The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutItem 6.1 Promenade Appeal Attch 1-6~~ ~~ -; -~ C~ `~ /~ CITY CLERK File # ^^4 v^^0 -~2 AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 1, 2009 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: PA 08-006 Appeal of Planning Commission's Approval of The Promenade at Dublin Ranch including a CEQA Addendum, a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for an indoor recreation facility and for a minor amendment of the approved PD Development Plan in accordance with Chapter 8.32.080 of the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance to change the allowable square footage on Village Center Parcel 6 to 82,864 sq. ft. provided the maximum allowable square footage for the 23 acre Village Center area/Promenade property does not exceed 230,000 square feet, and a Site Development Review (SDR) for the establishment of a Club Sport Fitness Center with associated spa and cafe, atwo-story retail/office building, a four-level parking garage and associated site amenities. Report Prepared by Mike Porto, Consulting Planner ATTACHMENTS: 1) Planning Commission Staff Report dated July 14, 2009 without attachments. 2) Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated July 14, 2009. 3) Planning Commission Resolution 09-29 Approving a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for an Indoor Recreation Facility and for a minor amendment to the approved PD Development .Plan in Accordance with Chapter 8.32.080 of the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance to change the allowable square footage on Village Center Parcel 6 to 82,864 sq. ft. provided the maximum allowable square footage for the 23 acre Village Center Area/Promenade property does not exceed 230,000 square feet, and Site Development Review (SDR) for the establishment of a Club Sport Fitness Center with associated spa and cafe, atwo-story retail/office building, afour-level parking garage and associated site amenities on a 3.72 acre site within Area G of Dublin Ranch. 4) Planning Commission Resolution 09-28 Adopting a CEQA Addendum to the Eastern Dublin Environmental Impact Report and 2000 Dublin Ranch Area G Mitigated Negative Declaration for The Promenade project and adopting related Statement of Overriding Considerations. 5) Letter of Appeal dated July 24, 2009. COPY TO: Applicant Appellant File Page 1 of 18 G: IPA#120081PA 08-006 Club Sport PromenadelToll AppeaIIFINAL Appeal CC StaffReport 9.1.09.doc ITEM NO. ~/ ~~ 6) Planning and Urban Design Standards of the American Planning Association, first edition, copyright 2006, page 198. 7) Applicant's Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit Packet as reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission on July 14, 2009. 8) Dublin Ranch Area G Design Guidelines Relative to Parking. 9) Planning Commission Resolution 09-34 recommending the City Council adopt an Ordinance approving a Development Agreement for The Promenade project. 10) Planning Commission Resolution 00-14 indicating timing of the requirement for a Development Agreement. 11) General Plan Policy 10.7.3.5 and 10.7.3.6, Parking and Circulation; Community Design and Sustainability Element. 12) CEQA Initial Study and Addendum. 13) Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, Chapter 7, Community Design pages 120 and 121. 14) Resolution including Proposed Findings of Fact to affirm the decision of the Planning Commission to adopt Resolution 09-28 approving a CEQA Addendum to the Eastern Dublin Environmental Impact Report and 2000 Dublin Ranch Area G Mitigated Negative Declaration for The Promenade project and adopting related Statement of Overriding Considerations 15) Resolution including Proposed Findings of Fact to affirm the decision of the Planning Commission to adopt Resolution 09-29 Approving a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for an Indoor Recreation Facility and for a minor amendment to the approved PD Development Plan in accordance with Chapter 8.32.080 of the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance to change the allowable square footage on Village Center Parcel 6 to 82,864 sq. ft. provided the maximum allowable square footage for the 23 acre Village Center Area/Promenade property does not exceed 230,000 square feet, and Site Development Review (SDR) for the establishment of a Club Sport Fitness Center with associated spa and cafe, atwo-story retail/office building, afour-level parking garage and associated site amenities on a 3.72 acre site within Area G of Dublin Ranch. RECOMMENDATION: 1) Disclose Ex parte Contacts; 2) Receive Staff presentation; 3) Open the public hearing; 4) Take testimony from the Appellant, Applicant and the Public; 5) Close the public hearing and deliberate; and 6) Take the following action: a) Adopt Resolution affirming the decision of the Planning Commission to adopt Resolution 09-28 adopting a CEQA Addendum to the Eastern Dublin Environmental Impact Report and 2000 Dublin Ranch Area G Mitigated Negative Declaration for The Promenade project, adopting the related Statement of Overriding Considerations; and adopting the Findings of Fact set forth in Attachment 14; and 2of18 b) Adopt Resolution affirming the decision of the Planning Commission to adopt Resolution 09-29 Approving a Conditional Use Permit for an Indoor Recreation Facility and for a minor amendment to the approved PD Development Plan in accordance with Chapter 8.32.080 of the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance to change the allowable square footage on Village Center Parcel 6 to 82,864 sq. ft. provided the maximum allowable square footage for the 23 acre Village Center Area/Promenade property does not exceed 230,000 square feet, and Site Development Review for the establishment of a Club Sport Fitness Center with associated spa and cafe, atwo-story retail/office building, afour-level parking garage and associated site amenities on a 3.72 acre site within Area G of Dublin Ranch; and adopt the Findings of Fact set forth in Attachment 15. OR c) By "straw vote" direct the City Attorney to prepare findings for the City Council to adopt by motion on September 15, 2009 or by special meeting no later than October 5, 2009 to affirm the Planning Commission's action in part with or without additional Conditions of Approval or to reverse such action. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: No Financial Impact. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Promenade is the commercial component or Village Center district adopted with Area G of the Dublin Ranch Master Plan within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. It has been planned as a 23+ acre area between Central Parkway on the north and Dublin Boulevard on the south. The Village Center district concept adopted with the Planned Development zoning for Area G allowed for six Village Center/Neighborhood Commercial sites and one Public/Semi-Public site to be centrally located along both sides of the proposed extension of Grafton Street. SUMMARY: The Club Sport/Mercantile Project Application includes environmental review in the form of an Addendum; a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for an indoor recreation facility and for a minor amendment of the approved PD Development Plan to change the allowable square footage on the Project site to 82,864 sq. ft. and FAR to .51 provided the maximum allowable square footage for the 23 acre Village Center area/Promenade property does not exceed 230,000 square feet; and a Site Development Review (SDR) for the establishment of a Club Sport Fitness Center with associated spa and cafe, atwo-story retail/office building, afour-level parking garage and associated site amenities Toll Bros has appealed the Planning Commission's approvals and has 8 major areas in which the Appeal is based in the Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit section and 10 areas regarding CEQA. Staff has reviewed and analyzed Toll's concerns and has not identified any areas in which the original analysis provided to the Planning Commission or acted on by the Planning Commission was incorrect in relation to City documents or policies or CEQA. That analysis is provided below. 3of18 Location The 3.72 acre Club Sport /Mercantile building site is located within the larger 23 acre Promenade Site, as shown on Map 1 below. The development site is located at the northeast corner of Dublin Boulevard and future Grafton Street. The future Grafton Street will form the site's western boundary while future Finnian Way will form the northern boundary. The north south pedestrian trail and the Terraces (H-2) project form the eastern boundary and Dublin Boulevard is the southern boundary. A future parcel map would dedicate the Grafton Street and Finnian Way right-of--way as well as create the parcel on which the Club Sport/Mercantile development (The Project) would occur. BACKGROUND: Previous Approvals Area G (PA 98-069) covers approximately 86.9 acres and is bounded by Central Parkway on the north, Keegan Street on the east, Dublin Boulevard on the south, and Brannigan Street on the west. Areas F, G and H, within the Dublin Ranch Master Plan, were subject to a Stage 1 Planned Development Rezoning approved on March 21, 2000 by Ordinance 06-00. As a part of that approval, Area G received a Stage 2 Development Plan providing specific development standards and design guidelines. Subsequently, Area G was subdivided by Parcel Map 7148 which created four Medium-High and High Density Residential projects or neighborhoods (Parcels 2, 4, 5 & 6) that anchor the four corners of Area G and are situated along the easterly and westerly boundaries. From this initial subdivision, the Village Center or commercial area was envisioned for Parcel 3 of the Parcel Map, an area of about 23 acres, including a Public/Semi-Public site along the south side of Central Parkway, west of the proposed extension of Grafton Street. The Development Plan also included a 5 acre neighborhood park and a 2 acre neighborhood square (both of which are now built). The Promenade property is the 23 acre commercial area; the development site for the Club Sport and Mercantile Building is 3.72 acres in the southeast corner of The Promenade property. 4of18 Map 1: Project Site Pending Related Aetions An application has been submitted for Vesting Tentative Parcel Map (VTPM) 9717. It would subdivide The Promenade area into four (4) parcels and incorporate the Public/Semi-Public site with Parcel 1 of VTPM 9717 and the Village Center district sites shown on the plan for Area G. The Project is proposed fora 3.72-acre site at the northeast corner of Dublin Boulevard and Grafton Street and is shown as Parcel 4 of proposed VTPM 9717. In accordance with the Municipal Code, the VTPM will be acted upon by the Community Development Director. A Development Agreement (and the Addendum which is a part of this Appeal and before Council for consideration) was reviewed by the Planning Commission at their meeting of August 11, 2009. The Planning Commission recommended its approval to the City Council (see Attachment 8). Summary of Proposed Development/Use: The proposed development of the Project includes three structures: • C1ubSport Athletic Club and Spa -Two-story building of approximately 47,669 square feet anchoring the southwest corner of the site at the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Grafton Street. • Mercantile Building - A two-story building of approximately 35,195 square feet located at the northwest corner of the site facing Grafton Street south of Finnian Way with retail and restaurant uses proposed for the ground floor and office space on the second floor. • Parking Structure - A four-level parking structure within the northeast portion of the site which includes 428 parking spaces in addition to 58 on-site parking spaces. This Project represents the first phase of The Promenade and would commence with the construction of the C1ubSport facility. TNL PROMFJ1t~L - PARf.Fl c vIUACZ UllrLR .. ~- fIWi4W WAY _~ ~~ ~. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The Planning Commission at their meeting of July 14, 2009, considered the Conditional Use Permit (CUP), Site Development Review (SDR), and CEQA Addendum to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration for Area G of Dublin Ranch for the revised Club Sport/Mercantile Building and Parking Garage and site amenities and improvements. (Attachments 1 and 2) (See Project description above) ------ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ------- _ ~ R g . ~ ~ ~', R ~. __ + __ _. -... ~; . M ~~ . - ~ , , ~ __ ~_ a,, F ___ s~ - ue - - _ ~4.lWtl-~w w After reviewing the Staff Report, receiving presentations from Staff and the Applicant, and receiving public comment, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit for an Indoor Recreation Facility and for a Minor Amendment to the approved PD Development Plan in accordance with Chapter 8.32.080 of the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance to change the allowable square footage on Village Center Parcel 6 to 82,864 sq. ft. provided the maximum allowable square footage for the 23 acre Village Center/Promenade property does not exceed 230,000 square feet, and Site Development Review (SDR) for the establishment of a ClubSport Fitness Center with associated spa and cafe, atwo-story retail/office building, afour-level parking garage and associated site amenities on a 3.72 acre site within Area G of Dublin Ranch. (See Sof18 Attachment 3) Additionally, the Planning Commission also approved a Resolution adopting a CEQA Addendum to the Eastern Dublin Environmental Impact Report and 2000 Dublin Ranch Area G Mitigated Negative Declaration for The Promenade project and adopting related Statement of Overriding Considerations. (See Attachment 4) Prior to the July 14, 2009, Planning Commission public hearing, there had been several Planning Commission Study Sessions, a Planning Commission public hearing and hearings before the City Council. (Please see Attachment 1, the Planning Commission Staff Report for July 14, 2009, Page 4 of 13 details all of the previous reviews and actions). APPEAL PROCESS: Chapter 8.136 of the Zoning Ordinance contains the regulations and procedures that must be followed if an action of the Planning Commission is appealed to the City Council. In brief, an appeal and filing fee must be filed with the City Clerk within 10 calendar days of the Planning Commission action. The appeal must be scheduled for a Public Hearing within 45 days of the filing of the appeal. The City Council may defer decision on the appeal at the Public Hearing but must take action within 75 days of the filing of the appeal. On July 24, 2009, Toll Brothers Inc. appealed the approval of The Project by the Planning Commission (Attachment 5). In accordance with Chapter 8.136, the City Council must hold a Public Hearing no later than September 5, 2009 (within 45 days of the filing of the appeal) and must take action no later than October 5, 2009 (within 75 days of the filing of the appeal). Chapter 8.136 of the Zoning Ordinance states that the City Council may, by majority vote, affirm, affirm in part, or reverse the Planning Commission's decision to approve the Project. If the City Council decides to affirm the Planning Commission's decision to approve the Project, the City Council may adopt additional Conditions of Approval that address the specific subject of the appeal. ANALYSIS OF GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Grounds for Appeal of Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review Approval: The Appellant's primary objection to the Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review is that the Project is not consistent with the previously approved Planned Development Village Center Zoning and Stage 2 Development Plan. There are 8 salient points in the Letter of Appeal (See Attachment 5). To facilitate City Council review, a summary of each of the Appellant's objections is provided followed by a specific response. Below is a list of each objection and Staff response. Appellant Comment 1: The increase of square footage and FAR cannot be approved by CUP as a "minor amendment" to the PD zoning. The change requires a revision to the PD zoning ordinance. Response to Comment: Section 8.32.080 of the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance allows that the Planning Commission, "by means of a Conditional Use Permit may approve minor amendments to an adopted Development Plan upon a finding that the amendment substantially complies with and does not materially change the provisions or intent of the adopted Planned Development Zoning District Ordinance for the site." 6of18 There are 6 designated development sites (VC 1 thru VC 6) and one Public/Semi-Public site which comprise the overall 23 acre Promenade property. At the time of approval for the Stage 2 Development Plan, each of the VC sites was given a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and development potential referenced in square feet. Site VC 6, the subject of this Appeal, was designated for a FAR of .30 with a square footage of 60,390 square feet. The overall allowance for the entire Promenade property was capped at 230,000 square feet. The Minor Amendment to the Development Plan is to allow an increase to its development potential to 82,864 square feet with an FAR of .51 on the VC 6 site. This is a Minor Amendment because the overall cap of 230,000 square feet for the entire Promenade property is not being proposed for increase and will remain the maximum. The change is only a reallocation of the existing development square footage permitted under the existing Development Plan. No other change to the Development Plan is proposed. The Amendment will not change the intent of the Development Plan and its development standards. The Amendment complies with the overall intent of The Promenade development concept because the resulting Project is apedestrian-oriented service, retail, commercial and entertainment center to serve the needs of surrounding residential neighborhoods and the wider community base. The Project also complies with the other standards of the Development Plan. A lengthy discussion of the "Conformity with the Stage 2 Development Plan" is included in the Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment 1 page 9). Additionally, on page 10 of that same Staff Report, references to similar adjustments having been made to accommodate slight variations in density for the residential parcels in Area G are also described. The Appellant also states that the square footage of the parking garage should be included in the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) calculations for the site. The Planning Division of the Community Development Department is charged with interpreting the City's Zoning Code and as such has always held that parking garages do not count in FAR calculations. Should parking and parking garage square footage be counted in an FAR calculation for a particular site, the resultant developability of the parcel would be significantly reduced to allow for required parking. Staff's interpretation is further supported by expert opinion as follows: • Planning and Urban Design Standards of the American Planning Association, first edition, copyright 2006 on page 198 states: "Density: commonly measured in floor-area ratio (FAR), which is the total square footage of the building divided by the total square footage of the site, density determines the overall square footage allowed. Below grade area, arp king, and some mechanical areas typically do not count against allowable FAR" (See Attachment 6). Appellant Comment 2: The garage and the ClubSport buildings violate the Design Guidelines because they do not include 4-sided design. Response to Comment: (See Attachment 1 page 7 of 13 for a detailed description of the architectural features of the ClubSport and a Parking Structure Buildings) The side of the buildings facing the Terraces (Appellant's property) are detailed in the Applicant's SDR and CUP Package (Attachment 7). Please refer to page A.9 for the full view and to "East Elevation" on page A.13 and A.15. 7of18 The C1ubSport Building, as it faces the Terraces (Appellant's property), carries the architecture from the south (Dublin Boulevard) and west (Grafton Street) to the side facing the Terraces completing the 4-sides of the architecture. There are a series of different windows and architectural features embellishing this elevation. Large wooden shadow frames (detailed on page A.8, "4" of Attachment 7) as well as inset concrete plaques create additional visual interest which also occurs on the Dublin Boulevard and Grafton Street frontages. A heavily accented cornice surrounds the entire building. The Parking Garage elevation that faces the Terraces has been highly ornamented. There are four openings at the ground level to allow cars to enter and exit. Various embellishments such as heavy score lines, color blocking, concrete medallions and a heavy ornamented cornice mirrored in other parts of the parking garage and both the Mercantile and ClubSport Building are all used to carry the architecture to all four sides of the building. The top level of the parking garage is screened by an attractive trellis to block views from the upper floor of the Terraces to the parking deck and the parking lot lighting. See Attachment 7 (page A.28) which details the views from the Terraces to the top most floor of the parking garage. The Applicant chose not to include penetrations in the wall of the parking garage facing the Terraces even though the setback from the parking structure to the Terraces is 1.5 times the required distance in the Development Plan. This was done so that light and noise would not leak from the parking garage toward the residential property. The required ventilation of the parking structure is achieved through openings in the north, south and west walls of the parking structure. Appellant Comment 3: The above ground garage violates the Design Guidelines which refer to parking "lots" and require landscaping of surface lots. Response to Comment: The Area G Design Guidelines reference design standards for "parking lots" but the Design Guidelines do not limit parking to surface lots and do not prohibit structured parking. The Design Guidelines do not regulate types of uses which are regulated by the Development Plan (see discussion below). The location of this parking garage is in accordance with the Design Guidelines (See Attachment 8). The Guidelines state that parking is to be located "at the backside of all buildings" which is where the parking garage is located. There is also a surface parking lot separating the parking structure from the Multi-Use Trail. The surface parking lot is also buffered from the Trail with heavy landscape material in accordance with the Guidelines. So, the parking garage is consistent with all applicable provisions of the Design Guidelines. The Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan allows "parking/lot garage -commercial" as a permitted use in the Village Center (Promenade) area. There are no specific provisions regulating the design of parking garages. Rather, a parking structure is subject to the provisions on design of all structures which reference the consideration of four-sided architecture (See Response 2 above). The Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment 1, page 7) discusses consistency of the parking structure with the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan. The Appellant further quotes from the Stage 2 Design Guidelines for Area G which states "for inspiration and guidance in the selection of an architectural theme for the Village Center and Main Street, we go back 50 to 100 years to the small towns of the Tri-Valley Area." That same portion of the Design Guidelines also states "While the success of Main Street depends on many other considerations beyond its physical appearance, the implementation of these guidelines can provide an initial step." Therefore, the Design Guidelines anticipated twenty-first century reality in terms of development needs. The Appellant, citing from the Design Guidelines in Section 3 (See Attachment 5, letter to the Planning Commission letter, Page 2) references the character of Main Street being a "walkable system of streets 8of18 that disperse traffic and encourage movement in all directions." The Appellant then goes on to say that "They (the Design Guidelines) do not indicate that a " 2-story," approximately 50,000 square foot athletic club (that is the height of a four-story building) and afour-story parking structure would be located within 75 feet of residential areas, essentially creating a wall between Main Street and the residential areas that are to support it." The Project is consistent with the Design Guidelines by creating a Main Street with pedestrian paseos as called for in the Guidelines. The Development Standards for the Village Center allow a height limit of 70 feet. In the opening statements of the Architectural Design Guidelines with specific regard to Village Center/Main Street Character it is stated "The Village Center/Main Street provides an opportunity to develop a unique pedestrian oriented environment framed by one to five story buildings." The Development Standards call for providing "continuous building frontage except at corners and paseos." The walkability of The Promenade has been established in the design of the project by the incorporation of the paseo passing between the C1ubSport Building and the Mercantile building. and connecting to the Multi-Use Trail and the siting of the buildings at the minimum front set back. Additionally, the project design conforms to the various statements regarding building height, number of stories and the required continuous building frontage. Appellant Comment 4: The City should consider alternatives to structured parking, including surface lots, underground parking, shared parking, or reduction in required parking space in order to reduce impacts of the parking garage. Response to Comment: As discussed in the Initial Study and the responses to grounds for appeal of CEQA Addendum below, the parking structure does not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts. Specifically, the alleged impacts of the garage due to emissions, noise, glare and shade/shadow are less than significant. Since the parking garage does not result in any significant impacts that cannot be mitigated, the City is not required to consider alternatives to structured parking under CEQA. Further, the proposed parking garage is a permitted use in the zoning district and complies with all development regulations. Therefore, the Appellant raises no legal grounds for requiring that the City consider alternatives to the parking garage. The Appellant's argument is really advocating for a certain policy decision by the City. However, the City has discretion to decide the issue -does the City want to approve the proposed parking structure or some other mechanism for meeting parking demand. There is no law or other requirement that requires denial of the parking structure. The Planning Commission considered the alternatives raised by the Appellant and decided that structured parking was the preferred means to address Project parking needs (see Attachment 2). Please note that the City previously considered approving a Conditional Use Permit for shared parking for this Project. Shared parking would have reduced the Project's required parking, but a 4 level parking structure with 428 spaces was still needed even with the consideration of shared parking. For background information, a summary of the prior consideration of shared parking is provided. The Project originally encompassed a shared parking study to take into account the countercyclical aspect of the various uses. The Development Plan makes reference to the proximity of residential land uses, the inclusion of connecting trails and the "walkability" of the community. The Planning Commission related concerns regarding shared parking at their two study sessions and ultimately approved the original 3-story Mercantile Building with a Conditional Use Permit for shared parking. That approval was subsequently appealed by a resident to the City Council and they considered the Conditional Use Permit for shared parking at the City Council meeting of January 20, 2009. The City Council ultimately upheld the Planning Commission's approval of the Conditional Use Permit for shared parking over resident opposition. When the Applicant resubmitted a revised two story Mercantile Building, the shared parking proposal was no longer needed and was not included as the Project now met the City of Dublin Parking Ordinance. The Community is concerned about projects meeting their parking requirements in order not to exacerbate a perceived parking concern in other portions of Area G. 9of18 Appellant Comment 5: The required findings for the CUP approval cannot be made because the parking garage will have an adverse impact on surrounding properties and multi-use trail. Also, the C1ubSport Project does not comply with and would materially change the PD zoning due to increased building square footage and FAR. Response to Comment: As discussed in Response to Appellant Comment 4 above, the parking garage will not have any significant adverse affect on surrounding properties or the multi-use trail. As discussed in response to Appellant Comment 1 above, the increase in square footage and FAR for VC 6 through the reallocation of the 230,000 square foot limit is a minor amendment to the PD Development Plan since the overall density for the Village Center is not increased. The Project created by the reallocation of density is consistent with the intent of the PD Development Plan. The Findings of Fact to affirm the Planning Commission decision to approve the Conditional Use Permit provide the necessary findings to support approval (Attachment 15). Appellant Comment 6: The required findings for SDR approval cannot be made because the Project is not consistent with the PD zoning, is not physically suitable for the site, and includes inadequate landscaping. Response to Comment: The Appellant generally asserts that the SDR approval findings cannot be made, but does not provide facts and evidence to support its allegation. The Project as proposed meets and exceeds all of the required criteria of the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan and the requisite Design Guidelines. As discussed in response to Appellant Comment 1 above, the increase in square footage and FAR for Parcel 6 through the reallocation of the 230,000 square foot limit is a minor amendment to the PD Development Plan since the overall density for the Village Center is not increased. The Project created by the reallocation of density is consistent with the intent of the PD Development Plan. The Findings of Fact to affirm the Planning Commission decision to approve the Site Development Review provide the necessary findings to support approval (Attachment 15). Finding B sets forth the grounds for finding consistency with the PD zoning (Attachment 15, page 4). Finding D sets forth the grounds for finding the site physically suitable for the development (Attachment 15, page 4). Finding G sets forth the findings on landscaping considerations (Attachment 15, page 5). Appellant Comment 7: The Project applications do not include a Development Agreement and the processing violates the City timing requirements for approval of a Development Agreement. Response to Comment: The Project does include a Development Agreement. The Planning Commission at their meeting of August 11, 2009 considered a Development Agreement for the 23 acre Promenade project and recommended that the City Council adopt an Ordinance approving the Development Agreement (See Attachment 9). The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, Section 11.3.1 Development Agreements states "Typically, the agreements would be entered into after the EIR is certified and before tentative subdivision maps are approved." A tentative parcel map has been submitted to subdivide The Promenade property and is currently pending a hearing before the Community Development Director. Additionally, Planning Commission Resolution 00-14, Condition 5 states that "Applicant/Developer shall not be able to develop any of the parcels created by this map (Tract Map 7148) until Applicant /Developer has entered into a development agreement with the City as required by Section 7 of the Master Development Agreement between the City and Lin family for the Dublin Ranch Project." The timing for this requirement is "prior to the issuance of building permits" (See Attachment 10). Therefore, a Development Agreement is a part of the Project and the timing for the approval of the Development Agreement has not been violated. 10 of 18 Appellant Comment 8: The Project is inconsistent with General Plan Policy 10.7.3.5 and 10.7.3.6 Response to Comment: General Plan Policy 10.7.3.5 is from the recently adopted Community Design and Sustainability Element (See Attachment 11). This policy does not address a situation where structured parking is proposed. However, the parking structure promotes the policy provisions on integrated parking facilities for adjacent uses since the parking structure will serve uses in the Mercantile Building and C1ubSport. The legal requirement for a General Plan consistency finding is compatibility with the Plan as a whole, not perfect conformity with each and every Plan policy. Consistency with the City of Dublin General Plan is demonstrated in the required findings for the Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit (See Attachment 15; page 3 item G and page 3 item A). General Plan Policy 10.7.3.6 is also from the Community Design and Sustainability Element and lists a series of 9 policies applicable to Villages (See Attachment 11). The Project is within a Village as defined by this policy. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan provides more specific direction as this project is within the area referred to as Town Center. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan provides direction regarding parking within a Town Center. It states that "Parking areas should not disrupt the continuity of storefronts or discourage pedestrian access." Bullet Point 8 on Page 121 (See Attachment 13) further states "Do not allow off-street parking to take up more than one-half of the street frontage along arterial streets and parkways, or one-third of the frontage along "Main Street." Avoid domination of Tassajara Road frontage by parking. Encourage larger parcels to incorporate structured parking." Therefore, this project is consistent with the policy statements in the City of Dublin General Plan and all documents that tiered off of it. Grounds for Appeal of Approval of CEQA Addendum The Appellant's primary objection is that the Addendum is not the proper form of environmental review for the Project and a new mitigated negative declaration or EIR is required.. Since an EIR (1993 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR (1993 EIR) and Mitigated Negative Declaration in 2000 (2000 MND) have already been approved and certified for the Project, CEQA does not require further environmental review unless certain conditions are met. The reason for this presumption against further environmental review is because the CEQA process has already been done and redoing the process should be avoided in the interests of promoting finality to the environmental process and saving time and costs. Further environmental review is only required for the Project if any of the following standards are met: (a) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions to the environmental document due to a new or substantially more severe significant environmental impact than those previously analyzed; (b) Substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions to the environmental document due to a new or substantially more severe significant environmental impact than those previously analyzed; (c) New information of substantial importance to the project, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the original environmental document was certified, becomes available which will result in a new or substantially more severe significant environmental impact than those previously analyzed. The key components of each of these standards are: 1) a new or substantially more severe significant impact will occur; and 2) that major revisions to the previously certified 1993 EIR and 2000 MND will be required. The City's Environmental Consultant produced a detailed Initial Study for each potential impact 11 of 18 area and determined that none of these standards were met. The Initial Study provides substantial expert evidence to support the approval of an Addendum. The Appellant bears the burden of producing substantial evidence that the standards for requiring a subsequent EIR or MND are met. City Staff and the City's Environmental Consultant have reviewed the grounds raised by the Appellant and any facts and evidence it presented to support its allegations. Overall, City Staff believes that the Appellant has not presented substantial evidence that would require the City to prepare a subsequent EIR or MND for the Project. To facilitate City Council review, City Staff and the City's Environmental Consultant have created a summary of each of the Appellant's objections and provided a specific response. The information in these responses constitutes expert opinion by the environmental consultant on the environmental impacts alleged by the Appellants and supplements the information in the Initial Study. These responses are incorporated into the Initial Study by reference. Below is a list of each objection and Staff response. Appellant Comment 1: The Project has been substantially changed due to increased density and the addition of structured parking which will result in new significant impacts on adjacent residents and public trails. Response to Comment: The Project has not been substantially changed and the Project revisions will not result in new or substantially more severe impacts. The Project has been revised, not substantially changed. The Initial Study describes the modifications to existing approvals presented by the Project and analyzes any resulting impact. Pages 2 through 4 of the Initial Study (See Attachment 12) include a full description of previous land use approvals on the Project site. Page 5 of the Initial Study then goes on to include a full description of the Project that is analyzed in the Initial Study document. The change in density does not constitute a substantial change to the Project. The density within Area G has been reallocated to increase the density for The Promenade project parcel (Parcel VC 6 of Area G). However, the overall density for Area G remains the same as previously approved - 230,000 square feet which is the maximum allowed under the PD Development Plan. This reallocation of density is similar to what has been approved for the residential projects surrounding Area G which were built by the Appellant. The Initial Study analyzes the potential change in impacts from the reallocation of density and concludes that it will not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts. The structured parking component also does not represent a substantial change in the Project resulting in new impacts. Structured parking is a permitted use under the PD zoning. The height of the structure is 48 feet which is below the height limit of 70 feet under the Stage 2 Development Plan. The Initial Study analyzed the particular impacts of the parking structure including aesthetics and shadows (among other impacts). The Initial Study did not identify any new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts associated with the structured parking component of the proposed Project than those identified in the 1993 EIR or the 2000 MND. Appellant Comment 2: The proposed increase in density for the adjacent Grafton Plaza Project will result in new increased traffic impacts on local and regional roadways that were not analyzed in the Addendum. Also, the change in regional traffic patterns since 1993 EIR and 2000 MND is not properly analyzed. Response to Comment: A Notice of Preparation was issued by the City in 2008 for an EIR that would have analyzed impacts of a large, multi-story, mixed-use development project on the Grafton Plaza site. The information the Appellant cites in its letter is from the Initial Study prepared for that project. 12 of 18 However, subsequently, the Grafton Plaza project proponent has withdrawn this application and filed a request to develop a smaller mixed use or campus office development on this same site (Grafton Plaza). The current proposal is being reviewed by the City Staff. Preliminarily, the City Staff has determined that the amount of development requested in the revised application is consistent with land use density and intensity assumptions contained in the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Therefore, under the revised proposal, there would not be any increased densities on the adjacent Grafton Plaza property. Since the amount of development on The Promenade site and surrounding properties are consistent with previous CEQA documents applicable to the site (the 1993 EIR and 2000 MND), no new or more severe significant traffic impacts than those identified in the 1993 EIR and 2000 MND would occur. The commenter does not cite any references or studies to show changed regional traffic patterns from the traffic analysis completed for the Area G MND in 2000. The project densities in the surrounding areas that are part of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (including for the proposed Project) have not substantially increased since a detailed traffic analysis for the Area G development was completed as part of the 2000 MND. Therefore, there is no substantial evidence of changed circumstances or new information that will result in a new or substantially more severe significant traffic impact than those indentified in the 1993 EIR or 2000 MND. ARpellant Comment 3: Potential future development plans on other parcels in Area G should be analyzed in the Addendum. The failure to analyze other potential projects (especially those with increased density) results in improper "piece-mealing" of projects under CEQA. CEQA requires all foreseeable parts of the same project to be analyzed at once. Response to Comment: CEQA analysis of the potential future environmental impacts of the buildout of Area G and all surrounding properties has already been performed. They were first analyzed in the 1993 EIR. Land use changes were proposed by the land owner in 1999 that affected Areas F, G and H in the Eastern Dublin area. Mitigated Negative Declarations, including the 2000 MND, were completed and approved by the City in 2000 to analyze the environmental impacts of these land use changes. The proposed Project does not result in any increased density for any other parcels in Area G. The overall density is capped at 230,000 square feet which is the same amount of development for Area G analyzed in the 2000 MND. Therefore, the proposed Project does not constitute improper "piece-mealing" because it will not result in increased density in other Areas of the Village Center. No significant land use changes or increases in land use density or intensity have been proposed on other portions of Area G or on other adjacent parcels (see response to Item 2, above). There are no pending applications or plans for increased density in these other Areas. So, the Appellant's argument that potential increased development density in Areas G, F or H should be analyzed is not required under CEQA. Such analysis would be speculative because any increased density is not reasonably foreseeable. The Initial Study relied on approved development types and intensities included in the Areas F, G and H Initial Studies and Mitigated Negative Declarations. No piece-mealing of environmental analysis has occurred for this Project. Appellant Comment 4: Shadow impacts on residential buildings and public trails are not properly analyzed. Glare impacts from car lights in parking structure on adjacent residences are not properly analyzed. 13 of 18 Response to Comment: The Initial Study included a lengthy and detailed analysis of shade and shadow impacts of the proposed Promenade Project on adjacent parcels. See the discussion of impacts on page 35 and 36 of the Initial Study (Attachment 12) as well as Appendix 1 of the Initial Study on page 83. The Appellant fails to note any specific areas where the shade and shadow analysis is deficient or to supply any technical information or evidence to support its allegation. The expert study in the Initial Study concludes that the impact is less than significant. In addition, under CEQA, shadow impacts on private buildings are not considered an adverse environmental impact. So, the shadows on the residential building also are not a significant impact as a matter of law under CEQA. Regarding potential shade and shadow impacts on the proposed public trail that is planned to extend along the eastern edge of the Project site, the shadow impacts would be less than significant. The structure would cast shadows on a limited portion of the trail during only certain times of the year. There would be shadows cast on the trail in the late afternoon hours in the spring and early fall (see Exhibit M3.0 of the shade and shadow study, Appendix 1 of the Initial Study -Attachment 12) as well in the late afternoon of the longest day of the year, June 21 (see Exhibit J3.0). Portions of the public trail would also be in shadow during the shortest day of the year, December 21 (see Exhibits D2.0 and D3.0). So, the trail would only be in partial shade for portions of the day (late afternoon) during limited parts of the year. The trail also is not a public space to be occupied for a period of time like a park, but, instead, is to be used to "pass- through" the area. Therefore, the impact of any shadows on the trail on users will be fleeting. Given the intermittent and limited nature of the shading of the trail and the type of trail use, the shade and shadow impact on the public trail and its users would be less than significant. Regarding glare impacts, the Initial Study did not include a discussion of the remote possibility that vehicle headlights may impact adjacent residences. However, vehicle headlights could only conceivably shine onto ground floor dwellings of the adjacent Terraces complex from vehicles entering and exiting the parking garage from the ground floor (grade) level. No vehicle headlight glare from the upper levels of the parking garage on the adjacent residents would occur since there would be no openings in the eastern exterior wall of the garage that would allow headlight glare to shine onto buildings at the Terraces complex. It is highly unlikely that a significant amount of glare from the parking garage ground floor would even reach ground floor dwellings, since ground floor windows would be screened by extensive landscaping located along the eastern property line of the Project (see Attachment 12, Exhibit 5, Preliminary Landscape Plan) as well as other vehicles parked on the surface parking lot located east of the parking garage and west of the adjacent residential (Terraces) complex (see Attachment 12, Exhibit 4, Site Development Plan). Use of the parking garage by vehicles may also be reduced by the number of patrons visiting on-site uses by walking and bicycling. Based on the foregoing, the intermittent and minimal glare impacts on adjacent ground floor residents from vehicles using the parking structure after dark would be less than significant. Appellant Comment 5: Air quality impacts on adjacent residents from car emissions from parking garage are not properly analyzed. Response to Comment: Air quality impacts of the Project are analyzed in Section 3 of the Initial Study (Attachment 12). The Initial Study concluded that the proposed Project would not have any new or substantially more severe significant air quality impacts than those in the 1993 EIR and 2000 MND. The Appellants generally assert that the emissions from cars in the parking garage will have a significant impact which has not been analyzed. However, the Appellants provide no substantial evidence to support its assertion that this impact would occur. The design of the parking structure would prevent most car emissions from being directed towards the adjacent residences. The parking garage has a solid wall adjacent to the residences, except for the ground floor and roof. So, any potential car emissions would 14 of 18 occur only intermittently from vehicles entering and exiting the structure. The surface lots advocated by the Appellants would have a similar effect. In any event, there is no substantial evidence in the record that emissions from cars using the parking structure would result in a new or substantially more severe air quality impact. Significant impacts from emissions sources adjacent to residences largely result from stationary sources, such as industrial facilities, refineries, dry cleaning establishments, gasoline stations, as well as emissions from heavily travelled roadways, such as freeways, used by diesel-powered vehicles. None of these uses are present in this Project. Instead, the Project is an urban-scale village center which includes a fitness center, offices, a restaurant, a parking garage and similar uses typically found in village centers. Based on the above, there is no substantial evidence of any new or substantially more severe significant air quality impacts from the proposed Project on the adjacent residences. Appellant Comment 6: The Condition of Approval which requires detailed acoustical analysis at design level to address noise impacts improperly defers mitigation under CEQA. Response to Comment: The requirement that an additional design-level review of the specific mechanical equipment to be used as part of the Project is not a deferral of mitigation under CEQA. The acoustic report for the Project prepared by a recognized, licensed acoustic professional, analyzes the Project impacts and concludes they would be less-than-significant. The acoustic report is included as Appendix 3 of the Initial Study (Attachment 12). The recommended noise analysis for HVAC systems is not a deferred mitigation. Instead, it is a condition to specifically implement MM3.10/6.0 in the 1993 EIR which requires noise management plans in mixed use developments (Attachment 11, Appendix 3, Environmental Noise Analysis, p. 61-62). The condition requires a noise analysis of the HVAC system at the design level review to assure that the location and design of the HVAC system meets specified noise level standards. So, the mitigation measure is based on a performance standard which has been found proper under CEQA. It does not constitute deferral of a mitigation measure. Appellant Comment 7: Climate change and greenhouse gas emission impacts are new information that was not studied in 1993 EIR or 2000 MND and should be analyzed in the Addendum. Response to Comment: The topic of greenhouse gas emissions was discussed on pages 42 and 43 of the Initial Study (Attachment 12). For the reasons set forth in the Initial Study, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change do not meet the standard of "new information" of a new significant impact that was not or could not have been known at the time of the approval of the 1993 EIR and 2000 MND. Greenhouse gas emissions and climate change are issues that were known at the time of these prior documents. Therefore, under CEQA, this is not the type of "new information" of a new significant impact that triggers the need for supplemental environmental review. CEQA does not require the preparation of a new environmental document to analyze information about an impact that could have been analyzed in the prior certified environmental document. This CEQA rule promotes the interest of finality and discouraging the raising of environmental issues in current proceedings that could have been studied in prior proceedings. Appellant Comment 8: Potential increased impacts due to greater water and wastewater usage from the Project should be analyzed. Response to Comment: The topics of water demand and wastewater generation were analyzed in Section 16 of the Initial Study, Utilities and Service Systems (Attachment 12). This section starts on page 72 of 15 of 18 the Initial Study. The analysis concludes that the type and amount of development proposed for the Project is consistent with the type and amount of development analyzed in the 1993 EIR and the 2000 MND. The Project does not change the overall amount of commercial development allowed in Area G which is 230,000 square feet. The Initial Study also analyzes recent information about Zone 7 water supply which shows that it has enough water to serve the Project demand. The 2005 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) (2005) adopted by the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) accounts for build out of Eastern Dublin (see Tables 6-4 and 6-5 of the UWMP) and notes that water has been allocated for these planned land uses. The proposed Project includes land uses consistent with land use assumptions used in the UWMP. With regard to wastewater treatment and disposal, pages 72 and 73 of the Initial Study note that the DSRSD regional plant in Pleasanton would treat wastewater effluent from the Project and has an excess dry weather treatment capacity of approximately 6.3 million gallons per day. This would provide ample treatment capacity for the Project. Similarly, the treated effluent export line has been expanded to accommodate all planned land uses included in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, including the Project. The 1993 EIR includes a range of mitigation measures that apply to individual development projects (such as The Promenade) to ensure that adequate water and wastewater use can be provided. These measures are summarized in Section 16 of the Initial Study (Attachment 12). Wastewater mitigation measures require the Project developer to prepare a wastewater master plan for this Project, participate in reuse of treated wastewater for irrigation and pay necessary fees to the local sewer provider. Similarly, all project developers must pay facility fees to construct needed water facilities in Eastern Dublin and to prepare a water system master plan. The Project also is required to obtain a "will serve" letter from DSRSD prior to issuance of a grading permit. With adherence to all of these mitigation measures, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to water use or wastewater generation than those previously analyzed in the 1993 EIR or the 2000 MND. Appellant Comment 9: Cumulative impacts analysis should include analysis of recent new projects in Dublin, such as Grafton Plaza Project. Response to Comment: Cumulative impacts of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan were fully analyzed in the 1993 EIR. Cumulative impacts of changing development patterns within Areas F, G and H were analyzed in separate MNDs for these three areas in 2000. For the Project, the type and amount of cumulative development is consistent with the type and amount of cumulative development analyzed in the 1993 EIR and 2000 MND. There have been no substantial changes to the types and amount of adjacent development authorized under the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan that was analyzed in prior environmental documents. Therefore, there are no new or substantially more severe impacts from cumulative development than those analyzed in the 1993 EIR and 2000 MND and no further environmental review of cumulative impacts is required. With regard to the Grafton Plaza Project, see response to Issue #2 above. Appellant Comment 10: The Initial Study should analyze the inconsistency of the Project with the Planned Development zoning, General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Response to Comment: There is no inconsistency between the type and amount of development included in the Project and applicable land use regulatory documents, including the existing Planned Development zoning, General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The changes in allowable square footage and density for Parcel VC 6 will be addressed by approval of a Conditional Use Permit as a minor amendment to the PD Development Plan. See the above responses regarding "Grounds for Appeal of Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review Approval", Appellant Comments 1, 2, 5, 6 and 8. Therefore, there 16 of 18 is no inconsistency with land use regulations which may result in new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Promenade site is in the Eastern Dublin Planning Area for which the City certified an Environmental Impact Report to analyze the environmental impacts of potential future development in Eastern Dublin (Resolution 51-93, incorporated herein by reference; State Clearinghouse No. 91103064, "EDEIR"). The City Council adopted mitigation measures for the EDEIR impacts that could be reduced to less than significant and adopted a statement of overriding considerations for impacts that could not be reduced to less than significant (Resolution 53-93, incorporated herein by reference). In early 2000, the City approved applications from Dublin Ranch for Areas F, G and H to reconfigure land uses within the areas so as to move the town center south to create a Village Center in Area G, move higher density housing from Area F to Area G and replace the relocated uses in Area F with medium density housing. The revisions placed all of the approximately 23 acre Village Center retail and office areas in a Neighborhood Commercial land use designation within Area G. The approved PD-Planned Development zoning set the maximum Village Center commercial development at 230,000 sq. ft. across 6 development sites. The Area F, G and H applications were approved by City Council Resolution No. 35-00 on March 7, 2000; the PD rezoning and related Development Plans were approved through Ordinance 6-00 on March 21, 2000. The resolution and ordinance are incorporated herein by reference. In connection with the proposed reconfigurations for Area G and the additional detail provided through the PD rezoning applications, the City prepared and circulated an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") to examine the potential for site-specific impacts beyond those previously identified in the EDEIR. The City Council approved the MND by Resolution No. 34-00, dated February 15, 2000 (SCH # 99112041 and incorporated herein by reference). Based on the detailed plans submitted for Area G and site-specific analysis in the MND, the City adopted additional mitigation measures related to light and glare, biological resources, cultural resources, hydrology and water quality, and traffic and circulation. These additional mitigation measures, as well as applicable mitigation measures from the EDEIR, continue to apply to future development on the current Project site. The Promenade project is located in the 23-acre Village Center portion of Area G, including Conditional Use Permit, Site Development Review, Development Agreement and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map applications, as described above. The Project proposes development of a fitness center, retail-office building and parking garage on a 3.72 acre development site and allows increased density on that site for the proposed development so long as the 230,000 sq. ft. cap on Village Center density is maintained. In connection with the proposed Project, the City prepared an Initial Study to determine whether there could be significant environmental impacts occurring as a result of this Project beyond or different from those already addressed in the prior EDEIR and MND. The Initial Study concluded that the proposed Project would not have a significant effect on the environment beyond or different from those already addressed in the EDEIR and Area G MND, and no significant information has arisen for this Project during the preparation of this Initial Study that would require further environmental review. The City prepared a draft Addendum to the EDEIR and MND documenting this determination. The draft Addendum and related Initial Study are Attachment 12 to the Staff Report. The Addendum and related Initial Study was reviewed by the Planning Commission in taking action on the Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review applications on July 14, 2009. At that time, the Planning Commission adopted the CEQA Addendum to the Eastern Dublin EIR and 2000 Area G Mitigated Negative Declaration. Pursuant to a 2002 court decision, the Planning Commission as decision maker considered whether the Project benefits outweigh the significant unavoidable impacts identified in the EDEIR. A related Statement of Overriding Consideration was also adopted (See Exhibit B to Attachment 4). The CEQA Addendum was subsequently appealed. The City Council will consider the Appeal of the Planning Commission action on 17 of 18 the CEQA Addendum and determine whether to uphold the Planning Commission approval of the Addendum. PUBLIC NOTICING: In accordance with State law, a Public Notice regarding this Public Hearing was mailed to all property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the proposed Project as well as the Appellant listed in the Appeal Letter. The Public Notice was also published in the Valley Times and posted at several locations throughout the City. At the time of completion of this Staff Report no additional comments other than those documented in the Appeal Letter have been received. CONCLUSION: The proposed Project, as reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission, is consistent the City of Dublin General Plan, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, the Planned Development Zoning and the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans for Area G and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Planning Commission was able to make the requisite findings for both the Site Development Review and the Conditional Use Permit. The Project represents the first phase of the local commercial component and neighborhood main street for Dublin Ranch. The fitness center provides an appropriate and suitable anchor for Grafton Street. Both pedestrian and vehicular circulation, including parking, has been adequately incorporated. All three proposed structures and commercial uses comply with the adopted development standards and design elements. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Disclose Ex parte Contacts; 2) Receive Staff presentation; 3) Open the public hearing; 4) Take testimony from the Appellant, Applicant and the Public; 5) Close the public hearing and deliberate; and 6) Take the following action: a) Adopt Resolution affirming the decision of the Planning Commission to adopt Resolution 09-28 adopting a CEQA Addendum to the Eastern Dublin Environmental Impact Report and 2000 Dublin Ranch Area G Mitigated Negative Declaration for The Promenade project, adopting the related Statement of Overriding Considerations; and adopting the Findings of Fact set forth in Attachment 14; and b) Adopt Resolution affirming the decision of the Planning Commission to adopt Resolution 09-29 Approving a Conditional Use Permit for an Indoor Recreation Facility and for a minor amendment to the approved PD Development Plan in accordance with Chapter 8.32.080 of the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance to change the allowable square footage on Village Center Parcel 6 to 82,864 sq. ft. provided the maximum allowable square footage for the 23 acre Village Center Area/Promenade property does not exceed 230,000 square feet, and Site Development Review for the establishment of a Club Sport Fitness Center with associated spa and cafe, atwo-story retail/office building, afour-level parking garage and associated site amenities on a 3.72 acre site within Area G of Dublin Ranch; and adopt the Findings of Fact set forth in Attachment 15; OR c) By "straw vote" direct the City Attorney to prepare findings for the City Council to adopt by motion on September 15, 2009 or by special meeting no later than October 5, 2009 to affirm the Planning Commission's action in part with or without additional Conditions of Approval or to reverse such action. 18 of 18 ft, tr' ~~i1Y 111 ~~1~Y~ ~'~:~' ~~ I'[,.~1.ltiiti[l~l(, (.()ti1:11[ti~.[()~i i~'It.[~, (~li~=(; t)x1"['~~: .)uly' l4, 2i)#)~~ r °1 ~ .~ . -~,,;~,. 1,~~.1tC::"[": Ytl}3[,CC' tl[:~[t[~~i(~: ['A ()8-t)()(i, T'[~e I'rc~mcnacl~ at 1)ub[ii~ Rrua~lr .~~ t`r~ncfitic>nal t.~sc 1'ert~~it {Clr.?P> #t~r ~aaa ialclc7tar recrLtaticrta facilit}' ~taati fc>r a ra~iraa~a` ~amexatiaxaent c~S" tNae ~a~af~rc~r~ecl 1'[:) I.)cvelta~an~eat 1']tan ia~ .ac~;rarda:artce ~~itl~ (`(`a~rl~ter ~. ~.t1~1) cif' the. t'it) c~ft I;}tahli-j Ic~rtirt~.~ Orciir~~tnc:e ter t:l~aa3~.~e tha` ~tllc.>~~"a4~1~ stluttr ft.>e~ta~e ~~a~ ~'il(;7~e ~'eaat~r ~7xra•c:cl h to ~',~f~ scl. ft. prc7~-ief~:tl the aTattriaartinl aillc~~~~tr1?le sclt.a~rre± f~ac~ta~c: f~7r -the:. ?~ acre t1illaw~c Center rirEail'rc>rraeaataclti l:arc:at>e;rt~~ aicaes rxe7t e~cecal ? ~{3.(){)~) seltatzre fief, tartcl 4a bite I:)e~•elopatae:nt l~evicti~ (Si)lk) tc~r the e.stahtisl`art7eaat t~l' a {'la.ib S}7«€~[ f atness cttlte;• ~~%zth as~~~ciatccl Sett ~aracl a~sai~" ~a t~~{~- stcat~ rctGril,`c~t'ticG btailclia7y~. <a f~~ur-ler•el l7tarkita~ ~Grr~t~e taa`acl sissc>ciatetl site: taa~aenatie~.:~~t~~slic~arat: {.:'h.artca° l'rtal~ertics; .lane s .l...a~n£~ ani{ iL~1ei I`t>;a,~, I c,;a~. R4~~~art T'~ ~ .: r-<.z:7 /> .tlik<= Pcr~~Ii~. t.'c~rr.~°trlrif~,~ 1'lcrr~rre~r• ,~1'["['.~(:'[[~ll+:\'l'S: I} I~esc>lr;Etic~n aclc:af~titj~,~ a t.l.?(~?<:~ ~1d{lencltaaYa tt' the, f<astcra~ I)a.af~lia~ I=;1( arrcl ,~reta { ~1iti~,~atecl ~c~~;ati~e I)ecl4tr~ati~~ra '?} tie;;<,lt~tic>aa 4al:ai~rta~•ara~ `~it4 [)~;~,et«}1ri~eait l~.t~ietia aricl ~'ot~ciiti~,i~~al I. s~: I'ertr~it(s) f`t~a• •l"l~a~: ('rcaa~7ac,artxcfe: tat T)tfl~lit7 I~anuh 1~~,~~ C)~..{)Ctt~. ~, } Stzl'f Rc~c~a°t. Sttacl~• ~+essic>ra ()ctt;}leer 1=~, ry{){) ~~ ~t> <attraclat7l~arlts. ~) :°>tttf•i`l~ef~c7rt, Sttael~ Session `~Ica~Ycrrtl~er 1`~, ?{){)4 ~~,ria ftttGacljrracaat~. >} 1'lzaaataia~~ C.'t:aan~r~i~>ic?n ~taaclr ~es~ia~l~ 1~lintates, ttctt,t,cr l~l, 7{){)ti taaul f~) :~1p~lii:~rr~:t's I'a-t~~castalr'I)~si6.rrt F'sa~:l~<t.~e. 7~ t'l:?(~r~ .a~cicl€:°.aadtaata aracl laaitival Sttael~~ ~) `~tta`~e ? l)e~e:lt>l~a~-a~a~t E'lara 1'I~a}a. I~t<:('~C)l~l!17CtiI)A'1'I()iti: 1) i~c~;ei~e `~t~af~f ija•c•<:~~~a;ic>a~; ~) {)peep the. f~tal~lic he<<rin.; '` 3) 'l"~altii; tewtarau~aat trc~tt~ tl~e s~lpplaa:~axrt rxa•atl the l'ttl~h%. ~:: ~) C:'le~se tl~e 1'aat7lic l Icrr~iaa~ =racl clelil~e;rate:; ~:~ <=~dc7~at I~est>ltatit~tr <cic~~tiaaxT xt C'(:Q~1 :'~~clcarc~tiia~~ tc> tiae I~:<rsterr7 I)iaf?lia~ T?IIZ aaxf Area (~ '1~titi~,at~cl ~ie~ative I)cclar~atit~ra; anti Li) .`1c3aapt R~sc~ltatic>aa ta~}.are~~ia~4 4ite D~:~~ele7f?rn4rlt Re~ie~~ tancl C.'c~nditiimal tW)se ['erarait{s}. ,pith cc~i~ciitic~n~;. fear aa7 ia~clcacaa• re;cra~~tir~rr fttcilit~~, t~nc~ z l)e~elc7}~r7re:nt F'l~in =~rr7tl~clnaeni tc> inct`ease the zallcae~°al;+le se~artare tt~c~tza{~e r>a~ bite ~'~'ti c:>f` t17~ }'rc+trt:rt~rcle taa t~l?l~rc»ira•aate l} )~?,l)f)f) scltatre li:et. ~'(~Pl l~~ rTC): `l he ,~ll7lic~aa~t ~laex L-'ra~~Grt~~ £)~L~ncr i= ~ ~ ~i,e f' i ti$.a)r,~, (~~1u1>.S~:r,ri}'r~tr~ertrz,lc~Yt 41t; '~1-t-til!1'C3`I7 t'(u6 5j~r~rr ,'.T4,(1yl.tlrii~ Attachment 1 tai}~c~.~i~:c~-~, ~,~~~~:~~}F>~~~tc~~: } }t: }~['c?t11~rtli~e:' i;+ }4~i:rt}?('C} <`35 l}ae C()itlrttt ri"t~i} ctalla}?C)rt~tlt ()I' i}}~~~.-}r: t'~rtter t}astr4t ttdca}~t~tl ~~~ith :~lrezt {; cif` tla~:~ I)ti(a}itz Irtiacla 1~1aster }'l~rta L~•ithita i}ac: I?ta,tern 17t,ila}it-i ~p€~Lifi~: }'}iita ~a~'~ra. 1t ltcas t~~eta }`sl~trataecl tas a 2~-= .acre 4trera }~ctL~~e:ett {'crttr~ti. S~4trh~~~a~,° pia t}~ae tacart}~ ~nc~ T7itb}irt I3~~u}~,~~rd eta t}•t~ ,eat~t~{7. "}. }at ~'ilil. ~ C';~nter district. cc?tic~:~t adca}alirc} i~it}a thy: 1'l~ttatacd }`~~•~~;lca~taa~ttt rcai~ita~,~ 1~7r '~re~a C~ sal}ta~~c~} fear 4i~ O'i112~~~. ~:'ent~:r''~`ei~hhcat•hcacad C'taaarraa~t•oitl sit~:~ ~ttad card I'ti},}ic%"±etxai-I'ut~lic~ silo tca }~c cei~tt-•st11> lcac~tecl a}c>ta~ lacat}-~ ~>C};`~; cats t}aa° }`trc7i,c}~~~} ~;~.terlsicara cai~ (r~:il~ti>ia titre[, l,r>Ctt17rJ11 ~ ap ,~~ ~. r t~ _- _~.~ ~., ,.. _~ } . ~ ~ `~ `~; I- j ti- r _ ~ 1: Vicitaii~v I~1a~r l}te ~;.~? LtcC°~ C.'1uk~ ti}acart:'i~~l4rc<trtti}~ ~tui}c}ink sits is ItaC~ttt'c} ~~it}~in t}-t~ }<tr;.~er ~; 4icre I'rcatat~nttdc ~iit4, pis s4atattti can 14ltt~a ~ t7~lo~~°. ~C'he dirvelca}~naetat site is Icacatcd rti t}ae tatartFt e~x:~t ccar-ac:r ca(`Dtib}irt }3c7u1evrtrd any} f~ittsE°~ C.Er:.ti~ti?rt ~atr~;et. I~zttt,ir~ (ir•tif`tc->ta `~tr-~c aril} fiai•ia~ tlat sit~:'s tir~cst4rta b~at~r~c}arX i~l~ile fitttirc I~irirtitt~a ~','it}% ~~1} I~~rrta [lac t-t«rt}terxt b~atua~(rir~...~..llc il~~rtl~a,'~;~~utl3 pc~icslritti7 ti'tti} <ttzcl t}7~ "}~crt'fice5 ~t(_~) }aa•~:7je;t }i,riat t}ac ctttstea•rt 1ai7tirtdrtt-~> ttitc:l I.)ttta}iia }3tault~strd is t}ZC: ;~c>ttt}7er'ta ~7~+unc}ark. ,x~ fitturt }a~trcel nutp ~~°i}( d'~li~:ztte the ~:~rirttcata trcet surd I~iilrt~art ~~~rr~~ ri~;~llt _c~t-~~tt~:~ <:t~ ~~c}} ~a:~; ur~:<atira;~ t}ae parc~c} iota ~~hi;v}-t t}ae ~._'}~a}> S}wait-'~1et°c-atati}+~ tl ~~~~' ,-~n~_rtt ~~.il} a,... ur. . ~ y. ~ it"r•~i iacr.~ A~~~arc~t<~r~l~' r. .w~rr~ia•Y ..-~.v'w UJ t/C.1~ { ~ ~. :'~r~°.~ {:3 {}'R'~ i)~-{ii~~)j cia~~ers a~~}~arca~iraaat~:l~,• ~(>.t) <acre4 arari i~; }~?cattricltd h~ ('.:iatra} P<ir}~~~'~iy <aia tla~: iat>t~}a. }~:~~~ ~~it titreet tats t}:t~; 4ast, C7ttb}irt I3{au}c~arcl cart. the stain}~, stud I3t~<araiai~art `~trect cart. t}az ti4cst. J~rczts }~, G,tat} l}. ~.~it}'tta ttae I7ttl~alira Et4itacla i~'Isisier ~'}art, i~~ert~ sutajtict ita a tit~a`~t~ 1 }'}rtlrt~~c} I7ei•c;lca}~araac:rtt tiett~raitat,~ a(~~rca>~t°d ata 1~-lLtrc}t ~}, ?t.){){~ l~~ t)r~3itattticc {)E~-{){). ids Et ~<trt {>f that a~~~ar~a~r(. f'~re~a {. rec~:i~cd ;t ~itt~~e ? -- : ,., t_ ~ ~ ~„ ~~ ~y 1~': { k I ~~' ~.. - ._ ~~`~Wr x ~ =~ i r* ~ _ ~ r, l:)~ ~ y loprrt`rat #'ltarr }>zc~vic~int~ s~atiiic tl~lt;ItS~Ira~3at ~;ttrlac#zrrc.l~ ~trac# c~i;~i4Fn 4~Lticl~;lirte:~. `~ubsetlltclltl~ . -~re~t3 {~ t:..; ~tr1~c#iti°idcd hti #'rrct~# 14~1a1? 71~1~ ~~~hicla cz°e<1tc~d f'caur'~1ttiitzl3a-Iis.~#a 4tratl ##i~11 1~tn~it~' IZt:~Iti~~rati~tl t..~ 1~e~' ~~cts car ne~i;~hl~tn-hcx)cls (f'~arce:Is ?, ~l. ~ t~: ~;) that ~.anchcar the Itaur cortlers ~)f` ;lr•ea {~ titaad .are situtatc~cl ~ ,tr, ta19~T:_; the e<rsterl~ ;:arlcl ~~°csterlti• boululal'ies. 1=t°orra this ir)itital stzl~elvisicala, the ~'il#;t~;c {'ena~;r car c~)z~~~rtcrcral area ~~as eravisiontrclf 1-c)r 1'<lre;cl : c)t` the 1'ttreel ~~~1?, aI1 rrr~a caf a#?otzt 2 tacees, including a #~t.zl~ltc%``~cza1_i-l'trhlic site Ltlon~ t11e south side ~~f {1'etltrtll 1'tarka~°tat;. ~~cst of the pr~apose:d c~xtertsican of` tlral`tora ~itrcet. ".lltc t:~e~~c#cal~rne;nt 1'1~lra °~rlso itlc#t.r::led a > acre a3ei~~hb<)z-lac)c>ti l~ztr-1~ tarlt~ tl ~ ttcrt nci~hl~orhe)od stlutrre troth ca' ~~hieh ~rrc r1o~ti htzilt). °f"he T'roaa~enade Ijrcalaert}' is the ~> acrc c)marlercisl( ar~ta; the clc~e:lol~naerat site fc)r the C'#tzl? ~taz)rt: tlrail ~7e:rcarttile 13ui1clira~~ is x.72 ~at:;re~ ira tlae s<jutlaea~t corner o't11e l'rolzaertaele rc~pcrt. f''cjrzri<rr; R~rlrrlc~~l,~etic~ra.~ ~~n <.t~lalictati«n rec°~rlt1~- hits f-±eert stzbta~ittLC~ tt~r l~"-1..f'~~1 1)717.. It u-t~tzici sul7~li~~it:#e'~'he 1'rc)rncl7Gt~1+~ 4trc~l iz-rtt7 #atrr {~) laarccls, ane3 incorportlte the: l7ul~ltc'~czni-l'uhlic situ ~~itla Parcel l c)f`~'"I I~Iti`l c)717 taracl t11c ~'llta,~tr C'trate r district sacs sfac>~~-ra c~z1 the l'Ittrt lcar ,Area t. 7`lae t>rc:~je=ct 4aclcll°essccl Ij~ this aPlalictation is l~rolacased t~)r tt ~.7~-ttcrc: ;;itc: laz•ca}~z;)se;cl for cle~-elo#aznent tat t11« rlortlle<rst cc?rzlur c~}f` l:)tlhlitl 13otr1c~<arcl taald {:zr~tl'tor) '~tz°~et is shus~rl tas 1'farcet ~l c>#`I~roPc)scel t'e;stirl;~ 1`erttGati~-e Pt1I•cel '~.1a1> {~' I I'i'i"1) 0717. Iza tzcctrrcltancc ti~~itl7 t#I€' :~~larnicil~tll {_`tatle, the `#`cntati~e: I'tiz°ce;l ~1-lta}~ ~~~ilf fit: azctc:~ rI}~taza l~~« the C.°oalan3ettait_~ 1)el°cl~~lartaertt I)ir`t~~t)r. ~S'rrrr~~~lcrx~- c~~' ~'r~~r~rs~€t 1)~;~r~c~Ir~~rrcc~rrtlL'~~: l lac t7rc)posed cic~•elc?i~r)Yezat c~f•thc site: (1'arcet ::l} irlc#xtdes thrLe~ structtari:s: >t:'1ul~~~crr~t .~ttiletic (1ulb ~incl 4p;~ '1"~~ca-store hl.zilelill<„~ o' ~al~pra~~izxlcate;ll' =~7.(~t~~) syurirc f~~t tanchcariza~~ tlae sc)tzth~.t;st c{.arner oi` the site at the intcrse<ction o#` I:)tal~lin E3catrle~°arel and C~rtafh.}n 4tree;t. • l~lerc.tntilt~ 13ui1c1ir;!l; - ,>~ t1~ca-tcrr~ #~tzil{iin4v cal` a}~}~rta~in"ztltLl~~ ?5,i ~)~ 5eltrarz fet:t ltactate~ trt the zl~arth~ticst ce~rzaea~ c)f tla~: site f~acin~r {r4zf'tc>n StreLt sotatll cat` l~`izlnitan ~'a~~ r~ith rettail alld re,stKatlrtant u~cs I~roPc)sed tsar the ti~re?aarlcl 1ltaor and. oltice sl~iacc on the second llc)cai-s. • I'~~r•~in~; `~truetrrre -. ~~ fcaaar-Ic~~cl ptarking strarctttre ti~-itlain the ne>-•the~ast ~t~rir>n iai` the: site ~~rhich includes ~2~ p~lrkirt.~ sl~<aces ira aclditi«n tc> 7 on-site ~.u•~iz1;~ sp~ac.es. "Iltis project rc~Pz•ese:tlts the lust lalaase ol. .#`lae 1'roaa1ez14rcle, rand tivoirld commence ~~~itla the cc>aastructiotl of'tttc {;ItrbSl~ort ttacility. "~hhe nat.tn•4al toy?<a~raph~~• for all of~ t#1e ? ~-~- acre area e~itlaira tlae: I'ruz7rnEade:. incltadizl~ the de~elo}~mc.rzt site. <~eracrall~ is that ~vit11 a slight slca{ae {1°,`i, aver~a~c:) fz•tarra t#1e raorthl~~4st tta the southeast. tt leas be,crt rough ~radcd 1~t1~t~.i c:)a1 the {'onditions of ~~,.pPrc~val li)r t}a~, 1'~°la;,trr 1 r~~rc t ~~tal7 71=1 ~ `~~hic h esta#~I tshed the: oti era#1 7 acre Prorrrcratade ~±itc. anti current#~ is ~'acttratt thew. <n.e no =-~~rtitic~azat c)z- substantial lalant lraatez-i4als c)ra site;. fEccc~nt(ti, the site htlcl bcezl usec# lal' the sta;~in~ tancl ~:`an•~a~c: of n1<lterrzals rtr7el e;cltttl~taaent for tlae: raaEa22~" t€'I=~irtrtitlt)Ia 1?rc~j~:4°ts CtlCr't'rltl~ 711 1)rta~r'e:s`S itilel i'ei;e;ntlY f{NNk4', rf?,t'r' . ..~ .. ..Y 7 ~ ~3 ~ ~ ~ t • : I _j ~ ".~._r. r ~ f„_ i i i a...a..... ~ - ....~ t 3 ~ . aij .. ~ v t : .. ~._ : .. r ~ o,: ) i , _ ~ »p ! ~ _ ~ ~ . - ~~__-,~ ~ ~ ~, , ~ _. I .. _ _ n~ ~ ..' -E • _~ ~ ~':~j . , ' , - ~ t IF _ ~ i _. ~ . ,~ y ---~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~, ` .. . - ~1~ry 3: 1 'rc)tar)scd `~itc I'larr • i:i~~~i}?ii:;tei:[ ira tlae d icinit~. [ fa+:se tetn13c7rar~ tapirs call }a<a~°e t~t'ert rt;na~~~et1. anti tFae site no~~ is coznl~li:te} ~ ~ac~arat. ~~`ith t;t>rastz~uction a[n~ost ctaraatrleteil ft~r Gall r>f` the resi~.iezatial rases i~ltrar3etl 1-ter •lre<.t { ~. tlai: i'rc5aaaexa<:atie areta i:~ the trnl~ +?rtit?n c?t`t}ai5> l~laz~nin~,~ ari;<a tiaat r;naain~ uncieticlol?i;tl, ~ ~~~~. aSr~rr~r~trr~clia~t~; t.'.~~s 7~}air {>rojei:t site is hcrtazatieti: a) tc~ the north, <:acz~:>ss the }>rot~o:~c:tl e:~,t~z7sit}ra ol~i~izaa~iara 1'~~"ati. by Parcel ~ of flair 1'z•ora~ensaaiir ~~f~ich currently is ~°acant f~r•i~f~~;rty al~}~ro~etl in 2{i{}{) for Village {_yGr-rter~'l~ei~fahoa~}aiaoc~ C'otaazracrrciral uses and is s17c~~ti°rr gas t>elt;lt~}~merlt bites l't'? <tnd ~'C'4 cai` t17i:; afgpror~t~ ['(taranetl [ )e~ e}o}~rrtent I'f<an {see ;`~ttai<trrne:nt ~ `~t<t~e 2 f:)i~r c:lrl~m=vnt 1'lezn }: ~ j tca t}a~: east b} ~ narilta-usi' trail s~~,terra st;}~taz-atin the ~Zroject site irora7 tine lai4,~h-tlensit~° resi~iir~ratial ~iti: I[`? t~cr~e}t~}~cci as ~1_i7t f`erraceti, a l}-'{r-rzrait resicl~mtia~l ti?~~i7hc>use art>j~:ct; c) tcs tlaG sva.rtla flnci sc7trtla~~~;~i ~icr~zs~ C~a.al~lan F3r>ri1~;~irr~l b;~ ti<lcant }pro}~cr-t~ tf~~~,i~.~r.tteti i'or C:'ara~~tts {)tfice I1e~~elopra~t:nt ~~ithin r'~rea f-f. 4arail b4~ th4 Cira#-ton `~t~atii7za tlirrtrlt>~naent sits:- o~17ie1a is ctarrt~ntl~ unticr cc:aratrtttrtitan: anti ti} tia th~~ ~~-~st i:a~ }'aa°c~l of'i }te i'rimaeaa<ate. carra•ezat(~ vacant c:iat7al~riscti iat`I:)er~~cli:~lmaerat ~ite~ ~~(;1, ~-'C'_~. ~'C.`~i rt~cl tlai: aziljacerat t'ul~lrc~`~Gn•ai-1'iblic~ `~itc. 'lithe {.'it~b `~~rc}rtlt~~ierc<azatile; `ire is ti~;si;~=n4rtctl gas `site 1~'L't; taf`tfae `~ia~~c ' [:)ir°eli7f~rnent I'laan. 1.}~~ resi~i?ratial l~ro~ects ii:>aa'ai~risita;~ .'~I''ia Ci azri: itleratilit;tf belt~~r. L"onst_rr~ctii~n is ci?nii~icte ti>r tlarec: t~f't}7e 7~~•~ . I}•+~~=•lai}txis ~an~:i hein~ ct~a~a~a~?lt;tc"~.( i~.r t}ac T`et ~stci:°s. t)cctaptarac~° is in prcr~,~r:ess in tine ~I'err{tce:s tc? tlae east t;:t t.il; t'1i1~4C:t s}t`~', Table 1; SURROUNC3ING RESIDENTIAL NEIGHB{)RHOtJC7S fWtzcatrcan wlln urea ~ ~ Pro'ect Dame ? 1 ' IVc~, Ot' Unrts Land t,l5e General Plan/EaSP I~lw ~ The Courty~rd~ 2ti1 units 1~11ediu Nigh l~en~ity_~esidential ~3'~?i ~ The Gottages 200 tarrits Mediurt~ }high Density Resident~a! S~- __ ~ The Terraces _ 026 units ~ High Density_Residentia[ V'J The Villas 289 units i W~ ~+ Density ResidentiaE _.. _ _.__ ~ ___ __r___ ~ _. 9 35~i u r~ lt~ 1'r°c~z+it~ir.s .~~~Iicritirtfr s}i~}it}} ciil`kcrerat l'?z'c7ject leas pri;:si:rattil tat t~~o }'lanninb ~'tananazssion Sttrtlw versions {sec _~~ttaehrr7ezat ~o ~, }~Iirautes i~ror~a ii,3czt~erraher 12, ?{}{)~ ~tud~ `~es:rii~n). 'f`fac fit5t was held «n ~)ctt>1~er l~, ?{)0~ ~~~her•e i:lcacstit}ras ti.ire raiser arrci conirerns ex~?rc;~5ei3 ~rl~out t13e architectaare atnc:i tfa~rabil.ity o{' certaita exterior z~~~atcri.:als ljr<>l?osrrcl ft}r the ~.'faabSl7ort k3azildiz~~ and I'titztie ~~lon~ 17uhlirl 1'~i~uie~~artl..'~.lso c~iscussecl ~~ere a }?ri3i~oseti sha.reti parl~in~ ct>ncept anti the cc?z~f~~rtnitti Ylitli tha oria,~inLal ~t4a~e 2 I~evelo~ament flan. {Sei; ~~tt<zc:hxa~ent Vii?. 3) ~ rry~=ise{i elevrititan L~~a4 ~;t.ahrxaitttd azacl ciiscu~rsc~i at the ~±ttzd~~ Session of'~,~oieialher l?, ?0{)~ to deterra~iz~e ~_~~hefiher fhe conctrr3s txpri;sset~ ~reviousl} httd i?ei;ra atiequatGly atitlrestietf. {Sc:c ~~tttac hraactat loo. ~) TI i•ae ~ropc>sed solutiozz is tiescriheti in the di~rctassion hi;loti=4• t>n :~a•chitecture. ~l~lai: I'lat7nin~ C'on~n~issit>n trt their znt;c:tira~ tzf' 1~ecezaahi::r t), ?(){)~ revii<~~~eti thi; ~~faplicant's preL°ious pri}l~osal sand aappri?~ei~ tht ~irt>ject. "f"he (;oaxtitional (_~se. I't:rrnit ~t>rtii~tt oi't}ae ~rcjjcct ~tiias a~pealeii anti ~:a~ heard 1?~ the {`itti C`ouncii aar~tf zap}~art~veti ora tlat~a,rzir•~ 2{?, ?{}{}=J. `~ubseclui.:aXt ti> t}~aose actit?ns, the :'~i~i~licarat rei}utsttti that thi>se rrp~aro~~als tie r~;scirat~eci. The {;itti C'c~irtai•l rc:scincjttj their action on tht; aal~l~cal ~uzt the zrac;ctira+`~ o' ~"1a4 >. 2{l{}{) ani~l tiai/ ~'14rnraira~~ C'onamis~;it~n rescirai.~4ei their al?~rtrtiGal o[` the 4iti; tle~ rlo}~naerat }i;t ic~~; anal ~"ontliiit~nal Lise ['ernait(:~) at the rTaeetin~ izl i~I;a~ 1 `', "?{)f)i~. l lip: ail?}ii;ratiran l~efori; tlu: ('lanxtin~ (.`oaaaraaission hzas hec n rnotiificti to retlucc t[~e s~lt.~airt [aota~e oi' tlae t~z°i~inal f?roi~i>sal uant~ flac:reftjre thi: aaet:ti to consider a {W't~ntitior~:~t t?se I'erraait fear 5}rrrt:t~ lr~arkin~~ is no l~~t~;Pcr a~e~c.ssaa-?. Ii~ae trnalrsis l~elc~~t relatirs to tlae .t~}~l~licant'-~ rL~ a ~:i }arij~ei:t. '4r{~~c =f c?i' l ~'~.-'~L'i:'Sl~. .Site 1)c}~°r.~1r~~r-nE~iyt Rc~vic~rrj: ~ ~ ~r~ `l lay; bite I7t:iYc.:lc~prl]crlt I~e~~ie~~ is itltel]cle:il tea ttcleli'ess: 1) prcapc~secl I3tailclirat,~ arc}aitecture; ~?} site }ta)tatat; ~~) :;.:a~e°~w: ~j cr}t11l1tttiilit}- Stith stirreatirlc:lirlw4 and aclitacerlt uses; :~j efi~cts can resicletats etncl 1~e~rl3:ers: <anel {~i . '.:;+tar'lI]~: tirl iittrize:tlt'' t`nS'II'C)I1127C'rlt. 1 }ac: tlll-t}e stI°tacttires prcapciset} tier tl]e preaject ta]-e eltscrilae;cl as f"rafle~~t~: ('lul}~±~yc-rt .~~thletir Clue ~Yntl Sl~a _- `l'41e preajcct ane}:at:tr i.; tltt; {_'lu[~~pcal-t Athletic C'luh tillcl spa. l his use rt~e~ulcl caccu~;~' to ttcc~-st{>r7 )~uilclit]~,~ ca(' appl•ea'tit]ltatef7- ~7,ti{iq square feet 5ittaatcc} tdt the s«utllt~est cc1rl]~r ol` the site:, t>r the. alcartl]~~'est corner cat the intcrseetiian caf` I)tthlirl }3e~ttlet'tard at { iral'tc>n `street. ~I l]is full-service grit°t~tc }itrle:ss centel•, spa, ant# recrcatitarl tacilit~ ttaulcl }~riat ii#e a }fitness tarea (,ti~'e.i~ht rtac>t:rl arld spec tea}irecl vvcarkiatlt ari:Etsj ~rc~up e;~ercisc~ rcae:>rt]4, pcacal, spa. aercahics reacarals, sl:aa tretttll]ent rctt~rt]s, c>tfices, It~cl~er rcatat]]s. atlcl t] ctaf'e'; ttritl] c~utclcacar sea(ira~. t1c}t]Iini;~Tr~tti~t~ c~('fici:4 ~tne3 ~1 chi}cl care trre4r ~ta-e tr}5tia nc:lct~fee], C'~T.fe {tnt~ t~tittclrac~r 4e~tti]~ ~~ill lac I°e;:trictLcl tc? 2,(i~}4 squezre 1-cet ~.~~ttat;l°arlltrlt } p~:. } 9, C'ctrleliticaa] .'Ica. 121:}. "f'he entrtane;e to:> the; huilelil]~ is fc?~:.Itecl ca}`f' cat an irate:rt]af pevclc~striarl p~tsec~ ce~tlnectin~ urea}-tt>rl ~±trc;r:t t~~ith a r1]ufti-use re~icarlal trail that runts etle~a]r the easterf~- }a<.7tttlclar~~ ial' the lirc~ject site' as reyureil l~~ tl]e, 4t~a~~:' ? I7c~efc?lm]e:nt flan. l.;ntrtane.t tzccess tea t1]e hui}clingy alsca is atailal~fe #-l-c1n] {irta#i«n `~tr;et u-laic;l c°~>tlnects tca the m<.Iia] l{:~hb,~~, cl~t5 apr~. anel r~i~rk~irt taru<i e7ra t}te? Cirst 7e7e+r`. I ltc fitness rcac>rtas anti assc~ciatecl l-~aeifitie;s ztre 1IC~~t.;}can the :t~ce}a1t:l #1caa~r. '["#]e C:`ltTh`~pc~rt C;zf~ ~~ill he ftactate~el can the: ~rc>tanil }lcae~r c~°the kluilclin~,~ ttle7 ~~ tl]L pase> ii] t}le sectie~n clcaset tc~ Crraltcan `itrti:t. "1'}]~; caEt< trill sertr~ as t}]e #-c?cttl sr>cti} areea. irtlcl ~~•il1 be {apen tea the l:auhlic, as ~te:ll as te:a chili al]eI]~aher:~. ,tin ctrtc}cte~r c}illial,~~ area is prealx~secl as heart caI`t}re: cute. "I°}1C pc~e~l anil clecl~ tare situated ilt e]n inteeie~r cE.auri:y'aret <tt: the st3titherl7~ pr~I-tie>~t1 caa~ the; tacit it~~ ~;fvsest t~ I~u>~lin F3caulevttrcl and ~t'ill ial~ little a lal~ pc~t~l, .}tlcti~zi, aril dc~rf. spetcc. {'ltlf?`~1lcart tt~cattltl 1]tte tip tea ~+> l~crt1]at]cYa1t sttff~ nletrallers tt~ith a Ina.~ilxauln r>l~ :~ itlc}it~icltltt}s tt't~I-P;inti~ can the; pre3n]ise°s t}tzrir]~ ein~ ~itctl shift. {..'luh~pcat~t ~~%catllcf 1•az c>I>~,rt ti'c~tt] 5:()tJ irra te? 1 f :~)ti pr11 ;~~Iuntlet~~ ilu`en:I+ h Friday- at1c1 #zcam C~:{)tl ctrl] tc~ lt~):t){? ~?trt e'aI] ~~~e'~ly~aa~:'s. +- 111~rcantiltr 13uldin~ - ~~ tt~'ta-ste~r~ l~tai}clingy ca#~ eipl~rt>ria°raate;l~~ 3~.}~)`~ sclutire feet ~te>ttfe} he Ir>c;ateel ttt the nc~rthttest ccarner <att}re situ tacin~ {::irafte~n ~trtet st~titl] c>1'Finnittn S'ti~tt7. 12ettaif anal restatu•eatlt uses titre llrcapcas%el fc?I• flit ~rc~uncl flcar~r tcatalin~.~ 1f,{}{}() square tir:et. "1`hc: restaurant a>es are pre}l?~jsed ttt Ga I]1a~in]un] tjf~ ~.19t1 stluarc fc~et e~#` tl1e; 1 ~+,(lt)i) 5e}uare }~:e;t near the ci?I'nc;r c~ft {xrealtc>rl `~trc'et tlnd I"`%t]niatl ~~'ttl` {;~ttachrnt;nt 1 p~;,le), Cc>aaditican `~lc~. 1.21}. {)dice space ~tcatllcl e~ceti}~~ tl]e secc~nel 11c>car. -I`I]c hcaurs anel days t?f` c~peratic}n i`ert° the: prt?pt~secl re;tai} uses ctanncat: be c#ctc:nnfr]ed at this ttrte. I-lt~tte:ve;r, the tjllicc: uses t7picetllv ~~{xtlel l?e c~I~en (-rc~rra 8:{)() am tc} t~:{jtj pr1]. `I17e rlpplictttlt autci}gates that tlae 1latirs tincl dad's t?l~caperatican i~e1r tl]e prcaie;ct t~i_fl he similar tc~ uses in the {`it7 c>f'I7ubfin c>f~cc~I]]~~at-at~le sic and tytae. • Parkin„; 4tri>;rturc .. ,~ 1'eaur-fetef paI•Iin~ strtacture ~~°cauld be le~cztte=tl in t11e riortl~east l~i>t•tic~n cat' the prca•ject site: tt~-hich ti~-c7ttltl prcatide: «'}2~ par°kinw:~ speace~s ttncl tie>ulcl 1-ac: ace:csse:d }'ream t_he suI-#'ace p~arkiny,~ Ic>t ai•La ttlcan~ the eetstettrr sitlc c>f th4 site.. .~"t 21-fcacat ~~ fide sert•ice a}}e~~ separates tl]e prarf<it1~.~ structure 1'rt~ITa the il-lercantife I-3ui(ilt]~.~. `1%ccss tc~ t}]is se=rvice cc~rriclrar r~;e7ulel tie t_ht•z~u~h ~atcs tat. ettt;h end tend thrcau~;l] the rittr cle>c~rs eat t}le indit~ielual cc:ar11rr1ercial tc~tlant spaces in tl~ae ~•lerc`~Intile I3ttilcli]1g. `I"here: is nca peelestran ac°c:e~;s f'rcam tl]e l~tirkinw :~trlicttirc tt~ t}It: se;r~'ice ~~art3 e;e>rridrar. 1`hc ('Ittilneel I)e~ele~pnlc:t]t ti'illa~e C'ente:r zcanin~ district ~ttas aelcapted frith rite: intea]t zncl pttrper,;e <?#~ e'I'".]tin~ to pede',*;tI'tara-t)ric.'rlteil'~trt ICe:, a"~tatl. L't)T]]t]1(:rC;Ii3.I. 4tI1Cl C:I]:t%rtatrlllle'r]t e't'ilit'1' S:;rt"Ii4:; If1e 4lttll~' nceels taf tlac stll-i-c+tlrlLlin~3; residential nei~~~hl?e?rllcacaclw artd sl'aoppin~, sent ie'e. rant} enttrt,akrlrnent i~ppearttu]ities Isar ea t~itleYl• cc4mtl]unit}' }ytl~c. "I #]e ci~ncept cattle ~`llat4~ {'enter label use tit]el reanir]`> i~, tea cre`~tte a ~laial `~;tre;t~t ~~ itl;ira f )t.rl>lin l~elt~ac}l. ~f }le; ~tta~e: ~' I)et eftal~anlei]t Phan l?rcale tilt: ?.~ ;.ae~re l'I•c~tnenade prt~}?ea°t~ it?tc~ Ptii;~e ~ cat 1: k {" ~~ t~..,~ c#e~~~}c~ptx7ent ~rr;~:rr:~: floc: 1'rdbli~:;'`~~txri-k'ufalic `+ite tjr7t# t}"1~ 5iv l'i!}~z~.~e {.'ent~:r ~it::~ VC`I thrr~rd~~= t > (~~< '~tt~lr}ttxlem 13 j. T~hc: ry acre C'lttb ~}ac>rt~~ler'c€ldxt}~ site i~ cle:si4}n~ltec} a~; `~itc VC'f7. 1 }rc k'rt)rtaeta~tc:le i lxl'i'}a~:~set# to s~:r~ e 'cd~s floc certtcr}ait~ce fc)r floc: ct)drlttaercirt} strew ~)#` I?t.dbfin I~~znt~ia. `[~ht~ c)bitcti~°e is tc~ t;rc:ritc 4t l~~t}~~:trialt-f`riGntll~ cttnxnxercia} aria i~i~h it :~;ttaall tc>4~rt t:ltslr;:tcter rtLijtic~rrt tc) lti~lt-cletasit~ re4itlential t}a~._'1bc)rlit)4)t}~, "[/kte Batt:t~~j, tc~ •I-he k'rt)lttc:taatle ~,l"+)trl~l be re}~re:serltc:tl by #'~lr~el~ (~'t:'`+) ~ltu} ~ {Z~"{:"tij cif' ~,,.inv }`cntati~•e }'arcel ~lr}a {)7l7 Ic)~°4ttt~t}, resk~<:cti~elti. r€t the lactrtlatie-est. altd nt>rtkte~t>t c<)rlxea~~ c?#' {ir.~'tt~da ~irLet e~ktere it idZt~~r~Lts ~--~,iila #7tihlida #3ixdl4~%art <tlc~la~.~ tht rlc>rtktt~r}1- side. Ite itxccn•kat)rati{art l~}~ rettri}, r~}'#ic~:. and #Itltes:~'retreatictrt tdses ~~i}l cre~xte «p{tortttdxities fc)r t}xe resit}ents. algid t~nltancc fife bal.xnce cj#`,jc,bs artci ltc)t.€sin~, as tivtl} ;lg 1'k'tku4c: txr t`~'(:'dx e}inanate tie}xic}~: tl•ips and trot#'#ic cs)n~.restc~n dtte tt) t}le e;lcxsc: prc>~inxit}% i)`a sttlxstarxtial ttulttber cx#`t•«:~ic~fettti~xl units. (lte first#in;~s ft)r t}at; bite I)t;~~e}t>#7nlextt }~evie~~" ~rre: 1 } Lt7n~;istc:nc} ~~~ith the }aidr-kxc~ses t)#` t}le ~I)#~. t17e #~;t€stc;rn l)tlhlirt ~#,tcific I'l~tn axnd Ciertera} }'1~drt; ?;t ctjta~istency ~kitla tkte rc7tairt~ c>rt#iti~tnce:; ~s) lot c}esi~net} at>~+rt?pri~lte tc? tktL C°t~. the. ~icittit~, sttrrc)ttrtclin~ klrra}~{~rties <trxck tktc lt~t ttrl ~~laich the pritject is }arc?}~t7sctl kit}xt: st.tbjc c.t sift: is }aft~'sita}}~- sutctb}c #~td• t[ae t~ }xc~ tti,~.:l irltertsit~~ cif flier ~r}~}artt~-ed cke1'elo}attaetat_ ~) ilttpacts t(:l c~istitt~,~ skt)}acs <dnd tt~}at>~rtt~?ltic: }'t;~ttttres ~dre Grcic}?L~: ,~.}; {r) h~r~t {rrc}littctttr<t} c~?xsideratt~n irret~rl~ur~rted ilttc~ the }~rc~jet;t in c)rtler• tc) insure: htrnx}r14- with 4itc ~1€z•t-c~unt#in~~s rtiac} ~~:)xrt#7~ttihilit~" ~+tith the theme ~ztxt} ct.t~•acter c)1`;S,rea { trs a ~~}aide: ?) inclt.d<#e }andsc~t}xe l~rc7~i;,ic~€1; t~~ ertst.tre liscl~tl relit;#'arti# aft ttttracti~e elt4'lrt)IllTitnt~ 41nt1 ~`~} Sdte tlesl4~It tt7 Ln~tdre ~?rl?}~t'.d' t;trecil<ttt+~lt ti)t' lalc~ti'llsts. }at'"cl~".ti't:dla~ ~lrlik iatttttrtactktlleti. '1'l€esc: dr~l}-t tinciii€,, ;..1~' set #c)rtkt ilx the }tic:sc~}trti€)n (:~lttrthdxtent "'). C'r~tatlrtirJltul t!sc~ 1'crrrrtrt(.c? life #tt}}rti~,in~,~ rtc:tiaitiG, }~r~)}ac>set# rtc}trirc: ~t{,}.)t.{-,~,~1} ~~ C'c)tt~itic)rtttl l;>c: ['~rrtait: • Fitness C'ent~:• }3a~et} c~a tlx: I'k)-i~'il};~,~` {.ertttr ri~nin~ ttti~7}~~~tl ~~itla }aet~taitte! <ttiti ct)iiditi~rtttl lttieti, lilt}~)t:~t' C't't'reattt)lta} #atllltteti art' Cl.l,~i}l~:tk ``iA5 ~) Ct)ntldtd()"Tli1} t1.5ti.' ret#llirltl~, it tv~f)latldtlt)Itztk k.,~S' k'cd•tltit {{ (-k'), "} laera°itlrc;, floe (:'Iuk>.`tipt)z-t t;lcilit~ rec}ores a}a{~rt~°a} t}#' <t ~ t..'I'. .1 clescrptitari t~#~ t}re }ac~urs t~#' c~laeratit)tt arlt# a>e is }arctl itfetl<:tb{>1't;. under flat:. Sectic~rl cltttled "`site. l~e~-eltt{adtxent k~e~`t~14 •„ • 1'la~tncci 1)c~~~elctprraent :~trac»{imcnt - [n ttccctrcktnc~ c~itlt C'ltst:}ater ~,r~'.()~() r)1' trite {~'it~ c>1` l?uhln lc)daint.~ ()rt}in<xnc:c tt rnitxttr anxt~nt:klaaetat tt) a 1)e~`cic}{antc.:nt I'#wlrl cart bt~ t#cane ~1'it}t a Coni#itic~n~r[ t.3se #'ertatit. kta fife instant;e c>f fife ~ta`~e ? k:>evt;}c:)}intent Plan fc>d• fife #'rtttxxenade, the VC'C) `.site is dcsi~nrtted tt:> act;ttnttxtcx}ate (~{),{){~d sgtdare fi`et. "T~lte A#a{alicant"s prt)lat~sed dc~tr}c}}arnertt prc~~"ic#e; il}xprt>xitta~rtel~ ~.;,~(~=~ st}tdtirc }e.'t ca f` t#~~ clc~l~rrtent..'~ C'c~nc#itic)na] l.tye I'erdxtii is rcyuested ttt tlawtngc the ~tllrt~tttlt}e 5c}u~tre fi>ctta~~e crta 1~'il}~"lac {'enter 1'~trce} {i ttj ~2.~sEi~ ~q. f`t. prc>~~itlrtl t}te rratt:~irrtttna allc~~~~-able 5~}tt~lr~: fi~at~t~e 1°c~r tht: 2~~ <icre ~'l1<€~~ C:4rrter rrrec~.~1'rt~taatna~e }art)}aertti• c~c~cs nt7t exceed ? ~{),t){-{) sc[u;xd•i: feet. ~} }xe ?3().Ot:i() syu~rre #)c)t deg°e}t)}~txterlt rt}lc)~~;rxrtce is re#erencet} in tktt tr~tistin ~ta~e ~? !)t;~ e}t>ptnetat: k'}<tn. 'l he al}tx~~ilble st}ttttre f~aot~t~c rc erenc«i Ctrl the Gt}tktrc>vt;ci `~trt~; 1:)eity#t~}antent #'lart #t)r the: rt;rxt~tinizt~~T ~? ~'C. sites ~~cntft} he re~'iset} sli~lat[r:° dct~~n~~~ard tct ~tllc>t~- #'t7r ilae rltlt3itic?rtrtl ??.7~k sc}uare #eet ap}a}icd to the l'C'Ei `~itt; de}aendin~.~ t7da #utt.€rtr dc:ve}t>t?ttaetat aplalicatic>ns. 'k he #indings ref{t.dirt;c} ftxr =t}aprttt-Li} c>#` t}te C'tJ}'{s) €tre: 1) kxe cctrtt}3.xti}x1L ti~itlt sud•rctttnciinti~ anti ac}jricent rt~~:~. traus}aartatic)rt alti} ser~~ict~ 1:41ci}itic~: ?> lazt~~e ttia Gtci~er5e c:tf~et~ can the. hest}th artck :~afet;Y c,f` perscttt~; resit}intw c?r dvcrrl~itt<~ itt fife ~~icinit~, c)r be detritnlatal tt> tkte {aulalic health, sa#cty. <rnd ~~;eltare: 3) tat3t be il~jt€ricnds tt> })rt:>}>s~rtics t)r itxl{?rtalcdxtertts itx ttlt~ l~~~rhhc~nc~tt>d; =kj prt)~ic1~; <:it}e;yttatc acc:css. t~~tter, 14~,~€tic?it. <rnd }atllakic utilities ~trtd sere dc.t,s: ~) tht:: tt is }?la;~sica}l~ st.litiX}.?}e #t)r t}xi type. c#etxsit~ ttxd irl. ?'iitt t-~f the t.€ss; and rek4ttct# strutt€res hcirt~ pre?#ac~sed; and {i) floe }tec)pt)scd k't-) r~rlxerlt#rxlt;nt ~€" ;rant:i<l}}y carat#alies lei h ~trtck tlc)e5 neat na<tte:t°iak}} c•}xttdx~;e fife; kzrt?~'>ic~ns ctr intedat crE~the at.}«ptec! 1'l~ttttaed }t~~elt>#tnaLnt ~ttnitt~ I)istrit;t #'~tr the site. "l ht,,,`, t}€,,ft lint}idav~s ~lre ~t:t E>rt}t in the }~c:sttktltit~t7 {:~tt~lc#trncttt ~9 1'tt~e E~ ~,#~ } L)~rr~c~lc~lrrrrc~rrt Strtrarlrxrr~~s '`~ ~ ~ ~~ } }It< I)I`{)}a4)s~<) }n•{~j{:ct cc)naf)}ies ti~ith t}ae c}e~c~l4)~ment st~rrli)trri.}s tai cl~:#:tn{rcl iIa t}at~ `~t4a~~r: 1 }'}) z{>nila~~ arr{~ ~t.i~,{: ~ 1'}balan{~cl }3{:°~~1{>talal~tat }'lan rt~latin~~, tc> t}~~ }art}ciir7t;~ lat'i~}tt, ~etl~acks, 4araci c~?vcr~a`}e rrnd i~°a> ct~rasite}} ths~;rl~;sc4:l at t}~e t~~ca }aretiii)tas }->}anrvn~ C'<)Irlraai~si4)n `~trrcls `~essic)ns {~;ee .~lttachmc~rats 3, =} araki ~ t. Ii'fi.s;;rr ~Stc~trrl'crrcts } he ~arolat)seti pry>ect is c4ansi~te;nt 1~~itla the ~t.~~:~ 1 zaracl 2 f'}~ af~prc)`•ecl 'l-I<trch ?l, 2{)C)C). ~T'1a4 bite l~e~ ul4)prnent }~~~~ie~~ irre}arches. ~;itc fa}ala. ~architecttlral ci{~si~=ra, lirncl~{~tj{i{; }al~tn, Lar141 strcc:tsc~}~e !r.4 ,t)~c:Inents. III. ~ac:{;c)rclarrce z~ith the er~fc)~tecl I.)~'iirla ~t~anclartl~;, tfae harilcfin~s are: ):} sited c14)sc: t{) tlae Stl.~:t, <:rncl ?} inc:larc}e f~rt;afes ~~°itla ~archltcctrlral c)fi5~t>. `I_h~ circulaticara i5 laec}estrian-f•rierac~l~ l~t~ featzu•in~ }-±4E~~.{); tiiitla the larlil{}ita~s c)rieratecl t{>i~ar~ls C.wrafic~rr `it_I•eet cfesi~raecf as thc: "rzta:in street." ,1 trlicl-h}4)ck cI•~)ssinw~ ancf ~=rte~~<z~ errtr} l?}aras zrlsca ha4e been irac4~r~a)rateel ira tlae cIesi~ra, )tar~:in~; is }~ac<ttc:d a}cant the r-en` teasteriz sic1~ c)f the site) sr) ta~s rrc)t ta) clisrtt}at the cc>ntinraity c):F ihc: streetsc:rt~ir. 1~~'hile the site is s:alrrcntl~ ~ isil>}e f°r43n3 l-~?~{), the arltiraaatc ~ e~~ will }>~ blc?clteti 1)v thc.: ~irattc>n `~tatic)n }~r4)je4t, carl•reaat}y alra~ler c4)nstrrtcii4)aa tc:) tlae s<)atth4~c;~t c)f' t}ae l~r~,)pc7stcf pri)jec;i slt{~. "f'he l~rt)f)<)st~l l~r•4?ject is rI4)t r~~ithira a ti~:;`c'nie c;4)I'ric147r. :~Isc). tlae f)r~)lac)~;ecl lart>tc:et is %t7n~;istent ~tlacl c4)rnpatblc l~-itla t}ae z4)nin~~ atacf c}csi~IaEated }tIIC} usc.. sti}?ject tca ra~pr{a~Y~II {)f' the retlatctc{} C'{,mclitit)n4al t.Is{ 1'ertaait{sj #cn• the fitness {:elat4r and t}ae ~rst,~:I_{.~~ent t4) the .`~til~;e ? 1)c:~e14)pltaerlt }>lan tc> }?er°rnit tlae efetielt?I?naent c)f`ala}~rc):~imatel~, ~>,{){){t syrlare i1~t ; ~)n flat ~'{."t~ `site s{-a }c)ra~.~ ras tlae 4)~~r<:Ill r}~~%~l4al~aaat~nt sclrtarc fr)c)t~r~,~4 raf~ 2().{)(){) s~littrr~ fe~:t iw tac)t e~4~~~{:lecl. ,~f t°c~Itite;{°trr~°i l }a~ zt-e}~itectarr~ f<+t• the three }?r{alac)sec} }~rtilclira~s is clescrik)ecf as fc>}}t)~r~s: C'lut,~t~c)rt :~#hlc tic C`lab ~~nc! SC}a -... '}"})~ tt~'c)-stc)z-~ 4ta-us:tarr: is c}tsiy~ne%} tc) ref~reseaat :ara i)lcl ~~taira ~trc~et clc:~.{}c>}aecl c:)~~er tithe, incc>I•~cir~rtila~t r~~arie{:} ~i~~i~~l~ ~let~ails f~)rrltC} in anan~ c)f ita4 4alJ~r c+.>nlnlartaititvs ita C:`entral C'~Iliti)r•Iaiat. I)etailirta,! iracltrcles `tc`~ne ~~anscc)t. cleecarati~°e st4~Iae }~~zncls, <Inc} cf~..r;c)rsttitit~ tr}rIa aat tlae {~4)rtaice lave}. <ts ~~e11 as stc>rae inset elenterris retnniscctat a)f' an ca}ciel° str-atc:trtr~:. ,~~t the ~rc)aIn{f level, l~rr~e ret~ti} dis~Ia~ ~~incl4a~~5 a{fc}ress faecll~~triatas and articulate tla~ si4le~~Frll.~. f~~~Irin~s are set tilt naatlti~le }eels tt) create a caxrc)~?~~ and rr)r is}e c{)}c)r ~tnel shale. "}'lata ct>rn{'r 4a l` the I)aliicln~ is set in a radial laattern tt> Dace the prilaazarL- streets, liarlae tlae ~c,4}{:~strian }~Iilll, al7if Crr:<1iK: a ~?t)4SIl)l~ 1()tiiitt{)Tl ~4}r ~1LIl)}IL' Elr1. {'c.)ncel•ns al}cxtt tlae st)arth lit,ti}clirl~ ~}e~~,at4an acijacetat t4) l:)tI}llin 13cauletiarcl, ~vhic}a ct)nceal~ the ~cx)1 are~I, ~kas exl~Iessec} at tlr~ first I'lrinnin;~~ C"c)tnnaissic)n ~tl,Iel~ ~essitart and a~as tarrther clrsct.rssecf at the secc)ncl ~ta~cty ~c:~>~ic)rr (see ~tiaclanaent >~. ,-~ pt-t)f)c)secl ~vc)4>ci prcadr.ICt to be tised c)n t}a{: I~uh}in ~~}vil. f%I~acle hers b~~~ia eliraaint~teel, rrnd a ra:~ised {1e~Yatic)n is pr•<<eni:t;ti ti~°hicla rrae{;ts i}ae f'laranira~; C'c)rnnaissic:)ta's c)bi~{;titi~es t)i~ hi~fl {.~uti}itti> sutitainal?le tnaterials. laanclscalain~; an{f 1?{?tterl Plants used. elsel~~laere t}n the sit4: are n{ar~~ incc)rf~c)ratecl in tla4 I)u}>lin }3~alle~~arr} e}ev4ttic)n t{) ltc}}> aiith the: l'laranint C:'t:)narnissi{m's cxlare;ssed cc)ne;erns. 13y iraci)rpt)ratin~ a stc)r`e front rnotii; opaclrrc° ~;}ass ti~oar}{l he ttsed fc)r a laol°ti{)n <)f'tlae ~;lar.ita~ to 1?ro~ic}{: farir•acl~ to tlae }~fxal tarea atad t{) scrLcla ~)rr itttericrt• access cc)rridor, ~~isbilit~~ ~tic)ult~ he limited tca shapes.. shaclo~~s. atad mo~~clncnt 1?r't?~'teltia~? 17I.1~'acy b~'}"rr}~ stll} re4Calln' ~ VetaLle <)f <rCtlVit}', the i)tiGra.}} held}1t of tlae ~'Itll? Sl7or•ti}l~lercarrtile 13ati}ciirl~= is ~l f~:et. ~l"lac: ra!}4r~~~:ilalr: he;i~,~lat irr the ~tra~e Z Iat:cef{afarne;nt I'i~Yrr is i0 feet. {;~;ec '°,~lrchitetrtatre" "I`aah, pa~~e ;~.1 crncl ,~1.~i {)f .~~ttachnaelat t?j ~ ~lerc~antite I3ulcln _ I he arclaitectarre {tf dais ~-story laui}darts is t}f?ic~~l of~• the o}der nae rcalatilc° ha{i}<iirl~~~:~ }:4ar-ncl in trrtiara cerrt{:I°s thrr>u`~hc)ut the: ctrrlntr~ ataci in snatr}(r/r C'alic)rni;a tc~~~las. .1`lae {:lctsllitaJ is silalilrtr tt) C.:`]aI}a~pc)rt, uti}irin~, stosae a~airtst;{)ts rrt the htlil4iilt~~ la~rse, Irtr~~ir~ e~p,ita:~es c>f` st{::>I~efi•c>tat a~lass. tc)ti~et a~~nita~rs t4> larc>vicfe c4>I{ar ~kncl 4r~tl{: at flat' faetiestri~rta fe~~el, articu}titi<?n t~}~ cornir.c elt~i~ri}irli,~. earl{I ~°e rti{<<il st{)ne insets. ~i~na~:;c is l~srttl•)osct.l ~r~5 ~r trc)raahination t)f~ stt:)r~ fi-c)nt }~a~e. tsf ] si`~na~~~: <trtii r~°al( han~;ira~ tii~~rt~t~~e° tlattt ~:t~a~c~ .rE3 ralcic:r ~;t}lc <rtlil clrtality. k`krc na~atiin}una lac~i;~ht i71 tlac Itilerc:antil~: k3uiltlirt~~ i:. =t 7' ~' t~} tktc >ti~lr~~t 1>c~int rafH t}tc eltti•~~t~>r;':~~>titherly ~t~tiritzll. 1"lac ra7~jt:>rit~~ oaf the btzilclita~ i~ ~t to 1~~>;~,c~r cicc°~xti~~t~a, -1`hL raata~itaattrn xallcati~•ahl~. l~nil~lin~ hci~tht irr t17~: St a{~i~ ? I)~:~~el~apnaent i'I;::tn is itt i°:~ t. (`~~~: ``.'~t•elaitectur~:"" 1`<tb. p,tg~c :~,. t, t~.$ anal ~.) {) 1 ;~'lltacl~rl~eut C~,1 g ~ ~~.. • l'arkira~; :~tructcNrc 'l'1a~ ~-level parking structure lags l>cen clesi~necl ira tlae std°1e c>f` ata call ~~~arzla?trse that ~~carrlcl be 1'rntra~l ~tcijaeent t7 an trrl~rtn Clare cal`ealeler naercaratile hrail~lin~.s. It 1"trs an rrpcta stale, kaut. tie:~i~ne~ tca t7airritaaire tlae tisu~al itatpaet t,f the cleecks rvkaile still rtccentra~ttin4~~ the z~~areheart;;e l~>cak tttacl #'tartn, 'I`lae strt.tcture is cletaileFel to cc~rralaletnent the CltrlrSpcat-t Gan~l %ler•c<ttatile l}rrilclin~,~s r~itlt th`: inchasic>ra caf ele•ra~ents sxre:la a:~ tara upper trelli:~>`l~lin~l anal ~,ertical stcane aCt;c:tats tc~ C4rrr)~ tlae cc>ratcta~prn•<ar•~ {°cratral C'ztlifxartaia tlt~ttac. (S~:c "1"~rc~hitec:ttrre" '1"ak~, l?a~,e :`1.~.) °1"he lar~~'cr evparases t~l' wall laa~'e: heera ccalor 1>le>ckeel and clet~aileel tvitl"t re~•ettls ~rn~l ~teme insets to crtat~: ern intr:z•cstirt~ r isual ct"l%i;t ttracl re~ltrce tl~e mass «1` tlae 4tz•rtcture. {:Sec `:flrcl~titecture" 'T'at>. pati,~4 l .l ~l and 1~. l ~?`f ~"~isuttl si~l"tt lita4s tr} the ~aarl~irt~.~ averts rtaacl li~.~latn<~ Ii•c~rit tlae adj~tcc~nt ~-~tx7r-~ rc5iclenti<a! proj~;ct t~:a tl-ac e4ast Land. the 1}r•c~l-atrseel ~1~:rtaratile I3uilclin~~ tea th~~ ~~.~~~t 1~ill 1?c r~aiti~~ii~:~il thrcattti~h tlac prapc~se~l trellis clettails can tlae: sides caF the stratctt;tre. (See ".~1rcl7it~~cturu'" "1`~al~, p~_`~' !'~.?~ ea l' ,~ttacht~aerat fi} f'~clclititan~.all~., the east wall r~i'thc l7ar•kin> ~<tr~t;Je la~aw lae~n clesi;~rteil ~~ith nr~ t>penin~rs {c~penira~s lc~r l~Tkat atacl Lair ttt•e i:iata_ineck tx~ tl~e ntsrtla. s<ar.ttla 4an~i ~ve~t ~~<tll~ cjl• tl7 latarl~inv~ ~tructurc:) tea sltielcl ncaise and li~.~ht lrc>raa tlZi.: rt~l.~acent "l'c;rrac;e~ lli~~la l)er"rsity rle~c}ral~naerat t:i-> tlaG e;tst. 'Ilae kale nacar~xatecl li~xht ltxrures can tlt~: is>urtla le~~cl ~~`th=~ rcrtaf'tl~ck ial'thi parkin{. structure rxt•e l~ativer than the scres~raiit+} tt•ellis c~lLnacnt alc}n~~ thi:: east side art~l incc~rp~>rtrte "cttt «l~l~" lenses tea fitrt}per re:~luce Larjcl elirtaira4ate li~h spill. ofl' frcarn t}ae str~tctttrc. "i"he ca~erall }-tei~lat r?#` ttac parkit~4~, stt•ttctur~e is -} l.~tt tt~ the tc>l~± c>f tlac elevatcart;t~tir t+?~~ers a.n~l the trellts:'l~lincl ~:t1e~=~ the ea~;terl~ t~tcac:le. "1"lae e~~~r~~ll lacitrlat cai'tlae tc~p llc~ti?r caf`te l~arl~irt4z clcck is ~(i feet, :'~~,;:tira, tlae• `~~~~~ ; ~ k)el•clt>prtactat 1'lart 1tii.~fit liraait is 7~) lect. ,- t'c'~.s,5 rt~trl C'rrcrrlrafr`r~rt -1,ce~~ tit the cle~~elralrrn~ ctt ~i;;. ~` 4aat1xl l?e taketa lrt>rn ciri~°e~~~t~ s ca.t`f` c>f° I.~ukaln k3<>xtlev~arcl tarn tlae± s~+rttla anal } inraian ~~'a) carr flee t7<artl7 v,hcla }ca~1 int~~ the srtrfacc taarkita~ lt~t that runs the tall length c,l~ the ,:ytsterl~~ ljt~trnelarr• c+t` the prc>ici;t rite. .~t,~es t~> the parking sirttettrrc is t`rcana tlu ~ur~ace ta~rrkin4~ le:at. :"~ se°sttnav~,i~l~ rraetlti-use tr•~til alsca rtrra; alcan?.x the easterly he>un~lGtr4• ca[' the przaject. site c{>:nnectint,~ I)trl~lin 1:3e3ttle~<tr~l ~~ith the. tnrtlti-ctse trail at f~°inra~t.n ~1~'~r~~ al~~n.7. the ntrrtl~erlr 1°rcrtrnclary. .-~ l}tv~l<stri~tra l?ursc~ca tr•<t~er:~es the site separatira~.~ t:he C"}rrk-aSpx>rt 17uilelin~ lrtaraa t}tc; \"1rc~rratile: k3rai[c~itatir xarttl c~>nncct5 C;r:7l~tcan Stt•cet tc~ the rtc>rth'ainttla multi-~tse trail ita ccanliarrnartce l~~itla tlae 5ta~e ~ De~clclpnaent Elan. :~11 streets <ttad tr~.ti~tic inaprcati•enaent Racljacent to tl~e site c4i11 t?e cc>rnplctecl as part <~f the cnYerall prcxject. F'rci~~t~~~ri I'rrrk~~~r;T l he project prt~y ides #Gar ~k3<i can-site spaces. I°here are lea ctarlasitle parkin<.; spacr:s ailjrrcent tcj the pry>ject ~tlon~ t;raftcan Street 4rnc1 l~`inni<an l~l'a~r. "I"lee tc7tal nirrt~tber c7t` available parking stalls is ~{)?. Tk°his total is conal7rised ia` 4Z~ spaces in the prc>pcaseci p4arkin~ structt_tr<. 78 sp~jccs on :~itr in the;. surface lint. atacl l{> cxn•lYSitle Spaces al~m~.~ C.ra#`tc?n Street and l'irar~i~an L~'a~•. 1.3asccl c~ra the pri?posec! occrylaaracies ~tracl uses ~~.ithin 'dada btrlclirt~, the reiluirecl parkin~~ ~c>ulci 1~e ~~`' spaces. i hc: Sh~trecl F'aekita~~; stucl~ prev~iousl} clrscussecl gat the. tvvo l'l~tt~trtirt4,~ {'ora~raaissean Stui1~ tiessorts is nia 1{~n~~Tcr° tt ccarasicl~:r~ttic>ta as flee .~pl~licartt h<rs rta£tclitiecl them <tl~piic~atiort te7 eliminate cane tlrtor• caf c>1'licc uses f'=•~~rsa tltc lllc.t•c;intilc 1.3eril~ira.~, ~1'he lrarl:in~ prra~ixl~;ri e.;~ct~:tts the rcc~trircmcttts tyf the {'its t~f` 17ttkalin I'.rrl~ira~ ()rclinttace. 1'zazie: ~ tit 1 ~> L~rrrrfsr~rrlr~/Str~~c~ts~~rrl~~~ ~ ~ ~~ "I he ~le~c}r~}~rttent Fitt hay; h~:ext e}c:tii~iecl ttt cc~rrr}?lente:rtt tla~.° (;r4tftc~rt ~+trtticrn r°c tail 1•±rc~j~ct lctczrk~~} ~t~rct~s } try},}ire I~c~trle~arrc} tee the sc~ertlt~tc:t ~~°}tic}~ ettilir..c:s sirttil~~:r rrtsttc~ri~tl:~ ire ~-tirricrLrS patt~.rrts ~tiltile prcn ie}in~~~ t~tr stn upsc~rlc, het tr~tclitic7na}. titrec:t ~c4ne. <~cterally, the ~i~<;i_~~~ ~=uciclinc:~ ~oc:rc ira }~}_~~:~= t~7r `I h~ l'rc~atl~n<Ytli: pric~r• tct the Crra#`tc>~t Sttttietrt prc~ect hcin~, strbtt7ittec} #~tr rr~itti~. "I he I'rctn~t~rtacle~ ~;cte}tlittes ~~ere; u.c~~} <rs tr ~tsiclit7~:-~ c}c~critttc::rtt i'~tr tl~e cle~~elct~rtzc:nt c?f• Cir4i#'ttrt `~t4~tiittl. ~iirrtilar 1?l~:rrrt ~tt~tt~r•i~t15 are; ~rctE~~~~t•;' 1~tr cttntirtttity. C:'ttncretc payers in l-~triecl pattcrn5 trrc rrcil tz? hid#tli~Itt the <trcltitei:ttrrc rtncl c~~n~rihutc tc>~,4rr-cl5 the sty°cY~t se:erte:. r`~ccetlt I~<r~-ers in ~sicle hands .tcr<tss kh~: 4t]etrrt}I~ r~i}I link tc~ accertk p~r~~r•, rrt t}tL l~~rilclin`:3 ecl~e. t~ }~l-fctc-~t ~~iclc: sidel~°alk. ~~lzch i~ L~~ic3er tlt~:lrt fE~c 1? leek reclaiirecl hl the I'lctnne:d } #~rele~}>ntc:nt f}esi~rt stttttc}arc}~. Delp:; t<t rt~;ccarttnti~c}rttc: klt~ }7rtt}~tts~:cl cttzt<lc>ctr tlinin~`~r. I'Itc Design Catriclelincs e:s#ahlish the i;ttr-rters ok'Clr4tttc}9t ~ti°eet at hoklt }_)cEl~lirl }.l«raleearc} and I~inr~iat"r 1,~'~r sty attain street plaza:;. .'1 «-~rter #eatt:rre is ~retpctsecl at t}tc~ corner c)#' Clr<tltctn Strcet ttrt%} }~inniart t~'al° in #rttnt c}t fihL R}erc:aztt}c T3ttilc}in4~ r4`hich incctr}~c>r<rtz5 ~t ~eGtt ~~a}l;•'~~uter t?zrsn, cc>}t>rc~~:} pct~~errtent, anc} ~tccetlt }artclsca}3c: ntstt;:rials. I'ecle;strian ~tretis, psrseras, ~lncj spaces itcljrrcent fir? tl"rc tt~trlti-use trail ~ti i}} he eclt.ri#~l~ccl ~~itlt henches, hic~clc racks, tr4rslt receptacles, li~~;htng. hc>}lards, ~tttcl pcattet{ plant tnateristls act a}lcte~ I`or rc.::,tin;:.t. artility, ~t~~d erthtrnccn~ertt ol~ t}te l~ccie5trirnt ~,c<tle=, 711e Itasect c:t:}t~nectirtw~ C.ii'..t#`ttjn `ire:°t ~rnc) thc: Cattrlt--arse Grail tc3 tltc c~:rst hats ~i c}rttnt~ttic «ater }tattrttaurt tt~ its #~tcEtl l~ctint ~tiltclt cGrrt he seers fretorr tiral'tctn `~tre?ct ~tn~} tit,° rntrlti-rise tr<ti( rrrtcl cctntp}~:te c>nG pttrtictn ctE't}t~; r°ec}ttir~~~} ~.ik 4~:st }a~rsc~~~ rer}trircl <rs <r part etf` tltL l:?,tit~?{,;~~~rtcrrt Ilan. i'he 1?rrscet c~:fien€}s tts rr tt~id-hlt~ck c:rc~ssiri~ ct#~ C;rtrfton Street. "t'h~: strce;t irl7prt~~cnic;ot'~ tare cctn:~istcttt anc} cc~trrtl~}~' ti~"itlt t}tL• srclctpt~c} s?re°ct sectit~rts a~ttl c14si~.~n st;~=rd~~:~rcls fijr• the; ~'}lad+,c {:'er"ri~r. as s~c311 Pr°ct~-ii:}e ce~ntnrrit~° arrant E~lc~c.k tr> l~l,,c}~: ~,,~j~zcent tit tiac }~rc~.:. ct sits;. `~ir~..~t tr~:es ttrc }f~cr~ted in g}rat~:s iti fi}~e ctrr-l} line ~~(~ile spec:irtlett plants rrrL }~l.s::ti1 in ctrtic}ere=}~ ci~:~i"itel 1?c:ts ;~t ct3lrrtrtns ttla}n<~ the hrclciirt+.~= ~;cl<~c. {'r.+~tj~t•~ti~`i> t+~it~t SPtr~;cj ? Ilctt~c~lvl~r»en1 T'lrt~a I'he Stare ? I)t~cYlopntcnt I'Iz~r~ is ~ C'etnc:el~tert~l I'lart tl~Gat pres~rttecl pcttetttitrl de~e}ctprt7crtt I~atter~rts den nt3i~iclzrEtl sites t~tr (7tttlt I~e:sidetltirtl and {:'etrtttt7e%r%iEt1 clca~°elc~ptxtent in ;'fir°c:tt C;. "}:'he ttt~txirTtt.rnt ~rl}ct~utrhlc c}e~e:letE?tttcnt sc}tr~trc #`t~i?t~r~c lctr t}tc: `vci~~.llbetrlactocl (~'{trrlrt~i:rc;~tl is ~'~(3.()t~() scltr<rrG 1`c:et t~3 (~c spri:ac} cttic:r tltc f~ ~'C' dcsixt•r~itc:cl sracs ~t Ec>1}cr~~5: ~eirihl3d}t'lldtdld~ Cd)III7Ti~rC1d~ C.; ~ 1~' c7 ti . ? ? sc}. `t. f 1'rL..v ~ ~ 7 } j / t ~ J.~l~l~l ;~e~. tt. `I"lac Sta{~e ~ t>eve}r}patent I'Ittn ir~clicittc:il ~z ~arttertttil fi~3r. cle~c.}ctl~l-ntxtt {art tlti~ l'C.'Ei bite ctf`a cc3tnbittittion z~l` t :t-s€ttrt hate} ~~~it#t ~e:r~ stc:epl~ pitched rcte~ts sync} a ccartthinaticart {>#` l ttttcl ~?-:;tear` ret4iil,'restxtur•<ttats and a?1•iicc h~rilding,s ae:l°jacertt tc? that. t.!rtc}er t}tis cctracept, l~rtrkin_T ~~,<« tt be in Gt sttrlace 1«t h~ltinci the (~trilc}int~s thett-t~:clec:. Sc}dare l~~c>ta;.~e dtf c}e~clcapntLrtt peatenki~tl ~ti~t~ ~~~ltceptualired at C~{}.>~}() sc}uar~: fe<r:t. } lee laretl:tct'ci pre}jc:e=t i5 cl~scrihe:ci its t13;, ~ksrfl` I~~pc>i t tared in the ~lpplitstnt`~; plans prc>~ i~t:c} rtcl Gjttttcltecl ltc~rc°t,~ ~t> :'~tt~tchtttcrlt ~~. '}'h~° pre'}tt?sa! {ri?nts l?ui}c#rt~, .~1,:?r~<.~ (r~r}~ti~rr ~tz~~t ,1s ctri<~inzill~ enoiicmec# in the ~c~rt~,~~l?tet~rl dc~e}f~}-rrnerat plan herx ~tr~3p{>s~:s ern in~r•t~l.,: ilt klac Grilc>~~tahle sc}u<:rG }t~4)tat.'c' an tht~ ~"C'f3 Site t<:' ~ ~- ~ ~ ,~r+_~xinlzzte}) f~3.t:){){) sc}uarc: ficet I~rc"iil~:tl that thy: i~4cra1} syu~rt #«~tsa~,c tier tl~e 1'rctmer~~lc}~ c~f _ ~{t.(l )ii"_ ,_,u~tre l'ect is r~E:,t ~~~e~.3c;c#. ~1 pttrl~:itt;~ ~}~ar~gc i~ .~il~;~~ ~rc~~c>scc}, ,1x~ arx~c°xr~lrxl~nt tc~ t(~t ~t~i~~e ~? l)~•~c:lc~f?tnet~t I'}~~t~ },ti t"t~x~clitic'r~~31 l tie }:'~r77xit is ci~:t<tl~cl ttY~cfve ~lr~ci is the ~r:}~I~rc~~ri~rtc: x~~etlat>cl #i>r cl~}cutxr~;rttitl~ t(xe ch€tx~,.~.e irr cle~~e}c7prnent c~riacity c~r~ the ~'~"Ci `+ite, :11th~7Lt~h nt~ ~irrtt~,~e struetxrres ~~,-ere. c?ri~inall~, shc~~~n can tGe cc~rrc;eptu<t} p}any #"ter an~° prc~pertt• ire :area C, p~rrl~:int~ ~7ttra~~s ~rrt a pernlitte<1 u:~e in the lti~:i~hbc~rht~~~c} t:::'c~mn~erc;ial xirc:~r Gtt7~l: tlrerelc>rc. t~•ere c:c~nuel~tu~:rll)<:tritt~,ipatc~ ~xt tlje tirr~e t}~rtt tlxe `~taW.~e ~~' I3e~ eIc>pmc:~~t }'}ern ~vsts aix~}ral~c#. It s1-tc>ulLl he I~t>intecl taut tl~~tt nit}clifieatic~tY~ r~tc:ctin`w the. intetrt «f'the ~t~x:,~c° ? t:)4~t°}c~~ra~ent E'}are ;:rr~ x~<>t ~rx~ rtr~utiL-a} c7r ur~iclx.re txppri>tteh to c#e~~elc~~t~aerxt ire r~resi C car ~~ithrt l'l4trartec} I)c;tiel<~#~rne;r~ts thrt~utiJYu>ut } )ul?lixz. C'c.xnee}~tual I'lan~ arc r1c~t assumed tt~ he final plans utrti} t}~e `site l::)evelc~prx~ret~rt 1Zeti i~:4~ is s?tI?rtuttei# Ior <aca ~:rctu~tl prcjject. }~`c~r ex~rrit~}e, ert thc; tit~~rc; that tkxc rc~;icfc~rati~z} c1c~~c~loptTrertts r~,e;r•e ~rc~i~c~sed #cr ~'~re.:r C'r, the ~ta~c 2 I~e~elc~prTterat F'Iara en~~isi~anecl a sl~ecifrc t~uraa}per c:~f` resit#enti~tl rtrlit~ tc7r Bath Gle~°elc7prn~:rat tint'. °I'he Chart #>e}tj~~- clemc~nstrate~ c~laaat the anticipated nuxxaber t>1~ units ~~~ts ~assurtaec~ t+~ l~c:. I }iy~r°e~ er. tlar•c7tt~}~ the SI:)}~ t1e~ elc~prxterat ~~pp}eatitat~4 tcar t}te ittcli~ iilu~a} sites, the ~~pl~l icatats prtal~c~st:cl <r ilif"}r<rent spread c.9#~rtnits ors c}erx~txr~:tratec# in the thirc# cc)}crrttt~ f~zlc~w~°. ,("Ile nx~x~:rnutx~ r3~rnzl~cr c>t~unit~ t~~t,s tatTt cxcecilerl..~~Llciitic7nai}~, none c~f'the resi}enti~al sites cleti~e}c,pctl irr the raa~aaanes' t::nti•isit~nec} in the 4ttr~~e ~zE>~;i~l~~t~~~ ~~~ 1~~,iii!r ~'~}:}-~ ~_~~' L1r31tti ~~)~) Lrnltti t~'1II-`? ~Ei unitti ?~i an7fts I1-1 =I4) ~ Ltnatw 2~L) Lttnts f:}_~ 7~ Ltnits (,:?(i Ltnts "['{)"1'~L 1,-~()-t units 1,3~)ti tattifs 1_l~c:.~f~?f~lic,ant'~; l~rc>pcasaf is ccansistertt ti~.itla the cari~ixaa} ~ta~~t ~ D~:rclc~pnaexrt 1'Ian as it clcaes Wert e.xi:e«} tlae <allt~ti~°t~b}e sieve}c>I,trtent clensit~r fi7r• the a~ eraI1 1'rtxnzenacle bite Gxric} acllaeres tc~ the list <~f perrrritt~cl arrd c~ancltic~na11~ l~cxza~itt~:c} uses xtjci tlae ciesi~n prineiples set fcarth ire the tie~~elc~pnrent stand~u•cls r•c~=ttrdin~. fri~ntira~; built}in~;s tc> {:xrat'tc~n Street zar~cl c~rientixf.~~: psu`kita~ t~~ the reax caf` the prc~jcrt. I°urtherrn«rc:. the }.~rt~1?t>secl prc~je~:t lx~xs E~~:er} cletielc>~ecf in tl7e same rnetlzixtl ~js the rc;sic~errtia} dc~cic~}aix~erxts in ~1re4t (:i 1~~ assur•ixr~ that the uxacier}ti ink rec}Lairen~rents ar•e net ~rnt} the der-asitieti tare nc7t exceetlc:cl. f'ulalic rlrt The: prc~pc>sec} I7roject is sttt?jeet ti) the f~ublic rLr•t rc:c}uirenr~:r~ts caf'tl~e, t:'ity"4 It~nin~ (.)rclinane. 'Ii~c: Irf,i~c~sec# public ~rrt cc~raapiiance }.~l~an (See F°ina} Pale in .~pp}ic~ant~s 5atbnaittGa} Ftrcksa`~e, pa~~c C'.~. tt~tciarrterLt (i ta7aci C;c~ncfitic>xa crf`,~~l~prt~vtrl Nc>.1 l~) in ~'~ttachrnent ?3 shc?r~rs p«ssiblc Ic~eaiit~ns f-c>r public. <ir~t at t17e cc~t•raer ~a}' I_~)ublin 13c>u}e~~ard xaacl ~araF°t~ran Street anti i)n Cir~~ftc>n Street juti~t nc7rth tai' the r-nitl-L~}uck ~rt~ssir~~~~ ~xncl paset}, I:'ti4'Iltt3tiiL'1[;tiTAI, I~I~:~~'IIE;~'~'~ }.icy. 1'r~>txlc:rlGrcie tiit~: is ixt tlat~ l~;txtitc:rn Iht171in plttnnin~~ areta #~~~~ ~thicla the City certi}iec} an }:nvirc7ntalent<t} Ita~lsat.t IZeptirt tea anil~re the en~irt~nxt~tr7tal iaa71?act c~}'l~<~tenti~tl firtttrc Cleve}capttacnt ixa i~,<tstern. I)ub}ire tl~ctit}lattcart >1-~)~, iracc7rp«rEatecl lacrein by rc#~rence: State C`iea~-ira~hc?r:rsc 1`~ls.). i)11.(1>OEi=1, "I:})}~11~"}. "}hc t'it~ {:c~urycii aJc;~pttcl miti4W~r%c>r7 rtacasurt;s fair tEY~: I`l)III~ impacts that C;C)Li}cl hc: retlucc~l tt, Ir'titi th~iaa 9~' ~,rl 4 ~6iw. ~'.~ 3icant ~an{I aal{~~tec} a stttt{;araent c,f.{>~~rrialiraz~ ~{~rt:~icl~r~ati<~ra~ }crr- ia°ral~~l~ i; tl~tit cc~ultl n{~t t>~ rt'}uc~:ci t{, i~ ~ tk~an ::~niliedartt (lies{71uti{rn ~-~)~. iracc~r•l~{~ratcc.} Iter{it3 }~~ rc:tere:ncc). Irl early `tt{){), i}at. C`itr ,..,~raj~e{1 rt}~1~}irGrtia~t7s l`r•{na t:)ti}~}ira l~anc}1 f{ar t'1r{;t~ I°, ti and }I taa rcct~atfi~.trr+~ l~ancl users ~~tlain t}3t 4trea> ~.~. t:r nt«~e: the t{>~r°n cent.cr s{>uth t{~ c~re,~te: to ~`illa~t t.`~:rat~°a- in ,~r~tt (i. na<~o c: 11i~}ier clcnsit~ I7~~ti:in t;:yrz~ a~lrca F~' t{j ;area Ci anci re~l~aa,:e the a-e[{~c;utecl u;~~~s ia~ ~~'lrca }` ~~ith n~eilitarn alerasit~ hr}usir~~7. '}`}ae r~:~~'i~;i{ans }laced all ?1`th t~l°a~ar{~~{ia~aate}~' `' ~ tare ~'illa.~e: C't~nt~:r retail tats{} {~f'liee areas in a :ti;~i~~h}~{>rl~t{>ci to°errttr~aercit~[ 1~tnd use clesit.~~:ntttit7n ~tiitl~in r`~retr t::;, ,I`Ia{. K:r[~f~r_tt~ea} I}f)-~'Iann~;el I.)e~~l{7pn~ent rc7niaa~,~~ szt tla{° raa~.a~irttual~ ~`i11<tt~e Center c{~rnnterci~tl c#~:~~el{~~3ater-at ,at ~;a~,{)()) :;{,}. f`t. acrt?ss t~ de~Ye1{~pra-aetlt sites. "(`}ae :~.rca ~~`, ti ztrad l I a~~rlic:{rt{ins ~~-erc. <t}~l?r{>t e~:} l~?} t `ity t°{uaicil l~.esc~}uti{>t~ ~{>. >_{){) {»~ '~~~ari:lt 7, 2t)t){?~ tl~e I'l) rt•: t,,tirav~x Ernd related I7~;~~el{:}I~tTaent flans ~~ere tr~l,°{j~ecl t}:ar{>ta~;}t {)rdinance fi-tll) {gin }~~arch ~'l, ~{)C){). } lle rc.:~s?Itltl{?n ai7t} {ra`CIti3'ilnt'i aa'e InC{}~)t)a"ate{l hureaal }?~' r lereE7Ce. }n c{~rattecta{~n ~vitl°a the ~~ra~~`a{~setl re{:{~nli~ru-trtions I'{~r .~~rea Ci an{1 tlae a{lifitic~na( de:tttil ~r{~tiided t}7rc~u~}t tl~e f'l:) r~:r{,nine al~l`rlicati{ins. the t`it} ~a-eptare{:l tantl cia°eutsate~l an Initial ~tud~~;'}~~liti~,atetl '~Ie~ati~{~ I~e{:IGtrati{~n {``~1"~C~") tip e~tttxairte- t}ac ~{7teattial lta° site-:~I~e{:ilic itn~aacts beye7rte3 th{use }.~relicau:~l~, itl~ntilied in }t~ I1)I:;III. ~1"1-r~: f"t~° ~`triaatt:il tr~~}~ro~e~} t}~e l~?`tiC) ~~' fZess~[utitan '~Jo. 7~(-()(), c}tte;c~ }°tbrutrr }. ?i.j{){> {~;('}l 4 z){)1 l?{)~lI aancl incur}?{rate{} herein. 1~~, r~l~r~•,lc~:}. I3asec} {>n the detailed plans sul?n~itte{} ts:)a- ~~r~~a~ t;F grad site:-sl~ecitic analysis ra t}a~ 141"~I). t[ac C`it~ .,c}{~pt~cf ~,~.i~(iti{anal tnti~atic~n nleastares related taa }i~ht tine ~~J}.,~~.', hical{~~;icttl rt;:~{~trrces, c:u}tttrva} res{>tsrc{.~5. }ar~{}r{~r}ca~~l :~n€l ~~~~tter cluaaiity~ ~aait] tr•iat`tic ~arati circt~kittc,~t. "I`}~.::~ ~,clt}iti{>aaal t'raitiv~atc~n n-~t°<ast~r~:s, rt:~ ~~e}} tas ~a17~1icttk3!{~ tniti~Gtti{gin ane<:asures fa-{aria t}7e l°I)}~}}~, c{~r.tinu~: t{> to}'ply- t{~ fitturc dc~elaaf~ar~caat {aaa t}te {current F'r{>ject site. I }a~: I'r{aat~~ a:<a~ie pr{a<ject is lcacate{~I ira tl7e ~' ~-acre t'illat~e C'. »~et• 1~1:>a°ti{~tt r~i~ ,~1rc:ta Cr, irrL}utiin`~r ~'{~n{iiti{>nal t_ s{~ I'erar~it. `site 1){'~{'}{>ptt'aerat I~:~~ ic~,;. [)cc°c1{,}~n~{_~'-at .~,~,r~~c•,~~eni xtn~} ~'estin~ •.C.e:ntati~e Parcel (~~1tr1~ a{~i,9i~4Eti~,n4, tas {I{;~{~ril~cd tal~c~r%e, "11~~~ 1't•trjcet },r•c>,~,~;~ ,.1.~~.}c~l~tnerxt {~f` to fitrtt:~;s ce;nt~r. 1•t:t<ail-~?ffice }~tailt}ira~:~ ttncl l:~~ar•kir~~ ~~trry=e on <~ i.i? acrd. {}er~~:l~~~;~~it :rite ~ta~cl all{>~~s inc~•e~asecl clet~sitti c~}ra t}ttit sit{' fc:>r. t}~z I'a`i;pt~se{} {Ic~'el{>~arl~ac;aat see l{}n~ as tl7e ~3tt,{)i.){) sel. lt. cap caz~ ~ iii:t~~~ C."eatte:r clensit~' is a~~aintaine{k. 1a1 e7atr~c:cti{~n ~~it}~ the l~ritl?c~st:cl 1'r{>iect, t}~{~ t°it~' ~re:~are{1 rzn Itttitt} ~±tii~}~, to ele;tert7~ine ~~l~etl~er t}7ere cc~u}cl IXe :~i~..'_t1i}iLaa~t ~:n~~ir{>nanetttal itra}acts caccurrin`~,~ tts a re:sttlt caf'tltis l'r{~ject #~e~{?ntI ttr clil'fir.rem l`r{~n'a th{>se alr,~~acl~ :~lci~~ ,~,~~3 in the ~ri~~r } (:)I III and IiIiI~. .I'hc. Initial `~ttad~- c{>ncluded tlt4at the pr{?p{used I'r{ryject til,~atal~:I n<?t }a:{~~ <a ~,i;~~:nilicant eI't:~tt ern the cYra~°ircanrrat~a•~, k,L~.~~nck {aa• dil'lerent I't•ctraa tltt>se =ah'cacl~~ rrciclresse:il in tlac l:I)I:III aa~cl r`~rea Ca I'11~aI), ttrt{l n{~ 5i`~;nilicartt ini~rrn~ati«n l'aas arisen I'iar• this prc~jc:ct c}urine t:1ae pr'eptaratir~t~ {,f dais It'aitial ~tudy~ that ~~{u1d re{la.rire l~tart}aer etl~ironn~e:ntal r~;~ie~~r, "I'he C.'ity l~rep~arc;d a tlraf"t ,~{lclen{}tun tta t}YC l~'I)I:III anal Iti]~iI) d{~ctrn~entiaa~= this deternairaati{>at. ~Il~e draft ildclea`atltana and reltatetl Initial Stud~~ ar°e r~ttaehrraerat 7 tea t}le Staff I~ep{7rt. ,.l.,he r~clderaduni acrd re}ate{I ltiitial ~ttady ti~-i11 lie r~:r~ierti•ed by the l'lannn~ C'ijrrtr~aissi{~n Sri{>r t{? flair tttkin~ aUtic~ri can fh{~ C'{mclitic~i~a} I rst I'erat'at rrn{} bite t.)e~ c:[c>pancnt ttevietiv txf~plieati~.~a~s. I'azrsuant to to 2t)t)? ci>trrt cleci5ic~n, tlac i'fazlnirl~; (.'c?rnriission as {lecisi{~t1 maker will alsta c{~nsicler c~hetller the }'a•{~ject benefits {>tatv4ci~lt the si~ttilicant a.ana~c~idai`ale iralpacts iclcntiied in t}tc: f~l:)f~Il~ that. <~re applicGable t{7 the l'r{~jecx. [at it~;e<~rclance ~~itl~ State la~~, a ptrl~lic n{Mice ;~'as mailed to all pr{~pert~ «~,~-ners and tacctapants ~~ithin 3t)i) feet t>t~-the. Iar{>pt~secl pr{eject t{~ acl~ertise t}~{: far{tjeet anti the: ul~cc}mini ptahlic hear}rt~~. .~ I~ul~alic n{Mice. ~~tts ttl~~~ ~au1~}ishecl in the ~'a11e~ Titxaes and I'{}seed at see°ca•al 1{~cati{ans tlarc7t:a~Jhr~ut the C`i#~'. I°laL pr{~l-a~awed Site I)el•c1{~prt7ent I~.c~-ie>r~ re}>a•escnts a }?rcrject ~~hicl-a is e~~rrtl~ratil~le ti~°ith the {~}~jecti~es {3f Ilse y'i}[atje (:~crat~r l'Ianne{l l:)e;vcl{}patent l)stri{:t. I~he pa{',leer represents the first l~hGasc r.~l` tlae: ({cal i°~~aa~rtaerci4t} %rtttttu~nent ttnd nea~lal~{arlt{tc~tl rraain street. fin` I7tabliat l~trnc}t. ~s rtt{tt}ified_ the fitness ct~rtta- l,raa,ideas tan yap}~ri:~}~a•iatc rani} saaitalt}c artchc~r 1{ar t tral`t{~n ~itreet. I31~tlt pecicstritz61 acrd ~'clticular circa}trti{>nt 1'rcfe 1 l c,1' l.? '~°': ~ ' iI1~:lzltlirr{= lj.lrlin~. tt~I> l~e:~rl ~it~ec~rlatt;l1 irtccal•}?c~r~:Ii~c}. ;~'~}I tlrrct; }~rca}7cased str~.lctures ~Inti ~olranac.rtl~11 lsd4`~"~ ~' L:>rra~?1~ ~~it}a t}:7< <lclca~te~l c~le~:~elcapnaerat ~tanclt"cr'~ <.Int} t}e:~i~n ~1t.:Itat~nt~. "1 }~~ rc•~}>re~tctl C'carac~iticanal i5~: l'°rsaait(~) t`or tlat; ~?ril~rt~ fitnLS~ t~~ttter :Itat~ t:~)~~LYlca~alYr~Iat 1'laaY ~~1tn~slC~.n~:rlt j,~: conlpztif~}~ ti~°itla tl~ts irr dlntl.lI't)1llatl t}le Glrc'1 :1nt~ ilI'Ir L{7II"r~a}ellaetat43r~' llc~4.y ~C)r IIII %iC;tllt° l;C)rlait3l:r~l.li <i,;t,t. ~U~~flilc'rlt }~tII'ltirla`~' IS }?ria~ itltd t<a ~C;I"~ ~:: t}ae c}eraa~llac~ anlici}'~titt:cl arai~an~~ ilr~ ~~s°x~E~tr~c:cl lrs~:~. ~t~atf reccanartaerrc}5 tl-Irrt t}te I~lanrain~ C:'tarlanai~stan: 1) I~ecei~e `~trrt'P }arc:~ent<Itcala; 2i t)~atn floe lar.Ila}ic }-It~~Iriaa~,: ~) `I"~ll~.e tcstin~catay frtrrta the :1~a}alcant anc} tht3 ~,I.11^a}i;~; =~) C'}tare floe ptll~a}ic laearn~~~ rlnt} dclil~aer~ate; :a} .~c~r>lat l~t;~t~}rrti~>n rrrlta~atiii~ a C l~(,)r1 ,~~~cl~ncitetra tea trt~ 1 :~tt~rn I:)irklin 1 (T~. <In~i :~r•<sz t~i i~'1iii~iatt~i "~~•~tati~-e IJ~:cl~ir°;~aticara, ~tri~i (>) tlticl}~t E~es<>lrsti~n ra}a}art~~ ira~ bite 1)e~~~}c~?prt-ICrat ~e~°re~•~ s3nc~ (.;oaaijitiora<rl t..~5e ~'urrnit~;s)< ~cil}a ctalat}itirarls, fear a ~ari~~tlte rt:creatic~3la f~aci}it~~, and cI I:)e~•elca~araaelat ~'i~:ua :~.rraeracinac•rat: tta [iI,.1~~1<~ the rtll~ati~<Ila}t ~c}cl;Ire oota~e <jn ~t~: ~~'C'{? ~aftl~e 1'rcrlaaelatlcie tc> a~a}arta:~ilratltel~ ~~.C){)t~ :square tet. 1~3 ~{ ['ltf3i'F1~'i~~~ C)L~'ti1~a1Z: :l<IIIleS "I~c~I~~ GiIICI 1~9ei 1~'i~I"I~; "l r~zt C'h~xrtet~ ]~rc~~?erti;s ~f;'1{) C'h~bc~t I)ritie. `quite l0{) c:!<> C'1~zirte . 1'I-t7~erties {fig){) (~'Il.ah~~t IJI~ir ~, ~liite t (){} 1'Ic:its~ltttt~It, C`.`l tl-~>f~ [_.4)C':~"I`I()`~'. l~c~rtll i~l'I)tiiblin 13~?ulc~~slrci, eG~st <~f`<3r~~ftt~n `street. sclutl~ ~J` 1'`i~~ni~zl~ ~~ ~~v. <~rlci ~•~cst i~t'the I-~2 f~esicl~:ntial rleia~hb~~rl~~?~?cl 1'c~I•tit>tI i7S: :'~~'~i c)~ti_{j{}{?c)~{){}i~_{}? 1.'t~rtirlrl cat I'~treel c~t`1'~Ireel "~1:I,, 711 tli,til~'It:•11.1 1'C.~:~'ti` 131+.4It~l~1#TI()ti c~ C~;.<1.~+'I`1:1ti1 I)l.I3I.;I~+l ~sPt•:~:'I~1C; ~C'1,1?~+i: 1'I)-Vll~z~e C't~r~t~t• Iti~~ ~;el~ll~jC)r}lt)L7C~ {_~C)ITIlleCCl~11 III cl~;ec~rcl~rl~ce ~~~ith .`'>ttite l~rti~°, t~ pu~~lic z~c.~tice ti~~~zs m~iile~l t« ~~(1 l~rc~~eri~- t:>ti~IY~;rs ~ira~1 csccu~~~Int~ ~~itlai~~ {j{} t%',f i~t tl7e l~r~~~>ses3 ~~rc~ject tc.~ ~c3~et•tise tll4 ~~ri:>ject ~ittd the u~t~~~nlirt~ ~iu~lic l~earin~~.:1 ~~uY~lc: rlt~tice ~~4~ s~l~,c~ I~Llblishec~ iI~I t1~e Valley •t il7~e~ arlcl }?c~titecl ~.~t 54~~er~~1 1~7c~Itic~rts t}~rtlt,I;vhijut tl~e C'itr. l~t3t:.'c.' 1 7 Of, I i ~~ `~?~ ~~ ~llxt!' ~ ~ ;11.1 ~'~~~~-~` ~~~ Plannin Commission Minutes i-'-_~ `~~'' Tuesday, July 14, 2009 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, July 14, 2009, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Wehrenberg called the meeting to order at 7:03p.m. Present: Chair Wehrenberg; Vice Chair King; Commissioners Brown, and Swalwell; Jeff Baker, Planning Manager; Tim Cremmin, City Attorney; Erica Fraser, Senior Planner; Jamie Rojo, Assistant Planner; Mike Porto, Consulting Planner; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. Absent: Cm. Schaub ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA -NONE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS -Approval of the minutes for the May 26, 2009 meeting was postponed until the next meeting. Cm a motion by Cm. Swalwell, seconded by Cm. King the minutes of the June 22, 2009 meeting were approved. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -NONE CONSENT CALENDAR -NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS -NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS - 8.1 PA 08-044 New Evolution Fitness Facility -Conditional Use Permit request for a parking reduction and off-site parking for a health club facility. Jamie Rojo, Assistant Planner presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. The application for the project was withdrawn on May 20, 2009. The Planning Commission received the Staff Report and withdrew the item from consideration. No action was taken on the project and no discussion was held. Chair Wehrenberg opened the public hearing and hearing no persons requesting to speak on the matter closed the public hearing. ~z`f&'%i 3l2 Yiu ;,,C`F7iL!11.;.SU?R 128 .7~7 i`F, 21?frg ATTACHMENT 2 8.2 PA 08-006 The Promenade at Dublin Ranch (Parcel 4) -Conditional Use Peri it reizest for an indoor recreation facility and for a minor amendment to the approved PD Development Plan in accordance with Chapter 8.32.080 of the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance to change the allowable square footage on Village Center Parcel 6 to 82,864 sq. ft. provided the maximum allowable square footage for the 23 acre Village Center area/Promenade property does not exceed 230,000 square feet; and Site Development Review for the establishment of a Club Sport fitness center with associated spa and cafe, two-story retail/office building, four-level parking garage and associated site amenities. Mike Porto, Consulting Planner presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Chair Wehrenberg asked when the other sections of Area G will be built. Mr. Porto suggested that the Applicant should answer the question. Cm. Brown asked if the parking garage was always designed as the structure in the proposed plans. Mr. Porto answered yes; the parking garage was part of the original proposal. Cm. Swalwell stated that although it is not mentioned directly he assumed that the parking is free. He suggested adding wording to Condition of Approval #7 requiring the parking garage to remain free and asked if the Applicant would be open to that. He was concerned that if the parking did not remain free there would be an issue of drivers not using the garage and trying to find free parking on the street in the adjacent neighborhoods. He wanted to ensure that the parking would remain free. Mr. Porto stated that the issue of paid or free parking was not discussed but agreed it was something to discuss with the Applicant and could be added to the Conditions of Approval by the Planning Commission. Chair Wehrenberg stated there are two gates in the garage that were not on the plans in previous discussions. Mr. Porto answered the garage had not changed and the gates were put in because of concerns by the Planning Commission with after hours parking usage and security issues but suggested having the developer address the question. Chair Wehrenberg opened the public hearing. Dave Chadbourne and James Tong, Applicants did not speak but were available to answer questions. Mary Warren, resident, at 3738 Whitworth spoke in support of the project. She was concerned with parking at Dublin Ranch and stated that if the developer is satisfied with the number of parking spaces for the project then she could support the project. ;I'Grnni~z;,~ (bsnt?risa~zijn ,JuCy.14, ?04)9 =}~~f7r~.lar::'~ieetin~ 129 ~~ ~ ~~~. John Zukowski, resident, read a letter on behalf of another resident, Curtis Kolinek, 3385 ublin Blvd. The letter stated that Mr. Kolinek is a resident and bought his condominium from Toll Brothers based on the retail development going in nearby. He stated he was frustrated by the delays in the development of this project. He felt demand for this project is already established in the area because of the number of residents within walking distance. He felt it was a "shame" that Toll Brothers is engaged in litigation that has delayed the construction of the project. Mr. Kolinek #elt that for Toll Brothers to state that their litigation is designed to look out for residents in their development is not in good faith. Mr. Kolinek's letter stated he is in favor of the project and urged the Planning Commission to approve it Todd Williams, of Morgan, Miller, Blair, the Toli Brothers Attorney, indicated the Toll Brothers representatives also present were Rick Nelson, Division President and Tom Arguous, Regional President. Mr. Williams stated that Toll Brothers has submitted a detailed comment letter including legal. objections regarding the project. He stated Toll Brothers is in favor of the development of the Promenade, but they are concerned with the increased development intensity with the four story parking structure located 75 feet from The Terraces development. He felt the parking garage is unnecessary, unsightly and unprecedented. He stated that surface lots can easily accommodate the development, comply with design guidelines and eliminate impacts on adjacent residences. He stated there are no other four level parking garages in the city. He mentioned other local Club Sport facilities are surface parked only. He felt the parking garage was also unnecessary and sited a parking study done for the last submittal of the project which concluded a different parking total then the current submittal. He also felt that the nearby residents can walk or bike to the club thereby lessening .the need for parking. He continued that the Planning Commission previously approved shared parking for this project; now there is less development but the same amount of parking is being proposed. He restated that the majority of parking could be accommodated with surface parking lots. Mr. Williams felt the overall plans for development in Area G are relevant due to the limit of square footage and the number of acres left to be developed. He felt the remainder of the development of Area G would have to be less dense then originally contemplated leaving plenty of room for adjacent surface parking lots and keeping the pedestrian friendly, Main Street tone set by this development. He felt the design of the project did not meet the design guidelines for Area G. He stated the FAR for the project will increase from .5 FAR to 1.2 FAR when the garage is included with related impacts being placed on the side of the parking structure facing the Terraces. He stated the project is four times as dense as what was envisioned, will impact the views from the Terraces with an unattractive concrete wall, and will cast shadows on the Terraces, the trail and public open space. He stated that if this project is followed by applications for future projects to increase the density of the Village Center he felt there will be a CEQA "piecemealing" problem. He mentioned the Grafton Plaza project in Area H and felt they are related projects and should be studied as part of the same EIR. He stated that the parking garage unduly impacts neighboring residents, is inconsistent with design guidelines, specific and General Plan policies and felt there are clearly less impactful alternatives for parking that dori t negatively affect the nearby residences. Mr. Williams continued that with Staff's presentation it was mentioned that some of the residential projects changed from what was originally approved. He was concerned that the numbers are not accurate in regards to what was approved for the Stage 2 development plan. ~Plrtnntng ~`omrnisncxra ,7~,Cy 14, 2U(J9 t~a~I~r S~iesting 130 Y°•r~ a '' l~ ~ e He stated that the proposed project does not meet CUP or SDR standards and hel asked the Planning Commission to deny the project or ask the developer to come back with a better parking plan because several viable alternatives that are less impactful are available. Elliot Edge, 4161 Clarinbridge Circle, resident, spoke in favor of the project. He stated that he was upset to hear that Toll Brothers was against the project. He stated that one of the reasons he bought at the Villa's was because of the promise by Toll that the Promenade would be completed within a year or so. He stated that many of the residents felt they were "sold a bill of goods' by Toll and for Toll to state that they are looking out for the interests of the residents he felt was disingenuous. He stated that most residents of the .Villas felt there was not enough parking and it was good planning for a developer to allow for future development when planning for parking. He stated that he and other neighbors at the Villas are in favor of the project. Chair Wehrenberg stated that the parking garage will not be considered shared parking with the residents of nearby developments. Steve Lichliter, 4118 Clarinbridge Circle, resident spoke in favor of the project. He stated he bought his home knowing that the Village Center would be developed eventually. He felt it is a good addition to the neighborhood and is in support of the project. He felt there is a need for parking in the area and having it built at the front end of the project is impressive. He urged the Planning Commission to approve the project. Tim Sbranti, resident at 4243 Clarinbridge Circle spoke in favor of the project. He stated. he has been a resident of the Dublin Ranch Villages for three years. He stated he has been a member of Club Sport for 10 years driving to the Pleasanton facility and is excited to have Club Sport in his neighborhood. He stated that prospective residents of the Terraces considered buying there because of the Village Center and have changed their minds when they heard that the Club Sport project may be in jeopardy. He felt this project has been in the planning process for 9 years, and as proposed, is consistent with the vision for Area G and the Promenade_ He continued that this is the fourth time the project has come before the Planning Commission and encouraged the Planning Commission to approve the project. He felt the parking concerns have been met by the Applicant and all the findings can be made by the Planning Commission in order to approve the project. He felt the esthetic quality of the corner should be kept in mind because it is a key entrance to the City. He felt that the Grafton Plaza project should be dealt with as a separate project, and consider only what's before you in relation to what has already been approved and how it relates to the vision of the area. Mr. Sbranti stated he is in support the project and felt the other residents of the area are as well. Mr. Jim Tong, Applicant stated he had no comments but was available to answer questions. Cm. Swalwell asked if the Applicant would consider a condition that parking remains free so that there is never an issue of overflow parking on the street. He felt that if the parking garage did not remain free it could create a problem of people driving around looking for free parking on the street in the adjacent neighborhoods. 'i'Grnniny, (`mm~rissic~n 7u£y i~, ap{}9 ~e,?ut , <;4leettr.!,y^ 131 )~ ~ ~~. Dave Chadbourne, Land Plan Associates, representative of the Applicant, answered that tl~lere has been no discussion regarding paid parking with Staff and felt it was counterproductive and is not consistent with other Club Sport facilities. He felt that paid parking would not work for the other retail and restaurant uses as well. Cm. Swalwell stated that the parking garage is a contract and if there is ambiguity in the contract, the Applicant could, at some later date, charge for parking. He stated he is asking the Applicant to consider the Condition of Approval to make the contract clear. Mr. Chadbourne felt it was not an issue and felt that Mr. Tong may want to address the issue. He continued that gates will be installed to prohibit overnight parking and for security reasons. He stated that the gates would be closed from midnight until 5:OOam when Club Sport reopens. Chair Wehrenberg recalled that the gates were included in the plans to prohibit overnight and overflow parking and for security of the site. jim Tong, Property Owner/ Applicant stated that parking will be free as long as they can make sure tenants are in agreement. Lucy Star, resident,. stated that when she first purchased her home at The Terraces she was told the Promenade would be completed within two years, and there is still no development. She is frustrated by the delay and urged the Planning Commission to approve the project. Chair Wehrenberg closed the public hearing. Chair Wehrenberg stated that Toll Brothers had submitted a letter just before the meeting and called fora 15 minute recess so that Staff and the Planning Commission could study it. A short recess was taken at 7:50pm. The meeting reconvened at 8:10pm. Tim Cremmin, City. Attorney, stated a letter was received from Toll Brothers that listed some objections to the project. He continued that he and Staff reviewed the contents of the letter and the City Attorney and Staff believe that the information in the Staff Report and the resolutions are adequate and complete in order for the Planning Commission to take action tonight. He stated that none of the objections raised in the letter would cause a legal impediment or otherwise prevent the Planning Commission from acting as recommended by Staff. He stated Staff would not go through each of the issues raised in the letter but if the Planning Commission has questions regarding the issues in the letter Staff will respond. Mr. Cremmin stated that there is one item that Staff would like to add as a clarification to the CUP resolution. Mr. Porto directed the Planning Commission to Page 26 of Attachment 2 which is the signature page of the CUP Resolution. He stated for proposes of clarification, on the letter B -The Village Center, VC Parcel 6 in the list of parcels in paragraph 5, density is modified to change the C,i>Gtnn:?:$ ('otnmsrsiun ,7uC~ 14, ~ Of)') ~is't}ulcr ~t~tec~zinc;~ 132 ~~ 9-~ square footage from 60,390 to 82,864 and the FAR to .51 FAR. The resolution will' read as follows: B. Village Center (VC) Parcel 6 in the list of parcels in Paragraph S, Density is modified to change the square footage from 60,390 to 82 864 and the FAR to .51 FAR. Cm. King stated that one of .the issues raised in the letter from Toll Brothers suggests an alternative to a multi-level parking structure would be a flat land surface parking. lot. He asked where that surface parking lot would be located. Mr. Porto responded that the land uses proposed on the site, based on the zoning code, requires a certain amount of parking stalls for each individual use. He continued if the parking stalls are not available on site and no other location is approved by the Planning Commission by CUP for off-site parking, then the square footage of the uses would have to be decreased. He continued that the parking issue was the most focused item on the project. He stated that Staff has looked at the development potential on the site for a surface parking lot and found that the ability to park the site from a surface standpoint would restrict the uses to primarily office uses. He stated it would be difficult for retail, there could be no restaurants, and anything that generates a parking need would be difficult without some type of structured parking. He stated that originally the discussion centered on the issues of a parking garage and the ability to accommodate the varied uses that a Village Center envisioned. He continued that the parking garage is a permitted use allowed by the zoning code. Cm. King commented that the letter suggests that the number of .parking spaces required could be satisfied with surface parking. He asked if that would assume that some of the other unplanned areas would have to be turned into a parking lot. Mr. Porto answered the Toll Brothers letter makes certain assumptions, but that Staff stands by the Staff Report and the analysis that has been done. He stated that the project has been analyzed very thoroughly as required by the Planning Commission. Chair Wehrenberg stated that she had read. the majority of the letter and disagrees with quite a bit of it. She continued that there have been two study sessions and the Planning Commission has spent an enormous amount of time on this project. She also disagreed with Toll Brothers' letter that the project is not within the design guidelines. She felt the design of the buildings is within the design guidelines. She felt that if the project eliminated the parking garage they would have to add 430 parking stalls in surface parking. .She stated she had not heard any neighbors object to the parking garage. The parking garage will provide shade for the area and the landscaping is done well. She felt eliminating the parking garage would be difficult. She stated that it is an incorrect assumption that the parking garage will alleviate the parking issue at the other sites and everyone will be allowed to park there. The Planning Commission is familiar with the parking requirements and will not allow a reduction of parking where it will cause a parking issue. She agreed with Mr. Porto that Staff has done a good job and the Applicant has worked well with the City, specifically with the design criteria. She continued with some history of the project for the new Planning Commissioners stating that this has been a project which the Planning Commission worked hard on and was looking forward to as well as the other projects in the area. She stated she is in support of the project. ~sn?~ira~ 4'cmmu~~iv~t ,/ufy 19, 20{)9 ~~t~a:tar ~-Ft~;etzng 133 Cm. King felt the Toll letter seemed to focus on the parking garage and the aesthetic issues and alternatives. He continued that one of the things the City is doing is looking at the revitalization of the West Dublin downtown area. He felt that some of the areas in the west part of Dublin are what Land use planning books call "asphalt seas' of parking with some large buildings situated in the middle. He felt this is neither attractive nor pedestrian friendly. He felt that an alternative to the "asphalt sea' is a multi-level parking garage. He stated that more can be done to get people into an attractive environment with a shorter walk from the car than a sea of asphalt. He felt the multi-level parking structure is the lesser of two evils and while he doesn't love it this is not the area where they want a huge area of asphalt. He felt that due to the length of time that's gone into the planning of the project, the Planning Commission would have to take into consideration the impact of further delays and. stated he does not want to postpone the project any longer. Cm. Brown felt that the parking structure concept will encourage pedestrian traffic. He added that he Lives in the community close to the area and in talking with his neighbors felt that everyone is supportive of the project. He stated he is in support of the project. Cm. Swalwell stated that Club Sport has been a reputable business for a long time and felt that the project has generated excitement for the area which is needed. He stated he has also heard of people planning to move to the area specifically for the Club Sport project, but they were also frustrated with the delays. He continued the project is not only needed in the area but is also allowed under the design standards. Cm. Swalwell addressed the Toll Brothers letter; Toll did a great job with their projects, there are some parking problems, but also Toll promised the Promenade to all of the prospective buyers, including himself, and felt it was disturbing that Toll is holding up the project. He felt it was interesting that the Toll representative said the residents were opposed to the project, but the residents who spoke were in favor of the project. He stated that as far as the argument that Dublin has been treated differently from similar communities, that other Club Sport facilities do not have above ground parking structures, Cm. Swalwell did not feel that was relevant in this situation. He stated that Toll points out that the parking structure attached to a business like Club Sport is the first of its kind in Dublin, but Cm. Swalwell did not feel that .should be a reason to oppose it. The BART station and The Waterford apartments were the first of their kind and have been successful. He felt that this project will be successful also. He continued under design guidelines it states that we must incorporate parking within a group or shared structures whenever possible, not that every parking structure must be grouped that way but whenever feasible. He felt that in this situation an above ground parking structure is more feasible then surface parking lot or a below ground structure. He requested that Staff add to Attachment 2 in Condition #7 that parking shall be provided at no cost in the parking garage. He understood that the Applicant has stated that it is not envisioned that parking will ever be charged but if the project is sold to another owner and that owner would be subject to the Conditions of Approval they may not respect what the Applicant has promised. Therefore, to protect ourselves he asked to include the direct language in the Conditions of Approval. He fully supports the project. n'ivnni~y ('omrrrission - .7ufy 1~1, ?OU9 t~~~ufar5tfieetsnc~ 134 a iar.:thh .v'., Chair Wehrenberg did not feel it is appropriate to add the Condition of Approval #7~ gard~g the paid versus free parking issue. She asked Jeff Baker, Planning Manager for his opinion. Mr. Baker answered that if the Planning Commission desired to regulate that it could be added as a condition. Chair Wehrenberg stated that this is the fourth time to review this project. She stated she was the one person holding out because of the parking issue. She stated the Applicant modified the project and she agreed to shared parking, but now with the Mercantile building ..eliminating a floor the issue is not relevant. She agreed with all the previous comments, and agreed that findings are made and she had no objections to the project. She felt the design is great, the landscaping is very nice and she supports the entire project. Cm. Swalwell moved that under Condition of Approval #7 of the CUP Resolution (Attachment 2) that the following language be added: Parking shall be provided to the public at no cost. Cm. King moved to modify Paragraph B: B. Village Center (VC) Parcel 6 in the list of parcels .in Paragraph 5, Density, is modified to change the square footage from 60,390 to 82.864 and the FAR to .Sl FAR. On a motion by Cm. King and seconded by Cm. Brown, on a vote of 4-0, with Cm. Schaub absent, the Planning Commission approved the following with modifications: RESOLUTION N0.09 - 28 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) FOR AN INDOOR RECREATION FACILITY. AND FOR A MINOR AMENDMENT OF THE APPROVED PD DEVELOPMENT PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 8.32.080 OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ZONING ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE ON VILLAGE CENTER PARCEL 6 TO 82,864 SQ. FT. PROVIDED THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR THE 23 ACRE VILLAGE CENTER AREA/PROMENADE PROPERTY DOES NOT EXCEED 230,000 SQUARE FEET, AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CLUB SPORT FITNESS CENTER WITH ASSOCIATED SPA AND CAFE, ATWO-STORY RETAIL/OFFICE BUILDING, A FOUR-LEVEL PARKING GARAGE AND ASSOCIATED SITE AMENITIES ON A 3.72-ACRE SITE WITHIN AREA G OF DUBLIN RANCH PA 08-006 ~'la-, ~rznq is{~m,r~is~ic~n 7zrfy 1 ~, 21?t)9 1~t; ~Iur iie~~~ ir~~ 13 5 RESOLUTION N0.09 - 27 ~~ ~~~- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ADOPTING A CEQA ADDENDUM TO THE EASTERN DUBLIN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND 2000 DUBLIN RANCH AREA G MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROMENADE PROJECT AND ADOPTING A RELATED STATEMENT OF . OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS PA 08-006 8.3 PA 09-019 Alameda County Fire Facility -Conditional Use Permit request for a Community Facility and a parking reduction for shared parking located at 6400 Sierra Court. Erica Fraser, Senior Planner presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Chair Wehrenberg asked if there is a timeline for when the other two occupants - Go Kart Racers & East Bay Sports -will open versus the fire facility. Ms. Fraser answered the Applicant is here and can answer questions. She stated that the other projects were just recently approved and are still in the process for exterior and interior modifications. Chair Wehrenberg asked if the fire department will be sectioning off the building during construction and asked that the owner address that question during the public hearing. Ms. Fraser mentioned that to the right of the building there is a fenced in area that is only for Alameda County Fire which they can use as a staging area to allow parking on the other areas of the site if the other occupants open first. Chair Wehrenberg opened the public hearing. David Robison, Go Kart Racer business owner, spoke in favor of the project. He stated that the parking requirements of the City are twice as much as he felt they would need. He stated they would need approximately 60 or 70 spaces on a regular basis. He stated that the other businesses both hope to be open by late 2009, optimistically. He stated that the Alameda County Fire Department will be a few months behind them. He explained that there is plenty of room on the north side of building that would not affect the other businesses. Chair Wehrenberg asked about sound attenuation between the buildings. Mr. Robison answered that the go karts cannot be heard outside of the building. He stated the building will be closed up at all times and the only ventilation is through the roof. He 'l.~nnir;~ t'cmmassiun ,7uCy 2=t, ?t~~=1 ~a's~ut`ar SSie~itng 136 ~ ,, .~, , continued that they will have fans blowing in on one side of the building and ou a~the~other side of the building. He stated the go karts are actually quieter than a lawn mower. He stated that he did a sound survey at other go kart facilities and there was no measurable number on the decibel scale when the go karts were running or not running. He stated that outdoor go karts are very different and have different types of motors. Chair Wehrenberg was concerned with sharing the use with the Fire Dept. and ventilation. Mr. Robison stated there will be .full walls between each business with no shared ventilation or heating and no noise coming in between them. He stated that the soccer facility will be between the go karts and the fire department. Randy Bradley, Deputy Fire Chief, Alameda County Fire Department, spoke in favor of the project and thanked Staff for a good job. He felt this is a good location and they are hoping to get in as soon as possible. Chair Wehrenberg closed the public hearing. Chair Wehrenberg asked about the contamination found on the site and found in reviewing the Conditions of Approval that #52 addresses the remediation, but no final report is included to indicate the site it clear. Ms. Fraser stated the Applicant is still working with the Regional Water Quality Control Board on the measures that need to be taken. She continued that the Public Works Department needed to see where they are so far but the Regional Water Quality Control Board has not approved the measures that have been taken yet. Chair Wehrenberg asked if the remediation work is complete but the final report is not included in the Staff Report. Ms. Fraser answered that the last letter from the Water Quality Control Review Board indicated they wanted other measures as well. She stated that the final outcome will be between Regional Water Quality Control Board and Chevron, the previous owner. She continued that everything must be worked out before issuance of building permits. Cm. Brown had no concerns and is 100% in support of the Alameda County Fire Department coming to Dublin. Cm. Swalwell stated he is in support of the project. Cm. King is in support of the project and felt it was good to have the parking requirements based on reality rather than a formula. Chair Wehrenberg stated she is in support of the project. On a motion by Cm. Brown and seconded by Cm. Swalwell, on a vote of 4-0, with Cm. Schaub absent, the Planning Commission approved: ~'lnnain~ ('errtnusiirn ,~trfy:f4, 2fl{39 7i~f1 uCur ~'Ne~ei:~_? 137 a~ ,~. RESOLUTION NO.09-30 ~/ ~~ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A COMMUNITY FACILITY (ALAMEDA COUNTY FIRE DEPARMENT) AND A PARHING REDUCTION FOR SHARED PARHING LOCATED AT 6400 SIERRA COURT IN THE M-1 (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) ZONING DISTRICT PA 09-019 NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS -NONE OTHER BUSINESS -NONE 10.1 Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from the Planning Commission and/or Staff, including Committee Reports and Reports by the Planning Commission related to meetings attended at City Expense (AB 1234). ADJOURNMENT -The meeting was adjourned at 8:54 p.m. Respectfully submi ~~ r~f~-~/L~. Doreen Wehrenber~.....- Chair Planning C~mmis~ior ATTEST: Jeff Baker Planning Manager G: ~ MINUTES ~ 2009 ~ PLANNING COMMISSION ~ 7.14.09.doc ;t'f:7nneng ('entrnas~~ion ,July ; -t, 2tN){) 3iG)I ~xl~rr .`.•KePtin~ 13 8 a~ 3~a. RESOLUTION NO. 09 - 29 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) FOR AN INDOOR RECREATION FACILITY AND FOR A MINOR AMENDMENT OF THE APPROVED PD DEVELOPMENT PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 8.32.080 OF THE- CITY OF DUBLIN ZONING ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE ON VILLAGE CENTER PARCEL 6 TO 82,864 SQ. FT. PROVIDED THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR THE 23 ACRE VILLAGE CENTER AREA/PROMENADE PROPERTY DOES NOT EXCEED 230,000 SQUARE FEET, AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CLUB SPORT FITNESS CENTER WITH ASSOCIATED SPA AND CAFE, ATWO-STORY RETAIL/OFFICE BUILDING, AFOUR- LEVEL PARHING GARAGE AND ASSOCIATED SITE AMENITIES ON A 3.72-ACRE SITE WITHIN AREA G OF DUBLIN RANCH PA 08-006 WHEREAS, the Applicant, James Tong and Mei Fong Tong, has requested approval of Site Development Review to develop Parcel 4 of proposed Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 9717, a 3.72-acre site within an area known as The Promenade, with three structures, as follows: a) C1ubSport - a two-story fitness center and day spa with cafe of approximately 47,669 square feet; b) Mercantile Building - a two-story commercial building of approximately 35,195 square feet proposed for restaurant (7,190 square feet), retail, and office uses; and c) a four-level parking structure of 428 spaces; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, the requested uses are subject to approval by Conditional Use Permit(s) for the following: a) an indoor recreationaUfitness facility, and b) a Development Plan Amendment to change the allowable square footage on Site VC6 to approximately 83,000 square feet as long as the overall square footage on the 23 acre Promenade Site does not exceed 230,000 square; and WHEREAS, the project is located within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area; and WHEREAS, a complete application was submitted and is available and on file in the Department of Community Development; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has submitted project plans and exterior elevations dated received on July 7, 2009, for Site Development Review and the requested Conditional Use Permit; and WHEREAS, on March 21, 2000, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 06-00 approving PA 98- 069 for Area G of Dublin Ranch which established Planned Development (PD) zoning and a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan for the project site as PD Village Center/Neighborhood Commercial; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed, considered and adopted a CEQA addendum to the Eastern Dublin EIR and 2000 Area G Mitigated Negative Declaration prior to taking action on the Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review applications (Resolution 09-28 dated July 14, 2009 anal incorporated herein by reference). Attachment 3 a~ 3~a WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on said applications on July 14, 2009, for this project; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the Planning Commission approve a Site Development Review and the requested Conditional Use Permit(s) subject to the findings contained herein; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and use their independent judgment and considered the CEQA addendum and prior environmental documents, all said reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Planning Commission of the City of Dublin does hereby make the following findings and .determinations regarding proposed .Site Development Review. Site Development Review: A. Approval of the site layout, architectural design, landscaping, and public improvements is consistent with the. purpose and intent of Chapter 8.104, Site Development Review of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance and the Stage 2 Development Plan as buildings are fronting on to Grafton Street, parking is oriented toward the rear of the site, all. development standards have been complied with and the architectural character is in keeping with the approved design guidelines. B. The proposed Village Center/Neighborhood Commercial project proposed for Parcel 4, as conditioned, complies with the policies of the General Plan, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, The Community Design and Sustainability Element and the Planned Development Regulations for PA 98-069 and with all other requirements of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance in that it will create opportunities for the residents, and enhance the balance of jobs and housing, as well as reduce or even eliminate vehicle trips and traffic congestion due to the close proximity of residential units. C. The Site Development Review, as proposed and conditioned, 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 general welfare because it serves as the first phase of the neighborhood commercial component planned for Dublin Ranch and will, therefore implement all of the needed infrastructure to support this development and provide the ability for future developments in the vicinity to tie into these major improvements as well as, meeting the Development Plan objectives of creating a local main street area, and implementing the adopted Architectural Design Standards for the Village Center of Area G. D. The approved site development, including site layout, structures, vehicular access, circulation and parking, setbacks, height, walls, public safety and similar elements, has been designed to provide a functional and attractive environment for the development that is appropriate to the City, vicinity, surrounding properties and the subject lot and implements the Village Center concept established in the 2000 approvals and the PD zoning. 2 . a 7 ~ 31~ E. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the proposed commercial development because site dimensions will accommodate the proposed structures and uses, the site is relatively flat and is not subject to physical or topographic constraints. F. The proposed project will not impact views because it conforms with the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards. G. Architectural considerations, including the .character, scale and quality of the design, the architectural relationship with the site and other buildings, building materials and colors, screening of exterior appurtenances, exterior lighting,. and similar elements have been incorporated into the project, and as conditions of approval, in order to insure compatibility of this development with the development's design concept or theme and the character of adjacent buildings within and adjacent to the Village Center of Area G as a whole. H. Landscape considerations, including the location, type, size, color, texture and coverage of plant materials, provisions and similar elements have been considered to ensure visual relief and an attractive environment. I. The development has been adequately designed for proper circulation for bicyclists, pedestrians and automobiles by providing paseos and coordination with the north-south trail to allow and encourage connectivity between the buildings and the adjacent existing and planned residential uses. The proposed drive aisle provides reasonable access within and to and from the site that also coordinates with bicycle and pedestrian circulation. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Planning Commission of the City of Dublin does hereby make the following findings and determinations regarding requested Conditional Use Permit: Conditional Use Permit: A. The requested Conditional Use Permit for the fitness/recreation facility and Development Plan Amendment is compatible with surrounding and adjacent uses,. transportation and service facilities in that it contributes toward creating a local main street area for the neazby residential uses developed within Dublin Ranch and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area and consistent with the Village Center concept. established in the PD zoning. The development will visually enhance the architecture, provide continuity with new and nearby commercial projects, and provide general quality of services and diversity of uses for the nearby residential development. B. The requested Conditional Use Permit for a Development Plan Amendment is compatible with the surrounding and adjacent uses in that the maximum allowable development square footage for the overall 23 acre Promenade property will not exceed 230,000 squaze feet C. The requested Conditional Use Permit 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 proposed development and requested conditional uses generally conform to the Village Center standards established for Area G of Dublin Ranch. D. The requested Conditional Use Permit will not be injurious to property. or improvements in the neighborhood in that it will create opportunities for the residents, and enhance the balance of jobs and housing, as well as reduce or even eliminate vehicle trips and traffic congestion due to the 3 ~~ ~. 3 ~a close proximity of residential units. The design and improvement of the development are complementary to existing and planned surrounding .uses and will contribute towards an attractive, efficient Village Center. E. There are adequate provisions for public access, water, sanitation and public utilities, and services to ensure that the proposed development and the requested conditional uses would not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. because roads and facilities will be constructed to serve this project. The development will be accessible from public roads and served by public water, sewer, drainage and other facilities. F. The requested conditional uses would be physically suitable .for the type, density, and intensity of the uses and proposed structures because the site dimensions will accommodate the proposed structures and uses, the site is relatively flat and is not subject to physical or topographic constraints.. G. The requested Conditional Use Permits will not be contrary to .the specific intent clauses, development regulations, or performance standards established for the Zoning District PA 98-069 and the adopted Architectural Design Standards because the project provides commercial uses complementary to existing and planned residential development, and provisions have been applied by the project applicant to provide a safe and attractive indoor fitness facility and to assure that the maximum density of 230,000 square feet of development on the 23 acre Promenade Site is not exceeded. H. The requested Conditional Use Permit will be consistent with. Neighborhood Commercial land use designations of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan because it is a commercial use and the maximum development of the overall 23 acre Promenade Site will not exceed the 230,000 square feet allowed. I. The proposed minor amendment to the 2000 Development Plan substantially complies with and does not materially change the provisions or intent of the adopted PD zoning of the site because the amendment maintains the 230,000 sq. ft. cap on commercial development and thus does not increase the amount of commercial density anticipated for the Village Center area. The amendment allows the potential for reasonable future commercial development on the remaining Village Center sites and does not change the type of uses anticipated for the area. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Dublin does hereby approve the Site Development Review for the project comprised of the 2-story Mercantile Building, the 2- story Club Sport Building and the 4-level parking garage proposed for the 3.72-acre site known as VC6 (future Parcel 4 of Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 9717) of The Promenade Village Center commercial project with Area G of Dublin Ranch and for the requested Conditional Use Permit for a private recreation/fitness facility and Development Plan Amendment, as shown on plans prepared by Mackay & Somps, Dahlin group and R3 Studios dated received July 7, 2009, subject to the conditions included below. 4 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: a9 ~ 3 is Unless stated otherwise, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to the issuance of building permits, or establishment of use, and shall be subject to Planning Department review and approval. The following codes represent those departments/agencies responsible for monitoring compliance of the conditions of approval.. [PL.] Planning_[B] Building_~PO] Police, [PW] Public Works [ADMl Administration/City Attorney, [FINS .Finance, [Fl Alameda County Fire Department, [DSRLDublin San Ramon Services District, [CO] Alameda County Department of Environmental Health, [Z7] Zone 7. NO. CONDITION TEXT.. RESPON. WHEN AGENCY/ REQUIRED DEPART. GENERAL CONDI'TIE7NS, ._ 1. Parcel Map 9717 Conditions of Approval. All future PW, PL Prior to the Conditions of Approval for Tentative Parcel Map 9717 once issuance of approved are included in the Conditions of Approvals for this building SDR. In the event of a conflict between Tentative Parcel Map pernuts 9717 and these SDR Conditions of Approval, the Parcel Map 9717 Conditions of Approval shall prevail. The Final Map shall be recorded rior to the issuance of buildin ermits 2, Sidewalk Improvements. The Applicant/Developer -shall PW occupancy construct the sidewalk improvements along the Finnian Way, Grafton Street and Dublin Boulevard fronta es. 3. Sidewalk Cross Slope. The sidewalks within the Sidewalk Pw Improvement Easements shall have a typica12.0% cross slope. The cross slope .plans may vary to 1.5% if needed to meet accessibility requirements at occupancy the doorways. If no other practical design solutions are available the City Engineer may approve a cross slope less than 1.5% to meet accessibility requirements. However, in no condition shall the cross slo a exceed 2.0% or be less than 1.0%. see 3 4, Driveway Design: Both entrances to the parking lot shall be a Pw Improvement modified driveway type entrance with curb radius where the curb plans height varies to zero at the sidewalk, the gutter continues across occupancy the driveway, the driveway is concrete to the back of sidewalk, the sidewalk profile is maintained and the sidewalk cross slope is 2%. 5. Street Trees. The Developer shall install the street trees on the PW Improvement frontages on both sides of Grafton Street and Finnian Way that plans are dedicated with Parcel Ma 9717. occu anc f. Trail Improvements. If not completed by others, the Developer Pw Improvement shall landscape and construct the pathway between Finnian Way plans and Dublin Boulevard alon the eastern bound of Parcel 4. occu anc 7. Parking Garage. The Parking garage shall meet the following PW Improvement requirements: plans • The parking stalls should be a minimum 9 feet wide and 20.4 occupancy feet deep as shown on the SDR exhibits. All parking stalls next to walls or columns that would interfere with opening the parked car doors shall contain two additional feet width. • All parking stalls next to columns that are within two feet of the edge of the drive aisle shall contain two additional feet width. • The driveway aisle shall be a minimum 24 feet wide. • Parking stalls at 90 degrees to one another should be two feet wider. 3~ ~I~. NO. CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WH AGENCY/ REQUIRED DEPART. • There should be no obstruction within area 24 feet in back of a parking stall. • All parking stalls shall be delineated with a double strip per the City standard drawings. • Minor exceptions to the above dimensions as shown on the SDR exhibits are approved. • Parking shall be provided to the public at no cost. g, Grading/Sitework Permit. Developer shall obtain a Pw .Grading Grading/Sitework Permit from the Public Works Department for permits all private grading and site improvements including those within the Sidewalk Easement and the Dublin Boulevard Right of Way. The Developer shall provide performance security to .guarantee the frontage improvements within the Sidewalk Easement and the Dublin Boulevard Ri t of Wa . 9, Pedestrian Traffic During Construction. The unimproved area PW During within the Dublin Boulevard right of way behind the sidewalk construction shall be kept open at all times for pedestrian traffic during construction until the pathway between Finnian Way and Dublin Boulevard along the eastern boundary of Parcel 4 and the temporary walkway along the northern frontage of Finnian Way includin Parcel A is o en to edestrian traffic. 10. Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions. A Property Owners PW Prior to the Association shall be formed by recordation of a declaration of recordation of Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions to govern use and the final map maintenance of common areas and facilities. Said declaration shall set forth the Association name, bylaws, rules, and regulations. The CC&Rs shall ensure that there are adequate provisions for the maintenance, in good repair and on a regular basis, the landscaping, drainage, lighting, signs, pavement and other improvements within the Sidewalk Easement and public right of way. The Applicant/Developer shall submit a copy of the CC&R documents to the City for review and approval pursuant this condition. 11. Storm Water Treatment Measures Maintenance Agreement. Pw On-going Applicant/Developer shall enter into an agreement with the City of Dublin that guarantees the perpetual maintenance obligation for all storm water treatment measures installed as part of the project. Said agreement is required pursuant to Provision C.3.e.ii of RWQCB Order RZ-2003-0021 for the issuance of the Alameda Countywide NPDES municipal storm water permit. Said permit requires the City to provide verification and assurance that all treatment devices will be properly operated and maintained. ~. ~ .. ~. ~ ~,.,_ ~~ 12. In the event that there needs to be clarification to these Conditions PW [PL] On-going of Approval, the City Engineer or Community Development Director has the authority to clarify the intent of these Conditions of Approval to the Developer without going to a public hearing. The City Engineer or Community Development Director also has the authority to make minor modifications to these conditions without going to a public hearing in order for the Applicant/Developer to fulfill needed improvements or miti ations resultin from im acts of this ro~ect. ~31 ~.~ 3 ~2. NO. CONDITION TEXT RESPON WiH N AGENCY/ REQUIRED DEPART. 13. The Applicant/Developer shall defend, indemnify, and hold On-going 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 to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City of Dublin or its advisory agency, appeal board, Planning Commission, City Council, Community Development Director, Zoning Administrator, or any other department, committee, or agency of the City related to this project to the extent such actions are brought. within the time penod required by Government Code Section 66499.37 or other applicable law; provided, however, that the ApplicantlDeveloper's duty to so defend, indemnify, and hold harmless shall be subject to the City's promptly notifying the ApplicantlDeveloper of any said claim, action, or proceeding and the City's full cooperation in the defense of such actions or roceedin s. 14. Applicant/Developer shall obtain an Encroachment Permit from Pw Prior to the Public Works Department for all construction .activity within working the public right-of--way of any street where the City has accepted within the the improvements. At the discretion of the City Engineer an public right of encroachment permit for work specifically included in an way Im rovement A Bement ma not be re uired. 15. All public improvements to be constructed to City standards and Pw On-going the satisfaction of the Cit En ineer. 16. Applicant/Developer shall provide the Public Works Department Pw In a digital vectorized file of the "master" files for the project when conjunction the Final Map has. been approved. The digital vectorized .files with the shall be in AutoCAD 14 or higher drawing format. Drawing units recordation of shall be decimal with the precision of the Final Map. All objects the Final Map and entities in layers shall be colored by layer and named in English. All submitted drawings shall use the Global Coordinate System of USA, California, NAD 83 California State Plane, Zone IlI and U.S. foot. 17. Applicant/Prior to any clearing or grading, the Developer shall Pw Prior to the provide the City evidence that a Notice of Intent (NOI) has been issuance of sent to the California State Water Resources Control Board per grading the requirements of the NPDES. A copy of the Storm Water permits Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be provided to the Public Works Department and be kept at the construction site. The Developer is responsible for ensuring that all contractors implement all storm water pollution prevention measures in the SWPPP. 1 g. The Applicant/Developer will be responsible for submittals and Pw Prior to the reviews to obtain the approvals of all participating non-City recordation of agencies. The Alameda County Fire Department and the Dublin the final map San Ramon Services District shall approve and sign the Im rovement Plans. 19. Fire/Emergency Access. The Applicant/Developer shall PW In conjunction dedicate and improve Emergency Vehicle Access Easements with (SAVE) and provide adequate access for fire and emergency recordation of vehicles per Alameda County Fire Department (ACFD) standard the final map, requirements through the site. Driveways and drive aisles shall be or by separate designed for fire truck and other emergency vehicles to instrument and conveniently pass through (20-foot minimum lane width) the site prior to the and have access to all buildings. The Applicant/Developer shall issueance of construct tide uate access for fire and other emer enc vehicles Gradin and NO. CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHE AGENCY/ RE+QiTIRED DEPART. per Alameda County Fire Department (ACED) standard Building requirements. Detailed final layout and design of site entrance, Permits exits and internal drive aisles must be approved by the ACFD and the Director of Public Works prior to issuance of grading and buildin ermit. 20, Storm Drain .Easement, Water Easement, Sewer Easement, Pw In conjunction Common Area Easement, Ingress/Egress and Access with the Easement, Parking Easement, Emergency Vehicle Access recordation of Easement, Pedestrian Access Easement and Public Service the final map Easement Dedications. The Applicant/Developer shall grant or dedicate Storm Drain Easement, Water .Easement, Sewer Easement, Cable TV, Telephone and Electrical Service Easements, Common Area Easement, Ingress/Egress and Access Easement, Parking Easement, Emergency Vehicle Access Easement, Pedestrian Access Easement and Public Service Easements over each pazcel in favor of the other parcels located within this project and/or the appropriate public agency as deemed necessary by the Director of Public Works. The Applicant/Developer shall prepare CC&Rs to reflect these easements and the CC&Rs shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Works. 21. Public Utility Construction. Applicant/Developer shall PW occupancy construct all water, reclaimed water, gas, electric, telephone, sewer, cable TV, storm drainage per requirements of the Director of Public Works and/or public utility companies as necessary to serve parcels shown on this Tentative Map and future adjacent parcels with utility services and allow for vehicular and utility service access to those utilities. Applicant/Developer shall dedicate a minimum 10-foot wide Public Service Easement (PSE) over joint utility trench lines to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and the a ro riate utilit . 22. Abandonment of Easements and Right of Ways. Pw In conjunction Applicant/Developer or current landowner shall obtain an with the abandonment from all applicable public agencies of existing recordation of utilities, easements and ri t-of-wa snot to be continued in use. the final ma 23, Traffic Signs & Pavement Mar'ngs. All traffic signs and PW occupancy pavement mazkings shall be installed as required by the City En ineer 24. Parking. Parking spaces along the public streets shall be Pw occupancy indicated with "tic" marks. The pop-outs shall be adjusted so that the curb length between pop-outs contains a whole number of azkin s aces. 25. Parking Restrictions: Parking along the public streets shall be PW occupancy limited to two hours. 26. Developer shall obtain aGrading / Sitework Permit from the Pw Grading Public Works Department for all private grading and site Permit improvements including the private sidewalks. 27, Fees. Applicant/Developer shall pay all applicable fees in effect at the PW Prior to time of building permit issuance, including, but not limited to, Planning issuance of fees, Building fees, Dublin San Ramon Services District Fees, Public Building Facilities Fees, Dublin Unified School District School Impact fees, Permits Ci Traffic Im act fees, Ci Fire Im act fees; Noise Miti ation fees, ~~3ia. NO. CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHE AGENCY/ REQUIRED DEPART. Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu 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 building permits subsequent to new or revised fees shall be subject to recalculation and assessment of the fair share of the new or revised fees. Zg, Required Permits. Applicant/Developer shall comply with the PW Prior to City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance and obtain all necessary permits issuance of required by other agencies (Alameda County Flood Control Building District Zone 7, California Department of Fish and Game, Army Permits Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, State Water Quality Control Board, Etc.) and shall submit copies of the ermits to the D artment of Public Works. 2g, Building Codes and Ordinances. All project construction shall B Through conform to all applicable building codes and ordinances in effect completion of at the time of issuance of a buildin ermit. construction 30. Requirements. The Applicant/Developer shall meet all Pw Prior to requirements of the approved Tentative Parcel Map for the project recordation of prior to City Council acceptance of offers of dedication and final map recordation of the Parcel Ma . 31. Action Programs/Mitigation Measures. Applicant/Developer PL Prior to shall comply with all applicable action programs and mitigation issuance of measures of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Final improvement Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and addendum's that have plans not been made specific Conditions of Approval, which are in effect at the time of issuance of Im rovement Plans. 32, Joint Utility Trenches/Undergrounding/Utility Plans. PW occupancy Applicant/Developer shall construct a1T joint utility trenches (such as electric, telephone, cable TV, and gas) in accordance with the appropriate utility jurisdiction and City of Dublin Standard. Plans and Specifications unless specifically approved by the Community Development Director and Public Works Director. All communication vaults, electric transformers, and cable TV boxes shall be underground in designated landscape areas between the proposed sidewalk and back of curb. Utility plans showing the location of all proposed utilities (including electrical vaults and underground transformers) shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Works and Director of Community Development. Location of surface or aboveground items shall be shown on the Final Landscaping and Irrigation Plan, screened from view and approved by the Community Develo ment Director. 33. Utility Undergrounding. All utilities shall be installed in Pw occupancy accordance with the criteria established in the "Standard Public Works Criteria." All utilities within the project and to each lot shall be underground in accordance with the City policies and existing ordinances unless otherwise approved by the Community Development Director. All utilities shall be located and provided within public utility easements and sized to meet utility company standards. The existing overhead electrical line along the south and east side of the ro ert shall be laced under ound. 34. Damage/Repairs. The Applicant/Developer shall repair all PW occupancy damaged existing streets, curbs, gutters and sidewalks as a result of construction activities to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. ~ ~ ~ i~. N0. CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN AGENCY/ REQUIRED DEPART: ~_~., i 35. Master Sign Program. A Master Sign Program shall be B,PL occupancy submitted to the City. The program Shall include building, site and street si s. 36. Fountain/Pools/Spas. Separate building permits shall be B Building obtained for all fountains ools and/or s as. ermits 3'7_ Plans shall show locations of roof access for the equipment B Prior to the installed on the roof tops. issuance of Building ermits 38, Due to size of building and type of construction, yard frontages B Prior to the maybe required for the design. Plans shall indicate frontage issuance of increases proposed for review and approval by the building Building official. ermits t Ca ~ 'o 'o ~,~ ` oval ' ~~,~ ~~> 39. Building Codes and Ordinances. All project construction shall B Through conform to all building codes and ordinances in effect at the time completion of of buildin ermit. construction 40. Building Permits. To apply for building permits, B Prior to Applicant/Developer shall submit eight (8) sets of construction Issuance of plans to the Building Division for plan check. Each set of plans Building shall have attached an annotated copy of these Conditions of Permits. 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 obtaining the approvals of all participation non-City agencies rior to the issuance of buildin ermits. 41. Construction Drawings. Construction plans shall be fully B Prior to dimensioned (including building elevations) accurately drawn Issuance of (depicting all existing and proposed conditions on site), and Building prepared and signed by a California licensed Architect or Permits Engineer. All structural calculations shall be prepared and signed by a California licensed Architect or Engineer. The site plan, landsca a lan and details shall. be consistent with each other. 42, Addressing. Address will be required on all doors leading to the B Prior to exterior of the building. Addresses shall be illuminated and be occupancy able to be seen from the street, 5 inches in hei t minimum. 43. Engineer Observation. The Engineer of record shall be retained B Prior to frame to provide observation services for all components of the lateral inspection and vertical design of the building, including nailing, hold-downs, 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. 44, Phased Occupancy Plan. If occupancy is requested to occur in B Prior to phases, then all physical improvements within each phase shall be Occupancy of required to be completed prior to occupancy of any buildings any affected within that phase except for items specifically excluded in an building approved Phased Occupancy Plan, or minor handwork items, approved by the Department of Community Development. The Phased Occupancy Plan shall be submitted to the Directors of Community Development and Public Works for review and approval a minimum of 45 days prior to the request for occupancy of an buildin covered b said Phased Occu anc Plan. An ~o ~~~i~- NO. CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN AGENCY/ BEQUIRED DEPART. phasing shall provide for adequate vehicular access to all parcels in each phase, and shall substantially conform to the intent and purpose of the subdivision approval. No individual building shall be occupied until the adjoining area is finished, safe, accessible, and provided with all reasonable expected services and amenities, and separated from remaining additional construction activity. Subject to approval of the Director of Community Development, the completion of landscaping maybe deferred due to inclement weather with the posting of a bond for the value. o.f the deferred landsca in and associated im rovements. 45. Air Conditioning Units. Air conditioning units and ventilation B Prior to ducts shall be screened from public view with materials occupancy compatible to the main building. Units shall be permanently installed on concrete pads or other non-movable materials approved by the Building Official and Director of Community Develo ment. 46. Temporary Fencing. Temporary Construction fencing shall be B Through installed along perimeter of all work under construction. completion of construction 4'7. Green Building Guidelines. To the extent practical the B Through applicant shall incorporate Green Building Measures. Green completion of Building plan shall be submitted to the Building Official for construction review. 48, Cool Roofs. Flat roof areas shall have their roofing material B Through coated with light colored gravel or painted with light colored or completion of reflective material desi ed for Cool Roofs. construction 49. Electronic File. The applicant/developer shall submit all B Prior to building drawings and specifications for this project in an Issuance of electronic format to the satisfaction of the Building Official prior Building to the issuance of building permits. Additionally, all revisions Permits made to the building plans during the project shall be incorporated into an "As Built" electronic file and submitted prior to the issuance of the final occu anc . O ; SER S CT ~12S.p ~, 50. Prior to issuance of any building permit, complete improvement DSR Prior to plans shall be submitted to DSRSD that conform to the Issuance of requirements of the Dublin San Ramon Services District Code, Building the DSRSD "Standazd Procedures, Specifications. and Drawings Permits for Design and Installation of Water and Wastewater Facilities," all a licable DSRSD Master Plans and all DSRSD olicies. 51. All mains shall be sized to provide sufficient capacity to DSR occupancy accommodate future flow demands in addition to each development project's demand. Layout and sizing of mains shall be in conformance with DSRSD utili master Tannin . 52, Sewers shall be designed to operate by gravity flow to DSRSD's DSR occupancy existing sanitary sewer system. Pumping of sewage is discouraged and may only be allowed under extreme circumstances following a case by case review with DSRSD staff. Any pumping station will require specific review and approval by DSRSD of preliminary design reports, design criteria, and final plans and specifications. DSRSD reserves the right to require payment of present worth 20 year maintenance costs as well as other conditions within a separate agreement with the applicant for an ro~ect that re uires a um in station. i~ 3~ ~ 31~ NO. CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN AGENCYf REQUIRED DEPART. 53. Domestic and fire protection waterline systems for Tracts or DSR occupancy Commercial Developments 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 ractice. 54. DSRSD policy requires public water and sewer lines to be located DSR occupancy in public streets rather than in off-street locations to the fullest extent possible. If .unavoidable, then public sewer or water easements must be established over the alignment of each public sewer or water line in anoff-street or private street location to rovide access for future maintenance and/or re lacement. 55. Prior to approval by the City of a grading permit or a site DSR Prior to development permit, the locations and widths of all proposed Issuance of easement dedications for water and sewer lines shall be submitted grading to and a roved b DSRSD. Permits 56. All easement dedications for DSRSD facilities shall be by DSR Prior to separate instrument in'evocably offered to DSRSD or by offer of recordarion of dedication on the Final Ma . Final Ma 5'7. Prior to approval by the City for Recordation, the Final Map shall DSR Prior to be submitted to and approved by DSRSD for easement locations, recordation of widths and restrictions. Final Ma Sg, Prior to issuance by the City of any Building Permit or DSR Prior to Construction Permit by the Dublin San Ramon Services District, Issuance of whichever comes first, all utility connection fees including Building DSRSD and Zone 7, plan checking fees, inspection fees, Permits connection fees, and fees associated with a wastewater discharge permit shall be paid to DSRSD in accordance with the rates and schedules established in the DSRSD Code. 59. Prior to issuance by the City of any Building Permit or DSR Prior to Construction Permit by the Dublin San Ramon Services District, Issuance of whichever comes first, all improvement plans for DSRSD Building facilities shall be signed by the. District Engineer. Each drawing Permits of improvement plans shall contain a signature block for the District Engineer indicating approval of the sanitary sewer or water facilities shown. Prior to approval by the District Engineer, the applicant shall pay all required DSRSD fees, and provide an engineer's estimate of construction costs for the sewer and water systems, a performance bond, aone-year maintenance bond, and a comprehensive general liability insurance policy in the amounts and forms that aze acceptable to DSRSD. The applicant shall allow at least 15 working days for final improvement drawing review b DSRSD before si ature b the District En 'neer. 60. No sewer line or waterline construction shall be permitted unless DSR Prior to the proper utility construction permit has been issued by DSRSD. Issuance of A construction permit will only be issued after all of the items in Building Condition No.59 and 60 have been satisfied. Permits 61. The Applicant/Developer shall hold DSRSD, its Board of DSR On-going Directors, commissions, employees, and agents of DSRSD harmless and indemnify and defend the same from any litigation, claims, or fines resulting from the construction and completion of the ro~ect. 62. Improvement plans shall include recycled water improvements as DSR Prior to required by DSRSD. Services for landscape irrigation shall issuance of connect to rec cled water mains. A licant must obtain a co Construction 12 3 7 ~~-~. NO. CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN AGENCY/ . REQUIRED DEPART. of the DSRSD Recycled Water Use Guidelines and conform to permits the re uirements therein. 63. A Backflow Prevention device to prevent back-siphoning of water DSR occupancy into the potable distribution main will be required on each commercial account er the District's s ecifications. 64. Construction by Applicant/Developer. All onsite potable and DSR occupancy recycled water and wastewater pipelines and facilities shall be constructed by the Applicant/Developer in accordance with all DSRSD master laps, standards, s ecifications and re uirements. 65. DSRSD Water Facilities. Water facilities must be connected- to occupancy the DSRSD or other approved water system, and must be installed at the expense of Applicant/Developer in accordance with District Standards and Specifications. All material and workmanship for water mains and appurtenances thereto must conform with all of the requirements of the officially adopted Water Code of the District and shall be subject to field inspection by the District. Applicant/Developer shall comply with all conditions of the a roved future Parcel Ma . 66. Approval from the Calif. Dept. of Health Services (DHS) is DSR occupancy required for connection of the on-site recycled system. Applicant/Developer must submit required documentation, including Recycled Water Connection Drawings, to District to allow fora royal b DHS. 6'7, Available recycled water pressures must be verified by the DSR occupancy a licant. _, 68. The project will need to comply with the applicable Building and F Prior to the Fire Codes. Site and Building plans shall be provided for review issuance of and approval by the fire department. Building Permits 69. Fire apparatus roadways shall have a minimum unobstructed F occupancy width of 20 feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance 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 curbs painted with labels on both sides of the street as follows: "NO STOPPING FII2E LANE - CVC 22500.1." '70, Fire Department access on Finnian and Grafton to meet required F occupancy length; Fire apparatus roadways must extend to within ISOft. of the most remote f rst floor exterior wall of any buildin.~. (CFC 2007 Section 503.1.1 . 71, Fire apparatus roadways in excess of 150 feet in length must F Prior to the make provisions for approved apparatus turnarounds. (CFC issuance of 2007, Sec. 503.2.5). Building Permits '72. Provide Public Safety radio repeater in parking garage. CFC 45 F occupancy & NFPA 1221 section 9.3.1.4 see 5 '73, Provide wet standpipe to all levels of garage. CFC 905.3.1 F occupancy 74. On sheet A-12 / 13, fabric canopy shall meet flame retardant F Prior to the standard. CBC 3105.4 issuance of Building Permits 13 ~~ ~ ~~~ NO. CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN AGENCY/ REQUIRED DEPART. 75. On sheet A-19 / 20 / 25, elevator size to accommodate gurney. F Prior to-the CBC 3002.4 issuance of .Building Permits 76. On sheet A-22 pool equipment room and laundry to meet F :Prior to the separation requirements. CFC 2703.8 issuance of Building Permits '77. On sheet A-25 storage in garage to meet separation requirements. F Prior to the CFC 2703.8 issuance of Building Permits 78, On sheet C-3 show fire line size and location for garage and F Prior to-the retail. CFC 903.3.5 issuance of Building Permits 79, Remove colored circles showing radius of fire truck access & F Prior to the standpipe on sheet C-7. issuance of Building Permits 80. Relocate fire hydrant on Grafton adjacent retail -within F/d F Prior to the access path. CFC 503.2.1 issuance of Building Permits g 1, Pavers used on fire department access roads to support 40,000 F occupancy ound wei t load. CFC 503.2.3 see 14 82, New Fire Sprinkler System & Monitoring Requirements. In F Prior to the accordance with The Dublin Fire Code, fire sprinklers shall be issuance of installed in the building. The system shall be in accordance with Building the NFPA 13, the Ca Fire Code and Ca Building Code. Plans and Permits specifications showing detailed mechanical design, cut sheets, listing sheets and hydraulic calculations shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval and permit prior to installation. This ma be a deferred. submittal. 83. Sprinkler Plans. Applicant/Developer shall submit detailed F Prior to the mechanical drawings of all sprinkler modifications, including cut issuance of sheets, listing sheets and calculations to the Fire Department for Building approval and permit prior to installation. All sprinkler system Permits components shall remain in compliance with the applicable N.F.P.A. 13 Standard, the CA Fire Code and the CA Building Code. eferred Submittal Item 84, Underground Plans. Submit detailed shop drawings for the fire F Prior to the water supply system, including cut sheets, listing sheets and issuance of calculations to the Fire Department for approval and permit prior to Building installation. All underground and fire water supply system Permits components shall be in compliance with the applicable N.F.P.A. 13, 24, 20, 22 Standards, the Ca Fire Code and the CA Building Code. The system shall be hydrostatically tested and inspected prior to being covered. Prior to the system being connected to any fire protection system, a system flush shall be witnessed by the Fire D artment. Deferred Submittal Item gs, Central Station Monitoring. Automatic fire extinguishing F Prior to the systems installed within buildings shall have all control valves issuance of and flow devices electrical) su ervised and maintained b an Buildin ~a NO. CONDITION TEXT RESPON, W AGENCY/ RI/QIJIRED DEPART. approved central alarm station. Zoning and annunciation of Permits and central station alarm signals shall be submitted to the Fire occupancy Department for approval. The central station monitoring service shall be either certificated or placarded as defined in N.F.P.A. Standard No. 72. Assure the specific account is iJL Certificated or Placarded and not ~ust the monitorin station. 86, Monitoring System Plans. If it is necessary to install a fire F Prior to the alarm monitoring system or modify an existing system in order to issuance of obtain a Certificated or Placarded account, plans and Building specifications shall be submitted to the fire department for review Permits and a royal of the installation or modifications. 87, Fire sprinkler system shall have an audible alarm in each suite F occupancy served b the fires rinkler s stem. 2002 NFPA 13 section 6.9.1. gg, I+'D Gate Key Box /Switch (Manual Gates). Each manually F occupancy operated gate that serves as a means of fire access shall have installed a Knox Key Box accessible from the entrance side of the gate. Where the locking method of the gate is by a chain a Knox padlock shall be installed on the chain. The key box door and necessary keys are to be provided to the fire inspector upon the final inspection. The inspector will then lock the keys into the box. CFC 506 89, Automatic Gates. All electrically- controlled gates shall be F occupancy provided with an emergency gate over-ride key switch for fire de artment access. 90. Key Box/Switch Order Information. Key boxes and switches F occupancy may be ordered directly from the Knox Company at www.knoxbox.com 91. Site Plan. The site plan needs to show sufficient detail to reflect F Prior to an accurate and detailed layout of the site for review and record. issuance of purposes. The site plan will need a scale that will allow sufficient Building details for review purposes and include, but not be limited to the permits and following: occupancy • The site parking and circulation layout including fences, gates, fire lane locations and turnarounds. • Location of all fire appliances including fire hydrants, fire connections, fire sprinkler risers, and fire control valves. • The location of all building openings including the exit discharge pathway for building exits. Note the location of exit lighting for these pathways as well. • The location of any overhead obstructions and their clearances. • The location of property lines and assumed property lines between buildings on the same property as well as any easements. 92_ The site plan also will need to note the location and distance of F Prior to fire hydrants that are along the property frontage as well as the issuance of closest hydrants to each side of the property that are located along Building the access roads that serves the property. In addition, the permits and improved face of curb to face of curb or edge of pavement width occupancy of the access road that serves the property will need to be noted. CFC A endix Cha ter 1 section 105.4 93. Deferred Submittals. Provide on the Title or Cover Sheet under Prior to the headin Deferred Submittals all of the deferred submittal Issuance of HEN 15 NO. CONDITION TEXT RESPON. W AGENCY/ REQUIRED DEPART. items. 2007 CFC 901.2 Building • Fire sprinkler Installation Permits • Fire monitorin s tem install 94. Fire Access. Access roads, turnarounds, pullouts, and fire F On-going operation areas are Fire Lanes and shall be maintained clear and free of obstructions, includin the arkin of vehicles. 95. Entrances. Entrances to job sites shall not be blocked, including F On-going after hours, other than by approved gates/barriers that provide for errier enc access. 96. Site Utilities. Site utilities that would require the access road to on-going be dug up or made impassible shall be installed prior to combustible construction commencin . 97, Entrance flare, angle of departure, width, turning radii, grades, F Prior to turnaround, vertical clearances, road surface, bridges/crossings, Issuance of gates/key-switch, & within required 150-ft. distance to Fire Lane Building shall be shown on final site lan. Permits 98, Personnel Access. Approved route to furthermost portion of F Prior to exterior wall. Route width, slope, surface, obstructions must be Issuance of considered. Building Pemuts 99. Fire access is required to be approved all-weather access. Show F Prior to on the plans the location of the all-weather access and a Issuance of description of the construction. Access road must be desiLned to Building su ort the im osed loads of fire a aratus. Permits 100. Gate Approvals. Fencing and gates that cross pedestrian access F Prior to and exit paths as well as vehicle entrance and exit roads need to Issuance of be approved for fire department access and egress as well as Building exiting provisions where such is applicable. Plans need to be Permits submitted that clearly show the fencing and gates and details of such. This should be clearly incorporated as part of the site plan with details rovided as necess .CFC 501.3 101. Addressing. Addressing shall be illuminated or in an illuminated F Prior to area. The address characters shall be contrasting to their Issuance of background. If address is placed on glass, the numbers shall be on Building the exterior of the glass and a contrasting background placed Permits and behind the numbers. CFC 505 occu anc 102. Building Address. The building shall be provided with all F Prior to addresses or the assigned address range so as to be clearly visible Issuance of from either direction of travel on the street the address references. Building The address characters shall not be less than 5 inches in height by Permits and 1-inch stroke. Larger sizes may be necessary depending on the occupancy setbacks and visibili .DMC 7.08.040 103. Multi-Tenants. Where a building has multiple tenants, address F Prior to shall also be provided near the main entrance door of each tenant Issuance of space. The address shall be high enough on the building to be Building clearly visible from the driveway, street or parking area it faces Permits and even when vehicles are parked in front of the tenant space. The occupancy address shall not be less than 5-inches in height with a %2-inch stroke. DMC 7.08.040 104. Rear Doors. The address shall also be provided on any rear F Prior to doors to the tenant space with minimum 5-inch high characters. Issuance of DMC 7.08.040 2007 CFC 408.11.2 Building Permits and occu anc ~-o ~- -~. HEN 16 ~l ~?~ia NO. CONDITION TEXT RESPON. AGENCY/ DEPART. WHEN REQUiREb 105. Entrance Posting. Where the addressing on the building will not F Prior to be clearly visible from either direction of travel along the access Issuance of road the address references. Address posting shall also be Building provided at the entrance to the property. The address size shall be Permits and 5-inches high and should be on a reflective background. DMC .occupancy. 7.08.040 106. Multiple Buildings. Where multiple buildings exist on the same F Prior to site, all buildings shall be distinctly .identified and posted with Issuance of minimum. 5-inch high letters so as to be visible from the main Building driveways. DMC 7.08.040 Permits and occu anc NO. CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN AGENCY/ REQUIRED DEPART. F=s 107: Permit Expiration. Construction or use shall commence within PL Ongoing one (1) year of Site development Review (SDR) approval, or the SDR shall lapse and become null and void. Commencement of construction or use means the actual construction or use pursuant to the permit approval, or, demonstrating substantial progress toward commencing such construction or use. If there is a dispute as to whether the SDR has expired, the City may hold a noticed public hearing to determine the matter. Such a determination may be processed concurrently with revocation proceedings in appropriate circumstances. If a Permit expires, a new application must be made and processed according to the requirements of this Ordinance. 108. Time Extension. The original approving decision-maker may, PL Ongoing upon the Applicant's written request for an extension of SDR approval prior to expiration, and upon the determination that any Conditions of Approval remain adequate to assure that applicable findings of approval will continue to be met, grant a time extension of approval for a period not to exceed 6 months. All time extension requests shall be noticed and a public hearing or ublic meetin shall be held as re uired b the articular Permit. 109. Revocation of permit. The permit shall be revocable-for cause in PL Ongoing accordance with Chapter 8.96 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Any violation of the terms or conditions of this permit shall be sub~ect to citation. 110. Clean up. The Applicant/Developer shall be responsible for PL Ongoing clean up and disposal of project related trash and for maintaining a clean, litter-free site. 111. Controlling Activities. The Applicant /Developer shall control PO, PL Ongoing all activities on the project site so as not to create a nuisance to the surroundin businesses and residences. 112. Noise/Nuisances. No loudspeakers or amplified music shall be PO, PL Ongoing ermitted to ro'ect or be laced outside of the buildin . 113. Accessory Structures. The use of any accessory structures, such PL, B, F Ongoing as storage sheds or trailer/container units used for storage or for any other purpose, shall not be allowed on the site at any time unless a Temporary Use Permit is applied for and approved. ~~ ~ . NO. CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN AGENCY/ REQUIRED DEPART. 114. Requirements and Standard Conditions. The various Prior co ApplicantlDeveloper shall comply with applicable Alameda issuance of County Fire, Dublin Public Works Department, Dublin Building Building Department, Dublin Police Services, Alameda County Flood Permits Control District Zone 7, Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority, Alameda County Public and. Environmental Health, Dublin San Ramon Services District and the California Department of Health Services requirements and standard conditions. Prior to issuance of building permits or the installation of any improvements related to this project, the Developer shall supply written statements .from each such agency or department to the Planning Department, indicating that all a licable conditions re uired have been or will be met. 115. Fire Codes and Ordinances. All project construction shall B Through conform to all fire codes and ordinances in effect at the time of completion buildin ermits. 116. Traffic Control. During all phases of construction, two-way B, PL Prior to traffic is to be maintained along the abutting roads. Any proposed issuance of detouring or temporary signage and lane delineation along these Building roadways shall be approved in advance by the Director of Public Permits Works. 117. Occupancy Permit Requirements. Prior to issuance of an PW Prior to Occupancy Permit, the physical condition of the project site shall issuance of meet minimum health and safety standards and City requirements occupancy including, but not limited to the following: a. The streets and walkways providing access to each building shall be complete, as determined by the City Engineer/Public Works Director, to allow for safe, unobstructed pedestrian 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. H/C parking stalls, accessible walkways, signage) shall be installed and fully functional. h. As-Built or Record Drawings printed on mylar of all site im rovements shall be submitted to the Public Works ~s NO. CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN AGENCY/ REQUIRED DEPART... Department. i. A Declaration or Report from the Geotechnical Engineer of Record confirming that all grading work associated with the project had been performed in accordance with the Engineer's recommendations. 118. Utility Siting Plan. The Applicant/Developer -shall provide a PW, PL Prior to final Utility Siting Plan showing that transformers and service ~ issuance of boxes are placed outside of public view where possible and/or Grading screened to the satisfaction of the Community. Development Permits Director and Public Works Director. Applicant/Developer shall place all utility infrastructure underground including electric, telecommunications, .cable TV, and gas in accordance with standards enforced by the appropriate utility agency. Utility plans showing the location of all proposed utilities shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer/Public Works Director prior to installation. 119. Public Art. The Applicant/Developer has elected to and shall PL Prior to the acquire and install a public art project in accordance with Chapter issuance of 8.58 of the Dublin Municipal Code and shall comply with the Building Permits Public Art Compliance Report submitted by ApplicantlDeveloper, dated December 2, 2008, and on file with .the Planning Department. The value of the public art project is required to equal or exceed 0.5% of the building valuation (exclusive of land) for the project. The Building Official has determined that the total building valuation of the project (exclusive of land) is $25,888,120.00. Therefore, ApplicantlDeveloper is required to acquire and install a public art project valued at a minimum amount of $129,440.60. The potential locations of the public art on the project site is shown on the Project Plans. Prior to first occupancy Applicant/Developer shall (a) secure completion of the public art project, in a manner deemed satisfactory to the City Manager; and (b) execute an agreement between the City and Applicant/Developer that sets forth the ownership, maintenance responsibilities, and insurance coverage for the public art project. The public art project is subject to the approval of the City Council upon recommendation by the Heritage and Cultural Arts Commission. 120. Public Art Easement and Access Easement. Pw Prior to the The Applicant/Developer shall reserve a site and provide a public issuance of art easement and an access easement to the City within the Building Permits development project for a future public art project in accordance with Dublin Munici al Code Section 8.58.050. 121. Allowable Restaurant Square Footage: Cafe and Ourdoor P On-going eating and drinking area for the Club Sport Building is restricted to 2,644 square feet. Restaurant use in the Mercantile Building is restricted to 7,190 s uare feet. 122. Prevailing Wages. All public improvements constructed by Pw On-going Developer and to be dedicated to the City are hereby identified as " ublic works" under Labor Code section 1771. Accordin 1 , ]9 NO. CONDITION TEXT RESPON. W AGENCY/ REQUIRED .DEPART. Developer, in constructing such improvements, shall comply with the Prevailing Wage Law (Labor Code, sects. 1720 and followin 123. Grading/Sitework Permit and Security. Pursuant to §7.16.620 PW Prior to of the Municipal Code, the. Applicant shall obtain a - issuance of Grading/Sitework Permit from the Public Works Department that Grading/ governs the installation of required site improvements. Said Sitework permit will be based on the final set of improvement plans to be Permit approved once all plan check comments have been resolved. Please refer to the handout titled Grading/Site Improvement . Permit Application Instructions and attached application (three 8- 1/2" x 11" pages) for more information. The Applicant/Developer must fill in and return the applicant information contained on pages 2 and 3. The current cost of the permit is $10.00 due at the time of permit issuance, although the Applicant/Developer will be responsible for any adopted increases to the fee amount. As a condition of issuance of said permit, Improvement Security shall be posted to guarantee the faithful performance of the permitted work. Such security shall be in the form of cash, a certified or cashier's check, a letter of credit, or a permit bond executed by the applicant and a corporate surety authorized to do business in California. The amount of the security will be based on the estimated cost of the site work (excluding the building). The applicant shall provide an estimate of these costs for Cit review with the first lan submittal. 124. Improvement Plans. The Applicant /Developer's Engineer shall PW Prior to prepare final improvement plans for review and approval by the Issuance of Director of Public Works. Said Improvement plans shall be based Grading on the Site Plan and other preliminary plans in the applicant's Permits approved package dated received December 2, 2008, and include, but are not limited to, plan and profile, storm drainage, utility, striping, new pavement sections per the approved project soils report, and details for the project to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. The Applicant/Developer's Engineer shall obtain the City of Dublin's On-Site Check List from the Public Works Department and shall address any and all items applicable to the project. Said Check List shall be part of these conditions of a roval. 125. Emergency Vehicle Access Easement Dedications. PW, F In conjunction Applicant/Developer shall dedicate all needed emergency vehicle with the final access easements from each adjacent public street to all fire access map or by roads surrounding the site and buildings as defined by Alameda separate County Fire Department and to the satisfaction of the Director of instrument Public Works. prior to occu anc tr; ~~!_ _ ~~~L J. _ rrr~ 126. Traffic Visibility/Line of Sight. All entrances and exits to the P Prior to site shall have a clear line of sight for cross traffic. Median island issuance of signage, on-site monument signage, electrical transformer boxes, Building trash enclosures, and landscaping shall not be situated as to Permits obstruct vehicular and pedestrian safety and visibility. The Director of Public Works and City of Dublin Traffic Engineer shall identify obstructions to on-site and off-site traffic visibility and may require relocation or redesign to remove such obstructions. ~~ HEN ~t 20 NO. CONDITION TEXT RESPON. W AGENCYI REQUIRED I1F,PART. y ~ 127, Overland Storm Drain Flow. To accommodate potential Pw Prior to overland flow, .the parking lot grading and on-site storm drain issuance of system shall be designed to convey storm water overland to the Grading/Site public street right-of--way without inundating the buildings in the work Permit event the i e network becomes lu ed. 128. Erosion Control during Construction. ApplicantlDeveloper Pw Prior to shall include an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan with the issuance of Grading and Improvement plans for review and approval by the Grading/Site City Engineer/Public Works Director. .Said plan shall be work Permit designed, implemented, and continually maintained pursuant to the City's NPDES permit between October ls` and April 15`h or beyond these dates if dictated by rainy weather, or as otherwise directed b the Cit En ineer/Public Works Director. 129. Storm Water Treatment Measures Maintenance Agreement. PW Prior to Applicant/Developer shall enter into an agreement with the City issuance of of Dublin that guarantees the property owner's perpetual Occupancy maintenance obligation for all storm water treatment measures Permit installed as part of the project. Said agreement is required pursuant to Provision C.3.e.ii of RWQCB Order RZ-2003-0021 for the reissuance of the Alameda Countywide NPDES municipal storm water permit. Said permit requires the City to provide verification and assurance that all treatment devices will be ro erl o erated and maintained. 130. Construction Noise Management Program/Construction Pw, PL on-going Impact Reduction Plan. Applicant/Developer shall conform to the following Construction Noise Management Program/Construction Impact Reduction Plan. The following measures shall be taken to reduce construction impacts: 1. Off-site truck traffic shall be routed as directly as practical. An Oversized Load Permit shall be obtained from the City prior to hauling of any oversized loads on City streets. Truck traffic shall be restricted to outside the peak traffic hours. 2. The construction site shall be watered at regular intervals during all grading activities. The frequency of watering should increase if wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour. Watering should include all excavated and graded areas and material to be transported off-site. Construction equipment shall use recycled or other non-potable water resources where feasible. 3. Construction equipment shall not be left idling while not in use. 4. Construction equipment shall be fitted with noise muffling devices. 5. Mud and dust carried onto street surfaces by construction vehicles shall be cleaned-up on a daily basis. 6. Excavation haul trucks shall use tarpaulins or other effective covers. 7. Upon completion of construction, measures shall betaken to reduce wind erosion. Re lantin and re avin should ~' ~~ HEN. 21 ~6 NO. CONDITION TEXT RESPOPI. WHEN AGENCY/ REQUIRED DEPART. be completed as soon as possible. 8. After grading is completed, fugitive dust on exposed soil surfaces shall be controlled using the following methods: a. Inactive portions of the construction site shall be seeded and watered until grass growth is evident. b. All portions of the site shall be sufficiently watered to prevent dust. c. On-site vehicle speed shall be limited to 15 mph. d. Use ofpetroleum-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. 9. The Department of Public Works shall handle all dust complaints. 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 on 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 quality monitoring of PM levels shall be provided as required by the City Engineer/Public Works Director. 10. Construction interference with regional non-project traffic shall be minimized by: a. Scheduling receipt of construction materials to non-peak travel periods. b. Routing construction traffic through areas of least impact sensitivity. c. Routing construction traffic to minimize construction interference with regional non-project traffic movement. d. Limiting lane closures and detours to ofd peak travel periods. e. Providing ride-share incentives for contractor and subcontractor personnel. 11. Emissions control of on-site equipment shall be minimized through a routine mandatory program of low- emissions tune-ups. ~~Z ~ ~: 131. Zone 7. The Applicant/Deveioper shall comply with all Alameda PW, Zone7 Prior to County Flood Control and Water Conservation District -Zone 7 approval of Flood Control requirements and applicable drainage fees. Improvement Plans 132. Non-Residential Security Requirements. The PO, B Ongoing ApplicantlDeveloper shall comply with all applicable City of Dublin Non-Residential Securi Ordinance re uirements. ~~''~. 22 _. ~~A ~ 31 NO. CONDITION TEXT ~ RESPUN. WHEN AGENCY/ REQUIl2ED DEPART. 133. Security During Construction. PO, B, Pw Duxing a. Fencing -The perimeter of the construction site shall be construction fenced and locked at all times when workers are not present. All construction activities shall be confined to within the fenced area. Construction materials and/or equipment shall not be operated or stoxed outside of the fenced area or within the public right-of--way unless approved in advance by the Public Works Director. b. Address Sign - A temporary address sign of sufficient size and color contrast to be seen during night time hours with existing street lighting is to be posted on .the Dublin Boulevard perimeter. c. Emergency Contact -Prior to any phase of construction, Applicant/Developer will file with the Dublin Police Department an Emergency Contact Business Card that will provide 24-hour phone contact. numbers of persons responsible for the construction site. d. Materials & Tools -Good security practices shall be followed with respect to storage of building materials and tools at the construction site. e. Security lighting and patrols shall be employed as necessa 134. Lighting Plan. The Applicant shall submit a final lighting plan PO Prior to for approval by the Dublin Police. At a minimum the plan should Occupancy include: and On-going ~ .50 foot-candle lighting levels at all doors • 1.0 foot-candle lighting at ground level'in parking lot areas • The lighting plan shall provide a photometric read-out with foot-candles plotted on the site. • Li tin fixtures shall be of a vandal resistant e. 135. Exterior Landscaping. Exterior landscaping shall b'e kept at a PO Prior to minimal height and fullness giving patrol officers and general Occupancy ubiic surveillance ca abilities of the area, and Ongoing 136. Seat Walls. Seat wall areas shall be designed to minimize the PO ~ Prior to potential for vandalism by skateboarders and others. Occupancy and On oin 137. Graffiti. The Applicant/Developer shall keep the site clear of PO, PI, Ongoing graffiti on a regular and continuous basis and at all times. Crraffiti resistant materials should be used. ~~ ..k4c ~ ~~ ;,,_'s' _ ^x~ k*- ~*-~.y'... ~ v»L`3"-4~f<-'x~c~ ` ?~ emu' -:}3. ~ L,~d - _h+<.,."~"~...4 n. u. - -__.. ~v~ _~.~'--.. z..w::.v.:..r ~.<r....;. ..... s:.::ak~...... ~:-,F '~a~4i~...r ~_~'a~~~"'~u~`a` ~ •ei.~"~_ ~ i.Y.t'^ 1~- _. »i ...,~.z..... .~-u ~. `~ ~^_R . ,.xsx :.~. tE~` ~r ..'i'US?S 138. Fire Hydrants. DSRSD standard steamer type (1-4 1/2" and 1-2 F Pmor to %" outlet) fire hydrant(s) are required. (CFC 2001, Section Occupancy 903.4.2 and Ongoing 139, Identification of Hydrant Locations. Identify the fire hydrant F Prior to locations by installing reflective "blue dot" markers adjacent to the Occupancy hydrant, 6-inches off center from the middle of the street. (CFC and Ongoing 2001, Section 901.4.3 140. Inspection of Roadways & Fire Hydrants. Prior to the F Prior to Commencement of storage or framing, contact the City of Dublin, commencement Fire Prevention Division, and the Public Works De artment to of storage or 23 ~~ NO. CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN AGENCY/ REQUIRED . .DEPART. schedule an inspection of roadways and fire hydrants. (CFC' 2001 framing Section 8704.2 & 8704.3 141. Monitoring of Sprinkler Systems. Sprinkler systems serving F Prior to more than 100 heads shall be monitored by an approved central Occupancy station, U.L. listed for fire alarm monitoring. The account shall be and Ongoing certificated. A copy of the U.L. listing and certificate must be provided to the Alameda County Fire Department, City of Dublin, Fire Prevention Division, prior to scheduling the final test system. CFC 2001, Section 1003.3 as amended 142. Fire Extinguisher. Provide at least one 2A l OBC portable fire F Prior to extinguisher for each 3,000 sq. ft. of floor area. Travel distance to Occupancy an extinguisher shall not exceed 75-feet of travel distance and shall and Ongoing not be between floors. CFC 2001 Section 1002.1 143. Fire Flow. ApplicantlDeveloper shall submit to the Alameda F Prior to County Fire Department a letter from the Dublin San Ramon Occupancy. Services District a letter stating the available fire flow at the project and Ongoing site. DEBR IS/DUSTIf'ONS'j'~~'TTONACTIVITY . 144. Construction Hours. Standard construction and grading hours PW On-going shall be limited to weekdays (Monday through Friday) and non- City holidays between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. The Applicant/Developer may request reasonable 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 1 for all after-hours, Saturda ,and/or holida work. 145. Construction Trash/Debris. Measures shall be taken to contain PW, B, PL Prior to all construction related trash, debris, and materials on-site until Construction disposal of-site can be arranged. The Applicant/Developer shall keep the adjoining public streets and properties free and clean of project dirt, mud, and materials during the construction period. The Developer shall be responsible for corrective measures at no ex ense to the Ci of Dublin. 146. Construction Fencing. The use of any temporary construction PL, PW, B Prior to fencing shall be subject to the review and approval of the Public issuance of Works Director and the Building Official. Building Permits 147. Final Landscape and Irrigation Plan. A Final Landscape and PL Prior to Irrigation Plan prepared and stamped by a State licensed issuance o£ landscape architect or registered engineer, along with a cost Building estimate of the work and materials proposed, shall be submitted Permits for review and approval by the Community Development Director. Landscape and irrigation plans shall provide for a rec cled waters stem. 148. Sidewallc/Walkways. Sidewalks shall be constructed in PL occupancy accordance with streetsca a Tans. 249. Completion of Landscaping (see Phased Occupancy Plan). B occupancy Subject to approval of the Director of Community Development, the completion of landscaping may be deferred due to inclement weather with the posting of a completion bond for the value of the deferred landsca in and associated im rovements. 24 NO. CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WH AGENCY/ REQUIRED DEPART. 150. Standard Plant Material, Irrigation and Maintenance PW Prior to Agreement. The Applicant/Developer shall complete and submit issuance of to the Dublin Planning Department the Standard Plant Material, Building Irri anon and Maintenance A Bement. Permits 151. Landscape Borders. All landscaped areas shall be bordered by a PL Ongoing concrete curb that is at least 6 inches high and 6 inches wide.. Curbs adjacent to parking spaces must be 12 inches wide. All landscaped areas shall be a minimum of 6 feet in width (curb to curb) unless modified in this application. Concrete mow strips at least 6 inches deep and 4 inches wide shall be required to separate turf areas from shrub areas. 152. Maintenance of Landscape. All landscape areas on the site PL, Pw On-going shall be enhanced and properly maintained at all times. Any proposed or modified landscaping to the site, including the removal or replacement of trees, shall require prior review and written a royal from the Communit Develo ment Director. 153. Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance. The PL, Pw Completion of Applicant/Developer shall submit written documentation to the Improvements Public Works Department (in the form of a Landscape Documentation Package and other required documents) that the development conforms to the City's Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance. 154. Landscaping and Street Trees. The Applicant/Developer shall PL, Pw Issuance of construct all landscaping within the site, along the project Occupancy frontage from the face of curb to the site right-of--way, and all Permits street trees proposed within the public service easements, to the design and specifications of the City of Dublin, and to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and Director of Community Development. Street tree varieties of a minimum 24"-box size shall be planted along all street frontages and shall be shown on the Landscaping plans. Exact tree locations and varieties shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Works. The proposed variety of trees to be planted adjacent to sidewalks or curbs shall be submitted for review to and approval by the Director of Public Works. Root shields shall be required unless otherwise determined by the Director of Public Works and the Director of Communi Develo ment. 155. Retaining Walls. Should there be any locations where the PL Prior to finished grade of this site is in excess of twenty-four {24) inches issuance of higher or lower than the abutting property or adjacent lots within Building the project, a concrete or masonry block retaining wall or other Permits suitable solution acceptable to the Director of Public Works shall be required and shall be measured from the top of grade on the higher side of the retaining wall or slope. Landscaping shall be installed around all retaining walls in order to soften grade transitions to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and the Director of Communit Develo ment. 156. Bicycle Racks. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the P Prior to the Applicant/Developer shall work with Staff to provide additional issuance of bicycle racks at the entrance to the Ciub Sport Facility. The building additional bicycle racks shall be unobtrusive and out of the path permits of travel. 157. Livermore Airport Protection Area. Prior to the issuance of PL Prior to the building permits, clearance must be obtained from the ALUC. issuance of buildin ~ ~,~.. EN 25 NO. CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN AGENCY/ REQUIRED DEPART. emuts 158. Noise Study. Prior to the issuance of building permits. all PL, B Prior to the recommendations of the acoustics report for the project prepared issuance of by Rosen Goldberg Der & Lewitz dated June 29, 2009, shall be building im lemented or shown on the Tans to be im lemented. pernrits BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Conditional Use Permit approval includes the following minor amendment to the 2000 adopted Development Plan (Exhibit B-1, Development Plan - .Area G, Ordinance 6-00) with respect to Paragraph 5, Density, and related Village Center (VC) Parcel 6 pursuant to Section 8.32.080 of the zoning ordinance. A. Paragraph 5, Density, is modified to add the underlined text as follows: The maximum .square footage/number of dwelling units of the proposed development under this Development Plan (as shown on the Stage 2 site plan) are as follows, except that the square footage on Site Development Reviews for VC Parcels 1-5 shall be _less than the maximum sauare footas?e below so as to ensure that commercial development in the Village Center does not exceed 230 000 square feet. B. Village Center (VC) Parcel 6 in the list of parcels in Paragraph 5, Density, is modified to change the square footage from 60,390 to 82,864 and the FAR to .~1 FAR. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of July 2009. AYES: Wehrenberg, Brown, King, Swalwell NOES: ABSENT: Schaub ABSTAIN: ATTEST• P1 in anager ~r ~ ~ , ',~,~ ~ ~ u ~ o....: Planning Comm Ehair G: IPA#120081PA 08-006 Club Sport PromenadelPC Mtg 7-14-091pc reso approving cup sdr for promenadefina17-9-09.DOC ~ 3 l~- 26 ~ ~ 3-a RESOLUTION N0.09 - 28 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ADOPTING A CEQA ADDENDUM TO THE EASTERN DUBLIN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND 2000 DUBLIN RANCH AREA G MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROMENADE PROJECT AND ADOPTING A RELATED STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS PA 08-006 WHEREAS, the Applicant proposes to develop an 82,864 sq. ft. commercial center consisting of a C1ubSport fitness center, a Mercantile Building containing retail and office uses and a three story, four level parking garage on a 3.72 acre parcel on the 23 acre Promenade property. The related applications include Site Development Review for the principal proposed buildings and related improvements; a Conditional Use Permit for an indoor fitness center and for minor modifications to the existing PD zoning to reallocate density within the 23 acre site; a Vesting Tentative Pazcel Map to divide the 23 acre property into 4 parcels, Parcel 4 of which is the 3.72 acres proposed for development; and a Development Agreement. The above activities and applications aze collectively referred to as the "Project"; and WHEREAS, the Promenade site is located between Dublin Boulevard and Central Pazkway along either side of Grafton Street; the Club Sport/Mercantile Building portion of the Project is located at the northeast corner of Dublin Boulevard and Grafton Street; and WHEREAS, the Project is in the General Plan Eastern Extended Planning Area and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan azea, for which the City Council certified a Program Environmental Impact Report by Resolution 51-93 ("Eastern Dublin EIR" or "EDEIR", SCH 91103064) on May 10, 1993 (incorporated herein by reference). The Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant impacts from development of the Eastern Dublin area, some of which could not be mitigated to less than significant. Upon approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, the City Council adopted mitigations, a mitigation monitoring program and a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Resolution 53-93, incorporated herein by reference); and WHEREAS, on February 15, 2000, the City Council approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration ("2000 MND") for reconfigured land uses to relocate and develop a Village Center in the Dublin Ranch Area G portion of Eastern Dublin (Resolution No. 34-00 incorporated herein by reference). The City Council approved related General and Specific Plan amendments for Area G on March 7, 2000 (Resolution No. 35-00 incorporated herein by reference), and adopted PD-Planned Development zoning and related Development Plans on March 21, 2000 (Ordinance No. 6-00, incorporated herein by reference); and WHEREAS, the adopted PD zoning provides for a Village Center on the 23 acre Promenade property with a range of neighborhood commercial uses permitted and with a cap of 230,000 sq. ft. of density, allocated among 6 development sites. The Project proposes to modify the PD zoning to reallocate the approved density among the development sites, to subdivide the site and to develop one of the sites; and Page 1 of 3 ATTACHMENT 4 ~~ ~3~- WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study to determ~ne if additional review of the proposed modifications and development was required pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15162. Based on the Initial Study, the City prepared an Addendum dated July 14, X009 describing the modifications and development and finding that the impacts of the proposed Project have been adequately addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and 2000 MND. The Addendum and related Initial Study are attached as Exhibit A and are incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant) unavoidable impacts from development of the Eastern Dublin area, some of which would apply to the Project; therefore,.approval of the Project must be supported by a Statement of Overriding Considerations; and WHEREAS, a Planning Commission Staff Report dated July 14, 2009 and. incorporated herein by reference analyzed the Project Conditional Use Permit -and Site ~ Development Review applications and recommended adoption of the CEQA Addendum and approval of the applications; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly n©ticed public hearing on the applications on July 14, 2009; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Addendum as well as the Eastern Dublin EIR and 2000 MND before taking action on the applications. The Planning Commission further used their independent judgment and considered all reports, recommendations and testimony before taking action. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that -the Planning Commission makes the following findings to support the determination that no further environmental review is required under CEQA for the proposed Project. These findings are based on information contained in the Addendum, Initial Study, the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 2000 MND, the Planning Commission Staff Report, and all other information contained in the record before the Planning Commission. These findings constitute a summary of the information contained in the entire record. The .detailed facts to support the ~"mdings are set forth in the Addendum, Initial Study, Eastern Dublin EIR, 2000 MND and elsewhere in th~ record. Other facts and information in the record that support each finding that are not included below are incorporated herein by reference: 1. The proposed Project does not constitute substantial changes to the previously approved Eastern Dublin and Area G projects that will require major revisions to the EIR or MND due to new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in severity of previously identified significant effects. Based on the Initial Study, all potentially significant effects of the proposed Project are the same or less than the impacts for the Eastern Dublin and Area G projects which were previously addressed in the EIR and MND. The proposed Project will not result in substantially more severe significant impacts than those identified in the prior EIR and MND. All previously adopted mitigation measures will apply to the proposed Project and project site as applicable. 2. The Initial Study did not identify any new significant impacts of the proposed Project that were not analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIlZ and 2000 MND. 2 of 3 3. The City is not aware of any new information of substantial importance or substantial changes in circumstances that would result in new or substantially more severe impacts or meet any other standards in CEQA Section 21166 and related CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162/3. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that: 1. No further environmental review under CEQA is required for the proposed Project because there is no substantial evidence in the record as a whole that any of the standards under Sections 21166 or 1 S 162/3 are met. 2. The City has properly prepared an Addendum and Initial Study under CEQA Guidelines section 15164 to explain its decision not to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or conduct further environmental review for the proposed Project. 3. The Planning Commission hereby adopts the CEQA Addendum and related Initial Study, attached as Exhibit A; pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 for the Promenade Project. 4. The Planning Commission has considered the information in the Addendum, related Initial Study, Eastern Dublin EIR and 2000 MND and adopted the Addendum prior to approving the land use applications for the proposed Project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached as Exhibit B. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of July 2009 by the following vote: AYES: Wehrenberg, Brown, King, Swalwell NOES: ABSENT: Schaub ABSTAIN: A E Planning ager 1260531 ~...., Planning Commissio}t'C`ha~r~•~~••• - _. G: IPA#1120081PA 08-006 Club Sport PromenadelPCMtg 7-14-091resoadoptingcegaaddendumandsocforpromenade.DOC 3 of 3 .~'3~ ~-~ EXHIBIT B STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 1. General. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15093, the City Council of the City of Dublin adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for those impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR as significant and unavoidable. (Resolution 53-93, May 10, 1993, incorporated herein by reference.) The City Council carefully considered each impact in its decision to approve urbanization of Eastern Dublin through approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan project. In 2000, the City Council approved land use applications for Dublin Ranch, including Dublin Ranch Areas F, G and H, and adopted a related Mitigated Negative Declaration for potential development of Area G. The Planning Commission is currently considering the Promenade project ("Project") in Dublin Ranch. The Project includes a 23 acre portion of Area G with a Vesting Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide the site into 4 parcels and a Conditional Use Permit for a minor amendment to the Area G Planned Development zoning to reallocate the density within the maximum approved density. The Project also proposes a fitness center and commercial retail and office development on 3.72 acres of the Project area through a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review. The City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations with the original land use approvals for urbanization of Eastern Dublin. As decision maker on the Promenade project and pursuant to a 2002 court decision, the Planning Commission hereby adopts specific overriding considerations for the Promenade project. 1 The Planning Commission believes that many of the unavoidable environmental effects identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR that are applicable to the Promenade site will be substantially lessened by mitigation measures adopted with the original approval and by the environmental protection measures adopted through the Area G project approval, and the related Conditions of Approval, to be implemented with the development of the project. Even with mitigation, the Planning Commission recognizes that the implementation of the project carries with it unavoidable adverse environmental effects as identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The Planning Commission specifically finds that to the extent that the identified adverse or potentially adverse impacts for the Promenade project have not been mitigated to acceptable levels, there are specific economic, social, environmental, land use, and other considerations that support approval of the project. 2. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts. The following summarizes the unavoidable significant environmental impacts identified in the $astern Dublin EIR for future development of Eastern Dublin that apply to the Promenade project: Land Use Impact 3.1/F. Cumulative Loss of Agricultural and Open Space Lands; Visual Impacts 3.88, 3.8/F, Alteration of RuraUOpen Space Character and Alteration of Visual Character of Flatlands. Although considerable development has occurred throughout 1 "...public officials must still go on the record and explain specifically why they are approving the later project despite its significant unavoidable impacts." (emphasis original.) Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency 103 Cal.App. 4th 98, _ (2002). (~.~~ ~ih ~o+// y .. Dublin Ranch, the site is presently undeveloped land and has some open space character. Future development of the Promenade site will contribute to the cumulative loss of open space land. Traffic and Circulation Impacts 3.3/B, 3.3/E. I-580 Freeway, Cumulative Freeway Impacts: City street and interchange impacts can be mitigated through planned improvements, payment of Traffic Impact Fees and other measures,. however, mainline freeway impacts continue to be identified as unavoidable, as anticipated in the Eastern Dublin EIR and 2000 MND. Future development on the Promenade site will incrementally contribute to the unavoidable freeway impacts. Traffic and Circulation Impacts 3.3/I, 3.3/M. Santa Rita Road/I-580 Ramps, Cumulative Dublin Boulevard Impacts: The Promenade project will be required to implement all applicable adopted traffic mitigation measures, including contributions to the City's TIF program; however even with mitigation these impacts continue to be identified as unavoidable, as anticipated in the Eastern Dublin ElR. Community Services and Facilities Impact 3.4/S. Consumption of Non-Renewable Natural Resources and Sewer, T~i~ater; and Storm Drainage Impact 3.5/F, H, U. Increases in Energy Usage Through Increased Water Treatment, Disposal and Operation of Water Distribution System: Future development of the Promenade project will contribute to increased energy consumption. Soils, Geology, and Seismicity Impact 3.6/B. Earthquake Ground Shaking, Primary Effects: Even with seismic design, future development of the Promenade project could be subject to damage from large earthquakes, much like the rest of the Eastern Dublin planning area. Biological Resources Impact 3.7/C. Loss or Degradation of Botanically Sensitive Habitat. Development of the Promenade project would contribute to the overall loss or degradation of botanically sensitive lands in Eastern Dublin. Noise Impact 3.10/B. Exposure of Existing Residences to Future Roadway Noise. The Promenade project will increase traffic on area roadways contributing to increased noise levels. Air Quality Impacts 3.11/A, B, C, and E: Future development of the Promenade project will contribute to cumulative dust deposition, construction equipment emissions, mobile and stationary source emissions. 3. Overriding Considerations. The City Council previously balanced the benefits of the Eastern Dublin project approvals against the significant and potentially significant adverse impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The Planning Commission considers the previously identified significant unavoidable impacts, balances those unavoidable impacts that apply to future development on the Promenade site against its benefits, and hereby determines that the benefits of the Promenade project as further set forth below outweigh its unavoidable impacts. ~~ ~.. Economic considerations. The Project proposes new construction of commercial • facilities on a vacant site and will provide substantial benefits of new jobs, construction jobs, increased sales tax revenue and increased property tax revenue. Land use considerations. The Project will further the urbanization of Eastern Dublin as planned through the comprehensive framework established in the original Eastern Dublin approvals. The proposed development will implement the Village Center concept established in the 2000 Area G approvals by providing a fitness center and commercial retail and office facilities and related services and employment opportunities within ready walking and bicycling distance of higher density housing and proximate to other housing in Dublin Ranch and Eastern Dublin. 1260952 56 o~3bi .~ `?oll `Brothers `COPY' America's Luxury Home Builder'" July 24, 2009 City of Dublin Caroline P. Soto, City Clerk 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Re: Appeal of July 14, 2009 Planning Commission action re PA 08-006 (Resolution approving Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit for the Promenade at Dublin Ranch; and Resolution adopting a CEQA Addendum to the Eastern Dublin EIR and Area G Mitigated Negative Declaration) Dear Ms. Soto: ~.~.~, ~,,;1, ,., . . DECEIVED JUL 2 ~2f)fl9 ~°"~ DUBLIN PLANNING By this letter, Toll Brothers, Inc. and Toll-Dublin, LLC ("Toll") respectfully appeals two resolutions adopted by the Planning Commission on July 14, 2009 regarding application PA 08- 006, specifically resolutions approving a Site Development Review (SDR) and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the Promenade at Dublin Ranch (the "Project"); and a resolution adopting a CEQA Addendum to the 1993 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR and the 2000 Area G Mitigated Negative Declaration. As it did before the Planning Commission, Toll again wishes to stress that it is not against the development of the Promenade, nor does it object to the inclusion of a C1ubSport. However, Toll has serious concerns and objections regarding the proposed four-level parking garage located just 75 feet west of the Terraces of Dublin Ranch Villages, the architectural elevation of the eastern side of the garage and ClubSport building, as well as the noise, glare and concentrated traffic associated with the garage that would all be focused on the adjacent residents. Toll believes that these aspects of the Project can be mitigated so as to not unduly impact the residents of the Terraces, but as they now stand are not consistent with the previously approved Planned Development Village Center Zoning and Stage 2 Development Plan (and associated Design Guidelines). As such, the findings in support of the Planning Commission New York Stock Exchange • Symbol TOL NORTHERN CALIFORNIA DIVISION Attachment 5 100 Park Place, Suite 140 • San Ramon, CA 94583 • (925) 855-0260 • Fax (925) 855-9927 tollbrothers. com .~9 ~ 3ia July 24, 2009 Page 2 approvals are not adequately supported by substantial evidence. In addition, the CEQA Addendum is inadequate.1 The Planning Commission's Findings Are Not Supported. The Project seeks to amend the previously approved Development Plan to increase the intensity of development on one 3.7 acre parcel in the 23 acre Village Center/Promenade area of Area G in Dublin Ranch. Specifically, the Project proposes to increase the square footage on the subject parcel from the previously approved 60,000 square feet to over 83,000 square feet (not including the parking garage).2 Without considering the parking garage, this change represents a 38% increase in `square footage, and a 70 percent increase in floor area ratio (from .30 to .51). The Project is silent as to the plans for the remaining 19+ acres other than claiming the overall amount of commercial/retail space in the Village Center/Promenade will remain unchanged. However, the applicant has refused to rule out more intensive uses on the site.3 Included in the Project is afour-story, 100,000+ square foot parking garage that is over 40-feet tall and located 75 feet from the Terraces. (We believe it is the largest stand-alone garage in the City apart from the BART parking garage.) If one properly factors in the garage (considered a "building" under the Dublin zoning code), the increase in FAR on the parcel jumps to 1.14 - a 378% increase over the prior approvals.4 1 In connection with Toll's appeal, this letter incorporates those grounds set forth in the attached comment letter that was submitted to the Planning Commission in advance of the July 14, 2009 hearing, as well as those raised by Toll in its comments at the hearing. 2 It is undisputed that the intensity of the Project is inconsistent with the approved Development Plan for the Village Center. It, along with the inclusion of a ClubSport, is the reason why a _ conditional use permit is required. 3 Iri fact, an application has currently proposed another dramatic increased density and intensity of use in Area H of Dublin Ranch with the Grafton Plaza Project. In that case, the applicant is proposing an increase from 496,519 square feet to 1.1 million square feet. a The Dublin Municipal Code defines FAR as the gross floor area permitted on a site divided by the total net area of the site. (Municipal Code § 8.08) "Gross floor area" means "the floor area, including the total floor area of each floor and of all buildings on a site..." A parking garage comes within the definition of "building" ("any artifact constructed or erected, the use of which requires attachment to the ground"). See also definition of "maximum lot coverage" ("buildings and structures include all land covered by principle buildings, garages..."). Thus, the Project seeks to increase the allowable far from the previously approved 0.30 to 1.14. July 24, 2009 Page 3 Despite these dramatic, material and substantial changes that make it inconsistent with prior approvals, the Project is incorrectly described as a "minor amendment" to the Planned Development Zoning District, and the Planning Commission failed to recognize the full extent of the FAR increase. See Dublin Municipal Code section 8.32.080 (minor amendments to development plans must substantially comply with and not materially change the provisions or intent of the adopted Planned Development Zoning for the site). See also Parcel 4 Drawing A.1 (showing massing of Project) compared to Planning Commission Staff Report Attachment 8 (Stage 2 Development Plan Diagram). In addition, the applicable Design Guidelines and Development Plan require all buildings to be "four-sided" and contain an "equivalent level of detail" on all elevations and from all viewpoints. See Design Guidelines at II-27; see also II-3 (rear facades in Village Center will be actively used and should "have an appearance similar to a `front"'); II-29; III-11 ("ground floor building facades to be at least 60% transparent window surface"); Area G Development Plan at 9 ("wrap front facade detailing on all visible sides, including rear elevations"). However, the eastern elevations of the garage and the C1ubSport building contain virtually no visual relief for the residences of the Terraces whose view will be dominated by them out of their western windows. See Parcel 4 Drawings A.9 (east-facing elevation), A.13 (east elevation), A.15 (east elevation), and A.28 (showing blocked views from the upper floor of the Terraces).5 The required fmdings for the CUP include the following: • That the use is compatible with surrounding and adjacent uses; • That the use would not be injurious to properties or improvements in the neighborhood; • That the site is physically suitable for the type, density and intensity of the use and related structures being proposed; and • That the proposed PD Amendment substantially complies with and does not materially change the provisions or intent of the adopted Planned Development Zoning District for the site. The required findings for the site development review are similar and also include the following: s The Design Guidelines also stress the creation of a "pedestrian-friendly environment" and minimizing the reliance on the auto. Design Guidelines at III-2-3; IV-18. July 24, 2009 Page 4 • Be designed appropriate to the City, the vicinity, surrounding properties and the lot on which the project is proposed; • Have architectural consideration incorporated into the project in order to insure harmony with site surroundings and compatibility with the theme and character of Area G as a whole; and • Include landscape provisions to ensure visual relief and an attractive environment. No substantial evidence supports such fmdings by the Planning Commission in connection with both the CUP and SDR. Placing afour-story parking garage 75 feet away from residences is contrary to the required fmdings. The monolithic facade of garage, combined with the 40+ foot rear elevation of the C1ubSport building, constitute a virtually continuous concrete wall covering over 15,000 square feet directly across from residences. In no way can such a use be considered "compatible," "designed appropriate," or "not injurious" to surrounding properties. Nor does the proposed design "insure harmony with site surrounding and compatibility with the theme and character of Area G as a whole," or as set forth in the Area G Design Guidelines for the Village Center. See also General Plan Community Design & Sustainability Element § 10.7.3.S.A. ("provide convenient but not visually dominating parking"). Also, the Project's significant increased density on the parcel does not substantially comply with the adopted Planned Development Zoning District, rather it materially changes the provisions and intent of the PD Zoning for the site. In short, the Project, as proposed will not only negatively impact the enjoyment of the residences of adjacent Terraces units, but it will decrease the value of those properties.6 The Environmental Review Constitutes Improper Piecemealin~. As the first parcel in the Village Center/Promenade to be developed, the City should be leery of approving a significant increase in density and intensity without knowing how the remainder of the Village Center/Promenade will be developed. See Design Guidelines at I-1 (envisioning a single SDR for development of the entire Village Center). Further, the City should be concerned about a development that places all negative impacts on adjacent residential property owners. b Approval of the CUP and SDR also violates Condition No. 5 of the Master Vesting Tentative Map for Dublin Ranch Area E, F, G and H (Resolution No. 00-14). That condition requires that no CUP or SDR may be issued until the applicant/developer has entered into a development agreement with City. We are not aware that such a development agreement has been entered or approved. ~ ~3-a July 24, 2009 Page 5 The character and intensity of the Project conflicts with the prior approvals, and is inconsistent with the "Main Street" look and feel contemplated by the City as well as anticipated by neighboring residents and property owners. As noted above, by only addressing a single parcel in Area G without considering what will occur in the rest of the Village Center/Promenade, not to mention newly proposed (Grafton Plaza) and completed (Lowe's) projects on surrounding properties, the City is improperly piecemealing environmental review in violation of CEQA. By evaluating the Project on a parcel by parcel basis, the City is failing to adequately consider the impact of the overall development of the Village Center/Promenade and surrounding projects. Further, the City incorrectly concludes that the C1ubSport Project does not represent a substantial change to the project analyzed nine to 16 years ago in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR and the Area G Mitigated Negative Declaration even though it includes a dramatically more intensive use of the site than previously studied. In addition, as the City recognizes in other current environmental documents (see e.g., the Grafton Plaza Initial Study) there have also been changes to local and regional commute patterns since previous transportation analyses have been completed resulting in potential new or more significant impacts with regard to traffic than previously analyzed by the City. It is also foreseeable that,Gconsistent with the present application (and the Grafton Plaza Project), that the applicant will ultimately seek to intensify development on other parcels in the Village Center/Promenade, resulting in far more total development than the 230,000 square feet approved in 2000. As such, the City's failure to consider the new or more significant impacts of this intensified Project though an environmental impact report or mitigated negative declaration (choosing instead to issue an addendum) constitutes improper piecemealing under CEQA. See Laurel Heights Improvement Assn v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 376; CEQA Guidelines § 15126. The Proiect's Impacts Can Be Mitigated. Toll firmly believes that the negative impacts of the Project can be feasibly mitigated so that the development can move forward without unduly impacting adjacent residents. For example, rather than constructing afour-story garage, parking for the parcel could be contained either in a partially subterranean garage (as has been done at other C1ubSport sites), or be contained in well-landscaped surface parking lots within the Village Center/Promenade if indeed the remaining parcels will be less densely developed. ~ The ClubSport in Walnut Creek shares parking with a large hotel and features a partially subterranean garage with just one level of parking above ground level. In addition, in the Grafton Plaza Project, proposed just across Dublin Boulevard, the applicant is proposing two to three levels of underground parking for each building. ~~31a July 24, 2009 Page 6 Some Planning Commissioners expressed concerns over a "sea of asphalt" reminiscent of some outdated unlandscaped west Dublin commercial parking lots built decades ago. However, under the Village Center Design Guidelines, parking lots require extensive landscaping including a tree canopy, planter islands and hedge screens. See Design Guidelines at IV-22, IV-23 (parking lots will have a generous number of deciduous canopy trees). Virtually every other ClubSport in northern California successfully utilizes such surface lots, including locations in Pleasanton (which shares parking with a hotel), Fremont and San Ramon. By contrast, with the inclusion of a parking garage, practically the entire parcel will be covered by impervious surfaces and buildings, virtually devoid of landscaping other than a few plants along the edges. In short, afour-story garage would constitute a veritable concrete wall for residents of the Terraces whose units face the proposed development. Nowhere else in the City does such an objectionable conflict exist. Conclusion Toll regrets that it must appeal the Planning Commission's approval of the Project. It looks forward to the development of the Promenade in the near term so that residents can enjoy a vibrant "Main Street" as envisioned by the Planned Development Zoning District, Development Plan and Design Guidelines. However, the Project, as proposed, places too great a burden on the adjacent residential property to their significant economic and environmental detriment. Sincerely, TOLL BROTHERS 1NC. ~~. ~~_ Richard M. Nelson Division President Attachments cc: Joni Pattillo, City Manager Jeri Ram, Planning Director Mike Porto, Planner Tom Argyris, Toll Brothers Tim Hoban, Esq., Toll Brothers Todd Williams, Esq., Morgan Miller Blair The Terraces at DRV HOA The Courtyards at DRV HOA Dublin City Council ~~ `?oll `Brothers America's Luxury Home Builder'" July 14, 2009 City of Dublin Planning Commission 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Re: July 14, 2009 Planning Commission Meeting ClubSport Project Dear Planning Commissioners: ~'~`~- On behalf of Toll Brothers, Inc., I write to express our objections .and concerns regarding the Site Development Review, Conditional Use Permit and CEQA Addendum for the proposed ClubSport Project within the Promenade at Dublin Ranch Area G (the "ClubSport Project") being considered by the Planning Commission tonight. Toll regrets that it was unable to°provide more a timely response to the Planning Commission; however, the staff report and development application and lengthy environmental documents were not made public until last Friday afternoon: Summary To be clear, Toll Brothers supports the development of the Promenade, and is not opposed to the inclusion of ClubSport. However, Toll is concerned about the development intensity, the ClubSport Project's proposed four-story above-ground, 100,000+-square foot parking garage and the architectural treatment of the ClubSport and parking garage facades facing the Terraces development, in addition to the increased traffic, noise and glare that will negatively impact the residents of Terraces, and Toll's adjacent existing residential communities. In short, the proposed development intensity, mass and scale in conjunction with the four-story above-ground parking garage are unnecessary and contrary to the Planned Development Zoning and Development Plan (and associated Design Guidelines) previously adopted for Area G in 2000. Further, the proposed parking garage is unprecedented, as no other such retail parking garages exist in the City in such close proximity to residences. As explained in Section 4, below, parking for the ClubSport Project, and the remainder of the allowable Promenade development can easily be accommodated through the use of surface lots, or a below-ground parking structure in keeping with the character of Area G as approved in 2000. On the other hand, if the ClubSport Project is merely a prelude to later applications to intensify the rest of the Promenade, then the ClubSport Project represents improper piecemealing of the overall Promenade development. New York Stock Exchange • Symbol TOL Northern California Division 100 Park Place, Suite 140 • San Ramon, CA 94583 • (925) 855-0260 • Fax (925) 855-9927 +.,llhr..+1-. e.-~ ,,...., 63 ep 3~ July 14, 2009 Page 2 As proposed, the massive parking structure and C1ubSport's eastern building facade would focus all of its negative impacts on Toll's Terraces condominiums and its residents (adjacent to the east), the Courtyards development (to the north), as well as the public multi-use trail that runs between the Terraces acid the C1ubSport Project. In all of its other locations C1ubSport has successfully relied on surface parking lots or below-ground gauges. The same can and should be done here. As such, we respectfully request that the Planning Commission deny the application, or direct the applicant to return with a redesigned the parking and architectural treatment of the building elevations facing the Terraces.l 1. Dublin Ranch Planned Development Zoning for Area G In 2000, the City approved a Stage 1 Planned Development Zoning and Stage 2 Development Plan for Area G (the "2000 Approvals"). The center of Area G consists of a Village Center (a.k.a. the Promenade) consisting of 23 acres bisected by an extension of Grafton Street. As approved, the Village Center is to have a total of 230,000 square feet of development centered along Grafton to create a "Main Street effect" (see Staff Report at p. 5), with heavily landscaped surface parking lots to the east and west of this commercial corridor. This was the development character, intensity and design standards that Toll and its homeowners understood would guide future development proposals for the Village Center. A similar design has already been developed at Grafton Station, just to the south. That project used the Area G Design Guidelines as a guiding document. Reference Staff Report at p. 9. As the staff report points out, "The objective is to create apedestrian-friendly commercial area with a small town character adjacent to high-density residential neighborhoods." Reference Staff Report at p. 6. The Design Guidelines state that "for inspiration and guidance in the selection of an architectural theme for the Village Center and Main Street, we go back 50 to 100 years to the small towns of the Tri-Valley area." Design Guidelines at II-2. None of these towns, then or now, include afour-story, stand-alone parking garage on Main Street adjacent to residences. The 2000 Approvals called for the Village Center area is to establish the character of Main Street with a walkable system of streets that disperse traffic and encourages pedestrian movement in all directions. (Design Guidelines at III-3.) They do not indicate that a " 2-story," approximately 50,000 square foot athletic club (that is the height of a four-story building) and a four-story parking structure would be located within 75 feet of residential areas, essentially creating a wall between Main Street and the residential areas that are to support it. Building "stories" is a meaningless criterion without an understanding of height. As proposed the entire 3.7 acre parcel under consideration would be 40 to 50 feet in height with no terracing of building heights to provide architectural interest and mitigate the negative impacts on adjacent parcels. i When an earlier version of the C1ubSport Project first came to the Planning Commission last year, Toll did not receive any notice of any of those proceedings. Had Toll been notified, we would have informed the City of our concerns regarding this Project before it was approved. ~y ~ 3~ July 14, 2009 Page 3 This is clearly evidenced by looking at the "Birdseye View from Dublin Boulevard" on sheet A.1 of the development application architectural package. See Staff Report, Attachment 6 as compared to Attachment 8 (Dublin Ranch Area G Stage 2 Development Plan drawings); see also, Area G PD Project Description, Area G Design Guidelines (1999) and associated approval resolutions and ordinance. For example, all.of the references to parking in the Design Guidelines refer to "parking lots", not four-story garages. The Area G zoning approvals contemplated a setback and buffer between the Village Center and the residences consisting of lushly landscaped parking lots. Village Center uses along Grafton Street were intended to have setbacks and appropriate massing. The proposed ClubSport Project would change that.. If approved, residents in Buildings 7 and 8 of the Terraces will have views of a four-story continuous wall from their windows and a massive building that is nearly 50-feet tall and is taller than the buildings fronting on Grafton. See Parcel 4 Drawings A.9 (east-facing elevation), A.13 (east elevation), A.15 (east elevation), A.28 (showing blocked views from the upper floor of the Terraces); Staff Report at p. 8. The easterly view from the Terraces and northeast from the Courtyards is void of any of the architectural fenestration and detail that is provided along Grafton Street and Dublin Boulevard. The subject parcel (identified as VC6 in the 2000 Approvals) was to have 60,390 square feet of development along Grafton with a tree lined surface lot in the back. See Staff Report at p. 9 (Stage 2 Development Plan approved for the site contemplated commercial development with a surface parking lot behind the buildings); Area G PD Conceptual Detail Plans (showing landscaped surface parking lots). 2. The Project Proposes to Supersize Parcel 4 of Area G. In the 2000 Approvals, the Village Center was approved to have a total of 230,000 square feet of development over 23 acres, about 60,000 of which was to be on the subject parcel. The approved floor area ratio (FAR) for the subject parcel was 0.30. See Staff Report, Attachment 8 (Stage 2 Development Plan Land Use Summary, parcel VC6). Charter Properties is proposing to put over 83,000 square feet of development on one 3.7 acre parcel, a 38 percent increase in square footage. Further, the applicant is proposing to supersize the FAR for the subject parcel. Instead of the intended 0.30 FAR, the proposed FAR considering only the ClubSport and the Mercantile Building would be 0.51 FAR - a 70 percent increase in FAR from what was contemplated in the 2000 Approvals. While that increase is dramatic, when the four-level, 100,000+ square foot parking garage is included (as it should be considering it is anabove-ground structure), the FAR for the parcel jumps to 1.14 - a 378% increase over the 2000 Approvals. Essentially the parking garage is being driven by a component of the ClubSport, its an aerobics room which has a parking standard of one space per 50 square feet. (This component alone requires 160 parking spaces. Notably, this ClubSport proposes at least seven aerobics rooms, three to four more than at other nearby C1ubSports.) This single component of one ~~31a July 14, 2009 Page 4 building should not -and need not -result in an unprecedented and unsightly massive parking garage that conflicts with the 2000 Approvals and in no way advances the objective to create a "pedestrian-friendly commercial area with a small town character."2 In addition, if the proposed project is approved, it opens the door for the applicant to supersize the remaining parcels, adding additional parking garages in conflict with what was envisioned, approved and studied pursuant to CEQA in 2000 for Area G. 3. Dublin Is Being Treated Differently from Similar Communities The City is being asked to approve a parking garage that is unprecedented for any other local ClubSport facility. No ClubSport in nearby communities features a massive above-ground parking garage like the one proposed here. For instance, ClubSport locations in San Ramon, Pleasanton and Fremont only feature surface parking lots. The Pleasanton location uses a surface lot even though it is shares parking with the adjacent Pleasanton Hilton. Also, at the Walnut Creek ClubSport Valle Vista location, only a surface lot is used.3 By contrast, the proposed project seeks to put iri a stand-alone four-level parking garage that would be over 100,000 square feet. The garage would be entirely above ground. It is located less than 75 feet from the Terraces condominiums, would cast shadows on those buildings during much of the afternoon and early evening and obliterate views for residents at all levels. It will also cast shadows on the public multi-use trial that runs between the Terraces and the subject parcel, and would impact the Courtyards to the north (where the garage opens up and will emit light and noise). There is no need for the adjacent residents and trail users to suffer all the impacts from this project. 4. Village Center Parking Alternatives Not only is the proposed parking garage unsightly and rife with negative impacts for adjacent residents and trail users, it is unnecessary. The Village Center was approved at a development intensity that can be adequately served by surface parking lots. Since the ClubSport Project does not propose to increase the overall development intensity of the Village 2 We know of no other stand alone commercial/retail parking structure in the City that is as large as the one proposed (apart from the BART station), or within 75 feet of residential properties. 3 Iri fact, the only nearby ClubSport with any type of parking garage is the Renaissance ClubSport location in Walnut Creek, but it shares parking facilities with a large hotel and the garage includes only one level of parking that is above ground level, along with subterranean parking. ~~ ~31~ July 14, 2009 Page 5 Center, surface lots will be adequate accommodate the ClubSport Project and future development. As noted above, Charter Properties is proposing to put 36 percent of the total development for the 23 acre Village Center on 16 percent of the land. Since the remainder of the area will include less density than originally contemplated, there is ample space for landscaped surface parking lots that can serve both the ClubSport as well as the future development of the Village Center. For example, subtracting the 83;000 square foot ClubSport Project from the 230,000 square foot Village Center total leaves approximately 147,000 square feet of development remaining. Even assuming all of this remaining development requires one of the highest parking standard (i.e., 1 space per 100 sf), that would translate to the need for roughly 10 acres of surface parking (assuming 300 sf per parking stall) over the remain 19 acres in the Village Center. This would leave approximately nine full acres to accommodate 147,000 square feet of development. In other words, a surface parking plan can easily work as contemplated, even with the proposed inclusion of a ClubSport. The use of surface lots, as contemplated in the 2000 Approvals, would also enhance the use of the pedestrian paseos running throughout the Village Center thereby encouraging foot traffic to reduce generation of automobile trips from adjacent residential areas and to increase visibility for businesses. Alternatively, impacts from the parking structure could be mitigated by placing two or more levels of parking underground. See Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Policy 5.6.1 ("Parking requirements in eastern Dublin shall be kept to a minimum consistent with actual parking needs. Allowance shall be made for shared parking in mixed-use areas. Parking requirements maybe reduced wherever it can be demonstrated that use of alternative transportation will reduce parking demand.") In fact, the currently proposed Grafton Plaza Project, located acxoss Dublin Boulevard from the ClubSport Project site, includes two to three levels of subterranean parking on each of its proposed buildings. See Grafton Plaza Project IS at p. 8 and discussion on page 10, 7.C of this letter regarding the Grafton Plaza Project. Further, the applicant's own shared parking study submitted with the previous application found that, using ITE parking data for health clubs, only 408 spaces would be needed. (TJKM Shared Parking Study at p. 5, attached hereto). However, that study included a 52,700 square foot Mercantile Building that has now been reduced by 17,500 square feet, translating to a reduction in required parking by approximately 60 spaces. Thus, a more realistic requirement for shared parking would be approximately 350 spaces, not the 500 that are proposed. Further, as was pointed out by a letter from the operator of several ClubSport facilities, many users travel to the clubs in methods other than car. (See attached.) This would be particularly true here in light of the large number of nearby residential uses. Since these viable options are not being pursed, it appears foreseeable that the applicant may seek to increase development on other parcels within the Village Center and ultimately seek to exceed the planned 230,000 square feet of development. As noted below, such plans would ~~ ~3)a July 14, 2009 Page 6 represent piecemealing and would run afoul of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). 5. The Parking Garage Fails To Comply With Area G Design Guidelines and the General Plan. Not only is the parking garage unnecessary, it is unsightly and fails to comply with the landscape design guidelines of for parking lots within Area G. In addition, the eastern facade of both the parking garage and the C1ubSport building fail to comply with the approved architectural guidelines. The Design Guidelines clearly require that parking lots be lushly landscaped with trees to buffer and limit the view of automobiles. See Design Guidelines at IV- 23. It also requires that all buildings be "four-sided" meaning that they present attractive facades from all viewpoints. See Design Guidelines at II-3, II-27 ("side and rear elevations should be articulated with an equivalent level of detail as front facades ... entry points should relate directly to people arriving in adjacent parking lots"); II-29 ("freestanding buildings will be visible as four-sided architecture thereby requiring a consistent level of articulation on all facades"). By contrast, the eastern facade of the parking garage and the entire Club Sport Project is virtually unadorned, with very limited landscaping. As proposed, the eastern face of the Project would represent a 40-foot high wall with virtually no windows, articulation or landscaping that would obliterate views for the residents of Buildings 7 and 8 of the Terraces. See Parcel 4 Drawings A.9 (east-facing elevation), A.13 (east elevation), A.15 (east elevation), and A.28 (showing blocked views from the upper floor of the Terraces). The staff report purports that since parking garages are a permitted use in the Neighborhood Commercial area, they were "conceptually anticipated" at the time the Stage 2 Development Plan was approved. See Staff Report at p.10. However, this statement is wholly unsupported and belied by the fact that the Area G Design Guidelines consistently and repeatedly refer to "parking lots" in the Village Center area. In addition, the Design Guidelines' residential provisions include some reference to garages. See e.g., Design Guidelines at III-16 (incorporate parking Within grouped or shared structures yvhenever possible, such as carports, garages, tuck-under subterranean or ground story residential parking garages.") By contrast, for the Village Center Commercial areas the Design Guidelines speak in terms of "parking lots" demonstrating that multi-level above ground parking garages were not contemplated in the Design Guidelines specific to the Village Center. The Design Guidelines call for the use of "low hedges, shrub masses, walls and landscaped berms to screen parking lots from public utility infrastructure, from street and adjacent residential vietiys, and give a defined edge to the lot." Design Guidelines at III-7. Drawings accompanying the application clearly show that from the Terraces, the Courtyards and the multi-use trail, the proposed parking garage will not be adequately screened. See e.g., Staff Report, Attachment 6 (Drawings A.28 showing the obstructed view from the upper level of the Terraces. Of course views from lower levels and the trail will be even worse.) (~S of 31a- July 14, 2009 Page 7 In addition, the Design Guidelines state that "Parking lots will consist of perpendicular parking bays visually broken into smaller areas within the larger mass of parking between landscaped medians and islands. As a transition to the parking lot, a minimum of 5' of enhanced paving and/or landscape shall be provided at the backside of all buildings." See Design Guidelines at N-22; see also N-23 ("Parking lots will have a generous number of deciduous canopy trees spaced triangularly with one set of trees in the median and another in intermediate planer island placed at the end of and among the parking bays."); IV-18 ("Part of the desired feeling to accommodate people first and the vehicle second will be accomplished by creating situations that cause the motorist to feel like they are passing through a pedestrian oriented place."). ' The Design Guidelines approved by the City are not merely suggestive, rather they are mandatory. See Dublin Zoning Ordinance § 8.104.120 ("Any design guidelines which are approved for a particular site or area shall apply to all ... Site Development Review applications for that site or area."); see also Eastern Dublin Specific Plan ("EDSP") Section 7.2.1 (Overall Village Center Design Guidelines: "Locate parking lots behind buildings which front on the shopping street ...landscape parking lots with shade trees in a pattern and number that can be reasonably, expected to shade 50 percent of the lot surface ten years after planting, and 75 percent at maturity."). The proposed parking structure is also inconsistent with the Dublin General Plan. General Plan Policy 10.7.3.5 states that commercial projects "[p]rovide convenient but not visually dominating parking that incorporates extensive landscaping to provide shade, promote wayfinding, [and] visually soften views from the street and surrounding properties". See also General Plan Policy 10.7.3.6 (Villages (including Dublin Ranch Town Center) should encourage compact development with an emphasis onpedestrian-friendly design, that is compatible with the local environment including surrounding land uses.) 6. The Proposed Project Fails to Meet the CUP or Site Development Standards. In order to grant a CUP, the following findings must be made: that the CUP "1) be compatible with surrounding and adjacent uses, transportation and service facilities; 2) have no adverse effects on the health and safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; 3) not be injurious to properties or improvements in the neighborhood; .... 5) the site is physically suitable for the type, density and intensity of the use and related structures being proposed; and 6) the proposed PD Amendment substantially complies. with and does not materially change the provisions or intent of the adopted Planned Development Zoning District for the site." Staff Report at p. 6. First, the City's prior Area G approvals do not contemplate an athletic club with the massing proposed by this Project, or a 4-level, 50-foot above-ground parking garage in the Village Center. The C1ubSport Project consists of a 47,669 square foot athletic club and spa, a 35,000 square foot Mercantile Building, and afour-level, 428-parking space above-ground parking garage. Overall, the entire 3.7 acre parcel is covered by massive, monolithic buildings ~ ~ ~~~„~, July 14, 2009 Page 8 and structures of heights 40 to 50 tall with no terracing or massing relief on the easterly side of the project to mitigate the negative impacts to the Terraces. Second, the required findings cannot be made to support the CUP due to the impact of the parking garage on the surrounding properties and the public multi-use trail. The massive parking garage is incompatible with the adjacent residential project, and inconsistent with the PD Zoning and Design Guidelines for Area G, as well as every other development in Dublin Ranch. Similarly, by shadowing the adjacent residential buildings, and concentrating noise, glare, traffic and related air quality impacts on those residents as well as trail users, the Project would have an adverse effect on such persons: For the same reason, the Project would be injurious to properties and improvements in the neighborhood. In addition, the site is not compatible with an above- groundparking garage of this density. Finally, the C1ubSport Project, as proposed, does not comply with, and would materially change the provisions and intent of the PD Zoning District and Design Guidelines for the site. It represents a dramatic increase in development intensity and FAR, and replaces an intended landscaped surface parking lot with afortress-like parking garage that was never contemplated as being within the "small town character" of the Village Center. For similar reasons, findings in support of the Site Development Review cannot be made as the Project is not consistent with the PD Zoning, is not designed appropriate to the vicinity and surrounding properties; is not physically suitable for the site, does not include landscape provisions to ensure visual relief, nor does it ensure proper circulation for bicyclists, pedestrians and automobiles by focusing an increase in traffic on one area of the development. 7. The Project Violates CEQA and the Planning and Zoning Law. After becoming aware of the proposed Project, Toll voiced concerns over the lack of adequate environmental review of the C1ubSport Project in accordance with CEQA. The 2000 Area G IS/HIND evaluated a mix of retail and office uses with amenities appropriate to an urban environment, but did not evaluate the impacts associated with supersizing development on one parcel of Area G, in particular the inclusion of an approximately 50,000 square foot athletic club and 4-story above-ground parking garage. The City has prepared an Initial Study ("IS") along with a staff report. These items along with the development application materials were made available last Friday afternoon, barely two business days prior to tonight's hearing giving the public virtually no opportunity to review, let alone comment on the documents. The new IS purports to conclude that the C1ubSport Project will not result in any new or more significant impacts than what was studied in either the 1993 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR, or the 2000 Area G IS/MND. The City proposes to adopt a "CEQA Addendum" to both of those documents. However, the IS reaches several unsupported and inadequate conclusions which we believe make it invalid to support the proposed addendum, which itself is legally inadequate. A. Planning and Zoning LaW and Municipal Code ~n ~ 31a July 14, 2009 Page 9 As noted above, the ClubSport Project is inconsistent with the 2000 Approvals, including the PD Zoning for Area G. As such, approval of the Project, as proposed, would violate California's Planning and Zoning Law which requires the Site Development Review and CUP to be consistent with the adopted zoning or the adopted Area G Design Guidelines. Further, no substantial evidence supports the findings required for the approvals. Similarly, the Dublin Municipal Code (including Chapters 8.04, 8.32, 8.100 and 8.104) requires that Site Development Review and CUPS comply with the policies of the Dublin General Plan, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, Planned Development Regulations for Stage 1 and Stage 2 Planned, Development zoning actions and with other requirements of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. The ClubSport Project does not comply with the Design Guidelines approved in 2000 or the Area G approvals and PA 98-069. Those Design Guidelines do not provide guidance for afour-story above grade parking garage in the Village Center area. The approved Planned Development Stage 1/Stage 2 zoning for the Village Center included surface parking lots and one and two-story, pedestrian oriented retail and commercial buildings and paseos. The ClubSport Project, especially its inclusion of a four-story above grade parking garage conflicts with the applicable zoning, and substantial evidence does not support findings in support of its approval. In addition, the ClubSport Project does not represent a "minor revision" to the Planned Development rezoning since it reallocates development within the 23-acre Promenade site. The staff report attempts to write off the inclusion of the parking garage and increase in density as not unusual or unique. Reference Staff Report at p. 10, As an example, the report incorrectly suggests that the number of residential units for the Dublin Ranch Villages were dramatically changed between the Stage 2 Development Plan approvals and actual buildout. The Stage 2 unit count was 232 units in MH-1, 296 in MH-2, 300 units in H-1, and 576 in H-2 for a total of 1404 units. In fact what was actually approved for MH-1, MH-2, H-1 and H-2 was 200, 281, 289 and 626 units respectively for a total unit count of 1396 units (8 fewer than allowed) See Staff Report, Attachment 8 (Stage 2 Development Plan Land Use Summary). In each case, the actual number of units constructed was within 10 percent of the Stage 2 Development Plan. By contrast, the ClubSport project seeks to increase development on the parcel by approximately 40 percent in terms of square footage and 70 percent in FAR (or nearly 400 percent when the parking garage is included). In no way does such a change represent a "minor revision." Moreover, all four of the Dublin Ranch Villages residential parcels were considered nearly simultaneously, not piecemealed as the proposed application appears to be doing. B. Lack of a Development Agreement The CEQA Addendum references the existence of a development agreement (CEQA Addendum at p. 2), however no such development agreement has been approved, nor is it included with the staff report or the Initial Study for the approvals. The ClubSport IS states that a development agreement is "proposed" pursuant to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan requirements. (ClubSport IS at p. 9.) However, the staff report's listing of pending related actions makes no mention of the development agreement. Staff Report at p. 3; see also 7~ ~ ~-d July 14, 2009 Page 10 C1ubSport IS at p. 2 (stating that the IS assesses a development agreement application). A development agreement is a "project" under CEQA and is subject to environmental review. See Citizens for Responsible Gov't v. City of Albany (1997) 56 Cal. App. 4th 1199. By failing to include the development agreement in the initial studyor the CEQA Addendum, the City has failed to comply with CEQA. Further, Condition No. 5 of the Master Vesting Tentative Map for the Dublin Ranch project requires that no development (defined as including the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit or Site Development Review) may occur until the applicant/developer has entered into a development agreement with the City as required by Section 7 of the Master Development Agreement between the City and the Lin Family for the Dublin Ranch Project. (Resolution No. 00-14 (approving the master vesting tentative map for Dublin Ranch Areas E, F, G and H, Condition of Approval No. 5). See also C1ubSport IS at p. 9 (discussing the Master Tentative Map's relation to the proposed project). C. Use of a "CEQA Addendum" and Piecemealing. The City prepared and is poised to adopt a purported "CEQA Addendum" to both the 1993 EDSP E1R, and the 2000 Area G IS/MND. However, the CEQA Addendum is legally inadequate. First, it incorrectly concludes that the C1ubSport Project does not represent a substantial change to the project analyzed in those earlier documents. Sixteen years has passed since the EIR was prepared and nine years since the Area G IS/MND. As noted above, the applicant proposes to build approximately 37 percent of the total allowed development in the 23.7 acre Village Center on one 3.7 acre parcel, including a 4-story parking garage that was never analyzed in prior environmental documents. This represents a nearly 40 percent increase in square footage for the parcel and an 80 to 400 percent increase in FAR (depending on whether the parking garage is included). This change will result in impacts on adjacent residential and public uses. In addition, the C1ubSport Project is inconsistent with the Dublin General Plan, the EDSP, and the Area G Design Guidelines. (See Section 5, above.) As noted below, the Initial Study also fails to adequately address the project's impacts and cumulative impacts from other projects. There is also new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the prior environmental documents were prepared years ago. For example, the Grafton Plaza Project proposed directly across Dublin Boulevard from the C1ubSport Project, proposes to increase the allowable development in Area H from 496,519 square feet to 1,128,000 square feet - a nearly 150 percent increase. The initial study for that project recognizes that it would increase the intensity of land use on the site beyond what was analyzed by the EDSP EIR or 2000 MND, and "there have also likely been changes to local and regional commute patterns since previous transportation analyses have been completed. This could result in a potentially significant impact with regard to increasing traffic on local and regional roadways" and could result in additional or more significant cumulative impacts that previously analyzed by the City. (Grafton Plaza IS at p. 48.) ~~~3~ July 14, 2009 Page 11 By contrast, the C1ubSport IS fails to acknowledge this important information and change in circumstances, making it inconsistent with the Grafton Plaza IS. Further, the Grafton Plaza Project is not adequately addressed in the CEQA Addendum or the C1ubSport IS. As such, the conditions set forth in Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines section 15162 are present and the City should prepare a subsequent EIR or negative declaration. See e.g., American Canyon Community United for Responsible Growth v. City of Am. Canyon (2006) 145 Cal. App. 4~' 1062. Also, as noted immediately above, the CEQA Addendum, and the proposed adopting resolution, (Staff Report, Attachment 1) invalidly purports to be a determination that the "development agreement" is part of the Project and does not require further CEQA analysis or study even though no development agreement has been approved nor even described. In addition, it is foreseeable that, consistent with the present application (and the Grafton Plaza Project), that the applicant will ultimately seek to intensify development on other parcels in the Village Center, resulting in far more total development than the 230,000 square feet approved in 2000. As such, the City's failure to consider the impacts of this more intensified project though an environmental impact report or mitigated negative declaration (choosing instead to issue an addendum) constitutes improper piecemealing under CEQA. See Laurel Heights ImprovementAss'n v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 376; CEQA Guidelines § 15126. In addition, since the Grafton Plaza Project and the ClubSport Project are proposed by the same developer at the same time and in the same location, they should be studied together as part of a single EIR in order to comply with CEQA. Unlike changes to residential densities that were reallocated in Area G and considered simultaneously as part of a unified plan, here the applicant is piecemealing by presenting a plan for a single parcel rather than for all of the Village Center as contemplated by the Design Guidelines and development standards. Those standards state that they were intended to provide the necessary framework for "the development of a future Site Development Review (SDR) submittal for the Village Center," i.e., a single SDR for the entire Village Center/Promenade. (Design Guidelines at I-1.) For these same reasons, the City's proposed Statement of Overriding Considerations does not comply with CEQA. D. Shadow Impacts. The Initial Study includes a shadow study purporting to show shadow impacts on the Terraces caused by the parking garage. The study clearly shows that during late afternoon and early evening hours, the Parking Garage will result in dramatic shadowing of the Terraces Buildings 7 and 8, as well as the public multi-use trail. However, the Initial Study and shadow analysis ignores the significant shadow impacts during the early evening hours of the summer months. Despite these clear impacts, the IS concludes that the parking garage would result in no additional or more significant impacts than contemplated in prior environmental documents. ~3~~ July 14, 2009 Page 12 The IS also completely ignores the fact that the garage would shade a public use trail, as well as the quasi public open space located in the east-west walkway of the Terraces. (ClubSport IS at p. 36.) As such it represents a significant impact pursuant to the City's own standards of significance. Id. (project casting shade or shadows that would impair use of a public or quasi public park, lawn, playground or open space area). In addition, the IS fails to adequately study the glare impacts on residents of the Terraces and the Courtyards from the parking garage. The garage would direct all cars to exit at one location from the parking garage directing all of the automobile headlights, noise and emissions to the Terraces' homeowners, yet contains no analysis of these impacts. (IS at pg. 36.) Similarly, the IS fails to address any impacts from the parking structure, including glare, on the Courtyards located north on the open end of the garage. In addition, the garage will have roof lights that will cause glare for upper level residents. E. Traffic and Circulation Impacts. The IS inadequately analyzes traffic and circulation impacts. As noted above, the C1ubSport Project represents a high degree of intensification for this parcel over what was contemplated by the 2000 Area G IS/MND. Nowhere in that analysis was the traffic and circulation impacts of an athletic club and concentrated parking structure analyzed. In addition, as other currently proposed projects recognize the surrounding traffic and commute patterns are drastically different from those studied in the EDSP EIR 16 years ago, or the Area G MND in 2000. Further, the proposed increase in density of the Grafton Plaza Project may result in a significant impact on traffic that should have been fully considered in the Initial Study in order to determine whether impacts will be more severe than previously analyzed. F. poise and Air Quality Impacts. In addition, the IS fails to properly address air quality and noise impacts of the four-story parking garage and the large increase in cars that will be concentrated in an area adjacent to residences and to a public multi-use trial. For example, the IS contains no analysis of the parking garage's air quality impact on sensitive receptors living in the adjacent residential buildings and using the public trail and open space areas. Instead, it simply concludes that since no manufacturing uses are proposed, no significant pollutant concentrations or odors will result. (See IS at 45.) As to noise, the IS recognizes that the Project has the potential to cause an impact from mechanical equipment related to the proposed structures and states that a detailed design-level acoustical analysis will be performed. By pushing off study and potential mitigation of these impacts until after project approval, and by failing to describe how the impacts would be mitigated, the City is improperly deferring mitigation in violation of CEQA. See Endangered Habitats League v. County of Orange (2005) 131 Ca1.App.4th 777. Further, the noise analysis fails to address noise impacts from the parking structure on the Courtyards whose buildings face the open north end of the proposed structure. 7ti~3~ July 14, 2009 Page 13 G. Land Use Planning. The IS fails to recognize the extent to which the C1ubSport Project fails to comply with the Area G Planned Development Zoning, as well as the EDSP and General Plan (as set forth in Section 5 above). The IS takes a naive and unsupported view when it refers to the Proposed Project as a "minor modification" and that the approvals do'not change the amount of development intensity. (See IS at p. 59'.) In fact, the C1ubSport Project represents an 80% increase (athletic club and Mercantile Building only) to 400% increase (including parking garage) in the FAR of the previously approved Planned Development Zoning, and includes a large parking structure that is contrary to the Design Guidelines and applicable Specific Plan and General Plan policies. H. Miscellaneous. By issuing the 100+ page initial study and CEQA addendum just two business days before the hearing, the City has not provided the public any meaningful review of the initial study or the proposed project. As such, the City frustrates the purposes of CEQA to provide information to the public and decision-makers before approving a discretionary project. ~. Similarly, the City's assertions that there has been no new information or change in circumstances since the 1993 EDSP EIR or 2000 Area G IS/MND are unsupported. For instance, in the area of Climate Change, the IS claims that no new information regarding global warming exists now than existed at the time of earlier approvals. (See IS at pp. 42-43.) The Attorney General's office for the past three years, i.e. since the passage of AB 32 in 2006, as required a climate change analysis be undertaken and CEQA Guidelines for addressing climate change have been sent to the State Resources Agency and are pending approval. To suggest that no new significant information on climate change has become available since the analysis done in 1993 and 2000 represents ahead-in-the-sand approach that violates CEQA. As for utilities and service systems, the IS contains no analysis whatsoever of the C1ubSport's water usage and wastewater generation. (See IS at p. 72 et seq.) Such an analysis is required especially since a fitness club of this size would have dramatically increased water usage than other commercial or retail uses and could constitute a new or more significant impact. In addition, for reasons set forth above, the IS fails to properly consider cumulative impacts (IS at p. 80) since it largely ignores changes that have occurred since the adoption of the prior environment documents, nor does it adequately account for probable future projects such as Grafton Plaza. Conclusion Toll reiterates that is in favor, of the development of the Promenade and to the inclusion of a C1ubSport within that development. However, the ClubSport Project, in particular the 4- story, 50-foot tall above-ground parking garage, as well as the overall development intensity, 75~ 3ia.. July 14, 2009 Page 14 mass and scale is inconsistent with the 2000 Approvals for Area G. It unfairly and unnecessarily burdens residents of the Terraces, the Courtyards, as well as users of the public multi-use trail with all of the negative impacts of the Project. Many viable alternatives are available, including the use of surface parking lots throughout the Promenade parcels (consistent with the Design Guidelines), or. a below-grade parking garage. C1ubSport has managed to operate successful clubs elsewhere using these methods and there is no compelling reason why the same cannot and should~not be done here. Sincerely TOLL BROTHERS 1NC. . ~~ /~-~- Richard M. Nelson Division President Attachments cc: Caroline P. Soto, City. Clerk Joni Pattillo, City Manager Jeri Ram, Planning Director Mike Porto, Planner Rick Nelson, Toll Brothers Tim Hoban, Esq., Toll Brothers Todd Williams, Esq., Morgan Miller Blair The Terraces at DRV HOA The Courtyards at DRV HOA Dublin City Council 7~ ~~i~- - Transportation Consultants Pleasanton 3875 Hopyard Road Suite 240 Pleasanton, CA 94588-8526 925.463.0611 925.463.3690 fax Fresno 516 W, Shaw Avenu¢ Suite 200 Fresno, C.4 93704-zsls 559.325.7530 559.221.4940 fax Sacramento 980 Ninth Street 16~ Floor Sacnrnento, CA 95814-2736 916.449.4095 Santa Rosa 1440 H. Dutton Avenue Suite 21 Santa Rosa, U ( 45401.4643 7o7s7sseoo 7D7.575.5888 fax Vision That Moves Your Community November 5, 2008 R~CElV~'~ Mr. James Tong Charter Properties ~0 ~ 0 ,~ Zj]Q8 4690 Chabot Drive suite l oo DU~Lt~ p~NNtNG Pleasanton, CA 94588 Re: Revised Shared parking.Anatlysis for Parcel 51The1 Promenade at Dublin Ranch Dear Mr. Tong: TJKM Transportation Consultants is pleased to present this revised report on the shared parking analysis of the proposed Parcel 5 site in The Promenade at [)ublin Ranch in.East Dublin, which Includes a proposed Clubsport fitness center with health club, spa and cafe, as well as a Mercantile retaiUoffice building. The site Is directly across Dublin Bouletard from the Grafton Plaza development site and is generally bounded by Dublin Boulevard on the south, The Terraces residential development to the east, Finnian Way on the north and Grafton Street on the west. The general purpose of the analysis is to see how the peak parking demand of the uses being propased for the site compares with the proposed parking supply, Because Ciry Zoning Ordinance requirements fo.r parking only consider different land uses as separate componenu, not accounting for interaction among uses that are grouped togE:ther, allowances must be made for such mixed uses, as described in this report. The analysis presented in this letter report demonstrates that the proposed parking supply, which is ten percent less than the supply required by the City's Zoning Ordinance, can mare than accommodate the expected peak demand. The following proposed t~uantities for parking supply and land uses were provided by MacKay &~ Somps Civil Engineers on October 31, 2008. Parking Provided On-Site {Garage and Olen) • Standard: 367 spaces • Compact 98 spaces (20 percent of on-site) • Motorcycle: 12 spaces (2.5 percent of on-site;.one additional not counted toward total) + Accessible: 9 spaces Total On-Site: 486 spaces The 20 percent portion of compact spaces is well under the City.Ordinance maximum of 35 percent, which is appropriate for the proposed land uses. Most of the project uses are retail-oriented with high parking turnover rates, which suggest minimizing the pcrtion of compact spaces. However. compact spaces are appropriate for the lower-turnover employee parking that will be directed to the top floor of the parking garage, where 40 of the compact spslces will be located. The 12 motorrycle spaces a.re consistent with the motorcycle parking demand reported at other Clubsport facilities, as described in the attached letter. On~treet: 14 curb spaces on Grafton Street and Finnian V`!ay immediately fronting the site. These on-street spaces will have atwo-hour parking time limit to encourage a high turnover rate. gktt~t{km.com I Overall Tote(: 500 spaces www.tjkm.com Attachment 4 77 ~,~~ TJKM Mr. James Tong Transportation November 5, 2008 r- Consultants Page 2 Proposed Land Uses Clubsport . • Weight Room, Pool, Spa: • Aerobics Room Areas: • _ Spa Treatment Rooms • Offices: • Eating/Drinking Area: I b,647 square feet 7,971 square feet 9 rooms 2,573 square feEt 2,644 square feet (Total Clubspgrt Gross Area = 47,669 square feet, which in=hides ancillary building areas nat ' included above that do not count toward City of Dublin par=ting requirements.) Mercontile Retail/O~c:e Building • Retail: 10,996 square feet • Restaurant: 7,190 square feet • Office: 34,530 square feet Peak Parking Demand #or Each Land Use City Ordinance Requirements TJKM has .used the required parking ratios described in the i~ity of Dublin Zoning Ordinance to determine the parking supply requirement for each land use proposed in both the Clubsport and Mercantile components of the project. The parking ratios applied and the resulting required . parking supply for each use are shown below in Table I (ant! in the first few columns of the first table attached as Appendix A). Using only the City required ratios for all uses, 54 ( spaces would be required. Tahle 1: Required Parking Supply for Each Land Use per City Zoning Ordinance . Clay Requlrtm.ents Ust Sq. ft.litooms Ratio Spoces Clubs port: Weight Room, Paol, Spa 16,647 11150 I I t Aerobics Room 7,971 1150 160 Spa Treatment 9 rooms I/room 9 Offices 2.573 1/2S0 10 EatingJDrinking 2,644 1/100 27 Clubsport Total 3 i 7 Mercantile; Office 34,530 ~ 1/300 115 Retail 10,99b I/300 37 Restaurant 7',190 1/100 72 Mercantile Total 224 Total Parking " Requirement" 541 Notes:. aq. >z =.square reec 7s ~.~ TJKM Mr. J<~mes Tong Transportation November S, ,2008 Consultants Page 3 1TE Health Club and Existing Clubsport Peak Data For purpose of comparison, an estimate of peak demand for the Clubsport use only was calculated using the average peak rate for Health/Fitness Clubs (ITE land use category 492) described in Parking Generation, 3rd Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). The ITE peak rate is 5.19 spaces per thousand square feet, which correlates very closely with the peak rate of 5.08 spaces per thousand sq~lare feet observed in TJM:M surveys of an existing Clubsport facility in Walnut Creek. the higher ITE rate was used in this analysis to be conservative, and because it represents data from a number of health club site. A ten percent circulation factor. was applied to the ITE peak demand rate of 5.19 spaces per thousand square feet, resulting in a rate of 5.71 spaces per thousand square feet, which is equivalent to one space per 175 square feet The circulation factor was applied because ITE peak rates reflect the number of parked vehicles observed in surveys, but adequate parking design typically provides additional spaces to reduce traffic conflicts between vehicles leaving and entering spaces and allow better circulation through a parking lot or ;arage during peak demand. City Ordinance required parking ratios already include a circulati~m factor, as they represent the total number of spaces considered adequate for individual land uses, and not just the peak number of parked vehicles. With the ten percent circulation factor included, it is anticipated that Clubsport will require 272 parking spaces to accommodate peak demand and provide for efficient circulation, Table tl provides a comparison of required supply per city Crdinance and anticipated supply needed to accommodate expected peak demands. The supply needed for Clubsport was calculated as described aE~ove. The Mercantile required supl>Iy was calculated using the City YOrdinance ratios in both cases (Tables I and II). The main justification for this differentiation is that Clubsport is known to be a prospective tenant of the project, and parking data specific to the Clubsport business aper~ition was readily available, which also correlated closely with ITE data. In contrast, specific tenants for the Mercantile components are not known at this time. Additionally, the Clubsport would be the largest single land use component in this project and apparently generate the majority of the project's peak parking demand, so using data more specific to such an important part of the project is desirable. 'Tahlra Ile Required Parkins Suooly per City Ordinance vs. Expected Supply Needed Ctty Requirements Erected Su pply Needed Use Sq. (t.IRooms Ratio .Spates Rate Spacer Clubsport Total 47,669 (See Table I) 317 1/175 ~ 272 Mercantile: Ctffice 34,530 f/300 115 t/300 I i5 Retail 10,996 1/300 3T 11300 37 Restaurant 7,190 I/100 72 1/i00 72 Mercantile Total 224 224 Total Parking "Requirement" 541 496 Notes: Sq. ft. =square feet 1. Calculated using ITE peak parking demand ratio plus a ten percent circulation factor. Using the ITE Health Club rate plus a ten percent circulation factor for the Clubsport use, and City ratios for the Mercantile uses, the sum of ehe parking requirements for each use would be 49b spaces, as shown above in Table I I (and in the first few <:olumns of the second table attached as Appendix A). 79 ~ 3ia TJKM Mr. fames Tong . Transportation November 5, 2008 Consultants Page 4 The totals shown in Table I I are the requirements to accommodate peak demands at the peak parking time for each land use. However,.the different land uses do not actually all have the same peak parking time, but peak at different times of day, so the ;actual combined peak demand during the day is typically less than sum of the peak demands for all of the land uses. This more. reined analysis of "shared parking" is presented below. Shared parkinglPeak Hour Requirement Analysis This analysis accounts for the hourly variations in parking de~nand for each of the proposed land uses. For the Clubsport, the hourly percentages of peak dernand used are the higher of data from TJKM surveys of the existing Clubsport Walnut Creek.or Z4-Hour Fitness San Ramon, to be conservative. The hourly percentages of peak demand used .for the Mercantile components are based on the data presented in Shared Parking; Second Edition. published by the Urban Land Institute (ULl). The resulting hourly parking requirements from 6:00 a.m. through 10:00 p.m. for each use are detailed in the tables attached as Appendix A. The first cable presents the data with "City Requirements used as Peak Rates" for each land use. The second table uses the "ITE. Average! Clubsport Peak Race [plus ten percent circulation factor] for Clubsport; City Requirements for Mercantile" as the peak demands. For the proposed project, the actual peak demand would oc•:ur at 6:00 p.m. At b:00 p.m.. 100 percent of the peak ~9emands for both Clubsport and Restaurant uses occur, and Retail is at 95 percent of its peak, but the Office demand will only be 2' percent of its peak. The 6:00 p.m. peak results are summarized in Table Ill below. Table 111: Shared Parking Peak Requirement at 6:00 p.m. 1TElC(ubsbort Peak Use Gity Requirements pia for Clubsport Onty Clubsport I 317 I 272 Mercantile Office 29 29 Retail 35 35 Restaurant 72 ~ ~ Total X53 4(~8 Table 111 shows the following results: • Using Ciry requirements for all project components, a total of 453 spaces would be needed during peak parking demand at 6:00 p.m. This is 88 { I6 percent) fewer spaces than if all uses are assumed to peak at the same time. Using the ITE Health Club rate plus ten percent ciraalation factor for the Clubsport use, and City ratios for the Mercantile uses, a total of 4013 spaces would be needed during peak parking demand at 6:00 p.m. This is 88 {18 percent) fewer spaces than if al! uses are assumed to peak at the same time. Conclusions Comparing the proposed 486-space on-site supply {excluding; the ! 4 on-street spaces) with peak supply needed according to the two methods shown in Tablt: Ill yields the following Conclusions: • Using City requirements, 453 of the 486 on-site spaces would be needed during peak hour parking demand~at 6:00 p.m., which provides a surpl~is parking supply of 33 spaces, or seven percent of the on-site supply. ~~~~~ TJKM Mr. James long Transportation November 3, 2008 Consultan~s Page S • Using the lTE Health Club rate for the Gubsport us' and City requirements far the Mercantile uses, 408 0# the 486 on-site spaces would be needed during peak hour parking demand at 6:00 F~.m. This provides a.surplus parking; supply of 78 spaces, or 16 percent of the on-site supply. We"believe that the ITE parking data for health clubs, which correlates closely with actual Clubsport site observations at an existing facility, more accurately represents the likely peak hour parking demand for the l:lubsport component of the project: than the City requirements. Combined with the peak hour parking supply needed based ~n City requirements for the Mercantile uses, the expt:cted peak parking requirement is 408 spaces. Furthermore, the City requirements are intended to actamtnodate peak demand fo.r individual _ uses iri suburban areas, where each land use tends to be partitioned to individual buildings or sites and at relatively low densities. In such suburban areas, walking is typically not an attractive travel aPtion, and vehicle parking demand is thereby at a maximum. In contrast, the proposed Parcel 5 site includes a mix of uses at moderate density, in a setting surrounded by existing and proposed developments of complementary mixed-uses at higher dens"r:ies than typical suburban areas, such as The Terraces residential complex and Grafton Plaza mixed-use development immediately adjacent. Approximately 1,400 residential units and 1,000 einp[oyees will be located within '/+ mile of the project site, which also has close proximity to walking biking trails. This setting increases the likelihood of "internal capture trips," where people walk or bicycle between complementary land uses rather than drive and create additional parking der~and. The reduced parking demand associated with mixed-use internal capture trips is above anti beyond the shared parking analysis herein that is based on hourly demand variations for each use, and probably adds at feast several percent to the parking surplus for the project described above. A letter describing the experience with walk, bicycle, and motorcycle travel shares at existing C:lubsport sites is attached. With the additional l4 garb spaces to be located on the portion of Grafton Street and Finnian Way immediately fronting the site, the total parking supply i:: 500 spaces. The 14 curb spaces on the street will have atwo-hour parking time limit, which will encourage a parking turnover rate consistenC with the needs of the retail and restaurant uses ir. the project. Therefore, the 33-space surplus of on-site parking supply over the peak supply needed, based on the conservative shared parking analysis using City requirements, str6ngly indicates that the proposed parking supply is reasonable to fully accommodate the project's parking and on-site circulation needs. We will be happy to discuss any questions or Comments you may have regarding these findings. Very truly yours, Richard K. Haygood, P.E. Senior Associate Attachments cc: Dave Chadbourne, Land Plan Associates Chris Kinzel, TJKM David Mahama, TJKM J:IJURISDICTIOMD\Dublin\157-t45 Dublin Roach on{a1112008 Stufl\Uubspon -Grafton-Dub!(n\LR 110SOB.dotx ~, ~3s~ Attachments Shared Parking Tables LSI Letter to TjKM -~ IParcel Shhe Promenade Uubsoart/Mer oantik st+arad Parkme I I I i , C ReQutrements used as Peak Rate s ~ '__._. ~ ---- .._~ .. _. _ _ I . I --- - . ..I , .... , ..--~ ---..__ +... __.. L- -- _ ~ .. _... _..T_... ... 1 sf/morns dubs art' ~ t City Ratio' G Req't 6:00 AM 7:0p AM 8:00 AM ~ 9:00 AM ~ 10:00 AM 11:00 AM Noon 1:00 PM 2:OD PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM I 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM , 9:00 PM 10:00 PM We' ht Room, Pool, S, a 16,647 Aerobics Room 771 1/150 1/SO Sii 160 SSS 79 E ~ 55.5 SO.D 722 77.7 722 J 77.7 66.6 555 61,1 77.7 999 ISLO 94.9 77.7 SOA 44.4 Spa Treatment Rooms 9 1 . 799 71.8 103.7 111.7 103.7 111,7 95.7 79.8 87.7 11L7 143.6 1595 143.6 11L7 7L8 63.8 ~~ 2 573 1/250 9 10 45 1 45 4.1 ~ 5.9 6.3 5.9 ~ 63 5.4 45 5.0 63 d.1 9A 8.1 63 4.1 3.6 , EatingNrinW Area 2,644 1/300 ~ 27 52 13,3 52 133 4.6 11 9 6.7 172 72 18 6 6.] 17 2 7,2 Y 6.2 5.2 5.7 72 93 10.3 93 72 4.6 41 Uubsport 5utrtotal , , . . . 8.6 159 13.3 1<.6 18,6 23;9 26.9 239 18.6 119 10.6 317 159 359 ~ 143 206 222 206 272 I 19D 159 174 222 285 ~ 317 785 22Z 143 127 Mercantile RetaiVt7ffiee euddings I ' ' OffiR 34530 B ll f 1/300 115 3.5 345 863 1093 115 ~ 115 J 103.6 103.6 I 115 115 103.6 57.6 28.8 11-5 8.1 35 1.2 e a 10,996 1/300 37 1.8 3.7 7,3 16S 25.7 33.0 37 37 37 J 345 ~ 34.9 ~ 349 34.9 Say 312 20 2 12 8 Restaurant 7,190 1/100 72 0.7 3.6. 7.2 1D9 21.6 395 57S 575 50.3 36.0 43.1 . 6L3 73y 719 71 9 . 719 . 77 9 Mercantlk Retail/+Offirn iuli ding5ubtor al Z24 7 4Z , 101 137 163 188 138 198 SL3 186 1732 154 136 119 . 132 96 .. 1 Bfi _ Grand Tagl Demand I 1 541 166 1 201 i 244 343 385 I 394 420 388 362 360 404J 439 453 ~ ~ 404 334 239 213 1. Parking space per number of square feet IsfJ or room. I I I 7 H., nttr 9L'g ~ n ak ilomZ A mn, a.n~N s«_I 3,:.M 4i_ ..f~_ ~ _ -- ~ - - ~,c ii ~a ~ ~~ , i~ ue w ~~ merraiire. 3. Hourly 76's of peak demand (Gty Req'tl used are from ULI Shared Parking data for each land use. ~ I ~Parrel 5/The Promenade tlubsport/Merwtrtife Sha RE Average/Cluhsport Peak Rats for dubsport; red Parkind I Gty Re uirements for Mera til , , I ~ ~ ' pubs orta s'£/rooms Ration ~ I Peak/USe fi;00 AM n 7:00 AM e B:00 AM I 9:00 AM I iDbOAM 11:00 AM Noon ~ i L-00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7.b0 PM &00 PM 9:OD PM i0:00 PM Hearth/Rtness Cubs Merpntile PetaiVOffice Build 47,669 1/175 in ' 272 136.1 1361 Z22S 176.9 1905 176.9 140.5 1633 136.1 149.7 19(15 244.9 ' 272.1 244.9 190.9 122.5 108.9 g Office 34530 11300 Reta~ ~ ~ 10 996 I 1/300 115 37 ~ 35 34.5 fl6.3 109.3 115 135 103.5 ]D3.6 115: 115 ]A3.6 57.6 28b , ILS) fl.i 35 . 1.2 , Restaurant 7,190 1/1D0 MerraMlleRetalVOPflceBUildin Subtotal 72 Z 1B 0.7 3.7 3.5 7.3 7Z I6S 10.8 25.7 21,61 33.0 39S 37 57.5 37 57S 37 . 349 I 503 36.0 349 43.1 349 6L1 349 719 349 719 31.2 71.9_ 20.2 719 SL8 71.9 g Z4 7 42 101 137 163 188 198 198 203 186 182 ~ ].54 136( 119 112 % 86 Grand Tobl Demand 496 ~ 143 ( 178 223 314 353 365 388 361 339 ~ 336 372 399 408 364 302 238 295 1. Parking space per numher of square feet (sf). dubsport hazed on 17E/Clu 2 Hourl X's of demand used a th li f f d f bsport peak rates City requaemen is used for Meruntie. ~ ( , rc ,g e ser o ata or Clubsport Walnut Creek ar 24-Hour Fitness San Ramon, to be conservatlve 3. lTE Land Use C5[egory 492: averse eak demand = 5.19 s ces er thousand sf gross area. Clubs rt Walnut Creek peak demand = 5.08 spac 5 39/thousa l 1 d d 96 i es per thous and si. Higher 17E rate u sed t0 be m j nservatlve. ~ j I' I . n p us 0 c rculation factor=5.77Jthousand sf=ones arc/175 sf (1/175) ~ ~ ( ~ 4. Hourly %'s of peak demand (Cty Req't}used are from UU Shared Parking data for each land us ~{ ~v 3k~ TJICM Transportation Consultants 3875 Hopyard Rd, suite 200 Pleasanton, CA 94588 To: Chris Kinzel From: David Grove Ce: Dave Chadbourne Date: October 23, 2008 EEXS'URE (SPORTS (INC ckinzel(rbtila n.com dave(a~Iandp pan-ca. com Re: Modes of. Transportation for• ClubSport membership base After having a chance to review the report prepared by TJKM eneitled Shared Parking Analysis for ClubSport -The Promenade at Dublin Ranch, there are a few points that I wanted to bring to your attention regarding usage patterns that we have observed from our current membership base. According to your study, "The proposed Parcel S site includes a mix of uses at moderate density, in a setting surrounded by existing and proposed developments o Fcomplimentarymixed-uses at higher densities than typical suburban areas, such as The Terraces residential complex and Grafton Station mixed-use development immediately adjacent, Tf is setting increases the likelihood of "internal capture trips ", where people walk betwee;z complimentary land uses rather than drive acrd create additional parking demand. " We have, experienced "interns) capture trips" at many of our other facilities that are located both in semi-pedestrian friendly.areas as well as typical suburban loca~sons. I have included statements below from the General IVlanagers. of some of our other ClubSport facilities that detail what they have experienced in teams of members that either walk, bicycle, or ride motorcycles to our clubs. Leisure Sports, inc. operates six other ClubSport facilities in Califorinia, Nevada, and Oregon. We operate clubs in both suburban and semi-urban Locations and have found some interesting patterns in terms of how our members access our clubs. ClubSport Oregon -- o This property is a Iarge (140,000 square feet) suburbans club that is.located in a business/retail area just outside of Portland, Oregon. E~ccording to the General Manager of this club: "...when the weather- clears for a consistent period of time, we see a plethora of members that opt to travel by other rnearzr than automobiles. Many . ~ ~. . LEISURE ~ SP4RTS ~ INC r ~ ' ~~ oj'our members can be found traveling to and from th.; club by bicycle (I S-2S per day), motorcycle (S-IO per day), running (5-10 per day) and even, walking. " Interestingly, the elo:cest residential neighborhood to this club is located half a mile away. Renaissance ClubSport Walnut Creek - This club is a combination of a 75,000 square foot ClubSport and a 174 room Renaissance hotel located at the intersection of Treat 131vd and Jones Rd. in Walnut Cz•eek, CA: According to the General Manager of this property: "I find that a good . percentage of our club members' frtness activity does not begin when they arrive at our club but in how they get to us. It is not uncommon to see our members walking, biking, or ratnning to and from the club here at Renaissance ClubSport. Our club is situated ccdjaeent to the Iran Horse Trail. The Iron Horse Trail is a pedestrian and bicycle trail that connects residential crud commercial areas, schools, public transportation, and community facilities. On any given day, a large number of our members utilize the trail as a method of travel to ou-• club. Wi'see approximately thirty~ve to forty-five bicycles parked at the t ~ bike racks throughout the day. We also see motorcycl<~s parked in our parking lot throughout the day. "The area surrounding this property is a mix of business and retail. ClubSport Green Valley- This property is a large (120,000 square foot) suburban club that is located in an area that is made up of a mix of retail and residential developments. According to the General Manager of this facility: "... we do have a ~sigzificant number of members as well as guests who come to our Club to work out riding motorcycles and bicycles on a daily basis. The bicycle and motorcycle spaces we provide are usually occupied far most of the mid=day tend evening hours. We also have a number of members who walk to the Club from nearby apartments (when our desert heat permits). " ClubSport Pleasanton - • This property consists of 180,000 indoor square feet and is located at the intersection of I-S80 and I-680 in Pleasanton, CA. Because of its lack of surrounding residential areas we don't typically see many walkers or bike riders at this club. What we do see is quite a few motorcycles. Our General Manager esti~na#es 10-12 motorcycles per day use our dedicated motorcycle parking at this club. 2 U (o ~ ,,.. LEISURE J SPORTS J INC Overall, I believe your peak parking demand analysis is quite conservative because the "internal capture trips' have not been factored in. Based on the comments from the General Managers of our other C1ubSport facilities, the mixed-use and pedestrian frien3ly nature of this project, and the associated trail system that will run through the development, I believe we will produce a large number of "internal capture trips" at the new Dublin facility. As you stated in your parking analysis, these "internal capture rates" will add several percent to the parking surplus. Sincerely, David Grove Director of Development Leisure Sports, Inc. 3 198 Office Buildings TowerTop Zone ^^^^^^^^ Tower Transition Zone Maximum Building Height Required Setback Optional Setback Streetwall Setback Streetwall Zone Base Zone Expression ELEMENTS FOR DESIGN GUIDELINE CONTROL Source: Sw'dmore, Owings & Merrill LLP. Suburban office buildings typically occupy larger sites, ranging from 80,000 to 400,000 square feet (7,432 to 37,161 square meters; or 2 to 10 acres; or 0.81 to 4.04 hectares). The larger site allows more landscape planted areas, larger service areas, and sur- face parking. Some moderate-density suburban office buildings may have two to three levels of structured parking. One suburban application of the office building is in groupings of multiple buildings, com- monly known as office parks, which are usually developed and controlled by one entity. Office parks are addressed elsewhere in this book. SITE PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS Zoning Zoning will control overall site development, includ- ing density, height, and setbacks. Site Constraints Site constraints include easements, height limits, den- sity limits, road access, curb-cuts, wetlands, floodplains, and any other elements that reduce or otherwise modify buildable area. Density Commonly measured in floor-area ratio (FAR), which is the total squaze footage of the building divided by the total square footage of the site, density deter- mines the overall square footage allowed. Below-grade area, parking, and some mechanical areas typically do not count against allowable FAR. Site Organization For a typical suburban condition, planners should estimate one-half of the site for surface parking, one- fourth of the site for the building footprint, and one- fourth of the site for landscape. As the density of the development increases, the percentage of the site devoted to parking and landscape planting decreases. Circulation Circulation includes three primary considerations: site entry and building drop-off, parking ingress and egress, and service access. Parking Parking is typically calculated as a number of parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of building area. Check applicable zoning and parking regulations to deter- mine specific requirements. Parking credits may be given for transit-oriented development. Service Service access is typically located under, within, or immediately adjacent to the building. Due to the types of activities in an office building, service requirements are relatively minimal. Service azeas typically require about 5,000 square feet (464.5 square meters), thought this will vary depending on specific uses and building size. Planted Areas and Open Space Planted areas and open space serve two primary functions for an office building site: • Increase the aesthetic appeal of the development. • Provide areas for Stormwater management. Planted areas can also screen the building from adja- cent uses, and provide some recreational benefit to the building occupants. Local regulations wID dictate 87~~~a. the precise amount of open space required , titular site, which can be as high as 40 to 5( of total site area. PLANNING AND DESIGN SEQUENCE The general planning and design sequence buildings is as follows: 1. Code delineation. Research and documen want codes and their effect on the builds height, and density allowed, and requu space. 2. Programming. Clarify desired square foc sizes of physical elements of the projec functional goals and planning module sions. 3~ Opportunities and constraints. Delineate cal opportunities and constraints preser site, especially qualitative constraints views, natural features, and adjacent uses 4. Site plan testing. Delineate all program overlaid with code and site constraints, programmatiF incompatibIlities. 5. Plan development. Create site and build that reconcile all code and program ie review by municipal officials. 6. Implementation. Create construction do obtain building permits, and initiate cons BEST PRACTICE PRINCIPLES Mixed Uses Office buildings work best in a larger url ronment when they are combined w: commercial uses. This allows the populati office buildings to access neighboring cc uses. If possible, locate office buildings wi proximity to residential uses, to reduce cc times.' Green Buildings Increasingly, office buildings are being cc according to green building design practic take into consideration a building's structun terns as a whole and examines how thes work best together to save energy and rec ronmental impact. Existing office buildings can also becon through increased energy efficiency and the ration of innovative building mater renovation. The Natural Resources Defense offices are prime examples of both reno~ new construction "green" office buildings. Transit-Oriented Whenever possible, office buildings s: planned for sites served by transit. This access _ opportunities for the greatest n potential workers, while reducing automot Stormwater Management Office building sites should be planned tc and contain Stormwater runoff on-site. Tr effectively done through the creation c appearing Stormwater management area native wetlands plantings to filter and slog Attachment 6