Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-24-2013 PC Minutes �,9 . Planning Commission Minutes AP Tuesday, September 24, 2013 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, September 24, 2013, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair O'Keefe called the meeting to order at 7:00:27 PM Present: Chair O'Keefe; Vice Chair Bhuthimethee; Commissioners Do, Goel and Kohli; Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director; Kit Faubion, Assistant City Attorney; Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner; Seth Adams, Assistant Planner; Roger Bradley, Assistant to the City Manager; Martha Aja, Environmental Coordinator; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. Absent: None ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA — Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director, recommended, since there were many people in the audience, that Item 5.2, Brown Act Overview by Kit Faubion, Assistant City Attorney, be received after the Public Hearings. The Planning Commission agreed. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS — On a motion by Cm. Goel and seconded by Chair O'Keefe, on a vote of 4-0 (Cm. Do abstained having been absent from that meeting), the Planning Commission approved the minutes of the September 10, 2013 meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS — 5.1 At this time, members of the public may address the Planning Commission on any non-agendized item(s) of interest to the public. In accordance with State Law, no action or discussion may take place on any item not appearing on the Planning Commission agenda. The Planning Commission may respond briefly to statements made or questions posed, or may request Staff to report back at a future meeting concerning the matter. Any member of the public may contact the Assistant Community Development Director regarding proper procedure to place an item on a future Planning Commission agenda. 5.2 Brown Act Overview by Kit Faubion, Assistant City Attorney. CONSENT CALENDAR — 6.1 Determination of conformity with the City of Dublin General Plan for Union Pacific Right of Way Acquisition (Parcel B). On a motion by Chair O'Keefe and seconded by Cm. Bhuthimethee, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 13-28 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION (PlumingConrrassswre September 24 2013 `gur r!Meeting 111 i 41 age OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN FINDING THE PROPOSED ACQUISITION OF UNION PACIFIC RIGHT OF WAY PARCEL B TO BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS — NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS — 8.1 PLPA-2013-00028 Crosspoint Church Conditional Use Permit for a Community Facility (Place of Worship) to offer life and church ministry training classes at 4288 Dublin Boulevard, Suite 221. Seth Adams, Assistant Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Goel asked what time of year the parking survey was conducted. Mr. Adams answered that the parking survey was conducted approximately 1 month ago, during the summer. Cm. Goel asked what the parking requirements would be for a business as opposed to a place of worship. Cm. Adams answered that the parking standards for a retail business would be 1 parking space per 300 sf, and for an office the standard is 1 space per 250 sf. Cm. Goel asked if this project, as a place of worship, would have a more dense parking requirement than a retail business. Mr. Adams answered yes; the parking requirement of 1 parking space per 50 sf is very parking intensive. He stated that, based on class and meeting sizes that are expected, this parking standard is the most appropriate. Cm. Goel asked what the vacancy rate is for the center. Mr. Adams answered that there is a list of tenants on the first page of the project plans, but felt that the Applicant could answer the question more accurately. Cm. Goel was concerned with how many more businesses will be coming to the center and wanted to evaluate the final parking availability. Mr. Adams responded that, if one of the vacant spaces were to be proposed for a permitted-by- right use, such as a restaurant, the parking would be analyzed at the appropriate standard and if there was a shortage, they would address that issue through off-site parking or the business would not be permitted to locate at the center if the use does not meet the standard. Cm. Goel asked if, by approving this type of a project with such dense parking requirements, the Commission would be precluding the potential for other businesses, and who would take on the burden of the parking requirements for new businesses. .Pznntng Commission ,S`epternb'er24,2013 1kr,,,qu1rtr 21eettra 114 10)a g e Mr. Adams answered that, if there were a parking issue, the tenant and landlord would have to resolve it. Cm. Kohli asked if there is a list of potential tenants for this particular space now and asked if the Planning Commission should consider other tenants with a less dense parking requirement. Cm. Kohli asked if there are any other businesses that have applied for space at the center. Mr. Adams responded that there have been no applications for a conditionally permitted use and Staff is not aware of alternative businesses. He stated that, if a retail store wanted to occupy a suite, the parking would not present a problem. Mr. Baker directed the Commission to Attachment 1 which shows a list of tenants and 2 vacant tenant spaces, both of which are small and enough parking to accommodate those uses would be available. Cm. Kohli asked if there was any feedback from current occupants regarding this tenant becoming a part of the property. Mr. Adams answered that the tenants within the center received a notice for this hearing and Staff has not received any comments or inquiries. Mr. Baker mentioned that, since this is a public hearing, there may be someone in the audience who would like to speak regarding the project. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if "place of worship" is a use type, because the Staff Report mentions that holding worship services on the site is prohibited. Mr. Adams answered that the use type is "Community Facility" and within the Community Facility definition there are several sub-categories, one of which is a place of worship. He stated that the factor that is keeping the Applicants from conducting worship services on-site is the fire codes for assembly occupancy. He stated that the project does not meet fire codes for assembly and the Applicants are not proposing to hold services there because they need a larger space for worship services. Chair O'Keefe opened the public hearing. Abraham Chiu, Crosspoint Church, spoke in favor of the project. He stated they selected Dublin because it is centrally located and they want to serve the community and their members to develop life skills and improve their quality of life through their classes. He stated that their worship services are currently held at the Hilton Hotel in Pleasanton. Cm. Goel asked about the divider between Koi Gardens and their location and how that will impact the overall facility. Stephen Ng, Crosspoint Church, responded that the partition is to divide the area into two sections and their project is not related to Koi Gardens. Cm. Goel asked if the partition is a solid wall between the two spaces. Tian aiai Commulon c`qatetrafier 24,2013 .eju Cte r teeth 117 i 03 q e Mr. Ng responded that the partition is a solid, existing wall. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked what is meant by "worship team practice." Mr. Ng answered that the week before the Sunday service they hold a rehearsal for the service. The practices have 4-5 people, with no spectators, only the worship team is in attendance. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked why the Applicants picked Ulfert's Center in Dublin. Mr. Ng answered that they felt the location was strategic in that it is in close proximity to the community and the members of the community can easily locate them for support. He stated that they had very strong support from the management of the center who wanted to bring the spiritual element to the center. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if most of their congregation is located in Dublin. Mr. Ng answered that their congregation comes from the Tri-Valley area. The current size of their congregation is approximately 180 people, with two services conducted at the Hilton Hotel in Pleasanton on Sundays. Cm. Do asked if the services are conducted in English or Chinese. Mr. Ng answered that the leadership classes will be conducted in English; the ministry and other training will be in Cantonese or Chinese; but training for youth will be in English. Cm. Goel mentioned the pre-set schedule in the Staff Report and asked if they already use the schedule, if it is typical or tentative and will it change in the future. Mr. Ng answered that the schedule reflects when their students are available for trainings which is not around dinner or lunch time. Mr. Chiu felt that most training is after work, but the mother's group can be held during the day. He stated that they don't plan to have any classes during the peak hours. Chair O'Keefe closed the public hearing. Chair O'Keefe asked if the Planning Commission wanted to further discuss other uses and how that would impact future businesses. Cm. Kohli felt that Cm. Goel brought up a good point but also felt the Commission needs to consider whether the Commission is in a position to decide what types of establishments can locate at the center and how long they can keep a space vacant while waiting for, what they believe, is the right type of establishment. He felt that the Commission should take into consideration how this project will impact parking and the parking for future businesses at the center. Cm. Goel was concerned with how this business's parking requirement will impact future businesses when Ulfert's Center is at full capacity. He also felt that the center management should make their own decisions regarding which businesses are right for the center. Tanning cam mission Septern6er 24,2013 Aegi rtr'Meeting 116 ; a e Mr. Baker stated that the parking calculation shows a surplus of 12 spaces per the code and that makes the assumption that the vacant spaces will be retail. He continued that if a restaurant were to come in, which is a more intense parking requirement, and based on the numbers, there would be room for one or two restaurants. He stated that restaurants are parked at 1/150sf of seating area and 1/300sf for the back shop (kitchen, bathrooms, etc.). He stated that parking for such a use would need to be evaluated and it is likely there would be enough parking to support a restaurant. Cm. Goel asked if the two vacant spots in the center are part of the parking space calculation. Mr. Adams answered yes, and stated that they were parked at retail space standard of 1/300sf. Cm. Do asked if the Bank of America is included in the parking calculations of Ulfert's Center. Mr. Adams answered no; they are a separate property with their own parking lot. Cm Kohli felt that this is a good project and that any business that is focused on bettering the community and include opportunities for spirituality, is positive. He welcomed the Applicant to the community and stated that he can make the findings. Cm. Bhuthimethee stated that she had some of the same concerns and appreciated the discussion regarding the parking situation. She agreed with Cm. Kohli regarding keeping the use type open. She felt that, with the support from management and the local congregation, the project is appropriate for the center. She stated that she is in support of the project and can make the findings. Cm. Do stated that she can make the findings. Cm. Goel stated that he appreciated the clarifications and information and felt that the project is a good asset for the community and the shopping center. He stated that he can make the findings. Chair O'Keefe felt that the project adds to the community and thanked the Commissioners for bringing up good points regarding the parking situation. On a motion by Cm. Goel and seconded by Cm. Do, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 13-29 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A COMMUNITY FACILITY (PLACE OF WORSHIP) AT 4288 DUBLIN BOULEVARD, SUITE 221 (CROSSPOINT CHURCH) 8.2 City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update (CAP Update) and Negative Declaration. Planning t.or;rr anion Septernfier 24,201 rqu1ar*leering 117 12'a g e Martha Aja, Environmental Coordinator, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Kohli mentioned the letter from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and asked for clarification on addressing issues brought up in the letter. He mentioned Page 1, 4th paragraph; the City's goal is to reduce emissions to 15% below 2010 levels by 2020 but AB32 calls on local jurisdictions to reduce emissions to 15% below 2008 levels. He asked how the City is addressing this particular comment. Ms. Aja answered that Staff worked with the consultant firm PMC who developed an errata which indicates changes that will be made to the document after it has been adopted. She stated that one of the proposed changes is to include additional discussion on how the 2010 baseline is consistent with 2008. She referred the Commission to Exhibit A to Attachment 1, page 3, where a table shows that the emission indicators in 2008 are consistent with the emission indicators in 2010. Cm. Kohli asked if Staff believes that the errata are consistent with a quantitative explanation. Ms. Aja answered yes and stated that Staff met with BAAQMD during the comment period and discussed the subject. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked about the Negative Declaration where it asked the question, "does this impact pollution" with an answer of "NI" or "no impact" but felt that there are impacts but in a positive way because there will be less pollution. Ms. Aja responded that "no impact" is the best you can have, but there is no category for positive impact. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked what the citizens of Dublin can do to take part in the Climate Action Plan. Ms. Aja stated that the document was originally assembled to assess developments so they would not have to create environmental documents to address GHG emissions. She stated there is a lot that individuals can do to decrease emissions. They are not noted in the document but they can choose to bike, or live close to BART and take BART instead of drive. She stated there are many choices people can make that will reduce emissions. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if there was a friendlier way to encourage citizens to do their part. Ms. Aja responded that the subject is addressed in the letter from the mayor. Kit Faubion, Assistant City Attorney, stated that there are things that the citizens can do but this document focuses on measures that can be quantified and citizen actions cannot be quantified. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if there could be a provision in the CAP for bicycle racks on Tenant Improvement projects. She stated that she tries to ride her bike around town on the weekends and many of the areas that she visits do not have bike racks. Ms. Aja responded that there is a requirement that all new development must provide bike racks, but there is no requirement for Tenant Improvements. (Planning Cowmusion .$eptern5er24,201.:3 eguuzr1rfeetsrzg 118 i q'a g e Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if there was a way to ask property owners or Applicants to install bike racks when doing Tenant Improvements. Ms. Aja responded that the City is in the process of updating the Bikeways Master Plan and offered to check if bike racks are addressed in the document. Mr. Baker stated that bike parking will be addressed in the Bikeways Master Plan and there are also changes in the Building Code with requirements for bike parking. He stated that this should be an increase in the number of required bicycle racks and lockers and may tie into Tenant Improvement projects. Cm. Goel asked how the City's proposal to use the 2005 baseline compared to the 2010 baseline effects the tables provided in the revision on Page 21, Tables 8 and 9. Ms. Aja stated that there was a lot missing from the 2005 inventory that is now accounted for. She stated that the methodology has changed in the last five years. She pointed out Appendix B which shows a discussion comparing how the 2010 inventory relates to 2005 if things that were present in 2005, but were not. Cm. Goel stated that regardless of whether the City wanted to adopt the 2005 baseline or the 2010 baseline, the clarifiers were still necessary to make the benchmark for 2020 achievable. He asked about the data analysis and comparison between the 2005 and 2010 inventories. He asked what is being changed. Roger Bradley, Assistant to the City Manager, responded that the original inventory, which was done in 2005, was larger compared to this inventory; therefore, if the 2005 inventory were used we would show a 50% reduction of GHG. The data analysis has improved significantly since 2005 therefore, Staff felt that it was a much clearer approach to use 2010 numbers because it shows the actual impact that has been happening and does not overestimate the reductions that have taken place. Cm. Goel felt that the 2005 showed an overaggressive calculation at the end, whereas this is a more realistic approach and ends up with a more accurate interpretation of a reduction. Cm. Goel referred to the BAAQMD letter that mentions the TDM and the VMT, but within the errata it lightly addresses it and asked Ms. Aja to explain. He referred the Commission to Page 2 of the letter, bullets 4 and 5; 4 is the parking policies and 5 is the overall TDM. Ms. Aja asked if those are the new measures being proposed by BAAQMD. Cm. Goel answered yes. Ms. Aja responded that for the measures that were recommended to be added, the strategy was to only mention the things that the City is actually doing and programs that have been funded. She stated that a lot of other Climate Action Plans tend to be more fluffy and include measures that are hoped for someday, but the City has taken a more pragmatic approach when there is funding to achieve the policy it will be included in the CAP. She stated that there are a variety of items that the City is constantly evaluating and when new programs are implemented, they will be included. She stated that there was a recent Assembly Bill that was passed that will require all large employers in Bay Area to provide certain commuter benefits, if they have more than 50 ,Planning Commission September 2,1,2013. ,Xegufar'Meeting 119 I ';;s a employees. She stated that the City has reached out to the large employers in Dublin and have been educating them on the new requirements. The large employers will be required to add commuter benefit program to address that legislation. Cm. Goel asked if the new legislation was written into the CAP or will it be automatically adopted as part of the Assembly Bill. Ms. Aja answered that it is automatically adopted as part of the Assembly Bill. She stated that it is a pilot program in the Bay Area and if successful, it will be expanded to the entire state. Cm. Goel asked about parking measures. Ms. Aja responded that the parking measures that were requested are for "parking price " to encourage people to drive less, but these measures have not been done within the City and Staff is not recommending new measures to the CAP at this time. Cm. Goel asked if there were any adverse implications by not addressing the parking concern. Ms. Aja answered that Staff does not feel that there has been any adverse reactions and Staff has consulted with the City Attorney. The City is meeting reduction targets and Staff is anticipating that the emissions will be reduced by over 100,000 metric tons/year. She stated that the advantage of a re-inventory of emissions every 5 years is that if 5 years in the future it appears that the City is short of the reduction target then new measures can be included to help reach the target. Cm. Goel asked Ms. Aja to clarify BAAQMD's concern regarding the overall VMT for transit- oriented development (Appendix D) and how it is addressed. Ms. Aja responded that essentially they wanted the City to show how they arrived at their assumptions. Staff spoke with the City Attorney and the information was made available, but incorporating that data would not change the material impact of the document. It was also costly and time consuming to make that change. Cm. Goel felt that the concern was an interpretation of calculations and whether the submission was the way BAAQMD wanted to proceed. Ms. Aja stated that is correct. Cm. Kohli stated that he liked that the BAAQMD is being aggressive and felt it is good that the City is considering their suggestions. He felt that the City is projected to make an impact with proposed changes but felt there was an opportunity to do more and encouraged Staff to work with Commissions and City Council to see what more can be done, keeping the community in mind and how they can take part. Chair O'Keefe opened the public hearing and seeing no one to speak, closed the public hearing. Cm. Goel expressed his gratitude to Staff for their work to address the BAAQMD's concerns and to include the appropriate actions in the CAP. He felt that the targets will be met and exceeded. Chair O'Keefe thanked Staff and felt it is the right thing to do. Planning Commission Septeinfier 24,2013 ;gulrar&'4eeting 120 i 2'a g e Cm. Bhuthimethee also thanked Staff. Cm. Kohli also thanked Staff. On a motion by Chair O'Keefe and seconded by Cm. Kohli, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 13- 30 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE CITY OF DUBLIN CLIMATE ACTION PLAN UPDATE RESOLUTION NO. 13- 31 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN CLIMATE ACTION PLAN UPDATE ORAL COMMUNICATIONS — 5.3 Brown Act Overview by Kit Faubion, Assistant City Attorney. Kit Faubion, Assistant City Attorney, presented an overview of the Brown Act which included a discussion of ex-parte communications and transparency in meetings, including the risk of "daisy chain" meetings and email chains. 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 Chair O'Keefe asked about the progress for the Downtown Dublin freeway facing sign. Mr. Baker answered that the Applicant is moving forward; they have indicated that they are sold out; their permit has been issued but construction has not started. He mentioned that the adjacent pad building is under construction and the owner has signed their tenants; Freebird's and Habit Burger. ADJOURNMENT — The meeting was adjourned at 8:34:22 PM 4-&nning Conatnistion September 24,2013 .?yularMeeting 121 I ,T a ur e Respe -fully submitted, fling Commission Chair ATTEST: Jeff Ba Assistant Community Development Director GAMINUTESI20131PLANNING COMMISSIONI09.24.13 FINAL PC MINUTES(CF).doc Aintung Commission September 24,2013 ,kegu far lleeting 122 I P g e