Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-08-2007 PC Minutes Planning Commission Minutes CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, May 8, 2007, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Schaub called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. Present: Chair Schaub, Vice Chair Wehrenberg, Commissioners Biddle, King, and Tomlinson; Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager; Marnie Nuccio, Associate Planer; and Rhonda Franklin, Recording Secretary. Absent: None ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - NONE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS The April 24, 2007 minutes were approved as submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NONE CONSENT CALENDAR - NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS 8.1 Continuation of P A 06-026 Dublin Gateway Medical Center Building 3 Hospital and Garage - Planned Development Rezone and Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan, Conditional Use Permit, Site Development Review and Development Agreement (Adjudicatory and Legislative Actions). Chair Schaub stated that the Planning Commission is being asked to approve an application for a hospital, but is being provided project plans that title the project as a Medical Office Building. Chair Schaub asked for the Staff Report. Ms. Marnie Nuccio, Associate Planner, presented the specifics of the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Chair Schaub asked if any parking spaces were removed as a result of the relocation of the trash enclosures, and Ms. Nuccio stated that no parking spaces were removed. Chair Schaub pointed out that the excess of 84 parking stalls includes 17 motorcycle stalls. P[anning Commi.\'sion 1:I.fgufar 5Weeting 47 :May 8, 200? Chair Schaub sought clarification on the two construction options that would be granted to the Applicant should the project be approved. Ms. Nuccio explained that the Applicant could either construct a 3-story, 58,000 square foot medical office building with a 4-level parking garage; or a 6-story, 100-bed hospital building with a 5-level parking garage. Chair Schaub sought clarification that a project approval would only allow a 6-story hospital building to be built, and not a 6-story medical office building, even though the plans indicate that the 6-story building is a medical office building. Ms. Nuccio explained that although the project plans label the building as a medical office building, all of the approval documentation, including the Development Plan, specifies that if the 6-story building is constructed, it can only be used as a hospital building. If the Developer decides to not use the 6-story building as a hospital building, the Developer would have to apply for a Planned Development Rezone and amend the Development Plan accordingly. Chair Schaub sought clarification that if the hospital building is constructed, would the project return to the Planning Commission with applications for the necessary amenities required for a hospital. He pointed out that the Planning Commission would have the authority to approve or deny the application at that time. Ms. Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager, explained that if the Applicant could install the amenities within the existing design of the building, the application may not need to return to the Planning Commission for review. Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked if the requirement of a Central Utility Plan would require the project to return to the Planning Commission for review. Ms. Wilson explained that the construction of a Central Utility Plan in a separate building is not a part of the Applicant's Planned Development Plan before the City at this time; therefore, an amended project could be subject to additional City review. Cm. Biddle asked about the review process of the State of California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD). He expressed concern that the 100-bed configuration of the building could change based on OSHPD's review process. Ms. Nuccio explained that if the number of beds increases, the project would have to return to the City for review because all of the analysis on the project was based on a maximum of 100 beds. Chair Schaub stated that if there were less beds and more office use, there would be parking issues. Ms. Nuccio explained that the entire building must be used for hospital functions. She further stated that if portions of the hospital were converted for other uses, the project would have to return to the City for review. Cm. Tomlinson asked about the anticipated size of trucks that would be trafficking the loading zone. Ms. Nuccio explained that the Applicant anticipates that the vast majority of deliveries would be made by bobtail trucks, with occasional semi trucks. She further explained that the loading zone was designed to accommodate semi trucks. Vice Chair Wehrenberg stated that she would like to add to the Initial Study that if generators or other noise generating sources are used, the project be brought back to the City for additional review. Ms. Nuccio explained that because generators are not part of the current application, the potential noise impact of generators was not analyzed as part of the Environmental Review. She further explained that if the Applicant identifies the need for generators on the site plan, CP[annillg Comll1ission 1I.fgufar 5Weetin,q 48 o14ay II, 200? Staff would conduct a noise analysis and, if necessary, require the Applicant to attenuate impacts accordingly. If the Applicant can not attenuate impacts accordingly, then Staff would conduct additional environmental review and the project would return to the Planning Commission. Vice Chair Wehrenberg added that she would like to add the potential use of helicopters to the Initial Study as well. Cm. King expressed concern about whether the correct direction for trucks entering the loading zone would be obvious. Ms. Nuccio stated that signage can be installed at the entrance of the loading zone to guide the drivers. Cm. Tomlinson pointed out that most deliveries would probably be from the same companies, thus the drivers would gain familiarity with the navigation of the loading zone. Chair Schaub pointed out that the entrance to the loading zone is in the area of the egress for the Ulferts Shopping Center. He stated that to reduce the load on Glynnis Rose Drive, signage could easily be added to the Ulferts parking lot to direct consumers to exit in a different direction. Chair Schaub opened the public hearing. Mr. Rick Needham, with Triad Partners, spoke if favor of the project on behalf of the Applicant. Chair Schaub asked for Planning Commission feedback on the architectural changes to the building. The Planning Commissioners stated that they are pleased with the improvements. Chair asked for Planning Commission feedback on the changes to the loading zone. Cm. Biddle asked for clarification on truck routes into the loading zone. Staff explained that from Dublin Boulevard, trucks should take Tassajara Road, to Koll Center Drive, to Glynnis Rose Drive to the loading zone. From the 1-580 Tassajara ramps, trucks should take Koll Center Drive to Glynnis Rose Drive to the loading zone. Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked if signage for truck traffic would be addressed. Ms. Wilson explained that signage for truck traffic would be addressed as part of the Master Sign Program. Cm. King expressed concern about whether there would be enough space for forward movement in order for trucks to back out appropriately. Mr. Jim Terry, with Ware Malcolmb Architects, stated that the turning radius for the loading zone was designed for larger trucks; however, smaller trucks would most often frequent the loading zone. Mr. Needham stated that the larger trucks would typically arrive at the loading zone in the early morning. Chair Schaub asked about the quantity of truck deliveries per week. Ms. Cynthia Lee, Health Care Consultant, spoke in favor of the project on behalf of the Applicant. She stated that she contacted several comparable institutions to get an estimate of the number of deliveries per week. She stated that it is anticipated that 10-12 deliveries would be made per week. Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked if this number included food deliveries, and Ms. Lee said yes. Chair Schaub stated that without a cafeteria in the building, finished foods would also need to be delivered. Ms. Lee clarified that it is anticipated that the building would have a cafeteria, and thus would not need finished food deliveries. Vice Chair Wehrenberg pointed out that the project plans for the hospital are missing key elements such as an operating room, cafeteria, and pharmacy. She asked if the project plans Plimnillg Commi.,sion 1I.fgufar :Meeting 49 ,/;fay 8, 200? would change based on the needs of the tenant. Mr. Joseph Carroll, Applicant, spoke in favor of the project. He explained that the Development Team, knowing that the tenants would come at a later date, created project plans that depicted the most important factors of the project such as the bed count, circulation, the emergency department, and the loading zone. He stated that the Development Team did not want to propose project plans to the Planning Commission that would ultimately change based on the specific needs of a tenant. Mr. Carroll reiterated that the loading zone was sized for an 18-wheel semi truck; although bobtail trucks would frequent the loading zone 90% of the time. Cm. Biddle pointed out that a positive feature of the loading zone is that the area is large enough to accommodate two trucks. Cm. King asked about the view of the loading zone from Glynnis Rose Drive, and Mr. Carroll stated that it would look like the sides of building. Ms. Nuccio added that the loading zone was designed to accommodate two trucks. She also stated that the Conditions of Approval (COAs) were revised to include that should any activities related to the loading zone become a problem, the Applicant would be required to provide a plan that outlines loading zone activities subject to approval by the City. Chair Schaub stated that this loading zone is significant because it is located near a busy street; whereas most loading zones are not. Vice Chair Wehrenberg confirmed that the Applicant would locate a tenant before going too far with the project, and Mr. Carroll said yes. Vice Chair Wehrenberg pointed out that the loading zone would generate a lot of trash and that medical waste would need to be addressed as well. Chair Schaub asked for Planning Commission feedback on the changes to the trash enclosures. The Planning Commissioners stated that it is a big improvement. Cm. Biddle pointed out that, if necessary, it would be easy to enlarge the trash enclosures in this location. Cm. Biddle asked how hazardous waste would be handled. Ms. Lee stated that hazardous waste is typically disposed of in locked containers near the loading zone and is handled separately from regular trash. Chair Schaub asked for Planning Commission feedback on the changes to the parking structure. The Planning Commissioners stated that they are happy with the changes. Cm. Biddle expressed concern with the disparity of parking spaces allotted to the medical offices as opposed to the hospital. Mr. Carroll explained that the shared parking arrangement would provide for adequate parking. Vice Chair Wehrenberg pointed out that afternoon shift changes could potentially strain parking availability. Mr. Carroll stated that the demand for parking generally tails off in the afternoon. Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked about the potential to modify the parking based on the needs of future tenants. Mr. Carroll stated that it is anticipated that the current parking would handle the needs of future tenants. Vice Chair Wehrenberg stated that in regard to the motorcycle spaces, there would probably be little demand for motorcycle parking at a hospital. P[anning Commtssi,m 1I.muk1r !-Weeting 50 ,May 8, 200? Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked if they have had to display signage to distinguish employee parking from patient parking. Mr. Carroll stated that they designate parking spaces for employees and patients. Vice Chair Wehrenberg expressed concerned about parking overflowing into the Ulferts Shopping Center. Cm. Tomlinson stated that he is comfortable with the number of parking spaces at the project. He stated that his concern is that patrons from the shopping center might overflow into the project's parking areas. Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked if the Applicant would be allowed to add another level to the parking garage if parking spaces were eliminated due to the placement of mechanical equipment. Ms. Nuccio stated that in such a case, the Applicant would need to apply for an amendment to the Site Development Review. Cm. Biddle asked if the parking structure would be built before the hospital. Mr. Carroll stated that it is required that the parking structure be built before the hospital. Cm. King stated that he is concerned about the idea that the form of the building is following the function, instead of function following form. He asked if it is typical for a building shell to be constructed before tenants are identified. He further stated that he is concerned the future tenants might want to change the building to suit their needs. Mr. Carroll explained that the room plan was the critical factor in ensuring that the building would be compatible with the needs of potential tenants. Chair Schaub asked Mr. Carroll if he has built a hospital before, and Mr. Carroll said no. Vice Chair Wehrenberg expressed concerns that the OSHPD review process may require architectural changes to the building. Mr. Carroll stated that he does not think this will be the case; however, if changes are necessary, they would revisit the plans. Cm. Biddle expressed concern that double-occupancy rooms would be more desirable to future tenants instead of single occupancy rooms. Mr. Carroll stated that he believes that single occupancy rooms are more desirable. Vice Chair Wehrenberg added that patient satisfaction is higher in single occupancy rooms. Cm. Biddle expressed concern with whether various medical specialties would be able to function in the 100-bed configuration of the building. He questioned whether the facility could accommodate amenities such as food service operations, pharmacy, operating room, morgue, etc. Mr. Needham explained that the Development Team modeled and tested three specific design plans for the building and all of the design plans were functional. Mr. Carroll explained that the Development Team has worked with consultants in the hospital field that have advised them that the current design is functional and would work with various tenants. Cm. Biddle asked about the process of finding a tenant. Mr. Carroll stated the he is currently talking with potential tenants. Cm. Biddle asked about the timeframe for completing the building, and Mr. Carroll stated that it could take 3-5 years. Vice Chair Wehrenberg suggested that the Applicant submit plans to the City before submitting them to OSHPD to help alleviate potential issues. Mr. Carroll stated that he would work with the City during the design development. P[onniltg COmltltl'SlOn 1:I.f{fufar ~Weetmg 51 :tla.y Ii, 200? Chair Schaub asked about the Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CCRs). Ms. Nuccio explained that the CCRs are in place to govern the relationship between the 4 parcels on the site. Mr. Gary Sloan, San Ramon Medical Center Chief Executive Officer, expressed concern about the impacts a new hospital could have on existing hospitals, as well as police and fire protection services, within the Tri-Valley. Mr. Sloan stated that the Planning Commission did not have enough information regarding the project to make an informed decision. He stated that the Planning Commission should know who the tenant will be before making a decision on the project. Cm. Biddle asked about the differences in hospital types and the associated impacts on parking, traffic, etc. Mr. Sloan gave several examples of various hospitals and their associated impacts. Chair Schaub closed the public hearing. Cm. Tomlinson stated that the project is worthy of support. He stated that the Applicant was responsive to the Planning Commission's concerns and recommendations. He further stated that he is satisfied with the amount of parking at the project, as well as Staff's research on parking at comparable facilities. He stated that the neighboring buildings are adequately parked per the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. He stated that the Conditions of Approval are appropriate and sufficient for the project and that it is the responsibility of the Applicant to find a tenant that can function within the approved project. Vice Chair Wehrenberg stated that the project is lacking the infrastructure needed to support a potential tenant. She asked if the project would return to the Planning Commission if the parking was impacted by future changes. Ms. Wilson explained that the Site Development Review (SDR) Findings are based on the current design of the site, including surface parking and access; therefore, if the site design changes, amended plans would have to be resubmitted and reviewed by the City. Vice Chair Wehrenberg stated that COA No. 18 should also require that loading dock activities be reviewed when a tenant is identified and prior to any plan submittals. Ms. Wilson suggested that the additional language be included as a part of COA No. 22. Vice Chair Wehrenberg expressed concern about screening oxygen tanks and stated that the potential use of oxygen tanks should be identified as early as possible. She pointed out that the standard size of an oxygen tank is 7'2"W x 7'9"H x 32'L. Chair Schaub added that the potential use of generators should also be identified as early as possible. Ms. Wilson suggested that those concerns be addressed in COA No. 22. She further stated that the addition of an oxygen tank and/ or generator to the plans could trigger additional review from the City. Vice Chair Wehrenberg suggested that the Fire Department COAs include a review of the hazardous materials plans. She pointed out that the City will own the building once OSHPD finals the building. Ms. Wilson suggested that the additional language be included as a part of COA No. 22. Planning C()mll1i.\sian 1:I.fgu~lr ,:Weeting 52 J4a.} If, 200? Vice Chair Wehrenberg suggested that the tenant be required to provide a staffing plan to confirm that the parking is adequate. Ms. Wilson stated that the condition can be added to the COAs. Chair Schaub reiterated that this project has a lot of open-ended issues. Vice Chair Wehrenberg stated that she does not feel that 3 acres is conducive for a hospitals site, including the parking garage. Vice Chair Wehrenberg suggested that a condition be added that requires any plans for helicopters and associated facilities be submitted to the City. Ms. Wilson stated that under CEQA, plans for a helicopter and associated facilities would have to be reviewed and analyzed. She stated that the application for the project indicates that there will not be a helicopter or associated facilities for the project. Cm. Biddle asked if the tenant would have to submit plans to the City each time plans are . submitted to OSHPD. Ms. Nuccio explained that the requirement is currently in the COAs. Cm. Biddle stated that in general, he likes the concept of having a hospital in the City and he likes the architecture of the building. He stated he feels a little more comfortable with the project. Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked if the COAs could be attached to the tenant's lease agreement. Ms. Wilson stated that such a request could be asked of the Applicant. Ms. Wilson pointed out that there are multiple points in the process where Staff would notify the tenant of the COAs for the project. Cm. Tomlinson also pointed out that COA No. 15 seems to be a broad lever in which to ensure the project remains consistent with the COAs. Mr. Carroll stated that he would comply with the Planning Commission's request to attach the COAs to future tenants' lease agreement. Cm. King stated that he likes the design of the project. Chair Schaub stated that he likes the project. He stated that it is important to get the project finished they way the project is approved. He pointed out that COA No. 15 establishes that the project is subject to annual review. He stated that he does not want the project to be put in jeopardy because of significant infrastructure problems. The Planning Commission complemented Staff on the work done on this project. The Planning Commission also thanked the Development Team members for their work on the project. Vice Chair Wehrenberg stated that the project plans should be labeled Hospital and not Medical Office Building. Ms. Wilson confirmed that the Applicant, Mr. Carroll, concurs with the amendments to the COAs. On a motion by Cm. Biddle, seconded by Cm. Tomlinson, with a suggestion to amend the Resolution of the City Council Approving a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development (Plannillg Commi.\.sion 1:I.mu~lr ~Weeting 53 :tlny Ii, 200? Review to amend Condition of Approval No. 22 to include: "The Applicant shall also submit a hazardous materials plan and a typical schedule of loading dock activities including types of deliveries, number of deliveries, and types of vehicles."; and with a suggestion to add Condition of Approval No. 22A to read: "Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the parking garage, the Applicant shall provide the City with a written statement identifying the hospital tenant and the specific staffing levels with respect to the number of doctors and employees on the largest shift. If the numbers of doctors or employees on the largest shift increases, a parking analysis shall be conducted to ensure that adequate parking will be provided in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. If additional parking is needed, the Applicant shall apply for an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review and such application shall be reviewed and approved prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit for the parking garage."; and with a suggestion to add Condition of Approval No. 26A to read: "The Developer shall provide a copy of the approved Conditions of Approval to all future tenants.", and by a vote of 5-0-0, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 07 - 23 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A CEQA ADDENDUM FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE STAGE 1 AND STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT (PA 98-047) AND FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR THE DUBLIN GATEWAY MEDICAL CENTER BUILDING 3 HOSPITAL AND GARAGE PROJECT LOCATED AT 4100 AND 4084 DUBLIN BOULEVARD APN 986-0016-021 & 986-0016-022 P A 06-026 RESOLUTION NO. 07 - 24 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE AND STAGE 1 AND 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DUBLIN GATEWAY MEDICAL CENTER BUILDING 3 HOSPITAL AND GARAGE PROJECT LOCATED AT 4084 AND 4100 DUBLIN BOULEVARD APN 986-0016-021 & 986-0016-022 P A 06-026 RESOLUTION NO. 07 - 25 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN REFERRING DECISION MAKING AUTHORITY AND RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT Plannmg Comnnl'sian 'R.~gu~lr ':\1eetln,q 54 ,}la'y Ii, 200? REVIEW FOR THE DUBLIN GATEWAY MEDICAL CENTER BUILDING 3 HOSPTIAL AND GARAGE PROJECT LOCATED AT 4084 AND 4100 DUBLIN BOULEVARD APN 986-Q016-021 & 986-0016-022 P A 06-026 RESOLUTION NO. 07 - 26 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE DUBLIN GATEWAY MEDICAL CENTER BUILDING 3 HOSPITAL AND GARAGE PROJECT LOCATED AT 4084 AND 4100 DUBLIN BOULEVARD APN 986-0016-021 & 986-0016-022 P A 06-026 NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS - NONE OTHER BUSINESS Cm. Tomlinson informed the Planning Commission and Staff that he would be on vacation during the August 14,2007 Planning Commission meeting. Cm. King stated that if the Planning Commission is going to discuss projects that impact Dublin Boulevard, he would like to know the City's position with regard to regional transportation planning. Ms. Wilson stated that she would research the issue. 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). The Planning Commission did not have any items to report. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ATTEST: ~ 'i'lanning Commission 1i,f'fiu&lr'Meeting 55 :tia) 8, 2007