HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.1 EneaStarbucksAppeal
CITY CLERK
File # O~[Z][Q]-~[Q]
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 21, 2005
SUBJECT:
PUBLIC HEARING: 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 ~.
I. Resolution Granting Appeal of Enea Properties in Part, Thereby
Reversing the Planning Commission's Decision, and ModifYing
the Zoning Administrator's Approval of Conditional Use Permit
P A 04-057 (Enea Properties/Starbucks Coffee).
2. City Council Staff Report of June 7, 2005 without attachments.
3. Letter dated June I, 2005 from Mr. James E. Lange.
ATTACHMENTS:
RECOMMENDATIONJ
/" 2.
3.
4.
I. Open Public Hearing [See my comments below] and Hear Staff
Presentation;
Take Testimony from the Public;
Close Public Hearing and Deliberate; and
Adopt Resolution Granting the Appeal of Enea Properties in
Part, Thereby Reversing the Planning Commission's Decision,
and Modifying the Zoning Administrator's Approval of
Conditional Use Permit P A 04-057 (Enea Properties/Starbucks
Coffee); or
5. Provide Staff with additional direction.
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 Commercial (C-2). Adjacent uses
include the Taco Bell restaurant to the south and two single-family homes to the east on Amador Valley
Boulevard.
Enea Properties has requested a Conditional Use Permit from the Zoning Administrator to reduce the
number of parking required by the Zoning Ordinance to allow a 1,886-square-foot coffee retailer and café
to locate in the Enea Village Parkway Center. The Conditional Use Permit is nceded to reduce the
number of on-site parking spaces by thirteen (13) parking spaces and substitute twelve (12) curbside
COPIES TO:
Applicant
Property Owner
In-House DiSÕ:1.
G,IPA#\2004104-1J57 St"bud" P..king CUPlClty cn.ncll\cl ~C::-6.21..œ5.dnC
ITEM NO.
parking spaces for the required parking, pursuant to Chapter 8.76 of the Zoning Ordinance, Oft~street
Parking and Loading. The following is a summary ofthe City's actions on this project:
· On March 14,2005, the Zoning Administrator approved a Conditional Use Permit for a Parking
Reduction for the Starbueks Coffee Shop.
· On May 5, 2005, the Planning Commission approved an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's
approval of the Conditional Use Permit.
· At the June 7, 2005, City Council Meeting, the City Council heard an Appeal of the Planning
Commission decision that was filed by Robert Enea of Enea Properties, the property owner of the
Enea Village retail/office center in which Starbueks Coffee plans to locate.
A complete background and analysis of the issues are presented in the attached City Council Staff Report
of June 7, 2005 (Attachment 2).
At the City Council meeting of June 7, 2005, the City Council reviewed the Staff report, the existing
record, and received public testimony on the project. In addition, the City Council learned that Wheels,
the City's public transit provider had requested to move an existing bus stop thus providing for a total of
12 parking spaces immediately adjacent the site on Amador Valley Boulevard. Following the June 7,
2005, City Council meeting, Wheels relocated the bus stop.
The City Council conducted a straw vote and directed Staff to return to the next City Council meeting
with a draft Resolution approving the Appeal in part, with modifications to conditions of approval to
ensure that:
· Two spaces on site are limited to 15 minute parking; and
· Twelve spaces directly adjacent the project on Amador Valley Blvd. be available in order for the
project to go forward (bus stop has been relocated).
Following the distribution of the City Council Agenda Statement of 6-7-05, a comment letter was
received fÌ"om Mr. James E. Lange (Attachment 3). Mr. Lange indicates in his letter that as an adjacent
property owner he does not support the project. He notes in his letter that he feels that the reduction will
cause customers of Starbucks to park on his property. It should be noted that when Mr. Lange sent tbis
letter, the City was not yet aware that Wheels would request that the bus stop be moved, thereby freeing
up a total of 12 parking spaces adjacent the site. The public hearing should be reopened solely for the
purpose of entering Mr. Lange's letter into the record and permitting the Appellant and the public to
respond to the contents ofthis letter.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council; 1) open public hearing and hear the Staffprescntation; 2) take
public testimony; 3) close the public hearing and deliberate; and, 4) adopt Resolution Granting the Appeal
of Enea Properties in Part, Thereby Reversing the Planning Commission's Decision, and Modifying the
Zoning Administrator's Approval of Conditional Use Permit PA 04-057 (Enea Properties/Starbucks
Coffee); or 5) provide Staff with additional direction.
2tJb';).,
1~1.30
RESOLUTION NO. - 05
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
************
A RESOLUTION GRANTING THE APPEAL OF ENEA PROPERTIES IN PART WITH
MODIFICATIONS AND DENYING IT IN PART, THEREBY REVERSING THE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S DECISION, AND MODIFYING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S
APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PA 04-057
(ENEA PROPERTIES / STARBUCKS COFFEE)
RECIT ALS:
WHEREAS, the Enea Properties Company, LLC ("Applicant!Appellant"), is the owner of
property located at 7197 Village Parkway (APN 941-0210-013), and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission approved Resolution 04-40 on May 11, 2004, approving a
conditional use permit for amendments to the existing Planned Development, Site Devclopment Review
and a master sign program for the property located at 7197 Village Parkway; and
WHEREAS, the conditions of approval of Resolution 04-40 required 32 on site parking spaces
for the proposed retail and restaurant!café uses: Retail 7,939 square feet -- 26 spaces (I :300); and
Restaurant 600 square feet -- 6 spaces (1 : 1 00); and
WHEREAS, the Applicant! Appellant proposes to construct a 1,886 square toot cotfee shop, 410
square foot outdoor seating area and 6,653 square foot retail center; and
WHEREAS, Dublin Municipal Code ("DMC") section 8.76.080 requires 45 parking spaces tor a
1 ,886 square foot coffee shop, 410 square foot outdoor seating area and 6,653 square foot retail center;
and
WHEREAS, the Applicant! Appellant has requested approval of an application on behalf of
Starbucks Coffee, Inc., for a conditional use permit to allow a reduction of 13 parking spaces rrom the
number of parking spaces required by the Dublin Municipal Code for a 1,886 squarc foot coffee shop, 410
square foot outdoor seating area and 6,653 square foot retail center (45 spaces); and
WHEREAS, the application was considered by, and approved by, the Zoning Administrator of
the City of Dublin on March 14,2005, by Resolution Number 05-04 of the Zoning Administrator ofthe
City of Dublin; and
WHEREAS, an appeal rrom the decision of the Zoning Administrator was filed on March 23,
2005, by Bobbi Cauchi, pursuant to Chapter 8.136 of the Dublin Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said appeal on April 26, 2005 and reversed the
decision of the Zoning Administrator by adoption of Resolution Number 05-25 of the Planning
Commission ofthe City of Dublin; and
(,,~21-Ð6' let I
A IT ACIiMEtH 1
~tb~
WHEREAS, Enea Properties Company, LLC (the applicant) timely filed an appeal &om the
Planning Commission's reversal of the Zoning Administrator's approval of the Conditional Use Permit by
Jetter of May 5, 2005, stating the specified grounds for the appeal; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the appeal of the Enea Properties Company, LLC on at
a noticed public hearing on June 7, 2005 and June 21,2005, and heard testimony and considered all
documentary evidence submitted to it, including the agenda statements dated June 7, 2005 June 21, 2005
and documents submitted to the City Council by persons testifying before the Council; and
WHEREAS, at the conclusion ofthe public hearing on June 7, 2005, the City Council by a "straw
vote" indicated its intention to grant the appeal in part and deny the appeal in part; and
WHEREAS, the Council reopened the public hearing on June 21, 2005, to consider additional
testimony and documentary evidence, and closed the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the "record herein" consists of the minutes of the public hearings on June 7, 2005
and June 21, 2005, all documentary evidence submitted to the Council at such public hearings, including
the agenda statements dated June 7, 2005 and June 21,2005; and
FINDINGS
WHEREAS, after considering the provisions of the Dublin Municipal Code and the record herein,
the City Council finds as follows:
1. Pursuant to Dublin Municipal Code §8.76.080, the required parking for the proposed
project, as approved by the Planning Commission by Resolution 04-40 in 2004, is 32 spaces, as follows:
Rctail 7,939 square feet 26 spaces (1 :300); and Restaurant 600 square feet 6 spaces (1: 1 00).
2. Pursuant to §8.76.050.E of the Dublin Municipal Code, an applicant may propose a
reduction in the number of parking spaces required by Dublin Municipal Code §8.76.080 and the Zoning
Administrator may grant a reduction in off street parking requirements if:
a. The conditional use permit finding of Chapter 8.100 can be made;
b. The applicant submits a parking study prepared by a qualified consultant analyzing the
parking demand of the proposed use and the parking-demands of similar uses in similar
situations, demonstrating that the required parking standards are excessive, and proposing
alternate parking standards which are appropriate and ensure that tbere will not be a
parking deficiency; and
c. Overflow parking will not impact any adjacent use.
3. Applicant/Appellant seeks a Conditional Use Permit to reduce the required parking, ITom
45 spaces which are required by DMC§8.76.080 (Retail 6,642 square feet requires 22 spaces; Restaurant
1,886 square feet requires 1 9 spaces; and Outside seating 410 square feet requires 4 spaccs) to 32 spaces.
4. Two parking studies were submitted, including the parking study dated December 29,
2004, entitled "Starbucks 7197 Village Parkway Parking Study", which is attacbment 6 to the June 7,
2005 agenda statement, and a letter ITom Omni Means, dated April 19, 2005 to Ray Kuzbari (attachment 6
to the June 7,2005 agenda statement); and
2
~Ðb ?
5. The City's traffic engineer, Ray Kuzbari, testified at the public hearing that 12 on strcct
parking spaces immediately adjacent to the property will be available for parking due to the imminent
relocation of a bus stop; and
6. The parking studies submitted to the Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission
demonstrate that the required parking standards of Section 8.76.080 of the Dublin Municipal Code are
excessive in that there is only one standard for restaurant uses which does not consider the type of use
proposed by Starbucks, which requires fewer parking spaces than a typical restaurant due to the constant
turnover of Star bucks' patrons; and
7. The Council finds that proposed alternate parking standards are appropriate and ensure that
there will not be a parking deficiency in that 12 spaces are available for parking on the street immediately
adjacent to the property and two on site spaces will be restricted to 15 minute parking, assuring adequate
turnover which will generate the equivalent of one additional space; and the Council accordingly
determines that overflow parking will not impact any adjacent use.
NOW, THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL MAKES THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS
AND DETERMINATION:
I. The City Council incorporates the findings in Resolution 05-04 of the Zoning
Administrator in particular, findings 1,2,3,4,5,6,7, and 8;
2. Condition of approval number 8 of Resolution 05-04 is modified to read as follows:
"Time limited reserve parking. The applicant/developer shall
reserve 2 of the on site parking spaces as time limited parking.
These spaces should be located closes to the coffee shop and
should be posted with the following information; "15 minute
parking limit. Towing enforced." Signs shan include City of
Dublin Municipal Code citation that allows towing of illegally
parked vehicles."
3. Council finds that 32 on site spaces, 12 off site spaces on the street directly adjacent to the
property and 2 spaces limited to 15 minute parking satisfy the requirement ofthe Dublin
Municipal Code for 45 parking spaces.
4. Condition number 2 of the conditions of approval of Resolution 05-04 is modified to
include the following additional language:
"The conditional use permit shall not be valid unless and until the
City's traffic engineer determines that 12 parking spaces are
available directly adjacent to the property on the street."
5. Except as modified by this Resolution, Resolution 05-04 is aftirmed as modified and the
appeal is granted and the decision of the Planning Commission is reversed.
3
4Dt r~
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 21" day of June 2005, by the foIlowing vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
4
· r:iJb I~
CITY CLERK
File # nffi..[]OJ-alO
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 7, 2005
SUBJECT:
ATTACHMENTS:
RECOMMENDATION:
4,f
PUBLIC BEARING: Appeal of Planning Commission Reversal of
Zoning Administrator's Approval of a Conditional Use Permit
Authorizing a Parking Reduction for P A 04-057, Enea
Properties/Starbucks Coffee
Report prepared by: Janet Harbin, Senior Planner rý
1.
Letter of Appeal to the City Council from Robert Enea dated
received May 5, 2005
Planning Conunission Staff Report, with Resolution attached,
and Meeting Minutes for April 26, 2005
Letter of Appeal to the Planning Commission ITom Bobbi
Cauchi 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, PA 03-069
Correspondence received by PI8l1IlÌng Commissioners at their
residences
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
1. Open Public Hearing and Hear Staff Presentation;
2. Take Testimony ITom the Applicant and the Public;
3. Close Public Hearing and Deliberate;
4. Direct Staff to Either:
a. Prepare a Resolution Denying the Appeal Thereby Affirming
Planning Commission Denial of Conditional Use P=it P A
04-057, Enea Properties/Starbucks Coffee;
Or
b. Prepare a Resolution Gnmting the Appeal Thereby
Reversing the Planning Commission and Upholding the
Zoning Administrator's Approval of Conditional Use P=it
P A 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 of Conditional Use Permit
P A 04-057, Enea Properties/Starbucks Coffee.
copms TO: Appellant
Property Owner
1 PA File
ITEM NO. ~
ATTACHMENT 2-
GoIPA#W04\04-0$7 Suubucks parlcin¡¡ CUPICC Appeal .ro-H)5.doc -
u tIb ,~
DESCRIPTION:
The project site at 7197 Village Parkway was the former location ofan automotive gasoline Brld service
station that closed in the 1990's, and was previously zoned General Commercial (C-2). Adjacent uses
include the Taco Bell restauràIlt 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, commercial 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 corner of the intersection of Village Parkway and Amador
Valley Boulevard with an 8,539-square-foot commercial/retail 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 commercial/retail center, a 600-square-foot space
was identified for eating and drinking uses, such as a coffee shop. At the present time, constructiOD has
commenced for the commercial/retail building at the site with approved bui1ding permits; howevr¡,¡-,
grading and sitework only have proceeded on the office building parcel.
In November of 2004, Enea Properties requested a Conditional Use Permit ITom 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 of30 indoor and 16 outdoor seats. On March 14,2005, the Zoning
Administrator held a public hearing and granted the Conditional Use Permit. The hearing and Zoning
Administrator actioD is addressed in the following section.
Zoning Administrator Hearing and Action:
In considering the Conditional Use Permit for a 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 Centr¡,¡-
(P A 04-057), the Zoning Administrator received a Staff report on the project (see Attachment 4), and
heard comments ITorn 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 of Mika's Espresso, located across Amador Valley Boulevard ITom the Enea Village Cooter'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.
...
1Ð[)13
A complete discussion of the information on the requested Conditional Use Permit and the material
presented to the Zoning Administrator is contained in the Staff report in Attachment 4, along with the
minutes of the hearing. The Zoning Administrator 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 trom 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. Cauchi' 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 Attachment
2.
Additionally, the Applicant, Robert Enea of Enea Properties, also submitted a response to the Appellant's
letter which is included as the Applicant's Response to Appeal in Attachment 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 Attachment 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 £rom the Applicant and the Public, and the Traffic Consultant and Staff responding to questions
OIl the project, the Planning Commission acted to deny the Conditional Use Permit for the project. The
adopted Resolution and minutes of the meeting are also contained in Attachment 3.
ANALYSIS:
Robert Enea of Enea Properties, the property owner of the Enea Village retail and office center in which
Starbucks Coffee plans to locate, filed a Letter of Appeal of the Planning Commission!ì:lenial of the
Conditional Use Permit 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 information, and the issues presented by the previous letter of appeal to the Planning
Commission are contained in the Planning Commission Staff report, Attachment 2, the Zoning
Administrator Staff report, Attachment 4, and the Parking Study with Supplemental Focused Parking
Report in Attachment 6.
Applicant's Letter of Appeal:
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.
1. Auulicant Comment: The Applicant requf'sf$ that the City Council determine that the I: J 00 parking
standard is exæssive for the proposed USf'; that the proposf'd alternative parking study reducing the
on-site parking by eight (8) spaces. with four (4) on-site IS-minute spaces andfive (5) spaces off-site,
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 thf' Planning
Commission's decision bf' reversed; and the Conditional Use Permit be grantf'd based on the
recommendation$ and conclusions of the parking study prepared by Omni-Means.
ß"b 13
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 det=ination as to whether the parking reduction
should be granted.
2. Auulicant's Comment: Traffic and parking data, studies, and analysis are thefùndamental basis for
all most major decisions concerning urban planning and project development. Experts such as
professional Traffic 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 appropriatefor the elected or appointed decision
makers to apply common sense to test andfìltering 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
Commisliion. Certain questionli and commentli made by the Chairman communicated particular
belief¡; or perceptions alifollows;
a. Handicapped parking spaces should not be counted toward fulfilling the on-site parking
requirements becaulie they generally go unulied;
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 spaceli, which is normally allowed in
downtown areas;
c. The four limited time (15 -minute only) spaces would not effectively increase the capacity of
the on~;>Íte parking plan, even though it wali recommended by experienced professio1l£zls; and,
d. The Focused Traffic/Parking AnalysÍIi states that, "the proposed retail/co.ffee shop would not
liignificantly impact traffic conditions at the study intersection compared to e.xiliting conditions, "
and the interliection of Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard with the project would
"continue to operate at LOS "A" condition.<; during the A.M. peak hour. . . " Additionally, the
study litateli that, "Curb space for 10-]2 vehicles is available on Village Parkway and Amador
Valley Boulevard fronting the project liite. . . It is likely the curb spaces would accommodate the
excess demand. "
Resuouse: 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 Mun.icipal 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 permit.
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
Traffic/Parking Analysis dated April 19, 2005, in Attachment 6 of this Staff report, was included in the
information submitted to the Planning Commission 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 ITom the testimony that
the commissioners had read the two studies. In determining what course of action is to be taken on a
project, the Planning Conunission is presumed to have reviewed all the information, materiJ ~ ~
testimony in the record. The Resolution adopted by the Planning Commission, Resolution No. 05-25
on April 26, 2005, reversing the Zoning Administrator's approval and denying the Conditional Use
Permit 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
Meal1ll, 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 Commission had failed to consider the evidence set out in the
Omni/Means study, the City Council's consideration of the Ornni/Means 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 Omni-Means study that
was part of the record, the Public Works Department Staff presented a diagram at the Planning
Commission 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 off-street parking requirements. It
therefore concluded that the Omni-Means report failed to demonstrate that the standard was
excessive---since 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 staffpresentation--both of which relied
upon the premise that the project was only 4 off-street spaces short---do not support for the finding
that the requirement is excessive or that the report proposes a parking standard that will ensure that
there win not be a parking deficiency.
The Applicant is correct that handicapped parking spaces are counted towards the on-site parking
requirement.
3. Applicant's Comment: 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.
Resoonse: 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
det=ination was made, the evidence in the record did not support the required findings. .
4. Apo!icant's Comment: 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
lOo;.,l~
the Commission's role as ajury panel. His statements, based on the evidence he gathered, may hav't
biased the opinions of the other Commissioners and showed that he had not been objective in
considering 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. As the
Applicant, Staff advised us that nO contact with the Commissioners' was permitted by either the
Applicant or the Appellant.
Response: The pending application requests an approval that requires the City to conduct a quasi-
judicial hearing. Such hearings entitle the Applicant (and the project's neighbors in some ca.ses) to due
process under the California Constitution. Due process in quasi-judicial proceedings is not the same as
due process in judicial 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 information rnight
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 notto
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 Starbucks 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
Commissioners 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 determination 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, ¡my 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
CO\1I).cil 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 determination 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. Applicant's Comment: It must be stated for the public record that the motivating stakeholder behind
the Appellant's actions are the owner's of a competing coffee kiosk located across the street. They
have disguised their opposition under the mask of traffic and parking. In reality, they are s~eLt~;
preserve their oWn economic interests and have abused the system to further their self-interest. Every
letter and voice heard in opposition of our CUP for reduced parking is a friend or associate of the
owners of the competing coffee kiosk. Infact, it should be noted that the competing coffee kiosk
bllSiness located across the street is operating under a twelve- year old conditional lISe pel7nit
granting them a 50 percent parldng reduction.
Response: Comment noted. The owners of Mika' s Coffee across Amador Valley Boulevard ftom 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 of hearing contained in Attachment 4, Zoning
Administrator Staff report, Resolution, and Meeting Minutes for March 14, 2005). Staffhas no way of
confinning whether the letters or voices heard are mends 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 reqwed 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 Pennits run with the land
and when Mika's took over the drive-through use, no additional use permit was required since the use
permit was for a drive-through type of use.
6. Avpjjcant's Comment: We have worked cooperatively with Staff and the resulting project is a
culmirllltion 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.
Response: Comment noted.
7. Annlicant's Comment: We alternatively appeal the Planning Commission's denial of the Conditional
Use Permit 'with prejudice. '
Resvonse; 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 th.e sarne property shall be filed for a
period of one year ITom the date of denial, except where the permit was denied without
prejudice.
TIluS, the effect of the Planning Commission denial, which did not indicate whether it was a denial
without prejudice, was to preclude the applicant ITom filing an application for the same or substantially
same permit for a period of one year ITom the date of denia1. The City Council could eliminate this
prohibition by granting the appeal and indicating that the denial is without prejudice.
2.Jb 1:3
Public HearIu!! 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 comments have been received ITom 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 enviromnental impacts and that environmental
documents be prepared. The proposed project has been found to be Categorically Exemption from the
provisions of California Environmental Quality Aet (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 re;tail commercial center, presently under construction.
CONCLUSION:
The City Council's charge is to determine if the Planning Commission decision to reverse the Zoning
Administrator's approval and deny the Conditional Use Permit 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. Staffhas provided l Recommendation that
would allow the City Council to make an appropriate determination and direct Staff to return at a later
date with the draft Resolution implementing the determination.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council: I) open public hearing and hear the Staff presentation; 2) take
testimony ITom the Applicant, Appellant and the Public; 3) close the public bearing and deliberate; and, 4)
direct Staff to Either:
a. Prepare a Resolution Denying the Appeal Thereby Affirming Planning Commission Denial of
Conditional Use Permit P A 04-057, Enea Properties/Starbucks Coffee; or,
b. Prepare a Resolution Granting the Appeal Thereby Reversing the Planning Commission and
Upholding the Zoning Administrator's Approval Conditional Use Permit 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 PA 04-057, Enea
Properties/Starbucks Coffee.
G:\PA#I2DD4\04-<J57 an.,.\ CC Appeal Sf 60705.doc
l~tl3
Red! Es1c18 BtoIceI1
.-
OJ
I.a.-
..
6500 DUBLIN BOULEVARO . sum 201 . DUBLIN' CA 94568. 19251828-6905' felX {925 828-1052
1. A N G E
EN! t, II, I' I~ ! ~ E' ~
Jtme I, 2005
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Attention: Jeri Ram, AlCP
Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Denial ofPA 04-057, Starbuck's Coffee
Conditional Use Permit for 7197 Village Parkway, Dublin
Dear Ms. Ram:
We are owners ofthc Taco Bell and Hunan House Restaurants, located adjacent to thc
above-describedparcel. We are in accord with the Planning Commission's Denial ofa
Conditional Use Perm.it for Starbuck's Coffee.
Starbuck's is requesting a reduction of 13 parking spaces from the normally required 45
parking spaces for their square footage. Any reduction of parking spaces puts a burden
on the surrounding parking areas. We are concerned that potential customers and
employecs of Starbuck's would find it very convenient to park in our adjacent parking
lot, which is reservcd for the employees and customcrs of our restaurants.
Therefore, we respectfuJly request that the City Council deny the Conditional Use Permit
and uphold the recommendation of the Planning Commission.
truly yours, .
E. Un;\-
RECEIVED
JUN 0 ::: 2005
DUBLIN PLANNING
A IT ACliMENT 3