HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 85-08 Hist Park Neg Dec
RESOLUTION NO. 85 - 08
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
*********
ADOPTING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND A MITIGATION
MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE KOLB RANCH BUILDING MOVE, REHABILITATION,
AND FACILITY REUSE AT THE DUBLIN HISTORIC PARK AND
DUBLIN HISTORIC PARK MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM
WHEREAS, on August 1, 2006 the City Council approved the Dublin Historic Park Master Plan.
The Historic Park Master Plan identified a six-phase buildout of the future park facility in Dublin's
Historic Specific Plan area on the southeast comer of Dublin Boulevard and Donlon Way; and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the project,
which was also adopted by the City Council on August 1, 2006; and
WHEREAS, with the cooperation of the Kolb/Strom families, the City of Dublin explored the
possibility of relocating several of the Kolb Ranch buildings located at 11393 Dublin Canyon Road in
Pleasanton to the Historic Park for use as public buildings and Staff prepared an amendment to the
Historic Park Master Plan as such; and
WHEREAS, Staff examined the environmental impacts of moving, rehabilitating, and reusing the
five Kolb Ranch buildings for public purposes at the Dublin Historic Park and the associated amendments
needed to the Historic Park Master Plan in an Initial Study dated April 22, 2008; and
WHEREAS, on the basis of the Initial Study, the City prepared a draft Mitigated Negative
Declaration which was circulated for public review from April 22, 2008 to May 12, 2008 and is attached
as Exhibit A to this Resolution. The City received one comment letter from the City of Pleasanton, a
responsible agency under CEQA, wherein Pleasanton stated their support of the document's conclusions
and noted two construction-related requests; and
WHEREAS, a City Council Staff Report, dated June 3, 2008 and incorporated herein by
reference, described and analyzed the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Project, including the
proposed amendments to the Historic Park Master Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the Staff Report and Draft Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (Attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A) at a noticed
public hearing on June 3, 2008, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, as required by CEQA, the City prepared a Mitigation Monitoring Program, which is
attached to the Mitigated Negative Declaration; and
WHEREAS, the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the City's independent judgment
and analysis on the potential for environmental impacts from the Project; and
WHEREAS, the location and custodian of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and other
documents that constitute the record of proceedings for the Project is the City of Dublin Community
Development Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568.
Reso No. 85-08, Adopted 6/3/08, Item 6.1 Page 1 of 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that:
A. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution.
B. The Dublin City Council reviewed and considered the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration prior to
making a recommendation on the Project.
C. The Mitigated Negative Declaration has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the CEQA
Guidelines and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines.
D. The Mitigated Negative Declaration is complete and adequate and reflects the City's independent
judgment and analysis as to the environmental effects of the Project as described in the Mitigated
Negative Declaration.
E. On the basis of the whole record before the City Council, including the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and comments received on it, there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a
significant effect on the environment.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that based on the above findings, the City Council adopts the
attached Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Kolb Ranch
Building Move, Rehabilitation, and Facility Reuse at the Dublin Historic Park and Dublin Historic Park
Master Plan Addendum, both of which are incorporated herein by reference.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of June, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES:
Councilmembers Hildenbrand, Oravetz, Sbranti and Scholz, and Mayor Lockhart
NOES:
None
ABSENT:
None
ABSTAIN: None
~.z)/~>>~
(J Mayor
ATTnT:
[/AM) {: f? W
Deputy City Clerk
Reso No. 85-08, Adopted 6/3/08, Item 6.1
Page 2 of2
~
,-,,'"
Initial Study and
Mitigated Negative Declaration
for the
Kolb Ranch Building Move, Rehabilitation, and Facility Reuse
at the Dublin Historic Park
and
Dublin Historic Park Master Plan Addendum
Lead Agency
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Public Review period: April 22, 2008 - May 12, 2008
EXHIBIT A
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Environmental Checklist Form... ... ... ... ........................................................ .......... ......... ...... .... ....... ..... .......... 1
Background and Project Description ................ ......... ............ ... ..................... ........................................ ........3
Existing Physical Setting, Uses, and Structures ............................................................................................ 5
Exhibit 1: Regional Context ..........................................................................................................................7
Exhibit 2: Project Vicinity.. .......... ........ ...................... ....... ................. ............................... ....... ......................8
Exhibit 3: Dublin Village Historic Area ..........................................................................................................9
Exhibit 4: Kolb Ranch Building relocation to the Dublin Historic Park......................................................... 10
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected .................................................................................................11
Determination...............................................,.......................................................................... .................... 11
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ..........................................................................................................12
Aesthetics.. ...... .. ................ .. .......... ...... .. ........... .. ........... ... .. ... ....................... .. ... ... .. ...... ........... ........... . .. ........ 14
Agricultural Resources.......................................................................................................................... ......... 15
Air Quality.......................................................................................................................... ............................ 15
Biological Resources....................................................................................................................... ..............18
Cultural Resources....................................................................................................................... .................20
Geology and Soils............................................................................................................................ ..............22
Hazards and Hazardous Materials................................................................................................................. 24
Hydrology and Water Quality.................... ........ .......... ........... ......................... ........ ............. ..................... ..... 26
Land Use and Planning......................................................................................................................... ........28
Mineral Resources...................................................................................................................... ...................28
Noise.............................................................................................................................. ................................29
Population and Housing.......................................................................................................................... .......29
Public Services.......................................................................................................................... ....................30
Recreation .............................................................................................................................. ....... .. ...... ........ 30
Transportation and Traffic................................................................... .;............:............................................ 30
Utility and Services Systems...............................,........................................................................................ ..31
Mandatory Findings of Significance ............ .......... ......... ............... ..... ......... ..... ..... ................ ........... ..... .......32
Background Information..................................................................................................................... ..........34
Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
BACKGROUND AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Background
On August 1, 2006 the City Council approved the Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan and the Dublin Historic
Park Master Plan, which set the policy and land use framework for the development of a former shopping center
site in Dublin's historic core into the City's Historic Park. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration was
prepared for the project, which was adopted by the City Council at the same meeting.
The Historic Park Master Plan identified a six-phase buildout of the future park facility, with the eventual
construction of an 800 square foot building for classroom space. In Summer 2007, the Dublin City Council
decided to explore the possibility of relocating the historic Kolb Family Properties (house, barn and workshop) in
Pleasanton tothe Dublin Historic Park to be rehabilitated to serve as the classroom facility, and at its meeting of
March 4, 2008, the Dublin City Council directed staff to prepare an amendment to the Master Plan to relocate five
of the Kolb Ranch buildings to its Historic Park: two residences, two barns, and a pumphouse.
The Kolb Ranch property at 11393 Dublin Canyon Road was the site of an approved Planned Unit Development
(PUD) rezoning for a combination of single-family residential, open space, and future commercial uses in the City
of Pleasanton (PUD-99-03). A proposed senior care facility was to be located where the existing Kolb Ranch
buildings now stand, but the details of the facility and the accompanying CEQA environmental analysis were
expected to be completed once the PUD application for the senior facility was received. The rezoning approved
the allowed use of the site at 11393 Dublin Canyon Road for a senior care facility, and noted that the existing
single-family residence (Kolb House) and associated farm buildings were allowed to remain as interim uses until
the senior facility was constructed. The buildings were not intended to remain on the property once the senior
care facility was developed.
As noted previously, the Dublin Historic Park Master Plan was approved by the Dublin City Council in 2006, and
the park site was acquired by the City of Dublin in 2007, with the intent of creating a public space in the area of the
City's few remaining historic resources. Adjacent to the newly-acquired Historic Park site sits St. Raymond's
Church, Murray Schoolhouse, and Pioneer Cemetery, which collectively make up the publicly-owned Dublin
Heritage Center. Acquiring the Historic Park site meant that the City could expand the Heritage Center and create
a larger educational, cultural, and park space for the community.
Project Description
In an effort to further the City's efforts as stated above, the City of Dublin is proposing the following actions, which
collectively describe the project for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA):
1. Adoption of Amendments to the Dublin Historic Park Master Plan to note the inclusion of five buildings
from the historic Kolb Ranch on the Dublin Historic Park site. The buildings include the Main House, the Old
House, the Sunday School Barn, the Hay Barn, and the Pump House. See Exhibit 4 for reference.
Initial Study for the Dublin Historic Park Master Plan Addendum and Kolb Building Relocation and Reuse
Page 3 of 34
April 22, 2008
2. Removal of any trees necessary on the Pleasanton parcel in order to physically move the buildings off the
site and onto the roadway.
3. Removal of electrical or other utilities which currently serve the buildings in order to render the buildings
movable.
4. Preparation of the Kolb Ranch buildings to be moved, including deconstruction as needed in order to
make the buildings suitable for travel.
5. Physically moving the Kolb Ranch buildings from their location in Pleasanton to the Dublin Historic Park.
The move includes the actual physical relocation of the five buildings from one location to the other by the
building moving team.
6. Construction of infrastructure and utilities at the Dublin Historic Park site in preparation for the new
buildings, including but not limited to site grading and the preparation of building foundations.
7. Reconstruction, rehabilitation, and reuse of the Kolb Ranch buildings for public use as described in the
Kolb Ranch Relocation Addendum to the Dublin Historic Park Master Plan.
8. Construction of the Dublin Historic Park Master Plan interim improvements (Park Master Plan Phases 1-3 as
modified by the Kolb Ranch Relocation Addendum).
Initial Study for the Dublin Historic Park Master Plan Addendum and Kolb Building Relocation and Reuse
Page 4 of 34
April 22, 2008
EXISTING PHYSICAL SETTING, USES AND STRUCTURES
Since the project as described involves the physical move of five ranch buildings from one jurisdictional location to
another, this section of the document will describe the physical setting, uses, and structures of both the property in
Pleasanton where the buildings are being removed from as well as the property in Dublin, to where the buildings
are being relocated.
Project Locations
Dublin:
The City of Dublin is a community of approximately 43,630 people located in the Amador Valley of central
Alameda County. The precise location of Dublin is identified in Exhibit 1. The Dublin Historic Park is located in the
Dublin Village Historic Area, which consists of approximately 38 acres of land located northwest of San Ramon
Road and Interstate 580. The Historic Area includes commercial, residential, public, and business park/industrial
properties near the intersection of Donlon Way and Dublin Boulevard, as shown in Exhibit 3.
The Dublin Historic Park, which is currently under development, is comprised of approximately 4.2 acres in the
heart of the Historic Area at the southwest corner of Dublin Boulevard and Donlon Way. For the purposes of this
document, this is considered the "Project Area".
Pleasanton:
The City of Pleasanton is a community of approximately 67,700 people located immediately south of Dublin across
Interstate 580. The site of the existing Kolb Ranch is 11393 Dublin Canyon Road, which is approximately one-half
mile west on Dublin Canyon Road off Foothill Boulevard, in the northwestern-most portion of Pleasanton.
The two sites are approximately 1500 feet from one another as the crow flies, or approximately 1.3 miles by road,
as shown in Exhibit 2.
Physical Settings, Uses, and Structures
Dublin:
Although today dominated by late twentieth century commercial, retail and residential uses, the immediate area
surrounding the Historic Park site also contains several historically significant buildings, structures, sites, objects
and landscape features dating from the latter half of the nineteenth century and the early part of the twentieth
century.
Identified historic resources are concentrated along Donlon Way, centering on the City-owned Dublin Heritage
Center site, which includes the Murray Schoolhouse, Dublin Pioneer Cemetery and St. Raymond's Church.
Another identified historic resource is Green's Store, a privately owned former general store and tavern located on
the southeast corner of Dublin Boulevard and Donlon Way. Previously unidentified potential historic resources are
scattered throughout the survey area. These include: "Ponderosa," a circa-1929 bungalow at 6570 Donlon Way;
the Bonde House, a circa-1923 bungalow at 11760 Dublin Boulevard; Alamilla Springs and remnants of a walnut
grove at 7100 San Ramon Road; historic walnut and pepper trees on the Heritage Park Office Center property at
11887 Dublin Boulevard; as well as potential archaeological sites in the vicinity of Dublin Creek and the Heritage
Park Office Center.
Initial Study for the Dublin Historic Park Master Plan Addendum and Kolb Building Relocation and Reuse
Page 5 of 34
April 22, 2008
In addition to the built environment, the project area also contains a valuable natural resource. Dublin Creek runs
through the project area adjacent to the existing Dublin Heritage Center and the vacant property proposed for the
cemetery expansion within the Historic Park. Although partially channeled in other sections, this portion of Dublin
Creek retains its natural bed as well as some of its riparian woodland corridor.
Pleasanton:
The general character of the area is a mixture of commercial and residential, primarily along Dublin Canyon Road.
Immediately off Foothill Boulevard (to the east of the Kolb Ranch property), is a 3-story hotel and 4-story
commercial office complex. To the south and west of the Kolb Ranch property are recently-developed single
family homes on estate-sized lots. Immediately to the north is Interstate 580.
The Kolb Ranch property is not in context with its surroundings, and has been encroached by newer development.
On May 2, 2000, the Pleasanton City Council approved a development plan approval for a 12-lot single family
residential development on the south side of Dublin Canyon Road, adjacent to the Preserve development. As part
of that PUD, a 5.2 acre site adjacent to Dublin Canyon Road containing the structures remaining from Kolb Ranch
was conceptually approved for a future senior care facility. The existing structures were not required to be
retained, but were allowed to remain as interim uses. A separate development plan would need to be approved by
the City of Pleasanton before the senior care facility could be built.
Initial Study for the Dublin Historic Park Master Plan Addendum and Kolb Building Relocation and Reuse
Page 6 of 34
April 22, 2008
EXHIBIT 1: REGIONAL CONTEXT
YA~~~f~~ ,-j{~~~~~
""'=, Sil.~::bi() J~~~~c Martinez .><c~s~!!~~urg. .
dC~ rEiq9,le\..V- .j;--' ..... ..... Jr~;"c~~";'/~~i,&. /1 {"'''',q,5Qt.!o.:ll"---,I=-_ _i-','nt.'iI
_/,.T ~C.';2;!~~ 'r;;:l~DOI1Cor:;d..Jf 'l~i, ""~~E11;:"'i ~[-']I "11 r;'"st,~
-=' S ,r;. f 'b' 1'-"';;" .~- ~ (, '0,,1, -., ,~'~-" "c~;; ,,\ .<,;:y ,~, 1'1 . !;.' I
!I;i: - 3.>n i .~a 'O~h~~il.r --";"~,~r'--?~;~;\i;;7....J;'-:''" ~"-;'e,r$;~:rk,*,~T -"'\-r~-L~...L,~ -1:n-rLoa'?la.
~I~ ..R. Yh' li:}, d. '". ~;;i' F'I,''!..s1~nR! ~. {}~""~. % \~.l~ dill! 1'1 Atchl$on. Topltka 8. S~nCa Fe
J~ . '''"=,",-,..,.10 mon ~\. ~:''''''p'.'H''!r'-' f7 ~ ,L-5':"==''' "
~"'.~I ' - EIG'ei:'i:i ~"'.' (",,:"'-,Tp~~4'~!?~;;"'~~ ;~~~'. l~. -"ImI'1M~ BI....d.. 4"':;==-----=
x' .II ' -~' M" h_ 'Ii "," .....', v. Ii ~I .... " H........ ";..r,
'.4~ '~_''''{ff''il'~l'':'~~,'''''~\ "M.:lrsh Clu~,iRd r=i~ljt.Qmla ve..,,a nr __l~4.~'-
~. i ~~ B'e. r' t:R..~"~.\\~~f~IY'Je~tl?~:~. '~/!""'i_~b./,,"'~::;~:~~;:.2}"I'~""'_.. il~-~= \~ C-O
J~~ ".;~~~rD!":';(';' '~~S~I~' ii \\17'-0.. ~.:t2!" P.u/ .Ii'.;!/:-,,'..-!.;,' .=2.?'; ~~-;- ~'.~ if
'A l i< '" -.iJ- ::'"1"~ ~'j.:t... 7" ,~~-;-;;,>""- if~ C~..~f!Ol) ~;~
'. ,_ ' .,...4 .,,) ""l' ,,<:,;" _..S , .....'1'..,.sJ'i\..... ~I i- owt \ "'-
.. ,.... ....: :- .1'1.. ~'...:." . - .~~/ '-'.. _.-: ~"''/':,.r; <...n...::,"'~ f .. "'1i:I ..
(; , W" O'~aii~'I'a~:X"d1;.' -<, rf,Q"..g:~.;:.7,;'\~~~;:;}lno t A;.-JFo.~ebi!y ~ -Il
.Jd.:, ',-, ~,.\ .. r\ 'd. ,.;',,'1r,%,-,\ '()' ',>",,_ "';"'~==~4S:>..;~.ta 'il I'i ..
JOel' t("'-7<!l;t'l-ll~'~~"';\":" ~ ..r~H ."Y,.,. ""'....-.... I ;r J- -, J'" ...Y'~ J CEJ -
SO,;;'':' ..J~.-':;;;~O':' ~~. . ; u ';;u,?:,,\,': c:',c.\\ S 'R.,....;'F 'Z .-Jr 'J4 '0 "Ini
i!:Ir:;li::Jc;;;5'=;;,~;;' .' t r,f.~~.,. "''''ci\g...,.,::;\~~~,. aD"~, a,Q.lQJ1!~:;;-',:,;=_~" l"... :c I III'
r~]~~~~;'~1[1Il .A.lanaeda:~"'('",, IC;"-h"._~;::::-.~ ... J; 'c.:, ("to 41tarllo \i\- _JL:.Q;;..:;;jI:'::J'..J1"':
-'1>11, llUf1P" .... t. " :~~' ( .;! 'c;{2.?1',"t if-.~\ ~;' Cl:: I['=t v.:'f' !!.~~jg~:-lr__1!! ,:::"r:;:l,iinEr=' .
;;::1~q""Jil--"'.~" V..' .". ::S1 C:iI"rE'~lRM,."... .,:;i!.. ~');'::'l'" )! S' ".~,,~, '" (I, ijr=11Jj; i ,~ r r1 ....JI'I ~~~ I~~. Y'F
'J......., ~r. . . It ...,' .'"""'" 'I I l"" <;" .'ln~
1~~'C>~;;" \,i~~~jltd5~~~DU~;~~"to"~F~b\;Ul~ r . ~~t~"i
'.-(i"i~'~_'-;'i'.. "':~,,' ,......;:;=-d:i] \:',. ',"-' '!';',:--Jnr 'I. ,es1aR .:;:;.. .::: I
)1/ !:,~~~~r~;(~( ~~~i~~..;,~~.._~~~~J:\_~ ""'2~~~"'.,.,~ ~~l;--'" ",-\.~,.:,~:1di ~~~'-;:;"':","l'i~;.~~~~"J_ J2r: I ~,- ~~7
"t' <k..o-,;,-~,.-,:~ .54.",.;.. :--:=,. , f-~r. _ ,7_-,;' --..... ,"
>"'>.).{ '\{*,F~3n "is"" 1'~ ;;~I\;\, 1jO' \\~i\~~JJ' Ul
'<~;.( 'lrif.L.AilDor! .^' IXJdjgni::.9ity Its "iI~",;:;".
'i~~,':;~t~6~f\.1ateo' 't:'~,,;~~~.',"" (:
"~:'@'" '. '1'""" ~, ffiremont
;\..n-, 9"'_. .' :.}f /~' \1.";.. ,""",v . - '.'"
. Ne~ar..k,', <',}.i;;~ '.~j;,~.'.,i:,
\':",~\ --",\- -" ~ - - ',',' - ,
", jt" 7S~1],~~arlos \5i<~r:~~I
CD ,/:p:"'!Jill Redv\i:QQd City.
'\(:,;.~.,:7)~:;:~"l:':jl;., ~~I::~1;b~:Alto . ,h : _~,~_::,~~ _
II ~ -'''~~_'':!'''f''o''''l,!.ct<;)'''''' ';''-'''''.,;'" Ivlllpltasl .' "Rd
Yi L ,(1,;,) ,'I "~".:- c~..:' ~~ ~'l.-' -:'::--'00;,." :-;.--~~" ( . ,..., s~e u a ~
E "('.t, "4~~'~' '~\~:~J}~~" .}~ )..~K)1gJ;I~~~~i~'Vie~rJ\~:~~~;?'i' -'~~~:i:;~,~"-:.:c:.c
@ 2 ~ 2006 Y a'~;~r~~ c m )h~',,::~~~~'(:.~'i::~r:~'~l~~':~l~t~~~:~~[al~;'~:(~:?~'~f,~7c:;:,~f;:;~:~'~-'~.~,
~:,;.
i.~'
l ~
"
i~:::-l.'.'':' L1':
I'~. ~;C~:;;-'~';~
@2006 Nt\VTEQ
Initial Study for the Dublin Historic Park Master Plan Addendum and Kolb Building Relocation and Reuse
Page 7 of 34
April 22, 2008
In
JV
EXHIBIT 2: PROJECT VICINITY
Initial Study for the Dublin Historic Park Master Plan Addendum and Kolb Building Relocation and Reuse
Page 8 of 34
April 22, 2008
E,Y.l'IIBI'T 3: OUB\.ltl "I\.I_~GE ""stORie (>.RE~
@ (\) 10 c: ~
0\(\)10 ':>-
~4O: .... ir3 '" -'
10 " Q\ .~
._ U -0 '" '" ~
"7 .':do tc: c: e ~
c: .... 'U ':3 u- 0
~B(\) S \
..otflO-
':31:
o Ifl
1\ ~
. 0- 0
~, r.\o 'il
eO,:".
g .'
'" ~~;,
~ ~;:1.
'" Irl'1..~' 0
i. '1..- %
~ \1
?age 9 0\ ~
;..?ri\ 2.2., 2.()
d Ko\b eui\ding Re\Ocation and Reuse
I",.a! SIlldy \0< 1M publln \-lis\()!\C pat\< IoIasle! Plan Nlde"dU{\\ an
EXHIBIT 4: KOLB RANCH BUILDING RELOCATION TO THE DUBLIN HISTORIC PARK
Hay Barn
Shelter ior play area
\ fiNAL
~ MASTERPLAN -....
\
BUDLDOUT ,~
Sunday School Barn
Multi-use classroom space
Reception & event area
Potential Black Box Theater
Optional dressing room addition ,____
I
Locust trees "
Old House
Restroom
Picnic tables .
F~ im~'""",,~
Hi~oric "locator" :1" ."",
Dj,I..,," .nd direction vi criginal rotl<" s.e ~
~ 'R!
ReId .. Fence" Posts }
Swgge'S~ fields but all;I'JP" pZlfi,,-through ~
,/. The front r;;: ,
,.,.'
S.,;n" fl"yn","d'. Chuyc''', r~____:: field 1:
[~~-------------~~~-
: .
L_1
'''''3';,
1/".+'
1:"',..,
,;";,,,.
-; "~"
-Historic fence and gates
nmth
tC\~
Initial Study for the Dublin Historic Park Master Plan Addendum and Kolb Building Relocation and Reuse
Page 10 of 34
April 22, 2008
! ';;-;
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:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a
significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project
proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless
mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on
the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it
must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuantto
applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing
further is required.
Signature:
Date: April 22, 2008
Printed Name: Kristi Bascom, Consulting Planner
For: City of Dublin
Initial Study for the Dublin Historic Park Master Plan Addendum and Kolb Building Relocation and Reuse
Page 11 of 34
April 22, 2008
"'.......'
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Scope of the Environmental Assessment
This environmental assessment addresses the potential impacts of the proposed Kolb Ranch Building Move,
Rehabilitation, and Facility Reuse at the Dublin Historic Park and accompanying Dublin Historic Park Master Plan
Addendum (Kolb Ranch Relocation) in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA). The scope of review includes only potential impacts resulting from development of the facilities
described in the above documents. Any potential site-specific environmental impacts not anticipated during this
environmental review will need to be addressed as part of an application submittal consistent with CEQA
requirements. Additionally, any development in the project area that is outside the scope of this document may
need further analysis if it can be determined that potential environmental impacts exist.
The method of environmental analysis includes a review to determine whether the impact related to the City's
evaluation criteria would be: potentially significant; less than significant unless mitigation is incorporated; less than
significant; or no impact. The analysis includes a summary of the affected environment and a review of the
threshold for determining significance. The evaluation of potential impacts applies the threshold, determines
significance and, if necessary, includes recommended mitigation measures
An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was previously prepared for the original Historic Park
Master Plan. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15612, this Initial Study considers whether the
proposed amendments to the Master Plan will result in new significant or substantially more severe impacts from
the impacts analyzed in the 2006 IS/MND. All mitigation measures in the 2006 IS/MND will apply to the actions
under the amended Master Plan.
Sources used to determine potential environmental impacts:
1. Determination based on Staff review of the project.
2. Determination based on the Dublin Historic Park Master Plan Draft Addendum - Kolb Ranch Relocation
(including the Technical Memorandum prepared by Kelley & VerPlanck Historical Resources Consulting)
3. Determination based on the Dublin Historic Park Master Plan (2006)
4. Determination based on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Dublin Village
Historic Area Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment, et ai, dated May 25,2006 (prepared by the
City of Dublin Community Development Department).
5. Determination based on the Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan (prepared by the City of Dublin
Community Development Department) August 2006
6. Determination based on information contained in the April 1 , 2008 City of Pleasanton staff report,
"Information Concerning the City of Dublin's Request to Relocate Structures Located on the Former Kolb
Ranch Property at 11393 Dublin Canyon Road to the Dublin Historic Park", prepared by Jerry Iserson,
Community Development Director
7. Determination based on communication with appropriate City of Dublin departments and utility service
providers
Initial Study for the Dublin Historic Park Master Plan Addendum and Kolb Building Relocation and Reuse
Page 12 of 34
April 22, 2008
I r""
'-"
i~'
Notes:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answErS that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is
adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to
projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should
be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not
expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off.site as well as on-site, cumulative as
well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers
must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, Less than significant with mitigation, or less than
significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be
significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an
EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less than significant with mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant
Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigati01 measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the
effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross
referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, (J' other CEQA process, an effect
has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a
brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are avalable for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope
of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state
whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than significant with mitigation Measures Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures that were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the
extentto which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document
should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies
should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmertal effects
in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance
On the following page, the source of determination is listed in parenthesis. See listing of sources used to
determine each potential impact at the end of the checklist. Copies of the documents referenced in this document
are available for public review at the City of Dublin Community Development Deparlment, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin,
CA 94568.
Initial Study for the Dublin Historic Park Master Plan Addendum and Kolb Building Relocation and Reuse
Page 13 of 34
April 22, 2008
Aesthetics
Would the project:
(Sources: 1, 4, 7)
a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but
not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
I I
I ,.tJ
Potentially Less than Less than No Impact
Significant significant Significant
Impact with Impact
mitigation
X
X
X
X
a-c) Have a significant impact on scenic vista, damage to scenic resource, degrade visual character of
the site?
Pleasanton site: No impact. The property from where the buildings are being moved is intended to be
redeveloped for commercial uses in the future, and a Planned Unit Development rezoning was approved for the
site in 1999 by the City of Pleasanton. The five buildings are not listed on the City of Pleasanton's Historic
Resources Inventory, nor are they visible from any state scenic highways (Interstate 580 in this location is not
listed as a state scenic highway).
Dublin site (Project Area): No impact. The project area is not located in an area with any scenic corridor or scenic
vista designation, so there will not be any impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project. The
project will not degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site, but will instead improve and enhance the
area with substantial public improvements, including the expansion of the City's Heritage Center, relocation of
historically-significant structures, and related streetscape improvements.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
Pleasanton site: No impact. The removal of the five ranch buildings will reduce the amount of light generated by
the site.
Dublin site (Project Area): Less than siqnificant. The proposed project will involve the installation of new light
fixtures in and around the relocated buildings, but it will not be substantially more than was already planned to be
located on the Historic Park site. It is standard practice that a photometric study is provided with final construction
drawings for any project prior to the issuance of an electrical permit. Adherence to this practice when construction
documents are prepared for will ensure that the impact of new site lighting will be less-than-significant.
Page 14 of 34
April 22, 2008
Initial Study for the Dublin Historic Park Master Plan Addendum and Kolb Building Relocation and Reuse
Agricultural Resources
Would the project:
(Sources: 1, 4, 7)
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland
of Statewide Importance, as showing on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources
Agency, to a non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agriculture use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment,
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of farmland to a (lon-agricultural use?
'-
Potentially Less than Less than No Impact
Significant significant Significant
Impact with Impact
mitiqation
X
X
X
Pleasanton site: No Impact. The proposed project does not involve impacts to any farmland and/or agriculturally-
designated properties.
Dublin site (Proiect Area): No Impact. The project area does not contain any properties that are currently used for
agriculture or farming, nor does the project area contain any properties with Williamson Act contracts or any
farmland that would be converted to a non-agricultural use. There are five properties in the project area that have
an Agricultural zoning designation (Assessor Parcel Numbers 941-1560-001-01,941-1560-001-02,941-1560-003-
03, 941-1560-005, and 941-1560-006.
The park and building reuse proposed on the parcels (which fall into the community facility and cemetery use
categories for purposes of zoning classification) are permitted in an Agricultural zoning district, so the proposed
project does not conflict with the zoning and has no detrimental impact to agricultural resources.
Air Quality
(Where available, the significance criteria established by the
applicable air quality management district may be relied on
to make the following determinations).
Would the project:
(Sources: 1, 4, 7)
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
Potentially Less than Less than No Impact
Significant significant Significant
Impact with Impact
mitigation
X
X
Initial Study for the Dublin Historic Park Master Plan Addendum and Kolb Building Relocation and Reuse
Page 15 of 34
April 22, 2008
':...
c) Result in a cumulatively consjjerable 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 that exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
x
x
x
a-b) Would the project conflict or obstruct implementation of an air quality plan or violate any air
quality standards?
Pleasanton site: Less than siqnificant with mitiqation. The demolition of building materials always carries with it a
certain risk that particulate matter could be problematic from an air quality perspective. In the process of securing
permits to move the buildings, the building movers will be required to sample and test suspected asbestos
containing materials to see what protocol need be followed related to Regulated Asbestos Containing Material
(RACM). Since the main house and other buildings were built in the early part of the 20th century, it is likely that
they contain some RACM and will need to be treated as such.
Adherence to the following mitigation measure will ensure that the impacts of the building deconstruction and
building move are less than significant:
Mitigation Measure 1: In accordance with Bav Area Air Qualitv Manaaement District (BAAQMD)
reaulations, the proiect proponent will be required to obtain a District iob number (J#) prior to structural
demolition.
Dublin site (Proiect Area): Less than siqnificant with mitiqation. The proposed project would not conflict with the
local Clean Air Plan adopted by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Air quality impacts result from two
main sources: temporary impacts due to project construction and long-term impacts due to project operation.
Generally, air quality impacts from project operation are based on vehicular emission from traffic. The current
Dublin Historic Park Master Plan proposes an 800 square foot pavilion/classroom building. With the relocation of
the five Kolb Ranch buildings, one of which will now be used for the classroom building and eliminating the need
for the construction of the original building, the total square footage being added to the Historic Park site is 4,305
square feet - an increase of 3,505 square feet over the original proposal.
In general, parks and recreational facilities are typically not large traffic generators, they are not typically peak-hour
trip generators, and vehicle trips are spread throughout the day on weekdays as well as weekends. The Institute
of Traffic Engineering trip generation manual has a very limited sample of traffic studies for public City park
facilities, and there is no recent data that has been collected, which makes it difficult to quantify the precise traffic
impacts of park facilities. However, the few studies that have been conducted show that the peak trip generation
time periods for park facilities are weekday mid-day and on the weekends, but the study data varies greatly
depending on the size of the park and the combination of amenities.
Initial Study for the Dublin Historic Park Master Plan Addendum and Kolb Building Relocation and Reuse
Page 16 of 34
April 22, 2008
Even with the additional ranch buildings being added to the site (a total increase of 3,505 square feet), the actual
intensity of use of the park site is not expected to substantially increase, and therefore the air quality impacts are
not expected to be significant in comparison with the original Historic Park Master Plan proposal and the Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration which was prepared and adopted by the City.
In terms of construction-related impacts, it is anticipated that the project would generate temporary increases in
dust and particulate matter caused by minor site excavation and grading activities as buildings and facilities in the
area are constructed. Construction vehicle equipment on unpaved surfaces generates dust as would wind blowing
over exposed earth surfaces. However, City regulations require that a project-specific Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Program (SWPPP) be developed when the construction drawings for the Historic Park are prepared,
which will also address air quality issues. The SWPPP will contain measures relating to the containment of
fugitive dust during grading and construction activities, mandating that construction equipment be kept in proper
running order, mandating that the developer is responsible for watering or other dust-palliative measures to control
dust as conditions warrant or as directed by the City Engineer, and mandating the avoidance of construction waste
burning to reduce short-term air quality impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Through the required SWPPP, the project shall implement dust control measures to reduce project dust deposition
to acceptable levels. Dust control shall conform to the requirements of the SWPPP, which for the proposed Dublin
Historic Park Master Plan, will be developed by the Parks and Community Services Development Staff in
cooperation with the City's Public Works Staff.
Adherence to the following mitigation measure area will ensure that the impacts of construction related to the
relocation of the Kolb buildings are less than significant:
Mitiaation Measure 2:. In accordance with City requlations. a proiect-specific Storm Water Pollution
Prevention ProGram (SWPPP) shall be prepared in compliance with the City's NPDES permit. The
SWPPP shall have the followinG minimum requirements:
1. Active construction areas will be watered daily and more frequently if necessary.
2. All trucks haulinG soil. sand or other loose materials shall be covered.
3. Water shall be applied daily. or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parkinq
areas. and exposed stockpiles at construction sites.
4. All access roads and parkinq areas at construction sites shall be swept daily with water sweepers.
c) Would the project result in cumulatively considerable air pollutants?
Pleasanton site: No impact. The Kolb Ranch buildings are being moved from this location to another, so there will
be no impacts resulting in considerable air pollutants.
Dublin site (Project Area) Less than siqnificant impact. The BAAQMD has established thresholds for determining
whether a given project has the potential for significant air quality impacts. If a project exceeds the thresholds,
detailed air quality analyses are usually required. If the project does not exceed the thresholds, it is typically
assumed to have a less than significant impact on air quality. BAAQMD does not usually recommend a detailed
air quality analysis for projects generating less than 2,000 vehicle trips per day. It is difficult to quantify the number
of daily vehicle trips for a typical public park facility, but based on the fact that the project is the addition of 3,505
Initial Study for the Dublin Historic Park Master Plan Addendum and Kolb Building Relocation and Reuse
Page 17 of 34
April 22, 2008
square feet of building area to an already-existing public park, the increase in estimated vehicle trips to the Historic
Park attributable to the relocation of the Kolb Ranch buildings is expected to be minimal.
Implementing the proposed project will not generate significant additional amounts of traffic, as described above.
Vehicular emissions are estimated to be less than significant. Overall, the air quality impacts associated with the
proposed project would be below the standard of air quality significance as established by the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District.
d, e) Expose sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations or create objectionable
odors?
Pleasanton site: No impact. The Kolb Ranch buildings are being moved from this location to another, so there will
be no impacts to sensitive receptors or the creation of objectionable odors.
Dublin site (Project Area): Less than siqnificant impact. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District defines
sensitive receptors as facilities where sensitive receptor population groups (children, the elderly, the acutely ill and
the chronically ill) are likely to be located. These land uses include residences, schools, playgrounds, child-care
centers, hospitals and medical clinics. This project would involve construction and development of new park
facilities where people would gather for recreation, although the relocation of the Kolb Ranch buildings do not
involve the construction of any playground areas..
The relocated Kolb Ranch buildings will not be placed in the vicinity of any significant generators of pollutants such
as a factory or agricultural operation, but the buildings will be located in the Historic Park, which is adjacent to
Interstate 580. 1-580 carries a significant amount of traffic and produces pollution and odors from vehicle
emissions. However, the relocated ranch buildings are currently located in close proximity to 1-580, so the new
building location will not be measurably different form that perspective. The Historic Park property wOl,Jld be a
public park with public facilities regardless of whether the Kolb Ranch Buildings were relocated to the site or not,
so any impacts to sensitive receptors would not be significantly different with the buildings or without. Therefore,
the relocation of the Kolb Ranch Buildings will not increase the exposure of sensitive receptors to significant
pollutant concentrations or create objectionable odors at the Dublin Historic Park, and the impacts are expected to
be less than significant.
Biological Resources
Would the 'project:
(Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 7)
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?
Potentially Less than Less than No Impact
. Significant significant Significant
Impact with Impact
mitigation
X
Initial Study for the Dublin Historic Park Master Plan Addendum and Kolb Building Relocation and Reuse
Page 18 of 34
April 22, 2008
L
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies or regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse impact on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption
or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as tree protection ordinances?
~ Conflict with the provision of an adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other
approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan?
x
X
X
X
X
a-b) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly through habitat modifications, on any riparian
habitat or 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?
Pleasanton site: No impact. There is limited information available on the existing Kolb property, but it is known
that the site from which the buildings are being moved has been used for the past decades as an active
homestead and farm, and therefore the potential for impacts to flora or fauna are very limited.
Dublin site (Project Area): No impact. The original Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin
Historic Park Master Plan, adopted by the Dublin City Council on August 1,2006, included all necessary mitigation
measures to account for any possible disturbance to candidate, sensitive, or special status species. Because the
areas proposed for locating the Kolb Ranch buildings at the Historic Park site were areas that we already intended
for disturbance, the previous CEQA document adequately covered these issues.
c) Have a substantial adverse impact on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption or other means?
Pleasanton site: No impact. There are no federally protected wetlands on the site.
Dublin site (Project Area): No impact. There are minimal alterations proposed to Dublin Creek in the project area,
but those alterations are to take place with or without the Kolb Ranch building relocation and the impacts were
already addressed in the original Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin Historic Park Master
Plan (as referenced above).
Initial Study for the Dublin Historic Park Master Plan Addendum and Kolb Building Relocation and Reuse
Page 19 of 34
April 22, 2008
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
Pleasanton site: No impact. There are no known native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species on the site.
Dublin site (Proiect Area): No impact. Because the creek and its associated flora is proposed to be left in its
natural state, with the exception of the construction of the footbridge footings, no migration corridors should be
interrupted. This disturbance in the vicinity of Dublin Creek is to take place with or without the Kolb Ranch building
relocation and the impacts were already addressed in the original Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for
the Dublin Historic Park Master Plan (as referenced above).
e-f) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree
protection ordinances or conflict with the provision of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional or state habitat
conservation plan?
Pleasanton site: Less than siqnificant with mitiqation. The City of Pleasanton's Tree Preservation Ordinance
(Chapter 17.16 of the City's Municipal Code) requires a permit to remove any tree considered a "heritage tree". It
is unknown at this time the route that will need to be taken in order to remove the buildings from the property in
Pleasanton, but it is possible that some trees may need to be removed.
Once the building move path is determined, a tree survey will need to be prepared and an arborist's report (if
necessary) completed in compliance with the City of Pleasanton Tree Preservation Ordinance. Adherence to the
following mitigation measure will ensure that the projects will be less than significant.
Mitiaation Measure 3: The proiect shall comply with Chapter 17. 16 of the Pleasanton Municipal Code,
"Tree Preservation".
There are no adopted conservation plans in the project area with which the proposed project would be in conflict.
Dublin site (Project Area): No impact. The original Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin
Historic Park Master Plan, adopted by the Dublin City Council on August 1, 2006, included all necessary mitigation
measures to require adherence to the City of Dublin's Heritage Tree Ordinance.
There are no adopted conservation plans in the project area with which the proposed project would be in conflict.
Cultural Resources
Would the project:
(Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7)
Potentially Less than Less than No Impact
Significant significant Significant
Impact with Impact
mitigation
Initial Study for the Dublin Historic Park Master Plan Addendum and Kolb Building Relocation and Reuse
Page 20 of 34
April 22, 2008
Cultural Resources
Would the project:
(Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7)
a) Cause a substantial adverse impact in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Sec.
15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archeological resource pursuant to Sec. 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource
or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside
of a formal cemetery?
-~
Potentially Less than Less than No Impact
Significant significant Significant
Impact with Impact
mitigation
X
X
X
X
a) Cause substantial adverse change to a significant historic resource?
Less than siqnificant. The Kolb family has historic roots in both the cities of Pleasanton and Dublin dating back to
the 1880's. Phillip Kolb was a major business and community leader in Pleasanton at that time, and around 1904,
Phillip's brother, George Kolb, established the family farm on 350 acres on Dublin Canyon Road. The property
included land which overlapped what is now the two cities of Dublin and Pleasanton, before construction of
Highway 50, which later became Interstate 580.
Although none of the Kolb Ranch buildings are identified Federal, State, or Local historical resources, it could be
argued that the buildings are eligible for listing on a Historic Resource Inventory. In conducting the due diligence
in preparation for this project proposal, the City of Dublin commissioned a study by architectural historians Kelley
and VerPlank Historical Resources Consulting, who noted in a Technical Memorandum dated October 27,2007
that they believe the Kolb Ranch buildings are (local) historic resources and that the Kolb Ranch "buildings and
settings tell us much about the history of Dublin." None of the Kolb Ranch buildings are on Pleasanton's list of
local historic structures and the buildings were not required by Pleasanton's PUD development plan approval in
2000 to be retained when the Kolb Ranch property develops into a senior care facility as is planned. However, the
structures are significant enough to the City of Dublin to warrant moving the buildings to the Dublin Historic Park
site.
Therefore, according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, a project with an effect that might have a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the
environment. However, Section 15064.5 also notes that a project that follows the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and
Reconstructing Historic Buildings (1995), shall be considered as mitigated to a level of less than a significant
impact on the historic resource.
It is the intent of the Project proponents that to the extent possible, the relocation and restoration of the Kolb
Ranch buildings shall be done according to the "Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (1995)"
in order to preserve the most historically relevant characteristics of the buildings. It was the opinion of the historic
architect reviewing the proposal to relocate the buildings, Frederic Knapp, that the rehabilitation of the buildings as
proposed will conform to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards.
Initial Study for the Dublin Historic Park Master Plan Addendum and Kolb Building Relocation and Reuse
Page 21 of 34
April 22, 2008
An addition to the adherence to the Secretary's Standards, it was also noted in the Kelley and VerPlank Technical
Memorandum that "there is a significant interpretative benefit to relocating at least three of the Kolb Ranch
structures because they will create an 'ensemble' that reproduces the historic relationships among buildings that
characterized the home ranch of rural California."
Dublin's Historic Park is comprised of land contiguous to the original Kolb Ranch. The Kolb Ranch buildings are
proposed to be restored in this historic setting among other buildings with historically compatible uses. The
relocation of the Kolb buildings in this setting will ensure that the impacts to both the Kolb structures as well as the
historic resources already present in the Dublin Historic Park will not be substantially impacted. Additionally, it is
noted in the Kolb Ranch Addendum to the Historic Park Master Plan that the spatial relationships of the Kolb
Ranch buildings shall be replicated in their new location as far as is practicable and that landscape features with
historically appropriate plant materials shall be used to recreate the spaces between the ranch structures.
The relocation and rehabilitation of the Kolb Ranch buildings conform to the Design Guidelines contained within
the Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan, which were based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for
the Treatment of Historic Buildings. Additionally, the proposed project is in compliance with Chapter 8.62 of the
Dublin Zoning Ordinance (Historic Overlay Zoning District), ensuring that impacts to significant historic resources
in the project area are less than significant.
In conclusion, it is the combination of proposed adherence to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the
treatment of the Kolb Ranch buildings, the fact that the buildings will be relocated to property that was contiguous
to the original Kolb Ranch, and the fact that the Kolb Ranch buildings are proposed to be restored in a historic
setting among other buildings with historically compatible uses allows the conclusion that the impacts to all of the
involved historic resources will be less than significant.
b-d) Cause substantial adverse change to significant archeological or paleontological resource or a
unique geologic feature or disturb any human remains (either inside or outside a formal
cemetery)?
No impact. There are no new impacts with the proposed project that were not already addressed, and mitigated if
necessary, in the original Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin Historic Park Master Plan as
adopted by the Dublin City Council on August 1, 2006.
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist or based on other known evidence of a
known fault?
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Potentially Less than Less than No Impact
Significant significant Significant
Impact with Impact
mitiqation
X
X
X
Geology and Soils
Would the project:
(Sources: 1, 2, 4, 7)
Initial Study for the Dublin Historic Park Master Plan Addendum and Kolb Building Relocation and Reuse
Page 22 of 34
April 22, 2008
-.,.
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a result of the project and
potentially result in on- and off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or similar hazards?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 13-1-B of
the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks
to life or property?
e) Have soils capable of adequately supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where
sewers are not available for the disposal of waste?
x
X
X
X
X
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist or based on other known evidence of
a known fault? Expose people to strong seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure
(including liquefaction), or landslides?
Pleasanton site: No impact. Buildings are being removed from this location.
Dublin site (Proiect Area): Less than siqnificant impact. Active earthquake faults within the region that influence
earthquake susceptibility include the San Andreas, Hayward, Calaveras and Greenville Faults. The Calaveras
Fault runs through Dublin generally along San Ramon Road, close to the Project Area.
Signed into law in 1972, the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was signed into law with the intent to
mitigate the hazard of surface faulting to structures for human occupancy. The Act requires that all residential
construction within a fault zone has a comprehensive geologic investigation completed prior to building that shows
that the fault does not pose a hazard to the proposed structure.
Under moderate to severe seismic events, which are probable in the Bay Area, structures and facilities in the
project area would be subject to damage caused by ground shaking. The General Plan contains policies in both
the Conservation Element and the Seismic Safety and Safety Element that will reduce the potential impact of
ground failure and rupture. Adherence to these policies is required for any development in the City.
Adherence to all requirements of the Uniform Building Code (UBC), and the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Act requirement that all construction plans in a fault zone incorporate the recommendations of a
geotechnical investigation, will ensure that the project impacts are less than significant. It is a City standard that a
registered Professional Engineer design the grading and foundation plans for any new construction. A Registered
Geotechnical Engineer is is required to stamp and sign the grading and foundation plans certifying that they
conform to the recommendations contained in the final geotechnical investigation, and this is verified when grading
plans are reviewed and approved by the Building Division and the Public Works Department. Additionally, all
structures proposed to be built within the Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone will be subject to additional near-fault structural
requirements and the plans will be reviewed by the Building Division through the plan check process.
Initial Study for the Dublin Historic Park Master Plan Addendum and Kolb Building Relocation and Reuse
Page 23 of 34
April 22, 2008
b-d) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil, be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or be located on expansive soil?
Pleasanton site: No impact.
Dublin site: Less than siqnificant with mitiqation. The project area is underlain by stiff to very stiff clay soil to a
depth of approximately 20 feet below ground surface. At depths greater than 20 feet, soil varies from medium
dense to dense clayey and silty sands. Properties in the project area have been previously disturbed, graded, and
paved in many instances to accommodate buildings, parking areas, roads, and other public and private
improvements. For any construction project that is proposed in the project area, the Applicant will be required to
obtain a grading permit from the City, and approval of the permit will be based on compliance with standard City
development procedures.
According to the United States Geologic Survey and the California State Department of Emergency Services,
properties in the project area are all classified as having moderate susceptibility for ground liquefaction, as well as
other seismic hazards. The following mitigation measure will serve to reduce the impacts of the project to less
than significant:
Mitiaation Measure No.4: A site-specific soils report/qeotechincal investiqation shall be required prior to
site development and shall be conducted bv a California-reqistered qeoloqist or a California-reqistered
enqineerinq qeoloqist. The report shall address the potential for expansive soils and qround liquefaction.
Specific measures to reduce seismic hazards, expansive soils. and liquefaction hazards to a less than
siqnificant level shall be included in the report and those measures shall be implemented as part of the
site development.
e) Have soils capable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste?
Pleasanton site: No impact. No new development at this site is part of this project proposal.
Dublin site (Project Area) No impact. The project area is served by an existing sewer system.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would the project:
(Sources: 1, 2, 4, 7)
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of hazardous into the
environment?
Potentially Less than Less than No Impact
Significant significant Significant
Impact with Impact
mitigation
X
X
Initial Study for the Dublin Historic Park Master Plan Addendum and Kolb Building Relocation and Reuse
Page 24 of 34
April 22, 2008
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing
or proposed school?
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?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where
such plan has not been adopted, would the project result in
a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project
area?
~ For a project within the vicinity of private airstrip, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with the
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury
or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands
are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
x
X
X
X
X
X
a-c) Create a significant hazard through transport of hazardous materials or release or emission of
hazardous materials?
Pleasanton site: Less than siqnificant with mitiqation. When the building moves occur, they shall be done in
accordance with the appropriate City of Pleasanton demolition and/or building permit, which requires compliance
with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) regulations. Because the buildings were
constructed in the early part of the 20th century, there is a possibility that either lead paint or asbestos is present in
the building, both of which are considered hazardous materials. Adherence to the following mitigation measure
will ensure that the presence of and removal of those materials in that building, as well as any other building
proposed to be demolished in the project area, has a less than significant impact on the environment.
Mitiaation Measure No.5: Prior to demolition of any of the Kolb Ranch buildinQs, the buildinq shall be
sampled to determine if the buildinQ contains lead paint and/or asbestos. If either of the materials are
determined to be present and are to be removed, they shall be handled and disposed of as a hazardous
material and in compliance with all applicable local, state, and federal reQulations.
The project site is not within one quarter mile of an existing school.
Dublin site (Proiect Area): Less than siQnificant with mitiQation. The same issues that apply above with the safe
handling of hazardous materials shall apply when the buildings are being reconstructed as well.
Mitiaation Measure No.6: If any of the Kolb Ranch buildinqs are determined to contain lead paint
and/or asbestos that is disturbed and to be removed. they shall be handled and disposed of as a
Initial Study for the Dublin Historic Park Master Plan Addendum and Kolb Building Relocation and Reuse
Page 25 of 34
April 22, 2008
'-
hazardous material and in compliance with all applicable local, state, and federal reQulations prior to their
rehabilitation and reuse at the Dublin Historic Park site.
The project site is not within one quarter mile of an existing school.
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?
Pleasanton site: No impact. No new development or activity is proposed on this site.
Dublin site (Project Area): Less than siQnificant impact. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was conducted
for the Dublin Square Shopping Center site at 11759 Dublin Boulevard in January 2005, which is one of the
properties within the project area. The study found that there are several facilities within the City that appear on
regulatory agency lists, but that no facilities appear to be affecting the environmental conditions in the project area
itself. Properties in the project area were used in the past for agricultural purposes, so there is a possibility that
pesticide/herbicide contamination may be present near the surface, but it is not expected to be present in high
levels due to the amount of time that has passed since agricultural operations were underway. Therefore, the
potential of the site to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment is less than significant.
e,f) Is the site located within an airport land use plan of a public airport or private airstrip?
No impact. Neither site is located within an airport land use plan or within the immediate vicinity of a public airport;
therefore no impacts are anticipated regarding airport noise or crash hazards zones.
g,h) Interference with an emergency evacuation plan, expose people and structures to a significant
risk involving wildland fires, and are nearby residences intermixed with wildlands?
No impact. Neither site is located in an area that is at risk involving wildland fires.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the project:
(Sources: 1, 2, 4, 7)
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aqUifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (e.g. the production rate of
existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted?
Potentially Less than Less than No Impact
Significant significant Significant
Impact with Impact
mitiqation
X
X
Initial Study for the Dublin Historic Park Master Plan Addendum and Kolb Bui/ding Relocation and Reuse
Page 26 of 34
April 22, 2008
Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the project:
(Sources: 1, 2, 4, 7)
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the aeration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
areas, including through the alteration of a course or stream
or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on-
or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
~ Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a 1 OO-year flood hazard area as mapped
on a Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map
or other flood delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which
impede or redirect flood flows?
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?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow?
Potentially Less than Less than No Impact
Significant significant Significant
Impact with Impact
mitiaation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
a-f) 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 a flood plain?
Pleasanton site: No impact. No new development or activity is proposed on this site.
Dublin site (Project Area): No impact. The original Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin
Historic Park Master Plan, adopted by the Dublin City Council on August 1,2006, included all necessary mitigation
measures to account for impacts to hydrology and water quality.
g-j) Place housing within a 1 DO-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map? Place within a 100-year flood hazard
area structures which impede or redirect flood flows? 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? Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow?
Pleasanton site: No impact. No new development or activity is proposed on this site.
Page 27 of 34
April 22, 2008
Initial Study for the Dublin Historic Park Master Plan Addendum and Kolb Building Relocation and Reuse
Dublin site (Project Area: Less than significant impact. The relocated Kolb Ranch buildings will be located in a
X500 flood zone area, which is defined as an area with a 0.2% annual chance flooding. Because the Kolb Ranch
buildings will be used intermittently and not for residential purposes, the flood impacts to people or structures will
be less than significant.
Land Use and Planning
Would the project:
(Sources: 1, 2, 4, 7)
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation
of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but
not limited to the general plan, specific plan, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating
an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan?
Potentially Less than Less than No Impact
Significant significant Significant
Impact with Impact
mitiaation
X
X
X
a-c) Physically divide an established community, conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or
regulation, or conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
No impact. The original Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin Historic Park Master Plan,
adopted by the Dublin City Council on August 1, 2006, included all necessary mitigation measures to account for
impacts to land use and planning.
Mineral Resources
Would the project
(Sources: 1, 4, 7)
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general Plan,
specific plan or other land use plan?
Potentially Less than Less than No Impact
Significant significant Significant
Impact with Impact
mitiaation
X
X
No impact. Neither of the properties are within the project area designated by the California State Department of
Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, as having deposits of minerals. Additionally, no mineral resources
are shown on the State of California's maps of such resources, and therefore no impacts are expected as a result
of project implementation.
Initial Study for the Dublin Historic Park Master Plan Addendum and Kolb Building Relocation and Reuse
Page 28 of 34
April 22, 2008
Noise
Would the project result in:
(Source: 1, 4, 7)
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess
of standards established in the general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in
the project vicinity above existing levels without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels without the
project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working n the project area to excessive
noise levels?
D 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?
(
"-<
Potentially Less than Less than No Impact
Significant significant Significant
Impact with Impact
mitiaation
X
X
X
X
X
X
a-f) Would the project expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards
established by the General Plan or other applicable standard, expose people to groundborne
vibration, result in permanent increases in ambient noise levels?
No impact. There are no new impacts with the proposed project that were not already addressed, and mitigated if
necessary, in the original Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin Historic Park Master Plan as
adopted by the Dublin City Council on August 1, 2006.
Population and Housing
Would the project:
(Sources: 1, 4, 7)
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly
or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or
other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
replacement of housing elsewhere?
Potentially Less than Less than No Impact
Significant significant Significant
Impact with Impact
mitigation
X
X
X
Page 29 of 34
April 22, 2008
Initial Study for the Dublin Historic Park Master Plan Addendum and Kolb Building Relocation and Reuse
f
i
No impact. There are no new impacts with the proposed project that were not already addressed, and mitigated if
necessary, in the original Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin Historic Park Master Plan as
adopted by the Dublin City Council on August 1, 2006.
Public Services
(Sources: 1, 4, 7)
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
Potentially Less than Less than No Impact
Significant significant Significant
Impact with Impact
mitigation
X
X
X
X
X
No Impact. There are no new impacts with the proposed project that were not already addressed, and mitigated if
necessary, in the original Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin Historic Park Master Plan as
adopted by the Dublin City Council on August 1, 2006.
Recreation
(Sources: 1, 4, 7)
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood
or regional facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities that
might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Potentially Less than Less than No Impact
Significant significant Significant
Impact with Impact
mitiaation
x
X
No impact. There are no new impacts with the proposed project that were not already addressed, and mitigated if
necessary, in the original Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin Historic Park Master Plan as
adopted by the Dublin City Council on August 1, 2006.
Transportation and Traffic
Would the project:
(Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 7)
Potentially Less than Less than No Impact
Significant significant Significant
Impact with Impact
mitiaation
Initial Study for the Dublin Historic Park Master Plan Addendum and Kolb Building Relocation and Reuse
Page 30 of 34
April 22, 2008
Transportation and Traffic
Would the project:
(Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 7)
a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (Le.
result in a substantial increase in either the number of
vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads or
congestion at intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the County Congestion
Management Agency for designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results
in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses, such as farm equipment?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
o Result in inadequate parking capacity?
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting
alternative transportation (such as bus turnouts and oicycle
facilities)?
-,
--:.
Potentially Less than Less than No Impact
Significant significant Significant
Impact with Impact
mitiaation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
No impacts. No impacts are anticipated with regard to traffic or parking for the proposed project. Existing and
proposed roadway improvements have been designed and sized to provide adequate transportation facilities and
transit modes with sufficient capacity for the existing and proposed uses.
Recreational facilities - even those with classroom and small outdoor stage facilities - are typically not large traffic
generators. They are typically not peak-hour trip generators, and are primarily local-serving. Vehicle trips are
spread throughout the day, and in fact the concentration of trips tends to be during non-peak hour times such as
afternoons, evenings, and weekends, which minimizes potential impacts to the city circulation systems
As noted above, there is limited data on the traffic generation rates of public City park facilities, so the actual
number of trips is difficult to quantify. However, due to the minimal amount of building square footage being added
to the park site, it can reasonable be concluded that there are no new impacts with the proposed project that were
not already addressed, and mitigated if necessary, in the original Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for
the Dublin Historic Park Master Plan as adopted by the Dublin City Council on August 1, 2006.
Utilities and Service Systems
Would the project
(Sources: 1, 2, 4, 7 )
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
Potentially Less than Less than No Impact
Significant significant Significant
Impact with Impact
mitiaation
X
Page 31 of 34
April 22, 2008
Initial Study for the Dublin Historic Park Master Plan Addendum and Kolb Building Relocation and Reuse
Utilities and Service Systems
Would the project
(Sources: 1, 2, 4, 7)
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
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?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing water'entitlements and resources, or are new
or expanded entitlements needed?
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 existing commitments?
~ Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
()
~"'/
Potentially Less than Less than No Impact
Significant significant Significant
Impact with Impact
mitiaation
X
X
X
X
X
X
No impact. There are no new impacts with the proposed project that were not already addressed, and mitigated if
necessary, in the original Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin Historic Park Master Plan as
adopted by the Dublin City Council on August 1, 2006.
Mandatory Findings of
Significance.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number of or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects, the ~ffects of other current projects and the
effects of probable future projects),
Potentialfy Less than Less than No Impact
Significant significant Significant
Impact with Impact
mitiaation
X
X
Initial Study for the Dublin Historic Park Master Plan Addendum and Kolb Building Relocation and Reuse
Page 32 of 34
April 22, 2008
.,.--'
cj Does the project have environmental effects that will cause I
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly
or indirectly?
x
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number of or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory?
Less than siQnificant with mitiQation. The preceding analysis indicates that the proposed project will not have a
significant adverse impact on the environment with the incorporation of all mitigation measures as proposed. The
implementation of all stated mitigation measures will ensure that any potential impacts are reduced to a less than
significant level.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects
and the effects of probable future projects).
No. Although incremental increases in certain areas can be expected as a result of the implementation of the
proposed project, the implementation of all stated mitigation measures will ensure that any potential impacts are
mitigated to a less than significant level.
c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
No such impacts have been discovered in the course of preparing this Initial Study.
Initial Study for the Dublin Historic Park Master Plan Addendum and Kolb Building Relocation and Reuse
Page 33 of 34
April 22, 2008
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
INITIAL STUDY PREPARER
Kristi Bascom, Consulting 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 - Planning and Building Divisions
City of Dublin, Parks and Community Services Department
City of Pleasanton, Community Development Department - Planning and Building Divisions
REFERENCES
1. Dublin Historic Park Master Plan Draft Addendum - Kolb Ranch Relocation (including the Technical
Memorandum prepared by Kelley & VerPlanck Historical Resources Consulting)
2. Dublin Historic Park Master Plan (2006)
3. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan and
General Plan Amendment, et ai, dated May 25, 2006 (prepared by the City of Dublin Community
Development Department).
4. Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan (prepared by the City of Dublin Community Development
Department) August 2006
5. April 1, 2008 City of Pleasanton staff report, "Information Concerning the City of Dublin's Request to
Relocate Structures Located on the Former Kolb Ranch Property at 11393 Dublin Canyon Road to the
Dublin Historic Park", prepared by Jerry Iserson, Community Development Director
Initial Study for the Dublin Historic Park Master Plan Addendum and Kolb Building Relocation and Reuse
Page 34 of 34
April 22, 2008
,-')
'---
CITY OF DUBLIN
100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California 94568
Website: http://www.cLdublin.ca.us
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Title: Kolb Ranch Building Move, Rehabilitation, and Facility Reuse at the Dublin Historic Park
and accompanying Dublin Historic Park Master Plan Addendum (Kolb Ranch Relocation)
Project Description: The City of Dublin is proposing to adopt an Addendum to the Dublin Historic Park Master
Plan to note the relocation of five buildings from the historic Kolb Ranch in Pleasanton to the
Dublin Historic Park site. The buildings include the Main House, the Old House, the Sunday
School Barn, the Hay Barn, and the Pump House. This Initial Study examines the potential
environmental impacts of this action and the associated implementation actions, collectively
referred to as the proposed project.
Project Location: Five buildings will be moved from the Kolb property at 11393 Dublin Canyon Road
approximately 1500 feet to the northeast to the location of the future Dublin Historic Park at
the southwest corner of Donlon Way and Dublin Boulevard. Specifically, Assessor Parcel
Numbers 941-2819-005 in Pleasanton and 941-1560-007-01,941-1560-001-01,941-1560-
001-02, 941-1560-005, 941-1560-006, and 941-1560-003-03 in Dublin.
Applicant: City of Dublin, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568
Determination: I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have
been made by or agreed to by the project proponent.
Kristi Bascom, Consulting Planner
Date
A copy of the Initial Study documenting the reasons to support the above finding is available at the City of Dublin, 100
Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568, or by calling (925) 833-6610.
Date NOI Mailed:
Date Posted:
Date Published:
Comment Period:
Considered by:
On:
N.O.D. filed:
City Council Resolution No.
April 18, 2008
April 22, 2008
April 22, 2008
April 22, 2008 - May 12, 2008
Dublin City Council
June 3, 2008
June 4, 2008
xx-08
Mitigation Monitoring Program Checklist
Kolb Ranch Building Move, Rehabilitation, and Facility Reuse at the Dublin Historic Park and Dublin Historic Park Master Plan Addendum
Mitigation Measure One time or Responsible for Responsible for Form of Initial/Date
Ongoing Implementation Verification verification
Mitigation Measure 1: In accordance with Bay Area Air Quality One time for PCS Building Job number
Management District (BAAQMD) regulations, the project proponent will each building issued by
be required to obtain a District job number (J#) prior to structural proposed to be BAAQMD prior
demolition. demolished to City
demolition
permit
issuance
Mitigation Measure 2: In accordance with City regulations, a project- Through the end PW PW, Building SWPPP on file
specific Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) shall be of construction.
prepared in compliance with the City's NPDES permit. The SWPPP
shall have the following minimum requirements:
1. Active construction areas will be watered daily and more frequently
if necessary.
2. All trucks hauling soil, sand or other loose materials shall be
covered.
3. Water shall be applied daily, or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers on all
unpaved access roads, parking areas, and exposed stockpiles at
construction sites.
4. All access roads and parking areas at construction sites shall be
swept daily with water sweepers.
Mitigation Measure 3: The project shall comply with Chapter 17.16 of Ongoing through PCS PCS Agency
the Pleasanton Municipal Code, "Tree Preservation" agency approvals
approval.
Mitigation Measure 4: A site-specific soils report/geotechincal One time at time PCS and PCS Agency
investigation shall be required prior to site development and shall be of building Building approvals
conducted by a California-registered geologist or a California-registered permit issuance
engineering geologist. The report shall address the potential for }
expansive soils and ground liquefaction. Specific measures to reduce
seismic hazards, expansive soils, and liquefaction hazards to a less
than significant level shall be included in the report and those measures \, .-,::.:)
shall be implemented as part of the site development.
Mitigation Measure 5: Prior to demolition of any of the Kolb Ranch One time for PCS PCS Agency \~:
buildings, the building shall be sampled to determine if the building each building approvals
Mitigation Measure One time or Responsible for Responsible for Form of Initial/Date
Ongoing Implementation Verification verification
contains lead paint and/or asbestos. If either of the materials are proposed to be
determined to be present and are to be removed, they shall be handled demolished
and disposed of as a hazardous material and in compliance with all
applicable local, state, and federal regulations.
Mitigation Measure 6: If any of the Kolb Ranch buildings are One time for PCS Building Agency
determined to contain lead paint and/or asbestos that is disturbed and each building approvals
to be removed, they shall be handled and disposed of as a hazardous proposed to be
material and in compliance with all applicable local, state, and federal demolished
regulations prior to their rehabilitation and reuse at the Dublin Historic
Park site