PC 080807 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. MacDonald noted that they had heard concerns from people who did not receive notice of the community meetings and that they would meet with them to address those concerns. He emphasized that traffic would be addressed and that they would work with Mike Tassano to improve the safety of Dublin Canyon Road. He commended both the proponents and opponents for acting in a civilized manner during this meeting. Mr. Milani noted that the visibility of the dome from I-580 will require further study. He noted that a fairly significant eucalyptus stand along I-580 would provide some screening effect, which will also require further study. He noted that with respect to the new C-3 requirements requiring hydromodification models, this project would not discharge any more water from the site than had historically been discharged. They will continue to work with the Planning and Engineering staff on these issues. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. In response to the concern voiced by an audience member regarding the extra speaking time allowed the applicants, Chairperson Fox explained that it was normal process on the Planning Commission and City Council levels for the applicant(s) to be allowed to speak after the public hearing to address any questions brought up by the audience. Ms. Seto noted that the applicant always had the opportunity to rebut points brought up during the public hearing. Chairperson Fox added that because this was a work session, no action would be taken by the Commission. A recess was called at 9:30 p.m. Chairperson Fox reconvened the hearing at 9:46 p.m. Ms. Decker noted that the parking counts and parking ratio were frequently brought up during the hearing. She noted that the initial number of people attending would be 40 to 60 individuals and that the maximum number of required spaces during Phase I would be a total of ten spaces initially; the applicant will provide 84 spaces in the first phase. If they were allowed to expand to 250 within a year, under the conditional use permit, they would be required to have 41.6 spaces. She noted that the maximum usage was utilized in the calculations to avoid overflow parking situations. She noted that the applicant had submitted conceptual plans and that floor plans were not available at this time. She noted that staff would research the question of what parking ratios other churches had provided. In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Fox regarding whether the parking ratio would be different if the use were to be classified as an educational facility rather than a religious facility, Ms. Decker replied that it would be based on a student count or a square footage count, depending on the facility. She did not know whether staff would look at the use from that perspective and noted that the class sizes were described to be quite low. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 8, 2007 Page 15 of 24