The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About4.11 Approval of Plans and Specifications and Award of Contract to Saboo, Inc. for the Dublin Heritage Park Cemetery Improvements Project No. PK0215 (2)STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL Page 1 of 3 Agenda Item 4.11 DATE:April 20, 2021 TO:Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM:Linda Smith, City Manager SUBJECT:Approval of Plans and Specifications and Award of Contract to Saboo, Inc. for the Dublin Heritage Park Cemetery Improvements Project No. PK0215 Prepared by: Rosemary Alex, Parks and Facilities Development Coordinator EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The City Council will consider approving the plans and specifications and awarding a contract to Saboo, Inc. for the Dublin Heritage Park Cemetery Improvements project, CIP No. PK0215. The scope of work includes street frontage and parking improvements, renovated landscaping, lighting, improved pathways, renovated courtyard, and site furnishings. The completed improvements will facilitate the revised memorial program at the cemetery. The City Council will also consider authorizing the City Manager to increase the budget based on the addition of project alternates and a construction contingency amount. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Resolution Approving the Plans and Specifications and Awarding a Contract to Saboo, Inc. for the Dublin Heritage Park Cemetery Improvements Project, CIP No. PK0215. FINANCIAL IMPACT: As approved in the 2020-2025 Capital Improvement Program, the total budget for the Dublin Heritage Park Cemetery Improvements is $1,500,000, funded by a Developer contribution from the Schaefer Ranch project. The available budget for improvements is $1,035,000. The base bid submitted by Saboo, Inc. is $936,000. Staff recommends the inclusion of all three add alternate items for $95,000, and a contingency in the amount of $100,000, for a total potential construction contract amount of $1,131,000. Award of the base bid, alternates, and contingency requires a budget increase of $96,000. The available project funds and proposed budget adjustment are summarized as follows: Project Funding Source General Fund (Developer contribution)$1,500,000 Total Funding $1,500,000 322 Page 2 of 3 Project Costs Base Bid $936,000 Add Alternate #1 - Landscape Adjacent Picnic Area $36,000 Add Alternate #2 - Replacement of Concrete Pathway $47,000 Add Alternate #3 - Upgrade Irrigation Controller $12,000 Construction Contingency $100,000 Soft Costs (Staff, Consultants, miscellaneous)$465,000 Total Estimated Expenditures $1,596,000 Funding Shortfall $(96,000) Additional Funding Source General Fund Assigned Non-Streets CIP Reserve $96,000 Total Additional Funding Requested $96,000 DESCRIPTION: The 2020-2025 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) includes the Dublin Heritage Park Cemetery Improvements project, CIP No. PK0215. On October 20, 2020, the City Council approved the conceptual design for the project, which included the following elements: Addition of shade and improvements to the courtyard adjacent to Old St. Raymond’s Church. Restoration of the tree allée along Hawthorne Lane and landscape improvements throughout the site. Renovation of existing pathways. Restoration of the parking lot, street frontage improvements, and additional parking along Donlon Way. General lighting improvements and site furnishings. Provision of space for memorial program elements (pavers, monuments, benches and boulders). Upon approval of the conceptual design, Staff and PGA Design completed the construction documents. The plans and specifications were advertised for bid in February 2021 and six sealed bids were received by March 25, 2021. A summary of bids is provided as Attachment 2. Staff reviewed the bid results and bidder qualifications, checked references and necessary licenses, and found that Saboo, Inc. was the lowest responsive bidder. Bid Alternates As part of the bid package, alternates were included to provide flexibility in terms of project scope and meeting current project budget. The following alternates are for City Council consideration: Alternate #1 – planting and irrigation adjacent to the proposed picnic area. Contract Increase: $36,000 323 Page 3 of 3 Alternate #2 – demolition and replacement of concrete pathway adjacent to the proposed memorial space with benches. Contract Increase: $47,000 Alternate #3 – upgrade of existing irrigation controller to a standard City controller that connects to the central control system. Contract Increase: $12,000 Staff recommends including all three alternates, bringing the total construction contract amount to $1,031,000. To facilitate the approval of contract change orders and avoid construction delay, Staff recommends that the City Manager or designee be authorized to approve change orders up to the contingency amount of $100,000. Approval of these changes would require an increase to the project budget by $96,000; the attached resolution authorizes the City Manager to adjust the budget according to the City Council’s decision. Construction is anticipated to begin in May 2021 and to be completed, including the 30-day plant establishment period, in fall 2021. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) This project is included in the following CEQA documents adopted by the City Council therefore no further action is required: Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan, Resolution No. 148-06 dated August 1, 2006 (Attachment 3). Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Kolb Ranch Building Move, Rehabilitation, and Facility Reuse at the Dublin Historic Park, Resolution No. 85-08, dated June 3, 2008 (Attachment 4). STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE: None. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH: A copy of this Staff Report was sent to Saboo, Inc. and the City Council Agenda was posted. ATTACHMENTS: 1) Resolution Approving the Plans and Specifications and Awarding a Contract to Saboo, Inc. for the Dublin Heritage Park Cemetery Improvements Project, CIP No. PK0215. 2) Bid Results 3) Resolution No. 148-06 Adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan Project 4)Resolution No. 85-08 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 324 Attachment 1 Reso. No. XX-21, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/21 Page 1 of 2 RESOLUTION NO. XX – 21 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO SABOO, INC. FOR THE DUBLIN HERITAGE PARK CEMETERY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT CIP NO. PK0215 WHEREAS,the design team completed plans and specifications for the Dublin Heritage Park Cemetery Improvements Project, CIP No. PK0215, (Project), and the Project includes street frontage and parking improvements, renovated landscaping, lighting, improved pathways, renovated courtyard, and site furnishings; and WHEREAS,the City of Dublin did, on March 25, 2021, publicly open, examine, and declare all sealed bids for doing the work described in the approved plans and specifications for the Project, which plans and specifications, are hereby expressly referred to for a description of said work and for all particulars relative to the proceedings under the request for bids; and WHEREAS,said bids were submitted to City Staff and Saboo, Inc. was determined to be the lowest responsive and responsible bidder for doing said work. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin hereby approves the plans and specifications for the Project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby award the Contract for the Project to the lowest responsive bidder, Saboo Inc., at a base bid of $936,000, with the inclusion of add alternate items up to $95,000 as determined during the April 20, 2021 City Council meeting, for a total contract amount up to $1,031,000, the particulars of which bids are on file in the Office of the Public Works Director. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby authorize the City Manager or designee to approve the Project Contract Change Orders based on the appropriate funds designated for the Project up to a contingency amount of $100,000. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager or designee is authorized to execute the Project Construction Agreement with Saboo, Inc. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager or designee is authorized to increase the budget based on the contingency amount of $100,000 and the add alternate items as approved by the City Council during the presentation of this item on April 20, 2021. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of April 2021, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: 325 Reso. No. XX-21, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/21 Page 2 of 2 ______________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ City Clerk 326 Dublin Heritage Park Cemetery Improvements PK0215 Bid Date: BASE BID ITEM Qty.UNIT Unit Cost Extension Unit Cost Extension Unit Cost Extension Unit Cost Extension Unit Cost Extension Unit Cost Extension 1 1 LS $936,000.00 $936,000.00 $1,047,400.00 $1,047,400.00 $1,305,056.00 $1,305,056.00 $1,360,650.00 $1,360,650.00 $1,495,000.00 $1,495,000.00 $2,031,000.00 $2,031,000.00 TOTAL $936,000.00 $1,047,400.00 $1,305,056.00 $1,360,650.00 $1,495,000.00 $2,031,000.00 ADD ALTERNATES ITEM Qty.UNIT Unit Cost Extension Unit Cost Extension Unit Cost Extension Unit Cost Extension Unit Cost Extension Unit Cost Extension 1 1 LS $36,000.00 $36,000.00 $1,550.00 $1,550.00 $12,000.00 $12,000.00 $7,000.00 $7,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $35,200.00 $35,200.00 2 1 LS $47,000.00 $47,000.00 $19,720.00 $19,720.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $28,000.00 $28,000.00 $55,000.00 $55,000.00 $62,000.00 $62,000.00 3 1 LS $12,000.00 $12,000.00 $28,440.00 $28,440.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $14,000.00 $14,000.00 $16,000.00 $16,000.00 $56,000.00 $56,000.00 List of Sub-Contractors Asphalt Striping Concrete On The Level Concrete R and R Maher Marina Landscape Suarez and Munoz Construction Inc. Suarez and Munoz Construction Inc Suarez and Munoz Construction Inc. Ahlborn Fence and Steel Inc. Mike Brown Electric P and J Tree Service Big Valley Metals Calco Fence Mike Brown Electric European Paving Design P and J Tree Service Kerex Engineering Inc. Kerex Engineering Inc. Kerex Engineering Inc. Goodfellows Pacific Coast General Engineering Jensen Landscape Contractor LLC Jensen Landscape Contractor LLC Jensen Landscape Contractor LLC Ground Control Professional Tree Care Co. Landscaping Marina Landscape Los Loza Inc.Marina Landscape Chrisp Company Concrete Pathway Irrigation Controller Tree Removal Professional Tree Care Co. Mike Brown Electric European Paving Design Ahlborn Fence and Steel Inc. Ahlborn Fence and Steel Inc. DESCRIPTION Base Bid - Base Contract Work Demolition Description Saboo Inc.Guerra Construction Group APPARENT LOW BIDDER CITY OF DUBLIN ENGINEERING DIVISION BID SUMMARY March 25, 2021 2:00 p.m. Project Name: Project No. : PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Cal West Saboo Inc. Calco Fence Cal West Guerra Construction Group Bay Area Welding Jim Freethy Excavating Cazadoro Construction Inc. Cazadoro Construction Inc. Bay Area Welding Pavers Fencing Steel European Paving Design Saboo Inc.Guerra Construction Group Cazadoro Construction Inc. DESCRIPTION Planting and Irrigation European Paving Design Electrical Mike Brown ElectricBear Electrical Solutions Ranis Electrical 1 327 Attachment 3 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 13. Determination based on the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for 11759 Dublin Boulevard prepared by Treadwell & Rollo Environmental and Geotechnical Consultants for the benefit of Meyers Nave Riback Silver and Wilson) January 2005 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 of-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 mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earler Analyses," may be cross- referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or 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 available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than significant with mitigati01 Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures that were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to 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 environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; 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 Draft Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment, Draft Parks and Recreation Master Plan 2006 Update, Dublin Historic Park Draft Master Plan, and Area Rezoning Page 17 of 42 May 25, 2006 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 BACKGROUND INFORMATION INITIAL STUDY PREPARER Kristi Bascom, Senior Planner, City of Dublin Community Development Department AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED The following agencies and organizations were contacted in the course of this Initial Study: City of Dublin, Community Development Department City of Dublin, Parks and Community Services Department City of Dublin, Public Works Department Dublin San Ramon Services District REFERENCES Archeological Assessment Report for the Donlon Way Area Specific Plan (prepared by William Self Associates, Inc.) August 2003. City of Dublin General Plan (1985, updated to 2002). City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Draft Dublin Draft Dublin Historic Park Draft Master Plan (prepared by Royston, Hanamoto, Alley, and Abey) May 2006 Draft Draft Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan (prepared by the City of Dublin Community Development Department) May 2006 Dublin Historic Resources Identification Project (Final) (prepared by Page and Turnbull, Inc.) January 2004. Dublin Village Design Guidelines (prepared by RBF Consulting/Urban Design Studio) January 2005. National Register of Historic Places Registration Form completed for the Dublin Heritage Center (prepared by Elizabeth Isles and Amanda Wells, City of Dublin) September 2004. Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update (2004) and accompanying Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for 11759 Dublin Boulevard (prepared by Treadwell & Rollo Environmental and Geotechnical Consultants for the benefit of Meyers Nave Riback Silver and Wilson) January 2005 Initial Study for the Draft Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment, Page 42 of 42 Draft Parks and Recreation Master Plan 2006 Update, Dublin Historic Park Draft Master Plan, and Area Rezoning May 25, 2006 373 374 375 376 377 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 Attachment 4 378 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 379 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 380 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 381 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 382 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 383 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 384 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 385 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 . !;.' II;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-OJ~~ ".;~~~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 ~ - IlJd.:, ',-, ~,.\ .. 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 "Inii!: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'""" ~, ffiremontn-, 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 386 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 387 388 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 389 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 390 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 391 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 392 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 393 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 394 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 395 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 396 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 397 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 398 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 399 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 400 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 401 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 402 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 403 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 404 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 405 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 406 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 407 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 408 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 409 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 410 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 411 cj Does the project have environmental effects that will cause Isubstantialadverseeffectsonhumanbeings, 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 412 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 413 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-08 414 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 415 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 416