Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-28-1998 PC MinutesA regular meeting of the City of Du01in Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, April 28, 1998, in the Dublin Civic Center City Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairperson Jennings. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Jcnnings, Johnson, Hughes, Oravetz, and Musser; Eddie Peabody Jr., Community Development Director; Carol Cirelli, Senior Planner; Anne Kinney, Assistant Planner; and Maria Carrasco, Recording Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Jennings led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. The minutes from the April 14, 1998 meeting were approved as submitted ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - Cm. Jennings moved the continued Urban Opportunity Area item to 8.2 and the Wireless Communication item to 8.3. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None PUBLIC HEARING Cm. Jennings went over the procedures for a public hearing, She stated that there would be speaker forms that need to be filled out before a speaker can address the Commission.. 8.1 PA 98-022, Hooligan's California Alehouse and Grill, Conditional Use Permit request to allow a 417 square foot outdoor seating/patio area addition to an existing restaurant and bar. The patio will be located to the front of the restaurant on the existing side walk. The project will include removing the landscape planter (the two olive trees will be preserved) and enclosing the patio area with a three foot wrought iron fence. The project is located at 7294 San Ramon Road, Strouds Plaza. Cm. Jennings asked for the staff report. Regular Meeting 30 April 28, 1998 [4-28 pcmi] Cm. Musser abstained due to conflict of interest. Anne Kinney, Assistant Planner presented the staffreport. The item is a request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of an outdoor seating and patio area in front of the existing Hooligan's California Alehouse and Grill in Strouds Plaza. The project will include removing the landscape planter while preserving the two existing olive trees and enclosing the area with a three foot black wrought iron fence. Staff has evaluated the proposal in relation to City standards and has concluded that the proposed use is appropriate for this site given its location adjacent to an existing restaurant within an existing retail center which has adequate on-site parking, circulation and access. Currently, there are no significant land use compatibility issues which can not be mitigated. The Conditions of approval will address a few issues. Staffhas concerns regarding potential noise and other nuisances affecting surrounding businesses and the adjacent Kildara residential development. The outdoor patio area will be limited in its hours of operation and all outdoor activities will be restricted to the enclosed patio area to control noise. Other conditions are attached which prohibit outdoor loudspeakers, amplified music and control litter on-site. Second the conditions of approval address the design and appearance of the patio area, which include the requirement to install wrought iron tree wells to protect the olive trees and provide a smooth transition between the pavement and the area around the tree bases. Finally, conditions of approval address general performance standards. The City has received a letter of opposition to the project from Ms. Lucia Tin of 7280 Cronin Cr, Kildara Development, Dublin. Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt a resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit subject to the conditions specified. Cm. Jennings asked if the applicant was present. Tim Soldati, co-owner of Hooligans thanked the Planning Commission and agreed with the conditions as written. He believes the patio will enhance the appearance of the shopping center and was available to answer any questions. Cm. Oravetz had concerns about the patio staying open until 11:00 p.m.. He asked how they would get everyone inside the building after 11:00 p.m.. Mr. Soldati stated that they will post a sign stating the patio will close at 11:00 p.m. and they will inform people that the patio will close at 11:00 p.m.. Cm. Oravetz asked if smoking was allowed on the patio. Mr. Soldati stated yes. Cm. Oravetz asked if people could take their drinks beyond the fence. Mr. Soldati responded that would not be allowed. Cm. Oravetz asked how the music would sound outside. Mr. Soldati stated the music would not be heard outside; the doors would be closed. Cm. Jennings asked for any comments from the public. Tina Corso, 11220 Bay Laurel St., asked if the fence could be 5 feet tall. Cm. Jennings asked if there were any prohibitions about the fence height. Regular Meeting 31 April 28, 1998 [4-28 pcmi] Ms. Kinney stated that the ordinance does not address that particularly. It menttons that a commercial area front yard fence can't be more that 4 feet high. Tom Soldati, co-owner of Hooligans stated that they have people who wish to go outside with their drinks. A 5 foot fence would adversely change the appearance of the establishment. The height of the fence they are requesting was within code. He would be opposed to changing the height of the fence. Majorie LaBarr, 11707 Juarez Lane commented on the fence. She stated that she went to school at U.C. Davis and a 4 foot fence worked fine for the local hangouts. Pat Daily, 11879 Flanagan Court had some questions of staff and the owners. He stated that the noise has had him call 911 several times. He asked what hours can they play music. Ms. Kinney stated that Hooligans will be operating under the existing use permit that was issued to Lyons. She stated that she would need to check the file for the exact hours. Mr. Daily stated that he would like to know regulations. His concern is the noise. He would like to see Hooligans compromise and end an hour earlier. He has nothing against expanding their business. He does not like calling 911 and asked if there is another contact other than 911. Cm. Jennings stated that the hours in the conditions are 11:00 a.m. to 1100 p.m., Sunday through Saturday. Condition number 5, states that the Applicant shall control all activities on the site so as not to create a nuisance to the existing or surrounding businesses or to the residents within the Kildara residential development. No loudspeakers or amplified music shall be permitted to project or be placed outside of the building. Mr. Daily stated that there is currently a noise problem and he is right across from the site. Cm. Johnson asked what was the noise. Mr. Daily stated it was the music. He encouraged the Commissioners to walk down there and listen for themselves. Cm. Hughes asked if the noise problem was primarily Friday and Saturday night. Mr. Daily stated yes. Cm. Hughes stated that the sound of music would not be in greater by having a patio. The people on the patio may make the noise increase. Mr. Daily stated that the music playing until 2:00 a.m. was a bit far. Cm. Jennings stated that we are only discussing the patio. Tom Soldati thanked Mr. Daily for his comments. He stated that he does walk around the neighborhood to check the noise level. He was not doubting the noise level, and stated that they have not had anyone complain to them about the noise. He told Mr. Daily to call him when he has noise problems and gave him his business card. The conditional use permit on the music is from 9:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m.. Cm. Hughes asked if the door going into the patio area is an existing door. Ms. Kinney responded yes. Regular Meeting 32 April 28, 1998 [4-28 pcmi] Cm. Jennings asked for any other comments. Cm. Hughes would like to keep the fence at three feet. If closing off an egress and ingress to the building and there is an emergency, a five foot fence would make it almost impossible to get in. The hours of the patio for Friday and Saturday to 11:00 p.m. made sense but during the week he would like to have the hours 11:00 am. to 10:00 p.m.. Cm. Oravetz stated that they should see if the hours from 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. works out for six months. Cm. Johnson agreed with Cm. Oravetz and maybe changing the hours if there are too many complaints. Mr. Peabody stated that the condition can always change. Cm. Hughes asked if them were other ABC establishments with outdoor seating near a residential area. Mr. Peabody responded the Hayward Fishery. He could not think of any others. On motion by Cm. Oravetz and seconded by Cm Johnson, with a vote of 3 -1-t, with Cm. Hughes opposed and Cm. Musser abstained, the Planning Commission adopted RESOLUTION NO. 98 - 17 APPROVING PA 98-022 HOOLIGAN'S CALIFORNIA ALEHOUSE AND GRILL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR AN 417 SQUARE FOOT OUTDOOR SEATING/PATIO AREA ADDITION TO AN EXISTING RESTAURANT AND BAR, 7294 SAN RAMON ROAD, STROUDS PLAZA 8-_3- 8.2 (Continued Public Hearing ) PA 98-029 - Urban Opportunity Area General Plan Amendment. The City of Dublin is proposing a General Plan Amendment to designate Urban Opportunity Area boundaries within the Eastern and Western Extended Planning Areas. Ms. Cirelli presented the staff report. She stated that this item was continued from the last Planning Commission meeting. Since that meeting, staff sent out notices to all affected property owners in the Western Extended Planning Areas; and staffmet with the DSRSD Water Commission to explain the project. We have recently been receiving numerous comments from property owners within the Western Extended Planning Area, and one comment from a resident adjacent to the project area. This UOA is consistent with the existing General Plan policies and urban development within the Urban Opportunity Area would not result in impacts to public services, visually sensitive ridgelands, biologically sensitive habitat areas, and infrastructure. She stated that property within the UOA does not guarantee development rights. New development proposed within the UOA would still need to go through the normal environmental review and entitlement process. The purpose of proceeding with this General Plan Amendment is to include General Plan maps that graphically depict existing General Plan policies. She concluded her presentation. Mr. Peabody stated that the UOA came directly from the City Council for staff to study. This has been going on for some months and eventually will have to be resolved by the City Council. Regular Meeting 33 April 28, 1998 [4-28 pcmi] Ms. Cirelli put up some overheads of the area. She stated that the map is the western extended planning area. Outside the Urban Opportunity boundary there is development constraints for certain areas because it is above the 740 foot water elevation. She showed an area on the map that has urban development potential because it is under the 740 foot water elevation and without development constraints. Cm. Jennings asked if anyone had any questions. She wanted to clarify that the project is not about development. Cm. Johnson asked if the area was accepted as possible development, will there be restraints to it. Ms. Cirelli stated that there are no development plans for the area. Someone asked where the water tank is located and others commented that the overhead map does not include any street names. Bruce Webb from DSRSD showed on the map where the existing reservoir was located. Cm. Jennings explained that the project was proposing a General Pan Amendment to designate a urban opportunity boundary within the western region. She stated that the project has nothing to do with development. John Anderson, 11174 Brittany Lane. Mr. Anderson stated that he did not know there was a public hearing prior to this. In the staff report there is a statement on page I that states the proposed site grading and means of access will not disfigure the ridge lands; he wanted to know what that meant Ms. Cirelli stated that there is not a specific map in the existing General Plan that shows where these ridge lands are located. The definition is also not clearly defined. Mr. Peabody stated that the statement of site grading would not disfigure the ridge lands, comes from the existing General Plan. Mr. Anderson, stated that the proposed Urban Opportunity Area policies are highly ambiguous, especially the statement page 2 of the staff report major impacts to the environment. With most of the developments that he has been associated with, the EIR's ended with a mitigating statement. He asked if there is a metrics to judge what the impact will be and whether it is major. Ms. Cirelli stated that there are State guidelines and requirements. All development projects are required to go through the California Environmental Quality Act environmental process which entails detailed studies. Mr. Anderson asked if it was defined as major. Ms. Cirelli stated it might be major or minor depending on what the project is. The General Plan document is a general policy document. There are policies that state refinement studies and more detailed studies would need to be done to determine the levels of environmental impact. Staff has looked at all the existing General Plan policies; staff wants to retain the policies and graphically depict them. The environmental analysis would be conducted for projects proposed in the western and eastern extended planning areas where there is urban development potential without major impacts to the environment. She stated that the City has a constraints map depicting the ridge lands and because of those ridge lands staff feels that development in those areas would have major impacts. Mr. Anderson asked if staff felt there would be a disfigurement to the ridge lands to the area being studied. Regular Meeting 34 April 28, 1998 [4-28 pcmi] Ms. Cirelli stated that it may have impacts but staffdoes not know at this time. Mr. Anderson stated that there is a statement that development is expected to occur within the next 20 to 25 years. He asked how that is forcasted. Ms. Cirelli responded that general plans would follow a future forecast; they are usually forcasted through the next 20 to 25 years. Mr. Anderson asked if there would be development there in the next 20 to 25 years. Ms. Cirelli stated that has not been determined. Mr. Anderson asked if the area was exempt from CEQA. Ms. Cirelli responded that this General Plan Amendment project is exempt from CEQA. He asked why the study was being done. Ms. Cirelli stated that the existing General Plan does not show any constraints map or any areas within our sphere of influence where there may be some development constraints. Mr. Anderson stated that the people adjacent to the area should have been notified. He feels that the notification process the City uses is lacking something. Marjorie Labar, 11707 Juarez Lane. She stated that the concept was excellent and long over due. The public requested this 10 years ago. Her concern is that this does not go into enough detail. She wants to see the constraint areas overlaid onto a topo map to see the contour lines for east and west Dublin. She would like these topo maps to identify 15% slopes or greater. She would also like to see areas of sensitive vegetation, habitats and stream corridors with 100' buffer from center of stream outward overlaid onto the maps. The Planning Department should check with the surrounding areas. She stated that if the City is going through the trouble to do this it needs to be done right. Morgan King, 7567 Amador Valley Boulevard. He stated that he was opposed to the item. He asked what precisely was City Council's direction to staff. Mr. Peabody stated that the Council asked staff to look specifically at eastern and western extended planning areas to determine a logical area that would represent urban development over the next 20 to 25 years. Mr. King asked if this request was in writing. Mr. Peabody stated that the request came as part of the City Council's goals and objectives form which is done every March. Staff has been instructed to prepare a report and start the public hearing process. Mr. King asked if that was available to the public. Mr. Peabody responded yes. Mr. King asked if anyone can apply for a study like this. Mr. Peabody stated that the public has a right to address the Council or Commission on these types of issues. Regular Meeting 35 April 28, 1998 [4-28 pcmi] Mr. King stated that he did not want to just address his concerns, he wanted to know if you could ask the Planning Commission to adopt a General Plan Amendment. Mr. Peabody stated any General Plan Amendment must be initiated from the City Council. Mr. King asked what documents were used in the analysis. Mr. Peabody stated that there is a whole variety of documents on file. Ms. Cirelli stated the former Western Dublin Specific Plan, and the Environmental Impact Report which includes a constraints map. Mr. King asked if the Alameda County General Plan was included. Ms. Cirelli stated that the Alameda County General Plan was not used in this analysis. Staff felt it was not applicable to what the City was doing within the sphere of influence areas. Mr. King asked what is in the Alameda County General Plan regarding the West Dublin hills. Mr. Peabody stated that it is shown as agriculture and open space. Mr. King stated that the County General Plan states that the County shall encourage the City of Dublin to retain this area as open space. Ms. Cirelli stated that the City is taking a position because that area is in Dublin's sphere of influence. Mr. King asked who told staff to disregard the Alameda County General Plan. Mr. Peabody stated that the City Council is the ultimate determinant of any General Plan Amendment. Mr. King asked if the City Council instructed staff to disregard the Alameda County General Plan. Mr. Peabody responded that the City Council did not instruct staff to disregard the County General Plan. Ms. Cirelli stated that staff is not disregarding it. The City has different policy goals for our sphere of influence. She stated that cities do not always agree with other jurisdictions. Mr. King asked if this was a zoning change. Mr. Peabody stated no. Mr. King asked ifa zoning change or amendment would require approval from the City Council. Mr. Peabody responded yes. Mr. King asked why is there a need for more housing in the west Dublin foothills. He stated that the resolution states that the city recognizes the need to identify a geographical area of urban development potential within the Dublin City limits. Ms. Cirelli stated that the resolution does not state the City needs urban development. The City recognizes the need to identify areas of urban development potential within the extended planning areas within the City's sphere Regular Meeting 36 April 28, 1998 [4-28 pcmi] of influence. Cities do plan future rand uses within their spheres of influence, the City is looking at that area to become aware of some of the development constraints and to see where development can occur, if it could occur at all. Mr. King asked if the City could plan to leave it as open space. Ms. Cirelli stated yes it could. Bruce Webb, Engineering Planner for DSRSD. He stated that he is for the project. He stated that he attended the meeting to clarify water capabilities. They have been researching this and have reservations about some of the text in the document. He stated that their role is to plan for and design water systems in conformance with the City's General and Specific Plan. The district has not made any decisions regarding it's capability. He stated that the senior staff from DSRSD will continue to work with City staff and will recommend some minor text changes that do not need to be addressed right now. Mark Saake, 11198 Brittany Lane. He asked the Commission to continue the project for further public comments. He stated that this does give a blessing for future potential development and that access roads would be affected by development. Cm. Musser stated that the bulk of the map is precluded from development in this area. The blue area shown on the map is a small area that will be studied before any future development can occur. Mr. Saake stated that the residents affected should be notified. Ms. Cirelli stated that comment will be taken seriously by staff. She stated that if there is ever a project proposed in the area being studied, all the people in area will be notified. Tina Corso, 11220 Bay Laurel Street. She stated that the roads were her concern. She purchased her home in July and she would have thought twice if she had known about it. She wanted to know how they would get to the new development. David Bewley, 11166 Brittany Lane. He stated he is speaking in opposition to the project. He stated that he has a problem with the language and finds it confusing. This appears to be a form of prior approval. The water pressure zones will have too much weight. Why does the water tank have to be 740 feet. He does not believe that these areas have been given balanced assessment. He felt that the City should not be looking at the west and east together. These are different areas with different problems. He asked what streets are possible connector streets to this area. He stated that there is currently a General Plan study being done for the area. He wrote a letter to the City Council with his concerns of balancing the whole General Plan concept. The entire western area should be looked at as a whole, and that has not been done. He stated that Urban Opportunity area looks like prior approval. He asked if the area referenced in blue was the area being studied a couple years ago. Mr. Peabody stated that Mr. Nielsen has received permission from the City Council to do a General Plan study, but has not filed any documents. Mr. Bewley stated that there was a time line on doing a study. It appears that this area will result in a permanent study. He stated that this project should have more notice to the affected residents and projects should be posted on the web. The slope definitions should be reduced from 30% to 20%. Bud Nielsen, 11637 Alegre Drive. He stated that he is against the study. He would like to get up to speed on the project. He understands the Urban Opportunity Area but is confused on the 740 foot and 770 foot water elevations. Regular Meeting 37 April 28, 1998 [4-28 pcmi] Ms. Cirelli stated that the 770 foot water elevation was in the Eastern Dublin area and does not apply to the Western area. The Western area will use the 740 foot elevation, exclusive of the Schaefer Ranch project. Mr. Nielsen asked the reason for that. Ms. Cirelli responded that it is the way DSRSD established their water service level for Western Dublin. Mr. Webb stated that the difference is because the Eastern Dublin 770 foot elevation is the elevation that your plans show as approved development now. In the master planning process they looked at it carefully and established a 770 foot top elevation. They would have preferred to stop at 740 feet but there are land uses that will require water above those elevations. Mr. Nielsen stated that Schaefer is developing a pressure zone to 1000 feet. Mr. Peabody stated that when Schaefer was approved, the tanks were sized for Schaefer Ranch only. They do not have the capacity to service any other areas beyond Schaefer Ranch at that elevation. Mr. Webb stated that was true for the Schaefer Ranch project. If the City of Dublin approved development else where at other elevations, DSRSD would have to see that the storage would meet the fire demands. Mr. Nielsen stated that when approving a project with a pressure zone going to 1000 feet, and the rest of the people can not develop there does not make any sense. There are places for some beautiful homes in that area; why set a boundary. Tom Ford, 7262 Tina Place, stated that he supports the speakers. He stated that this preliminary plan could lead to a final plan for the area. His objection is that it is not consistent with the western ridge referendum or with the promises of the Council candidates in 1994 where they said no more development for this area. The Schaefer Ranch project was designed to prevent further sprawl into this area. The expressed preference by a nearby home owners association was for the area being studied to not have any development. It is a very steep area and the City should think about liability. He began to discuss a presentation done by the Mayor. Cm. Jennings asked the speaker to please stay with the topic. Mr. Ford stated that he appreciated Mr. Webb's constraints and wording about DSRSD cooperating with the City. Sue Rainey, 11157 Bay Laurel Street stated that she is not against growth in Dublin; she wants planned growth. She stated that development starts somewhere and this is how it starts. There is a problem with very bad traffic, going to and from Valley Christian school. She asked where the roads were going into this and why weren't the residents notified. To her understanding the proposed development in this area has been voted down. Ms. Cirelli stated that this is not a development project being proposed. Staff is designating an area of urban development potential that has fewer constraints in the Western Dublin General Plan Amendment area. This area does not have development rights. Ms. Rainey asked where the development process starts. Ms. Cirelli stated that the property owners would need to request from the City Council an initiation of a General Plan Amendment and Annexation. Regular Meeting 38 April 28, 1998 [4-28 pcmi] Ms. Rainey stated that this is the imtial step for development. Ms. Cirelli stated that if there was a General Plan initiation approved and the study begins, the residents within 300 feet would be noticed. Ms. Rainey stated that the City is affecting more than just the residents within 300 feet. Ms. Cirelli stated that state law only requires the residents within a 300 foot radius be notified. Staff can make the decision if noticing should extend beyond the 300 foot radius. Ms. Rainey stated that the residents do not want this and that should be passed on to the City Council. Maureen Haddad, 11556 Bay Laurel, stated she was not against development in Dublin. She lives on a street that is unsafe for children to play. She wants to know what major impact on circulation meant, what major impact on traffic meant, and what major visual affects meant. She feels they should be defined early. She stated that her street has been deemed by the traffic department as not having any significant or major problems. They have begged for help but it is not a major significant problem. If this is the definition of"major" it needs to be redefined so the people will know before they buy a home. She heard a speech from the Mayor and he stated that the Urban Opportunity area will have 1800 acres of designated open park play space. Ms. Cirelli stated that the area was a requirement of the Schaefer Ranch project which is surrounded by the Urban Opportunity area. Ms. Haddad stated that the Mayor specifically stated the 1800 acres was going to be saved in the Urban Opportunity area. Ms. Cirelli stated the Mayor may be referring to the East Bay Regional Park District. Ms. Haddad stated that she would like this project to be continued so more people can become aware and be heard. Marie Cronin, 8989 Dolan Canyon Road, stated that she is not as informed as she would like to be. The Urban Opportunity area as defined, is an area for urban development potential. She feels that the Cronin ranch lands and the Nielsen Ranch lands should be included. The 740 foot elevation area should be looked at. Their families have been in Dublin since the 1850's; and have had many families on these lands. If the elevation for Schaefer Ranch was worked out, there can be room for working out a water service for the other area. There should be a few guidelines to make it fair. Cm. Jennings asked if anyone had any other comments. Ms. Haddad stated that there is still an issue with the landslide areas. Mr. Bewley stated that Alameda County has encouraged Dublin not to develop. The Alameda County General Plan has policies that the area be left as open space and is necessary for the quality of life. Mr. King stated that the California State Open Space Act specifically states that it is of urgent State concern that cities adopt open space policies. The City of Dublin does not have an open space zoning. Ms. Labar would like to see the staff reports on the City's web page. Regular Meeting 39 April 28, 1998 [4-28 pcmi] Mr. Nielsen, stated that the water e~evation zone is 770 feet in Eastern Dublin, and 740 feet in Western Dublin; he asked if staff has taken into consideration the different terrain for each area. Mr. Peabody stated that the reason for the difference is the topographic features and where development has occurred in the past. Mr. Nielsen stated that it was unbelievable to him. Mr. Peabody stated that the elevation was 740 feet in West Dublin with the exception of Schaefer Ranch. When Schaefer Ranch was approved, they raised the elevation to another pressure zone, but the tanks were sized for that development only. Mr. Nielsen stated that the land in Western Dublin is higher than Eastern Dublin. Cm. Johnson stated the Schaefer Ranch project was approved by a meeting of the developer with a number of people who were against Western Dublin development. If you develop in Western Dublin and draw water from a tank 740 feet high, that is as high as you can go. lfyou built a tank at 1200 feet you could draw from a water tank 1200 feet. Mr. Peabody stated that with additional studies this particular boundary can be changed. Cm. Jennings closed the public hearing. Mr. Peabody stated that this project will go to City Council on May 19th. Cm. Musser stated that he shares a number of the residents concerns. He does not feel comfortable making a recommendation to City Council and would like to see more detail. He would like the project to be continued. Cm. Hughes stated that the project is a topography study. He asked if the City Council gave staffdirection on what criteria to use. Mr. Peabody stated no. Staff evaluated the General Plan, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and the Western Dublin EIR to try to come up with reasonable criteria for what an Urban Opportunity Area could be. Cm. Hughes stated that Planning Department took a lot of effort. He was very much against development in the Western Dublin area and stated that the Planning Commission has the directive to move the process forward. He does not see a point to a continuance. This study begins the process, and should go forward and the City Council can make their decisions. The Alameda County General Plan recommends to leave the area opens space, that is fine but the City incorporated in 1982 and it has a right to govern itself. This study has nothing to do with development. Cm. Oravetz agreed with Cm. Musser on the continuance. He was not prepared to vote on this item and recommended to the City Council. He believed the residents required more notification. Cm. Jennings stated that the notices were sent to the property owners. She stated that due process was done with a notice in the kiosk, in the paper and the library. She recommended a motion be made. On motion by Cm. Hughes, seconded by Cm. Johnson, with a 3-2 vote, Cm. Musser and Oravetz opposed, the Planning Commission approved Regular Meeting 40 April 28, 1998 [4-28 pcmi] RESOLUTION NO. 98 - 18 RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT PA 98-029 URBAN OPPORTUNITY AREA GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 8-.-3 8.3 PA 97-046 Wireless Communication Facilities - Zoning Ordinance Amendment The City of Dublin is proposing an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance that involves the regulation of wireless communication facilities. The purpose and intent of this ordinance is to provide a uniform and comprehensive set of standards for the development and installation of wireless communication facilities (e.g., antennas, personal wireless service facilities, monopoles, lattice towers, etc.) and related facilities, and to protect and promote public health, safety, community welfare and aesthetic qualities for the City of Dublin. Cm. Jennings asked for the staff report. Carol Cirelli, Senior Planner presented the staff report. Staff is proposing an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance that includes zoning provisions for the development and installation of wireless communication facilities. These provisions cover the siting, designing and permitting of wireless communication facilities. The City's main purpose for establishing these zoning standards is to protect and promote public health, safety, community welfare and the aesthetic quality of Dublin as set forth within the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan. With the emergence of new wireless communication facilities, such as PCS systems and specialized mobile radio services, and the need for a greater number of these facilities to be located throughout service areas; and with the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Staffdetermined an immediate need to establish zoning regulations for wireless communication facilities. Amendments to this ordinance may be necessary to reflect industry changes, 1996 Act changes and any future court interpretations of the Act. The draft ordinance covers the planning permit requirements for all wireless communication facilities, basic develop regulations for satellite dish antennas, design review criteria and CUP criteria for wireless communication facilities, standards for monopoles and lattice towers, application requirements, maintenance/facility removal agreement, and registration of wireless communication providers. The draft ordinance is based on staff's extensive research of other city ordinances and interviews with wireless communication services providers. Ms. Cirelli showed overheads of the different types of antennas and locations. She concluded her presentation and recommended approval of the project. Cm. Musser asked if the telecommunication providers were notified. Ms. Cirelli stated that she worked with telecommunication providers and that she has copies of ordinances they have given her. One carrier did make comments on a previous draft. Cm. Musser was surprised that no one was here on the project. Ms. Cirelli stated that if a provider currently had a wireless communication project within the City, they may have been here this evening. Dublin has not been inundated with project applications because there is not a lot of office building developments within the City. Cm. Oravetz asked, if the School District could charge a fee if an antenna is placed on their location. Ms. Cirelli responded yes; a leasing fee. Cm. Johnson asked about how residential areas with antennas in their back yard were treated. Regular Meeting 41 April 28, 1998 [4-28 pcmi] Ms. Cirelli stated they were treateu as accessory structures and were dealt with on a case by case basis. Cm. Jennings suggested that lattice towers not be allowed in Dublin. Ms. Cirelli stated that the City should be careful about totally prohibiting them. If an application came in for a lattice tower, staffcould legally recommend denial if the project did not comply with the ordinance and resulted in negative impacts. Cm. Oravetz stated that he agreed and highly recommended lattice towers not be allowed. Cm. Musser agreed, except there are companies mounting antennas on PG&E towers. Ms. Cirelli stated staff could check with the City Attorney about prohibiting them in any district. She stated that Dublin does not have a lot of industrial areas where monopoles and lattice towers can be hidden. Cm. Johnson asked if lattice towers were not permitted within commercial districts. Ms. Cirelli stated that was correct. They are not permitted in commercial or residential areas. Cm. Jennings asked who sets the fee. Mr. Peabody stated the Council. On motion by Cm. and seconded by Cm. , with a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted RESOLUTION NO. 98 - 16 RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT PA 97-046 WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES - ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS 9.1 Upcoming Planning Schedule Mr. Peabody went over the upcoming schedule. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:35 p.m.. Community Development Director Respectfully submitte~ · P fannir~g C~°mmiss~/Chairpers°n / Regular Meeting 42 April 28, 1998 [4-28 pcmi]