Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
09-10-2013 - Agenda Packet
Planning Commission Regular Meeting City of Dublin September 10, 2013 City Council Chambers 7:00 P.M. 100 Civic Plaza 1. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 3. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA 4. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS – August 13, 2013 5. ORAL COMMUNICATION - At this time, members of the public may address the Planning Commission on any non-agendized item(s) of interest to the public. In accordance with State Law, no action or discussion may take place on any item not appearing on the Planning Commission agenda. The Planning Commission may respond briefly to statements made or questions posed, or may request Staff to report back at a future meeting concerning the matter. Any member of the public may contact the Assistant Community Development Director regarding proper procedure to place an item on a future Planning Commission agenda. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR 7. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8.1 PLPA-2013-00044 Iron Horse Nature Park and Open Space. General Plan Amendment and Planned Development Rezoning with a related Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan for a new public park. 8.2 PLPA-2012-00037 Amendments to Dublin Zoning Ordinance Chapters 8.08 (Definitions), 8.12 (Zoning Districts and Permitted Uses of Land), 8.76 (Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations), 8.104 (Site Development Review) and 8.116 (Zoning Clearance) and the creation of Chapter 8.82 (Day Care Centers). 9. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS 10. OTHER BUSINESS: Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from the Planning Commission and/or Staff, including Committee Reports and Reports by the Planning Commission related to meetings attended at City Expense (AB 1234). 11. ADJOURNMENT This AGENDA is posted in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2(a) and Government Code Section 54957.5 If requested, pursuant to Government Code Section 54953.2, this agenda shall be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Section 12132), and the federal rules and regulations adopted in implementation thereof. To make a request for disability -related modification or accommodation, please contact the City Clerk’s Office (925) 833-6650 at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting. A complete packet of information containing Staff Reports (Agenda Statements) and exhibits related to each item is available for public review at least 72 hours prior to a Planning Commission Meeting or, in the event that i t is delivered to the Commission members less than 72 hours prior to a Planning Commission Meeting, as soon as it is so delivered. The packet is available in the Community Development Depart ment. (OVER FOR PROCEDURE SUMMARY) 1``�CIS 82 STAFF REPORT I PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: September 10, 2013 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: PLPA-2013-00044 Iron Horse Nature Park and Open Space. General Plan Amendment and Planned Development Rezoning with a related Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan for a new public park Report prepared by Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Planning Commission will review and make a recommendation to the City Council regarding a General Plan Amendment and Planned Development Rezone in order to facilitate the future development of the Iron Horse Nature Park and Open Space on approximately 35 acres of land north and south of Amador Valley Boulevard along the former Union Pacific railroad right-of-way. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Open the public hearing 3) Take testimony from the public; 4) Close the public hearing and deliberate; and 5) Adopt a Resolution recommending City Council Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for a General Plan Amendment and Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan for the future Iron Horse Nature Park and Open Space Project; 6) Adopt a Resolution recommending City Council Approval of a General Plan Amendment for the future Iron Horse Nature Park and Open Space Project; and 7) Adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance rezoning 12.13 acres of former Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way adjacent to the Iron Horse Regional Trail to a Planned Development Zoning District and approve the related Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan for the Iron Horse Nature Park and Open Space Project. V-o- S) 1 Submitted By eviewed By Principal Planner Assistant Community Development Director COPIES TO: File ITEM NO.: Page 1 of 9 G:IPA#120131PLPA-2013-00044 Iron Horse Park GPAIPC Mtg 09.10.20131PCSR.docx DESCRIPTION: Background The Parks and Recreation Master Plan outlines the City's standards for meeting the parks and recreation facilities needs for Dublin residents at the build-out of the General Plan. Based on the population projections, Staff believes that the City will have a citywide parkland deficit at build-out of approximately 12 acres. Therefore, City Staff have been examining ways to acquire additional parkland to continue to meet the standard of providing five acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents. The City Council entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement to acquire two parcels of abandoned railroad right of way (ROW) from Union Pacific and developing 12-acres into a nature park and open space. The future park site is located north and south of Amador Valley Boulevard, adjacent to the Iron Horse Regional Trail and extends to the northern city limits and south to the Alamo Canal Trail. The proposed park site is vacant and was formerly a Union Pacific railroad track and, as such, is approximately 5,900 feet in length with a width ranging from approximately 100 to 150 feet. The tracks were located on a small berm in the approximate center of the site with embankments on either side leading to small depressions. A railroad trestle remains on the site from the previous railroad use. The site is bounded to the east by land owned by Alameda County, which has an easement for the Kinder Morgan pipeline. To the west of the proposed park site are several linear parcels of land owned by the Alameda County Flood Control District/Zone 7 Water Agency (Zone 7). This property is occupied by South San Ramon Creek, which is a flood control facility owned and operated by Zone 7, and the Iron Horse Regional Trail, which is operated by the East Bay Regional Park District. Surrounding land uses include single and multi-family residential dwellings and the City's Stagecoach Park to the east, with residential uses and Dublin High School further to the west. Residential uses lie to the north within San Ramon. Residential uses have been constructed south of the proposed park site as well. The total size of the land owned by Zone 7 is 22.82 acres. Parks and Community Services Staff have prepared a Conceptual Park Master Plan with community input, which is described later in this staff report. Part of the Conceptual Park Master Plan (Attachment 1) for the 12-acre park site contemplates the restoration of watershed areas that would include the potential re-alignment of both South San Ramon Creek and the Iron Horse Trail to allow a more natural meandering of both facilities through the proposed park site. Although the property surrounding the creek is under ownership of Zone 7, the proposed creek restoration is integral with the Conceptual Park Master Plan as it would expand the amount of parkland available, beyond the 12-acre Union Pacific parcel, through a partnership and easement. The City has worked collaboratively with Zone 7 throughout the process of developing the Conceptual Park Master Plan. Zone 7 is simultaneously completing a master plan for restoration of the watershed, including the South San Ramon channel. The Planning Commission's role in this process is to review and make a recommendation on the General Plan Amendment and Planned Development Rezone for the project area. The Planning Commission does not review and/or approve the park design itself. Approval of the Conceptual Park Master Plan, eventual Final Preferred Iron Horse Nature Park and Open Space Master Plan, and amendments to the citywide Parks and Recreation Master Plan will be vetted through the Parks and Community Services Commission and authorized by the City Council. 2of9 After the property is acquired by the City, it is envisioned the City and Zone 7 would work in partnership to seek project funding and develop the site in phases over time. The City's primary funding source for development of the site would be Public Facility Fees collected in the area covered by the Downtown Specific Plan, and other in-fill development outside of the area covered by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The timing of the improvements is unknown at this time and will depend on available funding. Figure 1: Proposed Project Area with Parcel Boundaries Project Area a + I f s The City proposes to assign a Parks/Public Recreation General Plan land use designation to 12.13 acres that currently have no land use designation. Additionally, undesignated portions of several parcels owned by Zone 7 Water Agency will be assigned an Open Space land use designation. Portions of the Zone 7 parcels that have a land use designation of "Stream Corridor" will remain. Rezoning to a Planned Development (PD) Zoning District is also proposed for the future park site to ensure consistency between the amended General Plan and site zoning. The General Plan Amendment and Rezone are being completed with the intent to build a future public park as well as potentially realign the Iron Horse Regional Trail and South San Ramon Creek. The future development of the linear park, potential South San Ramon Creek realignment, and potential Iron Horse Regional Trail realignment will take place on a total of approximately 35 acres of land (12 acres to be owned by the City of Dublin as a public park and 23 acres owned by Zone 7 Water Agency that will continue to be used for the South San Ramon channel and Iron Horse Regional Trail). ANALYSIS: The table below is a summary of the size, ownership, and General Plan/Zoning designations for the subject parcels. 3 of 9 Size _ - • - _ • 941-2768-006-02 ®® Parks/Public Recreation • -• -• - 941-0190-001-01 Open Space an Stream Corridor 941-0190-001-05 1! Open Space and 94 1 • 19 11 •• ® •- • : -:• • Stream Space• •• • • •- • ••• -• 0 1 is Open Space and Stream Corridor M led. Open Space and 12M. NO 11�� Stream Corridor ow i I 61 !M • . - am am" spa* 4ft—oft- -,OCW- wood, —110,M40 vX "� ;���ttt�ttt ,.• g WE WAR Zone 7 VW!1A APN 941-0190-001-01 .� ry ►*� �i �M�� All �►Ir'�t � L ���► ! ♦1` ' 'fir MAW NOW116 Ism Zone 7 s MW low ■/ APN 941-0205-001-12 MOW Figure 3: Parcel Boundaries (south of Amador Valley Boulevard) Union Pacific parcel APN 941-2768-006-02 Zone 7 APN 941-0205-001-63 General Plan Amendment: Future Park Site The future park site (parcel currently owned by Union Pacific) is one of the few parcels in Dublin that does not have a General Plan land use designation. When the General Plan was originally adopted in 1985, the full length of the former railroad right of way from one end of the City to the other was designated "Transportation Corridor," although no land use designation was ascribed. Over time, General Plan Amendments were approved for residential projects on either side of Dougherty Road along the former right of way, which eliminated the use of the corridor for transportation purposes. Today, in order to acquire the site and utilize it as a public park, it should be designated Parks/Public Recreation in the General Plan. Zone 7 parcels The parcels owned by Zone 7 that are part of the project area either have a General Plan land use designation of Stream Corridor or have no General Plan land use designation. In order to allow the potential realignment of South San Ramon Creek and the Iron Horse Regional Trail, the portion of the parcels without a land use designation shall be designated Open Space. The portion of the parcels that have the Stream Corridor land use designation shall remain as is. The 5 of 9 proposed General Plan land use designations of Open Space and Stream Corridor will be consistent should the realignment of the two facilities take place. Zoning: Future Park Site The future park site is currently in an "Unclassified" Zoning District. In order to acquire the site and utilize it as a public park, the site is proposed to be rezoned as a Planned Development Zoning District. A Development Plan accompanies all properties with Planned Development Zoning. The Development Plan provides greater detail on the project proposal and outlines the specific proposed uses and development standards for the site. According to Chapter 8.32 (Planned Development) of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, a Development Plan is intended to: A. Establish a Planned Development Zoning District through which one or more properties are planned as a unit with development standards tailored to the site. B. Provide maximum flexibility and diversification in the development of property. C. Maintain consistency with, and implement the provisions of, the Dublin General Plan and applicable specific plans. D. Protect the integrity and character of both residential and non-residential areas of the City. E. Encourage efficient use of land for preservation of sensitive environmental areas such as open space areas and topographic features. F. Provide for effective development of public facilities and services for the site. G. Encourage use of design features to achieve development that is compatible with the area. H. Allow for creative and imaginative design that will promote amenities beyond those expected in conventional developments. Development Plans are typically split into two stages that can be adopted at different times in the development approval process. Chapter 8.32 outlines the requirements for the two stages of a Development Plan. Because the proposed Planned Development Rezoning for the Iron Horse Nature Park and Open Space is being completed at one time, the Planned Development Rezoning will have a single Development Plan that will include the required items from both Stage 1 and Stage 2 together. The following section briefly describes each item of the Iron Horse Nature Park and Open Space Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan. 1. Zoning. The Zoning for the subject property is PD-Planned Development (PLPA-2013- 00044). 2. Statement of Permitted Uses. The permitted uses include a public park, public open space, stream corridor, and a regional multi-use trail. 3. Stage 1 and 2 Site Plan. The Conceptual Park Master Plan (serving as the Stage 1 and 2 Site Plan) is a schematic depiction of the location of the proposed uses on the site. Minor adjustments and refinements to the Conceptual Park Master Plan are permitted once the project moves forward to a final park design, site improvement plans, and construction drawings, but the final design must be in substantial conformance with the Stage 1 and 2 Site Plan. 6of9 4. Site area, proposed densities, and development regulations. The total site area for the Planned Development Zoning District is 12.13 acres. Development of buildings that are appropriate to a public park are allowed in accordance with the citywide Parks and Recreation Master Plan and the Park Master Plan for this site. 5. Phasing Plan. The future 12.13 acre park site is expected to be graded, improved, and constructed as a whole, but the proposed project is not currently in the five-year Capital Improvement Program budget. Improvements completed on the Zone 7 parcels adjacent to the future public park may be completed at a later date as funding permits. 6. Master Neighborhood Landscaping Plan. Not applicable. 7. Consistency with General Plan and any applicable Specific Plan. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan (as amended). 8. Inclusionary Zoning Regulations. The Inclusionary Zoning Regulations do not regulate non-residential projects, so therefore this is not applicable. 9. Aerial Photo. An aerial photo is on file. 10.Architectural Standards. Any future building shall be designed to be compatible with the main use of the project area as a public park and shall be designed in accordance with the Conceptual Park Master Plan for this site. 11.Preliminary Landscape Plan. Because this is a future park site, the Site Plan and Preliminary Landscape Plan are the same exhibit. Zone 7 parcels The parcels owned by Zone 7 already have existing zoning designations that are not proposed to change. The zoning for the Zone 7 parcels is residential — either R-1 (Single-Family Residential) or R-M (Multi-Family Residential). It is very typical for parks, stream corridors, and open space areas to have the same zoning as the surrounding properties, which is the case with these, and those zoning districts permit the future potential realignment of the South San Ramon Creek and Iron Horse Regional Trail. CONSISTENCY AND CONFORMITY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE The proposed Planned Development Rezoning and related Stage 1 and 2 Development Plans are consistent with the General Plan (as amended) and Zoning Ordinance in that the proposed project will meet the City's goals of providing adequate parkland to serve Dublin residents. In accordance with Government Code section 65402, when property is acquired for a public purpose, the Planning Commission is required to report on whether the proposed public use is in conformance with the City's General Plan. With the proposed amendments to the General Plan land use designations for the subject parcels, the proposed use as a public park and open space will be in conformance with the General Plan. A finding of General Plan conformance has been included in the recommended Resolution for City Council consideration. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared and circulated for public review from August 5, 2013 to September 4, 2013. Two comment letters were received during the public review period: one from resident John Whitehead and one from the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD). 7of9 The comment letter from DSRSD confirms the agency's support of the proposed project. The comment letter from Mr. Whitehead identified several concerns about proposed park operations and potential future uses at the site and are addressed in a written response. Minor staff- initiated clarifications and modifications were also made to the MND that are noted in the Response to Environmental Comments. The MND and responses together comprise the Final MND (Exhibits A-1 and A-2 to Attachment 2). The City will also adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit A-3 to Attachment 2). Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend City Council adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment 2). NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH: In consideration of the site's location along an existing regional trail and residential corridor, the public input process has been integral in the development of the preferred conceptual design. Two public workshops were held to solicit input and discuss components of the Conceptual Park Master Plan (Saturday, April 27, 2013 and Tuesday, June 11, 2013). The Parks and Community Services Commission also held a public meeting on August 19, 2013. Notices were sent out to all property owners and tenants within 500 feet of the future park site for all three meetings in an effort to include as many community members as possible. In accordance with State law, public notices were sent to property owners and tenants as required by law when the Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for public review on August 5, 2013. A public notice was mailed to all property owners and occupants as required by law to advertise the project and the Planning Commission public hearing. A public notice also was published in the Valley Times and posted at several locations throughout the City. In accordance with California Government Code Section 65352.3, the City requested a contact list of local Native American tribes from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and notified each tribal representative of the proposed project. As of the date of this Staff Report, the City had not received any communications from tribal representatives requesting consultation on the matter. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Iron Horse Nature Park and Open Space Conceptual Park Master Plan 2. Resolution recommending City Council Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for a General Plan Amendment and Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan for the future Iron Horse Nature Park and Open Space Project, with the City Council Resolution attached as Exhibit A. 3. Resolution recommending City Council Approval of a General Plan Amendment for the future Iron Horse Nature Park and Open Space Project, with the City Council Resolution attached as Exhibit A. 4. Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance rezoning 12.13 acres of former Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way adjacent to the Iron Horse Regional Trail to a Planned Development Zoning District and approve the related Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan for the Iron Horse Nature Park and Open Space Project, with the Ordinance attached as Exhibit A. 8of9 GENERAL INFORMATION: APPLICANT: City of Dublin PROPERTY OWNERS: Union Pacific and Zone 7 Water Agency LOCATION: Approximately 35 acres of land comprising South San Ramon Creek, the Iron Horse Regional Trail, and former Union Pacific railroad right of way located both north of Amador Valley Boulevard to the City Limits and south of Amador Valley Boulevard to the Alamo Creek. ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER: 941-2768-006-02, 941-0190-001-01, 941-0190-001-05, 941- 0191-095-00, 941-0205-001-12, 941-0205-001-63 (partial). GENERALPLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: Existing: Undesignated and Stream Corridor Proposed: Parks/Public Recreation, Open Space, and Stream Corridor SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: Not applicable SURROUNDING USES: Residential 9 of 9 H z w x .. w LLIr� JL F� S l r rJ`C p`. 0 mom 5N� T ,� R v `f�. ► I 5 j L�� « if t Lbi t;! +'r I W W ct ' u 1 U. L ccw zoI t.. Oz �. , W 3 h,'. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 13- xx A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE WITH A RELATED STAGE 1 AND 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE FUTURE IRON HORSE NATURE PARK AND OPEN SPACE PROJECT PLPA-2013-00044 WHEREAS, the City Council has entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement to acquire approximately 12.13 acres of land from Union Pacific Railroad with the intent of developing a public park; and WHEREAS, Zone 7 Water Agency owns approximately 22.8 acres adjacent to the proposed future park site that may be restored for and enhanced for open space and stream corridor uses; and WHEREAS, the implementation of a future park on the project site requires a General Plan Amendment to re-designate the proposed park site from having no General Plan land use designation to Parks/Public Recreation and to re-designate the Zone 7 parcels from having a split General Plan land use designation of Undesignated/Stream Corridor to Open Space/Stream Corridor; and WHEREAS, the implementation of the future park project requires that the park site be rezoned from "Unclassified" to "Planned Development" while the Zone 7 parcels do not require any rezoning action; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act certain projects are required to be reviewed for environmental impacts and when applicable, environmental documents prepared; and WHEREAS, an Initial Study was prepared for the Project, which includes a General Plan Amendment, Planned Development Rezone, amendment to the citywide Parks and Recreation Master Plan, and construction of a linear park, potential South San Ramon Creek realignment, and potential Iron Horse Regional Trail realignment on approximately 35 acres of land (12 acres to be owned by the City of Dublin as the public park and 23 acres owned by Zone 7 Water Agency); and WHEREAS, upon completion of the Initial Study it was determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures identified in the document will reduce impacts to a less then significant level. A Mitigated Negative Declaration dated August 2, 2013, was prepared and circulated with the Initial Study; and WHEREAS, the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ("Mitigated Negative Declaration") was circulated for public review from August 5, 2013 to September 4, 2013; and ATTACHMENT 2 WHEREAS, the City of Dublin received two comment letters during the public review period that have been incorporated into the Response to Environmental Comments dated September 5, 2013; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the Proposed Project on September 10, 2013 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the Project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did review and consider the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (including comments received), all said reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth and used its independent judgment prior to making a recommendation on the Project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Dublin Planning Commission does hereby recommend City Council adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for a General Plan Amendment and Planned Development Rezoning with a related Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan for the future Iron Horse Nature Park and Open Space project, with the draft City Council Resolution attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of September 2013 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Assistant Community Development Director G:IPAM20131PLPA-2013-00044 Iron Horse Park GPAIPC Mtg 09.10.2013Wt 2 PCReso MND.doc 2of2 RESOLUTION NO. XX - 13 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE WITH A RELATED STAGE 112 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE FUTURE IRON HORSE NATURE PARK AND OPEN SPACE PROJECT PLPA-2013-00044 WHEREAS, the City Council has entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement to acquire approximately 12.13 acres of land from Union Pacific Railroad with the intent of developing a public park; and WHEREAS, Zone 7 Water Agency owns approximately 22.8 acres adjacent to the proposed future park site that may be restored for and enhanced for open space and stream corridor uses; and WHEREAS, the implementation of the future park project requires a General Plan Amendment to re-designate the proposed park site from having no General Plan land use designation to Parks/Public Recreation and to re-designate the Zone 7 parcels from having a split General Plan land use designation of Undesignated/Stream Corridor to Open Space/Stream Corridor; and WHEREAS, the implementation of the future park project requires that the park site be rezoned from "Unclassified" to "Planned Development" while the Zone 7 parcels do not require any rezoning action; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act certain projects are required to be reviewed for environmental impacts and when applicable, environmental documents prepared; and WHEREAS, an Initial Study was prepared for the Project, which includes a General Plan Amendment, Planned Development Rezone, amendment to the citywide Parks and Recreation Master Plan, and construction of a linear park, potential South San Ramon Creek realignment, and potential Iron Horse Regional Trail realignment on approximately 35 acres of land (12 acres to be owned by the City of Dublin as the public park and 23 acres owned by Zone 7 Water Agency) and WHEREAS, upon completion of the Initial Study it was determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures identified in the document will reduce impacts to a less then significant level. A Mitigated Negative Declaration dated August 2, 2013 was prepared and circulated with the Initial Study; and WHEREAS, the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ("Mitigated Negative Declaration") was circulated for public review from August 5, 2013 to September 4, 2013 (Exhibit A-1); and 1 of 3 EXHIBIT A TO ATTACHMENT 2 WHEREAS, the City of Dublin received two comment letters during the public review period that have been incorporated into the Response to Environmental Comments dated September 5, 2013 (Exhibit A-2); and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the Project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the Proposed Project on September 10, 2013 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard, and adopted Resolution xx-xx (incorporated herein by reference) recommending that the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the Project on at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report (incorporated herein by reference) was submitted recommending that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the Project; and WHEREAS, the City Council did review and consider the Mitigated Negative Declaration, all said reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth prior to taking action on the Project; and WHEREAS, the Mitigated Negative Declaration and related project and environmental documents, and all of the documents incorporated herein by reference, are available for review in the City Planning Division a Dublin City Hall, file PLPA-2013-00044 during normal business hours. The location and custodian of the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and other documents that constitute the record of proceedings for the Project is the City of Dublin Community Development Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA, 94568, file PLPA-2011- 00050. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED as follows: A. The Dublin City Council has reviewed and considered the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration including comments received during the public review period, prior to acting on the Project. B. The Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately describes the environmental impacts of the Project. On the basis of the whole record before it, the City Council finds that there is no substantial evidence that the Project as mitigated will have a significant effect on the environment. C. The Mitigated Negative Declaration has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines. 2of3 D. The Mitigated Negative Declaration is complete and adequate and reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis as to the environmental effects of the Project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that based on the above findings, the City Council adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration for PLPA-2013-00044, consisting of the Initial Study/Negative Declaration (attached as Exhibit A-1) and the Response to Environmental Comments (attached as Exhibit A-2), and adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (attached as Exhibit A-3), all of which are incorporated herein by reference. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this , by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 3 of 3 Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration Project: Iron Horse Linear Park Lead Agency: City of Dublin August 2013 EXHIBIT A-1 TO ATTACHMENT 2 Table of Contents Introduction...................................................................................................................2 Contact Person & Sponsor...........................................................................................2 Project Location and Context 2 ProjectDescription........................................................................................................3 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected.............................................................10 Determination................................................................................................................10 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts.......................................................................12 EarlierAnalyses.............................................................................................................13 Discussion of Checklist................................................................................................24 1. Aesthetics ...............................................................................................24 2. Agricultural Resources.........................................................................25 3. Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Analysis .............................................25 4. Biological Resources 27 5. Cultural Resources................................................................................30 6. Geology and Soils .................................................................................32 7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions..................................................................33 8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ....................................................33 9. Hydrology and Water Quality .....................................35 10. Land Use and Planning........................................................................37 11. Mineral Resources.................................................................................37 12. Noise.......................................................................................................37 13. Population and Housing 42 14. Public Services 42 15. Recreation...............................................................................................43 16. Transportation/Traffic.........................................................................43 17. Utilities and Service Systems...............................................................44 18. Mandatory Findings of Significance 45 �w Initial Study Preparers .................................................................................................47 Agencies and Organizations Consulted....................................................................47 References ......................................................................................................................47 Attachment 1-Biological Reconnaissance..................................................................48 Attachment 2- Preliminary Wetland Determination 49 Attachment 3- Acoustic Report...................................................................................50 List of Exhibits Exhibit 1: Regional Location........................................................................................6 Exhibit 2: Site Context..................................................................................................7 Exhibit3: Park Parcel....................................................................................................8 City of Dublin Environmental Checklist/ Initial Study Introduction This Initial Study has been prepared in accord with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and assesses the potential environmental impacts of implementing the proposed project described below. The Initial Study consists of a completed environmental checklist and a brief explanation of the environmental topics addressed in the checklist. Project Sponsor & Contact Person City of Dublin Parks and Community Services Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin CA 94568 (925) 833 6646 Attn: Rosemary Alex, Parks and Facilities Development Coordinator Project Location and Context The City of Dublin is comprised of approximately 14.59 square miles of land area lying in eastern Alameda County, also known as the Livermore-Amador Valley, or the Tri-Valley area. Surrounding jurisdictions include the City of San Ramon and unincorporated Contra Costa County to the north, unincorporated Alameda County to the east and west and the cities of Pleasanton and Livermore to the south. Exhibit 1 shows the location of Dublin in relation to surrounding communities and " other major features. The proposed Iron Horse Linear Park would be located in the approximate center of Dublin, generally located between Amador Valley Boulevard and the Dublin-San Ramon City Limit Line along the Iron Horse Trail and former Union Pacific Railroad tracks. The current location of the South San Ramon Creek forms the westerly boundary of the proposed municipal park. Another long, linear parcel of land owned by Alameda County is adjacent to the easterly boundary of the proposed park site. There is a portion of the proposed park that is on the south side of Amador Valley Boulevard. The proposed park is approximately 5,900 feet in length with a width ranging from approximately 100 to 150 feet. The total size of the park site is approximately 12.13 acres. The park site is Assessor Parcel Number 941-2768-006-02. City of Dublin Page 2 �` Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 Ow To the west of the proposed park site is a linear parcel of land owned by the Alameda County Flood Control District ("ACFCD" or "Zone 7 Water Agency"). This property is occupied by South San Ramon Creek, which is a flood control facility owned and operated by the District, and to the east of the creek lies the Iron Horse Regional Trail, which is operated by the East Bay Regional Park District. The total size of the land owned by Zone 7 is 22.82 acres and includes Assessor Parcel Numbers 941-0190-001-01, 941-0190-001-05, 941-0191-095-00, 941-0205-001-12, and 941-0205-001-63 (partial). The park site is vacant and was formerly a Union Pacific railroad track. The tracks were located on a small berm in the approximate center of the site with embankments on either side leading to small depressions. A railroad trestle remains on the site from the previous railroad use. Vegetation on the site consists primarily of non-native grasses, including but not limited to wild oats, ryegrass and ripgut brome. A number of oak and willow trees grow on the site. Due to previous grading of the corridor, a number of jurisdictional wetlands exist on the proposed park site, totaling 0.51 acres. Existing vehicle access to the proposed park site is limited to a gate on the north side of Amador Valley Boulevard. A number of informal pedestrian connections exist along the corridor from adjacent neighborhoods. An east-west underground gasoline and petroleum line maintained by Kinder- "' Morgan runs along the east side of the site, but outside the proposed park area. A Aw fiber optic underground conduit extends along the west side of the site within the proposed park area. Additionally there are overhead transmission lines operated by PG and E that run north and south along the property line shared by Zone 7 and the proposed park site. Surrounding land uses include single and multi-family residential dwellings and the City's Stagecoach Park to the east. The Iron Horse regional multi-use trail and south San Ramon Creek/Zone 7 Drainage canal to the west, with residential uses and Dublin High School further to the west. Residential and light industrial uses lie to the north within San Ramon. Residential uses have been constructed south of the proposed park site. Exhibit 2 shows the location of project site with surrounding uses and other features. Exhibit 3 shows the proposed park parcel of land. Project Description Background. Based on the City's Parks and Recreation Master Plan, the central portion of Dublin is currently underserved with local parks. The City's adopted ratio of parkland to population is 5 acres of parks per 1,000 residents. There is an estimated deficit of 12 acres of parkland in the central portion of Dublin. The availability of the City of Dublin Page 3 Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 vacant former Union Pacific property to become a City park would reduce this identified deficit. Proposed Park. Although no specific park design has been formally selected by the City of Dublin, the City has been exploring multiple concepts for future uses that could occur in the park and has developed a concept site plan with community participation and support. The City is aware of the close proximity of residential uses along the corridor and the concept site plan has a number of low-intensity uses that include a mix of quieter, passive uses near residential areas with a few nodes of more active uses. A limited number of small structures would be constructed on the park site, and several of the following uses are likely to be included in the future park plan: • Re-aligned Iron Horse Regional Trail • Realigned South San Ramon Creek Expanded Wetland Areas with Boardwalk Trails and Wildlife Viewing Platforms • Children's play area • Gathering space/outdoor classroom(s) • A nature interpretative area • Picnic areas ` Community garden • Children's garden • A riparian forest Protected and/or preserved wetlands • Public restrooms • Parking area The City is currently undertaking a comprehensive community outreach program to identify park designs and additional uses may ultimately be selected. The proposed park will likely include providing pedestrian and bicycle linkages with surrounding residential areas east and west of the site as well as a connection to Dublin High School and Stagecoach Park, a local City park. The park also is also expected to include realignment of the South San Ramon Creek and relocation of the Iron Horse Trail so that the creek and the trail could have a curvilinear route and pathway through the park rather than being linear and adjacent to the park (as currently exists). If the final park plan were to include the realignment of the creek and trail, the parcels that currently comprise the creek channel and regional trail would continue to be owned by the Zone 7, although they would be integrated into the park development and would function as an extension of the space. A small vehicle parking lot is expected to be provided adjacent to Amador Valley Blvd. Potable water and sewer lines would need to be extended to portions of the future park to support public restrooms. Recycled water lines would also be extended into portions of the project site for irrigation of future landscaped areas. The operational hours of the park are expected to be daily, sunrise to sunset. City of Dublin Page 4 Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 r City pprovals. The park site does not currently have a land use designation on the City's General Plan Land Use Map. The Zone 7 parcels are partially designated "Stream Corridor," but a portion of the parcels are also without a land use designation. An Amendment to the General Plan will be required to designate the park site as "Parks/Public Recreation," and the currently undesignated Zone 7 parcels should be designated "Open Space." Rezoning to the Planned Development (PD) Zoning District is also proposed to ensure consistency between the amended General Plan and site zoning. The new zoning district and new land use designation will allow Zone 7 to continue to operate and maintain South San Ramon Creek as a flood control facility and will � allow the Iron Horse Regional Trail to exist in its current location, including maintenance activities for the channel and access roads, and any future needs (although none are currently planned) for small facilities such as new gage houses or floodplain areas. The project also includes an amendment to the City's Park and Recreation Master Plan to include the proposed park in the Master Plan. a City of Dublin Page 5 Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 S A N e A a t o Martinez 4 4 .8 AY San 6eo Concord Rafael Richmond 580 Mill 101 Valley Walnut 24 Creek 4iM Berkeley 680 on Oakland q1 580 San Francisco �eaa S a N San w Leandro DUBLIN FRANCISCO eeo seo Daly City Livermore BAY 101 Pleasanton Hayward ... r 92 v 280 San Mateo Fremont 84 AW j Newark ffi Redwood City �r Half Moon 84 ... M Ba y Palo o ; # Alto o eeo 0 Z w a 0 65 tot U 680 i y 2eo Sunnyvale m Santa Clara an x Jose 101 T u 17 p �aa Exhibit 1 REGIONAL LOCATION CITY OF DUBLIN IRON HORSE PARK PROJECT o z 4 s 8 10 miles INITIAL STUDY patk . Aj- so AW xx mbY ro*' fr iM i 5,.. 1 s a 1 41, Ok aw .art ����� �,: £s� �yz'�• .� � `�k4� Fyn•�.at'r���` "�, z r Ao a t ry 0,*�,% � � ✓ter � W. Xw a� X ,v3 a` a� CSC" Jg 3 w9 Exhibit 2 CITY OF DUBLIN IRON HORSE PARK PROJECT LOCAL CONTEXT INITIAL STUDY r ' � `'- ' `. to 'rr+.' ." • CL AlW CL CL CL As CD Ilk ty Ci XX Nk,K � R col � �f�• �'.• 1 1 (1 rx . s � �1/ � \�v. ' iti C • a }• �144�, 4 - c 1. Project description: Construction of a linear park, potential South San Ramon Creek realignment, and potential Iron Horse Regional Trail realignment on approximately 35 acres of land (12 acres to be owned by the City of Dublin as the public park and 23 acres owned by Zone 7 Water Agency). Proposed uses are primarily passive, but would also include some areas of higher activity recreation uses. Pedestrian and bicycle connections would be made with surrounding neighborhoods and Dublin High School. The development of the park may also include realignment of the Iron Horse Trail and the existing Zone 7 watercourse within the park. Construction of the park would require approval of a General Plan Amendment and rezoning by the City of Dublin as well as an amendment to the City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan. 2. Lead agency: City of Dublin 3. Contact persons: Rosemary Alex, Parks & Facilities Development Coordinator 4. Project location: East side of the Iron Horse Multi-Use Trail, generally between Amador Valley Boulevard and City Limit 5. Project sponsor: City of Dublin 6. General Plan designation: Existing: "Stream Corridor' (Zone 7 Water Agency parcels) and Undesignated (A portion of Zone 7 �•• parcels and Union Pacific-future City of Dublin- parcels) Proposed: "Open Space" (A portion of Zone 7 parcels) �rw and "Parks/Public Recreation" (Union Pacific— future City of Dublin- parcels) 7. Zoning: Existing: Unclassified Proposed: PD-Planned Development S. Other public agency required approvals: - Zone 7 Water Agency (encroachment onto District property) - California Department of Fish & Wildlife (potential Streambed Alteration Agreement) - Regional Water Quality Control Board (Clean Water Certification) - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (404 Wetland Permit) City of Dublin Page 9 Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "potentially significant impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. aftw X Aesthetics - Agricultural X Air Quality/GHG Resources Emissions X Biological X Cultural Resources X Geology/Soils Resources X Hazards and X Hydrology/Water - Land Use/ Hazardous Quality Planning Materials - Mineral Resources X Noise - Population/ Housing - Public Services - Recreation X Transportation/ Circulation X Utilities/Service - Mandatory Systems Findings of Significance Determination (to be completed by Lead Agency): On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration will be prepared. X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A Mitigated Negative Declaration will be prepared. _I find that although the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier VW document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis as described on the attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless „ mitigated.” An Environmental Impact Report is required, but must only analyze the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because all potentially City of Dublin Page 10 Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed on the proposed project. r Signature: � i Date: Z.. Printed Name: z ' -3 �^ a<°U� For: _ c? 7rrV�-w n i I I I City of Dublin Page 11 Initial Study/Iron Norse Park Project August 2013 ■ Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "no impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the vow parenthesis following each question. A "no impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply M does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "no impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general factors (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) In some instances, an "LS, Less-than-Significant Impact" response may reflect that a specific environmental topic has been analyzed in a previous CEQA document and appropriate mitigation measures have been included in a previous CEQA document to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. In a few instances, some previously analyzed topics have been determined to be significant and unavoidable and mitigation of such impact to a less-than- significant level is not feasible. 3) All answers must take account of the whole action, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 4) 'Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "potentially significant impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 5) 'Negative Declaration: Less-Than-Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" �' implies elsewhere the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "potentially significant effect" to a "less than significant impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how *' they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. City of Dublin Page 12 Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 Environmental Impacts (Note: Source of determination listed in parenthesis. See listing of sources used to determine each potential impact at the end of the checklist) Earlier Analyses Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to tiering, a program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Reference CEQA Guideline Section 15063 (c)(3)(d). This Initial Study does not rely on earlier CEQA analyses. City of Dublin Page 13 Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 Environmental Impacts (Note: Source of determination listed in parenthesis. See listing of sources used to determine each potential impact at the end of the checklist) Note: A full discussion of each item is found following Potentially Less Than Less than No the checklist. Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation 1.Aesthetics. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic X vista? (Source: 1,9) b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including but not limited to trees,rock outcroppings,and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? X (Source: 1,9) c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? X (Source: 9) . d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime X views in the area?(Source: 9) 14„ 2. Agricultural and Forestry Resources Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance,as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland X Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to a non- agricultural use? (Source: 1,9, 11) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agriculture use, X or a Williamson Act contract?(Source: 1, 11) c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due to their location or nature,could result in conversion of farmland to a non- X agricultural use?(Source: 1,9) d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?(7) X e) Involve other changes in the existing environment that,due to their location or nature,could result in conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural X use or conversion of forestland to a non-forest use?(7) City of Dublin Page 14 ' " Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation 3.Air Quality(Where available,the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district may be relied on to make the following determinations). Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Ow applicable air quality plan? (Source: 2, 11) X b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute d' substantially to an existing or projected air X quality violation?(Source: 2) " c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable X federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? (2) d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant " concentrations? (Source: 2, 11) X e)Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial X number of people?(Source: 9) 4.Biological Resources. Would the project a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a candidate,sensitive,or special X -- status species in local or regional plans,policies or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?(Source: 3,9) b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies or X w regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Source: 3,4,9) City of Dublin Page 15 Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation c)Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to X marsh,vernal pool,coastal,etc.) through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption or other means? (Source: Source: 3,4) ,. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife " species or with established native resident or X migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Source: 3,9) e)Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,such as tree X protection ordinances?(Source: 1, 11) f) Conflict with the provision of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,Natural Community X Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? (Source: 8) 5.Cultural Resources. Would the project a) Cause a substantial adverse impact in the significance of a historical resource as defined in X Sec. 15064.5? (Source: 1, 11) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource X pursuant to Sec. 15064.5 (Source: 1,4) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource,site or unique geologic X feature? (Source: 1,9) d) Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside of a formal cemetery?(1,9) X 6.Geology and Soils. Would the project a) Expose people or structures to potential �. substantial adverse effects,including the risk of loss,injury,or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated on the most recent Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist or based on other X substantial evidence of a known fault(Source: 1, 11) City of Dublin Page 16 Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation ii) Strong seismic ground shaking(1, 11) X iii) Seismic-related ground failure,including X liquefaction? (1, 11) iv) Landslides? (1,2,4,5) X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of X topsoil? (Source: 1,9, 11) c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- X or off-site landslide,lateral spreading, subsidence,liquefaction or similar hazards (Source: 9) d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code(1994), X creating substantial risks to life or property? A" (Source: 11) e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available X for the disposal of wastewater? (Source: 10) 7.Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,either directly or indirectly,that may have a significant X impact on the environment? (Source: 5) b) Conflict with an applicable plan,policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the X emissions of greenhouse gases? (Source: 5) 8.Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,use or X disposal of hazardous materials (Source: 6) b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable X upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Source: 6) c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials or acutely hazardous materials, substances,or waste within one-quarter mile of X an existing or proposed school? (Source: 6, 11) City of Dublin Page 17 Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation d)Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Sec.65962.5 and,as a result, X would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?(Source: 11) O,„ e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted within two miles of a public airport of public use X airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Source: 11) f) For a project within the vicinity of private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for X �. people residing or working in the project area? (Source: 11) g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with the adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? X (Source: 108) h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to X urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (Source: 10) 9.Hydrology and Water Quality. Would the project: a)Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (Source: 10, I l) X "w b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer X volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g. the production rate of existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? (17) c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,in a manner X which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? (Source: 10) City of Dublin Page 18 Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or areas,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,or substantially X increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?(Source: 9, 10) e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide X ' substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (Source: 4,7) f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X (Source: 10, 11) g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other X flood delineation map? (Source: 11) h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood X flows? (Source: 11) i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of w loss,injury,and death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a X levee or dam? (11) j) Inundation by seiche,tsunami or mudflow? (9) X 10.Land Use and Planning. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? X (Source: 1) b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project(including but not limited to the X general plan,specific plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?(Source: 1) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X (11) 11.Mineral Resources. Would the project a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the X region and the residents of the state? (Source: 1) City of Dublin Page 19 Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general Plan,specific plan X or other land use plan? (Source: 1) 12.Noise. Would the proposal result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the X local general plan or noise ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies? (7) b) Exposure of persons or to generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise X levels? (Source: 7) c)A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above existing X levels without the project? (7) d)A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above X levels existing without the project? (7) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use X airport,would the project expose people residing or working n the project area to excessive noise levels?(11) f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the project expose people X residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Source: 11) 13.Population and Housing. Would the project a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, X either directly or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (Source: 1,9) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement X housing elsewhere? (9) c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement of X housing elsewhere?(Source: 9) City of Dublin Page 20 Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 A Potentially Less Than Less than No Aw Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact w Mitigation 14.Public Services. Would the proposal: a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities,need for new or physically altered government facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service rations, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services?(Sources: 10) Fire protection X Police protection X Schools x Parks X Other public facilities X Solid Waste X 15.Recreation: a)Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or recreational facilities such that substantial physical X deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated (Source: 8, 11) b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an X adverse physical effect on the environment? (Source: 8, 11) 16.Transportation and Traffic. Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan,ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system,taking X into account all modes of transportation, including mass transit and all non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system,including but not limited to intersections,streets,highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths and mass transit? (10) b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service standard established by the County Congestion Management Agency for X designated roads or highways? (10) City of Dublin Page 21 Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 40 Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Miti ation c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in the location that results in substantial X safety risks? (11) d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature(e.g. sharp curves or dangerous X intersections) or incompatible uses,such as farm equipment?(10) e) Result in inadequate emergency access?(10) X f) Conflict with adopted policies,plans or programs regarding public transit,bicycle or pedestrian facilities or otherwise decrease the performance X of safety of such facilities?(10) 17.Utilities and Service Systems. Would the project a)Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control X ZOO Board? (10) b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion 40 of existing facilities,the construction of which X could cause significant environmental effects? (10) c)Require or result in the construction of new storm X water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (10) d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve X the project from existing water entitlements and resources,or are new or expanded entitlements 4" needed? (10) e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve X the project's projected demand in addition to the providers existing commitments? (10) f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted X capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (11) g)Comply with federal,state and local statutes and X regulations related to solid waste? (11) City of Dublin Page 22 Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 w Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation 18.Mandatory Findings of Significance. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, X ,,. cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a " plant or animal community,substantially reduce . the number of or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but cumulatively o considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" X means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects). c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly? X Sources used to determine potential environmental impacts 1) City of Dublin General Plan,updated through February,2013 2) BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines 3) LSA,Biological Resources Reconnaissance,February,2013 4) WRA,Wetland Delineation Report,May 2013 5) City of Dublin Climate Action Plan,October 2010 6)Treadwell & Rollo,Phase I ESA,March 2013 7) RGDL Acoustic Report,August 2013 8) City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan,2006 9) Site Visit 10) Discussion with City staff or service provider imp 11) Other Source City of Dublin Page 23 °" Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 Attachment to Initial Study Discussion of Checklist Legend PS: Potentially Significant LS/M:Less Than Significant After Mitigation LS: Less Than Significant Impact NI: No Impact 1. Aesthetics Project Impacts a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista? NI. The site provides limited views of the Dougherty Hills area just east of the site. Most views from the site are limited by existing fences along the corridor. If approved and constructed, there would be no changes to scenic vistas or views to or from the future park site since there only limited and small-scale recreation structures constructed on the site that would not significantly block existing views. The future park would expand opportunities for residents and visitors to access views of the Dougherty Hills and no impact would occur with respect to this topic. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including state scenic highway? NI. Although a park development plan has yet to be finalized, the intent of the park is to preserve natural features, including wetlands and trees, to the fullest extent feasible. State and County designated scenic highways in the Dublin Planning area include Tassajara Road and the I-580 freeway. The project site is not located adjacent to or near either of these two roadways. There would therefore be no impact with substantial damane to scenic resources, including any adjacent to a scenic highway. c) Substantially degrade existing visual character or the quality of the site? NI. The intent of the proposed project is to enhance the condition of the former railroad area through enhanced landscaping, installation of recreational facilities and improving vehicular and pedestrian access to the park. This would not represent a degradation of the visual character of the site and no impacts would result. d) Create new sources of significant amounts of light or glare? LS/M. No lights currently exist within the proposed park property. Although a final design of the park is not completed, exterior lighting fixtures for safety and security could be installed. If not properly mitigated, light fixtures could cast unwanted light and glare onto adjacent properties. This would be a significant impact and will be reduced to a level of less-than-significance be adherence to the following measure: City of Dublin Page 24 Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 Mitigation Measure AES-1 (light and glare impacts). As part of the Building Permit submittal, the City shall submit lighting details and a photometric plan for review and approval. At minimum, the submittal shall include: a) A lighting plan illustrating the approximate location of all exterior light fixtures to be placed on the project site. b) Design details for cut-off lenses on the fixtures or other similar techniques to directed light to the intended area of illumination and to prevent off-site glare impacts on project site and adjacent buildings and properties. c) A photometric plan demonstrating lighting levels required to provide adequate safety and security onsite and also demonstrating that light will not spill over the site onto adjacent streets or properties. 2. Agricultural and Forestry Resources Project Impacts a-c) Convert Prime Farmland, conflict with agricultural zoning or uses, conflict with a Williamson Act contract or convert prune farmland to a non-agricultural use? NI. The project site is a former railroad corridor and was not historically used or zoned for agricultural production. No Williamson Act Land Conservation contracts are present on the site. There would be no impacts with respect to this topic. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to a non forest use? NI. No forested lands are present on the project and no impact would result with respect to this topic. -O» e) Involve other changes which, due to their location or nature, could result of forest land to a non forest use? NI. See item "d," above. a 3. Air Quality Project Impacts a) Would the project conflict or obstruct implementation of an air quality plan? LS. Although the proposed park is not currently designated on the Dublin General Plan which serves as the basis of the regional Clean Air Plan, the proposed park would further goals of the Clean Air Plan by encouraging bicycle and pedestrian use in Dublin. The proposed park would not increase the population of Dublin or add other uses that would be associated with significant vehicle trips. No impacts are therefore anticipated with respect to conflicts to or obstructions of the Clean Air Plan. b,c) Would the project violate any air quality standards or result in cumulatively considerable air pollutants? LS/M. Although the operation of the proposed park, once City of Dublin Page 25 August 2013 Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project VA constructed, would not generate significant air emissions since minimal vehicle trips would be generated (see Transportation and Circulation section of this Initial Study), construction activities could generate potentially significant emissions. These impacts would include generation of fugitive dust from site grading and from construction equipment that could impact nearby residents, users of Iron Horse Trail and Stagecoach Park and students at Dublin High School. Adherence to the following measure will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level: Mitigation Measure AIR-1. The project construction contractor shall adhere to the following measures to reduce fugitive dust and construction equipment fumes. These measures shall be included within project plans and specifications that are reviewed through the Building Permit and Site Improvement Permit process. 1) During grading and construction, all exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day, as necessary, to prevent wind-blown dust. 2) Stockpiled earthern material shall be covered. 3) All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. 4) All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed. 5) Vehicle speeds on unpaved roads or areas shall be limited to 15 mph. 6) Idling times shall be minimized by either shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes. Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. 7) All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. d) Expose sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations? LS/M. Adherence to Mitigation Measure AIR-1 will reduce short-term construction air quality impacts to a less-than-significant level. No significant pollutants are anticipated to be generated with respect to long-term operational use of the proposed since proposed uses would be primarily passive recreational uses. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? NI. None of the proposed uses within the park would generate substantial amounts of odors that could affect nearby residents. No impacts are therefore anticipated with respect to this topic. City of Dublin Page 26 Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 4. Biological Resources ' Project Impacts a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species? LS/M. The following analysis is based on a biological reconnaissance of the site conducted by LSA biological consultants ("Results of Reconnaissance-level Biological Survey for Union Pacific Railroad Parcels, Dublin, Alameda County," dated February 26, 2013). This report is included as Attachment 1 to this Initial Study. This report is incorporated herein by reference and is available for review at the Dublin Community Development Department during normal business hours Site conditions. The dominant topographical feature on the site is an abandoned UPRR railroad grade topped with crushed gravel and cobble. Both embankments of the grade are covered in non-native annual grassland dominated by wild oat (Avena fatua), rye grass (Festuca perennis), and ripgut grass (Bromus diandrus). Beardless wild rye (Elymus triticoides), a native grass, is present in small amounts. Non-native ruderal forbs growing throughout the parcel include bristly ox-tongue (Picris echioides), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), and mustard (Brassica sp.). Several aw linear depressions in the borrow ditches on both sides of the railroad grade were full of water during the January 2013 survey. The largest of these was an approximately 450-foot-long by 50-foot-wide pool in the eastern borrow ditch approximately 765 feet north of Amador Valley Boulevard. Seasonal wetland plant species observed growing in and around these depressions include spiny cocklebur (Xanthium spinosum), salt grass (Distichlis spicata), curly dock (Rumex crispus), fat-hen (Atriplex prostrata), nutsedge (Cyperus eragrostis), and swamp prickle grass (Crypsis schoenoides). A stand of woody vegetation dominated by arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis) and sandbar willow (Salix exigua) is present on the western side of the railroad grade approximately 300 feet north of Amador Valley Boulevard. A few immature valley oaks (Quercus lobata) and coast live oaks (Q. agrifolia) grow along the top of the " grade adjacent to the willow stand. Several oaks and willows are also present on the eastern side of the grade north of the larger stand of riparian woodland. A few small trees and shrubs of various native and non-native species grow along the western site boundary at the southern end of the parcel near Alamo Creek. Species observed in this area include walnut (Juglans sp.), Italian buckthorn (Rhamnus alaternus), coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), silver wattle (Acacia dealbata), and coast live oak. Special-status plants. Based on the results of the CNDDB search and observed habitat conditions in October 2006 and January 2013, LSA identified four special- status plant species as potentially occurring in the vicinity (see Table A located in Attachment 1). Two of these have been recorded in the general vicinity of the parcel: Diablo helianthella (Helianthella castanea) and Congdon s tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii). Diablo helianthella is not expected to occur due to the absence of chaparral and oak woodland. Congdon's tarplant (rare plant rank 1B) is known to occur within the Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, less than 1 mile east of the parcel, and also along Dougherty Road, approximately 1 City of Dublin Page 27 Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 mile north-northeast of the parcel. This species typically occurs in annual AW grassland,but is also known to occur in ruderal vegetation adjacent to annual grassland or that were once annual grassland. Habitat for this species is present in the grassland along the railroad grade. Since the January 2013 survey was conducted outside the blooming period for the species (May to October), there is some potential for this species to occur on the parcel. Focused surveys during the blooming period are necessary to confirm the presence or absence of this species SVecial-status animals. The CNDDB contains records for 9 special-status animal species in the vicinity of the parcel and habitat is present for another (loggerhead shrike [Lanius ludovicianus]) (Table A of Attachment 1). Seven of these species are not expected to occur due to the lack of habitat and/or surrounding development. This group includes the following four listed species: California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii), Alameda whipsnake (Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus) and San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes rnacrotis mutica). California tiger salamander has been recorded at Camp Parks less than one mile east of the site. The seasonal pools adjacent to the railroad grade resemble moderate-quality breeding habitat for the species. However, historic and ongoing disturbance on the parcel (e.g., railroad maintenance, vegetation management, pedestrians and pets) its small size and the parcel's isolation from the more extensive grasslands east of Dougherty Road make it highly unlikely that the species is present. California red-legged frog has been recorded from the upper reaches of Alamo Creek in the San Ramon Valley, but has not been observed in the lower, urbanized reach west of Dougherty Road due to decreased habitat quality from surrounding urbanization. San Joaquin kit fox have not been found during several intensive surveys in the Dublin/San Ramon area, and are presumed absent from the area. The parcel is completely isolated from the closest occupied Alameda whipsnake habitat which is located over seven miles from the site. Although not detected during either survey, loggerhead shrike (California Species of Special Concern) could potentially nest in the oaks and willows northwest of Amador Valley Boulevard and the grassland on either side of the railroad grade provides foraging habitat. Other native bird species may also be present on the site, including white-tailed kite, Anna's hummingbird, western scrub-jay, chestnut-backed chickadee, bushtit, American robin, California towhee, and house finch. Two California ground squirrel burrow complexes provide marginal habitat for burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia; California Species of Special Concern), although dense weed cover may limit their suitability for nesting.Both of these species are known to occur in the extensive grasslands east of Dougherty Road (i.e., Camp Parks) and in the Dougherty Valley. Construction of the proposed park and disturbance of the ground could result in significant impacts to a number of special-status plant and wildlife species, including Congdon's tarplant,burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike and other native bird species. Adherence to the following measures will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure BI0-1. A qualified botanist shall conduct a focused Congdon's tarplant botanical survey during its blooming period (May to October) in accordance with CDFW protocols and as recommended in the EACCS. If Congdon's tarplant species are found on the site, no City of Dublin Page 28 ' Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 construction shall occur on that portion of the site containing tarplants and a 50-foot wide buffer area shall be maintained around the perimeter of tarplants. The width and location of the buffer may be adjusted by a qualified biologist in consultation of California Fish &Wildlife (CDFW) staff. Alternatively, if avoidance is not feasible, alternative areas shall be identified, on or off of the site, with the same hydrological conditions as the site. Tarplant seeds shall be collected from the park site prior to grading and replanted in the alternative location. Mitigation Measure BIO-2. Further surveys for burrowing owl shall be completed prior to grading in accordance with the recently revised Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation issued by the CDFW in March 2012. If burrowing owls are found breeding and/or wintering on the site, burrows shall be avoided during the breeding season and a suitable buffer area shall be established round each nest, as determined by a qualified biologist, or suitable off-site habitat shall be provided such as easements as recommended in the EACCS. In addition, any occupied burrows shall be avoided through the establishment of exclusion zones during construction. The location and widths of such exclusion zones shall be ' determined by a qualified biologist. Mitigation Measure BIO-3. If future development plans include tree removals, such activities should be conducted during the non-nesting season (September 1 to January 31), if feasible. Depending on the nature and location of proposed work, pre-construction surveys may be Aw necessary to avoid impacts to nesting birds, as determined by a qualified biologist. Such surveys shall be conducted within 7 days prior to the start of work from February to May (since there is a higher potential for birds to initiate nesting during this period), and within 15 days prior to the start of work from June to August. If nesting birds are found, a buffer area ` around each nest shall be established under the direction of a qualified �r biologist and the buffer area shall remain as directed by the biologist. b, c) Have a substantial adverse impact on riparian habitat or federally protected wetlands? LS/M. Approximately 0.51 acres of the proposed park site have been identified as jurisdictional wetlands under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. This is based on a wetlands delineation prepared by the firm of WRA biological consultants in May, 2013. This report is included as Attachment 2 to this Initial Study. Riparian vegetation identified within wetland areas included wild oat, ripgut brome, bristly ox-tongue, prickly lettuce, curly dock, fat hen and rabbitsfoot grass. Grading, filling or other actions that could be taken as part of the project to disturb this jurisdictional wetland would be a potentially significant impact. Adherence to the following will ensure that impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and riparian habitat are reduced to a less-than-significant level: Mitigation Measure BI0-4. Jurisdictional wetlands on the site shall be avoided during construction and operation of the proposed park. A suitable buffer and protection devices shall be incorporated into the final City of Dublin Page 29 Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 park plan. If avoidance is not feasible, on-site jurisdictional wetlands shall be replaced at a 3:1 ratio, as recommended in the EACCS, as close to the ° park as practicable and where suitable habitat exists. Alternatively, the WW City may purchase credits in an off-site wetland mitigation bank at a 3:1 ratio. 40 In accordance with existing regulatory requirements for protection of sensitive species and habitats, necessary permits shall be obtained by the City from appropriate biological regulatory agencies, including but not limited to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, California Department of Fish and Wildlife and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. d) Interfere substantially with movement of native fish or wildlife species? LS/M. The proposed park site presently allows full north-south access for wildlife traversing the area as well as for native fish species using the Zone 7 watercourse. Future park improvements could substantially block or impeded existing fish or wildlife movement. Adherence to the following measure will ensure that substantial movement of native fish or wildlife will not be blocked. Mitigation Measure BI0-5. Prior to the preparation of construction documents, final park design plans shall be reviewed by a qualified biologist to ensure that substantial blockage of native fish or wildlife will not occur. If necessary, park plans shall be required to be changed to M ensure that fish and wildlife movement is maintained. e, f) Conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources or any adopted Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans? LS. The City of Dublin lies within the Eastern Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS) planning area. The EACCS is not a Habitat Conservation or Natural Community Conservation Plan. The General Plan revisions will be consistent with local City of Dublin biological resource protection policies, as well as applicable objectives, policies, and programs contained in the EACCS document. Key objectives of the EACCS include comprehensive conservation of special-status species in eastern Alameda County, contribution to recovery of threatened species, establishing mitigation thresholds, and others. Future development is required to comply with all City policies, ordinances and requirements protecting biological resources, including impacts to heritage trees. A less-than-significant impact would therefore result with respect to this topic. 5. Cultural Resources Project Impacts a) Cause substantial adverse change to significant historic resources? LS. With one exception, the project site contains no structures. The one exception is an older City of Dublin Page 30 Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 railroad trestle that serves to bridge an existing drainage channel in the approximate center of the proposed park site. The existing trestle structure is expected to be incorporated into the final park design and could become a crossing for the realigned Iron Horse Regional Trail. If the trestle is maintained, it will need to be assessed for safety purposes and examined for potential toxicity due to the fact that it has likely been treated with creosote and other chemical wood preservatives over its lifetime. If the trestle remains and is incorporated into the park, this could result in a significant health risk to the public. Adherence to the following measure will ensure that the trestle is suitable for public use: Mitigation Measure CULT-1. Prior to reuse of the existing trestle, the structure shall be examined by a Registered Environmental Assessor (REA) to ensure that the level of chemicals and other substances on and Aw adjacent to the structure are below applicable local, state and federal exposure standards for human and animals. The REA shall recommend specific feasible measures to reduce the level of risk from identified hazards to the public. These measures shall be incorporated into the final park development plan. If the level of risk cannot be reduced to a generally recognized safe level, the trestle structure shall be removed and any area near the trestle shall be safely remediated. Necessary permits and approvals shall be obtained as necessary from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Alameda County Environmental Health Services Department or others. Necessary clearances shall be " secured from appropriate regulatory agencies prior to issuance of a grading plan for this portion o the project site. Should the trestle not be able to be retained, the removal of the trestle would not result in a significant impact to a historic structure, and the impact would be less than significant. Therefore, removal of the trestle would not result in a significant impact to a " historic structure. b-d) Cause a substantial adverse impact or destruction to archeological or paleontological resources, or human remains that may be interred outside of a formal cemetery? LS/M. The project site is located on relatively flat topography near Alamo Creek and other local watercourses. Typically, Native American villages are located close to such watercourses. Therefore, there is a medium to high potential for encountering historic, prehistoric, Native American or similar cultural resource during grading for the proposed park and other ground disturbing activities, This could include paleontological resources. Adherence to the following measure will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure CULT-2. Wording shall be added on final Joe construction plans and specifications for the proposed park to the effect that if archeological or Native American materials or artifacts are identified, work on that portion of the project shall cease until a resource City of Dublin Page 31 Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 MW protection plan conforming to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 and the Dublin Zoning Ordinance is prepared by a qualified archeologist and/or .. paleontologist and approved by the City of Dublin Community Development Director or an authorized representative. Project work may be resumed in compliance with such plan. If human remains are encountered, the County Coroner shall be contacted immediately and the provisions of State law carried out. 6. Geology and Soils Project Impacts a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse impacts, including loss, injury or death related to ground rupture, seismic ground shaking,ground failure, or landslides? LS. A small number of structures would be constructed as part of the ow proposed park, as identified in the Project Description of this Initial Study.' since the park would primarily contain passive recreational facilities. The park is also not envisioned by the City to provide major recreational facilities, as does other parks in Dublin. such as Emerald Glen Park in Eastern Dublin. Therefore, future exposure of a substantial number of people or major structures to injury or death from ground rupture, seismic ground shaking, ground failure or landslide is considered less-than-significant. b) Is the site subject to substantial erosion and/or the loss of topsoil? LS. Future development of the proposed park will be regulated by Section 7.2 ("Stream Corridors and Riparian Vegetation") of the Conservation Element of the Dublin General Plan that requires protection of Stream Corridors and Riparian Vegetation to minimize erosion into local creeks. The same Element includes 4W Guiding and Implementing Policies to minimize erosion into local bodies of water and to undertake erosion control methods. In addition, development projects, including the proposed park, are required to adhere to Best Management Practices (BMPs) as required by the Alameda "� County Clean Water program and enforced by the City of Dublin as part of normal and customary review of individual development projects. This will ensure insignificant impacts regarding substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. These BMPs typically include, but are not limited to, installation of silt fences, sandbags and similar measures to minimize substantial erosion and loss of topsoil. With adherence standard City requirements, this impact will be less- than-significant. c-d) Is the site located on soil that is unstable or expansive and that could result in potential ' lateral spreading, liquefaction, landslide or collapse? LS/M. The site is located near local streamcourses, including Alamo Creek and South San Ramon Creek. Generally, alluvial soils can be subject to liquefaction in the event of a seismic event, which could lead to damage to any permanent buildings on the site and other improvements, including, but not limited to, water and sewer pipes, sidewalks, retaining walls and other improvements. These improvements could City of Dublin Page 32 Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 be damaged in the event of loss of soil strength due to liquefaction or other soil MW hazards. Adherence to the following measure will reduce this impact to a less- than-significant level. 4W Mitigation Measure GEO-1. A soils and geotechnical report shall be commissioned by the City to identify the presence of liquefaction, expansive soils, the potential for differential settlement and other potential soil hazards that could damage park improvements. If such soil characteristics are found on the site, the report shall include detailed recommendations on how to reduce the risk of soil hazards to a less-than-significant level. This would typically include recommendations for enhanced building foundations, removal of incompetent soils, and similar measures. The recommendations of the soils report shall be implemented in final park development and construction plans. e) Have soils incapable of supporting on-site septic tanks if sewers are not available? NI. — All new projects are required by the City of Dublin to connect to the local sewer system, maintained by the Dublin San Ramon Services District. No impacts would therefore result with regard to septic systems. 7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Project Impacts a,b Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment or conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? NI. The proposed park would be a locally oriented park in the central area of Dublin, intended to serve the existing population in this portion of the community. Proposed uses would be largely passive and not intended to attract a large number of users. One small vehicle parking lot would be provided, however, it is anticipated that the majority of future users would access the park via bicycle or on foot. The amount of greenhouse gas emissions would be below the thresholds of significance published by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, which is 600 acres for a city park (source: Table 3-1, BAAQMD GHG screening criteria, May 2010). Therefore, the project would have no impact with respect to generation of greenhouses gasses. S. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Project Impacts a) Create significant hazards to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal hazardous materials? NI. City of Dublin crews would normally and customarily use fertilizers, herbicides and similar materials to maintain park landscaping. Similarly, there could also be limited quantities of building City of Dublin Page 33 Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 maintenance materials stored on the site, such as paints, solvents and similar materials. This is typical of all City of Dublin parks. No hazardous materials would be disposed on the project site. Overall, there would be no impact with respect to the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous material that would pose a significant hazard to the public or surrounding neighborhoods. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? LS/M. This portion of the Initial Study is based on an updated Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared on March 6, 2013 by the firm of Treadwell & Rollo ("Updated Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, County of Alameda and Union Pacific Right of Way, Dublin, California." This report is hereby incorporated by reference into this Initial Study. The Phase I " Environmental Site Analysis is available for review at the Dublin Community Development Department during normal business hours. Based on the findings of the Phase I report, there is one potential hazard on or adjacent to the site that could cause a significant hazard to the public and the environment as a result of project construction. This condition is deposit of chemicals and contaminants into site soils and possibly groundwater as a result of previous land uses and activities on the site. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment identifies a history of previous deposits of pesticides, herbicides, diesel fuel, creosote and heavy metals on the site as a result of previous uses on the site, primarily railroad uses. The Phase I report also notes that there is a recorded history of hydrocarbon leaks into the soil and groundwater from a nearby Kinder Morgan large-diameter gasoline and petroleum transmission pipeline located approximately 40 feet to the east of the proposed park site and parallel to the site. Grading of the park site to install park improvements could result in a release of hazardous materials into the environment that would be a potentially significant impact. Adherence to the following measure will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1. Prior to park construction, additional soil sampling shall be conducted to determine if contaminants above Environmental Screening Levels are present in the soil. If found, a remediation plan shall be prepared and approved by appropriate regulatory agencies, which may include the Regional Water Quality Control Board or the Alameda County Environmental Health Services Department. Remediation of contaminated material could include removal of contaminated material to an approved off-site location or similar measure. Remediation shall be completed per the approved plan and carried out by licensed contractors. The remediation plan shall include safety plans for workers and users of the Iron Horse Trail, as may be required. Necessary clearances shall be secured from appropriate regulatory agencies prior to the issuance of a grading plan. c) Emit hazardous materials or handle hazardous materials or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? NI. Although Dublin High School is located immediately west of the proposed park, City of Dublin Page 34 Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 �. approval and implementation of the project would have no impact with regard to this topic, since the future park is not anticipated to handle, store or release n. significant quantities of hazardous materials. d) Be listed on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied on the Cortese List and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or environment? NI. The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Cortese List of hazardous sites does not identify the proposed park site as contaminated as of July 3, 2013 (http:/ /w��nv.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search). No impact is anticipated with respect to this topic. e-f) Is the site located within an airport land use plan of a public airport or private airstrip? NI. The proposed park site is located well north of the Livermore Municipal Airport and is not within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) of this facility (see Livermore Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, 8/12). No other public or private airports or airstrips are located near the site. g) Interference with an emergency evacuation plan? NI. Development and operation of the proposed park will be required to be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan that also addresses emergency evacuation. The proposed park would include multiple access points to and from adjacent neighborhoods as well as Stagecoach Park and Dublin High School, to facilitate emergency evacuation. No impacts are anticipated with regard to this topic. h) Expose people and structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? NI. The site is located within a developed portion of Dublin and is not subject to wildland fires. No impacts are anticipated with respect to this topic. 9. Hydrology and Water Quality Project Impacts a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? NI. Construction and future operation of the proposed park would generate a small increase in wastewater from a small number of restroom facilities within the park. Wastewater collection, treatment and discharge of wastewater is provided by the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD). The District holds necessary waste discharge permits from the Regional Water Quality Control Board and other applicable agencies. Approval and implementation of the proposed park would not exceed waste discharge requirements imposed on DSRSD by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (source: Stan Kolodzie, DSRSD, 7/10/13). No impacts are expected with respect to this topic. b) Substantially deplete groundwater recharge areas or lowering of water table? NI. The park site is currently undeveloped and allows for groundwater recharge. The City of Dublin Page 35 Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 AW proposed park would not include a substantial amount of impervious surfaces, such as major buildings, parking lots or similar improvements, but would primarily remain as a passive, open space park. This would allow continued groundwater recharge on the site. Similarly, the proposed park would not generate a substantial demand for additional water sources that could deplete the local water table, since irrigation is proposed to be from recycled water not potable water. Therefore, the proposed project would not lower the local water table or substantially change the status of groundwater recharge areas and no impacts would occur. c) Substantially alter drainage patterns, including streambed courses such that substantial siltation or erosion would occur? LS/M. The existing Zone 7 channel within the project area may be rerouted into a more curvilinear route from the current linear channel to improve the character of the proposed park. The channel relocation may change the flow rate, amount of sediment deposited in the creek bottom and/or incise adjacent banks. These could be significant impacts with respect to existing streambed courses such that substantial siltation could occur. This impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with adherence to the following measure: Mitigation Measure HYD-1: If the existing Zone 7 channel is to be changed from it's present course, the City of Dublin shall have a qualified hydrologist prepare a hydrology and hydraulic analysis of the proposed rerouting to analyze the potential for a changed flow rate, deposition of erosion or incising of adjacent creek banks. Specific methods to reduce such effects shall be included in the report. The findings of the report shall be approved by the Zone 7 District Engineer and the recommendation of the report shall be incorporated into final park design plans. d,e) Substantially alter drainage patterns or result in flooding, either on or off the project site, create stormwater runoff that would exceed the capacity of drainage systems or add substantial amounts of polluted runoff? LS/M. Refer to item "c," above with respect to changes in stream course impacts. There would be no impact with respect to polluted runoff from the proposed park as noted in subsection "b." f) Substantially degrade water quality? NI. The City of Dublin requires all individual development projects, including the proposed park, to meet Best Management Practices to ensure that water quality would be protected. Best Management Practices are described above in Section 8c of this Initial Study. No impact is anticipated with regard to this topic. g-i) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped by a Flood Insurance Rate Map, or impede or redirect flood flow, including dam failure? NI. No housing is proposed as part of the project and no impacts would occur with respect to this topic. j) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflows? NI. There are expected to be no impacts with regard to seiche, tsunami or mudflows, since the project site is be located inland from major bodies of water, primarily San Francisco Bay, and no City of Dublin Page 36 Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 major steeply sloping areas are found within or adjacent to the park. Therefore, no impacts would occur with respect to this topic. 10. Land Use and Planning Project Impacts a) Physically divide an established community? NI. The proposed park site is presently vacant and does present a barrier between neighborhood east and west of the site. The proposed park would include a number of pedestrian and bicycle linkages with surrounding neighborhoods, Dublin High School and Stagecoach Park. The proposed park would provide new linkages that would strengthen ties with established neighborhoods and no impacts are anticipated with respect to this topic. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy or regulation? NI. Although a General Plan Amendment is being considered as part of the underlying project, the purpose of the Amendment is to designate the site as a public park in the absence of an existing General Plan land use designation. No other General Plan policies affecting environmental protections are proposed to be changed and no impacts would result with respect to this topic. c) Conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? NI. See Checklist Item 4 f. VW 11. Mineral Resources Project Impacts a, b) Result in the loss of availability of regionally or locally significant mineral resources? NI. No impacts would occur to any mineral resources, since no such resources are identified in the Dublin General Plan for this site. low 12. Noise Project Impacts a) Would the project expose persons or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established by the General Plan or other applicable standard: LS/M. Potential noise impacts of the proposed park has been analyzed in a report entitled "Environmental Noise Impact Report for the Iron Horse Linear Park, Dublin CS" dated July 11, 2013 prepared by Rosen, Goldberg, Der & Lewitz. This report is attached to the Initial Study as Attachment 3. Following is a summary of the findings of the RDGL report. Existing Noise Conditions. The proposed park would extend along the Iron Horse Regional Trail and include the former Union Pacific Right of Way. Residences are located on both sides of the proposed park with backyards that abut the project City of Dublin Page 37 Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 rte„ site. Along the western side of the site, backyards are approximately 100 feet from the Iron Horse Trail. On the eastern side, backyards are about 200 feet from the Iron Horse Trail. To quantify the existing noise environment, long-term noise measurements were made by RGDL staff for seven consecutive days at two locations (A and B on Figure 1 of the attached acoustic report) and short term, 15-minute noise measurements were made at four locations (1 through 4 on Figure 1). The measurement locations were primarily chosen to represent the existing conditions at residences near the proposed project. In general, average noise levels toward the north (location A) ranged from 45 to 55 dBA (Leq) whereas noise levels on the southern end (location B), near Amador Valley Boulevard, were slightly higher and ranged from about 45 to 60 dBA. Table 1 shows the results of the short term noise measurements. Table 1. Summary of Short-Term, 15 Minute Noise Measurements A-weighted Sound Level,dBA Location Date /Time L,q Lio L50 L90 CNEL* 1 1134 a.m. 39 41 37 35 51 2 1-May-13 47 49 44 38 52 12:33 a.m. 8-May-13 3 2:17 m 47 48 45 43 51 4 8-May-13 53 54 52 51 57 2:36 p.m. 8-May-13 5 3:17 y m 52 54 52 51 56 *CNEL calculated based on comparison with simultaneous measurement at 24-hour noise monitor location. Source: RGDL, 2013 At location 3, adjacent to homes on the west side of the project site, a dog barking generated a maximum noise level of 51 dBA, whereas a voice on the Iron Horse Trail was 49 dBA. An airplane flyover generated a maximum noise level of 60 dBA. At location 4, a distant truck generated a noise level of 52 dBA whereas a motorcycle generated a maximum level of 58 dBA. At Location 4 the sound of kids in the nearby park were 56 to 58 dBA though they were somewhat masked by wind noise which was about 55 dBA. At location 5, near the southern end of the site, distant traffic had a maximum noise level of 52 dBA. City Noise Standards. The Noise Element of the City's General Plan has policies regarding noise and land use compatibility. Table 2 provides guidelines for the compatibility of land uses with various noise exposures. The City uses the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) descriptor. A CNEL of 60 dBA or less is considered normally acceptable for residential land use. It should be noted that City of Dublin Page 38 Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 the City's compatibility standards are normally intended to be used for traffic and transit noise. aw Table 2. City of Dublin Land Use/Noise Compatibility Standards (decibels) Land Use Normally Conditionally Normally Clearly Acce table Acce table Unacce table Unacce table Residential 60 or less 60-70 70-75 75+ Lod in Facilities 60 or less 61-80 71-80 Over 80 �r Schools,churches, 60 or less 61-70 71-80 Over 80 nursin homes Neighborhood 60 or less 61-65 66-70 Over 70 arks Office/Retail 70 or less 71-75 76-80 Over 80 Industrial 70 or less 71-75 Over 75 Source: Dublin General Plan Noise Element, Table 9-1 Chapter 5.28 of the City of Dublin's Municipal Code prohibits "...loud, or disturbing, or unnecessary, or unusual or habitual noise or any noise which annoys or disturbs or injures or endangers the health, repose, peace or safety of any reasonable person of normal sensitivity present in the area." The noise ordinance states that it is appropriate to consider the level and character of the noise as well as the level and character of the background noise. Since the City's Noise Ordinance does not contain quantifiable noise level limits, it is not possible to apply the noise ordinance as a threshold for assessing project generated noise in the context of this noise study. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines require a determination of whether a project will generate a substantial increase in noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. CEQA does not specify a method for determining when a project would cause a significant increase in noise. Likewise, the City of Dublin does not have criteria for determining when a noise increase is significant. AW A recent FAA Draft Policy discusses screening and impact thresholds for increases in aircraft noise. These FAA thresholds are consistent with the thresholds that were adopted in CEQA document for the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan. Therefore, these thresholds are used to assess the significance of noise increases due to the project as follows—an increase in CNEL is significant if it is: 5 dBA or greater and future CNEL is less than 60 dBA • 3 dBA or greater and future CNEL is 60 dBA or greater and less than 65 dBA MW • 1.5 dBA or greater and future CNEL is 65 dBA or greater. ' Potential noise impacts. Noise sources associated with the proposed project would range from those that are typical for the existing trail such as people walking,jogging or biking to new uses such as children's play areas, outdoor City of Dublin Page 39 Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 classrooms and outdoor picnic areas. Typical maximum noise levels from trail users (joggers, bikers and people Aw strolling) range from 43 to 60 dBA at a distance of 10 feet. With the proposed project, the trail would meander and be as close as 25 feet from existing homes. Table 2 shows the estimated noise levels from the trail use at backyards of existing residences. Table 3. Estimated Noise Levels from Trail at the Nearest Backyards Noise Source Lmax (dBA) Bike* 44 Jogger* 44 Voice—normal** 40 Voice—raised** 47 L.VOice—shout** 70 * Noise Study for Alamo Creek Bike Path, 30 June 2003 ** "Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control", 3rd Ed., Cyril Harris 1998. Based on the noise measurements that were made for the Alamo Creek Bike Trail project, the Le due to the trail users would be 43 dBA at a distance of 10 feet from the center of the trail. This corresponds to an Leg of 35 dBA at a distance of 25 feet. If this level of activity occurs from 7 AM to 9 PM, then the DNL would be 34 dBA at the nearest backyards, estimated to be about 25 feet from the trail. For group activities, the level of noise would depend on the number of users and the proximity to homes. For example, a group activity, such as use of a play area where five children are playing continuously for 12 hours a day would generate an Leq of 52 dBA at a distance of 100 feet. The corresponding CNEL would be 49 dBA. The Noise Element of the City of Dublin's General Plan considers a CNEL of 60 dBA or less to be "normally acceptable" for neighborhood parks and residential development. The City's of Dublin's Noise Ordinance (Chapter 5.28) does not contain quantitative noise level limits. Existing noise levels along the project site range from a CNEL of 51 to 57 dBA due to ambient noise and trail use. This is considered "normally acceptable" for both park and residential uses. In the future, the noise from the proposed project will vary, depending upon the specific use and ultimate location of that use with respect to existing residences. For the purposes of this assessment, the uses are divided into two types: Trail use (biking, walking,jogging) and outdoor classrooms/play/picnic areas. The use of the bike trail would be similar to current use though the distance of the main trail to homes would decrease since the trail would likely meander from east to west (as opposed to its current location about 100 to 200 feet from homes). low City of Dublin Page 40 Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 Under the scenario where a trail comes within about 25 feet from a residential backyard, the CNEL would be 34 dBA. A CNEL of 34 dBA is well within the City's "normally acceptable" level of 60 dBA for residential use and would not result in a significant noise impact. The precise location of the outdoor classroom/play/picnic areas is not known at this time, but the concept site plan indicates that a likely distance would be about 100 feet from existing homes. An outdoor classroom, play or picnic areas with five children playing continuously, throughout the day, would generate a CNEL of 49 dBA at a distance of 100 feet. If the number of children increased to 10, the CNEL ' would increase to 52 dBA. Both these levels are considered "normally acceptable" for residential use according to the City's General Plan and would also not result in a significant noise impact. In order to generate noise levels greater than those considered normally acceptable (e.g. greater than 60 dBA (CNEL)) there would need to be approximately 75 children using the outdoor area if it is located 100 feet from the homes or the play area would need to be closer than 37 feet from the homes if there were only 10 children playing. In these instances, noise from the outdoor classroom/play/picnic area would be considered a significant impact. Adherence to the following measure will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure NOISE-1. The final development plan for the park shall include a restriction of classrooms, play areas and picnic areas to a minimum distance of 37 feet from the rear yard of existing residences w adjacent to the park. Potential permanent noise increases are addressed in item "a." above. Construction of the proposed park could result in substantial temporary increases in noise as a result of site grading and construction of structures on the site. Temporary construction noise could be considered significant to existing trail users and due to the close proximity of residences along major portions of the park site. Adherence to the following measure will reduce this impact to a less-than- significant impact by limiting hours and days of construction to normal daytime periods. b) Exposure of people to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? NI. The proposed park is anticipated to largely consist of natural uses rather than located in structures. Structures anticipated for the park will likely be small-scale, low-rise buildings that would not generate significant groundborne noise or vibration and no impacts would result. c,d) Substantial permanent or temporary increases in permanent in ambient noise levels? LS/M. Potential permanent noise increases are addressed in item "a." above. Construction of the proposed park could result in substantial temporary increases in noise as a result of site grading and construction of structures on the site. Temporary construction noise could be considered significant due to the close proximity of residences along major portions of the park site. Adherence to the City of Dublin Page 41 Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 �w following measure will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant impact by limiting hours and days of construction to normal daytime periods. Mitigation Measure NOISE-2. Construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 7:30 am to 6 p/m, Monday through Saturday, excluding state „�. or federal holidays. Hours of construction shall include delivery of materials and tune up of equipment. Hours of operation shall be included on construction plan and specifications. e,f) Be located within an airport land use plan area, within two miles of a public or private airport or airstrip? NI. The proposed park is not located within a 2-mile radius of any public or private airport or airstrip. 13. Population and Housing Project Impacts a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly? NI. The site is currently vacant and no housing units are proposed for site as part of the new park. No impacts are anticipated. b,c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing units or people requiring replacement housing?q g g. p NI. The site is vacant and no housing units or people would be displaced should the project be approved and constructed. No impacts are anticipated. AW 14. Public Services Project Impacts a) Fire protection? LS. The City of Dublin contracts with Alameda County Fire Department for fire suppression, emergency medical, rescue and fire inspection services. The closest fire station is located at 7494 Donohue Drive (Station #16), '" and this station would provide primary response to fire or rescue calls for service within the proposed park. Construction and operation of the proposed park would increase the calls for fire and emergency services to the Department, but not require any new fire stations or the expansion of an existing station (Bonnie Terra, ACFD, 7/3/13) so there would be a less-than- significant impact with respect to this topic. b) Police protection? LS. There could be a small increase in the number of calls for service to the Dublin Police Services Department based on future use of the proposed park. However, based on a discussion with the Dublin Police Services Department, there would not be a need for new police facilities to serve the proposed park or a need to expand existing police facilities (Tom McCarthy, Dublin Police Services, 7/10/13). A less-than-significant impact is anticipated with respect to police service. City of Dublin Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project Page u.. August 2013 13 c) Schools? NI. No residences would be constructed as part of the proposed park project so that no school-aged children would be generated that would require new classroom space or other educational facilities. No impacts would result with respect to this topic. d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? LS. The proposed park would be maintained by City of Dublin park maintenance crews. The park would be constructed to City engineering and construction standards to minimize the „ need for excessive maintenance so that a less than-significant impact would occur with respect to this topic. e) Solid waste generation? LS. See item 17, below. 15. Recreation Project Impacts a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks? NI. The proposed project would consist of a new City park in an existing underserved portion of Dublin. The proposed park would increase the number and types of parks for Dublin residents and would therefore not increase the use of other existing neighborhood and regional parks. No impacts would occur with respect to this topic. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of recreational facilities? NI. The proposed project does include construction of recreation and park facilities; the potential physical impacts of the proposed facilities are addressed in the resource topics throughout this IS. No impacts beyond those iw addressed elsewhere in the Initial Study would occur with respect to this topic. 16. Transportation/Traffic Project Impacts a, b) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial relative to existing traffic load and street; or exceed LOS standards established by the County CMA for designated roads? LS. Construction of the proposed park would result in increases in traffic on local roads, as Dublin residents travel to and from the park. Based on standard trip generation rates for parks published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) (9t' edition), the proposed park is anticipated to generate the following number of vehicle trips: Daily weekday trips: 28 trips • Weekday morning peak trips: 0.25 trips Weekday evening peak trips: 1.1 trips • Saturday daily trips: 147 trips • Sunday daily trips: 50 trips City of Dublin Page 43 Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 �w Based on a discussion with the City of Dublin traffic engineer, the addition of the above trips to the local roadway system, there would be a less-than- significant impact with respect to congestion on nearby local or regional roads or CMA-designated roadways (source: Obaid Khan, Dublin traffic engineer, 7/8/13). Since the proposed park would be located near the existing Iron Horse Trail, the number of vehicles accessing the proposed park could be less than anticipated using standardized rates, since a number of future users would be bicyclists or pedestrians. it is also anticipated that some park usage would come from nearby neighborhoods, whereby park users would walk or bicycle to the proposed park. This impact would therefore be less-than-significant. c) Result in a change of air traffic patterns? NI. The proposed park would have no impact on air traffic patterns since it would not include any airport or other features that could change air traffic patterns. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use? LS/M. A aim finalized site plan for the proposed park has not been prepared. It is unknown if the park development plan could increase traffic hazards, result in an incompatible use or create potential conflicts with existing driveways or nearby intersections. Since this is not known, such conditions could be created which would result in a potentially significant impact. Adherence to the following measure will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure TRANS-1. The final park development plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Dublin Traffic Engineer to assure that no traffic design hazards are created and that circulation for bike,jogging, walking and other park uses are not incompatible. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? NI. No impacts would occur with regard to emergency access. The preliminary description for the proposed park would include several pedestrian and bicycle connections with surrounding neighborhoods, Stagecoach Park and Dublin High School to ensure that adequate emergency access would be provided. f) Conflict with adopted policies,plans or programs regarding public transit, bicycle or pedestrian facilities or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? NI. The proposed park is intended to be neighborhood oriented, with minimum off-street parking and maximum walkways and bicycle paths. Therefore, the proposed project would further City policies to promote non- automobile uses and no impacts would result with respect to this topic. 17. Utilities and Service Systems Project Impacts ° a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB? LS/M. The Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) bases existing and future wastewater flows on land uses included in the Dublin General Plan. Since the proposed park use City of Dublin Page 44 Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 is not included in the General Plan Land Use Map, future wastewater flows are not currently included in the District's wastewater master planning. Based on a recent discussion with District staff (source: Stan Kolodzie, 7/10/13), the small incremental amount of wastewater generated from the park would likely not be considered significant that would exceed Regional Water Quality Control Board discharge standards; however, restroom facilities will need to include low-flow fixtures to limit the amount of future wastewater flow. This is included as a mitigation measure. With adherence to the following measure, this impact would be less-than-significant. Mitigation Measure UTIL-1: Future restrooms within the park shall be limited to "low flow" toilets. Water faucets shall be equipped with .� flow restrictors. b) Require new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities? LS/M. Based on recent discussions with DSRSD staff(Stan Kolodzie, 7/10/13), the District can provide adequate water and wastewater service to the proposed park without the need for new or expanded facilities, with adherence to Mitigation Measure UTIL-1. c) Require new storm drainage facilities? NI. Refer to Section 9c of this Initial Study. d) Are sufficient water supplies available? NI. The Dougherty Pipeline crosses Alamo Canal just east of the project location, which is critical for providing potable water to DSRSD for use by Dublin residents. If any park-related work is to be performed along the pipeline right of way, an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the District. However, based on discussions with DSRSD staff, as noted above, the District has adequate water supplies to serve the proposed park and no impact would result with respect to this topic. e) Adequate wastewater capacity to serve the proposed project? LS/M. See item "a," above. f) Solid waste disposal? NI. Since the proposed park would include largely passive uses with minimal numbers of users, the amount of solid waste anticipated to be generated would be less-than-significant. g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste NI. The existing service provider, Amador Valley Industries, will ensure adherence to federal, state and local solid waste regulations. No impact would result with respect to this topic. 18. Mandatory Findings of Significance a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal City of Dublin Page 45 Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 44 community, reduce the number of or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? No. The preceding analysis indicates that the proposed park would not have a significant adverse impact on cultural resources or have the potential to restrict the range of rare or endangered species, based on mitigation measures included in the Initial Study. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects). No, cumulative impacts of the proposed park would be minimal, since future users of the park would largely be local residents and trips to the park is anticipated to be primarily by non-automotive modes of transportation. This would substantially limit impacts of the project on traffic, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise generations and similar potential impacts. low c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No. Based on the preceding Initial Study, no substantial effects to human beings, either directly or indirectly have a� been identified from the proposed project. City of Dublin Page 46 Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 Initial Study Preparers Jerry Haag, Urban Planner, project manager and principal author Jane Maxwell, report graphics Agencies and Organizations Consulted The following agencies and organizations were contacted in the course of this Initial Study: City of Dublin Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner Rosemary Alex, Parks and Facilities Development Coordinator Obaid Khan, Senior Civil Engineer, Traffic Bonnie Terra, Fire Marshal Tom McCarthy, Police Chief Kit Faubion, Assistant City Attorney Dublin San Ramon Services District Stan Kolozdie, Staff Engineer Zone 7 Water Agency Elke Rank, Water Resources Planner References California Department of Toxic Substances Control, website,July 2013 Final Urban Water Management Plan, 2010 Update, Dublin San Ramon Services District, June 2011 Dublin General Plan, City of Dublin, Updated through 3/13 Dublin Historic Resources Identification Project, Page & Turnbull, 2004 Livermore Municipal Airport, Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission, August 2012 Parks and Recreation Master Plan, City of Dublin, 2006 update Sewer System Management Plan, Dublin San Ramon Services District, updated September 2005 City of Dublin Page 47 Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 Attachment 1- Biological Reconnaissance Report City of Dublin Page 48 Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 !§ S I L�.1 .4510 ICI I" INC BFRK ELEY I'R LS NO RIVERS I DL I- lAR ILA,:E 510. E Gb10 1 L CARLSBAD IRVINL R(D CK L I I' ItICN MC�f\D, C?.LII ORI\IA 1?8111 :,I 2S -n,3t1 I'AY FORT C:OIAANS PALM S P R IN CS SAN LUIS i_i I31SPU Via Email February 26,2013 Robin Donoghue Meyers Nave 401 Mendocino Avenue,#100 Santa Rosa,CA 95401 Subject: Results of Recormaissance-level Biological Survey Union Pacific Railroad Parcels, Dublin,Alameda County Dear Mr. Donoghue: LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA)has completed a reconnaissance-level biological survey of the two former Union Pacific Railroad(UPRR)right-of-way parcels in Dublin. LSA previously surveyed the northern parcel between Amador Valley Boulevard and the Alameda County line in October 2006 and presented the results in a letter report dated October 16, 2006. The purpose of the current survey was to confirm that habitat conditions on the northern parcel had not substantially changed since 2006 and to identify existing biological resources on the southern parcel between Interstate 580(I-580) and Dublin Boulevard. Specifically, we evaluated both parcels' potential to support special-status plant and/or animal species and determined if any sensitive habitats such as wetlands or drainages are present. This letter report includes the following: (1)a summary of relevant federal and State regulations pertaining to biological resources; (2)a description of the methods used to conduct the survey; (3)a discussion of biological resources and constraints on the northern parcel, and(4)a discussion of the same topics on the southern parcel. The biological resources discussion for each parcel is comprised of three components: (1)a description of the existing vegetation and wildlife, (2)a discussion of special-status plant and animal species known to occur in the area and their potential to occur on the parcel,and(3)a description of any jurisdictional waters and/or sensitive vegetation types observed on the parcel. REGULATORY CONTEXT The project site is located within the general geographical range of several sensitive plant communities and special-status plant and wildlife species. Biological resources on the project site may fall under the agency jurisdictions and regulations of the agencies listed below and described in more detail in Attachment A: 1. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS). Species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act, migratory birds. 2. California Department of Fish and Wildlife(CDFW). Species listed under the California Endangered Species Act. California Species of Special Concern, Streambed Alteration Agreements, migratory birds. 2/26/13(P:AMEY1301TioRpt.doc) PLANNING 1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES I DESIGN L S A ASSOCIATES, INC, 3. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps).Fill of waters/wetlands subject to the jurisdiction of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. 4. Regional Water Quality Control Board,(RWQCB). Water quality certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. 5. National Marine Fisheries Service(NMFS). Marine and anadromous species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act. METHODS Prior to visiting the parcels,LSA searched the California Natural Diversity Database(CNDDB)for records of special-status species within the Dublin U.S. Geological Survey(USGS)7.5-minute quadrangle and reviewed the previous report prepared for the northern parcel(LSA 2006). LSA biologist Matt Ricketts visited both parcels on January 24,2013 to assess current habitat conditions and evaluate the parcels' potential to support special-status plant and/or animal species. For the purposes of this report,special-status species are defined as follows: • Species that are listed, formally proposed, or designated as candidates for listing as threatened or endangered under the federal ESA • Species that are listed,or designated as candidates for listing,as rare,threatened, or endangered under CESA • Plant species assigned to California Rare Plant Ranks IA, 1B,and 2 • Animal species designated as Species of Special Concern • Species that meet the definition of rare,threatened, or endangered under Section 15380 of the CEQA guidelines • Considered to be a taxon of special concern by local agencies NORTHERN PARCEL Existing Conditions Most of the below information is adapted from our previous 2006 report since habitat conditions observed in January 2013 appeared relatively unchanged from our previous visit. Vegetation.The dominant topographical feature on the northern parcel is an abandoned UPRR railroad grade topped with crushed gravel and cobble.Both embankments of the grade are covered in non-native annual grassland dominated by wild oat(Avena fatua),rye grass(Festuca perennis),and ripgut grass (Bromus diandrus). Beardless wild rye(Elymus triticoides),a native grass, is present in small amounts.Non-native ruderal forbs growing throughout the parcel include bristly ox-tongue (Picris echioides), prickly lettuce(Lactuca serriola),and mustard(Brassica sp.). Several linear depressions in the borrow ditches on both sides of the railroad grade were full of water during the January 2013 survey. The largest of these was an approximately 450-foot-long by 50-foot-wide pool in the eastern borrow ditch approximately 765 feet north of Amador Valley Boulevard(see attached photo). Seasonal wetland plant species observed growing in and around these depressions include spiny cocklebur(Xanthium spinosum),salt grass(Distichlis spicata),curly dock(Rumex crispus), fat- 2/26/13(P:AML-Y1301\BioRpt.doc) 2 i_S f, A .,._ _..;. hen(Atripl(ax prostrata),nutsedge(Cyperus eragrostis), and swamp prickle grass(Crvpsis schoenoides). A stand of woody vegetation dominated by arroyo willow(Salix lasiolepis) and sandbar willow(Salix exigua) is present on the western side of the railroad grade approximately 300 feet north of Amador Valley Boulevard. A few immature valley oaks (Quercus lobata)and coast live oaks(Q. agi-ifolia) grow along the top of the grade adjacent to the willow stand. Several oaks and willows are also present on the eastern side of the grade north of the larger stand of riparian woodland. A few small trees and shrubs of various native and non-native species grow along the western site boundary at the southern end of the parcel near Alamo Creek. Species observed in this area include walnut( Uglans sp.), Italian buckthorn(Rhamnus alaternus),coyote brush(Baccharis pilularis), silver wattle(Acacia dealbata),and coast live oak. Wildlife.Most of the wildlife species observed on October 3,2006 and/or January 24,2013 were birds, with the following species observed within or flying over the parcel:ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus), great blue heron(Ardea herodias),turkey vulture(Cathartes aura), Cooper's hawk(Accipiter cooperii),red-shouldered hawk(Buteo lineatus),rock pigeon(Columba livia), mourning dove(Zenaida macroura),Anna's hummingbird(Calypte anna), belted kingfisher(Ceryle alcyon),red-breasted sapsucker(Sphyrapicus ruber),northern flicker(Colaptes auratus),American kestrel (Falco spar-verius),black phoebe(Sayornis nigricaM), western scrub jay(Aphelocoma californica),American crow(Corvus brachyrhynchos),ruby-crowned kinglet(Regulus calendula), hermit thrush (Catharus guttatus),American robin(Turdus migratorius), northern mockingbird (Himus polyglottos),yellow-rumped warbler(Setophaga coronata), common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas), Lincoln's sparrow(Melospiza lincolnii),white-crowned sparrow(Zonotrichia leucophrys), golden-crowned sparrow(Zonoo-ichia atricapilla),red-winged blackbird(Agelaius phoeniceus), lesser goldfinch(Spinus psaltria),and house finch(Haemorhous mexicanus). The dense grass and ruderal herbaceous cover of the abandoned right-of-way provides thermal and protective cover for a variety of native amphibians and reptiles.Although Sierran treefrog (Pseudacris sierra) and western fence lizard(Sceloporus occidentalis)were the only species detected during LSA's surveys, habitat is present for several other species that typically occur in or adjacent to residential neighborhoods,such as slender salamander(Batrachoseps attenuatos),western toad(Bufo boreas), southern alligator lizard(Elgaria rnulticarinatus), gopher snake (Pituophis eaten fer),and common garter snake (Thanrnophis sirtalis). California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi) activity was observed at two locations during the January 2013 survey: a small burrow complex in the western embankment of the west borrow ditch approximately 2,500 feet southeast of the Alameda/Contra Costa county line, and a larger burrow complex in the western embankment of the west borrow ditch approximately 450 feet northwest of Amador Valley Boulevard and below the stand of oaks(see attached photo). Evidence(burrows or runways)of Botta's pocket gopher(Thomomys bottae)and California vole(Microtus californica)was also observed throughout the grassland. Other common mammal species expected to occur include house mouse(Mus musculus), fox squirrel (Sciurus niger),northern raccoon(Procyon lotor), striped skunk(Mephitis mephitis), and black-tailed deer(Odocoileus he72101711S). 2/26/13(P:AMEY1301\13ioRpt.dcc) 3 LSA ASSOUTATLS, TNC. Special-status Species Plants.Based on the results of the CNDDB search and observed habitat conditions in October 2006 and January 2013, LSA identified four special-status plant species as potentially occurring in the vicinity(see attached Table A).Two of these have been recorded in the general vicinity of the parcel: Diablo helianthella(Helianthella castanea) and Congdon's tarplant(Centromadia par yi ssp. congdonii)(CDFW 2013).Diablo helianthella is not expected to occur due to the absence of chaparral and oak woodland. Congdon's tarplant(rare plant rank 1B)is known to occur within the Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, less than 1 mile east of the parcel,and also along Dougherty Road, approximately 1 mile north-northeast of the parcel.This species typically occurs in annual grassland, but is also known to occur in ruderal vegetation adjacent to annual grassland or that were once annual grassland(Preston 1999,LSA obs.).Habitat for this species is present in the grassland along the railroad grade. Since the January 2013 survey was conducted outside the blooming period for the species(May to October),there is some potential for this species to occur on the parcel. Focused surveys during the blooming period are necessary to confirm the presence or absence of this species. Animals.The CNDDB contains records for 9 special-status animal species in the vicinity of the parcel and habitat is present for another(loggerhead shrike[Lanius ludovicianus])(Table A). Seven of these species are not expected to occur due to the lack of habitat and/or surrounding development. This group includes the following four listed species: California tiger salamander(.4ntbystoma californiense), California red-legged frog(Rana draytonii),Alameda whipsnake(Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus)and San Joaquin kit fox(Vulpes macrotis mutica). California tiger salamander has been recorded at Camp Parks less than one mile east of the site.The seasonal pools adjacent to the railroad grade resemble moderate-quality breeding habitat for the species.However,historic and ongoing disturbance on the parcel(e.g.,railroad maintenance,vegetation management,pedestrians and pets) its small size and the parcel's isolation from the more extensive grasslands east of Dougherty Road make it highly unlikely that the species is present. California red-legged frog has been recorded from the upper reaches of Alamo Creek in the San Ramon Valley,but has not been observed in the lower,urbanized reach west of Dougherty Road due to decreased habitat quality from surrounding urbanization. San Joaquin kit fox have not been found during several intensive surveys in the Dublin/San Ramon area, and are presumed absent from the area(Sproul and Flett 1993).The parcel is completely isolated from the closest occupied Alameda whipsnake habitat which is located over seven miles from the site. Although not detected during either survey, loggerhead shrike(California Species of Special Concern) could potentially nest in the oaks and willows northwest of Amador Valley Boulevard and the grassland on either side of the railroad grade provides foraging habitat.The two California ground squirrel burrow complexes provide marginal habitat for burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia; California Species of Special Concern),although dense weed cover may limit their suitability for nesting. Both of these species are known to occur in the extensive grasslands east of Dougherty Road (i.e., Camp Parks) and in the Dougherty Valley(LSA obs.). Other Sensitive Biological Resources Jurisdictional Waters.Based on the presence of standing water and seasonal wetland plant species, several areas along the bottoms of the borrow ditches on either side of the railroad grade are likely subject to Corps jurisdiction under-Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and RWQCB jurisdiction under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act as wetlands of the United States and/or State. 2/26/13(P:ANIEY1301\13ioRpt.doc) 4 Other portions of the ditches that do not support wetland plants but show evidence of seasonal saturation may be considered other waters of the United States by these agencies. Sensitive Natural Communities. The CDFG tracks the occurrences of plant communities that are either known or believed to be of high priority for inventory in the CNDDB. The CNDDB contains no records of sensitive natural communities in the vicinity of the parcel,nor did LSA identify any such communities during its 2006 and 2013 reconnaissance surveys. Biological Constraints Congdon's Tarplant.As mentioned above, the parcel contains habitat for Congdon's tarplant. To confirm the presence or absence of this species,a qualified botanist would need to conduct a focused botanical survey during its blooming period(May to October)in accordance with CDFW protocols (CDFG 2009). The results of the survey could facilitate the avoidance of any on-site occurrences during project design. Burrowing Owl.Although habitat quality for burrowing owls on the parcel is marginal,its presence cannot entirely be ruled out without conducting additional surveys for this species in accordance with the recently revised Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation issued by the CDFW in March 2012 (CDFG 2012). If burrowing owls were found breeding and/or wintering on the parcel, loss of occupied burrows or suitable foraging habitat would likely be considered a significant impact under CEQA and instigation(e.g., preservation of suitable on-or off-site habitat)may be warranted. In addition, any occupied burrows would have to be avoided through the establishment of exclusion zones during construction. Loggerhead Shrike and Other Native Birds.Nests of all native bird species are protected under the federal MBTA and Section 3503 the California Fish and Game Code, which prohibits the take, possession, or needless destruction of the nest or eggs of any bird. The trees in the southern half of the parcel provide suitable nesting habitat for one special-status bird species(loggerhead shrike) as well as other native bird species such as white-tailed kite Anna's hummingbird, western scrub jay, chestnut-backed chickadee, bushtit,American robin, California towhee,and house finch, among others. If conducted during the nesting season(typically defined by CDFW as February 15 to September 1), removal of the trees could directly impact nesting birds by destroying active nests. Prolonged loud construction noise could also disturb nesting birds,resulting in nest abandontnent or failure. If future development plans include tree removals,such activities should be conducted during the non-nesting season (September 1 to January 31),if feasible.Depending on the nature and location of proposed work, pre-construction surveys may be necessary to avoid impacts to nesting birds. Such surveys should be conducted within 7 days prior to the start of work from February to May(since there is a higher potential for birds to initiate nesting during this period), and within 15 days prior to the start of work from June to August. Jurisdictional Waters.As mentioned above,the numerous pools within the borrow ditches on either side of the railroad grade, and potentially other areas within the ditches, are likely under Corps and RWQCB jurisdiction.Any fill or modification of these areas would require a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit from the Corps and Section 401 water quality certification from the RWQCB. To clarify the extent of Corps jurisdiction and more accurately depict jurisdictional boundaries, a formal wetland delineation in accordance with Corps methodology(Environmental Laboratory 1987, Corps 2008)would need to be conducted before applying for permits or designing project features around 2/26/13(P:A.MI✓Y13MBioRpt.doc) 5 LSA A9S0C:lArF+5, INC. existing wetlands. Alternatively,if future development is limited to uplands(i.e.,top of railroad grade), a formal delineation would not be required. SOUTHERN PARCEL Existing Conditions The southern UPRR parcel is an approximately 1,700-foot-long by 40-foot-wide strip of ruderal grassland located between Dublin Boulevard and the Iron Horse Regional Trail trailhead.The majority of the property is a concave borrow ditch, likely created during construction of the former railroad grade to the northeast which runs the length of the entire parcel.The parcel is bordered to the northeast by the Iron Horse Regional Trail and to the southwest by industrial development. Vegetation.The bottom of the ditch supports a mix of hydrophytic plant species typical of seasonal wetlands, annual grasses,and ruderal forbs. Seasonal wetland plants such as annual beard grass (Polyp09077 n7onspeliensis),spiny cocklebur,nutsedge,curly dock, salt grass,and fat-hen occur as dense patches in seasonally wet depressions and are also interspersed with ruderal plants and grasses in drier portions of the ditch. The banks of the ditch are dominated by wild oat and rye grass with scattered patches of prickly lettuce,a ruderal forb.Native vegetation on the parcel includes an approximately 100-foot-long by 30-foot-wide stand of beardless wild rye approximately 200 feet northwest of the southern end of the parcel and a small stand of willows(Salix sp.)next to a culvert in the central portion of the parcel. Wildlife.Wildlife activity on the southern parcel is lower than on the northern parcel due to its smaller size and increased disturbance levels associated with adjacent development. Species observed during LSA's January 24,2013 survey include Sierran treefrog(heard calling),black phoebe,western scrub jay, northern mockingbird, savannah sparrow,white-crowned sparrow,and western meadowlark(Sturnella neglecta). Botta's pocket gopher burrows were observed on the embankment northeast of the ditch. Special-status Species Of the three special-status plant or animal species discussed above as potentially occurring on the northern parcel (Congdon's tarplant,burrowing owl,and loggerhead shrike),only Congdon's tarplant has any potential to occur on the southern parcel.The lack of California ground squirrels and their burrows precludes use of the southern parcel by burrowing owls, and the paucity of nest sites and open grassland for foraging reduces the likelihood of loggerhead shrike nesting. The narrow width of the parcel and consequent exposure to higher noise levels and disturbance from trail users also reduces habitat suitability for shrikes.None of the remaining special-status species in Table A are expected to occur due to the disturbed condition of the parcel and its proximity to regular human activity.As on the northern parcel,focused surveys during the Congdon's tarplant blooming period (May to October) would be needed to confirm its presence or absence. Other Sensitive Biological Resources Jurisdictional Waters.The ditch that runs the length of the parcel may be under Corps jurisdiction as an"other water" of the United States.At a minimum,the depressions dominated by seasonal wetland plant species are likely wetlands of the State. 2126/13(P:AMEY1301\BioRpt.doc) Sensitive Natural Communities.Although the CNDDB contains no records of sensitive natural communities in the area,stands of beardless wild rye such as the one observed on the southern parcel are sometimes considered sensitive under CEQA. "Creeping rye grass' turfs"is recognized as a sensitive natural cornrnunity in the list of vegetation alliances recognized by CDFW(CDFG 2010) and impacts to high-quality examples of this community could be considered significant under CEQA. For a stand to be included in this vegetation alliance, beardless wild rye must comprise greater than 50 percent relative cover in the herbaceous layer(Sawyer et al.2009).The stand on the southern UPRR parcel is comprised of only about 20 percent relative cover of beardless wild rye, with the remaining portions comprised of rye grass,salt grass, and other annual grasses. Given the relatively low cover of beardless wild rye and the generally disturbed condition of the stand, it is unlikely to qualify as a sensitive natural community under CEQA. Biological Constraints The primary biological constraints to development of the southern parcel include Congdon's tarplant, nesting birds(protected under Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code), and jurisdictional wetlands and/or other waters of the United States. Focused botanical surveys to determine presence/absence of Congdon's tarplant would need to be conducted between May and October. A formal wetland delineation could be conducted to clarify the extent of Corps and RWQCB jurisdiction on the parcel at any time. A nesting bird survey would only need to be conducted if construction activities occurred during the nesting season(February 1 to August 31). We hope the above information will be useful in evaluating the land use potential of the two parcels. Please contact me or Malcolm Sproul,Principal-in-Charge, if you have any questions or require further information. Sincerely, LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. Matt Ricketts Senior Wildlife Biologist Attachments: Table A—Special-status Species Attachment A—Regulatory Context Site Photographs The common and scientific name of this species was recently changed fi-om creeping rye grass(Leymns triticoides)to beardless wild rye(Elymus triticoides),as per Baldwin et al.(2012). 2/26/13(PAMEY1301UoRpt.doc) 7 t.SA ASS 1)C,t AT E S, IN q. REFERENCES Baldwin, B.G., D.H. Goldman, D.J. Keil, R. Patterson, and T.J. Rosatti, eds. 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition. University of California Press, Berkeley. California Department of Fish and Game(CDFG).2009. Protocols for surveying and evaluating impacts to special status native plant populations and natural corrununities.November 24. CDFG.2010. List of Vegetation Alliances and Associations.Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program,California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA. September 2010. CDFG.2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. March 7. California Department of Fish and Wildlife(CDFW).2013. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), Commercial Version dated January 1,2013. Biogeographic Data Branch, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.Technical report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,Vicksburg, MS. LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA). 2006. Results of Biological Reconnaissance Survey, Union Pacific/Alameda County Parcels, Dublin. Prepared for City of Dublin Community Development Department. October 16. Preston, R.E. 1999. Preliminary Report on the Conservation Status of Congdon's Spikeweed (HeniLonia parryi subsp.congdonii)in the South and East San Francisco Bay Area and Monterey County, California. Unpubl.report prepared for U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura, CA.23 February. Sproul,M.J. and M.A. Flett. 1993. Status of the San Joaquin kit fox in the northwest margin of its range. 199') Transactions of the Western Section of The Wildlife Society 29:61-69. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers(Corps). 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region(Version 2.0). U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center,Vicksburg,MS. 2/26/13(PATv4EY1301\BioRpt.doc) 8 .._A ?C.?A i h S, ..Y Table A: Special-status Species Evaluated for the Union Pacific Railroad Parcels, Dublin,Alameda County,California Status* (Federal/State/ Species Other) Habitat/Blooming Period Discussion Plants Congdon's tarplant —/—/1B Alkaline soils in valley and May occur.Annual Centromadia parryi ssp. foothill grassland. Also grassland provides habitat. congdonii known to occur in ruderal Known to occur at Camp habitats. Elevation: 1-230 Parks less than 1 mile east m.Blooms May to of northern parcel. October. Diablo helianthella —/—/1B Rocky soils in Not expected to occur due to Helianthella castanea chaparral/oak woodland lack of rocky soils and interface. Elevation 60- chaparral. 1,300 m.Blooms March to June. Hairless popcorn-flower —/—/1 A Coastal salt marshes _and Not expected to occur due to Plagiobothrys glaber alkaline meadows. lack of salt marsh and/or Elevation: 5-180 m. alkaline meadows.Likely Blooms Marcy to May. extirpated in California. Oregon polemonium —/—/2 Coastal prairie,coastal Not expected to occur due to Polemoniuun carnetan scrub,and lower montane lack of habitat. coniferous forest. Elevation:0-1,830 m. Blooms April to September. Amphibians and Reptiles California tiger salamander FT/ST/CSC Grasslands and foothills Not expected to occur due to Ambystoma californiense that contain small mammal history of disturbance and burrows(for dry-season isolation from large blocks retreats)and seasonal of undisturbed grassland ponds and pools(for (e.g.,Camp Parks). breeding during the rainy season). California red-legged fi•og FT/—/CSC Ponds,streams,drainages Not expected to occur due to Rana draytonii and associated uplands; lack of aquatic habitat. requires areas of deep, still, Reach of Alamo Creek at and/or slow-moving water southern end of northern for breeding parcel too disturbed. Western pond turtle —/—/CSC Ponds,streams,drainages, Unlikely to occur due to Actinemys marmorata and associated uplands. lack of aquatic habitat. Reach of Alamo Creek at southern end of northern parcel too disturbed. Alameda whipsnake FT/ST/— Chaparral and sage scrub Not expected to occur due to Hasticophis lateralis with rock outcrops and an lack of chaparral. eulyxanthus abundance of prey species such as western fence lizard(Sceloporus occidentalis). P:AMEY1301\BioRpt.doc(02/26/13) 1.SA ASSOCf ATFS, INC. Status* (Federal/State/ Species Other) Habitat/Blooming Period Discussion Birds Burrowing owl —/—/CSC Open habitats(e.g., May occur in northern Athene cunicularia grasslands,agricultural parcel.Burrows and areas)with mammal foraging habitat present. burrows or other features (e.g.,culverts,pipes,debris piles)suitable for nesting and roosting. Loggerhead shrike —/—/CSC Open grasslands and May occur in northern Lanius ludovicianus woodlands with scattered parcel.Willows and oaks shrubs,fence posts,utility provide nest sites and lines,or other perches. grassland along railroad Nests in dense shrubs and grade suitable for foraging. lower branches of trees. Tricolored blackbird —/—/CSC Nests in dense vegetation Not expected to occur due to Agelaius tricolor near open water,forages in lack of dense emergent grasslands and agricultural marsh or other vegetation fields. suitable for nesting. Mammals Pallid bat —/—/CSC Roosts in eaves,tunnels, Not expected to occur due to Antroaous pallidus buildings,under bridges, lack of roosting habitat. and in tree hollows;forages over variety of habitats. San Joaquin kit fox FE/ST/— Annual grasslands with Not expected to occur due to Vulpes Inacrotis mutica scattered shrubby history of disturbance and vegetation.Loose-textured species' absence from soils required for digging Dublin/San Ramon area. burrows. American badger —/—/CSC Open,dry habitats(e.g., Not expected to occur due to Taxidea taxus grasslands)with friable surrounding disturbance soils. lack of connectivity to grassland habitat.No burrows observed during 2006 or 2013 surveys. *Status Codes FE=federally endangered 171'=federally threatened ST=State threatened IA=California Rare Plant Rank IA I B=California Rare Plant Rank I B 2=California Rare Plant Rank 2 CSC=California Species of Special Concern P:AMEY1301\BioRpt.doe(02/26/13) ATTACHMENT A: REGULATORY CONTEXT Federal Endangered Species Act The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS)has jurisdiction over federally listed threatened and endangered plant and animal species. The federal Endangered Species Act(ESA)protects listed species from harm or"take,"broadly defined as to"harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,wound,kill, trap, capture,or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct."An activity can be defined as a "take"even if it is unintentional or accidental.The USFWS has jurisdiction over federally listed plant and animal species with the exception of migratory fish which are under the jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries Service(NMFS)(formerly known as NOAA Fisheries). An endangered species is one that is considered in danger of becoming extinct throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A threatened species is one that is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future. Any activity that could result in the take of a federally listed species requires an ESA Section 10 take permit from the USFWS, or an ESA Section 7 consultation with the USFWS in conjunction with a federal permit process. Section 7 of the ESA requires other federal agencies involved in permitting projects that may result in take of federally listed species(e.g., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers)to consult with the USFWS prior to allowing any activities that may result in take. Clean Water Act The U.S.Army Corps of Engineers(Corps)is responsible under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act to regulate the discharge of fill material into waters of the United States. Waters of the United States and their lateral limits are defined in 33 CFR Part 3283(a)and include streams that are tributaries to navigable waters and their adjacent wetlands.The lateral limits of jurisdiction for a non-tidal stream are measured at the line of the ordinary high water mark(33 CFR 328.3[e])or the limit of adjacent wetlands(33 CFR 328.3[b]). Waters of the United States fall into two broad categories: wetlands and other waters. Wetlands include marshes,wet meadows, seeps, floodplains, basins,and other areas experiencing extended seasonal soil saturation. Seasonally or intermittently inundated features, such as seasonal ponds, ephemeral streams, and tidal marshes,are categorized as wetlands if they have hydric soils and support wetland plant communities. Other waters include waterbodies and watercourses such as rivers, streams, lakes, springs,ponds,coastal waters, and estuaries. Seasonally inundated waterbodies or watercourses that do not exhibit wetland characteristics are classified as other waters of the United States. In general, a project proponent must obtain a Section 404 permit from the Corps before placing fill or grading in wetlands or other waters of the United States. Prior to issuing the permit,the Corps is required to consult with the USFWS under Section 7 of the ESA if the project may result in the take of federally listed species. All Corps permits require water quality certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. In the San Francisco Bay Area,this regulatory program is administered by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board(RWQCB). Project proponents who propose to fill wetlands or other waters of the United States must apply for water quality certification from the RWQCB. The P:AMEY1301\BioRpt.doc(02/26/13) 1 LSA.ASSOGIA?LS, Iiv G. RWQCB has adopted a policy requiring mitigation for any loss of wetland, streambed, or other jurisdictional area. Migratory Bird Treaty Act The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act(MBTA), which is enforced by the USFWS, prohibits the taking, hunting, killing,selling, purchasing,etc. of migratory birds, parts of migratory birds,or their eggs and nests. As used in the MBTA,the term"take"is defined as"to pursue,hunt, shoot,capture, collect, kill,or attempt to pursue,hunt, shoot,capture,collect, or kill,unless the context otherwise requires."Most bird species native to North Arnerica are covered by this act. California Endangered Species Act The California Department of Fish and Wildlife' (CDFW)has jurisdiction over State-listed endangered,threatened,and rare plant and animal species under the California Endangered Species Act(CESA). CESA is similar to the federal ESA both in process and substance; it is intended to provide additional protection to threatened and endangered species in California. Species may be listed as threatened or endangered under both acts(in which case the provisions of both State and federal laws apply) or under only one act. A candidate species is one that the Fish and Wildlife Commission has formally noticed as being under review by CDFW for addition to the State list. Candidate species are protected by the provisions of CESA. Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act Under this Act(California Water Code Sections 13000-14920),the RWQCB is authorized to regulate the discharge of waste that could affect the quality of the State's waters.The RWQCB asserts jurisdiction over isolated waters and wetlands,as well as waters and wetlands that are regulated by the Corps. Therefore, even if a project does not require a federal permit, it may still require review and approval by the RWQCB if isolated waters or wetlands are present. When reviewing applications, the RWQCB focuses on ensuring that projects do not adversely affect the"beneficial uses"associated with waters of the State. In most cases,the RWQCB seeks to protect these beneficial uses by requiring the integration of waste discharge requirements (WDRs)into projects that will require discharge into-waters of the State. For most construction projects,the RWQCB requires the use of construction and post-construction best management practices(BMPs). California Environmental Quality Act The California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)applies to"projects"proposed to be undertaken or requiring approval by State and local government agencies. Projects are defined as having the potential to have physical impact on the environment. Under Section 15380 of CEQA,a species not included on any formal list"shall nevertheless be considered threatened or endangered if the species can be shown by a local agency to meet the criteria"for listing. With sufficient documentation,a species could be shown to meet the definition of threatened or endangered under CEQA and be considered a"de facto"threatened or endangered species. California Fish and Game Code The CDFW is also responsible for enforcing the California Fish and Game Code,which contains several provisions potentially relevant to construction projects. For example, Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code governs the issuance of Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreements by CDFW. Lake I Prior to January 1,2013,the CDFW was known as the California Department of Fish and Game(CDFG).For the purposes of this report,the"CDFG"abbreviation is only used to reference documents issued by the agency prior to 2012. P:\MEY1301\BtoRpt.doc(02/26/13) 2 ..e, ..,S0c;L%F_ NI, . or Streambed Alteration Agreements are required whenever project activities substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed,channel,or bank of any river, stream, or lake designated as such by CDFW. The Fish and Game Code also designates animal species as Fully Protected or Protected. Fully Protected animals and Protected animals may not be taken or possessed at any time. CDFW does not issue licenses or permits for take of these species except for necessary scientific research or live capture and relocation pursuant to a permit for the protection of livestock. Fully Protected species are listed in Sections 3511 (birds), 4700(mammals), 5050(reptiles and amphibians), and 5515(fish)of the Fish and Game Code,while Protected amphibians and reptiles are listed in Chapter 5, Sections 41 and 42. Section 3503 of the Fish and Game Code prohibits the take, possession,or needless destruction of the nest or eggs of any bird. Subsection 3503.5 specifically prohibits the take, possession, or destruction of any birds in the orders Falconiformes (hawks and eagles) or Strigiformes(owls)and their nests. These provisions, along with the federal MBTA, essentially serve to protect nesting native birds. Non-native species, including European starling,house sparrow,and rock pigeon,are not afforded any protection under the MBTA or California Fish and Game Code. California Species of Special Concern The CDFW maintains an administrative list of Species of Special Concern, defined as a"species, subspecies, or distinct population of an animal native to California that currently satisfies one or more of the following(not necessarily mutually exclusive) criteria: • is extirpated fi•om the State, or, in the case of birds, in its primary seasonal or breeding role; • is listed as federally,but not State-,threatened or endangered; • meets the State definition of threatened or endangered but has not formally been listed; • is experiencing, or formerly experienced, serious(noncyclical)population declines or range retractions(not reversed)that, if continued or resumed,could qualify it for State threatened or endangered status; • has naturally small populations exhibiting high susceptibility to risk from any factor(s),that if realized,could lead to declines that would qualify it for State threatened or endangered status." Species of Special Concern are generally included in a CEQA document analysis of project impacts. In contrast to species listed under the federal ESA or CESA Species of Special Concern have no formal legal status. California Rare Plant Ranks Special-status plants in California are assigned to one of five"California Rare Plant Ranks"by a collaborative group of over 300 botanists in government, academia, non-governmental organizations, and the private sector. This effort is jointly managed by the CDFW and the non-profit California Native Plant Society(CNPS). The five California Rare Plant Ranks currently recognized by the CNPS include the following: • Rare Plant Rank IA—presumed extinct in California. • Rare Plant Rank 1 B—rare,threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere. • Rare Plant Rank 2—rare,threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere. PAMEY1301\13ioRpt.doc(02/26/13) 3 1,SA AS S1)Ci t A P.S, INN, • Rare Plant Rank 3 —a review list of plants about which more information is needed. • Rare Plant Rank 4—a watch list of plants of limited distribution. Substantial impacts to plants ranked IA, 1B,and 2 are typically considered significant based on Section 15380 of the CEQA Guidelines depending on the policy of the lead agency. Plants ranked 3 and 4 may be evaluated by the lead agency on a case-by-case basis to determine significance thresholds under CEQA. P:AMEY7301\BioRpt.doc(02126/13) 4 t I Large seasonal pool on northern parcel,approximately 765 feet north ofAmador Valley Boulevard. r f California ground squirrel burrow complex on northern parcel,approximately 450 feet north of Amador Valley Boulevard. L S A Dublin UPRR Parcels Site Photographs P:AMCY 1 301 Ag\Site Photographs.edr(02/21/2013) P' 5�- Seasonal wetland vegetation in central portion of southern parcel. t, Willows in central portion of southern parcel. L S A Dublin UPRR Parcels Site Photographs P:AMEY1301\g\Site PhotographsAr(02/21/2013) Attachment 2- Preliminary Wetland Delineation City of Dublin Page 49 Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project August 2013 Preliminary SeCtion 404 Determination DUBLIN IRON HORSE TRAIL DUBLIN, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared Far: Jerry Haag 2029 University Ave. Berkeley, California 94704 � a Contacts " E Tom Fraser fraser@wra-ca.com Date: May 2013 wr N R Id t.,FiTI 3 f. rNtLLTANTS 169 tG, f u,;S i-mn,:iswo €t3 I, Sun 1"„1i13::l, CA 94,DQ1 4, <„;= 0+19 f ca Cum) www.,mu-ca.com. This page intentionally left blank TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................1 1.1 Study Background.......................................................................................................... I 1.2 Regulatory Background................................................................................................. 1 2.0 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL JURISDICTIONAL AREAS.............. .................. ..................2 3.0 METHODS...........................................................................................................................2 3.1 Potential Section 404 Waters of the U.S.................................................................... 2 3.1.1 Wetlands ....................................................................................... 2 3.1.2 Other Waters of the U.S. ....................................................................................... 5 3.2 Difficult Wetland Situations in the Arid West.............................................................. 6 3.3 Areas Exempt from Section 404 Jurisdiction............................................................. 6 4.0 STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................6 5.0 RESULTS ............. ....................................... 9 5.1 Potential Section 404 Waters of the U.S.................................................................... 9 5.1.1 Wetlands ....... 9 5.1.2 Other Waters of the U.S. ........................................ ..................... 9 5.3 Areas Exempt from Section 404 Jurisdiction........................................................... 10 6.0 POTENTIAL CORPS OF ENGINEERS JURISDICTION...................................................10 7.0 REFERENCES .......................................................................................... 11 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Summary of Potential Section 404 Jurisdictional Areas Within the Study Area.............2 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A - Figures Figure 1. Study Area Location Map Figure 2. Aerial Photo of Study Area Figure 3. Soils Map Figure 4. Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S. Appendix B - Wetland Data Forms Appendix C - Representative Photographs of the Study Area Appendix D - Plant Species Observed Within the Study Area i 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Study Background The Dublin Iron Horse Trail site (Study Area) consists of 27.47 acres in Alameda County, California (Appendix A, Figure 1). The Study Area is bounded on the north by the City of Dublin/City of San Ramon City Limit Line, and on the south by Alamo Creek. Amador Valley Boulevard divides the Study Area into two parts, a northern and a southern parcel. The property is owned by the City of Dublin, is comprised of two former Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) right-of-way parcels, and now serves as the popular Ironhorse Trail corridor connecting Dublin with neighboring areas to the north. The paved multi-use trail and abandoned railroad bed, as well as aerial and underground utility lines, run adjacent to the relatively narrow Study Area. The City of Dublin is considering to expand park resources within the Study Area. WRA, Inc. was hired to conduct a routine wetland delineation within the Study Area as part of the City's due diligence process. On May 17, 2013, WRA conducted a routine wetland delineation in the Study Area to determine the presence of potential wetlands and waters subject to federal jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. This report presents the results of this delineation. 1.2 Regulatory Background Section 404 of the Clean Water Act Section 404 of the Clean Water Act gives the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) regulatory and permitting authority regarding discharge of dredged or fill material into "navigable waters of the United States". Section 502(7) of the Clean Water Act defines navigable waters as "waters of the United States, including territorial seas." Section 328 of Chapter 33 in the Code of Federal Regulations defines the term "waters of the United States" as it applies to the jurisdictional limits of the authority of the Corps under the Clean Water Act. A summary of this definition of"waters of the U.S_" in 33 CFR 328.3 includes (1) waters used for commerce; (2) interstate waters and wetlands; (3) "other waters" such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams, and wetlands; (4) impoundments of waters; (5) tributaries to the above waters; (6) territorial seas; and (7) wetlands adjacent to waters. Therefore, for purposes of the determining Corps jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act, "navigable waters" as defined in the Clean Water Act are the same as "waters of the U.S." defined in the Code of Federal Regulations above. The limits of Corps jurisdiction under Section 404 as given in 33 CFR Section 328.4 are as follows: (a) Territorial seas: three nautical miles in a seaward direction from the baseline; (b) Tidal waters of the U.S.: high tide line or to the limit of adjacent non-tidal waters; (c) Non-tidal waters of the U.S.: ordinary high water mark or to the limit of adjacent wetlands; (d) Wetlands: to the limit of the wetland. 1 2.0 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL JURISDICTIONAL AREAS Appendix A depicts the extent of Corps jurisdiction within the Study Area based on a wetland delineation conducted by WRA on May 17, 2013. The acreage of potential Section 404 jurisdictional areas is summarized in Table 1 below. Table 1. Summary of Potential Section 404 Jurisdictional Areas Within the Study Area "Potentially Potential Habitat Type Size (acres) Isolated"Areas Jurisdictional (acres) Waters of the U.S. (acres) Wetlands: f — I Seasonal Wetlands (PEMS) 0.51 N/A 0.51 TOTAL 0.51 N/A 0.51 3.0 METHODS Prior to conducting field surveys, reference materials were reviewed, including the Soil Survey of Alameda County (USDA 2013), the Alameda USGS 7.5' quadrangle, and aerial photographs of the site. A focused evaluation of indicators of wetlands and waters was performed in the Study Area on May 17, 2013. The methods used in this study to delineate jurisdictional wetlands and waters are based on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual("Corps Manual"; Environmental Laboratory 1987) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Arid West Region ("Arid West Supplement"; Corps 2008). The routine method for wetland delineation described in the Corps Manual was used to identify areas potentially subject to Corps Section 404 jurisdiction within the Study Area. A general description of the Study Area, including plant communities present, topography, and land use was also generated during the delineation visits. The methods for evaluating the presence of wetlands and other "waters of the U.S." employed during the site visit are described in detail below. 3.1 Potential Section 404 Waters of the U.S. 3.1.1 Wetlands The Study Area was evaluated for the presence or absence of indicators of the three wetland parameters described in the Corps Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and Arid West Supplement (Corps 2008). Section 328.3 of the Federal Code of Regulations defines wetlands as: "Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal 2 circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas." EPA, 40 CFR 230.3 and CE, 33 CFR 328.3 (b) The three parameters used to delineate wetlands are the presence of: (1) hydrophytic vegetation, (2) wetland hydrology, and (3) hydric soils. According to the Corps Manual, for areas not considered "problem areas" or"atypical situations": "....[E]vidence of a minimum of one positive wetland indicator from each parameter (hydrology, soil, and vegetation) must be found in order to make a positive wetland determination." Data on vegetation, hydrology, and soils collected at sample points during the delineation site visit was reported on Arid West Supplement data forms. Once an area was determined to be a potential jurisdictional wetland, its boundaries were delineated using GPS equipment and mapped on a topographic map. The areas of potential jurisdictional wetlands were measured digitally using ArcGIS software. Indicators described in the Arid West Supplement were used to make wetland determinations at each sample point in the Study Area and are summarized below. Vegetation Plant species observed in the Study Area were identified using Baldwin et al. (2012). Plants were assigned a wetland indicator status according to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers list of plant species that occur in wetlands (Lichvar 2012). Where differences in nomenclature occur between Baldwin et al. (2012) and Lichvar (2012), the species name as it occurred in Lichvar (2012) is listed in brackets. Wetland indicator statuses are based on the expected frequency of occurrence in wetlands as follows: OBL Always found in wetlands >99% frequency FACW(±) Usually found in wetlands 67-99% FAC Equal in wetland or non-wetlands 34-66% FACU Usually found in non-wetlands 1-33% UPL/NL Upland/Not listed (upland) <1% The presence of hydrophytic vegetation was then determined based on indicator tests described in the Arid West Supplement. The Arid West Supplement requires that a three-step process be conducted to determine if hydrophytic vegetation is present. The procedure first requires the delineator to apply the "50/20 rule" (Indicator 1; Dominance Test) described in the manual. To apply the "50/20 rule", dominant species are chosen independently from each stratum of the community. Dominant species are determined for each vegetation stratum from a sampling plot of an appropriate size surrounding the sample point. Dominants are the most abundant species that individually or collectively account for more than 50 percent of the total vegetative cover in the stratum, plus any other species that, by itself, accounts for at least 20 percent of the total vegetative cover. If greater than 50 percent of the dominant species has an OBL, FACW, or FAC status, ignoring + and - qualifiers, the sample point meets the hydrophytic vegetation criterion. 3 If the sample point fails Indicator 1 and both hydric soils and wetland hydrology are not present, then the sample point does not meet the hydrophytic vegetation criterion, unless the site is a problematic wetland situation. However, if the sample point fails Indicator 1 but hydric soils and wetland hydrology are both present, the delineator must apply Indicator 2. Indicator 2 is known as the Prevalence Index. The prevalence index is a weighted average of the wetland indicator status for all plant species within the sampling plot. Each indicator status is given a numeric code (OBL = 1, FACW = 2, FAC = 3, FACU = 4, and UPL = 5). Indicator 2 requires the delineator to estimate the percent cover of each species in every stratum of the community and sum the cover estimates for any species that is present in more than one stratum. The delineator must then organize all species into groups according to their wetland indicator status and calculate the Prevalence Index using the following formula, where A equals total percent cover: PI AOBL + 2AFACw + 3AFAC + 4AFACU + 5AUPL = AOBL +AFACw + AFAC + AFACU +AUPL The Prevalence Index will yield a number between 1 and 5. If the Prevalence Index is equal to or less than 3, the sample point meets the hydrophytic vegetation criterion. However, if the community fails Indicator 2, the delineator must proceed to Indicator 3. Indicator 3 is known as Morphological Adaptations. If more than 50 percent of the individuals of a FACU species have morphological adaptations for life in wetlands, that species is considered to be a hydrophyte and its indicator status should be reassigned to FAC. If such observations are made, the delineator must recalculate Indicators 1 and 2 using a FAC indicator status for this species. The sample point meets the hydrophytic vegetation criterion if either test is satisfied. Hydrology The Corps jurisdictional wetland hydrology criterion is satisfied if an area is inundated or saturated for a period sufficient to create anoxic soil conditions during the growing season (a minimum of 14 consecutive days in the Arid West region). Evidence of wetland hydrology can include primary indicators, such as visible inundation or saturation, drift deposits, oxidized root channels, and salt crusts, or secondary indicators such as the FAC-neutral test, presence of a shallow aquitard, or crayfish burrows. The Arid West Supplement contains 16 primary hydrology indicators and 10 secondary hydrology indicators. Only one primary indicator is required to meet the wetland hydrology criterion; however, if secondary indicators are used, at least two secondary indicators must be present to conclude that an area has wetland hydrology. The presence or absence of the primary or secondary indicators described in the Arid West Supplement was utilized to determine if sample points within the Study Area met the wetland hydrology criterion. 4 Soils The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) defines a hydric soil as follows: 'A hydric soil is a soil that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part." Federal Register July 13, 1994, U.S. Department of Agriculture, NRCS Soils formed over long periods of time under wetland (anaerobic) conditions often possess characteristics that indicate they meet the definition of hydric soils. Hydric soils can have a hydrogen sulfide (rotten egg) odor, low chroma matrix color, generally designated 0, 1, or 2, used to identify them as hydric, presence of redox concentrations, gleyed or depleted matrix, or high organic matter content. Specific indicators that can be used to determine whether a soil is hydric for the purposes of wetland delineation are provided in the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the U.S. (USDA 2010). The Arid West Supplement provides a list of 23 of these hydric soil indicators which are known to occur in the Arid West region. Soil samples were collected and described according to the methodology provided in the Arid West Supplement. Soil chroma and values were determined by utilizing a standard Munsell soil color chart (Gretag Macbeth 2000). Hydric soils were determined to be present if any of the soil samples met one or more of the 23 hydric soil indicators described in the Arid West Supplement. 3.1.2 Other Waters of the U.S. This study also evaluated the presence of "waters of the U.S." other than wetlands potentially subject to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Other areas, besides wetlands, subject to Corps jurisdiction include lakes, rivers and streams (including intermittent streams) in addition to all areas below the HTL in areas subject to tidal influence. Jurisdiction in non-tidal areas extends to the ordinary high water mark (OHW) defined as: "...that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as clear, natural line impresses on the bank, shelving, changes in the characteristics of the soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas." Federal Register Vol. 51, No. 219, Part 328.3 (e). November 13, 1986 Identification of the ordinary high water mark followed the Corps Regulatory Guidance Letter No. 05-05, Ordinary High Water Mark Identification (Corps 2005). 5 3.2 Difficult Wetland Situations in the Arid West The Arid West Supplement (Corps 2008) includes procedures for identifying wetlands that may lack indicators due to natural processes (problem areas) or recent disturbances (atypical situations). "Problem area" wetlands are defined as naturally occurring wetland types that periodically lack indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soil, or wetland hydrology due to normal seasonal or annual variability. Some problem area wetlands may permanently lack certain indicators due to the nature of the soils or plant species on the site. "Atypical situations" are defined as wetlands in which vegetation, soil, or hydrology indicators are absent due to recent human activities or natural events. The list of difficult wetland situations provided in the Arid West Supplement includes wetlands with problematic hydrophytic vegetation, problematic hydric soils, and wetlands that periodically lack indicators of wetland hydrology. In addition, the problem area and atypical situation sections of the Corps Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) were utilized to determine if any sample points taken within the Study Area met the criteria for a problem area or atypical situation. If any determination was based on less than three parameters, the rationale for the wetland determination was explained on the data sheets included in Appendix B. Although the Corps Manual and Arid West Supplement were utilized in the wetland determination, they do not provide exhaustive lists of the difficult situations that can arise during delineations in the Arid West. As a result, WRA interpreted the gathered data using best professional judgment and our knowledge of the ecology of the wetlands in the region. 3.3 Areas Exempt from Section 404 Jurisdiction Some areas that meet the technical criteria for wetlands or waters may not be jurisdictional under the Clean Water Act. Included in this category are some man-induced wetlands, which are areas that have developed at least some characteristics of naturally occurring wetlands due to either intentional or incidental human activities. Examples of man-induced wetlands may include, but are not limited to, irrigated wetlands, impoundments, or drainage ditches excavated in uplands, dredged material disposal areas, and depressions within construction areas. In addition, some isolated wetlands and waters may also be considered outside of Corps jurisdiction as a result of the Supreme Court's decision in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. United States Army Corps of Engineers (531 U.S. 159 (2001)). Isolated wetlands and waters are those areas that do not have a surface or groundwater connection to, and are not adjacent to a "navigable waters of the U.S.", and do not otherwise exhibit an interstate commerce connection. 4.0 STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION The Study Area is approximately 27.47 acres, located in Alameda County, California (Appendix A, Figure 1). Elevations range from approximately 330 to 350 feet NGVD. The property is approximately 6,000 feet north of the intersection of Interstates 580 and 680. The Study Area is relatively flat and narrow, approximately 5,800 linear feet in length and 150 linear feet to 200 linear feet in width. It is bounded by Alamo Creek to the south, and the City of Dublin/City of 6 San Ramon City Limit Line to the north. While outside of the Study Area, the Iron Horse Trail forms the boundary of the Study Area's western edge, and fencelines associated with residential housing developments form the eastern edge. The Alameda County Flood and Water Conservation District (ACFWD) Zone 7 Drainage Channel is located immediately west of Iron Horse Trail and is also outside of the Study Area. The entire Study Area consists predominantly of ruderal herbaceous vegetation typically associated with disturbed areas. Land use adjacent to the Study Area consists mostly of single- family and multi-family residential housing, and associated infrastructure. Dublin High School is located generally west of the Study Area, opposite the ACFWCD Zone 7 Drainage Channel, and several small parks are located in close proximity to the trail corridor marking the Study Area's western edge. Rolling hills associated with the Dougherty Valley are located generally east of the Study Area. An elevated earthen berm topped with gravel and debris runs along the center of the Study Area. This berm was constructed to support the UPRR railroad bed. A trestle crossing, approximately 50 feet in length, is located approximately 1,400 linear feet north of Amador Valley Boulevard. A linear borrow ditch is located immediately west of the former railroad bed. This feature contains several small linear depressions that may pond water during winter. A similar linear depression, also possibly a former borrow ditch, is located east of the abandoned railroad in the southernmost portion of the parcel located north of Amador Valley Boulevard. There are a number of underground and overhead utilities within the Study Area. An underground petroleum pipeline just east of the former UPRR railroad bed and extends along the entire length of the Study Area. An underground fiber-optic cable line is located immediately west of the railroad bed in the linear borrow ditch. An overhead power line also runs the length of the Study Area, just east of the Iron Horse Trail on a second, slightly elevated berm. Several storm drain lines cross the Study Area and discharge directly to the ACFWD Zone 7 Drainage Channel. Adjacent residential properties and Stagecoach Park, located immediately east of the Study Area, also have storm drainage lines that discharge directly onto the ground surface of the Study Area. Vegetation Vegetation within the Study Area consisted primarily of non-native annual grassland. Dominant vegetation in areas determined to be uplands include wild oat (Avena fatua, NL), rye grass (Festuca perennis, FAC), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus, NL), bristly ox-tongue (Helminthotheca echioides, FACU), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola, FACU), common mustard (Brassica nigra, NL), wild radish (Raphanus sativa, NL), Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus, NL), and fennel (Foeniculum vulgare, FACU). Potential seasonal wetlands growing in the linear depressions within the borrow ditch were dominated by hydrophytic plants, including nutsedge (Cyperus eragrostis, FACW), swamp prickle grass (Crypsis shoenoides, OBL), rough cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium, FAC), salt grass (Distichlis spicata, FAC), curly dock (Rumex crispus, FAC), fat hen (Atriplex prostrate, FACW), and rabbitsfoot grass (Polypogon monspeliensis, FACW). Hydrology Natural hydrological sources for the Study Area include precipitation and surface run-off from adjacent single-family and multi-family residential housing areas to the east. Several large hills 7 located east of the Study Area contribute drainage to these neighborhood areas, which is then conveyed across the Study Area mostly as sheet flow toward the ACFWCD Zone 7 Drainage Channel. Two culverts were observed along the eastern edge of the Study Area near the Stagecoach Park. These culverts connect directly to a drainage feature that crosses the abandoned railroad grade under a remnant trestle and discharges into the ACFWCD Zone 7 Drainage Channel through another culvert under the Iron Horse Trail. However, these culverts appeared to be partially blocked with sediment. A small, concrete-lined drainage ditch runs the length of Iron Horse Trail and discharges to the ACFWCD Zone 7 Drainage Channel. Soils The Alameda County Soil Survey (USDA 2013) indicates that the Study Area has four native soil types: Clear Lake clay, drained, 0 to 3 percent slopes; Sunnyvale clay loam over clay; Linne clay loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes; and Diablo clay, 7 to 15 percent slopes. These soil types are described in detail below and are shown in Appendix A, Figure 3: Clear Lake. The Clear Lake series consists of very deep, poorly drained soils that formed in fine textured alluvium derived from sandstone and shale. These soils occur in basins and in swales of drainageways. Permeability is slow to very slow and runoff is negligible to high. Depth to water table can vary greatly in these soils. A representative profile for this series consists of a dark gray (N 4/0)) clay surface layer 19-45 inches thick. This layer is underlain by grayish-brown clay that extends to a depth of 72 inches. These soils are listed as partially hydric on the US national hydric soils list (USDA 2005). Sunnyvale Clay Loam Over Clay. The Sunnyvale series consists of poorly drained soils on nearly level flood plains and basins. These soils formed in alluvium from mixed, but dominantly sedimentary rocks. Permeability and runoff are slow, though pumping has lowered water table in most areas so that now soil management is similar to somewhat poorly or moderately well drained soils. A representative profile for this series consists of dark gray (N/4) silty clay to 34 inches. This is underlain by gray (5Y 5/1) silty clay with yellowish brown (2.5 Y 6/4) mottles to 60 inches. These soils are listed as hydric on the US national hydric soils list (USDA 2005). Linne Clay Loam. The Linne series occur extensively and consists of moderately deep, well drained soils that formed in material weathered from fairly soft shale and sandstone. These soils are on mountainous uplands and foothills, and have slopes of five to 75 percent. Permeability is moderately slow and runoff is very rapid. A representative profile for this series consists of very dark grayish-brown (2.5Y 3/2) silty clay to eight inches. This is underlain by very dark gray (10YR 5/1) clay with dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) mottles to 19 inches. These soils are listed as partially hydric on the US national hydric soils list (USDA 2005). Diablo. The Diablo series consists of well drained soils on complex undulating, rolling to steep uplands with slopes of five to 50 percent. These soils formed in residuum weathered from shale, sandstone, and consolidated sediments. Permeability is slow and water runoff is slow when the soil is dry, medium to rapid when soils are moist. 8 A representative profile for this series consists of dark gray (5Y 4/1) silty clay to 15 inches. This is underlain by finely mixed gray (5Y 5/1) and olive gray (5Y 5/2) silty clay to 32 inches. These soils are listed as partially hydric on the US national hydric soils list (USDA 2005). 5.0 RESULTS Vegetation, soils and hydrology data collected during delineation site visits are reported on standard Corps Arid West Region data forms in Appendix B. Potential Section 404 jurisdictional areas are described in the following sections and depicted in Appendix A, Figure 4. Photographs of representative portions of the Study Area and sample points are shown in Appendix C. A list of plant species observed during the site visits is included in Appendix D. 5.1 Potential Section 404 Waters of the U.S. 5.1.1 Wetlands Seasonal wetlands (NWI classification = PEMC, palustrine emergent wetland, seasonally flooded) identified as potentially jurisdictional wetlands were present within linear depressional areas in the borrow ditches. Seasonal wetlands within the Study Area were dominated by facultative to obligate wetland species including nutsedge , swamp prickle grass, rough cocklebur, salt grass, curly dock, fat hen, and rabbitsfoot grass. Soils in areas identified as seasonal wetlands generally consisted of clay to clay loam textures. Redoximorphic features were few, faint to distinct sometimes within the upper 6 inches. Oxidized root channels were found along living roots in the deeper depressions, particularly located near the trestle drainage feature just east of Stagecoach Park (W-4; Appendix A, Figure 4). Sediment deposits and biotic crust were observed in areas prone to ponding, such as in the location of the trestle drainage feature. Surface soil cracks were also observed in the trestle bridge crossing area and linear depressions within the borrow ditch, however, these soil cracks were also observed in upland areas atop the elevated berm, within the petroleum line utility easement east of the elevated berm, and in disturbed areas adjacent residential housing along the eastern edge of the Study Area. Vegetation in seasonal wetlands also passed the FAC-neutral test. The border between seasonal wetland and upland communities was determined primarily by vegetation and hydric soil field indicators: areas dominated by upland vegetation species, and lacking sufficient redoximorphic features to meet hydric soil indicators were not included in the areas identified as potentially jurisdictional wetlands. Soils in the areas identified as uplands lacked facultative wetland and obligate plants as well as hydric soil indicators. These upland areas also lacked strong indicators of wetland hydrology. All wetlands mapped and presented in this report are likely to be considered jurisdictional by the Corps as they are directly connected to a "navigable waters of the U.S.". Study Area waters flow ultimately into Arroyo de la Leguna. 5.9.2 Other Waters of the U.S. No features identified as other waters of the U.S. were observed within the Study Area. Potential wetland features in deeper depressions and within the trestle drainage area were characterized as having ponded conditions for a significant duration due to presence of sediment deposits and areas comprised of bare ground. However, these wetland features exhibited vegetation coverage greater than five percent, and are therefore not considered other waters of the U.S. 9 5.2 Areas Exempt from Section 404 Jurisdiction There are no isolated wetlands or man-induced wetlands within the Study Area. All wetlands mapped and presented in this report are likely to be considered jurisdictional by the Corps as they were not created by human activities and are directly connected to a "navigable waters of the U.S." (Arroyo de la Laguna). 6.0 POTENTIAL CORPS OF ENGINEERS JURISDICTION The 27.47 acre Study Area has 0.51 acre of seasonal wetlands that may be considered jurisdictional under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The potential seasonal wetlands dominated by hydrophytic vegetation with FAC, FACW and OBL classified plants and contained hydric soil and wetland hydrology indicators. In addition, these areas are tributary to a "navigable waters of the U.S." and therefore meet the definition of jurisdictional wetlands for Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The conclusion of this delineation is based on conditions observed at the time of the field surveys conducted on May 17, 2013. 10 7.0 REFERENCES Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Department of the Army, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180-0631. Federal Register. November 13, 1986. Department of Defense, Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army, 33 CFR Parts 320 through 330, Regulatory Programs of the Corps of Engineers; Final Rule. Vol. 51, No. 219; page 41217. GretagMacBeth. 2000. Munsell Soil Color Charts, revised washable edition. Lichvar, RW. 2012. The National Wetland Plant List. Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Research and Development Center. Hanover, NH. October 2012. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2005. Regulatory Guidance Letter No. 05-05. Ordinary High Water Mark Identification. December 7. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0). September. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA). 2013. Web Soil Survey of Alameda County, California. Website accessed May 16, 2013. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA). 2005. Official List of US Hydric Soils. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA). 2010. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States: A Guide for Identifying and Delineating Hydric Soils, Version 7.0. In cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1980. Alameda. 7.5 minute topographic map. 11 Appendix A - Figures This page intentionally left blank S>r�abbaa Fai£6dJ Rau is - _.._• :..,,� a +t_ i Laki ry 1 � •A Rti,0414 i aCt. ♦ ta t�3 i ' $rfYe'ey. ;�Sd1hU{ t33'hiLNr4Yfd FTO; y a } 1 w C1 iSStS� � tarsr uvia in " jw I - rr�ae�scr 14,s gad wtea,an" �ertbnrttr : Alt, alf a�}iz a� . s91 s `y}�}.�..y'I,m 3�. )i 8111 \i ,.�. Study Area ft pZ p4 K s. rt y 3 8 M i s V'�F .,s 4; A €" a k`4, - •:..sip'F 't.a » P P� 1 c�a h A u�1r e 'I - b. Figure 1. Location Map of Study Area N wra W E S ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS Dublin Ironhorse Trail 0 0.75 1.5 Map Date:May 2013 Alameda County, California Miles Base Source:ESRI World Topo Path:L:\Acad 2000 Files\23000\23101\GIS\ArcMap\Fig 1 Location.mxd • ► • s • • • • 1 ► ► • as ► 1 ■ u A � u .r - 7 ✓ n a .8 F1M ol { g ff RK x low Mn A€. ^s z y on K,its pp 1 . a� .# }" vs i t' .a i AV�x s y { £ $ 3 4 _ Mx osE4 �' i � � ♦ xa:> �.�..`s ,� w: x` _. ... � :,i � tea~ Y'> ar .� ;� s 'z� � ;" ,r.� d �a ': ''� � 7 e H zfi ok,f' `. AF " r w oil "Y oo lip too r Is �, t ',t" "is 41 tF 3 �. an sy W, VIP Oyu M _ t f r WE a IF "�, �' " � � R � `�"•„,- `.? .tea,,..„::. '""='` � a � r� u a ,.NN i < Y4 ' AT s 3 s a Q3 W 'i a not Qv ton o : , aL ,. C) 0 0 _ o N S' (� O `fl LL M Cn EE i o CO " W L ` 7 ❑mom 0 n n En w m @ <o o m N S p d t{P S ` y n Z Ml 'f' ca x, i 0. �» ,r Sic 9"'El r �a v o a �Yr N (h r� N2a� 'air .tr d / �gftr"';r�+3f d w' ^ y L Q C 0 O z O U O_ L Co u> Q� (1) O II Y m CU O 0 O N 'S o ��� N ti m 3 in ` C +.� Q Q C N T N W Q Z- I E U to o a ^Adaw N U m E gc � _ Q _ — (n U 3 � _ (Q 11 M, F 7 } W 4—• — fQ r CO O d N �@ m O Vyq " raf > i t= b. g' �L y Iii \ \ % a o0 & / m 0QE o � CN \ 0 _0 % f � k _} \ , § LL §/\ , m J m : 1 \�° � � ! ! � � ! \� � 2 � k � ` ! \ e 7 2 § § § _ ¥ \ « - ° e : a\ / \ p / :3/ $ f �} § » = \ a» G !fw } a / §ik � $ �\ § | \ co - Z \ \/ 22a / / o ® / \ ) \ � \ ` ~ \)} < \ / - \ ( E o ` ' \ ° \ ! § o }� § � ~ This page intentionally left blank Wetland Determination Data Form - Arid West Region Project/Site Dublin Iron Horse Trail City Dublin County Alameda Sampling Date 5/17/2013 Applicant/Owner City of Dublin(former UPRR parcels) State CA Sampling Point SP-U-1 Investigator(s) Mark Kalnins Section,Township,Range Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.)terrace Local Relief(concave,convex,none) flat Sl o ope(/o) 0 to 3 Subregion(LRR)LRR C(Medit.CA) Lat: 37.724852 Long: -121.924366 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name Clear Lake Clay NWI classification N/A Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on-site typical for this time of year? ®Yes [] No (If no,explain in remarks) Are any of the following significantly disturbed? ❑Vegetation ❑ Soil ❑ Hydrology Are"Normal Circumstances"present? ®Yes ❑ No Are any of the following naturally problematic? ❑Vegetation ❑ Soil ❑ Hydrology Y 9Y (If needed,explain any answers in remarks) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS-Attach site mal2 showin sam le oint locations transects importanit features etc Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ❑Yes ® No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? ❑Yes ®No within a Wetland? El Yes ® NO Wetland Hydrology Present? ❑Yes ®No Remarks: Photos 9359-9362MK. The sample point is located in alignment with underground oil pipeline,with evidence of compacted,variable soils. UPRR abandoned railroad is located immediately west,residential housing is located immediately east. GPS Point SP-U-1. The sample point is located in uplands. VEGETATION (use scientific names) TREE STRATUM Plot Size: Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet %cover Species? Status 1. Number of Dominant Species 1 (A) 2. that are OBL,FACW,or FAC? Total number of dominant 3. species across all strata? 2 4. (B) Tree Stratum Total Cover: %of dominant species that 50 (A/B) are OBL, FACW,or FAC? SAPLING/SHRUB STRATUM Plot Size: Prevalence Index Worksheet 1. Total%cover of Multioly bv7 2. OBL species x1 _ 3. FACW species x2 4• FAC species x3 Sapling/Shrub Stratum Total Cover. FACU species x4 HERB STRATUM Plot Size: UPL species x5 1. Festuca perennis 60 Y FAC Column Totals (A) (B) 2. Helminthotheca echioides 20 Y FACU Prevalence Index=B/A= 3. Distichlis spicata 10 N FAC 4. -- Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 5. ❑ Dominance Test is>50% 6. ❑ Prevalence Index is</=3.0' 7• ❑ Morphological adaptations(provide g, supporting data in remarks) Herb Stratum Total Cover: ❑ Problematic hydrophytic vegetation' (explain) WOODY VINE STRATUM Plot Size: 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology 1• must be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 2. Woody Vines Total Cover: Hydrophytic %Bare ground in herb stratum 10 Vegetation Present? [3 Yes ® No cover of biotic crust Remarks: Distichlis under Festuca. Festuca has 100%coverage immediately upslope of this sample point location on sideslope of earthen berm. The sample point does not contain a predominance of hydrophytic vegetation. US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West Sampling Point SP-U-1 SOIL Profile description:(Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features a Color(moist) % TYpe, Loc' Texture Remarks /o (inches) Color(moist) Clay loam no redoximorphic features p_g 10YR 3/1 100 8-14 10YR 3/1 100 Clay loam no redoximorphic features observed 'T e:C=Concentration,D=De letion,RM=Reduced Matrix. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining,RC=Root Channel,M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators:(Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: ❑ Histosol(Al) ❑Sandy Redox(S5) ❑ 1cm Muck(A9)(LRR C) ❑ Histic Epipedon(A2) ❑Stripped Matrix(S6) ❑2cm Muck(A10)(LRR B) ❑ Black Histic(A3) ❑Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1) ❑ Reduced Vertic(F18) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) ❑Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) ❑ Red Parent Material(TF2) ❑Stratified Layers(A5)(LRR C) ❑Depleted Matrix(F3) ❑Other(explain in remarks) ❑ 1 c Muck(A9)(LRR D) ❑Redox Dark Surface(F6) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) ❑Depleted Dark Surface(F7) ❑Thick Dark Surface(Al2) ❑Redox Depressions(F8) ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) ❑Vernal Pools(F9) 3Indicators of hydric vegetation and ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) wetland hydrology must be present. Restrictive Layer(if present): Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? ❑Yes ®No Remarks: No redoximorphic features were observed in the soil pit. No hydric soild field indicators are present at this sample point location. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators(2 or more required) Primary Indicators(any one indicator is sufficient) ❑Water Marks(131)(Riverine) ❑ Surface Water(Al) ❑ Salt Crust(611) ❑ Sediment Deposits(132)(Riverine) ❑ High Water Table(A2) ❑ Biotic Crust(B12) ❑ Drift Deposits(63)(Riverine) ❑Saturation(A3) ❑Aquatic Invertebrates(1313) ❑ Drainage Patterns(1310) ❑Water Marks(B1)(Nonriverine) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) ❑ Dry-Season Water Table(C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits(132)(Nonriverine) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots(C3) ❑Thin Muck Surface(C7) ❑Drift Deposits(B3)(Nonriverine) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) ❑Crayfish Burrows(C8) ❑Surface Soil Cracks(66) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in PLowed Soils(C6) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ Shallow Aquitard(D3) ❑Water-Stained Leaves(69) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Field Observations: Surface water present? ❑Yes ® No Depth(inches): Water table present? ❑Yes ® No Depth(inches): Saturation Present? ❑Yes ONO Depth(inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? ❑Yes ®No (includes capillary fringe) Describe recorded data(stream guage,monitoring well, aerial photos,etc.)if available. Remarks:No hydrology indicators are present at this sample point location. Soils surface cracks were observed,however,these soil cracks occur also on sideslopes of the adjacent earthen berm,and within disturbed portions of the buried utility line. Arid West US Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Determination Data Form - Arid West Region Project/Site Dublin Iron Horse Trail City Dublin County Alameda Sampling Date 5/17/2013 Applicant/Owner City of Dublin(former UPRR parcels) State CA Sampling Point SP-U-2 Investigator(s) Mark Kalnins Section,Township,Range Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.)terrace Local Relief(concave,convex,none) flat Slope(%) 0 to 3 Subregion(LRR)LRR C(Medit.CA) Lat: 37.724852 Long: -121.924366 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name Clear Lake Clay NWI classification N/A Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on-site typical for this time of year? ®Yes ❑ No (If no,explain in remarks) Are any of the following significantly disturbed? ❑Vegetation ❑ Soil ❑ Hydrology Are"Normal Circumstances"present? ®Yes ❑ No Are any of the following naturally problematic? ❑Vegetation ❑Soil ❑ Hydrology (If needed,explain any answers in remarks) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS-Attach site mal2 showina sam le point locations transects im ortant features etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? El Yes 0 N Is the Sampled Area Yes ONO Hydric Soil Present? ❑Yes 0 N within a Wetland? Wetland Hydrology Present? ❑Yes ®No Remarks: Photos 9366-9369MK. The sample point is located in alignment with underground cable,with evidence of nearby disturbance in recent aerial imagery. UPRR abandoned railroad is located immediately east,Iron Horse Trail is located immediately west. GPS Point SP-U-2. The sample point is located in uplands. VEGETATION (use scientific names) TREE STRATUM Plot Size: Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet %cover Species? Status t. Number of Dominant Species 1 (A) that are OBL,FACW,or FAC? 2 Total number of dominant 3' species across all strata? 2 (B) 4. %of dominant species that Tree Stratum Total Cover: are OBL, FACW,or FAC? 50 (A/B) SAPLING/SHRUB STRATUM Plot Size: Prevalence Index Worksheet 1. Total%cover of- Multioly by- 2. OBL species x1 3. FACW species x2 4. FAC species x3 Sapling/Shrub Stratum Total Cover. FACU species x4 HERB STRATUM Plot Size: UPL species x5 7. Festuca perennis 50 Y FAC Column Totals (A) (B) 2. Lactuca serriola 20 Y FACU Prevalence Index=B/A= 3. Distichlis spicata 15 N FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 4. Mellilotus indicus 5 N FACU ❑ Dominance Test is>50% 5. 6 ❑ Prevalence Index is</=3.0' 7. ❑ Morphological adaptations(provide 8. supporting data in remarks) Herb Stratum Total Cover: 90 ❑ Problematic hydrophytic vegetation' (explain) WOODY VINE STRATUM Plot Size: 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology 1. must be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 2. Woody Vines Total Cover: Hydrophytic %Bare ground in herb stratum 10 %cover of biotic crust Vegetation Present? Yes ® No Remarks: Avena fatua has 100%coverage immediately upslope of this sample point location on sideslopes of earthen berm. The sample point does not contain a predominance of hydrophytic vegetation. US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West SOIL Sampling Point SP-U-2 Profile description:(Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) I Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Loc' Texture Remarks 0-14 10YR 3/1 100 Clay loam no redoximorphic features 'Type:C=Concentration,D=De letion,RM=Reduced Matrix. 2Location:PL=Pore Lining,RC=Root Channel,M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators:(Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: ❑ Histosol(Al) ❑Sandy Redox(S5) ❑ 1cm Muck(A9)(LRR C) ❑ Histic Epipedon(A2) ❑Stripped Matrix(S6) ❑2cm Muck(A10)(LRR B) ❑ Black Histic(A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1) ❑ Reduced Vertic(F18) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) ❑Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) ❑ Red Parent Material(TF2) ❑ Stratified Layers(A5)(LRR C) ❑ Depleted Matrix(F3) ❑Other(explain in remarks) ❑ 1cm Muck(A9)(LRR D) ❑ Redox Dark Surface(F6) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface(F7) ❑Thick Dark Surface(Al2) ❑ Redox Depressions(F8) ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) ❑Vernal Pools(F9) 31ndicators of hydric vegetation and ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) wetland hydrology must be present. Restrictive Layer(if present): Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? ❑Yes ® No Remarks: No redoximorphic features were observed in the soil pit. No hydric soild field indicators are present at this sample point location. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators(2 or more required) Primary Indicators(any one indicator is sufficient) ❑Water Marks(131)(Riverine) ❑ Surface Water(Al) ❑ Salt Crust(1311) ❑ Sediment Deposits(132)(Riverine) ❑ High Water Table(A2) ❑ Biotic Crust(B12) ❑ Drift Deposits(63)(Riverine) ❑Saturation(A3) ❑Aquatic invertebrates(B13) ❑ Drainage Patterns(1310) ❑Water Marks(61)(Nonriverine) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) ❑ Dry-Season Water Table(C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits(82)(Nonriverine) ❑Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots(C3) ❑Thin Muck Surface(C7) ❑Drift Deposits(63)(Nonriverine) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) ❑ Crayfish Burrows(C8) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks(136) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in PLowed Soils(C6) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ Shallow Aquitard(D3) ❑Water-Stained Leaves(139) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Field Observations: Surface water present? ❑ Yes ® No Depth(inches): Water table present? ❑ Yes ® No Depth(inches): Saturation Present? ❑Yes ® No Depth(inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? ❑Yes ®No (includes capillary fringe) Describe recorded data(stream guage,monitoring well,aerial photos,etc.)if available. Remarks:No hydrology indicators are present at this sample point location. US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West Wetland Determination Data Form - Arid West Region Project/Site Dublin Iron Horse Trail City Dublin Count Alameda County Sampling Date 5/17/2013 Applicant/Owner City of Dublin(former UPRR parcels) State CA Sampling Point SP-W-3 Investigator(s) Mark Kalnins Section,Township,Range Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.)terrace Local Relief(concave,convex,none) flat Sl o ope(/°) 0 to 3 Subregion(LRR)_LRR C(Medit.CA) Lat: 37.722460 Long: -121.922256 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name Clear Lake Clay NWI classification N/A Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on-site typical for this time of year? ®Yes ❑ No (If no,explain in remarks) Are any of the following significantly disturbed? ❑Vegetation ❑ Soil ❑ Hydrology Are"Normal Circumstances"present? ®Yes ❑ No Are any of the following naturally problematic? ❑Vegetation ❑Soil ❑ Hydrology Y 9Y (If needed,explain any answers in remarks) UM , ARY OF F NDINGS-Attach site mal3showing sam le oint locations transects im octant eatures etc Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ®Yes ❑ No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? ®Yes [] No within a Wetland? ®Yes ❑ No Wetland Hydrology Present? ®Yes ❑ No Remarks: Photos 9371-9375MK. The sample point is located in alignment with underground cable,with evidence of nearby disturbance in recent aerial imagery. UPRR abandoned railroad is located immediately east,Iron Horse Trail is located immediately west. GPS Point SP-W-2. The sample point is located in wetlands. VEGETATION (use scientific names) TREE STRATUM Plot Size: Absolute Dominant Indicator cover Species? Status Dominance Test Worksheet 1• Number of Dominant Species 3 (A) 2• that are OBL, FACW,or FAC? 3. Total number of dominant 4. species across all strata? 3 (B) Tree Stratum Total Cover: of dominant species that 100 (A/B) are OBL, FACW,or FAC? SAPLING/SHRUB STRATUM Plot Size: Prevalence Index Worksheet 1. _ Total%cover of _ Multiply bw 2• OBL species x1 3. FACW species x2 4. FAC species x3 SaplinglShrub Stratum Total Cover: FACU species x4 HERB STRATUM Plot Size: UPL species x5 1. Polypogon monspeliensis 30 Y FAC Column Totals (A) (B) 2. Festuca perennis 20 y_ F_ ACW Prevalence Index=B/A= 3. Leymus triticoides 20 Y_ FAC 4. Avena fatua 10 N NL Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 5, Melllotus indicus 10 N FACU ® Dominance Test is>50% 6. Rumex crispus 5 N FAC Prevalence Index is</=3.0' 7. ❑ Morphological adaptations(provide 8. supporting data in remarks) Herb Stratum Total Cover: 95 ❑ Problematic hydrophytic vegetation'(explain) WOODY VINE STRATUM Plot Size: 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology 1• must be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 2. Woody Vines Total Cover: Hydrophytic %Bare ground in herb stratum 0 cover!o° of biotic crust Vegetation Present? ❑Yes ® No Remarks: The sample point contains a predominance of hydrophytic vegetation. US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West Sampling Point SP-W-3 SOIL Profile description:(Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features Remarks (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % TYpe, Loc' Texture 0.7 10YR 4/1 70 7.5YR 4/6 30 C M Loam ORs on live roots 7-14 10YR 3/1 100 Clay loam no red oximorphic features observed 'T e:C=Concentration,D=De letion,RM=Reduced Matrix. 2Location:PL=Pore Lining,RC=Root Channel, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators:(Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histosol(Al) ❑ Sandy Redox(S5) ❑ 1 c Muck(A9)(LRR C) ❑ Histic Epipedon(A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix(S6) ❑2cm Muck(A10)(LRR B) ❑Black Histic(A3) ❑Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1) ❑Reduced Vertic(F18) ❑Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) ❑ Red Parent Material(TF2) ❑Stratified Layers(A5)(LRR C) ®Depleted Matrix(F3) ❑Other(explain in remarks) ❑ 1 c Muck(A9)(LRR D) ❑ Redox Dark Surface(F6) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) ❑Depleted Dark Surface(F7) ❑Thick Dark Surface(Al2) ❑Redox Depressions(F8) 'Indicators of h dric vegetation and [I ve et Sandy Mucky Mineral(Si) ❑Vernal Pools(F9) wetland hydrology v 9 t present. ❑Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) Restrictive Layer(if present): Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? ❑Yes ®No Remarks: Redoximorphic features were observed in the upper part of the soil pit. The sample point met the F3 Depleted Matrix hydric soild field indicators. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators(Z or more required) Primary Indicators(any one indicator is sufficient) ❑Water Marks(B1)(Riverine) ❑ Surface Water(Al) ❑Salt Crust(1311) ❑ Sediment Deposits(132)(Riverine) ❑ High Water Table(A2) ❑ Biotic Crust(612) ❑ Drift Deposits(133)(Riverine) ❑Saturation(A3) ❑Aquatic Invertebrates(1313) ❑ Drainage Patterns(1310) ❑Water Marks(61)(Nonriverine) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) ❑ Dry-Season Water Table(C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits(132)(Nonriverine) ®Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots(C3) ❑Thin Muck Surface(C7) ❑ Drift Deposits(63)(Nonriverine) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) [3 Saturation Burrows(C8) ® Surface Soil Cracks(66) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in PLowed Soils(C6) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(67) ❑Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ Shallow Aquitard(D3) ❑Water-Stained Leaves(69) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Field Observations: Surface water present? ❑Yes ® No Depth(inches): Water table present? ❑Yes ® No Depth(inches): Saturation Present? ❑Yes ONO Depth(inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? ®Yes ❑ No (includes capillary fringe) Describe recorded data(stream guage,monitoring well,aerial photos,etc.)if available. Remarks:Hydrology indicators B6 Surface Soil Cracks,and C3 Oxidized Rhizospheres Along Living Roots were met. Arid West US Army Corps of Engineers Appendix C - Representative Photographs of the Study Area This page intentionally left blank ti ` 4+ 3 0 Z> Above: Photo shows railroad trestle crossing drainage feature, looking west. Below Photo shows evidence of ponding under railroad wra trestle crossing. ENV$RONMENIAt CONSOtIANYS Photographs taken May 17,2013 F Above: Photo showing sample point SP-U-1 in foreground, looking south. This sample point is located within a buried pipeline easement. wra x Below: Photo showing sample point SP-U-2 in foreground, looking north. Abandoned UPRR earthen fNVik C}NMEN1At e�-OhiSUtTANiS berm is on the right. Photographs taken May 17, 2013 Mz� h F Y 2 �k i Above: Photo showing seasonal wetland feature W-3, looking south-southwest. wra Photographs taken May 17,2013 £ ;? t�rtncw, artassr�" This page intentionally left blank Appendix D — Plants Observed Within the Study Area This page intentionally left blank Appendix D. Plants observed by WRA at the Dublin Iron Horse Trail Study Area, May 17, 2013. SCIENTIFIC NAME WETLAND COMMON NAME INDICATOR STATUS -AW Atriplex prostrate fat hen FACW Avena fatua wild oats NL Brassica nigra black mustard NL Bromus diandrus ripgut brome NL Carduus pycnocephalus Italian thistle NL Crypsis schoenoides swamp pricklegrass OBL Cyperus eragrostis nutsedge FACW Distichlis spicata salt grass FAC Festuca perennis Italian rye FAC Foeniculum vulgare fennel FACU Helminthotheca echioides bristly ox-tounge FAC Hordeum marinum ssp. gussoneanum Mediterranean barley FAC Lactuca serriola prickly lettuce FACU Lepidium latifolium broadleaved pepperweed FACW Leymus triticoides beardless lyme grass FAC Melilotus indicus indian sweet-clover FACU Polypogon monspeliensis rabbitsfoot grass FACW Raphanus sativa wild radish NL Rumex crispus curly dock FAC Xanthium strumarium =roughcocklebur FAC D-1 Attachment 3- Acoustic Report City of Dublin Initial Study/Iron Horse Park Project Page 50 August 2013 ROSEN GOLDBERG DER & LEWIT2, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE IMPACT REPORT FOR: Iron Horse Linear Park Dublin, CA RGDL Project#: 13-029 PREPARED FOR: Jerry Haag, Urban Planner 2029 University Avenue Berkeley, CA 94704 PREPARED BY: Alan Rosen Harold S. Goldberg, P.E. DATE: 30 July 2013 1100 Larkspur Landing Circle#375 Larkspur CA 94939% Tel 415 464 0150 Fax 4154640155* RGDLacoustics.com 1 Iron Horse Linear Park, Dublin, CA 30 July Page ge 1 Environmental Noise Impact Report 1. Introduction The proposed project is the development of a new linear park along the Iron Horse Trail and former Union Pacific Railroad tracks extending from the Dublin-San Ramon City Limit Line to just south of Amador Valley Blvd. Although no specific design has been selected by the City, there are a variety of possible uses that are being considered such as children's play areas, outdoor classrooms, picnic areas, and community gardens. The project site is adjacent to residential homes on both sides as well as the existing Dublin High School athletic fields. This report evaluates potential impact of the noise from likely project uses and provides recommendations for noise mitigation measures if noise levels are expected to exceed applicable standards. 2. Environmental Noise Fundamentals Noise can be defined as unwanted sound. It is commonly measured with an instrument called a sound level meter. The sound level meter captures the sound with a microphone and converts it into a number called a sound level. Sound levels are expressed in units of decibels. To correlate the microphone signal to a level that corresponds to the way humans perceive noise, the A-weighting filter is used. A-weighting de-emphasizes low-frequency and very high-frequency sound in a manner similar to human hearing. The use of A-weighting is required by most local General Plans as well as federal and state noise regulations (e.g. Caltrans, EPA, OSHA and HUD). The abbreviation dBA is sometimes used when the A-weighted sound level is reported. Because of the time-varying nature of environmental sound, there are many descriptors that are used to quantify the sound level. Although one individual descriptor alone does not fully describe a particular noise environment, taken together, they can more accurately represent the noise environment. The maximum instantaneous noise level (Lmax) is often used to identify the loudness of a single event such as a car passby or airplane flyover. To express the average noise level the Leq (equivalent noise level) is used. The Leq can be measured over any length of time but is typically reported for periods of 15 minutes to 1 hour. The background noise level (or residual noise level) is the sound level during the quietest moments. it is usually generated by steady sources such as distant freeway traffic. It can be quantified with a descriptor called the L90 which is the sound level exceeded 90 percent of the time. To quantify the noise level over a 24-hour period, the Day/Night Average Sound Level (DNL or Ldn) or Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is used. These descriptors are averages like the Leq except they include a 10 dB penalty during nighttime hours (and a 5 dB penalty during evening hours in the CNEL) to account for people's increased sensitivity during these hours. ROSEN GOLDBERG DER H[ LEWITZ,INC. 1100 Larkspur Landing Circle#375 a Larkspur CA 94939<Tel 415 464 0150 4 Fax 415 464 0155 a RGDLacoustics.com Iron Horse Linear Park, Dublin, CA Page 2 Environmental Noise Impact Report 30 July 2013 In environmental noise, a change in noise level of 3 dB is considered a just noticeable difference. A 5 dB change is clearly noticeable, but not dramatic. A 10 dB change is perceived as a halving or doubling in loudness. 3. Acoustical Criteria 3.1.City of Dublin General Plan The Noise Element of the City's General Plan has policies regarding noise and land use compatibility. Table 1 provides guidelines for the compatibility of land uses with various noise exposures. The City uses the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) descriptor. A CNEL of 60 dBA or less is considered normally acceptable for residential land use. It should be noted that the City's compatibility standards are normally intended to be used for traffic and transit noise. Table 1: Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE(d8) Land Use Category Normally Conditionally Normally Clearly Acceptable Acceptable _Unacceptable _Unacceptable (Noise Insulation) Features Required Residential 60 or less 60-70 70-75 Over 75 Motels,hotels 60 or less 60.70 70.80 Over 80 Schools,churches,nursing 60 or less 60.70 70-80 Over 80 homes Neighborhood parks 60 or less 60.65 65-70 Over 70 Offices: retail commercial 70 or less 70.75 75-80 Over 80 Industrial 70 or less 70.75 Over 75 Conditionally acceptable exposure requires noise insulation features in building design.Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice. 3.2.City of Dublin Noise Ordinance Chapter 5.28 of the City of Dublin's Municipal Code prohibits "...loud, or disturbing, or unnecessary, or unusual or habitual noise or any noise which annoys or disturbs or injures or endangers the health, repose, peace or safety of any reasonable person of normal sensitivity present in the area". The noise ordinance states that it is appropriate to consider the level and character of the noise as well as the level and character of the background noise. Since the City's Noise Ordinance does not contain quantifiable noise level limits, it is not possible to apply the noise ordinance as a threshold for assessing project generated noise in the context of this noise study. ROSEN GOLDBERG DER& LEWITZ,INc. 1100 Larkspur Landing Circle#375* Larkspur CA 94939�Tel 415 464 0150 a Fax 415 464 0155� RGDLacoustics.com 3 Iron Horse Linear Park, Dublin, CA 30 July Page ge 3 Environmental Noise Impact Report 3.3.Increase in Noise The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines require a determination of whether a project will generate a substantial increase in noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. CEQA does not specify a method for determining when a project would cause a significant increase in noise. Likewise, the City of Dublin does not have criteria for determining when a noise increase is significant. A recent FAA Draft Policy' discusses screening and impact thresholds for increases in aircraft noise. These FAA thresholds are consistent with the thresholds that were adopted in CEQA document for the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan.2 Therefore, these thresholds are used to assess the significance of noise increases due to the project as follows — an increase in CNEL is significant if it is; • 5 dBA or greater and future CNEL is less than 60 dBA. or • 3 dBA or greater and future CNEL is 60 dBA or greater and less than 65 dBA. or • 1.5 dBA or greater and future CNEL is 65 dBA or greater. 4. Existing Noise Environment The proposed Park runs along the Iron Horse Regional Trail and Union Pacific Right of Way. The South San Ramon Creek forms the westerly boundary of the proposed Park. Residences are located on both sides of the proposed park with backyards that abut the project site. Along the western side of the site, backyards are about 100 feet from the Iron Horse Trail. On the eastern side, backyards are about 200 feet from the Iron Horse Trail. To quantify the existing noise environment, long-term noise measurements were made for seven consecutive days at two locations (A and B on Figure 1) and short term, 15-minute noise measurements were made at four locations (1 through 4 on Figure 1). The measurement locations were primarily chosen to represent the existing conditions at residences near the proposed project. Figures 2 and 3 show the daily variation in noise levels at each of the long-term monitor locations. In general, average noise levels toward the north (location A) ranged from 45 to 55 dBA (Leg) whereas noise levels on the southern end (location B), near the road, were slightly higher and ranged from about 45 to 60 dBA. FAA Order 1050.1 E, CHG 1, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, 10 March 2006. 2 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR, September 2010, SCH#20100022005. R05EN GOLDBERG DER He LEWITZ,INC. 1100 Larkspur Landing Circle#375+Larkspur CA 94939 Tel 415 464 0150 Fax 415 464 0155 RGDLacoustics.com Iron Horse Linear Park, Dublin, CA Page 4 Environmental Noise Impact Report 30 July 2013 Table 1 shows the results of the short term noise measurements. At location 3, adjacent to homes on the west side of the project site, a dog barking generated a maximum noise level of 51 dBA, whereas a voice on the Iron Horse Trail was 49 dBA. An airplane flyover generated a maximum noise level of 60 dBA. At location 4, a distant truck generated a noise level of 52 dBA whereas a motorcycle generated a maximum level of 58 dBA. Location 4 the sound of kids in the nearby park were 56 to 58 dBA though they were somewhat masked by wind noise which was about 55 dBA. At location 5, near the southern end of the site, distant traffic had a maximum noise level of 52 dBA. Figure 1: Noise Measurement Locations �, y _ x r, ROSEN GOLDBERG DER& LEWITZ,INc. 1100 Larkspur Landing Circle#375 a Larkspur CA 94939 Tel 415 464 0150 Fax 415 464 0155 RGDLacoustics.com Iron Horse Linear Park, Dublin, CA Page 5 Environmental Noise Impact Report 30 July 2013 Figure 2: Long Term Noise Measurement at Location A S.ID� w L 67 d kba" 40 30 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 N 650 b 0 N d'0 C w N dr0 t0 (6 N w 0 65 N 6'0 b b N dd b 60 N w tl b N Wad TFU Fri Sat Sn Nbn TUB V1hd 5'1/13 57113 SIN13 54113 5'5113 56113 57/13 5'8113 Tare of Day Figure 3: Long Term Noise Measurement at Location B 100 F' , , _ _ ; 90 e0 70 t 50 a 40 _ 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 N bri b ld N rd ti fd N dd b (d N td b ld N fd b fd N �0 ti ld N dri b Gj N V\bd TFu Fri Sat S l Ntn TUB V\kd 511/13 57113 53113 5'4113 515113 5613 -97/13 5(8(13 Tirre of Day ROSEN GOLDBERG DER& LEWITZ,INC. 1100 Larkspur Landing Circle#375 4 Larkspur CA 94939 e Tel 415 464 0150 a Fax 415 464 0155 RGDLacoustics.com Iron Horse Linear Park, Dublin, CA Page 6 Environmental Noise Impact Report 30 July 2013 Table 1: Summary of Short-Term, 15 Minute Noise Measurements Location Date /Time A-weighted Sound Level, dBA Leq L10 L50 L90 CNEL* 1 1-May-13 39 41 37 35 51 11:34 a.m. 2 1-May-13 47 49 44 38 52 12:33 a.m. 3 8-May-13 47 48 45 43 51 2:17 p.m. 4 8-May-13 53 54 52 51 57 2:36 p.m. 5 8-May-13 52 54 52 51 56 3:17 p.m. *CNEL calculated based on comparison with simultaneous measurement at 24-hour noise monitor location. 5. Analysis 5.1. Project Generated Noise Noise sources associated with the proposed project would range from those that are typical for the existing trail such as people walking, jogging or biking to new uses such as children's play areas, outdoor classrooms and outdoor picnic areas. Typical maximum noise levels from trail users Qoggers, bikers and people strolling) range from 43 to 60 dBA at a distance of 10 feet. With the proposed project, the trail would meander and be as close as 25 feet from existing homes. Table 2 shows the estimated noise levels from the trail use at backyards of existing residences. Table 2: Estimated Noise Levels from Trail at the Nearest Backyards Noise Source Lmax dBA Bike* 44 Jogger* 44 Voice — normal** 40 Voice — raised** 47 Voice —shout** 70 *Noise Study for Alamo Creek Bike Path, 30 June 2003 **"Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control", 3`d Ed.,Cyril Harris 1998. ROSEN GOLDBERG DER& LEWITZ,INC. 1100 Larkspur Landing Circle#375 7 Larkspur CA 94939 _ Tel 415 464 0150.ti Fax 415 464 0155 ,--RGDLacoustics.com Iron Horse Linear Park, Dublin, CA Page 7 Environmental Noise Impact Report 30 July 2013 Based on the noise measurements that were made for the Alamo Creek Bike Trail project, the Leq due to the trail users would be 43 dBA at a distance of 10 feet from the center of the trail. This corresponds to an Leq of 35 dBA at a distance of 25 feet. If this level of activity occurs from 7 AM to 9 PM, then the DNL would be 34 dBA at the nearest backyards, estimated to be about 25 feet from the trail. For group activities, the level of noise would depend on the number of users and the proximity to homes. For example, a group activity, such as use of a play area where five children are playing continuously for 12 hours a day would generate an Leq of 52 dBA at a distance of 100 feet. The corresponding CNEL would be 49 dBA. 5.2. Impact Assessment 1. Would the proposal result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? The Noise Element of the City of Dublin's General Plan considers a CNEL of 60 dBA or less to be "normally acceptable" for neighborhood parks and residential development. The City's of Dublin's Noise Ordinance (Chapter 5.28) does not contain quantitative noise level limits. Existing noise levels along the project site range from a CNEL of 51 to 57 dBA due to ambient noise and trail use. This is considered "normally acceptable" for both park and residential uses. In the future, the noise from the proposed project will vary, depending upon the specific use and ultimate location of that use with respect to existing residences. For the purposes of this assessment, the uses are divided into two types: Trail use (biking, walking, jogging) and outdoor classrooms/play/picnic areas. The use of the bike trail would be similar to current use though the distance of the main trail to homes would decrease since the trail would likely meander from east to west (as opposed to its current location about 100 to 200 feet from homes). Under the scenario where a trail comes within about 25 feet from a residential backyard, the CNEL would be 34 dBA. A CNEL of 34 dBA is well within the City's "normally acceptable" level of 60 dBA for residential use. ROSEN GOLDBERG DER& LEWITZ,INC. 1100 Larkspur Landing Circle#375-Larkspur CA 94939®Tel 415 464 0150 4- Fax 415 464 0155. RGDLacoustics.com Iron Horse Linear Park, Dublin, CA Page 8 Environmental Noise Impact Report 30 July 2013 The precise location of the outdoor classroom/play/picnic areas is not known at this time, but the concept site plan indicates that a likely distance would be about 100 feet from existing homes. An outdoor classroom, play or picnic areas with five children playing continuously, throughout the day, would generate a CNEL of 49 dBA at a distance of 100 feet. If the number of children increased to 10, the CNEL would increase to 52 dBA. Both these levels are considered "normally acceptable" for residential use according to the City's General Plan. In order to generate noise levels greater than those considered normally acceptable (e.g. greater than 60 dBA (CNEL)) there would need to be about 75 children using the outdoor area if it is located 100 feet from the homes or the play area would need to be closer than 37 feet from the homes if there were only 10 children playing. In these instances, noise from the outdoor classroom/play/picnic area would be considered a significant impact. Mitigation 1: Restrict classroom, play and picnic areas so they are no closer than 37 feet from existing residences. 2. Would the proposal result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above existing levels without the project? The contribution in noise from the use of the trail alone would increase the CNEL at the closest residences by less than 1 dBA. Therefore, the increase in noise from the use of the trail will result in a less than significant impact. However, noise from the outdoor classroom/play/picnic areas could increase the CNEL in excess of 5 dBA if located within 75 feet of residences (presuming 10 children playing). If there are 5 children playing, the distance decreases to 55 feet. This is a significant impact. Mitigation 2: See Mitigation 1 ROSEN GOLDBERG DER& LEWITZ,INC. 1100 Larkspur Landing Circle#375 t Larkspur CA 94939$Tel 415 464 0150�Fax 415 464 0155- RGDLacoustics.com September 5, 2013 City of Dublin Iron Horse Nature Park and Open Space (Linear Park) Project PLPA-2013-00044 Response to Environmental Comments Introduction The City of Dublin issued a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for this project on August 5, 2013 for a 30-day period to ensure California Environmental Quality Act compliance. The project being analyzed in the MND is the construction of a linear park, potential South San Ramon Creek realignment, and potential Iron Horse Regional Trail realignment on approximately 35 acres of land (12 acres to be owned by the City of Dublin as the public park and 23 acres owned by Zone 7 Water Agency). Proposed uses are primarily passive, but would also include some areas of higher activity recreation uses. Pedestrian and bicycle connections would be made with surrounding neighborhoods and Dublin High School. The development of the park may also include realignment of the Iron Horse Trail and the existing Zone 7 watercourse within the park. Construction of the park would require approval of a General Plan Amendment and rezoning by the City of Dublin as well as an amendment to the City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan. The Iron Horse Nature Park and Open Space (Linear Park) is located in the approximate center of Dublin, generally located between Amador Valley Boulevard and the Dublin-San Ramon City Limit Line along the Iron Horse Trail and former Union Pacific Railroad tracks. Changes and Modifications to the Initial Study The following changes to the Initial Study are made by reference and included in the document. 1. Exhibit 3 contained in the Initial Study will be changed from a view of the Proposed Park Site to the Conceptual Park Master Plan that has been developed for the project site. 2. Paragraph 4 on page 4 will be amended to read"A small vehicle parking lot with a maximum capacity for 15 vehicles is expected to be provided adjacent to Amador Valley Boulevard in the location shown in the Conceptual Park Master Plan." EXHIBIT A-2 TO ATTACHMENT 2 City of Dublin Page 2 Response to Comments-Iron Horse Nature Park and Open Space(Linear Park) September 5,2013 Comment Letters and Responses Two comment letters were received, as follows: Letter No. Commenter Date A-Local Agencies A-1 Dublin San Ramon Services District 8/15/13 B-Interested Persons B-1 John Whitehead 8/27/13 Copies of these letters are annotated and attached. Each response corresponds numerically to the number of responses. City of Dublin Page 3 Response to Comments-Iron Horse Nature Park and Open Space(Linear Park) September 5,2013 Annotated Comment Letters 0811512013 15:58 P.0011001 - � O DUBLIN 7051 Dublin Boulevard SAN Dublin,California 94568 SERVICES N a IP,��,,,,,, Phone:925 828 0515 a toO ,l L, FAX:925 829 1180 DISTIUCT `RMC9 1953 www.darad.com August 15,2013 Via Fax Kristi Bascom,Principal Planner City of Dublin, Community Development Dept. 100 Civic Plaza Dublin,CA 94568 Subject: Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Iron Horse Linear Park(PLPA-2013-00044) Dear Ms.Bascom: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Iron Horse Linear Park Project(Notice of Intent). This proposed project is within the service area where Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) currently provides potable water service, recycled water service and wastewater collection service. DSRSD has identified no impacts or necessary mitigations beyond those identified in the Notice of Intent. We noted that the Initial Study states, "Potable water and sewer lines would need to be extended to portions of the future park to support public restrooms. Recycled water lines would also be extended into portions of the project site for irrigation of future landscaped areas." We also noted that plans for this park would include flow restrictors to minimize potable water consumption and "low flow" toilets to minimize future wastewater flow. This is Mitigation Measure UTIL-1. DSRSD agrees that development of Iron Horse Linear Park will have a less than significant impact on utilities and service systems with this mitigation measure. We also note the proposed use of recycled water on landscape irrigation to conserve potable water supplies. DSRSD does not deem any additional mitigation will be needed beyond those specified in the Notice of Intent for the District's potable water,recycled water or wastewater collection services to the community. We feel that the joint planning effort done between the City of Dublin and DSRSD has successfully identified those areas of concern and planned reasonable solutions to those areas. Sincerely, ..f' . STANLEY OLOD ,P.E. Associate Engineer SK/ST cc: Dave Requa,DSRSD Rhodora Biagtan,DSRSD DuOan Ban Raman SeMan DlatrW Is a MOC BndW Received T`i m e$ Aug. 15. *52 013°" 3: 5 8 P M'°N o. 10 3 0'f DuDlin\20 MCommeats on initlal Study Mit Nea Dec-Iron Horse Linear Park-9-2-I3.doo 2013Aug27 RECEIVED Kristi Bascom AUG 2 7 2013 Principal Planner City of Dublin DUBLIN PLANTING Community Development Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin,CA 94568 Dear Ms. Bascom, Here are my comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Iron Horse Linear Park. My name is John Whitehead,and in 19981 purchased my residence at the end of Conestoga Lane in Dublin. My home borders directly on the County-owned Kinder-Morgan pipeline property just south of Amador Valley Blvd,very close to the proposed traiihead facilities which are expected to include restrooms and a small parking lot. Comment 1 While I am very much in favor of the proposed park, I am concerned that the potential negative impacts upon me personally could be unfair and greater than on other residents near the park. I look forward to enjoying a reasonable degree of privacy for decades to come,in addition to benefiting from the -proximity to this wonderful new park. My greatest concerns are the potential for future growth of the parking lot toward my residence,and the potential for tobacco smoke to blow directly toward me. My concerns are explained in detail below,along with suggestions for improving the Mitigated Negative Declaration document(PLPA-2013-00044). Comment 2 Other than general site diagrams to indicate the park location,the entire document Is only words,so a plan (map)for the park should be included to support various statements that Impacts will be low, It is impossible to tell,for example,how far the parking lot and restrooms would be from the fence on my side. Comment 3 , A"small vehicle narking lot"is mentioned on page 4. Please Indicate the maximum number of parking spaces, i.e.15 spaces as recently explained to me by Rosemary Alex of the Dublin Parks Department. Also please add a statement that the parking lot borders will remain at least 125 feet(what's the right number?)from existing residential properties. Comment 4 Park hours are indicated as sunrise to sunset,also on page 4. There needs to be an explanation of how the hours would be enforced. In particular,there should be a means to prevent use of the parking lot at night. While the likelihood of people loitering after dark might be low, I presently enjoy cool evening j breezes through my screen door and windows,without any smoke from tobacco or diesel engines for example,and currently there Is no localized noise from people talking or cars coming and going. i i Comment 5 Item 1(a)(Aesthetics pages 14 and 24).says there would be no impact on a scenic vista. Presently,when standing in my open doorway, I regularly enjoy the serene and very wide view of the distant hills to the south and west because my eye level Is above the fence. The view from my doorway and windows includes open space and welcome trail users in the foreground,plus rooftops of houses beyond 300 feet away. Therefore,I feel that Item 1(a)should be changed to Indicate that vistas are not"limited,"and that mitigation will be done. The Parks Department plan shows a row of trees that would block my view of the parking lot and restrooms. At the same time,I would not want those trees to be large enough and close enough to me to block my view of the distant hills. As noted already as mitigation for Item 1(d),I look forward to not having any lights shining directly toward my residence. Comment 6 Item 3(Air Quality, pages 15 and 25-26)should be changed to point out that outdoor tobacco smoke has been defined as a nuisance by the City of Dublin(Municipal Code 5.56.160). It should be stated that the new park will be entirely"non-smoking,"with a plan for signage and enforcement. Presently I enjoy clean air coming across the vacant land with the prevailing breezes,while tobacco smoke is full of toxins that immediately give me headaches, Even New York City for example has outlawed tobacco smoke in all public parks(signs are posted),and there is similarly no excuse to condone It in Dublin. Merely going with the flow of existing law is not good enough,because existing law(5.56,050.C.2) permits tobacco smoke in parks larger than 8 acres(per the definition of"community park"). Presumably there was an assumption that residences are far away from such large parks,but that is obviously not true for the long and narrow Iron Horse linear Park,despite being larger than 8 acres. A related concern is that sometimes wind is lined up perfectly with the Iron Horse Trail,so trail users cannot escape the plume of smoke from a tobacco user on or near the trail. Signage prohibiting tobacco use is very helpful,so that concerned citizens can simply point to the signs instead of having a mere "difference of opinion"with tobacco users. When enjoying the Iron Horse Trail north of Amador Valley Blvd.,I have encountered underage people smoking tobacco on their walk to Dublin High School,which should never happen. Comment 7 Item 12(Noise.pages 20 and 37-42 plus Attachment 3)should explain that the measured noise on the site is mostly continuous smooth background sound from distant freeways. It needs to be acknowledged that the local noise of cars coming and going and revving up engines in a parking lot is a completely different kind of noise which does have an Impact,even if the decibel level is the same as or even less than the distant background noise. The appropriate mitigation is to ensure that hours are limited by parking lot gates or other enforcement,and that there is no future growth of the"small vehicle parking lot" Item 16(f)(Transportation/Traffic pages 21-22 and 43-44)says there will be no impact on the safety or Comment 8 I i performance of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. This item should state that the park plan Includes some changes to the Iron Horse Trail,which is a regional transportation corridor for bicycle traffic. Mitigation I for proposed changes should be done based on outreach to residents and trail users,given that many people bicycle on the Iron Horse Trail with a need to arrive at work on time, i i Comment 9 Item 18(b)(Mandatory Findings of Significance oases 23 and 45-46)says there will be no impacts from the effects of probable future projects. Please Include a clear statement in this Item that future expansion of the parking lot will not be accepted,or at least say that possible expansion is not covered by this Mitigated Negative Declaration. My concern is that if the park becomes popular as expected, there will be community pressure to expand the parking lot toward my residence,i.e.a"probable future project." In conclusion.thank you for reading my comments and for Incorporating my concerns into the planning for the Iron Horse Linear Park. I look forward to all the positive aspects of this future park,including meeting friendly people who are using the park near my residence for wholesome purposes with minimal negative impacts. Sincerely, aVa _ John Whitehead 6627 Conestoga Lane Dubl€n, CA 94568 (925)828-1824 (925)423-4847(at work,best for messages) i f City of Dublin Page 8 Response to Comments-Iron Horse Nature Park and Open Space(Linear Park) September 5,2013 The following are responses to each of the comments. Letter from DSRSD: Comment: The District supports the proposed project and agrees that the development of the Iron Horse Nature Park and Open Space (Linear Park) will have a less than significant impact on utilities and service systems with the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures. Response: DSRSD support of the project is noted and no further response is needed. Letter from John Whitehead Comment 1: The commenter is concerned about growth (expansion) of the parking lot and the potential for tobacco smoke to blow towards the commenter's dwelling. Response: The parking lot designed for the park will accommodate a maximum of 15 parking spaces. Should any future expansion be proposed to the parking area that is not in substantial conformance with the Conceptual Park Master Plan (Revised Exhibit 3 to the MND), future analysis and an accompanying CEQA document would need to be completed. Comment 2: The commenter notes that a site plan for the park should be included in the document to better demonstrate potential impacts. Response: City of Dublin Staff have been working with park designers and the community to select a site development plan for the park that best balances anticipated recreation opportunities for the public and privacy needs for the residents closest to the proposed park. Exhibit 3 of the MND has been revised to provide more detail on the resulting proposed park design. The Planned Development Ordinance that is recommended for approval describes the future permitted uses in the park, which include "a public park with a mix of low-intensity, passive recreation uses near existing residential areas and a few nodes of more active uses at key locations, public open space, stream corridor, and a regional multi-use trail." Comment 3: The commenter requests confirmation that the maximum number of parking spaces constructed as part of the park would be 15 and that there would be a minimum 125 foot buffer from existing residential properties. Resl)onse: The MND will be amended to state that "A small vehicle parking lot with a maximum capacity for 15 vehicles is expected to be provided adjacent to Amador Valley Boulevard in the location shown in the Conceptual Park Master Plan." City of Dublin Page 9 Response to Comments-Iron Horse Nature Park and Open Space(Linear Park) September 5,2013 Comment 4: How will hours of operation, identified as sunrise to sunset, be enforced? There should be a means of preventing use of the proposed parking lot during nighttime hours to minimize noise from diesel engines. There is currently no localized noise from people talking or vehicles? Response: The posted public park hours will be sunrise to sunset. As with any other public park in the City of Dublin, violations are subject to enforcement by Dublin Police Services. Comment 5: The commenter is concerned that future park improvements, specifically a row of trees, could block his views of distant hills from his house. Response: Consistent with CEQA, the issue of potential blockage of views is limited to blockage of views from public parks, playgrounds and other vista points, not private dwellings. Therefore there is no need to change the conclusion of the Initial Study. As the specific design details are developed at the time of park construction, City Staff will take a look at the tree species to be planted along the park perimeter. Comment 6: A concern is raised regarding potential air quality impacts from tobacco smoke affecting the commenter. Response: The City of Dublin prohibits smoking in any City park. "No Smoking" signs will be posted and violations are subject to enforcement by Dublin Police Services. The Iron Horse Regional Trail is a facility operated by the East Bay Regional Park District, which their own policies related to smoking. Comment 7: The commenter requests the noise section of the Initial Study should explain that the existing noise measurements taken on the site mostly consist of smooth background noise from distant freeways. The anticipated noise of cars coming and going and revving engines in the proposed parking lot does have an impact, even if the decibel level is the same or less than distant background noise. The suggested mitigation is to ensure that park hours of operation are limited by parking gates or other enforcement and there is no enlargement of the proposed parking lot. Response: The acoustic report prepared for the project by the firm of RGDL (Attachment 3 to the Initial Study) includes a brief discussion of the sources of existing noise in the neighborhood that was recorded in early May, 2013. Page 4 of the RGDL report notes that a motorcycle passing the project area generated a noise event of 58 decibels (DBA). This noise level is generally equivalent or perhaps noisier than a standard passenger vehicle, so that at a measured event of 58 decibels, this noise is lower than the City noise standard of 60 decibels for residential areas. Therefore, future noise from the proposed small (15-vehicle) parking lot is not anticipated to be a significant noise impact or community nuisance. However, if a consistent and on-going noise issue becomes apparent at the park site, Parks and Community Services Staff shall be notified to investigate if there are City of Dublin Page 10 Response to Comments-Iron Horse Nature Park and Open Space(Linear Park) September 5,2013 operational issues. Individual violators are subject to enforcement by Dublin Police Services. Comment 8: The commenter notes that these could be some changes to the current alignment of the Iron Horse Trail. There should be mitigation measures included based on outreach to residents and trail users of the proposed changes since many people on bicycle use the Trail for commuting and need to arrive at work on time. Response: The Initial Study notes that there could be minor changes to the existing alignment of the iron Horse Trail to better integrate the function of the Trail with the proposed park. However, any changes to the alignment of the Iron Horse Trail would be minor and would not significantly impact local commuters and times to work. Comment 9: The commenter requests that a clear statement be made that a future expansion of the proposed parking lot will not be accepted, or at lease say that possible expansion is not covered by the Mitigated Negative Declaration. If the park becomes popular, there could be community pressure to expand the parking lot toward the commenter's residence. Response: The MND will be amended to state that "A small vehicle parking lot with a maximum capacity for 15 vehicles is expected to be provided adjacent to Amador Valley Boulevard in the location shown in the Conceptual Park Master Plan." � N � a o u cz o � . .� o O gg uQ 5 QCS to � ICI O '" 00 v UcliQ Chu C) bz v o o 2 v 2 4. on b0 o v ,4 4- d Q. 0) bA by •� Q" v O v CZ p u TS '� s. O O v m u O m N N cz p +, N 7j R+ V C cn CU O m u O a� Q" ! ;.., M Q" , p O O v ¢ U v o � r Q + O u cz EXHIBIT A-3 TO ATTACHMENT 2 N O 01 ca IL Li O CcS V 'C1 bA 4L �+ � bA .0 O A �Or �i bA is Q O ^CS � N sue, Q) CIS cn M '� — O +� " Q. u �.7 N IV u 00 � ++ v ' b.0 m m m . CZ u Y bA vOi '� ¢ N v ,S] bA 'u 4; p 4, O T3 d O C c 2 O O _ 'S O '_ .O N .O "� A � � O O u � O � � w r Q v m � G u O u m > m , cn �, +, p, M cn CU=O -cl U u 2 O m mfg P, '- � U M m m i� CL O C� V V O o bA u u u bA O v O .0 cz R-+ °u bD L'" °u bA o a w v v � x QuQQ QuQQ bA � ° •U � U � ;j o v O QUcnQ Chu � w O O m v; O 't� p m o c O O N .4 O O2) xi N N E O W e1 uo ¢+ + u c� N C O u C3 m O N p Q 0p Q c p � v � o � a� r m -o v '" a, 3 Z 4 w �a Q u .2 v °v o o 3 � b �w v Q• x v 3 0 �0 . Y o o .0 o � �° oil � � LO M ti p w U r. 5 y o U v -W s c`o 0 .fl + P.U W '+4 o tC F cb 0 tt +, cb 4. ;, :- A bIJ C!) � O` � U a) CL LO O .r RS � U ..w i. i O � w O � O � � m c� o °v r m v " O ::s V) 3 � a CauCaQ I � I ) U -- C� C5 U cn CS + cb by O Q) N N aJ v ;� . ca — aJ m O v p i w '�3 O «S O O O of E v 'C7 L3 C7 7:� aJ i, m y �, r c� :0 y ca C5 41 3 +�. U CM aJ "n -5 W ca u a) u o bO a CZ v O o aJ p E� v _p v S�, O m � cC O .� v cn 3 -� 4, a o N v a� u v p v 'C o 4, m cn .� S. cn a1 O o, s� u O O c •c m m m u p + v Ln CA 4-1 w aJ p o v v 2 is o v u a ul -Cj ca v, O fl Cn 0 U a� c� 0 c� v UO y � v ' �. v to tC c� 3 w uu -0 '7� to uu I o v � � QUQQ c I � U ^, o v -- L� Cl U US u O + O U a v «t a) C1 L bA " s,cz u a)D m a) O (z C) � Q cz aJ � � ( � u � � � bA U d ee - v v o o .� � cnn z o o m bCU O U . �o 0 LO C) U)Q" u o w v uu u ai �« O p m o c C3 N U p b0 — aJ "" QJ n5 aJ bbA -� U ^,_S �� a1 GO� O +, m �, .., m '� 10 aw 0 ., ca m a) N as� O — — m (1) m m 0 v tq a� t; bO � bil " cr i 3 w u 'd bA u C � � � QUcnQ C u +� v O u (z a m — m 0 f 4 O pad y '�� -� •� �, °; Q. '� .� v 3 c'n Q L--+ , -p "� s N N Q w co cu cz Ca ll::l aui u ¢+ p '�' u au S�, `�• V p �H-1 p o, 'L� u Q, Q CL ,u r- I ;V� ^U w CZ M LO In cis a)cC p W 0 u — x sue, u �O •v Lu" C3 N .` .tm CL 'd cn v U Z v + O �s a1� u ObA co c� �+, cn T3 Z o W �.ILI w +� O cz m a) 0 U a� rn c� a a 0 u u O o v v v � uu u .. m CA �' .-' C00 0 ;.4 QUcn Q U US Q Q U cn u ° CL ct o r � '� o °p o o N rn a)14, Qj o Q, w ct Y O U U O .0 O p w +- u ° ap G O d v w 5 v o O O 0 O O Q 'aJ u � u cn b.0 0 U U U U 00 i m cd 41 LA Ln lu U U-) Qj 75 175 aj �t- u U-) u U-) 11. 0 cu CL) cz cz a) .C5 ;� '.6 u 75 75 a, C) 4, a,. Uz U 4u u cz m — •- C) . C) ct M C) a) m cz C) -4- E u 4-J U-) C) 0 75 75 Or_ a) C) 6 u -d V) Iz a, blo (A C) CA 0 C) 0 u a) US m u C) (:) — �-4 r, � v) a- cz -u b.0 ca �5 i V 4 > u C) a) Q) X V-) u m ca cu 0 M \ § � % � « � � \ cu _ '�7 0 u = § .§ ? \ © ) $ \ \ d 2 § .§ P-4 \ � { Q � � _ � Q u 2 = / � ° § CP ƒ § ' ® _ IL � = c 0) \ $ \ k 2 k U C / 2 § k w } C c ) 2 ƒ2 2 u a ƒ / k / / / $ k / / \ 'ƒ / § \ e u $ I < t $ ƒ,ƒ2 '� t { / / < u . a RESOLUTION NO. 13-xx A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE FUTURE IRON HORSE NATURE PARK AND OPEN SPACE PROJECT APNS 941-2768-006-02, 941-0190-001-01, 941-0190-001-05, 941-0191-095-00, 941-0205-001- 12, and 941-0205-001-63 (partial) AND FINDING THE RELATED ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65402 PLPA-2013-00044 WHEREAS, the City Council has entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement to acquire approximately 12.13 acres of land from Union Pacific Railroad with the intent of developing a public park; and WHEREAS, Zone 7 Water Agency owns approximately 22.8 acres adjacent to the proposed future park site that may be restored for and enhanced for open space and stream corridor uses; and WHEREAS, the implementation of the future park project requires a General Plan Amendment to re-designate the proposed park site from having no General Plan land use designation to Parks/Public Recreation and to re-designate the Zone 7 parcels from having a split General Plan land use designation of Undesignated/Stream Corridor to Open Space/Stream Corridor; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act certain projects are required to be reviewed for environmental impacts and when applicable, environmental documents prepared; and WHEREAS, on September 10 2013, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution incorporated herein by reference, recommending that the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the General Plan Amendment and related rezoning; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code section 65402, the Planning Commission is required to report on conformity with the general plan for City acquisitions of real property for park purposes ; and WHEREAS, consistent with Government Code section 65352.3, the City notified the tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission of the opportunity to consult with the City on the proposed General Plan amendment. None of the contacted tribes requested a consultation within the 90-day statutory consultation period and no further action is required under section 65352.3; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the General Plan Amendment (and related rezoning) on September 10, 2013 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and ATTACHMENT WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve the General Plan Amendment; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, in accordance with Government Code section 65402 the Planning Commission does find that the proposed acquisition of real property for park purposes is in conformance with the Dublin General Plan, as proposed to be amended. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Dublin Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council adopt a Resolution approving a General Plan Amendment for the future Iron Horse Nature Park and Open Space Project, with the draft City Council Resolution attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of September 2013 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Assistant Community Development Director 2 of 2 RESOLUTION NO. XX - 13 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE FUTURE IRON HORSE NATURE PARK AND OPEN SPACE PROJECT APNS 941-2768-006-02, 941-0190-001-01, 941-0190-001-05, 941-0191-095-00, 941-0205-001-12, and 941-0205-001-63 (partial) PLPA-2013-00044 WHEREAS, the City Council has entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement to acquire approximately 12.13 acres of land from Union Pacific Railroad with the intent of developing a public park; and WHEREAS, Zone 7 Water Agency owns approximately 22.8 acres adjacent to the proposed future park site that may be restored for and enhanced for open space and stream corridor uses; and WHEREAS, the implementation of the future park project requires a General Plan Amendment to re-designate the proposed park site from having no General Plan land use designation to Parks/Public Recreation and to re-designate the Zone 7 parcels from having a split General Plan land use designation of Undesignated/Stream Corridor to Open Space/Stream Corridor; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act certain projects are required to be reviewed for environmental impacts and when applicable, environmental documents prepared; and WHEREAS, on September 10 2013, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 13- XX, incorporated herein by reference, recommending that the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the General Plan Amendment and related rezoning; and WHEREAS, WHEREAS, consistent with Government Code section 65352.3, the City notified the tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission of the opportunity to consult with the City on the proposed General Plan amendment. None of the contacted tribes requested a consultation within the 90-day statutory consultation period and no further action is required under section 65352.3; and WHEREAS, on September 10, 2013, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the Project and adopted Resolution 13-xx recommending that the City Council approve a General Plan Amendment for the future Iron Horse Nature Park and Open Space Project, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, on , 2013, the City Council 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 , 2013 and incorporated herein by reference was submitted recommending that the City Council approve a General Plan Amendment for the future Iron Horse Nature Park and Open Space Project; and EXHIBIT A TO ATTACHMENT 3 WHEREAS, the City Council did review and consider the Mitigated Negative Declaration, all said reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth prior to taking action on the Project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Dublin City Council does hereby approve the General Plan Amendment for the future Iron Horse Nature Park and Open Space Project, based on findings that the amendment is in the public interest and that the General Plan as so amended will remain internally consistent. The land use changes apply to the individual parcels as follows: Parcel No. Size Owner General Plan land use (acres) Current Proposed 941-2768-006-02 12.13 Union Undesignated Parks/Public Recreation Pacific 941-0190-001-01 3.97 Zone 7 Undesignated and Stream Corridor Open Space and Stream Corridor 941-0190-001-05 8.83 Zone 7 Undesignated and Stream Corridor Open Space and Stream Corridor 941-0191-095-00 1.99 Zone 7 Undesignated and Stream Corridor Open Space and Stream Corridor 941-0205-001-12 4.31 Zone 7 Undesignated and Stream Corridor Open Space and Stream Corridor 941-0205-001-63 3.72 Zone 7 Undesignated and Stream Corridor Open Space and Stream Corridor (partial) est. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall take effect thirty days after the date of adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of 2013 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk G:WM20131PLPA-2013-00044 Iron Horse Park GPAIPC Mtg 09.10.20130tt 3 Ex A CCReso GPA.doc RESOLUTION NO. 13-xx A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE REZONING 12.13 ACRES OF FORMER UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT TO THE IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT AND APPROVE THE RELATED STAGE 1 AND 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE IRON HORSE NATURE PARK AND OPEN SPACE PROJECT APN 941-2768-006-02, PLPA-2013-00044 WHEREAS, the City Council has entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement to acquire approximately 12.13 acres of land from Union Pacific Railroad with the intent of developing a public park; and WHEREAS, Zone 7 Water Agency owns approximately 22.8 acres adjacent to the proposed future park site that may be restored for and enhanced for open space. and stream corridor uses; and WHEREAS, the implementation of the future park project requires a companion General Plan Amendment to re-designate the proposed park site from having no General Plan land use designation to Parks/Public Recreation and to re-designate the Zone 7 parcels from having a split General Plan land use designation of Undesignated/Stream Corridor to Open Space/Stream Corridor; and WHEREAS, the implementation of the future park project requires that the park site be rezoned from "Unclassified" to "Planned Development" while the Zone 7 parcels did not require any rezoning action; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act certain projects are required to be reviewed for environmental impacts and when applicable, environmental documents prepared; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the General Plan Amendment and Planned Development Rezone on September 10, 2013 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a Resolution approving a General Plan Amendment and an ordinance rezoning 12.13 acres of Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way adjacent to the Iron Horse Regional Trail to a Planned Development Zoning District and approve the related Stage 1/2 Development Plan for the Iron Horse Nature Park and Open Space Project; and WHEREAS, on September 10, 2013, following the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 13-XX, incorporated herein by reference, recommending that the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the General Plan Amendment and PD rezoning; and adopted Resolution 13-XX, incorporated herein by reference, recommending that the City Council approve the General Plan Amendment; and ATTACHMENT 4 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did review and consider the Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan, Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, 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 adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance (Attached as Exhibit A) rezoning 12.13 acres of former Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way adjacent to the Iron Horse Regional Trail to a Planned Development Zoning District and approve the related Stage 1/2 Development Plan for the Iron Horse Nature Park and Open Space Project, based on findings, including but not limited to, that the Planned Development zoning and project as a whole is consistent and in conformance with the General Plan as proposed, is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Planned Development zoning district, and that development of the Iron Horse Nature Park and Open Space Project will be harmonious and compatible with existing and future development in the surrounding area. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 10th day of September 2013 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Assistant Community Development Director G:IPLPA-2013-00044 1ron Horse Park GPAIPC Mtg 09.10.2013M 3 PC Reso Ord.doc ORDINANCE NO. XX— 13 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN AMENDING THE ZONING MAP TO REZONE 12.13 ACRES OF FORMER UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT TO THE IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT AND APPROVING THE RELATED STAGE 1 AND 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE IRON HORSE NATURE PARK AND OPEN SPACE PROJECT APN 941-2768-006-02, PLPA-2013-00044 The Dublin City Council does ordain as follows: SECTION 1: Findings A. Pursuant to Section 8.32.070 of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council finds as follows. 1. The Iron Horse Nature Park and Open Space Project ("the Project") PD-Planned Development zoning meets the purpose and intent of Chapter 8.32 in that it provides a comprehensive development plan that creates a desirable use of land that is sensitive to surrounding land uses by virtue of the layout and design of the site plan. 2. Development of the Iron Horse Nature Park and Open Space Project under the PD- Planned Development zoning will be harmonious and compatible with existing and future development in the surrounding area in that the site will provide new recreational and open space opportunities for residents in the vicinity and will also help the City maintain the established ratio of five acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents. B. Pursuant to Sections 8.120.050.A and B of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council finds as follows. 1. The PD-Planned Development zoning for the Iron Horse Nature Park and Open Space Project will be harmonious and compatible with existing and potential development in the surrounding area in that the Conceptual Park Master Plan has taken into account sensitive adjacencies and will provide a wide range of amenities to the surrounding neighborhoods. 2. The project site conditions were documented in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and those site challenges that were identified can be designed around as reflected in the adopted mitigation measures so as to not have them present an impediment to utilization of the site for public purposes. There are no major physical or topographic constraints and thus the site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the Iron Horse Nature Park and Open Space Project approved through the PD zoning. 3. The 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 health, safety and welfare in that the project will comply with all applicable development regulations and 1 EXHIBIT A TO ATTACHMENT 4 • i Milk so- ♦ ♦, sr a s / k 1 1111 lav .7 •►•n►AQk llo, ri tires C''"' r �la10:.451/■kal iiiiiil!f i G#.a/ C� a11k11;�\ rV, ♦ ►.Ir•ice, r vu /■/rr /1►/1 ,11111111«-#{►D �� II�Ilsi ./ ■ ��!�ln+ l�. :ar 11► 1i►*as*1'i�st•�ri�s,`�I♦ir�� ��rh#, ♦a«` r •�.f■1 • . s• 11N► �a ♦ r a,rs#r .► I Za r■' 1,, • . rar r rlt ar,a{{# O ♦j' # I♦ ♦ I 1r 41## '04's _r �."Fle,,1+,,,••111,, eel rr rr,r 1/ ■� :A '�,•#M ..� ,�" i 1111�Itf,-,r A.r� �� SECTION 3. The regulations for the use, development, improvement, and maintenance of the Property are set forth in the following Stage 1/2 Development Plan for the Project area, which is hereby approved. Any amendments to the Stage 1/2 Development Plan shall be in accordance with section 8.32.080 of the Dublin Municipal Code or its successors. Stage 1/2 Development Plan for the Iron Horse Nature Park and Open Space Project This is a Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan pursuant to Chapter 8.32 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. This Development Plan meets all the requirements for both a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan and is adopted as part of the PD-Planned Development rezoning for the Iron Horse Nature Park and Open Space Project, PLPA-2013-00044. The PD-Planned Development District and this Stage 1/2 Development Plan provides flexibility to encourage innovative development while ensuring that the goals, policies, and action programs of the General Plan and provisions of Chapter 8.32 of the Zoning Ordinance are satisfied. 1. Zoning. The Zoning for the subject property is PD-Planned Development (PLPA-2013- 00044). 2. Statement of Permitted Uses. The permitted uses include a public park with a mix of low- intensity, passive recreation uses near existing residential areas with a few nodes of more active uses at key locations, public open space, stream corridor, and a regional multi-use trail. 3. Stage 1 and 2 Site Plan. The Conceptual Park Master Plan (serving as the Stage 1 and 2 Site Plan) is a schematic depiction of the location of the proposed uses on the site. Minor adjustments and refinements to the Conceptual Park Master Plan are permitted once the project moves forward to a final park design (Final Preferred Iron Horse Nature Park and Open Space Master Plan), site improvement plans, and construction drawings, but the final design must be in substantial conformance with the Stage 1 and 2 Site Plan. 4. Site area, proposed densities, and development regulations. The total site area for the Planned Development Zoning District is 12.13 acres. Development of buildings that are appropriate to a public park are allowed in accordance with the citywide Parks and Recreation Master Plan and the Park Master Plan for this site. 5. Phasing Plan. The future 12.13 acre park site is expected to be graded, improved, and constructed as a whole, but the proposed project is not currently in the five-year Capital Improvement Program budget. 6. Master Neighborhood Landscaping Plan. Not applicable. 7. Consistency with General Plan and any applicable Specific Plan. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan (as amended). 8. Inclusionary Zoning Regulations. The Inclusionary Zoning Regulations do not regulate non-residential projects, so therefore this is not applicable. 9. Aerial Photo. An aerial photo is on file. 10.Architectural Standards. Any future building shall be designed to be compatible with the main use of the project area as a public park and shall be designed in accordance 3 with the citywide Parks and Recreation Master Plan and the Conceptual Park Master Plan for this site. 11.Development Standards. Any future development on the project site shall be designed in accordance with the citywide Parks and Recreation Master Plan and the Conceptual Park Master Plan for this site. 12.Preliminary Landscape Plan. Because this is a future park site, the Site Plan and Preliminary Landscape Plan are the same exhibit. 13.Compliance with adopted Mitigation Measures. Development of the park shall comply with all applicable action programs and mitigation measures of the Iron Horse Nature Park and Open Space Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. SECTION 4. The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in at least three (3) public places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code of the State of California. SECTION 5. This ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days from and after its passage. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin, on this day of 2013, by the following votes: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 4 19 82 SB 343 Senate Bill 343 mandates supplemental materials that have been received by the Planning Department that relate to an agenda item after the agenda packets have been distributed to the Planning Commission be available to the public. This document will also be available in the Planning Department and on the City's Website. The attached document was received in the Planning Department after distribution of the September 10, 2013 Planning Commission meeting agenda packet. 09.10.13 • Rosemary Alex From: Cheryl Rowe<cheryl.rowe @sbcglobal.net> Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 4:32 PM To: Rosemary Alex Subject: Re: Iron Horse Trail-Public Hearing Notice Dear Rosemary, I'm sorry I will not be able to attend tonight's hearing. I was inspired to write the following poem after last month's meeting. It would mean the world to me if you read it to the group. For many years, before moving to Stagecoach Rd., I parked my car on Amador and rollerbladed, rode my bike, jogged, or walked down the trail. I am one of the "strangers" who would visit this area. Ever since I was a little girl I dreamed I'd grow up and have a nice big yard, with trees and a garden, a hammock or a swing, and a picnic table. Now, age 41, a single local teacher, the bidding wars on houses have kept me out of them. However, I live in a lovely condo with a concrete balcony overlooking a parking lot. And I'm very fortunate to have moved up in the world. I no longer have to drive here to enjoy the trail. Since I have no yard, to hear of this plan elated me because now I can enjoy what many homeowners with yards can enjoy: an outdoor space, a sanctuary, a garden, a park bench, a beautiful place to walk and contemplate, and listen to the birds, frogs, 1 - . • and crickets. These spaces are for all of us those with houses, and those without. For "strangers" like me. Look around-- who will use the space? Mostly people like us who care very deeply. Not to mention,the wildlife will thrive. I predict the abundance and variety of wildlife to be even greater in coming years than it is now, if this plan comes to fruition. This is for the community. For all of us. I teach nearby and use the trail nearly every day. The eco-restorative plan is gorgeous and makes sense, removing invasive species so that native ones can flourish and providing a space that we can all enjoy. We're very lucky. Who knows what could go there instead? Another strip mall? Another high-density housing complex? A school? This plan preserves the space for all of perpetuity. Plus, this is a unique opportunity for us to be stewards of the land leaving it better than the way we found it. Thank you, City of Dublin, for considering this plan. Sincerely, Cheryl Rowe 7026 Stagecoach Rd. � STAFF REPORT s2 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: September 10, 2013 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: PLPA-2012-00037 Amendments to Dublin Zoning Ordinance Chapters 8.08 (Definitions), 8.12 (Zoning Districts and Permitted Uses of Land), 8.76 (Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations), 8.104 (Site Development Review) and 8.116 (Zoning Clearance) and the creation of Chapter 8.82 (Day Care Centers) Report prepared by Mamie Delgado, Senior Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On July 17, 2012, the City Council directed Staff to prepare Zoning Ordinance Amendments to establish a ministerial process for the review and approval of Day Care Centers. Based on the City Council's direction, Staff has prepared a new Zoning Ordinance chapter to regulate the establishment and operation of Day Care Centers. Staff is also proposing other Zoning Ordinance Amendments to: 1) streamline the review and approval of trash enclosures; 2) allow parking exceptions for new or modified trash enclosures; 3) define tutoring centers and establish them as Personal Services (use type); 4) identify language schools and private schools in the School-Commercial (use type); 5) clarify that parking lot restriping is subject to approval of a Site Development Review Waiver; 6) revise the parking requirement for Health Services/Clinics based on a Community Development Director determination; 7) clarify how the height of a retaining wall is measured; 8) allow minor exterior modifications to glass storefronts to be exempt from Site Development Review; 9) minor grammatical corrections and clarifications in the Site Development Review Chapter; and 10) revisions to the Zoning Clearance chapter to establish consistency and clarity among the various types of permits subject to a Zoning Clearance. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Open the public hearing; 3) Take testimony from the public; 4) Close the public hearing and deliberate; and 5) Adopt a Resolution recommending City Council approval of amendments to Dublin Zoning Ordinance Chapters 8.08 (Definitions), 8.12 (Zoning Districts and Permitted Uses of Land), 8.76 (Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations), 8.104 (Site Development Review), and 8.116 (Zoning Clearance) and the creation of Chapter 8.82 (Day Care Centers). 9:�Rfta cto nl Submitted By viewed By Senior Planner Assistant Community Development Director COPIES TO: File ITEM NO.: �+ Page 1 of 12 DESCRIPTION: Background At the June 19, 2012 City Council meeting, Staff was directed to prepare an informational report on the City's noise regulations and develop options regarding day care facilities for the City Council's consideration, including the reuse of school sites for the operation of private day care facilities. On July 17, 2012, Staff presented the report to the City Council (Attachment 1) and the City Council directed Staff to prepare Zoning Ordinance Amendments to establish a ministerial process for the review and approval of day care centers if they can meet established development standards. Based on the City Council's direction, Staff has prepared a new Zoning Ordinance chapter to regulate the establishment and operation of Day Care Centers (Attachment 2). Staff is also proposing other Zoning Ordinance Amendments that would: 1) streamline the review and approval of trash enclosures; 2) allow parking exceptions for new or modified trash enclosures; 3) define tutoring centers and establish them as Personal Services (use type); 4) identify language schools and private schools in the School-Commercial (use type); 5) clarify that parking lot restriping is subject to approval of a Site Development Review Waiver; 6) revise the parking requirement for Health Services/Clinics based on a Community Development Director determination; 7) clarify how the height of a retaining wall is measured; 8) allow minor exterior modifications to glass storefronts to be exempt from Site Development Review; 9) minor grammatical corrections and clarifications in the Site Development Review Chapter; and 10) revisions to the Zoning Clearance chapter to establish consistency and clarity among the various types of permits subject to a Zoning Clearance. Each of the proposed amendments is described in further detail below and can be found in Attachment 3. ANALYSIS: Day Care Centers The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments related to Day Care Centers include: 1) revising the definition of Day Care Center (use type) in Chapter 8.08 (Definitions); 2) revising the Commercial Use Types table in Chapter 8.12 (Zoning Districts and Permitted Uses of Land) to reflect a Zoning Clearance or Minor Use Permit instead of a Conditional Use Permit; 3) revising the Commercial Use Type description for Day Care Centers in Chapter 8.76 (Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations) to be consistent with the revised definition of a Day Care Center; 4) creating Chapter 8.82 (Day Care Centers) to regulate the establishment and operation of new Day Care Centers; 5) revising Chapter 8.104 (Site Development Review) to allow new or modified outdoor play areas with approval of a Site Development Review Waiver; and 6) revising Chapter 8.116 (Zoning Clearance) to include Day Care Centers. Chapter 8.08 (Definitions) The definition of a Day Care Center (use type) is proposed to be amended to clarify the various types of facilities that are subject to the proposed new chapter regulating Day Care Centers. These revisions to the definition bring the text current with changes that have occurred in the community over time and utilize terminology that is more prevalent in the community today. The definition for Day Care Center (use type) is proposed to be amended as follows (with the deleted text shown in strikethFough and the new text shown in underline): 2of12 Day Care Center (use type). The term Day Care Center shall mean any Gh4d day care facility which provides non-medical care and supervision for 15 or more persons including children, seniors or persons with disabilities, for less than 24 hours a day. A Day Care Center includes, but is not limited to, infant centers, preschools, sick-child centers, before or after-school programs for school aged children with or without an educational component, adult day care facilities, and similar uses as determined by the Community Development Director.-etheF than a Large Family Day Care Horne er a Small Family Day Chapter 8.12 (Zoning Districts and Permitted Uses of Land) Day Care Centers are currently subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission in all Zoning Districts except the Agricultural Zoning District. Under the proposed amendments, a Day Care Center would continue to be allowed in all Zoning Districts except the Agricultural Zoning District and would be subject to approval of a Zoning Clearance or Minor Use Permit. A Day Care Center could be approved ministerially with a Zoning Clearance if the project meets the development standards and regulations contained in the proposed Chapter 8.82 (Day Care Centers), which is discussed in further detail below. A Day Care Center that does not meet the development standards and regulations would be subject to a Minor Use Permit. Chapter 8.12 (Zoning Districts and Permitted Uses of Land) is proposed to be amended to change the permit type for Day Care Centers from a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission to a Zoning Clearance or Minor Use Permit. The proposed amendments to Section 8.12.050 (Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Land Uses) for the Commercial Use Type "Day Care Centers" are as follows (with the deleted text shown in StFikethmugh and the new text shown in underline): COMMERCIAL USE TYPE A R-1 R-2 R-M C-O C-N C-1 C-2 M-P M-1 M-2 Day Care Center (15+ - G/PG G/PG G/PC G/PG G/PG G/PG G/PG G/PG C/PC G/PG en-7 erp sons) (see Chapter 8.82) ZC/ ZC/ ZC/ ZC/ ZC/ ZC/ ZC/ ZC/ ZC/ ZC/ MUP I MUP I MUP MUP I MUP I MUP I MUP I MUP I M U P MUP Chapter 8.76 (Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations) The Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations set forth the number of parking spaces required for various Commercial Use Types including Day Care Centers. The number of parking spaces required for a Day Care Center is not proposed to be modified; however, the description is proposed to be amended to reflect the revised definition of Day Care Centers which includes both children and adults. The revised description of the number of parking spaces required for a Day Care Center in Section 8.76.080.D (Commercial Use Types) is proposed to be amended as follows (with the new text shown in underline): COMMERCIAL USE TYPES NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES REQUIRED Day Care Center (15+) 1 per employee, plus 1 per company vehicle, plus a loading space for every 5 children or clients at the facility 3 of 12 New Chapter 8.82 (Day Care Centers) A new chapter regulating Day Care Centers is proposed to streamline the review and approval process of new Day Care Centers that meet certain established development standards (see Attachment 2). The proposed development standards are based on a review of all Conditional Use Permits approved for existing Day Care Centers including their operating characteristics and the conditions of approval placed on them. Additionally, Staff engaged the services of Rosen, Goldberg, Der & Lewitz to prepare a noise study and derive specific development standards to evaluate Day Care Centers that are proposed adjacent to residential land uses to ensure that impacts are less than significant thereby eliminating the need for future Day Care Centers to undertake site specific noise studies. The various elements of the new chapter are described in further detail below. The full text of the new chapter can be found in Attachment 2. Permitting Procedure Day Care Centers are currently subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit at a public hearing before the Planning Commission. Under the proposed amendments, a Day Care Center could be approved ministerially with a Zoning Clearance if the project met established development standards and regulations (which are described in further detail below). Zoning Clearances are approved by the Community Development Director and do not require a public hearing or a public notice. If a Day Care Center could not meet all of the established development standards and regulations, a Minor Use Permit may be applied for. Minor Use Permits are discretionary permits that can only be approved if their effect on the surrounding environment can be made acceptable through the application of conditions of approval and all required findings can be made. Minor Use Permits are approved by the Community Development Director and require a public notice prior to action being taken on the permit. Development Standards and Regulations ZONING DISTRICTS: Under the proposed amendments, a Day Care Center would continue to be allowed in all Zoning Districts except the Agricultural Zoning District and comparable Planned Development (PD) Zoning Districts with agricultural uses. Day Care Centers would be allowed in other Planned Development (PD) Zoning Districts if not specifically prohibited by the PD regulations and if the site does not have a Rural Residential/Agricultural or Open Space General Plan Land Use designation. PARKING AND DROP-OFF/PICK-UP: A Day Care Center would need to provide the amount of parking required in Chapter 8.76 (Off- Street Parking and Loading Regulations) — 1 parking space per employee plus 1 parking space per company vehicle plus 1 loading space for every 5 clients at the facility. Additionally, a Day Care Center providing care for non-school aged children would be required to have staggered drop-off and pick-up of children across a minimum 1-hour time period. HOURS OF OPERATION &OUTDOOR PLAY ACTIVITIES: The permitted hours of operation for a Day Care Center would be 6:00am to 9:00pm Monday through Friday. A Day Care Center that provides outdoor play activities for children and is located adjacent to a residential land use would have their outdoor play activities limited to the hours of 9:00am and 6:00pm Monday through Friday. Additionally, the Day Care Center would 4of12 be limited in the amount of outdoor play (i.e. number of children, number of play periods and duration of play periods). For Day Care Centers that are not located adjacent to residential land uses, outdoor play activities would be allowed between the hours of 8:00am and 7:00pm Monday through Friday. All outdoor activities involving children would be required to occur within a designated play area and controlled so as not to create a nuisance to persons living or working in the vicinity of the Day Care Center. LICENSES, REGISTRATION & LOCAL ORDINANCES: Lastly, all Day Care Centers would be required to obtain, and keep current, any applicable licenses or registration with the State of California as well as a City of Dublin Business License and adhere to all applicable local ordinances including, but not limited to, Dublin Municipal Code Chapters 5.56 (Smoking Pollution Control), 5.64 (Property Maintenance) and 7.32 (Building Security). NOISE STUDY: In order to streamline the review and approval of Day Care Centers and reduce the need for site specific noise studies for future Day Care Centers, a noise study was undertaken (Attachment 4) and development standards have been proposed to ensure that noise associated with a proposed Day Care Center's outdoor play activities would not create an adverse impact to surrounding residential land uses. The development standards include identifying the existing noise environment and determining the maximum number of children and maximum amount of outdoor play time that could occur throughout the day. The existing noise environment reflects the amount of noise that residential land uses are currently exposed to, based on their proximity to existing freeways and roadways. A quieter environment is characterized as being farther away from traffic noise whereas a noisier environment is characterized as being closer to traffic noise. The quieter the existing environment, the more restricted a new Day Care Center would be in the amount of outdoor play. Chapter 8.104 (Site Development Review) A Day Care Center that proposes to occupy an existing building and provide an outdoor play area for children may need to make minor site modifications in order to establish a new play area or modify an existing play area. Site modifications often require Site Development Review. As part of streamlining the review and approval of Day Care Centers, Chapter 8.104 is proposed to be amended to allow for new or modified outdoor play areas for use by children associated with a Day Care Center to be reviewed and approved under a Site Development Review Waiver. The proposed amendments to Section 8.104.030 (Waiver) would read as follows (with the deleted text shown in s#ikethroug# and the new text shown in underline): A. Site Development Review Waiver. The following projects are subject to a Site Development Review Waiver: 1. Single-Family and Two-Family Residential Improvements. The following improvements in the R-1 or R-2 Zoning Districts or comparable Planned Development Zoning Districts with single-family or two- family residential uses. a. Single-Family Residential Landscape Modification. In a Planned Development Zoning District with residential uses, the removal of a tree 5 of 12 which is part of the streetscape of a development or is required by the Conditions of Approval, but which is proposed to be replaced or is proposed to be replaced with a different species. b. Day Care Center Outdoor Play Areas. Modifications to an existing outdoor Play area(s) or the establishment of a new outdoor play area(s) for use by children associated with a Day Care Center. 2. Multi family, Commercial and Industrial Improvements. The following improvements in the R-M, Commercial or Industrial Zoning Districts, or comparable Planned Development Zoning Districts with multi-family, commercial or industrial uses. g. Minor Site Layout Modification. A minor modification to the layout of the site including new paving areas, sidewalks, new or modified outdoor play area(s) for use by children associated with a Day Care Center or other similar improvements as determined by the Community Development Director. Chapter 8.116 (Zoning Clearance) The Zoning Clearance Chapter establishes the procedure for certifying conformance of certain land uses with the requirements of Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance). Day Care Centers would be added to Chapter 8.116 as a land use requiring a Zoning Clearance. The application, approval and expiration of a Zoning Clearance would also include Day Care Centers (Attachment 3, Chapter 8.116). Trash Enclosures Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 7.98 (Solid Waste and Recycling Enclosure Standards) was adopted by the City Council in June 2011 and amended in August 2012. The standards establish design criteria and size requirements for new enclosures within the City (Attachment 5). The purpose of the standards are to ensure that there is adequate space in newly constructed enclosures for solid waste and recycling, including organics if applicable, and to comply with clean water requirements. The Solid Waste and Recycling Enclosure Standards apply to: 1) new development projects; 2) remodeled commercial development projects that trigger a planning entitlement and consist of grocery stores, restaurants, markets, day care centers and auto repair/use; and 3) tenant improvements, where no planning entitlement is required, if the use has the potential to pollute stormwater. Trash enclosures that are required as part of new development projects, or as part of remodeled commercial development projects that are subject to a planning entitlement, would be reviewed and approved as part of the Planning entitlement being sought. However, trash enclosures required as part of tenant improvements, where no planning entitlement is required, may actually trigger a planning entitlement under the current Site Development Review regulations. In an effort to streamline Planning review of tenant improvements projects that require new or modified trash enclosures and are consistent with the Solid Waste and Recycling Enclosure Standards, Staff is proposing an amendment to the Site Development Review Regulations. Chapter 8.104 (Site Development Review Regulations) is proposed to be amended to allow trash enclosures to be approved through a Site Development Review Waiver when the trash 6of12 enclosure meets the requirements of the Solid Waste and Recycling Enclosure Standards and does not result in the loss of required parking, unless a Parking Exception is granted. The proposed amendment to Section 8.104.030.A.2 (Multi-Family, Commercial and Industrial Improvements) would read as follows (with the new text shown in underline): j. Trash Enclosures. Modifications to an existing trash enclosure(s) or the construction of a new trash enclosure(s) that complies with Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 7.98 (Solid Waste and Recycling Enclosure Standards), notwithstanding any exceptions that may be -granted by the Public Works Director, and the modified or new trash enclosure(s) will not result in the loss of required parking except pursuant to Section 8.76.050.D (Parking Exception). Chapter 8.76 (Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations) is proposed to be amended to allow for a Parking Exception to be granted by the Community Development Director when a new or modified trash enclosure is required pursuant to the Solid Waste and Recycling Enclosure Standards and results in the loss of required parking. The Parking Exception would allow for a reduction in required parking for the number of spaces lost due to a new or modified trash enclosure up to a maximum of 10% of the required number of parking spaces. The proposed amendment to Section 8.76.050.D (Parking Exception) would read as follows (with the new text shown in underline): 2. Trash Enclosures. The Director of Community Development may grant a Parking Exception for a reduction in the number of required parking spaces when a reduction is necessary as a result of the construction of a new trash enclosure or the modification of an existing trash enclosure in compliance with Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 7.98 (Solid Waste and Recycling Enclosure Standards). The Parking Exception shall be limited to the number of required parking spaces that are lost due to the construction of a new or modification of an existing trash enclosure but in no case shall exceed 10% of the required parking. Any new or modified trash enclosure that results in a loss of more than 10% of the required number of parking spaces or does not meet the requirements of the Solid Waste and Recycling Enclosure Standards would be subject to full Site Development Review (i.e. would not be eligible for the Site Development Review Waiver described above). The proposed amendment to Section 8.104.040.A (Community Development Director) would read as follows (with the new text shown in underline): 14. Trash Enclosures. Modifications to an existing trash enclosure(s) or the construction of a new trash enclosure() that does not comply with Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 7.98 (Solid Waste and Recycling Enclosure Standards), notwithstanding any exceptions that may be -granted by the Public Works Director. Or, modifications to an existing trash enclosure(s) or the construction of a new trash enclosure(s) that results in the loss of more than 10% of the required parking. Other Zoning Ordinance Amendments In addition to the proposed amendments related to Day Care Centers and trash enclosures, Staff is proposing other Zoning Ordinance amendments to Chapter 8.08 (Definitions), Chapter 8.76 (Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations), Chapter 8.104 (Site Development Review) and Chapter 8.116 (Zoning Clearance). These amendments are minor in nature and have been 7of12 proposed in order to clarify certain provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Each of the proposed amendments are described in further detail below and are included in Attachment 3. Chapter 8.08 (Definitions) Tutoring Centers and Personal Services In recent years, Staff has received an increasing number of requests to establish tutoring centers throughout the community. Because the Zoning Ordinance does not specifically address tutoring centers they have historically been categorized as a School-Commercial use type which is defined as, "a private business, beauty, cooking or trade school of a non-recreational nature". As a School-Commercial use type, tutoring centers are permitted by-right in the C-1 (Retail Commercial) and C-2 (General Commercial) Zoning Districts and require 1 parking space for every 50 square feet of instructional area; this parking standard assumes a classroom setting where groups of individuals gather to receive instruction. Staff has evaluated numerous requests for tutoring centers and, based on a review of their operating characteristics, has consistently found that tutoring centers offer specialized educational services to school-aged children which are provided one-on-one with the student rather than in a group or classroom setting. As a result, Staff believes that a tutoring center operates more consistently with the Personal Services use type due to the one-on-one nature of the service provided. The Personal Services use type includes businesses such as a barber shop, nail salon, beauty parlor, tattoo and body piercing, and tanning salon. The parking standard for the Personal Services use type is 1 parking space for every 300 square feet of floor area. As a Personal Services use type, tutoring centers would continue to be permitted by-right in the C-1 (Retail Commercial) and C-2 (General Commercial) Zoning Districts and would also be permitted by-right in the C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District. Allowing tutoring centers in the C-N zoning district would be consistent with the intent of the district which is to provide for small scale, low-intensity neighborhood commercial use types which serve, and are in proximity to, the residential neighborhoods throughout the City. Additionally, as a Personal Services use type; tutoring centers would be required to provide 1 parking space for every 300 square feet of floor area consistent with other businesses in the Personal Services use type category. This parking requirement is appropriate for tutoring centers which provide on-on-one tutoring services rather than the School-Commercial parking standard of 1 parking space for every 50 square feet of instructional area which is more consistent with a classroom setting. Therefore, Staff is proposing that tutoring centers be included in the definition for the Personal Services use type. The definition of Personal Services (use type) in Section 8.08.020 (Definitions A-Z) is proposed to be amended as follows (with the new text shown in underline): Personal Services (use type). The term Personal Services shall mean a barber shop, nail salon, beauty parlor, tattoo and body piercing, tanning salon, tutoring center, self- service laundry (coin-operated), full-service laundry (not a dry cleaning plant) or other service determined to be substantially similar to the above by the Director of Community Development. 8of12 A new definition for Tutoring Center is also proposed to be added to ensure that a tutoring center is clearly defined and distinguished from an after-school program which cares for children but may also have an educational component. A new definition for a tutoring center is proposed to be added to Section 8.08.020 (Definitions A-Z) as follows (with the new text shown in underline): Tutoring Center. The term Tutoring Center shall mean a place of business where a student who is working towards satisfying the requirements of the Compulsory Education Law of the State receives private instruction outside of a school or other academic program to develop or enhance their skills in one or more educational subjects. Language Schools and Private Schools The definition for School-Commercial (use type) has been revised to specifically include language schools and to clarify that private schools, similar to public schools, which meet the compulsory education laws of the State, are considered a Community Facility. The definition of School-Commercial (use type) in Section 8.08.020 (Definitions A-Z) is proposed to be amended as follows (with the new text shown in underline): School - Commercial (use type). The term School - Commercial shall mean a private business, beauty, cooking, language or trade school of a non-recreational nature, or other school which is determined to be substantially similar to the above by the Director of Community Development, located in a commercial zone, and which charges a fee for attendance. Facilities which teach sports or recreation such as martial arts or gymnastics are addressed by the Recreational Facility/Indoor Use Type. Public schools and private schools which meet the requirements of the Compulsory Education Law of the State are addressed by the Community Facility Use Type. Chapter 8.76 (Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations) Parking Lot Restriping Section 8.76.060.K (Re-striping of Parking Lots) has been revised to reflect approval subject to a Site Development Review Waiver rather than a Zoning Clearance. This revision is consistent with Chapter 8.104 (Site Development Review) which requires a Site Development Review Waiver for the re-striping of parking lots (refer to Section 8.104.030.A.2.d). The proposed amendment to Section 8.76.060.K (Re-striping of Parking Lots) would read as follows (with the deleted text shown in StFikethFaugh and the new text shown in underline): K. Re-striping of Parking Lots. Parking lots are periodically resurfaced and re- striped. In order to ensure that parking lots retain the same parking space sizes and locations, and the same circulation locations and dimensions, all parking lots shall be re-striped pursuant to a Zoning GleaFannc Site Development Review Waiver. Health Services/Clinics Parking Requirement Section 8.76.080.D (Commercial Use Types) has been revised consistent with a Community Development Director determination (Attachment 6) that the parking requirement for Health Services/Clinics be consistent with the Office-Professional parking requirement of 1 parking space for every 250 square feet due to the similar definitions between the two use types. The proposed amendment to Section 8.76.080.D (Commercial Use Types) for Health 9 of 12 Services/Clinics would read as follows (with the deleted text shown in stF+lethrough and the new text shown in underline): COMMERCIAL USE TYPES NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES REQUIRED Health Services/Clinics 1 per 459 250 square feet Chapter 8.104 (Site Development Review) Section 8.104.020.G (Retaining Walls) has been revised to clarify that the height measurement of a retaining wall is from above grade not the footing below grade. The proposed amendment to Section 8.104.020.G (Retaining Walls) would read as follows (with the deleted text shown in strikethrsug-h and the new text shown in underline): G. Retaining Walls. Retaining walls (retaining earth only) that do not exceed four feet in height above grade and are exempt from a building permit. permit. Section 8.104.020.H (Minor Exterior Modifications to Glass Storefronts) has been added to exempt minor changes to existing glass storefronts from Site Development Review. The proposed amendment to Section 8.104.020.H (Minor Exterior Modifications to Glass Storefronts) would read as follows (with the new text shown in underline): Minor Exterior Modifications to Glass Storefronts. Modifications to existing glass storefronts in Commercial Industrial and comparable Planned Development Zoning Districts including removing an existing window and replacing it with a glass door, removing an existing glass door and replacing it with a glass window, or removing and replacing glass doors so long as the new doors and/or windows match in color, design and material other exterior doors and windows within the same building and the modifications do not include frosting tinting or the addition of other materials that would otherwise obscure the window. Section 8.104.030.A.2.h (Window Modifications) has been revised consistent with the new Section 8.104.020.1-1 (Minor Exterior Modifications to Glass Storefronts) described above to ensure internal consistency. The proposed amendment to Section 8.104.030.A.2.h (Window Modifications) would read as follows (with the new text shown in underline): Window Modifications. Window modifications which include new and replacement windows, unless otherwise exempted under Minor Exterior Modifications to Glass Storefronts, frosting, tinting or the addition of other materials which may obscure a window as determined by the Community Development Director. Section 8.104.040.A.3 (Agricultural Accessory Structures) is revised to correct a grammatical error. The proposed amendment to Section 8.104.040.A.3 (Agricultural Accessory Structures) would read as follows (with the deleted text shown in strikethrough and the new text shown in underline): 10 of 12 Agricultural Accessory Structures. All awe agricultural accessory structures. Section 8.104.040.A.7 (Residential Additions) is revised to add clarifying language regarding Planned Development Zoning Districts. The proposed amendment to Section 8.104.040.A.7 (Residential Additions) would read as follows (with the new text shown in underline): Residential Additions. Residential additions which are over 500 square feet in size in the R-1 or R-2 Zoning Districts or any Planned Development Zoning Districts with similar residential uses. Section 8.104.040.A.8 (Residential Demolition and Construction) is revised to clarify that a demolition is subject to Site Development Review even if no reconstruction or new construction is proposed concurrently with the demolition and to add clarifying language regarding Planned Development Zoning Districts. The proposed amendment to Section 8.104.040.A.8 (Residential Demolition and Construction) would read as follows (with the new text shown in underline): Residential Demolition and Construction. A residential demolition and construction which includes the demolition of 50 percent or more of the existing exterior walls of the principal structure and the reconstruction, remodel or construction of a new house in the R-1 or R-2 Zoning Districts or any Planned Development Zoning Districts with similar residential uses. Section 8.104.040.13.1 (Exception to Accessory Structure Requirements) has been revised to correct the section reference. The proposed amendment to Section 8.104.040.B.1 (Exception to Accessory Structure Requirements) would read as follows (with the deleted text shown in GtFikethFG inh and the new text shown in underline): Exception to Accessory Structure Requirements. An exception to the requirements of Section 8.40.020.F.2 of Chapter 8.40 (Accessory Structures). Chapter 8.40, AGGesSGFY StFUGtUres. Chapter 8.116 (Zoning Clearance) A number of revisions are proposed to establish consistency and clarity among the various types of permits subject to a Zoning Clearance. The revisions include adding section titles, re-ordering the list of uses to be consistent in each section, and, establishing consistent language for approving a Zoning Clearance and when a Zoning Clearance expires (Attachment 3, Chapter 8.116). CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, SPECIFIC PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE: The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments, as outlined in this Staff Report and the draft City Council Ordinance included as Attachment 7, Exhibit A, are consistent with the Dublin General Plan and all applicable Specific Plans in that the Amendments relating to uses such as day care centers and tutoring centers are consistent with applicable land use designations and general development policies. The other amendments propose procedural, clean-up and minor revisions and raise no inconsistencies with the General Plan or any specific plans. The amendments include minor revisions for internal consistency within the Zoning Ordinance. 11 of 12 NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH: A Public Notice was published in the Valley Times and posted at several locations throughout the City. The Public Notice was provided to all persons who have expressed an interest in being notified of meetings. The Staff Report for this public hearing was also made available on the City's website. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with State Guidelines and City Environmental Regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared. Pursuant to the CEQA, Staff is recommending that the project be found exempt in accordance with Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that the amendments to Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) will not have a significant effect on the environment. The adoption of the proposed Ordinance does not, in itself, allow the establishment of any use or the construction of any building or structure, but sets forth the regulations that shall be followed if and when a use is proposed to be established, or a building or structure is proposed to be constructed, or a site is proposed to be developed. This Ordinance of itself, therefore, has no potential for resulting in significant physical change in the environment, directly or ultimately. ATTACHMENTS: 1) City Council Staff Report dated July 17, 2012. 2) Proposed Chapter 8.28 (Day Care Centers). 3) Amendments to various Zoning Ordinance Chapters in strikethrough/underline format. 4) Environmental Noise Analysis for the Dublin Day Care Ordinance, prepared by Rosen, Goldberg, Der & Lewitz dated 1 April 2013. 5) Chapter 7.98 (Solid Waste and Recycling Enclosure Standards). 6) Community Development Director Determination regarding the parking standard for Health Services/Clinics. 7) Resolution recommending City Council approval of amendments to Dublin Zoning Ordinance Chapters 8.08 (Definitions), 8.12 (Zoning Districts and Permitted Uses of Land), 8.76 (Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations), 8.104 (Site Development Review), and 8.116 (Zoning Clearance) and the creation of Chapter 8.82 (Day Care Centers). 12 of 12 82 STAFF REPORT CITY CLERK CITY COUNCIL File # 530-35 DATE: July 17, 2012 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Joni Pattillo, City Manager( A� SUBJECT: Informational Report on the City's Noise Regulations Prepared by Mamie R. Delgado, Senior Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: At the June 19, 2012 City Council meeting, Staff was directed to prepare a report on the City's noise regulations as they relate to the operation of day care facilities and the reuse of school sites. This report outlines the City's current noise regulations and provides options for the City Council's consideration. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None at this time. Depending on which option the City Council selects, a future budget adjustment may be required. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council receive the Staff presentation; and provide direction. I Submitted By Reviewed By Director of Community Development Assistant City Manager DESCRIPTION: At the June 19, 2012 City Council meeting, Staff was directed to prepare an informational report on the City's noise regulations and develop options regarding day care facilities for the City Council's consideration, which includes the reuse of school sites for the operation of private day care facilities. This report summarizes the City's noise regulations contained in the Dublin General Plan, Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) and Title 5 of the Dublin Municipal Code (Public Welfare) and includes options for amending these regulations to address to reuse of school sites for private day care facilities. City of Dublin Noise Regulations Dublin General Plan Page 1 of 6 ITEM NO. 8.2 ATTACHMENT 1 One of the seven State mandated Elements of a General Plan is a Noise Element (Attachment 1). The Dublin General Plan Noise Element sets forth acceptable and unacceptable levels of noise exposure for a variety of land uses including residential. A noise exposure level of 60 decibels or less is considered normally acceptable for residential areas. The Noise Element identifies traffic as the primary source of continuous noise in Dublin and includes implementing policies that facilitate mitigating noise impacts. Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) The Dublin Zoning Ordinance sets forth the types of uses that are permitted, conditionally permitted and prohibited in residentially zoned areas. Uses that are permitted generally have little to no impact on surrounding uses; uses that are conditionally permitted generally have the potential to create an adverse impact to surrounding uses but conditions of approval may mitigate those impacts and make the use acceptable. Day Care Centers (including preschools) are conditionally permitted uses that are allowed with approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission in all residential, commercial and industrial zoning districts. Day Care Centers are not permitted in the agricultural zoning district. In order for the Planning Commission to approve a conditionally permitted use, it must make certain findings regarding compatibility, health and safety, suitability, and compliance with the General Plan, among other things (Attachment 2). The Planning Commission must also make an environmental determination that the proposed project is either exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) or adopt an environmental document. In determining the level of environmental review appropriate for a proposed project, all potential impacts must be identified and analyzed to determine their significance. This is done through specialized studies such as noise studies, traffic and/or parking studies, etc. If a study reveals significant impacts, those impacts must be disclosed and, to the extent feasible, mitigated to an acceptable level. The thresholds for what is deemed acceptable vary depending on the type of study being conducted. For noise studies, the thresholds of acceptable noise exposure levels are contained in the Dublin General Plan Noise Element (see Attachment 1). Title 5 of the Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 5.28 of Title 5 of the Dublin Municipal Code is the City's Noise Ordinance which prohibits unreasonable noise (Attachment 3). Chapter 5.28 establishes general standards for determining whether noise is unreasonable. When the City receives a complaint regarding noise, Chapter 5.28 is utilized to determine whether the noise is unreasonable and thus a violation of the Dublin Municipal Code. If a complaint is received against a business that is conditionally permitted, the business's Conditional Use Permit or Minor Use Permit would also be reviewed to determine whether the business is operating in accordance with their permit including any conditions of approval. Day Care Centers (including Preschools) Day Care Centers are defined by the Dublin Zoning Ordinance as any child day care facility that accommodates 15 or more children. As noted above, Day Care Centers are conditionally permitted in all residential, commercial and industrial zoning districts with approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission. The two most common concerns expressed by Dublin residents regarding Day Care Centers are traffic and noise. The size, Page 2 of 6 location and operating characteristics of a day care center are evaluated in determining whether a traffic study is appropriate. For noise studies, the proximity of the day care center to residential uses is the determining factor. Day care centers which abut residential uses are subject to a noise study to determine whether the noise associated with outdoor play, when combined with the existing noise environment, will exceed the normally acceptable noise exposure thresholds in the Dublin General Plan. Over the past 5 years, five Day Care Centers have been approved and an additional three Day Care Centers are currently in Planning Review. Of the five Day Care Centers which were approved, three included noise studies at an average cost of approximately $4,000. After adding the City's overhead, the average cost to an applicant for a noise study to be prepared is approximately $7,400. The two remaining Day Care Centers did not include project specific noise studies; in reviewing prior environmental documents for each location, it was determined that noise impacts had been adequately analyzed and the Day Care Centers, as proposed, would not create a significant impact beyond what was previously analyzed. At the City Council's direction, Staff has prepared the following options for consideration. Options for Consideration 1. Amend the General Plan to establish noise policies regarding the reuse of school sites with day care facilities. 2. Amend the Noise Ordinance to address noise generated by day care centers. 3. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to establish a ministerial process for the review and approval of day care centers if they can meet established development standards. 4. Continue with the current entitlement process for Day Care Centers. Option 1 The Dublin General Plan Noise Element could be amended to include policies regarding the reuse of school sites with day care facilities. Staff is currently working on an update to the General Plan to reflect changes that have occurred in the community, most notably since the adoption of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The General Plan update was not intended to revisit and revise policy direction but rather to refresh and reformat the General Plan to make it more relevant, readable and user friendly. However, as part of the General Plan update effort, the City Council could direct Staff to look at noise policies for the reuse of school sites with day care facilities. The costs associated with this option would include Staff time and City Attorney time in preparing the General Plan Amendment. Staff estimates spending approximately 80 hours on the project and the City Attorney estimates spending 22 hours for a total cost of approximately $15,000. Additionally, Staff would need to retain the services of a noise consultant to prepare draft policies and a technical noise analysis including an assessment of environmental impacts. The consultants cost to accomplish this task is estimated to be $7,600. The costs associated with the environmental review are assumed to be included in the current budget for the entire General Plan update project. A budget adjustment for the General Plan update project in the amount of $22,600 would be required to accomplish this Option. Additional Staff time to complete the General Plan update would also need to be allocated. It is estimated that this Page 3 of 6 Option would take 8 weeks to complete. Currently, the General Plan update, including the new Economic Development Element, is planned to go to public hearing for adoption in February 2013; this Option would extend the completion of the project by approximately 2 months, delaying the adoption hearings to April 2013. Option 2 Chapter 5.28 (Noise) of the Dublin Municipal Code could be amended to address noise generated by private day care facilities. Currently the Noise Ordinance does not address specific sources of noise but rather establishes general regulations for when noise generated is detrimental and unreasonable. The City Council could direct Staff to look at amending the Noise Ordinance to address noise generated by Day Care Centers and exempt them as a source of noise that could be considered detrimental and unreasonable. As such, Staff would not evaluate potential noise impacts related to Day Care Centers when reviewing applications for a Conditional Use Permit. This option could apply to the reuse of school sites or City-wide. The costs associated with this option would include Staff time and City Attorney time in preparing the Municipal Code Amendment. Staff estimates spending 100 hours on the project and the City Attorney estimates spending 22 hours for a total cost of approximately $17,600. Additionally, Staff would need to retain the services of a noise consultant to prepare a technical noise analysis including an assessment of environmental impacts. The consultants cost to accomplish this task is estimated to be $7,600. Staff would also need to retain the services of an environmental consultant to prepare the required California Environmental Quality Act review. The consultants cost to prepare the environmental document is estimated to be $8,000. A budget adjustment would be required for this Option in the amount of $33,200. It is estimated that this Option would take 4-6 months to complete. Option 3 The Zoning Ordinance could be amended to establish a ministerial process for the review and approval of Day Care Centers, similar to the process for Large Family Day Cares and Indoor Recreational Facilities. Both Large Family Day Cares and Indoor Recreational Facilities used to require approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The Zoning Ordinance was amended to make both permitted uses subject to approval of a Zoning Clearance if certain development standards could be met. A similar process could be evaluated for Day Care Centers. This would require that Staff create development standards to evaluate a proposed Day Care Center. A Day Care Center that met the developments standards could be approved with a Zoning Clearance which would not require a public notice or a public hearing. A Day Care_ Center that did not meet the development standards could be approved through a Minor Use Permit which would require a public notice but not a public hearing or a Conditional Use Permit which would require both a public notice and a public hearing. This option could apply only to the reuse of school sites or it could apply City-wide. The costs associated with this option would include Staff time and City Attorney time in preparing the Municipal Code Amendment. Staff estimates spending 100 hours on the project and the City Attorney estimates spending 22 hours for a total cost of approximately $17,600. Additionally, Staff would need to retain the services of a noise consultant to prepare a technical noise analysis including an assessment of environmental impacts. The consultants cost to accomplish this task is estimated to be $7,600. Staff would also need to retain the services of an environmental consultant to prepare the required California Environmental Quality Act review. The consultants cost to prepare the environmental document is estimated to be $8,000. A Page 4 of 6 budget adjustment would be required for this Option in the amount of $33,200. It is estimated that this Option would take 4-6 months to complete. Option 4 Continue processing Day Care Centers as a conditional use and perform a noise study when a Day Care Center is located adjacent to residential uses regardless of whether the Day Care Center is located on private property or property owned by the Dublin Unified School District. Next Steps Staff requests that the City Council provide direction on how to proceed. Should the City Council select one of the four options outlined in this report, Staff proposes to proceed as follows: Option 1 —Amend the General Plan Noise Element: • Solicit a scope of work, budget and timeline from a noise consultant. • Commence work on preparing draft policies. • Prepare a technical noise analysis based on draft policies. • Complete a draft technical noise analysis report. • Review report and finalize. • Incorporate into environmental document for the General Plan update project. Option 2 —Amend Chapter 5.28 (Noise) of the Dublin Municipal Code: • Solicit a scope of work, budget and timeline from a noise consultant. • Solicit a scope of work, budget and timeline from an environmental consultant. • Commence work on preparing draft amendments. • Prepare a technical noise analysis based on draft amendments. • Complete a draft technical noise analysis report. • Review report and finalize. • Prepare environmental document. • Public review of environmental document. • Planning Commission hearing. • Two City Council hearings. Option 3 —Amend Title 8 of the Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance): • Solicit a scope of work, budget and timeline from a noise consultant. • Solicit a scope of work, budget and timeline from an environmental consultant. • Commence work on preparing draft amendments. • Prepare a technical noise analysis based on draft amendments. • Complete a draft technical noise analysis report. • Review report and finalize. • Prepare environmental document. • Public review of environmental document. • Planning Commission hearing. • Two City Council hearings. Option 4 — Continue with the current entitlement process for Day Care Centers. Page 5 of 6 NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH: This is an informational report to the City Council at their request. No action will be taken to amend or adopt any policy, ordinance or regulation. As such, a public hearing is not required and therefore a public notice is not required. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Dublin General Plan Noise Element 2. Chapter 8.100 (Conditional Use Permit) 3. Chapter 5.28 (Noise) Page 6 of 6 4 4^ iL:J Mv 4 Envi'ronmental Resources Management f 1 YY,a t�'ib+K' 4R �} Noise emend h7 _ rs rm h v� k s oz1 t�A 7 { 0 'y iJ� �� � ��F F Y•k tr ;ME .— r r F Ckater p I CHAP>TER. 9 ENV( R-0NMENT=AL RESOURCES ;NIANAGE-MENT . 'ELENI � NT = Government Code sec, 65302(f)outlines statutory requirements for noise elements. Recognizing the State Office of Noise Control (ONG) guidelines, noise elements must quantify current and projected noise levels for local noise sources.Among the noise sources to be evaluated are highways,freeways,arterials and major streets, railroads and rapid transit systems,airports and heliports,industrial plants,and any other local sources, Traffic noise and potential light rail noise are the only major noise sources in Dublin's planning area. The focus of this noise element, therefore, is the effect of traffic and transit noise on locating categories of land use and developing projects within those categories. Information supporting the adopted noise policies is located in the corresponding Noise Element section of the Technical Supplement. The planning area contains no railroads, airports, heliports or industrial plants.Since these noise sources are not a factor in Dublin's planning,they are not addressed. Traffic is the primary source of continuous noise in Dublin. Noise exposure contours have been plotted for 1983 (based on noise measurements and current traffic data) and projected to 2005 based on traffic volume increases (see Figures 9-1 and 9-2), The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) described 24-hour average noise levels measured in decibels(dB)taking account of the increased sensitivity of people to noise during evening and nighttime hours. Sound levels between 7:00 and 10:00 p.m: are penalized 5 dB and those between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. are penalized 10 dB. The dB scale is logarithmic;a 3 dB difference normally is discernable and a 10 dB increase is subjectively heard as a doubling in loudness. The other potential significant noise source is the two proposed BART stations. Based on best available Information (as of January 1992) one station will be located In downtown Dublin, near existing commercial development. The other station will be located on Alameda County property,west of the Hacienda interchange. Noise impacts from these two stations were addressed in the "Draft Environmental Impact Report Dublin I Pleasanton Extension Project," September 1989. This document was certified on February 8, 1990. A copy of this document is available from the City Public Works Department. No areas near the Dublin stations were identified where noise or vibration would exceed acceptable standards. The Land Use Compatibility Table provides the basis for decisions on location of land uses in relation to noise sources, and for determining noise mitigation needs. For noise issues in the Western and Eastern Dublin Extended Planning Areas, refer to the individual specific plan and environmental documents being prepared for-these areas, These documents are expected to be completed and adopted In 1992. Guiding Policy A. Where feasible, mitigate traffic noise to levels indicated by Table 9.1: Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments. implementing policies B. Request Caltrans to provide noise walls at least seven feet high along both sides of 1-680 between Amador Valley Boulevard and the Alcosta interchange when additional freeway lanes are constructed. Page a-1 Future noise, if not mitigated, will subject about 2,700 residents to levels exceeding 65 CNEL. The noise wall would reduce noise by 10 dB, making this the most cost-effective noise reduction project In Dublin.Actual wall height would be determined during project design. C. Encourage homeowners west of San Ramon Road who are affected by 1-580 noise to construct noise barriers on their properties where these would be effective and require such barriers for new development. This policy also applies to sites adjoining the west side of San Ramon Road at higher elevations. Where the noise source is below the receptors,only barriers near the receptor will be effective.About 5 dB noise reduction could be achieved, D. Support unified action by residential owners on the east side of San Ramon Road and along Village Parkway to install,repair,or extend noise barriers. i Much of this frontage was developed before effective noise barriers were required as a condition of subdivision approval. Because construction for a single lot is costly, relatively ineffective, and potentially unattractive, the City should assist in the formation of assessment districts or otherwise promote group action where there Is I consensus that a problem exists. E. Design Dougherty Road improvements and adjoining residential development for compliance with noise standards. This corridor offers the opportunity to do It right the first time without continuous walls. Berms, open space, garages near the road,and noise-conscious site planning can be used. F. Noise impacts related to all new development shall be analyzed by a certified acoustic consultant. 1 G. Request demonstration of ability to mitigate noise prior to approval of light rail or bus service in the 1 Southern Pacific Right-of-Way Transportation Corridor. A depressed rail line or noise walls close to the tracks could make light rail a goad neighbor. H. Review all multi-family development proposals within the projected 60 CNEL contour for compliance with noise standards(45 CNEL in any habitable room)as required by State law. Because the General Plan designates almost all residential sites subject to 60 or greater CNEL, for multifamily development, this standard will be effective in Dublin. Project designers may use one or more of four available categories of mitigation measures: site planning, architectural layout (bedrooms away from noise source, for example),noise barriers,or construction modifications. i Page 9-2 I� 1 1 TABLE 9.1 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY FOR COMMUNITY NOISE ENVIRONMENTS COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE(dB) Land Use Category Normally Conditionally Normally Clearly Acceptable Acceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable (Noise Insulation) Features Required Residential 60 or less 60-70 70-75 Over 75 I Motels,hotels 60 or less 60-70 70-80 Over 80 Schools,churches,nursing 60.70 70-80 Over 80 homes 60 or less Neighborhood parks 60 or less 60-65 65-70 Over 70 Offices: retail commercial 70 or less 70-75 75.80 Over 80 Industrial 70 or less 70-75 Over 75 Conditionally acceptable exposure requires noise insulation features in building design.Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice. Source:California Office of Noise Control,1976,as modified by Charles M.Salter Associates,Inc. i i i Page 9-3 i n Figure 9-1 U � 1 7 T , V - •�� to f NJ w Q n m - L L N 4• • $d O • � J � t Co T. rM \ ,.� t � •I`�IS sJ�y t a S \ i .�i••. •�. .!M �, � .t/Y •tit r•� 4ZVt � p" rte �' ••f' t �. ,il••^, `t `•f' `• � '\\S.l ���� _• � �.•/• l �Q. �t Lam' �,f�,� � �•-�� z J 'I Figure 9-2 CL °1 I � A wm = I aw n a� �p CD <� z°�� rj t t '•f,_,"' 'mac. f fn j. i t / � V f ! • o i I Chapter 8.100 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Chapter 8.100 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 8.100.010 Purpose. The purpose of this Chapter is to establish a procedure for conditionally approving or denying land uses, including related structures, that are not clearly permitted or prohibited because of their unique nature. Such uses and related structures would only be approved if their effect on the surrounding environment can be made acceptable through the application of conditions of approval. 8.100.020 Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit. The uses and related structures requiring a Conditional Use Permit shall be limited to those in Chapter 8.12, Zoning Districts And Allowable Uses Of Land, for each zoning district, and elsewhere in this Ordinance. 8.100.030 Application. The Applicant shall submit a complete application pursuant to Chapter 8.124,Applications, Fees and Deposits, accompanied by a fee and/or deposit and such materials as are required by the Director of Community Development. 8.100.040 Notice and Hearings. Conditional Use Permit applications shall be considered at a public hearing with notice pursuant i to Chapter 8.132, Notice and Hearings. 8.100.050 Concurrent Consideration. When a Conditional Use Permit is required for a project which is also subject to a Zoning Ordinance Amendment, Specific Plan, Specific Plan Amendment, or General Plan Amendment, it shall be approved, conditionally approved, or denied by the same decision-maker or body for those actions. 8.100.060 Required Findings. } The following findings shall all be made in order to approve a Conditional Use Permit: A. The proposed use and related structures is compatible with other land uses, transportation and service facilities in the vicinity. B. It.will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. C. It will not be injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. D. There are adequate provisions for public access, water, sanitation, and public utilities and services to ensure that the proposed use and related structures would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. E. The subject site is physically suitable for the type, density and intensity of the use and related structures being proposed. F. It will not be contrary to the specific intent clauses, development regulations, or 1 Chapter 8.100 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT performance standards established for the zoning district in which it is located. G. It is consistent with the Dublin General Plan and with any applicable Specific Plans. 8.100.070 Action. The decision-makers for Conditional Use Permits shall be the Zoning Administrator or the Planning Commission, as specified in the Land Use Matrix in Chapter 8.12, Zoning Districts And Permitted Uses Of Land. The Planning Commission or the Zoning Administrator shall hold a public hearing, and after the public hearing is closed may, based on evidence in the public record, and the findings above, approve, conditionally approve, or deny a Conditional Use Permit by resolution. 8.100.080 Amendments. A. Minor Amendment. The Community Development Director or his/her designee shall determine that a minor amendment to a Conditional Use Permit is in substantial conformance with the Conditional Use Permit if it is a minor project as described below, is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, and is consistent with the conditions of approval for the permit. It is not the intent of this Chapter that a series of Minor Amendments be used to circumvent the need for a new Conditional Use Permit. A minor project shall include any of the following: 1. The cumulative physical expansion of any structure approved in the original Conditional Use Permit by no more than 1,000 square feet. 2. The expansion or intensification of use by no more than 10% of the original use. 3. Relocation of a use within the same property or structure. 4. A maximum 25% increase or decrease in hours of operation. B. Other Amendments.The process for amending a Conditional Use Permit shall be the same as the process for approving a Conditional Use Permit except that the decision-maker for such Conditional Use Permit shall be the same decision-maker that ultimately approved the Conditional Use Permit including any approval on appeal, or by referral. 8.100.090 Building Permits. Building Permits shall not be issued except in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Conditional Use Permit approval 8.100.100 Procedures. The procedures set forth in Chapter 8.96, Permit Procedures, shall apply except as otherwise provided in this Chapter. i III 2 Print Preview Page 1 of 1 Chapter 5.28 NOISE Sections: 5.28.010 Findings. 5.28.020 Unreasonable noise prohibited. 5.28.030 Violation—Penalty. 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) 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) 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) http://www.codepubl ishing.com/ca/Dublin/egifMenuCompile.pl 6/27/2012 DAY CARE CENTERS Chapter 8.82 CHAPTER 8.82 DAY CARE CENTERS 8.82.010 Purpose. The purpose of this Chapter is to establish regulations for the location and operation of Day Care Centers. 8.82.020 Intent. The intent of this Chapter is to: A. Establish a ministerial process for the review and approval of Day Care Centers. B. Establish development standards and regulations for the location and operation of Day Care Centers within the City. C. Reduce the potential for noise impacts from Day Care Centers when located adjacent to a residential land use. 8.82.030 Permitting Procedure. A. A Day Care Center that meets the Development Standards and Regulations contained in this Chapter shall be subject to approval of a Zoning Clearance by the Community Development Director and shall be processed in accordance with Chapter 8.116 (Zoning Clearance). B. A Day Care Center that does not meet the Development Standards and Regulations contained in this Chapter shall be subject to approval of a Minor Use Permit and shall be processed in accordance with Chapter 8.102 (Minor Use Permit). 8.82.040 Development Standards and Regulations. An application for a Zoning Clearance to establish a Day Care Center shall comply with the following development standards and regulations: A. Permitted in all Zoning Districts except A(Agricultural) and comparable PD (Planned Development) Zoning Districts. A Day Care Center may be established in all Zoning Districts with the exception of the A (Agricultural) Zoning District and comparable PD (Planned Development) Zoning Districts with similar agricultural uses. A Day Care Center may be established in other PD (Planned Development) Zoning Districts if not specifically prohibited by the PD regulations and if the project site does not have a Rural Residential/Agricultural or Open Space General Plan Land Use designation. Any PD regulations which require a Conditional Use Permit for Day Care Centers shall be superseded by this Chapter and shall be subject to the requirements of this Chapter. City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance 82-1 September 2013 ATTACHMENT 2 DAY CARE CENTERS Chapter 8.82 B. Parking. The Day Care Center shall provide the amount of parking required in Section 8.76.080 (Parking Requirements by Use Type) of the Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations. C. Drop-Off/Pick-Up. A Day Care Center that provides care for non-school aged children shall have staggered drop-off and pick-up of children across a minimum 1-hour time period. D. Hours of Operation. Hours of operation for a Day Care Center shall be limited to between 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. E. Outdoor Play Activity Hours. Outdoor play activities involving children associated with a Day Care Center that is located on a parcel of land that either shares a property line with a residential use or borders a vacant parcel that shares a property line with a residential use shall be limited to between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Outdoor play activities involving children associated with a Day Care Center that does not share a property line with a residential use or border a vacant parcel that shares a property line with a residential use shall be limited to between 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. F. Outdoor Play Area. 1. Site Development Review Required. Modifications to existing outdoor play area(s) or the establishment of new outdoor play area(s) for use by children associated with a Day Care Center shall be subject to Chapter 8.104 (Site Development Review). 2. Day Care Center Adjacent to Residential Land Use. A Day Care Center that is located on a parcel of land that shares a property line with a residential land use or borders a vacant parcel that shares a property line with a residential land use and proposes to use an existing outdoor play area(s) or establish a new outdoor play area(s) shall be limited in the amount of outdoor play as set forth in Table 1, Number of Children-Hours per Day within an Outdoor Play Area and section 8.82.050. 3. Day Care Center Across from a Residential Land Use. A Day Care Center that proposes to use an existing outdoor play area(s) or establish a new outdoor play area(s) and is not adjacent to a residential land use as defined above in 8.82.040.F.2 but is located along a residential street or residential collector street (as defined in the Dublin General Plan) that has residential land uses shall be reviewed by the Community Development Director to determine whether a Zoning Clearance or Minor Use Permit shall be required. City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance 82-2 September 2013 DAY CARE CENTERS Chapter 8.82 Table 1. Number of Children-Hours per Day within an Outdoor Play Area Distance from Center of Play Area to Residential Property Line (Distance"A") . N`ulnber pf Ch ldren Hours per Day 0-9 feet 0 0 0 10-14 feet 2 5 8 15-19 feet 4 12 18 20-24 feet 7 20 33 25-29 feet 10 35 50 30-39 feet 16 50 75 40-49 feet 28 90 130 50-59 feet 45 140 200 60-74 feet 60 200 300 75-99 feet 100 300 450 100+feet 180 500 800 Note:A distance that results in a fraction of 0.5 or greater shall be rounded up to the nearest whole foot. G. Noise/Nuisance. All outdoor activities involving children shall occur within a designated Outdoor Play Area(s) and shall be monitored and controlled so as not to create unusual or unnecessary noise that may disturb or annoy persons living or working in the vicinity. H. Signs. All signs associated with a Day Care Center shall conform to Chapter 8.84 (Sign Regulations). I. State of California Licensing. Any Day Care Center that is required to obtain a license from the State of California to operate shall submit a copy to the Community Development Department prior to establishment of the Day Care Center and shall keep said license current and valid throughout the life of the Day Care Center. If a Day Care Center is exempt from licensing by the State of California as a child care center because they are registered as a Heritage School, proof of registration shall be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to the establishment of the Day Care Center and shall be kept current and valid throughout the life of the Day Care Center. City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance 82-3 September 2013 DAY CARE CENTERS Chapter 8.82 J. Business License. The operator of the Day Care Center shall obtain a City of Dublin Business License prior to establishing the Day Care Center. The Business License shall remain current and valid throughout the life of the Day Care Center. K. Compliance with Local Ordinances. The operator of the Day Care Center shall comply with all applicable City of Dublin Ordinances including, but not limited to, Chapter 5.56 (Smoking Pollution Control); Chapter 5.64 (Property Maintenance); and, Chapter 7.32 (Building Security). 8.82.050 Determining the Number of Children-Hours per Day within an Outdoor Play Area. A. Procedures. In order to determine the allowable "Maximum Number of Children-Hours per Day" as set forth in Table 1 (refer to Section 8.82.040.F) the following procedures shall apply: 1. Identify the location of the outdoor play area on the Applicant's Site Plan and determine the center of the play area(refer to Section 8.82.050.13). 2. Measure the distance from the center of the play area to the nearest residential property line (refer to Section 8.82.050.C). Mark the location on the nearest residential property line as the "Ambient Noise Level Measurement Location" or "ANLML". 3. Measure the distance from the ANLML to the edge of the nearest freeway (refer to Section 8.82.050.D) and nearby roadways (refer to Section 8.82.050.E). Based on the measured distances and visibility of the nearest freeway and nearby roadways, determine the Ambient Noise Level (Quieter, Moderate or Noisier) at the ANLML (refer to Section 8.82.050.F). 4. Locate the applicable Distance "A" in Table 1 and the applicable Ambient Noise Level (Quieter, Moderate or Noisier). Where the row and column intersect is the maximum number of children-hours per day allowed (refer to Section 8.82.050.G). 5. Calculate the Applicant's proposed number of children-hours per day (refer to Section 8.82.050.H). Compare this number with the maximum number of children- hours per day allowed from Table 1 (refer to Section 8.82.050.A.4). If the Applicant's number is less than the number obtained from Table 1, the project meets the required development standard. If the Applicant's number is more than the number obtained from Table 1, the Applicant may choose to reduce their number of children-hours or apply for a Minor Use Permit. City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance 82-4 September 2013 DAY CARE CENTERS Chapter 8.82 B. Determining the Center of the Play Area. The center of the play area is determined by drawing two diagonal lines from opposite corners of the play area. The center of the play area is the location where the two lines intersect. Any portion of a play area that is blocked from the nearest residential property line by a building shall be disregarded when determining the center of the play area. Refer to Section 8.82.060, Figure 1. C. Determining the Distance from the Center of the Play Area to a Residential Property Line (Distance "A"). Distance "A" shall be measured as the shortest, straight-line distance between the center of the play area to the nearest residential property line. The location on the nearest residential property line shall be the "Ambient Noise Level Measurement Location" or"ANLML". Refer to Section 8.82.060, Figure 1. D. Determining the Distance from the Ambient Noise Level Measurement Location (ANLML)to the Nearest Freeway (Distance"X"). Distance "X" shall be measured as the shortest, straight-line distance from the ANLML to the edge of the traveled way of the nearest freeway. Refer to Section 8.82.060,Figures 2 and 3. E. Determining the Distance from the Ambient Noise Level Measurement Location (ANLML) to the Nearest Roadway(s) (Distance"Y"). Distance "Y" shall be measured as the shortest, straight-line distance from the ANLML to the edge of the traveled way of the nearest Arterial or Class I Collector, as defined in the Dublin General Plan. Refer to Section 8.82.060, Figures 2 and 3. F. Determining the Ambient Noise Level. The existing noise environment is defined by one of three Ambient Noise Level categories: Quieter, Moderate and Noisier. Each category describes the existing noise environment based on the proximity and visibility of freeways and/or roadways to the "Ambient Noise Level Measurement Location" (refer to 8.82.050.C). The following describes the characteristics of each Ambient Noise Level category: 1. Quieter Noise Environment. A "Quieter" noise environment is when the "Ambient Noise Level Measurement Location" meets all of the following criteria: 1) is at least 500-feet from the edge of the traveled way of a freeway; 2) is at least 200-feet from the edge of the traveled way of an Arterial or Class I Collector (as defined in the Dublin General Plan); and, 3) the line-of-sight to all freeways and roadways (except Residential and Residential Collector streets, as defined in the General Plan) is blocked by buildings and/or terrain (not including vegetation). Refer to Section 8.82.060, Figure 2. 2. Moderate Noise Environment. A location shall be considered a "Moderate" noise environment if it does not meet the criteria for a "Quieter" noise environment or a"Noisier" noise environment. 3. Noisier Noise Environment. A "Noisier" noise environment is when the *`Ambient Noise Level Measurement Location" meets the following criteria: 1) is City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance 82-5 September 2013 DAY CARE CENTERS Chapter 8.82 within 150-feet of the edge of the traveled way of a freeway or within 75-feet of the traveled way of an Arterial or Class I Collector (as defined in the Dublin General Plan); and, 2) there is at least a partial line-of-sight to the freeway, Arterial or Class I Collector street. Refer to Section 8.82.060, Figure 3. G. Determining the Maximum Number of Children-Hours per Day Allowed. The maximum number of children-hours per day allowed within the outdoor play area is set forth in Table 1 and shall be determined based on the distance between the center of the play area and the closest residential property line (Distance "A") and the Ambient Noise Level (Quieter, Moderate or Noisier). H. Calculating the Applicant's Number of Children-Hours per Day. The Applicant's Number of Children-Hours per Day shall be calculated by multiplying the number of children in the outdoor play area at any given time by the number of outdoor play periods per day by the duration of the outdoor play period(s). For example, if 30 children use the outdoor play area 4 times a day for 45-minutes each time then the total "children-hours per day" is calculated as follows: 30 children x 4 play times x .75 (45 minutes equals .75 of 1 hour) = 90 Children-Hours per day. If the number of children and/or the duration of play varies throughout the day then each play period shall be calculated individually and summed for the total Children-Hours per day. 8.82.060 Figures City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance 82-6 September 2013 DAY CARE CENTERS Chapter 8.82 Figure 1. C/TYOFDUBLIN CENTER OFPLAYAREA Luc COUM R i PLAY AREA DAY CARE CENTER 90, ( CIZ CP)_ (ANLML � � f w g w Cy- MEAD ANLML ..... AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENT LOCA77ON 9(CP) ..... CENTER POINT OF PLAY AREA DISTANCE A" ..... FROM CENTER POINT OF PLAY AREA TO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LINE R ..... PROPERTY LINE { NOT TO SCALE Note: Adjacent street types are shown as examples to illustrate the development standards contained in the text of this Chapter and do not represent a requirement that Day Care Centers be located along Arterial or Class I Collector Streets or be adjacent to Residential Collector Streets. City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance 82-7 September 2013 DAY CARE CENTERS Chapter 8.82 Figure 2. CITYOFDUBLIN "QUIETER ENVIRONMENT" j BUILDING 7' III RESMEMUL COLLE 74Ri DISTANCE "X">_ 500'— ('PLAY ARkA DISTANCE "y"> 200'--_ _ DAY CARE t cFNTER t + (CP) X. -ANLML ! I LINE Of 900... TO FREEWAY AND ARTERIAL i BLOCKED RESIDENAAL BUILDING ;I �I ANLML ..... AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENT LOCATION I' i (CP) ..... CENTER POINT OF PLAY AREA DISTANCE "X" ..... FROM ANLML TO NEAREST FREEWAY DISTANCE "Y" ..... FROM ANLML TO NEAREST ARTERIAL OR j CLASS I COLLECTOR 'X ..... LINE OF SIGHT TO NEAREST FREEWAY AND NEAREST ARTERIAL OR CLASS I COLLECTOR NOT TO SALE BLOCKED Note: Adjacent street types are shown as examples to illustrate the development standards contained in the text of this Chapter and do not represent a requirement that Day Care Centers be located along Arterial or Class I Collector Streets or be adjacent to Residential Collector Streets. City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance 82-8 September 2013 DAY CARE CENTERS Chapter 8.82 Figure 3. C17 YOFDUBLIN "NOISIER ENVIRONMENT" BUILDING 1 r DISTANCE "X"< 150` MAdE7Y & COLLECTOR r 4 DISTANCE 1'"< 75' - DAY CARE -- C 1 - "{' PLAYQ40UN0 VRtSIDEN174L¢' BUILDING PARTIAL LM1E OF 504T LEGM ANLML ..... AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENT LOCATION 0 (CP) ...- CENTER POINT OF PLAY AREA OISTANCE X" ..... FROM ANLML TO NEAREST FREEWAY DISTANCE 'Y" ..... FROM ANLML TO NEAREST ARTERIAL OR CLASS I COLLECTOR ..... LINE OF SIGHT FROM ANLML NOT TO SCALE Note: Adjacent street types are shown as examples to illustrate the development standards contained in the text of this Chapter and do not represent a requirement that Day Care Centers be located along Arterial or Class I Collector Streets or be adjacent to Residential Collector Streets. City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance 82-9 September 2013 DEFINTIONS Chapter 8.08 8.08.010 Purpose and Intent. The purpose and intent of this chapter is to provide definitions of the terms and phrases used in this Title that are technical or specialized, or that may not reflect common usage. Section 8.04.060, Interpretation, determines how language used throughout the Title is interpreted and sets forth general rules of construction that apply to the textual provisions of this Title. Where any of the definitions in this Chapter may conflict with definitions in the other chapters of the Dublin Municipal Code,these definitions prevail for the purposes of this Title. 8.08.020 Definitions(A-Z) Day Care Center(use type).The term Day Care Center shall mean any eh-i4d day care facility which provides non-medical care and supervision for 15 or more persons including children seniors or persons with disabilities for less than 24 hours a day.A Day Care Center includes but is not limited to infant centers preschools sick-child centers, before or after- school programs for school aged children with or without an educational component, adult day care facilities and similar uses as determined by the Community Development Director.ether than a bar-ge Fm;nily Pay Care Nome or-a Small Family Day Care Nome (Day ear-e eentefs, aeeemmodate 15 ehija..a„) Personal Services(use type).The term Personal Services shall mean a barber shop, nail salon, beauty parlor,tattoo and body piercing,tanning salon,tutoring g enter, self-service laundry(coin- operated), full-service laundry(not a dry cleaning plant)or other service determined to be substantially similar to the above by the Director of Community Development. School-Commercial (use type).The term School -Commercial shall mean a private business, beauty, cooking, language or trade school of a non-recreational nature, or other school which is determined to be substantially similar to the above by the Director of Community Development, located in a commercial zone, and which charges a fee for attendance. Facilities which teach sports or recreation such as martial arts or gymnastics are addressed by the Recreational Facility/Indoor Use Type.Public schools and private schools which meet the requirements of the Compulsory Education Law of the State are addressed by the Community Facility Use Type. Tutoring Center.The term Tutoring Center shall mean a place of business where a student who is working towards satisfying the requirements of the Compulsory Education Law of the State receives private instruction outside of a school or other academic program to develop or enhance their skills in one or more educational subiects. City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance 8-1 September 2013 ATTACHMENT 3 ZONING DISTRICTS AND PERMITTED USES OF LAND Chapter 8.12 8.12.050 Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Land Uses. The following"Land Use Matrix" lists the permitted and conditionally permitted Use Types, as defined in Chapter 8.08, Definitions, in each Zoning District, and the decision-making authority. Uses in the Downtown Dublin Zoning District are set forth in Chapter 8.30 (Downtown Dublin Zoning District) of the Zoning Ordinance. COMMERCIAL USE TYPES COMMERCIAL USE TYPE A R-1 R-2 R-M C-O C-N C-1 C-2 M-P M-1 M-2 Day Care Center(15+ - GlpF cipc G1W G�pc C�pc C4RE GE EA?C_ C-/PE G�pE Children-persons) (see Chapter 8.82) ZC/ ZC/ ZC/ ZC/ ZC/ ZC/ ZC/ ZC/ ZC/ ZC/ MUP I MUP I MUP I MUP I MUP I MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP Y/DECISIONMAKER AUTHORITY Permitted Not Permitted Zoning Clearance ZC Minor Use Permit MUP Conditional Use Permit/Zoning /ZA Fonditional Use Permit/Planning /PC emporary Use Permit TUP City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance 12-1 September 2013 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS Chapter 8.76 8.76.050 Adjustment to the Number of Parking Spaces D. Parking Exception.The r'' ^t^ ^f Community 1)eveiepment may nt" PaAdfig Exeeption ef tip to 0 the Community pevelopf"efit pkeeter-. 1 Unusual Design Situations.The Director of Community Development may grant a Parking Exception of up to 10%of the required parking spaces when necessary due to unusual design situations. A study shall be prepared by a traffic engineer addressing the request for a Parking Exception.Any pproval of a Parking Exception shall be subject to the approval of that study y the Community Development Director. 2. Trash Enclosures. The Director of Community Development may grant a Parking Exception for a reduction in the number of required parking spaces when a reduction is necessary as a result of the construction of a new trash enclosure or the modification of an existing trash enclosure in compliance with Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 7.98 (Solid Waste and Recycling Enclosure Standards). The Parking xception shall be limited to the number of required parking spaces that are lost due to the construction of a new or modification of an existing trash enclosure but in no case shall exceed 10%of the required parking. 8.76.060 Special Regulations K. Re-striping of Parking Lots.Parking lots are periodically resurfaced and re-striped. In order to ensure that parking lots retain the same parking space sizes and locations, and the same circulation locations and dimensions, all parking lots shall be re-striped pursuant to a Zoning Clearanee Site Development Review Waiver. 8.76.080 Parking Requirements by Use Type. The number of off-street parking spaces required for the Use Types in this Chapter shall be as provided in this Section. Square footage requirements are in terms of Gross Floor Area. D. Commercial Use Types. Commercial Use Types shall provide off-street parking spaces as noted in the table below,with the exception of uses located on properties in the Village Parkway District of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan.Uses in the Village Parkway District are not required to provide a prescribed number of parking spaces for any use that is permitted or conditionally permitted in the Downtown Dublin Zoning District. City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance 76-1 September 2013 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS Chapter 8.76 COMMERCIAL USE TYPES NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES REQUIRED Day Care Center(15+) 1 per employee, plus 1 per company vehicle, plus a loading space for every 5 children or clients at the facility Health Services/Clinics 1 per 4-58 250 square feet City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance 76-2 September 2013 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Chapter 8.104 8.104.020 Exemptions from Site Development Review. The permit requirements of this Chapter do not apply to the following: G. Retaining Walls. Retaining walls(retaining earth only)that do not exceed four feet in height above grade and are exempt from a building permit. measuFed f^"' the bette ^� the feating to the top of the wall and afe not required to obtain a gFading per-M H Minor Exterior Modifications to Glass Storefronts. Modifications to existing Mass storefronts in Commercial and Industrial Zoning Districts and comparable Planned Development Zoning Districts including removing an existing window and replacing it with a Mass door; removing an existing Mass door and replacing it with a glass window; or, removing and nd replacing Mass doors so long as the new doors and/or windows match, in color, design and material other exterior doors and windows within the same building and the modifications do not include frosting, tinting inting or the addition of other materials that would otherwise obscure the window. 8.104.030 Waiver. The Community Development Director or his/her designee may approve a Site Development Review Waiver to allow a minor physical change to a site or structure, with or without a previously approved Site Development Review, or minor modifications to approved Site Development Reviews, where the improvement is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, the improvement is consistent with the purposes of this Chapter, with the General Plan and with any applicable Specific Plans and design guidelines, and as specified below. It is not the intent of this Chapter that a series of Site Development Review Waivers be used to circumvent the need for a new Site Development Review. The Community Development Director shall determine if a Site Development Review Waiver is appropriate for the review of the proposed improvement and may transfer hearing jurisdiction of the project at any time. A. Site Development Review Waiver.The following projects are subject to a Site Development Review Waiver: 1. Single-Family and Two-Family Residential Landseape Modifientio Improvements. The following,improvements in the R-1 or R-2 Zoning Districts or comparable Planned Development Zoning Districts with single-family or two-family residential uses. a. Single-Family Residential Landscape Modification. In a Planned Development Zoning District with residential uses,the removal of a tree which is part of the streetscape of a development or is required by the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance 104-1 September 2013 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Chapter 8.104 Conditions of Approval, but which is proposed to be replaced or is proposed to be replaced with a different species. b. Day Care Center Outdoor Play Areas.Modifications to an existing outdoor play area(s)or the establishment of a new outdoor play area(s) for use by children associated with a Day Care Center. 2. Multi-family,Commercial and Industrial Improvements. The following improvements in the R-M, Commercial or Industrial Zoning Districts, or comparable Planned Development Zoning Districts with multi-family, commercial or industrial uses. g. Minor Site Layout Modification.A minor modification to the layout of the site including new paving areas, sidewalks, new or modified outdoor play area(s) for use by children associated with a Day Care Center or other similar improvements as determined by the Community Development Director. h. Window Modifications.Window modifications which include new and replacement windows,unless otherwise exempted under Minor Exterior Modifications to Glass Storefronts, frosting,tinting or the addition of other materials which may obscure a window as determined by the Community Development Director. j. Trash Enclosures.Modifications to an existing trash enclosure(s)or the construction of a new trash enclosures that complies with Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 7.98 (Solid Waste and Recycling Enclosure Standards), notwithstanding any exceptions that may be granted by Public Works Director, and the modified or new trash enclosure(s)will not result in the loss of required parking except pursuant to Section 8.76.050.D(Parking Exception). 8.104.040 Projects Subject to Site Development Review. The following projects are subject to Site Development Review. When a project which typically requires a Site Development Review Waiver is combined with a project subject to a Site Development Review,the review and project type shall be the highest level. In accordance with Chapter 8.96, Permit Procedures,the Community Development Director and the Zoning Administrator may refer decision making to the Planning Commission at any time. A. Community Development Director.The following projects are subject to a Site Development Review, and shall be reviewed by the Community Development Director or his/her designee: 1. Accessory Structures.Accessory structures, excluding trash enclosures,which are greater than 120 square feet in size in the R-M, Commercial, or Industrial City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance 104-2 September 2013 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Chapter 8.104 Zoning Districts, or Planned Development Zoning Districts with multifamily or nonresidential uses and are visible from any street or located adjacent to a property in the R-1 or R-2 Zoning District or a Planned Development Zoning District with similar residential uses. 3. Agricultural Accessory Structures.All agricultural accessory structures. 7. Residential Additions.Residential additions which are over 500 square feet in size in the R-1 or R-2 Zoning Districts or any Planned Development Zoning Districts with similar residential uses. 8. Residential Demolition and Construction.A residential demolition and construction which includes the demolition of 50 percent or more of the existing exterior walls of the principal structure and the reconstruction, remodel or construction of a new house in the R-1 or R-2 Zoning Districts or any Planned Development Zoning Districts with similar residential uses. 14 Trash Enclosures. Modifications to an existing trash enclosure(s)or the construction of a new trash enclosure(s)that does not comply with Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 7.98 (Solid Waste and Recycling Enclosure Standards), notwithstanding any exceptions that maybe granted by the Public Works Director. Or modifications to an existing trash enclosure(s) or the construction of a new trash enclosure(s)that results in the loss of more than 10%of the required parking. B. Zoning Administrator.The following projects are subject to a Site Development Review, and shall be reviewed by the Zoning Administrator during a Public Hearing: 1. Exception to Accessory Structure Requirements.An exception to the requirements of Section 8.40.020.F.2 of Chapter 8.40 (Accessory Structures).Qh-q#t" City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance 104-3 September 2013 ZONING CLEARANCE Chapter 8.116 8.116.010 Purpose. The purpose of this Chapter is to establish a procedure for certifying conformance of a Zoning Clearance building pepmk, , !aFge family day ear-e application with the requirements of this Title,the General Plan, any applicable Specific Plans, and the terms and conditions of any applicable permits or variances. 8.116.020 Applications Requiring a Zoning Clearance. A. Building permit. B. Signs.All signs which have been identified in Chapter 8.84, Sign Regulations, as requiring a zoning clearance. C. Recreational Facility(Indoor).Recreational facilities (indoor)that meet the standards specified in Chapter 8.70 (Recreational Facilities(Indoor)). D. Large Family Day Care Home. Large family day care homes that meet the standards specified in Chapter 8.66(Large Family Day Care Homes). E. Reasonable Accommodations for Persons with Disabilities. Requests for reasonable accommodation that meet the development standards and regulations contained in Chapter 8.38 (Reasonable Accommodations for Persons with Disabilities). F. Emergency Shelters. Requests to establish and operate an Emergency Shelter that meets the development standards and regulations contained in Chapter 8.45 (Emergency Shelters). G. Auto-Related Uses in the Scarlett Court Overlay Zoning District.Automobile/ Vehicle Brokerage,Automobile/Vehicle Rental, Automobile/Vehicle Repairs and Service, or Automobile/Vehicle Sales and Service use types that meet the standards specified in Chapter 8.34 (Scarlett Court Overlay Zoning District). H. Tobacco Retailers.Tobacco retailers that meet the standards specified in Chapter 8.43 (Tobacco Retailers). I. Day Care Centers. Day Care Centers that meet the standards specified in Chapter 8.82 (Day Care Centers). 8.116.030 Application. A. Building Permit. The Applicant shall submit a complete application for a Building Permit for a structure or a sign. City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance 116-1 September 2013 ZONING CLEARANCE Chapter 8.116 B Signs. The Applicant shall submit a complete application for a"Zoning Clearance for Permanent Signs" along with such information requested on said form. C. Recreational Facility(Indoor). If the Zoning Clearance is for a Recreational Facility (Indoor), the Applicant shall submit a"Zoning Clearance for Indoor Recreational Facility" form along with such information requested on said form. G. Auto Related Use. if the Zoning Cleafanee is faF an auto r-ela4ed use noted above in t c t tt f' .-t O 1 AaniHg Dist« ..t,the ppl: nt shall submit a " o ng Clo r. sueh infigrmation ste said f D. Large Family Day Care Homes. If the Zoning Clearance is for a Large Family Day Care Home,the Applicant shall submit a"Zoning Clearance for Large Family Day Care Homes" form along with such information requested on said form. E. Reasonable Accommodations for Persons with Disabilities. If the Zoning Clearance is for a Reasonable Accommodation for Persons with Disabilities, the Applicant shall submit the appropriate Zoning Clearance application form provided by the Community Development Department along with the items required in Chapter 8.38 (Reasonable Accommodations for Persons with Disabilities). F. Emergency Shelters. If the Zoning Clearance is for an Emergency Shelter,the Applicant shall submit the appropriate Zoning Clearance application form provided by the Community Development Department along with the items required in Chapter 8.45 (Emergency Shelters). G. Auto-Related Uses in the Scarlett Court Overlay Zoning District. If the Zoning Clearance is for an auto-related use noted above in the Scarlett Court Overlay Zoning District the Applicant shall submit a"Zoning Clearance for Auto-Related Uses in the Scarlett Court Overlay Zoning District" form along with such information requested on said form. H. Tobacco Retailer. If the Zoning Clearance is for a tobacco retailer,the Applicant shall submit a"Zoning Clearance for Tobacco Retailer"form along with such information requested on said form. I Day Care Centers If the Zoning Clearance is for a Day Care Center,the Applicant shall submit the appropriate Zoning Clearance application form provided by the Community Development Department along with such information requested on said form. 8.116.040 Approval. The Director shall decide zoning clearance applications as follows: City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance 116-2 September 2013 ZONING CLEARANCE Chapter 8.116 A. Building Permit.All building permit applications shall be reviewed for consistency with the regulations of this Title as required by Chapter 8.04, Title, Purpose and Authority. The zoning clearance approval for a building permit shall be a signature and date on the building permit and an initialed and dated stamp of approval on the approved building plans. B. Signs.All signs identified in the sign regulations as requiring a Zoning Clearance shall be applied for and approved as in subsection A of this section, Building Permit. C. Recreational Facility(Indoor).All recreational facilities(indoor) shall be reviewed for compliance with Chapter 8.70(Recreational Facilities(Indoor)).The zoning clearance approval for a recreational facility(indoor) shall be a completed"Zoning Clearance for Recreational Facilities(Indoor)"application form and any pertinent attachments as required on the form with the date and signature of the c-Community dDevelopment dDirector or his/her designee. D. Large Family Day Care Homes. All large family day care homes shall be reviewed for compliance with Chapter 8.66 (Large Family Day Care Homes). The zoning clearance approval for large family day care homes shall be a completed"Zoning Clearance for Large Family Day Care Homes"application form and any pertinent attachments as required on the form with the date and signature of the Community Development Director or his/her designee. E. Reasonable Accommodations for Persons with Disabilities. All requests for reasonable accommodations shall be reviewed for compliance with Chapter 8.38 (Reasonable Accommodations for Persons with Disabilities). The Zoning Clearance approval for a reasonable accommodation request shall be a completed Zoning Clearance application form and any pertinent attachments as required on the form with the wed-aeved and :fieladin° ^ date and the signature of the Community Development Director or his/her designee. F. Emergency Shelters.All requests for Emergency Shelters shall be reviewed for compliance with Chapter 8.45 (Emergency Shelters).The Zoning Clearance approval for an Emergency Shelter shall be a completed Zoning Clearance application form and any pertinent attachments as required on the form with the date and the signature of the Community Development Director or his/her designee. G. Auto-Related Uses in the Scarlett Court Overlay Zoning District. , types in the gear-W4 G,,,,A Over-lay Zoning Pict-iet.Auto-related uses in the Scarlett Court Overlay Zoning District shall be reviewed for compliance with Chapter 8.34 (Scarlett Court Overlay Zoning District).The Zoning Clearance approval shall be a completed"Zoning Clearance for Auto-Related Uses in the Scarlett Court Overlay Zoning District" application form and any pertinent attachments as required on the form with the date and signature of the Community Development Director or his/her designee. City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance 116-3 September 2013 ZONING CLEARANCE Chapter 8.116 H. Tobacco Retailer.All tobacco retailers shall be reviewed for compliance with Chapter 8.43 (Tobacco Retailers). The zoning clearance approval for a tobacco retailer shall be a completed"Zoning Clearance for Tobacco Retailers"application form and an y pertinent attachments as required on the form with the date and signature of the Community Development Director or his/her designee. I. Day Care Centers.All Day Care Centers shall be reviewed for compliance with Chapter 8.82 (Day Care Centers). The Zoning Clearance approval for Day Care Centers shall be a completed"Zoning Clearance for Day Care Centers"application form and any pertinent attachments as required on the form with the date and signature of the Community Development Director or his/her designee. 8.116.050 Expiration of Zoning Clearance. A. Building Permit.A Zoning Clearance issued in conjunction with a Building Permit shall expire when the Building Permit expires. B. Signs.A Zoning Clearance issued in conjunction with a sign shall expire when the sign is removed. C. Recreational Facility(Indoor), . A Zoning Clearance issued in conjunction with a Recreational Facility(Indoor) , Large Family Day Care Heme oF atite related use in the Searle44 GauA OveFlay Zoning Wistriet shall expire when the use is no longer operational of the use is no Langer in eamplianee with Chapter- 8.34 (SeaFlet4 Cew4 Over-lay Zoning Distriet), Chapter- 8.66 (Large Fafnil� D Gage Homes), r!`1.aptef 4 '70 ( ea4i,nal >aeilities(i.,.l...,r\\ rn-rr�—c[r'c � ccz--v:rv�xccci .....,...., ...............�......,.,.��. D Large Family Day Care Home.A Zoning Clearance issued in coniunction with a large Family Day Care Home shall expire when the use is no longer operational. G-E. Reasonable Accommodation for Persons with Disabilities.A Zoning Clearance issued in conjunction with a Reasonable Accommodation for Persons with Disabilities shall expire when the o is no longer- eemplianeewith rl,aptef 8.38 ( easenable Aeeaffliflm.-Wdatians t n with Disabilities) Upon o vri tion_o f ,, � , ing Glo.,..anee 1 r r the lawfully established reasonable accommodation is no Ionizer being used sed by a person(s)with a disability as by Chapter 8.38 (Reasonable Accommodations for Persons with Disabilities).A lawfully established reasonable accommodation may remain in place as a legal nonconforming structure subject to Chapter 8.140 (Nonconforming Structures and Uses). F. Emergency Shelters.A Zoning Clearance issued in conjunction with an Emergency Shelter shall expire when the use is no longer operational ar the f eilit y is no lengeF i wrrr Fmc[rroc with�ccr-9.-rT(�-rrrcfg ..�y ..�....,er.,). City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance 116-4 September 2013 ZONING CLEARANCE Chapter 8.116 G. Auto-Related Uses in the Scarlett Court Overlay Zoning District. A Zoning Clearance issued in conjunction with an auto-related use in the Scarlett Court Overlay Zoning District shall expire when the use is no longer operational. H. Tobacco Retailers. A Zoning Clearance issued in conjunction with a tobacco retailer shall expire when the use is no longer operational. I. Day Care Centers. A Zoning Clearance issued in conjunction with a Day Care Center shall expire when the use is no longer operational. City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance 116-5 September 2013 ROSEN GOLDBERG DER & LEWITZ, INC. A(oustical and Audiovisual Consultants ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE ANALYSIS FOR: Dublin Day Care Ordinance Dublin, CA RGDL Project#: 12-090 PREPARED FOR: City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 PREPARED BY: Harold S. Goldberg, P.E. Principal Consultant DATE: 1 April 2013 1100 Larkspur Landing Circle#375•Larkspur CA 94939 •Tel 415 464 0150•Fax 415 464 0155#RGDLacoustics.com ATTACHMENT 4 Dublin Day Care Ordinance, Dublin, CA Page 1 Environmental Noise Analysis 1 April 2013 1. Introduction The City of Dublin, California is proposing a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to allow for the establishment of Day Care Centers as a permitted use. The purpose of the Amendment is to adopt a set of development standards that would allow the City to streamline the approval process for Day Care Centers without a Conditional Use Permit review. Currently, Day Care Centers that are proposed adjacent to residential areas are typically required to prepare a site specific noise report addressing the potential impact of outdoor play area noise on the surrounding residential uses. It is envisioned that with the Zoning Ordinance Amendment, the noise study would not be required if the proposed Day Care Center meets adopted Development Standards. This report summarizes the current City noise standards and policies and recommends new development standards. The new standards are derived from the noise level generated by children in an outdoor play area with consideration of the existing ambient noise level at the nearby noise sensitive land use. In addition, the recommended development standards consider the physical attributes of the proposed Day Care Center including location, site layout and operating conditions. In essence, these new standards can be applied by the City Planning Staff without the need for acoustical measurements or noise modeling. 2. Environmental Noise Fundamentals Noise can be defined as unwanted sound. It is commonly measured with an instrument called a sound level meter. The sound level meter captures the sound with a microphone and converts it into a number called a sound level. Sound levels are expressed in units of decibels. To correlate the microphone signal to a level that corresponds to the way humans perceive noise, the A-weighting filter is used. A-weighting de-emphasizes low-frequency and very high-frequency sound in a manner similar to human hearing. The use of A-weighting is required by most local General Plans as well as federal and state noise regulations (e.g. Caltrans, EPA, OSHA and HUD). The abbreviation dBA is sometimes used when the A-weighted sound level is reported. Because of the time-varying nature of environmental sound, there are many descriptors that are used to quantify the sound level. Although one individual descriptor alone does not fully describe a particular noise environment, taken together, they can more accurately represent the noise environment. The maximum instantaneous noise level (Lmax) is often used to identify the loudness of a single event such as a car passby or airplane flyover. To express the average noise level the Leq (equivalent noise level) is used. The Leq can be measured over any length of time but is typically reported for periods of 15 minutes to 1 hour. The background noise level (or residual noise level) is the sound level during the quietest moments. It is usually generated by steady sources such as distant ROSEN GOLDBERG DFR& LEWITZ,INC. 1100 Larkspur Landing Circle#375*Larkspur CA 94939 *Tel 415 464 0150*Fax 415 464 0155♦RGDLacoustics.com Dublin Day Care Ordinance, Dublin, CA Page 2 Environmental Noise Analysis 1 April 2013 freeway traffic. It can be quantified with a descriptor called the Lgo which is the sound level exceeded 90 percent of the time. To quantify the noise level over a 24-hour period, the Day/Night Average Sound Level (DNL or Ldp) or Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is used. These descriptors are averages like the Leq except they include a 10 dB penalty during nighttime hours (and a 5 dB penalty during evening hours in the CNEL) to account for peoples increased sensitivity during these hours. In environmental noise, a change in noise level of 3 dB is considered a just noticeable difference. A 5 dB change is clearly noticeable, but not dramatic. A 10 dB change is perceived as a halving or doubling in loudness. 3. Acoustical Criteria 3.1.City of Dublin General Plan The Noise Element of the City's General Plan has policies regarding noise and land use compatibility. Table 1 provides guidelines for the compatibility of land uses with various noise exposures. The City uses the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) descriptor. A CNEL of 60 dBA or less is considered normally acceptable for residential land use. It should be noted that the City's compatibility standards are normally intended to be used for traffic and transit noise. Table 1: Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE(0) Land Use Category Normally Conditionally Normally Clearly Acceptable Acceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable (Noise Insulation) Features Required Residential 60 or less 60.70 70.75 Over 75 Motels,hotels 60 or less 60-70 70.80 Over 80 Schools,churches,nursing 60 or less 60-70 70-80 Over 80 homes Neighborhood parks 60 or less 60-65 65-70 Over 70 Offices: retail commercial 70 or less 70.75 75.80 Over 80 Industrial 70 or less 70.75 Over 75 Conditionally acceptable exposure requires noise insulation features in building design.Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice. ROSEN GOLDBERG DER& LEWITZ,INC. 1100 Larkspur Landing Circle#375 a Larkspur CA 94939 •Tel 415 464 0150+ Fax 415 464 0155♦RGDLacoustics.com Dublin Day Care Ordinance, Dublin, CA Page 3 Environmental Noise Analysis 1 April 2013 3.2.City of Dublin Noise Ordinance Chapter 5.28 of the City of Dublin's Municipal Code prohibits "...loud, or disturbing, or unnecessary, or unusual or habitual noise or any noise which annoys or disturbs or injures or endangers the health, repose, peace or safety of any reasonable person of normal sensitivity present in the area". The noise ordinance states that it is appropriate to consider the level and character of the noise as well as the level and character of the background noise. Since the City's Noise Ordinance does not contain quantifiable noise level limits, it is not possible to apply the noise ordinance as a threshold for assessing project generated noise in the context of this noise study. 3.3. Increase in Noise The California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines require the determination of whether a project will generate a substantial increase in noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. CEQA does not specify a method for determining when a project would cause a significant increase in noise. Likewise, the City of Dublin does not have criteria for determining when a noise increase is significant. A recent FAA Draft Policy discusses screening and impact thresholds for increases in aircraft noise. For the purposes of this analysis, these thresholds are used to assess the significance of noise increases due to the Day Care Centers as follows — an increase in CNEL is significant if it is; • 5 dBA or greater and the future CNEL is less than 60 dBA or • 3 dBA or greater and the future CNEL is 60 dBA or greater and less than 65 dBA or • 1.5 dBA or greater and the future CNEL is 65 dBA or greater. 4. Development Standards The intent of the development standards is to identify whether a proposed Day Care Center would result in a "less than significant" noise impact. This determination requires that the noise from the outdoor play area not exceed a CNEL of 60 dBA at the property line of the nearby residential land use and that the increase in noise is less than the thresholds presented in Section 3.3. When this analysis is conducted by an acoustical specialist for a site specific noise study, it normally entails the calculation of play area noise levels based on previous acoustical measurements of other play areas, as well as on-site ambient acoustical measurements. To derive a set of development standards to screen for potentially significant noise impacts, typical parameters that are used in a noise impact analysis were reduced to their related physical attributes as follows: ROSEN GOLDBERG DER& LEWITZ,INC. 1100 Larkspur Landing Circle#375*Larkspur CA 94939 s Tel 415 464 0150+Fax 415 464 0155•RGDLacoustics.com Dublin Day Care Ordinance, Dublin, CA Page 4 Environmental Noise Analysis 1 April 2013 0 Factors related to Project Generated Noise: • Distance between outdoor play area and residences. • Number of children using the play area. • Duration of play area usage. • Presence of intervening buildings or terrain (between play area and residences). 0 Factors related to Ambient Noise Levels: • Distance between residences and major roadways. • Presence of intervening buildings or terrain (between residences and roadways) To derive the various development standards, a series of hypothetical Day Care Center scenarios were assessed using previously measured data. The Day Care Center play area was assumed to generate an average noise level (Leq) of 67.5 dBA at a distance of 50 feet from the center of the play area when there are 50 children using the play area. This relationship was developed over the course of several previous site specific Day Care Center noise studies and is based on acoustical measurements of similar facilities. Distance effects are based on the standard attenuation rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance between the source and receiver. To account for the number of children, a rate of 3 dBA per doubling of children was used. The duration of play was accounted for through the use of the CNEL, which is the average noise level over an entire day. For example, there will be a 3 dBA increase in CNEL for each doubling in duration of play area use and a 3 dBA decrease for each halving in the duration of play area. The ambient noise levels are accounted for by considering the location of the existing residences near the day care play area relative to major roadways. Since there can be a relatively large variation in ambient noise levels for seemingly similar locations, generalizations are made based on RGDL's experience with ambient noise level measurements with an effort to maintain a conservative analysis. This means that ambient noise levels are assumed to be on the lower end of the anticipated range since noise impacts are more likely to occur when ambient noise levels are lower. The recommended development standards are presented in Table 1. This table presents the number of children and duration of play area usage depending on the distance to the nearest residential property line and the location relative to ambient noise sources (roadways). Tables 2 and 3 provide guidance for the numeric input needed to use the Table 1. The recommended development standards do not include a factor for the sound attenuation provided by a solid fence or wall that might exist at the residential property line. Though a solid fence or wall might provide noise reduction for ROSEN GOLDBERG DER& LEWITZ,INC. 1100 Larkspur Landing Circle#375 o Larkspur CA 94939 .Tel 415 464 0150+Fax 415 464 0155•RGDLacoustics.com Dublin Day Care Ordinance, Dublin, CA Page 5 Environmental Noise Analysis 1 April 2013 neighboring residents at the first floor elevation, it might not have an effect because second floor rooms could overlook the wall. Also, the wall could block both the play area noise and the ambient noise. If the ambient noise is reduced by the same amount as the play area noise, then the increase in noise is the same whether or not there is a wall. To help minimize the potential for complaints, the City should consider requiring a solid fence or wall separating the play area from the residential lot in addition to the recommended standards in Table 1. Table 1: Maximum Number of"Children x Hours per Day"' for the Outdoor Play Area of a Day Care Center Ambient Noise Level Quieter Moderate Noisier Distance from Play Area to Residence 15— 19 feet 4 12 18 20-24 feet 7 20 33 25—29 feet 10 35 50 30—39 feet 16 50 75 40— 49 feet 28 90 130 50— 59 feet 45 140 200 60— 74 feet 60 200 300 75— 99 feet 100 300 450 100 feet or greater 180 500 800 Notes: 1. "Children-Hours per Day" is calculated by multiplying the number of children in the play area by the duration of the play periodand is summed over the course of the day. For example if 30 children use the play area for four 45-minute periods per day then the total "children-hours per day" is equal to 90 (the calculation is 30 x 4 x%). See example in Table 2. 2. Ambient noise level is divided into three categories and refers to the ambient noise level at the existing residential property line nearest to the proposed outdoor play area. Most locations are"Moderate." A location is"Quieter" if it is at least 500 feet from the edge of a freeway, at least 200 feet from the edge of an arterial or Class I collector, and the line of sight to all roadways (except residential and residential collector streets) is blocked by buildings or terrain (vegetation is not included). A location is"Noisier' if it is within 150 feet of the edge of a freeway(with or without a soundwall), or within 75 feet of an arterial ROSEN GOLDBERG DER& LEWITZ,INC. 1100 Larkspur Landing Circle#375+Larkspur CA 94939•Tel 415 464 0150+Fax 415 464 0155•RGDLacoustics.com Dublin Day Care Ordinance, Dublin, CA Page 6 Environmental Noise Analysis 1 April 2013 or major collector street and the property line location has at least partial line-of-sight to the roadway. All other locations are considered "Moderate". 3. The distance(rounded to the nearest foot)from the play area to the residence is the shortest, straight-line distance between the nearest residential property line and the center of the play area. If a portion of the play is blocked from the property line by the building then disregard the blocked portion in the distance measurement and pro-rate the"Children-Hours per Day" by the percentage area that is not blocked. If all of the play area is blocked from the property line by the building then multiply the actual distance by a factor of 2 to obtain distance from play area to residence. Table 2: Example Calculation for Children x Hours per Day Play Period First Second Third Duration (Hours) 1 0,7 0.5 TOTAL Number of Children 70 40),/X' 0 X 30 Children x Hours co 30 15:::) 115 Example: + There are three play periods per day. 0 The first is 60 minutes long and there are 70 children outdoors 0 The second is 45 minutes long and there are 40 children outdoors 0 The third is 30 minutes long and there are 30 children outdoors. The table is used by entering the duration and number of children for each play period column. The duration is converted from minutes to hours before entering. The bottom row is calculated for each play period column by multiplying the duration by the number of children. Then the Total is calculated by adding all the Children x Hours in the bottom row together. Table 3: Blank Table for Calculation of Children x Hours per Day Play Period First Second Third Fourth Fifth Duration>(Hours) TOTAL Number of Children Children Hours ROSEN GOLDBERG DER& LEWITZ,INC. 1100 Larkspur Landing Circle#375®Larkspur CA 94939 +Tel 415 464 0150+Fax 415 464 0155+RGDLacoustics.com Chapter 7.98 SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING ENCLOSURE STANDARDS Sections: 7.98.010 Applicability. 7.98.020 Definitions. 7.98.030 General construction and design standards. 7.98.040 Multifamily requirements. 7.98.050 Compactors. 7.98.060 Roll-off boxes. 7.98.070 Stormwater pollution prevention. 7.98.080 Permits. 7.98.090 Exceptions. 7.98.010 Applicability. A. The requirements of this chapter shall apply to all building or development permits for: 1. New commercial development projects. 2. New multifamily development projects with five (5) units or more that will utilize shared waste and recycling enclosures. 3. Commercial development projects that trigger a planning entitlement (such as a site development review or conditional use permit) and consist of uses including but not limited to grocery stores, restaurants, markets, auto repair/use and daycares that generate food waste, grease and/or vehicle fluids, and packaging material in addition to uses that have the potential to pollute stormwater as determined by the Director of Public Works. 4. Any other project, including but not limited to tenant improvements, where the Public Works Department concludes that the use has the potential to discharge pollution into the city's storm sewer system. When this chapter applies to a tenant improvement, the property owner or applicant shall be responsible for making improvements only to the solid waste and recycling enclosure used by the tenant. (Ord. 13-12 § 2: Ord. 9-11 § 2 (part)) 7.98.020 Definitions. The terms used in this chapter have the meanings set forth below: "Collection" means the removal and transportation of solid waste, recycling and organics by the collector from the place of delivery to a disposal facility approved under the collector's agreement with the city or by a nonexclusive franchise agreement. "Collector" means that person or business having an exclusive franchise agreement with the city granting to him/her or it the exclusive privilege of collecting or causing to be collected or transported for a fee any solid waste within the city or any portion thereof. "Commercial development" means construction of buildings consisting of retail, professional, wholesale, or industrial facilities. "Compactor" means any roll-off container or bin which has a compaction mechanism, whether stationary or mobile. "Discharge" means (A) any addition of any pollutant that has potential to enter navigable waters A'FFACHMEN'F 5 1 from any point source or(B) any addition of any pollutant to the waters of the contiguous zone or the ocean from any point source other than a vessel or other floating craft. "Food service establishments" include restaurants, markets, bakeries, grocery stores and all other establishments that prepare and/or serve fresh food on the premises. "Illicit discharge" means any discharge to the city storm sewer system that is not composed entirely of stormwater, except discharges pursuant to a NPDES permit and discharges resulting from firefighting activities. "Mixed recycling" consists of any clean, dry paper, plastic and glass (bottles,jars and jugs only), and metal cans (tin and aluminum) placed in a single container. Note: cardboard is also accepted in mixed recycling bins and carts; however, recycling boxes in the carts is often impractical due to the limited capacity and tendency for even flattened boxes to get jammed in the carts. "National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)" means a national program under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act for regulation of discharges of pollutants from point sources to waters of the United States. Discharges are illegal unless authorized by a NPDES permit. "Organics" means all types of green waste including grass and weed clippings, shrub and tree prunings, branches (less than four(4) feet in length and four(4) inches in diameter), leaves, plants, flowers, food scraps and food-soiled paper products. "Owner" means the owner or owners of real property having fee title to the property as identified in the most recent equalized assessment roll of the Alameda County Assessor. "Point source pollution" means a single identifiable localized source of air, water, thermal, noise or light pollution. A point source has negligible extent, distinguishing it from other pollution sources. "Pollutant" means dredged soil, solid waste, incinerator residue, sewage, sewage sludge, munitions, chemical wastes, biological materials, radioactive materials, heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, dirt and industrial, municipal and agricultural waste discharge into water. "Public Works Director" means the city of Dublin Public Works Director or his or her designee. "Recyclable materials,"for the purpose of this document, means all items accepted in the city's commercial recycling program, including mixed recycling (paper, bottles and cans), cardboard and food waste/organics. "Recycling" means processing recovered used resources (waste) into new products to prevent waste of potentially useful resources, reduce the consumption of virgin materials, reduce energy usage, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and water pollution (from landfilling), by reducing the need for solid waste disposal. "Roll-off container" means a metal container that is normally loaded onto a motor vehicle and transported to an appropriate facility. "Solid waste" means all putrescible and nonputrescible solid waste (garbage), including paper, ashes, industrial or commercial wastes, demolition and construction wastes, discarded home and industrial appliances, animal solid and semi-solid wastes other than fecal matter, vegetable wastes, and other discarded solid and semi-solid wastes, but does not include hazardous waste, as herein defined, sewage, or abandoned automobiles. "Stormwater" means stormwater runoff, snow melt runoff, surface runoff and drainage. 2 "Tenant" means any person or persons other than the owner occupying or in possession of the residence or commercial space. (Ord. 9-11 § 2 (part)) 7.98.030 General construction and design standards. The location, design and construction of enclosures for the set out and collection of garbage, recyclables, food waste, landscaping debris or other discarded materials shall conform to all applicable regulations set out in these standards and to all other provisions of the Dublin Municipal Code. A development may have multiple solid waste and recycling enclosures to meet the required amount of capacity. The Public Works Director shall review the design of all enclosures. All enclosures are subject to a site development review permit. Standard enclosures shall have a minimum inside usable floor and wall dimension of eighteen (18) feet wide by ten (10) feet deep, to allow tenant and collector access to the bins/carts and placement of bins sideways in the enclosure if necessary. In some instances, the required enclosure size may be greater than eighteen (18) feet by ten (10) feet. All commercial uses within the city must at a minimum provide adequate space for separate garbage bins, cardboard-only bins and mixed recycling bins. In addition, food service establishments shall provide adequate space for food waste/organics. If a food establishment will generate grease, fat or tallow, adequate space for those containers is also required. The types and size of bins shall be based on the volume of tonnage generated by the development activity, as estimated by the Public Works Director, and with the aim of reducing, as much as possible, the number of service trips per week by the collector. A. Height Clearance of the Enclosure Approach. The entire approach to and from the front of the enclosure shall have at least eighteen (18) feet of vertical clearance to accommodate refuse truck height. The area immediately in front of the enclosure itself, or the location where the bin will be serviced, shall have at least thirty-two (32) feet of vertical clearance to accommodate the servicing of the bin. All projects shall provide clearance for front end loading vehicles, as defined below: Vertical (approach and exit) 18 feet high Vertical (when dumping bin) 32 feet high Lateral 15 feet wide B. Driveways. An asphalt or concrete driveway with fifty (50) feet of straight, direct access that leads to and from the enclosures to the bin is required and shall be built to withstand trucks weighing up to sixty-two thousand (62,000) pounds gross vehicle weight (GVW). The driveway shall be built in accordance with the city standard plans and specifications. C. Concrete Apron at the Approach. 1. The apron surface shall be the same elevation as the enclosure pad threshold and the surrounding surfaces, with a minimum slope of one-eighth (1/8) inch (one percent (1%) grade) per foot away from the enclosure pad so as to direct runoff away from the enclosure. 2. The apron shall extend ten (10) feet from the enclosure pad and be the width of the enclosure opening. To prevent damage to the asphalt paving caused by receptacle impact, the enclosure base shall be designed to withstand up to twenty thousand (20,000) pounds of direct force from a single truck axle. A sufficient strength concrete shall be used to prevent chipping. D. Concrete Enclosure Pad. 3 1. The enclosure pad shall be engineered to withstand up to twenty thousand (20,000) pounds of direct force from a single truck axle for any portion of the pad that is subject to vehicle traffic. 2. The enclosure pad surface shall be the same elevation as the apron threshold. 3. On the open side of the enclosure, a grade break line shall be constructed at the inside edge of the wall with the slab sloping inwards on the inside of the structure and away from the structure on the outside. 4. The ground on all other sides of the structure shall be sloped away from the structure. E. Enclosure Design. Enclosures shall be designed to provide adequate space for collecting and storing solid waste and recyclable materials, including mixed recycling, separated cardboard and food waste/organics (when appropriate). All solid waste and recycling enclosures shall be designed to provide for adequate capacity, based on the volume and tonnage generated by the development activity, as estimated by the Public Works Director, and with the aim of reducing, as much as possible, the number of service trips per week by the collector. 1. Material. The design of the enclosure shall incorporate the same materials used for the primary buildings for a coordinated look and feel to the development. 2. Landscaping. In instances where the enclosure is visible from roadways or other public spaces, an irrigated five (5) foot wide landscape strip running the length of the three (3) nongated enclosure walls shall be provided to allow for vines or large shrubs to shield the walls and discourage graffiti. 3. Height of Walls. All enclosures shall have walls with a minimum height of six (6) feet. 4. Roof. All solid waste and recycling area enclosures that are not located inside a building shall have roofs to prevent contaminants from washing into the storm drain system. The lowest part of the ceiling cannot be lower than nine (9) feet high. The roof shall extend past any open sides. Additionally, the roof shall not overhang the front gate so that the garbage trucks can access the bins. 5. Inside Dimension. a. All enclosures must have sufficient space for at least one (1) bin for solid waste, a second bin of at least equal size for storing and collecting separated cardboard, and either a mixed recycling bin or cart for mixed paper, bottles and cans of sufficient size to collect mixed recycling items generated on site. Enclosures that will be used by food establishments must also allow space for a separate food waste/organics bin of sufficient size to collect food waste generated on site. b. The required interior dimensions shall not include space required for protective curbs or bumpers and shall allow for pairing of trash and recycling container(s) in the same enclosure. All bins must be configured inside the enclosure so as to ensure full access to the entire front area of the bin. c. If the enclosure will service food service establishments, adequate space must also be provided for waste cooking oil storage containers, which must be placed so that they will not interfere with the collector's ability to service the enclosure, either by blocking access or as a result of leaking oil that creates a hazard for drivers. d. The enclosure shall be large enough to provide a minimum of twenty-four (24) inches on each side of the bins, twenty-four(24) inches between bins placed side by side and thirty-six (36) inches from the front of the bin to the gate. If bins are placed facing each other, a minimum of 4 thirty-six (36) inches between bins is required. A protective buffer(cement curb, bollards or wood/rubber bumper) is required around all interior walls, including partial walls on the gated side, to prevent damage to the enclosure during servicing. Enclosure dimensions will increase depending on the size and number of required bins, which are dependent upon the use. Multiple enclosures may also be required, depending on the size of the development and type(s) of use. If there are multiple enclosures required, each enclosure shall have enough space to pair trash and recycling containers in the same enclosure, to ensure optimum diversion and to minimize contamination of recycling loads. All enclosures shall conform to the standards listed above. 6. Recycling-Only Enclosures. Smaller"recycling-only" enclosures may be allowed in certain cases where an existing site has adequate enclosure space for trash, but it is not possible to locate the required recycling containers within the trash enclosure, based on the Public Works Director's estimate of required volume. Drainage requirements for recycling-only enclosures will depend on the types of materials stored for recycling. Recycling-only enclosures designated for separated nonputrescible waste (i.e., cardboard-only or mixed recycling bins or carts) shall be subject to a site development review permit. 7. Gates and Pedestrian Doors. a. Double gates are required for enclosures that contain two (2) or more trash or recycling bins. b. Gates shall be free hanging with no center pole. The gates/doors shall be designed to ensure access and removal of each bin from the enclosure without having to move another bin. c. Gates shall be solid metal painted to incorporate the overall design theme of the development with outside handles on each door and a slide latch to secure the doors. The solid waste and recycling area should not be visible through the gates. In addition, gates must be approximately the same size as the enclosure walls. d. The gated opening shall be a minimum of sixteen (16) feet wide. Gate posts shall be placed outside this span. e. Bolts shall be used to secure the gate to the poles or walls. f. The gate doors must be constructed with a mechanism that will provide a means of securing the gate doors in both an opened and closed position. All gates must be lockable using a standard padlock. g. A pedestrian entrance shall be provided for all enclosures. All pedestrian doors shall open outward to avoid interfering with placement of, and access to, containers. h. An accessible path of travel shall be provided from the main building to the pedestrian entrance door described above. 8. Lighting. The area around and inside the enclosure must be lit with a minimum of one (1) foot-candle. A motion sensor is required. 9. Storage inside the Enclosure—Maintenance. a. The enclosure is for the storage of solid waste, mixed recycling, cardboard, organics and grease containers only. b. Enclosures shall be kept clean, with all recyclables and garbage to be placed in the proper receptacle. No trash or recyclables may be stored on the enclosure floor on either a temporary or permanent basis. Storage of hazardous materials is not allowed in the enclosure. 5 c. All solid waste, mixed recycling, cardboard, organics and grease containers are required to have lids that must be closed when not in use to contain litter and to prevent odor, pests and possible stormwater pollution. In addition, all waste cooking oil storage containers must be leakproof and/or have secondary containment that does not interfere with access to cooking oil, trash or recycling containers. In addition, the waste oil hauler or property manager shall keep a supply on hand of material designed to absorb oil near the container in case there is a spill. 10. Waste Water Pollution Prevention. a. Solid waste and recycling enclosures, with the exception of industrial uses, shall have a drain connected to the sanitary sewer. A hose bib shall be available for periodic wash down. b. The applicant must contact the Dublin San Ramon Services District(DSRSD) for specific sanitary sewer connection and discharge requirements. Sanitary sewer connections and inclusion of a grease or sand/oil interceptor shall be in accordance with DSRSD standard specifications. c. In accordance with DSRSD discharge regulations, solid waste and recycling enclosures servicing industrial uses are prohibited from draining into the sanitary sewer system. Waste generated from these uses shall be directly taken to the appropriate waste facility. d. Stormwater is prohibited from entering the sanitary sewer system; therefore, all solid waste and recycling enclosures that are connected to the sanitary sewer system shall have a roof to prevent stormwater from entering the sanitary system. Grading around the solid waste and recycling enclosure shall be designed to drain stormwater away from the enclosure. F. Enclosure Location and Accessibility. 1. All solid waste, recycling and organics receptacles shall be placed so as to be readily accessible for removal and emptying by the collector, but they shall not be placed within the vehicle traveled portion of any street, road, avenue, way or alley, or at any location so as to constitute a nuisance, pursuant to Section 5.32.070. 2. All bins/enclosures are required to have direct access for collection trucks during normal solid waste, recycling and organics collection days and hours. Direct access means the collection truck can directly access the bin, and insert the forks into the sides of the bin without the driver having to get out of the truck to move the bin. A minimum straight approach of fifty (50) feet is necessary to line up directly with the bin. 3. Provide a turnaround or separate exit that allows the truck to move forward rather than backwards. Maximum back-up distance is fifty (50) feet (unless a greater distance is approved by the franchise hauler) for any maneuver and shall be in a straight line. 4. Solid waste and recycling enclosures shall not be placed in front of fire hydrants and no enclosure shall be placed within five (5) feet of a combustible building wall, opening, or combustible roof eave line. 5. Solid waste and recycling enclosures shall not be installed behind parking spaces except for instances with unusual site constraints. 6. For safety reasons, the turning radius shall be adequate for a three (3) axle truck and shall have a minimum outside turning radius of forty-five (45) feet. A turnaround must be provided for any street, driveway or travel aisle that would otherwise require the collection truck to back up a distance greater than one hundred fifty (150) feet. 7. Truck Specifications. 6 a. Front end loader vehicles need a minimum of fifty (50) feet of unobstructed clearance to access the solid waste and recycling enclosure. Commercial collection vehicles access the solid waste and recycling enclosure at the front of the vehicle. b. Vehicles servicing roll-off containers need a minimum of one hundred thirty-two (132) feet to approach and load the container, and thirty (30) feet of overhead clearance. Roll-off containers are twenty (20) feet in length and eight (8) feet wide. The weight of a roll-off container cannot exceed ten (10) tons when full. G. Existing Development. If an existing development does not have an existing trash enclosure, the development may be required to install a trash enclosure that meets the requirements of this section. (Ord. 13-12 § 3: Ord. 9-11 § 2 (part)) 7.98.040 Multifamily requirements. A. Multifamily complex enclosures in the city of Dublin are required to contain space for separate collection of solid waste, mixed recycling and organics as shown in the table below. Front loader bins shall be used to collect mixed recycling, so that the large quantities of cardboard typically generated at multifamily complexes can be easily recycled by residents. B. Solid waste and recycling enclosures for collection of solid waste, recyclables and organics at multifamily apartment and condominium housing shall observe the requirements of the California Building Code and the requirements of CCR Title 24, regarding accessibility to solid waste and recycling collection containers for persons with disabilities (CCR Title 24, Part 2). C. Minimum requirements for an enclosure or multiple enclosures by dwelling units are as follows: Dwelling Units Garbage(sq. ft.) Organics (sq.ft.)Mixed Recyclables Total Enclosure W) (sq ft) Area(sq.ft.) 2-6 30 30 30 90 7-15 60 60 60 180 16-25 100 100 100 300 26-50 200 200 200 600 51-75 300 300 300 900 76-100 400 400 400 1,200 101-125 490 490 490 1,470 126-150 590 590 590 1,770 151-175 690 1690 690 2,070 176-200 790 790 790 2,370 >200 Every additional 25 dwelling units shall require an additional 100 square feet for solid waste, 100 square feet for recyclables and 100 square feet for organics. (Ord. 9-11 §2 (part)) 7.98.050 Compactors. A. Compactors are generally not permitted unless preapproved by the Public Works Director. Inclusion of a compactor shall not supplant the requirement that a site provide adequate enclosure space for recycling. If a compactor is installed, space for recycling (including organics if applicable) shall be provided in accordance with the requirements discussed above. 7 B. Compactors may require additional space and electrical connections, as well as separate building permits. C. Compactors are required to be covered and shall include plumbing to capture possible leaks and spills. D. Compactors containing solid waste must be serviced at least once per week. The applicant must provide written confirmation from the collector that servicing of the compactor is feasible. E. In order to allow adequate space to hook and unhook the compactor from the roll-off truck, a backup distance of three (3) times the length of the thirty-five (35) foot truck is required (minimum one hundred five (105) feet). This distance must extend straight ahead from the end of the compactor. For safety reasons, a site plan requiring a backup distance less than one hundred five (105) feet to service the compactor will not be approved. Width must be at least twelve (12) feet to allow room to maneuver and to provide clearance from objects/structures/vehicles on either side of the backup length. Immediate approach (minimum thirty (30) feet) to a compactor or roll-off box should be on a flat, level surface. Adequate room for backing up and turning shall be provided on site, and shall not require use of the public right-of-way. (Ord. 9-11 § 2 (part)) 7.98.060 Roll-off boxes. A. Roll-off boxes for ongoing uses are generally not permitted. B. Roll-off containers shall be placed directly behind a building where space is available at a loading dock to allow loading from above. C. Roll-off containers shall be placed on a level surface, unless roll-away protection is required. Placement of roll-off boxes shall be subject to approval by the Public Works Director. D. Loading docks shall be equipped with bumper pads or eight(8) inch high curbs to avoid undue dock damage from heavy containers. E. All projects shall provide clearance for roll-off vehicles as follows: 1. Vertical (approach and exit): fourteen (14) feet high; 2. Vertical (rails raised with bin): twenty-five (25) feet high; 3. Lateral: ten (10) feet wide; 4. Service area length minimum: seventy-five (75) feet long. (Ord. 9-11 § 2 (part)) 7.98.070 Stormwater pollution prevention. A. All properties shall comply with the federal Clean Water Act and the provisions of Chapter 7.74. B. Solid waste and recycling enclosures within the city that are subject to these standards must have a roof to comply with the city of Dublin's National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater permit. (Ord. 9-11 § 2 (part)) 7.98.080 Permits. All necessary permits shall be obtained prior to the construction of any enclosures within the city of Dublin. (Ord. 9-11 § 2 (part)) 7.98.090 Exceptions. Applicants that believe they need a smaller enclosure than required in the city's enclosure design standards may request an exception from the Public Works Department. 8 The Public Works Director or his or her designee shall have the authority to grant exceptions to the requirements of this chapter including, but not limited to, the requirement to connect to the sanitary sewer, and the location, design and construction requirements. The Public Works Director or his or her designee shall review the requests for exceptions on a case-by-case basis. In instances where the Public Works Director or designee waives the requirement to connect to the sanitary sewer, alternative options may be required, including but not limited to the installation of filters in the storm drain inlets. The determination of the Public Works Director may be appealed to the City Manager. (Ord. 13-12 §4: Ord. 9-11 § 2 (part)) The Dublin Municipal Code is current through Ordinance City Website: http://www.ci.dublin.ca.us/ 4-13, passed August 20, 2013. (http://www.ci.dublin.ca.us/) Disclaimer: The City Clerk's Office has the official version of the City Telephone: (925) 833-6600 Dublin Municipal Code. Users should contact the City Clerk's Office Code Publishing Company for ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited above. (http://www.codepublishing.com/) el-ibrary (http://www.codepublishing.com /elibrary.html) 9 G�-ODU Community Development Department rn _�"'i���� Planning Division 19 4 `�• 82 qt/FOP-.0 MEMORANDUM Date: December 5, 2007 To: Planning Division From: Jeri Ram, Community Development Director Subject: Zoning Ordinance interpretation, Parking Requirements for Medical and Dental Offices Chapter 8.76, Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations, indicates parking requirements by use type. Section 8.76.080.D includes parking requirements for both professional office uses and health services/clinics. The parking requirements for each use is identified below: Office — 1 space per 250 square feet (the requirement decreases based on the size of the project) Health Services/Clinics — 1 space per 150 square feet Chapter 8.08, Definitions, of the Zoning Ordinance includes definitions of both professional office and health services/clinics. The definitions are as follows: "Health Services/Clinics (use type). The term Health Services/Clinics shall mean service establishments primarily engaged in providing outpatient medical, mental health sur•ical and other •ersonal health services includin•: medical, dental, psychiatric, medical and health care such as acupressurists, acupuncturists, chiropractors, chiropodists, dentists, doctors of oriental medicine, herbalists, medical doctors, physical therapists, podiatrists, psychiatrists, optometrists, or other health professionals determined to be substantially similar to the above by the Director of Community Development. Clinics may include accessory retail pharmacies." "Office - Professional/Administrative (use type). The term Office Professional/Administrative shall mean an office or office building for the conduct of business, administration or professional services, where these activities do not include the manufacture, storage, display except for samples,,or sale at retail of any merchandise on the premise, including but not limited to the following types of occupancy: accountant, advertising agency, architect, attorney, broker (stock and bond), business consultant,, business management;chiropodist, chiropractor, collecting agency, dentist, employment agency, engineer, financial services, industrial management, insurance, landscape architect, loan agency, medical doctor, mortgage company, optometrist, osteopath, philanthropic or charitable Page 1of2 Attachment 6 organization, public utilities, real estate, sales representative, secretarial, telephone answering, travel agent, telecommuting center or other uses determined to be substantially similar to the above by the Director of Community Development." As shown above, both the "Office-Professional/Administrative" and the "Heath Services/Clinics" use types include doctor, dental and similar medical offices. As a result, parking requirements may have been applied inconsistently in the past. Most medical and dental offices in the City have been approved with a parking requirement of one parking stall per 250 sq. ft. A review of the APA Parking Standards book indicates that most cities have a parking requirement of one parking stall per 250 sq. ft. In accordance with Section 8.04.060 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, the Community Development Director has made the following interpretation All Health Services/Clinics shall have a parking requirement of one parking stall for every 250 sq. ft. of floor area regardless of the.size of the building. This interpretation is based on the fact that the City currently has two different parking requirements for health services/clinics, typical parking requirements in other cities, recent medical buildings have been constructed with a parking ration of 1/250 sq. ft. and due to the fact that by requiring a parking ratio of one parking stall for ever 150 sq. ft., it is unlikely that medical or dental offices would be permitted in this City. This interpretation will be incorporated into the next round of Zoning Ordinance updates scheduled for 2008. Page.2 of 2 RESOLUTION NO. 13-XX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO DUBLIN ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTERS 8.08 (DEFINITIONS), 8.12 (ZONING DISTRICTS AND PERMITTED USES OF LAND), 8.76 (OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS), 8.104 (SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW), 8.116 (ZONING CLEARANCE) AND THE CREATION OF CHAPTER 8.82 (DAY CARE CENTERS) EFFECTIVE CITY-WIDE PLPA-2012-00037 WHEREAS, at the June 19, 2012 City Council meeting, Staff was directed to prepare an informational report on the City's noise regulations and develop options regarding day care facilities for the City Council's consideration, including the reuse of school sites for the operation of private day care facilities; and WHEREAS, on July 17, 2012, Staff presented the report to the City Council and were directed to prepare Zoning Ordinance Amendments to establish a ministerial process for the review and approval of day care centers if they can meet established development standards; and WHEREAS, based on the City Council's direction, Staff has prepared a new Zoning Ordinance chapter to regulate the establishment of Day Care Centers; and WHEREAS, Staff is also proposing other Zoning Ordinance Amendments to: 1) streamline the review and approval of trash enclosures; 2) allow parking exceptions for new or modified trash enclosures; 3) define tutoring centers and establish them as Personal Services (use type); 4) identify language schools and private schools in the School-Commercial (use type); 5) clarify that parking lot restriping is subject to approval of a Site Development Review Waiver; 6) revise the parking requirement for Health Services/Clinics based on a Community Development Director determination; 7) clarify how the height of a retaining wall is measured; 8) allow minor exterior modifications to glass storefronts to be exempt from Site Development Review; 9) minor grammatical corrections and clarifications in the Site Development Review Chapter; and 10) revisions to the Zoning Clearance chapter to establish consistency and clarity among the various types of permits subject to a Zoning Clearance; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with State Guidelines and City Environmental Regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the CEQA, Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council find this project exempt in accordance with Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that the amendments to Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) will not have a significant effect on the environment; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted to the City of Dublin Planning Commission recommending City Council approval of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments; and ATTACHMENT 7 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the project on September 10, 2013 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law; 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 Dublin Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council adopt the Ordinance attached hereto as Exhibit A. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of September 2013 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Assistant Community Development Director 2 of 2 ORDINANCE NO. xx— 13 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN * * * * * * * * * * * * * * APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO DUBLIN ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTERS 8.08 (DEFINITIONS), 8.12 (ZONING DISTRICTS AND PERMITTED USES OF LAND), 8.76 (OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS), 8.104 (SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW), 8.116 (ZONING CLEARANCE) AND THE CREATION OF CHAPTER 8.82 (DAY CARE CENTERS) EFFECTIVE CITY-WIDE PLPA-2012-00037 WHEREAS, at the June 19, 2012 City Council meeting, Staff was directed to prepare an informational report on the City's noise regulations and develop options regarding day care facilities for the City Council's consideration, including the reuse of school sites for the operation of private day care facilities; and WHEREAS, on July 17, 2012, Staff presented the report to the City Council and were directed to prepare Zoning Ordinance Amendments to establish a ministerial process for the review and approval of day care centers if they can meet established development standards; and WHEREAS, based on the City Council's direction, Staff has prepared a new Zoning Ordinance chapter to regulate the establishment of Day Care Centers; and WHEREAS, Staff is also proposing other Zoning Ordinance Amendments to: 1) streamline the review and approval of trash enclosures; 2) allow parking exceptions for new or modified trash enclosures; 3) define tutoring centers and establish them as Personal Services (use type); 4) identify language schools and private schools in the School-Commercial (use type); 5) clarify that parking lot restriping is subject to approval of a Site Development Review Waiver; 6) revise the parking requirement for Health Services/Clinics based on a Community Development Director determination; 7) clarify how the height of a retaining wall is measured; 8) allow minor exterior modifications to glass storefronts to be exempt from Site Development Review; 9) minor grammatical corrections and clarifications in the Site Development Review Chapter; and 10) revisions to the Zoning Clearance chapter to establish consistency and clarity among the various types of permits subject to a Zoning Clearance; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 10, 2013 and adopted Resolution 13-XX recommending City Council adoption of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted to the City of Dublin City Council recommending approval of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on the project on October 1, 2013, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and EXHIBIT A TO ATTACHMENT 7 WHEREAS, the City Council 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, the City Council of the City of Dublin does ordain as follows: SECTION 1: Pursuant to Section 8.120.050.B of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council hereby finds that the Zoning Ordinance Amendments are consistent with the Dublin General Plan and all applicable Specific Plans in that the Amendments relating to uses such as day care centers and tutoring centers are consistent with applicable land use designations and general development policies. The other amendments propose procedural, clean-up and minor revisions and raise no inconsistencies with the General Plan or any specific plans. SECTION 2: Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"): The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with State Guidelines and City Environmental Regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared. Pursuant to the CEQA, the City Council hereby finds the project exempt in accordance with Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that the amendments to Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) will not have a significant effect on the environment. The adoption of the proposed Ordinance does not, in itself, allow the establishment of any use or the construction of any building or structure, but sets forth the regulations that shall be followed if and when a use is proposed to be established, or a building or structure is proposed to be constructed, or a site is proposed to be developed. This Ordinance of itself, therefore, has no potential for resulting in significant physical change in the environment, directly or ultimately. SECTION 3: Section 8.08.020 (Definitions (A-Z)) of Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code is hereby amended to revise the following definitions to read as follows: Day Care Center (use type). The term Day Care Center shall mean any day care facility which provides non-medical care and supervision for 15 or more persons including children, seniors or persons with disabilities, for less than 24 hours a day. A Day Care Center includes, but is not limited to, infant centers, preschools, sick-child centers, before or after- school programs for school aged children with or without an educational component, adult day care facilities, and similar uses as determined by the Community Development Director. Personal Services (use type). The term Personal Services shall mean a barber shop, nail salon, beauty parlor, tattoo and body piercing, tanning salon, tutoring center, self-service laundry (coin-operated), full-service laundry (not a dry cleaning plant) or other service determined to be substantially similar to the above by the Director of Community Development. School - Commercial (use type). The term School - Commercial shall mean a private business, beauty, cooking, language or trade school of a non-recreational nature, or other 2 of 19 school which is determined to be substantially similar to the above by the Director of Community Development, located in a commercial zone, and which charges a fee for attendance. Facilities which teach sports or recreation such as martial arts or gymnastics are addressed by the Recreational Facility/Indoor Use Type. Public schools and private schools which meet the requirements of the Compulsory Education Law of the State are addressed by the Community Facility Use Type. SECTION 4: Section 8.08.020 (Definitions (A-Z) of Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code is hereby amended to add the following definition: Tutoring Center. The term Tutoring Center shall mean a place of business where a student who is working towards satisfying the requirements of the Compulsory Education Law of the State receives private instruction outside of a school or other academic program to develop or enhance their skills in one or more educational subjects. SECTION 5: Section 8.12.050 (Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Land Uses) of Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code is hereby amended to revise the Day Care Center Commercial Use Type to read as follows: COMMERCIAL USE TYPE A R-1 R-2 R-M C-O C-N C-1 C-2 M-P M-1 M-2 Day Care Center - ZC/ ZC/ ZC/ ZC/ ZC/ ZC/ ZC/ ZC/ ZC/ ZC/ (15+ persons) MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP (see Chapter 8.82) SECTION 6: Section 8.76.050.D (Parking Exception) of Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: D. Parking Exception. 1. Unusual Design Situations. The Director of Community Development may grant a Parking Exception of up to 10% of the required parking spaces when necessary due to unusual design situations. A study shall be prepared by a traffic engineer addressing the request for a Parking Exception. Any approval of a Parking Exception shall be subject to the approval of that study by the Community Development Director. 2. Trash Enclosures. The Director of Community Development may grant a Parking Exception for a reduction in the number of required parking spaces when a reduction is necessary as a result of the construction of a new trash enclosure or the modification of an existing trash enclosure in compliance with Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 7.98 (Solid Waste and Recycling Enclosure Standards). The 3 of 19 Parking Exception shall be limited to the number of required parking spaces that are lost due to the construction of a new or modification of an existing trash enclosure but in no case shall exceed 10% of the required parking. SECTION 7: Section 8.76.060.K (Re-Striping of Parking Lots) of Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: K. Re-striping of Parking Lots. Parking lots are periodically resurfaced and re-striped. In order to ensure that parking lots retain the same parking space sizes and locations, and the same circulation locations and dimensions, all parking lots shall be re-striped pursuant to a Site Development Review Waiver. SECTION 8: Section 8.76.080.D (Commercial Use Types) of Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code is hereby amended to revise the Number of Parking Spaces Required for the Commercial Use Types Day Care Center and Health Services/Clinics as follows: COMMERCIAL USE TYPES NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES REQUIRED Day Care Center (15+) 1 per employee, plus 1 per company vehicle, plus a loading space for every 5 children or clients at the facility Health Services/Clinics 1 per 250 square feet SECTION 9: Section 8.104.020.G (Retaining Walls) of Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: G. Retaining Walls. Retaining walls (retaining earth only) that do not exceed four feet in height above grade and are exempt from a building permit. SECTION 10: Section 8.104.020 (Exemptions from Site Development Review) of Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code is hereby amended to add the following section: H. Minor Exterior Modifications to Glass Storefronts. Modifications to existing glass storefronts in Commercial and Industrial Zoning Districts and comparable Planned Development Zoning Districts including, removing an existing window and replacing it with a glass door; removing an existing glass door and replacing it with a glass window; or, removing and replacing glass doors, so long as the new doors and/or windows match, in color, design and material, other exterior doors and windows within the same building and the modifications do not include frosting, tinting or the addition of other materials that would otherwise obscure the window. 4 of 19 SECTION 11: Section 8.104.030.A.1 (Single Family Residential Landscape Modification) of Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 1. Single-Family and Two-Family Residential Improvements. The following improvements in the R-1 or R-2 Zoning Districts or comparable Planned Development Zoning Districts with single-family or two-family residential uses. a. Single-Family Residential Landscape Modification. In a Planned Development Zoning District with residential uses, the removal of a tree which is part of the streetscape of a development or is required by the Conditions of Approval, but which is proposed to be replaced or is proposed to be replaced with a different species. b. Day Care Center Outdoor Play Areas. Modifications to an existing outdoor play area(s) or the establishment of a new outdoor play area(s) for use by children associated with a Day Care Center. SECTION 12: Section 8.104.030.A.2 (Multifamily, Commercial and Industrial Improvements) of Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2. Multi-family, Commercial and Industrial Improvements. The following improvements in the R-M, Commercial or Industrial Zoning Districts, or comparable Planned Development Zoning Districts with multi-family, commercial or industrial uses. SECTION 13: Section 8.104.030.A.2.g (Minor Site Layout Modification) of Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: g. Minor Site Layout Modification. A minor modification to the layout of the site including new paving areas, sidewalks, new or modified outdoor play areas for use by children associated with a Day Care Center or other similar improvements as determined by the Community Development Director. SECTION 14: Section 8.104.030.A.2.h (Window Modifications) of Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: h. Window Modifications. Window modifications which include new and replacement windows, unless otherwise exempted under Minor Exterior Modifications to Glass Storefronts, frosting, tinting or the addition of other materials which may obscure a window as determined by the Community Development Director. 5 of 19 SECTION 15: Section 8.104.030.A.2 (Multifamily, Commercial and Industrial Improvements) of Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code is hereby amended to add the following subsection: j. Trash Enclosures. Modifications to an existing trash enclosure(s) or the construction of a new trash enclosure(s) that complies with Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 7.98 (Solid Waste and Recycling Enclosure Standards), notwithstanding any exceptions that may be granted by the Public Works Director, and the modified or new trash enclosure(s) will not result in the loss of required parking except pursuant to Section 8.76.050.D (Parking Exception). SECTION 16: Section 8.104.040.A.1 (Accessory Structures) of Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 1. Accessory Structures. Accessory structures, excluding trash enclosures, which are greater than 120 square feet in size in the R-M, Commercial, or Industrial Zoning Districts, or Planned Development Zoning Districts with multifamily or nonresidential uses and are visible from any street or located adjacent to a property in the R-1 or R-2 Zoning District or a Planned Development Zoning District with similar residential uses. SECTION 17: Section 8.104.040.A.3 (Agricultural Accessory Structures) of Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 3. Agricultural Accessory Structures. All agricultural accessory structures. SECTION 18: Section 8.104.040.A.7 (Residential Additions) of Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 7. Residential Additions. Residential additions which are over 500 square feet in size in the R-1 or R-2 Zoning Districts or any Planned Development Zoning Districts with similar residential uses. SECTION 19: Section 8.104.040.A.8 (Residential Demolition and Construction) of Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 8. Residential Demolition and Construction. A residential demolition and construction which includes the demolition of 50 percent or more of the existing exterior walls of the principal structure and the reconstruction, remodel or construction of a new house in the R-1 or R-2 Zoning Districts or any Planned Development Zoning Districts with similar residential uses. 6 of 19 SECTION 20: Section 8.104.040.A (Community Development Director) of Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code is hereby amended to add the following subsection: 14.Trash Enclosures. Modifications to an existing trash enclosure(s) or the construction of a new trash enclosure(s) that does not comply with Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 7.98 (Solid Waste and Recycling Enclosure Standards), notwithstanding any exceptions that may be granted by the Public Works Director. Or, modifications to an existing trash enclosure(s) or the construction of a new trash enclosure(s) that results in the loss of more than 10% of the required parking. SECTION 21: Section 8.104.040.B.1 (Exception to Accessory Structure Requirements) of Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 1. Exception to Accessory Structure Requirements. An exception to the requirements of Section 8.40.020.F.2 of Chapter 8.40 (Accessory Structures). SECTION 22: Chapter 8.116 (Zoning Clearance) of Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 8.116.010 Purpose. The purpose of this Chapter is to establish a procedure for certifying conformance of a Zoning Clearance application with the requirements of this Title, the General Plan, any applicable Specific Plans, and the terms and conditions of any applicable permits or variances. 8.116.020 Applications Requiring a Zoning Clearance. A. Building permit. B. Signs. All signs which have been identified in Chapter 8.84, Sign Regulations, as requiring a zoning clearance. C. Recreational Facility (Indoor). Recreational facilities (indoor) that meet the standards specified in Chapter 8.70 (Recreational Facilities (Indoor)). D. Large Family Day Care Home. Large family day care homes that meet the standards specified in Chapter 8.66 (Large Family Day Care Homes). E. Reasonable Accommodations for Persons with Disabilities. Requests for reasonable accommodation that meet the development standards and regulations contained in Chapter 8.38 (Reasonable Accommodations for Persons with Disabilities). 7 of 19 F. Emergency Shelters. Requests to establish and operate an Emergency Shelter that meets the development standards and regulations contained in Chapter 8.45 (Emergency Shelters). G. Auto-Related Uses in the Scarlett Court Overlay Zoning District. Automobile/Vehicle Brokerage, AutomobileNehicle Rental, AutomobileNehicle Repairs and Service, or AutomobileNehicle Sales and Service use types that meet the standards specified in Chapter 8.34 (Scarlett Court Overlay Zoning District). H. Tobacco Retailers. Tobacco retailers that meet the standards specified in Chapter 8.43 (Tobacco Retailers). I. Day Care Centers. Day Care Centers that meet the standards specified in Chapter 8.82 (Day Care Centers). 8.116.030 Application. A. Building Permit. The Applicant shall submit a complete application for a Building Permit for a structure or a sign. B. Signs. The Applicant shall submit a complete application for a "Zoning Clearance for Permanent Signs" along with such information requested on said form. C. Recreational Facility (Indoor). If the Zoning Clearance is for a Recreational Facility (Indoor), the Applicant shall submit a "Zoning Clearance for Indoor Recreational Facility" form along with such information requested on said form. D. Large Family Day Care Homes. If the Zoning Clearance is for a Large Family Day Care Home, the Applicant shall submit a "Zoning Clearance for Large Family Day Care Homes" form along with such information requested on said form. E. Reasonable Accommodations for Persons with Disabilities. If the Zoning Clearance is for a Reasonable Accommodation for Persons with Disabilities, the Applicant shall submit the appropriate Zoning Clearance application form provided by the Community Development Department along with the items required in Chapter 8.38 (Reasonable Accommodations for Persons with Disabilities). F. Emergency Shelters. If the Zoning Clearance is for an Emergency Shelter, the Applicant shall submit the appropriate Zoning Clearance application form provided by the Community Development Department along with the items required in Chapter 8.45 (Emergency Shelters). G. Auto-Related Uses in the Scarlett Court Overlay Zoning District. If the Zoning Clearance is for an auto-related use noted above in the Scarlett Court Overlay Zoning District, the Applicant shall submit a "Zoning Clearance for Auto-Related Uses in the Scarlett Court Overlay Zoning District" form along with such information requested on said form. H. Tobacco Retailer. If the Zoning Clearance is for a tobacco retailer, the Applicant shall submit a "Zoning Clearance for Tobacco Retailer" form along with such information requested on said form. 8 of 19 I. Day Care Centers. If the Zoning Clearance is for a Day Care Center, the Applicant shall submit the appropriate Zoning Clearance application form provided by the Community Development Department along with such information requested on said form. 8.116.040 Approval. The Director shall decide zoning clearance applications as follows: A. Building Permit. All building permit applications shall be reviewed for consistency with the regulations of this Title as required by Chapter 8.04, Title, Purpose and Authority. The zoning clearance approval for a building permit shall be a signature and date on the building permit and an initialed and dated stamp of approval on the approved building plans. B. Signs. All signs identified in the sign regulations as requiring a Zoning Clearance shall be applied for and approved as in subsection A of this section, Building Permit. C. Recreational Facility (Indoor). All recreational facilities (indoor) shall be reviewed for compliance with Chapter 8.70 (Recreational Facilities (Indoor)). The zoning clearance approval for a recreational facility (indoor) shall be a completed "Zoning Clearance for Recreational Facilities (Indoor)" application form and any pertinent attachments as required on the form with the date and signature of the Community Development Director or his/her designee. D. Large Family Day Care Homes. All large family day care homes shall be reviewed for compliance with Chapter 8.66 (Large Family Day Care Homes). The zoning clearance approval for large family day care homes shall be a completed "Zoning Clearance for Large Family Day Care Homes" application form and any pertinent attachments as required on the form with the date and signature of the Community Development Director or his/her designee. E. Reasonable Accommodations for Persons with Disabilities. All requests for reasonable accommodations shall be reviewed for compliance with Chapter 8.38 (Reasonable Accommodations for Persons with Disabilities). The Zoning Clearance approval for a reasonable accommodation request shall be a completed Zoning Clearance application form and any pertinent attachments as required on the form with the date and the signature of the Community Development Director or his/her designee. F. Emergency Shelters. All requests for Emergency Shelters shall be reviewed for compliance with Chapter 8.45 (Emergency Shelters). The Zoning Clearance approval for an Emergency Shelter shall be a completed Zoning Clearance application form and any pertinent attachments as required on the form with the date and the signature of the Community Development Director or his/her designee. G. Auto-Related Uses in the Scarlett Court Overlay Zoning District. Auto-related uses in the Scarlett Court Overlay Zoning District shall be reviewed for compliance with Chapter 8.34 (Scarlett Court Overlay Zoning District). The Zoning Clearance approval shall be a completed "Zoning Clearance for Auto-Related Uses in the Scarlett Court Overlay Zoning District" application form and any pertinent attachments as required on the form with the date and signature of the Community Development Director or his/her designee. 9 of 19 H. Tobacco Retailer. All tobacco retailers shall be reviewed for compliance with Chapter 8.43 (Tobacco Retailers). The zoning clearance approval for a tobacco retailer shall be a completed "Zoning Clearance for Tobacco Retailers" application form and any pertinent attachments as required on the form with the date and signature of the Community Development Director or his/her designee. I. Day Care Centers. All Day Care Centers shall be reviewed for compliance with Chapter 8.82 (Day Care Centers). The Zoning Clearance approval for Day Care Centers shall be a completed "Zoning Clearance for Day Care Centers" application form and any pertinent attachments as required on the form with the date and signature of the Community Development Director or his/her designee. 8.116.050 Expiration of Zoning Clearance. A. Building Permit. A Zoning Clearance issued in conjunction with a Building Permit shall expire when the Building Permit expires. B. Signs. A Zoning Clearance issued in conjunction with a sign shall expire when the sign is removed. C. Recreational Facility (Indoor). A Zoning Clearance issued in conjunction with a Recreational Facility (Indoor) shall expire when the use is no longer operational. D. Large Family Day Care Home. A Zoning Clearance issued in conjunction with a large Family Day Care Home shall expire when the use is no longer operational. E. Reasonable Accommodation for Persons with Disabilities. A Zoning Clearance issued in conjunction with a Reasonable Accommodation for Persons with Disabilities shall expire when the lawfully established reasonable accommodation is no longer being used by a person(s) with a disability as required by Chapter 8.38 (Reasonable Accommodations for Persons with Disabilities). A lawfully established reasonable accommodation may remain in place as a legal nonconforming structure subject to Chapter 8.140 (Nonconforming Structures and Uses). F. Emergency Shelters. A Zoning Clearance issued in conjunction with an Emergency Shelter shall expire when the use is no longer operational. G. Auto-Related Uses in the Scarlett Court Overlay Zoning District. A Zoning Clearance issued in conjunction with an auto-related use in the Scarlett Court Overlay Zoning District shall expire when the use is no longer operational. H. Tobacco Retailers. A Zoning Clearance issued in conjunction with a tobacco retailer shall expire when the use is no longer operational. I. Day Care Centers. A Zoning Clearance issued in conjunction with a Day Care Center shall expire when the use is no longer operational. 10 of 19 SECTION 23: Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code is hereby amended to add the following Chapter: CHAPTER 8.82 DAY CARE CENTERS 8.82.010 Purpose. The purpose of this Chapter is to establish regulations for the location and operation of Day Care Centers. 8.82.020 Intent. The intent of this Chapter is to: A. Establish a ministerial process for the review and approval of Day Care Centers. B. Establish development standards and regulations for the location and operation of Day Care Centers within the City. C. Reduce the potential for noise impacts from Day Care Centers when located adjacent to a residential land use. 8.82.030 Permitting Procedure. A. A Day Care Center that meets the Development Standards and Regulations contained in this Chapter shall be subject to approval of a Zoning Clearance by the Community Development Director and shall be processed in accordance with Chapter 8.116 (Zoning Clearance). B. A Day Care Center that does not meet the Development Standards and Regulations contained in this Chapter shall be subject to approval of a Minor Use Permit and shall be processed in accordance with Chapter 8.102 (Minor Use Permit). 8.82.040 Development Standards and Regulations. An application for a Zoning Clearance to establish a Day Care Center shall comply with the following development standards and regulations: A. Permitted in all Zoning Districts except A (Agricultural) and comparable PD (Planned Development) Zoning Districts. A Day Care Center may be established in all Zoning Districts with the exception of the A (Agricultural) Zoning District and comparable PD (Planned Development) Zoning Districts with similar agricultural uses. A Day Care Center may be established in other PD (Planned Development) Zoning Districts if not specifically prohibited by the PD regulations and if the project site does not have a Rural Residential/Agricultural or Open Space General Plan Land Use designation. Any PD regulations which require a Conditional Use Permit for Day Care Centers shall be superseded by this Chapter and shall be subject to the requirements of this Chapter. B. Parking. The Day Care Center shall provide the amount of parking required in Section 8.76.080 (Parking Requirements by Use Type) of the Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations. 11 of 19 C. Drop-Off/Pick-Up. A Day Care Center that provides care for non-school aged children shall have staggered drop-off and pick-up of children across a minimum 1-hour time period. D. Hours of Operation. Hours of operation for a Day Care Center shall be limited to between 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. E. Outdoor Play Activity Hours. Outdoor play activities involving children associated with a Day Care Center that is located on a parcel of land that either shares a property line with a residential use or borders a vacant parcel that shares a property line with a residential use shall be limited to between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Outdoor play activities involving children associated with a Day Care Center that does not share a property line with a residential use or border a vacant parcel that shares a property line with a residential use shall be limited to between 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. F. Outdoor Play Area. 1. Site Development Review Required. Modifications to existing outdoor play area(s) or the establishment of new outdoor play area(s) for use by children associated with a Day Care Center shall be subject to Chapter 8.104 (Site Development Review). 2. Day Care Center Adjacent to Residential Land Use. A Day Care Center that is located on a parcel of land that shares a property line with a residential land use or borders a vacant parcel that shares a property line with a residential land use and proposes to use an existing outdoor play area(s) or establish a new outdoor play area(s) shall be limited in the amount of outdoor play as set forth in Table 1, Number of Children-Hours per Day within an Outdoor Play Area and section 8.82.050. 3. Day Care Center Across from a Residential Land Use. A Day Care Center that proposes to use an existing outdoor play area(s) or establish a new outdoor play area(s) and is not adjacent to a residential land use as defined above in 8.82.040.F.2 but is located along a residential street or residential collector street (as defined in the Dublin General Plan) that has residential land uses shall be reviewed by the Community Development Director to determine whether a Zoning Clearance or Minor Use Permit shall be required. Table 1. Number of Children-Hours per Da within an Outdoor Pla Area Distance from Center of ` - � r Play Area to Residential Property Line u r :Mo emit a , l o sieir (Distance "A") Max. Number of Children-Hours per Day 0-9 feet 0 0 0 10-14 feet 2 5 8 12 of 19 15-19 feet 4 12 18 20-24 feet 7 20 33 25-29 feet 10 35 50 30-39 feet 16 50 75 40-49 feet 28 90 130 50-59 feet 45 140 200 60-74 feet 60 200 300 75-99 feet 100 300 450 100+ feet 180 500 800 Note: A distance that results in a fraction of 0.5 or greater shall be rounded up to the nearest whole foot. G. Noise/Nuisance. All outdoor activities involving children shall occur within a designated Outdoor Play Area(s) and shall be monitored and controlled so as not to create unusual or unnecessary noise that may disturb or annoy persons living or working in the vicinity. H. Signs. All signs associated with a Day Care Center shall conform to Chapter 8.84 (Sign Regulations). I. State of California Licensing. Any Day Care Center that is required to obtain a license from the State of California to operate shall submit a copy to the Community Development Department prior to establishment of the Day Care Center and shall keep said license current and valid throughout the life of the Day Care Center. If a Day Care Center is exempt from licensing by the State of California as a child care center because they are registered as a Heritage School, proof of registration shall be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to the establishment of the Day Care Center and shall be kept current and valid throughout the life of the Day Care Center. J. Business License. The operator of the Day Care Center shall obtain a City of Dublin Business License prior to establishing the Day Care Center. The Business License shall remain current and valid throughout the life of the Day Care Center. K. Compliance with Local Ordinances. The operator of the Day Care Center shall comply with all applicable City of Dublin Ordinances including, but not limited to, Chapter 5.56 (Smoking Pollution Control); Chapter 5.64 (Property Maintenance); and, Chapter 7.32 (Building Security). 13 of 19 8.82.050 Determining the Number of Children-Hours per Day within an Outdoor Play Area. A. Procedures. In order to determine the allowable "Maximum Number of Children-Hours per Day" as set forth in Table 1 (refer to Section 8.82.040.F) the following procedures shall apply: 1. Identify the location of the outdoor play area on the Applicant's Site Plan and determine the center of the play area (refer to Section 8.82.050.B). 2. Measure the distance from the center of the play area to the nearest residential property line (refer to Section 8.82.050.C). Mark the location on the nearest residential property line as the "Ambient Noise Level Measurement Location" or "ANLML". 3. Measure the distance from the ANLML to the edge of the nearest freeway (refer to Section 8.82.050.D) and nearby roadways (refer to Section 8.82.050.E). Based on the measured distances and visibility of the nearest freeway and nearby roadways, determine the Ambient Noise Level (Quieter, Moderate or Noisier) at the ANLML (refer to Section 8.82.050.F). 4. Locate the applicable Distance "A" in Table 1 and the applicable Ambient Noise Level (Quieter, Moderate or Noisier). Where the row and column intersect is the maximum number of children-hours per day allowed (refer to Section 8.82.050.G). 5. Calculate the Applicant's proposed number of children-hours per day (refer to Section 8.82.050.H). Compare this number with the maximum number of children-hours per day allowed from Table 1 (refer to Section 8.82.050.A.4). If the Applicant's number is less than the number obtained from Table 1, the project meets the required development standard. If the Applicant's number is more than the number obtained from Table 1, the Applicant may choose to reduce their number of children-hours or apply for a Minor Use Permit. B. Determining the Center of the Play Area. The center of the play area is determined by drawing two diagonal lines from opposite corners of the play area. The center of the play area is the location where the two lines intersect. Any portion of a play area that is blocked from the nearest residential property line by a building shall be disregarded when determining the center of the play area. Refer to Section 8.82.060, Figure 1. C. Determining the Distance from the Center of the Play Area to a Residential Property Line (Distance "A"). Distance "A" shall be measured as the shortest, straight- line distance between the center of the play area to the nearest residential property line. The location on the nearest residential property line shall be the "Ambient Noise Level Measurement Location" or "ANLML". Refer to Section 8.82.060, Figure 1. D. Determining the Distance from the Ambient Noise Level Measurement Location (ANLML) to the Nearest Freeway (Distance "X"). Distance "X" shall be measured as the shortest, straight-line distance from the ANLML to the edge of the traveled way of the nearest freeway. Refer to Section 8.82.060, Figures 2 and 3. 14 of 19 E. Determining the Distance from the Ambient Noise Level Measurement Location (ANLML) to the Nearest Roadway(s) (Distance "Y"). Distance "Y" shall be measured as the shortest, straight-line distance from the ANLML to the edge of the traveled way of the nearest Arterial or Class I Collector, as defined in the Dublin General Plan. Refer to Section 8.82.060, Figures 2 and 3. F. Determining the Ambient Noise Level. The existing noise environment is defined by one of three Ambient Noise Level categories: Quieter, Moderate and Noisier. Each category describes the existing noise environment based on the proximity and visibility of freeways and/or roadways to the "Ambient Noise Level Measurement Location" (refer to 8.82.050.C). The following describes the characteristics of each Ambient Noise Level category: 1. Quieter Noise Environment. A "Quieter" noise environment is when the "Ambient Noise Level Measurement Location" meets all of the following criteria: 1) is at least 500-feet from the edge of the traveled way of a freeway; 2) is at least 200-feet from the edge of the traveled way of an Arterial or Class I Collector (as defined in the Dublin General Plan); and, 3) the line-of-sight to all freeways and roadways (except Residential and Residential Collector streets, as defined in the General Plan) is blocked by buildings and/or terrain (not including vegetation). Refer to Section 8.82.060, Figure 2. 2. Moderate Noise Environment. A location shall be considered a "Moderate" noise environment if it does not meet the criteria for a "Quieter" noise environment or a "Noisier" noise environment. 3. Noisier Noise Environment. A "Noisier" noise environment is when the "Ambient Noise Level Measurement Location" meets the following criteria: 1) is within 150-feet of the edge of the traveled way of a freeway or within 75-feet of the traveled way of an Arterial or Class I Collector (as defined in the Dublin General Plan); and, 2) there is at least a partial line-of-sight to the freeway, Arterial or Class I Collector street. Refer to Section 8.82.060, Figure 3. G. Determining the Maximum Number of Children-Hours per Day Allowed. The maximum number of children-hours per day allowed within the outdoor play area is set forth in Table 1 and shall be determined based on the distance between the center of the play area and the closest residential property line (Distance "A") and the Ambient Noise Level (Quieter, Moderate or Noisier). H. Calculating the Applicant's Number of Children-Hours per Day. The Applicant's Number of Children-Hours per Day shall be calculated by multiplying the number of children in the outdoor play area at any given time by the number of outdoor play periods per day by the duration of the outdoor play period(s). For example, if 30 children use the outdoor play area 4 times a day for 45-minutes each time then the total "children-hours per day" is calculated as follows: 30 children x 4 play times x .75 (45 minutes equals .75 of 1 hour) = 90 Children-Hours per day. If the number of children and/or the duration of play varies throughout the day then each play period shall be calculated individually and summed for the total Children-Hours per day. 15 of 19 8.82.060 Figures Figure 1. CITY OF DUBLIN CENTER OFPLAYAREA RESIDENTIAL COLLECTOR • PLAY AREA DAY CARE 90• CENTER (cP) ANLML z c� 4 4 W MEND ANLML AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENT LOCATION •(CP) CENTER POINT OF PLAY AREA DISTANCE 'A" FROM CENTER POINT OF PLAY AREA TO RESIDENT1AL PROPERTY LINE R PROPERTY LINE NOT TO SCALE Note: Adjacent street types are shown as examples to illustrate the development standards contained in the text of this Chapter and do not represent a requirement that Day Care Centers be located along Arterial or Class I Collector Streets or be adjacent to Residential Collector Streets. 16 of 19 Figure 2. CITY OF DUBLIN "QUIETER ENVIRONMENT" 4, BUILDING ., \`,, RESIDEKRAL COLLECTOR DISTANCE X _ 500 w: c, ! /PYARt}t .- _. i DISTANCE "Y">_ 200' DAY CARE 8 CENTER x z (CP). .`— , ANLML Ei LINE OF SIGHT I v A ANO TO FREEWARJERIAY t BLOCKED RESIDENAAL R BUILDING r, I I LEGEND ANLML AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENT LOCATION • (CP) CENTER POINT OF PLAY AREA DISTANCE "X" FROM ANLML TO NEAREST FREEWAY DISTANCE 'Y" FROM ANLML TO NEAREST ARTERIAL OR CLASS I COLLECTOR � ��������������� `(`X LINE OF SIGHT TO NEAREST FREEWAY AND NEAREST ARTERIAL OR CLASS I COLLECTOR NOT TO SCALE BLOCKED Note: Adjacent street types are shown as examples to illustrate the development standards contained in the text of this Chapter and do not represent a requirement that Day Care Centers be located along Arterial or Class I Collector Streets or be adjacent to Residential Collector Streets. 17 of 19 Figure 3. CITY OF DUBLIN "NOISIER ENVIRONMENT" 9ULDIA'G 1"-„, DISTANCE "x" < 750' RESWITIAL =AEC= a, $3 (AREA. DISTANCE 'Y" < 75=--- DAY CARE „) CENTER ---- RES+DENT,4L r.. BUILDING PARPAt GtEQFSOOT s•" ANLML AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENT LOCATION S (OP) „... CENTER POINT OF PLOY AREA DISTANCE "X" FROM AR'i,M. TO NEAREST FREEWAY DISTANCE "Y" ..... FROM ANLML TO NEAREST ARTERIAL OR CLASS I COLLECTOR ''""'""'.""'"71X LINE OF SVONT FROM ANLML NOT TO SG(£ Note: Adjacent street types are shown as examples to illustrate the development standards contained in the text of this Chapter and do not represent a requirement that Day Care Centers be located along Arterial or Class I Collector Streets or be adjacent to Residential Collector Streets. 18 of 19 Effective Date and Posting of Ordinance This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after the date of its final adoption. The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in at least three (3) public places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 39633 of the Government Code of California. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin on this day of , 2013, by the following votes: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 19 of 19