HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.4 MunicipalCodeAmend (2)
~
.....
.
.
CITY OF DUBLIN
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA STATEMENT
Meeting Date: February 10, 1992
SUBJECT:
Public Hearinq PA 91-067 Dublin Municipal
Ordinance Amendment Management Audit
~(j~Maureen O'Halloran, Senior Planner
1) Open public hearing and hear Staff
presentation.
Take testimony from the public.
Question Staff and the public.
Close public hearing and deliberate.
Adopt the Draft Resolution approving the
Negative Declaration (Exhibit B), waive
reading and introduce Ordinance
Amendment PA 91-067 (Exhibit A), or give
Staff direction and continue the matter.
REPORT PREPARED BY:
RECOMMENDATION:
11 f
~ ~~
4 )
5)
EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Exhibit A: Draft Ordinance Amendment
Management Audit
Exhibit B: Draft Resolution Negative
Declaration
Attachment 1: September 7, 1989 and
September 17, 1989 Joint
session Minutes
Attachment 2: Planning Commission Minutes
for September 16, 1991, and
November 4, 1991, and January
21, 1992
Attachment 3: Planning Commission
Resolutions recommending City
Council approval of Negative
Declaration and Draft
Ordinance Amendment
Attachment 4: Table of Proposed Changes to
Approval Authority
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
None
------~------------------~-----~
----------------------~------~-~-
ITEM NO. ~4
COPIES TO: Agenda/General File
Application File
Senior Planner
elT
FILE
,
.
.
.
DESCRIPTION:
Backqround
In July 1989, Hughes, Heiss & Associates completed a
Management Audit of the Planning Department which reviewed,
analyzed, and provided recommendation on various aspects of the
Planning Department including the Planning Department's
organization and staffing, and the processing of current planning
applications. On September 7, 1989, and September 17, 1989, the
City Council held joint sessions with the Planning Commission and
Staff to discuss the Management Audit and recommendations (see
Minutes, Attachment 1).
The primary direction from the Management Audit process was:
1. To establish a customer oriented philosophy.
2, To re-organize the Planning Department to include a
current Planning Division and an Advanced Planning
Division.
3. To streamline the Planning permit process.
4. To make it easier to obtain permits by granting Staff
authority to take action on certain types of permits
rather than limiting the permit action to the Planning
Commission and City Council. This means eliminating
the appeal period for certain low-profile routine
permits.
More specifically, the City Council provided the following
direction at the September 7, 1989, and September 17, 1989, City
Council meeting:
1) provide examples of Conditional Uses which could be
approved by the Zoning Administrator,
2) provide a list of Administrative Conditional Use Permit
type uses (this was in reference to the Management
Audit recommendation regarding "over-the-counter" staff
approval) which could be approved through a Zoning
Clearance process, and
3) provide Specific Conditions of Standard Criteria for
Zoning Clearance items.
4) the City Council's concurrence with the Management
Audit to allow Staff to approve parcel maps, and
5IJ,D61SRG
-2-
-
.
.
5) give Staff authority to act on minor amendments to
Planning Applications (i.e., previously approved
planning permits).
To date several of the Management Audit recommendations/City
Council direction have been implemented, such as the
establishment of the customer-oriented philosophy and re-
organization of the Department.
However, two Management Audit recommendations relating to
streamlining the permit process and making it easier to obtain
permits require amendments to the Zoning, Subdivision and
Administrative and Personnel chapters of the Dublin Municipal
Code:
1. Delegation of additional decision-making authority to Staff
and the Zoning Administrator. To implement this recommendation,
ordinance amendments are necessary to revise the Conditional Use
Permit process to designate the Zoning Administrator as the
decision-maker for certain uses and to re-designate certain types
of uses as uses requiring approval of an Administrative
Conditional Use Permit with the Planning Director as the
decision-maker. It is also necessary to amend the Administrative
Conditional Use Permit process by establishing a new process,
"Zoning Clearance," which designates the Planning Director as the
decision-maker.
2. MOdification of the Site Development Review (SDR) process to
clarify that the intent of the Site Development Review process is
also to assure conformance with various development standards
(i.e., setbacks, lot area, height) established in the Zoning
Ordinance.
Non-ordinance related recommendations to streamline and make
permits easier to obtain include:
1) Limiting the departmental review of minor/small Site
Development Review projects to review by only those
departments who need to review the project (Staff has
implemented this modification during the last two years
since an ordinance amendment was not necessary).
2) Streamline the application submittal requirements
(Staff has implemented this since an Ordinance
Amendment was not required).
3) Establishment of a Project/Development Review Committee
(Staff has implemented this by holding Project Review
Committee meetings with City Departments and affected
agencies to identify project-related issues within the
first couple of weeks after the submittal of a sizable
project).
91067SR6
-3-
.
.
4) Preparation of Site Development Review Guidelines
(Implementation of this recommendation is under way.
Staff anticipates the Guidelines will be scheduled for
City Council review in March).
5) Training for other departments regarding the Site
Development Review process (implementation of this will
occur subsequent to finalization of the Site
Development Review Guidelines).
6) Developing additional application handouts and updating
the existing handouts (implementation of this has
begun, completion will occur subsequent to finalization
of the Management Audit Ordinance Amendment and SDR
Guidelines) .
In response to the Management Audit recommendations and the
City Council direction received at the September 7, 1989, and
September 17, 1989, City Council meetings, Staff prepared a Draft
Ordinance amending portions of the Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision
Ordinance and the Administrative and Personnel chapter of the
Dublin Municipal Code.
The Planning Commission held two study sessions in September
and November 1991 and four public hearings in December 1991 and
January 1992 to discuss the Draft Ordinance Amendment (see
Attachment 2, Planning commission Minutes). on January 2l, 1992,
the Planning Commission adopted resolutions recommending City
Council adoption of the Draft Ordinance Amendment and the related
Negative Declaration (see Attachment 3, Resolutions and Minutes).
Analysis:
Exhibit A is the Draft Ordinance amending provisions of the
Municipal code related to the Administrative Conditional Use
Permit process, Conditional use Permit process, and the site
Development Review process as recommended for approval by the
Planning Commission and Staff (the sections have been re-ordered
to place ordinance section numbers in numerical order), The City
Attorney has reviewed the Draft Ordinance Amendment and the
comments are incorporated into the Draft Ordinance.
1) Amendment to the Commercial and Light Industrial
Districts in the City by dividing Conditional Uses into
those uses subject to Planning Commission approval and
those uses subject to Zoning Administrator approval.
In the proposed amendment, a public hearing is still
required regardless of whether the Planning Commission
or Zoning Administrator takes action. Uses subject to
Planning Commission approval are typically higher
exposure/impact uses than the more minor type uses
subject to Zoning Administrator approval (see
Attachment 4). Upon the recommendation of the Planning
9l0f;i7SR6
-4-
.
.
Commission, daycare/preschool and drive-through/
drive-in business and outdoor eating/seating uses are
included as uses subject to Planning Commission action
rather than zoning Administrator action in order to
provide evening public hearings.
2) Amendment to the Temporary Uses/Administrative
Conditional use Permit and procedure provisions of the
Municipal Code by establishing a new planning process,
"Zoning Clearance." The Zoning Clearance process is
intended to create a process to allow Staff to review
and take action on certain "routine" temporary use
requests such as 30-day temporary promotional signs,
Christmas tree lots and off-site sale or lease signs
(see Attachment 4). Staff anticipates that action on a
request for a Zoning Clearance could essentially take
place over the counter or within a day or two, provided
the request is in compliance with the City's Standard
Requirements for a particular temporary use. The
Standard Requirements will be subject to Planning
Commission review and approval prior to implementation.
If an Applicant is not satisfied with a planner's
interpretation of the Standard Requirements, the
current Planning Senior Planner, or the Planning
Director will interpret the requirements. Aside from
interpretation provided for by Section 8-92.0 (see
Exhibit A), there is no appeal period or appeal
provisions established for the "Zoning Clearance"
process.
3) Amendment to the City's Sign Ordinance dividing the
signs requiring Conditional use Permit approval into
those signs subject to Planning Commission approval and
those signs subject to Zoning Administrator approval.
4) Amendment to the Sign Ordinance to re-designate signs
requiring Administrative Conditional Use Permit
approval to signs requiring "Zoning Clearance."
5) Amendments to the site Development Review provisions to
clarify the intent and to reorganize the procedures in
a standard format to be utilized in other Planning
application procedures when the City revises/updates
the entire Zoning ordinance. Additionally, the City
Attorney identified a concern with the lack of public
notice provided in the City's existing Site Development
Review process. The Draft Ordinance Amendment includes
a provision for property owners within a 300 foot
radius of the project property to be notified of an
application and provides a public review and comment
period for the project prior to action on the project.
91.051SR6
-5-
.
.
6) Amendments to the Municipal Code and Zoning Ordinance
to eliminate confusion and inconsistency between the
appeal provisions identified in the Municipal Code and
Zoning Ordinance. In particular, the Draft Ordinance
includes an Amendment to Section 8-l02.0 to
specifically identify the appeal board, the appeal
period and the appeal process for various planning
applications. Section 8-92.0 (see Exhibit A) of the
Zoning Ordinance is currently titled "Administration or
Enforcement: Appeals." To minimize confusion between
Section 8-92.0 and 8-102.0, the Draft Ordinance
Amendment re-titles Section 8-92.0 "Interpretation/
Determination or Review" and clearly identifies the
process by which an Applicant, Commission or Council
member or other affected person may request the
Planning Commission to review a non-discretionary
permit, requirement, or determination made by any City
of Dublin staff member relating to a planning or zoning
matter. The individual requesting the Planning
Commission review or determination would be required to
submit factual information relating to the
determination. This information, along with a Staff '
Report, would be presented to the Planning Commission I
as a non-public hearing at a regularly scheduled
meeting. The Draft Amendment provides for the Planning
Commission's determination to be appealed to the City
Council.
Staff recommends the City Council conduct the public
hearing, deliberate, adopt the resolution approving the Negative
Declaration and waive the reading and introduce the Ordinance or
give Staff direction and continue the item.
91067SRij
-6-
·
.. S\~(\·IÇ¡C.Atu\
ORDINANCE NO. _ ÄMet\Ó('(\C.V\..'\'S
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN AMENDING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE
MUNICIPAL CODE AND ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT, ADMINISTRATIVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROCESS AND SITE
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS
The City Council of the City of Dublin does ordain as follows:
Section l. Section 2.12.080 ZONING AND PLANNING JURISDICTION-
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS of the City of Dublin Municipal Code is
amended to read as follows:
"2.12.080 ZONING AND PLANNING JURISDICTION-CONDITIONAL USE
PERMITS: A request for a conditional use permit shall be
submitted to the Planning Commission, the Zoning Administrator,
or Planning Director as provided in the City of Dublin Zoning
Ordinance, except as hereafter set forth. The Planning
Commission, Zoning Administrator, or Planning Director shall have
the authority to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove
such requests. Appeals from the decision regarding a conditional
use permit shall be taken to the Planning Commission or City
Council by those parties and in the manner provided in the City
of Dublin Zoning Ordinance. [Historical Notes to be Added]"
Section 2. Section 2.12.095 ZONING AND PLANNING JURISDICTION - ZONING
CLEARANCE of the City of Dublin Municipal Code is hereby added to
read as follows:
"2.l2.095 ZONING AND PLANNING JURISDICTION - ZONING CLEARANCE. A
request for Zoning Clearance shall be submitted to the Planning
Director. The Planning Director shall have the authority to
approve or disapprove such requests. Action of the Planning
Director shall be final except as provided in the City of Dublin
Zoning Ordinance Section 8-92.0."
Section 3. Section 2.12.100 ZONING AND PLANNING JURISDICTION - PARCEL
MAP of the City of Dublin Municipal Code is amended to read as
follows:
"Parcel maps shall be submitted to the Planning Director. The
Planning Director shall have the authority to approve,
conditionally approve or disapprove a parcel map. Appeals from
the decision of the Planning Director regarding a parcel map
shall be taken to the Planning Commission or City Council by
those parties and in the manner provided in the City of Dublin
Zoning Ordinance and the City of Dublin Subdivision Ordinance.
(Ord. 23, Section 5, 1982)"
Section 4. Section 2.12.120 ZONING AND PLANNING JURISDICTION -
DISCRETION OF PLANNING DIRECTOR of the City of Dublin Municipal
Code is amended to read as follows:
- 1 -
Exhibtt
A
2/92
.
.
"The Planning Director shall have the discretion to refer an
application for a variance, an application for a conditional use
permit, an application for a parcel map, or an application for a
site development review to the Planning Commission for action.
In such cases, an appeal from the decision of the Planning
Commission shall be taken to the City Council by those parties
and in the manner provided in the City of Dublin Zoning
Ordinance. (ordinance 23, Section 7,1982)."
Section 5. Section 2.12.130 APPEALS - PROCEDURE of the City of Dublin
Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
"2.12.130 APPEALS-PROCEDURES An appeal may be taken to the
Planning Commission or City Council by any property owner or
other person aggrieved or by a city officer, department, board or
commission affected by the action within the period and in the
manner provided in the City of Dublin Zoning ordinance (Ordinance
11, Section 1, 1982)"
Section 6. Section 8-46.2 CONDITIONAL USES: c-o DISTRICT of the City
of Dublin Zoning Ordinance is amended to read as follows:
"Section 8-46.2 CONDITIONAL USES: c-o DISTRICTS: In addition to
the uses listed for Sections 8-60.60 and 8-61.0, the following
are Conditional Uses in a c-o District and shall be permitted
only if approved by the Planning Commission or Zoning
Administrator pursuant to Section 8-94.0:
:f A.
~B.
2/92
CONDITIONAL USES REQUIRING PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL
1. Church, library, school, hospital, clinic;
2. Research or development laboratory, except those
engaged in manufacture of products for commercial sale
or distribution and excluding any which produces or is
found likely to produce any smoke, dust, odors, glare
or vibrations observable outside the building or
portion thereof in such Use;
3. Parking lot;
4. Public utility substation, not including service yard,
storage of materials or vehicles, or repair facilities.
5. Community Identification Sign per Section 8-87.60.A.1
(Amended by Sec. 11, Ord. 69-23; Amended by Sec. 14,
Ord.70-57).
CONDITIONAL USES REQUIRING ZONING ADMINISTRATOR APPROVAL
1. Pharmacy, limited to the sale of drugs and medical
supplies;
2. Restaurant or retail store which serves primarily the
occupants of existing buildings in the same district or
their clients or patrons;
3. Directional Tract Sign per Sec. 8-87.60.8.1 and
Temporary Promotional (60 days) Signs per Sec. 8-
87.60.B.2."
- 2 -
.
.
Section 7. Section 8-47.2 CONDITIONAL USES: C-N DISTRICTS of the
City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance is amended to read as follows:
Section 8-47.2 CONDITIONAL USES: C-N DISTRICTS. In addition to
the uses listed in Sections 8-60.60 and 8-61.0, the following are
Conditional Uses in a C-N District and shall be permitted only if
approved by the Planning Commission or the Zoning Administrator
pursuant to Section 8-94.0:
~
A.
t
B.
CONDITIONAL USES REQUIRING PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL:
l. Public utility substation, not including service yard,
storage of materials, or vehicles, or repair
facilities;
2. Parking lot;
3. Service Station, Type A;
4, Drive-In Business;
5. Community Identification Sign per Section 8-87.60.A.1
(Amended by Sec. 16, Ord. 70-57)
CONDITIONAL USES REQUIRING ZONING ADMINISTRATOR APPROVAL:
1. Directional Tract Sign per Sec. 8-87.60.B.1
2. Temporary Promotional (60 days) Signs per Sec.
8-87.60.B.2."
section 8. Section 8-48.2 CONDITIONAL USES: C-l DISTRICTS of the
City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance is amended to read as follows:
"Section 8-48.2 Conditional Uses: C-1 DISTRICT. In addition to
the uses listed in Sections 8-60.60 and 8-61.0, the following are
conditional Uses in C-l Districts and shall be permitted only if
approved by the Planning Commission or the Zoning Administrator
pursuant to Section 8-94,0:
t-A.
2/92
CONDITIONAL USES REQUIRING PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL:
1. Hospital;
2. community facility
3. Animal Hospital, Kennel;
4. Clubhouse, or rooms used by members of an organized
club, lodge, union or society;
5 . Mort uary;
6. Storage Garage, and storage lots for Recreational
Vehicles and Boats;
7. Theatre, Drive-in Theatre;
8. Drive-in/Drive-Through Business;
9. Outdoor Seating/Eating;
10. Hotel, Motel, Boarding House;
ll. Automobile Sales lot;
12. Service Station, Type A; or a facility retailing
automotive parts and supplies whiçh are installed and
serviced on the site but does not include engine,
transmission or differential rebuilding or body repair;
- 3 -
~
13.
Plan~UrSery including the sale~ landscaping
materials, excluding wet-mix concrete sales, providing
all equipment, supplies, and merchandise other than
plant materials are kept within a completely enclosed
building;
Tavern;
Adult Entertainment Activity, provided however, that no
Adult Entertainment Activity shall be located closer
than 1,000 feet to the boundary of any residential zone
or closer than 1,000 feet to any other Adult
Entertainment Activity;
Massage Parlor;
Recycling Centers, when operated in conjunction with a
Permitted Use on the same premises;
In-patient or Out-patient health facilities as licensed
by the State Department of Health Services;
Dance floors (public dances requiring a dance permit
per Chapter 5.52 of the Dublin Municipal Code);
Fortunetelling;
Community Identification Sign per Section 8-87.60.A.l
Time/Temperature and other changeable copy sign per
Section 8-87.60.A.2
Special Easement Sign per Section 8-87.60.A.3
Second Freestanding Sign per Section 8-87.60.A.4
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21-
22.
23.
24.
B.
CONDITIONAL USES REQUIRING ZONING ADMINISTRATOR APPROVAL:
1. commercial recreational facility located within a
building (excluding dance floor, see Section 8-
48.2.A.17 and theatre, see Section 8-48.2.A.7);
2. Directional Tract Sign per Section 8-87.60.B.l;
3. Temporary Promotional (60 days) Signs per Section
8.87.60.B.2;
4. Freestanding Sign per Section 8-87.60.B.3."
Section 9. Section 8-49.2 CONDITIONAL USES: C-2 DISTRICTS of the
City of Dublin zoning Ordinance is amended to read as follows:
}
2/9~
"8-49.2 CONDITIONAL USES: C-2 DISTRICTS. In addition to the
uses listed in Sections 8-60.60 and 8-61.0 the following are
Conditional Uses in C-2 Districts and shall be permitted only if
approved by the Planning Commission or the Zoning Administrator
pursuant to Section 8-94.0:
A. CONDITIONAL USES REQUIRING PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL:
1. Hospital;
2. Animal Hospital, Kennel;
3. Mortuary;
4. Community Facility;
5. Drive-in Theatre, Recreation Facility (excluding
recreation facility within a building, see Section
8-49.2.B.1);
6. Drive-in/Drive-through Business;
7 outdoor Seating/Eating Restaurant;
- 4 -
· .
8. Service Station, Type A and Type B¡
9. Automobile, camper, boat and trailer sales, storage or
rental loti
10. Plant nursery including the sale of landscaping
materials, excluding wet-mix concrete sales, proving
all equipment, supplies and merchandise other than
plant materials are kept within a completely enclosed
building¡
ll. Auto Sales and Service Agency¡
l2. Tavern¡
13. Adult Entertainment Activity provided, however, that no
Adult Entertainment Activity shall be located closer
than 1,000 feet to the boundary of any residential zone
or closer than 1,000 feet to any other Adult
Entertainment activity;
14. In-patient and out-patient health facilities as
licensed by the State Department of Health Services;
15. Dance Floor (public dances requiring a dance permit per
Chapter 5.52 of the City of Dublin Municipal Code)¡
l6. Community Identification Sign per Sec. 8-87.60.A.1
17. Time/Temperature and other changeable copy sign per
Sec. 8-87.60.A.2
18. special Easement Sign per 8-87.60.A.3
19. Second Freestanding Sign per Sec. 8-87.60.A.4
t B.
CONDITIONAL USES REQUIRING ZONING ADMINISTRATOR APPROVAL:
1. Recreation facility located within a building
(excluding dance floor, see Section 8-49.2.A.13);
2. Directional Tract Sign per Section 8-87.60.B.1,
3. Temporary Promotional (60 days) Sign per Sec. 8-
87.60.B.2
4. Freestanding Sign per Sec. 8-87.60.B.3.".
Section 10. Section 8-51.3 CONDITIONAL USES: M-1 DISTRICTS of the
City of Dublin Zoning ordinance is amended to read as follows:
Section 8-51.3 CONDITIONAL USES: M-1 DISTRICTS. In addition to
the uses listed in Sections 8-60.60 and 8-61.0 the following are
Conditional Uses in an M-1 District, and shall be permitted only
if approved by the Planning Commission or the Zoning
Administrator, pursuant to Section 8-94.0:
1
A. CONDITIONAL USES REQUIRING PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL:
1. Contractors or other outdoor storage yard for equipment
and supplies, if conducted within an area enclosed by a
solid wall or fence¡
2. Animal Hospital, Kennel;
3. Storage of liquified petroleum gas¡
4. Drive-in Theatre;
5. sale at retail of building materials, or of industrial
equipment or machinery¡
6. Concrete or asphalt batching plant¡
7. Service Station Type A and Type B;
- 5 -
2/02
· .
8. Adult Entertainment Activity, provided however that no
Adult Entertainment Activity shall be located closer
than 1,000 feet to the boundary of any residential zone
or closer than 1,000 feet to any other Adult
Entertainment Activity;
9. Dance Floor (public dances requiring a dance permit per
Chapter 5.52 of the City of Dublin Municipal Code);
lO. Other Uses which are found by the Planning Commission
as may meet the intent of the district and the
requirements of Section 8-51.8 of this Article;
11. Community Identification Sign per 8-87.60.A.1,
12. Time/Temperature and other changeable copy sign per
Sec. 8-87.60.A.2
13. Special Easement Sign per Sec. 8-87.60.A.3
l4. Second Freestanding Sign per Sec. 8-87.60.A.4.
~
B.
CONDITIONAL USES REQUIRING ZONING ADMINISTRATOR APPROVAL:
1. Restaurant, retail store, or shop needed to serve the
occupants of existing industrial buildings in the
immediate vicinity;
2. Recreation facility, within an enclosed building
(excluding Dance Floor, see Section 8-5l.3.A.9)¡
3. Directional Tract Sign per sec. 8-87.60.B.l
4. Temporary Promotional (60 days) Sign per Sec. 8-
87.60.B.2
5. Freestanding Sign per Sec. 8-87.60.B.3."
Section 11. Section 8-60.60.1 TEMPORARY USES. ADMINISTRATIVE
CONDITIONAL USES of the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance is
amended to read as follows:
"Section 8-60.60.1. TEMPORARY USES. ADMINISTRATIVE CONDITIONAL
USES. In any District minor temporary uses of land of a duration
of 60 days or less, except as otherwise provided herein, having
negligible or no permanent effects on the environment and that
are categorically exempt from CEQA shall be permitted only if an
Administrative conditional Use Permit is approved by the Planning
Director pursuant to sec. 8-60.60.1.B.
A. Temporary Uses requiring Administrative Conditional Use
Permit approval shall include, but not be limited to, the
following:
1. Carnivals, circus¡
2. A single newspaper recycling bin for up to one year,
sponsored by a Dublin-based bona fide church, school,
neighborhood group or Dublin-based non-profit, non~
restrictive civic or service organization as an
accessory use to a lawfully existing principal use¡
3. Arts and crafts fair - maximum two separate events for
one-day each, per twelve (12) month period per lot,
sponsored by a Dublin-based bona fide church, school,
neighborhood group, or Dublin-based, non-profit, non-
restrictive civic or service organization for the sale
- 6 -
2/92
of h!l!made or h~ndcrafted items~r s~le by the
origin~l artist;
4. Firewood sales lots in the A District (but no such
permit shall be approved for a period to exceed one
year) ;
5. Mobile home occupancy for a period of 1 year during
construction of permanent living qu~rters on the same
premises in any A or R District;
6. Occupancy of a commercial office trailer for a period
not to exceed one year in any C or M District;
7. Tract and sales office/model complex with accessory
signs during the period of construction and original
sale of the buildings or lots in a new subdivision.
B. The Planning Director shall make such investigations as are
necessary to determine whether or not the proposed use
conforms or may be conditioned to conform to the
requirements and intent of this Chapter. If from the
information submitted or developed upon investigation the
Planning Director finds that compliance with the
requirements and intent of this Chapter will be secured, the
Administrative Conditional Use Permit shall be approved. If
it is found that such compliance is not secure, the Permit
shall be denied or approved subject to such specified
conditions, changes, or additions as will assure such
compliance. The order approving, conditionally approving or
disapproving an Administrative Conditional Use Permit shall
become effective 5 days after the date of such action unless
a written appeal is filed in accordance with the procedure
specified in Section 8-102."
~section 12. Section 8-60,60.3 TEMPORARY USES. ZONING CLEARANCE of
~ the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance is hereby added to read as
follows:
"Section 8-60-60.3 TEMPORARY USES. ZONING CLEARANCE. In any
District, the following minor temporary uses of land of a
duration of 60 day or less having negligible or no permanent
effects on the environment and that are categorically exempt from
CEQA shall be permitted only if Zoning Clearance is given by the
Planning Director. The Planning Director shall give zoning
Clearance upon determination that the proposed use is in
compliance with the City of Dublin "Standard Requirements" for
said use:
1. Christmas tree sales lot or other seasonal/holiday sales lot
as determined by the Planning Director;
2. Pumpkin patch/sales lot;
3. Neighborhood/school/church festivals located on-site;
4. Temporary construction trailer
5. Grand-Opening Temporary Promotional Signs per Section 8-
87.61.2;
6. Temporary Promotional Signs. Promotional Signs 30 day time
frame per Section 8-87.61.3;
7. Temporary Off-Site Sale or Lease Signs per Section 8-87.61.4
- 7 -
2/92
· .
8. one Identification Sign per Section 8-87.61.1
Section 13. Section 8-87.60 SIGNS REQUIRING CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
of the City of Dublin Sign Ordinance is amended to read as
follows:
"Section 8-87.60 SIGNS REQUIRING CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS. Unless
specifically prohibited by this Chapter, the following type of
signs may be located in required yards, if a Conditional Use
Permit is granted by either the Planning Commission or Zoning
Administrator in accordance with Section 8-94.0 CONDITIONAL USES:
~ A.
SIGN CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS REQUIRING PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVAL:
1. Community Identification Sign, one hundred twenty (120)
square feet maximum area, twenty (20) feet maximum
height, shall be located within one thousand (l,OOO)
feet of the City's corporation boundary. Sign
illumination shall not be intermittent and sign copy
shall be limited to:
a. the name of the community;
b. information relating to the service clubs active
in the area;
c. community slogans or mottos; or
d. directional inform~tion.
2. Time/Temperature Signs, including Electronic
Readerboards, Business Bulletin Boards, and other
Changeable copy Signs on which the copy if manually or
electrically changed, when used to promote items of
general interest to the community such as time,
temperature, and/or date. Wall-mounted Changeable Copy
Signs shall be subject to compliance with Sec. 8-87.33,
Ord. 18-88 WALL SIGNS AND PROJECTING SIGNS.
Freestanding Changeable Copy Signs shall be subject to
compliance with Sections 8-87.34 (18-88, 6-87) FREE-
STANDING SIGNS or 8-87.35 ALTERNATE TYPES OF
FREESTANDING SIGNS. lOrd. No. 6-87, January 1987,
18-88 Historical Notes to be Added]
3. Special Easement Signs, used as part of the permanent
signage to designate, identify, or indicate the name(s)
or business(es) of the owner or occupant of a premises
in the immediate vicinity of the parcel upon which the
sign is located. The premises, said sign is designed
to ~dvertise, must be located on a parcel of land
without direct access or frontage on an improved public
right-of-way. Said properties must be interconnected
by a traversable vehicular roadway which is subject to
a non-revocable, non-exclusive recorded access
easement. Said signs may also be utilized to advertise
the business(es) conducted, service(s) available or
rendered, or the goods procured, sold, or available for
sale upon the referenced nearby premises. lOrd. NO, 6-
- 8 -
2/92
lB.
2/92
. .
87, January 1987] When a Special Easement Sign is
approved by the Planning Commission, the business(es)
designated on said sign and the parcel on which the
business(es) are located shall utilize the Special
Easement Sign in lieu of any other Freestanding Sign or
Alternate Type of Freestanding Sign on the parcel on
which the business(es) is located. Special Easement
Signs shall be subject to compliance with Sections 8-
87.34 FREESTANDING SIGNS or 8-87.35 ALTERNATE TYPES OF
FREESTANDING SIGNS.
4. Two (2) freestanding signs on parcels of four (4) acres
or greater in size located adjacent to I-580 or I-680
or the Flood Control Channel adjacent to I-580 or
I-680. Said freestanding signs shall be located on
separate frontages. For the purpose of determining the
location, height and sign area of the second free-
standing sign, the Alameda County Flood Control Channel
property line adjacent to the freeway shall be deemed
to be the property line for measuring subject to the
provisions of Sections 8-87.34.B)1) - 8-87.34.B)3).
The second freestanding sign shall be subject to the
following provisions:
a) No second freestanding signs shall be permitted
within the required front, side or rear yard
setback areas.
b) All second freestanding signs shall be located in
a planter of appropriate dimensions.
c) In no case shall a second freestanding sign be
located within fifty (50) feet of the interstate
freeway right-of-way.
d) No freestanding sign shall project within a public
right-of-way. lOrd. No. 6-87, January 1987; Ord.
No. 18-88, September 1988]
SIGN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUIRING ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
APPROVAL:
1. Directional Tract Sign, in any district, sixty-four
(64) square feet maximum sign area for double-faced
signage and thirty-two (32) square feet maximum sign
area for single-faced signage; twelve (12) feet maximum
height, shall not be illuminated, and shall not be
located within six hundred sixty (660) feet of an
interstate freeway. The size of the sign is not
included as part of the aggregate sign area permitted
on the property. lOrd. No. 7-86, May 1986; Qrd. No.
18-88, September 1988]
2. Temporary Promotional Signs - Sixty Day (60) Time Frame
(banners, pennants, flags, balloons, searchlights and
- 9 -
· .
similar advertising devices), when used for special
promotional events, for periods that cumulatively do
not exceed a maximum of sixty (60) days annually (any
twelve (12) month period) and, on an individual
promotional event basis, do not exceed fourteen (14)
consecutive days of display.
3. Freestanding Signs in excess of twenty (20) foot
height, located on parcels, or collections of parcels
under common ownership and use, four (4) acres or
greater in size, or single-use parcels one and one-half
(1-1/2) acres or greater in size, with the maximum
allowable height of thirty-five (35) feet and with the
proposed size (area and height) and location subject to
Section 8-87.34 FREESTANDING SIGNS"
ï
Section 14. Section
CONDITIONAL USE
amended to read
8-87.61 SIGNS
PERMIT of the
as follows:
REQUIRING ADMINISTRATIVE
City of Dublin Sign Ordinance is
"Section 8-87.61 SIGNS REQUIRING ZONING CLEARANCE. The following
types of signs may be located in required yards if Zoning
Clearance is granted by the Planning Director in accordance with
Section 8-60.60.3:
1. One Identification Sign per parcel in any district, when
used to designate the name, or the name and use, of a multi-
family residential use, public building, to inform the
public as to the use of a lawful parking area, recreation
area, or other open use permitted in the district.
Identification Signs shall not exceed a maximum area of 24
square feet, unless a greater area is approved through the
Administrative Conditional Use Permit process. The height
of Identification Signs shall be as set forth in section 8-
60.55 HEIGHT LIMITATIONS. lOrd. 6-87, January 1987]
2. Grand-Opening Temporary Promotions Signs (banners, pennants,
flags, balloons, searchlights and similar advertising
devices) in any district other than the Agricultural or
Residential Districts when used for bona-fide grand opening
functions within sixty (60) days of a business' initial
occupancy and for a period not in excess of thirty (30)
days.
3. Temporary Promotional Signs - Thirty (30) Day Time Frame
(banners, pennants, flags, balloons, searchlights and
similar advertising devices) when used for special
promotional events for periods that cumulative do not exceed
a maximum of thirty (30) days annually (any twelve (12)
month period) and, on an individual promotional event basis,
do not exceed fourteen (14) consecutive days of display.
4. Temporary Off-site Sale or Lease Signs which are intended
for use solely as a notice of an offering for sale, lease,
or rental of a parcel, structure or establishment of a
- 10 -
2/92
· .
premises in the immediate vicinity of the premises upon
which the sign is located, where said premises is located on
a parcel of land without direct access or frontage on an
improved public right-of-way, and where said properties are
interconnected by a traversable vehicular roadway which is
subject to a non-revocable, non-exclusive recorded access
easement. [Ord. No. 6-87, January 1987]"
}section 15. Section 8-92.0 ADMINISTRATION OR ENFORCEMENT: APPEALS of
City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended to read as
follows:
"8-92.0 INTERPRETATION/DETERMINATION OR REVIEW: An Applicant, a
person or persons directly affected, Commission member or council
member, may request Planning Commission review or interpretation
of a nondiscretionary permit, requirement, decision or
determination made or issued by any City of Dublin Staff relating
to the administration or enforcement of the City of Dublin Zoning
regulations, approved plans, or conditions of approval pursuant
to this section.
1. All requests for Planning Commission interpretation or
review shall be filed with the Planning Department within
five (5) days of the written decision/determination issued
by Staff.
2. Such interpretation/review requests shall be submitted in
written form presenting all pertinent factual information
related to the interpretation request.
3. The Planning Director shall forward such factual information
and Staff Report to the Planning Commission for review and
interpretation as a non-public hearing item at a regularly
sCheduled Planning Commission meeting.
4. The Planning Commission may affirm reverse or modify the
Staff determination.
5. The Planning Commission determination shall become effective
five (5) days after the determination is made unless an
appeal is filed within said 5-day period pursuant to Section
8-102.D - 8-102.F.
Section l6. section 8-94.1 CONDITIONAL USES: ACTION of the City of
Dublin Zoning ordinance is amended to read as follows:
"8-94.1 CONDITIONAL USES: ACTION. The Planning Commission or
Zoning Administrator shall receive, hear and decide applications
for a Conditional Use Permit and after the conclusion of the
hearing may authorize approval or conditional approval of the
proposed use if the evidence contained in or accompanying the
application or presented at the hearing is deemed sufficient to
establish that, under all circumstances and conditions of the
particular case, the use is properly located in all respects as
specified in Section 8-94.0, and otherwise it shall disapprove
- 11 -
2/92
·
the application. In each
given pursuant to Section
57)."
case, notice of !I! hearing shall be
8-101.0. (Amended by sec. 41, Ord. 70-
Section l7. Section 8-94.2 CONDITIONAL USES: CHANGES AND RENEWALS of
the City of Dublin Zoning ordinance is amended to read as
follows:
}
"8-94.2 CONDITIONAL USES: CHANGES AND RENEWALS. The Planning
Commission or Zoning Administrator shall receive, hear and decide
applications to renew or extend the term of a Conditional use or
to modify or waive any condition previously imposed upon a
conditional Use, or upon a Use Permit issued prior to the
effective date of this ordinance. Every such application shall
be subject to the same procedure and regulations as set forth
herein for a Conditional Use; except that the Planning Commission
or Zoning Administrator shall have the discretion to refer
applications approved through an appeal to the decision maker
that heard the appeal. The Planning Director may grant approval
of minor amendments to Conditional Use Permits originally
approved by the Planning Commission or City Council upon
determination that the amendment is minor (including but not
limited to a) physical expansion not to exceed 1,000 square feet,
b) expansion of hours of operation, or c) operation expansion).
(Amended by sec. 42, Ord. 70-57)"
Section 18. Section 8-94.3 CONDITIONAL USES:
of the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance is
follows:
COMBINED APPLICATIONS
amended to read as
*
}
"8-94.3 CONDITIONAL USES: COMBINED APPLICATIONS. If the
proposed Conditional Use also requires Site Development Review,
the combined Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review
applications shall be processed concurrently by the decision
maker for the Conditional Use Permit and shall be subject to the
requirements of Section 8-95.0 of this Chapter. Disapproval of
either constitutes disapproval of both the Conditional Use Permit
and Site Development Review applications. Where the proposed
Conditional use Permit is accompanied by an application for a
Variance pursuant to Section 8-93.1, the applications shall be
processed concurrently by the same decision maker for the
Conditional Use Permit. (Amended by sec. 43. Ord. 70-57)"
Section 19.
8-95.8
Dublin
Section 8-95.0 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW through Section
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW: PLAN MODIFICATION of the City of
Zoning Ordinance is amended to read as follows:
"8-95.0 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW:
8-95.010 INTENT/PURPOSE: Site Development Review is a
discretionary review process intended to promote orderly,
attractive and harmonious site and structural development
compatible with individual site environmental constraints and
compatible with surrounding properties and neighborhoods; to
- 12 -
2/92
· .
resolve major project-related issues including but not limited to
building location, architectural and landscape design and theme,
vehicular and pedestrian access and on-site circulation, parking
and traffic impacts¡ to ensure compliance with development
standards and general requirements established for Zoning and
Planned Development Districts, including but not limited to
setbacks, heights, parking, fences, accessory structures and
signage¡ to stabilize property values; and to promote the general
welfare.
}
8-95.020 GUIDELINES: Site Development Review Guidelines shall be
developed in a manner to be prescribed by the City council. The
purpose of the Guidelines is to establish design parameters and
policies to assist in review and regulation of development
projects. The policies shall include, but not be limited to,
issues of setbacks, building design/architecture, landscaping,
parking and signage.
8-95.030 APPLICABILITY: The following types of development shall
be subject to Site Development Review unless a waiver is granted
in accordance with Sec.. 8-95.080:
1. Any structure (new or existing) with 1000 square feet or
greater of floor area, located within a C-O, C-N, C-1, C-2
or M-l Zoning District.
2. Any new construction with an aggregate floor area of 1000
square feet or greater, located within a C-O, C-N, C-1, C-2
or M-l Zoning District.
3. Any modification to the exterior of structures with 1000
square feet or greater of floor area, located within the C-
O, C-N, C-1, C-2 or M-1 Zoning District, including but not
limited to building additions, new and/or additional windows
and doors, roof or ground mounted mechanical equipment.
4. Modifications to site layout or improvements in a C-O, C-N,
C-l, C-2 or M-l Zoning District, including but not limited
to parking, fencing, circulation, landscape, accessory
structures, trash enclosures.
5. Signage pursuant to Sections 8-87.33.B.1 WALL SIGNS AND
PROJECTING SIGNS and 8-87.35 ALTERNATE TYPES OF FREESTANDING
SIGNS.
6. Any modifications to exterior of structures, to signage, to
site layout or to improvements located within a PD Planned
Development District specifically requiring Site Development
Review.
7. Any modification to exterior of structures, to site layout
or to improvements for which previous Site Development
Review has been approved.
- l3 -
2/~2
t
-t
2/92
.
.
8. Any new construction or modification to an existing
structure or site located in any Zoning District which
pursuant to this Chapter requires Site Development Review.
8-95.040 APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS:
1. When Site Development Review is required, an application
shall be submitted to the Planning Department in proper form
as provided in Section 8-100.0 and as prescribed by the
Planning Director.
2.
When a project requiring Site Development Review also
requires a Variance or a Conditional Use permit, the Site
Development Review request shall be submitted as part of the
Variance or Conditional Use application and the requests
shall be processed concurrently by the Planning Department
pursuant to Section 8-94.3 CONDITIONAL USES: COMBINED
APPLICATIONS and Section 8-93.1 VARIANCES: PROCEDURES.
3.
A Site Development Review application shall be accompanied
by a processing deposit and information and materials
prescribed by the Planning Director including but not
limited to a Site Plan prepared (unless waived by the
Planning Director) by a licensed civil engineer, land
surveyor, architect, landscape architect or a registered
building designer, provided however, that the boundary and
topographic survey on the site plan shall be prepared by a
licensed civil engineer or land surveyor whose seal shall
appear on said site plan. The site plan shall be drawn to
scale and indicating clearly and with full dimensions the
following information:
a) Parcel dimensions in distance and bearings;
b) Existing and proposed buildings and structures--their
location, size, height and use;
c) Dimensions of yards and open spaces between buildings;
d) Fences and walls--their location, height and materials;
e) Parking spaces--their location, number, dimensions and
internal circulation;
f) Access-vehicular, pedestrian and service, with points
of ingress and egress, internal circulation, design,
and improvements;
g) Street dedications and improvements--existing, and
proposed, if any;
h) Such other data as may be required under the
circumstances of the case to permit the Planning
Director to make the required findings.
Where the proposed use includes any structures other than
Dwellings, or any commercial or industrial use, the plan
shall also show:
i) signs: location, size, height and types of materials,
and lighting;
- 14 -
j) Loading spaces: their location, number, dimensions,
and internal circulation;
k) Lighting: its location and general nature.
.
.
(Amended by Sec. 12, Ord. 68-27; amended by Sec. 46, Ord.
70-57)
~ 4.
If the Planning Director deems necessary Special report(s)
including, but not limited to Traffic Impact, Parking, Soils
or Noise Studies may be required to be prepared by
expert/qualified consultant(s) chosen by the Planning
Director and submitted with the Site Development Review
Application. The cost of said consultant(s) services shall
be paid by the applicant.
5. The Planning Department shall review each Site Development
Review application submittal for completeness and notify the
applicant of any incomplete information or materials
prescribed by the Planning Director for a complete
application submittal.
f
8-95.050 PUBLIC NOTICE AND REVIEW:
1. Prior to taking action on a Site Development Review
application, a minimum ten (10) day public noticed review
and comment period shall be provided.
2. Such notice shall contain information on the project
including, but not limited to, a brief project description,
location, and duration of review period.
3. Such notice shall be mailed to all property owners within
300 feet of the project property boundaries as identified on
the latest Alameda County assessment rolls.
8-95.060 ACTION: The Planning Director, upon conducting any
necessary investigation and review of reports or recommendation
from other applicable City departments or other interested public
agencies, shall approve, conditionally approve or deny the Site
Development Review request based on findings pursuant to Section
8-95.070. No public hearing is required, except the Zoning
Administrator or Planning Commission shall conduct at least one
(1) noticed public hearing and shall approve, çonditionally
approve or deny a Site Development Review request based on
findings pursuant to section 8-95.070, when processing a Site
Development Review application concurrently with a Variance or
Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Section 8-94.3 CONDITIONAL
USES: COMBINED APPLICATIONS and section 8-93.1 VARIANCE:
PROCEDURE. The Planning Director or Zoning Administrator may
refer an application normally reviewed by the Planning Director
or Zoning Administrator to the Planning Commission for review
when deemed in the best interest of the public health, safety or
welfare.
- 15 -
2/92
t
. .
8-95.070 FINDINGS: Approval of a Site Development Review request
must be based on the following findings:
1. The approval of the application is consistent with the
intent/purpose of this Chapter 8-95.0.
2. The approval of the application, as conditioned complies
with the General Plan and with District (or Planned
Development) Regulations and the General Requirements
established in the Zoning Ordinance.
3. The approval of the application, as conditioned, is in the
best interests of the public health, safety and general
welfare.
4. The proposed site development, including site layout,
vehicular access, circulation and parking, setbacks, height,
walls, public safety and similar elements has been designed
to provide a desirable environment for the development.
5. Architectural considerations, including the character, scale
and quality of the design, the architectural relationship
with the site and other buildings, building materials and
colors, screening of exterior appurtenances, exterior
lighting, and similar elements have been incorporated into
the project in order to insure compatibility of this
development with the development's design concept or theme
and the character of adjacent buildings and uses.
6. Landscape considerations, including the locations, type,
size, color, texture and coverage of plant materials,
provisions and similar elements have been considered to
insure visual relief attractive environment for the public.
8-95.080 APPEALS:
Development Review
8-102.0.
The appeal of actions relating to site
shall be subject to the provisions of Section
8-95.090 TIME LIMITS/EFFECTIVE:
1. Unless appealed, action on the Site Development Review
request shall become effective/valid 10 days after the
decision of the Planning Director, or the Zoning
Administrator or Planning Commission for combined
applications.
2. Building permits shall not be issued except in accordance
with the terms and conditions of the Site Development Review
approval.
3. Upon approval of a Site Development Review request and upon
subsequent development of a building site with site
Development Review approval, the use of the building site
thereafter shall be subject to compliance with the approved
- 16 -
2/92
t
~
I
.
.
plans and details and subject to the conditions of approval
of said Site Development Review approval.
4. If building permits are not issued and construction
commenced within two (2) years of the Site Development
Review approval date, the Site Development Review approval
shall lapse and become void.
5. If the Site Development Review approval expires pursuant to
Sec. 8-95.070.4 (above) a new application must be submitted
and processed in accordance with this Chapter 8-95.0.
8-95.100 WAIVERS: The Planning Director may waive the
requirement for Site Development Review upon receiving a written
request (including statement requesting Site Development Review
waiver and plans detailing proposal) from the applicant and upon
determination that the proposal is a minor project and the plans
submitted are in accord with the intent/purpose of this Chapter
8-95.0. All Site Development Review Waivers must be granted in
written form.
8-95.l10 REVISIONS/PLAN MODIFICATIONS. The Planning Director
shall hear and decide applications to modify any Plan approved or
condition set forth under Site Development Review, except in
cases where the original Site Development Review was approved by
the Planning Commission or City council. In such case, the City
Councilor Planning Commission shall hear and decide the request,
subject to the same procedure and regulations as those applicable
to the original application. The Planning Director may grant
Site Development Review Waiver even for applications originally
approved by the Planning Commission and City Council upon
determination that the modification is minor and in accordance
with Sec. 8-95.l00 WAIVERS. (Amended by Sec. 50, Ord. 70-57)"
Section 20. Section 8-98.0 ZONING CLEARANCE PROCEDURES of the City
of Dublin Zoning Ordinance is hereby added to read as follows:
8-98.0 ZONING CLEARANCE PROCEDURES:
8-98.010 INTENT/PURPOSE: Zoning Clearance is a non-discretionary
review process intended to expedite the processing time of
certain proposed temporary uses in accordance with Sec. 8-60.60.3
for which the proposal is in compliance with the provisions of
this Chapter 8-98.0 and with the City of Dublin Standard
Requirements for Temporary Uses.
8-98.020 APPLICABILITY:
to establishment of any
under Section 8-60.60.3
Zoning Clearance shall be required prior
temporary use specifically identified
TEMPORARY USES. ZONING CLEARANCE.
8-98.030 APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS:
1. When Zoning Clearance is required, an application shall be
submitted to the Planning Department in proper form as
prescribed by the Planning Director.
- 17 -
2/92
.
.
2. A Zoning Clearance application shall be accompanied by a
processing fee established and set by the City Council, and
shall be accompanied by information and materials prescribed
by the Planning Director including but not limited to:
a. Site Plan
b. Written Statement describing in detail the proposed
temporary use and agreement of compliance with the City
of Dublin Standard Requirements for Temporary Uses.
c. Property owner authorization to establish temporary
use.
3. The Planning Department shall review each Zoning Clearance
application for completeness including compliance with the
Standard Requirements for Temporary Uses and shall not
accept any application which is not complete and/or does not
comply with the Standard Requirements for Temporary Uses.
8-98.040 ACTION:
1. The Planning Director shall approve all Zoning Clearance
requests that are in compliance with the City of Dublin
Standard Requirements for Temporary Uses. The Planning
Director shall deny all Zoning Clearance requests which are
not in compliance with the Standard Requirements for
Temporary Uses.
2. The Planning Director shall provide Notification of Action
to the applicant of all Zoning Clearance requests.
3. The Planning Director shall maintain records of the Action
taken on all Zoning Clearance requests.
8-98.050 APPEALS: The Action of the Planning Director shall be
final except as provided in Section 8-92.0.
8-98.060 TIME LIMITS/EFFECTIVE:
1. Action of a Zoning Clearance application shall become
effective/valid on the date of the Action.
2. The duration of a Zoning Clearance approval for
establishment of a temporary use shall not exceed 60 days
within a 12-month period.
8-98.070 REVISIONS/MODIFICATIONS: The Planning Director may
approve minor modifications to an approved Zoning Clearance
application without requirement for submittal of an additional
processing fee in accordance with Sections 8-98.040.2 and 8-
98.040.3.
~Section 21. Section 8-102.0 APPEALS of the City of Dublin Zoning
~ Ordinance is amended to read as follows:
- 18 -
2/92
.
"Section 8-102.0 APPEALS.
.
~
A.
The Planning Commission shall be the Appeal Board for any
decision of the Planning Director or zoning Administrator
regarding Tentative parcel Map, Variance, Site Development
Review, Conditional Use Permit, or Administrative
Conditional Use Permit applications in compliance with this
section.
B. The City Council shall be the Appeal Board for any decision
of the Planning commission in compliance with this section.
C. Appeal Periods. Any property owner or other person
aggrieved, or an officer, department, board or commission
may file an appeal within the following appeal periods:
D.
t Section
2/92
1. Tentative Parcel Map: An appeal may be filed within 15
days of the date of action in compliance with Municipal
Code Section 9.08.100.
2. Variance: An appeal may be filed within 10 days of the
date of action in compliance with this section.
3. Site Development Review: An appeal may be filed within
10 days of the date of action in compliance with this
section.
4. Conditional Use Permit: An appeal may be filed within
10 days of the date of action in compliance with this
section.
5. Administrative Conditional Use Permit: An appeal may
be filed within 5 days of the date of action in
compliance with this section.
Appeals shall be filed in writing with the City Clerk. Such
appeals shall reference the Planning Application number, and
shall fully state the extent of the appeal and the reasons
and grounds for the appeal. Appellants shall be subject to
payment of an appeal fee as may be established by the City
Council. Submittal of current mailing labels for property
owners within a 300 foot radius, envelopes and postage may
be required to accompany all appeals subject to Planning
Director determination.
E.
The Appeal Board shall hold at least one (1) noticed public
hearing on any appeal.
The Appeal Board may affirm, reverse or modify the previous
decision.
F.
22. Section 9.04.040.A GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES of the City
of Dublin Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
- 19 -
·.t.
. .
"11.. The Planning Commission is the advisory agency for the
approval, conditional approval, or disapproval of tentative
subdivision maps for five (5) or more parcels.
The Planning Director or Planning Director's designated
representative is the advisory agency for the approval,
conditional approval or disapproval of tentative parcel maps
and any other subdivision matters and is responsible for
analyzing the design and coordinating the processing of
proposed subdivisions within the city departments and public
agencies and, upon appeal, reporting thereon to the Planning
Commission or City Council."
Section 23. Section 9.Q8.100.A APPEALS of the City of Dublin
Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
"A. The Planning Commission shall be the Appeal Board for
decisions of the Planning Director, Zoning Administrator or
Planning Director's designated representative.
The City Council shall be the Appeal Board for decisions of
the Planning Commission."
section 24. section 9.08.100.C APPEALS of the City of Dublin
Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
"C. within fifteen (15) calendar days after action, the
sUbdivider may appeal any action of the advisory agency.
Appeals shall be submitted in writing to the City Clerk.
Such appeals shall reference the tentative map number and
shall state fully the nature and extent of the appeal and
the reasons why it is taken. Such appeal and the hearing
thereon shall be conducted in the manner provided by
Government Code Section 66452.5(a) and (b), and by
subsection F of this section."
- 20 -
2/92
.
.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN this
day of , 1992, by the following votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ATTEST:
Mayor
City Clerk
- 21 -
2/92
.
.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
--~---~-----~---------------------~~------------~-------~------------
ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PA 91-067
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT MANAGEMENT AUDIT
WHEREAS, the Management Audit of the Planning Department,
prepared by Hughes, Heiss and Associates, dated July 1, 1989,
recommended modifications to the City of Dublin Planning Application
Process; and
WHEREAS, on September 7, 1989, and September l7, 1989, the City
Council held a joint session with the Planning Commission and staff to
consider the Management Audit and to direct Staff; and
WHEREAS, a Draft Ordinance Amendment relating to Planning
Commission, Planning Director, and Zoning Administrator authority,
Administrative Conditional Use Permit, Conditional Use Permit, Parcel
Map, Signs, Site Development Review and establishing a new Zoning
Clearance process has been prepared; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
together with the State Guidelines and City Environmental Guidelines,
require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impact and
that environmental documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study was conducted finding that the project,
as proposed, would not have a significant effect on the environment;
and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration has been prepared for this
application; and
WHEREAS, public notice of the Negative Declaration was given in
all aspects as required by State Law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did review and consider the
Negative Declaration at a public hearing on December 2, 1991, December
16, 1991, January 6, 1992 and January 21, 1992.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 92-005
recommending the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration for
PA 91-067; and
WHEREAS, The City Council did review and consider the Negative
Declaration at a public hearing on February 10, 1992.
ExhIit
6
.
.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does
hereby find:
1. That the project will not have a significant effect on the
environment.
2. That the negative Declaration has been prepared and processed in
accordance with State and local environmental laws and guideline
regulations.
3. That the Negative Declaration is complete and adequate.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does hereby
adopt the Negative Declaration for PA 91-067 Ordinance Amendment
Management Audit.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of February, 1992.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
- 2 -
/
//.
.
.
DDJOc~NED REGULÞ~ MEFTTNG - seotember 7. 1939
An Adjourned Regljlar Meeting of the City council of the city of Dub~~TI ~a5
held on Thursday, Sê?te~bar 7, ¡9B9 in the West Room of the Shannon
COrnTI1uni ty Cerrt.er. '¡'he Tnêe.ting ',.¡as c;al1ed to or¿èr at 6: 25 p. rn. I by X¿!1'0r
I?aul Hoffat~.
..-: * +: '*
EQ.11~
PR:E:SE~'J':
Moffatt.
counçil~embers Hegarty, J~fferYI Snyde~1 Vonheeder ~nd Mç,YC~
Planning cO@ffiissioners Barnes, Burnham¡ Mack, okun and Zik~.
* :J¡ '* *
City M~nager Amþ~ose advised that the pu~po5e of this mé~ting w~s tQ
discm;i$ the recent Management ;.._udit çon.ducted by the fi:!:~ of Hughes, E-e.i::.::;
~ .Ä.s5çciate~.
racilita~or Arlene willi~s reviewed the workshoD form~t and ~sked tc~ i¿ca5
ralaté.d to adjdu~n>.le!1t time. It was the. consensus of the: Cm~r.cil ~~',.;: t:~_e
Planning CC~~i5~icn that the mê~ting ~ould go DO later than 11~OO P·~·I
with everyone 5~~ivir.g to complêt~ t~e necessary discussion by 10:00 p.~.
It ~as agreed that if th~ items on the agenda were not COrn?leted ~t t~is
mee:tiï:.g, that they would be c~~ried ova~ to the Te:am Builè.ing 'W'ork5;-:'cp ~ö
be held on sunday, 5eptamber 17th at the Wanta Brothers çonference C~~~e~.
A s~t of handouts s~owing existing planning jurisdic~icn and éxis~i~ç
applica~ion prcce5si~g ~a~ dis~~iQ~~~d.
..
PlanI1ing Direc'tcr Toti.g re'/ie.·,.¡ed t~e existing pl.anning ~.pplicaticn :;:::-':'::==5::;;
from t.he pe:,sDec:tive of. Dartiçi::J~tio;;" r~£:)orì.5ibilit·¡ a:-:.¿ ¿e:ei5ioTI ::-,~:{i::"_S
a'-.rt.hor-ity of $t~£f, t:~.é. Zoning Þ.è.;:ni;-¡2.stra.t.o:r, Pla ¡ liñç CO~':Iissiçn è:-,¿' ci~y
council.
consultant Gary ~olet2, repre~~n~ins thê firm of Hugh~$r Heiss &
AS50ciates, revi~~e¿ ,the axisting cc~ditio lS related to the Planni~c
P~OC~$S at the ti~e that the Mèn~qe~;nt Audit commencsd. Can5ulta~~ Co~~tz
~he~ presen~ad his ex~~utive overvieN of the Man~S~went A~dit
recoß~endatiQn5-
A £econd set of har.¿o~t£ £howing ~he policy reco~~en6ation5 was
distributed.
plènning Dir~ct~r Tot.g and City H:=.r.aser þ,...1't'I.brose prese"t==.d the po 1 i.:::::'
Tecc~~Qncation5 of thè ~anage~$~t Àucit related ~o the o~ócessir.~ c:
a¿~ini~trative ~~ncitional use Fer~i.ts and conditicr.al ~5~ pe~~it~.
staff also disc~ssed the quick check process as it relat£d to Plèn~:~g
a~plication5 .
There Tilè,~ a co¡i£en5·\~!:i of thosè 'O~esen'.;. that the fee ~-è.iv~::.- 'Drocess ~¡-'"8'...:].ci
lot be changed. staff indicat~~ that the review at a=~licè~icn~ fc= ~~5iç
¿OCU~ént require~ent5 under th~ sulek che~k prace~~ wc~l¿ ~ot ir.dlc~~= t~at
thé. èp91ie-="t.ion !,..'Ç!.S le.sally ca:r:l.'plet~. A discussion ê.í'.s·J.eÇ. as to '..'~"_='':. '.,':lS a
*+~+X7*+*+*+*+~+*+*+*7*+*+*+*+*7*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+~+*~*7~+*+*+~
c:·(-8-27l
p_djóurn€.d RE;g·...ll~~ }:é~tir!.g 5~pt.~;:il.bE= 7 I 1969
tTtACH~l I
~-------~----~---~----------------~-----;,
COPIES ~'O:
, /
..,
I'
--.-.------- -.--.....-
//
"
./
/./
/
/
/
/
//
.
.
complete application. The council indicated that if an applicant must be
advised that application has been accepted and not approved, the signature
of both the applicant and staff person handling the application should be
required.
Notification procedures regarding administrative conditional use permits
and conditional use permits were discussed. staff indicated that the
required legal notification goes to the property owner. The city council
and Planning Commission noted that the lack of tenant notification was of
potential concern. staff was directed to provide examples of conditio~al
use permits which could be approved by the zoning Administrator (Items A, B
& C on Page 3 of the second handout) at a future meeting. It was requested
that staff provide approximatelY 5 to 10 examples for each alternative.
The Council indicated that dance floors should not be approved by the
Zoning Administrator as a conditional use.
Discussion ensued regarding the issue of renewing existing conditional use
permits and the need to modify or adapt conditional use permits to cha~ging
conditions in the community, the desirability of having certain conditions
as part of the conditional use permit be subject to review on an ongoing
basis.
The following direction was provided to staff: 1) Staff was to prov~ca a
list of uses under the administrative conditional use permit, as well as
specific conditions including standard criteria. 2) Maintain a running log
of applications approved by Staff over the counter through zoning
clearance. 3) Monitor administrative conditional use permit compliance.
4) provide examples of conditional use permits. 5) Conditional use permits
should be open-ended and not have an expiration date. staff should
maintain a suspense file regarding these conditional use permits.
* * * *
&DJoumiNENT
The meeting was adjourned at 11:06 p.m.
* * * '*
(:
Hayo:::
ATTEST:
city Clerk
* * * *
I.
*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*7XT*+~
r~! - R -? 7?
/
/
/
,/
//'
.
.
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING - September 17, 1989
An adjourn.d regular meeting of the City Council of the Ci~y of Dublic
waS held on Sunday, Sep~embc, 17, 1989, at the Wente Brothers Confer,cce
Center in Livermore. The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m., b.
Mayor Paul Moffatt.
-{.- * *- ,}
ROLL CALL
PRESPlT:
Councilmembers Hega~ty Jeffery, Snyder Vonheeder and M2yor
Hoffatt ,
Planning Commissioners Barnes, Burnham, ~lackl Okun and Zika.
"* .~ * *
Consultant Arlene Willits p~ovided a recap of the action by the City
Council B[ the September 7, 1989, ~lanagement A~dit ~!eeting.
Consultant Gary Goletz and Planning Director Larry Tong discussed the
policy recommendations of the Management Audit as they releted to
Drocessing planning applications. The Pla~ni~g Director indic~te¿ th2t
the Plan~irrg Dep~rtment generally reviews ~he following ite~5 during T~~
site development review proLess;
1) Handicepped accessibility
2) Lighting
3) Topography
4) Traffic
5) Solar Energy
6) La~dscaping
7) Sig~ing
8) Three-dimensional analysis oÍ architecture
9) Architeçtural det~ils
The Planning Di~ector further indicated that those items th~t ~ere
gener&lly not revie~ed 2t the site development review state that ~ere
subsequently reviewed during the building per~it' processing ~ere the
follo!""ing:
1) Ðetaileô Pçrking.lot signage and striping
2) Detailed planting plans
3) Dôtailed irrigation plans
4) Detailed construction plans
5) Detailed grading, erosion çontro1 end drainage plans
6) Building security details
The City Council dir~cted Staff to develop g~idelines for si~e
development review for City Council consideration and approval.
With respe~t to the Planning Department's present policy to route all
site development review applications to the various Departments a~d
agencies within the City, the City Counçil indicated that it might be
okay to not route site development reviews for small additions or
@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@X@X@X@X@X
CN-8-280 P:.
:!r1-i,....,"r',...,D~ "Rp.u\,l~r Hppt""1r¡r, Scùt~mber 17. 1989
./
-
-
,../'
al~erations to all departments. However, the Council indiLa~ed that i:
would like Staff to develop a set of L,i~eria as to when 5~all additiç~s
or alterations subject to site development review would or would not t.
.outed out ~o other agencies and City Departments. Staff was directe:
to develop this criteria and present it to the City Council at a fut~oe
meeting. It was agreed that these criteria should be included in the
site development review guidelines. It was seggested that Staff consicer
a pla~ting lisL as paré of the guidelines. The Council agr~ed that .h=
City should s~a.e very clearly wha. is to be reviewed when.
The City Council con,urred th~t it was acceptable to utilìz~ a design
~evicw consultant to assist with criteria and site deYelop~~nt Tevie~ :or
projects On an as-needed basis. The cost for the consulting services
should be passed on ~o the applicant. Staff should develop ~ pool of
possible consultants.
Consultant Goletz ~n¿ Planning Director Latry Tong di5CU$SeC those po~:~y
reco~rnendations of the }lanagement Audit which related to c£rcel maD
applications. The City Council concu"ed that approval of parcel ~ap5
could be delegated to Staff. however, the council requestec that anV
a~tion$ r8g~rding parc~l map approval be iDL1~ded in a log ~hich iden~:-
.fies Staffts actiQI\S on various projects.
Consultant Galet2 and Planning Dire~tör To~g èiscussed the ~olicy iss~=s
related to Lhe ~!~nagemenL Audit recommendatio~ regarding ~~~o~ ~mend~r~~
to planning epplications. The Council concurred thit St2ff should h2~~
the authority to act on ~inor amendments. Ho~ever1 Staff ~ust be se~~~-
tive to the Plf-nning CommissiQn ~nd City Cou~(il_in teking Ectíons o~
minor amendments to planning applications. Approval of rni~or aDen¿me~:s
by S~aÍf should also be added to the log of planning sc~ions.
Consultant Goletz and the City ~Ienager revie~ed the policy recommenda-
tions of ~he Management Audit related to cost recovery. The Council
agrecd that ~esi·dents who are o~~er/occupants of property 5ho~ld be 8~~e~
a lower fee on plaoning spplicçtion fees. Council ~greed t~êt a flat :~e
should be charged to resident5 ~ho are owner/occup~nts of prQµe~ty 2~
opposed to. the actual cost.
The City Coun~il Goncurrcd that the non-owner/occupant should pay thE
full actual ~ost on the processing of veria~ce 2~d conditio~al use
p~rmi¡;5.
With respect to filing appeals OIl planning applicatiofis it ~as agree:
that the fee for appesl should be charged; for example, a SSG appeal ---
to the Planning CommisSion and a $25 appeal fee to the City Council.
The Ci~y Council discussed the cost of the building per~it surcharge ,0
cover Planning Department review of building permi~~. The City Council
concurred with a surcha~ge.
The City
S~aff ~o
cha.rges.
Council conside.ed the over heed charoes of the Citv and aske¿
~ -
re-eva~.uate and bring back a suggested change to the overhea~
@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@X@X-
ÇH-8-281
Ad iOllrn"d ReQlIlar ~¡eeting
September 17, 1989
/
/
//
/
.
.
The City Council indicated that it would be ~ppropriate to increase tco
5tand~rd deposits for planning ap91ications.
The City Council also directed Staff to prepare a revised fee resolutiQ~
fo, City Council consider~tion at a future meeting.
Fa,ilitator Arlene Willits recapped the decisions made by the City
Council regarding the Man~gement Audit recom~endations.
The City Council and Planning Commission recessed for lunch ~t 12:00
noon.
The Citv Council ~nd Pl~nning Commission resu"-ed their discussions
reg~rdi~g the Tea~ Building workshop portion of the agend~.
Consultant Willits initiated an exercise for the St~ff, Planning
Commission and City Council to discuss expectations of each group. ~5 E
result of th~t workshop discussion. the fol1o~ing expectations we,"
dev"lop"d.
Planning Commission's comments on roles and expectation! for Staff:
1. Provide complete information
2. Provide agenda packets to the Plenning Commission earlier when ite=s
involviog envirorrmental impact reports at m~jor ¿evelop~ents are :~
be considered on an ~gend~
3. Provide quality info,øation
4. Do not use Xerox ~hotos in the B8"ndø peckets
5. U5e video presentations or actual phot08r~phs at meetings whe~e
appropriate
6. Use letter 5iz" paper for reports
Î. Do not reduc" type on repo,ts when possit~e
8. Provide history and analysis on important projects
9. Eave all inforffi2tion £vailable at the CO~2ission hearings
10. Avoid use of.açronyrns 2nd use terms which ere easily understood t¡
the public
11. Before citations are issued on zoning vio12tions more prell~!n¿;y
.~udi"s shoul~ be done
12. Cbnsider w"ekend enforcement of viol~tio~.
13. Provide consist~nt information
14. Include the Plan~ing Comwis5io~'s ,ationale for votes in the
COm~issionrs minutes.
Th" Pla~ning Commission had the following co"-ments regarding its
exp"ctaëion of th" Commission:
1. Commission"rs should do their homework end esk nec"ssary questio~õ
2. Be in tune with the public opinion
3. Know whet is expected from the Commission by th" City Council
4. Be avereor cognizant of City policies
5. Know the reasons for the City Council reversing Planning Commi$sic~
recommendations
6. Work w,,11 with o~" another
@X@X@X@X@X@X@X@X@X@X@X@X@X@X@X@X@X@X@X@X@X@X@X@X@X@X@X@X@X@X@X@X@X@X@X@X@
rlf n ...,.-¡""'\
-
-
7. Make certain that all sides ere heard on issues considered by the
Commissiop
8. Aétend as maoy meetiogs as possible, includiog field trips aod Cice
furtctioos (be fully Lommitted)
9. Deal openly with one another
10. Commu.oicate Commission's r2tionale for its recommendations
The PlanoingComrnission had the following com~=ots regardirtg its
expectations of the City Council:
1. More communication is needed between the City Council and Planning
.Commission
2. The City Council should ~ommunic2te its decision-making ration21e
3. The Council should unde~stand the ratiotlËle for the Planning
Commission's reLommcndations.
4. The Commission would like to know the City Council's goals and
objectives for the neW areas of Dublin which are under ge~eral pl~~
study
5. The City Council should be wore sensitive end aware of citizen's
Lonce~ns and input
6. The Ci~y Council should be mOre consistent in its decision-maki~g
7. ~Iore information should be vrovided to the citizens via City
newsletter and public n¡edi~
A discussion ens~ed regarding th~ comments by ~he Planning CQ~missio~
As a result of th2t discussion, the City Co~ncil directed St2ff to:
1) schedule 2 present2tion' by the City's Tr2Ífic Engineer on che big
piLture for transportation i£suesin the City at :sorne future date;
2) develop some concepts .for e future dinne~ ~~eting betweert the Pl~~~:~t
Commission and the City Council to discuss the future visio~ a~d qual;:e
oÍ life issues fOe the City; 3) identify those areas that had not bee~
resolved for further discussion at a future meeting.
The Council indicated that individual members of the Commission 2nd
Council should work at improving thei~ working relationship.
The St6ff identified those coæm~nts ~e85~ding their expections for St~:::
1. To present opti~ns to the Planning Commis3ion end City Counci
rega~ding policy issues
2. To facilitate g~owth and development thro~8h existing policies,
ordinênces, ete., adopted by City Council
3. To provide clear, concise a~d thorough information, anélysis a~è
present~tions to the Planning Comwission G~d City Council rega~d~~~
planning issues
4. To interpret Council policy and ordinances
5. To disseminate irtÍormetion. resOurLeS and services to the public
Staff had the following comments regarding its expeLtations of the
Planning Commission:
@x@XeX@X@X@X@X@X@X@X@X@X@X@X@X@X@X@X@X@X@X@X@X@X@X@X@X@X@X@X@X@X@X@X@X§X@
CM-8-283
Adjourned Regular Meeting
September 17, 1939
.
.
1. The Commission should intecpret Council policy regarding specific
situations
2. The Commission should make policy recömme~dations regarding lane l5~
planning
3. The Commission should 8ct as a sounding board for Council
sift the issues at hand
4. The Commission should provide cle8r direction to Staff as
interpretation of City Council policy
5. The Commission should express its rationale fo, deciSion
6. Commissioners should come prep~red to the meeting by doing their
homework
7. The Commission should call Staff with questions before Commission
meetings
8. The Commission should foç~s on planni~g iS5ue5 ê~d not issues tha~ :D
not relate to the Planning Ccm~ission's role
J.n orde,- to
to t.heir
Staff had the following commeèts ,ôga,ding its expectations of the Ci:c
Council:
1. The Council should do its home~a,k
2. The CounLil should be speciÍìc and cle2r in giving its r2tional~ ,~~
decisions
3. Councilmembers should call St2ff regarding questions they may tev8
before the Council meetings
4 The Council should focu5 Orr i$sues
5. The' Council should provide s long-ter~ vision for the co~~unity
6. Councilmembers should work wi~hin the est2blished Council/~laneger
system in dealing ~ith Staff
7. The Council should make policy
8. The Council should ac~ 88 a body and not ~s i~dividuals
The Citj Council discussed its expectations for Staff:
1. Staff should :essist the City Ccun~il in tte planning process arrc
essisting with long-ter~ policy deCisions
2. Staff should provide clear, concise irrforc2tion and clee:ly
ideil.tify issues
3. Provide summery. sheets for Pla~nin8 hearings
4 Avoid duplicEti'O,n of material
5. Elimin~te some of çhe P12nning Commission 2genda inform~tion ~~ìc~
is r-epetitive
6. Provide equal communication to all Cou~cilffiembers
7. Project ~od represeDt ~ u5er~friendly iOç§;
8. Provide 5e~vice with ~ c~n-do 2ttitude
9. Do not use "buzz '.iords"
10. Handle the day-to-day busi~ess of runrring the City
11. Be available Brrd retu,n calls
12. Don;t be afraid to say, "I don't know"
13. Provide coffee and beverages at meeti~gs
14. ,F 011 0 ~ up i n e. t i m e 1 y man ~ e r
The City Cou~cil had the following expectations for the Planning
Commis5ion:
@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@X@X@X@X@X@X@X@X§X@
GI-S- 28t¡
,~ .-:! ; ~ " ~ ,..., ñ,4 D ~ ~ .. 1 ~ ~ ),( ~ '^' .....:: ~ ~
"
,
.
.
1. Clarify the issues related to Planning it~ms
2. Follo~ Cou~cil policy
3. Be knowledgeable of the co~munity direction, i.e. goals and necd~
4. Distinguish fact froo, emotion duri~g Commissio~ heari~gS
5. Conduct meetings in a businesslike manner! stay on the track ~ith
re$p8~t to iss~e5 and serve as a positive Íorum for gathering
i~formation
Ó. Understa~d the Planning process
ï. Be able to parcicipate in a teamwork atCitud~ with City Council a~¿
City Staff
a. Never allow personalities to influenLe deLisions
9. Be prepared, do Commission homework
City Council had the following expectations rçgarding the City Counc~l
1. Do homework, read ~epQrts a~d understand issues
2. Giv.e clea~ guidance
3. Don't let per50nali~ie5 i~fluence decisions
4. Strive for consistenLY
5. Be a team player, disagree on issues only
ó. Keep other members of the CouaGil informed
7. Conduct ours~lves publicly to encourage cOñÍideoce in government
at ~ local level
8. Act in the publiC'S best intere5ts, b~la~'ing pe~so~~l ç~d p~blic
conc.erns
9. Always be open to the public
10. Do not individually direGt St~ff
The Commission and Council discussed the availability of meeting
fa~ilities a0d file 5pace for Planning Commission me~bers. It ~aS al~0
egreed that team~ork issues m2Y need further exploration in that the
parti~ipants did not have time to complete this ite~ on the ~ge~cia.
~~ 1".. * * f,
ADJOURKèIE:-iT
There bei~g ~o further business to come befo~c the Cour.c.il the mee~~~~
w~s ~djourned at 4:30 p.m.
,"', .;;: * f'~ *
........--------,~
HÇ.yo:r
ATTEST:
,_....------""-
City nerk
**it**
@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@X@X@X@X@X@X@X@X@X@
01-8-285
Adjourned Regular Meeting
September 17, 1989
~
.
OUTLINE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Amend Zoning Ordinance to allow Zoning Administrator authority
regarding: [Reo. No.3, pg. 32J
a. CUP's that are exempt from CEQA.
(Example: 20/20 Recycle Center CUP)
b. Opera~ional changes to existing CUP's
(Example: Erik's Delicafe Outdoor Seating CUP)
;-
c. CUP's in existing structures that do not require substantial
remodeling (Example: Jimmy O'ei1's dance floor CUP)
d. Authorize Zoning Administrator to refer potentially high
exposure/impact CUP's to P1a~ning Commission
II. Amend Zoning Ordinance to ~ require renewal of CUP's
BENEFITS
~ Time saved by more flexible Zoning Administrator hearing schedule
- Save Staff time by eliminating the need for CUP renewal
POTE~TlAL RISKS
A. The Zoning Administrator wigh~ not recogni~a ~ potentìally high
exposure/impact CUP until late in the process (See I.)
B. When Zoning Administrator misinterprets City policy on a CUP
application, the application will need to be appealed in order for
Plannine Commission to consider it. This might result in more appeals
initially, at least until City policy direction is clarified (See I.)
..
tJ. .3 b ç ~ \\c.J"J
ð qlï /8'\ t'Z.- MUb''1
-3-
\
.
e
Cm. North requested a minimum of two weeks for revie
substantial reading material.
ocument of
Mr. Tong stated California Build' ems has offered to make a
slide presentation to the g Commission on community design
guidelines for meta lngs. If the Commission is interested,
Staff will ma ngements for a review at a future date.
Cm es commented that she would be interested in the slide
esentation for metal buildings.
..... SUBJECT:
PA 91-067 Ordinance Amendment Manaqement Audit related to
the Administrative Conditional Use Permit, Conditional Use
Permit and Site Development Review process and establishinq
a Zoninq Clearance Process
Cms. Zika and North began discussing the item without Staff
presentation, indicating their concern that there was insufficient
time to discuss some major significant concerns.
cm. Burnham asked if there were any outstanding concerns to clear up.
Cm. Zika stated his major concern was the public's interest as to
neighborhood proposals. He brought up Regional Ambulance. He has
long been an advocate of notifying every resident within 300 feet of a
planned 'item.
Cm. North commented he would like to see as a requirement that a
Conditional Use permit and public hearing be required anytime a 24-
hour business is allowed within 300 feet of a residential area. He
stated that there are items that are decided by the Zoning
Administrator and/or Planning Director which have no appeal process
and felt that there should not be any action taken by a city official
that cannot be appealed, excluding the City Council.
Mr. Tong explained that those particular items are at the direction of
the Council. The Council has indicated that they would like to see
certain permits streamlined as an over-the-counter type application.
These applications do not have an appeal. This is the direction that
was given by the City Council regarding the Management Audit items.
cm. North stated he felt that there were several items that should or
should not be appealable.
Cm. Zika questioned why the items were being brought to the commission
if this is what the City council wants.
Mr. Tong explained that the Ordinance Amendment Management Audit
is presented to the Commission in order for the Commissioners to
indicate their concerns and comments which are then presented as a
recommendation to the City Council. Whether the council follows the
recommendation or not is the Council's prerogative.
-~-~------~-~---~-~---~-~-~-----~------~------~-----~--~~-~-------~-
Regular Meeting
[9-16 ]
PCM-1991-122
September 16, 1991
AlTACHMEHT d.-
e
.
Cm. Barnes asked if this item was on a special time requirement.
Mr. Tong indicated there was no specific time constraint.
cm. Barnes requested that this item be continued in order to give the
Commission more time to thoroughly read and comment on the Draft
Amendments.
At the request of the commission, Item 9.2 was continued to the
November 4, 1991 Planning Commission.
Cm. Burnham questioned nonappealable decisions by city officials.
Mr. Tong explained this was discussed at the study sessions regarding
the Management Audit.
Mr. Tong explained that certain decisions by city officials occur
every day. However, he stated that someone can request the council to
change the Council's ordinances/resolution. The main focus of the
management audit study was to streamline operations, making it more
efficient, while maintaining the effectiveness of good decision
making.
cm. Burnham agreed but stated he felt there exists a gray area in
regards to the ambulance operation in a residential area. He felt
that the ambulance operation was legally in there but was also
breaking the law by exceeding the noise level within a residential
establishment.
Cm. Zika stated that emergency vehicles were exempt from the noise
level ordinance by the State of California and therefore, none of the
above applies to them.
Cm. Burnham asked if all of the underlined reading matter are changes
or additions to the ordinance.
MS. O'Halloran stated they are the major changes.
Mr. Tong reiterated that this item will be brought back to the
Commission as a study session item.
commission concurred.
OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. Tong stated that at the September 23, 19 Y council meeting,
the City Council will consider the hou' elated ordinances that the
Planning Commission had recommend r action. This would include
the second readings of the Availability Ordinance, the JL
Construction planned d ment rezoning, the Density Bonus
Ordinance, and Ch Conditional Use permit.
-~--~~----~~--~---------~-~--~~--~----~~-----~---~----~--~~--------~
Regular Meeting
[9-16]
PCM-1991-123
September 16, 1991
/"
r
e
-
Ms. O'Halloran stated the handout describes what evelopment
review process is and what the necessary ste re; and that it could
also be included as an Appendix to the elines which would be
included when the guidelines are ased.
Mr. Choy stated staff w' ring this item back to the Planning
Commission at a f e date.
cm. Burn
Mr. Choy on his presentation.
that it was very well done.
t
SUBJECT:
PA 91-067 Ordinance Amendment Manaqement Audit related to
the Administrative Conditional Use Permit, Conditional Use
Permit and Site Development Review process and estab1ishinq
a Zoninq Clearance Process
Cm. Burnham presented the unfinished business and asked for the staff
report.
MS. O'Halloran presented the staff report to the Commission. She
stated this item was continued from the September 16, 1991 Planning
Commission meeting in order to allow the Commission additional time to
adequately review and discuss the proposed Ordinance Amendment. Staff
recommends that the Planning Commission provide Staff direction
concerning the Draft Management Audit related Ordinance Amendment and
continue to a future Planning Commission meeting.
Cm. Burnham asked if there was any type of recourse for uses which
could be subject to zoning Administrator approval as shown on
Att<lchment 4.
Ms. O'Hal1oran stated the Applicant could appeal any action taken.
She stated the Conditional Use Permit process would be similar in
terms of noticing and holding a public hearing. However, some uses
would be acted upon by the Zoning Administrator and others by the
Planning Commission. The Zoning Administrator meetings are held
during the day on week days. Just as the Planning Commission's
actions are appealable to the City Council, the Zoning Administrator's
actions are appealable to the Planning Commission.
Cm. Rafanelli commented about the lack of public input with the Zoning
Administrator/planning Director making decisions.
Ms. O'Halloran stated the Conditional Use permit items that are
proposed for the zoning Administrator to take action on would still
need a public'hearing so there would be an opportunity for public
input. The only items that would not be subject to appeal or have the
public input would be zoning Clearances. The Commission may want to
take a look at the items in the Zoning Clearance and Zoning
Administrator categories and provide input.
------------~----------~----------~----~-------~--~-~-~------~--------
Regular Meeting
[11-4]
PCM-1991-139
> AUACHMEHT 1:ï
.,.- .,'"
.
.
cm. Zika stated technic~lly, it is correct that the opportunity for
public input is provided at the Zoning Administrator hearings but in
practiC~lity, there isn't much opportunity for public input if the
hearings are held during the day on week days because of the public's
working hours. He indicated public hearings held in the evenings have
better public input.
Cm. Burnh~m agreed wi.th everything but still did not like any
decisions that are made by one person that cannot be appealed.
cm. North agreed.
Ms. O'H~lloran stated the way the Zoning Clearance is set up, the
Applicant will need to comply with the established standard
requirements and in order for staff to deny the Zoning Clearance,
staff would have to find that the Applicant does not meet one of those
requirements. The Applicant could argue a point similar to the
physical therapist request this evening and ask the Planning
Commission to make an interpretation. The idea of the Zoning
Clearance is that the requirements will be very clear cut and the
request may be approved over the counter.
Cm. North stated that the Applicant should be made aware that there is
no appeal process on items processed at the counter. He felt public
domain should not be decided by one person.
Ms. O'Halloran stated staff does make an effort to advise the
Applicant of ~ll of their options.
Cm. North felt that if an ordinance is written, the ordinance should
specify the appeal process and what it is.
Cm. zika agreed that there should be some appeal process.
Cm. Burnham concurred.
Ms. O'Halloran stated that i.f an appeal process is added to the new
category of Zoning Clearance, it would essentially be the same as the
existing Administrative Conditional use Permit process.
Cm. North stated he would find this process preferable as to not
having an appeal process.
cm. Burnham commented that maybe staff could add wording such as "the
Applicant can request an interpretation" to the application.
Ms. O'Halloran stated staff is requesting the Commission to provide
Staff direction concerning the Draft Management audit related
Ordinance Amendment and will continue this matter to a future Planning
commission meeting as a Public Hearing or study session.
Cm. Barnes asked what would happen to child care permits?
Ms. O'Halloran stated it was proposed as a Conditional Use permit,
subject to the Zoning Administrator's approval.
--~-~------~----------~----~---------~~-------~---~----~~-----~-~-----
Regular Meeting
[11-4]
PCM-1991-l40
November 4, 1991
-
-
Cm. Barnes commented thQt currently a child care permit is approved by
the Planning Commission.
Ms. O'HQlloran agreed.
cm. Barnes felt that child care permits should be left for Planning
Commission approval because the meetings are held in the evenings,
giving more opportunity for public input. She felt child care is such
a sensitive area in our community today.
Cm. Zika commented about the traffic child care creates, possibly in a
quiet neighborhood. He felt that the residents, within a 300' radius
of a proposed project, should be notified just as property owners are.
Cm. Barnes agreed and reiterated that child care permits should be
heQrd at a nighttime public hearing.
Cm. Zika stated he is still pushing for a policy whereby the residents
are also notified within 300 feet of a proposed project. He felt a
lot of headQches would be eliminated if the residents were also
notified.
Cm. Barnes inquired QS to who pays for the public notification of a
proposed project.
Ms. O'Halloran stated the Applicant provides the postage, addresses or
labels and the envelopes.
Cm. Barnes felt thQt the Applicant might have a problem with finding
the names of the residents.
Ms. O'Halloran stated it would be difficult to find the names of the
residents but the Applicant could address the envelope to 'Occupant'.
Cm. BQrnes asked if the legal owner would still have to be notified.
Ms. O'Halloran said yes as that was a requirement of State Law.
cm. Barnes indicated the commission would like to protect the public
and felt evening meetings would bring better public input.
Cm. Burnham felt many items were streamlined.
cm. North felt any permitted use must be exercised with judgment and
felt conditions could be added.
Ms. O'Halloran stated conditions cannot be added to a permitted use as
permitted useS are a right by law and are not discretionary.
Cm. Barnes commented on the five-day appeal period on Administrative
conditional Use Permits. The appeQl can come from a Commissioner,
Councilmember, Applicant or property Owner. She felt the QPpea1ab1e
action letters are being received too late to appeal, even though
staff is mailing the letters out on time.
-----~-~--~------~-~--~--~-~-----~-----------~-~-----~~-----~---------
Regular Meeting
[11-4]
PCM-199l-141
November 4, 1991
"
.
.
~
Cm. Zika commented the reason for the late mail delivery is because
the Dublin mail must go to Pleasanton and then to Oakland before it is
delivered in Dublin.
Cm. Barnes felt because of the postal service, maybe staff might want
to think of something regarding the five-day appeal period.
cm. North felt five days was insufficient time for notification and
stated maybe ten or fifteen days should be allowed.
Cm. Barnes stated maybe fifteen days might be too long for the
Applicant.
Ms. O'Halloran stated at the present time, Site Development Reviews,
Conditional Use Permits and Variances all have 10-day appeal periods;
Tentative Parcel Maps have IS-day appeal periods and Administrative
Conditional Use Permits have 5-day appeal periods.
Cms. Burnham and Rafanelll both agreed that five days was too short
for an appeal period.
Ms. O'Halloran asked the Commission if they wanted this item to come
back as a study session or a Public Hearing item.
The general consensus of the Commission was that the item would come
back as a public hearing.
Cm. North reiterated that child care permits should be left for
Planning Commission approval.
Cm. Rafanelli asked if the draft covered the majority of items that
were in the Management Audit.
Ms. O'Halloran stated the draft covered the items that required Zoning
ordinance Amendments.
Cm. North asked what the consensus was from the Commission on a single
person making decisions.
Cm. Zika felt he would be in favor of proposing some type of appeal
avenue.
MS. O'Halloran asked the Commission if they wish to leave this item
open and make their wishes known at the time of the public hearing.
Ms. O'Halloran stated this item will be noticed for a public hearing
and if the Commission is in agreement to leave day care permits for
Commission approval, staff will make the necessary changes on the next
draft. The items on the zoning Clearance, which was part of the
Management Audit, will be best handled by the Commission making a
specific recommendation concerning that aspect. staff will attempt to
notice this item for a meeting in December.
-~-~--~~--------------~-----~--------------------~---~-------~----~-~-
Regular Meeting
[11-4]
PCM-1991-142
November 4, 1991
.
Mr. Toohey felt that the eight year
urged the Commission to approve the
.
extension was not unreasonable and
application.
Cm. Burnham asked for clarification on the eight year extension. He
felt that this might cause the project to drag out for a long period
of time.
Mr. Toohey indicated that the custom homes might take a long
If one home was built per week, it would be some time before
project was completed. He was just looking for a little pro
Cm. Zika had a concern that the develop
property as soon as possible after th
e frames
t situation,
ow market. He
mandated ordinances
Mr. Tong added that the existing construction related
would still be in effect. Because of the housing ma
the eight year provision provided for a continuin
indicated that existing and new Federal and Sta
would still apply.
would try to sell the
pprovals were done.
Mr. Toohey indicated that people
of the time. However, they ha
re interested in the property all
o plans on selling the property.
Clark Morrison, Attorney
of the Development Agree
need to come back to t
transferred.
f the Applicant, referred to paragraph 16.1
nt. He indicated that The Bren Co. would
City council for approval if the property was
Cm. Zika closed
e public hearing.
On motion fr
5-0, the C
Cm. Barnes, seconded by Cm. Burnham, and with a vote of
ission adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 92-003
ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PA 91-099 HANSEN
HILL RANCH PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
RESOLUTION NO. 92-004
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PA 91-099 HANSEN HILL RANCH PROJECT
DEVELOPMENT AGREF.MF.N~
~
SUBJECT: FA 91-067 Dublin Municipal Ordinance Amendment Manaqement
Audit relatinq to the Administrative conditional Use Permit,
Conditional Use Permit, and Site Development Review process,
and establishment of a Zoninq Clearance process (continued
from the January 6, 1992 Planninq Commission meetinq)
cm. Zika asked for the staff report. nRAFT
Ms. Maureen O'Halloran presented the staff report to the ~mmission.
She indicated that the City Attorney's comments had been incorporated
into the staff report. Staff recommended the Planning Commission
adopt the resolutions recommending City council approval of the
application.
--~---~------~~-----~------------~~------~--------~~----------~-------
Regular Meeting
[1-2lmin]
PCM-1992-4
January 21, 1992
ATTACHMENT d.-
Cm. Zika felt that t~nts should be notified Of~UbliC he~~f=1r
well as the property owners. Some property owners are not concerned
about the situations occurring around their property since they do not
occupy the building.
Mr. Tong indicated that Staff already exceeds the legal requirements
for public hearing notifications. Staff publishes the notice in the .
newspaper, posts the notice at various locations, and notifies
property owners within 300 feet of the property. He indicated that it
would be hard to identify the tenants and Staff would have to do two
separate mailings.
Cm. Burnham asked what type of cost would it be for the City. Staff
could require the Applicant to make out the mailing lists.
Mr. Tong indicated that the second mailing list would create
additional time for the Applicant in order to track the tenants. It
would take Staff additional time to check the list and mail out the
notices.
Cm. North referred to page 23, section 24, item *1. He had a concern
with the 5 day appeal period.
Mr. Tong indicated that this rule waS consistent with Administrative
Conditional use Permit time frames. One of the intents of this
ordinance was to streamline the planning process. The zoning
clearance approval would be for very minor project.
some of the commissioners had concerns with the 5-day appeal period.
For example, the Applicant might receive the notice without having
enough time available to appeal the project.
Cm. North referred to page 5, item #B. He felt that these projects
were not of a minor nature and indicated that there needed to be
sufficient amount of time to appeal.
Ms. O'Halloran clarified that the items Cm. North was referring to
were conditional uses requiring "Zoning Administrator" approval.
These items required a 10 day appeal period.
Cm. Burnham referred to
approved just recently.
notice on this item.
the Dublin Mini-Storage project that had been
He indicated that he had not received a
Mr. Tong indicated that he should have received the letter today.
On motion from Cm. Barnes, seconded by Cm. Burnham,
5-0, the commission adopted
DRAFT
and with a vote of
Cm. Zika closed the public hearing.
RESOLUTION NO. 92-005
RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PA 91-067
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT MANAGEMENT AUDIT
-----------------~------------~-----~~--~------~------~---------~-----
Regular Meeting
[1-21min]
PCM-1992-5
January 2l, 1992
.
RESOLUTION NO. 92-006
ADOPTION OF PA 91-067 ORDINANCE
MANAGEMENT AUDIT
.
DRAfT
RECOMMENDING
AMENDMENT
OTHER BUSINESS
NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None
Mr. Tong indicated that the City council had mid-year
financial situation and concluded that there was a sh fall in the
general fund of approximately $500,000. The Counci tlecided to defer
City wide items, such as travel, training, fur nit and fixture
expenses, etc. The Planning Commission Institut has been cancelled.
There were some exceptions, such as the Disast Training.
Mr. Tong indicated th it was his understanding that both stations
were in the design ocess. There was not enough money for both
stations. The eas rn station would be built first. The parking
would be split b ween Pleasanton and Dublin. Preliminary work would
be completed fo the West Dublin station. Staff has not seen any of
the design wo as of yet.
eeting, the Council will
regarding Massage
Guidelines, status of the
East Plan.
Mr. Tong indicated that at the January 27th
be reviewing the Zoning Ordinance Amendme
Establishments, the Site Development Rev
nonconforming signs, and the Alameda C
Mr. Tong also indicated that
has been cancelled.
ing Commission on February 3rd
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS'
The Commission discussed
anniversary banquet.
Cm. Burnham asked what
arrangement for the City's l D -tt-..-
status was on the proposed BART stations.
DRAfT
was adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Planning Commission Chairperson
Laurence L. Tong
Planning Director
---~-~----~-~-----------------~------~-----------------~--------------
Regular Meeting
[1-21min]
PCM-1992-6
January 21, 1992
. '
.
.
RESOLUTION NO. 92 - 006
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
------~---~-------~---~----~-~----~-----------~---~----------------~-
RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF PA 91-067
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT MANAGEMENT AUDIT
WHEREAS, the Management Audit of the Planning Department,
prepòred by Hughes, Heiss ònd Associates, dòted July 1, 1989,
recommended modifications to the City of Dublin Planning Application
Process; and
WHEREAS, on September 7, 1989, and September 17, 1989, the City
council held a joint session with the Planning Commission and Staff to
consider the Management Audit and to direct Staff; and
WHEREAS, a Draft ordinònce Amendment relating to Plònning
Commission, Planning Director, and Zoning Administrator authority,
Administrative Conditional Use permit, Conditional Use Permit, Parcel
Map, Signs, Site Development Review and establishing a new Zoning
Clearance process has been prepared; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held study sessions on said
Draft Ordinance on September 16, 1991, and November 4, 1991; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on sòid
Praft Ordinance on December 2, 1991, December 16, 1991, January 6,
1992 and January 21, 1992;
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all
respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, said Draft Ordinance has been reviewed in accordance
with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and a
Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance has been prepared
for this project as it will not have ò significant effect on the
environment; and
WHEREAS, the Staff Report was submitted recommending the Planning
Commission recommend City Council approval of said Draft Ordinance;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said
reports, reco~nendations and testimony hereinabove set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning
Commission does hereby find thòt the Draft Ordinance Amendments are
consistent with the stated purposes and objectives of the City's
Municipal code and Zoning ordinance and with the City's General Plan.
ATTACHMENT .3
.
.
.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does
hereby recommend the City council adopt the Ordinance Amendment
Management Audit (PA 91-067).
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of January, 1992.
AYES:
commissioners Barnes, Burnham, North, Rafanelli and zika
NOES:
None
ABSENT:
None
ATTEST:
~~~~
Planning Director
920f;i7RE4
- 2 -
/, ",.
.'.'.
.
,.
.
.
.
RESOLUTION NO. 92 - 005
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CXTY OF DUBLIN
---~-----~-----~----~-----~-----~--~----~---~----~--~--------~-----~-
RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR
PA 91-067 ORDINANCE AMENDMENT MANAGEMENT AUDIT
WHEREAS, the Management Audit of the Planning Department,
prepared by Hughes, Heiss and Associates, dated July 1, 1989,
recommended modifications to the City of Dublin Planning Application
process¡ and
WHEREAS, on September 7, 1989, and September 17, 1989, the City
council held a joint session with the Planning Commission and Staff to
consider the Management Audit and to direct Staff¡ and
WHEREAS, a Draft Ordinance Amendment relating to Planning
Commission, Planning Director, and Zoning Administrator authority,
Administrative Conditional Use Permit, Conditional Use Permit, Parcel
Map, Signs, Site Development Review and establishing a new Zoning
Clearance process has been prepared; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
together with the State Guidelines and City Environmental Guidelines,
require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impact and
that environmental documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study was conducted finding that the project,
as proposed, would not have a significant effect on the environment¡
and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration has been prepared for this
application; and
WHEREAS, public notice of the Negative Declaration was given in
all aspects as required by State Law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning commission did review and consider the
Negative Declaration at a public hearing on December 2, 1991, December
l6, 1991, January 6, 1992 and January 21, 1992.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning
commission does hereby find:
1. That the project will not have a significant effect on the
environment.
2. That the negative Declaration has been prepared and processed in
accordance with state and local environmental laws and guideline
regulations.
3. That the Negative Declaration is complete and adequate.
ATIAÇ~HEMT 3
· BE IT FURTHER REtIlVED THAT THE Dublin P1ann4lt Commission hereby
recommends that the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration for
PA 91-067 Ordinance Amendment Management Audit.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of January, 1992.
AYES:
Commissioners Barnes, Burnham, North, Rafane1li and Zika
NOES:
None
ABSENT:
None
ATTEST:
@~~1~
Panning Director
/91067REJ
- 2 -
.
.
<
TABLE OF CHANGES TO APPROVAL AUTHORITY
Existinq ACUP Approvals by Planninq Director; Proposed Chanqe to
Zoninq Clearance by Planninq Director:
1. Christmas tree sales lots or other seasonal sales lots
2. Pumpkin patches
3. Neighborhood/school/church festivals
4. Temporary construction trailers
5. Grand-opening temporary promotional signs
6. Temporary promotional signs (30 days)
7. Temporary off-site sale or lease signs
8. Identification signs
Existinq Parcel Map Approval by Planninq Commission; Proposed Chanqe
to Approval by Planninq Director.
Existinq CUP Approvals by Planninq Commission; Proposed Chanqe to CUP
APprovals by Zoninq Administrator:
1. Pharmacy (C-O District)
2. Restaurant/retail store serving district (C-O and M-l Districts)
3. Directional tract signs (C-O, C-N, C-1, C-2, and M-l Districts)
4. Temporary promotional signs (C-O, C-N, C-1, C-2, and M-1
Districts)
5. Commercial recreation excluding dance floor and theatre (C-1,
C-2, and M-1 Districts)
6. Minor amendment of existing approved Conditional Use Permit (All
Districts)
7. Freestanding signs in excess of 20 feet in height (C-1, C-2, M-l
Districts)
----,-~-
Lf
þ "'ë\"'''''J''' ~. ell! ~MEr' ~~
I·, '~ t:' ".J i." ,kI\, ~ , :),,, J~
I.. " (1 ~¡ ",,1, Ii . 'í~'1
. )1 \.¡ !t".. ... ".,".
',. ',:" II ¡¡¡ \;\' . .. ..