Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout99-064 QrryLaneSchl08-22-2000AGENDA STATEMENT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: August 22, 2000 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING PA 99-064 Quarry Lane School Planned Development (PD) Prezone and Annexation (Report Prepared by: Anne Kinney, Associate Planner) Lase-fic.fc Pic '~y ATTACHMENTS: ~r 1. Draft Resolution recommending City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring Program and Response to Comments 8 2. Draft Resolution recommending City Council approve a Planned Development (PD) Prezone/Development Plan for the Quarry Lane School (with the Prezoning Exhibit attached as Exhibit A-1 (to the staff report dated August 8) and the Development Plan attached as Exhibits A-2 (to this staff report) and A-3 (to the staff report dated August 8)) and Planned Development (PD) Prezone for the Kobold property with the Prezoning Exhibit attached as Exhibit A-1 (to the staff report dated August 8)) 16 3. Draft Resolution recommending City Council direct staff to file an application with Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) for annexation i 8 4. Response to Comments 45 5. Revised Annexation Maps (2 pages) y.~ 6. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated August 8, 2000 RECOMMENDATION: 1. Hear Staff Presentation 2. Deliberate 3. Adopt Resolution (Attachment 1) recommending City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring Program and Response to Comments 4. Adopt Resolution (Attachment 2) recommending City Council approve a Planned Development (PD) Prezone/Development Plan for the Quarry Lane School (with the Prezoning Exhibit attached as Exhibit A-1 (to the staff report dated August 8) and the Development Plan attached as Exhibits A-2 (to this staff report) and A-3 (to the staff report dated August 8)) and Planned Development (PD) Prezone for the Kobold property with the Prezoning Exhibit attached as Exhibit A-1 (to the staff report dated August 8)), and 6. Adopt Resolution (Attachment 3) recommending City Council direct staff to file an application with Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) for annexation ITEM NO. ~~ COPIES TO: The Applicant The Property Owners PA file PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project site is located north of the existing city limits, on the east side of Tassajaza Road, approximately 3 miles north of I-580 within unincorporated Alameda County. The site contains two properties, the Quarry Lane School and the Kobold property, located at 6363 and 6237 Tassajara Road respectively. The Kobold property is located adjacent to the city limits, south of the Quarry Lane School site. The total site includes approximately 13.7 acres of land. The Applicant, Dr. Arac of Quarry Lane School is requesting approval to allow the development of Phase 2 of the privately owned school at 6363 Tassajaza Road. Phase 2 of Quarry Lane School would include the construction of 66, 685 square feet of classroom and administrative space to house 750 students and 55 staff and recreational play fields. Construction of Phase 2 would increase the need for public services and facilities beyond that available from existing private facilities. Therefore, annexation to the City of Dublin and Dublin San Ramon Services District is requested to obtain the necessary level and range of urban services to facilitate future expansion of the school. The State reorganization act (Knox-Cortese) requires that properties proposed for annexation be contiguous with the boundaries of the jurisdiction to which annexation is proposed. Therefore, the Kobold property is proposed to be included in the annexation action, since it is the intervening property between the city limits and the Quarry Lane School site. However, no development is proposed for the Kobold property at this time. The nronosed proiect includes the followine entitlements: • Planned Development Prezoning and Stage 1 and 2 Development for Phase 2 of the Quarry Lane School • Planned Development Prezoning of the Kobold property to allow future residential and open space uses in accordance with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan • Annexation to the City of Dublin and Dublin San Ramon Services District. BACKGROUND: At the Planning Commission meeting on August 8, 2000, city staff presented the prezoning and annexation request for the Quarry Lane School project to the Planning Commission and answered questions. The Commission heard testimony from Dr. Arac, the applicant, his Architect and Attorney, Mr. Kobold and his agent and Mr. Nielsen the owner of property to the immediate north of the site. The Planning Commission closed the public hearing and continued the item to August 22, 2000 to allow staff additional time to prepare responses to the comments received on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for this project. RESPONSE TO ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS: The City of Dublin prepazed an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declazation for the above referenced project. During the Public Comment period which was held from July 19, 2000 through August 7, 2000, four comment letters were received from Mr. Kyle, Attomey representing Mr. Nielsen, local and State agencies, including the Regional Water Quality Control Board, East Bay Regional Park District and Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Zone 7. Staff has prepared responses to each of these letters (Refer to Attachment 4). The letter received from Mr. Kyle focused on two issues, the potential grading and noise impacts that could result from the development of the proposed Phase 2 site plan for Quarry lane School. Mr. Kyle requests that a new EIR should be prepared to address the environmental impacts of this site plan. The agencies comments primarily related to issues of stormwater runoff and water quality. In addition, the East Bay Regional Park District comments related to impacts that may occur as a result of heavy use of the park by future students of the school. The District requests the opportunity to meet with the School to discuss these issues. The comment letters are attached in Attachment 4 to this staff report. Responses to each of these comment letters have been prepared and are attached as Attachment 4 to this staff report. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT, DATED AUGUST 8, 2000: Please refer to Attachment 6, Planning Commission staff report, dated August 8, 2000 which contains additional analysis and descriptions of the proposed prezoning and annexation request for the Quarry lane School and Kobold properties. REVISIONS: The Development Plan prepared for the Quarry Lane School (Exhibit A-2 to Attachment I, attached to this staff report) has been modified to clarify two items. Firstly, that the School shall comply with all requirements of the Temporary Use Permit section of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance which relates to holding of temporary special events such as on-site carnivals. Secondly, to clazify that the School shall pay the Public Facilities Fee, in the amounts and times as set out in the City resolutions. The revisions are indicated by italics on Exhibit A-2 to Attachment 2 attached to this staff report. The proposed Annexation Maps (Attachment 5) have been revised to include Tassajara Road in the annexation request. This will bring the total area involved in the annexation request to approximately 15 acres. CONCLUSIONS The proposed Planned Development Prezone and Annexation request for the Quarry Lane School and Kobold properties is consistent with the Dublin General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Dublin Zoning Ordinance. The project will accommodate the logical extension of public services within Eastem Dublin and will provide for future land uses anticipated in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission deliberate and adopt the following resolutions: 1. Adopt Resolution (Attachment 1) recommending City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declazation, Mitigation Monitoring Program and Response to Comments 2. Adopt Resolution (Attachment 2) recommending City Council approve a Planned Development (PD) Prezone/Development Plan for the Quarry Lane School (with the Prezoning Exhibit attached as Exhibit A-1 (to the staff report dated August 8) and the Development Plan attached as Exhibits A-2 (to this staff report) and A-3 (to the staff report dated August 8)) and Planned Development (PD) Prezone for the Kobold property with the Prezoning Exhibit attached as Exhibit A-1 (to the staff report dated August 8)), and Adopt Resolution (Attachment 3) recommending City Council direct staff to file an application with Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) for annexation GENERAL INFORMATION: PROPERTY OWNERS: APPLICANT: Dr. Sabri Arac President Quarry Lane School 3750 Boulder Street Pleasanton, CA 94566 Mr. Jay Lange agent for Mr. Michael Kobold P.O. Box 2398 Dublin, CA 94568 Dr. Sabri Arac President Quarry Lane School 3750 Boulder Street Pleasanton, CA 94566 LOCATION: East side of Tassajara Road, approximately 3 miles north of I-580, Unincorporated Alameda County APN: 985-0002-006-01, 985-0002-005-01 and 005-02 EXISTING ZONING: Alameda County: PD Planned Development and A Agricultural EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN / GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Rural ResidentiaUAgriculture, Open space, Medium Density Residential PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: In accordance with State law, a public notice was mailed to all property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the proposed project, to advertise the project and the upcoming public hearing. A public notice was also published in the Tri-Valley Herald and posted at several locations throughout the City. RESOLUTION NO.00-00 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR PA 99-064 WHEREAS, the applicant, Dr. Sabri Arac of Quarry Lane School has requested approval of a Planned Development (PD) Prezoning and Annexation of an area of approximately I S acres generally located north of the City Limits at 6363 and 6237 Tassajara Road within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area (APN: 985-0002-006-01, 985-0002-005-01 and 005-02.); and WHEREAS, the General Plan Amendment ("GPA") and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan ("EDSP") were adopted by the City in 1994; and WHEREAS, the EDSP provides more specific and detailed goals, policies and action programs for approximately 3313 acres within the GPA area nearest to the City on its Eastern side; and WHEREAS, a Program Environmental Impact Report ("Program EIR") was prepared for the EDSP and GPA (SCH No. 91103604) and certified by the City Council on May 10, 1993, by Resolution No. 51-93, and two Addenda dated May 4, 1993, and August 22, 1994 ("Addenda") have been prepared and adopted by the City Council and are hereby incorporated by reference; and WHEREAS, on May 10, 1993, the City Council also adopted Resolution No. 53-93, adopting the GPA and EDSP, making findings and adopting overriding considerations as to the environmental impacts and mitigation measures relating to the EDSP and GPA, and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring Program ("Program MMP") for the GPA and EDSP which resolution is hereby incorporated by reference; and WHEREAS, an Initial Study has been prepared for the project to evaluate site-specific impacts of the project, to a greater level of detail than in the Program EIR, pursuant to CEQA guidelines Section 15168. Based on the Initial Study, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program has been prepared for the project with the finding that with the implementation of Mitigation Measures previously adopted for the Program EIR and with site specific Mitigation Measures contained in the Initial Study, the potential site-specific impacts of the project would be reduced to a level of insignificance. The Program EIR and Initial Study adequately describe the impacts of the project, and there have been no substantial changes or new information which would necessitate supplementing the Program EIR pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA guidelines Section 15162; and WHEREAS, a complete application for the project is available and on file in the Planning Department; and WHEREAS, a 20 day public review period was held for the Mitigated Negative Declaration, from July 19, 2000 through August 7, 2000; and ATTACHMENT 1 WHEREAS, a total of four comment letters have been received during the public review period from the Attorney representing the adjacent property owner and local and State agencies; WHEREAS, all pertinent comments have been responded to and have become part of the Response to Comments attached as Attachment 4 to the staff report, dated August 22, 2000 for PA 99-064 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on said application on August 8, 2000 and August 22, 2000; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted to the Planning Commission recommending City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program for PA 99-064; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and use their independent judgment and considered all said reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Dublin Planning Commission does hereby find that: The project is within the scope of the Program Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan (SCH 91103064). Site-specific environmental affects have been analyzed in the Initial Study prepared for the project and circulated for public review. The project will not have a significant effect on the environment with the application of Mitigation Measures identified in the Program EIR and in the Initial Study. 2. All pertinent comments received during the public comment period have been responded to and have become part of the Response to Comments document. 3. The Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring Program, and the Response to Comments have been prepared in accordance with State and local environmental laws and guidelines. 4. The Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring Program, and the Response to Comments are complete and adequate. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planing Commission does hereby recommend City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program for PA 99-064, the Mitigation Monitoring Program is attached as Attachment 8 to the Staff Report dated August 8, 2000, the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is attached as Attachment 7 to Staff Report dated August 8, 2000, and the Responses to Comments is attached as Attachment 4 to Staff Report dated August 22, 2000 are incorporated herein by reference. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of August, 2000. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST: Community Development Director g:\pa99-064\PCRE'SOmnd RESOLUTION NO.00-00 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) PREZONE AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR QUARRY LANE SCHOOL AND A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) PREZONE FOR THE KOBOLD PROPERTY (PA 99-064) WHEREAS, the applicant, Dr. Sabri Arac of Quarry Lane School has requested approval of a Planned Development (PD) Prezoning and Annexation of an area of approximately 15 acres generally located north of the City Limits at 6363 and 6237 Tassajara Road within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area (APN: 985-0002-006-01, 985-0002-005-01 and 005-02.); and WHEREAS, the applicant has requested approval of a Planned Development Prezone and Development Plan for the development of Phase 2 of Quarry Lane School involving 66,600 square feet of floor area to accommodate new classrooms, a gymnasium and new recreational play fields on approximately 10 acres of land located at 6363 Tassajara Road (APN: 985-0002-006-01) and a Planned Development Prezone for the Kobold property to allow future residential and open space uses on approximately 3.7 acres of land located at 6237 Tassajara Road (APN: 985-0002-005-01 and 005-02.) within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area; WHEREAS, a complete application for the project is available and on file in the Planning Department; and WHEREAS, a Development Plan for the Quarry Lane School site has been submitted to the City as required by Section 8.32 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the potential environmental effects of the proposed project have been previously addressed in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR (SCH No. 91-103064); and WHEREAS, an Initial Study has been prepared for the project to evaluate site-specific impacts of the project pursuant to CEQA guidelines Section 15168. Based on the Initial Study, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigated Monitoring Program has been prepared for the project with the finding that with the implementation of Mitigation Measures previously adopted for the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR and with site specific Mitigation Measures contained in the Initial Study, the potential site-specific impacts of the project would be reduced to a level of insignificance. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR and Initial Study adequately describe the impacts of the project, and there have been no substantial changes or new information that would be outside the scope of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR; and WHEREAS, a total of four letters commenting on the Mitigated Negative Declaration were received during the public comment period; and ATTACHMENT2 WHEREAS, all pertinent comments have been responded to and have become part of the Response to Comments attached as Attachment 4 to the Staff Report dated August 22, 2000 for PA 99-064; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on said application on August 8, 2000 and August 22, 2000; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted to the Planing Commission recommending approval of the proposed Planned Development Prezone and Annexation for PA 99-064; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and use their independent judgment and considered all said reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Dublin Planning Commission does hereby make the following findings and determinations regarding said proposed Planned Development Prezone/Development Plan for Quarry Lane School: 1. The proposed Planned Development Prezone meets the intent and purpose of Chapter 8.32 of the Zoning Ordinance because it provides a comprehensive Development Plan which will create a desirable use of land and an environment that will be sensitive to surrounding land uses by virtue of the layout and design of the site plan; and 2. The Planned Development Prezone will be appropriate for the subject property in terms of setting forth the purpose, applicable provisions of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, range of permitted and conditionally permitted uses and Development Standards, which will be compatible with existing and proposed residential and open space uses in the immediate vicinity and will enhance the development of the Specific Plan Area; and 3. The Planned Development Prezone will provide for the development of future phases of the Quarry Lane School on land designated by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan for Medium Density Residential and Rural Residential/Agricultural land uses. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan envisions this area denoted as subarea G: Foothill Residential in the Specific Plan to be developed with predominantly residential and open space uses as well as uses including public schools and parks; it is therefore appropriate for schools, both public and private to be located in residential neighborhoods in close proximity to the students they serve; the project is consistent with the general provisions, intent, and purpose of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and will contribute towards implementation of said Plan; and 4. The Planned Development Prezone is consistent with the general provisions, intent, and purpose of the PD Zoning District of the Zoning Ordinance in that it contains all information required by Section 8.32 of the Zoning Ordinance and accomplishes the objectives of Section 8.32.010, A through H, of the Zoning Ordinance; and 5. The Planned Development Prezone will provide efficient use of land and will preserve an area of open space and undisturbed hillside along the north and primarily the northeast corner of the property; and will be compatible with and enhance the general development of the area; and will create an attractive, efficient and safe environment; and 6. The Planned Development Prezone will not have a substantial adverse effect on health or safety or be substantially detrimental to the public welfare or be injurious to property or public improvement, as all applicable regulations will be met; and 7. The Planned Development Prezone will not overburden public services or facilities as all agencies must commit to the availability of Public Services prior to the issuance of any building permits as required by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan policies and Mitigation Measures; and 8. The Planned Development Prezone will be consistent with the policies of the Dublin General Plan; and 9. The Planned Development Prezone will benefit the public necessity, convenience and general welfare; and 10. The adopted Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Mitigation Monitoring Program and the additional site specific mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study (Attachment 6 to Staff Report) will apply to the Project, as the reporting and monitoring program required by Public Resources Code 2108].6 for the Project NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Dublin Planning Commission does hereby make the following findings and determinations regarding said proposed Planned Development Prezone for the Kobold property: 1. The Planned Development Prezone will be appropriate for the subject property in terms of setting forth the purpose, applicable provisions of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, range of permitted and conditionally permitted uses, which will be compatible with existing and proposed residential, private school and open space uses in the immediate vicinity and will enhance the development of the Specific Plan Area; and 2. The Planned Development Prezone is consistent with the general provisions, intent, and purpose of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan because the prezoning will establish land uses and densities allowed by the Specific Plan and will contribute towards implementation of said Plan; and 3. The Planned Development Prezone will provide efficient use of land and will preserve an area designated for open space uses along the southern portion of the property to preserve the creek corridor and provide passive recreational areas; will be compatible with and enhance the general development of the area; and will create an attractive, efficient and safe environment; and 4. The Planned Development Prezone will not have a substantial adverse effect on health or safety or be substantially detrimental to the public welfare or be injurious to property or public improvement, as all applicable regulations will be met; and 5. The Planned Development Prezone will not overburden public services or facilities as all agencies must commit to the availability of Public Services prior to the issuance of any building permits as required by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan policies and Mitigation Measures; and 6. The Planned Development Prezone will be consistent with the policies of the Dublin General Plan; and 7. The Planned Development Prezone will benefit the public necessity, convenience and general welfare; and 8. The Planned Development Prezone is within the scope of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Final EIR. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Dublin Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council approve the Planned Development Prezoning for PA 99-064 subject to the following provisions: Planned Development Prezone and Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan -Quarry Lane School. The Planned Development Prezone and Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan for Quarry Lane School shall be as depicted on Exhibits A-l, A-2 and A-3 attached hereto, which constitute regulations for the use, improvement, and maintenance of the property. Except as specifically identified otherwise in the approved Development Plan, development and operation of land use activities within this PD Prezone District shall be subject to the current City of Dublin Zoning Code. 2. Planned Development Prezone -Kobold property The Planned Development Prezone for the Kobold property shall be as depicted on Exhibit A-1. Regulations for the improvement, and maintenance of the Kobold property shall be established in a Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan which is required to be submitted in accordance with Section 8.32 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. No development shall occur on this property until a Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan has been adopted by the City. The Development Plan shall comply with the policies and requirements of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. 3. Planned Development Prezone -Land Use Designations -Kobold property: 1. PD -Medium Density Intent: Medium Density land use designations are established to: a) reserve appropriately located areas for family living in a variety of types of dwellings at a reasonable range of population densities consistent with sound standards of public health and safety; b) ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling unit and c) accommodate single-family and multi-family housing, including a range of detached, zero-lot line, duplex. townhouse and garden apartment development. Intensity: 6.1 - 14.0 dwelling units per acre Permitted Uses: a. One-family dwellings b. Multi-family dwellings c. Combinations of attached or detached dwellings, zero-lot line units, duplexes, or townhouses d. Accessory structures and uses located on the same site as a permitted use. Conditional Uses: a. Bed and Breakfast Inn b. Boazding House c. Community facility d. Community Clubhouse e. Plant nursery or greenhouse used for the cultivation of plant materials (wholesale only) f Community care facility large g. Day Care Center h. Large family day care home 2. PD -Open Space Intent: Open Space land use designations are established to provide for the preservation of natural resources, outdoor recreational activities, and public health and safety. Permitted Uses: a. Public and private Open Space uses: including areas for open space preservation of natural resources; outdoor recreation-passive; stream corridor; trails. 3. Interim Agricultural Designation Intent: Interim agricultural designations shall be established for this property. This interim land use designation allows the existing residential and agricultural uses approved under Alameda County's Zoning Ordinance to remain until such time the landowner of this property applies for a Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan in accordance with Section 8.32 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance Regulations and Standards Governing the Interim Agricultural Zoning Designation: a. As specifically provided by the Interim Agricultural Designations, all applicable and general requirements of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance shall be applied to this land use designation. b. The Agricultural Districts (A Districts) provisions of the Alameda County Zoning Ordinance shall apply to properties within the Interim Agricultural land use designation. c. All properties with the Interim Agricultural land use designation shall conform to Section 8.140 of the Zoning Ordinance relating to legal non- conforming uses and buildings. 4. Dublin Zoning Ordinance -Applicable Requirements -Kobold property: Except as specifically modified by the provisions of the PD District, all applicable and general requirements of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance shall be applied to this PD District. 5. Pre-Annexation Agreement -Quarry Lane School and Kobold properties: The goals and policies of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan require annexation and new development to be revenue neutral. Prior to the submittal of the annexation request to LAFCo, all property owners within the annexation azea will be required to enter into apre-annexation agreement with the City. The agreement will assure that the financing goals and policies of the Specific Plan are met. 6. Dublin Unified School District -Quarry Lane School and Kobold properties: The General Plan Policy 4.1 states that "schools located within the city should be operated by the Dublin Unified School District". It is the intent of the City that the boundaries of the Dublin School District should be coterminous with the City limits. The property owners within this annexation area shall cooperate and actively work with other property owners within the City of Dublin's Sphere of Influence to initiate and complete the detachment process from the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District and annexation process to the Dublin Unified School District. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of August, 2000. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST: Community Development Director g:\99-064 \pcres-pd. DEVELOPMENT PLAN -QUARRY LANE SCHOOL (PA 99-064) This is a Development Plan pursuant to Chapter 8.32 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance for the Quarry Lane School project, located at 6363 Tassajara Road (APN 985-0002-006-O1). This Development Plan meets all of the requirements for Stage 1 and Stage 2 review of the project. This Development Plan is also represented by the, Site, Landscape and Architectural Plans, sheets dated June 14, 2000 labeled Exhibit A-3 to the Ordinance approving this Development Plan (City Council Ordinance No. 00 ~, and on file in the Planning Department. The Planned Development District allows the flexibility needed to encourage innovative development while ensuring that the goals, policies, and action programs of the General Plan, Downtown Dublin Specific Plan, and provisions of Section 8.32 of the Zoning Ordinance are satisfied. Zoning: This PD Planned Development Zoning District is to provide for and regulate the development of a private school. (General Plan land use designations: Medium Density Residential and Rural Residential/Agriculture) 2. Permitted Uses: The following are uses permitted for this site: a. Private School: 1. Kindergarten through High School Grades 2. After school care 3. Recreational Play fields b. Similar and related uses as determined by the Director of Community Development Conditional Uses: All conditional uses in the Dublin Zoning Ordinance for the R-1 Residential Zoning District are conditional uses in this PD / R-1 District. Temporary Uses: The school shall comply with all temporary use requirements of Chapter 8.108 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. 3. Dublin Zoning Ordinance -Applicable Requirements: Except as specifically modified by the provisions of this PD District Rezone/Development Plan, all applicable general requirements and procedures of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance shall be applied to the land uses designated in this PD District Rezone. 4. Site Plan & Architecture: See attached site and elevation plans contained in Exhibit A- 3, Development Plan. This Development Plan applies to the 10-acre site shown on this plan at 6363 Tassajara Road. Any modifications to the project shall be substantially EXHIBIT A-2 G:\pa99064\devplan consistent with these plans and of equal or superior materials and design quality. 5. Density: The maximum square footage of the proposed development and total number of proposed students under this Development Plan (as shown on the site plan) is as follows: 15, 578 square feet (currently under construction under the jurisdiction of Alameda County) and 66, 685 square feet (proposed); 950 students total (200 kindergarten students, 600 elementary and middle school students and 150 high school students) 6. Phasing Plan. The project will be constructed in one phase. Landscaping Plan. Refer to attached landscaping plan included in Exhibit A-3 , Development Plan, Sheet 7. 8. Development Standards: Lot Size and Dimensions: N/A Front, Rear, and Side Yard Setbacks: Setback standards for this District shall be as shown on the Site Plan in Exhibit A-3, Development Plan. Building Height: 59' maximum, as shown on the elevation plan in Exhibit A-3, Development Plan Floor Area Ratio: The FAR within this district shall not exceed .21 Parking/Garages: Parking shall be provided in accordance with Section 8.76.080 C of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, as shown on the site plan in Exhibit A-3, Development Plan. In the event that the proposed preliminary road alignment for Tassajara Road is altered, the Applicant shall demonstrate that the site is adequately parked incompliance with the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, prior to the issuance of a Site Development Review permit. 9. Development Agreement: The Applicant/Developer shall enter into a Development Agreement with the City of Dublin, prior to issuance of a building permit, which shall contain, but not be limited to, provisions for financing and timing of on and off-site infrastructure, payment of traffic, noise and public facilities impact fees and other provisions deemed necessary by the City to find the project consistent with, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. 10. General Provisions: The developer shall be required to pay a Public Facilities Fee In the amounts and at the times set forth in City of Dublin Resolution No. 60-99, adopted by the Ciry Council on Apri16, 1999, or in the amounts and at the times set forth in any resolution revising the amount of the Public Facilities Fee, as implemented by the Administrative Guidelines adopted by Resolution 19~-99. G:\pa99064\devplan RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DIRECT STAFF TO FILE AN APPLICATION WITH THE ALAMEDA COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION (LAFCo) FOR ANNEXING 13.7 ACRES LOCATED WITHIN THE EASTERN DUBLIN PLANNING AREA TO THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT (DSRSD) AND INVOLVED IN THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) PREZONING REQUEST FILED UNDER PA 99-064 WHEREAS, the applicant, Dr. Sabri Arac of Quarry Lane School has requested approval of a Planned Development (PD) Prezoning and Annexation of an area of approximately 15 acres generally located north of the City Limits at 6363 and 6237 Tassajara Road within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area (APN: 985-0002-006-01, 985-0002-005-01 and 005-02.); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the request on August 8, 2000 and August 22, 2000; and and WHEREAS, proper public notice of this public hearing was given in all respects as required by; WHEREAS, the staff report was submitted recommending that the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of the Planned Development Prezone and Annexation; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission heard and considered all said reports; recommendations and testimony herein above set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Planning Commission does hereby find that: The subject property is located within the adopted Sphere of Influence for the City of Dublin. 2. The proposed annexation of approximately 15 acres to the City will be a logical extension of the City of Dublin boundaries. The City of Dublin can provide high quality and efficient services to the site. 4. The proposed annexation will be consistent with the Dublin General Plan. ATTACHMENT 3 The proposed annexation of approximately 15 acres to DSRSD is consistent with the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution of application to LAFCo pursuant to Government Code Section 56800 regarding Annexation No. 12 consisting of annexing approximately 15 acres to the City of Dublin and to Dublin San Ramon Services District. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of August 2000. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST: Community Development Director g:pa99-064 pcreso lafco.doc QUARRY LANE SCHOOL ANNEXATION AND PREZONING PA 99-064 Response to Mitigated Negative Declaration Comments August 2000 ATTACHMENT4 Introduction This report compiles all letters received by the City of Dublin during the twenty-day Mitigated Negative Declaration public review period and includes responses to each of the comments. Summary of Comment Letters Comment letters were received by the City of Dublin from the following agencies and organizations. • Comment Letter 1: California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region • Comment Letter 2: East Bay Regional Parks District • Comment Letter 3: Alameda County Flood Control District Zone 7 • Comment Letter 4: Michael E. Kyle, McNichols Randick O'Dea & Tooliatos, LLP Letter 1: Regional Water Quality Control Board Comment 1: Comment 1: Since the project would disturb more than 5 acres of land during construction, a Notice of Intent must be filed with the State Water Resources Control Board Response: Page 37 of the Initial Study (second paragraph of Mitigation Measure 6) identifies the requirement to obtain a Notice of Intent. Comment 2: The project could create runoff that could degrade water quality. Preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan for the project is therefore recommended. Response: Mitigation Measure 6 requires the project developer to prepaze a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for construction and post-construction activities. The mitigation measure further requires the S WPPP to be prepared to Regional Water Boazd standards Comment 3:The proposed development has the potential to impact wetlands and water quality on the site. Response: No wetlands have been identified on the Quarry Lane School site, the portion of the overall project site for which immediate development is being proposed. It appears wetlands exist on a portion of the Kobold property. There are existing uses on the site and no further development is being proposed at this time. A full analysis of wetlands will be completed if and when development is proposed on the Kobold site. Letter 2: East Bay Regional Parks District Comment 1: Under XIV, Recreation (a) , "Would the project increase use of existing neighborhood or regional parks such that physical deterioration would occur or be accelerated?" The Initial Study determined that "no impacts" would occur. Cumulative impacts on recreation facilities in the area are increasing, including the Tassajaza Creek Regional Pazk. The East Bay Regional Parks District anticipates heavy and increased use of this facility as a result of school development, including vandalism, increased litter and fire hazard from smoking. Response: Although some amount of use of the Tassajara Creek Regional Park could occur, the students using the proposed Quarry Lane School will be provided with extensive open space and recreation facilities on the school site, including a large play field. Given that nearly all students attending the school will arrive and depart by private vehicles, and that the school property will be fenced off to discourage pedestrian traffic, actual use of the Regional Park is anticipated to be minimal. The school is separated from the Regional Park by Tassajara Road, which is planned as a major, six-lane, high speed arterial road, which will also form a barrier to Park access. If the Regional Park is to be used by students during school hours, such visits will be organized by the school with the Park District in accordance with the regulations of the Park District and supervised to minimize excessive litter, vandalism and smoking. Comment 2: There is a risk of increased trespass of Quarry Lane students onto Camp Parks military facility. Response: Development of the Quarry Lane School will result in essentially a closed campus, since there are no services provided in the area for students. Also, students will typically arrive and depart the site via private vehicles. Since Camp Parks site is located west of a major Road (Tassajara Road) and Tassajara Creek, the potential incidence of trespass onto Camp Parks property is considered low. Comment 3: Although no development is proposed for the Kobold site at this time, additional runoff and soil erosion may impact Tassajara Creek and Trail. Identify any new storm drain outfalls into Tassajara Creek tributaries proposed for Phases I or II. Response: No storm drain outlets are proposed into Tassajara Creek tributaries as part of either Phase I or Phase II. On-site storm drain facilities constructed as part of the Quarry Lane School are planned to be connected to the existing storm drain facilities in Tassajara Road. Project drainage and runoff impacts were addressed in both the Mitigated Negative Declaration and County EIR. The County EIR contains extensive discussion of the potential impact of future project runoff on Tassajara Creek under Impact D-3. The EIR states that there is a possibility that a future outfall may be needed. If ultimately, a new outfall is required, then the permitting scheme set forth in the County EIR would be followed. As noted in the District's letter, no changes are anticipated regarding storm drain runoff or erosion from the Kobold site, since no development is proposed at this time. Comment 4: The Initial Study states that service providers shall coordinate construction plans with biological regulatory agencies to reduce potential impacts to Tassajara Creek and associated tributaries. Extensive development on the Dublin Ranch has occurred south of the site and cumulative impacts to the tributary need to be assessed. The Comprehensive Stream Restoration Program was designed to cover this tributary, and requires the City to enhance the Tassajara Creek Corridor and establish and maintain liaisons with appropriate regulatory agencies. This could provide educational opportunities for students. Response: Mitigation measure 4 included in the Initial Study requires mitigation for any impacts associated with extending utilities along the tributazy. Further discussions with the project civil engineer indicate that there will be no impacts to local creeks with utility line extensions. The proposed water line extension to serve the school would be located adjacent to the existing alignment of Tassajara Road and would therefore be located above the creek. Extension of a sewer line would be completed below the creek tributary via a process of boring and jacking. The school's storm drain system would be connected to the existing storm drain system located within Tassajara Road. Analysis of cumulative impacts to local creeks would therefore not be warranted. Letter 3: Alameda County Flood Control District Zone 7 Comment 1: Stormwater impacts from the site should also be evaluated as to whether it will adversely impact the flood control facility, Tassajara Creek. The project developer shall make satisfactory arrangements to the Dublin Director of Public Works and Zone 7 to ensure storm water flows can be safely accommodated. Response: Mitigation Measure 7, contained in the Initial Study, requires the project developer's civil engineer to furnish a letter to the Dublin Public Works Department that stormwater flows can be safely accommodated. This Mitigation Measure will ensure that stormwater impacts can be safely accommodated in local and regional drainage facilities. The project developer will be required by the City to provide necessary system upgrades. Comment 2: When the facility is connected to the District's sewer, the existing septic tank should be removed or decommissioned in such a manner that surface contaminants cannot reach the groundwater table. Response: This comment will be made a condition of project approval. Comment 3: If the on-site well becomes obsolete, the well must be properly sealed or destroyed per Alameda County Ordinance 73-68. Response: This comment will be made a condition of project approval. Letter 4: Michael E. Kyle, McNichols Randick O'Dea & Tooliatos, LLP Comment 1:The Commentor believes that an Environmental Impact Report should be prepared to analyze grading and noise impacts of the Quarry Lane School Phase 2 project, as the site plan has changed to that originally considered by Alameda County in the Quarry Lane School EIR. Response: The Quarry Lane School (Phase 1 and 2) project was the subject of an EIR which was certified by Alameda County Board of Supervisors in 1999. The EIR analyzed all potential impacts of the development of a private school with up to 1,200 students in 68 classrooms, located in one existing building (9, 600 square feet) and three new buildings totaling 78, 000 square feet. The EIR analyzed the impacts of the full buildout of the school (Phase 1 and 2). However, Alameda County only rezoned the property to allow the development of Phase 1. Because environmental review must be conducted at the earliest stage possible and for the entire project as contemplated, a conceptual layout for Phase 2 was prepared, but was not approved by the County. The original site plan for Quarry Lane School considered in the EIR placed the school buildings at the center of the site with a series of parking lots along the northern property line. The recreational facilities were located to the rear of the buildings adjacent to the site's eastern boundary. The City participated actively in the County's CEQA review. The certified EIR considered two alternatives to the proposed project, the `reduced grading alternative' and the `reduced scale alternative'. The `reduced grading alternative' is similar to the current project in that it proposed buildings of a similar size (approximately 86, 000 square feet) and location on the site. The buildings were located on the western section of the property at the lower to mid portion of the hillside, the northeastern hillside was left undisturbed. The EIR also addressed potential impacts of the `reduced grading alternative' including grading and noise. This EIR analysis has been supplemented with the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared by the City for the current project. In addition, the project site is within the Dublin General Plan's Eastern Extended Planning Area and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area, which was the subject of an Environmental Impact Report, certified by the City of Dublin in 1993. The General Plan/Specific Plan EIR is a program EIR, which analyzed the environmental issues related to the land use locations, development plans and policies contained in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The EIR also anticipated subsequent project applications related to future development in Eastern Dublin. Mitigation measures adopted for the Specific Plan continue to apply to implementing projects such as the current project. A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared based on the analysis contained in both the County EIR and EDSP EIR. The City is satisfied that the EIR supplemented by an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project (Kobold property and Quarry Lane School Phase 2 prezoning and annexation) adequately addresses and mitigates any potential impacts of the project. Once an EIR has been prepared for a project, a supplemental or subsequent EIR is only required to be prepared if 1) substantial changes are proposed in the project that will require major revisions in the EIR, 2) substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken that will require major revisions in the EIR, or 3) new information of substantial importance to the project, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified as complete, becomes available. The certified EIR considered the `reduced grading alternative' which is similar to the current site plan regarding the placement and size of the proposed buildings. No new information or substantial changes have been identified that would necessitate the preparation of a new EIR. Comment 2: The Commentor references an agreement that was entered into between Mr. Nielsen and Dr. Arac. The agreement was provided to the City. Response: The City has received and reviewed this agreement. This is a private agreement between two adjacent property owners. The City is not a party to this agreement and the agreement does not preclude the City from approving a different site plan for the Phase 2 development of Quarry Lane School. Comment 3: The reconfiguration of the site plan, results in both the playground and the Phase 2 building being located closer to Mr. Nielsen's house. The site plan proposes a large cement/asphalt playfield at the 480 to 500-foot contour line Response: The original Phase 2 site plan presented to Alameda County was conceptual in nature. This site plan placed the building along the southern property line and recreational play fields towards the center of the site at the 500-foot contour line. After further refinement of the site plan, it was realized that to accommodate the original location of the Phase 2 building and play area, three ten-foot high retaining walls would be required. The retaining walls would have been located along the entire hillside from the northwestern property line to the southeastern property line. The highest retaining wall would have been sited at the 520- foot contour. The construction of three tiers often-foot high retaining walls ranging from the 490-520-foot contours would have created significant visual impacts. In addition, the visual impacts of a three- story building located at the southern property line would be significant. The provision of adequate on-site parking was constrained by the presence of steep inclines and retaining walls. The site plan for the current project was designed to avoid these impacts. The proposed Phase 2 site plan locates the building (including classrooms and gymnasium) to the rear of the Phase 1 building to minimize the use of retaining walls, reduce grading and visual impacts and provide adequate on-site parking. The relocation of the Phase 2 building and play field eliminated the need for extensive retaining walls along the northern portion of the site. The building was designed to more closely fit the natural topography by stepping the building up the hillside, the northern wall of the building itself acts as a retaining wall. The relocation of the building from the southem property line and the removal of the three-tier retaining wall system reduces visual impacts from both Tassajara Road and Mr. Nielsen's property. The relocation of the Phase 2 building also allowed for the creation of a flat playfield area at the southeastern portion of the site. Thereby, allowing the play field to be moved from the 500-Foot contour line at the center of the site (per Phase 1 and 2 site plan) to the 484-foot contour at the southeastern portion of the site. This in effect moves the playfield area and associated activities further from Mr. Nielsen's home. The playfield material will not consist of cement/asphalt but rather grass. The tennis court located to the immediate east of the playfield would be asphalt. The siting of the Phase 2 building will be closer to Mr. Nielsen's home, however the City believes that this is not an adverse change and will be of benefit to Mr. Nielsen over the previous Phase 2 concept. Instead of viewing the long face of a building, Mr. Nielsen will be viewing the north-end of the building partially buried into the hill and the roof of the new building, foreshortened. The roof has been designed to break-up the mass of the building and to screen the HVAC units. Comment 4: The movement of the Phase 2 building and the playground area would produce significant off-site noise impacts. Response: The County EIR for the Quarry Lane School analyzed the potential noise impacts of the project and concluded that school activities (which includes activities in the classroom and in the playfield) will not be significant. The EIR determined that surrounding uses would be largely shielded by the new buildings and topography. The EIR states that the effects of the `reduced grading alternative' on noise would generally be the similar to those for the original project. An updated noise study has been prepared by Wilson Ihrig and Associates to evaluate the potential noise impacts as a result of the revised Phase 2 site plan. A copy of this noise study is attached as Attachment A. The City of Dublin General Plan identifies a Community Noise Environment Level (CNEL) of 60dB to be considered `normally acceptable' for residential development The noise study evaluated the future noise environment compared to a CNEL of 60dB but also estimated potential noise levels generated by future activities on the site. The study determined that the average noise levels produced by approximately 100 children at play would be in the range of 65-70 dBA at approximately 100 feet from the center of the play area. Noise levels would be increased by approximately 5-6 dBA if 300-400 children were at play. Mr. Nielsen's home is located approximately 560 feet from the center of the playfield and will be partially shielded by the topography of the site. The study determined that average noise levels at the Nielsen residence produced by the playfield are projected to be approximately 57-63 dBA accounting for distance and ignoring shielding. In the event 300-400 students were located on the playfield at the same time, maximum noise levels could reach 73 dBA. According to the Applicant, Dr. Arac due to the segregated recess schedules for the elementary, middle and high school students and the limited recreational space on the site, it is unlikely that 300-400 students would be on playfield at any one time. According to Table 2 of the Noise Study there is no projected increase above the CNEL of 60dB and therefore there is no significant impact. The study concludes that play area activities are not expected to significantly affect the average noise levels since these activities will occur for relatively short periods of time and primarily during daytime hours. The noise study also analyzed potential noise levels produced by activities within the Phase 2 building. The building will contain classrooms and a gymnasium and would be site of various school assemblies and sporting events. The gymnasium is located within the center of the building and is separated by a perimeter lobby and additional classrooms to the exterior wall to the east and north respectively. The building shell itself provides a barrier to noise travelling to the outside. Based on the worst case scenario, that is all students and faculty are located within the gymnasium and the gymnasium doors and exterior windows are open, it is anticipated that the maximum noise level at the Nielsen residence would be between 48-58 dBA. According to Table 3 of the Noise Study there is no projected increase above the CNEL of 60dB and therefore there is no significant impact. Comment 5: The quantity of earth movement in the current proposal is greater than envisioned when the project was proposed to the County. The planners at the County of Alameda were sensitive to the natural configuration of the property and urged the applicant to redraw its plans to move site development generally westward and southward to avoid disturbing any more of the natural hillside than necessary. Response: The EIR prepared for the Quarry Lane School analyzed potential impacts of the original Phase 2 site plan and the `reduced grading alternative'. However, the EIR did not include details regarding the quantity of earth movement required to accommodate the Quarry Lane School buildings and play fields. After, the applicant's design team further refined the Phase 2 site plan, it was realized that to accommodate the original location of the Phase 2 buildings and play fields, grading of the northern hillside and an extensive retaining wall system would be required. The original Phase 2 site plan contained in the EIR, indicated the placement of the buildings, but did not show final grading contours. (See also next response) Comment 6: The proposed site plan would result in a far greater cut and fill operations. Response: Under the original project plans, the applicant's engineer estimates that in order to accommodate the Phase 2 buildings along the southern property line and central recreational fields, approximately 165,000 cubic yards of dirt would have been needed to be cut. The current Phase 2 site plan before the City proposes a cut of approximately 63,294 cubic yards, a fill of approximately 24,107 cubic yards. The Initial Study incorrectly stated that 87, 401 cubic yards of dirt would be moved. The actual amount of earth to be moved is 63, 294 cubic yadds which is equal to the amount of material to be cut, not the sum of the cut and fill as indicated by the 87,401 number. The City is satisfied that the cut and fill operations currently proposed to accommodate the Phase 2 building and play fields will retain a larger portion of the natural hillside without the need for an extensive retaining wall system. Comment 7: The Commentor objects to the conclusion that a Mitigated Negative Declaration is appropriate as the movement of 87, 401 cubic yards of earth on site will be a significant impact. Response: The grading impacts of the `reduced grading alternative', a similar site plan in both the location and size of buildings to the current project was analyzed in the County EIR. To supplement this analysis, an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declazation was prepared to analyze potential site-specific impacts of the current project. As referenced above the Initial Study incorrectly stated that 87, 401 cubic yazds of dirt would be moved. The actual amount of earth to be moved is 63, 294 cubic yards which is equal to the amount of material to be cut. Therefore, the quantity of cubic yards to be moved as a result of the current Phase 2 site plan is not considered a significant impact. Refer to Comment 1 and 6 above for additional responses. California Regional Water Quality Control Board Wiosto~ickox Secrelaryfor Environmental Protection San Francisco Bay Region Internet Address: h[tp://wwwswrcb.ca.gov 1515 Clay S[reet, Suite 1400, Oakland, California 94612 Phone (510) 622-2300 ^ FAX (510) 622-2460 Letter 1 Date: July 26, 2000 File No. 2198.09 (MYM) 2. Mr. Eddie Peabody, Jr. Director of Community Development City of Dublin P.O. Box 2340 Dublin, CA 94568 Gray Davis Governor AUAFC~~~FD OUe~lha ~ Z07,n ~t-'MtHR Re: Quarry Lane School, Annexation and Prezone, Mitigated Negative Declaration Dear Mr. Peabody: We have received the above referenced mitigated negative declazation and offer the following comments with which the Regional Boazd is concerned. The purpose of this project is to annex and prezone 13.6 acres of land located within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area. The application also includes a Planned Development Prezone/ Development Plan for Phase 2 development of Quarry Lane School. The project site is located at 6363 and 6237 Tassajara Road. The proposed project includes construction of 66,600 square feet of floor azea to accommodate new classrooms, a gymnasium, new recreational play fields, landscaping, and parking for 172 vehicles. The proposed development would disturb more than five acres of land during construction. It must be covered under the State NPDES General Permit for Dischazges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (General Permit). This can be accomplished by filing a Notice of Intent with the State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Quality. The project sponsor must propose and implement control measures that are consistent with the General Permit and with the recommendations and policies ofthe local agency and the RWQCB. This project may create runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provided additional sources of polluted runoff In addition, substantial alterations to the drainage pattern of the site may result in substantial erosion or siltation. Therefore, project impacts should be minimized by developing and implementing a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). A SWPPP is required by the General Permit. The SWPPP should be consistent with the terms of the General Permit, the Manual of Standards for Erosion & Sedimentation Control Measures by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), policies and recommendations of the local urban runoff program (city and/or county), and the Staff Recommendations of the RWQCB. Prepazation of a SWPPP should be a condition of development. Implementation of the SWPPP should be enforced during the construction California Environmental Protection Agency ~~ Kecyc[ed Paper 2- period via appropriate options such as citations, stop work orders, or withholding occupancy permits. The Regional Board has prepared "Directions for preparing a SWPPP," which is available from the Board at (510) 622-2304. 3. The proposed development has the potential to adversely impact wetlands and water quality on the site. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (covering, dredging, or filling of waters of the United States, including wetlands) sequences the order in which proposals should be approached. First, impacts to wetlands or waters of the State must be avoided to the maximum extent practicable. Second, the remaining impacts must be minimized. Finally, the remaining unavoidable adverse impacts to wetlands or waters of the State must be mitigated. Mitigation will be preferably in-kind and on-site, with no net destruction of habitat value. Impacts to wetlands or waters of the State must be avoided to the maximum extent practicable. If the project will disturb any jurisdictional wetlands or waters of the State, Section 401 Water Quality Certification will be necessary. The Regional Boazd is unable to offer more specific comment at this time. However, I have attached a copy of our General Comments, which discuss the Regional Board's area of responsibility, and which should help guide in the preparation of further CEQA documentation. Regional Board staff also encourage the lead agency to obtain a copy of "Start at the Source," a design guidance manual for stormwater quality protection from the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association. This manual maybe obtained at most city planning offices. If you have any questions, please call Emily Guglielmo at (510) 622-2344 or e-mail at stu26@rb2. swrcb.ca.gov. Sincerely, ~~~~ `~~ V Martin Musonge Associate W.R.C.E. cc: w/o Attach.: State Clearinghouse Enclosure California Environmental Protection Agency Qe~ Recycled Pnper California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region Winston H. Hickox Internet Address: h[tp://wwwswrcb.ca.gov Gray Davis Secretnp'for 1515 Clay Street, Suire 1400, Oakland, Califomia 94612 Governor Environmenm! Phane (510) 622-2300 • FAX (510) 622-2460 Protection General Comments The San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board or RWQCB) is charged with the protection of the Waters of the State of Califomia in the San Francisco Bay Region, including wetlands and stormwater quality. The Regional Board is responsible for administering the regulations established by the Federal Clean Water Act. Additionally, the California Water Code establishes broad state authority for regulation of water quality. The San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) explains the Regional Board's strategy for regulating water quality. The Basin Plan also describes the range of responses zv>il?ble to the F.egional Board with regard to actions and proposed actions [hat degrade or potentially degrade the beneficial uses of the Waters of the State of California. NPDES Water quality degradation is regulated by the Federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program, established by the Clean Water Act, which controls and reduces pollutants to water bodies from point and nonpoint discharges. In California, the program is administered by the California Regional Water Quality Control Boards. The Regional Board issues NPDES permits for discharges to water bodies in the San Francisco Bay Area, including Municipal (area- or county-wide) Stormwater Discharge Permits. Projects disturbing more than five acres of land during construction must be covered under the State NPDES General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (General Permit). This can be accomplished by filing a Notice of Intent with the State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Quality. An NOI and the Genera] Permit can be obtained from the Board at (510) 266-2300. The project sponsor must propose and implement control measures that are consistent with the Genera] Permit and with the recommendations and policies of the local agency and the RWQCB. Projects tha*, include facilities with discharges of Storm Water Associated with Industrial Activity must be covered under the State NPDES General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Industrial Activity. This may be accomplished by filing a Notice of Intent. The project sponsor must propose control measures that are consistent with this, and with recommendations and policies of the local agency and the RWQCB. In a few cases, the project sponsor may apply for (or the RWQCB may require) issuance of an individual (industry- or facility-specific) permit. The RWQCB's Urban Runoff Management Program requires Bay Area municipalities to develop and implement storm water management plans (SWMPs). The SWMPs must include a program for implementing new development and construction site storm water quality controls. The objective of this component is to ensure that appropriate measures to control pollutants from new development are considered during the planning phase, before construction begins; implemented during the construction phase; and maintained after construction, throughout the life of the project. California Environmental Protection Agency Qd Rec~~c(ed Pnper Imuacts and Mitigation Measures Wetlands Wetlands enhance water quality through such natural functions as flood and erosion control, stream bank stabilization, and filtration and purification of contaminants. Wetlands also provide critical habitats for hundreds of species of fish, birds, and other wildlife, offer open space, and provide many recreational opportunities. Water quality impacts occur in wetlands from construction of structures in waterways, dredging, filling, and altering drainage to wetlands. The Regional Board must certify that any permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (covering, dredging, or filling of Waters of the United States, including wetlands) complies with state water quality standards, or waive such certification. Section 401 Water Quality Certification is necessary for all 404 Nationwide permits, reporting and non- reporting, as well as i,.di ~idual permits. All projects must be evaluated for the presence of jurisdictional wetlands and other Waters of the State. Destruction of or impact to these waters should be avoided. If the proposed project impacts wetlands or other Waters of the State and the project applicant is unable to demonstrate that the project was unable to avoid those adverse impacts, water quality certification will most likely be denied. 401 Certification may also be denied based on significant adverse impacts to wetlands or other Waters of the State. In considering proposals to fill wetlands, the Regional Board has adopted the California Wetlands Conservation Policy (Executive Order W-59-93, signed August 23, 1993). The goals of the Policy include ensuring "no overall net loss and achieving along-term net gain in the quantity, quality, and permanence of wetlands acreage and values." Under this Policy, the Regional Board also considers the potential post-construction impacts to wetlands and Waters of the State and evaluates the measures proposed to mitigate those impacts (see Storm Water Quality Control, below). The Regional Board has adopted U.S. EPA's Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) "Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredge or Fill Material," dated December 24, 1980, in the Board's Basin Plan for determining the circumstances under which fill may be permitted. Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines prohibit al] discharges of fill material into regulated waters of the United States, unless a discharge, as proposed, constitutes the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative that will achieve the basic project purpose. For non-water dependent projects, the guidelines assume that there are less damaging alternatives, and the applicant must rebut that assumption. The Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines sequence the order in which proposals should be approached. First, impacts to wetlands or Waters of the State must be avoided to the maximum extent practicable. Second, the remaining impacts must be minimized. Finally, the remaining unavoidable adverse impacts to wetlands or Waters of the State must be mitigated. Mitigation will be preferably in-kind and on-site, with no net destruction of habitat value. A proportionately greater amount of mitigation is required for projects that are out-of--kind and/or off-site. Mitigation will preferably be completed prior to, or at least simultaneous to, the filling or other loss of existing wetlands. Successful mitigation projects are complex tasks and difficult to achieve. This issue will be strongly considered during agency review of any proposed wetland fill. Wetland features or ponds created as mitigation for the loss of existing jurisdictional wetlands or Waters of the United States cannot be used as storm water treatment controls. In general, if a proposed project impacts wetlands or Waters of the State and the project applicant is unable to demonstrate that the project was unable to avoid adverse impacts to wetlands or Waters of the State, water quality certification will be denied. 401 Certification may also be denied based on significant adverse impacts to wetlands or other Waters of the State. Storm Water Quality Control Storm water is the major source of fresh water to creeks and waterways. Storm water quality is affected by a variety of land uses and the pollutants generated by these activities. Development and construction activities cause both site-specific and cumulative water quality impacts. Water quality degradation may occur during construction due to discharges of sediment, chemicals, and wastes to nearby storm drains or creeks. Water quality degradation may occur after construction is complete, due to discharges of petroleum hydrocarbons, oil, grease, and metals from vehicles, pesticides and fertilizers from landscaping, and bacteria from pets and people. Runoff may be concentrated and storm water flow increased by newly developed impervious surfaces, which will mobilize and transport .pollutants deposited on these surfaces to storm drains and creeks. Changes in runoff quantity or velocity may cause erosion or siltation in streams. Cumulatively, these discharges will increase pollutarit loads in creeks and wetlands within the local watershed, and ultimately in San Francisco Bay. To assist municipalities in the Bay Area with complying with an area-wide NPDES Municipal Storm Water Permit or to develop a Baseline Urban Runoff Program (if they are not yet a co-permittee with a Municipal Storm Water Permit), the Regional Board distributed the Staff Recommendations for New and Redevelopment Control for Storm Water Programs (Recommendations) in April 1994. The Recommendations describe the Regional Board's expectations of municipalities in protecting storm water quality from impacts due to new and redevelopment projects, including establishing policies and requirements to apply to development areas and projects; initiating appropriate planning, review, approval, and inspection procedures; and using best management practices (BMPs) during construction and post-construction. Project impacts should be minimized by developing and implementing a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). A SWPPP is required by the State Construction Storm Water General Permit (General Permit). The SWPPP should be consistent with the terms of the General Permit, the Manual of Standards for Erosion & Sedimentation Contro] Measures by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), policies and recommendations of the local urban runoff program (city and/or county), and the Recommendations of [he RWQCB. SWPPPs should also be required for projects that may have impacts, but which are not required to obtain an NPDES permit. Preparation of a SWPPP should be a condition of development. Implementation of the SWPPP should be enforced during the construction period via appropriate options such as citations, stop work orders, or withholding occupancy permits. Impacts identified should be avoided and minimized by developing and implementing the types of controls listed below. Explanations of the controls are available in the Regional Board's construction Field Manual, available from Friends of the San Francisco Estuary at (510) 286-0924, in BASMAA's Start at the Source, and in the California Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbooks. Site Planning The project should minimize impacts from project development by incorporating appropriate site planning concepts. This should be accomplished by designing and proposing site planning options as early in the project planning phases as possible. Appropriate site planning concepts to include, but are not limited to the following: • Phase construction to limit areas and periods of impact. • Minimize directly connected impervious areas. • Preserve natural topography, existing drainage courses and existing vegetation. • Locate construction and structures as faz as possible from streams, wetlands, drainage areas, etc. • Provide undeveloped, vegetated buffer zones between development and streams, wetlands, drainage areas, etc. • Reduce paved area through cluster development, narrower streets, use of porous pavement and/or retaining natural surfaces. • Minimize the use of gutters and curbs which concentrate and direct runoff to impermeable surfaces. • Use existing vegetation and create new vegetated areas to promote infiltration. • Design and lay out communities to reduce reliance on cars. • Include green areas for people to walk their pets, thereby reducing build-up of bacteria, worms, viruses, nutrients, etc. in impermeable areas, or institute ordinances requiring owners to collect pets' excrement. • Incorporate low-maintenance landscaping. • Design and lay out streets and storm drain systems to facilitate easy maintenance and cleaning. • Consider the need for runoff collection and treatment systems. • Labe] storm drains to discourage dumping of pollutants into them Erosion The project should minimize erosion and control sediment during and after construction. This should be done by developing and implementing an erosion control plan, or equivalent plan. This plan should be included in the SWPPP. The plan should specify all control measures that will be used or which are anticipated to be used, including, but not limited to, the following: • Limit access routes and stabilize access points. • Stabilize denuded areas as soon as possible with seeding, mulching, or other effective methods. • Protect adjacent properties with vegetative buffer strips, sediment barriers, or other effective methods. • Delineate clearing limits, easements, setbacks, sensitive areas, vegetation and drainage courses by marking them in the field. • Stabilize and prevent erosion from temporary conveyance channels and outlets. • Use sediment controls and filtration to remove sediment from water generated by dewatering or collected on-site during construction. For large sites, stormwater settling basins will often be necessary. Chemical and Waste Management The project should minimize impacts from chemicals and wastes used or generated during construction. This should be done by developing and implementing a plan or set of control measures. The plan or control measures should be included in the SWPPP. The plan should specify all control measures that will be used or which are anticipated to be used, including, but not limited to, the following: • Designate specific areas of the site, away from streams or storm drain inlets, for storage, preparation, and disposal of building materials, chemical products, and wastes. • Store stockpiled materials and wastes under a roof or plastic sheeting. • Store containers of paint, chemicals, solvents, and other hazardous materials stored in containers .under cover during rainy periods. • Berm around storage areas to prevent contact with runoff. • Cover open Dumpsters securely with plastic sheeting, a tarp, or other cover during rainy periods. • Designate specific areas of the site, away from streams or storm drain inlets, for auto and equipment parking and for routine vehicle and equipment maintenance. • Routinely maintain all vehicles and heavy equipment to avoid leaks. • Perform major maintenance, repair, and vehicle and equipment washing off-site, or in designated and controlled areas on-site. • Collect used motor oil, radiator coolant or other fluids with drip pans or drop cloths. • Store and label spent fluids carefully prior to recycling or proper disposal. • Sweep up spilled dry materials (cement, mortar, fertilizers, etc.) immediately--do not use water to wash them away. • Clean up liquid spills on paved or impermeable surfaces using "dry" cleanup methods (e.g., absorbent materials, cat litter, rags) and dispose of cleanup materials properly. • Clean up spills on dirt areas by digging up and properly disposing of the soil. • Keep paint removal wastes, fresh concrete, cement mortars, cleared vegetation, and demolition wastes out of gutters, streams, and storm drains by using proper containment and disposal. Post-Construction The project should minimize impacts from pollutants that may be generated by the project following construction, when the project is complete and occupied or in operation. These pollutants may include: sediment, bacteria, metals, solvents, oil, grease, and pesticides, all of which are typically generated during the life of a residential, commercial, or industrial project afrer construction has ceased. This should be done by developing and implementing a plan and set of control measures. The plan or control measures should be included in the SWPPP. The plan should specify all control measures that will be used or which are anticipated to be used, including, but not limited to, the source controls and treatment controls listed in the Recommendations. Appropriate control measures are discussed in the Recommendations, in: • Table 2: Summary of residential post-construction BMP selection • Table 3: Summary of industrial post-construction BMP selection • Table 4: Summary of commercial post-construction BMP selection Additional sources of information that should be consulted for BMP selection include the California Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbooks; the Bay Area Preamble to the California Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbooks and New Development Recommendations; the BASMAA New Development Subcommittee meetings, minutes, and distributed information; and Regional Board staff. Regional Board staff also have fact sheets and other information available for a variety of structura] stormwater treatment controls, such as grassy swales, porous pavement and extended detention ponds. RUG-07-2000 MON 03 24 PM I;AS'I' I3AY itFG1ONAL August 7, 2000 Anne ICinncy Community Development Departnrenl C.ily of Dublin Ip0 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 via fax (925) 833-6628, original to follow by mail FAX N0. 4 P, 02 PARK DISTRIC'I•' ~~-_ oonan or oinrr;um, Cnrgl SQVQrIn I'i R~.idcnl Wartl 3 Jnhn SUI(cr men Frcaltleni Letter 2 "`'r" Ayn W¢•sh imp T C•u.urcr N1: vd 5 red ponaE~ socmlory warn ~ Beverly Lane W:rn1 (i Onllq Siden Wprdq Jenn Srrr Werd I RF;: Tassajara Crcck Regional Park and Trail - PA 99-OG4 Quatry Lane School Anncxataoru error, and Prczone flonm.r~ M roogm Bast Bay Regional Park District ("the District") has received the initial Study and Mitigated Negative l.)eclaralion for the proposed Quarry Lane School annexation and prezoniug and would like to make the following comments. The District owns and manages the Tassajara Creek Regional Park and segment of Regional Trail within Tassajara Creek Regional Parlc (approximately 23 acres) across Tassajara Road from the Quarry Lane School. In 1998, the District commented on the Draft i3IR for Phase t, the initial phase of development for the Quany Lane School. The E1R planned for 62,575 building sq. fl. as the planned full buildout of the private school. The District understands that ibis project is seeking approval for the proposed development of two additional parcels (13.6 acres) currently located within unincorporated Alameda Comity and the annexation of these parcels to the City of llublin. This project proposes to increase development of classroom and administrative space to 66,685 sq. li. for a total of 82,263 sq. ft vs. tine original G2, 575 sq. It stated in the FIR. The project also proposes to add parking for 172 vehicles, recreational !'acilitics, and landscaping to accommodate 950 students and 55 staff. The 3. G acre TCobold property, located to the south of the school site for future development is proposed lobe incl(.uicd in the annexation action, since it is the intervening property between existing City limits and the Quarry lane School Site, A tributary of Tassajara Creek forms the sottthem boundary of the site. A PD Open Space designation for a narrow buffer adjacent to the tributary on 1. G acres is indicated with the remaining 2. 0 acres to be zoned residential, Under X CV. Recreation (a), "Would the Project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated'?" and in the discussion of checklist item XIV. Re,L'rcatlon (a), "Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks?" The City has determined No impact to neighborhood or regional park facilities. The cumulative impacts on recreation demand in the; area, including Tassajara Crcck Regional Park, arc increasing and will be extremely high in consideration pf the development of thousands oChomcs prnposeci and under construction iu the area. Currently, the Park's user profile consists of a small percentage of hikers and equestrians engaging in low impact ?950 f'cral~a Uaks• CUUrt P,0. Box 5381 Oakland, CA 946q,5-U3B1 9 a z AUG-07-2000 MON 03:24 PM FAX N0. 4 P, 03 activities such as nature study and recreational exercise. The District anticipates heavy and increased use by students which may utilise the facility durins and after school hours for associated uses which have the potential for increased litter, vandalism, and fire hazard from smoking, In addition, there is increased military use at Camp Parks adjacent to Tassajara Creek Park, which may result in trespass onto military property from shtdents. The District 2. would like the opportunity to meet wish the Project Applicant and discuss these issues so that ntanagcment approaches can be put in place in advance of the school's conunencemcnt. C:onceu•rently, the District would like to discuss opportunities for enhancing the School's curriculum by utilizing the Park for nature study by the students. 4. Although there is no development proposed at this lime on the 1Cohold property, the provision of utility lints to the site acid drainage improvements, as identified in the lnitial Study, may result iu impacts to the Tassajara Creek tributary during the conshuction phase of utility extensions or drainage. Due to the downstream confluence with Tassajara Creek at the District's Tassajara Crcek'C'rail and fridge, additional runoff and erosion may impact the Park and Trail. Please identify i f any stomt drain outfall into the tributary of Tassajara Crcck is proposed for Phase Il. Tfnot, please indicate ifconsiruction of an outfall was approved for Phase 1. The lnitial Study slates that the service providers shall coordinate construction plans with appropriate biological regulatory agencies and that requirements of each, shall be followed to reduce impacts to the unnamed tributary and Tassajara Creek. Extensive development at Dublin Ranch has occurred on the southern side of the creek, therefgte cumulative development impacts to the tributary need to be assessed, The Eastern Dublin General flan Amendment and Specific Plan's Comprehensive Stream Restoration Program was designed to cover the tributary and mainstem Tassajara Creek. A comprehensive document, the Program calls for the City to enhance the corridor and establish and maintain a liaison with the regulatory agencies (CDFC and USPWS) for the purpose of monitoring compliance wiUt specific plan policies (Program 6k). Opportunities for enhancing the creel. corridor adjacent to the site could provide for additional wildlife value and education opportunities for students as well. The District appreciates the opportunity to comment and requests copies of future referrals, staff reports and public hearing notices on the Kobold property. if you have any questions, please contact me ai (510) 544-2602 or Jamie Perkins at (510) 544-2G11, Sincerely, ,per Steve Fiala Trails 5pocialist ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT 5997 PARKSIDE DRIVE ~ PLEASAMON, CALIFORNIA 94588-5127 ~ NHONr X925) 4II4-2600 snx (92S d6239~d August 9, 2000 RECEIVED AUG 7 2000 Ms. Anne Kinney Letter3 City of Dublin DUBLIN PLANNING Planning Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94588 Re: Quarry Lane School, Mitigated Negative Declaration Dear Ms. Kinney: Zone 7 has reviewed the above-referenced CEQA document submitted to our office. Zone 7 is hereby submitting comments to the mitigated negative declaration in the areas of Water Resources and Flood Control as follows. Flood Control: 1 Under Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures, Mitigation Measure 7a, stormwater runoff from the site should also be evaluated as to whether it will adversely impact the flood control facility, Tassajara Creek, southwest of the proposed project site. The project developer shall make arrangements satisfactory to the Dublin Director of Public Works and Zone 7 that storm water flows can be safely accommodated. Water Resources: When the facility is connected to the District's sewer, the existing Z septic tank should be removed or decommissioned in such a way that it is no longer a potential conduit for surface contaminants to reach the groundwater table. If the on-site well becomes obsolete subsequent to a municipal water 3. connection, then the well must be properly sealed or destroyed per Alameda County Ordinance 73-68, which has 31so been adopted by the City of Dublin. Ms. Anne Kinney City of Dublin Page 2 of 2 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your environmental document. If you have any questions regarding our response, please call me at ext. 231. Sincerely, `/,~j~ Sal Segura Environmental Document Coordinator Water Supply Advance Planning SS:ss cc: John Koltz, Zone 7 Diana Gaines Matt Katen M C N I C H O L S R A N D I C K O'DEA & TOOLIATOS LLP August 7, 2000 City of Dublin Attn: Planning Department Mr. Eddie Peabody, Jr. Director of Community Development 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Letter 4 Re: Initial Study Project: Quarry Lane School Annexation and Prezoning File No. PA99-064 Nielsen Land Use/NO179.001 Dear Mr. Peabody: R~~FoV~C4 AEG OV ~' lttt~,~ e4Np~A~vrlrliyw I am writing on behalf of my client, Mr. Robert Nielsen. Mr. Nielsen Gves at 6407 Tassajaza Road, Pleasanton, CA 94588. His property shares a common boundary with the project's northern boundary line. His home is situated on the hillside closely adjacent to the shared property line. Unfortunately, I have had the opportunity to read through the Initial Study dated July, 2000, only once. However, I am advised that today, August 7, 2000, is the deadline for public comment. To avoid missing that deadline, I therefore take up the pen without the opportunity to fixlly review the Study and to cross reference it with the eazlier studies produced in conjunction with the applicant's processing through the County of Alameda for Phase I of the project. In general, my comments fall in two areas: (i) grading impacts, and (ii) noise impacts. Let me say generally that due to the changes in the project as it was originally proposed to my client, I believe that a full EIR should be done. The County's certification of the original EIR was based upon a much different project configuration than what is currently proposed. At that time, an agreement was entered into and recorded against the project pazcel. The agreement addressed various use, aesthetic, and noise concerns raised by the Nielsens. It is my understanding that Mr. Nielsen has provided the Dublin Planning Department with a copy of this agreement. The very first configuration of the property upon which the original noise evaluation was based had the playground azea at the southern edge of the parcel down below the school buildings. Then, at the urging of the County, the plan was reconfigured to put the Phase II building on the southern edge and to elevate the play field area more toward the center of the parcel. The agreement reached 2, between my client and the applicant provided that when Phase II was implemented, the play field apparatus and cement/asphalt playground material would be removed. Unfortunately, the plan now before the City of Dublin leaves a rather large cement asphalt playground at the 480 to 500 ft. elevation and moves the classroom building from the southern edge of the parcel to a more central 3 ~ (location. In short, as opposed to the plan approved by the County of Alameda, the Applicant and my client, he now has BOTH the playground and the Phase II building nearer to his home! 5000 Hopyard Road, Suite 400 Pleasanton, California 94588-3348 P~mavv.oan~ooa.aa Telephone 925-460-3700 Fax 925-460-0969 www.mcnicholslaw.com City of Dublin Attn: Planning Department Mr. Eddie Peabody, 7r. Director of Community Development August 7, 2000 Page 2 The original -and so far as I am aware only noise study ever conducted in conjunction with this 4. project -was based on the original configuration first submitted to the County. This is referenced in the Draft EIR, August 1998. The movement of the classroom building as well as the playground area to the locations proposed to the City of Dublin will inevitably produce off-site noise impacts that must be considered significant. Further, it appears upon quick analysis that the quantity of earth movement in the current proposal is greater than envisioned when the project was proposed to the County. The planners at the County of Alameda were sensitive to the natural configuration of the property and urged the applicant to re- draw its plans to move site development generally westward and southward to avoid disturbing any more of the natural hillsides than necessanf. This concern was heeded by the applican± at the County and was incorporated into the plan which was finally approved. For reference, the County approved the EIR for the full project, but only approved Phase I of the project for build out. Phase I involved remodeling the existing structure and construction of a new, approximately 15,000 square foot classroom building. Both buildings border Tassajara Road and are situated on the western end of the parcel. My quick review suggests that with the relocation of the Phase II classroom building from the (, southern edge of the parcel to the center of the pazcel will of necessity result in a far greater amount of cut and fill operations. On behalf of my client, let me state that we strenuously object to the Initial Study conclusion that a Mitigated Negative Declaration is appropriate. The mere quantity of dirt 7. proposed to be moved (87,401 cubic yards) makes the conclusion that the site will be significantly impacted inescapable. Thank you for your time and consideration. My clients have attempted to be "good neighbors" to the Quarry Lane School. However, with the project's scope and layout being so significantly changed, my client feels compelled to comment as the proposal to adopt a mitigated negative declaration is simply not justifiable in his eyes. Thank you for your consideration of our comments. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the undersigned. cc: Guy Houston, Mayor Anne Kinney Robert Nielsen Very truly yours, Receivetl: 8/14/2000 5:30PM; ->City of Dub11n PW/Flre; #12t Page 2 08/14/00 MON 16:44 FAx 510 652 9941 Wilson,Ihr1B & Assoc. WILSUN, IHRIG & ASSOCIATES, INC. ACOUSTICAL CONSULTANTS August 14, 2000 Dr. Sabri Arac, President The Quarry Lane School 3750 Boulder Street Pleasanton, CA 94566 Subject: Quarry Lane School -Phase IT Re-Assessment Deaz- Dr. Arac: 5776 BI20ADWAY OAKLAND, CA U.S.A. 9461 8-1 5 31 mr. (510) iii5a-6719 aax~~ (510) 652-4447 Enmtl: infoC~wiai.com web: wNM1V.wlal.com This Letter addresses noise issues for operation of the revised configuration of The Quaz-ry Lane School at its future site on Tassajaza Road in Dublin, California. This assessment provides additional information with regard to the Phase 11 construction; tyre site plan has been revised and thejurisdictionrrow falls with the City of Dublin. (Ref. Letters dated 9 December 1997 and 3 April 1998 [nlis-dated 3 April J 997 j) This letter addresses tluee operational. noise issues: the noise from the circulation of traffic to the parking lots, the noise from students at play at the baseball/softbalUsoccer field or the tennis court, and the noise from the Phase Tz building. Existing Conditions The Quarry Lane School (QLS) site is located on Tassajara Road, and the school buildings will be located at a distance of approximately 140 to 300 ft from the road. To the north of the site, a single family residence (Nielson) lies approximately 90 ft from the property line. The Nielson residence is situated on a hill overlooking Tassajaza Road and has a direct line of sight with the roadway to the south. On the south side of the site is the Kobold Nursery, and residence located in close proximity to Tassajaza Road. The Nursery utilizes several heavy trucks and equipment in their operations during the day. The Kobold residence is shielded from the parking lot by the Villa Tassajara structure and is located approximately 40 ft from southern property line. Undeveloped privately owned land exists to the east of the school site. The terrain is hilly and some facilities of the school will be at a higher elevation than the land. to the south., and at a lower elevation than the Nielson residence. As indicated in our 9 December 1997 Jetter, sources of noise include heavy trucks, flyovers by aircraft utilizing the neazby Livermore Municipal Airport, and heavy vehicle operation at the Kobold ~ 002 ATTACHMENT A: Fecelvetl: B/t4/2000 5:31PM; ->City o1 Dublin PW/Fire; #121; Page 3 08/14/00 MON 18:44 FA% 510 652 4441 Wilson,Ihr1B & Assoc. raj 009 WILSON, IHRIG & ASSOCIATES, INC. 2 QUa77y Lane $011001 NO1$e .'ASSCSSment Nursery. The dominant noise source in the vicinity of the QLS site is the traffic on TassajazaRoad. T.n1997, the average daily traffic volume was 6400 vehicles with peak hour volumes of approximately SSO vehicles. Assessment o£ Future Conditions We understand that the City of Dublin has approved plans for additional residential and commercial developments along Tassajara Road, some of which will extend to the vicinity of the QLS. In addition, widening of Tassajara Road to six lanes is currently underway south of the QLS site. Traffic Noise Traffic nn Tassajara Road will he the primary contributor to the future noise cnvironn~ent at the QLS and adjacent azeas. The estimated ADT on Tassajara Road in the vicinity of the QLS is 23,000 vehicles with 1432 vehicles during the peak hour (year 2005), which will result in an estimated noise level increase of 5 to 6 dBA (CNEL) over the ]997 noise levels. The traffic noise increase will primarily affect the Nielson and Kobold residences which are directly exposed to the roadway. This increase is considered to be a significant impact independent of the operation of the QLS. Based on the traffic projections provided by Abrams Associates, Phase R of the QLS will require 2577 daily trips, with 675 trips (in/out) occurring during the AM peak hour. It is estimated that traffic associated with the QLS will cause, at most, a noise level. increase of 1 dBA in the local area which iS not considered significant. Furthermore, traffic flow in and out of the school will be concentrated only during the morning peak hour (7:30 to 8:30 AM). Table 1 presents a summ~uy of the projected traffic noise levels during the morning peak hour. TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF PROJECTEI) PEAK FIOUR (AM) TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS (L ,dBA) Tass&jara Road Location 1997 Noise Levels 2005 Noise Levels QLS Parking N Property Line 52 to 63 56 to 67 50 S Property Line 52 to 63 56 to 67 48 Nielson Residence (N) 52 to 56 56 to 60 45 Kobold Residence ($) 63 [0 67 67 to 7) 49 Spores and Play Area. In addition to traffic, noise associated with play areas will be produced by operation of the QLS. The QLS will ultimately enroll approximately 9S0 students although not all students will he at play in. Feceivetl: 6/14/2000 5:31 PM; ->City of Dublin PW/Fire; #121; Page 4 08/14/00 MON 16:44 FAX 510 652 4441 Wilson.Ihri6 & Assoc. ~ 004 witsoN, IHRIG & ASSOCIATES, INC. 3 Quarry Lane School Noise Assessment Che exterior areas simultaneously. The site plan for the school indicates that play activities of the students wi]1 be concentrated in on the play field (soccer, tennis, possibly softball/baseball)at the east end of the sift. Ambient noise levels at this location will be lower than other areas since the terrain and school buildings will provide shielding from Tassajaza Road. Based on noise measurements WIA has taken at playgrounds, average noise levels produced by approximately 100 children at play may be in the range of 65 to 70 dBA at approximately 1.00 ft from the center of the play area. Note that this range applies to the equivalent noise level (Litt) averaged over the measurement period (c.g., 15 minutes), and that the noise level fluctuates over time and may vary by approximately +/- 10 dBA. Maximum noise levels occurring for short time durations (i.e., less than 1 second) within the measurement period may therefore exceed the L~, by approximately 10 dBA. As a worst case, the QLS play azea may contain up to 300 to 400 students at any specified recess period which will result in 5 to 6 dBA higher noise levels relative to the 100 student level. Maximum noise levels may approach 80 to 85 dBA at the east property line due to activities on the play field, however no receptors exist at that location. At the north property line, the average noise level from the play field (approximately 430 ft from the center of the field) is projected to be approximazely S7 to 63 dBA (L~) accounting for distance and ignoring shielding, and maximum levels may reach 73 dBA. The Nielson residence is approximately 560 ft away from the play field and will be partially shielded by the topography of the Project site. The average noise levels at the Nielson residence produced at the play field aze projected to he approximately 57 ro 63 dBA (L~y) accounting for distance and ignoring shielding, and maximum levels may reach 73 dBA. At the south property line, the average noise level from the play field (130 ft from the center of the Feld) is projected to be approximately 68 to 74 dBA (L~q) accowrting for distance and ignoring shielding, and maximum levels may reach 34 dBA. The Kobold residence is approximately 520 ft away from the play field and will he partially shielded by the topography of the Project site. The average noise levels at the Kobold residence produced at the play field are projected to be approximately 56 to 62 dBA (L~.q) accounting for distance and ignoring shielding, and maximum levels may reach 72 dBA. To estimate the average noise levels fw-atypical school day, we have assumed that there will be four recess periods (15 minutes duration, 2 for elementary@400 students at play and 2 for high schoolC~ 100 students in animated discussion), 2 lunch periods (45 minutes duration, 1 for elementary@400 students and 1 for high school@ 100 students), 5 gym class periods (50 minute duration, 100 students each), and lafter-school team sport (90 minutes duration, 50 students). Table 2 summarizes the projected range of noise levels for each of these events and the estimated increase in the CNEL is indicated. With these projected levels, the playground noise will. be audible to a person located outdoors at the north and south property lines and at the Kobold and Nielson residences, however the ambient CNEL will not be signi£cantly increased since the projected levels are not high enough to affect the daily average, and the playground activities will occur for relatively short periods of time during the daytime hours. ReceYVetl: 8/14/2000 5:32PM; ->CYty o1 Dub1Yn PW/Fire; #121; Page 5 08/14/00 MON 18:45 FA% 510 852 9941 WS1son,IhriB & Assoc. WILSUN, IHRIG & ASSOCIATES, INC. 4 Quarry Lane SCh001 NOISE ASSCSRmenL TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF PROJECTED NOISE LEVELS FROM PLAY AREA Location Distances (ft) Average Noise Level (dBA Le,~ Maximum Noise Level (dBA) Projected Increase in CNELz N Property Linz 430 49 to 63 59 to 73 0 S Property Line 130 60 to 74 70 to 84 2 Nielson Residence ~ 560 49 to 62 59 to 72 0 Kobold Residence (S) 520 48 to 62 58 to 72 0 1.: Approximate distance from the center of the play field 2: Assuming 60 CNEL existing condition (From 1992 Eastern Dublin EIR) Gymnasium The Phase II building will house the gymmasium, which will be the side of various school assemblies and sporting events. At worst case, a capacity event in the gymnasium would contain the entire student population and school faculty. While the Phase ll building does have windows on the east anal west facades, the gymnasium is sepazated from the exterior walls by a perimeter lobby. At worst case, the gymnasium doors would be open into the hallway and the windows would be open, allowing cheering and other noises from the gymnasium to travel to the exterior of the building. We have assumed that all such events would occur before 7 PM, with a duration up to 90 minutes, and that the shielding provided by the building shell provides 10 to 20 dB noise reduction as compared to an assembly outdoors. Table 3 summazizes the projected and average noise levels from gymnasium events. TABLE 3 SUMMARY OF PROTECTED NOISE LEVELS FROM rVMNeRrrTNr Location Distances (ft) Average Noise Level (dBA Lr,~) Maximum Noise Level (dBA) Projected Increase in CNELz N Property Line 260 42 to 52 52 to 62 0 S Property Line 160 46 to 56 56 to 66 0 Nielson Residence (N) 400 38 to 48 48 to 58 0 Kobold Residence (S) 280 41 to 51 51 to 61 0 ~ 005 1: Approximate distance from Phase II facade nearest gymnasium 2: Assuming 60 CNEL existing condition (From 1992 Eastern Dublin E1R) .Received: 8/14/2000 5:32PM; -City or Dublin PW/FYre; 8121; Page B 08/14/00 MON 16:45 FAX 510 652 4441 WSlson, Ihrig & Assoc. WILSON, IHRIG & ASSOCIATES, INC. S Quarry Lane School Noise Assessment Conclusion .Based on this discussion, our analysis still indicates that the noise produced az the Quarry Lane School is not expected to have an adverse effect on the existing or future noise environment at the neazest receptors, and the traffic volume increase on Tassajara Road will be a considerably greater contributor to the environment. Traffic and play area activities are not expected to affect the ambient noise levels significantly, psrticulazly since these activities will occur for relatively short periods of time and primarily during the daytime hours. Please let me know if you have any questions on this information. Very ttuly yours, WILSON, lI3RIG & ASSOCIATES, INC. Debor~e~ Senior Consultant ~ 006 E:\WPDATA\WKPIt.ES\quarty line Schooi.wp0 : ~ ~ ~ 3 i m ~~ Ic ~ S ~ I ~ ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ i F ~ ~~~ kZ ~~ ~ ~ I ~ i ~ ~ 4~ z~ 8 o z I m i a ~~ffi ~ ~~~ Sa d ~ a• °~° 1 °z ~ i ~yS ~ b~~W a Z .E-i A ~ ~ I O I t ~q ~~ = N~~ w w ~c ,o I I E~ ~~' 8~ a ~ ~ ~~~' z w e ~z ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ U ~ I? a Q Z ~ rrrrrnra wrraim ~ ~ ~ ~ `88b@~ ~Ir~ ~ °~~ ~ ~ S ~ ~ e~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~ ~ ~~ ~ I Z ~ ~ ~ ~ >~ ~ ~ _~ _ h .. ~h ~ ~~ ~~J~~~~~ m ~ , g~= ~ i ~~~b ~~~~~ ~ u rf I ~ ~ ~~s m ~~~~~ mm m ~ ~~~Q ~ "~ ~ ~m ~a~~ ~ ~ Oaf b NA V I ~ ~ ~ ~{yy i yb ~ _~~ ~8 ~ [~ ~~ l` ~ Z f G ~ a ~ c~ ~~~~ a ~ 4 ~ ~_ ~ ~ ~ a a e ~~ ~ ~~~p $ ~ W ~ GI .. Z W d j y {' I s y ~ - ^ ~ 1 o<_ • 1 _N I I of 4 Zm ,r -• -- _~ ~a oo~ ~~~ .s ~ o°f ~~{z 8 .a ~ N Ian ~^ z_~ a q a $ d o N <~ SZ ~ ~ ~' 1 r g z ;~ ~ eR ^^ 3 N -~ ~ ~ ~~ z~ sf ~ ~ ~ '<1- a ~ ~gdo~m ~1 ~t ~,y ° 1~ 4 `e e_ O O '9. YN 8 _ ~' ~ N _ ~ ffi ~ a ~ m naalM ~uwa9 ~e9sz avaa°"uaw ,a,~_ ---~-_ s~Nlav3e jo $ISV81T055Ya aarrnoal .8 P;~~ ~~ry ~ ffi NW ~1 /_' "' ~~ -r- --~z: ~~ i =~ m ua •• azxa ea-aar wrvwoia~w•••.ww•• i«nmiae~a c 0 ... .+ ea as e Q E~ z w x U F dl _ ~~ < to ~ 3 ~ r- w N z m I I~ i ~ ~~~ ~3 ~ U f ~ I Iv i ~~~~ ~ Z~~ ¢a o3 ion ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ Q L~F ym IZ N w ~ ~ ~ ° 01 ~ ~ ~~ ~Q N a ~~~~ ~~ w~~ s x U~; I F i z iY . n ~" ~~~~~y~Y( i ~ W j> vv IX ~ ~ ~~~ `~ '." r ~ ~ I' io `~ i ~ i ~ ~ oSo ~ m ~ e Q ~ w o( Q Q X ~ vwrvara varvawn N ~ ~ ~ ~ •~g ~ #~~ ~ ~3~ >C U t i ~. ° ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ea~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~' ~~ ~ N ~ ~ Y Y m~ r ~ m .. V J W m ~h ~ ~m m~ ~~~~b C ~ffi ~&_ I ~e~~h w~~~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~~' ~~ a ~~x~ m ~ ~a ~~ m ~~7~~ I ~~~ ~ ~>d ~a~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ k ~ z>s z~~ 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~Y ~~ ~~ ~ o~ ~~~ ~a~ r~ ~ ~ ~ Q 2 R ~ ~~~ ~ J ~ llG" I I ~ ~ _ ~ .: I o~ N II o~ srre~ae: Zq N OI 1 - - ten; ~g~ I,a :;~ ~~_~ ~ a 6 ^ ~ ,~ s° eN ~~~ n ^~ O Qa4 r Q~^ o e~ ~~ 2 ~ ~ N ~ Y~N ~4 ~ N u $ q $ ~«~ ~ a°4 w ppp a ~ l~ A S m e ~< ~1 R S~ ~ _ < g __ f(301M 133! 99 ~'B952 pypg 9/'~~ ~ A1Nl10~I ~ ~` -- S`JNIad38 !O ~SISY9~~' b1 ~, ~~': ~~ NW Oy ~j z2 `~1~-1-~ $$oZ Z~ Z 40 O m ~~~ w ixxa u.ea-s Wrvs®i~~rna.ww~aw. ~vnrmu~~a x B Attachment 6 is the PC Agenda Statement for PA 99-064 for Quarry Lane School, dated August 8, 2000. Open Laserfiche file under PC Agenda Statements for August 2000: 99-064 QuarryLaneSchool Aug8