HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.1 Montessori Plus Day Care~~~~ OF DU~~~
111 ~~\\
1~) ~'- ~ih)1t~2
'~~Y
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
CITY CLERK
File #410-30
November 15, 2011
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
Joni Pattillo, City Manager ` a~,.~ ~a
SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission approval of the Montessori Plus Day Care
Center Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review
Prepared by Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of a Conditional
Use Permit for the operation of Montessori Plus, a Day Care Center with up to 60 children, and
of a related Site Development Review for the establishment of an outdoor play area. The
proposed Day Care Center would be located in a single-story building located at 11900
Silvergate Drive, at the northwest corner of Silvergate Drive and Dublin Green Drive.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Disclose ex parte contacts; 2) Receive Staff
presentation; 3) Open the public hearing; 4) Take testimony from the Appellant, Applicant and
the public; 5) Close the public hearing and deliberate; and 6) Take the following action: a) Affirm
the Planning Commission's adoption of Resolution 11-25 approving a Conditional Use Permit
and Site Development Review for the Montessori Plus Day Care Center located at 11900
Silvergate Drive and affirming the Findings set forth in the Planning Commission Resolution; OR
b) Direct the City Attorney to prepare findings for the City Council to adopt that: a) affirm the
Planning Commission's action in part, with or without additional Conditions of Approval, or b)
reverse the Planning Commission's action.
Submitted By
Director of Community Development
~l`~=- ~-
Reviewed By
Assistant City Manager
Page 1 of 10 ITEM NO. 6.1
DESCRIPTION:
The project site has a General Plan Land Use Designation of Retail/Office and is located within
a C-O (Commercial Office) Zoning District. Montessori Plus has been located at 7238 San
Ramon Valley Boulevard in Dublin for the last 15 years. They are vacating their current location
and are purchasing the property at 11900 Silvergate Drive.
Figure 1. Proposed Montessori Plus Day Care Center Site
Montessori Plus provides child care services for pre-kindergarten children between the ages of
3 to under 6 years old. They are open Monday through Friday from 7:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. and
will provide care for a maximum of 60 children. Children are dropped off between 7:30 a.m. and
9:30 a.m. and are picked-up between 11:45 a.m. until they close at 6:30 p.m.
According to the project plans, the subject building has a floor area of 7,082 square feet. The
Montessori Plus Daycare Center floor plan consists of a lobby, the main indoor activity area for
the children, rest room facilities, storage, and a room devoted to food preparation. There will be
approximately 1,969 square feet of the building that will not be used for the Montessori Plus
operations and will remain vacant. A play area for the children will be constructed along the
east side of the project site (adjacent to Dublin Green Drive) and it will extend around the
building to encompass a portion of the south side of the building adjacent to Silvergate Drive.
The Dublin Zoning Ordinance defines a Day Care Center as a child day care facility that
accommodates 15 or more children. Day Care Centers are required to obtain a Conditional Use
Permit in the C-O Zoning District.
The Applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the operation of a Day
Care Center with up to 60 children and a Site Development Review for a fenced play area with
new playground equipment, landscape, and a trash enclosure.
Page 2 of 10
The project is more fully described in the Planning Commission Staff Report dated September
27, 2011. (Attachment 1)
Pursuant to the appeals process set forth in the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance (Chapter
8.136) for Planning actions, the Appellant must state the "extent of the appeal and the reasons
and grounds for appeal." The appeal of the Planning Commission's approval on September 27,
2011 is confined to concerns regarding conformance with the property zoning, noise, traffic and
parking, aesthetics, and children's safety. Accordingly, this Staff Report addresses only those
topics areas and the City Council's decision will be whether the Planning Commission's
adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 11-25, approving a Conditional Use Permit
and Site Development Review, should be affirmed, affirmed in part, or reversed. Staff
recommends that the City Council affirm the Planning Commission's adoption of Resolution 11-
25.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The Planning Commission first considered this application at its meeting on July 26, 2011. After
the public hearing and subsequent discussion and deliberation, the Planning Commission
approved Resolution 11-22 (vote 4-0-1, Cm. Schaub absent) to approve the Conditional Use
Permit and Site Development Review with several additional Conditions of Approval.
After the Planning Commission decision, several neighbors submitted a letter to the City
appealing the approval over concerns related to traffic, noise, safety, and public notice
procedures. However, it was subsequently discovered that the Public Notice for the Planning
Commission meeting was not sent to all parties who were entitled to notice. The notice was
sent to a mailing list that was prepared and certified by Chicago Title Company, and spot-
checked by the Planning Consultant that was the Project Planner. That list was later found to
be incorrect, resulting in an error in the distribution of the public notices. Therefore, it was
determined that the item should be re-agendized for Planning Commission consideration
instead of moving forward to the City Council on appeal.
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed project again at aproperly-noticed public
hearing on September 27, 2011. A number of residents from the surrounding area spoke in
opposition to the project. After considerable discussion, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 to
approve the project. The Resolution approved by the Planning Commission included several
additional traffic safety conditions that were added to the project at the July 26, 2011 hearing.
The September 27, 2011 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes are included as Attachment 2
to this Staff Report and Resolution 11-25 is included as Attachment 3.
APPEAL PROCESS:
Chapter 8.136 of the Zoning Ordinance contains the regulations and procedures that must be
followed if an action of the Planning Commission is appealed to the City Council. In brief, an
appeal and filing fee must be filed with the City Clerk within 10 calendar days of the Planning
Commission action. The appeal must be scheduled for a Public Hearing within 45 days of the
filing of the appeal. The City Council may defer decision on the appeal at the Public Hearing but
must take action within 75 days of the filing of the appeal.
On October 6, 2011, several neighbors signed and submitted a letter appealing the approval of
the Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review for the Montessori Plus Day Care
Page 3 of 10
Center by the Planning Commission (Attachment 4). In accordance with Chapter 8.136, the City
Council must hold a Public Hearing no later than November 21, 2011 (within 45 days of the filing
of the appeal) and must take action no later than December 21, 2011 (within 75 days of the filing
of the appeal) or the Planning Commission decision is deemed confirmed.
Chapter 8.136 of the Zoning Ordinance states that the City Council may, by majority vote, affirm,
affirm in part, or reverse the Planning Commission's decision to approve the Project. If the City
Council decides to affirm the Planning Commission's decision to approve the Project, the City
Council may adopt additional Conditions of Approval that address the specific subject of the
appeal. The draft Resolution to affirm the Planning Commission's decision is included as
Attachment 5.
ANALYSIS:
In reviewing the application, Staff relied on Chapters 8.100 (Conditional Use Permit) and 8.104
(Site Development Review) of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Staff reviewed the project for
conformance with the standards and findings of these two chapters, and after finding that the
project was in conformance, recommended approval of the project to the Planning Commission.
The findings are stated in Planning Commission Resolution 11-25 (Attachment 3).
As noted above, several neighbors filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the
Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review for the Montessori Plus Day Care Center.
The letter cited concerns about whether the zoning of the project site is appropriate, noise,
traffic and parking, aesthetics, and suitability of the proposed use at this location. The following
is a discussion of the issues that were raised in the appeal letter.
Site Zoning and Permitted Uses
The appeal letter raised a question about whether the proposed use should be classified as a
Commercial School, and therefore not permitted in the C-O (Commercial Office) Zoning District,
or as a Day Care Center, which is permitted with a Conditional Use Permit. Definitions for the
two different types of uses are as follows:
Day Care Center. The term Day Care Center shall mean any child day care facility other
than a Large Family Day Care Home or a Small Family Day Care Home (Day care centers
accommodate 15 or more children).
School -Commercial. The term School -Commercial shall mean a private business, beauty,
cooking, or trade school of anon-recreational nature, or other school which is determined to
be substantially similar to the above by the Director of Community Development, located in a
commercial zone, and which charges a fee for attendance. Facilities which teach sports or
recreation such as martial arts or gymnastics are addressed by the Recreational
Facility/Indoor Use Type.
Public schools, and private schools that fulfill the State's compulsory education requirements,
are addressed by the Community Facility Use Type.
The current Montessori Plus facility is licensed by the State of California as a Day Care Center.
Montessori Plus would continue under this licensing classification at the new site, if approved.
The facility will accommodate more than 15 children, and provides services that are most
consistent with child day care operations than school operations. For example, it would be open
from 7:30 a. m. to 6:30 p. m. on weekdays. Those hours are much more consistent with a day
Page 4 of 10
care facility that provides either partial or full-day child care and supervision services, rather
than with a Commercial School, which would not typically provide instruction during this duration
of time.
The State of California defines a "Child Care Center" or "Day Care Center" as "any child care
facility of any capacity, other than a family child care home, in which less than 24-hour per day
nonmedical care and supervision are provided to children in a group setting." This is different
than a Commercial School, which does not provide care and supervision, but focuses on
training and instruction. Any facility in a commercial setting that provides care for young
children during the daytime, whether referred to as apre-school, nursery school, kindergarten,
day care center, or other moniker, is considered a Day Care Center, not a Commercial School.
The appeal letter also raised a question about whether all uses in the C-O (Commercial Office)
Zoning District are required to be conducted indoors. With the approval of a Conditional Use
Permit, a Day Care Center is allowed in a C-O (Commercial Office) Zoning District. Since Day
Care Centers are required to have outdoor activity space to meet licensing requirements, some
degree of outdoor uses are required to be permitted with the approval of the Conditional Use
Permit.
Noise
The hours of operation for Montessori Plus are Monday through Friday 7:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. In
order to ensure ongoing compatibility with the surrounding residential neighborhood, Conditions
of Approval have been placed on the project that limit outdoor playground activities to between
the hours of 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. A maximum of 30 children may be in the play area for two half-hour
periods in the morning and one half-hour period in the afternoon.
The Dublin General Plan Noise Element includes policies regarding noise and the location of
land uses. An Environmental Noise Impact Report was prepared by Rosen Goldberg Der and
Lewitz, Inc. to evaluate the potential noise impacts from the day care center's outdoor play area
(Attachment 6). To quantify the existing ambient noise levels at the site a series of noise
measurements were made at locations around the project site near the adjacent homes. The
major source of noise during the ambient measurements was distant traffic on I-680 and San
Ramon Valley Boulevard as well as local traffic on Dublin Green Drive and Silvergate Drive.
The Community Noise Level or CNEL was between 53 dBA and 60 dBA. The City's normally
acceptable compatibility standard CNEL for a residential area is CNEL 60 dBA.
The predicted noise level from children using the proposed project's play yard is expected to be
within the normally acceptable level of 60 dBA per the City's General Plan Noise Element. With
the ambient traffic noise at the site, the play area noise is not expected to significantly increase
the long-term average noise levels at the nearby residences.
The appeal letter raised a question as to the adequacy of the noise study. The noise study for
the Montessori Plus project uses noise measurements of similar aged children playing outdoors
with equipment that is similar to the proposed project. These noise measurements were already
on file, and important factors, such as the number of children and the distance between the play
area and the nearest homes were factored into the noise level estimates for the project. The
noise study also compared the play area noise levels measured at the Kindercare facility with
those measured at another preschool in Dublin, Kidango, and found them to be comparable.
The fact that the facility was not operated by the same owners as the proposed project is not
expected to affect the findings of the Montessori Plus project noise study.
Page 5 of 10
The appeal letter also raised a question as to whether the ambient noise from nearby St.
Raymond School was factored into the study. The original noise measurements were taken in
April 2011, and noise from the St. Raymond school grounds was not evident. In order to ensure
that the Appellant's question could be answered, another noise measurement was taken in
October 2011. Staff contacted St. Raymond School to make sure that school was in session
and that normal playground activities were taking place during the time of the additional
measurements.
The results of the supplemental ambient noise measurements were comparable to the original
ambient noise measurements and the sound of children playing was not audible near the project
site. The noise study concluded that the contribution of noise from St. Raymond School does
not significantly affect the noise environment of the homes closest to the project site. Therefore,
consideration of existing noise from St. Raymond School does not change the conclusions of
this noise analysis.
Traffic and Parking
The appeal letter raised a question as to the traffic safety of the project site. The City's
Transportation and Operations Manager reviewed anticipated traffic volumes, collision history,
and sight distances at the project site. The following is a summary of this review. A memo with
details regarding the results of this review is included as Attachment 7 to this Staff Report.
Montessori Plus proposes to occupy an existing office building. The proposed change from an
office use to day care is anticipated to result in a net increase of 191 daily vehicle trips to and
from the site. The additional trips generated by this use will likely be noticeable to neighbors.
However, the additional trips generated by this use are not expected to exceed the capacity of
the roadway or create any safety hazards.
Staff conducted a review of collision history on Silvergate Drive in the vicinity of the project over
the last five years. The review focused on Silvergate Drive west of San Ramon Road to west of
Dublin Green Drive. There have been six collisions over the five year period. However, the
quantity and type of accidents do not indicate that there is a safety problem at this location.
The sight distance for the driveway on Silvergate Drive and the driveway on Dublin Green Drive
was also examined. The sight distance at the driveway on Silvergate Drive is currently limited.
However, this will be improved with the proposed removal of the topiary bushes at the corner of
Silvergate Drive and Dublin Green Drive. The sight distance at the egress driveway on Dublin
Green Drive is limited due to the existing fence and vegetation. The circumstances at this
location could be improved by installing a stop line, stop legend and stop sign at the driveway.
Condition of Approval 71 has been included, which details traffic safety signage that will need to
be installed prior to occupancy as a Day Care Center.
Chapter 8.76 (Off Street Parking and Loading Regulations) of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance sets
forth the parking requirements for Day Care Centers as follows:
• 1 parking space per employee;
• 1 parking space per company vehicle; and
• 1 loading space for every 5 children at the facility.
Montessori Plus will have a maximum of 8 employees including the two owners, no company
vehicles and 60 children. Therefore, the total parking requirement is 20 spaces per the table
Page 6 of 10
below. A total of 24 parking spaces will be provided on the site including one disabled parking
space.
Table 1. Montessori Plus Parkina Reauirements
Number Parking Ratio Required
Parking
Employees 8 1 per employee 8
Company Vehicles 0 1 per company vehicle 0
Children 60 1 per 5 children 12
Total Parking Required 20
Not all of the employees will be at the site at the same time, and the parent drop off and pick up
times are staggered as well, so the amount of parking required at the site is expected to be
sufficient.
Aesthetics
The project was reviewed for compliance with Chapter 8.104 (Site Development Review) of the
Zoning Ordinance. Staff examined the proposed site as well as the proposed site improvements
including the outdoor playground enclosed with a tubular steel fence with mesh screening, new
trash enclosure, and modifications to the site landscaping.
Existing landscaping consisting of ivy and trees will be removed from the proposed play area
location. New landscaping will be provided between the tubular steel fence and the back of the
sidewalk along both street frontages. The new landscaping will consist of trees, shrubs and
groundcover. New landscaping will also be provided between the parking lot and the west side
of the building. Condition of Approval No. 10-14 requires that landscape and hardscape
treatment beyond that which is shown in the project plans be incorporated into the final site
installations. The low retaining wall proposed in the project plans will be finished and have an
integral color to match the building. The proposed project plans are included as Exhibit A to
Attachment 3.
Safety and Suitability of the Site
The appeal letter questioned whether the site is suitable for the proposed project and whether or
not the Day Care Center will meet the requirements of State Licensing.
Dublin Police Services Crime Prevention Staff reviewed the project and did not object to the
proposed location of the day care. The Applicant incorporated a steel tube fence and mesh
screen to reduce the ability to climb or reach through the fence at the request of Crime
Prevention Staff. In addition, Crime Prevention Staff included several Conditions of Approval for
the project (Conditions of Approval No. 48 through 61 of Attachment 3) to ensure that the
business operates in a safe manner.
The State of California regulates the provision of outdoor play space for Day Care Centers.
Once a Conditional Use Permit for Montessori Plus is approved, the State will conduct a review
of the proposed facility and will apply their criteria to assure that the facility has sufficient
outdoor space to meet State licensing requirements. It is not the City's role to make this
determination.
The appeal letter further questions the safety of the proposed location as it relates to smoking
by nearby residents as well as the general public. Chapter 5.56 of the City's Municipal Code is
the Smoking Pollution Control Ordinance. One of the stated purposes of the Ordinance is "To
Page 7 of 10
provide for the public health, safety, and welfare by discouraging the inherently dangerous
behavior of smoking around non-tobacco users; by protecting children from exposure to
smoking where they live and play; and by protecting the public from nonconsensual exposure to
secondhand smoke in and around their homes."
While the Ordinance prohibits smoking in many public and commonly-shared areas, there are
no requirements in the Ordinance that would restrict the ability of property owners adjacent to or
in the vicinity of the subject property to exercise their right to smoke in their own yards or
homes. The Ordinance prohibits smoking within a "reasonable distance" (which is defined as 20
feet) from uses such as an outdoor play area, and the future proposed outdoor play area for the
project measures more than 40 feet from nearby residential properties. Additionally, the
Ordinance would not prohibit people from smoking on the sidewalk adjacent to the property as
long as they were "actively passing on the way to another destination" in accordance with
Chapter 5.56.
The State will conduct a review of the proposed facility and will apply their criteria regarding
smoking to assure that the facility meets State licensing requirements. It is not the City's role to
make a determination regarding the State's smoking regulations.
CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE:
The project site is designated Retail Office in the General Plan and is located in a C-O
(Commercial Office) Zoning District. The C-O Zoning District allows the operation of a Day Care
Center subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission. An
environmental noise assessment was prepared and concluded that the noise generated by the
project playground activity would not exceed the standards set forth in the Noise Element of the
Dublin General Plan. Conditions of Approval have been applied to the project to ensure on-
going compatibility between the Day Care Center and surrounding single-family residences.
The project meets the parking requirements set forth in Chapter 8.76 (Off-street Parking and
Loading Regulations).
REVIEW BY APPLICABLE DEPARTMENT AND AGENCIES:
The Building Division, Fire Prevention Bureau, Public Works Department, Dublin Police Services
and Dublin San Ramon Services District reviewed the project and provided Conditions of
Approval where appropriate to ensure that the Project is established in compliance with all local
Ordinances and Regulations. Conditions of Approval from these departments and agencies
were included in Planning Commission Resolution 11-25 (Attachment 3).
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State Guidelines and City
Environmental Regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts
and when applicable, environmental documents prepared. This project is Categorically Exempt
from CEQA in accordance with Section 15301 (Minor alterations to existing facilities involving
little or no expansion) and 15303 (new construction or conversion of small structures). The
project involves no expansion of the existing commercial building and only minor site
enhancements. The project consists of a Conditional Use Permit for the operation of a Day
Care Center for up to 60 children; and Site Development Review for modifications for a fenced
play area with new playground equipment, landscape, and a trash enclosure.
Page 8 of 10
The Project is consistent with the General Plan Retail/Office land use designation and with the
Commercial Office (CO) Zoning District in which it is located which allows Day Care Centers as
a conditional use. The Project, as proposed and conditioned by the Planning Commission,
includes measures to provide compatibility with adjacent residential uses. These measures
include restrictions on the location of the play area away from the residences, and a Condition of
Approval limiting outdoor playtime. The Project is in the City limits, on an approximately 0.54
acre site that is surrounded by existing developed commercial and residential uses. The Project
site is developed with a structure and parking lot and has no habitat value.
The Project would not result in any significant effects relating to noise, air quality or water
quality. While there is anticipated to be in increase in traffic, the City's Traffic Engineer
determined that the Project would not result in an increase in traffic beyond acceptable levels as
noted in Attachment 7 and summarized in this staff report. The Project would not use
hazardous materials or generate hazardous emissions and any wastewater would be
discharged into the public sewer system for treatment and disposal. A Noise Study prepared for
the Project determined that the Project site and adjacent residences are already affected by
traffic noise. The study analyzed the potential effects of play area noise on adjacent residential
uses and determined that the Project would not exceed Normally Acceptable noise levels for
residential uses and would not substantially increase ambient noise levels at residences. The
added condition of approval limiting outdoor playtime will also minimize Project noise. The
Project is proposed on an existing developed lot with an existing structure; the Project site has
access to public streets and is served by public utilities and services.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
In accordance with State law, a Public Notice regarding this Public Hearing was mailed to all
property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the proposed Project as well as each of the
Appellants listed in the Appeal Letter. The Public Notice was also published in the Valley Times
and posted at several locations throughout the City. At the time of completion of this Staff
Report, Staff has received two emails from past and current Montessori Plus families noting
their support for the proposed project and noting that the existing site does not have traffic
safety or parking issues. The emails are included as Attachments 8 and 9. City
Councilmembers and Staff also received an email from the Project Applicants, which is included
as Attachment 10.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 27, 2011.
2. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated September 27, 2011.
3. Planning Commission Resolution 11-25 approving a Conditional Use
Permit and Site Development Review for the Montessori Plus Day
Care Center located at 11900 Silvergate Drive, with the Project
Plans attached as Exhibit A.
4. Letter of Appeal dated October 6, 2011.
5. City Council Resolution Affirming Planning Commission Resolution
11-25 approving a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development
Review Permit for the Montessori Plus Day Care Center located at
11900 Silvergate Drive and imposing additional Conditions of
Approval.
6. Environmental Noise Assessment for Montessori Plus Day Care
Center prepared by Rosen Goldberg Der and Lewitz dated October
31, 2011.
Page 9 of 10
7. Traffic Impact Review Memo dated August 19, 2011.
8. Comment letter from Roohi Agarwal dated 10/27/2011.
9. Comment letter from Zenia Kohli dated 11/2/2011.
10. Email from Project Applicants Rupa Narain and Ada Wong dated
November 7, 2011
11. Resolution 234-05 Establishing a Policy Regarding Ex Parte
Contacts in Quasi-Judicial Proceedings
Page 10 of 10
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: September 27, 2011
TO: Planning Commission
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: PLPA-2011-00013/00014 Montessori Plus Day
Care Center Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review
Prepared by Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the operation of Montessori
Plus, a Day Care Center with up to 60 children and Site Development Review for the
establishment of an outdoor play area. The proposed Day Care Center would be located in a
former single-story office building located at 11900 Silvergate Drive, the northwest corner of
Silvergate Drive and Dublin Green Drive. The application -originally approved by the Planning
Commission on July 26, 2011 - is being reconsidered due to an error in noticing.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Open the
public hearing; 3) Take testimony from the Applicant and the public; 4) Close the public hearing
and deliberate; and 5) Adopt a Resolution approving a Conditional Use Permit and Site
Development Review for the Montessori Plus Day Care Center located at 11900 Silvergate
Drive.
Submitted By
Principal Planner
. C
evie By
Planning Manager
COPIES TO: Applicant
File
ITEM NO.: O
Page 1 of 8
G:1PA#120111PLPA-2011-00013 Montessori Plus CUP12nd PC hearing 09.27.20111PCSR 9.27.11.docx
DES+~R~PTIC}N:
The project site has a General Plan Land Use Designatian of F~etailfOffice and is located within
a C-O Commercial Office} Zoning District, Mantessari Pius has been located at 7234 San
Ramon Valley Bauievard in Dublin far the last 15 years. They are vacating their current location
and are purchasing the property at 119gC1 Srlvergate Drive.
Mantessari Plus provides child care services for pre-kindergarten children between the ages of
3 to under ~E years aid. They are open Monday through Friday from 7:30 a.m. to 6.3[l p.m. and
will pravide care for a maximum of 60 children. Children are dropped off between 7:3~ a.m. and
9;3g a. m. and picked-up between 11:4 a.m. until they ciase at 6:30p.m., as noted in the
Applicant's Written Statement (Attachment 1).
According to the project plans, the subject building has a floor area of 7,g~2 square feet. The
Montessori Plus Daycare Center floor plan consists of a lobby, the main indoor activity area for
the children, rest room facilities, storage, and a room devoted to food preparation. There will be
approximately 1,969 square feet of the building that will not be used for the Montessori Plus
operations and will remain vacant. A play area for the children will be constructed along the
east side of the project site {adjacent to Dublin Green Drive) and it will extend around the
building to encompass a portion of the south side of the building adjacent to Silvergate Drive.
The Project Plans are included as exhibit A to Attachment ~ to this Staff Report.
The Dublin Zoning Ordinance defines a Day Care Center as a child day care facility that
accommodates 15 ar mare ahiidren. Day Care Centers are required to obtain a Conditional Use
Permit in the C-O Zoning District.
The Applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the operation of a Day
Care Center with up to 6a children, a Site Development Review for a fenced play area with new
playground' equipment, landscaping, and a trash enclosure in the parking lot.
2 01~ 8
Figure 1. MonPessori Plus day Care Center Srte
Previous Planning Commission Action
The Planning Commission first considered this application at its meeting on July 26, 2011. After
the public hearing and subsequent discussion and deliberation, the Planning Commission
approved Resolution 11-22 (vote 4-0-1, Cm. Schaub absent) to approve the Conditional Use
Permit and Site Development Review with several additional conditions of approval. The
meeting minutes are included as Attachment 3.
After the Planning Commission decision, several neighbors submitted a letter to the City
appealing the approval over concerns related to traffic, noise, safety, and public notice
procedures. The appeal letter is included as Attachment 4. It was subsequently discovered that
the mailing list which was prepared and certified by Chicago Title Company, and spot-checked
by the Planning Consultant that was Project Planner, was found to be incorrect. This resulted in
an error in the distribution of the public notices. Therefore, it was determined that the item
should be re-agendized for Planning Commission consideration instead of moving forward to the
City Council on appeal.
The draft approval Resolution (Attachment 2) contains the Conditions of Approval (Nos. 10-14)
that were added by the Planning Commission at the public hearing on July 26, 2011. Staff is
recommending that the Planning Commission again hold a public hearing on this application
and approve the Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review with the additional
Conditions of Approval included.
ANALYSIS:
Conditional Use Permit
A Conditional Use Permit enables the City to place Conditions of Approval on the project to
ensure that the operation of the proposed use is compatible with the surrounding uses. The
proposed project has been reviewed for issues related to operating characteristics, noise, and
parking. Conditions of Approval have been included where appropriate to ensure compatibility
with the surrounding residential and commercial uses.
Hours of Operation
The hours of operation for Montessori Plus are Monday through Friday 7:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. In
order to ensure ongoing compatibility with the surrounding residential neighborhood, conditions
of approval have been placed on the project which limits outdoor playground activities between
the hours of 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. A maximum of 30 children will be in the play area one hour in the
morning and a half hour in the afternoon
Noise
The Dublin General Plan Noise Element includes policies regarding noise and the location of
land uses. An Environmental Noise Impact Report was prepared by Rosen Goldberg Der and
Lewitz, Inc. to evaluate the potential noise impacts from the day care center's outdoor play area
(Attachment 5). To quantify the existing ambient noise levels at the site a series of noise
measurements were made at locations around the project site near the adjacent homes. The
major source of noise during the ambient measurements was distant traffic on I-680 and San
Ramon Valley Boulevard as well as local traffic on Dublin Green Drive and Silvergate Drive.
The Community Noise Level or CNEL was between 53 dBA and 60 dBA. The City's normally
acceptable compatibility standard CNEL for a residential area is CNEL 60 dBA.
3 of 8
Noise measurements were also conducted of children in the play area at KinderCare Learning
Center on Amador Valley Court, a similar facility to the proposed day care center. Proposed
noise levels for the children at the proposed Montessori Plus play area were calculated based
on the noise measurements at the Kinder Care Facility. Adjustments were made for the number
of children and distance between the play area and property line.
The predicted noise level from children using the proposed project's play yard is expected to be
within the normally acceptable level of 60 dBA per the City's General Plan Noise Element. With
the ambient traffic noise at the site, the play area noise is not expected to significantly increase
the long-term average noise levels at the nearby residences.
Safety
Dublin Police Services Crime Prevention Staff reviewed the project and did not object to the
proposed location of the day care. The Applicant incorporated a steel tube fence and mesh
screen to reduce the ability to climb or reach through the fence at the request of Crime
Prevention Staff. In addition, Crime Prevention Staff included several conditions of approval for
the project (Conditions of Approval 48 through 61 of Attachment 2) to ensure that the business
operates in a safe manner.
Traffic
The City's Transportation and Operations Manager reviewed anticipated traffic volumes,
collision history, and sight distances at the project site. The following is a summary of this
review. A memo with details regarding the results of this review is included as Attachment 6 to
this Staff Report.
Montessori Plus proposes to occupy an existing office building. The proposed change from an
office use to day care is anticipated to result in a net increase of 191 daily vehicle trips to and
from the site. The additional trips generated by this use will likely be noticeable to neighbors.
However, the additional trips generated by this use are not expected to exceed the capacity of
the roadway or create any safety hazards.
Staff conducted a review of collision history on Silvergate Drive in the vicinity of the project over
the last five years. The review focused on Silvergate Drive west of San Ramon Road to west of
Dublin Green Drive. There have been six collisions over the five year period. However, the
quantity and type of accidents do not indicate that there is a safety problem at this location.
The sight distance for the driveway on Silvergate Drive and the driveway on Dublin Green Drive
was also examined. The sight distance at the driveway on Silvergate Drive is currently limited.
However, this will be improved with the proposed removal of the topiary bushes at the corner of
Silvergate Drive and Dublin Green Drive. The sight distance at the egress driveway on Dublin
Green Drive is limited due to the existing fence and vegetation. The circumstances at this
location could be improved by installing a stop line, stop legend and stop sign at the driveway.
Condition of Approval 71 has been included, which details traffic safety signage that will need to
be installed prior to occupancy as a Day Care Center.
Parking
Chapter 8.76 (Off Street Parking and Loading Regulations) of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance sets
forth the parking requirements for Day Care Centers as follows:
• 1 parking space per employee;
• 1 parking space per company vehicle; and
• 1 loading space for every 5 children at the facility.
4of8
Montessori Plus will have a maximum of 8 employees including the two owners, no company
vehicles and 60 children. Therefore, the total parking requirement is 20 spaces per the table
below. A total of 24 parking spaces will be provided on the site including one handicap space.
Table 1. Montessori Plus Parking Requirements
Number Parking Ratio Required
Parkin
Emplo ees 8 1 per emplo ee 8
Com an Vehicles 0 1 per com an vehicle 0
Children 60 1 per 5 children 12
Total Parkin Re uired 20
Site Development Review
The project includes the establishment of an outdoor playground enclosed with a tubular steel
fence with mesh screening, and construction of a trash enclosure. Chapter 8.104 (Site
Development Review) requires Site Development Review for any modifications to site layout
specifically fencing for the play area and the trash enclosure.
Fencing
The play area for Montessori Plus is approximately 2,700 square feet in area and will be
enclosed with a tubular steel fence with mesh screening (Attachment 2, Exhibit A, Sheets A2.1
& A3.1). The fence will be located on a low concrete retaining wall because of the difference in
grade between the building and the street sidewalk. The height of the fence and wall as
measured from the Dublin Green Drive and Silvergate Drive sidewalk will be approximately 6
feet (Attachment 2, Exhibit A, Sheet A3.1). The height of the fence will vary from four (4) to six
(6) feet from the playground side. This type of fencing will withstand the use of the playground
and is secure from intrusion from the surrounding area. The mesh screening also provides
visual security of the playground area.
Playground Equipment
The playground will be divided up into the following areas as shown on the project plans
(Attachment 2, Exhibit A, Sheet A2.1):
A small sandbox area in the north corner of the playground.
A concrete play area where children can use wheeled toys, balls and various pieces of
equipment.
An area covered with playground fiber containing three play structures. The structures
will be of varying sizes depending on the age of the children using them. The largest
structure will be approximately 3 feet to the main platform and 9 feet to the peak of the
roof.
Accessory Structures
The Applicant will be constructing a ten foot by sixteen foot trash enclosure at the rear corner of
the parking lot (Attachment 2, Exhibit A, Sheets A2.1 & A3.1 detail 16). The six foot high
enclosure will be constructed of concrete block painted to match the building. It will have a
composition shingle roof and solid metal gates.
5 of 8
Landscaping
Existing landscaping consisting of ivy and two trees will be removed from the play area. New
landscaping will be provided between the tubular steel fence and the back of the sidewalk along
both street frontages (Attachment 2, Exhibit A, Sheet 2.1). The new landscaping will consist of
trees, shrubs and groundcover. New landscaping will also be provided between the parking lot
and the west side of the building. Conditions of Approval No. 10-14 require that landscape and
hardscape treatment beyond that which is shown in the project plans be incorporated into the
final site installations.
CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE:
The project site is designated Retail Office in the General Plan and is located in a C-O
(Commercial Office) Zoning District. The C-O Zoning District allows the operation of a Day Care
Center subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission. An
environmental noise assessment was prepared and concluded that the noise generated by the
project playground activity would not exceed the standards set forth in the Noise Element of the
Dublin General Plan. Conditions of Approval have been applied to the project to ensure on-
going compatibility between the Day Care Center and surrounding single-family residences.
The project meets the parking requirements set forth in Chapter 8.76 (Off-street Parking and
Loading Regulations).
REVIEW BY APPLICABLE DEPARTMENT AND AGENCIES:
The Building Division, Fire Prevention Bureau, Public Works Department, Dublin Police Services
and Dublin San Ramon Services District reviewed the project and provided Conditions of
Approval where appropriate to ensure that the Project is established in compliance with all local
Ordinances and Regulations. Conditions of Approval from these departments and agencies
have been included in the attached Resolution (Attachment 2).
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
State law requires that the City provide notice of public hearings to all property owners within
300-feet of the subject property. For the previous Planning Commission hearing on July 26,
2011, the mailing list was prepared and certified by Chicago Title Company and submitted to the
City by the Applicant as is standard practice. The mailing list was then spot checked by the
Planning Consultant who was the Project Planner. However, it appears that some residents in
the multi-family housing development located across Silvergate Drive from the project site were
not included on the mailing list.
For this public hearing, Staff prepared an accurate, comprehensive mailing list that was used for
the re-noticing of this application to all property owners and tenants with 300 feet of the subject
property. Public notices were also sent to all speakers at the July 26, 2011 Planning
Commission hearing and all residents who signed the appeal letter. A Public Notice was also
published in the Valley Times and posted at several locations throughout the City.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State Guidelines and City
Environmental Regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts
and when applicable, environmental documents prepared. Staff is recommending that the
Project be found Categorically Exempt from CEQA, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15301, Existing Facilities and Section 15303, New Construction or conversion of Small
6of8
Structures. The project consists of a Conditional Use Permit for the operation of a Day Care
Center for up to 60 children and Site Development Review for establishment of minor accessory
structures related to an outdoor playground including wrought iron fencing with a wire mesh and
a refuse enclosure.
ATTACHMENTS: 1) Applicant's Written Statement
2) Resolution approving a Conditional Use Permit and
Site Development Review for the Montessori Plus Day
Care Center located at 11900 Silvergate Drive, with the
Project Plans attached as Exhibit A
3) July 26, 2011 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
4) Appeal letter date August 5, 2011
5) Environmental Noise Assessment for Montessori Plus
Day Care Center prepared by Rosen Goldberg Der and
Lewitz dated July 15, 2011
6) Traffic Memo from Jaimee Bourgeois, Transportation
and Operations Manager dated August 25, 2011
7of8
GENERAL INFORMATION:
APPLICANT Ada Wong & Rupa Norain
Montessori Plus
7238 San Ramon Road
Dublin, CA 94568
PROPERTY OWNER:
LOCATION:
ASSESSORS PARCEL
NUMBER:
GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE DESIGNATION:
SPECIFIC PLAN
LAND USE DESIGNATION:
SURROUNDING USES:
Dwight W. Stump & Margaret L. Blair
1007 McCauley Road
Danville, CA 94526-1971
11900 Silvergate Drive
941-0103-011-01
Retail Office
N/A
LOCATION ZONING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE CURRENT USE OF
PROPERTY
North Single Family Single Family Residential
Residential
Multi-Family
Residential &
South Planned Multi-Family Residential Residential
Development
Residential
East Neighborhood Retail/Office Commercial
Commercial
West Single Family Single Family Residential Residential
Residential
REFERENCE: General Plan
Zoning Ordinance
8 of 8
~~a
3 ~;:~~~ Planning Cornm~ss~on Minutes
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, September
27, 2011, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Brown called the
meeting to order at 7:01:10 PM
Present: Chair Brown; Vice Chair Wehrenberg; Commissioners Schaub, O'Keefe, and
Bhuthimethee; Jeff Baker, Planning Manager; Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner; Mike Porto,
Consulting Planner; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary.
Absent: None
ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA -NONE
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - On a motion by Cm. Wehrenberg, seconded by Cm.
Bhuthimethee the minutes of the August 23, 2011 meeting were approved.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -NONE
CONSENT CALENDAR -NONE
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS -NONE
PUBLIC HEARINGS -
8.1 Appeal of a Community Development Director Determination regarding Section
8.76.040.M.2 (Small Tenant Space) and Interpretation regarding Section 8.40.030.G.6
(Retail Sales) as they relate to the proposed Sahara Market expansion at 6783/6777
Dublin Boulevard.
Jeff Baker, Planning Manager, stated the Appellant and Staff has requested a continuance in
order to continue to work with the property owner to address the issues facing Sahara Market to
enable them to open as well as more global issues the property owner has regarding the use of
his property. He stated that Staff is still working with the property owner and was not able to
resolve the issues before the notice had to be sent out. The Appellant has requested a
continuance of their project to be heard on or before December 13, 2011. He stated there is a
preliminary agreement and Staff is hopeful they can bring the situation to a resolution.
On a motion by Cm. O'Keefe and seconded by Crn. Wehrenberg, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning
Commission unanimously accepted the continuance and the matter will be heard on or before
12-13-11:
RESOLUTION NO. 11 - XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
~'Ccasarting (,~c~~7z~rrit~sivx 5~~~r"27, f~,11
~g~ctr ~,~~~~~,~ 117
AFFIRMING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S DETERMINATION
REGARDING SECTION 8.76.040.M.2 (SMALL TENANT SPACE) AND INTERPRETATION
REGARDING SECTION 8.40.030.G.6 (RETAIL SALES) AS THEY RELATE TO THE
PROPOSED SAHARA MARKET EXPANSION
6783/6777 DUBLIN BOULEVARD
8.2 PLPA-2011-00013/00014 Montessori Plus Day Care Center Conditional Use Permit
and Site Development Review.
Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report.
Cm. Schaub asked about a retaining wall.
Ms. Bascom answered at the outdoor play area there is a fence on top of a low retaining wall.
Cm. Schaub stated there is also a retaining wall on the side of the exit drive.
Ms. Bascom answered that is an existing retaining wall and stated there was condition added by
the Planning Commission at the July 26, 2011 hearing related to the proposed retaining wall.
Chair Brown asked if there will be a maximum of 30 children outdoor for one hour in the morning
and a maximum of 30 children for'/2 hour in the afternoon.
Ms. Bascom answered yes; a maximum of 30 children will be outside at any one of those
periods of time.
Cm. Schaub asked if that is a condition.
Ms. Bascom answered yes, Condition #16.
Chair Brown asked if the height of the fence is 4-6 feet at the play area facing south to Dublin
Green.
Ms. Bascom answered yes, facing the sidewalk side of the fence.
Chair Brown asked if that height would be enough to prevent balls or toys from going into street
which could cause problems with traffic or pedestrians.
Ms. Bascom felt the Applicant should that question.
Mr. Baker stated that they would be subject to State licensing requirements.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked to clarify if the conditions added from the last meeting regarding
signage for right turn only at the exit would be addressed by the City.
Ms. Bascom answered the signage is covered in Condition #10 and Condition #71 which
mentions the other signs and pavement markings to be added for traffic safety.
,~ ~~ ,a
118
__
Chair Brown asked if there wil! be a right hand turning restriction while exiting the property onto
Dublin Green.
Ms. Bascom answered no, the roadway turns to the right and Dublin Green is not a through
street.
Cm. Schaub asked if the retaining wall at the exit was discussed with the Applicant. He felt the
wall is falling down. He suggested that it should be fixed before the day care center opens.
Mr. Baker stated there were discussions between the Applicant and the Public Works regarding
the retaining wall. He stated the retaining wall does not belong to the Applicant.
Cm. Schaub felt it didn't matter who owned it because if it fell onto the road it would still have to
be repaired.
Cm. Schaub felt the hours of outside play are dictated by State regulations and asked if the
City's Conditions of Approval did not meet State's regulations would the Applicant have to come
back to the Planning Commission to change it or would Staff be able to make the change. He
felt it was not fair to make the Applicant come back to the Commission when it is a State
requirement.
Ms. Bascom answered Condition of Approval #16 covers the outdoor play time issue and she
felt that since there was a study prepared and it is a topic of public interest it would probably not
be changed at the Staff level but it would be brought back to the Commission. She suggested
that if the Planning Commission wanted to see more flexibility or language added such as "per
state requirements" that could be added to the Conditions of Approval.
Cm. Wehrenberg did not recall that subject being brought up at the previous meeting.
Mr. Baker stated that was a Condition in the original Approval in July; tied directly to the noise
study. Based on the Applicant's request, the noise study evaluated noise levels and the
condition was prepared and included in the resolution that was approved at that meeting.
Cm. Schaub felt it was important to add a "No Entrance"sign should be placed on the pavement
on the one way exit road. He stated the graphics on the exit road are faded which could cause
a problem.
Chair Brown asked if Cm. Schaub meant the exit onto Dublin Green.
Cm. Schaub answered yes and felt it was important that people know that the drive is an "exit
only."
Cm. Wehrenberg agreed that a "No Entrance" sign should be added.
Cm. O'Keefe agreed with CM Schaub that an additional sign should be provided and felt it was
good that the Applicant will provide the stop sign at the exit drive.
Cm. Brown opened the public hearing. He asked the speakers to organize their comments and
not repeat comments.
tg C'nrra~s~~ssiu .4~~rn~r~r, ?tltl
~~~~ag 119
Ms. Ada Wong, Applicant spoke in favor of the project.
Ms. Rupa Norain, Applicant spoke in favor of the project.. She gave a short history of their day
care center. She stated they have been operating a preschool in Dublin for 16 years with no
problems. She felt they are providing an essential service to the area.
Mr. Howard Wong presented a PowerPoint presentation regarding their proposal. The key
points are:
- Facility is 1 block from current location
- Continue with license for 60 children
- They have addressed new Conditions of Approval added at the previous meeting.
- Exterior is not changing, only interior improvements.
- Site improvements including handicap access ramp and curb cuts to the building for
ADA compliance
- Wrought iron fencing with landscaping and privacy screen and a fully enclosed
playground area on the southeast corner of lot. He stated the fence at the current site
is 6 feet in height which is a minimum height requirement.
- Installation of additional trees and landscaping throughout property.
- Installation of trash enclosure.
- Hours of operation M-F 7:30am to 6:30pm.
- Traffic issues - He stated they encourage carpools, and staggered times for drop-off
and pick-up. He presented a graph showing drop-off and pick-up times which showed
the children do not all come at one time.
- Maximum license is for 60 children; there would not be that. many present at one time;
staggered throughout the day and never a time when cars are backed up to the street.
- Fully enclosed fenced area located far away from neighbors.
Cm. Schaub felt the majority of the children will arrive between 9 and 9:30 and half of the pick-
ups are between 12 and 12:30pm.
Mr. Wong agreed.
Cm. Schaub mentioned the graph which shows there are only a few children being dropped off
at a time.
Mr. Wong agreed.
Cm. Schaub asked if a lot of the children go home at noon.
Mr. Wong answered yes.
Cm. Schaub felt that in the afternoon session there would be fewer children with a different
dynamic then was imagined.
Mr. Wong showed the area where the play area will be built. He showed a picture of the view
from Dublin Green and felt there was adequate visibility. He felt the addition of the stop sign
and pedestrian crossing signs will help the situation. He stated the fence that was discussed
previously that was. falling down is not on their property and the owner had tried to have the
fence repaired but was unable to get financing.
~~~~6~~z~ ~~z.~
120
Cm. Schaub felt when the fence falls dawn it will come down on their driveway and it will still be
a problem.
Mr. Wong agreed.
There was a discussion regarding the retaining wall and fence that is in disrepair on the property
next to theirs
Mr. Wong stated that safety of the children is of primary concern and discussed the entrance
and exit strategy. He stated that the State is responsible for ensuring the safety of the facility
both indoor and outdoor and will have to go through State Licensing again for this new location.
Mr. Wong summarized his proposal and requested the Planning Commission's support.
Chair Brown asked what the student/teacher ratio is when there are 30 children playing in the
yard.
Ms. Wong answered the required ratio is 1-12 but there are usually at least 4 teachers for 30
children.
Chair Brown felt they exceed the State Licensing requirement.
Ms. Norain mentioned Cm. Schaub's concern regarding state licensing for outdoor play. She
stated that in the current location there is no time limit to be outside, but there is a student ratio
requirement and a space requirement of 75 square feet per child.
Margo Henry, 7682 Arbor Creek Circle, spoke in opposition to the project. She was concerned
about increased traffic, parking problems with the condo project, speeding cars and damage to
her cars. She was also concerned about the safety of the children within cars.
Audrey Hutchinson, 7725 Woodren Court, spoke in opposition to the project. She was
concerned with the closeness of the play area to her home, exit traffic onto Dublin Green and
the 7-11 store which is busy. She was also concerned with the exit drive and if it was wide
enough or even part of the property.
Mary Leoni, 11890 Silvergate Drive, spoke in opposition to the project. She was concerned
about additional traffic; the safety of the children in the neighborhood; that an environmental
study was not done to address the exhaust from the additional traffic and the additional noise
from the play area.
Jose Rivera, 11889 Dublin Green Drive, spoke in opposition to the .project. He was concerned
about the vacant space within the building and their use of it in the future; possibly more children
therefore more traffic. He was .also concerned about food delivery trucks and if they are
counted in the 191 additional cars. He was concerned regarding the removal of the bushes on
the corner of Silvergate and Dublin Green and replaced with fence which could be an
obstruction. He was concerned the location of the trash enclosure and the property line. He
stated that the fence is off the property fine and he had an agreement with the property owner
that when the fence was repaired they would reposition it on the property line.
~~~~~~
~~~.~ 121
Cm. Schaub asked which fence he was referring to and if he owned the retaining wall that is
falling .down.
Mr. Rivera answered no he doesn't own the retaining wall that is falling down he owns the
property next to it.
Cynthia Santos, 7749 Woodren Court, spoke in opposition to the project. She mentioned that
there is no stucco on the building which was mentioned during the last meeting there is only
siding. She also wanted to clarify that the building was not previously a medical office where
people were in and out all day long. She stated it was an office building supporting the medical
industry only. She was concerned about the size of the playground which she felt was 75
square feet per child. She did not agree with the measurements of the playground. She
mentioned that State requirements prohibit smoking within 25 feet of a playground and asked if
no-smoking signs would be posted by the City.
Cm. Schaub stated that the Planning Commission is not the state licensing board and the board
will not come into play until after the facility is established. He continued that any issue that is
brought up will have to be dealt by the State.
Ms. Santos wanted to make the point that there is an issue.
Ms. Santos felt the pictures shown by the Applicant were not typical of the visibility on the street
and was concerned about the traffic. She was concerned about the parking on Dublin Green,
traffic, maintenance of the landscaping and the safety of the neighborhood children.
Cm. Schaub mentioned that two of the Commissioners drive Sifvergate every day and are
familiar with the traffic on the street.
Terry Leoni, former resident at 11890 Silvergate Drive, attorney representing Mary Leoni, spoke
in opposition to the project. She was concerned with the notices .that were mailed and asked if
there was proof that it was published in the newspaper.
Mr. Baker answered that proper notice was given in accordance with State law, published in the
local newspaper as well as notices were sent to all property owners. He continued the City went
beyond state requirements and also mailed the notice to all occupants within a 300 foot radius
of the project.
Ms. Leoni felt the City was not following the Zoning Ordinance. She was concerned with the
future use of the vacant space within the building and the impact additional tenants would have
on the area. She was concerned with the noise level, parking requirements and felt. this had not
been adequately addressed by the Commission or any of the reports. She was concerned with
the outdoor play hours. She felt the building is in a Commercial office district and that a school
is not a permitted use in this area. She felt the Commission was violating Chapter 8 of the
Zoning ordinance. She was concerned about the height of the fence would create a visibility
problem. She was concerned with the additional air pollution from 191 cars. She felt the noise
study did not study a similar facility and therefore was not relevant to this project. She
mentioned an easement that she felt had not been addressed. She felt that the Zoning
ordinance is there for a reason and the Planning Commission is obligated to follow it. She
asked for more research to be done and listening to the opinion of the neighbors.
c .. a .~F,~~~~
122
Cm. Schaub stated the Planning Commission has reviewed many day care centers. He stated
that the projects that are submitted to the Planning Commission by Staff would not be submitted
unless the project is allowed in the zoning district. He stated there are many businesses that
are in the light industrial and commercial zoning district such as churches and recreational
facilities for children and these facilities are going into these types of buildings because the rents
are lower. He does not believe that Staff would bring a project to the Commission that is not
correct.. He continued that the Commission is not the reviewing body that would make a
determination for the state requirements for a day care center.
Cm. Wehrenberg stated the Planning Commission is here to look at land use only and the
appropriateness of the land use within the zoning district. She agreed with Cm. Schaub that we
wouldn't be here if the project didn't fit the zoning district. If the Commission cannot make the
findings they would not approve it. She continued that during the last hearing she had issues
with the project's suitability and that is why Staff added the additional conditions. She continued
that the Commission's role is to Took at the land use and ensure that it is suitable for the project.
She stated she heard the comments and hopes they have addressed them because the
speakers made good points.
Cm. Schaub stated that the traffic on Silvergate was rated years ago and he did not feel the
traffic is close to the number the street is rated at. He stated Silvergate is rated extremely high
on the plans and is expected to have more traffic than it has today. He stated the reason is that
there were a lot of homes that were not built except at Schaefer Ranch.
Cm. Wehrenberg mentioned that the closure of Neilsen Elementary School also affected the
traffic on Silvergate.
Chair Brown closed the public hearing.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked about an issue Ms. Santos brought up regarding the building materials
and asked Staff to confirm.
Mr. Baker responded there was a condition that was added by the Commission at the last
meeting regarding the finish on the retaining wall; the condition was written to ensure the color
of the stucco on the retaining wall would match the building color, not the material
Cm. Wehrenberg stated they are not changing the exterior of the building; they are. only
installing the playground, landscaping and fencing.
Mr. Baker answered yes and mentioned the additional Condition of Approval that was added:
"the proposed retaining wall be finished and have a color to match the building."
Cm. O'Keefe asked if the Applicant had any plans for the vacant space in the building.
Mr. Baker responded there is Condition of Approval #23 that puts restrictions on the use of that
space, they would need to obtain approval to ensure there is adequate parking.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the Applicant wanted to make a change to this project would it be
required to be submitted to the Planning Commission or the Planning Department depending on
the solution.
123
Mr. Baker answered yes, depending on the solution.
Cm. Schaub did a calculation for parking for the remaining vacant area in the building and
determined they would need 1-2 spaces if it was used for a warehouse or a restaurant.
Mr. Baker stated they would be restricted as to what type of business could go in there because
of the parking issue.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked the Applicant to clarify Mr. Rivera's statement regarding trucks dropping
off food at the facility.
Chair Brown opened the public hearing again.
Ms. Norain responded there are no trucks that deliver to the school and no food preparation on
site.
Chair Brown closed the public hearing.
Cm. O'Keefe asked about the fence height and the visibility issue.
Mr. Baker stated this question was addressed at the last hearing. He stated there is a "Clear
Vision Triangle" requirement regarding visibility at a corner.. The corner was reviewed by the
Public Works Department and the fence was found to be outside the "Clear Vision Triangle" in
an area where it would be permitted without obstructing visibility.
Cm. Schaub asked about fencing in a residential neighborhood on a corner.
Mr. Baker responded a residential fence in a residential area would be different than this fence.
He continued that the fence is allowed in this commercial area and it is outside the visibility
area.
Cm. Schaub asked about aset-back for the fence.
Mr. Baker answered there is a condition that stated the retaining wall should be set back to
enable landscaping between the fence and the retaining wall.
Cm. O'Keefe asked about the State requirement for .playground space per child.
Mr. Baker responded that is a State licensing requirement based. on number of children and
there is a Condition of Approval that requires the Applicant to obtain a license from the State.
Cm. O'Keefe asked about the accuracy of the noise study.
Mr. Baker stated that the noise study was done by a noise expert that is on contract with the
City. He stated they did a comparison with an existing day care center and found it be in
compliance with the Conditions of Approval limiting the hours of the day care operation.
Chair Brown asked for Staff to clarify the traffic that is anticipated with regards to the 191 cars
mentioned in the traffic study.
,.. _ ._ as ~ ~a. x~, ~~~
124
Mr. Baker responded the City's Traffic Engineer reviewed the project and did afollow-up review
of the project with a more in-depth analysis after the hearing in July. She provided a memo that
addressed some of the issues (Attachment 6 of the Staff Report). She included information
regarding roadway capacity and whether this is a suitable site to accommodate the traffrc that
would be generated. She found the facility to be within the capacity of the roadway. He stated
there would be more traffic but within reasonable limitations.
Cm. Schaub commented that the Commission has approved many day care centers and the
same issues and questions have come up each time. He stated that most or all of the concerns
go away when the project is complete. He wanted everyone to understand that the Commission
will discuss making findings regarding land use issues, safety and health requirements,
circulation and impacts to traffic and parking, public compatibility, and zoning consistency; these
are some of the findings they must be able to meet for every project. He stated they try to do it
correctly and they rely on Staff. He stated he could make the findings.
Cm. Wehrenberg agreed with Cm. Schaub. She felt the issues from the last hearing had been
resolved through the added Conditions of Approval. She stated she listened to the neighbors'
and heard their concerns and stated she is well aware of the traffic issues in the area. She felt
the parking issue needs to be addressed with the condo complex not with this Applicant.
Cm. Schaub asked if people are parking on one side and walking across four lanes of traffic and
the landscaping median strip.
Cm. Wehrenberg answered yes. She understands the neighbors and felt they brought up very
good points regarding the traffic at the 7-11. She felt the public officials and police need to be
more involved with the 7-11 issue. She felt that with additional traffic signage they could make
the facility safe. The zoning is applicable for the area and she agreed that the Applicant must
obtain a State License and will not be allowed to open until they do. She stated she could make
the findings.
Cm. Schaub stated if the Applicant must make changes to the project because of the State
licensing requirements it will need to be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval.
Cm. O'Keefe agreed with Cm. Wehrenberg. He stated he would also be concerned about some
of the issues but must rely on the data provided and the studies conducted. He felt he could
make the findings and commended Staff for adding the condition for signage at the exit and the
addition of the no-entrance sign.
Chair Brown could make the findings for the Conditional Use Permit as well as the Site
Development Review. He felt there were good points made by the residents, but if they have
additional zoning ordinance questions he encouraged them to go to the Planning Department
and speak with Staff who can clarify any issues.
Cm. Schaub mentioned that the Zoning Ordinance can also be found on the City's website.
Cm. Schaub asked to add to Condition #71 a "do not enter" sign visible from Dublin Green.
Cm. Wehrenberg stated that one of the speakers mentioned an easement on the property and
felt there is only a storm drain easement.
~~.~~~~~
~, 125
Mr. Baker stated that would be the only easement other than Public Utility easement.
On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Cm. O'Keefe, on a vote of 5-0, with the following
addition to Condition of Approval #71: "The Applicant shall install an exit only sign at the
driveway located on Dublin Green Drive,"the Planning Commission unanimously adopted:
RESOLUTION NO. 11 - 25
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
FOR THE MONTESSORI PLUS DAY CARE CENTER LOCATED AT
11900 SILVERGATE DRIVE (APN 941-0103-011-01)
8:20:43 PM
8.3 PLPA 201 1-00031- BJ's Restaurant and Brewhouse Conditional Use Permit to amend
the Planned Development Plan and Site Development Review for an 8,376 square foot
restaurant building within the Fallon Gateway Center
Mike Porto, Consulting Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report.
Cm. Schaub stated that this development is a Planned Development (PD), unlike other types of
facilities where there may be an additional restaurant space added. For this particular project
the parking is one space per 100 square feet of floor area that is accessible to customers; plus
one space per 200 square feet for food .preparation area.
Mr. Porto agreed. He continued when the original PD was approved Staff calculated the parking
according to the ratio that the Planning Commission had approved for the Dublin Green project;
this project mirrors those parking standards.
Mr. Baker mentioned that the standards have been changed in the Zoning Ordinance; they are
now 1/100 of customer accessible area and 1/300 square feet of non-accessible floor area.
Cm. Schaub wanted to ensure that it is known that the parking regulations are strict for
restaurants.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked what the square footage is for shop #7.
Mr. Porto answered approximately 6,400 square feet.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the 227 extra parking spots will be sufficient.
Mr. Porto answered the 227 additional parking stalls were over and above the requirements for
the uses that were proposed originally, which included Shop #7. There was a requirement for
approximately 1,200 parking stalls for the overall center for the uses that were proposed of
which the Shop #7 space was included. He continued the project is still exceeding the parking
requirements.
:~ . ~.~.=~ ~=t~mS~r~2<, ~~zr
~;u.__~~ 126
Cm. Wehrenberg was concerned about the location of the project with the main entrance facing
I-580.
Mr. Porto answered yes it is facing I-580.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked how many stalls are at the front of the building and asked if it is
appropriate to have the restaurant facing away from the center.
Mr. Porto answered instead of talking about parking he wanted to talk about practical difficulty.
He continued the drive aisle at the back of the building is built, constructed and existing. He
stated there is a very large G-3 storm drain facility that runs adjacent to the corner of the
building. If the entrance was facing the other way the front door would have very little space
with no adjacent parking. He stated there was a significant difficulty with the storm drain
because it can't be built over.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked if that is because the original plan was for 3 separate shops and now
they are combining two.
Mr. Porto answered no. The storm drain line clipped each corner of the buildings when shops 8
and 9 were proposed there. The G-3 storm drain channel is the major drainage for all of Dublin
Ranch, Jordan Ranch, the Croak Property, and Positano and was installed many years ago,
before there was development. anticipated on the site.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked for more information on the original layout.
Mr. Porto directed the Commission to page C-4 of the project plans which are the grading and
utility plans. He stated the outline of the storm drain easement can be seen across the parking
area and adjacent to the building.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the buildings were originally facing toward the Target store.
Mr. Porto stated that those shops were originally double-sided.
Cm. Wehrenberg remembered the front and back entrances. She was concerned about looking
at the back of the restaurant, but said that is where the mural panels are located.
Cm. Schaub was OK with the restaurant not facing Target.
Chair Brown stated when comparing the proposed to existing parking areas it appears that by
combining shops 8 and 9 into one building and redrawing the parking lot it seems to be cutting
off or changing the parking design originally designed for the 3 shops.
Mr. Porto answered yes. He continued there is another access point to the ring road that was
not there before. He pointed out the access road exit and entrance on the slide.
Chair Brown asked if Mr. Porto was pointing out the access road.
Mr. Porto stated the slide was showing a crosswalk. The crosswalk is to get the people from
this facility onto the future Shop #7 and over to the central walkway that goes across the site.
a ~~~~~~z<, ~~~:r
127
He referred the Commission to the Staff Report on page 3, which is the site plan of the entire
center. He continued in the gold area there is a pedestrian pathway that goes all the way
across the Target parking lot to the front door of Target.
Chair Brown asked if the road in front of the restaurant is a one way road
Mr. Porto answered no, it is a two way road and mentioned that the Fire Department would not
approve it otherwise.
Chair Brown asked where the outdoor seating is located.
Mr. Porto pointed out the east end on the northeast side of building.
Chair Brown asked what kind of wall will be there.
Mr. Porto answered there will be a solid lower and clear upper wall.
Chair Brown asked what kind of signage will be visible from I-580.
Mr. Porto referred the Commission to the cover sheet of Attachment 4 which shows the BJ's
logo over the entry with Brewhouse on one side and Restaurant on the other and a small Take-
out sign over the canopy. This is consistent with the Master Sign Program.
Chair Brown asked if that is all the signage.
Mr. Porto stated there were other signs facing into the parking lot and #acing south to the
freeway and all shown on the sheet mentioned.
Cm. Schaub mentioned there will be one of the panels on the Fallon Gateway .pylon sign that is
quite high, bright and very noticeable.
Chair Brown opened the public hearing.
Joan Leguay, Director of Property Development, BJ's Restaurant, 7755 Center Avenue, Suite
300, Huntington Beach, CA, spoke in favor of the project. She was pleased to work with Mike
Porto and the City and felt the restaurant would be a beautiful addition to Dublin. She stated
she was there to answer any questions.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked what their schedule is for opening.
Ms. Leguay answered they hope to be under construction in November with approximately 6
months until opening which would make it April 2012. She stated they plan to hire over 200
employees and will hire from the local community.
Cm. Bhuthimethee asked which way Shop #7 faces.
Mr. Porto answered Shop #7 faces both ways, with parking on both sides.
Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if there is enough space to provide a walkway to connect Shop #7 to
the restaurant.
~~ ~ 128
Mr. Porto stated yes; it was all calculated into the original plan.
Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if there is enough space for a connection between BJ's and Shop #7.
Mr. Porto stated that there is currently a temporary connection to get to the pedestrian pathway
to get to Target and that pathway will remain open.
Cm. Bhuthimethee predicted that everyone coming out of Shop #7 will want to go to BJ's and
felt connecting them somehow would be a good idea.
Mr. Porto stated there is currently a connection from the main entrance of the building across to
a walkway to the front door. He stated the front will act more tike a back because it is facing
Fallon Road .and did not want to have the back of the .building facing Fallon Road so the
Planning Commission required the back of the building to look more like the front, similar to the
way Buffalo Wild Wings is set up now.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked Ms. Leguay if she took into consideration the wind in Dublin and what
type of wall is planned for the outdoor dining area.
Ms. Leguay responded they were aware of the wind problem and positioned the patio to account
for the wind. She stated the wall will be a stone wall which will match the exterior of the building
with a glass wind screen on top. She continued there would. be umbrellas and heaters and they
will make it very comfortable.
Cm. O'Keefe mentioned that sustainability is important to Dublin and asked what type of
sustainability initiatives BJ's Corporation has in place and what they are.
Ms. Leguay answered they are complying with City requirements through the building permit
process; .recycling, screened roof equipment (heating and AC units) and a Cool Roof as well as
the State of CA has significant requirements that must be complied with. She stated that they
would be expected to comply with all requirements in order to pull building permit.
Mr. Baker mentioned .that there is a Condition of Approval regarding the Green Building
standard code that they would be required to meet.
Cm. Bhuthimethee asked how the murals will they be applied.
Ms. Leguay answered they are stretched canvas over a frame which is a 3m product. The
graphic patterns will be on the back of the building; there will be 4 murals stretched over a frame
and washed with concealed LED lights that will run above the mural.
Cm. Bhuthimethee asked how the panels will be maintained.
Ms. Leguay answered there have been no issues, but if there were any problems they would
replace them right away.
Chair Brown closed public hearing.
~ar.~iir ar~~~ 129
Cm. Wehrenberg felt there needs to be another crosswalk to connect to the parking field to the
west.
Mr. Porto answered the goal in this project for pedestrian connectivity was to get them onto the
pathways created through the parking lot so the people aren't walking behind cars. They
created long open elements that go across the parking lot to connect the shop buildings back to
the majors. He stated that if additional crosswalks were created they would lead to nowhere.
Cm. Wehrenberg felt there was one crosswalk that goes to shop 7 but nothing to connect in
other areas. She felt there was a safety issue coming from Target to BJ's.
Mr. Porto stated he sees the concern but once they are across the drive aisle they will be at a
dead end. He felt there must be somewhere to put them and if a pedestrian pathway is created
behind the cars the drive aisle will be narrowed which will be a problem for fire access and
maneuverability of cars because the drive aisle will be less than the required width. He offered
to work with the Traffic Engineer to try to establish a way to get people across the drive aisle
and give them a place to land. He stated that all the median islands in the gold area are already
constructed and all the landscaping is installed.
Cm. Schaub agreed with Cm. Wehrenberg.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked how much parking is needed for BJ's.
Mr. Baker answered a total of 93 spaces.
Mr. Porto stated it is anticipated that some people will park in the gold area and walk across to
the restaurant.
Mr. Baker mentioned this project is similar to the Waterford center where there is a Safeway and
then pad buildings around the edge of the center and there is a path on the north end but not
the south end and people cross over which is not an uncommon situation.
Cm. Schaub did not agree and was concerned with the access road. He felt that the access
road is the only way that people will drive out of the parking spaces. He felt that there needs to
be someplace for people to get to and from the area, not just Shop #7. He felt that it would be a
very busy access road.
There was a discussion regarding a possible additional walkway from BJ's to the Target and its
placement.
Mr. Porto suggested, at the Commission's direction, he will discuss with the Traffic Engineer a
way to create a crosswalk with access around the building on both sides.
Cm. Wehrenberg suggested having the crosswalks lighted for safety. She stated that she
understood that the parking and landscaping is installed.
Mr. Porto stated that the area in gold is Target's property and not in the Applicant's control.
Cm. O'Keefe asked about the center of the gold area where there is a thicker area running
through the parking lot.
~~~~~~E~-~~~~ ~, 130
Mr. Porto answered that is landscaping which complies with bioswale requirements and water
quality and water clearing.
Cm. Wehrenberg felt that with future projects the review will be more in depth.
Mr. Porto stated that when the project was originally brought to the Commission there was a
plan with pedestrian connectivity throughout the site. The connectivity on the site has not
changed; the crosswalk is still in the same place with a walkway system along the drive aisle.
Cm. Wehrenberg responded the element that has changed is that BJ's doesn't have a front and
back entrance. She felt that was the element that has changed her thought process.
Mr. Porto stated the City cannot. go onto Target's property and dictate signals or lighting change.
He felt they may be able to stripe a crosswalk with no problem, but there must be somewhere to
take them.
Cm. Wehrenberg felt that Target would welcome BJ's with the additional business they will bring
to the center. She stated she would appreciate any effort to address her concerns.
Mr. Porto agreed.
Cm. Wehrenberg felt the original project was planned for nicely but things change and the
Commission does their best to help businesses come to Dublin. She stated she appreciated all
the new jobs. She supported the project, liked the colors, the building and everything but was
still concerned about the safety of the pedestrians coming from Target since the parking is
across the street from the field of parking.
Chair Brown felt he could make the findings for the Conditional Use Permit and SDR. He
concurs with comments made by Cm.'s Wehrenberg and Schaub regarding the crosswalk issue
and felt it needs to be addressed.
Mr. Porto agreed to address their concerns.
Cm. O'Keefe stated he likes the project and can make the findings.
On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Cm. Wehrenberg, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning
Commission unanimously adopted:
RESOLUTION NO. 11 - XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO AMEND THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
PLAN FOR FALCON GATEWAY (PA 08-034) BY COMBINING DEVELOPMENT SHOP SITES
8 AND 9 AND TO ALLOW UP TO 8,376 SQUARE FEET OF DEVELOPMENT ON THE
COMBINED SHOP SITE FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS FALCON GATEWAY SHOPPING
CENTER LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
DUBLIN BOULEVARD AND FALCON ROAD
~C~, Za ~ rirc-i,z%€ ~7C~3t£~?Zitc721, &~~.~
``w,<;-__ . _ 131
RESOLUTION NO. 11 - XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
FOR FALCON GATEWAY TO CONSTRUCT A 8,376 SQUARE FOOT FREE-STANDING
FULL-SERVICE RESTAURANT AND BREWHOUSE BUILDING LOCATED ON A SITE
FORMERLY IDENTIFIED AS SHOPS 8 AND 9 NEAR THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE
SITE AT FALCON ROAD AND THE ON-RAMP TO INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 580
PLPA 2011-00031
NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS -NONE
OTHER BUSINESS -NONE
10.1 Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from
including Committee Reports and Reports
meetings attended at City Expense (AB 1234).
the Planning Commission and/or Staff,
by the Planning Commission related to
ADJOURNMENT -The meeting was adjourned at 9:04:28 PM
ATTEST:
..~
Jeff Ba e
Planning anager
Res ectfully s ed,
n Brown
Chair Planning Commission
G:IMINUTES120111PlANN/NG COMMISSIOM09.27.11 DRAFT PC Minutes.docx
'~~u~rc ~ _~ ~. ~ 132
RESOLUTION NO. 11- 25
A f~ESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING A CONDITfONAL USE PERMfT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
FOR THE MONTESSORI PLUS DAY CARE CENTER LOCATED AT
11900 SILVERGATE DRIVE (APN 941-0103-011-01)
PLPA-2011-00013/00014
WHEREAS, the Applicant has requested approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the
operation of a Day Care Center for up to 60 children and Site Development Review for the
establishment of an outdoor playground and a refuse enclosure; and
WHEREAS, the Project is located in a C-O (Commercial Office) Zoning District; and
WHEREAS, a Day Care Center is permitted in the C-O Zoning District subject to
approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Project is located in a former single story office building on the
property; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 8.104.070 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, when
a Site Development Review is required for a project which is also subject to a Conditional Use
Permit, the Site Development .Review shall be reviewed by the same decision-maker as the
Conditional Use Permit; and
WHEREAS, the Project includes tubular steel fencing with a mesh screen to enclose
the play area, the installation of new playground equipment and a new concrete block refuse
enclosure; and
WHEREAS, tubular steel fencing is permitted to enclose playgrounds .pursuant to
Chapter 8.72 (Landscaping and Fencing Regulations); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 8.40 (Accessory Structures and Uses Regulations),
unenclosed structures are .permitted to be 15-feet in height with a minimum setback of 5-feet from
the property line; and
WHEREAS new playground equipment consisting of three play structures will be
located in the playground area and will have a maximum height of nine (9) feet to the peak of
the roof of the tallest structure; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA}, together with State
Guidelines and City Environmental Regulations required that certain projects be reviewed. for
environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the CEQA, Staff is recommending that the Project is found
Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15301 and15303; and.
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted to the City of Dublin Planning Commission
recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit and. Site Development Review
requests; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on
September 27, 2011; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports,
recommendations and testimony herein above set forth and used its independent judgment to
evaluate the project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Dublin Planning Commission
does hereby make the following findings and determinations regarding the Conditional Use
Permit:
A. The .proposed use and related structures is compatible with other land uses,
transportation and service facilities in the vicinity in that: 1) the Project is located in a
primarily residential area that will be convenient to parents in the vicinity that want to
use the services of the day care center. 2) The facility is close to San Ramon Road and
Highway 680 which will provide good access to the day care center for parents in the
surrounding area.
B. It will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the
vicinity, or be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare in that: 1) conditions of
approval have been placed on the Project limiting outdoor play activities to between the
hours of 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and limiting the number of children within the play area at any
given time to 30 to minimize the potential for noise impacts on surrounding residential
uses. A Noise Study dated July 15, 2011, prepared for the project, states that the noise
from children using the proposed project's play yards is expected to be within "normally
acceptable" levels of the city's General Plan Noise Element guidelines for single-family
residential development. The .play yard noise as received at the adjacent homes would
comply with the standards of the State of California's Model Noise Ordinance.
C. It will not be injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood in that: 1) the
Project utilizes existing space within the former office building for the operation of the
Day Care Center; and, 2) the Project site provides adequate on-site parking for the Day
Care Center in accordance with Chapter 8.76 (Off-Street Parking and Loading
Regulations).
D. There are adequate provisions for public access, water, sanitation, and public utilities
and services to ensure That the proposed use and related structures would not be
detrimental to the public health, safely, and welfare in that: 1) the Project is located on a
fully improved site which was previously utilized as an office; and, 2) the Project site has
adequate provisions for public access from Silvergate Drive and Dublin Green Drive as
well as provisions for water, sanitation, and public utilities and services.
2of18
E. The subject site is physically suitable for the type, density. and intensity of the use and
related structures being proposed in that: 1) with minor modifications, the Project can
utilize a portion of the existing building and can convert a portion of the landscape area
around the building for playground use.
F. It will not be contrary to the specific intent clauses, development regulations, or
performance standards established for the zoning district in which it is located in that: 1)
the Project .will not generate traffic congestion nor will it overload public services or
utilities; and, 2) the Project will not generate excessive noise, illumination, unsightliness,
odor, smoke or other objectionable influences.
G. It is consistent with the General Plan and with any applicable Specific Plans: 1) the
project is consistent with .the Retail/Office land use; 2) child care clusters are permitted
within the Retail/Office land use; and 3) the project is not within a Specific Plan area.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Dublin Planning Commission does hereby
make the following findings and determinations regarding the Site Development Review:
A. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of this Chapter, with the General Plan and
with any applicable Specihc Plans and design guidelines in that: 1) the Project complies
with the development regulations and requirements of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance
including height, setbacks, fencing and accessory structures; and, 2) the Project is
consistent with the Public/Semi-Public General Plan land use.
B. The proposal is consistent with the provisions of Title 8, Zoning Ordinance in that: 1) the
Project complies with the height and setback requirements of Chapter 8.72
(Landscaping and Fencing Regulations) and Chapter 8.40 (Accessory Structures and
Uses Regulations) and complies with Chapter 8.104 (Site Development Review).
C. The design of the project is appropriate to the City, the vicinity, surrounding properties
and the lot in which the project is proposed in that: 1) there will be no design changes to
the existing building; 2) the play area will be located on a portion of the site that will
reduce noise .and visual impacts from surrounding single-family homes and will be
screened with a tubular steel fence with a mesh covering for screening and security
purposes.
D. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of fhe approved
development in that: the Project is consistent with the previous use of the site as an
office in that the day care center will use the office building for indoor activities for the
day care center and there is adequate space for a play area and .parking on site.
E. Impacts to existing slopes and topographic features are addressed in that: 1) the Project
will utilize a low retaining wall to provide a playground area that has a minimum slope.
F. Architectural considerations including the character, scale and quality of design, site
layout, the architectural relationship with the site and other buildings, screening of
unsightly uses, lighting, building materials and colors and similar elements result in a
project that is harmonious with its surroundings and compatible with other development
in the vicinity in that: 1) the Project is consistent with the previous use of the site as an
3 of 18
office in that no exterior .architectural changes will be made to the building; 2) the
outdoor play area will be located in a portion of the site that will have minimum impact
on the surrounding residences; 3) the tubular steel fencing with mesh screening that
surrounds the play area will screen the playground from the public right-of-way; and 4)
the new playground equipment is age appropriate for the children being cared for by the
day care center.
G. Landscape considerations, including the location, Type, size, color, texture and coverage
of plant materials, and similar elements have been incorporated into the project to
ensure visual relief, adequate screening and an attractive environment for the public in
that: 1) New landscaping will be placed between the new tubular steel fence and the
back of the sidewalk on Dublin Green Drive and Silvergate Drive; and, 2) new
landscaping will be placed between the parking lot and the west side of the existing
building.
H. The site has been adequately designed to ensure proper circulation for bicyclists,
pedestrians and automobiles in that: 1) the Project does not propose to alter the existing
circulation patterns which were established for the office building.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Dublin Planning Commission does hereby
find that the Project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to
Sections 15301 and 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines because it entails only a minor alteration
of an existing structure with negligible expansion of the use of the existing structure, and the
installation of small structures within the meaning of Guideline Section 15303.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby rescind
Resolution 11-22 and does hereby approve a new Conditional Use Permit and Site
Development Review for the Montessori Plus Care Center as shown on the project plans, date
stamped received by Dublin Planning on June 29, 2011, and included as Exhibit A subject to
the following conditions:
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Unless stated otherwise, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to the issuance
of building permits or establishment of use, and shall be subject to Planning Division review and
approval. The following codes represent those departments/agencies responsible for
monitoring compliance of the conditions of approval: [PL] Planning; [B] Building; [PO] Police;
[PW] Public Works; [ADM] Administration/City Attorney; [FIN] Finance; [PCS] Parks and
Community Services; [F] Dublin Fire Prevention; (DSR] Dublin San Ramon Services District;
[LDD] Livermore Dublin Disposal; [CO] Alameda County Department of Environmental Health;
[Zone 7] Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Zone 7; [LAVTA]
Livermore Amador Valley ..Transit Authority; and [CHS] California Department of Health
Services.
4of18
''NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Agency When Source
Required
Prior to:
GENERAL
1. Approval. This Conditional Use Permit and Site PL Ongoing Standard
Development Review approval is for Montessori Plus
for the establishment and operation of a Day Care
Center at 11900 Silvergate Drive for up to 60
children and 8 employees and for the construction
and use of an outdoor play area and associated site
and exterior building improvements related to the
operation of the Day Care Center, PLPA-2011-
00013/00014. This approval shall be as generally
depicted and indicated on the plans prepared by
KDA Architects, Inc. dated June 29, 2011 and written
statement dated April 28, 2011 on file in the
Community .Development Department, and as
specified by the following Conditions of Approval for
this ro'ect.
2. Effective Date. This Conditional Use permit/Site PL Ongoing Standard
Development Review approval becomes effective 10
days after action b the Plannin Commission.
3. Permit Expiration. Construction or use shall PL 1 year of 8.96.020.D
commence within one (1) year of Permit approval or Permit
the Permit shall la se and become null and void. a royal
4. Time Extension. The original approving decision- PL Permit Standard
maker may, upon the Applicant's written request .for Expiration
an extension of approval prior to expiration, and
upon the determination that any Conditions of
Approval remain adequate to assure that applicable
findings of approval will continue to be met, grant a
time extension of approval for a period not to exceed
six (6) months. All time extension requests shall be
noticed and a public hearing or public meeting shall
be held as re wired b the articular Permit.
5. Modifications. The Community Development PL On-going 8.104
Director may consider modifications or changes to
this Conditional Use Permit and Site Development
Review approval if the modifications or changes
proposed comply with Chapter 8.100 (Conditional
Use Permit) and Chapter 8.104 (Site Development
Review of the Zonin Ordinance.
6. Revocation of Permit. The Conditional Use Permit PL On-going 8.96.020.1
and Site Development Review approval shat! be
revocable for cause in accordance with Section
8.96.020.1 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Any
violation of the terms or conditions of this permit
shall be sub'ect to citation.
7. Indemnification. .The Developer shalt defend, Various On-going In
indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Dublin and accordance
its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, with
action, or proceeding against the City of Dublin or its Government
a ents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, Code
5 of 18
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Agency When- Source
Required
Prior to:
void, or annul an approval of the City of Dublin or its Section
advisory agency, appeal board, Planning 66499.37
Commission, City Council, Community Development
Director, Zoning Administrator, or any other
department, committee, or agency of the Gity to the
extent such actions are brought within the time
period required by Government Code Section
66499.37 or other applicable law; provided, however,
that The Developer's duty to so defend, indemnify,
and hold harmless shall be subject to the City's
promptly notifying The Developer of any said claim,
action, or proceeding and the City's full cooperation
in the defense of such actions or proceedin s.
8. Fees. Applicant/Developer shall pay all applicable FIN Issuance of Standard
fees in effect, including, but not limited to, Planning Building
fees, Building fees, Traffic Impact Fees, MC fees, Permits
Dublin San Ramon Services District fees, Public
Facilities fees, Dublin Unified .School District School
Impact fees (per agreement between Developer and
School District), Fire Facilities Impact fees, Noise
Mitigation fees, Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu fees,
Alameda County Flood and Water Conservation
District (Zone 7) Drainage and Water Connection
fees; or any other fee that may be adopted and
a licable.
9. Requirements and Standard Conditions. The Various Building Standard
Applicant/Developer shall comply with applicable Permit
City of Dublin Fire Prevention Bureau, Dublin Public Issuance
Works Department, Dublin Building Department,
Dublin Police Services, Alameda County Flood
Control District Zone 7, Livermore Amador Valley.
Transit Authority, Alameda County Public and
Environmental Health, Dublin San Ramon Services
District and the California Department of Health
Services requirements and standard conditions.
Prior to issuance of building permits or the
installation of any improvements related to this
project, the Developer shall supply written
statements from each such agency or department. to
the Planning Department, indicating that all
applicable conditions required have been or will be
met.
PLANN ING
10. Directional Signage. Work with City Staff to provide PL Occupancy Planning
a right turn only sign at the driveway exit on Commission
Silver ate Drive.
11. Retaining Wall Finish Material. The retaining wal! PL Occupancy Planning
shall have integral color sand frnish to match the Commission
buildin .
12. Retainin Wall Setback. The retaining wall shall be PL Occupanc Plannin
6of18
NO. CONDfTIONS OF APPROVAL Agency When Source
Required
Prior to:
setback a minimum of 2 feet from the back of the Commission
sidewalk.
13. Retaining Wall Screening. Provide a minimum 32" PL Occupancy Planning
ever teen shrubs ad'acent to the wall. Commission
14. Trees. Plant 6 large canopy trees within the PL Occupancy Planning
landsca a area on the site. Commission
15. Parking. A total of 20 parking spaces (12 spaces for PL On-going Planning
parent drop-off and pick-up and 8 spaces for
employees) shall remain available for use by the
Montessori Plus Child Care Center during the
a proved hours of o eration.
16. Outdoor Ptay Area. Outdoor activities shall be PL On-going Planning
limited to the designated outdoor play area as shown
on the approved plans. No more than 30 children
shall be present within the designated outdoor play
area. Outdoor activities shall be limited to a
maximum of 1 hour in the morning and one half hour
in the afternoon and shall occur between the hours
of 9 a.m. and 5 .m. Monda throu h Frida .
17. Noise. Outdoor play activities shall be controCled so PL On-going Planning
as not to create unusual or unnecessary noise that
may disturb or annoy persons living or working in the
vicini
18. Property Maintenance. The Applicant/ Developer PL During Planning
and property owner shall be responsible for Construction
maintaining the site in a clean and litter free Through
condition during construction and through Completion
completion. Per the City of Dublin Non-Residential and On-going
Property Maintenance Ordinance, DMC Section
5.64.050, the Applicant/Property Owner shall
maintain the building, site and all signage in good
condition and shall .keep the site clear of trash,
debris and graffiti vandalism on a regular and
continuous basis.
19. Accessory/Temporary Structures and Uses. A PL Placement Planning
Temporary Use Permit is required for all construction on site
trailers, security trailers and storage containers used
durin construction.
20. Temporary Signage. All. temporary signage shall PL On-going DMC
be subject to the regulations of Chapter 8.84, Sign 8.84
Re ulations of the Dublin Zonin Ordinance.
21. Landscaping. The new landscaping provided PL Issuance of Planning
between the tubular steel fence and the back of the Occupancy
street side walk and between the parking lot and the Permit
west side of the building shall be provided with an
automatic sprinklers stem.
22. Community Care Licensing.. The applicant must PL Establishment Planning
be licensed by and comply with the State of of the Use
California Community Care Licensing. The applicant
shall submit a copy of the license to the Planning
7 of 18
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -Agency When Source
Required
Prior to:
Division
23. Unused Building Area. The 1969 square foot area PL On-going Planning
in the building indicated as vacant or storage shall
remain as such in the future unless the applicant is
granted approval by the City of Dublin for other use
of the s ace.
24. Business License. The Applicant shall apply fora Various Building Various
City of Dublin Business License within 30 days of Permit
approval of the Conditional Use Permit/Site Issuance
Develo ment Review.
25. Hours of Operation. The approved hours of PL On-going Planning
operation are 7:.30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday. The Applicant shall be responsible
for ensuring that the drop-off and pick-up of children
is conducted in an orderly manner and does not
ne ativel im act surroundin residents.
26. Property Maintenance. The Applicant and/or PL On-going DMC 5.64
Property Owner shall keep the property maintained
in a safe, clean, and litter-free condition at all times.
27. Graffiti. The Applicant and/or Property Owner shall PL On-going DMC 5.68
keep the site clear of graffiti vandalism on a regular
and continuous basis, at aff times. Where feasible
raffiti resistant materials should be used.
28. Nuisance. The Applicant shall control all activities PL On-going DMC
so as not to create a public or private nuisance to the 5.28.020
existin and surroundin residents.
29. Temporary Promotional Banners and Balloons. PL On-going DMC
Temporary Promotional Banner Signs and Balloons 8.84
are prohibited in Commercial Office Zoning Districts
and shall not be displayed at any time.
BUILD ING
30. _
Building Codes and Ordinances. All project
B
Through
Building
construction shall conform to all building codes and Completion
ordinances in effect at the time of building permit
issuance. A permit shall be required for work
roposed.
31. Building Permits. To apply for building permits, B Issuance of Building
Applicant/Developer shall submit five (5) sets of Building
construction plans to the Building Division for plan Permits
check. Each set of plans shall have attached an
annotated copy of these Conditions of Approval.
The notations shall clearly indicate how all
Conditions of Approval will or have been complied
with. Construction plans will not be accepted without
the annotated resolutions attached to each set of
plans. Applicant/Developer will be responsible far
obtaining the approvals of all participation non-City
a encies rior to the issuance of buildin permits.
32. Construction Drawings. Construction plans shall B Issuance of Building
be full dimensioned (including building elevations) Buildin
8of18
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Agency When
` Source
Required
Prior to:
accurately drawn (depicting all existing and Permits
proposed conditions on site), and prepared and
signed by a California licensed Architect or Engineer..
All structural calculations shall be prepared and
signed by a California licensed Architect or Engineer.
The site plan, landscape plan and details shall be
consistent with each other.
33. Addressing. Address will be required on all doors B Occupancy Building
leading to the exterior of the building. Addresses
shall be illuminated and be able to be seen from the
street, 5 inches in hei ht minimum.
34. Air Conditioning Units. Air conditioning units and B Occupancy Building
ventilation ducts shall be screened from public view
with materials compatible to the main building. Units
shall be permanently installed on concrete pads or
other non-movable materials to be approved by the
Building Official and Director of Community
Develo ment.
35. Temporary Fencing. Temporary constructing B During B
fencing shall be installed along perimeter of all work construction
under construction.
Fire Pr --
evention Bureau
--
36. --
Provide Site Plan. The site plan needs to show
F
Issuance of
Fire
sufficient detail to reflect an accurate and detailed Building
layout of the site for review and record purposes. Permit
The site plan will need a scale that will allow
sufficient details for review purposes and include, but
not be limited to the following:
• The site parking and circulation layout
including fences, gates, fire lane locations
and turnarounds.
• Location of afl fire appliances including fire
hydrants, fire connections, fire sprinkler
risers, and fire control valves.
• The location of all building openings including
the exit discharge pathway for building exits.
Note the location of exit lighting for these
pathways as well
• The location of property lines -and assumed
property lines between buildings on the same
ro ert as well as an easements.
37. Deferred Submittals. Provide on the Title or Cover F Issuance of an Fire
Sheet under the heading Deferred Submittals all of Occupancy
the deferred submittal items. Permit
Fire sprinkler system install
Fire alarm system install
New Fire Sprinkler System & Monitoring
Requirements
In accordance with The Dublin Fire Code, fire
9of18
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Agency When
Required-
Prior to: Source
sprinklers shall be installed in the building. The
system shall be in accordance with the NFPA 13,
the CA Fire Code and CA Building Code. Plans
and specifications showing detailed mechanical
design, cut sheets, listing sheets and hydraulic
calculations shall be submitted to the Fire
Department for approval and permit prior to
installation. This may be a deferred submittal.
a) Sprinkler Plans. (Deferred Submittal Item)..
Submit detailed mechanical drawings of all '
sprinkler modifications, including cut sheets,
listing sheets and calculations to the Fire
Department for approval and permit prior to
installation. All sprinkler system components
shall remain in compliance with the applicable
N.F.P.A. 13 Standard, the CA Fire Code and
the CA Building Code.
b) Underground Plans. (Deferred Submittal
Item). Submit detailed shop drawings for the
fire water supply system, including cut
sheets, listing sheets and calculations to the
Fire Department for approval and permit prior
to installation. All underground and fire water
supply system components shall be in
compliance with the applicable N. F.P.A. 13,
24, 20, 22 Standards, the CA Fire Code and
the CA Building Code. The system shall be
hydrostatically tested and inspected prior to
being covered. Prior to the system being
connected to any fire protection system, a
system flush shall be witnessed by the Fire
Department.
c) Central Station Monitoring. Automatic fire
extinguishing systems installed within
buildings shall have all control valves and
flow devices electrically supervised and
maintained by an approved central alarm
station. Zoning and annunciation of central
station alarm signals shall be submitted to
the Fire Department for approval. The
central station monitoring service shall be
either certificated or placarded as defined in
N.F.P.A. Standard No. 72. Assure the
specific account is UL Certificated or
Placarded and not just the monitoring
station.
Fire Protection Equipment shall be identified with
approved signs constructed of durable materials,
permanently installed and readily visible.
10 of 18
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Agency When
Required
Prior to: Source
38. Fire Alarm (detection) System Required A Fire F Issuance of Fire
Alarm-Detection System shall be installed throughout Occupancy
the building so as to provide full property protection, Permit
including combustible concealed spaces, as required
by NFPA 72. The system shall be installed in
accordance with NPFA 72, CA Fire, Building,
Electrical, and Mechanical Codes.
If the system is intended to serve as an evacuation
system, compliance with the horn/strobe
requirements for the entire building must also be
met. All automatic fire extinguishing systems shall be
interconnected to the fire alarm system so as to
activate an alarm if activated and to monitor control
valves.
a) Fire Alarm Plans. (Deferred Submittal Item).
Submit detailed drawings of the fire alarm
system, including floor plan showing all rooms,
device locations, ceiling height and construction,
cut sheets, listing sheets and battery and voltage
drop calculations. to the Fire Department for
review and permit prior to the installation. Where
employee work areas have audible alarm
coverage, circuits shall be initially designed with
a minimum 20% spare capacity for adding
appliances to accommodate hearing impaired
employees.
b) Central Station Monitored Account. Automatic fire
alarm systems shall be monitored by an
approved central alarm station. Zoning and
annunciation of central station alarm signals shall
be approved by the Fire Department.
c) Qualified Personnel. The system shall be
installed, inspected, tested, and maintained in
accordance with the provisions of Chapter 10 of
NFPA 72. Only qualified and experienced
persons shall perform this work. Examples of
qualified individuals are those who have been
factory trained and certified or are NICET Fire
Alarm Certified.
d) Inspection & Testing Documentation.
Performance testing of all initiating & notification
devices in the presence of the Fire Inspector
shall occur prior to final of the system. Upan this
inspection, proof that the specific account is UL
Certificated must be provided to the Fire
Ins ector.
39. Fire Extinguishers. Extinguishers shall be visible F Issuance of Fire
and unobstructed. Signage shall be provided to Occupancy
indicate fire extinguisher locations. The number and Permit
location of extin uishers shall be shown on the
11 of 18
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Agency When Source
Required
Prior to:
plans. Additional fire extinguishers maybe required
by the fire inspector. CFC 906
Fire extinguisher shall meet a minimum classification
of 2A 10BC. Extinguishers weighing 40 pounds or
less shall be mounted no higher than 5 feet above
the floor measured to the top of the extinguisher.
Extinguishers shall be inspected monthly and
serviced b a licensed concern annual) .
4Q. F Issuance of Fire
FD Building Key Box Building Access. A Fire Occupancy
Department Key Box shall be installed at the main Permit
entrance to the Building. Note these locations on the
plans. The key box should be installed approximately
5 1/2 feet above grade. The box shall be sized to
hold the master key to the facility as well as keys for
rooms not accessible by the master key. Specialty
keys, such as the fire alarm control box key and
elevator control keys shall also be installed in the
box.
41. Key Box Order Information. Key boxes and F Issuance of Fire
switches may be ordered directly from the Knox Occupancy
Compan at www.knoxbox.com Permit
42. Gate Approvals. Fencing and gates that cross F Issuance of an Fire
pedestrian access and exit paths as weft as vehicle Occupancy
entrance and exit roads need to be approved for fire Permit
department access and egress as well as exiting
provisions where such is applicable. Plans need to
be submitted that clearly show the fencing and gates
and details of such. This should be clearly
incorporated as part of the site plan with details
provided as necessary.
43. Means of Egress Exit signs shall be visible and F Issuance of
illuminated with emergency lighting when building is Occupancy
occu ied. Permit
44. Maximum of Occupant Load. F Issuance of Fire
Posting of room capacity is required for any occupant Occupancy
load of 50 or more persons. Submittal of a seating Permit
plan on 8.5" x 11" paper is required prior to final
occupancy.
45. Interior Finish Wall and ceiling interior finish F Issuance of Fire
material shall meet the requirements of Chapter 8 of Occupancy
the California Fire Code. Interior finishes will be field Permit
verified u on final ins ection. If the product is not
12 of 18
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Agency When Source
Required
Prior to:
field marked and the marking visible for inspection,
maintain the products cut-sheets and packaging that
show proof of the products flammability and flame-
spread ratings. Decorative materials shall be fire
retardant.
46. Main Entrance Hardware Exception. It is F Issuance of Fire
recommended that al( doors be provided with exit Occupancy
hardware that allows exiting from the egress side Permit
even when the door is in the locked condition.
However, an exception for A-3, B, F, M, S
occupancies and all churches does allow key-locking
hardware (no thumb-turns) on the main exit when the
main exit consists of a single door or pair of doors.
When unlocked the single door or both leaves of a
pair of doors must be free to swing without operation
of any latching device. A readily visible, durable sign
on or just above the door stating "This door to remain
unlocked whenever the building is occupied" shall be
provided. The sign shall be in fetters not less than 1
inch high on a contrasting background. This use of
this exception ma be revoked for cause.
47. Addressing. Addressing shall be illuminated or in F Issuance of Fire
an illuminated area. The address characters shall be Occupancy
contrasting to their background. If address is placed Permit
on glass, the numbers shall be on the exterior of the
glass and a contrasting background placed behind
the numbers. CFC 505
Building Address. The building shall be provided with
all addresses or the assigned address range so as to
be clearly visible from either direction of travel on the
street the address references. The address
characters shall not be less than 5 inches in height.
by 1-inch stroke. Larger sizes may be necessary
depending on the setbacks and visibility.
Multi-Tenants. Where a building has multiple tenants,
address shall also be provided near the main
entrance door of each tenant space. The address
shall be high enough on the building to be clearly
visible from the driveway, street or parking area it
faces even when vehicles are parked in front of the
tenant space. The address shall not be less than 5-
inches in height with a %-inch stroke.
Rear Doors. The address shall also be provided on
any rear doors to the tenant space with minimum 5-
inch hi h characters.
POLICE
48. Non Residential Security Ordinance PO On-going DMC
Requirements. The Applicant shall comply with all 7.32.310
applicable City of Dublin Non Residential Security
Ordinance requirements.
13 of 18
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Agency When Source
Required
Prior tot.
49. Lighting. The Applicant must submit a lighting plan PO Issuance of DMC
and ensure that parking lot will receive 1 foot Building 7.32.310(c)
candleli ht Burin the hours of darkness. Permit
50. Door Signage. All doors shall be identified inside PO Occupancy DMC
and outside as to their respective purposes (e.g., 7.32.310(a)(
"classroom A", or "Exit Only"). Placard signs or vinyl 10)
letterin ma be used.
51. Facility Diagram. A diagram of the interior of the PO Occupancy DMC
facility identifying each room shall be displayed in the 7.32.310(a)(
office at all times. 10
52. Business Site Emergency Response Card. The PO Occupancy Police
Applicant shall complete a "Business Site
Emergency Response Card" and deliver it to Dublin
Police within 30 days of approval of the Conditional
Use Permit/Site Development Review.
53. Security Gate. The applicant shall submit plans PO Issuance of Police
which include gate security details. Building
ermit
54. Addressing. Addressing must be illuminated by a PO Occupancy Police
li ht source.
55. Restroom Lighting. Multi-user restrooms shall be PO Occupancy Police
equipped with emergency lighting or lighting that
cannot be turned off/on b the user.
56. Restroom Doors. Doors leading into restrooms PO Occupancy Police
shall be non-lockin
57. Classroom Lighting. All classrooms shall have PO Occupancy Police
motion sensor lighting as well as emergency lighting
that remains lit Burin power failures.
58. Hallway Lighting. Hallways shall have emergency PO Occupancy Police
li htin that remains lit Burin power failures.
59. Landscaping. Landscaping shall conform to PO On-going Police
CPTED practices: shrubs no higher than 32 inches,
tree canopies no lower than 6 feet, full canopies shall
be thinned out.
60. Addressing. Addressing shall be either on the PO On-going Police
building or on afree-standing monument sign, shall
include the street name, and shall be visible during
hours of darkness.
61. Safety Talks. The applicant shall contact the Crime PO Within 6 Police
Prevention Unit to schedule safety talks for staff and months of
children. initial
o eration
PUBLIC WORKS
62. Clarifications and Changes to the Conditions. In PW Approval of Public
the event that there needs to be clarification to these Improvement Works
Conditions of Approval, the Directors of Community Plans
Develo ment and Public Works have the authority to
14 of 18
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Agency When Source
Required.
Prior to:
clarify the intent of these Conditions of Approval to
the Applicant/Developer by a written document
signed by the Directors of Community Development
and Public Works and placed in .the project file. The
Directors also have the authority to make minor
modifications to these conditions without going to a
public hearing in order for the Developer to fulfill
needed improvements or mitigations resulting from
im acts of this ro'ect.
63. Standard Public Works Conditions of Approval. PW Approval of Public
Appficant/Developer shall comply with all applicable Improvement Works
City of Dublin Public Works Standard Conditions of Plans
Approval. In the event of a conflict between the
Public Works Standard Conditions of Approval and
these Conditions, these Conditions shall revail.
64. Hold Harmless/Indemnification. The Developer PW Through Public
shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City completion of Works
of Dublin and its agents, officers, and employees Improvements
from any claim, action, or proceeding against the and
City of Dublin or its advisory agency, appeal board, Occupancy of
Planning Commission, City Council, Community the Building
Development Director, Zoning Administrator, or any
other department, committee, or agency of the City
to the extend such actions are brought within the
time period required by Government Code Section
66499.37 or other applicable law: provided,
however, that the Developer's duty to so defend,
indemnify, and hold harmless shall be subject to the
City's promptly notifying the Developer of any said
claim, action, or proceeding and the City's full
cooperation in the defense of such actions or
roceedin s.
65. .Grading/Sitework Permit. All improvement work PW Issuance of Public
must be performed per aGrading/Sitework Permit Grading/Site Works
issued by the Public Works Department. Said Work Permit
permit will be based on the final set of civil plans to
be approved once all of the plan check comments
have been resolved. Please refer to the handout
titled Grading/Site Improvement Permit Application
Instructions and attached application (three 8-1/2" x
11 " pages) for more information. The
Applicant/Developer must fill in and return the
applicant information contained on pages 2 and 3.
The current cost of the permit is $10.00 due at the
time of permit issuance, although the
Applicant/Developer will be responsible for any
adopted increases to the fee amount.
66. Storm Drain Easement (SDE). Applicant shall grant PW Occupancy Public
15' wide storm drain easement (between the existing Works
15 of 18
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Agency When .Source
Required
Prior to:
building and most northerly property line) to the City
for future repairs and replacement of existing storm
drain i e.
67. Accessible Path of Travel. Applicant shall provide PW Issuance of Public
an accessible path of travel/walkway from the public Grading/Site Works
sidewalk on Silvergate Drive to the building entrance Work Permit
per California Building Code requirements. Said
walkway shall be 4'-minimum width with compliant
curb ramps at transitions between the walkway and
the drive aisle crossin s.
68. Vehicle Parking. Applicant should repair any PW Occupancy Public
distressed areas of pavement within the existing Works
parking field, then seal and re-stripe the entire
parking field. All parking spaces shall be double
striped using 4" white lines set approximately 2 feet
apart according to City standards and §8.76.070 (A)
17 of the Dublin Municipal Code. All compact-sized
parking spaces shall have the ward "COMPACT"
stenciled on the pavement within each space. 12"-
wide concrete step-out curbs shall be constructed at
each parking space where one or both sides abuts a
landsca ed area or lanter.
69. Damaged Sidewalk. If required, the PW Occupancy Public
Applicant/Developer shall repair any damaged Works
and/or protruding sidewalk on Silvergate Drive or
Dublin Green Drive.
70. Landscape Inlands. The Applicant/Developer shall PW Occupancy Public
replace the protruding island curbs and modify Works
arkin stalls to install 12" concrete ste out curbs.
71. Signs and Pavement Markings. The PW Occupancy Public
Applicant/Developer shall be responsible for the Works
following on-site traffic signs and pavement
markings:
1) R26F "No Stopping -Fire Lane" signs shall be
posted along all curbs that are longer than 20'
and that parallel the drive aisles as required by
the Fire Marshall.
2) R100B (disabled parking regulations sign)
shall be installed at the driveway entrance to
the site with amended text to read "...may be
reclaimed at DUBLIN POLICE or by
telephoning 833-6670".
3) Accessible parking signs and legends per
State Title 24 requirements.
4) The word "Compact" shall be stenciled on the
pavement surface within each compact
parking space.
5) R1-1 "STOP" signs and pavement markings
shall be installed at each drive aisles and
driveways.
16 of 18
N0. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
" -Agency When Source
. Required
Prior to:
6) W11-2P "PED XING" sign shall be installed
below the STOP sign at the Dublin Green
Drive drivewa .
72. Temporary Fencing. Temporary Construction PW During Public
fencing shall be installed along perimeter of all work Construction Works
under construction to separate the construction and
operation from the public. All construction activities Occupancy
shall be confined to within the fenced area.
Construction materials and/or equipment shall not be
operated or stored outside of the fenced area or
within the public right-of-way unless approved in
advance b the Ci En ineer/Public Works Director.
73. Construction Hours. Construction and grading PW During Public
operations shall be limited to weekdays (Monday Construction Works
through Friday) and non-City holidays between the
hours of 7:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. The
Applicant/Developer may request permission to work
on Saturdays and/or holidays between the hours of
8:30 am and 5:00 pm by submitting a request form to
the City Engineer no later than 5:00 pm the prior
Wednesday. Overtime inspection rates will apply for
all Saturda and/or holida work.
74. Damage/Repairs. The Applicant/Developer shall be PW Occupancy Public
responsible for the repair of any damaged pavement, Works
curb & gutter, sidewalk, or other public street facility
resulting from construction activities associated with
the develo ment of the ro'ect.
75. Fees. The Developer shall pay all applicable fees in PW Issuance of Public
effect at the time of building permit issuance, Building Works
including, but not limited to: Planning fees; Building Permit
fees; Dublin San Ramon Services District fees;
Public Facilities fees; City of Dublin Fire fees; Noise
Mitigation fees; Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu fees;
Alameda County Flood and Water Conservation
District (Zone 7) Drainage and Water Connection
fees; and any other fees as noted in the
Develo ment A reement.
76. Trash Enclosure. The trash enclosure shall be PW issuance of Public
architecturally designed to be compatible. with the Building Works
building. The doors must be designed with self- Permit
closing. gates that can be locked closed and can
also be held open with pin. locks during loading. All
trash bins used for this site shall be maintained
within the trash bin enclosure(s) at all times. An area
drain shall be installed within the trash enclosure
with a connection to the sanitary sewer system. In
addition, a hose bib shall be provided for convenient
wash-down of the trash enclosure. The enclosure
shall not obstruct access (24' min wide drive aisle)
and shall have accessible route and entrance door
17 of 18
NO: CONDLTIONS OF APPROVAL° Agency When
Req u fired
Prior to: Source -
77. Bicycle Racks. Bicycle racks shall be installed near PW, PL Prior to Public
the entrances to the office and retail buildings at a issuance of Works and
ratio of 1 rack per 40 vehicle parking spaces. Bicycle Occupancy Planning
racks shall be designed to accommodate a minimum Permits}
of four bicycles per rack, and so that each bicycle
can be secured to the rack. The location of the
bicycle racks shall not encroach into any
adjacent/adjoining sidewalks in a manner that would
reduce the unencumbered width of the sidewalk to
less than 4'. Bicycle racks shall be placed in
locations where they will have adequate lighting and
can be surveilled b the buildin occupants.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of September 2011 by the following vote:
AYES: Brown, Wehrenberg, O'Keefe, Schaub, Bhuthimethee
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Panning Commi n Chair
AT T
Planni g M ger
18 of 18
NOTcS
11900 SILVERGo4TE
"-`"~"°"`°°'"" 11900 Silvergate Dr.
Dublin, CA 94568
-, Renovation
F'ROJt(:I UN I A
~~ NCR, n„P~ts.~~~.
m _.
____
i
~ _ ,,~~
~`~
DR~.4MVING INDEX ~ ~, ~ ~
9 w _ /
, ~~{P/~~ ~~
4
~~~Bil~
i ~~~ Lvl/,-c~i3~~
3
~ P
~t ~ ~ tl - zz
JUN d~ 7iJ ~ ~ ~~~~~
~
~U6LIN PLAIV~ING -C.9uER _ ..
C
rw . i
`/3
~` ~~. II
w~
____
more m~rwr.
am.a -°
-.
~ - -- - ___
~
„I `
I / ^~.
~.
~~
i i
~
e.
f. rye. _,
°n. ,
~ ~
`
f
i i I
" ~ i I
~. -
~..,
°
i
~~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ Q ,~ i _
1. ~_- _
I i)
a~~
l
n i
L
~.
,~.a~~ °~
„,
i --
-~~°"
~~
~i
--
- - ~ T.
_ 5
- w
I ~ ~
~~ ~ ~ ~
_~ ~_ ~ ,p,
~ z
~
~
i
._
wmws ~aur~x we ~
~I
J
~ m
k.
~
___ ~
0
t r
t
_.
11900 Silvergate ^r.
Dublin. CA 94568
Renovalicn
e;e C~a~.w...
~~Clr n r c«, mo
~„
as ~,
7/~~~~ _,
l ~ ~~
~<I'-~~~~~~_
~ /l ZZ
I ~/ZlP/6~
DRNIOLITION _ ~
.PLAN ..,.,._._ ,
A2.0
_--_ -_
~ -- - __ 1
~ ---- -=-
~~ -
119005ilvergaie Dr.
'_
V - ~ Duplin, CA 94568
` _
g r
f-s~ v ~I~ --- ~
~ ~ ~
~
~
~K
~ ~
Ranovation
.~ ~ SIiF I F r'•ln
- ~
/
{
h
~ ~
ti
^- ~' ~- ~ ~ u ..,..
,
//
h t7~ ~
v ~, mi..~
~ ,.
a
~ ~~ L
~ '.
„~,~o.
^~ ,.
~
j~ E~
. ~ ~~ro
I
~ -
~~
y _ ai
. ~~r ` r
a \ _
~ ~ ~ I ~~ ur mgr ~ ~xunA
~<,. .
~
~ ~,
.
~
i.»
"
< `'>,
i
i
~~
- xu .., ~x
~.
-
h i r i i
' ~
,'0
_
fi .'r
/ ~..~
m
~ L...
~
M
_ ,~
r
e
,~, ~ ~r
/
_
3
~ /
s
":,a',~ ~
'g9'
\
icy,
.
- ~
.~ ~_~ 1 ~~~
is
° ~~
~ ~
~
,. ¢ ~
` ~ ~ ~ry ~,~ + ~ ~ ~ :w, Zv_! -ova / 3
. I
~ J .~ z
',. m
uB>WIS3ti6B1 ~0~
..
~° - ~
_~ ~
i. ~/
„.~n„a...~.......„S
,,
FIAT _, ~..
&`e
'• ~«
.~_
~A~1
-'
~,Ip1' o~~`P
~H ~ _
s,~ki ;iF , z~~,
,~ . i.
,. ~ ~ _
PL 1Y `_ CTURE C
~. ~
T~
I
p __ ._ - ~
L lftASH
~ ~~~, m
_~~$ I I:~I11~II~'
~L-L ~~ ! I I I ~~
~13 IKnSH ENC.OSURE_
11900 Silvergate Dr.
Dublin, CA 94558
Renovation
l
_
~
.
i I\
~ ~
~vT
~F -
~~
N~A
~- B
~, ~ N ~ I
o q ~. ~ ~. . ~.~_
~~,
~~
ANOSCAFE
)REh1AIN
'
~ ___
~ Z _
_i~_ ~
e '
~ ;~
--_ ~I _j. i~-.\ EL 3G7 _
--- ~I,~1~ _7/~~ii
(~ % PARTIAL PLAN ( PLAY AREA ~
~, 2bY(-o4o/ 3
- ~ ~' P OPOSED
P d (ELEVATIONS
8"I PARTIAL FENCE ELEVATION FROM SILVERGAT[ IJRM ~~.
Caroline Soto, City Clerk for City of Dublin October 6, 2011
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Phone. {925) $33-6650
Fax: (925) 833-6651
1C~~-~~- 1 1 f~U2:4 1 F~C~~p
Dear Ms. Sato,
The purpose of this setter is to request an appeal to the conditional use permit issued Tuesday, September 27, 2011 by the Dublin
Planning Commission, allowing Mon#essori Plus to open a school for 60 students located at 11900 Silvergate Drive. The Dublin
Punning Commission is looking to re-zone the property. This re-zoning requires community acceptance.
City of Dublin municipal code section 8.24.020 A.3 states: Use types conducted entirely within a buifding. All use types permitted
in the C-O zoning district shah be conducted entirely within a building. The business of the school will not be conducted entirely
within the building because they will be using the outdoor area bordering Silvergate Dr. and Dublin Green, as a playground. A
commercial schooi, it is not permitted in a C-O zone, according to code 8.12.050 Permitted and Conditionally Permitted fond
Uses. We have visited the Montessori Plus schooi in its current location (a shopping center). As you drive into the parking lot, there
is a "school" sign posted. Montessori Plus coils itself apre-schooi with kindergarten cusses. They refer to themselves and their
employees as "teachers". Montessori Plus is clearly a schooi (SEE PHOTO #1} NOT a "daycare" as stated on their application.
Sound studies presented in their "report" were tested at a neighboring school (Kindercare}. Montessori Plus should have tested the
noise level at the actual facility, instead of at the facility across the street (Kindercare). We request the test be performed (correctly)
at the actual school site. Also, the noise level from the neighboring St. Raymond's School playground (while their students have
recess each schooi day} is heard loud and clear to the residents an Woodren Ct. and Dubiin Green. This noise needs to be factored
in to the study.
Traffic and parking is also a major concern. Based on the age of the children attending the schooi, every parent will need to walk
their Child to the building and sign them `in' or cheek them 'out'. Currently there is no parking allowed in front of the building.
(Reason being, parked cars obstruct the view of coming traffic} (SEE PHOTO'S #2 AND #3} The parking sot will accommodate only 1$
cars (enough for employees of MP}. {SEE PHOTOS #4 AND #5}That means that at least 50 cars will need to park on the streets of our
neighborhood for pick up and drop off [the current traffic study reports an additional 191 trips on school days}. This heavily
populated earner already accommodates a 7/11 store and two office buildings (housing 4 separate businesses) (SEE PHOTO #6}.
Silvergate Dr. is a main thoroughfare off of San Ramon Rd, which also has a bike lane. {SEE PHOTO #2} Traffic turning onto Silvergate
from the right and the left have less than 1 city block to get into the proper cane. This is already a problem before adding 191 extra
Cars. [SEE PHOTO #12)
The current plan calls for parents to enter the schooi on Silvergate Drive and exit a very narrow driveway on Dublin Green (with
extremely limited visibility). (SEE PHOTOS #7 AND #8). This section of roadway already serves as overflow parking for 7/11, Arbor
Creek Townhomes, and Silvertree Condos (located on the south side of Silvergate) [SEE PHOTOS #9, #10}. At morning "drop off' we
are afraid that this will back up traffic on Silvergate [SEE PHOTO #12}, making it difficult for residents of Dublin Green and Woodren
Court to leave their homes each morning. Upon leaving, the driveway on Dublin Green, this will cause further difficulty for residents
to pail out of their street. Also, this driveway crosses a sidewalk with very heavy foot traffic. The lack of visibility is a hazard to
pedestrians that frequently walk this stretch of sidewalk. [5EE PHOTO #11}
Aesthetics is another major concern. The building at 11900 Silvergate Dr. was built In the1960's. The building is very old and dated.
The ONLY attractive thing about this building is the lush landscaping it is surrounded by. [SEE PHOTO #13 AND #14y The current
plan for Mantesori PE.US is to rip out all the trees and landscaping along Silvergate and Dublin Green, install a concrete retaining
wall, apply stucco finish to match the stucco on the building (even though the building is constructed of wood siding), install a 6 Ft.
high tubular fence (on top of the retaining walk} with a mesh privacy screen (the proposed six foot fence will impair visibility for foot
and motor traffic and violates city code). This small area of land between the building and the public sidewalk wilt accommodate a
playground for their students (with 9 Ft. play structures sticking 3 ft. above the fence).
During the meeting of July 26, 2011, Cm. Bhuthimethee asked what the finish of the building was, Mr. Weisbrod replied (verbatim]
"the building is finished in stucco and has been recently painted". (Please refer to the minutes of that meeting, page 1 and 2, it was
later stated during that same meeting that 11900 Silvergate Dr. was constructed of both siding and stucco]. Based on this
information it was decided by the Dublin Planning Commission to add a stucco finish to the retaining wall to match the building. The
building is NOT stucco, it is NOT combination of stucco and siding, it fs painted T-111 siding. (5EE PHOTO #15] The lack of
knowledge displayed by the Planning Commission makes it very clear to us; the plan far this building is to throw a hodge podge of
building materials together, with little thought of curb appeal. This building sits an a highly visible corner that ALL residents of the
Silvergate area pass numerous times a day when leaving and returning to their homes. If the current plan is carried out,119DD
Silvergate wilt be an eyesore to our neighborhood.
In addition, housing a playground an this very small section of land, for 30 children, on the heavy traffic corner bordering a 4 lane
road is irresponsible. (PLEASE 5EE PHOTO5 #13 AND #14] State law mandates 75 1=t. per child of playground Space and prohibits
smoking anywhere within 25 feet. (Montessori Pius claims this area is z700sq. ft., but when we measured we came up with a much
lower sq. footage) Is the City of Dublin prepared to tell the residents within this area that they cannot smoke in their own houses
and yards? Does the City of Dublin have the police resources to patrol the public sidewalks along the perimeter of the playground to
insure that anyone walking within 25 feet of this playground is not smoking? The botkam line...this is a very UNWEALTHY location to
house apre-school. We think that the owners of Montessori Pius and the City are capable of finding a safer, more suitable, properly
zoned location far their students.
Five years ago much to our disapproval] our neighborhood elementary school (Nielsen) was closed citing "the lack of children in our
neighborhood". It is our understanding that the majority of Montessori Pfus students are from Castro Valley, San Raman,
Pleasanton, and Danville, NOT DUBLlN. Also, the owners of the buiiding and the Montessori applicants are from Danville. The fact
that the Dublin City Planning Commission would put the needs of non-residents in front of the needs of long time, tax paying,
community supporting, VOTING Dublin Residents is offensive.
The approval of this zoning change will result in a severe degradation in our standard of living on asingle-family home residential
street. We fear this will negatively affect the desirability of our properties. Our community does not accept this re-zoning for the
purpose of commerce. The city council has a responsibility to represent the interests of family and community, first and foremost
over commerce. Period.
Sincerely,
Residents of Dublin Green, Silvergate Drive and Waodren Court
Jose Riveria
Evelyn CZuijana
Renick Leoni
Mary Leoni
Jerry Kinnaman
Candice Kinnaman
John Santos
Cynthia Santos
Dave Wenry
Margo Wenry
Rudy Nunez
Kely Nunez
Eric i3aird
Kimberley Baird
Lori Martin
Audrey Wutchinson
Enclosures;
b
~.~
~~
~. z ~
J ~ "~
J, ~,
z
~~
b
~, 9
5
~~
b
z
a~~. ¢ 9 ~ ~
~~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ U~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
S ~ ~
~ ~
r
d
d d
d d
~ d
d d
~ b
~
a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
r ~ ,~ ,~ ~
~~~ ~ ~ ~~
d~~,bu o z ~~ ~ d
~~ ~ ~o. ~ ~ ~~~ ~
~ ~' CD via ~ a °a N
r~ "`~
~~ ~ ~ ® o
~ ?'' ° ora ~ ~ Z o ao
c~
'~'¢ c~o d ~ ~ ~
~. ~ o
x~~ ~ ~ ~ o
~' o~..~' ~ o ~.
o ~ ~. ° ~ ~
z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~7
~ ~ a ~ ,~ ~,
~' ~.
4
~ o
o o w ~
~. ~ ¢;
~ p.
w na ~ a
~ ~, ~ ~
~ o K
~ ~ w
n
a ~ ~~ a
~~ ~
~~
b
Q
~'
CL ~+
d ~•
c ~
d
~. ~.
n
~ ~
A
,~
~~ ~
~oy~
`r
r
~,
e
0
~" z
~ ~
~!i
6
cu
~,
~~ .
'~ b
~.
~ ~
rb
ro
~.
~ ~
~~
~~
{ '~
~ ~,
~
,6
~ - ~
~
~ ~
c~
Q
~
4
^
~
~~
b
CS"
f~
a
b
~`
:~ ~ ~ 9
~~ ~~ ~~
~ ~ ~
~~
d
~d'"
d
~"
a
U
q~
V
b
~"
.ice'
a
1
1V
d
a'
.~
~a
o
~
~ ~ ~ `
°
(~ O ~
~°l ~] o
C ~ p ~ Z ~ ., ''h
0 F/ A
~, ~
~ F,•
' ~ ~ vo r'
~
ro ~'
°o
` l
`2' ~
~ Y.
~
0 ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ o b
~
~ ~
rF
t+~ .]
`O Iw7
~~
~ z '
r+ o
v w p ~
~ ~
R o ~
,
~ ~
'
'
~. ~
~ ~ z
~o ~, ~ o
~ ~
~~ o ~
o ~ ~.
ua ~ r~ b o ~' d
rt ~ ~ O ~ N
d
~ a ~ ~•
o
~ „, o
v ....
~
~
`'~ O ~ ~
O p
~ A~ ~
a
R, .
~~ ~
`~
o
~ ~
~ ~
~
~
~ ~
o
b
`.'
~
~; .
~o
ro
~ ~
~
...
a.
N
~.
e
C
p
O
CD
7~
CD
C
CD
O
P.
~'
" ~
. -,
d
~F.y~i ~
IN
1~
~"7
r-F
r~
a
~~
Q.
~~
~~
~_~..t
MI
l ~
~ ~
~ I-°i
~ L
®/~
` ~ ~ F
~ ~
/
`
Y ~
7--~ ~ ~ o~
' L ~ l
~
~ /
dr~
~ ~ z ~t
~Q n ~~~
~
a
` c~o ~
° ~,F
a
Di~a
ao~t a ~ ~G
a
~ ~ ~ ~ a F
F
~ ~
~
~
~+
~ a4 R
.~' ro
~-' R,
~ ~
~
~
t ` ~ ~ R,
q ~'
C? `~.
C F
C n ~ ~ ~
C9 ~,
~~ ~ Q;
O~
b
~
~~ n ~ z
~
~~~ ~
[ ~
~
~ (p O
' H
sb
"~. ~ as ED ~
Q ~
''i ~r1
~ O
~
i c
F
~
5 0 ~ 'J
o
~° cQ ~ ~ ~'
a
\./ ~ ~
~ ° ~
~ i
..~ ..~
~ ~
.~ ~ s
~
F
.. f
CD
Y
1 b
~.
c~
~ ~-! i
~" ti
d
~Yy
ki
z
d
Y+
J
~8
d
Y•
d
d_
b
,C~
5
d
~~
~ ~
"~ pt"~'I
C ~
b ~
~ b
o
_~
O
4 UQ1
O
O
O
O
~ ~
~.
O ~j
(~D
b~
~''
c-
~~
r-r
ro
~d
~~
VQ
r-}
prr
*d
'~
r-r
co
~
~
~ [o
~
~
d
a" d
~ d
~ d
C
~ ~~ ~~
~ ~ ~ ~
i~
`vim` !
'V
~ ~ ~
\
J H
n .~ C7
~
r~ Hen
C7 C" ~ }
~
~
n\
\ Y• ~
V Uhf
~•
~
5
{ ~
~
~'
~,
' 0 '
l .
(
~
~
""'~
~
~
U
tl4 t
j~
~
j
M
~ ~ ~
~ *~* Q
~~~
~~
~~
~~
~ . ~
~,
~~
~~o
~~~
k o
O ~
rF
0
\
n
~J
4
~~
n
"S
~,
i
~ ~ i
v
C"~1 _
'SUy
S~
d
C
n
d
~_
('}
1
\U
d
~"
z
H~
O
CD
d
.~
0
Q
i
I--~
H.a
~_
tiJ
h ~ ~
ro
~ ~l H
~ ~.ro.[
4
• ~ N
q O
4
~ ® ~
O
~z
;~ W
~~ Q
b o
' o
o
a
~• b
~~ ~
~~ ~
~"(
~.
rah
O (~
f'1 ~
.--F
p~
~ ~
c"D d
'Ci ~
cn
"~
R-~ ~
~' ~
cD
C
~ ~.
`a
rb
(D
~~
4
w
R
Cif
n
O
~--.
b
a
~.
~~
RESOLUTION NO. XX-11
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
AFFIRMING PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 11-25 APPROVING A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND A RELATED SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT
FOR THE MONTESSORI PLUS DAY CARE CENTER LOCATED AT 11900 SILVERGATE
DRIVE AND IMPOSING ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
(APN 941-0103-011-01)
PLPA-2011-00013/00014
WHEREAS, the Applicant has requested approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the
operation of a Day Care Center for up to 60 children and a related Site Development Review
for the establishment of an outdoor playground and a refuse enclosure; and
WHEREAS, the Project is located in a C-O (Commercial Office) Zoning District; and
WHEREAS, a Day Care Center is permitted in the C-O Zoning District subject to
approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Project is located in a former single story office building on the
property; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 8.104.070 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, when
a Site Development Review is required for a project which is also subject to a Conditional Use
Permit, the Site Development Review shall be reviewed by the same decision-maker as the
Conditional Use Permit; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with State
Guidelines and City Environmental Regulations required that certain projects be reviewed for
environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, the project is Categorically Exempt from CEQA in accordance with Section
15301 (minor alterations to existing facilities involving little or no expansion) and 15303 (new
construction or conversion of small structures). The project involves no expansion of the
existing commercial building and only minor site enhancements; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted to the City of Dublin Planning Commission
recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review
requests; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on
September 27, 2011; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports,
recommendations and testimony herein above set forth and used its independent judgment to
evaluate the project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did adopt Resolution 11-25 approving a
Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review for Montessori Plus; and
WHEREAS, a Letter of Appeal (dated October 6, 2011) was submitted within the 10-day
appeal period; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted to the City of Dublin City Council
recommending either to affirm Planning Commission Resolution 11-25 approving a Conditional
Use Permit and a related Site Development Review Permit for the Montessori Plus Day Care
Center and imposing additional conditions of approval, or direct the city attorney to prepare
findings for the City Council to adopt affirming the Planning Commission's action in part, with
or without additional conditions of approval, or reversing the Planning Commission's action;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on said application on November 15,
2011; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations
and testimony herein above set forth and used its independent judgment to evaluate the
project; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Dublin City Council does
hereby find that the Project is Categorically Exempt from CEQA in accordance with Section
15301 (Minor alterations to existing facilities involving little or no expansion) and 15303 (new
construction or conversion of small structures).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Dublin City Council does hereby deny the
appeal and affirms Planning Commission Resolution 11-25 approving a Conditional Use
Permit and a related Site Development Review Permit for the Montessori Plus Day Care
Center and affirms the Findings set forth in the Planning Commission Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15t" day of November 2011 by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
2of3
City Clerk
G:''~P_1-''~2011'!PLP~-2011-000131Iorrtessorf P&~sCZP'~CCappealNov2011''~CCReso~ffirmfrrgPC'~pproval.doe
3 of 3
RosFN
GoLDe~R~
DER &
~~EV1J'ITZ, I Ne.
~. ., tl -~i~ i -;7 ,'1i t91 .~Sl a :_(?,~i 1 ,. f~'. '~~:°~.
ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE IMPACT REPORT FOR:
Montessori Plus
11900 Silvergate Drive
Dublin, CA
RGDL Project #: 11-041
PREPARED FOR:
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
PREPARED BY:
Harold S. Goldberg, P.E.
Principal Consultant
DATE:
15 July 2011
Revised 3 November 2011
1100 Larkspur Landing Circle #375 Larkspur CA 94939 ^~• Tel 415 464 01 50 .b., Fax 41 5 464 0155 e- RGDLacoustics.com
Montessori Plus, Dublin, CA
Environmental Noise Impact Report
1. Introduction
Page 1
Revised 3 November 2011
The proposed project is a new child care center at 11900 Silvergate Drive in Dublin
California. The site is currently occupied by a commercial building and parking lot.
The project includes an outdoor play area on the east and south sides of the
building. This study estimates the noise levels that would be generated by the use
of the outdoor play area and evaluates the potential for noise impact at the existing
single-family homes near the site. The analysis includes ambient noise
measurements at the site, noise measurements of a similar childcare facility and
comparison of the noise levels with the City of Dublin's noise and land use
compatibility standards.
2. Environmental Noise Fundamentals
Noise can be defined as unwanted sound. It is commonly measured with an
instrument called a sound level meter. The sound level meter captures the sound
with a microphone and converts it into a number called a sound level. Sound
levels are expressed in units of decibels. To correlate the microphone signal to a
level that corresponds to the way humans perceive noise, the A-weighting filter is
used. A-weighting de-emphasizes low-frequency and very high-frequency sound
in a manner similar to human hearing. The use of A-weighting is required by most
local General Plans as well as federal and state noise regulations (e.g. Caltrans,
EPA, OSHA and HUD). The abbreviation dBA is sometimes used when the
A-weighted sound level is reported.
Because of the time-varying nature of environmental sound, there are many
descriptors that are used to quantify the sound level. Although one individual
descriptor alone does not fully describe a particular noise environment, taken
together, they can more accurately represent the noise environment. The
maximum instantaneous noise level (Lmax) is often used to identify the loudness of
a single event such as a car passby or airplane flyover. To express the average
noise level the Leq (equivalent noise level) is used. The Leq can be measured over
any length of time but is typically reported for periods of 15 minutes to 1 hour. The
background noise level (or residual noise level) is the sound level during the
quietest moments. It is usually generated by steady sources such as distant
freeway traffic. It can be quantified with a descriptor called the L90 which is the
sound level exceeded 90 percent of the time.
To quantify the noise level over a 24-hour period, the Day/Night Average Sound
Level (DNL or Ldn) or Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is used. These
descriptors are averages like the Leq except they include a 10 dB penalty during
nighttime hours (and a 5 dB penalty during evening hours in the CNEL) to account
for peoples increased sensitivity during these hours.
In environmental noise, a change in noise level of 3 dB is considered a just
noticeable difference. A 5 dB change is clearly noticeable, but not dramatic. A
10 dB change is perceived as a halving or doubling in loudness.
ROSEN
GOLDBERG
DER Sc
I_EWITZ, Iruc. 1100 Larkspur Landing Circle #375 Larkspur CA 94939 ^ Tel 415 464 0150 =Fax 415 464 01 55 ~~ RGDLacoustics.com
Montessori Plus, Dublin, CA
Environmental Noise Impact Report
3. Acoustical Criteria
3.1. City of Dublin General Plan
Page 2
Revised 3 November 2011
The Noise Element of the City's General Plan has policies regarding noise and
land use compatibility. Table 1 provides guidelines for the compatibility of
land uses with various noise exposures. The City uses the Community Noise
Equivalent Level (CNEL) descriptor. A CNEL of 60 dBA or less is considered
normally acceptable for residential land use. It should be noted that the City's
compatibility standards are normally intended to be used for traffic and transit
noise.
Table 1: Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise
Environments
COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE (dB}
Land Use CateuorV Normally Conditionally Normally Clearly
Acceptable Acceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable
[Noise Insulation}
Features Rewwired
Residential 6D yr less 4D - TD TD = TS Aver T5
Motels, hotels [iD yr less fi0 - TD TD - $D Over 8D
'Schools, churches, nursing 6D or less 60 • TD TD • 8D Over 8D
homes
Neighbvrhvvd parks 6D yr less 6D - 65 85 = TD Over TD
Offices: retail commercial TD or less TD • T5 T5 - $D Over 80
Industrial 7D or less TO - T5 over l5
Conditionally acceptable expos ure requires noise insulation features in building. design. Conventional construction,
but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems yr air conditioning will normally suffice.
3.2. City of Dublin Noise Ordinance
Chapter 5.28 of the City of Dublin's Municipal Code prohibits "...loud, or
disturbing, or unnecessary, or unusual or habitual noise or any noise which
annoys or disturbs or injures or endangers the health, repose, peace or safety
of any reasonable person of normal sensitivity present in the area". The noise
ordinance states that it is appropriate to consider the level and character of the
noise as well as the level and character of the background noise. Since the
City's Noise Ordinance does not contain quantifiable noise level limits, it is not
possible to apply the noise ordinance as a threshold for assessing project
generated noise in the context of this noise study.
3.3. Increase in Noise
The California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines require the determination
of whether a project will generate a substantial increase in noise levels in the
ROSEN
GOLDBERG
DER Sc
LEWITZ, Iruc.
1100 Larkspur Landing Circle #375 Larkspur CA 94939 -Tel 415 464 0150 3 Fax 415 464 01 55 RGDLacoustics.com
Montessori Plus, Dublin, CA
Environmental Noise Impact Report
Page 3
Revised 3 November 2011
project vicinity above levels existing without the project. CEQA does not
specify a method for determining when a project would cause a significant
increase in noise. Likewise, the City of Dublin does not have criteria for
determining when a noise increase is significant. A recent FAA Draft Policy
discusses screening and impact thresholds for increases in aircraft noise.
These thresholds are used to assess the significance of noise increases due to
the project as follows - an increase in CNEL is significant if it is;
• 5 dBA or greater and the future CNEL is less than 60 dBA or
• 3 dBA or greater and the future CNEL is 60 dBA or greater and less
than 65 dBA or
• 1.5 dBA or greater and the future CNEL is 65 dBA or greater.
4. Existing Noise Environment
To quantify the existing ambient noise levels at the site a series of noise
measurements were made at locations around the project site near the adjacent
homes.
The major source of noise during the ambient measurements was distant traffic on
I-680 and San Ramon Valley Boulevard as well as local traffic on Dublin Green
Drive and Silvergate Drive. Table 3 shows the results of the short-term noise
measurements. A 24-hour noise measurement was conducted at Location A. The
measured CNEL was 55 dBA. The CNEL values in Table 3 are based on a
correlation with the long-term noise measurement data.
Table 3: Ambient Noise Measurement Results
A-Weighted Noise Level, dBA
L
ti D
t
/Ti
oca
on a
e
me
Leg Leo L50 L90 CNEL Notes (Lmax)
1 26 April 2011 51 53 46 44 53 Cars on Silvergate, 58
11:36 - 11:51 AM Truck on Dublin Green 61
26 April 2011 Cars on Dublin Green 60-64
2 11:53 AM - 12:08 53 55 50 48 58 Truck on Silvergate 65
PM
3 26 April 2011 60 61 50 43 60 Aircraft 71
12:12 - 12:30 PM Truck on Silvergate 83
ROSEN
GOLDBERG
DER Sc
I_EWITZ, Iruc.
1100 Larkspur Landing Circle #375 Larkspur CA 94939 -Tel 415 464 0150 3 Fax 415 464 01 55 RGDLacoustics.com
Montessori Plus, Dublin, CA Page 4
Environmental Noise Impact Report Revised 3 November 2011
Figure 1: Site Plan and Ambient Noise Measurement Locations
r ~~~~,a
~°'~`.'
fir.
i ~
,:f~ ~..
'` ,~
•~ - ~ `?
~- ~ .
~~
.,
~,
~,
~'
~~: ~
~~~ i
--
Y
'''~
!~_
~`~ ~.
,~~ ,~~
°Ffill'~FNIC:FS
t~
~ - t~ 4_
`t
`~
~ ~ ~ ~~. ~~
.* .
u
~ may, ,~~~
"~ . •~ ~ ..
~ ,,, ~ ~
.~ ~ PL-4Y
~- ~.. AREA
BUILDING ~ ..
SLAY
STRUCTURE
~;~~-
Si~V~f2GATE DRIVE
-+.
~. - ;
4!"~ ~ 9d mss: y- -._
.- .~M'+~
RESIDENCES ~~'.~`--~
r
5. Analysis
5.1. Play Yard Noise at a Similar Facility
To quantify the noise levels that would be generated by the use of the outdoor
play yards, noise measurements were conducted at a similar facility,
KinderCare Learning Center at 11925 Amador Valley Court on the morning of
Friday, 17 April 2009. The noise measurements were conducted in the
parking lot approximately 27 feet from the metal picket fence. There were
ROSEN
GOLDBERG
DER Sc
t_EWITZ, Iruc. 1100 Larkspur Landing Circle #375 Larkspur CA 94939 ^ Tel 415 464 0150 =Fax 415 464 01 55 ~~ RGDLacoustics.com
Montessori Plus, Dublin, CA
Environmental Noise Impact Report
Page 5
Revised 3 November 2011
three play yards in view of the measurement location and the children tended
to congregate around the play structures. The pre-school yard had the most
children (up to about 20) and the play structure was 90 feet from the noise
measurement location. The toddler and infant yards had about nine children
each and were to 115 and 210 feet away, respectively. The noise levels were
dominated by the children's voices. Noise data was recorded for a total
duration of 70 minutes and the average noise level (Leq) was 59 dBA and the
median noise level (L50) was 55 dBA. Typical maximum noise levels from
children yelling near the closest play structure were 65 to 70 dBA. The loudest
yells generated an Lmax of 78 dBA and were from kids along the fence about
45 feet from the noise measurement location, yelling playfully at a truck driver
in the parking lot. The children were soon instructed by the childcare staff to
discontinue this activity.
5.2. Predicted Play Yard Noise Levels from the Project
The proposed play yard at the Montessori Plus facility is shown in Figure 1.
According to the project applicant the children would use the outdoor play area
twice a day, for one hour in the morning and a half hour in the afternoon.
During these times there would be up to 30 children in the outdoor play area.
The remainder of the time the children would be indoors.
Noise levels from the children playing were calculated based on the noise
measurements at the KinderCare facility. Adjustments were made for the
number of children and the distance between the play areas and the property
lines. The results are shown in Table 4.
The existing seven-foot-tall wooden property line fence between the project
site and the home to the north will not significantly affect the play yard noise
levels because the backyard elevation is about 3 feet higher than the bottom of
the fence. The people standing in the backyard tend to look over the fence.
Also, the upper part of the fence is lattice work which is not solid enough to act
as a noise barrier. Therefore the predicted noise levels in Table 4 do not
include any effect from the fence.
Table 4: Project Generated Noise Levels
Location (dBA) (dgA) CNEL (dBA)
North Property Line 61 79 49
West Property Line 46 60 34
Residence across Dublin 58 73 46
Green Drive
Residences across Silvergate 56 70 44
Drive
ROSEN
GOLDBERG
DER Sc
t_EWITZ, Iruc.
1100 Larkspur Landing Circle #375 Larkspur CA 94939 -Tel 415 464 0150 3 Fax 415 464 01 55 RGDLacoustics.com
Montessori Plus, Dublin, CA Page 6
Environmental Noise Impact Report Revised 3 November 2011
5.3. Comparison with Acoustical Criteria
5.3.1. City of Dublin General Plan
The CNEL at the nearest residential property line from play yard noise
will be 49 dBA which is well below the City's "normally acceptable"
compatibility standard of CNEL 60 dBA. In fact, the use of the outdoor
activity area could be increased beyond that expected, and still not
exceed the standard. For example, if the number of children doubled
(from 30 to 60) and the duration of use doubled (from 1.5 hours to 3
hours) then the CNEL would increase from 49 dBA to 55 dBA. Also, it
should be noted that the calculated CNEL does not depend on the time
of day that the play area is used as long as it is not before 7 AM or after
7 PM.
5.3.2. Increase in Noise
The ambient CNEL is 53 to 60 dBA at the nearest residences. The
addition of the play yard noise will increase the ambient CNEL by less
than 1 dBA. This increase is less than the threshold of 3 dBA increase
that would be considered significant.
6. Conclusions
The noise from children using the proposed project's play yards is expected to be
within "normally acceptable" levels of the City's General Plan Noise Element
guidelines for single-family residential development. With the ambient traffic noise
at the site, the play yard noise is not expected to significantly increase the long-
term average noise levels at the nearby residences.
7. Supplemental Analysis of Existing Noise from St. Raymond School
Subsequent to the original preparation of this report on 15 July 2011, the
community has expressed concerns that noise from the existing St. Raymond
School be taken into account in the analysis. The St. Raymond School is about
900 feet north of the project site. Based on information from the school, the
children play outside during a recess period (10:10 - 10:30 AM) and lunch period
(12:00 - 12:40 PM). Since the original measurements were taken while St.
Raymond was on spring break they did not include noise from the school children
playing. Supplemental ambient noise measurements were conducted on 26
October 2011 between 10:15 AM and 12:40 PM which included the periods when
children were outside. The data at the noise monitor Location A are shown in
Table 4 for the original measurement in April and for the supplemental
measurement in October. The sound of children was not audible in the residential
area near the project site. The Leg was slightly greater in April due to a few noisy
vehicle passbys.
ROSEN
GOLDBERG
DER Sc
I_EWITZ, Iruc.
1100 Larkspur Landing Circle #375 Larkspur CA 94939 -Tel 415 464 0150 3 Fax 415 464 01 55 RGDLacoustics.com
Montessori Plus, Dublin, CA
Environmental Noise Impact Report
Page 7
Revised 3 November 2011
Table 4: Original and Supplemental Ambient Noise Measurement Results at
Long-Term Monitor Location
A-Weighted Noise Level, dBA
L
ti D
t
/Ti
oca
on a
e
me
Leq L1o L5o L90 CNEL Notes
27 April 2011
10:15 - 12:40
51
51
47
44 St. Raymond School on
break
A 55
26 October 2011
10:15 - 12:40 49 51 47 44 St. Raymond School in
session
Since the results of the supplemental ambient noise measurements are
comparable to the original ambient noise measurements and the sound of children
playing was not audible near the project site, we conclude that the contribution of
noise from St. Raymond School does not significantly affect the noise environment
of the homes closest to the project site. Therefore, consideration of existing noise
from St. Raymond School does not change the conclusions of this noise analysis.
ROSEN
GOLDBERG
DER Sc
I_EWITZ, Iruc.
1100 Larkspur Landing Circle #375 Larkspur CA 94939 -Tel 415 464 0150 3 Fax 415 464 01 55 RGDLacoustics.com
Public Works Department
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 25, 2011
TO: Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner
FROM: JaiiYlee Bourgeois, Transpartation & Operations Manager
SUBJECT: Traffic Impact Review for CUP Application for Montessori Plus, PLPA-20ll-
00013/00014 (FCN 030-885)
Montessori Plus has submitted an application for a Conditional Use Permit to occupy the building at
11900 Silvergate Drive as a daycare facility. The building was previously office use. The proposal
includes the use of 5,113 square feet to accommodate up to 60 children during the hours of 7:30 a.m.
and 6:30 p.m. This memorandum will examine trip generation of the proposed use compared to office
use, will review collision history in the vicinity of the project on Silvergate Drive, and will provide an
assessment of the sight distance at the project driveway on Dublin Green Drive.
Trip Generation Comparison
The 7,082-square foot building was previously used as office space. As shown in Table 1, this
corresponds to an estimated trip generation (including inbound and outbound trips) of 78 daily trips, ll
a.m. peals hour trips and ll p.m. peak hour trips. The proposed daycare use would occupy 5,113 square
feet and accommodate up to 60 children. The proposed daycare use would generate 269 daily trips, 48
a.m. peak hour trips and 49 p.m. peak hour trips. This results in a net increase of 191 daily trips, 37 a.m.
peak hour trips and 39 p.m. peak hour trips.
TABLE 1
Trip Generation Comparison
Land Use (ITE Codei) Size Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Existing -Office (710) 7,082 SF 78 11 ll
Proposed -Daycare (565) 60 children 269 ~8 49
Net Difference + 19l + 37 + 39
Note:
1. Trip generation rates taken from the Institute of Transportation Engineers' Trip Gener•c~tion
manual (8`'' Edition) base upon the specified land use code. All rates used are average rates.
The additional traffic generated by the proposed project will likely be noticeable by neighbors. Plus,
some parents may decide to park on-street, so there will be snore noticeable activity in the area. The
additional traffic, however, is not expected to exceed the capacity of the roadway or create any safety
hazards.
Traffic Collision Review
The last City-wide Traffic Safety Study was conducted for the period of 2006 through 2008. No portion
of Silvergate Drive was identified as a problem roadway. Because that study is a few years old, staff
conducted an updated review of the collision history on Silvergate Drive in the vicinity of the project
over the last five years. The results are summarized in Table 2. Looking at Silvergate Drive west of San
Ramon Road to west of Dublin Green Drive, there have been six collisions over a five year period,
including one in 2007, two in 2008, two in 2010 and one in 2011. While traffic collisions are expected
to happen, the quantity and type do not indicate that there is a safety problem at this location.
TABLE 1
Collision History -Silvergate Drive Near Project Site
Year No. of Location Type of Collisions
Collisions
2006 0 - -
2007 1 East of Arbor Creels Circle Driving eastbound, hit parked car, hit and run
2008 2 East of Arbor Creels Circle Driving eastbound, nighttime, hit parked car,
unsafe speed
West of San Ramon Road Vehicle turning left from San Ramon Road
onto Silvergate Drive, hit fixed object to avoid
pedestrian, dark
2009 0 - -
2010 2 West of San Ramon Road Vehicle turning right from San Ramon Road
onto Silvergate Drive, hit fixed object, DUI
West of San Ramon Road Hit fixed object, unsafe speed, resulting
immediately after collision above
2011 1 West of Dublin Green Drive Vehicle/pedestrian, dark, pedestrian did not
yield the right-of-way
Sight Distance
The sight distance for the egress driveway on Dublin Green Drive was examined. As illustrated in
Figure 1, sight distance is limited due to the fence and thick vegetation. If an exiting motorist stops
behind the sidewalk, he/she cannot see vehicles in the roadway approaching from the north and has very
limited sight of pedestrians on the sidewall< to the north. Upon pulling forward, visibility improves, as
illustrated in Figure 1 (far right photo). To insure safe interaction between pedestrians and exiting
vehicles, it is recarnmended that a stop line, STOP legend, STOP sign and "PED XING" yellow warning
sign (on same post) be required of the applicant for installation at the driveway. This will help remind
motorists to stop behind the sidewalk. Upon stopping, sufficient line of sight is available to determine
whether there is an approaching pedestrian. Motorists can then proceed forward slowly to improve line
of sight of the roadway.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Cc: Marls Lander, City Engineer
G:~EVELOPMENT, PRNnTEW/ou[cs~sori Plus, 11900 Sih~crgc~te Dr~ircATi~c~%%ic_Pcu~kirig\nrcmo_Mo~uessoi~i Pltirs_082JILdoc
Figure 1-Photos looking north from project site driveway onto Dublin Green Drive
Kristi Bascom
From: Roohi Agarwal <roohi.agarwal@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 9:05 PM
To: Kristi Bascom
Subject: Traffic Issue at Montessori Plus in Dublin CA
Hi - I am a parent of ex-student of MointerssoriPlus in Dublin CA. My son went there for 2 years. It was a great
experience and we never had any issue with traffic and pick-up and drop-off was handled in a safe and orderly
manner.
The school administration is very nice and supportive.
Thanks
Roohi Agarwal
Sr. Business Analyst
Lead Consultant
925-640-1403
Kristi Bascom
From: zenia kohli <zeniakohli@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 10:40 PM
To: Kristi Bascom
Subject: Montessori Plus
Hi my name is Zenia Kohli and both my daughter and son have gone to Montessori Plus. Traffic was never an issue
during my kids time here, and pick-up and drop-off was always handled in a safe and orderly manner.
From: Hasswong@aol.com [mailto:Hasswong@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2011 7:35 PM
To: Tim Sbranti; Kevin Hart; Don Biddle; Kasie Hildenbrand; Eric Swalwell
Cc: Jeff Baker; Kristi Bascom
Subject: Hearing on Conditional Use Permit - Monatessori Plus (11900 Silvergate Dr.)
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Councilmembers,
This e-mail is to introduce ourselves to you and our proposal for the relocation of Montessori
Plus preschool to 11900 Silvergate Drive, Dublin. We have met twice with the Dublin Planning
Commission and participated in hearings on July 26, 2011 and September 27, 2011. The
Planning Commission voted unanimously both times in favor of issuance of a Conditional Use
Pernut needed at the proposed location . An appeal was filed by some local residents and a
hearing with the City Council is scheduled for November 15, 2011.
We are two Montessori-trained teachers with combined experience of over 50 years. We opened
our Montessori preschooUday care center in Dublin 13 years ago (in the current Lamps Plus
shopping center) and have been responsible tenants smoothly operating a successful business
with no history of issues with our landlord or neighbors. We have a proven track record of
serving the Tri-Valley community with ahigh-quality, preschool and Kindergarten education and
childcare facility. We would like to continue to serve the needs of the community and operate
our business in Dublin. We now have the opportunity to purchase an office building at 11900
Silvergate Drive which has suitable outdoor space for afenced-in play area and is only one
block from our current location. We will need a Conditional Use Pernut for the proposed
facility. We are working with the city for approval of the Conditional Use Pernut.
Our proposal includes:
• Installation of ADA improvements (handicap access ramp, curb cuts, and interior
wheel chair lift).
• Installation of wrought iron fencing with landscaping and a privacy screen for a
fully enclosed play area.
• Creation of a play area that will be away from neighboring residents (facing
towards Dublin Green and Silvergate Drive); replacing an area that is currently
overgrown ivy.
• Planting of new trees and shrubs.
• Installation of a trash enclosure.
• Repair of the currently deteriorating parking lot.
• Assuring traffic safety by placing directional signs to control traffic exiting the
parking lot.
We propose to operate Monday through Friday, 7:30 am - 6:30 pm that will facilitate staggered
drop-off and pick-up times to manage traffic and ensure safety. We use this model in our current
location and have found it to be successful, organized, and safe.
The issues of the resident's appeal focus on the areas of
• Appropriateness of zoning for a preschool in the location
• Potential noise issues
• Traffic and parking concerns
• Appearance of property with removal of trees/overgrown ivy and installation of
fencing for the playground
• Adequacy of the playground area to meet requirements
• Potential impact of smoking restrictions on local residents
We and the Dublin Planning Department staff have carefiilly reviewed the concerns. We believe
that these concerns have been addressed through specific actions and evaluations and conclude
that the re-location of our preschool does not significantly impact the local residents.
Our proposed re-location continues to support the growing need for high quality child care
services in the area. Approximately 45% of the children now attending our preschool reside in
the Dublin area, with more students having parents that work in the Dublin/Pleasanton area.
We will present our proposal in more detail in the meeting on November 15, 2011. We look
forward to feedback from the City Council and hope to alleviate any concerns neighboring
community members may have.
We are requesting City Council support for the approval of a Conditional Use Pernut which will
allow our business to continue to be successfiil in Dublin and serve the needs of the community.
Rupa Narain and Ada Wong
Co-Owners and Administrators
Montessori PLUS
RESOLUTION N0.234 - OS
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
!t !t !t R R k !t !t R !k !Y !t 1t 7t R !k !t
ESTABLISHING A POLICY REGARDING EX PARTS CONTACTS
IN QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
WHEREAS, the City Council, the Planning Commission, the Zoning Administrator, the City Manager
or designee, and other City officers conduct a number of quasi judicial hearings in the course of performing
their duties;
WHEREAS, the due process clauses of the United States and California Constitutions impose certain
requirements on local agencies that conduct such hearings, including a requirement that decision makers
consider only that evidence that is presented at the hearing;
WHEREAS, members of the City Council, the Planning Commission, the Zoning Administrator, and
the City Manager or designee could potentially receive information pertinent to quasi judicial hearings outside
of the formal hearing, which information is known generally as "ex pane contacts"; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it would be prudent to have a policy concerning ex
pane contacts in quasi-judicial proceedings that applies to the City Council, the Planning Commission, the
Zoning Administrator, the City Manager or designee, and other City Officials that make decisions in quasi-
judicial proceedings;
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Dublin does RESOLVE as fellows:
1. Purpose. The purpose of this policy is to enswe that decisions of the City of Dublin in quasi judicial
administrative proceedings are conducted in an impartial manner and comply with the requirements of Due
Process under the Constitutions of the United States and the State of California.
2. Policy. City Officials shall not intentionally make or receive Contacts related to quasi judicial proceedings.
3. Disclosure. In the event that Contacts are nonetheless received, City Officials shall disclose such Contacts
on the record of the quasi judicial proceeding, thereby affording interested persons the opportunity to hear and
respond to the Contact. In preparing agendas for quasi judicial hearings, City staff shall include an item for
disclosure of ex pane Contacts prior to the opening of the public hearing.
4. Application. The Ex pane Contacts Policy shall apply only to quasi judicial proceedings and shall not
apply to quasi-legislative or mixed quasi judiciaUquasi-legislative proceedings.
5. Effect of Tiolation. A violation of the Ex pane Contacts Policy shall not constitute independent grounds to
invalidate any decision by City Officials.
6. Definitions. The following definitions shall apply to this policy:
"Contacts" means the receipt of any information outside a quasi judicial proceeding that is relevant in a
quasi judicial proceeding before City Officials. Contacts may include, but are not limited to,
Reso # 234-05, Adopted 12/20/05 Pale 1 of 2
conversations, written communications, electronic mails, telephone calls, and visits to sites that are the
subject of a quasi judicial proceeding.
"City Officials" means the City Council, the Planning Commission, the Zoning Administrator, the City
Manager or designee, and any other city employee or officer that acts as a decision maker in a quasi-
judicial proceeding.
"Disclosure" means, at a minimum, the persons involved in the ex pane contact, the content of the ex
pane contact (e.g., what information was provided, what was discussed, what was said), when the ex
pane contact occurred and where the ex parse contact occurred.
"Quasi judicial proceeding" means a City proceeding in which a City Official applies existing legal
standards to a particular set of facts that affects an individual or individuals.
"Quasi-legislative proceeding" means a City proceeding in which City Officials create a rule of
general applicability for future guidance. Quasi-legislative proceedings in the City of Dublin
include, but are not limited to, actions on general plan amendments, specific plan amendments,
and zoning decisions.
"Mixed quasi judicial/quasi-legislative proceeding" means a City proceeding involving both
adjudicative and legislative elements. Mixed quasi judiciaUquasi-legislative proceedings in the
City of Dublin include, but are not limited to, site development permit approval that is contingent
upon a zoning ordinance amendment.
7. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately.
8. Severahility Clause. The provisions of this Resolution are severable and if any provision, clause,
sentence, ward or part thereof is held illegal, invalid, unconstitutional, or inapplicable to any person or
circumstances, such illegality, invalidity, unconstitutionality, or inapplicability shall not affect or impair
any of the remaining provisions, clauses, sentences, sections, words or parts thereof of the ordinance or
their applicability to other persons or circumstances.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 20~' day of December 2005, by the following
vote:
AYES: Councilmernbers Hildenbrand, McCormick and Zika, and Mayor Pro Tem Oravetz
NOES: None
ABSENT: Mayor Lockhart
ABSTAIN: None
ATT ST:
i y Clerk
~~
CAL ._....
MaPffr Pro Tem
Reso # 234-OS, Adopted 12/20JQ5 Pale 2 of 2