Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-10-2009 PC Minutes~` °° a `. Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, November 10, 2009 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A .regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, November 10, 2009, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Wehrenberg called the meeting to order at 7:02p.m. Present: Chair Wehrenberg; Vice Chair King; Commissioners Schaub, Brown, and Swalwell; Jeff Baker, Planning Manager; Kit Faubion, City Attorney; Martha Aja, Environmental Specialist; Mike Porto, Consulting Planner; Marnie Waffle, Senior Planner; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. Absent: None ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA -NONE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - On a motion by Cm. Swalwell, seconded by Cm. Schaub the minutes of the October 13, 2009 meeting were approved with modifications. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -NONE CONSENT CALENDAR -NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS -NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS - 8.1 PA 06-031 Site Development Review for East Bay Regional Park District Trailhead and Maintenance Staging Area, including Restroom Facilities on a 1.9-acre site submitted by Discovery Builders. Mike Porto, Consulting Planner presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Schaub asked if the horse trailers will park in the gravel area. Mr. Porto answered yes; the gravel horse trailer parking area was a requirement. Cm. Schaub was concerned about not continuing the stone around the back of the restroom building. He felt that after time the stucco would be damaged. Cm. King asked Mr. Porto to point out on the map/ slide where the trail connects to the staging area. aa~raart~~ ~`~srr~tssicstt ?~`tr~~~xs~r 1t}, ~D.9 ~~ep~~t~crS~fc~ti~t 179 Mr. Porto pointed out the connection points from the staging area to the trails. Cm. Schaub asked about the road located at the site. Mr. Porto answered that is a maintenance road to maintain the slopes and open space. Chair Wehrenberg asked if there is a timeline on future trails in the area. Mr. Porto suggested she ask Linda Chavez from East Bay Regional Parks District (EBRPD). Cm. Brown stated there was reference to a sign at the staging area and asked if there is a style for the sign and is it visible from I-580. Mr. Porto answered that nothing is visible from I-580 and he has not seen the design for the sign. Chair Wehrenberg opened the public hearing. Doug Chen, Discovery Builders, Applicant and Linda Chavez, EBRPD spoke in favor of the project. Ms. Chavez pointed out the connections to the trails on the slide. She stated that it follows the maintenance road and travels up to the ridge and connects with Donlon Point and then heads north. She stated that this trail will be part of the Calaveras Ridge trail which is a major, regional trail. Cm. King asked if the trail will connect with the regional park land. Ms. Chavez answered it will go to the Dublin Hills Regional Park, which is not open to the public yet. She stated the staging area will be the only major entrance to the regional park. She stated the EBRPD board adopted an interim land use plan which outlines trail locations, staging areas, the habitat and maintenance of the park. The staging area will be the first phase of opening up the area. She continued there will be another segment of the trail that will go south across Dublin Blvd and along Schaefer Ranch Road and Dublin Canyon Road. Cm. King suggested a hitching post for the horses to be tied to after they are taken out of their trailers. Ms. Chavez answered that is not planned but she was not opposed to having one near the horse trailer parking area. Mr. Chen stated a hitching post could be added during construction of the project. He suggested if someone from the City would select a location they would install it. Cm. Brown referred to Public Works Condition of Approval #33 which refers to a "traffic control assembly" on the plans and asked Mr. Chen to explain. ~~~~~~~a ~'grr~r~aissicatz v:4~r~~e,~ta6ez'.1 £t, 't3~J9 ~~~~ 4°~~~~g 180 Mr. Chen answered the "assembly" is a "tiger teeth" device so that vehicles cannot back out and is a standard detail for EBRPD. Cm. Brown referred to Public Works Condition of Approval #34 regarding onsite pedestrian concrete not identified and asked him to identify the material. Mr. Chen answered the kind of concrete is called out on the construction documents which are being routed to the various departments. Cm. Schaub asked Ms. Chavez if EBRPD has plans to extend Martin Creek trail up the hill. Ms. Chavez answered that EBRPD is reviewing the area in conjunction with other items that other agencies are reviewing. She continued that the District feels it needs to be done and would like to extend the trail. Chair Wehrenberg asked, once the project is approved, what is the timeline for construction. Mr. Chen answered the paving portion is complete and the construction should take 3-4 months to complete. Chair Wehrenberg closed the public hearing. Chair Wehrenberg stated she supports the project and felt the Conditions of Approval addressed the security issues regarding the gates being locked at night. Cm. Brown supports the project. Cm. King asked to add a condition that a standard EBRPD hitching post be included in the construction of the project. On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Cm. Brown, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission, with the addition of a Condition of Approval to include a hitching post in the horse trailer parking area, unanimously approved: RESOLUTION N0.09-40 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT TRAILHEAD STAGING AREA AND RESTROOM FACILITY ON A 1.9-ACRE SITE KNOWN AS PARCEL B OF TRACT 6765 OF SCHAEFER RANCH PA 06-031 Cm. Schaub was concerned about speed of vehicles coming down Dublin Blvd from Schaefer Ranch area. Mr. Baker agreed to inform the Traffic Safety Committee about Cm. Schaub's concern. Cf'1t8"??tiT,ti f" a ssr%rregy `LTL'L'?JI~kL'Y {{~s ~~{~ ~~~ ~:~- . ~. 181 8.2 PA 08-045 Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area - Annexation, General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Planned Development Prezone with a related Stage 1 & Stage 2 Development Plan, Vesting Tentative Map, Development Agreement and Mitigated Negative Declaration. Martha Aja, Environmental Specialist presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Schaub asked where the creek is located within the project area. Ms. Aja answered the creek runs east of the site but there is no creek or water within the development portion of the project site. Cm. Schaub asked if the Planning Commission would review the designs for the homes. Mr. Baker answered the homes would be subject to Site Development Review at the Community Development Director level Cm. Schaub stated that he visited the site and found there is an access road behind where the houses will be built. He continued the access road was the only secondary access to the project site. He then asked how .the City will handle a fire if there are no other access roads to the project site except at Cydonia Court. He was concerned about getting residents out of the area in case of a fire. Ms. Aja answered that the Fire Code requires two (2) secondary accesses if there are 75 houses or more. She continued, including the houses on Cydonia Court, which is 71 lots, which meets the Fire Code requirement. Cm. Schaub was concerned about saving people that live at the top of the development if there is no secondary access road. Ms. Aja stated there is also a fire access road which is what Cm. Schaub saw when walking the site. Cm. Schaub stated the access road only goes approximately 2/3ras of the way up the hill and then stops. He pointed out the area on the map and stated that all the houses up there have only a single point access, including the 4 houses further back in the canyon. Mr. Baker stated the Fire Code sets the threshold for the number of access points, the number of units before emergency vehicle access is needed, secondary access and distance, etc. He stated the Fire Dept reviewed the project and found the project to be in compliance with the Fire Code as adopted by the City. ri~l. ~ ,~~isrtaztt ;'ir~;~r~t~~r.1t3, 2t~fJ~ ~"s, ~-~~ 182 Chair Wehrenberg referred to the PD Prezone and Stage 1 & 2 Development Plan Ordinance (Attachment 4) on page 18; #11 Access -which states that Cydonia Court has 2 emergency vehicle access points. Cm. Schaub felt the access road was not adequate. Ms. Aja mentioned that all the homes will be required to have fire sprinklers and adhere to the Wildfire Management Program. Also, the Fire Dept. will continue to review the project during the SDR process where Conditions of Approval will be imposed. Chair Wehrenberg stated that there was no mention of a fire sprinkler requirement for the estate houses in the attachments for the project. Ms. Aja responded that all the houses will be required to have fire sprinklers. Cm. King asked who is in charge of the mitigation monitoring program. Ms. Aja answered the resource agencies. The Applicant has worked with these agencies to get approval for the conservation easement and how it will be managed. Chair Wehrenberg opened the public hearing. Lisa Vilhauer, McKay & Somps, spoke in favor of the project. She stated the properties were always meant to be annexed into the City of Dublin and developed. She stated that the Applicant is proposing to change the land uses to reflect the site condition to estate residential and open space which she felt was a better fit for the site. She stated they have shifted the residential area to the west to be contiguous with the property line and allowed the residential portion to be on a lower elevation and off the ridgeline. She stated this configuration also helps protect the watershed in the conservation area because the lots will drain into a storm drain system on Cydonia Court instead of run-off going into the conservation area. She stated that the project will follow the Wildfire Management Plan and the Fire Code. Chair Wehrenberg was concerned with the height of the homes and asked if they will impact the views of other properties. Ms. Vilhauer answered no; the ridgeline is over 800 feet high and the tallest lot is at 740 feet. Cm. Schaub showed an aerial photo of the area. He was concerned with the ridgeline and where the houses will be located in relation to the ridgeline. He asked if the houses will be higher than the houses on Cydonia Court. Ms. Vilhauer answered yes; the houses will be higher than the houses on Cydonia Court. Cm. Schaub asked if the houses will be visible from everywhere. Ms. Vilhauer answered they will not be visible from everywhere; they would be visible from certain points on the golf course, but not from Fallon Road or Tassajara Road. ~~lr~niny {'csrsriss-~cart ~'~~ ~t6~r .1L~, 2t1tJ9 ~~~~-.;~~~~~~~y 183 Chair Wehrenberg stated that the Specific Plan mentions protecting the views from I-580 and states that developers should tier the heights of buildings and not to block .the hillside views. Cm. Schaub stated he understood where the houses would be located and that they would be below the ridgeline and the views would be preserved. Cm. King asked Ms. Vilahour who will run the mitigation monitoring program. Ms. Vilhauer deferred the question to Marty Inderbitzen, Attorney for the Lin family. Mr. Inderbitzen answered the open space area is committed to a mitigation program which is part of a comprehensive plan developed with Dublin Ranch along with several properties that are part of an ongoing program. He stated the program is funded and maintained by the Lin family and monitored by H. T. Harvey and Associates who report to the resource agencies on a annual basis. He stated this is a self monitoring program and as part of the permit program they are required to monitor and report performance to the agencies. Chair Wehrenberg asked how many years is the monitoring required. Mr. Inderbitzen answered it depends on the specific aspects of the plan but in general the properties are subject to a 10 year performance plan. He continued that after 10 years the property should no longer need monitoring for compliance because it will have survived and in compliance with their requirements for a long enough time that it will then be self-perpetuating. He continued that part of the plan is that the property be dedicated to anot-for-profit entity that will oversee the program in perpetuity and an endowment is funded. He stated this property's endowment is $1.4 million and the interest is set aside for the monitoring program. Chair Wehrenberg asked if H. T. Harvey is the consultant that is required to monitor and report their findings to the agencies. Mr. Inderbitzen stated that once the program meets the compliance criteria H.T. Harvey will drop out and the Center for Natural Lands Management will monitor using their own personnel. Mr. Inderbitzen discussed the development bubble that crests at the hilltop and the anticipation was that there would be a significant amount of grading to create a development envelop of 68 residential units. He stated that the Applicant has set the property line at the top of the ridgeline because that is the watershed break and under natural conditions the rainfall would cause everything within the 127 acre portion to flow down to the creek and the water on the 30 acre site would flow in a different direction. He continued that is the primary reason why the area was designated for the mitigation area and the other left for the development. He stated it created a need to develop a different kind of project. He continued that the City approved the Silvera Ranch project and left the Applicant with a cul-de-sac that had 71 units on it and essentially denied the Applicant the ability to build the 68 unit project and left them with only 4 units. He stated that they have taken the development to the property line and configured the project the way they have in order to avoid a homeowners association for only 4 houses which _,rz ~ 184 would be inefficient to maintain. He stated they tried to design the project and the conditions so that they can use a joint maintenance agreement for the roads and for some of the drainage issues with the rest being self-maintained by the homeowners. Cm. Schaub stated that the City has a guideline that if there are 50 houses or less it would be too expensive to have a management company run the association there would be a joint agreement to maintain the road and weed abatement. Cm. Brown asked if the development of Cydonia Court is what forced the decision for the current development. Mr. Inderbitzen answered yes; it is one of the factors, the other is that it would be very difficult and expensive to generate a secondary access to the project that would meet the Fire Code requirements. He felt that this project is an opportunity for a residential type that does not exist in Dublin. The Commission discussed grading for the lots and where it will occur. Cm. Schaub was concerned about the Planning Commission allowing development to go higher up the ridgeline in general. Mr. Porto asked Cm. Schaub if he meant allowing development to go higher than what was there before or in general. Cm. Schaub felt this was a good time for the Planning Commission to discuss, in general, the visual impacts of allowing development high on the ridgeline. Mr. Porto stated that the 68 units project that was originally approved had aflat-land plan which was placed on the side of the mountain because the topography was .not taken into consideration in 1993. The origina168 unit development would have been more detrimental to the visual environment than this 4 unit project is proposing. Cm. Schaub agreed but was still concerned with the secondary access to the homes. Mr. Porto pointed out that this project will be lower on the ridgeline than the previous 68 unit project would have been. Cm. Schaub felt the 68 unit project that was approved was a mistake. Mr. Porto pointed out on the map where the ridgeline is and where the lots will be located. He stated the houses on Cydonia Court will be seen, but the first house will block the rest of the 4 houses in the project. He stated that from Dublin Ranch the views will be limited and the houses will not be seen at all from Tassajara Road. He continued the 106 unit Fallon Crossing project goes up the hill and will not block the homes, but will interrupt the views into the area. Chair Wehrenberg closed the public hearing. ~r;~ tv, zc~r~~ _. 185 Cm. Brown stated the project. is the last parcel of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) to be considered for annexation. He stated that this project eliminates the 68 unit project that would have been built on 16 acres and it also eliminates the inclusionary zoning ordinance requirement of a project with 20 houses or more. He felt that the argument that there are not enough homes in the project to warrant building a secondary access road was not a substantiating argument. He stated he had not read anything in the Staff. Report to suggest alternative sites. He felt since this is the last property to be annexed into Dublin, the Planning Commission should explore whether this project is the best land use option for Dublin. He felt that he had not read anything that would indicate this project is the best land use option for Dublin. He continued that under the Estate Residential land use designation the project could have 20 units. Ms. Aja responded that the top of the density range for Estate Residential is 24 units. Chair Wehrenberg responded that with the additional homes the Ordinance would require a secondary access road. Cm. Brown agreed. Chair Wehrenberg felt that the Ordinance is protecting the City and if the .Applicant wanted to add more homes they would have to add a secondary access road. Cm. Brown agreed and felt that if adding more homes to the project was a better solution for Dublin then the Planning Commission should consider that. Chair Wehrenberg asked if he meant putting in the secondary access road for the 4 homes proposed for the project. Cm. Brown answered the secondary access road should be added for 20 more homes. Cm. Schaub stated that there are more than 20 homes in the area. He stated that the 70 homes on Cydonia Court do not have a secondary access road either. Cm. Brown felt that it would help him to make a decision to recommend a Planning Commission study session to discuss the alternatives for the land use that are available. Cm. Schaub asked if Cm. Brown felt that there are too many houses exposed without a secondary access and the Planning Commission should look into alternatives. Cm. Brown felt the issue of the secondary access was only brought up to him tonight. He was concerned with whether this is the best land use for the last annexation into Dublin. Chair Wehrenberg suggested the Planning Commission could continue the item and discuss it further. ;~~r, ro E ~>. ~ ~~`~~~r Ia, 2t~3 }. ~ 186 Mr. Baker stated that the Planning Commission could continue the item if they so choose or discuss it tonight. He also asked to clarify if Cm. Brown is suggesting that he is interested in more units for the project because the Estate Residential land use designation allows 24 units. Cm. Brown stated that he would be interested in more than 4, but was more concerned with whether this is the best land use for the annexation. He also wanted to discuss whether the 127 acres dedicated to conservation easement was the best land use and if that land could be used as a park. Ms. Aja stated that the 127 acres that will be designated Open Space has been approved by the resource agencies and it is for mitigations that occurred for the development of Dublin Ranch and is required. Cm. Brown asked if it is required to be Open Space with no other alternatives. Chair Wehrenberg added it is required because of the endangered species that are there. Ms. Aja responded the open space area will provide habitats for the California tiger salamander, the red legged frog and the Golden Eagle which were all impacted by previous development therefore this would be their area to be protected in the City. Cm. Brown stated he read the documentation and felt it was not clear that these species are threatened and could not be protected in another manner in that area. He felt that regardless of how it was mitigated previously the land use can be changed and still mitigate it for those species. Cm. Schaub stated that the Positano development has a lot of land that is in a conservation area north of their land and into Contra Costa County. He stated that this is not the first time that the City has mitigated for the red legged frog. He continued the species is relocated to another area with migration paths, etc. He felt that the City cannot negotiate with the agencies. These are non-negotiable mitigation lands which were established when Dublin Ranch was originally approved. Ms. Aja added the land has already been committed to the conservation easement. Cm. Brown felt that the report said that there is no natural habitat for the red legged frog. Ms. Aja responded that the land has been enhanced and their habitat has been created on the conservation easement. She continued the agencies check each year to ensure that the mitigation measures are working appropriately to provide them with the necessary habitat. Kit Faubion, City Attorney commented that the mitigation land for the open space. area is compensating for other land that in the past has been allowed to be developed that had red legged frogs and salamanders. This is offsetting the ability to develop that land and in exchange this land is committed because it provides habitat or can be enhanced to provide that habitat. She stated that in the background EIR's for this development there are mitigation ;~'t• ~s~=niss~s~rs :~cra~~xrt6~ 1~, 2~fi9 measures for other species.. This is the reason the site is committed because of past decisions to develop in habitat areas and that is why it cannot be touched. Cm. Swalwell stated he is prepared to support Staff's recommendation and appreciates Cm. Browns wish to continue the project but would support what the Commission feels is warranted. He felt this is a complicated area with restrictions, but felt that Dublin s real estate market is successful with a good balance of homes, but there are not very many estate homes. He felt this development would give Dublin's real estate market more balance with diverse options. Cm. King supports the project but thought they could have a study .session to address Cm. Schaub's concerns regarding the ridgelines and Cm. Brown s concern regarding what is the best land use. He felt there has not been enough mitigation and enough open space but felt it was worth a discussion. He is concerned with the environment and felt that the best use is no use but the property owners have the right to do something with their land. Cm Schaub supports the project but felt that when a project is up in the hills and close to the ridgeline the Planning Commission should visit the site to get a better feel for the project. He felt there are too many houses built close to the ridgeline. He suggested going to the site to see what the project actually looks like and see if the project is the best of Dublin. He was not aware of the Fire Code requirement of 75 houses being built before the secondary access point is required until this project. Chair Wehrenberg stated the Planning Commission trusts the Fire Department to review the projects and make code decisions. Cm. Schaub stated he supports the project and felt that Cm. Brown had a point but the Commission is late in this project and only talking about a few acres compared to all the others in this area. He felt the Commission is obligated to support it. Chair Wehrenberg agreed with the rest of the Commissioners and felt this project has been piecemealed and this is the last of the land. Cm. Schaub felt this is not the last of the land but only what is on the map today. Mr. Baker stated that this is the last of the land that is in Dublin s sphere of influence and anticipated to be incorporated into the City. Chair Wehrenberg felt that 4 units were better than 68. She stated she agreed with Cm. Schaub regarding visiting the site. She felt that in the future the Commission should spend more time on the projects that are close to the ridgelines. She felt that some things are missed due to the short time the Commission has to review the information before the meeting. Cm. Schaub wanted to ensure that these houses are not built higher than 739 feet for buildings in the EDSP. ~r, ~ 188 Ms. Aja stated the requirement is the building cannot be higher then 770 feet at the tallest point - of the building. Chair Wehrenberg trusts that the developers are aware of the Commission s concern regarding the height of buildings and the protection of our hillsides. On a motion by Cm. Swalwell and .seconded by Cm. Schaub, on a vote of 4-1, with Cm. Brown opposed, the Planning Commission approved: RESOLUTION N0.09-41 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR DUBLIN RANCH NORTH BETWEEN THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND HONG YAO LIN AND HONG LIEN LIN APN: 985-0028-003-OZ PA 08-045 RESOLUTION N0.09-42 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN TO CHANGE DUBLIN RANCH NORTH FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND RURAL RESIDENTIAL/AGRICULTURAL TO ESTATE RESIDENTIAL AND OPEN SPACE (APN: 985-0028-003-02 & 985-0028-003-O1) PA 08-045 RESOLUTION N0.09-43 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DIRECT STAFF TO FILE AN APPLICATION WITH THE ALAMEDA COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION TO ANNEX THE DUBLIN RANCH NORTH ANNEXATION AREA INTO THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND THE DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT APN: 985-0028-003-02 & 985-0028-003-O1 PA 08-045 ~~ ~~ ~; - .~~s~ air=sxr~~r:IQ, z~~~~ ~i;.z _. ~ 189 RESOLUTION NO. 09-44 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PREZONE WITH A RELATED STAGE 1 AND STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR DUBLIN RANCH NORTH LOCATED AT 6582 TASSAJARA ROAD (APN: 985-0028-003-02 & 985-0028-003-O1) PA 08-045 RESOLUTION NO. 09-45 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE DUBLIN RANCH NORTH ANNEXATION AREA PROJECT PA 08-045 RESOLUTION NO. 09-46 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 8016 TO SUBDIVIDE A 157.2 ACRE PARCEL KNOWN AS DUBLIN RANCH NORTH (APN: 985-0028-003-02) PA 08-045 8.3 ZOA 09-003: Zoning Ordinance Amendments -Amendments to the Dublin Municipal Code related to Large Family Day Care Homes including modifications to Chapter 8.12 (Zoning Districts and Permitted Uses) and Chapter 8.76 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) and the creation of a new chapter, Chapter 8.66 (Large Family Day Care Homes}. Marnie Waffle, Senior Planner presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Schaub asked if the City requires the Applicant to enclose a view fence in the back of a particular large family day care home. ~~; __~.: 190 Mr. Baker responded that the Ordinance is written that as long as the area is screened from public view it meets the requirements. Cm. Schaub stated the City could not force the Applicant to do something the Fire Department would not allow. Chair Wehrenberg mentioned that if there is a view fence there could be a requirement that the view cannot be blocked. Cm. Schaub asked Ms. Waffle to explain the appeal process for the new large family day care Ordinance. He felt that these applications will most likely be appealed to the Planning Commission. He also asked who pays for the appeal and the Staff time. He was concerned that this new process would end up costing the City more when trying to streamline the process. Ms. Waffle explained that in researching the Ordinance change Staff reviewed the history of large family day care applications and found that only one was appealed to the City Council. She continued that with most of the applications the neighbors had concerns regarding traffic, parking and noise but ultimately the Planning Commission has approved the applications. She stated there was only one situation where the applicant was denied by the Planning Commission and appealed the decision to the City Council. Cm. Schaub did not recall denying an application. Chair Wehrenberg remembered one application that was denied by the Planning Commission and the Mayor waived the appeal fees and it was appealed to the City Council. Mr. Baker mentioned that Staff reviewed the history and the potential risk of an application being appealed to the Planning Commission and then to the City Council therefore adding an extra appeal. He stated that another alternative is the procedure that Livermore uses. He stated that because of the lack of appeals for this type of project, the Planning Commission could consider reviewing day cares approved at the Staff level as a ministerial action which is not appealable which would take out the process of appeals. Cm. Schaub suggested that the appeal go directly to the City Council because if the application meets the MUP standards it is not a planning issue. Chair Wehrenberg suggested making it mandatory for the Applicant to hold a neighborhood meeting and work out issues one-on-one before the application can be approved. She stated that at present a neighborhood meeting is recommended but she felt it should be a Condition of Approval. Cm. Schaub agreed and felt that the appeals would be just dumped on the City Council. Cm. King felt it was important to give the community an opportunity to speak out. He continued that even though the Commission has approved almost every application only one had been appealed. He feels that having a large family day care home in the middle of a residential neighborhood is not the best use of land. ~'~~rrtr~rrni~n ::~f=~zn~.Si~, ~f3f3~ ~~~~~~~~ 191 Cm. Schaub stated that nobody has ever complained about day care homes in residential areas. Chair Wehrenberg asked Ms. Waffle how this project is similar to the Indoor Recreation Zoning Ordinance and would apply to existing Planned Development Zoning. Ms. Waffle answered the Minor Use Permit process that was created in conjunction with the Indoor Recreation Facility amendments would be the same for Large Family Day Care Homes. Mr. Baker added that there are two significant differences and both are attempts to streamline the application review process: 1) Indoor Recreation allows zoning clearance at Staff level if the application meets the. development standards whereas in this Ordinance. there is both a CUP and MUP; 2) this Ordinance applies to all existing PD's but the Indoor Recreation Ordinance does not apply to existing PD's. He mentioned that the Planning Commission could recommend to the City Council that they include existing PD's in the Indoor Recreation Facility Ordinance so that the new Ordinance would apply to all existing PD's. Cm. Brown stated he would like to see all of the Minor Use Permits not only apply to the large family day cares but also include community care homes for assisted living which is also approved by the State of California under the same licensing.. He mentioned that most have 5-6 residents living in the home. He felt that all of the concerns regarding a large family day care home would be the same when considering the application. He felt that Staff should review all of the types of businesses that are similar in residential areas and include them in the process. Ms. Waffle answered that the reason Staff selected the Large Family Day Care Home is because there has been the most activity with them. She stated that the small family day care homes and the community care facilities that have 8 or fewer children or individuals do not have to go through any process with the city. They are considered a residential use and must only obtain a State license. She continued that there has been an increase in the number of Conditional Use Permit applications for large family day cares and felt this would be a good candidate for the Minor Use Permit process. She stated that there are the same issues with each application. She also noted that most of the applications are from small day cares that are successful and want to grow. She felt that this new ordinance would help streamline the process. Cm. Brown asked if the assisted living facilities with up to 8 residents do not require approval from the City. Ms. Waffle answered correct. Cm. Brown asked if more than 8 residents would. Ms. Waffle answered correct. Cm. Brown mentioned a development with. secondary units for rent. He felt that with the population aging there will be more businesses to come from that type of service and it should be included in the streamlining process. He stated that he supports business and streamlining the process. 192 Mr. Baker stated that the code states that the community care home is permitted by right with 6 or less residents. If the applicant wanted to have more than 6 residents they would have to apply for a Conditional Use Permit through the Planning Commission. He felt that the. Large Family Day Care Home Ordinance does not transfer directly to a community care home because of the 24/7 operation, but he stated that Staff could review and try to develop standards and a more efficient process. Cm. Brown mentioned on Page 8 of the Staff Report, Item D -Outdoor Play Activities - he was concerned about the "after 6:OOp.m." time. He felt it was not safe to have children playing outside in the dark. Cm. Schaub suggested changing the time to read "6:OOpm or sunset." Mr Baker noted that this standard was pulled from Conditions of Approval from previous large family day care homes that were approved by the Planning Commission in the past and have allowed children to be outside until 6:OOp.m. and they are required to be within a fenced yard area. Cm. Brown mentioned that he did not see any condition requiring lighting when it is dark outside which is a safety issue. Cm. Schaub stated that the Planning Commission does not review licensing requirements. Cm. Brown liked the "6:OOpm or sunset" suggested by Cm. Schaub. Chair Wehrenberg commented that it's common sense and the Planning Commission does not get into the technical points of the Conditions of Approval. Cm. Brown asked why the minimum separation of 300 ft and 500 ft is adequate. He felt that in a cul-de-sac there could be another large family day care home across the street. Ms. Waffle stated that Staff looked at existing conditions throughout the City for parking or trip generation and addressing that concern. She stated that Staff looked at the depth of a cul-de-sac and found that if Staff applied the 300ft separation there is a limited number of homes that would be exposed to more traffic and less on-street parking would be available. She continued that at 500 ft would be outside of the cul-de-sac therefore limiting the cul-de-sac to one large family day care home. She stated that on a regular street 300 ft seemed more than sufficient for adequate parking spaces for loading and unloading children. Cm. King stated the cul-de-sacs within Dublin currently are all within the 500ft diameter. Cm. Schaub stated that if the limit is 500 ft no more than one day care would be allowed on any one cul-de-sac. Chair Wehrenberg opened public hearing and having no speakers closed the public hearing. ~t~dlr~far.:.:.: ~ 193 Chair Wehrenberg stated she would support adding the word "sunset" suggested by Cm. Brown s concern regarding the safety of the Outdoor Play Activities time. She felt that any unsafe situation would be handled through the State license. She did not feel they need to make the change but would agree if the rest of the Commission felt it necessary. She also felt the 300 ft separation makes sense. Cm. Brown was concerned about the City's liability if a parent brought suit if child was hurt while playing outside in the dark. Ms. Faubion responded they could raise the issue but did not feel it would get very far. She continued that the restriction on time is primarily related to noise; safety is regulated through the State licensure. Chair Wehrenberg suggested adding a mandatory neighborhood meeting for the large family day care home applications. She felt that would make it easier on Staff and would streamline the process. Cm. Schaub did not agree. He felt it would make it harder on the Applicant and Staff. Chair Wehrenberg agreed it could be contentious and then it would be the opposite of the idea of streamlining. She stated that she would like to see neighbors' concerns vetted out before they are brought to the Planning Commission. Mr. Baker suggested a handout for Large Family Day Care Homes and encourage the community outreach to potential Applicants. Cm. Brown agreed that was a good suggestion. Chair Wehrenberg asked the Commission if they wanted to include existing PD's in the Indoor Recreation Facility. Mr. Baker stated the Commission reviewed the Indoor Recreation Facility Ordinance changes and recommended them to the City Council but one piece that was not included was applying those standards to the existing PD's. The new regulations would only apply to the all new PD's. Cm. Schaub asked why existing PD's were not included in the Indoor Recreation Facility Ordinance but was included in the Large Family Day Care Home Ordinance. Mr. Baker answered that Staff recognized that it would be useful in this ordinance and also could be useful in the Indoor Recreation Facility Ordinance. Chair Wehrenberg asked how the Commission would address that. Mr. Baker stated that the Commission could include language in their recommendation to the City Council to address applying the proposed Indoor Recreation Facility Ordinance procedures to existing Planned Development Zoning Districts. ~~~~: ~ 194 Cm. King agreed there is a need in the community to streamline the process but he feels that a citizen should not be denied the right to speak their concerns. He felt that it is different than a commercial area that wants to add a day care center where- there could be safety issues. But in a residential district it should be the homeowner's right to be notified and given the opportunity to speak. Chair Wehrenberg asked if there is the potential that an application could be problematic would the Planning Manager/Community Development Director have the ability to refer the project to the Planning Commission. Mr. Baker answered that the Ordinance does allow the Community Development Director to refer items to the Planning Commission. Ms. Waffle stated that the MUP chapter refers to permit procedures which do have provisions for referral at any point in the process. Cm. Schaub asked who pays for an appeal. Ms. Waffle answered the appellant pays the $175 fee. Mr. Baker added that the City Council adopts fees for various actions and included in that is the fee for any sort of appeal which is $175. Cm. Swalwell stated there is a fee waiver for individuals who show need Cm. Schaub mentioned that the mayor can waive the fee also. Cm. King felt that if anyone within the neighborhood wanted to appeal the decision to the Planning Commission they should not be required to pay the fee. Cm. Schaub feels that the best process is to bring the appeals directly to the Planning Commission and not the City Council. Cm. Schaub stated that as the Ordinance is written now if the application meets all the criteria for the Minor Use Permit it goes to the Community Development Director who approves the application or not. If it is approved, the decision would be final unless someone files an appeal and pays the fee. It would then be put on the Planning Commission Agenda and the Commission would approve the application or not. The next step would be the City Council where they would have to pay the fee again. Ms. Waffle answered that is correct. Cm. Schaub was in support of the ordinance and felt that the 6:OOpm outdoor play was appropriate. Cm. Brown accepted the City attorney's answer regarding the outdoor play time. rat,, ., ~~r+~risss~~~ ;~4~~t6er'_IC~,'(~9 ~i ~~~; _ _„~~~~~ 195 Ms. Waffle stated that the community care facility category includes more than assisted living: Cm. Schaub felt that there was not enough discussion to include community care facilities which would be a 24-hour facility as opposed to a day care facility. Cm. Brown agreed and supported not adopting the language for assisted living and understands the difference between assisted living and skilled care. He stated. that "assisted living' are people who can self motivate and usually have no limitations on daily activities. There was a discussion regarding the difference between "assisted living" and "skilled nursing facility" and their licensing and requirements. Chair Wehrenberg felt that the City would not see application such as assisted living. Cm. Brown disagreed and stated that he has visited such a home in Redwood City where a home with six bedrooms has residents living there. Cm. Schaub commented that would be a small community care home which would not come to the City for approval. Cm. King was not in support of the project because he felt that it was depriving the citizens of their opportunity to appeal the decision. Ms. Waffle stated that this is a discretionary permit and a noticed is sent out 10 days prior to the action where comments are received and would be taken into consideration when the CDD makes their decision, but once the decision is made. they would have to appeal it in order to have a public hearing. There was a discussion regarding the .fees for an appeal and if they could be waived for Planning Commission but not for the City Council. On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Cm. Brown, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission approved, with the addition to recommend that they reduce the appeal fee from the CDD level to the Planning Commission level and add the existing PD component to the Indoor Recreation Facility MUP Ordinance that was approved on October 13, 2009: RESOLUTION N0.09 - 47 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 8.12 (ZONING DISTRICTS AND PERMITTED USES) AND CHAPTER 8.76 (OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING) AND THE CREATION OF CHAPTER 8.66 (LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE HOMES) ZOA 09-003 >- ~; ,s~,~,~ ~~~:~- ~~, z _ 196 NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS -NONE OTHER BUSINESS - 10.1 Informed Planning Commission regarding the two Study Sessions: 1) November 16, 2009, 6:OOpm in the Council Chambers for the East .County Hall of justice; and 2) November 17, 2009 at 6:OOpm for the DDSP, dinner will be served on Tuesday before the CC meeting. Chair Wehrenberg will not be in attendance at either meeting. ADJOURNMENT -The meeting was adjourned at 9:29 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Doreen Wehrenb Chair Planning Co ' on ATTEST: '~ ~ Jeff B e Planning Manager G: MINUTES ~ 2009 ~ PLANNING COMMISSION ~ 11.10.09.doc ~~~~~-,~~~ ,. ~ 197