z

3 Plannin Commission MinutesgTuesday March 9 2010

CALL TO ORDERROLLCALL

A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday March 92010 in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza Chair King called the meeting to

order at65939PM

Present Chair King Vice Chair Swalwell Commissioners Schaub Brown and Wehrenberg JeriRam Community Development Director Kit Faubion City Attorney Marnie Waffle Senior

Planner Erica Fraser Senior Planner Martha Aja Environmental Specialist Mike PortoConsulting 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 Item83 Nissan Dealership before Item 82Sorrento East seconded by Cm Swalwell the

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

81 PA 10004 School of 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 are considered employees She continued that the therapists are in

the classroom to observe and can pull out students to work with themoneonone as needed

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

f W re rsirrrc frc6s 231C

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 Specialistwho is an expert in the field certified by the State to review and inspect specific accessibilitystandards not just toState 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 Aja answered two sites were previously designated as commercial but were both changedrecently to publicsemipublic and it was anticipated that if a fire station was needed it would

be on that parcel

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

Jeri Ram Community Development Director stated Staff is still determining whether a firestation 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 Commissionwith a proposal for a differentuse

Chair King opened the public hearing

Dana Oyoung Discovery Builders the Applicant spoke in favor of the project He stated

Discovery Builders is the Developerbuilder of the Schaefer Ranch development which has

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 site plan and felt they accomplished what they wanted and would like to begin 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 development He felt the building will be veryvisible He stated that he is not in favor of a composite roof but understands there are issues

with the weight of the roofing material He felt that anything that the builders can do to ensure

that the roofs look like the houses would be appreciated He felt the current roofing material

will look flat He also felt the stucco popouts should be the same siding as the homes which

would make the popoutlook more like the houses

Cm Swalwell stated that one of the Conditions of Approval limits the number of employees to

9 but there is enough parking for more employees and asked 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 Planning Commission if they want to increase the number at a

later date

Ms Aja answered there is a Condition of 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 wouldnot

be required to come back to the Planning Commission

Cm Swalwell asked if the Applicant would have to spend more money to increase the

employees and asked if it wouldbe better to do that now rather than at a Iater date

Ms Aja felt there are many variables and that it makes sense to wait and stated the changewould be an overthecounter meeting between the Applicant and Staff with no red tapeinvolved

Dana Oyoung responded to Cm Schaubs concern regarding the materials for the popouts hestated the Developer would have no problem changing the siding for the popouts He stated

Cm Schaubs concern regarding the roof material according to their calculations of the squareson the roof is 76000 square feet which equals 77 squares which would be1000 lbs per squarefoot therefore a concrete the roof would weigh approximately 77000 lbs He stated they could

comply but they would have to increase the structure to accommodate the extra weight on the

building strengthen the beams and the partitions in the multipurpose room He mentionedthe EBRPD staging area restroom where the roof was a composite roof and felt it looked good

Cm Schaub felt the roof will look flat with composite material he stated he understood the

weight concern but encouraged the Applicant tochange it

Mr Oyoung was concerned about the weight of the roof comparing it to two fully loaded semitrucks He was not concerned with the cost of the composite roof compared to the cost of

concrete tiles which he felt wasnot very significant He stated the Applicant will install a heavyprofile type composition roof that will look good

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

Schaefer Ranch

Mitch Sigman founder of the school spoke in favor of the project and thanked the PlanningCommission 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

long time to come She commended Staff and the Commission for their hard work as well as

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

Chair King closed the public hearing

12

Cm Wehrenberg stated she met one of the teachers from the school and was impressed with the

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 development has been successful and the school is a

wonderful addition to the development and a good partnership between a reputable developerand a worthy organization He felt the school will be an added value to the community and is

consistent with the General Plan He stated he is in support of the project

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

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

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

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 roof73225 PM

On a motion by Cm Swalwell and seconded by Cm Wehrenberg on a vote of50 the PlanningCommission approved

RESOLUTION NO 10 06

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIONOF 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 9412832027PA10004

RESOLUTION NO 10 07

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION

OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN

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

APN 9412832027PA 10004

r f 13

73444PM

83 PA09040 Nissan 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 explained the configuration of the site and indicated the gateway feature will be

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 no longer be a road The road will be redone within the Nissan siteso 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 incorporated into the Honda site and used for 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 using it 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 beenmentioned 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 statedthe challenge is that they want a lab facility close to their various projects onI580

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 agreed and suggested alleviating the building close to the gateway feature first She

continued that at one point they had only one small building and the City gave them the

opportunity to relocate it to 84 Lumber but they did not accept the opportunity She stated that

during the discussions with CalTrans Staff indicated what the City would like the gateway to

look like and reiterated that the Citywill continue discussions with CalTrans

Cm Schaub felt it wasunfair for the building tobe located at a gateway into the City and to the

nearby businesses

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

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

stt Iccrc 2E1

14

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

from theI580 overpass

Cm Swalwell asked if the roof issue goes against any findings that need to be made regardingcars being visible on the roof from a30foot stretch of 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 ScarlettCourt 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

finding is to ensure there are adequate sidewalks leading up to the site and that people can ride

a bike orwalk 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 area has been vacated 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 Wehrenberg asked if there will be adeadend there

Ms Ram answered that the City has not planned anything for the end of Scarlett Court and it

may not be 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 appreciates Cm Schaubs feelings but there are current design guidelinesfor Scarlett Court but no specific plan as yet She stated that specific plans typically look at

circulation and land use issues She continued the 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 projectrespects those guidelines

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

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

general at that time and felt there may be another way toget 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 King opened the 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 yearthe funding will be withdrawn He continued Staff has been helpful in getting the projectgoing He stated they have tried to make the cars on the roof less obvious but it is a car

dealership

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

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

notcondition the types of businesses as long as there are no residences close by

Chair King closed the public hearing

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

project

Ms Fraser answered the signs are not included in this application She continued the Applicantmust 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 approvedat 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 a motion by Cm Wehrenberg and seconded by Cm Schaub on a vote of50 the PlanningCommission approved

RESOLUTION NO 10 12

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIONOF THE CITY OF DUBLIN

APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR THE NISSAN DEALERSHIP LOCATEDAT 6363 SCARLETT COURT AND FOR MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE HONDA

DEALERSHIP LOCATED AT 6382 SCARLETT COURT APN 9410550075PA09040

RESOLUTION NO 10 13

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION

OF THE CITY OF DUBLLN

APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE AN

AUTOMOBILENEHICLE SALES AND SERVICE FACILITY NISSAN DEALERSHIP AT 6363SCARLETT COURT AND A PARKING REDUCTION FOROFFSITE PARKING LOCATED

AT 6382 SCARLETT COURT IN THE M1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTPA09040

82 PA 08002 Sorrento East at Dublin Ranch Area F Stage 1 and Stage 2 Planned

Development Rezone Amendment Site Development Review Vesting Tentative Maps7982 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 King disclosed that he met with the Applicant to preview the project He stated theydiscussed the specifics of the project but no promises were made

Cm Swalwell also disclosed that he met with Pat Costanzo Regent Properties as well as GuyHouston 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 Planning Commission

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 project is similar to Turtle Ridge

Mr Porto answered at the PlannersInstitute in Southern California last year the PlanningCommission 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 infloor plan and

elevation but the concept is the same

Cm Schaub mentioned that this project has more topography which is different from Turtle

Ridge in Southern California

Mr Porto answered with a project with topography Like this accessibility issues must be met

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 pointedout on the slide the former configuration for the park and the new configuration He continued

the schoolsparking lot is at the same location and it was always anticipated that the parkwould share parking with the school

17

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

between HOA private streets and public streets

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

are HOA owned property

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

Mr Porto answered yes

Cm Wehrenberg asked if the HOA could have 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 some neighborhoods that are off the HOA streets on private property that are

associated with that unit He stated there is also parking in the neighborhood available to

everyone He continued there is a considerable amount of bothonstreet public parking and off

street private parking that is HOA maintained He mentioned that as part of the Master SignProgram there are signs for guest parking and towing for cars not parked according to the HOA

rules

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

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

Cm Schaub asked about tandem parking

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

Cm Schaub asked about inclusionary housing for the project

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

Cm Wehrenberg asked if there is an excess amount of 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 Liris and can be applied to

other projects within the Dublin Ranch 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 Kearns one of the Applicants who has been working with DSRSD

regarding the purple pipe and landscaping

Chair King opened the public hearing

Jim Kearns Regent Properties stated along the planting strips onthe perimeter road there will

be recycled water and the rest of the common HOA area will be potable water He stated theyhad a meeting with DSRSD regarding their requirements and this was suggested by DSRSD

Cm Schaub asked about the Stopwasteorg list of bay friendly plants and if any of those plantswould be included in the project

Pat Costanzo Regent Properties stated that because the paseos are in residential areas where

children would be playing it is not acceptable for DSRSD to use recycled water in those areas

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

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

Cm Schaub felt there is a list of plants that would be a more acceptable use than grass and felt

there was a lot of grass area in the project

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

Cm Swalwell mentioned that neither the Planning Commission nor Mr Porto liked the utilityboxes 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 statedthat 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 frontand then planned for the utility boxes rather than letting them occur randomly He stated theywill 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 styles and elevations are excellent giving the buyer manychoices He asked if any of the designs call forprewiring the house for solar in the future

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

Chair King opened the public hearing

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 greatvariety of choices the site plan is much better compared to the original design and the

pedestrian corridor coming through the center and tying the recreation center to all the units is

much better and the park is more accessible He requested the Planning Commissions

approval as the project is proposed

Mr Costanzo responded to Cm Browns question regarding Green Building by pointing out the

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 Hestated 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 prewiring or solar

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 Applicants will notbuild the houses how will the project be built andalso asked if all products will be available at the same time

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 on phasing the infrastructure so they can build either one neighborhoodat a time 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 completely locked into these designs unless theygo through the entire SDR process again

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

ViceChair Brown closed the public hearing

Chair King excused himself from the meeting but shared his thoughts regarding the project He

stated he is in support of the project and liked the sizeable parking ratio the pedestrian friendlyfeel the good architecture the many gateways into the neighborhoods its closeness to parksand playgrounds the open space and he also liked the arches on the entrances He concurred

with Cm Browns comment regardingprewiring for solar

Cm Wehrenberg stated she supports the project and agrees with Chair Kings 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 beno tandem parking

t ev v

20

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

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

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 something to the development standards that indicates tandem

parking is not allowed and then it would have to come back to the Commission as an

amendment to the PD if they wanted to add it

Cm Schaub was concerned that if a builder wanted to add 100200 units with tandem parkingthat would take approximately 100 guest parking spaces out He stated that if it is indicated inthe development standards the Planning Commission can be assured that there will be enoughguest parking for this project

Mr Porto responded in neighborhood 9 there are 4 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 besidebysidebut there could be 4 stalls 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 can add an additional footnote 12 that would indicate required parking shall not be

tandem and then it would be in the Zoning Ordinance and they would have to come back to

the Planning Commission toamend the zoning

Cm Swalwell asked how the Applicant felt about this added note

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

Cm Schaub wanted to ensure that if any builder wants to include tandem parking in the projectthey 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 a motion and something from the Commissioners andthen Staff can add the note

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

Cm Wehrenberg did not think it makes a difference and felt that if there was a redesign it

would come back to the Commission and they could decide then but at this point it is not in the

design

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

21

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

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

comes with 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 projectionswhich are not founded in the plans He felt the plans as written are fine and if they want to

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

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

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

She stated that the minutes of this meeting and the Commissions discussion regarding their

concerns would be taken into consideration She stated that if Staff adds the note into the

Zoning Ordinance the Commissions intent would be extremely clear She continued if not

then Staff will look at the minutes and make the determination

Cm Swalwell suggested including wording that indicates if they want to include tandem

parking they must come back to the Planning Commission for approval

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

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

project

Cm Swalwell thanked Staff for their hard work on the project He also thanked RegentProperties 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 wasa 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 exactlywhat the Commission is looking for

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

worked well together

On a motion by Cm Swalwell and seconded by Cm Wehrenberg on a vote of401with Chair

King absent for the vote the Planning Commission approved

RESOLUTION NO 10 08

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIONOF THE CITY OF DUBLIN

RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTAN ORDINANCE APPROVING STAGE 1 AND STAGE 2 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT

REZONE AMENDMENTS FOR THE SORRENTO EAST PROJECT

zCa 2

PA 08002

Note 12would read if there were to be required tandem parking that decision would

be brought back to the Planning Commission for approval

RESOLUTION NO 1009

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION

OF 7HE CITY OF DUBLIN

APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND

NEW AND AMENDED VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS FORSORRENTO EAST AREA F DUBLIN RANCH

APN985005300300PA 08002

RESOLUTION NO 10 10

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIONOF THE CITY OF DUBLIN

RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTAN ORDINANCE APPROVING AN AMENDED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR

SORRENTO EAST AT DUBLIN RANCH DUBLIN RANCH AREA F EASTPA 08002

RESOLUTION NO 10 11

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION

OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN

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

PA08002

84 ZOA 09004 Zoning Ordinance Amendments Amendments to the Dublin MunicipalCode related to Eating and Drinking Establishments including modifications to Chapter808 Definitions Chapter 812 Zoning Districts and Permitted Uses Chapter 876

OffStreet Parking and Loading and Chapter 8104 Site Development Review

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 takeout pizza facility of

approximately 12001300 sq ft wouldthere be 4 parking stalls

Ms Waffle answered yes

Cm Wehrenberg asked if they currently have 4 parking stalls

Ms Waffle answered that currently Staff would park them at1100 sq ft so at 1200 sq ft theywould require 12 stalls She felt the likelihood of 12 people being there to pick up pizza at thesame time is low She felt that was a high parking standard for atakeoutestablishment

Cm Wehrenberg was concerned with the other eating and drinking establishments in the

shopping center and felt that when other businesses are closed there is the shared parkingeffect She was concerned with short changing the parking depending on what other businesses

are in the shopping center

Ms Waffle answered that if the shopping center is in a PD zoning district in which there is a capon 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 forthis 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 zoningieC1 C2CN the

older shopping centers that were built in the 70s and 80s when the parking standards were

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

Cm Schaub asked what she meant by benefits

Ms Waffle answered that the 1100 parking ratio which is what is determined to be

appropriate for asitdown restaurant is also being applied to a takeout facility even though a

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

high ratio for a use that is not as intense as a traditionalsitdown restaurant

Cm Schaub asked if when she mentions benefit its a benefit to a proprietor because the Citywill not require as many parking spaces

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

greater mix of uses She continued it allows for restaurants to go into a place where theyotherwise may not be able to go because there would not be adequate parking but in realitythey doritgenerate a need fora1100 ratio

Cm Brown asked where a711convenience store fit into the new zoning ordinance

24

Ms Waffle answered a 711 would be considered a convenience store it would not be

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

Ms Ram stated a711 would be considered retail such asTJ Max etc

Cm Schaub commended Ms Waffle for a terrific job on the Staff Report he felt it was thoroughand very well done His concerns are that the City is starting to get business model specific for

a Zoning Ordinance He felt trying to define abusiness can be problematic and he wasnot sure

how the change will work with shared parking He would like to have a parking study session

which would include shared parking He brought up the Starbucks on Village Parkway and the

fact that it is under parked At the time signs were installed indicating 1015minutes parkingtime limit which would force peopletomove He felt that should be part of the discussion He

stated that in a larger shopping center it would not be such a concern but putting atakeout

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 takethree spaces away He felt it

was toobusiness model specific with too many variables

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

see if it would work and provided the Commission examples She stated Staff spent a lot of

time testing the parking using the current business model She felt that Zoning Ordinanceshave to change when uses change and during a downtime that would be the thing to doexamining things that wererit working She felt that parking hasrit 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 statedthat the reason she mentioned the pizza facility referring to Papa Johns at Dublin Corners is

that there is parking but it is not close and cutting in between cars can be unsafe She stated she

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

something missing and would like todo some type of parkinginservice

Cm Swalwell understands that property owners or people who are trying to lease out vacant

units are having a hard time leasing the units with the current parking ordinance He felt this

change would alleviate that problem

Ms Ram stated that Staff had meetings with local brokers which were the genesis of the indoorrecreation 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 biggest challenge for property owners to getting tenants into their

units besides the bad economy is the way the parking is structured

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

coming from

Cm Schaub felt that if a property owner has space open they will do anything to get the spacerented He felt the developers dontcare whether the parking is adequate or not and there are a

lot of issues regarding the parking ordinance He was not sure what the City Council will dowith the parking study session because they do not get into parking as far as the PlanningCommission

Ms Ram responded the City Council item is not a study session but a report onshared parkingwhich is different than a study session

Cm Wehrenberg felt that they always reviewed shared parking on acasebycase basis

Cm Schaub mentioned a project that ended up in a lawsuit and felt that the Commission didri t

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 oppose taking parking spaces away He

felt that Council has depended upon the Planning Commission to take the time to think throughparking because they doritalways have the time He stated hes tried to take classes on parkingbut has not found one that was helpful

Ms Waffle mentioned that the parking standards for traditional restaurants that serve full

meals even sandwich shops etc are not changing significantly She stated the real focus of

these amendments is focused on the takeout and the specialty shopsie yogurt ice cream shopwhere 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 change as far as coffee houses they wouldbe parked at1100

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

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

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

26e eS

Ms Waffle answered that if there is a shopping center with a wide range of uses approached byan eating and drinking establishment Staff will list the businesses their use type and parkingrequirements 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 eatingand drinking establishment they would do a study She continued that the City is turningpeople away and leaving spaces vacant because it appears theres not enough parking but in

reality there is parking She continued Staff will initiate a parking study at a cost of30007000 paid for by the Applicant The parking study is done and usually it shows that at peakdemand there is adequate parking She stated that Staff is finding that they are going throughthe exercise and finding that there is adequate parking available which leads Staff to look at thedifferent use types and how they are operating and areour 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 agreed and felt that we really doritknow how filled up the businesses are now and

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

go under

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

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

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

Conditional Use Permit for a parking exception

Cm Wehrenberg asked if when Staff is reviewing oneonone with the Applicant 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 design constraints all require a CUP She stated that normally those CUPswouldbe approved by the Zoning Administrator unless they are attached to a use that requires a

Planning Commission approval and they are always noticed

Cm Brown opened the public hearing and with nopersons to speak closed public hearing

On a motion by Cm Wehrenberg and seconded by Cm Swalwell on a vote of401with Chair

King absent the Planning Commission approved

RESOLUTION NO 10 14

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION

27

OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN

RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTSTO CHAPTER 808 DEFINITIONS CHAPTER 812 ZONING DISTRICTS AND PERMITTED

USES CHAPTER 876OFFSTREET PARKING AND LOADING AND CHAPTER8104

SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEWZOA 09004

NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS NONE

OTHER BUSINESS NONE

101 Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from the Planning Commission andor Staffincluding Committee Reports and Reports by the Planning Commission related to

meetings attended atCity Expense AB 1234

ADTOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at95607PM

Respectfull su miffed

f1

organ K gChair Planning Co ssion

ATTEST

Jeri Ra AICP

Community Development Director

G MINUTES 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION3910doc

1trtrarzi1 csnsnirsiart Atarcn 9 213117

radrtreziry 2