Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-11-2009 PC Minutes~,~~~r 1`~Ci f' tB` ~ ~ l 9`t "'`~ -.-~~~, Planning Commission 1Vhnutes `°<`~ -~~~~~ Tuesda Au st 11 2009 .- y, gu CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, August 11, 2009, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Wehrenberg called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Chair Wehrenberg; Vice Chair King; Commissioners Brown and Swalwell; Jeff Baker, Planning Manager; Marnie Waffle, Senior Planner; Mike Porto, Consulting Planner; and Taryn Gavagan, Recording Secretary. Absent: Commissioner Schaub ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA -NONE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - On a motion by Cm. Brown, seconded by Vice Chair King the minutes of the July 28, 2009 meeting were approved. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -NONE CONSENT CALENDAR -NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS -NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS - 8.1 PA OS-006, The Promenade at Dublin Ranch -Development Agreement between the City of Dublin and James Tong and Mei Fong Tong fora 23.46-acre area along both sides of the proposed extension of Grafton Street between Central Parkway and Dublin Boulevard known as the Promenade (Village Center) within Area G of Dublin Ranch. Mike Porto, Consulting Planner stated that a letter of protest from Toll Brothers was received earlier in the day. He stated that the letter was reviewed by the City Attorney and that the City Attorney did not feel that the letter included anything that would preclude the Commission from acting on the Development Agreement and Addendum for the project. Chair Wehrenberg stated that one of the main points in the letter was that Toll Brothers found the project to be inappropriate and has changed from the original intent. She confirmed that, at the last meeting, the Commission did agree that the project was per the Specific Plan. Mr. Porto clarified that the Commission is once again reviewing the Addendum because the Commission was the final reviewing authority on the Addendum, Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Site Development Review (SDR), as reviewed at the July 14, 2009 meeting. He stated 'f'lattnirztj (;ornmissian ,,~ugusx ZS, 2fN?3 ~fl~n1~rii4eetin~ 144 that the action the Commission took at that meeting was final, subject to appeal. Mr. Porto stated that because the action was appealed to City Council, it is now in an unusual category. He further stated that the Addendum has not been changed since the last time the Commission reviewed it. Mr. Porto stated that because the Development Agreement is adopted by Ordinance, the Commission reviews it and recommends an action to the City Council. He stated that the Commission will do the same for the Addendum, and Council will take final action on both the Development Agreement and Addendum at the September i, 2009 City Council meeting. Mr. Porto presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Vice Chair King confirmed with Mr. Porto that two Study Sessions have been previously held regarding this project. He asked if the elevated garage was included in the plans presented at those Study Sessions and if the Sessions were publicly noticed. Mr. Porto replied that plans for the elevated garage were included in the Study Sessions and both Sessions were publicly noficed. Hearing no further comments or questions from the Commission, Chair Wehrenberg opened the public hearing. Hearing no comments from the public, Chair Wehrenberg closed the public hearing. Vice Chair King reiterated that, per the letter of protest received, Toll Brothers' main concern is that the proposed elevated parking garage would create a lot of shadow on the residential developments surrounding the area. In addition, Toll Brothers is concerned that vehicle traffic would increase as well as noise. Vice Chair King stated that, although the issues stated are valid, he feels that because none of the issues were brought up in the previous Study Sessions, it is-too late in the review process to object to any existing plans. He further stated that he feels the reasons to move forward, at this point, outweigh late objections even if they have a certain amount of merit. Vice Chair King commented on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), stating that it seems like it did not address any issues regarding the impact of a proposal on an adjacent project. He stated that issues such as parking garages and impacts on the surrounding condominiums could have been addressed better. Vice Chair King proposed that the checklist for future EIRs focus more on the impact of adjacent projects. Referring to Page 59 of the Initial Study, Vice Chair King stated that Page 59 discusses project impacts and indicates that the project site. is located adjacent to ahigh-density residential complex. It also states that no established communities would be disrupted, but does not obtain any information regarding afternoon shadows on the existing buildings. Vice Chair King stated that he felt there is a lack of focus on what kind of impact there would be on neighboring projects. Chair Wehrenberg reminded Vice Chair King that neighbors who attended the July 14~ Planning Commission meeting publicly stated that they had no objections to the elevated ~i'lnr.;sexitt {'.'r;r;:rrrx~,rt~n ;9u~just 7T, 2{Jft9 ~~HF~t~r siP~:x;,h• 145 parking garage being proposed. She stated that with all the public meetings held regarding this project, she felt that all were valid efforts to reach out to the community. Mr. Porto replied that, possibly, Vice Chair King did not the Appendices in the rear of the Initial Study. He stated that the Appendices address a shade study that is very specific as to how surrounding buildings would be shaded, as well as addressing the noise study to determine the noise impacts on the project. Mr. Porto further stated that the Initial Study does bring forth those specific issues and found that the impact of those issues is not significant. Vice Chair King stated that he was very impressed with the diagrams depicting the shadowing of surrounding buildings and found them to be very helpful. Chair Wehrenberg stated that the diagrams were completed in December when shadowing has the least amount of impact during the year. Mr. Porto replied that several. different times during the year were depicted for shadowing impact. He stated that there was a thorough look at what the impact would be for the condominiums at different times of the year. On a motion by Cm. Brown and seconded by Cm. Swalwell, on a vote of 4-0-1, the Planning Commission approved: RESOLUTION NO. 09 - 33 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 G MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROMENADE PROJECT AND ADOPTING A RELATED STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS PA 08-006 RESOLUTION N0.09 -34 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS THE PROMENADE (PARCEL 3 of TRACT 7148) WITHIN AREA G OF DUBLIN RANCH PA 08-006 4'Grnndng C'cm_mirsian jlre~rase IY, 2079 ~?zrutrr'}teEter{~ 146 8.2 PA 09-020 Khan Large Family Day Care Conditional Use Permit to operate a Large Family Day Care Home (up to 14 children) and for a Parking Reduction for an Individual Use at 4907 Grayhawk Court. Chair Wehrenberg asked for 5 additional minutes to review the additional information given before the meeting. Marnie Waffle, Senior Planner presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Chair Wehrenberg asked if Staff reviewed the house as far as the garage being free and clear to ensure enough available parking in the driveway. Ms. Waffle replied that there is a Condition of Approval that has been placed on the project, requiring that the Applicant must park their personal vehicles in the garage to ensure that the parking in the driveway is available for the drop-off and pick-up of children, and also for any offsite employees who may be working in the home. Cm. Brown asked if the maximum 14 children are inclusive of both morning and afternoon sessions. Chair Wehrenberg replied yes, stating that the approval of this CUP would allow the Applicant to have up to 14 children in the home. Ms. Waffle confirmed that the CUP would allow a maximum of 14 children at any one time. Cm. Swalwell clarified that, as the CUP reads, the Applicant would be allowed a total of 45 different children as long as there are only 14 children at one time. He stated that because the Applicant is allowing different shifts throughout the day, up to 14 different children could be present at every shift. Ms. Waffle clarified that this particular CUP only has two shifts. Cm. Swalwell confirmed that, with two shifts available, the Applicant would be allowed a total of 28 children at the daycare over an entire day. He asked if Staff was aware of any prior complaints for the Applicant's property. Mr. Baker replied that Staff did .consult with Police Services and there was no history of incidents at the Applicant's address, relating to the daycare. Vice Chair King asked if Staff had any information regarding the age of families who reside in the other homes, specifically if there are families with children. Ms. Waffle replied that based on the opposition letters received, it does appear that there are families with young children; however, that is the only information Staff has regarding neighboring families. Chair Wehrenberg reminded Vice Chair King that the Commission s role is strictly to enforce land use. Vice Chair King replied that the intent of his question is to state that if the majority of neighboring families are families with children, then those children will grow up to become high school seniors and will begin driving their own cars, adding to the existing traffic. He stated that he has seen the availability of parking vanish on his own residential street as the children in neighboring families have grown up. Ms. Waffle stated that under the CUP, Staff has the opportunity to review the project on an annual basis. She clarified that should any issues arise or should the City start receiving t3'(snrtf+~~ C~m;nis~siun 'ugust 11,2049 t~~- ~r~xe:rfy 147 complaints that the availability of parking has vanished, Staff does have the ability to review the CUP to ensure that the Conditions are being complied with. Chair Wehrenberg stated that a few issues were raised in the opposition letters regarding increased traffic and noise. She stated that the City has typically added Conditions where the Applicant is asked to provide letters to the parents reinforcing safety, parking and low noise. Chair Wehrenberg asked if this is a Condition that needs to be added or if it is just policy and the City can enforce such a request at will. Mr. Baker replied that, currently, there is no Condition to request an Applicant to provide letters to parents; however, if the Commission felt it appropriate to include that as a Condition, it could be added. Chair Wehrenberg asked for clarification regarding the City reviewing the CUP at a later date, should complaints be received. Mr. Baker replied that Staff would review the CUP for compliance with Conditions of Approval and make sure the daycare is operating within those conditions. He stated that if Staff found that the daycare was not operating within compliance of those Conditions and Staff was unable to bring the daycare into compliance, the City could then initiate revocation proceedings, which would include a public hearing before the Planning Commission. Cm. Swalwell asked how many large daycares currently exist within the City. Mr. Baker replied that the City does not currently track that information. Cm. Swalwell asked if Mr. Baker thought more than 101arge family daycares existed. Mr. Baker replied yes, he believed so. Cm. Swalwell asked if large family daycares generally bring a lot of complaints, post-approval. Mr. Baker replied that, historically, there are very limited complaints about large family daycares and they typically work out well in their neighborhood. Zainab Khan, Applicant, introduced herself and stated that she currently runs a small daycare out of her home located at 4907 Grayhawk Court. She stated that her hours of operation for the last year have been primarily from 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., which is generally a timeslot when her neighbors are not home and neighborhood children are at school. She further stated that the State currently allows her to have six children between the ages of 0 and 5, and two children who are school-aged, meaning in Kindergarten and older. Ms. Khan stated that she only accepts children who are preschoolers; however, the ability to have school-aged children allows her to have her own son present in the daycare without going over her maximum amount of children. She stated that should her larger license be approved, she will be allowed up to 12 preschoolers and 2 school-aged kids, although the school-aged children will count for Ms. Khari s own children. Ms. Khan stated that she does have a need for a larger daycare license and has parents who are currently on the waiting list to enroll their children. She stated that she is currently providing ~t'lanna~n~ ('ommucrfun J9u~jast tl, ~t?9J 7~ y~+axfar SMeetiag 148 daycare service to her neighbors and the extending neighborhood. She further stated that the majority of the children s parents walk their children to the daycare from their homes. In regards to the staggered times, Ms. Khan stated that the children will be picked up between 11:15 a.m. and 11:45 a.m., or between 3:15 p.m. and 3:45 p.m. She stated that she has not received any complaints from anyone and has personally asked her neighbors to address her with any complaints or concerns they may have. Chair Wehrenberg stated that she had read that Ms. Khan has reached out to her neighbors by holding a neighborhood meeting. She asked Ms. Khan how she went about reaching out to her neighbors. Ms. Khan replied that she spoke to her neighbors, personally, and received no complaints or concerns. Chair Wehrenberg asked how long Ms. Khan had been operating her current daycare. Ms. Khan replied since June of 2008. Addressing the letters of opposition received, Ms. Khan stated that there is no signage outside of her home and that no one would know there is a daycare operation at her home unless they walked inside. She stated that the only way she advertises her daycare is through word of mouth and through ChildCareLinks. Ms. Khan further stated that she has employed one more person, to start in September, so there will always be at least two people to watch the children. She stated that the garage will be used for her personal vehicles to leave the driveway available for the offsite employee or parents dropping off their children. Chair Wehrenberg asked how the school-aged children will get to school if the daycare has 12 preschool children and 2 school-aged children. Ms. Khan replied that she will not be accepting enrollments for school-aged children; however, it enables her to have her own son and daughter at the daycare center when the other children are there. Chair Wehrenberg asked if Ms. Khan had started the process with the State for appropriate licensing. Ms. Khan replied that she has started the process and has had no issues with the State. Chair Wehrenberg confirmed with Ms. Khan that she would only have 12 preschoolers present in the daycare and if a parent wanted to bring 2 of their children, they could. Ms. Khan replied that if a parent wanted to enroll 2 of their preschool-aged children, they could. She stated that she currently has parents who would like to enroll their younger children as well but she is at her maximum capacity per her State license. Chair Wehrenberg confirmed with Ms. Khan that she understood that it is a requirement to present the State license to the City if the CUP is approved. Ms. Khan replied that she understood and stated that she is also a part of the Child Nutrition Program which, along with the State, pays surprise visits to her home to ensure that the daycare is operating appropriately. Cm. Swalwell asked Ms. Khan if she was aware of any traffic accidents occurring in the last year, involving the parents of her daycare children. Ms. Khan replied that she was not aware of any traffic accidents occurring. 4?fnnn?az~ £ ~mrnisrUn ;2n~7u,t 7X, Z(X)~3 ~Rzefar ~fzeii~s~ 149 Cm. Swalwell asked what the total amount of daycare children in one day, between both shifts, would be present. Ms. Khan replied that the maximum she would be allowed are 22 children: 11 in the morning and 11 in the afternoon. Cm. Swalwell asked how many daycare children Ms. Khan plans on having in the foreseeable future. Ms. Khan replied that she is currently not enrolling, as she is at maximum capacity with 6 children in the morning and 6 children in the afternoon. She stated that she does currently have 2 more children on a waiting list. Cm. Swalwell asked if Ms. Khan would be willing to take on the maximum of 22 children. Ms. Khan replied that if she took on 22 children, she would make sure she had more assistance (another employee) to care for more children. She stated that one of her main concerns is safety so she ensures that the children are never unsupervised. Cm. Swalwell asked if there have been any incidents regarding health and safety over the last year. Ms. Khan replied no, her home is safe and child-proof. She stated that her home has been approved by the State for daycare use as well as approved by ChildCareLinks who runs the Child Nutrition Program. Chair Wehrenberg clarified that the CUP would allow for no more than 14 children at one time and with the State guidelines, no more than 12 preschoolers are allowed. Ms. Khan stated that she was aware that one of the neighbors was concerned with the daycare children being confined to one room in the house; however, this is not the case. She stated that the entire house is being used for the children s' safety. Cm. Swalwell stated that during the shift change, between noon and 1 p.m., is when, potentially, 10 to 12 different parents will be dropping their children off as well as 10 to 12 different parents picking their children up. Ms. Khan replied that there is a one hour difference between the parents picking up their children from the morning shift, and dropping off their children for the afternoon shift. She stated that this one hour difference, which is also her lunch hour, is enforced so that if any parent is late picking their child up in the morning, there is enough time before the second shift of children arrives. Ms. Khan stated that although the afternoon shift does end at 3:30 p.m., she has applied for operation until 5 p.m. in case someone is late picking up their child. She stated that her parents are not usually late as she does have her own contracts with them and they are penalized for being late. She further stated that she has also written in her contract that if the parents are over an hour late without notifying her or any other employee, she will call the Police as she is not allowed to operate past 5 p.m. and the children's' safety is her main concern. Ms. Khan stated that her hours are very limited because she wants the children to have ample enough time to play and socialize with each other, and then go home to be with their parents. Vice Chair King asked Ms. Khan if she acquired her maximum of 6 children fairly quickly after beginning operation last June. Ms. Khan replied that she did not reach the maximum amount right away and that it took a little while for word of mouth to spread about her services. !Plrrnn4~z~~ C.orrurnissiuz }7ugxst TS, 20~J9 a~;i~~~~.> ur.<e;zg 150 In response to Chair Wehrenberg's comments about notifying the children's' parents about traffic and noise, Ms. Khan stated that she currently sends out a newsletter periodically to the children's' parents reminding them to be courteous to neighbors and to obey the laws of the road. Chair Wehrenberg opened the public hearing.. Jim Kenna, resident, spoke in opposition of the project. Mr. Kenna stated that Ms. Khan stated that she uses the garage for her personal vehicles; however, he doesri t believe they use the garage for either vehicle. He further stated that trips into the court are technically 2 trips, coming into the court and going back out, and with 14 children being picked up and dropped off for two different shifts, that's a total of 56 trips taken into and out of the court in a day. Mr. Kenna stated that there are 12 homes on the court, including the Applicant's, and he is aware of 6 opposition letters being written, including one that is co-signed. Mr. Kenna cited two points from the Zoning Ordinance: "Employees: No home occupation shall employ individuals who do not live in the residence' and "Indoors/Limited to one room: The home occupation shall be conducted indoors and shall be limited to only one room located within the residence, any accessory structure or the garage." Mr. Kenna stated that Ms. Khan did contact him before starting the initial operation and he has had no verbal or written contact with her since then. He stated that several other homeowners present at the meeting are available to answer questions regarding the presence and age of neighborhood children. He further stated that there are parking issues in the evening as residents do have grown children who drive Cm. King asked Mr. Kenna if there is currently a parking issue. Mr. Kenna replied that he believes there is and has heard from other neighbors that there is. He stated that, considering the number of drivers that reside on the street, he does believe parking is an issue. Luisa Aranda, resident, spoke in opposition of the project. Ms. Aranda stated that she does work out of her home and did notice quite a bit of traffic in the last year. She stated that no one contacted her about the daycare although she was aware of it from watching the activity. She further stated that the Police have been out to Ms. Khan's home, although she was unaware of the reason why. Ms. Aranda stated that she bought her home because there is a Homeowner's Association which helps to maintain aesthetics and values. She felt that it is inappropriate to have a business run in the neighborhood. She stated that she paid a lot premium and would not have spent the money if she knew she would be living next to a daycare. She further stated that there is a fire hydrant between her property and Ms. Khari s property which lessens parking availability. Ms. Aranda stated that she likes her privacy and feels that a daycare would allow more unknown people coming into the area. She stated that there have been break-ins in the area and this might allow for more transients. Ttra~iag ,'.'nmr~tai~xn J7u~(ust 77, PEN)9 Leh afar Enteetix~ I $1 David Lavrack, resident, spoke in opposition of the project, stating that he believes that more traffic would result if the CUP were approved. He stated that he has two young children and enjoys the court area, being able to play ball and ride bikes openly. He further stated that he believes there would be a huge safety issue. Chair Wehrenberg asked Ms. Khan if she would like to speak and address some of the neighbors issues. Ms. Khan stated that she will not be using her garage for the children. She stated, again, that there is no signage in front or in her home so the presence of children is not known to anyone unless they go in the house or look in the backyard during play times. She further stated that her daycare hours end before any neighborhood children come home from school and, when creating her hours initially, took into consideration-how her neighbors would be affected. She stated that most of the neighboring parents dori t get home until 5 or 6 p.m. and by that time, the daycare children have been picked up. Ms. Khan stated that the Police were at her residence one time because her house alarm went off when only her mother was home. She stated that a door or window had flown open, causing the alarm to go off and her mother was worried. She further stated that she is cognizant of her neighbors and has asked them to address her with any concerns or problems they may have. Regarding the traffic issue, Ms. Khan stated that the majority of the parents or grandparents dropping the children off are walking to the daycare from their homes. She stated that she limits her advertising of services to neighborhood families. Chair Wehrenberg asked Ms. Khan how she advertises her services. Ms. Khan replied that word of mouth is her biggest advertisement. In addition, her services are advertised on ChildCareLinks. Ms. Khan stated that last year she did put an advertisement sign up on Fallon Road, unaware that it was against Zoning Ordinance Regulations. She stated that City Code Enforcement did ask her to remove the sign and she complied immediately. Ms. Khan reiterated that she is completely willing to work with her neighbors to make sure their concerns are addressed appropriately. Chair Wehrenberg stated that Public Works Staff is available to answer questions regarding traffic and parking. Hearing no further comments, Chair Wehrenberg closed the public hearing. Cm. Brown stated that he does not see a land use issue and feels that parking is adequate for the time periods that the daycare is operating. Cm. Swalwell stated that it is a tough issue and he understands and appreciates the neighbors' concerns; however, a daycare is a use that is allowed in that area and there is a shortage of daycares within the City. He stated that the City doesri t want daycares limited to Commercial areas and the Commission's role is to follow the law. ~,?Innssirag ('am~rissior i~t~ugus217, 2t~9 iae;,u::~> Ate~tinp 152 Cm. Swalwell felt that a total of 8 children in the daycare is reasonable and felt that 14 children might be too many; however, the Commission's findings are met and there are no public safety issues on record. He stated that he would like to ensure that the project is reviewed in one year to ensure that the Conditions are being complied with and that parking is not an issue. Cm. Swalwell felt the Applicant proved to be responsible, responsive and diligent in her efforts to follow the rules and to accommodate her neighbors. He stated that he does support the project and reminded the Community that the Planning Commission s role is very limited and the Commission must follow the law. Cm. King felt strongly that the project is not an appropriate land use for the location. He stated that the parking availability, alone, is alarming. He further stated that any time he sees a project that proposes to reduce parking below the City-recognized standard, it sets off a big alarm bell in his mind. Vice Chair King stated that in a neighborhood that will change over time, he feels that because of limited parking, a daycare would be an inappropriate use. Vice Chair King referred to Cm. Swalwell's previous comment regarding the need for daycares in the City. He stated that it is a factor that the Commission can look at, although some might disagree that the Commission should be looking into whether or not there is a market for daycares. He further stated that whether the Commission can consider the need in the Community or not, his frustration for years has been that he has never seen any information or proof that there is or isn't a shortage of daycares. Vice Chair King stated that he agrees with Cm. Swalwell in that he finds the Applicant as very responsible and conscientious, however, the Applicant indicated that she only has two children on the waiting list after a year and that does not tell him that there is a huge, overwhelming shortage of children s daycares in the City. Vice Chair King stated that parking is an issue because he's seen, from his personal experience, what happens on his street. He stated that when he first moved there, parking was not an issue and there were young children, who are now grown and driving their own cars, causing parking to become a nightmare. He further stated that particularly in a cul-de-sac, like the Applicant's, he thinks that the parking dynamics are even worse than they would be on a straight-away street. Vice Chair King stated that the findings talk about safety in the neighborhood and the Applicant pointed out that at the time most of her traffic will be coming through, most of the neighborhood children will be at school, however there are some children that will not be in school. He stated that he has seen three-year olds run across his own street completely oblivious to traffic and that he cannot make the finding that this does not impact negatively on the safety of the neighborhood children. He further stated that he may be willing to compromise if the number of children Ms. Khan cared for was lessened from 14. Vice Chair King reiterated that he feels this use is completely inappropriate for the nature of this particular neighborhood, particularly in a cul-de-sac: ~I?Cnnnfrlg {nmrnzsssba ~9rt~wt31, 20€39 TZygu£cr:~tettCrg 153 Cm. Brown asked Vice Chair King how he finds what the City Traffic Engineers studied, because of the staggered drop-off and pick-up times, they did not see more than two guardian vehicles at the residence at any on time. Vice Chair King replied that one of the problems in being volunteers from the Community to be on a Commission is that you rely on the opinions of experts; however, it should not be a surprise to anyone that he has been suspicious of experts' views on parking and traffic for the entire seven years he has been on the Commission. He stated that when he looks at what the City did with Safeway on Dublin Blvd., he cari t believe that a professional ever proposed to approve the parking configuration that exists. He felt that, not only has it created a nightmare under normal circumstances, but if the City gets around to revitalizing west Dublin, it's going to be adouble-nightmare just because of the flow of traffic from Safeway. Vice Chair King agreed with Cm. Brown in stating the Commission needs to give the opinions of professionals great weight, but he cannot accept the opinion of this particular report, stating that there will not be a traffic, safety or parking issue. Chair Wehrenberg reiterated that the Commission is not present to enforce the CC&Rs; they are only present to enforce what the City has in the Zoning Ordinance and what's allowed under a Conditional Use Permit. She stated that the Applicant has come forward to the Commission as a responsible citizen in following the City's code as far as requirements to operate a large daycare. Chair Wehrenberg stated that the Commission has never found evidence that daycares affect home values. She stated that she did have concerns regarding parking on a court. Chair Wehrenberg stated that when her own children were younger, she lived on a court which had an operating daycare and there really wereri t any issues with noise or parking. She stated it all worked itself out. Chair Wehrenberg felt that the Applicant has been responsible with her limited hours which should help eliminate the issues with parking, in addition, stating that most of the Applicant's clients walk their children to the daycare. She stated that she wanted the residents to understand that the City can go and review the operation and, if there are any issues, she urges residents to work with the Applicant as well as with the City. She reiterated that with previous Applicants, issues have not occurred. Chair Wehrenberg stated that she understands the neighbors' parking and safety concerns but it is an entire neighborhood, not just the Applicant, that is bringing on all of the parking and violations that are occurring on the street. She stated that she is in favor of the project and feels that all requirements have been met. Cm. Swalwell asked the Commission if a mandatory one-year review would be appropriate. Chair Wehrenberg stated that a review is allowed under a Conditional Use Permit so if the City does receive complaints, they are able to review the site at their own discretion. Mr. Baker confirmed that part of the City's typical practice is to periodically review Conditional Use Permits and in addition, through Code Enforcement action, if there is a complaint that is <{~;,narr',j C;x~mrulsseQrr 17ur~xst 2h 2D(~4 ~q:;jf~Grr <Nzztiny 154 received or a concern that's been raised, the Conditions allow Staff to go out and inspect the site to verify whether or not there is an issue and proceed with enforcement. Chair Wehrenberg stated that she didri t feel it necessary to add a mandatory one-year review as a Condition. On a motion by Cm. Swalwell and seconded by Cm. Brown, on a vote of 3-1-1, the Planning Commission approved: RESOLUTION NO. 09 - 35 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A LARGE FAMILY DAYCARE HOME AND FOR A PARHING REDUCTION FOR AN INDIVIDUAL USE AT 4907 GRAYHAWK COURT (APN 985-0031-034) PA 09-020 Mr. Baker reminded the audience and Commission that there is a ten-day appeal period on the Planning Commission s action. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS -NONE OTHER BUSINESS - Mr. Baker advised the Planning Commission that the August 25, 2009 meeting has been cancelled. 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). ADJOURNMENT -The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Respectfully subrx~itt d, ~'~ Doreen Wehrenbe Chair Planning Co 's~ion ATTES IT• 6 Jeff B k Planning Manager G: t MINUTES S 2009 ~ PLANNI NG COMMISSION 18.77.09.dac (PCmx~ssaag t nmar€se~itt jtugust t1, 20U9 ,~Y ~~~e~~ 155