and Pierce [ 121. In a still and homogeneous atmosphere one may write for the sound pressure p emitted from a monopole point source at (x, y, z) = (0, 0, zO) v*p + k2p = -47r 6(x) 6(y) 6(z - zo), (1) where 6 is the Dirac delta function, and k is the wavenumber. If one assumes that a vertical temperature gradient is present in the atmosphere, the sound speed will vary with height. One can still apply equation (l), but now k varies with height since k(z) = w/c(z). (2) Assuming that the field is cylindrically symmetric around the z-axis, one may introduce a Hankel transform p=- * I 2J,,(~d)P(z, K)K dK, (3) 0 where P denotes the transform of p, and d is the horizontal distance between source and observation point. If p satisfies equation (1) then P must satisfy the transformed equation ~2P/~Z2+[W2/C2(Z)-K2]P=~(Z-ZO). (4) Thus equation (4) may be solved, with appropriate boundary conditions, in order to find solutions for sound propagation under the influence of temperature gradients. It should be noted that the vertical density variation in the air has been ignored in equation (4). The boundary conditions which are to be used together with equation (4) are the Sommerfeld radiation condition (for z + CO) and an impedance boundary condition for z =O. Two solutions, (1, and 4, of the homogeneous equivalent to equation (4) are considered. $ is assumed to satisfy the condition at infinity while 4 is taken to satisfy the impedance condition for z = 0, a4/az+ik(O)/%$ = 0, (5) where p is the specific normalized admittance of the surface. For the inhomogeneous equation (4) the solution may be defined as P=AIC, forz>zo, P=&#J forz<z,. (6) The constants a and b may be determined from the fact that the sound pressure p is continuous for z = z,, and that the vertical component of the particle velocity is also continuous for z = z. except right at the source. Continuity in sound pressure across the plane z = z. leads to continuity in the transformed sound pressure P. Considering the vertical particle velocity component leads to aP(Z,+&, K)/aZ-aP(ZO-E, K)/dZ= 1 (7) for E small and positive. Equation (7) is obtained by integration of equation (4) with respect to z. Hence equation (6) may be written as P(z, K) = Ijl(z~, K)+(zw K)/[(a+/az)+ -(@/az)+]z=+, (8) where zL is the larger of z and z. and zs is the smaller. The denominator in equation (8) OUTDOOR SOUND PROPAGATION 323 is the Wronskian of 4 and 4. In order to find explicit expressions for II, and 4 it is necessary to specify how the sound speed varies with height. Here a linear variation c(z) = c(O)(l+ yz), (9) is assumed, where y is a constant. Inserting this in the homogeneous equivalent of equation (4) one obtains, for yzcc 1, a~P/az*+[k*(o)-K~-2yzk*(o)]P=o. (10) The restriction to small sound speed gradients which is inherent in equation (10) is likely to be unimportant as far as outdoor sound propagation is concerned. Solutions to this equation may be expressed as Airy functions [ 12,131. For y < 0 one chooses $(z, K) = W(T_Y), (11) where w(x)= ~JYi e' ~' ~~i ( x ei2m' 3 ) and ~=[~*-k~(0)]1*, y=z/Z, l=[]y12k2(0)]P”‘. Ai denotes the Airy function as defined by Pierce [12]. $ may be shown to satisfy the Sommerfeld radiation condition. The +-function satisfying the impedance condition is then given by (for y<O) (12) where V(X) =&Ai(x) and q = ik(O)@ This choice of $ and C#I leads to a Wronskian of -1 in equation (8). Hence one obtains p(z, K) = -“‘(T-Y&#‘(zs, K)i, (13) where yL = zL/ 1. For y > 0 one chooses +(z, K) = ‘J(T+Y), and consequently (14) o(T+Y), (15) and hence one obtains, instead of equation (13), p(Z, K) = -u(T+Y~b#'(zs, K)i. (16) Tedious but very accurate calculations of the influence from sound speed gradients may be carried out by implementing equation (3) with either equation (13) or equation (16) inserted for P This has been done by means of numerical methods given in the Appendix. The formulas above have been derived for a sound speed gradient only. This sound speed gradient may be caused by a temperature gradient or a wind speed gradient. The speed of sound is proportional to the square root of the absolute temperature, and it is therefore easy to interpret a temperature gradient as a sound speed gradient. In the case of a wind speed gradient the cylindrical symmetry which has been assumed around the z-axis is no longer present, since downwind propagation is equivalent to propagation in a positive sound speed gradient, whereas upwind propagation is similar to propagation in a negative sound speed gradient. Hence, the angle between the wind speed vector and the vector pointing from source to receiver is essential. Another difficulty is to quantify the sound speed gradient which is equivalent to a given vector wind. In ray tracing calculations it is found that the curvature of the rays due to a wind speed gradient of 324 K. B. RASMUSSEN dV/dz is the same as the curvature due to a temperature gradient dT/dz if dT/dz = [2T,/c(O)](dV/dz) cos 8, (17) where 0 is the angle between the direction of propagation and the wind direction. T is the absolute temperature and To is the absolute temperature at the ground. The relation between y in equation (9) and dT/dz is y =;T-“2T;1’2 dT/dz = (dT/dz)/(2T,). (18) Hence equation (18) specifies y in equation (9) for a temperature gradient. In the case of a wind gradient equation (18) is used with equation (17) inserted. If both wind and temperature gradients are present, y is determined as the sum of the y’s due to each type of gradient. In practice, however, y is usually dominated by the effect of the wind speed gradient. Figure 1 shows typical y-values as a function of wind and temperature gradients. dT/dz(OK/m) V (m/s) Figure 1. y versus wind speed 10 m above the ground and versus temperature gradient. 2.2. APPROXIMATE THEORY An approximate theory for the calculation of sound propagation under the influence of wind- and temperature gradients has been developed. It would seem logical to develop such an approximate theory on the basis of the precise theory presented in the previous section. Attempts in this direction were, however, not quite satisfactory [lo]. Instead an approach based upon the Rayleigh integral has been employed. The approach is by no means mathematically rigorous, but, as will become clear in the following, the resulting expressions are efficient as well as accurate. As a starting point the Rayleigh integral will be derived. Figure 2 shows the source and receiver geometry and a screen halfway between source and receiver. x Figure 2. Geometry of source and receiver and screen. Source is located at (xs, 0, zs) and receiver at (xR, 0, zR). OUTDOOR SOUND PROPAGATION 325 From Green’s theorem one obtains for the sound pressure in a homogeneous and still atmosphere [ 141 d, denotes the normal derivative, and pL is the solution for a point source over an impedance plane [5,15], pL = (eikR1/R1) + Q( R,, 0) eikh/ RZ, (20) where RI is the direct ray path and R, is the reflected ray path (see also Figure 3). Q is the spherical wave reflection coefficient given by the relations Q(&, e)=R(e)+[l-R(B)lE(P,), R(B)=(cos t’-/?)/(cos e+p), E(P,) = 1 +iJGP, eCPe2erfc (-iP,), P, = J$kR,(j3 + cos 0). (21) Recewer J / /I’ , Figure 3. Point source over impedance plane. 8 is the angle of incidence, also shown in Figure 3. Erfc is the complementary error function [15]. Equation (21) is a very good approximation to point source propagation over an impedance plane. For equation (19), the integration is to be carried out over the screen surface. An explicit expression for p is obtained from equation (19) by making reasonable assumptions regarding the field on the screen. Assuming the screen to be hard one can make use of the Rayleigh assumption that p=2p, and a,,p=o (22) on the illuminated side, and p=O and a,p=O (23) on the shadowed side. Inserting equations (22) and (23) in equation (19) one obtains P=Pr& 2PL anPL dS, where S, is the illuminated side of the screen. If the screen is extended to infinity, p is zero provided that source and receiver are separated by the screen. Hence, from these considerations, one obtains the Rayleigh integral for pL, 1 PL=g PL anPL dS (25) 326 K. B. RASMUSSEN or, from equation (20), ik% ikRa >xR+QZ> xR 3 4 1 dy dz, (26) where R,, RZ, R3 and R4 are shown in Figure 4. Q, is calculated on the basis of R2 and Q2 is calculated on the basis of Rd. Equation (26) is valid only if Q varies slowly as a Figure 4. Ray paths used in connection with the Rayleigh integral. function of horizontal distance. This assumption is justified by numerical investigation of equation (21) [14]. Furthermore, this assumption makes it possible to use the method of stationary phase as an approximation to the integral over y. Hence one obtains, for k-a, eik(R,+%) ik(%+R,) +Q1 [R,R:(R,+ R,)]“‘+ Q1Q2 [R2R;(R2+ R4),l12 1 dz’ (27) In equation (27) RI to R4 denote ray paths located in the vertical plane containing source and receiver (the plane containing the stationary points). So far it has been assumed that the atmosphere is still and homogeneous. If a wind gradient or a temperature gradient is present, one may replace k by k(z) = m/c(z), (28) so that, with c(z) as defined in equation (9), k(z)=[w/c(O)](l-yz)= k(O)(l-yz). (29) In equation (27) the sound field is calculated on the basis of a vertical column of secondary sources. For each secondary source k is regarded as constant along the ray paths R, to R4, but k is calculated on the basis of half the height of the secondary source. In this way the average wind (or temperature gradient) is taken into account for each secondary source. Formally equation (27) leads to pL = -xR[2rk(0)]1/2 g eik(zlZ)(R,+R,) ik(zlZ)(R,+R,) [RIR;(R,+ R,)]‘/‘+ Q2 [RI&R,+ R4)]l12 eiWz/2)(R,+R,) eik(z/2)(R,+R,) +Q1[R2R~(R2+R3),1/2+Q1Q2[R2R:(R2+R4)]”2 dz9 1 (30) where k(z) is given by equation (29). However, equation (30) does not take curvature of the rays into account-and curvature must arise when sound is propagating through a gradient. Instead equation (30) introduces a phase change at each secondary source. Lindblad [16] has suggested simulating sound propagation in gradients by curving the ground. In equation (30) the introduction of a phase change as a function of height may be regarded as equivalent to curving the ground. Physical intuition suggests that the OUTDOOR SOUND PROPAGATION 327 aperture (x = 0) should be located something like halfway between source and receiver. Numerical investigations have confirmed that this is a reasonable choice, hence in the following xs = -xR (see Figure 1). Numerical integration of equation (30) was performed with N points where N = Max (L/IX, 25) + 25. DL is the spacing between points, which is l/5 wavelength, and L is a distance which is determined from L = Max {[0.5 Min (x,, -xR) + Max (zs, zR) + 1.0],24}. The contributions from the last 25 points were reduced by a window-function in order to reduce spurious end-point contribu- tions. The CPU-time necessary for such a numerical integration is approximately 5 s for l/3 octave calculations between 100 Hz and 2 kHz for a 120 m distance between source and receiver. In Figures 5 and 6 a comparison is shown of results from equations (3), (12) and (15) (the precise theory) and results from equation (30) (the approximate theory). The com- parison is based upon a typical impedance for grass-covered ground. Hence the impedance versus frequency is assumed to follow the Delany-Bazley flow resistance model [3] with a flow resistance of 200 x lo3 Nsme4 inserted. From the figures one can see that for downwind propagation the sound pressure level is generally increased with increasing wind speed. This is to be expected since, according to traditional ray tracing, this situation may allow multiply reflected rays to reach the receiver. In the upwind situation, on the other hand, the rays are bent upwards, and if the wind speed is sufficiently high, no rays will reach the receiver. Hence a shadow zone is created according to ray theory. And indeed the sound pressure level does decrease for increasing wind speed in Figure 6. A comparison between Figures 5 (a) and (b) and 6(a) and (b) shows that the approximate theory is in general very accurate, but that it underestimates the influence of wind (and temperature) gradients for higher wind speeds. These trends are found for other source-receiver geometries also [lo], but, as will become -25 (b) I I , 1 125 250 500 1000 2000 Frequency (Hz) Figure 5. Sound pressure level relative to free field for downwind propagation over typical grassy field. Horizontal distance 120 m; source height 1.8 m; receiver height 2.0 m. Flow resistance, a, is 200 x kd Nsm-“. Wind speed -, 0 m/s; - - -, 1 m/s; -. -, 3 m/s; . . ‘, 5 m/s. Calculated from (a) equation (3); (b) equation (30). 328 K. B. RASMUSSEN -15 - _.,... -20 - -25 - (b) I 1 I I 125 250 500 1000 2000 Frequency (Hz) Figure 6. Key as in Figure 5, but for upwind propagation. clear in the next section, the effect of gradients increases with horizontal distance. In the next section only the approximate model will be used since it requires only less than one-tenth of the computation time needed for the calculation of the precise model. 3. MEASUREMENTS Outdoor sound propagation measurements were carried out with a loudspeaker as source. Wide band noise was emitted by the loudspeaker and received by Briiel & Kjaer 4165 microphones fitted with wind screens. The signal was recorded on Nagra IV SJ tape recorders for later one-third octave analysis in the laboratory. During the propagation measurements the direction and speed of the wind were measured and the temperature gradient was measured. The meteorological measuring system consisted of a wind vane and cut anemometer mounted on top of a mast, 10 m high, and of two temperature probes in double radiation shields. The temperature probes were located at O-5 m above the ground and on top of the mast, respectively. The central unit of the equipment printed the mean vector wind and the average temperature gradient once every minute. The measurements were carried out on 14 August 1984, in the afternoon, on a grass- covered plane. The atmospheric conditions were very stable during the measurements. The wind speed was 2-2.5 m/s, the temperature gradient less than O.O3”K/m, and the relative humidity was 70%. (The humidity value was obtained from a nearby meteorologi- cal centre.) Measurements were made for source-receiver distances of 40 m and 80 m. The source height was 1.45 m in all cases and for each horizontal distance recordings were made for a receiver height of 0.5 m as well as 1.5 m. Recordings were made with two different loudspeakers, one at a time. Hence, a Briiel & Kjaer 4205 sound power source was used as well as a loudspeaker developed at the OUTDOOR SOUND PROPAGATION 329 Acoustics Laboratory, Technical University of Denmark, consisting of 20 units in a spherical arrangement. The former loudspeaker is a reasonable approximation to a point source at higher frequencies (the approximate directional characteristic has been given in reference [S]) whereas the latter has a high output and is omnidirectional within 1 dB up to 1 kHz. Hence, the Briiel & Kjaer loudspeaker could be employed over the entire frequency range from 100 Hz to 5 kHz except when the signal-to-noise ratio became too low because of acoustic background noise. The 20 unit loudspeaker was used in order to obtain a better signal-to-noise ratio at lower frequencies. Thus the results presented in the following are from the Briiel & Kjaer loudspeaker for frequencies above 1250 Hz and from the 20 unit loudspeaker for lower frequencies. The measured data are the results obtained after an integration time of 31 s. Repeated measurements gave only very slight differences, and no influence of the loudspeaker source used could be found. The measured sound pressure levels were related to the free field level obtained for the same distance. The free field levels from the loudspeakers were measured in an anechoic room at a distance of 5 m and this result was then extrapolated to the distance in question, with spherical spreading being assumed. The measured values in Figures 7,8, 10 and 11 have all been corrected for atmospheric absorption according to ANSI [17] for 70% r.h. and 20°C. In Figures 7 and 8 the results for 40 m are shown for downwind and upwind propagation. One can see that calculated results (equation (30)) agree very well with the measured data. The calculated results are based upon a flow resistance value of 200 x lo3 Nsmm4 in the Delany-Bazley flow resistance model for the ground impedance. This flow resistance value gives a very good agreement between theory and measurement, and also for a horizontal separation of 20 m where the influence of atmospheric effects may be ignored. These results are not shown here, but may be found in reference [lo]. From Figure 9 it is clear that the theoretical influence of the atmospheric effects is not very strong at the (a) i -15 - -20 - -25 - (b) I 1 1 1 1 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 Frequency (Hz) Figure 7. Sound pressure level relative to free field for downwind propagation over grass-covered ground. Horizontal distance 40 III; source height 1.45 m; receiver height: (a) 1.5 m; (h) 0.5 m. Wind speed 2.5 m/s. -, measured; - - -, equation (30) for v = 200 x lo3 Nsmm4. 330 K. B. RASMUSSEN -10 - -15 - -20 - -25 - (b) - I 1 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 Frequency (Hz) Figure 8. Key as in Figure 7, but for upwind propagation. Wind speed 2 m/s. -lO- -15- -20 - is -25 - 0 (0) i -25 (b) 1 I I I 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 Frequency (Hz) Figure 9. Sound pressure level relative to free field for propagation over grass-covered ground. Horizontal distance 40 m; source height 1.45 m; receiver height: (a) 1.5 m; (b) 0.5 m. Flow resistance, o, is 200x ld Nsmm4. Wind speed -, 0 m/s; - - -, 2.5 m/s; -. -, -2.0 m/s. Calculated from equation (30). 40 m distance. However, the measured difference is slightly larger than the calculated difference. Figures 10 and 11 show the results for 80 m for downwind and upwind propagation. Again the agreement between theory and measurement is very satisfactory. The theoretical OUTDOOR SOUND PROPAGATION 331 z - 25 Z (0) 5 b J - 25 (b) I , 1 I 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 Frequency (Hz) Figure 10. Key as in Figure 7, but horizontal distance is 80 m. -15- -2o- 73 -25- 9 (0) u i?l J -15- -2o- - 25 (b) I I 1 I 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 Frequency (Hz) Figure 11. Key as in Figure 7, but for horizontal distance 80 m and upwind propagation. Wind speed 2 m/s. curves in Figure 12 show that the difference between downwind and upwind propagation is much greater than for the 40 m distance. A marked discrepancy is, however, present in Figure 11 between theoretical and measured data in the high frequency region. This is not surprising since it has been assumed that the influence of turbulence is marginal 332 K. B. RASMUSSEN ii? -25 3 (a) -25 (b) 1 I I , I 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 Frequency (Hz) Figure 12. Key as in Figure 9, but horizontal distance is 80 m. -I 5- ‘\ -15- ‘\ /’ c,“\. ,A. ‘\ ‘.“./ ‘. -2o- ‘\._. 1’ _.X’ -25 (b) h I I 0 1 125 250 500 loo0 2000 Freqa-cy (Hz) Figure 13. Sound pressure level relative to free field for propagation over grass-covered ground. Horizontal distance 110 m; source height 1.8 m; receiver height 1.6 m. Wind speed -, 0 m/s; - - -, 5 m/s; - . -, -5 m/s. Temperature gradient; neutral. (a) Measured [l]; (b) equation (30) for v = 200x IO3 Nsm-4. Also see text. and that the gradients are constant as functions of height. Both assumptions are reasonable except for high frequencies and long distances. Figure 13 shows a comparison of measured data reported by Parkin and Scholes [l] and calculated data. The distance is 110 m. Both measurements and calculations are made OUTDOOR SOUND PROPAGATION 333 with reference to a point 20 m from the source (which was a jet engine). One can see that the agreement between theory and experiment is good although the combined effect of wind and ground is somewhat greater in theory than in practice in this case. Calculations were made for a flow resistance of 200 x lo3 Nsme4 [ 18 1. It should also be mentioned that long distance downwind propagation measurements from the Netherlands [2] confirm the trends observed in Figures 7 and 10 for downwind propagation. These measurements were carried out for distances of several hundred metres. The wind speed and temperature gradient are, however, not specified in reference PI . 4. DISCUSSION The results from the previous section show that the calculation procedure proposed in equation (30) for sound propagation under the influence of wind and temperature gradients is very accurate. The results from equation (30) are confirmed by calculations made on a far more rigorous basis, equations (3), (13) and (16), as well as by experimental data. Two basic restrictions are, however, present in ail the calculations presented in this paper. Firstly the influence of turbulence in the atmosphere is ignored, and secondly the gradients are assumed to be constant versus height. The influence of turbulence increases with distance and frequency. The main effect of turbulence is that random phase fluctuations are introduced so that interference dips become less pronounced than they should be according to theory in which turbulence is ignored. Hence for distances exceeding, say, 500 m, the combined effect of wind and temperature gradients and the ground effect will usually be smaller than predicted when ignoring the turbulence. This difference between theory and measurement increases with the wind speed. This tendency may be found even in Figure 13 for a distance of 110 m and a wind speed of 5 m/s. Preliminary investigations of the influence of turbulence have been made by Daigle et al. [9]. The fact that the gradients are assumed to be constant is also bound to introduce some kind of error since the wind speed and temperature profiles are usually logarithmic in shape [ 191. What has been employed in this investigation is thus actually a sort of average gradient, since the wind speed has been measured 10 m above the ground and it is known to be zero at ground level. In this investigation a linear variation has been assumed between these two points, but in reality the variation is approximately logarithmic. Similarly, the air temperature has been measured at 10 m and close to the ground, and a linear variation assumed. These approximations introduce an error which increases with frequency since the wavelength compared to the shape of the actual gradient determines the size of the error. If the wavelength is sufficiently long, a constant gradient is a good approximation. The high frequency deviations in Figure 11 are probably due to the logarithmic shape of the wind speed profile. Most of the previously published calculation methods for propagation under the influence of wind and temperature gradients are based solely on ray tracing techniques, and as a consequence the accuracy has not always been satisfactory [ 10,201. Recently De Jong has developed a very advanced calculation method based upon extrapolation [18]. At present the results, however, do not agree well with experimental data. The reason for this is not known. Actually the theoretical results displayed in Figures 5 and 6 may be compared directly with calculated results in reference [18]. Apart from the inaccuracies inherent in the calculations for taking the influence of wind and temperature gradients into account, it should be mentioned that the flow 334 K. B. RASMUSSEN resistance ground model could also be responsible for some of the deviations between theory and measurement. One such example is the discrepancy in Figures 7(a) and (b) between the measured and calculated first dip. Finally, it should be pointed out that the influence of a wind component having a direction normal to the sound propagation direction is not taken into account in the present study. Such a side-wind component is, however, expected to have only limited influence on sound propagation from a point source. ACKNOWLEDGMENT The present work was sponsored by the Danish Technical Research Council. REFERENCES 1. P. H. PARKIN and W. E. SCHOLES 1965 Journal of Sound and Vibration 2, 353-374. The horizontal propagation of sound from a jet engine close to the ground, at Hatfield. 2. P. KOERS 1983 Technisch Physische Dienst tno-th, Delft. A calculation method for the propaga- tion of outdoor sound over several kinds of barriers on an inhomogeneous ground. 3. M. E. DELANY and E. N. BAZLEY 1970 Applied Acoustics 3, 105-116. Acoustical properties of fibrous absorbent materials. 4. S.-I. THOMASSON 1977 Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 61, 659-674. Sound propagation over a layer with a large refraction index. 5. K. B. RASMUSSEN 1981 Journal of Sound and Vibration 78, 247-255. Sound propagation over grass covered ground. 6. K. ATTENBOROUGH 1983 Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 73,785-799. Acoustical characteristics of rigid fibrous absorbents and granular materials. 7. T. KAWAI 1981 Journal of Sound and Vibration 79,229-242. Sound diffraction by a many-sided barrier or pillar. 8. K. B. RASMUSSEN 1984 Journal of Sound and Vibration 98, 35-44. On the effect of terrain profile on sound propagation outdoors. 9. G. A. DAIGLE, J. E. PIERCY and T. F. W. EMBLETON 1983 Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 74, 1505-1513. Line-of-sight propagation through atmospheric turbulence near the ground. 10. K. B. RASMUSSEN 1985 Danish Acoustical Institute Report. The effect of wind and temperature gradients on sound propagation outdoors. 11. D. C. PRIDMORE-BROWN 1962 Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 34,438-443. Sound propagation in a temperature and wind-stratified medium. 12. A. D. PIERCE 1981 Acoustics: An Introduction to its Physical Principles and Applications. New York: McGraw-Hill. 13. V. A. FOCK 1965 Electromagnetic Diffraction andPropagation Problems. Oxford: Pergamon Press. 14. K. B. RASMUSSEN 1982 Danish Acoustical Institute, Report 35 Sound propagation over non-flat terrain. 15. C. F. CHIEN and W. W. SOROKA 1980 Journal of Sound and Vibration 69, 340-343. A note on the calculation of sound propagation along an impedance surface. 16. S. LINDBLAD 1979 Personal communication. 17. American National Standard S1.26-1978. Method for the calculation of the absorption of sound by the atmosphere. 18. B. A. DE JONG 1983 Ph.D. Thesis, Devt Chtiuersity Press. The influence of wind and temperature gradients on outdoor sound propagation. 19. R. E. MUNN 1966 Descriptioe Micrometeorology. London: Academic Press. 20. C. LARSSON and S. ISRAELSSON 1981 Uppsala University, Report. The influence from meteoro- logical parameters on sound propagation from a point source, Part 1, Atmospheric refraction (in Swedish). 21. M. ABRAMOWITZ and I. A. STEGUN 1965 Handbook of Mathematical Functions. Washington D.C.: National Bureau of Standards, Applied Mathematics, Series 55. OUTDOOR SOUND PROPAGATION 335 APPENDIX: NOTES ON THE CALCULATION OF THE PRECISE THEORY The numerical integration of equation (3) with either equation (13) or equation (16) inserted is far from simple. First, appropriate expressions for the u and w functions must be found. Both functions are closely related to the Airy function Ai [12,13]: u(t) = r”2Ai( t), w(t)=2?r l/2 ei”/6Ai( t ei2r/3). (AI, A2) Series representations for Ai may be found in the book by Abramowitz and Stegun [21]. For t much larger than one the following approximations were used: v(t) = 0.5t-“4 eex, w(t) = tC”4 ex, v’(t) = -0.5t”4 epx, w’(t) = t1’4 ex, (A3) where x = (2/3) t 3’2 For large negative arguments similar expressions could be obtained: . u(-r) E r-‘/4 sin (x+ g/4), w(-t)= t -l/4 ei(*+rr/4) 3 v’(-t)--tt”4COS(X+7r/4), wl(_t) ~ _it1/4 ei(x+r/4)s (A4) Whenever the argument was large enough, v and w were calculated by means of equations (A3) and (A4) in order to save computer time. The Bessel function in equation (3) was calculated from rational approximations [21]. The actual numerical integration was performed by repeated use of Simpson’s rule [21]. It was discovered that for upwind propagation it was suitable to integrate from 0 to 2 k(O), with 2000 points used in the numerical integration. For frequencies between 1 kHz and 2 kHz it was, however, sufficient to integrate from 0 to 1.5 k(O). For downwind propagation the phase of the integrand varies rapidly for K close to zero. In this case it was found suitable to integrate only in a small interval around k(0). The integration was performed over the K-interval [(-4k(0)/12+ k’(O))“‘, (4k(0)/12+ k’(O))“‘], (A5) where 1 is defined in connection with equation (10). The number of points was 600. If the above interval was increased, the number of points had to be increased very much, but the results were virtually unchanged. Sound Propagation in a Temperature- and Wind-Stratified Medium David C. Pridmore-Brown Citation: The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 34, 438 (1962); doi: 10.1121/1.1918146 View online: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1918146 View Table of Contents: http://asa.scitation.org/toc/jas/34/4 Published by the Acoustical Society of America Articles you may be interested in A Review of the Influence of Meteorological Conditions on Sound Propagation The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 25, 405 (1953); 10.1121/1.1907055 Tutorial on sound propagation outdoors The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 100, 31 (1996); 10.1121/1.415879 Analytical solutions for outdoor sound propagation in the presence of wind The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 102, 2040 (1997); 10.1121/1.419692 THE JOURNAL OF THE ACOUSTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA VOLUME 34. NUMBER 4 APRIL, 1962 Sound Propagation in a Temperature- and Wind-Stratified Medium DAVID C. PRIDMORE-BROWN Department of Mechanical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge 39, Massachusetts (Received October 3, 1961) The general linearized equations governing the propagation of sound in a dissipationless temperature- and wind-stratified medium are derived. A formal integral expression is given for the field of a point source located in such a medium, when it is bounded by an absorbing plane under conditions which lead to the formation of a shadow zone. This integral yields the following approximate (high-frequency) expression for the decay rate within the shadow [pl2= (B/r) exp•- (n/c)fi(-c'--U' cos•)lr-]. Here p is the acoustic pressure, r is radial distance from the source, B is independent of r, f is frequency in cps, ½ is sound speed, c' and U' are sound- and wind-speed gradients at the ground surface, q• is the angle between the wind direction and the direction of sound propagation, and n is equal to 5.93 for a pressure re- lease boundary and to 2.58 for a hard boundary. INTRODUCTION HE influence of temperature inhomogeneities on sound propagation has been the subject of num- erous theoretical studies, particularly in connection with underwater acoustics. A classical paper in this field is that of •e•.•e[is•,• who determined the sound field from a point source in a temperature-stratified semi- infinite medium bounded by a pressure release surface. He computed the decay rate of the sound field in the shadow zone, which results from the combined effect of the curvature of the rays and the boundary, and thus explained, at least in principle, a frequency ob- served sound-propagation anomaly in the sea. In the corresponding problem of sound propagation in the atmosphere studied in this paper, one finds that• wind gradients play as important a role as temperature gradients, as has been demonstrated in numerous ex- ZONE WIND SOURCE perimental investigations. TM The presence of a wind gradient makes the medium not only inhomogeneous but also is•c, and, as illustrated in Fig. 1, the sound field around a point source over a boundary is no longer symmetrical about the source as it is in a thermal gradient. Rays from the source are bent up- wards on the upwind side and downwards on the down- wind side. •he D[esence of a negative temperature gradient (lapse rate) tends to accentuate the bending of the.rays upwind and to reduce it downwind, whil• a positive tem,12•ature gradient (inversion) has the op- posite effectS: T. his behavior is well known from ray studies of sound propagation in which it is found that as far as the curvature of the sound rays is concerned, a wind gradient (dU/dz) is equivalent to a temperature gradient (dT/dz)= (2T/c) cos½(dU/dz), where ½ is the angie between the direction of sound propagation and the wind direction, and c is the speed of sound. ii 'is clear that the • shields the rays off from a•'•ihadow zone which lies within a sector on the upwind side of the source. This sector subtends an angie at the source which is greater than 180 ø in a negative temperature gradient and less than this value in a positive gradient. In the present analysis, it is found that the equivalence between temperature and wind gradients referred to above applies also to the rate of decay of the sound field within the shadow zone, and that the decay rates produced by temperature and wind gradients are additive. This analysis refers to the idealized situation of a point source of sound located above a flat boundary whose acoustic properties are described ,b_•..•,.•..•. normal !.mpedance. The atmosphere is steady and vertically stratified, that is, the temperature and wind velocity vary monotonically with the height above the plane. Since we assume the atmosphere to be steady, this Fro. 1. Illustrating the formation of a shadow zone due to the combined effect of a wind gradient and a temperature inversion (•s/&>0, •r/&>0). • C. L. Pekeris, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 18, 295 (1946). •' U. Ingard, Proc. 4th Annual Nat. Noise Abatement Symp. 4, 11 (1953). , • F. M. Wiener and D. N. Keast, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 31, 724 .•, (1959). 438 PROPAGATION IN A STRATIFIED MEDIUM 439 means, of course, that effects due to turbulence are not included. The diffracted field deep within the shadow is very small, and only a minute perturbation of the medium may noticeably influence the shadow field. •For this reason we have been careful to start from the servation equations including the effect •'(•f gravity and by so doing hay_•e been •d to retain terms' that have •ii•ll'•- b&7i ignored. EQUATIONS OF MOTION IN A STRATIFIED IN- HOMOGENEOUS MOVING MEDIUM IN THE PRESENCE OF A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD We assume the atmosphere to be a perfect gas which is horizontally stratified, that is, its undisturbed prop- erties are functions only of height z and its motion consists of a steady velocity U(z) which we take to lie in the x direction. If we neglect all dissipative ef- fects, then the propagation of small (acoustic) disturb- ances will be governed by the linearized equations ex- pressing the conservation of mass, momentum, and convected entropy. In order to carry out the lineariza- tion we shall write the total pressure p= P(z)+p as the sum of the undisturbed (barometric) pressure P(z) and the acoustic pressure flgctuations p(x,y,z,t), and s^imilarly for the density fi---•R(z)q-p and the velocity v= Es(z)+u; v; The conservation of mass equation (0 •/at) 4- div (•) = 0, then yields to first order in the acoustic variables Op Op /Ou Ov Ow\ --+U•+wR'+R|•+--+•J=O, (•) at Ox \Ox Oy Oz / where the prime denotes the z derivative. The effect of gravity is to introduce a force per unit volume in the medium with the components (0; 0; -- •g), so that the equation for the conservation of momentum becomes fi(O•/Ot)•+ fl. gradv+ gradp- fig=0. Linearization of this equation leads to the following three equations' Ou Ou 1 Op (2) Ot Ox R Ox Ov Ov 1 Op --+$--+----=0, (3) Ot Ox ROy Ow Ow 1 Op P' •-[- U•d p= 0. (4) Ot Ox R Oz R 2 Neglect of dissipation requires that the convected entropy be conserved (d•/dt)---- (O•/Ot)q- rv. grad•= 0. If we use the relation $= $o+C• ln[(p/po)/ (•/•o)•, which holds for the entropy of a perfect gas, then this requirement is equivalent to (0 •/ Ot) 4- •' grad• = g2[- (0 p/Ot) 4- • ' gradp-], where g2='•p/•, and '•=c•,/c,. Linearization of this equation then leads to Op (Op •+ uOP+ p'w= c • . Ox / Equations (1)-(5) are five first-order partial dif- ferential equations in the dependent variables p, p, u, v, w which are functions of x, y, z, and t. Owing to the assumption of vertical stratification, their coef- ficients are functions only of z. Thus if we assume har- monic time dependence, e -i•t and replace each de- pendent variable fi(x,y,z,t) by its corresponding Fourier transform Fi(afi,z) where these are connected by fi=e-i','tff then this set of partial differential equations will be replaced by a set of ordinary differential equations in the F's. We introduce the symbols II, A, t•, •, •2 to represent the Fourier transforms, respectively, of p, p, u, v, w. Then, taking the Fourier transforms of Eqs. (1)-(5), we obtain ,zXq-R'f•q-R(iatzq-i•v+•')=O, (la) vu+ U'f•+R-1/alI = 0, (2a) r/v+R-1i•1I = 0, (3a) wf•q-gR-•zXq-R-qI'=O, (4a) Rg= (5a) In these equations/9, has been eliminated by using the zeroth order contribution from the momentum equation, viz., P'.•Rg=O. Also, for brevity we have used v = -iw+iaU. W4"now successively eliminate t•, v, •2, and zX from these equations to obtain a second-order differential equation for II II"- -- ln[-r?R (1-- gp)'] II', dz •2 •q-(1-gQ)(a2q-• •) q_g d ln[-r?c •(1 gQ)'] } II O. c • dz (6) 440 DAVID C. PRIDMORE-BROWN Here Q=•-2(g/cS-qdR•'•/•R_.•nd, as before, primes denote deri've/ti'V'es •'it•h•'t•-•'• 't to z. It is interesting to study the behavior of Eq. (6) in the absence of wind. In an di•tlImsphere where P/Po = -••'nd no wind it reduces to the simple form where and II" q- (g/cS) II' q- [-kS-- Ksq- (3'-- 1)g¾cC]II= O, d= co• (1- z/tt) , tt= (eo/og), •=a•+• •. In an isothermal atmosphere with no wind the equation becomes II" q- ('rg/d') II' q- { k s- •[ 1 - ('• - 1) (g/coc)•} II = O, which has the solution II= exp(-'rgz/2d) exp{ 4-i[k•- •2(1 - •) - ('rg/2d)•'•z} , studied by Lamb. • Here •= (-},--1)(g/coc) •' and c is of course constant. If one neglects the barometric pressure variation, as Pekeris did, by setting g-0 in Eq. (6), one obtains II"+2(c'/c)1I'+ (k•- •)II= 0, which differs from the corresponding equation of Pekeris by the presence of the first-derivative term. This is due to the fact that Pekeris assumed the relation p=pc s instead of Op/Ot=d'Op/Ot+R'w which follows from Eq. (5) in the absence of wind and gravity. Since this first- derivative term goes roughly as 1/X (X is wavelength) whereas the other terms in the equation go as 1/X •, it can be expected to be important only at low frequencies. Thus it does not affect the final high-frequency approxi- mation given by Pekeris. In the more general case with wind Eq. (6) can be simplified if one is willing to neglect terms of the order gQ with respect to unity. In fact, for a •91ytropic g.t•9• • for which P/Po = (R/Ro)" we readily find that gp= (g/coc)s.r/n - 1)(1-aU/co)% where zt= )3(eo/og) is the "height" of the polytropic atmosphere, P0 and R0 being the pressure and density at the ground z-0. Thus for wind speeds smaller than the sonic speed gQ i,•[.tllg order of (g/coc) •which at 100 cps is about 10 -ø. If then we consistently neglect terms of this order of magnitude compared to one, Eq. (6) simplifies to ii,,_ ( 2¾ R'•ii,_ (•+as+•.)ii = 0, •H. Lamb, ttydrodynamics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,•England, 1940), 6th ed., pp. ,541-543. which can be cast in the form II" ( k'--aM' ?g -- \2 •_-• 7)11' where k=co/c, M= U/c. (7) FIELD OF A POINT SOURCE OVER A PLANE WITH IMPEDANCE-BOUNDARY CONDITIONS In order to study the sound field from a point source it is convenient to introduce polar coordinates by putting x = r cosqb• c•---- • cos0, y = r sin•, /•= • sin0. With this substitution, the equation connecting p and its Fourier transform II becomes exp[&r cos(0-q•)3II(g,0; z)Kd•dO, (8) and there is an ,exac.tly similar relation between w and 9. Equation (7) takes the form ( k• •M' cosO Vghli, H •-- 2' • •M cos0 c • / -J-[(k-- gM cos0) s- •s3II= 0. (9) We now turn to the task of writing the function II appearing in the integrand in Eq. (8) in such a form that the integral shall represent the pressure field around a point source of sound which •s at a, height h above ground and is in the presence of the tem•r•i•k•' and wind gradients described by c(z) and U(z). We adopt a cylindrical coordinate system with the grou•n_.d. at z--0 and the source at r=0, z=h.)The boundary •ond•hon at the ground sdr•ce •s specified by assigning •o the ground a normal impedance Z, which is assumed independent of the angle of incidence, i.e., the grou•.od.•..• !is lo__c_a.l__l¾• r.e•cting.• The condition at'the s0ur•c•'e - is ob- obtained by S•oecifying the mass outflow across a small surface enclosing it. The condition at infinity (the outgoing radiation condition) is imposed in that sector on the upwind side of the source within which the sound rays are concave upwards. We shall call this the shadow sector. These conditions can be conveniently expressed in terms of the two independent solutions of Eq. (9), which we denote by II•(z) and II•.(z), where II•(z) is chosen such that it represents upgoing radiation at large heights in the shadow sector (in conjunction with the time factor e-g•t). Clearly, below the source we shall have both a downgoing wave and a reflected up- going wave, whereas above the source, we shall have only the one represented by the function II•. Accord- ingly we can write PROPAGATION IN A STRATIFIED MEDIUM of Eq. (13) leads to •" 441 II=AII•(z), above the source (z>h), (10) 1 f•f2• =-- •(r)e-iKr oos(O-•)drdc) =BIIx(z)+ClI2(z), below the source (z<h), •2(h+)-•2(h-) *r 2 J o • o where A, B, and C are constants to be determined. The functions II•(z) and II2(z) cannot, of course, be deter- = 1/r. (14) mined until M(z) and k(z) are specified in Eq. (9). If, for example, M=0, g-0 and k-constant everywhere, . The relation between ft and II can be got by eliminating then, clearly, ,-• •xfrom Eqs. (4a) and (5a). This gives II•=e 'k"*, II2=e -'•"*, r/Rft+II'= (g/d')II. (15) where where k?= k•'--K •'. In the general case of varying sound and wind speeds one must usually have recourse to approximate solutions. Convenient high-frequency ap- proximations can always be obtained by the method of Langer, 5 according to which one can write the in- dependent solutions to Eq. (9•ha.•the following form II•= (k-KM cosO).(l•"7gz/2co•')s}q-'•H«('•)(s), (11) m= 1 or 2, q (k- •M cosO)" s = q•dz. 1 Here zx is a zero of q which is assumed to be of first order [so that q(zx)/(z--zx)•O• and the phase of s is taken to be zero when s is real. If s is large and posi- tive, the function Hx becomes asymptotically Hx• (2/r)•(k--•M cos0)(1--7gz/2coS)Cie •(•-•/•), (12) which is obtained in the WKB approximation. We shall see later that the radiation requirement is satisfied with this form for The requirement that the vertical component of the particle velocity be continuous across the plane of the source, except right at the source, leads to Thus in terms of II and IV Eq. (14) becomes [ (g/c •') H-- II']n -•+= •R (h)/,r, where the left-hand side is the jump in (g/d)II-II' across the plane of the source. Reference to Eq. (10) then leads us to write this equation explicitly in the form (A -- B) ['IIx' (h)-- (g/c•)IIx(h)• --C[-II.o'(h)-- (g/c•')II•(h)•= --•R(h)/r. (16) Another relation between the constants A, B, C is given by the requirement that the pressure be continu- ous across the plane of the source, z= h, A II • (h) = BII • (h) +ClI2 (h). (17) Finally, a third relation is provided by the normal impedance boundary condition at the ground surface. Since the wind velocity is assumed to be zero at the ground, this condition takes the usual form p/w = -- Z = const at z = 0. Using Eq. (!5), this becomes g - . c0 z The three relations (16), (17), and (18) determine A, B, and C as follows' w(h+)--w(h-)= (4/r)•(r). (13) Here, •(r) is the delta function having the property that •(r)=0 for r•0 and 2 fo •(r)dr= 1. If this relation is integrated over a "pillbox" enclosing the source, it is seen to be equivalent to the requirement fv.dS=4,r, i.e., that the total outflow from the source be equal to 4•r. Taking the inverse Fourier transforms of both sides where A = B + II:(h)/W, II:' (0)+ (iooRo/Z-- g/co•)II:(O) IIx (h) •- • --• (o) + (ino/Z- g/o n, (o) C= II(h)/W, w W = , k- •M cos0 /•=• involves the Wronskian of II• and 112 Thus, above the source we obtain [ = (O)+ (ioRo/Z_ g/co.)Ih (O) * R. Langer, Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 33, 29 (1931). See also M. J. Lighthill, Quart. J. Mech. Appl. Math. 3, 311 (1950). (20) 442 DAVID C. PRIDMORE-BROWN Interchanging z and h in this expression gives the form which holds below the source. This'is then the explicit form of the function which appears in the integrand of Eq. (8). Note that approximate expressions for II• and II•. have been given in Eq. (11). Approximate Evaluation of the Field In the presence of a temperature gradient only and no wind [so that k= k (z) but M(z) = 0-] the dependence on 0 drops out of Eq. (9) and hence out of II(•,O,z) which becomes simply II(g,z). The integration over 0 can then be carried out directly in Eq. (8) with the result that p(r,•)= 2•e-iøøt fo Jo(•r)II(•,z)•d•. (21) This is the case of a variable index of refraction in a quiescent medium which has been treated extensively in the literature. •,ø,7 In the more general case the integration over 0 can still be approximately carried out, for large •r, by the saddle-point method. It is clear that the integration range for 0 passes through two points of stationary phase of the exponential term exp[-i•r cos(0-qO)-] in Eq. (8), namely 0=qO and 0=qOq-•r (for Saddle-point integration through these two points yields fo©/2,r\• p(r,ck,z)=e -i"'t -- ei('r-•/4)II(• ß qO,z) •+ XI1 .... lgdg 8gr Jo \gf/ ß 8•r where II is given in Eq. (20). (22) The result is that the integrals appearing in Eq. (22) can be evaluated, at least asymptotically (for high frequencies), as a sum of residues of a contour integral. Within the shadow sector the various terms of this series decay at such a rate that far enough from the source the pressure field is adequately represented by the first term alone. Under these conditions the square of the pressure takes the form I ply,= (B/r) expE-n(f/co)'¾r, where B is independent of r, f=w/2r is the frequency, and•'y=-(Co'/co+Uo ' cosqO/c0) is positive within the shad5"w•s-•-5•i•;5'r •nd can' be •egarded as an equivalent sound speed gradient. Notice that it depends only on the values of the gradients at the ground surface. The quantity n is a function of the ground impedance. For a very "hard" ground (specifically for Z/Roco=i213f where f is frequency in cps) n is easily evaluated as 2.58, whereas for a pressure-release boundary (Z= 0), n=5.93 in agreement with the results of a previous paper 7 for the case of no wind. ACKNOWLEDGMENT The author is indebted to U. Ingard for some valuable discussion of this problem. APPENDIX The normal mode representation is obtained formally by replacing the integration paths in Eq. (22) by con- tours such that the first integral is taken over a path enclosing the first quadrant of the complex • plane in an anticlockwise sense while the second is taken over a path enclosing the fourth quadrant in a clockwise sense. In general, the presence of branch points will necessitate the introduction of cuts •hich these contours must skirt if they are to close upon themselves. These contour integrals will then differ from the original integrals (22) by the values of the integrations along the infinite arcs, along the imaginary axes, and around the branch cuts. Now Pekeris has shown that although these con- In this way the double integral (8) for the pressure field is reduced to the sum of two single integrals which ,•xtributions will not in general vanish, they do vanish can be treated by methods which have already been •asymptotically if one uses the high-frequency solutions used in studying the integral (21) corresponding to the ' of Langer given in Eq. (11). Thus in this limit the tw6 temperature problem. Thus we can represent these integrals in Eq. (22) become expressible as two contour integrals as an infinite series of normal modes whose convergence is rapid in the shadow zone or, alternatively, we can evaluate them approximately by performing an additional saddle-point integration through the station- ary phase points in the g plane; this last procedure then yields a ray-acoustics representation which is adequate in the normal region. Since both of these methods are discussed by Pekeris, 1,ø we merely summarize the first one in the Appendix, showing how it applies to the pres- ent formulation. o-•C. L. Pekeris, J. Appl. Phys. 18, 667 (1947). /"•'% D.C. Pridmore-Brown and U. Ingard, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 27, 36 (1955). integrals encircling the first and fourth quadrants of the g plane in the manner described. It is worth remarking that the restriction to high frequencies is not usually stringent in practice since it is roughly equivalent to the requirement that fractional changes in the tempera- ture and velocity of the medium over the distance of a wavelength be small. Having the two integrals in (22) expressed as contour integrals, we evaluate them as a sum of residues taken at the poles of the respective integrands. Now, on physi- cal grounds we should expect the fourth quadrant to be free of poles so as to give no contribution from the sec- ond integral, which has the form of a sum of waves PROPAGATION IN A STRATIFIED MEDIUM 443 converging on the source. That this is the case can again be readily verified with the help of the Langer solutions. For simplicity we shall restrict ourselves for the moment to extreme values of the ground impedance. For a very "hard" ground for which Z/Roco=iooco/g the poles in Eq. (20) will occur at the zeros of II/(0). According to Eq. (11) these are asymptotically equivalent to the zeros of H_•(•)(So), which occur at so=A•e -• where A•=0.686, A2=3.90, ...,A• --• (n--3/4)•r (as n --• oo). Conversely we can consider a pressure-release boundary (Z-0) corresponding to which the poles occur at the zeros of II•(0) which are asymptotically the zeros of H• (•) (So). These are given by So= A •e -i•, where A • = 2.38, A2= 5.51, ß ß., A • --• (n- 1/4)•r. The quantity so is given by the integral /o foqoq-•dq (A1) so= (q)•dz= dq/dz' 1 where the subscript zero denotes the value of the quan- tity at z=0, and q(z•)=0. If we expand q and dq/dz in Taylor series about z=0 we obtain q= qo+ qo' z q- «qo" Z2+ ' . ., (A2) dq/dz= qo' q-qo"Z-½ ' ß ', where primes denote differentiation with respect to z. If we now eliminate z from the second series by substi- tuting for it the reversion of the first series we obtain dq qo" qo'"qo'-qo "• d-•= qo' + •.--7(q-- qo) + (q-- qo)2+ ' " . qo 2qo 'a In terms of this series the integral for So yields 2qøTl+2_qø"qø 1 so= . +.-. , (A3) • q0'L 5 q0 '• which must be set equal to A ne -i•, the A n being real and positive. It is dear that within the range of integration .,• the series expansion for dq/dz converges rapidly at high ",frequencies, since• q0 must he p•0p9 rtiønal to co• whereas qo', qo", etc., are all proportional to ,o • as w-• oo. Thus, if we take the first term only, we obtain qo= (•qo'Ae-i•) Since q0 = k0 •- •', this leads to t•,•=ko['l--«(•[qo'lko-aA,•)le-2i•/a-], (m4) for qo'= qo' and •= ko•l--«(•lq0'lk0--aAn)r], (A5) for qo'=--Iqo'l. Thus the poles g• will lie in the first quadrant of the complex • plane if q0' is positive and on the real axis if qo' is negative. In either case we can take •the integration paths in Eq. (22) just below the real axis so that when the contours are completed, the second integral, encircling the fourth quadrant, will vanish since this quadrant will then be free of poles. Thus the pressure field is given by the first contour integral only and takes the form p(r,qb,z)=e -i•øt ei(•r--•r/4)II(t½j q•,z)gd•. (A6) Here II is given by Eq. (20) and the contour encloses the first quadrant in an anticlockwise sense and in- cludes any poles that may exist on the real axis. Expressing this integral as a sum of residues at the poles we obtain formally p(r,qb,z) = -- 2•'ie -iø't • e ir•nr-•'/4) n•:l \ ,,,,[ n,.'+ (ioo•/Z-g/c•)n• w a/o•[n•'+ (iooR/Z-g/c•)n• z=0 n• (h)n• (z)+O(•/•r)•. (^7) If qo' <0 and the poles lie along the real axis the convergence of this series will be slow, and the integral (A6) is probably better evaluated by the saddle-point method. On the other hand if q0>0 and the g• lie in the first quadrant so that Im(g•r)>0, then the terms of the series decay rapidly with r so that at sufficient distances from the source the pressure may be adequately represented by the first term alone. The radial dependence of the pressure squared due to the first term is I pl 2= (B/r)e -2•m•xr, (AS) where B is independent of r. Now 2Im• «VJk0 a •- , , = (•qo,ko•A •)• where q0'= (O/Oz)[(k-- •M cos½) •-- •']•=0, = -- 2ko•(Co'/Co+ go' cos•/½0). Combining these terms leads us to write 2 Img•= n(f/co)«T •, (A9) where n=3.32A 1 •, f=oo/2•r and •= - (co'/co+ So' cosO/co). remington_VCC_3.pptx;1 “Sound propagation in a temperature-and wind-stratified medium,” David C. Pridmore-Brown, MIT, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, Vol. 34, No. 4 pp. 438-443 (April 1962). The effects of sound propagation traveling with the wind could increase the sound levels by up to 10-15 dB, based on theory, simulations, and reference experiments. The effects of sound propagation traveling with the wind could increase the sound levels by up to 10-15 dB, based on theory, simulations, and experiments, described in published scientific papers. The VCC report, which does not mention wind effects, estimates the increased noise level would be 1 dB.Our (very preliminary) estimates, based on published scientific literature, is a factor of 10 higher. “Outdoor sound propagation under the influence of wind and temperature gradients,” K.B. Rasmussen, Danish Acoustical Institute, Technical University of Denmark, Journal of Sound and Vibration 104 (2), 321-335 (1986). 0 m/s 5 m/s 3 1 Wind level: 0 m/s 5 m/s 3 1 Wind level: (1 m/s ~ 2 mph) (1 m/s ~ 2 mph) <http://www.hkphy.org/iq/sound_wind/sound_wind_e.html> remington_VCC_3.pptx;2 <http://www.hk-phy.org /iq/sound_wind/sound_wind_e.html> <https://weatherspark.com/y/1074/Average-Weather-in-Dublin-California-United-States-Year-Round#Sections-Wind> remington_VCC_3.pptx;3 Sound wave travels faster in the air when it is with the wind. Generally speaking,wind speed is lower near the ground because of the presence of blockages, and so it increases with height (Fig. 1). Therefore, when traveling with the wind,sound wave farther from the ground travels faster. <http://www.hkphy.org /iq/sound_wind/sound_wind_e.html> Dear Mayor and Councilmembers, September 25, 2018 My name is Rongfu Xiao and my house is located at Las Palmas court, less than 400 feet from the VCC property line.Here I would like to make some comments about VCC’s early noise assessment for their multipurpose sport field. Although I am not a sound expert, I do have a PhD in Physics and I do have scientific knowledge about sound propagation. Actually I have written about 50 US patents and one of which is about sound insulation. We know sound travel very dependent on wind direction: we hear very loudly if we are downstream, but weakly in the upstream from the source. In west Dublin, we are in 580 freeway corridor with strong winds from the east Bay. Unfortunately our neighborhood is directly down steam from VCC. In the early report it said in May 2015 the sound contractor Illingworth &Rodkin (I&R)did long term noise tests in two spots to project the future noise impact to its neighborhood:One spot (LT1)near the future stadium to represent the source of noise environment and another spot (LT2)in Las Palmas neighborhood to represent the noise-receptor,and claimed that the noises from the future football field will not exceed city noise standard in its neighborhood.But if you go to that test spot LT 2,you will realize that it is a noise blind-spot about 50 feet right below the flat area where the football field is to be built.As an experimental physicist,I did some noise measurement in our neighborhood last week myself.Here is my finding:The noise level at VCC test spot (LT2)was indeed between 35-50dB,while the noise level elsewhere in our neighborhood is between 45-75dB depending on the time and wind speed,a 15-20dB higher noise level than at LT 2.The chief engineer from the sound contractor also admitted that they intentionally chose such a quite spot as their reference.Were they trying to avoid the actual noise condition in VCC’s neighborhood so that it can pass the city required noise standard? In the report,I&R used an existing noise level of football games from Santa Teresa High School in San Jose as an analogy to their future football noise here.This is totally an UNACCEPTABLE COMPARISON.Here we have a very different micro-climate as compared with Santa Teresa (hill-top here versus valley over there,wind tunnel here versus still-air over there). At this time,we neither believe I&R’s noise assessment study is adequate &convincing and nor the game noise analogy is appropriate.Here I strongly request City planning committee to re-consider VCC application and make sure it truly meets city's noise standard before approving this project. Valley Christian Center Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration / Initial Study (Test spots of noise assessment by I&R (see P. 65 of report in PLPA-2014-00052) September 26, 2018 VIA EMAIL and HAND DELIVERY Mayor and City Council Members City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Email: david.haubert@dublin.ca.gov; melissa.hernandez@dublin.ca.gov; abe.gupta@dublin.ca.gov; arun.goel@dublin.ca.gov; janine.thalblum@dublin.ca.gov Martha Battaglia Associate Planner City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94569 Email: martha.battaglia@dublin.ca.gov RE: Valley Christian Center Planned Development Zoning Amendment and Site Development Review Permit (PLPA-2014-00052) for the Project site located at 7500 Inspiration Drive (“Project”) – CEQA Compliance Dear Mayor Haubert, Honorable Members of the City Council and Ms. Battaglia: These comments are submitted on behalf of the Concerned Citizens of West Dublin regarding the above referenced Project. We are concerned about the environmental impacts of the proposed Project, particularly those associated with noise pollution. We object to Project on the grounds that the Initial Study/Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/Supplemental MND”) fails to meet the minimum legal requirements as set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et. seq. We reviewed the IS/Supplemental MND, City’s Staff Report and other plans with the help of our technical consultants, including Saxelby Acoustics which we engaged for an initial expert opinion. Their attached technical comments are submitted in addition to the comments in this letter. We have identified a number of significant deficiencies in Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc.’s (“I&R”) environmental noise assessment report (“I&R Report”) prepared on behalf of the City of Dublin (“City”), as well as additional, more severe impacts that were neglected or otherwise not identified, included and/or assessed in the IS/Supplemental MND. Therefore, the City lacks substantial evidence to support the conclusions in the IS/Supplemental MND and an EIR is required. I. The IS/Supplemental MND Fails to Adequately Analyze and Mitigate Noise Impact As case law has shown, compliance with applicable regulations does not automatically obviate the need for further analysis of impacts at this pre-approval stage of the Project. In Keep our Mountains Quiet v. County of Santa Clara, (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 714, neighbors of a wedding venue sued over the County’s City of Dublin September 26, 2018 Page 2 failure to prepare an EIR due to significant noise impacts. The court concluded that “a fair argument [exists] that the Project may have a significant environmental noise impact” and reasoned that although the noise levels would likely comply with local noise standards, “compliance with the ordinance does not foreclose the possibility of significant noise impacts.” The court ordered the County to prepare an EIR. The ruling demonstrates the possibility that a project may be in compliance with an applicable regulation and still have a significant impact. In Communities for a Better Env’t v. California Res. Agency, (2002) 126 Cal.Rprt.2d 441, 453, the court struck down a CEQA Guideline because it “impermissibly allow[ed] an agency to find a cumulative effect insignificant based on a project's compliance with some generalized plan rather than on the project's actual environmental impacts.” The court concluded that “[i]f there is substantial evidence that the possible effects of a particular project are still cumulatively considerable notwithstanding that the project complies with the specified plan or mitigation program addressing the cumulative problem, an EIR must be prepared for the project.” Thus, the ruling supports the notion that despite assured compliance with applicable standard outside of the CEQA process, a lead agency still has an obligation to consider substantial evidence and analyze and mitigate potentially significant impacts. In Leonoff v. Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors, (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1337, 1355, the court held that conditions requiring compliance with regulations are proper “where the public agency had meaningful information reasonably justifying an expectation of mitigation of environmental effects.” The ruling suggests that an agency that merely provides a bare assertion that the project will be in compliance with applicable regulations, without further explanation or enforceability, may not fulfill the requirements of CEQA. In our case, the City failed to provide information explaining how compliance with the outside laws and regulations would reduce the risks posed to nearby residents from the elevated noise levels emanating from the Project’s proposed site. The City may not rely solely on compliance with regulations or laws as reducing impacts without a full analysis of impacts or enforceable mitigation. Furthermore, reliance on the Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) dating back to 2003 is improper because the referenced EIR did not include substantial changes made to the proposed development plan, substantial changes in circumstances, and/or new information, any of which would have resulted in a new EIR. CEQA requires that the City describe all components of the Project that may have a significant impact, and adequately analyze and require mitigation for all potentially significant impacts. Here, the City failed to do so in its IS/Supplemental MND. II. Fair Argument Standard CEQA requires that an agency prepare an EIR for any project that may have a significant effect on the environment. (Pub. Resources Code § 21151(a).) An agency must prepare an EIR whenever substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment. (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21080(a); 21151(a); see Laurel Heights Improvement Ass’n v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112, 1123.) “In reviewing an agency’s decision to adopt a negative declaration, a trial court applies the ‘fair argument’ test.” (City of Redlands v. County of San Bernardino (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 398, 405.) The fair argument test requires that an agency “prepare an EIR whenever substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that a proposed project may City of Dublin September 26, 2018 Page 3 have a significant effect on the environment.” (City of Redlands, supra, 96 Cal.App.4th at p. 405: quoting Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1399-1400.) If such evidence exists, the court must set aside the agency’s decision to adopt a negative declaration as an abuse of discretion in failing to proceed in a manner as required by law. (City of Redlands, supra, 36 Cal. App.4th at p. 406). The ‘fair argument’ standard is “a low threshold requirement for preparation of an EIR.” (No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1975) 13 Cal.3d 68, 84.) The fair argument standard reflects CEQA’s “preference for resolving doubt in favor of environmental review.” (Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1307, 1316-1317.) Thus, an EIR must be prepared “whenever it can be fairly argued on the basis of substantial evidence that the project may have significant environmental impact” (No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 13 Cal.3d at p. 75). CEQA defines “environment” as “the physical conditions which exist within the area which will be affected by a proposed project, including land, air, water, …noise….” (Pub. Resources Code § 21060.5.). “Significant effect upon the environment” is described as “a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment.” (Pub. Resources Code § 21068; CEQA Guidelines § 15382.) A project may have a significant effect on the environment if there is a reasonable probability that it will result in a significant impact. (No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 13 Cal.3d at p.83.) Even if the overall effect of the project is beneficial, the lead agency must prepare an EIR if any part of the project “either individually or cumulatively, may cause a significant effect on the environment.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15063(b)(1).) III. Substantial Evidence Supports a “Fair Argument” that the City Must Prepare an EIR CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines provide assistance in evaluating what constitutes substantial evidence to support a ‘fair argument.’ (See CEQA Guidelines § 15384(a) (“’substantial evidence’ means enough relevant information and reasonable inferences … that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached.”).) Substantial evidence consists of “fact, a reasonable assumption predicated upon fact, or expert opinion supported by fact.” (Pub. Resources Code § 21080(e)(1); CEQA Guidelines § 15384(b).) Comments that present evidence of facts and reasonable assumptions from those facts may constitute substantial evidence to support fair argument that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. (City of Redlands, supra, 96 Cal.App.4th at p. 590; Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of Stanislaus, (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 152-153.) The individual members of the Concerned Citizens of West Dublin live, work, and raise their families in the City of Dublin and most of them live in very close proximity to the Project’s proposed site. They will therefore be first in line to be exposed to any noise impact created on the Project site and would be directly affected by the Project’s various impacts. As area residents, their relevant personal observations on nontechnical subjects may qualify as substantial evidence for a fair argument. (See Ocean View Estates Homeowner’s Assn., Inc. v. Montecito Water District (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 396, 402.) As for the relevant personal observations of area residents, see the attached letters. Concerned Citizens of West Dublin submitted comments to the City on the Project and by declaration and letter. Their statements on noise impact constitute substantial evidence supporting a fair argument in numerous areas. The City must review and consider all such comments as “relevant personal City of Dublin September 26, 2018 Page 4 observations of area residents on nontechnical subjects may qualify as substantial evidence.” (Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 928.) The I&R Report is faulty or otherwise inadequate as previously asserted by two PhD Physicists Dr. Rongfu Xiao (who has written 50 U.S. patents, one of which is about sound insulation) and Dr. Bruce Remington (who is a Senior Scientist and Distinguished Member of the Technical Staff at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, a Fellow of the American Physical Society, and author/coauthor of over 400 papers published in the scientific literature) in their letters to the City, dated September 5, 2018 and September 3, 2018, respectively. The attached report prepared by Saxelby Acoustics dated September 17, 2018 (“Saxelby Report”) states that “Project-related noise levels are likely to be more than twice as loud as that concluded in the I&R Report.” Based on the I&R Report, it appears that I&R performed a noise monitoring survey during a six (6) day period in May 2015. The I&R Report fails to take into consideration numerous material acoustical factors or completely ignores them as follows: 1) The strength of the wind in May (low wind season) is very different than the strength of the wind in September, October and November (strong and steady westerly winds blowing from the Project site towards neighboring areas), which are the months when the Project site will be heavily utilized with sound amplification. Hence if I&R were to do the noise assessment test during strong westerly wind season, the results would be substantially different. 2) The sound reaching the neighborhoods on the eastern side of the Project site will be enhanced by (a) the westerly winds, (b) refraction which bends the sound waves back towards the ground, and (c) reflections off the homes that bound the streets, the pavement, and the sidewalks, all of which could create a wind tunnel like effect directing the sound down the streets, as opposed to dispersing in all directions. The I&R Report accounts for sound attenuation due to distance and topography, based on measurements done on a flat, open, grassy field, [which is quite the opposite of the conditions in the affected neighborhoods) and concludes that the increased noise level from the project would be up to 1 dB. This analysis fails to consider the effects of wind, refraction, pavement (vs grassy field) and streets bounded by homes, which could result in sound traveling much further into the surrounding neighborhoods than was considered in the I&R Report. Neither a realistic analysis of these effects nor appropriate and representative measurements in the neighborhoods were made by I&R. Our initial estimates, based on the relevant published scientific literature (copies of which are attached to the aforementioned Remington letter), suggest that the noise level increase on the downwind side could be up to ~10 dB or more due only to the westerly winds. The aforementioned “wind tunnel effects” could increase this estimate even more. This could enhance by a factor of 10 or more the 1 dB noise estimate given in the I&R Report. 3) The noise test was done in a blind-spot chosen by I&R so that such blind-spot would fit the data into I&R’s model. The IS/Supplemental MND states “LT-1 represented the existing noise environment near the location of the proposed multi-purpose recreation field" and LT2 "represented the noise-sensitive receptors." In other words, LT1 represents the noise source during a future football game and LT2 represents the noise level that would be heard in the surrounding neighborhood. Dr. Xiao recently made his own sound measurements near the Project City of Dublin September 26, 2018 Page 5 site and observed that some of the measurements done by I&R were in locations that corresponded to sound “blind spots,” meaning that the sound levels were unrepresentatively low. He subsequently re-did the measurements in neighborhood driveways and found an average baseline noise level of about 60 dB, which is higher than the 40-42 dB given in Table 7 in the I&R Report. Hence, I&R provided non-representative data to the City by putting (either intentionally or through lack of due diligence) a sound sensor in a quiet spot (i.e., “blind spot”) so that it can pass the City’s noise standard. 4) The I&R Report lacks consideration of the “hilltop effect” on sound propagation due to the source (i.e., the Project site) being on the top of the hill, overlooking the surrounding neighborhoods. The sound propagates further when it is less dissipated by interactions with the ground. Established scientific theory substantiates this ground dissipation effect. I&R made a noise level projection for the Project site by choosing Santa Teresa High School (“STH”) for its calibration measurement, which is located on flat land. I&R’s choice of a flat grassy venue to conduct a noise assessment test for a venue located on a hilltop overlooking the neighborhood is very non-representative, as the Project site (sitting 100-200 feet above the surrounding areas, enhancing the distance that noise produced at the Project site could propagate into such areas with the wind tunnel effect) has a very different micro-climate as compared with the STH (with still-air, and flat grassy field). There is a possibility that the noise increase generated by the utilization of the Project site will exceed the City’s noise impact threshold of significance, hence it is entirely possible that a significant adverse noise impact could result from the Project, as set forth in the Saxelby Report. I&R’s failure to utilize an industry standard acoustic analysis which would take into consideration of the points listed above (among other factors) and instead choosing to do manual calculations for an environmental noise assessment test would inevitably produce flawed analysis. Alternatively, a thorough and complete set of experimental measurements in the affected neighborhoods should have been taken. The aforementioned measurements taken by Dr. Xaio experimentally show the level to which the results provided by I&R are flawed and deficient. The Saxelby Report, Xiao and Remington comments, and other attached letters based on relevant personal observations of area residents, provide a reasonable basis to challenge the adequacy of the IS/Supplemental MND and include substantial evidence that supports a fair argument that the Project may result in a significant adverse noise impact. As discussed in the Saxelby Report, and in other comment letters submitted to the City, the IS/Supplemental MND fails to provide an adequate analysis of the Project’s noise impacts. To the extent that the IS/Supplemental MND discussed the Project’s noise impacts, the Saxelby Report, Xiao and Remington comments, and other nontechnical comment letters, constitute substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project has significant adverse environmental impacts that have not been mitigated. Thus, CEQA mandates that the City prepare and certify a legally adequate EIR that addresses and mitigates the Project’s noise impacts. IV. Conclusion Substantial evidence overwhelmingly supports a fair argument that the Project will have a significant impact on the environment. If there is substantial evidence that a project may result in such an impact, contrary evidence is not adequate to support a decision to dispense with an EIR (Arviv Enterprises, Inc. v. South Valley Area Planning Com. (2002) 101 Cal.App4th 1333, 1346). Indeed, if there is a disagreement City of Dublin September 26, 2018 Page 6 among experts over the significance of an effect, the agency is to treat the effect as significant and prepare an EIR. The ‘fair argument’ standard creates a low threshold requirement for preparation of an EIR and reflects a preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review. Thus, under the low threshold requirement of the ‘fair argument’ standard, CEQA mandates that the City prepare and certify a focused EIR prior to approving the Project that includes description and analysis of a reasonable range of Project alternatives pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6 (including without limitation, alternative locations for the football stadium, or at a minimum, an alternative with a different orientation/size of the stadium facilities and thus directions/projection of the primary noise producing elements like the amplified speakers, a sound wall high and thick enough to prevent noise traveling beyond the football stadium). Accordingly, we hereby demand the City Council direct the City’s Planning Department to prepare an EIR covering the impacts identified in the IS/Supplemental MND as requiring supplemental environmental review and analyzing Project alternatives that avoid or reduce the Project’s potentially significant noise impacts. The failure to prepare a legally adequate EIR would violate CEQA and constitute a prejudicial abuse of discretion. Very truly yours, Gigi Remington Gigi Remington, Esq. On behalf of the Concerned Citizens of West Dublin cc: Chris Foss, City Manager, City of Dublin, via email chris.foss@dublin.ca.gov Luke Sims, Community Development Director, via email luke.sims@dublin.ca.gov Caroline P. Soto, City Clerk, City of Dublin, via email caroline.soto@dublin.ca.gov Encl: Saxelby Acoustics Report, dated September 17, 2018 Remington Letter, dated September 5, 2018 (with attachments: Rasmussen_J.Sound.Vibration_1986, Pridmore-Brown_J.Acoustical.Soc.America_1962, and Wind Effect Slides) Xiao Letter, dated September 25, 2018 Letters from Concerned Citizens of West Dublin: Fisher; Jung; N. Lewandowski; Lee; Zhang & To; Kantorov; J. Smith; L. Cablas; A. Cablas; Malvania; T. Smith; Jayaraman Law Offices of Stuart M. Flashman 5626 Ocean View Drive Oakland, CA 94618-1533 (510) 652-5373 (voice & FAX) e-mail: stu@stuflash.com October 18, 2018 Mayor and City Council City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Re: Mitigated Negative Declaration for Planned Development Zoning Amendment and Site Development Review Permit for Valley Christian Center (“Center”) (PLPA-2014-00052) Dear Mayor Haubert and Council Members: I am writing on behalf of my client, The West Dublin Alliance (“Alliance”), to comment on the above-referenced Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), which has been held over and remains pending before the City Council. The proposed amendment to the planned development zoning would, among other things, allow the construction of a 1,100 spectator capacity football stadium and general athletic facility, an amphitheater, overhead lighting, sound amplification systems, and extensive additional parking for these two facilities, as well as the rearrangement of other elements in the master plan for the Center. The original master plan for the Center was approved in 2003, based on a certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR). However, that EIR did not consider the stadium, the amphitheater, their lighting and sound amplification systems, nor the traffic, lighting, and noise impacts those newly added facilities would generate. The MND asserts that, while there is the potential for significant lighting, noise, and traffic impacts from the added elements, proposed mitigation measures will, with complete certainty, mitigate those impacts to a level of insignificance. It bases that conclusion on traffic and noise studies prepared for the MND, the mitigation measures proposed for the original 2003 approvals, and on additional mitigation measures to be contained in the Site Development Review Permit. Members of the Alliance, as well as other interested members of the public, have submitted comments on the proposed new projects and the proposed MND.1 As was pointed out in the letter to the City, dated September 26, 2018, submitted by attorney Gigi Remington, those comments contained substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the projects, even with the proposed mitigation, would result in significant noise impacts. In addition, the MND was deficient in failing to adequately consider and mitigate other potentially significant project impacts. The MND did not adequately mitigate the new projects’ potentially significant impact in causing cut-through traffic through nearby residential neighborhoods. The proposed mitigation of adding signage asking drivers to not use residential streets would be ineffective and inadequate without any enforcement “teeth.” Nor did the MND even identify, never mind discuss, the new projects’ potentially significant impact on emergency access. In the event of a disaster, such as a major fire or earthquake, the only practical way for students, faculty, staff, and visitors to leave the 1 These comments were submitted in spite of the lack of adequate public outreach by the City or the applicant to notify the affected community of the new projects being added to the Center’s master plan. Dublin Mayor and City Council 10/18/18 Page 2 site, or for emergency vehicles to access the site, is via Inspiration Drive and Dublin Boulevard.2 These are both two-lane streets over most of their lengths. One can easily imagine a huge traffic jam if evacuation was necessary during a high-attendance football game, with results that could, in themselves, be a disaster, as happened along Charing Cross Road in the Oakland Hills during the 1991 Tunnel Fire. The environmental review should have identified and discussed this potentially significant impact. The MND also gave short shrift to the potential for significant light and glare impacts, given the vast increase in lighting proposed to accompany this project. Not only would there be overhead lighting needed for both the stadium and amphitheater, to allow for nighttime events, but there would also need to be more lighting for the additional parking lots required to service these new facilities. The mitigation proposed in the 2003 Master Plan EIR may have been adequate at that time to address the potential impacts of lighting the facilities proposed in that master plan. However, the major expansion of facilities here requires reconsidering the potential impacts; especially with the expansive growth of Dublin during the intervening fifteen years. That increase requires consideration of the cumulative impact of adding these new nighttime lighting sources.3 The 2003 Master Plan EIR was premised on the site being used primarily during daytime hours. Consequently, nighttime lighting needs were relatively modest. In addition, much of the lit areas would be black asphalt, which absorbs most light. In particular, parking areas, which would be mostly empty at night under the 2003 Master Plan, would show mostly black asphalt surface. By contrast, the parking lots for the football field would be largely filled during night football games. Reflections off of the parked cars would greatly increase the light and glare impacts. In addition, the field itself, with its white markings, and the metal grandstands, would reflect far more light than empty black parking lots. The Bay Area is a major stop for migrating birds using the Pacific Flyway.4 It is well known that migrating birds can become disoriented and lose their way if exposed to a major nighttime lighting source.5 Also, the additional lighting and its reflection will contribute to the “light pollution” of the Dublin area, which makes observation of the night sky for astronomy virtually impossible. The environmental review for these newly added projects should have, but didn’t consider these potentially significant impacts. The City Council may believe that, because the City’s consultants have provided responses to some of the comments received on the MND, attempting to rebut those comments, the City may rely on those consultants’ responses to go ahead and 2 While Inspiration Drive does connect to Bay Laurel Street at its north end, that street is a winding secondary two-lane residential street with no direct connection to major roadways, and is not a practical access point for evacuation or emergency vehicle access. 3 See attached map (Exhibit A) showing night time light pollution of Dublin area. Obtained from https://www.lightpollutionmap.info/#zoom=11&lat=4524500&lon=-13589114&layers=B0TFFFFFFFF accessed 10/17.18/ 4 See, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Flyway The map attached as Exhibit B is taken from this article. 5 See, Sergio A. Cabrera-Cruz, Jaclyn A. Smolinsky & Jeffrey J. Buler Light pollution is greatest within migration passage areas for nocturnally-migrating birds around the world, Scientific Reports 8, Article number: 3261 (2018) Accessed 10/17/18 at https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-21577-6 Dublin Mayor and City Council 10/18/18 Page 3 approved the MND and the proposed revisions to the Master Plan. That is incorrect. So long as substantial evidence has been presented to support a fair argument that the amendment, and specifically the newly added projects, may result in significant impacts, an EIR MUST be prepared. Approving the Planned Development Zoning Amendment and Site Development Review Permit based on the current MND would be improper and a violation of CEQA. While members of the Alliance have qualms about why a high school with a current enrollment of slightly more than 100 students6 and a planned ultimate capacity of only 750 students and with no existing football team requires construction of a football/multi-sports stadium able to seat 1100 attendees. This unexplained discrepancy suggests that the Center may not be fully open and honest in sharing its plans and intentions. Nevertheless, the Alliance would be willing to work cooperatively with the City and the Center to identify mitigation measures that would provide the assurance of adequate mitigation that a MND requires. If the negotiations result in a consensus, the Alliance would be willing to step aside and allow the project to move forward, subject to having binding written agreements that the Center and the City have committed themselves to implement effective and enforceable mitigation measures. Otherwise, the Alliance must insist that a full EIR be prepared and certified before the City considers approving this proposal. Most sincerely, Stuart M. Flashman Attorney for West Dublin Alliance cc: Valley Christian Center 6 The current total school enrollment of approximately 500 students also includes a preschool and primary and middle school components. November 15, 2018 VIA EMAIL and HAND DELIVERY Mayor and City Council Members City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Email: david.haubert@dublin.ca.gov ; melissa.hernandez@dublin.ca.gov; abe.gupta@dublin.ca.gov ; arun.goel@dublin.ca.gov ; janine.thalblum@dublin.ca.gov RE: Valley Christian Center Planned Development Zoning Amendment and Site Development Review Permit (PLPA-2014-00052) for the Project site located at 7500 Inspiration Dear Mayor Haubert and Members of the City Council: The residents of Dublin rely on the City to protect the interests of its residents on any development project that could have a significant impact on our neighborhood. It is alarming that as a resident impacted by the VCC project, I find serious flaws in the two (2) City reports of Traffic and Noise included in the 2018 Supplimental MND that were used to justify little to no impact on the neighborhood. 1) Omni Means Trip Generation, Traffic Circulation and Parking Analysis included in the 2018 Supplemental MND report utilized the initial 2002 EIR Traffic Study Report for the 2002 VCC Master Plan using data recorded in 2001. There was no consideration or even acknowledgement in Omni’s Traffic Analysis report for traffic related to Schaefer Ranch Homes (406 homes) which was just opened in 2008 located on the same road that VCC is located. Clearly and outdated EIR report was used as the basis for traffic information. As stated in City Traffic analysis Report Trip Generation for Approved Plan and Proposed Plan The 2002 EIR utilized ITE 6th Edition trip rates (the most current at the time) to generate vehicle trips for the school expansion. The ITE rates were selected after comparing them to a surveyed trip rate based on traffic counts conducted in 2001 at the Valley Christian Center school Omni Means Traffic report never measured the cumulative total number of cars traveling on Dublin Blvd to determine its impact on neighborhood. Schaefer Ranch has 406 homes and only has two (2) roads available to exit their neighborhood. Dublin Blvd is the main exit from their complex which is the same 1.5 mile stretch of 2 lane road used by VCC and California Highlands with 246 condo homes as well as some overflow from Hansen Ranch 188 homes. The Omni Traffic Analysis only looked at anticipated changes for ”in and out” traffic associated with VCC based on assumptions for student enrollment and anticipated car traffic for football games for 1100 people. Nothing in their analysis related to traffic volume and patterns on Dublin Blvd. Checking City records, the last time the City actually measured the number of cars travelling on this stretch of Dublin Blvd was in 1996 – 22 years ago. This is a far cry from what needed to be done to understand the current and future traffic conditions related to this project. A new EIR should have been required by the City. 2) Illingsworth & Rodkin Environmental Noise Assessment included in the 2018 Supplemental MND report failed to contain the three (3) biggest factors that would effect the levels of noise for the neighborhood (wind, topography and temperature inversion). Microclimate conditions for this project would require these factors to be part of the assessment for this project. The local residents hired Saxelby Engineering an independent sound expert engineering firm to provide a written report to the City which questions the methodology used for the City report and provided a conclusion much different than the City’s report. The conclusions of both City reports are based on flawed reports. A status of "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. The residents and our legal council have written several letters to the City Manager and City Council providing evidence that there is more than Substantial Evidence that Supports a “Fair Argument” and that the City must prepare a new EIR. I find it very difficult to understand that the City is planning to vote on this Project on December 3 with the evidence we have provided. Norm Lewandowski A concerned member of West Dublin Alliance cc: Chris Foss, City Manager, City of Dublin, via email chris.foss@dublin.ca.gov Luke Sims, Community Development Director, via email luke.sims@dublin.ca.gov Caroline P. Soto, City Clerk, City of Dublin, via email caroline.soto@dublin.ca.gov Martha Battaglia , Associate Planner, City of Dublin, via email martha.battaglia@dublin.ca.gov C91-4 ALIFORNIA GOLD ADVOCACY GROUP LLC November 16, 2018 Martha Battaglia City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, Ca. 94568 RE: Valley Christian Center: Planned Development Zoning Amendment and Site Development Review Permit (PLPA 2014-00052) — Supplemental Information Ms. Battaglia, As part of our continued efforts to make the new Zoning Amendment a better final product; Valley Christian Center has used the time granted by the City Council to meet with a wide group of community stakeholders. Valley Christian Center believes the time has been well -spent and has clarified many issues with some parts of the community. There are also modifications being proposed in this letter that VCC feels makes for a better overall project and meets the goals and objectives of Valley Christian. Please incorporate the following into your staff report for the Special City Council meeting on December 3, 2018. Athletic Complex - Seating capacity shall be that required by North Coast Section for a championship Division 5 event (current Valley Christian NCS Division designation). Seating required — 600 seats. See attached Seating Requirements North Coast Section Football. Parking count will be adjusted for the reduced seating capacity. Athletic Complex venue shall not be leased to outside party for music/entertainment. Running track will be limited to eight championship lanes Limitations to Public Address System- VCC will limit the PA system at the new athletic complex to a maximum of 50 dates per year. Valley Christian will adhere to the City of Dublin requirements that sound amplification systems be off by 8PM weekdays Monday -Thursday and 10PM Friday and Saturday. There will be no PA use on Sundays. Times will be scheduled and updated on the Valley Christian website. Construction Requirements- Lighting- See Spec Sheet Musco TLC LED Total Light Control, or comparable or improved system, to mitigate light spill off of the playing surface and mitigation of glare from distance off of the property. VCC requirement to submit photometric plan to the City of Dublin prior to construction. Any changes to a comparable or improved system to be approved by the City of Dublin Community Development Department. See attached photo of lighting example. Public Address System- See Spec Sheet attached- Bogen Communications Cam Pro. Original Design was sound system to be on the light standards; up to 70 feet in the air. New design is to position loudspeakers on stair railing or press box/scorer table area to project to those in attendance, not to the entire field. Any changes to a comparable or improved system to be approved by the City of Dublin Community Development Department. City of Dublin will implement a monitoring program during construction. Construction shall adhere to the guidelines of the City of Dublin and the Bay Area Air Quality District. Amphitheater - Amphitheater shall be limited to 450 seats. Traffic Mitigation - To reduce cut-thru traffic, notices shall be sent to all VCC constituents prohibiting northbound turns to enter neighborhoods. At athletic events additional signs shall be posted educating visiting teams of this policy. Installation of gates at Valley Christian parking lots to prohibit after-hours usage outside the scope of Valley Christian operations to reduce late evening and weekend noise. For any event with a projected attendance of 250 or more VCC shall be required to provide traffic control after the game. Summary - It is the desire of Valley Christian to work well with the City of Dublin and its neighbors like it has for the last 55 years. We look forward to a successful conclusion and that these clarifications, limitations and enhancements will be acceptable to the City Council. hank y u, Guy Houston California Gold Advocacy Group 6300 Village Parkway, Suite 200 Dublin, Ca. 94568 RESOLUTION NO. 18-18 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SUPPLEMENTAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE VALLEY CHRISTIAN CENTER PROJECT PLPA 2014-00052 (APN 941-0022-003, 004, 005 & 006) WHEREAS, the Applicant, the Valley Christian Center, has requested approval of an amendment to the existing Planned Development Zoning District, and a Site Development Review Permit to construct a lighted athletic field with sound amplification, a concession stand/ticket booth and associated site improvements including a parking lot, plaza and landscaping. These planning and implementing actions are collectively known as the "Valley Christian Center project" or the "Project"; and WHEREAS, the project site is approximately 51 acres and is located at 7500 Inspiration Drive in the westerly portion of Dublin; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State guidelines and City environmental regulations, require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, in 2003, the City Council adopted a Resolution certifying an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and adopted findings and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Valley Christian Center Expansion/Master Plan project (Resolution No. 92-03, incorporated herein by reference); and WHEREAS, the City prepared a modified Initial Study to determine whether supplemental environmental review was required for the currently proposed Valley Christian Center project under CEQA standards. The Initial Study examined whether there were substantial changes to the proposed development, substantial changes in circumstances, or new information, any of which would result in new or more severe significant impacts than analyzed in the prior Valley Christian Center EIR or whether any other standards for supplemental environmental review were met; and WHEREAS, upon completion of the Initial Study it was determined that there were new potentially significant impacts associated with the project related to aesthetics, biological resources, noise, and transportation/traffic; therefore, a Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared to analyze those impacts and included mitigation measures to reduce the impacts to less than significant; and WHEREAS, the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study was circulated for public review from June 12, 2018 to July 12, 2018; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin received two comment letters during the public review period; and Page I of 2 WHEREAS, on August 14, 2018, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the project, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report dated August 14, 2018, and incorporated herein by reference described and analyzed the project and related Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Planning Commission and recommended adoption of the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and approval of the project, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration, as well as the prior Environmental Impact Report and all above -referenced reports, recommendations, and testimony and used its independent judgement before making a recommendation on the project. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Dublin recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution approving the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project which draft Resolution is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. The Planning Commission recommendation is based on the Staff Report analysis and recommendation and on the findings set forth in the attached draft Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of August 2018 by the following vote AYES: Bhuthimethee, Wright, Mittan, Kothari, Quereshi NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Assistant Comrhun-'RyDevelopment Director Chairperson Planning Commission Chair p 2 of 2 RESOLUTION NO. 18-19 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE VALLEY CHRISTIAN CENTER PROJECT PLPA 2014-00052 (APN 941-0022-003, 004, 005 & 006) WHEREAS, the Applicant, the Valley Christian Center, has requested approval of an amendment to the existing Planned Development Zoning District, and a Site Development Review Permit to construct a lighted athletic field with sound amplification, a concession stand/ticket booth and associated site improvements including a parking lot, plaza and landscaping. These planning and implementing actions are collectively known as the "Valley Christian Center project' or the "Project"; and WHEREAS, the project site is approximately 51 acres and is located at 7500 Inspiration Drive in the westerly portion of Dublin; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) certain projects are required to be reviewed for environmental impacts and when applicable, environmental documents prepared; and WHEREAS, in 2003, the City Council adopted a Resolution certifying an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and adopted findings and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Valley Christian Center Expansion/Master Plan project (Resolution No. 92-03, incorporated herein by reference); and WHEREAS, the City prepared a modified Initial Study to determine whether supplemental environmental review was required for the currently proposed Valley Christian Center project under CEQA standards. The Initial Study examined whether there were substantial changes to the proposed development, substantial changes in circumstances, or new information, any of which would result in new or more severe significant impacts than analyzed in the prior Valley Christian Center EIR or whether any other standards for supplemental environmental review were met; and WHEREAS, upon completion of the Initial Study it was determined that there were new potentially significant impacts associated with the project related to aesthetics, biological resources, noise, and transportation/traffic; therefore, a Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared to analyze those impacts and included mitigation measures to reduce the impacts to less than significant; and WHEREAS, the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study was circulated for public review from June 12, 2018 to July 12, 2018; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin received two comment letters during the public review period; and WHEREAS, on August 14, 2018, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the project, including the amendment to the Planned Development Zoning, Site Development Review and Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report dated August 14, 2018, and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the project for the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, on August 14, 2018, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 18-18 recommending that the City Council approve the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project, which Resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did review the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, all said reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth and used its independent judgment prior to making a recommendation on the project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council adopt an Ordinance (Attached as Exhibit A) amending the existing Planned Development Zoning District for the Valley Christian Center with the following additional requirements: 1) the required Parking Management Plan include measures to manage traffic that would cut through the neighborhood; 2) the Parking Management Plan should be periodically reviewed by the City at the City's discretion; 3) clarify that the outdoor amphitheater is a permitted use on Parcel 1; and 4) clarify that sound amplification in the amphitheater shall not commence before 10am daily, and shall conclude by 8pm on Sunday through Thursday and 10pm on Friday and Saturday nights. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 14th day of August 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Bhuthimethee, Wright, Mittan, Kothari, Quereshi NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: 4 Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Assista t Uornity Development Director RESOLUTION NO. 18 - 20 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT FOR THE VALLEY CHRISTIAN CENTER PLPA 2014-00052 (APN 941-0022-003, 004, 005 & 006) WHEREAS, the Applicant, the Valley Christian Center, has requested approval of an amendment to the existing Planned Development Zoning District, and a Site Development Review Permit to construct a lighted athletic field with sound amplification, a concession stand/ticket booth and associated site improvements including a parking lot, plaza and landscaping. These planning and implementing actions are collectively known as the "Valley Christian Center project" or the "Project", and WHEREAS, the project site is approximately 51 acres and is located at 7500 Inspiration Drive in the westerly portion of Dublin; and WHEREAS, the project site is located within a Planned Development Zoning District; and WHEREAS, the project plans illustrate the proposed lighted athletic field, the concession stand/ticket booth, and associated site improvements consistent with the amended Planned Development zoning proposed as part of this project; and WHEREAS, the Site Development Review Permit application collectively defines this project and is available and on file in the Community Development Department; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State guidelines and City environmental regulations, require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, in 2003, the City Council adopted a Resolution certifying an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and adopted findings and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Valley Christian Center Expansion/Master Plan project (Resolution No. 92-03, incorporated herein by reference); and WHEREAS, the City prepared a modified Initial Study to determine whether supplemental environmental review was required for the currently proposed Valley Christian Center project under CEQA standards. The Initial Study examined whether there were substantial changes to the proposed development, substantial changes in circumstances, or new information, any of which would result in new or more severe significant impacts than analyzed in the prior Valley Christian Center EIR or whether any other standards for supplemental environmental review were met; and WHEREAS, upon completion of the Initial Study it was determined that there were new potentially significant impacts associated with the project related to aesthetics, biological resources, noise, and transportation/traffic; therefore, a Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared to analyze those impacts and included mitigation measures to reduce the impacts to less than significant; and WHEREAS, the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study was circulated for public review from June 12, 2018 to July 12, 2018; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin received two comment letters during the public review period; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report dated August 14, 2018, and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the project for the Planning Commission, and WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, on August 14, 2018, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the Project, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, on August 14, 2018, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 18-18 recommending that the City Council approve the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, which Resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and WHEREAS, on August 14, 2018, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 18-19 recommending that the City Council approve an amendment to the existing Planned Development Zoning District, which Resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth and used its independent judgment to evaluate the project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made part of this resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Dublin, based on the findings and conditions of approval in the attached Resolution, recommends that the City Council adopt the Resolution attached as Exhibit A, which Resolution approves a Site Development Review Permit for the Valley Christian Center to construct a lighted athletic field with sound amplification, a concession stand/ticket booth and associated site improvements including a parking lot, plaza and landscaping. vote: PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14t" day of August 2018 by the following AYES: Bhuthimethee, Wright, Mittan, Kothari, Quereshi NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Assistant Communit D velopment Director Z�6 / - ---- Planning Commission Chair PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Tuesday, August 14, 2018 A Regular Meeting of the Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, August 14, 2018, in the City Council Chamber. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM., by Commission Chair Bhuthimethee. 1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance Attendee Name Title Status Tara Bhuthimethee ( Commission Chair ( Present Stephen Wright Commission Vice Chair j Present Amit Kothari Planning Commissioner Present Samir Qureshi Planning Commissioner Present Scott Mittan Planning Commissioner Present 2. Oral Communications — None. 2.1 Public Comment No public comments were made. 3. Consent Calendar 3.1. Approve the Minutes of the July 10, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVED BY: Stephen Wright, Commission Vice Chair SECOND: Amit Kothari, Planning Commissioner AYES: Wright, Bhuthimethee, Mittan, Kothari, Qureshi 4. Written Communication - None. 5. Public Hearing 5.1 Valley Christian Center Planned Development Zoning Amendment and Site Development Review Permit (PLPA-2014-00052) Martha Battaglia, Associate Planner, made a presentation and responded to questions posed by the Commission. Jim Goring, Applicant representative with Goring Architects, made a presentation and responded to questions posed by the Commission. (Prarmirg Commission % ugust 14 2018 ftgurar Meet ing (Page I 1 Roger Valci, Lead Pastor for Valley Christian Center, made a presentation and answered questions posed by the Commission. Angela Bruggeman, Head of Schools, Upper School Principal for Valley Christian Center, made a presentation. Richard Lietz, Elder at Valley Christian Center, answered questions posed by the Commission. Reed, Dublin Resident, spoke in opposition to the project. Shreya Shah, Dublin Resident, spoke in opposition to the project. Shirley Lewandowski, Board President for Hacienda Heights HOA, spoke in opposition to the project. John McClain, Dublin Resident, spoke in opposition of the project. Chris Doyle, Dublin Resident, spoke in opposition of the project. Bill Adams, Board Member of Valley Christian Center, spoke in favor of the project. Jim Goring, Applicant representative with Goring Architects, responded to questions posed by the Public and the Commission. Richard Lietz, Elder at Valley Christian Center, responded to questions posed by the Public and the Commission. Angela Bruggeman, Head of Schools, Upper School Principal for Valley Christian Center, responded to questions posed by the Public and the Commission. Commission Chair Bhuthimethee closed the Public Hearing. Jerry Haag, CEQA Consultant, addressed questions posed by the Commission. Rob Tuma, Transportation Consultant with Omni -Means LTD., responded to questions posed by the Commission. Commission Chair Bhuthimethee reopened the Public Hearing. Angela Bruggeman, Head of Schools, Valley Christian Center, responded to questions posed by the Commission. Commission Chair Bhuthimethee closed the public hearing and the Commission began deliberations. (Pranning Commission ,%august 14, 2018 gzngU& P Meeting 1T u g e (2 Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director, responded to questions posed by the commission. Commissioner Wright made a motion to recommend approval of the project with the following clarifications to the proposed Planned Development Zoning: • The required Parking Management Plan shall include measures to manage traffic that would cut through the neighborhood. • The Parking Management Plan should be periodically reviewed by the City at the City's discretion. • Clarify that the outdoor amphitheater is a permitted use on Parcel 1. • Clarify that sound amplification in the amphitheater shall not commence before 10am daily, and shall conclude by 8pm on Sunday through Thursday and 10pm on Friday and Saturday nights. RESOLUTION NO. 18-18 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SUPPLEMENTAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE VALLEY CHRISTIAN CENTER PROJECT PLPA 2014-00052 RESOLUTION NO. 18-19 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT FOR VALLEY CHRISTIAN CENTER PROJECT PLPA-2014-00052 RESOLUTION NO. 18 - 20 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT FOR THE VALLEY CHRISTIAN CENTER PLPA 2014-00052 i' inning Commission ttut 14, 2018 �sCs~Meeting Page 13 RESULT: APROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVED BY: Stephen Wright, Planning Commission Vice Chair SECOND: Samir Qureshi, Planning Commissioner AYES: Bhuthimethee, Wright, Mittan, Kothari, Qureshi 5.2 Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (PLPA-2018-00018) Martha Battaglia, Associate Planner, made a presentation and responded to questions posed by the Commission. RESOLUTION NO. 18-21 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPING REGULATIONS AS CHAPTER 8.88 OF THE DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE (PLPA-2018-00018) RESULT: APROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVED BY: Stephen Wright, Planning Commission Vice Chair SECOND: Samir Qureshi, Planning Commissioner AYES: Bhuthimethee, Wright, Mittan, Kothari, Qureshi 6. Unfinished Business — None. 7. New Business — None. 8. Other Business Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director, informed the Commission that the next meeting is scheduled for September 11, 2018. Upon the request of Commissioner Wright, Jeff Baker provided status updates on various project sites that were approved by Planning Commission and City Council but have not yet started construction. Commissioner Wright mentioned that there will be a City Council study session for IKEA held on August 21, 2018. He stated that it would be beneficial for Planning Commission to be invited by City Council to attend the meeting and share in the discussion. Jeff Baker informed the Commission that the Commissioners are welcome to attend the meeting as members of the Public and express their viewpoints. Jeff Baker stated that the project will Tf rzrzing co-'arnission qugzist 14, 2018 gurar Meeting T a g e 14 come before the Planning Commission for their review and recommendation at a future Planning Commission meeting. 9. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned by Commission Chair Bhuthimethee at 9:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Jeff Baker 1,e , _ Assistant Community Development Director ftrrarwwaq Page 15 PLEASE CLICK ON THE LINK BELOW FOR Attachment 13