HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.1 Garage Conversion
CITY CLERK
File # D~~laHg][ð]
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: July 19, 2005
SUBJECT:
Discussion on Garage Conversion Ordinance
Report Prepared by Jeri Ram. Planning 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 Ordinance
adopted on April 1 , 2003.'
2. Staff Report and Minutes for City Council Meetings:
a. November 19, 2002
b. March 18, 2003
c. April I, 2003
3. Staff Report and Minutes for Planning Commission 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: tì 1 J\, 1. Receive Staff presentation.
. ~ 2. Provide Staff direction.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: No financial impact.
PROJECT DESCRIYfION:
Background:
At the November 1 9, 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" from 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 Staff to provide alternatives and studies to address the following concerns regarding
the conversion of garages to living space: I) traffic and safety, 2) infi'astructurelservice impacts, 3) scope of
conversions, 4) aesthetics and design standards, and 5) grand-fathering.
____~_________~____~____________________.__________________~______M____~_______________ø______W_____.________
COPIES TO:
\öb3
ITEM NO. ---8.1..
At the February 25, 2003 Planning Commission meeting, Staf!' returned with a report that addressed the
Planning Commission's concerns and recommended a Conditional Use Permit process with the Planning
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 ?.oning district in which the project is located (Attachment 3b).
Additionally, Staff recommended that a new conditional use permit finding be added for residential garage
converslons :
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 Jighting, and similar elements have
been incorporated into the project and as conditions of approval in order to insure
compatibiJity of this development with the development's design concept or theme and
thc 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 I, 2003, the City Council 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 be 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 Approval/Denial and Notes on Project
Number No. of A lication 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. 1 J 968 West Vomac Road Denied by Planning Denial based on parking concerns
(P A 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 ara es.
3. 7342 Dover Lane (P A 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 drivew~
10/28/03 to allow landsca in .
2
Item
Number
5.
Address and Application
No. of Annlication
7052 Amador Valley Blvd.
(P A 04-064)
6.
7697 Canterbury Lane (PA
04-036)
ApprovaIlDeniaI and
Date
Approved by Planning
Commission on
3122/05
Approved by Planning
Commission on
3/22/05; Denied on
appeal by City
Council on 5/3/05
Notes on Project
Partial conversion with existing
garage door to remain.
Full conversion with removal of
garage door.
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 (P A 04-036). During the
deliberation on that appeal, the City Council requested that an. item be pJaced 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:
Staff recommends that the City Council receive the Staff presentation and provide Staff with direction.
3 J()3
1~''7
ORDINANCE NO.4 - 03
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
****4r.**If*
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 Pennit 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 from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The various
changes to the Zoning Ordinance listed above would also not create environmental impacts. These
changes are exempt from 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 COlUlCil approve
amendments to the Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, a properly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on Aprill, 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 of the Zoning Ordinance, the City Council finds
that the Ordinance Amendments are consistent with the Dublin C':reneral 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, Perndtted and Conditionally Permitted Land Uses, of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance
is amended to read as follows;
RESIDENTIAL USE TYPES
Residentiai Conversion of
Garaee to Livin'" Snace
A R-I R-2 R-3 R-4 C- C-N C-I C~2 M· M-I M-2
0 P
~ ç/PC - - : - - - - : - -
- - - - - - - - -
~TTM"~'Mt:t1T { 7-14 - D ~
I.' rtv " ..... '301
Re!lidential Use Type
2"b~'-¡
Section 2
Section 8.76.070.A.14, Location ofR.equired Parking Spaces, of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance is
amended to read a..~ 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 l50 feet from the
residences they serve. Parking spaces required by this Chapter shall be located
within an enclosed garage, exceDt 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 JjvinlZ sooce. 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
leas! one side yard is unobstructed to a width of 36 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.EA. See Figure 76-2. Parking in a driveway shall not
compensate for required enclosed garage parking unless two. full-size. unenclosed
parkin!!: spaces are permitted pursuant to a Conditional Use Permit for the purposes
of convcrtinlZ a residential garage to iivinll ::;pace. 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 FamilvlDuplexIMobile 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 150 feet of that
dwelling unit.
Lots greater than 4,000 square feet 2 in enclosed garage per dwelJing:!'.
. Excent i{two full-size. unenclosed ""rkine soaces are oel111itted elsewhere on a lot nursuant to a Conditional Use Pennit
for tile nurroses of convertiru¡ a residential eanu>:e to liviM1R1!!&
3~ Ii""!
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 livin~ space, architectural
considerations. including the character. scale and aualitv of the design. the architectural
relationship with the site and other buildings. building materials <md colors. screening of
exterior appurtenances. exterior lighting, and similar elements have been incorporated into
the proîect 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.
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 aDd Posting (If 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 ofDublin on this 1" day of
April 2003, by the following votes:
AYES:
Councilmembers McCormick, Sbranti and Mayor L(lckbart
NOES:
Councilmembers Oravetz and Zika
ABSENT:
None
ABSTAIN: None
~d;¡;Jx
_ræ,
Mayor
Ã::~
CityClerk/~
K'/G/4-1-03/ord-garage-conv.doc (Item 6.1)
G:\P A#\2003\03-002\CC-ord.doc
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 19, 2002
CITY CLERK
File # OI4l1l1:]ØJ-[g][ð]
4~~
SUBJECT:
Residential Off Street Parking - Discussion of City ~e,uirements
Report Prepared by: Jeri Ram, Planning Manager IJIt'"'
ATTACHMENT:
1.
2.
Section 8.76.070.14 of Zoning Ordinance
Planning Division Work Program Staff Report dated 10/15/02
RECOMMENDATION: 1.
/2tftY2.
Receive Staff presentation
Give Staff direction on whether additional studies should be done on
this issue and if it should be added to Staff's work program.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
None at this time.
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
and requiring only two off-street parking spaces.
In May 1982 (after incorporation) the City of Oublin adopted the Alameda County Zoning Ordinance as
the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Over time, the City gradually amended and modified the Zoning
Ordinance to address the City of Dublin'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 :fÌ'ont yard or the street side yard of a comer lot. This had the effect of not allowing
for garage conversions as there was generally nowhere else to park the cars off-street.
As the City developed on the west side of Doughtery Road, all the single-family residential units 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 denser lot configurations. These narrower lots have less on-street parking,
--------~---------------------------------------------------------.-_---
------.......---..
G;\AgondasI2002ICCSRoflltreetparking 11-19-02.DOC
COPIES
ITEM l'
ATTACHMENT J 0---
as there is less space between driveways. Additionally, some of the streets are private and hav&~cfe~
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 fi'ont yard setbacks. This variation in
froDt yard setbacks may also create shorter driveways than are conventioIlal. These driveways do not
enable the parking of cars off street. as the automobiles would extend on to the sidewalk. In short, the
design of the subdivision and site development review of the homes did not 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 from the Parking Requirements, all Planned Development Zoning Districts for single-
famiiy detached units that the City has approved include the requirement for two off-street parking spaces
in an enclosed garage.
During the past year, Staffhas opened several code enforcement cases relating to illegal garage
conversions. Staff has 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 Planning
Commission or City Councii is difficult, as the decision-makers must make all five findings
required by State law. One of these findings is that there is something physically unusual
about the lot that deprives the property owners from developing their property as others in their
zoning district. V cry few residential 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. Return 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 single·family residential dwelling units, to allow for garage conversions, 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 streets which may increase vehicular and pedestrian accidents;
and
· 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 Staff's work program and other high priority projects
may take longer to accomplish (see Attachment 2).
,j~4 ~
As part of any additional work authorized by the City Cowu:il on this item, Staff would prepare~~;1
report examining the above issues in greater depth and conduct a survey of Bay Area jurisdictions to see
which cities al!ow garage conversions and which do not.
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive Staff presentation and give Staff direction on whether additional studies should be done on this
issue and if it should be added to Staff's work program.
3..-D~
íð() ?1
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
Commission will be discussing this.
Kasie Hildenbrand suggested something be included in the HOA letter.
Mayor Lockhart stated one of fue criteria she would Ii1œ to see included is the
neighborhood makeup. We have quite an Asian influence and maybe we should take
this into consideration. Also, have 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 pointed9ut this item deals with naming the park rather than design issues.
Ms. Lowart stated December 16th will be the next meeting.
Consensus of the Council was to put this off. Even though this is a neighborhood park, it
belongs to the whole community. Staff should get feedback from the next meeting and
then take it to the Parks & Community Services Commission and then to the City
Council.
..
RESIDENTIAL OFF-STREET PARKING - DISCUSSION OF CITY IŒOUIREMENTS
10:46 p.m. 8.4 (450NZO)
Planning Manager Jeri Ram 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 requiring only two off~street parking spaces.
Ms. Ram stated if the City Council would like Staff to further explore the possibility of
amending the off~street parking requirements for si11gle-family dwelling units to allow.
for garage conversions, issues that would need to be addressed include:
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 2 I
REGULAR MEETING
November 19, 2002
PAGE 587
ATTACHMENT~' ~
ßoo 5Ø
1) 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;
Z) Equity issues if one portion of the City can convert their garages while the other
portion of the City call11ot;
3) 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;
4) Loss of sight lines 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 staff's work progra.m and other high
priority p~ects may take longer to accomplish. As part of any additional work
authorized by the City Cúuncil on this item, Staff would prepare a Staff Report
examining the above issues in greater depth and conduct a survey of Bay Area
jurisdictions to sce which cities allow garage conversions and which do not, and
implications.
Mary Ross, Doreen Cúurt, stated this affects people living in the community. She is a
recent resident moving here from the Peninsula. This is a community and she has gotten
to know people who give Dublin its significance and its character. There are a lot of
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 affecf 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 produclive 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 making 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 a situation where an elder parent could have a level ofprivaçy. There are
legitimate scenarios where he could see this going forward. You would still have to
provide 2 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
VOLUNIE 21
REGULAR MELTING
November 19, 2002
PAGE 588
~Ob~
neighborhood takes on a different character. TIris 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 garage 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 reguJar basis where people
don't have room to put their garbage cans out. He pointed out that the new requirement
for garbage bins requires 1 7 feet.
Mayor Lockhart stated parking on the street is not illegal. If we were really serious
about this, probably 95% of the City could be cited.
em. Oravetz stated he likes garage conversions for motherNin-law units; particularly if
we could 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 a
variety of reasons. Some have prohibited this due to aesthetic reasons. It is a mixed bag.
Mayor Lockhart stated. she felt people won't go out an do conversions no matter what the
City Council says.
Mr. Ambrose talked about code enforcement Í88UeS that staff deals with such as boat or
RV storage.
Cm. Sbranti stated. he did not feel there will be a large rush of people going out and
doing garage conversions. Given the housing needs, there are a lot of reasons people
may go forward with this type of thing. He did not feel this will have an impact one way
or the other on street 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 permits and pay fees and provide parki.t1g for that unit.
Cm. McCormick stated she felt converted garages and parking are twD different subjects.
'I1ùs has to do with wording to remove requirements for covered parldng spaces.
Mayor Lockhart stated she felt if you just take the word "covered" out, this would fix it.
CITY COUNCn. MINUTES
VOLUME 21
REGULAR MEETING
November 19, 2002
PAGE 589
I Coo ?4
Cm. Oravetz asked if this would just open "Pandora's Box"?
Mr. Peabody stated as a practical matter, we advise people in the older portion of Dublin
to put an addition onto their house. In many cases, the garage conversions are talked
about as being: work spaces or larger family rooms rather than dwellings for relatives.
TIris is 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
anyway.
Ms. Ram sfated 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 Orditutnce the requirement for
2 enclosed off street spaces to the Planning Commission and City Council. Cm. Zika
voted in opposition to the motion.
.
FISCAL YEAR 2002-03 GOALS & OBJECTIVES STATUS REPORT
AND CAPITAL ß1PROVEMENT PROGRAM SCHEDULE
11:16 p.m. 8.5 (I00-80)
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 objectives have been completed.
With respect to lUgh priority objectives, a total of 12 out of 77 have been completed.
There have been 10 major additional assignments since April 2002, one of which has
been completed.
The CIP includes 59 projects that are funded in IT 2002-03. Four projects have been
completed since the program was approved in June of 2002.
The Council thanked Staff for the report.
+
cm COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 21
REGULAR MEETING
November 19, 2002
PAGE 590
IlZJbS4
Approved (4.12 300-40) the Warrant Register in the amount of $2,176,318.52.
-<&
PUBLIC HEARING
CITY OF DUBLIN ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - GARAGE CONVERSIONS
7:07 p.m. 6.1 (450-20)
Mayor Locldw.rt opened the public hearing.
Planning Manager Jeri Ram introduced Associate Planner Mamie 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 - Zon:i11g 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. 'I1tese amendments will allow for the
conversion of garages to living space in R- 1 , Single Family Residential Zoning Districfs
by means of a Conditional Use Permit.
The Dublin Zoning Ordinance currenfly 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 spaçes can be
provided elsewhere on the lot.
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal to remove the word "enclosed" from
fhe 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; infrastructure/ service impaçts; the scope of conversions; aesthetic
and design standards; and grand-fathering. Staff presented the Planning 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 spaçe. The
Pla.nning 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.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOUJME 22
RH";ULAR MEETING
Ma¡'cll 18,2003
PAGE '1.43
\~tIb '71
Bob Fasu1key, Chairman of the Planning Commission thanked Staff for doing a
wonderful job on this. They understood the intent. Ms. Waffle articulated their list of
concems. 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. Zika asked about a situation whereby two houses created limited parking they
would say no to a third. He stated he felt this would be unfair treatment.
Cm. Sbranti asked about defining living space - den, home office, etc.
Ms. Ram stafed it is defined by the Building Code.
Crn. Oravetz asked if he wanted to put a woodworking facility in his converted garage,
would this be okay?
Ms. Ram explained that if you wanted fo convert your garage to a workshop and you did
not have 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 Plarming Commission could approve it if fhey 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 if the garage
conversion could be a rental?
Ms. Ram stafed it could conceivably be a rental unit. We are currently re-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 thaf 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. McCormick stated she felt this was too bad as this makes City streets look bad.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 22
REGULAR MEETING
March .i8, 2003
PAGE 1441
I ~~ 9'"
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 back 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 plans. If someone does somet1µng illegally, we have to spend time to get it
corrected. Someone misused the term 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 Plamring Commission who had two very
thorough detailed public hearings. He originally thought we could remove the word
enclosed if they have parking. 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
have 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 Lockhart 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 nothing you can do about it.
eny COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 22
REGULAR MEETING
March HI, 2003
PAGE 145
11ofC/)t;4
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. McConnick asked about a home office situation with clients. Is this pennitted?
Ms. Ram stated you are allowed fo have a limited number of clienfs; 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 a 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. This is why
it would be a case-by-case issue.
Cm. Sbranti stated in November there was a loophole that would allow developers to
corne forward with a proposal to build unifs without garages. We need flexibility and
the CUP process allows this.
Cm. Oravetz asked if the Planning Commission could legally ask questions about why he
is converting his gara,ge.
City Attorney Silver stafed the Zoning Ordinance requires certain findin,gs for a CUP. It
must be compatible with other land uses and transportation within the community. The
use will be dictated by what you convert it to.
Cm. Oravetz stated if you are the first on your street or second, you can get it approved.
Does the third guy have any legal rights to say we're discriminating against him?
Cm. Zika stated it is not a legal playing field for everyone. lfyou have a homeowners
association, they won'f 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 COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 22
REGl1LAR MEETING
March 18,2003
PAGE 146
I G cr{)S"1
Cm. Sbranti pointed out the fact that different homeowner associations have different
guidelines.
Cm. Zika stated he felt if we chartge our ordinance, we may be devaluing a house
because there are too many cars on the street.
Cm. Sbranti stated he did not believe this will puf more cars 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 in and he again stated he will be surprised
to see more than one a year.
Ms. Ram addressed the home occupation parking question and advised that fhe Code
says you could have up to 5 cars a day visit your house. You have to have additional
parking to the 2 required by residents.
Ms. Silver looked at the Variance provision. A Variance can be grated for specific
reasons, but she did not feel this falls into this. The City Council could specify if they did
not want a Variance considered.
Cm. McCormick clarified that an unenclosed parking space is a concrefe slab?
Staff responded this was correcf.
Cm. McCormick asked íf they could 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 wtits, in addition to a garage. There are some lots where garage
conversions could work.
Cm. McCormick stated she sometimes hates the way our s~ets 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. Zika and Cm. Oravefz vofed in opposition to the motion.
.",,¡Þ...
"""
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 22
REGULAR MEETING
March 18,2003
PAGE 147
·11.ooD S- P¡
PUBLIC HEARING
CITY OF DUBLIN ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT PA 03-002
7:36 p.m. 6.1 (450-20)
Mayor Lockhart opened the public hearing.
Planning Manager Jeri Ram presented the Staff Report, indicating that this is the second
reading of an Ordinance, which would amend 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 Permit 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.
. John Collins stated he had never heard fhe first reading of this Ordinance, so questioned
how this could be the second reading.
Mayor Lockhart advised that the first reading of the proposed Ordinance had taken
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 available to the public.
Mayor Lockhart dosed the public hearing.
Cm. Oravetz stated the last time they voted on this, it was 3-2 (Zika/Oravetz opposed).
Mter much consideration from both poinfS of view, indicated that he would still oppose
the proposed Ordinance.
Cm. Sbranti stated he did not feel the proposed Ordinance 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 permits, any
house 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
REGtILAR MEETING
April 1, 2003
PAGE 205
11 ~."
Mayor Lockhart disagreed with that interpretation of the proposed new law, 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
..
PUBLlCHEARING
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, advisiTIg that in accordance
with Resolution No. 31-03, the City Council declared thatthere is a public nuisance
created by weeds and combustible debris growing, accumulating upon the streets,
sidewalks 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 senf out.
Ms. Johnson stated normally about 300 notices, but this year a little less.
No testimony was entered by any member of the public relafive to this issue.
Mayor Lockhart closed the public hearing. .
CiTY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 22
REGULAR MEETING
April 1 , 2003
PAGE 206
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 18.2003
CITY CLERK
File # D~[5][¡Hz][(i]
1~~1
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 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-l, Single Family Residential
zoning districts by means of a Conditional Use PennÎt.
Report Prepared by Jeri Ram. Planning Manager and Marnie R. WajJle,
Assistant Planner ~
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Planning 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. Planning 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 DubHn Zoning Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION:
~fc)-
1. Open Public Hearing and receive Staff presentation;
2. Question Staff;
3. Take testimony fi'om the Public;
4. Close Public Hearing and deliberate;
5. Waive the reading and introduce the Ordinance to amend the Dubiin
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 residentia.! 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.
_________.~~~.______________~~____R__________~__~________________R___________~·~__________________~_________
COPIES TO:
ITEMNO.~
ATTACHMENT j~b ~
At the City Council's direction, Staff proceeded with an amendment to the Dublin Zoning b';1llif:1o
remove the word "enclosed" fi'om the parkingrequirernent. Staff prepared a report and presented the
proposed amendment to the Planning 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 Jiving space: 1) traffic and
safety, 2) infi'astructurefservice impacts, 3) scope of conversions, 4) aesthetics and design standards, 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 meeÛllg, 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 Plaruring Commission
as the decision making body, to conditionally approve requests to convert garages into living space. In order
for the Pianning 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.
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 infi'astructure or services, including street sweeping and waste receptacle placement, would be
addressed by requiring that two, off-street parking spaces be provided. The soope of conversions would be
bound by the development regulations for the R-l Single Family Residential Zoning District, including but
not limited to, heights, setbacks, and lot coverage.
The addition of a new fmding, to the conditional use permit findings for garage conversions, would address
design and architecture, allowing the Planning Commission to review and approve the physical appearance
of a proposed garage conversion. This new fmding 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 deve10pment's design concept or theme and
the character of adjacent buildings, neighborhoods, and uses.
The issue of grand-fathering is not applicable to the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments bccause 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 Staff's presentation, received public testirnony,
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 Dubliu Zoning Ordinance.
¡
J
2 1'-'1;
Following the Planning Commission's action., Staff noted that clarification to the text of the new tfu-ggþr,?r1
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 architecture. The City Attorney has reviewed the proposed clarification
to the new finding and determined that the change is minor in nature and does not need to go back to the
Planning Commission for review.
ENvmONMENTAL REVIEW:
On August J 8, 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
fi'om 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 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
Planning Commission and following a public hearing, the Planning Commission shall make a written
recommendation 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" 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, traffic and safety; infrastructure/service impacts; the scope of
conversions; aesthetic and design standards; and, grand-fathering. Staff presented the Planning 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 Commissjon 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 presentàtion,
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!, 20m, City Council Meeting.
3rt';;
21~?I
Approved (4.12 300-40) the Warrant Register iTI the amount of $2,176,318.52.
+-
PUBLIC HEARING
CITY OF DUBLIN ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - GARAGE CONVERSIONS
7:07 p.m. 6.1 (450-20)
Mayor Lockhart opened the public hearing.
PlanniTIg Manager Jeri Ram iTItroduced Associate Planner Mamie Waffle, who presented
the Staff Report and did a PowerPoiTIf presentation.
This is the Hrst reading of an Ordinance proposing amendments to the Dublin Zoning
Ordinance, Chapter 8. J 2 ~ Zoning Districts and Permitted Uses of Land; Chapter 8.76 -
Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations; and Chapfer 8.100 - Conditional Use
Pennit of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. 'I1tese amendments will allow for the
conversion of garages to living space in R-l, SiTIg1e Family Residential Zoning Districts
by means of a Conditional Use Permit.
The Dublin Zoning Ordinance cUITently 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.
The PlanniTIg 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 traffic and safety; infrastructure! service impacts; the scope of conversions; aesthetic
and design standards; and grand-fathering. Staff presented the Planning Commission
with an alternative that addressed their concerns by proposing a Conditional Use Permif
process for reviewing and approving requests to convert garages to living space. The
Planning commission heard the proposal and recommended that the City CoWlcil
approve an amendment to Chapter 8.12 Zoning Districts and Permitted Uses of Land;
Chapter 8.76 Off-Streef Parking and Loading Regulations; and Chapter 8.100
Conditional Use Permít.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOUJME 22
REGULAR MEETING
Ma¡"cb 18,2003
PAGE 143
ATTACHMENT ;j,0
2~?"
Bob Fasulkey, Chairman of the Planning Commission thanked Staff for doing a
wonderful job on this. They understood the infent. 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. Fasu1key replied no, they only considered living space.
Cm. Zika asked about a situation whereby two houses created limited parking they
would say no to a third. He stated he felt this would be unfair treatment.
Cm. Sbranti asked about defining living space - den, home office, etc.
Ms. Ram stated it is defined by the Building Code.
Cm. Oravetz asked if he wanted to put a woodworking facility in his converted garage,
would this be okay?
Ms. Ram explained that if you wanted fo convert your garage to a workshop and you did
not have 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 sfill unclear about the parking, and asked if the garage
conversion could be a rental?
Ms. Ram stafed it could conceivably be a rental unit. We are currently re-evaluating
and revising our seçond 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 seçond
unit ordinance stands on its own. A second unit would be considered a full unit with
kitchen and separate entrance.
Cm. McCormick stated she felt this was too bad as this makes City streets look bad.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 22
REGlILAR MEETING
March 18,2003
PAGE 144
-¿"3~.s,
Esther Vigil, Tamarack Drive, asked about punitive damages. She sfated this was
brought up at an earlier meeting.
Buildillg Official Gregory Shreeve stated an existing garage conversion thaf 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 back 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 plans. If someone does something illegally, we have to spend time to get it
corrected. Someone misused the ferm 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 LocldUlrt 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 parking. 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
have 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 deçide to move and rent out all the
bedrooms. He asked if this would be legal.
Mayor Lockhart 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 nothing: you can do about it.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 22
REGULAR MEETING
March IS, 2003
PAGE 145
¿2~?1
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. Is this permitted?
Ms. Ram stafed you are allowed to have a limited number of clienfs; one or two a week.
We don't regulate parking with home occupation.
Cm. McCormick sfated her real concern is with new construction. A buyer may opt to
use the space as actual living space. The Planning Commission would have to take a
look at it.
Ms. Ram stated a developer would have to get a 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. This is why
it would 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 asked if the Planning Commission could legally ask questions about why he
is converting his garage.
City Attorney Silver stated the Zoning Ordinance requires certain findings for a CUP. It
must be compatible with other land uses and transportation within the community. The
use will be dictated by what you convert it to.
Cm. Oravetz stated if you are the first on your street or second, you can get if approved.
Does the third guy have any legal rights to say we're discriminating: against him?
Cm. Zika stated it is not a legal 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 mosf part.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 22
REGlJLAR MEETiNG
March 1M, 2003
PAGE 146
-¿&:jO'Q51
Cm. Sbranti pointed out the fact that different homeowner associations have different
guidelines.
Cm. Zilal stated he felt if we change our ordinance, we may be devaluing a house
because there are too many cars on the street.
Cm. Sbranti stated he did not believe this will put more cars on the street. How rrumy
people will rush to convert their garage? He felt it will be rare to actually see this. This
process has enough checks and balances built in and he again stated he will be surprised
to see more than one a year.
Ms. Ram addressed the home occupation parking question and advised that the Code
says you could have up to S cars a day visit your house. You have to have additional
parking to the 2 required by residents.
Ms. Silver looked at the Variance provision. A Variance can be grated for specific
reasons, but she did not feel this falls into this. The City Counc:il could specify if they did
not want a Variance considered.
Cm. McConuick clarified that an unenclosed parking space is a concrete slab?
Staff responded this was correct.
Cm. McCormick asked if they could limit this ordinance to apply west of Dougherty
Road?
Ms. Ram sfafed 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. McConuick stated she sometimes hates the way our streets 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. Zika and Cm. Oravefz voted in opposition to the motion.
~
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 22
REGULAR MEETlNG
March 18,2003
P AGEll47
2lP CIh -S""l
CITY C1.ERK
File # O[E[3][Q]·[gJØ]
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: April 1, 2003
SUB.JECT:
Public Hearing, PA 03-002, City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance
Amendment, Second Reading - Amendment to Chapte(s 8.12, 8.76,
and 8.100 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. These amendments will
allow for the conversion of garages to Jiving space in R-l, Single
Family Residential zoning districts by means of a Conditional Use
Permit.
Report Prepared by: Jeri Ram, Planning Manage;:. fm~.Marnie R.
Waffle, Assistant Planner ~
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Ordinance Amending the Dublin Zoning Ordinance
2. City Council Agenda Statement (w/o attachments) dated March 18,
2003
RECOMMENDATI0ß#N: 1. Open Public Hearing and receive Staff presentation;
2. Question Staff;
. '" 3. Take testimony ITom the PubJie;
4. Close Public Hearing and deliberate;
5. Waive the rending and adopt the Ordinance (Attachment I) to
amend the DubJin 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 pmvide 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 pmceeded with an
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to remove the word "enclosed" ITom the parking requirement.
On January 28,2003, Staff presented a report to the Planning Commission to amend the off-street parking
regulations of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Commission received Staffs 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)
infi'astructure/service impacts, 3) scope of conversions, 4) aesthetics and design standards, and 5) grand-
fathering.
_.__________________________~~________~~_______________w_______________w~_~________________.________·w_______
COPIES TO:
In House Distribution
ITEM NO. 6.1
ATTACHMENT d.L
Staff returned to the Planning Commission on February 25, 2003 with a report that addressed t:e1~~J
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 Planning Commission received Staffs presentation, received public testimony, deliberated,
and indicated its support of Staffs 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 I, 2003 City Council
meeting.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
On August 18, 1997, the City Council adopted Resolution J03-97 fmding that the Comprehensive Revision
to the Zoning Ordinance, including Chapter 8.76, Off-Street Parking And Loading Regulations is exempt
fÌ'om 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 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 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" from 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 Planning Commission and following a public hearing, the Plarming
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 hearing held on March l8, 2003, the City Council introduced an Ordinance to amend the
Zoning Ordinance (Chapters 8.J2; 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 from the Public, close the public hearing and deliberate, WBive the reading, and adopt
the Ordinance (Attachment J) to amend the Dublin Zoning Ordinance.
2
216Gb ?1
PUBLIC HEARING
CTIY OF DUBLIN ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT PA 03-002
7:36 p.m. 6.1 (450-20)
Mayor Lockhart opened the public hearing.
Planning Manager Jeri Ram presented the Staff Report, indicating that this is the second
reading of an Ordinance, which would amend the Dublin Zon:ing 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 Permit of the Dublin
Zoning Orclinance. 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.
. John Collins stated he had never heard the first reading of this Ordinance, so questioned
how this could be the second reading.
Mayor Lockhart advised that the first reading of the proposed Ordinance had taken
place at the last Council meefing.
City Attorney Silver explained that the Council waives the reading of the Orclinance,
rather than reading the Ordinance aloud in full. A copy of the proposed Ordinance is
posfed and is available to the public.
Mayor Lockhart closed the public hearing.
Cm. OravetZ stated the last time fhey 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.
Cm. Sbranti stated he did not feel the proposed Ordinance would cause extra parking on
the street and cause a widespread problem.
Cm. Zika stated he is also against fhe Ordinance and was concerned about parking
problems. He referenced a new law coming in July, whereby without any permits, any
house 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
Ap.-il 1, 2003
PAGE 205
ATTACHMENT
),¿
"'2'1't) ,"\
Mayor Lockhart disagreed with that interpretation of the propOsed new Iaw, and stated
that the City Council can review it.
Cm. McCormick stated she is still nof fully comfortable with the proposed Ordinance,
but she has heard from people who have said they converted their garages in the last 1 5
years and none of fhem rent the units; most use it fora "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
+-
PUBUC 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 dec1ared that there is a public nuisance
created by weeds and combustible debris growing, accumulating UpOn the streets,
sidewalks and property within the City of Dublin. This public hearing will allow
properly owners to present objections to the abatement order.
Cm. Sbranti asked how many notices were senf 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 this issue.
Mayor Lockhart closed the public hearing.
CiTY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 22
REGULAR MEETING
April t, 2003
PAGE 206
AGENDA STATEMENT 3OCf)S4
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: JANUARY 28, 2003
SUBJECT:
P A 03-002 City of Dublin, Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Amendment to
Chapter 8.76, Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations of the Dublin Municipal
Code (Zoning Ordinance) ,..../...-
Prepared by Jeri Ram, Planning Manager U«'""
ATTACHMENTS:
I. November 19, 2002, City Council Agenda Statement
2. November J 9, 2002, City Council minutes on Report on Residential
Off-Street Parking
3. Resolution recommending the City Council adopt the ordinance
amending the Dublin Municipal Code (lolÚng Ordinance)
4. Ordinance amending Chapter 8.76 Off-Street Parking and Loading
Regulations of the Dublin Municipal Code.
RECOMMENDATION: l.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Open Public Hearing and receive Staff presentation;
Take testimony horn the Public;
Question Staff and the Public;
Close Pubiic Hearing 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 meetiIlg, Staff brought forth an item at the request of
Councilmember Tim Sbranti to consider modification of the City's enclosed parking requirement for single-
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 conversation of garages to provide additional living space in single-family residential dweJ1ing
units.
Staff's report recon¡mended that if the City Council would like Staff 10 work on the amendment, additional
studies and information would be provided in a further report. The City Council received Staffs
presentation, deliberated and directed Staff to prepare the amendment without the additional studies
(Attachment 2).
Amendment:
Attached 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
G:\F'AI\200S\03-002\PC !l.tBtrtèpOrl.OOC
ITEMNO_~
ATTACHMENT 3. ~
not be able to park vehicles in it, they may be able to do so. In order to convert the garage, th~$c~'
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 wouid have to comply with all other City regulations (building permit, etc.).
Environmental Review:
On August IS, 1997, the City Council adopted Resolution 103-97 finding that the Comprehensive Revision
to the Zoning Ordinance, iflcluding 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 l5061(b)(3). Various changes to the Municipal Code listed above are proposed which
wouid 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 sisnificant effect on the
environment.
CONCLUSION:
The Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 8.120), requires that all zoning ordinance amendments (such as this
proposed amendment to the Off-Street Parking Regulations) be heard by the Planning Commission and
following a public hearing, the Planning Commission shall make a written recommendation to the City
Council whether to approve, approve with modifications or disapprove the amendment.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the P]anning Commission open the public hearing and receive Staff presentation, take
testimony from the public, question 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
-:s 7. Vb; 1
A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, January 28,
2003, in the Dublin Civic Center City Council Chambers. Chairperson Fasulkey called the meeting
to order at 7:00 p.m.
****. ..***
ROLL CALL
PreSt'nt: Commissioners, Fasulkey, Jennings, Nassar, King and Machtrnes; Jeri Ram, Planning
Manager; Mamie Waffle, Assistant Planner; John Bakker, City Attorney; and Autumn McGrath,
Recording Secretary
* * ..:+: :+: :+: '* :+; **
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Cm. Fasulkey led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag.
.*.. IfI ........
ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA
The Minutes of December 10, 2002 were approved as submitted; the minutes of January 14, 2003
meetings were approved with correction.
**... ..IiI.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None
IIII I"'. * *.111**
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None
**.... ..*.
I1'iánni1l{J Crrmmission
'1t!gular !Meeti1l{J
9
Janllary 28, 2003
ATTACHMENT 3. to-
-;-;~.,
PUBLIC HEARING
8.1 PA 03-002· 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 Commi5sion an item that would consider a modification of the City's enclosed parking
requirements for single-family residential dwelling unit/!. 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 Zoning Ordinance amendment to
the off-street parking and loading regulations. and discussed the reasons that the community may
benefit from allowing garage conversions, as wen 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, for approval or approval
with changes or conditions. She added that the Commission 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 place/!.
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 fun-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 we1l 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.
PC:nnin¡J Commission
'RsfJUwr !Meeti7IfJ
10
JanlPLry 28, 2003
31.fUb51
Ms. Ram answercd that there have been no studies, and that it would be hard to predict since it
would vary from person to person.
Cm. King asked if the regulations wcre changed, what the impact would be to the Homeowners'
Association reguJations that might apply.
Ms. Ram stated that the City does not elÚorce Homeowners' Association regulations.
Cm. 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 issue of 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 presentation 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,
such as how much time, how many cars, etc.
Ms. Ram stated that there are no restrictions except in Eastern Dublin where some planned
developments allow parking only on one side of the street due to the narrow streets.
em. Fasulkey asked if a poll had been conducted of other cities policics for garage conversion.
Ms. Waffle noted that there had not been specific studies, but that based on the information she had
received while in contact 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 questio", but knew of
one city that allowed garage conversions when the parking requirement was met that had design
standard requirements as well.
tp{imniTIfJ Commission
'l?¡guliJ.r ;Muting
11
Janl4Jry 28, 2003
~6~51
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 Plarming
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 impact 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 allow
garage conversion and non-enclosed parking. He then opened the public hearing and asked if
anyone from the public wished to address the Commission.
There were four citizens 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 garage, 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 Carranza 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.
Œ'fanni1l{J Commission
lJI.çoular ~eeti1l{J
12
Janwry 28, 2003
3l.P~1
Mr. Glenn Stapleton stated that he has been a resident at his current address 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 enclosed parking for velúcies.
When the citizens had finished addressing the Commission, Cm. Fasulkey asked if anyone else
wanted to address the Commission; hearing none, he closed the public hearing. and the
Commission deliberated.
Cm. 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.
Cm. 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 Staff 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 Cm. Nassar, Cm. King and Machtmes were agreeable
to the intent of the Council's ordinance subject to further studies and further criteria for garage
conversion. Cm. Jennings stated that she did not have sufficient infonnation to concur with the
intent.
!Pfßnnin¡] Commission
<1(¡guÚJr ~ ..tine
I3
JanllD.ry 28. 2003
316/) ?1
Cm. Fasulkey asked for a motion to continue Item 8.1 to date uncertain; on motion byCm. King,
seconded by Cm. Machtmes, 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 Reform Ad Requirements Presentation and Outline
Mr. Bakker presented the outline prepared by the City Attorney that discusses two of the State
laws, the Brown Act and Political Refonn Ad Requirements, which he explallied and defined for
the Commissioners.
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 discussion 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 bodŸ that can provide formal legal advice and also informal advice over the telephone. He
encouraged the Commissioners to contact the City Attorney's office or the FPPC for questions
regarding the Political Refonn 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 for em. Nassar are scheduled to attend.
Ms Ram advised the Commission about the Commercial Linkage Study Conunittee that is
investigating the impact on housing due to the business development. She noted that 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 for details about the time required for serving on the Committee.
IJ'fanni1l{J Commi.!.rion
~outn.r :Meeti1l{J
14
Janwry 28, 2003
;¿/6 '6bf:1
Ms. Ram related that she estimated the time of service 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 Cm. 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 Council and Planning Commission meeting items.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
ATTEST:
son
p~~
G, \ MINUTES \ZOOJ \ Plonnitlg Commi,.,rlon \ 1·28·03 pc mIn.doc
!}'{arming CommirsÎCrl
<1{eeuJ4r ;Meeting
15
January 28, 2003
340{) S"f
A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, February 25,
2003, in the Dublin Civic Center City Council Chambers. Chairman Fasulkey called the meeting to
order at 7:00 p.m.
*1 I1fI1 I.. ***+*
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners, Fasulkey, Jennings, Nassar, King and Machtmes; Jeri Ram, Planning
Manager; Mamie Waffle, Assistant Planner; and Autumn McGrath, Recording Secretary
.. '* . '* Ii! iii 1/1: iii' ;fI*
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Cm. Fasulkey led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag.
**** * *****
ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA
The Minutes of February 11, 2003 meeting were approved as submitted.
.*****...
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None
**... *****
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None
*********
PUBLIC HEARING
8.1 PA 02-041- General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment for Site 15-A
Emerald Park
~nning Commission
~8u14r 'M ..ting
22
'E.6ruary 25, 2003
4°Ðb ç..,
Staff recommended that the Planning Commission open the public hearing and continue the public
hearing to March 11. 2003.
Cm. Fasulkey opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission;
hearing none, he closed the public hearing, and requested a motion to continue Item 8.1 to March
11, 2003.
On motion by Cm. Machtmes, seconded by Cm. Jeru1ings, and a vote of 5-0, the Planning
Commission unanimously approved continuance to the March ll, 2003 hearing.
On motion by Cm. Todd, seconded by Cm. King, and a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission
unanimously approved continuance to ;
8.2 PA 03-002 - Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 8.12, Zoning Distrirts 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 f01 the conversion
of ga:rages to living spare 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 garage conversions; incorporation of design standards; and grandfathering. 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 Commission to consider design standards in the CUP
process.
Ms. Waffle distributed a revised copy of the proposed Ordinance (Attachment 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.
iPfanning CommÌ$$iJm
<1I.fgufar'Meeting
23
<F.6ruary 25,2003
41t1lJ 51
There was extensive discussion between Staff and the Commission regardffig specifics of the
proposed amendments.
ern. King asked questions about the amendments, specifically the 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 spaces, but that as part of the CUP application process, a resident could be allowed an
exception to the "enclosed" garage requirement. However, for approval of the CUP, residents
would be required to provide two full size 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 Planning Commission would be
able to review the parking issues, and other concerns, for each conversion request and CUP.
Cm. King asked about the architectural 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 application material, submittal checklists are provided to all
applicants who apply for a CUP.
Cm. King asked if other cities 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-ease 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 limit garage conversions.
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 that it would be beneficial to have disclaimer language to prevent misunderstandings in the
<Pfánning Commiuicn
'R.fUulår :Meeting
24
Pe6ruo.ry 25, 2003
c.n.JbS1
interpretation of City regulations and Homeowner Association CC&R's, sinçe often CC&R's have
differing or additional regulations than those mandated by the City.
Cm. Machtmes noted that often citizens have other legal responsibilities that the City is not
involved in, and stated that he believed it would not be the City's place to advise applicants of
those responsibilities. He added that he was not adverse to a reminder that would prompt the
applicant 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 reviews for garage
converSlOns.
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 well 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 "enclosed" removed from the Ordinance, as discussed by the
City Council 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
Œ'Cannin¡J Commission
'Rßgu(ar'MeetiT1{j
25
'fe5mary 25, 2003
t..f?Pb''
ordinance. He referenced the November 19, 2002 City Council meeting and noted that he believed
that the Council's intent was to require off~street parking but not requirc that parking to be
enclosed, thereby removing the word "enclosed" from the ordinance. He stated that he felt the
issue at hand 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 that once
therc is a permanent structure 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 ordinance. 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 Deparhnent 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.
ern. Fasulkey explained that Staff had been directed to provide exampies from cities where
conversions were allowed, and obtain information from 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 if 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 email or contact the Mayor about her concerns.
Cm. Fasulkey also encouraged Ms. Lamke to contact the City's Staff if she had complaints or
comments.
IPlanning Clm/mission
<J¡¡gufar'Meeting
26
'Fe6mary 25, 2003
I.f;..tðb 9r
When the citizens had finished addressing the Commission, Cm. Fasulkey asked if anyone else
wanted to address the Commission; hearing none, he dosed the public hearing, and the
Commission deliberated.
Cm. Jennings stated that she wanted clarification regarding the City Council's intent of the item,
whether it was a parking or garage conversion issue.
Cm. Fasulkey summarized the issue and explained that as an attempt by the City Council to allow
garage conversions, the word "enclosed" was proposed to be removed from the parking
regulations. He noted that the City has never allowed garage conversions, and Councilman Sbranti
had requested 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 ramifications, such as parking issues and the rippling effects to the
neighborhoods, aesthetics, public safety, ete. They had asked Staff to address those resulting issues,
and consequently, Staff undertook the task of addressing the concerns while considering the City
Council's request to allow garage conversions. Therefore, Staff has submitted the recommendation
to amend the Zoning Ordinance and propose a CUP process to convert a garage into living space in
the R-l Single Family Residential Zoning District.
Cm. Jennings asked what the adjoining cities' policies were on garage conversions and there was
additionaJ discussion 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.
Maehtrnes, and a vote of 4-1, with Cm. Jennings voting against the project, the Planning
Commission approved:
RESOLUTION 03..04
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROV At 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 (CUP), OF THE
DUBLIN ZONING ORDINANCE
P A 03-002
pfanniTIfJ Commission
'/(fguÚlr :MeetiTIfJ
27
'Fe6r1i4ry 25, 2003
4?t;4
Cm. Fasulkey asked if there was any other new or unfinished business.
NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None
OTHER BUSINESS
Ms. Ram discussed the Goals and Objectives Workshop scheduled for March 1, 2003, and gave
specifics of the agenda. She also discussed future City Council and Planning Commission meeting
items.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m.
A TrEST:
~9!~-
G: \ WNUTES\2003\ PlaflI1ing CtJmmÎs..'iion\2-25-03 pc mln.doc
rpf,¡nniTI{J Commissirm
iJ(¡gUÚlr ~eetjTI{J
28
Pe6ruary 25, 2003
AGENDA STATEMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: FEBRUARY 25, 2003
4-lPOb 54
SUBJECT: PA 03-002 City of Dublin, Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Amendment to
Chapter 8.12, Zoning Districts and P=itted Uses of Land; Chapter 8.76, OfT'-
Street Parking and Loading ReguJations; and Chapter 8.100, Conditional Use
Permit of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. These amendments wj\l allow for the
conversion of garages to living spacc in R-l, Single Family Residential zoning
districts by means of a Conditional Use Permit. 0L--
Prepared by Mamie R. Waffle, Assistant Planner '""r
A TT ACHMENTS: 1. January 28, 2003, Planning Commission Staff Report
2. January 28, 2003, Planning Commission minutes on Zoning
Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 8.76, Off Street Parking and
Loading Regulations
3. Chapter 8.100.060, CondÜionai Use Permit Required Findings
4. Resolution recommending the City Council adopt the ordinance
amending the Dubiin Zoning Ordinance
5. Ordinance 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
RECOMMENDATION: 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Open Public Hearing and receive Staff presentation;
Take testimony from the Public;
Question Staff and the Pubiic;
Close Public Hearing and deliberate;
Adopt resolution (Attachment 4) recommending the City Council
adopt the Ordinance (Attachment 5) to amend the Dublin Zoning
Ordinance.
BACKGROUND:
At the January 28, 2003, Planning Commission meeting, Staff brought forth an item, at the request of the
City Council, concerning an amendment to the City's off-street parking requirement for single-family
residential dwellings. The proposed amendment would eliminate the requirement 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).
Stairs report recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution recommending that the City
Council adopt an Ordinance to amend the City's Off-street Parking and Loading Reguiations of the Dublin
Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Commission received Staff's presentation. received public testimony,
deliberated and directed Staff to provide alternatives and studies regarding aesthetics and design standards;
impacts on traffic and safety; infi'astructure impacts such as, garbage collection; the scope of potential
conversions; incorporating design standards; and how to address grand-fathering. (Attachment 2).
-~~-------------~~--~~-------~~~----~---------~~~--~------~-----------~-~----~~~-----~~-------
COPIES TO: In House Distribution
G;\PAIII2003\O'·002\PCSR 2·25"O~.OOC
ITEM NO. g. 2
ATTACHMENT 3. G
DESCRIPTION:
~1"bS'
The Dublin Zoning Ordinance currently requires that each residential dwelling provide two, off-street
parking spaces in an cnclosed garage. This parking requirement prevents the conversion of garages to living
spaces unless two, enclosed parking spaces can be provided elsewhere on the lot.
By removing the word "enclosed" fi'om the parking 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 appliciltion for a building permit. The ilpplicant would submit plans showing how they
propose to convert their garage to living space. The BuiJding Department would review the plans for
conformance with the Uniform BuiJding Code. The Planning Department would also review the plans to
ensure 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 ofapproval to mitigate potential impacts from the conversion.
At the Planning Commission meeting on January 28, 2003, the Commission raised the following concerns
regarding the conversion of gilrages to living spaces: I) traffic and safety, 2) infi'astructurelservice 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 Permit process, with thc 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 Permit, certain findings must 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 wning district in which the project is located.
In addition to the findings for a Conditional Use Permit, 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
ilrchitcctural 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
projeet and as conditions of approval in order to insure compatibility of this development with the
development's design concept or theme and the chilI'acter of adjacent buildings, neighborhoods,
8J1d uses.
Traffic and Safety:
Under the Conditional Use Permit findings (Attachmcnt 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 and report to the Planning Commission on issues specific to the site such as, whether the subject
site is suitable for the conversion of a garage to living space; whether adequate parking exits on-site to satisfY
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 Approval to reduce
any foreseeable impacts on traffic and safety.
2
4'l.ct71
InfrastructurelSe,..,jce Impacts:
Impacts to infi'astructure 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 wouid prevent the displacement of vehicle parking to the public street.
Scope of Conversions:
Development regulations have been established for every loning district throughout the City. Conditional
Use Permit applications to convert garages to living space wouid 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. Requests to convert garages would not impact these regulations since the
structure is existing and already meets the height, setback, and lot coverage requirements.
Aesthetics and De~'ig1l Standards:
The addition of a new finding, to the conditional 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 could be adopted to reduce
adverse visual impacts and improve the quality of the design.
While the conversion of one-, two- or three-car garages (0 living spaces typically alters the exterior of a
residential dwel1ing, 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_ Retaining 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 II garage conversion into the overall design of a home and the neighborhood. Design elements
commonly include, uniform colors and materials; architectural features such as, style of windows, awnings,
stone or brick overlays; and, articulation of building walls.
Design Elements.: Uniform Colors & Materiats, Awnings, Windows,
Root Pitch
/:< :!~q~'~'~i"~~~~li':'; ~\:!r: ,..
~~~~,~:'j];,i:':¡{~¡¡i~,~~J I¡:~~@~~ ¡Ii\p:::·~'~;; ~>ì;"~ '.
Design Elemenl:3; Uniform Colcrs & Materials, Articulation of Building
Wall, Windows
3
.:Æ;~¡\fIit:(i?"
iI£lli!ill'
De~ign Elament5: Window!: & Shutters
Design Elements: NOne
Design Eloments: Uniform Colom & Materiels, Windows
Grand"¡athering:
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 convcrt a garage by requiring two, off-
street parking spaces in an enclosed garage. The exact number of garage conversions built under Alameda
County, or prior to the City adopted ordinance to eliminate conversions, is not known. To the best of Staff's
knowledge, only one garage conversion 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 permitted by
going through the Conditional Use Permit and Building Permit processes.
Amendment:
Attached is a draft Ordinance that would address the Planning Commissions concerns and impJement 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 a
living space, so that they would no longer be able to park vehicles inside, they may be able to do so. In order
to convert a garage to living space, the resident would be required to submit an application for a Conditional
Use Permit, with the Planning Commission as the decision making body. All Conditional Use Pennit
fmdings, including the additional finding for design/architectural con$iderations, would have to be met and
any fore$Ceable adver$C impacts addressed, prior to approval or through Conditions of Approval. The
applicant would be required to show that two, fuJi-size, off·street parking spaces can be provided, in an
approved area on their lot, prior to converting their garage. For example, if they 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 regulations (building permit, etc.).
Environmental Review:
On August 18, 1997, the City Council adopted Resoiution 103-97 fmding that the Comprehensive R¡,yision
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 there is no
possibility that revising the Zoning Ordinance in this manner would have a significant effect on the
environment (Section 15061(b)(3). Various changes to the Zoning Ordinance listed above are proposed
4
which would not increase or create environmental impacts. These changes will have no env~~~?a;?
impacts and are also exempt fi'om 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
envjronment.
CONCLUSroN:
The Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 8.120), requires that all zoning ordinance amendments (such as the
proposed amendments to Chapter 8.12 Zoning Districts and Permined 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
recommendation to the City Council whether to approve, approve with 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 presentation, 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 the Ordinance (Attachment 5) to
amend the Dublin Zoning Ordinance.
5
Slfb 6"1
Staff recommended that the Planning Commission open the public hearing and continue the public
hearing to March 11, 2003.
Cm. Fasulkey opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission;
hearing none, he dosed the public hearing, and requested a motion to continue Item 8.1 to Marçh
11. 2003.
On motion by Cm. Maçhtmes, seconded by Cm. Jennings, and a vote of 5-0, the Planning
Commission unanimously approved continuance to the March 11, 2003 hearing.
On motion by Cm. Todd, seconded by Cm. King, and a vote of 5-0, the Plarming 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 for the conversion
of garages to living 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 garage conversions; incorporation of design standards; and grandfathering. 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-1
Single Family Residential Zoning District. She also noted that a new Finding would be added to
the CUP (Design/Architecture) to allow the Commission to consider design standards in the CUP
process.
Ms. Waffle distributed a revised copy of the proposed Ordinance (Attachment 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.
<PfanniTIfJ Commission
'R¥9uIar'MeetiTIfJ
23
'Fe6/Wry 25, 2003
ATTACUMENT 3,0
&;;2 ro G'.,
There was extensive discussion between Staff and the Commission regarding specifics of the
proposed amendments.
Cm. King asked questions about the amendments, specifically the 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 spaces, but that as part of the CUP application process, a resident could be alJowed an
exception to the "enclosed" garage requirement. However, for approval of the CUP, residents
would be required to provide two full size 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 Planning Commission would be
able to rev;ew the parking issues, and other concerns, for each conversion request and CUP.
Cm. King asked about the architectural 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 application material, submittal checklists are provided to aU
applicants who apply for a CUP.
Cm. King asked if other cities had design standards or guidelines for garage conversiof15, 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 limit garage conversions.
Cm. King asked how the CC&R's would be addressed if they conflict with City regulations, and
expressed concern that without explicit language, thcre is confusion and misunderstandings. He
noted that it would be beneficial to have disclaimer language to prevent misunderstandings in the
<1'Úlnni"lJ Commission
rJ?tgu{é J,I .,.,ti"iJ
24
p.,6ruary 25, 2003
6-:; Db !i"'l
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 citizens have other legal responsibilities that the City is not
involved in, and stated that he believed it would not be the City's place to advise applicants of
those responsibilities. He added that he was not adverse to a reminder that would prompt the
applicant to verify that there were no other legal factors and responsibilities affecting their
application.
Cm. King asked if the Planning Commission would hear all the CUP reviews for garage
conversions.
Ms. Ram confirmed that the Pianning 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 zOl1ed Planned Oevelopme!1t (PO) and would
have to apply for a CUP as well as a Site Oevelopment Review (SOR).
Cm. Fasulkey opeœd 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 "enclosed" removed from the Ordinance, as discussed by the
City Council in November 2002.
Mr. Ken Young spoke 011 behalf of himself and his wife Cindy, and stated that he believed that
there has bccn a misunderstanding regarding the Council's direction and intent on the parking
IPCanni1l{J Commission
'Rßnufar'Meeti1l{J
25
Pe6ruary 25, 2003
?~~1
ordinance. He referenced the November 19, 2002 City Council meeting and noted that he believed
that the Council's intent was to rcquire off-street parking but not require that parking to be
enclosed, thereby removing the word "enclosed" from the ordinance. He stated that he felt the
issue at hand 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 that once
there is a permanent structure in the garage, it would not be legal or permitted. He stated that he
was against the recommendation as proposed with a CUP requiIement, and wanted to have the
word "enclosed" removed from the parking ordinance. 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 information from those cities as to specifics of the process.
He added that this infonnation was necessary to enable them to make informed decisions on the
issue to better serve the community.
Ms. Linda Lamke spoke and stated that if 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 email or contact the Mayor about her concerns.
Cm. Fasulkey also encouraged Ms. Lamke to contact the City's Staff if she had complaints or
comments.
rFlßnning Commission
<I({gufß.r 9feeting
26
'1'e6nJJlry 25, 2003
5G"'b S"1
When the citizens had finished addressing the Commission, Cm. Fasulkey asked if anyone else
wanted to address the Commission; hearing none, he closed the public hearing, and the
Commission deliberated.
Cm. Jermings stated that she wanted clarification regarding the City Council's intent of the item,
whether it was a parking or garage conversion issue.
Cm. Fasulkey summarized the issue and explained that as an attempt by the City Council to allow
garage conversions, the word "encloscd" was proposed to be removed from the parking
regulations. He noted that the City has never allowed garage conversions, and Councilman Sbranti
had requested 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 ramifications, 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 City
Council's request to allow garage conversions. Therefore, Staff has submitted the recommendation
to amend the Zoning Ordinance and propose a CUP process to convert a garage into living space in
the R-l Single Family Residential Zoning District.
Cm. Jennings asked what the adjoining cities' policies werc on garage conversions and there was
additional discussion between Staff and the Commission about other cities that allow garage
conversions.
Upon deliberation, Cm. Fasulkey requested a motion. On motion by em. King, seconded by Cm.
Machtmes, and a vote of 4-1, with Cm. Jennings voting against the project, the Planning
Commission approved:
RESOLUTION 03-04
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROV At 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 (CUP), OF THE
DUBLIN ZONING ORDINANCE
P A 03.Q02
Œ'lármi"{j Corrrmi.rsion
<1?f:9ufn.r 511 eeti"{j
27
'Fe6ruary 25, 2003
?/J Jt>S"
Authorized H.5 600-35) Staff to solicit bids for Contract 06~06, Stripirlg 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 $102,070,919 (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 2005;
Approved (4.9 670~20) Budget Change in the amount of $2,244,800 for right~of-way
acquisition costs for the Dougherty Road Improvements - Houston Place to 1~580 CIP
project;
Approved (4.10 300-40) the Warrant Register in the amount of $1,607,863.71.
.
PUBLIC HEARING ~ APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF A
CONDmONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) FOR mE CUELLAR. GAKAGE CONVERSION
FOR. TIlE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7897 CAN'I'EIUUlKY LAND FA 04-036
7:52 p,m. 6.1 (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
ComrrÜssion on March 22, 2005 approving a CUP to convert a garage to residential
livirlg space at 7697 Canterbury Lane.
Crn. McCormick asked if they currently park their cars in the garage?
crt'\' COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 24
REGULAR MEETING
May 3, 2005
PAGE 185
ATTACHMENT Lf
?1~'
Mr. Cuellar, the AppIicaflt, 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 fhe 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 as~d if he had thought of adding to the þack of his house.
Mr. Cuellar responded it will cost him $60,000, which he doesn?t have.
Mayor Lockhart closed the puþ1ic hearing.
Mayor Lockhart clarified her reaBon for appealing this to the City Council is for
discussion on conversions related to should the look of homes be changed from fhose in
the neighborhood. What you will have is a home with 3 cars sitting on the front lawn.
Is this the look we want to approve? Does this make a difference to the Council?
Cm. McCormick stated she has noted in her neighborhood that people are buildill$ fronf
porches onto their homes. These neighÞOrhoods 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 discussed.
Staff has to approve the plans and inspect during the process.
Cm. Oravetz stated he voted against fhe Ordinance a couple of years ago. He agreed with
l\1a.yor Lookhart 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 a.bout cars parked there. This
does change the look of the neighborhood.. The plan is very nice, but her biggest concern
is spill out onto the street and what looks like a house without a pla.ce to put a car. She
stated she supported Cm. Oravetz's position opposing this.
Vm. zika stated he is against all garage conversions Þecause they change the character of
the neighborhood. This would become a 2,600 sq. ft. home. He stated he would vote not
to 1et the conversion So forwArd.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 24
REGULAR MEETING
May 3, 201)5
PAGE 186
~t6ðb e;.,
Mayor Lockhart made a motion to deny the appeal! but add condition that the garage
door has to remain.
City Attorney Elizabeth Silver advised that if the City Council wanted to allow the
conversiotl, but require thezarage door to stay, they should grant the appeal and modify
the conditions of approval and deny fhe appeal otherwise.
Mr. Baker stated recommendation B would accomplish this. He will need to add a
window 80 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 80 it would be put on either side.
Cm. Hildenbrand clarified they are just talking about aesthetics tonight.
It wo~ld be necessary to change the conditions of approval to require the gar88e door fo
remam.
Mayor Lockhart made a motion, which was seconded. by Cm. Hildenbrand, to deny the
appeal, 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 lœkhart.
Cm. McCornúck made a motíon to deny the appeal (Option A). This motion received NO
second.
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 acti11g in a quasi-
judicial manner.
Mayor Lockhart reopened the public hearing.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 24
RECULAR MEETING
May 3, 2005
PACE 187
r;Pt ~C;~
Mr. Cuellar asked if he builds a room on the back, will this be okay? If he is to spend
money, he does it well, or he doesn't do it. He asked about the house on Amador Valley
Boulevard which has been totally chansed 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 11.11 over town.
People don't use their garages for parking cars.
Mayor Lockhart closed the public hearing.
On motion of Vrn. 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
COf\UJOApNIUM CONVERSION QRDINANCE FA 04-0~
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 units held in single ownership to fur-sale
condominiums.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 24
REGULAR MEETING
May 3, 2005
PAGE 188