Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-26-2008 PC MinutesPlanning Commission Minutes Tuesday, August 26, ] 008 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, August 26, 2008, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Schaub called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Chair Schaub; Vice Chair Tomlinson; Commissioners King, Wehrenberg, and Biddle; Jeri Ram, Community Development Director; Jeff Baker, Acting Planning Manager; Laura Karaboghosian, Associate Planner; John Bakker, City Attorney and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. Absent: Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - Chair Schaub asked to have Oral Communications moved to the end of the meeting. The Commission agreed. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - On a motion by Cm. King, seconded by Cm. Wehrenberg the minutes of the August 12, 2008 meeting were <<pproved. CONSENT CALENDAR - NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS - 8.1 PA 07-010 (Adjudicatory Action), Mountain of Fire and Miracles Ministries Conditional Use Permit to legalize a church locatiA within an existing multi-tenant commercial office building at 11501 Dublin Boulevard, Suite 202. Laura Karaboghosian, Associate Planner presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Chair Schaub asked what Condition of Approval was added. Ms. Karaboghosian answered the Condition of Approval that was added restricted the days and hours of operation. She continued the Condition of Approval was added because there was no parking study done since the uses were not in conflict with the existing uses on-site. Chair Schaub asked if they would need to apply for a modification to the CUP if attendance grew to 500. Ms. Karaboghosian answered yes, in addition, the Applicant is proposing only 35 members, if the use exceeds 49 members then there would be additional Fire and Building code requirements. Cm. Wehrenberg asked what would happen if one of the tenant changes and the use is incompatible with the church. Ms. Karaboghosian stated if there was a parking issue the City would need to be notified. Ms. Karaboghosian continued if the church functions outside the (Pro nning Commission August 26, 2008 (c? ,ufar,meeting 87 parameters of the CUP then the change would need to be re-evaluated and modified at that time. Cm. Tomlinson added that any new tenant would know the church is a tenant and would deal with that at that time. Chair Schaub asked if a tenant that does not need a CUP because their use is already allowed and would not come to the Planning Commission, how would they settle a conflict besides coming to the Commission. Cm. Wehrenberg asked what would take precedence the CUP or the allowed use. Ms. Karaboghosian stated that the PD permit has specific permitted and conditional uses and references the Commercial/ Office zoning designation; therefive the uses would be consistent with that zoning designation with a 1/300 ratio for parking. She stated noise or things of that nature, would be a management issue. Chair Schaub asked if approving the CUP makes the building available to another church or is the CUP applicable to this Applicant only. Ms. Karaboghosian answered the CUP approval is for suite 202 only, if the Applicant wants to expand they would need to apply for a modification to the CUP. Jeff Baker, Acting Planning Manager stated any user within the building would need to comply with zoning regulations and the PD and any use not specifically allowed would need a CUP. Cm. King asked if the church grew in members would they need to come back to the Planning Commission to modify the 19 spaces of required parking. Ms. Karaboghosian stated if the church added members they would have to ensure they were meeting Building and Fire codes or move to another location. Cm. Tomlinson felt there would not be a problem with parking due to the hours of operation of the church. Cm. Biddle stated he visited the site during the day and there appeared to be plenty of parking spaces and there is also a driveway that connects the building site to a building to the east. Ms. Karaboghosian responded that the two buildings do not have a reciprocal parking agreement, only a reciprocal access easement:. Chair Schaub opened the public hearing. Olugbenga A. Olayomi, Applicant spoke in favor of the project. He felt the number of parking spaces is adequate and did not anticipate the congregation growing in the near future and if there was an increase they would move to a different location. Chair Schaub asked how long the church has been located in the facility. Mr. Olayomi answered approximately one year. Chair Schaub asked why the application is only coming to A anning Commission 17ugust 26, 2008 i?egu(ar _'Wee Iing 88 the Planning Commission now. Mr. Olayomi answered the process has taken time with submittals and re-submittals and they did not anticipate it would take this long. Chair Schaub asked if they had applied for the CUP when they moved into the facility. Mr. Olayomi answered they applied for the CUP prior to moving in. Cm. Wehrenberg asked about the 15 children that were listed at the church. Mr. Olayomi answered they attended Sunday school. He stated the childrer. are between the ages of 5 and 10 with 2 adults with them. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if all 15 children are in the 88 square foot room at the same time. Mr. Olayomi answered no. Chair Schaub closed the public hearing. On a motion by Cm. Biddle and seconded by Cm. Tomlinso:l, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously approved: RESOLUTION NO. 08-19 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO LEGALIZE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN EXISTING PLACE OF WORSHIP WITHIN THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) ZONING DISTRICT LOCATED AT 11501 DUBLIN BOULEVARD, SUITE 202 (APN 941-1570-004-02) PA 07-010 8.2 PA 06-053 - Extension of a previously approved Conditional Use Permit to allow Goodwill to accept donations inside their existing retail store at 7232 Regional Street. Laura Karaboghosian, Associate :Planner presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. King asked about the cameras. Ms. Karaboghosian answered cameras are required to be installed with motion sensors, photos and an audio component that will alert anyone dropping off items after business hours that they are trespassing and littering and should leave the property. Chair Schaub mentioned a letter was received and signed by a number of business owners in the area that opposed the project. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the conditions were added when tl Le original CUP was approved or recently added. Ms. Karaboghosian answered the Conditions of Approval were added when the original CUP was approved in August 2007. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the conditions were required once the donation center was opened. Ms. Karaboghosian answered yes, and one of the requirements, prior to Goodwill accepting donations at the site, is Planning Staff and other Aa nning Commission ,'August 20, 2008 Wcpurar `Meeting 89 City Staff must perform inspections to ensure conformance with the Conditions of Approval. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the city has not inspected the site because the donation center was not opened. Ms. Karaboghosian answered no inspections have been conducted since they did not open the donation center. Chair Schaub opened the public .hearing. David Franklin, Donations Manager for Goodwill Industries Spoke in favor of the project. He spoke regarding their jobs training program, and the reason for the six month extension request. He stated they had an extended period of downsizing and restructuring therefore could not commit resources to move forward on the project. He understood the donation center has not been favorable within Dublin. He continued during the laat two years Goodwill opened a donation center in Moraga and felt they had good references at the shopping center with no problems with donations dropped off during after hours. He ;stated they had dedicated staffing in Moraga with more frequent pick ups and larger space. He also mentioned other cities where they had donation centers with no problems. Chair Schaub asked if there were any other donations centers within the Dublin area. Mr. Franklin answered the closest ones are in Pleasant Hill and San Leandro and mentioned Goodwill has eliminated donation trailers throughout Alameda County. Cm. Biddle asked about the San Ramon location. Mr. Franklin answered the San Ramon location was closed because the lease expired and the City was unable to relocate the operation within San Ramon. Chair Schaub felt the issue was the Goodwill trucks picking tip in front instead of the back of the building and too much stock in front of the store. He asked if the Moraga facility is in the back of a shopping center. Mr. Franklin answered the store is a retail space within a shopping center, approximately 1,000 square foot and is only a donation center with no retail. The trucks are located in the back of the store and donors come in through the front and the donated items are taken to a truck in the back. Cm. King asked if Mr. Franklin had seen the letter from the business owners in the area. Mr. Franklin stated he had not seen the letter. He was directed to the table where there were extra copies of the letter and the Commission waited while he read the letter. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the Livermore center was closed also. Mr. Franklin stated there is a retail store in Livermore and they take donations which is this only place in the tri-valley area that accepts donations. Cm. Tomlinson asked what types of donations are accepted. Mr. Franklin answered they accept clothes and small items as well as furniture but no beds, mattresses or futons and they reserve the right to turn down items they don't feel will sell. Mr. Franklin asked if he would be able to rebut the items in the letter. Cm. Tomlinson answered the Commission would like him to read and comment on the letter. 41fanning ('ommission 14ugust 26, 2008 Weg afar -Meeting 90 Chair Schaub asked if there was anyone that would like to speak in opposition of the project or any signers of the letter present. There were no speakers in opposition to the project, and no signers of the letter were present. Chair Schaub stated that unless the Commission asks questions regarding the letter, the Applicant was not required to comment on it. Cm. King asked if the Applicant knew where the businesses were that had sent the letter. Mr. Franklin thought the businesses were behind the store. Ms. Karaboghosian put an aerial photo of the project on the screen. Cm. King asked if Mr. Franklin would like to respond to the letter. Mr. Franklin answered yes. Cm. King stated some of the complaints mentioned in the letter, i.e. trash, parking, trucks blocking the driveway and donations left in front of the building. Mr. Franklin responded Goodwill does not have the staffing at this point that they would need for the donation center. He continued they will have dedicated staffing who would monitor the area between approximately 9:00am and 8:00pm. He stated they would have dedicated drivers (which is part of the CUP) come by in the off-hours to ensure no unsolicited donations are left out. He stated he has seen trucks blocking the driveway and was not sure if the CUP required a change to the parking lot. Chair Schaub stated the issue is that the business neighbors have as much right as anyone to be successful and felt that everyone must be a good neighbor. Cm. Tomlinson asked how much of the building Goodwill occupies. Mr. Franklin answered they occupy the entire structure which is approximately 6,10C square feet. Ms. Karaboghosian stated there were concerns voiced by the users to the immediate west of the multi-tenant structure. She continued Code Enforcement stated there have been no complaints since January 10, 2006. Cm. Tomlinson asked Ms. Karaboghosian to point out which driveway was claimed to have been blocked. Ms. Karaboghosian showed pictures taken today (8.26.08) showing the alley which runs between Goodwill and the multi-tenant shopping; center. The letter writers were concerned that materials had been left during non-operating hours that blocked access in that area. She suggested that since this area is considered a loading zone the trucks would only be there for a short time while loading or unloading materials. Mr. Baker stated that the Conditions of Approval contain requirements which include the location of the loading zone and they are required not to block the drive aisles. He continued Goodwill is currently not operating under the CUP so the Conditions of Approval do not apply but if approved it will give the City a mechanism to regulate the site. 4'lanning Commission August 26, 2008 ,Rey urarMeeting 91 Cm. Tomlinson asked where the donation truck will be parked on the site. Ms. Karaboghosian pointed out on the slide where the truck will be parked. Cm. Tomlinson felt that if the truck is parked there no one would be able to pass. Ms. Karaboghosian felt there was enough room for two vehicles to pass through. There was a discussion regarding the parking lot and the access point. Mr. Baker stated that currently there is nothing to prevent Goodwill from allowing their truck to remain parked in that area, but with the CUP they would not be allowed to park the truck there except to load and unload materials. Cm. Tomlinson asked if it was a Fire code issue to leave a truck parked in the drive aisle. Mr. Baker thought there could be some fire safety concerns but no complaints have been received. Cm. Tomlinson asked what is done with donations that are left on-site. Mr. Franklin stated they are brought into the building, processed and sent to the Goodwill plant in Oakland. Cm. Biddle stated he went to the site early in the morning, there were 3 or 4 bags in front of the door and as he pulled in two ladies opened the door and brought the items inside. He felt there was a problem of not monitoring unsolicited donations. Mr. Franklin answered that Goodwill has a long history of taking donations and it is hard for people to change the way they think. Mr. Baker stated that under the CUP there is a requirement for Goodwill to monitor the area at least 2 times during non-operating hours and take in donation; that are left behind. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if there is a set schedule for the trucks. Mr. Franklin stated there is a schedule during the week, but w•as not sure what the schedule is. He stated the trucks come to Dublin several times a week. Cm. Wehrenberg was concerned the store would have too much merchandise and asked what they would do with the any excess donations. Mr. Franklin answered they would bring the items to the Oakland plant for processing. Chair Schaub asked if the Planning Commission approves the CUP and then donations start to pile up how long would it take to stop the donations because they are not in compliance with the CUP. Mr. Franklin stated that it only took a few days when they were stopped two years ago and that was without a CUP. Ms. Karaboghosian mentioned that there are two Conditions of Approval that address that issue, #4 requires an annual CUP review by Planning Manager and #5 states that revocation for cause in accordance with Dublin Zoning Ordinance. She continued if Code Enforcement or the Police Department receives a series of complaints during an annual review period, that information would be taken into consideration. Mr. Baker stated if there were problems the (Planning COMMI.ssion August 26, 2008 Wet;ufar Meeting 92 City could revoke or modify their permit quickly with a public hearing which would require a 10 day notice period. Cm. Tomlinson suggested a large drop box on the side of the wall at the front of the building for night drop donations which would alleviate the problem of leaving them by the front door. Mr. Franklin agreed to review Cm. Tomlinson 's suggestion. Cm. Wehrenberg agreed with Cm. Tomlinson s suggestion but felt it would block access on the sidewalk. Cm. Tomlinson asked Ms. Karaboghosian to show where the trash dumpster is that was mentioned in letter. Ms. Karabol;hosian pointed out the trash,iumpster on the slide. Cm. Tomlinson asked who has use of the trash dumpster. Mr. Franklin answered their trash is transported to their plant in Oakland and they do not have trash pick up at the site. Chair Schaub closed the public hearing. Cm. King asked Mr. John Bakker, City Attorney since the signers of the letter are not present can the Commission take it into consideration when making findings. Mr. Bakker answered the Commission can use it as evidence and weigh it accordingly not knowing if any of the signers are actually business owners. Cm. Wehrenberg felt there is a need in the community for this service and is in favor of CUP. Cm. Tomlinson supports the CUP and in favor of monitoring t:?e site to ensure compliance. On a motion by Cm. Biddle and seconded by Cm. Wehrenberg, on a vote of 5-0, with the Planning Commission unanimously approved: RESOLUTION NO. 08-20 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A SIX (6) MONTH EXTENSION OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE GOODWILL RETAIL CENTER WHICH ALLOWED AN INTERIOR DONATION CENTER LOCATED AT 7232 REGIONAL STREET PA 06-053 8.3 PA 07-038 - General Plan Community Design Element (Legislative) Jeff Baker, Senior Planner presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Xanning Commission August 26, 2008 WCp ubr!Meet ing 93 Mr. Baker indicated there were three issues the Planning Commission has asked Staff to address, which were: 1) A policy to address distracting signs and electronic reader board signs adjacent to I- 580 and I-680; 2) An implementation measure to create villages throughout Dublin; and 3) Change the title to read: Community Design and Sustainability Element Chair Schaub was concerned about how the electronic reader board signs take over cities and was pleased the City will address the problem. Mr. Baker stated that Policy 10.5.3.E was created to address the concerns of the Planning Commission regarding the distracting signs and electronic reader boards adjacent to I-580 and I- 680. The original policy read "Encourage attractive quality signage along freeway corridors that avoids the use of distractive features such as electronic reader boards, bright colors, bulky scale and mass, etc." He stated the Commission would not be able to approve a CUP for an electronic reader board because they would not be able to make the finding, that it was consistent with the General Plan therefore those types of signs would be prohibited. He stated Staff has crafted an alternative policy so that if the Commission would like the flexibility to allow an electronic reader board under certain circumstances it would be able to allow it. Mr. Baker stated the alternative policy which reads "Encourage attractive quality signage along freeway corridors that avoids the use of distractive features such as bright colors, bulky scale and mass, and discourages electronic reader board signs." Chair Schaub asked if Mr. Baker would like their decision tonight. Mr. Baker stated the Commission would need to direct Staff to modify the language when approving the resolution. Chair Schaub felt the Commission should discuss the item arid come to a decision later in the meeting. Mr. Baker continued with the discussion regarding the implementation measure to create villages throughout Dublin. Chair Schaub asked if the Planning Commission should recommend to the City Council to eliminate the Village Policy and refer now to the Community Design Element. Mr. Baker stated if the Community Design Element is adopted it would supersede the Village Policy. He stated the Village Policy was approved as a policy rather than adopted so there would be no need to rescind the policy. Chair Schaub opened the public hearing. James Dowdy, Dublin resident thanked the Planning Commission for their good job. He was involved with the TownScan survey and appreciated being a part of the decision making process. He was concerned about the shopping center at the north east corner Village Pkwy and Amador Valley Blvd. and if it would be revitalized in the near future. 4'fa nning (ommission August 26, 2008 (Rep ufar-feet ing 94 Chair Schaub explained that the shopping center will be addressed in the Downtown Specific Plan but would not be specifically addressed in the Community Design Element which is more general. Cm. Tomlinson reminded Mr. Dowdy that the City cannot force property owners to update their property. Mr. Dowdy understood. Chair Schaub encouraged Mr. Dowdy to remain involved with the Downtown Specific Plan. Mr. Dowdy asked about the trails in his area. There was a brief discussion regarding the Bikeways Master Plan and the Parks Commission. Mr. Dowdy asked about volunteer opportunities and the Commission referred him to the Parks Commission as well as the Public Works Department. Mr. Dowdy asked about the "villages" concept and Chair Schaub explained the section of the Community Design Element and the history behind it. Chair Schaub asked if there were questions for Bill Wiseman, RBF Consulting. Cm. King stated there have been no architectural design pclicies in the past but he felt the Planning Commission has managed to improve Dublin's look and feel. He mentioned the Village Policy and was not aware of it in the Community Design Element. Chair Schaub stated the Village Policy was written originally with new development in mind and mostly development on the east side. He continued the Guiding Principles on Page 102 are interesting but don't hold the planning structure that was needed earlier. He felt the Commission needed to talk about villages and apply what they have learned towards existing developments throughout the City. Jeri Ram, Community Development Director stated the intent of the Village Policy was to have a separate identity for different areas but tied together. She ,;tated the intent was not for each area to be a village but some unique areas that they wanted to concentrate as villages so that the look and feel would be different but still be Dublin. Cm. King asked if the Commission wants to encourage pedestrian connections between developments. He stated there is a pedestrian bridge in Dublin and asked if connections and linkages are defined well enough in the document. There was a discussion regarding the Bikeways Master Plan and the Streetscape Master Plan and how they relate to the Community Design Element. Cm. King stated the intention of the West Dublin BART Station area is to create a destination to attract people. He felt the traffic at Dublin Blvd. and Amador Plaza Road was very congested and suggested a pedestrian bridge to alleviate some of the traffic. (Aunning Commt,ssion Augnst 26, 2008 X? mfarMeeting 95 Chair Schaub suggested discussing Cm. King's idea when they discuss the Downtown Specific Plan. Cm. King stated that he wanted to discuss the pedestria-i bridge because he wasn't sure if they actually mean to connect the different villages and developments. Bill Wiseman, RBF Consulting stated the Community Design Element is a framework document that addresses the entire city and referred to Page 107, Policy C which addresses connectivity between the villages on a citywide level and references :he Bikeways Master Plan as a mechanism for implementation. Cm. King asked if we want parts of the city to be different than the other parts of the City and how that relates to the phrase "distinctive design." Mr. Baker stated that under the Village Policy, Page 103, Policy I, is to create a specific identity for each village but not specific to design. Cm. Tomlinson stated he interprets the phrase "distinctive" as "high quality" but not necessarily a specific design. Mr. Baker indicated there are 6 villages identified and not all under construction yet but the map shows their locations. Cm. King referred to the Sense of Arrival section and asked about the distinctive arrivals into the city and if it would be feasible to have a unified theme for all entrances with the same kind of welcoming monument or should the document indicate the entrances should be beautiful. Mr. Baker stated the Community Design Element will correlate with the Streetscape Master Plan and the arrival locations identified in the CDE are pulled from that plan. He stated the goal is to create attractive entryways with a new monument sign which has not been used yet. He stated the monuments would be a unifying element in each of the listed gateways. He referred to Page 89 which includes some policies to guide how the entryways should be built. Cm. King felt the monument is not big enough. Chair Schaub suggested bringing that subject up in the goals and objectives discussion. Cm. King felt it was appropriate for a discussion now but he was not suggesting adopting tonight. Chair Schaub felt is was a good idea but without a special fund to build the structures it would be difficult. Cm. King felt there was no mention of how the monuments would be paid for and felt it would be paid for by the developers or some kind of public investment of funds to achieve what the Community Design Element is asking for. Cm. Biddle stated most of the Sense of Arrival locations are from the south coming off the freeways and asked if the City works with CalTrans in creasing joint agreements to improve their lands. ,P(auning (:ommission August 26, 2008 ,ft ul r,'Neeting 96 Mr. Baker answered that Public Works would be responsible for that type of agreement. He continued they have partnered with CalTrans in the past and they are working on the Fallon/580 interchange design now regarding the landscaping improvements on the right-of- way. He continued in the CDE there is and implementation measure that states "continue to work with CalTrans." He suggested adding an implementation measure to the CDE to re- evaluate the entry monuments through the Streetscape Master Plan and at that level there could be the actual design of the entry monument and possibly make it more dramatic. Cm. Biddle asked how they would create more villages if pr aperty is already developed. He felt it would be very difficult to create a village in a long establ fished residential area. Chair Schaub felt they could identify villages without changing them and they did not need to have other elements such as commercial or retail. There was a discussion regarding villages within Dublin and how that would be accomplished. Mr. Baker indicated they would have to re-evaluate what a village is in Dublin. Cm. Biddle asked if the CDE would be periodically updated. Mr. Baker stated there will be periodic updates. Cm. Wehrenberg felt the document was comprehensive and was in support of it. Cm. Tomlinson also felt the document was well done and in support of it. Chair Schaub commented now that the CDE is completed he would like see to it used when talking to developers. He wanted to see where the City will be meeting the intent of the CDE and was concerned that there are a lot of implementation measures. He felt that the Commission should discuss the implementation measures in their goals and objectives meeting and prioritize them accordingly. He also felt the Commission should focus on the sustainability of projects as well. Mr. Baker stated that when Staff reviews projects they would be evaluated against the CDE and the Planning Commission would need to make a finding of consistency with the General Plan. Cm. King agreed with Chair Schaub regarding sustainability and felt it was important to encourage green building in Dublin. Cm. Biddle asked if they should break out some parts of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to update since it is so large. Ms. Ram answered that the City is bound by the environmental document and if significant changes were made to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan then the environmental document would have to be changed as well. 41Caaning Commission August 26, 2008 (Rfgufar Meet ing 97 Chair Schaub felt that when the Commission makes decisions for one specific plan it should apply to all specific plans for consistency and suggested discussing that subject in the future. Chair Schaub closed the public hearing. Chair Schaub suggested having the discussion regarding distracting signs and electronic reader boards adjacent to I-580 and I-680. Mr. Baker suggested having a discussion then coming to a decision. Cm. Tomlinson felt the discussion was not about a specific sign but about tying the hands of the City Council. He felt the financial impacts and the ability to attract businesses are of concern. He stated because Dublin, Livermore, and Pleasanton all touch I-580, that if a business owner has an opportunity to choose between the cities and one will give them the sign they want and the others would not then there is a concern. He felt the way the signage section was written currently it would prevent the Planning Commission from making the necessary findings and essentially leave the Council without the flexibility to negotiate. He was in support of the alternative policy language because it discourages the signs but leaves the flexibility. Chair Schaub also felt the alternative policy gives the most flexibility. He asked about the update of the Sign Ordinance. Mr. Baker answered the Sign Ordinance will be updated as pw t of the Zoning Code update. Cm. King asked if a policy is a binding rule or just an encouragement. He felt that a policy could be either binding or flexible. Mr. Baker stated that many policies in the document allow for some interpretation. He stated in the Sign section of the CDE states that it would prohibit an electronic reader board along I-580 because the Planning Commission could not make a finding of consistency with the General Plan so the policy would prohibit these types of signs. Cm. King asked if in public documents the word "policy" has i he same weight throughout. Mr. Bakker answered the phrase "policy", as used in the General Plan generally refers to specific requirements. He continued the Zoning Ordinance states that the Planning Commission must make the finding that an application is consistent with the General Plan. He continued Staff would determine that the application is consistent with the Land Use designations and all the various policies that would apply and if Staff determines it does not then it will be noted in the staff report. He continued that policies are firm standards. Cm. King asked where in the process would the Applicant be made aware of the policies. Cm. Tomlinson felt the Applicant should review the policies before they submit their project. Chair Schaub encouraged Staff to use the CDE as a stand alone document. 'PCanning Commission August 26, 2008 Wggular 'Meeting 98 The Commission agreed to change the language regarding signs to the alternative policy. Chair Schaub stated the Commission has raised a number o questions about design and felt there will be more conversations regarding design when they discuss the Downtown Specific Plan and if the design should become applicable everywhere. Mr. Baker asked for clarification regarding the concept of the Streetscape Master Plan and the unique entry monument. Chair Schaub felt the language was adequate but if the Commission wanted to go further they should discuss it in their goals and objectives meeting. Mr. Baker responded that it would be difficult to achieve a design tonight but they could add an implementation measure regarding the Streetscape Master Plan and that could become a goal in the future. Ms. Ram stated the City recently finished the design of the monument sign and suggested the Commission wait and see the finished sign before they make a decision. Mr. Baker described the City Monument sign and stated the design had gone to the City Council but had not been implemented as yet. Chair Schaub asked the Commission if they wanted to add an :mplementation measure to re- evaluate the Dublin gateway signage or wait. The Commission agreed to wait. Mr. Baker asked the Commission if they wanted to change the title of the document to read the Community Design and Sustainability Element. The Planning Commission agreed. On a motion by Cm. Wehrenberg and seconded by Cm. Tomlinson, on a vote of 5-0, with modifications, the Planning Commission approved: RESOLUTION NO. 08 - 21 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT ADDING A COMMUNTI'Y DESIGN AND SUSTAINABILITY ELEMENT 'CO THE GENERAL PLAN AS CHAPTER 10 PA 07-038 ?i?lanning ('ontmission August 26, 2008 W egu(arYee1 ing 99 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - 5.1 Brown Act - information for the Planning Commission. Chair Schaub began the discussion regarding the Planning Commissions interactions with developers and explained the situation which led to the discussion. The Commission wanted to determine the best practices and what to do in that situation. The other discussion is the idea of a quasi-judicial or legislative issue and what constitutes evidence before the Commission and the introduction of other information the Commission has gathered on their own that was not included in the Staff Report. Mr. Bakker stated there was an extended discussion regarding; the ex parte contact policy at the last meeting. He reminded the Commission that the City Council adopted the policy which states that in quasi-judicial proceedings the Commission is to avoid ex parte contact which includes contact with the Applicant as well as site visits. He stated some of the Commissioners felt strongly that the policy did not make sense. He stated the way to resolve the issue is to ask the Council to change the policy. Cm. Tomlinson and Chair Schaub agreed the policy should be --hanged. Chair Schaub felt they needed to review the policy because it is not truly what happens even at the Council level. He felt that if a developer wanted to talk to the mayor, the mayor would not refuse and felt that it would not be in the best interest of the city to do so. He stated he would like to have the City Council review the policy. Mr. Bakker gave a brief history of the reason the Council aE ked the attorneys to complete a policy regarding ex parte contact policy. He then explained th-2 different ways a policy could be drafted: 1) if you obtain information outside the public hearing you need to disclose it to the other members of the Commission so they all rely upon the same information; 2) to discourage ex parte contacts but if you do obtain information outside the public hearing then disclose it; and the current policy is; 3) you should avoid ex parte contacts, but if you do obtain information outside the public hearing then you must disclose the information. He felt that the Commission did not have a problem with the ex parte contact policy in general but did have a problem with avoiding ex parte contacts. The Commission felt that it was not in the best interest of the City's residents to discourage the Planning Commission from doing research on their own. Cm. Biddle asked if the two items on the agenda tonight, both CUPs were quasi-judicial. Mr. Bakker indicated they were both quasi-judicial but only one v?-as noted as such. He stated that in the future the items should be noted as quasi-judicial or legislative. Aanning Commission 4ugust 26, 2008 ,egui"arWeeting 100 Mr. Bakker felt the Commission thought the policy goes too far in that it prohibits site visits which may not have been Council's intent. He stated the policy applies to site visits. He stated the Commission could ask the Council to consider changing the policy to read "if you make ex parte contacts or receive information outside the public hearing that you must disclose it." He continued he would review the procedure to ask for the change in the policy. Ms. Ram suggested the Commission make a motion for whet they would like the Council to consider and forward that on to the Council. She continued if that is not successful then they could discuss the subject in their goals and objectives meeting. Chair Schaub asked Mr. Bakker to suggest some proposed language with the simplest being changing the language to say "discourage" instead of "avoid." Mr. Bakker suggested asking the Council to reconsider the ex f?arte contact policy. Cm. King asked if the Commission can have the Council put tfis item on the agenda. Mr. Bakker stated the Commission could send a communicat'on asking the Council to put the item on the agenda but the Council would decide if they want to re-evaluate it. Cm. Tomlinson suggested the Council have the Planning Commission review the policy and then make a recommendation to the City Council. On a motion by Cm. King and seconded by Cm. Tomlinson a suggestion was made to ask the City Council to agenized an item to re-evaluate the wording of the Ex Parte Contact Policy. On a vote of 5-0 the motion unanimously passed. Cm. Biddle asked to address the earlier situation where one of the Planning Commissioners met with an Applicant and the Applicant brought a different plan to the meeting then was submitted. There was a discussion regarding the situation. Cm. Wehrenberg stated she would rather have the Commission hear the project and guide the direction as a whole rather than a few of the Commissioners. Chair Schaub asked the Commission if they would like to put rules in place for the Planning Commission regarding their behavior when talking with develapers. The Commissioners agreed they should not make any decisions outside of the meetings. Chair Schaub asked Cm. Wehrenberg to propose a policy that the Planning Commission can agree upon. Cm. Wehrenberg stated she did not want to close the door on Applicants but once the packet is submitted any modifications should be discussed as a whole as opposed to seeing new documents at the meeting. 'Pfauning C.OMMI.SSton 4tWust 26, 2008 Regufar Weeting 101 Chair Schaub felt the situation discussed will not happen again. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the Commission should review the Rules of Procedures. Mr. Bakker felt the issue discussed tonight is addressed in the Planning Commission Rules of Procedures and was an appropriate place to locate it. Cm. Tomlinson reiterated that during the meeting that was discussed there was a misunderstanding that he was speaking for the Commission and there was negotiating outside the hearing. He stated when we're speaking with an Applicant they should use the correct term "I" and not "we" and that the individual is not speaking for the Commission but as an individual. Ms. Ram suggested Staff review the Planning Commission Rules of Procedures and place it on the agenda for discussion at a future meeting. Chair Schaub asked Ms. Ram to place the item on a future agenda for discussion. Ms. Ram agreed. Mr. Bakker stated the Ex Parte Contact Policy only applies to certain limited proceedings and the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure apply to all the proceedings and that is the Planning Commission rules that govern the Commissions Ix-havior. The City Council policy applies to City Council members and the Planning Commissioners. Mr. Bakker explained the Commission is allowed to talk with an Applicant in quasi-legislative and mixed proceedings. NEW BUSINESS: None ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 10:08 p.m. Respectfully submitted, B?11 Schaub Chair Planning Commission ATTEST: (4--? Jeri Ram AICP Community Development Director G: IMINUTEM20081PLANNING COMMISSIOM8.26 08.doc Aarcning ('ommission `august 26, 2008 ,ftul r Meeting 102