Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.6 P & R 2004 Master Plan CITY CLERK File # ~--~[~[~-~-~---~-~ AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 16, 2004 SUBJECT: Parks and Recreation Master Plan - March 2004 Update Report by Diane Lowart, Parks & Community Services Director ATTACHMENTS: 1) Initial Study and Negative Declaration : 2) Resolution Adopting a Negative Declaration for the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update (2004) 3) Draft Maser Plan 4) Resolution Adopting the Parks and Recreation Master Plan - March 2004 Update RECOMMENDATION: 1) OpenPublic Hearing  2) Receive Staff Presentation 3) Receive Public Testimony 4) Close Public Hearing and Deliberate 5) Adopt Resolutions FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None DESCRIPTION: The City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan was adopted by the City Council in 1994. The Master Plan establishes goals, long-term policies and standards to guide the City of Dublin in the acquisition, development and management of Dublin's park and recreation facilities. One of the 2003 City Council high priority objectives was to prepare an update to the 1994 Parks and Recreation Master Plan. The General Plan incorporates these policies by reference. (See General Plan, sect. 3.3.) The purpose of the update was to consider revised population and development projections and the impact on the City's proposed park system and recreation facilities. PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE The Parks and Recreation Master Plan - March 200;4 Update is Attachment 3. The Master Plan Update, like the original Master Plan, is organized into five chapters. The first chapter, Introduction, discusses the parameters and purpose of the Master Plan. The second chapter summarizes the analysis of background information and projections used in developing the Plan. The goals and policies established in the Master Plan are discussed in Chapter 3. The fourth chapter provides specific standards or criteria for Dublin's parks and recreation facilities. The fifth chapter, Implementation, describes the funding sources and regulatory tools available to make the plan a reality. Not all parts of the Master Plan have been updated but only those sections affected by changing conditions since adoption of the original Master Plan in 1994. A summation of each chapter and the changes proposed as part of the Master Plan Update follows. COPIES TO: Parks and Community Services Commission G:\COUNCILXAgenda Statements\2004x3-16 prmp update.doc I O~c/ ITEM NO. I. Introduction The City of Dublin anticipates growth that will nearly double its current population at buildout of the City. This growth will generate the need for additional park and recreational facilities. The presence of a well, designed park system and open space conveys an image of the quality of life in a community. As the City continues to expand, it is imperative to acquire and develop new parks, open space and recreation facilities in neighborhood developments. The Parks and Recreation Master Plan adopted by the City Council in July 1994 Was prepared by David Gates and Associates. The information for the Master Plan was gathered through a series of public meetings, interviews, document review, site visits and joint study sessions. A Steering Committee composed of representatives of City commissions and special recreation interest groups such as the little league, soccer league and the senior groups assisted with the development of the Master Plan. The Master Plan Update Was prepared by Singer Fukushima Evans, Inc (SFE). SFE 'reviewed the impact of development since adoption of the 1994 Master Plan and reviewed the pending and proposed development proposals. Updated Population projections and their impact on park and recreation facility demand were also considered. Using this information, the Master Plan Update was prepared which reflects the most current planning and population data available to the City. II. Background & Analysis The Dublin Parks Master Plan Study Area includeS not only the existing City boundaries, but also areas that may be annexed and developed to accommodate future growth. Information that was considered in the development of the Master Plan included 1) existing resources both in the City and region; 2) population, demographics and projected growth; 3) facilities evaluation and demand; and 4) park and recreation facility needs. As part of the Master Plan Update, this information was updated as follows: Existing Resources The Existing Resources plan, Figure 2, was updated to reflect the current boundary of the City and to include the new parks, open space areas and trails that have been acquired since 1994. Tables 3A, 3B and Figure 4 were also updated to reflect existing facilities. With regard to parks and open space, the City of Dublin now has 14 parks, 6 school parks and 122 acres of open space which account for 272 acres of parkland. Of this amount only 39% or 106.4 acres are dedicated as city parks. The following table includes only active public parkland and does not include open space. Park Type No. of Sites Acreage Neighborhood 7 28.4 Community 7 78.0 Subtotal - City Parks 14 106.4 School Parks 6 43.6 Total 20 15040 Population The 1994 Parks and Recreation Master Plan utilized the following population estimates: Existing 26,000 Build-om 66,000 The Master Plan Update utilizes the following population estimates: Existing 30,320 (Department of Finance as of January 2003) Build-out 59,900 The existing population for the 1994 Parks and Recreation Master Plan included the population in Group Quarters described as 1) Institutionalized (correctional, nursing home, other institutions) and 2) Non- Institutionalized (college dorms, military quarters, other non-institutional group quarters); the Master Plan Update does not include this population. Parks and Recreation Facility Needs Table 1, Park Standards and Table 2, Sports Standards were updated to show the existing service level in Dublin and the standards of our neighboring cities were also updated. The recommended Dublin standards for parks and sports facilities were not changed. These standards are guides by which the City may estimate in quantifiable terms the number of acres or square footage of facilities required to meet recreation demand. By attaching the standard to a population variable, it is possible to forecast future park-acreage needs as the population grows. At the time of adoption of the Master Plan in 1994, the City's inventory of facilities generally met the minimum established service standards. The standards for new facilities adopted as part of the Master Plan reflected a higher standard for both the availability and the quality of parks, trails, sports fields and recreation and leisure facilities. Since adoption of the Master Plan, new facilities that have been built have reflected these higher standards. III. Goals & Policies The Parks and Recreation Master Plan contains goals, guiding policies and action programs for each of the following six sections: · Parks System · Trails.and Bikeways · Open Space · Community Image and Character · Park Acquisition and Development · Maintenance and Operations The goals and policies have been developed to be flexible enough to accommodate opportunities and shifts in priorities. However, as part of the Master Plan Update, there are recommended changes to some of the guiding policies and action programs as discussed in the following paragraphs. Park System The goal for this section remains unchanged: Provide for a high-quality and diversified park system to meet the recreational needs and quality of life goals of existing and future residents of Dublin. With a projected service population of 59,900 at build-out, a 299.5-acre park system is required based on providing 5 acres of parkland per 1000 residents (the existing City park standard and reqUirement of the City's subdivision ordinance). As the existing park system consists of approximately 150 acres of active parks (including school parks) this plan calls for the acquisition of an additional 149.5 acres of parkland. The total park acreage currently planned for the eastern and western growth areas combined with the existing acreage anticipates a deficit of 5.3 acres at build-out. Consequently it will be necessary to pursue additional opportunities for parkland acquisition as the City builds out. Staff will be investigating potential park sites based on direction given by the City Council at the October 7, 2003 meeting. Changes to the Guiding Policies are as follows: 1.8 DELETE - Develop a policy which encourages developers to construct neighborhood parks concurrent with neighborhood developments. Based on the past City experience with developer built parks, the City prefers to remain in control of park development and construction. 1.13 ADD - Select sites for parkland acquisition in order to provide for the anticipated deficit of 5.3+ acres. Changes to the Action Program are as follows: lb. REVISE - Develop the 56+~,~,~ .... r~;,,,~,~.~ Par!c 48+_ acre Emerald Glen Park adjacent to Tassajara Creek. The park will provide an image and a memorable focus for the community as well as meet the public's recreational needs. 1 c. REVISE - Develop mn $0+ acre a 60+ acre sports park to meet the community demand for high- quality competitive sports fields. The proposed site for the sports park is on Fallon Road. The General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan will need to be amended to reflect the reduction in acreage. 1 d. ADD - Maintain 11.6+ acres of community park on the Jordan property. ld. DELETE - Develop an additional 46+ acres of multi-purpose community parks to meet the park and recreation facility goals. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan identified a 46~ acre park on the Lin and Silvera properties in the Northern area of the Specific Plan boundaries. It has since been determined that this area is not suitable for park development due to topography and its use as wildlife habitat. The General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan will need to be amended to redesignate this area from Park to open space. lj. ADD - Pending the completion of the Historical District Designation Study of the Donlon Way area pursue opportunities to expand the City's historic holdings in the area. lk. ADD - Designate sites for new parks to alleviate the 5.3+ acre deficiency by amending the parks and Recreation Maser Plan to show the location of such future park sites. The Park Facility Plan, Figure 5, was updated to reflect the location of existing and future City parks. The location of future Parks yet to built was determined by approved development plans or in the absence of approved development plans, where they were shown on the General Plan Land Use Map. Trails and Bikeways The goal for this Section remains unchanged: To create a continuous netWork of paths, walks, and trails, thereby providing a recreational resource of routes and linear open spaces enabling the public to travel by non-motorized modes throughout the Dublin community. Changes to the Guiding Policies are as follows: REVISE pl ign ti pti d ~,r;~-h4~ 1 tht3 iv,~,~, ,-,lc' ~-h .... *~1-~ ~-r dj 2.5 - Ex ore des a ng vate lan .................................... a. acent to any creek on subdivision maps as a potential trail easement. 2.10 REVISE - Provide links to regional trails proposed in EBRPD and LARPD Regional Trail Plans, the Pleasanton Trail Plan, and the Dougherty Valley, San Ramon Westside and Tassajara Valley Plans. Changes to the Action Program are as follows: 2b. DELETE - Work with EBRPD to develop a trail along railroad easement as a cOntinuation of the Iron Horse Trial. (Project is complete.) 2c. DELETE - Work with County FloOd Control t° provide a trail along Alamo Creek channel from the Civic Center to Alamo Creek Park. (Project is complete.) 2d. DELETE - Complete trail segment along Alamo Creek· (ProjeCt is complete.) 2e. REVISE - Complete trail along ?,,q R~on Creek Alamo Creek to Dublin boundary and under 580 to Pleasanton. 2f. REVISE- Create a trail link along Martin Canyon Creek ~'~*~,,~,..,~,,.. ...... +~,,.,, ........ v~,,v,.~.~ ,~,T ~ ~.~.,~o~,~_v,.~ to m ..... *^~ ~'~ ..... :^--~ *'-~:~ to the EBRPD Calaveras Ridge Trail and bikeway along San Ramon Road. 2h. REVISE - Create Continue to develop the trail along Tassajara Creek. 2i. REVISE- Encourage development of .~ .... ~,-,~>~,-.~,-~:~1 ~-~.;1~,~ ,.,,~,.~v,.~"'"~A'~'" the EBRPD Calaveras Ridge. Trail along Donlan Ridge. · REVISE - Provide a re onal sta ng area ................................ P!anning .... __for the Dublin Hills Regional Park. 21. REVISE - Acquire open space trail corridors in eastern Dublin as it develops as per L)22D The Trails Plan, Figure 6, was updated to reflect the location of existing and future bicycle and recreational trails. Open Space Policies The goal for this section remains unchanged: First, to preserve the visual quality of the hillsides and creeks that contribute to the character of Dublin and secondly, to provide public access to and passive recreation opportunities within open space areas. There are no changes to Guiding Policies. There is one additional Action Program as follows: 3e. ADD - Explore potential for creation of Dublin Hills Regional Park. Community Image & Character The goal for this section remains unchanged: Use the park and open space system to provide community identity and character for Dublin, improving the area's visual quality. There are no changes to Guiding policies. Changes to the Action Program are as follows: 4c. DELETE - Create a green Town Square to act as a central focus as a part of the redevelopment of the existing downtown area. 4c. ADD - Revitalize the central core of the downtown area through the creation of community-wide public spaces and a central gathering place for civic celebrations and activities. 4e. DELETE - Develop an attractive, consistent identity program for city parks and recreation facilities. Park Acquisition and Development The goal for this section remains unchanged: Generate the necessary funds and utilize land dedication policies to insure implementation of parks and facilities acquisition and development. Changes to the Guiding Policies are as follows: 5.1 REVISE - Emphasize the acquisition and development of community facilities that serve the community. Changes to the Action Program are as follOWs: 5a. ADD - Monitor the public facilities .fee program to ensure that sufficient fees are collected for acquisition and development of parks and facilities. 5a. DELETE - Provide an in-lieu fee banking program which allows fees to be collected and used to acquire parkland in other areas of the City. 5e. DELETE - Consider formation of special assessment districts such as Mello-Roos Districts, where appropriate. 5f. DELETE - Consider developing a park dedication ordinance or an assessment base for park improvements from new commercial and industrial uses. As part of the Public Facilities Fee Program, non-residential uses are assessed fees for parks and facilities as appropriate. 5g. DELETE - Consider establishing a citywide assessment district. Maintenance and Operations The goal for this section has been revised as follows: Provide planning for asse~t allocation ~; services management and funding for the existing parks and facilities while developing a thorough list of the recreational needs of the rapidly expanding Dublin community. Changes to the Guiding Policies are as follows: 6.1 DELETE - develop a program for interagency, community and volunteer participation and coordination. Changes to the Action Program are as follows: 6g. ADD - Where available, utilize recycled water to irrigate parks if economically feasible. The Illustrative Parks Plan, Figure 8, was updated to reflect the location of existing and future City parks as well as the location of existing and future bicycle and recreational trails. IV. parks and Recreation Facility Standards The Master Plan establishes the number and type of facilities which will be required if the City of Dublin is to meet the recreation needs of future residents at the level of service demanded by the current population. The Master Plan emphasizes the acquisition and development of community facilities and restricting the use of neighborhood parks to those activities that will not impact adjacent residential use. Parks and recreation facility standards and park prototypes have been d~veloped for the various types of park and recreation facilities. Recommended changes to the facility standards and park prototypes as part of the Master Plan Update are summarized below. City Park Standards - These have been replaced with the Emerald Glen Park Standards and are based on the approved master plan for Emerald Glen Park. Figure 9, .City Park Prototype, has been replaced with Emerald Glen Park Prototype. Sports Park Standards - These have been updated to reflect the change in size from 80 acres to 60 net acres and the access and location reflects the approved site of the park. The potential sports facilities were revised based on the reduced park size taking into account the location and topography of the site. Figure 10, Sports Park Prototype, is a preliminary site plan of the park that shows the potential recreation facilities that could be accommodated on the site. (Upon completion of the Fallon Sports Park Master Plan, the Parks & Recreation Master Plan will be amended to include the approved master plan for the park.) Community Park Standards/Community Park Prototype - These have been deleted as this standard and prototype was for the 46+ community park that is no longer included in the City Park System. Civic Park Standards/Civic Park Prototype - These have been deleted as the construction of the library on the Civic Center site precludes development of additional recreation facilities. Neighborhood Park Standards - The development criteria has been clarified to require 5-7 net acres. The potential sports facilities have been expanded to include bocce ball courts. The natural areas have been expanded to include fenced area for dogs off leash. Neighborhood Square Standards - The development criteria has been clarified to require 2 net acres minimum as opposed to 3 acres. Community Center Standards - The square footage has been reduced based on a reduction in population. The suggested location is Emerald Glen Park instead of City or Community Park. Recreation Center Standards - The square footage has been reduced based on a reduction in population and with the Stager Community Gymnasium added to the existing inventory of facilities. Aquatic Center Standards - Outdoor sand volleyball courts have been deleted as a special feature and the suggested location is Emerald Glen Park instead of City Park. Senior Center Standards - These have been updated to reflect the location, size and amenities of the Senior Center currently under construction. Community Theater Standards - These standards have been renamed "Community Theater/Cultural Arts Center" to provide more flexibility in the ultimate design and use of the facility. The potential indoor spaces have been expanded to include a cultural arts center and gallery space. Trail and Bikeway Standards - Language has been added under Creekside Trail Design and Open Space Trail design to coordinate with EBRPD as appropriate. Also included in this chapter is the Park Facilities Distribution Table that identifies the total number of facilities needed at buildout and a potential distribution of facilities. This table was updated based on the revised population and number and size of potential facilities needed. V. Implementation The goals, guiding policies and action programs established in this Master Plan Update represent an ambitious plan. The successful implementation of the Master Plan is contingent upon acquisition of lands as well as funding for development, operations and maintenance of the new facilities. Table 5, Implementation Priorities, recommends specific immediate actions to be taken to continue implementation of the Master Plan. This table has been updated as part of the Master Plan Update. Also included in this chapter are a description of the varioUs funding mechanisms that can be used to fund the parks and facilities identified in the Master Plan. The main change to this section is the inclusion of one additional funding source, Public Facilities Fee. Lastly this section includes a discussion on the cost of development and operations. Table 6 (Funding Sources and Regulatory Mechanisms), Table 7 (Capital Costs and Operation Revenue) and Table 8 (City Park Construction Costs) that were previOusly included in the Master Plan have been deleted from the Master Plan Update as they are no longer necessary to the Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS An Initial Study was prepared by the City of Dublin on January 6, 2004 to assess the potential environmental effects of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update (2004) based upon planning staff review, analysis of consistency with City planning documents, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Law and Guidelines, and City of Dublin CEQA Guidelines. This analysis is intended to satisfy the requirements of CEQA and to provide the City with adequate information for project review. The public review period for the environmental document was 20 days, which began on January 10, 2004 and ended on January 31, 2004 at 5:00 p.m. No comments were received during this period. The Initial Study concluded that the implementation of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update (2004) would not pose any significant environmental impacts. A Negative Declaration was prepared which documented this conclusion (Attachment 1). GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY As indicated above, several revisions to the Parks and Recreation Master Plan are inconsistent with the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Accordingly, if the Council adopts the Master Plan, it would not become effective until such time as the City Council adopts certain conforming changes to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. As a result of the Parks and Recreation Master - March 2004 Update, it will be necessary to amend the City of Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan as follows: 1) Redesignate the site of the 46_+ community park to open space 2) Redesignate the site of a 11_+ neighborhood park on property owned by East Bay Regional Park District to regional park 3) Reduce the size of the Sports Park from 80_+ acres to 60+ acres. Additionally, Staff will carefully review the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to insure that the policies of these plans conform to the changes made to the Guiding Policies and Action Program in the Master Plan Update. CONCLUSION The Parks and Recreation Master Plan - March 2004 Update continues to be a reflection of the City of Dublin's foresight and commitment to ensuring a high quality of life for the community. The plan reflects the desire of the residents of Dublin to have and maintain a high quality of parks, recreation facilities, open space and trails. This desire for quality attracts people to live and work in Dublin. The goal of the Park and Recreation Master Plan is to insure that upon buildout of the City the standards established by the plan are fulfilled. In order to provide a quality of life to Dublin residents competitive with other Th-Valley communities, it is necessary that the parks and facilities currently identified in the plan be built as proposed and that alternative park locations be found in order to alleviate the 5.3-+ acre park deficiency. The following steps will be taken to insure that the Parks and Recreation Master Plan is adhered to: 1) On an annual basis, facility priorities and available funding sources will be evaluated as part of the Capital Improvement Program. 2) Development plans will be reviewed to insure that the standards for park, open space and trail development as outlined in the Master Plan are met. 3) Alternative park locations will be evaluated in order to identify opportunities to alleviate the 5.3+ park deficiency. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council take the following action: 1) receive Staff presentation; 2) receive public comment; 3) deliberate; 4) adopt Resolution Adopting a Negative Declaration for the Parks .and 'Recreation Plan (Attachment 2); and 5) adOpt Resolution Adopting the Parks and Recreation Master Plan - March 2004 Update (Attachment 4). Initial Study and Negative Declaration forthe City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update (2004) Planning Application File No. PA 03-014 Lead Agency City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 January 6, 2004 ATTACHMENT 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Environmental Checklist ........................................................ : ........................................................................ 3 Project Description ....................................................................................................................... : ................. 4 Structure of the Document/Environmental Setting ......................................................................................... 7 Exhibit 1: Regional Context ................................................................................................................... : ....... 9 Exhibit 2: Existing and Proposed Park Facilities ......................................................................................... 10 Exhibit 3: Planning Sub-Areas ...................................................... .............................................................. 11 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ................................................................................................. 12 Determination ............................................................................................................................................... 12 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts with Discussion ................................................. , ............................... 13 Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................................................. 14 Agricultural Resources .................................................................................................. ,. ...................................... 17 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................................................. 19 Biological Resources ............................................................................................... .' ............................................. 21 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................................................ 24 Geology and Soils ........................................................................................................................ ......................... 25 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ......................................................................................................................... 28 Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................................................................................ 30 Land Use and Planning ......................................................................................................................................... 33 Mineral Resources ................................................................................................................. : .............................. 34 Noise ....................................................................................................................................... ' .............................. 34 Population and Housing ........................................................................................................................................ 36 Public Services ...................................................................................................................................................... 37 Recreation ...................................................................................................................................................... ' ....... 38 Transportation and Traffic ..................................................................................................................................... 38 Utility and Services Systems ..................................................................... : ........................................................... 39 Mandatory Findings of SignifiCance ............................................................................................................. 40 Background Information ...................................................................................... i ........................................ 42 Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update Initial Study and Negative Declaration Page 2 of 42 January 6, 2004 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM - INITIAL STUDY This Initial Study has been prepared in accord with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to assess the potential environmental impact 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. 1. Project Title: Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update (2004) 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Dublin Community Development Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 3. Contact Persons and Phone Number: Kristi Bascom, Associate Planner Community Development Department (925) 833-6610 4. Project Location: Citywide 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:City of Dublin Diane Lowart, Parks & Community Services Director 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 6. General/Specific Plan Designation: Various, Citywide 7. Zoning: Various, Citywide 8. Surrounding land uses and setting: Various, Citywide 9. Other Public Agencies: None 10. Actions to which this Initial Study may be applied(including but not limited to): Building and Grading Permits (City of Dublin) Encroachment Permits (City of Dublin) Water Service Permits (DSRSD) Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update Initial Study and Negative Declaration Page 3 of 42 January 6, 2004 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The City of Dublin has prepared a Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update to establish goals, long-term policies and standards to guide in the acquisition, development and management of Dublin's future trails, parks sites, and recreational facilities for the next twenty years within the existing City limits and areas within the sphere of influence. The Parks and Recreation Master Plan was originally adopted in 1994, and the 2004 update to this document has been developed. Exhibit 1 depicts the regional location of the project and surrounding communities in the Tri-Valley Region. The Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update will guide decisions regarding the delivery of services and programs, and the expenditure of funds for operations, park maintenance, and capital improvements. The Master Plan provides policy direction on these topics and also includes a resource analysis of parkland sites; a needs assessment of the service area; and an overview of opportunities, constraints, and activity plans. The Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update addresses these topics and a range of issues, including impacts to aesthetic views, traffic, pedestrian circulation, safety and infrastructure. The Master Plan also explains existing and future park maintenance needs and funding mechanisms for park development. The Master Plan is but one of the City of Dublin's land use planning documents. It is used in conjunction with the General Plan, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, the Downtown Specific Plans and other applicable documents. The General Plan identifies the Parks and Recreation Master Plan as the primary document for quantifying the City's need for recreational facilities. The City of Dublin, as the Lead Agency, has prepared this Initial Study to assess the potential environmental effects of the adoption of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update. This analysis is intended to satisfy the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and to Provide the City with accurate information for project review. Population, Demographics and Growth As part of the planning process for future recreational facilities, Parks and Community Services Staff reviewed population estimates to ensure accurate recreation service levels for all residents. At General Plan buildout in 2025, the City's population is projected to be 59,900 residents. This differs slightly from the 66,000 residents that were predicted at buildout in the 1994 Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Dublin's population growth will be concentrated in Eastern Extended Planning Area, which is projected to have 34,000 residents by 2025, while Schaefer Ranch (in the Western Extended Planning Area) is projected to add 1,500 residents. The Primary Planning Area is projected to have 24,000 residents at buildout, which will bring the City's population in 2025 to 59,900 persons. As a result of these population projections, it is anticipated that additional parks and community facilities will need to be built. Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update Initial Study and Negative Declaration Page 4 of 42 January 6, 2004 Dublin's Existing Park System The City of Dublin currently has 150 acres of parkland. This includes seven neighborhood parks totaling 28.4 acres; six school parks totaling 43.6 acres; and seven community parks totaling 78 acres. Community parks include: Dublin Sports Grounds and Civic Center, Dublin Swim Center, Dougherty Hills, Shannon Park and Community Center, Emerald Glen Park, and the Dublin. Heritage Center. Neighborhood parks include: Kolb Park, Alamo Creek Park, Ted Fairfield Park, Mape Memorial Park, Bray Commons, Dolan Park, and Stagecoach Park. Several school parks within Dublin are also classified as City parks, and these include Dublin High School and Wells Middle School as Community Parks, and Dublin, Frederiksen, Murray and Nielsen Elementary School as Neighborhood Parks. Dublin's FUture Park System Since Dublin's population will be expanding over the next 20 years, the City will need 299.5 acres of parkland to keep to the 5 parkland acres per 1,000 residents standard. This is an additional 149.5 acres that will need to be acquired to serve a projected population of 59,900. The Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update identifies several new community facilities that are anticipated to be built over the next several years. These facilities include a Senior Center, Community Center, Recreation Center, Aquatic Center and Community Theater. Additionally, the Master Plan recommends modifications to several of the City's existing facilities. The Master Plan identifies a 15,000 square foot Senior Center to be constructed at the site of the former Library, which will replace the leased Senior Center facility on Larkdale Avenue. At this same site adjacent to the Senior Center, Eden Housing will be constructing 54 affordable senior apartment units. Construction on the two projects is scheduled to begin Spring 2004. Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update Initial Study and Negative Declaration Page 5 of 42 January 6, 2004 The Master Plan also identifies modifications to other community recreational facilities in the City. A 28,000 square foot Community Center at Emerald Glen Park has been reduced to 24,000 square feet due to reductions in the City's projected population. The 35,000 square foot Recreation Center at Emerald Glen Park has been reduced to 24,000 square feet due to the addition of Stager Community Gymnasium to the park system inventory, and also due to reductions in the City's projected population. The future Community Theater has been reclassified as a Community Theater/Cultural Arts Center to allow more flexibility in the future programming of this facility. Exhibit 2 depicts the location of existing and proposed park facilities, school parks, bicycle and regional trails, and other recreational facilities available to the City of Dublin. These facilities are dispersed throughout the community to provide efficient recreational opportunities to all residents. A majority of Dublin's future trails, parks sites, and recreational facilities are proposed to be located in areas that are not yet developed. The primary need for the parks arises when residential development is completed and there are new residents to use the facilities. For this reason, the precise location of the future parks is not yet known. The general location of the proposed park facilities are identified on Exhibit 2, but the exact site will not be determined until the precise land planning for the new development area is completed. It is for this reason that the environmental analysis done for the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update is somewhat general in nature and why adherence to a broad range of mitigation measures from previously- certified environmental documents is required. Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update Initial Study and Negative Declaration Page 6 of 42 January 6, 2004 STRUCTURE OF THIS INITIAL STUDY AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Environmental Setting: The Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update covers the entire City of Dublin, and crosses over through several planning sub-areas of the City of Dublin (See Exhibit 3). The Western Extended Planning Area of the City provides a unique opportunity for planned parkland and recreational facilities. The area is located along the north side of 1-580, in the hilly terrain between Castro Valley and Dublin. The Primary Planning Area is located in the central portion of Dublin, west of Dougherty Road and Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Facility and into the western hills. Although this area is primarily built out, there are still some opportunities for the redevelopment of properties that could lead to more residential units and the need for more parkland. The Eastern Extended Planning Area is located on the eastern edge of the City of Dublin, generally east of Dougherty Road to the eastern city limits. Environmental Analysis: Throughout the Initial Study for the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update, we will examine potential environmental impacts as they occur in the following planning sub-areas: 1. The Western Extended Planning Area (including Schaefer Ranch); 2. The Primary Planning Area (Central Dublin) 3. The Eastern Extended Planning Area (including the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area and the East Dublin Property Owners annexation area) For potential environmental impacts in the Western Extended Planning Area, the underlying environmental document used as reference is the Final Schaefer Ranch Environmental Impact Report (SCH 95033070), which was certified by the City Council on July 9, 1996. For futUre trails that are proposed in the Western Extended Planning Area outside of Schaefer Ranch, additional environmental analysis may need to be done once the exact nature and scope of the project is planned. At this time, not enough information is available regarding the future trails to do a complete environmental analysis. For potential environmental impacts in the Primary Planning Area, the underlYing document used as reference is the City of Dublin General Plan, which was adopted by the City Council on February 11, 1985. For potential environmental impacts in the Eastern Extended Planning Area, the Underlying environmental document used as reference is the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Final Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update Initial Study and Negative Declaration Page 7 of 42 January 6, 2004 General Plan Amendment Environmental Impact Repod (SCH 91103064), which was adopted by the City Council in 1994. Minor addenda to the EDSP EIR have been adopted since 1994 and they are included in the EIR by reference. Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update Initial Study and Negative Declaration page 8 of 42 January 6, 2004 EXHIBIT 1: REGIONAL CONTEXT · Walnut Creek Oakland Castro Valley Project ° DUBLIN Site ~ HaywaCd 0 Pleasanton San Jo~e Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update Initial Study and Negative Declaration Page 9 of 42 January 6, 2004 City of Dublin Illustrative Parks Plan City Limits Dublin Parks I Planned Parks Bicycle Trails Recreational Trails ~ Parcel Lines · · Creeks ~ I I - Class ~, Existing, Bike Path - - Existing Regional Trail Link ~ City of Dublin Existing Park Facilities Neighborhood Square ~ Class ~, Proposed, Bike Path -- Existing Local Trail Streets ~ i Sphere of Influence Existing School Parks ~ Class 2, Existing, Bike Lane ........... Proposed Local Trail O=o=o=0 Class 2, Proposed, Bike Lane .~ ......... Proposed Regional Trail I Parks RFTA [~--1 City Owned Open Space ~J Iron Horse Trail Corridor J "~ P L E A S A N T ,0 :N Exhibit 2: Existing and Proposed Park Facilities Parks and Recrea~on Master Plan Update Initial Study and Negative Declaration Page I0 of 42 0 0.5 [ 2 3 4 Janua~ 6, 2004 DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP * (Figure I-la) : ,, as amended through November 5, 2002 ! :.-,~ ?,,- I Western Extended Planning Area · Western Extended Planning Area= ~ Primary Planning Area .~ _.Eastern Extended Planning Area. Churches, Parks, Public Schools Notes: Public/Semi-Public/ and City Facilities Open Space 3~ J~hn Knox Pre~b~eman Ch~mh 1 ~ ...... ~ .................................................... ~.,,,,,~ illustrates the Planning Sub-Areas ~.~' DubJin the G*.,~I PI ..... d .pp~abJ, 8peeffi, Plans ~at .o,~in Plan Update Initial otuy°*u"- and ,~gt,"e-a':ve Declaration ~ .,~ Page 11 of 42 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. Aesthetics Agricultural Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils Hazards and Hazardous Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Materials Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/ Circulation Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE X DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made byor agreed to by the project proponent. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed, I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially signifiCant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuantto applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature: i/-',~ ,~'~ ~'3 ~-.~(A,~ Date: January 6, 2004 Printed Name: Kristi Bascom, Associate. Planner For: City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update Initial Study and Negative Declaration Page 12 of 42 January 6, 2004 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Scope of the Environmental Assessment This environmental assessment addresses the potential impacts of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The scope of review includes only potential impacts resulting from development of the facilities described in the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update. Any potential site-specific environmental impacts not anticipated during this environmental review will need to be addressed as part of that application submittal consistent with CEQA requirements. Additionally, any development in the Western Extended Planning Area that is outside the scope of the Schaefer Ranch EIR may need further analysis if it can be determined that potential environmental impacts exist. The method of environmental analysis includes a review to determine whether the impact related to the City's evaluation criteria would be: potentially significant; less than significant unless mitigation is incorporated; less than significant; or no impact. The analysis includes a summary of the affected environment and a review of the threshold for determining significance. The evaluation of potential impacts applies the threshold, determines significance and, if necessary, includes recommended mitigation measures. Sources used to determine potential environmental impacts: Because of the various planning sub-area studies used for each impact, all of the following sources were used for each determination and are not noted individually: 1. Determination based on the Draft Parks and Recreation MaSter Plan Update (2004) 21 Determination based on the Final Schaefer Ranch Environmental Impact Report (SCH 95033070) (1996) 3. Determination based on the City of Dublin General Plan (1985, updated to 2002) 4. Determination based on the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment Environmental Impact Report. (SCH 91103064) (1994) 5.' Determination based on the East Dublin Properties, Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation DSEIR (2002) 6. Determination based on Staff review of the project Copies of all the documents referenced above are available for public review at the City of Dublin Planning Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568. Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update Initial Study and Negative Declaration Page 13 of 42 January 6, 2004 Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? a-c) Have a significant impact on scenic vista, damage to scenic resource, degrade visual character of the site? Goal 3 of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update is to "Preserve the visual quality of the hillsides and creeks which contribute to the character of Dublin and secondly, to provide public access to and passive recreation opportunities within open space." Conformance with this goal will ensure that future trails, parks sites, and recreational facilities throughout Dublin are sited and designed to protect Dublin's aesthetic resources. Western Extended Planninq Area (WEPA): Less than siqnificant. The greater Schaefer Ranch project will have visual and aesthetic impacts to the site. However, the neighborhood park sites proposed for the project area will be only a few acres out of the total 500-acre project. Neighborhood.parks do not typically include major recreational facilities and buildings, but only small outdoor facilities to serve the immediate neighborhood. Adherence to Mitigation Measures 5.A.1 (Grading Plan), 5.C.3 (Tree Replacement), and 5.F.1 (Regional Trail), in particular, will ensure that impacts to views are addressed as the neighborhood park sites are finalized and fully developed. For future trails that are proposed in the Western Extended Planning Area outside of Schaefer Ranch, additional environmental analysis may need to be done once the exact location of the trail and any ancillary facilities are known. At this time, not enough information is available regarding the future trails to reach conclusions on potential environmental impacts. Meanwhile, all mitigation measures adopted with the Schaefer Ranch EIR will apply to all parks and recreation facilities developed in the Schaefer Ranch portion of the Western Extended Planning Area. This will ensure that there are no impacts to aesthetics as a result of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update. No impacts not previously analyzed in the Schaefer Ranch EIR are expected to occur as a result of the implementation of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update, and therefore no additional environmental review or analysis is necessary. Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update Initial Study and Negative Declaration Page 14 of 42 January 6, 2004 Primary Planning Area (PPA): Less than significant impact. There are limited new facilities proposed fOr the Primary Planning Area, including a small new park within an existing open space area, and therefore there will be less than significant impacts to aesthetics as a result of implementing the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update in the Primary Planning Area. No additional environmental review or analysis is necessary. Eastern Extended Planninq Area (EEPA): Less than siqnificant. At the time the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EDSP EIR) was adopted, the area was primarily vacant except for some residences and scattered agricultural buildings. Therefore, any development in the Eastern Extended Planning Area would have an impact on the visual character of the area and the area's scenic resources. These impacts were identified as 3.8/C, 3.8/D, 3.8/E, 3.8/G, and 3.8/I in the EDSP EIR. Adherence to policies 6-29 through 6-39 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan shall ensure that all new facilities developed as a result of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update preserve scenic vistas and view corridors and provide guidelines for grading and building design. In addition to these policies, implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.8/3.0, 3.8/4.0-4.5, 318/5.0-5.2, 3.8/6,0, 3.8/7.0, and 3.8/7.1 will encourage preservation of important visual resources, minimize grading for development, preserving natural contours in grading and building, prohibit development along identified ridgelines, and preserving views of designated open spaces. Despite the mitigation measures listed above, the EDSP EIR concluded that alteration of visual character of the hillside and flatland areas are significant and unmitigatable impacts, and were included in the Statement of Overriding Considerations that the City Council adopted on May 10, 1993. The adopted mitigation measures and Specific Plan policies will apply to all parks and recreational facilities developed in the Eastern Extended Planning Area. No impacts not previously analyzed in the EDSP EIR are expected to occur as a result of the implementation of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update, and therefore no additional environmental review or analysis is necessary. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? WEPA: Less than significant. Planned parks could include sports fields, volleyball and tennis courts that require lighting for night use activities, adding new sources of lighting effecting adjacent properties. Parking lots and entry plazas also introduce new sources of lighting that would be visible from properties adjacent to the parks. This additional source of lighting could be perceived as a negative aesthetic impact from the "spill-over" of additional lighting onto adjacent residential areas. AdditionallY, the land plan for the entire Schaefer Ranch area has been approved and the development of the site will occur (probably in several phases), but essentially as a whole project. The location of the park sites will be known well in advance so that future residents who might be concerned about living adjacent to a neighborhood park because of potential noise concerns can avoid doing so. Mitigation Measure 5.1.1 of the Schaefer Ranch EIR is designed to ensure that night lighting of public facilities does not affect future area residents: "Lighting for proposed public facilities shall be reviewed by the City, with Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update Initial Study and Negative Declaration Page 15 of 42 January 6, 2004 adjustments as needed to minimize any impacts on nearby residential areas, using shields, orientation, and appropriate fiXtures." For future trails that are proposed in the Western Extended Planning Area outside of Schaefer Ranch, additional environmental analysis may need to be done once the exact location of the trail and any ancillary facilities are known. At this time, not enough information is available regarding the future trails to reach conclusions on potential environmental impacts. Meanwhile, all mitigation measures adopted with the Schaefer Ranch EIR will apply to all parks and recreation facilities developed in the Schaefer Ranch portion of the Western Extended Planning Area. This will ensure that the light impacts of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update are less than significant. No impacts not previously analyzed in the Schaefer Ranch EIR are expected to occur as a result of the implementation of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update, and therefore no additional environmental review or analysis is necessary. PPA: Less than siqnificant impact. There are limited new facilities proposed for the Primary Planning Area, including a small new park within an existing open space area. The new Dougherty Hills Mini Park is proposed to be located in the existing Dougherty Hills Open Space Area, and the light or glare impacts from this neighborhood park should be less than significant as it will be about 4 acres in size and no major recreational facilities, buildings, or lighted playing fields are proposed. The site plan for the neighborhood park will be reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission and public comment will be solicited from the neighbors and the public at large to ensure that any proposed, uses on site are compatible with the community and do not have any undesirable light impacts. No additional environmental review or analysis is necessary. EEPA: Less than significant. Planned parks would include: sports fields, volleyball and tennis courts that require lighting for night use activities, adding new sources of lighting effecting adjacent properties. Parking lots and entry plazas also introduce new sources of lighting that would be visible from properties adjacent to the parks. This additional source of lighting could be perceived as a negative aesthetic impact from the "spill-over" of additional lighting onto adjacent residential areas. However, the anticipated light and glare would not be unique or sufficiently different than other projects in the City, and Dublin has adopted regulations that limit the amount of spill over lighting that can occur. The future Fallon Sports Park that is being planned for the EEPA is the one large-scale park that could generate light or glare impacts resulting from the lighted playing fields. However, the Fallon Sports Park is planned to be surrounded on all four sides by arterial or collector streets and not immediately adjacent to any residences. This will ensure that the light impacts generated by the park are buffered by distancing the source from any sensitive residential areas. Careful siting along with compliance with the City's lighting regulations will be required for all parks and recreational facilities developed in the Eastern Extended Planning Area. This will ensure that the light impacts of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update are less than significant. No impacts not previously analyzed in the EDSP EIR are expected to occur as a result of the implementation of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update, and therefore no additional environmental review or analysis is necessary. Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update Initial Study and Negative Declaration Page 16 of 42 January 6, 2004 Agricultural Resources Wo uld th e project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland X of Statewide Importance, as showing on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to a non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agriculture use, or a X Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, X which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use? a & c) Convert prime farmland, conflict with agricultural zoning or convertprime farmland to a non-agricultural use? WEPA: No Impact. In the Western Extended Planning Area, hay production, cattle grazing, and other ranching operations are the main uses, and hills and valleys of the WEPA are typical of rangeland in the area. Minor cattle production land would be lost when the greater Schaefer Ranch project is developed, but no pdme farmland will be lost. For future trails that are proposed in the Western Extended Planning Area outside of Schaefer Ranch, additional environmental analysis may need to be done once the exact location of the trail and any ancillary facilities are known. At this time, not enough information is available regarding the future trails to reach conclusions on potential environmental impacts. Meanwhile, no impacts to agricultural resources not previously analyzed in the Schaefer Ranch EIR are expected to occur as a result of the implementation of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update in the Schaefer Ranch project area, and therefore no additional environmental review or analysis is necessary. PPA: Less than siqnificant impact. There are limited new facilities proposed for the Primary Planning Area, including a small new park within an existing open space area, and therefore there will be less than significant impacts to agricultural resources as a result of implementing the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update in the Primary Planning Area. No additional environmental review or analysis is necessary. EEPA: No Impact. Historically, property in the EEPA has been used for grazing, dry land farming and other agricultural endeavors. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment EIR found that discontinuance of agricultural operations is an insignificant impact based on the large number of non-renewal notices being filed on Williamson Act Agreements within the Eastern Dublin area. Similarly, loss of farmland of local importance in the area would be considered a less-than-significant impact due to the fact that on-site soils are not prime agricultural soils. Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update Initial Study and Negative Declaration Page 17 of 42 January 6, 2004 In 2001, the firm of Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants conducted a prime agricultural land evaluation study in the Eastern Extended Planning Area for the Eastern Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation EIR and concluded that no properties within the area are classified as prime agricultural land. Therefore, no planned parks or recreational facilities would result in the conversion of any prime farmlands, unique farmlands or farmlands of local or statewide importance to non-agricultural uses. No impacts to agricultural resources not previously analyzed in the EDSP EIR are expected to occur as a result of the implementation of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update, and therefore no additional environmental review or analysis is necessary. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agriculture use, or a Williamson Act contract? WEPA: Less than significant impact. Property owners in the area filed for non-renewal oftheirWilliamson Act contracts, and the contracts expired in 1997 and 1998. Since the zoning is already in place for the development of the Schaefer Ranch project, including the park sites, the development of the project would not result in the conversion of any land currently zoned for agricultural use or in Williamson Act contracts to non- agricultural uses. The neighborhood park site that is planned for the area will have a less-than-significant impact on agricultural resources. For future trails that are proposed in the Western Extended Planning Area outside of Schaefer Ranch, additional environmental analysis may need to be done once the exact location of the trail and any ancillary facilities are known. At this time, not enough information is available regarding the future trails to reach conclusions on potential environmental impacts. Meanwhile, no impacts to Williamson Act contracts not previously analyzed in the Schaefer Ranch EIR are expected to occur as a result of the implementation of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update in the Schaefer Ranch project area, and therefore no additional environmental review or analysis is necessary. PPA: Less than significant impact. There are limited new facilities proposed for the Primary Planning Area, including a small new park within an existing open space area, and therefore there will be less than significant impacts to Williamson Act contracts as a result of implementing the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update in the Primary Planning Area. No additional environmental review or analysis is necessary. EEPA: Less than significant. Four properties in the Eastern Extended Planning Area are under Williamson Act contract and it is possible that these sites may include future trails, parks sites, and recreational facilities. Under the Williamson Act, the landowner agrees to limit the use of land to agricultural and compatible uses for a minimum period of ten years. In turn, the county in which the land is located taxes the property at a lower rate based upon the agricultural use rather than its real estate market value. The Eastern Dublin Properties EIR noted that notices of non-renewal have been filed on all four parcels in the area, with contracts expiring in 2006, 2009, and 2010. The property owners of the four parcels Could request cancellation of these contracts prior to their expiration, but that is unknown at this time. There are three potential neighborhood parks on the properties under Williamson Act contract, but those sites would not be developed until the contracts have expired. Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update Initial Study and Negative Declaration Page 18 of 42 January 6, 2004 No impacts to Williamson Act contracts not previously analyzed in the EDSP EIR are expected t© occur as a result of the implementation of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update, and therefore no additional environmental review or analysis is necessary. (Where available, the significance cdteria established by the applicable air quality management.district may be relied on to make the following determinations). a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any cdteda pollutant for which the project Bgion is non-a~ainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including Bleasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone pBCUBOB)? d) Expose sensitive Bcept0B to substantial pollutant concentmtions? e) CBate objectionable odoB affecting a substantial number of people? a-b) W~u~d the pr~ject c~nf~ict ~r ~bstruct imp~ementati~n ~f an air qua~ity p~an ~r vi~~ate any air quality standards? WEPA: Less-than-Si.qnificant. Air qualitY impacts result from two main sources: temporary impacts due to project construction and long-term impacts due to project operation. Generally, air quality impacts from project operation are based on vehicular emission from traffic, and parks and recreational facilities are typically not large traffic generators. Parks and recreational facilities are typically not peak-hour trip generators, and the park facilities proposed to be located in the WEPA are neighborhood parks, which are not a big draw from outside the immediate neighborhood. Vehicle trip are spread throughout the day, and in fact the concentration of trips is during non-peak hour times such as afternoons, evenings, and weekends. Air quality impacts from project construction could have a potential impact, and therefore will be subject to the Schaefer Ranch EIR mitigation measures, which address potential impacts to air quality such as particulate pollution from construction impacts and pollution from construction emissions. Adherence to Mitigation Measures 12.A.1 (Implementing Dust Control Measures), 12.B.1 (Construction Emissions), and 12.G.1 (Fugitive Dust Rule) will ensure that potential air quality impacts are alleviated. These measures minimize the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update Initial Study and Negative Declaration Page 19 of 42 January 6, 2004 creation of fugitive dust during grading and construction activities, mandate that construction equ'ipment be kept in proper running order, and mandate the avoidance of construction waste burning For future trails that are proposed in the Western Extended Planning Area outside of Schaefer Ranch, additional environmental analysis may need to be done once the exact location of the trail and any ancillary facilities are known. At this time, not enough information is available regarding the future trails to reach conclusions on potential environmental impacts. Meanwhile, all mitigation measures adopted with the Schaefer Ranch EIR will apply to all parks and recreation facilities developed in the Schaefer Ranch portion of the Western Extended Planning Area. This will ensure that the impacts to air quality resulting from the implementation of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update are less than significant. No impacts not previously analyzed in the Schaefer Ranch EIR are expected to occur as a result of the implementation of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update, and therefore no additional environmental review or analysis is necessary. PPA: Less than siqnificant impact. The proposed project would not conflict with the local Clean Air Plan adopted by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and because there are limited new facilities proposed for the Primary Planning Area, including a small new park within an existing open space area, there will be less than significant impacts to air quality as a result of implementing the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update in the Primary Planning Area. The existing trails, parks sites, and recreational facilities do not have measurable air quality impacts and there are limited new facilities planned for the area, none of which would cause the violation of air quality standards. No additional environmental review or analysis is necessary. EEPA: Less-than-Siqnificant. Short-term construction impacts related to implementation of the project, .including grading and excavation of new park facilities, could result in exceeding air quality standards established by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Adherence to Mitigation Measures nos. 3.11/1.0, 3.11/3.0, and 3.11/4.0 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment EIR will reduce short-term air quality impacts to a less-than-significant level. These measures minimize the creation of fugitive dust during grading and construction activities and also mandate that construction equipment be kept in proper running order. The adopted mitigation measures and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan policies will apply to all parks and recreation facilities developed in the Eastern Extended Planning Area. This will ensure that the air quality impacts of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update are less than significant. No impacts nOt previously analyzed in the EDSP EIR are expected to occur as a result of the implementation of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update, and therefore no additional environmental review or analysis is necessary. c) Would the project result in cumulatively considerable air pollutants? Citywide: No Impact. Implementing the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update will not generate significant amounts of traffic, as these types of public facilities are typically Iow traffic generators. Vehicular emissions are estimated to be minimal and no cumulatively considerable air pollutants are expected to be generated. Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update Initial Study and Negative Declaration Page 20 of 42 .January 6, 2004 No impacts not previously analyzed in the Schaefer Ranch EIR or the EDSP EIR are expected to occur as a result of the implementation of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update, and therefore no additional environmental review or analysis is necessary. d, e) Expose sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations or create objectionable odors? Citywide: No impact. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District defines sensitive receptors as facilities where sensitive receptor population groups (children, the elderly, the acutely ill and the chronically ill) are likely to be located. These land uses include residences, schools, playgrounds, child-care centers, hospitals and medical clinics. This project would involve construction and development of new parks and recreational facilities where people would play and gather for recreation. However, since the existing and proposed future parks are not located in the vicinity of any significant generators of pollutants, no impacts to sensitive receptors at these recreational facilities are anticipated. Therefore, there are no impacts to sensitive receptors from the development of new parks and recreational facilities. No impacts not previously analyzed in the Schaefer Ranch EIR or the EDSP EIR are expected to occur as a result of the implementation of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update, and therefore no additional environmental review or analysis is necessary. Would the project: ~i~i~ :i~';l:, iiili J) a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly through X habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species Jn local or regional plans, policies or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or X other sensitive natural community identified Jn local or regional plans, polities or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse impact on federally protected X wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native X resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) ConfiJct with any local policies or ordinances protecting X biological resources, such as tree protection ordinances? Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update Initial Study and Negative Declaration Page 21 of 42 January 6, 2004 f) Conflict with the provision of an adopted Habitat Conservation X Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? a-f) Have a substantial adverse impact on special-status species, riparian features, movement of fish or wildlife species, or conflict with Habitat Conservation Plan? There are several guiding policies of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update that will ensure that impacts to biological resources resulting from the implementation of the plan are minimized. Guiding Policy 3.1 requires the creation of continuous visual open spaces, which are valuable for both recreational opportunities as well as habitat protection. Guiding Policy 3.2 encourages the protection of ridgelines, riparian corridors, and oak land areas so that they will contribute to the ecological health of the open space system. Guiding Policy 3.6 emphasizes the protection of wildlife habitats and corridors and cooperation with the State Department of Fish and Game to define and preserve wildlife habitats. Adherence to these policies and the other mitigation measure identified below will ensure that impacts to Dublin's biological resources are less than significant. WEPA: Less than siqnificant. The Western Extended Planning Area is home to a variety of habitat, including annual grassland, northern coastal scrub, coast live oak woodland, riparian woodland, fresh water emergent wetland, and aquatic biomes in the stock ponds in the area. A number of special status plant and animal species also have geographic ranges which include the Western Extended Planning Area, as explained in detail on pages 6-1 through 6-11 of the Schaefer Ranch EIR. The Schaefer Ranch EIR identified several potential impacts to biological resources that will result from the development of the greater Schaefer Ranch project, including loss of a willow riparian/emergent wetland complex, aquatic habitat and jurisdictional wetlands, grassland, and loss of oak woodland and heritage class trees. A majority of these impacts will result from the residential and commercial development in the WEPA, but it is possible that minor impacts resulting from the development of the neighborhood park sites could occur. Adherence to Mitigation Measures 6.A.1 (Emergent Wetland Complex), 6.B.1 (Aquatic Habitat), 6.C.1 (Grassland Revegitation and Habitat Survey), 6.D.1 (Tree Survey and Project Redesign), 6.D.2 (Tree Protection), 6.D.3 (Tree Replacement), 6.E.1 (Plant Material), and 6.F.1 (Herbicide Restrictions) will ensure that impacts to biological resources resulting from the implementation of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update are less than significant. For future trails that are proposed in the Western Extended Planning Area outside of Schaefer Ranch, additional environmental analysis may need to be done once the exact location of the trail and any ancillary facilities are known. At this time, not enough information is available regarding the future trails t© reach conclusions on potential environmental impacts. Meanwhile, all mitigation measures adopted with the Schaefer Ranch EIR will apply to all parks and recreation facilities developed in the Schaefer Ranch portion of the Western Extended Planning Area. No impacts not previously analyzed in the Schaefer Ranch EIR are expected to occur as a result of the implementation of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update, and therefore no additional environmental review or analysis is necessary. Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update Initial Study and Negative Declaration Page 22 of 42 January 6, 2004 PPA: Less than si.qnificant impact. There are limited new facilities proposed for the Primary Planning Area, including a small new park within an existing open space area; and therefore there will be less than significant impacts to biological resources as a result of implementing the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update in the Primary Planning Area. No additional environmental review or analysis is necessary. EEPA: Less than siqnificant. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified twelve special status plants species, seventeen special status amphibians, reptile, bird and mammal species and ten special status invertebrate species which could potentially occur within the entire eastern Dublin planning area. (Tables 3.7-1 and 3.7-2, pp. 3-7.19-21) based upon the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Fish and Game Commission listings at that time. Potential impacts to rare, threatened or endangered species have been addressed in both the EDSP EIR (1994) and the Eastern Dublin Properties Stage I Development Plan and Annexation EIR (2002). Several additional studies have been conducted since the EIRs were certified, including rare plant surveys, wetlands jurisdictional studies, and studies regarding sensitive-species and endangered species, including the San Joaquin kit fox, fairy shrimp, golden eagle and a variety of amphibians and reptiles, which provide a better understanding of the biological resources present in the area. However, no impacts are anticipated with regard to wetlands, wildlife corridors, or riparian features from implementing the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan contains twenty-three policies which address the protection of biological resources, and development of any future park sites, trails, or recreational facilities in the EEPA will need to comply with the policies and programs of the Specific Plan. This will ensure that impacts to these valuable resources are minimized. Policy 1.10 of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update states that park sites should be selected to relate to natural features such as creeks or open space, so the construction of new parks, trails, and recreation facilities are always designed to coexist with native vegetation and wildlife. Emerald Glen Park, for instance, is adjacent to Tassajara Creek, and the park has been designed to be very sensitive to this valuable resource. No potential future park locations are within a Habitat Conservation area, however a Resource Management Plan (RMP) will soon be prepared for the Eastern Dublin Properties Area, a 1,120-acre podion of the EEPA. The RMP will identify the biological constraints of the area in greater detail that will help define the sensitive areas to be avoided. In addition to the Specific Plan policies that will ensure that impacts to biological resources in the EEPA are addressed, adherence to EDSP EIR Mitigation Measures 3.7/1.0 through 3.7/28.0 will ensure that any potential impacts are mitigated to a less than significant level. No impacts to biological resources not previously analyzed in the Specific Plan and EDSP EIR are expected to occur as a result of the implementation of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update, and therefore no additional environmental review or analysis is necessary. Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update Initial Study and Negative Declaration Page 23 of 42 January 6, 2004 Cultural Resources : = Would the project: !!~li!~!i!' i [¢i;i i~ ~/i~ ~;'~ ® ~i a) Cause a substantial adverse impact in the significance of a X historical resource as defined in Sec. 15064.57 b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an X archeological resource pursuant to Sec. 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource X or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside X of a formal cemetery? a-d) Cause substantial adverse change to significant historic, archeologiCal or paleontological resources or human remains? WEPA: Less than siqnificant. In 1989, an archeological reconnaissance survey was conducted in the Western Extended Planning Area. Several historic and possible prehistoric features were noted, as described in detail on pages 14-1 through 14-7 of the Schaefer Ranch EIR. The EIR identified potential impacts to these resources, including possible impacts to prehistoric resources, rock walls, historic settlement areas, and historic structures. A majority of theSe impacts will result from the residential and commercial development in the WEPA, but it is possible that minor impacts resulting from the development of the neighborhood park sites could occur. Adherence to Mitigation Measures 14.A. 1 (Notification Procedu res), 14. B. 1 (Rock Walls), and 14.C. 1 (Historic Resources) will ensure that development of any neighborhood park sites in the WEPA will be mitigated to have a less than significant impact on any significant historic, archeological or paleontological resources or human remains in the area. For future trails that are proposed in the Western Extended Planning Area outside of Schaefer Ranch, additional environmental analysis may need to be done once the exact location of the trail and any ancillary facilities are known. At this time, not enough information is available regarding the future trails to reach conclusions on potential environmental impacts. Meanwhile, all mitigation measures adopted with the Schaefer Ranch EIR will apply to all parks and recreation facilities developed in the Schaefer Ranch portion of the Western Extended Planning Area. No impacts not previously analyzed in the Schaefer Ranch EIR are expected to occur as a result of the implementation of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update, and therefore no additional environmental review or analysis is necessary. PPA: Less than significant impact. The Primary Panning Area contains recorded historic sites based on the recent archaeological field survey and assessment conducted by William Self Associates (WSA). The report substantiates that the record search for the Donlon Way Area, conducted on June 23, 2003 at Sonoma State University (File No. 02-953), indicated that there were three structures on the California Office of Historic Preservation's Historic Properties Directory (OHP HPD), five historic properties listed on the California Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update Initial Study and Negative Declaration Page 24 of 42 January 6, 2004 Inventory of Historic Resources (CIHR), and one unrecorded historic resource identified as Alamilla Spring, northwest of the Springs Apartment Complex. There are limited new facilities proposed for the Primary Planning Area, including a small new park within an existing open space area, and therefore there will be less than significant impacts to significant historic, archeological or paleontological resources or human remains as a result of implementing the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update in the Primary Planning Area. No additional environmental review or analysis is necessary. EEPA: Less than siqnificant. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan had as a main goal the preservation of Dublin's historic structures and cultural resources. A field inspection of the Eastern Extended Planning Area was completed in 1988. Three potential pre-historic sites and two historic sites were located in the EEPA and were described in detail in the EDSP EIR. The two historic sites were a 1940's-era barn and an early 20th century ranch/homestead complex. However, due to the expected level of development proposed for the EEPA, it was presumed that these historic sites would be disturbed or altered in some manner, even those located within areas designated as Open Space. There is a remote but potentially significant possibility that'construction activities, including trenching and excavation, may uncover significant archeological and/or paleontological resources on future park sites identified in the Master Plan. EDSP Policies 6-24 through 6-27 were written to ensure that the necessary mitigation programs are formulated prior to development of any of the identified sites. In addition to these policies, Mitigation Measures 3.9/5.0 and 3.9/6.0 will ensure that all construction activity will cease if any new historic or cultural sites are found, and Mitigation Measures 3.9/7.0 through 3.9/12.0 will ensure that adequate research is done to assess the historical significance of any resources, encourage adaptive re-use of any historic facilities, and encourage the City to develop a preservation program for historic sites. Adherence to the above Specific Plan Policies and Mitigation Measure will ensure that any potential impacts to cultural and historical resources are mitigated to a less than significant level. No'impacts to cultural and historical resources not previously analyzed in the Specific Plan and EDSP EIR are expected to occur as a result of the implementation of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update, and therefore no additional environmental review or analysis is necessary. 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 I X most recent Alquist-Priolo Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist or based on other known evidence of a known fault ? ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update Initial Study and Negative Declaration Page 25 of 42 January 6, 2004 iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X iv) Landslides? X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that X would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- and off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or similar hazards? d) Be lOcated on expansive soil, as defined in Table 13-1-B of X the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils capable of adequately supporting the use of septic X tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste? a-e) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse impacts, including loss, injury or death related to ground rupture, seismic ground shaking, ground failure, landslide, substantial erosion, unstable soils, or liquefaction? The project area is located in the central portion of the Coast Ranges geomorphic province. The Coast Ranges are characterized by a series of parallel, northwesterly trending, folded and faulted mountain chains. Mt, Diablo is located approximately nine miles north of the City of Dublin. Active earthquake faults within the region that influence earthquake susceptibility include the San Andreas, Hayward, Calaveras and the Greenville Faults. No future trails, parks sites, or recreational facilities identified in the Master Plan are within an Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zone. Similar to many areas of California, identified potential parkland sites are subject to ground shaking caused by the regional faults identified above. Under moderate to severe seismic events, which are probable in the Bay Area over the next 20 years, recreational facilities would be subject to damage caused by ground shaking. However, since the potential future trails, parks sites, and recreational facilities are not located within an earthquake fault zone, the potential for ground rupture is anticipated to be minimal. Therefore, acquisition of additional parks or the expansion of existing parks will not increase the potential for ground rupture in the project area. WEPA: Less than significant. The Western Extended Planning Area is primarily hilly terrain dissected by several deep canyons and large ridges, as described in greater detail in the Schaefer Ranch EIR. The main impacts to the area resulting from the implementation of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update will be the disturbance of the soil resulting from the mass grading of the larger Schaefer Ranch Project Area. A majority of these impacts will result from the residential and commercial development in the WEPA, but it is possible that minor impacts resulting from the development of the neighborhood park sites could occur. Potential impacts identified in the Schaefer Ranch EIR include mass grading, slope stability, erosion, fill settlement, expansive and corrosive soil, seismic hazard, groundwater, and excavation impacts. However, adherence to Mitigation Measures 9.A. 1 to 9.H.1, covering all of the potential impacts listed above, will reduce the effects of development in the area to less than significant. Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update Initial Study and Negative Declaration Page 26 of 42 January 6, 2004 Additionally, the General Plan contains policies in both the ConserVation and Seismic Safety and Safety Element that will reduce the potential impact of ground failure and rupture. Adherence to these policies is required for any development in the City, and the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update is in conformance with the General Plan. For future trails that are proposed in the Western Extended Planning Area outside of Schaefer Ranch, additional environmental analysis may need to be done once the exact location of the trail and any ancillary facilities are known. At this time, not enough information is available regarding the future trails to reach conclusions on potential environmental impacts. Meanwhile, all mitigation measures adopted with the Schaefer Ranch EIR will apply to all parks and recreation facilities developed in the Schaefer Ranch portion of the Western Extended Planning Area. No impacts to geology and soils not previously analyzed in the Schaefer Ranch EIR are expected to occur as a result of the implementation of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update, and therefore no additional environmental review or analysis is necessary. PPA: Less than significant impact. There are limited new facilities proposed for the Primary Planning Area, including a small new park within an existing open space area, and therefore there will be less than significant impacts to geology or soils or potential danger to people as a result of implementing the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update in the Primary Planning Area. No additional environmental review or analysis is necessary. EEPA: Less than significant. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan contains a main goal to create a land use pattern that ensures public health, safety, and welfare. There are numerous landslides and areas of potential slope instability in the EEPA, particularly in the hilly north-eastern portion. The EDSP identifies most of the critical areas of instability for Rural Residential and Agricultural uses and the Specific Plan also contains several policies aimed at limiting development to only those areas where the potential for damage is minimal. The EDSP EIR also contains Mitigation Measures 3.6/1.0 to 3.6/8.0 will ensure that new structures in the area will comply with seismic safety standards, Mitigation Measures 3.6/17.0 to 3.6/26.0 will mitigate for slope stability problems, and 3.6/27.0 and 3.6/28.0 will mitigate for water run off problems. A majority of these impacts will result from the residential and commercial development in the EEPA, but it is possible that minor impacts resulting from the development of the neighborhood park sites could occur. Adherence to the EDSP Policies and Mitigation Measure will ensure that any potential impacts to cultural and historical resources are mitigated to a less than significant level. No impacts to geology and soils not previously analyzed in the Specific Plan and EDSP EIR are expected to occur as a result of the implementation of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update, and therefore no additional environmental review or analysis is necessary. Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update Initial Study and Negative Declaration Page 27 of 42 January 6, 2004 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard b the public or the environment Brough reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous into the environment? ¢ Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quader mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pumuant to Government Code Sec. 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airpod land use plan or, where such plan has not been adopted, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 0 For a project within the vicinity of private aimtrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically intedere wiB the adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injuW or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? a-d) Create a significant hazard through transport of hazardous materials or releaSe or emission of hazardous materials, and/or listed as a hazardous materials site? Citywide: No Impact. The proposed future trails, parks sites, and recreational facilities selected for development have been primarily used for grazing and ranching activities over the years. There could be some hazardous materials present on future sites that are typical for rural properties engaged in agricultural businesses. Adherence to Mitigation Measures 15.A. 1 through 15.A.4 of the Schaefer Ranch El R for future facility sites in Schaefer Ranch portion of the WEPA will ensure that any Potential impacts from hazardous materials, transformers, wells, and septic systems are mitigated to a less than significant level. Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update Initial Study and NegatiVe Declaration Page 28 of 42 January 6, 2004 For future trails that are proposed in the Western Extended Planning Area outside of Schaefer Ranch, additional environmental analysis may need to be done once the exact location of the trail and any ancillary facilities are known. At this time, not enough information is available regarding the future trails to reach conclusions on potential environmental impacts. In the EEPA, Phase I Environmental Site Assessments have been completed. Any organicides, pesticides, and petroleum-based products typical of agricultural uses that have been discovered in the area are at levels that are considered less than significant The Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update envisioned specific recreation facilities on sites within the City that are not identified or included on the hazardous materials site list. Adoption of the plan would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials or through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Development of parks and other recreational facilities would not involve production of hazardous emissions or require the handling of acute hazardous materials, substances or waste. Adherence to the above Mitigation Measure will ensure that any potential impacts resulting from hazards and hazardous materials are mitigated to a less than significant level. No impacts resulting from hazards and hazardous materials not previously analyzed in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, EDSP EIR, or Schaefer Ranch EIR are expected to occur as a result of the implementation of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update, and therefore no additional environmental review or analysis is necessary. e,f) Is the site located within an airport land use plan of a public airport or private airstrip? Citywide: No Impact. Potential sites for proposed recreation facilities are not located within an airport land use plan or within the immediate vicinity of a public airport; therefore no impacts are anticipated regarding airport noise or crash hazards zones. Future park sites, trails, and recreational facilities are located west of Fallon Road and sited near existing creeks, waterways and open space areas, which are further away from the Livermore Airport Planning area. No impacts to an airport land use plan or airport not previously analyzed in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, EDSP EIR, or Schaefer Ranch EIR are expected to occur as a result of the implementation of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update, and therefore no additional environmental review or analysis is necessary. g,h) Interference with an emergency evacuation plan, expose people and structures to a significant risk involving wildland fires, and are nearby residences intermixed with wildlands? WEPA: Less than si.qnificant. The Schaefer Ranch EIR contains Mitigation Measures 7.3.1 (Fire Response Time Mitigation), 7.3.2 (Fire Protection Measures), 7.3.3 (Water Supply and Fire Hydrants), and 7.3.4 (Construction Materials) to ensure that any potential impacts involving wild land fires will be mitigated to a leSs than significant level. Adherence to the Mitigation Measure will ensure that any potential impacts to emergency service and safety are mitigated to a less than significant level. Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update Initial Study and Negative Declaration Page 29 of 42 January 6, 2004 For future trails that are proposed in the Western Extended Planning Area outside of Schaefer Ranch, additional environmental analysis may need to be done once the exact location of the trail and any ancillary facilities are known. At this time, not enough information is available regarding the future trails to reach conclusions on potential environmental impacts. Meanwhile, all mitigation measures adopted with the Schaefer Ranch EIR will apply to all parks and recreation facilities developed in the Schaefer Ranch portion of the Western Extended Planning Area. No impacts to geology and soils not previously analyzed in the Schaefer Ranch EIR are expected to occur as a result of the implementation of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update, and therefore no additional environmental review or analysis is necessary. PPA: Less than significant impact. There are limited new facilities proposed for the Primary Planning Area, including a small new park within an existing open space area, and therefore there will be less than significant impacts to emergency services as a result of implementing the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update in the Primary Planning Area. No additional environmental review or analysis is necessary. EEPA: Less than significant. When new facilities are constructed in the EEPA, they will comply with EDSP Policies 8-5 and 8-6, which address the construction of new facilities and requirements to minimize the potential impacts from wild land fires. Additionally, adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.4/6.0 through 3.4/13.0 for future parks, trails, and recreational facilities in the EEPA will ensure that new safety and service facilities are constructed to coincide with new service demands, and will also require that fire trails and fire breaks are incorporated into the open space and trail system. Conformance to the EDSP Policies and Mitigation Measure will ensure that any potential impacts to emergency service and safety are mitigated to a less than significant level. No impacts to emergency service and safety not previously analyzed in the Specific Plan and EDSP EIR are expected to occur as a result of the implementation of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update, and therefore no additional environmental review or analysis is necessary. Hydrology and Water Quality Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere X substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g. the production rate of existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update Initial Study and Negative Declaration Page 30 of 42 January 6, 2004 c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or X area, including through the aeration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site o~ X areas, including through the alteration of a course or stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the X capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped X on a Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which X impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, X and death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudfl0w? X The entire Tri-Valley area is underlain by an extensive underground aquifer. The aquifer ranges in depth between 15 and 500 feet but is no longer used as the primary source of domestic water in the area. The Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7) is finalizing plans to store treated wastewater within the aquifer during winter months, treated water will be pumped out and used for landscape irrigation during dry, summer months. a-i) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, deplete groundwater resources, alter drainage patterns, effect surface or subsudace water quality, result in placing housing in a floodplain? WEPA: Less than si.qnificant. The project conforms to Zone 7 requirements and any proposed recreation facility will meet these water quality standards. Park sites typically haVe lots of pervious surface area and minimal amounts of impervious surface, which allows for lots of groundwater recharge. Adoption of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update would be consistent with all the previous actions of the City and with all of the requirements of the City's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Additionally, the development of properties in any areas of Dublin will be required to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), listing Best Management Practices which reduce the potential for water quality degradation during construction and post-construction activities. Although new park sites, trails, and recreational facilities themselves would not have a significant impact on the hydrology of the Western Extended Planning Area, the project area as a whole will change drastically as a result of overall development in the area. Adherence to Mitigation Measures 8.1.1 through 8.2.4 will ensure that any impacts relating to grading and drainage, surface water quality, runoff, and ground water quality Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update Initial Study and Negative Declaration Page 31 of 4:2 January 6, 2004 resulting from the implementation of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update will be mitigated to a less than significant level. For future trails that are proposed in the Western Extended Planning Area outside of Schaefer Ranch, additional environmental analysis may need to be done once the exact location of the trail and any ancillary facilities are known. At this time, not enough information is available regarding the future trails to reach conclusions on potential environmental impacts. Meanwhile, all mitigation measures adopted with the Schaefer Ranch EIR will apply to all parks and recreation facilities developed in the Schaefer Ranch portion of the Western Extended Planning Area. No impacts to hydrology not previously analyzed in the Schaefer Ranch EIR are expected to occur as a result of the implementation of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update, and therefore no additional environmental review or analysis is necessary. PPA: Less than siqnificant impact. There are limited new facilities proposed for the' Primary Planning Area, including a small new park within an existing open space area, and therefore there will be less than significant impacts to hydrology as a result of implementing the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update in the Primary Planning Area. No additional environmental review or analysis is necessary. EEPA: Less than significant. As in the WEPA, the project conforms to Zone 7 requirements and any proposed recreation facility will meet these water quality standards. A high amount of pervious surface in future park sites will allows for lots of groundwater recharge. Adoption of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update would be consistent with all the previous actions of the city and with all of the requirements of the City's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Additionally, the development of properties in any areas of Dublin will be required to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), listing Best Management Practices which reduce the potential for water quality degradation during construction and post- construction activities. The EDSP contains several policies that provide the framework for preserving the area's natural resources. Policies 6-9 through 6-14 outline preservation policies for wetlands, stream corridors, and other resources that are vital to the hydrology of the EEPA. EDSP Programs 6E through 6J detail how impacts to stream corridors and wetlands will be addressed. All future park sites, trails, and recreational facilities in the EEPA will be required to comply with these policies and programs. Although new park sites, trails, and recreational facilities themselves are not expected to have a significant impact on the hydrology of the Eastern Extended Planning Area, the project area as a whole will change drastically as a result of overall development in the area. Adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.5/1.0, 3.5/4.0, 3.§/5.0, 3.5/12.0, 3.5/26.0, 3.5/47.0, 3.5/53.0, 3.5/54.0, and 3.5/55.0 in particular will ensure that any impacts relating to grading and drainage, surface water quality, runoff, and ground water quality resulting from the implementation of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update will be mitigated to a less than significant level. No impacts to hydrology not previously analyzed in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and EDSP EIR are expected to occur as a result of the implementation of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update, and therefore no additional environmental review or analysis is necessary. Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update Initial Study and Negative Declaration Page 32 of 42 January 6, 2004 Land Use and Planning Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? X b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation X of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan'or X natural community conservation plan? Without the addition of new parks and facilities, the increased demand for new future trails, parks sites, and recreational facilities resulting from buildout of the City's residential stock in all planning areas would not be met. This would result in the deterioration of the City's park provision standards. In addition, the City would be unable to maintain existing services and facilities and be unable to achieve the goals of the Parks and RecreatiOn Master Plan Update. a) Physically divide an established community? Citywide: No Impact. The Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update is consistent with the General Plan and recreational uses projected in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The General Plan's guiding policies require the City to provide and maintain parks and recreational facilities. No disruption of any established community would result as the proPosed facilities are designed to serve existing and new residential development in or nearby sites in all planning areas of the City of Dublin. Therefore, there will no impacts associated with the development of any new park sites, trails, or recreational facilities. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation? Citywide: No impact. The Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update is the principal policy document addressing future facility development in Dublin. Guiding policies of the General Plan encourage the expansion of parks throughout all planning areas of the City. The Master Plan is consistent with the goals and policies contained in both the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan related to the provision of parks and recreational facilities. There would, therefore, be no impact or conflict with all applicable land use plans and policies. c) Conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? CityWide: No impact. No such plan has been adopted within the project area. There would, therefore, be no impact to a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update Initial Study and Negative Declaration Page 33 of 42 January 6, 2004 Would the project ; t~Ii~i~ ~:,:i~;~ ~ti ~,~; :~,,~ I~: ~ a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource X that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally impodant mineral X resource recovery site delineated on a local general Plan, specific plan or other land use plan? a, b) Result in the loss of availability of regionally or locally significant mineral resources? Citywide: No impact. The Conservation Element of the General Plan does not reference any significant mineral resources in the City. The Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update does not identify any of the proposed parklands, as being in areas designated by the California State Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, as having deposits of minerals. Additionally, no mineral resources are shown on the State of California's maps of such resources within the sites identified by the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update. Would the project result in: ; ~'~ a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess X of standards established in the general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive X groundbome vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in X the project vicinity above existing levels without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise X levels in the project vicinity above levels without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where X such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working n the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the X project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The General Plan identifies that the normally acceptable maximum outdoor Ldn noise level is 60 dBA for neighborhood parks, and up to 65 dBA as conditionally acceptable. Noise measurements are expressed in Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update Initial Study and Negative Declaration Page 34 of 42 January 6, 2004 decibels ("dBA"), which is the standard measure of sound pressure. New recreation facilities will need to be located in areas where the noise exposure level was not higher than 65 dBA in order to be in conformance with the General Plan. Noise generated from parks, trails, and recreational facilities can impact neighboring residences in close proximity. However, such noises generated are not generally considered a significant impact and are compatible with a residential neighborhood environment. Community Parks such as Emerald Glen Park have the largest number of recreational facilities and the largest potential to generate noise impacts for surrounding land uses. Community Parks presumably attract a larger amount of visitors, and host a variety of events that could increase noise levels above current levels. However, this occasional increase would not exceed established City of Dublin noise standards for related recreational uses and outdoor facilities. a-f) Would the project expose persons or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established by the General Plan or other applicable standard, expose people to groundborne vibration, result in permanent increases in ambient noise levels? WEPA: Less than siqnificant. There are two possible noise impacts resulting from the implementation of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update: construction noise and operational noise. Construction noise is anticipated when a new park, trail, or recreational facility is being built. Operational noise occurs when the park, trail, or recreational facility is completed and is being used by the public. Operational noise is not expected to be a significant impact of any new parks, trails, or recreational facilities because such noises generated are compatible with a residential neighborhood environment. Additionally, the land plan for the entire Schaefer Ranch area has been approved and the development of the site will occur (probably in several phases), but essentially as a whole project. The location of the park sites will be known well in advance so that future residents who might be concerned about living adjacent to a neighborhood park because of potential noise concerns can avoid doing so. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 11.A.1 (Construction Noise) will ensure that construction impacts to surrounding residents are mitigated to a less than significant level, and adherence to Mitigation Measure 11 .B.1 (Noise Control Plan) and 11 .B.2 (Project Redesign) will ensure that the final location of all future park sites in the WEPA will conform with the General Plan policies regarding noise impacts. For future trails that are proposed in the Western Extended Planning Area outside of Schaefer Ranch, additional environmental analysis may need to be done once the exact location of the trail and any ancillary facilities are known. At this time, not enough information is available regarding the future trails to reach conclusions on potential noise impacts. Meanwhile, all mitigation measures adopted with the Schaefer Ranch EIR will apply to alt parks and recreation facilities developed in the Schaefer Ranch portion of the Western Extended Planning Area. No impacts from noise not previously analyzed in the Schaefer Ranch EIR are expected to occur as a result of the implementation of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update, and therefore no additional environmental review or analysis is necessary. PPA: Less than siqnificant impact. There are limited new facilities proposed for the Primary Planning Area, including a small new park within an existing open space area. The new Dougherty Hills Mini Park is proposed Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update Initial Study and Negative Declaration Page 35 of 42 January 6, 2004 to be located in the existing Dougherty Hills Open Space Area, and the noise impacts from this neighborhood park should be less than significant as it will be about 4 acres in size and no major recreational facilities or buildings are proposed. The site plan for the neighborhood park will be reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission and public comment will be solicited from the neighbors and the public at large to ensure that any proposed uses on site are compatible with the community and do not have any undesirable noise impacts. Therefore, there will be less than significant noise impacts resulting from implementation of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update in the Primary Planning Area. No additional environmental review or analysis is necessary. EEPA: Less than si.qnificant. Implementation of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update will not have a significant impact on the generation of noise in the EEPA. As stated above, operational noise is not expected to be a significant impact of any new parks, trails, or recreational facilities because such noises generated are compatible with a residential neighborhood environment. Additionally, the land plans for the different project within the EEPA have been approved. The development of the various project sites will occur over time, but it is known well in advance what land uses will be located in which locations. The location of the various park sites will be known well in advance so that future residents who might be concerned about living adjacent to a park because of potential noise concerns can avoid doing so. The future Fallon Sports Park that is being planned for the EEPA is the one large-scale park that could generate noise impacts resulting from the playing fields. However, the Fallon Sports Park is planned to be . surrounded on all four sides by arterial or collector streets and not immediately adjacent to any residences. This will ensure that the noise impacts generated by the park are buffered by traffic from the streets. However, because of the level of overall development that is going to take place in the EEPA, ihere will be a permanent increase in ambient noise levels due to the change of land uses from agricultural to urban. Although the implementation of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update will not be a significant contributor to the ambient noise level in the EEPA, a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted by the City Council when the EDSP EIR was adopted. For temporary, construction-related noise impacts, adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.10/4.0 and 3.10/5.0 of the EDSP EIR will ensure that they are mitigated to a less than significant level. No impacts from noise not previously analyzed in the EDsP EIR are expected to occur as a result of the implementation of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update, and therefore no additional environmental review or analysis is necessary. Population and Housing Would the project: al Induce substantial population 9rowth in an area, either directly X or indirectly (hr example, through extension of roads or other infrasbuaure)? Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update Initial Study and Negative Declaration Page 36 of 42 January 6, 2004 b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, X necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the X replacement of housing elsewhere? Significant population growth is anticipated for the community based on planned residential growth in Dublin. According to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) projections for the current population numbers .for the City of Dublin and (projections conducted by Staff) the total population of Dublin at buildout is expected to be 59,900 by the year 2025. a-c) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly, or would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing units or people ? Citywide: No impact. Implementation of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update will not induce additional growth in Dublin. Recreational facilities have been planned well in advance to serve residential units previously approved and currently built. Therefore, no population growth impacts are anticipated that have not already been assessed in the Master Plan. The implementation of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update will not displace any existing housing units or people. No new park sites, trails, and recreational facilities are planned for areas which are currently developed as residential uses. a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? X Police protection? X Schools? X Parks? X Other public facilities? X Citywide: No Impact. Implementation of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update will not create a need for new public services or facilities. All proposed recreation facilities will be required to meet the requirements of the Alameda County Fire Department, Dublin Police Department, Dublin Unified School District, and other applicable governmental agencies during the construction review phase. Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update Initial Study and Negative Declaration Page 37 of 42 January 6, 2004 Park and Recreational facilities do not typically generate many calls for police orflre service, and since they do not generate an increase in population, no impacts to schools are anticipated as a result of the implementation of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update. Potentially Less than Less than No Impact Recreation Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood X or regional facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the X construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Citywide: No Impact. A key goal of both the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan is to preserve and enhance existing and future recreational facilities. The Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update quantifies the City's need for recreational facilities in order to provide better recreational opportunities for Dublin residents and sets forth policies intended to accomplish these goals. No impacts would result from the implementation of this plan. T ran s p o rta t io n a n d Traffic Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the X existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service X standard established by the County Congestion Management Agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an X increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. X sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses, such as farm equipment? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? X f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? X g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting X alternative transportation (such as bus turnouts and bicycle facilities)? Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update initial Study and Negative Declaration Page 38 of 42 January 6, 2004 Citywide: No impact. Implementation of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update would not cause a significant increase in traffic or provide for inadequate emergency vehicle access, inadequate parking, or provide hazards to alternative transportation modes. Parks, trails, and recreational facilities are typically not large traffic generators. They are typically not peak-hour trip generators, and are primarily local-serving. Vehicle trips are spread throughout the day, and in fact the concentration of trips is during non-peak hour times such as afternoons, evenings, and weekends, which minimizes potential impacts to the city circulation systems. Additionally, since they are recreational facilities and are located in or nearby residential neighborhood, parks typically encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation such as bicycles. Dublin's Emerald Glen Parks and the future Fallon Sports Park are located on major collector streets where public transportation is located. Any new park facilities will be designed to conform with the Dublin Off Street Parking and Loading regulations for the amount of parking spaces provided for the use. Utilities and Service Systems .... a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable X Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or X wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water X drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project X from existing water entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment X provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to X accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations X related to solid waste? a-g) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the RWOCB, require new or expanded water or .wastewater treatment facilities, require new storm drain faci#ties, require additional water supplies, require new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities, or require new solid waste faCilities? Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update Initial Study and Negative Declaration Page 39 of 42 January 6, 2004 Citywide: Less than significant, The following service providers serve the project: · Electrical and natural gas power: Pacific Gas and Electrical Company · Water supply and sewage treatment: Dublin San Ramon Services District · 'Storm Drainage: City of Dublin · Solid waste disposal: Dublin-Livermore Disposal Company Proposed recreational facilities will result in a demand for new water and wastewater services for potable water as well as irrigation. However, service will have already been provided to properties adjacent to future facilities sites, so the extension of such services will not be significant. The Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update is consistent with the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and will comply with all policies and Mitigation Measures contained within, allowing necessary utilities and services to be provided without significant impact. When construction drawings are submitted for specific future trails,, parks sites, and recreational facilities, City Departments and other governmental agencies will review plans in accordance with adopted regulations to determine feasibility and suitability. No impacts not previously identified and addressed in the Schaefer Ranch EIR and the EDSP EIR to utilities or utility service systems are anticipated as a result of implementing the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update, and no additional environmental review or analysis is necessary. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of X the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number of or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but X cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects). c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause X substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environmen~ substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number of Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update Initial Study and Negative Declaration Page 40 of 42 January 6, 2004 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 project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. The implementation of all previously-adopted Mitigation Measures will ensure that any potential impacts are mitigated to a less than significant level. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"means that the incremental effects ora 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. Although incremental increases in certain areas can be expected as a result of the implementation of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update, the implementation of all previously-adopted Mitigation Measures will ensure that any potential impacts are mitigated to a less than significant level. c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? N._9o such impacts have been discovered in the course of preparing this Initial Study. Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update Initial Study and Negative Declaration Page 41 of 42 January 6, 2004 BACKGROUND INFORMATION INITIAL STUDY PREPARER Kristi Bascom, Associate Planner, City of Dublin Community Development Department AGENCIESAND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED The following agencies and organizations were contacted in the course of this Initial Study: City of Dublin, Community Development Department City of Dublin, Parks and Community Services Department City of Dublin, Public Works Department Dublin San Ramon Services District REFERENCES City of Dublin General Plan (1985, updated to 2002) City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance Draft Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update (2004) East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation DSEIR (2002) Final Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment Environmental Impact Report. (SCH 91103064)(1994) Final Schaefer Ranch Environmental Impact Report (SCH 95033070) (1996) Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update Initial Study and Negative Declaration Page 42 of 42 January 6, 2004 CITY OF DUBLIN 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California 94568 Website: http://www.ci.dublin.ca.us Project Title: PA # 03-014 City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update (2004) Project Description: The City of Dublin has prepared a Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update to establish goals, long-term policies and standards to guide in the acquisition, development and management of Dublin's future trails, parks sites, and recreational facilities for the next twenty years within the existing City limits and areas within the sphere of influence. The Parks and Recreation Master Plan was originally adopted in 1994, and the 2004 update to this document has been developed. Project Location: Citywide Applicant: Diane Lowart, Parks and Community Services Director, City of Dublin, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568 Determination: I hereby find that the above project WILL NOT have a significant effect on the environment. KriSti~Bascom, Associate Planne Date A copy of the Initial Study documenting the reasons to support the above finding is available at the City of Dublin, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568, or by calling (925) 833-6610. Date NOI Mailed: January 7, 2004 Date Posted: January 7, 2004 Date Published: January 10, 2004 Comment Period: January 10-31, 2004 To be considered by: Dublin City Council On: February 17, 2004 N.O.D. filed:. City Council Resolution No. RESOLUTION NO. -04 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE (2004) PA 03-014 WHEREAS, the City of Dublin prepared the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update (2004) in accordance with the City's General Plan; and WHEREAS, the original Parks and Recreation Master Plan (and associated Negative Declaration) was approved by the City Council on July 25, 1994; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin is proposing to adopt the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update (2004) which includes long-term goals, policies, and standards for the acquisition, development, and management of the City's park and recreation facilities for the next twenty (20) years; and WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update (2004) is consistent with the permitted land uses and standards of the Dublin General Plan, and includes policies to achieve the goals of the City of Dublin to provide parks, recreational facilities, and community services to the public; and WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update (2004) is available and on file in' the Planning Department and Parks and Commtmity Services Department; and WHEREAS, in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the City prepared an Initial Study dated January 6, 2004 to evaluate the environmental impacts of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update (2004). Based on the Initial Study, the City prepared a draft Negative Declaration for the project with the finding that the project, as proposed, would not have a significant effect on the environment; and WHEREAS; a properly noticed 20-day public review period was held for the draft Negative Declaration, which began on January 10, 2004 and ended on January 31, 2004 at 5:00 p.m.; and WHEREAS, no letters of comment on the Initial Study or draft Negative Declaration were received during the public review period; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the draft Negative Declaration for the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update (2004); and WHEREAS, a Notice of Determination will' be filed by Staff after the approval of the draft Negative Declaration, notifying local agencies and the general public of the action that has been taken; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed and considered the draft Negative Declaration and all reports, recommendations, and testimony before them on February 17, 2004; and ATTACHMENT 2 wHEREAs, the City Council Will review the Parks and Recreation Master P1an Update (2004) itself following its decision on the draft Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Dublin City Council does hereby find that: 1. The Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update (2004) would not have a significant effect on the environment. 2. The Initial Study and Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with State and local environmental laws and guidelines. 3. The Initial Study and Negative Declaration is complete and adequate, and reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis, as to the environmental effects of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update (2004). BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED TIlAT the Dublin City Council does hereby adopt the draft Negative Declaration for PA 03-014, Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update (2004), including the Initial Study incorporated herein by reference. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin, on this 17th day of February 2004, by the following votes: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 2 City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Mastcr Plan March 2004 Update ATTACHMENT 3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS City Council lanet Lockhart, Mayor George Zika, V/ce-Mayor Tony Oravetz, Councilmember Tim Sbranti, Councilmember Claudia McCormick, Councilmember Parks & Community Services Commission Sue Flores, Chairperson Steve Jones, Vice-Chairperson Burr Cain, Commissioner Richard Guarienti, Commissioner Kasie Hildenbrand, Commissioner Olek Pawlowski, Commissioner Document prepared by David Gates & Associates and revised by SFE Landscape Architects DUBLIN PARKS i Table of Contents - Introduction Overview: Parks, Environment & Image ......................................................... 1 The Master Plan ............................................................................................... 3 Regional Location ............................................................................................. 3 Planning Process ............................................................................................... 5 Organization ...................................................................................................... 6 Background & Analysis The Setting ....................................................................................................... 7 Population, Demographics and Growth ........................................................... 13 Facilities Evaluation & Demand ...................................................................... 15 Park and Recreation Facility Needs ............................................................... 16 Goals & Policies Park System .................................................................................................... 23 Trails and Bikeways ........................................................................................ 29 Open Space Policies ....................................................................................... 33 Community Image & Character ..................................................................... 35 ParkAcquisition and Development ................................................................. 37 Maintenance and Operations .......................................................................... 39 Parks and Recreation Facility Standards Introduction ..................................................................................................... 43 Emerald Glen Park Standards ......................................................................... 46 Sports Park Standards ..................................................................................... 50 Neighborhood Park Standards ........................................................................ 52 Neighborhood Square Standards ..................................................................... 54 Historical Park Standards ............................................................................... 56 Community Center Standards ......................................................................... 57 --J Recreation Center Standards .......................................................................... 59 Aquatic Center Standards ............................................................................... 61 Senior Center Standards ................................................................................. 62 Community Theater/Cultural Arts Center Standards ...................................... 63 Trails and Bikeway Standards ......................................................................... 64 Implementation Overview Funding Mechanisms ...................................................................................... 72 Cost of Development and Operations ............................................................. 79 DUBLIN PARKS ii List of Tables Table 1' Park Standards ............................................................................ 16 Table 2: Sports Standards .......................................................................... 17 Table 3A: Existing Facilities Inventory (Parks & Schools) .......................... 18 Table 3B: Existing Facilities Inventory (Developments) .............................. 19 Table 4: Park Facilities Distribution ........................................................... 45 Table 5: Implementation Priorities ............................................................. 71 List of Graphics Fig. 1 Regional Location Map ................................................................. 4 Fig. 3 Population Structure Comparison ................................................ 13 Fig. 4 Existing Parks & School/Parks ................................................... 20 Fig. 5 Park Facility Plan ........................................................................ 27 Fig. 6 Trails Plan .................................................................................... 31 Fig. 7 Community Image Components .................................................. 36 Fig. 8 Illustrative Parks Plan .................................................................. 41 Fig. 9 Emerald Glen Park Master Plan ................................................. 47 Fig. 10 Sports Park Prototype ................................................................. 51 Fig. 11 Neighborhood Park Prototype ..................................................... 53 Fig. 12 Neighborhood Square Prototype ................................................. 55 Fig. 13 Class I Bikeway .......................................................................... 66 Fig. 14 Class II Bikeway ......7 ................................................................. 66 Fig. 15 Creekside Trail ............................................................................ 67 Fig. 16 Hiking Trail .................................................................................. 70 Fig. 17 Hiking/Equestrian Trail ................................................................ 70 DUBLIN PARKS 111 Introduction OVERVIEW: PARKS, ENVIRONMENT & IMAGE The City of Dublin anticipates growth that will nearly double its current population. The City's growth has, and will continue to generate the need for additional recreation facilities. The presence of a well-designed park system and open space con- an image of the quality of life in a community. veys The challenge of this Master Plan would be to fmd ways to build parks that both enhance the positive image of the City and meet the increased demand on park and recreation facilities. INTRODUCTION As Dublin grows, it is appropriate to answer Parks provide spaces for functions and gatherings. ~ several questions. What is the special ambiance that characterizes Dublin? How can parks and century, parks have had a variety of meanings to recreation facilities contribute to the overall qual- different groups of people at different times. To ity of life in Dublin? How can the park and some, parks are for children with an emphasis on recreation system contribute to the preservation playgrounds and ballfields. To another group, or enhancement of these special qualifies? parks address the cultural needs of the commu- nity, providing theaters, museums, art exhibits, Historically, parks have played a major role in the and meeting facilities. And to others, the park urban environment. Even within the twentieth system is a way to preserve and enhance the To some, parks are for children with an emphasis on play. DUBLIN PARKS 1 natural enviromnent, providing opportunities to interact with nature. A successful park system should meet all these needs and more. In abstract, the park system can be thought of as one of the organizing elements of a city. Parks and trails represent an extended expression of the "public" realm that reaches out into the private fabric of the city. The green space and visual amenities such as lakes, creekside trails, rose gardens and gazebos found within the park sys- tembecome an integral part of the public's percep- tion of the community. Thus, the park system effects a community s self~mage. A strongimage through strong visual character is what makes INTRODUCTION Dublinmemorable. ~'~ Given the sprawling, transitional nature of subur- ban areas, one important function of parks is to focus and encourage social interaction. The park The park as a facility for outdoor art exhibits. system can help to build a community unity by providing aplace where the divergentpopulations seniors and toddlers meet, where the athlete and and interests can interact with, learn from, and the artist find a common ground and where social appreciate each other. Apark canbe aplace where as well as physical needs are met. Performance facilities, like the amphitheater, address the cultural ~eeds of the commtmity. ~ DUBLIN PARKS , 2 I THE MASTER PLAN REGIONAL LOCATION The purpose of this Master Plan is to establish The City of Dublin is located in the rapidly devel- goals, long-term policies and standards to guide oping East CountyArea of Alameda County. It is the City ofDublin in the acquisition, development bounded to the south by Interstate 580, bisected and management of Dublin's Park and Recreation by Interstate 680, and is the location of the newest facilities for the next twenty years. BART line extension. The Master Plan i~ part of a continuous process Because of this hub location within the transpor- which can evolve to respond to the City's growth tationnetwork of the Th-Valley, the City of Dublin and changing demographics. Thus, it contains anticipates that it ~vill nearly double its current both specific standards that guide the City's ac- population at build-out of the City. This popula- tions, as well as provide clear directions to other tion growth will include more families with chil- agencies and private developers regarding the dren, more young active adults, and an expanding "rules" under which Dublin is implementing its senior population all seeking quality recreational park and recreation system. General goals and oppommities. ~NTRO~)UC~ON~ policies also developed which are flexible ~-~ are enough to accommodate opportunities and shifts The adjacent communities of San Ramon and inpriorities. Pleasanton have developed ambitious park and recreation master plans which emphasize high- The warm and dry Dublin climate which allows quality and generous park facilities. The East Bay almost year-round use of the park facilities, com- Regional ParkDistrict (EBRPD) is actively seeking bined with the active recreation-oriented lifestyle to complete a segment of the ridgeline trail corridor of the population place a s~gnificant emphasis on through Western Dublin. They have also devel- the provision of high quality and sufficient recre- oped "Guidelines for Open Space Planning and ationopportunities forthe community. Nationally Management" which could have a significant recognized standards for park and recreation fa- influence on the provision and design of open ....... cilities establish mimmum standards which often space m the Dublin area. The Th-Valley Trails the recreational demands of the Council and adjacent communities are seeking to do not reflect community,. The standards and policies set forth develop a regional network of trails and bikeways in this Master Plan, while recognizing national and utilizing the railroad right-of-way, flood control peer community standards, are unique to Dublin. channels and existing bikewavs within Dublin. Development plans in San Ramon and Contra This Master Plan is a reflection of the City of Costa County to the north, Livermore to the east Dublin's foresight and commitment to ensuring a and Pleasanton to the south are proposing poten- high quality of life for the community, tial open space and trail connections. This pressure from surrounding communities and facilities, coupled with Dublin's population pro- jections, make the development of park and recre- ation standards not only timely but essential. DUBLIN PARKS 3 Mt. Diablo ~ State Park ~ ~ DANVILLE Mot f jan Ten'itor~ ~ ~ ~TRODUCTION ~ ~O~ ~ 580 LIVERMORE Pleo~unton Shadow Cllffo RegiOnal Park Fig. 1 Regional Location Map :~ DUBLIN PARKS 4 ! PLANNING PROCESS Western Dublin Draft Specific Plan Eastern Dublin Specific Plan & Related Docu- ments Well_designed and plentifi.d Parks and facilities Dublin SubdiVision Ordinance convey a positive image of the quality of life. As City of Dublin Parks Master Plan Report 1986 theCityofDublincontinuestoexpand, itisimpera- City of Dublin Sports Grounds Master Plan tive to aCquire and develop new parks~ open space Report 1990 and recreation facilities in neighborhood develop- Downtown Specific Plan 1987 Dublin Schools Facilities Improvement Task ments. In addition, the City must continue to upgrade and maintain existing facilitieS; as well as Force Report remain committed to providing affordable, innova- tive and diversified recreation programs. This Through meetings with the Steering Committee UtiliZes various data accumu- and Staff, the consultants identified and evaluated studY population lated for the City of DUblin; marketing analysis, various recreation standards and park site alterna- interviews, architectural and engineering surveys, tives. As potential recreation demands were iden- .~ tiffed, the consultant team revie~ved the park site The Parks and Recreation Master Plan was origi- options With the Consultants for the Specific Plans rNTRODUCT~ON nallypreparedby David Gates andAssociates and and representatives of the affected property own- adopted by the City Council in July 1994. The ers to resolve potential land use issues. Through information for the Master Plan was gathered a process of demand definition, park land require- through a series of public meetings, interviews, ment allocation verification, and alternative site document review, site visits and joint study des- testing, the final Park and Recreation Master Plan sions. Additionally there was a Steering Comrrfit- emerged. tee composed of representatives of City con2rds- sions and special recreation interest groups such In September 2002, Singer Fukushima Evans, Inc. as the little league, soccer league and the senior was retained to prepare an update to the 1994 Parks groups. Included in the process were: and Recreation Master Plan. The purpose of the update was to revisit the assumptions that were · Public meetings designed to gather and dis- used in the development of the Master Plan to ensure that they are still realistic today so that seminate information. adequate park and recreation facilities are avail- able for the current and future population of the · Joint study sessions ~with the Dublin City CoUncill DublinPlanning Commission and the City. The consultants reviewed the impact, of Dublin Parks and Recreation Conm:fission. development since adoption of the Master Plan and reviewed the pending and proposed develop- ment proposals. Updated population projections · Interviews and meetings with City officials, Plalmers and consultants. · DocumentreviewwhichincludedEastemand ~~ ~ Western armexati°n w°rk plansl ERA marke~ analysis, Association of Bay Area Govern- ments Projections '90 data, Dublin Unified m .... ~_~ ~ School Disl2'ict data. ~ · Minutes fromParks and Recreation Commis- sion meetings, study sessions, Eastern and ~ .... :., Western Dublin Specific Plan workshops. , Other documents: LARPD Trails Plan EBRPD Guidelines for Open Space Planning and Management information gathering through meetings with the Dublin General Plan public and joint study sessions. DUBLIN PARKs 5 and their impact on park and recreation facility demand were also considered. Using this informa- tion, the consultants prepared the Master Plan Update ~vhich reflects the most current planning and population data available to the City. ORGANIZATION The Master Plan is divided into five chapters. The first chapter, Introduction, discusses the param- eters and purpose of the Master Plan. The second chapter summarizes the analysis of background information and projections used in developing the Plan. The general goals and policies estab- lished in the Park Master Plan are discussed in The Master Plan provides for more Chapter 3. The fourth chapter provides specific r~mor>ucr~o~ standards or criteria for Dublin's parks and recre- L~ ation facilities. The fifth chapter, Implementation, describes the funding sources and regulatory tools available to make the plan a reality. I. Introduction ri. Background and Analysis 1/I. Goals and Policies ' IV. Parks and Recreation Facility Standards V. Implementation Conceptual sketch of the Master Plan thought process. DUBLIN PARKS 6 I Background & Analysis THE SETTING undeveloped portions of the commumty. These natm'al open spaces are an important part of Dublin's character. REGIONALCONTEXT There are also opportunities to make trail connec- The Dublin Parks Master Plan Study Area in- tions with the adjacent communities of SanRamon cludes not only the existing City of Dublin, but and Pleasanton. The location of trail connections areas that may be annexed and developed to with Pleasanton are significantly constrained by accommodate future growth. The result of these difficulty m crossing 1-580. EBRPD is seeking a annexations will be a community which is elon- crossing for the Ridge Trail near Donlan Point. gated along the east/west axis with the existing LARPD utilizes a crossing at Doolan Canyon City lying at the fulcrum. The primary growth in Road. Creek and drainage channels may provide Dublinwill occur inthe eastwithlimited growth to other opportunities. The Southern Pacific Rail- the west. Consequently, the unification of the road right-of-way has been utilized for the "Iron BACKGROUND proposed outlying sections of the community Horse Trail" in Contra Costa County and the t~ extension of the trail through Dublin has recently with the existing core and each other is a primary goal of the park master plan. beencompleted. The completionofthe Iron Horse Trail to the Dublin Bart Station provides a link to The EastBayRegionalParkDistrict(EBRPD) has Pleasanton. A number of planning studies are overlapping jurisdiction rathe Master Plan Study occurring along the Study Area's boundaries m Area. EBRPD is striving to provide regional trail San Ramon, Contra Costa County, Livermore and connections with adequate corridor widths and Pleasanton. As these plans evolve there is a buffers. They are also concerned with the preser- potential to provide trail connections between the ration of the natural and rural essence of the communities. The ~atural and rural essence is an ~mportant part of Dubhn s characte . DUBLIN PARKS 7 EXISTINGRESOURCES town with tree-lined pedestrian walkways and a central landscaped plaza to accommodate public There arenumerouscreeksanddrainagecharmels gatherings, but which could also be used for throughout the Study Area which provide oppor- picnicking and passive recreation. The Specific tunities to develop creek side trails. The continu- Plan focuses on integrating design features such ous connections these creeks and drainage chan- as monuments, signage and public plazas with nels provide is especially critical in the developed improvements in the landscaping, green spaces areas of Dublin where opportunities for trail con- and wider sidewalks to unify the predominantly nections have been lost to urbanization. Currently retail commercial core area, and create a commu- there are two mai or pedestrian/bikeways in Dublin nity landmark. along San Ramon Road and Dougherty Road. These paths are separated from the street and are The Village Parkway Specific Plan and the West well utilized by the local commrufity. Additional Dublin BART Specific Plan, the other specific trails include the IronHorse Trail, the Alamo Canal plans adopted by the City for downtown Dublin, Trail, the Martin Canyon Creek Trail and the also incorporate, on asmallerscalethantheDown- Tassajara Creek Trail. These trails can serve as a town Core Specific Plan, some of these community B^C~C~ROUNr) foundation for a future Dublin trail network, design features to create pedestrian-oriented ele-  ments, public plazas, and additional green spaces The Downtown Core Specific Plan, adopted in in the planning areas. December 2000 by the City and one of three specific plans for different portions of the down- The remnants of the historical heritage of the town, recognizes the importance of upgrading and Dublin community have been preserved by the revitalizing the central core of the downtown area. Dublin Historical Preservation Association and The size and location of the downtown core offers the Amador / Livermore Valley Historical Society. the opportunity to create commumty-wide public The Old Murray School House and St. Raymond's spaces and a central gathering place for civic Church which were acquired by the City are lo- celebrations and activities. The Specific Plan cated adjacent to the Dublin pioneer cemetery. proposes a pedestrian-oriented andwalkable down- This historic site, which is located near the down- Downtown focus: A green respite and community landmark. DUBL1N PARKS I town area, provides the opportunity to create a Within the existing city limits, the potential for special place which would be accessible to the expansion of park and recreation facilities is ex- localDublin community, tremelylimited. The 1986ParksMasterPlanReport and subsequent 1990 Sports Ground Master Plan The Dublin Civic Center ~s a reflection of the Report and School Facilities Plan illustrate maxi- emerging community pride and demand for guide- mum utilization of existing park sites andj oint use lines. A goal which permeates the Park Master of school play yards to meet the current demands Plan. ThecomplexincludestheCityHall. thePolice of the community. Thus, the weight of providing Facility and a plaza area to accommodate outdoor park land and facilities for the future growth falls festivals and civic events. A new Library was mainly upon the undeveloped west and east por- completed in Spring 2003. The library provides tions of the community, although there may be additional commumty meeting and function spaces some opportunities in the primary planning area as and completes the Civic Center Complex. The properties redevelop. a4iacent sports grounds contain the bulk of the competitive sports fields in Dublin. The City has The eastern portion of Dublin is characterized by worked cooperatively with the School District to rolling grass lands divided into three canyons. upgrade existing school yard facilities to provide. Here the gentle topography and proposed road- BACKGROUND additional sports fields for the community, way system can accommodate the larger commu- nitypark facilities. The creeks and swales provide [~ natural opporumities for open space linkages between parks. The planned preservation of the The creeks and swaIes provide natural opportunities for open space linkages between parks. DUBLIN PARKS ridges and muchofthe open hillsides, as identified tions contained in the Parks & Recreation Master in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, will preserve Plan have also been incorporated into the 1992 the historic and visual heritage of the area. Update of the Dublin General Plan. The western portion of Dublin is characterized by steep topography and a dense cover of oak wood- land. The steep terrain limits the opportunities for large active community recreation facilities, al- though there are opportunities to locate and de- velop neighborhood parks which can also accom- modate a level of community facility use. The natural features of the area warrant protection through the development of passive recreation areas and regional trail connections. Develop- ment in Western Dublin is limited to the area covered by the Schaefer Ranch General Plan B^CK~ROUND Amendment. t~ Currently, the City of Dublin's subdivision ordi- nance requires the dedication of 5 acres of park land per every 1,000 persons. This standard has been retained and further defined in the Dublin Parks & Recreation Master Plan. Recommenda- The Western Extended Plam2ing A rea is characterized by steep topography and dense oak woodland. DUBLIN PARKS 10 City of Dublin - Existing Resources Plan Figure2 City Limits Dublin Parks .-- ** · class 1, Existing, Bike Path ~l ~ j ~"'7 ~3 / ~ Class 2, Existing, Bike Lane ~_~ City of Dublin Existing Park Facilities Existing Regional Trail Unk r'- ..... ~. ~ L ....... J Sphere of Influence Existing School Parks -- Existing Local Trail Parcel Lines I' ~ Parks RFTA City Owned Open Space Streets ., Sa n R a m o n Pa riks RFTA Western Extended Planning Area Civic Center ' 'ii, .......... I Iron Horse Trail Corridor The Heritage Center I :in~ P L E A S A P~ T O N i-----I ~ I I I [ I I I Miles 0 0.5 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 DUBLIN PARKS [[ - ~L2 POPULATION, POPULATION STRUCTURE DEMOGRAPHICS AND Dublin' s largest population segmentis represented by adults aged 20 - 54. This group statistically GROWTH representing over 51% of the City's population in any given year and includes young adults and The City of Dublin, along with the entire Th-Valley families as well as aduks nearing the end of their region, continues to experience tremendous popu- childraising years. Individuals and families inthis lation growth. As of January 2003 population category have the most diverse needs in terms of estimates of Dublin place 30,320 (excluding group recreation facilities and available programs based residentS within the City and its sphere it is that quarters) on age and interest. Statistically, expected of influence. Buildout of the City, estimated in dual-employedfamilieswithchildrenwillconfinue 2025, envisions a total population of approxi- the nation-wide growth trend in the Dublin area. mately 59,900 with 34,000 in EasternDublin, 1,500 This growth will impact the need for increased day in the Schaefer Ranch General Plan area and the care services for young children as well as height- balance of the 24,400 in the primary planning area. ened demand for after-schoolprograms for school- Rapid growth can be attributed in part to the aged youth. annexation and development of Eastern Dublin B^CKaROUND GeneralPlanarea, the Schaefer RanCh General Plan Parallel to the national "graying" trend, a larger Area, build-out of approved developments and segment of Dublin's population is also expected infillgr°wthinclUdingresidential areasar°undthe to age. The increase inthe older adult and senior BART statiOns and Camp Parks. This projected populations, age 45 and older, will further impact 112% increase over twenty years will without recreation, leisure and health care programs. question affect all areas of demand for public Anticipation of and planning for these shifts in services, including recreational facilities andpro- population early in the prograrnm/ng process grams, allows planning for classes and other opportuni- ties to meet the needs of specific populations in addition to general recreational programs. Year 1985 year 2005 Fig. 3 Population Structure Comparison (Alameda County) DUBLIN PARKS 13 Recreational needs specific to age groupings in- recruitment of regional serving retail will augment clude: a sense of community in addition to providing consumer and employment opportunities for resi- · pre-school daycare programs appropriate for dents in the area. Employment in the Tri-Valley ages 0 to 4 area is expected to increase by approximately 34,000jobs with the Eastern Dublin expansion. · after school, intercession and summer session programs for school ages 5 to 19 SUMMARY · programs available for young adults, families, As the population base and labor market continue working adults and extended use hours for to expand, the demand for recreational facilities ages 20 to 54 will continue to grow. In general, the recreational needs and interests of the current population are being met by the existing facilities, however, · older adult and senior programs for those ages these facilities will not be sufficient to meet the 55 and older, and demand of the projected growth. Recreational needs of the current population are served by B^¢K~ROLrND · organized leagues, classes and facilities to three main existing outdoor recreation sites L~ accommodate age specific programs includ- [Dublin Sports Grounds, Shannon Park and Com- ing: youth and adult sports leagues, art and munity Center and Dublin Swim Center] and five recreation classes for all ages, senior fitness neighborhood parks [Mape, Dolan, Kolb, Stage- opportunities, aquatic programs, facilities coach and Alamo Creek]. In addition, the Dublin rental, community affairs and promotions. Senior Center serves the needs of the senior population and the Stager Community Gyrnna- GROWTH PATTERNS sium serves the athletic needs. Since adoption of The City of Dublin is directly affected by other theMasterPlanin 1994, one additional community communities of the Tri-Valley region. These park, Emerald Glen Park (Phase I&II) and one areas include San Ramon on the north; Pleasan- neighborhoodpark, TedFairfieldPark, have been ton on the south; and Livermore on the east. Total built in Eastern Dublin. One additional neighbor- population in the region is expected to be in excess hood park, Bray Commons, is under construction. of 374,000 by the year 2030, representing an ap- proximate 64.5% increase in 27 years, according to the Association orB ayArea Governments Proj ec- tions 2003 data. Key growth in the area may be attributed in part to the implementation of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Market analysis has indicated rapid development in the areas of em- ployment and housing, with employment projec- tions of 269,250j obs in the area by the year 2030, representing a 74% increase from2000 figures. There is no question that regional growth of this dimension will severely impact all aspects of the City's operations and management. Develop- ment of the annexed areas began in 1996, with a fullrange ofhousingplanned. The Eastern Dublin expansion is planned as a distinctive mixed-use communi~ which will be integrated with existing Dublin yet retain a unique identity. The inclusion of several "village centers" along with active DUBLIN PARKS 14 FACILITIES EVALUATION a population variable, the future park and facility needs of the City of Dublin are forecast based on AND DEMAND population growth. The most recognized stan- dards used for municipalplarming are those devel- ASSESSMENT oped by the National Recreation and Parks Asso- ciation(NRPA). Identifying recreation needs is a very important component of a park and recreation master plan. USER TREND ANALYSIS Assessment of need, however, is also one of the most difficult tasks because many variables will Facility demand estimates are developed by ex- influence public recreation participation and de- n'apolating historical use statistics for each facil- man& Additionally, in the case of Dublin, the ity. This methodology produces reasonably ac- population being plmmed for does not yet reside curate data because it reflects specific commu- in the It is, therefore, necessary to make niry use. However, the trend analysis methodol- City. projections and assumptions regarding the char- ogy can be influenced by local conditions or acteristics and preferences of the furore popula- current trends in recreation interest. As an ex- tion. Underestimating the furore need can result ample, if one charts tennis playing over the last BACKGROLrND m over-utilization of facilities whereas overesti- twenty years, a cycle of interest and level of play mating the need can also result in expenditures emerges. Also, operating conditions such as for facilities that are not required. The Master quality of the courts, their location, user fees and Plan does, however, provide flexibility to modify hours of operation can impact the level of use. the types of facilities and/or the priority for imple7 mentation. This will allow the City to develop PUBLIC MEETINOS facilities in a sequence that matches the recre- ation demand of the new residents. Input from the general public is another method of assessing community needs. Caution is re- This report studied the demand for recreation quired, however, since special interest groups can facilities and activities and developed a quantifi- dominate the process and may not reflect the able statement of need based on a process that broader community interest. included six steps. They are: STANDARDS DEFINITIONS 1. An analysis of trends in recreation Another means ofmeasuring need is to develop a participation standard and measure that standard against the Recreation standards are existing inventory. 2. A study of who presently provides recreation guides by which Dublin can estimate in quantifi- service in Dublin able terms the number of acres of facilities re- quired to meet recreation demand. By attaching 3. An analysis of who currently participates in the standard to apopulation variable, it is possible recreation to forecast future needs as the population grows. Standards are important for a number of reasons 4. Results of public workshop meetings including: 5. The development of park and facility · Standards can be an expression of m/n/mum standards acceptable facilities and areas. They can be looked upon as goals. 6. Identification of park and facility needs Each method is described in the following: PARTICIPATION RATIOS Participation ratios are guides by which facilities and park acreage required to meet population demand is quantified. By attaching a standard to DUBLIN PARKS 715 · A standard is a guideline to determine land The Master Plan addresses the program and facil- requirements for various types of park and ity needs of the anticipated growth population of recreation facilities. Dublin. The development standards for new facilities reflect a higher standard for both the · Standards are a basis for relating recreation availability and the quality of parks, trails, sports needs to spatial analysis within a community- fields and recreation and leisure facilities. wide system of park and open space areas. The topography and land use patterns for both PARK AND RECREATION F~asten~ and Western Areas make necessary the development of larger community park facilities. FACILITY NEEDS The largerparks will allowthe Cityto provide the greatest number of facilities to meet the antici~ The City of Dublin offers a wide variety of pated demand. recreational opportunities to the residents of Dublin. The City's inventory of facilities gener- NATIONAL PARK STANDARD ally meets the minimum established service stan- COMPARISON BACKGROUND dards. The City has worked with the School L/ The National Recreation and Park Association District to upgrade school facilities, add to the (NRPA), published standards in 1970 that have existing park and sports field inventory and to expand existing programs to better serve the inter- been almost exclusively used for the past decade. est and needs of the existing population. In 1979, NRPA developed a task force who worked three years to revise and update park and Dublin, like all Tri-Valleycommunities, has a very recreation standards. Published in 1983, the high demand for organized youth and adult sports report titled "Recreation, Park and Open Space programs. Again, planned facility improvements Standards and Guidelines", represents the most at the schools and the implementation of the recent consensus on space and facility standards Sports Ground Master Plan will meet most of the at the national level. existing demand. Table 1 Park Standards Pork P~eilitie~ (~er~s/! Neighborhood Park ~-2 2 2.5 4.5 1.95 1.5 Community Park 5-8 2 2.7 2 3.0 3.5 SpeCial Use Park Variable 3 None None None Regional Park 5-10 15 None None Total (Neighborhood / Community) 6-10 4 5.2 6.5 4.95 5 DUBLIN PARKS 16 I In addition to the use of national standards, a associated with both the construction and annual comparison with neighboring communities and operation. On the other hand, due to the high peer communities is another useful tool in estab- demand for facilities andprograms thesebuildings Iishing appropriate community standards, can offer, there can be revenue generated to offset a portion of the operating costs. A discussion of EXISTING COMMUNITY INVENTORY each of the major facilities follows. The City ofDublinhas 14 parks, 6 schoolparks and COMMUNITY CENTER open space areas which account for 272 acres of park land. Of this amount only 39% or 106.4 acres There is a high demand for space for the public to are dedicated as city parks. The following table meet for social gatherings such as weddings, includes only active public park land and does not family reunions, banquets, fund raising events; include open space, neighborhoodmeetings; organizationalmeetings; and clubs, such as Camp Fire, Boy Scouts, gar- ParkType No. of Sites Acreage dening clubs, etc. Through the provision of multi-use space, a myriad of activities can be Neighborhood 7 28.4 accommodated. These uses can include a pre- BACKGROUND Community 7 78.0 school, crafts classes, dance, cooking, a place for Subtotal 14 106.4 youth to "hang-out" as well as participate in ~ School Parks 6 43.6 activities and games. Total 20 150.0 RECREATION FACILITY RECOMMENDATIONS The RecreationNeeds Assessment also identified several major buildings for inclusion in the Mas- ter Plan. These facilities have significant costs Table 2 Sports Standards Sports Facilities B~lfields 1:5,000 1:2.000 1:1.100 1:2,000 1:1,380 1:1,600 Soccer Fields 1:10,000 1:2,000 1:1,100 1:2,000 1:1,445 1:2,000 Softball Fields 1:5,000 * 1:5,000 * 1:7,580 1:5,000 Swiping 1:20,000 1:35,000 1:13,000 450 ~: ,000 1:30,320 1 1 ~20~000 Tennis 1:2,000 1:2,500 1:2,000 1:3,000 1:2,165 1:2,500 B~ketball CouPs 1:5,000 * 1:5,000 * 1:980 1:4,000 Volleyball Courts 1:5,000 · 1:5,000 1:15,160 1:5,000 Note: Data in nmber per population · Standard No DUBLIN PARKS 17 Dublin Sports Grounds Mape Memorial Park BACKGROUND Table 3/1 Existing Facilities Inventory Is) (Parks & Schoo Parks AI~ ~k Pink 5.3 Dol~ P~k 4.9 Doughe~ Hills Mini Pink 4 ~ay ~mns 4.8 Dublin g~ ~t~ 3.6 ~m~d Glen 30 H~t~ Pmk 3.6 Kolb P~k 4.9 M~e Pink 2.6 ~or C~t~ 1.5 ~non Pink 9.7 Dublin ~o~s Gromds 22.8 CMc ~t~ 2.8 R~omh P~k 0.9 T~ Fdffield P~k 5 Schools/Parks Dublin ~t~ 8.8 Dublin HS 5.4 Fr~ 7.8 Mumy 8.6 Nielsm 5.4 ~kl]s Middl~alley HS 7.6 DUBLIN18 PARKS Existing development. Existing development. BACKGROUND Table 3B Existing Facilities Inventory Developments AmadorLakes ,/ 3 3 1 I 2 Amador Valley Apts. ,/ 1 Archstone @ Emerald Park I I 1 Avalon Dublin Apts. 1 1 1 ,/ ,/ 1 CottonWood 1 1 1 Cross Creek I 1 Greenwood Apts. 1 1 Emerald Park Lux. Apts. ,/ 1 1 I 1 ,/ ,/ 1 1 1 Park Sierra 2 ] I 1 1 1 1 Park Wood Luxury Apts Spring Apts. 2 I ..... Waterford Place Apts. ,/ 1 I 1 I 1 Ironhorse Trail Apts I I 1 1 1 DUBLIN PARKS 19 SCHOOL/PARK FACILITIES $l Dublin Elementary School 8.8 ac ~ 52 Dublin High School 5.4 ac 53 Frederiksen Elementary School 7.8 ac P14& $4 Murray Elementary School 8.6 ac - 55 Nielsen Elementary School 5.4 ac ~ 56 Wells Middle School 7.6 ac PARKFACILITIES P~2 a j P ] Alamo Creek Park 5.3 ac B^CKOROUND P2 Dolan Park 4.9 ac _j  P3 Dougherty Hills Mini Park 4.0 ac Dougherty Hills Open Space 103.5 ac P4 Dublin Sports Grounds/Civic Center 25.6 ac ~ P5 Dublin Swim Center 3.6 ac P6 Heritage Park 3.6 ac P7 Kolb Park 4.9 ac ~ P8 Mape Park 2.6 ac I~ P9 Senior Center 1.5 ac P1 0 shannon Park & Community Center 9.7 ac P1 1 Stagecoach Park .9 ac ~ P 12 Tassajara Creek Regional Park (EBRPD) P1 3 Emerald Glen Park 30ac P14 Ted Fairfield Park 5.0 ac ~ P ] 5 Bray Commons 4.8 ac Do,,~h**~ ~ --i P1 6 Martin Canyon Creek Trail/ 18.5 ac Open Space ;reekside [)r Fig. 4 Existing Parks & School/Parks INDOOR P~EcREATION CENTER The Recreation Needs Assessment indicated that the demand exists for a multi-purpose recreation center. To meet community demands and to generate sufficient revenue to offset operating cOsts, the Center must offer a wide range of activities and facilities. These activities and fa- cilities should include: 1.Activities and facilities that will be of interest to all age groups 2. An envir°mnent that encourages use by fami- lies Indoor gym spac~ for basketball and volleyball. SENIOR CENTER 3. Space for drop in recreation and instructional BACKGROUND classes Based on 2000 census data, approximately 11 J~ percent of Dublin's population is 55 years or 4. Court space for activities such as basketball older. It is anticipated that the population in this and vOlleyball age group will continue to grow with the growth of the City. The existing senior center, located in 5. High quality aerobics and dance studio a converted school facility, is heavily used by senior citizens. The facility is no longer adequate 6. A pleasant, well-maintained, state-of-the-art to meet the current demand for programming and facility thus a ne~v senior center is being constructed at ~ .,,~&.~~ .~** · tt}~'.~.~~~ . ,~ ~ ~ .. ,~ ~ Additional senior center facility with open space for outdoor recreation. DUBLIN PARKS 21 ' the site of the former Dublin Library. This site is COMMUNITY THEATER/CuLTURAL ARTS CENTER conveniently located close to public transporta- tion and adjacent commercial establishments. The A space that has a lower demand than the commu- existing senior center could be converted to an- nity center, recreation center or aquatic facility is other appropriate community use. the multi-use community theater. Currently the community has limited access to the "little the- AQUATIC FACILITY ater" located on the Dublin High School campus. The community has expressed an interest in a The City has an appropriate reliance on residential facility that provides adequate rehearsal and per- development to provide access to neighborhood formance space for theater, music and dance. The swimming pools. The Citycurrentlymaintains one regional theater in Walnut Creek has met the communitypoolwhichmeetsmanyofthecommu- demand for major performance space but does nity needs, however, with the increasing demand not meet the more modest needs of community for instruction, water fitness and age group com- players or for children's theater, dance or music. petitive swimming, the existing facility cannot meet the needs of the growing population. The The recommended facility would be a multi-use recommended aquatic facilitywouldbe locatedin facility that affords cultural, educational and so- BACKGROUND L the community park and would be designed to cial opportunities for the entire community. In meet a broad range of community aquatic needs addition to a little theater, the facility could include with an emphasis on meeting the unmet demand gallery space, classrooms and music rooms. for youth and adult competitive swimming. In addition to a 2 5 meter x 2 5 yard pool with a shallow water 'L', the aquatic facility would include sun- ning and picnic areas, a pool house with changing facilities, meeting and instructional space, offices and storage. The community theater caters to smaller scale performances. DUBLIN PARKS 22 Goals & Policies PARK SYSTEM · linkages (trails, streets, bikeways) which unite the park system into a cohesive whole. The plan provides direction for addressing the Each of these components has been incorporated long-term recreational needs of the City and its into an overall plan which specifically addresses the desire of the Dublin community. changing population over the next twenty years. The plan emphasizes providing community facili- ties to meet the program demands of the Dublin Criteria used in the selection of community park sites includes: 1) accessibility of the site to the population, total Dublin commtm~ty; 2) proximity to other Based on a projected service population of 59,900 public facilities such as schools; 3) relationship to at build-out, a 299.5-acre park system is required natural features (creeks, knolls, open space); 4) based on providing 5 acres of parkland per 1000 visual presence (visibility frommajor roadways); residents. As the existing park system consists of 5) limited site development constraints such as approximately 150 acres ofactiveparks (including commodateSteep topographY;communityand facilities6) significant size to ac- OO^LS school parks) this plan calls for the acquisition of an additional 149.5 acres of parkland. The total park acreage currently planned for the eastern and Goal 1: Provide for a high-quality and diversified western growth areas combined with the existing park system to meet the recreational needs and park acreage anticipates a deficit of 5.3 acres at quality of life goals of existing and future resi- build-out of the City. Consequently dents of Dublin. it will be necessary to pursue additional opportunities for parkland acquisition as the City builds out. The plan also provides for a network of park trails, bikeways, staging areas and open space that will link the parks into a community-wide system. This system will serve to visually link the new eastern and western growth areas into a visually unified city. This master plan is based on: . · The acquisition and development of com- munity and neighborhood park facilities in the yet-to-be-developed portions of the City to the east and west. .. · The assumption that the City of Dublin does not ~vish to be required to utilize school property to achieve the minimum park acre- age standards in the eastern and western growth areas. The components on which Dublin has built its p ark master plan area are: · parks which meet community-wide recrer . ation needs · parks which meet local neighborhood recre~ ation needs A network of trails / bikeways link the parks into a · open space areas which protect the existing community-wide system. natural character of the County DUBLIN PARKS 2 3 GU3I)INGPOLICIES desirable they should not be considered as 1.1 Ensure a minimum standard of 5.0 acres of a substitute roi' the 5 acre/JO00 resident public park per 1000 residents with only active park standard. usable acreage considered in meeting this criteria. 1.5 Create a park system in which each park satisfies the recreation needs ora variety of user groups and a range of active and pas- Usable acreage is level land that can be sive activities. utilized for active facilities (i. e. ballfields, buildings, courts, etc.) A variety of parks within the overall system 1.2 Establish a communitypark standard of 3.5 creates a variety ofplaces and experiences where the residents of Dublin can mingle acres for every 1000 residents and learn about their community. 1.3 Establish a neighborhood park standard of 1.6 Avoid substitutions of private recreation 1.5 acre for every 1000 residents. Neighbor- facilities for public parks in order to insure hood parks should be dispersed throughout permanent availability of facilities for the ~o^Ls the community. The parks should be de- [l~ signed and sited to provide a neighborhood entire community. identity and social focus. 1.7 Incorporate community input into the plan- 1.4 Encourage the development of au integrated ning and design of specific park facilities. parkdedicatedSystemopenWithspace,new landscapedtrail corridors,pathwayS'and When appropriate, workshops should be conducted to gain input fi~om the immediate school facilities but do not consider these lands as an area credited towards meeting neighborhood as well as address commu- park acreage standards, nity-wide concerns prior to the design of each park or community facili~. Ig/hile these amenities are valuable re- sources for the community and extremely 1.8 Integrate selection ofpark sites into the land planning process. Parks should be sited so that they can be easily linked to community wide pedestrian and bicycle circulation sys- tems. Generally, the best park sites are predomi- nantly level. Steep slopes created to de- velop level pads should not be included in acreage to achieve minimum park area. 1.9 Select park sites where the configuration and slope will accommodate the proposed facilities. 1.10 Where possible, park sites should be se- lected to relate to natural features such. as creeks or open space. 1.11 Avoid sites that are removed from major circulation corridors. The park system is an integral part of the community's image thus, the view of recreation facilities from road- ways is critical not only to encourage use but Parks should meet the needs of passive and active functions. DUBLIN PARKS 24 I Avoid Neighborhood parks of less than 5 acres to enhance the of the City. creating terraces which place the park sig- can not provide the practice sports fields nificantly above the road and provide only and are significantly more costly for the wews of steep slopes. City to maintain on a square foot basis. 1.12 Where possible, avoid sites that are subject If. Seek to preserve existing and to acquire to strong winds, additional sxtes of historical interest or to relocate structures of historical value into an 1.13 Select sites for parkland acquisition in order "historic park". to provide for the anticipated deficit of 5.3 + acres, lg. Encourage development of private recre- ation amenities in attached residential Changing land uses in the prima~y plan- projects. ning area of the City may provide land that is suitable for park development. Recreation areas can serve as social cen- ters for these neighborhoods. ACTIONPROGRAM ~o^Ls ih. Actively explore opportunities to utilize re- la. Locate communityparks and facilities in the cycled water to irrigate parks, where eco- I~ eastern undeveloped portion of Dublin as nomicallyfeasible. close the existing Dublin Center as pos- to sible, community parks will unite the exist- Require recycled water use £or landscape lng and developing neighborhoods into a irrigation in accordance with DSRSD's re- cohesive whole, cycled water policy for park development in Eastern Dublin. lb. Develop the48 + Emerald GlenPark adjacent toTassajaraCreek. The parkwillprovidean Ii. Design community facilities to encourage image and a memorable focus for the commu- evening use. Limit night lighting of neigh- nity as well as meet the public's recreational borhood parks to level adequate for secu- needs rity. lc. Develop a 60 + acre sports park to meet the lj. Pending the completion of the Historical community demand for high-quality com- District Designation Study of the Donlon petitive sports fields. The proposed site for Way area pursue opportunities to expand the sports park is on Fallon Road. the City's historic holdings in the area. 1 d. Maintain 11.6 +acres of community park on lk, Designate sites for new parks to alleviate the the Jordan property 5.3 +acre deficiencyby amending the Parks and Recreation Master Plan to show the In the event that environmental constraints location of such future park sites. in the location shown in limit development the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amend- ment and Specific Plan, identify 11.6 - acres elsewhere on the Jordan property or the Eastern Dublin Property Owners Asso- ciation properties. le. Discourage development of parks of less than 5 acres with the exception of the neigh- borhood squares located in the high density areas. Practice fields can beprovided by neighborhoodparks that are 5 acres or larger. DUBLIN PARKS 2 5 GOALS C i t y o f D u b I i n - P a r k F a c i I i t y P I a n Figure 5 City Limits Dublin Parks .-- - Parcel Lines City of Dublin J Existing Park Facilities Streets ...... j Sphere of Tnfluence Existing School Parks J' J Parks EFTA City Owned Open Space I Planned Parks ., ., S a n R a m o n ! '~ % P a r k s / RFTA western Extended Plannirlg I Civic Cent:er I ......... I Emerald Glen ParkI P L E A $ A ~N T Q N 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DUBLIN PARKS 27 - 28 TRAILS AND BIKEWAYS paths linking commumty amenities such as parks, schools, open space areas, neighbor- Trail use is one of the fastest growing segments hood retail and other destinations. of public park and recreation activity. Trails are linear parks orcorridors thatare primarilyforpedestrian, Avoid locating bicycle paths where steep gradients would discourage use. equestrian and bicycle use. Trails can be local or part of a more extensive regional system. They can serve as transportation alternatives for children 2.2 Identify desired trail alignments in advance going to and from schools and even for commut- of development and work to secure trail easements or dedications, and develop trails ers. in conjunction with development. Trails, at a minimum, may be narrow corridors that provide critical linkage to important facilities. At 2.3 Integrate trails with natural landscape fea- best, however, trail corridors may incorporate rares such as creeks and ridgelines. many hundreds of acres of significant open space and provide the public with unique opportunities 2.4 Encourage joint agency cooperation in to enjoy the natural environment between devel- projects to promote and develop trails. GOALS oped areas. EBRPD has developed a regional trail plan which includes trail corridors within Dublin. 2.5 Explore designatingprivate landadjacentto Thus, Dublin's trail system can be linked into the any creek on subdivisionmaps as apotential overall Tri-Valley network, trail easement. Goal2:Tocreateacontinuousnetworkofpaths, 2.6 Designate trail right-of-ways that are wide walks, and trails, therebyprovidinga recreational enough to accommodate the designated resource of routes and linear open spaces eh- uses, that provide a buffer between the trail ablingthepublictotravelbynon-motorizedmodes itself and adjacent development, and that throughout the Dublin community, allow for both emergency and maintenance vehicles. GUIDINGPOLICIES 2.1 De-emphasize reliance on the automobile for transportation by encouraging the develop- merit of off-street pedestrian and bicycle --~. -.-rr ...... ~z~ Non-vehicular network throughout the Dublin commttnity. DUBLIN PARKS 29 D'ail right-of-ways can occupy the same 2c. CreateatraillinkalongMartinCanyonCreek easement as emergency and maintenance to the EBRPD Calaveras Ridge Trail and vehicle access and utility easements. D'ail bikeway along San Ramon Road. right-of-ways under overhead power lines should be avoided whenever feasible. For 2d. Pursue opportunities to link to Dublin Civic single or double-use trails thatpermit hik- Center to City and regional tx'ail system. ing and/or equestrian use, provide a mini- mum right-of-way width of 20 feet. For 2e. Continueto develop the trailalong Tassajara multiple-use trails thatpermit hiking, eques- Creek. trian and bicycle use, provide a minimum right-of-way width of 30 to 40feet. 2f. Encourage development of the EBRPD Calaveras Ridge Trail along Donlan Ridge. 2.7 Designatewidertrailcorridorswhereverpos- sible to include sensitive resources, unique Work with East Bay Regional Park District natural features or vista points and to pro- to provide a link for regional trails in the vide design flexibility. Westside hills. GOALS L 2.8 Provide staging areas located on arterial or 2g. Provide a regional staging area for the Dub- collector roads that are both convenient to linHitls Regional Park. the public and that are easily accessible for maintenance and operation purposes. 2h. Emphasize an east/west trail link along Dub- lin Boulevard into the extended planning 2.9 Evaluate all utility rights-of-way for trail development potential, areas. Where possible, the east-west trail link 2.10 ProvidelinkstoregionaltrailsproposedinEBRPD should be developed as a parkway with andLARPDRegionalTrailPlans, thePleasanton separate landscaped pedestrian/bikeway TrailPlan andtheDoughertyValley, SanRamon area. Where existing road cross-section Westside and Tassajara Valley Plans. cannot accommodate parkway, visually continue the parkway symbolicall~v with a 2.11 Provide localaccess tmilsto openspace areas, tree-lined roadway. Local trails and trail access points se~we 2i. Acquireopenspacetrailcorridorsineastern local residents and provide pedestrian ac- Dublin as it develops. cess for local users to public open space. Typically, parking is not provided at local 2j. Develop Class II Bikeways and Pedestrian trail accesspoints, although on-streetpark- Parkways along major roadways in the east- lng may exist as part of a subdivision, em Dublin area ACTIONPROGRAM 2a. Explore potential funding through sources such as private development, the Transpor- tation Development Act and similar pro- grams for trail construction. 2b. Continue trail along Alamo Creek to Dublin boundary and under 580 to Pleasanton. DUBLIN PARKS 3o l~ .I t y 0 t D U D I i n I r a i I $ P I a n Figure 6 City Limits Bicycle Trails Recreational Trails ~ Trailhead ! Staging Area ~ir .~ City of Dublin - ' Class 1, Existing, Bike Path Existing Regional Trail Unk Parcel Lines Class 1, Proposed, Bike Path · - - Existing Local Trail ............. Creeks ~ ! Sphere of Influence e==e=e==e Class 2, Existing, Bike Lane ........ Proposed Local Trail Streets F ~ ~1 Parks EFTA ~ Class 2, Proposed, Bike Lane ........ Proposed Regional Trail ~ / 'i San R,a m o n W'~st~rn E'xte n~d ed'%, ii! / Civic Center I l~on Home lmil P L E A S A N T O N r-----1 ~ i i i i i i I Miles 0 0.5 :1. 2 3 4 5 6 7 DUBLIN PARKS 31 - 32 OPEN SPACE POLICIES GUIDINGPOLICIES 3.1 Protect the visual quality in the Dublin commu- The Dublin community is boUnded to the east and nity through the creation of a continuous west by significant areas of undeveloped land. By visual open space system. providing policies for the development of an open space system, the City of Dublin ensures the pres- As a generalprinciple, large unbroken open erVation of the visUal character of the community, spaces are more valuable for both recre- the protection of wildhfe populations and signifi- ational uses and habitat protection than cant vegetation patterns, as well as providing op- fragmented areas surrounded by develop- pommifies for passive recreational pursuits. The ment. purpose ofopenspace designation can vary. Itmay be the visual contrast to urban development pat- 3,2 Encouragepreservationofridgelines, riparian terns, protectionofenvironmentalresources, or the corridors and within oak woodland areas so development ofpubliclyaccessible open space with that these natural resources may be a part of trails, staging areas, and environmental education the open space system. programs. It is possible to preserve visual open space without requiring public ownership by limit- Providing a variety of terrain and vegetation OOZES ing the density ofuints and establishing guidelines within an area selected for protection con- L~ which preserve significant visual features. How- tributes to the ecological health of the open ever, without establishing areas of public open space system. space, the City does not have the ability to control the land management of the undeveloped area and 3.3 Mimmize the fragmentation of open space provide public access and recreation opportunities, areas by "f'mgers" of development. Goal3: First, to preserve the visual quality of the The greatest number of management issues hillsides and creeks that contribute to the char- and highest maintenance costs occur at the acter of Dublin and secOndly, to PrOvide public direct interface between development and access to and passive recreation opportunities open space. Thus, reducing the length of the within openspace areas, perimeter simplifies the management of the open space system. Encourage preservation of natural resources like ridgelines and oak woodlands. DUBLIN PARKS 33 3.4 Maximize community use and exposure to space land criteria, buffer and ~rail easement open space, con'idorwidths and improvements which must be in place prior to dedication. Multiple local access points and community staging areas increase public enjoyment of 3b. Establish standards for treatment of interface open space and spreadthe impact of that use between the perimeter of development and over the open space area. Single loaded open space areas. roadways facilitate visual and public access to open space. Standards should discuss fire breaksl widths and materials, geologic hazard buffers, mini- 3.5 Avoidincludingidentifiedlandslides, erosion mum acreage, emergency access, trail widths areas and slope hazards withinpublicly-owned and access, fencing and maintenance prac- open space adjacent to developed areas, tices. Wheredevelopmentabutsopenspaceinland- 3c. Explore the variety of mechanisms used to slide-prone areas, create a privately-owned ensure protection of open space lands desired ~OALS buffer zone with the responsibility for all by the community.  landslide repair and maintenance resting with a Geologic Hazard Abatement District City ordinances should either be in place or or a Homeowners Association. The buffer open space regions negotiated directly as zone should include all engineered slopes developmentproceeds. Some of the tools the and drainage structures. City can use include open space easements, transfer of development rights, restrictive 3.6 Emphasize protection of wildlife habitats and covenants and planned unit developments. corridors. 3d. Explore financing mechanisms for open space Barriers to the movement of wildlife species operation and management costs. such as roadways, power lines, pipelines and s~qp development that fi'agment open space It is critical that the costs of the open space should be avoided. Actively work with Fish maintenance are not overlooked or & Game to define andpreserve wildlife habi- unde~funded. Regardless of who owns the tats. remaining open space lands, there will be maintenance costs. Maintenance and liabiI- 3.7 Cooperate in regional efforts to create con- ity costs will be influenced by the amount of tiguous trails and open space system. Oppor- land dedicated, the proximity to developed t-unities existwith SanRamon'sWestsideArea, areas, the type of facilities provided and the the Dougherty and Tassajara Valleys, and presence of fire or geologic hazards. Some along Livermore's northwestern boundary, funding mechanisms include special assess- ment districts, homeowner associations, or Provide regional staging areas in both east- geologic hazard abatement districts. ern and western Dublin adjacent to trail and open space corridors. 3e. Explore potential for creation of Dublin Hills Regional Park. ACTIONPROGRAM The East Bay Regional Park District has 3a. Develop specific open space guidelines for made land acquisitions along the ridgeline theDublincommunitywhichestablishcriteria for its regional ridgeline trail. Additional to evaluate the desirability and feasibility of acquisitions will not only complete the re- accepting specific public open space dedica- tions, gional ridgeline trail but will create a "vi- sual backdrop"for the City of Dublin Guidelines might define minimum open space acreages, access opportunities, maintenance responsibility, dedication procedures, open DUBLIN PARKS 34 COMMUNITY IMAGE & 4.2 Develop off-streetbicycle/pedestrianpaths in parkways along major roads creating ~ree- CHARACTER lined boulevards and a s reetscape system. The parks system is an essential component of a Views ofthepark system from the road are a city's image. Itis a visible reflectionofcommumty major component of the visual impression of To with landscaped the communi~ and will enhance the City's pride. create a COmlnUnlty pathways, well-designed parks, and attractive image. Image enhancemenr should be a corn- public buildings requires careful long-range plan- ponem of the design of each park or facility, ning and guidelines. By planning for a "village regardless of size or use. green" in the urban area where workers enjoy their lunch or parkways along which commuters can ACTIONPROGRAM walk and bicycle, Dublin is creating a community not a suburb. The Dublin population can then 4a. Enhance the presence of riparian corridors derive pleasure from community amenities each through landscaping. day. The park systembecomes an integral part of lives. 4b. Protect and emphasize the layout of neighbor- GOALS their hoods. Goal 4: Use the park and open space system toL~ provide community identity and character for Ideally each neighborhood would derive a Dublin, improving the area's visual quality, sense ofidentityfi'om sensitive land planning which .focuses attention on special features such as rock outcrops, specimen trees, vista GUIDINGPOLICIES points and knolls. 4.1 Preserve ridgelines, riparian corridors and sig- nificant vegetation and other features of 4c. Revitalize the central core of the downtown Dublin's natural setting, area through the creation of community-wide public spaces and a central gathering place for Features may be prese~wed through acquisi- civic celebrations and activities. tion of open space or restrictions on develop- setbacks fi'om natural fca- 4d. Continue to develop a landscape buffer along ment reqmring tures and preservation of view corridors, theperirneterofCampParks. Explore opporm- "village green, serves as a lunchtime retreat in the urban area. DUBLIN PARKS · nities to utilize this buffer area for recreation 4i. Designneighborhoodretail centers to encour- purposes such as a trail system with Camp age pedestrian use. Parks. The village center can be a destination linked 4e. Reflect the historical heritage of the commu- to trail system. Outdoor plazas, cafes and nity within the park system. As development display areas can encourage people to lin- occurs to the east and west, where feasible, ger. The plaza areas can become social remnants of the ranching history should be centers. preserved and incorporated into the parks and open space system. 4j. Develop design guidelines to insure high qual- ity site planning, architecture and landscape 4f. Unite the community with pedestrian path- design in downtown and developing areas. ways linking parks, schools and open space areas to each other and other community des- Emphasize the need for quality and visual tinations, continuity during the design process. ~o,xts 4g. Develop public cultural facilities such as corn- 4k Incorporate water-conserVing planning and L munity centers, museums and performing arts native plant materials into the landscaping of centers in conjunction withpark areas. Facili- all parks to the extent possible. Develop and ties should be designed to reflect the high- implement streetscape design standards to quality standards Dublin has chosen to exem- provide a tree canopy along major arterials. plify in the design of the Civic Center. 4h. Design each neighborhood with a focal point. In some neighborhoods this will be a park or school, in other areas it may be an entry or trail head. S~ -.. X/"/" t~)~' j! Emerald Glen'] ~ ~ Hwy 680~1 Fig. 7 Community Image Components DUBLIN PARKS 36 PARK ACQUISITION AND 5.3 Continue to implement and update the City's Subdivision Ordinance withregard to the dedi- DEVELOPMENT cation of lands for park and recreation pur- poses to insure that it keeps pace with land The Parks and Recreation Master Plan goals out- costs in Dublin. lined in this document are ambitious. If diligently will the citizens of Dublin 5.4 Diligently explore options to address parkland followed, they provide with a system of quality parks and recreation acquisition, improvements and operation ex- facilities for years to come. penses beyond the minimum established by the Subdivision Map Act for park dedication. Implementation of funding sources will require Opportunities may exist during the negotia- extensive pre-planning efforts. In addition to tionsforPlannedUnitDevelopmentrezoning, utilizing existing funds forparkandplayfieldreno- the Development Agreement Process, and vations, strategies for acquiring additional funds review of tentative maps for General Plan con- need to be addressed early in the pre-planning sistency. phase. The success in implementing this Plan depends largely on adequate funding, not only to Frequently new development sales are di- ~o~s acquire and develop park land, but to ensure that rectly benefited when the park facilities are the revenue needed to operate and maintain the constructed concurrent with housing. facilities is always available. 5.5 Continue to explore inter-agency agreements The implementation chapter of this Plan examines and j oint-control agreements to implement the existing and potential funding sources avail- parkimprovements. able to acquire, develop, operate and maintain recreational facilities. A successful implementa- Agencies which would be interested in coop- fion programwill rely on a combination ofregula- erative a~*angemems might include EBRPD, tory mechanisms, public and private funding the Dublin Unifi'ed School District and sources and innovative and creative approaches Alameda County Flood Control District. to accomplishing park, recreation and resource objectives. 5.6 Explore the variety of techniques for land acquisition including life estates, open space Goal 5: Generate the necessary funds and utilize easements, contributions of surplus real es- land dedication policies to insure implementation tare, "unilateral" options on property desired of and facilities acquisition and develop- at a low option price, sequential donations or parks ment. purchases, tax delinquent property, and pur- chase and leaseback programs with landown- GUIDINGPOLICIES ers. 5.1 Emphasize the acquisition and development Each of these will requtre coordination with of facilities that serve the community. land owners, developers, the Community Development Department and the City 5.2 Continue to emphasize communication be- Manager's office. tween the City Parks & Community Services, Public Works and Community Development 5.7 Examine oppormnities to preserve openspace Departments to ensure adequate and appro- through open space easements and transfer of priate parkland andtraillinkages are provided development rights and PUD plann/ng. with each development. It will require special diligence to ensure that' Open Space Easement Act of 1974, in which local governments can obtain the conserva- trail corridors, open space areas and park tion value ofproperty that it does not actuaIly lands are acquired and consolidated in an overall appropriate fashion. DUBLIN PARKS 37 own. The open space easement is a restriction Water slide fees, food concessions, and recep- which runs with the land and restricts the tion facilities can ali be revenue generating potential Use of land for the purpose of pre- park uses. semfing its natural or scenic character. The benefit to the landowner which either grants 5i. Consider forming a non-profit foundation or a or sells such an easement is a reduction in "Friends of the Parks" to provide funding in a property tax assessments and an income tax variety of ways for the advancement of parks deduction, and recreation. ACTIONPROGRAM 5a. Monitor the public facilities fee program to ensure that sufficient fees are collected for acquisition and development of parks and facilities. 5b. Maintain a fair and equitable rate structure for GOALS user fees which takes into account the special L~ needs of seniors, children, teenagers and the disabled. 5c. Continue to activelypursue State and Federal grants to develop park facilities. 5d. Continue to implement park and school yard facility improvements as funding is available. 5e. Actively pursue opportunities to jointly de- velop recreation amenities with the Federal government on Camp Parks land. 5f. Consider use of bond and tax measures to finance specific park and recreation improve- ments. Prior to initiating a bond referendum or tax increase, the City should conduct market research and organize an effective campaign which emphasizes the benefits of the improve- ments to the community. 5g. Explore private or service club sponsorship of park improvements through an "adopt-a-park" concept. Identify interested corporations, organiza- tions or individuals and create an action plan tailored to fit a variety of budgets and interests. 5h. Consider revenue generating concessions when designing park facilities. DUBLIN38 PARKS I MAINTENANCE AND and recreational facility and encourage water conservation in irrigating and landscape de- OPERATIONS sign. The City of Dublin will continue to face the chal- Tu~f in'igation represents the largest water lenge of meeting increased demands for parks, usage in landscape. Use can be reduced facilities and services withdisproportionatelyless through variant landscaping, drip irriga- available funds. Limited resources, including en- tion, low flow fixtures and central irrigation ergy and water supplies and their associated costs scheduling. Severe water restrictions due to compounds thedilemmaparkofficialsface. Main- drought conditions are likely to continue. tenance is integral with planning in the develop- This will require innovative and creative mentofcommumtyrecreationfacilifiesofalllevels planning in the areas of landscape design and uses. The City's challenge will be to provide and architecture. direction, services and management for the eXist- ina parks and facilities while planning accurately 6d. Provide adequate storage at all facilities to for the recreational needs of a rapidly expanding promote efficient operations andmah~tenance. community. This will require developing an effi- ao~s cientsystemofoperations andmaintenancewhich 6e. ExplorejointagreementswithEBRPD, Camp L~ capitalizes on cost effective, resource conserva- Parks, Alameda County, the school district tire methods, and other agencies to combine resources in maintaining public facilities. Development of sufficient leadership, funding and staf£mg for operations and maintenance is 6f. Explore and identify new funding sources for critical to the success and longevity of the City of maintenance and operations of proposed fa- Dublin's parks and facilities, cilities. Goal 6: Provide planning for asset allocation, 6g. Where available, utilize recycled water to irri- services management and funding for the exist- gate parks if economically feasible. ina parks and facilities while developing a thor- ough list of the recreational needs of the rapidly expandingDublin community. GUIDINGPOLICIES 6.1 Continue to develop an efficient operations and maintenance schedule to reduce costs by implementing preventative maintenance pro- cedures and contracting specialty services through a competitive bidding process. ACTIONPROGRAM 6a. Continue joint use agreement between the City of Dublin and Dublin Unified School District. 6b. Utilize, where appropriate, inexpensive con- tract labor Such as California Conservation Corps and neighborhood groups to augment full-time maintenance personnel. 6c. Evaluate Water management practices. Con- duct water auditing evaluations at each park DUBLIN PARKS GOALS DUBLIN PARKS 4o City of Dublin - Illustrative Parks Plan Figure8 City Limits Dublin Parks I Planned Parks Bicycle Trails Recreational Trails -- Parcel Unes ~ % Creeks !~ L-. · ' Class 1, Existing, Bike Path -- Existing Regional Trail Unk ~ City of Dublin Existing Park Facilities Neighborhood Square Class 1, Proposed, Bike Path -- Existing Local Trail~ Streets [-_--_i: Sphere of Influence Existing School Parks e==~.=~ Class 2, Existing~ Bike Lane .... a--- Proposed Local Trail I' [-------I C=O=O=~ Class 2, Proposed, Bike Lane ........ Proposed Regional Trail t---- .~1 Parks RFTA [ i CRy Owned Open Space _ ~ ~ :~ .~ -_. ~:~.~::_~. · = ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ :- L . ~' ~ *...:+?~" ~' ~ :.,. ,/ ~,.~ '~ ~ INTERSTATE 580 --' ~ I ~ I 1 J 1 I I I Miles 0 0.5 ~ · · 2 3 4 5 6 7 DUBLIN PARKS Parks and Recreation Facility Standards INTRODUCTION develop the guidelines for the character and pro- grams for the various types of parks proposed within Dublin. As population growth and commu- Utilizing data gathered through workshops, inter- needs defined, the facility nity are more precisely wews and review of existing recreation programs, distribution plan and standards must also be re- the masterplan establishes the number andtype of fined and development priorities identified. The facilities which will be required if the City of Table also describes existing parks and the pro- Dublin is to meet the recreation needs of future posed use of school grounds for sports fields and residents at the level of service demanded by the anumber of other types of parks whichmake up the current population. This master plan was devel- Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan. De- oped scnptive standards have been developed to elabo- incorporating the development plans the extended planning areas to ensure consistency rate on the characteristics of these components. and compatibility with previously established As each park is developed, it is essential to incor- goals. The Master Plan emphasizes the acquis~- commumty input into the planning of these ST^ND^RDS porate tion and development of commumty parks and facilities to insure the master plan continues to be ~ restricting the use of neighborhood parks to those a direct reflection of the Dublin citizens needs and activities which will not impact adjacent residen- aspirations. tial use. This ambitious program requires judi- cious allocation of facilities when using the 5 acres/1000 residents park land standard. Table The park and recreation facility standards have 4 Park Facility Distribution describes a possible been divided into three sections. The in:st section distribution of parks and other facilities. The discusses the elements and program for the vari- s~ting of new facilities and buildings within a ous types of park facilities including: major park complex provides opporminty for shared use on the site. This canreduce the a~creage o EmeraldGlenPark required for parking, vehicular and emergency · sports park vehicle access, some building sizes and provides · neighborhood park of land efficiencies. It must be · neighborhood square noted°ther typeSthat if these facilities are not sited in the o special use facilities - historic park and town use proposed parks or as parts ora larger complex, the square acreage requirements must be increased. The distribution table has been used as the basis to community and neighborhood parkS Can accommodate Provision of facilities fo~ group /family gaihering. tennis courts. DUBLIN PARKS 43 Within the proposed parks a number of indoor recreation and leisure facilities are proposed. The second portion of this chapter sets forth recommendations for the use and square footage requirements of each facility. During the next stage ofplarming for development of these facili- ties, a public participationprocess is recommended to verify commmfity needs and the attendant space components for each building. Planning stan- dards have been developed for: · community center · recreation center · aquatic center · senior center STANDARDS ° community theater /cultural arts center The final portion of the standards chapter has been developed to address trail standards. The use of these standards will enable an incremental development of the comprehensive community- wide trail system. Communityfacilitiesprovidefor lifelong learning Playgroundsprovide tactileplay and stimulate creativity DUBLIN PARKS 44 Table 4 Park Facilities Distribution potential additional facility distribution I -~ e- ~ *a STANDARDS ~ ~ ~ ~ Z Z Outdoor Baseball 60' Diamond 14 7 7 1 4 2 0 90' Diamond 6 4 2 0 2 0 0 Practice 17 11 6 0 0 6 0 Soccer Pee Wee - 10's/8's 9 4 5 0 5 0 0 Re~lation 7 8 0 2 0 0 0 Practice 14 9 5 0 1 4 0 Softball 12 4 8 0 4 4 0 Tennis CouPs 24 14 10 0 4 6 2 Swimming Pools 3 1 2 2 0 0 0 Basketball Coups 15 31 0 0 4 0 0 Basketball Half CouPs 2 0 Volleyball 12 2 10 2 0 6 2 Indoor Community Center 36,000 sf 12,178 24,000 24,000 0 0 0 Recreation Center 30,000 sf 6,002 24,000 24000 0 0 0 Community Theater 16,000 sf 0 16,000 0 0 0 0 Historical~ature Museum 2 to 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 Senior Center 15,000 sf 6600* 15,000 0 0 0 0 * Facility to be replaced. DUBLIN PARKS 45 Emerald Glen Park Standards This park should offer a variety of recreational opporttmities that attract a wide range of local age groups and interests. It should feature large open space areas, umque natural and cultural areas as well as group picnic areas, bicycling and walking trails, sports facilities, aquatics facility, commumty center and other unique features or facilities. Size: 48 net acres minimum. ServiceArea: Centralized within the entire City of Dublin. Highly visible and easily accessible. Access/Location: County land bounded by Tassajara Creek, Tassajara Road, Gleason Drive and Central Parkway. The community center should be utilized to create a central focus for the Dublin community. ParkDesign: Create a memorable 21st century social hub and landmark public destination which would be a source of pride for the City. Facilities that maximize the recreational and leisure experience of all citizens. Provide a mixture of facilities to attract a broad spectrum of user groups. Develop a trail system along Tassajara Creek to provide links to other regional and STANDARDS local parks, City destinations, and BART. L~ Provide a pedestrian spine linking the uses on the site to the surrounding existing retail, residential and recreational facilities. Play Area: High quality and innovative play structures. Water feature specifically designed for children's play. Separate facilities for tots from those for older children. Provide parents seating area. Potential Sports Facilities: Ball fields, graded and maintained for practice and competitive baseball. Spectator amenities. RegUlation soccer fields. Practice soccer fields (may overlap ball fields). Outdoor basketball courts. Outdoor volleyball courts. Lighted tennis courts. Skateboard park. PicnicFacilities: Shaded and secluded picnic areas with tables for 6 to 8 people located throughout the park providing available areas for spontaneous picnic use. Group picnic facilities. Natural Areas: Open meadow zones that provide soft, green use areas for picnics, infom~a] sports as well as passive group and individual uses. Provide a pedestrian trail along Tassajara Creek to link with regional trail and transit systems. DUBLIN PARKS FIG. 9EMERALD GLEN PARKMAS~RPLAN ] Main Auto Entry 2 Drop Off 3 Plaza 4 Aquatics Complex '-'~. ....................................................................................... ' ......... 5 Community Center ....................... · ....................... T"~7'~ "~'7~_~' ~5~2~".~'"][~"'~ ~'"~[ ........... ' .... 7 6 Lake .......................................................... 7 Nodes - Seating and Concessions ........... - 8 Park Promenade .._ - f~ 9 Secondary Auto EnWy d .......-z:7""'"'~'"'5'"'~'7'-'5'2-7'77:;~.~,,7 i~ ] 0 Play Area ~ ~ ~'~ ; ,.~o~ ~ 12 Tenms Cou~ , m .... ~ · ; ' ~''- ''~ '~r ~ 13 Basketball Court .... ~ ' :~'("I' ~ ~ ] 4 Soccer Field ~ ............ ~ '~ ........................ ~ .................... ] S BasebaI1 Field ~ ~.. ~ 15 ~ ] 6 Jogging Trail ; .?. "~ 1 7 Creek Condor I 8 Parking 19 Pedestrian Entry STANDA~S Feature 20 Maintenance Yard .,.7., :.,:,.: .. :7...' .~ ,, Potential Special Features: Comprehensive community center building with teen facilities. Indoor recreation center. Water feature and lake for visual impact. 1/2 acre maintenance yard. Aquatics center - competition pool with instructional 'L' and recreational use wading pool, potential for slides or water feature. feeling of town square and village green should supplement the sports and open The space components. Additional unique features may include an education center or museum, outdoor amphitheater, rose gardens, or outdoor wedding facilities. Restrooms: Permanent restroom structure. Parking: Major parking lot to accommodate demand during high use periods. Lighting: Provide lighting at the park entry and parking lots to promote safe night use of the areas. A strong lighting concept is important and can establish facility presence and orient users to the site. STANDARDS DUBLIN PARKS ~ i ~ ~ STANDARDS Section where the creek is featured as a highlight. b~age of area adjacent to creek. The creek is Incorporated into the overall design. DUBLIN PARKS Sports Park Standards A park facility developed to accommodate the majority of competition ballfields in the City. Couldbe utilized for tournaments. Focal element for Dublin community. Link to adjacent open space. Size: 60 net acres minimum. Site Characteristics: Predominantly level terrain. Access/Location: Bounded by Fallon Road and Central Parkway. Park Design: Design should create a sense of arrival and place. Allees of trees spoking through fields. Provide pedestrian walkways and scale to park. Play Area: Play equipment and parents seating area. Potential Sports Facilities: Regulation sports facilities for organized league practice and game play including STANDARDS competition facilities for Babe Ruth fields, little league baseball fields, softball fields, L~ competition and practice soccer fields. Basketball courts. Volleyball courts. Tennis courts. Bocce ball courts. BMX track Jogging or walking loop, minimum distance one mile, with par course. PicnicFacilities: Family picnic areas with tables for 6 to 8 people. Group picnic area for 50 - 100 people - designed to accommodate reserved picnics and support sports activities. Locate in the proximity of play areas and restrooms. Provide separation between group use and more passive use. Barbecue facilities. Shade structures and secluded, wind protected areas. Natural Areas: Link to open space corridor adjacent park. Provide picnic areas in natural setting and other natural areas to support the sports uses. Potential Special Features: Scoreboard/concessionaire. Central events plaza. Park-like setting with a variety of contours and large plantations of trees. Restrooms: Permanent restroom structures integrated into concession/scoreboard areas. Parking: Provide parking for 500 cars in satellite parking areas. Lockable bicycle parking. Lighting: Lighting for sports fields, building, parking and surrounding areas. Mitigate spill over lighting that may impact adjacent residential. DUBLIN 'PARKS FIG. 10 SPORTS PARK PROTOTYPE ] Main Auto Entry l 0 Picnic Area (Group) 2 Concession 1 ] Play Area 3 Nodes - Seating and Restrooms l 2 Turf Practice Area 4 Baseball Field I 3 Parking S softball Field ] 4 Creek Corridor 6 Little League Field . 7 Soccer Field ~'""'-.. 8 Tennis Court "~'1 '~ ......... -. 9 Basketball Court . i. / / ./ / '/ '.i / [...- .... / f I 7 i.,~ / ;i ,4 \ \ \ ~ DUBLIN PARKS ' 51 NeighbOrhood Park Standards The neighborhood park can be the visual and social center for the local community. In addition to meeting the local residents' recreational needs, the neighborhood park is also a "village green". These parks should be designed to reflect the unique character of each neighborhood. Neighborhood parks are developed to provide space for improvement in relaxation, play and informal recreation activities in a specific neighborhood or cluster of residential units. The park improvements are oriented toward the individual recreational needs ofthe neighborhood inwhich it is located. Facilities should be designed to include practice fields and not for ones competitive use, ~vhich traditionally bring more traffic into a neighborhood. Development Criteria: 1.5 acre minimum per 1,000 person, 5 to 7 net acres minimum. ServiceArea: Service area defined by major arterials or topography. Adjacent to neighborhood boundaries or open space area, visible from neighborhood STANDARDS / entry.  l] Site Characteristics: Major percentage of the site should be level to accommodate active recreation uses. Natural or visual qualities to enhance the character. Access/Location: Minimum of 2 public street frontages. On collector or residential streets; no major arterials. Park Design: Central green/social center for neighborhood. Reflect character of setting - natural features or architectural style of homes. Play Area: Tot lot for children 2-4 years. Apparatus play area adjacent to tot lot. Parents seating area. Potential Sports Facilities: Turf fields graded and maintained for practice softball/baseball (minimum 250' outfield) and soccer (minimum 180'). Tennis courts. Volleyball courts. Outdoor basketball courts. Bocce ball courts. PicnicFacilities: Tables and secluded space for informal family picnics up to 6-8 people. Barbecue facilities in family-sized picnic areas. Natural Areas: Open space meadow for informal sports, games and passive activities. Fenced area for dogs offleash. Parking: Off-street parking for 10-20 cars where minimum street frontages are not provided. Lockable parking for 6-10 bicycles. Lighting: Provide lighting for security purposes not for night-use activities. Avoid penetration of unwanted light into adjacent neighborhood. DUBLIN PARKS 52 FI(;. 11 NEIGI-[BORI-IOOD PARKPROTOTYPE ) SOCCER S~^NDAV. DS MAINTENANCE STREET TREES SOFTBALL ! BASEBALL .' ..... lOT lOT LINK TO OPEN SPACE. OR SCHOOL '-' "' PARENTS' SEATING PLAY VOLLEYBALL ~ AREA -": PARK (20 CARS) SlGNAGE cOLLEC'[OR DROP OFF DUBLIN PARKS 53 Neighborhood Square Standards Neighborhood Squares provide specialized facilities that serve a concentrated or limited population or special interest group such as young children or senior citizens. The Neighborhood Square is a scaled-down version of the Neighborhood Park, with an average size of 2 acres and located in high density residential urban areas where a green pocket is the central focus of the neighborhood. Site Characteristics: 2 net acres minimum. Predominately level site. Access/Location: Prominent location preferably at cross street. Within neighborhoods and in close proximity to apartment complexes, townhouse development or housing for the elderly. Linked with trails and pedestrian walkways. ParkDesign: Each park should have unique characteristics such as public art, fountain, bandstand, formal gardens, etc. to create a focal point for high density areas. STANDARDS Develop plaza areas for gathering and neighborhood social events. t~ Play Area: Small scale, high quality play structures. Parents seating area. Potential Sports Facilities: As appropriate to user groups in adjacent homes; provide tennis court, volleyball court, or basketball court. Picnic Facilities: Tables and benches with limited open space for individual use. Seatwalls for informal picnicking. Natural Areas: Views and vistas are desirable. Restrooms: Not provided. Parking: Street parking. Lighting: As necessary for security only. DUBLIN. RARKS ~ 54 FIG. 12 NEIGHBORHOOD SQUARE PROTOTYPE RESIDENTIAL STREET FOUNTAIN TENNIS COURT SCULPTURE STANDARDS GAZEBO PLAY FORMAL GARDEN SHADE TREES 1/2 COURT BASKETBALL MAIN STREET DUBLIN PARKS 55 Historical Park Standards A facility which preserves the remnants of the agrarian heritage of Dublin. There are potentially two types of Historical Parks. A facility on the cemetery site using the old Murray School and St. Raymond% Church would reflect the historic "townlook". Antique and craft shops or a bed and breakfast might benefit from being adjacent to this type of facility. A separate facility incorporating an historic farmstead and focusing on the rural historic aspects might be better associated with an open space area in Eastern Dublin. It could also function as a trail head or ranger headquarters. Service Area: Within the City of Dublin. Site Characteristics: Historical significance. Interesting natural or visual characteristics such as existing trees, creeks, vistas. Access/Location: Fifteen minute driving time radius. Restrooms: Potential. STANDARDS I Special Features: Historic gardens, potentially a facility for receptions or educational programs. Ranching tool, barns and outbuildings as appropriate. Site elements and materials reflect historical period. Parking: Parking lot to accommodate demand during high use times (35-50 stalls). Lighting: Strong lighting concept is important to establish facility presence and orient users to the site. Provide lighting at the park entry and parking lots to promote safe night use of the facility for events. DUBLIN PARKS 56 unity Center Standards A multi-use facility that provides educational, cultural, recreational and social opportunities for the entire community. The community center provides a social hub for the community it serves. The facility should be a vital building which provides a good mix of rooms, in a variety of sizes, to meet the needs of various activities. In addition wide of program needs, the type and C OmlTlUnity organizations and to meeting a range mix of spaces should also consider the revenue generation potential. Community Centers can generate substantial amonnts of revenue to meet the City's cost recovery objectives. The Center should serve as a focal point and be a source of pride for the community. Size: 24,000 Square Feet Development Criteria: 15,000 square feet per 25,000 persons. ; Acreage: 2-3 Acres. Service Area: Centralized to major population centers. STANDARDS Site Characteristics: Predominantly level. [1~ Interesting natural or visual characteristics such as existing trees, creek, vistas. Access/Location: Located on a major arterial or collector road with high visibility. Twenty minute driving time. Pedestrian access via trails and bikeways. Facility Design: Memorable public destination point which would be a source of pride for the City. Destination that will serve the diverse needs of the entire City. Facilities that maximize the recreational and leisure experience of all c~tizens. Provide an inventory of versatile facilities that respond to the changing demographics of the community. Potential Indoor Facilities: Lobby Public Assembly Space Caterer's Kitchen Multi-Use Room(s) Classroom/Meeting Room A~ts and Crafts Room Teen Center Tot Activity Room Pre School Room Administrative Space Storage Special Features: Outdoor patios Outdoor amphitheater Incorporate into Emerald Glen Park. lot accommodate demand during high use periods (100 spaces). Parking: Major parking tO Lighting: Strong lighting concept is important to establish facility presence and orient users to the site. Provide lighting at the Center entry and parking lots to promote safe night use. DUBLIN PARKS '57 - [NDOORFACILITIES GUIDELINES - COMMUNITY CENTER Space Sq. Ft. Comments Assembly Facility 5,000 Multi-purpose space for banquets, dances, meetings, ~veddings, and other large community events. Commercial Kitchen 800 Lobby and Reception 1,500 Art display and social space. Multi-Use Room 2,700 Multi-purpose space for meetings and social gatherings. Banquet seating for 200. Could be divided into 2 or 3 smaller rooms. STANDARDS Teen Lounge 750 Room dedicated to teens. Informal seating, kitchenette, big screen L ~ TV. Teen Game Room 1,000 Separate area for foosball, pool, ping pong and other games. Conference Room 600 Tot Activity Room 900 Activity space for short term babysitting and tot programs. Includes children's bathroom. Classroom/Meeting Rooms (2) 1,200' Office Area 1,000 Space for coordinators and part-time staff. Pre School: Program 1,200 Restrooms 150 Kitche!) 200 office 120 Storage 200 Arts and Crafts Studio 1,200 Storage 1,500 .~ .. Net Assignable S.F. 20,020 Total GrOss S.F. 24,000 DUBLIN58 PARKS Recreation Center Standards The Recreation Center is envisioned as a dynam2c, multi-use facility that provides structured programs, instruction and drop-in recreational opportunities to the entire community. It will provide residents of all ages with access to indoor recreation opportunities. These dynamic and versatile buildings will be tailored to the needs of youth, families and adnlt team activities. It will not be not designed to serve as a spectator facility for competitive sports but rather to provide spaces where residents of all ages and abilities can participate in healthful activities. Size: 24,000 Square Feet. Development Criteria: 15,000 square feet per 30,000 persons. Acreage: 3.0 Acres. Service Area: Centralized within the entire City of Dublin. Site Characteristics: Predominantly level. STANDARDS Access/Location: Located on a major arterial or co]lector road with high visibility. Twenty minute driving time radius. Facility Design: Memorable landmark public destination point which would be a source of pride for the City. Destination that will serve the diverse needs of the entire City. Facilities that maximize the recreational and leisure experience of all citizens. Provide an inventory of versatile facilities that respond to the changing demographics of the community. Potential Indoor Facilities: Aerobics Room Dance Room Multi-Use Room ,~ = Gymnasium . Gymnasium Storage Locker Rooms Administrative Space Activity Lobby Teen Center Tot Activity Room Special-use space Special Features: Outdoor sand volleyball court(s). Sited at Emerald Glen Park or future Sports Park location. Parking: Parking lot to accommodate demand during high use periods (100 stalls). Lighting: A strong lighting concept is important and can establish facility presence and orient users to the site. Provide lighting at the Center entry and parking lots to promote safe night use. DUBLIN PARKS I~ ' 5 9 INDOORFACILITIES GUIDELINES- RECREATION CENTER Space Sq. Ft. Comments Aerobics / Dance 2,000 Includes storage. Fitness Center 1,500 Circuit training machines and cardiovascular equipment. Cardiovascular Fitness 500 Exercyctes, stairclimbers, rowing machines. Gymnasium and Storage 12,700 One (1) basketball feature court; Three (3)basketball cross courts; Four (4) volleyball courts; Six (6) badminton courts. Multi-Use Room 1,600 STANDARDS Locker Rooms 1,800 ~ Office Area 1,200 Activity Lobby 1,800 Access control location. Passive area for Reception Counter socializing, displays and disseminating information. Babysitting / Tot Activity Room 900 Short-term babysitting while parent uses the facility. Total Gross S.F. 24,000 DUBLIN PARKS · 6O Aquatic Center Standards The Aquatic Center can provide a dynamic, multi-use aquatic facility that provides programmed and drop- in recreational opportunities for the entire community. This pool would supplement the existing City pool and would also serve the needs of youth and adults who participate in age group swimming. The pool design provide adequate facilities for synchronized swimming, water aerobics and other fitness programs, and can the full range of instructional classes. The aquatic center can include water £eatnres such as slides and sprays as a means to increase family and youth participation and generate additional revenue. Pools: 25 Meter by 25 yard with a shallow water "L" and Tot Wading Pool. Development Criteria: One (1) pool per 20,000 residents. Acreage: 2.0 to 3.0 Acres. Service Area: Centralized within the newly developed areas of the City of Dublin. Site Characteristics: Predominantly level. STANDARDS Access/Location: Located on a major arterial or collector road with high visibility. ~ Facility Design: Multi-use facility that will provide a wide variety of aquatic opportunities. Facility to accommodate competitive as well as instructional and recreational programs. Play features such as water sprays, play apparatus or slides to add an "attraction" aspect to the facility. Handicapped accessible. Potential Indoor Facilities: Lobby/Access Control Locker Rooms Family Changing Rooms Pool Manager's Office Lifeguard Room First Aid Room Multi-Use Room Food Concession Mechanical/Storage Special Features: Sited at Emerald Glen Park location. Parking: Parking lot to accommodate demand during high use periods. r50 parking spaces. Lighting: A strong lighting concept is important and can establish facility presence and orient to the site. users Provide lighting at the park entry and parking lots to promote safe night use of the areas. DUBLIN PARKS 61 Senior Center Standard As the population of Dublin continues to grow and age, there will be an increasing need for a specialized facility that serves the social, recreation and leisure needs of the senior c6mmunity. The site of the former Dublin Library is the planned location of the new Senior Center. The site is centrally located in Dublin and is located along public transit routes and adjacent to a mai or commercial area. Additionally Senior Housing is proposed on site, which will make the Senior Center conveniently accessible to the residents of the Senior Housing Complex. Size: 15,000 square feet Development Criteria: 6,250 square feet per population of 25,000 persons. Acreage: 1 Acre. Service Area: Centralized within the entire City of Dublin. STANDARDS Site Characteristics: Predominantly level site.  Interesting natural or visual characteristics such as existing trees, creek, vistas. Access/Location: Located on a major arterial or collector road. Fifteen minute driving time radius. Located along public transit route. Facility Design: Destination that will serve the needs of the City's senior adults. Provide an inventory of facilities that respond to the more active lifestyle of the senior population. Indoor Facilities: Reception / Lobby Offices Meeting Room Game Room Assembly Hall Kitchen Arts and Crafts Room Restrooms Class Room Consultation Room Special Features: Outdoor patios. Design features for mobility impaired seniors. Parking: Parking lot to accommodate demand during high use periods (65 stalls). Parking must be proximate to the building with design consideration for person with limited mobility. Lighting: Strong lighting concept is important to establish facility presence and orient users to the site. Provide lighting at the Center entry and parking lots to promote safe night use of the areas. DUBLIN PARKS 62 'Community Theater/CulturalArts Center Standards The Community Theater/Cultural Arts Center Standards can provide a multi-use facility that affords cultural, educational and social opportunities for the entire community. The theater can serve as a playhouse to local theater companies and provide instruction and performance opportunities for children's theater. In addition, it will provide performance space for dance, music players, and a wide variety ofcommunity sponsored events. The community theater can also provide meeting and lecture space. With a large, regional perform/ng arts center in nearby Walnut Creek, it is recommended the size of the theater be scaled to local community use. Size: 16,000 Square Feet. Development Criteria: One facility per community. Acreage: 1 Acre. Service Area: Centralized to major population centers. Site Characteristics: Predominantly level. STANDARDS Interesting natural or visual characteristiCs such as existing trees, creek, vistas. Ll~ Access/Location: Located on a major arterial or collector road with high visibility. Twenty minute driVing time. Facility Design: Memorable public destination point which would be a source of pride for the City. Destination that will serve the diverse needs of the entire Community. Potential IndoorFacilities: Lobby and ReCeption 150 - 200 Seat Raked Floor Theater Green Room Classroom/Music Room Gallery Space Scenery Storage Kitchen Multi-Use Room Administrative Space Dressing Room wardrobe Storage Special Features: Outdoor patios. Outdoor amphitheater. Parking: Major parking lot to accommodate demand during high use periods (100 spaces). Lighting: Strong lighting concept is important to establish facility presence and orient users to the site. Provide lighting at the Center entry and parking lots to promote safe night use. DUBLIN PARKS 63 Trails and Bikeway Standards There are three basic types of trail use that may be found in Dublin - hiking and jogging, bicycle, and equestrian. Hikers, joggers and strollers make up the majority of trail users. This group naturally prefers to use trails that are safe, that provide good footing and that are routed through interesting landscape with attainable destination points and offer some amenities along the way such as benches and rest areas. Bicyclists prefer Class I trails which have smooth surfaces (preferably paved) and which are separated from other types of traffic. Their second choice is the Class II trail which is part of the urban street or rural roadway with designated area for the bicyclist, and finally, the Class III trail which is simply a street or roadway that is signed or marked for bicycle use. Often traveling a distance of 25 miles on an outing, the serious bicyclist prefers trails with sweeping curves, good visibility, and a minimum of cross streets. Equestrian trails are generally planned for the outlying areas of the City where there is more open space and natural landscape. Because of the limited available space in Dublin, equestrian trails are intended to connect STANr>AP, DS with other planned trails in neighboring communities and park districts. ~ The types of trails that are indicated in this master plan include: Parkway: Paved path suitable for bicycles and pedestrians which is physically separated from the street and not a part of the road section. Bicycle Trails: Usually a paved lane, 8 to 10 feet wide, along the side of the road or street which are signed and designated for that purpose. Creeks/de Trails: Paved trails along creeks for pedestrian and potential bicycle use. Open Space Trails: Unpaved trails for equestrian and hiking use. GENERAL TRAIL DESIGN Trail design should include appropriate landscaping to provide a pleasant visual and physical environment, including protection from sun, wind, noise and traffic hazards. · Where feasible and desirable, trail projects should accommodate more than one type of trail use. · Design the trail to require as little maintenance as possible over time and to avoid steep inclines. · Preserve existing vegetation, removing only as much as necessary to acconm~odate the trail. Analyze existing topography and locate trails so that minimal grading is required. DUBLIN PARKS ,~ 64 PARKWAY TRAIL DESIGN The parkway links Eastern Dublin with the remainder of the community. As an important community spine it should be visually distinct. It should accommodate both bicycle and pedestrian use, both separated from the street whenever possible. The design of the parkway should promote its use as an alternative to the automobile. Parkway should be well landscaped and lighted. Easement Width: Minimum 20 feet along major street or parkway (both sides). Pedestrian Path: Minimum 5 feet wide, concrete. Bicycle Path: Minimum 8 feet, maximum 12 feet wide; 12 feet where joint use with pedestrians. Asphalt or concrete. Rest Areas: Rest area should include a bench and drinking fountain. BIKEWAYS STANDARDS "Bikeway" is used as a general term to designate all facilities that provide bicycle travel in some way. There are three classifications of bikeways, all conforming to Caltrans classifications and design standards. ~ · Class I Bikeway (Bike Path). Provides for bicycle travel on a right-of-way completely separated from any street or highway. · Class II Provides signed lane for bike travel on a street or Bikeway (Bike Lane). a striped, one-way roadway. Class III Bikeway (Bike Route). Provides for shared use withpedestrian or motor vehicle traffic and may be signed but is not striped. CLASS I · The minimum paved width for a two-way bike path should be eight feet with a two-foot wide, cleared shoulder onboth sides. If heavy traffic or significant pedestrian traffic is expected, the width of the paved path should be increased to 12 feet or more. · The vertical clearance to obstructions across the clear width of path should be a minimum of 8 feet. · A yellow centerline stripe may be used to separate the path into two lanes. This is particularly beneficial in areas of heavy use and on curves with restricted sight distance, or where the path is not lighted. · When crossing an arterial street, the crossing should occur at the pedestrian crossing where motorists can be expected to stop. Mid block crossings should only be used where a nearby intersection does not exist, should be adequately signed with warning signs and located to provide good site distance. Traffic signals, "Stop" or "Yield" signs for bicyclists should be installed. · For minimum speed design for bike paths, conform with Caltrans Highway Design Manual. · Signage should conform to Caltrans design standards. DUBLIN PARKS 65' CLASS li · Bike lanes for preferential use by bicycles should be established within the paved area of the roadway. · Bike lane stripes should be continuous to separate the bike lane from traffic and parking lanes· · Bike lanes should be one-way and a minimum of 5 feet wide. · Signage should conform to Caltrans standards. CLASS III · Drainage grates, manhole covers etc. on bikeways should be designed and installed in a mariner that provides a safe surface for bicycle tires. They should be maintained flush with the surface of the adjacent paving. · Place "Bikeway" signs along the route to inform the car driver that bicyclists use the roadway. STANDARDS ~ ~ _ Roadway Buffe ~Minimum , ~ 2 ft. 2 ft. Fig. 13 Class I Bikeway · . ' Bike Lane Striping Additional Additional Road Width Road Width Fig. 14 Class II Bikeway DUBLIN66 PARKS BICYCLEPARKING Adequate and secure bicycle parking will encourage bicycling as an alternative to the automobile for commuting and utility trips. Parking will be particularly important when other bikeways such as the Iron Horse Trail increase bicycle use. Bicycle parking should be located in the downtown shopping district, at commuter park and ride lots, at public transit access pmnts, and at centers of employment. Racks should be located m areas of high visibility to reduce the possibility of theft. CREEKSIDE TRAIL DESIGN Creekside trails desirable and are a sceptic and educational resource community amenity are a ·Width of creek trails should be a function of amount of use and sensitivity of natural resource. However, a minimum 8' width is desirable. · Creektraildesignand location shouldbe coordinatedwithCountyFlood Control, Fish& Game and EBRPD (as appropriate). · Maintenance trails along creek banks can frequently serve as trails. The final design of the trail must ST^ND^P~S accommodate appropriate maintenance. ~ · Where possible, creek trails should be located at top of bank. Because these areas are flat, grading is kept to a minimum and existing vegetation can be preserved. Erosion and bank stabilization problems are also rmnimized. Access to and from streets and access by disabled persons is generally easier when the trail is located at the top of bank. · Where creek trails must be located on slopes, a bench will have to be cut into the slope to provide a flat platform for the trail. The cut should be minimized to preserve as much native vegetation as possible. Generally, the trail should be located as high above the creek as possible. Ease of access to and from the street and by disabled persons should be considered when locating a trail on a slope. · Provide rest areas and overlooks with educational signage to enhance enjoyment of creek area. · Special wildlife habitat areas should be protected access, revegetation from Habitat restoration and creek should occur in degraded creek areas. · Where creeks are deeply incised, railing or fencing may be necessary to prevent access to the creek. ft. minimum ~ Fig. 15 Creekside Trail DUBLIN PARKS 67 OPEN SPACE TRAIL DESIGN Open space trails, at a minimum, may be narrow corridors that provide critical linkage to important facilities. However, at best, trail corridors may incorporate many hundreds of acres of significant open space and provide the public with unique opportunities to enjoy the natural environment between developed areas. Frequently, trails in open space areas follow old jeep roads or fire roads. The ideal alignment will "fit" the trail to the ground and will afford users the best views from the trail: The alignment should follow the topography of the land. Long straight stretches should be avoided as well as excessive switch backs. The alignment should angle across the natural slope of the hillside. Alignment directly up or down slope affords little opportunity to dram water away and can cause severe erosion. · Avoid areas with high soil erosion, high fire hazard or unstable slopes. · Where possible, route trails away from residences m order to maintain privacy. STANDARDS · Where appropriate, trail design should be coordinated with EBRPD. · Establish trail rights-of-way that are wide enough to accommodate the designated uses. For single or double-use trails that permit hiking and/or equestrian use, provide a minimum right-of-way width of 20 feet. Multiple-use trails that permit hiking, equestrian and bicycle use, provide a minimum right-of-way width of 30 to 40 feet. STAGING AREA AND TRAIL HEADS FOR HIKING & EQUESTRIAN TRAILS Regional staging areas are better located on arterial or collector roads in areas that are both convenient to the public and that are easily accessible for maintenance and operation purposes. They should not be located where they would intrude on nearby residents. Care should be taken to locate equestrian staging areas so that trail circulation is not forced to move through areas where equestrian use is incompatible. Regional staging areas should also accommodate horse trailers, drinking water, restrooms, telephone, hitching pots, and a rest area with tables. ·Provide lights, gates and fencing, as well as fire hydrants and fire truck tumarounds that address specific needs of police and fire departments. · Identify and utilize existing parking lots on schools and park facilities, wherever possible, to avoid duplication of staging facilities. A trail head is smaller, often consisting of nothing more than a sign. It may also include a small rest area. Whether staging area or trail head, each should be improved to include: Signs indicating by color and/or graphics trail type; trail name (if appropriate); distance to distinctive feature or trail junction; · Map (where appropriate) showing overall system; · Trash receptacle(s). HIKING TRAILS Hiking trails shouldbe anoptimumof3-5 feetwide. Onlyveryoccasionaltyshoulditbe attheminimumwidth of 2 feet. An additional 18" should be added to the width at problem spots, such as steep side slopes or high erosion areas. DUBLIN PARKS 68 On major trails, a 5 percent grade should be considered an average maximum. Where necessary, 10 percent grades for short lengths and 20 percent grades for very short lengths are acceptable where stairs are impractical. Stairways can cause erosion and should be avoided. HIKING/EQUESTRIAN TRAILS All shared hiking/equestrian trail treads shouldbe a minimum 8 feet wide, or a minimum 12 feet wide whenused jointly for fire maintenance. Along a precipice or hazardous area, the trail should provide oppommities to allow horses to pass without difficulty. Special trail seCtions such as CUlvert crossings or built-up sections across flat areas Should have a usable tread at least 3 feet wide. At switch back landings, all graded trails should be 8 feet wide. Long stretches Uniform grade Should be avoided. The grade should vary to PrOvide drainage and ofa natUral eliminate monotonous level stretches and long steady grades that are tiring to animal and rider. Grades should be leSsened at approaches to sWitch backs, and the turns should be as nearly level as is STANDARDS practicable. ApProaches {°' ~ad crossings should be nearly leVel. L~ lffilll As a general role, the trail should not be steeper than 15 percent. The grade may exceed 15 percent for short distances if it does not impair serviceability, safety, preservation and trailside aesthetics. TRAILS AND BIKEWAYS SUMMARY Easement Width Minimum 20 feet along major street or parkway (both sides). Minimum 30 feet where private property abuts on both sides. Pedestrian Path Minimum 5 feet wide. Asphalt, concrete, decomposed granite, or groomed or prepared native soil. Bicycle Path MinimuTM 8 feet, maximum 12 feet wide; 12 feet where joint Use with pedestrians. Asphalt or concrete. Trailheads, Rest Areas Trail head should include street access, parking for 4 to 5 cars minimum, bench, drinking fountain, portable restroom, bike rack for 4 - 6 bikes. Rest area should include a bench and drinking fountain. Regional staging areas should also accommodate horse trailers, drinking . water, restrooms and telephone as well as providing lights, gates and fencing. Fire hydrants and fire truck turnarounds that address specific needs of police and fire departments should also be included. Trail should include appropriate landscaping to provide a pleasant visual and Trail Design design physical environment, including protection from sun, wind, noise and traffic hazards. DUBLIN PARKS STANDARDS 2 ft. Minimum, Optimum 3to5 ft. (add 18 inches for difficult areas) Fig. 16 Hiking Trail tHiking / Equestrian Trail 8' ft. Minimum 12' minimum when used jointly with fire maintenance Fig. 17 l-liking/Equestrian Trail DUBLIN PARKS 70 Implementation OVERVIEW rh~ goal of this chapter of the Master Plan is to identify implementation priorities and funding mechanisms along with the key points related to The goals, guid/ng policies and action programs establishedinthisMasterPlanrepresentanambi- the cost of development and operations. The t/ous plan. The plan, however, reflects the desire successful implementation of the Master Plan ~s of the residents of Dubtin to have and maintain a contingent upon acquisition of land as well as high quality of parks and recreation facilities. Tiffs funding for development, operations, and mainte- nance of the new facilities. An aggressive cam- desire for quality attracts people to live and work in Dublin, and provides a drive to enhance and paign combining sources of funding will be re- quired to maximize funds to fulfill the objectives of preserve that essence as the community grows, the Plan. Table 5 ~ < ~ ~- Implementation Priorities ~ ~ =~ > IMPLEMENTATION Momtor specific plan process to ensure park land dedication and vehicles for funding park construction . d Explore opporUmities for recreational facilities and landscape buffer zone with Camp Parks d d d d Implement trails along Alamo Creek and drainage channels d d d d Secure regional ridge trail and other trail corridors as opportunities exist d d d d d Secure land for Sports Park d d Emerald Glen Park Improvements; Implement as funds are available d d Implement new neighborhood parks concurrent with development ,t' d d d Continue Heritage Center (Historic Park) improvements d d Implement master plan improvements at Dublin Sports Grounds d d Continue to monitor recreation demands of community to ensure needs are met in a timely manner d Prepare master plan for Sports Park; implement as funds are available d d d Pursue park sites in primary planning areas ./ d d Continue school facility improvements d d d DUBLIN PARKS Table 5 recommends specific immediate action to · Grants be takento continue implementation of the Master · Cooperative Agreements Plan. This will require funding for the necessary specific planmng and the acquisition of parkland. · Bond and Tax Measures · Donations and Transfer of Ownership The challenge for the City will be to continue to us e available regulatory tools and to develop new and · Individuals, Business or Non-Profit Fonnda- tions creative methods for financing the planned facili- ties. The experience of other communities shows · Innovative Land Acquisition & Development that a combination of regulatory, public and pri- · Landscape and Lighting District vate funding is likely to be the most successful approach. The Master Plan addresses park and · Special Assessment Districts facility needs through build-out of the city. Fi- · Mello Roos Districts nancing strategies, like the Master Plan, should remain flexible to respond to the changing statu- · Open Space and Conservation Easements tory requirements and opportunities that will im- · Transfer of Development Rights sources of funding over time. This should · Restrictive Covenants IMPLEMENTATION pact [1~ not, however, limit planning and development of strategies to finance these public projects. · Performance and Speciality Zoning · Planned Unit Development FUNDING MECHANISMS Each type of financing structure has its own advantages and disadvantages relative to the Current parks capital improvements slated for the specific type of project and available resources. A City of Dublin include a total of over $39.3 m/Ilion brief discussion of the various funding sources dollars allocated from General Fund, State Park follows. Bond Act, Measure D Fund, Traffic and Public Facility Impact Fee Fm~ds and Park Dedication In- PUBLIC FACILITIES FEE Lieu Fund. Funds from these sources have been allocated for capital improvements for various AB 1600 adding Government Code sections park andrecreationfacilityupgrades, renovations 66000 et seq. which lay ground rules for and developments through the 2006-2007 fiscal imposition and on-going administration of fees year but are subject to change. In addition, there for financing the capital costs of additional are parks projects totalling approximately $130 infrastructure to accommodate new development. million dollars for which funding is not currently The law, which became effective in January 1989, available, requires local governments to document that a reasonable relationship exists between new When considering the funding responsibilities for development, the fee and the facilities built to parkland acquisition, development and mainte- accommodate that development. nance, a number of funding opportunities are A Public Facilities Fee Justification Study was available to the City of Dublin. There also exists prepared in 1996 and a Public Facilities Fee subse- a number ofregulatorymechanisms that should be quently adopted to finance park land, park im- considered in the City's long range implementa- provements, commumty buildings, aquatic cen- tion plans. The major funding sources and regu- ter, library and civic center expansion. The fee is latory mechanisms include: assessed to residential and non-resident/al devel- opment. The fee is adjusted on an annual basis · Public Facilities Fee based on a formula containedinthe Ordinance that · Land Dedication established the fee. · GeneralFund · In-Lieu Fees · User Fees DUBLIN PARKS 72 LAND DEDICATION USER ~-EES NEW QUIM]3Y ACT User fees are commonly used methods of collect- ing revenues for public facilities. Common ex- The New Quimby Act was enacted by the State amples are facility use fees, admissions, licenses Legislature in 1965 and amended in 1982. The Act and permits. requires residential developers to provide land or in-lieu fees for park and recreationpurposes at the time of development. ADVANTAGES: · User fees generate monies needed to augment ADVANTAGEs: City budget allowance to nm and expand · programs. They can provide an additional · New parks are provided for at the time of source ofrevenuewithoutburdeningthe City's residential development. General Fund. Fees can be used to offset the cost of maintenance and operations. · Land dedication and/or in-lieu fees can be combined dependent on subdivision and best D~SADVANTAG~S: interest of the community. [Iv~LEM1~NTATION · Fees are not always popular with the public, D~SADVANTAG~S: depending on other financing methods used. ~ The public is less likely to support, for exampl'e, · The Act makes no provision for operating and thepassage ofbonds if there willbe significant maintenance of facilities, fees for use of the facilities. GRANTS Anin-lieu banking program allows fees collected, Grants. although not readily available, provide a in place of direct parkland dedication, to be saved flexible source of revenue from Federal and State and used to acquire parkland in areas of the City funds. Possible sources include various State not necessarily adjacent to the proposed develop- bond grants, Transportation grants, Boating and merit. Waterways grants, California Department of Wa- ter Conservation fund Department of grants, ADVANTAG£S: Water Resources financing and grants, Environ- . Allows smaller developments to contribute to mentalLicense Plate fund, CalifomiaArts Conncil the overall master planned ark Avoids grants and National Endowment for the Arts grants. P system. numerous small unrelated mini-parks. ADVANTAGES: · Allows the Cityto select the most appropriate - Matching and challenge grants also available sites for community parks, for funding purposes. DISADVANTAGES: DISADVANTAGES: · In-lieu fee levels need continual review to · Some grants are limiting due to specific regu- insure that the fees are adequate to actually lafions, applications and restrictions, purchase and develop parkland. · Uncertainty on an annual basis of funding · In collecting in-lieu fees rather than requirmg allocations by the State and Federal govern- parkland dedication, the parks are not devel- ment. oped concurrent with development. Thus, recreation demand on existing facilities will · Limited grant funding available. initially be increased. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS · Opportunities to develop park facilities in ad- dition to acquiring parkland through the Cooperative agreements are interagency agree- Planned Development Process will be lost. and with other ments joint powers agreements DUBLIN PARKS 73 jurisdictions and private conservation organiza- CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION tions. Joint powers agreements between the City, Dublin Unified School District, EBRPD and U.S. Certificates of Participation can be agreements military canmaximize shared use of property, facih- with non-profit organizations or industrial or com- mercial businesses as ~vell as with private parties. ties, equipment and personnel. Certificates of Participation (COP's) provide a long term financing through a lease-purchase SCHOOI_JCITY COOPERATION agreement that does not constitute indebtedness School/City Cooperation involves cost sharing of of the public agency under the state constitutional construction and rehabilitation of schools and debt limitation and is not subject to some of the recreation facilities. Joint agreements often in- other statutory requirements applicable to bonds. clude city lease options that complement school The COP's allow market investors to purchase district objectives and needs, interests in a stream of payments from a public entity relating to the payments for the public ADVANTAGES: facility. · Combines two sources ofrevenne for an oth- ADVANTAGES: IMPLEMENTATION erwise unaffordable facility.  - COP's are respected in the market and gener- DISADVANTAGES: ally command a rating one grade lower than General Obligation Bonds. · School sites may not be located where there is greater need for community park and recre- D~SADVA~rrAGES: ation development. · Lease payments by the public agency must be BONDS funded annually out of the City's budget. · Reduces the amount of funds that are available GENEtLa~L OBLIGATION BONDS for other projects and services. General Obligation (GO) securities are backed by the full faith and credit of a public agency. Before · May not be used for on-going maintenance they can be issued, the GO authorization must be and operating costs. apProved by a two-thirds margin of voters. Gen- erally, an ad valoremtax is levied over the existing LIMITED OBLIGATION BONDS property tax base. The tax rate is adjusted annually based upon changes in assessed valuations in LOB'smaybeusedforacquisitionorconstmction order to produce the revenues necessary to ser- ofpublic improvements. L/mited ObhgationBonds vice debt requirements, are securities that are backed by the full faith and credit of a public agency. Before they can be ADVANTAGES: issued, the GO authorization must be approved by · GO's are supported by voter approved ad a two-thirds margin of voters. valorem taxes and as such, usually command ADVANTAGES: a good rating and favorable interest rate. · Limited Obligation Bonds pledge only a por- DISADVANTAGES: tion of sales and use taxes to secure bonds. · GO's obligate the municipality to guarantee · No increase in taxes makes it favorable to the bonds in the event there are shortfalls in revenues to pay debt service, voters. · The two-th/rds voter approval required for · Requires a two-thirds voter approval. LOB's may be more easily obtained than for GO's as they do not call for any increase in local taxes. DUBLIN PARKS 74 DISADVANTAGES: ° Monies collected through fundraising are of- ten tax deductible. · Requires a two-thirds voter approval. · Fundraising often increases public support · Reduces the amount of funds that are available and involvement in the project by including for other projects and services, vested public interest in the process. INDIVIDUAL, BUSINESS ORNON-PROFIT DISADVANTAGES: FOUNDATIONS · Successful fundraising requires an extensively SPONSORSHIP planned public information campaign. This Sponsorship is developed in conjunction with effortmustbemaintainedintensivelythrough- business, industry, civic associations and citi- out the process to encourage large donations zens. This type of sponsorship often takes the and public support. form of Adopt-a-Park or Adopt-a-Pool, whereby donations of money, time and/or resources are · A successful approach requires large gifts made for part or all of a park or other recreation committedatproject conceptionas apredictor IMPLEMENTATION facilities. Museum facilities and programs fre- Offundraising success. Dependent upon local quently benefit from sponsorships. Sponsorship and national economic conditions, this can be ~ can be used for acquisition, development and difficult. 'maintenance With actual work Performed by citi- zens. PRIVATIZATION ADVANTAGEs: Privatization is normally defined as the actual selling off of formerly public enterprises to the · Citizen andbusiness involvement creates pride private sector to operate on a profit-making basis. and support inwhat is created andmaintained. This may include the construction and operation of a facility or simply the purchase of existing · Relieves demand on General Fund monies or assets. Privatization usually occurs when assets other City resources, are affordable and can be financed and operated with a reasonable return on investment. Golf DISADVANTAGES: courses, marinas, zoos and theaters are a few · Requires significant staffeffort to coordinate, examples of joint ventures and privatization of parks and recreation. · Maintenance can be inconsistent and raises ADVANTAGES: some liability issues for the City. · No voter approval required. · Funding patterns are not · Lower operating cost to the City. certain. DONATIONS · Cash generated from the sale of facilities. There are numerouS fundraising possibilities avail- able for community facilities. It is important to DISADVANTAGES: identifykey individuals, corporations or organiza- tions inthe community, capable ora major gift and · Loss of day-to-day control of facility. those areas where their interest lies. Arranging ~vith foundations, corporations ormajordonors to · Limited market for facilities sale or sub-con- match funds also provides a positive incentive in tract agreements. pUblic fundraising. ADVANTAGES: ° If arrangement creates a "public for profit" arrangement any municipal bonds issued for · Fundraising has the potential to raise large projectbecometaxable. sums of capital thus off-setting need for addi- tional taxes, bonds, etc. DUBLIN PARKS INNOVATIVE LAND ACQUISrFION AND recreation type projects, (see Streets & Highway DEVELOPMENT Code Section22525.5). OtherBenefitAssessment District Acts include the Improvement Act of 1911 Planned Development rezoning and development and the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913. The agreement process may be used as an opportunity Improvement Bond Act of 1915 authorizes the to negotiate potential acquisition, development issuance of bonds. and maintenance financing for park facilities. ADVANTAGES: A creek restoration plan might also include a segment of the trail system. The sales office for a · No required registered voter election. The residential development might be ultimately con- statute does require that the public entity verted to a Satellite facility in a park. Neighbor- determine the assessment for each parcel or hood park construction could occur concurrent property and to prepare a report demonstrat- with development to facilitate sales. Business ing that there is a proportionate benefit to each park developmentswouldbe encouraged tofman- parcel and that the assessment is fair and cially recogmze their responsibility to participate equitable. The City Council may confirm the in the City's recreation system and overall image, assessment unless there is a 50% or more IMPLEMENTATION property owner protest. L~ ADVANTAGES: · If there are highvalue to lienratios, the security · Allows the City to acquire developed parks for the bonds should provide attractive inter- rather than undeveloped parkland as demand est rates. occurs. · Special Assessments require no voter ap- · Can be a cost effective way to develop park proval, except in some instances with special systems, assessments for fire services. · Allows incremental acquisition of trail corri- DISADVANTAGES: dors and open space units. · Unlike Mello-Roos District, there must be a D~SADV,~4TAGES: determination of specific public benefit analy- sis prepared and con£n'med prior to any as- . Requires extensive City involvement and co- sessments being levied. ordination throughout the development pro- cess. STREET LIGHTING ACTS · May require additional policy adoption to There are three major laws that authorize the use insure consistent and defensible application of assessments to pay for street lighting systems. of requirements on development proposals. The Street Lighting Act of 1919, the Municipal Lighting Maintenance District Act of 1927 and the LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING ACT AND Street Lighting Act of 1931. The 1919 Act allows RELATED ACTS installation of new lighting systems if the lights are to be ownedby a public utility. The other acts only LANDSCAPE LIGHTING ACT authorize operation and maintenance. The Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972 estab- lished a special assessment facility. The assess- ADVANTAO£S: ments, which maybe levied onbothresidential and · AIl allow formonies to be distributed for public commercial properties may be deternfined by an facilities lighting. outside consultant. There are two criteria used in analyzing the amounts to be assessed each parcel DISADVANTAGES: or property: (1) the benefit must be clearly identified; and, (2) the benefit must be considered · Term limit on 1931 Act of five years. specific and direct. The Act has been specifically amended toprovide forthe funding of parks and · Termlimitofl919Actasdeterminedbylocal govermnent. DUBLIN PARKS 76 TREE PLANTING ACT OF 1931 · AUthorizes financing for the on-going opera- tion costs of police, fire, park, recreation and Th/s act enables cities to install, maintain and rio'od control services. rem°ve trees, Shrubs and other ornamental vege- tation within a city's parks and along its streets. Payment for the work is allowed through special · The tax is a deductible expense by property assessments. Maintenance includes "clipping, owners from income for federal income tax spraying, fertil/zing, irrigation, propping, disease purposes. treatment and other similar acts while promoting the life growth, health and beauty" of trees, shrubs DISADVANTAGES: or Other ornamental vegetation. An assessment · The drawbackto Mello-Roos financing lies in under this act must be limited to five years, the fact that since there are more than twvelve registered voters, a registered voter election ADV^NTA6ES: must be held, and two-thirds of those voting must approve the special tax. Essentially a · Includes maintenance costs, minority of those voting could override the of the voters of the project. majority approval DISADVANTAGES: Though not always politically popular, this IMPLEMENTATION · Tdrm limit of five years on assessment, method can be used if the recreation facility continues to have strong public support. OTItER SPECIAL ~SESS~ ~ DISTRICTS AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES MARKS-ROOS BONDS DISTRICT Mark Roos bonds are essentially a bond pool made Up of the other bonds that a city has issued MELLO-ROOS COMMUNITY FACILITIES or pfans to issue. They were created in 1985 to save DISTRICT BONDS cities some of the administrative costs of tracking The Mel!°-Roos Community FaCilities District Act the disbUrsements from bond sales proceeds and of 1982 established another method whereby gov- repayments from individual bond issues, and to eminent entities caninitiate the formation ofsepa- hedge against future interest rate increases. The rate districts to finance certain public facilities. A funds fi-om the bond sales must be disbursed (lent Mello-Ro°s District may be formed Partially or to developers to create infrastructure) withinthree totally withinthe boundaries of a municipality and years of the issue date and are repayable within a funds are produced by collecting an annual spe- 30-year term. cial tax within the district. The speCial tax to be levied is determined based upon debt service and ADVANTA6ES: any bonds that may be needed for maintenance · Provides and operation. The special tax is not considered and method of sale. flexibilityregarding stnlcmre, timing an ad valorem tax and therefore will not change due to adjustments inproperty valuations. Numerous public facilities may be financed in this manner BENEFIT ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS providing that sufficient non-committed potential The Benefit Assessment Districts can be used to tax revenues are expected to be available to service finance public improvement projects such as parks, the debt requirements, libraries, schools, traffic signals and other public facilities. ADVANTAGES: · The successful creation of Fa- ADVANTAGES: a Community cilitieS District allOWs sUbstantial fundS to be · Allows for broad uses with no voter approval generated that can be spread uniformly on a required. minimal per parc el basis. · The Benefit Assessment DistriCts funding · Mello-Roos requires no test of benefit, and mechanism has withstood a court challenge. can be used for any type of capital facility. DUBLIN PARKS ? 7 DISADVANTAGES: ADVANTAGES: · "Pay-as-you-go" financing is not always de- · Protects open space areas without necessi- sirable as it may limit long-term planning, tating full-fee purchase. · No bonds are issued with this financing op- D~SADVANTAGES: tion. · Care must be takenin determining appropriate COMMUNITY REHABILITATION DISTRICT easement. Uses of open space are restricted to the type of easement. Thus, a scenic easement The Community Rehabilitation District Act (SB will not allow a public trail. 1322, government Code Section 53370) provides monies to rehabilitate capital improvements in- TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS cluding public buildings, libraries, parks and rec- reational facilities. Transferable development rights can be utilized by the City to allow the development rights of a ADVANTAGES: parcel located in an area of significant resource IMPLEMENTATION value to be transferred to another location with ~,~ · Bonds may be issued with a mai ority voters' less resource value. The transfer of development approval, rights would allow a developer to build on the development parcel at higher densities than would DISADVANTAGES: other~vise be allowed under zoning and would · No new taxing authority, preserve the parcel with resource value. GEOLOGIC HAZARD ABATEMENT RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS DISTRICT A Restrictive Covenant is a mechanism Geologic HazardAbatement District (GHAD) is an whereby landowners enter into an agreement assessment district, formed for the purpose of which restricts the use of their land to a specific prevention, mitigation, abatement, or control of a purpose. The intention of a restrictive cov- geologic hazard, including but not limited to the enant is the preservation of land in its natural acquisition of property, construction, or the main- state for the protection of significant wildlife tenance, repair or operation ofanyimprovements, habitat, a viewshed or for other resource value. or the issuance and servicing of bonds issued to The agreement for such covenants can be prof- finance improvements. A GHAD is comprised of fered by the City of Dublin or through a conser- an area within a local agency which is specially vation organization. benefitted by, and is subject to a special assess- ment to pay for the cost of improvements. PERFORMANCE/SPECIALTY ZONING OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION This regulatory mechanism provides specific EASEMENTS criteria to be met, including clustering of struc- tures to protect open space or preservation of The Open Space Easement Act of 1974 made corridors for trail or park uses. available a volm~tary program through which local governments can obtain the conservation value of PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT property which it does not actually own. The open space easement is a restriction which runs with the Planned Unit Development is a conventional tool land and restricts the potential use of land for the used to encourage more creative site designs for purpose of preserving its natural or scenic charac- commercial or residential units to allowpreserva- ter. The benefitto the landowner who either grants tion of open space. or sells such an easement is a reduction in property tax assessments and an income tax deduction. Open space easements include conservation, sce- nic or trail corridors easements. DUBLIN PARKS 78 SUMMARY OPERATING COSTS Consideration should be given to financing The cost for maintaining both park land and com- of various mtmity buildings represents a significant on- projects by using combination a stat- utes and financing structures. Financing methods going financial commitment. The public's demand requiring voter approval must be planned far in for these facilities leads to intensive use which in advance to ensure sufficient time to mount apublic mm, impacts maintenance costs. Many factors information and voter campaign for successful will influence operating costs, including pro- passage of funding options, grams, environmental conditions, hours of use, utility costs, and source of labor, to name a few. COST OF DEVELOPMENT POTSNTm RUV qZm AND OPERATIONS Many factors will influence the actual amount of revenue generated by the facilities. Included CONSTRUCTION COSTS among these factors are the number of fee based The actual cost to construct the facilities identified programs and services offered, pricing, marketing in the Master Plan will be contingent upon a efforts, cost recovery objecnves, pnoritization of mPLEMENT^TION~ number of factors. Among these are: use and rate of community growth. ~ Site Conditions: Until a final site is selected, the actual cost to develop the site will not be known. Subsoil conditions can significantly impact con- stmction costs for park land development and building construction. Design O'iteria and Specialized Materials: The facilities development plan calls for the construc- tion ofqualityparks and buildings. Experience has shown that the investment in high quality materi- als and systems has significant lifecycle cost benefit. By using materials and systems that extend serviceability andreducemaintenance over the life of a facility, the result can be significant sawngs in maintenance costs. Land Acquisition: The cost of land acquisition must be considered when determining the overall development cost. The cost may vary according to location and whether it is for a community or neighborhood park. Furnishings and Equipment: The total project cost will be impactedby the actual furnishings and eqmpment selected. Again, lifecycle consider- ations will be an important criteria in making the final selections. Date of Construction: The actual date of con- struction of the parks and community facilities will have a significant impact on project costs. DUBLIN PARKS 79 RESOLUTION NO. - 04 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ADOPTING THE PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN MARCH 2004 UPDATE WHEREAS, in July 1994 the City Council adopted the Parks & Recreation Master Plan which establishes goals, long-term policies and standards to guide the City of Dublin in the acquisition, development and management of Dublin's park and recreation facilities; .and WHEREAS, it is necessary to prepare an update to the Master Plan every five to ten years to address changing conditions in the development of the City; and WHEREAS, a consultant was retained to review development proposals, population projections and their impact on park and recreation facility demand; and WHEREAS, the Master Plan Update was prepared which reflects the most current planning and population data available to the City; and WHEREAS, the Master Plan Update eliminates the 46+ acre community park on the Lin and Silvera properties and the 11+ acre neighborhood park on the East Bay Regional Park District property resulting in the need to amend the City of Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to redesignate these properties as open space and regional park respectively; and WHEREAS, the Master Plan Update reduces the size of the Sports Park from 80+ acres to 60+ acres also resulting in the need to amend the City of Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, the Parks and Community Services Commission did review and consider the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update at a special meeting on February 9, 2004; and WHEREAS, the City Council did review and consider the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update at a public hearing on March 16, 2004; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearings was given in all respects as required by law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby find that: 1. The Negative Declaration has been prepared and processed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State CEQA Guidelines and City Environmental Guidelines. 2. Certain changes to the Master Plan proposed by the Master Plan Update would render the Master Plan inconsiStent with the City of Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific 1 ATTACHMENT 4 Plan, and, in order for those provisions of the Master Plan to become effective, an amendment to the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan is necessary. BE IT. FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby adopts the Parks and Recreation Master Plan - March 2004 Update to go into effect at such time that the City of Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan are amended to conform to the changes proposed by the Master Plan Update. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of March, 2004. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 2