The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About6.2 Springfld Montessori SchoolThe vacant Site is bordered by the Eleanor Murray Fallon Middle School to the north, a residential development to the west, vacant land designated for Public/Semi-Public uses to the south and a residential development under construction (Lennar Homes) to the east. The subject property is 2.57 acres in size and is designated as Public/Semi-Public in the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan which allows community serving uses including daycare. The location of the property is shown on the map on the following page. BACKGROUND: Dublin Ranch is located within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area that has been annexed to the City of Dublin and was pre-zoned to conform to the land use designations in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The Project Site is located within a portion of Area F of Dublin Ranch. On March 21, 2000, the City Council adopted an Ordinance (Ord. 6-00) rezoning the subject property to Planned Development with an associated Stage 1 Development Plan. The subject property was designated for a High School at that time. The City Council also approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration (Resolution 34-00) which reviewed the impacts associated with the rezoning. On March 16, 2004, the City Council approved an amendment to the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to change the land use designation of the subject property from High School to Public/Semi- Public. At that time, the City Council also adopted a revised Stage 1 Development Plan for Area F including this property (Ord. 12-04). The City Council adopted a CEQA Addendum (Resolution 43-04) which reviewed the environmental impacts related to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments and the rezoning. On February 24, 2009, the Planning Commission reviewed the Springfield Montessori project during a Public Hearing. At the hearing, the Planning Commission discussed the Project's architecture, layout and 3 of 6 parking (the Planning Commission Agenda Statement is included as Attachment 4 and the draft minutes of the Planning Commission meeting are included as Attachment 5). The Planning Commission adopted Resolution 09-07 (Attachment 7) approving a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the operation of a daycare on the site and Resolution 09-10 approving a Site Development Review (Attachment 10, with project plans included as Exhibit A). The Planning Commission also adopted Resolutions recommending that the City Council adopt a Resolution approving a CEQA Addendum to the Eastern Dublin EIR (Planning Commission Resolution 09-06 -Attachment 6), adopt an Ordinance approving a Development Agreement between the City and VSS Holdings, L.L.C. (Planning Commission Resolution 09-08 -Attachment 8) and adopt an Ordinance approving a Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 2 Development Plan (Planning Commission Resolution 09-09 -Attachment 9). ANALYSIS: Stage 2 Planned Development Rezone Chapter 8.32 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance establishes the intent, purpose and requirements of the Planned Development District. The intent of the Planned Development District is to create a more desirable use of the land, a more coherent and coordinated development, and a better physical environment than would otherwise be achieved under a single zoning district or combination of zoning districts. The Zoning Ordinance requires the adoption of both Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans which establish regulations for the use, development, improvement and maintenance of the property within the Planned Development Zoning District. The Project Site is zoned PD, Planned Development, with a Stage 1 Development Plan. The Applicant is requesting approval of a Stage 2 Development Plan for the subject Site at this time. The Development Plan allows for the construction of a daycare building, playground, parking lot and related improvements on the Site. The Project Plans for the Springfield Montessori School are included as Exhibit A of Attachment 10. The applicable regulations for the project can be found in the Ordinance included as Attachment 2. The regulations adopted as part of this Ordinance include a list of the permitted and conditionally permitted uses, development regulations, site area and proposed densities and preliminary landscape plan. These regulations can be found on pages 4-6 of Attachment 2. The proposed rezone is consistent with the City of Dublin General Plan because the Planned Develoment will allow Public/Semi-Public uses which are allowed pursuant to the General Plan land use designation of Public/Semi-Public. The maximum Floor Area Ratio of the site is limited to 0.50 which is the maximum allowed by the General Plan. Development Agreement The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan requires aSite-specific Development Agreement in conjunction with all Site Development Review applications in Eastern Dublin. The proposed Development Agreement (Exhibit A to Attachment 3) for this Project was prepared by the City Attorney with input from Staff, and is consistent with typical Development Agreements in Eastern Dublin. The proposed Development Agreement provides security to the developer that the City will not change the zoning and other laws applicable to the Project for a period of five years. The Development Agreement augments the City's standard development regulations, defines the financial responsibilities of the developer, ensures the timely provision of adequate public facilities and provides terms for the developer 4 of 6 to advance funds for specific facilities which have a community or area-wide benefit or for reimbursement from future development, as appropriate. An Ordinance approving a Development Agreement between VSS Holdings, L.L.C. and the City is included as Attachment 3 with the Development Agreement included as Exhibit A to Attachment 3. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15164 provides that an Addendum to a previously certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) may be prepared when the Project requires a minor technical change to the EIR, there are no new significant environmental effects and there are no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. On May 10, 1993, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution No. 51-93, certifying an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (Eastern Dublin EIR, SCH #91103064). The certified EIR consisted of a Draft EIR and Responses to Comments bound volumes, as well as an Addendum dated May 4, 1993, assessing a reduced development project alternative. The City Council adopted Resolution No. 53-93 approving a General Plan Amendment and a Specific Plan for the reduced area alternative on May 10, 1993. On August 22; 1994, the City Council adopted a second Addendum updating wastewater disposal plans for Eastern Dublin. For identified impacts that could not be mitigated to a less than significant level, the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations. On February 15, 2000, the City Council adopted Resolution 34-00 approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Dublin Ranch Planning Area F. On March 16, 2004, the City Council adopted Resolution 43-04 approving a CEQA Addendum for Dublin Ranch Areas B/E/F. Staff prepared an Initial Study to review the Site-specific environmental impacts associated with the proposed Springfield Montessori School. The Initial Study determined that the development of this facility would not create any additional impacts beyond those identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR or the 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration. Therefore, an Addendum to the Eastern Dublin EIR was prepared to document these facts. Relevant Mitigation Measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR and the 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration continue to apply to this Project. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant unavoidable impacts from development of the Eastern Dublin Area, some of which would apply to the Springfield Montessori School. CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 and a California Court of Appeal decision captioned Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency (2002) 103 Ca1.App. 4th 98, require approval of a new Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Project which is included as Exhibit B to Attachment 1. A Resolution approving a CEQA Addendum for this Project is included as Attachment 1 with the CEQA Addendum included as Exhibit A and a Statement of Overriding Considerations included as Exhibit B. CONCLUSION: The proposed Springfield Montessori School combines architecture and extensive landscaping that provides an attractive use for the community. The proposed daycare will provide aPublic/Semi-Public use for the Site which will meet the intent of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to promote the establishment of Public/Semi-Public uses in the City. Development of this site as a daycare facility will provide an additional service to residents and employees in the City. Currently, there are no daycare facilities of this size, which includes preschool and a kindergarten class, in this area. By allowing the daycare facility to be constructed, the City Council will be 5 of 6 providing a necessary service to residents in the area, will expand daycare options for parents and employees throughout the City and will provide for the development of a currently vacant site with an important use. PUBLIC NOTICING: In accordance with State law, a public notice was mailed to all property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the proposed project notifying them of the date, time and location of the City Council meeting. A public notice was also published in the Valley Times and posted at several locations throughout the City. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council: 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; 5) Adopt the Resolution approving a CEQA Addendum and a Statement of Overriding Considerations for a Stage 2 Planned Development Rezone and Site Development Review for the Springfield Montessori School located at the corner of Kohnen Way and Brannigan Street in Area F of Dublin Ranch (APN 985-0052- 022 and 985-0052-023) PA 08-038; 6) Waive the reading and introduce an Ordinance approving a PD Planned Development Rezone with Stage 2 Development Plan for the Springfield Montessori School located at the corner of Kohnen Way and Brannigan Street in Area F of Dublin Ranch (APN 985-0052- 022 and 985-0052-023) PA 08-038; and 7) Waive the reading and introduce an Ordinance approving a Development Agreement between the City of Dublin and VSS Holdings, L.L.C. for the Springfield Montessori School located at the corner of Kohnen Way and Brannigan Street in Area F of Dublin Ranch (APN 985-0052-022 and 985-0052-023) PA 08-038. 6 of 6 I ~-P ~y5 -f' RESOLUTION NO. XX - 09 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A CEQA ADDENDUM AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR A STAGE 2 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR THE SPRINGFIELD MONTESSORI SCHOOL LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF KOHNEN WAY AND BRANNIGAN STREET IN AREA F OF DUBLIN RANCH (APN 985-0052-022 AND 985-0052-023) PA 08-038 WHEREAS, the Applicant, VSS Holdings LLC, has requested a Stage 2 Planned Development Rezone, Development Agreement, Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit for the Springfield Montessori School located in a portion of Dublin Ranch Planning Area F, which applications are on file in the Planning Division. These applications are collectively referred to herein as "the Project" or "Springfield Montessori School"; and WHEREAS, Springfield Montessori School consists of approximately 2.57 acres encompassing a portion of Dublin Ranch Planning Area F located at the corner of Kohnen Way and Brannigan Street, in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area; and WHEREAS, the City Council previously adopted an Qrdinance approving a Stage l Development Plan on April 6, 2004 for Dublin Ranch Planning Area F (Ordinance No. 12-04, .incorporated herein by reference); and WHEREAS, the Project is within the General Plan Eastern Extended Planning Area and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, for which a Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was certified pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by the City Council by Resolution No. 51- 93 and the Addenda dated May 4, 1993 and August 22, 1994 (the "Eastern Dublin EIR") (SCH 91103064). The Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant unavoidable impacts from development of the Eastern Dublin area, some of which would apply to the Project; and WHEREAS, the Project area is located in a portion of Dublin Ranch Planning Area F for which the City Council previously approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration on February 15, 2000, entitled and hereinafter referred to as the "2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration" (Resolution No. 34-00 incorporated herein by reference) and a CEQA Addendum for Areas B/E/F on March 16, 2004, entitled and hereinafter referred to as the "2004 CEQA Addendum" (Resolution No. 43-04 incorporated herein by reference); and WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study to determine if additional review of the current Project was required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15162. The Initial Study, dated January 2009 is attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. Based on the Initial Study, the City prepared an Addendum dated January 2009 (attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference) describing minor changes from the previous approvals and finding that the impacts of the current Project have been adequately addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration and the 2004 CEQA Addendum, all of which documents are incorporated herein by reference; and Page 1 of 3 ~~~'G 'a `''~~ ~~~ ATTACHMENT 1 a ~ ~~5 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a properly noticed public hearing on the Project on February 24, 2009, and adopted Resolution 09-06 recommending approval of the CEQA Addendum; and WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant unavoidable impacts from development of the Eastern Dublin area, some of which would apply to the Project; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 and the California Court of Appeals decision captioned Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency (2002) 103 Ca1.App. 4`", 98, 125, approval of the Project must be supported by a new Statement of Overriding Considerations; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on March 17, 2009, at which time interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report dated March 17, 2009 was submitted to the City Council analyzing the Project and recommending approval of the CEQA Addendum and the project applications; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Addendum with the previously certified Eastern Dublin Environmental Impact Report, the 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration for Area F and the 2004 CEQA Addendum before making a decision on the Project; and WHEREAS, the City Council used its independent judgment and considered all .reports, recommendations and testimony before taking action on the Project. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council adopts the CEQA Addendum and related Initial Study, attached as Exhibit A, for the Springfield Montessori School project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached as Exhibit B. Page 2 of 3 3 ~ ~~s PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of March 2009 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk G:\PA#\2008\PA 08-038 Springfield Montessori School\CC\CEQA addendum Reso.DOC Page 3 of 3 v ~ ~~s ADDENDUM TO THE EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN EIR FOR THE SPRINGFIELD MONTESSORI SCHOOL January 2009 Lead Agency: City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 EXHIBIT A TO A TT A !"'L7MTi NT 1 5~ i~5 Table of Contents CEQA Addendum to Dublin Ranch Area F .....................................................................3 Environmental Checklist/ ................................................................................................ .7 Initial Study ......................................................................................................................7 Project Location and Context ...........................................................................................8 Project Description ...........................................................................................................8 1.Aesthetics .........................................................................................................26 2. Agricultural Resources ..................................................................................... 27 3. Air Quality ....................................................................................................... 28 4. Biological Resources ........................................................................................ 31 5. Cultural Resources ........................................................................................... 33 6. Geology and Soils .........:.................................................................................. 34 7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................................... 36 8. Hydrology and Water Quality .......................................................................... 38 9. Land Use and Planning .................................................................................... 40 10. Mineral Resources ......................................................................................... 40 11. Noise ........................................................:............................................,....... 41 12. Population and Housing ................................................................................. 42 13. Public Services ................................................:.............................................. 43 14. Recreation ...................................................................................................... 44 15. Transportation/Traffic .................................................................................... 45 16. Mandatory Findings of Significance .............................................................. 50 Agencies and Organizations Consulted ........................................................................... 52 References ........................................................................................................................ 52 City of Dublin Page 2 CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009 PA 08-038 ~ ~ 45 CEQA Addendum to Dublin Ranch Area F PA 08-038 January 2009 Introduction On May 10, 1993, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution No. 51-93, certifying an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (Eastern Dublin EIR, SCH #91103064). The certified EIR consisted of a Draft EIR and Responses to Comments bound volumes, as well as an Addendum dated May 4, 1993, assessing a reduced development and project alternative. The City Council adopted Resolution No. 53-93 approving a General Plan Amendment and a Specific Plan for the reduced area alternative on May 10, 1993. On August 22, 1994, the City Council adopted a second Addendum updating wastewater disposal plans for Eastern Dublin. For identified impacts that could not be mitigated to a less than significant level, the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations. All previously adopted mitigation measures for development in Eastern Dublin, that are applicable to this Project, continue to apply to the proposed project. The Eastern Dublin EIR is incorporated herein by reference. The Eastern Dublin EIR evaluated the potential environmental effects of urbanizing Eastern Dublin over a 20 to 30 year period. Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR, many implementing projects such as Dublin Ranch have been proposed, relying to various degrees on the Program EIR. . The City of Dublin approved development of Planning Area F on March 21, 2000. The approvals included a General Plan/Specific Plan Amendment and Planned Development rezoning/Stage 1 Development Plan for a combination of commercial and residential development. The Project Site was designated for a High School (20 acres total) in the adopted Stage 1 Development Plan. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted by the Dublin City Council Resolution No. 34-00 on February 15, 2000 for Dublin Ranch Planning Area F (SCH #1999112040, PA 98-068). This project included an amendment to the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to reconfigure land uses within Planning Area F as well as a Stage 1 Planned Development rezoning, a Tentative Tract Map, formation of an assessment district and modifications to an existing Development Agreement. The City Council Resolution No. 34-00 contained findings that the Project would have impacts associated with the development of the property that would be mitigated to a less than significant level with incorporation of the mitigation measures into the project. A CEQA Addendum to the Eastern Dublin EIR for Dublin Ranch Planning Areas B/F/E was adopted by the Dublin City Council Resolution 43-04 on March 16, 2004. This Addendum included an amendment to the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to reallocate land uses within the three Planning Areas including the redesignation of the Project Site from the High School to the Public/Semi-Public land use designation. City of Dublin Page 3 CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009 PA 08-038 7~w5 The applicant has requested approval of a Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit for the construction and establishment of a Montessori School. The proposed Project includes a 16,002 square foot daycare building and related improvements including a playground, parking lot and landscaping. This proposal further identifies the Project for a portion of the Public/Semi-Public designated land in Dublin Ranch Area F. The 2004 CEQA Addendum which reviewed the change in designation from High School to Public/Semi-Public on the Project site did not review a specific project on the site. CEQA The State CEQA Guidelines provide guidance on the appropriate document for revisions to a previously certified EIR. Section 15162 requires the preparation of a Subsequent EIR if the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following: a) Are there substantial changes to the Project involving new or more severe significant impacts? There are no substantial changes to the Project analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration! or the 2004 CEQA Addendum for Planning Area F. The Project proposes to construct a daycare on a portion of the 6.3 acre site designated for Public/Semi-Public uses. The proposed use is compatible with the alloEVable uses identified in the City of Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. 'The proposed facility is allowed with a Conditional Use .Permit pursuant to the adopted Planned Development Zoning (Stage 1 Development Plan) for the Project site. b) Are there substantial changes in the conditions which the Project is undertaken involving new or more significant impacts? There are no substantial changes in the conditions in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration or the 2004 CEQA Addendum. The Project will be required to adhere to all of the mitigation measures in all documents which apply to this Project. c) Is there new information of substantial importance, which was not known at the time of the previous EIR that shows the Project will have a significant effect not addressed in the previous EIR; or previous effects are more severe; or, previously infeasible mitigation measures are now feasible but the applicant declined to adopt them; or mitigation measures considerably different from those in the previous EIR would substantially reduce significant effects but the applicant declines to adopt them? There is no new information showing a new or more significant effect. The proposed Project would be consistent with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The Project will be required to comply with all mitigation measures included in the Eastern Dublin EIR mitigation measures and the in the 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration which apply to this Project. d) If no subsequent EIR level review is required, should a subsequent negative declaration be prepared? No additional review is required based on the Initial City of Dublin Page 4 CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009 PA 08-038 V ~~ I ~~I Study. The Initial Study concluded that the Project will not create any significant impacts other than those identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration. As discussed above, none of the conditions described in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 has occurred. Under such circumstances, Section 15164 requires the lead agency to prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIIZ if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. An addendum to be prepared as described below: a) The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. b) An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred. c) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR or adopted negative declaration. d) The decision making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR or adopted negative declaration prior to making a decision on the project. e) A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency's findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence. The City of Dublin has determined that an Addendum is the appropriate CEQA review for the proposed Project. Prior to making this determination, the City reviewed the Eastern Dublin EIR and the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration and CEQA Addendum to determine if any further environmental review was required for the proposed Site Development Review Stage 2 Planned Development rezoning. This Addendum is adopted pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164 based on the environmental checklist. The Addendum reviews the proposed Project which was not reviewed in prior environmental documentation (construction of a project on the subject site was reviewed, however, a specific project was not proposed at that time). Through the adoption of this Addendum, the City has determined that the proposed changes do not require a subsequent EIR or negative declaration under Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines. The City further determines that the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration and the 2004 CEQA Addendum adequately address the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. City of Dublin Page 5 CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009 PA 08-038 /~5 Pursuant to Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, the Addendum does not need to be circulated for public review. The environmental document will be considered with the prior environmental documents before making a decision on this project. The attached Initial Study, referenced Eastern Dublin EIR, 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration and 2004 CEQA Addendum are all available for review in the Community Development Department located in the Dublin City Hall at 100 Civic Plaza in Dublin. City of Uublin Page 6 CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009 PA 08-038 o ~. Ids City of Dublin Environmental Checklist/ Initial Study 1. Project description 2. Lead Agency: 3. Contact Person: 4. Project Location: 5. Assessor Parcel Number: 6. Project Sponsor: 7. General Plan Designation 8. Zoning: 9. Specific Plan Designation: Springfield Montessori School City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin CA 94588 Erica Fraser, Senior Planner, Dublin Plaruiing Department (925) 833-6610 West of Brannigan Street and southwest of Kohnen Way 985-0052-022 and 985-0052-023 Raj an Lal VSS Holdings L LC 46 Miner Road Orinda, CA 94563 Public/Semi-Public PD (Planned Development) District Public/Semi-Public l0.Other Public Agency Required Approvals: Lot Merger (City of Dublin) Site Development Review (City of Dublin) Conditional Use Permit (City of Dublin) Development Agreement (City of Dublin) Grading and Building permits (City of Dublin) Sewer and water connections (DSRSD) Encroachment permits (City of Dublin) City of Dublin Page 7 CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009 PA 08-038 ii~i~ Project Location and Context Exhibit 1 depicts the location of the Project area in context of the neighboring planning areas. The Project site is located within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan area. This Specific Plan/General Plan was adopted by the City of Dublin in 1993 for the purpose of directing long-term land use, circulation, infrastructure and environmental protection for 3,328 acres of land located east of the central portion of Dublin and north of the I-580 freeway. At full build-out, the Eastern Dublin planning area would allow a range of residential, commercial office, employment and open space uses. The Project area is also part of Dublin Ranch, the largest landholding within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. Dublin Ranch contains approximately 1,310 acres of land and is being planned to accommodate approximately 5,760 residential dwellings and approximately 2.5 million square feet of office and retail floor space. Dublin Ranch is also being planned to contain a range of schools, parks and other public areas. The project site is comprised of a 2.57 acre portion of Area F located in Dublin Ranch. The Project site is located within the larger East Dublin area, located west of the Brannigan Street and southwest of Kohnen Way. The Project site is currently vacant and unimproved. There are no structures located within the boundaries of the Project site. The site is primarily covered with non-native grassland. The topography consists of a slight grade change from east to west. The majority of the site is fairly level with a reduction in grade along the western side of the property. Construction of Medium Density .Residential homes are currently under construction along the eastern side of the Project site, to the west are existing Medium Density Residential homes, to the north is Eleanor Murray Fallon Middle School and to the south is a vacant PD Public and Semi- Public lot of approximately three acres slated for a mosque. Project Description The proposed Project includes a Stage 2 PD-Development Plan to establish development regulations for the proposed Springfield Montessori School. The proposed facility would provide care for 180 children ranging from two to six years of age with no more than 15 employees at a time. The building measures approximately 16,002 square feet in size. On-site improvements include a playground, parking lot, lighting, water quality basins and landscape areas. Although the name of the facility states that it is a school, because this facility provides care for children, it functions like a daycare facility rather than a private school that would provide schooling for older children. Although a Stage 2 PD-Development Plan was adopted for Area F North surrounding the Project site, the Project site was not incorporated within this document and therefore development standards and guidelines were not devised and adopted. City of Dublin Page 8 CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009 PA 08-038 I a R~ r~-5 The Applicants have proposed a Stage 2 Planned Development, Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit to construct a 16.002 square foot Montessori School. The project will be constructed on a vacant 2.57 acre parcel located in Area F of Dublin Ranch. The project includes one daycare building, parking lot, playground, landscaping and related improvements. The entrance to the parking area will be located on Brannigan Street. The facility will provide services for up to 180 children aged 2-6 years. The daycare will have no more than 15 employees on site at one time. The Project is consistent with the Public/Semi-Public land use designation of the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. This addendum further identifies the use of a portion of the 6.3 acre site for a daycare. All of the mitigation measures in the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR continue to apply to this property including the Project. For the significant and unavoidable impacts related to the development of this property, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Resolution 53-93) as part of the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR. This Project also lies within Dublin Ranch Area F. In 2000, the City adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration and in 2004, the City adopted a CEQA Addendum which reviewed development of the property. Minor grading activities would occur on the Project site to accommodate the planned use. Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSh) will provide water and wastewater service for the Project. These ~er<rices are planned in accordance. with. the DSRSD Eastern Dublin Facilities Master Plan ;;, (and/or subsequent revisions). Sewer service for the Project site will: require connection. to DSRSD's existing sewer system. Other .Entitlements The applicant has also requested approval of a Site Development Review (SDR) application for approval of the site layout and building architecture, and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to establish the land use. A Development Agreement and lot merger are also required. City of Dublin Page 9 CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009 PA 08-038 13~p l~5 ~C Exhibit 1. Site Location h. ~ Fe V ~- F 1 y e T,j~.~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ rte- ~ :' ~4s*s~ ~ . (>ti ~,~ '~~'~~T~ ~ .- y^', '' ,~ ~, <; y. * ~ ~~ ~;a U~''~ f ' .~-.~ ., ~~r'r .~ _- ~ F ~~ ~ ~~ ,; ~~r ~~ k F~~k~ ~ ` "`"~. ~ (~_ 4 ;~ a -„~~ ::.; •ti ~3 ~, ~~ ~s • ~ .. V~ ~F~1'~l E l~J ';~:'Y' oject Slt~ ~ ~~~ ~ v ~ ~ ,.. ~1- ~, ~. t .,~; .:~ ,a~,/~ ~. ~, ~,~ ~ ~~~ 4~~ I y~~~IFw . w ~ ~~ ..~:. ~~~ ~~F Ott ~°. ~~~ _ x ..~--~' ~~EASa~ ~ City of Dublin Page 10 CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009 PA 08-038 I ~f ~ /45 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "potentially significant impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. - Aesthetics - Agricultural - Air Quality Resources Biological Resources - Cultural Resources - Geology/Soils - Hazards and Hydrology/Water - Land Use/ Planning Hazardous Materials Quality - Mineral Resources - Noise Population,'Housing - Public Services Recreation - Transportation/ _ Ci_rcul_ation __ - Utilities/Service - Mandatory Findings Systems of Significance Determination (to be completed b-y I;ead Agency): On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment and a Negative Declaratiott will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A Negative Declaration will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis as described on the attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An Environmental Impact Report is required, but must only analyze the effects that remain to be addressed. X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR, Negative Declaration and Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards, (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed on the proposed project, or (c) a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been adopted by the Dublin City Council. An Addendum has been prepared to the previous CEQA reviews. City of Dublin Page 11 CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009 PA 08-038 ~s~ ~~~ Signature: Printed Name: Date: For: City of Dublin Page 12 CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009 PA 08-038 I6 Q~ /~5 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts The source of determination listed in parenthesis. See listing of sources used to determine each potential impact at the end of the checklist). A full discussion of each item can be found following the checklist. I. Aesthetics - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista? (Source: 2,9,14,15) b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Source: 9,14,15) c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Source: 9,14,15) d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Source: 9,14,15) II. Agricultural laesourees -Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as showing on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to anon-agricultural use? (Source: 2) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agriculture use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Source: 2) c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to anon-agricultural use? (Source: 2) III. Air Quality -Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (Source: 2,9, 15) b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute City of Dublin CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School PA 08-038 Potentially Less Than Less than Significant Significant Significant No Impact With Impact Im act p Miti ation X X i X i i - X I i X X X ~ ~ - X --- Page 13 January 2009 ~ 7 ~ Sys substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Source: 2, 14,15) c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? (Source:2,14,15) d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Source:2,14,15) e) Create objectionable odors? (Source: 2,14,15) IV. Biological Resources -Would the project a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local ar regional plans, policies or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Source: 2, 3, 10,11, 12, 13, 14, 15) b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Source: 2, 3, 10,11, 12, 13, 14, 15) c) Have a substantial adverse impact on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption or other means? (Source: 2, 3, 10,11, 12, 13, 14, 15) d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Source: 2, 3, 10,11, 12, 13, 14, 15) e) Conflict with any local policies or ordi_nances_ City of Dublin CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School PA 08-038 Potentially Less Than Less than Significant Significant Significant No Impact With Impact Impact Mitigation X X I--- - -- X X i i -- ~ -- ~ I ~ i I X i X ~ - --~ X Page 14 January 2009 ~g ~ ~~s protecting biological resources, such as tree protection ordinances? (Source: 2, 17) f) Conflict with the provision of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? (Source: 2) V. Cultural Resources -Would the project a) Cause a substantial adverse impact in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Sec. 15064.5? (Source: 2, 4,15) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to Sec. 15064.5 (Source: 2, 4,15) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique . paleontological resource or unique geologic . feature? (Source: 2, 4,151 d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of a formal cemetery? (Source: 2, 4,:15) dI. Geology and Soils -Would the project . a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist or based on other known evidence of a known fault (Source: 5) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking (5) iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? (5) iv) Landslides? (5) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (5) c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- and off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or similar hazards (Source: 5) City of Dublin CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School PA 08-038 Less Than Potentially Significant Less than No Significant With Significant Im act p Impact Miti ation Impact i X X X ~ X ~ ~ - - , ~ X X - ------ ------ X X - X X - - i X - - -~ __ Page 15 January 2009 l~~i~.5 Potf entially Less Than Less than Significant Significant With Significant No Im act p Impact Miti ation Impact d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in _ Table 13-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or X property? (Source: 5) e) Have soils capable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers X are not available for the disposal of waste? (Source: 5) ___ VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials -Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or _ the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous X materials? (Source: 6) b) Create a significant hazard to the public or _ _ ______ __ _ _~ the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions . ~ ~ ~ ~ involving the release of hazardous into the ~ X ~ environment? (Source: 6) I ' L _ ~ c) Emit hazardous emissions or ha~tdle _ ~ __ _ _ _ hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or ~ X proposed school? (Source: 6) d) Be located on a site which is included on a __ ___ list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Sec. 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? X (Source: 6) __ _ _ e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such plan has not been adopted, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the X project area? (Source: 6) f) For a project within the vicinity of private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the X project area? (Source: 6) _ ~ g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with the adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation X plan? (Source: 2) City of Dublin Page 16 CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009 PA 08-038 anQ.y /y5 .~ Potentially Less Than Significant Less than No Significant With Significant Im act P Impact ~ Miti ation Impact h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where X residences are intermixed with wildlands? (Source: 2) __ __ IX. Hydrology and Water Quality -Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste X _ discharge requirements? (Source: 2, 7,15) b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g. the production rate of existing nearby wells i would drop to a level which would not _ X support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? ' i (Source: 2, '1; 15) I _ -_ ~~ ----~ ----- --- - - c Substantiall alter the existin drains e Y g g 'I ~ pattern of the site or area, including. through ~ the aeration of the course of a stream or ~ i ' river, in a manlier which would result in X substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? (Source: 7, 15) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or areas, including through ~ the alteration of a course or stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount X of surface runoff in a manner which would ~ result in flooding on- or off-site? (Source: 7) e) Create or contribute runoff water which ___ would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of X polluted runoff? (Source: 2, 7,15) f) Otherwise substantially degrade water ~ quality? (Source: 2,15) ~ _ _ ___ X _ ______ g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Flood Hazard Boundary ~ ~ or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood d li i ? S X e neat on map ( ource: 7) ~ Gity of Dublin Page 17 CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009 PA 08-038 a~~14~5 h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which impede or redirect flood flows? (Source: 2, 7) i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, and death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (Source: 7) j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow? (Source: 7) IX. Land Use and Planning -Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? (Source: 1, 2, 9) b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Source: 2) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (1, 2) X. Mineral Resources. Would the project a) Result in the loss of availability of a. known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Source: 2) b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general Plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Source: 2) XI. Noise. Would the proposal result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (Source: 2, 9) b) Exposure of persons or to generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Source: 2, 5) City of Dublin CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School PA 08-038 ~ Less Than Potentially Significant Less than No Significant With Significant Impact Im act p Miti ation Im act P X X X X i X ~ - ~- - - ~ -- ~ - X - - - - -- - i X X X X Page 18 January 2009 as ~ itis c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above existing levels without the project? (Source: 2, 9) d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels without the project? (Source: 9) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working n the project area to excessive noise levels? (Source: 9) f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Source: 9) XIL Population and Ilousin~ -Would the project a) Induce substantial population. growth in an area, either directly or indirectly (for example. through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (Source: 1, 2) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Source: 2) c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the replacement of housing elsewhere? (Source: 2) XIII. Public Services -Would the proposal: a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service rations, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services? (Sources: 2, 10, 15, 16) Fire protection Police protection Schools City of Dublin CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School PA 08-038 Potentially Less Than Less than Significant Significant Significant No Impact With Impact Im act P Miti ation X X X i ~ X ~ I X X X -- - X X --- ~ _ 1 ----- - X---_~ _ _ Page 19 January 2009 ~ ~. ~~~ .~ Parks Other public facilities XIV. Recreation -Would the project: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated (Source: 2) b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Source: 2) XV. Transportation and Traffic -Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads or congestion at intersections)? (Source: 8,15,16) b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the County Congestion Management Agency for designated roads or highways? (Source: 8,15,16) c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (Source: 2) d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses, such as farm equipment? (Source: 8,17) e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Source: 8,17) fl Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Source: 8,17) Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Miti ation Less than Significant Impact No Im act p X X X X j ~Y j I X I ~ X X - X X Glty of Dublin CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School PA 08-038 Page 20 January 2009 a~ ~ i~5 g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (such as bus turnouts and bicycle facilities)? (Source: 8,15) XVI. Utilities and Service Systems -Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (Source: 2) b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Source: 2,16) c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Source: 2, 7) d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing water entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (Source: 2, 16) e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the providers existing commitments? (Source: 2, 16) f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (Source: 2) g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (Source: 2) L sse Than Potentially Significant Less than No Significant With Significant Im act P Impact Miti ation Impact X X X - ---- ---- - 1--- ----- j X ~ I ~ I i ~ I I ~ ~ ~ ~ X ~ ~ - -- i -- - ~ ~ X X X Gity of Dublin CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School PA 08-038 Page 21 January 2009 ash ~~,~ XVI. Mandatory Findings of Significance - Would the project: a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce thz number of or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects the effects of other current projects and the. effects of probable future projects). c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Miti ation Less than Significant Impact No Im act P X i X I • ~-------- - - ~ I i 1 X ~ ~ ~ 1 --- Sources used to determine potential environmental impacts 1. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan (1993) 2. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan EIR (1993) 3. Special-Status Species Survey, Pao Yeh Lin Property, H.T. Harvey Associates (October 1999) 4, Cultural Resource Survey, Dublin Ranch, Holman & Associates (June, 1999) 5 Geotechnical Investigation of Lin Property, Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants (November, 1997) 6 Phase One and Two Hazardous Materials Survey of Lin Property, Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants (November 1997) 7. Drainage and Hydrology Study for Dublin Ranch, MacKay & Somps (November 2003) 8. Project Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by TJKM Associates (October1999) 9. Site Visit 10. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Fill Permit (dated May 23, 2003) 11. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Biological Opinion (dated July 1, 2002) 12. Regional Water Quality Control Board Water Quality Certification Order (dated Apri122, 2003) . City of Dublin Page 22 CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009 PA 08-038 a~ .~~ ~y~ ,~- 13. California Department of Fish & Game 1603 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement (dated June 5, 2003) 14 Individual Mitigated Negative Declaration for Dublin Ranch PA F (2000) 15. Individual Initial Study/Negative Declaration for Dublin Ranch PA Areas B, F and E (2004) 16. Letter from TJKM Regarding Estimated Trip Generation dated December 15, 2003 17. Project Plans 18. Discussion with City of Dublin staff City of Dublin Page 23 CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009 PA 08-038 a 7~ 1~i5 Earlier Analyses Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Reference Section 15063 (c)(3)(d). a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. Portions of the environmental setting, project impacts and mitigation measures for this Initial Study refer to environmental information contained in the 1993 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment Environmental Impact Report. (SCH 91103064). This document is referred to in this Initial Study as the "Eastern Dublin EIR." Copies of this document are available for public review at the City of Dublin Planning Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin CA, during normal business hours. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was subsequently approved for Planning Area F of Dublin Ranch in 2000 (SCH # 1999112040, PA #98-068, adopted by Dublin City Council Resolution No. 34-00 on February 15, 2000. In 2004 an Initial Study was prepared for Areas B, F and E. Both documents were also used in the preparation of this Initial Study and are incorporated herein by reference. Mitigation measures included in tre Eastern Dublin BIR, the Mitigated Negative Declaration approved in 2000 for Planning Area F continue to apply to the proposed Project. As part of the certification of the EIR and approval of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment, the Dublin City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the following impacts: cumulative traffic, extension of certain community facilities (natural gas, electric and telephone service), regional air quality, noise and visual, and other impacts identified in Resolution 53-93, dated May 10, 1993 and incorporated herein by reference. Copies of these previous environmental documents are available for review at the Dublin Planning Department during normal business hours. The Project is consistent with the Public/Semi Public land use designation of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The Project site has been the subject of prior CEQA reviews, initially through the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR, a program-level review of the potential urbanization of Eastern Dublin. Numerous mitigation measures were adopted with the Eastern Dublin general plan and specific plan approvals on May 10, 1993. All of the mitigation measures continue to apply, as appropriate, to implementing projects, including this Project. For the significant and unavoidable impacts, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations. (See Resolution 53-93). Pursuant to the recent Communities for a Better Environment case, approval of the Project would City of Dublin Page 24 CEQA Addendum for the Springfield .Montessori School January 2009 PA 08-038 ~ ~ /~/,~' require that the City reweigh the identified unavoidable impacts and adopt a new Statement of Overriding Considerations. The Project site was later reviewed in connection with approval of two separate land use revisions and adoption of a PD rezoning and Stage 1 Development Plans. The Dublin Ranch Area F portion of the Project was reviewed in a subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). The MND tiered from the Eastern Dublin EIR, and identified additional potentially significant impacts and mitigation measures. The Initial Study prepared in 2004 for Areas B, E and F was tiered from the aforementioned EIR and MND. All of the adopted mitigation measures continue to apply to the Project. The following discussions track the environmental checklist above. Where possible, the discussion describes the prior relevant analyses and the prior adopted mitigation measures. The discussions are summary only; the prior EIR, MND and IS should be consulted for full discussion of related impacts and mitigations. The discussions also examine whether the proposed Springfield Montessori School will have any new or more severe significant impacts that would require preparation of a subsequent EIR, MND or ND pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15162. Because the Project does not propose new or different development, i.e., -the type and extent of land use is similar to those assumed in the previous reviews, most impacts are unchanged for the Project. The Project also includes a less intensive land use than initially anticipated and studied, therefore; some impacts maybe reduced compared to the existing approvals. -- --- - City of Dublin Page 25 CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009 PA 08-038 °xI ~ l~5 Attachment to Initial Study Discussion of Checklist Legend PS: Potentially Significant LS/M: Less Than Significant After Mitigation LS: Less Than Significant Impact NI: No Impact The following information is provided for the environmental checklist. The discussions are summary only; the proper Environmental Impact Report, Mitigated Negative Declaration or Addendum should be consulted for a full discussion of all the impacts and mitigation measures. The discussion also examines whether the Project would require preparation of a subsequent Environmental Impact Report, Mitigated Negative Declaration or Negative Declaration pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. Because the Project does not propose a use beyond what was studied in the 2004 CEQA Addendum, most impacts are unchanged for the Project. 1. Aesthetics Environmental Setting ' The Project site is vacant and consists of non-native grasses and a mild change in grade. The Eastern Dublin EIR classifies the project site as "valley grasslands," which are located on the areas near I-580 in the south and southwest portion of Eastern Dublin. Where agricultural activity, including grazing, has historically taken place (such as within the Project area), the visual image of lands is formed by patterns of the soil that have been furrowed. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified the following impacts to visual resources and aesthetics applicable to this Project: • IM 3.88, C, and D: Alteration of the rural/open space visual character of the area whereby new development allowed under the Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment would change the visual open space area of the Project area, including hillsides. • IM 3.8/F: alteration of the visual character of the flatlands, whereby future urban development on the flatland portion of the Project site would alter views of valley grasses and agricultural fields. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of Mitigation Measures that are applicable to this project to assist in reducing aesthetic impacts to aless-than-significant level, including Mitigation Measures 3.8/1.0 through 3.8/8.1. The 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration for Planning Area F identified supplemental Mitigation Measure 1 that required pole mounted streetlights to be equipped with cut-off lenses or directed downward to minimize spill over of lights. City of Dublin Page 26 CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009 PA 08-038 ~~ a-0 l45 ~f Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista? LS. The vacant 2.57 acre Project site consists of non-native grasses and a mild grade change. The Project site is bound by a middle school to the north, medium density residential homes to the east and west and a vacant three acre parcel to the south designated for Public/Semi-Public uses. The proposed development will consist of a one story building with associated site improvements such as a playground, parking lot and landscape area. Once constructed, the proposed Project will be consistent with the developed surroundings. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including state scenic highway? NI. The project site is not located adjacent to a state designated scenic highway. No other scenic resources currently exist on the site as the site is vacant with non-native grassland. c) Substantially degrade existing visual character or the duality of the site? LS. As previously stated the once the Project site is developed it will be more attractive and consistent with the surrounding neighborhood (which is currently developed or under construction) than its current status. Additionally, this impact was addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and a Statement of Overriding Considerations. d) Create light or glare? LS. As addressed in the 2000 MND, construction of the proposed project would increase the amount of light and glare due to new street lighting and building security lighting. In some instances, the additional lighting could result in negative aesthetic impacts through the "spill over" of unwanted lighting onto adjacent properties, parks and other areas that are not intended to be lighted. The Project includes decorative light fixtures approved for the Dublin Ranch community. Prior to issuance of building permits, as required by the Project Conditions of Approval, a photometric study will be required to be prepared which shall show that the Project will meet the requirements of Dublin Municipal Code Section 8.76.070 A. 13 which states that parking areas shall have lighting capable of providing adequate illumination for security and safety. As conditioned, the minimum requirement is 1 foot candle, maintained across the surface of the parking area. As required by Mitigation Measure 1 in the 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration, any illumination, including security lighting, shall be directed away from adjoining properties and public rights-o.f--way. Overall, no additional impacts to visual resources not previously identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration or the 2004 CEQA Addendum are expected to occur as a result of this Project. 2. Agricultural Resources Environmental Setting According to information contained in the Phase One Hazardous Materials study prepared by Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants for the site, the property has been used exclusively for farming and cattle grazing for the past 40 years. Farming and cattle operations have since ceased on the site and the site has been fallow for several years. City of Dublin Page 27 CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009 PA 08-038 ~I a~Pl~5 ~t The Eastern Dublin EIR notes that the site is characterized by soils of locally important farmland, although not of prime or unique farmland. Based on information contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Figure 3.1-C), the Project site is not encumbered with a Williamson Act Land Conservation Agreement contract. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified the following impacts with regard to agricultural resources: • IM 3.1/C: Discontinuation of agricultural uses, which was aless-than-significant impact due to the high percentage of Williamson Act contracts that were either non-renewed or cancelled. • IM 3.1/D: Loss of farmlands of local importance, which was identified as less-than- significant since no prime agricultural soils were identified on the Project site. No mitigation measures were contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR, since no potentially significant impacts were identified. The 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration and the 2004 CEQA Addendum did not identify new or supplemental impacts or mitigation measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR related to agricultural resources. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures a-c) Convert Prime Farmland, conflict with agricultural zoning or convert prime farmland to a raon-agricultural use? LS. Although the site has historically been used for agricultural crop production, the underlying soil is not considered primary agricultural soil and no Williamson Act Land Conservation Agreement exists on the project site. The Eastern Dublin EIR found that discontinuance of agricultural operations is an insignificant impact based on the large number of non-renewal notices being filed on Williamson Act Agreements within the Eastern Dublin area (Impact 3.1/C). Similarly, loss of farmland of local importance, such as the project site, were considered aless-than- significant impact due to the fact that on-site soils are not prime agricultural soils (Impact 3.1/D). Overall, no additional impacts to agricultural resources not previously identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration or the 2004 CEQA Addendum are expected to occur as a result of this Project. 3. Air Quality Environmental Setting Dublin is located in the Tri-Valley Air Basin. Within the Basin, state and federal standards for nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and lead are met. Standards for other airborne pollutants, including ozone, carbon monoxide and suspended particulate matter (PM-10) are not met in at least a portion of the Basin. City of Dublin Page 28 CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009 PA 08-038 ~ ~f I X15 'f The Eastern Dublin EIR identified the following impacts with regard to air quality: • IM 3.11/A: Dust deposition soiling nuisance from construction activities, which was identified as a potentially significant cumulative impact. • IM 3.11/B: Air emission from construction equipment, which was identified as a potentially significant impact. • IM 3.11/C: Air quality impacts related to mobile emissions of reactive organic gasses and nitrogen monoxide, which was identified as a potentially cumulative significant impact. • IM 3.11/D: Mobile source emission of carbon monoxide, which was identified as a less- than-significant impact. • IM 3.11/E: Stationary source emissions from HVAC and other sources, which was a potentially significant cumulative impact. Mitigation Measures 3.11/1.0 through 13.0 were included in the Eastern Dublin EIR to assist in reducing long- and short-teen air quality impacts. Impacts related to emission from construction vehicles, mobile source emission of reactive organic gasses and nitrogen dioxide and stationary. source emissions were identified as significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations were adopted by the City of Dublin for these impacts. The 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration and the 2004 CEQA Addendum did not identify new or supplemental impacts or mitigation measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR related to .air quality. Project Impacts and Nliti~ation Measures a) Would the project conjict or obstruct implementation of an air quality plan? LS. The proposed project would not conflict with the local Clean Air Plan adopted by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, since development of the site with Public/Semi-Public land uses was anticipated in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. b) Would the project violate any air quality standards? LS. Short-term construction impacts related to implementation of the project, including grading and excavation, could result in exceedances of air quality standards established by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Eastern Dublin EIR, Impacts 3.11/A and B). Adherence to Mitigation Measure 3.11/1.0 and Mitigation Measure 3.11/2.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR will reduce short-term air quality impacts to ales-than-significant level. These measures minimize the creation of fugitive dust during grading and construction activities and also mandate that construction equipment be kept in proper running order. The Eastern Dublin EIR concludes that potential air quality impacts related to construction equipment could not be mitigated to ales-than-significant impact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for this impact. If this project were to be approved, a new Statement of Overriding Considerations would need to be adopted by the City of Dublin. City of Dublin Page 29 CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009 PA 08-038 ~~ ~~ 1~5 Similarly, potential air quality impacts related to mobile source emissions of Reactive Organic Gasses and Nitrogen Oxide, both precursor indicators of smog, and stationary source emissions were found to exceed regional air quality standards even with mitigation measures, and were included in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Eastern Dublin EIR Impacts 3.11/C and E). If this project were to be approved, a new Statement of Overriding Considerations would need to be adopted by the City of Dublin. c) Would the project result in cumulatively considerable air pollutants? LS. The Eastern Dublin EIlZ identifies Mobile Source Emissions and Stationary Source Emissions as significant irreversible impacts. Generally such impacts are based on vehicular emission from future traffic within the sub-region as well as stationary sources. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for long-term impacts. If this project were to be approved, a Statement of Overriding Considerations would need to be adopted by the City of Dublin. Since the certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR and adoption of the Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration and CEQA Addendum, the issue of the contribution of .greenhouse gases to climate change has become a more prominent issue of concern in this State as evidence by the passage of AB 32 in 2006. There is no current statute, regulation or case law which requires the analysis of greenhouse gases and climate change under CEQA. The topic of the Project's contribution to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change was not analyzed in prior CEQA documentation. since the .Eastern Dublin Environmental Impact Report has been certified, the determination of whether greenhouse gases and climate change needs to be analyzed for this proposed Project is governed by the law on supplemental or subsequent EIIZs (See discussion under Section XVII Earlier Analysis above). Greenhouse gas and climate change is not required to be analyzed under those standards unless it constitutes "new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete" and shows a new significant impact. (CEQA Guidelines section 15162(a)(3).) Greenhouse gas and climate change impacts is not new information that was not known or could not have been known at the time the Eastern Dublin EIR was certified. The issue of climate change and greenhouse gases was widely known prior to 1993. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was established in 1992. The regulation of greenhouse gas emissions to reduce climate change impacts was being extensively debated and analyzed throughout the early 1990s. The studies and analysis of this issue resulted in the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. In 2004, the City Council approved a land use change from High School to Public/Semi-Public. An Addendum to the EIR was prepared for the project at that time. The Addendum determined that there would be no additional impacts, with respect to air quality, because the change in land uses was a less intensive use of the site. Under CEQA standards, it is not new information that requires analysis in a supplemental EIR or negative declaration. No environmental analysis on the Project's impacts on this issue is required under CEQA. The proposed daycare is an allowed use under the current General Plan and Specific Plan land use designation. d,e) Expose sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations or create objectionable odors? LS. The proposed project consists of the establishment of a Montessori School which would provide care for and teach children between the ages of 2-6 years of age. The City of Dublin Page 30 CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009 PA 08-038 children attending the Montessori School could be considered sensitive receptors. However, since air quality impacts were included in the Statement of Overriding considerations, this impact is considered less than significant and no further analysis is required. Overall, no additional impacts to air quality not previously identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration or the 2004 CEQA Addendum are expected to occur as a result of this Project. ~. Biological Resources Environmental Setting The Eastern Dublin EIR indicates that the Project site is dominated by non-native grassland and dryland-farmed (grain crops) habitats. Fields are typically cropped at various seasonal and annual rotations followed by fallow years at a rate of one in every five years. Crops are not irrigated. Biological analyses and wetland delineations were conducted for the Eastern Dublin EIR as well as the Negative Declaration and Mitigated Negative Declaration, describing both habitat and species present in project area, and information on wetland resources. As noted earlier, Dublin Ranch Areas B, F and E including the Project site have been mass graded pursuant to.USACE and DFG permits. .Plants Based on the:history of cultivation of the Project Area; most of the 23 special-statics plant species identified as potentially occurring ire Dublin Ranch Planning Areas B, F and E are not expected to be present. Previous agricultural activities, including livestock grazing and crop production have degraded potential habita~ for these species, and existing predominant plant species include invasive forbs and grasses indicative of disturbed habitats. Although neither the Congdon's tarplant (Hemizonia parryi ssp. congdonii) nor San Joaquin spearscale (Atriplex joaquiniana) has been observed in the Project Area, Congdon's tarplant has been observed on Area H to the south, and San Joaquin spearscale has been observed on a nearby parcel to the southeast. Wildlife The Eastern Dublin EIR, the Negative Declaration and the Mitigated Negative Declaration background information on the potential for special-status and sensitive animal species that could potentially occur on the Project site. With the permitted grading on the Project site and related offsite mitigation and species relocation associated with Areas B, F and E, many of the species are no longer expected to occur on the Project site. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified a number of potentially significant impacts to biological resources, including IM 3.7/A (direct habitat loss), IM 3.7/B (indirect impacts of vegetation removal), IM 3.7/C (loss or degradation of botanically sensitive habitat), IM 3.7/D (impacts to San Joaquin kit fox), IM 3.7/E (impacts to bald eagle, peregrine falcon and Alameda whipsnake), IM 3.7/F (impacts to red-legged frog), IM 3.7/G (California tiger salamander), IM 3.7/H (impacts to western pond turtle), IM 3.7/I (impacts tri-colored blackbirds), IM 3.7/J (destruction of Golden eagle nesting sites, IM 3.7/K (elimination of Golden eagle foraging sites), IM3.7/L (Golden eagle and other raptor electrocution), IM 3.7/M impacts to burrowing owl), IM 3.7/ N (impacts to American badger), IM 3.7/O (impacts to prairie falcon, northern harrier and black-shouldered City of Dublin Page 31 CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009 PA 08-038 ~35~ i~5 kite), IM 3.7/P (impacts to sharp-shinned hawk and Cooper's hawk), IM 3.7 Q (impacts to short- eared owl), IM 3.7/R impacts to California horned lizard), IM 3.7/S (impacts to special-status invertebrates). A number of mitigation measures are included in the Eastern Dublin EIR to reduce all of the above impacts to less-than-significant levels, except for the loss of botanically sensitive habitat. These are Mitigation Measures 3/7/1.0 to 28.0. These mitigation measures continue to apply to this project. The 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration for Planning Area F contained Supplemental Mitigation Measure 2(i) and 2(iv) to protect special-status species which continues to apply to the proposed Project. This mitigation measure requires the developer to retain a qualified biologist to survey the site for special status plant species and the Burrowing Owl and American Badger prior to issuance of a grading permit. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species? LS. Development of the Project area would have impacts on the . California red-legged frog and California tiger salamander that are less than significant with mitigation incorporation. This development could potentially have impacts on the Congdon's tarplant, San Joaquin spearscale, Burrowing Owl, White-tailed Fite (and other tree-nesting raptors), and American badger. Mitiga±ion measures in the Eastern Dublin EIR and 2000 -Mitigated Negative Declarations have reduced impacts associated with these species to a Less than significant level. Site clearing .and grading could result in direct loss cif individuals of Congdon's tarplant and San Joaquin spearscale if these species ar:, present on the site. b, c) Have a substantial adverse impact on riparian habitat or federally protected wetlands? LS. As shown on the map included in the 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration, no wetlands were found on the Project site during a survey of the Planning Area. d) Interfere with movement of native fish or wildlife species? NI. There are no bodies of water located on the Project site. The site is surrounded by developed parcels and therefore no significant wildlife movement occurs on or across the Project site. e, ~ Conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources or any adopted Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans? NI. No trees are present on the site, and there are no impacts with regard to local tree preservation ordinances or policies. The site is not located within the boundaries of any Habitat Conservation Plans. Overall, no additional impacts to biological resources not previously identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration or the 2004 CEQA Addendum are expected to occur as a result of this Project. City of Dublin Page 32 CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009 PA 08-038 ~3G o~ I ~-5 't 5. Cultural Resources Environmental Setting The Eastern Dublin area was surveyed in 1988 as part of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and associated EIR. Several potentially significant archeological resources were identified in the project area and the Eastern Dublin EIR mandated additional project-level archeological surveys. In May, 1999, Holman and Associates resurveyed Planning Area F by means of a mechanical backhoe. Several battered petrified wood fragments were discovered; however, later laboratory investigation indicated the fragments likely resulted from natural tumbling or damage from farm equipment. In summary, no potentially significant prehistoric archeological materials or indicators were found on the property during the study. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified the following impacts with regard to cultural resources: • IM 3.9/A: Disruption or destruction of identified prehistoric resources, which was identified as a potentially significant impact. • IM 3.98: Disruption or destruction of unidentified pre-historic resources, which was identified as a potentially significant impact. • , IM 3.9/C: Disruption or destruction of identified historic resources, which was identified as a potentially signif cant impact.. • IM 3~9/D:. Disruption or destruction of unidentified historic resources, which was identified as a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures 3.9/1.0 to 12.0 were adopted to reduce impacts to historic and pre-historic resources to aless-than-significant level. The 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration identified Supplemental Mitigation Measure 4, intended to protect unrecorded cultural resources. All applicable mitigation measures in the Eastern Dublin EIR and in the Mitigated Negative Declaration will continue to apply to the Project. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures a) Cause substantial adverse change to significant historic resources? NI. The Project site is vacant and no historic resources have been identified on the site. Therefore, the possibility of encountering historic resources is considered remote and no impact is expected. b, c) Cause a substantial adverse impact or destruction to archeological or paleontological resources? LS. Mitigation Measures 3.9/5.0 and 6.0, contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR were adopted to reduce this impact to ales-than-significant level and will be implemented with Project development. The 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration identified a remote but potentially significant possibility that construction activities, including site grading, trenching and excavation may uncover significant paleontological resources. Mitigation Measure 4 was included to reduce this impact to a less than significant lev_e_ 1. _ City of Dublin Page 33 CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009 PA 08-038 ~~~ ~~s d) Disturb any human resources? LS. A remote possibility exists that human resources could be uncovered on the site during construction activities. Mitigation Measures 3.9 5.0 and 6.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR were adopted to reduce such impacts to a level of less- than-significance. Overall, no additional impacts to cultural resources not previously identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration or the 2004 CEQA Addendum are expected to occur as a result of this Project. 6. Geology and Soils This section is based on a preliminary geotechnical reports cited in the 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration. The reports are on file in the City of Dublin Planning Department. Environmental Setting This section of the Initial Study addresses seismic safety issues, topography and landform, drainage anal erosion and potential impacts to localized soil types. Seisrnic The Projeck Area is a part of the San Francisco Bay area, one of the most seismically active regions in the nation. The Eastern Dublin EIR notes the presence of several nearby signifcart faults, including the Calaveras Fault, Greenville Fault, Hayward Fault, and San Andreas Fault.. The likelihood of a major seismic event an ene or more of these faults within th~° near future is believed to be high. The project site is not part of a Special Studies Zone for faults as identi ied by the State of California. The Mocho Fault was mapped by the California Division of Mines and Geology in 1974 and was later evaluated as part of the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. As part of this evaluationit was concluded that the existence of the Mocho Fault was questionable and geomorphic features could be caused by differential erosion. A second thrust fault system has been inferred in the Coast Ranges of the Bay Area that maybe seisimically active. A belt of faults and folds has been mapped in sedimentary rocks south of Mount Diablo, including one identified as the "leading edge-blind thrust, Motznt Diablo Domain." Further investigation of this inferred fault by Berlogar Geologic Consultants has concluded that the risk of ground rupture from this inferred fault is low on the Project Site. Site Soils Site soils are characterized as colluvium, which is highly expansive and consists of dark gray, very stiff to hard silty clay. Landform and Topography The Project Site is part of a broad north-south trending plain known as the Livermore-Amador Valley. Existing elevations on the site range from approximately 450 to 500 feet above sea level. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified the following impacts with regard to soil and geological resources as applicable to this Project: City of Dublin Page 34 CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009 PA 08-038 38~1~5 • IM 3.6/A: Ground fault rupture, which was identified as ales-than-significant impact. • IM 3.6/B: Primary impacts of groundshaking due to earthquake activity, which was identified as a potentially significant impact. • IM 3.6/C: Secondary impacts of groundshaking due to earthquake activity, which was identified as a potentially significant impact. • IM 3.6/D: Substantial alteration to site landfornis, which was identified as a potentially significant impact. • IM 3.6.iF: Impacts to groundwater resources, which would be a potentially significant impact. • IM 3.6/G: Impacts to groundwater resources due to imgation, which would be a potentially significant impact. • IM 3.6/H: Shrink a.nd swell impacts related to expansive soils, which would be a potentially significant impact. • IM 3.6/K: c~ L: Construction and long-term erosion and sedimentation, which would .be ~~. potentially significant impacts. ~4litigation measures contained in the. Eastern Dublin EIR were adopted to reduce the above impacts to less-than-significant levels except IM 3.6/B regarding groundshaking, which was significant and unavoidable. The 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration and the 2004 CEQA Addendum did not identify new or supplemental impacts or mitigation measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR related to geology and soils. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse impacts, including loss, injury or death related to ground rupture, seismic ground shaking, ground failure, or landslides? LS. The Project site is subject to ground shaking caused by a number of regional faults identified above. Under moderate to severe seismic events which are probable in the Bay Area over the next 30 years, buildings, utilities and other improvements constructed in the Project Area would be subject to damage caused by ground shaking. Since the Project Site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Safety Zone and the potential for ground rupture is anticipated to be minimal. Mitigation Measures 3.6/1.0 through 8.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR were adopted to ensure that new structures would comply with generally recognized seismic safety standards so that ground shaking impacts would be reduced to a level of less-than- significant. City of Dublin Page 35 CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009 PA 08-038 v~ ~~5 Mitigation Measures 3.6/17.0-26.0 were adopted as part of the Eastern Dublin Plan EIR to reduce potential impacts to slopes to a level of less-than-significant. These mitigation measures require the preparation of site-specific soils and geotechnical reports, minimizing grading on steep slopes and adherence to Uniform Building Code and other City requirements for grading. b) Is the site subject to substantial erosion and/or the loss of topsoil? LS. The Eastern Dublin EIR notes that an impact of constructing all of the land uses identified in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan would be an increase of erosion and sedimentation caused by grading activities. Consistent with adopted Mitigation Measures 3.6/27.0 and 3.6/28.0, standard conditions of approval require the Project to prepare and implement interim erosion plans as part of grading permits. With adherence to these mitigation measures, potential erosion impacts will be reduced to ales-than-significant level. c-d) Is the site located on soil that is unstable or expansive or result in potential lateral spreading, liquefaction, landslide or collapse? LS. Portions of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, including the Project Site, are subject to soil types with high shrink-swell potential. Mitigation Measures 3.6/14.0 through 16.0 were adopted to reduce potential shrink-swell impacts to a level of less-than-significance by requiring appropriate structural foundations and other techniques to overcome shrink-swell effects. No additional mitigation measures are required. e) Have soils incapable of supporting on-site septic tanizs if sewers are not available? N1. As noted on the Project plans, the site will. re connected to a sanitary sewer provided by Dublin San Ramon Services District. Therefore, no impact is anticipated with regard to septic tanks. . twerall, no additional impacts to geology and soils not previously identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration or the 2004 CEQA Addendum are expected to occur as a result of this Project. 7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Environmental Setting The site has been partially graded; the remaining area is primarily open grasslands and currently contains no structures. Phase I and Phase II hazardous materials studies were completed for the site by Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants in 1996 and 1997 with the finding that no hazardous materials has been identified on the site. The site has not been listed as containing a hazardous site, hazardous material generator or transporter or having known underground storage tanks. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified IM 3.4/E (exposure to wildfire hazards) as a potentially significant impact, which could be reduced to aless-than-significant level through adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.4/6.0 through 10.0. The 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration and the 2004 CEQA Addendum did not identify new or supplemental impacts or mitigation measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR related to hazards or hazardous materials. _ ____ City of Dublin Page 36 CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009 PA 08-038 ~ o ~~~r The Project Site is bound by residential uses to the east and west, a middle school to the north and a three acre vacant parcel to the south. In addition, the Project site is located in close proximity to two fire stations. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures a-c) Create a significant hazard through transport of hazardous materials or release or emission of hazardous materials? LS. The proposed Montessori School would include a building and playground. Materials associated with this use would include normal and customary materials such as lawn chemicals, cleaning solvents and similar materials which are not significant. d) Is the site listed as a hazardous materials site? NI. A previously completed Phase II hazardous materials analysis indicates that the site is free of hazardous materials. No impacts are therefore anticipated. e, f) Is the site located within an airport land use plan of a public airport or private airstrip? LS. The Project Site is located northwesterly of the Livermore Municipal Airport. The City of Dublin referred the Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment applications for Planning Areas F-H to the Alameda County Airport. Land Use Commission (ALUC). At the ALUC meeting on April 14, 19S9, the commission noted that Planning Areas F, G & H all lay outside of the referral area for Livermore Municipal Airport and the AL;(JC has no jurisdiction over land uses within the Project Site. g) Interference with an emergency evacuation plan? NI. Adequate °mergency access has been provided via the proposed street system to and from the site to the satisfaction of the Alameda County Fire Department. Due to the provision of adequate access, there would be no impact with regard to emergency evacuation plans. li) Expose people and structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? LS. The Project Site is currently a vacant field with some grasses. Although the site is vacant, under developments have been constructed or are currently under construction adjacent to the Project Site which has reduced the amount of grasslands in the area. Development of the Project Site will include new waterlines, fire hydrants and emergency vehicle access for firefighting purposes. Overall, no additional impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials not previously identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration or the 2004 CEQA Addendum are expected to occur as a result of this Project. City of Dublin Page 37 CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009 PA 08-038 4i~ X45 8. Hydrology and Water Quality Environmental Setting The Project site ranges in elevation from 450 feet to 500 feet.-The Flood Insurance Rate Map published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency the Project Site is determined to be outside a special flood hazard area (FEMA Map Number 06001C0328G). The Eastern Dublin EIR identified the following impacts with regard to hydrology and water quality as applicable to this Project: • IM 3.5/'Y: Potential flooding was identified as ales-than-significant impact. • IM 3.5/Z: Reduced groundwater recharge, which was identified as a potentially significant impact. • IM 3.5/AA: Non-point sources of pollution, which was identified as a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures 3.5/44.0 to 55.0 were included in the Eastern Dublin EIR to reduce the above impacts to aless-than-significant level. The 2000 Mitigated Negative Derlaration included additional Mitigation Measure 5 which requires the preparation of a Stornwater Pollution Pre`~ention Plan (SWPPP) and Mitigation Measure 6 which requires a drainage and hydrology study to be submitted prior to the issuance of grading permits for the site. These mitigation measures will continue to apply to the proposed Project. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? LS. Construction of improvements anticipated within the Project Area plan would necessitate grading and over covering of the soil in order to construct the building pad, utility connections and similar features. The 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration included supplemental Mitigation Measure 5 which requires a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan be prepared to reduce potential water quality impacts. b) Substantially deplete groundwater recharge areas or lowering of water table? LS. Although the Project Site is currently vacant it was anticipated to be converted to an urban use in the Eastern Dublin EIR. This impact has been addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Impact 3.5) and Mitigation Measures 3.5/49.0 and 50.0, so no further analysis is required. c) Substantially alter drainage patterns, including streambed courses such that substantial siltation or erosion would occur? LS. The Eastern Dublin EIR acknowledges that implementation of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan would change existing natural drainage patterns. Proposed changes would include grading and re-contouring much of the site. Stormwater runoff would eventually flow to the Alameda County Flood Control District and Water Conservation District G-3 facility immediately north of the I-580 freeway. City of Dublin Page 38 CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009 PA 08-038 /-Io?~Plair ,~. Compliance with Mitigation Measure 5 in the 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration will reduce erosion on the Site from both construction and post construction activities to a less than significant level. The Project will be required to comply with this mitigation measure. d) Substantially alter drainage patterns or result in flooding, either on or off the project site? LS. Approval of the proposed project and construction of the Montessori School building and other improvements would change drainage patterns on the Project Site. Drainage would be routed through newly constructed underground pipes, culverts and similar facilities constructed to connect with existing and planned drainage improvements within the Eastern Dublin area. e) Create stormwater runoff that would exceed the capacity of drainage systems or add substantial amounts of polluted runoff? LS. Construction of on-site improvements, as well as new improvements upstream of the Project Site, is anticipated to lead to greater quantities of storm water runoff. The 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration requires the applicants to prepare a SWPPP to reduce impacts on the site. Additionally, Mitigation Measure 6 requires the developer to submit a drainage and hydrology study to the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of any grading permits. f) Substantially degrade water quality?.LS. Refer to the analysis under "a," above. g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped by a Flood Insurance Rate !Clap? NI. The proposed project does .not. include a housing component nor is it Located within a 1.00-year flood plan as mapped by FEMA., There would therefore be no impact in regard to flooding hazards. . h, i) Place tivithin a .l DO-year flood hazard boundary structures that impeded or redireci flood _flow, including dam failures? NI. As noted in the response to "g," above, the Project Site is not located within a flood hazard area as defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Proposed drainage on and off the project site would transport stormwater runoff into approved City or regional drainage facilities for appropriate disposal, so there would be no impact with regard to anticipated drainage facilities. j) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflows? LS. The site is not located near a major body of water that could result in a seiche. The risk of potential mudflow is considered low based on the Berlogar Geotechnical report (available for review at City Hall). Mitigation Measures adopted as part of the Eastern Dublin EIR will reduce potential impacts of natural and engineered slope stability, and erosion and sedimentation impacts to a level of less-than-significance. These mitigation measures include MM's 3.6/17-28. Briefly, these mitigation measures require site-specific geotechnical analyses of each proposed development, appropriate siting of new construction, use of appropriate engineered fill with proper compaction and limiting the slope of grading. Overall, no additional impacts related to hydrology and water quality not previously identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration or the 2004 CEQA Addendum are expected to occur as a result of this Project. City of Dublin Page 39 CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009 PA 08-038 /-f3 ~p X45 ,~. 9. Land Use and Planning Environmental Setting The Project proposes to construct a Montessori School on the site which will serve children ages 2-6 years. Both the Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan allow the establishment of Public/Semi-Public uses on the site. The proposed daycare is considered to be a Public/Semi-Public land use in the General Plan and Specific Plan. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified the following impacts with regard to land use as applicable to this Project: • IM 3.1/A: Substantial alteration to existing land use, which was identified as a less-than- significant impact. • IM 3.1/B: On-site land use impacts, which was identified as aless-than-significant impact. The 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration and the 2004 CEQA Addendum did not identify new or supplemental impacts or mitigation measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR related to }and use. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures a) Physically divide an established community? NL The proiect site is surrounded by existing development on three sides of the property. Development of the site has been anticipated since the adoption of the .Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Development of t}ie site with a Public/Semi-Public land use has been anticipated. since the adoption of the Stage 1 Planned Development Rezone in 2004. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation`? NI. The proposed Project site has a land use designation of Public/Semi-Public. The land use designation permits community serving facilities including daycare facilities. The proposed Project is compatible with the type of development anticipated in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, General Plan and Stage 1 Development Plan. c) Conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? NI. No such plan has been adopted within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan area. There would therefore be no impact to a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan for the Project Area. Overall, no additional impacts related to land use and planning not previously identified in the Eastern Dublin EIlZ, the 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration or the 2004 CEQA Addendum are expected to occur as a result of this Project. 10. Mineral Resources Environmental Setting The Project area contains no known mineral resources. City of Dublin Page 40 CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009 PA 08-038 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures a, b) Result in the loss of availability of regionally or locally significant mineral resources? NI. The Eastern Dublin EIR does not indicate that significant deposits of minerals exist on the site, so no impacts would occur. Overall, no additional impacts to mineral resources not previously identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration or the 2004 CEQA Addendum are expected to occur as a result of this Project. I1. Noise Environmental Setting Major sources of noise on and adjacent to the Project Site include noise generated by vehicles on Brannigan Street. The Easterr. Dublin EIR identified the following impacts with regard to noise as applicable to this Project: • IM 3.10/E: Exposure of existing and proposed residences to construction noise, which would be a potentially significant impact. • Ilvl~ 3.10/F: Noise conflicts due to adjacency of diverse land uses penliitted by Specific Plan policies, which would be a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures 3.10/1.0, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, and 6.0 in the. Eastern Dublin EIR were adopted to reduce noise impacts to ales-than-significant level, primarily through project specific acoustical analysis to reduce indoor residential noise exposure to 45dB. The 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration and the 2004 CEQA Addendum did not identify new or supplemental impacts or mitigation measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR related to noise. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures a, d) Would the project expose persons or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established by the General Plan or other applicable standard: LS. Mitigation Measures 3.10/4.0 and 5.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR require individual project builders to prepare construe±ion noise management plans to minimize noise as well as adhere to construction hour limitations to reduce construction noise impacts to the adjacent residential dwellings to a less than significant level. The proposed Project includes the construction of one building and an outdoor playground for use by the daycare. The daycare will operate five days a week. Once constructed, noise generated on the site will be increased due to an increase in the number of trips to the site over what currently exists. An increase in trips, and as a result, vehicular noise, was anticipated in the previous CEQA documents. Due to the nature of this facility, which offers a morning session, full session and extended care, vehicle trips to the site will be spaced out throughout the morning and afternoon. By staggering start and end times, the amount of noise generated by these trips will not be concentrated at one time. Additionally, City of Dublin Page 41 CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009 PA 08-038 ys~ ~~s the facility will open at 7 am and will close at 6 pm. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified permanent noise impacts related to vehicular traffic increases as an unavoidable and unmitigatable impact. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for this impact. A new playground for use by students of the facility will be constructed behind the new building. This playground area will be located a minimum of 100 feet from the closest residences located to the west of the Site. The playground will be located adjacent to a parking lot for the Middle School to the North. The Applicant has indicated that no more than 24 children are anticipated to be located in the playground at one time. Because this playground area is located a minimum of 100 feet from the western property line and because the total number of children in the playground will be limited to no more than 24 children at one time, noise impacts associated with this project are less than significant. b,e-f) Exposure of people to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? NI No impacts are anticipated for groundborne vibration or noise, since no sources of vibration currently exist within or adjacent to the Project Area, such as heavy industrial facilities or railroads. c) Substantial permanent increases in ambient noise levels? LS. See discussion under `a' above. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified permanent noise impacts related to vehicular ..traffic increases as an unavoidable and unmitigadable impact. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for this impact. Overall, no additional impacts related to rioise not previously identified in the Eastern Dublin E1R, the 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration or the 2004 CEQA Addendum are expected to occur as a result of this Project. ice. Population and Housing Environmental Setting The State Department of Finance has determined that Dublin's population was 46,934 as of January 1, 2008. The adopted Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan anticipates 32,023 dwelling units in the Eastern Dublin planning area at full buildout of all land uses within the Planning Area. The Project is within the area planned for development. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly? LS. Approval of the proposed Project is consistent with the Dublin General Plan, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and the land use identified in the Stage 1 Development Plan. .Additionally, the proposed Project is a daycare and therefore will not significantly increase the population in the area. City of Dublin Page 42 CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009 PA 08-038 G~ 4~' 145 b, c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing units or people? NI. The site is vacant. Implementation of the proposed project would therefore neither displace housing units or people. Overall, no additional impacts related to population and housing not previously identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration or the 2004 CEQA Addendum are expected to occur as a result of this Project. 13. Public Services Environmental Setting • Fire Protection. Fire protection services are handled by the Alameda County Fire Department, which contracts with the City of Dublin for fire suppression, fire prevention, education, inspection services and hazardous material control to the community. • Police Protection: Police and security protection is provided by Alameda County Sheriff Department, which contracts to the City of Dublin for 24-hour security patrols throughout the community in addition to crime prevention, crime suppression and traffic safety. • Schools. The Dublin Ulrified School District (DUSDI provides educational services to the City of Dublin. • Maintenance. Maintenance of streets, roads and other governmental facilities are the responsibility of the City of Dublin Public Works Department. • Solid Waste Service: Solid waste services are provided by Amador Valley Industries. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified the following impacts with regard to public services as applicable to this Project: IlVI 3.4/A (demand for increased police services), IM 3.4/B (police service accessibility), IM 3.4/C (demand for increased fire services), IM 3.4/E (exposure to wildland fire), IM 3.4/O (increased solid waste production), and IM 3.4/P (impact on solid waste disposal facilities). All of the above were identified as potentially significant impacts and Mitigation Measures were adopted to reduce public service impacts to ales-than-significant level. The 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration and the 2004 CEQA Addendum did not identify new or supplemental impacts or mitigation measures from the Eastern Dublin E1R related to public services. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures a) Fire protection? LS. Construction of the proposed project would increase demand for fire and emergency services on the Site. The Project will be required to reduce these impacts by City of Dublin Page 43 CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009 PA 08-038 /~~~ ~y5 installing fire sprinklers and new fire hydrants and by meeting the minimum fire flow requirements in the Uniform Building Code and the Uniform Fire Code. The Project must also adhere to Mitigation Measures 3.4/7.0 and 3.4/9.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR. These mitigation measures relate to funding new fire facilities in eastern Dublin, ensuring adequate water supplies and pressure for fire suppression, and minimizing wildland fire hazards. b) Police protection? LS. Incremental increases in the demand for police service could be expected should the Project be constructed. Project developers would also be required to adhere to Mitigation Measures 3.4/3.0 and 3.4/5.0 set forth in Eastern Dublin E1R. These measures require the inclusion of security provisions into individual development projects. c) Schools? LS. Prior to establishment of the current land use re-designation the Eastern Dublin EIR required project developers to adhere to lylitigation Measures 3.4/13.0-19.0 in order to ensure that residential development would not exceed the capacity of existing or future schools. Approval of the proposed Project would mean the establishment of a Montessori School thereby reducing impact to existing and future daycare centers and preschools. In addition,.. because the proposed project does not involve the addition. of residential units an increase in attendance of schools located within the Dublin Unified School District is not anticipated. d) Ivtaintenance of public facilities, including roads? ,LS. Approval of the project: and construction of follow-up development projects would incrementally increase the Long-term maintenance demand for roads and other public facilities. However, such additional maintenance demands will be offset by additional City fees and property tax revenues accruing to the City of Dublin. e) Solid waste generation? LS. Approval of the project and construction would incrementally increase generation of solid waste. The Eastern Dublin EIR requires adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.4/37.0-40.0. These measures require the preparation of a solid waste management plan and assurances that adequate solid waste landfill capacity exists prior to approval of individual development projects. Overall, no additional impacts related to public services not previously identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration or the 2004 CEQA Addendum are expected to occur as a result of this Project. 14. Recreation Environmental Setting The Project Site is currently vacant and contains no parks or other recreational amenities. Nearby community and regional parks include: Emerald Glen Park, a 50-acre City park and two community parks slated for development within the Dublin Ranch development The combined area of the two community parks is 126 acres. Each of these parks would allow for organized sports activities, individual sports as well as passive recreation. City of Dublin Page 44 CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009 PA 08-038 ~ig~145 The East Bay Regional Parks District has developed a staging area on the west side of Tassajara Road as part of a regional recreational trail system. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified the following impacts with regard to recreation facilities as applicable to development of Eastern Dublin: • IM 3.4/K: Increased demand for park facilities, which would be a potentially significant impact. • IM 3.4/L: Park facilities fiscal impact, which would be a potentially significant impact. • IM 3.4/M: Impact on regional trail system, which would be a potentially significant impact. • IM 3.4/N: Impact on open space connectors, which would be a potentially significant impact. Mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR were adopted. to reduce all. of the above impacts. to ales-than-significant level. The 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration and the 2004 CEQA .Addendum did not identify new ar supplemental impacts or mitigation measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR related to recreational facilities. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks? LS. The proposed Project would provide a private playground with play eduipment for children attending the daycare. It is not anticipated that Springfield Montessori students will be transported to nearby parks or other recreational facilities. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of recreational facilities? NI. The proposed Project does not include any public recreational facilities. The Project does include an enclosed playground intended to be used by the daycare. Overall, no additional impacts related to recreation not previously identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration or the 2004 CEQA Addendum are expected to occur as a result of this Project. 15. Transportation/Trafific Traffic impacts related to the construction of a Public/Semi-Public Facility on this site were reviewed in the 2004 CEQA Addendum (incorporated herein and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours). As part of the CEQA Addendum, a trip analysis was prepared by TJKM. TJKM determined that the number of trips which will be generated by a daycare facility on this site would be less than what had previously been anticipated in the 2000 City of Dublin Page 45 CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009 PA 08-038 49 ~P/~5 ~I Mitigated Negative Declaration which reviewed impacts related to the construction of a High School on the Project Site. Existing Transportation Network The project site is served by a number of regional freeways and sub-regional arterial and collector roadways, including: Interstate 580, Dougherty Road, Dublin Boulevard, Hacienda Drive, Arnold Road, Gleason Drive, Tassajara Road, Santa Rita Road and Fallon Road. Interstate 580, an eight-lane east-west freeway that connects Dublin with local cities such as Livermore and Tracy to the east and Oakland, San Francisco and other cities to the west.. Interchanges near the project site include Dougherty/Hopyard Road, Hacienda Drive, Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road and Fallon Road/El Charro Road. Dougherty Road is a two-lane rural road with its northern section located in Contra Costa County. Dougherty Road has four lanes between the Alameda County/Contra Costa County border and Dublin Boulevard and six lanes between Dublin Boulevard and 1-580. South of I-580, it continues with six lanes as Hopyard Road in Pleasanton. Dublin Boulevard is a major east-west arterial roadway in the City of Dublin. It contains four lanes largely fronted by retail and commercial uses west of Dougherty Road. Hacienda Drive is an arterial designed to provide access to I-580. It contains six lanes south of I-580 and four Iaties north of I-580, extending as far north as .!Dublin Boulevard. As part of the Santa Rita Business Center, Hacienda Drive is currently being extended northyvard to Gleason Drive as a two-lane roadway. Arnold Road is a north-south two-lane road parallel to and west of Hacienda Drive. It currently connects Gleason Drive and existing Dublin Boulevard (future Central Parkway). Gleason Drive is an east-west two-lane road parallel to and north of Dublin Boulevard. It serves the Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center, Federal Correctional Institute and existing developments along Gleason Drive. Gleason Drive connects Tassajara Road with Arnold Road. Tassajara Road extends from Santa Rita Road at I-580 to the Town of Danville (where it becomes Camino Tassajara). The road is a four lane road which turns into a two lane road in the more rural areas of the City. Santa Rita Road is a six-lane divided urban arterial roadway from the I-580 interchange south to Valley Boulevard. It serves the east side of Pleasanton, including the Hacienda Business Park and provides access to downtown Pleasanton. Fallon Road is a two-lane road which extends from I-580. In the future, Dublin Boulevard will be extended and will connect to Fallon Road. City of Dublin Page 46 CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009 PA 08-038 5a cep/~a,5" ~r Existing Intersection Operations The traffic analysis prepared by TJKM in September 1999 and in February 2004 for Dublin Ranch Areas F-H found that existing intersections operate at acceptable levels of service, defined by the City of Dublin as Level of Service "D" or better. This analysis included counts of existing traffic at major intersections near the proposed project as well as intersections throughout the Eastern Dublin area. Future Baseline Conditions To implement the transportation and circulation aspects of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan, the City of Dublin has undertaken a comprehensive program of transportation improvements in the community. The purpose of this program is to accommodate anticipated traffic from the Eastern Dublin area. Overall, the program includes upgrades to I-580 freeway intersections, construction of new roads and improvements to existing roads. The program is primarily funded by fees levied on new development in eastern Dublin. Future Baseline Intersection Operations The traffic impact analysis for Dublin Ranch Areas F-H also analyzed the future baseline intersection operations with existing traffic, traffic from approved but not yet built or occupied development and traffic from other pending developments in the area. The traffic .analysis included various mitigation measures which would be the responsibility of these other developments. and which would be consistent with the City's Traffic Impr•ovemert Program., described above. With this future development in the eastern Dublin area and appr:~priate traffic "improvements, the traffic analysis found that thc~ operation of all study intersections could be maintained at LOS "D" or better. .Previous environrnentczl documents The Eastern Dublin EIR. identified 16 potentially significant and potentially cumulative significant impacts related to the development of the EDSP. These include impacts to nearby freeways, local streets, transit service and similar transportation facilities. Although many of these impacts could be reduced to a level of less-than-significance, a Statement of Ovemding Consideration was adopted for the following impacts: • IM 3.38: Impacts to mainline I-580 and I-680 freeways • IM 3.3/E; Cumulative Freeway impacts • IlVI 3.3/I: Santa Rita & I-580 Eastbound freeway ramps • IM 3.3/M: Cumulative Impacts on Dublin Boulevard The 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for Dublin Ranch PA F identified a number of supplemental impacts and mitigation measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR related to transportation. Supplemental Mitigation Measures 7, which requires several transportation improvements to be constructed and 8, which requires Tassajara Road to be widened, continue to apply to the proposed Project. City of Dublin Page 47 CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009 PA 08-038 sl ~1~5 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial to existing traffic load and street capacity? LS. The 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration concluded that development of the land uses, proposed at that time, would result in significant impacts. The Mitigated Negative Declaration included two mitigation measures which reduced these impacts to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measures 7 and 8, in the 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration require the construction of several transportation improvements. Several of these improvements have been constructed. Payment of the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact fee or construction of the improvements by the developer will be required of this project. In 2004, the City approved a change in land use from High School (studied in the 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration) to Public/Semi-Public. The 2004 CEQA Addendum determined that aPublic/Semi-Public land use would actually generate less traffic than the High School. The 2004 CEQA Addendum included an updated traffic report as well as a trip generation letter which studied the construction of a daycare facility on the Project Site. b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a LOS standard established by the County CMA for designated roads)? LS: Nearby intersections can be mitigated to Level of Service D or better, which exceeds the minimum Level of Service E established by the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency. The proposed daycare is consistent with the current General Plan land use designation of Public/Semi-Public. c). .Change in air traffic patterns? I4TI. The proposed project would have no impact on air traffic patterns, since it involves development of a small scale daycare. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use? LS. Approval of the Project would add new driveways, pedestrian paths and a parking lot where none currently exist. All circulation improvements related to the construction of this Project will be constructed in accordance with City design requirements to minimize substandard turning radii, provide for maximum sight visibility distances and minimize other potential hazards. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? LS. Construction of the new daycare would increase the need for emergency services and related access. The proposed Project has been reviewed with respect to emergency access by the City's Fire Department and Police Department. The Departments have concluded that the site has been adequately designed for emergency access. f) Inadequate parking capacity? NI. The project plans indicate that a total of 52 parking stalls will be constructed on the site. The Dublin Zoning Ordinance requires daycare facilities to provide one parking stall for every five children plus one parking stall per employee. The facility will have up to 180 students and a maximum of 15 employees which therefore requires a total of 51 parking stalls on site. The project plans indicate that there will be a total of 52 parking stalls on site which will result in a surplus of one parking stall (over what is required by the Zoning Ordinance. City of Dublin Page 48 CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009 PA 08-038 ~' ~i45 g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation ,(such as bus turnouts and bicycle facilities)? LS. The Project Site has been designated for use as a Public/Semi-Public facility in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. No public transportation facilities or bicycle facilities were anticipated to be located on this site in the General Plan or the Specific Plan. Public transportation opportunities are available in Eastern Dublin and bicycle lanes are located in Eastern Dublin as planned for in the City's Bikeways Master Plan. Bicycle racks will be located at the daycare to encourage the use of bicycles as a form of transportation for employees and parents and students. Overall, no additional impacts related to transportation not previously identified in the Eastern Dublin E1R, the 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration or the 2004 CEQA Addendum are expected to occur as a result of this Project. 16. Utilities and Service Systems Environmental Setting The project site is served by the following service providers: • Sewage treatment and local water Sut~ply: Dublin San Ramon Services District and Alameda County Flood .Control a.nd Water Conservation District, Zone 7. • -Storm drainage: (:ity of Dubli~vt~lameda County Flood Control and ~'Va~.e.r Conservation District; 'Lone 7. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains 23 impacts related to provision of utilities to the Eastern Dublin area. All were considered potentially significant impacts and mitigation measures were included in the EIR to reduce these impacts to less-than-significant levels. The 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration and the 2004 CEQA Addendum did not identify new or supplemental impacts or mitigation measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR related to utilities. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures a) ~'xceed wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB? LS. The regional wastewater treatment plant is currently operating in compliance with local, state and federal water quality standards. The addition of wastewater flows from the project would not cause the plant to exceed such standards, based on discussions with DSRSD staff. Mitigation measures 3.5/1.0 through 22.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR deal with wastewater treatment collection, treatment and disposal. b) Require new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities? LS. Existing water and sewer lines are located immediately off-site. In order for development to take place the developer would be required to connect to existing water and sewer lines. Construction of a Public/Semi-Public facility on the site has been planned for and the construction of the proposed Project will not generate a higher demand for these facilities than what was previously studied. City of Dublin Page 49 CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009 PA 08-038 5`~O~ /45 c) Require new storm drainage facilities? LS. The existing off-site drainage system was constructed to accommodate development within Eastern Dublin. Adopted mitigations will ensure that the proposed drainage system would accommodate Project storm water runoff. d) Are sufficient water supplies available? LS. Approval of the proposed project would result in an increased demand for water for domestic and irrigation purposes than what currently exists on the vacant site. Development of the site has been anticipated since adoption of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and a discussion of water needs was included in the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR. The previous approved land use, High School, for the Site was a more intensive land use than what is currently approved for the site. The 2004 CEQA Addendum, which reviewed impacts related to the change in land use designation from High School to Public/Semi-Public, determined that there were adequate water supplies to serve the Project Site. Additionally, development of this site has been planned for in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Additionally, development of the site has been planned for in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and the project is subject to Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.5/38.0 requiring awill-serve letter from the City's water service provider, Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD). DSRSD has reviewed the Project plans and has determined that water use. associated with this facility is not a significant project. DSRSD has included conditions into the Project's Conditions of Approval. Additionally, as required by DSRSD in the project conditions of approval, the site will be required to use recycled water which will reduce water demand for the site. e) Adequate wastewater capaci?y~ to serve the proposed project? LS. Approval of the proposed project would increase the demand for wastewater treatment over present conditions. Presently, the Planning Area site is vacant and there is no demand for waste-wvater treatment service. Based on information contained in the Eastern Dublin E1R, DSRSD has indicated that the local wastewater treatment plant has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project. f) Solid waste disposal? LS. Construction of the Project would incrementally increase generation of solid waste. Over the long term, the amount of solid waste reaching landfill would decrease as statewide regulations mandating increased recycling take effect. Information contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR indicates that the solid waste hauler can accommodate this project. g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? NI. The City of Dublin and the solid waste hauler, Amador Valley Industries, would ensure that the project developers adhere to federal, state and local solid waste regulations. Overall, no additional impacts related to utilities and the service system not previously identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration or the 2004 CEQA Addendum are expected to occur a~ a result of this Project. 16. Nfandatory Findings of Significance a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop City of Dublin Page 50 CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009 PA 08-038 ~~ ~ ~ti~ below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number of or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? No. The analysis in this Initial Study indicates that the proposed Project will not have a significant impact on the overall environmental quality including biological or cultural resources with the implementation of the mitigation measures included in the 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration and the mitigation measures, including the Statement of Overriding Considerations, contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects). No. The Project Site lies within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area. A Stage 1 Planned Development Rezone was adopted for this site which allows Public/Semi-Public Facility. Both the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan anticipate the development of this site with aPublic/Semi- Public facility. c) .Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No. No such impacts have been discovered in the course of preparing this. Initial Study: City of Dublin Page 51 CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009 PA 08-038 55~P 1y5 ~~ Agencies and Organizations Consulted The following agencies and organizations were contacted in the course of this Initial Study: City of Dublin Jeri Ram., AICP, Community Development Director Mike Porto, Consulting Planner John Bakker, Assistant City Attorney Jerry Haag, Consulting Planner References Mitigated Negative Declaration for Dublin Ranch Planning Area F, City of Dublin, 1999 Dublin Ranch Areas F, G and H Ecol_o ical Impacts and Mitigation, H.T. Harvey & Associates, 1999 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan_F_,n_ vironmental Imt~act Report. Walla~:e Roberts and Todd, 1994. Traffic Study for the Proposed Dublin Ranch Areas F-H, TJKM Associates, 2001. Assessment of a Possible Archeological Resource within Dublin Ranch Areas F-H, Dublin CA, Holman & Associates, 1999 City of Dublin Page 52 CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009 PA 08-038 ~~145 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 1. General. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City Council of the City of Dublin ("City") adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for those impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR as significant and unavoidable. (Resolution 53-93, May 10, 1993.) The City Council carefully considered each impact in its decision to approve urbanization of Eastern Dublin through approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan project. The City Council later approved land use applications for Dublin Ranch, including Dublin Ranch Area F. The City Council is currently considering the Springfield Montessori School project in Dublin Ranch. The project includes a portion of Area F, and proposes apublic/semi-public development which is consistent with prior approvals. The project area consists of approximately 2.57 acres, identified in the applications as the Springfield Montessori School. The City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations with the original land use approvals for urbanization of Eastern Dublin. Pursuant to a 2002 California Court of Appeals decision, the City Council hereby adopts specific overriding considerations for the Springfield Montessori School project.l The City Council believes that many of the unavoidable environmental effects identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR that are applicable to the project site will be substantially lessened by mitigation measures adopted with the original approval and by the environmental protection measures adopted through the Area F project approvals, and the related Conditions of Approval, to be implemented with the development of the project. Even with mitigation, the City Council recognizes that the implementation of the project carries with it unavoidable adverse environmental effects as previously identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The City Council specifically finds that to the extent that the identified adverse or potentially adverse impacts for the project have not been mitigated to acceptable levels, there are specific economic, social, environmental, land use, and other considerations that support approval of the project. 2. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts. The following unavoidable significant environmental impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, for future development of Eastern Dublin apply to the Springfield Montessori School. The impacts cannot be fully mitigated by changes or alterations to the project. Land Use Impact 3.1/F. Cumulative Loss of Agricultural and Open Space Lands; Visual Impacts 3.8/B; and, Alteration of Rural/Open Space Character. Although considerable development has occurred throughout Dublin Ranch and the site is presently undeveloped land, and has some open space character. Future development of the project site will contribute to the cumulative loss of open space land. Traffic and Circulation Impacts 3.3/B, 3.3/E. 1-580 Freeway, Cumulative Freeway Impacts: The Traffic Study prepared for the Area F Stage 1 Development Plan (2000 ~ "...public officials must still go on the record and explain specifically why they are approving the later project despite its significant unavoidable impacts." (emphasis original.) Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency_(2002)103 Ca1.App. 4~' 98, 125. EXHIBIT B 57a/ 145 ~f~ Mitigated Negative Declaration), the 2004 CEQA Addendum and the Eastern Dublin EIR, update cumulative impacts to the 1-580 and 1-680 freeways from development in Eastern Dublin. While city street and interchange impacts can be mitigated through planned improvements, transportation demand management, the 1-580 Smart Corridor program, and the extension of Fallon Road to Tassajara Road and other similar measures, mainline freeway impacts continue to be identified as unavoidable, as anticipated in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Future development on the site will incrementally contribute to the unavoidable freeway impacts. Traffic and Circulation Impacts 3.3/I, 3.3/M. Santa Rita Road/I-580 Ramps, Cumulative Dublin Boulevard Impacts: The Springfield Montessori School project will be required to implement all applicable adopted traffic mitigation measures, including contributions to the City's Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) program; however even with mitigation these impacts continue to be identified as unavoidable, as anticipated in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Community Services and Facilities Impact 3.4/S. Consumption of Non-Renewable Natural Resources and Sewer, Water; and Storm Drainage Impact 3.5/F, H, U. Increases in Energy Usage Through Increased Water Treatment, Disposal and Operation of Water Distribution System: Development of the Springfield Montessori School project will contribute to increased energy consumption. Soils, Geology, and Seismicity Impact 3.6/B. Earthquake Ground Shaking, Primary Effects: Even with seismic design, future development of the project could be subject to damage from large earthquakes, much like the rest of the Eastern Dublin planning area. Air Quality Impacts 3.11/A, B, C, and E: Future development of the project will contribute to cumulative dust deposition, construction equipment emissions, mobile and stationary source emissions. 3. Overriding Considerations. The City Council previously balanced the benefits of the Eastern Dublin project approvals against the significant and potentially significant adverse impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The City Council now balances those unavoidable impacts that apply to development of the Springfield Montessori School project against the benefits of the project as set forth below. The City Council, acting pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, hereby determines that unavoidable impacts of the project are outweighed by the substantial benefits of developing a Public/Semi-Public facility. The project will further the urbanization of Eastern Dublin as planned through the comprehensive framework established in the original Eastern Dublin approvals. Development of the project will provide a 16,002 square foot public/semi-public building which is located in close proximity to residential dwellings and will provide a service to all residents and employees in Dublin and the region. The project will provide a Public/Semi-Public space which will accomplish the City Council's goal of providing Public/Semi-Public uses throughout the City. 58 s~ 1~5 ORDINANCE NO. XX-09 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A PD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE WITH A STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE SPRINGFIELD MONTESSORI SCHOOL LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF KOHNEN WAY AND BRANNIGAN STREET IN AREA F OF DUBLIN RANCH (APN 985-0052-022 AND 985-0052-023) PA 08-038 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. RECITALS A. By Ordinance No. 12-04 the City Council rezoned the approximately 2.57-acre within Dublin Ranch Area F to the Planned Development Zoning District (PA 01-037) and adopted a Stage 1 Development Plan for the site (APN 985-0052-022 and 985-0052-023). B. This Ordinance adopts a Stage 2 Development Plan and rezones the property to the PD Planned Development Zoning District for a portion of Dublin Ranch Area F for the Project known as the Springfield Montessori School. Section 2. FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS A. Pursuant to Section 8.32.070 of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council finds as follows: 1. The Sprin~eld Montessori Planned Development Zoning, including a Stage 2 Development Plan, meets the purpose and intent of Chapter 8.32 because: it provides a comprehensive development plan that is tailored to the Public/Semi-Public land use proposed on the Project Site and creates a desirable use of land that is sensitive to surrounding land uses by virtue of the layout and design, which is adjacent to a middle school and single-family residential. 2. The PD rezoning with Stage 2 Development Plan for Sprin~eld Montessori will be harmonious and compatible with existing and potential development in the surrounding area in that: 1) the land uses and site plan establish aPublic/Semi-Public development; 2) the proposed project is consistent with the Public/Semi-Public use envisioned in the General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and the Stage 1 Development Plan; 3) the Project Site has been designed to reduce impacts on the adjacent residential uses and to be compatible with the residential developments and school in the vicinity; 4) the Project Site includes attractive landscaping and site elements including landscaping, street trees and light fixtures to create an attractive landscape palette for the Site, and will be consistent with the landscaping and site elements in Dublin Ranch; and 5) the Project has been attractively designed and is compatible with the neighborhood in which it is located. B. Pursuant to Section 8.120.OSO.A and B of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council finds as follows: Page 1 of 6 ATTACHMENT 2 5`~°~ ly5 1. The PD rezoning with Stage 2 Development Plan for Sprin~eld Montessori will be harmonious and compatible with existing and potential development in the surrounding area in that: 1) the land uses and site plan establish aPublic/Semi-Public project; 2) the proposed Project is consistent with the Public/Semi-Public use envisioned in the General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and the Stage 1 Development Plan; 3) the Project Site has been designed to reduce impacts on the adjacent residential development and to be compatible with the residential and school uses in the vicinity; 4) the Project Site includes attractive landscaping and site elements including landscaping, street trees and light fixtures to create an attractive landscape palette for the Site; and 5) the Project has been attractively designed and is compatible with the neighborhood in which it is located. 2. The Project site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the zoning district being proposed because: 1) the Project Site will have a floor area ratio of .14 which is less than the maximum floor area ratio of .50 allowed by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; 2) the proposed Project will include a daycare which is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of Public/Semi-Public; 3) the Site is accessible by Brannigan Street, an existing street; and 4) the Site is near residential uses and a school, and is therefore physically suitable for the type and intensity of the proposed Planned Development Zoning district. 3. The PD rezone with Stage 2 Development Plan 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 because: the Project will comply with all applicable development regulations and standards and will implement all applicable mitigation measures in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration for Dublin Ranch Area F. 4. The PD rezone with Stage 2 Development Plan is consistent with the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan because: 1) the proposed daycare building and playground is consistent with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designation of Public/Semi-Public; 2) the proposed Project is consistent with the City's goal of developing public facilities within the City to meet the needs of the residents; and 3) the Springfield Montessori School includes an attractive development with a new building and landscaping which will promote visual interest of the Site from the adjacent properties and the street and will promote a pedestrian friendly environment once the Project is complete. C. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Council adopted Resolution No. 34-00 adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Dublin Ranch Planning Area F (SCH 1999112040) on February 15, 2000 and the 2004 CEQA Addendum for Areas B/E/F adopted by Dublin City Council Resolution 43-04 on March 16, 2004. The prior environmental documents are available for review in the Community Development Department. On March 17, 2009 the City Council approved a Resolution adopting a CEQA Addendum for the Project, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference. Section 3. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT. Pursuant to Chapter 8.32, Title 8 of the City of Dublin Municipal Code, the Dublin Zoning Map is amended to rezone the following property ("the Property") to a PD-Planned Development district: 2.57+ net acres within Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 9451 (APN 985-0052-022) and 0.418+ net acres within Parcel 3 of Parcel Map 9451 (APN 985-0052-023) for PA 08-038. Page 2 of 6 ~0 ~ 1U5 A map of the rezoning area is shown below: Y ," .. ~'~ j ~~: - 3 y _ _ 1 ~' .; ~F~ ,. :~ , , ~~~ ~ ~ !!~~ ~~~ ri~ ~ to =~It~~3" ik~i91~~;4i ~ ;y{~ip~17 ~~.~1~ .. s.I 1 ~ ~~ t"" ~ ~ _ ~~%"^" s KOHNFN 'a~''Y f ~k-i "'~~ ~~ ~»`~'~. ]~Yi~r i,. ~.'~~ 1 ~ ~!`~ ~~ r °~ _, 5* ~: C` Section 4. STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN ~. The regulations for the use, development, improvement, and maintenance of the subject property are set forth in the following Stage 2 Development Plan, which is hereby approved. Any amendments to the Stage 2 Development Plan shall be in accordance with Section 8.32.080 of the Dublin Municipal Code. 1. Statement of compatibility with Stage 1 Development Plan. The Stage 2 Development Plan is compatible with the Stage 1 Development Plan (PA 01-037) for the property in that the Project is a Public/Semi-Public facility as planned for in the Stage 1 Development Plan. Page 3 of 6 ~l~/y5 2. Statement of Uses. PD-Public/Semi-Public Intent. Public/Semi-Public land use designations are established to provide Quasi-Public uses, such as daycare centers, private schools, theaters and other similar uses which benefit the community. Permitted Uses Public, Semi-Public and Institutional uses as allowed by the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, including but not limited to: Library Post Office Fire Station Police Station Religious Facility Community Center Other governmental and quasi-governmental offices as determined by the Community Development Director Similar and related uses as determined by the Community Development Director Conditional Uses School (private) Daycare center Similar and related uses as determined by the Community Development Director Temporary Uses Please refer to Zoning Ordinance Chapter 8.108 for a list of permitted temporary uses and permit procedures. 3. Stage 2 Site Plan. ~~~~ ~.~ ~~ ." Project Site `~, Y jy~. ,. ti ~. '' .t I':I '~ :i. } .iN:~er~,..z, 1 ~..~... ..~ , h .~r. Y'nGYY~~Fi'F~~ ~ .. rW~} ~. ~Z ~~S^£A ',~. .F~ FCC . C1FnSCY~ °F - a L $~ Page 4 of 6 ~a ~ l~5 4. Site area, proposed densities. Proposed Stage 2 PD Land Use Plan Land Use Designation Net Acres Maximum FAR Public/Semi-Public 2.57 .50 TOTAL 2.57 . SD 5. Development Regulations. Minimum Setbacks Buildin to West Pro erty Line 100' Buildin to North Pro e Line 15' Buildin to Public Street Ri ht-of--Way 40' Maximum Floor Area Ratio .50 Maximum Buildin Hei ht 30' and 2 stories Parkin S aces Re uired Per Zoning Ordinance 6. Architectural Standards. All improvements in this Zoning District shall be well designed and shall complement the character and design of the surrounding neighborhood. All improvements and future improvements shall complement the design of the existing building and shall enhance the site and be harmonious with high standards of improvements in the surrounding area. Future improvements shall be consistent with the purpose of Chapter 8.104, Site Development Review, in the Zoning Ordinance. All unsightly uses shall be screened from view. All equipment including HVAC units, conduits, piping, fire risers and trash containers shall be completely screened from view. 7. Preliminary Landscaping Plan. „~W PRELIMNARY PIANI'LST: ~ IIy ~~. srw m ~e oxx.v ® m woo ~,I (``~---~.. ~:.11?, Z,~~ ~m ~vreuvonu aurww.m w pL~c~G.~~R^iu4 W s ~~ I'~~ i 11 ~~~ 1 w.ram xv .. m ~ ~ ~ ~ :a.~ ~ I - ~rl j~~.._F,~.. ! '~'~ .__._,. a.~ ..a i i~ ~ r ', ,, LAN03ClPE OEFINRION AREA9:~ F ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ .,~ ~ ,) ~ 1 ,.. .., i . ~ ~ ,~ ~ ,p ,~. ~w ~ ~ Ii ~~j IANOY:PPE CON FPT 3TATEMBff 4~ i i ~reeowcw~nnw.nxww~ona.uuE+~n~ ~ 111' ~3 kt ' i~°^ ~ ~ r\!'1 ~~ ~I A~~{ L i- II ~ _ Page 5 of 6 ~3 145 Section 5. The use, development, improvement, and maintenance of the Project area shall be governed by the provisions of the R-M, Multi-Family Residential Zoning District and of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance except as otherwise provided in the Stage 2 Development Plan. Section 6. EFFECTIVE DATE AND POSTING OF ORDINANCE This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage. The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause the Ordinance to be posted in at least three (3) public places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code of the State of California. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin, on this 17tH day of March 2009 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor G: IPA#I10081PA 08-038 Sprin~eld Montessori SchoollPfilCC Ordinnnce PD.DOC Page 6 of 6 ~y q~~~15 'f ORDINANCE NO. XX - 09 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND VSS HOLDINGS, L.L.C. FOR THE SPRINGFIELD MONTESSORI SCHOOL LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF KOHNEN WAY AND BRANNIGAN STREET IN AREA F OF DUBLIN RANCH (APN 985-0052-022 AND 985-0052-023) PA 08-038 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. RECITALS A. The proposed Springfield Montessori School ("Project") is located within the boundaries of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan ("Specific Plan") in an area, which is designated on the General Plan Land Use Element Map, and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Map as General Commercial and General Commercial/Campus Office land uses. B. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15164 provides that an addendum to a previously certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) maybe prepared when the project requires a minor technical change to the EIR and there are no new significant environmental effects and no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. C. A public hearing on the proposed Development Agreement was held before the Planning Commission on February 24, 2009, for which public notice was given as provided by law. D. The Planning Commission has made its recommendation to the City Council for approval of the Development Agreement. F. A public hearing on the proposed Development Agreement was held before the City Council on March 17, 2009 for which public notice was given as provided by law. G. The City Council has considered the recommendation of the Planning Commission who considered the item at its March 17, 2009 meeting, including the Planning Commission's reasons for its recommendation, the Agenda Statement, all comments received in writing and all testimony received at the public hearing. Section 2. FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS Therefore, on the basis of (a) the foregoing Recitals which are incorporated herein, (b) the City of Dublin's General Plan, (c) the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, (e) the Eastern Dublin EIR, (d) the 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration for Dublin Ranch Planning Area F, (e) the 2004 CEQA Addendum, (f) the CEQA Addendum (g) the Agenda Statement, and on the basis of the specific conclusions set forth below, the City Council finds and determines that: Page 1 of 3 Attachment 3 GSo~ 1~i5 1. The Project is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified and contained in the City's General Plan, as amended by the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment, and in the Specific Plan in that (a) the General Plan and Specific Plan land use designation for the site is Public/Semi-Public and the proposed project is a project consistent with that land use, (b) the project is consistent with the fiscal policies of the General Plan and Specific Plan with respect to provision of infrastructure and public services, (c) the project is consistent with the Stage 1 Planned Development Zoning adopted for Dublin Ranch Planning Area F adopted by the City Council and the Development Plan, and (d) the VSS Holdings, L.L.C. Development Agreement includes provisions relating to vesting of development rights, and similar provisions set forth in the Specific Plan. 2. The VSS Holdings, L.L.C. Development Agreement is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for, the land use districts in which the real property is located in that the project approvals include a Stage 2 Planned Development Rezoning, Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit. 3. The VSS Holdings, L.L.C. Development Agreement is in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good land use policies in that the project will implement land use guidelines set forth in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and the General Plan which have planned for general commercial and campus office uses at this location. 4. The VSS Holdings, L.L.C. Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare in that the project will proceed in accordance with all the programs and policies of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. 5. The VSS Holdings, L.L.C. Development Agreement will not adversely affect the orderly development of property or the preservation of property values in that the project will be consistent with the General Plan and with the Specific Plan. Section 3. APPROVAL The City Council hereby approves the Development Agreement (Exhibit A) and authorizes the Mayor to execute it. Section 4. RECORDATION Within ten (10) days after the Development Agreement is fully executed by all parties, the City Clerk shall submit the Agreement to the County Recorder for recordation. Section 5. EFFECTIVE DATE AND POSTING OF ORDINANCE This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage. The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause the Ordinance to be posted in at least three (3) public places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code of the State of California. Page 2 of 3 ~~ ~ ins PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin, on this 1'7ch day of March 2009 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor G:\PA#\2008\PA 08-038 Springfield Montessori School\CC\CC Ordinance DA.DOC Page 3 of 3 ~7~1~ RECORDING REQUESTED BY: CITY OF DUBLIN When Recorded Mail To: City Clerk City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Fee Waived per GC 27383 Space above this line for Recorder's use DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND VSS HOLDINGS, L.L.C. FOR THE SPRINGFIELD MONTESSORI SCHOOL PROJECT EXHIBIT A TO ATTACHMENT 3 ~ a~ IN5 THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (this "Agreement" or this "Development Agreement") is made and entered in the City of Dublin on this , by and between the CITY OF DUBLIN, a Municipal Corporation (hereafter "CITY") and VSS Holdings, L.L.C., a California limited liability company (hereafter "DEVELOPER"), pursuant to the authority of §§ 65864 et seq. of the California Government Code and Dublin Municipal Code, Chapter 8.56. CITY and DEVELOPER are, from time-to-time, individually referred to in this Agreement as a "Party," and are collectively referred to as "Parties." RECITALS A. California Government Code §§65864 et seq. ("Development Agreement Statute") and Chapter 8.56 of the Dublin Municipal Code (hereafter "Chapter 8.56") authorize the CITY to enter into a Development Agreement for the development of real property with any person having a legal or equitable interest in such property in order to establish certain development rights in such property. B. DEVELOPER owns, desires to develop, and holds an equitable interest in certain real property consisting of approximately 2.57 acres of land, located in the City of Dublin, County of Alameda, State of California, which is more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and which real property is hereafter called the "Property." C. The City Council adopted the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan by Resolution No. 53-93 which Plan is applicable to the Property. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan requires DEVELOPER to enter into a development agreement as a condition of the development of the Property. D. The Property is within Area F of Dublin Ranch, which is subject to a Master Development Agreement between the City of Dublin and the Lins dated June 29, 1999 and recorded in Official Records Alameda County on July 8, 1999 as Instrument No. 99251790, and a Supplemental Development Agreement between the City of Dublin and the Lins dated April 18, 2000 and recorded in Official Records of Alameda County on November 13, 2000 as Instrument No. 200335772. E. DEVELOPER proposes the development of the Property with a school and day care center of up to 16,002 square feet which will serve up to 180 children (the "Project"). F. DEVELOPER, or its predecessor in interest, has applied for, and CITY has approved or is processing, various land use approvals in connection with the development of the Project, including, without limitation, a Stage 1 Development Plan for Area F (Ord. No. 12-04); a Stage 2 Planned Development Plan (Ord. No. ~~_); a Conditional Use Permit (Planning Commission Resolution 09-07); and Site Development Review (Planning Commission Resolution No. 09-10). All such approvals Development Agreement Between City of Dublin and VSS Holdings, LLC Page 1 of 15 for the Springfield Montessori School Project. March 17, 2009 Development Agreement.DOC ~~l ~ I~-/5 THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (this "Agreement" or this "Development Agreement") is made and entered in the City of Dublin on this 17th day of March, 2009, by and between the CITY OF DUBLIN, a Municipal Corporation (hereafter "CITY") and VSS Holdings, L.L.C., a California limited liability company (hereafter "DEVELOPER"), pursuant to the authority of §§ 65864 et seq. of the California Government Code and Dublin Municipal Code, Chapter 8.56. CITY and DEVELOPER are, from time-to-time, individually referred to in this Agreement as a "Party," and are collectively referred to as "Parties." RECITALS A. California Government Code §§65864 et seq. ("Development Agreement Statute") and Chapter 8.56 of the Dublin Municipal Code (hereafter "Chapter 8.56") authorize the CITY to enter into a Development Agreement for the development of real property with any person having a legal or equitable interest in such property in order to establish certain development rights in such property. B. DEVELOPER owns, desires to develop, and holds an equitable interest in certain real property consisting of approximately 2.57 acres of land, located in the City of Dublin, County of Alameda, State of California, which is more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and which real property is hereafter called the "Property." C. The City Council adopted the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan by Resolution No. 53-93 which Plan is applicable to the Property. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan requires DEVELOPER to enter into a development agreement as a condition of the development of the Property. D. The Property is within Area F of Dublin Ranch, which is subject to a Master Development Agreement between the City of Dublin and the Lins dated June 29, 1999 and recorded in Official Records Alameda County on July 8, 1999 as Instrument No. 99251790, and a Supplemental Development Agreement between the City of Dublin and the Lins dated April 18, 2000 and recorded in Official Records of Alameda County on November 13, 2000 as Instrument No. 200335772. E. DEVELOPER proposes the development of the Property with a school and day care center of up to 16,002 square feet which will serve up to 180 children (the "Project"). F. DEVELOPER, or its predecessor in interest, has applied for, and CITY has approved or is processing, various land use approvals in connection with the development of the Project, including, without limitation, a Stage 1 Development Plan for Area F (Ord. No. 12-04); a Stage 2 Planned Development Plan (Ord. No. _-_); a Conditional Use Permit (Planning Commission Resolution 09-07); and Site Development Review (Planning Commission Resolution No. 09-10). All such approvals Development Agreement Between City of Dublin and VSS Holdings, LLC Page 1 of 15 for the Springfield Montessori School Project. March 17, 2009 Development Agreement[1 ] ~~ ~~ ~~~ collectively, together with any approvals or permits now or hereafter issued with respect to the Project are referred to as the "Project Approvals." G. CITY desires the timely, efficient, orderly and proper development of the Project. H. The City Council has found that, among other things, this Development Agreement is consistent with its General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and has been reviewed and evaluated in accordance with the Development Agreement Statute and Chapter 8.56. I. CITY and DEVELOPER have reached agreement and desire to express herein a Development Agreement that will facilitate development of the Project subject to conditions set forth herein. J. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) the City Council adopted Resolution No. 51-93 certifying a Final Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (SCH 91103064), including an Addendum dated May 4, 1993 and adopted a subsequent Addendum on August 22, 1994 (collectively referred to as "the EIR"). K. Pursuant to CEQA the City Council adopted Resolution No. 34-00 approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Area F (SCH #1999112040). L. Pursuant to CEQA the City Council adopted Resolution No. 43-04 approving an Addendum for certain areas of Dublin Ranch including Area F. M. Pursuant to CEQA the City Council adopted Resolution No. ` -_ approving an Addendum to the EIR, dated January 2009, for Springfield Montessori School. N. On ,the City Council of the City of Dublin adopted Ordinance No. approving this Development Agreement ("the Approving Ordinance"). The Approving Ordinance will take effect on ("the Approval Date"). NOW, THEREFORE, with reference to the foregoing recitals and in consideration of the mutual promises, obligations and covenants herein contained, CITY and DEVELOPER agree as follows: AGREEMENT Description of Property. The Property, which is the subject of this Development Agreement, is described in Exhibit A attached hereto. Development Agreement Between City of Dublin and VSS Holdings, LLC Page 2 of 15 for the Springfield Montessori School Project. March 17, 2009 Development Agreement[1 ] `I1~1~15 2. Interest of Developer. The DEVELOPER has a legal or equitable interest in the Property. 3. Relationship of CITY and DEVELOPER. It is understood that this Agreement is a contract that has been negotiated and voluntarily entered into by CITY and DEVELOPER and that DEVELOPER is not an agent of CITY. CITY and DEVELOPER hereby renounce the existence of any form of joint venture or partnership between them, and agree that nothing contained herein or in any document executed in connection herewith shall be construed as making CITY and DEVELOPER joint venturers or partners. 4. Effective Date and Term. 4.1 Effective Date. The effective date of this Agreement shall be the date ("the Effective Date") upon which this Agreement is signed by CITY. 4.2 Term. The "Term" of this Development Agreement shall commence on the Approval Date and extend five (5) years thereafter, unless said Term is otherwise terminated or modified by circumstances set forth in this Agreement. 5. Use of the Property. 5.1 Right to Develop. DEVELOPER shall have the vested right to develop the Project on the Property in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Project Approvals (as and when issued), and any amendments to any of them as shall, from time to time, be approved pursuant to this Agreement. 5.2 Permitted Uses. The permitted uses of the Property, the density and intensity of use, the maximum height, bulk and size of proposed buildings, provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes and location and maintenance of on-site and off-site improvements, location of public utilities (operated by CITY) and other terms and conditions of development applicable to the Property, shall be those set forth in this Agreement, the Project Approvals and any amendments to this Agreement or the Project Approvals. 5.3 Additional Conditions. Provisions for the following ("Additional Conditions") are set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 5.3.1 Subsequent Discretionary Approvals. Conditions, terms, restrictions, and requirements for subsequent discretionary actions. (These conditions do not affect DEVELOPER's responsibility Development Agreement Between City of Dublin and VSS Holdings, LLC Page 3 of 15 for the Springfield Montessori School Project. March 17, 2009 Development Agreement[1 ] l ~i ~'~ a? ~~ to obtain all other land use approvals required by the ordinances of CITY and any permits required by regulatory agencies.) None 5.3.2 Mitigation Conditions. Additional or modified conditions agreed upon by the Parties in order to eliminate or mitigate adverse environmental impacts of the Project or otherwise relating to development of the Project. See Exhibit B 5.3.3 Phasing, Timing. Provisions that the Project be constructed in specified phases, that construction shall commence within a specified time, and that the Project or any phase thereof be completed within a specified time. See Exhibit B 5.3.4 Financing Plan. Financial plans which identify necessary capital improvements such as streets and utilities and sources of funding. See Exhibit B 5.3.5 Fees, Dedications. Terms relating to payment of fees or dedication of property. See Exhibit B 5.3.6 Reimbursement. Terms relating to subsequent reimbursement over time for financing of necessary public facilities. See Exhibit B 5.3.7 Miscellaneous. Miscellaneous terms. See Exhibit B 6. Applicable Rules, Regulations and Official Policies. 6.1 Rules re Permitted Uses. For the term of this Agreement, CITY's ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations and official policies governing the permitted uses of the Property, governing density and intensity of use of the Property and the maximum height, bulk and size of proposed buildings shall be those in force Development Agreement Between City of Dublin and VSS Holdings, LLC Page 4 of 15 for the Springfield Montessori School Project. March 17, 2009 Development Agreement~l ] and effect on the Approval Date. 6.2 Rules re Design and Construction. Unless otherwise expressly provided in Paragraph 5 of this Agreement or in Chapter 7.28 of the Dublin Municipal Code, the ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations and official policies governing design, improvement and construction standards and specifications applicable to Project construction (but not use) shall be those in force and effect at the time DEVELOPER submits its application for the relevant building, grading, or other construction permits to CITY. In the event of a conflict between such ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations and official policies and the Project Approvals, the Project Approvals shall prevail. For construction of public infrastructure, the ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations and official policies governing design, improvement and construction standards and specifications applicable to Project shall be those in force and effect at the time of execution of an improvement agreement between CITY and DEVELOPER pursuant to Chapter 9.16 of the Dublin Municipal Code. 6.3 Building Standards Codes Applicable. Unless expressly provided in Paragraph 5 of this Agreement or in Chapter 7.28 of the Dublin Municipal Code, the Project shall be constructed in accordance with the provisions of the Building, Mechanical, Plumbing, Electrical and Fire Codes and Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, relating to Building Standards, in effect at the time DEVELOPER submits its application for the relevant building, grading, or other construction permits for the Project to CITY. 7. Subsequently Enacted Rules and Regulations. 7.1 New Rules and Regulations. During the Term of this Agreement, CITY may apply new or modified ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations and official policies of CITY to the Property that were not in force and effect on the Approval Date and which are not in conflict with those applicable to the Property as set forth in this Agreement and the Project Approvals if: (a) the application of such new or modified ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations or official policies would not prevent, impose a substantial financial burden on, or materially delay development of the Property, as otherwise contemplated by the Project Approvals, and (b) such ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations or official policies have general (City-wide) applicability. 7.2 Approval of Application. Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent CITY from denying or conditionally approving any subsequent land use permit or authorization for the Project on the basis of such new or modified ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations and policies, except that such subsequent actions shall be subject to any conditions, terms, restrictions, and requirements expressly set forth herein. Development Agreement Between City of Dublin and VSS Holdings, LLC Page 5 of 15 for the Springfield Montessori School Project. March 17, 2009 Development Agreement[1 ] ~~ ~ i~~ 7.3 Moratorium Not Applicable. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, in the event an ordinance, resolution or other measure is enacted, whether by action of CITY, by initiative, referendum, or otherwise, that imposes a building moratorium which affects the Project on all or any part of the Property, CITY agrees that such ordinance, resolution or other measure shall not apply to the Project, the Property, this Agreement or the Project Approvals unless the building moratorium is imposed as part of a declaration of a local emergency or state of emergency as defined in Government Code §8558. 8. Subsequently Enacted or Revised Fees Assessments and Taxes. 8.1 Fees, Exactions, Dedications. CITY and DEVELOPER agree that the fees payable and exactions required in connection with the development of the Project Approvals for purposes of mitigating environmental and other impacts of the Project, providing infrastructure for the Project and complying with the Specific Plan shall be those set forth in the Project Approvals and in this Agreement (including Exhibit B). CITY shall not impose or require payment of any other fees, dedications of land, or construction of any public improvement or facilities, shall not increase or accelerate existing fees, dedications of land or construction of public improvements, in connection with any subsequent discretionary approval for the Property, except as set forth in the Project Approvals and this Agreement (including Exhibit B, subparagraph 5.3.5). 8.2 Revised Application Fees. Any existing application, processing and inspection fees that are revised during the Term of this Agreement shall apply to the Project provided that (1) such fees have general applicability; (2) the application of such fees to the Property is prospective; and (3) the application of such fees would not prevent development in accordance with this Agreement. 8.3 New Taxes. Any subsequently enacted City-wide taxes shall apply to the Project provided that: (1) the application of such taxes to the Property is prospective; and (2) the application of such taxes would not prevent development in accordance with this Agreement. 8.4 Assessments. Nothing herein shall be construed to relieve the Property from assessments levied against it by CITY pursuant to any statutory procedure for the assessment of property to pay for infrastructure and/or services that benefit the Property. 8.5 Vote on Future Assessments and Fees. In the event that any assessment, fee or charge that is applicable to the Property is subject to Article XIIID of the California Constitution and DEVELOPER does not return its ballot, DEVELOPER agrees, on behalf of itself and its successors, that CITY may count DEVELOPER's ballot as affirmatively voting in favor of such assessment, fee or charge. Development Agreement Between City of Dublin and VSS Holdings, LLC Page 6 of 15 for the Springfield Montessori School Project. March 17, 2009 Development Agreement[1 ] 75~ws 9. Amendment or Cancellation. 9.1 Modification Because of Conflict with State or Federal Laws. In the event that state or federal laws or regulations enacted after the Effective Date of this Agreement prevent or preclude compliance with one or more provisions of this Agreement or require changes in plans, maps or permits approved by CITY, the Parties shall meet and confer in good faith in a reasonable attempt to modify this Agreement to comply with such federal or state law or regulation. Any such amendment or suspension of the Agreement shall be approved by the City Council of CITY in accordance with Chapter 8.56. 9.2 Amendment by Mutual Consent. This Agreement may be amended in writing from time to time by mutual consent of the Parties hereto and in accordance with the procedures of California law and Chapter 8.56. 9.3 Insubstantial Amendments. Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding Paragraph 9.2, any amendments to this Agreement which do not relate to (a) the term of the Agreement as provided in Paragraph 4.2; (b) the permitted uses of the Property as provided in Paragraph 5.2; (c) provisions for "significant" reservation or dedication of land as provided in Exhibit B; (d) conditions, terms, restrictions or requirements for subsequent discretionary actions; (e) the density or intensity of use of the Project; (f) the maximum height or size of proposed buildings; or (g) monetary contributions by DEVELOPER as provided in this Agreement, shall not, except to the extent otherwise required by law, require notice or public hearing before either the Planning Commission of CITY or the City Council of CITY before the parties may execute an amendment hereto. CITY's Public Works Director shall determine whether a reservation or dedication is "significant". 9.4 Cancellation by Mutual Consent. Except as otherwise permitted herein, this Agreement may be canceled in whole or in part only by the mutual consent of the Parties or their successors in interest, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 8.56. Any fees paid pursuant to Paragraph 5.3 and Exhibit B of this Agreement prior to the date of cancellation shall be retained by CITY. 10. Term of Project Approvals. The Term of any Project Approval shall be extended only if so provided in Exhibit B. 11. Annual Review. 11.1 Review Date. The annual review date for this Agreement shall be between July 15 and August 15, 2010 and each July 15 to August 15 thereafter during the Term. Development Agreement Between City of Dublin and VSS Holdings, LLC Page 7 of 15 for the Springfield Montessori School Project. March 17, 2009 Development Agreement[1] ~6 ~ X45 11.2 Initiation of Review. CITY's Community Development Director shall initiate the annual review, as required under Section 8.56.140 of Chapter 8.56, by giving to DEVELOPER thirty (30) days' written notice that CITY intends to undertake such review. DEVELOPER shall provide evidence to the Community Development Director prior to the hearing on the annual review, as and when reasonably determined necessary by the Community Development Director, to demonstrate good faith compliance with the provisions of this Development Agreement. The burden of proof by substantial evidence of compliance is upon DEVELOPER. 11.3 Staff Reports. To the extent practical, CITY shall deposit in the mail and fax to DEVELOPER a copy of all staff reports, and related exhibits concerning contract performance at least five (5) days prior to any annual review. 11.4 Costs. Costs reasonably incurred by CITY in connection with the annual review shall be paid by DEVELOPER in accordance with the City's schedule of fees in effect at the time of review. 12. Default. 12.1 Other Remedies Available. Upon the occurrence of an event of default, the Parties may pursue all other remedies at law or in equity that are not otherwise provided for in this Agreement or in CITY's regulations governing development agreements, expressly including the remedy of specific performance of this Agreement. 12.2 Notice and Cure. Upon the occurrence of an event of default by any Party, the nondefaulting Party shall serve written notice of such default upon the defaulting Party. If the default is not cured by the defaulting Party within thirty (30) days after service of such notice of default, the nondefaulting Party may then commence any legal or equitable action to enforce its rights under this Agreement; provided, however, that if the default cannot be cured within such thirty (30) day period, the nondefaulting Party shall refrain from any such legal or equitable action so long as the defaulting Party begins to cure such default within such thirty (30) day period and diligently pursues such cure to completion. Failure to give notice shall not constitute a waiver of any default. 12.3 No Damages Against CITY. In no event shall damages be awarded against CITY upon an event of default or upon termination of this Agreement. 13. Estoppel Certificate. Any Party may, at any time, and from time to time, request written notice from the other Party requesting such Party to certify in writing that, (a) this Agreement is in full force and effect and a binding obligation of the Parties, (b) this Agreement has not been amended or modified, either orally or in writing, or if so Development Agreement Between City of Dublin and VSS Holdings, LLC Page 8 of 15 for the Springfield Montessori School Project. March 17, 2009 Development Agreement[1 ] 7~ e~1~5 amended, identifying the amendments, and (c) to the knowledge of the certifying Party the requesting Party is not in default in the performance of its obligations under this Agreement, or if in default, to describe therein the nature and amount of any such defaults. A Party receiving a request hereunder shall execute and return such certificate within thirty (30) days following the receipt thereof, or such longer period as may reasonably be agreed to by the Parties. City Manager of CITY shall be authorized to execute any certificate requested by DEVELOPER. Should the Party receiving the request not execute and return such certificate within the applicable period, such failure shall not be deemed to be a default under this Agreement; provided, however, such Party shall be deemed to have certified that the statements in clauses (a) through (c) of this section are true, and any Party may rely on such deemed certification. 14. Mortgagee Protection; Certain Rights of Cure. 14.1 Mortgaqee Protection. This Agreement shall be superior and senior to any lien placed upon the Property, or any portion thereof after the date of recording this Agreement, including the lien for any deed of trust or mortgage ("Mortgage"). Notwithstanding the foregoing, no breach hereof shall defeat, render invalid, diminish or impair the lien of any Mortgage made in good faith and for, value, but all the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement shall be binding upon and effective against any person or entity, including any deed of trust beneficiary or mortgagee ("Mortgagee") who acquires title to the Property, or any portion thereof, by foreclosure, trustee's sale, deed in lieu of foreclosure, or otherwise. 14.2 Mortgagee Not Obligated. Notwithstanding the provisions of Paragraph 14.1 above, no Mortgagee shall have any obligation or duty under this Agreement, before or after foreclosure or a deed in lieu of foreclosure, to construct or complete the construction of improvements, or to guarantee such construction of improvements, or to guarantee such construction or completion, or to pay, perform or provide any fee, dedication, improvements or other exaction or imposition; provided, however, that a Mortgagee shall not be entitled to devote the Property to any uses or to construct any improvements thereon other than those uses or improvements provided for or authorized by the Project Approvals or by this Agreement. 14.3 Notice of Default to Mortgaqee and Extension of Right to Cure. If CITY receives notice from a Mortgagee requesting a copy of any notice of default given DEVELOPER hereunder and specifying the address for service thereof, then CITY shall deliver to such Mortgagee, concurrently with service thereon to DEVELOPER, any notice given to DEVELOPER with respect to any claim by CITY that DEVELOPER has committed an event of default. Each Mortgagee shall have the right during the same period available to DEVELOPER to cure or remedy, or to commence to cure or remedy, the event of default claimed set forth in the CITY's notice. CITY, through its City Manager, may extend the thirty-day cure period provided in Paragraph 12.2 for not more than an additional sixty (60) days upon request of DEVELOPER or a Mortgagee. Development Agreement Between City of Dublin and VSS Holdings, LLC Page 9 of 15 for the Springfield Montessori School Project. March 17, 2009 Development Agreement[1 ] 7a~ ~ti~ 15. Severability. The unenforceability, invalidity or illegality of any provisions, covenant, condition or term of this Agreement shall not render the other provisions unenforceable, invalid or illegal. 16. Attorneys' Fees and Costs. If CITY or DEVELOPER initiates any action at law or in equity to enforce or interpret the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the prevailing Party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in addition to any other relief to which it may otherwise be entitled. If any person or entity not a party to this Agreement initiates an action at law or in equity to challenge the validity of any provision of this Agreement or the Project Approvals, the Parties shall cooperate and appear in defending such action. DEVELOPER shall bear its own costs of defense as a real party in interest in any such action, and DEVELOPER shall reimburse CITY for all reasonable court costs and attorneys' fees expended by CITY in defense of any such action or other proceeding. 17. Transfers and Assignments. 17.1 DEVELOPER's Right to Assign. All of DEVELOPER'S rights, interests and obligations hereunder may be transferred, sold or assigned in conjunction with the transfer, sale, or assignment of the Property subject hereto, or any portion thereof, at any time during the Term of this Agreement, provided that no transfer, sale or assignment of DEVELOPER's rights, interests and obligations hereunder shall occur without the prior written notice to CITY and approval by the City Manager of CITY, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. The City Manager shall consider and decide the matter within ten (10) working days after DEVELOPER's notice is given to CITY and receipt by City Manager of all necessary documents, certifications and other information required by City Manager to decide the matter. In considering the request, the City Manager shall base the decision upon the proposed assignee's reputation, experience, financial resources and access to credit and capability to successfully carry out the development of the Property to completion. The City Manager's approval shall be for the purposes of: (a) providing notice to CITY; (b) assuring that ail obligations of DEVELOPER are fully allocated as between DEVELOPER and the proposed purchaser, transferee or assignee; and (c) assuring CITY that the proposed purchaser, transferee or assignee is capable of performing DEVELOPER's obligations hereunder not withheld by DEVELOPER pursuant to Paragraph 17.3. Notwithstanding the foregoing, provided notice is given as specified in Paragraph 23, no CITY approval shall be required for any transfer, sale, or assignment of this Agreement to: (1) any entity which either (i) is an affiliate or subsidiary of DEVELOPER or (ii) results from the merger of DEVELOPER or its parent or is the purchaser of all, or substantially all, of the assets of DEVELOPER or its parent; (2) any Development Agreement Between City of Dublin and VSS Holdings, LLC Page 10 of 15 for the Springfield Montessori School Project. March 17, 2009 Development Agreement[1 ] `~I~ ~u~s Mortgagee; or (3) any transferee of a Mortgagee. 17.2 Release Upon Transfer. Upon the transfer, sale, or assignment of all of DEVELOPER's rights, interests and obligations hereunder pursuant to Paragraph 17.1 of this Agreement, DEVELOPER shall be released from the obligations under this Agreement, with respect to the Property transferred, sold, or assigned, arising subsequent to the date of City Manager approval of such transfer, sale, or assignment; provided, however, that if any transferee, purchaser, or assignee approved by the City Manager expressly assumes all of the rights, interests and obligations of DEVELOPER under this Agreement, DEVELOPER shall be released with respect to all such rights, interests and assumed obligations. In any event, the transferee, purchaser, or assignee shall be subject to all the provisions hereof and shall provide all necessary documents, certifications and other necessary information prior to City Manager approval. 17.3 Developer's Right to Retain Specified Rights or Obligations. Notwithstanding Paragraphs 17.1 and 17.2 and Paragraph 18, DEVELOPER may withhold from a sale, transferor assignment of this Agreement certain rights, interests and/or obligations which DEVELOPER shall retain, provided that DEVELOPER specifies such rights, interests and/or obligations in a written document to be appended to this Agreement and recorded with the Alameda County Recorder prior to the sale, transfer or assignment of the Property. DEVELOPER's purchaser, transferee or assignee shall then have no interest or obligations for such rights, interests and obligations and this Agreement shall remain applicable to DEVELOPER with respect to such retained rights, interests and/or obligations. 18. Agreement Runs with the Land. All of the provisions, rights, terms, covenants, and obligations contained in this Agreement shall be binding upon the Parties and their respective heirs, successors and assignees, representatives, lessees, and all other persons acquiring the Property, or any portion thereof, or any interest therein, whether by operation of law or in any manner whatsoever. All of the provisions of this Agreement shall be enforceable as equitable servitude and shall constitute covenants running with the land pursuant to applicable laws, including, but not limited to, Section 1468 of the Civil Code of the State of California. Each covenant to do, or refrain from doing, some act on the Property hereunder, or with respect to any owned property, (a) is for the benefit of such properties and is a burden upon such properties, (b) runs with such properties, and (c) is binding upon each party and each successive owner during its ownership of such properties or any portion thereof, and shall be a benefit to and a burden upon each party and its property hereunder and each other person succeeding to an interest in such properties. 19. Bankruptcy. Development Agreement Between City of Dublin and VSS Holdings, LLC Page 11 of 15 for the Springfield Montessori School Project. March 17, 2009 Development Agreement[1 go ~ir~5 bankruptcy. The obligations of this Agreement shall not be dischargeable in 20. Indemnification. DEVELOPER agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, and its elected and appointed councils, boards, commissions, officers, agents, employees, and representatives from any and all claims, costs (including legal fees and costs) and liability for any personal injury or property damage which may arise directly or indirectly as a result of any actions or inactions by DEVELOPER, or any actions or inactions of DEVELOPER's contractors, subcontractors, agents, or employees in connection with the construction, improvement, operation, or maintenance of the Project, provided that DEVELOPER shall have no indemnification obligation with respect to negligence or wrongful conduct of CITY, its contractors, subcontractors, agents or employees or with respect to the maintenance, use or condition of any improvement after the time it has been dedicated to and accepted by the CITY or another public entity (except as provided in an improvement agreement or maintenance bond). If CITY is named as a party to any legal action, CITY will cooperate with DEVELOPER, will appear in such action and will not unreasonably withhold approval of a settlement otherwise acceptable to DEVELOPER. 21. Insurance. 21.1 Public Liability and Property Damage Insurance. At all times that DEVELOPER is constructing any improvements that will become public improvements, DEVELOPER shall maintain in effect a policy of comprehensive general liability insurance with aper-occurrence combined single limit of not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) and a deductible of not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) per claim. The policy so maintained by DEVELOPER shall name the CITY as an additional insured and shall include either a severability of interest clause or cross-liability endorsement. 21.2 Workers Compensation Insurance. At all times that DEVELOPER is constructing any improvements that will become public improvements, DEVELOPER shall maintain Worker's Compensation insurance for all persons employed by DEVELOPER for work at the Project site. DEVELOPER shall require each contractor and subcontractor similarly to provide Worker's Compensation insurance for its respective employees. DEVELOPER agrees to indemnify the City for any damage resulting from DEVELOPER's failure to maintain any such insurance. 21.3 Evidence of Insurance. Prior to commencement of construction of any improvements which will become public improvements, DEVELOPER shall furnish CITY satisfactory evidence of the insurance required in Paragraphs 21.1 and 21.2 and evidence that the carrier is required to give CITY at least fifteen days prior written notice of the cancellation or reduction in coverage of a policy. Development Agreement Between City of Dublin and VSS Holdings, LLC Page 12 of 15 for the Springfield Montessori School Project. March 17, 2009 Development Agreement[1 ] gl 145 The insurance shall extend to CITY, its elective and appointive boards, commissions, officers, agents, employees and representatives and to DEVELOPER performing work on the Project. 21.4 Self-Insurance. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, so long as DEVELOPER and its parent corporation have a combined net worth of at least Two Hundred Fifty Million Dollars ($250,000,000.00), the insurance that DEVELOPER is obligated hereby to maintain may include such deductible or self- insured amount not to exceed five million dollars ($5,000,000.00). To the extent that DEVELOPER elects to so self-insure, its obligation to CITY with respect to such insurance obligations, including the obligation to defend and indemnify, shall be the same as if DEVELOPER is a third party insurer. 22. Sewer and Water. DEVELOPER acknowledges that it must obtain water and sewer permits from the Dublin San Ramon Services District ("DSRSD") which is another public agency not within the control of CITY. 23. Notices. All notices required or provided for under this Agreement shall be in writing. Notices required to be given to CITY shall be addressed as follows: City Manager City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Fax: (925) 833-6651 follows: Notice required to be given to DEVELOPER shall be addressed as VSS Holdings, LLC 746 Miner Road Orinda, CA 94563 Attn: Rajan Lal Fax: 520-546-2799 A Party may change address by giving notice in writing to the other Party and thereafter all notices to such Party shall be addressed and transmitted to the new address. Notices shall be deemed given and received upon personal delivery, or if mailed, upon the expiration of 48 hours after being deposited in the United States Mail. Notices may also be given by overnight courier, which shat! be deemed given the following day, or by facsimile transmission, which shall be deemed given upon verification of receipt. Development Agreement Between City of Dublin and VSS Holdings, LLC Page 13 of 15 for the Springfield Montessori School Project. March 17, 2009 Development Agreement[1j ~~ /45 hereof. 24. Recitals. The foregoing Recitals are true and correct and are made a part 25. Agreement is Entire Understanding. This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding and agreement of the Parties. 26. Exhibits. The following documents are referred to in this Agreement and are attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full: Exhibit A Legal Description of Property Exhibit B Additional Conditions 27. Counterparts. This Agreement is executed in two (2) duplicate originals, each of which is deemed to be an original. 28. Recordation. CITY shall record a copy of this Agreement within ten days following execution by all parties. Failure of CITY to comply with this Paragraph shall not affect the rights and obligations of the Parties under this Agreement. 29. Legal Authority. Each individual executing this Agreement on behalf of Developer hereby represents and warrants that has full power and authority under the entity' s governing documents to execute and deliver this Agreement in the name of and on behalf of the company and to cause the entity to perform its obligations under this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the date and year first above written. CITY OF DUBLIN: Development Agreement Between City of Dublin and VSS Holdings, LLC Page 14 of 15 for the Springfield Montessori School Project. March 17, 2009 Development Agreement[1] /4~ By: Tim Sbranti, Mayor Attest: By: Caroline Soto, City Clerk Approved as to Form: John D. Bakker, City Attorney VSS oldings, LLC By: ajan Lal ~~ Date: Date: State of California Caintra irosta bounty Subscribed and sworn to (or afiFir~Rd)~~~for~ me on this ~ day of ,~ 38~ by~ . 12 0., fr.n L ~ i 1~~. droved to me-on t >te basis of satisfactory evidence to be the pe~rsoq~' ho appear , before men ~ _ Notary ~ ~ ~ ^ ;~ , ~ Q ~~~,,.o,) f~~ai~. PATRICIAA. RIVERA ~~~ ~ COMM. # 1793505 = ~ ,.tea, NOTARY PUBLIC -CALIFORNIA m _ ~ CONTRA COSTA COUNTY C ' "~ My Comm. Exp. Apr.10, 2012 ~F Development Agreement Between City of Dublin and VSS Holdings, LLC Page 15 of 15 for the Springfield Montessori School Project. March 17, 2009 Development Agreement[1 ] ~~ ~4s Exhibit A Property Description 85~1~i5' JANUARY 15, 2009 ~TOB IdO.: 1608-0000 EXHIBIT' A LEGAL DESCR.I£~'T'TOP7 LC7T MERGER. M- 0 4 ~ 0 ]. DL~HLIN, CALIFQRNIA REAL PROPERTY, SITUATE IN THE INCQRPORATED TERRITORY OF THE CITY OF DUBLII~T, COUNTY OF ALAfnEDA, STATE flF C1~?,IFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLONIS BEIrIG ALL OF PARCEL 2 AND PARCEL 3, AS SAID PARCELS ARE SHOV~TItT AND SO DESIGNATED ON THAT. CERTAIN BARGEE P~IAP 9451, RECQRDED AUGUST 9, 2007,. TN ROOK 300 OF PARCEL MAPS, AT PAGE 53, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUIJ'I'Y RECORDER OF ALAMEDA COUf~'I'Y. CONTAINING 2.57 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS. ATTACHED HERETO IS A PLAT TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION, AIv`D BY THIS, REFERENCE MADE A PART HEREOF. END C>F DESCRIPTION ~~5~~ LAlV1~ S QpttER $ 'AL 'y°r tt~ ~xA• t~31 ~ '~~. ~Q- . ~`~ C1~Lirfl~ i CHRISTOPHER S. HARi~IISON, P.L.S. L.S. NO. 7176 EXPIRES: DECEMBER 31, 2009 + ~:~,ieoe xts~t_sna.aoc`~..i:c?.~~\~,~-a~=.+r~ ~~ Ju~'~ Exhibit B Additional Conditions The following Additional Conditions are hereby imposed pursuant to Paragraph 5.3 above. Subparagraph 5.3.2 --Mitigation Conditions Subsection a. Infrastructure Sequencing Program The Infrastructure Sequencing Program for the Project is set forth below. (i) Roads: The project-specific roadway improvements (and offers of dedication) identified in Planning Commission Resolution No. 09-10 approving Site Development Review (the "SDR Resolution") shall be completed by DEVELOPER to the satisfaction and requirements of the Public Works Director at the times and in the manner specified in the SDR Resolution unless otherwise provided below. (ii) Sewer All sanitary sewer improvements to serve the project site (or any recorded phase of the Project) shall be completed in accordance with DSRSD requirements. (iii) Water An all-weather roadway and an approved hydrant and water supply system shall be available and in service at the site in accordance with the SDR conditions of approval to the satisfaction and requirements of CITY's fire department. All potable water system components to serve the project site (or any recorded phase of the Project) shall be completed in accordance with DSRSD requirements. Recycled water lines shall be installed in accordance with the SDR conditions of approval. (iv) Storm Drainage Prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for any building which is part of the Project, the storm drainage systems off site, as well as on-site drainage systems to the areas to be occupied, shall be improved to the satisfaction and Development Agreement Between City of Dublin and VSS Holdings, LLC Page 1 of 4 for the Springfield Montessori School Project. March 17, 2009 Development Agreement[1 C.~'`~ ~ ~L~l,}~ '1 requirements of the Dublin Public Works Department applying CITY's and Zone 7 (Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Zone 7) standards and policies which are applicable. Pursuant to Alameda County's National Pollution Discharges Elimination Permit (NPDES) No. CAS0029831 with the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, all grading, construction, and development activities within the City of Dublin must comply with the provisions of the Clean Water Act. Proper erosion control measures must be installed at development sites within the City during construction, and all activities shall adhere to Best Management Practices. (v) Other Utilities (e.q. gas, electricity, cable televisions, telephone) Construction of other utilities shall be complete by phase prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for any building within that specific phase of development. Subsection b. Miscellaneous (i) Completion May be Deferred. Notwithstanding the foregoing, CITY's Public Works Director may, in his or her sole discretion and upon receipt of documentation in a form satisfactory to the Public Works Director that assures completion, allow DEVELOPER to defer completion of discrete portions of any of the public improvements required for the Project until after issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for the first building for the Project if the Public Works Director determines that to do so would not jeopardize the public health, safety or welfare. Subparagraph 5.3.3 -- Phasing, Timing This Agreement contains no requirements that DEVELOPER must initiate or complete development of the Project within any period of time set by CITY. It is the intention of this provision that DEVELOPER be able to develop the Property in accordance with its own time schedules and the Project Approvals. Subparagraph 5.3.4 -- Financing Plan DEVELOPER will install all improvements necessary for the Project at its own cost (subject to credits for any improvements that qualify for credits as provided in Subparagraph 5.3.6 below), unless otherwise required by this Agreement. Other infrastructure necessary to provide sewer, potable water, and recycled water services to the Project will be made available by the DSRSD. If required by the DSRSD, DEVELOPER will enter into an "Area Wide Facilities Agreement" with the DSRSD to pay for the cost of extending such services to the Project. Such services shall be provided as set forth in Subparagraph 5.3.2(a)(ii) and (iii) above. Development Agreement Between City of Dublin and VSS Holdings, LLC Page 2 of 4 for the Springfield Montessori School Project. March 17, 2009 Development Agreement[1 ~~ ~' /4S Subparagraph 5.3.5 -- Fees, Dedications Subsection a. Traffic Impact Fees. DEVELOPER shall pay the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee ("TIF") established by Resolution No. 111-04, including any future amendments to such fee. DEVELOPER will pay such fees no later than the time of issuance of building permits and in the amount of the impact fee in effect at time of building permit issuance. DEVELOPER further agrees that it will pay eleven percent (11 %) of the "Section 1/Category 1" portion of the TIF in cash. DEVELOPER also agrees that it will pay twenty-five percent (25%) of the "Section 2/Category 2" portion of the TIF in cash. If City amends its TIF fee and as a result the City's outstanding balance due on loans is less than twenty-five percent (25%) of total Section 2/Category 2 improvements, DEVELOPER shall pay such reduced percentage of the "Section 2/Category 2" portion of the TIF in cash. Subsection b. Traffic Impact Fee to Reimburse Pleasanton for Freeway Interchanges. DEVELOPER shall pay an Eastern Dublin I-580 Interchange Fee in the amounts and at the times set forth in City of Dublin Resolution No. 155-98, or in the amounts and at the times set forth in any resolution revising the amount of the Eastern Dublin I-580 Interchange Fee. Subsection c. Public Facilities Fees. DEVELOPER shall pay a Public Facilities Fee established by City of Dublin Resolution No. 214-02, including any future amendments to such fee. DEVELOPER will pay such fees no later than the time of issuance of building permits and in the then-current amount of the fee. Subsection d. Noise Mitigation Fee. DEVELOPER shall pay a Noise Mitigation Fee established by City of Dublin Resolution No. 33-96, including any future amendments to such fee. DEVELOPER will pay such fees no later than the time of issuance of building permits and in the amount of the fee in effect at time of building permit issuance. Development Agreement Between City of Dublin and VSS Holdings, LLC Page 3 of 4 for the Springfield Montessori School Project. March 17, 2009 Development Agreement[1 ] ~~ ~ 145 Subsection e. School Impact Fees. School impact fees shall be paid by DEVELOPER in accordance with Government Code section 53080 and the existing agreement between DEVELOPER's predecessor in interest and the Dublin Unified School District. Subsection f. Fire Impact Fees. DEVELOPER shall pay a fire facilities fee established by City of Dublin Resolution No. 12-03 including any future amendments to such fee. DEVELOPER will pay such fees no later than the time of issuance of building permits and in the amount of the fee in effect at time of building permit issuance. Subsection q. Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee. DEVELOPER shall pay the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee in the amount and at the times set forth in City of Dublin Resolution No. 89-98 or any subsequent resolution which revises such fee. DEVELOPER will pay such fees no later than the time of issuance of building permits and in the amount of the impact fee in effect at time of building permit issuance. Subparagraph 5.3.6 --Credit Subsection a. Traffic Impact Fee Improvements Credit CITY shall provide a credit to DEVELOPER for those improvements described in the resolution establishing the Eastern Dublin Traffic impact Fee if such improvements are constructed by the DEVELOPER in their ultimate location pursuant this Agreement. All aspects of credits shall be governed by CITY's then-current Administrative Guidelines regarding credits. Subsection b. Traffic Impact Fee Right-of-Way Dedications Credit CITY shall provide a credit to DEVELOPER for any TIF area right-of-way dedicated by DEVELOPER to CITY that is required for improvements that are described in the resolution establishing the Eastern Dublin Traffic impact Fee. All aspects of credits shall be governed by CITY's then-current Administrative Guidelines regarding credits. 1191471.3 Development Agreement Between City of Dublin and VSS Holdings, LLC Page 4 of 4 for the Springfield Montessori School Project. March 17, 2009 Development Agreement[1] ~~ ~~ ~~ ,,; ~ ;~ ;~~~~~~ /l Rio ~ !y5 AGENDA STATEMENT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: February 24, 2009 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: PA 08-038 Springfield Montessori School (Legislative and Adjudicatory Action) -CEQA Addendum, Stage 2 Planned Development Rezone, Development Agreement, Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit to construct a 16,002 square foot building and related site improvements. Report prepared by Erica Fraser, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: 1) Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a CEQA Addendum for a Stage 2 Planned Development Rezone and Site Development Review for the Springfield Montessori School with the Addendum attached as Exhibit A. 2) Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance . approving a PD Planned Development Rezone and related Stage 2 Development Plan with the Draft Ordinance attached as Exhibit A. 3) Resolution approving the Site Development Review for the Springfield Montessori School with the Project Plans attached as Exhibit A. 4) Resolution approving a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the operation of the Springfield Montessori School. 5) Resolution recommending that the City Council approve a Development Agreement between the City of Dublin and VSS Holdings, Inc. for a portion of the Project Site with the Development Agreement attached as Exhibit A. 6) Written Statement. RECOMMENDATION: 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 _ v 5) Adopt the following Resolutions: a) Resolution (Attachment 1) recommending that the City Council adopt a CEQA Addendum for a Stage 2 Planned Development Rezone and Site Development Review for the Springfield Montessori School with the Addendum attached as Exhibit A; b) Resolution (Attachment 2) recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance approving a PD Planned Development Rezone and related Stage 2 Development Plan with the Draft Ordinance attached as Exhibit A; c) Resolution (Attachment 3) approving the Site Development Review for the Springfield Montessori School with the Project Plans attached as Exhibit A; d) Resolution (Attachment 4) approving a Conditional Use Permit to allow operation of the Springfield Montessori School; and COPIES TO: Property Owner/Applicant Attachment 4 File ~ •. .~, ~~ ,~~ e) Resolution (Attachment 5) recommending that the City Council approve a Development Agreement between the City of Dublin and VSS Holdings, Inc. for a portion of the Project Site with the Development Agreement attached as Exhibit A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Applicant is requesting approval of a Planned Development Rezone with associated Stage 2 Development Plan; Site Development Review; Conditional Use Permit; a Development Agreement; and an addendum to the environmental review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to allow the construction of a 16,002 square-foot daycare building with playground and related improvements, and the operation of a daycare on the Site. The Daycare will enroll up to 180 children, ages 2-6 years, and will operate Monday through Friday from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. The facility operates mainly as a daycare and also includes a kindergarten program with before and afterschool care. The vacant Site is bordered by the Eleanor Murray Fallon Middle School to the north, a residential development to the west, vacant land designated for Public/Semi-Public uses to the south and a residential development under construction to the east. The subject property is 2.57 acres in size and is designated as Public/Semi-Public in the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan which allows community serving uses including daycare. The location of the property is shown on the map below. Ao nn 7 of 4 ~a ~ 1~. BACKGROUND: Dublin Ranch is located within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area that has been annexed to the City of Dublin. The Project Site is located within a portion of Area F of Dublin Ranch which was annexed as a part of Dublin Ranch and also pre-zoned to conform to the land use designations in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. On March 21, 2000, the City Council adopted an Ordinance (Ord. 6-00) rezoning the subject property to Planned Development with an associated Stage 1 Development Plan. The subject property was designated for a High School at that time. The City Council also approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration (Resolution 34-00) which reviewed the impacts associated with the rezoning. On March 16, 2004, the City Council approved an amendment to the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to change the land use designation of the subject property from High School to Public/Semi- Public. At that time, the City Council also adopted a revised Stage 1 Development Plan for Area F including this property (Ord. 12-04). The City Council adopted a CEQA Addendum (Resolution 43-04) which reviewed the environmental impacts related to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments and the rezoning. ANALYSIS: Stage 2 Planned Development Rezone Chapter 8.32 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance establishes the intent, purpose and requirements of the Planned Development District. The intent of the Planned Development District is to create a more desirable use of the land, a more coherent and coordinated development, and a better physical environment than would otherwise be achieved under a single zoning district or combination of zoning districts. The Zoning Ordinance requires the adoption of both Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans, which establishes regulations for the use, development, improvement and maintenance of the property within the Planned Development Zoning District. The Project Site is zoned PD, Planned Development, with a Stage 1 Development Plan. The Applicant is requesting approval of a Stage 2 Development Plan for the specific development of the subject Site at this time. The Development Plan allows for the construction of a daycare building, playground, parking lot and related improvements on the Site (which are discussed in further detail in the Site Development Review section starting on page 4 of this Agenda Statement). A Resolution recommending the City Council approve the Stage 2 Planned Development Rezone is included as Attachment 2. The Stage 2 Planned Development District regulations, applicable to this Project Site only, are included as Exhibit A to Attachment 2. Site Development Review The Applicant has proposed to construct a Montessori School on a vacant parcel. The Project includes one 16,002 square-foot daycare building, parking lot, playground, landscaping and related improvements. The facility will provide services for up to 180 children, aged 2-6 years as further discussed below in the Conditional Use Permit section of this Staff Report. Project Plans can be found in Exhibit A of Attachment 3 of this Staff Report. Dino 2 .,~ 4 Site Plan ~~ ,~~ The proposed one-story building will be 16,002 square feet in size. The building is located on a 2.57-acre parcel and, once constructed, will have a floor area ratio of .14. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan allows for a maximum Floor Area Ratio of .50 for properties with the Public/Semi-Public land use designation. Access to the Site will be provided on Brannigan Street. An existing sidewalk is located adjacent to Brannigan Street which provides pedestrian access to the Site. A pedestrian walkway will provide access from the sidewalk, through the parking lot, and to the front entrance. Architecture The proposed building has a Mediterranean architectural style to complement the predominant architecture style of the houses in the vicinity. Due to the siting of the building in relationship to the adjacent street and properties, only the Front Elevation and the Right Elevation will be visible from the street. The entrance area at the front of the building has been designed to provide a unique focal point to the building. The entryway features varying roof heights, windows, a steel awning and accent materials. The design of the entryway breaks up the massing of the building and promotes visual interest of the Site. Visual interest of the building is also promoted through the use of several accent features. Attractive light fixtures will be installed on the sides of the building and wall sconces will be located on either side of the front doors. Two decorative slate details will also be provided on the walls. These materials will match the slate the located on the entryway. Four canvas awnings will be located on the front elevation above the large windows. The building will be constructed with dark tan stucco..Accent materials are provided which include a slate the accent band at the top of the entrance, precast concrete base with a sand color on the bottom of the building and a dark tan accent color at various points throughout the building. The right side of the building will also have a slate the trim at the top and concrete base at the bottom. This elevation will also have an arcade (covered walkway) to provide additional visual interest of the building. Although this Elevation will be partially visible from the street, views will be limited due to the siting of the building. Playground A small playground will be located at the rear of the building. The playground will be used by the school only and will be enclosed by an 8-foot tall wrought iron fence. The playground will include passive recreation areas as well as a sport court, play structure and swings. The swings and play structure will be located adjacent to the northern property line and the parking lot for the Middle School. The playground will be located a minimum of 100 feet from the adjacent residential dwellings to the west. Noise impacts to the adjacent residential dwellings associated with the playground will be minimal due to the distance between the dwellings and the playground and because no more than 24 .children will be located outside in the playground at a time (please refer to the Conditions of Approval for the Conditional Use Permit in Attachment 4 and the Applicant's Written Statement included as Attachment 6). Parking 9y ~' 145 Section 8.76.080.D of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance requires daycare facilities to provide one parking space for each employee and one loading space for every 5 children at the facility. As previously discussed, the facility will serve up to 180 children and will have a maximum of 15 employees on-site at one time. Based on this requirement, the Site is required to provide a total of 51 parking spaces (15 employee spaces + 180 students/5 spaces = 51 parking spaces). The Applicant is proposing to provide a total of 52 parking spaces, including one space that will be designated for loading, which will exceed the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance by one stall. Landscaping The Applicant is proposing to install a variety of trees, shrubs and groundcover on the Site. A total of 51,994 square feet of the Site will be planted with plant materials (this figure excludes concrete work, the parking lot and playground area). Approximately 46% of the Site will be landscaped and the landscape areas are distributed throughout the Site to break up the expanse of the parking lot and provide a buffer between the adjacent uses and street and the built environment on the Site. The Zoning Ordinance (Section 8.76.070.A.12) requires one tree for every four parking spaces. A total of 14 trees will be planted in and around the parking lot which exceeds the requirement of the Zoning Ordinance. As proposed, the parking lot will have a mixture of trees and groundcover throughout. Trees and shrubs will also be planted around the parking lot to provide a buffer between the street and the parking lot. The Applicant will also be responsible for planting the parkway strip between the street and the sidewalk. The parkway will be planted with the Aristocrat Pear tree, consistent with the street trees in Dublin Ranch. Groundcover and shrubs will also be planted in the parkway consistent with other parkways in Dublin Ranch. On the west side of the property, the sloped area that will remain will be planted with a variety of shrubs and will also be hydroseeded. Please refer to Attachment 3 of this Staff Report for the Resolution approving the Site Development Review. Conditional Use Permit The adopted Stage 1 Planned Development states that a daycare facility is a Conditional Use. Therefore, the Applicant has requested approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow for up to 180 children (ages 2- 6) to be served by the Daycare with a maximum of 15 employees on-site at one time. The facility will be comprised of the daycare building which will include offices, and staff related rooms, restrooms, a multipurpose room and nine classrooms (two toddler classrooms, six pre-school classrooms and one kindergarten classroom). The Daycare will operate-Monday through Friday from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. The school will offer 3-day, 4-day and 5-day enrollment options. The school also offers a morning session, an afternoon session and a full day session. The various ,enrollment options will result in a staggered pick-up and drop-off schedule so that children will come and go throughout the day, rather than all at once. The playground will be used by the daycare attendees. The daycare's recess schedule will allow for each classroom to have access to the playground fora 30-minute period. No more than 24 children will be in Paoa 5 of R ~5 ~ ~~ the playground at a time. The playground will be located a minimum of 100 feet from the adjacent residential dwellings to the west. Noise impacts to the adjacent residential dwellings associated with the playground will be minimal due to the distance between the dwellings and the playground and because no more than 24 children will be located outside in the playground at a time. Additional information regarding the programs offered and the school schedule can be found in the Applicant's written statement included as Attachment 6. The Springfield Montessori School will provide daycare for children ages 2-6 and will provide a necessary service to residents of Dublin. Conditions of Approval have been included in the Resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit (Attachment 4) to ensure that the daycare facility will not negatively impact the surrounding neighborhood. Development Agreement The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan requires aSite-specific Development Agreement in conjunction with all Site Development Review applications in Eastern Dublin. The Development Agreement (Exhibit A to Attachment 3) for this Project was prepared by the City Attorney with input from Staff, and is consistent with typical Development Agreements in Eastern Dublin. The proposed Development Agreement provides security to the developer that the City will not change the zoning and other laws applicable to the Project for a period of five years. The Development Agreement augments the City's standard development regulations, defines financial responsibilities of the developer, ensures the timely provision of adequate public facilities and provides terms for the developer to advance funds for specific facilities which have a community or area-wide benefit or for reimbursement from future development, as appropriate. Development Agreements are approved by the City Council. A Resolution recommending the City Council approve the Development Agreement is included as Attachment 5 with the Development Agreement included as Exhibit A to Attachment 5. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15164 provides that an addendum to a previously certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) may be prepared when the Project requires a minor technical change to the EIR, there are no new significant environmental effects and no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. On May 10, 1993, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution No. 51-93, certifying an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (Eastern Dublin EIR, SCH #91103064). The certified EIR consisted of a Draft EIR and Responses to Comments bound volumes, as well as an Addendum dated May 4, 1993, assessing a reduced development project alternative. The City Council adopted Resolution No. 53-93 approving a General Plan Amendment and a Specific Plan for the reduced area alternative on May 10, 1993. On August 22, 1994, the City Council adopted a second Addendum updating wastewater disposal plans for Eastern Dublin. For identified impacts that could not be mitigated to a less than significant level, the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations. On February 15, 2000, the City Council adopted Resolution 34-00 approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Dublin Ranch Planning Area F. On March 16, 2004, the City Council adopted Resolution 43-04 approving a CEQA Addendum for Dublin Ranch Areas B/E/F. 9~ ~~.~ revi w the Site-s ecific environmental im acts associated with the Staff prepared an Imtial Study to e p p development of this Site as a daycare facility. The Initial Study determined that the development of this facility would not create any additional impacts beyond those identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR or the 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration. Therefore, an Addendum to the Eastern Dublin EIR was prepared to document these facts. Relevant Mitigation Measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR and the 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration continue to apply to this Project. A Resolution recommending that the City Council approve a CEQA Addendum for this Project is attached as Exhibit A to Attachment 1. CONCLUSION: The Applicant is proposing a daycare facility that combines architecture and extensive landscaping to provide for an attractive use for the community. The proposed Springfield Montessori School will provide aPublic/Semi-Public use for the Site which will meet the intent of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to promote the establishment of Public/Semi-Public uses in the City. As conditioned, the school will not significantly impact the surrounding neighborhood. 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 the following Resolutions: a) Resolution (Attachment 1) recommending that the City Council adopt a CEQA Addendum for a Stage 2 Planned Development Rezone and Site Development Review for the Springfield Montessori School with the Addendum attached as Exhibit A; b) Resolution (Attachment 2) recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance approving a PD Planned Development Rezone and related Stage 2 Development Plan with the Draft Ordinance attached as Exhibit A; c) Resolution (Attachment 3) approving the Site Development Review for the Springfield Montessori School with the Project Plans attached as Exhibit A; d) Resolution (Attachment 4) approving a Conditional Use Permit to allow operation of the Springfield Montessori School; and e) Resolution (Attachment 5) recommending that the City Council approve a Development Agreement between the City of Dublin and VSS Holdings, Inc. for a portion of the Project Site with the Development Agreement attached as Exhibit A. D~.,ro 7 .,F 4 GENERAL INFORMATION: APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: Rajan Lal, VSS Holdings Inc 746 Miner Road Orinda CA 94563 LOCATION: Corner of Kohnen Way and Brannigan Street ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER: 985-0052-022 and 985-0052-023 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Public/Semi-Public SPECIFIC PLAN AREA: Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EXISTING ZONING AND LAND USE: Planned Development SURROUNDING USES: 9~ ~ ins Location Zoning General Plan Land Use Current Use of Pro e Site PD- Planned Public/Semi Public Vacant Development North PD- Planned School Eleanor Murray Fallon Development Middle School South PD- Planned Public/Semi Public Vacant Development East PD- Planned Medium Density Development under Develo ment Residential construction West PD- Planned Medium Density Residential dwellings Development Residential r__._ n _rn ins DRAFT ~ FT On a motion by Cm. Brown and seconded by Cm. King, on a vote of 4-0-1, with Cm. Schaub absent, the Planning Commission approved: RESOLUTION N0.09-OS A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO RELOCATE THE EXISTING ADMINISTRATION MODULAR BUILDING AND ALLOW THE EXISTING MODULAR CLASSROOM AND ADMINISTRATION BUILDINGS TO REMAIN ON THE SITE FOR AN ADDITIONAL TEN YEARS AT THE VALLEY CHRISTIAN CENTER LOCATED AT 7500 INSPIRATION DRIVE PA 09-004 8.2 PA 08-038 Springfield Montessori School (Legislative and Adjudicatory Action) - CEQA Addendum, Stage 2 Planned Development Rezone, Development Agreement, Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit to construct a 16,002 square foot building and related site improvements. Erica Fraser, Senior Planner presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. During her presentation Ms. Fraser showed a materials board to the Planning Commission. Cm. King asked if the shrubs installed on the open space will help to minimize sound from the school. Ms. Fraser answered that there would not be a sound savings from the shrubs but the 100 foot distance is actually what will create the sound buffer and the fact that the school is situated lower than the adjacent houses. Chair Wehrenberg suggested going through each resolution one at a time to avoid confusion. Cm. King asked how the number of parking spaces for the project was calculated. Ms. Fraser answered that the Zoning Ordinance requires one spot for each employee. The Ordinance also requires one spot for every five children, with a maximum of 180 children at the school and 15 employees that would come to 51 spaces. Cm. King asked where the ratio of one parking space for every five children comes from. Mr. Baker answered that is a requirement of the Zoning Code. Cm. King felt there was a difference between the theory of the ratio and the reality of the situation. Ms. Fraser stated that the 1-5 ratio is standard for most cities. She felt that the ratio could have come from the Institute for Traffic Engineers (ITE) which is where a lot of the parking requirements have come from. Planning Commission ~'e6ruary 24, 2009 1~gufar~Yfeeting 49 Attarhmpnt S DRAFT ~~ ~ l~5 DRA T Chair Wehrenberg felt the drop-off and pick-up times being staggered are a benefit. Ms. Fraser agreed and stated that the children arrive at different times of the day. Chair Wehrenberg noticed that the parking summary on the plans shows 53 parking spaces and asked if the parking numbers had changed. Ms. Fraser answered that if the number of parking spaces are counted on the plans, there are 51. Cm. Brown asked if a notice was sent out for this public hearing and when it was sent. Mr. Baker answered that a notice was sent to everyone within a 300 foot radius 10 days before the meeting and also published in the newspaper. Chair Wehrenberg asked how much grading would be taking place on the site. Ms. Fraser stated they must do some grading to accommodate the pad, the parking lot and the playground. Mr. Baker mentioned that the "Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan" which is page 3 of Exhibit A to Attachment 3 shows the quantity of earth that will be moved. Cm. Brown mentioned a reference in the Exhibit A to Attachment 1, Addendum to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR under Section IX. Hydrology and Water Quality and was concerned that the reference is from 2003, with the additional development done in the area, asked if this information is still accurate. Ms. Fraser answered yes because the environmental review that was conducted with the Eastern Dublin Environmental Information Report (EDEIR), which is the first one, the 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration and then the CEQA Addendum in 2004, all anticipated that the sites will be developed over time. Studies were done to look at what the effects would be if everything was built together or separately. She stated that when Staff reviewed this project it was determined that the development of this site has always been anticipated and the development of the site with the Public/Semi-Public facility has been anticipated since 2004. Cm. Brown mentioned Item #15, Transportation and Traffic on Page 20, Item A & C where the reference was dated 1999 and he was very concerned with the relevancy of that reference. Chair Wehrenberg stated that in 2000 a high school was proposed to be built on that site and then in 2004 the site was changed to Public/Semi Public zoning and it was found that the traffic impact would be less with a day care. Ms. Fraser stated that the checklist is actually a summary and in order to understand it you need to refer to the explanation to see why a box is checked that states "no impact or less than significant impact." She stated that the site was designated as a high school and traffic studies were done anticipating that a high school would be at this location. She continued that traffic studies assumed, with every project that had a traffic study done, that a high school would be built at that location, up until 2004 when the zoning was changed to Public/Semi Public. She 2'lanning Commission rFe6nutry 24, 2009 ~guCar Meeting 50 DRAFT ~ >F~ 5 stated Cm. Brown s concern was addressed in 2004 and because it was done then, subsequent traffic studies have then said that there would be a daycare facility at this site and it has been accounted for in this project as well as other projects. Cm. Brown stated that there is only mention of the "main roads" on page 46 but does not list Brannigan and Kohnen Way, or the intersection of Gleason and Grafton. He stated he visited the site when students were being dropped off and picked up at Fallon Middle School and felt it was very congested. He continued that based on his observation he doubted that the traffic study was accurate for the area of Brannigan and Kohnen Way. Mr. Baker stated that the drop off and pick up for the project will vary throughout the day and will be slightly different from the school directly to the north of the project. He stated that this project will have less of an impact than a high school combined with the fact that it is metered throughout the day because of their staggered class schedules. Cm. Brown noted that the day starts at 9:00 a.m. and 12 noon and lets out at 3:00 p.m. then again at 6:00 p.m. which would not conflict with the middle school. He felt the morning and noon times and possibly afternoon could be a conflict. Cm. King asked what time of day Cm. Brown had visited the site. Cm. Brown answered approximately 2:30p.m. which is the time the school gets out. Chair Wehrenberg asked if the two particular streets, Brannigan and Kohnen Ways, were identified in the traffic report. Ms. Fraser answered she would have to refer to the 2000 traffic report but it should have assumed that at key intersections identified in Eastern Dublin and would have indicated the existing level of service as well as the proposed level of service. She continued that the traffic study done in 2004 indicated that the daycare facility would have much less of a traffic impact than a high school. She continued that a traffic study doesn't look at how many cars are on the street at one time; it looks at key intersections, key times and things of that nature. She then asked if Cm. Brown was asking if the traffic study showed how many cars were anticipated to be on the street at any one time. Cm. Brown answered he was looking for something that indicated the traffic is mitigated in that area. He stated that if there was an emergency the response could be difficult with the traffic he had witnessed. Chair Wehrenberg asked if the plan allows enough street width to accommodate emergency response. Ms. Fraser stated that the fire and police departments have reviewed the project and did not find any problems with emergency response and any concerns that they had were incorporated into the Conditions of Approval. Planning Commission ~F'e6ruary 24, 2009 ~gular Meeting 51 DRAFT f DrR~I' /~~ Cm. King asked Cm. Brown if he felt there was enough room for a fire truck to go past on the street. Cm. Brown answered yes; they could find a way to get around. Mr. Baker added that the traffic model anticipates what the development potential is and then runs it through a computer generated model that assesses impacts at the different intersections and functionality of the streets. He continued it is then reviewed by the City to ensure that the infrastructure is in place to support the uses. He stated the street design was reviewed in conjunction with a traffic study by Public Works to develop the streets to support the uses that are present. He continued that, based on the City standards, there is enough capacity to support the school as well as the public/semi public uses on this site. He stated the project was also reviewed by Fire, Police, Public Works and Planning to ensure the required level of services and determined that there is enough capacity to support the use and provide the emergency response needed. Chair Wehrenberg felt it was good that no high school was being built and that the site was rezoned as Public/Semi Public if only to reduce the traffic impact in the area. Cm. King stated that there is a difference between assumptions and reality. He felt that if this site was originally planned for a high school and there are currently no structures being built and there is gridlock at the intersection, he felt that the planning for a high school would have been a disaster and it is just a matter of luck that traffic is being reduced. He stated that he has not visited the site but is concerned and will a make trip there. He felt that if when Cm. Brown visited the site at 2:30 p.m. and it was gridlock, this alarmed him. He stated that when some agency has "determined" a level of service, he could not accept that as very authoritative and when they say that it is an "acceptable level of service" he asks the question, "to whom is it acceptable?" is it the planners or the citizens who must drive the streets. Chair Wehrenberg stated that there will be a traffic impact in almost any neighborhood where a school is located. She felt that school events and the drop off and pick-up it periods become a problem with lack of street parking, etc., but it is a fact of life because the residents need schools. Cm. King felt that traffic was an inevitable consequence of having schools in the City and suggested it is an acceptable and an unavoidable consequence. Chair Wehrenberg stated she was at the site at 5:00 p.m. and there was very little traffic. Cm. Swalwell asked if there will be crosswalk and crossing guards in order to address students' safety. Ms. Fraser stated there is no intersection at the site therefore there would not be a crosswalk installed. Cm. Swalwell asked if the parents would park across the street and wait for their children. 2'lanning commission ~Fe6ruury 24, 2009 ~gular Meeting 52 DRAFT ` - v~~ /~~ Ms. Fraser stated that parents should park on the site, but if they walk onto the site, they should follow all traffic laws. Chair Wehrenberg asked if all the sidewalk improvements are completed. Ms. Fraser stated that there are sidewalks in place down Brannigan to Gleason. Mr. Baker stated that the parents are required to walk their children into the facility so there wori t be young children walking alone. He continued that there is pedestrian access from the sidewalk to the front door so they don't have to walk through the parking lot or the drive aisle to get to the school. Cm. Swalwell mentioned that Cm. Schaub (who was absent from the meeting) was concerned with whether, now that construction costs are becoming lower, if the Applicant considered something other than a stucco roof. He felt the homes in the area do not have stucco roofs and it would be easier for the neighbors if there was more of a facade to the building. Cm. Swalwell had agreed to pass Cm. Schaub's concerns on to the Planning Commission. Cm. Swalwell stated he had no problem with the current architecture of the project. Cm. King asked if the roof line is visible from Tassaraja Road. Mr. Baker answered no. Chair Wehrenberg mentioned that she visited the site to look at the topography and found that the houses are on a high elevation and the school is on a lower elevation and is not visible and only two sides of the building are visible from the street. Chair Wehrenberg opened the public hearing. Chair Wehrenberg asked if the Applicant was planning an expansion in the future to include older children. Shashi Lal, Director of Springfield Montessori spoke in favor of the project. She stated that the school will follow the Walnut Creek model which is extremely successful. She listed the drop- off and pick-up times and stated there have been no problems. She stated that there is no expansion planned; the school will stay at the kindergarten level. Cm. Brown asked if the capacity of 180 students will be achieved in the first 3 or 5 years. Ms. Lal answered that the 180 students is the maximum enrollment for the school but did not feel they will have that many when the school first opens. She continued that it's taken the Walnut Creek school three years to reach maximum capacity. She stated that their school must come under the category of daycare because they are governed by the State of California licensing department under Title 22, but she felt that Montessori is more than a day care. Chair Wehrenberg asked how soon they anticipated starting the project once it is approved. ~PCanning Commission ~'e6ruary 24, 2009 ~gularMeeting 53 I ~y.5 DRAFT Ms. Lal answered, if approved, they hoped to obtain permits by April and open the school y 2010. Cm. King asked if any of their pick-up times would be at 2:00 or 2:30 p.m. Ms. Lal stated that the classes continue until 3:00 p.m. and most of the children that stay until 3:00 p.m. also stay for extended care unti14:00 p.m. She stated there is plenty of parking at the school and the parents would be driving into school with a good turn around area and not much traffic in front of school. Cm. King asked if she knew when the local public school gets out. Ms. Lal stated she was not familiar with the Dublin School District but thought it would be approximately 2:30-2:45 sometimes earlier. Cm. Brown asked, based on the Walnut Creek school, what is the estimate of the size of kindergarten class in relations to other grades. Ms. Lal stated there is only one kindergarten class of 26. Cm. Swalwell asked if at this time or any time in the future will the school offer apick-up service. Ms. Lal answered that there are no company vehicles and they would not be offering apick-up service. Chair Wehrenberg asked if the parents drive for field trips. Ms. Lal answered that there are very few field trips but it there were some the parents would drive the children. Rajan Lal, Project Manager, spoke in favor of the project. Chair Wehrenberg closed the public hearing. Chair Wehrenberg suggested going through each resolution one at a time with questions or discussions. #1 CEQA Addendum -There were no issues or discussion. #2 PD Planned Development to Rezone and Stage 2 Development Plan -There were no issues or discussion. #3 SDR Cm. King asked if the City has a policy on solar energy in construction. Planning Commission ~F'e6ruary 24, 2009 ~gular Meeting 54 DRAFT DRAF tiLf l~/5~ Chair Wehrenberg stated that there are ordinances and in our Design Guidelines green buildi g is recommended but there is no policy that the developers must adhere to. Mr. Baker answered that the City does not currently have a requirement for solar energy. Cm. Brown asked what type of landscaping would be placed in the 100 feet area between the school and the property line. Ms. Fraser answered there would be non-irrigated hydroseed with shrubs that would be closer to the playground fence that runs down from the top to bottom of the property. Cm. Brown asked if there were plans for trees on the west side. Ms. Fraser answered no, the area slopes down so you would not necessarily want a tree in that area. Mr. Baker stated that the homes are situated higher than the school and the playground area with large shrubs planted at the base and natural grass leading up the hill towards the homes. Cm. Brown asked if there is an easement of some kind on the south side of property. Ms. Fraser answered there is an access easement for the public/ semi public property below the project. Cm. Brown asked if there is a requirement to keep the vegetation at a minimum in the easement area. Ms. Fraser answered that the Applicant will be responsible for maintaining the landscaping on their property. The plans only show the location of the easement. She continued that when the property to the south is developed, because of the easement, there is the potential for cross access which would be reviewed at that time. Cm. Swalwell was concerned about the safety of children 2-6 years old riding bikes to the school and who would utilize the bike rack. Chair Wehrenberg answered that the bike rack could be for the parents and/or employees. Chair Wehrenberg stated she had no issues with the project. She felt it meets the intent of the Specific Plan and the economic benefits of having a day care center on the eastern side of the City is good for those neighborhoods. She felt the traffic impact would be minimal; the building, massing and color elevations were good, and felt there was a good ratio of landscaping compared to the building. She also felt that the project blends well with the adjacent properties. She stated she heard what Cm. Schaub had to say regarding the roofline but felt the elevations were fine and the developer would have to completely redesign the project to accommodate his suggestions. Cm. Brown asked if there had ever been a request for the Dublin School District to give an analysis of how having a private kindergarten in the City will reduced their per student funding. He felt that this kindergarten would take students out of public schools and reduce the revenue. He was concerned that the public did not know that. 4°lanning Commission rF'e6ruary 24, 2009 ~gular ~Yfeeting $ $ I aSIt~S DRAFT D T Chair Wehrenberg stated that all residents within 300 feet of the project, which would include the adjacent school, were notified of this public hearing. Mr. Baker added that as a Planning Commission they review land use related issues and being able to make the findings for approval of a project. He continued that a private school is a permitted use at this site with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit, therefore the Commission should be looking at the appropriateness of this facility at this location and the impact on the Dublin School District would be outside those land use decisions. Chair Wehrenberg agreed. Cm. King stated that he has a broader view of the range of discretion for the Planning Commission. He felt that the economic impact on the community is something the Planning Commission should take into consideration. He stated that he has no sympathy for the public schools. He continued that he has resided on the west side of Dublin for 15 years and approximately half of the school age children in that area go to private schools. He felt the Dublin Public School District has not made any effort to find out how many children and why they are in private schools and not public schools. He felt the Dublin School District is not concerned with the students that attend private schools and that the public schools are stuck in mediocrity and did not feel there was a way to correct that. He appreciated the idea of considering what impacts this kindergarten will have on neighboring community resources, businesses, etc. He felt that when the Dublin School District shows interest in this subject that is when he will show interest in it. He stated he would like to see all the children in public kindergarten taken out and sent to private kindergartens such as Montessori School or some other private schools. Cm. Swalwell felt that this project fits a need in Dublin, especially in the east and the Applicant has worked well with Staff and commended Ms. Fraser on her presentation and her work on the Staff Report and Conditions of Approval. He stated he has no issues with any of the resolutions. Cm. King stated that when he expresses concerns with formulas and assumptions made regarding traffic, he is not questioning Staff, and understands there are formulas that must be used to make their recommendations. He referred to the CEQA Addendum for Springfield Montessori (Exhibit A to Attachment 1) paragraph b) "Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a LOS standard established by the County CMA for designated roads? LS) "Nearby intersections can be mitigated to Level of Service D or better, which exceeds the minimum Level of Service E established by the Alameda Count~gestion Management Agency." He continued that he would like to question the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency and ascertain how they decided that they are willing to accept a level of service that many of the Dublin citizens do not believe is an adequate level. He stated he would like to know what their assumptions are, how reality based their formulas are, etc. He continued that he would like to make it clear that he feels that the informational resources available to the City are out of whack with reality but he acknowledges that, in order to do any planning, certain assumptions must be accepted. He stated that based on the remarks from the Applicant and Staff he is now satisfied that the intersection will be survivable. 4'lanning commission ~Fedruary 24, 2009 ~gularMeeting 56 DRAFT DRAFT ~~ ~ ~ I~~~ Chair Wehrenberg responded that she is familiar with traffic reports in her business and felt there are multiple things that "Level of Service" accomplishes and suggested having the City Engineer speak to the Planning Commission for a greater understanding of "Level of Service" designations. The Planning Commission agreed. Cm. Brown stated that based on the Applicant's information regarding pick up times, etc. his concern regarding traffic is lessened. On a motion by Cm. Swalwell and seconded by Cm. King, on a vote of 4-0-1, Cm. Schaub absent, the Planning Commission approved the following resolutions: RESOLUTION N0.09 - 06 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A CEQA ADDENDUM FOR A STAGE 2 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR THE SPRINGFIELD MONTESSORI SCHOOL LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF KOHNEN WAY AND BRANNIGAN STREET IN AREA F OF DUBLIN RANCH (APN 985-0052-022 AND 985-0052-023) PA 08-038 RESOLUTION N0.09-09 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A PD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE AND APPROVE A STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE SPRINGFIELD MONTESSORI SCHOOL LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF KOHNEN WAY AND BRANNIGAN STREET IN AREA F OF DUBLIN RANCH (APN 985-0052-022 AND 985-0052-023) PA 08-038 RESOLUTION N0.09-10 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR THE SPRINGFIELD MONTESSORI SCHOOL LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF KOHNEN WAY AND BRANNIGAN STREET IN AREA F OF DUBLIN RANCH (APN 985-0052-022 AND 985-0052-023) ~'lanning Commission ~Fe6ruary 24, 2009 ~guCar Meeting 57 DRAFT DRAFT PA 08-038 '~~ ~ 1 ~S RESOLUOTION NO. 09-07 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR THE OPERATION OF THE SPRINGFIELD MONTESSORI SCHOOL LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF KOHNEN WAY AND BRANNIGAN STREET IN AREA FOF DUBLIN RANCH (APN 985-0052-022 AND 985-0052-023) PA 08-038 RESOLUTION NO.09-08 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE SPRINGFIELD MONTESSORI SCHOOL LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF KOHNEN WAY AND BRANNIGAN STREET IN AREA FOF DUBLIN RANCH (APN 985-0052-022 AND 985-0052-023) PA 08-038 NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS -NONE OTHER BUSINESS -NONE 10.1 Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from the Planning Commission and/ or Staff, including Committee Reports and Reports by the Planning Commission related to meetings attended at City Expense (AB 1234). 10.2 Mr. Baker gave an update to the PC: Requests for Proposals from consultants to prepare the Specific Plan and EIR for Camp Parks, Dublin Crossings project has been released. As part of the RFP process interviews will take place for the top ranking consultants. There will be City Councilmember Hildenbrand, various Staff members and one Planning Commissioner on the interview panel. He asked the Commission to select one of their members to serve on the panel. He gave an overview of what would be involved in serving on the panel and the timeline. Cm. Brown was concerned with how much involvement he can have with this project due to his background with Camp Parks. Mr. Baker agreed to speak with the City Attorney on his behalf. Chair Wehrenberg expressed Planning Commission ~'e6ruary 24, 2009 2~gular.`~Yfeeting $ $ l o~ ~ ly5 RESOLUTION NO. 09 - 06 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A CEQA ADDENDUM FOR A STAGE 2 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR THE SPRINGFIELD MONTESSORI SCHOOL LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF KOHNEN WAY AND BRANNIGAN STREET IN AREA F OF DUBLIN RANCH (APN 985-0052-022 AND 985-0052-023) PA 08-038 WHEREAS, the Applicant, VSS Holdings LLC, has requested a Stage 2 Planned Development Rezone, Development Agreement, Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit for the Springfield Montessori School located in a portion of Dublin Ranch Planning Area F, which applications are on file in the Planning Division. These applications are collectively referred to herein as "the Project" or "Springfield Montessori School"; and WHEREAS, Springfield Montessori School consists of approximately 2.57 acres encompassing a portion of Dublin Ranch Planning Area F located. at the corner of Kohnen Way and Brannigan Street, in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area; and WHEREAS, the City Council previously adopted an Ordinance approving a Stage 1 Development Plan on April 6, 2004 for Dublin Ranch Planning Area F (Ordinance No. 12-04, incorporatedherein by reference); and WHEREAS, the Project is within the General Plan Eastern Extended Planning Area and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, for which a Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was certified pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by the City Council by Resolution No. 51- 93 and the Addenda dated May 4, 1993 and August 22, 1994 (the "Eastern Dublin EIR") (SCH 91103064). The Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant unavoidable impacts from development of the Eastern Dublin area, some of which would apply to the Project; and WHEREAS, the Project area is located. in a portion of Dublin Ranch Planning Area F for which the City Council previously approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration on February 15, 2000, entitled and hereinafter referred to as the "2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration" (Resolution No. 34-00 incorporated herein by reference) and a CEQA Addendum for Areas B/E/F on March 16, 2004, entitled and hereinafter referred to as the "2004 CEQA Addendum" (Resolution No. 43-04 incorporated herein by reference); and WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study to determine if additional review of the current Project was required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15162. The Initial Study, dated January 2009, is attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. Based on the Initial Study, the City prepared an Addendum dated January 2009 (attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference) describing minor changes from the previous approvals and finding that the impacts of the current Project have been adequately addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration and the 2004 CEQA Addendum, all of which documents are incorporated herein by reference; and -1- Attachment 6 fn9~ ~y5 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a properly noticed public hearing on the Project on February 24, 2009; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report dated February 24, 2009 was submitted to the Planning Commission analyzing the Project and recommending approval of the CEQA Addendum and applications; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Addendum, along with the previous EIR, Mitigated Negative Declaration and Addendum, before making a recommendation on the Project. The Planning Commission further used its independent judgment and considered all reports, recommendations and testimony before taking action on the Project. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the CEQA Addendum, attached hereto as Exhibit A, for the Springfield Montessori School pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 24`h day of February 2009 by the following vote: AYES: Wehrenberg, .Ding, Brown, Swalwell NOES: ABSENT: Schaub. ABSTAIN: Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Planning Manager G: IPA#120081PA 08-038 Sprin~eld Montessori Schoo[IPHICEQA addendum Reso.DOC -2- IIo~I~rS RESOLUTION NO. 09-07 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR THE OPERATION OF THE SPRINGFIELD MONTESSORI SCHOOL LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF KOHNEN WAY AND BRANNIGAN STREET IN AREA FOF DUBLIN RANCH (APN 985-0052-022 AND 985-0052-023) PA 08-038 WHEREAS, the Applicant, VSS Holdings LLC, has requested a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the operation of the Springfield Montessori School (APN 985-0052-022 and 985-0052-023; and WHEREAS, the proposal includes the establishment of a daycare facility with a maximum enrollment of 180 children; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with State guidelines and City environmental regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the CEQA, Staff has recommended that an Addendum be prepared to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area Program Environmental Impact Report (the "Eastern Dublin EIR"), which was certified by the City Council by Resolution No. 51-93; and WHEREAS, the City Council previously approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration by Resolution No. 34-00 (entitled and hereinafter referred to as the "2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration") and a CEQA Addendum for Areas B/E/F by Resolution 43-04 (entitled and hereinafter referred to as the "2004 CEQA Addendum"); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on February 24, 2009; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required bylaw; and WHEREAS, the Staff Report dated February 24, 2009 was submitted recommending that the Planning Commission approve the application for a Conditional Use Permit to operate the Springfield Montessori School; 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 make a decision. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Dublin Planning Commission does hereby find that: A. The proposed Montessori School is compatible with other land uses, transportation and service facilities in the vicinity because: 1) the proposed daycare facility is a Public/Semi- Public use located on a site which is adjacent to land designated for Public/Semi-Public ATTACHMENT 7 i t l ~ lti5 uses; 2) the daycare facility will be located adjacent to an existing middle school; 3) the proposed facility will provide a service to the residents of Dublin as well as employees within the City; and 4) a daycare facility is a conditional use in the Stage 1 Planned Development for Dublin Ranch Area F, in which this Project is located. B. The proposed Montessori School 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 because: 1) the proposed facility will comply with all City of Dublin regulations; and 2) as conditioned, the property owner and operator(s) of the facility will be required to minimize noise and nuisances to the adjacent properties. C. It will not be injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood because: 1) the facility will comply with all City of Dublin regulations; 2) Conditions of Approval have been placed on the Project to limit the hours of operation of the daycare; and 3) the Site has been designated for Public/Semi-Public uses in the City's General Plan and in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. 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, safety and .welfare because: 1) the Site has been designed to accommodate a daycare facility; 2) access to the Site will be taken off of Brannigan Street, a fully improved road; and 3) sidewalks have also been constructed to allow for pedestrian . access. E. The subject site is physically suitable for. the • type,'. density and intensity of the use and related structures being proposed because: 1) the daycare will be located on a site designed to accommodate this type of facility; 2) as conditioned, the facility will have no more than 180 children on-site at a time; 3) as conditioned, the facility will operate between the hours of 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Friday; and 4) the facility is located next to land designated for Public/Semi-Public uses and adjacent to a middle school as well as Residential uses. 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 because: 1) the proposed use is a Conditional Use in the Planned Development Zoning District in which it is located and is a permitted use when the required findings as stated in Section 8.100.060 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance can be made; and 2) the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan have designated this site for Public/Semi-Public uses and a daycare facility is considered to be a Public/Semi-Public use. G. It is consistent with the Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan because: 1) the proposed use is permitted with a Conditional Use Permit and meets the intentions of the Planned Development Zoning District in which it is located; 2) the Site will provide a needed service to the residents and employees in Dublin; and 3) the use of this Site is consistent with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designation of Public/Semi-Public. 2 Ilo2 ~ ly5 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin Planning Commission does hereby approve PA 08-038, Springfield Montessori School, Conditional Use Permit, to allow the operation of a daycare subject to the following Conditions of Approval: 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 review and approval by the City of Dublin. The following codes represent those departments/agencies responsible for monitoring compliance of the conditions of approval: [PL.] Planning, [B] Building, [PO] Police, [DSR] Dublin San Ramon Services District and [F] Alameda County Fire Department. NO CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN SOURCE AGENCY/ REQUIRED DEPART. PLANN ING CONDITIONS 1. Approval. This Conditional Use Permit approval for PL Ongoing Standard PA 08-038 is to allow a daycare (Springfield Montessori School). This approval shall generally conform to the Project Plans and Statements stamped approved, and received by the Planning Department on January 23, 2009. 2. Permit Expiration and Time Extension. Approved PL One year DMC use shall commence or demonstrate substantial from date of 8.96.020. progress toward commencement within one (1) year of approval D and E CUP approval: Otherwise, the CUP shall lapse and become null and void, in which case a new application must be made and processed. The original approving decision-maker may grant a time extension for a period no longer than six (6) months provided that the Applicant submits a written request for an extension of approval prior to expiration and that any Conditions of Approval remain adequate to assure that applicable findings of approval will continue to be met. Disputes over permit expiration and time extension requests may be publicly noticed and heard before the City Council. 3. Approval Period. This Conditional Use Permit PL On-going Planning approval shall be null and void in the event the construction does not commence within one year or the approved use fails to be established within one year, or ceases to operate for a continuous one-year eriod. 4. Effective Date. This Conditional Use Permit approval PL Approval of Planning is contingent upon the approval of the related Stage 2 Stage 2 and Planned Development Rezoning and Site Site Develo ment Review. If the Stage 2 Planned Development 3 I~ ~~ ~~.5 NO CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN SOURCE AGENCY/ REQUIRED DEPART. Development Rezoning and Site Development Review Review are not approved this Conditional Use Permit approval shall become null and void. 5. Annual Review. On an annual basis, this Conditional PL, PO On-going Planning Use Permit approval maybe subject to a review by the Planning Manager to determine compliance with the Conditions of A royal. 6. Revocation. This Permit shall be revocable for cause PL On-going DMC in accordance with Dublin Zoning Ordinance Section 8.96.020.I 8.96.020.I, Revocation. Any violation of the terms of the terms and conditions of this Permit maybe subject to the issuance of a citation. 7. Minor Amendments. Modifications or changes to PL On-Going DMC this Conditional Use Permit approval may be 8.100.080 considered and approved by the Community Development Director, if the modifications or changes proposed comply with Section 8.100.080, of the Zoning Ordinance. 8. Site Development Review. The Applicant ~ and/or PL On-going DMC 5.64 Property Owner shall also comply with all Conditions of Approval associated with the Site Development review (PA 08-038) for the building and related im rovements. 9. Licensing. The Applicant and all future owners of the PL On-going• Planning daycare shall be licensed and comply with all State of • California Community Care Licensing (CCL) re uirements. 10. Noise/Nuisance. The Applicant shall control all PL On-going DMC activities and noise in the parking lot and playground 5.28.020 so as not to create a nuisance to the surrounding residential development. No loudspeakers or amplified music shall be laced outside the building. 11. Enrollment. The daycare shall have a maximum PL On-going Planning enrollment of 180 children. 12. Playground. The maximum number of children that can be located outside in the playground area shall be no more than 24 children at any one time. 13. Hours of Operation. Hours of operation for the PL On-going Planning daycare shall be 7:00 a.m. through 6:00 p.m., Monday throu Friday. 14. Compliance. Failure to comply with these Conditions PL On-going Chapter may result in enforcement by the Community 8.144 of Development Department in accordance with Chapter the Dublin 8.144 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Zoning Ordinance ll~t ~' i~5 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of February 2009 by the following vote: AYES: Wehrenberg, King, Brown, Swalwell NOES: ABSENT: Schaub ABSTAIN: Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Planning Manager G: IPA#120081PA 08-038 Sprin~eld Montessori SchaoIICUP draft COAs.doc -i5~ ~ u~ RESOLUTION NO. 09-08 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE SPRINGFIELD MONTESSORI SCHOOL LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF KOHNEN WAY AND BRANNIGAN STREET IN AREA FOF DUBLIN RANCH (APN 985-0052- 022 AND 985-0052-023) PA 08-038 WHEREAS, VSS Holdings LLC. has requested approval of a Development Agreement for a 16,002 square-foot daycare building, playground and related improvements (the "Project"), which is located within a portion of Area F of Dublin Ranch, at the corner of Kohnen Way and Brannigan Street; and WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan requires developers to enter into Development Agreements as a Condition of development; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Staff has recommended that the Planning Commission adopt an Addendum to the Eastern Dublin Environmental Impact Report (EIR) which requires a minor techrtical change to the EIR, but does not require a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines. The Project is within the .scope of the Final EIR for Eastern Dublin (SCH 91103064), which was certified by City Council Resolution No. 53-93 on May 10, 1993 and the Addenda dated May 4, 1993 and August 22, 1994. The Project is also consistent with the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Dublin Ranch Planning Area F (SCH 1999112040) adopted by Dublin City Council Resolution No. 34-00 on February 15, 2000 and the 2004 CEQA Addendum for Areas B/E/F adopted by Dublin City Council Resolution 43-04 on March 16, 2004. This Staff recommendation is based on a determination that there are no supplemental impacts that would require preparation of a Supplemental EIR; and WHEREAS, the Development Agreement is attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on the Project application on February 24, 2009; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, the Staff Report was submitted recommending that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the Development Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and use its independent judgment and considered all said reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Dublin Planning Commission does hereby make the following findings and determinations regarding said proposed Development Agreement: Said Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan in that: a) the ATTACHMENT 8 IIG o~ ly5 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan land use designation for the subject site is Public/Semi-Public and that the proposed daycare is consistent with the designation; b) the Project is consistent with the fiscal policies in relation to provision of infrastructure and public services of the City's Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan; and c) the Development Agreement sets forth the rules to which the Developer and City will be subject during the development process, as required by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and the Mitigation Monitoring Program of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. 2. Said Development Agreement is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for, the land use district in which the real property is located in that the Project approvals include a Stage 2 Planned Development Rezone, Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit. 3. Said Development Agreement is in conformity with public convenience, general welfare, and good land use practice in that the development, as proposed, will implement land use guidelines set forth in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan. 4. Said Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare in that the development will proceed in accordance with the Agreement and any Conditions of Approval for the Project. Said Development Agreement will .not adversely affect the orderly development of the property or the preservation of .property values. in that the development will be consistent with the City of Dublin Eastern Dublin Specific Plar~/General Plan. , NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin Planning Commission does hereby recommend- that the City Council approve the Development Agreement, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A, between the City of Dublin and VSS Holdings LLC. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of February 2009 by the following vote: AYES: Wehrenberg, King, Brown, Swalwell NOES: ABSENT: Schaub ABSTAIN: Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST: Planning Manager G: IPA#120081PA 08-038 Sprin~eld Montessori SchooIIPHIPC Reso DA.DOC 2 r IM~ lti5 RESOLUTION NO. 09-09 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A PD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE AND APPROVE A STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE SPRINGFIELD MONTESSORI SCHOOL LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF KOHNEN WAY AND BRANNIGAN STREET IN AREA F OF DUBLIN RANCH (APN 985-0052-022 AND 985-0052-023) PA 08-038 WHEREAS, the Applicant, VSS Holdings LLC, submitted applications fora 2.57-acre project area located within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area. The applications include approval of a PD Rezone with a Stage 2 Development Plan. The proposed project includes a building, playground and related site improvements, collectively referred to as the "Project"; and WHEREAS, the Project is located in a portion of Dublin Ranch Planning Area F at the corner of Kohen Way and Brannigan Street, and the property is currently vacant; and WHEREAS, on April, 2004, the City Council approved a PD Rezone and related Stage 1 Development Plan for Dublin Ranch Area F, Ordinance 12-04, incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has submitted a complete application which is available and on file in the Planning Division for a Stage Z Development Plan for the Project; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act, City and State Guidelines require projects to be reviewed to determine their impacts on the environment; and WHEREAS, the City has prepared an Addendum to the Eastern Dublin EIR for the Project; and WHEREAS, on February 24, 2009, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 09-XX recommending that the City Council adopt an Addendum to the Eastern Dublin EIR, which Resolution is incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report dated February 24, 2009 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Project, including the PD Rezone with related Stage 2 Development Plan actions; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the Staff Report and the Addendum at a duly noticed Public Hearing held on February 24, 2009 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did use its independent judgment and considered all said reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission, based on the findings in the attached draft Ordinance, recommends that the City Council approve the Ordinance attached as Attachment 9 ua ~ ins Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference, which ordinance approves a PD Rezone and adoption of a Stage 2 Development Plan for the Springfield Montessori School project (PA 08-038). PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 24th day of February 2009 by the following vote: AYES: Wehrenberg, King, Brown, Swalwell NOES: ABSENT: Schaub ABSTAIN: Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Planning Manager G.•IPA#120081PA OS-038 Sprin~eld Montessori SchoollPHIPCReso PD.DOC 2 119 ~ ivs RESOLUTION NO. 09-10 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR THE SPRINGFIELD MONTESSORI SCHOOL LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF KOHNEN WAY AND BRANNIGAN STREET IN AREA F OF DUBLIN RANCH (APN 985-0052-022 AND 985-0052-023) PA 08-038 WHEREAS, the Applicant, VSS Holdings LLC, has requested approval of a Site Development Review for the construction of the Springfield Montessori School with a 16,002 square-foot building, playground and related improvements on approximately +2.57 acres of land, located in a portion of Area F of Dublin Ranch, within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, at the corner of Kohnen Way and Brannigan Street; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has submitted a complete application for Site Development Review for the construction of a 16,002 square-foot building, playground and related improvements; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has submitted project plans for the requested entitlement prepared by PDF Designs Group received by the Planning Division on January 23, 2009 and enclosed as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with State guidelines and City environmental regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the CEQA, Staff has recommended the preparation of an Addendum to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area Program Environmental Impact Report (the "Eastern Dublin EIR"), which was certified by the City Council by Resolution No. 51-93; and WHEREAS, the City Council previously approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration by Resolution No. 34-00 (entitled and hereinafter referred to as the "2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration") and a CEQA Addendum for Areas B/E/F by Resolution No. 43-04 (entitled and hereinafter referred to as the "2004 CEQA Addendum"); and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted to the Planning Commission on February 24, 2009 recommending approval of said application; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on said application; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Dublin does hereby make the following findings and determinations regarding the proposed Site Development Review: Attachment 10 Sao ~~ 1~i5 A. The proposed Montessori School is consistent with the purposes of Chapter 8.104, Site Development Review, of the Zoning Ordinance, with the General Plan and with any applicable Specific Plans and design guidelines because: 1) the proposed project will be compatible with the surrounding area because the development is designed with respect to the adjacent properties which are designated for residential and school uses; 2) the proposed project will conform to the density, design, and allowable uses as stated in the Stage 1 Development Plan for Area F in Dublin Ranch as required by Section 8.104.O10.F of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance; and 3) the Project will be an attractive addition to the City and therefore will meet the requirements of Sections 8.104.O10.C and 8.104.O10.D. B. The proposal is consistent with the provisions of Title 8, Zoning Ordinance because: 1) the proposed daycare use is compatible with the approved uses for the Site and for Area F; 2) the overall design of the Project is compatible with the neighborhood in which it is located; 3) the proposed use will have adequate parking to support the facility as required by Chapter 8.76, Off- Street Parking Regulations, of the Zoning Ordinance; and 4) the proposed project is consistent with the Planned Development in which it is located. C. The design of the Project is appropriate to the City, the vicinity, surrounding properties and the lot in which the Project is proposed because: 1) there will not be any significant environmental impacts associated with the Project and the Project has been conditioned to comply with all mitigation measures adopted as part of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR and the 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for Area F; 2) an addendum to the Eastern Dublin EIR has been prepared which demonstrates that the proposed project will not adversely impact the environment beyond what was studied in the Eastern Dublin EIR or the 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration; 3) the site layout and design of the proposed building (Project Site) is compatible with the adjacent properties in that~the building and playground is located away from the adjacent residents and an adequate buffer has been provided; and 4) as conditioned, the building will be operated in such a manner as to reduce impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. D. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the approved development because: 1) the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan anticipated that aPublic/Semi- Public use will be conducted on the Site; 2) the adopted Stage 1 Planned Development zoning for the site allows for construction of a Public/Semi-Public facility on the Site; and 3) the proposed facility will have an initial Floor Area Ratio of .14 which is consistent with the maximum Floor Area Ratio of .50 permitted by the Stage 2 Planned Development and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. E. Impacts to existing slopes and topographic features are addressed because: the Project has been designed to address the existing slope of the site and grading will occur on a portion of the Site to accommodate the Project. F. Architectural considerations including the character, scale and quality of the 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 because: 1) ,the Project has been well designed to complement the surrounding neighborhood; 2) the scale of the 2 l a- ~ ~ti5 building has been designed to be similar to the surrounding buildings; 3) the building includes a variety of roof heights and building forms to break up the massing of the building; 4) two types of awning styles are provided to promote visual interest of the building; 5) the building will have stucco materials with a precast concrete base to promote visual interest of the building and so that the building is compatible with materials used in the surrounding neighborhood; 6) a trash enclosure will be provided on the site to screen refuse;. and 7) as required by the conditions of approval, all HVAC equipment and all conduits or piping will be screened from view. 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 because: 1) the proposed project includes a variety of trees and shrubs throughout the site; 2) trees and shrubs have been provided throughout the parking lot to break up the expanse of paving; 3) street trees will be planted to meet the requirements of the City's Streetscape Master Plan and to complement the tree palette in Dublin Ranch; 4) lighting will be constructed to match the lighting in Dublin Ranch; and 5) the sloped area located on the west side of the property will be landscaped. H. The Site has been adequately designed to ensure proper circulation for bicyclists, pedestrians and automobiles because: 1) access to the Site will be provided from Brannigan Street; 2) the Project has been reviewed by the Public Works Department and the Fire Department and adequate access and circulation has been provided on-site; 3) sidewalks will be provided on Brannigan Street and an access walkway will be provided from this sidewalk to the front of the building; and 4) bicycle racks will be installed near the front of the building. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby approve said application, Site Development Review .for the Springfield Montessori School, to construct a 16,002 square-foot building, playground and related improvements located at the corner of Kohnen Way and Brannigan Street, as generally depicted in the Written Statement prepared by VSS Holdings Inc. and Project Plans prepared by PDF Designs and to the Landscape Plans prepared by Thomas Baak and Associates, received by the Planning Division on January 23, 2009, labeled Exhibit A to this Resoultion, stamped approved, and on file with the Community Development Department, 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 Department 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] Alameda County Fire Department, [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, [CHS], California Department of Health Services. 3 ~ ~ ins CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D SOURCE AGENCY Prior to: GENERAL -SITE- DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 1. Approval. This Site Development Review approval PL On-going Planning for a 16,002 square-foot daycare/school building, playground and related improvements, PA 08-038 establishes the detailed design concepts and regulations for the Project. Development pursuant to this Site Development Review generally shall conform to the Project Plans submitted by PDF Designs Inc., received January 23, 2009 on file in the Community Development Department, and other plans, text, and diagrams relating to this Site Development Review, unless modified by the Conditions of Approval contained herein. 2. Effective Date. This Site Development Review PL On-going Planning approval is contingent upon the approval of the related Stage 2 Planned Development Rezone with Stage 2 Development Plan. If the Planned Development Rezone and Stage 2 Development Plan is not approved •' this Site Development Review approval shall become ` null and void. ~ _ _ . 3. Permit F,xpiration. Construction or use 'shall PL One year from DMC commence within one (1) year of adoption of the Stage Adoption of 8.96.020.D 2 Rezone by the City Council approval or the Permit ~ ~ Stage 2 Rezone ' shall lapse acid become null and void. Commencement of construction or use means the actual construction or use pursuant to the- Permit approval or demonstrating ~ . substantial progress toward commencing such construction or use. If there is a dispute as to whether the Permit has expired, the City may hold a noticed public hearing to determine the matter. Such a determination may be processed concurrently with revocation proceedings in appropriate circumstances. If a Permit expires, a new application must be made and processed according to the requirements of this Ordinance. 4. Time Extension. The original approving decision- PL One year from DMC maker may, upon the Applicant's written request for an permit approval 8.96.020.E 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 required by the articular Permit. 1~~3 ~1~+5 CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D SOURCE AGENCY Prior to: 5. Permit Validity. This Site Development Review PL On-going DMC approval shall be valid for the remaining life of the 8.96.020.F approved structure so long as the operators of the subject property comply with the Project's Conditions of A royal. 6. Revocation of Permit. The Site Development Review PL On-going DMC approval shall be revocable for cause in accordance 8.96.020.I with Section 8.96.020.I of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Any violation of the terms or conditions of this Permit shall be subject to citation. 7. Development Agreement. The Developer of the ADM On-going Administrat project shall meet all applicable sections of the ion/ Development Agreement required for the Project Site. City Attorney 8. Requirements and Standard Conditions. The Various Building Permit Standard Applicant/Developer shall comply with applicable City Issuance of Dublin Fire Prevention Bureau, Dublin Public Works Department, Dublin Building Department, Dublin Police Services, Alameda County Flood Control District Zone 7, Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority, Alameda County Public and F,nvironmental 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. 9. Required Permits. Developer shall obtain all Permits PW Building Permit Standard required by other agencies including, but not limited to Issuance Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7, California Department of Fish and Game, Army Corps of Engineers, Regional • Water Quality Control Board, Caltrans and provide co ies of the Permits to the Public Works De artment. 10. Fees. Applicant/Developer shall pay all applicable .Various Building Permit Various fees in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance, Issuance including, but not limited to, Planning fees, Building fees, Traffic Impact Fees, TVTC fees, Dublin San Ramon Services District fees, Public Facilities fees, Dublin Unified School District School Impact fees, Fire Facilities Impact fees, Alameda County Flood and Water Conservation District (Zone 7) Drainage and ~y ~ /~5 CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D ' SOIIRCE AGENCY .Prior to: Water Connection fees; or any other fee that may be ado ted and a licable. 11. Indemnification. The Developer shall defend, ADM On-going Administrat indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Dublin and ion/City its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, Attorney action, or proceeding against the City of Dublin or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City of Dublin or its advisory agency, appeal board, Planning Commission, City Council, Community Development Director, Zoning Administrator, or any other department, committee, or agency of the City related to this Project 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 proceedings. ~ ~ _ _~ 12. Clean-up. The Applicant/Developer ~ shall be PL ~ On-going Plying l responsible for clean-up and disposal of project related " trash to maintain a safe, clean, and litter-free site. F 13. Modificati~.vns. Modifications or changes to this Site ~ PL ' On-going ,~~°.DMC Development Review approval may be considered by 8.104.100 the 'Community Development Director if the modifications or changes proposed comply with Section 8.104.030.A of the Zonin Ordinance. 14. Controlling Activities. The Applicant/Developer PL On-going Planning shall control all activities on the Project Site so as not to create a nuisance to the existing or surrounding businesses and residences. 15. Soft Building Materials. Soft Foam or efts type PL Building Perrriit Planning material may not be installed within 6 feet from the Issuance/ earth or awed areas. On-going 16. Accessory/Temporary Structures. The use of any PL On-going DMC accessory or temporary structures, such as storage 8.108 sheds or trailer/ container units used for storage or for any other purposes, shall be subject to review and a royal by the Community Development Director. PROJECT SPECIFIC 17. Mitigation Monitoring Program. The Applicant/ PL On-going Eastern Developer shall comply with the Eastern Dublin EIR Dublin EIR Mitigation Monitoring Program and the 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration for Planning Area F 2000 1a5~~ Sys CONDITIQN TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D SQURCE AGENCY Prior to including all mitigation measures, action programs, Mitigated and implementation measures on file with the Negative Community Develo ment De artment. Declaration 18. Equipment Screening. All electrical and/or PL Building Permit Planning mechanical equipment shall be screened from public Issuance view. Any roof-mounted equipment shall be completely screened from view by materials Through architecturally compatible with the building and to the Completion/ On- satisfaction of the Community Development Director. going The Building Permit plans shall show the location of all equipment and screening for review and approval by the Director of Community Develo ment. 19. Colors. The exterior paint colors of the buildings are PL Occupancy Planning subject to City review and approval. The Applicant shall paint a portion of the building the proposed colors for review and approval by the Director of Community Develo ment rior to ainting the buildings. _ 20. Trash and 'Waste Accumulation. The Applicant or PL On-going Planning any future owner shall provide and conduct regular ' _ maintenance of -the Site at least once daily, in order to _ eliminate and control'the accumulation of trash, excess waste materials and debris. ~ ~ __ LAND SCAPING 21. Final • Landscape and Irrigation Plans. Final PL Building Permit DMC Landscape and Irrigation Plans, prepared and stamped Issuance. 8.72.030 by a State licensed landscape architect or registered engineer, shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer and the Community Development Director. Plans shall be generally consistent with ,the landscape plans prepared by Thomas Baak and Associates LLP, received by the Planning Division on January 23, 2009, except as modified by the Conditions listed below and a.s required by the Community Develo ment Director. 22. Plant Species. Plant species shall be selected PL Building Permit Planning according to use, sunshade location and space Issuance available. The Landscape Plan should include plant species that are not salt sensitive. Street trees shall be high branching and roduce minimal litter. 23. Slopes. The Landscape Plan shall address slopes PL Building Permit Planning within the property, including erosion, maintenance Issuance and irrigation issues. All slopes shall have aone-foot level area at top and bottom of the slope for maintenance. ~~? ~ ~~~' 1 ~~ CONDITION TEXT RESPON WHEN REQ'D SOURCE AGENCY Prior to: 24. Landscaping at Street/Drive Aisle Intersections. PL Building Permit Planning Landscaping shall not obstruct the sight distance of Issuance motorists, pedestrians or bicyclists. Except for trees, landscaping (and/or landscape structures such as walls) at drive aisle intersections shall not be taller than 30 inches above the curb. Landscaping shall be kept at a minimum height and fullness giving patrol officers and the general ublic surveillance ca abilities of the area. 25. Lighting. The Applicant/Developer shall prepare a PL, PW, PO Building Permit Planning photometric plan to the satisfaction of the City Issuance Engineer, Director of Community Development, the City's Consulting Landscape Architect and Dublin Police Services. Exterior lighting shall be provided within the parking lot and on the building, and shall be of a design and placement so as not to cause glare onto adjoining properties, businesses or to vehicular traffic. Lighting used after daylight hours shall be adequate to provide for security needs. The Plan shall show . measurements for cozauecting paths, sidewalks and outdoor arking area. _ 26. Street Lights and Trees. iVlaintaizz .approximately 15' PL, PO Building Permit Planning clearance beriveen streetlights and street trees. Where Issuance such clearance is not practical for design considerations, the spacing between the .trees shall be increased and the size of the trees shall be increased to 36" box minimum to reduce the conflict between the li tin and folia e. 27. Standard Plant Material, Irrigation and PL Building Permit DMC Maintenance Agreement. The Applicant/Developer Issuance 8.72.OSO.B shall complete and submit to the Dublin Planning Department the Standard Plant Material, Irrigation and Maintenance Agreement. 28. Landscape Borders. Where applicable, all PL Building Permit Planning landscaped areas shall be bordered by a concrete curb Issuance that is at least 6 inches high and 6 inches wide. Any curbs adjacent to parking spaces must be 12 inches wide to facilitate pedestrian access. All landscaped areas shall be a minimum of 6 feet in width (face of curb to face of curb). All landscape planters within the parking area shall be at least 2 feet shorter than adjacent parking spaces to facilitate vehicular maneuvering. Concrete mow strips at least 4 inches deep and 6 inches wide shall be required to separate turf areas from shrub areas. 29. Landscaping. A plicant/Develo er shall construct all PL, PW Building Permit Planning/ ~7~ 1~5 CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D SOURCE AGENCY Prior toc landscaping within the Site and along the project Issuance Public frontage. The on-site landscaping shall be to the Works satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. The street trees on the frontage landscaping shall be a minimum 24" box, their exact tree locations and varieties shall approved by the Community Development Director and the City Engineer. 30. Plant Standards. All trees shall be 24" box PL Occupancy Planning minimum, with at least 30% at 36" box or greater; all shrubs shall be 5 anon minimum. 31. Maintenance of Landscaping. All landscaping PL On-going City of materials within the public right-of--way shall be Dublin maintained for 90 days and on-site landscaping shall be Standards maintained in accordance with the "City of Dublin Plant Standards Plant Material, Irrigation .System 'and Material, Maintenance Agreement" by the Developer after City- Irrigation approved installation. This maintenance .shall include System and weeding, the application of pre-emergent chemical Maintenanc. applications, and the replacement of materials that die. e .An~r proposed modifications to the landscaping on the. Agreement site, including the removal or replacement of trees, shall require prior review and .written approval from the Commimity'Develo ment Director. ~ ~ . 32. Backflow Prevention Devices. The Landscape -Plan PL, PW, F Building Permit _ Planning shall show the location of all backflow prevention Issuance devises. The location and screening of the backflow prevention devices shall be reviewed and approved by City Staff. 33. Root Barriers and Tree Staking. The Landscape PL, PW Building Permit Planning Plans shall provide details showing root barriers and Issuance _ tree staking will be installed which meet current City s ecifications. 34. Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance. The PL Building Permit DMC 8.88 Applicant/Developer shall submit written Issuance documentation to the Public Works Department (in the form of a Landscape Documentation Package and other required documents) that the development conforms to _ the City's Water Efficient Landsca ing Ordinance. 35. Landscape Screening. At no time shall any of the PL On-going Planning landscaping around building including shrubs and trees be removed. Removals may only occur if the species is to be re laced with the same s ecies. 36. Shrubs. All shrubs shall be continuously maintained PL On-going including Tuning and regular watering. If at any time ~~ ~~~5 CONDITION TEXT ' RESPON. WHEN REQ'D SOURCE t1GENCY ' Prior to: the shrubs in the parking lot or throughout the Project Site are damaged, missing, dead or dying, these shrubs shall be immediately replaced with the same species to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 37. Trees. The property owner shall continually maintain PL On-going Planning all trees shown on the approved Landscape Plans including replacing dead or dying trees with the same species, pruning and regular watering of the trees. Within five years and every five years thereafter, all trees which are to be installed in conjunction with this phase of the Project shall show substantial growth to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. If the trees have not shown substantial growth, the property owner shall replace the trees to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 3$. Hydroseed Planting. The area to be hydroseeded shall PL Occupancy-. Planning be planted and achieve substantial growth prior .to . Occu ancy. • BUIL DING - GENE~L: <, - , .;.: . ; :, 39. 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. 40. Building Permits. To apply for Building Permits,- B Issuance of -Building Applicant/Developer shall submit eight (8) sets of Building Permits . •. Constriction Plans to the Building Division for plan check. Each set of plans shall have attached an annotated copy of these Conditions of Approval. The notations shall clearly indicate how the Applicant has or will comply with the Conditions of Approval. Construction plans will got be accepted without the annotated resolutions attached to each set of plans. Applicant/Developer will be responsible for obtaining the approvals of all participation non-City agencies rior to the issuance of Building Permits. 41. Construction Drawings. Construction Plans shall be B Issuance of Building fully dimensioned (including. building elevations) Building Permits accurately drawn (depicting all existing and 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. 10 -~~ -~1~~ CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D SDURCE< AGENCY Prior to: 42. Addressing. Address will be required on all doors B, PL 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 height minimum. 43. Engineer Observation. The Engineer of record shall B Prior to Frame Building be retained to provide observation services for all Inspection components of the lateral and vertical design of the building, including nailing, hold-downs, straps, shear, roof diaphragm and structural frame of building. A written report shall be submitted to the City Inspector rior to schedulin the final frame ins ection. 44. Phased Occupancy Plan. If occupancy is requested to B Prior to Building occur in phases, then all physical improvements within Occupancy of each phase shall be required to be completed prior to any Affected occupancy of any buildings within that phase except Building for items specifically excluded in an approved Phased Occupancy Plan,, or minor handwork items, approved by the Department of Community Development. The Phased Occupancy Plan shall be submitted to the :. Directors of Community Development and Public - ~ Works for review and approval a minimum of 45 days prior to the request _ for occupancy of .any, building. covered: by said Phased Occupancy Plan. Any phasing ~ shall provide for adequate vehicular access to all parcels ire each phase, and shall substantially conform to the- intent and purpose of the subdivision approval. No individual building shall be occupied until the adjoining area is finished, safe, accessible, and provided with all reasonable expected services and amenities, and separated from remaining additional construction activity. Subject to approval of the Director of Community Development, the completion of landscaping may be deferred due to inclement weather with the posting of a bond for the value of the deferred landsca ing and associated im rovements. 45. Air Conditioning Units. Air conditioning units and B Occupancy Building ventilation ducts shall be screened from public view And with materials compatible to the main building. Units On-going shall be installed on concrete pads or other non- movable materials as approved by the Building Official and Community Develo ment Director. 46. Temporary Fencing. Temporary Construction fencing B Through Building shall be installed along perimeter of all work under Completion construction 47. Green Buildin Guidelines. To the extent ractical, B Through Building 11 ~~~ r~s CONDITION TEXT RESPON. `WHEN REQ'D SOURCE AGENCY Prior to: the Applicant shall incorporate Green Building Completion Measures. Green Building plan shall be submitted to the Building Official for review. 48. Cool Roofs. Flat roof areas shall have their roofing B Through Building material coated with light colored gravel or painted Completion with light colored or reflective material designed for Cool Roofs. 49. Electronic File. The ApplicantlDeveloper shall submit B Prior to First and Building all building drawings and specifications for this Project Final Inspection in an electronic format to the satisfaction of the Building Official prior to the issuance of building permits. Additionally, all revisions made to the Building Plans during the Project shall be incorporated into an "As Built" electronic file and submitted prior to the issuance of the final occupancy. 50. Construction Trailer. Due to size and nature of the B Through Building development, the Applicant/Developer, shall provide a Completion construction trailer with all hook ups for use.by City ~ - . Inspection personnel during the time of construction'as . determined necessary by the Building Official. In the event that the City has their own construction trailer, the Applicant/Developer shall provide a site with. appropriate hook ups in close proximity to the Project Site to accommodate this trailer. The Applicant/Developer shall cause the trailer to be moved from its current location at the time necessary- as determined by the Building Official at the A licant/Develo er's ex ense 51. Copies of Approved Plans. The Applicant shall B 30 days after B provide the City with 4 reduced (1/2 size) copies of the permit issuance approved plan. and each revision FIRE -GENERAL CONDITIONS 52. Building and Fire Codes. The Project shall comply F On-going Fire with the a licable Building and Fire Codes. 53. Weight Load. Asphalt, concrete or pavers are F Building Permit Fire acceptable all weather surfaces for 40,000 pound Issuance wei ht load. 2007 CFC 503.2.3 54. Canvas Awning. Sheet A-2.2 & 3.1 shows a canvas F Building Permit 2007 CBC awning that will re uire flame retardant treatment. Issuance 3105.4 POLI CE -PROJECT SPECIFIC 55. Security Requirements. The Applicant/Developer PO Issuance of DMC shall comply with all applicable City of Dublin Non- Building Permits 7.32.310 Residential Security requirements. Section On-going 1020 12 1~3a ~,,~' l~5' CONDITIQNTEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D SOURCE AGENCY Prior to: 56. Restrooms. All restrooms shall have at a minimum, PO Issuance of Police emergency lighting that remain on during hours of Building Permits o eration. 57. Door Sensors. Door sensors with audible alarms shall PO Issuance of Police be installed as part of the door panic hardware to assist Building Permits in detectin the doors being o ened. 58. Doors. All exterior doors shall be identified with PO Issuance of Police appropriate lettering or numbering. All interior doors Building Permits shall be identified with vinyl lettering, etching or lacard si is. 59. Diagrammatic Map. A diagrammatic map of the PO Occupancy Police interior room assignments shall be displayed in the main lobby. 60. Licensing. The Applicant and all future owners of the PO On-going Police daycare shall be licensed and comply with all State of California Community Care Licensing (CCL) re uixements. 61, Business License. The Applicant must apply for a City _ ~ PO Occupancy and Police of Dublin Business License. A copy of the approved On-going State of California Community Care License must be submitted with the Business License. All employees, ~ ' including paid and volunteer, -shall complete a Mandated Reporter class and provide verification of such. 62. Unannounced Inspections. Police Services will PO On-going Police periodically make unannounced inspections of the facility and may require verification of fingerprint clearance for staff members as reported back on the State of California CCL "Personnel Re ort." 63. Fingerprinting. All staff members are to be PO On-going Police fingerprinted and prints submitted to California De artment of Justice by the business A licant. 64. Graffiti. The Developer and all future property PO On-going Police owner(s) shall keep the site clear of graffiti vandalism on a regular and continual basis at all times. 65. Access. The Applicant shall provide for Police PO Occupancy Police emergency access on any locked gate areas. 66. Card. The Applicant shall complete a "Business Site PO Occupancy Police Emergency Response Card" and shall submit to the olice. 67. Construction Security. During the construction phase PO Through Police the Site shall the following: Completion • The construction site shall be fenced and locked at all times when workers are not 13 ~3a ~ ,45 CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D SOURCE AGENCY Prior to: present. • A temporary address sign shall be posted, and shall be of a sufficient size, a minimum of at least 36" x 36" with a white background and stenciled black numbers and letters so that the sign can be seen during night time hours with existing street lighting or additional lighting as needed. The address sign shall be posted on all approaches to the site. • The Developer or representative of the Developer shall file a Dublin Police Emergency Contact Business Card prior to any phase of construction that will provide 24 hour phone contact numbers of persons responsible for the construction site. • Good security practices shall be followed with respect to storage of building materials and the storage of tools at the construction site.. _ PUBLIC WORKS-STANDARD CONDITIONS 68. Clarification to Conditions. In the event that there _ .~ PW .On-going .Standard needs to be clarification to these Conditions of Approval, the City Engineer has the. authority ko clarify the intent of these Conditions of Approval to the Developer without going to a public hearing. The City Engineer also has 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 Project. 69. Public Improvements. All public improvements to be PW On-going Standard constructed to City standards and the satisfaction of the City En ineer. 70. Electronic File. Developer shall provide the Public PW Project Standard Works Department a digital vectorized file of the Completion "master" files for the Project when the Project has been completed. The digital vectorized files shall be in AutoCAD 2000 DWG or higher drawing format. Drawing units shall be decimal with the precision of the Final Map. All objects and entities in layers shall be colored by layer and named in English. All submitted drawings shall use the Global Coordinate System of USA, California, NAD 83 California State Plane, Zone III, and U.S. foot. 71. Notice of Intent. Prior to any clearing or grading, the PW Grading/ Standard Develo er shall provide the City evidence that a Notice Sitework Permit 14 i.33 ~ lu5 CONDITION TEXT RESPON. `WHEN REQ'D SOURCE AGENCY Prior to: of Intent (NOI) has been sent to the California State Water Resources Control Board per the requirements of the NPDES. A copy of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be provided to the Public Works Department and be kept at the construction site. The Developer is responsible for ensuring that all contractors implement all storm water ollution revention measures in the SWPPP. 72. Approval by Non-City Agencies. The Developer will PW Building Permit Standard be responsible for submittals and reviews to obtain the Issuance approvals of all participating non-City agencies. The And Alameda County Fire Department and the Dublin San Grading/ Ramon Services District shall approve and sign the Sitework Permit Site Plans. PUBLIC WORDS -SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS 73. Lot Merger: Lot Merger M-09-O1, merging Parcels 2 PW Occupancy Public and 3 of Parcel Map 9451, shall be recorded priorto Works occu ancy. 74. Site Improvements: The site improvements shall be PW Grading/ Public constructed generally as shown on the Site Sitework Permit Works Development Review exhibits. However., the approval of the Site Development Review is not an approval of:. i the specific design of the site improvements including grading and drainage. The grading and drainage shall be designed so that 1) Drainage from landscape areas and roof drains does not flow across the asphalt pavement but is collected and conveyed in an area drain system connected to the storm drain line or to the water quality basins, and 2) Concentrated gutter flow does not drain across the asphalt pavement but is collected and conveyed to the water quality basins. All site improvements shall be designed to the satisfaction of the City En ineer. 75. Water Quality Basins: Developer shall provide PW Grading/ Public calculation supporting the design of the water quality Sitework Permit Works basins. 76. Brannigan Street: Developer shall modify parking PW Grading/ Public and striping in Brannigan Street if needed to provide Sitework Permit Works for the left turn movement into the entrance based on a traffic analysis a roved by the City Traffic Engineer. 77. Grading/Sitework Permit: Developer shall obtain a PW Grading Public Grading /Sitework Permit from the Public Works Works Department for all private grading and site improvements including those within the Brannigan Street Right of Way. The Develo er shall rovide 15 i~4 ~ i~~ CONDITION TEXT RESPON.- WHEN REQ'D - SOURCE AGENCY.. Prior to: performance security, in an amount approved by the City Engineer, to guarantee the on-site drainage and treatment improvements, erosion control measures, and the improvements within the Brannigan Street Right of Way. 78. Storm Water Treatment Measures Maintenance PW Project Public Agreement: Developer shall enter into an agreement Completion Works with the City of Dublin that guarantees the perpetual maintenance obligation for all storm water treatment measures installed as part of the Project. Said agreement is required pursuant to Provision C.3.e.ii of RWQCB Order R2-2003-0021 for the issuance of the Alameda Countywide NPDES municipal storm water permit. Said Permit requires the City to provide verification and assurance that all treatment devices will be ro erly o erated and maintained. DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVhCES DISTRICT (DSRSD `- S7CANDARD CONDITIONS 74. Prior to issuance of any Building Permit, complete DSR Issuance of Dublin San improvement plans shall. be submitted to. DSRSD that Building Permits ~ Ramon conform to •the requirements of the Dublin San Ramon Services Services District Code, the DSRSD "Star?daxd ~ District ProcedtTres, Specifications and Drawings for Design and Installation of Water and Wastewater Facilities"; ~ all applicable DSRSD Master Plans .and a11.DSRSD , olicies. 80. Sewers shall be designed to operate by gravity flow to DSR Improvement Dublin San DSRSD's existi~-ig sanitary sewer system. Pumping of Plans Ramon sewage is discouraged and may only be allowed under Services extreme circumstances following a case by case review District with DSRSD staff. Any pumping station will require specific review and approval by DSRSD of preliminary design reports, design criteria, and final plans and specifications. The DSRSD reserves the right to require payment of present worth 20 year maintenance costs as well as other conditions within a separate agreement with the applicant for any project that re uires a um in station. 81. Domestic and fire protection waterline systems for DSR Improvement Dublin San Tracts or Commercial Developments shall be designed Plans Ramon to be looped or interconnected to avoid dead end Services sections in accordance with requirements of the District DSRSD Standard Specifications and sound engineer7ng ractice. 82. DSRSD policy requires public water and sewer lines to DSR Improvement Dublin San be located in ublic streets rather than in off-street Plans Ramon 16 ~~.~~ 1~~ CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D SOURCE AGENCY Prior to: locations to the fullest extent possible. If unavoidable, Services then public sewer or water easements must be District established over the alignment of each public sewer or water line in an off-street or private street location to provide access for future maintenance and/or re lacement. 83. Prior to approval by the City of a Grading Permit or a DSR Improvement Dublin San Site Development Permit, the locations and widths of Plans Ramon all proposed easement dedications for water and sewer Services lines shall be submitted to and a roved by DSRSD. District 84. All easement dedications for DSRSD facilities shall be DSR Improvement Dublin San by separate instrument irrevocably offered to DSRSD Plans Ramon or by offer of dedication on the Final Map. Services _ District 85. Prior to approval by the City for Recordation, the Final DSR Recordation of Dublin San Map shall be submitted to and approved by DSRSD for Final Map Ramon easement locations, widths, and restrictions. ~ Services District 86. Prior to issuance by the City of any Building Permit or DSR Issuance of Dublin San Construction Permit by the Dublin San Ramon Building Permits Ramon Services District, whichever comes first, . all ~ utility ~ Services connection fees including DSRSD and Zone 7; plan District checking fees, inspection fees, connection fees, and fees associated with a Wastewater Discharge Permit •~ shall be paid to DSRSD in accordance with the rates and schedules established in the DSRSD Code.. 87. Prior to issuance by the City of any Building Permit or' DSR Issuance of Dublin San Construction Permit by the Dublin San Ramon Building Permits Ramon Services District, whichever comes first, all ~ Services improvement plans for DSRSD facilities shall be District signed by the District Engineer. Each drawing of improvement plans shall contain a signature block for the District Engineer indicating approval of the sanitary sewer or water facilities shown. Prior to approval by the District Engineer, the Applicant shall pay all required DSRSD fees, and provide an engineer's estimate of construction costs for the sewer and water systems, a performance bond, cone-year maintenance bond, and a comprehensive general liability insurance policy in the amounts and forms that are acceptable to DSRSD. The Applicant shall allow at least 15 working days for final improvement drawing review by DSRSD before signature by the District Engineer. 88. No sewer line or waterline construction shall be DSR Improvement Dublin San 17 CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ''D . :SOURCE AGENCY Prior to: permitted unless the proper utility construction permit Plans Ramon has been issued by DSRSD. A construction permit ~ Services will only be issued after all of the items in Condition District No. 9 have been satisfied. 89. The Applicant shall hold DSRSD, it's Board of DSR Issuance of Dublin San Directors, commissions, employees, and agents of Building Permits Ramon DSRSD harmless and indemnify and defend the same Services from any litigation, claims, or fines resulting from the District construction and com letion of the Pro'ect. 90. Improvement plans shall include recycled water DSR Improvement Dublin San improvements as required by DSRSD. Services for Plans Ramon landscape irrigation shall connect to recycled water Services mains. Applicant must obtain a copy of the DSRSD District Recycled Water Use Guidelines and conform to the re uirements therein. 91. A back-flow prevention device to prevent back- DSR Issuance of Dublin San siphoning of water into the potable distribution main Building Permits ~ Ramon will be required on each commercial account per Services DSRSD s~ecitications. - _- District SIGNS -PROJECT SPECIFIC 92. Temporary Promotional Banners and Balloons. PL ~ ~ On-,going . ..Chapter Temporary Promotional Banner Signs and Balloons ~ ~ ~ 8.884 of the. shall only be permitted after first securing an approved ~ ~ Dublin Temporary Promotional Sigh Permit. Any signage on Zoning site shall be subject to the sign requirements contained Ordinance in the City of Dublin Munici al Code. 93. A-Frame Signs. The use of any A-Frame, portable, PL On-going Chapter sandwich-board, pennants, or human-held signs on the 8.884 of the premises is strictly prohibited. Said signs and any form Dublin of off-site advertising signs shall also be prohibited Zoning upon any public property, including City streets and Ordinance sidewalks. 94. Outdoor Events. Any outside events shall be subject PL On-going Chapter to the Temporary Use Permit requirements contained 8.884 of the in the City of Dublin Municipal Code, specifically Dublin Section 8.108.020. Zoning Ordinance 18 i~-~~~~s PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of February 2009 by the following vote: AYES: Wehrenberg, King, Brown, Swalwell NOES: ABSENT: Schaub ABSTAIN: Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Planning Manager G.•IPA#120081PA 08-038 Sprin~eld Montessori SchooIIPHISDR Reso.DOC 19 Sf~1C,L~ ~~~l~C~-S®~1 ~C~~C~ STUCCO SIDING 2: ACRYLIC STUCCO DOLOR PER SHERWIN WILLWMS G4RDBOARD - 6124 EXTERIOR GANbAS AWNING: SUNBRELLA GAPfAIN NAVY [ITEM N0: 4646-000OJ PRECAST CONCRETE: PRECAST BY GDI - [GONG. DESIGN5ING.] SAGE BRUSH 6520 F- STUCCO REGLET MATERIAL - ALUMINUM EXT. WALL SCONCE: TLI, FRONTIER W FlNISH -BRONZE TRIM PAINT: AWNINGS 8 WROUGHT IRON KELLY MOORE LOW SHEEN TRICORN BLACK SW 6285 SLATE TILE GALIFORNw ' '~' GOLD 920-8226 ~ ° •:~I "-~ ~ ~3 STUCCO SIDING 1: ACRYLIC STUCCO CALOR PERSHERWIN WILLWMS BAGUETTE - 6123 EXTERIOR WALL MOUNT EXTERIOR LIGHTS: 6REENLEE LIFESTYLE SERIES SGW STRAJGHi GLEVIS WALL MOUNT FlNISH =BRONZE WINDOW ~ DOOR SYSTEM: FRAME MATERAL -ALUMINUM - FRAME DOLOR -STANDARD DARK BRONZE AB-7 I W ~' ~\ ~D~ D[SIGhS II1C. • 4171 SVISVn VALL~T ROAD. SVIT[ C • SVISVn VALL[T • CALI~ORMIA •94534 E n N Q it fD - _ i I I I~ - + ~, gyn. / ~ `A _ - ~ ~ r,~y4 W ~~ ~ v,,..~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ & -~ . 4 (PQ DRNEIWY - - ~~anmaAn s7R>:cr - - --~- - ^r ® ~l `~ p[' ry~ o- G~ G,~, O 6~ ^ti O~ '// Yt ~ ~:~ i ^~ _~ ~; - ~i ~r ~,. ~ "~M.~e~ ~~-r~F '~ ~: ~. J'~a l' \ , ~ D(15TIN6 SIDE WP1K ^'^^"^ ..~'^^-'.~^^2 ,J" ~~ ~~ - - _.- ~ ~ ,-~ ~ ~ wRS E ~urr~a ' . i I ® ~ ~ f" ~- D Z p ~~~~ 1~1 ~ Z ~ N ° \ rrR ~ 1r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ CO ~ ~-+ O O Z k~ ~ 2 ^a^ r..~ ,~ ,. `.. P ~ ~ ~ ~ z m 5x ._~, `Ct 41W [unw ~•i~'f T; I. rt: ,t. ~" ~ 3.,. .; F s~ ~~ ~~ .9VII~'®Il~lld~~®Illl o~eas~ •~~. i~e ;~ 1 `•' r . ~ ,:,, ~~~ ~~ ~`~~ ~~ EKLSTING 5bE WPLK ~ ~ O i ~ RLSIDf:nrlAL sv~®tvislon t ~ 3 ; a v:•~. ~ ~~ r ~ ~ ~I~/ cc}. rt UV ~ ~ G '~~~ ~~.-- ~ . ~d17 '~r'f '.: ~ + 'Y~ 6 ~sti~~ o ~t° ~yt~ 1 ~~s~ a~~' ~ ~? .,~ ~ 1 J ,. ~- ~:..:-~.. ;t:. ........ q~~ ~ ~ M M Y ~ ~ G ~ . _ ~ ~' . Vii; '( ~ ?~, ~ ~ ' ~. ~ W ` ~~ .. ~ r ~1 ~ 'nth a., . =`+, ,', _ ti ii gv~.ue E a, SPrin~ie~c~ Montessori School ~ _mn~ ; ~ ~ , ; _ ~ 1,~V,/J,/u`\ Branni~an Street, Dubin, Ca o `m' ~o `~" ~ "`a,.,,_ ~"` ~ ~~ r e! I I a, I I r I I ~ I I I Z j I IZ I I o I I I .( a, I I l~ I I i I I 1 I I I I I I I 10' SfgiM AM _ ~ ~• I N)SCME I I Y XTFN~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I ~ I I _ ~ I I I I ~ I I N I I wl I I ~ $I I I ~ I I \,r I I I °z 1 I I I ,I I I ~~ I I I I I I I I I I U I ~ ~ I I U I I i I I I z I I O I j I 0 C7 PARKING SUMMARY ' PAPoQNC fEOIBA@ NWBE4 PAAKNG AECUIRFO: 1 SPACE PFR EYPLOYBi 17 ENROYES 17 SPACES 1 SPACE PER 5 SNCENIS 190 SIUOENfS 3fi SPACES 1 SPACE PER COMPANY VflilgB D YEFIICIES G SPACES m7u AEpARER ~ sp,~ TOTAL PRONOER ~ gAm+ +7 HNIgCAPPm ~A~s (s REpARED) TRACT 7251 PARCEL 277 M 52-55 270' N88'51'11'W 364.84' ~x \ I x NI .I I 1 I x R xl I I xl I / JI I I } I I I + 6 ^~ I AINE RALx ~ I tDCAAGN ... \~ 1 ~A Ap1E0 CI1AA WLL -~ ~ BE CON9NCff0 Ai - ~ , ~ ~'[~ II 1NE ACCESS ROAD. :~ ~ 1 ~E I ti` I I I s ~~ I I . ~ `r~~dl ~ ~, `\ ~ jG I f I` ,.` 9~ ~ = ~~ I~ Iw a~. I a CASE C A ~~ ~ t ~.. P .'. / ~ l~i IZ / I 1 ~7 ~~ S \\ 78' ~~~ ~ i i~ j ~ ~.'V A 8-g /yam I%~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ \\Al ~F- 7 x (~, ~ (.~o~ ~' ~ I _ ~'~ ~~ ~ ~~ I I I ~ ~ ~ ~ I I ` a` I I ~ -- ~~ 9'~ ; ! I I~----------- -------~ _- __ ~~ f ~ ~. a I I I ~a Nee3rn'w 35zn' I I ----F+-----< ----------~-----~-------- I II R PARCEL 1 PM 9451 I I~___________ ________________________________________ ENCIDWAE 96~ ' ~ I '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~: tGraRa+ ~ LANE ~ ~ ~/~ ~~"~~ .~ BiC-' ~~ v ~ CONCRETE ~`~ ~ --. - -_ :: ~~/~/ v MACH /._. A v ~ a I ~~ V 15 ~ / I \ ~ I `~ I ~a,~~ ~ ~ I I ~~ I `` wATExQvaLlTr ~ ~' BA51N ~ I I I ------~ I I ---------------I- I PARCEL USE SUMMARY - 2,57 AC, TOTAL AESIEAN SLLPE AREA 7p,9gp g} BUNDWG FWTPNAIT (EBCLUOB9C YEAMM) 12,190 gt PU1Qi01Ri1 AREA (INQUONG WIZMOA AAFA) 26,219 SFt 90EWAll6 7,990 SFf PAABWC MFR, PACN BAIX CF CUI91 75,760 g} FWE ALCE6S ROAD g00 g} LANOSCME YE]NANS ~OgO g} EAHOSCME AREAS 14760 gt WA10A CUAl11Y 9A5o1 1490 gt ~TK NEA: 111,970 SFt •737 AC W I 1 VICINIIYMAP NOi TO SGIE GENERAL NGTES 1. OWNFR YSS HIXDINCS, LLC 880 LA CASH WA WALNUT CAfEI(, CA 94598 2 DEVELOPER: AkR OEYt7.OPNEXT 627 E t1F10Q1 m. NCSCN, AZ 85705 S GWL EMCBIEEIt CARlSgV, BARGEE k GNSLN, LNG 6111 BIX1J11GER CMYCN ROAR SUHE 150 SAN RANCH, CAl1FIXiMA, 94583 PHONE (925) 866-0322 i. GEOTECNNICPL ENGBVETA NC ENgNEERING COMPANY 682 COTAIIC LANE, 9WTE A VACAW CA 95688 PHONE: 707) 447-4025 S ASSESSOR'S PMCA NUMBERS 985-0052-022 k 9&5-0052-027 6. Dfl5 PACPFAIY IDES FlRE AUAIFDA COIMtt FlRE OFPAR11ENf IN 7NE JJflISDICRON OF: WATFR: DUBLIN SM RAYCN SEANCES gSTRCi SEWER: WBI1N SAN RANON SEAWCFS gSTAICT GAS 8 ElECiRIC: PACIFIC GAS $ flEC1PoC TELEPHONE: PAgFlC BELL 7. PROPOSD USE NCNTESSORI SCH00. S E71m1~ IANO USE YACANf UND 9. FJiImNC ZOFBNq FLAMED OEVELOPNENT - 10. PROPOSED ZCNINq PLANMD OEYflAPNENT it. CONTWR 81TEAVAL• E)OSDNG - 1 FOOT PACPOgD - I FOOT 12 PROPOSED CONTWRS AS SHOWN ME PAElJMINARY, FlN1SH CRAO9IC IS 9JB.ECT TO FlNAL DESIGN. 11 RWNOAAY AS SHOWN WAS CONP9ID FROM RECgtO INFgtMAiION MO ODES NOT AEPAFScIVT A SURNEY OF 1HE PROPERtt. 14. PROPOSED PROPERtt IS NOT SUB.ECT TO WUNDARON. IS ROPE RANK SHAll ~ N 1HE QJERAL RANGE OF T1 TO 21. ROPE SHALL RE RASED ON FlNAL OE9GN AND AECOMMENOARON Cf SOBS ENGMEBR. 1fi. SOES AEPCRL 'GEOTECHNICAL INYTSRGAROV' -PROPOSED SPAINCFEID NIXVTESSOf6 SCHOOL REPORT PRO,ECT ~N2817, AUGUST 21, 2008. LEGEND - - - - PROPERLY BOUNDARY -------- - EASEIENT LINE RIfNT aF WAY LIFE CURB - - E>asiwc Lor uNE wQ WATER OUALOY BA9N TB 111A91 ENCL09JRE "^°.^.'"'"^ ^ CURB R CUTER G4 EF]VCE GA1E 7 R1 ro N 1\ U 5~ F- 5 cuAS aN HIGH 90E CUBA k T.OOry CUTLER 24 TC-iC DRIVE AISLE (24' TC-TC} NQFTOSCAIE ~ 5 CURB ~ M[u rv. Meuwr SBIEWALN -CUTLER CURB CUAA LUAB A max 200fy CUTER ~~ 7-5~ ~, 14' ~, 6' ~, N ENTRY DRIVE (40' CURB -CURB) xarmscAla ~ECEIIJED JAN 2 ~ 2009 DUBLIN P11~NN1NG PRELIlVIINARY SITE PLAN SPRINGFIELD ~:ONTESSORI SCHOOL CITY OP DUBLIN AG1hffsDA COUNTY CALiFORMA a ~a r>p as CerMOn, Ber6ee B: Cz~on, Inc eMi[ eqx ®u • aaMEioY • Miss t11110Yp091 CM11Vl pp, WIIl Iq ~y~ SCALE: P=2a DATE:lANUARY19,2009 ~~`~'"~ M`"'0~'1t awwia•unuv tai °z b V `N ~,,. ,~~~ 1F-S' M ~~~~ °. S~ o H ~ :7,~. ~s .~,r'. ~. C1~S`i ~+ _ ~} :` >~S~~r ~ ~ .as'. ~,' ~ ~.: Nx 0 .~ ~> Z N O ~~ A Z n ~` ~~ 4 ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~gy^~ ~< ~~ O ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~r ~~ ~ O ~~ O ui~ru~i~i~nt~ uiau:ui . _ -r------I------~~.~... °z n ~~ ~ D ~ z °® ~ ~ ua ~~ rr ~ ~ ~ s r ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ `•~'tr ~ z z .~ ~-~ ~ ~ ~~ a - _ ~~ -. N y<y ~f' ~ 4 ~Z~ A YS } ~ ~ 0.5' _ r~-,. z°~ q .5. ~>g _ ~; ,~ -z N 0.5 ~ 1s ~i~j ~ N~~ `~ Z ~~~ ~ ~~ sg ~m ~ o e ~ ~~ ~~8~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ / / (1[ Ih µ alo ~ k ~' ~i~ ~.~ , .. ~ f i ~ ~ I ~ ~ I ~ .i ~ ^ ~ i i ~ r cry I i °r ~ i ~ i i t ~~~~~$gg~$$$ gas ~ ¢`~ ~~~~` ~~~~~s ~~~ ~~~~~~~5~~~~~m ~~~ m ~~~~~~ ~~ '~ A A Z Zln O 0 ~~ m ~~' ~ l , E ~ ~ T ,~ ,I 1 _, _. ....... _ ....__ __ _ __ EroAµTFl~~._. 1I ~ Y ~~ Ear oxX a T T x--K--N-- l~ ~ x---~-~-X--~«--~«-- ~ - ,r--T---* ~ .:. - - LEGEND ., I - - , ~. E _ '., r • .... ~ ~ ~. - ~ f•/ - PROPOSED S1DRt1 ORNN RPE E ?c ,~~ ~ ~ ~:~ ~ '': ~ 3 ~~JQ" ~ APPRORINAIE I I PRCPOSfD SANITARY SENTR PIPE E ` ~~ ^' LOCATION ~ I I ~ ~~ i 1 PoGHT DF WAY DNE ~~ 1 '{ ! I ~' EE i Z` ~ t ELECTRICAL CLOSET , x 1 I j t KOI'INEN _ _ _ _ aAB ~' aE ; ~~ ' ! ~ I' ; ~ '~ wAY - ~P~°~ ~ crr~~ "~"J I I I ', ~ 1 ~ 1 '~ ~ j ' I ~'': E I ~ / '~. ~ ° ~ E' ;I -9...__.. ~ ..;~~--- ~ PROPOSED GTL11 BASN i ji I '. I E': i I ;1 1 ® PROPOSED YANHOIF f 1 TEE ~ .,, I & ' EI EI .. ~ •ll ~~ '~ _ I; I ' c ~. 1 ~.~. -' _^ ~ _.. - PROPOSTD fRETICH DRAW 1 ~ I IE! T ~ ~, I ~' i ~ i ~ % ~ ~~ I; 1 ~ f i~ - -~ - AREA OAAW ANO PPE E ' I E I € fr~j I .~ ~ /~"~''~ "-.~~5-'- E%L51WG 5 FT CONTOUR E II ! ~ { 7E E i ,~ ~ I sW/ FlRE OEPARTNFNi z P € E ~, ,E E ., ,~.' A"~ ~ ~ ~.~~~ _ ~COANECnONS f F>ASfING 1 fT CORIgNt I , / i ~:4 °x .eav ~ ' \ t F ' --~--- PROPOSED,IOWTWEACII € I I I '.I , ! ~" SPPo LFR PoFIAE ' '1 I ~' ~ I I ~ , I- E E z 5ER ~ r~ I~ ` ~ i A i ~ ~- WRB &~II11EA j~ J~ ,_ ~ I 3 '.I i ', i ~~ '. '~ ,, \ ~ r TB ~. IAASN ENCLO9JPE ~i`~ E I I E ~ E t ~ ~ f l ' 1 .. ~'. i I 31 . ~ !. ! ~ ~. 3iI, f', . ~ ,, 1 I ~ ~ ~ ' .y I ~. 4i / BRODIE WAY I '. €I i I ~ € I i - - / \ . 1 ,III: 41J.4I ..-.... .._.. ~ 4 ri'; X ~ •f ....-.~...~. __ E I € : ~ ~~ ~ v 1 ~ ~ IXY. 416.4}~ ~I ~ I ~ CON ~ECT TO EA161ING JOINT I € E € ,_ ~' ., \ I I I ~ € E - ~ ~ ~ ; ~ '" ~ ~'~'~ s ^s.~ ~, i j ~ '' ~ ~~ 1RENCH. coNNECi E1ECR6C, { I E € E i r-.~~.. ~ k~ € ~~ ~ s I ~ t ~ cnS, cnaE, TEI}PHONE I I I i E ~: EE I ~-.. ~~ ~ i ~ a 14 , ~ } ~ I L.-.. ~ V i -( ~'S*,r, p"~'J ~~~''a -- I: ~-' ~ t I I% € j ; ~ ~ ~ :, Is ~ i~ I i ' u~ NH OS ~ Y .~ I ;~ j ~~~ ~ ~, ~ 7 I i i -- I ~ ~ ~ - v ~~ i I ~~ ~, Alx 4szo} ~ `{ Ef s ~: ~ ~~_ ^._'~ I ~` Y ~` I I E E. i t r I '1NY. 4N.4} ~ y •i ~i~ 1 1 i` p,{ I E E t t l ~ i ~, ~ ~ f#:, ~ / I I I E i! ! I ~ ~ ~ ' iR I I //11 _~ T ~ I . ' ..... _ .._. ,.~. ~_. -y~_ E ~ I~! ~ ~ € I _'~..," i € -~ ~ _if _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ L _ _ _ s~ IN~v.1~ of ~ I y I 3I 1- I 1 ,~i F i ~ I LIT' ~ 3, j ~ #. ~ € ( _ 1>;,;,. ~ ~ 1 i`~ i,,. ~ '' t ~ r ~~ I I ~ I € € , 1 ; ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ - SS I ,~ i JAN2~2o s G t '; ~ 1 ..~ Ebsnec f1RE N ~ !'`~ t ` ~ a/1 .. I ? I { _ ~ ! ! I / HYORANi - .__ ~\ ~ 1 c ~ ~ I ~ E ~~ ~, '~~~ . DUBLIN Pfd; I MATC}II.INE-sEERIGflT pRELIlVIINARY UTILITY PLAN SPRINGFIELD MONTESSORI SCHOOL crrYY of Dvai.>N AuMEDA wvxrr cA1.~onx1A aritwn, Ina ~....>~E..~, m~eaamlcunaEa4ourem Topln® SCAL& P=711' DATE:IANUASY19,23O9 ~~`~ ~"~~ awaAOx•unucr fltl W G~FLI...,IJ~.m.. um m.,. NDT TO SCALE ~5 N~ fMN}/17 SIIKM ~+III rmklSUlAlfD:9L t t: L`T fI7vE®rEAMW wvwNr rosrwsiwwtalws7 Right Exterior E~evation WAIKLORLW NLAXFl6P Em1P4AT106EIL9B1 696U RCOFRWVEf NunxRl6~si6r~taxrt q,T1>QMIMS JYXBN6NlE ,aa6~ rta6N N SNCrlL QiEA6N EONb Prfl ac69rawms7alcnuExml KKf1YR191 ,,-0. ~~~ f/NgSNNYYOVEN WALYfD8191 ~ 6g00Wi[Il-f0.il _ ~gN1ElEE%'IM 1~7PcV70JimC,NI,A 3 f8P 4LYILD E1TEx9YM6 OYIi Le{~ Exterior E~evation L_~ i ,,-0. / SlAE,6E,( ~E~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~~ A16'IgL71SNLC9IFGIFT fAN,R4N11N60VFA 6VLLW%uAIfh1N1EMCE ~~ rr ~~ fi6EPMI®,JIX / R9~EflN1EAEiYYM / iWNMBIf PE67p71®[ Wit r~ IT l I ~ ~ ,CM S-1t0006CIE~ASGN, MH! 4 ~ rwwms~ra7Nr J ~ `~ Lwwlnawm u9n~~6 NR~B~7Ff 51ULNIEWAIXId W61F8iEEIFE51riF - L,cumawEx~NSOd6weq W]WWF`®SIYN.111kWIIN Lu~wuartammrwE HGI M46g7RAAQr1 PXlR CRICIFiEWWEf9f_J AWASwALFN6AP0E9A L VpW RWffiARN.1Ukw61 LSUPEIIEVcLL pTDPYIMS-0I~R6pRUE ~~ ~~ R65N WIOR6VfF lGttJCRl91 NCNNGR811 Front Exterior E~evation Color ~ Materials rawmal6Em+oEn~ sw+m6wcEm+96tt ~malcElrn6EV~ 4AEilEM rr11mn6rvcmNEraEr wAUCwrtlgx wsn6cEarr~ NLIOOFWP E4161WIf wsnrram6N ~NCeFws®cma~ 6 nxvvspNxrrt9Ew. m6E6BNfNNE7lWL 6 COr~~~ 6 ~SNLfASDI~I: ,+czrtlcstuanw,aawt ~~ 51fRWXi NlLYM6 A 6000'dIE-6117 E7IR7E9R ~ QB SNCfAS~ING2 ~~0~'~ ~ _ _ _ _ Qlg7wtumvrw SIt~M1wu14^l6 cvmaa+®•au~oa - --- - - -- --- - ~ ~- wraauclvwiwgn ©GWVA5AWN6JG: I ~ ~~~ ~ 1rt6,~ra1a6acao] F ~ QD SINETILE ce r~ 9 ~ fian ©~ECaRC~NC~ ~~'~- ;` lr~ra<i a, slseaasH6sm PLGENTPWNi: ~w.rerc~tac6rn6s- ~~ ,~.~6~N~6~ ' RECE{V ,~9.~6E~6~, ~~~ gfA'E~VENfU/i YOLO NIYN951111gWE4 ml N17WfWWIDSIWA'NIFRiN gMGNi.NI51YR6AfIIE M1fIYRN1 _ •~ AWMILRFN NI(O~R191 Rear Exterior E~evation JAN 2 '~ X009 Sca e:1/8' 1'-0' pUBLIN PLANNI G i~~ ~~s ~.. ~:~ }jI `S ! A y re`` ~!p. ~ D.Y :yI 0. InG ~~ .. .. Pwl P.rte1c .weu' 4171 Suisun Valloq Nagl S I Fgl~li el tl. Ch 9g5,4 767.664.tl98B Fu 664.69&7 ~a m.P6P9ss~pna.:gym Revisions 0 0 V `0 N~ ~ Q ~ +~ N c ,~ C .L Q.. a d -~,. 5 ~~x.a ~xL' L . a ` .;, ~I~to~ ~:a~ ~~~ A-z.z ; -~- ~ wsrwmwmRlw _ Praw®rtali Front Color Elevation .Sra ra 1/R' I'~1" ~i Le~E Color E~evation Ki~ht Color Elevation Sra P• I /R" I'~" Rear Color E~evation ~'_o^ l~ ~5 _..__.___ j} -~- -~ ( , ~I nas~.,a f"',~ JJ Peul D. frgd gT~scr 8777 Suisun Valley Road S u I C Fai if laltl. Ch 94534 77T.9fi4.6986 Fox 6fid.6783 ww w.P 7f 7as'ign s.c"m Revisions O S vJ ~.. ~.. `O C v! ~ "~ +~ L O A~^ WJ N~ =J ~L 0 a w a''ti4 a` t1 ~ -',p ~`~` ~,~ u ~D~Of E~GVetions rxak: Ps Notd Morch1009 5{reetNum~er 101 ~ P a ia~~~4~ l ~~l / SREWFLLEPW F . LAWIF.SFR F 3.ONG @;CfOv3lA `AWdY R7Ci 0.E9W F S.LftYr RCCr OFRW F W/NAREV LgMIW~ GBYNWIGIA fOYIRPt CESY ~ FGCiLrEii FOYI(CWPZiPn LEWL fW11Bl GE(V. WSNIAfPKM WAlC.O~ WA~XLPFlk91 WRG;fgi95Y "RC(0 dl'.~4'd5[~N8 q A CnJ SIRC7L1'E Y.diKR!ICR15N A A ' OWa-iA7R1PYkP:9PQWICE ~ fAV5NI43IT7R~7N3 5-K(D FgF&RSSkdi PJEY RSGNS QvfR SRCI4 YIR ;tuslaen:rumlirnteartl iR`IIW~`JTF7RG~aiwkiE av~eWnr::unaxancReSr ws~axakwra,rxnrAass aPZanWx°rmGEaa ~ A WSTXl4FNSXA rvWN 9I1ti6Y1WW.4 A A ~ A II P.P:-0VPWV.'zC]F.91 aPZaurwRrECar~ wxuccorPlelWn vaceavP~wvrb wsmcca~iW-.a wm/xnmcR WnuWl aam+EWw+scm PswacWEmus alP,arelvxur atmsuaex[or Ri~t Trash Enc. Rear Trash Enc. Let Trash Enc. Front Trash Enc. Sca e I/4' ' 1'-0' Sca e: I/4' = I'-0' Sra e: i/4' = I'-0" Sca e: I/4" = 1'-0° ~c~PEGr&x~~u e gntC5N000(~Lkh7 Sl"a1'N WW WS E~JEIiE~W3 cTiFRtlR Y~a3iTPXM,. A'dVLE15 (}A'~ 1YIR7nZY eewPREsar^ 1?GWPW4WfAf a-i~ I IRJa~wrr.svew 1¢'iRff IYP[1n551AEM Trash Enclosure Section ~~~ IT V~tUHUL~wWtY,11f~ r--------~ r---~ BC41wY1 1 I ~ I 1 ~ I ~7.U7t2Yf I ~ ~ I 1 I L_m _J ~ _______~,J f ~ n 1 I L___J Front Color Trash Enc. = I~_p• Rear Color Trash Enc. urtumuelmroJ ~~ „~ vxx~e~saar~u >s~ ,aa,W~ero QY4tUVS Trash Receptacle Plan Le{t Color Trash Enc. = I'-0" Ri~t Color Trash Enc. RFfE270 SHEETA~ CLILOR,~D'I'(+IIERWI. CAl1.OU6 1 Dyti~~ Inc.. JJ JJ PauldG.,r~]mtl 1111 Suisun Yollufi Rnaa S u i I C Pa~~rola, cP sesaR 107.BGI.GRARFa Afi/.fiRPa w we.PGPGeaiAna r.nm Revisions //II 0 U ~~ ~ 0~ N= 4J Q ~~ 0~ C ~''} ~n v C Q~ r~~ L ~~ Q_ o 0 ,.,\ i~ 0 .,. _. 0 0 Trash Enr~osurc Eta. ssrvea A. ra~ea No6-1008 S~PN~~ A-2.3 ~ 4'-' DUBLIN PLANNING PRELIMINARY PLANT LIST: SYM801. BOTANICPLNAME COMMON NAME QUANTITY .NOTES TREES: TO BE 24' 80X SIZE UNLESS NOTED WITH'' ON PLAN THEN 38' BOX 512E GINBIL GINKGOBILOBA (MAIDENHAIRTREEi 5 QUE AGR QUERCUS AGRIFOUA (COAST UVE OAK) 4 QUE COC QUERCUS COCCINEA (SCARLET OAK) 9 '. PYRARI F'YRU$CAL'ARL4TOCRAT (ARISTOCRAT PEAR) 5 SHRUBS: TO BE 3 OAL S¢E UNIF-S$ NQTFO OTHERWISE ARC HOW ARCTOSTAPFIYLOS'HOWAROMCMINM (VINE HILLMANZANITA) 30 COL SUN COLEONEMA'SUNSETGDLD' (BREATH OF HEAVEN) 38 COT LAC COTONEASTERIACTEUS (COTONEASTER) 21 ELAMAR EIAEAGNUSPUN.'MARGINATA' (SILVERBERRY) 43 E9000M ESCALLONIA'COMPACTA' (DWARFESCALLONIA) 24 LEP SNO LEPfOSPERMUM'3NOWWHLTE' (N.Z TEA TREE) 32 PHO FRA PHOTINIA FRASERI (PHOTINIA STANDARD) $ 15 GAL SRE PRUILI PRUNUSILICIFOLUILYONIP (CATALINACHERRY) SS RHA EVE RHAMNUS CAL EVE CASE' (COFFEEBERRY) ST RHAJAO RHAPHIOLEPIS'JACKEVANS' (INDIAN HAWTHORN) 27 RIBSPE RIBESSPEGOSUM (GOOSEBERRY) 21 PERENNUU3: TO 8E 1 GAL SIZE UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE DIEIRI DIETESIRIDIOIDES (FORTNIGHT LILY) 56 HFMSIE HEMEROCALLIS'STELLADEORO' (DAYLILY) 33 MUH RIG MIkiLENBERGIARIGENS (DEER GRASS) 54 NASTEN NASSELLATENUISSIMA (M. FEATHER GRASS) 50 PHO JAC PNORMIUM'JACK SPRATi' (DWARF FLAX) 59 ROS CAR ROSA'CARPET RED' (RED CARPET ROSE) 79 2 GAL SIZE TULVAR TULBAGHLAYARIEGATA (SOCIETY GARLIC) 34 GRWAIDCOVER: ONE GALLON SQE; SPACING NOTED BELOW A ARCfOSTAPHYLOS EMERALD CARPET (MANZANRA) 749 SF ~ 3fi' O.C. C COPROSMA'KIRKII' (CREEPING COPROSMA) 1319 SF ~ 36' O.C. H HYPERICLIM CALYCINUM (ST. JOHNSWORT) 8862 SF ~ 24' O.C. L LANTANA MONIEVIDENSIS (iRAIUNG LANTANA) 1371 SF ~ 38' O.C. T TRACHELOSPERMUMJAS. (STARJASMINE) 1065 SF ~38'O.C. TURF DWARFTALL FESCUE BLEND SOD ROLLS 3204 SF GENERAL NOTES: 1. ALL PW4TING SHALL BE WATERED BY FULLYAUTOMATIC, WATER-0ONSERVINGLRRIGATION SYSTEM. 2 ALL PLANTING AREAS SHALL RECENE A MINIMUM 3' LAYER OF FIRBARK MULCH DRESSING. 3. THE~OPEONTHEWE$TSIOEOFTHEPROPERTYWILLBELApIDSCAPEO WITH NATIVE, DROUGHT RESISTAM SPECI ES. LANDSCAPE DEFINITION AREAS: DESCRIPTION: $Q. FOOTAGE PERCENTAGE SITE LANDSCAPE AREA (17,078 SF) RIGHT-0F-WAY LANDSCAPE AREA 1,638 SF 24% PARKING LOT LANDSCAPE AREA 15,2403E 20.1% REAR PLAYAREA: (28,2103F) TURF SURFACE IN PLAY AREA 3,2815E 4.3% CHILDREN'S PLAY SURFACE 20,794 SF 17.5% SHRUB7GROUNO COVER IN PLAY AREA 2,155 SF 2.89L SITE CONCRETE FLATWORK 2,8~ SF 3S% OPEN WESTERN UNDISTURBED SLOPE 29,880 SF 39.1% TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA 75,828 SF 100.0% LANDSCAPE CONCEPT STATEMENT: THE LANDSCAPE DESIGN CONCEPT IS TO PROVIDE AN INVRING, SAFE ENVIRONMENT FOR CHILDREN TO LEARN AND INTERACT THAT FlTS WITH THENEIGHBORINGRESIDENTIALSCALE. THEDESIGNALSOINCORPORATES ECOLOGICALLY RESPONSIBLE TECHNIQUES OF STORM WATERTREATNENT ONSRE, EROSION CONTROL PLANNNGS AND LOW WATER USE REQUIREMENTS. *,~~ i BIKE RACK: {EMERALD GREEN, SURFACE MOUNT) ~ECEIVE~ GRAPH[C SCALE o io m a eo JAN 2 3 2009 ~ ~~ ~'~t WATER ACCESS WALK; MED. BROOM FINIS)i i F L ~ I t~ON-IRRIGATED '. ~~. ~: NYOROSEED 1 WOOD CHIP PLAY SURFACE !I 'SLOPE, SEE ~ ~l THROUGHOUT (I( I J CIVIL PLANS / i / ~pOpQS~n 3 $I / ~UII,~ING =- 9 ~ E! JAC i PH FRA N ENTRY PAVING; MED. BROOM FWISH A.CCES$yVALI(ME0.~ -. `~\~. -------------- --- ------ a --- ---~ ------ -- -- ------ ------ T ~ ~ O 4 COCK 3 22 L NQ. T '' ..~.. TRANSFORMER SCREENED I 24Y12 ~ ~ ~ ~( n ~ ' • ~ - - I SWINGS I / ~ 0 ~. .\ ~, ~ ~ AREA\\° T _ . 15 DI RI I _ ------'~ \ .' 8 ~ r \ ~ /' '.i' ~ /'? • is B PUMAR ~ ~_ ~ ' L L 15 IRI ' .. 9, ~~ UI 4VE B KE BIKE I I H W ~I N 2I z, ZQ m I L"J I Y I I 10 3 - - i ~I PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN , 1 y5~ Icy; REVISIONS 4 4 a .7 .B a~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~ LL W Q O C) LL U Z J m W ~ O Z LL ~. N o~ ~~ ~~ al_~,-~ sm L1