Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.1 Appeal CUP Boarding Houseo~DU~~~ CITY CLERK C~ ~ X11 File # ^®0 0^-~® .C'Ar rz,,..*,~1~ AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 17, 2009 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: PA 08-023 Appeal of Planning Commission's Denial of a Conditional Use Permit to Operate a Boarding House at 3608 Oakhurst Court. Report Prepared by Erica Fraser, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: 1) Proposed Findings of Fact reversing the Planning Commission's decision and approving a Conditional Use Permit to operate a Boarding House at 3608 Oakhurst Court. 2) Proposed Findings of Fact reversing the Planning Commission's decision and approving, subject to certain conditions, a Conditional Use Permit to operate a Boarding House at 3608 Oakhurst Court. 3) Proposed Findings of Fact to Affirm Planning Commission's adoption of Resolution 09-03, denying a Conditional Use Permit to operate a Boarding House at 3608 Oakhurst Court.. 4) ~ Letter of Appeal filed, on behalf of the Applicant, with the City Clerk's Office on February 5, 2009. 5) Planning Commission Resolution 09-03 denying without prejudice. a Conditional Use Permit to operate a Boarding House with up to 12 boarders at 3608 Oakhurst Court. 6) January 13, 2009 Planning Commission Agenda Statement with Attachments. 7) Minutes from the January 13, 2009 Planning Commission Meeting. 8) January 27, 2009 Planning Commission Agenda Statement without Attachments. 9) Minutes from the January 27, 2009 Planning Commission Meeting. 10) Letter received in favor of the Boarding House (1 letter) received by the Planning Division on January 12, 2009. 11) Letters received in opposition of the Boarding House (2 letters) received by the Planning Division on January 13, 2009. COPY TO: Appellant Page 1 of 7 G ITEM NO. ~ . I G: IPA#120081PA 08-023 Oakhurst Court BoardinghouselAppeaIICCSR Appea13.17.09.DOC 12) Memorandum from the City Attorney regarding Familial Status of the Boarding House. RECOMMENDATION: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Open the public hearing; 3) Take testimony from the Appellant and the public; ~ 4) Close the public hearing and deliberate; and ( 5) By motion, a) Reverse the Planning Commission's denial of a Conditional Use Permit to operate a Boarding House at 3608 Oakhurst Court and adopt the Findings of Fact set forth in Attachment 1; OR b) Reverse the Planning Commission's denial of a Conditional Use Permit, subject to certain conditions, to operate a Boarding House at 3608 Oakhurst Court and adopt the Findings of Fact set forth in Attachment 2; OR c) In the alternative, affirm the Planning Commission's denial of a Conditional Use Permit to operate a Boarding House at 3608 Oakhurst Court and adopt the Findings of Fact set forth in Attachment 3; OR d) Provide Staff with additional direction. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: No Financial Impact. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Background The Project Site is located at 3608 Oakhurst Court in Dublin Ranch. The surrounding land uses include Single- Family Residential to the north, south and west and the Ted Fairfield Park to the east. The Site has a General Plan Land Use Designation of Low Density Residential (0.0 to 6.0 du/ac) and an Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Designation of Single-Family (0.9 to 6.0 du/ac). The zoning designation is Planned Development (PA 95-030) which requires a Conditional Use Permit in order to operate a Boarding House. The Project Site is located on a 6,579 square-foot lot consisting of an existing two-story 3,793 square-foot single- family residence, comprised of six bedrooms; four and one-half bathrooms; a kitchen; communal living quarters; an attached two-car garage; and a detached casita with a bedroom, full bathroom, sink and counter (Project Plans are provided in the Planning Commission Agenda Statement included as Attachment 6). 2 of 7 Operating Characteristics Iroonet America, Inc. applied for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a Boarding House at 3608 Oakhurst Court where up to 16 people may live (12 boarders, 2 caretakers and 2 children related to the caretakers). A Boarding House is a Conditional Use in the Planned Development Zoning District in which the house is located (PA 95-030). The Boarding House would be operated by afor-profit group that houses foreign exchange students, ranging from 4th to 12th grades, from Korea who attend local private schools (such as Quarry Lane, Athenian, Valley Christian and Redwood Christian). The boarders would be cared for by two caretakers. The boarders will live inside the house and the caretakers and their children will live inside the casita which does not have direct access into the house. The children will be transported to school on weekday mornings and then taken directly to a local tutoring center in Pleasanton where they will have dinner and will study. The children are then transported home in the evenings. On weekends, the children participate in organized excursions, attend church and participate in organized sports. The children also take part in community activities and volunteer programs. A cook makes daily visits to the house in the early morning to prepare breakfast for the children and leaves once the children have finished breakfast and the kitchen is clean. In addition, a cleaning service comes to the house twice a week and a gardener comes once a week. For additional information regarding the operational characteristics of the Boarding House, please refer to the January 13, 2009 Planning Commission Agenda Statement included as Attachment 6. Planning Commission Action The Planning Commission reviewed the Conditional Use Permit request during a public hearing on January 13, 2009. At the hearing, Staff presented a Staff Report recommending that the Planning Commission approve the Conditional Use Permit request to operate a Boarding House (Attachment 6). The Planning Commission took testimony from the Applicant (Dongho Kim) and the Applicant's Attorney (John Doyle). Five people spoke in opposition to the Project; five people voiced their opposition to the Project but did not provide comments; and one person spoke in favor of the Project (please refer to the Minutes included as Attachment 7). During the public hearing, the Planning Commission raised a number of concerns which are summarized below. Please refer to the Planning Commission Minutes for additional information. regarding the concerns raised by the Planning Commission (Attachment 7). The Project as proposed, with up to 12 boarders, represented a use that was too intense for the single-family residential home and district in which it was proposed to locate. • The proposed use would be better suited to occupy an apartment complex or series of hotel suites consistent with the Applicant's statements during the meeting that the other boarding facilities operated by Iroonet America, Inc. occupy convents and former nursing homes. • Safety of the boarders because the caretakers will sleep in the casita which does not have direct access into the house and as a result, the caretakers may not be able to assist the children in exiting the primary residence in an emergency or provide adequate supervision. 3 of 7 • Noise associated with the Project may negatively and unavoidably impact neighbors even with Conditions of Approval that limit the times of outdoor activities. • The use is not compatible with the single-family nature of the surrounding neighborhood. • Approval of this application would set a precedent in that no other Conditional Use Permits have been issued for Boarding Houses within the City. • Due to the number of boarders, the Boarding House resembles that of a Commercial use rather than a typical single-family residence, thereby changing the single-family residential characteristics of the neighborhood in which it is proposed to locate. Upon review of the Staff Report, presentations from the Applicant, his representative and public comment, the Planning Commission determined that it could not make the required findings to support a Conditional Use Permit to operate the proposed Boarding House. The Planning Commission directed Staff to prepare a Resolution denying the Conditional Use Permit and bring the item back to the Planning Commission for formal action during the next Planning Commission meeting. On January 27, 2009 the Planning Commission discussed the Conditional Use Permit findings for the Boarding House and their concerns with the Project (Attachment 9). The Planning Commission determined that they were unable to make the required Findings to approve the Boarding House. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution 09-03 (Attachment 5) denying the Conditional Use Permit to operate a Boarding House and included findings in the Resolution regarding the reasons for their denial. Appeal On February 4, 2008, John Doyle, on behalf of Iroonet America, Inc., appealed the Planning Commission denial of the Conditional Use Permit for a Boarding House at 3608 Oakhurst Court (Attachment 4). Chapter 8.136 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that the City Council hold a Public Hearing within 45 days of the filing of the Appeal (i.e. no later than March 17, 2009) and that action be taken within 75 days of the filing of the Appeal (i.e. no later than April 14, 2009). Section 8.136.060.D of the Zoning Ordinance states that the City Council may affirm the Planning Commission's decision, affirm it in part, or reverse the decision of the Planning Commission. If the result of the decision on appeal is to approve the permit, the Council may adopt additional conditions. ANALYSIS: The Applicant submitted a letter appealing the Planning Commission's decision to deny a Conditional Use Permit for a Boarding House at 3608 Oakhurst Court (Attachment 4). The Appellant has raised a number of concerns in the Appeal Letter regarding the determination by the Planning Commission that they could not make the required Findings to support the Conditional Use Permit. Staff is unable to address each point raised by the Appellant because these points are based on a discussion of the Planning Commission's decision to deny the Conditional Use Permit. However, Staff has provided the following information to order to assist the City Council in reviewing the Appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny a Conditional Use Permit to operate the Boarding House. 4of7 Conditional Use Permit A Conditional Use Permit is a discretionary permit. A Conditional Use Permit allows the City to review a proposed use for compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. The City may include Conditions of Approval aimed at reducing negative impacts on the surrounding properties. Chapter 8.08, Definitions, of the Zoning Ordinance defines a Boarding House as "a single-family dwelling where bedrooms are rented to five or more people and at least one common meal is offered each day. A Boarding House is considered to be aMulti-Family Dwelling." A Conditional Use Permit is required in order to operate a Boarding House in the Planned Development Zoning District where 3608 Oakhurst Court is located. The proposed facility constitutes a Boarding House as defined by the Zoning Ordinance. When reviewing a request for a Conditional Use Permit, the City reviews the proposed use to ensure the following Findings are met: A. The proposed use and related structures is compatible with other land uses, transportation and service facilities in the vicinity. B. It will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. C. It will not be injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. D. There are adequate provisions for public access, water, sanitation, and public utilities and services to ensure that the proposed use and related structures would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. E. The subject site is physically suitable for the type, density and intensity of the use and related structures being proposed. F. It will not be contrary to the specific intent clauses, development regulations, or performance standards established for the zoning district in which it is located. G. It is consistent with the Dublin General Plan and with any applicable Specific Plans. In evaluating the proposed Conditional Use Permit for a Boarding House at 3608 Oakhurst Court, the Planning Commission found that the Boarding House did not comply with Findings A-C and E-G and therefore adopted Resolution 09-03 (Attachment 5) denying the Conditional Use Permit. Please refer to Attachment 5 for the denial Resolution and Findings made by the Planning Commission. Familial Status In its appeal letter, the Appellant states that the Boarding House is entitled to familial status under the Federal Fair Housing Act and California Fair Housing Law (page 4 of Attachment 4). Therefore, Iroonet argues that, although it has applied for a Conditional Use Permit, the proposed use is a "Single-Family Residence," which requires no permits at all under the City's Zoning Ordinance. It should be specifically noted that, despite this position, the Applicant has continued to seek a Conditional Use Permit, in the interest of being a good neighbor. After receiving the Appeal Letter, the City Attorney reviewed the Appellant's assertion that the Boarding House is entitled to "familial status" and that therefore a Conditional Use Permit is not required. After 5 of 7 reviewing the letter and applicable court cases, the City Attorney determined that the Iroonet Boarding House is in fact entitled to familial status but is also subject to the City's Conditional Use Permit process. See the attached memorandum included as Attachment 12. The City Attorney explains that the Federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) prohibits the City from discriminating on the basis of "familial status" and concludes that the proposed household likely meets the FHA's definition of "familial status." However, the City Attorney concludes that the City's Zoning Ordinance, as applied to the Appellant, does not discriminate on the basis of "familial status." Chapter 8.08, Definitions, of the Zoning Ordinance defines a family as "one or more persons occupying a dwelling and living as a single, non-profit housekeeping unit... A family includes any servants and four or fewer boarders." The City Attorney opines that the Conditional Use Permit is required not because children and their guardians will reside in the home but because the Applicant is operating a business. It does not therefore meet the definition of "family" under the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, which requires that the household be anon-profit housekeeping unit. This requirement does not discriminate on the basis of familial status because it would apply whether or not the household was entitled to familial status or not. For instance, a business that provided similar services to non-minor students (college students) would also be subject to the conditional use permit requirement. Hence, in application, there is no discrimination on the basis of familial status. , Alternatives Staff has identified three alternative actions for the City Council to consider: Alternative l: Adopt Findings of Fact (Attachment 1) approving the Conditional Use Permit and reversing the decision of the Planning Commission to deny the Conditional Use Permit to operate a Boarding House. By adopting the Findings of Fact in Attachment 1, the Applicants would be allowed to operate the Boarding House as proposed. Alternative 2: Modify the Conditions of Approval for the proposed Boarding House and adopt the Findings of Fact approving the Conditional .Use Permit with modified Conditions of Approval (Attachment 2). The modified Conditions of Approval (Condition of Approval No. 1) would limit the total number of people living in the house to no more than 12 (2 per bedroom) and would prohibit caretakers or boarders from residing in the casita (Condition of Approval No. 18). The Conditions of Approval would allow for a maximum occupancy of 16 people which would allow for visitors (Condition of Approval No. 21). These amended Conditions of Approval have been included to address safety concerns raised by the Planning Commission regarding the total number of boarders due to the fact that, as proposed by the Applicant, the caretakers would reside in the casita which does not have direct access into the house. Alternative 3: Uphold the Planning Commission's decision to deny a Conditional Use Permit and adopt Findings of Fact (Attachment 3) to Affirm Planning Commission's adoption of Resolution 09-03, denying a Conditional Use Permit to operate a Boarding House with up to l2 boarders at 3608 Oakhurst Court. If the City Council selects this alternative, the Boarding House would not be allowed to operate. Alternative 4: Provide Staff with direction on how to proceed further. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Project has been reviewed under the California Environmental Quality Act, (CEQA), State CEQA Guidelines and the Dublin Environmental Guidelines, and the project has been found to be Categorically 6of7 Exempt from the CEQA according to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). PUBLIC NOTICING: In accordance with State law, a public notice regarding this hearing was mailed to all property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the proposed project. A public notice was also published in the Valley Times and posted at several locations throughout the City. This Appeal has been noticed, in the same manner as the Planning Commission Public Hearing. At the time of completion of this Staff Report, no additional comments, other than those received prior to the Planning Commission Public Hearing have been received. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that. the City Council: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Open the public hearing; 3) Take testimony from the Appellant and the public; 4) Close the public hearing and deliberate; and 5) By motion, a) Reverse the Planning Commission's denial of a Conditional Use Permit to operate a Boarding House at 3608 Oakhurst Court and adopt the Findings of Fact set forth in Attachment 1; OR b) Reverse the Planning Commission's denial of a Conditional Use Permit, subject to certain conditions, to operate a Boarding House at 3608 Oakhurst Court and adopt the Findings of Fact set forth in Attachment 2; OR c) In the alternative, affirm the Planning Commission's denial of a Conditional Use Permit to operate a Boarding House at 3608 Oakhurst Court and adopt the Findings of Fact set forth in Attachment 3; OR d) Provide Staff with alternative direction. r- 7of7 ~~ q~ FINDINGS. OF FACT REVERSING the Planning Commission's Decision and APPROVING a Conditional Use Permit to operate a Boarding House at 3608 Oakhurst Court (PA 08-023). Pursuant to Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 8.136 the City Council makes the following findings of fact to support its motion to reverse the Planning Commission's denial of a Conditional Use Permit to operate a Boarding House with up to 12 boarders at 3608 Oakhurst Court and approve the Conditional Use Permit. The Applicant, Dongho Kim, CEO of Iroonet America Inc., requested a Conditional Use Permit to operate a boarding house in which up to 16 people may live (12 boarders, two caretakers and two children related to the caretakers) and a reduction of three parking spaces in required on-site parking at 3608 Oakhurst Court, APN 941-0017-042, in the PD (Planned Development) Zoning District These findings are based on the Agenda Statement for City Council Meeting Date of March 17, 2009 for this appeal, together with all attachments to such Agenda Statement;. all documentary evidence submitted to the Council at the March 17, 2009 public hearing; all comments, statements and testimony heard by the Council at the March 17, 2009 public hearing; the Dublin General Plan; the Dublin Municipal Code; and City of Dublin Ordinance No. 02-96 (together, the "Record"). FINDINGS OF FACT . In the applicable Planned Development Zoning District, "Boarding Houses" are conditionally permitted; that is, they are allowed with a Conditional Use Permit. The decisionmaker can approve a Conditional Use Permit upon making the findings set forth in Section 8.100.060 of the Dublin Municipal Code. .Pursuant to Section 8.100.060 of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council does hereby find that: A. The proposed operation of the boarding. house, including a parking reduction, is compatible with other land uses, transportation and service facilities in the vicinity because: 1 } the Project will comply with City regulations and Conditions of Approval; 2) the boarding house is located within an existing single-family residence surrounded by single-family homes to the north, south and west and a public park to the east and has characteristics similar to the surrounding residential uses and; 3) noise and traffic impacts will be minimized by the restrictions incorporated into the Conditions of Approval and the low number of vehicle trips that maybe generated by the Project; 4) the City Traffic Engineer's review concluded that the traffic and parking impacts associated with the Project are consistent with that of asingle-family residence and the City Engineer's review of the traffic study based upon new information provided concluded that there may be parking impacts associated with the boarding house, however, these concerns may be avoided through a Condition of Page l of7 ~°~~ `~t,7[0~ ATTACHMENT 1 a~~ Approval requiring that the Iroonet vehicles and cook park in the driveway and garage; and 5}based upon the Applicant's written description and the aforementioned Condition of Approval, the required parking standards for a boarding house are excessive and the reduction of three spaces in the required number of on-site parking spaces for a boarding house is appropriate and will not result in a parking deficiency. B. The proposed operation of the boarding house, including a parking reduction, will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity or be detrimental to the public health safety and welfare because: 1} the proposed boarding house will comply with all City of Dublin regulations; 2) the boarding house will be located in an existing single-family residence and has characteristics similar to the surrounding residential uses; 3) the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance defines a boarding house as a Residential use and, therefore, the use is compatible with the neighborhood; and 4) the occupancy permitted by the 2007 California Building Code allows for 16 occupants maximum for a congregate residence. C. The proposed operation of the boarding house, including a parking reduction, will not be injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood because: 1) as conditioned, noise and traffic will be minimized by the Conditions of Approval, which establish limits on the number of boarders/students living in the residence and the hours in which outdoor activities may occur. D. There are adequate provisions for public access, water, sanitation, and public utilities and services to ensure that the proposed operation of the boarding house, including a parking reduction, would not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare because: 1) the proposed boarding house, is located at an existing residential dwelling within asingle-family residential neighborhood where such services are already provided and with adequate street access. E. The subject site is physically suitable for the zoning, type, density and intensity of the proposed operation of the boarding house, including a parking reduction, and related structures being proposed because: 1) the boarding house will be located in an existing single-family residence surrounded by single-family homes on three sides as well as a public park to the east; 2) the boarding house shall comply with City regulations and Conditions of Approval limiting the number of boarders/students and caretakers living within the home and the hours of outdoor activity; 3) parking of Iroonet employee vehicles and the cook's vehicle shall take place within the garage or on the driveway; 4) Section 8.76.080.B of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance requires a total of 6 parking spaces to support the boarding house, based on the requirement that the dwelling unit have 2 parking spaces, plus 4.5 parking spaces per sleeping room; 5) the Dublin Zoning Ordinance permits a reduction in the required number of parking spaces when-the required Conditional Use Permit findings can be met; and 6) the requested parking reduction has been determined to be warranted based on the description of program operations and applicable Conditions of Approval. Page 2 of 7 3~~a F. The proposed operation of the boarding house, including a parking reduction, will not be contrary to the specific intent clauses, development regulations or performance standards established for the zoning district in which it is located because: 1) the proposed boarding house will be located within a Planned Development district with an underlying Single-Family Residential zoning designation, which allows Boarding Houses with a Conditional. Use Permit; 2) the boarding house will be in an existing single-family residence; 3) the site is bordered by single-family residential homes on three sides and a public park to the east and the use has characteristics of the surrounding residential uses; 4) the boarding house will comply with City regulations that will restrict the parameters of use; 5) Chapter 8.08 of the Zoning Ordinance states that the definition of a Boarding House shall mean a single-family dwelling where bedrooms are rented to five or more people and at least one common meal is offered each day. A boarding house is considered to be a Multi- Family Dwelling; 6) the proposed use is a conditional use in the PD (Planned Development) Zoning District in which the project site is located when the required findings as stated in Section 8.100.060 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance can be made; 7) Section 8.76.050.E outlines a provision in the Zoning Ordinance allowing for a reduction in on-site parking for individual uses when Conditional Use Permit findings can be made, a parking study prepared by the City of Dublin Traffic Engineer on October 22, 2008 demonstrates that the required parking standards are excessive and provides alternate parking standards, and project parking will not impact any adjacent use; 8) The City Engineer's review of the traffic study dated December 23, 2008, based upon new information provided concluded that there may be parking impacts associated with the boarding house, however, these concerns maybe avoided through a Condition of Approval requiring that the Iroonet vehicles and cook park in the driveway and garage; and 9} the requested parking reduction has been determined to be warranted based on the description of program operations and applicable Conditions of Approval. G. The proposed operation of the boarding house, including a parking reduction, is consistent with the Dublin General Plan because: 1} the proposed use is permitted with a Conditional Use Permit and meets the intentions of the zoning district in which it is located; and 2} as conditioned, the boarding house will operate in such a manner as to limit the impact on the surrounding properties. CONDITIONAL APPROVAL Based on the foregoing findings, the Dublin City Council does hereby approve PA 08-023, Conditional Use Permit, to allow a boarding house use in the PD (Planned Development) Zoning District, and the associated parking reduction, subject to the following Conditions of Approval: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Unless stated otherwise, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to the issuance of building permits or establishment of use, and shall be subject to review and approval by the City of Dublin. The following codes represent those Page 3 of 7 ~ ~ ~a departments/agencies responsible for monitoring compliance of the Conditions of Approval: [PL.] Planning, [B] Building, [PO] Police, [DSR] Dublin San Ramon Services District and [F] Alameda County Fire Department. CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN SOURCE AGENCY REQ'D Prior to: GENERAL 1. Permit Approval. This Conditional Use PL On-going Planning Permit approval is for the establishment of a boarding house at 3608 Oakhurst Court and the associated parking reduction (the "Project"). The boarding house shall be limited to a maximum of 16 occupants (12 boarders, two caretakers and two children related to the caretakers). The Project shall generally conform to the project plans submitted by Walovich + Associates dated received October 3, 2008, stamped approved and on file in the Community Development Department, a letter dated received November 7, 2008 by Walovich + Associates, revised written statement dated received December 18, 2008 and other materials relating to this approval, unless modified by the Conditions of Approval contained herein. 2. Permit Expiration and Time Extension. PL One year DMC Construction or use shall commence within from date of 8.96.OZO.D one (1) year of Permit approval or the approval and E Permit shall lapse and become null and void. The original approving decision- maker may grant a time extension for a period no longer than six (6) months provided that the Applicant submits a written request for an extension prior to expiration of the Permit and a determination can be made that all Conditions of Approval remain adequate to assure that applicable findings of approval will continue to be met. 3. Revocation. The Conditional Use Permit PL On-going DMC approval shall be revocable for cause in 8.96.OZO.I accordance with Dublin Zoning Ordinance Section 8.96.020.I, Revocation. Any violation of the terms and conditions of Page 4 of 7 ~ ~ 902 this Permit may be subject to the issuance of a citation. 4. Controlling Activities. The PL Ongoing Planning Applicant/Property Owner shall control all activities on the project site so as not to create a nuisance to the existing or surrounding residences. 5. Outdoor Activities. No outdoor activities PL Ongoing Planning shall take place between the hours of 9 p.m. to 8 a.m. Monday through Friday and from 10 p.m. to 8 a.m. Saturday and Sunday. 6. Noise Ordinance. The PL On-going Planning Applicant/Property owner shall comply with the City of Dublin Municipal Code Noise Ordinance. 7. On-site Tutoring. Any on-site tutoring PL On-going Planning shall be limited to the children that reside within the home. 8. Number of Tutors. The number of tutors PL On-going Planning shall be restricted to one tutor at a time. 9. Tutoring Hours. On-site tutoring shall be PL On-going Planning limited to the hours of 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. 10. Vehicles. The number of company, PL Ongoing Planning personal and service vehicles associated with the boarding house is limited to three at one time. 11. Parking of Iroonet Vehicles. In PL On-going Planning accordance with the Traffic Data Statement date stamp received July 25, 2008 the parking of Iroonet vehicles shall take place in the garage and driveway. 12. Parking of Service Vehicles. The cook PL On-going Planning shall park in the driveway, however, the gardener, housekeeper, tutor or other service vehicles may park on the street. 13. Boarders Driving Restrictions. In PL On-going Planning accordance with the Applicant's Traffic Data Statement (Attachment 5) date stamp received July 25, 2008 Iroonet strictly prohibits the boarders from driving in the United States. 14. Trash Receptacles. All trash and PL On-going. Planning recycling receptacles shall be of adequate size and capacity to accommodate the needs of the boarding house occupants. Page 5 of 7 ~~ga 15. Trash and Waste Accumulation. The PL On-going Planning property owner shall provide, and conduct regular maintenance of the site in order to eliminate and control the accumulation of trash, excess/waste materials and debris. 16. Trash Collection. Trash receptacles shall PL On-going Planning not be placed in the front yard prior to the evening before pick-up. All residential collection containers must be removed by the day after collection so as not to be visible from passersby. 17. Signage. No signage advertising the PL On-going Planning boarding house facility is ermitted. 18. Equipment/Appliances/Storage of PL On-going Planning Materials of Non-Residential Nature. There shall be no installation of equipment or appliances or storage of materials, of a non-residential nature in a residence or accessory structure, as determined by the Director of Community Development. BU ILDING DIVISION 19. Building Codes and Ordinances. The B Through Building Project shall conform to all Building Completion Codes and Ordinances in effect at the time of Building Permit. 20. Occupant Load. The occupant load shall B Prior to Building be posted near the main entry door issuance of indicating the maximum occupant load of building 16 (14 for the residence and two for the permits detached casita). The signs shall be in letters 1 inch (25 rnm) high on a contrasting background to comply with 2007 CBC Section 1008.1.8.3(2.2). 21. Building Permits. Building permits shall B Prior to Building be required for the change in use and issuance of modifications to the occupant load which building will include installation and inspection of permits the required occupant load signage on the same permit. FI RE PREVENTION DIVISION 22. Smoke Detectors. Project shall have F Prior to Fire smoke detectors installed on each level and Occupancy in sleeping rooms. 2007 CFC Section 907.2.10.1.2. Page 6 of 7 ~ ~ 9~. 23. Code Compliance. The Project shall F Through Fire comply with Uniform Building and Fire Completion Codes as adopted by the City of Dublin. PO LICE 24. Residential Security Ordinance. The PO Prior to Police Applicant shall comply with all applicable Occupancy City of Dublin Residential Security Ordinance requirements. PU BLIC WORKS 25. Sidewalk. The Applicant/Developer shall PW Issuance of Public repair any damaged driveway, sidewalk, Occupancy Works curb and gutter along the site frontage. .Permit(s) G: IPA#120081PA 08-023 Oakhurst Court BoardinghouselAppeadlFindiags of Fact Reverse DeniaLDOC Page 7 of 7 g~4~2 FINDINGS OF FACT REVERSING the Planning Commission's Decision and APPROVING, Subject To Certain Conditions, a Conditional Use Permit to operate. a Boarding House at 3608 Oakhurst Court (PA 08-023). Pursuant to Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 8.136 the City Council makes the following findings of fact to support its motion to reverse the Planning Commission's denial of a Conditional Use Permit to operate a Boarding House with up to 12 boarders at 3608 Oakhurst Court and approve the Conditional Use Permit, subject to certain conditions. The Applicant, Dongho Kim, CEO of Iroonet America Inc., requested a Conditional Use Permit to operate a boarding house in which up to 16 people may live (12 boarders, two caretakers and two children related to the caretakers) and a reduction of three parking spaces in required on-site parking at 3608 Oakhurst Court, APN 941-0017-042, in the PD (Planned Development) Zoning District These findings are based on the Agenda Statement for City Council Meeting Date of March 17, 2009 for this appeal, together with all attachments to such Agenda Statement; all documentary evidence submitted to the Council at .the March 17, 2009 public hearing; all comments, statements and testimony heard by the Council at the March 17, 2009 public hearing; the Dublin General Plan; the Dublin Municipal Code; and City of Dublin Ordinance No. 02-96 (together, the "Record"). FINDINGS OF FACT In the applicable Planned Development Zoning District, "Boarding Houses" are conditionally permitted; that is, they are allowed with a Conditional Use Permit. The decisionmaker can approve a Conditional Use Permit upon making the findings set forth in Section 8.100.060 of the Dublin Municipal Code. Pursuant to Section 8.100.060 of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council does hereby find that: A. The proposed operation of the boarding house, including a parking reduction, is compatible with other land uses, transportation and service facilities in the vicinity because: 1) the Project will comply with City .regulations and Conditions of Approval; 2) the boarding house is located within an existing single-family residence surrounded by single-family homes to the north, south and west and a public park to the east and has characteristics similar to the surrounding residential uses and; 3) noise and traffic impacts will be minimized by the restrictions incorporated into the Conditions of Approval and the low number of vehicle trips that maybe generated by the Project; 4) the City Traffic Engineer's review concluded that the traffic and parking impacts associated with the Project are consistent with that of asingle-family residence and the City Engineer's review of the traffic study based upon new information provided, concluded that there may be parking impacts associated with Page 1 of 7 ATTACHMENT 2 q ~9a the boarding house, however, these concerns may be avoided through a Condition of Approval requiring that the Iroonet vehicles and cook park in the driveway and garage; and 5) based upon the Applicant's written description and the aforementioned Condition of Approval, the required parking standards for a boarding house are excessive and the reduction of three spaces in the required number of on-site parking spaces for a boarding house is appropriate and will not result in a parking deficiency. B. The proposed operation of the boarding house, including a parking reduction, will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity or be detrimental to the public health safety and welfare because: 1) the proposed boarding house will comply with all City of Dublin regulations; 2) the boarding house will be located in an existing single-family residence and has characteristics similar to the surrounding residential uses; 3) the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance defines a boarding .house as a Residential use and, therefore, the use is compatible with the neighborhood; and 4) the occupancy permitted by the 2007 California Building Code allows for 16 occupants maximum for a congregate residence. C. The proposed operation of the boarding house, including a parking reduction, will not be injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood because: 1) as conditioned, noise and traffic will be minimized by the Conditions of Approval, which establish limits on the number of boarders/students living in the residence and the hours in which outdoor activities may occur. D. There are adequate provisions for public access, water sanitation, and public utilities and services to ensure that the proposed operation of the boarding house, including a parking reduction, would not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare because: 1) the proposed boarding house, is located at an existing residential dwelling within asingle-family residential neighborhood where such services are already provided and with adequate street access. E. The subject site is physically suitable for the zoning, type, density and intensity of the proposed operation of the boarding house, including a parking reduction, and related structures being proposed because: 1) the boarding house will be located in an existing single-family residence surrounded by single-family homes on three sides as well as a public park to the east; 2) the boarding house shall comply with City regulations and Conditions of Approval limiting the number of boardersf students and caretakers living within the home and the hours of outdoor activity; 3) parking of Iroonet employee vehicles and the cook's vehicle shall take place within the garage or on the driveway; 4) Section 8.76.080.B of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance requires a total of 6 parking spaces to support the boarding house, based on the requirement that the dwelling unit have 2 parking spaces, plus 0.5 parking spaces per sleeping room; 5) the Dublin Zoning Ordinance permits a reduction in the required number of parking spaces when the required Conditional Use Permit findings can be met; and 6) the requested parking reduction has been determined to be warranted based on the description of program operations and applicable Conditions of Approval. Page Z of 7 io~~ F. The proposed operation of the boarding house, including a parking reduction, will not be contrary to the specific intent clauses, development regulations or performance standards established for the zoning district in which it is located because: 1) the proposed boarding house will be located within a Planned Development district with an underlying Single-Family Residential zoning designation, which allows Boarding Houses with a Conditional Use Permit; 2) the boardinghouse will be in an existing single-family residence; 3) the site is bordered by single-family residential homes on three sides and a public park to the east and the use has characteristics of the surrounding residential uses; 4) the boarding house will comply with City regulations that will restrict the parameters of use; 5) Chapter 8.08 of the Zoning Ordinance states that the definition of a Boarding House shall mean a single-family dwelling where bedrooms are rented to five or more people and at least one common meal is offered each day. A boarding house is considered to be a Multi- Family Dwelling; 6) the proposed use is a conditional use in the PD (Planned Development) Zoning District in which the project site is located when the required findings as stated in Section 8.100.060 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance can be made; 7) Section 8.76.050.E outlines. a provision in the Zoning Ordinance allowing for a reduction in on-site parking for individual uses when Conditional Use Permit findings can be made, a parking study prepared by the City of Dublin Traffic Engineer on October 22, 2008 demonstrates that the required parking standards are excessive and provides alternate parking standards, and project parking will not impact any adjacent use; 8) The City Engineer's review of the traffic study dated December 23, 2008, based upon new information provided concluded that there may be parking impacts associated with the boarding house, however, these concerns may be avoided through a Condition of Approval requiring that the Iroonet vehicles and cook park in the driveway and garage; and 9) the requested parking reduction has been determined to be warranted based on the description of program operations and applicable Conditions of Approval. G. The proposed operation of the boarding house, including a parking reduction, is consistent with the Dublin General Plan because: 1) the proposed use is permitted with a Conditional Use Permit and meets the intentions of the zoning district in which it is located; and 2) as conditioned, the boarding house will operate in such a manner as to limit the impact on the surrounding properties. CONDITIONAL APPROVAL Based on the foregoing findings, the Dublin City Council does hereby approve PA 08-023, Conditional Use Permit, to allow a boarding house use in the PD (Planned Development) Zoning District, and the associated parking reduction, subject to the following Conditions of Approval: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Unless stated otherwise, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to the issuance of building permits or establishment of use, and shall be subject to review and Page 3 of 7 ~- ~ 9a approval by the City of Dublin. The following codes represent those departments/agencies responsible for monitoring compliance of the Conditions of Approval: [PL.] Planning, [B] Building, [PO] Police, [DSR] Dublin San Ramon Services District and [F] Alameda County Fire Department. CONDITION TEXT. RESPON. WHEN SOURCE AGENCY REQ'D Prior to: GEN ERAL 1. Permit Approval. This Conditional Use PL On-going Planning Permit approval is for the establishment of a boarding house at 3608 Oakhurst Court (the "Project") and the associated parking reduction. The boarding house shall be limited to a maximum of 12 occupants including the boarders, caretakers, any relatives associated with the caretakers and all other persons. The Project shall generally conform to the project plans submitted by Walovich + Associates dated received October 3, 2008, stamped approved and on file in the Community Development Department, a letter dated received November 7, 2008 by Walovich + Associates, revised written statement dated received December 18, 2008 and other materials relating to this approval, unless modified by the Conditions of Approval contained herein. 2. Permit Expiration and Time Extension. PL One year DMC Construction or use shall commence within from date of 8.96.020.D one (1) year of Permit approval or the approval and E Permit shall lapse and become null and void. The original approving decision- maker may grant a time extension for a period no longer than six (6) months provided that the Applicant submits a written request for an extension prior to expiration of the Permit and a determination can be made that all Conditions of Approval remain adequate to assure that applicable findings of approval will continue to be met. Page 4 of 7 1a~9~ 3. Revocation. The Conditional Use Permit PL On-going DMC approval shall be revocable for cause in 8.96.020.I accordance with Dublin Zoning Ordinance Section 8.96.020.I, Revocation. Any violation of the terms and conditions of this Permit may be subject to the issuance of a citation. 4. Controlling Activities.. The PL Ongoing Planning ApplicantlProperty Owner shall control all activities on the project site so as not to create a nuisance to the existing or surrounding residences. 5. Outdoor Activities. No outdoor activities PL Ongoing Planning shall take place between the hours of 9 p.m. to 8 a.m. Monday through Friday and from 10 p.m. to 8 a.m. Saturday and Sunday. 6. Noise Ordinance. The PL On-going Planning Applicant/Property owner shall comply with the City of Dublin Municipal Code Noise Ordinance. 7. On-site Tutoring. Any on-site tutoring PL On-going Planning shall be limited to the children that reside within the home. 8. Number of Tutors. The number of tutors PL On-going Planning shall be restricted to one tutor at a time. 9. Tutoring Hours. On-site tutoring shall be PL On-going Planning limited to the hours of 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. 10. Vehicles. The number of company, PL Ongoing Planning personal and service vehicles associated with the boarding house is limited to three at one time. 11. Parking of Iroonet Vehicles. In PL On-going Planning accordance with the Traffic Data Statement date stamp received July 25, 2008 the parking of Iroonet vehicles shall take place in the garage and driveway. 12. Parking of Service Vehicles. The cook PL On-going Planning shall park in the driveway, however, the gardener, housekeeper, tutor or other service vehicles may ark on the street. 13. Boarders Driving Restrictions. In PL On-going Planning accordance with the Applicant's Traffic Data. Statement (Attachment 5) date stamp received July 25, 2008 Iroonet strictly prohibits the boarders from driving in the Page 5 of 7 «~~~ United States. 14. Trash Receptacles. All trash and PL On-going Planning recycling receptacles shall be of adequate size and capacity to accommodate the needs of the boarding house occu ants. 15. Trash and Waste Accumulation. The PL On-going Planning property owner shall provide and conduct regular maintenance of the site in order to eliminate and control the accumulation of trash, excess/waste materials and debris. 16. Trash Collection. Trash receptacles shall PL On-going Planning not be placed in the front yard prior to the evening before pick-up. All residential collection containers must be removed by the day after collection so as not to be visible from passersby. 17. Signage. No signage advertising the PL On-going Planning boarding house facility is permitted. 18. Casita. There shall be no sleeping or PL On-going Planning living in the casita by any boarders, and Prior to caretakers or other persons. Prior to Operation of commencing operation of the Boarding the Boarding House, the Applicants shall request an House .inspection of the casita from the Planning Division to show that the casita has been modified to remove the bed and reconfigured so that the casita is not used for sleeping space. 19. Equipment/Appliances/Storage of PL On-going Planning Materials of Non-Residential Nature. There shall be no installation of equipment or appliances or storage of materials, of a non-residential nature in a residence or accessory structure, as determined by the Director of Community Development. BUI LDING DIVISION 20. Building Codes and Ordinances. The B Through Building Project shall conform to all Building Completion Codes and Ordinances in effect at the time of Building Permit. 21. Occupant Load. The occupant load shall B Prior to Building be posted near the main entry door issuance of indicating the maximum occupant load of building 16 with no more than 12 people living in permits the house at one time. The signs shall be in letters 1 inch (25 mm) high on a Page 6 of 7 Jet ~~~ contrasting background to comply with 2007 CBC Section 1008.1.8.3(2.2). 22. Building Permits. Building permits shall B Prior to Building be required for the change in use and issuance of modifications to the occupant load which building will include installation and inspection of permits the required occupant load signage on the same permit. FIR E PREVENTION DIVISION 23. Smoke Detectors. Project shall have F Prior to Fire smoke detectors installed on each level and Occupancy in sleeping rooms. 2007 CFC Section 907.2.10.1.2. 24. Code Compliance. The Project shall F Through Fire comply with Uniform Building and Fire Completion Codes as adopted by the City of Dublin. POLI CE 25. Residential Security Ordinance. The PO Prior to Police Applicant shall comply with all applicable Occupancy City of Dublin Residential Security Ordinance requirements. PUBLIC WORKS 26. Sidewalk. The Applicant/Developer shall PW Issuance of Public repair any damaged driveway, sidewalk, Occupancy Works curb and gutter along the site frontage. Permit(s) G: IPA#120081PA 08-023 Oakhurst Couri BoardinghouselAppeallFindings of Fact do approve CUP.DOC Page 7 of 7 l5 ~ 9a FINDINGS OF FACT Affirming the Planning Commission's adoption of Resolution 09-03, denying a Conditional Use Permit to operate a Boarding House at 3608 Oakhurst Court (PA 08-023) Pursuant to Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 8.136, the City Council makes the following Findings of Fact to support its motion to affirm the Planning. Commission's adoption of Resolution 09-023, denying a Conditional Use Permit to operate a Boarding House with up to 12 boarders at 3608 Oakhurst Court and deny the appeal of Iroonet America Inc, filed on February 4, 2008. These Findings are based on the Agenda Statement for the City Council Meeting Date of March 17, 2009 for this appeal, together with all attachments to such Agenda Statement; all documentary evidence submitted to the City Council at the March 17, 2009 public hearing; all comments, statements and testimony heard by the City Council at the March 17, 2009 public hearing; the Dublin General Plan; the Dublin Municipal Code; and City of Dublin Ordinance No. 02-96 (together, the "Record"). Findings of Fact The required Findings contained in Section 8.100.060 cannot be made for Findings A-C and E-G. The Findings are as follows: A. The proposed operation of the boarding house and related structures is not compatible with other land uses, transportation and service facilities in the vicinity because: 1) the Boarding House is located within an existing single-family residence surrounded by single-family homes to the north, south and west and a public park to the east; 2) all permitted and conditionally permitted uses in the R-1 Zoning District apply to the subject property as stated in the Planned Development (PA 95-030) and the Zoning Ordinance allows a Boarding House to be located in the R-1 Zoning District with approval of a Conditional Use Permit; 3) the Zoning Ordinance considers Boarding Houses to be aMulti-Family Dwelling; 4) because a Boarding House is a conditionally permitted use, findings must be made to ensure that the use is compatible with the Site and with the neighborhood in which it is located; 5) the proposed number of boarders, 12, and the proposed total number of people living on-site, 16, would be significantly greater than that which would typically live in asingle-family residence; 6) based on the proposed number of people which would be living within the house, the Boarding House would result in an intense use for the Site and therefore would not be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood in which it is located; and 7) as a result, the proposed Boarding House would change the existing characteristics of the single-family residential neighborhood in which it is located. Page 1 of 3 Attachment 3 16 ~P~9~ ~" B. The proposed operation of the boarding house will adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity or be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare because: 1) as proposed by the Applicant, the caretakers would live within the existing casita located within the front yard of the residence with no direct interior access to the primary residence; 2) because the caretakers will not live within the walls of the residence where the children (boarders) will reside, they may not be able to provide immediate assistance to the children; 3) in the event of an emergency, such as a fire or earthquake, the caretakers maybe unable to enter the primary residence in order to assist the children to exit safely; and 4) noise levels associated with the possibility that up to 16 people, 14 of which may be children living within this single-family residence, cannot be mitigated to a level that would not impact adjacent residents. C. The proposed operation of the boarding house will be injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood because: 1) the proposed number of people living on-site is significantly greater than the number of people that would typically live in asingle-family home; 2) the manner in which the proposed Boarding House would function, with 12 paying boarders provided with meals, the use of vans to transport the children to and from school and to other activities and caretakers charged with supervision of the children, more closely resembles that of a Commercial use rather than a typical Single-Family Residential use; and 3) although a Boarding House is a conditionally permitted use in this zoning district, in this case, the proposed number of boarders represents a facility that would not be harmonious with the single-family nature of the surrounding neighborhood and therefore would be contrary to improvements in the area; and 4) the establishment of a Boarding House with up to 12 boarders would change the scale and character of the existing neighborhood by establishing a use which is significantly more intense in scope than a single-family residence. D. There are adequate provisions for public access, water, sanitation, and public utilities and services to ensure that the proposed operation of the boarding house, including a parking reduction, would not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare because: 1) the proposed Boarding House, is located at an existing residential dwelling within asingle-family residential neighborhood where such services are already provided and with adequate street access. E. The subject site is not physically suitable for the type, density and intensity of the proposed operation of the Boarding House and related structures being proposed because: 1) the Boarding House would be located within an existing single-family residence surrounded by single-family homes to the north, south and west and a public park to the east; 2) the possibility that up to 16 people may live on-site would be significantly greater than Page 2 of 3 ~~ ~ 9a that which would normally live in asingle-family residence; 3) the proposed use is permitted with a Conditional Use Permit however due to the proposed number of people living on-site the boarding house does not meet the intended use of asingle-family residence and more resembles a Commercial use than a Residential use; and 4) as previously mentioned, although a Boarding House is a conditionally permitted use in this zoning district, in this case, the proposed number of boarders represents a use, even with conditions, that would not be harmonious with the single-family nature of the Site and the surrounding neighborhood. F. The proposed operation of the Boarding House will be contrary to the specific intent clauses, development regulations or performance standards established for the zoning district in which it is located because: 1) the Boarding House would be located within an existing single-family residence; 2) the manner in which the proposed Boarding House would function, with 12 paying boarders provided with meals, the use of vans to transport the children to and from school and to other activities and caretakers charged with supervision of the children, more closely resembles that of a Commercial use rather than a typical Single-Family Residential use; 3) the caretakers are proposed to live within the existing casita however the intent of the casita was not to function as a permanent living space; 4) noise impacts associated with the possibility that up to 16 people, 14 of which may be children living and playing on-site may negatively impact adjacent .residents; and 5) the proposed number of boarders, up to 12, is not compatible with the characteristics of a single- family neighborhood. G. The proposed operation of the Boarding House is not consistent with the Dublin General Plan and with any applicable Specific Plans because: 1) although the proposed use is permitted with a Conditional Use Permit the density and non-residential characteristics of the proposed Boarding House does not meet the intentions of the district in which it is located; 2) the Boarding House as currently proposed cannot be conditioned to operate in such a manner as to limit the impact on the surrounding properties; and 3) according to General Plan Section 2.1.3 the Guiding Policy states that abrupt transitions between single-family development and higher density development on adjoining sites shall be avoided. G:IPA#120081PA 08-023 Oakhurst Court BoardinghouselAppeallFindings ofFact.DOC Page 3 of 3 HOGS, F E NTON ONES & APPEL, INC. Attorneys at Law ~ San Jose ~ Pleasanton ~ East Palo Alto ~ Hollister February 3, 2009 8-1E~9~1~~® FEB 0 5 2009 i 8 ~ ~a John F. Doyle 925.460.3366 jfd@hogefenton.com ®U~LIN PLANNING Dublin City Council c/o City Clerk 100 Civic Plaza, Suite 100 Dublin, CA 94568 Re: Notice of Appeal Iroonet America - 3608 Oakhurst Court, Dublin CUP Application - PA 08-023 PC Hearing January 13 -27, 2009 Our File No.: 79600 Dear Members of the City Council: Pursuant to City Zoning Ordinance 8.136, Applicant, Iroonet America, hereby appeals the Planning Commission's denial of Conditional Use Permit ("CUP") Application PA 08-023 and requests that the matter be set for an appeal hearing before the City Council. The Planning Commission ("PC") denied the application in the face of a recommendation of approval from the City staff that included a detailed analysis establishing that the facts relating to the proposed use, the nature of the proposed use, and the proposed conditions combined to support all of the findings necessary for the giant of the requested CUP (Dublin Zoning Ordinance, 8.100). In denying the application the PC concluded that it could not make any of the required findings other than a finding that there axe adequate public facilities/infrastructure (water/sewer/access) available to the home (Dublin Zoning Ordinance 8.100.060, D). The PC's analysis for rejecting the conditional use permit centers on the number of proposed residents and a conclusion that the number, 14, is inconsistent with asingle-family neighborhood, safety concerns related to the initial proposal that the caretakers reside in the detached casita, the noise level associated with the number of occupants, and a concern that the nature of the use "more closely resembles that of a commercial use" rather than a "typical single family residential" use. The PC also cited inconsistency with the General Plan Section 2.1.3, concerning transitions between single-family development and higher density development on adjoining sites (See PC Reso. 09-03, pages 2-4, Sections A-G); however, this section of the General Plan is not relevant to the application at hand. As described in the original Staff Report the proposed use, certainly as conditioned, was entirely consistent with surrounding uses and all required findings tb approve the application could be made, and concerns raised by the PC were addressed through the proposed Conditions of Approval and an understanding of the nature of the desired use for the property. It is the \\HFJAFS\NDrive\79600\Let\384318.doc A~C~ldtllt !~ Pleasanton Office ~ 6155 Stoneridge Drive, Suite 200, Pleasanton, California 94588-3283 phone 925.224.7780 fax 925.224.7782 www.hogefenton.com City of Dublin City Council Page 2 i~~qa Applicant's position that the proposed use, related facts, and conditions required a conclusion that all of the findings could be made. Fox background, Iroonet operates a Study Abroad Program for South Korean children. The general purpose of the program is to give families an opportunity to provide their children with an extraordinary, rich educational experience at private schools in America with programs of the type and quality not available to them in Korea as well as an opportunity to experience and become a part of American culture. Participation in the program, while certainly a sacrifice in terms of being together on a daily basis, is viewed by parents as an avenue to provide their children with educational and career opportunities. Fox both the parents and the children, participation in the program is a great honor. Some of the children that have matriculated through the Study Abroad Program have gained acceptance to some of the most prestigious college preparatory schools and universities in the world. Iroonet intends to use this Oakhurst property simply as a residence for the children participating in the Study Abroad Program. As noted in the Staff Report, 3608 Oakhurst is a 7- bedroom, 3,793 square foot two story home. The City building official has noted that the home has an occupancy rating of 16 and a design capacity of 19. The children are not independent adults renting a room from the owner of the home, but rather students in the care of a custodial, parental designee. The home will operate as asingle-housekeeping unit. Commercial Use. Contrary to the concern espoused by the PC, the proposed number of people occupying the home or the fact that the children are participants in an educational program does not render it commercial in nature. The children and their caretakers will operate as a single housekeeping unit consistent with the City of Dublin's definition of family:' As in a typical household, the children will engage in activities appropriate to their age, such as going to school, completing assigned chores, studying, and extracurricular activities. No commercial activities axe a part of the proposed use and no evidence of any sort was offered to the PC to the contrary. The fact that the caretakers will feed and transport the children makes the use no more commercial than any other residence on the street with minor occupants where children. are being fed, clothed, and transported by their parents, guardian or other caretakers. Simply stated, the home is intended to be used as a residence and no commerce will occur within the home. Noise Issue. The PC found that the noise level associated with the number of occupants "cannot be mitigated to a level that would not impact adjacent residents" (PC Reso. 09-03, pg.3, Section B, item 4). Notably, the PC Resolution sharply contrasted the January 13 Staff Report, wherein Staff recommended approval of Applicant's proposed use of the property with minor conditions. The conditions included a requirement of compliance with the City Noise Ordinance and restrictions on the outside activity of the children after certain hours. Neighbors would also have been protected by the noise terms included in the CC&Rs for the neighborhood. The 1 One or more persons occupying a dwelling and living together as a single, nonprofit housekeeping unit, as distinguished from a group occupying a hotel, fraternity, or sorority house. A family includes any servants and a four or fewer boarders. City of Dublin City Council Page 3 ~o ~ qa conditions proposed by Staff adequately addressed the noise concerns raised by the PC as a basis for their conclusion that the proposed use would adversely affect the neighboring residents. In addition, it is significant to note that there was no evidence offered by anyone that the use of the home as a residence would create a noise problem. Likewise, there was no evidence that the number of people living in the home would create the potential fox anymore noise than a group of "blood-related" individuals of an equal number living in the home. In this regard, it is important to note that all involved have acknowledged that a group of 14 "blood-related" persons, regardless of age or strength of family connection, could move into the home without the need for any form of permit from the City. Safe A safety concern was raised regarding that the application anticipated that the caretakers would sleep in the casita and the number of residents (max. 14). This was cited as a reason that the proposed operation of the home would adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing in the vicinity or be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare (I'C Reso. 09-03, pg. 3, Section B). "Those in the vicinity" was, at this hearing, considered to include the residents of the home. First, unfortunately, while the issue of the location of the caretakers was briefly discussed, no discussion of alternatives, such as an adjustment to a condition of approval, was entertained at the hearing. The focus of the discussion was the denial on policy grounds (number of residents and inconsistency with the neighborhood and the propriety of a "boarding house" in asingle-family neighborhood). Second, as for building safety issues, such as fire, the building official, Gregory Shreve, stated that the home was designed for a maximum occupanry of 19 and that the rating had been adjusted to 16. Therefore, safety issues covered by the building code, such as ingress, egress and smoke alarms, were addressed by the original design of the home. Finally, no evidence as to safety concerns was offered supporting a distinction between the proposed residents and a group of 14 "blood-related" individuals living in the home. Nurnber of Residents. The PC found that the number of proposed residents resulted in a use and density that was inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhood. However, it is undisputed that a group consisting of an equal number of people, such as a large, extended family, could move into the home without any "permit", limited only by the design limitations of the home and the occupancy limitation of two persons per bedroom found within the Dublin Ranch CC&Rs. Once again, no evidence supporting a distinction between the proposed residents and a group of "blood-related" individuals of an equal number living in the home was offered to support the assertion of inconsistency due to density. It should be noted that to the extent that the "boarding house" analysis is pursued, a "boarding house" is a recognized and allowed use in single-family zoned neighborhood. The focus of the analysis in this case should be on the use of the premises as a residence. In order to address concerns over parking, traffic and noise, that one would typically address in a CUP analysis, the original Staff Report recommended that the children not be allowed to drive and required that the Applicant take extra steps to ensure the vehicles associated with the Oakhurst property were parked in the garage and driveway to lessen the impact on the surrounding neighbors. City of Dublin City Council Page 4 ~~ ` l For the record, the intended residents of Oakhurst are entitled to the familial status protection provided under the Federal Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. ~~ 3604) and California Fair Housing Law (Cal. Government Code X12955), which allows the children to be treated as a single family. Just as if the children and caretakers were blood-related, the proposed residents should be considered a family. Despite the protected status of the residents, the Applicant has participated in the Conditional Use Permit for the purpose of cooperating with the City and to be a good neighbor. The intended student residents of Oakhurst are protected under the FHA,2 and therefore must be given the same zoning treatment as asingle-family residence. [Keys Youth Servicef, Inc. v. City of Olathe, Kansas (D. Kan 1999) 67 F.Supp.2d 1228, 1230, (holding that the city discriminated against nonprofit corporation, seeking to operate group home, on basis of family status of proposed residents, when planning commission and city council required corporation to go through special use permit process in order to operate home, based on definitions of residential care facilities, group board home for minors, and family contained in ordinances which did not extend to proposed residents the familial status protection to which they were entitled based on their status as minors placed in the custody of the Secretary of the Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services (SRS)).] Thus, the PC's denial was not consistent with the status of the children under State and Federal law and the denial failed to recognize that the intended use of the home as a single family residence is entirely consistent with the neighborhood. Although it is the Applicant's position that the intended use is asingle-family residence, not a boarding house, Iroonet has cooperatively worked with the Conditional Use Permit process as suggested by the City ui a good-faith effort to be a cooperative, good citizen and neighbor. Iroonet is and has always been willing to work with its neighbors to ensure that the neighbors and HOA are not improperly burdened by the proposed use. It is also important to note in that regard that, while some neighbors and the HOA opposed the application, there was an acknowledgment of a willingness to work with the Applicant going forward. Thank you for your time and consideration 2 42 U.S.C. ~ 3602 (k) defines familial status as one or more individuals (who have not attained the age of 18 years) being domiciledwith - 1. a parent or another person having legal custody of such individual or individuals; or 2. the designee of such parent or other person having such custody, with the written permission of such parent or other person. ~~ ~~. City of Dublin City Council Page 5 Very truly yours, HOGE, FF,,I~'ON, JONES & APPEL, INC. f ~,~ ,~ ~. ol~,n F. Doi V J y JFD: jfd Cc: Laura Karaboghosian Dr. Dong-Ho Kim, Ph.D. a3 ~ 9a RESOLUTION NO. 09 - 03 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING Ct~MMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE A CONDITIONAL U;~E PERNIIT TO OPERATE A BOARDING HOUSE WITH UP TO 12 BOARDERS IN THE P'D (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) ZONING DISTRICT WITH A REDUCTION IN REQUIRED ON-SITE PARKING LOCATED AT 3608 OAKHURST COUR C (APN 9$5-0017-042) PA 08-023 WHEREAS, the Applicant, Dongho Kim, CEO of Iroonet America Inc., has requested a Conditional Use Penmit to operate a boarding house with up to 12 boarders and in which up to 16 people may live (12 boarders, two caretakers and two children related to the caretakers) and a reduction of three parking spaces in required on-site parking at 3608 Oakhurst Court, APN 985-0017-042, in the PD (Planned Development) Zoning District; and WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted. project plans. and a .written description for the requested entitlement which was received by the Planning I3ivision on July 2:i, 2008. A revised written statement , was received on December 18, 208; and WHEREAS, the proposed boarding house would be located within an existing 3,793 squire-foot single-family residence with six bedrooms; four and one-half bathrooms; a casita with a fiill bathroom; and an attached two car garage; and WHEREAS, the project site has a General Plan Land Use Designation of Low Density Residential, (0.0 to 6.0 du/ac) and is located within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area with a Specific Plan Land ' Ilse Designation of Single Family Residential (0.9 to 6.0 du/ac); and WHEREAS, the project site is zoned Planned Development which allows residential uses; and WHEREAS, the Planned Development (PA 95-030) contains standards for single family residential uses and states that the standards for single family residential in this Planned Development shall be the same as the standards for the R-1 Zoning District, ex~;ept where modified by the Planned Development; and WHEREAS, the list of permitted and conditionally permitted uses for this property are contained in Section 8.12.050 of the Zoning Ordinance and a boarding house is permitted with approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Zoning Administrator; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 8.76.080.B of the Dublin toning Ordinance the proposed use is required to provide a total of 6 pazking spaces to support the boazding house, based on the requirement that the dwelling unit have 2 parking spaces, plus 0.5 parking spaces per sleeping room; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 8.76.050 E of the Dublin :Aning Ordinance, a reduction in on- site pazking for individual uses is permitted if the Conditional Use Permit findings can be made; and Attachment 5 a~ ~9.z WHEREAS, parking memorandums were prepared by the City of Dublin Public Works Senior Traffic Engineer and City Engineer demonstrating that the required parking standards may be excessive; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 8.96.020 C.2. of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, the Zoning Administrator transferred original hearing jurisdiction to the Planning; Commission; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to projects that are denied, therefore no CEQA compliance is required for the Planning C;omrnission action; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the proj~~t during a public hearing on said application on January 13, 2009 in which all parties had the opportunity to be heard and continued the item to January 27, 2009 directing staff to prepare findings far denying the application without prejudice for reapplication; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, a January 13, 2009 Staff Report was submitted recommending that the application be conditionally approved; based on the Planning- Commissiondiscussion at the public hearing, a January 27; 2009 Staff Report was submitted addressing findings-for denial. of the application. 'Both staff reports , are incorporated herein by ,reference; and • -WHEREAS; the Planning Commission. did hear and. eonsider all .said reports, recommendations. and testimony herein above set forth and used independent judgment to make a decision; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed project is .not apprapriate for the subject site as set forth below. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby make the following finding and determinations regarding said Conditional LJse Permit review: A. The proposed operation of the boarding house and related structures is not compatible with other land uses, transportation and service facilities in the vicinity because: 1) the boarding house is located within an existing single-family residence surrounded by single- family homes to the north, south and west and a public park to the east; 2) all permitted and conditionally permitted uses in the R-1 Zoning District apply to the subject property as stated in the Planned Development (PA 95-030) ~md the Zoning Ordinance allows a boarding house to be located in the R-1 Zoning Distri~~t with approval of a Conditional Use Permit; 3) the Zoning Ordinance considers Boarding Houses to be aMulti-Family Dwelling; 4) because a Boarding House is a conditionally permitted use, findings must be made to ensure that the use is compatible with the site, and with the neighborhood in which it is located; 5) the proposed number of boarders, 12, and the proposed total number of people living on-site, 16, would be significantly greater than that which would typically live in asingle-family residence; 6) based on the proposed number of people which would be living within the house, the boarding house would result in an intense use for the site and therefore would not be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood in which it is 2 a5 ~9a located; and 7) as a result, the proposed boazdin~; house would change the existing characteristics of the single-family residential neighborhood in which it is located. B. The proposed operation of the boarding house will a~~versely ajject the health or safety of persons residing or worlang in the vicinity or be de~~rimental to the public health, safety and welfare because: 1) as proposed by the Applicant, the caretakers would live within the existing casita located within the front yard of the residence with no direct interior. access to the primary residence; 2) because the caretakers -will not live within the walls of the residence where the children {boarders) will reside, they may not be able to provide immediate assistance to the children; 3) in the event of an emergency, such as a fire or earthquake, the caretakers may be unable to enter the: primary residence in order to assist the children to exit safely; and 4) noise levels associ~~ted with the possibility that up to 16 people, 14 of which may be children living within. this single-family residence, cannot be mitigated to a level that would not impact adjacen# residents. C. The proposed operation of the boarding house will be injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood because: 1) the proposed number of people living on- site is significantly greater than the number of people that would typically live in a single- family home; 2) the manner in which the proposed boarding house would function, swith 12 paying boazders provided with meals, the use of vans to transport the children to and from school and to other activities and caretakers charged ~vifh supervision of the children, more , closely resembles that of a commercial use rather than'a typical single-family residential use; and 3) although a Boarding House is a conditionally permitted use in this zoning , district, in this. case, the proposed number of boarders represents a facility that would,not , be harmonious with the single family nature of the surtciunding neighborhood and therefore . , ,. " ~ would be contrary to improvements in --the area; and ~l) the establishment of a boarding , . , . „ house with up to 12 boazders would change.. the scale and character' of the existing neighborhood by 'establishing a--use which is ~signifieairtly more intense in scope than, a single family residence. D. There are adequate provisions for public access, water, sanitation, and public utilities and services to ensure that the proposed operation of the boarding house, including a parking reduction, would not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare because: 1) the proposed boarding house, is located at an existing residential dwelling within asingle- family residential neighborhood where such servi~;es are ah-eady provided and with adequate street access. E. The subject site is not physically suitable for the type, density and intensity of the proposed operation of the boarding house and related struct:eres being proposed because: 1) the boazding house would be located within an existing single-family residence surrounded by single-family homes to the north, south and west and a public park to the east; 2) the possibility that up to 16 people may live on-site would be significantly greater than that which would normally live in asingle-family residence; 3) the proposed use is permitted with a Conditional Use Permit however due to the proposed number of people living on- site the boarding house does not meet the intended use of asingle-family residence and more resembles a commercial use than a residential use; and 4) as previously mentioned, although a Boarding House is a conditionally permitted use in this zoning district, in this case, the proposed number of boarders represents a use, .even with conditions, that would not be harmonious with the single family nature; of the site and the surrounding neighborhood. z~ ~9~ F. The proposed operation of the boarding house wi'1 be contrary to the specific intent clauses, .development regulations or performance standards established for the zoning district in which it is located because: 1) the boazdvig house would be located within an existing single-family residence; 2) the manner in which the proposed boarding house would function, with 12 paying boazders provided with meals, the use of vans to transport the children to and from school and to other activities and caretakers chazged with supervision of the children, more closely resembles that of a commercial use rather than a typical single-family residential use; 3) the caretakers are proposed to live within. the existing casita however the intent of the casita was »!ot to function as a permanent living space; 4) noise impacts associated with the possibility that up to 16 people, 14 of which may be children living and playing on-site may negatively impact adjacent residents; and 5) the proposed number of boarders, up to 12, is not compatible with the characteristics of a single family neighborhood. G. The proposed operation of the boarding house is not .consistent with the Dublin General Plan and with any applicable Specific Plans because: 1) although the proposed use is permitted with a Conditional Use Permit the density and non-residential characteristics of the proposed boarding house does not meet the. inL~ntions of the district in which it is located; 2} the boarding house as currently proposed cannot be conditioned to operate in -~ such a manner as to limit the impact on the surrounding properties; and 3) according to General Plan Section 2.1.3 the,Guiding Policy fates that abrupt transitions between single- family development and higher density development can adjoining sites shall be avoided;: _,; BE IT FJRTHER RESOLVED that based .on the abovefindings, the Planning Commission hereby denies the requested Coaditional L1se Perrriut application with~~ut prejudice for reapplication. . I , . PASSED,. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of January :?009 by the following vote AYES: Wehrenbeag, King, Schaub and Swalwell NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Brnwn .,~ ;VEST: Actin fanning Manager ~~~ _ ~, Planning ,Co;`mm~/fission C: IPA#120081PA OS-023 Oakhurst Court BoardinghuusetPC Materials 012709{PC Denial Reso FINE L L27.09.doc 4 `~G s-~ k_ 'T» iI3I.~C ~'.~(~t_~: ~~ E~;_~">~ Irt~~;}ri~~ C'a,~iciitittar~i T.1~e ,'~ T::~!9 ~:l~~llt~11:'<II~}i"~4"} t ~~?%L'Ci1~E i} ~~d'.aTC~IIl4'_ ~~{l1$ti~' aii ~z,~lt,~71I31t) ~E) ~1i ,,(:: 111si ~1'~ E: ::';t~ CL) ~.~.~C}S~' ~C~T c'~Ti C)Zi-.``s~.t~' ~~ili`~it%74 }~i~C~11L~it)Tl cif ~~?! i t ' y y ~ ~f£'JJt)t'(~,~~,'.? .''~s'~~ttlJ"tl~C~7'ft~7t)~~~lP?.S'T[112,.~5'>~,^7~'7~r:f: ~'~CaP1Ytt'~' :~;~}~[~t.{_'~1~~~.~N~~'?°> ~~ ~~C',Si7~'llltlii ;~[ ~}`:'iii~,~; ~l {,t~i'7C~i~it7ri;i~ ~.15t' ~a~'2171$ ~C} C7~`7i'(:1.. 'cI ~" Sll t ~1,:'~1 t~t~3 [(} ~{? ~ ;.re ~ ll;~' ~i4~L', l~`l ~"~~ i'~a; . ~~ )~i;t~ lg t~"t}t~ , ~)t'l':it~~ ;l";'tlf ?":ii._ ,1,;1~.~:` ti3~! !:' tt~~{).~ :Lewi'u'll t}Ii-Si#€; ,.~'" ',~~ ~.~ :i17T?~3i It ~~).t. ~Cd 3~~ Ii`I..i~ '~r:ii t, .,`s~. } I';;,~~~~ ~,~~ .~~ 4 ..:~~~~:~ ~1'1c~.ic~t~t .~~ 1 U.` ~ ()"E>h~r?2_ ~i~1:. . ~ i 2ati~)~ii ~,l ta17;~ t'~it ~._ITi~ 1~'~t'i11d~1'ill1.~1 :11 l ` ~ iti~i t l~%'~T ~ `. ~~ "'.)~3. , {3~ {i€_l G ~ f?1 ~ ~~$~~[~s ~~~'f::'..:°, )ill r'~.:;}?£t' ~.C}5~1 ~i:~t:~ St l;`t'ki: ~ 99 {Elitl~.l'.`1 t~r~4 ~ ~'.11`; ~} t C}`i'll '':C1:~ ~ ~cua.LSf}il €~s.~~t`3,~~ f) {~`.~. B.`'s`}'~~~~,N~)c'~r,~'~~)~: ~} ~#::c'$1~ ;',:.cif{ ~"}1~:'~~'i~li~' ~ZI; ti ~1 ~Gi~~~' ~~ !I=`.T1i _' #1':~;SI of?c lZy~t~F.._if .~T':~~ ~~'_~`~4T3~~~£;: ~ _ ~,~ , : ~lc 1telii}ii i. C1~~~,~;,, L '' ~ ?l~-i 1, ~Et)a., L ~E: l.~l,at' ZE~I ~~.~ ~{? ~i~l~~°,~, ti}~• :~~ c}~-sic ~}a>•~ii . r~ ,~~ ~ ~ ,_s. ~;;~ s~ {~}~l~ l~,~tr~:t { s 3.,r sit {x~ l'8?tf It `e ,. .. +`Y(1~t',i,I ~+i~L' ig ~?s. ~iic .~ 11 ~T#.i{~`~ {J '"tLl'"S$ (~{.}i ~"_, ~tii~ tz 4~t`~j(C~ bi111=~C E cS~ _f. I 1~ ~ .i~ 1.• _~ r~'~t 1 ~ ~, t ti i ~~ , ~ ~ •_ ~ i~a~.3~~ ~.€ b, ice'.- =>d 1 T1 ii_' ) '~~'._'7i ~ti s ib i I3,,:'C{ ~[ :4 e. L7}%32~I3t '~ tl 1., z~ i ~ ~ ~ ']" ~ ~`a-~`~) V } 5% yy 7 ( I T ~CkA-1~~ l i?*' ~J4. ;~5 l 77 i 1~ i) t ~ 9 i ! ., . ~ ~ ~ 1 c ~i .~"1 ~C~i}~.~ 1 €~` ~ f 1.. 7 l i 1 A ~` ~ ~ :4. J tll „ l {{ tt ff } l i~ fie.. / i„31ri'Zi L. ~'. 3 t .~ttJ ~_' ~ .. 1r ..C ~ J ~~ !: ~ °Z ~..,1i~~ tL7 ~. ~'t;SI1N- ~tl. sly ,_,- ~ ~. '> ..~- .. L .. ?: `~:.~ ~.~ z Y, , ~,,` ~ ",~ ~r~ ~~*' ~.. `r ~ai7. "`!. ;~~1. ., ~,. ~ /~ f" ~ x ~ ~k.`~~ ,-. i ~,:; ~ f "~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '»~r r ~~ ~ S 3 ! F J~}viii ~~. ~'e, }IE7~e_ 1 ~ E ,~1..~c~ne;~ ~. ~~~ Irit~. ~> ~ i °~ Attachment 6 O~ ~ ~o~. s uaze-foot sin le-famil residence, comprised of six bedrooms; f cur and one-half baths; a kitch q g Y communal living quarters; an attached garage; and an attached casita with a bedroom, full bath, sink and counter (Attachment 8). , Operating Characteristics The Applicant proposes to operate a boarding house in which up to 15 people may live (12 boarders, two caretakers and two children related to the caretakers). Conditions o_~ Approval have been formulated to specify these proposed limitations (Condition 20). The boarders living at the Oakhurst home are foreign exchange students from Korea -who attend local private schools (such as Quarry Lane, Athenian, Valley Christian and Redwood Christian}, ranging from the 4`h to the 12`'' grades. According to the Revised Written Statement date stamp received December 18, 2008 (Attachment 2}, the children are transported to school weekday mornings and are then taken directly to a local tutoring center in Pleasanton to study until they are transported home in the evenings. On weekends, the children participate in organized excursions, attend -:hurch and participate in organized sports. The children also take part in community activities and volunteer programs.. Most. of the children return home to Korea during the summer vacation, but a few children may remain with their caretaker(s). A cook makes daily visits to the hc-use in the early morning to prepare breakfast for the children and leaves once the children have finished breakfast and the kitchen is clean. In addition, a cleaning service comes to the house twice a week and a gardener comes once a week. The City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance Section 8.12.050 states that a Conditional Use Permit is required in order to operate a boarding house with five or more renters in a residentially zoned district. A complaint was received by the City of Dublin on May 21, 2008. and. a Code Compliance Case_ opened. The complainant indicated that .numerous children were living on-site az~d raised concern that a school was being run from the residence. The City's Code Enforcement Officer visited the site and.determined that a boarding house was being operated without a Conditional Use Permit with more than five renters. A Courtesy Violation Notice was issued and a request was made. to comply with City regulations until they. have obtained a Conditional. Use Permit. Staff met with the Applicant's representatives to discuss the . proposal and the application process. On July 25, 2008 the Applicant submitted a Conditional Use Permit application to allow for a boarding house and an on-site parking reduction. The Applicant has. .been working cooperatively with Staff in order to see their proposal come to fruition. According to .the Applicant's representative, there are currently four boarders and onr, caretaker living on-site; therefore, they are in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. The Applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to operate a boarding house in which up to 16 people may live (12 boarders, two caretakers and two children related to the caretakers) and a pazking reduction. According to the Zoning Ordinance, review c~f Conditional Use Permits for the establishment of boazding houses is assigned to the Zoning Administrator; however, because this application was complaint-driven, the Zoning Administrator has transferred original hearing jurisdiction to the Planning Commission for review (Zoning Ordinance Section 8.'6.020 C.2 Attachment 7). ANALYSIS: Staff has provided the following analysis in order to assist the Planning Commission in making a determination on the suitability of the proposed use. The proposed use has been reviewed for issues related to pazking, traffic, noise and General Plan conformance. Conditions of Approval have been proposed, where appropriate, to ensure compatibility with the surroun3ing neighborhood. Parking and Traffic The City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance contains off-street parking requirements by use type. Pursuant to Dublin Zoning Ordinance Section 8.76.080(B) a boazding house is re<uired to provide two parking spaces per dwelling plus 0.5 parking spaces per sleeping room. Based on this requirement, a total of six parking spaces would be required for the boarding house. 2 of 5 The Dublin Zonin Ordinance Section 8.76.050E contains a provisi~~n that allows for a reduction~~- ~~ g () street parking for an individual use..A reduction in off-site parking may be granted if: 1) the Conditional Use Permit findings can 'be made; 2.) a parking study prepared by ~i qualified consultant analyzing the parking demands of the proposed rise and the parking demands of similar uses in similar situations demonstrates that the required parking standards are excessive; propose alternate parking standards which are appropriate; and ensure that there will not be a parking deficiency; and 3) overflow parking will not adversely affect any adjacent use. According to the Applicant's Revised Written Statement (Attachment 2) there will be two minivans located at the residence for the caretakers to use when transporting the children and performing other duties. The Applicant's Traffic Data Statement (Attachment 3) st<<tes that on a typical weekday, the children leave for school in the morning. They are picked up from school at 3 p.m., and remain at a local tutoring center until 8 p.m. when the children are picked up and returr ed home. During the weekends, the children participate in organized excursions, take part in community activities, attend church, and perform volunteer work. As previously mentioned, a cook will make daily ~~isits to the project site in the early mornings, around 5:30 a.m., and leave once the. children are fed acid the kitchen is clean. A cleaning .service will clean the house twice per week and a gardener will perfcrm landscape duties once per week. Because the cook performs a daily service, he/she will be required to park in the driveway; however, the housekeeper, gardener, tutor and other service vehicles may be parked on the street (Condition 12). Parking Memorandums were prepared by the Ciry of Dublin's Senior Traffic Engineer and City Engineer which are included as Attachments 4 and 5. The study prepared b;~ the Senior Traffic Engineer dated October 22, 2008 concluded that, based upon the program operations provided in the Applicant's Written Statement and the Applicant's Traffic Data Statement, and observations made when performing a Site Visit, the amount of traffic and parking generated by the residence is comparable to that of a typical single-family residence. After the aforementioned parking study was prepared; Staff was notified that the boarding house has a cook who makes .daily .visits, a: cleaning sere ice that visits twice a week, and a gardener that comes once a week. Lfpon notification by the.Applicaitt of the additional service activities taking place on-site, the City Engineer, Mark Lander, reviewed the waking Memorandum.. Mr. Ladder concluded-that there will be additional. parking needs not reflected in the initial statement provided by the Applicant.- In order to mitigate potential parking,irx~pacts: associated with the proposed boarding house, four Conditions of Approval have been provided to address parking at-d.traffic. These conditions include: 1} limiting the number of company and personal vehicles associated with the boarding house to three at a given time (Condition 10); 2) restricting the boarders from drivin;; (Condition 13); 3) requiring that Iroonet vehicles be parked in the garage and driveway (Condition 11); and 4} requiring that the cook park on the driveway (Condition 12). Based upon the aforementioned Conditions of Approval Staff is recommending approval of the proposed parking reduction and the findings set forth in the Resolution. (Attachment 1). Noise Although there may be a maximum of 16 people living on-site, noise is not anticipated to be an issue due to the limited amount of time the children spend at home, as well as, a Condition of Approval regulating the hours of outdoor activities (Condition 5). This Condition states that no outdoor activities shall take place between the hours of 9 p.m. to 8 a.m., Monday through Friday, rind from 10 p.m. to 8 a.m., Saturday and Sunday. Conformance with General Plan The project site has a General Plan Land Use Designation of Medium Density Residential (0.0 - 6.0 du/ac). The proposed project meets the intent of this designation because boarding houses are permitted in Residential Zoning Districts with a Conditional Use Permit. 3 of 5 Conditional Use Permit Required Findings ~ ~o~.. To approve a Conditional Use Permit, the following findings must be made: the proposed use isJ compatible with other land uses, transportation and service facilities in the vicinity; will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity or be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare; will not be injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood; will have adequate provisions for public access, water, sanitation, and p~iblic utilities and services to ensure that it would not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare; and the site is physically suitable for the type, density and intensity of the use and related structures be ng proposed. Staff believes that, as conditioned, the Project is consistent with these findings as presented in the attached Resolution (Attachment 1). Review by City Departments This project was reviewed by other City Departments and interested agencies. Any special requirements have been incorporated as Conditions of Approval of the attached Resolution (Attachment. 1). The Applicant has reviewed the draft Conditions of Approval and <<greed to comply with the City's requirements. NOTICING: In accordance with State law, a public notice regarding this hearing was mailed to all property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the proposed project. A public notice was also published in the Valley Times and posted at several locations throughout the City.. To date, the City has received two written comments (Attachment 6) and several telephone calls .from surrounding property owners or tenants. in objection to the .current proposal. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Project has been reviewed under the California Environmental Quality Act, (CEQA), State CEQA Guidelines and the Dublin Environmental Guidelines, and the projec~ has been found to be Categorically Exempt from the CEQA accordin€; to the CEQA Guidelines Secaion 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). CONCLUSION: The Conditional Use Permit process allows the City to place Conditions of Approval on the Project to ensure that the operation of the proposed use is compatible with the surrounding uses. The proposed project has been reviewed for issues related to operating characte:7stics and parking. Conditions of Approval have been proposed where appropriate to ensure compatibility. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the Dublin General Plan and the Dublin Zoning District in which the project site is located and represents an appropriate use for the site. Staff does not anticipate the proposed boarding house to adversely effect the neighborhood based on the operating characteristics and the draft Conditions of Approval that would regulate the boarding house. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Receive Staff prc;sentation; 2) Open the public hearing; 3) Take testimony from the Applicant and the public; 4) Close the public hearing and deliberate; and 5} Adopt a Resolution to operate a boarding house in which up to 16 people may live in the Planned Development zoning district and to allow for an on-site parking reduction at 3608 Oakhurst Court. 4of5 GENERAL INFORMATION: APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: Dongho Kim Iroonet America, Inc. 21515 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 990 Torrance, CA 90503 LOCATION: 3608 Oakhurst Court ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER: 985-0017-042 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential (0.0 - 6.0 du/a:.) SPECIFIC PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family (0.9 - 6.0 du/ac) EXISTING ZONING: Planned Development (PA08-Oc3) SURROUNDING USES: LOCATION ZONING GENERAL PLAIT ~ ~CI7RRENT USE OF LAND USE PROPERTY PD (Planned Development) Low Density Residential North Residential (0:0- 6.0 du/ac) South PD (Planned Development) Low Density " Residential Residential (0.0 6.O du/ac)= West PD (Planned Development) Low Density Residential Residential (0.0 - 6.0 du/ac) East PD (Planned Development) Parks/Public Ted Fairfield Park Recreation 3~~ 9z 5 of 5 '~ ~ ~b2 RESOLUTION NO. 09 - XX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A BOARDING HOUSE IN WHICH UP TO 16 PEOPLE MAY LIVE IN THE PD (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) ZONING DISTRICT WITH A REDUCTION IN REQUIRED ON-SITE PARKING LOCATED AT 3608 OAKHURST COURT (APN 985-0017-042) PA 08-023 WHEREAS, the Applicant, Dongho Kim, CEO of Iroonet America Inc., has requested a Conditional Use Permit to operate a boarding house in which up to 16 people may live (12 boarders, two caretakers and two children related to the caretakers) and a reduction of three parking spaces in required on-site parking at 3608 Oakhurst Court, APN 941-0017-042, in the PD {Planned Development) Zoning District; and ' WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted project plans .and a written description for the requested entitlement which was received by the Planning Division on July.25, :?008; and WHEREAS, the proposed boarding house .would be located within an existing 3,793 square-.foot single-family residence with six bedrooms; four and. one-half bathri-oms; a casita with: a full bathroom; and an attached two car garage; and WHEREAS, the project site is zoned Planned Development ~Nhich allows residential uses; and WHEREAS, the project site has a General Plan Land Use Designation of Low Density Residential (0.0 to 6.0 dulac) and is located within the Eastern Dublin Specific Man Area with a Specific Plan Land Use Designation of Single Family Residential (0.9 to 6.0 du/ac); and WHEREAS, a boarding house is permitted in the PD (Planned Development) Zoning District with approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Zoning Administrator; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 8.96.020 C.2. of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, the Zoning Administrator transferred original hearing jurisdiction to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 8.76.080.B of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance the proposed use is required to provide a total of 6 parking spaces to support the board: ng house, based on the requirement that the dwelling unit have 2 parking spaces, plus 0.5 parking spaces 1-er sleeping room; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 8.76.050 E of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, a reduction in on- siteparking for individual uses is permitted if the Conditional Use Permit findings can be made; and WHEREAS, parking memorandums were prepared by the (:ity of Dublin Public Works Senior Traffic Engineer and City Engineer demonstrating that the required =parking standards may be excessive; and l a3~ ~~ WHEREAS, the application has been reviewed in acco -dance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and this project was sound to be exempt under the CEQA Guidelines Section 15303; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearin,; on said application on January 13, 2009; and . WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, the Staff Report was submitted recommending that the application be conditionally approved; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consid~;r all said reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth and used independent judgment i.o make a decision; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby find that: A. The proposed operation of the boarding house, including a parking reduction, is compatible with other land uses, transportation a~ad .service facilities in the vicinity because:. 1) the Project will comply with City regulations and Conditions of Approval; 2) the boarding house is located within an existing single-family residence surrounded. by single-family homes to ithe north, south and west and ~. public park. to the east; 3}noise and traffic impacts will be minimized by the restrictions incorporated into the Conditions of Approval and the low number. of vehicle trips that maybe generated by the Project; 4) the City Senior Traffic Engineer's review .concluded. that. the traffic and parking impacts associated with the Project are consistent with that of asingle-family residence and the City Engineer's review of the traffic study based upon new information provided concluded that there may be parking impacts associated with the boardinghouse, however, these impacts may be mitigated through a Condition of Approval requiring that the Iroonet vehicles and cook park in the driveway and garage; and 5) b,ised upon the Applicant's written description and the aforementioned Condition of Approval, the required parking standards for a boarding house are excessive and the reduction in the required number of off-site loading spaces for a boarding house of three is appropriate and will not result in a parking deficiency. B. The proposed operation of the boarding house, incl;.rding a parking reduction, will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons resid Ong or working in the vicinity or be detrimental to the public health safety and welfare because: 1) the proposed boarding house will comply with all City of Dublin regulati~~ns; 2) the boarding house will be located in an existing single-family residence; 3) the; City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance defines a boarding house as a Residential use and, therefore, the use is compatible with the neighborhood; and 4) the occupancy permitted by the .2007 California Building Code allows for 16 occupants maximum for a congregate residence. C. The proposed operation of the boarding house, including a parking reduction, will not be injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood because.• 1} as conditioned, 2 ~~ ~a noise and traffic impacts will be minimized by the Conditions of Approval which establish limits on the number of children living in the residence and the hours in which outdoor activities may occur. D. There are adequate provisions for public access, watE~r, sanitation, and public utilities and services to ensure that the proposed operation of the boarding house, including a parking reduction, would not be detrimental to the public healjh, safety and welfare because: 1) the proposed boarding house, is located at an existing residential dwelling within asingle- family residential neighborhood where such services are already provided and with adequate street access. E. The subject site is physically suitable for the zonin,;, type, density and intensity of the proposed operation of the boarding house, including a parking reduction, and related structures being proposed because: 1) the boarding house will be located in an existing single-family residence surrounded by single-family homes on three sides as well as a public park to the east; 2) the boarding house shall comply with City regulations and Conditions of Approval limiting the number of children and caretakers living within the home and the hours of outdoor activity; 3) .parking of Iroonet vehicles and the cook's vehicle shall take place within the garage or on the driveway; 4) Section 8.76.080.B of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance requires a total of 6 parking spaces to support the boarding house, based on the requirement that the dwelling unit .have 2 parking spaces, plus.. 0.5 .. parking spaces per sleeping room; 5) the Dublin Zoning Ordinance permits a reducton..in ~_the required number of parking spaces when .the :regl~ired findings- can be met; and fi). the. . requested parking reduction has been determined to be warranted based on the: description of program operations and applicable Conditions of Approval F: The proposed operation of the. boarding house, including a parking reduction, will not be contrary to the speeific intent clauses, development n~gulations or performance standards . established for the zoning district in which it is IocatE~d because: 1) the proposed boarding' house will be located within a Planned Development district with an underlying. Single- Family Residential zoning designation; 2) the boardir..g house will be in an existing single- family residence; 3) the site is bordered by single-farlily residential homes on three sides and a public park to the east; 4} the boarding house will comply with City regulations that will restrict the parameters of use; 5) Chapter 8.08 of the Zoning Ordinance states that the definition of a Boarding House shall mean asingle-family dwelling where bedrooms are rented to five or more people and at least one conunon meal is offered each day. A boarding house is considered to be aMulti-Family Dwelling; 6) the proposed use is a conditional use in the PD (Planned Development) Zoning District in which the project site is located when the required findings as stated in Section 8.100.060 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance can be made; 7} Section 8.76.050.E cutlines a provision in the Zoning Ordinance allowing fur a reduction in on-site parking for individual uses when Conditional Use Permit findings can be made, a parking study prepared by the City of Dublin Senior Transportation Engineer on October 22, 2008 demonstrates that the required parking standards are excessive and provides alternate parking standards, and overflow parking will not impact any adjacent use; 8) The City Engineer's review of the traffic study dated December 23, 2008, based upon new information provided concluded that there may be parking impacts associated with the boarding hou: e, however, these impacts may be mitigated through a Condition of Approval requiring; that the Iroonet vehicles and cook 3 ~~ q~ park in the driveway and garage; and 9) the requested parking reduction has been determined to be warranted based on the description of program operations and applicable Conditions of Approval. G. The proposed operation of the boarding house, including a parking reduction, is consistent with the Dublin General Plan because: 1) the proposed use is permitted with a Conditional Use Permit and meets the intentions of the zoning di:;trict in which it is located; and 2) as conditioned, the boarding house will operate in such ~ manner as to limit the impact on the surrounding properties. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby approve PA 08-023, Conditional Use Permit, to allow a boarding house use in the PD (Planned Development) Zoning District subject to the following Conditions of Approval: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Unless stated otherwise, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to the issuance of building permits or establishment cif use, and shall be subject to review and approval by the City of Dublin. The following codes represent those departments/agencies responsible for monitoring compliance of the Conditions of Approval: [PI,.] Planning, [B] .Building, [PC] Police, [DSR] Dublin San Ramon " Services District: and- [F] Alameda County Fire Department. CONDITION TEXT RESPQ~N. WHEN REf~~D SOURCE - AGENCY _ Prior. to: ---_-~~ - _ - GENERAL 1, ,Permit Approval:. This Conditional Use Permit PL On-going:. :.Planning approval is for the establishment of a boarding house at 3608 Oakhurst Court (the "Project"). The boarding house shall be limited to a maximum of 16 occupants (12 boarders, two caretakers and two children related to the caretakers). The Project shall generally conform to the project plans submitted by Walovich + Associates dated. received October 3, 2008, stamped approved said on file in the Community Development Department, a letter dated received November 7, 2008 by Walovich + Associates, revised written statement dated received December 18, 2008 and other materials relating. to this approval, unless modified by the Conditions of A royal contained herein. 2, Permit Expiration and -Time Extension. PL One year from DMC Construction or use shall commence within one (1) date of approval 8.96.020.D year of Permit approval or the Permit shall lapse and and E become null and void. The original approving decision-maker may grant a time extension for a period no longer than six (6) months provided that the Applicant submits a written request for an extension prior to expiration of the Permit and a determination can be made that all Conditions of Approval remain adequate to assure that applicable findings of approval will continue to be met. 4 ~ ~ 9a 3. Revocation. The Conditional Use Permit approval PL On-going DMC shall be revocable for cause in accordance with 8.96.020.I Dublin Zoning Ordinance Section 8.96.020.I, Revocation. Any violation of the terms and conditions of this Permit may be subject to the issuance of a citation. 4, Controlling Activities. The Applicant/Property PL Ongoing Planning Owner shall control all activities on the project site so as not to create a nuisance to the existing or surroundin =residences. 5. Outdoor Activities. No outdoor activities shall take PL Ongoing Planning place between the hours of 9 p.m. to 8 a.m. Monday through Friday and from 10 p.m. to 8 a.m. Saturday and Sunda . 6. Noise Ordinance. The Applicant/Property owner PL On-going Planning. shall comply with the City of Dublin Municipal Code Noise Ordinance. ^7, On-site Tutoring. Any on-site tutoring shall be PL On-going Planning limited to the children that reside within the home. g, Number of Tutors. The number of tutors shall be PL ~ On-going Planning restricted to one tutor at a time. 9, Tutoring Hours, On-site. tutoring shall be limited PL On-going Manning to the hours of 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. _ 10. Vehicles. The number of company, personal and PL Ongoirig ~, P,lanning ~ service vehicles associated with the boarding house is limited o three at one time. _ ~ ~ ~ _ 1l. Parking of Iroonet Vehicles. In accordance with __ PL On-going Planning the T gaff c Data Statement date stamp received July 25, 2008- 'the parking of Iroonet vehicles shall take ~ lace ir< the ara a and drivewa . 12. Parking of Service Vehicles. The cook shall park PL On-going; Planning in the driveway, however, the gardener, housekeeper, tutor or other service vehicles may ark on the street. 13. Boarders Driving Restrictions. In accordance with PL On-going Planning the Applicant's Traffic Data Statement (Attachment 5) date stamp received July 2S, 200g Iroonet strictly prohibits the boarders from driving in the United States. lq, Trash Receptacles. .All trash and recycling PL On-going Planning receptacles shall be of adequate size and capacity to accommodate the needs of the boarding house occu ants. 15. Trash and Waste Accumulation. The property PL On-going Planning owner shall provide and conduct regular maintenance of the site in order to eliminate and control the accumulation of trash, excess/waste materials and debris. 16. Trash Collection. Trash receptacles shall not be PL On-going Planning placed in the front yard prior to the evening before pick-up. All residential collection containers must be removed by the day after collection so as not to be visible from assersb . ~ 17, ~ Signage. No signage advertising the congregate PL On-going Planning ~~ ~ lc~. care facilit is ermitted. Ig, Equipment/Appliances/Storage of Materials of PL On-going Planning Non-Residential Nature. There shall be no installation of equipment or appliances or storage of materials, of anon-residential nature in a residence or accessory structure, as determined by the Director of Community Development. BUI LDING DIVISION 1y, Building Codes and Ordinances. The Project shall B Through Building conform to all Building Codes and Ordinances in Completion effect at the time of Buildin Permit. 20, Occupant Load. The occupant load shall be posted B Prior to issuance Building near the main entry door indicating the maximum ofbuilding occupant load of 16 (14 for the residence and two permits for the detached casita). The signs shall be in letters 1 inch (25 mm) high on a contrasting background to com 1 with 2007 CBC Section 1008.1.8.3 2.2 . 21. Building Permits. Building permits shall be B Prior to issuance Building required for the change in use. and modifications to ofbuilding the occupant load which will include installation permits and inspection of the required occupant load si aeon the same ermit. FIR E PREVENTION DIVISION 22. .Smoke Detectors. Project shall have smoke ~ F detectors installed on each level and in sleeping Prior to Occupancy Fire , rooms. 2G07 CFC Section 907.2.10.1.2. 23, .Code Compliance. The Project shall comply.. with F Through Fire Uniform. Btuldng and .Fire C~ades as adopted by the Completion Ci of Dublin. ~ _ _ -- -- POLICE 24, Residential Security Ordinance. The Applicant. _ PO Prior to Police ` shall comply with all applicableCity of Dublin Occupancy Residential Securi Ordinance re uirements. . PUBLIC "WO _ - 25. Sidewalk. The Applicant/Developer shall repair PW Issuance of Public any damaged driveway, sidewalk, curb and gutter Occupancy Works alon the site fronta e. Permit s ~C~ % ~,,, ,, PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of January ..009 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Planning Commission. Chair ATTEST: Community Development Director G: ~PANI20081PA 08-013 Oakhurst Court Boardingho~~selDraft PCMaterialslPCReso 1.1.3.09.rloc 7 ~9 ~ 9z Revised Written Statemen t Iroonet Conditional Use Permit Application 3608 Oakhurst Court Dublin, CA 94568 Iroonet America, Inc., ("Iroonet America") is a highl~~ regarded. educational service company. that, among other educational services, pro~~ides extensive and advanced international learning opportunities to the children of South Korean families. Iroonet America is a subsidiary of Iroonet, a well established educational services company that was founded in South Korea in 1992 for the purpose of providing life long learning opportunities for people of all ages. The President/CEO of Iroonet America is Dr. Dong-Ho Kim, Ph.D. The Iroonet Safe Study Abroad Program is a well rec~,ived program in South Korea that is dedicated to the families of students seeking a high quality education, experience in and with the American culture, the opportunity to enhance skills in the English language, and the admittance to high quality college preparatory schools (boarding), colleges, and universities. Children from 4th throl_.gh 12th grade are eligible to participate in the program. U•oonet ~.merica's program introduces South Korean children to the United States and provides them with a high quality pr vate education and the opportunity to be immersed in English and ~rtterican culture:. Children participating in the Iroonet program have been highly successful students, citizens, and leaders, Former: participants of the program have moved on to schools like T1- e Saint James School,. Choate Rosemary, Hockaday, The School for Visual Arts, Tie University of Virginia, The University of Michigan, UC San Diego, UC Davis, Syral,use University, and Pennsylvania State University. Iroonet America currently operates in California (San Diego, Eureka and Dublin) ~,nd St. Louis, Missouri and is als ~ evaluating locations on the East Coast. Participation in the program is viewed as an honer to participating families: The program involves attendance at local private schools offering programs far international students. The local schools involved with the Dublin program include Valley Christian, Quarry Lane, Redwood Christian, and Athenian. Iroonet America has forged strong relationships with these schools, and the children that attend these schools have been active participants in their respective student bodie s and are viewed as assets to their school community. As international students the participants in the Iroonet America program are provided with housing, in this instance the home that is the subject of the CUP application, and daily care is provided by guardians/caretakers. Through experience Iroonet America has determined that a seven student to one guardian ratio is very effective. These guardians serve as a parent and advocate aw~ly from home, living with the children and providing each with advice, support, represe station at the schools, and the basics, such as ensuring that they are fed and clothed, and providing transportation to and from school and extracurricular events. The guardians ate the primary poin~:~(;EIVED DEC 18 2008 C:\DOCUME-IUFD\LOCALS-1\Temp\8\workshare\mwtemp14a0\wsl.tmp1975572.doc DUBLtN PL!'1NNINC 4n ~ qa contact with the schools and they participate in parent-school activities like parent/teacher conferences Mnd school events. An item that sets the Iroonet America program apart from other study abroad programs is the involvement of each child's parents and their relationship with the local guardian. The guardians communicate with each child's pare~rts every single day, providing a report concerning the child and current events. Through a secure website dedicated to the child, guardians report on the amount and tyke of home work that the. child has each day, upcoming events such as exams, reports, ~~r extracurricular events, and grades. This direct communication allows guardians to discuss issues and to seek the advice, counsel, and, if necessary, the permission of the parents in responding to requests.. from or relating to the child. 3608 Oakhurst Court The Oakhurst residence that is the subject of his appli~~ation is a 7 bedroom, 3,793 square foot home. The CUP application anticipates 12 children residing at the home. With the exception of a daily morning visit from a cock, the activities. at the home will be essentially identical .to, a large family in the neighborhood. On a typical weekday,:- the schedule would be as follows: A hired cook would arrive between 5:30 and 6 a.m. to prepare breakfast for the .children. The cook would then leave after preparing breakfast . and cleaning up. After waking, at approximately 7 a.m., and having breakfast, the children will be taken to school by one the caretakers. After dropping the children at school the caretakers will return and prepare reports and communicate with parents,and respond to the daily needs of the children and the household. After school the caretakers . will pick up the children and (absent any extracurricular activity such as a play date) the children and caretakers will go directly to our facili y in Plea: anton where the kids play/relax, complete homework assignments, obtain necessary tutoring, and have dinner. After dinner the children are taken back to the home by the c~xetakers at approximately $ p.m. The children are in their rooms for bed at 10 p.m. Saturdays -community service fellowship at Mil Al Church in Cupertino. The program is committed to provide community service opportunities and Mil Al Church has been a great partner in that regard. The program is also seeking opportunities for local community service opportunities. Sundays -religious services and optional recreational events for the children such as field trips to museums, sporting events, malls, and libraries. Due to the fact that the children are busy and spend mast of their waking hours away from the home their presence will be compatible with, end certainly not injurious to, the neighborhood. The CC&Rs of the Dublin Ranch subdivision allow for the occupation of each bedroom of a home by no more than t<vo I-ersons thus the maximum number of people allowed in the home under the CC&Rs is c~~nsistent with the intended use. Likewise, the day to day activities at, and traffic generated by, the home will be C:\DOCUME--1 UFD\LOCALS-1 \Temp\8`~workshare\mwtemp 14a0\ws I .tmp1~75572.doc 41 ~ 9~ consistent with the existing residential activities in the neighborhood and other similarly situated Dublin neighborhoods. The Oakhurst residence will have only two vehicles, unlike many families that have. three or more vehicles. None of the students will ever be allowed to drive. The vehicles will be used to provide transp~rrtation t~ and from school, and on weekends they will be used to go to church and community service and to run an occasional errand. Other regular vehicle trips/visits include a two times per week visit by a housecleaner, a once a week visit by a gardener, and also a once per week visit to the grocery store by the cook. Caretakers will not have personal :ars at the residence at any time and would reside in the casita. As for vacation period, it is generally the case that participating families use the summer vacation period as an opportunity to have their children come home to Korea; however, the Oakhurst home remains available to enrolled claldren during this period. It is also quite common for the children generally go home for aacations that allow for the travel involved. For shorter school breaks the children woulcl typically stay at the home. Anticipating concerns over noise Iroonet America nog:es that it has agreed to limit outside activities after 9 p.m. on weekdays and 10 p.m. on w~;ekends. It is also subject to the City, of Dublin noise ordinance and Dublin ]Ranch CC&Rs that prohibit unreasonable amounts of noise. The pursuit of education is a priority among the parer:ts of t&re children that participate in the Iroonet America program and,: while a sacri ffce of daily contact with their children and in terms ofexpense, participation in the program and providing a foundation for a world class education is considered an extra,~rdinary expression of love and affection for their children: It is also worthy to note that she children participating in the Iroonet program, that are; or willbe living at 3608 Oakhw•st Court, should be viewed as an asset to the community and part of a larger Arrrerican f~umily. They add an important element of culture and diversity to Dublin and the :East Bay and give back to our local communities in a dramatic and consistent way. Thsir presence also offers local children the opportunity to share and discuss the Korean cult~zre, as well as inspiration to achieve academic success. C:\DOCUM E-1 UFD\LOCALS-1 \Temp\F;\workshare\mwtemp 14a0\wsl .tmp\375572.doc ~~ ga. Traffic Data Statement Iroonet [;onditional Use Permit Application 3608 Oakhurst Court Dublin, CA 94568 Iroonet and the children living at 3608 Oakhurst Court in Dublin, California have the same or less traffic impact as neighboring residences. The children are transported by their guardians to school, tutoring, church and community activities in one of three different Toyota Sienna minivans (seven person seating capacity) and generate approximately two trips or less per day from their home on Oakhurst Court. There will rarely be more than two minivans at the house at any one time and they are parked in either the driveway or garage. On a typical weekday, the children leave for school. at :approximately 7 a.m. They are picked up from school at 3 p.m., and remain at a local tutoring center until 8:00 p.m. The children return home between 8:30 and 9:00 p.m. to prepare for bed and study. On the weekend, the children participate in organized educational excursions, take part in community activities, attend c;hutch and work with local disab (ed children. Iroonet strictly prohibits the children from driving in the United States and any additional ±rat~"ic would be related to the guardians who"live w..th the children. RECEIVEC 796oo10ther~339360 1 ,}~~ 2 5 20~ ouBUw Pt~-tvNING ~3 ~qa .1 OF DUB ~~`~ ~ C7ZTY OF DV33LZN Public Works Department ' ////~~~^^ ~~~ City Offices, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin California 9A56$ 19 ~*~ ~' ~. ~, 82 ~~ ~ ~i CRLIFOR~1P MEMORANDUM DATE: October 22, 2008 TO: Laura Karaboghosian, Planning FROM: Jaimee Bourgeois, Public Works (Traffic) ~~ SUBJECT: CUP for Establishment of a Boarding House at 3Ei08 Oakhurst Court . i have conducted a review of the Conditional Use Permit ap(~lication for the Iroonet .Boarding. House at 3608 Oakhurst Drive. .Based on the description of program operations,' l da not believe there are any traffic-related impacts ass®ciated with the Boarding House. The amount of traffic generated by the residence as well as fhe number of ~rehicles (2 to 3) is comparable to a typical single family . i-esidencE:. I visited the site on twe occasions and did ° riot "see any vehicles parked in the driveway, so I assume that. parking neE~ds can be accommodated either within the garage or in the driveway. - The grogram does not allow the students to own or operate a vehicle, so there does not appear to be a need for additional vehicles or parking spaces. Please let me know if you have any questions about these comments G:ICORRESPONDENCE, STAFF MISCUaimeelrriemo BoardingHouseApp_Oakhurst_10220F~.doc ~~ ~ ~a ~r~ ~~~: ~~`~~ `~~~~ CITY OF DUBLIN Public Works r////~,~~/~\~~ Department 19\("~ V ~ ~) 8"~ City Offices, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin California 94568 ~.//11t~~J/% ~~1I ~F'OR~~\ MEMORANDUM DATE: December 23, 2008 TO: Laura Karaboghosian, Associate Planner FROM: Mark Lander, City Engineer CC: Jaimee Bourgeois, Senior Transportation Director Melissa Morton, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Iroonet Boarding House CUP, 3608 Oakhurst Drive Revised Use Permit Application I have reviewed the Revised Written Statement provided by Iraonet America, inc. for the Conditional tJse, Permit a# 3608 Oakhurst. Drive, dated December 1$, 2008. I .Piave also reviewed the original stateR~ent dated July 25, 2008, and the memorandum provided on October 22, 2008 by Jaimee Bourgeois, Senior Transportation Engineer, withregards to parking at the site. ~ • The original statement iritiicates that two minivans will#ypicaliy be based at the site, for use i.n transportation of residents. The statement says that the-vehicles wild k~e parked in the driveway or in° the garage when present at the site. Based on this statement and a site visit, the Senior Transportation Engineer indicated in the October 22 memorandum that adequate parking was available at the site. The revised statement indicates that the facility will have only two vehicles for transportation of residents. It also indicates that a cook will visit the site between 530AM and 600.4M each weekday morning to prepare breakfast. At this time, the residents would not yet be at school and the vans would still be at the site. If the vans are parked in the two-car garage apron, the cook would need to park in the street. If the vans were parked in the garage, the cook could park in the apron but would need to move out on to the street in order for the vans to leave (Itts noted that the photos included in the application show the vans parked in the apron, outside of the garage). The statement also indicates that there will be a weekly visit by the ccok to drop off groceries. The statement is not clear as to whether or not the cook would provide; services on weekends. The statement also indicates that there will be atwice-weekly visit by a housekeeper and a weekly visit by a gardener. The statement indicates that caretakers will be presen: at the site throughout the day on various administrative duties. Therefore, the vans will be present at the site and the housekeeper and the gardener will have the same parking constraints that the cook has during the morning. Although these visits would likely generate on-street parking, this would be no greater impact than that from similar gardening, housekeeping, or other ancillary services that might be provided to adjoining residences. Memo to Laura Karaboghosian Subject: Iroonet Use Permit, 3608 Oakhurst Drive Date: December 23, 2008 Page 2 ~s~qa In contrast, the daily visits by the cook could generate the need for additional on-street parking not typically required for a single family residence. In order to mitigate thE~ additional parking needs, the facility should be conditioned to provide parking for at least one of the vans in the garage, and the cook shall be required to park in the driveway apron. This will require that pit least one space in the garage be kept clear at all times to allow the van to be parked inside. Please contact me if you with any comments on the above. C:1Documents and SettingslMarkLlMy Documents`,Iroonet Boarding House, 12-23-08.doc 1 Page 1 of 2 ~~, g ~.. Laura Karaboghosian From: Jeri Ram Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 4:36 PM To: 'akoski@vierramoore.com' Cc: JKM (E-mail); Laura Karaboghosian; John t3akker Subject: RE: Iroonet Boarding House Request for a Conditional Use Pe ~mit 3608 Oakhurst Court, Dublin, CA ( Notice of Public Hearing) Dear Ms. Koski: Thank you for your email regarding Ioonet Boarding House. The P~ anning Commission meeting on this item has been postponed to January 13a' and a revised Notice w:~s sent out yesterday. Staff will. provide a copy of your email and attachments to the Planning Comrr fission at the January 13~ hearing. Please let me know if you have additional questions. Sincerely, Jeri Ram, Community Development Director Fr®m: Amber A. Koski [mailto:akoskiCvierramoore.comJ Seek: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 4:29 PM To: Jeri Ram Cc: )KM (E-mail) Subject: Iroonet Boarding House Request for a Conditional Use Permit 3608 Oakhurst Court, DubJ(n, CA (No~i~e of Public Hearing) Good afternoon Jeri, On behalf of the Dublin Ranch Owners Association we wanted to forward you the information related to one homeowner's request for a conditional use permit for the residence at 3608 Oakhurst Court, Dublin, CA. The vicinity in which this residence is located is an association and therefore there are restrictions on business activities allov<~ed on site. Please note attached copy of a letter that we sent to the homeowner on behalf of Bo~ird of Directors, as well as the information. that was provided to us by one of the neighbors alerting us to this situation. If you should have any questions qr concerns, please feel free t~ contact our office at any time. Thank you, Amber A. Koski Property Administrator VierraMoore Inc. 2151 Salvio Street, Suite 333 Concord, CA 94520 Phone - (925) 681- 4000 x 430 12/22/200$ ~~~ ~ DUBLIN RANCH OWNERS ASSOC(;4TION 2151 Salvio Street. Suite 333 Concord, CA 94520 (800) 966--1506 (925) 681-4000 (925) 681-2=190 FAX E•-mail: infocon a vierramoorc.com December i 6, ~Ou3 KIM, DONGHO Ci0 IROONET AMERICA, ~~~~ 2151 S HAWTHORNE BLVD, aY990 TORRANCE, CA 90503 RE: LOT 042 TRACT 6958 BUSINESS OPERATION Dear Mr. Kim. On behalf of the Board of Directors of the Dublin Ranch Owners Association w.. have been requested to contact you. It has been brought to our attention that you are undergoing a business venture within the association with Iroonet America, to provide a place of residence for boarding purposes to children s~;eking educational oppoilunities in the Dublin California area. Perhaps you mere not aware that the Association's ;;overning documents. Owners Manual Section B-12, state that business activities: Except for (a) uses within Residem:es permitted by local ordinances, (b) home offices, entertainment, business meetings and social events which do not create regular customer, client or employee traffic, .and (c) the. business of Declarant in completing the development and disposition of the Lots in the Community, no business of any kind shall be established, maintainerd, upee-ated, permitted or constructed ,in any portion of the project. Section 4.=1 of the Associations CC & R's state that: BUSINESSES: Except for (i) uses within Residences permitted by Ioea1 ordinances, (ii) home office§, entertainment, business meetirgs,and social. events which do not create regular customer, client or employee traffic, and (iii) the business of Declarant in completing the development and disposition of the Lots in the Project, no business of any kind., shall be established, maintained, operated, permitted or constructed in any portion of the Project. As this would be a violation of the Association's governing documents. of which you agreed to abide by upon purchase of your home, the Board wishes to remind the homeowner this action may rest ]t in a fine to your assessment account. As per the Associations Owners Manual Section D States: Fines: To ensure compliance with,the above mentioned rules, Owners may be fined nut less than $10.00 nor more than $50.011 per occurrence or continuation of violations. Fine amounts arc to be set by the Board of Directors based on ttic merits of each violation. We thank you in advance for your cooperation in this matter and for your immediate attention to -his request. This practice helps ensure the integrity of the community, maintains the harmony ot•the neighborhood, while protecting each owner's investment. If you have received this reminder in error, or the issue has been resolved, please contact this office and speak to any staff member so that we may update our records. Sincerely, Far the Board of Directors /6~/~~ Amber Koski Property Administrator As Agent for Dublin Ranch Homeowners Association H':HOrdcxs',Dublin Ranch\LO'(S'~1'ric:645R\(132`Unathorircd Business IZ IG OS.dnc DEC-1~-~rlGtL; .-r.~.~,~ f"r.,rn- ~~ ~ ~~ F'. ~ ' 1ROUP~ET AMERTC~1, lnc. IRO~NET AMERCCA 21515 I-lawlhc+n7z Blvd. Sing 990 1'c+rrancr, CA 90503 Tcl. ; 1(.1.316-7289 Fax. 310-3 16-T?.19 year tiei~hhUCS: Iroonet America, tl7e ov+•ner c7f'the borne al 36(113 Oakhur,t l curt. is holding an t)het) Hi,u:c on Wednesday necerr)hcr 1 ~. 2OOli from d:30 to G ;It p. m. to allow ~uu to viiil »nd to pri+vide infprmativn and to ;tnswer questions etnx.etn+nk +)ur ciluciui,mal pro~,rarn. We invite yi+u tin attend and Iuvl. livward to seeinL pc: u. " Truunet America ii an .ducationai sere-ice; c~7rnj,any «~hich is o~~•ned by Ir„nnet, the leading cducstional service; provider in itorea. ti,unded in 992. Part of its ntissi„n i> to pl'oviilc Slud)• AbriiaC services lur Korean children of past-primary thr<:+u Ch hilt choo! i1~!C. 1I7e primary purtwse of'he program, and the parems of parricipating children, is to provide ttte children ~~ ith cdurstivnal oppi>rtunities ;~t private schools that they ~~•nuld nut have in F:orea. As Marl of thi: progrmn our chilc{rcn reside in the horny r+nii attend area private schvi+Is which include Valley C'hri~tian. Qutrrrv T.,u,e, Athenian, and Itedw•tic+tl christiln. - lruanet America h;is tiled an appliratinn )Lilh ihz ~~ity' ot~T7t,thlin fi+r a t'onditional l_~Se''Ferrnit and we have been advi.ed than the matter has bi:~n ~•et fi,r a Planning C"~nmrnis1ian hearing „n i)ccr_mlirr "'?. ~Ct08 at thi: Cite' Clri6nC6 Cltanlhi•r~ at 7:QU p.m if you have not alre:ad}' received a natieC. lion tltr City you will r+~cei~~e ane ;portly. • We wix,lit like ti+ provide the chance le+ have yt7u rota c,"rr hixi7e, provide )'ou with df•tailed irtti7rmcit is+n concerning inrr i+roeran7, and ti, ask dtt}• SILtC4'tIDRS th$T V~~t, tttA have. hhank tou ftn vutr tin7e and .cc I+iok f~>nvard tv seeing qua Also. iFs~otr can't plcas~ Eeel #ree to call anti we would t+e haphr try ,mtia~cr at7v yuestinris that yvu arty' I7ave You can call Jean Chi+i ar 9_~-ZUy--1 I 1 ~. ~'Crv tntl~ ~•ours. Don~ho Kira, Ph.D. ter-csidzruicr•.~ r ('C T'lanninp, ('otnn7issi~+n Members DEC-1~-r'llk1:= G'9:19 Frvn~: 4q~~~ Tn:9c5 F~^1 ~4'3tl F.1'~ ~~r1 C1TY.16-~r~UDI,IN Pr,AuYN11VG C'OM1yiISS10~1 NnTIC)C OF Pi1BL1C HEA1tTNG The City of Dublin Planning Commission will take acti~m on the following project: , ;. PROJECT: RA 08.023 troonet .Boarding Houle Conditional Use Permit (CUP) ~ - PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for a Conditional Use Permit at 3608 Oakhurst Court to operate a boardi~ng,_hous r 12 chit r n and receive a reduction in.. -site parking. The boarding house w~r~,be located jnside an existing sin ~j-~~idence. LOCATION: 3608 Oakhurst Court (APN 935-0017-042) ENViRONi191ENTAL REVIEW: • The protect has been reviewed .under the California Environmental.Ouality Act, (CEQA), State ~EQA Guidelines and the Dublin Environmental Guidelines, and the project has been found to be Categorically Exempt from CEC1A, according to the :,EQA Guidelines Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Stru~aures). APPLIt~~NTI PROPERTY OWNER: Dongho Kim, troonet America, Inc., 21515 Hawthorne t31vd., Suite 990, Torrance, CA 90503 ' PUI9LIC HEARfNG: - ' A public nearing will be held before the Planning Commission on Tuesday, December 23, 2008 at 7:OO~pm in the City Council C umbers, 100 Civic PIa2a, Dublin. Any interested person(s) may appear and br; heard on this matter. If you challenge the above-described action in Court, yon may be Limited to raising ' only (hose issues you or someone else raised at the public heanng described in this notice, or i~ written correspondence delivered to the Cily of Dublin at, or prior to, the public hearing. If you have any questions or comments, please Crmtact the City of Dublin Community Development Department at (925) 833-6510. Jeri Ram, AtCP UATEU Decemoe~ w, ZWH Community Development Director PUBLISHED. Der:ember 13.20(18 5~~9a; January 06, 2009 Re: Iroonet Ines application to open a boarding school Location - 3608 Oakhurst Court, Dublin, CA To whom this may concern (City of Dublin) or to Laura K~ raboghosian: Please accept this letter as a request to challenge Iroone~:"s plan to open. a boarding school for 12 students at 3608 Oakhurst Court in Dublin, CA. I am the owner of the house located across the street (3611 Oakhurst Court).and am against their plan to allow a boarding school for 12 students in a residential neighborhood. I will be fine for them to run a boarding sc~ool for only up to 6 or 7 students but 12 is extremely too high and that no tutori~ l services should be provided at this site. I have purchased a house specifically in this culdesac area far my family and two young children (npw age 3-and 5) 5 years ago and very concern about the traffic, crowrd and danger that will. be created by having 12 students plus caretakers in this culdesac area. As a matter of fact, to my knowledge Iroonet had started running this boarding school last year (with overl0 students) without permit at ~:he same Jocation and City of Dublin had to shun it down or limit them to only fou -students {legs! statelcity limit). During that time when they were boarding 10 students, I noticed the tremendous amount of traffic (cars, vans) coming in and out of the culdesac area and noise. In addition, I'm concerned about the safE~ty of my two children as this is a quiet neighborhood and specifically purchased a home in the culdesac area so that my kids would safe to play outside. In addition, this area is designated for single family and should not be allowed as living quarters for too many students. Again, I will be fine with them running a boarding school -'or up to 6 or 7 students, but 12 is too much. Thank you for your consideration on this matter. ~ ~r~i~-------, C r ins Berschens Owner - 3611 Oakhurst Gourt, Dublin, CA (510) 813-1395 ~i~{>~~VE® . i ~. ~~ (- 7 2009 ~U~r?..N P~#NNING ~ ~ ~~ PERMIT PROCEDURES ~~ Chapter 8.96. _ = C13APTER 8.96 PERMIT PROCEDURES 8.96.010 Purpose. The purpose of this Chapter is to establish general Permit procedures. 8.96.020 Procedures. The following procedures are applicable to Permits under this Title. Where a conflict occurs between procedures in this Chapter and those of a particular Permit, the procedures applicable to that Permit shall apply: A. Conditions of Approval Where applicable, the decisionmaker may impose conditions to~ ensure that a Permit will be in accordance ~~th Title 8 and the findings required for that Permit, that it with be consistent with thy. General Plan and applicable Specific Plans, and that it implements CEQA mitigation:. B. Evidence in support of required findings. All finding:> required to be made for approval of Permits shall be supported by substantial evidence. It shall be the applicant's responsibility to provide facts and evidence t~ support the required findings. C> Referral Where an application isreferred to. another Decision-maker, the following provisions shall apply; Referral to Tuning Adffininistrator and Planning Commission. At any point . in the project re~~iew process the Director of Community Development may transfer original hearing jurisdiction to the Zonin; Administrator and Planning Commission at his/her discretion. because of policy implications, unique or unusual circumstances, or the magnitude of the p:-oject. 2. Referral to Planning Commission: At any point in the project review process the Zoning Administrator may #ransfer original hearing jurisdiction to the Planning Commission at his/her discretion becau,~e of policy implications, unique or unusutcl circumstances, or the magnitude of the project. 3. Referral to City Council. At any point in the project review process the Planning Commission may transfer original hearing jurisdiction to the City. Council at its discretion because of policy implictations, unique or unusual circumstances, or the magnitude of the~project. 4. Consideration. The decision-maker being referred to may consider the approval, conditional approval, or dexual of a pernit, related amendments, and time extensions of permits. City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance 96-1 September, 1997 ATTACHMENT 7 om ~7 D ymCZi ~ .gym ow VI r z D m= m~ m ~~ Om zN Om T~ N O O ~~ 0 D 2 C ^~ J O n s D m r D -~ O Z O m m N6+n ~C 3 • C•! v3 my t~ OTynAn nyTn A A ~m 3 ~ ~ S~ ~m n aAZOmm tram dam mlr-.~ 'nT NO l~O~r yit~ ~O '~ b~aa°o av~y zAm ~mm op r ~~ zm Z m°'Zm Azm~ m"^m z SmN -Zi" ~ ~~m~ ~OF m~ ~ zTZ`~m-"i ~eDO og~mn~ ~ •ncm °O~ ~ ~z~°O ~C~ mi O T~Nny~ 2zo'Z uzi^'w ~ ~°,m~ z~ vi ~~o~ m> o~ a 3~m~-ZGa ~~So c°o° c ~'z~ ~ z Amp om c$ <~°c_~c•;, t'~czio ~~o v aeg ~ II+° v~ ~I i om°~~m yma~ m~m 6a _ a 7J oa ~y°z ~ ° Az: ~z 3 Oorb~ ~~uxi ~ma nm a N~: II n ~ ~pCmQ ~~~ mVl~ y z... ~? 'm;~ ~.mzay yAO mA; ~~ ~ mC° n~ ~ A20.21 T6) ~~~ AO y ...I?- C~ OOry- A O~T mr a"~p vp r i n~mm~ maw ~bn E m2 -' N~~ N.a N 224~..DA yy om VOVi e ~~ ~ + -Z-i v-Z+ m u„ moz~yn ozz w~-~ys z N Nv VI N n m <mOys~ $'y ,A -~I ~^~ ~ ., ~ ~iT N ~~ I: q n•.xnpar~. N na,aw p- _ da7f tiWp1 _ Y ~ H t _.- Aw .owu+ -. __. _ n C ya3 ~N++°, nau.wwus ii ~ z ~sM°d ~ .~~pN q P } p} ~Elp t i ~ ~j ~ 5 , ~ ~ ~ ~ $ s$ s I •aa., o ~ ~I~~ ~ ' yn x ~ a S' a aM Z D r ~. .t"'.. Q '~'I ~ ~~ _~ O C ~ 9,,.~ m O Z m ~_ O Z O m m ---- --i i I i 1 I Iz IA ~I~ rm ~m mn I m I I ----- ~ C r V n D r O z ~XO ~ mOa~~ -I O y -1 ~ Z Ooc! ra- ~criimor' ~o? a z~ c mac S $m g <~~ o t~i~m cf mz'{ ~ "~ a m$ o ~n D (1~m1~ = nAiav~ yZ, ~ CAIs W: ~tn~tn; A~ DT ~' D r O n y = C p D 8 ~' ~ m ~ W IJ ~ m mo rn C~ O G p .'i_7 N z m rn ~~ N T IROONET PROPERTIES N --i a ~ ~;Ag = p ~ ~ m~ ~ m 3608 OAKHURST COURT DUBLIN, CA. ~~ v7~ Z° oo-+ oo aoo~a m ~cX OA ~z rc--~ _~ i+mS~ A 3,3 CC Zfd p _ N Nl=p a °° 9D vA Z Z ° ZDt/mt/~~ O m 33z. ~C ~D a A~`Ul a mra- E ~ z~ o~ ° ~ T~ ~ $ =0 ~~ min m # p~ /rn~ D ~a m~ ~~ a m z~ `+ o ~ ~ ~"~' ~m r ~ a~ m n ~ ~ n a m y, N ~ ~ O m m z _ ~ 2 ti n m O o Y m •. J ~ c_ 6 N . 2 y ~ T O z v Oo ~ O O m ~ S ~ ~ ~ ~ ~° to T W v w p m n z n npZ~3 A m ~3m-x-1 • ~mn~~A zmmC'oai~ y .~1 ~pCL"cp cx~Z'~y ~V/^/~ p ~1 az 3~m~ rm m ~N~ mm~yn IV/ ~ p° m. C ~ X ° ~ ~ n T N Z ~-1 1~-rim ~ O rn~~y~ SAO ~~~ ~'~~o~oa Z ~ a=N"' -aci~nQm mCm Nm p O NmT C_-i ~mmm~z c w z~= ~~in O p 1 n° A ° DzA p a n ~ T -+fij ~ ~Cm u~m0 ~ ~~'2C~'1 2T.° SN'0 pz C ymtn Y.~r m o~orn mN~ ~[T~1 -z+ ~ ~ 5 ~ ' Not 25 I°TI Z 2 Tp ~~~ z 3~rn o ~ am m~p-,~ ono ~ ~ c>x ~~~ ~ GAi ~ c c ni {Am m m ~ y g -i o ~ ~m~ri o ~ z~ ~[^~ z N m D W d7 O 00 0 2 C fn n 0 c WALOVICH + ASSOCIATES, ~ NC. 3525 HOPYARp R.o. - PLEASANTON. CA. 9455$ PH. 925-924-~qqo O O z m Q m m 1 •^ T~ •^ r O O r a z 5T-2" 27'-10" 35'x" 2888 IIA•AAPIl~AA ~ __ I _e I I I I I I >s I ~, I I I I I I I 59'-2" rn O Z v O TO N Z Soso _t ~ ~m = fl'c ~ ~ ~ ~ ox ~ 00 2488 ~ ° Z ~ O ~w 'm D ~_ - DE5K DESK 24m m x N ~ r ~~ C Q ~ O A ~~ N~ N DD O 9c W T. v ~- - ------ ~O I `~ I I 2808 I ~ I I I I ~ 4'-0" I I- I I . I i I A I I ~_ I _1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I + I I --- 0 solo m ~~ ~ ~ ~x ~o O v W v~ D C ~ o~ O ~o ~~ _ °m ~ O ~ >< Z ~ N ~~ .~ v'? D ~~ ~ ~~ m o~ zam ems m W ZO CLOSET ~ ,ZI y ~ sma 45'-2" IROONET PROPERTIES z $ r 3608 OAKHURST COURT j ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ DUBLIN, CA. m 2808 D -O-I m D x ~, 2488 ~ S O N N WALOVICH + ASSOCIATES. ~ NC. 36zg Hovy~RO RD. - PLEAS~NT7N. CA. 945~~ ..~ PH. qzq-924-i49~ 1 CONSENT CALENDAR -NONE 5y ~~2 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - 7.1 General Plan Conformity Report for the City's Acquisition 5777 Scarlett Court (84 Lumber Property; APN 941-0550-029) to serve as the City' aintenance Yard Facility (CIP Project No. 93570}. Jeff Baker, Senior Planner presented the project as stated in the 3t~ff Report. Cm. King asked what the use of the property will be. Mr. B l:er answered it will be used as a maintenance yard. Cm. King asked where the yard is at pr sent. Mr. Baker answered there is a small area at the end of Scarlett Ct. used as a maintenance and Chair Wehrenberg asked what other sites were consid red. Mr. Baker answered the need for a maintenance yard had been identified for some tim but no funds were available, this parcel was for sale, and it fit the Cities needs. / Cm. Swaiwell asked how the property would be~secured. Mr. Baker answered that he had not seen the improvements plans as yet. Chair Wehrenberg asked how soon the C~~mmission will be able to review phase 1 of this project. Mr. Baker answered they had n t seen tli~ plans yet and was not sure when they would. _ _ I On a motion by Cm., Schaub and ~e onded by. Cm. King, ~n a vote, of 4-0-, the- Planning Commission approved the following: SOLUTION NO. 09 - Ol A RESOLD ION OF THE PLANNING CU~MMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN FINDIN THE CITY'S PROPOSED ACQtiISITION OF 577 SCARLETT COURT (APN 941-O:i50-029) TO BE IN C NFORMITY WITH THE DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC HEARINGS - 8.1 PA 08-023 Iroonet Conditional Use Permit (Adjiidicatory) to Operate a Boarding House in which up to 16 people may live and to allow for an On-Site Parking Reduction at 3608 Oakhurst Court. Laura Karaboghosian, Associate I'Ianner presented the project pis stated in the Staff Report. Cm. King asked for the definition of a boarding house in the' City's Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Karaboghosian read the definition from the Zoning OrdinancE~ which states "The term Boarding. Planning Commission ,7anuary 13, 2009 4~gular~Yteering 2 ATTACHMENT 7 ~5 go? House shall mean a sin le- mil dzvellin where bedrooms are rented to five or more people and at st S .~ y 8 one common meal is offered each day. A Boarding House is considered to be aMulti-Family Dwelling." Cm. King asked Kit Faubion, City Attorney if the boarding. house would fall under any state statute which creates special statics for child daycare centers. 1~1s. Faubion answered that it does not. Cm. King asked if the parking formula is based on the assumption that the boarding house would be for adults. Ms. Karaboghosian answered there is no distinction provided in the Zoning Ordinance between minors and adults. Mr. Baker noted that the code does not distinguish. between minors and adults, but it does allow, through a Conditional User Permit, to make exceptions to parking requirements by reviewing the specific use. If that use functions. differently,. a~ in the case .where the boarders are not allowed to drive, the parking required to be pro~•ided would potentially not be necessary therefore it allows the judgment through CUP. Cm. King asked if one of the Conditions of Approval would f~rohibit the minors from driving. Ms. Karaboghosian answered yes under Condition #13 and it is also a condition of Iroonet ::America, Inc. Cm. King asked if the Applicant is asking for a parking reduction from 6 spaces: to 3 spaces. ~ Ms. Karaboghosian answered yes. She continued that 3 spaces wo~~zld be provided on site, either in .the garage or the driveway. Cm. King asked -if caretakers reside on-site `and >if each. have. a vehicle. Ms. Karaboghosian answered yes the caretakers reside ort-site but they do not have. individual cars, they would use the 2 minivans provided by Iroonet America, Inc.. He asked if the cook visits every day and has avehicle.- Ms. Karaboghosia~. answered yes. ,, Mr. Baker stated that Condition #10 restricts the- number of ~~ehicles (including personal- and company vehicles) to a total of 3 at any one time. Cm. King a;~ked if there would be deliveries made to the residence. Ms. Karabogosian answered no because the cook does the shopping once per week. Cm. Schaub felt that Condition #1 was critical and wanted to make sure the Planning Commission understood it. He felt it basically said that anytlung that happens outside of the application is in violation of the Conditional Use Permit. He continued that this is a complex issue that the Commission has not reviewed before and ti•as unsure if all the issues are represented in the Conditions of Approval. He asked if Condition #1 was considered an umbrella condition that states that anything that is not coc ered in the other conditions is covered under Condition #1. Mr. Baker answered yes. Ms. Faubion commented that Condition #1 does serve. as an tunbrella and identifies what the permit is being issued for and the basic elements of that perrri.t. She continued not everything would be a violation of the permit, but in the land use context anything that happens that violates the Conditions of Approval or that is different from what the Applicant proposed in their application, then those potentially could be a violation of the permit. She stated for ~Pfanning Commission ,7anuary 13, 2009 4~gular SVfeeting 3 5~ ~'~ example, if the number of boarders were increased that would be in conflict with t e Conditional Use Permit. Chair Wehrenberg mentioned that the Applicant would not bc~ able to substitute for a different mix of caretakers and children. Ms. Faubion stated that th~~ permit is issued for a specific number of caretakers and children, not just a certain number of people no matter their role. The facility has a specialized operation and the permit approves that operation for up to a specific number of boarders and caretakers. Therefore, if there were only one caretaker, you can't add another boarder. Chair Wehrenberg asked where the number "16" came from. T~Is. Karaboghosian answered that originally the Applicant asked far 2 caretakers and 12 children for a total of 14 people living on site. She continued that the CC&Rs allows 2 occupants per bedroom. She stated that the Applicants requested to be identified as a "congregate living f~icility" according to CA Building Code requirements, which would allow for up to 16 people to live on site. Staff included a Conditions of Approval that would limit the number of people to 2 caretakers, 2 children related to the caretaker and 14 boarders which represents the ""l6" that Chair Wehrenberg asked about. Chair Wehrenberg felt the plans do not indicate that many people could physically live in the house and asked if the Commission could adjust the number: , Cin. Schaub asked if Staff could explain the breakdown of people {number of caretakers, children and boarders} being requested to live at the house. He felt that the plans . do not indicate'that numberof people indicated in'the application coixld live in the house; , He stated ' "that after the Commission discusses the issue,'and the numbers could potentially change, the ' plans that were submitted (date stamped 10-3-08) ~wouid ehang a and would no longer be valid. .. Cm. Swalwell stated he learned from Staff that there are no ether boarding houses in Dublin. He asked if there had been any noise complaints at this location. IVIS. Karaboghosian answered that there had not been any specific noise complaints but the project was complaint driven. She stated the complainants were concerned about the number of ~~hildren coming to and from the site. Cm. Swalwell asked if Staff had reviewed any concerns regarding water needs versus the number of people living in the house. Ms. Karaboghosian answered Staff had not addressed that issue. Cm. Swalwell asked if water could be a future ~~oncern and Ms. Karaboghosian answered she did not anticipate water to be a concern in the future_ Mr. Baker stated that the project is considered a residential urge and would be consistent with anticipated water demands for that use. Crn. Swalwell asked if even with "16 people living at the site there would be no increase on water or sewage demand. Gregory Shreeve, City Building Official stated the house is designed as a single family dwelling, the occupancy load is 200sq ft/person, by code the house could have 19 people; therefore, the water and sewage design is for 19 people. He stated that Staff is using a special provision in the building code #hat allows the Building Official to reduce the occupancy load to a certain tPfanning Commission ~ameary 13, 2009 ~gufar9Vteeting 4 ~7 qa~ number. That's where the maximum of 16 occurred. He stated if more than 16 occupants were proposed then it would trigger additional building code requirements that the building cannot meet without major modifications. Cm. Swalwell asked if those provisions included fire also. Mr. Shreeve answered yes. Chair Wehrenberg asked if ADA requirements are also taken into consideration. Mr. Shreeve stated the City does not enforce ADA requirements, they enforce Title 24 regulations and those would be the major modifications5 needed to make the house fu (ly ADA accessible. Cm. Schaub asked if the Commission can add a condition th~it would eliminate special needs children from occupying the house. He continued that traditionally the Commission would not condition anyone out of home, however, given the circumstances, the requirements would trigger modifications to the house. Mr. Shreeve stated that from a building code perspective Staff would treat it as any other single family residence that needed accessibility modifications. He stated the major difference is, under the building code, the entire boarding house must be accessible including the second floor. He continued ail bathrooms must be upgraded, which is a major expense. He stated that the expense was one of the reasons they decreased the nurnb~er to 16 people as a "congregate living facility" however, the house can be modified to allow some disabled people on the first floor. Chair Weh~enberg asked if the children would be considered foreign exchange students with - - requirements'for license and who would enforce those requirements. ~~ ~ Ms. Faubion=stated that there may be requirements for foreign .exchange students but none.: is a land use or zoning permit that the City would enforce. Cm: King felt that'Chair Wehrenberg wanted to know if there is an organization or agency that regulates this kind of boarding house. Cm. Wehrenberg stated she was familiar with the foreign exchange program where one or two students stay with a host family, but not when they stay far «n extended period of time. Ms. Faubion stated there may be other requirements for the students but none are land use requirements and there are no licensure requirements for boarding houses. Cm. Schaub referenced a letter from the HOA regarding coxrunercial vs. residential uses and raised the question about the Plaiuung Commission possibly allowing a commercial business in a residential district, and creating a situation where the HC~A would not have the right to enforce their CC&R's. He asked how the Planning Commi;~siori s comments/action would interfere with the HOA's ability to enforce their CC&Rs. Ms. Faubion answered that the HOA's comments addressed commercial uses in residential areas; however, under the City's Zoning Ordinance this project is considered a residential use. She continued the CC&R's are agreements between landowner;. The City is not a party to those agreements and does not enforce them. She stated that if the H:OA feels that there is a violation Manning Comm~:ssion ,7anuary i3, 2009 9~gular9Keeting 5 ~~~~~ of the CC&Rs then they can decide to take action against the Applicant, but the City would not be a party to that action. Cm. King stated that even though the City can approve a project it may not grant a homeowner the right to do something if it violates the CC&R's. Ms. Faubion agreed and stated that because the CC&R's are private agreements they can be much more restrictive than City Ordinances. Chair Wehrenberg stated that the CC&R's are provided when buying a home. Ms. Faubion agreed and stated that CC&R's are recorded and given to homeowners to show what they are agreeing to among themselves. They are recorded and available to the homeowners. Chair Wehrenberg asked what the plan is in case of an emergency that would take the caretaker away from the group. Ms. Karaboghosian answered that the ~~pplicant was present and could address this issue. Cm. King asked about the condition regarding the number of tutors allowed at the residence. Ms. Karaboghosian stated Staff limited the project to one tui:or at a time much like a single family dwelling where a child would receive piano instru~:tions. She continued that the Applicant indicated that the children receive offsite tutoring Monday through Friday. Chair Wehrenberg opened the. public hearing. John Doyle, Applicant's attorney spoke in favor of the project.:. He thanked the Comanission for ;, reviewing his January 12th letter before the meeting, and state~~ he had also reviewed a variety, ;; •' of correspondence.°in opposition to the. project and discussed tl ose concerns. with Staff., He felt..- that most of the concerns regarded traffic,. noise, nuisance a~ld the number of children. He stated the number of children is 14 because the home has 7 bedrooms and according to the CCBrRs they are allowed 2 persons per bedroom. He stated sunder the Conditions of Approval and the Iroonet Company policy, the children are not allowed to drive. They are under 18 years of age, are students and in the custody of the Iroonet caretakers with the permission of their parents. He stated that their intent is to be a good neighbor, to use the home as a residence and to be treated as any other residence in terms of the number of people living there. He stated that the Applicant feels they have familial status based on the definition of that status in the Federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair Housing Act; therefore, they are entitled to the single family use without the need for a Conditional. Use Permit. But in order to address neighbors concerns, so that they have a mechanism to address; perceived violations, they have submitted the application and agreed to the Conditions of Approval, knowing that if the conditions are violated the Conditional Use Permit can be rev~~ked. In conclusion, he pointed out that the Applicant does not believe they need to participate in this process because of their familial status but agreed to participate so that conditions call be imposed and the neighbors would have a means of monitoring the project. He restated flat this is a residential use only. He stated that Dr. Kim will speak regarding the program. Chair Wehrenberg asked Ms. Faubion to address if the Applicant is legally responsible to be here. Ms. Faubion answered that the Fair Housing Act provides protection for various groups including protection based on familial status. She stated th~~ intent is so that families with Planning Commisswtt ,~ararary 13, 2009 ReAuCas9Keeting fi ~~ '~~ children are not discriminated a ainst. In this case the A lic:ant believes the are covered g PP Y Y the FFHA but they have also agreed to participate in CUI' process and be subject to the Conditions of Approval. She continued that unless there is a change to the Applicant's position the City can continue with the permit process as a land use permit for a boarding house and the Applicant has indicated their willingness to be part of the procE~ss. Cm. Swalwell asked what the City's legal recourse is to challenge their interpretation of their familial status under the FFHA if the Applicant chooses not to participate with the CUP process. Ms. Faubion answered that if the Applicant is intending to change their position and to assert a familial status that they are not subject to the CUP requirements, then they should notify the City and the City can determine their options at that point, bizt that is not what the Applicant has indicated. Cm. Swalwell asked if the City would have to consider seeking an injunction. Ms. Faubion stated that if that were the situation then the City would havE to consider their options at that point. She continued the City has not done that because the AF•plicant has been cooperative and invested in the CUP process. Chair Wehrenberg stated that this discussion is based on information the Planning Commission received today (1.13.09) and they can consider the information or postpone the item to another meeting. Dongho Kim, CEO of Iroonet _ America spoke in favor of the project. He stated that :-lxoonet • - America is a California corporation owned by another company located in Korea:. Iroonet is a - .. publicly-traded company in Korea with over 1,000 tutoring facilities there. He stated theKorea company focuses on~ tutoring and. education: and -the Iroonet America..focuses on taking carer of - .children who come from Korea to attend school in the United States. He spoke regarding the number of .facilities in the U.5. and the ages of the children. He stated the children'all have F1 student visas -and attend private schools. He continued that the caretakers reside at the facilities,. and the children have the -usual daily schedule of American children. He spoke regarding the requirements for entrance into the program and the contract with the parents. The caretakers are considered legal guardians while the children are in the states. He stated the caretakers communicate with the parent's daily, providing reports to the parents via the web. He stated the company has very high standards and a code of ~~onduct. He continued that they do not allow children to drive in America. He restated the children participate in community service and sports activities on the weekends. He felt their group was Like a family because the caretakers act as parents to the children in their care. Chair Wehrenberg asked if Mr. Kim had any additional information that was not in the letter from Mr. Doyle that he would like to share with the Commission. Mr. Kim restated that the children go to school in Dublin and oi:her locations in the area, they go to a tutoring facility in Pleasanton after school, and then come home. at approximately 8:OOp.m. or 9:OOp.m. Chair Wehrenberg asked what type of restrictions are in place for the children to keep them from sneaking out, etc. when the caretaker lives in the exterior of the house. ~Plan~ring Commisswn ,~amiary 13, 2009 2~gutar9Vfeering 7 ~o ~~ Dr. Kim stated the caretakers live inside of the house with the children. Chair Wehrenberg stated that on the plans submitted the caretakers are shown to be in a separate unit outside the main house. Dr. Kim stated it's in the same facility which is the same household. Cm. Schaub asked the Applicant to explain where everyone sleeps. Mr. Doyle answered the house has 7 bedrooms, there is a casita on the property and the 2 caretakers live in the casita and the children sleep in the main House. Crn. Schaub felt the casita was too small for two adults to live there. Mr. Doyle stated that there are 2 people per bedroom. Cm. Schaub asked about the number of people accounted for and the number of people in the application. He stated the application indicates there are :Z caretakers, 2 children and 12 boarders and did not feel that many people would fit in the house. Mr. Doyle answered there are 7 bedrooms in the home, there::ore, the application was written for 2 people per bedroom for a total of 14 people. He stated they are not interested in having 16 people Live on-site. Under the definition of a boarding house, the children of the caretakers do not count towards the number of people living in the home. The confusion came from one of the caretakers who has two of her children living in the home, but if the application is approved they will •not live there-any longer. Mr. Doyle restated that there will not be 16 people living. in the home: Cm. Schaub asked about the children of~ the caretaker.. Mr. Doyle answered ~ ghat the current ~ - caretaker s hu"stand Lives in Dublin and the children go back ar-d forth betweem the houses.. He - , " stated that the application should only state 14 people living in the house, not 16. Cm. Schaub stated that the Commission must make findings rind part of that is safety,. and he would appreciate knowing exactly how many people vould be living in the house. Mr. Doyle stated the application is for 12 kids, and 2 caretaker:; and the caretaker's children are not in this application because it is not approved as yet. He continued that the reason the number of 16 people came up was because of a building issue, but he stated it was not applicable to their situation because the CC&Rs allow a family of 14 people to live there. Chair Wehrenberg asked since the caretakers are living in the c ~sita, which is detached from the main house, has the Applicant installed a security. system where alarms would go off if the children tried to go out after hours. Mr. Doyle answered a ~~ecurity system with alarms and cameras are installed in the house. Mr. Doyle mentioned that if the code of conduct is violated the child would be out of the pro€;ram. Cm. King asked if the Applicant would agree to make the code of conduct part of the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Doyle answered yes. ~P(anrring Commission 7anuary 13, 2009 ~gular~feering 8 6l ~~a Chair Wehrenber asked if there is a lan in lace for a medical emer ene if one caretaker`) g P P g Y must leave the premises who would care for the other children. Mr. Doyle answered that the policy is to have a caretaker on site at all times. He continued that if there is a medical emergency the older children can watch the younger children. Cm. King asked what schools the children attend. Mr. Doyle answered Redwood Christian, Quarry Lane, Valley Christian, and Athenian. Cm. King asked what kind of transportation is used to take the children to and from school. He stated that one of the letters raised a point that the Conditions of Approval do riot allow the children to drive but what would restrict them from having their friends pick them up in vehicles. He continued this was a concern from a neighbor and he felt that it was a realistic concern. He asked if the Applicant would be willing to add the condition that the boarders cannot use private verucles other than those driven by members of the staff. Dr. Kim answered that the Iroonet policy does not allow the children to ride with friends. He stated he is willing to add that to the Conditions of Approval. Chair Wehrenberg asked Mr. Doyle to confirm that there will be one caretaker on site 24/7. Mr. Doyle answered yes except in the rare instance of an emergency where the other caretaker is not available, and then the older children would be responsible for the younger children. Crr~. Schaub felt this is an intense use of a house: He wigs also concerned regarding an emergency .:plan incase of a fire or; earthquake. He felt that safety is very important and understood it was not exactly a land use issue." Dr. Kim stated they routinely have fire drills, . and all the rooms have escape Ladders that hang outside -the wi~tdow. Chair Wehrenberg asked if the ladders are stored in the rooms and are easily accessible, She asked how often they have fire drills.' Dr. Kim' stated they have fire drills every semester but was not certain. Chair Wehrenberg asked what they consider a semester. Mr. Kim answered the semester is twice a year. Cm. Swalwell felt that education is important and appreciated what the company was offering the children. He asked if there were any events planned at the. house with friends, such as sleep-ovens, events, or parties. Dr. Kim stated there have been no sleepovers. Cm. Swalwell asked if they had considered other locations not zoned residential, such as an Extended Stay America Hotel in a commercial area. Dr. Kim answered that the other three locations are catholic convents that they are renting. He continued that they also rent a former nursing home. He stated this is the first time the company has used a single family residence for this purpose.. Cm. Swalwell asked if the Applicant had any other applications for other locations in Dublin and if so where. Dr. Kim answered yes, at 4718 New Haven. Cm. Swalwell asked how many ~p(a~ng C~ttps,~n January 13, 2009 ~gularSVteeting 9 !~ people would be living in that home. Mr. Doyle stated it was a 5 bedroom home where theyl~ would have two people to each bedroom for a total of 10 people. Cm. Swalwell asked if there were any other applications for thE~ future. Mr. Doyle answered no. Cm. Swalwell asked if there was a curfew for the children. Mr. Doyle answered yes. Mr. Doyle referred to a question regarding licensing. He stated that under California Care Licensing this type of facility is not subject to community care licensing. Also, there was a call made to community care licensing to report the facility and it was confirmed at that time that the project is not subject to community care licensing due to th~~ fact that the parents have given permission for the children to livf~ in the United States with the caretakers. Chair Wehrenberg asked if they were under foreign exchange requirements. Mr. Doyle stated he is not aware of any foreign exchange requirements and that during their due diligence they contacted community care licensing and were told none was re~~uired. Chair Wehrenberg stated she would pass along to Staff the CA Government Code of Regulations for their information. Chair Wehrenberg asked i¢ Dr. Kim is the owner of the house. Dr. Kim answered that the-house ' is owned by Iroonet America, lnc. Can. King stated that one concern to mast' neighborhoods is parking, and mentioned a letter from Ms. Hayes that suggested that they be :required to keep the garage clear of personal property to permit maximum vehicle parking. .. Dr. Kiwi stated that the garage is clean and can be wised 'for parkirig and agreed to -add ~ that condition if needed. Mr. Baker referred to the Condition of Approval #11 regarcing parking the vehicles. in-the garage and the driveway. Cm. King suggested adding a condition. that states that at least one caretaker shall be on the premises at all times. Dr. Kim stated that company policy is that at least one caretaker should be on premises at alI times. Cm. King felt the Applicant was asking a lot of the neighbors to have that many teenage boys living in one place and felt they are alarmed by this. He felt the neighbors are concerned about noise and unruly behavior. He stated that another suggested condition was to bring the project back to the Commission in b months to review the situation. N[r. Doyle agreed with a review in 6 months. Chair Wehrenberg felt the community meeting with neighl•~ors is a good idea so that the neighbors can meet the children. She felt that the project adds diversity to the commurty. Planning Commission January 13, 2009 9~gufar!Meeting 10 ~3 ~~ Mr. Doyle stated the program is intended to expose the children to American culture and. become involved. He continued that when the children code to the U.S. for school in this program they are not a foreigner in an American home, bizt stay with children of similar backgrounds. Chair Wehrenberg asked how successful the program is in -.he U.S. as far as complaints or problems. Dr. Kim stated the company has been in operation for 5 years., and during that time they have sent 7 students to colleges and 10 students to boarding schools. He mentioned the colleges that the students were accepted into. He continued that Dublin is the first and only place where there have been complaints. Cm. Swalwell stated that Dublin.: is also the first place that. the company has had a facility in a residential neighborhood. Dr. Kim agreed. Mr. Jerry Owens, 5405 Blackstone Road, spoke in opposition to the project. He agreed with Cm. King that the application is an intense use for a single family residence.. He felt this was a company designed to make a profit and should not be allowed to operate within a residential district. He asked how they started the business without a permit. He stated there are no other boarding houses in Dublin and feltthat if the project is approved there will be more boarding houses. Chair Wehrenberg answered that this is the first boarding hou.~e -the Comrr~ission has re~ievved and they cos~ld set a precedent. She continued that one of the neighbors noticed a lot of traffic and reported it to the City, end slow the. Commission is revie~Ning this issue to be resc~lved'ss~ that the Applicant will conform to City p®licy. Mr. Owens asked if this is the only Iroonet facility within the City of Dublin, and if there are others do they have permits for them. Cm. Swalwell asked Staff if the City has accepted that this is a boarding house under the law and is not a business. He asked if there is a distinction between a boarding house for-profit and not-for-profit. Ms. Faubion answered that the City has determined it is a boarding house under their zoning ordinance. Cm. Swalwell asked if the fact that this is a publicly traded company would affect the City's analysis and what would be the difference between this project and Extended Stay America. Ms. Faubion answered the distinguishing characteristics are that at an Extended Stay America or any clearly commercial operation, different people come ar-d go with no overall organizing agency. She felt that the boarding house is managed as a unit, and the boarders are not free to come and go on a temporary basis, but are there for an extended period of time.. Cm. Schaub stated that in Mr. Doyle's letter it mentions the City's definition as "one or more persons occupying the dwelling and living together as a single non-.profit housekeeping unit." He felt that this is a corporation not anon-profit housekeeping unit. ~Pfanning Commission. ,7anuary 13, 2009 4~gufar9~teeting 11 ~~ R~ Ms. Faubion stated that the text that Cm. Schaub read was in reference to the Federal Housin Act discussion in Mr. Doyle's letter. She continued that in reacting the City's Zoning Ordinance family is defined as "one or more persons occupying a dzvellin~~ and living as a single non-profit, housekeeping unit as distinguished from a group occupying a hotel, club, fraternity, etc. and a family includes any servants and 4 or fewer boarders." In reviewing the application Staff has indicated that this is not a family according to the City's Zoning Ordinance. 'Che Application is for a boarding house which requires a Conditional Use Permit. She continued that if they clearly fell within the definition of a family they would not require any discretionary permits. Cm. King asked if it would be correct to assume that this is afar-profit corporation. Mr. Doyle stated the corporation is not anon-profit organization. Kim and Jerry DiMaggio, 3615 Oakhurst Court, did not speak l;ut are opposed tQ the project. Laura Donaldson, 5501 Applegate Court, did not speak but is opposed to the project. Albert and Nitza Daniel, 3726 Ferncroft Court, did not speak bttt are opposed to the project. Eric Brumn, 3727 Ferncroft Court spoke in opposition to thc~ project. He stated he did not receive a notice. He stated he was confused regarding the. number of children in the house and wondered why the caretakers stay outside the main house and how many caretakers stay in the casita at one time. He agreed with Mr. Owens that this is a for-profit corporation. He asked. if the permit had been granted. or =did .the Applicant open the house without a permit. He was concerned with the number of ~ students :and ` this size of the house. He asked how tang ttte students stay on average. He stated .that.he •b®ught his house: yin a .residential. conununty anal was not expecting a corporation t~ ; be next.. door. He stated that he and a nurriber of his neighbors are not comfortable with the situation. Stephanie Hayes, Attorney at Law, 1600 So. Main Street, Walrntt Creek, representing .the Dublin Ranch Owners' Association spoke in opposition to the project. She stated the HOA has extreme concerns regarding the application. She stated some of t1e issues have been addressed regarding parking, traffic, noise and nuisance which are aheir four top concerns. She commended the Applicant and Staff for finding ways to dea. with detrimental effects on the community but they did not go far enough. She felt the condi ions will not support findings in favor of the CUP. She wanted to make it clear that the Association is not objecting to the foreign exchange students or diversity in community. She stated the concerns expressed to the Commission are based on actual complaints of additional parking and traffic problems, noise and nuisance. She stated that it is the HOA's strong request th~it the application be denied but if the Commission approves it they would ask for the inclusion of the conditions stated in her letter. Cm. Kirig asked Ms. Hayes to identify the findings that she believes the. Commission cannot make. ~Plantting Commissiott ,7anuary 13, 2009 ~Aular~teeting 12 ~~ 9~ Ms. Hayes stated that in her letter she made reference to findings A, B & C which would not be supported by the conditions. She stated the main concern is Finding #B "it will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity..." Cm. Schaub asked her why she felt that the conditions would :lot support the findings. He felt that the finding had nothing to do with traffic that she mentioned earlier. Ms. Hayes answered as far as the nuisance and noise issues are concerned she believed that they do affect the health and safety of persons residing in the area. Cm. Schaub asked if she felt the noise is related to health and safety. Ms. Hayes stated she did. Cm. King asked Staff if the word "nuisance' arises does the Co::nmission have to make a finding that the project would not create a nuisance in the neighborhood. Ms. Hayes continued that with health issues, increased traffic causing more likelihood of accidents. Cm. King asked Ms. Hayes if there is a history of specific complaints and how they were resolved. Ms. Hayes answered that one complaint is attached to the Staff Report which is a letter from Ms. Berschens who was concerned about traffic and safety. She felt there might be other people in .the audience that could be more specific. John Bakker, 2427` Otis Drive, .Alameda, former principal of F;edwood Christian l-Iigh. School, now-working as Director of Foreign Ministry there,. spoke iti. favor of the project and the..'. character of the children. ~ - Kasey Chung, 3b04 Oakhurst:Ct., spoke regarding the project.. She felt she would. be affected _ 'the most because she lives next door to the. project. She stz-ted she. was confused as to the number of people that will be living in the house, the number of caretakers, and the number of cars. allowed.. She asked what the process would be if the Applicants do not comply with. the Conditions of Approval and how difficult it will be to revoke the permiit. Chair Wehrenberg answered that depending on what action. the Commission takes, she would have an opportunity to appeal that action to the City Council. She continued that if the. CUP is approved and the Applicant breaks the Conditions of Approval then there is a process for that also, Ms. Chung asked what the process is. Mr. Baker answered that through a Code Enforcement action, if there is a violation of their Conditions of Approval, a Public Hearing would be held befi~re the Planning Commission to determine the violation, and then possibly revoke the Conditiolial Use Permit. Chair Wehrenberg asked Ms. Chung what the situation has been in the last couple of months living next to the project. Ms. Chung answered that she is not the best person to answer because she has two very active daughters and is not home un-x1 late in the evening. She stated she was not aware of the project until she noticed some cars Barked in front of her house. She ~lamring Cantmission ,~araeary 13, 2009 9~gufar Meeting 13 (O~ ~~ asked the Applicant not to park there and that was the only interaction she had with the Applicant. Paul O'Flynn, 3610 Oakhurst Ct., spoke in opposition to the project. He stated he is concerned with the number of children and the inordinate amount of traffic. He felt that 14 children would not fit in 2 minivans so there would be multiple trips which was the case Last year. He approves of the bi-annual review-s, but was concerned about the process. for complaints if they violate the conditions. Cm. King asked Mr. O'Flynn to be more specific with his comrr-ent about the inordinate amount of traffic. Mr. O'Flynn answered that Last year there were mere children living there, multiple tutors, and many cars at one time. Cm. King stated that the Commission will need to know s~~ecifics because the Applicant is representing to the Commission that there will be minimal traffic. He asked Mr. O'Flynn if he knew whose cars they were. > Mr. O'Flynn stated that last year there were 4 tutors' cars in addition to all the other cars and the 2 minivans. Chaix Wehrenberg stated that since Code Enforcement has stepped in they have made some revisions and eliminated a lot of the traffic. Mr. O'Flynn agreed that there has not been a problem lately with traffic... Chair Wehrenberg closed the publac hearing. Chair Wehrenberg asked the Commission to discuss the applicatiort and` consider if it need's to be continued because there are additional conditions that need to'be addressed.: Cm. Schaub stated he felt the program is fantastic. He was concerned with 16 people Living in a house that was approved as a single family residence. He felt there was one room that could not be considered a bedroom because it has no closet. He felt this project Looked like an apartment building in a low density, single unit, which was not what the Planning Commission approved, nor what the residents wanted. He continued he cculd not make the findings that it would be safe in an emergency. :He was not concerned about circulation, i.e., traffic or parking, but was concerned about compatibility, and felt the facility is more like a commercial apartment instead of Low density residenti~il. He stated he could not make the findings that this is an appropriate use therefore he could not support the project. Cm. King stated that whatever decision the Planning Commission makes does not have anything to do with the homeowners rights under their CC&IS. He asked if the City is taking the position that the CUP process is required for this project.. Ms. Faubion answered yes the CiJP process is required for this project. ~Plamm~g Commission 7amrary 13, 2009 9~gula~ateeang 14 6~ ~ ~~ Cm. King asked to clarify that this area was zoned to include a boarding house before the development was built. Ms. Karaboghosian answered the [Tanned Development that was approved for the subdivision identifies a boarding house as a Conditional Use. Cm. King asked Staff to read the City's definition of a boarding house. Mr. Baker read the definition of a boarding house from the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Cm. King stated just because the project meets the definition doesri t mean it should be approved. He continued that the Commission still must make the findings that it will not create a nuisance by means of safety or noise. Mr. Baker answered Cm. King was correct. Cm. King agreed with Cm. Schaub that the project does not seem appropriate for a residential neighborhood. There was a discussion regarding the number of bedrooms and the fact that one of the bedrooms does not have a closet and what the building codf~ states regarding the number of people that may occupy the house. Cin. Schaub feht that the Applicant added a bedroom to a~co~nmodate the for-pro~it-busin+es~; He also concluded that the house had been restructured and now exceeds what was allowed in the Site Development Review. lvls. Ram answered that people do make modifications< to -their homes which changes the number of bedrooms. Mr. Shreeve discussed the definition of a bedroom accordingto.the California Building Code and how many people are allowed to live in the home. Cin. Swalwell asked if the findings regarding the safety issue is for the. persons residing in the house or for the persons residing; in the vicinity of the house. Cm. Schaub answered that the Commission always takes into consideration the safety of the people inside the building. Cm. Schaub felt that the amount of usable space for each occupant is not safe. He calculated the usable space at 125 square feet per person. Ms. Faubion responded the safety that the Commission must consider is people residing in the vicinity of the project. She felt the finding affects. both the pe~~ple residing in the home and in the vicinity. She continued that the safety of the structure is << building code issue and less an issue of this finding. The discussion continued regarding the findings of safety and the site, design and intensity of the use. Chair Wehrenberg stated that in the Conditions of Approval the Applicant must install smoke detectors and the City inspects them prior to approving the building permit. Planning Commission .~anuary 13, 20(19 ~gular Meeting 15 ~$ Mr. Shreeve stated that the existing bedrooms have already been inspected as part of the final inspection of the house.. He continued that for any new bedrooms that were added the inspection would be under the new permit.. He stated the project would require a building permit be obtained and inspections completed on the interior of the project because they are reducing the occupancy load of the house. Mr. Shreeve noted that the final inspection was done for the building permit to add the interior walls on 1-13-09 and was passed. Cm. Swalwell thanked Staff and the Applicant for their prese~ttation. He felt it was important to put feelings aside and limit the purpose to meet findings. lie approved of the program and felt it has worked well in other locations, but noted they were not in single family residences. He felt the project did not meet findings A, B, C, or F. He is ve1•y concerned about the caretakers living in the casita with no supervision inside the home, as well as the number of persons in the house. He felt the other issues have been addressed. He stated that other homeowners would have to disclose that there is a boarding house in the neighborhood and that could adversely affect the sale of homes in the area. He did not feel he could make the findings for E or F and felt this is afor-profit business being operated in a reside~ltial neighborhood which is an inappropriate use. Chair Wehrenberg stated that Cm. SwalweIl was reading specifically from the letter from the Dublin Ranch Owner's Association attorney, Ms. Hayes versus the City of Dublin findings. Mr. Baker stated the findings do match the City of Dublin findings which. are Attachment ~ which lists the findings. Chair Wehrenberg felt the presentation was confusing but- felf the Commission could condition the project so that it would work for the Applicant. She propo.~ed adding additional conditions to the CUP. She felt she could agree with most of the findings except for adverse land use. She suggested taking a vote to understand where the Commission stands. She explained that if there was a tie then the project would be denied. Cm. King felt that a boarding house is allowed and a foreseeable use due to the zoning ordinance, but was unsure if a boarding house of this size is suitable. He agreed that Finding E was difficult to make regarding being. compatible with type, density and intensity of the use. He felt parking will not be a problem, but felt noise could be << problem. He felt the project is too intense for the area. He stated he would not support the pr~~ject. Chair Wehrenberg felt the Commission agreed that it was an intense use. She stated that the proposal is for 12 children and 2 caretakers and the code says the home is capable of housing up to 16 people. She asked the Commission if they felt the project: would be appropriate, but with fewer boarders. Cm. King agreed. Manning Commission ~amrary 13, 2009 ~gufar~(eeting 16 ~R ~.2. Cm. Schaub stated he would su ort five boarders onl He felt this was not what~e PP Y neighborhood was designed for and it was not appropriate for the neighborhood. Chair Wehrenberg was concerned with the caretakers being outside the house and agreed with Cm. Swalwell that they belong inside the house and felt it is pa:°t of the safety issue. Cm. Swalwell asked for an explanation of the definition of a boarding. house according to the FHA and the City of Dublin s Zoning Ordinance regarding the Eor-profit versus non-profit. Ms. Faubion stated that under the City's Zoning Ordinance this. proposal is not a family therefore it is not an issue for purposes of a boarding house permit. Cm. King stated Cm. Swalwell asked if the definition of the boarding house make the distinction between for profit and. non-profit. Ms. Faubion stated that it did riot. There was a discussion regarding; a boarding. house being allowed in the area according to the City of Dublin's Zoning Ordinance.. Cm. Schaub felt the Commission needs to discuss this subject further and suggested that they not approve the project at this. time, but learn more and spend time discussing the issue before they set a precedent far boarding houses of this type, Ms. Ram stated the Cotmission has a few alternatives; they could make a motion for a number of occupants slightly less than what-was proposed if the Commission feels they can make the ` findings. If that is the not the only issue then the Commission can make a motion to deny it based on the reasons listed. She stated that the Commission could come back at the next.. meeting with a denial whieh she would like Staff to craft for a future meeting on Consent.: She continued that if the Commission detues the project based on the discussion, the Commission could recommend denial without prejudice, so that -the Appiicz.nt can work with Staff and come back with an acceptable project. She explained that if the Cornrnission does not deny without prejudice the Applicant cannot reapply for one year. She also suggested a study session to talk about boarding houses in general. Chair Wehrenberg felt the Commission was all in agreement that the project would be acceptable if they can reduce the number of people living in thE~ house. She felt there were good conditions offered that she would like to have staff review and revisit. She listed some of the conditions that could be added such as, comrnunity meetings, 6-month review of the site, and Code Enforcement review. There was a discussion regarding the "denial without prejudicE" and whether it is appealable to the City Council. Ms. Ram asked the Commission to give Staff direction regarding their agreement of the changes to the Conditions of Approval for the project. Cm. Schaub suggested the project be denied without prejudice ~~nd then the Commission should hold a study session to discuss the subject further. ~Planreing Commission ,~anuary 13, 2009 ~gufar9-teering 17 ~~ ~ 9~z Cm. Swalwell noted that once the precedent is set then it could be a way for residents to make ~- extra money in the current economy. ~ ~~ Cm. King asked if there are findings that the Commission can r_1ake. Cm. Schaub stated he had no pxoblem with circulation, but ~~ould not support compatibility, purpose of use, or structures. He felt the project could not support the number of occupants with residential appliances and the project is conditioned to prohibit commercial appliances. He felt there was also the issue of water and sewage. Cm. King felt that he could not make any of the findings i:herefore could not approve the project. Chair Wehrenberg asked what would happen to the current operation of the project. Mr. Baker answered that the Applicant would have to comply with the current zoning regulations of 5 boarders only. Cm. King asked if they are in compliance now. Mr. Baker state 3 they are in compliance. Cm. Schaub made a motion to deny without prejudice due to the fact that the Commission cannat make any findings. --.Then schedule within the. next months a study session regarding - . boarding houses within Dublin which would' be open to the public for their participation.. , ' On 'a motiorn by Cm. Schaub and 'seconded by ~ Cm. Swalwel:l on a vote of 4-0, the P1aa~sung Commission continued the item to the Planning Comrnissior- meeting scheduled for January 27, 2009'and directed Staff to prepare a Resolution to deny the project without prejudice. ~ , Mr. Baker pointed out that. the item will have the findings revised and will be brought back. to the Commission as a Consent Calendar item at the next Pl:~nning Commission meeting on January 27, 2009, and then there is a 10 day appeal period oii the decision of denial after the meeting where the action will be taken. 8.2 PA 08-032 Edge Gymnastics T fining Center Conditional Use Permit (Adjudicatory) to operate an In or Recreational Facility in the Light Industrial (M-1) Zoning District. Laura Karaboghosian, Associate Pla presented the project pis stated in the Staff Report. Chair Wehrenberg asked to conf' m that the Applicant is Rachel Okmin. Ms. Karaboghosian answered that she was identif" d as the Applicant on the application, but the primary contact has been Rob Kadish who w also identified on the application. ~Pfameing Commission January I3, 2009 ~gufar9Dtee~ing 18 G~~~ OF Dp~~y ~~ ra ~ ~~~ '`~~~~~ AGENDA STATEIVIENT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETIrTG DATE: January 27, 2009 Gt~FOR~`° SUBJECT: CONSENT CALENDAR: P~- 08-023 Iroonet Conditional Use Permit (Adjudicatory) to operate a Boarding House with up to 12 boarders in the PD (Planned Development) zoning district in which up to 16 people may live an~i to allow for an On-Site Parking Reduction at 3608 Oakhurst Ccurt. Report prepared by Laura Karcrhoghosian, Associate Planner ATTACHMENTS: 1) Resolution Denying Without Prejudice a Conditional Use Permit to operate a Boarding House with up to 12 boarders in the PD (Planned Development} zoning district with a reduction in On-Site Parking located at3608 Oakhurst Court. 2) Staff Report dated January l 3, 2009 (Without Attachments). 3) Draft Minutes dated January 13, 2009. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a Resolution Denying vjithout prejudice a Conditional Use Permit to operate a Boarding House with up to 12 boarders in the PD (Planned Development) zoning district with a reduction in On- Site Parking located. at 3608 Oakhurst Court. ..BACKGROUND: On January 13, 2009 the Planning Commission conducted a publicly .noticed meeting to review an application for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to operate a boarding house in which up to 16 people may live (consisting of 12 boarders, two caretakers and twc- children related to the caretakers} and a parking reduction located at 3608 Oakhurst Court. Upon review of the Staff Report, presentations from the Applicant, his representative and public comment, the Planning Commission determined that it could nct make the findings to support a Conditional Use Permit to operate the proposed boarding house. Thy Planning Commission determined that it could not make the necessary findings of approval for the Conditional Use Permit due to intensity of use, insufficient adult supervision, child safety concerns, noise, and. the potential for the project to change the single-family residential characteristics of the neighborhood in which the boarding house is proposed to locate (Attachment 3). At the hearing, the Planning Commission continued the item to the January 27, 2009 Planning Commission Meeting and directed Staff to prepare a Resolution de~iying the proposed boarding house. A Resolution denying the proposed boarding house has been prepared by Staff and is included as Attachment 1. For background information on the boarding house, (lease refer to the Agenda Statement included as Attachment 2. COPIES TO: ApplicantlProperty Owner John Doyle, Hoge, Fenton, Jones & Appel, Inc. Page 1 of 4 G: VPAltV20081PA 08-023 Oakhurst Court BoardmghouselPC Materials 012709?PCSR FLNAL 1.27A9.ax ATTACHMENT 8 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING: /~ ~ ~oZ During the Planning Commission hearing on January 13, 2009, the I'Ianning Commission raised several concerns regarding the boarding house. Draft minutes from the meeting are included as Attachment 3. At the hearing, the Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the project as proposed, with up to 12 boarders, represented a use that was too intense for the .single-family residential home and district in which it was proposed to locate. The Planning Commission determined that the proposed number of boarders living in the house would represent a use that is too dense for a single family house. The Commission felt that the proposed use maybe better suited to occupy an apartment complex or series of hotel suites. The Commission he~~rd testimony from the Applicant that its other boarding facilities occupy convents and former nursing homes; there are no other facilities in a single family home. Child safety and adult supervisionconcerns were also raised becau:~e the caretakers (who will provide supervision of the boarders) would sleep in the casita located in the front yard. The existing casita, although physically attached to the primary residence via the roof s~~stem, is functionally detached as it does not have direct interior access to the primary residence. Given that the adult caretakers would sleep in a separate building from the children, concerns were raised that the caretakers may not be able to assist the children in exiting the primary residence in an emer;;ency. In addition, the Planning Commission questioned whether the caretakers would be able to prc-vide sufficient adult supervision to the children given that their bedroom is in a separate building. The potential for noise generation from up to 14 children (12 boarders and the caretaker's 2 children) living and playing on-site was also addressed. The Commission stated concern that noise associated with the project may negatively and unavoidably impact neighbor:; even with conditions limiting the times of outdoor activities. A reduction in property values and a change in the single-family residential characteristic of the neighborhood were .:also discussed. The Commissioners believe the use is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood die to the proposed number of boarders living inside the house.. In addition,.: multiple Commissioners stated concern that approval of this application would set a precedent in thatno other Conditional Use Permits have been issued for boarding houses within the City and due to the fact. that the request was for a boarding house with a large number of boarders which would be inconsistent with the neighborhood in which it is located. Due to the number o:~ boarders, the boarding house was determined to resemble that of a commercial use rather than a typical single-family residence thereby changing the single-family residential characteristics of the neighborhood in which it is proposed to locate. During the public comment portion of the hearing, the Applicant and his representative spoke in favor of the project and several neighbors spoke both in opposition of the project as well as completed comment cards in opposition to the project. Their comments can be found :.n the Draft Planning Commission Minutes included as Attachment 3. CONCLUSION: In order to approve a Conditional Use Permit for a boarding hou~.e, the Planning Commission must make findings to ensure that the proposed use is compatible with the existing house and the neighborhood in which it is located. In this case, the Planning Commission has determined that the proposed number of boarders represents a facility that would not be compatible with the single family nature of the surrounding neighborhood. As directed by the Planning Commission, a Resolution denying the boarding house has been included as Attachment 1. 2 of 4 RECOMMENDATION: ~~ . qa Staff recommends that the Planning Commission Adopt a Resol~rtion Denying without prejudice a Conditional Use Permit to operate a Boarding House with up to 12 boarders in the PD (Planned Development) zoning district with a reduction in On-Site Parking located at 3608 Oakhurst Court. 3 of4 GENERAL INFORMATION: APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: Dongho Kim Iroonet America, Inc. 21515 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 990 Torrance, CA 90503 LOCATION: 3608 Oakhurst Court ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER: 985-01)17-042 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential (0.0 - 6.0 du/ ~c) SPECIFIC PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family (0.9 - 6.0 du/ac) EXISTING ZONING: Planned Development (PA08-023) SURROUNDING USES: ~~ ~ ga LOCATION ZONING GENERAL PLAT( CURRENT USE LAND USE OF PROPERTY _ PD (Planned Low Density Residential Residential North Development} (U.0 - 6.0 du/ac) South PD (Planned Low Density Residential Residential Development (0.0 - 6.0 du/ac) West PD (Planned Low Density Residential Residential Develo ment) (0.0 - 6.0 du/ac) East PD (Planned parks/Public Recreation Ted Fairfield Park Development) 4 of 4 ~~ ~~. N Plannin Commission Minutes g Tuesday, January 27, 2009 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commissio~l was held on Tuesday, January 27, 2009, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Wehrenberg called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Chair Wehrenberg; Vice Chair King; Commissioners Schaub, Brown, and Swalwell; Jeri Ram, Community Development Director; Jeff Baker, Acting Planning Manager; Kit Faubion, City Attorney; Laura Karaboghosian, Associate Planner; and Debra LeClair, .Recording Secretary. Absent: None ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA Chair Wehrenberg requested to move the Goals and ObjectivE~s discussion until the end of the meeting and move .Item 6.1 PA 0&023 Iroonet Csvrdditional L:~se Permit between Item 5.1 and 5.2. MINUTES OF`PREVIOUS 1VIEETINGS -- 'O'n a ;motion by Cm. Swalwell, seconded by Cm King, anti with Cm. Brown abstaining, the minutes of the January 13, 2009 meeting were approved°vvith modifications. _ DRAL CO1~I11~IJ~TICATIONS - 5.1 .Administration of Oath off Office by Caroline Soto, City Clerk #o newly appointed Planning Commissioner Alan Brown. CONSENT CALENDAR - 6.1 PA 08-023 Iroonet Conditional Use Permit to o~~erate a Boarding House with up to 12 boarders in the PD (Planned Development) zoning district in which up to 16 people may live and to allow for an On-Site Parking Reduction at 3608 Oakhurst.. Court. Chair Wehrenberg asked the Commission if they would they- like to discuss this item before taking action. Cm. Schaub pulled Item 6.1, Iroonet Conditional Use Permit for disctcssion Cm. Schaub stated that the Plarolirg Commission has not reviewed a Conditional Use Permit for a Boarding House before. He felt strongly that the Commi:;sion could not approve the item and felt that the Commission had not discussed or approved the findings for Items A through G ~larzrzing ~'ommission 9anuary 27, 2009 9~gular9Keeting 24 Attachment 9 ~~ ~ ~~ of the Resolution. His first concern was the findings for Item #D; which states there e adequate provisions for public access, water, sanitation, etc. He stated that the finding states that it is located in an existing dwelling within a single family residential neighborhood with adequate services. He stated that according to the Zoning; Ordinance the definition of a Boarding House is amulti-family dwelling. He stated that once the project is approved as a Boarding House then it becomes amulti-family dwelling, therefore he could not support Item #D. Cm. Schaub stated that he has no problem with Item #G but felt it was not specific as to at least one aspect where he found the project to be inconsistent with the General Plan. Section 2.1.3 of the General Plan states that; "zve should avoid abrupt transitions between single family development and high density development on adjoining sites." The Commis~:ion felt that by placing a multi- family dwelling in the center of a single family residentia : neighborhood the project was inconsistent with at least one aspect of the General Plan. He suggested including Section 2.1.3 in Item #G of the findings so that the Council will have that information available when making their decision if the project is appealed. Cm. Schaub stated that if in the event the item goes to Council and they overturn the Planning Commission's denial, the item will have gone to Council without the Planning Commission having discussed the conditions. He also mentioned that in tr.e minutes of the meeting at least one of .the Commissioners had suggested some changes to the conditions but the Commission did-not discuss those suggestions because they-went straight tci the denial of the resolution. He stated he is OK with just .having his comments iai the minutes and having .those minutes available to the Council. Cm. King agreed with Cm. Schaub .that the Commission did :not discuss all of the conditions which should have been done in order to deny the resolution. Otherwise, the City Council could reverse the Commission s decision without any discussion and felt the place to discuss the conditions is at the Planning Commission. Jeff Baker, Acting Planning Manager stated that if the project is appealed to City Council, the Council could refer a revised project back to the Planning Commission for consideration and that could be one of the alternatives mentioned in the Staff Report to the Council. Chair Wehrenberg asked Mr. Baker to explain his comments further. Mr. Baker continued the City Council could send the project back to the Planning Commission for review of any new or changed conditions if the City Council felt that was appropriate. Cm. King stated that Crn. Schaub's point was that some of the conditions were not discussed. Mr. Baker responded that the City Council does have the option of sending the project back to the Planning Commission for action even if the conditions remain the same. Chair Wehrenberg asked if this action is appealed, will Staff keep the resolution-the same or add in more specifics as to which finding the Commission could noi: make. ~~~ Commissrion ,7anuary 27, 2009 9~gufarMeeting 25 ~7 ? Mr. Baker answered the Planning Commission s findings would be as they approved them the denial resolution. Chair Wehrenberg asked if Staff would add modifications that the Planning Commission discussed. Mr. Baker answered Staff would modify the Resolution as directed by the Commission and the approved Resolution would go to Counci:: if appealed. Cm. Swalwell agreed with Cm. Schaub regarding Item D. 1-{e was unsure if the answer that Staff gave meets what the resolution states which is that there are adequate provisions for public access to sanitation and water, etc. He stated that Gregory Shreeve, City Building Official stated at the last Planning Commission meeting that it meets the building code requirements but Cm. Swalwell teas not satisfied that the Commission had enough information as to what the impact on resources would be. He felt that Tdr. Shreeve's answer only. stated. what the building code allows and not necessarily what the true impact on resources would be. Chair Wehrenberg understood Mr. Shreeve's answer to mean that the house could have up to 19 people living there because the code allows for 200 sq ft pear person, therefore the water and sewage design is for 19 people. Mr. Shreeve stated that the houses could accommodate the public access for water and sanitation but the Commission agrE~ed that the impact would be that the owners would have a higher water bill which would be the owners' penalty and not the City's. . Cm. Schaub felt that Mr. Shreeve meant the house was designed as a single family, dwelling and by definition it will change to a multi-family dwelling if apprc>ved which was missed ,in earlier ; conversations. Cm. King agreed:with Cm. Schaub that the project did not #it in the. single family residential neighborhood. Cm Schaub stated that fact was ~ covered .very well in the findings in the Staff Report and Resolution. Mr. Baker added that in the Zoning Ordinance a Boarding House is considered a permitted use through a Conditional Use Permit to operate within a single f,~mily area; therefore it would be consistent with the General Plan as far as a use that could occur in the area. He continued it would be consistent with the utilities and supplies for a similar property with a large family with 9 or 10 children living there. The Conditional Use Permit allows the Planning Commission to condition the project to ensure compatibility with surrounduig uses or deny the project. Cm. Swalwell asked how Cm. Schaub's concern, which is that ~:he Commission was not treating the project as amulti-family unit, would affect the findings, if at all. Ms. Faubion stated this is an unusual situation because we are talking about single family zoning that allows something that doesri t typically look like the other single family homes in the area. She stated that a Boarding House is defined and th.e definition was read at the Iast meeting. She continued that the definition of a boarding horse allows that kind of use to be established with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. She continued that by virtue of the Conditional Use Permit rather than an outright permitted usE~ she felt that is what recognizes the sort of "ragged edges" of this project where in some respects it appears to be more like a Planning Commission ,~anuary 27, 2009 4~gular9bteeting 26 ~~ ~~ multi-famil dwellin in it's function and the number of people living there, but the Conditional Y g Use Permit is the way the Zoning Ordinance reconciles a single family district and a multi- family type use. Jeri Ram, Community Development Director stated that another illustration of where this type of use occurs in a single family neighborhood is in community care facilities, where the State has determined that a community care facility is a single family residential use. There may be up to 6 people living there that need care or up to 12 with a Conditional Use Permit. She stated that it is similar to a Boarding House but the State has determined that it is considered a single family dwelling unit. Cm. Schaub agreed that it is similar; however, the City's definition specifically says that a boarding house is considered to be amulti-family dwelling. Cm. Swalwell felt the Planning Commission was alright with t:he findings and did not think the Commission should go back and amend the conditions on the project. He felt that if the Council wants to overturn the Commission s decision, they can send the project back to the Planning Commission for further review aild amendment of the conditions. On a motion by Cm. Swalwell aild seconded by Cm. Schaub, with Crn. Brown abstaining, and with Cm. Schaub's modifications regarding including Section 2.1.3 of the General Plan in Item #G of the findungs, the Planning Commission voted to approve the Resolution to deny without prejudice the following: RESOLUTION NO. 09 - 03 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING CE~MMISSION (DF THE CITY OF DU$LIN DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A BOARDING HOUSE WITH UP TO 12 BOARDERS IN THE Pll (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) ZONING DISTRICT WITH A REDUCTION IN REQUIRED ON-SITE. PARKING LOCATED AT 3608 OAKHURST COURT (APN 985-0017-042) PA 08-023 Ms. Faubion stated that the effect of the action is to approve the resolution denying the resolution without prejudice. Cm. Wehrenberg complemented the recording secretary on the minutes from 1-13-09. 5.2 Planning Commission owls and Objectives. Ms. Jeri Ram, Community evelopment Director, presente~~ the specifics of the Goals & Objectives as outlined in . e Staff Report. ~Plamm~g Commission 9ararary 27, 2009 9~gular~teeting 27 HOGS, FENTON JONES & APPEL, INC. Attorneys ac Law ~ San Jose ~ Pleasanton ~ East Palo Alto ~ Hollister January 12, 2009 Planning Commission City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza, Suite 100 Dublin, CA 94568 ~q ~ qa~ John F. Doyle 925.4G0.33GG jfd@hagefenton.com Re: Iroonet America - 3608 Oakhurst Court, Dublin CUP Application - PA 08-023 PC Hearing January 13, 2009 Our File No.: 79600 Dear Members of the Planning Commission: In preparation for the upcoming hearing on Iroonet America's ("Iroonet") application for a conditional use permit relating to the 3608 Oakhurst Court home we wish to provide some additional information for the record that may be of assistant in the consideration of the application. As described in some detail in the Iroonet written statement, Iroonet operates a Study Abroad Pxogram for South Korean children. The general purpose of the program is to give families an opportunity to provide their children with an extraordinary rich educarional experience at private schools in America with programs of the type and quality not available to them in Korea. Participation in the program, while certainly a sacrifice in terms of being together on a daily basis, is viewed by parents as an avenue to provide their children with educational and career opportunities. Participation in the program is looked on as an honor to for both the parents and child. Children that have matriculated through the Study Abroad Program have gained acceptance to some of the,most prestigious college preparatory schools and universities in the world. The Oakhurst home that is the subject of this application is a 7-bedroom, 3,793 square foot two story home. The occupancy rating of the home is 14 persons. Iroonet intends to use this home as a residence for the children participating in the program that will attend Valley Christian School, Quarry LaneSChool, and Redwood Christian School. The children will go to school during the day and return in the evening. They will be cared for by caretakers. They will live as a family unit going to school and sharing chores, meals and free time. The intended use of the home is essentially identical to that of a large family.. The City of Dublin defines a "family" as: \ \HF)AFS\N Drve\79600\Lee\379369.doc Pleasanton Office ' 6155 Stoneridge Drive, Suite 200, Pleasanton, California 94588-3263 phone 925.224.7780 fax 925.224.7782 www.hogefenton.com Attachment 10 City of Dublin ~ ~ ~ ~` ~I Planning Commission January 12, 2009 Page 2 "one or more persons occupying a dwelling and living together as a single, nonprofit '• housekeeping unit, as distinguished from a group occupying a hotel, fraternity, or sorority house. A family includes any servants and a four or fewer boarders." In this instance, the children certainly live as a family as that term is defined by the City as they occupy the dwelling together as a single housekeeping unit under the custody and control of the caretaker(s). For the record we also note that the group would be considered to have familial status under the Federal Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 et seq.) and California fair housing law (Cal. Government Code §12955). We understand that the property is considered to be subject to R-1 zoning and therefore the single family use by Ixoonet should be allowed without the necessity of a Conditional Use Permit as the group has familial status and is, therefore, entitled to be treated as a single family and the intended use fits within occupancy guidelines. Despite the fact that the intended use is a permitted use, once it became clear that the City and certain neighbors had concerns Ixoonet became involved in the CUP process at the request of the City based on the City's position that the children are "boarders" and that a CUP is necessary fox a "boarding house." While it is Iroonet's position that the children are not boarders in the sense of a "boarding house," as they are minors in the custody of the caretaker living as a family as that term is defined by the Dublin Zoning Ordinance and applicable state and Federal law. They do not pay for the right to rent a room in the home of another and/or come and go as they please, based on the suggestion of the City Ixoonet has participated in the CUP process to work with the City in allowing the intended use while imposing reasonable conditions to ensure that the use of the home, as intended, will "fit-in" with the neighborhood. As part of the process Ixoonet advertised and scheduled a neighborhood open house on December 17, 2008 from 4:30 to 6:30 p.m. Notice was provided to all residents living within 300 feet of the home. Dx. Kim and Jean Choi, the 3608 Oakhurst caretaker, hosted the event. Two neighbors attended and a very good discussion was held concerning the intended use of the home and the Ixoonet program. From the neighbors' comments it appeared that the fear of a substantial increase in traffic was perhaps their most significant concern. This concern was quickly allayed as it was explained that none of the children axe allowed to drive and that the home would, at most, have three vehicles. Based on the discussions with the neighbors attending, it appears as though their all of their concerns were addressed by an explanation of the use of the home and the nature of the Ixoonet program. CUP Analysis Dublin Zoning Ordinance, Section 8.100.060, provides that the following findings shall be made in order to approve a CUP: 1) The proposed use and related structures is compatible with other land uses, ` transportation and services facilities in the vicinity. I ~_ 1... 3 of Dublin City Planning Commission January 12, 2009 Page 3 ~- 2) It will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in ~ . the vicinity, or be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. ~ 3) It will not be injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. 4) There are adequate provisions for public access, water, sanitation, and public utilities and services to ensure that the proposed use and related structures would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. 5) The subject site is suitable for the type density and intensity of the use and related structure being proposed. 6) It will not be contrary to the specific intent clauses, development regulation, or performance standard established for the zoning district in which it is located. ~ It is consistent with the Dublin General Plan and applicable Specific Plans. As explained above, the use of the residence as a single family residence provides the necessary support for all of the above findings; moreover, the proposed conditions of approval prepared by staff solidify the consistency of the use with the neighborhood and Iroonet's agreement to comply with such conditions is compelling proof of its intent thatthe children and the home be assets to the neighborhood. With respect to the individual findings we provide the foIlowing brief responses for which additional information can be provided at the hearing. 1) The home is entirely consistent with other surrounding structures as it is a single family home in a single family neighborhood. 2) The use will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare as the use is a residential use and none of the children will drive. Traffic generated by the home will be no more than is typically generated by a single family home in the azea. 3) The use of the home in the same manner as a family will not be injurious to property or improvements as the intended use is identical to surrounding uses and while the number of children maybe greater than the average home in the area there will be no extraordinary traffic generated by the use. In addition, conditions concerning outside activities would eliminate any concern over noise. 4) - 7) The use of the home as a residence is consistent with and well-served by existing infrastructure and is consistent with applicable local ordinances. The maximum occupanry of the home at 14 is in compliance with applicable building standards. Concerns have been raised concerning increased traffic based on the misunderstanding that perhaps a number of non-resident third parties, perhaps vendors or tutors, would be driving to and from the home on a daily basis. With respect to noise and nuisance issues ~~ ~~ City of Dublin ;. Planning Commission January 12, 2009 Page 4 the home is subject to Dublin's existing ordinances and the Dublin Ranch CC&Rs. Iroonet has also agreed to conditions that axe more xestrict7ve than the requirements ~~ imposed on the neighboring homes in order to allay concerns that have been raised. s In sum, we thank you for providing,the opportunity to describe the Iroonet program and ~ to answer, questions of those that are interested or concerned. As described above, it is Iroonet's intent to work with the City to allay any concerns that it or neighbors may have concerning the use of the home. However, for the record, we wish to point out that the intended use as a residence should be acknowledged as a permitted use under the circumstances. Finally, as described above, since the intended use is essentially identical to a large family the circumstances certainly provide ample support for the commission to make the findings required to grant the requested CUP. Thank you for your time and consideration Very truly yours, HOGE, FENTON, JONES & APPEL, INC. JF]J: jfd Cc: Laura Karaboghosian Dr. Dong-Ho Kim, Ph.D. Ms. Ming Tluan ~9~91Ne~ley Way EI Sobrant~, CA {~~a~ ~x~-~~~o January 9, 2009 Olty of dublln Planning Oommisslan cja Laura Karsboghosian Planning Divfsivn 100 Cfvic Drive Dublin, CA 94558 ~ a ~_ 9z RECEIVED JAN 13 2009 DUBLIN PLANNING Re: Application for C~nditionel kiss Permit - 3508 Oakhurst Ct, Dear Sir or Madam, I am the owner of the reslder~ce at 9fiia9 Qakhurst C~~urk. I em writing to object to the application that was filed to abtain permission to operate a ~,Z-person 6oard(ng house at the above property which is dlractly across the sxreex from mine, 1 am concerned about the increased traffic on the streets that will result, and the additional demands that will be placed on already limited street parking. I also fear that with that many people living In the home plus caretakers and visitors that there will be tco much noise and disturbance of the neighborhood. I urge you to deny the appllcant'6 request. Thank you, Very truly yours, Ming Turn MT Attachment. l l Michael J. Hughes John P. Gill Michael J. Cochrane Stephanie J. Hayes HUGHES SILL COCHRA,NE Pc. Aa~rv~.~~vs ,~~- L.A`vx g~f ~ ~2 Matthew P. Harrington, Of Counsel Erica L. Brynes Amy K Tinetti Jennifer R. Lucas January 12, 2009 VIA HAND DELIVERYAND EMAIL City of Dublin Planning Commission c/o Laura Karaboghosian Planning Division 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 RECEIVED JAN 13 2009 ~UBLlN PLANNING Re: OBJECTION to Project PA 08-023 Iroonet Boarding House Conditional Use Permit Application (3608 Oakhurst Court, Dublin, CA) Planning Commission Meeting on January 13, 2009 -Agenda Item 8.A. Dear Chair and Members of the Planning Commission: This law firm represents Dublin Ranch Owners' Association ("Association"). We submit, on behalf of our client, this objection to the application of Iroonet America ("Applicant") for a Conditional Use Permit ("CUP") to operate a boarding house at which up to a total of 16 people may live at 3608 Oakhurst Court, Dublin, CA ("Subject Property"). ASSOCIATION The Association is a California nonprofit mutual benefit corporation whose primary purposes are to, among other things, provide for management, administration, maintenance and preservation of the property located within the Dublin Ranch residential development ("Development"). The Subject Property is located within the Development. Based on the foregoing, the Association is an interested party in these proceedings. SUBJECT PROPERTY The Subject Property contains six (6) bedrooms in the main house and an additional bedroom in a separate residential structure. It has atwo-car garage with a driveway. The Subject Property is located on a cul-de-sac surrounded by other single family residences of comparable size that also front Oakhurst Court. There is limited on-street parking which is shared by the residents of all of the homes on Oakhurst Court. APPLICANT City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance Section 8.12.050 provides that a CUP is required in order to operate a boarding house with five (5) or more renters. Applicant proposes to operate a 1600 South Main St., Suite 315 ~ Walnut Creek, CA 94596 ~ Phone: 925.926.1200 ( Fax: 925.926.1202 g5~ 902 City of Dublin Planning Commission c/o Laura Karaboghosian January 12, 2009 Page 2 boarding house for as many as 12 male preteen and teen exchange students with up to a total of 16 people at the Subject Property. Applicant began operating a boarding house without the required Conditional Use Permit before May, 2008. On information and belief, at some point during 2008 over 10 boarders resided in the Subject Property (see Written Comment Letter from Carolina Berschens dated January 6, 2009). Zoning Ordinance Section 8.76.080(B) provides that a boarding house is required to provide two (2) parking spaces per dwelling plus 0.5 parking spaces per sleeping room: Based on this requirement, a total of six (6) parking spaces would be required for Applicant's proposed use. Applicant has requested a reduction in the off-street parking requirements from six (6) parking spaces to three (3). REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT As you are aware, Zoning Ordinance Section 8.100.060 requires the Planning Commission to make all of the following findings in order to approve a Conditional Use Permit: A. The proposed use and related structures is compatible with other land uses, transportation and service facilities in the vicinity. B. It will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. C. It will not be injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. D. There are adequate. provisions for public access, water, sanitation, and public utilities and services to ensure that the proposed use and related structures would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. E. The subject site is physically suitable for the type, density and intensity of the use and related structures being proposed. F. It will not be contrary to the specific intent clauses, development regulations, or performance standards established for the zoning district in which it is located. G. It is consistent with the Dublin General Plan and with any applicable Specific Plans. _. g~~ 9z City of Dublin Planning Commission c/o Laura Karaboghosian January 12, 2009 Page 3 OBJECTIONS While the Association commends staff for its thoughtful efforts to craft conditions upon the Applicant and its proposed use, it believes that such conditions are not adequate to support required fmdings A, B and/or C. The Association also notes that the proposed use is not statutorily-protected nor specifically favored by public policy. Parkin, Traffic and Safety The operation of Applicant's boarding house business should be "seamless" to the surrounding area and neighbors. Even though limits have been placed on where vehicles associated with the Subject Property may be parked, the Association is concerned that in practice, the Applicant will be forced to use street parking. This will place unreasonable burdens upon the already limited parking in the area. While the boarders will be prohibited from driving, it is expected that they will develop friendships at school, and that friends will drive, drop off boarders and come visit. That will reduce the availability of street parking in the vicinity. Visitors and persons dropping off and picking up boarders will also increase traffic. Children playing or present in the cul-de-sac will be more at risk of injury due to the increased vehicle traffic. The Association's concerns about parking problems, heavy traffic and the safety of persons in the cul-de-sac area are not merely a "not in my backyard" (or "NIMBY") reaction. They have already happened and a report of "the tremendous amount of traffic (cars, vans)" has been reported to staff (see Written Comment Letter from Carolina Berschens dated January 6, 2009). It is reasonable to believe that such problems will continue if Applicant is allowed to have the number of boarders it has requested. Noise and Nuisance The Association believes that with as many as 12 male students of middle school and high school age at the Subject Property, there will certainly be additional noise that will unreasonably disturb the neighborhood. This is not only likely to occur when the boarders are being dropped off or picked up but also if boarders decide to congregate or play outside the residence. Additionally, no provision has been made for supervision of the boarders when the caretakers are away from the Subject Property. It is to be expected that without adult supervision, preteen and teenage boys will generate more noise and disruption. g7 ~ 9z City of Dublin Planning Commission c/o Laura Karaboghosian January 12, 2009 Page 4 Potential Negative Effect on Property Values Owners of residences in the area of the boarding house who desire to sell their homes will likely disclose the operation of the boarding house to potential buyers. This is likely to have a negative impact on their property values. Boarding Houses Not Protected by Statute or Favored by Public Policy The Association recognizes that there are public policy reasons to protect certain types of facilities in residential areas, and that some such facilities are in fact specifically protected by law. For example, "small" family day care centers are deemed to be residential use, no permit or business license shall be required, and such operations are exempt from exclusion (Zoning Ordinance, definition of "Family Day Care Home/Small), 8.08.020). However, there is no such protection in the Zoning Ordinance for boarding houses with 5 or more boarders (Zoning Ordinance, definition of "Boarding House"). The Association notes that there are California statutes which specifically permit small child care facilities (Health and Safety Code section 1597.30 et seq.) and community care facilities having six or fewer residents (Health and Safety Code section 1502) in California homeowner associations notwithstanding any express prohibitions on such activities in the association's recorded Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). While these are not zoning statutes, it is telling by its omission that there is no .similar protection in the statutes governing homeowner associations for boarding houses. To our knowledge, there is no any public policy that promotes the operation of boarding houses in single family residential areas. ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS As discussed above, Association objects to issuance of a CUP for the Subject Property and its strong preference is that the application be denied. However if the Commission is inclined to approve the application, Association, without waiving any of its rights, recommends inclusion of the following terms or conditions: 1. Reduce the maximum number of boarders from 12 to no more than six (6). 2. Require that there shall always be at least one (1) supervisory adult at the Subject Property whenever there is one or more boarder present. Sa~gy City of Dublin Planning Commission c/o Laura Karaboghosian January 12, 2009 Page 5 3. Provide that the garage and driveways are to be used to maximum parking capacity before vehicles of staff, visitors, vendors and servicepersons can be parked on the street. 4. Require that the garage is to be kept sufficiently free and clear of personal property to permit maximum parking of vehicles in the garage. 5. Prohibit residents of and visitors to the Subject Property from loitering or playing in/on Oakhurst Court or in front of any of the residences on Oakhurst Court. 6. Provide that no markings or signs on the Applicant's vehicles or in or on the Subject Property that either identify the Applicant's business or that the Subject Property is a boarding house. 7. Require that the Commission will review the status of Applicant's operation in six (6) months to confirm compliance with the CUP. CONCLUSION In conclusion, the Association respectfully requests that the Commission deny Applicant's request for a Conditional Use Permit. Very truly yours, HUGHES GILL COCHRANE, P.C. Stephanie J. Hayes SJH:dk cc: Client m e y e r~ (n v e ribark silver & Wilson professional law corporatioa MEMORANDUM DATE: March 5, 2009 T0: Erica Fraser, Senior Planner FROM: John Bakker, City Attorney RE: Iroonet House Appeal ~~ John Bakker Attorney at Law 510.808.2000 ISSUE: Is the Iroonet America ("Iroonet") proposal to house up to 12 children participating in an international study-abroad program, plus two. caretakers, in a residential district subject to the conditional use permit requirement? CONCLUSION: Yes. Iroonet's attorney notes "for the record" in its appeal letter that it should be exempt from the CUP process altogether because the caretakers and minor students residing in the home would meet the federal Fair Housing Act definition of "familial status." Therefore, the applicant argues, they must be treated the same as any other "family" in the City. We agree that the household is entitled to "familial status" under the act and therefore that the may not discriminate against Iroonet because of this status. However, we disagree with the applicant's argument that they are exempt from the CUP process. The City's conditional use permit requirement does not discriminate because of the household's "familial status." Rather, the household does not meet the definition of "family" and a conditional use permit is therefore required because the household is not "a single, non-profit housekeeping unit." In our view, households constituted only as part of a commercial operation are not "families" under the ordinance, and they are more akin to "boarding houses." DISCUSSION: I. Background At the January 13, 2009 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission considered Iroonet's application for a Conditional Use Permit ("CUP") to operate a boarding house that would house South Korean students in a study abroad program. The application was for 12 children in the 4th through 12th grades, plus two caretakers and two children related to the caretakers. Staff, the applicant, and the Planning Commission treated this use as a "boarding house," which is defined in the Zoning Ordinance as "a single-family dwelling where bedrooms are rented to five or more people and at least one common meal is offered each day. A Boarding House. is considered to be aMulti-Family Dwelling." The Zoning Ordinance allows boarding houses in single family residential districts with a CUP. ATTACHMENT 12 55512th Street, Suite 1500 ( Qakland, California 94607 ~ #el 510.808.2000 ~ fax 510.444,1108 ~ www.meyersnave.com L 1f ~ Oi~0 ~ t~0 5 f€t0 T 0 To: Erica Fraser, Senior Planner From: John Bakker, City Attorney Re: Iroonet House Appeal Date: March 5, 2009 Page: 2 qo~ 9~ Although it has indicated that it may have certain rights under federal law that would allow it to avoid city regulation, Iroonet has to this point voluntarily subjected itself to the City's CUP process by submitting an application and has expressed willingness to abide by the initial conditions suggested by the Planning Commission, including parking restrictions and hours that the students spend time outdoors. They indicate that their reason for subjecting themselves to the process is that they want to be good neighbors. The Planning Commission determined at that meeting that it could not make the findings necessary to support a CUP, due to, among other concerns, the "intensity of the use, insufficient adult supervision, [and] child safety issues." It continued the public hearing to the January 27, 2009 Planning Commission meeting and denied the application without prejudice at that meeting. Iroonet is appealing to the City Council. Treatment of Families and Boarding Houses Under Zoning Ordinance Households meeting the definition of "family" under the Dublin Zoning Ordinance may be located in a Single-Family Residential District without a permit. The Zoning Ordinance defines "family" as: one or more persons occupying a dwelling and living as a single, non-profit housekeeping unit, as' distinguished from a group occupying a hotel, club, fraternity or sorority house. A family includes any servants and four or fewer boarders. (§ 8.08.020.F,'emphasis added.) Currently, the Iroonet operation at 3608 Oakhurst Court presently has one caretaker and four or fewer students, which means that the use is permitted as a matter of right; and the proposed CUP would allow Iroonet to expand the number of students. The Zoning Ordinance permits boarding house uses with a CUP in residential districts. "Boarding Houses" are defined as "a single-family dwelling where bedrooms are rented to five or more people and at least one common meal is offered each day." Arguably, this particular use may not meet the technical definition of a Boarding House. For example, one might argue that the students do not actually rent bedrooms. However, under the Zoning Ordinance, the Director of Community Development has the authority to determine whether a proposed use that is not specifically included in the Ordinance may be treated as a use that is included. (See § 8.04.060.C.) Were the Iroonet use not considered either a "family" or a "Boarding House," it would not be permitted at all within the particular zoning district. (See ibid.) Iroonet's attorney argues that the proposed Iroonet house should be considered a family rather than a boarding house. He describes the house as a single housekeeping unit that is just like any other family: the children go to school, study and do chores; they are not "independent adults renting a room from the owner of the home;" they may not come and go as they please; and they are students in the custody of their caretakers. Thus, he submits, the house should be regulated only to the same degree another single family home would be regulated, and technically should not be required to obtain a CUP. III. The Federal Fair Housing Act Prohibits Land Use Regulation that Discriminate on the Basis of Familial Status, and the City's Zoning Ordinance Does Not Discriminate orrthe Basis of Familial Status. To: Erica Fraser, Senior Planner From: John Bakker, City Attorney Re: Iroonet House Appeal Date: March 5, 2009 Page: 3 q-~ ~ Iroonet's attorney argues that the intended residents of the house would qualify for "familial status" protection under the federal Fair Housing Act. He therefore concludes the Iroonet operation must be treated the same as any other single-family residence. For the reasons set out in this section, we disagree with this latter conclusion. Among other things, the Fair Housing Act ("FHA") prohibits housing discrimination against any person "because of ... "familial status."~ "Familial status," in turn, means any housing arrangement in which one or more minors is domiciled with a parent, legal guardian or designee (in writing) of such parent or legal guardian. Thus, if the caretakers have written permission from the parents to act as guardians and are domiciled with the students (and we suspect that the caretakers could satisfy this requirement), the Iroonet "household" would meet the definition of "familial status" under the FHA. Athough the Iroonet household is entitled to "familial status," this does not mean, however, that they are entitled to be treated as a "family" under the City's Zoning Ordinance and avoid the CUP process. It simply means that the City may not discriminate against them "because of" their familial status, that is, because there would be children living in the house with their guardians. An example of such a regulation that discriminated because of familial status would be a zoning district that was limited to adults, although there. is a limited exception under the FHA for senior housing. In requiring a conditional use permit for the Iroonet household, the City is not discriminating on the:.basis of °familial status." The City is regulating the proposed Iroonet household not because children are present, but because the City determined that this use did not meet the Zoning Ordinance's definition'of "family" and is closer to the definition of "boarding house." The basis upon which the City has determined that a conditional use permit is required is that the household is not a "single, non-profit housekeeping unit." The Iroonet house is not a "family" because the household is not anon-profit housekeeping unit, and it has more than four boarders. The household is distinct from a typical household, in that it established as part of afor-profit venture; indeed, some members of the household are employees paid to live with and take care of the students. The concept of a "non-profit housekeeping unit" set out in the Zoning Ordinance's definition makes a distinction between boarders and other groups of persons that live together. Thus, a group of unrelated persons renting a home are anon-profit housekeeping unit, despite the fact that the landlord is engaged in a profit making activity. But ahousehold-like the Iroonet household-constituted merely because of profit-making activities is not. All of these distinguishing regulatory characteristics of the household exist regardless of the fact that the household is constituted of minors living with their guardians. Accordingly, the Zoning Ordinance, as applied to Iroonet, does not discriminate against Iroonet because of familial status. ~ The general intent of this prohibition in the FHA is to prohibit housing that is "adults only." We note that both California's Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA") and Government Code 65008 also prohibit discrimination because of familial status and probably even more broadly that the FHA. Therefore, although we discuss only the FHA here, City actions that would violate federal law would also violate state law. To: Erica Fraser, Senior Planner From: John Bakker, City Attorney Re: Iroonet House Appeal Date: March 5, 2009 Page: 4 ~ ~ ~a It should be noted, however, that even though the Zoning Ordinance itself does not discriminate on the basis of "familial status," the City could still unlawfully discriminate on the basis of "familial status" in the course of exercising its discretion to issue the conditional use permit. If a particular aspect of that decision were based on the presence of children in the house, it could be prohibited under thefHA, as well as under FEHA and Government Code section 65008. Please let me know if you have any questions. 1205794.1