Dublin, CA March 9th Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

z

3 Planning Commission Minutes
Tuesday March 9 2010
CALL TO ORDER CALL
ROLL

A held Tuesday March 9
regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was on

2010 in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza Chair King called the meeting to
order at 6 PM
39
59

Present Chair King Vice Chair Swalwell Commissioners Schaub Brown and Wehrenberg Jeri
Ram Community Development Director Kit Faubion City Attorney Marnie Waffle Senior
Planner Erica Fraser Senior Planner Martha Aja Environmental Specialist Mike Porto
Consulting Planner and Debra LeClair Recording Secretary
Absent Jeff Baker Planning Manager

ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA A motion was made by Cm Schaub to
hear Item 8 Nissan
3 Dealership before Item 8 Sorrento East seconded by Cm Swalwell the
2
motion carried

MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS On a motion by Cm Swalwell seconded by Cm
Schaub the minutes of the February 9 2010 meeting were
approved
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS NONE

CONSENT CALENDAR NONE

WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS NONE

PUBLIC HEARINGS

1
8 PA 10 School of
004 Imagination Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 2

Development Plan and Site Development Review
Martha Aja Environmental Specialist presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report

Cm Wehrenberg asked if therapists and teachers are considered interchangeable or are the

therapists considered employees

Ms Aja answered therapists considered She continued that the in
are
employees therapists are

the classroom to observe and can
pull out students to work with them one as
on needed

Cm Wehrenberg asked about Condition of Approval 43 from the Building Division requiring
Certified Access
a
Specialist and 52 requiring Site Accessibility are they the same

f W re rsirrrc rc6s
f 1C 3
2

g 10

Gregory Shreeve Building Official answered Condition of Approval 52 is a standard site
accessibility condition and Condition of Approval 43 refers to a Certified Access Specialist
who is an expert in the field certified by the State to review and inspect specific accessibility
standards not just to State law standard but federal law as well

Cm Wehrenberg mentioned the Staff Report indicates the Condition of Approval will be
waived if the permit is completed by July 1 2010

Mr Shreeve answered the law goes into effect on July 1 2010

Cm Wehrenberg asked if Parcel K has always been proposed as a fire station

Ms answered two sites commercial but both
Aja were
previously designated as were
changed
recently to public semi
public and it was anticipated that if a fire station was needed it would
be that
on
parcel

Cm concerned about sirens to the school and if the sound
Wehrenberg was going off so close
would for the children
cause anxiety

Jeri Ram Community Development Director stated Staff is still determining whether a fire
station is needed at that location and that there is a
possibility one will not be necessary She
continued if it is determined not to be
necessary then Staff would come back to the Commission
with a proposal for a different use

Chair King opened the public hearing

Dana Oyoung Discovery Builders the Applicant spoke in favor of the project He stated
Discovery Builders is the Developer of the Schaefer Ranch development which has
builder
been successful He stated the School of Imagination is one of the parts of the development that

they are most proud of He thanked the City and Mayor Lockhart for their help in bringing the
School of Imagination and Discovery Builders
together He spoke of how they planned the
project using imaginative ideas because of space limitations and the FAR He also spoke to the

elevations the American Farmhouse architecture to look like the homes in Schaefer Ranch and
the siteplan and felt they accomplished what wanted and would like to begin
they as soon as

they receive approvals

Cm Schaub stated he is in support of the project and liked the idea of having the building look
like the rest of the homes in the Schaefer Ranch He felt the
development building will be very
visible He stated that he is not in favor of but understands there issues
a
composite roof are

with the weight of the material He felt that that the builders can do to ensure
roofing anything
that the roofs look like the houses would be material
appreciated He felt the current roofing
will look flat He also felt the stucco pop should be the
outs same
siding as the homes which
would make the like the houses
pop look
out more

Cm Swalwell stated that of the Conditions of limits the number of to
one
Approval employees
9 but there is for and asked
enough parking more
employees why the school is limited to only 9
employees He suggested increasing the number of employees at this meeting so that they do

11

not have to come back to the Commission if want to increase the number at
Planning they a

later date

Ms answered there is Condition of
Aja a
Approval that states that if the capacity of the school
increases the Applicant will work with Staff to
verify that all the building and fire codes are met
and that there is ample parking to accommodate the increase and then the Applicant would not
be required to back to the
come
Planning Commission

Cm Swalwell asked if the would have to to increase the
Applicant spend more
money
and asked if it would be better to do that rather than at Iater date
employees now a

Ms there
Aja felt many variables and that it makes sense to wait and stated the change
are

would be an over meeting between the Applicant and Staff with no red tape
counter
the
involved

Dana Oyoung responded to Cm Schaub concern regarding the materials for the pop he
s outs
stated the would have no problem changing the siding for the pop He stated
Developer outs
Cm s
Schaub concern the roof material according to their calculations of the squares
regarding
on the roof is 76 square feet which equals 77 squares which would be 1 lbs per square
000 000
foot therefore a concrete the roof would lbs He stated they could
weigh approximately 77
000
but would have to increase the structure to accommodate the extra
comply they weight on the
the beams and the He mentioned
building strengthen partitions in the multi
purpose room

the EBRPD where the roof
staging area restroom was a
composite roof and felt it looked good

Cm Schaub felt the roof will look flat with he stated he understood the
composite material
weight concern but encouraged the Applicant to change it

Mr Oyoung was concerned about the weight of the fully loaded semi
roof comparing it to two

trucks He was not concerned with the cost of the
composite roof compared to the cost of
concrete tiles which he felt was not
very significant He stated the Applicant will install a heavy
profile type composition roof that will look good

Cm Schaub felt everyone would be with the roof if it looks like the houses in
happier more

Schaefer Ranch

Mitch Sigman founder of the
school spoke in favor of the project and thanked the Planning
Commission for listening and commended Staff and
Mayor Lockhart for all their hard work

Janet Lockhart former Mayor spoke in favor of the project She stated she is very proud of the
City for understanding the value of the partnership between the Developer the school and the
City She felt this project is something Discovery Homes is giving the community to enjoy for a
time to She commended Staff and the Commission for their hard work well
long come as as

Rich Ambrose for his contribution to the project She thanked the Planning Division in getting
the project this
to
point and Discovery Homes for being such a great partner

Chair closed the
King public hearing

12

Cm stated she met of the teachers from the school and with the
Wehrenberg one was
impressed
spirit in which she talked about the school and the programs She stated she is support of the
project and has no issues with the design color or parking

Cm Swalwell felt that Schafer Ranch successful and the school is
development has been a

wonderful addition to the
development and a good partnership between a reputable developer
and He felt the school will be added value to the
a
worthy organization an
community and is
consistent with the General Plan He stated he is in of the
support project

Cm Brown also supports the school and felt it will be an added value to the City

stated that he has
Chair King personal experience with the diagnosis of Autism He stated
some

that at the time there resources therefore he feels this is an outstanding project which is
were no

important to the community and stated he is in total support of the project

Cm Schaub commented that he has attended graduation at the school and mentioned a friend
that graduated who is
doing well He stated his only comment for the building is to the

developers regarding the roof PM
25
32
7

On motion Cm Swalwell and seconded of 5 the Planning
a
by by Cm Wehrenberg on a vote 0
Commission approved

RESOLUTION NO 10 06

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 WITH A STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR
THE SCHOOL OF IMAGINATION LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD
AND SCHAEFER RANCH ROAD

APN 941
027
2832
PA 10
004

RESOLUTION NO 10 07


APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR THE SCHOOL OF IMAGINATION
LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD AND SCHAEFER RANCH ROAD

APN 941
027
2832
PA 10
004

f 13
r

44
34PM
7

3
8 PA 09 Nissan
040 Dealership Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit

Erica Fraser Senior Planner presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report

Cm Schaub asked what the area will look like and where the street will go

Ms Fraser the of the site and indicated the will be
explained configuration gateway feature
landscaped and located on the corner across from the Honda site

Cm Schaub asked if the road will be eliminated

Ms Fraser answered it will be road The road will be redone within the Nissan site
no
longer a

so that it will be one site

Cm Schaub asked about the part of Scarlet Court that is next to the new
City gateway feature

Ms Fraser answered that it will be into the Honda site and used for
incorporated inventory

Cm Schaub asked about a beige building next to the area

Ms Fraser answered that the
building is CalTrans property and not within the City limits She
stated CalTrans is it
using as a
laboratory

Joni Pattillo City Manager stated that the City is in discussions with CalTrans regarding the
building She stated they are using it as a temporary lab and temporary can be anything from
4 to 5 years She stated that the
City is actively engaged with CalTrans and the issue has been
mentioned on a
couple of occasions She continued the City recognizes that this is an area that
they want to pay a lot of attention to and will continue the conversation with them She stated
the challenge is that
they want a lab facility close to their various projects on 580
I

Chair King asked if while Ms Pattillo is in discussion with CalTrans she can
bring up the
subject of the shabby cyclone fences that bracket the murals under the freeway overpasses

Ms Pattillo and
agreed suggested alleviating thebuilding close to the gateway feature first She
continued that at one
point they had only one small building and the City gave them the
to relocate it to 84
opportunity Lumber but they did not accept the opportunity She stated that
during the discussions with CalTrans Staff indicated what the City would like the to
gateway
look like and reiterated that the City will continue discussions with CalTrans

Cm Schaub felt it unfair for the into the
was
building to be located at a
gateway City and to the
nearby businesses

Chair King asked if the site where Miracle Auto located will be site for Honda
was an
inventory

Ms Fraser answered that the site will be part of the City gateway element
s

tt
s Iccrc 1
2E

14

Cm Schaub was concerned with that the Nissan is to the roof be
cars
planning park on can seen

from the I overpass
580

Cm Swalwell asked if the roof issue
goes against any findings that need to be made regarding
cars being visible on the roof from a 30 stretch of
foot overpass

Ms Fraser answered that no matter what is on the roof it will be visible from the overpass She
stated the cars will be blocked from where Staff wants them to be blocked which is Scarlett
Court and Dougherty Road which is the gateway into Dublin

Cm Wehrenberg asked why there is a
finding that needs to be made to make the site

adequately designed to ensure proper circulation for bicyclists She asked if it was
part of the
Bikeways Master Plan

Ms Fraser answered the finding is currently in the Zoning Ordinance She stated that the
is to ensure there
finding are
adequate sidewalks leading up to the site and that people can ride
a bike or walk there

Cm Schaub felt that there should be access to the BART Station from the site

Ms Fraser stated access to BART from this site should be a conversation for another day She
stated the has been vacated
area
by the City Council and is not part of this project

Ms Ram stated that access to BART is not
part of the project and was never a legal access

Cm asked if there will be
Wehrenberg a end
dead there

Ms Ram answered that the has not
City planned anything for the end of Scarlett Court and it
not be
may open for access to BART even
though there was no public access to begin with

Cm Schaub felt this issue was part of the Scarlett Court Specific Plan and he stated he is
concerned about no access to BART from Scarlett Court

Ms Ram stated she Cm Schaub feelings but there are current design guidelines
s
appreciates
for Scarlett Court but no
specific plan as yet She stated that specific plans typically look at
circulation and land issues She continued the
use
City Council has not gone forward with the
specific plan because they are waiting to see what happens with Camp Parks because there will
be traffic impacts with that project She stated that there are Design Guidelines and the project
respects those guidelines

Cm felt that Dublin Blvd is not safe for
Wehrenberg bicycles and felt the area would be a logical
way to make the connection to BART She suggested deferring the discussion to another time

Ms Ram stated that if the Scarlett Court Plan is funded the Commission talk in
Specific can

at that time and felt there
general may be another way to get to the same location

15

Cm King stated he concurs with the comments and felt bike lanes to the BART station are a

matter of rational
consistency

Chair the
King opened public hearing

Chuck Chatfield Chatfield Construction spoke in favor of the project He stated that he is
under pressure from Nissan indicating that if the project is not completed by the end of the year
the funding will be withdrawn He continued Staff has been helpful in getting the project

going He stated have tried make the the roof less obvious but it is
they to cars on a car

dealership

Cm Swalwell asked if there is a Condition of Approval regarding the hours of operation

Ms Fraser answered the hours of referred to in the Staff Report but the City does
operation are

not condition the by
types of businesses as
long as there are no residences close

Chair King closed the public hearing

Cm to confirm that there the
Wehrenberg wanted are no tall electronic signs requested for
project

Ms Fraser answered the signs are not included in this application She continued the Applicant
must come back to Staff for signage but there are no plans for any tall electronic signs She
stated the Applicant is
planning to move the existing Nissan sign which complies with the
design guidelines to the new site She added that Master Sign Programs are typically approved
at Staff level unless there is
controversy

Cm Schaub stated he is on the Green Initiative Task Force and one of the first things that came
up in the meeting was a concern
regarding water He felt that there will be more need for

findings regarding water in the future

On motion Cm and seconded Cm Schaub on a vote of 5 the Planning
0
a
by Wehrenberg by
Commission approved

RESOLUTION NO 10 12


APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR THE NISSAN DEALERSHIP LOCATED
AT 6363 SCARLETT COURT AND FOR MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE HONDA
DEALERSHIP LOCATED AT 6382 SCARLETT COURT APN 941
075
0550
PA 09
040

RESOLUTION NO 10 13


OF THE CITY OF DUBLLN

APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE AN
AUTOMOBILENEHICLE SALES AND SERVICE FACILITY NISSAN DEALERSHIP AT 6363
SCARLETT COURT AND A PARKING REDUCTION FOR OFF PARKING LOCATED
SITE
AT 6382 SCARLETT COURT IN THE M
1 ZONING DISTRICT
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
PA 09
040

2
8 PA 08 Sorrento East at Dublin Ranch
002 Stage 2 Planned
Area F Stage 1 and

Development Rezone
Amendment Site Development Review Vesting Tentative Maps
7982 7983 and Amendments to Vesting Tentative Map 7652 7653 7654 7655 7656
for
Neighborhoods 6 through 11 Development Agreement Amendment and adoption of
a CEQA Addendum

Chair disclosed that he met with the the He stated they
King Applicant to preview project
of the but
discussed the specifics project no
promises were made

Cm Swalwell also disclosed that he met with Pat Costanzo Regent Properties as well as
Guy
Houston and discussed the project He stated he saw
nothing different than what is contained
in the plans tonight He continued that he gave his idea of what the Commission
Planning
looks for but no
promises were made

Mike Porto Consulting Planner presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report

Cm Swalwell asked how this is similar to Turtle
project Ridge

Mr Porto answered at the Planner Institute in Southern California last year the Planning
s
Commission toured several projects and this project is identical to Turtle Ridge He continued
the architecture is similar it is identical in product and layout but different in plan and
floor
elevation but the concept is the same

Cm Schaub mentioned that this has which is different from Turtle
project more
topography
Ridge in Southern California

Mr Porto answered with a
topography Like this accessibility issues must be met
project with
He felt the Applicant added deepened footings and entry doors on the houses working with the

topography He felt this is a well thought out package with a lot of information

Cm Brown mentioned that in this reconfigured project the park has more parking

Mr Porto answered there is considerably more parking then the previous project He pointed
the slide the former
out on
configuration for the park and the new configuration He continued
the school parking lot
s is at the same location and it was always anticipated that the park
would share with the school
parking

17

Cm asked about HOA streets and the distinction
Wehrenberg guest parking on
private why
between HOA streets and streets
private public

Mr Porto out the
pointed public and private streets in the project and stated the private streets

HOA owned
are
property

Cm Wehrenberg asked if the HOA will be the streets
responsible for maintaining

Mr Porto answered yes

Cm asked if the HOA could have
Wehrenberg a
lottery to
give extra
parking to residents on

special occasions

Mr Porto stated these are
designated guest parking stalls He continued there are additional

parking stalls in that off the HOA
some
neighborhoods are streets on private property that are

associated with that unit He stated there is also in the available to
parking neighborhood
everyone He continued there isconsiderable amount of both onpublic parking and off
a street
street private that is HOA maintained He mentioned that as part of the Master Sign
parking
Program there are signs for guest parking and towing for cars not parked according to the HOA
rules

Cm asked if the Fire will there be revisions for red
Wehrenberg Dept reviewed the project and
curbs

Mr Porto answered the Fire reviewed the
Dept has plans and there are fire access plans
included in the
packet

Cm Schaub asked about tandem
parking

Mr Porto stated is allowed under the Ordinance the has
although tandem parking project none

Cm Schaub asked about for the
inclusionary housing project

Mr Porto explained the Lin family came to the City in 2003 and requested that they be allowed
to
develop a project that would encapsulate all their inclusionary housing responsibilities
therefore freeing property on the rest of their land with no other inclusionary requirements
That development is known as Fairway Ranch or The Groves

Cm asked if there is amount of
Wehrenberg an excess
inclusionary housing

Mr Porto answered yes

Cm Wehrenberg asked if there will be any discussion with the City Council or will it come to

the Planning Commission if there is a request for a reduction in inclusionary housing

Ms Ram answered those affordable
housing credits belong to the Liri s and can be applied to
other within the Dublin Ranch
projects area including Wallis and Area B

18

Cm Schaub asked if all of the HOA landscaping is built with purple pipe recycled water

Mr Porto deferred to Jim of the who has been working with DSRSD
Kearns one
Applicants
regarding the purple pipe and landscaping


Jim Kearns Regent Properties stated along the planting strips onthe perimeter road there will
berecycled water and the rest of the common HOA area will be potable water He stated they
had a meeting with DSRSD regarding their requirements and this was suggested by DSRSD

Cm Schaub asked about the and if any of those
Stopwaste list
org of bay friendly plants plants
would be included in the project

Pat Costanzo Regent Properties stated that because the paseos are in residential areas where
children would be water in those
playing it is not acceptable for DSRSD to recycled use areas

He stated that from the bridge to the recreation center will be purple pipe recycled water

Mr Kearns stated that the is with water
park irrigated purple pipe recycled

Cm Schaub felt there is a list of plants that would be a more
acceptable use than grass and felt
there lot of grass in the
was a area
project

Mr Porto stated that there is
actually less grass in this reconfigured project then the previous
project He continued the Applicant cut back significantly on grass and used a lot of plant
material He stated the landscape architect also took into account the bay friendly planting
materials

Cm Swalwell mentioned that neither the Planning Commission nor Mr Porto liked the utility
boxes in the front yards at Turtle Ridge He asked where the utility boxes will be located in this
project

Mr Porto answered the joint trench plans show the various elements of the project He stated
that Paul Kruger Consulting Engineer looked at all the big utility boxes and moved them to
places where they will be less obtrusive He stated Staff asked for the joint trench plans up front
and then planned for the utility boxes rather than letting them occur randomly He stated they
will be placed in out of the way areas tucked in the back and in alleys He mentioned the

architecture in Neighborhood 9 where they constructed wells in the back of the buildings to

tuck the AC units away from views

Cm Brown felt the architectural excellent the
styles and elevations are giving buyer many
choices He asked if any of the house for solar in the future
designs call for prethe
wiring

Mr Porto stated it was not
brought up to Staff that the Applicant was
offering solar He stated
the Applicant can address that issue

s 19


Pat Costanzo Regent Properties spoke in favor of the project and thanked the City and the Staff
He stated they are very excited about the project and felt the architecture provides a great
variety of choices the site plan is much better compared to the original design and the
corridor
pedestrian coming through the center and tying the recreation center to all the units is
much better and the park is accessible He the Commission s
more
requested Planning
approval as the project is proposed

Mr Costanzo to Cm
responded question regarding Green Building by pointing out the
Brown s
project has the Green Building rating sheets in the project material He stated Regent will not
build the project but has completed the rating sheets and will make the required 50 points He
stated the plans will be taken to a solar roof installer and
they will evaluate each house
individually He stated that one of the choices on the plans is to provide pre or solar
wiring
He continued that because the houses will be built with so much articulation in the roofs that
each house must be evaluated and if it makes sense for that house it will be offered

Cm Schaub asked if the not build the houses how
Applicants will will the project be built and
also asked if all will be available at the time
products same

Mr Costanzo responded that was correct Neighborhood 6 and 7 should never be built at the
same time but it will be built as the market demands He stated they have been working with
the Public Works Dept build either
phasing the infrastructure so they can
on one
neighborhood
at time
a or
consecutively depending on the market

Cm Schaub asked how locked in to the designs is the builder

Mr Costanzo answered the builder would be locked into these unless
completely designs they
the entire SDR process
go through again

Tim Hall Homeowner in Sorrento West spoke in favor of the project

Chair
Vice Brown closed the
public hearing

Chair King excused himself from the but shared his
meeting thoughts regarding the project He
stated he is in support of the project and liked the sizeable parking ratio the pedestrian friendly

feel the good architecture the many gateways into the neighborhoods its closeness to parks
and playgrounds the open space and he also liked the arches on the entrances He concurred
with Cm Brown s comment
regarding prefor solar
wiring

Cm stated she
Wehrenberg supports the project and agrees with Chair King
s comments Was
concerned with the parking but is very happy with the change and likes the project

Cm Schaub asked if Staff should add a condition that there will be no tandem parking

t e v v

20

Mr Porto asked if Cm Schaub concerned that builder could the that
was a
change plan so

tandem could He stated that if the Commission wanted to add
parking occur a condition they
could

Ms Ram asked if the development standards allow for tandem parking

Mr Porto answered the
Zoning Ordinance allows for tandem parking

Ms Ram stated Staff could add to the standards that indicates tandem
something development
is not allowed and then it would have to back to the Commission
parking come as an

amendment to the PD if
they wanted to add it

Cm Schaub was concerned that if a builder wanted to add 100 units with
200 tandem parking
that would take 100 He stated that if it is indicated in
approximately guest parking spaces out
the development standards the Commission be assured that there will be
Planning can
enough
guest parking for this project

Mr Porto responded in neighborhood 9 there 4
are car
garages and two of the stalls are tandem
but generally its required parking that shall not be tandem therefore the two covered stalls
have to be side but there could be 4 stalls
by He directed the Commission to the Land Use
Criteria tab of the Stage 1 2 PD booklet which shows the parking requirement He stated
Staff add additional footnote 12 that would indicate shall not be
can an
required parking
tandem and then it would be in the Ordinance and
Zoning they would have to come back to
the Planning Commission to amend the zoning

Cm Swalwell asked how the
Applicant felt about this added note

Mr Costanzo indicated he OK with not see the in that
was it but does point being specific
because it is in the plan

Cm Schaub wanted to ensure that if any builder wants to include tandem in the
parking project
they must come back to the Planning Commission

Cm Brown asked if Staff can add note 12 to the Development Standards

Mr Porto answered that he would need motion and from the Commissioners and
a
something
then Staff can add the note

Kit Faubion mentioned that add it
they can as
part of the motion if the Commission desires

Cm did think it makes difference and felt that if there it
Wehrenberg not a was a
redesign
would back to the Commission and at this
come
they could decide then but point it is not in the

design

Cm Swalwell concerned about what the must do and how
was micromanaging Applicant
involved the Commission is with the
project

21

Cm Schaub felt the note was
necessary to ensure no tandem parking

Cm Swalwell supports the project is tandem parking is not in the and if
as
plan someone

with
comes a
plan for tandem parking they must come back to the Planning Commission He
did not want to project what the developer will do and create conditions based on projections
which are not founded in the He felt the plans written are fine and if they want to
plans as

change them they would have to come back to the Planning Commission

Ms Ram stated if developer wanted to include tandem it is allowed under the Zoning
a
parking
Ordinance it would be a
change to the
design of the house and the SDR and Staff would have to

make decision whether not Staff it waiver amendment to the SDR
a or can
approve as a or an

She stated that the minutes of this and the Commission s discussion regarding their
meeting
concerns would be taken into consideration She stated that if Staff adds the note into the

Zoning Ordinance the Commission s intent would be extremely clear She continued if not
then Staff will look at the minutes and make the determination

Cm Swalwell that indicates if want to include tandem
suggested including wording they
to the
parking they must come back Planning Commission for approval

Cm Schaub asked where the be located in the
wording would plans

Mr Porto answered the would be Note 12 the Standards for the
wording on Development
project

Cm Swalwell thanked Staff for their hard work on the
project He also thanked Regent
Properties for putting on an open house for the surrounding community regarding the new
project He felt it was helpful to the process and makes the Planning Commission more

efficient He felt it was a seamless transition from the west to the east and likes the park and the

pedestrian friendly access

Cm Schaub felt the Applicant and Staff did a fabulous job He felt this type of project is exactly
what the Commission is for
looking

Mr Porto stated that this very smooth process and the and the entire team
was a
Applicant
worked well
together

On motion Cm Swalwell and seconded Cm
a
by by Wehrenberg on a vote of 4 with Chair
1
0
King absent for the vote the Planning Commission approved

RESOLUTION NO 10 08


RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING STAGE 1 AND STAGE 2 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
REZONE AMENDMENTS FOR THE SORRENTO EAST PROJECT

Ca
z 2

PA 08
002

Note 12 would read if there that decision would
were to be required tandem parking
be brought back to the Planning Commission for approval

RESOLUTION NO 10
09

OF 7HE CITY OF DUBLIN

APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND
NEW AND AMENDED VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS FOR
SORRENTO EAST AREA F DUBLIN RANCH
APN 985
00
003
0053
PA 08
002

RESOLUTION NO 10 10


RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AN AMENDED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR
SORRENTO EAST AT DUBLIN RANCH DUBLIN RANCH AREA F EAST
PA 08
002

RESOLUTION NO 10 11


RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A CEQA ADDENDUM TO THE EASTERN
DUBLIN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND 2000 DUBLIN RANCH AREA F
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE SORRENTO EAST PROJECT
PA 08
002

4
8 ZOA 09 Zoning Ordinance Amendments Amendments to the Dublin
004 Municipal
Code related to Eating and
Drinking Establishments
including modifications to Chapter
08
8 12
8 Zoning Districts and Permitted Uses Chapter 76
8
Definitions Chapter
Off Parking and Loading and Chapter 8 Site Development Review
Street 104

23

Marnie Waffle Senior Planner presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report

Cm Wehrenberg asked if the new
parking standard is used on a out
take pizza facility of
approximately 1200
1300 sq ft would there be 4 parking stalls

Ms Waffle answered yes

Cm asked if have 4 stalls
Wehrenberg they currently parking

Ms Waffle answered that currently park them at 1 sq ft so at 1200 sq ft they
Staff would 100
would require 12 stalls She felt the likelihood of 12 people being there to pick up pizza at the
same time is low She felt that was a high parking standard for atake establishment
out

Cm concerned with the other and establishments in the
Wehrenberg was
eating drinking
shopping center and felt that when other businesses are closed there is the shared parking
effect She concerned with short changing the what other businesses
was
parking depending on

in the
are
shopping center

Ms Waffle answered that if the shopping center is in a PD
zoning district in which there is a cap
on the total square
footage for restaurant uses this guarantees that there would not be a
shortage of parking because of a restaurant use She continued what this change would do for
this shopping center would be to free up additional
parking if there were another use type that
would require more parking then a traditional retaurant establishment She felt that the
benefits will be felt in the parts of town that have conventional zoning i e C C C the
1 2N
older shopping centers that were built in the 70 and 80 when
s s the parking standards were

different She felt the City would definitely yield a benefit in those areas with the new
parking
standards

Cm Schaub asked what she meant benefits
by

Ms Waffle answered that the 100
1 parking ratio which is what is determined to be

appropriate for asit
down restaurant is also being applied to a out
take facility even
though a

out
take would not have in and down to dine She felt this is
facility people coming sitting a

high ratio for a use that is not as intense as a traditional sit restaurant
down

Cm Schaub asked if when she mentions benefit it
s benefit to because the City
a a
proprietor
will not require as
many parking spaces

Ms Waffle responded it is benefit to the center whole because it allows for
a
shopping as a a

mix of She continued it allows for restaurants to go into a place where they
greater uses

otherwise may not be able to go because there would not be adequate parking but in reality

they dori t generate a need fora 1 ratio
100

Cm Brown asked where a 11
7 convenience store fit into the new
zoning ordinance

24

Ms Waffle answered a 11
7 would be considered a convenience store it would not be

considered an
eating and drinking establishment and would fall under a
separate use type
altogether

Ms Ram stated a 11
7 would be considered retail such as
T Max
J etc

Cm Schaub commended Ms Waffle for the Staff
a terrific job on
Report he felt it was
thorough
and very well done His that the
concerns are
City starting is to get business model specific for
a
Zoning Ordinance He felt
trying to define a business can be problematic and he was not sure
how the will work with shared parking He would like to have a parking study session
change
which would include shared parking He brought up the Starbucks Village Parkway and the
on

fact that it is under parked At the time signs were installed indicating 10 minutes parking
15
time limit which would force people to He felt that should be part of the discussion He
move
stated that in a center it would not be such a concern but putting atake
out
larger shopping
facility in a smaller shopping center which can be under parked then taking away three
parking spaces can be a problem He felt it could hurt the other businesses in the small

shopping centers if the center is at 95 to 100 capacity and take
three spaces away He felt it
too business model specific with too
many variables
was

Ms Ram responded regarding the business model she stated Staff tried to test everything to

if it would work and the Commission She stated Staff spent a lot of
see
provided examples
time testing the parking using the current business model She felt that Zoning Ordinances
have to change when uses change and during a downtime that would be the thing to do
wererit
examining things that working She felt that parking hasri t worked for a while and
Staff wanted to fix it

Cm Schaub asked if there would be a
parking study session for the Planning Commission

Ms Ram responded that the parking session was moved to the Council under New Business
and is currently scheduled for April and invited the Commission to attend She stated this

Zoning Ordinance Amendment is scheduled for that meeting also

Cm Wehrenberg agreed with Cm Schaub and felt they were
getting too involved She stated
that the reason she mentioned the
pizza facility referring to Papa Johns at Dublin Corners is
that there is but it is
close and cutting in between cars can be unsafe She stated she
parking not

supports the change and appreciated the time taken to test the Ordinance but feels like there
s

something missing and would like to do some type of parking inservice

Cm Swalwell understands that who to lease out vacant
property owners or
people are
trying
units hard time the units with the current ordinance He felt this
are
having a
leasing parking
would alleviate that problem
change

Ms Ram stated that Staff had with local brokers which the
meetings were
genesis of the indoor
recreation Zoning Ordinance change as well as this change She stated Staff took in a lot of
input on how to make the Zoning Ordinance better

Cm Swalwell felt that the for owners to getting tenants into their
biggest challenge property
units besides the bad economy is the way the parking is structured

Cm felt the is not that and concerned where the feedback is
Wehrenberg parking stringent was

coming from

Cm Schaub felt that if a
property has space open they will do anything to get the space
owner

rented He felt the t
don care whether the parking is adequate or not and there are a
developers
lot of issues regarding the parking ordinance He was not sure what the City Council will do
with the far the
parking study session because they do not
get into parking as as Planning
Commission

Ms Ram responded the session but on shared
City Council item is not a
study a
report parking
which is different than session
a
study

Cm Wehrenberg felt that they always reviewed shared parking on a
case basis
by

Cm Schaub mentioned that ended up in a lawsuit and felt that the Commission didri t
a
project
have the words to communicate with each other
regarding parking which is what caused the
problem He felt that the Commission needs more study of parking how timed parking fits into
the equation and when should they look at that He felt that parking will always come up He
also thought there will be council members who will He
oppose taking parking spaces away
felt that Council has depended upon the
Planning Commission to take the time to think through
parking because they dori t always have the time He stated he tried to take classes on
s parking
but has not found one that was
helpful

Ms Waffle mentioned that the standards for traditional restaurants that serve full
parking
sandwich
meals even
shops changing significantly She stated the real focus of
etc are not

these amendments is focused on the take and the
out specialty shops ie yogurt ice cream shop
where the amount of time people spend there is short they are high turnover so there is no need
fora 15 minute sign because it
happens naturally by the way the use functions She did not
want to leave the Commission with the
perception that they are significantly reducing the
parking for restaurants

Cm Schaub asked about Starbucks

Ms Waffle stated nothing would as far coffee houses they would be parked 100
1
change as at

Cm Schaub stated that out of Starbucks because of the free WiFi and
people are
working now

not moving out He continued that the business models not being used the way
are are
they
first intended He stated he has with these changes
were no
problem

Cm Brown stated he supports business models and the idea of helping the business owner get
into a He felt that this will reduce the number of studies that Staff
spot more
quickly parking
must do He asked under what circumstances Staff would do a
parking study

e S
e 26

Ms Waffle answered that if there is a
shopping center with a wide range of uses
approached by
eating and establishment Staff will list the
businesses type and parking their
an
drinking use

requirements Then Staff would do the calculations on paper to see how many spaces the center
requires and how many are available and if it shows that there is no room left for that eating
and drinking establishment
they would do a study She continued that the City is turning
people away and leaving spaces vacant because it appears there not enough parking but in
s
there is parking She continued Staff will initiate a
reality parking study at a cost of 3
000
7 paid for by the Applicant The parking study is done and usually it shows that
000 at
peak
demand there is She stated that Staff is that
adequate parking finding they are
going through
the exercise and finding that there is adequate parking available which leads Staff to look at the
different use
types and how they are operating and are our existing standards adequate

Cm Wehrenberg felt it might be because of the economy that the parking is available less
people with less cash or it could be an ebb and flow situation

Cm Schaub and felt that
agreed really dori tknow how filled up the businesses are now and
we

that is the reason there are
parking spots and when the economy changes the situation might
He felt the if there is not the entire center could
change again reality is they adequate parking
go under

Cm asked if when
Wehrenberg Applicant is meeting with Staff if that meeting is noticed to
an

the nearby business owners so that
they know this business is coming in She felt that there
could be conflict regarding parking if Staff assumes there is plenty of parking when in reality
there is not

Ms Ram stated that if there is it is to the Commission for
a
parking study brought Planning a

Conditional Use Permit for a
parking exception

Cm asked if when Staff is
Wehrenberg reviewing one with the Applicant
on the other
business owners know that this business is coming into the shopping center

Ms Ram stated that unless it was a
required notice the surrounding business owners would not
know

Ms Waffle stated that in all the parking exception requests except for one the 10 reduction
for unusual constraints all CUP She stated that those CUP would
s
design require a
normally
be the
approved by Zoning Administrator unless they are attached to a use that requires a

Planning Commission approval and they are always noticed

Cm Brown opened the and with closed
public hearing no
persons to
speak public hearing

On motion Cm
a
byWehrenberg and seconded by Cm Swalwell on a vote of 4 with Chair
1
0

King absent the Planning Commission approved

RESOLUTION NO 10 14


27


RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
TO CHAPTER 8
08 DEFINITIONS CHAPTER 8 ZONING DISTRICTS AND PERMITTED
12

USES CHAPTER 8 OFF PARKING AND LOADING AND CHAPTER 8
76 STREET 104

SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
ZOA 09
004

NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS NONE

OTHER BUSINESS NONE

1
10 Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from the Planning Commission and Staff
or
including Committee Reports and Reports by the Commission related
Planning to

meetings attended at City Expense AB 1234

ADTOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9
07PM
56

Respectfull su miffed

f
1

organ K g
Chair Planning Co ssion

ATTEST

Jeri Ra AICP

Community Development Director

G MINUTES 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION 3
doc
10
9

1 csnsnirsiart
trtrarzi arcn
At 9 213117

ry
i
ez
radrtr 2

Dublin, CA March 9th Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Featured

Featured (20)

Dublin, CA March 9th Planning Commission Meeting Minutes