HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.4 EmrldGlenInvironReview
CITY CLERK
File # D!lãJlQ][Q]~~_
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 15, 2005
SUBJECT:
ATTACHMENTS:
RECOMMENDATION:
Q1;.
¢
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
PUBLIC HEARING: Emerald Glen Park Phase III - Environmental
Review and Award of Bid
Report Prepared by Rosemary Alex, Parks and Facilities
Development Coordinator and Janet Harbin, Senior Planner
I)
Resolution Adopting Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study
California Department of Fish & Game letter of 3 -3-05
Bid Results
Rcsolution of Award - Base Bid
Resolution of Award - Base Bid with Alternates
Open Public Hearing
Receive Staff Presentation
Receive Public Tcstimony
Close Public Hearing and Deliberate
Adopt Resolution (Attachment I) adopting the Mitigated
Negativc Dcclaration (attachcd as Exhibit A) and the
Mitigation Monitoring Program (attached as Exhibit B)
Direct Staff to prepare and file a Certificate of fee exemption
for California Department ofFish & Game ming fees
Adopt Resolution Awarding Base Bid and Alternates as
appropriate
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
I)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
Five bids were received with a low bid from Cleary Brothers
Landscape Incorporated with a base bid of $3,479,063 and alternates
that increase it to a high of $3,665,563.
Source of Funding for Project
Public Facility Impact Fee Fund
Measure D Funds
Total
Amount Encumbered to Complete Backstop
Total Amount Available to Complete Construction
Construction Proposal for Base Bid
Alternates 1-3
Bid Total Bid Proposal
Funds required for 10% Contingency
Total Budget Shortfall
$3,800,506
+$11.004
$3,811,510
-$97,695
$3,713,815
$3,479,063
$186,500
$3,665,563
$366,556
($318.304)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPIES TO: B;dde<'
G:\COUNCILlAgenda S'atements\2005\3-15 Emerald Glen I'hase 3.~':Þ6
ITEM NO.--.6A
In order to award the bid with or without alternates, additional
funding from the Public Facility Impact Fee Fund is needed.
DESCRIPTION: At its meeting of February I, 2005 the City Council authorized Staff
to advertise for bids on thc Emcrald Glcn Park, Phase 111. The Phasc III improvements include the
following:
Group Picnic Area - Located on the western edge of the park, this area will accommodate groups of up to
200 and features picnic tables, four large barbeques, four utility sinks, two bocce ball courts, restrooms, an
arbor for shade and wind protection and landscape improvements.
Soccer Fields - The project includes two regulation size soccer fields with a sand channel drainage system
to improve water movement off the heavy clay soils. For added recreational benefits a cricket overlay has
bcen included and is centered hetween the two fields. A hio-filtration basin is located adjacent to the
soccer fields and will improve water quality from this phase as well as future Phase IV and V building
improvemcnts.
Children's Play Area - This area will serve both the group picnic area and adjacent sports ficlds and will
feature contemporary play elements. The concrete slide along the hillside is included as an additive bid
item.
Mini-Arborctum - Along the western edge of the park a mixture of native trees will act as a natural
transition between the developed park and the creek corridor. A series of picnic tables will be placed
along thc pcdestrian pathway.
Parking and Street Frontage hl1provements - In accordance with the Emerald Glen Parking Study
sufficicnt parking is planned to serve this phase of development. The street frontage improvements
include sidewalk, street trees, frontage landscaping and irrigation along Central Parkway from Tassajara
Creek to Glynnis Rosc Drive. Strcet frontage improvements adjacent to the parking area will also filter
sediment and contaminants from water flowing offthc pavement minimizing water quality impacts.
As part of the bid package Staff included thc following thrcc alternates primarily to achieve some
flexibility in meeting the project intent and budget: I) Arbor at Bocce Ball Courts Concrete; 2) Substitute
Fescuc Sod for Fescue Seed; and 3) Concrete Slide on Hill.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The City prepared an Initial Study and draft Mitigated Negative
Dcclaration for P A 05-009, Emerald Glen Park Phase III (Attachment 2), dated February 22, 2005 for the
third phase of improvemcnts to thc park, consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15162. The City
determined that the proposed project and the alternates discussed above would not result in any significant
advcrsc impacts with the mitigation measures incorporated into the project. Emerald Glen Park is located
within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Arca, for which an analysis and assessmcnt was included in the
Environmental Impact Report certified by thc City Council for the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan in 1993.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, the environmental document examined the projcct's
conformance with the Eastem Duhlin Specific Plan policies, standards and programs, and whether the
implementation of prior adopted mitigation mcasures cstablished in the Specific Plan would adequately
address environmental impacts ofthe park improvement project. The General Plan/Specific Plan EIR is a
program EIR, which analyzed the environmental issues, related to the land use locations, development
plans and policies contained in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Additionally, a Mitigated Negative
Declaration was adoptcd for the Parks and Recreation Master Plan in March 2004 which included the
analysis of the significant cnvironmcntal impacts of all parks cUITCntly proposed for dcvclopment in the
City of Dublin, including Phase III of Emerald Glen Park.
;).666
Thc Initial Study recently prepared for tile third phase of park improvements determined that with thc
implementation of mitigation measures previo\lsly adopted for the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan/Amcndment Area and with site-specific mitigation measures contained in the hlitial Study for PA
05-009, any potential impacts of the project would be reduced to a level of insignificance and would not
result in significant effects on the cnvironmcnt. The Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study was
distributed for public review and comment from February 22, 2005 throllgh March 14, 2005 (20 days) in
accordance with CEQA Guidelines.
Comments Received: The City received a letter from the California Department of Fish and Gamc
(Attachment 3) during the review period summarizing the Department's policies, regulations, and
guidelines related to assessment of wildlife and vegetation, Streambed Alteration Agreements, and de
minimis determinations related to changcs to fish and wildlifc. The park improvements proposed in Phase
III have been designed to avoid impacts to Tassajara Creek, and maintain an adequate buffer of 100 feet
from the top of the creek bank to any structure in this phase in accordance with thc Eastern D"blin
Comprehensive Stream Restoration Program adopted by the City in 1996. The restroom structurc
proposed to be built in this pbase of the park is the feature closest to the creck. Thc structure is located
outside the I OO-foot buffer area required for eonstmction near thc creek by the adopted stream restoration
plan, as is the arbor and paving in the group picnic area. The Eastern Dublin Comprehensive Stream
Rcstoration Program allows walkways and trails to be constructed within the IOO-foot buffer area from the
top of the creek bank, and a pathway is shown On the project plans approximately 50-fcct from the top of
the crcck bank. At the prcscnt time there are no special-status species of wildlife or vegetation in this
area, nor have any species been identified in past CEQA reviews for the park. Staff is recommending that
a follow-up biological survcy in this area be conducted prior to construction of trails and structures near
the creek corridor to verify that no species has located in the area proposed for construction. A Streambed
Alteration Agreement is not rcquircd for this projcct as all construction and project related work will be
wcll outside the Tassajara Crcck corridor.
The analysis contained in the prcviously certitled Eastern Dublin Specific Plan ElR, the subscquent
enviromnental document for the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, and the Mitigated Negative
Declaration/Initial Study for Phase III of the park development havc adequately assessed any potential
adverse effects on fish and wildlife. No sensitive species or habitat has been identified, and there will be a
less-than-significant impact on biological resources with development of the park phase. The mitigation
measure for a follow-up biological survey to be conducted prior to construction of trails and structures
near the creek corridor is intended to confirnl that no sensitive or special-status species and riparian
features will be dist"rbed or destroyed on the project site. Staff has reviewcd thc projcct for conformity
with California Departmcnt of Fish and Game (CDFG) regulations and policies, and, based on the record,
does not anticipate any potential for adverse effects on fish and wildlife resourccs or related habitat from
the project. Staff recommends that thc City Council dircct Staff to prepare and file a Certificate of Fcc
Exemption for CDFG filing fees.
A Resolution to adopt thc draft Mitigated Negative Dcclaration for Phase III of the park improvcmcnt
projcct is included in Attachmcnt I, with the Mitigatcd Ncgative Declaration attached as Exhibit A. As
conditions of approval for the projcct to further reduce the less-than-significant impacts of the project
related to aesthetics/lighting, air quality, and biological resources have been recommended in the Initial
Study, a Mitigation Monitoring Program is required by the CEQA Statutcs and Guidclincs to be adopted
with thc Mitigatcd Negativc Dcclaration. Thc Mitigation Monitoring Program facilitates thc
implementation of the recommended measures and is also attached to the Resolution as Exhibit B for
adoption with the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The analysis and assessment contained in the Mitigated
Negative Declaration/Initial Study for the EmCTald Glen Park Phase III improvements and thc associated
31>s
Mitigation Monitoring Program satisfies the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
and provides thc City with thc neccssary inlormation to review and approve the project.
BID RESULTS: After a four-week bid period, on March 7, 2005 thc City received
bids from Interstate Grading and Paving, Cleary Brothers Landscape Incorporated, Robert A. Bothman,
ValleyCrest Landscape Development and OC Jones and Sons, Inc. As discussed above in the financial
statement, the low bid exceeds the available budget by $318,304 (including all alternates and a 10%
contingcncy). Without altcmates, the low bid exceeds the available budget by $113,154. A cost impact
for each alternate is as follows:
Alternate #1 - Add arbor at bocce hall court area
Thc arbor is locatcd on western end of the two bocce courts and provides a shaded
enclosure over two picnic tables adjacent to the bocce courts as well as continues the
architec!t!ral theme of the nearby group picnic area. The arbor does not provide shade
while playing bocce ball but provides shade while in bctween active play. If this element is
removed then the arbor in the adjacent group picnic area would provide the closest shadcd
protection.
Additional funds required to include in project $39,600 (includes 10% contingency)
Altcrnate #2 - Substitute no-mow fescue sod for no-mow fescue hydroseed
The base bid price includes hydroseeding fescue grasses within the arboretum area along
the western edge of the park sitc. Thc substitution of thc sod will provide an immediate
established turf grass that will improve weed suppression and maintenance during the plant
establishment pcriod. Hydroseeding the fescue grass will allow increased weed infiltration
during its germination period that will be more difficult to manage during thc plant
establishment period.
Additional funds required to include in project $15,400 (includes 10% eontingcncy)
Alternate #3 - Add concrete slide, stairs and walls at play hill ($150,150)
Located next to the play area, the concrete slide integrates a play element into the nearby
hill. If this element is removcd then the adj accnt hill will be landscaped with turf and
shrubs. Although this is a unique play element not found in any other local park, it should
be noted that there arc six slidcs in the main play arca ofthc park.
Additional funds required to include in project $150,150 (includes 10% contingency)
In reviewing the project budget and the availability of funds in the Public Facility Fee Fund, it appears that
thcrc arc sufficient Public Facility Fees available to award the base bid including the 10% contingency.
This is because the Emerald Glen Phasc II projcct camc in approximately $ 120,000 undcr budget. If the
Council would like to fund any of the alternates, there may be an impact on the timing of future capital
projects funded by the Pt!blìc Facility Fee Ft!nd. The extent of this impact will not be known until the
Fiscal Year 2005-2006 Update to the Capital Improvement Program is complete in June.
RECOMMENDATION: It is the recommendation of Staff that the City Council open the
public hcaring and take public testimony. For the environmental review, it is recommended that the City
Council adopt a Resolution (Attachment I) adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration (attachcd as
Exhibit A) and the Mitigation Monitoring Program (attached as Exhibit B). Additionally, Staff should be
directed to prepare and file a Ccrtificate of Fcc Exemption (de minimis determination) for CDFG filing
fees. For the award of bid, it is recommended that the City Council award the base bid to Cleary Brothcrs
Ÿ1>t?
Landscape Incorporated and determine whether any or all of the alternates should be included. Staff has
prepared two resolutions. The first resolution in Attachment 5 is for the base bid without alternatcs. The
sccond resolution in Attachment 6 is for thc basc bid in addition to alternates. It will bc necessary to
determine the amount based on the alternates selected for inclusion. In order to award the bid, Staff does
not anticipatc thc nced for a budget change for this fiscal year. The increased costs will be incurred in
next fiscal year and Staff will make the needed changes as part ofthe Fiscal Year 2005-2006 Budget.
5 If/) 5:
I !5/) '-tG
RESOLUTION NO. - 05
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
*****************
ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR PA 05-009,
EMERALD GLEN PARK, PHASE III
WHEREAS, thc projcct site is located in the eastern portion ofthe City of Dublin for which the
City adopted the Eastern Dublin General Plan AmendmenVSpecific Plan to provide a comprehensive
planning framework for future development of land uses, including recreational facilities, for the area. In
connection with this approval, the City certified a Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15168 (SCH:911 03064, Rcsolution 51-93, and Addendum dated August 22,
1994, hereafter ("Eastern Dublin EIR or "Progranl EIR") which is available for review in the Planning
Department and is incorporated herein by refcrcncc. The Program EIR was integral to the planning
process and examincd the direct and indirect effects, cumulative impacts, policy alternatives, and areawide
mitigation mcasurcs for dcvelopment within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area; and
WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR identified potentially significant environmental
impacts and related mitigation measures, which the City adopted together with mitigation findings and a
Mitigation Monitoring Program (Resolution 53-93), which mitigation measures and monitoring program
continue to apply to implementing proj ects within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area; and
WHEREAS, the City has reviewed construction drawings for the third phase of Emerald Glen
Park, in accordance with the Emcrald Glen Park Master Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR and the
City's General Plan and pursuant to Government Code Sec. 65450 et seq.; and
WHEREAS, the potential environmental effects of the proposed project have been previously
addressed in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR (SCH No. 91-103064), Additionally, a Mitigated
Negative Declaration was adopted for thc Parks and Recreation Master Plan in March 2004 which
included the analysis of the significant environmental impacts of all parks currently proposed for
development in the City of Dublin, including Phase III of Emerald Glen Park; and, the Project is
consistent with the permitted land uses and goals of the City's Emerald Glen Park Master Plan to provide
recreational facilities to the public; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study for P A 05-009 to evaluate the environmental
impacts of constructing the third phase of Emerald Glen Park as described in the Emerald Glen Park
Master Plan, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, and determined that the proposed project
and the alternate physical elements would not result in any significant adverse impacts with the
recommended mitigation measures incorporated into the project. Based on the Initial Study, the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan EIR, and the Emerald Glen Park Master Plan, it has been determined by the City
Council that the impacts of the Project have been adequately identified and mitigated, and there have been
no substantial changes or new information identified that would be outside the scope ofthe Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan EIR or the Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study for the Project; and
3-1$--D5" (", +
ATTACHMENT i
d-~ 4-~
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration, attached as Exhibit A, and Mitigation Monitoring
Program, attached as Exhibit B, for P A 05-009 have been prepared for the Project with the finding that
with thc implementation of mitigation measures, and those incorporated into the Project, the potential site-
specific impacts of the project would be reduced to a less-than-significant level; and
WHEREAS, a properly noticed 20-day public review period was held for the Mitigated Negative
Declaration, which began on February 22,2005 and ended on March 14,2005; and
WHEREAS, a letter of comment on the Mitigated Negative Declaration was received during the
public review period from the California Department ofFish and Game summarizing the Department's
policies, regulations, and guidclines related to assessment of wildlife and vegetation, Streambed
Altcration Agreements, and de minimis determinations related to changes to fish and wildlife; and
WHEREAS, the improvements proposed in Phase III of the development of Emerald Glen Park
have been designed to avoid impacts to Tassajara Creek, maintaining an adequate buffer of 100-feet from
the top of the creek bank to any structure in accordance with the Eastern Dublin Comprehensive Stream
Restoration Program adopted by the City in 1996. All structures proposed in this phase are locatcd
outside the required I OO-foot buffer area near the creek by the adopted Eastern Dublin Comprehensive
Stream Restoration Program; and
WHEREAS, based on the record as a whole, there is no evidence that Phase III will have an
adverse effect on wildlife resources or the related habitat. There are no special-status species ofwildlifc
or vegetation in this area. A follow-up biological survey will be conducted prior to construction of trails
and structures in this phase of park improvements to confinn that no species has recently located in the
arca proposed for construction. Additionally, a Streambed Alteration Agreement is not required for this
project as all construction and project-related work will be outside the Tassajara Creek corridor. On the
basis of substantial evidence in the record, the City has rebutted the presumption of adverse effect on fish
and wildlife contained in 14 California Code Regulations Section 753.5(d); and
WHEREAS, a Staff report was submitted recommending that the City Council adopt a resolution
approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration, as contained in Exhibit A, and the Mitigation Monitoring
Program, as contained in Exhibit B, for Phase III of Emerald Glen Park; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hold a properly noticed public hearing on the project on
March 15, 2005, at which time in their independent judgment reviewed and considered the Mitigated
Negative Declaration and all reports, recommendations and testimony before them.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the above recitals are incOIporated in this
resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council does hereby find that:
A. The proposed Project is within the scope of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Program ErR,
the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, and the Emerald Glen Park Master Plan, and all
associated environmental documentation. Site-specific environmental effects have been
analyzed in an Initial StudyIMitigated Negative Declaration (P A 05-009) which determined
the project will not have a significant effect on the environment with the implementation of
mitigation measures identified in the program EIR, the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and
incorporated into the Project. Thcrc is no substantial evidence in light ofthe whole record
2
36b f5
before the City that the project as mitigated will have a significant effect on the
environment.
B. The Program EIR and Mitigated Negative Declaration P A 05-009 adequately describe the
impacts ofthe project. As further discussed in the Initial Study, there have been no
substantial changcs in the project or new information which necessitate supplementing the
program ErR pursuant to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 in
that:
1. The proposed project complies with the land uses, densities and development
policies ofthe Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, and the
Dublin General Plan.
2. There are no substantially changed circumstances that involve new or substantially
more severe significant impacts.
C. The mitigation measures identified in the Program EIR and the site-specific mitigation
measures contained in the Mitigated Negative DeelarationlInitial Study for P A 05-009 arc
included in the Project description
D. The Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with State and local
environmental laws and guidelines.
E. The Mitigated Ncgative Declaration is complete and adequate for the proposed project, and
reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis as to the environmental effects of the
proposed project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby adopt
the Mitigated Negative Declaration (Exhibit A) and Mitigation Monitoring Program (Exhibit B) for PA
05-009, Emerald Glen Park Phase III, including the Initial Study incorporated herein by reference.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin, on this 15th day of March
2005, by the following votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
3
~c~or 1'7"',
;;Z.:\'\"'~-~(iCI~'i
Ie)' " '~,<þ
:11l I \~\\ -..
:n~I~182. CITY OF DUBLIN
__i' P,!~ ;/Jl--~--·. . ._._-~
':'., ("'i:·~'·;'\~P 100 CIVIC PI,'jza, [Juolirl, (=:;a¡ifc!l·n¡t~ 94508
,.<~<:,/ jPi:'~~;)·i;."
~
Y-oo "f:;-
,.....--_...............-~,~.,..,.,.....~".,~':...'''-,,,.,',..''-,¡'',''
WetJsi'le: http://www.ci.dublin.c8.us
MITIGATED NEGAT:IYE DE :LARATIO~
February 22, 2005
(Prepared pursuant to City of Dublin
Environmental Guidelines and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines)
Mitigated Negative Declaration For:
PA 05-009 Emerald Glen Park Phase 111- Park Development Plan
Description of Project:
The project consists of the construction of the third phase of development of
recreational features in the Emerald Glen Park located in the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan area. This phase of park development encompasses approximately
14 acres of City-owned property, and improvements to the land consist of soccer
fields, bocce courts, a group picnic area and arbor, play areas, open meadow, a
mini-arboretum, pathways, and a parking lot to serve this phase of the park. The
park development phase Is consistent with the Master Plan for Emerald Glen Park
and the Parks and Recreation Master Plan adopted by the City in 2004.
Project Location:
4201 Central Parkway, Dublin, CA 94568
Name of Proponents:
City of Dublin
Parks & Community Services
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Public Hearings: A public hearing will be held before the City Council on the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Project
on Tueeday, March 15,2005, at 7:00 P,M. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin.
I hereby find that the above project will not have a significant effect on the environment with the mitigation measures
incorporated in the project A copy ofthe Initial Study ("Environmental Information Form' and "Environmental Checklist Form")
documenting the reasons to support the above finding is available for review at the City of Dublin Community Development
Department, Planning Division, at 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin.
Dated: February 22, 2005
""
Date Published: February 22, 2005
Date Posted: February 22, 2005
Date Notice Mailed: February 22, 2005
Considered by: City Council
on:
Action on Mitigated Negative Declaration:
Approved _ Disapproved
Notice of Determination filed:
Resolution No.
'"
Äreé:l Cod@ (925) . City Manager 8-33-6650 . Glly Coundl Ha:1··6850 . Personnel 833-6605 . Economic Devetopment 833-6650
Finance 833-6640 . Public Works/Enginof¿ring 833-6630 . Park.s &. Community Services 833-6645 . Pollcû 833-6670
PlanninqlCode Enforcement 83;'HH:1'1 0 . H(Jilding Inhp(~ct¡on 833-6620 . Fi!'e PHwantion Bureau 83~~-6606
¡Orinled on Re"ye'.ä Paper A 11 ACHMENT 2-
6õb~
Emerald Glen Park: Phase III
Initial Study
,^
File
No.:
P A 05-009
Lead Agency:
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
February 22, 2005
City of Dublin
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration
Emerald Glen Park, Pha.<¡c 111 P A 05-009
Page I
February 22, 2005
AJTAC~iMEtn
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ....................... ............. ......00....................... ......... ........ ..............00...·.....·..· ........ 3
Project Description and Context ......................................................................................... 4
Exhibits................ .... ........... ...................... ... .............................. ............ ........... .............. .... 6
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ...............00............................·...........·........... 10
Determination... ........ ................ ..................... .......... ..... ..... ..... ..... ... .... ............. .......... ........ 12
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts........ ................. ............................ ....... ............. ...... 13
Attachment to Initial Study ............................................................................................... 21
Discussion of Checklist...................... ..... ....... ............. ................. ........... ...... ........... ..... .... 21
1. Aesthetics ............................................................................................................. 21
II. Agricultural Resources.... _.... _ n.............................. ._.............................................22
III. AIT Quality..................................................................................·..··············,········ 22
lV. Biological Resources .......... .... ........ ...................... ..... ............................. .... .......... 27
V. Cultural Resources.......................... ................................ _.....................................28
VI. Geology and Soils ................................................................................................29
VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ........................................................................30
VIII. Hydrology and Water ...........................................,...............................................30
IX. Land Use Planning ............................................................_..............................._..31
X. Mineral Resources ......... .............._.._..................... ...................... .......................... 31
XI. Noise. ............ ......, ......................__.......... ... ........... ................... ... ............... .... ,......32
XII. Population and Housing ................................................................................,......33
XIII. Public Services ... ........... .... ..... ............................... ..................... ............... ..........- 33
XlV. Recreation.. .................................... _...................................................................... 3 3
XV. Transportation/Traffic ................. _ _............................... _............................. _.........33
XVI. Utilities and Service Systems ...............................................................................34
XVII. Mandatory Findings ofSignitlcance ....................................................................34
Background Information............. ....... ...... ......... ........... ........ ........................ ............. ........ 36
References. ........ .......... ...... ....... ............... .......... ....... ............... .......... ...... .................... ...... 36
/.p~ ~
City of Dublin
Initial Study & Mitigatod Noga!ive Declaration
Emerald Gten Park, Phase III P A 05-009
Page 2
February 22, 2005
INTRODUCTION
(~%
This Initial Study has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) and the 2005 CEQA Guidelines adopted by the City of Dublin. The Initial Study
assesses the potential environmental impacts of implementing the proposed project described below. The
Initial Study consists of a completed environmental checklist, and a brief explanation of the
environmental topics addressed in the checklist.
1. Project Title:
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
4. Project Location:
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
6. General/Specific Plan Desi~nation:
7. Zoning:
8. Public agency required approvals:
Emerald Glen Park Phase III, P A 05-009
City of Dublin
Community Development
101 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Janet Harbin, Senior Planner
Community Development Department
(925) 833-6610
4201 Central Parkway
APN: 986-0017-006-02
City of Dublin
Parks & Community Serviccs Dept.
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Contact Person: Rosemary Alex
Development Coordinator, Parks and Facilities
ParkslPublie Recreation & City Park
PD - Park
Building and Grading Permits (City of Dublin)
Utility, Sewer and Water Service Permits (DSRSD)
Encroachment Permits (City of Dublin)
City of Dublin
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration
Em.rald Glen Park, Phase III P A 05-009
Page 3
February 22, 2005
'3 ~ LfÇ
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND CONTEXT
The development of Emerald Glen Park and conceptual plan for the Park was approved in June 1998 by
the Dublin City Council. The basis for creation ofthe Park was the City's Parks and Recreation Master
Plan which also defined specific program elements to be included in Emerald Glen Park, as there was a
need for a large community park to serve the growing community in the eastern portion of Dublin. The
City Council appointed a task force to study these program elements and design options from 1997 to
1998. Working with City staff and other members of the community, the various design options and
associated program elements were refined for the final Emerald Glen Park Master Plan presented to the
City Council in June 1998. The Master Plan for the Park included such facilities to serve the community
as sports fields and courts, play areas, plazas, picnic areas, restrooms and concession buildings, an aquatic
center, trails and associated parking areas. Since the original conception of the plan for the Park, the City
Council has adopted a new Parks and Recreation Master Plan (2004), which further refined the features
and locations of the proposed facilities for five (5) distinctive phases of development in Emerald Glcn
Park, and particularly those to be constructed in Phase III of the Park.
Emerald Glen Park is located near major transportation corridors such as Tassajara Road, Gleason Drivc,
Central Parkway and Interstate 580 within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment
planning area of the City, ensuring convenient access for all members of the Dublin community. Its
location in east Dublin is central to an area experiencing a great deal of growth at this time based on the
implementation of the Specific Plan adopted in 1994. The existing land use development pattern and
projected land uses in the east wi1llikely double the size and population of the City within the next 20
years.
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan directs the growth of infrastructure, community centers and parks such
as Emerald Glen Park and other park sites to meet thc future demands of the Dublin community under the
Specific Plan. The Specific Plan provided the necessary land use ftamework for development of the 48.2-
acre park site by establishing the goals, priorities and design parameters for development of each phase of
the park. Phase I of Emerald Glen Park, which has been completed, encompasses 26.1 acres and includes
the following recreational facilities:
a. A playground with water features;
b. A skateboard park;
c. 2 - 60 foot ball fields;
d. I - 90 foot baseball field;
e. 2 regulation size soccer fields;
f. 2 lighted basketball courts;
g. 4 lighted tennis courts;
h. A plaza and promenade;
1. Restroom/Concession Building;
1. Children's play area;
k. Small picnic areas with tables and benches; and,
I. Parking and street ftontage improvements.
City of Dublin
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration
Emerald Glen Park, Phase III P A 05-009
Pago 4
February 22, 2005
q~cf5
The Phase II design improvements for the Emerald Glen Park are currently under construction and include
the following features:
a. Water feature and arbor;
b. Corporation/maintenance yard;
c. Temporary parking;
d. Street frontage improvements; and,
e. Activity center.
The Phase III design improvements, the subject of this environmental analysis and evaluation, wì1l
provide the following recreational features:
a. 2 soccer fields with cricket overlay;
b. Bocce courts;
c. Group picnic area with arbor;
d. Play areas;
e. Mini-arboretum for native plants and vegetation;
f. Open meadow;
g. Parking and street frontage improvements; and,
h. Connecting trails.
OTHER ACTIONS
Grading activities would occur on the site to accommodate the proposed improvements to the park.
Construction of Phase III improvements requires grading in the southwest portion of the park wherc necessary
to correct drainage problems. Soil removed from this area wiJl be used to build low mounds surrounding lawn
areas and a play hill near the play area feature. A preliminary grading plan has been submitted as part of this
project.
Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) in accordance with DSRSD's Eastern Dublin Facilities Master
Plan will provide water, sewer and recycled water services. Sewer service for the project wì1l be
accommodated through a connection to the existing sewer system owned and maintained by the Dublin San
Ramon Services District (DSRSD). Recycled water from DSRSD wì1l be used for irrigation purposes,
reducing the need for potable water. Additionally, irrigation and drainage requirements are provided and
planned for all on-site improvements.
City of Dublin
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration
Emerald Glen Park, Phase ill P A 05-009
Page 5
February 22, 2005
1DOOt.f-Ç
ASSESSOR'S
~ "'"', ,- - ~'
MAP
986
5
~,¢o
V. A Sri
.,' y, !fll
\2.; f!II'
.!;).B5 AC.!!:. 11I11I1I
¡!"I
tjf;t',Illlf/:1
_ç.,~'f¡~III'I!
\Mtll
,i,l
I' rI.~\"I.'I) t
/' ~ III 282.~
"NloUi'.1I!"
Code Area No.. 26-012
101 P.M. 7257 "416' '01
lei P.M.7357 >"1' IE)
, 26-013 , 26-0
P. M. 7355 "6/35
P- M. 7589 "21<2
I" P. M. 8187 274/10'
15
18
TERRACE
SAN VICIENTë
~"-~
.;ijj
" "'In'¡ "Q"
_Oeo
M¿
IN-H;
" ,
'o~'8
t-'
i
~
~~G'llA"
~
"'
~
o
"
~
19
V I (; I t.N't[-'~"~-···
18
~~c
-,-,"") I
820 ~ /'
6,!" J, ----.---___ r: \\\~ ill'
Î7~ 12 / 6..IIIiI
OO~ .............___ II
"............... /
'-'7 ",,'"
,I
"
l
,I
~12 Ê' \ f'
g A.C-f_:;;. \
A ,
,
_. D (7) ,¡
Glf.N ~
70fl1VE/ '.02 ,~,:,:,;,/' "'"
/ ~~'::,Q'~'r
/
( I ,,/' ('o~
~\ ~
;".1'"
I ( <::J,ò
151 1;6 I
'i ~ I I i~
II \ \(f', ~ ~Î
I I \'vtt _~ //" I·
i ".-----+".."_----UJ,"__------ --"~
\ ,.I rD .... nJ1~'D9.' ______ ~
\ CENTRA, -_/ /'ì
\ u . ,. ~ .-----.,\~ \ ____---~r;éi!~ )
'\ '''''~1 20 0: l. _.-..-< ~ -
" "-"'$. __~ 1% 'it-~c~./
\.t. !r.... hANGOR ,.........~~l.....-"1ø(-------
::.1o~..t.p;'4, ...r.......-- \....\
.A', ..,. - "\
."..:.. ""\'"' ~
N'It!<4!IðII''f
"!.,EASON
"
"
Dfo¡:IV[
':m' .' {: N iII'iII!'2 ' ~ [;
~~::j ·~II.(!'I ~.14 ~oo ;&
~ N I W,V [ ~ I"IJ'; I)"("
'--.\9f
1t¡'~I'
..~~ {
'f'~
ik~'.5I·~
~ 8a'~t'!Ð' ~
_ft" I~L4_ß'
"..~
l.~î¡I~'.II)'
ALAMEDA roUNry
OFFIce OF ASSESSOR
FOR ASSESSMENT Use 'ONL Y
NOT FOR
RBPìWDUCT10N OR î'i.LE
,
CITY
ø
2B. II i\C.i
Jõ
. "
~'~..., . ..../'
- "~o/
. ~ e. #' ,/
fOR. I
(:''fy8
3.90 AC,:t
j
·r<
~
~- " \I'~~''i\\'"
r"i ..J!!,.L-.,-~
---~ ------'
.
POR. I
@cln
{;:?.07 AC.:!:.)
18.17.D.C.±
P o.RKW.i.'(
------~I~~~ ,~-~
t¡;,¡1>,
\:7Jf~~:'": P),ê~ I
~ (OMMO~ AR~A
8.28 AC.·
22
,~
!,JNIT I
G
,
6
\
l
L-'"'-"
.____-- wAY
...,..------- ---~
I ---l uNIT
ON'*'0' ¡ ---!~:\
~ I" , , ¡~.I
¡ ï! " ,'-".
~ : j~ L-~~r~::,:,:'J
, r-- ~~~.I.
\
EXHffiIT A
Assessor Parcel Map
City of Dublin
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration
Emerald Glen Park, Phase III P A 05-009
Page 6
February 22, 2005
I' I )/, , .. _ . .' II~ %
J ~r~iend9 Drivt
"'\~Il
r;l¡1 If'' (j)
-
c ~ ~
C) ::¡ a
....-r
::¡ r ") lfI
a ()
I \J1 OJ ::5
\}) - lJ. \J
<
() ~ a ")
") -.
7\ <
/ :¿ ~
a
u::
~. ¡ .. .'
,. cR.t:::Êfç:
~ ""~" .
J~,
Jt
~r
i
L II It
) ¡If 11 -'-
Tasso JC1ra RQad
~
.<'
EXHmIT B - Vicinity Map
Page 7
City ofDubhn
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration
Emerald Glen Park, Phase III P A 05-009
February 22, 2005
·
,
;
,
,
"
·
~
·
~
r
'"
.
I~ <0.
r'
!.",
.~!
~f¡, ! ~".
"
.\
\ "
i c,
i "
...
\
12rtL6
, -
{'!
t.
..',(
~ ,
~. :i'
'"'
II
fie'
.if f
l~
- ~
~ ~
\IÍo",'"
l
·htl.i;~ .J~HI:I Rn,/ld
~~\\ ~~ 1II."Io~,1 ~M ~fIrl.:. ~i!lat
EXIllBIT C - Emerald Glen Park Master Plan
Page 8
City of Dublin
Initial Study & Mitigatod Negativo Declaration
Emerald Glen Park, Phase III P A 05-009
February 22, 2005
,
"
·
·
c
..
o
·
~
n
I
>
"
-1
eM
:;;J
'"
_J
,
I
¡"'1
.)..
Y.
,"
--j
m
:;;J
"""
r-
»
·7
-'-
"
I
I','"
~·~i, .
i ~'/:' ~: ;'.
. . .'
.' '.....
l.::j:~;,.··.' ti.'.~~'r. :'.'.' .i"· ::-..i~.:.'~.·".'i:.·
r ' , ::F¡~ ,~1ð:~:I,~'
>"':J~'.""
.·,J~8:'.::
'.it~:.~··
l'i'~
¡. ,\lrJ::~'
EXIDBIT D - Emerald Glen Park, Phase ill
City of Dublin
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Dodaration
Emerald GI"" Park, Phase ill P A 05-009
Page 9
February 22, 2005
H Db «6
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 - HydrologylWater Quality - Land Use/ Planning
Materials
Mineral Resources - Noise - Population/Housing
- Public Services - Recreation - Transportation!
Circulation
- Utilities/Service Systems - Mandatory Findings of
Siªnificance
DETERMINATION (TO BE COMPLETED BY LEAD AGENCY):
Oil the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
,.1\:1 1":I,,:,';~~nì'c'fi:"-' ::~í1'.:'~'" :')'.:'~":'~"~'
.'1' : " , :: ~.,\¡"í,¡\ ,',. "",
i>~!':~~ :~ï.I\':\, i'", :,t ,: ::g
'(\:·:¡ä )"I¡jf'~"''''~'''¡''.·' ~~ '
:i;¡¡i\/:!:;i:::,.,,:~:i;~n;ót, ,'(;/,:::
i:":'+i6'::·:::::¡"i;\;'¡;"I¡':~i!;Y:;'::·:"i:!~~'::,~;~,,'. "m'^ II !~ ~h d
:::'/':':"lti::.:::::::::i:I:/::'::::'·:':~t;1'::P~91'" "T~,,"Q: , , , ' , """ '
,,"I¡h t,:;¡;.ilb .,.',!!., 1""0,,, "." .'.., ~",',. ",',I,.~::',,',\.", :liiì .,'I),',,~ !\,\'..~,,\..·,:',\hJÖ, .r,,',,', ,'",' ,":' , , ,""dl" ' .. ',il ~" " ~
I fInd that the proposed project MAY have a signifIcant· effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I fínd that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially signifIcant impact" or "potentially
significant \WIess mitigated" impact on the environmen t, 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
llÚtigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only tbeeffectsthatremain
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 adeq uately in an earlier EIR or NBGA TIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or llÚtigated pursuant
to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARA nON. including revisions or mitigation measures that
are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
,
Date: Februarv 22. 2005
e: Janet Harbin. Senior Planner
For: City ofDuþlin
City of Dublin
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration
Emerald Glen Park, Phase III P A 05-009
Page 10
February 22, 2005
1511Q ~S"
Environmental Impacts (Note: Source of detennination listed in parenthesis. See listing of sources used to
determine each potential impact at the end of the checklist.)
Note: A full dÚ'cussion of each item is found following the
checklist.
I. Aesthetics. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista?
(Source: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7)
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but
not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway? (Source: 1,
2,3,4,5,6,7)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character Or
quality of the site and its surroundings? (Source: I,
2,3,5,6,7)
d) Create a new source of sUbstantial light or glare that
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area? (Source: 1,2,3,5,7)
n, Agricultural Resources. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or
Fannland 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 w¡e?
(Source: 2,3,4,5,7,8)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agriculture use, or a
Williamson Act Conlract? (Source: 3,4,5,7,8)
c) Involve other changes in the existing envirorunenr
which, due to their location or nature, could result
in conversion of farmland to a non -agricultural use?
(Source: 2,3,4,5,7,8)
III. Air Quality (Where available, the significance criteria
established by the applicabie air quality management
district may be relied on to make the following
determinations). Would the project:
a) Conflict with Or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan? (Source: 1,2,4,5,7,8)
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation? (Source: t ,2,5,7)
City of Dublin
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration
Emerald Glen Park, Phase III P A 05-009
.,l'qt~@a!!>,.·.
·$ii~!f¡þ~i
:::i':::',:i::,::{~5f
" n:::<),::,::
::,;':' ",''''':''::'' ""¡,.,."::::",:,,
".:LtsscthWlc ,'"
.~i~Jï€~!:¡'::
..:.:.:.:.:1"It/¡........:
Mm@¡ôiii,
Ús~itii¡n;
·','·,,"·"""'">'''''·','1'''''.'''
.t¡g~Wili!{:
::1~~~····
,.."'..,,,,1"",,
'tf.~Jm¡;a9r .'
x
"'"
x
x
x
'f
x
x
x
x
Page 11
February 22, 2005
x
Note: A full discussion of eQl;h item is found following tM
checklist.
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors'! (Source: 1,2,5,7,9)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentratiol1ß? (Source: 1,2,5,7,9)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people? (Soutce: t,2,3,6,7,9)
IV. Biological Resources. Would tMproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or the U .S, Fish and Wildlife Service?
(Source: 1,2,8,9,13)
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies or
regulations or by the California Department of Fis h
and Game or the U .S, Fish and Wildlife Service?
(Source: 1,2,4,5,7,13)
c) Have a substantial adverse impact on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including but not limited to
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
rcmoval, filling, hydrological interruption or other
means? (Source: 1,2,4,5,7,13)
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident Ot migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites? (Source: 1,2,4,5,7,13)
c) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as tree
protection ordinances? (Source: 1,2,4,5,7,13)
f) Conflict with the provision of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, NaMal Community
Conservation Plan or oilier approved local, regional
or state habitat conservation plan? (Source:
1,2,4,5,7,13)
'Potent/åJtÿ<,:: .',[;ësscthaitc
'...i¡g~ijÎk'¡'¡i!j ¡;¡gnij¡è"'Û··'
:..'tiiP#(·'.:':',:":'....'Wt~.."i.
,Miff "livir:'
I Lo ~ I., ,';-
',.. Léiäiil1n", :. ·,...·',,:,Þli.. .0. Impact.' ,.'
·,",''''''''1'',''''''''''''
,~¡i~yji¥il ".." ' '
,Jniþ¡ji!t::. ".
;"":";':"";""::':'
,.,.,.",,,,:..,.,
."""',"."""", ,
x
x
x
City of Dublin
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration
Emerald Glen Park, Phase III P A 05-009
x
x
..
x
x
Page 12
February 22, 2005
x
x
Note: A full discussion of each item is found following the
check(ist.
V. Cultural Resources. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse impact in the
significance of a historical reSource a.s defined in
Sec. 15064,5? (Source: 1,2,5,8,9)
b) Cau,e a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archeologi cal resource pur,uant to
Sec. 15064.5 (Source: t,2,5,8,9)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or unique geologic fearure?
(Source: 1,2,5,8,9)
d) Disrurb any human remains, inctuding those
interred outside of a fonnal cemctery? (Source: 1,2,
5,8,9)
VI. Geology and Soils. Would the project:
a) Expose people or ,trUcrures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury,
or death involving:
i) Rupture of a knOM! earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geoiogi't or based on other
known evidence of a known fault (Source: 1,2, 3,
5,6,7,8,12)
il) Strong seismic ground shaking (Source:
1,2,3,5,6.7,8,12)
iil) Seismic.related ground failure, including
liquefaction? (Source: 1,2,3,5,6,7,8,12)
iv) Land,lides? (Source: 1,2,3,5,6,7,8,12)
b) Result in substantial soil ero,ion or the loss of
topsoil? (Source: 1,2,3,5,6,7,8,12)
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable a.s a result
of the project and potentially result in On· and off-
site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or similar hazards (Source:
1,2,3,5,6,7,8,12)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as de(medin Table
13-1-B of the Unifonn Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or property?
(Source: 1,2,3,6,7,12)
City of Dublin
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration
Emorald Glen Park, Phase III P A 05-009
11~1.\S-
"·potmiialtý. :
...Sig"ij͡'~:':
'''::::'::Z:·":o;,,.,.::. "::.:::;:1,,:':,"
,..., ;'.. m¡;a¢t··" .
.L~~s,th4hC ,
,(si$njfif4~t
1ft .
~11!f!'i,.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
X
X
x
X
Page t 3
February 22, 2005
Note: A full discussion of each item is found following the
checklist.
e) Have soils capable of adequately supponing the USe
of septic tanks or atternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste? (Source: 1.2,3,6,7,12)
.Potentl~lI>' .
.·S¡gtiificar¡!
,jiric"ðct> .
..:,:-;r:-".". ,:.;,';'
I..esscth4n:
.sig,!ijI¿¡¡j1i
¡.",."""",,,,..,,,":::
.. ...·.·,JJi'iti!'.·.·.
··'Mli:iïi#drl
· .'lcessthlJnc'..···
~Ii~!til;árll
'WiýiáCl .
",""
x
VII, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Would the
project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use or
disposal of hazardous materials (Source: 1,2,6,7,9)
b) Create a significant ha>.ard to the public or the
environment through reMonabty foreseeab Ie upset
and accident conditions involving the releMe of
hazardous into the environment? (Source: 1,2,6,7,9)
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handte hazardous
materials, substances, Or wa.ste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed schoo 1? (Source:
1,2,6,7,9)
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to
Government Code Sec. 65962,5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment? (Sou.rce: 1,2,5,6,7,9)
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan
or, where such plan has not been adopted, would
the project resutt in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area? (Source:
1,2,4,6,7,8,9)
f) For a project within the vicinity of private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety ha7.ard for
people residing or working in the project area?
(Source: 1,2,4,6,7,8,9)
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with the adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan? (Source:
1,2,5,6,7,8,10)
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where witdlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands? (Source: 1,2,5,6,7,8,10)
VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality, Would rlw project:
City of Dublin
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration
Emerald Glen Park, Pha," III P A 05-009
I~ 11 y.ç
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Page 14
February 22, 2005
Note: A full discussion of each Item Is found following the
checklist.
a) Violate any water quality standards Or wasre
discharge requirements? (Source: I ,2,5, 6,7,8)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwarer 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 woutd drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for wruch permits
have been granted? (Source: 1,2,4,5,6,7,8)
c) Substantially alrer the existing drainage pattern of
the sire or area, including through the aeration of
the course of a stream or river, in a manner whích
would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or
off-sire? (Source: 1,2,3,4,5,7,8)
d) SubstantIally alter the existing drainage pattern of
the sire or areas, including through the alteratio n of
a course or stream or river; or substantially increase.
the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would re,ult in flooding on - or off-sire?
(Sourcé: i,2,3,4,5,6,7,9)
e) Create or contribute runoff water wruch would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage 'YStC1llS or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff? (Source: 1,2,
3,4,5,6,7,9)
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
(Source: t,2, 3,4,5,6,7,9)
g) Place housing within a l00-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map?
(Source: 1,2, 3,4,5,6,7,9)
h) Place within a l00-year Ilood hazard area structures
wruch impede or redirect flood flows? (Source: 1,2,
3,4,5,6,7,9)
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury, and death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
(Source: 1,2, 3,4,5,6,7,9)
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow?
(Source: 1,2, 3,4,5,6,7,9)
IX. Land Use and Planning. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an e,tablished community? (Source;
1,2,4,5,6,7)
City of Dublin
Initial Srndy & Mitigated Negative Declaration
Emerald G1cn Park, Phase III P A 05-009
lq~ y-ç
.pole'!titilly '/.i$s"lhOJic·' .'.. .... l.Üs'th4n, '....
..,·,Æj~¡tJc~~t ".. .'."..,..:,s.·...:,I.·.K,n.Wî'. ifil'¡.Ch.'. 11m.'..., ,I, '...',.,'......SI,.'.....·,·,..l!l'.··..',~M,,'.·..·,ìfi,.·..,.,.·..,.f,.'~.am.."..t.,.,..·,',.....,'...,.... "."
....,Jmp(j(1..,.,; ,; ., "",,,.
."l\1#r aïióu·.' .., ",
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Page 15
February 22, 2005
Note: A full discussion of each item Is foutuJ following the
checklist.
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including but not limited to thc general
plan, specific plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for
the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect? (Source: 1,2,4,7,8)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan
or namral community conservation plan? (Source:
1,2,4,7,8)
X. Mineral Resources. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and
the residents of thc state? (Source: 1,2,4,7,8)
b) Result in the toss of availability of a locally important
miDeral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general Plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
(Source: 1,2,4,7,8)
XI. Noise. Would the project resuLt In:
a) Exposure of persoDs to Or generation of noise levels
in excess of standarda established in the general plan
or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies? (Source: 1,2,4,7,8)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration Or groundborne noise levels?
(Source: i ,2,4,7,8)
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above existing levels
without the project? (Source: 1,2,4,7,8)
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels without the project? (Source: 1,2,4,7,8)
e) For a project tocated within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not becn adopted, within
two miles of a public airpOrt or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing or working
n the project area to excessive noise levels? (Source:
1,2,4,7,8)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or working
in the projeCt area to excessive noise levels?
(Source: t,2,4,7,8)
City of Dublin
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative DeclaratioD
Emerald Glen Park, Phase 1Il P A 05-009
·fottnfli1flY....· . Lessctl!a#,
.:$lgnificàtl1:,. . signified/If
'zllJ¡idft ...... ..·..·.·.·wlt/i·...·......
.. . .;j';¡iiLliiiiJli
LesàhtIn,>
,":: :""" : , : :'.',,::"": ": "::,,:" ,,:" -: "~ . ~" : I
·....si~~~~....
""Zmpì!zêf"::' ..
""'1.""'..,,,,,,·.,.,.'"
,:'.",:.:,
x
x
x
x
Page 16
February 22, 2005
2DbL+Ç"
.1V§IFnfJi!Ct
:":';:'::
.":":",',,.,,,.,,'
'.':";,:,::-':: '
x
x
x
x
x
x
Note: A ful/ discussion of each item is found fol/wing the
checkiist.
XII. Population and Housing_ Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population gtowth in an area, either
directly or indirectly (fot example, through
extension of toads Ot other infrastrucrure)? (Source:
J ,2,3,4,7,8,10)
b) Displace sub'tantial numbers of exi'ting housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement
hou,ing el,ewhere? (Source: I ,2,3,4,7,8,10)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating
the replacement of housing elsewhere? (Source:
1,2,3,4,7,8,JO)
XIII. Public Services,
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impact' associ ated with the provision of
new or physicaUy altered governmental facilities,
the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratio" re'ponse times or other
perfoImance objectives for any of the public
services:
Fire protection? (Sources: 1,2,4,7,8)
Police ptotection? (Sources: 1,2,4,7,8)
Schools? (Sources: 1,2,4,7,8)
Parks? (Sources: 1,2,4,7,8)
Other public facilities? (Sources: 1,2,4,7,8)
XIV, Recreation.
a) Would the ptoject increase the use or existing
neighborhood or regional facilitie, such that
,ubstarnial physical deterioration of the facility
would occur 01 be accelerated (Sources:
1,2,4,7,8,10)
b) Doe, the project include Iecreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities that might have an adverse physical effect
on the environment? (Sources: 1,2,4,7,8,10)
XV. Transportation and Traffic. Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of
the 'treet system (i.e. result in a ,ubstantial increase
in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on toads or congestion at
intersections)? (Sources: 1,2,4,7,8,9,10)
City of Dublin
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration
Emerald Gleo Park, Phaso III P A 05-009
21~ 4-£'
.. f?ote7flia11t .....
; Sig¡llfic<l{it.·
~'!iiipådt>, .
Page 17
February 22, 2005
x
x
x
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Note: A full discussion of each item is found following the
checklist.
b) Exceed, either individually or cllmlllatively, a level of
service standard established by the COllnty
Congestion Management Agency for designated
roads or highways? (Sources: J,2,4,7,8,9,1O)
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns. including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial satety risks?
(Sources: t,2,4,7,8,9,tO,II)
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses, such as farm equipment?
(Sources: 1,2,4,7,8,9.10)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
(Sources: 1,2,4,7,8,9,10.11)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
(Sources: t,2,4,7,8,9,IO,tl)
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs
supporting alternative transportation (such as bus
turnollts and bicycle facilities)? (Sources:
1,2,4.7,8,9,10. tl)
XVI. Utilities and Service Systems. Would the project
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
(Sources: 1,4,5,6.9)
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
(Sources: 1,4.5,6,9)
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects? (Sources:
1,4,5,6,9)
d) Have snfficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing water entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements
needed? (Sources: 1,4,5,6,9)
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that
it has adequate capacity to serve the project's
projected demand in addition to the provider's
exis!ing commitments? (Sources: 1,4,5,6.9)
¡potentially .tÚs-t/¡'¡'¡;
.$ii~ljjëíiil( .I¡g~ifi'¿h1t(.
'ImPd;F .. ·,.JVÜIi .
,....:: ·::'Miiidtiòh'.·
t,[is:t¡;;;~:.·. ........
. ::¡¡;;¡¡ii&;;¡¡<
;::!)@'~Ú.';.:"·"
2'"2. Aò t.tç
'",
City of Dublin
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration
Emerald Glen Park, Phase !II P A 05"009
Page 18
February 22, 2005
x
x
x
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
x
r
t.?;'~ 'k,:=>
Nale: A full discussion of eaá item is found following the
checklisl.
Pot~nti~lly .....
sii¡i1·!fican(
:.::",,::,:'1';::::::'::::::.::::':,;'
. ,.JI"naçt:: :,:
:,,:::,:.;'~~; .".. "',
Leçç,thån.- ,teiS"ihoiP·,.lýo!iÎ7pact
. 'signÌfica~t '.. :iig,¡(Íï¢a/it ....
. ,,, "'" "" :':" ",' ": " ': ,. ,,, ,~: :. :
With.. :. :::!'!'Pa<;~
'Mitid¡¡~J:"::
f) Be served by a landfiU with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste
disposal needs? (Sources: 1,4,5,6,9)
g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste? (Sources:
1,4,5,6,9)
XVI. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self -sustaining
levels. threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number of or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate importam examples of the major periods
of Cali fornia history or prehistory?
h) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considcrahle" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of othor current projects and the
effects of probable furore projects).
0) Does the project have environmental effects that will
cattse substantial adverse effeots on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
x
x
x
x
x
Sources used to determine Dotential environmental imDac~':
1. Determination based on looation of project & Project Construction Documents and Program.
2. Determination based on Staffrevicw of the project
3. Determination based on field revicw of project/site
4. Determination based on the Emerald GJen Park Master Plan (1998)
5. Determination based on Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration for thc Parks and Recreation Master
Plan (1994)
6. Determination based on Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Parks and Recreation Master
Plan (2002)
7. Determination based on the Parks and Recreation Master Plan (2004)
8. Determination based on the City of Dublin General Plan (updated 2002)
9. Determination based on Eastern Dublin Spccific Plan/General Plan Amendment Environmental Impact Report
and Addendum (1994)*
10. Determination based on City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance
11. Determination based on Community Center and Rccreation & Aauatic Center Parkinll Stud v , prepared for
the project phasc and the future development of Phase 4 & 5, by Carducci & Associates, Inc. in May 2004
12. Determination based on Gcoteclmical Investigation for Phase ill of Emcrald GJen Park, prepared by
City of Dublin
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration
Emerald Glen Park, Phase III P A 05-009
Page 19
February 22, 2005
r
"2. ~ "b
Kleinfelder Engineering, November 22, 2004
13. Detennination based on Eastem Dublin Comprehensive Stream Restoration Pro!!ram, prepared by Sy=ore
Associates and adopted by the City in 1996.
*Portions of the environmental setting, project impacts and mitigation measures for this Initial Study refer to
environmental infOlTI)ation contained in the 1994 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment Environmental
Impact Report. (SCH 91103064). This document is referred to in the Initial Study as the "Final Eastern Dnblin FIR."
Copies of this document are available for public review at the City of Dublin Planning Department, 100 Civic Plaza,
Dublin, CA, during nonnal business hours.
City of Dublin
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration
Emerald Glen Park, Phaso III PA 05-009
Page 20
Fobruary 22, 2005
7-660 t.t5
ATTACHMENT TO INITIAL STUDY: DISCUSSION OF CHECKLIST
Proiect Imvacts and Mitigation Measures
J. Aesthetics
a·c) Significant impact on scenic vista, damage to scenic resource, degrade visual character of the site
or create light or glare?
No III/pact. The project site is within an existing City park and consists of the development of
Phase III of Emerald Glen Park. The improvements proposed within the phase consist oftwo
soccer fields with cricket overlay; Bocce courts; group picnic area and arbor; play areas; a mini-
arboretum for native plants and vegetation; open grassy meadow areas, parking and street frontage
improvements; and, connecting trails. The 14 acres in this phase of the park project are currently
undeveloped and contain little ground cover. The development would provide more scenic and
landscaped views from Central Parkway and the creek trail along Tassajara Creek adjacent to the
wcstside of the park. The parking lot near Central Parkway will also be screened with improved
landscaped areas and vegetation. From the residential area west of the creek alignment, the most
prominent visual features will be the mini-arboretum, the group picnic area, and the small
restroom structure. However these features. will be several hundred feet from the homes, and a
frontage road, and landscaped trail and creek areas will be located between these features and the
residential units.
Development of the proposed improvements would not substantially change the visual character of
the sitc. Because of the loœtiüÌi.ofthe improvements, and the relatively flat topography of the site,
as well as the presence of surrounding development, views of the site are limited to the immediate
area. Although, Emerald Glen Park is located one mile north of 1-580 freeway, which is a
designated scenic highway, the park is not within a scenic route. Therefore, the proposed
improvements to Emerald Glen Park will not create any visual impacts that have not been avoided
or mitigated to a Less-than-significant degree during construction of previous phases of park
development. Specifically, the construction of park features and landscaping will benefit the
existing visual character of the park. These improvements would provide street frontage
landscaping, ranging from lawn areas to annual grasses, garden areas and trees, and improve the
visual community landscape of the area.
Visual quality was discussed in the earlier analysis of the Emerald Glen Park Master Plan and
addressed in the Final Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR. Both documents detennined that
development of Eastern Dublin would inalterably change the character of the area. The
development of a community park at this location was addressed by the previous documentation
and found to have a Less-than-significant or no significant cffeet on visual quality in the area,
based on the resulting visual benefits to the community provided by the newly landscaped areas
and the presence of the open space and recreational use. A statement of overriding considerations
was previously adopted with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan ErR. No impacts not previously
City of Dublin
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration
Emerald Glen Park, Phase 1Il P A 05-009
Page 21
February 22, 2005
21PJb If(
analyzed in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR (EDSP EIR) will occur as a result of the
proposed project
Additionally, the project contains measures to maintain the visual quality of the area, especially
frOln views along scenic corridors in Eastern Dublin. Mitigation measures. 3.8/1.0 through
3.8/8.lofthe EDSP ErR require that grading be done sensitively to reduce visual impacts. These
mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project
d) Less-than-signijicant with Mitigation. The project is not anticipated to create additional light
and glare as the majority of lighting at the park will be low level lighting along walkways and trail.
The proposed project would not introduce additional nighttime lighting on the site. Sensor lighting
lamps with low wattage are proposed for the parking area and the sport courts will be closed at
dusk, eliminating the need for nighttime lighting. However, the following mitigation measure will
be added to the project to ensure that the lighting is adequate for the use and unobtrusive:
Mitiflation Mea.mre 1: A photometric study shall be provided with fmal construction
drawings of the project prior to the issuance of an electrical permit. Implementation of
this mitigation measure would reduce the impact of nighttime lighting to a level of less-
than-significant
II. Agricultural Resources
a-c) Convert Prime Farmland, conflict with agricultural zoning or convert prime farmland 10 a non-
agricultural use ?
No Impact. Surrounding areas near the park have been converted from agricultural to urban uses.
The Eastern Dublin Spccific Plan/General Plan Amendment EIR. Emerald Glen Park Master Plan,
and other environmental analysis of the area conclude that the area is urbanized. Additionally, one
phase of the park is completed and the second phase is underway. The remainder parkland
contains no agricultural zoning or farm1and, and is zoned for community park use, consistent with
the General P1an and Specific Plan designation ofParks/Public Recreation & City Park. Approval
and construction of the proposed project would allow fUrther development of an existing park. No
impacts are therefore anticipated with regard to prime farmland or loss of agricultural production.
Based on mformation contained in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment
EIR, no portion of the site is nor has been encumbered with a Williamson Act Land Conservation
Agreement Similarly, no impacts not previously analyzed in the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan/General Plan Amendment EIR are expected to occur as a result of the proposed project
III. Air Quality
Environmental Settinç:
The project is within the Amador Valley, a part of the Livermore sub-regional air basin distinct
from the larger San Francisco Bay Area Basin. The Livermore sub-area basin is surrounded OJ) all
sides by high hills or mountains. Significant breaks in the hills surrounding the air basin are Niles
Canyon and the San Ramon Valley, which extends northward into Contra Costa County.
City of Dublin
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration
Emerald Glen Park, Phase lIJ P A 05-009
Page 22
February 22, 2005
·
r··
21~ 't~
According to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR and other environmental studies, the terrain of
the Amador Valley influences both the climate and air pollution potential of the sub-regional air
basin. As an inland, protected valley, the area has generally lighter winds and a higher frequency
of calm conditions when compared to the greater Bay Area.
The occurrence of episodes of high atmospheric stability, known as inversion conditions, severely
limits the ability of the atmosphere to disperse pollutants vertically. Inversions can be found
during all seasons in the Bay Area, but are particularly prevalent in the summer months when they
are present about 90% of the time in both morning and afternoon.
Additionally, during the winter, the sheltering effect of terrain and its inland location results in
frequent surface-based inversions. Under these conditions pollutants such as carbon monoxide
from automobiles and particulate matter generated by fireplaces and agricultural burning can
become concentrated.
According to the Bay Area Quality Management District, air pollution potential is high in the
LivernlOre-Amador Valley, especially for ozone in the summer and fall. High temperatures
increase the potential for ozone, and thc valley not only traps locally generated pollutants but can
be the receptor of ozone and ozone precursors from upwind portions of the greater Bay Area.
Transport of pollutants also occurs between the Livennore Valley and the San Joaquin Valley to
the east.
Ambient air quality standards
Both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board have
established ambient air quality standards for common pollutants. These ambient air quality
standards are levels that avoid specific adverse health effects associated with each pollutant. The
ambient air quality standards cover what are called "criteria" pollutants because the health and
other effects of each pollutant are described in criteria documents. The federal and California
ambient air quality standards are summarized in Table I for important pollutants. The federal and
state ambient standards were developed independently with differing purposes and methods,
although both federal and state standards are intended to avoid health-related effects. As a result,
the federal and state standards differ in some cases. In general, the California state standards are
more stringent. This is particularly true for ozone and PM I O.
Table 1. Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards
Pollutant
Averaging Time
Federal
Primary
Standard
0.12 PPM
State
Standard
Ozone
I-Hour
8-Hour
8-Hour
0.09 PPM
Carbon Monoxide
9PPM
9.0 PPM
City of Dublin
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration
Emerald Glen Park, Phase III P A 05"009
Page 23
February 22, 2005
·
?.""61Jb <,.f(
I "Hour 35 PPM 20 PPM
Nitrogen Dioxide Annual Average 0.05 PPM -"
J -Hour -- 0.25 PPM
Sulfur Dioxide Annual Average 0.03 PPM -
24-Hour 0.14 PPM 0.25 PPM
I-Hour
PMIO Annual Average 50 ug/m3 30 ug/m3
24-Hour 150 ug/m3 50 ug/m3
PM25 Annual 15 ug/m3 --
24-Hour 65 ug/m3 --
PPM - Parts per Mi11iol1
-glm3 M Micrograms per Cubic Meter
Source: Bay Arca Air Quality Management District
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 1997 adopted new national air quality standards for
ground-level ozone and for fine Particulate Matter. The existing I-hour ozone standard of 0.12
PPM will be phased out and replaced by an 8-hour standard of 0.08 PPM. New national standards
were retained, but the method and form for determining compliance with the standards were
revised.
Implementation of the new ozone and Particulate Matter standards has been complicated by a
lawsuit. On May 14, 1999 the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a
decision ruled that the Clean Air Act as applied in setting the public standards for ozone and
particulate matter, was unconstitutional. as an improper delegation oflegislative authority to the
Environmental Protection Agency. The decision has been appealed, but the legal status of the new
standards will probably remain uncertain for some time.
Ambient air quality
The project is within the nine-county Bay Area Basin. The Bay Area Quality Management
District (BAAQMD) operates a network of air quality monitoring sites in the region, including one
in central Livermore on Old First Street. Table 2 shows a summary of air quality data for this
monitoring site for the period 1995-1999. Data are shown for ozone, carbon monoxide, PMIO and
nitrogen dioxide. The numbers of days exceeding each standard are shown for each year.
Table 2. Air Quality Data for Livermore, 1995-1999
Pollutant Standard Days Exceeding Standard
In:
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Ozone Federal I-Hour 7 8 0 6 2
Ozone State I-Hour 20 22 3 21 14
Ozone Federal 8-Hour II 10 0 10 5
Carbon State/Federal 0 0 0 0 0
City of Dublin Page 24
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration
Emorald Glen Park, Phase Il1 P A 05-009 F<bruary 22, 2005
.n. _.__..____
24 ~ y.Ç..
Monoxide 8 Hour
PMIO State 6 6 12 12 18
24-Hour
PMIO Federal 0 0 0 0
24-Hour I
Nitrogen State I-Hour 0 0 0 0
Dioxide
Source: Air Sourc"s Board Aerometric Data Analysis and Management System (ADAM)
Table 2 shows that concentrations of carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide at the Livermore
monitoring site meet state/federal standards. Ozone concentrations exceed both the state and
federal standards, and exhibit wide variations from year-to-year related to meteorological
conditions. Years where the summer months tend to be warmer than average tend to have higher
average ozone concentrations while years with cooler than average temperatures tend to have
]ower average ozone concentrations.
Levels ofPMIO at Livermore meet the federal ambient standards but exceed the more stringent
state standard.
Attainment status
The federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act of 1988 require that the State Air
Resources Board, based on air quality monitoring data, designate air basins within the state where
the federal or state ambient air quality standards are not met as "nonattainment areas." Because of
the differences between the federal and state standards, the designation of nonattainment areas is
different under the fcderal and state legislation.
The Bay Area is currently a nonattainment area for the federal I-hour ozone standard. Under the
California Clean Air Act the Bay Area is a nonattainment area for ozone and PMI O.
To meet federal Clean Air Act requirements, the District has adopted an Ozone Attainment
Demonstration Plan. In addition, to meet California Clean Air Act requirements, the District has
adopted and updated a Clean Air Plan addressing the California ozone standard. The control
strategies contained into these plans include new limits on emissions from industry, prohibitions
on sources of hydrocarbons, and buyback programs for older vehicles and educational programs.
The California Legislature, when it passed the California Clean Air Act in 1988, recognized the
relative intractability of the PMl 0 problem with respect to the state ambient standard and excluded
it from basic planning requirements of the Act. The Act did require the Clean Air Resources
Board to prepare a report to the Legislature regarding the prospect of achieving the State ambient
air quality standard for PMIO. This report recommended a menu of actions, but did not
recommend imposing a planning process similar to that for ozone or other pollutants for
achievement of the standard within a certain period oftime.
City of Dublin
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration
Em"rald Glen Park, Phas" !II PA 05-009
Page 25
February 22, 2005
/'
'3% 4~
Sensitive receptors
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 a phase of a new park and recreational facilities where children would play and gather for
recreation.
a) Would the project coriflict or obstruct implementation of an air quality plan?
No Impact. The proposed project would not conflict with the local Clean Air Plan adopted by the
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, since the proposed amount of non-residential
development has been included in Dublin's planned growth as part of the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan/General Plan EIR and would serve the existing community. Therefore, such impacts would
be less-than-significant.
b) Would the project violate any air quality standards?
Less- than-~'ignificant with Mitiga6on. Short-term construction impacts related to implementation
of the project, including grading and excavation, 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, 3.11/4.0 and 3.11/12.0 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan
Amendment ErR will reduce short-term air quality impacts to a less~than-significant level. Th.ese
measures minimize the creation of fugitive dust during grading and construction activities with
frequent watering of those areas, and also mandate that construction equipment be kept in proper
rUMing order at all times during construction. Additionally, certain mitigation measures for the
control of fugitive dust are incorporated into the Project construction plans to be implemented as
part of the responsibility of the contractor, and monitored by the Inspector for the Project. The
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment EIR concludes that potential air quality
impacts related to construction equipment could not be mitigated to a less-than-significant impact
and a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for this impact. However, potential air
quality impacts related to construction on the 14 acres of park land in this phase of park
development will be mitigated to a less-than-significant impact with th.e following measures related
to air quality impacts incorporated into this project phase.
Mi61latitm Mea.~ure 2: Dust Control shalJ conform to the requirements of the SWPPP
prepared by the City. All active construction areas shall be watered daily and more
frequently if necessary. All trucks hauling soil, sand or other loose materials shall be
covered. Water shall be applied daily, or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers on all unpaved
access roads, parking area, and staging areas at construction sites. All paved access roads,
parking areas and staging areas at construction sites shall be swept daily with water
sweepers. Hydroseed or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers to construction areas that have
been graded.
c) Would the project result in cumulatively comiderable air pollutants?
City of Dublin
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration
Emerald Glen Park, Phase III P A 05-009
Page 26
February 22, 2005
3/i1Q 4<.
LesNhan-.~ignificant. The Eastem Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment EIR identifies
Mobile Source Emissions and Stationary Source Emissions as significant irreversible impacts.
Generally such impacts are based on vehicular emission from future traffic within the sub-region
as well as stationary sources. Similarly, potentia] air quality impacts related to vehicular traffic
emissions on roadways of Reactive Organic Gasses and Nitrogen Oxide, both precursor indicators
of smog, and stationary source emissions would not exceed regional air quality standards or
thresholds. This proj ect will not generate significant amounts of traffic as it serves the existing
community with an adequate transportation network and roadway. Therefore, vehicular emissions
are estimated to be minimal and impacts would be less-than-significant.
d,e) Expose sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations or create objectionable odors?
Less-than-significant. Proposed uses in the third phase of park development wi11 include two
soccer fields with cricket overlay; Bocce courts; group picnic area and arbor; play areas; a
mini-arboretum for native plants and vegetation; open grassy meadow areas, parking and street
frontage improvements; and, connecting trails. Air quality impacts associated with the proposed
project are expected to be less- than-significant as no significant pollutant concentration or
creation of objectionable odors are anticipated from the park use and the improvements proposed
for Phase III. The only source of pollutants would be vehicles using the roadways adj acent to the
park. These items were previously addressed in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan
Amendment EIR. No impacts not previously analyzed in the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan/General Plan Amendment ErR are expected to occur as a result of the proposed project.
IV. Biological Resources
a-d) Have a substantial adverse impact on special-status species, riparian features, movement of fish or
wildlife species, or conflict with California Fish & Game or U.S. Wildlife Service policies or
regulations?
Less-than-,"ignificant with Mitigation. Impacts from the project upon biological resources were
thoroughly addressed in the earlier analysis of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan
Amendment EIR. No sensitive or special-status species, or riparian features exist in this portion of
the property which lies adjacent tot Tassajara Creek. Walking trails and other walkways proposed
in Phase III are approximately 50 to 60 feet from the Tassajara Creek corridor which lies adjacent
to the westerly side ofthe park and Phase III. The Eastern Dublin Comprehensive Stream
Restoration Program adopted by the City in 1996 allow such walkways and trails to be constructed
within the 100- foot buffer area from the top of the creek bank nonnally restricted from
development.
The restroom structure proposed to be built in this phase of the park development is the nearest
feature to the creek to be constructed in this phase. The structurc has been designed and located
outside the 100- foot buffer area required for construction near the creek, as is the arbor and paving
in the group picnic area. Although at the present time there are no special-status species of
wildlife or vegctation in this area, a follow-up biological survey in this area will be conducted
prior to construction of trails and structures near the creek corridor to verify that no species has
located in the area proposed for construction. There would be a less-than-signiflcant impact on
biological resources with this additional mitigation measure as no sensitive or special-status
City of Dublin Page 27
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration
Emerald Glen Park, Phase III P A 05-009 February 22, 2005
~2üb -g;.
species and riparian features will be disturbed or destroyed on the project site.
MitirlUtion Me,,~<ure 3: A biological survey shall be conducted prior grading and
construction of walkways and trails near the Tassajara Creek corridor to verifY that no
special species is located in the arca proposed for construction in Phase III of the proj ect.
e, f) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree
protection ordinances.
No Impact The project phase has been designed to be consistent with all Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan, General Plan and other adopted policies related to preservation and protection of biological
resources. Some trees are in the phase area, and an existing grove of evergreen trees will be
preserved as part of the project. Additional trees will be planted in the subject area in conjunction
with other landscaping and vegetation. The trees proposed for removal are relatively small in size,
except for a few large species within the parking lot area and the entrance to this portion of park
from Central Parkway, directly across from Killian Road. No known Heritage trees are proposed
for removal from the site. The City's Landscape Architect will make the final determination on the
trees to be removed.
The majority of the trees will remain on the site and be protected from construction activities by
protective fencing. The construction plans for the improvements in Phase III state that any tree in
construction areas shall be fenced and no construction or placement of equipment is to occur
within the dripline of the tree to prevent damage. A qualified arborist will be on-site to supcrvise
the construction to ensure that trees are not damaged or removed by accident. Additionally, the
proposed project is not located within the boundaries of any Habitat Conservation Plan. No
biological resource impacts not previously analyzed in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General
Plan Amendment ErR are expected to occur as a result of the proposed project.
V. Cultural Resources
a-d) Cause substantial adw,r$e change to significant historic, archeological or paleontological
resources or human remains?
No Impact The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment ErR identified a nUITIber
of potentially significant impacts associated with development in East Dublin, including disruption
or destruction of prehistoric resources, and disruption to historic resources. Although there are no
historic structurcs/resourees or known archeological or paleontological resources on this site,
mitigation measure no.3.9/5.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan
Amendment EIR establishes procedures in the event archeological resources are encountered
during grading for subsequent phases of development in the park. These measures have been
incorporated into the project by reference, and will be followed in the event that subsurface
deposits are discovered during development of Phase III of the Park. No impacts not previously
analyzed in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment EIR are expected to occur
as a result of the proposed project. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated related to cultural
resources because of implementation of this phase of park development.
City of Dublin
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration
Emerald Glen Park, Phaso III P A 05-009
Page 28
February 22, 2005
~~rt~-
VI. Geology and Soils
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?
Le,çs-than-significant The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment EIR identifies
several potential impacts to soils and geology, including earthquake and ground shalcing, ground
rupture, seismic ground shaking, impacts to groundwater resources, shrink-swell potential due to
expansive soils, slope stability, erosion and sedimentation, in many locations in the Specific Plan
planning area.
A Geotechnical Investigation has been prepared for Phase III of the park development by
Kleinfelder Engineering and suggests certain measures be implemented to stabilize the soil on-site
and construct the improvements to withstand groundshaking in the event of an earthquake. The
subject area and park site contains fairly stable and well-consolidated clayey soils for the most
part, however, several inches oftopsoil is loose and fairly unconsolidated. This soil will be
replaced as part of the Project prior to any groundcover or improvements being installed. The
topography is relatively flat with a few slightly elevated areas. Additionally, in the Phase III area,
some stockpiling of soil, concrete rubble and trash accumulation has occurred in the southwesterly
portion of the project area. This material and soil will be removed prior to development ofthe
soccer courts and the proposed detention basin near the mini-arboretum in the southwest comer of
the arca. Only the soil that is of a good stable quality found in these stockpiles will be reused to
consolidate and compact the final soil on the site. A geotechnical engineer will be on site during
all earthwork in accordance with the construction program. As the improvements in this phase
consist of low-lying courts, trails, paving, and small single-story structures such as the restroom
and arbor, the potential for death or injury of persons using the park during an earthquake is not
anticipated.
Since the site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones, the potential for
ground rupture is anticipated to be minimal. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 3.6/1.0
contained in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment EIR and in the Project
construction documents will ensure that all improvements to the park will comply with generally
recognized seismic safety standards so that ground shaking or ground failure impacts would be
reduced to a level ofless-than-significant, Additionally, less-than-significant impacts are
anticipated in the park phase related to soil or geotechnical hazards as the recommendations of
the geotechnical engineer have been incorporated into the Project.
VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
a-d) Create a significant hazard through transport ofhazardous materials or release or emission of
hazardous materials, and/or listed as a hazardous materials site?
No Impact. The proposed use of the site would include construction of recreational facilities for
Emerald Glen Park and street frontage improvements along Central Parkway. Recreational
City of Dublin
Initiat Study & Mitigated Nega'ive Declaration
Emerald Glen Park, Phase III PA 05-009
Page 29
February 22, 2005
3 ~Ub LK'
improvements on this site were discussed in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan
Amendment EIR, and have always been planned for this property. No hazardous material has
bcen transported to or from the site, nor is anticipated to be done in the future as the site wil1 be a
public park. Therefore, the project would not involve the use or transportation of hazardous
material. Additionally, there would be no impact with regard to the release of hazardous materials.
e,£) Is the site located within an airport land use plan of a public airport or private airstrip?
No Impact. The site is not located within an airport land use plan or within the vicinity of a public
airport; therefore no impacts are anticipated regarding airport noise and crash hazard zones.
g,h) Interference with an emergency evacuation plan, expose people and structures to a significant risk
involving wildlandfires, and are nearby residences intermixed with wildlands?
No Impact. Since the project would convert undeveloped land to a paved parking lot, and
recreational facilities with few structures, the two proposed driveways ftom Central Parkway to
Phase III improvements wil1 provide adequate emergency access. Due to the provision of existing
and planned adequate access, there would be no impact with regard to any emergency evacuation
plans.
Additionally, the project site is adjacent to an urbanized area and within close proximity to vacant
grassland that is planned for urbanization. The park will be improved with irrigation that will be
regularly maintained. Therefore, the risk of wildland fire would in this phase of the park is not
anticipated. No impact is expected relative to wildfires in the project area.
VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality
a-i) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, deplete groundwater
resources, alter drainage patterns, effect surface or subsurface water quality, result in placing
housing in aflood plain?
No Impact. The project conforms to Alameda County Flood Control and Water Quality District,
Zone 7 requirements and will meet the water quality standards of the City of Dublin's NPDES
permit and the Alameda County Urban Runoff Clean Water Program. The contractor selected by
the City will be responsible for obtaining all permits necessary from Zone 7 prior to construction,
and follow all provisions ofthe City's SWPPP and the Water Quality Control Board requirements.
Adherence to mitigation measures nos. 3.5/20.0, 3.5/44.0, 3.5/47.0, and 3.5/55.0 of the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment ErR requiring proper drainage and run-off control,
and the use of biodegradable pesticides and herbicides, will reduce surface water quality pollution
to a level of less- than-significance. Additionally, the City Public Works Department has
performed hydrology and drainage studies to insure that all stormwater and drainage facilitics
constructed for the park contain sufficient capacity to service the projected development of all
phases of the park plan. As a result of the studies, drainage detClltion basins will be located in
various phases of the project, including in the southwesterly corner of the site in this phasc.
Construction of Emerald Glen Park Phase III recreational facilities will be consistent with all the
previous actions and environmental documentation approved by the City of Dublin for east
Page 30
Fobruary 22, 2005
City of Dublin
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration
Emerald Glen Park, Phase III P A 05-009
-:jf36b LIS
Dublin. No impacts not previously analyzed in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan
Amendment ErR are expected to occur.
IX. Land Use and Planning
a) Physically divide an established community?
No Impact. The project is consistent with the General Plan and planned recreational uses in the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment ErR. It is Phase III of a large park project
that is located on one large property. Residential development exists across Central Parkway and
also in the adjacent Summerglen development to the west across Tassajara Creek. Future
development will occur across Tassajara Road from the park. No residential subdivision or
community is divided by the park. Therefore, there would be no disruption of any established
community because the proposed facilities for Emerald Glen Park are designed to serve new and
existing development in east Dublin, providing recreational facilities within walking distant to
residents. Therefore, this phase of park development will result in no negative or adverse impact
on land use or the community.
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan. policy or regulation?
No impact. The Emerald Glen Park Phase III project is consistent with the goals and policies
contained in both the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan, which indicate that these
facilities are needed to serve the growing population in east Dublin. The Sped fic Plan and
General Plan land use maps include the designation for this park site, and refer to the Dublin Parks
and Recreation Master Plan, recently updated in 2004, for a description of the land use activities
and types of facilities to be provided in the park. The facilities proposed for development in Phase
III of the park are consistent with those projected uses in the Parks and Recreation Master Plan.
Therefore, this phase of park development is consistent with all land use plans, policies and
regulations of the City, and will result in no negative or adverse impact on land use.
c) Conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
No impact. No such plan has been adopted within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. There
would, thereforc, be no impact to a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation
plan for the existing site.
X. Mineral Resources
a, b) Result in the loss of availability of regionally or locally significant mineral resources?
No impact. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment EIR does not indicate
that significant deposits of minerals exist on the site. Additionally, the site is not shown as a
location for mineral or aggregate resources on State Mineral Resource maps. No impacts related
to the loss of mineral resources would occur as a result of the project.
XI. Noise
City of Dublin
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration
Emerald GlOIl Park, Phase III P A 05-009
Pagdl
February 22, 2005
3(P6b~
a"d) 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, or
result in permanent increases in ambient noise levels?
Less-than-signijicant. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment EIR addressed
potential noise impacts of adopting and implementing the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General
Plan, which included the development of Emerald Glen Park. Noise related impacts were
identified in the EIR which included exposure of residents to increased levels of noise from
construction of development in east Dublin.
Mitigation measure nos. 3.10/2.0 and 3.10/5.0 will mitigate or minimize construction noise
impacts to a Icve\ ofless-than-signifieant. However, short-term construction related noise could
be expected which would be considered significant depending on the specific type of equipment
used in the grading process for the parking lot and various sports courts and paved areas. The City
has adopted common practices for all construction and grading operations, and which are includcd
in the construction documents for the Project, to limit the hours of construction to 7:30 a.m. to 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, including the idling of equipment, unless the Director of Public
Works approves alternative hours. Additionally, all equipment used on the construction site is to
be in good, well-maintained condition, and muffiers, to minimize noise generation that could
affect the residents in the area of the park. Therefore, noise-related impacts of the project will be
reduced to a lcss-than-significant impact.
e, f) No Impact. The project is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a
public airport,.public use airport, or a private airstrip. Therefore, the project wm not expose
people in the project area to excessive noise levels.
XII. Population and Housing
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly?
No Impact. Implementation of planned rccreational facilities wm not induce additional growth in
east Dublin that has not been projected for in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan
Amendment EIR. These proposed recreational facilities were planned well in advance to serve
residential units that have already been approved, and in some cases, already built. Therefore, no
population growth impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
b,c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing units or people?
No Impact. The project site is designated as a community park on the Dublin General Plan and in
the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and the Parks and Recreation Master Plan for residents in the
immediate and surrounding areas of Dublin. The site is currently being developed as parkland
with Phase I having been completed and Phase II well underway. The property has never been
designated for housing nor previously developed for such use. Displacement of housing units or
people, therefore, would not occur. Additionally, the site was vacant and undeveloped prior to
construction of other development in the area.
EDSP Mitigation measures 3.4/20.0 through 3.4/35.0 are designed to cnsure that adequate parks
City of Dublin
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration
Emerald Glen Park, Phase HI PA 05·009
Page 32
February 22, 2005
'31 UO lj(.
and recreational facilities are provided in the community near residential development to serve thc
growing population of Dublin. This project is planned to serve the residential growth and residents
in the immediate area based on the park standards in the Parks and Recreation Master Plan.
Therefore, no impacts related to displacement of housing units or people are anticipated.
XIII. Public Services
(I-e) Potential impacts related to: fire protection, police protection, schools, maintenance, or solid
waste generation?
No Impact. Construction and operation of the proposed recreational facilities will not create a
need for new public services or facilities. The Alameda County Fire Department and the Dublin
Police Department have reviewed the project to ensure that the facility meets their criteria for
public use. An additional fire station has been built in the east Dublin area to serve the planning
area, including the area where the park is located. Additionally, the park plan has been designed in
conjunction with security criteria provided by the Police Department. The Eastern Dublin Specit1c
Plan, as a basis for the provision of the Emerald Glen Park at this location, included sufficient fire
safety resources to serve the projected growth and facilities in the area. Therefore, no impact
related to public services is anticipated.
XIV. Recreation
a, b) Would the project increase use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or require the
construction of new recreational facilitie.!?
No impact. The proposed project does not include residential development, so there would be no
increase in the need tor or impact on recreational facilities. The project would add a much needed
recreational facility with various types of active recreational uses to the east Dublin area, thereby
increasing the City's recreationaJ resources and facilities· to serve the community. No adverse
impact related to recreational facilities will result, but rather, the park devclopment will provide
more recreational activities and facilities for the public's use.
XV. Transportation/Traffic
a-g) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial to existing traffic load and street capacity, exceed
LOS standards for CMA roadways, change of air traffic patterns, increase traffic safety hazard,
provide for inadequate emergency vehicle access. inadequate parking, provide hazard or barrier
to alternative transportation modes?
No impact. No impacts are anticipated with regard to traffic or parking for the proposed
recreational improvements. Existing and proposed roadway improvements have been designed
and sized to provide adequate transportation facilities and transit modes with sufficient capacity
for the use. Additionally, two fully improved accessways from CentraJ Parkway serve this phase of
the park development, and provide adequate access for emergency vehicles. No adverse impacts
related to transportation are anticipated.
Additionally, a parking study was prepared for the project phase and the future development of
City of Dublin Page 33
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration
Emerald Glen Park, Pha,e III PA 05-009 February 22,2005
3':¿õt~S
Phase 4 & 5 by Carducci & Associates, Inc. in May 2004 which analyzed the parking needs for the
phase. The parking study anticipated the parking needs for each type of recreational facility in
Phase III of the Plan and determined that 240 parking spaces would be needed to serve the phase.
The parking lot area has been designed to accommodate the 240 parking spaces, and Phase 4 & 5
will be accommodated by another parking area when it is constructed. Therefore, no adverse
impacts relative to parking areas are anticipated.
XVI. Utilities and Service Systems
a-g) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB, require new or expanded water or
wastewater treatment facilities, require new storm drain facilities, require additional water
supplies, require new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities, or require new solid waste
facilities?
No Impact. Since the subject site is currently vacant and within an area where urban services are
available, the construction of the proposed recreation facilities will not increase the need for
additional water services. Some service connections are anticipated prior to opening the facilities
for public use. The project was taken into consideration when the wastewater facilities where
planned for the east Dublin area. Therefore, there would be no need for additional mitigation
measures than those already found in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan Amendmcnt
EIR.
XV. Mandatory Findings of Significance
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantial(y reduce
the habitat of a .fish or wildlife species, cause a .fish or wildlife population to drop below selj~
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 prehis(ory?
No Impact. The preceding analysis indicates that the proposed project will not have a significant
adverse impact on overaJl environmental quality, including biological resources or cultural
resources, with the implementation of mitigation measures included in the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan/General Plan Amendment EIR.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" meanS that the incremental eJJects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the ejJects of past projects, the effects of other current projects
and the effects ofprobablejittureprojects).
No Impact. Although incremental increases in certain areas can be expected as a result of
constructing this project, including air emissions, light and glarc, the project site hes within an
area with an approved specific plan which permits urbanized development and community
facilities. Mitigation measures are included in an approved EIR that would reduce any impacts to
less-than-significant levels.
c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human
City of Dublin
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration
Emerald Glen Park, Ph... III P A 05-009
Page 34
February 22, 2005
?,O¡ 0'() 1.4 (
beings, either directly or indirectly?
No impact. No such impacts have been discovered in the course of preparing this Initial Study.
City of Dublin
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration
Emerald Glen Park, Phase III P A 05-009
Page 35
February 22, 2005
, 4DNb I.({
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
INITIAL STUDY PREP ARER
Janet Harbin, Senior Planner, City of Dublin Community Development Department
AGENCIES AND 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
REFERENCES
City of Dublin General Plan., updated November 2002.
City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance. 2000.
Citv ofDubliTL Devartment of Public Works: Notice to Contractors. Special Provisions. Proposal
and Contract for Contract No. 05-02. Emera1d Glen Park Phase III. (Bid Documents).
Communitv Center and Recreation & Aquatic Center Parking Studv. Emerald Glen Park, prepared
by Carducci & Associates, Inc., May 18, 2004
Construction Proiect Plans for Emerald Glen Park Phase III, prepared by Carducci & Associates,
datcd December 10, 2004.
Geotechnical Investigation for Phase II1 of Emerald Glen Park, prepared by Kleinfelder
EngiDeeriDg, November 22, 2004
Eastern. Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment Environmental1mpact RetJort.. Wallace
Roberts and Todd, 1994.
Parks and Recreation Master Plan. 1994, with update in 2004
Final Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.. Wallace Roberts and Todd, 1998.
City of Dublin
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration
Emerald Glen Park, Phase III P A 05-009
Page 36
February 22, 2005
lif rnia The Resources A e
ARN
c.¡Ç
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
httD:/ /www.dfa ca.aov
POST OFFICE BOX 47
YOUNTVILLE, CALIFORNIA 94599
(707) 944-5500
.
March 3, 2005
Janet Harbin, senior Planner
City of Dublin
Community Development Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Dear Ms., Harbin:
Emerald Glen Park Phase III, PA 05-009
Dublin, Alameda County
The Department of Fish and Game (DFG) has reviewed the
document for the subject project. Please be advised this
project may result in changes to fish and wildlife resources as
described in the California Code of Regulations, Title 14,
Section 753.5(d) (1) (A)_(G)l. Therefore, a de minimis
determination is not appropriate, and an environmental filing
fee as required under Fish and Game Code Section 711. 4 (d) should
be paid to the Alameda County Clerk on or before filing of the
Notice of Determination for this project.
A complete assessment of the flora and fauna within and
adjacent to the project area, with particular emphasis upon
identifying endangered, threatened, and locally unique species
and sensitive habitats, should be provided. Rare, threatened
and endangered species to be addressed should include all those
which meet the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
definition (see CEQA Guidelines, Section 15380). The assessment
should identify any rare plants and rare natural communities,
following DFG's Guidelines for Assessing the Effects of Proposed
Projects on Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants and Natural
Communities (revised May 8, 2000). The Guidelines are available
at www.dfg.ca.gov!whdab!pdfs!guideplt.pdf
For any activity that will divert or obstruct the natural
flow, or change the bed, channel, or bank (which may include
associated riparian reeources) 'of a river or ,stream, or use
material from a streambed, DFG may require a Streambed
1 htto://ccr.oal.ca.eov/.
Find California Code of Regulations, Title t4Natural Resources, Division I, Section 753
RECEIVFn
COll$erving Ca[ifomía's Wi[á[ife Since 1870 MAR 0 4 2005
~ A TT ACriMENT .1'UBLlN PLANNI¡.¡I.>
~ . ~- ...
t+2~ LfS"
Janet Harbin
March 3, 2005
Page 2
Alteration Agreement (BAA), pursuant to Section 1600 et seq. of
the Fish and Game Code, with the applicant. Issuance of SAAs is
subject to the CEQA. DFG, as a responsible agency under CEQA,
will consider the CEQA document for the project. The CEQA
document should fully identify the potential impacts to the
stream or riparian resources and provide adequate avoidance,
mitigation, monitoring and reporting commitments for completion
of the agreement. To obtain information about the SAA
notification process, please access our website at
www.dfq.ca.qov/1600; or to request a notification package,
contact the Streambed Alteration Program at (707) 944-5520.
If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Janice Gan,
Environmental Scientist, at (209) 835-6910; or Mr. Scott Wilson,
Habitat Conservation Supervisor, at (707) 944-5584.
Sincerely,
/J J 9J~
I ~'v L./-
Robert W. Floerke
Regional Manager
Central Coast Region
cc: State Clearinghouse
0' 01 0 0 0
u ~ ~ ~ ~ 0
w 0 '" 0 0 .,;
Z ..... f<j '" ; 0>
0 "'., o"¡ "'.
... "" ,..: ¡i ..., '"
~.I ..... '" <'>
u ~ .....
ó .... ..¡c
... ... ... ... ...
n ~-
W 8, ~ 8 8 0
0
!;;¡:(!) §I 0 ci ci .,,;
I-ii!; 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
<nO Ó g ..., ..., ô
ffi~ .... '" ..... '"
co '"
I-(!) o"¡ ,,;
z
... ... ... ... ...
----¡::- --. ..--... .....
0 0 0 0 0
, u 0 0 ~ ~ ~
w
0:: 0 0 0 0 0
0 8. 8 0 0
u q 0 0
>- 0 '" ô ..., .0
w o"¡ ..... '" o"¡ '"
-' ..... ~ '"
-' ri ,.;
~ ... ... ... ... ...
_ n_ __..n ------ ....,.
0 0 0 0 0
..(z 0 0 0 ~ ~
0 0 0 0 0
, 1-« 0 0 g 0 0
0::::0 q o. 0 0
wJ: '" '" 0; 0; ~
lI)ö '" '" ~ ..... ....
'" 0>
~II) ri ri
... ... ... ... ...
I -. .-... ..... ..
0 0 0 0 '"
u 0 0 0 0 ~
>-0:: ¡3 g g 0 o"¡
o::w 0 :¡¡
~¡: 0 q 0 '"
'" '" .¡ <6 ...,
-'0 ..... o"¡ ~ o"¡ '"
.... ~ "!.
uo:: ri <'>
! II)
... ... ... ... ...
on..... .-.---.--
0 0 0 0 '"
&w ~ 0 q 0 ~
~ ~ 0 '" '"
I!!i ..... '" ~. '"
CO o"¡ "'. '"
z_ CO ~ .... '" ",'
-I- o"¡ .... '" o"¡ ;!
q (!)u "'. ~
Zw o"¡ ,.;
'" w
0 ... ... ... ... ...
5' , -.......-- . ..--...--.--
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~;
I- ,.. .... .,..
Z
0 IL 0
U 0
t:: ~ f/) f/) f/) ~
-' -' -'
- z :!!
w :;:I
~ ,.-- 1·-· .- --...-
:J: '"
D- .5
.,¿ "E .!!!.
1'1 -¡¡;
0:: tl. ~
~I'" 1J, oð u
w
.0 -ê ~
Z:O Z "1:J i!!
LLIlN 0 ::> W .¡¡;
..Jlr--: I ¡;: <3 ;; û5 0::
(!).r: " W
0 f! ii: Š :5: Qil ~
-' '" 1õ :2 :
~ :;: U ¡¡; «
u
, w tD ~ .s +
w
:!! ~ 0 1õ ~ 0
w :¡¡ ~ -' <.> iti
0
~ ~ '8 ç;
0 W
<n CD C/J 0 ~
~ Z , -- --
:;:I Z , 0 .. ~ \1
<n w ¡;s " " "
W tl. 1õ 1õ 1õ
II: 0 w E E ç;
Q 0 , <J) l!! l!! ~I
iti ¡;s I <ii ;;: ;;:
tf3ab'ts
ATTACHMENT #4
4 '1ØC> ~
RESOLUTION NO. -
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
**********
AWARDING CONTRACT NO. 05-02
EMERALD GLEN PARK PHASE THREE
TO
CLEARY BROTHERS LANDSCAPE, INCORPORATED.
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin did, on March 7th, 2005, publicly open, examinc and declare all
sealed bids for doing the work describcd in the approved Plans and Specifications for Contract No. 05-02,
which Plans and Specifications are hereby expressly rcfcrred to for a description of said work and for all
particulars relative to the proceedings under the request for bids; and
WHEREAS, said bids were submitted to the City Engineer, who has reviewed the bids to
determine the lowcst bid which was responsive to the requirements of the bid documents; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does
hereby award Contract No. 05-02 to the lowest responsible bidder therefor, to wit, Cleary Brothcrs
Landscape, Incorporated, at a base bid of three million four hundred seventy-nine thousand and sixty-
threc dollars ($3,479,063) the particulars of which bid are on file in the office of the City Engineer.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, this 15th day of March, 2005.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
ATTACHMENT #5
L.¡.G ISb <+6"
RESOLUTION NO.-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CIIT OF DUBLIN
**********
A WARDING CONTRACT NO. 05-02
EMERALD GLEN PARK PHASE THREE
TO
CLEARY BROTHERS LANDSCAPE, INCORPORATED.
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin did, on March 7th, 2005, publicly open, examine and declare all
sealed bids for doing the work dcscribed in the approved Plans and Specifications for Contract No. 05-02,
which Plans and Specifications arc hereby expressly referred to for a description of said work and for all
particulars relative to the proceedings under thc request for bids; and
WHEREAS, said bids were submitted to the City Engineer, who has reviewed the bids to
determinc thc lowest bid which was responsive to the requirements of the bid documents; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does
hereby award Contract No. 05-02 to the lowest responsible bidder therefor, to wit, Cleary Brothers
Landscape, Incorporated, at a base bid of three million four hundred seventy~nine thousand and sixty-
three dollars ($3,479,063) and alternates(s) at
dollars ($ ) the particulars of which
bid are on file in the office of the City Engineer.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, this 15th day of March, 2005.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
ATTACHMENT #6