Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.1 EneaStarbucksAppeal · CITY CLERK File # nl!f!DP1"~1CL AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 7, 2005 PUBLIC BEARING: Appeal of Planning Commission Reversal of Zoning Administrator's Approval of a Conditional Use Permit Authorizing a Parking Reduction for PA 04-057, Enea Properties/Starbucks Coffee Report prepared by: Janet Harbin, Senior Planner (if- SUBJECT: ATTACHMENTS: 4. 5. 6. · 7. 8. 1. Letter of Appeal to the City Council from Robert Enea dated received May 5, 2005 Planning Commission Staff Report, with Resolution attached, and Meeting Minutes for April 26, 2005 Letter of Appeal to the Planning Commission from Bobbi Caucbi dated received March 23, 2005 with Applicant's Response to Appeal Zoning Administrator Staff Report, with Resolution attached, and Meeting Minutes for March 14, 2005 Site Plan Parking Study with Supplemental Parking Report Planning Commission Reso. No. 04-40 for Enea Village Project, P A 03-069 Correspondence received by Planning Commissioners at their residences 2. 3. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Open Public Hearing and Hear Staff Presentation; 2. Take Testimony from the Applicant and the Public; ~ 3. Close Public Hearing and Deliberate; /7,rJ-. ~ 4. Direct Staff to Either: E"V a. Prepare a Resolution Denying the Appeal Thereby Affirming Planning Conunission Denial of Conditional Use Pennit P A 04-057, Enea PropertieslStarbucks Coffee; Or b. Prepare a Resolution Granting the Appeal Thereby Reversing the Planning Commission and Upholding the Zoning Administrator's Approval of Conditional Use Permit P A 04-057, Enell Properties/Starbucks Coffee; Or c. Prepare a Resolution Granting the Appeal in Part Thereby Reversing the Planning co=ission and ModifYing the Zoning Administrator's Approval of Conditional Use Permit P A 04-057, Enca Properties/Starbucks Coffee. COPIES TO: Appella.nt Property Owner In. <t ~PAFile G;\P A#\2004\04-0S7 suub",," PorI:ing CUPICC Appoa! "';"l-GS.doe oP ITEM NO. · · DESCRIPTION: The project site at 7197 Village Parkway was the former location of an automotive gasoline and service . station that closed in the 1990's, and was previously zoned General Conunercial (C-2). Adjacent uses include the Taco Bell restaurant to the south and two single-family homes to the east on Amador Valley Boulevard. The City Council adopted a Stage 1 and 2 Planned Development (PD) Zoning District for the property on December 15, 1998, P A 98-049. Pursuant to the PD regulations, a range of office, conunercial and eating and drinking establishments were permitted uses in the district. Cafés and other neighborhood-serving uses were specifically identified as appropriate new uses in the Planned Development Rezoning Ordinance adopted by City Council. The potential of the project site was further studied in the Village Parkway Specific Plan, adopted by City Council on December 19, 2000, in which the property was identified as an opportunity site and a primary gateway area. On May 11, 2004, the Planning Commission approved a request for Site Development Review, Tentative Map, and a Conditional Use Permit for the Enea Village Parkway Center (P A 03-069) on the property located at 7197 Village Parkway (see Resolution 04-40, included as Attachment 7). The approval allows development of the I-acre lot at the southeast comer of the intersection of Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard with an 8,539-square-foot conunerciallretail center and a 5,582-square-foot office building. Project amenities included an 800-square-foot landscaped public plaza with bench seating. The site plan provided parking for 54 vehicles. Within the commerciallretail center, a 600-square-foot space was identified for eating and drinking uses, such as a coffee shop. At the present time, construction has commenced for the commerciallretail building at the site with approved building permits; however, . grading and sitework only have proceeded on the office building parcel. In November of 2004, Enea Properties requested a Conditional Use Permit from the Zoning Administrator to reduce the total number of parking spaces required by the Zoning Ordinance for a 1,886-square-foot coffee retailer and café (Starbuck's) by thirteen (13) parking spaces in the future Enea Village Parkway Center. The Conditional Use Permit, if approved, would reduce the number of on-site parking spaces by eight (8) parking spaces and substitute five (5) curbside parking spaces for five (5) on-site parking spaces, pursuant to Chapter 8.76 of the Zoning Ordinance, Off-street Parking and Loading (see Attachment 6, Parking Study with Supplemental Focused Parking Study). The proposal included a mix of indoor seating and outdoor seating, for a total of 30 indoor and 16 outdoor seats. On March 14, 2005, the Zoning Administrator held a public hearing and granted the Conditional Use Pennit. The hearing and Zoning Administrator action is addressed in the following section. Zoning Administrator Hearing and Action: In considering the Conditional Use Pennit for II reduction of eight (8) parking spaces and substitution of five (5) curbside parking spaces for five (5) on-site parking spaces for the Enea Village Parkway Center (P A 04-057), the Zoning Administrator received a Staff report on the project (see Attachment 4), and . heard conunents from the public at a public hearing on March 14,2005. Prior to the hearing, the Zoning Administrator received 13 letters supporting the parking reduction, and 16 letters opposing the parking reduction. Additionally, at the public hearing held on March 14,2005, several people, including the owners ofMika's Espresso, located across Amador Valley Boulevard from the Enca Village Center's site, and their customers spoke in opposition to the parking reduction because of pedestrian safety, parking and other traffic-related issues, as well as the importance of supporting local businesses such as Mika's . Espresso. The meeting minutes for the Zoning Administrator Public Hearing are included in Attachment 4 with the Staff report. 2~( A complete discussion of the information on the requested Conditional Use Permit and the material pre~ented to the Zoning Administrator is contained in the Staff report in Attachment 4, along with the . minutes of the hearing. The Zoning Administrato.r granted the Conditional Use Permit at the Public Hearing, and advised. those attending about the appeal process. Appeal of Zoning Administrator Action to Planning Commission: Following the approval of the Conditional Use Permit by the Zoning Administrator, a letter from Bobbi Cauchi was received by the City Clerk on March 23, 2005 appealing the approval of the Enea Properties/Starbucks parking reduction (P A 04-057). This was the only letter of appeal received, and is included as Attachment 3 of this Staff report. The letter of appeal expressed Ms. Cauclri's concerns regarding project traffic and circulation conflicts with local schools and area traffic, perceived inconsistency with the intent of the Village Parkway Specific Plan, and perceived inconsistency with the intent of Zoning Ordinance parking regulations. These points were briefly sununarized and responded to in the Analysis section of the Planning Commission Staff report included with this report as Attaclunent 2. Additionally, the Applicant, Robert Enea of Ene a Properties, also submitted a response to the Appellant's letter which is included as the Applicant's Response to Appeal in Attaclunent 3, discussing the parking requirements of various cities in the Tri- Valley area related to approval of similar Starbucks shops. At the Planning Commission hearing on the appeal, Public Works Department Staff presented a diagram, included in Attaclunent 2, the Planning Commission Report and Minutes, which illustrates that nine (9) curbside parking spaces are available to substitute for the reduction of 13 parking spaces on-site, leaving the Applicant's on-site parking short by four (4) on-site spaces. Following the Staff presentation, testimony from the Applicant and the Public, and the Traffic Consultant and Staff responding to questions . on the project, the Planning Commission acted to deny the Conditional Use Pennit for the project. The adopted Resolution and minutes of the meeting are also contained in Attaclunent 3. ANALYSIS: Robert Enea of Enea Properties, the property owner of the Enea Village retail and office center in which StarbucksCöffee plans to locate, filed a Letter of Appeal of the Planning Commission'aenial of the Conditional Use Pennit P A 04-057 on May 5, 2005. The following section provides a discussion and response to the points presented in the Applicant's Letter of Appeal. The actual analysis of the project, technical traffic infonnation, and the issues presented by the previous. letter of appeal to the Planning Commission are contained in the Planning Commission Staff report, Attaclunent 2, the Zoning Administrator Staff report, Attaclunent 4, and the Parking Study with Supplemental Focused Parking Report in Attaclunent 6. ADDlicant's Letter of ADDeal: The points of discussion presented in the Applicant's Letter of Appeal are numbered below and in the letter submitted, and include the corresponding response. . I. Auolicant Comment: The Applicant requests that the City Council determine that the i: i 00 parking standard is excessive for the proposed use: that the proposed alternative parking study reducing the on-site parking by eight (8) spaces, with four (4) on-site i5-minute spaces andfive (5) spaces offsite. is an appropriate downtown parking standard, particularly when considered in light of other cities downtown parking standards: that the Zoning Administrator's approval be affirmed and the Planning Commission's decision be reversed: and the Conditional Use Permit be granted based on the recommendations and conclusions of the parking study prepared by Omni-Means. 3'òt Response: The appellant is essentially asking the City Council to reconsider the materials presented to the Zoning Administrator and the Planning Commission, and any evidence presented at or before the City Council hearing, and make an independent determination as to whether the parking reduction . should be granted. 2. Applicant's Conunent: Traffic and parking data, studies. and analysis are the.fùndamental basis for all most major decisions concerning urban planning and project development. Experts such as professionalTraffic Engineers are relied on to analyze data and information to determine impacts associated with proposed growth and development. In the past. the Planning Commission and City Council have based major land use and development decisions on the summary and conclusions of Traffic Engineers like Omni-Means. While it is appropriate for the elected or appointed decision makers to apply common sense to test and filtering the reasoning of planners and engineers, and to consider the input and concerns of other stakeholders, the process seemed to breakdown due to the manner in which the hearing was conducted, and based on comments made by the Chair of the Commission. Certain questions and comments made by the Chairman communicated particular belieft or perceptions asfollows: a. Handicapped parking spaces should not be counted toward .fùlftlling the on-site parking requirements because they generally go unused: b. Even though this is a downtown area, the project could not use five (5) of the nine (9) on- street spaces to make up for some of the required on-site spaces, which is normally allowed in downtown areas; c. Thefour limited time (I5-minute only) spaces would not effectively increase the capacity of the on-site parking plan, even though it was recommended by experienced professionals.. and, d. The Focused Traffic/Parking Analysis states that, "the proposed retail/coffee shop would not significantly impact traffic conditions at the study intersection compared to existing conditions, " _ and the intersection of Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard with the project would .. "continue to operate at LOS "A" conditions during the A.M peak hour. . . " Additionally, the study states that, "Curb space for 10-]2 vehicles is available on Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard fronting the project site. . . It is likely the curb spaces would accommodate the e;rcess demand. " Response: The comment in item "d" suggests there is a misunderstanding of the nature of the pending application. The Applicant has applied for a parking reduction. The Zoning Administrator and the Planning Commission were limited to considering whether the proposed reduction would meet the requirements under Dublin Municipal Code section 8.76.050. Traffic impacts are relevant to that inquiry. For example, if the granting of the approval would result in significant traffic impacts then the decision maker might not be able to make one or more of the conditional use permit findings that must be made in order to grant the conditional use pennit. However, the fact that the project will not have traffic impacts-as the Omni-Means study points out and the Applicant argues-does not mean that the parking reduction must be granted. Rather, the decision maker still must make the other findings required under section 8.76.050. Relative to the other factual issues raised in this comment by the appellant, the Planning Commission did not ignore the parking studies and testimony of experts. The Supplemental Focused TrafficlParking Analysis dated April 19, 2005, in Attachment 6 of this Staff report, was included in the information submitted to the Planning Conunission for consideration with the Staff report, and other information and materials, for the project prior to the public hearing on April 26, 2005 for the appeal of the Zoning Administrator approval of the Conditional Use Permit. It was clear fi-om the testimony that the conunissioners had read the two studies. In determining what course of action is to be taken on a 44 :¡1f . · e project, the Planning Commission is présUIÌled to have tðViéWêa all the information, rnaterial and testimony in the record. The Resolution adopted by the Planning Conunission, Resolution No. 05-25 on April 26, 2005, reversing the Zoning Adrninistrator's approval and denying the Conditional Use Pennit P A 04-057 indicated that the Planning Commission considered the information set forth in the OmniIMeans study. The pertinent language reads as follows: . WHEREAS. the Staff Report, including the Focused Traffic/Parking Analysis prepared by Omni Means, was submitted to the Planning Commission recommending that the Planning Commission affirm the Zoning Administrator 's approval of the Conditional Use Permit and deny the appeal; and WHEREAS. the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports. recommendations. and testimony hereinabove setforth. and used its independent judgment in making a decision. In addition, even if the Planning Conunission had failed to consider the evidence set out in the OnmilMeans study, the City Council's consideration of the OmniIMeans study and the focused traffic/parking study on appeal would serve to cure any such irregularity Furthermore, the Planning Commission's denial was not based on the rejection of the testimony of experts. Rather it was based on its inability to make the required finding that the required parking standards are excessive and that the Applicant has proposed appropriate alternate parking standards that will ensure that there will not be a parking deficiency. In addition to the Otnni-Means study that was part of the recotd, the Public Works Department Staff presented a diagram at the Planning Conunission hearing, included in Attachment 2, which illustrates that nine (9) curbside parking spaces are available to substitute for the reduction of 13 parking spaces on-site, leaving the Applicant's on- site parking short by four (4) on-site spaces. Notwithstanding this staff presentation, the Planning Commission apparently rejected the Omni-Means report's premise and the staff suggestion at the meeting that on-street parking spaces can be used to satisfy oif-streetparking requirements. It therefore concluded that the Omni-Means report failed to demonstrate that the standard was excessive--.5ince the project would actually be short 13 spaces-or that the study proposed alternate parking standards that are appropriate and ensure that there will not be a parking deficiency. That is a legal, not a factual, determination. Accordingly, if the Planning Commission's interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance is correct, then the Omni-Means study and staff presentation-both of which relied upon the premise that the project was only 4 off-street spaces short-<lo not support for the finding that the requirement is excessive or that the report proposes a parking standard that will ensure that there will not be a parking deficiency. The Applicant is correct that handicapped parking spaces are counted towards the on-site parking requirement. 3. Applicant's Conunent: There is no credible or substantial evidence in the underlying record contrary to the conclusions of City Staff, the City Traffic Engineer. and the commissioned Focused Traffic/Parking Analysis that alternative parking standards sought (i) are appropriate for this project. and (Ii) will not result in a parking deficit. Response: As was indicated in response to comment 3 above, the Planning Commission's decision was premised on a legal determination, and not upon a factual determination. Once that legal detennination was rnade, the evidence in the record did not support the required findings. . e 4. Applicant's Conunent: The Planning Commission Chairman made several public comments in reference to the results of his own personal investigation relating to employee parking at another similar coffee shop location. These comments were inconsistent with his opening statement describing 5 "0 'If the Commission's role as a jury panel. His statements, based on the evidence he gathered, may have biased the opinions of the other Commissioners and showed that he had not been objective in èonsidering the request. Additionally, he also stated he received e-mails and over 20 pieces of correspondence delivered to his personal residence supporting the Appellant's position. k the . Applicant. Staff advised us that no comact with the Commissioners' was permitted by either the Applicant or the Appellant. Response: The pending application requests an approval that requires fue City to conduct a quasi- judicial hearing. Such hearings entitle the Applicant (and the project's neighbors in some cases) to due process under the California Constitution. Due process in quasi-judicial proceedings is not the same as due process injudicial proceedings and in fact is somewhat flexible. At base, due process in quasi- judicial hearings requires that the participants receive a fair hearing. California courts have held that a participant does not receive a fair hearing when information regarding the matter received by the decision maker is not included in the official record of the proceedings. Such infbrmation might include contacts concerning the matter with individuals outside of the public hearing, known as ex parte contacts. However, if the decision makers disclose on the record the information received outside of the public hearing, the requirements of due process are met. To avoid due process problems, City staff-as they did in this matter-routinely advise Applicants for quasi-judicial approvals not to make individual contacts with Planning Commissioners. At the Planning Commission hearing and on the record, the Chair indicated that he had done some outside investigation regarding the parking requirements at other local Swbucks locations. However, since that information was disclosed at the hearing, the requirements of due process were met with regard to that evidence. With regard to the correspondence delivered to the Planning Commissioners, a multi· page document . left at the doorsteps of the Planning Commissioners' homes was made part of the official record and is included as Attachment 8. Any electronic mails that may have been received by the Planning Conunissioners on this matter were not provided to City staff and were not made part of the official record. In any event, since the City Council is making an independent detennination on the appeal, the City Council's consideration of the appeal will have the effect of curing any perceived due process violation that may have taken place at the Planning Commission level. The Applicant is free to introduce new evidence and in effect thereby receives a new hearing. The official record of the City Council will include all of the information included in this Staff report and the attachments, any evidence and testimony presented to the City Council at the public hearing, and any information received by individual Councilmembers that the Councilmembers disclose at the public hearing. Since the City Council will be making an independent determination based on this official record, the City Council determination will not be based on information that the Planning Commissioners may have obtained outside of the public hearing. Of course, the members of the City Council should disclose any information on this matter that they received outside of the public hearing and the official record to ensure that the City Council detennination is consistent with due process requirements. Alternatively, if it so desires, the City Council could grant the appeal in part and remand the matter back to the Planning Commission with direction that the Planning Commission rehear the matter and disclose all information the Planning Commissioners received on the matter outside of the public hearing, including any ex parte contacts. . 5. Apnlicant's Co=ent: It must be stated for the public record that the motivating stakeholder behind the Appellant's actions are the owner's of a competing coffie kiosk located across the street. They 6 ~S · have disguised their opposition under the mask of traffic and parking.· In reality, they are $eeking to preserve their own economic interests and have abused the system to fUrther their /lelf-interl!$t. Every letter and voice heard in opposition of our cUP for reduced parking i/l a friend or a/I/lociate of the owners of the competing coffee kiosk. Infact, it should be noted that the competing coffee kio/lk business located acro/ls the street is operating under a twelve- year old conditional use permit granting them a 50 percent parking reduction. Response: Conunent noted. The owners of Mika' s Coffee across Amador Valley Boulevard from the Enea Village Center were present and spoke in opposition of the project at the Zoning Administrator hearing held on March 14, 2005 (see Meeting Minutes ofhearÎng contained in Attachment 4, Zoning Administrator Staff report, Resolution, and Meeting Minutes for March 14, 2005). Staffhas no way of con:firming whether the letters or voices heard are friends or associates of the owners of the coffee kiosk. The Applicant is correct regarding the reduction in parking spaces at the site of the coffee kiosk. It was granted for a drive-through camera and photo business in accordance with a Conditional Use Permit granted by Alameda County in 1977. The approval of the Conditional Use Permit ,C-3262, in 1977 included a finding that only one parking space was required for the use, the assumption being that the one parking space was needed for the employee in the kiosk. The City's Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 8.76 contains no specific standards for parking for solely drive-through uses. The parking standards matrix in that chapter states that the parking regulations for drive-through uses are "Per CUP." Conditional Use Permits run with the land and when Mika's took over the drive-through use, no additional use pennitwas required since the use permit was for a drive-through type of use. · 6. Annlicant's Conunent: We have worked cooperatively with Staff and the resulting project is a culmination of extensive planning and design, yielding an attractive and high quality project. Additionally, we are proud of the design and quality of our project and feel it will be a fine addition to the community, attracting good, high quality tenants to the area. We believe the alternative parking standard. as supported by the traffic consultant and Staff recommendations and reports, is appropriate for this location. Resnonse: Comment noted. 7. Applicant's Conunent: We alternatively appeal the Planning Commission's denial of the Conditional Use Permit 'with prejudice. . Response: The applicant is apparently requesting that, if the Council agrees with the Planning Commission decision, that the City Council grant the appeal in part for the sole purpose of denying the application without prejudice rather than with prejudice. Section 8.136.070 of the Zoning Code provides that: When an application for a permit is denied on appeal, no application for the same or substantially same permit or a permit for the same use on the same property shall be med for a period of one year from the date of denial, except where the permit was denied without prejudice. · Thus, the effeCt of the Planning Commission denial, which did not indicate whether it was a denial without prejudice, was to preclude the applicant from filing an application for the same or substantially same pennit for a period of one year from the date of denial. The City Council could eliminate this prohibition by granting the appeal and indicating that the denial is without prejudice. 7~" Public Bearin!! Notice and Comments: In accordance with section 8.136.060.B, a Public Hearing Notice was mailed to property owners within a 300-foot radius of the project property, residents, tenants, persons that spoke at previous public hearings, . and other interested parties. A copy of the notice was advertised in the Valley Times and posted at locations in the City. As of the writing of this report, no further conunents have been received from the Public. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW; The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State guidelines and City environmental regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared. The proposed project has been found to be Categorically Exemption from the provisions of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15304, as it is a minor alteration to land consisting of a reduction in parking spaces for a business tenant within an approved infill ~l =ercial center, presently under construction. CONCLUSION: The City Council's charge is to determine if the Planning Conunission decision to reverse the Zoning. Administrator's approval and deny the Conditional Use Pennit should be upheld, or if the Planning Commission decision should be reversed and the Conditional Use Permit for P A 04-057 be approved. In addition, the City Council could grant the appeal in part, and make modifications to the Zoning Administrator's granting of the Conditional Use Permit. Siaffhas provided a Recommendation that would allow the City Council to make an appropriate detennination and direct Staff to return at a later . date with the draft Resolution implementing the determination. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) open public hearing and hear the Staff presentation; 2) take testimony from the Applicant, Appellant and the Public; 3) close the public hearing and deliberate; and, 4) direct Staff to Either: a. Prepare a Resolution Denying the Appeal Thereby Affirming Plannittg Commission Denial of Conditional Use Pennit PA 04-057, Enea Properties/Starbucks Coffee; or, b. Prepare a Resolution Granting the Appeal Thereby Reversing the Planning Commission and Upholding the Zoning Adminis1.rator'sApproval Conditional Use Pennit PA 04-057, Enea Properties/Starbucks Coffee; or, c. Prepare a Resolution Granting the Appeal in Part Thereby Reversing the Planning Commission and Modifying the Zoning Administrator's Approval Conditional Use Permit P A 04-057, Enea PropertieslStarbucks Coffee. G:\PA#\2004\04-G57 an..lcc Appoa! or6(l7()j.doe . 817b6 May 5, 2005 ------l£J11þ,~~v~J?PEAL Enell propertil!bo\k¡;~y, llC CITY OF DUBLIN 190Hartz Ave., Ste.260 .- Danville, CA 94526 MAY 0 5 2005 (925) 314-1470· fax (925) 314-1475 CITY MANAGER'S OFflC¡; rse@st-mlchael-investments.com (!of!: CITY I'1I7NI9C-GÆ ûryA-íTY e ð lJ/R6c.roR.. ¡:J ¿/II q- 1'1 r:rI?- P W/)/Æðc..ro£ SPC Enea Properties Company, LLC . Hand Delivered e . _ To the City Clerk . City of Dublin 100 Civic Drive Dublin, CA 94568 " - --."..,.- Re: Notice of Appeal and Appeal from the Planning Commission's Reversal With Prejudicé of the Zoning Administrator's Approval Of Conditionàl Use Permit PA-04057 Please regard this correspondence on behalf of Village Parkway Partners, L.t.C as our notice of appeal. and appeal, to the City of Dublin and the Dublin City Council from the Planning Commission's reversal and denial with prejudice of the Zoning Administrator's approval of Conditional Use Permit PA-04057 (the "CUP"). Our appeal is submitted in the alternative. First, and principally, we appeal the Planning Commissioners' affirming the appeal of a Bobbi Cauchi which it heard 'on April 26, 2005. In affirming that appeal it reversed the Zoning Commissioner's prior approval of the subject CUP. We respectfully submit fhat the action taken by the three (3) participating Planning Commissioners' is unsupported by substantial evidence, inconsistent with the facwal data developed by,ond the analysis and recommendations Of the City's Planning Staff, its Traffic Engineer as well as the analysis and conclusions of the further Focused Traffic/Parking Analysis for a Proposed Retail/Coffee Shop Development dated April 19. 2005 as developed and presented by Mr _ George Nickelson of Omni-Means. We believe that the CUP is not only in the best interest of the City of Dublin, but it is also important to the developing partnership's financial model for turning this former gas . station site into an attractive gateway for· a revitalized downtown. Specifically, we respectfully request that the Members of the City Council review and consider the reports, findings and recommendations of /,o-1"Do5· (",1 ATI ACHMÐIT :L 1 No warranty or re1Jr~lJ!'!ntat¡onT axpr988 O~ i'mplltlld, 1$ mad!;! BIiI to the aClJr'l.C:Y!;I1 tne InfcrmatJon c~nU\inad høtl!l!n, and .!I.8mB]8 submitted t/.Ubjer.! to· errors, amiB.9.IDnB, oha.nge& of DtlCII, renl,e. or ather conditions, wllhdrl lWJ;l. wIthoul no1lc:e ~nd to any"Bpeclel Uslln!) conditions, irnpo~ed by the prlnclpal.!!.. . . .7&b .. · . D·,·- UJ/\+')' 'eachbf (i)Ci1)i Þlanning Staff (ii) theCityTr~ffic Engineer, and (iii) · Mr.· George Nickelson of Ornni-MeansaS set forth in his Focused TroffiC:/Parking Analysis. . We 'ask :that, consistent, with theopinion:s of allot theforegóÌ~gprofessicin~ls,that.fht City Council de,termine that: · . The City of Dublin's.,generic i :100 '''resta,urant''_~par-kin9staridar-d _,. . as ~pplied:t_o this par.ticular project and specific proposed use appear excessive; .. . . ' ,.. . · Thè.project'spropòsed alternative parkingsta~dar-d, providing for - a ,reduction òf on- sitè parking ,by . eight (8) spà~es off .,.set by 'limiting four (4) on-site spaces to 'gre-en':'cur-bed 15 rTiinl.lteus~ . . only, ,. an?th~ relocation of five (15) pa~kin9 'spaèesOff-si:i'e', i~ an . t;lppropriateparking standard .for, this doWntown gateway project ,. ' . . . . .,.. and inveStment; . . . . .' ,. .". I· ",.' . " '. ..'.:".. .'. '. ,.. · That :the Zoning Administrctor's approva1 ofth,e subject CUP be ',. affirmed, and that the Pli:irlning Commission's,reversa of the ,. . ,;Z:oningAdministrator's approval berev.irsed;and,' ... . · -, That the CUP issue àncf begrant~d 'subject t.o 'thecohclusions ~nd _ recommendations ~f1'he Ci~X'S OrigirialParking ,'study: (b/· . . ' Not that the City Council necessarily needs or wants to hear this, and without, t"eintentionqf offè:ndi~g anyo~e, Idowa"t to sha~ethree . observo.t¡oriS (for whatever, they are worth)as to what, in my opinion, happened 01' the Planning ëommissiaj.¡ he:ci~inghecaúse,frQnidy,. I d.D . think it is .r~lèvan't and sh,oul~ be part ''Of this record. ". ,. . . . . . I .! . ' First,it Ü my eX~rie ,cefrom potting toget,her prDjec'¡:~ withi~ Dublin, other Tri-Valley. communities -and 'elsewher~,that 'traffic ànd parking . 'data, studies and analysés tend. to provide 'the obJectivè corner'stone 'for · mostmajor'decìsions concerning, urban 'pl~nrì¡F\g and project deyelopli!ent. , 'As laymen.. we, depend in significant þi:trt upon the expertise of . . , . I ." . . . . professional traffic 'engineers and profe.ssiorlalpla'ming·stcÌff to collect, · and åncllyze. a. ndprocess thedcifa and projèctthelikely impacts' , . · associated withpr,opos~d growth or a 'proposed project ...: particularly 2 . e . , ., . _.u"'·""_ @ CðNf J .. e . '3~ I . ., ,,' '. where there is a recommenQation to applysómething other than. a . generic metric:. , Whilé. it is' itcert'ainlyappropriate for eleCted or ~pþointeddêCision , makers to apply their c:omnion sense to test and filter the reasonirig and· .. rec?mmendations:of the profes~ioncil :þlanners and eri9ineers.(¡nd to ,'take ,. into consideration tlie input 'and 'èoncernsof other stake holders, toe" proc:e,ss ènn break down wnere ' an appellants', or the deCision makers'; , . subjective impressions without'good reason suppl~nt. the carefully. . measured data, analyses and recommendations Df the professionql ,..:: ,. ".', j ,"" , .' ' planners and traffic engineers. From the m~nner in which the hêœ'ingon theiJnderlying'appeol wascohc:!ucted, and based 'on certain statementS,; made:'fromtheChair at the hearing. it is my settleidi'mpression thatth~ .pl"oce:ssdidsomewhat breakdoWri here .,.and for the reasons that mayor may not hClire been fully appreCiated· by the Commission.' , ' / . . Assiiicere" sharp and wëfliritentione:dàsI beHeve the ChaJrman and the other' Commissioners whohecird'the uriderIŸing Cl.ppeal~ppear to.b~. their specific qUestions and certairloftheir commënfscommUriicated the, .. . follo.wing beliefso~ 'perceptions: (!) 1'h(1t the pr()ject~s twó (2);propos~d handicapped .parking $ots . shoul.dn:t be counted toward reqiJj¡'ed:'on~si+e::parkin9becaUse they generally seem toga unl:lsed (thus appearing to ignore tnefaCt this consideration is already built into theC:ity's generic parking ratios .andtheprofes$ionals' site specific alternative párkirig StandClrd)'; . , ' . .' .," . . (ii)'that.even though this is ~ "downtown"area>theprojeáco~Jc:I. '.. , not properly substitute at least five (5)'~f tli~ nine (9)off-sit~ . . ,parallel s1T'èet parking spo~s tl'\ðt will be created immediately' . . ~djcicentto' the subject project were jt to' be bullt-out- even , . though.Plannlng ,Stciff,· the City. Engineer' and George Nickelson ,. .. ,. .' . ' , . :" '" . ,'.. ' , ' advisecl or'ld opined that. this was h-,itl,\tly appropriai'e, . reasonable and .. realistic (thus sèêmingl'y ignoring a key, compÒrie¡:nt of this site , .,. specîfiG, parking plan and Q key compl-ement to ,any hoped for vibrant downtown); , . . ,- . .. . .3 (J) &Wt-.) ® G) , '-t" tt [. . .. (iil) that, I'IOtwithstanding the exp~rìencçofthè p~ofessionals . supportive of their'Use and efficacy, that the four (4) proposed. . green curbed 15 minute only parking spats~öuldnotbetrusted to effectivelY increase the in"and..out functionality ar:.d capacity öf ' '. the on site parking plan as (lwhole (thus ·tending to, again, . . ......... disregard the experience, ., analysis and data supportive of this park¡n9~control device);Clnd, .. . (iv) that It may not be appropriate for Dublin,· n~twiH\standing '.. professional recon'lme'ndations from' City staff,· the City Trciffic: Engineer and respectedthirej-party traffic engineers . supported by '. a Focused Traffic/Parking Analysis and at a "A..·.level o.fservice .. interseètiori;to adopt an alterriativeþarkingstanda¡'¿ as pe~mitted by the City'si:od~ fora business, tenant within anapprovedinfilJ retail commercial center if that meanscireduction from the 1: 100, generic parking ratio - notwithstanding the fact that the 1: 100 ·'gener'ic parking rcrr,io being used in Dublin exceeds by a 'range from . . 75'''"+0 1:50% the genericparkin9 ratio that· would apply to this·. .' . : same sized $tarbucks were it located in necirby Pleascintonf1:200), Danville (1 : 17Q), SanRamon (1 :200), Walnut Creek (1 :250) and ... ConcaI'd (1 :200). (see ,my attached "ApplicanfWritten Statement';.,. Which should have been labeled· "Respondent" written statement - as submitted to the .Planning Commission in opp~sitionto the underlying . Appeal). ' . . . " .'. . If it is now Dublin's policy not to permit ,asits Code òtherwise allows., an.. alternativeparkingplàn for, speCifically,. a project proposing an ,(adJustment to the very conservcitivel":100 "eating & dining" generiC . parking Stanê:làrè(.'t.hen that should, itwould'seem, be a poliCY·'· .."... pronouncement forCityèoundL But if that is not the policy; then I . submit that the!'e is no ,credible or substantial, evidence in the underlying . record contrary to the conclusions of City Staff, ,the Çity Traffic' .. . Engineer . CIne! ,1'hè . commissioned Focused TrafficlPar!(ing Analysis. thai' thealternativeparking.stånd<:irds:·soughf are(i) appropriate for this project, and (ij).will not result in a 'parking deficit. . . . '," . '¡ ',. . ., . Secondly; while it. was explained to me by the City that neither 'I nor my .pa,rtners should directlycommunicatè with any member of thePlarining . 4 . . , e " . '. ,f~· 0"/' I cørvr,) . ~' - @ . 6'b·· ,. ,'. , ' , ,. ., ,,' .'.', .., . ,"I,'" Commission in,advance of the hearing as theCommissionwQs acting in the ròle of "jur)'," ac'haracterization which the Chair at hearing .. reiterated in his opèningcomments, I left the he'aring.somewhat 'confused. arid concl!:rned.·· byt~at' characterization.·This wes ,due in párt~· I ,think,to the· Ckair'sStating in 'public that he had conducted his own ,surve,yof ~o StQf'bucks emþloyees at a ~ompletely different: . . projèct(thaf àt Regiòna :.. ~nt which, Imight,àdd Îs,both-:largèr,and . approved underdifferentstandQl'ds than the sUl:lject)as to where, they' ..parked, appeat!ng to put forward ,this survey asa data point in . opþositiontq the express testimony of Plånnirlg Stc:rffand Mr; Nickelson . .... thatthealtèrnative.parl<i~9standard . proposed for the subject project: . did In fact incorporate corisid~Í"àtion for employee parking. This struck . me cis inconsistent with theComrnission's self dtscrlbedrole -at least . asI,understood it. ' . . Iwas'lI\oretroubled. hOlMever, by the Chalr'sdfusively thanking th~se . gather-ed in support of the appe.al for gettiÌ\g itivolved, and, showing. their ' .. concern by having personaUy deliverec:fÓver twenty-;plus létte.Í"sto.tl:tè house,s' of onecir: more gffhe Commission meÎnbers the day before, . . hearing and for having cOlTlmunicated withon,e . or more Commi~sion .. members directly byemaiL· I waS discomfo'rtednot only bèèatJse it app~ar:'ed that the appellant 'q~d·· h~~· colleagues Were beingthaÌ1kedfor direct contòct that f understood 'was not to occur. but also . because I . thought it . may re'flect that· fheComm,issiön was pClssi"bly proceedil'lg·· some'what in a. vaèuum. without sufficient appreciation. for why It wàs· · . tf:¡ey'we,re recE7iving all of this attentiori. ' I believe it must be state'd for<theþublic reCOl'd that the .mC?tivating ,stakeholder behi'ndth~ ,appeal· of ·the Zoning Administrator's QþprovQI af' the , subject CUP,' and the buzz· surrounding that· appèal, in fact appears .. 'to have verylittie to do with what ìs good· for the. revitalization, of' . downtown Dublin or appropriate, for .the ~ubject project· or' the¡]djQC:~rit. .' ·roadI¥OYs, inferseC1·ion.and neighborhood. "It is my ,opinion. tIJatit has . everYfhingto do withthe orchestrt:rted effort of the owne~s¡ of.a. cOÍTIpeting coffee kiosk ("MikC\'s") located kitty-corner directlyo:cross .. thertreet from:the .subjec;t projèct 'w~o;' frankly; do not war¡t to see a successfuléom'petitor, Starbucks, .anchor the gateway corner to .... ,. . " .. '. . 5 ~ u- Clint) .'12T. :,- .(V [,¡~, , downtown Dublin (~hich kiosk, ironically, o~eratesunde...d. twelve yeþ,.- old conditional use permit granting it a fi,ffy,(50%)'pa~king reduction).' ramin fad ¡nformedandb~lieve that· each of the . tW~nty-two . letters '. delivered tothê hom~sof the Commissioners and each of t,hevoices - . . . .. ..,. ," , . ., "." ., ',' .... · heard in ~ppositionto. our CUP for a· sj.te . specific alternat.ive parking_-.:._. ., standardi,s a friend. relative or associate of cimemberofthefo:mily, . that owns thè conipetingdrive-througn êoffee ki:~sk. ' .. I ,.. ' . . . While ~ese folks c~rtail'\ly håve,Q ,right to petitiontÍ'leir government to ' . . ._ further thèeconomic . ~elf itlterest,oftheir friends' cinêassociaf~s, thé .. . 'Chair's thanking them for questionable direct contacts causes m~ to-.. · believe: that these Cominissiontrs might not hävebeen aware ·that the · t,r~e, ~take hold interest prornotingthese c()ntods ~as rí~t thcltof" . schoolC:hildren,'teachers cindtheschooJ district (as. at least'one of. , · these letters expresslyfaJ'sely· states) but of.. an ,cidjacent drive-through,·- · coffee kiosk. While I tielieve that the . participating Commis'sicin~rsÇ1re ' - sincere: ''t'houghtfuJ' and. obviously 'dedicated cind competent peciplè; r also, o . . '.. . I .. know that the three (3) Commissioners who heard the underlying appeal '.. ' -'are alsoveny new't() the proc:ess.An obj~ctive 'r~viewof the record. '. thereþort anclret:;ommendationof the CitY's Traffi,c Engineer, the ., · re :Ìorts and recommendations of the City's Planni~g staTf and tlie .... '. substance arid conclusjons:of. theMr:George Nickelson in Omni,-:-Means','· · Focl:Jsed Traffic/Parking, Analysis all support fne ccmdusion. that fhe ., , .. · illternativeparkingstandards· ,reflected by the CUP 'andîts,· Conditions; of .. Approval (i) are appropr.iatefor the· project; and(ii) ensure. that there ' ., wíllnot· be a parking deflcie:ncy. " ." . . . . '"·1 · We have worked in 'cooperation with the Planriirig Staff to: get· this projecttoi.ts c~rrent stage of development.· -¡'h~cuJml.nation of '.. . eXtensiveplanriingc¡nd dešign has yielded cin attractive, high quality. c--project· that; ifcornpl,eted; wm'bea fine addition to th~ community'. , . Good; we. II designed projeçts ,at1'rìlCt'good;high quà!ity 1'¡.;ncm. t. sand ... ~eighbo,rs; starbücksis one'of thosetenants:Výe believe that the alternative parking standard proposed is QPpropriatefc¡r thlsinfill , . · p~ojec:ta.t this location,. 4 belief : supported by the Cjty's.Plan~ingStaff . recomrnendatlo,hsand its reports, the City's Traffic _Engineer' and hIs, ., reports and .theFocused TraffiC/Parking Analysis prepared by George . ~ ~ 6 cir},·· ®'.. -, e· lÞ1J··· ".,',' . Nickelson of Omni-Means (all of which a..~ ,incorporated by reference as .. par-tof this appeal). .. . . · ~asfìy; ~nd hi the alternative. we appe~1 fram whaf I' have been fold' ,¡~ that aspect of the i'lcinnii'lgCômmission's denial of the CtlP~wiith:·· ., .prèjudice:' Mlhicha~, it:has beene)(plained by the City to 'me, 'means.,_ · ..that if the PJannlng Co.mmission's reversal of'~he'Zoning Âdministraf:or's' . aþþl"Ovalof the CUP were.to be, affirme.d, then",e could _not come pack· tci the' City with anyt:hing CUP relating to, parking for fhisProjeCt for one (l)'year.· ., " . · . We appreciate your ti~~and consideration cif our appeal;. ". . ',. .'. , . · . Respet1Tuli}'subm'¡tt~cI, -.. ?lAtA. , . 'RobertS: Enea Managing Member . ". Village Parkway Partners,· LLC . . . ' 7 ~ 'ÔÞþ1 tÆ' AGENJ}A S'J'A'J'E}I~'Œ;NT PLANNING COMl\f1SSION AGENDA: April 26, 2005 · SUBJECT: ATTACHMENTS: · RECOMMENDATION: BACKGROUND: PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal of Zoning AdministratQr Approval of a COllditionaJUse Permit for pA 04-057, ~nea Pr(lpertie~I8'tatbÍ)Cks Cuffee,Retiqction t(l Required Pai'ldlJ,g RfOportpreparM by: Pierce Macdonald, M$ociàte Planner & Janet Harbin, Sen!?f plo.n/ler ....1('6 1. Res¡)llJp'pll Affih:¡iirtg z"oDÍllg Ad1:Pinist¡atör Approval of ConditiqI1al UsePermitPA. 04·05.7; Ep~ Ptoperties/S¡arbuc~s C¡)ff~ (with SHe Planattaþhed as . Exhibit A,ai1.dParking Study attacbÞð, as. Erlribit E, with Focused ttafficIParking Analysis dàtM April 19, 2005 included) Zoning Administrator Staff Report, with Resolution attached, an.d Meeting Minutes for March 14, 2Q05 Letter of Appeal, dated received March 23, 2005 Applicant's Written Statement in Response to Appeal Planning Conunission Reso. No. 04.40 for Enea Village, P A 03-069 Curbside Parking Diagram Ordinan.ce No. 21-98 for PA 98-049 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 1. 2. 3. 4. Open Public Hearing and Hear Staff Presentation; Take Testimony from the Applicant and the Public; Close Public Hearing and Deliberate; Adopt Resolution (Attachroent 1) Af'firrning Zoning Administrator Approval of a Conditional Use Permit P A 04- 057, Enea Prbperties/Starbucks Coffee. (with Site Plan included as Exhibit A, and Parking Study as Exhibit B, with Focused parkingftraffic Analysis included) l1}e project site at 7197 Village Parkwaywas the former location of an automotive gasoline and service station that closed in the 1990's, and was previously zoned General Commercial (0-2). Adjacent uses include the Taco Bell restaurant to the south and two single-family homes to the east on Amador Valley Boulevard. The City Council adopted a Stage 1 and 2 Planned Development (PD) Zoning District for the property on December 15, 1998 (P A 98-049). Pursuant to the PD regulations, a rM.ge of office, commercial and eating and drinking establishments were permitted uses in the district. Cafés and other neighbothood- · COPIES TO: Applicant Appel1ant lTEMNO.~P;;AClMNr 2 Serv1"11g uses were specifically identified as appropriate new uses.in the Planned Development Zoning CiªD District (PD District) adopted by the City OOWiqil.· The dev'el¡:ipmeht potential of the project Site was further studied in the Village Parkway Specific Plan, adopted by City Council 01'1 DÐcember 19,2000, in which the property was identified as an opporhrn1ty site and a primary gateway location. e On May 11, 2004, the Plarining Conunission approved a request for Site Development Review, Teritätive Map, and a Conditional Use Permit for the Enea Village ParkWay Center (FA 03-069) on the property (see Resolutioh 04"40, iridludiid as Attadhrrient 5). TheapprovaIaIlows development of the I-acre lot at the southeast comet of the intersection ofVi1läge Parkway and A1nadot Valley Boulevard witb a 8,539- square-foot co=ercial!retaij center and a 5,582"square-foot office building. project amenities included an 800-square- foot landsc;:aped public plaza with bench seätil1g. . The site plan provided pàrking for 54 véhic!es (32 patkingspäces for thecommerciallrétail buildin$ and 22 parking spaces for the office buildjng). . Within the conu.¡,)erciaIlretail center, a. 600"square"foot space was identified for eating and drinking uses, such a$ a coffee shop. Additionally, as part of the Site DevlÕ'lçipment Review, an outdoor plaza seating atM was idèntified and. patio seatirig was ällowed subject to I'D Dístrict requirements. At the present time, grading and site work has corriInénceél for the conunerciallretail bui]ding at the site with approved bUilding peÏmÍts. Zoning Administrator Action: In November of 2004, Eneä Properties requested a COl1ditional Use PeÏmÍt from the Zoning Administrator to reduce the nuniber of parking spaces required by the Zoning Ordinance to allow a 1,886·square-foot coffee retailer and café with 410 square feet of outdoor seating area to locate in the Enea Village Parkway Center. The parking requirement for the various uses in the co=ercial retail center counted individually is 45 parking spaces (see table entitled, Project Parking and Peak Parking Demand, on page 5). The proposal included a mix of indoor seating and outdoor seating, for a totaJ of30 indoor and 16 outdoor . seats. The Conditional Use Permit was needed to reduce the number of on-site parking spaces by eight (8) parking spaces and substitute five (5) curbside parking spaces for five (5) on-site parking spaces, pursuant to Chapter 8.76.050 ofthé Zoning Ordinance, Adjustment to the Number of Parking Spaces. On March . . 14,2005, the Zoning Administrator held a publjc hearing and granted the Conditional Use Permit based on infonnation presented in the Staff report and at the public hearing that the adjusted number of par king spaces would be sufficient for the use, would not increase traffic congestion. and would be safe to rootorists,pedestrians, and bicyclists. Prior to the hearing, the Zoning Administrator received 13 letters supporting the parking reduction, and 16 letters opposing the parking reduction. Additionally, at the public hearing held on March 14,2005, several people spoke in opposition to the parking reduction because of pedestrian safety, parking and other traffic-related issues, as weIl as the importance of supporting existing local businesses such as Mika' s Espresso located to the northwest of the site; The Staff Report and Meeting Minutes for the Zoning Administrator Public Hearing are included as Attachment 2_ Infonnatioll on the requested Conditional Use Pennit and material presented to the Zoning Administrator foIlows in the Analysis section below. Appeal of Zoning Adniinistrator Action: On March 23, 2005, a letter from Bobbi Cauchi was received by the City Clerk appealing the Zoning Administrator approval of the Enea Properties parking reduction (P A 04-057). This was the only letter of . appeal received, and is included as Attachment 3 of this Staffreport. The letter of appeal expressed Ms. Cauchi 's concerns regarding project traffic and circulation conflicts with IDeal schools, pedestrians, and 2 . " . tD 8re¡¡.trâfiiþ. perceived inconsistency with> the intent of the Villag~ PMkwa;y Specific Plan, and percciW~ iliconsistencywith the intent of ZoWng Ordinance parkipg regu¡ations. 'I'hw~ pojnts are QrieiJy sumnuirÎz.ed and responded to in the section following the analysis of the Conditional Use Permit . ANALYSIS: Le!!"ál BasisforPlltkinl.! Reduction and Adjustment: Pursuant to Section 8.76.050 of the Zoning Ordina¡¡cê, Adjustment to tlw Number of Parking .$p!1.Ces, the Zoni11-g Administrator mayreducethe numberbf parking spaces requiredj;)y the ZoningOI'dipabc~ by meaJ,1,S O~I\ Çonditi(mal UsePwmit forthe fQl\o\YingJ~a,s()ns: .l)whèn Qff-sit~ pafkù1gis áVa.Îlâìil¡; to . satisfy Hie required parl@gµt\der thêZQnÌI\g or4ìmm6¢~ ;). wher( t4epßt19ngtI'lQ1.\Ìi'emlmt is.. deelll¡;4 eXcessive; :\11d,,3) when 1\ sbå¢iÎParkiIlg còndition i.5 present, Inthel¡j:tter twQ ca,ses.;¡. parkipgstudy mu.st be pr~ared by a qualified tráfflc engineer or çonsultant. The following evidence must bê p;rovi4ed: · An analysis of the availability of off "site parking spaces showing t'he,tthe most distant parking Spa¢f.' is not !1.10@th.an 400 feet frop:l the cÇimmercial4se, th;¡.t the pff"site parking spaces are notloc¡¡ted in a residential;1'.Qne Qr veh,ì¢)e a,Ccess are~ and that anyn~essary agreements &e eXecut,eq to assure t'he,t the off-site parl!;ing spaces are provfd~d to the principal ttSe (SectiC!D 8.76.050.C). · An ana1ysis of the pa¡:king demands of the. proposed use and the parking demands of similar uses. in similar situations, to dembnstrate how the requîred parking standard is excessive (Section 8.76.050.13). . · An analysis of how a sufficient number of parking spaces is provided to meet the greatest parking demands of the participating use types in a shared parking situation (Section 8.76.050.F). Lastly, the parking study must determine that an alternative parking standard would ensure that there wjD not be a parking deficiency, that overflow parking will not adversely impact adjacent uses, or that parking for various uSes in a shopping center will not conflict with each other. Conditional Use Permit: The Applicant worked with the City Traffic Engineer and Planning Division Staff to develop a Parking St1ldy for the pröject. The Parking Study is included as Exhibit B to Attachment 1. The Study reviewed the requested 1,886"square-foOt coffee shop and a 410-square"foöt outdoor seating are!! and provided an analysis of the typical parking requirements of the proposed tenant and the future tenants of the shopping center. The Parking Study concluded that the proposed project would generate significant visitors to the Village Parkway arM due to its promineht location, prombtion arid màtketing. arid the attr9.ctÍveness of the new buílding's design. The shared parking condition of the shoþping center arid the aväiiability of free, 011- street parking wöuid s\ipplernênt the parking provided Oll"site. In addition, the proximity of the project site to tesidentia'l nëighbörhbods, bike paths, and pubIlc transportation wouJd allow several transportation options for visitors and employees. Aco11current with the conditions of approval Iisted below, the Parking Study supported an alternative -~arking requirement to that of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance that takes into consideration all öffue . conditions at the project site. The Parking Study cOIlcluded that 32 off"street pàtkingspaces and the 3 existinljon'street parking spaceS (a niinimuII10f 5) would be sufficient to meet the peak parking ne~d~ ~ the coffee shop and the shopping tenter as a whole. Conditions of Aooroval: e The following measures were recommended by the Parking Study and incorporated as Conditions of Approval of the Zoning Administnitor Resolution (included inAttaDhment 2) to ensure ~lat approva~ of the Conditional Use Permit would cause no adverse impacts on retail tenants in the shopping center or adj acênt property own~s or area traffic: 1. The prQjt:ct shall reserv~ six (6) of the pat!cifig spaces aštjme-limjtéd parking. Tht:se spaoeS shaJI be lotated closest tp the coffee shop anoi sM!! be posted withthe following information: . "15Minute Parking Limit. Towing Enforced." Signs sl1a1l inèludeCity ofDúblin MuWcipalCqoiecitation that allows towing ofilIegally parked vehicles.' These six (6) parking spaces with time limit reStriDtions wöüld be äble to safely accommodate 24 vehicles per hour. (Condition of Approval # 8) 2. The. coffee shop tenant shall, provide inforniåtiön on the availability of travel options to visitors and employees on an on-going basis. BART and. the Wheels ahd Alameda County Connection bus setVioes, as well as the 511 teIephone and IIlte11lét service (WWw.51l.org), shall bé resOl:trces for information and promotional materials. (Condition of Approval # 9) 3. AJ:¡ alternative parldng standard of I space for every 200 square feet of outdoor floor area would be adequate due to the seasOnal nature of oütdoor seàting. The AppliDant/Developer shall apply for and obtain a Conditional Use Permit for additionaJ parking reductions pursuant to Section 8.76.050 of the Zoning OrdinanDe should the plaza area be Dovered by a permanent roof in the future (not included with this applicätion). (Condition of Approval # 10) . 4. The coffee shop shall provide auxiliary parldng and proper signage for the first two weeks of operation due to increased traffic caused by the business' grand opening. The auxiliary parking shall be located in the Enea Village Center parking lot and the remainiDg commercial tenant spaces sball be kept vacant during the two· week time period (Condition of Approval # 11) To summarize the conclusions and recommendations made in the original Parking Study, an alternative parking requirement which includes six (6) timë-limited parking spaces and five (5) on-street or curbside parking spaces, in addition to the other 26 parldng spaces in the Enea Village Parkway Center's commercial/retail parking lot, would be sufficient to satisfy the peak parking demand of the coffee shop and the Center's retail tenants. Focused TrafficlParkiu!!: Analvsis. dated April 19', 2005: To address concerns expressed at the Zoning Adn:Ünistrator public hearing and in the letter of appeal, the Applicant commissioned George Nickelson of O:mni Means to prepare a supplemel1tal Focused Traffic/Parking Analysis (Focused Analysis) to evaluate conditions at the intersection ofVillagè Parkway and Amador Valley Bouhward and at existing local Starbucks Coffee locations (included with Exhibit B to Attachment I). The locations surveyed in the Focused AJ:¡aJysis included the Starbucks Coffee businesses at 7904 Dublin Boulevard (at Regional), 4930 Dublin Boulevard (Hacienda Crossings), and 9]50 Alcosta Boulevard. The surveys were taken the week of April 4, 2005. The Focused Analysis . addresses concerns related to traffic congestion and parking demand ITom 6 A.M. to ] 0 A.M. during the busiest time period ofthe Starbucks business and during the time when local children are likely to be traveling to school. 4 '" " . . I ¿"t1() Th~ Foc\¡sed Analysis prepa¡:~d byOl11Jli Mean$ concluded th¡!t the intersection of Village PaxlcWay and .Amador Vàlley Böúlevard is cUrrently operathig ilt level of s~ce (LOS) A and would continue: to eOper.ilt. e at L.05 A W:t. ·th.. ..co.m.. Ple.t..i.on Ofth. ·e.pro...p.. .os. e..dP.rOject wi.th thep. arkin. .. g...re. dU. ction..., .Th. ..eF.o.· cused Analysis concluded that there would be.a peak parking demand of 27 parking-,spaces for the proposed coffee shop us~ at 9:30 AM, ,and ¡;.peak parking demand df39 parkingspaoes for the commerciäJJretall center as a whole also at 9:30 AJv.L Lastly, the Focused Analysis concluded that therewol1ld be slifficient on-sjfeêt or curbsidéparking for the 7 par"king spaees thät coûld Ilbtbé provided ötl"siteby ihe32-space parking lot. The Parking Study updi;ltédwith theOmni Means FOCl1sed TraffiolParking Analysis dated April 19, 2005 can be Sl1thn1arized as follows: Project :Parkin£! .andPeitkPätkin12DemaIidfroJ119:ÓOA.M.to 9:30 .A.M. (19/': , , 4~M, {sqift¡ z.o'''' !W11\ ' (tr4i!til.!!Ce Reqllir¢ P#Id'Ïg , acef 19 ;' .lÏXf ... m.·· ....11111 H.òu" . ._"y parking rieï l~~~' s, . ,ces 27 .'çi;ïþl'Ìe\1¡¡e~ ..' st$¡j4~·1 !!on,l1i/iØ¡¡' Ni'ki.'#,!i; pri; "".'~' ,,: (.p/lce.) Coffee 1,886 Sho OUtlioor 4io Seafu1g . RetaiJ 6,653 4 · 6 Dme-linritedpBrkiÌlg' sp.""s (24 vehicles) · 4 r.gU1M spàces · 5 off~sil¢ J'afkfug spaces io onesite 7 off-sit" Total Spaces A vïìliable, 10 spaces and 5 off..¡¡ite spa,,"s Would \tUI.Ïlage mai. dèmaritl of 33 vehid"'· èr bour 22 12 22 o!l-site 8,539 interior + 410 ..teriDr 45 32 on-site 39 total Tot"] 39 . From Foeused TraffiCIP",.king Analysis prep",.ed by George Nioke¡son ofOnmi Moans, dated Apfil 19,2005. Added Conditions of ADDrOval: Staffrecommends and the AppHcant has agreed to the following Condition of Approval that has been added to the Rðsolution (Attachment 1) to ensure that the conditio.nB studied in the Parking Study and in the Focused TrafficlParking Analysis c:ontinue to be in effect at the site and to. ensure that parking spaces are not utiJized for deliverie.s. 1. The Applicant/Developer shaH identify the location of a 10400t by 2Ò- foot loading sþace on the site plan of the proj~c( site in addition to the 32 parking spaces provided in the parking Jot. The location ofthe loading space shall be subject to the review and approval of the Co1i:tmunity Development Director and the Public Works Director. (Condition 12) e 5, Letter of An peal: \~=b As stated iri thê Ba:tkgröi.1hd sectiob., on March 23,2005, a letl:erfrÒm a Dublin resident, Bobbi Cau6hi, was received by tÌ1é City Clerk appealing the Zoning Administrator approval ofPA 04-057, fOr a reduction Òfeight (8) parkÎ1,1.g spacesand sUbstitution of five (5) curbside parking spaces for oMìtê parking onilie site. The Letter of Appeal is iné1uded as AttatbJ:nent 4 to this Staff report. The AppeIÌa.nt's grotiJ1ds for the Appeal aIld Staff's responses are summarized as follows: 1. Coml1le~t: The Appellant belieVes that the proposed use will create hifh customer volume anr1!ot traffitand the highe$/volurne will be in themQfn.ingfroin7;00 a,m· to 10.'00 a.m. During thli h(nl.rs of7!OO a,m. to lOa.m" the Appe11antbelieVês that 90,% Q}the 8tdrbuÇkßsa1es will be takë- out or to-go. One of the two shDþping center entrances is .on Amador Valley fjcJulrtvi¡:rdt1¡jd the Appellant be/ir¡ve$ that this will funttion as a primaryentrQn",eand exit. TheAppellant believes that vehir:les exiting at the Afl:iàdor Vitti!!)! BQ¡¡lrtvar¢eiXit wiUbe requirl!dtq· drive east into re$identjallleighborhpQdll. lJeçaWie Dl{blin High Sëhaal.Valleylligh SchbD¡, Wells Middle School, i:ind FrederikseliEiernentarySthooi are in tlle'vicinity (j!theprQPòsed parking reduäiôn, the traffic gb/èrated by the USe wilt be dangerQu$ té children's safety. Response: A pärking Study was prepared by the Applicant and City Staff in December 2004 with a fòllow-llpFocused TraffiCllParkingAnalysis on April 19, 2005 prepared by On:ini Means (iri AttacbJ:nent 1, Exhibit B) for the reque~ted parking reduction. The parking study conolud<:liI that the proposed -parking reduction at the Enea Village Parkway cent!:! wou1d not create traJfic hazards or conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians or bicyclists, and sufficient parking will be available forillorning customers during the coffee shop's busiest hours. During the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m, (the schools named, above, except Valley High School, begin at or before 9:00 AM), the Enea Village Parkway Certter's Òth!:! tenants are not likely to be open for business. With the provisiön of six (6) time-linIited p<U'kmg spaces in the Center, there will be an excess of more than 2 to 17 parking spaces in the shopping center during this time (see Parking Study and Focused TrafficlParkingAnalysis in Attachment 1). According to the Focused TrafficlParking Analysis, traffic will not be directed into adj acent residential neighborhoods because of two factors. The first factor is that the Focused Analysis determinëd that 70% of Starbucks customers are "pass by" traffic, meaning that these drivers were using the roadways to drive to a destination and stopped for Starbucks because it was along the same route. The remaining 30% of Starbucks customers are new trips. The second factor is that the median strip on Amador Valley Boulevard allows a safe location for entrance into the Dublin Village Square Shopping Center north of the subject retail center, as wé!I as for V-turn maneuvers for drivers wishing to access Village Parkway. Lastly, the stop signs, narrowness of the street, lack of freeway access, and residentià! Clharact!:! of Amador Valley BouJevard east of Village Parkway, is designed to slow traffic and contains many curvilinear streets and cul_de-sacs that will discourage traffic from entering Amador Valley Boulevard and neighborhood streets. Student and child safety has been protected by measures including but not limited to the foIiowing City erulanc.ements. A crossing gpard currently monitors st\!dents' access to schoöl at the intersection òfBurton Street and Amador Valley Boulevard tÒ ensure pedestrian safety at busy times of the day. The crossing guard uses specÜil stop signs developed by the City. The signalized intersectiòn at Village Parkway and Amador VaIiey Bòulevard, along with recent pedestrian safety enhancements at the sidewalk and comer, such as the removal of the right-turn only lane as part of the Village Parkway Capital Improvement Project, will ensure that students' safety is protected. Based on the Accident History Report compiled by the. Public Works Department, the intersection of Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard has a good safety record. Traffic accidents, 6 · · · . · · · . \~ preclÞmma,rttly "fen:cloc bc.lj}ders;" avè;rage M pe¡;yea,r involVing òther mòtórišts, No ped,estrían ~ aOoidentsbave bëen reþort(:id since JahûEiy onOOl. 2. Ooroment: Thê intf)nt ofth¢, "downt(]W1:Ì specifièplan" (Village Parkway Specific PZQiJ) was to create a brealifastllunch de.stinaiioiJ, the Starbuck's Café use is not consistent with this intent bêcause the Appellal1t believes that the use sells takt·out/to-go items. The provisiol'l ciftime- limited parking spac.es is proof that the busiiiess is a talœ,out/to-g/;i use. Response: The intent of the Village Parkway Spedfic Plan for the iu"ëais tò crðàtë a :t:riOf'ë pe4estrian ftien:dly atìd visually-ð!ihatìced reiaillcotninercial shoppingapd, servicëdistrlcl along Yil~g¡;; ~~j.çWayfrotìi Puþ¡i¡,1 BoJ.H/JYi\fd to!),b:ove ,Am,~90r~Y~eYJ:}oµ1eva,r¡J,.. The I.l!nd Use. plan fortÌie Speciti¡:PII1J); nøted jJ;¡e site as an "(JPpoPW site,"or a site fQr a pr¡¡ssibk ohatigë in use to be more inviting aridpróvide pedestrian.oriënted servìces and retaji, arid as illocation for a . pptl;j).tial~I1It.i;\ willir¡¢w 4evelo-BJJlept, AÞQQicliPg to tIle Specific Plan, uses,pem1Ìtteçl ¡¡tthe project !pcîitlpninö!u,ciëan¡njibè;r of seMce andretafl þu$Înesses;!\Ìld ~g and. eiltPlg c.lsta1:Jiislmiej1ts withoutMor seilt!pg, such¡g;tl1atpropósc.ldbyEMa Properti~, AOOltiô¡ül1IY, a c!if6 is spI:IQifiÞ@yi4en:ti:5e4 as ¡¡Þronitted ~seJ?i.ltsuant 1;0 We regµIatip$ pfthe Plannë4 Devëlopment District, and this use may alsó sell to-goiteros. . The p¡:Qvisiön of six (p) tilne"limited spaces was added as a cond,ition of approval of the Ene.a. Properties' project to in~~ the peak païking demand fotthe retail center betweèIJ thðbòili's of 9:00 AM and II :0..0 AM duIirigthe week . and 1.0:00. AM to 12 pM on the weekend when volumë is highest forboth the cåfé uSe and the retail business in the. shopping center, The six (6) time-limited spaces increase tht;: caþ.¡¡city of the· pat~g lot to meet this peak time only, and would not be needed during most times of the day. 3. Com,lJìellt: Thè Appel/12M believes that it is important not to rely on the brand name recogrzition of the busineSs that is requesting the parking reduction because the popularity of brands is impermanent and changes rapidly. ReSponse: The issuance ofplaruiing and use permits pertains to the appropriate land u.se for a psrucular site and not to. a specific brand of a product. Any eating or drinking establishment could have requested a Conditional Use Permit for this specific site. Ai;. Starbucks Coffee is a widely recognized and popular name brand, the Applicant has worked with. the City Staff and a traffic consultant to provide parking and traffic studies a.$ requested by Staffto justify an adjustment to required parking for this business location. Competition by various individual busmesses in the same use type category is not a land use or planning consideration. 4. The Appellant believes that the parking requirements of 1 space for 100 squareff1et of rf1staurant4'0od services and 1 space/or 300 square/eet of retail we're establishedfor a use such as the Starbucks café within the retail center. Responsf1: The Zoning Ordinance provides parking requirements by generic use type, as well as the meaIlS by which the required parking may be reduced or modified to fit specific conditions of a project,pursuant to Zonihg Otdinance Sectien 8.76.050. The generic ''¡~atingand drinking establishment" use type includes cafés, restaurants, delicatessens, specialty foods, bakeries, ice cream shops, and. sandwich shops, A Parking Studyfor a specific I¡Se prepared by a qUf))ified traffic engineer or consultant is required to provide the basis for &llowifig a parking adjustment. In the case of the current proj ect, the Parking Study found that the current conditions at llie site, in combination with the measures reconunð¡ide;d in the. Study, would provide the basis for a pi\rking reduction of eight (8) spaces and a modification of five (5) spaces to be located on-street. The Focused TrafficIParking Analysis prepared in April 2Ú05 by Omni Means supports the findings and recommendations of the Parking Study (both are included in Exhibit B to Attachment 1). 7 . . l5P1J 5. Comment:T1l1i: Apþellant believes that onctitreet parking red/lCfis a person:s ability to observe on-corning traffiC unlf'Ss that person is partially in the driving lani:; Rèšponse: The City will ensure that on-street parking is prohibited within an appropriate distance ITom each driveway to allow for safe sight distance. Additionally, a person turning right ITom the store'li driveway on Amador Valley Boulevard or Village ParkwaY,would need to look only to the left to observe on-coming traffic beforè pulling out into the right traffic lane because the entrartces/exits are right-turo.only. 6. Comment: Reliance on cm-strei:tparking as an.alternative tofiv¢ (5) of the on-Jiteparking spaces wauld causé traffiC problems asdrivers would look first fotparkingwithin thif: shopping centenind circië to the oncstreetparidlig spacés with two U-turn maneuvers if on"siteparking spaces were not available. Response: B:wed onth¢ Parking StUdy arie! Focused Trafficí.J;!ar1dng Ana:!ysis,the p.,ak parking demand is between 9:00 AM artd 11 :OOAM onweekd~ys, arid 10:00 AM to 12:00 pM on weèkends. With the provision of siX- (6) timeciimìted park,mg spaces, the parking lot of 32 späces would be able to accommodate parking for 55 cars per hour, which is sUfficient io meet the peak parking requirements of the Center. 7. Comment: Parallel parking at the on-street parking spacf'S would stoþ traffic on Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard. Response: Curb lanes on both Amador VaHey Boulevard and Village Parkway are wide enough to accommodate parállel on-street parking safely without impeding traffic flows, Additionally, on~ street parking is permitted along the rest of Village Parkway in front of a variety of other bUBinesses. 8. Commeut: People will not walk to the Starbucks cafe from on-street parking spaces in rain and other inclement weather. Response: With the provision of six (6) time-limìted parking spaces in the shopping center, on- s1reet parking would be in addition to the parking needed by the use. Because all parking for the site is uncovered, inclement weather would have only a small impact on the desirability of on- street parking, which could be closer in some cases to the coffee shop's tenant spaCe than parking spaces in the parking lot of the shopping center. 9. Comment: The Starbuc/Œ location in Southern California (South Pasadena) used in the Parking Study is not similar enough to the Starbucks that is the subject of the requested parking reduction. The Starbuc/Œ example used in the Parking Study is 26% smaller in floor area than theStarbucks at 7197 Village Parkway. and the Parking Study increased the trips by 26% to adjust for the difference. The Parking Study dof'S not include data for walk-up traffic such as persons walking from offices, schools, etc. The Appellant believes that the Starbuc/Œ at Regional Street and Dublin Boulevard generates more than 28 vehicles per hour (the conclusion of the Traffic Study for the Starbucks in South Pasadena). Respònse: The Applicant has provided a Focused TrafficlParking Analysis based on cement traffic and parking data for the StarbUcks Coffeè businesses at 7904 I)ùblin Boulevard (at Regional), 4930 Dublin Boùlevard (Hacienda Crossings), and 9150 Alcosta Boulevard. The surVeys were taken the weèk of April 4, 2005. The Focused AnaJysis addresses concerns related to traffic congestion arid parking d=and from 6 A.M, to 10 A.M. during the busj est time period of the business (included in Attachment 1). The FocUBed Traffic!Parking Analysis also surveyed the number of pedestrians and bicyclists near the businesses. This supplemental information supports 8 · · · . . . .. IlÐJb th¢ !.\d 1clusibns¡¡nd.r¢oornmendatÎons oftheopgiJ1!t1 Parki¡¡gStudy that '47 to Zi3 parking ªpac~s wdlll(i be reqUited tc> meet the péåkparki¡¡¡¡ctenµLlld Q{the coffee sJ:¡op use, w:þiêh are prowde<:j. 10. Comment:. The TraJfic Study thm condudedtha! the intersectiÓn ofVUlage. and Amador Vallèy Boulevard was safe and that trli.Jfic would remain at LOS C under currf!nt and future ccmditiom diti not takëi1itoçonsideratio~ f?'owth of the Dougherty Valley, the expan$iOl1 ðfthe Valley Center, thi! remodel of the AM/PM convenience stðre, increased school enrollment, the neW' 5eni07' Housing development, and the remodeled Target/Expo De,;ign Center. The trqffiçstudy does npl provide sufficient information tð evaluate the safety of the southeast corner ofVilIage ParkWay and Amtldor Valley Boulevard. Res~(Jnse: . \!:'hè puJ: 5dsé ora speêific plart is to anticipåte thè impacts of a @lut> ör ra.tt.ge òf dévèldpniêllt so that eadh individual 1jSeinclúded i~ the specific plan does nôt rèqUÍìe an individtiálstlïdy. . This allows the Citytd plan£or cumulative impacts of severál projects tM:.en. tQgetherMdallòws develop:mehtto occ\lf withoùt ui1.f()1'esêeri orllnnecessllr'ycÜ:Hays, The tr¡¡.ffic impaëts of growth related t6 the various uBes envisioned in the Village Parkway Sþë6Ïfic PlaIl were studied and mitigated through Capital Improvement Projects and Deveiopetpay:tnent ofTraffic Impact Fees. The Valley Center, the TargetlExpo remodel, and the. Senior Housing development, were developed punmiint to the Village Parkway Specific Plan and the Downtown Cdre Specific Plan, and the traffic generated by these projected uses were included in the traffic studies for the Specific Plans. Traffic Studies have concluded that regional growth such as developm.ent in Dougherty Valley will not impact Village Parkway. In cases where a new project may exceed the development anticipated under the Speciiic Plan, a supplemental traffic study is prepared. However, the proposed project is relatively smáll (1,886 square feet) and cönforms to the development standards of the PD Zoning District and Specific Plan. As the Applicant requested an adjustment inParking Standards as allowed by the Zoning Ordinance, a more focused parking study was required instead. The Focused TrafficlParking Analysis concluded that the intersection of Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard is operating at a level of service of A between 7:00 A.M. and 9:00 A.M., and that the potential for conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians or bicyclists is low. Public Heariue Notice and Comments: A Public Hearing Notice was mailed to property owners, residents, and tenants within a 300-foot radius of the project property. A copy of the notice was advertised in the ValJev Times !IlId posted at locations in the City. As of the writing of this report, no further comments have been received from the public. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW; The California Environmenta] Quálity Act (CEQA), together with the State guidelines and City environmental regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared. The proposed project has been found to bc CategOlically Exemption ITom the provisions of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15304, as it is a minor álteration to land consisting of a reduction in parking spaces for a business tenant within an approved ¡nfill retail commercial center, presently under construction. ~ONCLUSION; . The Enea Village Parkway Center will replace a vacant former gas station at a prominent corner of the intersection of Village Parkway and Amador VaHey Boulevard. The project site is identHied in the 9 Village Parkway $péêifiê Plan as ari oppóIÍ1JÏÙ.~ site. Th¢ propWied ooff"". shoþ USe> m¢ets the goal~ 2ifb requirementS óftheþróþérty asenvisiónéd in the Villáge Parkway Speoifiè Plart, the P!atined Development Dii;t¡jot P A 98.049, and the Off-Street Parking ar¡d Loading Section of the Zoning Ordinance by creating a neighborhood-serving and pedestrian-friendly co==ial use with shared parldng.. City Staff have reviewed the project and Conditions of Approval are oontained in the Resolution . (Attachment 1) that will mitigate ally potential a.dverse impacts of the pròject relative to parking. RECöMMEN'DA'TíöN: Staff reconunends tha.t the Planning Commission: 1) open public hearing and hear tI1é Staff presentation; 2) take tegtÙIlony fro¡n the Applicant, Æppéllant and thePüb1iÞ; 3) olps¢ the public hearing: and deliberate; and, 4) adopt the Resolútipn (Attaøhm.ent 1) ¡¡££irmmg the Zøning Administrator approval of a Conditional Use pem:t.it PA. 04,057 for a Reductión to Reqµired Patkiug for Enea Properties/Starbuc~s Coffee (with Site Plan included as Erlllbit A, and Parking Study as ExhibitB with Focused TraffiêlParkingAnalysis dated April 19 , 200S inoludéd). e e 10 . l~q;¡ GENERAL INFORMATION: eAPPUCANT: Robert Enea, Enea Properties Company, LLC 190 Hartz Av~ue, Suite 260, Danville 94526 PROPERTY OWNER: Vi11age Parkway Partners, LLC 190 Hartz Avenue, Suite 260, Danville 94526 APPELLANT: Bobbi Cauchi,Cauçhi Photography 7063 Vi11age ParkWay, Dublin, CA 94568 LOCATION: 7197 Villáge Parkway, Dublin, CA 94568 (APN 941-0210-013) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATiòN: Retäil/Office EXJS'TIN"G ZONING AND LAND USE: Planned Developm~t Zoning District, P A 98-049, . G,\PAII~OO4VJ4-G57 En..\ PC StalfRopor'.doe . 11 n c: ""'I C" ( ) -' Q. CD ""C Q) ""I ~ - ~ CO .~.q~ ¡ I ¡ · · CJ1 ""Ij t\) ...., ';I':' S' !.C CJ') -- ~ en ~ ~""~I.I."" -- . '1 I· r ., ¡:1 I; : F , .. ~, ~. J' J>. b t:> , l iii , t , J 'C , , '" . / r- I /'" I ~ JJ1 \ \-< \. " x ,/ ......... , G' I ,. ,. ,... .r I , I <:: I ¡ I ¡ Q r I-4J I, I .-1' ¡. , r i ~f - ~t I It 4 Parking Stalls · Ap~ ZS Z005 14:30 HP LASERJET FA>< p. ~ 2Dq; . DUBLIN SCHOOLS DUBLIN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Robert Enea Enea Properties Company, LLC 190 Hartz Ave. Suite 260 Danvllle, CA 94526 Dear Mr. Enea: The purpose. of this letter Is to respond to your Inquiry regarding two letters that are being submitted before the CIty of Dublin Planning Commission this eveC1ing appealing the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) previously granted by the City of Dublin. Your concern stems from whet appears to be school district support of the appeal to revoke the CUP. Specifically, you note that one letter Is signed by "Dublin Unified School District Teachers and AdmlniS'trators: . Your phòne call surprised me in as much. that tha school district has takan no position regarding the CUP. In fact, as a matter of day-to-day operallons, this is an issue that the school distrid does not typically get Involved in. Quite frankly, I was completely unaware of this until your phone call today. To be clear, the Dublin Unified School Dlstrld Is not opposing the CIIy Planning Commission sustaining the CUP. It is inappropriate for employees of the district to suggllSt that the "school district" Is In opposition of the CUP. Employees of the school dllrtrict have every right to spsak as private citizens on matlers that they believe affects them. However, signing a letter as "Dublin Unified School District Teachen¡ and Administrators' or "Ms. XXXXX, Kindergarten Teacher, XXXXX School" Is inappropria1e if the Intent Is to suggest that the school district has taken a position on the matter· particularly since the district has not. You may share this letter with the City Planning Commission this avening. Sincerely curs~ J~_~ Superintendent of Schools e WE ARE COMMITTED TO THE SUCCESS OF ALL OUR STUDeNTS Written Statement Starbuck's Conditional Use Permit We are proposing to lease 1,886 square feet to Starbucks for the sale of hot and cold products, assorted food Items, seasonal, promotional,and branded merchandise and non-food Items including coffee mugs, ground coffee and small gifts. Starbucks estimates that a normal work shift will consist of two to three employees. Normal hours of operation would be Monday- Thursday, 5:00 AM - 11 :00 PM, Friday 5:00 AM- 12:00 PM, Saturday 6:00 AM - 12:00 PM and Sunday 6:00 AM - 10:00 PM. Starbucks has a broad target market and appeals to basically every segment of the community. Thecommunlty at large will benefit by allowing residents a convenient, warm and friendly place to get a non-alcoholic drink in a relaxed atmosphere. In addition, Starbucks employees are known forselectlng and partnering with local charitable causes and will do so from this store as well. Starbucks use will not be disruptive to the surrounding businesses or residents nor will Starbucks business activities create any negative effects on the health or safety of people residing or working in the vicinity ()r create any negative effects on the property, transportation systems or existing improvements in the neighborhood. The proposed project Is not located on a hazardous waste site. Starbucks is anticipating Indoor seating for thirty (30) people and outdoor seating for sixteen (16) people. In conclusion, we feel Starbucks is high quality tenant with a proven successful track record for operating a clean and safe operation. They would be a fine addition to the community at this location. RECEIVED NOV 0 1 2.004 DU9UN PLANNING pA 0(/-051 Z!öt> .... . --, e e '22- -., . Traffic Data· Per the Public Works Department 'the traffic trip generation for the proposed project is classified as a "General Strip Center" and calculated at twenty-six (26) trips per one thousand (1,000) square feet of General Strip Center leasable rental space. The proposed Starbucks, at one thousand eight hundred and eighty six (1,886) square feet would generate approximately forty nine point zero three (49.03) trips per day. Current daily car counts at the intersection of Village Parkway and Amador Plaza Road which provides egress to the proposed project are as follows: . South of the Intersection of Village Parkway & Amador __. Valley Blvd· Twenty thousand six hundred and fifty (20,650) cars per day. West of the Intersection of Village Parkway & Amador Valley Blvd Two thousand six hundred and fifty (20,650) cars per day. East of the Intersection of Village Parkway & Amador Valley Blvd Fifteen thousand nine hundred (15,900) cars per day. North of the Intersection of Village Parkway & Amador Valley Blvd Fifteen thousand (15,000) cars per day. Based on the preliminary traffic data the proposed use would not have an adverse effect on the project or the existing _ infrastructure. ~eee'VED . NOV 0 1 2004 DUBLIN ÞLANNINGa pA-2J?-/ 0 Y7 2~ RESOLUTION NO. 05 - 25 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TBE CITY OF DUBLIN . REVERSING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A REDUCTION TO REQUIRED PARKING FOR ENEA PROPERTIES/STARBUCKS COFFEE AT 7197 VILLAGE PARKWAY (pA 04-057) WHEREAS, the Enea Properties Company LLC, the site property owner, has requested approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a reduction of eight (8) parlcing spaces and the relocation of five (5) parking spaces off-site from the number of parking spaces normally required for a 1,886-square·foot coffee shop, 41O-square-foot outdoor seating area, and 6,653-square-foot retail center (45 spaces), pursuant to Section 8,76.050 of the Zoning Ordinance, on land located at 7197 VIllage Parkway (APN 941-0210-013); and WHEREAS, the apþlication has been reviewed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and the City Environmental Quidélines, and detennined to be categorically exempt according to Section 15304, lIS it is a mioor alteration to land consisting of a reduction in parking spaces for a business tenant within an approved infill retail commercial center, presently under construction; and WHEREAS, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 21-98 which established Planned Development . District P A 98·049 on December 15, 1998, which established development standards for the project site; and WHEREAS, City Council adopted the Village Parkway Specific Plan and Initial StudylNegative Declaration on December 19, 2000, which established development standards, land uses, and goals for the Specific Plan Area; and WHEREAS, Planning Commission did hold a public hearing and approved a proposal submitted by Enea Properties Company LLC for development of a 8,539-square-foot commercial/retail center and 5,582- square-foot office building at the project site on May 11, 2004, by means of Resolution 04-40; and WHEREAS, a Parking Study has been prepared and reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer for the proposed reduction of eight (8) parking spaces and the relocation of five (5) parking spaces off-site ÍÌ'om the number of parking spaces normally required for II 1,886-square-foot coffee shop, 41O-square-foot outdoor seating area, and 6,653-square-foot retail center (45 spaces). The Parking Study states that alternative parking standards would be appropriate for the project, and a Focused Traffic/Parldng Analysis was completed by George Nickelson ofOmni Means, dated April 19, 2005, that supports the conclusions and recommendations of the original Parking Study; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator did hold a public hearing on the Conditional Use Pennit on March 14,2005, and approved the Conditional Use Permit subject to Conditions of Approval; and WHEREAS, a letter of appeal was received on March 23. 2005 from Bobbi Cauchi, pursuant to Chapter 8.136 of the Zoning Ordinance, Appeals; and . '2.f WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing in consideration of the Appeal on ~priI26,2005;and WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, the Staff Report, including the Focused TrafficIParking Analysis prepared by Ornni Means, was submitted to the Planning Commission recommending that the Planning Commission affirm the Zoning Administrator's approval of the Conditional Use Permit and deny the appeal; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports, recomroendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth, and used its independent judgment in making a decision. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby make the following findings and determinations regarding said proposed Conditional Use Permit: 1. The PJa=ing Commission finds that the Parking Study and Focused TrafficIParking Analysis prepared pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 8.76.050.E does not demonstrate that the required parking standards are excessive and does not propose appropriate alternate parking standards that will ensure that there will not be a parking deficiency. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby reverse the Zoning Administrator approval of Conditional Use Permit P A 04-057, Enea Properties/Starbuck:.<i Coffee, for project plans, included as Exhibit A, and the Parking Study dated December 29, 2004, included as Exhibit B "'¡Jh Focused TrafficlParking Analysis prepared by George Nickelson ofÜmni Means, dated April} 9,2005, W:luded), and does affirm the appeal. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of April, 2005. AYES: NOES: Chair Schaub, Cm. Biddle, and Wehrenberg ABSENT: Cm. Fasulkey ABSTAIN: em. King ¥~I- Plamung Commission ChaiIperson ATTEST: 1 ! ,.'.-'} !/~-(\>1-ì t/ - '~ Pfkning Manager l !h.-h/\~ ) ._,,,~ .A#\2004\04-GS7 Suulmcb P>rking CUI'\!'IIM¡"i CD';""''';'''' II'C RESO jb.DOC 2 cpfánnitIfJ Commission fMinutes "2<Ç CALL TO ORDER . A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, Apri126, 2005, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Schaub called the meeting to order at 7:02pm. ROLL CALL Present Chair Schaub, Commissioners Biddle, IGng, and Wehrenberg; Kristi Bascom, Senior Planner; John Bakker, Assistant City Attorney, Janet Harbin. Senior Plarmer; Pierce Macdonald, Associate Planner; and Maria Carrasco, Recording Secretary. Absent: Cm. Pasulkey ADDmONS OR REVISIONS TO mE AGENDA- MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - The March 22, 2005 minutes were approved as submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATION - At this time, members of the audience are permitted to address the Planning Commission. on. any item(s) of interest to the public; however, no ACTION or DISCUSSION shall take place on. any item, which is NOT on the Planning Commission Agenda. The Commission may respond briefly to statements made or questions posed, or may request Staff to report back at a future meeting concerning the matter. Furthermore, a member of the Plannin.g Commission may direct Staff to place a matter of business on a e future agenda. Any person may arrange with the Plarming Manager (no later than 11:00am, on the Tuesday preceding a regular meeting) to have an item of concern placed on the agenda for the next regular meeting. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS The Dublin Unified School district submitted a letter in reference to Item 8.4 EneajStarbucks. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8.1 P A 99.Q64 Sabri Arac Development Agreement for Quarry Lane School" Development Agreement between the City and the OW!ler, Dr. Sabri Arac, of the Quarry Lane School for the expansion of the school to provide an additional 70,289 square feet of classroom facilities, a gymnasium, playing field, parking and landscaped areaS to accommodate middle and high school grades. A Planned Development District rezoning and Site Development Review were previously approved for the project. and would be further implemented through the Development Agreement. Chair Schaub opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Janet Harbin. Senior Planner presented the staff report and explained that the applicant. Dr. Sabri hac of Quarry Lane School, is requesting approval of a development agreement with the City to allow for the construction of Phase 2 of the privately owned school at 6363 Tassajara Road. Phase 2 of Quarry Lane School consists of 70,289 square feet of classroom facilities, a gymnasium, playing field, PaIking, and landscaped areas to accommodate middle and high school grades. A Planned Development District œr..., (:mIøIrù8imI 48 JIpñf 26, ZOOS 'R¡gtÚr~ . "2-0 Rezoning and Stage 2 Development Plan, for Phase 2 of the Quarry Lane School, located within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, has previously been approved. In conjunction with the rezoning application, the property along with the adjacent Kobold property was approved for annexation to the · City. Ms. Harbirl explained that one of the implementing measures of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan is the requirement that the City enter into a Development Agreement with developers in the Plan axea. The Development Agreement provides security to the developer that the City will not change its zoning and other laws applicable to the project for a specified period of time. Approval of this Development Agreement will implement provisions of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and the conditions of approval specific to the Quarry Lane School expansion project. The proposal is consistent with both the General Plan and the Specific Plan. Staff recommends the Planning Commission open the public hearing and hear the Staff presentation; take testimony from the Applicant the Public; close the public hearing and deliberate; and adopt a resolution recommendirlg City Council adopt an ordinance approvirlg a Development Agreement between the City of Dublin and Dr. Sabri Arac for the Quarry Lane School. She asked if there were any questions. Cm. Biddle asked if it is a 5-year agreement with an annual review. Ms. Harbin said yes. Cm. Biddle asked if there was any information on the number of students and what is projected for the future. · Ms. Harbin said there are approximately 900 students currently and that will increase to about 1,500 students. Cm. King asked about the language on page 4 of the Development Agreement, paragraph 4.2, the term "will commence on the effective date and extend 4 years thereafter." He does not understand what that means. John Bakker, Assistant City Attorney, said the Development Agreement vests the land use regulations in effect at the time of the project approval. For a 5-year period until it terminates the land use regulations that are in effect on the date of the agreement will remain in effect for that 5-year period. Cm. King asked if the 5 years expire, does the Applicant have to come back before the City to renew? Mr. Bakker said not necessarily. If the Applicant's permit is still valid, he could still go forward with the project. He stated that what Development Agreements really do is protect developers from changes in law. Cm. King stated that if the agreement last 5 years and the permit is good for another 3 years, it contradicts itself if the same terms and conditions apply. Why have a 5-year term on the Development Agreement? Mr. Bakker said that the Development Agreement and the permit are mutually exclusive and do not rely · on one another. Cm. King asked if construction needs to commence before the agreement becomes vested. Œ'fImIå¡J ()JaøØøÎDII ~~ 49 JIprif 2fi, 2005 ""2.1 lib Mr. Bakker stated that under common law, constrUction must be commenced in order to vest your rights. Another alternative to vest your rights is to enter into a Development Agreement. Cm. Biddle asked how far along is the project. . Ms. Harbin stated Dr. Arac has submitted for building permits and anticipates the construction of the expansion over the summer. Cm. Biddle stated that the school is right across the street from a proposed park. Ms. Harbin stated the park is part of the Wallis Ranch project. Chair Schaub asked if there were any questions of Staff; hearing none he asked for the Applicant. Patricia Curtin, Land Use Attorney stated she represents Dr. Arac. She questions the need for the Development Agreement. They started developing the school with Alameda County before the area Was annexed into the City. They have entered into an annexation agreement with the City. They do not see that the Development Agreement adds anything to it other than more time. Once they are able to pull the building permits they plan to construct immediately and there is no need for the 5-year agreement. They have SOme concerns with and question some of the fees that are being imposed. She has a meeting set up on May 3, 2005 to discuss and work through those fees. Chair Schaub asked Ms. Curtin is there was something different that she wanted out of the City. Ms. Curtin stated she does not want the Development Agreement; she wants the building permits so . they can start construction. Chair Schaub asked if she is requesting the Plarming Conunission to consider that. Ms. Curtin stated that if they carmot get their building permits without entering i¡1.to a Development Agreement then let it go forward and she will continue to work with City Staff. Chair Schaub asked Mr. Bakker if it is in the Commission's realm to dispute the need for a Development Agreement. Mr. Bakker said there is a provision in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan requiring a Development Agreement. If the Applicant wants to move forward, the Plarming Commission would need to approve the Development Agreement. Ms. Curtin stated this is a very uruque situation and asked the Plarming Commission to make the recommendation of approval to the City Council. Cm. King stated that the Development Agreement protects the Applicant as well as the City. Cm. Biddle asked when the original facility was constructed. Mr. Bakker stated approximately 1997. . Cm. Biddle asked about the layout of the facility and where do they plan to construct the new facilities. œføØÍl/ c-..;"" .".~ 50 ftpritZ6, ZOOS Ms. Curtain stated she did not bring a diagram of the layout. "2.« Cm. Biddle asked if they are building a gymnasium and playing field and whether that was going to be . opened to the publk. Ms. Curtain stated that she WaS not sure, but could look into the question. Robert NieL.en. 6407 Tassajara Road stated that they have a private agreement with Quarry Lane School and it would benefit them if it was included in the development agreement. Cm. King asked if he contacted Staff. Mr. Nielsen stated he informed Janet Harbin. Cm. King stated he does not have a ptoblem with the agreement but still unclear on the language discussed earlier in sedion 4.2. On motion by Cm. Biddle, seconded by em. King, and by vote of 4-0-1 with em. Fasulkey absent, the Planrring Commission adopted RESOLUTION NO. 05-24 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCU, ADOPT A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR PA 99-064 DR. SABRI ARAC FOR QUARRY LANE SCHOOL . ChaÎI Schaub reminded the audience if they are going to speak to please fill out a blue speaker slip and hand it to the recording secretary. 8.2 P A 05-010 Journey Church - Conditional Use Permit Extension (request for a one-year extension) A one-year extension of an existing Conditional Use Permit fot a religious facility within an existing shopping center in a C-l Retail Commercial (with Historic Overlay) Zoning District. Chair Schaub opened the public heaTing and asked for the staff report. Ktisti Bascom. Senior Planner presented the staff report and explained that the Applicant, Mike Connolly, Pastor of Journey Church, is requesting a one-year extension to continue using the space. Ms. Bascom explained that the reason fat the limited term is because the site is in the DublID Village Historic District. The City conducted some feasibility studies and is currently in the master planning process for the DublID Square Shopping Center site and is expected to have that completed in 2006. The Applicant has requested that the Conditional Use Permit be extended through February 2006. The church assembly use is on Sunday's from 8:45 -11:45 and d1ll'ing the week ftom 8:00am to 6:00pm. Because of the off peak use of the facility for assembly uses on Sunday, there is more than sufficient parking. Staff is . seeking direction from the Planrring COmmis. sion on whether findings for approval or denial of the one year extension can be made. . Staff will bring the appropriate resolution back to the next Planning Con:u:nission meeting. She was available to answer questions. ŒÚ#rIŽtI¡I Çø/IIIIfUsWJt ~!Mring 51 ftpril21i,200J Cm. IGng asked if there were any proposed changes to the use. z...-.¡ Ms. Bascom stated there are no changes. Chair Schaub stated that if the church sublet the facility and someone else took over. all of the conditions . stay exactly in place and if they are violated, the COI1ditiorutl Use Permit can be revoked. Ms. Bascom stated that the use permit is for a community facility. If Journey Church was to move out and a new tenant moved in, they would need to abide to the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit. They would need to be aware that the Conditiorutl Use Permit, if approved, would expire in 2006. Cm. Biddle stated that is good timing because the Master Plan for the Heritage CenteT is due to the City Council in January 2006. Chair Schaub invited the Applicant to speak. Mike Connelly, Pastor of Journey Church, thanked the Planning Commission for allowing them to meet there. He has a lot of gratitude to the City and the Commission. He requested that the extension be for 12 months from today rather than February 2005. Chair Schaub asked Staff their thoughts on the request Ms. Bascom stated that the Applicant requested for a one-year extensioI1 and technically the use has expired. The one-year extension would take them from February 2005 through February 2006. Chair Sc;Ìlaub asked if anyone else wished to speak; hearing none he closed the public hearing. . Chair Schaub asked Mr. Bakker whether the extension could be extended to May 1, 2006. Mr. BakkeT stated that given that the permit expired in February and the Applicant has requested a one- year extension. The one-year extension would be from the date the use permit expired. Cm. IGng stated that he does not see a problem with extending their use permit. Cm. Biddle stated that there are a number of churches in storefronts and industrial areas and asked if there is anything that acçommodates c;Ìlurches in relocating. Ms. Bascom explained that the City has adopted a Public/Semi Public Policy to encourage property owners who are seeking a General Plan Amendment to set aside land for çommunity facilities such as a c;Ìlurch. The City is taking steps to ensure there is space in the future for community facilities. Ms. Bascom explained that Staff is looking for direction on whether to bring back a resolution for approval or a resolution for denial. The Planning Commission by unanimous vote directed Staff to bring back a resolution approving their request for a one-year extension. Ms. Bascom stated that Staff would bring back a resolution recommending approval at the next Planning Commission meeting. . <PúMÙlfl Cmmøiuí<m 1JJgular~ 52 JIprit 2ri, 200s · ¿o 8.3 P A 04-060 Tentative Map for Condominium Purposes for the Iron Horse Trail Apartments located at 6253 Dougherty Road - The Applicant requests approval .of a Tentative Map to subdivide the Iron Horse Trail Apartments and create 177 condaminium units. A candominium uw.t is defined as an estate in real property co¡¡¡;isting of an UIldivided interest in the common area and separate fee interest in a specific unit. Chair Schaub opened the public hearing and asked for the staff repart. Ms. Bascom, Senior Plarmer presented the staff report and explained that the Applicant is requesting approval of a Tentative Map to subdivide the Iron Horse Trail Apartments and create 177 condominium units. This item was noticed as a public hearing; however, an application for Site Development Review needs to be submitted and processed along with the proposed map. Therefore, the Applicant is requesting that this item be continued to a date uncertain. Staff recommends that the Plannirtg Commission open the public hearing and continue the item to a date uncertain. 8.4 Appeal of Zoning Administrator Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for P A 04-057, Enea PropertiesfStarbucks Coffee, Reduction to Required Parking. Chair Schaub stated there is an issue .of one Planning Commissianer that may need to reçuse himself. Cm. King asked whether the Applicant objects to him participating. Norm Maniane, stated he is representing the Applicant. Rabert Enea and Mr. Enea would prefer for Cm. King to recuse himself. _ Chair Schaub explained the process to those people sitting in the audience. The issue at hand is a ,., request by the applicant to have a reduction in the number of parking spaces On the site from 45 to 32. It is not whether or nat there should be a coffee shop. That use type was approved a year aga. The Planning Commission is trying to come up with facts to make a good decision on behalf .of the cammunity. He asked for the staff report. Pierce Macdonald, Associate Plarmer prèsented the staff report and gave a brief history of the project. She stated that the item is the co¡¡¡;ideratiOIl of an appeal of the, Zoning Administrator's approval. The permit is for an adjustment ta number of parking spaces, required pursuant ta zoning ordinance. The project site at 7197 Village Parkway was the former location .of an automotive gasoline and service station that closed in the 1990' s, and was previ.ously zoned General COInnlercial. She showed a PowerPoint presentation including a site plan for the project. In December 1998, a planned develapment zoning district was approved for the project site. In December 2000, the Village Parkway Specific Plan was approved, including the praject site. In May 2004, the Site Development Review application was approved for the project site. Ms. Macdonald explained that UIlder the Zoning Ordinance there are provisio¡¡¡; for parking adjusbnents, but a parking study must be prepared. The Applicant warked with Staff ta provide information an peak parking demand and agreed to an alternative parking standard, which was reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineer, This standard called for on street parking for 5 cars; time- limited parking for 6 cars; and 26 regular parking spaces on site. Based an infonnation gathered by Staff the peak parking demand wauld be 28 spaces for the coffee shop, 22 spaces far the retail and a tatal of 50 spaces. With the conditions, 5 OIl street parking spaces and 24 time-limited spaces, including the 26 e regular spaces, would provide an available 55 parking spaces. The Conditional Use Permit was approved by the Zoning Administrator on March 14, 2005. Prior ta the hearing, Staff received 13lelters in support of the project and 16 letters opposing the project. Within the rPú#ná/¡J CøtrImúsúm 53 .ftprilZ6, Z0(}5 ~~ 3\ 10-day appeal period an appeal letter was received from a Dublin resident, Bobbi Cauchi. The grounds for the appeal stated that the parking reduction would cause a diversion of traffic into residential areas near 4 local schools which would cause unsafe conditions, and inconsistency with the Village Parkway Specific Plan. Also, parallel parking would be unsafe and stop traffic £low. The grounds for the appeal also included that the parking study was not adequate because it relied on a typical Starbucks location in a different part of Califonùa and that the Village Parkway Specific Plan traffic study did not consider the increased.traffic volume created by local and regional growth. e In response to the issues raised at the Zoning Administrator hearing, and in the letter of appeal, the Applicant commissioned a focused traffic parking analysis by George Nickelson of Omni Means for level of service at the intersection to gauge the amount of congestion at the intersection of Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard, to survey the peak parking demands of local Starbucks coffee shops and to evaluate the potential safety issue of pedestrians, bicyclists and vehicles. City Staff reviewed the analysis prepared by Omrù Means and Staff reviewed the grounds for the appeal. As conditioned, these grounds and these issues have been addressed by the project. Ms. Macdonald stated that the City's Public Works Engineer, Mark Lander, will talk about traffic analysis and parking analysis. Mark Lander, City Engineer introduced hÎ.InIIel£and stated he was here to address any questions the Commission may have. He stated that the City Council adopted the do~town traffic impact fee in October of 2004. That fee study included a traffic analysis of the downto~ areaof Dublin, which includes three specific plan areas. The traffic study looked at potential infm development or redevelopment within the three downto~ specific plans that concluded at ultirn.ate build out in the downtown area there would be roughly another 38,000 trips generated. The Enea site was One of the sites assumed to generate new traffic. He stated the area would be adequate to handle build out. He explained that the project would not over load the 4 lanes on Village Parkway. He stated that because the property is so close to the existing intersection, the three driveways, one on Village Parkway, and _ two on Amador Valley Boulevard will be restricted to right in and right out. Should someone enter the . site and wish to head west on Amador Valley Boulevard, they will have three options - they could leave the site and make a right turn onto Village Parkway and make an immediate left onto Amador Valley Boulevard. There is also an option of making a right turn onto Amador Valley Boulevard cross into the left turn pocket and make a u-turn and the third option would be to continue down to York Drive and make a u-turn to head west down Amador Valley Boulevard. Chair Schaub asked if One of those properties along Amador Valley Bouleva1'd is a preschool. Ms. Bascom stated there are two preschools on Amador Valley Boulevard. Chair Schaub stated that there is a street further do~ that would be an option to make a u-turn, Ms. Bascom stated that after York Drive is Emerald Ave., which has a left turn pocket. Mr. Lander concluded his presentation. Ms. Macdonald stated that the Omni Means parking study focused on the busiest time of the business as far as sales. The report found the peak parking demand for local area Starbucks was between 9:00 and 9:30am. The total parking demand was 39 parking spaces for the center and the parking lot and on- street would be adequate to meet the peak parking demands. Chair Schaub asked the total deficiency at 9:30am. . Ms. Macdonald responded there is a deficiency of 7 parking spaces. Œ'fø1litr¡J~ .",.w~.-., 54 ftprll2,,200J "$2.- Chair Schaub asked why the parking report states a deficiency of 13 spaces. . Ms. Macdonald stated that is a comparison between the Zoning Orclinance parking requirement and the actual counts done in the field. Omni Means focused traffic and parking analysis felt that 7 on street parking spaces would be requiTed. There are 9 available parking spaces along the project frontage. The Village Parkway Specific Plan has detailed diagrams of the improvements on Village Parkway, including parallel parking. The current proposal would take advantage of that component of the Village Parkway Specific Plan to provide additional parking. ChaiT Schaub asked if the slide of the Village Parkway streetscape was looking hypothetically looking north on Village Parkway or is it a generalization? Ms. Macdonald responded this is a general goal and the City has undergone a Capital Improvement Program to improve Village Parkway to put in bulb outs and street trees. Ms. Ma"donald stated that the proposed parking reduction has been found to be categorically exempt. One letter was received from the applicant supporting the parking reduction. A packet of letters opposing the parking reduction were left at the homes of the Plamring Commissioners and submitted for public record and copies have been distributed. One letter was from the DVSD stating it is not opposed to the parking reduction. In conclusion, staff has reviewed the parking analysis and that the peak parking demand would be met. Staff recommends that the plamring commission adopt a resolution affiTming the zoning administrator approval. She stated that in conclusion the proposed coffee shop lease space meets the goal~ and . requirements of the property as envisioned in the Village Parkway Specific Plan, the Planned Development District PA 98-049, and the Off-Street Parking and Loading Section of the Zoning Ordinance by creating a neighborhood-serving and pedestrian-friendly commercial use with shared parking. City Staff have reviewed the project and Conditions of Approval are contained in the Resolution in Attachment 1 that will mitigate any potential adverse impacts of the project relative to parking. Staff recommends that the Plarnúng Commission adopt a resolution affirming the Zoning Administrators approval for a Conditional Use Permit for Enea PropertiesjStarbucks Coffee. . Chair Schaub proposed that there are 4 documents that have facts. There is the parking study, traffic study, Village Parkway Specific Plan, and the letter from the appellant. At this point the Commission needs to determine the impact of the parking reduction. He would like to start the questioning with Staff before operring it up to the public. There are eight findings that are listed that need to be met for approval of the Conditional Vse Permit. John Bakker stated the Conditional V se PerIIÙt findings must be met in order to grant the parking reduction; there are also related parking findings that must be met. Chair Schaub stated there are 32 spaces on site with 2 that are handicap and most of the time handicap spaces are not used. To consider them as part of the 32 is okay but the reality is they are not available to very many people, which leaves 30 spaces. Ms. Macdonald stated they would be available to any employee or guest that was handicapped. . Chair Schaub asked where the employees are going to park. Ms. Macdonald stated the parking requirement is for guest and employee parking. Œ'Cmtåg c-...:mm. '8.Igøf4r !/tf.m..ø 55 AptíI 21i, 200J 7$3 o,aiI Schaub asked how =y employees are expected at peak time of 9:30am. Ms. Macdonald stated that the Applicant has presented to Staff that a maximum of 7 employees at the . coffee shop would employed at any time. o,air Schaub asked about the other retail shops. Ms. Macdonald stated she could only speculate on what type of tenants would come in. o,air Schaub stated lets assum.e 4 additional employees for the other shops and now the count is 11 employees total at peak time. Ms. Bascom stated that Staff cannot validate that because they do not know who the retail tenants are. o,air Schaub asked that if the parking is filled up where the cars are going to go. There are 30 seating spaces within the coffee shop. Let's assume there are 10 people in line at peak, 15 people sitting and most of them have cars, now the count is 25 plus 11 employees equals 36 with only 30 available spaces and we haven't counted customers in the retail stores yet. There is a possibility that is very real that there will be no parking at times. Ms. Macdonald stated Onmi Means did a trip count and traffic count of some actual Starbucks. Chair Schaub stated it is critical and would like to discuss it George Nickelson, Omni Means stated their analysis focused on traffic and parking. He stated they did . trip generated counts and parking surveys in the three Starubucks in the Dublin area. They came up with actual surveys of trips in and out and parked cars. They also counted cars parked on the street. Total parking was surveyed and what they found waS a surprise. The trips in and out of Starbucks peak between 8-9am. During those periods people spend less time on site and parking demand is lower. What they fOlUld is that the parking demand is illghest between 9;30-10am. The absolute peak de=d for Starbucks and retail is 9:30am of 39 parked cars with 32 cars parked in the lot and 7 parked out on the street. Chair Schaub asked if the handicapped spaces were included in that COlUlt. Mr. Nickelson stated yes. In addition there are spaces out on the street that would be available. Chair Schaub stated based on study there are 5 spaces available out on the street. Mr. Nickelson stated Omni Means study concludes there are 10-12 potential curb spaces. Chair Schaub stated some of the parking spaces will be used by the people in the office building. Mr; Nickelson stated the office building is supposed to be self parked per code. He stated the study does not show a deficit of parking. He stated they also did a traffic count during the commute period and the intersection is operating very well and will continue to operate very well with the traffic from this development. It is operating at level service' A' which is the highest level of service. They do not believe there are going to be a lot of vehicles traveling to the east and making u-turns. . Chair Schaub asked why. r1!f.rtirJØ~ ~ !Aúetin¡¡ 56 JIprI! 26, 200s 3>f Mr. Niçkelson stated that if someone is destined to the west on Amador Valley Boulevard it will be a.lot easier to turn right out of the driveway onto Village Parkway and make a left turn onto A:ma.dor Valley . Boulevard. There was an issue brought up about the pedestrian and bicycle activity. They counted pedestrians and bicycles along Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard and found that it is a moderate volume. For the period of 7-9am. they counted 20 pedestrians and 10 bicyclist On Amador Valley Boulevard and 9 pedestrians and 2 bicyclists on Village Parkway. CllL Wehrenberg asked the actual day the survey was conducted. Mr. Nickelson responded they did each of the Starbucks on different days. Cm. Wehrenberg asked the day the survey was conducted counting the pedestrians and bicyclist. Mr. Nickelson stated the day the traffic was counted was AprilS, 2005. Chair Schaub asked when spring break was. Mr. Nickelson stated they were assured by Staff that they were doing their counts when school waS in. Mr. Lander stated that spring break took place in March. Chair Schaub stated that the study indicates that parallel parking is not an issue and does not have an affect on the two ianes going down Village Parkway. He asked Mr. Nickelson if he concurs with that. . Mr. Nickelson stated the intersection operates at level A and any movements in and out of parking spaces will affect the level of traffic. Chair Schaub asked if someone is trying to parallel park could it stop a motorist. Mr. Niçkelson responded sure, if someone is parallel parking at the exact time you are driving down the street it could be disruptive. Chair Schaub stated that at one time there was discussion about creating diagonal parking and closing off the right lane. He read from the Village Parkway Specific Plan - it would create additional congestion on Vmage Parkway during peak traffic flow, trafjû; may be diverted to Amador Valley Boulevard and residential streets with less capaÓty in the vicinity. Consultants estimate that the level of service on Village Parkway would aperate at a level of service of'F' - unacceptable. He stated that someplace between level' A' and level 'F' is what could happen. Mr. Nickelson stated he worked on the Specific Plan. The concept the ChaIT is referring to was to create a 2 lane Village Parkway with diagonal parking. The parking would be one issue, the other issue would be taking 4 lanes of traffic and putting into 2 lanes and they recommended against it. Chair Schaub stated next thmg to discuss is the suggestion of the time limited parking spaces and the Oty of Dublin towing cars. Ms. Macdonald stated the sign would not say Oty of Dublin would tow. The sign would reference the . citation number that allows cars illegally parked to be towed by private persons. Chair Schaub asked if the sign would say Oty of Dublin. Ø4nrring~ 'IfIIÚar~ 57 ftprilZti, zoos ~ç Ms. Macdonald stated it would list the citation but would not state the City of Dublin will tow. Chair Schaub asked how affective this is. The nature of half the people in Starbucks is to get out in 15 minutes but getting in and out within 15 minutes does not always happen. . Ms. Macdonald stated she would like to make small distinction between the Omni Means analysis and Staff s parking study. The Omni Means study focused on existing conditions and what the local Starbucks performed like. Staff looked at the project a little differently and looked at some "what if" scenarios. What if someone is using Starbucks to work on term paper or a small business owner using the facility to interview someone? Staff wanted to encourage a turn over to make sure 6 spaces were always available. Chair Schaub asked how effective will that be and how effective will it be to get any more capacity out of that lot. How effective will the towing be? Does someone call in and say a velúcle is parked longer than 15 minutes or does an enforcement person need to tag? Mr. Bakker stated that he is not sure what process is used by the City. The municipal code provision authorizes towing but without that the vehicle could not be towed. Chair Schaub asked again, how effective will these signs in helping reduce the possible backlog of cars in the parkÌ!lg lot during peak. Ms. Macdonald stated Staff has recommended as a condition of approval is one way to =age the turn over of cars and feels it will be effective to a degree. Time limited parking is used effectively in other parking lots in Dublin. Chair Schaub stated the other issue on the report is the availability of BART and Wheels. Are there any . questions on that? em. Wehrenberg asked about the location of the bus stop in that area. Ms. Bascom stated there is one immediately to the east of the project site on Amador Valley Boulevard. Ms. Macdonald added that there is a west-bound stop on the opposite side of the road. em. Wehrenberg asked where the auxiliary parking waS addressed. Ms. Macdonald stated that the Applicant had stated that for the fust two weeks of the grand opening of the coffee shop, there would not be any other tenants so the entire parking lot would be available. Chair Schaub suggested moving onto the traffic. He asked Mr. Nickelson about the 95 trips Ì!I. and 95 trips out of Starbucks and 29 in and 29 out for the proposed Starbucks. For the retail it is 19 trips in and 12 out. Why does Starbucks have the same amount of trips in as trips out but the retail has 7 more people that are in the parking lot? Mr. Nickelson stated that for the retail portion the employees are arriving and there will be a higher inbound than outbound. Chair Schaub asked where the employees for Starbucks are if it is 95 in and 95 out. Mr. Nickelson stated they are already there well before the commute hoUI of 7-9am. . ~ CMIIIItiIsitm ~rM'-' . 58 J/Fil26, 200.1 ~(.ø Chair Schaub stated he spoke to some of the employees at Starbucks on Regional Street as well as the employees at the Luggage Shop. He asked them where they park and the Luggage shop employee stated that he parks where the customers park. The Starbucks employees are not allowed to park in the customer parking lot and park across the street at the Western Appliance parking lot. · Mr. Nickelson stated they counted the curb parking as well as the lot parking. Cm. Biddle asked for clarification about the traffic flow and asked if there are two entrance and two exits. Ms. Macdonald stated yes. em. Biddle asked if all the turns out of the project are right turns only. Ms. Macdonald stated correct. Cm. Biddle asked if there was another way to exit near Taco Bell and move into the left turn lane. Ms. Macdonald showed em. Biddle traffic flow on the PowerPoint diagram. Cm. Biddle asked how this intersection compares with other intersections at peak time Mr. Lander stated that currently they are close to 15,000 Cars a day On the easterly leg. the westerly leg would be 20,000, the southerly is at 20.000 and the northerly is at 17,000. There are approxilnately 30,000 cars a day on Dublin Boulevard and 10,000 cars a day on Regional Street. · Chair Schaub asked about Dublin Boulevard and Amador Plaza. Mr. Lander stated there are approximately 30,000 cars a day on Dublin Boulevard, and about 12,000 cars a day on Amador Plaza. em. Biddle asked how much of an increase to traffic will the proposed project generates. Mr. Lander stated that the traffic analysis done by Omni Means showed an approJdmate 1 % increase. Chair Schaub asked if the pass-by rate was based on the study done in Olinda. Mr. Nickelson stated the research was done for a proposed Starbucks in Orinda. It was done at other Starbucks and used for the proposed project for Orinda. It was not done at Grinda. Chair Schaub stated he has nO more clarification questions of staff. Chair Schaub opened the public hearing. · Norm Martione, representing the Applicant Robert Enea, offered his view of some observations for the Plarming Commission's consideration. The standarcls for parking requirements found in zoning codes throughout California are built off of statistical data that is surveyed. He explained that statistically they have found that putting up signage in regards to parking works. He stated that the employees are young adults and not all of them have vehicles. He invited the Conunissioner's continued dialogue. It is definitely a commercial intersection and it is an amazing achievement that it is at a level' A'. He concluded his presentation and was available to answer questions. f/!ÚmIirI¡J Cøm#lÚIÛ1II ~~ 59 Jfprill6,lOO5 2>1 Cm. Biddle asked what the plan for the office building was. Robert Enea stated the office building at this point is not under construction. The office building parking . is independent, which is based on the Zoning Ordinance. The office building will be built at some future date. Chair Schaub invited the Appellant. Bobby Cauchi, Appellant asked if there were parking reductions for Safeway on Dublin Boulevard a:n.d the Starbucks on Regional Street. Chair Schaub asked Staff. Ms. Bascom stated she was not aware of a parking reduction for the Sateway project. Ms. Macdonald stated the Starbucks on Regional Street was parked under a different Zoning Ordinance but did not receive a parking reduction. Chair Schaub explained that the Safeway service station went in after the grocery store was built. It is two separate pieces. Bobbi Cauchi, 7073 Village Parkway stated for the record there is not enough parking in the commurùty and it is creating a hazard. She stated that she is a small business owner at the Village Green On Village Parkway and that lot is often used as a park and ride. Chair Schaub asked her to help the Commission understand the problem with the parking reduction On . the proposed project. Ms. Cauchi stated that once the coffee shop is on the comer, people are going to stop there a:n.d park and ride. She explained that she did her own parking study at the Starbucks On Regional Street. She entered at 9:39 and there were 8 employees, 11 people in line, 2 unused parking spaces, and 2 cars illegally parked at the entrance to the coffee shop. She questioned some of the employees and the part time employee stated she has witnessed 3 "near" accidents. She asked the employees where they park and they indicated they park across the street. A local resident witnessed 2 accidents within a half hour period the Friday before last at 9:40am. Appellant's husba:n.d, Mr. Cauchi stated the proposed project is very close to three schools. They see a large number of kids from the high school walking to school. The peak hours of 7 to 9am may work well for people getting coffee but that area is very busy during the lunch hour with the high school kids going to the fast food restaurants. He is concerned that the youth traffic was not taken into consideration and urged the Commission to take a very close look at these concerns. Chair Schaub asked if there were any other speakers. He explained to the residents to state their opinion but to not go over the same facts. John Plencner, 6253 Dougherty Road, stated he is a Dublin resident and works at Valley High School. There are 4 projects within the vicinity of the project. He stated that his concerns are the schools in the close proximity. The problem is the foul weather days where the number of parents driving their . children to school doubles and even triples. There will be a considerable increase in students that will a>føflitvJ~ ~!MMIi#g 60 JIpril2(j, zoos 3'l impact that intersection. The number of parking spaces on site does not represent the peak numbers On foul weather days. The study does not reflect comprehensive growth for that intersection. . ROD Me}"', 11803 Norfolk Street, stated that the school district has not mken a position on the project. He asked how the bus stop on Amador Valley Boulevard affects the parking situation. Is there a designated area for the bus stop? By putting more cars into a parking area that does not have enough parking does in fact exacerbate traffic flow. Part of that traffic problem is that the main exit leads to the east-bound Amador Valley Boulevard into the residential area. There are two daycares on Amador Valley Boulevard. Phil Heesch, 8555 Beverly Lane stated thatit is nice to see some of the upgrades. His concern is that when the building across the street is rented out the traffic will increase even more; He asked how many parking stalls will there be. Chair Schaub stated that the requirement today for the parcel is 45 parking stalls and the request is to reduce it down to 32 spaces. Mr. Heesch stated that he does not think it will work in that location. Jeff Hansen, Dublin resident and stated that he is at the meeting as a Dublin resident and not as a member of the Dublin San Ramon Services District board of directors. He urged the Commission to uphold the appeal and overturn the decision of the Zoning Administrator. He stated that the post office is also located on Village Parkway and it is a very busy area. A 29% reduction is not intended by the Zoning Ordinance and is a substantial reduction. . Cathrine Hauize, 7272 Burton Street questions the data that was used for the traffic and parking analysis. A few years ago on the first day of the Easter break there were City employees laying out equipment on the street to count the cars. If that count WaS used for these studies. it does not accurately reflect traffic at that intersection. There were studies done when Safeway was put in and when Starbucks was put in and there are serious problems there. Heather Johnson, Windchime Way, Tracy stated she is an employee in Dublin. She attended the March 14, 2005 hearing believes it was stated that at that meeting the traffic was rated at a level' C'. Chair Schaub directed the question to Staff. Mr. Lander stated that in the Omni Means Study as well as the Downtown TIP Study found that intersection is currently operating at level' A'. Ms. Johnson stated to her understanding from the March 14,2005 hearing that there were to 5 parking spaces, 2 on Village Parkway and 3 on Amador Valley Boulevard. Chair Schaub stated the proposal indicates 9 spaces. Ms. Macdonald stated that the Omni Means found that on street parking would be available for 7 cars. Staff s recommendation is to require 5 on street and 6 tiIne limited parking spaces. Chair Schaub stated the diagram indicates 9 on street parking spots. . Ms. Macdonald stated 5 on street out of a maximum of 9, and 6 time limited. rKmnin(J (.'!nrø1Iiui<m 'RtpfIIr~ 61 Jlptfl26, 200S 3,q Chair Schaub clarified that 9 are proposed with the assUIIlption that 5 would be available. Ms. Johnson stated that at the March 14, 2005 meeting there was discussion on making the area pedestrian friendly, which will increase the number of pedestrians and bicyclist, and that should be _ considered. ... Rick Camacho, business owner on Village Parkway stated he sat on the task force that created the Village Parkway Specific Plan. He explained that the goal of the plan was to increase the vitality of the area and promote business. Any growth in development is going to affect traffic. He stated that coming from the business standpoint - where do you draw the line and say no we are not going to have any more development. Whether there are 5 more or 10 more parking spots, it's the size of the business that is going to affect traffic. Chair Schaub thanked him and for serving on the task force. Mr. Manione stated that any expert opinion has to be measured from a practical observation. The property is zoned for the use. The growth from whatever traffic comes from this project is in the equation. He stated that parents driving theÍI children to school have increased to ensure their safety, which may already be in the equation of traffic counts. There is validity in reasonable expertise. Mr. Nickelson has years of studying traffic and parking. He asked the Commission to not uphold the appeal but to uphold the decision made by the Zoning Administrator. Chair Schaub closed the public hearing. em. Wehrenberg stated that what is in front of the Commission is the 29% parking reduction. As a Planning Commission they have certain duties. What is the relationship to the project to the entire COIDn'lunity and the understanding of the goals for the City? She stated that reducing parking seems to . be a common factor lately and she is not for it. She has issues with what the retail will be. If there was not an eating and dining establishment it could change. Cm. Biddle agreed with Cm. Wehrenberg. He stated that he lives dose to Fredrikson School and uses that intersection frequently. No matter what is done in the City, traffic is going to be affected. What is important is how it is managed. The Conditional Use Permit for this p1"oject was approved in May 2004 for 54 parking spaces. The scope of the building has changed in that the eating facility has gone from 600 sqJt. to approxilnately 1,900 sq.ft. plus 400 sq.ft. outside. The project needs to be looked at as a total project. It is premature to reduce parking when omy half the project has been built. He suggested looking at the parking reduction when the second phase of the project is constructed. He is not in favor of the reduction. He asked about parking for delivery trucks. Ms. Macdonald stated that an additional condition has been added to requÍIe the Applicant to provide a loading space on site. There are landscaping areaS that could be adjusted to create a loading space. ChaiT Schaub stated it is important to him that as a Commission they don't make a mistake. He is not comfortable with the figures and data and that there will not be a parking lot that fills up everyday witl1 a successfu15tarbucks. He hopes that there is a way to make this project happen and solve the problem. ChaiT Schaub asked for a motion. Mr. Bakker stated that the motion that Staff recorrunended was to adopt the resolution affirming the . Zoning Administrators decision. If it is the pleasure of the Planning Commission to reverse the decision !/!ÚmtiII¡J~ 'RI11.~ 62 JIprif ZIi, ZOOS LfO of the Zoning Administrator the resolution would need to be amended to reflect that findings could not be made to approve. a On motion by Cm. Biddle, 2nd by Cm. Wehrenberg subject to the text changes recommended by the .. Planning Commission and by a 3-1-1 vote with Cm. Fasulkey absent and Cm. King abstairúng the Planning Commission adopted. RESOLUTION 05 - 25 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REVERSING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A REDUCTION TO REQUIRED PARKING FOR ENEA PROPERTIES/ST ARBUCKS COFFEE AT 7197 VILLAGE P ARKW A Y (P A 04-057) Ms. Bascom stated that this item is subject to a 10 day appeal period. OTHER BUSINESS - None NEW OR UNFINISHED Cm. Biddle asked that a follow up report be done regarding past projects. He asked about the shed on . Dover COUIt that came before the Planning Commission a few months back. Ms. Bascom stated the property owners is in code enforcement for the shed violation and needs to make modifications. Cm. Biddle asked about the security dogs at the auto auction. Ms. Bascom stated she does not know the status of that. em. Biddle asked about the Cuellar garage conversion Ms. Bascom stated Mr. Cuellar will be heard at the Jv[ay 3, 2005 City Council meeting. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting WaS adjourned at 10:25pm. Respectfully submitted, Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST: . Acting Plarming Manager Œ'f4#m.w~ fttgrJilt' 9.t.I#i#ø 63 JIprif 26, 2005 . . e March 21, 2005 RECEIVED CliY OF DUBI.IN tAAR 2 32005 erN MANAGER'S crACE CC; C¡Yl (,,,, C".b·1 (J P)1\J ¡.,~? ' 4~ðb \f,/t Re: Appeal letter for P A-04057 This is a request to appeal planning application # PA-04057, starbucks Coffee- Conditional Use Permit for a 29% Reduction to Required Parking. The location of this proposed project is clirectly adjacent to a residential neighborhood. The proposed use creates a high customer volume and/or. tr.affic, with their highest volume in the morning hours from 7:00 a.m.-lO:OO a.m. During this time frame well over 90% of their sales are take-out or to-go. To illustrate that point the proposed applicant bas provided fur. six short-tBITD parking spaces, and unprecedented munber for the city of Dublin. The primary entranee and exit is located on Amador Valley Blvd., and as vehicles exit ftom this location they must head east on Amador Valley Blvd. directly into our residential neighborhood This residential neighbor.hood contains the largest cluster. of schools within Dublin. The fullowing schools that vvould be affected by this traffic are Dublin High School, Valley High School, Wells Middle school, and Frederiksen Elementary. These school children range in ages from 5 to 17 years old. The treuKmdous voh1me of vehicles that this use would attraCt during the early morning hours combined with our children attempting to get to school is a recipe for disaster. This community is·unwilling to take that chance with our children's safety. The original . decision stated this use :tell in line with the "downtown" plan of a café. It is clear to us the comnrittee fur the "downtown" speci£ic plan was encouraging a cafë which would be a break:fastJhmch destination. We do IIDt believe that their brtent was to have another use at this location that was prlmarily geared towards take-out/to-go hems. Cleary this proposed use functions primarily as a to-goltake-out shop. We understand that this pl'oposed use currently enjoys great brand JII!mC recognhion, but often "br.ands" lose mvor. Such bas been the case for Alpha-Beta, ~, Liberty House, Montgomery Wards, K-Mart, Bob's Big Boy, Coco's, Jojo'8, and BaXter's. All of these past Dublin businesses have, not unlike the proposed use, enjoyed positive brand name recognhion duriDg their time. We fuel it is tremendously important NOT to rely on the ''brand'' while considering this important appeal Furfuer.more we have COIICerns regarding the specific parking lot and immediate areas.. 'fh= current par!dng requirements( retail one space per 300 square fèet and restaurant/food services one space per 100 square feet) was adopted specifically f or use of this nature. The one space per 100 feet is designed to accommodate a use that experiences large traffic volumes in a coIlCem:rated period of time as is in this case. We believe, as it is stated, in the original proposal to "create" additional parking spaces in the street present's twO significant problems. Currently, street parldng on Village Parkway is problematic as it r.educes one's ability to observe on-coming traffic unless you are already partia1ly in the driving lane. (I.e. Dublin Post Office) When one exits this parldng lot ÍÌ'om Village Parkway oue may have to cross two lanes of traffic immediately ATTACHMENT 3\ Ltt.bö befure entering a turning lane. Another challenge regards the five spaces of on Street . parldng located on Village Parkway. This would require parking behind this retail complex, walking arouwi the building pass the two other retai1locations, or down tile sidewalk around the comer to the main entrance ofthis establishment. We are highly doubtful that potential custoln5rS would use those street spaces and walk that distance without having attempted to find parking spaces within the shopping center proper. It is the added vehicle movemeut:s in entering and exiting this parldng lot as well as the necessity to circle around through a seriesofU-tums in order to make a second IitteIJ1pt as to securing a parking. spot. Should a potential customer choose to use one of the 5 Village Parkway on street parking spaoes it becomes likely that a paraIlel maneuver would be required, which in itself would require the stoppage of traffic in the right ùme. Finally, the notion that a potential customarwould park in the street, located quite I! ways from their destbmtion. in the rain or other inclement weather is extremely doubtful. It is not reasonable at all to consider that the 5 Village Parkway street spaces are truly functional fur this proposed use. . Regarding the report/analysis coIDparing this Starbuck's location with another Starbuck's location 400 miles away in Southern California sho'WS far too rev,. similarities to accurately gage the potentia.l traffic flow at the Dublin Starbuck's location. In this report the Southern Ca.li:fornia location was 26% smaller thus to gage the final figures a 26% adjustment was forced to be made. The Southern California location is situated near Ii iteCWlly entrance. The report had no refèrences to the volume of walk-up traffic, such as being located next to an office complex, Schools, etc. In a cursory observation at the . Starbuck's location on Dublin Blvd. and Regional Street the 28 cars per hour by :IÌtr under represented the vehicle traffic indicated in the above mention report. This report simply lacks specific fundamentaI, comparable data to be considered a relevant comparison to the proposed project. Regarding the traffic study.. ..this was compiled hastily some two and Y. years ago. There are many variables that exist today that didn't exist in November 2002. Such as; the influx of vehicles from the Dougherty valley, the expansion of the Valley Center, remodel of A.M-P.M mini market, increased enrollment in schools, new senior housÏJJg, and remodeled Target Store/ExpoDesign center. This 2002 traffic study lacks resent and important details required to evaluate the safety of this corner UDder currem conditions. It is our overriding concern that no matter what subsequent traffic studies occur there is no possible way to eliminate even a small increase of vehicle traffic on the residentia.l portion of Amador Valley Blvd Being mindful that Amador Valley Blvd. is a main artery for our children to get to and from school This community places our children and their safety above all else and we sincerely hope the planning conunisBÎOn will do the same. This am>eal has been respectfully prepared on bebalfofCauchi Photography, B~~ Cauchi Photography 7063 Village PlI!'kway Dublin, Ca 94568 (nJ qa.,;;-t7::;-!'lOO li.OJ q~s-~ P5 - (ff 6''' e /.,:'~~, ;.'..~:,:":,'¡I"(;,;.,;,::,:;,,,:,},\:\,. .:'':''1,:,' ··"iAffl~:,,"I):i~~·,: , ',:":':,j ,,~::.(,~,',,'I: ~;),~:,'~~ c" ft.::~'å;,~;:¡~:r,,'I"~· '!"!;':!¡~'..' '·"'\.1 ,,:~;:"", '....~!!'~.... Eri:~~':~¡.:!~:èüj~i·ç,~'é'~~········ ,Lî.¿ .... .,.:,: '< 'i/'" r··. ., ... ...... · ····.,··;:;::'·:·:;'·:0',·¥':. ......,..... .... .....,... .' .,. ,," ~~U~,r-t)~;~1~~I1....:$~~ø,rt:terí~..·.. ";':":':",:,': :':i"',::;'·:'::~':':>{:">~:";:~~\',,' \::':,':," ~::.':'~ ::',::/,:'i>,':' " ',. :": ',', "" ". ~': ',:':' ':" ,:' ,,': .... ".';. ",,:' ,. ".'.". . ,·'~Qr'#llÌlitiiiig··c:¡~"'mi,šionér~. . '."0 'IL' , ;"','.--,1;:.: .".. ··ir~i~'~~ÎI1~~1;'1$'~i1rt~¡,.?~:#~~~~~;~f,;~h~f~"~t1( ~I.tÌ.¢:'~~¡t .., . . ,~~,~$~~I:::'!',cb9t'~~;è~ørrt,~,~,~,"~¡11Qg~i~~N~~4¥'!~~~t~~~'$ {:;!:¥S ,in.,...·.. .'.. .< ,. ., . . . ."'f~if~~T:~;i,f"¡:líÄ~i;9ø.lÏÍm~¢i~',:p~j~ét:~ëºt~.~,:·~t1"he.:5~ijt~¢~~t,ço,"~ë.r.Clf·. ·.V:n'~eJ~C!Í1k~9~,~!)d.,~tnl3~CI"yQ')~'~IV~.?I':Ri~:,~~r"'~þ··.~~\~,.otiCl" '.~it~, ..\IJ~l~hi'~~S'..~.~~ ;~ac~l1r¡·( n.~;A~~~~~,h~,~:,f!*.i,the.,I(lSt. .$jx:rre,~!I,.·j~·.....(;U~ntly .... '. j~nª~i~9~~ty9t¡~~,:wJth~ømè'.ti,9r;~?Ce~ç!fc~;~CI'·ClCI:~,þ)'~~!~!t\r:ílf>Oa,.. . ;For'try~"~t:'pM-=~"yét1r;1t'~è~<~p,r~c:I.i~rw,,øICl~ly~¡i#~heCi'IY ,) ,...., ·Plàrir1¡ri$.~T9:ff,...,.ci'#>Iê$i!ln.·.'~nd,~l¡d:.<!;.;pn~l1t·:iWaf'¡s.·cö~Îtt.nt. ·with·.1'he .. ,.¡~t~f:~f.1't)',:yí'lag~..þ~rk~~Y~PJêif¡¿.Pf~n.~dall.·..ØpplicòbJe C:ttyzonl~~· ,o 'lêlinanc~s.. ., .. .. ....... ,.. ; . . ..' · · .:.~:!.,;">,y,,::. .,',.:" .",:.",,:"', ' ' .':"'..::'·:o^, ' .". ,:,,:,:,':.:::',>i';i/tÚ~;: Entía'''~perti~s,ëpmPIiIQy.,,,"..ê?;î¡'': . '.' .. ......190~~~~î;4.Ï!e·;¡/~ii:!~~þ{j~lf¡ . .... ,>'D...å.·n.Il.·.l.'. ïß.'\P.. ·.À¡,.9.'4.5.'..·~.'..·.·~.. ... ,.;t:·i1....'..~.;:. '." '," . " . . ,....!'.. "". ",:" .:" ,.,.' "'I" ~'~.:;?"', <, .,. . (1i2S)'S14ð¡¡:>io;::;',i! . ":', ,:., ,','" ",.,:",:':'."""",.":,,,::,<.},'j-:¡i.I,,,,, ·!'ax .!Ìil21!)'3i4'14!$'.:'¡:<'1.\: r$,,@~:i.rri¡C:hael,,¡nvest!"~nkcClrn ,¡', .\t¿Q[) ". ,. ···w~~~~,;~ed 'for;alj~h( v¢!~~I1,grQnt~d;d:p~rkin9re~ucflon.bY the zo~¡ôg(,ildml~i.$tr4tor1'Oåcè~mltÌòddt~fhe}p~~è~'anéhor'tenaM, ... . Sf..."~I.i¡:'~~,·.:>*o~t. ¡iñp,ómf¡¡~fly,;..;stQrÞÜ¢k$w,lií:,*!l9w;¿s'tò.',a+tnaçt....o. the" "~':.":'__:, "~'~'" ;r;::,:,', ,:',. '.',:'.:, :';,.,., ',:' \ '.'(·i'.~:tV<,::";"::,('.'. ::, "','-:::~"', ., ':"'" .::.,., ,::",':'.':,'.:',~,;'. "'",::,,,::.,'¡',:< ': 1\,', '.",' "', ',::" : ", :' ',' . ....~~~~?It¢~!~t!:~·'f)ï.j)Jt",~!!IIç1:'·::W.~~~.4s',~s.~!I>t:(~I,;~~çiluse<of··stiiff ,,.çÓWj~t'~!~~·+r~~"~r~~r':e~~f\~~~'~:'#e-+c1¡t'~~9ji¥t~.. .., ........... .... ... . Th~,!()ity!Ö,f:·f)lJblln;.~ønioo'~rdi~ance' p!i1 ~ifi~j¡,5-1'Qrb4êks~·· ón... "eating·, ~ri~.alhni!Ìg.~sti1bj¡sh"'~~t1'.vhich~qµirê\i,a "Þ9rk1f\9ratio'of 1 space per .1(2Þs:êJ4i1r~"~.~!!!.f';No,o+l1etiClty ]n~$II'f....ArëQhQs such a . stringent 'PQr4k·i~!~r:~quirÍê",ent.(~~"'dbleA'bèIOW) .... . '.. . .. .', '. '.,:" ",'< , . .';:Tt1.'tJle.A .' p'jl11âªg~~q~i~~Dle~tsfQra"l~&~6s.quareFoot·..starbuçks LQcatetfc~~n..~;Shoppiij.g:QeìÍtet:With{JtberRetail Tenants1 I:, (~~Û11feßri9mitdóÔii¡e.!!;ti¡;rg)¢Ia¡¡sif¡ël .ti(;)n: ," '. :..., ,':", '.: ,"., ',~ ',. ., :~' : ,J)tiblili.: .r..·.:},:' 'Siùicg'iìTri(;~ ....... ÜI11Ï~iJ1({·, ... .. ~ib;jj¡~tOå' . ..'(.'0:.".,:'".',1.."'"",,, èøìicoi:(;'t ·ß']j;;';Ú:' "9!~~'ý : Wåhiti,ii¢~¢ék.· ''', "',' ,",'.",::,,,,,:,,:..' ~<' :':,' ,,' . ··,eafuJ.Ii,&',dimnJ1 ,'. t:.'a. fui.·'''..·.'¡;¡:;c&.·.'(:i.' i.i.. i.'.n....·.g' g@~~áff¡;tâii· . gc;l:¡.~l'et!LU . !!¿h~raLfetail . g~h~~¡¡rretml . :geJie~a'hretail ,^ p;arkÎIl~RAtio Pa:dcing Required '1:1)&100'·· ·:liperZOO. 1 per 170 Iper40B l'pel':iI,pO Ijjêr1~O I per 250 19 S1J~~S 10spiwes ll·spå'ëes J() spa6es . rOspaces lO ~þaces 8 spaces """"",..,.,'..'., ",' ',., ,. ',',' , '.,'. ,: ,:'..., ' . !~~~ÎeiA~M~afel:l~'~~ririhidi"idµij:tel~ø1io~eooI¡".riø.!i<J¡is"':¡tl1PI@ners ú9m .~ ", .'., . . . ·'1 ~. , .. ", ,'",:" , " '" ".:, ' ,':' , ",.. , ,. ,'. ,. ,," ' .' ' .,' , ",. ,.'" . ' " " " . ,,-' , ,\",. ... ' !,No',lfoIJ¡Itrànty,·tJr,':tépr~~.r\r~nIQn;' ~m j¡t., or ,Irill)illiiti: ·:I~·~ma.d~ 'M 'tb't~Ø :IIIOl,lrlU;:Y otAh'.Inf9muitl~~c!ontti.lnBtl hB~Ðin; a~d"Bam,øJ$ ':SUbrnth~ :i3tiþJ8Q"t 1.0 8"?~.1 offilaeJcr:1.I3!'ó~'~~~..( f p~~e, 'f8JItal 01' ø1h&t',QDncH\I~~ wlthdrawat,~lhout, l],lJticé aDd :t(l:~~ sp'~olarn ¡ tlng:con~UQn¡l~ ,!,~¡¡jl!lØd'by:tiie,: ptln¢!pBJe. .. . '<";':,:,;,::,";-.':"';i':!:{;%:¡ "''!'.,,',-,"., . 1." ."¡,. . , . , ," ,gq~ . ": . '-<-;,:, .' ,'''.':" ":;,: :: ::' ~' , ':F :.'," . ',' ~t' I.~..,....,'I<,:·· Vndèi-the c:UÎ'il!èi1t 'ZoTiingOrdil'lanœ{$tarbuóks istreQ'l'ed'~s.'!fuU '. ~I"vice restaurtilnt similar to an Aþþl~bee's, .Black ~ngùs"orOutback , .$telikhouse. As you know, Starbucks does 'no cooking "or 'fooâ pl'eparation. onsÎtinø"d~thf:yserVe (bre~ast ,lunch' ordb,ner'. ' ., .. ¡f,ee\ +h~ 'we ,. have 'ádec ~atf:ìYåddressecl,tn~tI"~fié:.and, parkinglsSlues: ..., . · asso,~iated~ wifh'·StarbLicks··lriteriâed .useoft!#'pre"'.ises, Aspar:t:ofthe .' . ··Conditional·. iJsePermif Application, ',we~r~d,¢losëly ·.Wfth ·thtStaffQnd . : the CÎt{,EnglJ:Ì~ toadcfress Q11G:1 mitigatec,lnypotentiøløclvérse lJt\pciîCts,· 'fhQt mCIY reSult f."m'Sta"biJcks.¡nadcHt on:~øfh£CitYis' Tpaff,lc (1M, . ··.park.lf19 Reiport.we YoluntQrilytoinmiss¡oned'Qn"~i",:Mëans ,I,; Tb to· ...'... · cQ~uctan'indeþ~ndent'Tl"(lf#iFand,PCirRii19,:StÍ;i:Iý rCJc:orro~orateand, corifi~nl that 'therewouldbf:no~dYerSé imþQi::tsto tràf1ic aridþarklng, The results'Qfbo!th Trafficandrarklhg S1'udi~s are cCJnclusive,. no · adverse fmp~ctsin traffIC orï plirkirïg will occur as a result of ,starbucks in1'erided ·useeffhê . premises. .... . , ..,. . . We 'h(lVE! , w9rke¡: lncoo~rdt¡pn'withtRePldl1~iri9 ,$taff tQ,get,this ': . .. ·prøJect, tó.,itsc1JrrentstG9~ ofdeveloþn1ël'lt:l'h~cL1lminatfòn\of;: . '., extenslveplannlngcincl desighhc:î,syitfld.tda good'iÔóking, high quality .. proJect that . win be:.a'fìne addltlôntof,he cornin'unity; 'G()OC ,weU . .. deslgnêdprojects åtfräctgooct highquGtHty,tenGtÌlts.~ Stdrbucksfsone of ' .,those ,.tena~tsthat' w.e nèeél.· to,an,ëhor thlscënter andmc:rJ<e'it Qsuccess. . .InconçliJsion, .Ifeelstrongly.thaf weh(lýe. addressed andmi1igatedaU of tne concerns of ·the: AppeHant,assoçiatedwJth trafflc"and''Par'king.I thank you far yourconsideratior'\cmd,sùpport of our Projeët. "' , ,.. . Since:rêJy, . Vjtk1x· ·Rôbert·S···'ImeCl ' ,.. 'MCln~¡"g·Member .' .,.., , ViUage,·Pár.I«vClyPartnerS,···LU: . 2 "\: AGENDA STATEMENT ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. MEETING DATE: March 14,2005 fA- 'tG ot, r (p ~ . SUBJECT: ATTACHMENTS: PUBLIC HEARING: PA 04"057, Stilrbucks Coffee - Conditional Use Permit for a 29% Reduction to ReqJi,ired ParkiO,,~ ~.. Report prepared by: Pierce Macdonald, ksociate P1a1'l71.:;¿y-':' 1. ResolútionApproving Ii Conditional Use Pert!lÎtfor a 29% ReductioIl to Required ParKing for Starbucks Coffee (with Site. Plan it1c1uded as ~xhibit A, and Parking Stu.dy as Exhibit B) 2. Applicanfs Written Statd11erlt 3. Plaoning CommisSion Resolution 04-40 REcoMMENDATION: 1. 2. 3. 4. Open Public Hearing and Hear Staff Presentation; Take Testimony from the Applicant and the Public; CJose Public Hearing and Deliberate; Adopt Resolution (Attachment 1) Approving a Conditional Use Pennit for a 29% Reduction to Required Parking for Starbucks Coffee (with Site Plan included as Exhibit A, and ParkiDg Study as Exhibit B) .PROJECT ~ESCRIPTION: The project site at 7197 Village Parkway was the former location of an automotive gasoline and service station that closed in the 1990's, and was previously zoned General Conunercial (C-2). Adjacent uses iDelude the Taco Bell restaurant to the south and two single-family homes to the east on Amador Valley Boulevard. Other uses in the project vicinity include Oil Changers to the west, the new Valley Center development to the northeast, and the Areo AMlPM service station to the north. In 1998, the City Council studied the potential future uses of the property, held public hearings, and adopted a Stage 1 and 2 Planned Development (PD) Zoning District for the property on December 15, 1998, PA 98-049. Pursuant to the PD regula.tions, a range of office, co=ercial and eating and drinking establishtnents were permitted uses in the district. Cafés and other neighborhood-serving uses were specifically identified as appropriate new uses in the Planned Development Rezoning Ordinance adopted byCityColIDcil. The potential of the proj ect site was further studied in the Village Parkway Specific Plan, adopted by City Council on December 19, 2000, in which the property was identified as an opportunity site and a primary gateway area. Opportunity sites and primary gateway areas are identified in the Specific Plan as prominent locations that are suitable for plazas, public art, and other amenities. In 2002, the Alameda County Envirornnental Protection Division issued a closure letter for the completed . COPIES TO: Applicsnt Property Owner PAFile G:\I'A#,Il0û4\Ð4.oS7 StRrb"cks hulcing CUJ''ZA StRffRtport.doc ITEM NO. ATTACHMENT t dean up at the site, which had previously be!!Ïl agäs stàtioh with leaking underground tanks. t.t~ On M!ìy II, 2004, thë Plàjijiin~ cötnïniisiöri aþproved a: req1ièsffór Sire DèVêlòþmentReView, Tentativiò Map, and Cönclitiomil Use Permit for the Enel1 Village Parkway Center (P A 03"069) on the property (see ResolutioD 04-40, includiòdas Attaohment 3),. The ~pproval will allow devëlopment of the l"acre lot at . the: southea.st comer Of thei!1tœsectionò{ViÜa,ge ParkWaY and Amador Valley Boulevard with a 8,539" square..foot cOmi11ërclà"l/retail cen1ët and a 5,582-squar~"foot office bWlding. Within· the commercìal/retåilcentej:,. a 600,squarë"fØÖt $pac(Ò wås identified for eating and drinking uses, such as a coffee shop. Later that year, the fqrn1¡:r gas station was demolished, and a Building Permit applicatiOD was submitted to begin cÖnsttu:èti:on öfthe coIImit:ffi:iaí!rewlbuJ,ldIDg. With the cw.;'iíJ1ii 4pþlit!i.1ioij;¡ EneaPf(¡Þ;mes is r~llestingaConditiorial Use Penn.it tò allow a 1,886- square-foot coffee retailer and cafe, Sta:rþu:cks Coffee, to IMate in the Enea Village Parkway Center by redu¡;iIlg the number of otl"site PatkiÍ1~sP!ìc$ rei;¡uirédby 29% by Chapter 8.76 of the Zoning Ordinance, Off-street Parking and LOaQiri:g.The ptóposäJinbludes a. Jll'iX of in-door seating and outdoot seating, for a total ono indòor and 16 pa.tio seats. ANALYSIS: At the time of the Planning Commission's approval of the Enea Village Parkway Center on May 11, 2004, the future tenafits of the project were uriknown. The Staff report for the Planning Commission meeting outlined the limits to the size of any future eating and drinking use due to the number of parking spa¡;es required under the Zoning Ordinance. The Ståff report explained, as follows, "Although it is UIJknown whether a restaurant will choose to locate at the site, the ¡;o=erdal/retail . building has been designed to accommodate a small eating and drinking use, such as a coffee shop or ice cream vendor, in a 600-sqüare-foot tenant space. The development has been designed to anticipate DSRSD sewer requirements and ac¡;ommodate the additional parking necessary for a (600-square- foot) restaurant use." The Planning Commission Staff RepDrt also explained that additional floor area beyond 600 square feet could be created in the future subject to Zoning Ordinance regulations, Section 8.76.050. The parking requirements for the entire commercial building includipg the eating and driDking. use are outlined in Table 1., Enea, Village Parkway Center Parking Tabulation, below: Table 1. Enaa VlUaga Parkway Center ParkÎng TabulatIon P"real A Building Area Parking ReqLilremant I Perking Provided Percentage cif Parkin Spaces Commérèlal/Retail 7.939 square feet 26 Spa¡;es (1 :300) 19 Standard S aces 59.37% 11 DCJm .act 5 aces 34.38% Eating and Drinking 600 square feet 6 Spa¡;es (1:100) 2 Accessible Spaces 6.25% Total 8 539 s uare feet 32 5 aces 32 S aces 100% ConditionalUse Permit . Pursuant to Section 8.76.050 of the Zoning Ordinance, Adjustment to the Number of Parking Spaces, the Zoning Administrator may reduce the number of parking spaces required by the Zoning Ordinance when 2 "'~', ~ ":,'T ~ '~~" ~,~ :fj,1 t,":""_' '. ',..... ¡;.., . ',' ,.: ~ ^ ,. i }" ~il: ...i'''l J .t .,+,;/:t 4:1 . off"síte parking is available to satisfY the required parking under the Zoning Ordinance, when the patking requi'tementis deeJfied excessive, and wheJ;i à shared. parking condition is present. In the latt~r two cases, IJ. 1rä.ffic stùqy mum be prepared by a qualified träfiic engineer or consultant. The following eVidencè must .e provided: . · An analysis of the availability of off-site parking spaces showing that the most distant parking space is not more than 400 feet from the coiDInercial use; that the. off-site p¡¡rking Spaoes are not located in a rësidential zone or vehicle aCcess area, and that any necessary agreements are executed tOasSÜTe that the off "site parking spaces are provided to. the principal use (Section 8,.76.05Ù.0), · An analysis oftheIiarking demands ófthe pIopòsed use at¡1i the parking demands ofsirnilar uses in sinlllarsituationg, to deJ,DQrrstrat; þpwU:!ereq!.!iteclPª"\çi¡¡,gs~ci¡¡rdis e,;cessive, and an alternative parking standard to ensure that there will not be a parking deficiency and that overflow parking will not adversèly impact adjacent uses (Séttion 8.76,050 .R). · An analysis of how a sufficient number òfparking spaces is proVided to meet the greatest parking demahdsofthe participating use types in a shared parking situation to ensure that there will not be a parking deficiency; that parking for the various uses will not conflictwith each other, and that overflow parking will not adversely impact adjacent uses (Section 8;76.050,F). The Applicant worked with the City Traffic Engineer and Planning Division Staff'to develop a Parking Study for the project. The Parking Study is included as Exhibit B to Attachment 1. The Study reViewed the requested 1,886-sq=e-foot coffee shop and a 410-square-foot outdoor seating area and provided an ralYSiS of the typical p~king requirements of the proposed tenant and the entire shopping center. The Study concluded that the proposed project would generate significant visitors to the Village Parkway area due to its prominent location, brand name recognition, and the attractiveness of the new building's design. The shared parking condition of the shopping center and the availability of free, on-street parking would supplement the parking provided on-site during the busiest times of the day. In addition, the proximity ofthe project sitc tc residential neighborhoods, schools, bike paths, and public 1ransportation would allow several transportation options for visitors and employees. Concurrent with the recommendations listed below, the Parking Study supported an alternative parking requirement to that of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance that takes into consideration all of the conditions at the project sÜe. The Parking Study concluded that 32 off-street parking spaces and the existing on-street parking spaces (a minimum of 5) would be sufficient to meet the peak parking needs of the coffee shop and the shopping center as a whole. The following measures were reconunended to ensure that the proj ect causes no adverse impacts on retail tenants in the shopping center or adjacent property owners, and these measures have been included as Conditions of Approval for the project: . 1. The project should reserve 5 of the parking spaces as time-limited parking. These spaces should be located closest to the coffee shop and should be posted with the following information: "15 Minute Parking Limit. Towing Enforced." Signs shall include City of Dublin Municipal Code citation that al1oW$ toWÍJJ.g of ilJegally parked vehicles. These 5 parking spaces with time lirnit restrictions would be able to safely accommodate 20 vehicles per hour. (Condition of Approval # 8) 3 ~t 2. This study reconunends that the coffee shop tenant provide information on the availability of travel' options to visitors and employees on an on-going basis. BART and the Wheels and AllUDeda County Connection bus services, as weJl as the 511 telephone and Internet service (WWW.Sl1.org), would be good resources for information and promotional materials.(Condition of Approval # 9) · 3. This study recommends that an alternative parking standard of 1 space for every 200 sqUare feet of outdoor floor area is adequate due to the seasonal nature of outdoor seating to ensure that the parking demand generated by the outdoor seating would not overflow to adjacent properties and cause adverse impacts. The alternative parking requirement would total 2 parking spaces. This alternative parking standard is effective as long as the plaza area remains llllcovered by a permanent roof. The ApplicantlDeveloper shall apply for and obtain a Conditional Use Permit for additiona] parking reductions pursuant to Section 8.76.050 of the ZoningÜrdinance should the plaza area be covered by a permanent roof. (Condition of Approval # 10) , 4. The project should reserve 1 additional parking space as time-limited parking to off-set the potentia.] :increased parking demand associated with Wi-Fi Internet access. This space should be located closest to the coffee shop and should be posted with the foJlowing information: "15 Minute Parking Limit. Towing Enforced." Sign shall include City of Dublin Municipal Code citation that allows towing of illegally parked'vehicles. This 1 space with time limit restrictions would be able to safely accornmodate art additional 3 vehicles per hour. Time limited parking spaces for the project would total of 6 spaces, which would be capable of allowing 24 vehicles to park an hour. (Condition of Approval ~ 8) , 5. This study recornmends that the coffee shop be required to provide auxiliary parking and proper signage for the first two weeks of operation due to increased traffic caused by the bus:iness' grand opening. (Çondition of Approval # 11) · To summarize the conclusions and recommendations made in the Study, information from Table 3. of the Parking Study, as follows below, outlines the alternative parking standards. Table 3., Proposed Alternative Parking Standards U'.e Ares Zoniug TsbleZ RecomDiendêd Proposed Parking (sq.f!.) Ordinance. 'MaXimum Standardsl Required ·IIrovided Requí"';d ;Demand Conditions parkiog , (spaces) Parking (spac~) (spaces) :6 aces Coffee 1,886 119 8 · 6 rime"limited pBImg 13 8 aD-site She I spaces (24 vehicles) 5 off-site Outdoor . (410) '4 · 2 regulBI spaces 2 2 on-site Searing III 5 off-site: spac:~s · alternative pBIlcing standard of 2 .paces Total Soace, Available: 15 SOBcet would mana!!e ma", demanó of 33 vehid er hour Retail 6,642 22 17 22 22 on-silo · Total 18 Z8 45 45 37 37 4 /.fer Public Còmments eA Publ~c Hesring Notice was mailed to ~roperty owner:s, re~idents, and t~ts wiÛliIl a 300-f~ot radius of the project property. A copy of the nonce was advertIsed In the Valley TillIes. AB of the Vv¡jting of this report, no comments have been received from the Public. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), togethf:!" with the State güidelines and Citv emvironmental regulatiom require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and th;¡ enviIonmental documents be prepared. The project has been found to be Categorically Exempt from the Califomia Environmental Qu!l.lity Act (CEQA), IWcording to Sectiort 15332, because the project is an in- fill development within II larger urbanized area and consistent with local general plan and zoning requirements. CONCLUSION: The Enea Village Parkway Center will replace a vacant fanner gas station at a prominent corner of the intersection of Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard. The project site is identified in the Village Parkway Specific Plan as an opportunity site. The proposed coffee shop lease space meets th" goals and requirements of the property as envisioned in the Village Parkway Specific Plan, the Planned Development District PA 98-049, and the Off-Street Parking and Loading Section of the Zoning ~ance by creating a }ìeighborhood-serving conunerc:ial use with shared parking. City Staff hi¡ve reviewed the project and áttached draft Conditions of Approval that will mitigate any potential adverse impacts of the project relative to parking. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Zoning Administrator: 1) open public hearing and hear the Staff presentation; 2) take testimony from the Applicant and the Public; 3) close the public hearing and deliberate; and, 4) adopt the Resolution (Attachment 1) approving a Conditional Use Permit for a 29% Reduction to RequiTed Parking for Starbucks Coffee (with Site Plan included as Exhibit A, and Parking Study as Exhibit B). . 5 €V GENERAL INFORMATION: APPLICANT: Robert Enea, Enea Properties Company, LLC 190 Hartz Avenu~, Suite 260, Danville 94526 e PROPERTY OWNER: Village Parkway Partners, µC 190 Hartz Avenue, Suite 260, Danville 94526 LOCATION: 7197 Village Parkway, Dl1blin, CA 94568 (APN 941~0210.013) GEN.6RAL PLAN DÉSIGNATIdN: EXIST:l:NG ZONING AND LAND USE: RetaiÌ!office· Planned Development Zoning District, PA 98-049 G:\PA#I2004104-GS7 En..\.ZA StatrReport.doc . . 6 6\ RESOLUTION NO. 05 - 04 · A RESOLUTION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR OF THE CTIY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A 29% REDUCTION TO REQUIRED PARKING FOR STARBUCKS COFFEE AT 7197 VILLAGE PARKWAY (PA 04-057) WHEREAS, the Entia Properties Company LLC, the site property owner, has requested approval of an application on behalf of Starbucks Coffee, lnc., for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a reduction of 13 parking spaces or 29% from thtl number of parking spaces normally requirtld for a 1,886- square-foot coffee shop, 410-square-foot outdoor seating area, and 6,653-square-foot retail center (45 spaces), pursuant to Section 8.76.050 of the Zoning Ordinance, on land located at 7197 Village Parkway (APN 941~ 0210-013); and WHEREAS, the application has been reviewed in accordance with the Califoroia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and the City Environmental Guidelines, and det=ined to be categorically exempt according to Section 15332, because the project is an in-fill development within a larger urbanized area and consistent with thtl Dublin General Plan and Zoning Ordinance r(l( uirements; and · WHEREAS, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 21-98 which established Planntld Development District PA 98-049 on December 15, 1998, which establisb.tld development standards for the project site; and WHEREAS, City Council adopted the Village Parkway Specific Plan and Initial StudylNegative Declaration on December 19,2000, which established development standards, land uses, and goals for the Specific Plan Area; and WHEREAS, Planning Commission did hold a public hearing and approved a proposal submitted by Enea Properties Company LLC for development of a 8,539-square-foot retail center and 5,582-square-foot office building at the project site on May 11,2004, by means of Resolution 04-40; and WHEREAS, a Parking Study has been prepared and reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer for the proposed reduction of 13 parking spaces or 29% from the number of parking spaces normally required for a 1,886~square-foot coffee shop, 4l0-square-foot outdoor seating area, and 6,653~square-foot retail center (45 spaces), which states that alternative parking standards would be appropriate for the project; and WHEREAS, the ZonÌ11g Administrator did hold a public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit on March 14,2005; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and · WHEREAS, the Staff Report was submitted recommending Zoning Administrator approval of a ..., Jpv resolution approving a Conditional Use Permit;ärid WHEREAS, the Zoning Aélministrator did heiratïd eonsider all saId repòrts, recommendations, and . testimony hereinabove set forth, and used her iridepentienfjudgmeIlt. NOW, THEREFORE, BE ITRESOL VED THAT THE Dublin Zoning. AdminIstrator does hereby make the following findings and d~=Ìrinàtionsregatding said ptöposed Conditional Use Permit: , " ,. I, 1. Pursuant to Section 8.76.050.C, a Parlct1' ~St\ldy~b(\eµprt;p3I:ed to assure that the off-site parkfu.g spaces are provided to the p'rÎ!lc:iPI\¡us~þ~çau¡¡èa plaximµm ot10 and a minimum of 5 fiee, on-street parking spaces will be avaIlable along the pròject street frontages on Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard, within 400 feet of the project site. 2. Purs1la:tttlò ZònîngOtdinatïce Sècticln 8, 76,050.E,a Parking Study has been prepated t() demonstrate howthe.rlilqùiredo;itdoor seatlngparking standardb~¢çssivç,!\tld has providedan.aJ,ternativeparking standa.1'dt? elJ,sure~t~~Wm ~19~þeapar~~ d.~:liÇ\encY~91;bat~ver.fl0w Parkin~~ill not ...., .. adyc:r¡;ely u:µpac~ IldJacl:1:\t uses1),ecaus(\ th(\ prgJ:(lJmo/Qtth~. slte't()r~.mdelJ,9~~' ~chools, b*e )/tths,and pµþliqtran~Q~µ9µ .¡,yiUØ1IRwseveìâl trimsportation op~onsfof "i~ttors,' áhd 1íltemperatè weather will limit the use òf òutdoöt seating. . Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 8.76.050.F, a Parking Study has been prepared to ensure that there will not be aparlcing defiöiency ill the.shoppirtg oe11ter asa. whqle,that p¡u:kÎ1ig for t1:¡¡:va,r¡ious uses wiUnotconf11chvitheach other, and thatoverf Ow Parkingwill not adv~el?, Împ¡¡ctatljaqent uses b¡:¡catt$(\' as conc:li~oned,there will be 6Parking spaces in the. þarIäng lot with .si¡µ1S limitΡíg Þa,rkÎ1lg to 15 mihutesand þeea\1se these (j. .plitkÎ1!gsp®es· wouJdhe cl\pableof allowing 24. vehicles' to park an hour coinbinedwith 4 normal p!Ú'Iäng 'sþaceswhich would satisfy the totålpeakdemandof 28 spaces an hour of the coffee shop and other shopping center uses. 3. e 4. The subj ect site is physically suitaþleforthe type. and intensity of the de¥elopment beingproposed because it is located within a developed downtown area, was previously developed, and because it is located adjacent to roadways wl1.ich are designed to carry traffic that would be generated by the proposed types öfuses;and .. 5. The proposed Conditional Use Permit will not adVerBeli affect the health or safety of persons residi:t).g or workmg in the vicinity, or be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare because the project has been built according.to City laws and regulations; and 6. The proposed Conditionàl UsePermiti~còïìsistentwith the'Rëfäî1JOffice designation öftheDÙblin General Plan and the proposed development stiWdards are pemiitted'by said designation; and 7. The proposed Conditienal Use Permit is consistent with the existing Planned D~elopment Zol)Îng District(FA 98,.049) regulations because Eating and Drinking Uses, sµchl1$cafés, are permitted uses within the Planned Development Zoningpistpct,and tile project is consistent with tile parking regu1ätions of Zoning ordinance Ch8.pter 8.76, to which 'the PlaIlned Development Districfís alSo subject. .. 8. The proposed Conditional Use Permit is consistent with the goals and standards of the Village J:".arkway Specific Plan because it will provide neighborhood-serving uses and promote enhanced. pedeStrian access and amenities. . BE IT F1JRTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Zoning Administrator does hereby approve a Conditional Use Permit for project plans, included as Exhibit A, and the Parking Study, included as Exhibit B, . dated December 29,2004, subject to the following Conditions of Approval: 2 ?"? CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -'nless stated otherwise. all Conditions of Approval shal] be complied with prior to the issuance of building Q(mnits or establishment of use. and shall be subiect to Department of Communi tv Development review and almroval. The following codes represent tbose departments/agencies responsible for monitorin12: compliance of tbe conditions of approval: [ADM) Administration! City Attornev. fBl Building Division of the Corrimunitv Development Department. rDSR 1 Dublin San Ramon Services District. [Fl Alameda County Fire Deuartment/Citv of Dublin Fire Prevention. [FIN] Finance Denartment. [PLl Planning Division of the ÇO)11J:Ilunity Development Denartment. [POl Police. [PWl Public works Denartment. "IG~:!idWit!~.0:IJO:n'T~', '~~t'ç '~":~~;~:iH:3W,'::·¡r~1f.;~i;j~{~:!i'¡':Ø4W'ì:;~'i:,Vk1·"~~~;:::QX:::~;;1t;~&'~~1'.(! "·f,Jt~1~t~l;iJ'{:~:;p:~lj"~;:S:ji;tf1.;1;¡1V'~1~MI~;it}:Y~{'f)~;~j~,¡td!{f~õ.q:l.~;.o\:, .:,~, :",\}~~~~\:~".",~,~~~~'I:!:tRl . ~~ \f;!::·¡~?..i~!¡\~,':.úI~¡'.i:?.:1-<~~~~:!i !It;:~,.('::~\ì'::~:,P,\,f,1~V~,tf,i:.è,\7!':~,'!~~'~\¡(\;~W.i<i';'~j;·K~_. ~],\H,;,·~!;:,:,,,\,~,~I,,:.,¡:';;:~\'\'i,,~,.\:I,;'.~:, ·,¡;.,:.~,!\I.~"\f.t,I:,,,'" :;·"">¡:.~:.li~~~:,:.,:.~"d;:")>,;JI.'\.:,~;/.t:.~ 1 . Approval. This Conditional Use Permit approval for the Starbucks, PL Ongoing Standard Inc., P A 04.057, establishes the parking requirements for the 1,886- square-foot coffee shop a.nd 41 O-square-foot outdoor seating area at· the Enea Commercia] Center, 7197 Village Parkway. Conditions of Approval contained herein shall not be construed as superceding Conditions of Approval established with P1amring Commission approval ofPA 03.069. DeveJopment pursuant to this Conditional Use Permit is conditioned upon the requirement that the development be consistent with the approved Site Development Review (pA 03-069), the Planned Development (PD) Rezoning, including the Land Use and Development Plan, and the related General Provisions, and Standards and Conditions, and shan general1y confonu to the Site Plan prepared by William Wood AIchitects, dated received November 1,2004. by the City of Dublin Community Development Department, unlcss modified by the Conditions of A ova1 contained herein. Term. Pursuant to Section 8.96.020.D., approval of the Conditional PL Use Permit shaH be valid for one year from effective date. If cons1ruction has not commenced by that rime or extended per the foHowing means, this approval shan be nuH and void. The approval period for the Conditional Use Permit may be extended six (6) additional months by the Director of Community Development upon determination that the Conditions of Approval remain adequate to assure that the above stated findings wil1 continue to be met. Applicant! Developer must submit a written request for the extension urior to the expiration date of the Con j ion 1 Use Permit.. Revocation. The Conditional Use Permit will be revocable for cause in accordance with Secrion 8.96.020.I of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Any violation of the tenus or conditions of this approval shan be subject to citation, and if non-compliance continues otentia1 revocation. Fees. ApplicantlDevcloper shaH pay all applicable fees in effect at FIN the time ofbuiJding pennit issuance, including, but not 1imited to: Planning fees; Building fees; Dublin San Ramon Services District fees; Public Facilities fees; Dublin Unified Schoo] District Schoo] Impact fees; Public Works Traffic fees; City of Dublin Fire Services fees; Noise Miti ation fees; Alameda Coun Flood and NO. 2. 3. 4. CONDITION TEXT RESPON. AGENCY! DEPART. WHEN'· SI!1URGE? REQ.1 On"going z.o. PL On-going z.o. Prior to issuance Df Building Pemrlts Municipal Code 3 ·NO· . OOJ1iØ['fmN'f!JïJ'Kîf 5. Water Conservation District (Zone 7) Drainage and Water Connection fees; and any other fees as noted in the Development Agreement. Unissued building pennits subsequent to new or revised TlF's sball be subject to recalculation and assessment of the faiT share of the new or revised fees. If the Development Agreement approved for this project conflicts with this condition, the Develo ment A eement shall revaH. Required Permits. ApplicantlDeveloper shall obtain all necessary applicable pennits required by other agencies including, but not limited to, Alameda County Public Works, Alameda County Flood Control District (Zone 7); California Department of Fish and Game; Army Corps of Engineers; and State Water Quality Control Board, IU'ld shall submit copies of the permits to the Department of Public Works. ApplicantlDeveloper shall also apply, pay all required fees and obtain permits from PG&E for power service connection re uired to ene1' ze traffic si als and streetli hts. Hold HarmlesslIndemnlfleatlon. ApplicantIDeveloper, and any parties or individuals grlU'lted rights-of-entry by AppliclU'lt/ Developer, shall defend, indenmify, and hold harmless the City of Dublin and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Dublin or its agl'Ilts, officers, or employees (a) to attsck, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City of Dublin or its advisory agency, appeal board, Planning Commission, City Council, Director of Community Development, Zoning Administrator, or any other department, committee, or agency of the City concerning a subdivision or other development which actions are brought within the time period provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37 and (b) holding the City liable for any damages or wages in connection with the construction; provided, however, that the Applicant! Developer's duty to SO defend, indemnify, and hold hannless sha11 be subject to the City's promptly notifying the ApplicantlDeveloper of any said claim, action, or proceeding and the City's full actions or roceedin s, Clarifications and Changes to the Conditions. In the event that there needs to be clarification to these conditions of approval, the Directors of Community Development and Public Works have the authority to clarify the intent of these conditions of approval to the ApplicantlDevelopet by a written document signed by the Director of Community Deve10pment and the City Engineer and placed in the projcct fiJe. The before-mentioned authority also may make minor modifications to these conditions in order for the ApplicantIDeveloper to fulfill needed improvements or mitigations resultin from in¡ acts to this 0' ect. 6. 7. 8. Time-Limited Reserved Parking. The Applica.ntIDeveloper shall reserve 5 of the parking spaces as time-limited parking. These spaces should be located closest to the coffee shop and should be posted with the fol1owing infonnation: "15 Minute Parking Limit. Towing Enforced." Signs shall include City of Dublin Municipal Code citation that allows towing of illegally parked vehicles. 4 RESPON.. AGENCW DEPART. . PL, PW. B Applicant PL,PW PL,PW mmN R:t1Q. '? Prior to issuance of Building Permits On-going On-going Prior to issuance of Building Permits t:¿i'1 SJMjRGE? . Standard Standard . Standard Parking Study I. 9. 10. 11. _. '-. ·ÇlpNDJ;rOC''lQ'N'f;¡¡) ~SPON. A'GEl\ICY I :OOP A1itT. In addition, the ApplicantlDeveloper shall reserve I additional parking space as time-limited parking to off-set the potential increased parking demand associated with Wi-Pi Internet access. This space should be located closest to the coffee shop BIld should be posted with the following information: "15 Minute Parlcing Limit. Towing Enforced." Sign shall include City of Dublin Municipal Code citation that allows towing of illegally parked vehicles. Time limited parlcing spaces for the proj ect shaH total 6 spaces for the shopping center to allow 24 vehicles to park per hour in time" limited spaces. Travel Options. The ApplicantIDeveloper shall ensure that the :PL, :PW coffee shop tena.nt provide information on the availability of travel optiOM to visitors and employees On an on-going basis. BART a.nd the Wheels and Alameda County Connection bus services, as well as the 511 telephone and Internet service (www.5! 1.ort). would be good resources for information and promotional materials. Patio Seating. The ApplicantlDeveloper shall apply for and obtain. PL, PW a Conditional Use Permit for additional parking reductions pursuant to Section 8.76.050 of the ZoningOrdiDBIlce should the plaza area be covered by a permanent roof and available for seatin . Grand Opening. The ApplicantlDeveloper shall be required to PL, PW provide auxiliary parking and proper signage for the [¡rst two weeks of operation of the coffee shop due to increased traffic caused by the business' grand opening. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of March, 2005. ~dministrator ATTEST: QJÁ) ~dÁV\~9J Associate PlallDer . G:\PAI\2004\04.()57 Slarl>lclŒ\ZARESO.DOC 5 'WHl!:l'I¡ REQ,? Prior to issu.aD.c~ of Building P=nits On-going Prior to issuance. of Building Pennits ".-- 50;;> sÍiÍ-øME:~' Parking Study Parking Study Parking Study 6b Zoning Administrator Hearing March 14, 2005 . CALL TO ORDER A special meeting of the City of Dublin Zoning Administrator was held on Monday March 14, 2005 in the Dublin Civic Center Regional Meeting Room, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin. Zoning AdIDinistrator Jeri Ram called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. ATTENDEES Jeri Ram, Planning Manager and Zoning Administrator; Pierce Macdonald, .ÁBsociate Planner; Janet Harbin, Senior Planner; Chris Foss, Economic Development Director; Ray Kuzbari Senior Civil Engineer (Traffic); Ananthan Kanagasundaram, Assistant Engineer; and Renuka Dhadwal, Recording Secretary. PUBLIC HEARING Prior to opening the public hearing, Ms. Ram e:xplained the meeting process to the members present. She informed the members present that she will open the public hearing and ask for staff report, ask questions from Staff, Applicant and members of the public, close the public hearing, deliberate and make a decision. She further stated that if the Applicant or the . members present were unhappy with the Zoning Administrator's decision, they will have 10 calendar days to appeal the decision. 1. PA 04-057 Starbucks Coffee CUP for a 29% reduction to required parking Ms. Ram opened the hearing and asked for the staff report. Pierce Macdonald, Associate Pla=er, presented the Staff Report. Ms, Macdonald gave a brief history of the property site, Staff analysis while reviewing the application, and public co:m.ments since the writing of the report. The property in question 7197 Village Parkway, was the former location of an automotive gasoline and service station which was closed in 1990s. It was zoned General Commercial or C2 at that time. Adjacent uses include a fast food restaurant, single family homes, as well as the Oil Changers and the newly developed Valley Center. In 1998 the City Council studied the potential future uses ofthe property, held public hearing and adopted a Pla=ed Development District for the site which changed the zoning for the site. Pursuant to the PD regulations, a range of office/commercial, eating and drinking uses were permitted in the District. Cafes and other neighborhood serving uses were specifically identified for the site. In the year 2000, the potential UBes for the site were further studied in the Village Parkway Specific Plan and it was determined that the said property was an opportunity site and a primary gateway area, These are identified in the Plan as areas suitable for Plazas, outdoor seating, public art and other amenities. Ms. Macdonald further explained that in 2004, the Planning Commission approved a Site Development Review and a . 1 Tentative:Þarcel Map for the Enea Village Parkway Center. The approval included the ~Î development ofthe one-acre site with a 8,539 sq. ft. commercial retail center and a 5,582 sq. ft. office building. The parking for the total center is 54 parking stalls. Within the reta.il center a 600 sq. ft. space was identified for an eating and drinking use such as a Coffee Shop or an Ice Aam Parlor. Permits for the demolition of the gas station and the commencement of Zstruction were issued in 2004. Enea properties, through this application, is requesting a conditional use permit to reduce parking to allow a 1,886 sq. ft coffee retailer and café Starbucks Coffee to locate in the retail center. Due to site constraints, the standard parking requirements through the zoning ordinance will need to be replaced with an alternate parking plan. In reviewing the Application, Staff completed the following analysis: . . 1. In order to expand a 600 sq. ft., space to a 1,886 sq. ft. space 19 parking spaces would be required. The site currently provides 10 on-site parking spaces, To provide outdoor seating, 4 spRces would be required, 2, Pursuant to Chapter 8.76 of the Zoning Ordinance, the parking can be reduced at a site by the Zoning Administrator when a parking study is completed. The parking study can make an argument for using off-site parking to satisfy the Zoning Ordinance parking requirements. It can provide evidence for an alternative parking requirement. It can also do an analysis of shared parking so that when retail uses are not at their peak parking requirement, they can share the parking of the eating use and vice versa. The parking study for the proposed application needed to ensure that there was no parking deficiency due to the reduction and the resultant overflow will not adversely impact the adjacent uses. 3. The Parking Study concluded that the proposed project would generate significant visitors to the Village Parkway area due to its prominent location, brand name and the attractiveness of the new building's design. The shared parking condition of the shopping center and the availability of free, on-street parking would supplement the parking provided on-site during the busiest times of the day. In addition, the proximity of the proposed project to residential neighborhoods, schools, bike paths and public transportation would allow severaltransportation options for visitors and employees, The Parking Study additionally supported an alternative parking requirement to that of the Zoning.ordinance that took into consideration all of the conditions at the project site. The Study concluded that 32 off-street parking spaces and the existing on-street parking spaces (a minimum of 5) would be sufficient to roeet the peak parking needs of the coffee shop and the shopping center as a whole. 4. The Parking Study made the following recommendations which are incorporated in the resolution· as Conditions of Approval: a. Reserve 5 parking spaces as time-limited parking; b, Information on travel options; c. Alternative parking requireInent of 2 parking spaces to accommodate outdoor seating; d. 1 additional parking space as time-limited to off-set increased parking demand associated with Wi-Fi Internet access; and 2 e. Auxiliary parking and proper signage for first two weeks of operatio:n. .;;'B' Ms. Macdonald informed that a public hearing notice was mailed to the property owners and ocçupants within aOO-ft radius of the project site. Staff has received IS letters in sUPport of the project and 16 letters in opposition of the project since the mailing of the notices. .. . The issues identiñed in the letters were: 1. The proposed Starbucks Coffèe would impact the business for Mika's Espresso Coffee shop located adjacent to the proposed project. 2. Traffic congestion 3. Create unsafe conditions at the intersection of Amador Valley Boulevard and Village Parkway Ms. Macdonald informed that the Public Works department has assured Staff that since the access to the retail center is right-in and right-out driveway, this would not cause traffic congestion. There will be landscaped median at the intersection which would be safe for the pedestrians. Additionally 90-ft of the curb on Village Parkway as well as 60-ft of the curb on AInador Valley Blvd would be red-stripped for site distances. In conclusion Staff has reviewed the project and attached a draft Conditions of Approval that will mitigate any potential adverse impacts of the project relative to parking. Staff recommends that the Zoning Administrator adopt the Resolution approving a Conditional Use Permit for a 29% reduction to required parking. Ms. Ram asked Ray Kuzbari, Senior Civil Engineer (Traffic), to explain the traffic situation in relation to the school in the vicinity since the peak hours for the school and Starbucks Coffee . would be the same. Mr. Kuzbari explained that a Traffic Analysis was conducted for the intersection along with some proposed improvements which were approved by the City Council as part of the Village Parkway Specific Plan enhancements. The free right turn from Village Parkway towards Amador Valley Boulevard has been closed and the median has been extended out so that the pedestrians can now safely cross the intersection. Mr. Kuzbari pointed out that the levels of service for all signalized intersections are rated on a scale from A-F. Levels A-D lITe acceptable levels. The Study for the intersection determined that the intersection is currently operating at Level C. Therefore it is average in terms of congestion levels and based on that there is reserve capacity to absorb more traffic. He further explained that the access driveway to and from the proposed project site is right turn only and therefore will not impact traffic conditions at the intersection. Therefore based on the Study, traffic to and from the project site can be handled safely as well as the intersection as a whole. Ms. Ram stated that she understood that the parking provided will be adequate since the uses for that site do not overlap. However, she asked, if there was a situation when parking could not be found on-site, where are the additional five spaces located on-street. Ms. Macdonald explained that four spaces are located on Village Parkway and one on Amador Valley Blvd. Ms. Ram asked if there was potential for more parking at the office site. Mr. Kuzbari . responded that there was potential for additional parking near the office site during peak hours. 3 Ms. Ram asked if a person were to exit from the project site onto Amador Valley Blvd, whe?e'" would that person be able to make a V-turn. Mr. Kuzbari pointed out the median at Amador Valley Blvd on the map and said that a person could potentially make a V-turn at that point ;¡¡f- could make a left turn on Village Parkway and park on-street on Village Parkway, if .essary. Ms. Ram asked if there were any Elementary Schools in the vicinity. Mr. Kuzbari stated that in addition to the Wells Middle School, the Fredrickson Elementary School is also located in th€ vicinity. Ms. Ram asked if there was a crossing guard at the intersection. Mr. Kuzbari stated that the croBsing guard was stationed at Amador Valley Blvd and Burton Street and not at the intersection in question. The reason being for this is because the intersection near the project site is signalized. Ms. Ram pointed out that one ofthe letters which was in opposition to the project talked about a co-relation between reduced parking and traffic. Ms. Ram asked Mr. Kuzbari to explain how would reduced parking interfere with traffic. Mr. Kuzbari explained that whenever traffic is evaluated for a development project, Staff ensures that there is sufficient parking to accOlJ1modateparking demand. If there is insufficient parking, then there is a potential of more driveway traffic which could interfere with through traffic on the adjacent street and hencs the co-relation between reduced parking and increased traffic. Ms. Ram stated that she is a little concerned for the safety of children crossing the intersectio l &,there may be potential V-turn traffic from the project site. Mr. Kuzbari explained that the .,rsection in question is a signalized intersection and each approach to the intersection gets a green light separately. Therefore there is no interference with pedestrian traffic. Mr. Foss, Economic Development Director, pointed out that the crosswalk island in front of the property has been removed therefore the free right turn towards Amador Valley Boulevard has also been removed. This creates more safety for the pedestrians looking to cross the intersection. Ms. Ram asked Mr. Kuzbari if in his professional opinion as a Traffic Engineer the traffic iJDprovements that have been made and the traffic analysis that was conducted are safe and the reduced parking request will not have a major traffic impact. Mr. Kuzbari responded that he is comfortable making those determinations. Ms. Ram asked Ms. Macdonald what the intent of the Village Parkway Specific Plan is in terms of what it is trying to achieve for pedestrians. Ms. Macdonald explained that the goal for the Village Pl1Ikway Specific Plan is to create a pedestrian friendly shopping district. As part of the Plan the pavements on Village Parkway will be enhanced, new trees will be planted, 'opportunity sites' or 'primary gateway l1Ieas' were identified, which would include outdoor plazas for outdoor seating to make the l1Iea very pedestrian friendly. 'When the Planning Commission reviewed the project they found that this site was offering free outdoor seating, ~)Viding benches, creating extensive landscaping, which meets the intent ofthe Village ~kway Specific Plan. . 4 (,1) Ms. Ram opened the public hearing to take public testimony. She informed the meJUbers present that if they wished to speak they should fill out a speaker form and hand it to the Recording Secretary. Danelle Meyn. co-owner of Mika's and resident of 4803 Norfolk Place, Dublin CA 94568, spoke - first. She stated her reasons for opposing the project. She felt that reducing parking spaces for .. a coffee shop will impact traffic tremendously and will be unsafe for children. Trish Bell, resident of 11696 Carta Ct, stated that this intersection will inevitably be congested and will be hazardous. She gave the example of the post office and how difficult it is to find parking on-site which causes traffic congestion on Village Parkway. Ron Meyu, co-owner of Mika's, wasn't sure how many parking spaces were being provided for the project. Ms. Macdonald stated that the project overall will provide 32 parking spaces. 10 of those would be for Starbucks. During the hours that the retail center is closed, the entire 32 spaces would be available. Mr. Meyn had similar concerns regarding traffic impact as the other speakers. Teri Rolon, a teacher at Fredrickson Elementary School and resident of 7674 Knollbrook Dr., Pleasanton, felt that it was outrageous to have another coffee establishment in addition to the existing ones in close proximity. She also voiced concerns regarding the safety for children who walk to school. Bobbi Cauchi, a business owner on Village PIIIkway and resident of 7133 Kingston Place expressed her concerns for the safety of the children due to increased traffic. She wanted to know what time during the day the Traffic Study was conducted. Ms. Ram responded that she a will ask Staff this question during deliberation. .. Catherine Pettinicchi, a resident of 405 Merriwood Place, San Ramon, who frequently is in Dublin due to the preschool her children go to also voiced her concerns regarding traffic impact and she felt that the City is underestimating the popularity of Starbucks. Ms. Ram requested those members who hadn't filled out the speaker form to do so prior to leaving so that the City could accurately record their names in the minutes and furthermore send them notices if this item were to be appealed. Heather Jolmson, employee of Dublin School District, stated that she understood the intent of Dublin to have a Downtown like atmosphere; however, she thinks that the proposed project area is not conducive for such an atmosphere due to the high traffic volume. Ms. Ram asked the Applicant, Robert Enea, if he would like to say anything. Mr. Enea stated that Staff had addressed all the concerns raised. He stated that traffic concerns that have been raised is a regional problem and not area specific. Hearing no other comments, Ms. Ram closed the public hearing. Ms. Ram asked when the Traffic Study was done. Mr. Kuzbari responded that it was completed in December 2002 prior to the improvements that were recently done at the intersection. e 5 . ~( Ms. Ram asked ifthere was a mix of parking spaces available on-site. Ms. Macdonald informed that there were total 32 parking spaces available. Out of that 11 were compact spaces, 2 hap-dicap accessible paIking spaces. .. Ram asked if there was any barrier between Building A and Building B of the project site. .. Macdonald stated that there will be a fence to protect landscaping although it is accessible from Village Parkway since it has a shared access driveway. Ms. Ram inquired how many parking spaces does the Office component have. Ms. Macdonald responded that the Office Building proposes 22 parking spaces. Ms. Ram asked ifthere was any cross PaIking agreement between the two buildings. Ms. Macdonald stated that there was no agreement, both buildings will have their independent parking spaces. Ms. Ram stated that she has considered all the testimony given; she has reviewed the staff report, the letters, the PaIking Study, Village PaIkway Specific Plan and considered the safety of traffic. Based on the Traffic Engineer's testimony that the City has made improvements to the intersection, she feels confident that the intersection is safer now than before. Furthermore, previously the proposed site had a gasoline station which operated at all hours of day and night with traffic going in on Village Pkwy and out on Amador Valley Blvd. which is siwilar to the proposed project. She added it is safer now that it was previously with all the improvements. She further elaborated that in any shopping center there is a variety of businesses and each business has its own time of operation and hence there is adequate parking availahle on-site to meet the paIking demand for a particular business at that center_ Specifically for this project she is confident that there is adequate parking on-site based on the _srent hours of operation for the retail use. While approving or disapproving a project, the Wst important thing to consider is the compatibility of the use with the site. Ms. Ram stated that the City is trying to revitalize the Village Parkway area and this project with its outside seating complements the goal of the City. She cited examples of revitalization that has occurred in the area (McDonald's improvemsnts, Valley Center improvements). Based on the conditions of approval, the Zoning Administrator approved the Conditional Use Permit for a 29% reduction to required parking for Starbucks Coffee and adopted the following Resolution: RESOLUTION NO. 05 - 04 A RESOLUTION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A 29% REDUCTION TO REQUIRED PARKING FOR STARBUCKS COFFEE AT 7197 VILLAGE PARKWAY (PA 04-057) Ms. Ram, once again, informed that if the members of the public were not satisfied with her decision, they have 10 calendar days to appeal. . . 6 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 3:10 p.m. ATTEST: tw- N o.Wv1Æ7) Pierce Macdonald Associate Planner G:'JVIINUTES\2005\CDD-ZA Yl,A Minu¡". 3·14·05 Starbuck..doc (,-y-- Jeri [J- Zoning Administrator 7 · · · ~ ~ ~ \ <:.::). :ç (I) -I m "U r » z . f¡1f :t>- ~-I ¡;~ (""') ........: X Fn :z: -I . .. . .¡..,." ~~ .......r·,,·t.._~-~ . r-v I lit I - ~'¡i I· ,,,,,",,', ~oo W1 (~, . :-.." -- -- -- -- 1--] I:¡~ : (. '~~;t':~'¡;-f-';'-¡¡:Pf};-%'¡¡"~i!:'~!-~-;I!-¡¡~$ìi',.Iri-1i,*-~wiicf ,~' II t, \' I ;¡;'''i'khf{~!I?'''',ki>.>tI1',(Jf~;¡¡,t;.\!!'kl!!''-:w¡ß.~-¥*,"¡"t·f,,,M*$c.iII ! ¡Ii / & ~~''! f ~-I¢.! *', ~~'1 tI·t ~"i~'~'~ If tf"r~l~'~~!'r"-f~' ~d I \] ~!: -,' '~-*~:~,~'·r'~~"::'=:'!I"~,*,.t:W,'r¡'iy~:,t:f~.tf·.i·r,¡'t't' A~'__ _ 1-+ () ~i¡ ¡, :~';~:··~':~:·~:::f:l,::(,?I,¡,¡.";J¡'~'~·1I.t,!!t,~~:~,!t'f~.f/ -- ì I~ If! /5-1 ' "~"'~¡'f!!'fflj!\!\Ii·~'~1/i ~'~.~/iti't:~~._'i-¡Ií·tlì";;Jf I /'. : ~ ~ ~:~:~ ~'.,~.i·j~;:~:'~'~'~~.· '. r:~t~í ;¡:t~ r~.tfr..w~ " : ~'~{<f'~N'~'*'~:!f~~,tjlr$*~:«: ~~:,!ítt·~:,~<_ r~ln' f / ,I, *' 'I'f 1"e ~, ¡¡¡ f'¥ h. Ž i¡: 1'1' wi!'%' 1\0, t~I!'-w'~!\' fft 9 ,¡,f>, <tv/ -;; / I, '~f~·~'~¡¡'Ii¡~¡'1?¡¡·~~'~3I"II~l t~¡¡>-,:f'~'8IIt"g" / .1, / ¡ :-W'~',t¡~'fr~:,':,:J~~::nlu~.j,«:l..";~:t"t,~, ..t I I J.-# It> t: ~ !! Ii> ~ l'1I' II'w ~,.,¡Ij',¡I¡ ; ,. t,, ¡i !i< Û¡.f!'4'$i' j!¡' "'II1"..!J': &~j! I I" ¡c. $I ~ ~. ~ I!i ì1< ¡¡:, ~ t *"jIor i<'¥ ~'''' I!',,,,,. ti jr~ititJ'.þ' ;;',4:'11' 11--$,( -.' !I ¡ f ,:> )'11< k""~d,;-ý.¡.t!'f-$) í!i'f.r~LIfr!i'-tr$'~",tdH¡>#J'*¡;¡¡''''¡;-J!r'''' ¡'~' It- I :*f.wt~;;li!f,t·#¥~IÌ\*""*'*~',!\!ii4'~' ,R,,¢$!. -IlL f : ;Ì'I!. ~¡¡ / (" --:-.- ~ 'a;:.:.b... ~...... \~, ~~2' ~, I'~ I ~ I '/ ,""" . ' t i{'· ..ï I¡~·····, v .- .~.. ..1''' ,/ f·" ~ , í~¡S ¡~ I· I- · ~;. '. ,J, --.. \1 I· ! I,n¡ .5," ~ H" . ,. .¡ . , .~! 1" I / I I ~, t '" \ - -¡h...,__ _. ..._ ~i!¡ c1 1.-. i: .. ~ -_ .. /\" h,;ii - - / -- - 'c,_ ~~,~; é~ll :,,:l-1¡f.- ~1' ~ I~ {>,_.~ ~ ;,/tIJ '. .. //~.. .1 f ··...~ii!t~~;r-~;--· ~..H~:::'~_U.. ->~.:.~.:r.)..·.·.:U f;,._. ,::: '. t .....: ,.: '!5~ : I : ": -J, - - 'i '.~ ' /' I ' .~ I I ~ I I /, ¡.,..;.' ~ .. U I: . ,:~ /' I 1'i'I -- ;,~ \ . '\- . J / -;; / ~i/-¡_ ~ '_ -i.1l¡~: ¡! î~': V ~~" '-' t; , \. ji~i ~-- , I I ill, ~ ' I L ~ 1\ '\.. I \ ¡Iï¡ ..3'11 ~ i~~_ j J/ " c-n-CL - .~... .;:~&' I ¡__~m l ~... !~~ . ~'l ~""' ~~ 'I .,:. m- 7' I.. ,.~~..,.. 11....F1'-ð',__ ~~::I ~~ I .pi r~~:! T~: ~..,!r,¡-~...._~ .,,_t!' f~~~f~F~" J . I. . ....../.." .' , __n__C .~jL_ - -~ ¡¡.n ., h :: : I H~~ ~-~-- - wt.-t' j;iIolJ1.IILV I / .f" '. " Ii _,_,,~ · ~. I .,¡¡~ Û -. .t- ~~¡V;i 1 / ~ . '~~J,^' ;~~i---- .m_____ - : H~ä ¡ - - - r Iffi \~.\,:¿ ." f ~~ . : ,}~ "'i§ · I ¡ I i ~ "'::\.;1· · .,.'''', Ii 'e.. I..,: 11·- I J, i. ? . :: :>;:::<,I~:,I ,~~~';'.: ~ ". I.. _.t~=' /-.. .-..... \; . .~, .'" ' ~ , ",' . ---.-.. -.../i I . )(~,:':~?i~~, ;,{' . .' ~ j::~,i1 : i ¡ ~;1ij~ '. . -- , "'tc ' I ,~I i¡I~~ " I . . --4-0 . . i1 IF'~ I'~: I 1- 'Hii> i" ,- "~ '- ifL.;~,1;Il,~,;r : 'I ! lij I '''-4~_'~:~'''''-~ß~o .c"",~.--;"'-li(f- :;'¡ I ··t~ I !!---................¡,~~,,,J ~, 'l\\ ,-) í~ ¡a ~Pí' Ii 1.'"1 ,- -~.,<...., ' ,,' ;.ç;;--- '_~ ~~ i ~ ;! -. - -~' ~ ,{~-+-t-'~ Ir~; ;,~ t,'" -' ;1 ,/ ! ,.1 'I: .J¡ .,'; ~:~! ¡ d\; v C'"i"Y¡ j1'¡ J-I ~~ .; b!:~ . i; 5I 'II . ~ H ~J! ~ hi~ I i Hi ¡ ",I þ I I / I ! I i , I , , / ! I f I I \ 111 i \ ~~ i, -, ~¿ " ;1 'I ¡ , 1 J ~ I· t 1 " ~~¡ ~ j . ,," l\ ~ , ,,~ ¡ ¡. ~¡\I>r.'¡"" I~ g:r¡~~[! s· 1'1 u~~'Í'" r' :;¡:(~i!1I. ~ Iõ\ II ~ ~ I~{{$~, ¡f , 't ~ mt~¡5,:?~"j.1 1"1:;111 i;j ~t-lO~ 8,!';:ll1rJ ;(~ In!JI "::- If . ,~ , , 1 ~ , '" ~~ ä ~~ ~i CJ ,. c z::tl ID :2iU 5 ~ ... =n1 "0 ......;¡¡ .~ ~o .:z = ',:2 .ç;:. G) " , i \ , -. j\ ¡¡~!!n II; G ~i E .!'..~ 11 · ,,¡ C,. ..~. q, ¡ P A I; R { . "'Ii; '~ j í 1\ ª I! i \1,1 II ¡¡ " ' 1);'>, ¡ , l~¡!A ":,) l' I,! ¡'í q~¡ Sti~ , ¡" "'i ¡~, ~ " l \ \~-qI' \ K q...¡ A \ " "- " '. y ~--------- ~... ,~-----,. ~ \ IIIII! WILLIAM WCX:>D ; liR' I! nø.1 30] HARTZ AVENUE., SUITE 203 'I.~ DANVlLJ..E.. CAUFORNIA 94.526 I (9'15}~ Ð': , " . I . I ¡ ¡ , ~ ! :umH \ I,! I I 1 J i ~ r ~ I VILLAGE PARKWAY RETAIL ~ "" 7197 VILLAGE PARKWAY DUBLIN, CA .." ;;u (¡) -I .." ,.... o o ;;u "U r- Þ z ~ . : II !!lH 9'.9' ---..--- -~:r ______1- .- -1--- . ~ ~ ,- " ,- , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . ~ '" ,. o '. 9'·9" I ¡I¡I! WILLIAM WOOD . .I, II!I 301 HAR"r2 AVENUE, SUIT¡¡: 203 I i~ DANVU,I,fi, CALIFORNIA 94526 I; (q25J 620-6233 . . ~ , , , , , '.____________.J j\. I{ ( I I I I I (' I '-, VILLAGE PARKWAY RETAIL 33'-3~" , ..._,~, '\ \ , --j M " " , - " " _1[ \( . t +-~--~ ,. , -.. . --. ) ,u -, ;~:* ~~ ~~ ., ,0 5:.;! -;'" 0" ~~ ~~ '"~ ~~ e ~~ ~~ ." t~ ,> lP~ IS'_"~· "' ,: "" r (0 I ~ ~ § DJ I- C m n ~I' ^ .~ (/1 n ü -n " m m ~ ~ -- ,j' ..----- R"' \~ ;>: I ~ /¿ 1!'.'·rJ' 1~'=-~~" _.__n_ 7197 VILLAGE PARKWAY DUBLIN, CA I - -1*- -- ______,m- ---r- ±L~~-- __LL _ ~lo-'-=_~ILj. __ r----- ...---.....- - ---B-- - .[;1". --.-oQ-'. -on ... ~ , , , ..--------- -Ì r · Starbucks 7197 Village Parkway Parking Study · Prepared by the City of Dublin Community Development Department, and Approved by the City of Dublin Public Works Department December 29, 2004 · ~S I1hlt/'Í A IT ACriM:~~n (, Lfç¡ Starbucks 7197 Village Parkway PÄ 04-057 . Parking Analysis · Introduction: The proposed project requests a reduction in the required parking spaces for a proposed 1,886- square-foot coffee shop (Starbucks) within a new 8,52S-square-foot shopping center by a total of 13 parking spaces. The coffee shop would provide seating for 30 persons and outdoor seating for 16 persons. Under Section 8.76.080 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, the number of parking spaces required by the gross square footage of all of the individual uses within the shopping center totals 45 spaces, as shown in Table 1, below. The proposed reductton of 13 spaces Is reviewed· in this analysis. Table 1., Req~jred Parking Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance section 8.76.080 Use Area PiI~kin'g bqulred ParklngPnniided (sq.fI:.) Råqt.iirèment paridng fS_œ$) Coffee Shop 1,886 1 space/lOO sq. ft. 19 (shared) Outdoor Seating (410) 1 space/100 sq. ft. 4 (shared) . Remaining Retail 6,642 1 space/300 sq. ft. 22 (shared) Total 8,528 45 32 spftces (-13 scaces) · Zonina Ordinance Provisions for parkina Reductions: Pursuant to Sections 8.76.0S0.C, 8.76.050.E, and B.76.050.F, the number of parking spaces required by the Zoning Ordinance may be reduced when off-site parking Is available to satisfy the required parking under the Zoning Ordinance, when the parking requirement is deemed excessive, and when a shared parking condition Is present. In the latter two cases, a traffic study must be prepared by a qualified traffic engineer or consultant. The following evidence must be provided: . An analysis of the availability of off-site parking spaces showing that the most distant parking space IS not more than 400 feet from the commercial use, that the off-site parking spaces are not located in a residential zone or vehicle access area, and that any necessary agreements are executed to assure that the off-site parking spaces are provided to the principal use (Section S.76.0S0.C). . An analysis ofthe parking demands of the proposed use and the parking demands of similar uses in similar situations, to demonstrate how the required parking standard is excessive, and an alternative parking standard to ensure that there will not be a parking deficiency and that overflow parking will not adversely impact adjacent uses (Section 8.76.0S0.E). · Page 2 1.ø-1 Starbucks 7197 Village Parkway PA 04-057 · . An analysis of how a sufficient number of parking spaces is provided to meet the greatest parking demands of the participating use types in a shared parking situation to ensure that there will not be a parking deficiency, that parking for the various uses will not conflict with each other, and that overflow parking will not adversely impact adjacent uses (Section 8.76.050.F). Shared Parkinq; The Enea Village Shopping Center is currently under construction. When it is completed, it will be characterized by small tenants providing basic retail services, such as personal services, clothing, or other retail uses, as allowed in the Planned Development regulations. These uses will represent 49% of the parking demand of the shopping center (22 of the 45 required spaces under the Zoning Ordinance). The proposed coffee shop use would be 51% of parking demand. As the coffee shop would be the only eating and drinking establishment in the shopping center, it can be expected that the customers will visit more than one tenant space. A significant number of customer visits would be expected to come from within the shopping center, as the different uses are complementary to each other. This relationship characterizes a shared parking condition. Shared Parkinq Yearlv Parkino Demand · The Dimensions of Parkino ReDoct, published by the Urban Land Institute and National Parking Association (included as Appendix A), calculated the effect of shared parking on eating and drinking uses and retail uses. According to the report, parking demand varies from month to month throughout the year. The parking demand for retail uses is 65% -75% of peak demand during 10 months of the year. The parking demand for restaurant uses is 50% -90% of peak demand for 9 months of the year. The busiest month is December when retail uses operate at 100% of peak parkin9 demand and restaurant uses operate at 90% of peak parking demand. As such, by the most conservative estimation, there is still a 10% efficiency in shared parking associated with eating and drinking uses during peak parking demand. A 10% reduction in required parking for the coffee shop would result in a total of 43 remaining required parking spaces, leaving a deficit of 11 parking spaces for all of the uses within the shopping center. Dailv Parkina Demand Fluctuations in parking demand throughout the day among the different uses in the shopping center are also reviewed in this study. Based on information provided by Mr. Bill Robards, Vice President of Starbucks COffee Company (Appendix H), the typical peak hours of operation are 6 a.m. to 9 a.m. and 50% of the coffee company's business occurs before 11 a.m. on weekdays. · An informal survey of area Starbucks locations in Dublin and Pleasanton conducted by City Staff on Friday, November 5, 2004, confirmed the information provided by Mr. Robards. The three locations reported their busiest times between 6:30 and 11 a.m. (one location extended these peak times to 12 p.m. on Saturdays). The locations contacted also described a second, less Page 3 Starbucks 7197 Village Parkway PA 04-057 U$ busy period between 6 p.m. and 9 p.m. during the weekends, and one location reported a third, . less busy period from 3 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. during the week. These results are shown on the attached Appendix B. The Dimensions of Parkino ReDort. referenced above, calculated the effect of shared parking on eating and drinking uses and retail uses throughout the day. According to the report, parking demand varies from hour to hour for each type of business. The peak parking demand for retail uses is typically from 11 a.m. to 5 p.m.1 during the week, The peak parking demand for retail is 12 p.m. to 5p.m. during the weekends. As shown in Appendices C and D, the peak parking demands of the proposed coffee shop could coincide with the peak parking demands of the retail uses during the hours of 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. during the week and weekends. The following section focuses on the peak parking demand period of 10 a,m, to 12 p.m. when the parking demand for the coffee shop and retail uses are most likely to coincide, Focused Analvsis: In Table 2. below, the information provided in the Dimensions ReDort and the information provided by the Starbucks Coffee Company are combined with a parking study of a typical Starbucks coffee shop prepared by Aztec Engineering Group for a similar project. ¡ The Aztec Engineering report provided vehicle trips Information for a typical Starbucks location on a . weekday. This information was used to estimate weekday parking demand on an hourlY basis for the proposed Starbucks coffee shop. The Aztec Engineering Study is Included in the information attached as Appendix I. First, Table 2 calculates excess parking that would be unneeded by retail uses at certain times of the day if the maximum Zoning Ordinance parking requirements were Implemented. According to the Dimensions Reoort. retail businesses require fewer parking spaces than required under the Dublin Zoning Ordinance (3.3 per 1,000 square feet) between the hours of 6 a.m. and 11 a.m. (ranging from .3 spaces to 2.6 spaces per 1,000 square feet) and during the evening hours after 5 p.m. (ranging from 3 spaces to.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet) during the workweek. Similarly, during the weekend, retail uses require fewer parking spaces between 7 a.m. to 12 p.m. (ranging from .1 spaces to 2.9 spaces per 1,000 square feet) and after 6 p.m. (ranging from 2.6 to .5 spaces per 1,000 square feet), as shown in Appendix F. I Acoarding to the Dimensions RODorl. relail uses also experience a peak ftom 7 to 9 p.m. during the weekdays. However, the property owner does not oxpecl the lenants of th... spaces to bo open after 6 p.m. duo 10 the sman size of tho lonan! spaces and the neighborhood commercial character of lhe surrounding area. Larger ROlan businesses in largo shopping cenlers would typically genorale peak trips in the ovening. , Tho Azlec Enginoering report for a typical Slarbucks location (455 Fair Oaks) was applied to the analysis ofa 1,500-squaro-fool Starbucks restaW'ant within a 7 .038-square-foot shopping center in South Pasadena (1318 Huntington). The report smdied seating of 17 interior soalS and 18 exteÚOI sears. Trip. are increased in this report . by 26% for subject projocl's increase in building size and .ooting. Page 4 e e e {pt::7 Starbucks 7197 Village Parkway PA 04-057 Lastly, Table 2 compares the available parking (parking that would not be needed by the retafl uses) with the hourly parking demand based on the Aztec Engineering Traffic Study. As shown below, the peak parking demand for the proposed coffee shop would coincide with peak parking demand for retafl uses in the shopping center for one hour during the weekday, from 10 a.m. to 11 a.m. The shopping center would experience a maximum potential parking deficit of 13 spaces between 10:00 a.m. and 11 a.m. on weekdays.' On Saturdays, this peak period of time and potential parking deficit would be expected to last until 12 p.m. based on City Staff's survey of area Starbucks. Table 2., Weekday Parking Demand and Excess Parking By Hour Starting Retail Zoning Excess Parking Parking Starbucks Parking Time Parking Required for 6,642 square Available for Max. Hourly Surplus Demand Parking foot retail space Starbucks Parking (Deficit) (per 1,000 (per 1,000 (spaces) Demand . sa.fU· SQ.ft.) ISbaces) 6a.m. - 3.33 3.3 (22 spaces) 32 28 2 7a.m. .3 3.33 3.03 (20 spaces) 30 28 2 8a.m. .7 3.33 2.63 (17 spaces) 27 ..... 28. ........ .. .. (1) 9a,m. 1.6 3.33 1.73 (12 spaces) . 22 28 . (6)cc- I . . . 10 a.m. 2.6 3.33 .73 (5 spaces) 1./15 ·i :28/'..... .····i '(~3> ,.. , . .......' - ' '....'.,:,.,., 11 a,m. 3.3 n/a n/a . 10 . 14 . (4) . . . . 12 p.m. 3.7 n/a n/a 10 14 .. (4) . . 1 p.m. 3.8 n/a n/a -:- 10 14 (4) ... . . ... 2 p.m. 3.7 n/a n/a 10 ... 14 ... ... (4) .. 3 p.m. 3.6 n/a n/a .. 10 .... 14 (4) 4 p.m. 3.3 n/a n/a ··10 17 (7) ... . 5 p.m. 3.0 3.33 .33 (2 spaces) .12 17 . .. ... (5) .. 6 p.m. 3.1 3.33 .23 (2 spaces) ... . ...12 .. ... 17 . . ... (5) .' .. ..... . 7 p.m. 3.4 n/a n/a .. 10., . 15 ... (S) .. .,. .. 8 p.m. 3.3 n/a n/a 10 14 ... (4) .. .. 9 p.m. 2.3 3.33 1.03 (7 spaces) 17 14 3 10 p.m. 1.2 3.33 2.13 (14 spaces) 24 14 10 11 p.m. .5 3.33 2.83 (19 spaces) 29 14 15 12 p.m. - 3.33 3.3 (22 spaces) 32 14 18 3 As this comparison uses actual1Tip information provided by ^.ttc Engineering Group. the estimated 10% reduction for monthly fluctuations in parlcing demand is not included in the Table 2 calculations. Page 5 Sta rbucks 7197 Village Parkway PA 04-057 11) A shared parking plan for the proposed project must ensure that potential parking conflicts do not impact the tenants of the new shopping center or adjacent properties during the maximum . parking demand periods of 10 to 11 a.m. on weekdays and 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. on weekends. To satisfy the maximum hourly parking demand of the shopping center, which this study estimates to be 45 spaces (13 spaces greater than the total available on-site parking of 32 spaces), the following mitigation measure is recommended: The project should reserve 5 of the parking spaces as time-limited parking. These spaces should be located closest to the coffee shop and should be posted wIth the following Information: "15 Minute Parking Limit, Towing Enforced." Signs shall include City of Dublin Municipal Code citation that allows towing of illegally parked vehicles. These 5 spaces with time limit restrictions would be able to safely accommodate 20 vehicles per hour. In addition to the measures described below, the 5 time-limited spaces combined with the remaining 27 regular parking spaces would effectively manage the shared parking demands of the shopping center. Off-site Parklno: When the construction of the new shopping center is completed, there will be 10 curbside parking spaces along the Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard frontages of the proposed coffee shop. No contractual agreement Is necessary to make these spaces aváHable e to visitors of the coffee shop for the life of the project. These spaces will be free to the public as they are not metered, and they will be within 50 feet of the coffee shop. By the most conservative estimation, 50% of the on-street parking spaces would be available to visitors to the Enea shopping center at all times. Therefore, this study recommends that 5 off-site, curbside parking spaces would satisfy the requirements of Section 8.76.0S0.C of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance for supplementing on-site parking. Transit. Pedestrians, and Bicvcles: The proposed project is within 1,000 feet of approximately 215 homes In the adjacent neighborhoods. This distance would require a 10 to 20 minute walk along public sidewalks through residential neighborhoods to travel to the proposed coffee shop. Several bus lines serve the site. Dublin Wheels Regional Bus Service Routes 3 and 3E provide service every 30 minutes from BART, schools, and the surrounding neighborhoods to the project area and back, from 5;44 a.m. to 8:42 p.m. Wheels Route 10 provides service every 30 minutes to Dublin Boulevard and Viliage Parkway (approximately '!4 mile) from BART and Stoneridge Mall, from 5 a.m. - 10:30 p.m. ' . Page 6 · · · '11 Starbucks 7197 Village Parkway PA 04-057 Alameda County Connection Bus Service, Route 121, provides service every 25 to 45 minutes from BART to the project area and from Contra Costa County and Alcosta Boulevard to the project area from 5 a.m. to 9;50 p.m. Lastly, the new shopping center will provide bicycle racks for a total of 10 bikes. Two Class 2 bike paths run along Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard. This study recommends that the coffee shop tenant provide information on the availability of travel options to visitors and employees on an on-going basis. BART and the Wheels and Alameda County Connection bus services, as well as the 511 telephone and Internet service (www.511.0J'(l), would be good resources for information and promotional materials. Students One Starbucks business surveyed by City Staff reported a busy period between 3 p.m. and 4:30 p.m. during which time local students frequented the coffee shop. As the subject project would be located near Dublin High School and Wells Middle School, a similar phenomenon is expected to occur. This time period is also a busy time for most retali businesses. Car ownership for students is limited to a minority of students in the upper grades. Dublin High School currently has 1,300 students with 250 parking passes and an unknown number of students who park in the surrounding neighborhoods. If these unknown students totaled as high as 50, then as many as 23% of the high school student population would have access to a car. However, the high school is .6 miles from the site. No parking conflict is expected for the coffee shop and the retail tenants in the period of time after school ends as students would likely walk, bicycle, or carpool together. Outdoor Seatino; The proposed coffee shop would provide 16 outdoor seats at 4 to 5 tables in an area that is approximately 410 square feet. The City of Dublin parking requirement of 1 parking space for every 100 square feet of floor area is the same for both Interior and exterior seating areas. Under this standard, 4 parking spaces would be required for the exterior area. The following provides an analysis of an alternative parking standard of 1 space for every 200 square feet of outdoor floor area. Outdoor seating is usually not available during inclement weather, such as very cold, stormy or hot days. During those times, there would be no additional seating capacity for the proposed use, requiring no additional parking. Inclement weather most frequently occurs in the summer, late fall, and winter, November to March and July to August. Visitors would be most likely to use outdoor seating in the spring and early fall. . Page 7 Starbucks 7197 Village Parkway According to the Dimensions In Parklnc ReDort (Appendix A), these are the times of year when retail uses are operating at 70% - 75% of peak parking demand. Of the 22 parking spaces . available to the retail uses in the shopping center, a minimum of 5 of those spaces would be unneeded and available to the proposed coffee shop. PA 04-057 Î'V' According to Parkinc Standards; PAS ReDort Number 510/511. published by the American Planning Association (Appendix G), the typical minimum parking requirement for outdoor café seating is 1 space for every 200 square feet of area. This study recommends that an alternative parking standard of 1 space for every 200 square feet of outdoor floor area is adequate due to the seasonal nature of outdoor seating to ensure that the parking demand generated by the outdoor seating would not overflow to adjacent properties and cause adverse impacts. The alternative parking requirement would total 2 parking spaces. Wi-FI Internet Access: Starbucks has indicated that It would ilke to offer Wi-Fi Internet access to Its customers. Wi-Fi is wireless Internet access which ailows groups of peopie to connect lap top computers, ceil phones and other electronics to the Internet at the same time without cables. The availability of Internet access could encourage visitors to complete business and school activities at the proposed coffee shop, thus decreasing the rate of parking space turnover in the parking lot and increasing parking demand. The project should reserve 1 additional parking space as tìme·limited parking to off-set the potential increased parking demand associated with Wi-Fl Internet access. This space should be located closest to the coffee shop and should be posted with the following information: "15 Minute Parking Limit. Towing Enforced." Sign shall include City of Dublin Municipal Code citation that allows towing of Illegally parked vehicles. This 1 space with time limit restrictions would be able to safely accommodate 4 vehicles per hour. Time-limited parking spaces for the project would total of 6 spaces, which would be capable of allowing 24 vehicles to park an hour. . Grand Ooenlno; Due to its location at the corner of a prominent Intersection In Dublin and the recognition of the particular coffee shop brand, the grand opening of the project business could create Increased parking demand for the first one to two weeks. After that time, parking is expected to be more typical as visitors become more familiar with the site. The shopping center is adjacent to an undeveloped parcel. Part of this undeveloped parcel will serve as the construction and materials yard during the building of the shopping center. Space would be available after construction is completed to provide unfinished, auxiliary parking during the first two weeks of the grand opening of the Starbucks location. In addition, many of the adjacent retail spaces may not be open for business during the first one to two weeks of Starbuck's grand opening, . making excess parking available. Auxiliary parking would ensure that increased parking Page 8 Starbucks 7197 Village Parkway PA 04-057 :.? e demand during the grand opening would not impact adjacent businesses or traffic along adjacent roadways. This study recommends that the coffee shop be required to provide auxiliary parking and proper sign age for the first two weeks of operation. Conclusion and Recommendations: This study concludes that the proposed project would generate significant visitors to the Village Parkway area due to its prominent location, brand name recognition, and the attractiveness of the new building's design. The shared parking condition of the shopping center and the availability of free, on-street parking would supplement the parking provided on-site during the busiest times of the day. In addition, the proximity of the project site to residential neighborhoods, schoóls, bike paths, and public transportation would allow several transportation options for visitors and employees. Concurrent with the recommendations listed below, this study supports an alternative parking requirement to that of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance that takes into consideration all of these factors. TO summarize the recommendations made in this study, the following measures are recommended to ensure that the project causes no adverse impacts on retail tenants in the shopping center or adjacent property owners: . 1. The project shouid reserve 5 of the parking spaces as time-limited parking. These spaces should be located closest to the coffee shop and should be posted with the following information: "15 Minute Parking Limit. Towing Enforced." Signs shall include City of Dublin Municipal Code citation that allows towing of illegally parked vehicles. These 5 parking spaces with time limit restrictions would be able to safely accommodate 20 vehicles per hour. 2. This study recommends that the coffee shop tenant provide information on the availability of travel options to visitors and employees on an on-going basis. BART and the Wheels and Alameda County Connection bus services, as well as the 511 telephone and Internet service (www.511.oro), would be good resources for information and promotional materials. 3. This study recommends that an alternative parking standard of 1 space for every 200 square feet of outdoor fioor area Is adequate due to the seasonal nature of outdoor seating to ensure that the parking demand generated by the outdoor seating would not overflow to adjacent properties and cause adverse Impacts. The alternative parking requirement would total 2 parking spaces. 4. The project should reserve 1 additional parking space as time-limited parking to off-set the potential increased parking demand associated with WHi Internet access. This space should be located closest to the .coffee shop and should be posted with the following information: "15 Minute Parking Limit. Towing Enforced." Sign shall include City of Dublin Municipal Code citation that allows towing of illegally parked vehicles. This 1 space with . time limit restrictions would be able to safely accommodate an additional 3 vehicles per Page 9 PA 04-057 '7~ Starbucks 7197 Village Parkway hour. Time-limited parking spaces for the project would total of 6 spaces, which would be capable of allowing 24 vehicles to park an hour. . 5. This study recommends that the coffee shop be required to provide auxiliary parking and proper signage for the first two weeks of operation due to increased traffic caused by the business' grand opening. Table 3, as follows, summarizes the alternative parking standard and the recommended mitigation measures. Table 3., Proposed Alternative Parking Standard Use Area Zoning Table 2 Mitigation Proposed Parking (sq.ft.) Ordiriance Maximum Measures Required Provided - Required Demand Parking (spaces) Parking (spaces) (spaces) (spaceš) Coffee 1,886 19 8 6 time-limited 13 8 on-site Shoo parking spaces 5 off-site Outdoor (410) 4 (24 vehicles) 2 2 on-site Seating · 2 regular spaces · 5 off-site spaces · alternative parking standard of 2 spaces Total Measures: 15 soaces would manaae max, demand of 33 vehicles oer hour Retail 6,642 22 17 No Mitigation 22 22 on-site Measures - 22 regular spaces Total 8,528 45 45 37 37 - lin Traffic Engineer Page 10 . . - . . :/2003 12:08 9259352247 OMNIMEANSNICKELSON PAbE ø~ 15" Third Edition ',:" ~. ',;' r.. i ..-;, J, ., .:.... OF ~ _ -,'." --" t..m ~- ~~.... ~ . -. " .. ~~!!J!!!!IP ....~~. --- ~.-=..j¡,;,¿~' / ..~~- ---.,;,' -= ,-<;~: . ,;\..,~ . ". __:~~" o , ~.._~ . _'...........'"7'.~_.....'_w_~..,........·_.. ,-....,.-~...~--"..-. .... ULI-the Urban Land InStitute NPA-the National Parking Assodation .. Appendix A JUL-02-2003 12:11PM TEL)9259352247 ID)CITY OF DUBLIN PAGE:002 R=100~ ......., ~--- Îb .. About utI-the Urban l.a1:1d 1Dst1tute ~. uu-the Urban Land lnStJ.tWe 16 a nonprofit educatlon and research Institute that Is supported and directed by Its members. Its tnlsslPn IS to provide t'l!sponslble leadeTShip In the use of \a!:Id In order to enhance the total envlIOllIllent, UU spomors eduœtiOlliI1 prqgrems and forums to enrourage an open inœmatieJP81 exchange of ideas and s~g of ex.pe¡ie!lce; Initiates research that antlctpa.tes emerging \and use trends snd Issues and proposes creative solutioDS based on this research; , provides advisory aemœs; and pubJUhes a wide vari- ety of ¡naterla1s to M..~re !11format1Oß oI11and use a!ld development. ESlab11shed In 1936, the Institute todAy has some 13,000 nl.l,mbers and aIISoCllrtes from. 40 cDU1l.trles representing the entire spectr\Il'll of the land use and development disciplines. They Include developers, builders, prope~ owners, Investors, architects. public omdals, platmers, real eSUlte brokers, appraisers. attor- neys, engineeIS. £tnande11>, acadetnlCS, stUdents, and ' Jibra¡IanS. UIJ members con1rlbUte to higher stantùn'ds orland use by sbanng their knowledge and ~ The InStitute has long been recognized all one of .AmertOl'S most respected and widely quoted sources or objective infounalion on urban planning. growth. and developme!l1. Richard M. Rosan J'.: œc:utlVl: Vice President Editorial and Production Staff stAjJv/ce ~ldent. P1JblIc(lt/tmS Frank H. Spink, Jr. SJ;tjJ Vice Pmjdmtfor RMearr:h J.ThoD1asBlacl< PrOjed Codirt!¡;tor$ ThoJPaS J. D'Arcy RobetT. T. Dunphy Managing EdiJor Nancy H. Stewart Copy Editor Ann Lenney Book D~yout HYR Graphics Helene Y. Redmond Word PrrJcessing Joanne Nanez ü JUL-Ø2-2003 12:11PM TEL)9259352247 I About NPA-the Naüonal parking Assodaüon 11>e NaIionBl Patking Assoc:iatlOO, founded in 1951, Is the trade association of Amerlœ'ø parking industrY. with more tb<m 1,000 memberS frorit aaoss the United StateS and lI1Qund the world. Membera Include private comme1'da1 pæk!ng operators; suppUers of equipment .at services used in the Indumy:parklng admlnistra- . toES for hDspitaJØ, colleges, universities. mWJicipaiitleS, aIrportS, and public aUthortties; engineeœ and archi- tects; and developers. The Parking conøultants COun- cillS a spedal professio11a\ group within NPA, cmnpoøed pnmatUy of engineers and architects, who produœ a wide range of technical publications on the design, constfUC!iOIl, and layout of parking facilities. as well as JeC()tIIDII!ßde guidelines for øntng ordinances. use of handicap øpac:es. and other issUeS of Imp<;l11allCe W traffic englnee¡'s, state and municipal officials, and parking profelllliona!s. NPA acts as a clearinghouse for !nfotmatiOn a1>ouuhe parldng industrY. sponsoring an annual international convention and nade exposi- tion, sending legislative updates to mernbers. and publishing II magazine ten tlmeø per year. · Batbata O'Dell Association Manager · :Re<:ormnended bib1Jogoaphic llatinl!: UIHh. timan Land !nStItUt. and NJ'A-the Nati<Jna11'arl<ing As,odatlon. The1JlmtmS/onS of Parking. ThIrd Edition. WllilhJngton. D.C.: IJU-th< Urban Land JnI1ttme. 1993. UU Catalog Nmnber: PS5 Ubcor¡r of Congress Catalog Card NU!I:Iber: 93-61039 )memIIt1Onat SWldard Book Numb"", 0-8742.0-744-4 CopYrtght 993 by W-th< Urban tand Institute 625 ludiana AV1:nUe, N.W. Wasbinglorr. D.C. 20004-2930 p, nted In the United StateS of Aøm1ca. All rtght/; reserved No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any leaN, eleClJOtllc or tr1echanloal. Including photocopying, r.cordJng, or by any Informarlon 01:0"'8< aud terri.val "Y"- telIl. wilhout w<ltten permISsion of the publisher. · ID)CITY OF DUBLIN PRGE'ØØ3 R~1ØØ" J/2EW3 12: 08 9259352247 OMNIMEANSNICKELSON PAGE 0" ." e _.~ 5-5 shared Parking Ratios: Monthly Variation in Peak Parking Demand Ratios-Default Values (Percent of peak Month) Homl RoomI Hote\ Hotel Month om"" RetaJI R<!....urant CInema ø.eoldeRllal weekday Samrday CoRte..,,,,,,, ConV1!!ntian Januaty 100% 65% 50% 90% 100% ~O% 65% 100% 20% Febniary 100 65 75 70 100 90 7U 100 40 Morcl> 100 70 90 50 100 95 SO 100 80 April 100 70 90 70 100 95 85 100 80 May 100 70 95 70 100 95 85 100 100 June 100 75 100 100 100 100 90 lOa 100 July 100 75 100 100 100 100 lOG 100 50 August 100 75 85 70 100 100 100 100 50 Seplember 100 75 80 8(J 100 95 90 100 70 Octob.. 100 75 80 70 100 95 90 100 70 November 100 80 8(J 50 100 85 80 100 40 December 100 100 90 50 100 85 65 100 20 Sa""'t: UU, Shared Parking (1983). - r /1""- fl' ),.-., --::, ?S:.t . ~ ,.. ï' . ,- '-;..;: . 5-6 shared Parking Ratif)l ! . Homly parking Demand Ratios-Defa.ult Values . omoe R....n Re.taurant Spwe. per 1,000 Spat:Ø per 1;000 Space. per 1.000 anema __Sq...... Feet of GLA Squ.... Fe.. of GLA Sq...... Fee. of GLA ~es peT Seat fjout of Day Weekday Satwda, Weekday sa",""'y' satutdaY< Weekday Sa_ay Weekda1 Salul.'dai :':oT;<l-1ZZ ) 6:00a.m. 0.1 7:00 a.m. 0.6 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.5 8;00 a.m. 1.9 0.3 0.7 0.4 0.5 1.0 0.5 9:OG a.m. 2.3 0.4 1.6 1.2 1.5 2.0 1.0 10:00 a.m. 3.0 0.4 2.6 1.,[ 1.8 2.2 4.0 1.5 1 LOO a.m. 3.0 0.5 3.3 :,~- 2.SI 3.7 6.0 2.0 12:00 noon 2.7 0.5 3.7 ~ ( 3.4 4.2 10.0 6.0 0.]0 0.10 ¡;OOp.m. . , 3.8 9.0 0.15 0.20 2.7 0.4 3.8 4' 4.7 14.0 2,00 p.m. 2.9 0.3 3.7 4,[" 4.0 5.0 12.0 9.0 0.15 0.20 3:00 p.m. 2.3 0.2 3.6 4,~ 4.0 5.0 12.0 9.0 0.15 0.20 4:00 p.m. 2.3 0.2 3.3 4, 13.6 46 10.0 9.0 0.15 0.20 5:00 p.rn. 1.4 0.1 3.0 5¡¿ 3.0 3.8 \4.a 12.0 0.15 0.20 S,oop.m. a.7 0.1 3.1 ~ I; 2.6 3.2 18.0 18.0 0.20 025 7;00 p.m. 0.2 0.1 H J ,""1 2.4 3.1 20.0 19.0 0.20 0.25 8:00 p.m. 0.2 ·0.1 3.3 ~,ç 2.2 2.8 20.0 20.0 0.25 0.30 9:00 p.m. 0.] 2.3 /, ". 1.6 2.1 20.0 20.0 0.25 0.30 10.00 p.m. 0.1 1.2 1.5 1.9 J8.0 19.0 0.25 0.30 11;00 p.m. (J.5 0.5 0.5 14.0 l7.(J 0.20 0.25 12.00 midnight 10.0 14.0 0.15 0.20 . Peal< parking rallo 3.0 0.5 3.8.: 4.0 5.0 20.0 20.0 0.25 0.30 Pe",ent .,,10 u'.ge]oo 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Average persons/auto 1.2 1.2 1.8 1.8 1.8 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 i p,;;P;;;;;;';;:,;;;õ;:;g;;e';t"p;;;kingCk';;;;;¡;-;';;¡¡;;;¡"S 5Õ pe"';;;;t·Õf;;;;;;;';;:.w:P;-';~ ;;"diOOp~t~~tõi;;;;i;t~;;;;;';;;;d co;;W;:- lion attendees are nonguesl" Çol/fertnœ and convention demand. Indicated are upper bounds, whIch a'" rarely ach,eved. 2.At one autO per dwe1Hng unit. 34 rhe D/me swns a/Parking JUL-Ø2-2ØØ3 12:12PM TEL! 9259352247 IO)CITY OF DUBLIN PFlGE:004 R~100% "1-( lie agencies or conected by field ~ The data should \ shated7 This information provides a stronl\ foundation be coUected, at a minIttIum. for \he peal< hours, whiCh on which to base pro ect1OU$. _...,..... 00 "'" .... ""'"' ~,-..., A -.. '" """*,, -... ""'..- _,n"~'- ro _ "" .""',..œ.... ,.- eo-" "'" ...' -- -..... b~'''''' ...."", __-.- ,,-...- M ,.-- · ._ro"" ......._ """"'" ._b' ~""",ro "".ct _"" _" th'''' 01. _. "" _. ""U hMdy ro _, "" ,W-~ - "''' '" ,., """""",..-." "",--' """""" useful to understand the parldng demand at si!nilar due to shared parldng. sttn!1atly, a hotel operator In a __ _d-m, "'*ct ...,-' M -.."" "'" ~ An ao;cuTIdC understanding of the proposd. project. served parking for hotel guests. E1ther of these con~ 'to .=" -....... """'"~ · .-. --..-.-. "",.......""". "" roMl, _ "" P"'I""'" _ h' "". ........"""'"' -Þ - J'dUIi" ..""", ~_. .., """","" .Uh'''''''-' "",,-........ ""..--,--, cl""'Ø"_--"U'-'-' . ."'''''''._01_--..... If the site Is cu. rrently used .fOr parking. will such park- \ ¡ncl1.1de par\dnE! ~y$ of developmentS with a s\ml1ar "" '" __~........... __ ro '" """,. _""'''' ,,""" -- -.""",,, ,,0""'" ro- 00 ..., h' "'" -'" ro _ "" ",,""''''.'''" -, -..- '" --' Œ" ...... ,f" """""' _.,,-. wID" '"',,"" - '" "",""'" 00...........- "" ""'... ~\... """ ~'. "'" .... th, ,...., "'"""'" ~ . """," -..-""" "'" """ ro - ,....- - - -~_. - S-6 (continued) . Hotel .---- ew.4Þ.. "rP ~ 'I'Uo.i<len.w !d.........trtJL<>UI'!!. ItOOII" ' -' Spa"". per pweD!nll; Unit" - Gueot~ Sp"- per 1.000 space. t'er 1,000 No.,.cJID aID spoceo per - Sauart Feet of GLA per_I ~- HDur of Day Weekday siiturdaŸ Dally weeJuiay SaturdaY W...kda'y s"furd¡ay J)øI1y 0l1li)- 6:00..·m. I,:. 1.00 ¡.;. 100 1.00 J.OO 0.90 2,0 2.0 . 7:00....1\· i'~/ 0.87 ! ¿' 0.95 0.95 0.8~ . 0.70 2.0 2.0 YI ~' 8:00 ".111· ¡ . 0.79 I,·," 0.88 0.90 ' .' ~ 0.55 ,1'~ 0.50 2.0 2.0 0.2 JO 9:00..·111· 0.7! 1'( :'O.SI 0.87 IG~ 0.5S ,0" 0.50 2.0 2.0 0.5 30 10:00 un. I';" ~;.. 0.58 ;'". 0.74 0.85 <:.;. 0,45 i~ ~' 0.40 2.0 2.0 0.5 30 )1·.00.·...· , q:t 0.59 ,,~ÎO,71 0.8~ 1,0"· 0.35 ýî, 0.35 3.0 3.0 0.5 30 .. . 12:00 nOon C.~·: 0.60 i.:~ 0.7J 0.S5 . 0.30 o' 0.30 5.0 3.0 0.5 50 I'"' I:': 1:00 p..... C,~ ~l 0.59 1.:-<;'0.70 0.85 ¡ ~.'" 0.30 ."-c: 0.30 7.0 4.5 0.5 30 2:00 p.m. ". .j." 0.60 ,·,......"'"70.71 0.85 . 0.35 t ~ 0.35 6.0 4.5 0.5 30 . . 3:00 p.m. (P .tJ'- 0.6) I ~.0.75 0.85 ,i:.0.35 ,". . 0.40 5.5 4.5 0.5 50 4:00 p.m. I' "4 0.66 I" 0.75 0_87 _. 0.45 0.50 5.0 4.~ 0.5 30 " , 5:00 p.m. ..~ 0.77 ¡,'.' 10.81 0.90 -. 0.60. .,',' 0.60 7.0 6.0 0.5 30 6:00 p.m. ¡,':.g 0.85 I. :'. 0.S5 0.92 , "- 0.70 I?: 0.10 9.0 9.0 0.5 30 7:00 p.m. ¡ .4·1 0.94 1.-,10.87 0.94 .. 0.75 /' " 0.80 10.0 9.5 0.5 30 8:00 p.m. ¡,ti.' 0.96 I; '0.92 0.96 .:,0.90 I :;1:' 0 90 10.0 10_0 0.5 30 I .. i.·~~O.95 . " 9:00 p.m. " 0.9S 0.98 ,. . 0.95 I. '~0.95 10.0 10.0 0.5 30 JO:OO p.m. ¡,j/¡ 0.99 1,#0.95 0.99 ¡.; 1.00 .- ).00 9.0 9.5 0.2 JO 11:00 p.m. 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 7.0 8.5 12 ,00 midnigh\ 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 5.0 7.0 Peal< parJdIlg r..tlo \. S 1.0 .,- 1.0 J.O I.:. 1.0 1,'- 1.0 10.0 JO.O 0_5 30 1.-0 percent aUtO usagc n.. na no. 80 ao 100 100 100 ¡oo ¡\V'<'r..ge penons¡.utO no. n.. n.. 1,4 . 1.4 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 'F(;Ï;;'~¡oó"ÕOO ~~a;"í;;~i.A· ....,...--:.... ..w~"..·.......... _.......-..----'~ 'For rnDre than 600 ,000 'quare feat Dr GU,. so"rc<:UU. Shared p"rkirlg (1983). p"Tking V.-nd 35 pAGE.Ø05 R'-' JUL-02-eøØ3 12'i3PM TEU925935224? ID)CITY OF DUBLIN e e .... <:> <:> M I() .. ... .Q e ~ z . ;.-. .. '= ;t '= ß ... " ~ .e .... = <> U ;.-, .. ¡:; = /J] on .. on on .. .~ ã = .. ¡:.:¡ z ... - .Q .. .. .. Q, e .. u = .. :a Qfj ¡:¡ ~ Q, ." Q, '= ~ ~ r.: = <> i:Q .¡ .. ¡:>., g S -"'" ......0 I~ .... g I 8 "'" oS", '" Q,...... 0"'1 ¡::¡::g I 1 00 ~~r.;¡ f .~ p § CD = 'p '" >t.1 ~ ~ o U ~ :>-. "'" o ~ "' "' "' .... g S 8 ...... Q, Q, ......"'''' I 1 , g§.§. r- '" '" ..=..=§ E-<E-</J] I I V; ~~ii; bO = ~ .~ P '"d ¡;¡ CD .,9 '" ¡¡¡ ~ Q) ~ o U 1 " o ~ .8 :g p o '" '" .... g o ...... I § §. 0'" "', -<:; 8 ¡::~ Ir.;¡ ~iì:; i 8 § CD .9 ~ '" >t.1 u ... ~ "" o U ~ ;.- Q) - '" o ~ .E :g p .... o '" r- é .; M ... <> ... é ¡:;, "" >< Ii ¡:;, <:>I:> <> ... Ii ¡:;, r- >< r- E . e E! =. "'" I '¡ >< Ii ¡:;, I '¡ E , e ¡:;, <'\ >< ... ,. ..' ~ ..... . Q, M .. ... .. .. .. .. ...' . .... Ii . .; , <:> ., .. ... >< >< . Ii .; <:> ... <> ... e ,¡ '" >< ~ ~ ¡¡ E-< - ~ 'EJ ~ ~ /J] '= = .. e ... = OJ) = ;¡¡¡ .. .. =- ;.-, .. ] !:J ?; . µ .. :a 5 Q, ~ Ii .; M ... .. ... Ii ¡:i. <:>I:> >< "" .. ... . . e ! =. "'" .... >< r- .. ... . . e E! ¡:;, Q, I '¡ >< Ii ¡:;, I '¡ E ~ Q, <'\ ... å ¡:;, ~ Î"t >< . .. . E '"d ~ ~ Š><~ ... = OJ) e .S ,¡ ~ <:> .. ..... =- E ] Ii ~ ~ ~ = .. .~ '"d = Q) Q, Q, < >< !1 § J2 g uE-< =- ß~ ""p:: ..,. .., .. - :ä .. e <S:- l~ î î î î ¡ ;; ~~~;;.[ ~= NO~C"4u.J ~~~ ~N~~i.r¡ -= fG I Qi\I '--' '--" ......... -- ~ ........ ¡¡: '" '" '" Ii ,~~ ¡:; '" q ": ~ ¡:: ¡¡:: ... '=' '" '" '" '" ...... , OJ ... [; =n ~ ~,; o .. ë =- OJ .S' ~'a = 'is 1:1" c;> ,"," N NC=: .. OJ ~ = ~ .., = :a .. =- .Þ .. = '"' = '" :a ... ~ f;o1 OJ r4 5 ~ ¡::; .~ =n ~ = §¡ '::! ::>. .. ::>. .. -( ii5 =n = ;&! .. "'0 =- = := = :! e ~~ '" '" '" ~ rr'I t'f"¡ '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" "1 t- 'S - . s oJ \0 s oJ 00 s oJ C\ s oJ t- 'S N s oJ o .- "2 ~ '" '" 6 oJ - - i! '" 1:1 t': '" ~ c:>. N - ~ ~ 00 '" ~ p. - ~ ~ t- '" s ¿ N ~ ~ 'S '" s ¿ '" ~'i g g 6r go ~~ ~ fB ¡q '" 1:1 '" '" "'1 '" '" '" "'1 '" o - '" '" ~ p. ..,¡. ~ 5 p. ¿ v; 'C> i! '" = '" '" ~ P. t- 1ì;'~~ " g g g 0.. c:>. c:>. '" '" '" ..,¡. C\ t- .- ...... '-' '-' '-" ~ '" C;;; - '" ..... N '" '" '" ~ t"i ("fl 1"1'1 1:1. '" '" '" M M C""! f"ì N ~ ~ q p. 00 S· E3 ¿ ci. 0 C\ ...... '" "'i N 8 ci. - - w · ~ g 0.. '" N N '-"' "'1 "" · '" '" '" 8 ¿ N ...... · e := S '" .. .. $~ '""' '"' ~ '""' '""' '"' '""' '""' 101)$ "' "' "' '""' OJ ,", '""' " " " " OJ '""' '""' '"' '""' " " OJ ~ t 101 101 101 101 101 13 "' " 13 101 101 101 u " 101 101 u .. 01 "'" ~ ~ ~ "'" '" 101 101 ¡¡¡. ~ ~ '" .. := "' "' ~ "'" ¡¡¡. ¡¡¡. '= ¡:... =' N N '" "'I' '" ~ ¡¡¡. "' N N 0> ~ "' N N ~ - - "" '" 00 - - - N "' '-' ~ '-' '-' '-' N .,., ~ "' . '" '-' '-' ~ '-' '-' '-' '-' ~ ~ U ("IÌ "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" '" >'i "'t ~"" <1 0') - .,., "" ~ '" '" '" ~ M "" "" - " 00 00 "" . is: ¡;.¡"'"''''' "" N N - "<f: ì:¡ ì:¡ " "" r- 0') - - - N ("") , ~ := 101) .. .8 ~lJ 'E .. 5 0 .. e ¡:... '" 101) 101).. .! ! ,- . = := := "" M ("") "" "" "" "" M "" "" "" ("") ("") "" "" " ~~ "" M '" '" '" '" ~ ~ ~ '" .. "" "" "" '" "" ("") "" '" N '" "" "" "" "" "" ì:¡ 1; '" "" "" '" ("") "" "" "" I:; '= := ~ 101) "'" := := :;;¡ :;;¡ .. .. 01 ~'= ¡:... := .Q := .. .. s e := " " - "<f: N 00 0> "<f: 00 ~ '" '" '" '" "<f: N '" or¡ " ~= , '" '" - - N "" "" "'I' "'I' '" '" N N N - - .,., , tri '" "' ~ " ¡;.¡ ë ¡¡ .~ >'i ... :a 101) . := := S S S ~ ~ ~ .~ S 15 ~ ~ s ~ ~ '" t: S S S S S S "'" 0; 0; ó.. "'" "'" "'" =- .. 0; d d d ó.. ó.. Ii "'" "'" Ii Ii "'" "'" .. '" - N 0 - N -< rn '" r- oo a, - - - - N ("") "'I' .,., '" r- oo 0> - - - ~ C[Jck~!!~J(,}_~¡¡ge c::umm~l1iit~e1' e j.,'1.1t!st parking. Guest parking shall be marked and, where p05sîb]e, 5hal1 b~ dÜ'"per!;lt;!d thro~ghou.t tne developm~nt. Twenty~fiv(' pcr¡::('t1t of the requirod guest parking may be compact spaces. (Concord, Ca- li(., pcp. 121,780) · 2covF!red parkingspaŒ~ for each dwel1ingl,mit, p]UI; 1 um;overed parking spact: for ~ùth dwellíng unit (San FemQtldo, Cal~r., pop, 23,564) · 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit. Ten percent of the required. parking or 4 spaces, whichever is greater, shall be available for guest parking. Available on- street parki:ng within 300 .feet of t.'he lot accommoda.t- ing the UAe m¡:¡y bt! used to accummodate gue!Ot parking, (51. Louis Park, Minn" pop, 44,125) · 2.25 parking spaces provh.ied for each dwelling unit either on the individually owned lot(s) or on com- mon property. Tand!::!m parking j~ permitted ¡mly On ìndividui.tllots and in the drivewaysco.tì.r'Lccting such lots with the adjacent roads provided said driveways are for the exch¡sjve use of each indj.viduallot; how- ~v~r, tandl?ITl parking ghùll be limited to no more than 1 such tandem pilrking space fOr e.ð.c:h irtdi~ vidual lot. Inr:Hvjduq gf.lJ'ag~!5 shall110t be çr~djted towardli the parking r~quír~I'Iu~r'Lt. (Dude Co¡mty, Fla./ pop. 2.253.362! cucktailloünge (see bu '; night dub) e cúffe\! !lhop (see also calli outdoojl seating area; tea, room) · Park:i.ngeqUf~.l to ?lOperœntQfthE;'.C'sp.;¡cityofperson.5 (Furibault. Mint1.¡ pop. 20.818; Minneapolis, Minn., pop. 382,618! · 1 per each ()6 squarl:: f~!::!t of 1iE:!<ltìng: fl¡)Or i:lrea, plu!> 1 fot ~i:J.Lh 440 square feet of fionrseating floor area (Eugene, Ore., pop. 137r89J) · ) per 100 !:!gu8re feet of gr~ !5¡:; bui]din~ area (Kern Cmmty, Cal~f.1 pop. 661,645) Mil1irrî.utr/: 1 space for each 200 square feet of gross flocr area MQ.J;:imwn: j ¡;¡pac€: for each 100 Aquar~ ff::!et of ~TO! S fluOr ilrei.\. (for both ,,1.f11it/1.tIt/'l and tMximum. standards; Outf;ídc:: dinÍng arm .~ll/¡j€ct to sarm~ reqldrements us indooi' dildrlg) (Jefferson County, Ky" POt,. 693,604) (-Ag,\ \,!,¥\.:"'" Bicycle Parki:ng Standard; long-term: 2, or 1 per. 50 ~T1lploye~5; ¡;;hort-tE!rm: 4:, or 1 pel:" ,~O seat!; (JeffttS01! C¡)¡mty, Ky.¡ pop. 6931604) . coluTTlbarium (!;iee a1:-;0 cemetery; crematorium; mUltsoleum) · 1 per4 s.cats or; 1 per 75 square feet of seating area H no fixed seats mnhrzert Pi1rk, Ca¡~f., pap. 42).36) · Parking i.u~a e-qual to ground floor' area (Spa1'trmtJj./ ·g, S.c., pop. 39PJ) · :2 parking Sp03C€S p~r qçn:'., ph;!;; 1 for €a('h employee (5cm Mateo, Calif, pop. 92.482) 72 ç(]mmerdaJ recreation (see recreation facility, comm~rciul) commercial use, unless otherwise specified. (see also retaillt:ie, tlnleS5 ether-wise Spf!c~r'i(!d) · 1 !;IppC~ per SOD ~qua.rc fuet of floor area (f)¡.¡m'un'IJillf:, Tex., pop. 36.081) · 1 parking space pel' 250 sq\¡are f¡;>et of floor ~trf2<J. (Miami COlmty, Kan5., P01J. 28,.351) · 1 space for each 200 square f~et of gross floor area or fraction thereof; minimum M 2 ~p8.C'es required (BetÛ1rook, Tf,:;x.., pop. 20,208) · 1 per 300 sguçue fei:;!t of flour are<l (Champlin, Mil1ì1., pop. 22,193) ~, Bkyde Parking Standard: 1 per 1 0 auto spaces l~l:,,;} (Madison. Wi".. PW 208.054) comInunh:ation services f,¡¡,cility (se>e also radio, recording and ttÛed~iDtI studio; telegraph offlçe; telryhone e;r.çhQtIge building; television. studio) · 1 per 500 !:iquar~kct (He11dersot " Nev., 175,381; Omaha, N"bf" pop. 39U.OU7) · 1 space per 400 square feet (Culort!:c!o SprilJg~, Colo., p"p, 360.890) · 1 pE:!r 300 square feet of floor !'Irea (Ch.arlest,oJ! County, S.C.. pop. 309,96:1) · 4 parking spaces per 1,000 square f!::!et of floor area (St. CMTles, m., PI)1:!. 27,896) · 5.5 spaces p!::!r 1/000 sqLk"l.re feet o{ gross floor arca (r.llisville¡ Mo., pop. 9,104) comntLinity center · 1 "pace pcr 250 square feet of gross floor area, or 1 . space per4patrons to the maximum capacity, which- i:':v~t is greater (Coconino County, Ariz" pop. 116,320; Lycottling County, P~., pop. 120,044, which uses the term 'lcomrn.u"Úty and. l'ecr~¡:¡ti(J71 center") · 1 space Íl)r each 100 sqUo."I.re feet of gross floor space (Brunswick COtltl,ty, N.C., pop. 73,143) · 1 !iip¡:¡ce per 200 !:iquare feet floor area gross (irl.cluding sl] above ¡.;rou:nd and below ground floors) ofbulld- ¡ng (Rnl"gh. N.c., pop. 276,V~3) · 1 for each 10 seats of occupancy capacity for the first 1,000 scats, plus I for each :W seats above the first lO,úOO; provided that, where such seats are not fixed, each 7 square feet usable for 5l;!stjng: shall be consid- ered 1 seat (Washingtor¡, D.C., pop. 571,059) · 1 ~pac~ for cach 5 seats, 01' 11. spaces pef 1,000 square feet of i:l.ss~m.bly areas where there are no lixed seats (W",t Hollywood. Calif" pop. 35,716) · 1 SpBçli!'pel" 32 ~quare f~et of assembly floor ùrE:!i:J, plus 1 space per 300 !>quare feet of office per adn1Ínístra· five ~p<lce (Bato11 Rouge, La., pop, 227,8HJ) · 4 parking ¡;;pace¡; for evcry 1,000 square f~et of gro~s floor area (DeKalb Cou,/"j.ty, Ill., pop, 88,969) ~6 04 09:02m St Michme1 Inv ~Enee P~cp 1/15/2004 ION 17:20 FAX (525)314-1475 ~002/002 ~ Eital'bu(lu (iO'tiéø Cam¡;¡¡..,,'Y 4'5~ N!)rth þQirn S4UI Frilf\~i~co:-.. CA 941 3~ .Q.i6J2Q~.025f1 F,,~ 415/861:)-06$1 Novemb~ 15, 2004 RobertS. EIWa Enea Propcnics Company, LLC t90 H= Avenue, Suite 26() DanviJ]e, CA 94526 RE: Starbuc:ks, Amador v..n~" & VllIaec Parkway, Dublin Dear Mr. Ene.., Till.; tetl""' is to confinn \hat our peak hours of operation are from 6'00 am to 9:00 am Monday through Friday. Fifty percènt of OUr busineS$ o"our!; before 11,00 am. Ton parking spaces throughoUt ·the remaining part of the day are sufficient to support our expected businss" at this location. Respectfully, þ~ Bill Rob1ll'ds Vice President Stcre Devt\!opnle,nt Starbuck< Coffue Company Appendix H 1lj¡812004 TilE os: 00 [TX/RX NO 5023] IiìI 002 p..2 · · · ~f;' e October 11, 2002 Mr. David Watkins Director, Community Development Department City of South Pasadena 1414 Mission Street South Pasadena, CA 91030 Subject: Traffic Analysis Related to the 1318 Huntington Drive Proposed Development Dear Mr. Watkins: . Katz, Okitsu & Associates has reviewed the traffic-related effects of changes proposed by the City and the Applicant for a development proposed for the subject site, in comparison with the previously conducted traffic analysis. The previous analysis was presented in a document Technical Analysis Related to the 1318 Huntington Drive Proposed Development dated June 5, 2002, revised June 20, 2002, prepared by Aztec Engineering. This letter presents our findings regarding the revisions to the development proposed for the site. Background and Purpose A development project was previously proposed for 1318 Huntington Drive in the City of South Pasadena. The applicant had a traffic study prepared for this site by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers dated September 18, 2001. Several questions were raised regarding that study. The City staff requested Aztec Engineering to review that document and to do further analysis. This effort culminated in Technical Analysis Related to the 1318 Huntington Drive Proposed Development dated June 5. 2002 and revised June 20, 2002. By letter dated June 21, 2002, Katz, Okitsu & Associates concurred with the analysis and results found in the Technical Analysis prepared by Aztec Engineering. The project was subsequent1y denied by the City of South Pasadena. . The Applicant and the City havc now formulated revisions to the site plan for the site. Among other features, the revised site plan provides for a permanently covered arcade feature to the building along the entire Fremont and Huntington facades. This site plan also increases the square footage of the project from 6641 square feet to 7038 square feet. The square footage inercase is generally devoted to expansion of the proposed retail space. The retail space has increased from 3,001 square feet (sf) to 3719 sf. The coffee shop has decreased from 1600 sf to 1500 sf and the restaurant decreased from 2043 sf to 1819 sf. This report documents the traffic analysis of the revised development project. Prepared for City of South Pasadena TechnicalAnalysis Related to the '3'8 Huntington Drioe Proposed Development October 2002 Katz Okit'u &A.ssociates Appendix I ~ · Technical Analysis Katz, Okitsu & Associates worked with Aztec Engineering in the development of trip generation rates appropriate for the various components of the prior project. The trip generation rates for the current project are consistent with the rates used for the previous project. Katz, Okitsu & Associates carefully reviewed the revised development proposal in comparison with the distribution of the project trips, including "Pas.s by" trips, as prepared by Aztec Engineering for the previous site proposal. The expected trip distribution for the revised project is generally consistent with the trip distribution that was used for the previous project. Table 1 shows the trip generation rates used for this study. The rates indicated for all of the components are the same as the rates used in the Aztec Engineering study. Table 1 . Trip Generation Rates Peak Hour Trip Rates Land Use (per 1000 SF) Daily AM PM · Retail" 42.92 Starbucks"" 524.8 Fast Food Restaurant NI N"" "Based upon Shopping Center (Land Use 820) ""Starbucks trip generation based on study by AZTEC Engineering """Daily trip rate for this Land Use is not reliabie per ITE Trip Generation Report 1.03 87.94 3.74 52.48 26.15 The applicant believes that according to the technical analysis by Aztec Engineering, a reduction from these values may be appropriate based upon walk in traffic and trips that . might be made between the indicated uses that do not leave the site. This type of adjustment is frequently made for large projects that include a mixture of diverse uSC$, but it is not normally applied to single buildings in a project of this small size. We do not believe that a reduction from measured or referenced trip generation rates is proper for this project based upon its size, characteristics. Table 2 shows the trips expected from the project. The previous study estimated 126 project trips in the AM peak Hour and 126 project trips in the PM peak hour. This study estimates that there will now be 135 project trips in the AM peak hour and )52 project trips in the PM peak hour · Preparedfor City of South Pasadena 2 Technical Analysis Related to the ISI8 Huntington Drive Proposed Development October 2002 Katz Okitsu & Associates '61 · Table 2 - Project Trip Generation AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Volumes Volumes Daily Land Use Size Units Trips In Out Total In Out Total Retail 3719 Gross Sq Ft 160 2 2 4 7 7 14 50% "Pass By" 1 1 3 4 New 1 1 4 3 Starbucks 1500 Gross Sq Ft 787 66 66 132 40 39 79 50% "Pass By" 33 33 20 19 New 33 33 20 20 Fast Food Restaurant 1819 Gross Sq Fj N/A 0 0 0 24 24 47 50% "Pass By" 0 0 12 12 New 0 0 12 11 Total 7038 68 68 136 71 69 140 Pass by 34 34 3S 35 New 34 34 36 34 · 'Trip Distribution The Aztec report established a trip distribution for the project site and development. The distribution indicated in the Aztec report is generally considered to be reasonable and proper for the development. This distribution presumed that 21% of the new trips would arrive and depart to/from the north, desiring to use Fremont Street. The distribution also presumed that 27% of the pass-by trips would be traveling along northbound Fremont Street and would be attracted into the site. · The Aztec study suggested that all of the trips departing the site to go northbound on Fremont would be likely to utilize Ramona Avenue. Katz, Okitsu & Associates concurs that Ramona Avenue will likely be an appropriate route for trips in this direction. However, in a review of the existing roadway system, we believe that a sizable proportion of the northerly trips will continue west on Pine Street to Meridian Avenue. Ramona is the most logical route back to Fremont Strect and points generally north; howevcr Meridian Avcnue is more convenient for continuing north to Monterey Street, Mission Street, and destinations to the northwest of the project area. We have thus assumed that 30% ofthe northerly traffie will use Meridian Avenue, while the remaining 70% will use Ramona Avenue. However, to bc comprehensive, we are also providing an analysis that presumes heavier use of Ramona Avenue. Preparedfor City of South Posadena 3 Technical Analysis Related to the 1318 Huntington Drive Proposed Development October 2002 Katz Okitsu & Associates $6 Figure 1 shows the project related trips using the suggested trip distribution pattern to Ramona Avenue and Meridian Avenue. Figure 2 shows the project related trips within the vicinity of the project using the trip distribution pattern in the previous studies including heavier use of Ramona Avenue and no use on Meridian Avenue. · Intersection Impact Assessment Katz, Okitsu & Associates recalculated project related traffic level of service and impacts for the nearby intersection of Fremont Avenue and Huntington Drive. Table 3 indicates the result of this calculation. The table indicates that the intersection Level of Service is below acceptable limits in the PM peak hour, however the project will not bave a significant impact at the intersection in the AM or PM peak hour. As a result, no intersection impacts are expected for this intersection. Table 3 - Project Impacts Future Without the Future With the Project Significan Proposed Project Proposed Project Increase · t Intersection leu LOS ICU LOS leu Huntington and Fremont AM 0.857 D 0.872 D 0.015 No PM 1.154 F 1.1 56 F 0.002 No Note: leu is Intersection Capacity Utilization. LOS is Level of Service. · Prepared for City of South Pasadena 4 TechnicalAnalysis Related to the '3'8 Huntington Drive Proposed Development October 2(102 Katz Okit"" & Associates ~ e Neighborhood Traffic Impact Assessment There was a concern expressed during the public hearings for the previous project about traffic increases on Ramona Avenue. A traffic count of 2,008 vehicles per day (vpd) was taken on May 28, 2002 and used as a basis for analyses and conclusions. A previous traffic count taken by the City of South Pasadena showed a volume of 1,555 vpd. This is a substantial variation, and a close inspection of both counts was unable to determine wbether there were unusual conditions during either of the two counts, or whether one of the counts was more accurate than the other. Katz, Okitsu & Associates has reviewed this inconsistency and arranged to conduct an additional traffic count on Ramona Avenue on September 23-24, 2002. This latest traffic count was carefully analyzed and was found to accurately reflect traffic conditions, including a general trend of higher traffic levels northbound than southbound, visible spikes in traffic related to the nearby high schoo!, and a pattern of peak hour through traffic during hours of congestion at Huntington and Fremont. This new count was deemed to validate the 1,555 vehicles- per-day traffic count that was previously obtained for Ramona Avenue. This impact analysis is thus based upon the 1,55s-vehicle count. e Using the project traffic generation, there would be a total of 16 project trips to the north in tbe AM peak hour and 17 trips in the PM peak hour. These volumes are presented on Táble 4. Table 4 - Project Traffic on Ramona Avenue Type Percentage to Total AM AM Trips to Total PM the North the North Pass by Trips -27% 34 9.2 35 PM Trips to the North 9_5 New Trips 21% 34 7.1 35 7.4 Total Project Trips Toward the North * Rounded to the nearest whole number 16* 17* Traffic destined to the north from the site has two attractive alternative routes through the neighborhoods. One option for traffic is to use Ramona Avenue while another option is via Meridian Avenue. Ramona is the most direct route back to Fremont Street or over to Fair Oaks. Meridian Avenue provides a more direct route to downtown South Pasadcna and arcas to the northwest. Katz, Okitsu & Associates estimates that the split between the two routes is as follows: 70% of the project traffic to the north would use Ramona Avenue, and 30% would use Meridian Avenue. e Another option is for 100% of the northbound traffic to use Ramona Avenue. 'This is the assumption that was used in previous studies for this site and issue. We believe that the Preparedfor Cir.v of South Pasadena 7 TechnicalAnalysis Related to the 1318 Huntington Drive Proposed Development October 2002 Katz Okitsu & Associate, t7t> 70%/30% assumption is more realistic, however the evaluation of potential impact is closely related to this assumption. Both results are presented for consideration. · If 70% of the project traffic to the north uses Ramona Avenue and 30% uses Meridian Avenue, the project would add 12. hourly trips to Ramona Avenue and 5 trips to Meridian Avenue during the PM peak. Using the alternate distribution, all 17 pm peak trips will use Ramona Avenue. It is customary to estimate daily traffic at 10 times the peak hour for typical urban streets such as Ramona Avenue. Based upon a daily volume of 1555 vehicles, a 12 trip hourly increase corresponds to a daily 120 trip increase. This indicates a 7·7% increase above existing conditions to Ramona Avenue. This increase is less than the Los Angeies City threshold of 10%. We also researched this increase against a different commonly utilized impact threshold used by the City of Portland, Oregon, in its extensive traffic-calming program. If all the northbound project traffic uses Ramona Avenue, the project would add 170 trips per day to the North on Ramona Avenue. This would be an increase of 10.9% above the existing traffic volume. This would constitute a significant increase based upon the standards of ßignificance used by the City of South Pasadena, and mitigation would be suggested. · " It is concluded that the proposed project will result iu traffic increases on area roadways; however, these mayor may not result in a 10% traffic increase that would constitute a significant traffic impact on Ramona Avenue. This finding depends upon the distribution of traffic assumed for neighborhood streets from the site to the north. Our analysis has concluded that the degree of impact from the project at 1318 Huntington Drive is dependent on the amount of traffic to the north that would use Ramona Avenue vs. Meridian Avenue. If 100% of the traffic to the north uses Ramona Avenue, there would be a significant impact that would require mitigation. If 30% of that traffic uses Meridian Avenue, there would not be a significant impact on Ramona Avenue and no mitigation would be required. Katz, Okitsu & Associates believes that it is more likely that 30% of the northbound traffic will use Meridian Avenue. If correct, we do not believe that there will be a significant residential impact. However, if this does not occur, there may be an impact. We believe that it is proper for the City Council to consider this issue and make a finding. If the Council makes the finding that 100% of the traffic to the north will use Ramona, then there is a probable traffic impact and mitigation should be considered. If ilie · Preparedfor Ciry of South Pasadena 8 TechnicalAnalysis Related to the 1318 Huntington Drive Proposed Development October 2002 Katz Okitsu & Associates ,.:¡, · project is found to create an impact, mitigation could be done in a variety of means. Alternatives might include peak hour turn restrictions, traffic calming islands similar to those used on Fletcher Avenue, or modifications to the median on Huntington Drive at Ramona. This type of mitIgation is normally refined based upon input from the affected neighborhood. It is difficult to develop a canseosus mitigation measure as long as the project is being evaluated in conjunction with the mitigation measure. Our final recommendation is as follows; · · The City Council should make a finding to determine the most probable trip distribution between Ramona Avenue and Meridian Avenue. The options are (1) 100% of the northbound project traffic on Ramona Avenue or (2) 70% of the northbound traffic on Ramona Avenue and 30% on Meridian Avenue. Katz, Okitsu & Associates believes that 70% on Ramona Avenue and 30% on Meridian Avenue is more realistic. · If the City Council finds that 100% of the northerly traffic will use Ramona and not Meridian, then a mitigation measurc should be considered. The mitigation measure should be developed to address impacts of increased traffic and related vehicle speeds on Ramona Avenue. · The mitigation program should be funded to adequately provide for at least three traffic islands similar to those on Fletcher Avenue, or to modify the median on Huntington Drive to affect access to Ramona Avenue. · The precise mitigation should be developed in consultation with the affected residents based upon the funding established for the purpose, as approved by the City. Conclusion The project will result in traffic increases on area roadways. We believe that the project will use Ramona Avenue and Meridian Avenue to reach destinations to the north, resulting on traffic increases to these streets. Howevcr, the increases forecast are not significant. The currently proposed version of this project will not result in any signitìcant traffic impacts to nearby arterial intersections, nearby residential streets, or any other locations. · Preparedfor City of South Pasadena 9 Technical Anal.vsis Related to the 1,318 Huntington Drive Proposed Development October 2002 Katz Okitsu & Associates 1'2- If the alternative distribution utilized in previous studies is presumed, then there is a potential impact for Ramona Avenue, and a mitigation measure should be consiqered. It has been a pleasure to provide this review for consideration by City of South Pasadena. Please contact me if you require any additional information, or if you have any questions about the subject study. Sincerely, Rock E. Miller, P.E. Principal J: lcities \SPasadena \JA2792 Huntington Fremont\Reuised Troffic Srudy.doc Preparedjor City of South Pasodena 10 Technical Analysis Related to the 1318 Huntington Drive Proposed Development October 2002 Katz Okitsu & Associates . e . ~ R~NI)} :.rry~R~,~ '1J April 19, 2005 Mr. Ray Kuzbari Senior Traffic Engineer City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Subject: Focused TrafficlParking Analysis for a Proposed Retail/Starbucks Development on Village Parkway in the City of Dublin. Dear Mr. Kuzþari, This letter report summarizes an analysis of the traffic and parking conditions for the proposed Retail/Starbucks Enea Village development at 7197 Village Parkway in the City of Dublin. The analysis involved surveys of traffic and parking conditions and an evaluation of the effects of the project on those conditions. 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The focus of this analysis is thc traffic generation and parking conditions resulting from the 8,539 square foot retail building which would include an 1,886 square foot Starbucks coffee store and 6,653 square feet of retail use. (The overall development would also eventually include a 5,582 square foot office building with separate parking). The project is located on the southeast comer of the Village Parkway/Amador Valley Boulevard intersection (see Figure I). Thc area's land uses are a mix of commercial and residential development, with primarily retail/commercial land uses along Village Parkway and Amador Valley Blvd. west of the intersection. The area east of the project site is residential. 2. EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Traffic flows have been established from A.M. peak period intersection counts conducted at the Village Pkwy.lAmador Valley Blvd. intersection.(l) Based on the volumes, the intersection is operating at leve-Iofservice (LOS) 'A' (v/c ratio 0.58) during the A.M. peak hour. The calculation indicates that the A.M. peak hour traffic conditions are stable with little delays overall. The average number of vehicles queued at each approach during the red (stopped) phase of the signal cycle were noted. The eastbound left/through queues averaged 6-8 vehicles; the westbound left/through queues averaged 6-7 vehicles; the southbound left/through queues averaged 7-8 vehicles; and the northbound lcft/through qucues averaged 3 vehicles. Field observations noted that volumes and vehicle queues at some approaches increase temporarily between 7:45-8:15 a.m. due to school-related trips. (Average eastbound left/through queues of 6-8 vehicles increase to 12-13 vehicles; average southbound left/through queues of 7-8 vehicles increase to 14-15 vehicles.) However, the intersection continues to operate efficiently and the queued vehicles clear the intersection during each signal cycle. -----.-"...., n. .__._______.__ . ,.-......--..-------- 1901 Olympic 8oulevard, Suite 120 . Wolnul Crc,ek. CA 94596 . (n5) 9.35-2230 fax; (925) 935·2247 I<OSEVILLE REDDING VISALlA WALNUT CREEK "r'+ ;, " " " , : .~.... ~ .;' '. ;::~\ " ." .,." ~ Q " " ~ JOHNSON .;t'\l'S c ; ~~ \)1J'ò1)~ FAANKUJ.I DR. '" c ~ - W'I, Project Site Location Map .. North @OUùDlJô",means figure 1 "ç 3. PROJECT TRAFFIC AND PARKING EFFECTS a. Trip Generation and Distribution Surveys identifying the number of vehicle trips were conducted at three existing nearby Starbucks locations by Orrmi-Means Engineers and Planners.(2) These included a 2,425 square foot Starbueks with 51 seats (all interior) located at 7904 Dublin Blvd. (at Regional St.). A 2,046 square foot Starbucks with 21 interior and 34 exterior seats located at 4930 Dublin Blvd. in the Hacienda Crossings Shopping Center. And a 1,560 square foot location with 37 interior seats and 12 exterior seats located at 9150 Alcosta Blvd., San Ramon, in the Country Club Village Shopping Center. The locations were chosen based on their proximity to the project site and as being representativc of the proposed Starbucks use. Starbucks' peak customer demand occurs in the mornings. In order to determine the project's peak hour of trip generation, the number of vehicle trips in and out of cach location were counted from 6:00-10:00 a.m. The peak hourly in/out trips for each location were then averaged, deriving a trip rate of 101 trips per 1,000 sq. ft. of building space. Applying the trip rate to the proposed Starbucks of 1,886 square feet with 30 interior and 16 exterior seats rcsults in 190 total trips, comprised of 95 inbound trips and 95 outbound trips. (For comparison, a trip rate based on the number of seats was also calculated, resulting in 178 total trips. In order to remain conservative, the highcr trip rate based on square footagc, was used for this study.) Of the 190 total peak hour trips, a large percentagc would actually consist of "pass-by" trips. Pass-by trips are not new vehicle trips to the street network, but reflect customers who are already traveling on the street for another purpose (for example. in route to work or school) and stop at the Starbucks. Pass-by trips are accounted for at the project driveways, but since they are already on the street, they do not add cxtra trips to the intersection. In a previous study tor a Starbucks in Orinda, CA conducted by Abrams Associates, the pass-by trip rate was docU!l:1ented to be 70% of the total trips.(3) (The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) has also documented pass-by trip rates. The published pass-by trip rate for a facility this small is closcr to 80%.) Using the lower (more conservative) 70% pass-by rate results in 132 (66 in, 66 out) pass-by trips and 58 (29 in, 29 out) actual new trips created by the Starbucks. Trip generation for the remaining 6,653 square foot retail space was derived from ITE publíshed trip rates for retail centers.(4) The retail space was calculated to generate 31 (19 in, 120ut) total trips. A portion of these would also be pass-by trips. Using ITE data derived for retail space of this size results in 35% of the total trips being pass-by trips. This results in 11 (7 in, 4 out) pass-by trips and 20 (12 in, 8 out) net new trips during the A.M. peak hour. The combined RetaillStarbucks project results in 221 (114 in, 107 out) total A.M. peak hour trips, comprised of 143 (73 in, 70 out) pass-by trips and 78 (41 in, 37 out) net new trips. The trip gencration is summarized in Table 1. Traffic & Parking AnalyÛ, For Retail/Starback.<! Page 3 4Ï~ TABLE 1 A.M. Peak Hour Traffic GenerationJor RetaillStarbucks Proiect 1,886 sq. ft. Starbucks A.M. Trio Rate 101 trips/I ,000 sq. ft.(A) (50% in, 50% outP) A.M. Trips Proiect Component 190 (95 in. 95 out) Total 132 (66 in, 66 out) Pass-By 58 (29 in, 29 out) Net New 6,653 sq. ft. Retail 4.67 trips/I,OOO sq. ft. (B) (61% in, 39% out) 31 (19 in. 12 out) Total II (7 in, 4, out) Pass-By 20 (12 in, 8 out) Net New Combined Rctail/Starbucks Trips(C) = 221 (114 in. 107 out) Total 143 (73 in, 70 out) Pass-By 78 (41 in, 37 out) Net Ncw (A) Omni-Means Engineers & Planners. derived from trip counts at 3 "'ea Starbucks, April +7. 2005. (B) ITE, Trip Generation, 7'" Edition, 2003. (C) Net new trips reflect 70% pass-by for the S\arbueks and 35% pass-by for the retail. The proj ect trips were distributed onto the street network based on several factors. These included the project acccss points, surrounding locations of trip gcnerating sources, and proximity of other Starbucks locations. It is estimated that about 35% of the project's traffic would be to/from the east on Amador Valley Boulevard, 20% to/from the west on Amador Valley Boulevard, 30% to/fTom the north on Village Parkway, and 15% to/from the south on Village Parkway. (Intersection and project driveway volumes are shown in Figure 2.) The distribution also accounted for possible U-turns. Primarily, westbound Amador Valley Blvd. inbOlmd trips would make U-turns at Village Parkway to access the Amador Valley driveway, and outbound Village Parkway driveway vehicles wishing to go south would make U-turns at Amador Valley Boulevard. Exiting vehicles eould also make U- turns from casthound Amador Valley Blvd. to westbound Amador Valley Blvd. at the Village Square Center driveway intersection just east of the project site. b. Intersection Operation With the project trips added to existing volumes, the Village Pkwy./Amador Valley Blvd. intersection would remain at LOS 'A' (v/c = 0.58). (The LOS are listed in Table 2 and calculation worksheets arc attached.) A comparison of the existing vehicle queues to those with the added project traffic indicates that the average southbound, northbound, and westbound left-turn queues would increase by one vehicle, and the average northbound through queue would increase by one vehicle. 'The intersection would Traffic & Parking Analysis For Retail/Starbuck< Page 4 &Ii continue to operate efficiently. The short vehicle queues (average 4 vehicles) for the northbound Village Pkwy. approach to Amador Valley Blvd. would provide adequate clearance for vchicles to exit the Village Prkwy. driveway and access the northbound lef't- turn lane. For vehicles exiting the Amador Valley Blvd. driveway, the eastbound Amador Valley Blvd. approach volumes are low enough (approximately 520 cars) and the signal phasing providcs numerous gaps in the eastbound traffic. These factors would allow adequate gaps for outbound vehicles to access the left-turn Jane pockct at the Village Square Center driveway east of the project site. e. Traffic Conditions With Site Buildout Future buildout of the project site could include development of a 5,582 square foot office building. The intersection operating conditions were also analyzed accounting for trips from thc office. Using-ITE trip ratcs for office buildings, the 5,582 square foot building was calculated to generate 19 (17 in, 2 out) A.M. peak hour trips. (The site buildout project volumes are shown in Figure 2A.) The Village Pkwy.lAmador Valley Blvd. intersection would continue to operate at LOS' A' with the addition of the ofÏïce trips. This level of service indicates the intersection would continue to operate efficiently. TABLE 2 A.M. Peak Hour Level of Service at Villa2e Pkwv.lAmador Vallev Blvd. Intersection Existing Existing Plus Retail & Starbucks Existing PJus Retail, Starbucks. & 0 fficc A 0.58 LOS V /C A 0.58 LOS V/C A 0.58 LOS V /C Traffic & Parking Analysis For Relail/Slarbucks Page 5 ~i ~~~ <00>'<1' ......'<1'00 C') N ...... ~~- 0><0...... t.. 103 (105) NI.OC') +- 438 (426) C')N...... ,J.¡. T 139 (172) AMADOR VALLEY BLVD, (342) 354 ~ ~tr*" [92] T r*" (288) 268-+ 0000<0 r--ooC') ;:r . (78) 78 ""1- ...... £i ~~~ N......r-- NmC') ............~ ~~ PROJECT SITE +- [83] r'" Ñ £i ~ Q. W ~ ..... .? NOT TO SCALE ~ A.M. Peak Hour .. Existing and tExistinp+prOject~ Intersection Volumes, with Projec Volumes at Driveways North @Dí]ùlliJôDmeans figure 2 11 ~~~ -L (105) comm ~-q-<D MN~ +- (426) ~~~ .Jtl. of""" (178) AMADOR VALLEY BLVD. (342) J- ~tr"'" r"'" (292) -+ ~~~ [106] --. MNf'- ~ . (78) --. NmM ~~~ ~~ ~ PROJECT SITE -L [85] r"'" i:õ' ~ ~ 0.. W ~ ..J :> NOT TO SCALE ~ A.M. Peak Hour Site Buildout .. (Existing + Retail, Starbucks, & Office) Intersection Volumes, with [Buildout Project Volumes] at Driveways North @[[ùíJlliJôomeans figure 2A ."- . . IO'Ï) d. Parking Needs The proposed retail/Starbucks building parking supply would consist of 32 onsite spaces. The Dublin zoning ordinance results in 45 required spaces when the retail ("neighborhood retail") and Starbucks store ("convenience eating and drinking establishment") are treated separately and added together. Sometimes, however, the mix of businesses within a development may generate peak parking demands at different times of the day (tenned a "shared parking" condition). In this case, the peak Starbucks demand occurs in the morning when retail parking demand is generally lower. In order to identify the overall parking demand in the morning, a shared parking analysis was conducted. This consisted of establishing the Starbucks and the retail area parking demands separately at different times taroughout the morning, then adding them together for a total demand. The Starbucks parking demand was determined by conducting morning parking survoys at thc existing Starbucks locations previously mentioned.(5) The surveys were conducted between 6:00-10:00 a.m., with the number of occupied spaces tabulated at each half hour. From the occupancy numbcrs surveyed at each location, an average parking demand rate per 1,000 square feet of building space was calculated for each half-hour. This rate was then applied to the proposed 1,886 square foot Starbucks to obtain the parking demand at each half hour as shown in Table 3. The 1,886 square foot Starbucks parking demand rises to a peak of 27 vehicles at 9:30 a.m. The morning retail space demand was determined by applying the Dublin Zoning Ordinance requirement of I space per 300 square teet (3.33 spaœs per 1,000 sq. ft.), which equates to 22 spaces. The ordinance is formulated to address the peak parking demand which typically occurs in thc afternoon. Published data from the Urban Land Institute (ULl) shows that average mid-week parking demand for retail stores peaks around I :00 p.m. The subsequently lower demands earlier in the morning have becn identified by ULT as a percentage of the maximum demand.(6) Applying these percentages to the 22 space peak retail demand results in parking demands at each half- hour as listed in Table 3. The sum of the Starbucks and retail shared demands arc also shown in Table 3. Based on the calculations, the parking supply would accommodate the cxpected demand until about 9:30 a.m., when a peak demand for 39 spaces would exceed the on-site parking supply of 32 spaces. After 9:30 a.m., overall parking demand dcclines but still exceeds the supply. By 10:30 a.m., the onsite parking supply would accommodate the sharcd Starbucks and retail demand (based on an extended survey period at the existing 7904 Dublin Blvd.Starbucks). Traffic & Parking Analysis For Retail/Starbuc/r., Page 8 101 W kd TABLE 3 dF S b ks&R 1S ee av Shared Parkin!! Deman or tar DC eta I Space Time Starbucks Retail Total Parking Surplus / Demand(a) Demand(b) Demand Supply Deficit 6:00 a.m. 4 0 4 32 +28 6:30 a.m. 9 I 10 32 +22 7:00 a.m. B 2 15 32 + 17 7:30 a.m. 15 3 18 32 + 14 8:00 a.m. 17 4 21 32 +11 8:30 a.m. 21 7 28 32 +4 9:00 a.m. 21 9 30 32 +2 9:30 a.m. 27 12 39 32 ·7 10:00 a.m. 23 15 38 32 -6 (aJ ParkIng demand for 1,886 sq. ft. Starbuck., based on surveys conducted by OmlÜ-Mean. Eng. & Planners at three area Starbucks stores. (b) Zoning (\Tdinance (,ouree: City of Dublin), with hourly demand as a percentage of p.m. maximum (souTce: ULI)- In a preliminary study of the project conducted by the City of Dublin, several mitigation measures were presented to address an onsite parking deficit. (7) One measure referred to the presence of nearby on-street parking. Curb spacc for 10-12 vehicles is available on Village Pkwy. and Amador VaHey Blvd, fronting the project site. Given their location and the absence of other nearby parking generators during the morning peak period, we concur with the City's report that these spaces are not likely to be utilized by motorists who are not associated with thc proj ect site. Also, our observations at the other Starbucks indicate patrons will utilize street parking whcn it is in close proximity. Due to these factors, it is likely the curb spaces would accommodate the excess demand. It is also noted that the existing Starbucks at 9150 Alcosta Blvd. is located approximately one mile north on Village Parkway. Two Starbucks serving the same general area may result in a reduction in the average parking demand. Thus, the Starbucks parking demand identified for this project is probably conservatively high. Traffic & Parking Analysis For Retail/Starhuck", Page 9 lo'V' e. Pedestrian Issues / Vehicle Access The project would be served by one right-turn in/out driveway on Village Pkwy. and one right-turn in/out driveway on Amador Valley Boulevard, both 24 feet wide. (The project site plan is illustrated in Figure 3.) The previous site use (gasoline service station) had two driveways fi:onting each street that were approximately 40 feet wide. Pedestrian safety is generally enhanccd whcn the number of driveways is reduced. Pedestrian and bicyclc volumcs on Villagc Pkwy. and Amador Valley Blvd. were also monitorcd during the intersection count. For the two-hour period between 7:00"9:00 a.m., 20 pedestrians and 10 bicyclists were observed on Amador Valley Blvd., with 3 pedestrians walking along the project fi:ontage. On Village Pkwy., 9 pedestrians and 2 bicyclist¡¡ were observed, with 4 pedestrians and I bicyclist traveling along the project fi:ontagc. Although the proposed retail/Starbucks project would have a relatively high A.M. peak hour trip generation, standard safety measures such as unobstructed sight lines along the sidewalk and driveway, the cight-foot sidewalk width, clcarly differentiated sidcwalk paving, and the current signalized intersection and crosswalk at Amador Valley Blvd. and Village Pkwy. would be adeq\ll1te to protect pedestrians and bicyclists in the A.M. peak hours. In addition, the project's elimination of the two driveways provided for the former gasoline service station would reduce the potential for vehicle and pedestrian or bicyclist conflicts. Traffic & Parking Analysis For Retail/Starbuok., Page 10 Iq> 4. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The proposed retail/Starbucks project would not significantly impact traffic conditions at the study intersection compared to existing conditions. With the added project trips, the intersection would continue to operate at LOS 'A' conditions during the A.M. peak hour. Average southbound, northbound, and westbound left-turn vehicle queues would inercase by one vehicle. The parking supply of 32 onsite spaces would accommodate the expected combined retail/Starbucks demand until 9:30 a.m. when demand peaks for 39 spaces. The peak demand would exceed the on-site parking supply by 7 spaces. After 9:30 a.m., the parking dcmand declines but still exceeds the supply until 10:00 a.m. Curb space for 1O~12 vehicles is available on Village Pkwy. and Amador Valley Blvd. fronting the project site. The location of these spaces suggests most of them are not likely to be occupied by other than patrons of the retail/Starbucks development. It is likely the curb spaces would accommodate the excess demand. ¡;~~ George W. Nickelson, P.E. Attachments: LOS Definitions LOS Calculations Traffic & Parking Analysis For Relail/Starbucks Page II I .-------~", 1[:11 <II> '\\ I II ! ¡' I ! -----__,..1. '<I 1'1\:.\:"11" dljl'l~BI;.Ö> --=-" \ ! I, hi wI I ¡I. ~I ?¡: II Ii! i¡ I ¡ , '<I~~~_":__-, A ~ ~ I ~ ~ li!r II J ~,..-........... ..., '....... . i --I i I I N_~ :~ ~~11 '--i! 1,-, ~II_=_:' I II I I - ¡I' j I¡h! 'In" m , I ~~3 '~~1 - ~ ¡ ¡¡~t; ¡ !ò ,.. , Iq ; ~'¡\ " ~!, ~ f ! " I'D . ~... Cf) Æ e ::J D '= c: III 0... Q) ~ (j) 1:5 ( ) .'="' e 0... en s::::: ca CD E o 0= rs ~! lo-Ç REFERENCES (I) Tramc counts conducted by Omni-Means Engineers & Planners, A.M. Peak Period (7:00-9:00 a.m.), AprilS, 2005. (2) Trip counts conducted by Omni-Means Engineers & Planners at three Starbucks locations: 7904 Dublin Blvd. (at Regional St.), Dublin, CA (2,425 square feet with 51 interior seats.) Surveys conducted 6:00- 10:30 a.m., April 6, 2005. 4930 Dublin Blvd., Dublin, CA (in Hacienda Crossings Shopping Center) (2,046 square fect with 21 interior and 34 exterior seats.) Surveys conducted 6:00-10:00 a.m., April 7, 2005. 9150 Alcosta Blvd., San Ramon, CA (in Country Club Village Center) (1,560 square feet with 37 interior seats and 12 cxterior seats.) Surveys conducted 6:00-10:00 a.m., April 4, 2005. (3) Abrams Associates, Slarbucks Coffee Company, City ofOrinda Parking and Traffìc Study, December 1995. (4) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 7th edition, 2003. (5) Parking surveys conducted by Omni-Means Engineers & Planners at three Starbucks locations: 7904 Dublin Blvd. (6:00-10:30 a.m., April 6, 2005); 4930 Dublin Blvd. (6:00-10:00 a.m., April 7, 2005); and 9150 Alcosta Blvd. (6:00- 10:00 a.m., April 4, 2005). (6) Urban Land Institute and National Parking Association, Dimensions of Parking, Washington, D.C. (7) City of Dublin, Sturbucks 7197 Village Parkway Parking Study, Preparcd by Community Development and Public Works Departments, December 29, 2004. TrajJic & Parking Analysis For Retllj/ISlllrbucks Page 13 Traffic & Parking Analysi,' For RelaillSwrbuckJ 11>(.p ATTACHMENTS Level of Service Definitions Level of Service Calculations Page 14 LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINmONS ten LEVEL OF SERVICE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS* nAil ItB" IICII IIDI1 "E" IIF'! Uncongested operations, all queues clear in a single-signal cycle. (Average stopped delay less than 10 seconds per vehicle; V/C less than or ~ 0.60). Uncongested operations, all queues clear in a single cycle. (Average delay of 10-20 seconds; V/C=0.61-0.70). Light congestion, occasional backups on critical approaches. (Average delay of 20-35 seconds; V/C~0.71-0.80). Significant congestion of critical approaches but intersection functional. Cars required to wait through more than one cycle during short peaks. No long queues formed. (Average delay of 35- 55 seconds; V/C=0.81-0.90). Severe congestion with some long standing queues on critical approaches. Blockage of Intersection may occur If traffic signal does not provide for protected turning movements. Traffic queue may block nearby intersection(s) upstream of critical approach(es). (Average delay of 55-80 seconds; V/C=0.91-1.00). Total breakdown, stop-and-go operation. (Average delay in excess of 80 seconds; V IC of 1.01 or greater). Little or no delay. (Average delay of 5 10 seconds) Short traffic delays. (Average delay of > 10 and 515 secs.) Average traffic delay. (Average delay of >15 and 525 secs.) Long traffic delays for some approaches. (Average delay of >25 and 5,35 sees.) Very long traffic delays for some approaches. (Average delay of > 35 and 5,50 secs.) Extreme traffic delays for some approaches (intersection may be blocked by external causes--délays:>50 seconds). * Level of Service refers to delays encountered by certain stop sign controlled approaches. Other approaches may operate with little delay. Source: Transportation Research Board. Highway Caoaclty Manual, 2000. {o'6 CCTALOS Software ver. 2.35 by TJKM Transportation Consultants ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~=~~~~=~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~==~~~~===-----;===~~~~ Condition: AM Existing Conditions 04/11/05 ==~==~~===~~==============~~====~~==~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:=~=~===~~----~=~==~== INTERSECTION 1 Village Pkwy./Amador Val lye Bl Dublin Count Date 4/5/05 Time AM PEAK Peak Hour 8:00-9:00 AM --------~----~~--~---------------------------------~-------------------- CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 'I-PHASE SIGNAL ~---------- 329 258 131 ~ I I I <-~- V ---:> Split? Y LEFT 354 2.1 1.1 2.1 1.0 1.1 103 RIGHT STREET NAME: THRU 268 ---:> 2.2 (NO. OF LANES) 2.1<--- 438 THRU Amador Vallye B1 RIGHT 78 1.1 2.1 2.2 1.1 1.0 139 LEFT <--;- --~> I v I I I v N SIG WARRANTS: W + E 76 166 38 Urb~Y, Rur~Y S LEFT THRU RIGHT split? Y STREET.NAME: Village Pkwy. w~==~~~~~~~~~~~~=~=~~~======~~~_~______~~~=====~~~~~~~~~~~~~=-----;=~==~ MOVEMENT ORIGINAL VOLUME ADJUSTED VOLUME * CAPACITY V/C RATIO CRITICAL v/e ---------~-~----------~-------------------------------~----------~------ NB RIGHT (R) 38 38 1650 0.0230 THRU (1') 166 166 3300 0.0503 LEFT (L) 76 76 3000 0.0253 l' + R 204 3300 0.0618 0.0618 T + L 242 4650 0.0520 l' + R + L 280 4650 0.0602 -----------------~----------------~~--------~------------~-~---~-------- SB RIGHT (R) 329 329 1650 0.1994 0.1994 THRU (1') 258 258 3300 0.0782 LEFT (L) 131 131 1650 0.0794 l' + R 587 3300 0.1779 ------------------------~---------------------~-----------~~------------ EB RIGHT (R) 78 78 1650 0.0473 THRU (1') 268 268 3300 0.0812 LEFT (L) 354 354 3000 0.1180 l' ±. R 346 3300 0.1048 T + L 622 4650 0.1338 T + R + L 700 4650 0.1505 0.1505 -------------------~-------~----------~------------------~---~-~-------- WB RIGHT (R) THRU (1') LEFT (L) l' + R 103 438 139 103 438 139 541 1650 3300 1650 3300 0.0624 0.1327 0.0842 0.1639 0.1639 ~~=~~~~~===~~---====~~~~======~--~=~===~~~====~--~~=~~~~~~~~=~--~===~~~~ TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: 0.58 A ~~=~~~~~~==-----;==~~~~~~~=~----;-===~~~~~~==---===~~~~~~~=~=-~====~~=== * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT~X.INT,VOL~XA.VOL,CAP~ ID'! CCTALOS Software ver. 2.35 by TJKM Transportation Consultants -------~---~--~----------~~---~------~~~~--~~~~----~~--~~~-------~------ --------------------------------~---~------------------------------~-~-- 04/15/05 Condition: AM Existing + Proj. (Starbucks & Retail) -------~~~-~------~~--~~~--~~~-~~--~~---~~------~-------------~--------- ----------------------------------------------------------------~------- INTERSECTION 1 Village Pkwy./Amador Val lye Bl Dublin Count Date 4/5/05 Time AM PEAK Peak Hour 8:00-9:00 AM CCTA METHOD ----------~~-----~-~~--~~-------------------------~-~-------~----------- 288 ---:> 2.2 (NO. OF LANES) 2.1<--- 426 78 1.1 2.1 2.2 1.1 1.0 172 I ~ <--- ---> v I I I v 122 191 38 LEFT THRD RXGHT Spli t ? Y STREET NAME: Village Pkwy. ----------- LEFT 342 THRU RIGHT N W + E S RIGHT THRU LEFT 4-PHASE SIGNAL 318 249 164 I I I ~ <--- V ---> Spli t? Y 2.1 1.1 2.1 1.0 1.1 105 RIGHT STREET NAME: THRU Amador Val lye Bl LEFT SIG WARRANTS: Urb~Y, Rur=Y ---------------------------------~---~--~~----------~----~--~----------- ~--~------------------------------------------------------------------~~ MOVEMENT ORIGINAL VOLUME V/C RATIO CRITICAL V/C ADJUSTED VOLUME* CAPACITY -----~-----~--~--~----~~---------------------~----~-----~--------------- NB RIGHT (R) 38 38 1650 0.0230 THRU ('1') 191 191 3300 0.0579 LEFT (L) 122 122 3000 0.0407 '1' + R 229 3300 0.0694 '1' + L 313 4650 0.0673 '1' + R + L 351 4650 0.0755 0.0755 -------------------------------------------------------------~-~~------- SB RIGHT (R) THRU ('1') LEFT (L) '1' + R 318 249 164 0.1927 0.0755 0.0994 0.1718 0.1927 318 249 164 567 1650 3300 1650 3300 ----------------------~~------------~--------------~~~-~--------~------- EB RIGHT (R) 78 78 1650 0.0473 THRU ('1') 288 288 3300 0.0873 LEFT (L) 342 342 3000 0.1140 T + R 366 3300 0.1109 '1' + L 630 4650 0.1355 '1' + R + L 708 4650 0.1523 0.1523 --------~-------------------~---------------------~--~~-------~--------- WB RIGHT (R) THRD ('1') LEFT (L) '1' + R 105 426 172 0.0636 0.1291 0.1042 0.1609 0.1609 105 426 172 531 1650 3300 1650 3300 ==~~~----~=~=~~=~===~~~~~~~~~====~~-~--~~;~~~~~~~=~~======~-=---===~~~~~ 0.58 A TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: ~~~~~~=============~-------;==~~~~~~~=====~----;===~~~~~~~~=====~-;~==== * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT=X.INT,VOL=XA.VOL,CAP~ lfi) CCTALOS Software ver. 2.35 by TJKM Transportation Consultants ~======~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~=~~~==~-----------~-~===~~~~~ Condition: AM Existing+Project+Office 04/15/05 ------------------------------------------------~----------------------- ~~~---~---~-------------------~--------~~----------------------~~-~----- INTERSECTION 1 Village Pkwy./Amador Vallye Bl Dublin Count Date 4/5/05 Time AM PEAK Peak Hour 8,00-9:00 AM ----------------~--------------------------------~-~-~-~----------~----- CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 4-PHASE SIGNAL --~~------~ 318 249 169 ^ I I I <-~- v --~:> Split? Y LEFT 342 2.1 1.1 2.1 1.0 1.1 105 RIGHT STREET NAME: THRU 292 ---> 2.2 (NO. OF LANES) 2.1<--- 426 THRU Amador Vallye Bl RIGHT 78 1.1 2.1 2.2 1.1 1.0 178 LEFT I <--- ~~-> I v I I I v N SIG WARRANTS: W + E 123 192 37 Urb~Y, Rur-Y S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? Y STREET NAME: Village Pkwy. =~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~===~-~~===---~~------~---===~~===~~~~~~~~~=~~=~-- MOVEMENT ORIGINAL VOLUME ADJUSTED VOLUME * CAPACITY vlc RATIO CRITICAL vlc --------------~~--------------------------~--~-------------------------- NB RIGHT (R) 37 37 1650 0.0224 THRU (T) 192 192 3300 0.0582 LEFT (L) 123 123 3000 0.0410 T + R 229 3300 0.0694 T + L 315 4650 0.0677 l' + R + L 352 4650 0.0757 0.0757 ----~~----~-------------------~--~~-------~-------------------~-----~--- SB RIGHT (R) 318 318 1650 0.1927 0.1927 THRU (T) 249 249 3300 0.0755 LEFT (L) 169 169 1650 0.1024 T + R 567 3300 0.1718 ----------------------~--------------------------~-~---------~~--------- EB RIGHT (R) 78 78 1650 o . 0473 1'BRU (T) 292 292 3300 0.0885 LEFT (L) 342 342 3000 0.1140 T + R 370 3300 0.1121 T + L 634 4650 0.1363 T + R + L 712 4650 0.1531 0.1531 -------------------~--------------------------------------~---------~~-~ WB RIGHT (R) THRU (T) LEFT (L) T + R 105 426 178 105 426 178 531 1650 3300 1650 3300 0.0636 0.1291 0.1079 0.1609 0.1609 ='===~_M~===~__~m;_~~~~~~~~======_______~~~~~=~~~~~~~~~~~====~----~~~~~~= TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: 0.58 A ===~________~~~~===~~~~~~~===~M_____~=======~~~~~~~~~~~~~==_=_~===~~~~== * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED INT~X.INT,VOL~XA.VOL,CAP~ III "b lIDct RESOLUTION NO. 04 - 40 . A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITI' OF DUBLIN APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AMENDMENTS TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT P A 98-049, SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND MASTER SIGN PROGRAM FOR ROBERT ENEA OFFICE AND REY AIL CENTERS LOCATED AT 7197 VILLAGE PARKWAY, PA 03-069 WHEREAS, City Council adopte.d Ordinance No. 21-98 which established Planned Development District P A 98-049 on December 15, 1998, which established development standards and architectural 'guidelines for the project site; and WHEREAS, City Council adopted the Village Parkway Specific Plan and Initial StudylNegative DeciMation on December 19,2000, which established development standards, land uses, and goals for the Specific Plan Area; and WHEREAS, the Alameda County Environmental Protec1ion Division has issued a closure letter dated March 1 J, 2002, for clean up completed at the site, which was a former gasoline station, and Clayton Group _~rvices, Inc., has issued conclusions and recommendations found in the Phase 1 Environmental Assessment ~ort, dated May 30, 2003; and WHEREAS, the application has been reviewed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and the City Environmental Guidelines, and determined to be consistent with the Negative Declaration prepared for the Village Parkway Specific Plan, P A 99-054, adopted by the City Council on December 19, 2000, as the Specific Plan anticipated land uses for the site such as the retaiVcommercial and office land uses proposed; and WHEREAS, Enea Properties Company, LLC, has submitted a development application for a new 5,582-square-foot office building and new 8,539-square-foot retail center at 7197 Village Parkway, pursuant to the provisions ofPD 98-049 and the Vi]]age Parkway Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, the Applicant proposes minor amendments to Planned Development P A 98~049 by means of a Cooditional Use Permit pursuant to Sectioo 8.32.080 of the Zoning OrdiI1ID1ce; and WHEREAS, the development project includes applications for a Conditional Use Pem1Ît, Site Development Review and Master Sign Program pursuant to provisions ofPD 98-049, the Zoning Ordinance, 8IJd tbe Village Parkway Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit, Site nevelopment Review and Master Sign Program On May 11, 2004; and . WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by Jaw; and ATTACH M ENTt Ily WHEREAS, the Staff Report was submitted recommending Planning Commission approval ofa resolution approving a Conditional Use Pennit, Site Development Review and Master Sign Program; and . WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and use their independent judgment and considered all said reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth. 3. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby make the foJlowing findings and determinations regarding said proposed Conditional Use Permit, Site Development Review and Master Sign Program: 1 . The proposed minor amendment to the east side yard setback that reduces the required setback wm a minimum of 2S feet to a minimum of 10 feet substantially complies with and does not materiaUy change the provisions or intent of the adopted PlalU1e:d Development Zoning District Ordinance for the site because alternative measures have been incorporated into the project to protect the adjacent residential uses from possible adverse impacts to lighting, noise and privacy. Furthermore, the proposed development has been sited in the northernmost part of the parcel to provide the greatest separation between the new building !I11d the existing homes. 2. The proposed minor amendment to the internal vehicle separation that would remove internal vehicle access requirements from the PD District substantially complies with and does not materially change the provisions or intent of the Planned Development Zoning District Ordinance forthe site because an alternative measure has been incorporated into the project to provide future enhanced pedestrian access 10 the property to the south at the time that this property is redeveloped and the existing drive-through lane is removed, consistent with Village Parkway Specific Plan goals. The Proposed Site Development Review and Master Sign Program meet the purpose and intent of . Chapter 8.1 04 of the Zoning Ordinance because they will promote orderly, attractive and harmonious site and structural development compatible with surrounding properties and neighborhoods, especially with the residential are:a to the east due to the building orientation, parking and landscaping of the site layout; and 3. The Site Development Review and Master Sign Program are consistent with the general provisions, iIltcnt, and purpose of the Site Development Review provisions of the Zoning Ordinance in that it contains all information require:d by Chapter 8.104.ofthe Zoning Ordinance and accomplishes the objectives of Chapter 8.104, A through J, of the Zoning Ordinance; and 4. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the development being proposed because it is located within a developed downtown are"-, was previously developed, and because it is located adjacent to roadways which are designed to carry traffic that would be generated by the proposed types of uses; and 5. Architectural considerations, including the character, scale, and quality of the design, the architecturaJ 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 and as conditions of approval in order to insure compatibility of this development with the development's design concept and the character of adjacent buildings, neighborhoods, and uses; and 6. L!lndscape considemtions h!lve been incorporated to ensure visual relief and an attractive environment for the public; and 7. The proposed amendment will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in . the vicinity, or be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare because the project has been built according to City laws and regulations; and 2 " .. 9. ,,~ The proposed amendment is consistent with the Retail/Office designation of the Dubliu General Plan and the proposed development staodards are pennitted by said designation; and The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals aod standards of the Village Parkway Specific Plan because it will provide neighborhood-serving uses and promote enh¡¡nced pedestrian access and amenities_ BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby approve a Conditional Use Pennit, Site Development Review, and Master Sign Program, for project plans, included as Exhibit A, and the proposed Master Sign Program, included as Exhibit B, stamped approved and dated May 11, 2004, subject to the Cooditions of Approval, as follows. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Unless stated otherwise. alJ Conditions of Aüvroval shall be comDIied with Drior to the issuance ofbuildim: permits or establishment of use, and shall be subiect to DeDartment ofConummitv DeveloDrnent review and approval. The following codes reoreseot those deoarlments/al1encies resDonsible for monitoring compliaoce of the conditions of aD pro val: rADM] Administration! Citv Attornev. rBl Building Division of the Community Development Department. rDSRl Dublin San Ramon Services District, rFl Alameda County Fire Department/City of Dublin Fire Prevention. [FIN] Finance Department. rPLl Plannimr Division of the Community Development Department. fPOl Police. fPWl Public works DeDartment. ENERAL CONDITIONS' I. Approval. This Site Development Review approval for the Enea Office/Commercial Project, PA03-069, establishes the detailed design concepts and regulations for the project Site Development Re\iew for Enea Office/Commercial Project, 7197 Village Parkway, including a Master Sign Program_ Development pursuant to this Site Development Review is conditioned upon the requirement that the development be consistent with the approved Planned Development (PO) Rezoning, including the Land Use and Development Plan, and the related General Provisions, and Standards and Conditions, and shall genemlly confonn to the Preliminary Architeotural Plans prepared by William Wood Architects, dated received March 16,2004; preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan prepared by Debolt Civil Engineering. dated received April 16,2004; Preliminary Utility Plan prepared by lED, dated received April 16,2004; Master Sign Program prepared by Arrow Sign Company, dated April 21, 2004; and Preliminary Planting Plan prepared by BorreocolKiliian & Associates, dated reoeived April] 9, 2004, unless modified by the Conditions of A roval contained herein. 2. Standard Public Works and Site Development Review PL. PW Conditions of Approval. Applicant/Developer shall comply with all applicable City of Dublin Standard Pub!ic Works (Exhibit A) and Site Development Review Conditions of Approval incorporated herein. [n the event of a conflict between the Standard Public Works Conditions of Approval and these Conditions, these conditions shall revail. 3. Term. Pursuant to Section 8.96.020.0., approvaj of the Conditional PL CONDITION TEXT 3 RESPON. WHEN HOWlS AGENCY/ REQ.? CONDITION DEPART. SATISFIED? I , PI. Ongoing Standard On-going rw On-going Zoning I \ t.f NO. CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN HOWlS AGENCY! REQ.? CONDlTlOJ\ DEPART. SA TISFIED? Use Permit and Site Development Review shall be valid for one Ordinance year from effective date, If construction has not commenced by that time or extended per the following means. this approval snail be null and void. Commencement of construction shall mean tne actual construction pursuant to the permit approval or demonstrating substantial progress toward commencing such construction. The approval period for Site Development Review may be extended six (6) additional months by the Director of Community Development upon determination that the Conditions of Approval remain adequate to assure that tne above slated findings will continue to be met. Applicant/ Developer must submit a written request for the extension prior to the exoiration date of the Site Dev-elonm..nt review. 4. Village Parkway Specific Plan and Initial StlldylNegative PL On-going Village Dedaration. Applicant/Developer shall comply with all applicable Parkway mitigation measures ofthe Village Parkway Specific Plan and Specific companion Initial StudylNegative Dec1aration, and Mitigations Plan Measures that have not been made specific Conditions of Approval of this project, thereby superceding the pertinent Mitigation Measuresreferenced in those documents. The City shall determine which ofthe requirements from these prior approvals are applicable at this sta"e of a,mroval. 5. Revocation. The SDR will be revocable for cause in accordance PL On-going Zoning with Sec,t.ion 8.96.020.1 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Any Ordinance violation6ftne tenus or conditions of this approval ,hall be subject (0 citation. ;lßd if non-compliance continues potential revocation. 6. Fees. Applicant/Developer shall pay all applicable fees in effect at FIN Prior to Municipal the time of building permit issuance, including, but not limited tp: ;,sUllnce of Code Planning fees; Building fees; Dublin San Ramon Services District Building fees; Public Fac;lities fees; Dublin Unified School District School Pennit:; Impact fees; Public Works Traffic fees; City of Dublin Fire Services fees; Noise Mitigation fees; Alameda County Flood and Water Conservation District (Zone 7) Drainage and Water Connection fees; and any other fees as noted in the Development Agreement. Unissued buiiding permits subsequent to new or revised TIF's shaH be subject to recalculation and assessment of the fair share ofthe new or revised fees. If the Development Agreement approved for this project confJicts with this condition, the Development A~reement shall orevail. 7. Required Permits. Applicant/Developer shall obtain all necessary PL. PW. B Prior to State avd applicable pennits required by other agencies including, but not iSSUHDce of Regional limited to, Alameda County Public Works. Alameda County Flood Building Agenci., Control District (Zone 7); California Department ofFish and Permits Game; Anny Corps of Engineers; and State Water Quality Control Board, and shaH submit copies of the penn its to the Department of Public Works. Applicant/Developer shall al,o apply, pay all required fees and obtain permits from PG&E for power service connection reouired to enentize traffic si.l/;ßals and streetliehts. . 8. Postal Sendce. Applicant/Developer shaH confer with local postal PW,B Prior to Standard authorities to detennine the type of mail units required and provide issuance of a ietter from the Postal Service stating its satisfaction witn the mail Building units proposed: Specific locations for such mail units shall be Permits · · · 4 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. CONDITION TEXT subject to approval and satisfaction of the Postal Service and the Director of Community Development and City Engineer. A plan showing the locations of all maiJboxes shall be submitted for review and a roval b the Ci En ineer. Hold Harmlessllndemnification. Applicant/Developer, and any parties or individuals granted rights-of·entry by Applicant! Developer, shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Dublin and its agents, ·officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Dublin or its agents, officers, or employees (a) to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City of Dublin or its advisory agency, appeal board, Planning Commission, City Council, Director of Community Development, Zoning Administrator, or any other department, committee, or agency ofthe City concerning a subdivision or other development which actions are brought within the time period provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37 and (b) holding the City liable for any damages or wages in connection wÜil the construction of the parks; provided, however, that the Applicant/ Developer's duty to so defend, indemnify, and hold harmless shall be subject to the City's promptly notifying the Applicant/Developer of any said claim, actiol1, or proceeding al1d the Ci s full actions or roceedin s. Clarifications and Changes to the Conditions. [n tile event that there needs to be cI,,!:ification to these conditions of approval, the Directors ofCommurrlty Development al1d Public Works have the authority to elarif'y the intent ofthese cOl1ditiol1s of approval to the I Applicant/Developer by a written documel1t signed by the Director of Community Development al1d the City El1gil1eer and placed il1 the project fiJe. also have the authority to make minor modifications to these conditions in order for tile Applicant/Developer to fulfill needed improvements or mitigations resu Itin from im acts to th is ro· eel. Projected Tlmeline. Applicant/Developer shall submit a projected timeline for project completion to the Dublin PoJice Services Department, to alJow estimation of staffing requirements and ass; el1ts. Prevailing Wage. All public improvements constructed by Developer and to be dedicated to the City are hereby identified as "public works" under Labor Code section 177L Accordingly, Developer, il1 constructing such improvements, shan comply with the Prevailin Wa e Law Labor Code. sects. ] 720 and follow;n Construction Hours. Stal1dard cOl1struction al1d gradil1g hours shan be limited to weekday~ (Monday through Friday) and non- City holidays between the hours of7:30 a.rn_ and 6:00 p.m. The Applicant/Developer may request reasOl1able modifications to such determined days and hours, taking into account the seasons, impacts on neighboring properties, and other appropriate factors, by submitting a request form to the City Engineer/Public Works Director. For work on Saturdays, said request shall be submitted no later than 5:00 p.m_ the prior Wednesday. Overtime inspection rates will a I for all after-hours, Saturda , arid/or holida work. 5 RESPON. AGENCYI DEPART. Applicant PL. PW PO PW PW WHEN REQ.? On-going OI1-going Priorto issuance at Building Permits Prior to acceptance of improvements by City Cound] Prior to acceptmlce of improvements by City C<luncil "ç HOWlS . CONDITION SATISFIED? Standard Standard Standard Labor Code section 1771 SI3I1dard NO. CONDITION TEXT PVIILIC WORKS 14. Improvement and Grading Plans. All improvement and grading plans submitœd to the Public Works Department for review/approval shall be prepared in accordance with the approved Tentative Map, these Conditions of Approval, and the City of Dublin Municipal Code including Chapter 7.16 (Grading Ordinance). When submitting plans for review/approval, the Applicant/Developer shall also filJ-out and submit a Ciry of Dublin Improvement Plan Revie~ Checklist (three 8~ 1/2" x II" pages). Said checklist includes necessary design criteria and other pertinent information to assure that plans are submitted in accordance with established City standards. The plans shall also reference the current City of Dublin Slandard Plans (booklet), and shall include applicable City of Dublin Improvem<ml Plan General Notes (tbree 8-1/2" x 11" pages). For on-site improvements, the Applicant/Developer shall adhere to the City's On-sile Checklisl (eight 8-1/2" x 11" pages). All of these reference documents are available from the Public Works Pe artment (call tele hone 92S-833·6630 for more information. 15, Grading/Sitework Permit. All site improvement work and public right-of-way work must be performed per a GradinglSitework Peffi1it issued by the Public Works Department. Said permit will be based on the final set of improvement plans to be approved once all of the plan check comments háve been resolved. Please refer to the handout titled Grading/Site Improvement Permil Application fnst>"uc¡jons and attached application (three 8-112" x 1]" pages) for more information. The Applicant/Developer must fill in and return the applicant information contained on pages 2 and 3. The curr"nt cost of the permit is $10.00 due at the time of permit issuance, although the Applicant/Developer will be responsible for an ado ted increases to the fee amount. 16. Erosion CDntrnl during Construction. Applicant/D"veloper shall include an Erosion and Sedim"nt Control Plan with the Grading and Improvement plans for review and approval by the City Engineer/Public Works Director. Said plan shall be designed, implemented, and continually maintained pursuant to the City's NPDES permit between October I" and April IS'" or beyond these dates if dictated by rainy weather, or as otherwise directed bv the City En ineerlPublic Works Director. 17. Water QualitylBest Management Practices. Pursuant to the Alameda Countywide National Pollution Discharges Elimination Permit (NPDES) No. CAS0029831 with the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the ApplicantlDeveloper shall design and operate the site in a manner consistent with the Siart at the Source publication, and according to Best Management Practices to minimize storm water pollution. In addition to the biofiltration swales proposed along the perimeter of the site, in-line filtration devices may be necessary to serve runoff areas that will not drain to biofiltration swales due to grading constraints. A II trash dumpsters and recycling area enclosures that are not ¡ocated inside the buildin/>: 6 RESPON. AGENCY/ DEPART. PW PW PW PW WHEN REQ.? Prior to issuance of Grading/Site work Permit Prior to issuance of G",dinglS ite work Pennit Prior to issuance of Grading/Site work Permil and during construction. PriQr to issuance of Grading! S itework Permit II ,::) HOWlS CONDITlO1\ SATISFIED? Standard Standard NPDES Permit NPDES Permit . "/"0. CONDITION TEXT 18. shall have roofs to prevent contaminants from washing into the storm drain system. The applicant shall file a Notice ofIntent with the R WQCB and shall prepare and submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan for the City Engineer/Public Works Director's review/approval. Finally, all storm drain inlets serving vehicle parking areas shall be stenciled ''No Dumping- Flows to Bay" using stencils available from the Alameda CountyWide Clean Water Pro ram. Storm Water Treatment MellSures Maintenance Agreement. ApplicantlDeveloper shall enter into an agreement with the City of Dublin that guarantees Üle property owner's perpetual maintenance obligation for all storm water treatment measures installed as part ofthe project Said agreement is required pursuant to Provision C.3.e.ii of RWQCB Order R2-2003-0021 for the reissuance ofthe Alameda Countywide NPDES municipal stann water permit. Said permit requires the City to provide verification and assurance that all treatment devices will be ro crl 0 erated and maintained. Construction Noise Management Program/Construction Impact Reduction Plan. Applicant/Developer shall conform to. the following Construction Noise Mapagement Program/Construction Impact Reduction Plan. The following measures shall be taken to reduce construction impacts: a. Off-site truck traffic shall be routed as directly as practical to and from ¡he freeway (1-580) to the job site. Primary route shall be from 1-680 to St. Patrick Way, or from 1-580 to Sap Ramon Road to Amador Valley Boulevard. An Oversized Load Permit shall be obtained from the City prior to hauling of apy oversized loads on City streets. b. The construction site shall be watered at regular intervals during all grading activities. The frequency of watering should ;l1crease ifwil1d speeds exceed 15 miles per hour, Watering should include all excavated apd graded areas and ma1erial to be transported off"site. Constructìon equipment shall use recycled or other non" potable water resources where feasible. c. Construction equipment shall not be left idling while not in use. d. Construction equipment shall be fitted with noise muffling devices. e. Mud and dust carried onto street surfaces by construction vehicles shall be cleaned-up On a daily basis. f Excavation haul trucks shall use tarpaulin. or other effective covers. g. Upon completion of construction, measures shall be taken to reduce wind erosion. Replanting apd repaving should be completed as soon as possible. h. After grading is completed, fugitive dust on exposed soil surfaces shall be controlled using the following methods: 1. Inactive pOrtions of the construction site shall be 19. 7 RESPON. AGENCY/ DEPART. Prior 10 acceptance of improvem" enlS by City Council PL, PW, B WHEN REQ.? NPDES Permil Prior to acceptance of jmprovements byCily Council 1\1 HOWlS CONDITION SA TlSF1ED! Municipal Code 1Iß NO. CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN HOWlS AGENCY/ REQ.? CONDITIOI\ DEPART. SATISFIED? seeded and watered until grass growth is evident. 2. All portions of the site shall be sufficiently watered [0 prevent dust. 3. On·site vehicle speed shall be limited to 15 mph. 4. Use of petroleum-based palliatives shall meet the road oil requirements of the Air Quality District. Non-petroleum based tackifiers may be required by the City Engineer/Public Works Director. i. The Department of Public Works shall handle all dust complairrts. The City Engineer/Public Works Director may require the services of an air quality consultant to advise the City on the severity of the dust problem and additional ways to mitigate impact Orr residents, including temporarily halting project construction. Dust cOncerns in adjoining communities as well as the City of Dublin shall be addressed. Control measures shall be related to wind conditions. Air quaJity monitoring of PM . ¡evds shall be provided as required by the City EngineerlPublic Works Director. j. Construction interference with regional non-project traffic shall be minimized by; I. Schedulil1g rece;pt of cOrrstruction materials to rron- peak travel periods. 2. Routing cQ.pstructiol1 traffic through areaS of kast - impact sensitivity. 3. Routirrg corrstruction uaffic to minimize constructiol1 I interferel1ce with regiorra! non-project traffic movement. 4. Limiting lal10 closures and detours to "ff·¡.>eak travel periods. 5, Providing ride-share incentives for contractor aod subcontractor personneL k. Emissions control of ol1-site equipmem shaH be .' minimized through a routine mandatory program of low· emissions tune~ups, 20, Geotechnical Report and Recommeodations. The PW.B Prior[i> Standa¡d ApplicarrtlDeveloper shall provide asite specific geotechnical issuance of report prepared by a reputable geotechnical engil1eer. The Grading/Site Geotechnical Errgineer shall certify that the project design work Pennit conforms to the report recommendations priorto issuance of a i>r Building Gradil1giSitework Pennit or Building Permit. All report Permit, and recommerrdatiorrs shall be fonowed during the course of grading durirrg al1d construction. construction 21. Street Trees and Landscaping. 24" box·sized street trees shall be PL,PW Prior (0 vmag~ planted at 30' 011 center spacing along east side ()f Village Parkway issuance of Parkway and south side of Amador Valley Boulevard fronting the property GradioglSite Specific Pian aod shall substal1tially comply with proposed site plan. Said trees work Pemit shall be placed in 4' by 4' tree wells with cas! iron grates I I positioned at the back of sidewalk. The tree variety shall be as . detennil1ed by the City Engil1eer/Public Works Director. After project acceptance, these trees nl1d the a.~sociated irrigation system shall be maintail1ed by the owner. A pplicantlProþerty Owner shall 8 ....0. ~ 22 23. 24. 25. 26 27. CONDITION TEXT landscape, irrigate aJId maiJItain landscaping areas adjacent to the plaza that are within the public right-of-way. Landscaping areas and associated irrigation systems shall remain the responsibility of the ro ertv owner in e etui Village Parkway Street Improvements. Street widths shall be 8 feet in width along Village Parkway and 10 feet in width along Amador Valley Boulevard adjacent to the project as shown on ro'cct Develo ment Plans. Stop Controls. Stop control devices for vehicles, including an R 1 STOP sign, STOP .pavement legend, I 2"-wide white slOp bar stripe, and appropriate delineation, shan be provided at the following locations: a. At the two exit aisle approaches to Amador Valley Boulevard and Villa e Parkwa . Addreu Numbering System. After the final Parcel Map records but before BuiJding Pennits are issued, the Applicant/Developer shall propose address numbers for each building/retail unit based on the address grid utilized within Alameda County and available from the Dublin Building Official. Thc addressing scheme is subject to review and approval by the City and other interested outside agencies. Signs shan be prominently displayed on Vinage Parkway aJId Amador Valky Boulevard that identify all addresses within the development. Addresses are required on the front and rear of each building. Retail building requires address ranges to he posted on the street side of each buildiJIgs, or as otherwise re uired b the Buildin Official and Fire Marshal. Site Accessibility Requirements. All disabled access ramps, parking spaces for the disabled, a!'!d other physieal site improvements shall comply with current UBC Title 24 I ADA requirements and City ofD~bli!'! Standards for accessibiJity. Relocation of Existing Improvement.fUtllities. Any necessary relocatio!'! of existing improvements or utilities shalJ be accomplished at JIO expeJIse to the City. Joint Utility TrencheslUndergroundinglUtility Plans. ApplicaJItlDeveloper shall construct all joint utility trenches (incl~ding electric, telecommunications, cable TV, and gas) iJI accordance with standards enforced by the appropriate utility ageJIcy. All vaults, electric transformers, cable TV boxes, blow- offvalves aJId other utility features shall be placed underground and located behind the proposed sidewalk within the public service easeme!'!1, unless otherwise approved by the Clty EJIgineer/Public Works Director. Conduit shall be under the puhlic sidewalk within the right of way to allow for street tree planting. Utility plans showing the location of all proposed utilities shall be reviewed and approved by the City En ineerlPublic Works Director rior to installation. 9 RESPON. AGENCY¡ DEPART. PL.PW PW PW,B B,PW PW PW WHEN REQ.? On-going Prior to issuance of Grading/Site work Permit Prior to issuance of Building Permits Priorto issuance of Occupaney Permit Priorto acceptance of improv- ements by City COUJIcil Prior to acceptance of improveme- nts by City Council II':¡ HOWlS CONDITION SA TISFIEU '1 Village Parkway Specific Plan StaJIdard Standard UBC Title 14 ¡ ADA and Dublin Standards for Accessibilitv Standard Stan darJ NO. CONDITION TEXT RESI'ON. AGENCY/ DEPART. 28 Temporary Construction Fencing. Temporary Construction PW fencing shall be installed along the perimeter of all work under construction to separate the construction operation from the public. All construction activities shall be confined to within the fenced area. Construction materials and/or equipment shall not be operated Or stored outside of the fenced area or within the public right.{)f-way unless approved in advance by the City EngineerlPublic Works Director. 29. DamagelRepalrs. The Applicant/Developer shall be responsible I'W for the repair of any damaged pavement, curb &, gutter, sidewalk, or other public street facility resulting from construction activities associated with the development of the project, to the satisfaction of the City En ineer/Public Works Director, Occupancy Permit Requirements. Prior to Issuance of an PW, PL, B Occupancy Permit, the physical condition of the project site shall meo:! minimum health and safety síandards including, but not limited to the following: a. The streets and walkways· providing access to each building shall be complete, as ... detennlned by the City EngineerIPublic Works Difector, to allow for safe, unobst¡ucted pedeslrian and vehicle acCeSS to and from the site. b, All traffic control devices on streets providing access to the site shall be in place and fully functional. c. All street name signs and address numbers for streets providing access to the buildings shall be in place and visible, d. Lighting for the streets and site shall be adequate for safety and security. All streetlights On streets providing access to the buildings shall be energized and functioning. Exterior lighting shall be provided for building entrances/exits and pedestrian walkways. Security lighting shall be provided as required by Dublin Police. e. All construction equipment, materials, or on-going work shall be separated from the public by use of fencing, barricades, caution ribbon, or other meanS approved by the City Engineer/Public Works Director. f. All fire hydrants shall be operable and easily accessible to City and ACFD personnel. g. All site features designed to serve the disabled (i.e. HJC parking stalls, accessible walkways, signage) shall be installed and fully functional. h. All landsea in , walls and sereenin shall be installed. Environmenta. Site Assessment. According to the environmental PW assessment report prepared b Clayton Group Services. Inc. dated 30. 31. 10 WHEN REQ.? 1;¡O HOWlS CONDITIO. SATlSI'¡KD? Prior to Standard issuance of final Occupancy Pennit Or acceptance of public improvements by the City Council. Prior to Standard acceptance of improvemcnts b~City Council Prior to Standard issuance of Occupancy Permit On-going" Through ACDEH. the Fire Marshat. . .....0. CONDITION TEXT 05/30/03. four underground fuel smrage tanks (UST) were closed and removed from the site according to Alameda County Department of Environmental Health (ACDEH) requirements and protocols. If, during construction· of the Project, presently- unknown hazardous materials are discovered, the Applicant/Developer shall adhere to the requirements of ACDEH, the Fire Marshal, the City, and/or other applicable agency to mitigate the ha~rd before continuing. The Appl icant/Developer shall monitor and address any hydrocarbons residual found in the soil during excavation/trenching and prepare a site safety plan to be submíttedto the Direcmr of Public Works, and ACDEH, 32. Release of Seçurity. When all improvements governed by the Grading Penn it are complete to the satisfaction of the City Engineer/Public Works Director, the City Engineer will release the Security. Prior to the bond release the Applicant/Developer shall furnish the following to the City: a. As-Built or Record Drawings printed on mylar of all Improvement Plans and maps associated with the project. b. A recorded copy of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions that govern the project. c_ A Declaration or Report by the project Geotechnical Engineer confirming that all geotechnical and grading work associated with the proj ect has been perfonned in accordance with the Engineer's recommendations. ,.. d. Payment of any outstanding City fees or other debts. e. Any other information deemed necessary by the City En ineerIPubiic Works Director. 33_ Geog....phic Information System. Once the City Engineer/Puh]ic Works Director approves the development project, a digital vectorized file on floppy or CD of the Improvement Plans shaH be submitted to the City and DSRSD. Digita) raster copies are not acceptable. The digital vectorized files shall be in AutoCAD 14 or higher drawing format or ESRl ShapefiJe fonnat. Drawing units shal1 be decimal with the precision of 0.00. All objects and entities in layers shall be colored by layer and named i 1 English, although abbreviations are acceptable. All submitted drawings shall use the Global Coordinate System of USA, California, NAD 83 California State Plane, Zone Ill, and U.S. foot. Said submittal shall be acce table to the Cit 's GIS Coordinator, TRAFFIC AND PARKING 34. Voluntary Traffic Mitigation Contribution or TIF. The developer/applicant shall pay Voluntary Traffic Mitigation Contributions based on the number of daily vehicle trips generated by the project or as detennined by the Public Works Director. Alternatively, the developer/applicant shall pay the Traffic Impact Fee in effect at the time building pe11Pits are issued for each phase of the project, assuming City adoption of a Downtown Traffic 1m act Fee Pro am. 5. Bicycle Racks. Bicycle racks shall be installed near the entrances to the office and retail buildings as shown on project plans. Bicycle racks shall be desi !;1led to accommodate a minimum of 11 RESPON. AGENCYI DEPART. PW PW PW. B. FIN PL.}>W WHEN REQ.? Completion of Project and priorto issuance of Occupancy Pennit(s). Prior to acceptance of improvements by City Council. Prior to acceptance of improvements by City Council. Prior to i,suance of Building Pennit, Pri orto issuance of Occupancy I-¿.' HOWlS CONDITION SA TlSFIEV? and thc City Standard Standard Applicant Zon ing Ordinance I~v-- NO. CONDITION TEXT RESI'ON. WHEN HOWlS AGENCYI REQ.? CONPITlOf DEPART. SATISFIED' four bicycle~ per rack, and so that each bicycle can be secured to Permit(s). the rack, The location of the bicycle racks shall not encroach into any adjacent/adjoining sidewalks in a manner that would reduce the unencumbered width of the sidewalk to less than 4', Bicycle racks shall be placed in locations where they will have adequate licl1timz and can be surveilled bv the building OCCUDants. 36. Vehicle Parking. Applicant/Developer shall construct on-site PW,PL Priorto Municipal paved parking areas and spaces for guest, and tenant parking issuan¡:e: of Code according to the zoning ·requirements ofthe use. Occupancy of Occupancy each phase of deveh'pment win be dependent upon Permit{.} Applicant/Deve loper completing the necessary parking areas to serve that phase. All parking spaces shall be double striped using 4" white lines according to Figure 76-3 and Code §8.76.070 (A) 17 of the Municipal Code. All compact-sized parking spaces shall have the word "COMPACT' stenciled on the pavement within each space. 12"-wide concrete step-out curb~ shall be constructed at each parking space where one or both sides abuts a landscaped area or planter. 37. Parking ProhibitioDslRestrictions. Vehicle parkIng shall be F,PW On-going Fire Codo prohibited/restricted in the following locations. Thi~ parking prohibition shall be indicated with red-painted curbs. and with R26F "No Stopping - Fire Lane" signs installed on both sides at a . spacing not to exceed 200'.· ,.. , I a. Prol¡ibitcd along the south side of Amador Valley Boulevard and east side of Village Parkway, This parking prohibition shall be indicated with R26D "No Parking" signs installed at a spacing not to exceed 200'. b. Prohibited or restricted at other localions deemed reasonably necessary by the City Engineer/Public Works Director durin" final desi"n andlor construction. PLANNING 38, Outdoor Seating. Outdoor seating shall be subject to a Site PL On-going Standard Development Review Waiver to be approved by the Community Development Director orhis designee and may be located in appropriate areas in addition to areas specified in'the Planned Develooment rel!u lations. 39. Pedestrian Access. The Applicant/Property Owner shalt not PL On-going Village construct any wall, fence or other structure that obstructs the future Parkway pedestrian access path identified in the Development Plan. Specific Plan BUILDING & SAFETY 40. Trellis. Sheet A I, ¡fthe trellis is attached or within 8 feet·ofthe B Prior to vac building, it shall be constructed from material with a minimum ¡- issua.nce of hour fire rating, such as heavy timber or tubular steel. fthe trellis Building were iocated at least 8 feet from building, a wood structure would Permits be acceDtable. . 41. Soils. The Applicant/Developer shall verify soils conditions where B Prior 10 EPC f01111ertanks were removed with a soils report and more detailed issuance of assessment. The City of Dublin shall require a certification that Building 12 ARCHITECTURE 48. Colors aod Materials. The Community Development Director or his designee shall have final approva1 of the building colors after a test .watch of each color is painted On each of the buildings. Building colors and materials shall be generally consistent with plan. submitted December 29, 2003 and October 30,2003. 49. Awnines. The CommunÎt Development Director shaH have 42. 43, 44 45 46. 47. CONDITION TEXT RESPON. AGENCYI DEPART. the tanks have been removed and that the soils where the tanks were located meet minimum compactions required by the soils report. The project shall follow the recommendations ofthe Phase I stud conducted bv EPe. Building Codes aod Ordinances. All project construction shall B. F confonn to Uniform Building and Fire Codes as adopted by the City of Dublin and all building codes and ordinances in effect at the time of building permit. Building Permits. To apply for building permits, B Applicant/Developer shall submit eight (8) sets of construction plans to the Building Division for plan check. Each set of plans shaH have attached an anootated copy of these Conditions of Approval, The notations shall clearly indicate how all Conditions of Approval will or have been complied with. Construction plans will not be accepted without the annotated resolutions attached to each set of plans. Applicant/Developer will be responsible for Dbtaining the approvals of all participation non-City agencies prior to the issuance of buildin ermits. Construction Drawings. Construction plans shall be fully -ª dimensioned (including building elevations) accurately drawn (depicting all existing and proposed conditions on site), and preparcd and signed by a California licensed Architect or Engineer. All structural calculations shall be prepared and signed by a California licensed Architect or Engineer, The site plan. landscape Ian and details shall be consiste...t with each other. Engineer Obse....ation. The Engineer of record sliall be retained B to provide observation services for all components of the lateral and vertical design of the building, including nailing, holdowns, straps, shear, roof diaphragm and structural frame of building. A written report shall be submitted to the· City Inspector prior to schedulin the final frame ins ection. Green Building Guidelines. To the extent practical, the applicant B shall incorporate Green Building Measures. Green Building Plan shall be submitted to the Buildin Official for review. Energy Conservation. Building plans shall demonstrate the B incorporation of energy conservation measures into the design, construction, and operation of proposed development. PL PL 13 WHEN REQ.? Penn its Through Completion Issuance of Building Permits Prior to issuance of Building Permit, Eili!r to schedoling the final trame inspection On-going On-going Prior to Occupancy Permit or Temporary Occupancy Permit. Priorto 1;3 HOW IS CONDITION SA TlSFI£D? Uniform Building and Fire Codes Standard Standard Standard Standard Slandard SDR Dcsign O~id"lines SDR Design ¡'-f NO. CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN HOWlS , AGENCYI REQ.? CONDITIO I DEPART. SATISFIED? final approval of all awning colors prior to issuance of a building Occupal1cy GUidelines pennit. Pennit or Temporary Occupancy Permit. 50. Lighting Fixtures. Lighting plan shall include I ighting fixtures PL Prior to SDR Dos;gn that arc coordinated with the building architecture, especially issuance of Guidelines along pedestrian walkways and in the center's plaza. The Building Community Development Director or his designee shall have Permits. final approval ofthe li~tin~ fixtures_ 51. Window Reveal. The retail building's walls along Village PL Prior to Applicant Parkway and in the tower element shall be furred out 4" to 6" issuam::e of from the window plane as represented by the applicant. Building PemlÌlS 52. Walls and Fences. All walls and fences shall confonn to PL On-going Zoning Section 8.72.080 of the Zoning Ordinance unless otherwise Ordinance required by this resolution. The six·foot masonry wall along the ""st property line may be extended by lattice, or other meanS approved by the Community Development Director, for an - additional three (3) feet for a total height ofnine (9) f~et. Construction/instalJation of common/shared fenc~s for alJ side and rear yards shalJ be the responsibilitv of Applicant/Develoner. I 53. Wan or Fence Heights_ AIJ walJ or fence heights shall be a __ PL,PW On-going Zoning . minimum 6 feet high (except in those locations where Section , Ordinance 8.72_080 ofthc Zoning Ordinance requires lower fence heights). AIJ walJs and fences shalJ be designed to ensure clear vision at all street intersections to the satisfaction of the Citv Emtineer. MASTER SIGN PROGRAM 54 Monument Signs. Monument signs shall not have white PL Prior to Zoning illuminated backgrounds_ Sign structur~s and sign backgrounds issuance of Ordinance shalJ be coordinated among the retaH and office buHdings and Building shall be coordinated with the build;n!! materials and colors. Permit. 55. Creative Signs. The Community Development Director or his PL On-going Applicant dcsignee may amend the Master Sign Program regulations for unusual or creative signs, which meet the intent of the Village Parkway Specific Plan and the Planned Development regulations, and with the landlord's approval, by meanS of a Site Development Review Waiver. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 56. Coosolidate Utilities. The Applicant/Developer shalJ consolidate PL, Priorto Standard water lines, water meters and backflow devices in a location away PW.B issuance of from building signage and outside of traffic safety/visibility areas Building where they can be panially screened from view, such as in the pennits. south landscaping area near the center's vehick entrance or other appropriate iocation. The ApplicantlDeveloper shall coordinate I placement of these utilities with the City's street improvements . and planned street trees alon2 ViJla2e Parkwav. 57. Coordination with Village Parkway Street Improvements. The PL,PW Prior to Village Parkw 14 ~S' CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN HOWlS AGENCYI REQ.? CONDITION DEPART. SATISFIED? color and design of the paving, landscaping and amenities ofthe issuance of Specific Plan plaza shall be closely integrated with the City's planned street Encroachment improvements. The Community Development Director shall have Permits. final approval of the paving. landscaping and plaza amenities, which shall be coordinated with the Village Parkway Improvement Pro' ect. 58. Final Landscape and Irrigation Plans. The PL Prior to Standard Applicant/Developer shall submit a Final Landscape and Irrigation issuance of Plan prepared and stamped by a State licensed landscape architect Building or registered engineer, generally consistent with the preliminary Permito. landscape plan prepared by BorreccolKillian & Associates, Ine" dated April 19,2004, except as modified by Conditions of Approval below, along with a cost estimate ofthe work and materials proposed, for review and approval by the Community Development Director. Landscape and ;o-igation plans shall be at a scale not less than I" =1 0', 59. Decorative RaliinK. The Applicant/Developer shall install a low, PL Prior to Zoning decorative metal rai ling or fence to be approved by the issuance of Ordinance Community Development Director in the planter along thc Building propeny line dividing the re¡ail building and office building to Permits roleet the ro osed lantin s. Land.caping at Street/Drive Aisle Intersections. The PL. PW. PO On-going Municipal Cc, Applicant/Developer shall provide a landscaping plan arid shall maintain landscaping such that the landscaping does not obstruct the sight distance of motorists, pedestrians or bicyclists. Except for trees. landscaping at drive aisle intersections shall not be taller than 30 inches above the curb. Landscaping shall be kept dt a minimum height and fullness giving patrol officers and the general ublic surveillance oa abilities of tile area. 61. Landscape Sereening of Parking. The Applicant/Developer PL pri arta Zoning shall provide a la.ndscaping plan to be approved by the Community issuance of Ordinan ce Development Director that screens parking with benning or Building combination ofberming and landscaping to achieve an immediate Permits 2" to 3·foOl tal! screen from the finish grade of the parking stalls as viewed from the ad'acent ma'or road. 62. Landscaping of Walls and Trash Endo.urcs. The PL Prior to SDR Design Applicant/DeveloperlDeveloper shal! screen all walls and the issuance of Guideline, sides of walls surrounding trash enclosures. The use of vines is Building encouraged. Trash enclosures shall be covered and subject to Permits a roval of the Public Works De anment. 63, Air Conditioning Unit.<. All Air Conditioning units shall be PL Priorto SDR Design screened from view with either wal!s or plant material to thc issuance of Guidelines satisfaction of the Community Development Director. Building Petmits. 64. Utility Screening. All above grade utilities shall be screened PL Prior to SDR Design from view with either walls or plant material to the satisfaction of j:;;s.uance of Guidelines the Community Development Director. Building Perm its, 65. Standard Plant Material, Irrigation aDd Maintenance PL Prior to Standard 15 \'1-0 NO. CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN HOWlS AGENCY/ REQ.? CONDITIO. DEPART. SA TIS FlED? Agreement. The Applicant/Developer shall complete and submit issuance of to the Dublin Planning Division the Standard Plant Material, Building Irril:!¡¡tion and Maintenance A!l:reement. Permits. 66. Landscape Borders, Commercial area. All landscaped areas PL, PW Pri"r I" Standard shall be bordered by a concrete curb that is at least 6 inches high issuance of and 6 inches wide, unless designed as part of the planned water Building quality bioswale. Any curbs adjacent to parking spa.ces must be Permit 12 inches wide to faCÎlitate pedestrian access. All landscape planters wÎthin the parking area shall maintain a minimum 5-foot tadius, or be 2 feet shorter than adjacent parking spaces to facilitate vehicular maneuverinl:!. 67. Plllnt standards. All trees shall be 24" box minimum; aU shrubs PL Prior to Standard shall be 5 gallon minimum. issuance of Building Permit!. 68, Maintenance of Landscaping. All landscaping materials within PL Prior to Standard the public right-of~way shall be maintained in perpetuity and on~ iSSUMCC of site landscaping shall be maintained in accordance with the "City Building of Dublin Standards Plant Material, Irrigation System and Permit!. Maintenance Agreement" by the Developer after City-approved installation. This maintenance shall include weeding, the application of pre-emergent chemical applications, irrigation, and ~ the replacement of plant materials that die. Any proposed.or "- modified landscaping to the site, including the removal or replacement of trees, shall require prior revIew and written approval from the Community DeveloDment Director. 69. Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance. The PW Prior to W lÚer Efficie Applicant/Developer shaIl submit written documentation to the issuance of Landscaping Public Works Department (in the form of a Ll!ndscape Building Ordinance Documentation Package and other required documents) that the Permits, development conforms to the City's Watet Efficient Landscaping Ordinance. FIRE SERViCES 70. Addressing. The Applicant/Developer shaIl comply with Fire F,PO Prior to Municipal Department and Police Services Department requirements for occupancy of Code addressing. Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on alJ building. I new and existing buildings. The address shaIl be positioned as to , be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property . Said numbers shall contrast with their background (CFC, 1998, Section 901.4.4) .Pursuant to the Non-Residential Security Ordinance, addressing and building numbers shall be visible from the approaches to tbe building. Addressing for individual suiteslbusinesses within the project shall have the address stenciled on the rear door of the business. 7L Emergency Vehicle Turning Radius. The comers at the F Prior 10 Fire C"de Ie drivew.ays into the site shall be to allow turning into the site with a occupancy 42' radius without turninSl: into the far lane of the oublic streets, 72. Emergency Vehicle Access. In accordance wilh the ACFD F Prior to Fire Code requirements, the AppJicant/Developer shall provide emergency combustible vehicle access routes into the moiect in ¡;¡eneral conformance with construction 16 CONDITION TEXT RESPON. AGENCYI DEPART. the site plan. Applicant/Developer shall demonstrate how emergency access requirements shall be achieved on the improvement plans to the satisfaction ofthe City Engineer and the ACFD. (All emergency vehicle aCcess roa,h (first lift of asphalt) and the public water supply including all hydrants shall be În place prior to vertical construction or combustible storage on site). Fire apparatus roadways shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 20 feet (14 feet for one way streets) and an unobstructed vertical clearancc of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. Roadways under 36 feet wide shall be posted with signs or shall have red curbs painted with labels on one side; roadways under 28 feet wide shall be posted with signs or shall have red clIrbs painted with labels on both sides ofthe street liS follows: "NO STOPPING FIRE LANE- CVC 22500.1". CFC ]998, Section ]998 . 73. Automatic Sprinklerg.. Automatic sprinklers shan be provided F, B throughout the blIilding as required by the Dublin Fire Code. [fthe buildings have over 100 sprinklers the system shalt be monitored by UL listed central station. 74. ACFD rules regulations and staudards. Applicant/Developer F shall comply with all Alameda County Fire Department (ACFD) rules, regu lat;ons, City of Dublin standards, including minimum standards for emergency access roads and payment of applicable fees including City of Dublin Fire facility fees. 75. Fire hydrants. The applicant/Developer shall ~onstruct all new F fire hydrants in accordance with the ACFD and City of Dublin requirements. (Prior to combustible construction or combustible storage on site). Finat locations of fire hydrants shall be approved by the ACFD in accordance with current standards. The minimum fire flow design shall be 1500 gallon per minute at 20 psi residual (flowing from a single hydrant). Raised blue reflectorized traffic markers shall be epoxied to the center of the street opposite each hydrant. Sufficient fire now:. required based on building construction and size. ApplicalltIDeveloper shall provide information On tbe fire now that i. available at the site. This information is available from the DSRSD. 76. Fire Extinguishers. Provide 2A] OBC fire extinguishers within 75 ft F rravel distance of portions of the buildings. An approved sigl1 in accordal1ce with Ul1iform Fire Code shall be cOl1spicuously posted above the extinguisher. 77. Knox Key Boxes. Provide Knox key boxes at the main entrance to F the buildings at the exterior doors 10 stair that extend to the 4"' floor and at al1Y gates. The Knox box shall contain a key that provides access to the building or gate. Gates or barriers shall meet the uiremel1ts ofthe ACFD_ OLICE SERVICES 78. Lighting. The Applicant/Develo er shall prepare alightin PL, PO, B, 17 WHEN REQ.? or combustible storage on site. Prior to occupancy ofany .ffected buildin Through completiol1 Prior to issuance of Build ing Pennits Prior to occup.ncy of any affected buildin Prior to occupancy of any affected building Pdorto \l.7 HOWlS CONDITION SA TlSFIED? Fire Code Alameda County Fire D~partment (ACfD) rules, regulations, and C ¡Iy of Dublin Standards ACFD and City of Dublin Requîrerncn IS Fire Code ACFD Non· NO. CONDITION TEXT 79. isochart to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works, Director of Community Development, the City's Consulting Landscape Architect and Dublin Police Services. Exterior lighting shall be provided within the parking lot and on the building, and shall be of a design and placement so as not to cause glare onto adjoining properties. businesses Or to vehicular traffic. Lighting used after daylight hours shall be adequate to provide for security needs (1.0 candle lights at ground level in parking lot areas). The location of light poles and parking lot trees shall be coordinated so that as the tree grows it will not obscure the light nor have to .be pruned extensively. Lighting shall be shielded to control spillover to adjacent properties. Exterior lighting is required over all doors. Lighting of all exterior areas shall be designed to maximize surveillance. Lighth1!! fixtures shalJ be of a vandal resistant tvoo. Non-Residential Security OrdiDance. The Applicant/Developer shall comply with all applicable City of Dublin Non Residential Security Ordinance requirements. a. Addressing and building numbering shaIl be visible from the approaches to the building. Addressing for individual suites/businesses within the project shall have the address stenciled in the rear door of the business. b. Buildings require a minimum of S-inch high numbers displayed on the building. c. (2) Tenant space numbers shall be a minimum size of 5 inches and be located on all doors. In addition all rear doors or service doors will havc the name of the business in S-inch high Jettering. d. Employee exit doors shall be equipped with ] 80-degree viewer ifthcre is not a burglary resistant window panel in the door from which to scan the exterior. e. Separation walls for individual tenant spaces housed within a cOmmon structure shall be solid and conÜnuous from the structure' 5 foundation to roof. f. EX"'Ipt for private stairways, stairways shall be designed as follows: i. Interior doors shall have glazing panels a minimum of 5 inches wide and 20 inches in height and meet requirements of the Unifonn Building Code. ii. Areas beneath stairways at or below ground level shall be fully enclosed or access to them restricted. iii. Enclosed stairways shall have shatter resistant mirrors or other equally reflective material at each level and landing and be designed or pJaced in such manner as to provide visibility around corners. g. In office buildings (multiple occupancy), all entrance doors to individual office suites shall meet the construction and locking requirements for exterior doors. h. Exterior landscaping shall be kept at a minimal height and fullness giving patrol ofñcers and the general public surveillance caøabHities of the 1I1"ea. Shrubs and ground COVeT 18 RESPON. AGENCY/ DEPART. PW PO WHEN REQ.? issuance of Building Permits On-going .. m " 1.~ HOWlS .1 CONDITIO . SA TlSFJED? residential Security Ordinance. ViI1age Parkway Specific Pl.n Non- Resident- ial Security Ordinancc . ~ \).'t fNO. CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN HOWlS e AGENCYJ REQ.? CONDITION DEPART. SA TlSFŒD? shall not directly cover windows and doorways. River rock used near parking lots or commercial builclings shall be permanently affixed. i. Landscaping features and plaza amenities shall be designed to reduce their attractiveness to skateboarders and vandals. J. All entrances to the parking areas shall be posted with appropriate signs per Sec. 22658(a) of the California Vehicle Code, to assist in removing vehicles at the property owner' sJmanager' s , i request. k. The Appl icanVDeveloper shall keep the site clear of graffiti vandalism on a regular and continuous basis at all times. . I. The ApplicantlDeveloper shall work with the Dublin Police on an ongoing basis to establish an effective theft prevention and security program. . m. A "Business Site Emergency Response Card" shall be filed with the Police Department commencing with the initial phases of construction. Current infDImation shall be - maintained until the comoletion of the proiect. DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT (DSRSm &0. Separate Connections. The two parcels shall have separate DSRSD Priorto DSRSD s"wer and water connections. issuance ,- of Building Permits. 81. Subject to DSRSD_ Prior to issuance of any building permit, DSRSD Priorto Stll/Jd~rd complete improvement plans shall be submitt"d to DSRSP that issuance of confonT1 to the requirements ofth. Dublin San Ramon Services aDY District Code, the DSRSD "Standard Procedures, Specifications Building and Drawings for P"sign and Installation of Water and Pennit Wastewater Facilities", all applicable PSRSD Master Plans and all DSRSD policies. 82. Future Flow Demands. All mains shall be sized to provide DSRSD Prior to DSRSD suffki"nt capacity to accommodate future flow demands in issuance of Utility addition to each development project's demand. Layout and Building Master sizing of mains shall be in conformance: with DSRSD utility Permits. Planning master planning. . 19 NO. 83, 84. 85. 86 CONDITION TEXT Sewers. Sewers shall be designed to operate by gravity flow to OSRSO's existing sanitary sewer system. Pumping of sewage is discouraged and may only be allowed under extreme circumstances following a case by case review with DSRSO staff. Any pumping station will require specific review and approval by DSRSD of preliminary design reports, design criteria, and final pl8lJS and specifications. The DSRSD reserves the right to require payment of present worth 20 year maintenance costs as wen as other cOI,ditions within a separate agreement with the ApplicantlDeveloper for any project that re uires a um in station. Waterline Design. Domestic and fire protection waterline systems for the Commercial Development shall be designed to be looped or interconnected to avoid dead end sections in accordance with requirements of the DSRSD Standard Specifications and sound en ineerin Tactice. Public Right-of-Way. DSRSD policy requires public water and sewer lines to be located in public streets rather than in off~street locations to the fullest extent possible. IfunavoidabJe, then public sewer Or water easements must be established over the alignment of each public sewer or water line in an off-street or private street location to provide access for future maintenance andlor re lacement. DSRSD ApprovaL Prior to IlpprovaJ by the City of a grading permit or a site development penn it, the locations Ilnd widths of all proposed easement dedications for water and sewer lines shall be submitted to and approved by DSRSD. REFUSE AND RECYCLING 87. Refuse Collection. The refuse collection servicc provider shall be consulted to ensure thllt adequate space is provided to accommodllte collection and sorting of petrucibJe solid waste as well as source-separated recyclable materials generated by this ro'ect. Refuse Collection Location. The AppJicant/ Developer shllll provide designated refuse collection areas for the project, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Community Development Director. Collection Ilreas shall be shown on the improvement and landscape plans for this phase. Applicant/Developer shall provide ''No Parking" signs jn designated refuse collection areas. The refuse collection plan shall be approved by the appropriate solid wllste collection company prior to approval of improvement plans. The Applicant/Developer shall provide a copy of the recorded shared trash encJosure covenllnt a ¡icable to both ro erties, Recycling. Applicant/Developer shall provide refuse-recycling collection and conform to the Ci of Dublin's rec clin ro am. 88. 89. 20 RESPON. AGENCYI DEPART. DSRSD DSRSD DSRSD PSRSD B B,PL B,PW WHEN REQ,? Prjor to íssuanc~ of Building Permits Prior to JSSUBnCe of Building Permits Prior to issuance of Building Pennits. Prior to approvlll of a Grading Permit Priorto j~Sllance of Building Pennits Prior to issuance of Building Pennits Municipal Code. On-going l;.û HOWlS CONDITIO SATISFIED? DSRSD DSRSD OSRSD DSRSD Munici pa I Code Municipa I Code . · PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 11 th day of May, 2004. · AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: A 1T£5T: ~ ! . - I - PI anning nager Cm. Fasulkey, and Machtmes Cm. King Cm. Nassar and Jennings / '-. OoIPA#\1003\O).069 Eo,. Pre.AppIPCRESOS!>R.DOC · 21 \~ I '30 -z.,. 'b l/tlt Correspondence received by Planning Commissioners at Their Residences ATTACHMENT 8 ~ '. I~ April 21, 2005 Enclosed you will find a copy of the appeal letter regarding Starbucks at Village Parkway and Amador Valley Blvd. There is also signatures from area residents and employees that work in this area that DO NOT want Starbucks at this location due to the - concerns of traffic and safety in and around their neighborhood. Also enclosed are letters and comments from some Dublin residents who will not be able to attend Tuesday nights meeting. These people would like you to read these letters and comments at the meeting, on the record. These enclosed signatures and comments were gathered in just a few short days after notification of this scheduled hearing. Should there have been more time there is no doubt a large volume of the same or similar responses would have been garnered. The enclosed sampling is a significant enough volume to extrapolate the view of the community and more importantly the feeling of the families of the affected area. This use would attract a high volume of vehicle traffic, especially during the morning hours. The uses primary exit is onto Amador Valley Blvd east into a residential neighborhood and a school zone. In fact this area contains a majority of our west Dublin schools and school children. The overwhelming feelings of the residents we spoke to is that making a special provision so Starbucks can put another location within a half a mile of two existing Starbucks provided absolutely no benefit to this community alld it does create and unsafe parking and traffic situation. ' Thank you Many concern Dublin Residents RECEIVED APR 2 6 Z005 DUBUN PLANNING lB>of March 21, 2005 Re: Appeal letter for PA-04057 This is a request to appeal planning application # P A-04057, Starbucks Coffee- Conditional Use Permit for a 29% Reduction to Required Parking. The location of this proposed project is directly adjacent to a residential neighborhood. The proposed use creates a high customer volume and/or traffic, with their highest volume in the morning hours nom 7:00 a.m.-lO:OO a.m. During this time name well over 90% of their sales are take-out or to-go. To illustrate that point the proposed applicant has provided for six short-tenn parking spaces, and unprecedented number for the city of Dublin. The primaray entrance and exit is located on Amador Valley Blvd., and as vehicles exit from thls location they must head east on Amador Valley Blvd. directly into our residential neighborhood. This residential neighborhood contains the largest cluster of schools within Dublin. The following schools that would be affected by this traffic are Dublin High Schoo~ Valley High Schoo~ Wells Middle School, and Frederiksen elementary. These school children range in ages from 5 to 17 years old. The tremendous volume of vehicles that this use would attract during the early morning hours combined with our children attempting to get to school is a recipe for disaster. This community is unwilling to take that chance with our children's safety. The original decision stated this use fell in line with the "downtown" plan of a café. It is clear to us the committee for the "downtown" specific plan was encouraging a café which would be a breakfast/lunch destination. We do not believe that their intent was to have another use at this location that was primarily geared towards take-outlto-go items. Cleary this proposed use functions primarily as a to-go/take-out shop. We understand that this proposed use currently enjoys great brand name recognition, but often "brands" lose fuvor. Such has been the case for Alpha-Beta, Gemco, Liberty House, Montgomery Wards, K-Mart, Bob's Big Boy, Coco's, Jojo's, and Baxter's. All of these past Dublin businesses have, not unlike the proposed use, enjoyed positive brand name recognition during their time. We feel it is tremendously important NOT to rely on the "brand" while considering this important appeal. Furthermore we have concerns regarding the specific parking lot and immediate areas. The current parking requirements( retail one space per 300 square feet and restaurant/food services one space per 100 square feet) was adopted specifically f or use of this nature. The one space per 100 feet is designed to accomxnodate a use that experiences large traffic volumes in a concentrated period oftime as is in this case. We believe, as it is stated, in the original proposal to "create" additional parking spaces in the street present's two significant problems. Currently, street parking on Village Parkway is problematic as it reduces one's ability to observe on-coming traffic unless you are already partially in the driving lane. (I.e. Dublin Post Office) When one exits this parking lot from Village Parkway one may have to cross two lanes of traffic immediately before entering a turning lane. Another challenge regards the five spaces of on street parking located on Village Parkway. This would require parking behind this retail complex, walking around the building pass the two other retail locations, or down the sidewalk around the corner to the main entrance oftbis establishment. We are highly I';oG doubtful that potential customers would use those street spaces and wa1k that distance without having attempted to find parking spaces within the shopping center proper. It Ì5 the added vehicle movements in entering and exiting this parking lot as well as the necessity to circle around through a series of U-turns in order to make a second attempt as to securing a parking spot. Should a potential customer choose to use one of the 5 Village Parkway on street parking spaces it becomes likely that a parallel maneuver would be required, which in itself would require the stoppage of traffic in the right lane. Finally, the notion that a potential custom.er would park in the street, located quite a ways ftom their destination, in the rain or other inclement weather is extremely doubtful. It is not reasonable, at all to consider that the 5 Village Parkway street spaces are truly functional fur this proposed use. Regarding the report/analysis comparing this Starbuck's location with another Starbuck's location 400 miles away in Southern California shows fur too few similarities to accurately gage the potential traffic flow at the Dublin Starbuck's location. In tills report the Southern California location was 26% smaller thus to gage the final flgures a 26% adjustment was forced to be made. The Southern California location Ì5 situated near . a freeway entrance. The report had no references to the volume of walk-up traffic, such as being located next to an office complex, schools, etc. In a cursory observation at the Starbuck's location on Dublin Blvd. and Regional Street the 28 cars per hour by far under represented the vehicle traffic indicated in the above mention report. This report simply lacks specific fundamenta~ comparable data to be considered a relevant comparison to the proposed project. Regarding the traffic study.... this was compiled hastily some two and Yo years ago. There are many variables that exist today that didn't exist in November 2002. Such as; the influx of vehicles ftom the Dougherty valley, the expansion ofthe Valley Center, remodel of A.M-P.M. mini market, increased enrollment in schools, new senior housing, and remodeled Target StorelExpoDesign center. This 2002 traffic study lacks resent and important details required to evaluate the safety of this corner under current conditions. It Ì5 our overriding concern that no matter what subsequent traffic studies occur there Ì5 no possible way to eliminate even a small increase of vehicle traffic on the residential portion of Amador Valley Blvd. Being mindful that Amador Valley Blvd. is a main artery for our children to get to and from school. This community places our children and their safety above all else and we sincerely hope the planoing comnùssion will do the same. This appeal has been respectfully prepared on behalf of many of the following: The Dublin community Village Parkway Business Owners Dublin Unified School Teachers and Administrators The families and children of the affected neighborhood \~I.:::> To Whom It May Concern: Dublin police has indicated that the residential area of Amador Valley Blvd is one of the highest ticketed roads in Dublin and continues to be a constant area of concern as it pertains to vehicle traffic and infractions. This is due to motorists mainly speeding through our residential neighborhoods. When one combines speeding and frustrated drivers trying to reach their destination (dropping their children off at school so they are not tardy) the risk you take and the result may be-accidents, injury, and death. . As an employee of the Dublin Unified School District and a teacher in the affected area I, as well as my colleagues, put our children's safety first. We have rules and guidelines for the children to follow so they are safe out .on the playground. We do not make special exceptions for anyone and we must take our rules seriously so our children can have a safe environment to go to school. This should be the guideline the planning commission takes when they look at the safety of our roads and parking lots that come within short distances of our schools. This Starbucks would interfere with more than 1400 non-driving school students trying to get to school at the same time. (I'm informed that both Wells Middle School and Frederiksen Elementary will have the exact same morning start time for all their students) The only way to enter these schools is on Amador Valley Blvd where there is only two lanes for the direction of traffic. I can't understand why a place such as Starbucks would even be considered to occupy a space that has these circumstances. As we all know Starbucks high traffic volume is from the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10 .a.m. This is a ver popular stop for many peopleand would only increase the traffic during our morning school times. As to quote the pamphlet on written by Dr. John Sugiyama, Superintendent of school and Donna Uyemoto, Chief Personnel Officer they say" The City is rapidly expanding its boundaries to include as many as 12,000 additional homes over the next decade that will create considerable growth. The district averages a 3.5% growth per year." With this knowledge it is clear that allowing an exception to limited parking and on-street parking is both unsafe and uneducated. To approve this conditional use permit and give them an exception to our cities rules would undermine the hard work done by teachers, school staff, parents, and all community members everyday to keep our children safe. We can prevent any unforeseen accidents and catastrophes from happening on this~so let's do it!!!!! ifL~ mern í)01e.JI¿ Me £/17 q,:)j' ?;).ð' jo37 XjZ7, J:::/fY'/f'rcn /f..,p)¡ ¡;;/J/11Ør _ ..¡::;...,"'" Aø,.-. 'II'" "-"V'J ;,:::"///,,"', <",n../-r. r. I 1>1 April 21, 2005 The Starbucks proposed would be located directly in the middle of our heaviest school zone-Wells Middle School, Frederiksen Elementary, Valley High, and Dublin High. This city should make no special conditions for Starbucks in this location. There is virtually no other use that would create added traffic on Amador Valley BLVD in the early morning hour while our children are going to school. Please DO NOT ALLOW this conditional uSe permit. \ ~he.. c..noy FÃrV\dï I~~ April!7,2005 To Whom It May Concern: There are other Starbuck outlets in the following locations and distances from the proposed site. Safeway Star bucks-Dublin Blvd. & Amador Plaza .3 miles from propsed site Starbucks-Dublin Blvd. & Regional Street .6 miles from prosed site Starbucks-Village Parkway & Alcosta Blvd. .6 miles from proposed site. Albertsons-Alcosta & San Ramon Valley Blvd. 1.1 miles from proposed site Starbucks-Hacienda Crossings 1.7 miles from proposed site Future Starbucks-Alcosta and SanRamon Blvd. 1.0 miles from proposed site IT IS UNNEsCESSARY AND UNSAFE TO MODIFY ZONING ORDINANCE 8.76.050 FOR THIS USE AT THIS LOCA TrON! 13" April 20, 2005 Regarding: Conditional USiò" Starbucks parking To Whom It May Concern: There are several Starbucks locations in the Dublin area; 4 on Dublin Blvd, 2 on A1costa, and 1 proposed for San Ramon Valley Blvd. And there is certain to be a Starbucks at the new retail center at Doughtery and Dublin Blvd. That would make a total of eight, so this is not about anti-Starbucks. This is simply not the proper location for a Starbucks and certainly not proper to make special accommodations for a retail center that Dublin clearly has throughout its city. There have been no past quarrels with any of their other locations. c ,t:s.dJj~ 1*'0 To WhoVVl- It MC1tj COVCGeyvc: The gevceYC1L -pLnvc foy fVl.tlAxe re:;lD!evctLnL gYOwtVi lVC ÞVl.bLLvc c'ovctnLvc$ n c'ovc.sL;tevct tVieVVl-e--TVie sC1fettj of WI" chLLD!yevc. PM lvcstC1VCc'e; MC1 tJ 01" L-oGlztJfx, Lvc n yeGevcL LV\.te vVLew, olÆtLlvcecl the GLtLe:; deVVl-nvcD! for LLvcenr 'PC1Ylzs LV\, tlV\,tj vcew reslcleV\,tLnL C1rtC1. TVie VVl-C1tjOV s'PeGLfLwLLtJ stnteD! thLs wOlA.Ld nLLow the GhLLclvevc to lA.:;e the 'PC1 rlz wLtnwt MnvlV\,g to GYOSS trC1ffeG feLLeD! streets. ThLs wLLL c,ywte C1 sC1fer evcvLvovcVVl-evct for OVl.V IzLvis. 'FYOVVI- tVie VVl-C1tJOV to the geV\,evnL 'PLC1VCv\'Lvcg GOVVl-VVl-lttee to OlA.r sc,nooLtwc,neys to OlA.V vesLD!evcts C1V\,d tne Gros:;Lvcg glA.i1Vds we C1LL -pLC1Ge tne :;C1fettJ of OlA.r c'nLLD!vevc n bove C1LL eL:;e C1 V\,vi we fVl.LLtj ex-pnt tnls c'oVVl-VVl-Ls:;Lovc to do the :;C1 VVl-e. \~\ To tne Þ"bLLII\. pLn vWcLVl-() c,oVlÆvvtLssLoVl-; R£; s-peGÍ,¡:;¡L :Pc¡rR,lVl-g for stcwbw.e,Rs wLtn ¡:;¡LL dw.e res-pect to the -pLnVl-Vl-LVl-g, tr¡;¡ff[e" li!Vl-d -p¡;¡r!sLVl-g eVl-gLVl-eers...."ßllsed OVl- tne wneVl-t trnffw li!Vl-d -p¡:;¡r!sLVl-g sLtw.¡;¡tLoVl- ¡;¡t rt¡;¡ cÙVl-d¡;¡ C.YossLVl-gs ¡;¡ Vl-d sllfew¡;¡ tj ¡;¡t Þw.bLLVl- 'þLvd ¡;¡ Vl-d AVlÆ¡;¡dor Plc¡Z¡;¡ Lt L$ dWr th¡;¡t thet) iÁVl-derestLVlÆllted the -p¡:;¡r!sLVl-g li!Vl-d trli!ffLe, Vl-eed$ for both -projects. "ßoth oftnese LowtLoVl-S (we CliÁLte fr¡:;¡Vl-!SLt) Il tr¡;¡ffLc [(Vl-d -p¡;¡rp[Vl-g Vl-[ghtVlÆnre, It [s iÁVl-deVl-[¡:;¡bLe th¡;¡t there [s Il co Vl-sLsteVl-t -p¡;¡tterVl- of "Vl-derestLVlÆiltLVl-g the -plld",LVl-g ilVl-d tr¡;¡ffLc Vl-eed -pmposed sh0-P-P[Vl-g ceVl-ters, [ii, ÞiÁbLLVl-, Tne deVlÆIl Vl-d s[VlÆ-pLij doesVl-'t fi.t the siÁp-pLij for ilS we !sVl-OW ÞiÁbLLVl- CQVl-tLVl-iÁes to grow LVl- Lts, -P0-PiÁL¡;¡tLoVl- Ilt 1lVl- exp0Vl-eVl-tL¡;¡L r¡;¡te. The -projected 'PC1rp[Vl-g ¡;¡Vl-d trllffLc LVlÆ'PIi!{)t siÁggested lot) tnese foLRS shoiÁLd be LooRed ¡;¡t with Ii! wwrt) eije. we {)Ii!Vl-'t iÁVl-c¡{er es':LVlÆ¡;¡te tne sC1fett) for OiÁr chLLdreVl-, J~ 4/20fE ......VJ..LL....I.kJOt. .I.t'.I.'-'k3Qu,l';¡..... ........."'J,LWJ. t"11!:\" 1 or 1 II./t.- ',. . From: tlmdenafam@comcast.net To: dondonnabl@aol.com Cc:; 8eardsley17@yahoo.com (Colleen).tlmdenafam@comcest.net, Subject; FW: trying again RE: Star Bucks Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2005 21 :44: 36 +0000 ""..~"-------- Forwarded Message: ____u_nn___ From: timdenafam@comc6st.net To: dondonnal@60l.com Cc: morgan@kings-press.com, fasulkey@pacbell.net, bschaub@comcast.net, do reen. weh ren berg@kp.org SUbject: trying again RE: Star Bucks Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2005 21 :37:52 +0000 'April 24, 2005 R~.:..P.[Q1l9:>.ed..5.t¡: J: ¿u.ck·s,co[ru:r of. Am¡¡d_orY6 lJey.el){d..,.. 6 n.Q. V.i 1169<1 !'-ªr.kw.~y Dear PI6nnlng Commission, As homeowner's In the vicinity of the above reference proposed Starbuck's, we strongly oppose this project. We were under the assumption that the space behind Our home would not involve any food or beverages, We get enough litter and rodents in our yard from the other existing restaurants on Village Parkway. Due to the lack of parking Starbuck's customers will only create more congestion in the area that Is highly traveled by my school children. We hope you consider the danger and consequences this project Imposes and deny its approval. Thank you, Sincerely, Dena & Tim Hall [ 8ªck ] © 2004 ComC:ast Cable Communicatiür'1£, Inc. All riºhts re!:>f:rved. I '1"3 April 20, 2005 Re: Starbucks conditionaJ use permit To the Planning Commission of Dublin Should a decision be reached on Tuesday night that would necessitate a legal challenge we have been advised thatthere is no obligation to provide a conditional use pennit to any applicant. But there is an obligation on this commission to strongly consider "Teasonable" concerns and request from the affected parties or representatives of the effected parties in actions such as this: THE QUESTIONS WOULD COME DOWN TO THESE. ... 1. Is it reasonable to believe that there would be more cars on Amador Valley Blvd. In the morning hours if this use was approved? 2. Is it reasonable to conclude added traffic in this residential neighborhood increases safety risks? We believe the answer to both of these questions is unarguably, yes. We are hopeful you will join us in placing the safety of our children and the concerns of our community first. é-- X &- --"~. <;. II4-I.f April 21, 2005 Re: Limited parking for Starbucks conditional use pennit It was suggested at the previous meeting regarding this issue that the proposed use fell in line with the intent "Downtown Plan". Nothing could be further from the truth. The downtown plan encourages "café" style uses that would be a destination location. Starbucks would be just one more Village Parkway "restaurant" that serves to go items. People driving there, picking up their food and/or drink and driving away. This would be in facta step in the wrong direction to achieve the goals of the downtown plan, t 'f< TO: THE PLANNING COMMISION We the undersigned insist that the original approval to allow special parking consideration for Starbucks at the corner of Village Parkway and Amador Valley BL YD. be overturned. The added parking congestion and traffic problems this will attract is Wlwanted and unnecessary at this location. Also Amamdor Vally BLVD. is already dangerous for our children traveling to and from school and this use will only attract more cars into our neighborhood and increase the danger to our children. Reject conditional use permit # P A-04057 on Tuesday April 2,6, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. ¡ ,+ I ~X' ]!i:Fl. '\>." roc> ¡¿ 'DY" .!('e"ctSO h~·"'YSg 'I,; b uJeU" ...\clWccM'y- 2<aOA\ . 'J 11.,\ . "'4<$" . h¡'-fc...-OtM;lD - :Du.b)/) r~1 <;;If-- 37 W. ".cJce leU.. 61 ,.:JJa~fißt 9'15do o 5"511 k ... & ~ f\;ObiVl., S~A.. tJ(l.Ùa:Jt, Clr-9'iJ'1.o """~'-""""""--\-"-~.'----'-" .._--,;...~ e. : !i.f::J.<:::' I , ¡,.~._._"_.,,. q¡f§g"" 22 2,4 2-5 2.1.,.. Z1 2..8 '29 _.__.,~'''._''-~-'~'~-'' ~'~-~ 1*(.:;> TO: TIIE PLANNING COMMISION We the undersigned insist that the original approval to allow special parking consideration fur Starbucks at the comer of Village Parkway and Amador Valley BL YD. be overturned. The added parking congestion and traffic problems this will attract is unwanted and unnecessary at this location. Also Amamdor Vally BL YD. is already dangerous for our children traveling to and from school and this use will only attract ;more cars into our neighborhood and increase the danger to our cbildreìL Reject conditional use permit # PA·04057 on Tuesday April 26, 2005 .at 7:00 p.rn. 3D "I., -" II.f1 TO: THE PLANNING COMMISION We the lUldersigned insist that the origin::tl ::tpprovaJ to ::tllaw speci::tl parking consideration for Starbucks at the comer of Village Parkway and Amador , V::tlley BL YD. be overturned. The added parking congestion and traffic problems this will attract is unwanted and unnecessary at this location. Also Amarndor Vally BL YD. is aJready dangerous for our children traveling to and from school and this use will only attract more cars into our neighborhood and increase the danger to Oill' children. Reject conditional use pennit # PA~04057 on Tuesday April 26, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. ~I "' . LaIJl1 ÓpYUctJ ~ CA- e¡ .'~ÐU _{A¥[ ... ? PD~·IJj (, íJML~ I <+t£ TO; THE PLANNING COMMISION We IJ1e undersigned insist that the original approval to allow special parking . . . consideration for Starbucks at the comer of Village Parkway and Amador Valley BL YD. be overturned. The added parking congestion and ttaffic problems this will attract is unwanted and unnecessary at this location. Also Arnamdor Vally BLVD. is already dangerous for our children tt~veling to and from school and this use will only attract more cars into our neighborhood and increase the danger to our children. Reject conditional use permit # PA-04057 on Tuesday April 26, 2005 at 7;00 p.m. ~.. ~ÞI . tfl L (l R?T) Li ÀiV /..'<,-/J ?I V\...Á- ~~ . Gr l..:...- S~ Ic.{~ TO: THE PLANNING COJ\1MISION We the undersigned insist that the original approval to allow special parking consideration for Starbucks at the corner of Village Parkway and Amador Valley BLVD. be overturned. The added parking congestion and traffic problems this will attract is unwanted and unnecessary at this locatiorL Also Amamdor Vally BLVD. is already dangerous for our children traveling to and from school and this use will only attract more cars into our neighborhood and increase the danger to our children. Reject conditionallL5e permit # PA-04057 on Tuesday April 26, 2005 at 7:00 p.rn. t"f</. :-to ì) 1<." I'i'> I'i' 2ö 21 /5D TO: THE PLANNING COMMISION We the undersigned insist that the original approval to allow special parking consideration fur Starbucks at the corner of Village Parkway and Amador V' alley BLVD. be overturned. The added parking congestion and traffic problems this will attract is unwanted and unnecessary at this locatioIL Also Arnamdor Vally BLVD. is already dangerous for our children traveling to and from school and this use will only attract more cars into our neighborhood and increase the danger to our children. Reject conditional use permit # P A·04057 on Tuesday April 26, 2005 at 7:00 p.m, \ \ 'l. ,3. <6'6'7 ll:../\~~I; '¿-t. Llv-e./L"·LA_"".",.,,..... (A ~'~~.. .....'" ·,',·",····,~··,·,,·,·,',,···IJJ" .Çt.. ~ J,;;;. '~/,¡(.," ·...·'>0'" :i,~,.'i'.i,' '1"',1."(;.,,-, "",;':i""::~~':""""''''''...'':;'''' d'"·""';.,, ',f ?r." 'I'r' ",'I'/õ""",<^'" ",,); ,,~, :;,':'0,!~tl~" ~:';;¡, "~<f(; , "~';" ( 1'-1 ~27.. I..(hl 4~1 Li/êJl G d S C~ Q 1:22 ¡LJ\Q fu1Q~ \<.d. .L zt~ 7oZ350-\~6Ç", 41 ~ ~ ?ßlq r\~v{lLe-. ) ,V" LJþt-..IZLf3W.maf¡c¡clL Dr [:vb/it!) cù IS \ì lAbL\t\ \)\JU\ ~\~ '" ,.1 ·C .. ' SF I~\ TO: THE PLANNING COI\1MISION We the lUldersigned insist that the original approval to alJow special parking consideration for Starbucks at the comer of Village Parkway and Amador 'if alley BL VD. be overturned. The added parking congestion and traffic problems this will attract is unwanted and UIll1ecessary at this location. Also Amamdor Vally BL YD. is already dangerous for our children traveling to and from school and this use will only attract more cars into OUI neighborhood and increase the danger to our children. Reject conditional use permit # P A-04057 on Tuesday April 26, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. "-0.,, yq;g i:èC.V~It:. /Iv<L.- CfOGG Vie,. 2¡:, t-f?í /~-7 (4~ LI; ~ , ct. II }0S 70èld..- ~o..,,^~ Àv'€-' Ii ~'14 110- 1'2/7 ~ ¡J /ffivt.v ~q 'DC¡ (!\GI\\..tJJ.d-t-o P (. 4/JD S;Q5 Mv L6e12r2\ çn. j/vl3-L' N N~,L 1:.1: ~,. Jay/Of( , ? "2-- TO: THE PLANNING COMMISION KIDS safety¿;, We the undersigned insist that the original approval to allow special parking consideration for Starbucks at the corner of Village Parkway and Amador 'Valley BLVD. be overturned. The added parking congestion and traffic problems this will attract is IUlwanted and unnecessary at this location. Also Amamdor Vally BLVD. is already dangerous for our children traveling to and £rom school and this use will only attract more cars into our neighborhood and increase the danger to our children. Reject conditional use pennit # PA-04057 on Tuesday April 26, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. "1'.... J /)9j sr I~ TO: THE PLANNING COMMISION We the undersigned insist that the original approval to allow special parking consideration for Starbucks at the corner of Village Parkway and Amador '(¡alley BLVD. be overturned. The added parking congestion and traffic problems this will attract is unwanted and unnecessary at this location. Also Amaador Vally BLVD. is already dangerous for out children traveling to and &om school and this use will only attract more cars into our neighborhood and increase the danger to our children. Reject conditional use permit # PA-04057 on Tuesday April 26, 2005 at 7:00 p;m. .,,,," ,,>"\1' ¿ ",-'f ~\I", "Q.€ , " p. 0, \:):y IcÇ{Ò "::T....n Ac::&-o--., -'- ·0¡4~ 0l\C¡\ WlC.I¿\CI...;,J \CLv\ 9. \ tA q L\i:.:t:,'S 6700 £b·~t¡£,..,,¡/-ttf £!d tf:=-~3 S 'ð 2.. "ok- t. ~þ. ". ~ 15Lf . TO: THE PLANNING COMMISION We the W1dersigned insist that the original approval to allow special parking consideration for Starbucks at the corner of Village Parkway and Amador . Valley BLVD. be overturned. The added parking congestion and tTaffic problems this will attract is W1wanted and unnecessary at this location. Also Amamdor Va11y BLVD. is already dangerous for our children traveling to and rrom school and this use will only attract more cars into our neighborhood and increase the danger to our children. R~iect conditional use permit # PA-04057 on Tuesday April 26, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. \::) 0'0\'"" {;Å¡ Q'1S6'f::, ,~~-"- -4 0 4-lw L. /ZO ~ '2_ C{'lO ¿¡ ..... SE>'i3 Âr-".¡......,.-"" .0«It t::x.,¡,I... ( ¿ <\ '1460¿;:, (ó'l,g II'"<?1Jtr \J ",((!y G vC,( Lv. (c." ?jl~r 'if \l(Q i?b H-e.N\ (OCIL Go\- 15Ç TO: THE PLANNING COMMISION We the undersigned insist that the original approval to allow special parking consideration for Starbucks at the corner of Village Parkway and Amador Valley BLVD. be overturned. The added parking congestion and 1Iaffic problems this will attract is unwanted and unnecessary at this location. Also Amamdor Vally BLVD. is already dangerous for our children traveling to and from school and this use will only attract more cars into our neighborhood and increase the danger to our children. Reject conditional use permit # PA-04057 on Tuesday April 26, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. ,." ,23, 2:3, fÞ 23:; j)¡; . ¡fu,r ¥i" 7 J?;Nt WâA. ét;-. 3t1 ~9t1i¡ I' IÅ ISI.I> TO: THE PLANNING COMMISION We the undersigned insist that the original approval to allow special parking consideration for Starbucks at the comer of Village Parkway and Amador Valley BLVD. be overturned. The added parking congestion and traffic problems this will attract is unwanted and unnecessary at this location. Also Amamdor Vally BLVD. is already dangerous for our chîldren traveling to and rrom school and this use will only attract more cars into our neighborhood and increase the danger to our children. Reject conditional use permit # PA-04057 on Tuesday April 26, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. If- ~1\ .-¡ 4ce \-t~':V\ 'Or t¡ 327S ¡)<..tb!,n A ;/: {6(/t M D/2 1:'1",:> ~ "'ê:š'~ \'"'\ iI~\ tfJ,J-Lç D non\r-e \ r\K )é}.1 7700 SCUì SoooVìO- Ct. ~h1 ,'12L\ "\òm êYRê\C\::- UQ", tJ¡ 73Yt! 0#¿:r/Í'ed C7 \)ì 151 ;~~rttm We the undersi¡r).lcd insist that the original approval to allow special parking consideration for Starbucks at the comer of Village Parkway and Amador . Valley BL YD. be overturned. The added parking congestion and traffic , problems this will attract is unwanted and unnecessary at this location. Also Amamdor Vally BL YD. is already dangerous for our children traveling to and rrom school and this use will only attract more cars into our neighborhood and increase the danger to our children. Reject conditional use permit # PA-04057 on Tuesday April 26, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. /I KØ011)pA~ f7ß TO: TIIE PLANNING COMWSION We the undersigned insist that the original approval to aJlow special parking consideration for Starbucks at the comer of Village Parkway and Amador Valley BLVD. be overturned. The added parking congestion and traffic problems this will attract is unwanted and unnecessary at this location. Also Amamdor Vally BLVD. is already dangerous for our children traveling to andfi.-om school and this use will only attract more cars into our neighborhood and increase the danger to our children. Reject conditional use permit # P A-04057 on Tuesday April 26, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. ..., "- 1 ( TO: THE PLANNING COMMISION g:- 154 We the undersigned insist that the original approval to allow special parking consideration for Starbucks at the comer of Village Parkway and Amador Valley BLVD. be overturned. The added parking congestion and traffic problems this will attract is unwanted and unnecessary at this location. Also Ama:l rdor Vally BL YD. is already dangerous for Oill' children traveling to and from school and this use will only attract more cars into our neighborhood and increase the danger to our children. Reject conditional use pennit # PA-04057 on Tuesday April 26, 2005 at 7:00 p.rn. Lt/w 4~CJ YJ-w Lillo ~é1V Lj ¿¡h~ ~ò , " SF ! t,Ð TO: THE PLANNING COMMISION We the undersigned insist that the original approval to allow special parking consideration for Starbucks at the comer of Village Parkway and Amador Valley BLVD. be overturned. The added parking congestion and traffic problems this wìll attract is unwanted and unnecessary at this location. Also Amaildor Vally BL VD. is already dangerous for our children traveling to and from school and this use will only attract more cars into our neighborhood and increase the danger to our children. Reject conditional use permit # PA-04057 on Tuesday April 26, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. 'i i "- ""..Nt ~ ~ dD 1(20 t-1tao S\F ¡ 1.<>/ TO: TIIE PLANNING COMMISION We the lUldersigned insist that the original approval to allow special parking consideration for Starbucks at the comer of Village Parkway and Amador Valley BLVD. be overturned. The added parking congestion and traffic probleIllS this will attract is unwanted and unnecessary at this location. Also A1na!ffdor Vally BLVD. is already dangerous for our children traveling to and rrom school and this use will only attract more cars into our neighborhood and increase the danger to our children. Reject conditional use permit # PA-04057 on Tuesday April 26, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. (Yet/ ?<à JILA 1.(-1.0 . 'i¡;lì 'Yu...VH"tpOvY"\. "'::>-t--. 1-J.ð 14104.f- T&LR9ør- /It.2,.. TO: THE PLANNING COMMISION We the undersigned insist that tbe Oliginal approval to allow special parking consideration for Starbucks at the comer of Village Parkway and Amador "Valley BLVD. be overturned. The added parking congestion and traffic problems this will attract is unwanted and unnecessary at this location. Also Amamdor Vally BL YD. is already dangerous for our children tmvelingto and from school and this use will only attract more cars into our neighborhood and increase the danger to our children. Reject conditional use permit # PA-04057 on Tuesday April 26, 2()05 at 7:00 p.m. ,( i ) // , TO: THE PLANNING COMMISION \~ We the undersigned insist that the original appi'oval to allow special parking consideration for Starbucks at the corner of Village Parkway and Amador 'Valley BL YD. be overturned. The added parking congestion and traffic problems this will attract is unwanted and unnecessary at this location. Also Amamdor Vally BL YD. is already dangerous for our children traveling to and from school and this use will only attract more cars into our neighborhood and increase the danger to our children. Reject conditional use permit # PA-04057 on Tuesday Apri126, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. I:>~" 1 ~J J r; ú1:f{)YI wDO f3,¿f. l?1 aU'1 ' L D ~l7w j (P'51J I ' e¡ææ L LJ.1.Z&263 4/22 63S~ CAi tJ. /;;s. tCS4 4f~'53d6 4/z? I ~I , " SbV¿ ><.ILP -rM ¿f-~t-- \¡., -f TO: THE PLANNING COMMISION We the undersigned insist that the original approval to allow special parking consideration for Starbucks at the comer ofViUage Parkway and Amador Valley BL YD. be overturned. The added parking congestion and traffic problems this will attract is Wlwanted and Ullllecessary at this location. Also Amamdor Vally BL YD. is already dangerous for our children traveling to and from school and this use will only attract more cars into our neighborhood and increase the danger to our children. Reject conditional use permit # P A·04057 on Tuesday April 26, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. "\U tJ,_·~. ~ffl~r:¡.j" ,~. t. t. ... 1/-7-Z IfR/r CCl)2!J4J wa Çj .:-:- 1+ð~ ',tJ ' $8t'/¿, ÐI,U.·b.i! -~._'-- ~~~~. .. .--".- I¡.,t;; TO: THE PLANNING COMMISION We the undersigned insist that the original approval to allow special parking consideration fur Starbucks at the comer ofVilIage Parkway and Amador Valley BL YD. be overturned. The added parking congestion and traffic problems this will attract is unwanted and U1Ulecessary at this locatiolL Also Arnamdor Vally BL YD. is already dangerous for our children traveling to and fi-om school and this use will only attract more cars into our neighborhood and increase the danger to our children. Reject conditional use permit # PA-04057 on Tuesday April 26, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. 7 r (. Æ l1'1.£Lp-ll0lL- ;¿ U/7 L ;"'M. £¿ 1Þ 5 1/3 1(./ O<.A.0/,'It cA- 1'156'3 -.3 '}¿'L U:Aý§h ~ e:'((,-n~ ç. ·¡Iß aLi~1 . nVI '-_ cA -'1.)1;.,<" L ;; f 5 ~ 'Î B q 4/vv 10 2}¡/ . ..-v</<-cN~- e,,.. I l ./ (0....._._ L· . < ,1200 ~I' ¡'Ue- 9J?DÙ C?.e,~ 'b.,-, 11744 C<u:-H.e Cc,Ul---t ;;¿1 JLI ç..JQ CWQf- a-J. 1\2))1 I (¿> (.? TO: THE PLANNING COMMrSION We thc undersigned insist that the original approval to allow speciaJ parking consideration for Starbucks at the corner of Village Parkway and Amador 'Î1 alley BL YD. be overturned. The added parking congestion and traffic problems this will attract is unwanted and UIlllecessary at this location. Also Amamdor Vally BL YD. is already dangerous fur our children traveling to and from school and this USe will only attract more cars into our neighborhood and increase the danger to our children. Reject conditionalU$e permit # PA-04057 on Tuesday April 26, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. ~b. ;¡/z¡ 'i \ Yh\ 2.1 /1-1 '?.1 "Ytl '1~~ ¡s-s--g-c wi\'- \ GLù L... n . $'NI 1m, j "8/51 VI'IIClCf?Cif"k~ . .1.0~ S\'C(lI.ú~ "Blf?' AV")\J5.4-- ~. {f1\41 v.:>ìMo~ l"'-'^.... ~ 5 ~c..e. q z..;=n- ~I/\ \It( L..t' tl.?7 TO: THE PLANNING COMMISION Wc the undersigned insist that the original approval to allow special parking consideration for Starbucks at the corner of Village Parkway and Amador V alley BLVD. be overturned. The added parking congestion and traffic problems this will attract is unwanted and unnecessary at this location. Also Amamdor Vally BLVD. is already dangerous for our children traveling to and from school and this use will only attract more cars into our neighborhood and increase the danger to our children. Reject conditional use pennit # PA-04057 on Tuesday April 26, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. ..." ~ LJljO ~f~ , ""' , 3<.. 3'"\ 3S' 3(,.. 51 3~ 3'? 'tt> ~ -~--- TO: THE PLANNING COMMISION We the lilldersigned insist that the original approval to allow special parking consideration fur Starbucks at the corner of Village Parkway and Amador 'Valley BLVD. be overturned. The added parking congestion and traffic problems this will attract is lillwanted and unnecessary at this location. Also Amamdor V ally BLVD. is already dangerous for our children traveling to and from school and this use will only attract more cars into our neighborhood and increase the danger to our children. Reject conditional use permit # PA~04057 on Tuesday April 26, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. 33 -'" ID~ .1.if¡. 41