PC 080807 - Laserfiche WebLink

from 580. She would like to see the 80-foot setback increased to place the building farther away from the residents. She would like to see a visual and a photo simulation from the nearest neighbor. She liked the gated site on Golden Eagle, off Foothill Road, and noted that it was difficult to detect the fact that it was gated. She noted that the gate was black wrought iron and swung open; she suggested a similar gate to fit in with the area. She noted that the guard facility would be placed off the road. She was very concerned about the S-turn at the corner as well as the speed of the cars. She noted that people passed on that road even where there were double yellow lines. She noted that California Splash was considered in phases, with the rezoning considered first, followed by the conditional use permit several months later. The 40-day appeal period expanded to a three-month period, and she would like this application to go to the City Council. She noted that most of the churches that have been considered have been appealed and suggested having a design review and a rezoning from Agricultural to Public & Institutional in order to consider everything at the same time. Ms. Decker noted that staff was not considering a rezone from Agriculture to Public & Institutional or any other zone at this time. The lands would be annexed into the City as the same zoning designation, Agriculture District (A), to be consistent with the rest of the site. In terms of process and taking the annexation forward first, LAFCO generally prefers to see a development plan for any lands to be annexed. It appeared to staff that it would be more beneficial to the applicant and the City to process the conditional use permit application along with the design review, conditioning the project to go through the LAFCO process since it was much longer than the City’s process. She added that LAFCO’s scheduling was very impacted. Commissioner Blank suspected that no matter how this application is to be decided, someone would appeal it, bringing it to City Council. He believed the process was reasonable. In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Fox regarding the specifics of the LAFCO process, Ms. Decker replied that she could not provide those details but that she was aware that the LAFCO process was very interested in the approvals and the amount of community support existed to annex those lands. If it were to be appealed, City Council’s decision would be influenced by whether the sites could be annexed. The LAFCO process would follow behind the City process regarding the entitlements. Chairperson Fox noted that cities often sent informational packets regarding proposed projects such as Ikea that would impact neighboring cities. She inquired whether an informational packet could be sent to the City of Dublin as well as Alameda County. Ms. Decker noted that staff already did that for contiguous projects. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Narum whether story poles would be considered, Ms. Decker replied that they would discuss that with the applicant. Commissioner Blank noted that there were no architectural diagrams to base the story pole heights on. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 8, 2007 Page 21 of 24