Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-14-2012 PC Minutes . ,;;;) Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, August 14, 2012 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, August 14, 2012, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Wehrenberg called the meeting to order at 7:00:26 PM Present: Chair Wehrenberg; Commissioners Schaub, Brown, and Bhuthimethee; Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director; Steve Muzio, City Attorney; Marnie Delgado, Senior Planner; Ananthan Kanagasundaram, Associate Civil Engineer; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. Absent: Vice Chair O'Keefe ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA— NONE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS — On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Cm. Brown, the Planning Commission approved the minutes of the July 24, 2012 meeting as revised. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS — NONE CONSENT CALENDAR — NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS — NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS — 8.1 PLPA-2011-00055 Dublin Preschool Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review for the construction and operation of a Day Care Center Marnie Delgado, Senior Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Schaub asked Ms. Delgado to explain the difference between a preschool and a daycare center. Ms. Delgado answered the terms are used interchangeably; the definition of a daycare center in the Zoning Ordinance includes preschools. She stated that, from an operator's point of view they are slightly different so they are referred to as a preschool because that is how it will operate, but there is no difference in the use type. Chair Wehrenberg asked Ms. Delgado to explain the noise report. Ms. Delgado responded that, in order to measure the anticipated noise level of an outdoor play area, there are measurements taken from an operational facility (KinderCare). From that point the consultant must extrapolate the noise level based on the number of children and the proximity to the property line. All the information must be factored in to the project's operating characteristics because this project is not identical to KinderCare. k'rat0ort are MT,,,Ston August 14,2012 ttit=t'r"f oetmg 80 Chair Wehrenberg did not agree with the analysis which states the distance and average noise levels were done when there were only 9 children present. Ms. Delgado responded that, on Page 6, Table 4, the study applies the analysis to the current project and states the noise measurement is estimated at 56dba. Chair Wehrenberg was concerned with the estimate and was unsure how the consultant came to that conclusion. Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director, responded there are different measurement tools; LEQ, LMax and CNEL. The City uses the CNEL which is the 3rd column in the table. He stated that, when the consultant took the data from KinderCare, they had to extrapolate them based on the size and the location of the property line to the facility to get to the measurement of 56dba. There was a discussion regarding the noise study. Cm. Brown asked if the ambient noise would drown out the extra noise of the daycare center. Mr. Baker answered the consultant found that, if the daycare was stand-alone, it would put out 56 CNEL. He stated the current ambient measurement is at 64 and when the two are combined it would incrementally increase the noise level by <1 decibel which is considered to be inaudible. Cm. Schaub stated that the Omni-Means study indicates that the Parking Ordinance requirement for daycare centers is 1 parking space per employee, 1 parking space for a company car, plus loading for every 5 children. He felt the parking requirement should be 18 instead of 17 because they did not count the space for a company car. Ms. Delgado answered one parking space would be required if there were a company vehicle, but the Applicant is not proposing any company vehicles for this center. Cm. Schaub stated that, when the Planning Commission reviewed the retail center in 2005, according to the minutes of that meeting, the parking requirement would have been 28 spaces for the coffee shop, plus 22 for the rest of the retail center, for a total of 50 parking spaces. He stated that was the number they used when dealing with the mitigation issues. He stated the requirement was 50, but now it is 32 because that is how many spaces are counted. He felt that is not what was originally required and was concerned that the requirement is lower than it should be. Cm. Brown was concerned about how the parking space deficit during the peak hours would be controlled for the daycare if the retail users are already parked there. Ms. Delgado responded there are two parcels and they are parked independently of one another, which was the intent when the project was originally approved. She stated the same is true today; the daycare would be parked separately from the retail center. She stated the Applicant has designated the first 5 parking spaces as employee parking to deter the patrons of the retail center from parking in their lot. She continued that "employee parking only" will be stenciled on the ground. She stated there will be an enforcement mechanism in place to change parking behaviors. (fanning logimisszon August 14,2012 ?cgukir Meeting 81 Chair Wehrenberg felt that allocating 5 spaces to employees would exacerbate the issue. She stated she sat in the parking lot for 45 minutes and the parking lot was full from 5:00 pm to 6:00 pm other than approximately 5 parking spaces. The consultant stated the peak hours would be 2:30 to 3:30 p.m., but she felt it peaked most of the day. She was concerned how the peak will be managed on two separate sites. She understood it was two separate parcels but, when it is a successful site, the situation would be exacerbated by adding more demand. She felt children take precedence over coffee, but other people don't agree. She felt there would be a problem with people coming in and out of the site and asked what the mechanism for enforcement would be. Ms. Delgado suggested the Commission could require that all of the parking be marked for the daycare center only making the spaces no longer available to the other patrons. She felt the parking would need to be enforced. Chair Wehrenberg stated there were cars parked on the dirt lot during the time she was there. Mr. Baker mentioned the sites are two separate legal parcels and parked independently. He stated the proposed project is required to have 17 spaces and they are providing 17 spaces. He stated there is no shared parking agreement between the property owners. He stated it is an issue of the property owners exercising their right to their parking spaces so they would have to enforce the parking. He suggested installing striping and/or signage indicating "daycare parking only" that would discourage customers of the retail center from parking at the daycare center. Cm. Schaub mentioned the pilot parking program for Village Parkway that was discussed at a previous meeting with a similar issue. He felt the only way parking can be enforced is to tow the cars. He was concerned with how a tow truck would fit in the parking lot. He stated the City would not send officers to enforce parking. Mr. Baker stated there are two separate issues; one is a retail center in which the City Council approved a parking program with street parking. He stated the street parking is currently being fully utilized because there currently is available parking on the daycare site. He felt that, once the daycare is operational and striped/marked for daycare parking only, the retail customers will hopefully park on the street. He stated the traffic surveys that were completed show that the center is operating within what was anticipated when the project was approved in 2005. He stated the number of the parked vehicles is consistent with the number that was anticipated so the retail center has on-site parking and street parking that is an adequate supply for them. Chair Wehrenberg understood but felt there were additional spots that are not striped but are being utilized and felt that could be a problem. Cm. Schaub stated he will be referring to the previous project because patrons must travel through that retail area, which was approved in 2005, to get to the daycare center. He stated that, during the Planning Commission review of the project in 2005, there was a discussion regarding the Village Parkway Specific Plan which is no longer applicable. He stated there was a study done that looked at installing diagonal parking on Village Parkway and removing the right turn lane. The study indicated that these improvements would make the intersection of Amador Valley and Village Parkway could go from a service level of A to F. He stated the City Council took out the right turn lane and eliminated the right lane. He asked if there has been a T£imning Commission August 14,2012 Wcgufar�iMeeting 82 study to find out the result of taking out the lane. He also asked what the level of service is as a result of the City removing the right turn lane. Cm. Brown stated that his wife was at the corner waiting to turn right onto Amador Valley from Village Parkway and it was backed up. Her solution was to cut through the parking lot and come out on Amador Valley Blvd. She was not the only one to do so. Mr. Baker addressed Cm. Schaub's comment and clarified that the Village Parkway Specific Plan contemplated diagonal parking by eliminating a travel lane which never occurred. He stated there are still two travel lanes even with the striping at the corner. He stated there actually was never a separate right turn lane at that location. The former traffic engineer reviewed the operation of this intersection and added the striping to remove the free right to ensure safe operation of the corner. Cm. Schaub asked if Staff knows if there is any level of service degraded because of the right lane elimination. He felt that was important because it is putting pressure on the entrance to the parcel. He requested the traffic consultant come to the podium. Mr. Baker stated there have been various discussions but he did not believe it has significantly impacted the level of service; however, there was a discussion about having the Traffic and Safety Committee could take another look at that intersection to see if there are other options. Cm. Schaub felt that a right turn lane would require the on-street parking to be removed which is how more parking was accommodated for the retail center; the bus stop was moved as well. Mr. Baker stated that removing the existing striping at the corner would likely not affect the on- street parking on Village Parkway. It was put in place because there was not adjacent room for a separate right turn lane. He stated it was not driven by the street parking so eliminating the lane potentially would not eliminate the street parking. Cm. Schaub state he brought up the issue because he felt it was putting a lot of pressure on the street. He felt there were some issues to discuss regarding the traffic study. Cm. Schaub asked about the space designated for a clean air vehicle and asked who could park in that space. Ms. Delgado responded anyone with a clean air vehicle can park in that spot. Mr. Baker stated that is a new requirement of the Building Code that took effect on July 1st; it is like an accessible parking stall with limited availability. Cm. Schaub felt that would take away another parking space and they would go from 17 spaces to 16. Chair Wehrenberg felt regardless of whether the parking is for compact, full-size and motorcycle it comes down to the count, regardless of the use. Mr. Baker agreed and stated that the Zoning Codes did not change with the Building Codes. Tfcamrr"ing r"'oinrnsssion ;4u ust 14,2;W, .,X,llufilr aung 83 Cm. Schaub stated that the reality is that neither of the spaces is available unless you drive a special car. Chair Wehrenberg asked why the classrooms are placed on the west side of the building since children inside classrooms are normally quiet and also asked if the building could be flipped. Ms. Delgado answered that the children access the play area through the classroom area so flipping the building to have the offices on the playground side would put the children up against the residential area when exiting the building to use the play area. Cm. Schaub asked how many feet there are between parking spaces across the parking lot. Mr. Baker answered there are 25 feet which exceeds the minimum requirement. Cm. Schaub felt that 25 feet is a car length and requested to discuss the parking study with the traffic consultant. Mr. Baker stated that length exceeds the minimum standard requirement for a shopping center which is standard at 24 feet. Peter Galloway, Omni Means, spoke regarding the traffic report. Cm. Schaub felt his report was very well done and is a very important piece of what is being reviewed. He stated he was experienced with surveys previously working for Mr. Enea. He stated that the Commission is looking not only at the daycare parking but also how to get to the daycare. He stated the issue includes the street parking, but also the congestion within the retail center and the fact that it has 32 spaces. He asked what the margin of error was for parking surveys. He also asked what date the studies were conducted. Mr. Galloway answered the surveys were done on March 21 and 22. He stated that the traffic data can fluctuate +/-5% on any given day. He stated they try to conduct surveys on a typical weekday, usually a Tues, Weds or Thurs unless specified otherwise by the City Traffic Engineer. They try to do the survey on a typical, normal work day while school is in session. He stated they try not to do surveys on Fridays or Saturdays or during the summer unless there is a special use. In this instance, there was a full day survey done at each use; one at the Montessori daycare and retail center. Cm. Schaub stated the craft shop generates the afternoon peak. Mr. Galloway stated the overall parking demand is for the existing retail center not just the Starbucks. Cm. Schaub asked how many cars were parked in the retail center and how do you know the spaces are filled if you can't see all of them. Mr. Galloway answered they try to do the parking survey at least every 1/2 hour. He stated this study was done at 15 minute increments. The surveyor would note the vehicles that were already parked, so at subsequent surveys he would know what the turn-over rate was. Cm. Schaub asked why there is data missing in the table. 'Prsb zny f'orrarausszczrz August 14,2012 toffufar(Wetly 84 Mr. Galloway answered that they debated whether to include the raw data in the survey. Cm. Schaub felt it was the right thing to do to include the raw data. Mr. Galloway asked what holes Cm. Schaub was referring to. Cm. Schaub stated the table shows 10:00 a.m. then 11:30 a.m. and then at 12:30 p.m. and then start up again and asked if he could assume the data is the same during those time frames. Mr. Galloway answered no; this is more a guidance from the City Traffic Engineer. They knew the period when parking demand would be at its peak and conducted 4 surveys at peak periods during the course of the day to mimic a preschool. That's why there are gaps in the survey. Cm. Schaub asked if the number will be the same but not higher. Mr. Galloway stated the surveyor was there all day and he was sure he got the peak time period. Cm. Schaub stated he is familiar with Queing theory and he agreed with Omni Means that, at 90% of capacity, it is starting to degrade which is standard. He stated the survey indicated that, because of the small area of the proposed project, that 95% would be considered starting to gridlock. He asked why Mr. Galloway picked 95%. Mr. Galloway answered because of the size of the lot. He stated that, when they designed for 90% capacity, those are for very large parking lots. You can pull into the lot and within a couple turns you can see the entire lot and it was their thinking to allow an additional 5% given the availability of the on-street parking and the ability to see the lot. Cm. Schaub felt the on-street parking cannot be seen and the south parking cannot be seen either. Mr. Galloway stated that if you are driving to the site you can see if there are available spaces on the street, but once the vehicle is on-site they can determine what the capacity is and whatever way they enter the parking lot they can still see the spaces. Cm. Schaub felt it would be the opposite, because the cars are stopped waiting for a space, the other cars can't do anything until that car is done. Cm. Schaub asked to display on the screen an Excel chart that he prepared. Mr. Galloway stated that one of the reasons the traffic engineer had them survey the Montessori site is because it is a very successful daycare/preschool and felt that would be a good representation of a new daycare center. He stated the study is mimicking the peak demand of the center in the study. He pointed out the proposed preschool may not have the same peaks, at the same time. He stated the survey does not include any type of carpool or families with multiple children other than what was counted at the Montessori school. He stated their theoretical mean of 17 spaces is very conservative. Cm. Schaub stated that 17 spaces is the code requirement for a daycare center. PCcannintg Commission 'August 14,2012 (Regular 85 Chair Wehrenberg felt that the conditions at this proposed school would be different and asked if the traffic study would address the issue of traffic leaving the site and trying to go to the far left lane to make a U-turn to travel south onto Village Parkway. She felt this causes a back-up within the center. Mr. Galloway responded that the Traffic Engineer did not request that they look at operational trip generation characteristics of the project. He stated that in general Chair Wehrenberg was correct; the driveway is close to the intersection and a left would not be an easy move when traffic is congested, but felt that would be true of any type of driveway. Chair Wehrenberg responded that other sites tended to have a longer driveway where the drivers would not impact the parking, but in this center it does impact the congestion. Mr. Galloway agreed but felt a lot of people park for convenience and know which way they will be leaving, so they would park in that direction and after a while people using the site know what to expect and plan accordingly. Cm. Schaub felt that the parking lot at the Montessori school is totally different than the proposed parking lot. He stated the Montessori school is on a dead-end street with a much bigger lot and on a street that is not well traveled. Cm. Schaub shared a chart that he created from the information in the parking study. He started by asking "what if" 90% was the point at which deterioration began. He visited the site and found that there were never more than 4 spaces available when using all 10 spaces, 2 on the dirt and 5 on the street. During his visit he found that, after removing 3 cars from the equation, the center was impacted with 90% utilization at 10 a.m. which accounts for the entire day. He was concerned with the congestion in the center and getting the children to and from the daycare center through the retail center. He asked Mr. Galloway's opinion regarding what the center will be like when there are 60 kids in cars being dropped off and the lot is full. Mr. Galloway felt the lot was not unlike any other typical school when all the parents come to drop off at the same time, with a 15-20 minute period to drop off children. He stated that, with daycare centers, the parents typically do not drop off at the door and drive off. They park for 5- 10 minutes, walk the children in, then get back in the car and drive out of the lot. Cm. Schaub was concerned that there will be 60 cars all coming into the parking lot. He stated this is not a parking lot that flows through but they must go in and turn around. Mr. Galloway responded that this may not be the ideal site but he felt that there are many things that a private school can do to mitigate those factors, such as stagger the drop off and pick up to avoid the peak times when the retail center is busy. Chair Wehrenberg felt that would only work if the parents had staggered work hours. Mr. Galloway agreed but did not know the characteristics of this particular daycare center; it may be different than Montessori but felt there were things to do to mitigate those issues as a Conditions of Approval. Chair Wehrenberg asked if he felt the site will be impacted. P'lm ing Commission August'14, 2012 'Rc eider Meet np 86 Mr. Galloway responded that currently patrons park in the center wherever they want, but if the parking spots were designated as daycare center parking only, the patrons will park in the retail center parking, on the street, or take their business elsewhere. Cm. Schaub asked him to explain his proposed recommendations that the cut-thru traffic will be reduced. He felt the area would definitely get any busier. Mr. Galloway agreed it would be busier with the day care center. He stated the daycare center would act as a natural traffic-calming measure. He felt that the people who would use the area as cut-thru might not because of the presence of the daycare center. Cm. Schaub asked about the recommendation that stated they "envisioned a reciprocal parking agreement with a retail center." He asked if he was referring to the existing retail center or another one. Mr. Galloway responded he was referring to the existing retail center. He stated the traffic engineer had made that recommendation and also recommended that the preschool spaces should be designated during certain times of the day. He stated he did not realize there were two separate parcels, but did not feel it would make a difference. Cm. Schaub agreed that the two separate parcels did not make a difference in the parking issue. Mr. Galloway felt that the daycare center spaces should be designated as daycare center only. He stated he was not familiar with the 2005 traffic study but the retail center is currently over their on-site demand for parking. Cm. Schaub stated the Planning Commission knew that in 2005, which is why they denied it. He thanked Mr. Galloway and stated that in this type of parking lot being off by 10% is a concern. Mr. Galloway stated that a lot of people can confuse parking demand with traffic generation. He stated that peak parking demand can occur anytime during the course of the day. He stated that the traffic manual for daycare trip generation for this site's building would generate 48 peak hour trips which would occur during the morning peak hours between 7 a.m.-9 a.m. and the evening peak period between 4 p.m. -6 p.m., but the parking demand can occur anytime during the day. Chair Wehrenberg asked, since there was a gas station on the site previously, had there been any negative impacts identified for the daycare center in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) regarding the removal of the gas tanks. Ms. Delgado answered that she was not aware of any impacts. Cm. Schaub asked, if the project is approved, how the construction of the project will go. He asked where will the workers park and how the parking will be configured during the construction. Ms. Delgado answered that she did not know at this time. 4) nniral Commission Aiviat 14,2012 YRcga:fzr i'b$eeteaul 87 Cm. Brown asked if there had been an analysis in the EIR of the air quality from the traffic on Amador Valley Blvd and Village Parkway. Stephen Muzio, City Attorney, responded that, in regards to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance, those reviews look at the impact on the environment of the proposed project only not the air quality. Chair Wehrenberg asked if the review would look at the impact of air quality on a playground being in close proximity to a heavily traveled intersection. Mr. Muzio stated that would not be part of a CEQA review. Chair Wehrenberg stated that when the site was originally reviewed it was for an office building and that's why the CEQA was approved. Chair Wehrenberg stated that, as Planning Commissioners, they must look at not only land use but must review safety and the appropriate land use. Chair Wehrenberg open the public hearing. Ginger Li, Applicant, spoke in favor of the project and thanked the Commission for their time. She spoke of her experience with schools in Fremont, Palo Alto and San Jose. She stated some of the students in Fremont actually live in Dublin. She felt Dublin requires more parking than at her Palo Alto school which is on El Camino Real and has 118 students with only 11 parking spaces. She stated her school in Fremont has 120 children with 13 parking spaces; San Jose school with 80 children and 10 parking spaces. She felt that a preschool is not like an elementary school where all the children must be there at the same time. She stated that with a preschool the parents drop off their children between 7:30am and 9:30am which only takes 3-5 minutes. She stated with 60 students that would take approximately 25 minutes and they have two hours which is enough. She felt that parking is not a problem and that 17 parking spaces are more than any other city. She stated that she had spoken with the owner of the retail center to work out the parking issue. She stated that they agreed that the retail center could use her parking lot on nights and weekends and he seemed happy with that arrangement. She stated she wanted to be a good neighbor. She stated they will label the parking spaces for the preschool only but they will be welcome to use the parking lot when the daycare center is closed. Cm. Schaub asked the name of the owner of the retail center that she met with. Ms. Li stated it was originally Robert Enea who sold the property to someone else but could not recall his name. She stated she wanted to avoid any difficulties. Cm. Schaub asked if she had a shared parking agreement with the owner of the retail center. Ms. Li answered that the shared parking agreement is not a formal agreement. She thanked the Commission and felt the project will be a nice school. Chair Wehrenberg asked what made her decide to choose this property in Dublin. iPLthninw Cornmissiorc 88 pp ;august 14,2012 °' �3 ' 1ear 2vIoeting Ms. Li answered that she liked to build from scratch and in Dublin it was hard to find a piece of land. She did not want to renovate a building. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked why she picked the downtown area. Ms. Li answered the downtown area is near the freeway which is convenient for the parents. Chair Wehrenberg asked if her other sites, with limited parking, are adjacent to retail centers where there they must share parking with other businesses. Ms. Li answered that one site in San Mateo is shared with a large grocery store. She felt that Dublin requires more parking than any other city she has worked with and has confidence that it will work. Cm. Schaub asked if she will be the owner of the building and will be renting it to the school. Ms. Li answered that she is partnering with other people to run the school and she has a degree in early childhood education with a master's degree from Mills College. Cm. Schaub stated she is buying the land from the bank and that the land was inexpensive because it was in foreclosure. Ms. Li disagreed and stated the bank actually increased the price of the land because of the time it took to process her permit. Cm. Schaub felt that there have been many comments that Dublin's Parking Ordinance is too strict, but they have just spent an hour talking about the parking issue for this project. He felt that, if the Commission had been able to require the number of parking spaces that they wanted when the retail center project was denied, they would not be having this discussion now. He was concerned that the Applicant was not listening to the discussion. Cm. Brown asked if the 5 employees are all teachers and aides and remain with the children in the classroom and during recess outside in the playground. Ms. Li answered yes. She stated that their programs are: half-day from 9am —noon; whole day from 7:30am — 6:00pm, and preschool day 9:OOpm-3:30pm. She stated that the pick-up times range from noon-6:OOpm. These are very staggered due to the nature of the program. Cm. Brown repeated the times of the programs for clarification. Ms. Li agreed and stated that the parents normally drop off the children between 7:30am and 9:30am. Cm. Brown asked about the age range of the children. Ms. Li answered that the children would range from 2 to 5 years old. Cm. Brown asked if the ages are in all 3 programs. Ms. Li answered yes. c1''antFi:uj;'orr mission August 14,2012 '1?eg ular 9teeting 89 Cm. Brown asked what she felt were the peak times when you would expect most children to be dropped off and picked up. Ms. Li answered that the peak times would be between 8:00 a.m. and 9:30 a.m. She stated there are not too many drop offs between 7:30 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. Cm. Brown asked about peak time at pick-up time. Ms. Li answered the pick-up time ranges from noon — 6:00 p.m. and is staggered throughout the afternoon. Cm. Schaub asked if 3:30 is when school day is over but if the parents work then the drop-off and pick-up time would be 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. which would be considered a full day. Cm. Brown asked how many children are in each of the 3 programs. Ms. Li answered they don't break down the number, but the maximum is 60 children in the morning. She stated that they don't have many children in the afternoon. Cm. Brown asked if the maximum of 60 children are present between 7:30 and noon. Ms. Li answered yes. Bill Wood, William Wood Architects, spoke in favor of the project. He stated he worked with several day care centers and ones that are near retail centers end up using the retail services at the same time as the daycare center. He stated he worked with Mr. Enea on the office building that originally had 22 parking spaces and 32 for the retail center which comes to 54 spaces. He stated that when the project changed to a daycare center, the parking spaces went to 17 which left a total of 49. When the on-street parking was added it was brought up to 60. He stated the needed parking for Starbucks retail center is actually at peak at 39 not 32, plus the 17 for the daycare center which makes 56 and with the on-street parking you end up with 60 spaces. He felt that the parking should be covered by a 6-7% surplus beyond that at peak times. He felt the nature of the daycare center building is a more friendly type of use at a one story building, it is 5 feet lower, and to address the noise they tried to keep children away from the residential area by putting the office on that side. He stated he met with the neighbors and worked with staff and the property owner on the site plan. He stated there is a front entrance and back entrance for as much flexibility as possible. He stated the building is also smaller than the office building. Cm. Schaub stated that the Commission had assumed the parking for the office building would be underneath the building when originally reviewed. Mr. Wood responded the original owner had discussed putting storage under the building but he was not aware of any underground parking. He stated the building was approved with surface parking. Cm. Schaub stated he likes the building and the layout, but he was concerned with the parking issue. 31ant ing :umn nssion August 14,2012 wgiu a,‘Vteetinq 90 Mr. Wood made a suggestion to make more parking on-site, requiring the employees to park on the street or issuing a parking permit to the employees to park on the street. Cm. Schaub felt that parking is a problem when the site gets close to capacity. He stated that the demand is unknown at the time of approval and if the business becomes successful then there could be problems. Mr. Wood felt the success will take care of itself, but if there are many people who want to frequent the business and can't find a place to park they go somewhere else, but the business has met their capacity. Cm. Schaub felt the facility is on the edge. Mr. Wood felt it was a good choice to have the compact spaces as employee parking and leave the larger spaces for others. Cm. Brown asked about the design of the fencing between the parking lot and the children's playground. He was concerned with the safety of the children if someone hit the gas pedal instead of the brakes. He asked if there are bollards on the outside of the fence. Mr. Wood answered that bollards could be integrated into the design of the fence to protect the children. Chair Wehrenberg asked if there was a way to use landscaping around the playground to minimize the pollution from the nearby traffic. Mr. Wood answered there is landscaping around the perimeter of all the fencing on the project to maintain separation between the play area and the parking area. He suggested they could increase the landscaping visually and create a barrier. Cm. Bhuthimethee liked the building but wished there was more in the Specific Plan to give the entire district more character and identity. She asked if the storm water bio-retention area on Amador Valley Blvd could be moved back. She stated it was against the sidewalk on Amador Valley which is the sidewalk leading to the building. She was concerned with a 6 inch drop-off for the free-board, but if the area was landscaped there would be no drop-off. She asked if the area for the storm water could be backed up to eliminate the drop-off on the sidewalk. Mr. Wood stated it could. Cm. Bhuthimethee stated on sheet 2 of 3 of the Grading and Drainage Plan there is a sidewalk that goes from Amador Valley Blvd to the building and then to the east of the sidewalk is the bio- retention area which is adjacent to the sidewalk on Amador Valley and the sidewalk leading to the building. She was concerned with people falling off. Mr. Wood asked if they could move it back adjacent to the office of the building and fence it off. Cm. Bhuthimethee did not feel it should be fenced off but asked that they move it back. Mr. Baker suggested the Applicant could work with Public Works to ensure that the project meets all the requirements and not cause any unintended consequence that we don't see here. {;fsnning('imams's-ion „4-4,114.0 .14,2012 gFaf&r:Meeting 91 Chair Wehrenberg closed the public hearing. Cm. Bhuthimethee was in support of the project. She felt that the project would add to the vibrancy of the Downtown area; it is convenient for the parents who also want the project; the property owners are working with each other; the community wants it and staff is recommending it. They meet the parking code requirements, the parking counts have been confirmed by the traffic consultant and the architecture meets DDSP requirements. She felt the daycare center should not be punished for the success of Starbucks. She stated she could make all the findings. Cm. Schaub asked which findings she could make. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked which findings he was referring to. Cm. Schaub responded he was referring to safety, circulation and compatibility of use which he felt are the overriding findings that must be made. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that, as the traffic consultant stated, this daycare center is not different from any other school or more dangerous than any other parking lot. She felt since he is an expert the Commission should listen to him. She also felt the applicant has stated that in her other successful projects she had less parking with no problems. She felt that if we want businesses to come to our City and serve the community the Commission must allow them to; especially when they meet all the codes and requirements. Cm. Schaub stated he cannot make the findings on safety, circulation and compatibility. He felt it was not healthy for the children; the circulation is impossible and felt it will get worse. He did not feel a daycare center is compatible with this parcel and stated he could not make those three important findings on behalf of the residents. Cm. Brown stated he specifically looked at the findings which are divided into several points, and if one point of the finding cannot be made then none of the findings can be made. He felt there are mitigations that can be worked out between the developer and Staff. He suggested making the staggered drop-off times and pick-up times a Condition of Approval. Cm. Schaub felt that Conditions of Approval could not be relied upon. Chair Wehrenberg stated that in the past the Commission has required staggered drop-off and pick-up times to try to mitigate the problem. Cm. Brown stated there is a shopping center across Amador Valley Blvd with a large parking lot, and suggested a van could meet the children there and bring them to the daycare. Stephen Muzio, City Attorney, stated the scope of the Planning Commission's decision relates to the Applicant's use, the layout of the subject property and if the 17 proposed parking spaces are adequate for the daycare center's use. Chair Wehrenberg understood but stated Finding A under the Conditional Use Permit states "a parking study was conducted and concluded that adequate parking would be available for the 12 nning('ornpztssion August 14,2012 ltgg:afar;Wet tng 92 project and adjacent retail center." She stated she understood the site is two parcels but in reading the finding it suggests that they are looking at both parcels. Cm. Schaub felt the issue of circulation is not that they have the number of spaces but are they appropriately spaced and accessible. He felt that was different than 17 spaces in a row. Chair Wehrenberg felt the project meets the code requirement of 17 spaces. Cm. Brown asked Mr. Muzio if it is improper to discuss mitigations. Mr. Muzio answered no; he stated that to the extent that Cm. Brown was proposing that spaces across the street be utilized for the daycare center. Cm. Brown stated he was not suggesting utilizing the parking lot across the street for the daycare center but as a mitigation, the children could be picked up from another location across the street. He stated, under the Conditional Use Permit, he cannot the make Finding A, #2 and #3. He stated he cannot make Finding B, #1 & #2; he cannot make Finding E, #2; he cannot make Finding F, #2. He stated under the Site Development Review he cannot make Finding A4, D2, F3 or F6 and cannot make Finding H at all. Chair Wehrenberg agreed with Cm. Brown, and stated that she could not make the findings. She felt the building is fine, met the codes and she agrees that they want new businesses in Downtown Dublin. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that no one from the community has responded with negative comments regarding this project. She felt this was a good sign. Cm. Schaub felt it is the Planning Commission's job to represent the residents. He felt that the residents would have no idea what would happen at the hearing based on the notice that was distributed, which is the nature of notices in general. Mr. Baker asked Cm. Schaub for clarification regarding the notice. He stated the notice indicated that the Planning Commission would consider a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review for a daycare center at this location. Cm. Schaub responded the notice didn't indicate there would be parking spaces taken away from the area. He felt the notice does not make it clear that businesses could be impacted because of the parking issue. He felt that people do not attend the meeting because they don't understand what the implications are. He stated that just because the patrons of the businesses or the future parents of the daycare center, who don't understand that the project will be congested and unsafe, are not at the meeting doesn't mean the Commission doesn't represent them. Chair Wehrenberg stated that when the original project was brought before the Commission they struggled with the same discussion. She stated the Commission reviews land use as retail and does not take into consideration if it is a Starbucks; they look at what is being proposed. She felt with an office building they understand how people will park. She was concerned if this site is appropriate for a daycare center. She was concerned with adding more impact to an area that is close to 3 other schools. She would like to see the parcel built out rather than an empty lot, but was unsure what type of use would be best for the site. x;inmg Cower,siorn At w-c 14 2012 Regular qteeting 93 Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that if the Applicant thought the project would not work or be successful, they would have saved their money and time and not submitted the application. She also felt that if we keep allowing for cars and parking the City would be catering to the auto and Dublin would become more sprawling, and felt that density is about allowing businesses to come into Dublin. Cm. Schaub felt that is not what is before the Planning Commission. He felt the findings of safety, circulation and compatibility are the issues before the Commission. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that is how downtown areas are. She stated the City is trying to create density in the Downtown. She felt that the Downtown Dublin Specific, Plan allows for new density and the Applicant meets all the requirements. Cm. Schaub responded the Commission is reviewing zoning codes, density and traffic and the safety of children. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt the Applicant meets all those requirements. Chair Wehrenberg stated that if the Commission was to deny the project and it is appealed to the City Council she would like to have additional Conditions of Approval added regarding marked parking spaces and signage designating those spaces to the daycare center which could minimize impact to the center. She also wanted to see a shared parking agreement with the adjacent business owners. She was also concerned about access for emergency vehicles and suggested some red zones in the area need to be repainted. She agreed with Cm. Brown that she cannot make the findings. Mr. Muzio felt there was likely to be a motion to deny the CUP/SDR and in order to assist Staff in preparing a revised resolution, he asked if the Commissioners would agree that the items addressed by Cm. Brown should be the basis for denial. Cm. Schaub agreed with Cm. Brown that he cannot make the findings. Mr. Muzio stated that, in order to adopt a resolution denying the CUP/SDR, Staff would take the findings and make negative statements for the items that Cm. Brown mentioned. For example the Commission's findings would be that the project would not be accessible to traffic, etc. Cm. Schaub asked Cm. Brown if any of his findings he could not make included an unhealthy environment for the children. He felt it was unhealthy for the children to be playing next to the parking lot. Cm. Brown stated air quality was not among the findings. Cm. Schaub asked that air quality be added to the resolution stating they cannot make those findings and findings that the project is not an area conducive for children to play outside adjacent to idling cars in the parking lot. He is concerned about air quality. Chair Wehrenberg stated one of the findings is health and safety and air quality would fall into that category. She was concerned with traffic at the daycare center and the parking lot configuration. Planning('on unisrion ,august 14,2012 Rcgutar Meeting 94 Cm. Brown asked if the project can be continued. Chair Wehrenberg asked Cm. Brown what he would like to study further that would allow the project to be continued. Cm. Brown responded he would like to see if there are mitigations that could be added that would improve the situation. He mentioned the enforcement issue for the parking lot. Cm. Schaub felt there was no enforcement issue. He stated the only recourse is to put signs up and if people don't abide by the signs the cars must be towed and he felt there was no room for a tow truck. Chair Wehrenberg felt that in the beginning of the operation there would need to be local enforcement there. Cm. Brown asked if Chair Wehrenberg felt that continuation is not an option. Chair Wehrenberg did not feel there would be a benefit to a continuation. She stated if the Commission denies the project and the Applicant appeals the decision, it would go on to the City Council. Mr. Baker answered yes; if the Commission denies the project there would be a 10-day appeal period in which the Applicant can appeal their decision and then it would be heard by the City Council. He continued if there is a motion for denial, based on what the City Attorney mentioned, the resolution would be based on the negative findings as discussed in the prior conversation. On a motion by Cm. Schaub, the Planning Commission recommend denial of the resolution based on the inability to make the findings referenced by Cm. Brown for both the Conditional Use Permit and the Site Development Review, seconded by Cm. Brown, on a vote of 3-1, with Vice Chair O'Keefe being absent, the Planning Commission denied: Brown, Wehrenberg, Schaub — yes Bhuthimethee — no RESOLUTION NO. 12-31 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DENYING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE DEVELOPOMENT REVIEW PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A DAY CARE CENTER AT 7250 AMADOR VALLEY BIVD (APN 941-0210-035) PLPA-2011-00055 & 00056 Mr. Baker asked Mr. Muzio if he felt he had the information he needed to move forward with the resolution. o..timing Commission „lug tat 14,2012 ;Re, #fu7`Meeting 95 Mr. Muzio answered yes but in certain cases with respect to specific items Staff may need to create a negative statement of finding. Mr. Baker mentioned that there is a 10-day appeal period in which the Applicant can appeal the Planning Commission's decision. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS — NONE OTHER BUSINESS - NONE 10.1 Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from the Planning Commission and/or Staff, including Committee Reports and Reports by the Planning Commission related to meetings attended at City Expense (AB 1234). 10.2 Retirement party of Jeri Ram — on Thursday, August 30 10.3 Nothing on the agenda for 8-28 but full agenda in September. ADJOURNMENT — The meeting was adjourned at 9:01:34 PM Respectfully submitted, c.-"\-)--)192.0 i Doreen Wehrenberg Planning Commission ATTEST: .i7 r f Jeff Baker Assistant Community Development Director G:IMINUTES120121PLANNING COMMISSIOM08.14.12 DRAFT PC MINUTES.docx q'Gtrr:iin,) f,'crnmassiax :August 14,2012 4(cquet4r,g1'eting 96