HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.1 Iroonet CUP (Adjudicatory) PA08-023AGENDA STATEMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: January 27, 2009
SUBJECT: CONSENT CALENDAR: PA 08-023 Iroonet Conditional Use
Permit (Adjudicatory) to operate a Boarding House with up to 12
boarders in the PD (Planned Development) zoning district in which
up to 16 people may live and to allow for an On-Site Parking
Reduction at 3608 Oakhurst Ccurt.
Report prepared by Laura Karaboghosian, Associate Planner
ATTACHMENTS: 1) Resolution Denying Without Prejudice a Conditional Use
Permit to operate a Boarding House with up to 12 boarders in
the PD (Planned Development) zoning district with a reduction
in On-Site Parking located Ott 3608 Oakhurst Court.
2) Staff Report dated January 13, 2009 (Without Attachments).
3) Draft Minutes dated January 13, 2009.
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a Resolution Denying without prejudice a Conditional Use
Permit to operate a Boarding House with up to 12 boarders in the
PD (Planned Development) zoning district with a reduction in On-
Site Parking located at 3608 Oakhurst Court.
BACKGROUND:
On January 13, 2009 the Planning Commission conducted a publicly noticed meeting to review an
application for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to operate a boarding house in which up to 16
people may live (consisting of 12 boarders, two caretakers and two children related to the caretakers)
and a parking reduction located at 3608 Oakhurst Court.
Upon review of the Staff Report, presentations from the Applicant, his representative and public
comment, the Planning Commission determined that it could nct make the findings to support a
Conditional Use Permit to operate the proposed boarding house. Th.- Planning Commission determined
that it could not make the necessary findings of approval for the Conditional Use Permit due to intensity
of use, insufficient adult supervision, child safety concerns, noise, and the potential for the project to
change the single-family residential characteristics of the neighborhood in which the boarding house is
proposed to locate (Attachment 3).
At the hearing, the Planning Commission continued the item o the January 27, 2009 Planning
Commission Meeting and directed Staff to prepare a Resolution denying the proposed boarding house.
A Resolution denying the proposed boarding house has been prepared by Staff and is included as
Attachment 1. For background information on the boarding house, (lease refer to the Agenda Statement
included as Attachment 2.
COPIES TO: Applicant/Property Owner
John Doyle, Hoge, Fenton, Jones & Appel, Inc. r
ITEM NO. y•
Page 1 of 4
G: TAW2008WA 08-023 Oakhurst Court BoardinglhouselPC Materials 012709TCSR FINAL 1.27.09.aoc
PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING:
During the Planning Commission hearing on January 13, 2009, the Planning Commission raised several
concerns regarding the boarding house. Draft minutes from the meeting are included as Attachment 3.
At the hearing, the Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the project as proposed, with up to 12
boarders, represented a use that was too intense for the single-family residential home and district in
which it was proposed to locate. The Planning Commission determined that the proposed number of
boarders living in the house would represent a use that is too dense for a single family house. The
Commission felt that the proposed use may be better suited to occupy an apartment complex or series of
hotel suites. The Commission heard testimony from the Applicant that its other boarding facilities
occupy convents and former nursing homes; there are no other facilities in a single family home.
Child safety and adult supervision concerns were also raised because the caretakers (who will provide
supervision of the boarders) would sleep in the casita located in the front yard. The existing casita,
although physically attached to the primary residence via the roof system, is functionally detached as it
does not have direct interior access to the primary residence. Given that the adult caretakers would sleep
in a separate building from the children, concerns were raised that the caretakers may not be able to
assist the children in exiting the primary residence in an emer;;ency. In addition, the Planning
Commission questioned whether the caretakers would be able to provide sufficient adult supervision to
the children given that their bedroom is in a separate building.
The potential for noise generation from up to 14 children (12 boarders and the caretaker's 2 children)
living and playing on-site was also addressed. The Commission stated concern that noise associated
with the project may negatively and unavoidably impact neighbor:, even with conditions limiting the
times of outdoor activities.
A reduction in property values and a change in the single-family residential characteristic of the
neighborhood were also discussed. The Commissioners believe the use is not compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood due to the proposed number of boarders living inside the house. In addition,
multiple Commissioners stated concern that approval of this application would set a precedent in that no
other Conditional Use Permits have been issued for boarding houses within the City and due to the fact
that the request was for a boarding house with a large number of boarders which would be inconsistent
with the neighborhood in which it is located. Due to the number o:- boarders, the boarding house was
determined to resemble that of a commercial use rather than a typi-.al single-family residence thereby
changing the single-family residential characteristics of the neighborhood in which it is proposed to
locate.
During the public comment portion of the hearing, the Applicant and his representative spoke in favor of
the project and several neighbors spoke both in opposition of the prc ject as well as completed comment
cards in opposition to the project. Their comments can be found n the Draft Planning Commission
Minutes included as Attachment 3.
CONCLUSION:
In order to approve a Conditional Use Permit for a boarding how e, the Planning Commission must
make findings to ensure that the proposed use is compatible with the existing house and the
neighborhood in which it is located. In this case, the Planning Commission has determined that the
proposed number of boarders represents a facility that would not be compatible with the single family
nature of the surrounding neighborhood. As directed by the Planning Commission, a Resolution
denying the boarding house has been included as Attachment 1.
2 of 4
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission Adopt a Resolution Denying without prejudice a
Conditional Use Permit to operate a Boarding House with up to 12 boarders in the PD (Planned
Development) zoning district with a reduction in On-Site Parking located at 3608 Oakhurst Court.
3 of 4
GENERAL INFORMATION:
APPLICANT/
PROPERTY OWNER: Dongho Kim
Iroonet America, Inc.
21515 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 990
Torrance, CA 90503
LOCATION: 3608 Oakhurst Court
ASSESSORS PARCEL
NUMBER: 985-0017-042
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential (0.0 - 6.0 du/ic)
SPECIFIC PLAN
DESIGNATION: Single Family (0.9 - 6.0 du/ac)
EXISTING ZONING: Planned Development (PA08-023)
SURROUNDING USES:
LOCATION ZONING GENERAL PLAN CURRENT USE
LAND USE OF PROPERTY
_
PD (Planned Low Density Residential
Residential
North Development) (0.0 - 6.0 du/ac)
South PD (Planned Low Density Residential Residential
Development) (0.0 - 6.0 du/ac)
West PD (Planned Low Density Residential Residential
Development) (0.0 - 6.0 du/ac)
East PD (Planned Parks/Public Recreation Ted Fairfield Park
Development)
4 of 4
RESOLUTION NO. 09 - XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A
BOARDING HOUSE WITH UP TO 12 BOARDERS IN THE PD (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT)
ZONING DISTRICT WITH A REDUCTION IN REQUIRED ON-SITE PARKING LOCATED
AT 3608 OAKHURST COURT
(APN 985-0017-042)
PA 08-023
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Dongho Kim, CEO of Iroo net America Inc., has requested a
Conditional Use Permit to operate a boarding house with up to 12 boarders and in which up to 16 people
may live (12 boarders, two caretakers and two children related to the caretakers) and a reduction of three
parking spaces in required on-site parking at 3608 Oakhurst Court, APN 941-0017-042, in the PD
(Planned Development) Zoning District; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted project plans and a written description for the requested
entitlement which was received by the Planning Division on July 25, 2008. A revised written statement
was received on December 18, 2008; and
WHEREAS, the proposed boarding house would be located within an existing 3,793 square-foot
single-family residence with six bedrooms; four and one-half bathrooms; a casita with a full bathroom;
and an attached two car garage; and
WHEREAS, the project site has a General Plan Land Use Designation of Low Density Residential
(0.0 to 6.0 du/ac) and is located within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area with a Specific Plan Land
Use Designation of Single Family Residential (0.9 to 6.0 du/ac); and
WHEREAS, the project site is zoned Planned Development -which allows residential uses; and
WHEREAS, the Planned Development (PA 95-030) contains standards for single family
residential uses and states that the standards for single family residential in this Planned Development
shall be the same as the standards for the R-1 Zoning District, except where modified by the Planned
Development; and
WHEREAS, the list of permitted and conditionally permitted uses for this property are contained
in Section 8.12.050 of the Zoning Ordinance and a boarding house is permitted with approval of a
Conditional Use Permit by the Zoning Administrator; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 8.76.080.13 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance the proposed use is
required to provide a total of 6 parking spaces to support the boarding house, based on the requirement
that the dwelling unit have 2 parking spaces, plus 0.5 parking spaces per sleeping room; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 8.76.050 E of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, a reduction in on-
site parking for individual uses is permitted if the Conditional Use Permit findings can be made; and
ATTACHMENT 1
WHEREAS, parking memorandums were prepared by the City of Dublin Public Works Senior
Traffic Engineer and City Engineer demonstrating that the required parking standards may be excessive;
and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 8.96.020 C.2. of the Dl.blin Zoning Ordinance, the Zoning
Administrator transferred original hearing jurisdiction to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to projects that are
denied, therefore no CEQA compliance is required for the Planning Commission action; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the project during a public hearing on said
application on January 13, 2009 in which all parties had the opportunity to be heard and continued the
item to January 27, 2009 directing staff to prepare findings for denying the application without prejudice
for reapplication; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, a January 13, 2009 Staff Report was submitte3 recommending that the application
be conditionally approved; based on the Planning Commission discussion at the public hearing, a January
27, 2009 Staff Report was submitted addressing findings for denial Jf the application. Both staff reports
are incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations
and testimony herein above set forth and used independent judgment to make a decision; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed project is not appropriate for the
subject site as set forth below.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does
hereby make the following finding and determinations regarding said Conditional Use Permit review:
A. The proposed operation of the boarding house and related structures is not compatible
with other land uses, transportation and service fac1ities in the vicinity because: 1) the
boarding house is located within an existing single-family residence surrounded by single-
farmly homes to the north, south and west and a public; park to the east; 2) all permitted and
conditionally permitted uses in the R-1 Zoning District apply to the subject property as
stated in the Planned Development (PA 95-030) and the Zoning Ordinance allows a
boarding house to be located in the R-I Zoning District with approval of a Conditional Use
Permit; 3) the Zoning Ordinance considers Boarding Houses to be a Multi-Family
Dwelling; 4) because a Boarding House is a conditionally permitted use, findings must be
made to ensure that the use is compatible with the site and with the neighborhood in which
it is located; 5) the proposed number of boarders, 12, and the proposed total number of
people living on-site, 16, would be significantly greeter than that which would typically
live in a single-family residence; 6) based on the proposed number of people which would
be living within the house, the boarding house would result in an intense use for the site
and therefore would not be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood in which it is
2
located; and 7) as a result, the proposed boarding; house would change the existing
characteristics of the single-family residential neighborhood in which it is located.
B. The proposed operation of the boarding house will adversely affect the health or safety of
persons residing or working in the vicinity or be detrimental to the public health, safety
and welfare because: 1) as proposed by the Applicant, the caretakers would live within the
existing casita located within the front yard of the residence with no direct interior access
to the primary residence; 2) because the caretakers will not live within the walls of the
residence where the children (boarders) will reside, they may not be able to provide
immediate assistance to the children; 3) in the even: of an emergency, such as a fire or
earthquake, the caretakers may be unable to enter the primary residence in order to assist
the children to exit safely; and 4) noise levels associated with the possibility that up to 16
people, 14 of which may be children living within this single-family residence, cannot be
mitigated to a level that would not impact adjacent residents.
C. The proposed operation of the boarding house will be injurious to property or
improvements in the neighborhood because: 1) the proposed number of people living on-
site is significantly greater than the number of people that would typically live in a single-
family home; 2) the manner in which the proposed boarding house would function, with 12
paying boarders provided with meals, the use of vans to transport the children to and from
school and to other activities and caretakers charged with supervision of the children, more
closely resembles that of a commercial use rather than a typical single-family residential
use; and 3) although a Boarding House is a conditionally permitted use in this zoning
district, in this case, the proposed number of boarder; represents a facility that would not
be harmonious with the single family nature of the sur-ounding neighborhood and therefore
would be contrary to improvements in the area; and 4) the establishment of a boarding
house with up to 12 boarders would change the scale and character of the existing
neighborhood by establishing a use which is significantly more intense in scope than a
single family residence.
D. There are adequate provisions for public access, water, sanitation, and public utilities and
services to ensure that the proposed operation of the boarding house, including a parking
reduction, would not be detrimental to the public heal h, safety and welfare because: 1) the
proposed boarding house, is located at an existing residential dwelling within a single-
family residential neighborhood where such services are already provided and with
adequate street access.
E. The subject site is not physically suitable for the type, density and intensity of the proposed
operation of the boarding house and related structures being proposed because: 1) the
boarding house would be located within an existing single-family residence surrounded by
single-family homes to the north, south and west and a public park to the east; 2) the
possibility that up to 16 people may live on-site world be significantly greater than that
which would normally live in a single-family residence; 3) the proposed use is permitted
with a Conditional Use Permit however due to the proposed number of people living on-
site the boarding house does not meet the intended use of a single-family residence and
more resembles a commercial use than a residential use; and 4) as previously mentioned,
although a Boarding House is a conditionally permitt,-d use in this zoning district, in this
case, the proposed number of boarders represents a u ;e, even with conditions, that would
3
not be harmonious with the single family nature of the site and the surrounding
neighborhood.
F. The proposed operation of the boarding house will be contrary to the specific intent
clauses, development regulations or performance s,`andards established for the zoning
district in which it is located because: 1) the boarding house would be located within an
existing single-family residence; 2) the manner in which the proposed boarding house
would function, with 12 paying boarders provided with meals, the use of vans to transport
the children to and from school and to other activities and caretakers charged with
supervision of the children, more closely resembles that of a commercial use rather than a
typical single-family residential use; 3) the caretakers are proposed to live within the
existing casita however the intent of the casita was not to function as a permanent living
space; 4) noise impacts associated with the possibility that up to 16 people, 14 of which
may be children living and playing on-site may negatively impact adjacent residents; and 5)
the proposed number of boarders, up to 12, is not compatible with the characteristics of a
single family neighborhood.
G. The proposed operation of the boarding house is no,` consistent with the Dublin General
Plan and with any applicable Specific Plans because: 1) although the proposed use is
permitted with a Conditional Use Permit the density and non-residential characteristics of
the proposed boarding house does not meet the intentions of the district in which it is
located; and 2) the boarding house as currently proposed cannot be conditioned to operate
in such a manner as to limit the impact on the surrounding properties.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that based on the above findings, the Planning Commission
hereby denies the requested Conditional Use Permit application without prejudice for reapplication.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of January2009 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Acting Planning Manager
G:IPA#120081PA 08-023 Oakhurst Court BoardinghouselPC Materials 0127091PCDenial Reso FINAL 1.27.09.doe
4
AGENDA STATEMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETIN(i DATE: January 13, 2009
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: PA 08-023 Iroonet Conditional Use Permit
(Adjudicatory) to Operate a Bo<<rding House in which up to 16 people
nay live and to allow for an On-Site Parking Reduction at 3608
Oakhurst Court.
Report prepared by Laura Karal oghosian, Associate Planner
ATTACHMENTS: 1) Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit to operate a
boarding house in which up to 16 people may live in the Planned
Development zoning districl and to allow for an on-site parking
reduction at 3608 Oakhurst Court.
2) Applicant's Revised Written statement.
3) Applicant's Traffic Data Stab,ment.
4) Public Works Parking Memo -andum Dated October 22, 2008.
5) Public Works Parking Memo -andum Dated December 23, 2008.
6) Written Comment Letters Zeceived from Amber Koski and
Carolina Berschens.
7) Zoning Ordinance Section 8 .06.020 C.2.
8) Project Plans.
RECOMMENDATION: 1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Receive Staff presentation;
Open the public hearing;
Take testimony from the Applicant and the public;
Close the public hearing and deliberate; and
Adopt a Resolution to operate a boarding house in which up to 16
people may live in the Planned Development zoning district and to
allow for an on-site parking reduction at 3608 Oakhurst Court.
Background
The project site is located at 360$ Oakhurst Court
within the Dublin Ranch development. The
surrounding land uses inchtd - Single-Family
Residential to the north, south and west and Ted
Fairfield Park to the east. The zoning designation is
Planned Development (PA 95-030) with a General
Plan Land Use Designation of Low Density
Residential (0.0 to 6.0 du/ac) and an Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan Land Use Designation of Single-Family
(0.9 to 6.0 du/ac). The project site is located on a 6,579
square-foot lot consisting of an existing two-story 3,793
COPIES TO: Applicant/Property Owner
John Doyle, Hoge, Fenton, Jones & Appel, Inc.
Page 1 of 5
C: !P,0 2008',PA 08-023 Oakhurst Court Boardinghou se0raft PC AfaterialsTCSR 1.13.09t.doc
Ted Fairfield
Park
Project Site
ITEM NO. __E_ I
ATTACHMENT 2
square-foot single-family residence, comprised of six bedrooms; f )ur and one-half baths; a kitchen;
communal living quarters; an attached garage; and an attached casita with a bedroom, full bath, sink and
counter (Attachment 8).
Operating Characteristics
The Applicant proposes to operate a boarding house in which up to 15 people may live (12 boarders, two
caretakers and two children related to the caretakers). Conditions o:' Approval have been formulated to
specify these proposed limitations (Condition 20).
The boarders living at the Oakhurst home are foreign exchange students from Korea who attend local
private schools such as Quarry Lane, Athenian, Valley Christian and Redwood Christian), ranging from
the a to the 12 grades. According to the Revised Written Statement date stamp received December 18,
2008 (Attachment 2), the children are transported to school weekday mornings and are then taken directly
to a local tutoring center in Pleasanton to study until they are transported home in the evenings. On
weekends, the children participate in organized excursions, attend church and participate in organized
sports. The children also take part in community activities and voluny:eer programs. Most of the children
return home to Korea during the summer vacation, but a few children may remain with their caretaker(s).
A cook makes daily visits to the house in the early morning to prepare breakfast for the children and
leaves once the children have finished breakfast and the kitchen is clean. In addition, a cleaning service
comes to the house twice a week and a gardener comes once a week.
The City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance Section 8.12.050 states that a ( onditional Use Permit is required in
order to operate a boarding house with five or more renters in a resid,-ntially zoned district. A complaint
was received by the City of Dublin on May 21, 2008 and a Code Compliance Case opened. The
complainant indicated that numerous children were living on-site and raised concern that a school was
being run from the residence. The City's Code Enforcement Officer -isited the site and determined that a
boarding house was being operated without a Conditional Use Pert lit with more than five renters. A
Courtesy Violation Notice was issued and a request was made to con tply with City regulations until they
have obtained a Conditional Use Permit. Staff met with the Applicant's representatives to discuss the
proposal and the application process. On July 25, 2008 the Applicant submitted a Conditional Use Permit
application to allow for a boarding house and an on-site parking i -duction. The Applicant has been
working cooperatively with Staff na order to see their proposal came to fruition. According to the
Applicant's representative, there are currently four boarders and one caretaker living on-site; therefore,
they are in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
The Applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to c perate a boarding house in which up
to 16 people may live (12 boarders, two caretakers and two children related to the caretakers) and a
parking reduction. According to the Zoning Ordinance, review of Conditional Use Permits for the
establishment of boarding houses is assigned to the Zoning Administrator; however, because this
application was complaint-driven, the Zoning Administrator has transferred original hearing jurisdiction
to the Planning Commission for review (Zoning Ordinance Section 8.':)6.020 C.2 Attachment 7).
ANALYSIS:
Staff has provided the following analysis in order to assist the Planning Commission in making a
determination on the suitability of the proposed use. The propose.:[ use has been reviewed for issues
related to parking, traffic, noise and General Plan conformance. Conditions of Approval have been
proposed, where appropriate, to ensure compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood.
Parking and Traffic
The City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance contains off-street parking requirements by use type. Pursuant to
Dublin Zoning Ordinance Section 8.76.080(B) a boarding house is required to provide two parking spaces
per dwelling plus 0.5 parking spaces per sleeping room. Based on this requirement, a total of six parking
spaces would be required for the boarding house.
2of5
The Dublin Zoning Ordinance Section 8.76.050(E) contains a provision that allows for a reduction in off-
street parking for an individual use. A reduction in off-site parking ntay be granted if. 1) the Conditional
Use Permit findings can be made; 2) a parking study prepared by Ii qualified consultant analyzing, the
parking demands of the proposed itse and the parking demands of similar uses in similar situations
demonstrates that the required parking standards are excessive; propo3e alternate parking standards which
are appropriate; and ensure that there: will not be a parking deficiency; and 3) overflow parking will not
adversely affect any adjacent use.
According to the Applicant's Revised Written Statement (Attachment 2) there will be two minivans
located at the residence for the caretakers to use when transporting the children and performing other
duties. The Applicant's Traffic Data Statement (Attachment 3) states that on a typical weekday, the
children leave for school in the morning. They are picked up from school at 3 p.m., and remain at a local
tutoring center until 8 p.m. when the children are picked up and returred home. During the weekends, the
children participate in organized excursions, take part in community a-.tivities, attend church, and perform
volunteer work. As previously mentioned, a cook will make daily -isits to the project site in the early
mornings, around 5:30 a.m., and leave once the children are fed and the kitchen is clean. A cleaning
service will clean the house twice per week and a gardener will perfc rm landscape duties once per week.
Because the cook performs a daily service, he/she will be required to park in the driveway; however, the
housekeeper, gardener, tutor and other service vehicles may be parked on the street (Condition 12).
Parking Memorandums were prepared by the City of Dublin's Senior Traffic Engineer and City Engineer
which are included as Attachments 4 and 5. The study prepared by the Senior Traffic Engineer dated
October 22, 2008 concluded that, based upon the program operations provided in the Applicant's Written
Statement and the Applicant's Traffic Data Statement, and observations made when performing a Site
Visit, the amount of traffic and parking generated by the residence is comparable to that of a typical
single-family residence. After the aforementioned parking study was prepared; Staff was notified that the
boarding house has a cook who makes daily visits, a cleaning sere ice that visits twice a week, and a
gardener that comes once a week. Upon notification by the Applicant of the additional service activities
taking place on-site, the City Engineer, Mark Lander, reviewed the ]Narking Memorandum. Mr. Lander
concluded that there will be additional parking needs not reflected in the initial statement provided by the
Applicant. In order to mitigate potential parking impacts associated with the proposed boarding house,
four Conditions of Approval have been provided to address parking acid traffic. These conditions include:
1) limiting the number of company and personal vehicles associated ` dth the boarding house to three at a
given time (Condition 10); 2) restricting the boarders from driving (Condition 13); 3) requiring that
Iroonet vehicles be parked in the garage and driveway (Condition 11); and 4) requiring that the cook park
on the driveway (Condition 12). Based upon the aforementioned. Conditions of Approval Staff is
recommending approval of the proposed parking reduction and the findings set forth in the Resolution
(Attachment 1).
Noise
Although there may be a maximum of 16 people living on-site, noise i.s not anticipated to be an issue due
to the limited amount of time the children spend at home, as well as, a Condition of Approval regulating
the hours of outdoor activities (Condition 5). This Condition states that no outdoor activities shall take
place between the hours of 9 p.m. to 8 a.m., Monday through Friday, Mid from 10 p.m. to 8 a.m., Saturday
and Sunday.
Conformance with General Plan
The project site has a General Plan Land Use Designation of Medium Density Residential (0.0 - 6.0
du/ac). The proposed project meets the intent of this designation because boarding houses are permitted in
Residential Zoning Districts with a Conditional Use Permit.
3 of 5
Conditional Use Permit Required Findings
To approve a Conditional Use Permit, the following findings must be made: the proposed use is
eQmpatible with other land uses, transportation and service facilities in the vicinity; will not adversely
affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity or be detrimental to the public
health, safety and welfare; will not be injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood; will
have adequate provisions for public access, water, sanitation, and public utilities and services to ensure
that it would not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare; and the site is physically suitable
for the type, density and intensity of the use and related structures be ng proposed. Staff believes that, as
conditioned, the Project is consistent with these findings as presented in the attached Resolution
(Attachment 1).
Review by City Departments
This project was reviewed by other City Departments and interested agencies. Any special requirements
have been incorporated as Conditions of Approval of the attached. Resolution (Attachment 1). The
Applicant has reviewed the draft Conditions of Approval and agreed to comply with the City's
requirements.
NOTICING:
In accordance with State law, a public notice regarding this hearing was mailed to all property owners and
occupants within 300 feet of the proposed project. A public notice was also published in the Valley
Times and posted at several locations throughout the City. To date., the City has received two written
comments (Attachment 6) and several telephone calls from surrounding property owners or tenants in
objection to the current proposal.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The Project has been reviewed under the California Environmental Quality Act, (CEQA), State CEQA
Guidelines and the Dublin Environmental Guidelines, and the project has been found to be Categorically
Exempt from the CEQA according to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (New Construction or
Conversion of Small Structures).
CONCLUSION:
The Conditional Use Permit process allows the City to place Conditions of Approval on the Project to
ensure that the operation of the proposed use is compatible with the: surrounding uses. The proposed
project has been reviewed for issues related to operating characteristics and parking. Conditions of
Approval have been proposed where appropriate to ensure compatibility. The proposed project, as
conditioned, is consistent with the Dublin General Plan and the Dublin Zoning District in which the
project site is located and represents an appropriate use for the site. Sbiff does not anticipate the proposed
boarding house to adversely effect the neighborhood based on the operating characteristics and the draft
Conditions of Approval that would regulate the boarding house.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Open the public hearing;
3) Take testimony from the Applicant and the public; 4) Close the public hearing and deliberate; and 5)
Adopt a Resolution to operate a boarding house in which up to l6 people may live in the Planned
Development zoning district and to allow for an on-site parking reduc- ion at 3608 Oakhurst Court.
4of5
GENERAL INFORMATION:
APPLICANT/
PROPERTY OWNER: Dongho Kim
Iroonet America, Inc.
21515 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 990
Torrance, CA 90503
LOCATION: 3608 Oakhurst Court
ASSESSORS PARCEL
NUMBER: 985-0017-042
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential (0.0 - 6.0 du/a
SPECIFIC PLAN
DESIGNATION: Single Family (0.9 - 6.0 du/ac)
EXISTING ZONING: Planned Development (PA08-023)
SURROUNDING USES:
LOCATION ZONING GENERAL PLAN CURRENT USE OF
LAND USE PROPERTY
PD (Planned Development) Low Density Residential
North Residential (0.0 -
6.0 du/ac
South PD (Planned Development) Low Density Residential
Residential (0.0 -
6.0 du/ac
West PD (Planned Development) Low Density Residential
Residential (0.0 -
6.0 du/ac
East PD (Planned Development) Parks/Public Ted Fairfield Park
Recreation
5 of 5
DRAFT DRAFT
t Ott ??
Planning Commission Minutes
r
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commissicn was held on Tuesday, January
13, 2009, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Schaub called the
meeting to order at 7:10 p.m.
Present: Chair Schaub; Commissioners Wehrenberg, Swalwell and King; Jeri Ram, Community
Development Director; Jeff Baker, Acting Planning Manager; Kit Faubion, City Attorney; Laura
Karaboghosian, Associate Planner; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary.
Absent: None
ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - NONE
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - On a motion by Cm. King, seconded by Cm.
Wehrenberg the minutes of the December 9, 2008 meeting were approved and the minutes of
the Study Session on December 9, 2008 were approved with modifications.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -
Jeri Ram, Community Development Director acknowledged former Planning Commissioner
Don Biddle with a plaque for his years of service to the Community.
5.1 Administration of Oath of Office by Caroline Soto, City Clerk to newly
appointed Planning Commissioner Eric Swalwell.
5.2 Election of Officers for Chairperson and Vice-C hairperson.
Chair Schaub made a motion to appoint Cm. Doreen '?Vehrenberg as Chair, 2nd by Cm.
King and by a vote of 4-0 Cm. Doreen Wehrenberg vas elected Planning Commission
Chair. Chair Wehrenberg made a motion to appoint Cm. Morgan King for Vice Chair,
seconded by Cm. Schaub and by unanimous vote was elected Vice Chair of the Planning
Commission.
5.3 Appointment of Planning Commissioner as Liaison to Housing Committee.
Chair Wehrenberg suggested Cm. Schaub to serve as the Liaison to the Housing
Committee. Cm. Schaub agreed. Jeri Ram, Community Development Director informed
Cm. Schaub that the first meeting of the Housing Committee is on Thursday, January 14,
2009 on Goals and Objectives. A motion was made bit Vice Chair King to appoint Cm.
Schaub to the Housing Committee, seconded by Cm. ?Swalwell and by a vote of 4-0 was
appointed.
Tfrrnneag Commission january 1.3, 2009
NqufirrMeeting i Attachment 3
DRAFT
CONSENT CALENDAR - NONE
DRAFT
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS -
7.1 General Plan Conformity Report for the City's Acquisition of 5777 Scarlett Court (84
Lumber Property; APN 941-0550-029) to serve as tie City's Maintenance Yard Facility
(CIP Project No. 93570).
Jeff Baker, Senior Planner presented the project as stated in the Staff Report.
Cm. King asked what the use of the property will be. Mr. Baker answered it will be used as a
maintenance yard. Cm. King asked where the yard is at present. Mr. Baker answered there is a
small area at the end of Scarlett Ct. used as a maintenance yard.
Chair Wehrenberg asked what other sites were considered. Mr. Baker answered the need for a
maintenance yard had been identified for some time but no funds were available, this parcel
was for sale, and it fit the Cities needs.
Cm. Swalwell asked how the property would be secured. M:-. Baker answered that he had not
seen the improvements plans as yet.
Chair Wehrenberg asked how soon the Commission will be able to review phase 1 of this
project. Mr. Baker answered they had not seen the plans yet and was not sure when they
would.
On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Cm. King, on a vote of 4-0 the Planning
Commission approved the following:
RESOLUTION NO. 09 - 01
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
FINDING THE CITY'S PROPOSED ACQUISITION OF
5777 SCARLETT COURT (APN 941-0550-029)
TO BE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN
PUBLIC HEARINGS -
8.1 PA 08-023 Iroonet Conditional Use Permit (Adjudicatory) to Operate a Boarding
House in which up to 16 people may live and to allow for an On-Site Parking
Reduction at 3608 Oakhurst Court.
Laura Karaboghosian, Associate Planner presented the project as stated in the Staff Report.
Cm. King asked for the definition of a boarding house in the City's Zoning Ordinance. Ms.
Karaboghosian read the definition from the Zoning OrdinancE.
'Ginning ('ommission January 13; 2009
W gntar `Veeting 2
DRAFT DRAFT
Cm. King asked Kit Faubion, City Attorney if the boarding house would fall under any state
statute which creates special status for child daycare centers. Nls. Faubion answered that it does
not.
Cm. King asked if the parking formula is based on the assumption that the boarding house
would be for adults. Ms. Karaboghosian answered there is no distinction provided in the
Zoning Ordinance between minors and adults.
Mr. Baker noted that the code does not distinguish between minors and adults, but it does
allow, through a Conditional User Permit, to make except.ons to parking requirements by
reviewing the specific use. If that use functions differently, as in the case where the boarders
are not allowed to drive, the parking required to be provided would potentially not be
necessary therefore it allows the judgment through CUP.
Cm. King asked if one of the Conditions of Approval would prohibit the minors from driving.
Ms. Karaboghosian answered yes under Condition #13 and it is also a condition of Iroonet
America, Inc.
Cm. King asked if the Applicant is asking for a parking reduction from 6 spaces to 3 spaces. Ms.
Karaboghosian answered yes. She continued that 3 spaces would be provided on site, either in
the garage or the driveway. Cm. King asked if caretakers reside on-site and if each have a
vehicle. Ms. Karaboghosian answered yes the caretakers reside on-site but they do not have
individual cars, they would use the 2 minivans provided by l roonet America, Inc. He asked if
the cook visits every day and has a vehicle. Ms. Karaboghosian answered yes.
Mr. Baker stated that Condition #10 restricts the number of vehicles (including personal and
company vehicles) to a total of 3 at any one time. Cm. King ;asked if there would be deliveries
made to the residence. Ms. Karabogosian answered no bec Etuse the cook does the shopping
once per week.
Cm. Schaub felt that Condition #1 was critical and wanted to make sure the Planning
Commission understood it. He felt it basically said that anything that happens outside of the
application is in violation of the Conditional Use Permit. He continued that this is a complex
issue that the Commission has not reviewed before and was unsure if all the issues are
represented in the Conditions of Approval. He asked if Condition #1 was considered an
umbrella condition that states that anything that is not covered in the other conditions is
covered under Condition #1. Mr. Baker answered yes.
Ms. Faubion commented that Condition #1 does serve as an umbrella and identifies what the
permit is being issued for and the basic elements of that permit. She continued not everything
would be a violation of the permit, but in the land use co:ltext anything that happens that
violates the Conditions of Approval or that is different from what the Applicant proposed in
their application, then those potentially could be a violation of the permit. She stated for
example, if the number of boarders were increased that would be in conflict with the
Conditional Use Permit.
1'Cannfiq ('o?nwis,ion J,.?zua7y 13, 2009
,V?4a -llleetnq 3
DRAFT DRAFT
Chair Wehrenberg mentioned that the Applicant would not be able to substitute for a different
mix of caretakers and children. Ms. Faubion stated that the permit is issued for a specific
number of caretakers and children, not just a certain number of people no matter their role. The
facility has a specialized operation and the permit approves that operation for up to a specific
number of boarders and caretakers. Therefore, if there were only one caretaker, you cant add
another boarder.
Chair Wehrenberg asked where the number "16" came from. Nls. Karaboghosian answered that
originally the Applicant asked for 2 caretakers and 12 children for a total of 14 people living on
site. She continued that the CC&Rs allows 2 occupants per bedroom. She stated that the
Applicants requested to be identified as a "congregate living facility" according to CA Building
Code requirements, which would allow for up to 16 people to live on site. Staff included a
Conditions of Approval that would limit the number of people to 2 caretakers, 2 children
related to the caretaker and 14 boarders which represents the "16" that Chair Wehrenberg asked
about.
Chair Wehrenberg felt the plans do not indicate that many people could physically live in the
house and asked if the Commission could adjust the number.
Cm. Schaub asked if Staff could explain the breakdown of people (number of caretakers,
children and boarders) being requested to live at the house. He felt that the plans do not
indicate that number of people indicated in the application could live in the house. He stated
that after the Commission discusses the issue, and the numters could potentially change, the
plans that were submitted (date stamped 10-3-08) would change and would no longer be valid.
Cm. Swalwell stated he learned from Staff that there are no ether boarding houses in Dublin.
He asked if there had been any noise complaints at this location. Ms. Karaboghosian answered
that there had not been any specific noise complaints but the project was complaint driven. She
stated the complainants were concerned about the number of children coming to and from the
site. Cm. Swalwell asked if Staff had reviewed any concerns regarding water needs versus the
number of people living in the house. Ms. Karaboghosian answered Staff had not addressed
that issue. Cm. Swalwell asked if water could be a future concern and Ms. Karaboghosian
answered she did not anticipate water to be a concern in the future.
Mr. Baker stated that the project is considered a residential itse and would be consistent with
anticipated water demands for that use.
Cm. Swalwell asked if even with 16 people living at the site there would be no increase on water
or sewage demand.
Gregory Shreeve, City Building Official stated the house is designed as a single family dwelling,
the occupancy load is 200sq ft/person, by code the house could have 19 people; therefore, the
water and sewage design is for 19 people. He stated that Staff is using a special provision in the
building code that allows the Building Official to reduce the occupancy load to a certain
number. That's where the maximum of 16 occurred. He staffed if more than 16 occupants were
.Ainning Commission January 13; 2009
,' g,q &r ?Weeetit7q 4
DRAFT DRAFT
proposed then it would trigger additional building code requirements that the building cannot
meet without major modifications. Cm. Swalwell asked if those provisions included fire also.
Mr. Shreeve answered yes.
Chair Wehrenberg asked if ADA requirements are also taker into consideration. Mr. Shreeve
stated the City does not enforce ADA requirements, they enfcrce Title 24 regulations and those
would be the major modifications needed to make the house fully ADA accessible.
Cm. Schaub asked if the Commission can add a condition that would eliminate special needs
children from occupying the house. He continued that traditionally the Commission would not
condition anyone out of home, however, given the circumstances, the requirements would
trigger modifications to the house.
Mr. Shreeve stated that from a building code perspective Staff would treat it as any other single
family residence that needed accessibility modifications. He stated the major difference is,
under the building code, the entire boarding house must be accessible including the second
floor. He continued all bathrooms must be upgraded, which is a major expense. He stated that
the expense was one of the reasons they decreased the number to 16 people as a "congregate
living facility" however, the house can be modified to allow Some disabled people on the first
floor.
Chair Wehrenberg asked if the children would be considered foreign exchange students with
requirements for license and who would enforce those requirements.
Ms. Faubion stated that there may be requirements for foreign exchange students but none is a
land use or zoning permit that the City would enforce.
Cm. King felt that Chair Wehrenberg wanted to know if there is an organization or agency that
regulates this kind of boarding house.
Cm. Wehrenberg stated she was familiar with the foreign exchange program where one or two
students stay with a host family, but not when they stay for an extended period of time. Ms.
Faubion stated there may be other requirements for the Students but none are land use
requirements and there are no licensure requirements for boarding houses.
Cm. Schaub referenced a letter from the HOA regarding commercial vs. residential uses and
raised the question about the Planning Commission possibly allowing a commercial business in
a residential district, and creating a situation where the HOA would not have the right to
enforce their CC&R's. He asked how the Planning Commissions comments/action would
interfere with the HOA's ability to enforce their CC&Rs.
Ms. Faubion answered that the HOA's comments addressed commercial uses in residential
areas; however, under the City's Zoning Ordinance this project is considered a residential use.
She continued the CC&R's are agreements between landowners. The City is not a party to those
agreements and does not enforce them. She stated that if the HOA feels that there is a violation
.PLinnirrg ('ommiss`ton January 1.3, 2009
ffltrkrr'ueetinq 5
DRAFT DRAFT
of the CC&Rs then they can decide to take action against the Applicant, but the City would not
be a party to that action.
Cm. King stated that even though the City can approve a project it may not grant a homeowner
the right to do something if it violates the CC&R's. Ms. Faubion agreed and stated that
because the CC&R's are private agreements they can be much more restrictive than City
Ordinances.
Chair Wehrenberg stated that the CC&R's are provided when buying a home. Ms. Faubion
agreed and stated that CC&R's are recorded and given to homeowners to show what they are
agreeing to among themselves. They are recorded and available to the homeowners.
Chair Wehrenberg asked what the plan is in case of an emergency that would take the caretaker
away from the group. Ms. Karaboghosian answered that the Applicant was present and could
address this issue.
Cm. King asked about the condition regarding the number of tutors allowed at the residence.
Ms. Karaboghosian stated Staff limited the project to one tutor at a time much like a single
family dwelling where a child would receive piano instructions. She continued that the
Applicant indicated that the children receive offsite tutoring Monday through Friday.
Chair Wehrenberg opened the public hearing.
John Doyle, Applicant's attorney spoke in favor of the project. He thanked the Commission for
reviewing his January 12th letter before the meeting, and stated he had also reviewed a variety
of correspondence in opposition to the project and discussed those concerns with Staff. He felt
that most of the concerns regarded traffic, noise, nuisance end the number of children. He
stated the number of children is 14 because the home has i bedrooms and according to the
CC&Rs they are allowed 2 persons per bedroom. He stated under the Conditions of Approval
and the Iroonet Company policy, the children are not allowed to drive. They are under 18 years
of age, are students and in the custody of the Iroonet caretakers with the permission of their
parents. He stated that their intent is to be a good neighbor, to use the home as a residence and
to be treated as any other residence in terms of the number of people living there. He stated
that the Applicant feels they have familial status based on the definition of that status in the
Federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair Housing Acti therefore, they are entitled to the
single family use without the need for a Conditional Use hermit. But in order to address
neighbors concerns, so that they have a mechanism to address perceived violations, they have
submitted the application and agreed to the Conditions of Approval, knowing that if the
conditions are violated the Conditional Use Permit can be revoked. In conclusion, he pointed
out that the Applicant does not believe they need to participate in this process because of their
familial status but agreed to participate so that conditions can be imposed and the neighbors
would have a means of monitoring the project. He restated that this is a residential use only.
He stated that Dr. Kim will speak regarding the program.
Chair Wehrenberg asked Ms. Faubion to address if the Applicant is legally responsible to be
here. Ms. Faubion answered that the Fair Housing Act provides protection for various groups
t?annin? ('omrnissiUn January 1.3, 2009
p7rcfar lieetinp 6
DRAFT DRAFT
including protection based on familial status. She stated the intent is so that families with
children are not discriminated against. In this case, the Applicant believes they are covered by
the FFHA but they have also agreed to participate in CUP process and be subject to the
Conditions of Approval. She continued that unless there is a change to the Applicant's position
the City can continue with the permit process as a land use permit for a boarding house and the
Applicant has indicated their willingness to be part of the process.
Cm. Swalwell asked what the City's legal recourse is to challenge their interpretation of their
familial status under the FFHA if the Applicant chooses not to participate with the CUP process.
Ms. Faubion answered that if the Applicant is intending to change their position and to assert a
familial status that they are not subject to the CUP requirements, then they should notify the
City and the City can determine their options at that point, but that is not what the Applicant
has indicated.
Cm. Swalwell asked if the City would have to consider seeking an injunction. Ms. Faubion
stated that if that were the situation then the City would have to consider their options at that
point. She continued the City has not done that because the Applicant has been cooperative and
invested in the CUP process.
Chair Wehrenberg stated that this discussion is based on information the Planning Commission
received today (1.13.09) and they can consider the information or postpone the item to another
meeting.
Dongho Kim, CEO of Iroonet America spoke in favor of thE' project. He stated that Iroonet
America is a California corporation owned by another company located in Korea. Iroonet is a
publicly traded company in Korea with over 1,000 tutoring facilities there. He stated the Korea
company focuses on tutoring and education and the Iroonet America focuses on taking care of
children who come from Korea to attend school in the United States. He spoke regarding the
number of facilities in the U.S. and the ages of the children. He stated the children all have F1
student visas and attend private schools. He continued that the caretakers reside at the
facilities, and the children have the usual daily schedule of American children. He spoke
regarding the requirements for entrance into the program and the contract with the parents.
The caretakers are considered legal guardians while the children are in the states. He stated the
caretakers communicate with the parent's daily, providing reports to the parents via the web.
He stated the company has very high standards and a code of conduct. He continued that they
do not allow children to drive in America. He restated the children participate in community
service and sports activities on the weekends. He felt their group was like a family because the
caretakers act as parents to the children in their care.
Chair Wehrenberg asked if Mr. Kim had any additional information that was not in the letter
from Mr. Doyle that he would like to share with the Commission.
Mr. Kim restated that the children go to school in Dublin and other locations in the area, they go
to a tutoring facility in Pleasanton after school, and then come home at approximately 8:00p.m.
or 9:00p.m.
?'Ginning Commission January 1.3, 2009
7jfgurar Meeting 7
DRAFT DRAFT
Chair Wehrenberg asked what type of restrictions are in place for the children to keep them
from sneaking out, etc. when the caretaker lives in the exterior of the house.
Dr. Kim stated the caretakers live inside of the house with the children.
Chair Wehrenberg stated that on the plans submitted the caretakers are shown to be in a
separate unit outside the main house. Dr. Kim stated it's in the same facility which is the same
household.
Cm. Schaub asked the Applicant to explain where everyone sleeps.
Mr. Doyle answered the house has 7 bedrooms, there is a casita on the property and the 2
caretakers live in the casita and the children sleep in the main house. Cm. Schaub felt the casita
was too small for two adults to live there. Mr. Doyle stated that there are 2 people per bedroom.
Cm. Schaub asked about the number of people accounted for and the number of people in the
application. He stated the application indicates there are 2 caretakers, 2 children and 12
boarders and did not feel that many people would fit in the house. Mr. Doyle answered there
are 7 bedrooms in the home, therefore, the application was wr:.tten for 2 people per bedroom for
a total of 14 people. He stated they are not interested in hav:.ng 16 people live on-site. Under
the definition of a boarding house the children of the caretakers do not count towards the
number of people in the home. The confusion came from one of the caretakers who has two of
her children living in the home, but if the application is appx oved they will not live there any
longer. Mr. Doyle restated that there will not be 16 people living in the home. Cm. Schaub
asked about the children of the caretaker. Mr. Doyle answered that the current caretaker's
husband lives in Dublin and the children go back and forth between houses. He stated that the
application should only state 14 people living in the house, not 16.
Cm. Schaub stated that the Commission must make findings and part of that is safety, and he
would appreciate knowing exactly how many people would be living in the house.
Mr. Doyle stated the application is for 12 kids, and 2 caretakers and the caretaker's children are
not in this application because it is not approved as yet. lie continued that the reason the
number of 16 people came up was because of a building issue, but he stated it was not
applicable to their situation because the CC&Rs allow a family of 14 people to live there.
Chair Wehrenberg asked since the caretakers are living in the casita, which is detached from the
main house, has the Applicant installed a security system where alarms would go off if the
children tried to go out after hours. Mr. Doyle answered a security system with alarms and
cameras are installed in the house. Mr. Doyle mentioned than if the code of conduct is violated
the child would be out of the program.
Cm. King asked if the Applicant would agree to make the code of conduct part of the
Conditions of Approval. Mr. Doyle answered yes.
,!'Canning ('ommisSion January 13; 2009
4ZfguCar ?Weetinq 8
DRAFT DRAFT
Chair Wehrenberg asked if there is a plan in place for a medical emergency if one caretaker
must leave the premises who would care for the other children. Mr. Doyle answered that the
policy is to have a caretaker on site at all times. He continued that if there is a medical
emergency the older children can watch the younger children.
Cm. King asked what schools the children attend. Mr. Doyle answered Redwood Christian,
Quarry Lane, Valley Christian, and Athenian. Cm. King asked what kind of transportation is
used to take the children to and from school. He stated that one of the letters raised a point that
the Conditions of Approval do not allow the children to drive but what would restrict them
from having their friends pick them up in vehicles. He continued this was a concern from a
neighbor and he felt that it was it realistic concern. He asked if the Applicant would be willing
to add the condition that the boarders cannot use private vehicles other than those driven by
members of the staff.
Dr. Kim answered that the Iroonet policy does not allow the children to ride with friends. He
stated he is willing to add that to the Conditions of Approval.
Chair Wehrenberg asked Mr. Doyle to confirm that there will be one caretaker on site 24/7.
Mr. Doyle answered yes except in the rare instance of an emergency where the other caretaker is
not available, and then the older children would be responsible for the younger children.
Cm. Schaub felt this is an intense use of a house. He v\,as also concerned regarding an
emergency plan in case of a fire or earthquake. He felt that safety is very important and
understood it was not exactly a land use issue. Dr. Kim stated they routinely have fire drills,
and all the rooms have escape ladders that hang outside the window.
Chair Wehrenberg asked if the ladders are stored in the rooms and are easily accessible. She
asked how often they have fire drills. Dr. Kim stated they rave fire drills every semester but
was not certain. Chair Wehrenberg asked what they considE r a semester. Mr. Kim answered
the semester is twice a year.
Cm. Swalwell felt that education is important and appreciated what the company was offering
the children. He asked if there were any events planned al: the house with friends, such as
sleep-over's, events, or parties.
Dr. Kim stated there have been no sleepovers.
Cm. Swalwell asked if they had considered other locations :lot zoned residential, such as an
Extended Stay America Hotel in a commercial area.
Dr. Kim answered that the other three locations are catholic c invents that they are renting. He
continued that they also rent it former nursing home. He stated this is the first time the
company has used a single family residence for this purpose.
Cm. Swalwell asked if the Applicant had any other applicat:.ons for other locations in Dublin
and if so where. Dr. Kim answered yes, at 4718 New Haven. Cm. Swalwell asked how many
Planning C:omirru ikm januxy l3, 2009
WepLLtr Meeting 9
DRAFT DRAFT
people would be living in that home. Mr. Doyle stated it was a 5 bedroom home where they
would have two people to each bedroom for a total of 10 people.
Cm. Swalwell asked if there were any other applications for the future. Mr. Doyle answered no.
Cm. Swalwell asked if there was a curfew for the children. Mr Doyle answered yes.
Mr. Doyle referred to a question regarding licensing. He stated that under California Care
Licensing this type of facility is not subject to community care licensing. Also, there was a call
made to community care licensing to report the facility and it was confirmed at that time that
the project is not subject to community care licensing due to the fact that the parents have given
permission for the children to live in the United States with thE, caretakers.
Chair Wehrenberg asked if they were under foreign exchange requirements. Mr. Doyle stated
he is not aware of any foreign exchange requirements and that during their due diligence they
contacted community care licensing and were told none was required.
Chair Wehrenberg stated she would pass along to Staff the CA Government Code of
Regulations for their information.
Chair Wehrenberg asked if Dr. Kim is the owner of the house. Dr. Kim answered that the house
is owned by Iroonet America, Inc:.
Cm. King stated that one concern to most neighborhoods is parking, and mentioned a letter
from Ms. Hayes that suggested that they be required to keep the garage clear of personal
property to permit maximum vehicle parking.
Dr. Kim stated that the garage is clean and can be used for parking and agreed to add that
condition if needed.
Mr. Baker referred to the Condition of Approval #11 regarding parking the vehicles in the
garage and the driveway.
Cm. King suggested adding a condition that states that at least one caretaker shall be on the
premises at all times. Dr. Kim stated that company policy is that at least one caretaker should
be on premises at all times.
Cm. King felt the Applicant was asking a lot of the neighbors to have that many teenage boys
living in one place and felt they are alarmed by this. He felt the neighbors are concerned about
noise and unruly behavior. He stated that another suggested condition was to bring the project
back to the Commission in 6 months to review the situation. 1&. Doyle agreed with a review in
6 months.
Chair Wehrenberg felt the community meeting with neighbors is a 'good idea so that the
neighbors can meet the children. She felt that the project adds diversity to the community.
Aanniny Coma &.sion ,January f.3, 2001)
)?fgurar `•49eitincr 10
DRAFT DRAFT
Mr. Doyle stated the program is intended to expose the children to American culture and
become involved. He continued that when the children corn to the U.S. for school in this
program they are not a foreigner in an American home, but stay with children of similar
backgrounds.
Chair Wehrenberg asked how successful the program is in the U.S. as far as complaints or
problems.
Dr. Kim stated the company has been in operation for 5 years, and during that time they have
sent 7 students to colleges and 10 students to boarding schools. He mentioned the colleges that
the students were accepted into. He continued that Dublin is the first and only place where
there have been complaints.
Cm. Swalwell stated that Dublin is also the first place that the company has had a facility in a
residential neighborhood. Dr. Kim agreed.
Mr. Jerry Owens, 5405 Blackstone Road, spoke in opposition to the project. He agreed with Cm.
King that the application is an intense use for a single family residence. He felt this was a
company designed to make a profit and should not be allowed to operate within a residential
district. He asked how they started the business without a permit. He stated there are no other
boarding houses in Dublin and felt that if the project is approved there will be more boarding
houses.
Chair Wehrenberg answered that this is the first boarding house the Commission has reviewed
and they could set a precedent. She continued that one of the neighbors noticed a lot of traffic
and reported it to the City, and now the Commission is reviewing this issue to be resolved so
that the Applicant will conform to City policy.
Mr. Owens asked if this is the only Iroonet facility within the City of Dublin, and if there are
others do they have permits for them.
Cm. Swalwell asked Staff if the City has accepted that this is a boarding house under the law
and is not a business. He asked if there is a distinction between a boarding house for-profit and
not-for-profit. Ms. Faubion answered that the City has determined it is a boarding house under
their zoning ordinance.
Cm. Swalwell asked if the fact that this is a publicly traded company would affect the City's
analysis and what would be the difference between this project; and Extended Stay America.
Ms. Faubion answered the distinguishing characteristics are that at an Extended Stay America
or any clearly commercial operation, different people come and go with no overall organizing
agency. She felt that the boarding house is managed as a uni':, and the boarders are not free to
come and go on a temporary basis, but are there for an extended period of time.
TPanndng C'omwivsion January 13, 2009
1WfflutarVeefiraq 11
DRAFT DRAFT
Cm. Schaub stated that in Mr. Doyle's letter it mentions the City's definition as "one or more
persons occupying the dwelling and living together as a single non-profit housekeeping unit." He felt
that this is a corporation not a non-profit housekeeping unit.
Ms. Faubion stated that the text that Cm. Schaub read was in reference to the Federal Housing
Act discussion in Mr. Doyle's letter. She continued that in reading the City's Zoning Ordinance
family is defined as "one or more persons occupying a dwelling and living as a single non-profit,
housekeeping unit as distinguished from a group occupying a hotel, club, fraternity, etc. and a family
includes any servants and 4 or fewer boarders." In reviewing the application Staff has indicated that
this is not a family according to the City's Zoning Ordinance. The Application is for a boarding
house which requires a Conditional Use Permit. She continued that if they clearly fell within
the definition of a family they would not require any discretionary permits.
Cm. King asked if it would be correct to assume that this is a for-profit corporation. Mr. Doyle
stated the corporation is not a non-profit organization.
Kim and Jerry DiMaggio, 3615 Oakhurst Court, did not speak but are opposed to the project.
Laura Donaldson, 5501 Applegate Court, did not speak but is apposed to the project.
Albert and Nitza Daniel, 3726 Ferncroft Court, did not speak bat are opposed to the project.
Eric Brumn, 3727 Ferncroft Court spoke in opposition to the project. He stated he did not
receive a notice. He stated he was confused regarding the number of children in the house and
wondered why the caretakers stay outside the main house and how many caretakers stay in the
casita at one time. He agreed with Mr. Owens that this is a for-profit corporation. He asked if
the permit had been granted or did the Applicant open the house without a permit. He was
concerned with the number of students and the size of the house. He asked how long the
students stay on average. He stated that he bought his house in a residential community and
was not expecting a corporation to be next door. He stated that he and a number of his
neighbors are not comfortable with the situation.
Stephanie Hayes, Attorney at Law, 1600 So. Main Street, Walnut Creek, representing the Dublin
Ranch Owners' Association spoke in opposition to the project. She stated the HOA has extreme
concerns regarding the application. She stated some of the issues have been addressed
regarding parking, traffic, noise and nuisance which are their four top concerns. She
commended the Applicant and Staff for finding ways to deal with detrimental effects on the
community but they did not go far enough. She felt the conditions will not support findings in
favor of the CUP. She wanted to make it clear that the Association is not objecting to the foreign
exchange students or diversity in community. She stated the concerns expressed to the
Commission are based on actual complaints of additional parking and traffic problems, noise
and nuisance. She stated that it is the HOA's strong request t1at the application be denied but if
the Commission approves it they would ask for the inclusion of the conditions stated in her
letter.
Vfanniny ('omrmri n yanuary.13, 2009
?Ital it `feefir? 12
4 4"0011
DRAFT DRAFT
Cm. King asked Ms. Hayes to identify the findings that she believes the Commission cannot
make.
Ms. Hayes stated that in her letter she made reference to findi:gs A, B & C which would not be
supported by the conditions. She stated the main concern is Finding #B "it will not adversely
affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicini °y..."
Cm. Schaub asked her why she felt that the conditions would not support the findings. He felt
that the finding had nothing to do with traffic that she mentioned earlier.
Ms. Hayes answered as far as the nuisance and noise issues are concerned she believed that they
do affect the health and safety of persons residing in the area. Cm. Schaub asked if she felt the
noise is related to health and safety. Ms. Hayes stated she did.
Cm. King asked Staff if the word "nuisance" arises does the Commission have to make a finding
that the project would not create a nuisance in the neighborhood.
Ms. Hayes continued that with health issues, increased traffic causing more likelihood of
accidents.
Cm. King asked Ms. Hayes if there is a history of specific complaints and how they were
resolved. Ms. Hayes answered that one complaint is attached to the Staff Report which is a
letter from Ms. Berschens who was concerned about traffic and safety. She felt there might be
other people in the audience that could be more specific.
John Bakker, 2427 Otis Drive, Alameda, former principal of Redwood Christian High School,
now working as Director of Foreign Ministry there, spoke in favor of the project and the
character of the children.
Kasey Chung, 3604 Oakhurst Ct., spoke regarding the project. She felt she would be affected
the most because she lives next door to the project. She stated she was confused as to the
number of people that will be living in the house, the number of caretakers, and the number of
cars allowed. She asked what the process would be if the Applicants do not comply with the
Conditions of Approval and how difficult it will be to revoke the permit.
Chair Wehrenberg answered that depending on what action :he Commission takes, she would
have an opportunity to appeal that action to the City Council. She continued that if the CUP is
approved and the Applicant breaks the Conditions of Approval then there is a process for that
also.
Ms. Chung asked what the process is.
Mr. Baker answered that through a Code Enforcement action, if there is a violation of their
Conditions of Approval, a Public Hearing would be held before the Planning Commission to
determine the violation, and then possibly revoke the Conditional Use Permit.
71fdnning ('omwivs`ion January J3, 2009
W?JJufdr'Wwting 13
DRAFT DRAFT
Chair Wehrenberg asked Ms. Chung what the situation has been in the last couple of months
living next to the project. Ms. Chung answered that she ii not the best person to answer
because she has two very active daughters and is not home until late in the evening. She stated
she was not aware of the project: until she noticed some cars parked in front of her house. She
asked the Applicant not to park there and that was the only interaction she had with the
Applicant.
Paul O'Flynn, 3610 Oakhurst Ct., spoke in opposition to the project. He stated he is concerned
with the number of children and the inordinate amount of traffic. He felt that 14 children
would not fit in 2 minivans So there would be multiple trips which was the case last year. He
approves of the bi-annual reviews, but was concerned about -:he process for complaints if they
violate the conditions.
Cm. King asked Mr. O'Flynn to be more specific with his comment about the inordinate amount
of traffic. Mr. O'Flynn answered that last year there were more children living there, multiple
tutors, and many cars at one time.
Cm. King stated that the Commission will need to know specifics because the Applicant is
representing to the Commission that there will be minimal traffic. He asked Mr. O'Flynn if he
knew whose cars they were.
Mr. O'Flynn stated that last year there were 4 tutors' cars in addition to all the other cars and the
2 minivans.
Chair Wehrenberg stated that since Code Enforcement has stepped in they have made some
revisions and eliminated a lot of the traffic.
Mr. O'Flynn agreed that there has not been a problem lately w:.th traffic.
Chair Wehrenberg closed the public hearing.
Chair Wehrenberg asked the Commission to discuss the application and consider if it need's to
be continued because there are additional conditions that need to be addressed.
Cm. Schaub stated he felt the program is fantastic. He was concerned with 16 people living in a
house that was approved as a single family residence. He felt there was one room that could
not be considered a bedroom because it has no closet. He felt this project looked like an
apartment building in a low density, single unit, which was not what the Planning Commission
approved, nor what the residents wanted. He continued he could not make the findings that it
would be safe in an emergency. He was not concerned about circulation, i.e., traffic or parking,
but was concerned about compatibility, and felt the facility is more like a commercial apartment
instead of low density residential. He stated he could not make the findings that this is an
appropriate use therefore he could not support the project.
Tfanning (ominission January 13, 2009
?Xqufar Meeting 14
DRAFT DRAFT
Cm. King stated that whatever decision the Planning Commission makes does not have
anything to do with the homeowners rights under their CC&]Zs. He asked if the City is taking
the position that the CUP process is required for this project.
Ms. Faubion answered yes the CUP process is required for this project.
Cm. King asked to clarify that this area was zoned to include a boarding house before the
development was built. Ms. Karaboghosian answered the Planned Development that was
approved for the subdivision identifies a boarding house as a c=onditional Use. Cm. King asked
Staff to read the City's definition of a boarding house.
Mr. Baker read the definition of a boarding house from the Cit=e of Dublin Zoning Orance.
Cm. King stated just because the project meets the definition doesn't mean it should be
approved. He continued that the Commission still must make the findings that it will not
create a nuisance by means of safety or noise.
Mr. Baker answered Cm. King was correct.
Cm. King agreed with Cm. Schaub that the project does not ,eem appropriate for a residential
neighborhood.
There was a discussion regarding the number of bedrooms and the fact that one of the
bedrooms does not have a closet and what the building code states regarding the number of
people that may occupy the house.
Cm. Schaub felt that the Applicant added a bedroom to accommodate the for-profit business.
He also concluded that the house had been restructured and now exceeds what was allowed in
the Site Development Review.
Ms. Ram answered that people do make modifications to their homes which changes the
number of bedrooms.
Mr. Shreeve discussed the definition of a bedroom according; to the California Building Code
and how many people are allowed to live in the home.
Cm. Swalwell asked if the findings regarding the safety issue is for the persons residing in the
house or for the persons residing in the vicinity of the housE'. Cm. Schaub answered that the
Commission always takes into consideration the safety of the people inside the building.
Cm. Schaub felt that the amount of space for each occupant is not safe.
Ms. Faubion responded the safety that the Commission must consider is people residing in the
vicinity of the project. She felt the finding affects both the people residing in the home and in
the vicinity. She continued that the safety of the structure is a building code issue and less an
issue of this finding.
416 mning (?omnussion January 13, 2001)
1?etiufar ^"Wetting 15
DRAFT DRAFT
The discussion continued regarding the findings of safety and the site, design and intensity of
the use.
Chair Wehrenberg stated that in the Conditions of Approval -:he Applicant must install smoke
detectors and the City inspects them prior to approving the building permit.
Mr. Shreeve stated that the existing bedrooms have already been inspected as part of the final
inspection of the house. He continued that for any new bedrooms that were added the
inspection would be under the new permit. He stated the project would require a building
permit be obtained and inspections completed on the interior of the project because they are
reducing the occupancy load of the house.
Mr. Shreeve noted that the final :inspection was done for the building permit to add the interior
walls on 1-13-09 and was passed.
Cm. Swalwell thanked Staff and the Applicant for their presentation. He felt it was important
to put feelings aside and limit the purpose to meet findings. He approved of the program and
felt it has worked well in other :locations, but noted they were not in single family residences.
He felt the project did not meet findings A, B, C, or F. He is very concerned about the caretakers
living in the casita with no supervision inside the home, as well as the number of persons in the
house. He felt the other issues have been addressed. He stated that other homeowners would
have to disclose that there is a boarding house in the neighborhood and that could adversely
affect the sale of homes in the area. He did not feel he could make the findings for E or F and
felt this is a for-profit business being operated in a residential neighborhood which is an
inappropriate use.
Chair Wehrenberg stated that Cm. Swalwell was reading specifically from the letter from the
Dublin Ranch Owner's Association attorney, Ms. Hayes versus the City of Dublin findings.
Mr. Baker stated the findings do match the City of Dublin findings which are Attachment 2
which lists the findings.
Chair Wehrenberg felt the presentation was confusing but felt the Commission could condition
the project so that it would work for the Applicant. She proposed adding additional conditions
to the CUP. She felt she could agree with most of the findings except for adverse land use. She
suggested taking a vote to understand where the Commissi :)n stands. She explained that if .
there was a tie then the project would be denied.
Cm. King felt that a boarding house is allowed and a foreseeable use due to the zoning
ordinance, but was unsure if a boarding house of this size is suitable. He agreed that Finding E
was difficult to make regarding being compatible with type, density and intensity of the use.
He felt parking will not be a problem, but felt noise could be a problem. He felt the project is
too intense for the area. He stated he would not support the project.
?' nntnt ('omrrricaitrst Januag 13, 2009
rcJ+?Irrr 4teeling 16
DRAFT DRAFT
Chair Wehrenberg felt the Corrunission agreed that it was an. intense use. She stated that the
proposal is for 12 children and 2 caretakers and the code says the home is capable of housing up
to 16 people. She asked the Commission if they felt the project would be appropriate, but with
fewer boarders.
Cm. King agreed.
Cm. Schaub stated he would support five boarders only. He felt this was not what the
neighborhood was designed for and it was not appropriate for the neighborhood.
Chair Wehrenberg was concerned with the caretakers being outside the house and agreed with
Cm. Swalwell that they belong inside the house and felt it is part of the safety issue.
Cm. Swalwell asked for an explanation of the definition of a boarding house according to the
FHA and the City of Dublin's Zoning Ordinance regarding the for-profit versus non-profit.
Ms. Faubion stated that under the City's Zoning Ordinance this proposal is not a family
therefore it is not an issue for purposes of a boarding house permit.
Cm. King stated Cm. Swalwell asked if the definition of the boarding house make the
distinction between for profit and non-profit. Ms. Faubion staled that it did not.
There was a discussion regarding a boarding house being allowed in the area according to the
City of Dublin s Zoning Ordinance.
Cm. Schaub felt the Commission needs to discuss this subject further and suggested that they
not approve the project at this time, but learn more and spend time discussing the issue before
they set a precedent for boarding houses of this type.
Ms. Ram stated the Commission has a few alternatives; they could make a motion for a number
of occupants slightly less than what was proposed if the Cor:umssion feels they can make the
findings. If that is the not the only issue then the Commission can make a motion to deny it
based on the reasons listed. She stated that the Commission could come back at the next
meeting with a denial which she would like Staff to craft for a future meeting on Consent. She
continued that if the Commission denies the project based on the discussion, the Commission
could recommend denial without prejudice, so that the Applicant can work with Staff and come
back with an acceptable project. She explained that if the Commission does not deny without
prejudice the Applicant cannot reapply for one year. She also suggested a study session to talk
about boarding houses in general.
Chair Wehrenberg felt the Commission was all in agreement that the project would be
acceptable if they can reduce the number of people living in the house. She felt there were good
conditions offered that she would like to have staff review and revisit. She listed some of the
conditions that could be added such as, community meetings, 6-month review of the site, and
Code Enforcement review.
3'Ganning C'mm?rzcsiun January 1.3, 2009
1E'fJttfar fleeting 17
DRAFT DRAFT
There was a discussion regarding the "denial without prejudice" and whether it is appealable to
the City Council.
Ms. Ram asked the Commission to give Staff direction regarding their agreement of the changes
to the Conditions of Approval for the project.
Cm. Schaub suggested the project be denied without prejudice and then the Commission should
hold a study session to discuss the subject further.
Cm. Swalwell noted that once the precedent is set then it could be a way for residents to make
extra money in the current economy.
Cm. King asked if there are findings that the Commission can make.
Cm. Schaub stated he had no problem with circulation, but could not support compatibility,
purpose of use, or structures. He felt the project could not support the number of occupants
with residential appliances and the project is conditioned to prohibit commercial appliances.
He felt there was also the issue of water and sewage.
Cm. King felt that he could not make any of the findings therefore could not approve the
project.
Chair Wehrenberg asked what would happen to the current operation of the project.
Mr. Baker answered that the Applicant would have to comply with the current zoning
regulations of 5 boarders only.
Cm. King asked if they are in compliance now. Mr. Baker statE d they are in compliance.
Cm. Schaub made a motion to deny without prejudice due to the fact that the Commission
cannot make any findings. Then schedule within the next months a study session regarding
boarding houses within Dublin which would be open to the public for their participation.
On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Cm. Swalwell, on a vote of 4-0, the Planning
Commission continued the item to the Planning Commission meeting scheduled for January 27,
2009 and directed Staff to prepare a Resolution to deny the project without prejudice.
Mr. Baker pointed out that the item will have the findings revised and will be brought back to
the Commission as a Consent Calendar item at the next Planning Commission meeting on
January 27, 2009, and then there is a 10 day appeal period on the decision of denial after the
meeting where the action will be taken.
?'fanning ('omrnis,%iun January 13, 2009
wryufar Meetiq 18