HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.1 SB343 August 14, 2012
1l/ r 1�1
19 ∎ •■• 82
��LIFOR��
SB 343
Senate Bill 343 mandates supplemental materials that have been
received by the Community Development Department that relate to
an agenda item after the agenda packets have been distributed to the
Planning Commission be available to the public. This document is
also available in the Community Development Department, the Dublin
Library, and the City's Website.
The attached document was received in the Community Development
Department after distribution of the August 14, 2012 Planning
Commission meeting agenda packet.
August 14, 2012
Item # 8.1
G.1Forms&Documents1PC-CC Forms1PC Forms\SB 343 Form.doc
AGENDA STATEMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA: April 26,2005
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal of Zoning Administrator Approval
of a Conditional Use Permit for PA 04-057,Enea
Properties/Starbucks Coffee,Reduction to Required Parking
Report prepared by.. Pierce Macdonald, Associate Planner&Janet
Harbin, Senior Planner ,`./6
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution Affirming Zoning Administrator Approval of
Conditional Use Permit PA 04-057, Enea
Properties/Starbucks Coffee(with Site Plan attached as
Exhibit A, and Parking Study attached as Exhibit B,with
Focused Traffic/Parking Analysis dated April 19, 2005
included)
2. Zoning Administrator Staff Report,with Resolution attached,
and Meeting Minutes for March 14,2005
3. Letter of Appeal,dated received March 23, 2005
4. Applicant's Written Statement in Response to Appeal
5. Planning Commission Reso. No. 04-40 for Enea Village,PA
03-069
6. Curbside Parking Diagram
7. Ordinance No. 21-98 for PA 98-049
RECOMMENDATION: 1. Open Public Hearing and Hear Staff Presentation;
2. Take Testimony from the Applicant and the Public;
3. Close Public Hearing and Deliberate;
4. Adopt Resolution(Attachment 1)Affirming Zoning
Administrator Approval of a Conditional Use Permit PA 04-
057, Enea Properties/Starbucks Coffee(with Site Plan
included as Exhibit A,and Parking Study as Exhibit B,with
Focused Parking/Traffic Analysis included)
BACKGROUND:
The project site at 7197 Village Parkway was the former location of an automotive gasoline and service
station that closed in the 1990's, and was previously zoned General Commercial(C-2). Adjacent uses
include the Taco Bell restaurant to the south and two single-family homes to the east on Amador Valley
Boulevard.
The City Council adopted a Stage 1 and 2 Planned Development(PD)Zoning District for the property on
December 15, 1998 (PA 98-049). Pursuant to the PD regulations,a range of office,commercial and
eating and drinking establishments were permitted uses in the district. Cafés and other neighborhood-
COPIES TO: Applicant
Appellant
PA File
f
ITEM NO.
serving uses were specifically identified as appropriate new uses in the Planned Development Zoning
District(PD District)adopted by the City Council. The development potential of the project site was
further studied in the Village Parkway Specific Plan, adopted by City Council on December 19, 2000, in
which the property was identified as an opportunity site and a primary gateway location.
On May 11,2004,the Planning Commission approved a request for Site Development Review,Tentative
Map, and a Conditional Use Permit for the Enea Village Parkway Center(PA 03-069)on the property(see
Resolution 04-40, included as Attachment 5). The approval allows development of the 1-acre lot at the
southeast corner of the intersection of Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard with a 8,539-
square-foot commercial/retail center and a 5,582-square-foot office building. Project amenities included
an 800-square-foot landscaped public plaza with bench seating. The site plan provided parking for 54
vehicles(32 parking spaces for the commercial/retail building and 22 parking spaces for the office
building). Within the commercial/retail center, a 600-square-foot space was identified for eating and
drinking uses, such as a coffee shop. Additionally, as part of the Site Development Review, an outdoor
plaza seating area was identified and patio seating was allowed subject to PD District requirements. At
the present time, grading and site work has commenced for the commercial/retail building at the site with
approved building permits.
Zoning Administrator Action:
In November of 2004, Enea Properties requested a Conditional Use Permit from the Zoning Administrator
to reduce the number of parking spaces required by the Zoning Ordinance to allow a 1,886-square-foot
coffee retailer and café with 410 square feet of outdoor seating area to locate in the Enea Village Parkway
Center. The parking requirement for the various uses in the commercial retail center counted individually
is 45 parking spaces (see table entitled, Project Parking and Peak Parking Demand, on page 5). The
proposal included a mix of indoor seating and outdoor seating, for a total of 30 indoor and 16 outdoor
seats.
The Conditional Use Permit was needed to reduce the number of on-site parking spaces by eight(8)
parking spaces and substitute five(5)curbside parking spaces for five(5)on-site parking spaces,pursuant
to Chapter 8.76.050 of the Zoning Ordinance, Adjustment to the Number of Parking Spaces. On March
14, 2005, the Zoning Administrator held a public hearing and granted the Conditional Use Permit based
on information presented in the Staff report and at the public hearing that the adjusted number of parking
spaces would be sufficient for the use,would not increase traffic congestion, and would be safe to
motorists,pedestrians, and bicyclists.
Prior to the hearing, the Zoning Administrator received 13 letters supporting the parking reduction, and 16
letters opposing the parking reduction. Additionally, at the public hearing held on March 14,2005,
several people spoke in opposition to the parking reduction because of pedestrian safety,parking and other
traffic-related issues, as well as the importance of supporting existing local businesses such as Mika's
Espresso located to the northwest of the site. The Staff Report and Meeting Minutes for the Zoning
Administrator Public Hearing are included as Attachment 2. Information on the requested Conditional
Use Permit and material presented to the Zoning Administrator follows in the Analysis section below.
Appeal of Zoning Administrator Action:
On March 23, 2005, a letter from Bobbi Cauchi was received by the City Clerk appealing the Zoning
Administrator approval of the Enea Properties parking reduction(PA 04-057). This was the only letter of
appeal received, and is included as Attachment 3 of this Staff report. The letter of appeal expressed Ms.
Cauchi's concerns regarding project traffic and circulation conflicts with local schools,pedestrians, and
2
area traffic, perceived inconsistency with the intent of the Village Parkway Specific Plan, and perceived
inconsistency with the intent of Zoning Ordinance parking regulations. These points are briefly
summarized and responded to in the section following the analysis of the Conditional Use Permit
ANALYSIS:
Legal Basis for Parking Reduction and Adjustment:
Pursuant to Section 8.76.050 of the Zoning Ordinance,Adjustment to the Number of Parking Spaces,the
Zoning Administrator may reduce the number of parking spaces required by the Zoning Ordinance by
means of a Conditional Use Permit for the following reasons: 1)when off-site parking is available to
satisfy the required parking under the Zoning Ordinance; 2)when the parking requirement is deemed
excessive; and, 3)when a shared parking condition is present. In the latter two cases, a parking study
must be prepared by a qualified traffic engineer or consultant. The following evidence must be provided:
• An analysis of the availability of off-site parking spaces showing that the most distant parking
space is not more than 400 feet from the commercial use,that the off-site parking spaces are
not located in a residential zone or vehicle access area, and that any necessary agreements are
executed to assure that the off-site parking spaces are provided to the principal use(Section
8.76.050.C).
• An analysis of the parking demands of the proposed use and the parking demands of similar
uses in similar situations, to demonstrate how the required parking standard is excessive
(Section 8.76.050.E).
• An analysis of how a sufficient number of parking spaces is provided to meet the greatest parking
demands of the participating use types in a shared parking situation(Section 8.76.050.F).
Lastly,the parking study must determine that an alternative parking standard would ensure that there will
not be a parking deficiency, that overflow parking will not adversely impact adjacent uses, or that parking
for various uses in a shopping center will not conflict with each other.
Conditional Use Permit:
The Applicant worked with the City Traffic Engineer and Planning Division Staff to develop a Parking
Study for the project. The Parking Study is included as Exhibit B to Attachment 1. The Study reviewed
the requested 1,886-square-foot coffee shop and a 410-square-foot outdoor seating area and provided an
analysis of the typical parking requirements of the proposed tenant and the future tenants of the shopping
center.
The Parking Study concluded that the proposed project would generate significant visitors to the Village
Parkway area due to its prominent location,promotion and marketing, and the attractiveness of the new
building's design. The shared parking condition of the shopping center and the availability of free, on-
street parking would supplement the parking provided on-site. In addition,the proximity of the project
site to residential neighborhoods,bike paths, and public transportation would allow several transportation
options for visitors and employees.
Concurrent with the conditions of approval listed below, the Parking Study supported an alternative
parking requirement to that of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance that takes into consideration all of the
conditions at the project site. The Parking Study concluded that 32 off-street parking spaces and the
3
existing on-street parking spaces(a minimum of 5)would be sufficient to meet the peak parking needs of
the coffee shop and the shopping center as a whole.
Conditions of Approval:
The following measures were recommended by the Parking Study and incorporated as Conditions of
Approval of the Zoning Administrator Resolution(included in Attachment 2)to ensure that approval of
the Conditional Use Permit would cause no adverse impacts on retail tenants in the shopping center or
adjacent property owners or area traffic:
1. The project shall reserve six(6)of the parking spaces as time-limited parking. These spaces shall be
located closest to the coffee shop and shall be posted with the following information: "15 Minute Parking
Limit. Towing Enforced." Signs shall include City of Dublin Municipal Code citation that allows towing
of illegally parked vehicles. These six (6)parking spaces with time limit restrictions would be able to
safely accommodate 24 vehicles per hour. (Condition of Approval#8)
2. The coffee shop tenant shall provide information on the availability of travel options to visitors and
employees on an on-going basis. BART and the Wheels and Alameda County Connection bus
services, as well as the 511 telephone and Internet service(www.511.org), shall be resources for
information and promotional materials. (Condition of Approval#9)
3. An alternative parking standard of 1 space for every 200 square feet of outdoor floor area would be
adequate due to the seasonal nature of outdoor seating. The Applicant/Developer shall apply for and
obtain a Conditional Use Permit for additional parking reductions pursuant to Section 8.76.050 of
the Zoning Ordinance should the plaza area be covered by a permanent roof in the future(not
included with this application). (Condition of Approval# 10)
4. The coffee shop shall provide auxiliary parking and proper signage for the first two weeks of
operation due to increased traffic caused by the business' grand opening. The auxiliary parking shall
be located in the Enea Village Center parking lot and the remaining commercial tenant spaces shall
be kept vacant during the two-week time period(Condition of Approval # 11)
To summarize the conclusions and recommendations made in the original Parking Study, an alternative
parking requirement which includes six (6)time-limited parking spaces and five(5)on-street or curbside
parking spaces,in addition to the other 26 parking spaces in the Enea Village Parkway Center's
commercial/retail parking lot, would be sufficient to satisfy the peak parking demand of the coffee shop
and the Center's retail tenants.
Focused Traffic/Parking Analysis,dated April 19,2005:
To address concerns expressed at the Zoning Administrator public hearing and in the letter of appeal,the
Applicant commissioned George Nickelson of Omni Means to prepare a supplemental Focused
Traffic/Parking Analysis (Focused Analysis)to evaluate conditions at the intersection of Village Parkway
and Amador Valley Boulevard and at existing local Starbucks Coffee locations(included with Exhibit B
to Attachment 1). The locations surveyed in the Focused Analysis included the Starbucks Coffee
businesses at 7904 Dublin Boulevard (at Regional),4930 Dublin Boulevard (Hacienda Crossings), and
9150 Alcosta Boulevard. The surveys were taken the week of April 4,2005. The Focused Analysis
addresses concerns related to traffic congestion and parking demand from 6 A.M. to 10 A.M. during the
busiest time period of the Starbucks business and during the time when local children are likely to be
traveling to school.
4
The Focused Analysis prepared by Omni Means concluded that the intersection of Village Parkway and
Amador Valley Boulevard is currently operating at level of service(LOS) A and would continue to
operate at LOS A with completion of the proposed project with the parking reduction. The Focused
Analysis concluded that there would be a peak parking demand of 27 parking spaces for the proposed
coffee shop use at 9:30 A.M. and a peak parking demand of 39 parking spaces for the commercial/retail
center as a whole also at 9:30 A.M. Lastly, the Focused Analysis concluded that there would be sufficient
on-street or curbside parking for the 7 parking spaces that could not be provided on-site by the 32-space
parking lot.
The Parking Study updated with the Omni Means Focused Traffic/Parking Analysis dated April 19, 2005
can be summarized as follows:
Project Parkingand Peak Parking Demand from 9:00 A.M. to 9:30 A.M.
Use Area Zoning Maximum Recommended Parking Provided
(sq.ft.) Ordinance Hourly Standards/ (spaces)
Required Parking Conditions
Parking Demand*
(spaces) (spaces)
Coffee 1,886 19 27 • 6 time-limited parking 10 on-site
Shop spaces(24 vehicles) 7 off-site
Outdoor 410 4 • 4 regular spaces
Seating • 5 off-site parking spaces
Total Spaces Available:
10 spaces and 5 off-site
spaces would manage
max.demand of 33
vehicles_per hour
Retail 6,653 22 12 22 on-site
22 regular spaces
(No changes in standards
from Zoning Ordinance)
Total 8,539 interior 45 39 32 32 on-site
+410 exterior 39 total
*From Focused Traffic/Parking Analysis prepared by George Nickelson of Omni Means,dated April 19,2005.
Added Conditions of Approval:
Staff recommends and the Applicant has agreed to the following Condition of Approval that has been
added to the Resolution(Attachment 1)to ensure that the conditions studied in the Parking Study and in
the Focused Traffic/Parking Analysis continue to be in effect at the site and to ensure that parking spaces
are not utilized for deliveries.
1. The Applicant/Developer shall identify the location of a 10-foot by 20-foot loading space on the
site plan of the project site in addition to the 32 parking spaces provided in the parking lot. The
location of the loading space shall be subject to the review and approval of the Community
Development Director and the Public Works Director. (Condition 12)
5
Letter of Appeal:
As stated in the Background section, on March 23,2005, a letter from a Dublin resident,Bobbi Cauchi,
was received by the City Clerk appealing the Zoning Administrator approval of PA 04-057, for a
reduction of eight(8)parking spaces and substitution of five(5) curbside parking spaces for on-site
parking on the site. The Letter of Appeal is included as Attachment 4 to this Staff report. The
Appellant's grounds for the Appeal and Staff's responses are summarized as follows:
1. Comment: The Appellant believes that the proposed use will create high customer volume and/or
traffic and the highest volume will be in the morning from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. During the
hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10 a.m., the Appellant believes that 90%of the Starbucks sales will be take-
out or to-go. One of the two shopping center entrances is on Amador Valley Boulevard and the
Appellant believes that this will function as a primary entrance and exit. The Appellant believes
that vehicles exiting at the Amador Valley Boulevard exit will be required to drive east into
residential neighborhoods. Because Dublin High School, Valley High School, Wells Middle
School, and Frederiksen Elementary School are in the vicinity of the proposed parking reduction,
the traffic generated by the use will be dangerous to children's safety.
Response: A Parking Study was prepared by the Applicant and City Staff in December 2004 with
a follow-up Focused Traffic/Parking Analysis on April 19,2005 prepared by Omni Means (in
Attachment 1, Exhibit B) for the requested parking reduction. The parking study concluded that
the proposed parking reduction at the Enea Village Parkway center would not create traffic hazards
or conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians or bicyclists, and sufficient parking will be available
for morning customers during the coffee shop's busiest hours. During the hours between 7:00 a.m.
and 9:00 a.m. (the schools named above, except Valley High School,begin at or before 9:00 AM),
the Enea Village Parkway Center's other tenants are not likely to be open for business. With the
provision of six (6)time-limited parking spaces in the Center, there will be an excess of more than
2 to 17 parking spaces in the shopping center during this time(see Parking Study and Focused
Traffic/Parking Analysis in Attachment 1).
According to the Focused Traffic/Parking Analysis,traffic will not be directed into adjacent
residential neighborhoods because of two factors. The first factor is that the Focused Analysis
determined that 70%of Starbucks customers are"pass by"traffic, meaning that these drivers were
using the roadways to drive to a destination and stopped for Starbucks because it was along the
same route. The remaining 30%of Starbucks customers are new trips. The second factor is that
the median strip on Amador Valley Boulevard allows a safe location for entrance into the Dublin
Village Square Shopping Center north of the subject retail center,as well as for U-turn maneuvers
for drivers wishing to access Village Parkway. Lastly,the stop signs, narrowness of the street, lack
of freeway access, and residential character of Amador Valley Boulevard east of Village Parkway,
is designed to slow traffic and contains many curvilinear streets and cul-de-sacs that will
discourage traffic from entering Amador Valley Boulevard and neighborhood streets.
Student and child safety has been protected by measures including but not limited to the following
City enhancements. A crossing guard currently monitors students' access to school at the
intersection of Burton Street and Amador Valley Boulevard to ensure pedestrian safety at busy
times of the day. The crossing guard uses special stop signs developed by the City. The signalized
intersection at Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard, along with recent pedestrian safety
enhancements at the sidewalk and corner, such as the removal of the right-turn only lane as part of
the Village Parkway Capital Improvement Project,will ensure that students' safety is protected.
Based on the Accident History Report compiled by the Public Works Department, the intersection
of Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard has a good safety record. Traffic accidents,
6
predominantly"fender benders,"average 5.4 per year involving other motorists. No pedestrian
accidents have been reported since January of 2001.
2. Comment: The intent of the "downtown specific plan"(Village Parkway Specific Plan)was to
create a breakfast/lunch destination. The Starbuck's Café use is not consistent with this intent
because the Appellant believes that the use sells take-out/to-go items. The provision of time-
limited parking spaces is proof that the business is a take-out/to-go use.
Response: The intent of the Village Parkway Specific Plan for the area is to create a more
pedestrian friendly and visually-enhanced retail/commercial shopping and service district along
Village Parkway from Dublin Boulevard to above Amador Valley Boulevard. The Land Use Plan
for the Specific Plan noted the site as an"opportunity site,"or a site for a possible change in use to
be more inviting and provide pedestrian-oriented services and retail, and as a location for a
potential plaza with new development. According to the Specific Plan, uses permitted at the
project location include a number of service and retail businesses, and drinking and eating
establishments with outdoor seating, such as that proposed by Enea Properties. Additionally, a
café is specifically identified as a permitted use pursuant to the regulations of the Planned
Development District, and this use may also sell to-go items. The provision of six(6)time-limited
spaces was added as a condition of approval of the Enea Properties' project to meet the peak
parking demand for the retail center between the hours of 9:00 AM and 11:00 AM during the week
and 10:00 AM to 12 PM on the weekend when volume is highest for both the café use and the
retail business in the shopping center. The six (6) time-limited spaces increase the capacity of the
parking lot to meet this peak time only,and would not be needed during most times of the day.
3. Comment: The Appellant believes that it is important not to rely on the brand name recognition
of the business that is requesting the parking reduction because the popularity of brands is
impermanent and changes rapidly.
Response: The issuance of planning and use permits pertains to the appropriate land use for a
particular site and not to a specific brand of a product. Any eating or drinking establishment could
have requested a Conditional Use Permit for this specific site. As Starbucks Coffee is a widely
recognized and popular name brand,the Applicant has worked with the City Staff and a traffic
consultant to provide parking and traffic studies as requested by Staff to justify an adjustment to
required parking for this business location. Competition by various individual businesses in the
same use type category is not a land use or planning consideration.
4. The Appellant believes that the parking requirements of 1 space for 100 square feet of
restaurant/food services and 1 space for 300 square feet of retail were established for a use such
as the Starbucks café within the retail center.
Response: The Zoning Ordinance provides parking requirements by generic use type, as well as
the means by which the required parking may be reduced or modified to fit specific conditions of a
project,pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 8.76.050. The generic "eating and drinking
establishment"use type includes cafés, restaurants, delicatessens, specialty foods,bakeries,ice
cream shops, and sandwich shops. A Parking Study for a specific use prepared by a qualified
traffic engineer or consultant is required to provide the basis for allowing a parking adjustment. In
the case of the current project, the Parking Study found that the current conditions at the site, in
combination with the measures recommended in the Study, would provide the basis for a parking
reduction of eight (8)spaces and a modification of five(5) spaces to be located on-street. The
Focused Traffic/Parking Analysis prepared in April 2005 by Omni Means supports the findings
and recommendations of the Parking Study(both are included in Exhibit B to Attachment 1).
7
5. Comment: The Appellant believes that on-street parking reduces a person's ability to observe
on-coming traffic unless that person is partially in the driving lane.
Response: The City will ensure that on-street parking is prohibited within an appropriate distance
from each driveway to allow for safe sight distance. Additionally, a person turning right from the
store's driveway on Amador Valley Boulevard or Village Parkway would need to look only to the
left to observe on-coming traffic before pulling out into the right traffic lane because the
entrances/exits are right-turn only.
6. Comment: Reliance on on-street parking as an alternative to five (5) of the on-site parking
spaces would cause traffic problems as drivers would look first for parking within the shopping
center and circle to the on-street parking spaces with two U-turn maneuvers if on-site parking
spaces were not available.
Response: Based on the Parking Study and Focused Traffic/Parking Analysis,the peak parking
demand is between 9:00 AM and 11:00 AM on weekdays, and 10:00 AM to 12:00 PM on
weekends. With the provision of six (6)time-limited parking spaces, the parking lot of 32 spaces
would be able to accommodate parking for 55 cars per hour,which is sufficient to meet the peak
parking requirements of the Center.
7. Comment: Parallel parking at the on-street parking spaces would stop traffic on Village Parkway
and Amador Valley Boulevard.
Response: Curb lanes on both Amador Valley Boulevard and Village Parkway are wide enough
to accommodate parallel on-street parking safely without impeding traffic flows. Additionally, on-
street parking is permitted along the rest of Village Parkway in front of a variety of other
businesses.
8. Comment: People will not walk to the Starbucks cafe from on-street parking spaces in rain and
other inclement weather.
Response: With the provision of six (6)time-limited parking spaces in the shopping center,on-
street parking would be in addition to the parking needed by the use. Because all parking for the
site is uncovered, inclement weather would have only a small impact on the desirability of on-
street parking,which could be closer in some cases to the coffee shop's tenant space than parking
spaces in the parking lot of the shopping center.
9. Comment: The Starbucks location in Southern California (South Pasadena) used in the Parking
Study is not similar enough to the Starbucks that is the subject of the requested parking reduction.
The Starbucks example used in the Parking Study is 26%smaller in floor area than the Starbucks
at 7197 Village Parkway, and the Parking Study increased the trips by 26%to adjust for the
difference. The Parking Study does not include data for walk-up traffic such as persons walking
from offices, schools, etc. The Appellant believes that the Starbucks at Regional Street and Dublin
Boulevard generates more than 28 vehicles per hour(the conclusion of the Traffic Study for the
Starbucks in South Pasadena).
Response: The Applicant has provided a Focused Traffic/Parking Analysis based on current
traffic and parking data for the Starbucks Coffee businesses at 7904 Dublin Boulevard(at
Regional), 4930 Dublin Boulevard(Hacienda Crossings), and 9150 Alcosta Boulevard. The
surveys were taken the week of April 4, 2005. The Focused Analysis addresses concerns related to
traffic congestion and parking demand from 6 A.M. to 10 A.M. during the busiest time period of
the business (included in Attachment 1). The Focused Traffic/Parking Analysis also surveyed the
number of pedestrians and bicyclists near the businesses. This supplemental information supports
8
the conclusions and recommendations of the original Parking Study that 27 to 28 parking spaces
would be required to meet the peak parking demand of the coffee shop use,which are provided.
10. Comment: The Traffic Study that concluded that the intersection of Village and Amador Valley
Boulevard was safe and that traffic would remain at LOS C under current and future conditions
did not take into considerations growth of the Dougherty Valley, the expansion of the Valley
Center, the remodel of the AM/PM convenience store, increased school enrollment, the new Senior
Housing development, and the remodeled Target/Expo Design Center. The traffic study does not
provide sufficient information to evaluate the safety of the southeast corner of Village Parkway
and Amador Valley Boulevard.
Response: The purpose of a specific plan is to anticipate the impacts of a group or range of
development so that each individual use included in the specific plan does not require an
individual study. This allows the City to plan for cumulative impacts of several projects taken
together and allows development to occur without unforeseen or unnecessary delays. The traffic
impacts of growth related to the various uses envisioned in the Village Parkway Specific Plan were
studied and mitigated through Capital Improvement Projects and Developer payment of Traffic
Impact Fees.
The Valley Center,the Target/Expo remodel, and the Senior Housing development,were
developed pursuant to the Village Parkway Specific Plan and the Downtown Core Specific Plan,
and the traffic generated by these projected uses were included in the traffic studies for the
Specific Plans. Traffic Studies have concluded that regional growth such as development in
Dougherty Valley will not impact Village Parkway.
In cases where a new project may exceed the development anticipated under the Specific Plan, a
supplemental traffic study is prepared. However, the proposed project is relatively small (1,886
square feet) and conforms to the development standards of the PD Zoning District and Specific
Plan. As the Applicant requested an adjustment in Parking Standards as allowed by the Zoning
Ordinance, a more focused parking study was required instead. The Focused Traffic/Parking
Analysis concluded that the intersection of Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard is
operating at a level of service of A between 7:00 A.M. and 9:00 A.M., and that the potential for
conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians or bicyclists is low.
Public Hearing Notice and Comments:
A Public Hearing Notice was mailed to property owners,residents, and tenants within a 300-foot radius of
the project property. A copy of the notice was advertised in the Valley Times and posted at locations in
the City. As of the writing of this report, no further comments have been received from the public.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA),together with the State guidelines and City environmental
regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental
documents be prepared. The proposed project has been found to be Categorically Exemption from the
provisions of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines,
Section 15304, as it is a minor alteration to land consisting of a reduction in parking spaces for a business
tenant within an approved infill retail commercial center,presently under construction.
CONCLUSION:
The Enea Village Parkway Center will replace a vacant former gas station at a prominent corner of the
intersection of Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard. The project site is identified in the
9
Village Parkway Specific Plan as an opportunity site. The proposed coffee shop use meets the goals and
requirements of the property as envisioned in the Village Parkway Specific Plan,the Planned
Development District PA 98-049, and the Off-Street Parking and Loading Section of the Zoning
Ordinance by creating a neighborhood-serving and pedestrian-friendly commercial use with shared
parking. City Staff have reviewed the project and Conditions of Approval are contained in the Resolution
(Attachment 1)that will mitigate any potential adverse impacts of the project relative to parking.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1)open public hearing and hear the Staff presentation;
2)take testimony from the Applicant, Appellant and the Public; 3) close the public hearing and deliberate;
and,4)adopt the Resolution(Attachment 1) affirming the Zoning Administrator approval of a Conditional
Use Permit PA 04-057 for a Reduction to Required Parking for Enea Properties/Starbucks Coffee(with
Site Plan included as Exhibit A, and Parking Study as Exhibit B with Focused Traffic/Parking Analysis
dated April 19, 2005 included).
10
GENERAL INFORMATION:
APPLICANT: Robert Enea, Enea Properties Company, LLC
190 Hartz Avenue, Suite 260,Danville 94526
PROPERTY OWNER: Village Parkway Partners, LLC
190 Hartz Avenue, Suite 260,Danville 94526
APPELLANT: Bobbi Cauchi, Cauchi Photography
7063 Village Parkway,Dublin,CA 94568
LOCATION: 7197 Village Parkway,Dublin, CA 94568 (APN 941-0210-013)
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: Retail/Office
EXISTING ZONING
AND LAND USE: Planned Development Zoning District, PA 98-049
G:\PA#\2004\04-057 Enea\PC Staff Report.doc
11
Planning Commission !Minutes
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday,April 26,2005,in
the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Schaub called the meeting to order at 7:02pm.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Schaub,Commissioners Biddle,King,and Wehrenberg;Kristi Bascom,Senior Planner;
John Bakker,Assistant City Attorney,Janet Harbin,Senior Planner;Pierce Macdonald,Associate
Planner;and Maria Carrasco,Recording Secretary.
Absent: Cm.Fasulkey
ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA-
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS-The March 22,2005 minutes were approved as submitted.
ORAL COMMUNICATION-
At this time,members of the audience are permitted to address the Planning Commission on any item(s)
of interest to the public;however,no ACTION or DISCUSSION shall take place on any item,which is
NOT on the Planning Commission Agenda. The Commission may respond briefly to statements made
or questions posed,or may request Staff to report back at a future meeting concerning the matter.
Furthermore,a member of the Planning Commission may direct Staff to place a matter of business on a
future agenda. Any person may arrange with the Planning Manager (no later than 11:00am,on the
Tuesday preceding a regular meeting) to have an item of concern placed on the agenda for the next
regular meeting.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
The Dublin Unified School district submitted a letter in reference to Item 8.4 Enea/Starbucks.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
8.1 PA 99-064 Sabri Arac Development Agreement for Quarry Lane School-Development
Agreement between the City and the owner,Dr.Sabri Arac,of the Quarry Lane School for
the expansion of the school to provide an additional 70,289 square feet of classroom
facilities,a gymnasium,playing field,parking and landscaped areas to accommodate
middle and high school grades.A Planned Development District rezoning and Site
Development Review were previously approved for the project,and would be further
implemented through the Development Agreement.
Chair Schaub opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report.
Janet Harbin,Senior Planner presented the staff report and explained that the applicant,Dr.Sabri Arac
of Quarry Lane School,is requesting approval of a development agreement with the City to allow for the
construction of Phase 2 of the privately owned school at 6363 Tassajara Road. Phase 2 of Quarry Lane
School consists of 70,289 square feet of classroom facilities,a gymnasium,playing field,parking,and
landscaped areas to accommodate middle and high school grades. A Planned Development District
Planning Commission 48 April26,2005
Regular Meeting
Rezoning and Stage 2 Development Plan,for Phase 2 of the Quarry Lane School,located within the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area,has previously been approved. In conjunction with the rezoning
application,the property along with the adjacent Kobold property was approved for annexation to the
City.
Ms. Harbin explained that one of the implementing measures of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan is the
requirement that the City enter into a Development Agreement with developers in the Plan area. The
Development Agreement provides security to the developer that the City will not change its zoning and
other laws applicable to the project for a specified period of time. Approval of this Development
Agreement will implement provisions of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan,and the conditions of
approval specific to the Quarry Lane School expansion project. The proposal is consistent with both the
General Plan and the Specific Plan.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission open the public hearing and hear the Staff presentation;
take testimony from the Applicant the Public;close the public hearing and deliberate;and adopt a
resolution recommending City Council adopt an ordinance approving a Development Agreement
between the City of Dublin and Dr.Sabri Arac for the Quarry Lane School. She asked if there were any
questions.
Cm.Biddle asked if it is a 5-year agreement with an annual review.
Ms. Harbin said yes.
Cm. Biddle asked if there was any information on the number of students and what is projected for the
future.
Ms. Harbin said there are approximately 900 students currently and that will increase to about 1,500
students.
Cm. King asked about the language on page 4 of the Development Agreement,paragraph 4.2,the term
"will commence on the effective date and extend 4 years thereafter." He does not understand what that
means.
John Bakker,Assistant City Attorney,said the Development Agreement vests the land use regulations in
effect at the time of the project approval. For a 5-year period until it terminates the land use regulations
that are in effect on the date of the agreement will remain in effect for that 5-year period.
Cm. King asked if the 5 years expire,does the Applicant have to come back before the City to renew?
Mr. Bakker said not necessarily. If the Applicant's permit is still valid,he could still go forward with the
project. He stated that what Development Agreements really do is protect developers from changes in
law.
Cm.King stated that if the agreement last 5 years and the permit is good for another 3 years,it
contradicts itself if the same terms and conditions apply. Why have a 5-year term on the Development
Agreement?
Mr. Bakker said that the Development Agreement and the permit are mutually exclusive and do not rely
on one another.
Cm.King asked if construction needs to commence before the agreement becomes vested.
(Planning Commission 49 April 26,2005
'Regular'Meeting
Mr.Bakker stated that under common law,construction must be commenced in order to vest your
rights. Another alternative to vest your rights is to enter into a Development Agreement.
Cm.Biddle asked how far along is the project.
Ms. Harbin stated Dr. Arac has submitted for building permits and anticipates the construction of the
expansion over the summer.
Cm.Biddle stated that the school is right across the street from a proposed park.
Ms. Harbin stated the park is part of the Wallis Ranch project.
Chair Schaub asked if there were any questions of Staff;hearing none he asked for the Applicant.
Patricia Curtin,Land Use Attorney stated she represents Dr.Arac. She questions the need for the
Development Agreement. They started developing the school with Alameda County before the area was
annexed into the City. They have entered into an annexation agreement with the City. They do not see
that the Development Agreement adds anything to it other than more time. Once they are able to pull
the building permits they plan to construct immediately and there is no need for the 5-year agreement.
They have some concerns with and question some of the fees that are being imposed. She has a meeting
set up on May 3,2005 to discuss and work through those fees.
Chair Schaub asked Ms.Curtin is there was something different that she wanted out of the City.
Ms.Curtin stated she does not want the Development Agreement;she wants the building permits so
they can start construction.
Chair Schaub asked if she is requesting the Planning Commission to consider that.
Ms.Curtin stated that if they cannot get their building permits without entering into a Development
Agreement then let it go forward and she will continue to work with City Staff.
Chair Schaub asked Mr.Bakker if it is in the Commission's realm to dispute the need for a Development
Agreement.
Mr. Bakker said there is a provision in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan requiring a Development
Agreement. If the Applicant wants to move forward,the Planning Commission would need to approve
the Development Agreement.
Ms.Curtin stated this is a very unique situation and asked the Planning Commission to make the
recommendation of approval to the City Council.
Cm. King stated that the Development Agreement protects the Applicant as well as the City.
Cm.Biddle asked when the original facility was constructed.
Mr.Bakker stated approximately 1997.
Cm. Biddle asked about the layout of the facility and where do they plan to construct the new facilities.
Manning Commission 50 April 26,2005
'Pcgu(ar`Meeting
Ms.Curtain stated she did not bring a diagram of the layout.
Cm. Biddle asked if they are building a gymnasium and playing field and whether that was going to be
opened to the public.
Ms.Curtain stated that she was not sure,but could look into the question.
Robert Nielsen,6407 Tassajara Road stated that they have a private agreement with Quarry Lane School
and it would benefit them if it was included in the development agreement.
Cm. King asked if he contacted Staff.
Mr. Nielsen stated he informed Janet Harbin.
Cm. King stated he does not have a problem with the agreement but still unclear on the language
discussed earlier in section 4.2.
On motion by Cm. Biddle,seconded by Cm. King,and by vote of 4-0-1 with Cm. Fasulkey absent,the
Planning Commission adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 05-24
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR
PA 99-064 DR.SABRI ARAC FOR QUARRY LANE SCHOOL
Chair Schaub reminded the audience if they are going to speak to please fill out a blue speaker slip and
hand it to the recording secretary.
8.2 PA 05-010 Journey Church-Conditional Use Permit Extension(request for a one-year
extension) A one-year extension of an existing Conditional Use Permit for a religious
facility within an existing shopping center in a C-1 Retail Commercial(with Historic
Overlay) Zoning District.
Chair Schaub opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report.
Kristi Bascom,Senior Planner presented the staff report and explained that the Applicant,Mike
Connolly,Pastor of Journey Church,is requesting a one-year extension to continue using the space. Ms.
Bascom explained that the reason for the limited term is because the site is in the Dublin Village Historic
District. The City conducted some feasibility studies and is currently in the master planning process for
the Dublin Square Shopping Center site and is expected to have that completed in 2006. The Applicant
has requested that the Conditional Use Permit be extended through February 2006. The church
assembly use is on Sunday's from 8:45-11:45 and during the week from 8:00am to 6:00pm. Because of
the off peak use of the facility for assembly uses on Sunday,there is more than sufficient parking. Staff is
seeking direction from the Planning Commission on whether findings for approval or denial of the one
year extension can be made. Staff will bring the appropriate resolution back to the next Planning
Commission meeting. She was available to answer questions.
'tanning Commission 51 April 26,2005
Vgutar Meeting
Cm. King asked if there were any proposed changes to the use.
Ms.Bascom stated there are no changes.
Chair Schaub stated that if the church sublet the facility and someone else took over,all of the conditions
stay exactly in place and if they are violated,the Conditional Use Permit can be revoked.
Ms.Bascom stated that the use permit is for a community facility. If Journey Church was to move out
and a new tenant moved in,they would need to abide to the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit.
They would need to be aware that the Conditional Use Permit,if approved,would expire in 2006.
Cm.Biddle stated that is good timing because the Master Plan for the Heritage Center is due to the City
Council in January 2006.
Chair Schaub invited the Applicant to speak.
Mike Connelly,Pastor of Journey Church,thanked the Planning Commission for allowing them to meet
there. He has a lot of gratitude to the City and the Commission. He requested that the extension be for
12 months from today rather than February 2005.
Chair Schaub asked Staff their thoughts on the request.
Ms. Bascom stated that the Applicant requested for a one-year extension and technically the use has
expired. The one-year extension would take them from February 2005 through February 2006.
Chair Schaub asked if anyone else wished to speak;hearing none he closed the public hearing.
Chair Schaub asked Mr. Bakker whether the extension could be extended to May 1,2006.
Mr. Bakker stated that given that the permit expired in February and the Applicant has requested a one-
year extension. The one-year extension would be from the date the use permit expired.
Cm. King stated that he does not see a problem with extending their use permit.
Cm.Biddle stated that there are a number of churches in storefronts and industrial areas and asked if
there is anything that accommodates churches in relocating.
Ms.Bascom explained that the City has adopted a Public/Semi Public Policy to encourage property
owners who are seeking a General Plan Amendment to set aside land for community facilities such as a
church. The City is taking steps to ensure there is space in the future for community facilities. Ms.
Bascom explained that Staff is looking for direction on whether to bring back a resolution for approval or
a resolution for denial.
The Planning Commission by unanimous vote directed Staff to bring back a resolution approving their
request for a one-year extension.
Ms.Bascom stated that Staff would bring back a resolution recommending approval at the next Planning
Commission meeting.
Planning Commission 52 April 2005
14gufar Meeting
8.3 PA 04-060 Tentative Map for Condominium Purposes for the Iron Horse Trail Apartments
located at 6253 Dougherty Road-The Applicant requests approval of a Tentative Map to
subdivide the Iron Horse Trail Apartments and create 177 condominium units. A
condominium unit is defined as an estate in real property consisting of an undivided interest
in the common area and separate fee interest in a specific unit.
Chair Schaub opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report.
Ms. Bascom,Senior Planner presented the staff report and explained that the Applicant is requesting
approval of a Tentative Map to subdivide the Iron Horse Trail Apartments and create 177 condominium
units. This item was noticed as a public hearing;however,an application for Site Development Review
needs to be submitted and processed along with the proposed map. Therefore,the Applicant is
requesting that this item be continued to a date uncertain. Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission open the public hearing and continue the item to a date uncertain.
8.4 Appeal of Zoning Administrator Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for PA 04-057,
Enea Properties/Starbucks Coffee,Reduction to Required Parking.
Chair Schaub stated there is an issue of one Planning Commissioner that may need to recuse himself.
Cm. King asked whether the Applicant objects to him participating.
Norm Manion,stated he is representing the Applicant,Robert Enea and Mr.Enea would prefer for Cm.
King to recuse himself.
Chair Schaub explained the process to those people sitting in the audience. The issue at hand is a
request by the applicant to have a reduction in the number of parking spaces on the site from 45 to 32. It
is not whether or not there should be a coffee shop. That use type was approved a year ago. The
Planning Commission is trying to come up with facts to make a good decision on behalf of the
community. He asked for the staff report.
Pierce Macdonald,Associate Planner presented the staff report and gave a brief history of the project.
She stated that the item is the consideration of an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's approval. The
permit is for an adjustment to number of parking spaces,required pursuant to zoning ordinance. The
project site at 7197 Village Parkway was the former location of an automotive gasoline and service
station that closed in the 1990's,and was previously zoned General Commercial. She showed a
PowerPoint presentation including a site plan for the project. In December 1998,a planned development
zoning district was approved for the project site. In December 2000,the Village Parkway Specific Plan
was approved,including the project site. In May 2004,the Site Development Review application was
approved for the project site.
Ms.Macdonald explained that under the Zoning Ordinance there are provisions for parking
adjustments,but a parking study must be prepared. The Applicant worked with Staff to provide
information on peak parking demand and agreed to an alternative parking standard,which was
reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineer. This standard called for on street parking for 5 cars;time-
limited parking for 6 cars;and 26 regular parking spaces on site. Based on information gathered by Staff
the peak parking demand would be 28 spaces for the coffee shop,22 spaces for the retail and a total of 50
spaces. With the conditions,5 on street parking spaces and 24 time-limited spaces,including the 26
regular spaces,would provide an available 55 parking spaces.
The Conditional Use Permit was approved by the Zoning Administrator on March 14,2005. Prior to the
hearin ,Staff received 13 letters in support of the project and 16 letters opposing the project. Within the
(Planning Commission 53 ,prif 26,2005
Ncgufar:Meeting
10-day appeal period an appeal letter was received from a Dublin resident,Bobbi Cauchi. The grounds
for the appeal stated that the parking reduction would cause a diversion of traffic into residential areas
near 4 local schools which would cause unsafe conditions,and inconsistency with the Village Parkway
Specific Plan. Also,parallel parking would be unsafe and stop traffic flow. The grounds for the appeal
also included that the parking study was not adequate because it relied on a typical Starbucks location in
a different part of California and that the Village Parkway Specific Plan traffic study did not consider the
increased traffic volume created by local and regional growth.
In response to the issues raised at the Zoning Administrator hearing,and in the letter of appeal,the
Applicant commissioned a focused traffic parking analysis by George Nickelson of Omni Means for level
of service at the intersection to gauge the amount of congestion at the intersection of Village Parkway
and Amador Valley Boulevard, to survey the peak parking demands of local Starbucks coffee shops and
to evaluate the potential safety issue of pedestrians,bicyclists and vehicles. City Staff reviewed the
analysis prepared by Omni Means and Staff reviewed the grounds for the appeal. As conditioned,these
grounds and these issues have been addressed by the project. Ms.Macdonald stated that the City's
Public Works Engineer,Mark Lander,will talk about traffic analysis and parking analysis.
Mark Lander,City Engineer introduced himself and stated he was here to address any questions the
Commission may have. He stated that the City Council adopted the downtown traffic impact fee in
October of 2004. That fee study included a traffic analysis of the downtown area of Dublin,which
includes three specific plan areas. The traffic study looked at potential infill development or
redevelopment within the three downtown specific plans that concluded at ultimate build out in the
downtown area there would be roughly another 38,000 trips generated. The Enea site was one of the
sites assumed to generate new traffic. He stated the area would be adequate to handle build out. He
explained that the project would not over load the 4 lanes on Village Parkway. He stated that because
the property is so close to the existing intersection,the three driveways,one on Village Parkway,and
two on Amador Valley Boulevard will be restricted to right in and right out. Should someone enter the
site and wish to head west on Amador Valley Boulevard,they will have three options-they could leave
the site and make a right turn onto Village Parkway and make an immediate left onto Amador Valley
Boulevard. There is also an option of making a right turn onto Amador Valley Boulevard cross into the
left turn pocket and make a u-turn and the third option would be to continue down to York Drive and
make a u-turn to head west down Amador Valley Boulevard.
Chair Schaub asked if one of those properties along Amador Valley Boulevard is a preschool.
Ms. Bascom stated there are two preschools on Amador Valley Boulevard.
Chair Schaub stated that there is a street further down that would be an option to make a u-turn.
Ms. Bascom stated that after York Drive is Emerald Ave.,which has a left turn pocket.
Mr. Lander concluded his presentation.
Ms.Macdonald stated that the Omni Means parking study focused on the busiest time of the business as
far as sales. The report found the peak parking demand for local area Starbucks was between 9:00 and
9:30am. The total parking demand was 39 parking spaces for the center and the parking lot and on-
street would be adequate to meet the peak parking demands.
Chair Schaub asked the total deficiency at 9:30am.
Ms.Macdonald responded there is a deficiency of 7 parking spaces.
(planning Commission 54 April' 2005
cgularMeeting
Chair Schaub asked why the parking report states a deficiency of 13 spaces.
Ms.Macdonald stated that is a comparison between the Zoning Ordinance parking requirement and the
actual counts done in the field. Omni Means focused traffic and parking analysis felt that 7 on street
parking spaces would be required. There are 9 available parking spaces along the project frontage. The
Village Parkway Specific Plan has detailed diagrams of the improvements on Village Parkway,including
parallel parking. The current proposal would take advantage of that component of the Village Parkway
Specific Plan to provide additional parking.
Chair Schaub asked if the slide of the Village Parkway streetscape was looking hypothetically looking
north on Village Parkway or is it a generalization?
Ms. Macdonald responded this is a general goal and the City has undergone a Capital Improvement
Program to improve Village Parkway to put in bulb outs and street trees.
Ms.Macdonald stated that the proposed parking reduction has been found to be categorically exempt.
One letter was received from the applicant supporting the parking reduction. A packet of letters
opposing the parking reduction were left at the homes of the Planning Commissioners and submitted for
public record and copies have been distributed. One letter was from the DUSD stating it is not opposed
to the parking reduction.
In conclusion,staff has reviewed the parking analysis and that the peak parking demand would be met.
Staff recommends that the planning commission adopt a resolution affirming the zoning administrator
approval. She stated that in conclusion the proposed coffee shop lease space meets the goals and
requirements of the property as envisioned in the Village Parkway Specific Plan,the Planned
Development District PA 98-049,and the Off-Street Parking and Loading Section of the Zoning
Ordinance by creating a neighborhood-serving and pedestrian-friendly commercial use with shared
parking. City Staff have reviewed the project and Conditions of Approval are contained in the
Resolution in Attachment 1 that will mitigate any potential adverse impacts of the project relative to
parking. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution affirming the Zoning
Administrators approval for a Conditional Use Permit for Enea Properties/Starbucks Coffee.
Chair Schaub proposed that there are 4 documents that have facts. There is the parking study, traffic
study,Village Parkway Specific Plan,and the letter from the appellant. At this point the Commission
needs to determine the impact of the parking reduction. He would like to start the questioning with
Staff before opening it up to the public. There are eight findings that are listed that need to be met for
approval of the Conditional Use Permit.
John Bakker stated the Conditional Use Permit findings must be met in order to grant the parking
reduction;there are also related parking findings that must be met.
Chair Schaub stated there are 32 spaces on site with 2 that are handicap and most of the time handicap
spaces are not used. To consider them as part of the 32 is okay but the reality is they are not available to
very many people,which leaves 30 spaces.
Ms. Macdonald stated they would be available to any employee or guest that was handicapped.
Chair Schaub asked where the employees are going to park.
Ms. Macdonald stated the parking requirement is for guest and employee parking.
Planning Commission 55 April 26,2005
4Zepurar'Meeting
Chair Schaub asked how many employees are expected at peak time of 9:30am.
Ms.Macdonald stated that the Applicant has presented to Staff that a maximum of 7 employees at the
coffee shop would employed at any time.
Chair Schaub asked about the other retail shops.
Ms.Macdonald stated she could only speculate on what type of tenants would come in.
Chair Schaub stated lets assume 4 additional employees for the other shops and now the count is 11
employees total at peak time.
Ms. Bascom stated that Staff cannot validate that because they do not know who the retail tenants are.
Chair Schaub asked that if the parking is filled up where the cars are going to go. There are 30 seating
spaces within the coffee shop. Let's assume there are 10 people in line at peak,15 people sitting and
most of them have cars,now the count is 25 plus 11 employees equals 36 with only 30 available spaces
and we haven't counted customers in the retail stores yet. There is a possibility that is very real that
there will be no parking at times.
Ms. Macdonald stated Omni Means did a trip count and traffic count of some actual Starbucks.
Chair Schaub stated it is critical and would like to discuss it.
George Nickelson,Omni Means stated their analysis focused on traffic and parking. He stated they did
trip generated counts and parking surveys in the three Starubucks in the Dublin area. They came up
with actual surveys of trips in and out and parked cars. They also counted cars parked on the street.
Total parking was surveyed and what they found was a surprise. The trips in and out of Starbucks peak
between 8-9am. During those periods people spend less time on site and parking demand is lower.
What they found is that the parking demand is highest between 9:30-10am. The absolute peak demand
for Starbucks and retail is 9:30am of 39 parked cars with 32 cars parked in the lot and 7 parked out on the
street.
Chair Schaub asked if the handicapped spaces were included in that count.
Mr. Nickelson stated yes. In addition there are spaces out on the street that would be available.
Chair Schaub stated based on study there are 5 spaces available out on the street.
Mr.Nickelson stated Omni Means study concludes there are 10-12 potential curb spaces.
Chair Schaub stated some of the parking spaces will be used by the people in the office building.
Mr. Nickelson stated the office building is supposed to be self parked per code. He stated the study does
not show a deficit of parking. He stated they also did a traffic count during the commute period and the
intersection is operating very well and will continue to operate very well with the traffic from this
development. It is operating at level service'A' which is the highest level of service. They do not believe
there are going to be a lot of vehicles traveling to the east and making u-turns.
Chair Schaub asked why.
Planning Cammission 56 April'26,2005
r4gufar Meeting
Mr.Nickelson stated that if someone is destined to the west on Amador Valley Boulevard it will be a lot
easier to turn right out of the driveway onto Village Parkway and make a left turn onto Amador Valley
Boulevard. There was an issue brought up about the pedestrian and bicycle activity. They counted
pedestrians and bicycles along Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard and found that it is a
moderate volume. For the period of 7-9am. they counted 20 pedestrians and 10 bicyclist on Amador
Valley Boulevard and 9 pedestrians and 2 bicyclists on Village Parkway.
Cm.Wehrenberg asked the actual day the survey was conducted.
Mr. Nickelson responded they did each of the Starbucks on different days.
Cm.Wehrenberg asked the day the survey was conducted counting the pedestrians and bicyclist.
Mr. Nickelson stated the day the traffic was counted was April 5,2005.
Chair Schaub asked when spring break was.
Mr.Nickelson stated they were assured by Staff that they were doing their counts when school was in.
Mr.Lander stated that spring break took place in March.
Chair Schaub stated that the study indicates that parallel parking is not an issue and does not have an
affect on the two lanes going down Village Parkway. He asked Mr.Nickelson if he concurs with that.
Mr. Nickelson stated the intersection operates at level A and any movements in and out of parking
spaces will affect the level of traffic.
Chair Schaub asked if someone is trying to parallel park could it stop a motorist.
Mr. Nickelson responded sure,if someone is parallel parking at the exact time you are driving down the
street it could be disruptive.
Chair Schaub stated that at one time there was discussion about creating diagonal parking and closing
off the right lane. He read from the Village Parkway Specific Plan-it would create additional congestion on
Village Parkway during peak traffic flow, traffic may be diverted to Amador Valley Boulevard and residential
streets with less capacity in the vicinity. Consultants estimate that the level of service on Village Parkway would
operate at a level of service of'F'-unacceptable. He stated that someplace between level'A' and level'F'is
what could happen.
Mr.Nickelson stated he worked on the Specific Plan. The concept the Chair is referring to was to create
a 2 lane Village Parkway with diagonal parking. The parking would be one issue,the other issue would
be taking 4 lanes of traffic and putting into 2 lanes and they recommended against it.
Chair Schaub stated next thing to discuss is the suggestion of the time limited parking spaces and the
City of Dublin towing cars.
Ms. Macdonald stated the sign would not say City of Dublin would tow. The sign would reference the
citation number that allows cars illegally parked to be towed by private persons.
Chair Schaub asked if the sign would say City of Dublin.
Planning Commission 57 April 26,2005
ci cgufar°bfeeting
Ms.Macdonald stated it would list the citation but would not state the City of Dublin will tow.
Chair Schaub asked how affective this is. The nature of half the people in Starbucks is to get out in 15
minutes but getting in and out within 15 minutes does not always happen.
Ms. Macdonald stated she would like to make small distinction between the Omni Means analysis and
Staff's parking study. The Omni Means study focused on existing conditions and what the local
Starbucks performed like. Staff looked at the project a little differently and looked at some"what if"
scenarios. What if someone is using Starbucks to work on term paper or a small business owner using
the facility to interview someone? Staff wanted to encourage a turn over to make sure 6 spaces were
always available.
Chair Schaub asked how effective will that be and how effective will it be to get any more capacity out of
that lot. How effective will the towing be? Does someone call in and say a vehicle is parked longer than
15 minutes or does an enforcement person need to tag?
Mr.Bakker stated that he is not sure what process is used by the City. The municipal code provision
authorizes towing but without that the vehicle could not be towed.
Chair Schaub asked again,how effective will these signs in helping reduce the possible backlog of cars in
the parking lot during peak.
Ms.Macdonald stated Staff has recommended as a condition of approval is one way to manage the turn
over of cars and feels it will be effective to a degree. Time limited parking is used effectively in other
parking lots in Dublin.
Chair Schaub stated the other issue on the report is the availability of BART and Wheels. Are there any
questions on that?
Cm.Wehrenberg asked about the location of the bus stop in that area.
Ms.Bascom stated there is one immediately to the east of the project site on Amador Valley Boulevard.
Ms.Macdonald added that there is a west-bound stop on the opposite side of the road.
Cm.Wehrenberg asked where the auxiliary parking was addressed.
Ms. Macdonald stated that the Applicant had stated that for the first two weeks of the grand opening of
the coffee shop,there would not be any other tenants so the entire parking lot would be available.
Chair Schaub suggested moving onto the traffic. He asked Mr. Nickelson about the 95 trips in and 95
trips out of Starbucks and 29 in and 29 out for the proposed Starbucks. For the retail it is 19 trips in and
12 out. Why does Starbucks have the same amount of trips in as trips out but the retail has 7 more
people that are in the parking lot?
Mr. Nickelson stated that for the retail portion the employees are arriving and there will be a higher
inbound than outbound.
Chair Schaub asked where the employees for Starbucks are if it is 95 in and 95 out.
Mr. Nickelson stated they are already there well before the commute hour of 7-9am.
?'tinning Commission 58 April 26,2005
gufar Meeting
Chair Schaub stated he spoke to some of the employees at Starbucks on Regional Street as well as the
employees at the Luggage Shop. He asked them where they park and the Luggage shop employee
stated that he parks where the customers park. The Starbucks employees are not allowed to park in the
customer parking lot and park across the street at the Western Appliance parking lot.
Mr.Nickelson stated they counted the curb parking as well as the lot parking.
Cm. Biddle asked for clarification about the traffic flow and asked if there are two entrance and two
exits.
Ms.Macdonald stated yes.
Cm. Biddle asked if all the turns out of the project are right turns only.
Ms.Macdonald stated correct.
Cm. Biddle asked if there was another way to exit near Taco Bell and move into the left turn lane.
Ms.Macdonald showed Cm. Biddle traffic flow on the PowerPoint diagram.
Cm. Biddle asked how this intersection compares with other intersections at peak time
Mr. Lander stated that currently they are close to 15,000 cars a day on the easterly leg,the westerly leg
would be 20,000,the southerly is at 20,000 and the northerly is at 17,000. There are approximately
30,000 cars a day on Dublin Boulevard and 10,000 cars a day on Regional Street.
Chair Schaub asked about Dublin Boulevard and Amador Plaza.
Mr. Lander stated there are approximately 30,000 cars a day on Dublin Boulevard,and about 12,000 cars
a day on Amador Plaza.
Cm. Biddle asked how much of an increase to traffic will the proposed project generates.
Mr. Lander stated that the traffic analysis done by Omni Means showed an approximate 1% increase.
Chair Schaub asked if the pass-by rate was based on the study done in Orinda.
Mr.Nickelson stated the research was done for a proposed Starbucks in Orinda. It was done at other
Starbucks and used for the proposed project for Orinda. It was not done at Orinda.
Chair Schaub stated he has no more clarification questions of staff.
Chair Schaub opened the public hearing.
Norm Manione,representing the Applicant Robert Enea,offered his view of some observations for the
Planning Commission's consideration. The standards for parking requirements found in zoning codes
throughout California are built off of statistical data that is surveyed. He explained that statistically they
have found that putting up signage in regards to parking works. He stated that the employees are
young adults and not all of them have vehicles. He invited the Commissioner's continued dialogue. It is
definitely a commercial intersection and it is an amazing achievement that it is at a level'A'. He
concluded his presentation and was available to answer questions.
2'lanning Commission 59 April-26,2005
Wcgu(ar Sheeting
Cm. Biddle asked what the plan for the office building was.
Robert Enea stated the office building at this point is not under construction. The office building parking
is independent,which is based on the Zoning Ordinance. The office building will be built at some future
date.
Chair Schaub invited the Appellant.
Bobby Cauchi,Appellant asked if there were parking reductions for Safeway on Dublin Boulevard and
the Starbucks on Regional Street.
Chair Schaub asked Staff.
Ms.Bascom stated she was not aware of a parking reduction for the Safeway project.
Ms.Macdonald stated the Starbucks on Regional Street was parked under a different Zoning Ordinance
but did not receive a parking reduction.
Chair Schaub explained that the Safeway service station went in after the grocery store was built. It is
two separate pieces.
Bobbi Cauchi,7073 Village Parkway stated for the record there is not enough parking in the community
and it is creating a hazard. She stated that she is a small business owner at the Village Green on Village
Parkway and that lot is often used as a park and ride.
Chair Schaub asked her to help the Commission understand the problem with the parking reduction on
the proposed project.
Ms.Cauchi stated that once the coffee shop is on the corner,people are going to stop there and park and
ride. She explained that she did her own parking study at the Starbucks on Regional Street. She entered
at 9:39 and there were 8 employees,11 people in line,2 unused parking spaces,and 2 cars illegally
parked at the entrance to the coffee shop. She questioned some of the employees and the part time
employee stated she has witnessed 3"near" accidents. She asked the employees where they park and
they indicated they park across the street. A local resident witnessed 2 accidents within a half hour
period the Friday before last at 9:40am.
Appellant's husband,Mr.Cauchi stated the proposed project is very close to three schools. They see a
large number of kids from the high school walking to school. The peak hours of 7 to gam may work well
for people getting coffee but that area is very busy during the lunch hour with the high school kids going
to the fast food restaurants. He is concerned that the youth traffic was not taken into consideration and
urged the Commission to take a very close look at these concerns.
Chair Schaub asked if there were any other speakers. He explained to the residents to state their opinion
but to not go over the same facts.
John Plencner,6253 Dougherty Road,stated he is a Dublin resident and works at Valley High School.
There are 4 projects within the vicinity of the project. He stated that his concerns are the schools in the
close proximity. The problem is the foul weather days where the number of parents driving their
children to school doubles and even triples. There will be a considerable increase in students that will
Planning Commission 60 April 26,2005
Wggular Sbfee4ing
impact that intersection. The number of parking spaces on site does not represent the peak numbers on
foul weather days. The study does not reflect comprehensive growth for that intersection.
Ron Meyn,11803 Norfolk Street,stated that the school district has not taken a position on the project.
He asked how the bus stop on Amador Valley Boulevard affects the parking situation. Is there a
designated area for the bus stop? By putting more cars into a parking area that does not have enough
parking does in fact exacerbate traffic flow. Part of that traffic problem is that the main exit leads to the
east-bound Amador Valley Boulevard into the residential area. There are two daycares on Amador
Valley Boulevard.
Phil Heesch,8555 Beverly Lane stated that it is nice to see some of the upgrades. His concern is that
when the building across the street is rented out the traffic will increase even more. He asked how many
parking stalls will there be.
Chair Schaub stated that the requirement today for the parcel is 45 parking stalls and the request is to
reduce it down to 32 spaces.
Mr. Heesch stated that he does not think it will work in that location.
Jeff Hansen, Dublin resident and stated that he is at the meeting as a Dublin resident and not as a
member of the Dublin San Ramon Services District board of directors. He urged the Commission to
uphold the appeal and overturn the decision of the Zoning Administrator. He stated that the post office
is also located on Village Parkway and it is a very busy area. A 29% reduction is not intended by the
Zoning Ordinance and is a substantial reduction.
Cathrine Hauize,7272 Burton Street questions the data that was used for the traffic and parking analysis.
A few years ago on the first day of the Easter break there were City employees laying out equipment on
the street to count the cars. If that count was used for these studies,it does not accurately reflect traffic at
that intersection. There were studies done when Safeway was put in and when Starbucks was put in
and there are serious problems there.
Heather Johnson,Windchime Way,Tracy stated she is an employee in Dublin. She attended the March
14,2005 hearing believes it was stated that at that meeting the traffic was rated at a level'C'.
Chair Schaub directed the question to Staff.
Mr.Lander stated that in the Omni Means Study as well as the Downtown TIF Study found that
intersection is currently operating at level'A'.
Ms.Johnson stated to her understanding from the March 14,2005 hearing that there were to 5 parking
spaces,2 on Village Parkway and 3 on Amador Valley Boulevard.
Chair Schaub stated the proposal indicates 9 spaces.
Ms. Macdonald stated that the Omni Means found that on street parking would be available for 7 cars.
Staff's recommendation is to require 5 on street and 6 time limited parking spaces.
Chair Schaub stated the diagram indicates 9 on street parking spots.
Ms. Macdonald stated 5 on street out of a maximum of 9,and 6 time limited.
Planning Commission 61 April 26,2005
R gufar!Meeting
Chair Schaub clarified that 9 are proposed with the assumption that 5 would be available.
Ms.Johnson stated that at the March 14,2005 meeting there was discussion on making the area
pedestrian friendly,which will increase the number of pedestrians and bicyclist,and that should be
considered.
Rick Camacho,business owner on Village Parkway stated he sat on the task force that created the Village
Parkway Specific Plan. He explained that the goal of the plan was to increase the vitality of the area and
promote business. Any growth in development is going to affect traffic. He stated that coming from the
business standpoint-where do you draw the line and say no we are not going to have any more
development. Whether there are 5 more or 10 more parking spots,it's the size of the business that is
going to affect traffic.
Chair Schaub thanked him and for serving on the task force.
Mr.Manione stated that any expert opinion has to be measured from a practical observation. The
property is zoned for the use. The growth from whatever traffic comes from this project is in the
equation. He stated that parents driving their children to school have increased to ensure their safety,
which may already be in the equation of traffic counts. There is validity in reasonable expertise. Mr.
Nickelson has years of studying traffic and parking. He asked the Commission to not uphold the appeal
but to uphold the decision made by the Zoning Administrator.
Chair Schaub closed the public hearing.
Cm. Wehrenberg stated that what is in front of the Commission is the 29%parking reduction. As a
Planning Commission they have certain duties. What is the relationship to the project to the entire
community and the understanding of the goals for the City? She stated that reducing parking seems to
be a common factor lately and she is not for it. She has issues with what the retail will be. If there was
not an eating and dining establishment it could change.
Cm. Biddle agreed with Cm.Wehrenberg. He stated that he lives close to Fredrikson School and uses
that intersection frequently. No matter what is done in the City,traffic is going to be affected. What is
important is how it is managed. The Conditional Use Permit for this project was approved in May 2004
for 54 parking spaces. The scope of the building has changed in that the eating facility has gone from 600
sq.ft.to approximately 1,900 sq.ft. plus 400 sq.ft.outside. The project needs to be looked at as a total
project. It is premature to reduce parking when only half the project has been built. He suggested
looking at the parking reduction when the second phase of the project is constructed. He is not in favor
of the reduction. He asked about parking for delivery trucks.
Ms.Macdonald stated that an additional condition has been added to require the Applicant to provide a
loading space on site. There are landscaping areas that could be adjusted to create a loading space.
Chair Schaub stated it is important to him that as a Commission they don't make a mistake. He is not
comfortable with the figures and data and that there will not be a parking lot that fills up everyday with
a successful Starbucks. He hopes that there is a way to make this project happen and solve the problem.
Chair Schaub asked for a motion.
Mr.Bakker stated that the motion that Staff recommended was to adopt the resolution affirming the
Zoning Administrators decision. If it is the pleasure of the Planning Commission to reverse the decision
c Tanning Commission 62 April'26,2005
<cgu(ar.Meeting
of the Zoning Administrator the resolution would need to be amended to reflect that findings could not
be made to approve.
On motion by Cm. Biddle,2nd by Cm.Wehrenberg subject to the text changes recommended by the
Planning Commission and by a 3-1-1 vote with Cm.Fasulkey absent and Cm.King abstaining the
Planning Commission adopted.
RESOLUTION 05-25
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
REVERSING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR APPROVAL OF
A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
REDUCTION TO REQUIRED PARKING FOR
ENEA PROPERTIES/STARBUCKS COFFEE AT
7197 VILLAGE PARKWAY(PA 04-057)
Ms.Bascom stated that this item is subject to a 10 day appeal period.
OTHER BUSINESS-None
NEW OR UNFINISHED
Cm. Biddle asked that a follow up report be done regarding past projects. He asked about the shed on
Dover Court that came before the Planning Commission a few months back.
Ms. Bascom stated the property owners is in code enforcement for the shed violation and needs to make
modifications.
Cm.Biddle asked about the security dogs at the auto auction.
Ms. Bascom stated she does not know the status of that.
Cm. Biddle asked about the Cuellar garage conversion
Ms.Bascom stated Mr.Cuellar will be heard at the May 3,2005 City Council meeting.
ADJOURNMENT-The meeting was adjourned at 10:25pm.
Respectfully submitted,
////,(5h14,4
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Actin Planning Manager
rlfanning Commission 63 ,ApriI26,2005
W'rilufar.MMerting
CITY CLERK
File0
• AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 7, 2005
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING:Appeal of Planning Commission Reversal of
Zoning Administrator's Approval of a Conditional Use Permit
Authorizing a Parking Reduction for PA 04-057,Enea
Properties/Starbucks Coffee
Report prepared by: Janet Harbin, Senior Planner c
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Letter of Appeal to the City Council from Robert Enea dated
received May 5,2005
2. Planning Commission Staff Report, with Resolution attached,
and Meeting Minutes for April 26,2005
3. Letter of Appeal to the Planning Commission from Bobbi
Cauchi dated received March 23,2005 with Applicant's
Response to Appeal
4. Zoning Administrator Staff Report, with Resolution attached,
and Meeting Minutes for March 14, 2005
5, Site Plan
6. Parking Study with Supplemental Parking Report
• 7. Planning Commission Reso.No.04-40 for Enea Village
Project,PA 03-069
8. Correspondence received by Planning Commissioners at their
residences
RECOMMENDATION: 1. Open Public Hearing and Hear Staff Presentation;
2. Take Testimony from the Applicant and the Public;
3. Close Public Hearing and Deliberate;
4kik( 4. Direct Staff to Either:
a. Prepare a Resolution Denying the Appeal Thereby Affirming
Planning Commission Denial of Conditional Use Permit PA
04-057,Enea Properties/Starbucks Coffee;
Or
b. Prepare a Resolution Granting the Appeal Thereby
Reversing the Planning Commission and Upholding the
Zoning Administrator's Approval of Conditional Use Permit
PA 04-057,Enea Properties/Starbucks Coffee;
Or
c. Prepare a Resolution Granting the Appeal in Part Thereby
Reversing the Planning Commission and Modifying the
Zoning Administrator's Approval of Conditional Use Permit
PA 04-057,Enea Properties/Starbucks Coffee,
COPES TO: Appellant
Property Owner
PA File
GAPA1/\2004104-057 Staubunk,Parking CUP\CC Appal 46-1-05.doc 1 V Q ITEM NO. •
DESCRIPTION:
The project site at 7197 Village Parkway was the former location of an automotive gasoline and service th
station that closed in the 1990's,and was previously zoned General Commercial(C-2). Adjacent uses
include the Taco Bell restaurant to the south and two single-family homes to the east on Amador Valley
Boulevard,
The City Council adopted a Stage 1 and 2 Planned Development(PD)Zoning District for the property on
December 15, 1998,PA 98-049. Pursuant to the PD regulations,a range of office, commercial and eating
and drinking establishments were permitted uses in the district. Cafés and other neighborhood-serving
uses were specifically identified as appropriate new uses in the Planned Development Rezoning
Ordinance adopted by City Council. The potential of the project site was further studied in the Village
Parkway Specific Plan,adopted by City Council on December 19,2000,in which the property was
identified as an opportunity site and a primary gateway area.
On May 11,2004,the Planning Commission approved a request for Site Development Review,Tentative
Map, and a Conditional Use Permit for the Enea Village Parkway Center(PA 03-069)on the property
located at 7197 Village Parkway(see Resolution 04-40, included as Attachment 7). The approval allows
development of the 1-acre lot at the southeast corner of the intersection of Village Parkway and Amador
Valley Boulevard with an 8,539-square-foot commercial/retail center and a 5,582-square-foot office
building. Project amenities included an 800-square-foot landscaped public plaza with bench seating. The
site plan provided parking for 54 vehicles. Within the corrunercial/retail center,a 600-square-foot space
was identified for eating and drinking uses, such as a coffee shop. At the present time, construction has
commenced for the commercial/retail building at the site with approved building permits;however,
grading and sitework only have proceeded on the office building parcel.
In November of 2004, Enea Properties requested a Conditional Use Permit from the Zoning Administrator
to reduce the total number of parking spaces required by the Zoning Ordinance for a 1,886-square-foot
coffee retailer and cafe(Starbuck's)by thirteen(13)parking spaces in the future Enea Village Parkway
Center. The Conditional Use Permit,if approved,would reduce the number of on-site parking spaces by
eight(8)parking spaces and substitute five(5)curbside parking spaces for five(5)on-site parking spaces,
pursuant to Chapter 8.76 of the Zoning Ordinance, Off-street Parking and Loading(see Attachment 6,
Parking Study with Supplemental Focused Parking Study). The proposal included a mix of indoor seating
and outdoor seating,for a total of 30 indoor and 16 outdoor seats. On March 14,2005,the Zoning
Administrator held a public hearing and granted the Conditional Use Permit. The hearing and Zoning
Administrator action is addressed in the following section.
Zoning Administrator Hearing and Action:
In considering the Conditional Use Permit for a reduction of eight(8)parking spaces and substitution of
five(5)curbside parking spaces for five(5)on-site parking spaces for the Enea Village Parkway Center
(PA 04-057),the Zoning Administrator received a Staff report on the project(see Attachment 4), and
heard comments from the public at a public hearing on March 14,2005. Prior to the hearing,the Zoning
Administrator received 13 letters supporting the parking reduction, and 16 letters opposing the parking
reduction. Additionally,at the public hearing held on March 14,2005, several people,including the
owners of Mika's Espresso,located across Amador Valley Boulevard from the Enea Village Center's site,
and their customers spoke in opposition to the parking reduction because of pedestrian safety,parking and
other traffic-related issues,as well as the importance of supporting local businesses such as Mika's
•
Espresso. The meeting minutes for the Zoning Administrator Public Healing are included in Attachment
4 with the Staff report.
2 1
•
A complete discussion of the information on the requested Conditional Use Permit and the material
presented to the Zoning Administrator is contained in the Staff report in Attachment 4, along with the
doh minutes of the hearing. The Zoning Administrator granted the Conditional Use Permit at the Public
ler Hearing, and advised those attending about the appeal process.
Appeal of Zoning Administrator Action to Planning Commission:
Following the approval of the Conditional Use Permit by the Zoning Administrator,a letter from Bobbi
Cauchi was received by the City Clerk on March 23,2005 appealing the approval of the Enea
Properties/Starbucks parking reduction(PA 04-057). This was the only letter of appeal received, and is
included as Attachment 3 of this Staff report. The letterr of appeal expressed Ms. Cauchi's concerns
regarding project traffic and circulation conflicts with local schools and area traffic,perceived
inconsistency with the intent of the Village Parkway Specific Plan,and perceived inconsistency with the
intent of Zoning Ordinance parking regulations. These points were briefly summarized and responded to
in the Analysis section of the Planning Commission Staff report included with this report as Attachment
2.
Additionally,the Applicant,Robert Enea of Enea Properties,also submitted a response to the Appellant's
letter which is included as the Applicant's Response to Appeal in Attachment 3,discussing the parking
requirements of various cities in the Tri-Valley area related to approval of similar Starbucks shops.At the
Planning Commission hearing on the appeal,Public Works Department Staff presented a diagram,
included in Attachment 2,the Planning Commission Report and Minutes,which illustrates that nine(9)
curbside parking spaces are available to substitute for the reduction of 13 parking spaces on-site,leaving
the Applicant's on-site parking short by four(4)on-site spaces.Following the Staff presentation,
testimony from the Applicant and the Public, and the Traffic Consultant and Staff responding to questions
ak on the project,the Planning Commission acted to deny the Conditional Use Permit for the project. The
adopted Resolution and minutes of the meeting are also contained in Attachment 3.
ANALYSIS:
Robert Enea of Enea Properties,the property owner of the Enea Village retail and office center in which
Starbucks Coffee plans to locate, filed a Letter of Appeal of the Planning CommissionQienial of the
Conditional Use Permit PA 04-057 on May 5,2005. The following section provides a discussion and
response to the points presented in the Applicant's Letter of Appeal. The actual analysis of the project,
technical traffic information, and the issues presented by the previous letter of appeal to the Planning
Commission are contained in the Planning Commission Staff report,Attachment 2,the Zoning
Administrator Staff report,Attachment 4,and the Parking Study with Supplemental Focused Parking
Report in Attachment 6.
Applicant's Letter of Appeal:
The points of discussion presented in the Applicant's Letter of Appeal are numbered below and in the
letter submitted,and include the corresponding response.
1. A plicant Comment: The Applicant requests that the City Council determine that the 1:100 parking
standard is excessive for the proposed use; that the proposed alternative parking study reducing the
on-site parking by eight (8)spaces, with four(4)on site 15-minute spaces and five (5)spaces off-site,
is an appropriate downtown parking standard,particularly when considered in light of other cities
• downtown parking standards;that the Zoning Administrator's approval be affirmed and the Planning
Commission's decision be reversed;and the Conditional Use Permit be granted based on the
recommendations and conclusions of the parking study prepared by Omni Means.
3 Ob
•
•
Response: The appellant is essentially asking the City Council to reconsider the materials presented
to the Zoning Administrator and the Planning Commission,and any evidence presented at or before the
City Council hearing,and make an independent determination as to whether the parking reduction
should be granted.
1 Applicant's Comment: Traffic and parking data, studies, and analysis are the fundamental basis for
all most major decisions concerning urban planning and project development. Experts such as
professional Traffic Engineers are relied on to analyze data and information to determine impacts
associated with proposed growth and development. In the past, the Planning Commission and City
Council have based major land use and development decisions on the summary and conclusions of
Traffic Engineers like Omni Means, While it is appropriate for the elected or appointed decision
makers to apply common sense to test and filtering the reasoning of planners and engineers, and to
consider the input and concerns of other stakeholders, the process seemed to breakdown due to the
•
manner in which the hearing was conducted, and based on comments made by the Chair of the
Commission. Certain questions and comments made by.the Chairman communicated particular
beliefs or perceptions as follows:
a. Handicapped parking spaces should not be counted toward fulfilling the on-site parking
requirements because they generally go unused;
b. Even though this is a downtown area, the project could not use five(5) of the nine (9)on-
street spaces to make up for some of the required on-site spaces, which is normally allowed in
downtown areas;
c. The four limited time (I5-minute only)spaces would not effectively increase the capacity of
the on-site parking plan, even,though it was recommended by experienced professionals; and,
d. The Focused Traffic/Parking Analysis states that, "the proposed retail/coffee shop would not
significantly impact traffic conditions at the study intersection compared to existing conditions,"
and the intersection of Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard with the project would
"continue to operate at LOS "A"conditions during the A.M.peak hour. . ." Additionally, the
study states that, "Curb space for 10-12 vehicles is available on Village Parkway and Amador
Valley Boulevard fronting the project site. . . It is likely the curb spaces would accommodate the
excess demand."
Response: The comment in item"d"suggests there is a misunderstanding of the nature of the
pending application. The Applicant has applied for a parking reduction. The Zoning Administrator
and the Planning Commission were limited to considering whether the proposed reduction would meet
the requirements under Dublin Municipal Code section 8.76.050. Tra±lc impacts are relevant to that
inquiry. For example,if the granting of the approval would result in significant traffic impacts then
the decision maker might not be able to make one or more of the conditional use permit findings that
must be made in order to grant the conditional use permit.
However,the fact that the project will not have traffic impacts—as the Omni-Means study points out
and the Applicant argues—does not mean that the parking reduction must be granted. Rather,the
decision maker still must make the other,findings required under section 8.76.050.
Relative to the other factual issues raised in this comment by the appellant,the Planning Commission
did not ignore the parking studies and testimony of experts. The Supplemental Focused
Traffic/Parking Analysis dated April 19,2005,in Attachment 6 of this Staff report,was included in the
information submitted to the Planning Commission for consideration with the Staff report,and other
information and materials,for the project prior to the public hearing on April 26,2005 for the appeal of
the Zoning Administrator approval of the Conditional Use Permit. It was clear from the testimony that
the commissioners had read the two studies. In determining what course of action is to be taken on a
4 Lib 15-
•
the Planning Commission is rCsurned to have revio 1.all the information,material and
project, X18 P
testimony in the record, The Resolution adopted by the Planning Commission,Resolution No.05-25
on April 26,2005,reversing the Zoning Administrator's approval and denying the Conditional Use
I. Permit PA 04-057 indicated that the Planning Commission considered the information set forth in the
Omni/Means study. The pertinent language reads as follows:
WHEREAS, the Staff Report, including the Focused Traffic/Parking Analysis prepared by Omni
Means, was submitted to the Planning Commission recommending that the Planning Commission
affirm the Zoning Administrator's approval of the Conditional Use Permit and deny the appeal;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations,
and testimony hereinabove set forth, and used its independent judgment in making a decision.
In addition,even if the Planning Commission had failed to consider the evidence set out in the
Onmi/Means study,the City Council's consideration of the Omni/Meats study and the focused
traffic/parking study on appeal would serve to cure any such irregularity
Furthermore,the Planning Commission's denial was not based on the rejection of the testimony of
experts. Rather it was based on its inability to make the required finding that the required parking
standards are excessive and that the Applicant has proposed appropriate alternate parking standards
that will ensure that there will not be a parking deficiency. In addition to the Omni-Means study that
was part of the record,the Public Works Department Staff presented a diagram at the Planning
Commission hearing,included in Attachment 2,which illustrates that nine(9)curbside parking spaces
are available to substitute for the reduction of 13 parking spaces on-site,leaving the Applicant's on-
site parking short by four(4)on-site spaces. Notwithstanding this staff presentation,the Planning
Commission apparently rejected the Omni-Means report's premise and the staff suggestion at the
meeting that on-street parking spaces can be used to satisfy off-street parking requirements. It
therefore concluded that the Omni-Means report failed to demonstrate that the standard was
excessive—since the project would actually be short 13 spaces—or that the study proposed alternate
parking standards that are appropriate and ensure that there will not be a parking deficiency. That is a
legal,not a factual,determination. Accordingly,if the Planning Commission's interpretation of the
Zoning Ordinance is correct,then the Omni-Means study and staff presentation-both of which relied
upon the premise that the project was only 4 off-street spaces short—do not support for the finding
that the requirement is excessive or that the report proposes a parking standard that will ensure that
there will not be a parking deficiency.
The Applicant is correct that handicapped parking spaces are counted towards the on-site parking
requirement.
3. Applicant's Comment: There is no credible or substantial evidence in the underlying record contrary
to the conclusions of City Staff the City Traffic Engineer, and the commissioned Focused
Traffic/Parking Analysis that alternative parking standards sought(1)are appropriate for this project,
and(ii)will not result in a parking deficit.
Response: As was indicated in response to comment 3 above,the Planning Commission's decision
was premised on a legal determination,and not upon a factual determination. Once that legal
determination was made,the evidence in the record did not support the required findings. .
• 4. Applicant's Comment: The Planning Commission Chairman made several public comments in
reference to the results of his own personal investigation relating to employee parking at another
similar coffee shop location. These comments were inconsistent with his opening statement describing
5 Obi;
the Commission's role as a jury panel. His statements, based on the evidence he gathered, may have
biased the opinions of the other Commissioners and showed that he had not been objective in
considering the request. Additionally, he also stated he received e-mails and over 20 pieces of
correspondence delivered to his personal residence supporting the Appellant's position. As the
Applicant, Staff advised us that no contact with the Commissioners'was permitted by either the •
Applicant or the Appellant.
Response: The pending application requests an approval that requires the City to conduct a quasi-
judicial hearing. Such hearings entitle the Applicant(and the project's neighbors in some cases)to due
process under the California Constitution, Due process in quasi-judicial proceedings is not the same as
due process in judicial proceedings and in fact is somewhat flexible. At base,due process in quasi-
judicial hearings requires that the participants receive a fair hearing. California courts have held that a.
participant does not receive a fair hearing when information regarding the matter received by the
decision maker is not included in the official record of the proceedings. Such information might
include contacts concerning the matter with individuals outside of the public hearing,known as ex
parte contacts. However,if the decision makers disclose on the record the information received
outside of the public hearing,the requirements of due process are met. To avoid due process problems,
City staff—as they did in this matter—routinely advise Applicants for quasi-judicial approvals not to
make individual contacts with Planning Commissioners,
At the Planning Commission hearing and on the record, the Chair indicated that he had done some
outside investigation regarding the parking requirements at other local Starbucks locations. However,
since that information was disclosed at the hearing,the requirements of due process were met with
regard to that evidence.
With regard to the correspondence delivered to the Planning Commissioners,a multi-page document go
left at the doorsteps of the Planning Commissioners'homes was made part of the official record and is
included as Attachment S. Any electronic mails that may have been received by the Planning
Commissioners on this matter were not provided to City staff and were not made part of the official
record.
In any event, since the City Council is making an independent determination on the appeal,the City
Council's consideration of the appeal will have the effect of curing any perceived due process violation
that may have taken place at the Planning Commission level. The Applicant is free to introduce new
evidence and in effect thereby receives a new hearing. The official record of the City Council will
include all of the information included in this Staff report and the attachments,any evidence and
testimony presented to the City Council at the public hearing, and any information received by
individual Councilmembers that the Councilmembers disclose at the public hearing. Since the City
Council will be making an independent determination based on this official record, the City Council
determination will not be based on information that the Planning Commissioners may have obtained
outside of the public hearing. Of course,the members of the City Council should disclose any
information on this matter that they received outside of the public hearing and the official record to
ensure that the City Council determination is consistent with due process requirements.
Alternatively,if it so desires,the City Council could grant the appeal in part and remand the matter
back to the Planning Commission with direction that the Planning Commission rehear the matter and
disclose all information the Planning Commissioners received on the matter outside of the public
hearing,including any ex parte contacts.
•
5. Applicant's Comment: It must be stated for the public record that the motivating stakeholder behind
the Appellant's actions are the owner's of a competing coffee kiosk located across the street. They
6 sS
have disguised their opposition under the mask of traffic and parking. In reality, they are seeking to
preserve their own economic interests and have abused the system to further their self-interest. Every
letter and voice heard in opposition of our CUP for reduced parking is a friend or associate of the
owners of the competing coffee kiosk In fact, it should be noted that the competing coffee kiosk
business located across the street is operating under a twelve-year old conditional use permit
granting them a 50 percent parking reduction.
Response; Comment noted. The owners of Mika's Coffee across Amador Valley Boulevard from the
Enea Village Center were present and spoke in opposition of the project at the Zoning Administrator
bearing held on March 14,2005 (see Meeting Minutes of hearing contained in Attachment 4,Zoning
Administrator Staff report,Resolution, and Meeting Minutes for March 14,2005). Staff has no way of
confirming whether the letters or voices heard are friends or associates of the owners of the coffee
kiosk. The Applicant is correct regarding the reduction in parking spaces at the site of the coffee
kiosk. It was granted for a drive-through camera and photo business in accordance with a Conditional
Use Permit granted by Alameda County in 1977. The approval of the Conditional Use Permit,C-3262,
in 1977 included a finding that only one parking space was required for the use,the assumption being
that the one parking space was needed for the employee in the kiosk. The City's Off-Street Parking
and Loading Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 8.76 contains no specific standards for
parking for solely drive-through uses, The parking standards matrix in that chapter states that the
parking regulations for drive-through uses are"Per CUP." Conditional Use Permits run with the land
and when Mika's took over the drive-through use,no additional use permit was required since the use
permit was for a drive-through type of use.
6.Applicant's Comment: We have worked cooperatively with Staff and the resulting project is a
culmination of extensive planning and design,yielding an attractive and high quality project
elAdditionally, we are proud of the design and quality of our project and feel it will be a fine addition to
the community, attracting good, high quality tenants to the area. We believe the alternative parking
standard, as supported by the traffic consultant and Staff recommendations and reports, is appropriate
for this location.
Response:Comment noted.
7. Applicant's Comment: We alternatively appeal the Planning Commission's denial of the Conditional
Use Permit with prejudice.'
Response: The applicant is apparently requesting that,if the Council agrees with the Planning
Commission decision,that the City Council grant the appeal in part for the sole purpose of denying the
application without prejudice rather than with prejudice. Section 8.136.070 of the Zoning Code
provides that:
When an application for a permit is denied on appeal, no application for the same or
substantially same permit or a permit for the same use on the same property shall be filed for a
period of one year from the date of denial, except where the permit was denied without
prejudice.
Thus,the effect of the Planning Commission denial,which did not indicate whether it was a denial
without prejudice,was to preclude the applicant from filing an application for the same or substantially
same permit for a period of one year from the date of denial. The City Council could eliminate this
prohibition by granting the appeal and indicating that the denial is without prejudice.
7 ebf
Public Hearing Notice and Comments:
In accordance with section 8.136.060.B, a Public Hearing Notice was mailed to property owners within.a le
300-foot radius of the project property,residents,tenants,persons that spoke at previous public hearings,
and other interested parties. A copy of the notice was advertised in the Valley Times and posted at
locations in the City. As of the writing of this report,no further comments have been received from the
Public.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW;
The California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA),together with the State guidelines and City environmental
regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental
documents be prepared. The proposed project has been.found to be Categorically Exemption from the
provisions of California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA),in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines,
Section 15304,as it is a minor alteration to land consisting of a reduction in parking spaces for a business
tenant within an approved infihl retail commercial center,presently under construction.
CONCLUSION:
The City Council's charge is to determine if the Planning Commission decision to reverse the Zoning
Administrator's approval and deny the Conditional Use Permit should be upheld,or if the Planning
Commission decision should be reversed and the Conditional Use Permit for PA 04-057 be approved. In
addition,the City Council could grant the appeal in part,and make modifications to the Zoning
Administrator's granting of the Conditional Use Permit. Staff has provided a Recommendation that
would allow the City Council to make an appropriate determination and direct Staff to return at a later ap
date with the draft Resolution implementing the determination.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council: 1)open public hearing and hear the Staff presentation;2)take
testimony from the Applicant,Appellant and.the Public;3)close the public bearing and deliberate; and,4)
direct Staff to Either:
a. Prepare a Resolution Denying the Appeal Thereby Affirming Planning Commission Denial of
Conditional Use Permit PA 04-057,Enea Properties/Starbucks Coffee; or,
b. Prepare a Resolution Granting the Appeal Thereby Reversing the Planning Commission and
Upholding the Zoning Administrator's Approval Conditional Use Permit PA 04-057,Enea
Properties/Starbucks Coffee; or,
c.Prepare a Resolution Granting the Appeal in Part Thereby Reversing the Planning Commission
and Modifying the Zoning Administrator's Approval Conditional Use Permit PA 04-057,Enea
Properties/Starbucks Coffee.
G:1PA#1200coa.OS7 5n a\CC Appeal ar 60705 Aloe
•
sobs
•
PUBLIC HEARING
APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION REVERSAL OF ZONING
ADMINISTRATOR'S APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL,USE PERMIT AUTHORIZING A
PARKIN REDUCTION FOR ENEA PROPERTI , /STARBUCKS OFFEE PA 04-*57
7:45 p.m. 6.1 (410430)
Mayor Lockhart opened the public hearing.
Senior Planner Janet Harbin presented the Staff Report and advised that Applicant Robert
Enea, Enea Properties, was appealing the Planning Commission's denial of a Conditional
Use Permit for a reduction in parking for a 1,886 square foot coffee retailer and café
(Starbucks) in the future Enea Village Parkway Center, located at 7197 Village Parkway.
The Zoning Administrator's previous approval of the Conditional Use Permit was
appealed to the Planning Commission by Bobbi Cauchi in March 2004. At its April 26,
2005 meeting,the Planning Commission reversed the Zoning Administrator's decision
and denied the Conditional Use Permit. Staff recommended that the Council conduct
public hearing;deliberate;and direct Staff to EITHER: a) Prepare a Resolution denying
the appeal, thereby affirming the Planning Commission denial of the Conditional Use
Permit,—OR--b) Prepare a Resolution granting the appeal,thereby reversing the
Planning Commission denial and upholding the Zoning Administrator's approval of the
Conditional Use Permit; -- OR- c) Prepare a Resolution granting the appeal in part,
thereby reversing the Planning Commission denial and modifying the Zoning
Administrator approval of the Conditional Use Permit.
City Attorney Elizabeth Silver reminded the Council that it should only consider the
Appellant's stated grounds for the appeal. It boiled down to whether or not a conditional
use permit could be granted to authorize a reduction in the standard parking
requirements. There were provisions in the Zoning Ordinance which allow for
reduction in parking if the findings could be made. The issue was not whether or not a
Starbucks was an appropriate use, or whether there was competition with other
businesses in the area. The Council previously designated the land use for this property,
which allowed this type of use.
City Attorney Silver further reminded the Council that it was acting in a quasi-judicial
capacity during this heating and explained the principles of due process. She advised the
Council to disclose any contact they may have had with anyone regarding this issue,so
that the entire Council was working with the same written and verbal information.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 24
REGULAR MEETING
June 7, 2005
PACE 213
Cm. Oravetz advised that he had received an anonymous packet of mail,which included
copies of letters and petitions against project. He also spoke with City Staff regarding the
parking issue.
Vm. Zika advised that he had received the same packet, which he gave to the City Clerk
for the record. He also spent time with Staff talking about required parking.
Mayor Lockhart advised that she received the same packet,as well as several emails to
which she responded with a standard response thanking them for taking the time to
write, reminding them of the public hearing date and time,and inviting them to attend
the meeting and participate. She also reminded them that the issue the Council would
deal with was a reduction in parking not a particular business.
Cm. McCormick advised that she had received the same packet and noted that the same
information was duplicated in the staff report. She received numerous emails which she
did not read,but saved for future review.
Cm. I-lildenbrand advised that she had received the same packet,and also received
several emails in opposition to a Starbucks, but refrained from responding. She had no
individual conversations with Staff or residents.
George Nickelson,Omni Means,advised that he was hired by the City to do the parking
studies and reviewed the outcome of and recommendations made in the parking studies
as outlined in the Staff Report. In summary,at 9:30 a.m. the peak combined Starbucks
and retail demand would be 39 spaces,based on actual surveys taken directly from the
Starbucks in this area. Thirty-two (32) on-site spaces would be available for the
combined Starbucks/retail uses, leaving a 7-space deficit that would seek parking on the
street, presumably on the curb frontage adjacent to the site.
Vm. Zika asked if the traffic study count for the Starbucks on Regional Street included the
customers parking at offsite lots and walking in.
Mr. Nickelson advised that anyone who parked in the surveyor's field of view and walked
into the Starbucks was counted. If they parked out of view and walked in,they would
not be counted.
Cm. McCormick asked if the Peet's Coffee in the Waterford Center was considered as a
business to survey for parking counts.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 24
REGULAR MEETING
June 7, 2005
PAGE 214
Mr. Nickelson advised that they chose to survey only Starbucks,so they would have an
apples-to-apples approach.
Ms. Harbin referred. to Peet's Coffee and advised that the Council had approved reduced
parking for the entire Waterford Shopping Center.
Traffic Engineer Ray Kuzbari addressed the proposed on-street parking locations as
outlined in the Staff Report. In a recent development,the Livermore-Amador Valley
Transit Authority (LAVTA) had requested that the bus stop currently located at the corner
of Amador Valley Boulevard and Village Parkway to be relocated to the east so it would
be closer to the residential area. This action could accommodate three more on-street
parking spaces,which would bring the total on-street parking spaces to 12.
Cm. Oravetz asked if the Planning Commission had heard LAVTA's request before they
made their decision.
Mr. Kuzbari advised that LAVTA had not yet made their request; however,the Omni
Means traffic study did look at that particular location with the existing bus stop and
advised that utilizing those spaces could boost the on-street parking spaces to 12.
Cm. Oravetz asked if the on-street parking spots would be striped.
Mr. Kuzbari advised that it was an option,but not required.
Council and Staff discussed LAVTA's proposal to relocate the bus stop and viewed photos
of the subject area. Staff advised that there would be 300' for the bus to merge onto the
leftmost lane to go straight on Amador Valley Boulevard,as well as vehicles going to the
Montessori School and Wells Middle School.
Vm. Zika noted that the Zoning Ordinance stated that 45 parking spaces were required
for the coffee and retail use,and the Traffic Study showed 39 spaces were necessary.
How many parking spaces were available based on the current footprint of the property?
Mr. Kuzbari advised that 32 spaces on-site were currently available,just for retail
including Starbucks.
Mayor Lockhart addressed the audience and advised them that she would call the
Applicant/Appellant first,and then call those who had submitted a speaker slip to speak
for three minutes. The 3-minute rule would not apply to the Appellant.
.�
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 24
REGULAR MEETING
June 7, 2005
PAGE 215
Andrew Pionti,representing the Appellant, reviewed the site elevation and explained that
the site would be developed in two parcels. Parcel A was being developed first as retail.
Parcel B would be later developed as office use,which demanded the lowest parking.
Their economic model for the project contemplated selling off Parcel B to pay down the
debt obligation to Parcel A with entitlements,so they did not want to encumber Parcel B
with parking obligations for Parcel A. Dublin did not have a default parking ratio for
anything other than a full-service,sit-down restaurant,which was one spot for 100
square feet,or a 1:100 ratio. People do not usually stay as long at a Starbucks as they
would a restaurant,with parking spaces turning over at an average of 10 minutes. He
discussed ingress/egress from the site, as well as potential parking configurations. They
have designed a project which,to their understanding,fit into the City's plans for that
street as a gateway and opportunity site. The total on-site parking would accommodate
54 spaces;however,only 32 would be considered for Parcel A because Parcel B parking
needed to stand alone. There was now the possibility for approximately 12 off-site
adjacent curbside spots. As a result,at the peak time of 9:30 a.m.,the use would be only
one spot short under the Dublin's high default standard of 1:100. Having to come up
with more on-site parking spaces may result in having to reduce the size of the building
on Parcel B,which would make it a very marginal economic project. This Starbucks was
projected to do approximately 50% of the volume,in terms of sales and visits,as that of
the Regional Street store.
•
Vm. Zika asked if there would be a fence or wall in between each parcel so the Starbucks
visitors did not encroach into the Parcel B parking. If so, would they use the common
driveway?
Mr. Pionti advised yes,theme was a common driveway that would be accessed from
Amador Valley Boulevard. It would be fenced about three-quarters of the length of the
drive aisle and every attempt would be made to separate the two parcels.
Joe Stevens, Dublin resident, stated that a local minority should not be allowed to deny
the community a new Starbucks because they were concerned about the competition and
urged the Council to listen to Staff's recommendations regarding the project.
Debra Pavao, Dublin resident,stated that the meeting alleviated a lot of her fears
regarding potential parking and traffic safety issues.
Ivan Hayter, Dublin resident,stated that he would like a Starbucks at that site and would
walk to it.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 24
REGULAR MEETING
June 7, 2005
PAGE 216
Myrna Hayter, Dublin resident, stated that she was pleased to see something as nice as
the proposed building going into that site, which had been vacant for so long. It would
be a wonderful addition to the neighborhood,as well as very convenient to surrounding
businesses.
Nubia Walker, Dublin resident, stated that a Starbucks would be convenient at that
location because it was not safe to get coffee from the drive-thru coffee shop in the
shopping center where she worked.
Dina Weir, Dublin resident,asked if the on-street parking would be marked with a time
limit. If so, where would staff park? She expressed concern about the safety of children
going to school on foot and on bicycles. Traffic was already congested when she drove
her kids to school. It was not fair to assume that people would leave in 10 minutes
because there are people who stay for hours.
Mr. Kuzbari advised that Staff did not intend to recommend any time limited parking on-
street. The Staff Report indicated that a few on-site parking spaces would be timed at 15
minutes. Staff, however,was unsure it was necessary because a lot was learned from the
Omni Means surveys. Employee parking was not an issue covered because the current
parking numbers included employees.
Mr. Nickelson advised that the parking surveys included employees to a point where they
were visible and the surveyor could see where they parked. All of the cars were visible
and counted at the Alcosta/Village Parkway and Hacienda locations;however,there may
have been some cars missed at the Regional location. Even so, if theoretical employee
cars were added at that location,then averaged and backed out among the three,it
would change the numbers by about one space.
City Attorney Silver advised that either the Staff Report or the parking study stated that
employee parking was included in the 1:100 parking requirement.
Jerry Cauchi, Dublin resident, stated it was unfair to compare this proposal to the
� p
Starbucks at Alcosta/Village Parkway and Alcosta because they were part of a major
retail center with more parking accommodations. He asked questions regarding
alternative parking,the sizes of the parking spaces, possible mitigation measures, and the
width of the turnout for the relocated bus stop.
Mr. Kuzbari advised that the width of the relocated bus stop would be 16-18 feet and
300 feet long. The width narrows as the intersection at York Drive was approached.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 24
REGULAR MEETING
June 7, 2005
PAGE 217
Jennifer Williams, Dublin resident,stated that the presentation by Staff and the Applicant
was biased and ambiguous. She expressed concern about the danger of off-street parking
on an already busy commuter road.
Mr. Pionti,the Appellant, stated that there had been 15 approved Conditional Use
Permits for reductions in the default numbers that one would use in the absence of a site-
specific parking study and play. Of those 15, two were on Village Parkway and were
approved May 10th. None of those have been appealed. Staff and Omni Means had no
safety issues. Peak time was not at school commute time;it was at 9:30 a.m. The parking
proposal included four spots for the outside patio. If it would help, the outside seating
could be eliminated for now. After there was data for how the site operated,the
Applicant would like to reserve the right to come back and seek to have the outdoor
seating added back. Another possible mitigation measure would be to have six time-limit
spaces.
Mayor Lockhart closed the public hearing.
Cm. Oravetz confirmed that the Council could only talk about parking,not about the use.
City Attorney Silver confirmed the statement.
Cm. Oravetz said that it came down to the math. Thirty-two spots on site with 12 on the
road equaled 44;the Zoning Ordinance called for 45. He would not turn down a use for
just one parking space. He did not think the on-street parking and flow-through traffic
in the parking lot would be a problem, and he would support the appeal.
City Attorney Silver advised that,although there were provisions in the Zoning
Ordinance that designate how much parking was required,there were also provisions in
the Zoning Ordinance that allowed the Planning Commission or Council to approve a
reduction is parking. Under the Ordinance, the Council was allowed to reduce the
amount of parking if it made the Conditional Use Permit findings as specified Zoning
Ordinance Section 8.76.050.E. If the Council felt it could make the findings, it could
grant the appeal. As the Staff Report recommended,the Council could tentatively decide
by straw vote and return to the next meeting with a resolution that included the
Council's findings.
Cm. McCormick asked if they could consider the mitigation measures offered by the
Appellant to reduce parking, such as eliminating the outdoor seating.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 24
REGULAR MEETING
June 7, 2005
PAGE 218
City Attorney Silver advised yes, it could be considered; however, if the Applicant came
back at a later date to request outdoor seating,the Council would have to go through this
exercise again to grant a Conditional Use Permit to reduce the amount of parking.
The Council and City Attorney engaged in a question and answer session regarding the
findings to be made and the proposed mitigation measures.
Vm. Zika stated that he would vote to affirm the Planning Commission's denial of the
appeal because, if the traffic and parking studies were wrong, the Applicant could return
in a year to ask for reduced parking. Every time the Council has voted to reduce the
parking requirements,the outcome has not been positive.
Cm. Hillenbrand stated that revitalizing that area is very important and this project
would provide something to the community. Traffic safety in the area was a concern;
however, she could support the project if the 15-minute parking spaces were required.
She did not believe that the project would cause so many concerns as to affirm the denial
of the request.
The Council discussed time limited parking spaces and whether or not it worked. There
will be people who show up with their laptops and stay for a long time,and it will be an
honor system when using the 15-minute parking.
Cm. McCormick stated that,as resident of neighborhood, she had been concerned about
that parcel. It had been automotive use with cars going in and out all the time,then a
vacant gas station and a blight to the neighborhood. The parking can be mitigated. The
traffic was busy at school time,but not at peak time. She would like to see the site
successful, no matter the use.
Mayor Lockhart noted that the project was close enough to residential that people could
walk instead of drive, which was exactly what the Council wanted to do with the
Downtown Specific Plan. Pedestrian-friendly streets were the plan, and sidewalks were
being widened and street furniture installed. Other businesses along that street have
received reductions without complaints from anyone. Amador Valley Boulevard carries a
lot of cars, and everyone knows that they have to be more careful during school commute
time. The plan should not be denied because it was one space off,and she would be
willing to support the findings to allow the center to operate under the numbers
presented.
City Attorney Silver advised that, if there were three members inclined to grant the
appeal,the Council would need to direct Staff to prepare a resolution to return to the
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 24
REGULAR MEETING
June 7, 2005
PAGE 219
next meeting to grant the appeal reversing the Planning Commission's decision, and'
include the findings required under Section 8.76,050.E. There were 32 spaces on-site,as
proposed,45 spaces are required. The Council has heard testimony tonight that there
would be 12 on-street spaces directly adjacent to the project,which added up to 44
spaces. To make the findings, the Council would have to either conclude that restricting
one or more spaces on-site to 15-minute parking would then create that additional.,one
space, or take the Applicant up on his suggestion to eliminate the outdoor seath ' b h ,..
would result in a reduction of four spaces. ,.... '"``
The Council discussed restricting the parking time instead of eliminating the outdoor
seating,and agreed to include two 15-minute parking spaces.
City Attorney Silver advised that LAVTA was proposing to change the bus stop location,
but it had not occurred yet. If bus stop did not move,the Council might want to consider
restricting three or four spaces to the 15-minute time limit until the bus stop was
relocated.
The Council discussed how important it would be to the project for the bus stop to be
relocated.
Mr. Kuzbari confirmed that LAVTA was ready to move forward with the relocation.
On motion of Cm. Oravetz,seconded by Cm. Hildenbrand and by majority vote (Vm.
Zika opposed) the Council directed Staff to prepare a resolution for consideration at the
next Council meeting granting the appeal in part,thereby reversing the Planning
Commission denial and modifying the Zoning Administrator approval of the Conditional
spaces Permit based on the findings that there would be 32 p aces on-site, 12 on-street
h bus stop relocation, and
with
h would be dependent on the b
parking spaces,three of whic wo pe P �
two of the on-site nS spaces s aces marked with a 15-minute time limit.
p
RECESS
9:42 p.m.
Mayor Lockhart called for a short break. The meeting reconvened at 9:46 p.m. with all
Councilmembers present.
110/ii.W.Wev■A
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 24
REGULAR MEETING
June 7, 2005
PAGE 220
CITY CLERK
File # f gpi 0-1-13a
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 21, 2005
SUBJECT: PUBLIC BEARING: Appeal of Planning Commission Reversal of
Zoning Administrator's Approval of a Conditional Use Permit
Authorizing a Parking Reduction for PA 04-057,Enea
Properties/Starbucks Coffee
Report prepared by: Janet Harbin, Senior Planner ` " ".
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution Granting Appeal of Enea Properties in Part,Thereby
Reversing the Planning Commission's Decision, and Modifying
the Zoning Administrator's Approval of Conditional Use Permit
PA 04-057(Enea Properties/Starbucks Coffee),
2. City Council Staff Report of June 7,2005 without attachments.
3. Letter dated June 1,2005 from Mr. James E. Lange.
/47('
RECOMMENDATION: 1. Open Public Hearing[See my comments below] and Hear Staff
Presentation;
2. Take Testimony from the Public;
3, Close Public Hearing and Deliberate; and
4. Adopt Resolution Granting the Appeal of Enea Properties in
Part,Thereby Reversing the Planning Commission's Decision,
and Modifying the Zoning Administrator's Approval of
Conditional Use Permit PA 04-057(Enea Properties/Starbucks
Coffee);or
5. Provide Staff with additional direction.
DESCRIPTION:
The project site at 7197 Village Parkway was the former location of an automotive gasoline and service
station that closed in the 1990's, and was previously zoned General Commercial (C-2). Adjacent uses
include the Taco Bell restaurant to the south and two single-family homes to the east on Amador Valley
Boulevard.
Enea Properties has requested a Conditional Use Permit from the Zoning Administrator to reduce the
number of parking required by the Zoning Ordinance to allow a 1,886-square-foot coffee retailer and café
to locate in the Enea Village Parkway Center. The Conditional Use Permit is needed to reduce the
number of on-site parking spaces by thirteen(13)parking spaces and substitute twelve(12) curbside
COPIES TO: Applicant
Property Owner
In-House Distrib tion
ITEM NO. '.1
100X
CAPAA2004104-057 Starbucks Parking CUP1Clry CouncillCC Ap eal sr 6-21-05.doc
parking spaces for the required parking,pursuant to Chapter 8,76 of the Zoning Ordinance, Off-street
Parking and Loading. The following is a summary of the City's actions on this project:
• On March 14,2005,the Zoning Administrator approved a Conditional Use Permit for a Parking
Reduction for the Starbucks Coffee Shop.
• On May 5,2005,the Planning Commission approved an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's
approval of the Conditional Use Permit.
• At the June 7,2005, City Council Meeting,the City Council heard an Appeal of the Planning
Commission decision that was filed by Robert Enea of Enea Properties,the property owner of the
Enea Village retail/office center in which Starbucks Coffee plans to locate.
A complete background and analysis of the issues are presented in the attached City Council Staff Report
of June 7,2005 (Attachment 2).
At the City Council meeting of June 7, 2005,the City Council reviewed the Staff report, the existing
record, and received public testimony on the project. In addition,the City Council learned that Wheels,
the City's public transit provider had requested to move an existing bus stop thus providing for a total of
12 parking spaces immediately adjacent the site on Amador Valley Boulevard. Following the June 7,
2005,City Council meeting,Wheels relocated the bus stop.
The City Council conducted a straw vote and directed Staff to return to the next City Council meeting
with a draft Resolution approving the Appeal in part,with modifications to conditions of approval to
ensure that:
• Two spaces on site are limited to 15 minute parking;and
• Twelve spaces directly adjacent the project on Amador Valley Blvd.be available in order for the
project to go forward(bus stop has been relocated).
Following the distribution of the City Council Agenda Statement of 6-7-05, a comment letter was
received from Mr. James E. Lange(Attachment 3). Mr. Lange indicates in his letter that as an adjacent
property owner he does not support the project. He notes in his letter that he feels that the reduction will
cause customers of Starbucks to park on his property. It should be noted that when Mr. Lange sent this
letter,the City was not yet aware that Wheels would request that the bus stop be moved,thereby freeing
up a total of 12 parking spaces adjacent the site. The public hearing should be reopened solely for the
purpose of entering Mr.Lange's letter into the record and permitting the Appellant and the public to
respond to the contents of this letter.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council: 1)open public hearing and hear the Staff presentation; 2)take
public testimony; 3)close the public hearing and deliberate; and,4) adopt Resolution Granting the Appeal
of Enea Properties in Part,Thereby Reversing the Planning Commission's Decision,and Modifying the
Zoning Administrator's Approval of Conditional Use Permit PA 04-057 (Enea Properties/Starbucks
Coffee);or 5)provide Staff with additional direction.
2 t
1b
RESOLUTION NO. -05
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
************
A RESOLUTION GRANTING THE APPEAL OF ENEA PROPERTIES IN PART WITH
MODIFICATIONS AND DENYING IT IN PART,THEREBY REVERSING THE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S DECISION,AND MODIFYING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S
APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PA 04-057
(ENEA PROPERTIES/STARBUCKS COFFEE)
RECITALS:
WHEREAS, the Enea Properties Company, LLC("Applicant/Appellant"),is the owner of
property located at 7197 Village Parkway(APN 941-0210-013),and
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission approved Resolution 04-40 on May 11,2004,approving a
conditional use permit for amendments to the existing Planned Development, Site Development Review
and a master sign program for the property located at 7197 Village Parkway; and
WHEREAS,the conditions of approval of Resolution 04-40 required 32 on site parking spaces
for the proposed retail and restaurant/cafe uses: Retail 7,939 square feet--26 spaces(1:300); and
Restaurant 600 square feet--6 spaces(1:100);and
WHEREAS,the Applicant/Appellant proposes to construct a 1,886 square foot coffee shop,410
square foot outdoor seating area and 6,653 square foot retail center; and
WHEREAS, Dublin Municipal Code("DMC")section 8.76.080 requires 45 parking spaces for a
1,886 square foot coffee shop,410 square foot outdoor seating area.and 6,653 square foot retail center;
and
WHEREAS,the Applicant/Appellant has requested approval of an application on behalf of
Starbucks Coffee, Inc., for a conditional use permit to allow a reduction of 13 parking spaces from the
number of parking spaces required by the Dublin Municipal Code for a 1,886 square foot coffee shop,410
square foot outdoor seating area and 6,653 square foot retail center(45 spaces); and
WHEREAS, the application was considered by,and approved by, the Zoning Administrator of
the City of Dublin on March 14, 2005,by Resolution Number 05-04 of the Zoning Administrator of the
City of Dublin;and
WHEREAS, an appeal from the decision of the Zoning Administrator was filed on March 23,
2005,by Bobbi Cauchi,pursuant to Chapter 8.136 of the Dublin Municipal Code;and
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission considered said appeal on April 26,2005 and reversed the
decision of the Zoning Administrator by adoption of Resolution Number 05-25 of the Planning
Commission of the City of Dublin; and
40. 21-06 41. 1
ATTACHMENT 1
cP trb
WHEREAS,Enea Properties Company,LLC(the applicant)timely filed an appeal from the
Planning Commission's reversal of the Zoning Administrator's approval of the Conditional Use Permit by
letter of May 5,2005,stating the specified grounds for the appeal;and
WHEREAS,the City Council considered the appeal of the Enea Properties Company, LLC on at
a noticed public hearing on June 7,2005 and June 21,2005, and heard testimony and considered all
documentary evidence submitted to it,including the agenda statements dated June 7, 2005 June 21,2005
and documents submitted to the City Council by persons testifying before the Council; and
WHEREAS,at the conclusion of the public hearing on June 7, 2005,the City Council by a"straw
vote" indicated its intention to grant the appeal in part and deny the appeal in part; and
WHEREAS,the Council reopened the public hearing on June 21,2005,to consider additional
testimony and documentary evidence,and closed the public hearing;and
WHEREAS, the"record herein"consists of the minutes of the public hearings on June 7,2005
and June 21,2005,all documentary evidence submitted to the Council at such public hearings,including
the agenda statements dated June 7,2005 and June 21,2005; and
FINDINGS
•
WHEREAS,after considering the provisions of the Dublin Municipal Code and the record herein,
the City Council finds as follows:
1. Pursuant to Dublin Municipal Code§8.76.080,the required parking for the proposed
project, as approved by the Planning Commission by Resolution 04-40 in 2004,is 32 spaces, as follows:
Retail 7,939 square feet 26 spaces(1:300); and Restaurant 600 square feet 6 spaces(1:100).
2. Pursuant to §8.76.050.E of the Dublin Municipal Code,an applicant may propose a
reduction in the number of parking spaces required by Dublin Municipal Code §8.76.080 and the Zoning
Administrator may grant a reduction in off street parking requirements if:
a. The conditional use permit finding of Chapter 8.100 can be made;
b. The applicant submits a parking study prepared by a qualified consultant analyzing the
parking demand of the proposed use and the parking demands of similar uses in similar
situations,demonstrating that the required parking standards are excessive, and proposing
alternate parking standards which are appropriate and ensure that there will not be a
parking deficiency; and
c. Overflow parking will not impact any adjacent use.
3. Applicant/Appellant seeks a Conditional Use Permit to reduce the required parking, from
45 spaces which are required by DMC§8.76.080(Retail 6,642 square feet requires 22 spaces;Restaurant
1,886 square feet requiresl 9 spaces; and Outside seating 410 square feet requires 4 spaces)to 32 spaces.
4. Two parking studies were submitted, including the parking study dated December 29,
2004, entitled "Starbucks 7197 Village Parkway Parking Study",which is attachment 6 to the June 7,
2005 agenda statement, and a letter from Omni Means, dated April 19, 2005 to Ray Kuzbari(attachment 6
to the June 7, 2005 agenda statement); and
2
Sts
5. The City's traffic engineer, Ray Kuzbari,testified at the public hearing that 12 on street
parking spaces immediately adjacent to the property will be available for parking due to the imminent
relocation of a bus stop; and
6. The parking studies submitted to the Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission
demonstrate that the required parking standards of Section 8.76.080 of the Dublin Municipal Code are
excessive in that there is only one standard for restaurant uses which does not consider the type of use
proposed by Starbucks,which requires fewer parking spaces than a typical restaurant due to the constant
turnover of Starbucks'patrons; and
7. The Council finds that proposed alternate parking standards are appropriate and ensure that
there will not he a parking deficiency in that 12 spaces are available for parking on the street immediately
adjacent to the property and two on site spaces will be restricted to 15 minute parking,assuring adequate
turnover which will generate the equivalent of one additional space; and the Council accordingly
determines that overflow parking will not impact any adjacent use,
NOW,THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL MAKES THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS
AND DETERMINATION:
1. The City Council incorporates the findings in Resolution 05-04 of the Zoning
Administrator in particular,findings 1,2,3,4, 5,6,7,and 8;
2. Condition of approval number 8 of Resolution 05-04 is modified to read as follows:
Time limited reserve parking. The applicant/developer shall
reserve 2 of the on site parking spaces as time limited parking.
These spaces should be located closes to the coffee shop and
should be posted with the following information; "15 minute
parking limit. Towing enforced." Signs shall include City of
Dublin Municipal Code citation that allows towing of illegally
parked vehicles."
3. Council finds that 32 on site spaces, 12 off site spaces on the street directly adjacent to the
property and 2 spaces limited to 15 minute parking satisfy the requirement of the Dublin
Municipal Code for 45 parking spaces.
4. Condition number 2 of the conditions of approval of Resolution 05-04 is modified to
include the following additional language:
"The conditional use permit shall not be valid unless and until the
City's traffic engineer determines that 12 parking spaces are
available directly adjacent to the property on the street."
5. Except as modified by this Resolution,Resolution 05-04 is affirmed as modified and the
appeal is granted and the decision of the Planning Commission is reversed.
3
1., ►a
PASSED,APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 216`day of tune 2005,by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
4
And authorized Staff to accept a $9,017.39 maintenance bond at a future date;
Received (4.22 330-50) the Financial Reports for the Month of May, 2005;
Authorized (4.23 600-30/670-30) $2,876,574.60 payment to the Alameda County
Surplus Property Authority for Emerald Glen Park Land;
Approved (4.24 300-40) the Warrant Register in the amount of$2,639,478.53.
PUBLIC HEARING—PA 04-057 APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION REVERSAL
OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP)
AUTHORIZING A PARKING REDUCTION ON PROPERTIES—STARBUCKS COFFEE
7:40 p.m. 6.1 (410-30)
Mayor Lockhart opened the public hearing.
Senior Planner Janet Harbin presented the Staff Report.
Robert Enea of Enea Properties filed a Letter of Appeal of the Planning Commission denial
of the CUP for a reduction in parking at 7197 Village Parkway for a 1,886 square foot
coffee retailer and cafe (Starbuck's) in the future Enea Village Parkway Center. On
June 7, 2005,the City Council held a public hearing on the appeal and took a straw vote
to grant the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator's approval of the CUP with
modifications. Staff was directed to return at the next meeting with a Resolution to that
effect.
Following the distribution of the agenda for the June 7th meeting, a comment letter was
received from Mr.James E. Lange. Mr. Lange indicates that as an adjacent property
owner, he does not support the project. He feels that the reduction in parking will cause
customers of Starbucks to park on his property.
Ms. Harbin advised that the public hearing should be reopened solely for the purpose of
entering Mr. Lange's letter into the record and permitting the Appellant and the public to
respond to the contents of this letter.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 24
REGULAR MEETING
June 21, 2005
PAGE 259
Staff received a fax this afternoon indicating that Mr. Lange was reversing his original
position opposing this matter.
Cm. McCormick commented that following the last meeting, WHEELS relocated the bus
stop. Twelve spaces are now available.
Mr. Lange's letter was entered into the record.
City Attorney Silver referenced the letter dated June 21 and indicated that it was signed
by both Robert S. Enea and James E. Lange.
No testimony was entered by any member of the public relative to this issue.
Mayor Lockhart closed the public hearing.
On motion of Cm. Hildenbrand,seconded by Cm. Oravetz,and by majority vote, the
Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 132 — 05
GRANTING THE APPEAL OF ENEA PROPERTIES IN PART
WITH MODIFICATIONS AND DENYING IT IN PART, THEREBY REVERSING
THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION, AND MODIFYING THE
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
PA 04-057 (ENEA PROPERTIESISTARBUCKS COFFEE)
Vm. Zika voted in opposition to the motion.
PUBLIC HEARING—PA 05-023
AMENDMENT TO MASTER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
FOR THE DUBLIN RANCH PROJECT (AREAS A THROUGH H))
SUBMITTED BY JAMES TONG ON BEHALF OF THE LIN FAMILY
7:47 p.m. 6.2 (600-60)
Mayor Lockhart opened the public hearing.
Planning Consultant Mike Porto presented the Staff Report.
This is the second reading of an Ordinance which would approve an amendment to the
Master Development Agreement for the Dublin Ranch Project Areas A,B, C, D, E, F, G
and H).
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 24
REGULAR MEETING
June 21, 2005
PACE 260