Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-24-2009 PC MinutesPlanning Commission Minutes ?`Dl Tuesday, February 24, 2009 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, February 24, 2009, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Wehrenberg called the meeting to order at 7:00p.m. Present: Chair Wehrenberg; Vice Chair King; Commissioner Brown and Swalwell; Jeff Baker, Acting Planning Manager; Erica Fraser, Senior Planner; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. Absent: Commissioner Schaub ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - NONE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - On a motion by Cm. King, seconded by Cm. Brown the minutes of the February 10, 2009 meeting were approved. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NONE CONSENT CALENDAR - NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS - 8.1 PA 09-004 - Valley Christian Site Development Review/ Conditional Use Permit (Adjudicatory Action) to relocate the existing administrative modular building and allow the existing classroom and administration buildings to remain on the site for an additional ten years. Erica Fraser, Senior Planner presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Swalwell arrived at 7:06p.m. Cm. King asked what the reason is for the change of location of the existing building. Ms. Fraser answered that in order to build the sanctuary the modular building must be moved. Cm. Brown asked if there is a plan to build a permanent structure. Ms. Fraser answered that as part of the Master Plan the Junior/ Senior High School building is planned for and preliminarily approved. She continued that there is currently no construction timeline. She stated the Master Plan does not require that any of the facilities be built within a certain period of time. Chair Wehrenberg asked about the 10 year limit for the modular buildings. Ms. Fraser answered they can apply for an extension after 10 years. She stated that the Master Plan did not C?&nning Commission (Fe6ruary 24, 2009 1fgufar Meeting 47 specify how long the modular buildings can be on-site, only that they can remain until the permanent facility is constructed. Chair Wehrenberg asked if there were any plans to build the Sanctuary. Ms. Fraser answered that Valley Christian anticipates submitting plans for the sanctuary very soon but there are no current plans for a permanent administration building. Chair Wehrenberg opened the public hearing and hearing no comments closed the public hearing. Cm. Brown asked about Condition of Approval #1 regarding -the length of the extension and felt it should be mentioned in that section. Chair Wehrenberg answered that Condition of Approval #3 Expiration, states that the "Conditional Use Permit will be valid for a period of ten years or until such time that the permanent building is constructed, whichever comes first" which addresses his question. Cm. Brown agreed. Cm. Brown pointed out a typographical error in Condition of Approval #5 Revocation. Jeff Baker, Acting Planning Manager agreed to make those corrections to the document. Cm. Brown asked how Conditions of Approval #7 & #9 are different and if they are not different he suggested deleting Condition #7. Chair Wehrenberg answered that Condition #7 addresses the business activity and Condition #9 addresses the construction activities. Cm. Brown felt that Condition #9 addresses all activities which includes business and construction, public and private activities. Mr. Baker stated that they essentially cover the same topics and are part of the Standard Conditions, but if the Planning Commission directs Staff they could modify the Standard Conditions to eliminate one of the Conditions. There was a discussion regarding the Standard Conditions #7, #8 and #9 and whether they should be modified or deleted. Mr. Baker stated that since the items mentioned with Conditions are advisory and incorporated as part of the Municipal Code it would be a basic requirement that must be complied with. The Planning Commission agreed to leave Standard Conditions #7, #8 and #9 in the document with no changes. Cm. Brown asked if the words "Developer" and "Applicai:tt" are synonymous terms. Ms. Fraser answered yes. Chair Wehrenberg stated that she was in support of the project. On a motion by Cm. Brown and seconded by Cm. King, on a vote of 4-0-1, with Cm. Schaub absent, the Planning Commission approved: 4'lanning Commission Ee6ruary 24, 2009 WpgufarMeeting 48 RESOLUTION NO. 09-05 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO RELOCATE THE EXISTING ADMINISTRATION MODULAR BUILDING AND ALLOW THE EXISTING MODULAR CLASSROOM AND ADMINISTRATION BUILDINGS TO REMAIN ON THE SITE FOR AN ADDITIONAL TEN YEARS AT THE VALLEY CHRISTIAN CENTER LOCATED AT 7500 INSPIRATION DRIVE PA 09-004 8.2 PA 08-038 Springfield Montessori School (Legislative and Adjudicatory Action) - CEQA Addendum, Stage 2 Planned Development Rezone, Development Agreement, Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit to construct a 16,002 square foot building and related site improvements. Erica Fraser, Senior Planner presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. During her presentation Ms. Fraser showed a materials board to the Planning Commission. Cm. King asked if the shrubs installed on the open space will help to minimize sound from the school. Ms. Fraser answered that there would not be a sound savings from the shrubs but the 100 foot distance is actually what will create the sound buffer and the fact that the school is situated lower than the adjacent houses. Chair Wehrenberg suggested going through each resolution one at a time to avoid confusion. Cm. King asked how the number of parking spaces for the project was calculated. Ms. Fraser answered that the Zoning Ordinance requires one spot for each employee. The Ordinance also requires one spot for every five children, with a maximum of 180 children at the school and 15 employees that would come to 51 spaces. Cm. King asked where the ratio of one parking space for every five children comes from. Mr. Baker answered that is a requirement of the Zoning Code. Cm. King felt there was a difference between the theory of the ratio and the reality of the situation. Ms. Fraser stated that the 1-5 ratio is standard for most cities. She felt that the ratio could have come from the Institute for Traffic Engineers (ITB) which is where a lot of the parking requirements have come from. Chair Wehrenberg felt the drop-off and pick-up times being staggered are a benefit. Ms. Fraser agreed and stated that the children arrive at different times of the day. Panning Commission (Fe6ruary 24, 2009 Wgufar _%feeting 49 Chair Wehrenberg noticed that the parking summary on the plans shows 53 parking spaces and asked if the parking numbers had changed. Ms. Fraser answered that if the number of parking spaces are counted on the plans, there are 51. Cm. Brown asked if a notice was sent out for this public hearing and when it was sent. Mr. Baker answered that a notice was sent to everyone within a 300 foot radius 10 days before the meeting and also published in the newspaper. Chair Wehrenberg asked how much grading would be taking place on the site. Ms. Fraser stated they must do some grading to accommodate the pad, the parking lot and the playground. Mr. Baker mentioned that the "Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan" which is page 3 of Exhibit A to Attachment 3 shows the quantity of earth that will. be moved. Cm. Brown mentioned a reference in the Exhibit A to Attachment 1, Addendum to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR under Section IX. Hydrology and Water Quality and was concerned that the reference is from 2003, with the additional development done in the area, asked if this information is still accurate. Ms. Fraser answered yes because the environmental review that was conducted with the Eastern Dublin Environmental Information Report (EDEIR), which is the first one, the 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration and then the CEQA Addendum in 2004, all anticipated that the sites will be developed over time. Studies were done to look at what the effects would be if everything was built together or separately. She stated that when Staff reviewed this project it was determined that the development of this site has always been anticipated and the development of the site with the Public/Semi-Public facility has been anticipated since 2004. Cm. Brown mentioned Item #15, Transportation and Traffic on Page 20, Item A & C where the reference was dated 1999 and he was very concerned with the relevancy of that reference. Chair Wehrenberg stated that in 2000 a high school was pro posed to be built on that site and then in 2004 the site was changed to Public/ Semi Public zoning and it was found that the traffic impact would be less with a day care. Ms. Fraser stated that the checklist is actually a summary and in order to understand it you need to refer to the explanation to see why a box is checked that states "no impact or less than significant impact. She stated that the site was designated as a high school and traffic studies were done anticipating that a high school would be at this location. She continued that traffic studies assumed, with every project that had a traffic study clone, that a high school would be built at that location, up until 2004 when the zoning was changed to Public/Semi Public. She stated Cm. Browns concern was addressed in 2004 and because it was done then, subsequent traffic studies have then said that there would be a daycare facility at this site and it has been accounted for in this project as well as other projects. Manning Commission Ee6ruary 24, 2009 [fgular 5'Weeting 50 Cm. Brown stated that there is only mention of the "main roads" on page 46 but does not list Brannigan and Kohnen Way or the intersection of Gleason and Grafton. He stated he visited the site when students were being dropped off and picked up at Fallon Middle School and felt it was very congested. He continued that based on his obser. ation he doubted that the traffic study was accurate for the area of Brannigan and Kohnen Way. Mr. Baker stated that the drop off and pick up for the project will vary throughout the day and will be slightly different from the school directly to the north of the project. He stated that this project will have less of an impact than a high school combined with the fact that it is metered throughout the day because of their staggered class schedules. Cm. Brown noted that the day starts at 9:00 a.m. and 12 noon and lets out at 3:00 p.m. then again at 6:00 p.m. which would not conflict with the middle school. He felt the morning and noon times and possibly afternoon could be a conflict. Cm. King asked what time of day Cm. Brown had visited the site. Cm. Brown answered approximately 2:30p.m. which is the tirne the school gets out. Chair Wehrenberg asked if the two particular streets, Bra'inigan and Kohnen Ways, were identified in the traffic report. Ms. Fraser answered she would have to refer to the 2000 traffic report but it should have assumed that at key intersections identified in Eastern Dublin and would have indicated the existing level of service as well as the proposed level of service. She continued that the traffic study done in 2004 indicated that the daycare facility would have much less of a traffic impact than a high school. She continued that a traffic study doesn't look at how many cars are on the street at one time; it looks at key intersections, key times and things of that nature. She then asked if Cm. Brown was asking if the traffic study showed how many cars were anticipated to be on the street at any one time. Cm. Brown answered he was looking for something that indicated the traffic is mitigated in that area. He stated that if there was an emergency the response could be difficult with the traffic he had witnessed. Chair Wehrenberg asked if the plan allows enough street mridth to accommodate emergency response. Ms. Fraser stated that the fire and police departments have reviewed the project and did not find any problems with emergency response and any concerns that they had were incorporated into the Conditions of Approval. Cm. King asked Cm. Brown if he felt there was enough room for a fire truck to go past on the street. Cm. Brown answered yes; they could find a way to get around. Tanning Commission Eebruary 24, 2009 fgular (Meeting 51 Mr. Baker added that the traffic model anticipates what the development potential is and then runs it through a computer generated model that assesses impacts at the different intersections and functionality of the streets. He continued it is then reviewed by the City to ensure that the infrastructure is in place to support the uses. He stated the street design was reviewed in conjunction with a traffic study by Public Works to develop the streets to support the uses that are present. He continued that, based on the City standards, there is enough capacity to support the school as well as the public/ semi public uses on this site. He stated the project was also reviewed by Fire, Police, Public Works and Planning to ensure the required level of services and determined that there is enough capacity to support the use and provide the emergency response needed. Chair Wehrenberg felt it was good that no high school was being built and that the site was rezoned as Public/Semi Public if only to reduce the traffic impact in the area. Cm. King stated that there is a difference between assumptions and reality. He felt that if this site was originally planned for a high school and there are currently no structures being built and there is gridlock at the intersection, he felt that the planning for a high school would have been a disaster and it is just a matter of luck that traffic is being reduced. He stated that he has not visited the site but is concerned and will a make trip there. He felt that if when Cm. Brown visited the site at 2:30 p.m. and it was gridlock, this alarmed him. He stated that when some agency has "determined" a level of service, he could not accept that as very authoritative and when they say that it is an "acceptable level of service" he asks the question, "to whom is it acceptable?" is it the planners or the citizens who must drive the streets. Chair Wehrenberg stated that there will be a traffic impact in almost any neighborhood where a school is located. She felt that school events and the drop off and pick-up it periods become a problem with lack of street parking, etc., but it is a fact of life because the residents need schools. Cm. King felt that traffic was an inevitable consequence of having schools in the City and suggested it is an acceptable and an unavoidable consequence. Chair Wehrenberg stated she was at the site at 5:00 p.m. and there was very little traffic. Cm. Swalwell asked if there will be crosswalk and crossing guards in order to address students' safety. Ms. Fraser stated there is no intersection at the site therefore there would not be a crosswalk installed. Cm. Swalwell asked if the parents would park across the street and wait for their children. Ms. Fraser stated that parents should park on the site, but if they walk onto the site, they should follow all traffic laws. Chair Wehrenberg asked if all the sidewalk improvements are completed. Ms. Fraser stated that there are sidewalks in place down Brannigan to Gleason. Pranning Commission Tebmary 24, 2009 4gu(ar `Meeting 52 Mr. Baker stated that the parents are required to walk their children into the facility so there won't be young children walking alone. He continued that there is pedestrian access from the sidewalk to the front door so they don't have to walk through the parking lot or the drive aisle to get to the school. Cm. Swalwell mentioned that Cm. Schaub (who was absent from the meeting) was concerned with whether, now that construction costs are becoming lover, if the Applicant considered something other than a stucco roof. He felt the homes in the area do not have stucco roofs and it would be easier for the neighbors if there was more of a fagade to the building. Cm. Swalwell had agreed to pass Cm. Schaub's concerns on to the Planning Commission. Cm. Swalwell stated he had no problem with the current architecture of the project. Cm. King asked if the roof line is visible from Tassaraja Road. Mr. Baker answered no. Chair Wehrenberg mentioned that she visited the site to look at the topography and found that the houses are on a high elevation and the school is on a lower elevation and is not visible and only two sides of the building are visible from the street. Chair Wehrenberg opened the public hearing. Chair Wehrenberg asked if the Applicant was planning an expansion in the future to include older children. Shashi Lal, Director of Springfield Montessori spoke in favor of the project. She stated that the school will follow the Walnut Creek model which is extremely successful. She listed the drop- off and pick-up times and stated there have been no problems. She stated that there is no expansion planned; the school will stay at the kindergarten level. Cm. Brown asked if the capacity of 180 students will be achieved in the first 3 or 5 years. Ms. Lal answered that the 180 students is the maximum enrollment for the school but did not feel they will have that many when the school first opens. She continued that it's taken the Walnut Creek school three years to reach maximum capacity. She stated that their school must come under the category of daycare because they are governed by the State of California licensing department under Title 22, but she felt that Montessori is more than a day care. Chair Wehrenberg asked how soon they anticipated starting the project once it is approved. Ms. Lal answered, if approved, they hoped to obtain permits by April and open the school by 2010. Cm. King asked if any of their pick-up times would be at 2:00 or 2:30 p.m. Ms. Lal stated that the classes continue until 3:00 p.m. and most of the children that stay until 3:00 p.m. also stay for extended care until 4:00 p.m. She stated there is plenty of parking at the 2'Canning Commission (Fe6ruary 24, 2009 W gular.9Keeting 53 school and the parents would be driving into school with a good turn around area and not much traffic in front of school. Cm. King asked if she knew when the local public school gets out. Ms. Lal stated she was not familiar with the Dublin School District but thought it would be approximately 2:30-2:45 sometimes earlier. Cm. Brown asked, based on the Walnut Creek school, what is the estimate of the size of kindergarten class in relations to other grades. Ms. Lal stated there is only one kindergarten class of 26. Cm. Swalwell asked if at this time or any time in the future will the school offer a pick-up service. Ms. Lal answered that there are no company vehicles and they would not be offering a pick-up service. Chair Wehrenberg asked if the parents drive for field trips. Ms. Lal answered that there are very few field trips but it there were some the parents would drive the children. Rajan Lal, Project Manager, spoke in favor of the project. Chair Wehrenberg closed the public hearing. Chair Wehrenberg suggested going through each resolution one at a time with questions or discussions. #1 CEQA Addendum - There were no issues or discussion. #2 PD Planned Development to Rezone and Stage 2 Development Plan - There were no issues or discussion. #3 SDR Cm. King asked if the City has a policy on solar energy in construction. Chair Wehrenberg stated that there are ordinances and in our Design Guidelines green building is recommended but there is no policy that the developers mint adhere to. Mr. Baker answered that the City does not currently have a requirement for solar energy. Cm. Brown asked what type of landscaping would be placed in the 100 feet area between the school and the property line. Planning Commission February 24, 2009 Wegufar `Meeting 54 Ms. Fraser answered there would be non-irrigated hydroseed with shrubs that would be closer to the playground fence that runs down from the top to bottom of the property. Cm. Brown asked if there were plans for trees on the west side. Ms. Fraser answered no, the area slopes down so you would not necessarily want a tree in that area. Mr. Baker stated that the homes are situated higher than the school and the playground area with large shrubs planted at the base and natural grass leading; up the hill towards the homes. Cm. Brown asked if there is an easement of some kind on the south side of property. Ms. Fraser answered there is an access easement for the publi---/semi public property below the project. Cm. Brown asked if there is a requirement to keep the vegetation at a minimum in the easement area. Ms. Fraser answered that the Applicant will be responsible for maintaining the landscaping on their property. The plans only show the location of the easement. She continued that when the property to the south is developed, because of the easement, there is the potential for cross access which would be reviewed at that time. Cm. Swalwell was concerned about the safety of children 2-6 years old riding bikes to the school and who would utilize the bike rack. Chair Wehrenberg answered that the bike rack could be for the parents and/or employees. Chair Wehrenberg stated she had no issues with the project. She felt it meets the intent of the Specific Plan and the economic benefits of having a day care center on the eastern side of the City is good for those neighborhoods. She felt the traffic impact would be minimal; the building, massing and color elevations were good, and felt there was a good ratio of landscaping compared to the building. She also felt that the project blends well with the adjacent properties. She stated she heard what Cm. Schaub had to say regarding the roofline but felt the elevations were fine and the developer would have to completely redesign the project to accommodate his suggestions. Cm. Brown asked if there had ever been a request for the Dublin School District to give an analysis of how having a private kindergarten in the City will reduced their per student funding. He felt that this kindergarten would take students out of public schools and reduce the revenue. He was concerned that the public did not know that. Chair Wehrenberg stated that all residents within 300 feet of the project, which would include the adjacent school, were notified of this public hearing. Mr. Baker added that as a Planning Commission they review land use related issues and being able to make the findings for approval of a project. He continued that a private school is a permitted use at this site with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit, therefore the Commission should be looking at the appropriateness of tl.s facility at this location and the impact on the Dublin School District would be outside those land use decisions. Chair Wehrenberg agreed. Planning Commission IFe6ruary 24, 2009 Wrgurar Meeting 55 Cm. King stated that he has a broader view of the range of discretion for the Planning Commission. He felt that the economic impact on the community is something the Planning Commission should take into consideration. He stated that he has no sympathy for the public schools. He continued that he has resided on the west side of Dublin for 15 years and approximately half of the school age children in that area go to private schools. He felt the Dublin Public School District has not made any effort to find aut how many children and why they are in private schools and not public schools. He felt the Dublin School District is not concerned with the students that attend private schools and that the public schools are stuck in mediocrity and did not feel there was a way to correct that. He appreciated the idea of considering what impacts this kindergarten will have on neighboring community resources, businesses, etc. He felt that when the Dublin School District snows interest in this subject that is when he will show interest in it. He stated he would like to see all the children in public kindergarten taken out and sent to private kindergartens such as Montessori School or some other private schools. Cm. Swalwell felt that this project fits a need in Dublin, especially in the east and the Applicant has worked well with Staff and commended Ms. Fraser on her presentation and her work on the Staff Report and Conditions of Approval. He stated he has no issues with any of the resolutions. Cm. King stated that when he expresses concerns with formulas and assumptions made regarding traffic, he is not questioning Staff, and understands there are formulas that must be used to make their recommendations. He referred to the CEQA Addendum for Springfield Montessori (Exhibit A to Attachment 1) paragraph b) "Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a LDS standard established by the County CA4A for designated roads,' LS) "Nearby intersections can be mitigated to Level of Service I) or better, which exceeds the minimum Level of Service E established by the Alameda County Congestion Management: Agency." He continued that he would like to question the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency and ascertain how they decided that they are willing to accept a level of service that many of the Dublin citizens do not believe is an adequate level. He stated he would like to know what their assumptions are, how reality based their formulas are, etc. He continued that he would like to make it clear that he feels that the informational resources available to the City are out of whack with reality but he acknowledges that, in order to do any plaru-iing, certain assumptions must be accepted. He stated that based on the remarks from the Applicant and Staff he is now satisfied that the intersection will be survivable. Chair Wehrenberg responded that she is familiar with traffic reports in her business and felt there are multiple things that "Level of Service" accomplishes and suggested having the City Engineer speak to the Planning Commission for a greater understanding of "Level of Service" designations. The Planning Commission agreed. Cm. Brown stated that based on the Applicant's information regarding pick up times, etc. his concern regarding traffic is lessened. On a motion by Cm. Swalwell and seconded by Cm. King,, on a vote of 4-0-1, Cm. Schaub absent, the Planning Commission approved the following resolutions: PCanning Commission 2e6ruaty 24, 2009 Wfgu(ar `Meeting 56 RESOLUTION NO. 09 - 06 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A. CEQA ADDENDUM FOR A STAGE 2 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR THE SPRINGFIELD MONTESSORI SCHOOL LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF KOHNEN WAY AND BRANNIGAN STREET IN AREA F OF DUBLIN RANCH (APN 985-0052-022 AND 985-0052-023) PA 08-038 RESOLUTION NO. 09-09 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A PD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE AND APPROVE A STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE SPRINGFIELD MONTESSORI SCHOOL LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF KOHNEN WAY AND BRANNIGAN STREET IN AREA F OF DUBLIN RANCH (APN 985-0052-022 AND 985-0052-023) PA 08-038 RESOLUTION NO. 09-10 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR THE SPRINGFIELD MONTESSORI SCHOOL LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF KOHNEN WAY AND BRANNIGAN STREET IN AREA F OF DUBLIN RANCH (APN 985-0052-022 AND 985-0052-023) PA 08-038 RESOLUOTION NO. 09-07 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN fanning Commission Tebruary 24, 2009 wfgular 9Keeting 57 APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR THE OPERATION OF THE SPRINGFIELD MONTESSORI SCHOOL LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF KOHNEN WAY AND BRANNIGAN STREET IN AREA FOF DUBLIN RANCH (APN 985-0052-022 AND 985-0052-023) PA 08-038 RESOLUTION NO. 09-08 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A ]DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE SPRINGFIELD MONTESSORI SCHOOL LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF KOHNEN WAY AND BRANNIGAN STREET IN AREA FOF DUBLIN RANCH (APN 985-0052-022 AND 985-0052-023) PA 08-038 NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS - NONE OTHER BUSINESS - NONE 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). 10.2 Mr. Baker gave an update to the PC: Requests for Proposals from consultants to prepare the Specific Plan and EIR for Camp Parks, Dublin Crossings project has been released. As part of the RFP process interviews will take place for the top ranking consultants. There will be City Councilmember Hildenbrand, various Staff members and one Planning Commissioner on the interview panel. He asked the Commission to select one of their members to serve on the panel. He gave an overview of what would be involved in serving on the panel and the timeline. Cm. Brown was concerned with how much involvement he can have with this project due to his background with Camp Parks. Mr. Baker agreed to speak with the City Attorney on his behalf. Chair Wehrenberg expressed interest in the panel. The Commission agreed with nominating Chair Wehrenberg to serve on the panel. Mr. Baker mentioned that Kristi Bascom will contact Chair Wehrenberg to schedule the meetings. 10.3 Planner's Institute - Taryn Gavagan, Planning Secretary is making all travel arrangements and will deliver a packet of information to the Commission shortly. He added that Staff has arranged a tour of several residential projects in the area on Thursday afternoon. 10.4 Voicemail system for PC's - Mr. Baker mentioned the voicemail system for the Planning Commission has not been used and there was a discussion regarding whether they would like to continue with the voicemail system. Cm. Swalwell suggested setting up an Planning Commission (February 24, 2009 WQgular 9deeting 58 email account for each Commissioner and publish those addresses on the website on a trial basis. Mr. Baker agreed to speak with the IT department to set up the email link on the website and how that would work. The Commission agreed and favored the email link to the voicemail system. 10.5 Business cards - Mr. Baker followed up on a request by Cm. Brown and Cm. Swalwell for business cards. Mr. Baker stated that the City is looking to reduce costs and stated that most commissions do not have individual business cards. He continued that the plan is to have blank cards made up for the Commission to write their information on. Cm. Swalwell offered to pay for his own business cards. Cm. Brown stated he could create his own with the City template and logo. Mr. Baker indicated that the Planning Commission could have specific business cards and they would not expect the Commissioners to pay for their own. Mr. Baker agreed to order them as soon as possible. Chair Wehrenberg asked what type of information should be listed on the cards. Cm. Swalwell mentioned he would like to wait for the outcome of Mr. Baker's talk with the IT department regarding the email addresses. 10.6 Appeal - Mr. Baker informed the Commission that the Oakhurst boarding house which the Planning Commission denied without prejudice, the Applicant has appealed to the City Council and that hearing is scheduled for review on March 17th. 10.7 Future projects -1) The Housing Element is coming up in June with a study session with the Planning Commission and Housing Committee in April; 2) Downtown Dublin Specific Plan with some hearings and study sessions during the course of the year; 3) Fallon Gateway a commercial project at the south west corner of Dublin Blvd. and Fallon Rd.; 4) Multi-Modal Map as part of the General Plan, coming within the next six weeks; 4) Arroyo Vista project; 5) Redgewick/Dublin Ranch North; 6) SDR's and amendments to Positano, and Schaefer Ranch; 7) Metropolitan project redesign. 10.8 Meetings cancelled - March meetings cancelled. No items on the agenda for March 10. The meeting on March 24th is the night before the Planners Institute which the Commission will be attending. Cm. King asked if the City has determined what the traffic flaw will be like at key intersections at build-out. Chair Wehrenberg answered that is a difficult question due to the fact that the City does not know what types of commercial development there will be. Mr. Baker mentioned that there is a computer model that conducts analyses by inputting the different land uses into the program which is set up with certain assumptions that then make the determinations. Cm. King stated that the Commission tends to look at projects one at a time, and felt that a traffic impact of a particular project may be acceptable now 'Dut not at build out. He felt that should be considered. Mr. Baker answered that it is considered and there is a build out model based on what is known today which is studied with each new project. Cm. Brown asked if the City has adopted the LEED systern. Mr. Baker answered no. He continued that there are various green policies that are currently practiced in the City and one the Council is to looking at adopting various policies, including adopting a self-certification Aanning Commission Tebruary 24, 2009 Wegular Meeting 59 program called a Green Building Ordinance that would include requirements for developers. This ordinance is currently in development by the City. Cm. King felt the City should make green building mandal ory and felt that the Montessori School is a perfect project for solar panels. Mr. Baker mentioned that one of the reasons the City Council is looking at the Green Building Ordinance is to make green building part of the application prixess. Cm. Brown asked what the City's policy is on meeting with developers. He stated he had received an email from a developer who invited him to look at a project and asked if the developer was referred by Staff or acting on their own. Mr. Baker answered the developer contacted him on their own. Cm. Brown felt it was not appropriate for the developer to contact the Planning Commissioners to review projects. Chair Wehrenberg responded that everyone has an opinion as to whether to meet with developers or not. She continued that she does not take information individually from a developer but would rather they present to the commission as a whole. Cm. King stated that his experience is when the flow of information is cut off then bad things happen. He agreed that he would not want to be associated with developers but at the same time if someone wants to talk to him he will have a conversation with the understanding that he will make a full disclosure at the next Planning Commission meeting where he will make it clear that there was a conversation and what the substance was. Chair Wehrenberg mentioned that the Commission must i'ollow the Brown Act regarding Exparte Communication Policy. She continued that the developers work with Staff for a year or more and Staff knows what the Commission is looking for and what will be approved and what will not. ADTOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully Doreen Wehrer Chair Planning ATTEST: Jeff Acting Planning Manager G: \MINUTES ? 2009\ PLANNING COMMISSION \ 2.24.09.doe Panning Commission (February 24, 2009 Wfgufar 9lfeeting 60