HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-007 MntssriPlsExp/CUP07-10-2001 AGENDA STATEMEMT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: July 10, 2001
SUBJECT:
PA 01-007,
Montessori Plus Expansion Conditional Use Permit
Prepared by Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner/Janet Harbin, Senior
Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
Project Plans
Resolution adopting Negative Declaration
Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit (with Exhibit A, Site
Plan, and Exhibit B, Tenant Space Plan, Attached)
Draft Negative Declaration
RECOMMENDATION:
2.
3.
4.
5.
Open public hearing and hear Staff' presentation
Take testimony from the Applicant and the public\
Question Staff, Applicant and the public
Close hearing and deliberate
Adopt Resolutions (Attachments 2 and 3)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The project is a Conditional Use Permit request for the expansion of an existing Montessori school
from enrollment of 40 to 60 students within an existing 4,732 square foot tenant space located at 7234-
7240 San Ramon Road in the Strouds Plaza.
BACKGROUND:
The City Council approved a Conditional Use Permit for the Montessori Plus School (day care center)
with an enrollment capacity of 40 children at 7234-40 San Ramon Road on September 1, 1998. On
May 1,2001, Rupa Narain, of Montessori Plus, filed an application requesting approval of a
Conditional Use Permit for expansion of the school enrollment from 40 to 60 children.
The existing Montessori school currently provides educational instruction for up to 40 children
between the ages of three and six, between 7:30 A.M. to 5:30 P.M. Monday through Friday, during the
school year set by the Dublin School District calendar. Under the Dublin Zoning Ordinance a
Montessori school can be defined as either a community facility providing educational instruction or a
day care center for fifteen or more children. A community facility and/or a day care center in the C-1
Retail Commercial Zoning District and under the San Ramon Road Specific Plan Area 3A requires
approval of a Conditional Use Permit prior to operation or expansion.
ANALYSIS:
The existing Montessori school is located within the Strouds Plaza, an existing retail commercial
COPIES TO: Ms. RupaNarain, Applicant
Ms. Patric Davis
Mr. Richard Jeha, Property Owner
PA File 98-030<,]
ITEM NO. 0 ' L/~
center adjacent to the San Ramon Road transportation corridor at the intersection of Amador Valley
Boulevard. Access to the site is provided from the main entrance to the shopping center on San
Ramon Road and from two driveways off Amador Valley Boulevard.
Montessori School Operation:
The Montessori school would provide educational instruction for 40 children between the ages of three
and six, from 7:30 A.M. to 5:30 P.M. Monday through Friday during the school year set by the Dublin
School District calendar. The Montessori school currently occupies a 4,732 square foot tenant space
within Building A of the shopping center (refer to Attachment 1, Project Plans). The school will
continue to occupy this space with the intended enrollment expansion. The existing tenant space is
adequate for this use.
The project proposes to enclose an existing gazebo area with a five-foot wrought iron fence to provide
an outdoor play area for students. The gazebo is located adjacent to Buildings A and B, at the
southwest comer of the site, approximately 200 feet from the school. Stepping-stones have been
placed within the landscaped area to the rear of Building A to provide access between the school and
the gazebo. The gazebo will be used for recess (supervised), approximately three times a day for thirty-
minute time periods.
Issnes;
The primary issues associated with thc expansion of the existing Montessori school from an
enrollment of 40 to 60 children include: on-site and off-site traffic and parking, compatibility with
adjacent uses and the potential for creation of nuisances.
Traffic and Parking. City Staffprepared a traffic and parking analysis and determined that the
expansion would add 69 trips per day. No changes to the streets near the facility will be required of
the applicant because the increase in traffic is not significant. The Applicant has agreed to voluntarily
contribute $6,900 to mitigate impacts of any potential non-significant traffic impacts to circulation in
the area. All impacts to circulation are therefore pre-mitigated for the purpose of CEQA review.
Currently, the majority of students are dropped-off between 7:30 A.M. to 10:30 A.M. The majority of
children are picked-up between the hours of I 1:30 A.M. and 12:30 P.M. There have been no
complaints about traffic concerns within this shopping center regarding the day care center operation
since it was approved. The existing four parking and loading spaces for the school are adequate to
accommodate the increase in the number of children enrolled, and there is no need to provide
additional spaces.
Compatibility with Adjacent Uses and Nuisance Creation. There have been no complaints about
the day care center from residents of the adjacent Kildara residential project or from businesses within
Strouds Plaza since it began operation. The existing eight-foot high sound wall along the western
property line and part of the southern property line, along with the dense landscaping in the gazebo
area and between Building A and the property line, have been effective in reducing noise and visual
impacts to adjacent residents to an acceptable level. It is not anticipated that the expansion of the
school enrollment will result in compatibility issues or the creation of nuisance impacts on surrounding
uses.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
An Initial Study and Draft Negative Declara/ion were prepared for this project and are contained in
Attachment 4. The environmental documents were distributed for public review and comment for a 20-
day review period from June 9, 2001 to June 29, 2001. The Initial Study found that no significant effects
to the environment would result from implementation of the project. A Resolution to adopt the Negative
Declaration for the project has been prepared for adoption by the Planning Commission for this project
(Attactunent 2).
CONCLUSION:
The proposed expansion of the Montessori Plus day care center from an enrollment of 40 to 60
children within an existing tenant space will not have significant impacts on traffic, parking and
adjacent uses. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the Resolution adopting the
Negative Declaration (Attachment 2) and the Resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit
(Attachment 3) for the expansion of the Montessori Plus day care center in the Strouds Plaza.
RECOMMENDATION:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Open public hearing and hear Staffpresentation
Take testimony from the Applicant and the public
Question Staff, Applicant and the public
Close hearing and deliberate
Adopt Resolution adopting Negative Declaration (Attachment 2)
Adopt Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit (Attachment 3)
GENERAL INFORMATION:
APPLICANT:
Ms. Rupa Narain
Montessori Plus
412 Old Ranch Road
San Ramon, CA 94583
PROPERTY OWNER:
Mr. Richard Jeha
Strouds Plaza
318 Diablo Road, # 250
Danville, CA 94562
LOCATION:
7234-7240 San Ramon Road, Strouds Plaza
EXISTING ZONING:
Planned Developmem (PD) with C-1 Retail
Commercial Base Zoning District
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Retail/Office
SPECIFIC PLAN DESIGNATION: Area 3A
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. Refer to Attachment 4
G:~PA01-007~pcsr
4
16:52 IFF ASSOCIATES
SA# R&INOH ROAD
ATTACHMENT
RECEIVED
DUIB~N pLaNNING
SUITE
'~G LAZING CAL(
EXISTING GLAZING ( REM(Dm__ED ~ECTTONS) -- 132 $,F~
RECEIVED
DUBLIN pLANNING
RESOLUTION NO. O0 -
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR
PA 01-007, MONTESSORI PLUS EXPANSION, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
WHEREAS, the Applicant Rupa Narain, of Montessori Plus has requested approval of a
Conditional Use Permit to expand an existing Montessori school from 40 to 60 students within a
4,732 square foot tenant space located at 7234-40 San Ramon Road, Strouds Plaza.
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with State
Guidelines and City environmental regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for
potential environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study was conducted for this project with the finding that the
proposed project, could not have a significant effect on the environment; and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration has been prepared for this application and is on file in
the Dublin Planning Department; and
WHEREAS the Negative Declaration was distributed and properly noticed for a 20-day
public review period from on June 9, 2001 to June 29, 2001; and
WHEREAS the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public heating on said
application on July 10, 2001; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports,
recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth and used their independent judgment to
make a decision.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does
hereby find that:
A. The Montessori Plus project will not have a significant effect on the environment, based
on a review of the Initial Study and public testimony.
B. The Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with State and local
environmental laws and guideline regulations.
ATTACHMENT 2
C. The Negative Declaration is complete and adequate.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning
Commission does hereby adopt the Negative Declaration for PA 01-007, Montessori Plus
expansion.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of July 2001.
AYES: Cm.
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Planning Commission Chairperson
Community Development Director
G:\pa01-007\ndres
RESOLUTION NO. 01 - __
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING PA 01-007 MONTESSORI PLUS
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO EXPAND THE ENROLLMENT FOR A
MONTESSORI SCHOOL FROM 40 TO 60 STUDENTS WITHIN A 4,732 SQUARE FOOT
TENANT SPACE LOCATED AT 7234-7240 SAN RAMON ROAD, STROUDS PLAZA.
WHEREAS, the Applicant Rupa Narain, of Montessori Plus has requested approval of a Conditional
Use Permit to expand the approved Montessori school enrollment capacity from 40 students to 60 students
within a 4,732 square foot tenant space located at 7234-40 San Ramon Road, Strouds Plaza, in a PD Planned
Development Zoning District with C-1 Retail Commercial Base Zoning District; and
WHEREAS, the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State Guidelines and the City
environmental regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that
environmental documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project and is on file in the Dublin
Community Development Department; and
WHEREAS the Negative Declaration was distributed and properly noticed for a 20-day public
review period from on June 9, 2001 to June 29, 2001; and
WHEREAS the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on said application on
July 10, 2001; and
WHEREAS, the Staff Report was submitted recommending that the application be approved; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations and
testimony hereinabove set forth and used their independent judgment to make a decision; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has found that the proposed project is appropriate for the
subject site.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does find
that:
The proposed expansion of a Montessori school within Strouds Plaza, an existing retail commercial
center, is compatible with other land uses, transportation and service facilities in the vicinity because
the proposed use will provide day care and education for the children of workers in the surrounding
commercial area.
The proposed expansion will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working
in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare because the
impacts of the project to traffic and noise are less than significant.
ATTACHMENT 3
The use will not be injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood because the Applicant
has agreed to mitigate off-site traffic and circulation impacts by the voluntary payment of $6,900 to
mitigate traffic impacts.
There are adequate provisions for public access, water, sanitation, and public utilities and services to
ensure that the proposed use and related structures would not be detrimental to the public health,
safety, and welfare.
The subject site is physically suitable for the type, density and intensity of the use and related
structures being proposed because the vehicular trips this school will generate will occur before and
after peak retail and service hours.
.F.
The Montessori school expansion is not contrary to the specific intent clauses, development
regulations, and performance standards established for the C-1 zoning district because the conditions
of approval are required to insure that the use, which will be supportive of surrounding retail uses
through the provision of day care and education of workers in the surrounding commercial areas, is
compatible with those uses.
The proposed use is consistent with the Dublin General Plan and the San Ramon Specific Plan
subject to conditional use permit approval.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby approve
PA 01-007, Montessori Plus Conditional Use Permit amendment request to expand the existing Montessori
school enrollment from 40 students to 60 students within a 4,732 square foot tenant space located at 7234-40
San Ramon Road, Strouds Plaza, as generally depicted by the site plan, labeled Exhibit A, stamped approved
and on file with the Dublin Planning Department, subject to compliance with the following conditions:
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Unless stated otherwise, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to the issuance of building
permits or establishment of use~ and shall be subiect to Planning Department review and approval. The
following codes represent those departments/agencies responsible for monitoring compliance of the
conditions of approval. [PL.] Planning, [BI Building, [PO] Police, [PW] Public Works [ADM]
Administration/City Attorney, [FIN] Finance, IF] Alameda County Fire Department, [DSR] Dublin San
Ramon Services District, [CO] Alameda County Department of Environmental Health.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Approval. PA 01-007 Montessori Plus Conditional Use Permit is approved to expand an existing
school use enrollment capacity to a maximum of 60 students within 4,732 square foot tenant space at
7234-40 San Ramon Road, Strouds Plaza. This approval shall generally conform to the project plans
stamped approved, labeled Exhibit A and Exhibit B, consisting of two (2) sheets prepared by the
Applicant dated received by the Planning Department on May 1, 2001. [PL]
SCHOOL OPERATION:
2. Number of students. The school shall have a maximum enrollment of 60 students. [PL, B]
2
3. Drop-off and pick-up of students. The Applicant shall be responsible for escorting each student
from the drop-off and pick-up area to and from the school [PO, PL]
Hours of operation. Hours of operation for the school shall be from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday
through Friday. [PL]
Noise/Nuisances. The Applicant shall control all activities on the site so as not to create a nuisance to
the existing or surrounding businesses. No loudspeakers or amplified music shall be permitted to
project or be placed outside of the building. [PL, PO]
Maintenance. The Applicant shall be responsible for cleaning up and disposing of school generated
trash and litter on-site and off-site within the neighborhood. [PL]
POLICE SECURITY
City of Dublin Non-Residential Security Requirements. All security hardware for the use must
comply with the City of Dublin Non-Residential Security Requirements. Security hardware must be
provided for all doors, windows, roof, vents, and skylights and any other areas per Dublin Police
Services recommendations and requirements. [PO, B]
Robbery, burglary, theft prevention and security program. The Applicant shall work with
Dublin Police Services on an ongoing basis to establish an effective robbery, burglary, theft
prevention and security program for the business. [PO]
FIRE PROTECTION
Regulations and requirements. The Applicant shall comply with Alameda County Department of
Environmental Health and Alameda County Fire Department regulations and requirements at all
times. [CO, F]
10.
Sprinkler system. The Applicant shall provide documentation to Alameda County Fire Department
indicating that the existing sprinkler system has a current 5-year certification. [F]
11.
Fire Drills. Fire drills shall be conducted on a monthly basis and a report filed with Alameda County
Fire Department. [F]
BUILDING
12.
Regulations and requirements. The applicant for the proposed school expansion shall obtain all
necessary permits from the Dublin Building Department and comply with all regulations and
requirements of the City and State Uniform Building Code. [B]
13.
Rear exit path. The Applicant/Property Owner shall be responsible for maintaining the access path
to the rear of Building A and B clear and unobstructed at all times. [B, PL]
MISCELLANEOUS
14.
Regulations and requirements. All necessary permits shall be obtained from the Alameda County
Fire Department. [F, BI
3
15.
16.
17.
Signs. Any signage on site shall be subject to the City's Sign Ordinance. [PL]
Annual review. On at least an annual basis, this Conditional Use Permit shall be subject to Zoning
Investigator Review and determination as to compliance with the conditions of approval. [PL]
Revocation of permit. The permit shall be revocable for cause in accordance with Section
8.96.020.I of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of July 2001.
AYES: Cm.
NOES: Cm.
ABSTAIN: Cm.
ABSENT:
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Community Development Director
G:\pa01-007\cupres
4
CITY OF DUBLIN
100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California 94568
Website: http://www.ci.dublin,ca,us
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
(Prepared pursuant to City of Dublin
Environmental Guidelines, Section 1.7(c), 5.5)
Description of Project: PA 04.007 Montessori Plus Conditional Use Permit to expand the enrollment
capacity for an existing Montessori school from 40 to 60 students within a 4, 732 square foot tenant
space located within Strouds Plaza, Dublin.
Project Location: 7234-40 San Ramon Road, Strouds Plaza, Dublin. APN 941-0040-010-01
Name of Proponents: Rupa Narain, Montessori Plus
! hereby find that the above project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment.
Attached ~s a copy of the Imttal Study ( Environmental Information Form "Environmental
Checklist") documenting the reasons to support the above finding.
Dennis H. Carrington, AICP
Printed Name
Senior Planner
Title
Attachments
Date Published: June 9, 2001
Date Posted: June 9, 2001
Date Notice Mailed: June 9, 2001
Action on Negative Declaration:
Approved Disapproved
Notice of Determination filed:
ATT_._AOHMENT
Area Code (925) - City Manager 833-6650 - City Counci1833-6650 · Personnel 833-6605 · Economic Development 833-6650
Finance 833-6640 · Public Works/Engineering 833-6630 · Parks & Community Services 833-6645 · Police 833-6670
Planning/Code Enforcement 833-6610 · Building Inspection 833-6620 · Fire Prevention Bureau 833-6606
Printed on Recycled Paper
City of Dublin
Environmental Checklist Form
Initial Study
Project Location
The project site is located west of San Ramon Road and south of Amador Valley Boulevard within an
existing retail commercial center, Strouds Plaza. Strouds Plaza consists of 4.85 Ac and provides a range
of retail, service and restaurant uses.
Surrounding land uses include the Kildara residential 6ondomiaium project to the west, the Iceland
skating rink commercial development to the south and KinderCare to the north of Amador Valley
Boulevard. To the north and east of the site, San Ramon Road and Amador Valley Boulevard have been
built. The northeast comer of Amador Valley Boulevard and San Ramon Road is currently vacant.
Shamrock Village and other commercial uses exist on the east side of San Ramon Road.
Exhibit 1 depicts the project location.
Project Description
Rupa Narain, of Montessori Plus received City Council approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a
Montessori day school for 40 children on September 1, 1998. Rupa Narain is currently requesting
approval of a Conditional Use Permit to expand the Montessor~ school from forty (40) to sixty (60)
children between the ages of three to six, located at 7238 San Ramon Road, Strouds Plaza. School hours
will be from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, generally following the Dublin School
District calendar.
The Montessori school is located in building A (refer to Exhibit A) and will occupy 4,732 square feet.
Adjacent tenants include a dry clean service, Cast& Company dance studio, Strouds and the Livermore
Cyclery.
The project includes the enclosed gazebo area located adjacent to buildings A and B, at the southwest
comer of the site which provides an outdoor play area for the children. Stepping stones exist within the
landscaped area to rear of building A to provide access to the gazebo. Students are escorted to the
gazebo three times a day for thirty minute periods, for recess.
The Applicant uses a drive-thru procedure to drop-off and pick-up the students. The parents are required
to enter and exit Strouds Plaza through San Ramon Road and follow a drive-thru procedure to the
gazebo area. The gazebo area is located approximately 200 feet from the school, as shown on Exhibit A.
A school employee will meet each child and escort them to the gazebo area. In the morning times,
children shall collect in this area and then be escorted along the stepping stones approximately 200 feet
to the school.
The majority of students are dropped-offbetween 7:30 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. and approximately 50% of
students are picked-up between 11:30 a.m and 12:15 p.m. The reraairdng students are collected at
staggered intervals throughout the afternoon. Car-pooling is used by parents and will continue to be
encouraged. The existing Montessori school has not had parking or traffic impacts on the rest of the
shopping center due to Iow traffic volumes and the fact that most of the children are dropped offbefore
the retail uses open for business.
1. Project title: Montessori Plus expansion
2. Lead agency name and address:
City of Dublin
I00 Civic Plaza
Dublin CA 94568
3. Contact person and phone number: Dennis Carrington (925) 833-6610
4. Project location: West of San Ramon Road and south of Amador Valley Boulevard within an
existing retail commercial center, Strouds Plaza
5. Assessors ParcelNumber(s): 941-040-10-1
6. Project sponsor's name and address:
Rupa Narain, Montessori Plus
7238 San Ramon Road
Dublin, CA 94568
7. General Plan designation: Retail/Office
8. Zoning: PD Planned Development with C1 Retail Commercial Base Zoning District
9. San Ramon Specific Plan designation: Zone 3A Retail
10.
Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later
phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its
implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
PA 01-007, Montessori Plus Expansion Condkional Use Permit.
Rupa Narain, of Montessori Plus, is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the
expansion of enrollment for an existing Montessori School from forty (40) to sixty (60) children
between the ages of three to six, located at 7238 San Rarnon Road, in Strouds Plaza. School
hours will be from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, generally following the
Dublin School District calendar.
11. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings:
No~h:
South:
East:
West:
Amador Valley Boulevard - (KinderCare and vacant commercial property further
north)
The Iceland skating rink commercial development
San Ramon Road - (retail commercial developments further east)
Planned Development- Kildara residential condominiums
12.
Other public agencies whose approval is required: (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Building permits (City of Dublin)
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 -- Agriculture Resources ~ Air Quality
I--~ Biological Resources ~ Cultural Resources
Hazards & Hazardous Materials ~ Hydrology/Water Quality
Mineral Resources
Noise
Geology/Soils
~Land Use /Planning
~ Population / Housing
Public Services
~-~ Recreation
~ Transport ation/Traffic
~ Utilities / Service Systems ~ Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
~ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant
effect
on
the
environment,
and
a~"i~GATivE DECLARATION Will be preparedl
3
~-~nd 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 fred that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
~-~ I fred 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.
e~cauI find that although the project could a significant on
proposed
have
effect
the
environment,
se all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and Co) 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.
Printed name
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1)
A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the 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
rapture 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.
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the
checklist answers must indicat~ 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.
"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, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced).
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 tkis case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a)
b)
Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
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 which were incorporated or
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific
conditions for the project.
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.
Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
Th/s 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 project's
environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
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
Environmental Impacts. The source of determination is listed in parenthesis. See listing of sources
used to determine each potential impact at the end of the checklist. A full discussion of each item is
found following the checklist
I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
(Source: 1, 2, 3)
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but
not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway? (SOurce: l, 2, 3)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
(Source: !, 2, 3)
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
(Source: 1, 2, 3)
H. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES - In determining
whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California
Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in
assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the
project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown
on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping
and Monitoring Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use? (Source: I)
b) C~)nflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Wiltiamson Act contract? (Source: 1)
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant SignificantImpact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
Incorporation
X
X
X
X
X
X
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
(Source: 1)
III. AIR QUALITY -- Where available, the sign/ficance
Criteria established by the applicable air quality
Management or air pollution control district may be
Relied upon to make the following determinations. Would
The project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?(Source: 2, 3)
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation? (Source: 2, 3)
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
(Source: 2,3)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?(Source: 2, 3)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?(Source: 2, 3)
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
Incorporation
X
X
X
X
X
X
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant SignificantImpact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
Incorporation
X
x
x
x
x
x
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES --Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or '
through habitat modifications, on any species identified as
candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department offish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service? (Source: 1, 2, 3)
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service? (Source: 1, 2, 3)
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including; but not limited to, marsh, vemal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means? (Source: 1, 2, 3)
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?
(Source: 1,2, 3)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a l~ee preservation policy or
ordinance? (Source: 1, 2, 3)
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan
or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan? (Source: 1, 2, 3)
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant SignificantImpact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
Incorporation i
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5?
(Source: 1, 2, 3)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
(Source: 1, 2, 3)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature? (Source: 1, 2, 3
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries? (Source: 1, 2, 3)
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture ora known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. (Source: 1, 2,
3,4, 6)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (Source: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6)
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
(Source: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6)
iv) Landslides? (Source: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
(Source: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6)
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- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
(Source: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B
of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
risks to life or property? (Source: 1; 2, 3,4, 6)
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste
water? (Source: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6)
VII. I-IAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS --
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal
of hazardous materials? (Source: 1, 2, 3)
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment? (Source: 1, 2, 3)
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutel'
hazardous materials, substances, or waste with'm one-
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
(Source: 1, 2, 3)
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
Incorporation
X
X
X
X
X
X
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a resuk,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment? (Source: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6)
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles ora public airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area? (Source: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
(Source: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6)
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan? (Source: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6)
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?
(Source: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6)
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements? (Source: 1, 2, 3)
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
Incorporation
X
X
X
X
X
X
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 pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing land uses or planned
uses for which permits have been granted)? (Source: 1, 2, 3
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
(Source: 1, 2, 3)
d) Substantially alter the exisfmg drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course ora stream or river, or substantially increase the
rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or off-site? (Source: I, 2, 3)
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?. (Source: 1, 2, 3)
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
(Source: 1,
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
(Source: 1, 2, 3)
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
(Source: 1, 2, 3)
Potentially Less Than. Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
Incorporation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
12
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure ora levee or dam? (Source: 1, 2, 3)
j) Expose people or sturctures to a significant risk of loss, i
involving inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
(Source: 1, 2, 3)
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
(Source: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6)
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, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect? (Source: 1,2, 3, 4, 6)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan
or natural community conservation plan?
(Source: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6)
X. MINERAL RESOIJRCES -- Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state? (Source: 1,2, 3)
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant SignificantImpact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
Incorporation
X
X
X
x
X
x
X
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?
(Source: 1, 2, 3)
3_3
XI. NOISE - Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local.general plan
or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies? (Source: 1; 2, 3, 4, 6)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels?
(Source: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6)
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without
the project? (Source: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6)
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project? (Source: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6)
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles ora public airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels? (Source: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or working in
the project area to excessive noise levels?
(Source: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6)
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension
of roads or other infrastructure)? (Source: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6)
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
Incorporation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
14
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? (Source: 1,2, 3, 4, 6)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
(Source: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6)
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, need for new
or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause sigrfificant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
Fire Protection? (Source: 1, 2, 3)
Police Protection? (Source: 1, 2, 3)
Schools? (Source: 1, 2, 3)
Parks? (Source: 1, 2, 3)
Other Public Facilities? (Source: 1, 2, 3)
XIV. RECREATION--
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of
Potentially Less Than Less Tlaan No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
Incorporation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Source: 1,2, 3
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities which might have 'an adverse physical effect on
the environment? (Source: 1, 2, 3)
XV. TRANSPORTATION,rfRAFFIC-
Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either
the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio
on roads, or congestion at intersections)?
(Source: t, 2, 3, 4, 6)
b) Exceed~ either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways?
(Source: t, 2, 3, 4, 6)
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? (Source: I, 2, 3, 4, 6)
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
(Source: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
(Source: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
(Source: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6)
Potentially Less Than Less 'Fnan ! No
Significant Significant SignificantImpact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
Incorporation
X
x
X
X
X
X
x
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? (Source: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6)
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS --
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
(Source: 1, 2, 3)
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? (Source: 1, 2, 3)
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? (Source: 1, 2, 3)
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are
new or expanded entitlements needed? (Source: 1, 2, 3)
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? (Source: 1, 2, 3)
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
Incorporation
X
X
X
X
X
X
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste
disposal needs? (Source: 1, 2, 3)
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste? (Source: 1, 2, 3)
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANC!
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 be!ow self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict
rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important e
major perigds of California history or prehistory?
(Source: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6)
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limit
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
projects)? (Source: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6)
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
(Source: 1,2, 3, 4, 6)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impa~
X
x
x
x
X
Sources used to determine potential environmental impacts:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Determination based on location of project.
Determination based on staff office review.
Determination based on field review.
Determination based on the City of Dublin General Plan
Determination based on the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance.
Determination based on the San Ramon Road Specific Plan.
Not applicable.
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Aesthetics
There are no impacts to Items lA through Id. This determination is based on the sources referenced in
the Initial Study. A review of site plans and a field visit to the project site indicate that the project would
not result in ~he obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public or impact aesthetic or scenic
resources.
Agricultural Resources
There are no impacts to items 2A through 2C. There are no agricultural resources on this developed commercial
Air Quality
There are no impacts to Items 3A through 3E. This determination is based on the sources referenced in
the Initial Study. The site is developed with an existing retail, service and restaurant uses. The existing
Plmmed Development for the site permit all these types of uses. The Montessori school expansion
would add additional vehicular traffic to this portion of Dublin, however the vehicles are not expected to
contribute substantial vehicular air emissions that would deteriorate ambient air quality. The location of
Strouds Plaza adjacent to San Ramon Road transportation corridor, a direct connection to 1-680 and the
sites proximity to residential areas where children live could minimize air quality impacts
Biological Resources
There are no impacts to Items 4A through 4f. This determination is based on the sources referenced in
the Initial Study. No known rare or endangered or threatened species or biological resources are present
on this developed commercial site.
Cultural Resources
There are no impacts to Items 5A through 5D. This determination is based on the sources referenced in the Initi
Study. No known cultural resources are present on this developed commercial site.
Geology/Soils
There are no impacts to Items 6A through 6E. This determination is based on the sources referenced in
the Initial Study. Strouds Plaza is an existing Commercial facility designed for retail, service and
restaurant uses. The Montessori school will not involve any new construction or any significant
disturbance of existing physical conditions. Even though the site is located within the Aquist Priolo
3-9
Special Studies zone, geotechnical studies performed prior to construction of existing facility did
not identify an active fault within 50 feet of the proposed school.
Hazards & Hazardous Materials
There are no impacts to Items 7A through 7C. This dctcnnination is based on the sources referenced in
the Initial Study. The project is not located on a hazardous waste and substances site. All potential
health hazards arc addressed by the Department of Environmental Health and The State Department of
General Services.
Hydrology/Water Quality :
There are no impacts to Items 8A through BF. This determination is based on the sources referenced in
the Initial Study. The site is located in Zone X of the current FEMA map, which is defined as areas
outside of the 500-year flood. The proposed project will not expose people or property to flooding or
other water related hazards. The proposed project will not result in changes in on and off site drainage
patterns or the rate and mount of surface water nmoffbecause the site is already developed with
buildings and paved parking lot. In addition, the project will not alter the quality or quantity of ground
waters and it will not reduce public water supplies.
Land use/Planning
There are no impacts to Items 9B through 9C and less than significant impacts to 9P/. This
determination is based on the sources referenced in the Initial Study. The General Plan designation for
the project site is Retail/Office. The project is located in the PD Planned Development with C-1 Retail
Commercial underlying Zoning Dislrict. A Conditional Use Permit was granted for a Day Care Center
at this location on September 1, 1998 by the City Council. The project is also located within the San
Ramon Road Specific Plan area, Zone 3A Retail. A day care center / community facility requires a
Conditional Use Permit in the C1 Retail Commercial Zoning District and the San Ramon Road Specific
Plan, Zon6 3A Retail. The proposed use is conditionally consistent with the Specific Plan because Zone
3A allows this use pursuant to a Conditional Use Permit. This project is consistent with the Dublin
General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. This initial study represents full California Environmental
Quality Act compliance with regard to the proposed project. The City of Dublin has adopted no other
City-wide or specific environmental plans or policies which would affect this application. The proposed
Montessori school expansion is located within Strouds Plaza, an existing retail commercial center. The
use will not alter the planned land use of the neighborhood because this has been made compatible with
commercial and adjacent residential uses by means of conditions of approval for a Conditional Use
Permit.
Mineral Resources
There are no impacts to Items iOA through lOB. This determination is based on the sources referenced
in the Initial Study. No known mineral resources are present on this developed commercial site.
Noise
There is less than significant impacts to Items 1 lA through 1 iF. This determination is based on the
sources referenced in the Initial Study. The Montessori school currently provides educational instruction
for forty children between 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, following the Dublin School
District calendar. No complaints about noise f~om this facility.hax,~..been received._ 2'he. children are
20
dropped offbetween 7:30 a.m. and 9:30 a.m. and will collect in the gazebo area until escorted to the
school. The gazebo area is enclosed with a 5 foot wrought iron fence and is the school's designated play
area. The children are escorted to the gazebo three times a day for twenty minute time periods. The
collective noise level of playing children prior to 8:00 a.m. and through out the day has not had a
significant impact on the adjacent Kildara residential project and existing businesses within Strouds
Plaza. The existing ten foot sound wall along the western and part of the southern property line and the
dense landscaping in the gazebo area and between building A and the property line will reduce the
impact of noise on adjacent residences to less than significant impact. In addition, there is a physical
separation of at least 55 feet between the sound wall and the nearest residential unit in the Kildara
development.
PopulationFttousing
There are no impacts to Items 12A through 12C. This determination is based on the sources referenced
in the Initial Study. The project will not significantly alter the overall density, location, distribution or
growth rate of the human population in the area. The project will not impact existing housing or create a
need for new housing because a Montessori school serves children from existing residences.
Public Services
There are no impacts to Item 13A. This determination is based on the sources referenced in the Initial
Study. The proposed Montessori school will not demand more public services than already being
provided to the commercial and residential uses in the vicinity.
Recreation
There are no impacts to Items 14A and 14B. This determination is based on the sources referenced in
the Initial Study. Potential conflict between Montessori Plus and other tenants for use of the gazebo area
(outside of school use) shall be minimized through conditions of approval for a Conditional Use Permit.
The project will not effect any off-site recreational uses or facilities
Transportation/Traffic
There is a less than significant impact to items 15A and 15E and no impacts to items 15B, 15C, 15D,
15E and 15G. This determination is based on the sources referenced in the Initial Study. The proposed
project would add additional vehicles to local roadways. The City of Dublin has instituted a traffic
impact fee based on the number of trips generated by new projects. The Montessori Plus expansion
project would generate an additional 69 trips per day. Project generated traffic will be distributed on
Amador Valley Boulevard and San Ramon Road. The Applicant has agreed to mitigate these traffic
impacts by the voluntary payment of $6,900 for street improvements which will be paid prior to the
increase in occupancy or issuance of the first building permit.
The City of Dublin Public Works Department has reviewed the proposal and has concluded the
following. The drive-thru procedure to drop-off and pick-up students at the gazebo area, located
approximately 200 feet from the school entrance has been proposed without the provision of an adequate
loading area. Eight (8) dedicated loading spaces are currently provided in front of the school entrance
(per Section 8.76.080 D of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, one loading space is required for every five
children), circulation impacts of drop-off and pick-up would be minimized. A traffic analysis
determined that no additional parking spaces will be required for the increase in occupancy of the
project.
Strouds Plaza is located adjacent to the San Ramon transportation corridor at the intersection of Amador
Valley Boulevard, access to the site is from San Ramon Road and from two driveways offofAmador
Valley Boulevard. The project wilt not impact emergency access or access to nearby uses, parking
capacity on-site, or result in rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts.
Utilities/Serviee Systems
There are no impacts to Items 16A through 16G. Th/s determination is based on the sources referenced
in the Initial Study. Any required sewer and/or water connection fees will be charged by the Dublin San
Ramon Services District (DSRSD) at the time of bnilding permit issuance.
22