Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-25-2004 PC MinutesCALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, May 25, 2004, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Fasulkey called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Fasulkey, Nassar, Jennings, King, and Machtmes; Jeri Ram, Planning Manager; John Bakker, City Attorney's Office; Pierce Macdonald, Associate Planner; and Maria Carrasco, Recording Secretary. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - None MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - May 11, 2004 were approved as submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATION - None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None PUBLIC HEARINGS 8.1 PA 03-023 Amador Plaza Temporary Vehicle Storage Lot Conditional Use Permit to amend Planned Development PA 96-043 to allow automobile/vehicle storage lots subject to a Conditional Use Permit at the Planning Commission, and approval of the creation of a automobile vehicle storage lot in a private parking lot in the existing office complex located at 6670 Amador Plaza Road. Cm. Fasulkey opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Pierce Macdonald, Associate Planner presented the staff report and a PowerPoint presentation and advised the Planning Commission that the Applicant, George Hites, is requesting approval of an automobile/vehicle storage lot facility for approximately 125 cars in the existing parking lot of the office complex at 6670 Amador Plaza Road. The Powerpoint Presentation included photos of the site. The parking area is currently leased to Dublin Crown Chevrolet to store overstocked cars and trucks. Mr. Hites is operating the vehicle storage lot without City approvals and is complying with Code Enforcement requests to submit an application and obtain necessary permits for this project. The Applicant requests Planning Commission approval to use the parking spaces as parking area for the automobile/vehicle storage lot for a period of 5 years. The project area is within the Planned Development District (PD 96-043) and the intent of the District is to encourage office/commercial development consistent with existing uses in the PD. Ms. Macdonald showed pictures of the parking lot where the cars from Crown Chevrolet would be located. She stated that the vehicles stored would be using the parking for the building that has been demolished. The Police Department has requested that the Planning Commission consider an additional condition of approval requiring that this parking area be fenced for security. They are requesting the construction of a six-foot chain link fence around the site. Other agencies and City Departments have reviewed the project and attached conditions of approval included in the attached resolution. The project is categorically exempt from CEQA under section 15303 because it consists of minor modifications to a fully improved existing building site consistent with the General Plan and zoning regulations. The proposed project requires a minor amendment to the allowed uses of the existing PD to add vehicle storage lots to the list of Conditional Uses. Additionally, the Conditional Use Permit would provide a five (5) year term for use of the site as a temporary automobile storage yard. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission determine if an alternate condition relating to fencing of the storage lot should be added to the conditions of approval and adopt the attached resolution approving the minor amendment. Ms. Macdonald stated that notice of the public hearing was sent to the property owners and tenants within 300 feet. She stated that one comment letter was received. Ms. Ram stated for the record the letter was received from Signature Appraisals and dated May 17th. Cm. Fasulkey asked if there were any questions for Staff. Cm. Machtmes asked how the auto storage lot is compatible with the intent of the Planned Development (PD) District for this area. Ms. Macdonald explained that the PD District is a mix of uses that includes the Enea Shopping Center as well as auto uses. Auto uses are allowed in the PD district and Crown Chevrolet is included in this district. The immediate vicinity is office. Cm. King asked if the picture shown on the PowerPoint are the actual cars being stored on the lot. Ms. Macdonald said the cars shown are stored for Crown Chevrolet. Cm. Fasulkey stated the proposed project is before the Planning Commission due to a code enforcement issue. Ms. Macdonald stated the project is a result of trying to correct a code enforcement issue. Cm. King asked if Staff is satisfied that there is adequate parking for the surrounding offices. Ms. Macdonald stated the project would use the parking allocated for the demolished building and would not take away from office. Cm. Jennings asked for a clarification on the duration of the use and what it means for the Conditional Use Permit being a permanent change to the allowed uses in the PD district. Ms. Macdonald stated that Vehicle Storage lots would be added as one of the allowed uses for a PD district. For this application and this storage lot it would be for a five year term because that is what the applicant has requested. Ms. Ram said for clarification - the ability for someone else to come in that PD district and apply for a CUP for an automobile storage lot for any duration would be allowed. Cm. Machtmes asked if they would need to apply for a CUP even though it was now an allowed use under the PD. Ms. Ram stated it is only allowed as a CUP. Cm. Nassar asked what would be the long-term aesthetics and affect for the downtown area. Ms. Macdonald said that Staff anticipated that this could become an issue as the area develops. The applicant has requested a five-year term and would not impede redevelopment under the West Dublin Specific Plan. Cm. Nassar stated he has concerns with storage lots through out Dublin. Ms. Ram said this is the only storage lot downtown. The Planning Commission recently approved one on Sierra Court. Ms. Ram explained that the current proposal is for an interim use, which would allow the property owner to utilize the property for commercial purposes while waiting for the area around the subject property to develop under the West Dublin BART Specific Plan. She pointed out that the Commission would need to decide if it would like to approve the interim use. Cm. Fasulkey asked if applicant was available. Andy Hires, Applicant for the project, stated he is one of the owners of the site. He gave a brief background on the reasons for the proposal before the Commission. Cm. Jennings asked Mr. Hites his thoughts on the fencing. Mr. Hites pointed out that the condition regarding fence requirement had been removed. He felt there was no need for the fence since they haven't had any problems so far. Cm. Fasulkey confirmed with Staff that the fence condition was indeed removed. Ms. Ram stated currently there is no condition for the fence but it is up to the Plam~ing Commission to decide if it would like to add one. Cm. King asked what kind of tenants are located on the south side of the subject property. Mr. Hites stated that there was a tenant that provided van service for disabled persons and did not use the parking lot that often. The tenant on the upper level of the building is an architectural firm. He stated that the parking space utilized by this company is also very minimal. Cm. King pointed out that the City received a letter from Signature Appraisal stating that the approval of the project would devalue the surrounding properties. He asked Mr. Hites' thoughts on the letter. Mr. Hites said that he wouldn't have proposed the project if he thought it would lower the property value. Mr. Guidotti, a property owner adjacent to the subject property, submitted a letter from a tenant. He stated that it is regrettable that he has to appear because he gets along with Mr. Hires very well. He added that since he bought Parcel A 11 years ago they have done a good job maintaining the property. The whole complex is surrounded by trees and is a true office complex and is a desirable complex. The only problem was when Micro Dental was a tenant and had so many people; there was no place to park. He pointed out that if the subject property is used for storing vehicles, it will be an eyesore and he will have a hard time renting. He has received complaints from the tenants. It depreciates and diminishes the value. In summary he was opposed to the project and notice was not given to property owners within 300 feet. Cm. Fasulkey asked if there were any questions for Mr. Guidotti, hearing none he asked for Mr. Hites. He asked if some parking spaces on Mr. Hites' property could be given back to Parcel A. Mr. Hites rebutted to Mr. Guidditti's comments but stated that he is willing to give up a few parking spaces if necessary. He also pointed out that it was suggested to disperse some of the cars but the Police Department wanted them all together. Cm. Fasulkey asked Mr. Guidditti if he was willing to come to a compromise. Mr. Guidditti stated that if it weren't for his tenants he would be fine with the suggestion. He pointed out that the parking available is for the tenants of the building and not for storage of vehicles. He indicated that the proposed use is not consistent with the surrounding use. Cm. Fasulkey closed the public hearing and asked if there were any questions for Staff. Cm. Machtmes asked if the City goes through a requirement process for new car dealerships on how much parking they have relative to their use. He is concerned that it can become a recurring habit for dealerships if they do not have adequate parking available to support their use. Ms. Ram stated that Staff has been receiving requests from dealerships over the past few years for additional vehicle lot storage. Therefore the City is encouraging the dealers to build an additional level or extra parking area on their property for storage of their cars. The reason Staff recently recommended the Honda cars storage was due to the fact that they were adding an additional level on the site for car storage. The Code Enforcement officer is proactively chasing car parking throughout the City. Staff would like the dealerships to add on or find another site that is larger to accommodate their needs. There was a discussion among the Commissioners regarding the impact the proposed use would have on the surrounding tenants. Cm. King stated that the use would not adversely affect the image of the tenants. Cm. Fasulkey pointed out that there was no objection on parking the cars on the pad. Cm. Machtmes pointed out to Cm. Fasulkey that the comment he heard was that the cars parked on the pad was an option that was a compromise. Furthermore, it was his understanding that Mr. Guiddotti's objection was policy based since the proposed use was not permitted under the existing zoning. Mr. Hites indicated that he would like to make a comment since there was an agreement with Mr. Guiddotti. Cm. Fasulkey re-opened the public hearing. Mr. Hires stated that based on the suggestion by the Commission, to give some additional parking spaces to Mr. Guiddotti's parcel, it would allow the tenants on Mr. Guiddotti's property additional access to their offices. Mr. Guiddotti was asked to state for the record if this was agreeable to him. Mr. Guiddotti answered that he would not recommend this option as it would still cause problems for him while renting the office spaces. But if the project is approved he is willing to make a compromise. Hearing no other comment, Cm. Fasulkey closed the public hearing. Cm. Machtmes stated that he agreed with Mr. Guiddotti's philosophical view that the proposed project was not an appropriate use for the site and that the dealerships would not have any incentive to improve their business management if allowed to locate their cars all over the City. Cm. Fasulkey stated that he agreed with Cm. Machtmes to some extent but reminded that this was an interim solution. Cm. Nassar stated he agreed with Cm. Machtmes and was concerned about the aesthetics of the whole area if this use were allowed. A motion was made by Cm. Nassar and seconded by Cm.Jennings to deny the project. Prior to voting there was a discussion among the Commissioners whether the CUP should be limited to 3 years rather than the proposed 5. Ms. Ram stated that since the proposal was based on the Conditional Use Permit, Staff was acting on what was proposed. Cm. Jennings stated that she was in favor of denying the project because it is an inappropriate use for the site, and furthermore permitting the use for even 3 years would be a long time especially since Dublin is still in its growing stages. John Bakker, from the City Attorney's office, reminded the Commission to articulate a rationale for denial for the record. Cm. Fasulkey stated he would rather find a middle ground. Cm. King said that he is in favor of a 3- year limit to the approval because it may interfere with the overall plan for that district. Cm. Machtmes stated that the summary finding is that the proposed use is incompatible with existing uses. Mr. Bakker summarized the Commission's rationale for the record. The proposed use is incompatible with the existing uses, with the purposes of Planned Development District. Based on a motion by Cm. Nassar, seconded by Cm. Jennings and by a vote of 4-1, the Planning Commission denied the project based on the incompatibility of the use with the purposes of the Planned Development District. Cm. King stated that he would like the record to show that in addition to the rationale stated above, it should also be noted that his reason for denying the project is because it may interfere with the future plans for the site. Cm. Fasulkey asked if there was a consensus if he added to the motion "and may also be incompatible with future plans". Cm. Jennings disagreed on the basis that the findings are based on facts but she understood Cm. King wanting to state for the record his reasoning for denial. The Planning Commission adopted RESOLUTION NO. 04 - 44 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING GEORGE HITE$/DUBLIN CROWN CHEVROLET CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO AMEND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR PA 96-043 TO ALLOW AUTOMOBILE/VEHICLE STORAGE LOTS AND TO ESTABLISH AN AUTOMOBILE/VEHICLE STORAGE LOT AT 6670 AMADOR PLAZA ROAD, PA 03-023 Ms. Ram reminded the Applicant that there is a 10-day (calendar) appeal period to appeal to the City Council. 8.2 PA 03-030 Micro Dental Automobile Vehicle Storage Lot Conditional Use Permit to amend Planned Development PA 97-031 to allow automobile/vehicle storage lots subject to a Conditional Use Permit at the Planning Commission, and approval of the creation of a automobile vehicle storage lot in the Micro Dental complex located at 5601 Arnold Drive. Cm. Fasulkey opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Ms. Macdonald presented the staff report and advised the Planning Commission that the Applicant, George Hites, is requesting that the Planning Commission approve an 110 automobile/vehicle storage lot facility for approximately 235 cars in the existing parking lot of the office/light industrial building for a period of five (5) years at 5601 Arnold Drive. The parking area is currently leased to Dublin Crown Chevrolet to store overstocked cars and trucks. Mr. Hites is operating the vehicle storage lot without City approvals and is complying with Code Enforcement requests to submit an application and obtain necessary permits for this project. The property is occupied by an existing four-story, 124,930-square-foot building and a 968-space parking lot currently being used by Microdental. The existing building was constructed in 2000, and a second building of equal size is planned for the site in the future. The proposed project requires a minor amendment to the allowed uses of the existing PD to add vehicle storage lots to the list of Conditional Uses. The parking lot with a capacity of 968 spaces was designed and built to satisfy the parking requirements for both the existing building and a future building on the site (a total floor area of 250,000 square feet). The Applicant is requesting Planning Commission approval to use 235 of those spaces on an interim basis of five (5) years for the subject automobile/vehicle storage lot. The site is within an existing PD District (PD 97-031) and the intent of the PD is to transition light industrial uses to the north around Gleason to a higher intensity office uses to the south along Dublin Blvd and Central Parkway. This project would also require an amendment to the PD as vehicle storage lots are not listed as an approved use in the PD. Adjacent uses include laboratory and research and development uses to the north, a parking structure to the east, vacant land and offices to the south across Central Parkway, and Camp Parks and other public lands to the west. The Police Department reviewed the project and recommended constructing a fence and adding a condition of approval for the establishment of a fence at the site. The proposed automobile vehicle storage lot is directly adjacent to Arnold Drive and visible to persons driving or walking within the public right-of-way. However, the location is not as visible from other vantage points in the vicinity. The project conforms with intended land uses and impacts studied in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan as it is within the intensity and types of land uses anticipated for the area. Other City Departments and agencies have reviewed the project and attached conditions of approval to meet health and safety standards and to allow the draft findings to be made. The project is categorically exempt from CEQA under Section 15303 and is consistent with the General Plan and zoning regulations. The difference between this project and the previous project is that the current project is within the Light Industrial use of the General Plan. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission determine if an alternate condition relating to fencing of the storage lot should be added to the conditions of approval and adopt the attached resolution approving the minor amendment. Cm. Nassar asked if there were areas zoned for the storage of vehicles in the City's Master Plan without a CUP. Ms. Ram responded that a vehicle storage lot is typically allowed through a Conditional Use Permit. Cm. Nassar stated that if the City anticipated this kind of demand, then it is only logical for the City to zone areas on the General Plan for vehicular storage. Cm. Fasulkey asked if there is a long term solution. Ms. Ram responded that the long term solution is that Staff is requiring the dealerships at the time of application submittal to show storage area in their plans. The problem of storage exists for those dealerships that are in the downtown area. Staff on its part has increased the FAR for some of the sites in order for the dealerships to expand their area to include storage area for their vehicles. Cm. Nassar asked if the difference between the previous application and the current application is their land use designation. Ms. Macdonald stated that the zoning for the current application is industrial/campus office and the previous application was zoned retail/office. Cm. Fasulkey opened the public hearing and asked for the Applicant. Andy Hites, Applicant, stated that the Code Enforcement Officer suggested the idea of leasing the additional parking spaces and therefore the Applicant came up with the current proposal. He pointed out the reason to request a five year period for this use so as to avoid coming back for approvals yearly. He was fine with a one or three year time period which would give Crown Chevrolet sufficient time to construct something at the site. Hearing no other comments, Cm. Fasulkey closed the public hearing. Cm. Fasulkey asked if the Commissioners felt that the current application was different from the previous application. Cm. King stated that he viewed this application differently since the zoning was different. Cm. Machtmes indicated that although he viewed the current application in a different light, he still was opposed to the idea of allowing storage lots around town. Cm. King asked if any of the Commissioners were in favor of a shorter term. Cm. Machtmes stated that having a shorter time period was the only way he would support the current application. Cm. Fasulkey asked Mr. John Bakker, from the City Attorney's office, if this was legally possible. Mr. Bakker responded that if the Applicant proposed a different time period and amended the application, it would be possible. Cm. Fasulkey reopened the public hearing and asked Mr. Hites if he would be agreeable to a term of two years. Mr Hires responded that the two-year term is acceptable. Cm Fasulkey closed the public hearing. Cm. Nassar asked what about the fence. Cm. Fasulkey asked Staff if it was currently included in the resolution. Ms. Ram responded that the fence was not included in the resolution, but it is recommended that the Commission consider including the fence as a condition of approval. Cm. Machtmes asked Staff what affect the finding to amend the existing PD have for future developments. Ms. Ram responded that if in the future a potential dealer wanted to use the site as a storage lot, they would be able to do that with a conditional use permit before the Planning Commission. On a motion by Cm. Nassar, seconded by Cm. Machtmes, with a vote of 5-0 and with the amendment to the term from five years to two years, the Planning Commission adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 04 - 45 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING GEORGE HITES/DUBLIN CROWN CHEVROLET CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO AMEND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 97-031 TO ALLOW AUTOMOBILE/VEHICLE STORAGE LOTS AND TO ESTABLISH AN AUTOMOBILE/VEHICLE STORAGE LOT FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE (2) YEARS AT 5601 ARNOLD DRIVE, PA 03-030 8.3 PA 99-064 Quarry Lane Phase II Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit of Phase II of the Quarry Lane School, including design review of a new 70,289 sq.ft. middle school and high school building, recreation areas, landscaping and grading pursuant to Planned Development Zoning District PA 99-064 and the Stage I and 2 Development Plan. Cm. Fasulkey opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Ms. Macdonald presented the staff report and advised the Planning Commission that the project site encompasses 10 acres of land within the Dublin City limits that is currently used as Phase I of the Quarry Lane School, including an existing private pre-school and elementary school for 200 students with 20 faculty and Staff members. The project site is located on the east side of 113 i'. ? ~ ' 7; Tassajara Road approximately 1.75 miles north of 1-580. The project area is within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. In 2000 the City Council approved a Phase II Stage 1 & Stage 2 Planned Development District and a companion Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Stage 2 involved the Study of the building envelope, the size of student population, the size of faculty and Staff population, the extent of grading, and architectural features. Through a vicinity map Ms. Macdonald described the surrounding project. The current application consists of the Site Development Review of the Quarry Lane School Phase II development. The project requires Site Development Review by the Planning Commission, and certain site constraints require amendments to the approved Planned Development District, PA 99-064. The Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for minor amendments to increase the approved building size from 66,685 to 70,289 square feet, to reduce the number of parking spaces on the site from 166 spaces to 149 spaces, and to modify the retaining wall design and grading. In addition, the Planning Commission is being requested to adopt a CEQA Addendum to the previously approved Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration and a statement of overriding considerations for the impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The total projected student population of 750 students proposed with the original project will remain the same, for a school enrollment total of 950 students. The project was reviewed by Staff for its conformance with the approved development plan for the area, for its conformance with Conditions of Approval and mitigation measures identified in the PD District and the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, for its conformance with the conceptual landscaping plan, for its conformance with the City's Wildfire Management Plan, for its conformance with City's Building codes, Fire Codes and other codes and regulations of the City. As conditioned Staff recommends that the SDR findings in the draft resolution can be made. Ms. Macdonald briefly described the architectural elements for the project. Ms. Macdonald then talked about the requested minor amendments to the Planned Development in detail one at a time. She stated that the first minor amendment related to the increase in the building size. She confirmed that there would be no change to the footprint, student population and the height of the building; instead the architect would be utilizing the floor area not calculated in the original PD. Ms. Macdonald talked about the requested parking modifications. The original Development Plan/site plan required and specified the location of 166 parking spaces. The amendment would reduce required parking by 10% from 166 parking spaces to 149 parking spaces. This change is partially due to the desire of the Applicant to preserve the existing parking lot and retaining walls constructed for Phase I of school. Ms. Macdonald stated that the proposed modifications would be consistent with the Zoning Ordinance requirements. Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 8.76.080.C., Civic Use Types, parking requirements for schools are based on a combination of number of students and classrooms. The total number of classrooms approved as part of the Planned Development project was 66. The current project provides 51 classrooms. The parking required pursuant to City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance would be reduced from 160 spaces to 130 spaces. The current project proposal of 149 parking spaces exceeds Zoning Ordinance requirements. Ms. Macdonald informed the Commission that Staff reviewed the concerns expressed by City Council while approving the Planned Development regarding parking for special events and the accessibility to the School. In response the Applicant has submitted a Transportation Management Plan which has been included in the Commission's Staff Report which includes the measures and responsibilities that the School is willing to undertake to manage regular parking demand and also parking for special events. In addition, street improvement plans submitted by the Applicant identify the location of a bus stop adjacent to the school; in anticipation of WHEELS bus service to the area. Ms. Macdonald introduced the City's Senior Civil Engineer, Michael Stella, who informed the Commission regarding the road improvements and the parking study for this project. The required off-site improvements are described in the Traffic and Circulation Study prepared by Abrams Associates, which is included in the Planning Commission packets as Attachment 5. The Study analyzed five intersections and the roadway segments along Tassajara Road stretching from the off-ramps at 1-580 to the main project driveway. The Consultants of Traffic counts for existing Tassajara Road then assumed additional trips from pending and approved projects in East Dublin and finally added trips generated by the project to analyze potential impacts. The Study revealed that all intersections and roadway segments will operate at an acceptable level of service when the project is fully occupied, if the following off-site roadway improvements are constructed: Construction of a traffic signal at the school's main entrance. Construction of a fence along the property frontage on Tassajara Road to assure that all drop offs occur on-site, and to assure that children don't stray into traffic. A 150-ft. long left turn pocket and a 200-ft. right turn pocket is required and acquisition of right-of-way from the west property owner. Construction of a bus turn out. The project is also required to provide safe pedestrian and bicycle path along the east side of Tassajara Road from Dublin Ranch to the School. Mr. Stella reminded the Commission that Tassajara Road would eventually be widened to a six-lane road, which was presented to the Commission earlier in the month. In the interim, however, the Applicant has agreed to work with Pinn Brothers and the Lins who are developing projects in the area. Ms. Macdonald informed the Commission that the last amendment requested by the Applicant is related to grading. The proposed project requires a new six-foot tall retaining wall along the north edge of the plain field. This is to widen the disabled access path to the tennis courts per building code requirements as well as to soften the slope for the disabled access. This would mean a change of 1% of the project grading. The extent or limit of grading into the natural hillside is the 520-foot elevation in 2000 approval and 500 in proposed project. Staff reviewed all of the proposed changes and found that they were within the scope of the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration adopted by the City Council with the Planned Development District of 2000 and the Mitigated Negative Declaration incorporated findings and impacts and mitigations measures of the County's EIR for this project approved in 1998 as well as the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR. Cm. Nassar asked the timeline for the project construction. Ms. Macdonald deferred the response to the Applicant. Cm. Jennings wanted to know when the construction of the Wheels bus stop would be completed. Mr. Stella responded that it would be hard for Staff to answer since it would have to be determined by Wheels. It would also depend on the rider ship as well as the development of parcels along Tassajara Road and Fallon Road corridors. Furthermore, with the development of the Pinn Brothers project and later the development of the Wallis Ranch project and the eventual occupation of its units, Wheels will consider establishing a bus service in the area. Cm. Fasulkey opened the public hearing and asked for the Applicant. Patricia Curtin representing the Applicant stated that she is available to answer any questions. She also indicated that Dr. Arac, the School's President would also answer any questions that the Commission may have. She thanked Staff for a detailed report and said she had little to add to that. She clarified for the Commission that the Applicant is not proposing to increase the shell of the building but, instead is redesigning interior space. The School will not be increasing the number of students, faculty or classrooms. The School is however, requesting a decrease in the parking spaces. She stated with the proposed decrease in parking, there would be no affect to traffic. The school has two private buses in addition to the public bus service. She pointed out that the modification to the design of retaining wall is being requested to provide disabled access to the field. Cm. Jennings asked for clarification on number of students currently enrolled in the School. Ms. Curtin responded that currently there are 200 students who range from Kindergarten through Eighth grade. Once the Phase II project is approved by the Commission an additional 150 High School students will be enrolled. Cm. Jennings asked how many students currently enrolled are from Dublin Ranch. Ms. Curtin stated that Dr. Arac will be able to answer that question. Staff informed Commissioners that the total school enrollment is set at 950 students. Cm. King asked if there is a fence along the road. Ms. Curtin responded that there is an existing fence along the road, which would not be altered. Elizabeth Benson Udom stated she is a San Ramon resident. She is on the Arts and Advisory Committee for the City of San Ramon. She is also a Quarry Lane parent and hence spends a lot of time in Dublin. She talked about how good the school and its curriculum are. She chose Quarry Lane School for her children because it is an excellent fit. She has done a lot of research and found that this is the school that has won the Parent's Choice Award. The School has also received an Honorary Mention for four of its participants in the International Toshiba Science Explore Vision Competition. She also mentioned that the School has an extraordinary atmosphere. The parents are 'desperate' to see the High School. She stated that the Quarry Lane School is a 'jewel in the crown' of the City of Dublin. Therefore she would recommend that the Planning Commission consider approving the High School. Kristi Hare, resident of Dublin, also spoke in favor of the High School. She stated that her son has been going to Quarry Lane School for the past two years and since then they have been anticipating its growth. She stated that the atmosphere in Quarry Lane School is something that needs to be experienced to be believed. There are parents who drive their kids from Castro Valley, Danville, Fremont and Livermore for the education that they found at Quarry Lane. Quarry Lane School has some of the brightest students and she urges the Planning Commission to approve the High School. Timothy Smith, business owner in Dublin, also expressed his reasons in favor of the project. His store Accurate Impressions has received a lot of support from the parents of students of Quarry Lane School. His store has made awards for events at the school and share a wonderful relationship. He commented on the Traffic Management Plan, which was established during Phase I of the project. He commended that it was an excellent Plan. The traffic has been seamless and he hopes it gets carried to Phase II. Michael Kyle, Attorney for Mr. Robert Nielsen. He stated that he had a couple of issues with the proposal. His client's concern is that the School is trying to crowd an intense use in a limited space. The two areas of concern for his client relates to the reduction in the parking spaces and the resulting traffic problems it may create once the Tassajara Road alignment is completed. Mr. Kyle wanted Staff to clarify that the diagram referred to by Staff, showed the existing lanes on Tassajara Road and not the proposed improvements. Mr. Stella responded that the proposed improvements to Tassajara Road are superimposed on the existing lanes in the diagram. Mr. Kyle expressed his client's concerns regarding the proposed reduction in parking and the impact of the proposed Tassajara Road alignment, which may potentially reduce the parking for the School, eventually causing traffic problems. There was a discussion between Mr. Kyle and the Commission regarding his client's concerns on parking reduction. Some of the Commissioners wanted to know the reasons for Mr. Nielsen's concern regarding parking reduction. Cm. Fasulkey closed the public hearing and asked Staff to clarify Mr. Kyle's concerns regarding the Tassajara Road alignment project. Mr. Stella responded to Mr. Kyle's concerns regarding Tassajara Road alignment. Mr. Stella reminded the Commission that the Site Plan developed for Quarry Lane School relied on the Site Plan for the Tassajara Road alignment that was developed by Staff and presented to the Commission two weeks ago. The alignment shown on the diagram referred by Mr. Kyle shows the proposed improvements. Mr. Stella further stated that the Tassajara Road alignment was yet to be adopted by the City Council. Staff has scheduled it for the City Council hearing on June 15, 2004. Cm. Fasulkey asked how the Tassajara Road alignment would impact the reduction of parking spaces. Mr. Stella read Condition #18 from the Conditions of Approval, which addressed the question. Condition #18 reads as follows: 78. Tassajara Road Future Right-of-Way Line Reservation. The City of Dublin is required by Mitigation Measure 3.3/14. 0 of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Mitigation Measures/Action Programs/Implementation Measures to reserve sufficient right-of-way along Tassajara Road to accommodate cumulative development of projects along this roadway corridor. To accomplish this, the City is currently developing a Precise Alignment and preparing an Initial Study for the future improvement of Tassajara Road to widen the existing two-lane County road to a six- lane divided arterial. Because the right-of-way lines associated with this future widening have not yet been established pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 7. 68, the Applicant/Developer shall refrain from constructing any improvements that rely on said right-of-way line establishment until the Precise Alignment is formally adopted. In addition, the Applicant/Developer shall adjust any proposed improvements to accommodate the adopted Precise Alignment if the adopted alignment differs from the Applicant/Developer's assumed location of the right-of-way for Tassajara Road. Mr. Stella pointed out that the School is taking a risk by relying on an alignment that is yet to be adopted. But based on the presentation two weeks ago, Staff feels comfortable that the alignment that has been established is the best available, given the site constraints. Cm. Jennings asked if she was correct in assuming that the Applicant has read the condition relating to the Tassajara Road alignment and has given his acceptance. Ms. Macdonald responded that it was correct. Cm. Fasulkey asked for clarification on the retaining wall based on Mr. Kyle's concerns. Mr. Stella responded that the retaining wall mentioned by Ms. Macdonald in her presentation referred to the northern edge of the play field. Whereas the retaining wall mentioned by Mr. Kyle, is the existing retaining wall located east of the existing parking field. It was created for a terrace effect for that area of the site. Mr. Kyle's concern was if the parking spaces abutting Tassajara Road were removed then it would be difficult to shift the entire parking bay to the east due to the existing retaining wall. On a motion by Cm. Jennings, seconded by Cm. Nassar, by a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission adopted RESOLUTION NO. 04 - 46 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING CEQA ADDENDUM, STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MINOR AMENDMENTS TO BUILDING SIZE, RETAINING WALL DESIGN AND PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR QUARRY LANE SCHOOL PHASE II AT 6363 TASSAJARA ROAD, PA 99-064 Ms. Ram explained the appeal process again for everyone's benefit. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None OTHER BUSINESS (Commission/Staff Informational Only Reports) Ms. Ram explained that lot one was appealed by council member McCormick. She also shared that the City won an Award of Merit for the Public Semi Public Task Force and the Public Semi Public Policy. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 pm. ATTEST: Planning Manager Respectfully submitted, Planning Commission Chairperson Planning Commission Regular Meeting May 25, 2004 119