HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-002 Dubln ZoningOrd Amndmt
SUBJECT:
ATTACHMENTS:
AGENDA STATEMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 25,2005
PA 03-002 City of Dublin, Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Amendment to
Chapter 8.12, Zoning Districts and Permitted Uses of Land; Chapter 8.76, Off-
Street Parking and Loading Regulations; Chapter 8.100, Conditional Use Permit
and enact Chapter 8.78 Garage Conversion of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. These
amendments would revoke the regulations that allow for Garage Conversions with
a Conditional Use Permit and revise the procedure to allow for Garage Conversions
(without a Conditional Use Permit) in certain residential zoning districts if certain
performance standards can be met.
Report Prepared by: Linda Ajello, Associate Planner ~
1.
Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the Ordinance
revoking Ordinance 4-03, which established a conditional use permit
procedure for Garage Conversions; and adopt a new Ordinance
which would amend the Zoning Ordinance to create a new
procedure based on performance standards for Garage Conversions.
Ordinance revoking Ordinance 4-03, which established a conditional
use permit procedure for Garage Conversions.
Ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance to create a new
procedure for Garage Conversions based on performance standards.
City of Dublin Ordinance No. 4-03 Amendment to Chapter 8.12,
Zoning Districts and Permitted Uses of Land; Chapter 8.76, Off-
Street Parking and Loading Regulations; and Chapter 8.100,
Conditional Use Permit of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance adopted on
April 1, 2003.
Staff Report and Minutes for City Council Meetings:
a. November 19, 2002
b. March 18,2003
c. April 1, 2003
d. July 19,2005
Staff Report and Minutes for Plarming Commission Meetings:
a. January 28, 2003
b. February 25, 2003
Minutes for May 3, 2005, City Council Hearing on Appeal of P A
04-036.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPIES TO: In House Distribution
ITEM NO. R
G;\P A#\2003\03-002 Garage Conversion\Garage conversion2005\PCSR 1 O~25-05 revised.doc
RECOMMENDATION: 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Open Public Hearing
Receive Staff Presentation
Receive Public Testimony
Close Public Hearing
Deliberate
Adopt Resolution (Attachment I) recommending that the City
Council adopt an Ordinance repealing Ordinance 4-03 and adopting
an Ordinance to amend the Zoning Ordinance
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
At the November 19,2002 City Council meeting, the City Council directed Staff to review an amendment
to the Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. At that time, the
Dublin Zoning Ordinance required that each residential dwelling provide two off-street parking spaces in
an enclosed garage. This parking requirement prevented the conversion of garages to living spaces unless
two enclosed parking spaces could be provided elsewhere on the lot.
At the City Council's direction, Staff proceeded with an amendment to the Dublin Zoning Ordinance to
remove the word "enclosed" from the parking requirement. Staff prepared a report and presented the
proposed amendment to the Planning Commission on January 28, 2003. The Plarming Commission
directed Staff to provide alternatives and studies to address the following concerns regarding the
conversion of garages to living space: I) traffic and safety, 2) inrrastructure/service impacts, 3) scope of
conversions, 4) aesthetics and design standards, and 5) grand-fathering.
At the February 25, 2003 Plarming Commission meeting, Staff returned with a report that addressed the
Plarming Commission's concerns and recommended a Conditional Use Permit process with the Plarming
Commission as the decision-making body. In order for the Planning Commission to approve a
Conditional Use Permit, certain findings would have to be made to address issues such as compatibility
with adjacent properties; adverse impacts to health, safety and welfare; impacts on property or
improvements in the neighborhood; whether the site is physically suitable for the changes being proposed;
and, consistency with development regulations for the zoning district in which the project is located.
Additionally, Staff recommended that a new conditional use permit finding be added for residential
garage conversions:
H. Architectural considerations, including the character, scale and quality of the design,
the architectural relationship with the site and other buildings, building materials and
colors, screening of exterior appurtenances, exterior lighting, and similar elements
have been incorporated into the project and as conditions of approval in order to
insure compatibility of this development with the development's design concept or
theme and the character of adjacent buildings, neighborhoods, and uses.
The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 03-04 recommending that the City Council adopt an
Ordinance that would allow garage conversions with a conditional use permit process that included the new
finding referenced above.
On March 18,2003 and April 1,2003, the City Council held public hearings on this item and approved
Ordinance No. 4-03 amending the Zoning Ordinance and thereby allowing for garage conversions with a
conditional use permit to be heard by the Planning Commission.
2
On May 3, 2005, the City Council heard an appeal of the Planning Commission approval of a proposed
conditional use permit for a garage conversion at 7697 Canterbury Lane (PA 04-036). During the
deliberation on that appeal, the City Council requested that an item be placed on a future agenda to
discuss garage conversions in general.
On July 19, 2005, the City Council received a status report rrom Staff on garage conversions that have
been approved or denied since the inception of Ordinance 4-03 in April 2003. The City Council
discussed the intent of allowing garage conversions and reached a consensus that the Ordinance was not
achieving the City Council's intent. At that meeting, the City Council directed Staff to prepare a future
agenda item to have the Garage Conversion Ordinance 4-03 revoked and to develop a new Ordinance that
better met the City Council's intent, while considering the following issues:
· Amount of off-street parking
· Subjectivity
· Requirement to maintain garage door
· Legality of sign-off of radius neighbors
· Scope of the appeal process
· Whether a CUP would be required
Amendment:
Staff has prepared draft ordinances that were designed to address the concerns of the City Council. The draft
ordinances would: 1) repeal Ordinance 4-03, which established a conditional use permit for garage
conversions and 2) amend Chapter 8 of the Municipal Code to allow garage conversions as a ministerial
action. The new ordinance would enact Chapter 8.78 pertaining to garage conversions to the Municipal
Code. The new code section would allow garage conversions with the issuance of a building permit,
provided that the following performance standards are met:
A. There are no modifications to the garage door or to the exterior of the dwelling except for the
addition ofwindow(s) to the garage's wall(s) that do not rront on the street.
B. Two full-size unenclosed parking spaces will be available on the parcel following the conversion.
Since the approval process will be a ministerial action, there will be no right to appeal.
The City Attorney reviewed the legality of requiring neighbor sign-off rrom properties within the required
radius of a property applying for a ministerial garage conversion permit. The City Attorney concluded that
such a requirement would violate the due process of rights of the owner of the subject property and would be
an unlawful delegation of power. It is the opinion of the City Attorney that, if challenged, such a provision
would not be upheld in a court oflaw.
Environmental Review:
On August 18, 1997, the City Council adopted Resolution 103-97 finding that the Comprehensive Revision
to the Zoning Ordinance, including Chapter 8.76, Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations is exempt
rrom the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). It can be seen with certainty that there is no
possibility that revising the Zoning Ordinance in this marmer would have a significant effect on the
environment (Section 15061(b) (3). Various changes to the Municipal Code listed above are proposed which
would not increase or create environmental impacts. These changes will have no environmental impacts and
are also exempt rrom the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it can be seen with certainty
that there is no possibility that such amendments would have a significant effect on the environment.
3
CONCLUSION:
The Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 8.120) requires that all zoning ordinance amendments (such as the addition
of Chapter 8.78 Garage Conversions and proposed amendments to Chapter 8.76, Off-Street Parking and
Loading Regulations) be heard by the Planning Commission and following a public hearing, the Plarming
Commission shall make a written recommendation to the City Council whether to approve, approve with
modifications, or disapprove the amendment. The proposed Ordinance (Attachment 3) implements City
Council direction and addresses Planning Commission concerns.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Plarming Commission: 1) open the public hearing and receive Staff presentation,
2) take testimony rrom the public, 3) question Staff and the public, 4) close the public hearing,S) deliberate
and; 6) adopt Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the Ordinance to repeal Ordinance 4-03
and adopt Ordinance to amend the Zoning Ordinance of the Dublin Municipal Code.
4
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
ASSESSOR PARCELS:
GENERALPLANI
SPECIFIC PLAN
DESIGNATION:
EXISTING ZONING
AND LAND USE:
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Citywide
Various
Various
Various
5
RESOLUTION NO. 05 - XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO
CHAPTER 8.12 ZONING DISTRICTS AND PERMITTED USES OF LAND;
CHAPTER 8.76 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS;
CHAPTER 8.100 CONDITONAL USE PERMIT; AND ENACT CHAPTER 8.78 GARAGE
CONVERSION, OF THE DUBLIN ZONING ORDINANCE
P A 03-002
WHEREAS, a comprehensive revision to the Zoning Ordinance (Ordinance 20-97) was adopted
by the City Council on September 2,1997; and
WHEREAS, on November 19, 2002, City Council requested that Staff consider modification of
the City's enclosed parking requirement by eliminating the requirement for two off-street parking spaces
in an enclosed garage to allow for the conversion of garages to living space; and
WHEREAS, on November 19, 2002, Staff presented a report to the City Council regarding the
City's current requirements for residential off-street parking; and
WHEREAS, on November 19, 2002, the City Council directed Staff to prepare an amendment to
the Zoning Ordinance to remove the requirement for two off-street parking spaces in an enclosed garage
to allow for the conversion of garages to living space; and
WHEREAS, on January 28, 2003, Staff presented a report to the Plarming Commission regarding
an amendment to Chapter 8.76, Off-street Parking and Loading Regulations of the Dublin Zoning
Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, on January 28, 2003, the Planning Commission directed Staffto provide alternatives
and studies regarding the amendment to Chapter 8.76, Off-street Parking and Loading Regulations ofthe
Dublin Zoning Ordinance and its impact on garage conversions; and
WHEREAS, on February 25, 2003, the PI arming Commission adopted a Resolution
recommending that City Council adopt an ordinance that would allow garage conversions with a
Conditional Use Permit; and
WHEREAS, on March 28, 2003, the City Council conducted the first reading to introduce the
Ordinance to amend the Dublin Zoning Ordinance to allow for conversion of residential garage space to
living space with a Conditional Use Permit; and
WHEREAS, on April 1, 2003, the City Council approved Ordinance No. 04-03 amending
Chapter 8.12 Zoning Districts and Permitted Uses of Land; Chapter 8.76 Off-Street Parking and Loading
Regulations; and Chapter 8.100 Conditional Use Permit, of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, on May 3, 2005, the City Council heard an appeal of the Planning Commission
approval of a conditional use permit for a garage conversion at 7697 Canterbury Lane (P A 04-036); and
WHEREAS, on May 3, 2005, the City Council requested that Staff place an item on a future
agenda to discuss garage conversions in general; and
WHEREAS, on July 19, 2005, Staff presented a status report to the City Council on garage
conversions that have been approved or denied since Ordinance No. 4-03 was adopted in 2003; and
I
ATTACHMENT J
WHEREAS, on July 19, 2005, the City Council directed Staff to prepare an ordinance to revoke
the Garage Conversion Ordinance No. 4-03 and develop a new ordinance that better met the City
Council's intent; and
WHEREAS, Ordinancc 4-03 must be repcaled and Chapter 8.12, Zoning Districts and Permitted
Uses of Land; Chapter 8.76, Off-street Parking and Loading Regulations; and Chaptcr 8.100, Conditional
Use Permit, must be reviscd and Chapter 8.78 Garage Conversion must bc enacted to more effectively
regulate off-street parking and the conversion of garages in thc City of Dublin; and
WHEREAS, on August 18, 1997, the City Council adopted Resolution 103-97 finding that the
Comprehcnsive Revision to the Zoning Ordinance, including Chaptcr 8.12 Zoning Districts and Permitted
Uscs of Land; Chapter 8.76 Off-strcet Parking and Loading Regulations; and Chapter 8.100 Conditional
Use Permit regulations, is cxcmpt rrom the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The various
changes to thc Zoning Ordinance listcd above would also not creatc environmental impacts. These
changes are exempt rrom CEQA because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that such
amendments would have a significant effect on the environmcnt (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15061 (b)
(3»; and
WHEREAS, Staff has prepared a Staff Report dated October 25,2005 analyzing the amendments
to the Dublin Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Plarming Commission held a public hearing on said amendments to the Dublin
Zoning Ordinance on October 25, 2005, for which proper notice was given in accordance with California
State Law; and
WHEREAS, the Plarming Commission did hear and use their independent judgment and
considered all said reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT thc Dublin Plarming Commission does
hereby recommend that the City Council find that the revocation of Ordinance 4-03 and the proposed
amendments to Chapter 8.12, Zoning Districts and Permitted Uses of Land; Chapter 8.76, Off-street
Parking and Loading Regulations; Chapter 8.100, Conditional Usc Pcrmit; and enactment of Chaptcr 8.78
Garage Conversion, have no possibility for a significant effect on the environment (CEQA, Section 15061
(b) (3», that the amendmcnts arc consistent with the General Plan, and does recommcnd that the City
Council amend said chapters ofthc Dublin Zoning Ordinancc as shown in Attachmcnts 2 and 3 to the
October 25,2005 Staff Report for PA 03-002.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 25th day of October 2005, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Plarming Commission Chairpcrson
ATTEST:
Plarming Manager
G:\PA#\2003\03-002 Garage Conversion\Garage conversion2005\PC Reso 10-25·05 revised. DOC
2
ORDINANCE NO. -
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
***************************************
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN REPEALING
ORDINANCE NO. 4-03, RELATING TO GARAGE CONVERSIONS
WHEREAS, on April 1, 2003, the City Council adoptcd Ordinance 4-03 of the Municipal Code,
entitled "Amending Chapter 8.12 Zoning Districts and Permitted Uses of Land; Chapter 8.76 Off-
Street and Loading Rcgulations; and Chapter 8.100 Conditional Use Permit, of the Dublin Zoning
Ordinance, P A 03-002" for the purpose of regulating developmcnt within the City.
WHEREAS, thc City Council desires to repeal Ordinance 4-03.
NOW, THEREFORE, The City Council ofthc City of Dublin does ordain as follows:
Section 1:
Repeal of Ordinance No. 4-03
Ordinance No. 4-03 of the City of Dublin Municipal Code, relating to garage conversions, is hereby
repeal cd.
Section 2:
Effective Date and Postinl! of Ordinance
This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days rrom and after the date of its final
adoption. The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause this Ordinancc to be posted in at least three
(3) public places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 39633 of the Government Code of
California.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin on this_
day of 2005, by the following votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
G:\PA#\2003\03-002 Garage Conversion\Garage conversion2005\ord repealing garage conversion ord_OOC
ATTACHMENT '2
ORDINANCE NO. XX - 05
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
***************************************
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ENACTING
CHAPTER 8.78 OF THE DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE, RELATING TO GARAGE
CONVERSIONS, AND AMENDING DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS
8.12.050,8.76.070,8.76.080 AND 8.100.060.
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin has determined that, the Zoning Districts and Permitted Uses of
Land of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 8.12); Off-street Parking and Loading Regulations ofthe
Dublin Zoning Ordinancc (Chapter 8.76); and Conditional Use Permit regulations ofthe Dublin Zoning
Ordinance (Chapter 8.100), must be revised and Garagc Conversion (Chaptcr 8.78) must be enacted to
more effectively regulate development within the City; and
WHEREAS, on August 18, 1997, the City Council adopted Resolution 103-97 finding that the
Comprchensive Revision to the Zoning Ordinance, including Chapter 8.12 Zoning Districts and Permitted
Uses of Land; Chapter 8.76 Off-street Parking and Loading Regulations; and Chapter 8.100 Conditional
Use Permit regulations, is exempt rrom the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The various
changes to the Zoning Ordinance listcd abovc would also not create environmental impacts. Thcse
changes are exempt rrom CEQA because it can be seen with certainty that thcre is no possibility that such
amendments would havc a significant effect on thc environment (CEQA Guidclines, Section 15061 (b)
(3»; and
WHEREAS, the Plarming Commission did hold a properly noticed public hearing on this project
on October 25,2005, and did adopt Resolution 05-_ recommending that the City Council approve
amendments to the Zoning Ordinancc; and
WHEREAS, a properly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on
,2005;
and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the City Council approve the
Zoning Ordinance Amendments; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 8.120.050.B ofthe Zoning Ordinance, the City Council finds
that the Ordinancc Amendments are consistent with the Dublin General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and usc its independent judgment and consider all said
reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabovc set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, thc City Council of the City of Dublin does ordain as follows:
Chapter 8.78 Added to Dublin Municipal Code
Section 1:
Chapter 8.78 is added to the Dublin Municipal Code, to rcad as follows:
ATTACHMENT 3
8.78010 Purpose. The purpose of this Chapter is to provide for the conversion by the owners of
single-family dwcllings of enclosed garages to living space.
8.78.020 Procedure. Issuance of a building permit for the conversion of an enclosed garage in a
single family dwclling into living space shall bc ministcrial if thc following criteria are all met:
A. There are no modifications to thc garage door or to the exterior of the dwelling except for
the addition ofwindow(s) to the garage's wall(s) that do not front on the street.
B. Two full-size uncncloscd parking spaces will be available on the parcel following the
conversIOn.
Section 2: Amendment of Dublin Municipal Code section 8.12.040
Section 8.12.050, Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Land Uses, of the Dublin Zoning Ordinancc
is amended to read as follows:
RESIDENTIAL USE TYPES
Residential Use Type A R-l R-2 R-3 R-4 C- C-N C-l C-2 M- M-I M-2
0 P
Residential Conversion of E
Gara"e to Livin" Snace - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -
Section 3:
Amendment of Dublin Municipal Code section 8.76.070.A.14(a)(I)
Section 8.76.070.A.14(a)(1) is modified to read as follows:
a. Single family lot.
Section 4:
1.
Principal residence. All parking spaces shall be located on the same parcel as the
residence they serve, unless provided as a Residential Parking Lot by the Zoning
Administrator pursuant to a Conditional Use Permit. The most distant parking
space in a Residential Parking Lot shall be not more than 150 feet rrom the
residences they serve. Parking spaces required by this Chapter shall be located
within an enclosed garage, except that two. full-size, unenclosed parking spaces
mav be provided elsewhere on a lot for the purposes of converting a residential
garage to living space pursuant to Chapter 8.78. Other than the two required
garaged parking spaces, a maximum of two vehicles (which shall include, but not
be limited to, an automobile, car, truck, or Recreational Vehicle) may be parked in
the following areas if screened by a 6 foot high fence or wall and if at least one side
yard is unobstructcd to a width of 36 inches: Areas I, 2, 3a, 3b and 4. Additional
parking may occur in area Sa. Parking in area 5b shall be as required by Section
8.76.060.E.2. No parking shall occur in area 5c except as permitted by Section
8.76.060.E.4. Scc Figure 76-2. Parking in a driveway shall not compensate for
required enclosed garagc parking unless two. full-sizc. unenclosed parking spaccs
are provided for the purposes of converting a residential garage to living space. No
parking shall occur in Area 6.
Amendment of Dublin Municipal Code section 8.76.080.B
Section 8.76.080.B is modified to read as follows:
B. Residential Use Types. Residential Use Types shall provide off-street parking spaces as follows:
RESIDENTIAL USE TYPES NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES REQUIRED
Single Family/Duplex/Mobile Home
Lots of 4,000 squarc feet or less 2 in enclosed garage per dwelling."'. plus one on-street
parking space per dwelling unit within 150 feet of that
dwelling unit.
Lots greater than 4,000 square feet 2 in enclosed garage per dwelling."'.
* Except if two. full-size. unenclosed parking spaces are provided elsewherc on a lot for the purposes of
converting a residential garage to living space pursuant to Chapter 8.78.
Section 5:
Amendment to Dnblin Mnnicipa1 Code section 8.100.060
Section 8.l00.060.H, Rcquired Findings, is deleted rrom the Dublin Zoning Ordinance to read as
follows:
H. Fer the eOIl-'¡ersieR ef siRde famil'{ resiclential garages to li'ling seaee. ar-ehiteetlffill
eeRsideratieRs. ifleluding the eharaeter. seale and aualit·{ efthe desil'$. the arehiteetural
relatienshia wit-ll the site and ether lmildings. ImiMing materials ancl eeleFS. sereening ef
exterior aeeurtooanees. e)¡(ener IÙ:hting. ancl similar elements ha'¡e been insefIJeIatecl iHte
the ereieet and as eonditieRs ef Q JeIo'/al ifl eIder te insure eeH\IJatibilitv efthis
cle'¡eloemeflt ·..¡it-ll the develeement's clesign eeFleeat or theme and the eharaeter ef acliaeent
buildim::s, neÜ::hberheeds. ancl uses.
Section 6: Severability
The provisions of this Ordinance are severable and if any provision, clause, sentence, word or part thereof
is held illegal, invalid, unconstitutional, or inapplicable to any person or circumstances, such illegality,
invalidity, unconstitutionality, or inapplicability shall not affect or impair any of the remaining provisions,
clauses, sentences, sections, words or parts thereof of the ordinance or their applicability to other persons
or circumstances.
Section 7:
Effective Date and Posting of Ordinance
This Ordinance shall take effcct and be in force thirty (30) days from and after the date of its final
adoption. The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause this Ordinance to bc postcd in at Icast three (3)
public places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Scction 39633 ofthe Governmcnt Codc of
California.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED BY thc City Council ofthc City of Dublin on this of
2005, by the following votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
Mayor
City Clerk
G:\PA#\2003\03-002 Garage Conversion\Garage conversion2005\garage cony ord revision 2.DOC
ORDINANCE NO.4 - 03
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
*********
AMENDING CHAPTER 8.12 ZONING DISTRICTS AND PERMITTED USES OF LAND;
CHAPTER 8.76 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS; AND
CHAPTER 8.100 CONDITONAL USE PERMIT, OF THE DUBLIN ZONING ORDINANCE, PA 03-002
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin has determined that, the Zoning Districts and Permitted Uses of
Land of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 8.12); Off-street Parking and Loading Regulations of the
Dublin Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 8.76); and Conditional Use Permit regulations of the Dublin Zoning
Ordinance (Chapter 8.100), must be revised to more effectively regulate development within the City; and
WHEREAS, on August 18, 1997, the City Council adopted Resolution 103·97 finding that the
Comprehensive Revision to the Zoning Ordinance, including Chapter 8.12 Zoning Districts and Permitted
Uses of Land; Chapter 8.76 Off-street Parking and Loading Regulations; and Chapter 8.100 Conditional
Use Permit regulations, is exempt rrom the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The various
changes to the Zoning Ordinance listcd above would also not create environmental impacts. These
changes are exempt rrom CEQA because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that such
amendments would have a significant effect on the environment (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15061 (b)
(3»; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a properly noticed public hearing on this project
on February 25, 2003, and did adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council approve
amendments to the Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, a properly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on April I, 2003;
and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the City Council approve the
Zoning Ordinance Amendments; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 8.120.050.B ofthe Zoning Ordinance, the City Council finds
that the Ordinance Amendments are consistent with the Dublin General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and use its independent judgment and consider all said
reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Dublin does ordain as follows:
Section 1
Section 8.12.050, Permitted and ConditionsUy Permitted Land Uses, of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance
is amended to read as follows:
RESIDENTIAL USE TYPES
Residential Use Type A R-l R-2 R-3 R-4 C- C-N C-l C-2 M- M-l M-2
0 P
Residential Conversion of C/PC
Garal!e to Livin" Snace - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -
.
ATTACHMENT ~
Section 2
Section 8.76.070.A.14, Location of Required Parking Spaces, of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance is
amended to read as follows:
a. Single family lot.
1. Principal residence. All parking spaces shall be located on the same parcel as the
residence they serve, unless provided as a Residential Parking Lot by the Zoning
Administrator pursuant to a Conditional Use Permit. The most distant parking
space in a Residential Parking Lot shall be not more than 150 feet from the
residences they serve. Parking spaces required by this Chapter shall be located
within an enclosed garage, except that two. full-size. unenclosed parking spaces
may be permitted elsewhere on a lot pursuant to a Conditional Use Permit for the .
purposes of converting a residential garage to living space. Other than the two
required garaged parking spaces, a maximum of two vehicles (which shall include,
but not.be limited to, an automobile, car, truck, or Recreational Vehicle) may be
parked in the following areas if screened by a 6 foot high fence or wall and if at
least one side yard is unobstructed to a width of36 inches: Areas 1,2, 3a, 3b and
4. Additional parking may occur in area Sa. Parking in area 5b shall be as required
by Section 8.76.060.E.2. No parking shall occur in area 5c except as permitted by
Section 8.76.060.E.4. See Figure 76-2. Parking in a driveway shall not
compensate for required enclosed garage parking unless two. full-size. unenclosed
parking spaces are permitted pursuant to a Conditional Usc Perniit for the purposes
of converting a residential garage to living space. No parking shall occur in Area
6.
Section 3
Section 8.76.080, Parking Requirements by Use Type, of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance is amended to
read as follows:
B. Residential Use Types. Residential Use Types shall provide off-street parking spaces as follows:
RESIDENTIAL USE TYPES NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES REQUIRED
Single Family/DupJexlMobile Home
Lots of 4,000 square feet or less 2 in enclosed garage per dwelling: plus one on-street
parking space per dwelling unit within J 50 feet of that
dwelling unit.
Lots greater than 4,000 square feet 2 in enclosed garage per dwelling:
. Except if two. full-size. unenclosed Darkiml sDaces are Dcnnitted elsewhere on a lot Imrsuant to a Conditional Use Pennit
for the DW"Ooses of convertine. a residential e:arae:e to living space.
Section 4
Section 8.100.060, Required Findings, of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance is amended to read as follows:
H. For the conversion of single family residential garages to living space. architectural
considerations. including the character. scale and Quality of the design, the architectural
relationship with the site and other buildings. building materials and colors. screening of
exterior appurtenances. exterior lighting. and similar elements have been incorporated into
the project and as conditions of approval in order to insure compatibi1itv of this
development with the development's design concept or theme and the character of adjacent
buildings. neighborhoods. and uses.
Section 5 - Severability
The provisions of this Ordinance are severable and if any provision, clause, sentence, word or part thereof
is held illegal, invalid, unconstitutional, or inapplicable to any person or circumstances, such illegality,
invalidity, unconstitutionality, or inapplicability shall not affect or impair any of the remaining provisions,
clauses, sentences, sections, words or parts thereof of the ordinance or their applicability to other persons
or circumstances.
Section 6 - Effective Date and Posting of Ordinance
This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after the date of its final
adoption. The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in at least three (3)
public places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 39633 of the Government Code of
California.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin on this 1st day of
April 2003, by the following votes:
AYES: Councilmembers McCormick, Sbranti and Mayor Lockhart
NOES: Councilmembers Oravetz and Zika
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
J::'~/
City Clerk ~
K'/G/4-I-03/ord·garage-conv.doc (Item 6.1)
G:\P A#\2003\03-002\CC-ord.doc
CITY CLERK
File # Dr4lIl1:!ØJ-~[ð]
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCil MEETING DATE: November 19, 2002
SUBJECT:
Residential Off Street Parkíng - Discussion of City ~"uirements
Report Prepared by; Jeri Ram, Planning Mam;¡ger l1t"""
ATTACHMENT:
1.
2.
Section 8.76.070.14 of Zoning Ordinance
Planning Division Work Program Staff Report dated 10115/02
RECOMMENDATION: 1.
4~
Receive Staff presentation
Give Staff direction on whether additional studies should be done on
this issue ¡md if it should be added to Staff's work program.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
None at this iime.
DESCRIPTION:
Councilmember Tim Sbranti has requested that the City Council consider modification of the City's
enclosed parking requirement by eliminating the requirement. for two enclosed off-street parking spaces
¡¡nd requiring only two off-street paTking spaces.
In May 1982 (after incorpora1ion) the City of Dublin adopted the Alameda County Zoning Ordinance as
the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Over time. the City gradually amended and modified the ilJning
Ordinance to address the City of Duh1in's needs and issues. Under the Alameda County Zoning
Ordinance and the early City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance, two off-street parking spaces were required for
single-family residential dwelling units. There was not a requirement for the parking spaces to be
enclosed or covered; however, there was a requirement that the two off-street parking spaces could not be
. parked in a required ftont yard or the street s:ide yard of a comer lot. This had the effect of not allowing
for garage conversions as there Wall generally nowhere else to park the cars off·st1ee1.
As the City developed on the west side of Doughtery Road, all the single-family residential UllÍts were
built in a conventional style with two car garages and standard driveway lengths. Lot sizes were larger, in
general, than they are today in the newly developing areas. These larger lots enable more on-street
parking as the distances between driveways where parking is allowed is longer than on the narrower lots.
When the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan was approved in 1987, the Plan called for Planned Development
Zoning Districts as part ofits implementation strategy. This strategy allows for variations in zoning
standards (including off-street parking) to accommodate different types of dwelling units.
Additionally, the plan's vision is for an urban type of environment. As a result. this more urban plan
creates smaller, narrower and den~r lot configurations. These narrower lots have less on-street parking,
-----------
---..-....
-----
.-----........---..
G:\A¡ l:Ildas12002'CCSRofl>1rootporkingll-19-02.DOC
COPIES
ITEM l'
ATTACHMENT .S~
as there is less space between driveways. Additionally, some of the streets are private and have reslrlcfed '
on-street parking areas. Some streets, in fact, do not allow on-street parking at all and special guest
parking areas are provided. Some of the residential designs vary the ti:ont yard setbacks. This variation in
front yard setbacks may also create shorter driveways than are conventional. These driveways do not
enable the parking of cars off street, as the automobiles would extend on to the sidewalk. In short, the
design afme subdiviiJion and s.ite development review of the homes did Dot anticipate conversion of the
garage to another use.
In 1997. the City of Dublin completed a comprehensive revision to the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance.
The revised Ordinance included a new requirement that single-family residential units must have two off -
street parking spaces in an enclosed garage. Although Planned Development Zoning Districts have the
ability to vary £tom the Parking Requirements. all Planned Development Zoning Districts for single-
family detached units that the City has approved include the requirement for two off-street puking spaces
in an enclosed garage.
During. the past year, Staffhas opened several code enforcement cases relating to illegal garage
conversions. Staff bas worked with the homeowners and informed them of their options under the Zoning
Ordinance. Their options are:
1. Applying for a variance and having it approved. Granting of a variance by the Plarming
Commission or City Council is difficult, as the decision-makers must make all five findings
required by State law. One of these findings is that thete is something pbY:¡¡cally unusual
about the lot that deprives the property owners :&om developing their property as others in their
zoning district. Very few resídential sites in Dublin fit into this category.
2. Apply to change the Zoning Ordinance to allow for garage conversions by removing the
requirement for two off-street enclosed spaces; and .
3. Retmn the garage to its required use. This involves removing structures and walls.
If the City Council would like Staff to further explore the possibility of amending the off-street parking
requirements for siIlgIe-family residential dwelling W1Îts, to allow for garage cODVersions, issues that
would need to be addressed include:
· The ability to allow for garage conversions throughout the City when the development patterns in
Eastern Dublin were specially tAilored for a certain parking configuration;
· Equity issues if one portion of the City can convert their garages while the other portion of the City
cannot;
· Adequacy Of on-street parking to accommodate those who wish to convert their garage as
automobiles have become larger and many families have more than two cars;
· Loss of sight lines along residential s1reets which may increase vehicular and pedestrian accidents;
and
· The change in the streetgcape pattern of residential areas as more and more cars move on to the
street Md off private properues.
Additionally, this item would need tQ be added to Staff's work program and other high priority projects
may take longer to accomplish (see Attachment 2).
ct.4 ~
As part of any addiµonal work authoñzed by the City Council on this item, Staft"would prepare a ~ '
report examining the above issues in greater depth and conduct a survey of Bay Areajurisdictions to see
which cities allow garage conversions and which do not.
RECOMMENDATION:
Recci ve S1a1f presentation and give Staff direction on whether additional stuwes should be done on this
issue and if it sbQuld be added to Sta.t1:"" s work program.
3~.~
Ms. lowart stated we will mail to everyone who came to last night s meeting and will
ask Toll Brothers to invite all new people.
Mayor Lockhart requested that they also state the date the Parks &; Community Services
C0mmi.8sion will be discussing this.
Kasie Hildenbrand suggested something be included in the BOA l~r.
Mayor Lockhart stated one of the criteria she would Iilœ to see included is the
neighborhood makeup. We have quite an Asja.n influence and maybe we shouJd take
this into consideration. Also, hi1ve input from the developers.
Ms. lowart stated the developers were represented at the meeting last night. They
presented alternatives with different elements and asked the people to pick and choose
from the alternatives.
Mr. Ambrose pointed.out this item deals with nam.ÎI1g the park rather than design Wsues.
Ms. Lowart stated December 16th will be the next meeting.
Consensus of the Council was to put tlús off. Even though this is a neighborhood par~ it
belongs to the whole conununity. Staff should get feedback from the next meeting and
then take it to the Parks &; Community Services Commission and then to the City
Council.
..
RESID:ENTIAL OFF-STREET PARKING - DISCUSSION OF CrIY REQUIREMENTS
10:46 p.m. 8.4 (450-20)
P1anning MIulager Jeri Rarn presented the Staff Report and gave historical information.
em. Sbranti requested that the City Council consider modification of the City's enclosed
parking requirement by eliminating the requirement for two enclosed off~street parking
spaces and requ:irit1g only two off~stre~ pad:ing spaces.
Ms. Ram stated if the City Council would like Staff to further explore the possibility of
amending the off-street parking requirements for sing:le~family dwelling units to allow.
for garage conversions, issues that would need to be addressed include:
CITY COUNCIL MINUT£S .
VOLUME 21
REGULAR. MElITlNG
November 19, 2002
PAGE 587
AIT" ......"'~...,.... 5
H~:n ni ¡,¡¡ i ~
1) The ability to allow for garage conversions throughout the City when the
develQpment patterns in Eastern Dublin were specially tailored for a certain parkinz
coIÚJ.gU1'ation;
2) Equity issues if one portion of the City can convert their garages while the other
portion of the City cannot;
3) Adequacy of on-street parking to accommodate those who wish io convert their
garage as automobiles have become larger and many families have more than two cars;
4) Los3 of sight lirIes along residential streets which may increase vehicular and
pedestrian accidents; and
5) The change in the streetscape pattern of residential areas as more and more cars move
on to the street and off private properties.
Additionally, this item would need. to be added to s1:af:f's work program and other hjgh
priority projects may take longer to accomplish. As pArt of any additional work
authorized by the City Council on this item, Staff would prepare a Staff Report
examining the above issues in greater depth and conduct a survey of Bay Area
juriOOic-nons to see which cities allow zarage conversions and which do not, and
implications.
Mary Ross, Doreen Court, stated this affects people livmg in the community. She is a
recent resident moving here front the Peninmla. This is a community and she has gotten
to know people who give Dublin its significance and its character. There axe a lot af
cars on the street. There is no usable storage in most of the homes. So many of the
garages are filled to capacity with stuff. This measure seems directed in a punitive
measure which would affect so many people not able to park their cars in their garages.
It seems unenforceable and if it is, it seemS a little bit too big brother. It would adversely
affect people, contributing members, who are trying to live productive lives and add to
this community.
Cm. Sbranti stated he would never want to bring forward suggestions that would cause
more congestion in the streets. He doesn't see how ma.Icin$ one simple change taking
away "enclosed" would take away anything. You still must provide 2 off street parking
spaces. He did not feel there would be a widespread move to convert garages. This
could be It situation where an elder parent could have a level of privacy. There are
legitiwRte scenarios where he could see this going forward. You wcm.1d. still have to
provide Z spaces. Some of the inequities are created by a homeowners association.
When you live in certain parts of town, there are pluses and minuses. Every
CITY' COUNCIL MINUI'ES
VOLUME 21
REGULAR. MEETING
November 19, 2002
PAGE 588
neighborhood takes on a different character. TIùs ordinance is overly punitive, as
written. He did not feel this change is that complicated. We have to only remove the
word "enclosed".
em. Zika stated he lives in a neighborhood where almost every house has at least one car
in the garase and one car in the driveway. He has to put his garbage can out early in
order to have a place to put it on the street. He gets calls on a. :regular basis where people
don't have room to put their garbage CIltlS out. He pointed out that the new requirement
for garbage bins requires 1 7 feet.
Mayor 10ckhart stated parkmg on the street is not illegal. If we were real1y serious
about this, probably 95% of the City could be cited.
em. Oravetz stated he likes garage conversions for mother-in-law units; particularly if
we oou1d use some of these units toward our affordable housing goab. Most of the
people on his street have 3 or 4 cars.
Mr. Peabody stated some cities allow garage conversions and some do not. There are II
variety of reasons. Some have prohibited this due to aesthetic reasons. It is II mixed bag.
Mayor Lockhart sta.ted she felt people won't go out an do conversions no matter wlmt the
City Council says.
Mr. Ambrose talked about code enforcement issues that staff deals with such as boot Or'
RV storage.
Cm. Sbranti stated he did not feel there will be a large msh of people going out and
doing garage conversions. Given the housing needs, there are II lot of reasons people
may go forward with this type of tlrittg. He did not feel this win have an impact one way
or the other on meet parking.
Cm. Oravetz asked if he converted his garage, could he get credit for an affordable unit.
Mr. Peabody explained that it may be an illegal use. If it were a. second unit, he would
have to get pennits and pay fee~ and provide parki11g for that unit.
Cm. McCormick stated she felt converted garages and park:i11g are two different subjects.
'I1ùs has to do with wording to remove requirements for covered parkittg spaces.
Mayor Lockhart stated she felt if you just take the word "covered" out, this would ftx it.
CITY CQUNCn. MINUJ'ES
VOWME 21
REGULAR MEETING
November 19, 2002
PAGE 589
Cm. Oravetz asked if this wouJdjust open "Pandora's Box"?
Mr. Peabody stated as a practical matter, we advi$e people in the older portion of Dublin
to put an addition onto their house. In:many ca3eS, the garage conversions are talked
about as being work spaces or larger family rooms rather than dwellings for relatives.
This js what the usual request has been, based on his experience.
Cm. Sbranti stated the real issue is not about garage conversions, but parking spaces.
Cm. McCormick stated people have stuff and they can't get cars into their garage
myway.
Ms. Ram stated they could take this to the Plannb1g Commission and then back to the
City Council. just take out word "enclosed! covered".
On motion of Cm. Sbranti, seconded by Mayor Lockhart, and by majority vote, the
Council directed Staff to bring the issue to take out of the Ordinance the ~uirement for
2 enclosed off street spaces to the PIannirIg CommissiOIl and City Council Cm. Zika
voted in opposition to the motion.
.
fiSCAL YEAR 2002-03 GOALS &: OBJECTIVES STATUS REPORT
AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM SCHEDUL~
11:16 p.m. 8.5 (100-SO)
City Manager Richard Ambrose advised that Staff had prepared a bi-monthly status
report of Staff's progress towards the objectives assigned by the City Council as of
October 31, 2002. As of that date, a total of 12 of 96 objectíveA have been completed.
With respect to high priority objectives, a total of 12 out of 77 have been completed.
There have been 10 major additional assignmenù since April 2002, one of wwch has
been completed.
The CIP includes 59 projects that are funded in lY 2002-03. Four projects have been
completed since the program was approved in ]U!\C of 2002.
The Council t1um1œd Staff for the report.
...-+
CI1Y COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 21
REGULAR MEETING
November 19, 2002
PAGE 590
CITY CLERK
File # DODD-DO
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 18,2003
L.,J. .-'
u .:)
:--
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing, PA 03-002, City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance
Amendment, First Reading - Amendment to Chapter 8.12, Zoning
Districts and Permitted Uses of Land; Chapter 8.76, Off-Street Parking
and Loading Rcgulations; and Chapter 8.100, Conditional Usc Permit of
the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. These amendments will allow for the
conversion of garages to living space in R-1, Single Family Residential
zoning districts by means ofa Conditional Use Permit.
Report Prepared by Jeri Ram, Planning Manager and Mamie R. Wajjle,
Assistant Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Plarming Commission Minutes, February 25, 2003
2. Planning Commission Staff Report, February 25, 2003 (includes
Staff Report and Minutes from the January 28, 2003 Planning
Commission meeting)
3. Plarming Commission Resolution 03-04 recommending City
Council approval of an amendment to Chapter 8.12, Zoning Districts
and Permitted Uses of Land; Chapter 8.76, Off-Street Parking and
Loading Regulations; and Chapter 8.100, Conditional Use Permit of
the Dublin Zoning Ordinance
4. Ordinance Amending the Dublin Zoning Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION:
]. Open Public Hearing and receive Staff presentation;
2. Question Staff;
3. Take testimony rrom the Public;
4. Close Public Hearing and deliberate;
5. Waive the reading and introduce the Ordinance to amend the Dublin
Zoning Ordinance.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: No financial impact.
BACKGROUND:
At the November 19, 2002 City Council meeting, the City Council directed Staff to review an amendment to
the Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. The Dublin Zoning
Ordinance currently requires that each residential dwelling provide two, off-street parking spaces in an
enclosed garage. This parking requirement prevents the conversion of garages to living spaces unless two,
enclosed parking spaces can be providcd elsewhere on the lot.
A1TACHMENT
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------______________~_I.L_____
COPIES TO:
ITEM NO.
~
--, C:ï ":.')
At the City Council's direction, Staff proceeded with an amendment to the Dublin Zoning Ordimì~ce 'fo
remove the word "enclosed" rrom the parking requirement. Staff prepared a report and presented the
proposed amendment to the Plarming Commission on January 28, 2003. The Planning Commission received
Staff's presentation, received public testimony, deliberated, and directed Staff to provide alternatives and
studies to address the following concerns regarding the conversion of garages to living space:-·1) traffic and .
safety, 2) infrastructure/service impacts, 3) scope of conversions, 4) aesthetics and design staÏidards, and 5)
grand-fathering (Attachment 2, see February 25, 2003 Staff Report Attachment 2 for January 28, 2003
Planning Commission Minutes).
At the February 25, 2003 Planning Commission meeting, Staff returned with a report that addressed the
Planning Commission's concerns and presented a solution to address them (Attachment 2, see February 25,
2003 Staff Report). Staff recommended a Conditional Use Permit process, with the Plarming Commission
as the decision making body, to conditionally approve requests to convert garages into living space. In order
for the Plarming Commission to approve a Conditional Use Permit, certain findings would have to bc madc
to address issues such as, compatibility with adjacent properties; adverse impacts to health, safety and
welfare; impacts on property or improvements in the neighborhood; whether the site is physically suitable for
the changes bcing proposed; and, consistency with dcvelopment regulations for the zoning district in which
the project is located.
Under the Conditional Use Permit findings, traffic and safety would be reviewed for adverse impacts to, the
subject site; adjacent properties; neighborhood improvements; and, the public health, safety, and welfare.
Impacts to inITastructure or services, including street sweeping and waste receptacle placement, would be
addressed by requiring that two, off-street parking spaces be provided. The scope of conversions would be
bound by the development regulations for the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District, including but
not limited to, heights, setbacks, and lot coverage.
The addition of a new finding, to the conditional use permit findings for garage conversions, would address
design and architecture, allmving the Plarming Commission to review and approve the physical appearance
of a proposed garage conversion. This new finding would read:
H. Architectural considerations, including the character, scale and quality of the design, the
architectural relationship with the site and other buildings, building materials and colors,
screening of exterior appurtenances, exterior lighting, and similar elements have been
incorporated into the project and as conditions of approval in order to insure
compatibility of this development with the development's design concept or theme and
the character of adjacent bulldings, neighborhoods, and uscs.
The issue of grand-fathering is not applicable to the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments because the
City of Dublin has never allowed the conversion of garages to living space. If the proposed amendments are
adopted, illegal conversions could be legalized and permitted through the Conditional Use Permit and
Building Permit processes.
On February 25, 2003, the Planning Commission received Staffs presentation, received public testimony,
deliberated, and indicated its support of Staff's recommendation by adopting a Resolution (Attachment 3)
recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance (Attachment 4) to amend Chapter 8.12, Zoning
Districts and Permitted Uses of Land; Chapter 8.76, Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations; and
Chapter 8.100, Conditional Use Permit of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance.
2
{!:J. ?
Following the Plarming Commission's action, Staff noted that clarification to the text of the new finding fò'r -
design and architecture was needed. The following phrase (in italics) was added to the new finding:
H. For the conversion of single family residential garages to living space, architectural
considerations, including the character, scale and quality of the design, the architectural
relationship with the site and other buildings, building materials and colors, ...
By clarifying that the new finding is for the conversion of single family residential garages only, other uses
requiring a conditional use permit, i.e. martial arts studios, churches, massage establishments, will not be
subject to the finding on design and architt..'Cture. The City Attorney has reviewed the proposed clarification
to the new finding and detelmined that the change is minor in nature and does not need to go back to the
Plarming Commission for revicw.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
On August 18, 1997, the City Council adopted Resolution 103-97 fmding that the Comprehensive Revision
to the Zoning Ordinance, including Chapter 8.76, Off-Street Parking And Loading Regulations is exempt
from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). It can be seen with certainty that thcre is no
possibility that revising the Zoning Ordinance in this marmer would have a significant effect on the
environment (Section 15061 (b)(3). Various changes to the Zoning Ordinance listed above are proposed
which would not increase or create environmental impacts. These changes will have no environmental
impacts and are also exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it can be seen
with· certainty that there is no possibility that such amendments would have a significant effect on the
environment.
CONCLUSION:
The Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 8.120) requires that all zoning ordinance amendments be heard by the
Plarming Commission and following a public hearing, the Plarming Commission shall make a written
recommcndation to the City Council whether to approve, approve with modifications, or disapprove the
amendment.
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal to remove the word "enclosed" rrom the off-street parking
regulations to allow for the conversion of garages to living space and determined that additional studies were
needed in order to address concerns related to, traffic and safety; inrrastructure/service impacts; the scope of
conversions; aesthetic and design standards; and, grand-fathering. Staff presented the Plarming Commission
with an alternative that addressed their concerns by proposing a Conditional Use Permit process for
reviewing and approving requests to convert garages to living space. The Planning Commission heard the
proposal and recommended that the City Council approve an amendment to Chapter 8.12 Zoning Districts
and Permitted Uses of Land; Chapter 8.76, Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations; and Chapter 8.100
Conditional Use Permit.
Therefore, Staff recommends that the City Council, open the public hearing and receive Staff presentation,
close the public hearing, deliberate, waive the reading, introduce the Ordinance (Attachment 4) to amend the
Dublin Zoning Ordinance, and continue the public hearing to the April 1,2003, City Council Meeting.
3
Approved (4.12 300-40) the Warrartt Resister in the amount of $2,176,318.52.
~
PUBLIC HEARING
CITY OF DUBIlN ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - GARAGE CONVERSIONS
7:07 p.m. 6.1 (450-20)
Mayor Lockhart opened the public hearing.
Planning Manager Jeri Ram mtroduced Associate Planner Mamic Waffle, who presented
the Staff Report and did a PowerPoint presentation.
This is the first reading of an Ordinance proposing amendments to the Dublin Zoning
Ordinance, Chapter 8.12 - Zoning Districts and Permitted Uses of Land; Chapter 8.76-
Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations; and Chapter 8.100 - Conditional Use
Pennit of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. These amendments will allow for the
conversion of garages to living space in R-l , Single Family Residential Zoning Districts
by means of a Conditional Use Permit.
The Dublin Zoning Ordinance currently requires that each residential dweIlútg provide
two, off-street parking spaces in an enclosed garage', This parking requirement prevents
the conversion of garages to living spaces unless two, enclosed parking spaces can be
provided elsewhere on the lot.
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal to remove the word "enclosed" from
the off-street parking regulations to allow for the conversion of garages to living space
and determined that additional studies were needed in order to address concerns related
to Lraffic and safety; infrastructure/ service impacts; the scope of conversions; aesthetic
and design standards; and grand-fathering. Staff presented the Planning Ccmmission
with an alternative 1:luit addressed their concerns by proposing a Conditional Use Permit
process for reviewing and a.pproving requests to convert garages to living space. The
Planning Commission heard the proposal and recommended that the City Council
approve art amendment to Chapter 8.12 Zoning Districts and Pennitted Uses of Land;
Chapter 8.76 Off-Street Parkinz and Loadrng Regulations; and Chapter 8.100
Qmditional Use Permit.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 22
REGULAR MEETING
Ma¡'ch 18.2003
PAGE 143
ATTACHMENT b'b
Bob Fasu1key, Chairman of the Pla.nnittg; Commission thanked Staff for doing a.
wonderful job on this. They understood the intent. Ms. Waffle articulated their list of
concerns. Conversions will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
Cm. Oravetz asked if they considered anything other than living space for garage
conversions.
Mr. Fasulkey replied no, they only considered living space.
Cm. Zilœ asked about a situation whereby two houses created limited parkin:?; they
would say no to a third. He s~ted he felt this would be unfair treatment.
Cm. Sbnmti asked about defininz living space - den, home office, etc.
Ms. Ram stated it is defined by the Building Code.
Cm. Oravetz asIœd if he wanted to put a woodworking facility in his converted garage,
would this be okay?
Ms. Ram explained that îf you wanted to convert your garage to a workshop and you did
not Mve permanent parking, they would not allow it.
Cm. Sbranti stated he felt it is highly unlikely we could end up with three of these in one
cuI de sac. The Planning Commission could approve it if they could show that off street
parking is availAble. It is looked at on a case-by -case basis.
Cm. McCormick stated she was still unclear about the parking, and asked îf the garage
conversion could be a rental?
M.s. Ram stated it could conceivably be a rental uniL We axe currentlyre-evaluating
and revising our second residential unit ordinance as the laws have changed.
Cm. sbranti talked about a second unit that was recently approved on Via Zapata. They
had to provide an additional parking space.
Ms. Ram advised that Staff will take a close look at parking requirements. The second
unit ordinance stands on its own. A second unit would be considered a full unit with
kitchen and separate entrance.
Cm. l\IIcCormick stated she felt this was too bad as this makes City streets look bad.
CrTY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 22
REGULAR MEETING
March 8,2003
PAGE 144
t ~~ 5-"'
Esther Vigil, Tamarack Drive, asked about punitive damages. She stated this was
brought up at an earlier meeting.
Building Official Gregory Shreeve stated an existing garage conversion that may be
under code enforcement. The Code requires a minimum double, possible triple of fees.
If someone has converted on their own or it was done by a previous owner, and we
found it today, we could baçk up two years. The. City would have the authority to waive
the fees in this case. We have cases on the books that are more than a year old.
City Manager Ambrose clarified they were using punitive damages as the wrong word.
This is additional fees. If someone comes :in with plans, our fees are set based on the cost
to review the pLms. If someone does somet1µng illegally, we have to spend time to get it
corrected. Someone misused the tenn punitive damage; it is an actual cost.
Mr. Shreeve stated. under today's Code, they would have to remove it.
Ms. Vigil asked who would enforce the additional fees.
Mr. Shreeve replied it would be the Building Division.
Mayor Lockhart closed the public hearing.
Cm. Sbranti commended Staff and the Planning Commission who had two very
thorough detailed public hearings. He originally thought we could remove the word
enclosed if they have parkins. They made several additional findings. Traffic and safety
issues are addressed and the Planning Commission can hear it and consider all the
options. The City Council will have an opportunity to appeal. Under limited
circumstances, people will be able to convert. He stated he did not anticipate we will
Mve more than one a year.
Cm. Oravetz discussed a potential situation where he converts a garage to two additional
bedrooms and rents them out. Later, he :may decide to move and rent out all the
bedrooms. He asked if this would be legal.
MAyor Locklutrt stated he could also have a situation where they have 4 teenage kids, all
with cars, or an elderly parent living with them. A neighbor could park in front of your
house and there is nothinz you can do about it.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 22
REGULAR MEETING
March 18,2003
PAGE 145
Cm. Sbranti stated he felt if you look citywide? very few people actually park two cars in
their garage.
Cm. Zika talked about streets in town that are packed. Once you allow a garage
conversion, you can't unconvert it. Parking will be made worse.
Cm. McCormick asked about a home office situation with clients. ls this permitted?
Ms. Ram stated you are allowed to have a limited number of clients; one or two a week.
We don't regulate parking with home occupation. .
Cm. McCormick stated her real concern is with new construction. A buyer may opt to
use the space as actual living space. The Plannittg Commission would have to take a
look at it.
Ms. Ram stated a developer would have to get It SDR and CUP approved in order to have
no garage to start out with.
Mayor Lockhart stated this started out with an older part of town and people saying they
would like to convert their garage to an additional bedroom for their family. Tlús is why
it wowd be a case-by·case issue.
Cm. Sbranti stated in November there was a loophole that would allow developers to
come forward with a proposal to build units without garages. We need flexibility and
the CUP process allows this.
Cm. Oravetz IL'Iked if the P1a.nninZ Commission could legally ask questions about why he
is converting his garage.
City Attorney Silver stated the Zonmg Ordinance requires certain findings for a. CUP. It
must be compatible with other land uses and transportation within tl1e community. The
use will be dict4ted by what yòu convert it W.
Cm. Oravetz stated if you are the first on your street or second, you can set it approved.
Does the third guy have any legal rights to say we're discrimina.ting against him?
Cm. Zíka stated it is not a,1cSIlI playing field for everyone. If you have a homeowners
association, they won't allow it. The people that live in San Ramon Village could do it if
they got a CUP and the rest of the community can't, for the most part.
CITY COUNClL MlNUTES
VOLUME 22
REGIJLAR MEETING
March 18,2003
PAGE 146
Cm. Sbranû pointed out the fact that different homeowner associations have different
guidelines.
Cm. Zika. stated he felt if we chart,ge our ordinance, we may be devaluing a house
becJiuse there are too many cars on the street.
Cm. Sbranti stated he did not believe this will put more ca.rs on the street. How many
people will msh to convert their garage? He felt it will be rare to actually see this. This
process has enough checks and balances built ín and he again stated he will be surprised
to see more than one a year.
Ms. Ram addressed the home oc<:upation parking question and advised that the Code
says you could have up to 5 cars a day visit your house. You have to have additional
parkinz to the 2 required by residents.
Ms. Silver looked at the Variance provision. A Variance can be grated for specífíc
reasons, but she did not feel this falls into this. The City Council could specify if they did
not want a Variance considered.
Cm. McConnick clarified that an unenclosed parking space is a concrete slab?
Staff responded this was correct.
Cm. McCormick asked if they coukl limit this ordinance to apply west of Dougherty
Road?
Ms. Ram stated there are some lots in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area. where you
could have additional units, in addition to a garage. There are some lots where garage
conversions could work.
Cm. McCormick stated she sometimes hates the way our SÌl"fets look and she felt this will
only increase the number and add. cars.
On motion of Cm. Sbranti, seconded by Mayor Lockhart, and by majority vote, the
Council waived the reading and INTRODUCED the Ordinance to amend the Dublin
Zoning Ordinance.
Cm. Zib and em. Oravetz; voted in opposition to the motion.
...
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 22
REGULAR MEETING
March 18,2003
PAGE 147
CITY CLERK
File # DElJ[3][Q]-[IJ[Q)
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: April 1, 2003
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing, PA 03-002, City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance
Amendment, Second Reading - Amendment to Chapters 8.12, 8.76,
and 8.100 of thc Dublin Zoning Ordinance. These amendments will
allow for the conversion of garages to living space in R-I, Single
Family Residential zoning districts by means of a Conditional Use
Permit.
Report Prepared by: Jeri Ram, Planning Alanager and Mamie R.
Waffle, Assistant Planner ~.
ATTACHMENTS:
I. Ordinance Amending the Dublin Zoning Ordinance
2. City Council Agenda Statement (w/o attachments) dated March 18,
2003
RECOMMENDATIOøN: 1. Open Public Hearing and receive Staff presentation;
2. Question Staff;
'\ 3. Take testimony rrom the Public;
4. Close Public Hearing and deliberate;
5. Waive the reading and adopt the Ordinance (Attachment 1) to
amend the Dublin Zoning Ordinance.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: No financial impact.
BACKGROUND:
At the November 19, 2002 City Council meeting, the City Council directed Staff to review an amendment to
the Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance
currently requires that each residential dwelling provide two, off-street parking spaces in an enclosed garage.
This parking requirement prevents the conversion of garages to living spaces unless two, enclosed parking
spaces can be provided elsewhere on the lot. At the City Council's direction, Staff proceeded with an
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to remove the word "enclosed" rrom the parking requirement.
On January 28, 2003, Staff presented a report to thc Plarming Commission to amend the off-street parking
regulations of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. The Plarming Commission received Staff's presentation,
received public testimony, deliberated, and directed Staff to provide alternatives and studies to address the
following concerns regarding the conversion of garages to living spacc: I) traffic and safety, 2)
inrrastructure/service impacts, 3) scope of conversions, 4) aesthetics and design standards, and 5) grand-
fathering.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPIES TO: In House Distribution
ATTACHMENT 5,;
ITEM NO.
Staff returned to the Plarming Commission on February 25,2003 with a report that addressed the Planning
Commission's concerns and recommending a Conditional Use Permit process, with the Planning
Commission as the decision making body, to conditionally approve requests to convert garages into living
space. The Plarming Commission received Staffs presentation, received public testimony, deliberated,
and indicated its support of Staff's recommendation by adopting a Resolution recommending that the City
Council adopt an Ordinance to amend the Dublin Zoning Ordinance.
At the March 28, 2003 City Council meeting, the City Council introduced an Ordinance to amend the Dublin
Zoning Ordinance to allow for the conversion of residential garages to living spaces. After the public
hearing, the Ordinance was scheduled for a second reading to be held at the April 1, 2003 City Council
meeting.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
On August 18, 1997, the City Council adopted Resolution 103-97 fmding that the Comprehensive Revision
to the Zoning Ordinance, including Chapter 8.76, Off-Street Parking And Loading Regulations is exempt
rrom the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). It can be seen with certainty that there is no
possibility that revising the Zoning Ordinance in this marmer would have a significant effect on the
environment (Section 15061(b)(3). Various changes to the Zoning Ordinance listed above are proposed
which would not increase or create environmental impacts. These changes will have no environmental
impacts and are also exempt rrom the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it can be seen
with certainty that there is no possibility that such amcndmcnts would have a significant effcct on the
environment.
CONCLUSION:
The City Council directed Staff to prepare an Ordinance to amend the Dublin Zoning Ordinance by removing
the word "enclosed" rrom the parking requirement in order to allow for the conversion of residential garages
to living space. In accordance with the procedures for amending the Dublin Zoning Ordinance (Chapter
8.120), Staff presented a report to the Plarming Commission and following a public hearing, the Planning
Commission directed Staff to conduct additional studies on the impacts of allowing garage conversions.
Staff then presented the Planning Commission with an alternative to address their concerns by proposing a
Conditional Use Permit process for reviewing and approving requests to convert garages to living space. The
Planning Commission heard the proposal and adopted a Resolution recommending that the City Council
approve the amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to allow for the conversion of residential garages to living
space.
At a public hcaring held on March 18, 2003, the City Council introduced an Ordinance to amcnd the
Zoning Ordinance (Chapters 8.12; 8.76 and 8.100) to allow for the conversion of garages to living spaces
in R-l, Single Family Residential zoning districts by means of a Conditional Use Permit.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council, open the public hearing and receive Staff presentation, question
Staff, take testimony rrom the Public, close the public hearing and deliberate, waive the reading, and adopt
the Ordinance (Attachment 1) to amend the Dublin Zoning Ordinance.
2
PUBLIC HEARING
CITY OF DUBLIN ZONING ORDINANCE AMEND.MENT PA 03-002
7:36 p.m. 6.1 (450-20)
Mayor Lockhart openeàthc public hearing.
Planni11g Manager Jeri Rmn presented the Staff Report, indicating that this is the second
readin:i; of an Ordinance, which would amend the Dublin ZonÌl1$ Ordinance, Chapter
8.1 Z - Zoning Districts and Permitted Uses of Land, Chapter 8.76 - Off-Street Parking
II11d Loading Regulations, and Chapter 8.100 - ConditioruU Use Pemit of the Dublin
Zoning Ordinance. These amendments will allow for the conversion of garages to living
space in R-1, Single~Farnily Residential Zoning districts by means of a Conditional Use
Permit. .
. John Collins stated he had never heard the first reading of this Orchnance, so questioned
how this could be the second reading.
Mayor Lockhart advised that the first reading of the proposed Ordinance had ta1œn
place at the last Council meeting.
City Attorney Silver explained that the Council waives the reading of the Ordinance,
rather than reading the Ordinance aloud in full. A copy of the proposed Ordinance is
posted and is avai1a.ble to the public.
Mayor Lockhart closed the public hearing.
Cm. Oravetz stated the last time they voted on this, it was 3-2 (Zika/Oravetz opposed).
After much consideration from both points of View, indicated that he would still oppose
the proposed Ordinance.
Crn. Sbranti stated he did not feel the proposed Ord.in.!lnce would cause extra parking on
the street and cause a widespread problem.
Cm. Zika. stated he is also against the Ordinance and was concerned about parking
problems. He referenced a new law coming in July, whereby without any pennits, any
how;e can put on a second unit and the City cannot deny them or cannot require them to
have a parking spot.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 22
REGULAR MEETING
April 1,2003 ATTACHMENT 5 C-
PAGE 205
Mayor Wckhart disagreed with that interpretation of the proposed new raw, and stated
that the City Council can review it. .
Cm. McCormick stated she is still not fully comfortable with the proposed Ordinance,
but she has heard from people who have said they converted their garages in the last 15
years and none of them rent the units; most use it for a "granny."
On motion of Cm. McCormick, seconded by Cm. Sbranti, and by 3/2 vote (Oravetz/Zika
oppose), the Council waived the reading and adopted
ORDINANCE NO.4 - 03
AMENDING CHAPTER 8.12 ZONING DISTRICTS AND
PERMITTED USES OF LAND, CHAPTER 8.76 OFF·STREET PARKING AND
LOADING REGULATIONS, AND CHAPTER 8.100 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
OF THE DUBLIN ZONING ORDINANCE
....
PUBLIC HEARING
WEEDS AND COMBUSTIBLE REFUSE ABATEMENT ORDER
7:49 p.m. 6.2 (540-50)
Mayor Lockhart opened the public hearing.
Fire :Marshal Theresa Johnson presented the Staff Report, advising that in accordance
with Resolution NO. 31-03, the City Council declared that there is a puþIic nuisance
created by weeds and combustible debris growing, a.ccumuhting upon the streets,
sidewallii and property within the City of Dublin. This public hearing will allow
property owners to present objections to the abatement order.
Cm. Sbranti asked how many notices were sent out.
Ms. Johnson stated normally about 300 notices, but this year a little less.
No testimony was entered by any member of the public relative to tlùs issue.
Mayor Lockhart closed the public hearing. .
CtTY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 22
REGULAR MEETING
April 1 , 2003
PAGE 2{)6
CITY CLERK
File # D~~k2J~~1ð]
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: July 19, 2005
SUBJECT:
Discussion on Garage Conversion Ordinance rvi/.
Report Prepared byJeri Ram. PlulIning Manager""
ATTACHMENTS:
1. City of Dublin Ordinance No. 04-03 Amendment to Chapter
8.12, Zoning Districts and Permitted Uses of Land; Chapter
8.76, Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations; and Chapter
8.100, Conditional Use Permit of the Dublin Zoning Ordirumce
adopted on April 1, 2003.'
2. Staff Report and Minutes for City Council Meetings:
a. November 19, 2002
b. March 18, 2003
c. April 1, 2003
3. Staff Report and Minutes for Planning C0111lTrission Meetings:
a. January 28, 2003
b. February 25, 2003
4. Minutes for May 3, 2005, City Council Hearing on Appeal of
p A 04-036.
RECOMMENDATION: (.) J ,^, 1. Receive StaffprC5entation.
. ~ 2. Provide Staff direction.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: No financial impact.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Background:
At the November 19, 2002 City Council meeting, the City Council directed Staff to review an amendment to
the Off·Street Parking and Loading Regulations of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. At that time, the Dublin
Zoning Ordinance required that each residential dwelling provide two, off-street parking spaces in an
enclosed garage. This parking requirement prevented the conversion of garages to living spaces unless two,
enclosed parking spaces could be provided elsewhere on the lot (Attachment 2a).
...
At the City Council's direction, Staff proceeded with an amendment to the Dublin Zoning Ordinance to
remove the word "enclosed" ITom the parking requirement. Staff prepared a report and presented the
proposed amendment to the Planning Commission on January 28, 2003 (Attachment 3a). The Planning
Commission directed Statl" to provide ahematives and studies to address the following concerns regarding
the conversion of garages to living space: 1) traffic and safety, 2) inrra.,~tructure/service impacts, 3) scope of
oonversions. 4) aesthetics and design standards, and 5) grand-fathering.
--------..---------------------..
------------..----------
COPIES TO:
~
ITEM NO. _ ...... ~
ATTACI1MENT Set
At the February 25, 2003 Planning Commission meeting, Staff returned with a report that addressed the
Planning Conunission's concerns and recommended a Conditional Use Permit process with the Planning
Commission as the decision-making body. In order for the Planning ComItÙssion to approve a Conditional
Use Permit, certain findings would have to be made to IIddress issues such as compatibility with adjacent
properties; adverse impacts to health, safety and welfare; impacts on property or improvements in the
neighborhood; whether thc site is physically suitable fot the changes being proposed; and, con~istency with
development regulations for the :l.oning district in which the project is located (Atta.clunent 3b).
Additio~a1Iy, Staff recommended that a new conditional use permit finding be added for residential garage
conVerslOIlB :
H. Architectural considerations, including the character, scale and quality of the design, the
architectural relationship with the site and other buildings, building materials and
colors, screening of exterior appurtenances. exterior líghting, and similar elements have
been incorporated into the project and as conditions of approval in order to insure
compatibility of this development with the development's design concept or theme and
the character of adjacent buildings, neighborhoods, and uses.
The Planning Commission adopted a Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance
that would allow garage conversions with a conditional use permit process that included the new finding
referenced above.
On March 18,2003 and April 1, 2003, the City Coun...;} held public hearings on this item and approved
Ordinance No.04-03 amending the Zoning Ordinance and thereby allowing for garage conversions with a
conditional use permit to bc heard by the Planning Commission (Attachments 2b, 2c and 1).
Permitted Garage Conversions:
Since the Zoning Ordinance was amended in April, 2003, Staff has processed six applications for garage
conversions; four have been approved by the Planning Commission; one denied by the Planning
Commission; and, one approved by the Planning Commission and overturned on appeal by the City
Council.
The following Chart provides information regarding these conversions:
Item Address and Application ApprovallDenial and Notes on Project
Number No. of Annlication Date
1. 7420 Tamarack Drive (P A Approved by Planning Partial conversion with existing
02-039) Commission on garage door to remain.
5/27/03
2. 11968 West V ornac Road Denied by Planning Denial based on parking concerns
(PA 03-029) Commission on 7/8/03 and the neighborhood aesthetics that
would be changed by removal of
garage door on third car garage in a
neighborhood comprised of mostly
three- car garages.
3. 7342 Dover Lane (PA 03- Approved by Planning Partial conversion with existing
035) Commission on garage door to remain.
8/26/03
4. 7944 Oxbow Court (P A03- Approved by Planning Full conversion with removal of
059) Commission on garage door and saw cut in drivewaøy
10/28/03 to allow landscaning.
. .
Item Address and Application ApprovallDenia1 and Notes on Project
Number No. of Application Date
5. 7052 Amador Valley Blvd. Approved by Planning Partial conversion witb existing
(P A 04-064) Commission on garage door to remain.
3/22/05
6. 7697 Canterbury Lane (P f:,. Approved by Planning Full conversion with removal of
04-036) Commission on garage door.
3/22/05; Denied on
appeal by City
Council on 5/3/05
On May 3, 2005, the City Council heard an appeal of the Plarming Commission approval of a proposed
conditional use permit fOf a garage conversion at 7697 Canterbury Lane (P A 04-036). During the
deliberation on that appeal, the City Council requested that an. item he placed on a future agenda to
discuss garage conversions in general (Attachment 4).
In addition to the projects listed in the above table, Staff is currently processing one conditional use
permit for a garage conversion. It is anticipated that the project will be heard by the Planning
Commission within the next two months.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staffrecommend5 that thc City Council receive the Staff presentation and provide Staffwith direction.
Mayor Loc1duirt stated she felt that as businesses renovate, other businesses will take a
look. She doesn't see a need to tie this money up unnecessarily. It will have to be the
building owner, not just one tenant. She stated she was all for saying adios to the
program.
Cm. McCormick stated she felt we may be ahead of the curve. When Þig changes start
coming to that district, they will have to do something or lose business.
Mr. AmÞrose stated the question is do you think the program is viable? At some point in
the future if it becomes viable, the City Council can reAllocate the funds. It can be
revisited in 4 or 6 years or whenever necessary.
Mayor Lockhart stated we could take the money and do some improvements ourselves on
the street, in the streetscape or landscaping, etc. We can be creative.
Mr. Ambrose advised that we received notice from MTC that they will fund up to $3
million in projects the City identified. Many were streetsca.pe and landscaping projects.
Mr. Foss stated he wiU let the City Council know if he gets several people inquiring.
On motion of Cm. Hildenbrand, seconded by Mayor Lockhart, and by unanimous vote,
the Council agreed to defer action on this type of program until there is interest in the
business community.
.
DISCUSSION ON GARAGE ÇQNVERSION ORDlNANÇE
8:02 p.m. 8.1 (430~20)
Planning Manager Jeri Ram presented the Staff Report.
In April of 2003, the City Council amended the Zoning OrdinlUlce to allow for garaze
conversions with a conditional use permit to be heard by the Planning Commission.
Since that time, Staff has processed six applications for garage conver:lÍons. Four were
approved by the Planning Commission; one was denied by the Plartning Commission; and
one approved by the Planning Commission was overturned on appeal by the City
Council. There is currently one garage conversion being looked at.
During the deliberation of the above appeal, the City Council requested that Staff place
an item on a future a.genda to discuss garage conversions in general.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 24
REGULAR MEETING
July 19, 200S
PAGE 293 ATTACHMENT ~oI
Staff requested that the Council provide direction.
Cm. McCormick asked about the one in the pipeline and if any action tonight would
affect that one.
Ms. Ram advised that any action tonight making changes would have to go back to the
Planning Commission and then to the City Council for public hearings.
Mayor Lockhart stated she felt the report received proves that the OrdinaIlce works.
Some are approved and some are not. If you change it so there is no opportunity at all,
there is not anyone form that fits every home in our City. The CUP pt'OC{'$S works. This
is a chance anybody takes when they go for a CUP.
Vm. Zika stated he felt for the same reasons, this is not working. Once the conversion is
done, it's done. If someone moves in with several vehicles, this creates problems. Houses
could turn over at any time. He has been against this Ordinance because it looks at a
property at a moment in time. and it can change.
Cm. Oravetz stated he thought there would be a lot more conversions than have
occurred. He felt the aesthetics of the neighborhood can be changed and then people
move_ He is not against garage conversions, but felt it is somewhat like false advertising.
He will again support Vm. Zika's point of view.
Cm. McCormick stated she supported this and still believes in the concept. It provides a
real service for a middle income family. This only affects a small portion of our
community for people to add some space to their house. If someone wants to bing their
older parents in, this is a way to do it. In concept she really supports this; however, she
can't quite seem to get around the CUP. The guy who came before them, she felt it was
unfair. If you really do everything right, why do they have to come before another body
and then get shot down. Those older neighborhoods have been changed over and over
again. She supports the concept, but not the Ordinance the way it is written. We pride
ourrelves on fairness and to her this was not fair. People who obey the rules and do it
right should be able to go ahead and get their conversion without risk. She asked if we
can change the appeal process.
Mr. Ambrose stated the language and required findings has a. certain level of subjectivity.
The language was originally to be a way of providing flexibility. What looks good to
Staff may not look good to the Planning Commission or the City Council, or vice versa.
CiTY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 14
REGULAR MEETING
July 19, 200S
PAGE 294
City Attorney Elizabeth Silver stated the City Council could change the Ordinance to take
out the CUP requirement if they wanted to. They have some discretion and can make it a
matter of rights.
Mayor I.œkhart suggested saying something like, if you have room for x number of cars
off street and you retain the look of the home, you can automatically get it approved.
Ms. Silver stated the grey area seems to be whether the garage door remains as a garage
door, or has landscaping in front of it. They could say the garage door stays period.
Mayor Lockhart cla.rified that her point was just that they have a garage door and looks
like every other house with a garage door in the neighborhood.
Cm. Hildenbrand stated she has many concerns with this. She supports individuals with
whatever needs they may have. One concern being the parking issue. If it gets sold, how
can people deal with it in the future. The majority of people don't use their garage for
cars. The other issue is the appeal process. If we keep this Ordinance in place, she
would like to see it say you must keep the garage door in place. She could support this,
but she has more concern over the parking issue and what happens in the future when
those people move out.
Mayor Lockhart stated she did not feel this is a big enough issue to sink anyone from
using their garase space as an office or other use. There are times when it's really
important for people to use that space for their home. If they don't have the space for
their ca~ off street and if they can't leave the garage door, then don't apply for garage
conversIons.
Cm. Oravetz commented on a scenario of putting in a pad beside Ii house, and asked if
this would require a curb cut.
Mr. Shreeve stated this would be considered flat work and no permit would be required.
Cm. Oravetz discussed cars out in the street and off-street parking requirements.
Cm. McCormick stated she felt somehow some way, we should come back with a better
Ordinance.
Mayor Lockhart asked why not talk about changing it instead of throwing it out.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 24
REGULAR MEETING
July 19, 2005
PAGE 295
Cm. Hildenbrand stated we need consistency. We need to send a message to the PlannÏ11z
Commission that garage doors stay and say this is what the City Council has in mind.
Homes would remain the same outside, but changes could be made inside. The appeal
process will kill a lot of people's plans after they've spent money.
Mayor Lockhart asked why not say change the Ordinance to preserve the integrity of the
home as it stands before you convert it and you must provide a minimum of 2 spaces off
street. Say it still has to be a hOllse with a garage door.
Vm. Zika stated he felt this is still subjective. Repeal the Ordinance and have Staff work
out an Ordinance that is not subjective.
Cm. Hildenbrand asked what type of mechanism or how would an individual go about
reporting someone who has 6 cars on the street? What recourse do they have?
Staff responded as long as the cars are licensed and moved regularly, none.
Cm. Hildenbrand stated a lot of people can go to thei r homeowners associations, but
what about those who live in an area where there is no HOA? The aesthetics of their
street is just as important as the aesthetics of their house. When you have multiple cars
on the street, some of which could be in the garage, it becomes an issue. Some people
can't get their garbage picked up because the garÞage company can't get to it.
Mayor Lockhart stated part of this is just being responsible neighbors.
Cm. Oravetz felt parking on the street on a regular day is problematic and you then
throw in converted garages and you have a bi,gser problem.
Mayor Lockhart asked if we could request that peopLe who want to do this have to get
comments from their :neighbors just like someone would have to get permission from a
HOA. Can we require this?
Mr. Ambrose discussed another city that had a requirement for a fiLming permit that
homes within a 300' radius had to sign the permit. He has not seen this used in this type
of a situation. This could create neighborhood conflict if one neighbor doesn't want to
sign.
City Attorney Silver stated she hasn't seen this done in this context. She would want to
take a look at this from a legal standpoint.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 24
REGULAR MEETING
July 19,2005
PAGE 296
Cm. McConnick asked if there has been neighbors responding to the conversions we've
allowed.
On motion of Vm. Zika., seconded by Cm. Oravetz, and by rruV0rity vote, the Council
asked Staff to prepare an Ordinance repealing the existing Ordinance. Mayor Lockhart
voted in opposition to the motion.
Cm. McCormick stated her vote was with a stipula.tion that we çome back with another
Ordinance.
Cm. McCormick made a motion to bring back an Ordinance with hard and fast rules of
what they can and can't do. She also doesn't like the appeal process. Look at a tighter
Ordinance. She was uncertain about having the garage door on or off. She wants
something people can feel comfortable with.
Cm. Hildenbrand suggested we include looking into a sign off Þy the neighbors. She
supported havinggara,ge doors in place, and deal with on-site parking.
Mr. Ambrose asked about the CUP process and if they stil1 wanted an appeal to City
CounciL
Ms. Silver clarified that the motion was to have Staff bring back something to repeal the
Ordinance. Cm. McCormick's comments would relate to bringing back an Ordinance in
another form.
Mr. Ambrose asked if they want two repOrts at the same meeting7
Cm. McCormíck stated she would like to see them back to back.
Mr. Ambrose advised that they can repeal the existing Ordinance, but that a new one
wouldn't be effective until it has two readings.
Cm. McCormick stated she would like them to be at the same time.
Mr. Ambrose advised the City Council that we are severely deficient with regard to
Planning Staff right now. This project would compete with all the other planning
projects on the board.
Mayor Lockhart stated she would hate to see this become a marathon project, especially
for the community.
,
CITY COUNCIL MINtJTES
VOLUME 24
REGULAR MEETING
July 19, 2005
PAGE 297
Cm. McCormick suggested they give it the priority it needs and get on with it.
On motion of Cm. McCormick7 seconded by MAyor Lockhart, and by majority vote, the
Council directed Staff to report back with a draft Ordinance which would consider
elements such as: 1) amount of off-site parking; 2) subjectivity; 3) garage door hM to
remain; 4) look at legality of sign~off of radius of neighbors; 5) scope of the appeal
process; and 6) whether conversion requires a CUP. Vm. Zika and Cm. Oravetz voted in
opposition to the motion.
.
CITY COUNCIL APPOINI'MENT OF AN ALTERNATE REPRESENI'ATIVE
:ro TIlE TRI-V./oT,t.F.V TRIANGLE S1UDY POUCY ADVlSOj,Y COMMlTl'EE
8:56 p.m. 8.2 (110-30)
Public Works Director Melissa Morton presented the Staff Report.
The Tri-Valley Triangle Study will develop a long-range transportation plan for
improvements on 1-580,1-680 and route 84. In February 2005, Mayor Lockhart and
Cm. Hildenbrand were appointed to the Policy Advisory Committee. Along with the
Cities of Livermore and Pleasa.nton, as well as Alameda County, each jurisdiction will
now consider appointing an alternate to this Committee to ensure representation at all
meetings. .
Mayor Lockhart asked about the voting situation if the alternate was there but neither of
the representatives were able to attend. She then nominated Cm. McCormick as
4lternate.
On motion of Mayor Lockhart, seconded by Cm. Oravetz, and by unanimous vote, the
Council appointed Cm. McCormick to serve as alternate on this Committee.
.
OTHER. BU~INESS
8:58 p.m.
Mr. Ambrose advised that as part of the long rarIge agenda review, currently we don't
have items for the September 6th City Council meeting and asked if the City Council was
interested in canceling the first September meeting. This is the Tuesday following Labor
Day.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 24
REGULAR MEETING
July 19, 2005
PAGE 298
AGENDA STATEMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: JANUARY 28,2003
SUBJECT:
P A 03-002 City of Dublin, Zoning Ordinaoce Amendmeot - Amendment to
Chapter 8.76, Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations of the Dublin Municipal
Code (Zoning Ordinance) '"' / /'
Prepared by Jeri Ram, Plarming Manager \.Jt"
ATTACHMENTS:
1. November 19, 2002, City Council Agenda Statement
2. November 19, 2002, City Council minutes on Report on Residential
Off-Street Parking
3. Resolution recommending the City COI.wciI adopt the ordinance
amending the Dublin Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance)
4. Ordinance amending Chapter 8.76 Off-Street: Parking and Loading
Regulations of the Dublin MWJir;:ipal Code.
RECOMMENDATION: 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Open Public Hearing and receive Staff presentation;
Take testimony ftom the Public;
Question Staff and the Public;
Close Public Hemng and deliberate;
Adopt resolution (Attachment 3) recommending the City Council
adopt the Ordinance (Attachment 4) to amend the Dublin Municipal
Code.
BACKGROUND:
At the November 19, 2002. City Council meeting, Staff brought forth an item at the request of
Councilmember Tim Sbranti to consider modification of the City's enclosed parking requirement for sing1e-
family residential dwelling units by eliminating the requirement for two enclosed off-street parking spaces
and requiring only two off·street parking spaces (Attachment 1). The purpose of the modifications would be
to allow conversaûon of garages 10 provide additional living space in singJe-family residential dwelling
units.
Staff's report reco11)IIlended that if the City Council would like Staff to work on the amendment, additional
studies and information would be provided in a further report. The City Council received Staffs
presentation, deliberated and dirœted Staff to prepare the amendment without the additional studies
(Attachment 2).
Amendment:
Attacl1ed is a draft Ordinance that would implement the City Council's direction. In essence, the Ordinance
continues to require two off-street parking spaces per single-family residential unit. However, it removes the
requirement to enclose the spaces. Therefore, if someone wishes to modify their garage so that they would
--
--------
COPIES TO: In House Distribution
ITEM NO.......
,-
G:\PAI\2OOS\03-QD2\PC staff mpDtl.DOC
ATTACHMENT ~~
not be able to park vehicles in it. they may be able to do so. Tn order to convert the garage, the app1Ìcant .
would have to show that they can provide the required parking elsewhere in an approved area on the lot. For
example, if they can provide two full-size parking spaces on the driveway, that would satisfy the regulations.
In addition, they would have to comply with all other City regulations (building permit, etc.).
Environmental Rt!View:
On August 18, 1997, the City Council adopted Resolution 103-97 finding that the Comprehensive Revision
to the Zoning Ordinance, 41cluding Chapter 8.76, Off-Street Parking And Loading Regulations is exempt
from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). It can be seen with certainty that there is no
possibility that revising the Zoning Ordinance in this manner would have a significant effect on the
environment (Section IS061(bX3). Various changes to the Municipal Code listed above are proposed which
would not increase or create environmental impacts. These changes will have no environmental impacts and
are also exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it can be seen with
certainty that there is no possibility that such amendments would have a significant effect on the
environment.
CONCLUSION:
The Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 8.120), requires that all zoning ordinance amendments (such as this
proposed amendmell! to the Off-Street Parking Regulations) be heard by the Planning Cl>mmission and
following a public hearing, the Planning Commission shall make a written reconunendation to the City
Council whether to approve, approve with modifications or disapprove the amendment.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the PJanning Commission open the public hearing and receive Staff presentation, take
testimony from the public, que.stion Staff and the public, close the public hearing, deliberate and adopt
resolution (Attachment 3) recommending that the City Council adopt the Ordinance (Attachment 4) to
amend the Dublin Municipal Code.
2
PUBLIC HEARING
8.1 PA 03"()()2· Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 8.76, Off-Street Parking and
Loading Regulations
Ms. Ram gave a background of the item., noting that the City Council had directed Staff to present
to the Commission an item that would co:nsider a modification of the City's enclosed parking
requirements for single-family residential dwelling units. She explained that by eliminating the
requirement for two enclosed off-street parking spaces and requiring only two off-street parking
spaces, garage conversions would be possible.
Ms. Waffle presented a Power point presentation of the proposed ZoIÚng Ordinance amendment to
the off-street parking and loading regulations, and discussed the reasons that the commurúty may
benefit from allowing garage conversions, as well some of the issues that may arise as a result of
garage conversions.
Ms. Ram reminded the Commission that in order to implement an ordinance change, the Planning
Commission would need to make a recommendation to the City Council, lor approval or approval
with changes or conditions. She added th¡¡t the Comuùssion could recommend to not approve the
ordinance change.
Cm. King asked if the only change in the proposed Zoning Ordinance as presented was eliminating
the word "enclosed" from the text.
Ms. Ram stated that the change was also in the qualifier in the chart of the ordinance, explaining
that the ordinance was changed in two places.
Cm. Nassar asked questions about the off-street parking that would be required if the garage
conversion was allowed, and how the on-street parking would be impacted.
Ms. Ram explained that if a homeowner wanted to convert the garage, they would be required to
show that they had two ful1-size off-street parking spaces, which translates into using the driveway
in most cases. She added that by eliminating the garage as a potential place for parking vehicles, a
multi-car family could potentially use the street as well to park their vehicles.
Cm. Nassar asked if there have been studies to predict use of the street for parking if the enclosed
garage-parking requirement was eliminated.
Pl4nnÛIJJ CommirMn
~titr'Meeti1lfJ
10
Ja"1PltJ 28, 2003
ATTACHMENT '(Â
Ms. Ram answered that there have been no studies, and that it would be hard to predict since it
would vary from person to person.
em. Kmg asked if the regulations were changed, what the impact would be to the Homeowners'
Association regulations that might apply.
Ms. Ram stated that the City does not enforce Homeowners' Association regulations.
em. Jennings expressed concern that the issue at hand was removing the word "enclosed" from the
parking regulations, but that the issue appeared to actually be an issueof garage conversions. She
noted that these were separate issues and asked how these issues would come under the same
ordinance.
Ms. Ram answered that the City Council had recommended that Staff remove the word "enclosed"
for the purpose of allowing garage conversions, and that the presenta tion by Staff was to provide a
balanced view of the issue.
Cm. Machtmes asked if there are currently any regulations or restrictions for on-street parking,
BUch a.s how much time, how many cars, etc.
Ms. Ram stated that there are no restrictions except in Eastern Dublin where some planned
developments anow parking oilly on one side of the street due to the narrow streets.
em. Fasulkey asked if a poll had been conducted of other cities policies for garage conversion.
Ms. Waffle noted that there had not been specific studies, but that based on the information she had
received while in cont1lct with other cities in California, the majority do not allow garage
conversion unless the parking requirement can be met.
Cm. King asked if the cities that allow conversion (when the parking requirement was met)
required design standards.
Ms. Waffle stated that she did not have sufficient information to answer that question,. but knew of
one city that allowed garage conversioI1S when the parking requirement was met that had design
standard requirements as wel1-
q>{Îmrrir/fJ CummiuKm
'%oulizr ;Muting
11
Ja1l1l4ry 28, 2003
Ms. Ram stated that if design standards were a concern, the Commission could recommend a
Conditional Use Pennit (CUP) process that would allow all conversions to be heard by the Planning
Commission.
There were questions and discussion between Staff and the Commission regarding specifics of the
parking ordinance, the consequences of the proposed change, and the possible irnpilct to the
community.
Cm. Fasulkey noted for the record that the City received 13 letters from citizens of Dublin who
were in favor of the amendment and requested that the parking ordinance be amended to aHow
garage conversion and non~nclosed parking. He then opened the public hearing and asked if
anyone from the public wished to address the Commission.
There were four dtizens who addressed the Commission in favor of amending the parking
ordinance to allow garage conversion.
Ms. Esther Vigil stated that she has been a homeowner in Dublin since 1979, and has converted a
portion of her garage for a dark room. She noted that she did not obtain permits at the time to save
on costs, and had been advised that if the ordinance were not amended to allow garage
conversions, she would be required to take down her dark room or apply for a variance. She added
that she is still able to park in her ga.rage, while other neighbors use their garages for storage,
thereby parking on the street or driveway. She stated that she was in favor of amending the
parking ordinance.
Mr. Fernando C<m'anza stated that he has been a resident of Dublin since 1987, and wanted to
advise the Commission that he was in favor of amending the parking ordinance to allow garage
conversions. He noted that large families needed to convert their garages to provide additional
housing area.
Ms. Catherine Brown spoke and stated that she had understood the issue to be off-street parking,
rather than garage conversion. She stated that she was in favor of eliminating the word" enclosed"
from the parking regulations in order to allow homeowners to use their garages for storage or other
uses. She noted that her family needed to store items in the garage since they did not have a
basement and had a small yard which could not contain a storage shed. She added that due to the
high costs of housing in the Bay Area, homeowners are not always able to move into larger homes
as their family sizes grow, and needed to be able to convert their garages to provide more living
space.
œtån"i"D Comrni.uicm
f?ea* 'Mu:tin¡]
12
!}lltJ"Uilty 28, 2003
Mr, Glenn Stapleton stated that he has been él resident at his current addreS5 in Dublin for 27 years
and was in favor of amending the parking regulations ordinance to enable use of the garage for
other purposes than endosed parking for verucles.
When the citizens had finished addressing the Commission, Cm. Fasulkey asked if anyone else
wanted to address the Conunission; hearing none, he closed the public hearing, and the
Comoúss.ion deliberated.
ern. King asked what the conversion requirements were for the City.
Mr. Gregory Shreeve, Building Official, gave testimony regarding the permits required for garage
conversions and infonnation regarding requirements of different conversion uses.
Cm. Machtmes expressed support for garage conversions, providing the normal building and
business requirements were met.
em. Jennings noted that as a general rule other cities do not allow garage conversions and that the
City could have consequences that result from garage conversions, citing a situation where a
conversion resulted in a massive fire. She also reiterated that she thought the parking regulations
and garage conversions should be separate issues.
Ms. Ram stated that if the Commission wanted more study on the issues of concern that Stafi could
be directed to further investigate and report back to the Commission with the findings.
Upon deliberation, Cm. Fasulkey stated in summary that the Commission needed to provide Staff
with direction on how to proceed, and needed to determine if there was concurrence with the
Council's direction and intent of the ordinance change. He added that if the Commission could
concur with the intent, Staff could be directed to provide alternatives and studies regarding
aesthetics and design standards; impact on traffic and safety; infrastructure impact issues such as
garbage collection; how broad the scope of potential conversions would be; hoW' to incorporate
design standards; and how to address "grandfathering".
Cm. Fasulkey then asked for a straw poll, and em. Nassar, Crn. King and Machtmes were agræab1e
to the intent of the Council's ordinance subject to further studies and further criteria for garage
conversion. Cm. Jconings stated that ¡;he did not have sufficient information to concur with the
intent.
<'PW.nning CrnrtJl'liuion
'RIgul4r911 ttung
13
January 28, 2003
Cm. Fasulkey asked for a motion to continue Item S.l to date uncertain; on motion by Cm. King,
seconded by em. Machbnes, and a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously approved to
continue the matter.
NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS
9.1 Brown Act and Political Refonn Act Requirements Presentation and Outline
Mr. Bakker presented the outlm.e prepared by the City Attorney that discusses two of the State
laws, the Brown Act and Political Reform Act Requirements, which he explained and defined for
the ComDÚssioners.
There was discussion between Mr. Bakker and the Commissioners about. specifics of the Brown Act.
which requires that all meetings must be open, including Commissions, and prevents disCtlssion of
issues that are within the subject matter jurisdiction by a majority of the Commissioners outside of
a meeting. He also discussed the Political Reform Act Requirements, which states that they may
not take action on matters that would be a financial conflict of interest.
Mr. Bakker informed the Commission about the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPI'C), which
is a body that can provide forma! legal advice and also informal advice over the telephone. He
encour..ged the Cornrni:;sioners to contact the City Attorney's office or the FPPC for questions
regarding the Political Reform Act Requirements.
OTHER BUSINESS
Ms. Ram reminded the Commission of the League of Cities Conference on March 20-22, 2003, and
acknowledged that all of the Commissioners except fur em. Nassar are scheduled to attend.
Ms Ram advised the Commission about the Commercial Linkage Study Committee that is
investigating the :impact on housing due to the business development. She noted th..t the findings
of the study would mean a fair fee on new commercial construction and reported that the
Commercial Linkage Study Committee needed a Planning Commission appointed member from
the business community. She asked if any of the Commissioners were interested in serving on this
Committee.
Cm. Nassar stated that he would be interested in serving on the Commercial Linkage Study
Committee. and asked fpr details about the time required for serving on the COmDÚttœ_
IJ1iJnni11{J ComlllÌ.!siOn
~Bllro.r fMeotill/J
14
Janwry 2$, ZooJ
Ms. Ram rdated that 6he estimated the time of :;erviçe on the Committee to be six to eight months,
possibly four hours a month. .
Cm. Fasulkey asked for a recommendation to appoint Cm. Nassar to the Committee; on motion by
Cm. King, seconded by em. Jennings, Cm. Nassar was appointed to the Commercial Linkage Study
Committee.
Ms. Ram discussed the Goals and Objectives meeting to be held on March 1, 2003, and advised the
Commissioners that she would forward the specifics to them shortly.
Ms. Ram discussed the future City COW1ciI and Planning Commission meeting items.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
ATTEST:
son
~-
G" MINUTF5\200J \ Planning Conunitodon\ l·28-1J3pc mJn.dOl:
Ilf4rming Commission
<P,,"lJ'Ú'2" !Murine
15
J4rwary 28, ZOO}
AGENDA STATEMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: FEBRUARY 25,2003
SURJECT: PA 03-002 City of Dublin, Zoning Ordin8nee Amendment - Amendment to
Chapter 8.12, Zoning Districts and Peonitted Uses of Land; Chapter 8.76, OtT-
Street Parking and Loading Regulations; and Chapter 8.100, Conditional Use
Permit of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. These amendments will allow for the
conversion of garages to living space in R-1, Single Family Residential zoning
districts by means of a Conditional Use Permit. nL.--
Prepared by Mamie R. Waffle, Assistant Planner ~
ATTACHMENTS: l. January 28, 2003, Planning Commission Staff Report
2. January 28. 2003, Plamùng Commission minutes on Zoning
Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 8.76, Off Street Parking and
Loading Regulations
3. Chapter 8.100.060, Conditional Use Permit Required Findings
4. Resolution recommending the City COUl1cil adopt the ordinance
amending the Dublin Zoning Ordinance
5. Ordinance amendinB Chapler 8.12 Zoning. Districts and Permitted
Uses of Land; Chapter 8.76, Off-Street Parking and Loading
Regulations; and Chapter 8.100 Condition!Ú Use Permit of the
Dublin Zoning Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: l.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Open Public Hearing and receive Staffpresentation;
Take testimony from the Public;
Question Staff and the Public;
Close Public Hearing and deliberate;
Adopt resolution (Attachment 4) recommending the City Council
adopt the Ordinance (Attaclunent 5) to ¡¡mend the Dublin Zoning
Ordinance.
BACKGROUND:
At the JanWlI}' 28, 2003, Planning Conunission meeting, Staff brought forth an item, at the request of the
City COW"lcil, concerning an "",endment to the: City's off-street parking requirement for single-family
residential dwellings. The proposed amendment would eliminate the reqwremel1t for two, off-street parking
spaces in an enclosed garage and require only two, off-street parking spaces for the purpose of converting
residential garages to living space (Attachment I).
S1afI's report recommended that the Planning commission adopt a Resolutil;)n recommending that the City
Council adopt an Ordinance to amend the City's Off-street Parking and Loading Regulations of the Dublin
Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Commission received Staffs presentation, received public testimony,
deliberated and directed Staff to provide alternatives and studies regarding aesthetics and design standards;
impacts on traffic and safety; inftastructure impacts such as, garbage collection; the scope of potential
wnversions; incorporating design standards; and how to address grand-fathering. (Attachment 2).
_.~----------~~---~------~---~---~--------------~-------
COPIES TO: In House Distribution
ITEM NO. _ ,~_
G;\PA¡I\;!OO3\D: .QI 2\PCSR 2·2!.-03.IJQC
ATTACHMENT t. i.
DESCRIPTION:
The Dublin Zoning Ordinance cummtly requires that eilch residential dwelling provide two, off-street
parking spaces in an enclosed garage. This parking requirement prevents the conversion of garages to living
spaces unless two, enclosed parking spaces can be provided elsewhere on the 101.
By removing the word "enclosed" from the piU'king requirement, residents would be able to convert their
garages to living spaces and new homes could be built without garages. Requests to convert garages would
be reviewed upon appliciltÍon for a building permit. The applicant would submit plans showing how they
propose to convert their garage to living space. The Building Department would review the plilIlS for
conformance with the Uniform Building Code. The Planning Dep!lrtment would also review the plans to
cnsure the proper setbacks, lot coverage and height limits were maintained, and that two off-street parking
spaces could be provided. However, Staff would not have the ability to review the design of the conversion
or impose conditions of approval to mitigate potential impacts fiom the conversion.
At the Planning Commission meeting on anuary 28, 2003, the Couunission raised the following concerns
rcgarding the conversion of garages to living spaces: 1) traffic and safety, 2) infrastructure/service impacts,
3) scope of conversions, 4) aesthetics and design standards, and 5) grand-fathering. Staffhas reviewed those
concerns and developed a solution to address them.
ANALYSIS:
Staff recommends a Conditional Use Pennit process, with the Planning Commission as the decision making
body, in order to conditionally approve requests to convert garages into living space. In order to approve a
Conditional Use Pennit, certain findings must be made to «<Idress issues such as, compatibility with adjacent
properties; adverse impacts to health, safety and welfare; impacts on property or improvements in the
neighborhood; whether the site is physically suitable for the changes being proposed; a.nd, consistency with
development regulations for the zoning district in which the project is located.
In addition to the findings for a Conditional Use Pemrit, Staff recommends adding a new finding to address
the design of garage conversions_ This new finding would read:
Architectural considerations, including the character, scale and quality of the design, the
arehitecturaJ relationship with the site and other buildings, building materials and colors, screening
of exterior appurtenances, exterior lighting, and similar elements have been incorporated into the
project and as conditions of approval in order to insure compatibility of tllis development with the
development's design concept or theme and the character of adjacent buildings, neighborhoods,
and uses.
Trff/TIC and Safety:
Under the Conditional Use Permit findings (Attacluncnt 3), traffic and safety concerns would be reviewed
for adverse impacts to, the subject site; adjacent properties; neighborhood improvements; and, the public
hcalth, safety, and welfare. Upon receiving a Conditional Use Permit application, Staff wouJd review the
proposal a.nd report to the Planning Commission on issues specific to the site such as, whether the subject
site is suitable for the conversion of II garage to living space; whetheI adequate p¡¡rking exits on-site to satisty
two off· street parking spaces; whether on-street parking is available; and, whether adequate site-distance
relationships exist. The Planning Commission would also be able to adopt Conditions of ApprovaJ to reduce
any foreseeable impacts on traffic and safety.
2
Infrostructure/Service Impacts:
Impacts to inftastructure or services, including street sweeping and waste receptacle placement, would be
addressed by requiring that two, off-street parking spaces be provided. In order for a Conditional Use Permit
to be approved, an applicant would have to show where on their lot they could provide the two, off-street
parking spaces, This requirement would prevent Ù1e displacement of vehicle parking to Ù1e public street.
Scòp~ OfCDHveniDHs:
Developme:n1 regulations have been established for every zoning district thtoughout the City. Conditional
Use Permit applications to convert garages to Jiving space would be held to the development regulations for
the residential zoning district in which the dwelling was located. These regulations include, heights,
setbacks, and lot coverage. Requcsts to convert garages would not impact these regulations since the
structure is existing a1ld already meets the height, setback, and lot coverage requirements.
Aesthetics and De.!·ìgn Standartb:
The addition of II new finding, to the oonditional use permit findings for garage conversions, would
specifically address design and architecture, and allow the Planning Commission to review and approve the
physical appearance of a proposed garage conversion. Conditions of approval couJd be adopted to reduce
adverse visual impacts and improve the quality of the design.
While the conversion of one-, two- or thrce-<:ar garages to living spaces typically alters the exterior of II
residential dwelling, this is not always the case. According to the Uniform Building Code, a converted
garage can retain the existing garage door allowing the home to maintain its outward appearance and
preserve the uniformity within the neighborhood RetaininJ¡: the garage door is optional and is not required
by the Building Code.
Other jurisdictions which have allowed garage conversions provide examples of various designs used to
incorporate 8 garage conversion into the overaJI design of a borne and the neighborhood. Design elements
commonly include, uniform colors and materials; architectural features such as, style of windows, awnings,
stone or brick overlays; and, ¡u1:Ìculation of building walls.
Design Elements.: UnWorm CoIOr9 & Materiels, A",nlr'llg&, Windows,
RooIPitt:h
3
Crtzrrd-futlrering:
Garage conversions constructed with permits under Alameda County would have been grand-fathered when
the City of Dublin adopted the ordinance to eliminate the ability to convert a garage by requiring two, ofI-
street parking spaces in an enclosed garage. The exact number of garage conve11i1ions built WIder Alameda
County, or prior to thc City adopted ordinance to eliminate conversions, is not known. To the best of Staff's
knowledge, only one garage çonveTsion has been permitted since the City incorporated. While it is not
known how many illegal conversions exist, there are currently three under code enforcement action. If the
proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments are adopted, illegal conversions can be legalized and pennitted by
going through the Conditional Use Permit and Building Permit processes.
A",.,rrdment:
Attached is a draft Ordinance that would address the Planning Commissions concerns and implement the
City Council's direction. In essence, the Zoning Ordinance continues to require two, enclosed, ofT-street
parking spaces per single-family residential unit. However. if someone wants to convert their garage to is
living spa~, so that they would 110 longer be able to park vehicles inside, they may be able to do so. In order
to convert a garage to living space, the rc3ident would be required to submit an application for a Conditional
Use Permit, with the Planning Commission as the decision making body. All Conditional Use Permit
fØldings, including the additional finding for de:<igWarchitectural considerations. would have to be met and
any foreseeable adverse impacts addressed, prior to approval or through Conditions of Approval. The
applicant would be required to show that two, full-size, off-street parking 5pllCes can be provided, in an
approved area on their lot, prior to converting their gamge. For example, ¡fthey can provide two, full-size
parking spaces on the driveway, that would satisfy the regulations. In addition, garage conversions would
have to comply with all other City rf:b'Ulations (building permit, etc.).
Envirtmmental Review:
On August 18, 1997, the City COUflcil adopted Resolution 103-97 fmding that the Comprehensive Revision
to the Zoning Ordinance, including Chapter 8.76, Off-Street Parking And Loading Regulations is exempt
fTom the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). It can be seen with certainty that there is no
possibility thaI revising the Zoning Ordinance in this manner would have a significant effect on the
environment (Section I 5061 (bX3). Various changes to the Zoning Ordinance listed above are proposed
4
which would not increase or create environmental impacts. These changes will have no envírorun~íaJ
impact! and are also exempt rrom the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it can be seen
with certainty that there is no possibility that such amendments would have a significant effect on the
environment.
CONCLUSION:
The locing Ordinance (Chapter 8.120), require! that all zoning ordi.nance amendments (such as the
proposed amendment! to Chapter 8.12 Zoning Districts and Permitted Uses of Land; Chapter 8.76, Off-
Street Parking and Loading Regulations; and Chapter 8-100 Conditional Use Permit) be heard by the
Planning Commission and following a public hearing, the Planning Commission shall make a written
reconunendation to the City Council whether to approve, approve wifu modifications, or disapprove the
amendment. The proposed Ordinance (Attachment 5) implements City Council direction and addresses
Planning Commission concerns.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission open the public hearing and receive Staff pre:<entation, take
testimony from the public, question Staff and the public, close the public hearing, deliberate and adopt
resolution (Attachment 4) recommending that the City Council adopt Ùle Ordinance (Attachment 5) to
amend the Dublin Zoning Ordirumce.
5
Staff recommended that the Plaming Comntission open the public hearing and continue the public
hearing to March It 2003.
Cm. Fasulkey opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission;
hearing none, he closed !:he public hearing, and requested a motion to continue Item 8.1 to March
11, 2003.
On motion by Cm. Marntmes, seconded by Cm. Jennings, and a vote of 5-0, the Plarming
Commission unanimously approved continuance to the March 11, 2003 hearing.
On motion by Cm. Todd, seconded by Cm. King, and a vote of 5-Q, the Planning Commission
unanimously approved continuance to :
8.2 P A 03-002 - Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 8.12, Zoning Districts and
Permitted Uses of Land; Chapter 8.76, Off-street Parking and Loading Regulations; and
Chapter 8.100, Conditional Use Permit These amendments will allow fo:/' the conversion
of garages to Iivmg space in R-l, Single Family Residential zoning districts by means of a
Conditional Use Permit.
Ms. Waffle presented the Staff Report and Power point presentation of the proposed Zoning
Ordinance amendments to the Zoning Districts and Permitted Uses of Land; Off-Street Parking and
Loading Regulations; and Conditional Use Permit (CUP).
Ms. Waffle referenced the January 28,2003 hearing when this item was originally heard and
continued, and reiterated the concerns expressed by the Commission at that hearing concerning
aesthetic and design standards; impacts on traffic and safety; infrastructure/service impacts; scope
of g..r..ge conversions; incorpora.tion of design standards; and gr..ndfathering. She noted that the
Staff Report and amendments reflected Staff's recommendations for addressing and resolving the
Commission's concerns, proposing a CUP process to convert a garage into living space in the R-l
Single Family Residential Zoning District. She also noted that a new Finding would be added to
the CUP (Design/Architecture) to allow the COInllÚssion to cOf1sider design standards in the CUP
process.
Ms. WaffIe distributed a revised copy of the proposed Ordinance (A ttaclunent 5 of the Staff Report)
to the Commissioners and citizens in the audience, noting that specific wording had been
inadvertently omitted from the original version.
(}!«mm1lß C~ Ir1tIIÙ$iJm
'h¡¡uiâr9rfeet'/IfJ
23
q:e6ruary 15, 2003
ATTACHMENT 0 b
-
There was extensive discussion between Staff and the Commission regariling speåfics of the
proposed amendments.
em. King asked questions about the amendments, specifically tne CUP, and expressed concern
about the parking impacts that could arise from a garage conversion.
Ms. Waffle responded that residents would still be required to maintain two enclosed off-street
parking sp.accs, but that as part of the CUP application process, a resident could be allowed an
exception to the "enclosed" garage requirement. Hòwever, for approval of the CUP, residents
would be required to provide two full Si7.e off-street parking spaces. With off-street parking still
required, the parking impacts from a conversion would be minimal or non-existent.
Ms. Waffle noted that the Zoning Ordinance currently states that an enclosed garage must be
"maintained". She stated that by amending the Ordinance, the Plann;ng Commissìon would be
able to review the parking issues, and other concerns, for each conversion request and CUP.
em. King asked about the arçhitectural considerations and how an applicant would be required to
provide design plans for the Commission's review.
Ms. Ram stated that as part of the applìcation material, submittal checklists are provided to all
applicants who apply for a CUP.
Cm, King asked if other dties had design standards or guidelines for garage conversions, and asked
if more specific language should be used, noting Homeowner Associations established very specific
guidelines,
Cm. Machtmes recommended that the design standard language for the City of Dublin should
remain less specific for pre-existing homes, as the home designs would be very different and would
require case--by-case consideration.
Both Staff and the Commissioners agreed that the City of Dublin's design standards have
consistently improved over the years and that high quality design could be achieved without
specific and binding language to lìmit g<lrage conv€r~ions.
Cm. King asked how the CC&R's would be addressed if they conflict with City regulations, and
expressed concern that without explicit language, there is confusion and misunderstandings. He
noted Uta t it would be beneficial to have disclaimer language to prevent misunderstandings in the
'1f4rmillfJ C01tlmisiWn
'iWJulàr'MutillfJ
24
P.fmury 25, 2003
interpretation of City regulations and Homeowner Association CC&R's, since often CC&R's have
differing or additional regulations than those mandated by the City.
Cm. Machtmes noted that often citizeI1s have other legal responsibilities that the City is not
involved in, and stated that he believed it would not be the City's plaæ to advise applicants of
those responsibilities. He added that he was not adverse to a reminder that would prompt the
applìcant to verify that there were no other legal factors and responsibilities affecting tl1eir
application.
Cm. King asked if the Planning Commission would hear all the CUP reviE'ws fClr garage
conversions.
Ms. Ram confirmed that the Planning Commission would review the applications.
Cm. Machtmes asked for clarification on the required two full size off-street parking spaces, which
was shown on the Power point presentation with a house with a single-car garage conversion. He
asked if in that situation would a homeowner be allowed to convert the garage with only a single-
car driveway.
Ms. Ram answered that in that situation a homeowner would not be allowed to have a conversion,
as two full size off-street parking spaces would be required.
Cm. Machtmes also asked for clarification on whether or not new housing projects could be built
without garages.
Ms. Ram stated that the new housing projects are zoned Planned Development (PD) and would
have to apply for a CUP as wen as a Site Development Review (SDR).
Cm. Fasulkey opened the public hearing, and asked if anyone from the public wished to address
the Commission.
There were three citizens who addressed the Commission. They stated that they were against the
recommendation as proposed with a CUP requirement and wanted to have the issue remain a
"parking" issue and have the word "enc1osed" removed from the Ordinance, as discussed by the
City CoundI in November 2002.
Mr. Ken Young spoke on behalf of himself and his wife Cindy, and stated that he believed that
there has been a misunderstanding regarding the Council's direction and intent on the parking
rp(¡JnnintJ Commissioll
'lWgulår'Meeting
25
'fe5l1mr¡ 25, 2003
ordinance. He referenced the November 19, 2002 City Council m~ting and noted that he believed
that the Council's intent was -to require off~street parking but not requir~ that parking to be
enclosed, thereby remoYÍng the word "enclosed" from the ordinance. He stated that he felt the
issue at ha1"ld was not about garage conversions, but rather about parking. He added that he felt
that the current parking ordinance was discriminatory and inconsistent because a resident could
use the garage for storage (and not use it for parking), yet would be in compliance¡ but tl1at once
there is a permanent stnlcture in the garage, it would not be legal or permitted. He stated that he
was against the recommendation as proposed with a CUP requirement, and wanted to have the
word "enclosed" removed from the parking ordinançe. He asked if the Commission were to
approve this recommendation, would there be a right of appeal on the CUP application following
Commission action.
Cm. Fasulkey stated that there would be a normal appeal process, and encouraged Mr. Young to
contact the Planning Department for information on that process.
Ms. Esther Vigil spoke and stated that she was discouraged following the previous Commission
hearing of this issue, and felt that she was not going to be allowed to continue to use and maintain
the dark room in her garage if the parking ordinance was not changed to allow non-enclosed
parking. She also noted that the presentations did not represent the City of Dublin's conversions,
and that if canopies and the storage of trash in the front of homes was a concern, then she stated
that it should be a separate issue from a parking regulation issue.
Cm. Fasulkey explained that Staff had been directed to provide examples from cities where
conversions were allowed, and obtain infonnatiot'l nom those cities as to specifics of the process.
He added that this information was necessary to enable them to make informed decisions on the
issue to better serve the community.
Ms. Linda Lamke spoke and stated that jf the City was concerned about the parking issue, then the
violators who do not use their garages (or other off-street spaces for parking) should be cited. She
added that residents should not be required to have enclosed parking and should be able to convert
t~eir living space.
Cm. King advised Ms. Lamke that the Mayor of Dublin is very concerned about the issues under
discussion and encouraged her to emaiI or contact the Mayor about her concerns.
Cm. Fasulkey also encouraged Ms. Lamke to contact the City's Staff if she had complaints or
CQmmcnœ.
IPlannino Omllt/ism/!
IJI.!gufar 'MeetitIIJ
26
r;-e6ruary 25, 2003
When the dtizens had finished addressing the Commission, ern. Fasulkey asked if anyone else
wanted to address the Commission; hearing none, he dosed the public hearing. and the
Commission deliberated.
Cm. Jennings stated thàt she wanted clarification regarding the City Council's intent of the item,
whether it was a parking or garage conversion issue.
em. PasuIkey summarized the issue and eXplained that as <U"\ attempt by the City Council to allow
garage conversion5, the word "enclosed" was prop05ed to be removed from the parking
regulations. He noted that the CUy has never allowed garage conversions, and Councilman Sbranti
had rcquested consideration to allow conversions. At the January 28 hearing, the Commission had
determined that unmanageable issues resulted from the removal of the word "enclosed", and
expressed concerns about the ramifícatíons, such as parking issues and the rippling effects to the
neighborhoods, aesthetics, public safety, etc. They had asked Staff to address those resulting issues,
and consequently, Staff undertook the task of addressing the concerns while considering the Oty
Council's request to allow garage conversions. Therefore, Staff has submitted the recommendation
to amend the Zotiing Ordinance and propose a CUP process to convert a. garage into living space in
the R-1 Single Family Residentia.l Zoning District.
Cm. Jennings asked what the adjoining cities' policies were on garage conversions and there was
additioNl disCllssion between Staff and the Commission about other cities that allow garage
conversions.
Upon deliberation, Cm. Fasulkey requested a motion. On motion by Cm. King, seconded by em.
Machtmes, and a vote of 4-1, with Cm. Jennings voting against the project, the Planning
Commission approved:
RESOLUTrON 03-04
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBlIN
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNcrL APPROV At OF AN AMENDMENT TO
CHAPTER 8.12 ZONING DISTRICfS AND PERMITTED USES OF LAND;
CHAPTER 8.76 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS; AND,
CHAPTER 8.100 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP),. OF THE
DUBLIN ZONING ORDINANCE
P A 03-001
IfIånning Commi.r.rion
rJ(J1JU¡¡'~ !M..tí"fJ
27
'1'e6ruary 25, 2003
Authorized (4.5 600-35) Staff to solicit bids for Contract 05~06, Striping and Marking
Contract;
Received (4.6 320~30) the City Treasurer's Investment Report for the 3m Quarter of FY
2004-05, showing the City investment portfolio at $1 02,070,919 (market value), with
funds invested at an average yield of 3.129%;
Accepted (4.7 150-70) donation of used office furniture from Dan Plute for use in the
Building Inspectors' trailer, and directed Staff to prepare a formal acknowledgement to
the donor;
Received (4.8 330-50) Financial Reports for the Month of March 200S;
Approved (4.9 670-20) Budget Change in the amount of $2,244,800 for right-of-way
acquisition costs for the Dougherty RDa.d Improvements ~ Houston Place to 1-580 CIP
project;
Approved (4.10 300-40) the Warrant Registerin the amount of $1,607,863.71.
.
PUBUC HEARING - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APl'R.OY AL OF A
CONDmONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) FOR TIlE CUEUAR GARAGE CONVERSION
FOR TIlE PROPEIITY LOCATED AT 7697 CANTERBURY LAND PA 04-036
7:52 p.m. 6.J (410-30)
Mayor Lockhart opened the public hearing.
Associate Planner Jeff Baker presented the Staff Report.
This item is an appeal by Mayor Lockhart of the decision made by the Dublin Planning
Commission on March 22, 200S approving a CUP to convert a garage to residential
living space at 7697 Canterbury Lane.
Cm. McCormick asked if they currently park their cars in the garage?
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 24
REGULAR MEETING
May 3, 2005
PAGE 185
ATTACHMENT
7
Mr. Cuellar, the Applicant, stated he has lived here for the last 5 years is applying
because house prices are going up like crazy. The only option he has for his family is to
enlarge. 'Their driveway is so big they can put 3 cars there without impacting the
sidewalk. He will do the building himself with some friends helping. Currently the
garage is his storage. If approved, the house will look beautiful and it will give value to
his street.
Cm. Oravetz asked if he had thought of adding to the back of his house.
Mr. Cuellar responded it will cost him $60,000, which he doesn't have.
Mayor Lockhart clol1OO the public hearing.
Mayor Lockhart clarified her reason for appeAling this to the City Council is for
discussion on conversions related to should the look of homes be changed from those in
the neighborhood. What you will have is a home with 3 cars sitting on the front lawn.
Is this the look we want to approve? Does this make a difference to the Council?
Cm. McCormick stated she has noted in her neighborhood that people are building front
porches onto their homes. These neighborhoods are well established and the
architectural integrity has long ago gone away. This makes them channing. The houses
have different character and charm. She doesn't need Dublin beige everywhere in the
City. If it is done well, it can add to the neighborhood. A similar situation was discusl1OO.
Staff has to approve the plans and inspect during the process.
Cm. Oravetz stated he voted against the Ordinance a couple of years ago. He agreed with
Mayor Lockhart that if you convert, you are changing that house forever. He may move
someday. He could buy it and rent out all the rooms. Where will people park? He stated
he would not support this.
Cm. Hildenbrand stated she remembered conversations about cars parked there. This
does change the look of the neighborhood. The plan is very nice, but her bìggest concern
is spill out onto the street and what looks like a house without a place to put a car. She
stated she supported Cm. Oravetz's position opposing this.
Vm. Zika stated he is a,gainst all garage conversions because they change the character of
the neighborhood. This would become a 2,600 sq. ft. home. He stated he would vote not
to let the conversion go forward.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 24
REGULAR MEETING
May 3, 2005
PAGE 186
Mayor Lockhart made a motion to deny the appea1t but add condition that the garage
door has to remain.
City Attorney Elizabeth Silver advised that if the City Council wanted to allow the
conversion, but require the garage door to stay, they should grant the appeal and modify
the conditions of approval and deny the appeal otherwise.
Mr. Baker stated recommendation B would accomplish this. He will need to add a
window so some provision would be necessary for egress standards.
Building Official Gregory Shreeve stated the ,garage door would not be strong enough to
support the window so it would be put on either side.
Cm. Hildenbrand clarified they are just talking about aesthetics tonight.
It would be necessary to change the conditions of approval to require the,garase door to
remam.
Mayor Lockhart made a motion, which was seconded by Cm. Hildenbrand, to deny the
appealt but add condition that the ,garage door has to remain (Option B). This motion
was defeated due to NO votes cast by Cm. McCormick, Cm. Oravetz, and Vm. Zika.
Vm. Zika made a motion, which was seconded by Cm. Oravetz, to reverse the Planning
Commission's decision, thereby denying the CUP (Option C). This motion was defeated
due to NO votes cast by Cm. McCormick, Cm. Hildenbrand, and Mayor Lockhart.
Cm. McCormick made a motion to deny the appeal (Option A). This motion received NO
seçond.
City Attorney Silver advised the Council that if there is no decision, then the Planning
Commission's decision approving the CUP remains in effect. This can be continued for
75 days.
Mayor Lockhart made a motion to continue the item for Staff to work with the applicant.
Ms. Silver advised that the City Council has to continue to the next meeting or take
action. This is the time for the City Council to ask questions. They are acting in a quasi-
judicial manner.
Mayor Lockhart reopened the public hearing.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 24
RECULAR MEETING
May 3, 2005
PACE 187
Mr. Cuellar asked if he builds a room on the back, will this be okay? If he is to spend
money, he does it wen, or he doesn't do it. He asked about the house on Amador Valley
Boulevard which has been totally changed and stated this is not fair. All the houses on
his street look different. He stated he will wait two years, save money and come back.
City Manager Ambrose clarified that the City Council is not in a position to approve
tonight whether or not he can build an addition in the back.
Cm. Hildenbrand stated cars are not just a problem in this area, but all over town.
People don't use their garages for parking cars.
Mayor Lockha.rt closed the public hearing.
On motion of Vm. Zika, seconded Cm. Oravetz, and by majority vote, the Council
adopted (Attachment 2 - Option C)
RESOLUTION NO. 67 - 05
REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
AND DENYING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
TO ALLOW THE CONVERSION OF A GARAGE
TO RESIDENTIAL LIVING SPACE FOR THE PROPERTY AT
7697 CANTERBURY LANE (APN 941-0176-019) PA 04-036
Cm. Hildenbrand and Cm. McCormick voted in opposition to the motion.
.
PUBUC HEARING
CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION ORDINANCE PA 04-044
8:25 p.m. 6.2 (430-20)
Mayor Lockhart opened the public hearing.
Associate Planner Jeff Baker presented the Staff Report.
This is the second reading of a proposed Ordinance which would regulate the conversion
of existing residential apartment ul1its held in single ownership to for-sale
condominiums.
CITY COUNCIL MINUfES
VOLUME 24
REGULAR MEETING
May 3, 2005
}'AGE 188