HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.1 Zhen Li Daycare Appeal19- - 182
`O`�LIFOU��
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
October 2, 2012
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
Joni Pattillo, City Manager 4x. T a
CITY CLERK
File #410 -30
SUBJECT: Appeal of the Planning Commission's Denial of the Dublin Preschool Conditional
Use Permit and Site Development Review for the construction and operation of a
Day Care Center at 7250 Amador Valley Boulevard, PLPA- 2011 -00055 & 00056
Prepared by Mamie R. Delgado, Senior Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a Conditional
Use Permit for the operation of a Day Care Center with up to 60 children and a Site
Development Review Permit for the construction of a 3,284 square foot building with a 2,400
square foot outdoor play area along with 17 parking spaces, landscaping and associated site
improvements. The proposed Project would be located at 7250 Amador Valley Boulevard within
the Village Parkway District of the Downtown Dublin Zoning District and Downtown Dublin
Specific Plan.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Disclose ex parte contacts; 2) Receive Staff
presentation; 3) Open the public hearing; 4) Take testimony from the Appellant/Applicant and
the public; 5) Close the public hearing and deliberate; and 6) Take the following action:
a) Adopt a Resolution reversing the Planning Commission's adoption of Resolution 12 -31 and
approving a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review Permit for the construction
and operation of a Day Care Center at 7250 Amador Valley Boulevard, with additional
conditions of approval; OR
b) Adopt a Resolution reversing the Planning Commission's adoption of Resolution 12 -31 and
approving a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review Permit for the construction
and operation of a Day Care Center at 7250 Amador Valley Boulevard, as recommended to
the Planning Commission on August 14, 2012; OR
c) Adopt a Resolution affirming the Planning Commission's adoption of Resolution 12 -31
denying a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review Permit for the construction
and operation of a Day Care Center at 7250 Amador Valley Boulevard; OR
d) Provide other direction.
Page 1 of 9 ITEM NO. 6.1
l
Submitted By
Acting Community
Development Director
DESCRIPTION:
The Project site is located near the
southeast corner of Amador Valley
Boulevard and Village Parkway
(see Figure 1) and is currently
vacant. Adjacent uses include
single - family residential to the east,
Taco Bell to the south, a retail
building to the west and Amador
Valley Boulevard to the north. The
Project site is .35 acres in size and
has a General Plan and Zoning
designation of Downtown Dublin -
Village Parkway District.
0� ouk � cC
eviewed By j
Parks and Community
Services Director
Figure 1. Project Site (7250 Amador Valley Blvd)
A
r+
Background:
In May 2004, the Planning
Commission approved a request for
the redevelopment of a vacant gas �-
station site with a 5,582 square Village Parkway !+ •
foot, two -story office building with
22 parking spaces (on the Project -
site) and an 8,539 square foot ,, ►'
multi- tenant retail center with 32
parking spaces (to the west of the
Project site) (see Attachment 1). At the same time the project was approved, the Planning
Commission approved a request for a Parcel Map to create two separate parcels, one for the
office building and the other for the retail center. The Conditions of Approval placed on the
Parcel Map required that an easement be recorded granting the office building parcel ingress
and egress through the retail center parcel, among other things. The easement was recorded
through a "Maintenance, Drainage, Ingress and Egress Agreement" in November 2005
(Attachment 2).
In November 2004, the Zoning Administrator heard a request for a parking reduction to allow
Starbucks to occupy a tenant space within the retail center (Attachment 3). At the time, the
Zoning Ordinance required a total of 45 spaces for both Starbucks and the remaining retail
tenant spaces, 13 parking spaces more than the 32 spaces provided on -site. The Zoning
Administrator granted an on -site parking reduction of 8 spaces and allowed 5 additional spaces
to be provided on- street (Attachment 4). The Zoning Administrator's approval was subsequently
appealed to the Planning Commission. In April 2005, the Planning Commission heard the
appeal of the Zoning Administrator's approval of the parking reduction and granted the appeal,
reversing the Zoning Administrator's decision and denying the request for a parking reduction
(Attachments 5 and 6). The Planning Commission's denial of the parking reduction was
appealed to the City Council. In June 2005, the City Council heard the appeal and reversed the
Page 2 of 9
Planning Commission's denial and affirmed the Zoning Administrator's approval, with
modifications (Attachments 7 and 8). The modifications included restricting two on -site parking
spaces to 15 minute parking and requiring that 12 on- street parking spaces be available to
accommodate any overflow parking.
Today, the retail center is fully operational with a variety of businesses including Starbucks,
Cafe Art, Montgomery Beauty Salon, an Optometrist and We Buy Gold. The office building site
was sold and the entitlements to build expired. The property was most recently owned by Valley
Community Bank until it was sold to the Applicant, Zhen Zhen Li, who proposes to construct a
3,284 square foot Day Care Center (for the operation of a preschool) with a 2,400 square foot
outdoor play area along with 17 on -site parking spaces, landscaping and associated site
improvements. While the Applicant proposes to operate a preschool, the Dublin Zoning
Ordinance does not differentiate between preschools and Day Care Centers. As such, the
terms Day Care Center and preschool are used interchangeably throughout this report. The
construction and operation of a Day Care Center is subject to approval of a Conditional Use
Permit and Site Development Review by the Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission heard the Applicant's request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site
Development Review on August 14, 2012 and, after deliberating, the Planning Commission
adopted Resolution 12 -31 denying the request (Attachments 9 -11). The Applicant subsequently
appealed the Planning Commission's denial of the project (Attachment 12).
Pursuant to the appeals process set forth in the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance (Chapter
8.136) for Planning actions, an Appellant must state the "extent of the appeal and the reasons
and grounds for appeal." The appeal of the Planning Commission's denial on August 14, 2012 is
confined to parking, air quality, site suitability, and pedestrian connectivity (see Attachment 12).
Accordingly, this Staff Report addresses only whether the Planning Commission's denial of the
project should be affirmed, affirmed in part, or reversed. Pursuant to the appeals process, the
City Council may adopt additional Conditions of Approval that address the specific subject of the
appeal.
Staff is recommending that the City Council reverse the Planning Commission's adoption of
Resolution 12 -31 denying a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review Permit for
the construction and operation of a Day Care Center as further discussed below.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The Planning Commission considered the Project at a public hearing on August 14, 2012. There
were no members of the public in attendance to speak in favor or against the Project. After
reviewing the Staff Report (see Attachment 9), receiving a presentation from Staff and testimony
from the Applicant and her architect, the Planning Commission deliberated (see Attachment 10)
and by a 3 -1 vote, with one Commissioner being absent, adopted Resolution 12 -31 denying a
Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review Permit for the construction and operation
of a Day Care Center at 7250 Amador Valley Boulevard (see Attachment 11).
APPEAL PROCESS:
Chapter 8.136 (Appeals) of the Zoning Ordinance contains the regulations and procedures that
must be followed if an action of the Planning Commission is appealed to the City Council. In
brief, an appeal and filing fee must be filed with the City Clerk within 10 calendar days of the
Planning Commission action. The appeal must be scheduled for a Public Hearing within 45 days
of the filing of the appeal. The City Council may defer decision on the appeal at the Public
Hearing but must take action within 75 days of the filing of the appeal.
Page 3 of 9
On August 24, 2012, Zhen Zhen Li (Applicant) appealed the denial of the Dublin Preschool
Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review by the Planning Commission (see
Attachment 12). In accordance with Chapter 8.136 (Appeals), the City Council must hold a
Public Hearing no later than October 8, 2012 (within 45 days of the filing of the appeal) and
must take action no later than November 7, 2012 (within 75 days of the filing of the appeal) or
the decision of the Planning Commission is deemed affirmed.
Chapter 8.136 (Appeals) of the Zoning Ordinance states that the City Council may, by majority
vote, affirm, affirm in part, or reverse the Planning Commission's decision on a Project. If the
City Council decides to reverse the Planning Commission's decision to deny the Project, the
City Council may adopt additional Conditions of Approval that address the specific subject of the
appeal.
The City Council's action to affirm or reverse the Planning Commission's decision must be
supported by findings of fact based on information before the Council when it hears and
considers the appeal.
ANALYSIS:
In reviewing the Project, Staff relied on Chapters 8.30 (Downtown Dublin Zoning District), 8.76
(Off- Street Parking and Loading Regulations), 8.100 (Conditional Use Permit), and 8.104 (Site
Development Review) of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance and the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan.
Staff reviewed the Project for conformance with the standards, regulations and findings
contained in these Chapters and the Specific Plan and after finding that the Project was in
conformance, recommended approval of the Project to the Planning Commission
As noted above, the Applicant filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the
Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review for the Dublin Preschool Day Care
Center. The appeal letter cites reasons related to parking, air quality, site suitability, and
pedestrian connectivity (see Attachment 12). The following is a discussion of the issues that
were raised in the appeal letter.
Parking
Appeal Point No. 1: The decision was based on the lack of parking on an adjoining parcel, the
Applicant disputes this finding as City of Dublin Planning Staff recommended approval and
parking conformed to guidelines.
Off - street parking requirements are set forth in Chapter 8.76 (Off- Street Parking and Loading
Regulations) of the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Day Care Centers are required to provide 1
parking space for every employee plus one loading space for every 5 children at the facility.
Loading spaces associated with Day Care Centers are often provided in the form of a parking
space when the ages of the children require that they be accompanied by an adult into and out
of the facility. The proposed Day Care Center would have 5 employees and 60 children
requiring a total of 17 parking spaces as shown in Table 1 below.
Table 1. Dav Care Center Parkina Requirements
Parking Standard
Proposed Project
Required Parking
1 space /employee
5 employees
5 spaces
1 space /5 children
60 children
12 spaces
Total Required Parking
17 spaces
Page 4 of 9
The proposed Site Plan (Attachment 13, Sheet Al) indicates that 17 parking spaces will be
provided on the Project site; however, 10 of these spaces are currently being utilized by the
adjacent retail center. As a result, a parking study was conducted to determine whether
adequate parking would be available to accommodate the proposed Day Care Center based on
the existing and projected parking demands of both the Day Care Center and the adjacent retail
center (Attachment 14).
It should be noted that the Project site and the adjacent retail center were always intended to be
parking independently of one another and no reciprocal parking agreements are currently in
place to legally allow patrons of the retail center to utilize parking on the Project site. However,
because patrons of the retail center have been parking on the Project site, a parking study was
undertaken to evaluate the existing parking demand and the impacts it could have on the
Project.
The parking study evaluated the existing parking demand for the retail center and the future
parking demand for the Project and concluded that during the peak parking demand periods at
the retail center, patrons of the retail center would need to utilize on- street parking along Village
Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard. There are 4 on- street spaces along Village Parkway
and approximately 7 on- street spaces along Amador Valley Boulevard. On- street parking was
previously anticipated for the retail center when Starbucks was granted a Conditional Use
Permit for a parking reduction.
The parking study concluded that existing on- street and off - street parking on the retail center
parcel would be adequate to accommodate the peak parking demands of the retail center. As a
result, the retail center should not have a negative impact on the Project; however, the Applicant
would need to monitor and manage their parking accordingly to ensure that all 17 spaces
remain available to parents and preschool employees during the hours of operation of the
preschool.
While the parking study concluded that adequate parking would be available during the retail
center's peak parking demand period on an average weekday, changing the behavior of retail
patrons could take some time. The City Council could impose additional conditions of approval
to facilitate the change in behavior. Staff recommends adding a Condition of Approval requiring
the Applicant to post signs at the entrance to the Project and at each parking space restricting
parking to preschool patrons only during the hours of operation of the preschool (see
Attachment 15, Condition of Approval No. 75). Ultimately, the Applicant/Appellant would need
to enforce these parking restrictions to ensure that adequate parking remains available to
preschool patrons. Additionally, Staff recommends adding a Condition of Approval requiring the
on- street parking along Amador Valley Blvd to be striped with "T "s similar to the spaces along
Village Parkway to ensure that the maximum number of parking spaces can be utilized at any
given time (see Attachment 15, Condition of Approval No. 76).
peal Point No. 2: Testimony presented by Planning Commissioner occurred without review by
parking analysis professional and information was not presented to Applicant or City of Dublin
Staff prior to meeting.
Two Planning Commissioners indicated they had conducted their own assessment of parking
conditions at the retail center (see Attachment 10) and concluded based on their observations
that there was a lack of parking which they felt would worsen with the addition of the proposed
Day Care Center.
Page 5 of 9
As noted above, the Dublin Zoning Ordinance sets forth the required parking for a Day Care
Center. A total of 17 parking spaces would be required based on the number of employees and
children at the Day Care Center. The proposed Project meets the minimum parking requirement
on their site. In addition, the parking study prepared for the Project validated the Zoning
Ordinance parking requirement, estimating the peak parking demand for the Day Care Center to
be 17 parking spaces (see Attachment 14). Furthermore, the parking study concluded that
adequate parking was available to patrons of the retail center during peak parking demand
periods with the utilization of on- street parking. If the City Council determined it was appropriate,
additional Conditions of Approval could be placed on the Project as described above to
discourage retail patrons from parking on the preschool property and ensure that the maximum
number of on- street parking spaces can be utilized at any given time (see Attachment 15,
Condition of Approval No.'s 75 and 76).
Air Quality
peal Point No. 3: The Applicant disputes the finding that air quality is poor and this finding by
the Planning Commission was not based on facts.
The Planning Commission concluded that there is inadequate parking available at the retail
center which will worsen with the addition of the Project. As a result, the Commission concluded
that congestion within the retail center would increase as patrons sought out available parking
spaces thereby exposing the children at the Day Care Center to exhaust from idling cars. The
Commission also cited concerns about cars idling in parking spaces further exposing children to
exhaust from vehicles at the adjacent retail center.
As noted above, the proposed Project and adjacent retail center meet the parking requirements
as set forth in the Dublin Zoning Ordinance and the parking study prepared for the Project
validated the Zoning Ordinance parking requirement. Additionally, the parking study found that
adequate parking would be available during peak parking demand periods at the retail center
with the utilization of on- street parking. Based on compliance with the parking requirements and
two points of access to facilitate the movement of vehicles through the site, there is no
substantial evidence to support an air quality impact.
While there is no evidence to support an air quality impact, the City Council could impose
additional Conditions of Approval in response to the Planning Commission's concerns by
requiring that the Applicant/Appellant post signs on the fence surrounding their outdoor play
area to discourage retail patrons from idling their vehicles or backing into parking spaces
immediately adjacent to the outdoor play area (see Attachment 15, Condition of Approval No.
77). Additional landscaping could also be required to create a denser vegetated buffer between
the retail center and the outdoor play area (see Attachment 15, Condition of Approval No. 78).
Site Suitability
A,o,oeal Point No. 4: The Applicant disputes the finding that the site is not suitable, traffic and
circulation issues were addressed and a recommendation of approval was given by City of
Dublin Planning Staff after careful review of the application. The adverse decision was based on
purported inadequate access to the property in conflict with the fact that the access was
approved by the City of Dublin in 2004.
As noted above, the Project site was approved in 2004 for the development of a 5,582 square
foot, two -story office building with 22 parking spaces (see Attachment 1) which is consistent with
the amount of parking required by the Dublin Zoning Ordinance for an office building. Access to
Page 6 of 9
the Project site and on -site circulation is proposed in substantially the same configuration as
originally approved. The amount of parking has been adjusted based on the parking
requirements for a Day Care Center and to accommodate the outdoor play area.
Vehicular access to the Project site is obtained from existing driveways located along Village
Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard, both of which are located on the retail center parcel.
These driveways were anticipated to provide access to both parcels and were therefore
designed accordingly. In 2005, a "Maintenance, Drainage, Ingress & Egress Agreement" was
recorded (see Attachment 2) which grants the Project site vehicular ingress and egress across
the retail center parcel. Additionally, the width of the two -way vehicular drive aisle providing
access to the Project site meets the minimum requirement of 24 -feet as set forth in the Zoning
Ordinance (see Attachment 13, Sheet Al).
Pedestrian Connectivity
Appeal Point No. 5: It is alleged that the Project does not provide adequate pedestrian
connections to Amador Valley Boulevard. The proposed building has a secondary entrance
which fronts directly onto Amador Valley Blvd. — pedestrian oriented in keeping with the Village
Parkway District Development Standards. As far as a pedestrian connection from the parking
area to Amador Valley Blvd. — the effectiveness of the short term parking provided for a use of
this nature would be compromised if longer term parking were encouraged by the pedestrian
connection (please refer to the Parking Analysis).
In accordance with the development standards for the Village Parkway District of the Downtown
Dublin Specific Plan, a direct access for pedestrians shall be provided from the sidewalk and
parking areas to building entrances. Additionally, the Building and Fire Codes require a direct
exit to the public right of way. The Project includes a primary entrance along the south elevation
(facing the parking lot) and a secondary entrance along the north elevation (facing Amador
Valley Boulevard) and new walkways providing direct pedestrian access from the parking lot to
the main entrance and from the secondary entrance to the existing public sidewalk along
Amador Valley Boulevard (see Attachment 13, Sheet Al)-, the secondary entrance also serves
as the required exit to the public right of way per the Building and Fire Codes.
OPTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION:
Pursuant to Chapter 8.136 (Appeals) of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, the City Council may, by
majority vote to affirm, affirm in part, or reverse the Planning Commission's decision on a
Project. Staff is recommending that the City Council reverse the Planning Commission's
decision and approve the request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review
Permit for the construction and operation of a Day Care Center at 7250 Amador Valley
Boulevard, with additional Conditions of Approval (Attachment 15).
The City Council also has the option to reverse the Planning Commission's decision and
approve the request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review Permit with no
additional Conditions of Approval (Attachment 16) or affirm the Planning Commission's adoption
of Resolution 12 -31 denying the request (Attachment 17).
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 when applicable, environmental documents prepared. Staff is recommending that the
Project be found Categorically Exempt from CEQA, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15332, In -Fill Development Projects. The Project consists of a Conditional Use Permit for the
Page 7 of 9
operation of a Day Care Center with up to 60 children and a Site Development Review Permit
for the construction of a 3,284 square foot building with a 2,400 square foot outdoor play area
along with 17 parking spaces, landscaping and associated site improvements.
The Project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of Downtown Dublin —
Village Parkway District and the Downtown Dublin Zoning District which allows for the operation
of a Day Care Center with approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Additionally, the Project site is
less than five -acres in size; is surrounded by urban uses; has no value as habitat for
endangered, rare or threatened species; and, can be adequately served by all required utilities
and public services. Approval of the Project will not result in any significant effects related to
traffic, noise, air quality or water quality. A parking study was prepared for the Project and
concluded that adequate parking would be available during peak parking demand periods. A
noise study was prepared for the Project and concluded that the Project would not create a
negative impact to adjacent residential uses by generating unacceptable levels of noise. There
is no substantial evidence to warrant the preparation of an air quality or water quality analysis.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS /PUBLIC OUTREACH:
On Tuesday, June 12, 2012, the Applicant hosted a neighborhood outreach meeting at 7:00
p.m. in the Dublin Library Community Room. The Applicant's architect prepared a letter inviting
surrounding residents /property owners within 300 -feet of the Project to the neighborhood
outreach meeting. One member of the public attended and was representing the new ownership
of the adjacent retail center. On August 14, 2012, the Planning Commission held a properly
noticed public hearing to review the proposed Project. No members of the public attended that
meeting.
In accordance with State law, a Public Notice regarding this Public Hearing was mailed to all
property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the proposed Project as well as each of the
Appellants listed in the Appeal Letter. The Public Notice was also published in the Valley Times
and posted at several locations throughout the City. At the time of completion of this Staff
Report no additional comments other than those documented in the Appeal Letter have been
received. A copy of this Staff Report has been provided to the Applicant /Appellant.
ATTACHMENTS: 1.
Conceptual Site Plan prepared by William Wood Architects dated
received by Dublin Planning on March 16, 2004
2.
Maintenance, Drainage, Ingress and Egress Agreement recorded in
the official records of Alameda County on November 23, 2005
3.
Zoning Administrator Staff Report dated March 14, 2005, without
attachments
4.
Zoning Administrator Resolution 05 -04 approving a Conditional Use
Permit for a 29% reduction to required parking for Starbucks Coffee
at 7197 Village Parkway
5.
Planning Commission Staff Report dated April 26, 2005, without
attachments.
6.
Planning Commission Resolution 05 -25 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
7.
City Council Staff Reports dated June 7, 2005 and June 21, 2005,
without attachments
Page 8 of 9
8. City Council Resolution 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 Properties /Starbucks Coffee)
9. Planning Commission Staff Report dated August 14, 2012, without
attachments
10. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated August 14, 2012
11. Planning Commission Resolution 12 -31 denying a Conditional Use
Permit and Site Development Review Permit for the construction and
operation of a Day Care Center at 7250 Amador Valley Boulevard
12. Letter of Appeal dated August 24, 2012 from Zhen Zhen Li
13. Project Plans dated received by Dublin Planning on June 21, 2012
14. Parking Analysis prepared by Omni Means dated April 19, 2012
15. Resolution reversing the Planning Commission's adoption of
Resolution 12 -31 and approving a Conditional Use Permit and Site
Development Review Permit for the construction and operation of a
Day Care Center at 7250 Amador Valley Boulevard, with additional
conditions of approval
16. Resolution reversing the Planning Commission's adoption of
Resolution 12 -31 and approving a Conditional Use Permit and Site
Development Review Permit for the construction and operation of a
Day Care Center at 7250 Amador Valley Boulevard, as
recommended to the Planning Commission on August 14, 2012
17. Resolution affirming the Planning Commission's adoption of
Resolution 12 -31 denying a Conditional Use Permit and Site
Development Review Permit for the construction and operation of a
Day Care Center at 7250 Amador Valley Boulevard
Page 9 of 9
V D N 119 n IVz (GZ6)
V M )i a V d 19VIIIA L6 LL
��VD'MIIANVQ
9Z9f6
coz U�3S'�V zIwIII toe
1 N3V4dOI3A3 G 31ls CIOOAA YiM'IIM
IV
EU
cr
...... ....
N7
.......... —
�j
�� �� 1�w '71
<
5"M
. .. .. ........
co
F
ON
CT
L)
- - --------
I Y 0
C)
fI /// I .LLB !
l
Recitals
The undersigned has obtained approvals from the City of Dublin to construct an
8,528 square foot single story retail building (on Parcel B) and a 5,582 square foot two
story office building (on Parcel A) (collectively, the "project"), The undersigned has
subdivided Parcel A and Parcel B. In anticipation of selling Parcel A and or Parcel B the
undersigned hereby declares that Parcel A and B will share reciprocal access, use of the
same trash enclosure and drainage of surface water to the same bio- swale. The reciprocal
access, trash enclosure, the bio - swale improvements have been constructed. It is the desire
of the undersigned to establish those easements and clarify those continuing obligations
now and in the future for Parcel A and Parcel B.
THIS AGREEMENT is made this 1 � °day of November, 2005. The undersigned
declares that they are the record fee title interest owner of the Parcel A and Parcel B over
which the bio - swale, driveway and trash enclosure have been constructed and the reciprocal
easements are located. Such easements, the benefits and burdens of which are intended to
run with the land and being more particularly described on the Final Map for Parcel Map
8407 and filed March 16, 2005, in Alameda County Map Book 280 at Page 59 & 60 of
Maps,
WHEREAS, said driveway easement is for vehicle access and the necessary conduits
to cross over the same for water, surfaceisubsurface storm drains, sewer, electric, gas,
1
i
i
telephone, data lines and cable television lines, hereinafter referred to collectively as j
"utilities ".
WHEREAS, the undersigned fee simple owner of each of Parcels A and 6 declares
that this Agreement is for the construction and continuing maintenance and repair of said
driveway and trash enclosure, with the intent that the driveway and utilities within the
easement shall be maintained and kept in good, safe and operable condition at all times for
the uses provided for herein.
NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby mutually agreed and understood by all the parties,
their successors and assigns:
1. The owners of Parcels 'A' and 'B', inclusive, of Parcel Map 8407, their heirs,
successors and assigns of each recorded parcel lying within, and being
serviced by those portions of the parcel B designated as "twenty -four foot
driveway" shall share equally: (1) the cost of construction, maintenance,
repairs and upkeep of said driveway and, (2) the cost of construction,
maintenance, repairs and upkeep of the good neighbor rod iron fence, and
(3) the cost of construction, maintenance, repairs and upkeep of the trash
enclosure located within Parcel A. in accordance with the provisions of
Section 845 of the California Civil Code.
2. Said driveway, rod iron fence and trash enclosure shall hereafter be
maintained and repaired by said owners so as to keep said driveway, rod iron
fence and trash enclosure in good, safe, and operable condition at all times
for uses set forth above; and that repair work shall be performed on said
driveway, rod iron fence and trash enclosure whenever deemed reasonably
necessary by the then current owner of Parcel 8 or their heirs, successors or
assigns of property lying within, and being served by said driveway.
3. The owner of Parcel B and its heirs, successors or assigns shall be
responsible for obtaining competitive bids for the maintenance and repair
2
work on, the driveway, rod iron fence and trash enclosure. The execution of
any contract by the owner of Parcel B, with regard to the foregoing shall be
deemed to bind the owners of Parcels A and B, and their heirs, successors
and assigns, conditioned upon Parcel A owner's approval of any such
contract within ten 170) calendar days from delivery of the same, which
approval shall not be unreasonably conditioned, delayed, or withheld. Parcel
A owner's consent shall be deemed given if no written disapproval notice is
received by the owner of Parcel A within the ten (70) day time frame
referenced above. Each of the owner of Parcel A and of Parcel B agrees to,
and shall pay, fifty percent (50 %) of the costs of the repair or restoration of,
said driveway, rod iron fence andlor trash enclosure; provided, however, that
the cost of repair and restoration of said driveway paving and related
improvements after initial construction of the same where any breach,
damage or removal of the same was for or arises out of (i) the construction
or reconstruction of the building improvements on one but not both Parcels,
or (ill the re- construction or repair of one or more Utilities intended to solely
benefit one but not both parcels, such cost shall be borne solely by the
owner of such parcel for whose benefit such breach, damage or removal was
undertaken or incurred. Upon completion of the repair or construction work,
the parcel ownerls), as applicable, shall pay their appropriate share by
issuing a check in the appropriate amount made payable directly to the
contractor. if a contract requires that any payment be made to the
contractor in advance of completion of the work, then the appropriate parcel
ownerts), upon execution of the contract, but prior to commencement of the
work, shall issue a check payable directly to the contractor for its
proportionate share, if any, of the maintenance and repair work due under
the contract. The owner of Parcel B and it heirs, successors and assigns
3
shall, at its sole discretion, determine when such repair and maintenance
work is needed based on a reasonable standard of proper maintenance.
4. There are hereby reserved and granted for the benefit of Parcel A, and the
owners, heirs successors and assigns of Parcel A, and for the benefit of the
occupants and invitees of such Parcel A, an easement over, across and
through those portions of the Parcel B designated as "twenty -four foot wide
driveway" for purposes of vehicular ingress and egress to and from Parcel A.
5. There is hereby reserved and granted for the benefit of Parcel A and its
heirs, successors and assigns and the occupants and invitees of Parcel A an
easement over, across and through such portions of parcel B, respectively,
as may be reasonably necessary for the purposes of access to and use of the
trash enclosure located within the Parcel B.
6. There are hereby reserved and granted for the benefit of Parcel B and Its
owners, successors and assigns and the occupants and invitees of Parcel 8,
an easement over, across and through Parcel A (excluding those portions
occupied by a building) for surface and subsurface storm drainage and flow
of water in accordance with the construction, maintenance and repair of
drainage improvements necessary for the development of the Parcels A and
i
B. The owners of each Parcel A and Parcel B, and their respective heirs,
successors and assigns shall share equally in the cost of the maintenance
i
and repair of the bio -swale located upon Parcel A. and in the cost of the
maintenance and repair of the subsurface storm drain to the bio -swale E
easterly across Parcel B and Parcel A to such point where the surface storm
1
drain connects outside the southeasterly corner of the property to the
existing v- ditch.
7. There is hereby reserved and granted for the benefit of each of Parcel A and
Parcel B and their respective owners and such respective owners' heirs,
successors and assigns and the occupants of each, a non - exclusive
appurtenant right and easement over, across and through the project
(excluding those portions occupied by buildings) for construction, operating
and using utility lines, pipes, wires and conduits and other facilities, includin
without limitation sanitary sewer, water, power, gas, CATV, data and
telephone fines, (collectively, "Utilities" 1, as are reasonably necessary in order
, , ,
to serve such parcellsl; provided, however, that all Utility lines and facilities
shall be located, Installed, operated and used in a manner that does not
interfere with or otherwise adversely affect the use and enjoyment of the
parcel(s) burdened by this utility easement, and such Utility lines and
facilities benefiting Parcel B located within Parcel A shall be located within
those portions of Parcel A designated as the "ten foot wide private utility
easement" and such Utility construction benefiting Parcel A located within
Parcel B shall be located within those portions of Parcel B designated as the
"twenty -four foot wide driveway and utility easement" . Additionally, this
agreement and each parcel shall be subject to all easements granted by the
undersigned for the installation and maintenance of Utilities necessary for the
development of the project. Notwithstanding that the easements for Utilities
are shown on the Parcel Map, each owner of a parcel shall have the right to
relocate any Utility lines or other facilities located within Its parcel, so long
as there is no cost, material service interruption or other adverse impact on
any of the parcels, buildings or persons served by the applicable Utility.
8. There are hereby reserved and granted for the benefit of each of Parcel A
and Parcel B, and the owner of each such parcel, such respective owner's
heirs, successors and assigns, and each such parcel shall have, a non-
exclusive appurtenant easement upon, over across and through: 1a1 such
other portions of the project contiguous to each respective parcel as may be
5
reasonably necessary for the purposes of encroachment, support, occupancy
and use, but only to the extent such portions of the project are encroached
upon, used and occupied by the parcel as a result of any original
construction, design, accretion, erosion, deterioration, decay, errors in
original construction, movement, settlement, shifting or subsidence of any
building, structure of other improvements located primarily on the parcel
(provided that no easement for encroachment shall be created due to the
willful misconduct of any other), and if any encroaching improvements are
partially or totally destroyed, the encroachment easement shall continue in
effect for any replacement improvements which are rebuilt pursuant to the
original construction design; (b) such other portions of the project contiguous
to the parcel as may be reasonably necessary for the purpose of installing,
maintaining, repairing and, as necessary, replacing landscaping, curbs,
paving, utilities and other improvements on the benefited parcel (provided,
however, that each use of this easement shall be temporary, and only for the
period reasonably required); and (c) such other portions of the project as may
be reasonably necessary for the purpose of maintaining, repairing and as
necessary, replacing utilities and/or signage or otherwise exercising an
owner's rights under this Agreement with respect to such owner's parcel;
provided, however, that the easement granted shall not extend to any
portions of a parcel upon which buildings have been constructed.
9. The easements created shall be coterminous with the term of this
Agreement, and shall be used in a manner that does not interfere with: (a)
the use and enjoyment of the easements by other benefited owners, tenants
or invitees; or (b) the use and enjoyment of the underlying burdened parcel
by the owners and tenants of such parcel, and the tenants and invitees. If
any damage to the underlying parcel results from the use of an easement by
C
an owner, tenant or invitee, the underlying parcel shall be restored promptly
to the condition it was in prior to the use of the easement at no cost to the
owner of the underlying parcel. if a person's use of an easement exceeds or
is inconsistent with the rights provided by the Agreement, such use shall be
conclusively deemed to be a permissive use unless and until challenged. It
shall not be deemed a waiver of any owner's rights, remedies or obligation,
and shall never ripen into any prescriptive right.
10. Whenever possible, contracts for construction, maintenance and or repair
shall expressly provide that mechanic's or material men's liens shall be
recorded against only the parcels of owners who have failed to make their
required contributions as referred to herein. The parcels of the owners who
have paid their required share of the contract amount as provided herein shall
be free of any such liens, and the owner(s) of said parcel(s) shall be entitled
to lien releases upon such payment.
11. Should additional lots or parcels be created within Parcel Map 8407, their
owners, successors and assigns shall also be bound by this Agreement.
12. This Agreement may only be modified or terminated by the written mutual
consent of the Parcel A and B owners, their heir's, successors and assigns.
13. This Agreement constitutes covenants running with and reciprocally
benefiting and burdening each parcel of land shown on Parcel Map 8407.
14. Notwithstanding any provision herein to the contrary, the cost and repair of
any damage caused to the Parcel B (including, without limitation the paving
and related improvements within the "twenty-four foot wide driveway and
utility easement ") as a result of the construction of improvements on Parcel
A shall be borne solely by the owner(s) of Parcel A. Prior to construction of
any improvements on Parcel A, the Owner(s) of Parcel A shall deposit ten
thousand dollars ($10,000.00) with Parcel B Owner(s) as a security deposit
7
against any such damage. Said security deposit shall be held and used to
repair any resulting damage to Parcel B during and/or upon completion of
such construction. Said security deposit may also be used to remove any
unsightly refuse left on the Parcel A arising out of such construction.
Executed on this `" day of November. 2005
Village Parkway Partners, LLC
Robert S. Ene
Managing Member
CALIFORNIA LL-ACKNOWLEDGMENT
State of California
County of
On g'-hu& before me,
Date
Name and Title Of Officer (e.g 'Jane Doe Notary Publld')
personally appeared - a ~ .: � z_
Names) of Signer(s)
,;BIRersonally known to me
❑ proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence
to be the person($) whose name(p) is/a -subscribed
to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that
he/she/they executed the same in his /her /their
authorized capacity(ies); and that by his/her/their
signature(&) on the instrument the person(s), or the
entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted,
executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hgnd drid offieia_E seal. �
Place Notary Seal Above - �^-� „,. -.,.1 ti'" -%},
OPTIONAL )
Signature of Notary Public E,
Though the information below is not required by law, if may prove valuable to persons relying on the document
and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document-
Description of Attached Document
Title or Type of Document:
Document Date:
Signer(s) Other Than Named Above:
Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s)
Signer's Name:
❑ Individual
❑ Corporate Officer — Title(s):
❑ Partner — ❑ Limited ❑ General
❑ Attorney in Fact Top of thumb here
El Trustee
❑ Guardian or Conservator
❑ Other:
Signer:l� epresenting:
... ..
� as
0 2004 National Notary Association • 0350 De Soto Ave., P.O. Box 2402 • Chatswortl
Number of Pages:
Signer's Name:
❑ Individual
❑ Corporate Officer — Tille(s):
❑ Partner — ❑ Limited F1 General
❑ Attorney in Fact Top of thumb here
11 Trustee
❑ Guardian or Conservator
❑ Other:
Signer Is Representing:
i, CA 91313 -2402 Item No. 5907 Reorder: Call Toll -Free 1- 800- 876 -&827
PARCEL ONE:
PARCELS A AND B, AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP 8407, FILED MARCH 16, 2005
AS BOOK 280 OF PARCEL MAPS, PAGES 59 THOUGH 60, ALAMEDA COUNTY
RECORDS.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM ALL OIL GAS CASINGHEAD GAS, ASPHALTUM,
OTHER HYDROCARBONS, AND ALL CHEMICAL GAS, NOW OR HEREAFTER
FOUND, SITUATED, OR LOCATED IN ALL OR ANY PART OR PORTION OF
SAID LANDS LYING MORE THAN 500 FEET BELOW THE SURFACE THEREOF,
TOGETHER WITH THE RIGHT TO SLANT DRILL FOR AND REMOVE ALL OR
ANY OF SAID OIL, GAS, CASING14EAD GAS, ASPHALTUM AND OTHER
HYDROCARBONS AND CHEMICAL GAS LYING BELOW A DEPTH OF MORE
THAN 500 FEET BELOW THE SURFACE THEREOF BUT WITHOUT ANY RIGHT
WHATSOVEVER TO ENTER UPON THE SURFACE OF SAID LANDS OR UPON
ANY PART OF SAID LANDS WITHIN 500 FEET WHATSOEVER TO ENTER
UPON THE SURFACE THEREOF, AS RESERVED IN VARIOUS DEED OF
RECORD.
PARCEL TWO:
A NON EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT, AS AN APPURTENANCE TO PARCEL ONE
ABOVE FOR DRAINAGE OF SURFACE WATERS OVER, ACROSS AND UPON
THE NORTHEASTERLY 12 FEET OF LOTS 2,3 AND 4, IN BLOCK 1, AS SAID
LOTS AND BLOCK ARE SHOWN ON THE MAP OF TRACT 2662, WHICH MAP
FILED JUNE 4, 1965 IN BOOK 50, PAGE 36 OF MAPS, TOGETHER WITH THE
RIGHT OF ENTRY TO MAINTAIN, REPAIR OR RECONSTRUCT THE CONCRETE
LINED DRAINAGE DITCH CONSTRUCTED IN SAID EASEMENT.
AGENDA STATEMENT
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MEETING DATE: March 14, 2005
SUBJECT:
ATTACHMENTS:
RECOMMENDATION:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
PUBLIC HEARING: PA 04 -057, Starbucks Coffee - Conditional
Use Permit for a 29% Reduction to Required Parking . �1,
Report prepared by: Pierce Macdonald, Associate Planner
Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit for a 29%
Reduction to Required Parking for Starbucks Coffee (with
Site Plan included as Exhibit A, and Parking Study as
Exhibit B)
2. Applicant's Written Statement
3. Planning Commission Resolution 04 -40
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) Approving a Conditional
Use Permit for a 29% Reduction to Required Parking for
Starbucks Coffee (with Site Plan included as Exhibit A, and
Parking Study as Exhibit B)
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. Other uses in the project vicinity include Oil Changers to the west, the new Valley Center
development to the northeast, and the Arco AMIPM service station to the north.
In 1998, the City Council studied the potential future uses of the property, held public hearings, and
adopted a Stage 1 and 2 Planned Development (PD) Zoning District for the property on December 15,
1998, PA 98 -049. Pursuant to the PD regulations, a range of office, commercial and eating and drinking
establishments were permitted uses in the district. Cafes 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. Opportunity sites and primary gateway areas are identified in the Specific Plan as
prominent locations that are suitable for plazas, public art, and other amenities.
In 2002, the Alameda County Environmental Protection Division issued a closure letter for the completed
COPIES TO: Applicant
Property Owner
PA File
GAPA #\2004 \04 -057 Starbucks Parking CUP\ZA Staff Report.doc
ITEM NO.
clean up at the site, which had previously been a gas station with leaking underground tanks.
On May 11, 2004, the Planning Commission approved a request for Site Development Review, Tentative
Map, and Conditional Use Permit for the Enea Village Parkway Center (PA 03 -069) on the property (see
Resolution 04 -40, included as Attachment 3). The approval will allow 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. Within the
commercial /retail center, a 600 - square -foot space was identified for eating and drinking uses, such as a
coffee shop. Later that year, the former gas station was demolished, and a Building Permit application
was submitted to begin construction of the commercial /retail building.
With the current application, Enea Properties is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow a 1,886 -
square -foot coffee retailer and cafe, Starbucks Coffee, to locate in the Enea Village Parkway Center by
reducing the number of on -site parking spaces required by 29% by Chapter 8.76 of the Zoning Ordinance,
Off - street Parking and Loading. The proposal includes a mix of in -door seating and outdoor seating, for a
total of 30 indoor and 16 patio seats.
ANALYSIS:
At the time of the Planning Commission's approval of the Enea Village Parkway Center on May 11, 2004,
the future tenants of the project were unknown. The Staff report for the Planning Commission meeting
outlined the limits to the size of any future eating and drinking use due to the number of parking spaces
required under the Zoning Ordinance. The Staff report explained, as follows,
"Although it is unknown whether a restaurant will choose to locate at the site, the commercial/retail
building has been designed to accommodate a small eating and drinking use, such as a coffee shop or
ice cream vendor, in a 600 - square -foot tenant space. The development has been designed to anticipate
DSRSD sewer requirements and accommodate the additional parking necessary for a (600- square-
foot) restaurant use."
The Planning Commission Staff Report also explained that additional floor area beyond 600 square feet
could be created in the future subject to Zoning Ordinance regulations, Section 8.76.050. The parking
requirements for the entire commercial building including the eating and drinking use are outlined in
Table 1., Enea Village Parkway Center Parking Tabulation, below:
Table 1. Enea Village Parkway Center Parking Tabulation
Parcel A
Building Area
Parking Requirement
Parking Provided
Percentage of
Pa rking Spaces
Commercial /Retail
Eating and Drinking
7,939 square feet
600 square feet
26 Spaces (1:300)
6 Spaces (1:100)
19 Standard Spaces
'
59.37%
11 Compact Spaces
34.38%
2 Accessible Spaces
6.25%
Total
8,539 square feet
32 Spaces
32 Spaces
100%
Conditional Use Permit
Pursuant to Section 8.76.050 of the Zoning Ordinance, Adjustment to the Number of Parking Spaces, the
Zoning Administrator may reduce the number of parking spaces required by the Zoning Ordinance when
2
off -site parking is available to satisfy the required parking under the Zoning Ordinance, when the parking
requirement is deemed excessive, and when a shared parking condition is present. In the latter two cases,
a traffic study must be prepared by a qualified traffic engineer or consultant. The following evidence must
be provided:
An analysis of the availability of off -site parking spaces showing that the most distant parking
space is not more than 400 feet from the commercial use, that the off -site parking spaces are
not located in a residential zone or vehicle access area, and that any necessary agreements are
executed to assure that the off -site parking spaces are provided to the principal use (Section
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, and
an alternative parking standard to ensure that there will not be a parking deficiency and that
overflow parking will not adversely impact adjacent uses (Section 8.76.050.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 to ensure that there will not be a
parking deficiency, that parking for the various uses will not conflict with each other, and that
overflow parking will not adversely impact adjacent uses (Section 8.76.050.F).
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 entire shopping center.
The Study concluded that the proposed project would generate significant visitors to the Village Parkway
area due to its prominent location, brand name recognition, and the attractiveness of the new building's
design. The shared parking condition of the shopping center and the availability of free, on- street parking
would supplement the parking provided on -site during the busiest times of the day. In addition, the
proximity of the project site to residential neighborhoods, schools, bike paths, and public transportation
would allow several transportation options for visitors and employees.
Concurrent with the recommendations listed below, the Parking Study supported an alternative parking
requirement to that of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance that takes into consideration all of the conditions at
the project site. The Parking Study concluded that 32 off - street parking spaces and the existing on- street
parking spaces (a minimum of 5) would be sufficient to meet the peak parking needs of the coffee shop
and the shopping center as a whole.
The following measures were recommended to ensure that the project causes no adverse impacts on retail
tenants in the shopping center or adjacent property owners, and these measures have been included as
Conditions of Approval for the project:
1. The project should reserve 5 of the parking spaces as time - limited parking. These spaces should be
located closest to the coffee shop and should be posted with the following information: "15 Minute
Parking Limit. Towing Enforced." Signs shall include City of Dublin Municipal Code citation that allows
towing of illegally parked vehicles. These 5 parking spaces with time limit restrictions would be able to
safely accommodate 20 vehicles per hour. (Condition of Approval # 8)
3
2. This study recommends that the coffee shop tenant provide information on the availability of travel
options to visitors and employees on an on -going basis. BART and the Wheels and Alameda
County Connection bus services, as well as the 511 telephone and Internet service (www.511.org),
would be good resources for information and promotional materials. (Condition of Approval # 9)
3. This study recommends that an alternative parking standard of 1 space for every 200 square feet of
outdoor floor area is adequate due to the seasonal nature of outdoor seating to ensure that the
parking demand generated by the outdoor seating would not overflow to adjacent properties and
cause adverse impacts. The alternative parking requirement would total 2 parking spaces. This
alternative parking standard is effective as long as the plaza area remains uncovered by a permanent
roof. 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. (Condition of Approval # 10)
4. The project should reserve 1 additional parking space as time - limited parking to off -set the potential
increased parking demand associated with Wi -Fi Internet access. This space should be located
closest to the coffee shop and should be posted with the following information: "15 Minute Parking
Limit. Towing Enforced." Sign shall include City of Dublin Municipal Code citation that allows
towing of illegally parked vehicles. This 1 space with time limit restrictions would be able to safely
accommodate an additional 3 vehicles per hour. Time limited parking spaces for the project would
total of 6 spaces, which would be capable of allowing 24 vehicles to park an hour. (Condition of
Approval # 8)
5. This study recommends that the coffee shop be required to provide auxiliary parking and proper
signage for the first two weeks of operation due to increased traffic caused by the business' grand
opening. (Condition of Approval # 11)
To summarize the conclusions and recommendations made in the Study, information from Table 3. of the
Parking Study, as follows below, outlines the alternative parking standards.
Table 3., Proposed Alternative Parking Standards
Use
Area
Zoning
Table 2
Recommended
Proposed
Parking
(sq.ft.)
Ordinance
Maximum
Standards/
Required
Provided
Required
Demand
Conditions
Parking
(spaces)
Parking
(spaces)
(spaces)
(spaces)
Coffee
1,886
19
28
■ 6 time - limited parking
13
8 on -site
Shop
spaces (24 vehicles)
• 2 regular spaces
5 off -site
Outdoor
(410)
4
2
2 on -site
Seating
■ 5 off -site spaces
■ alternative parking standard
of 2 spaces
Total Spaces Available:
15 spaces would manalle
max. demand of 33
vehicles per hour
Retail
6,642
22
17
22
22 on -site
22 regular spaces
(No changes in standards
from Zoning Ordinance
Total
8,528
45
45
37
37
:l
Public 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. As of the writing of this
report, no 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 project has been found to be Categorically Exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), according to Section 15332, because the project is an in-
fill development within a larger urbanized area and consistent with local general plan and zoning
requirements.
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
Village Parkway Specific Plan as an opportunity site. 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 commercial use with shared parking. City Staff have
reviewed the project and attached draft Conditions of Approval that will mitigate any potential adverse
impacts of the project relative to parking.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Zoning Administrator: 1) open public hearing and hear the Staff presentation;
2) take testimony from the Applicant and the Public; 3) close the public hearing and deliberate; and, 4)
adopt the Resolution (Attachment 1) approving a Conditional Use Permit for a 29% Reduction to
Required Parking for Starbucks Coffee (with Site Plan included as Exhibit A, and Parking Study as
Exhibit B).
5
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
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:TA #\2004 \04 -057 Enea\ ZA Staff Report.doc
RESOLUTION NO. 05 - 04
A RESOLUTION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
29% REDUCTION TO REQUIRED PARKING FOR
STARBUCKS COFFEE AT
7197 VILLAGE PARKWAY (PA 04 -057)
WHEREAS, the Enea Properties Company LLC, the site property owner, 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 or 29% from the number of parking spaces normally required for a 1,886 -
square -foot coffee shop, 410- square -foot outdoor seating area, and 6,653- square -foot retail center (45 spaces),
pursuant to Section 8.76.050 of the Zoning Ordinance, on land located at 7197 Village Parkway (APN 941-
0210 -013); and
WHEREAS, the application has been reviewed in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and the City Environmental Guidelines, and determined to be
categorically exempt according to Section 15332, because the project is an in -fill development within a larger
urbanized area and consistent with the Dublin General Plan and Zoning Ordinance requirements; and
WHEREAS, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 21 -98 which established Planned Development
District PA 98 -049 on December 15, 1998, which established development standards for the project site; and
WHEREAS, City Council adopted the Village Parkway Specific Plan and Initial Study/Negative
Declaration on December 19, 2000, which established development standards, land uses, and goals for the
Specific Plan Area; and
WHEREAS, Planning Commission did hold a public hearing and approved a proposal submitted by
Enea Properties Company LLC for development of a 8,539- square -foot retail center and 5,582- square -foot
office building at the project site on May 11, 2004, by means of Resolution 04 -40; and
WHEREAS, a Parking Study has been prepared and reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer for the
proposed reduction of 13 parking spaces or 29% from the number of parking spaces normally required for a
1,886- square -foot coffee shop, 410 - square -foot outdoor seating area, and 6,653- square -foot retail center (45
spaces), which states that alternative parking standards would be appropriate for the project; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator did hold a public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit on
March 14, 2005; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Staff Report was submitted recommending Zoning Administrator approval of a
resolution approving a Conditional Use Permit; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations, and
testimony hereinabove set forth, and used her independent judgment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Zoning Administrator does hereby
make the following findings and determinations regarding said proposed Conditional Use Permit:
1. Pursuant to Section 8.76.050.C, a Parking Study has been prepared to assure that the off -site parking
spaces are provided to the principal use because a maximum of 10 and a minimum of 5 free, on- street
parking spaces will be available along the project street frontages on Village Parkway and Amador
Valley Boulevard, within 400 feet of the project site.
2. Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 8.76.050.E, a Parking Study has been prepared to demonstrate
how the required outdoor seating parking standard is excessive, and has provided an alternative parking
standard to ensure that there will not be a parking deficiency and that overflow parking will not
adversely impact adjacent uses because the proximity of the site to residences, schools, bike paths, and
public transportation will allow several transportation options for visitors, and intemperate weather will
limit the use of outdoor seating.
3. Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 8.76.050.F, a Parking Study has been prepared to ensure that
there will not be a parking deficiency in the shopping center as a whole, that parking for the various
uses will not conflict with each other, and that overflow parking will not adversely impact adjacent uses
because, as conditioned, there will be 6 parking spaces in the parking lot with signs limiting parking to
15 minutes and because these 6 parking spaces would be capable of allowing 24 vehicles to park an
hour combined with 4 normal parking spaces which would satisfy the total peak demand of 28 spaces
an hour of the coffee shop and other shopping center uses.
4. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the development being proposed
because it is located within a developed downtown area, was previously developed, and because it is
located adjacent to roadways which are designed to carry traffic that would be generated by the
proposed types of uses; and
5. The proposed Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing
or working in the vicinity, or be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare because the project
has been built according to City laws and regulations; and
6. The proposed Conditional Use Permit is consistent with the Retail /Office designation of the Dublin
General Plan and the proposed development standards are permitted by said designation; and
7. The proposed Conditional Use Permit is consistent with the existing Planned Development Zoning
District (PA 98 -049) regulations because Eating and Drinking Uses, such as caf6s, are permitted uses
within the Planned Development Zoning District, and the project is consistent with the parking
regulations of Zoning Ordinance Chapter 8.76, to which the Planned Development District is also
subj ect.
8. The proposed Conditional Use Permit is consistent with the goals and standards of the Village Parkway
Specific Plan because it will provide neighborhood - serving uses and promote enhanced pedestrian
access and amenities.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Zoning Administrator does hereby approve a
Conditional Use Permit for project plans, included as Exhibit A, and the Parking Study, included as Exhibit B,
dated December 29, 2004, subject to the following Conditions of Approval:
2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Unless stated otherwise all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to the issuance of building
permits or establishment of use, and shall be subject to Department of Community Development review and
4proval. The following codes represent those departments /agencies responsible for monitoring compliance of
the conditions of approval: [ADM] Administration/ City Attorney, [B] Building Division of the Community
Development Department, [DSR] Dublin San Ramon Services District, [F] Alameda County Fire
Department/City of Dublin Fire Prevention, [FIN] Finance Department, [PL] Planning Division of the
Community Development Department, [PO] Police, [PW] Public works Department.
NO.
CONDITION TEXT
RESPON.
WHEN
SOURCE?
AGENCY/
REQ.?
DEPART.
GENERAL CONDITIONS
1
Approval. This Conditional Use Permit approval for the Starbucks,
PL
Ongoing
Standard
Inc., PA 04 -057, establishes the parking requirements for the 1,886 -
square -foot coffee shop and 410 - square -foot outdoor seating area at
the Enea Commercial Center, 7197 Village Parkway. Conditions
of Approval contained herein shall not be construed as superceding
Conditions of Approval established with Planning Commission
approval of PA 03 -069. Development pursuant to this Conditional
Use Permit is conditioned upon the requirement that the
development be consistent with the approved Site Development
Review (PA 03 -069), the Planned Development (PD) Rezoning,
including the Land Use and Development Plan, and the related
General Provisions, and Standards and Conditions, and shall
generally conform to the Site Plan prepared by William Wood
Architects, dated received November 1, 2004, by the City of Dublin
Community Development Department, unless modified by the
Conditions of Approval contained herein.
2.
Term. Pursuant to Section 8.96.020.D., approval of the Conditional
PL
On -going
Z.O.
Use Permit shall be valid for one year from effective date. If
construction has not commenced by that time or extended per the
following means, this approval shall be null and void. The
approval period for the Conditional Use Permit may be extended
six (6) additional months by the Director of Community
Development upon determination that the Conditions of Approval
remain adequate to assure that the above stated findings will
continue to be met. Applicant/ Developer must submit a written
request for the extension prior to the expiration date of the
Conditional Use Permit..
3.
Revocation. The Conditional Use Permit will be revocable for
PL
On -going
Z.O.
cause in accordance with Section 8.96.020.1 of the Dublin Zoning
Ordinance. Any violation of the terms or conditions of this
approval shall be subject to citation, and if non - compliance
continues, potential revocation.
4.
Fees. Applicant/Developer shall pay all applicable fees in effect at
FIN
Prior to
Municipal
the time of building permit issuance, including, but not limited to:
issuance of
Code
Planning fees; Building fees; Dublin San Ramon Services District
Building
fees; Public Facilities fees; Dublin Unified School District School
Permits
Impact fees; Public Works Traffic fees; City of Dublin Fire
Services fees; Noise Mitigation fees; Alameda County Flood and
NO.
CONDITION TEXT
RESPON.
WHEN
SOURCE?
AGENCY/
REQ.?
DEPART.
Water Conservation District (Zone 7) Drainage and Water
Connection fees; and any other fees as noted in the Development
Agreement. Unissued building permits subsequent to new or
revised TIF's shall be subject to recalculation and assessment of the
fair share of the new or revised fees. If the Development
Agreement approved for this project conflicts with this condition,
the Development Agreement shall prevail.
5.
Required Permits. Applicant/Developer shall obtain all necessary
PL, PW, B
Prior to
Standard
applicable permits required by other agencies including, but not
issuance of
limited to, Alameda County Public Works, Alameda County Flood
Building
Control District (Zone 7); California Department of Fish and
Permits
Game; Army Corps of Engineers; and State Water Quality Control
Board, and shall submit copies of the permits to the Department of
Public Works. Applicant/Developer shall also apply, pay all
required fees and obtain permits from PG &E for power service
connection required to energize traffic signals and streetlights.
6.
Hold Harmless/Indemnification. Applicant/Developer, and any
Applicant
On -going
Standard
parties or individuals granted rights -of -entry by Applicant/
Developer, shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of
Dublin and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim,
action, or proceeding against the City of Dublin or its agents,
officers, or employees (a) to attack, set aside, void, or annul an
approval of the City of Dublin or its advisory agency, appeal board,
Planning Commission, City Council, Director of Community
Development, Zoning Administrator, or any other department,
committee, or agency of the City concerning a subdivision or other
development which actions are brought within the time period
provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37 and (b)
holding the City liable for any damages or wages in connection
with the construction; provided, however, that the Applicant/
Developer's duty to so defend, indemnify, and hold harmless shall
be subject to the City's promptly notifying the Applicant/Developer
of any said claim, action, or proceeding and the City's full actions
or proceedings.
7.
Clarifications and Changes to the Conditions. In the event that
PL, PW
On -going
Standard
there needs to be clarification to these conditions of approval, the
Directors of Community Development and Public Works have the
authority to clarify the intent of these conditions of approval to the
Applicant/Developer by a written document signed by the Director
of Community Development and the City Engineer and placed in
the project file. The before - mentioned authority also may make
minor modifications to these conditions in order for the
Applicant/Developer to fulfill needed improvements or mitigations
resulting from impacts to this project.
PARKING STUDY
8.
Time - Limited Reserved Parking. The Applicant /Developer shall
PL, PW
Prior to
Parking
reserve 5 of the parking spaces as time - limited parking. These
issuance of
Study
spaces should be located closest to the coffee shop and should be
Building
posted with the following information: "15 Minute Parking Limit.
Permits
Towing Enforced." Signs shall include City of Dublin Municipal
Code citation that allows towing of illegally parked vehicles.
NO.
CONDITION TEXT
RESPON.
WHEN
SOURCE?
AGENCY/
REQ.?
DEPART.
In addition, the Applicant/Developer shall reserve 1 additional
parking space as time - limited parking to off -set the potential
increased parking demand associated with WI-Fi Internet access.
This space should be located closest to the coffee shop and should
be posted with the following information: "15 Minute Parking
Limit. Towing Enforced." Sign shall include City of Dublin
Municipal Code citation that allows towing of illegally parked
vehicles.
Time limited parking spaces for the project shall total 6 spaces for
the shopping center to allow 24 vehicles to park per hour in time -
limited spaces.
9.
Travel Options. The Applicant/Developer shall ensure that the
PL, PW
Prior to
Parking
coffee shop tenant provide information on the availability of travel
issuance of
Study
options to visitors and employees on an on -going basis. BART and
Building
the Wheels and Alameda County Connection bus services, as well
Permits
as the 511 telephone and Internet service (www.51 Lorg), would be
good resources for information and promotional materials.
10.
Patio Seating. The Applicant /Developer shall apply for and obtain
PL, PW
On -going
Parking
a Conditional Use Permit for additional parking reductions
Study
pursuant to Section 8.76.050 of the Zoning Ordinance should the
plaza area be covered by a permanent roof and available for
seating.
11.
Grand Opening. The Applicant/Developer shall be required to
PL, PW
Prior to
Parking
provide auxiliary parking and proper signage for the first two
issuance of
Study
weeks of operation of the coffee shop due to increased traffic
Building
caused by the business' grand opening.
Permits
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of March, 2005.
(��K=
ZAng Administrator
ATTEST:
r
Associate Planner
G: \PA #\2004 \04 -057 Starbucks\ZARESO.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 Vf?
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. Cafes and other neighborhood-
COPIES TO: Applicant
Appellant
PA File
l
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 cafe 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 8.76.050.17).
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
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.51 l.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 Parking and 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*
s aces
s aces
Coffee
1,886
19
27
■ 6 time - limited parking
10 on -site
Shop
spaces (24 vehicles)
■ 4 regular spaces
7 off -site
Outdoor
410
4
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.
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:
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,
n.
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 Cafe 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
cafe 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 caf6 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 I space for 100 square feet of
restaurant /food services and I space for 300 square feet of retail were established for a use such
as the Starbucks cafe 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 cafes, 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).
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
n.
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
RESOLUTION NO. 05 - 25
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
REVERSING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR APPROVAL OF
A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
REDUCTION TO REQUIRED PARKING FOR
ENEA PROPERTIES /STARBUCKS COFFEE AT
7197 VILLAGE PARKWAY (PA 04 -057)
WHEREAS, the Enea Properties Company LLC, the site property owner, has requested
approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a reduction of eight (8) parking spaces and the relocation of five
(5) parking spaces off -site from the number of parking spaces normally required for a 1,886 - square -foot coffee
shop, 410- square -foot outdoor seating area, and 6,653- square -foot retail center (45 spaces), pursuant to Section
8.76.050 of the Zoning Ordinance, on land located at 7197 Village Parkway (APN 941 - 0210 -013); and
WHEREAS, the application has been reviewed in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and the City Environmental Guidelines, and determined to
be categorically exempt according to 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; and
WHEREAS, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 21 -98 which established Planned Development
District PA 98 -049 on December 15, 1998, which established development standards for the project site; and
WHEREAS, City Council adopted the Village Parkway Specific Plan and Initial Study/Negative
Declaration on December 19, 2000, which established development standards, land uses, and goals for the
Specific Plan Area; and
WHEREAS, Planning Commission did hold a public hearing and approved a proposal submitted by
Enea Properties Company LLC for development of a 8,539- square -foot commercial /retail center and 5,582 -
square -foot office building at the project site on May 11, 2004, by means of Resolution 04 -40; and
WHEREAS, a Parking Study has been prepared and reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer for the
proposed reduction of eight (8) parking spaces and the relocation of five (5) parking spaces off -site from the
number of parking spaces normally required for a 1,886- square -foot coffee shop, 410- square -foot outdoor
seating area, and 6,653- square -foot retail center (45 spaces). The Parking Study states that alternative parking
standards would be appropriate for the project, and a Focused Traffic/Parking Analysis was completed by
George Nickelson of Omni Means, dated April 19, 2005, that supports the conclusions and recommendations
of the original Parking Study; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator did hold a public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit on
March 14, 2005, and approved the Conditional Use Permit subject to Conditions of Approval; and
WHEREAS, a letter of appeal was received on March 23, 2005 from Bobbi Cauchi, pursuant to
Chapter 8.136 of the Zoning Ordinance, Appeals; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing in consideration of the Appeal on
April 26, 2005; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Staff Report, including the Focused 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.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby
make the following findings and determinations regarding said proposed Conditional Use Permit:
The Planning Commission finds that the Parking Study and Focused Traffic /Parking Analysis prepared
pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 8.76.050.E does not demonstrate that the required parking
standards are excessive and does not propose appropriate alternate parking standards that will ensure
that there will not be a parking deficiency.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby reverse the
Zoning Administrator approval of Conditional Use Permit PA 04 -057, Enea Properties /Starbucks Coffee, for
project plans, included as Exhibit A, and the Parking Study dated December 29, 2004, included as Exhibit B
(with Focused Traffic /Parking Analysis prepared by George Nickelson of Omni Means, dated April 19, 2005,
included), and does affirm the appeal.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of April, 2005.
AYES: Chair Schaub, Cm. Biddle, and Wehrenberg
NOES:
ABSENT: Cm. Fasulkey
ABSTAIN: Cm. King
ATTEST:
Planning Manager
Planning Commission Chairperson
G:\PA #\2004 \04 -057 Starbucks Parking CUP\Planning Commission \PC RESO jb.DOC
2
CITY CLERK
File # W3Z)
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 � r
ATTACHMENTS: 1.
Letter of Appeal to the City Council %oin 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 P arrlring Report
7.
Planning Commission Reso. No. 04-40 for Enea Village
Project, PA 03 -069
S.
Correspondence received by Plaruiing Commissionen 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;
4.
Direct Staff to Either:
a_ Prepare a Resolution Denying the Appeal Thereby Af coming
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 Comndssion 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,
COPIES TO: Appellant
Property Owner
PA File
106
G:1PAMM4V4 057 5tarbuCka I'Uift CUPICC AppcW sr6-1- 05.doe
I'X''1VI NO.
DESCRIPTION:
The project site at 7197 Village Parkway was the former location of an automotive gasoline and service
station that closed in the 1990'x, 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, conunercial and eating
and drinking establishments were permitted uses in the district. Cafes and other neighborhood- serving
uses were specifically identified as appropriate ne* 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 ar 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 0440, included as Attachment 7). The approval allows
development of the lucre lot at the southeast corner of the intersection of Village Parkway and Amador
Valley Boulevard with an 8, 539 - square -foot commercial/retail center and a 5,582 - square foot office
building. Project amenities included an 800 - square -foot landscaped public plaza with bench seating. The
site plan provided parking for 54 vehicles. Within the commercial/retail center, a 600 - square -foot space
was identified for eating and drinking uses, such as a coffee shop. At the present time, 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 (S) 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 Hearing are included in Attacl==t
4 with the Staff report.
2 961�
A complete discussion of the information on the requested Conditional Use Permit and the material
presented to the Zoning Administrator is contained in the staff report in Attachment 4, along with the
minutes of the hearing. The Zoning Administrator granted the Conditional Use Permit at the Public
Hearing, and advised. those attending about the appeal process.
Appeal of Toning Administrator Action to Planning Commissions.
Following the approval of the Conditional Use Permit by the Zoning Administrator, a letter from $obbi
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 letter of appeal expressed Ms. Cauchi °s concerns
regarding project traffic and circulation conflicts with local schools and area traffic, perceived
inconsistency with the intent of the Village Parkway Specific Flan, 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
on the ,project, the Planning Commission acted to deny the ConditionW 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 aDd office center in which
Starbucks Coffee plans to locate, filed a setter of Appeal of the Planning Comnxission1denial of the
Conditional Use permit PA 04057 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 Mort, Attacbment 4, and the Parking Study with Supplemental Focused Parking
Report in Attachment 6.
AnRlicaut -s Fetter 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. Applicant 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 panting study reducing the
on- site,parking by eight (8) spaces, with four (4) ore site 15- minute spaces andfave (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 1K
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. 0
2. Applicant's Comment; Traffic and parking data, studies, and analysis are the fundamental basis for
all most major decisions concerning urban planning andproject development. Experts such as
professional Traffic Engineers are relied on to analyze data and information to determine impacts
associated with proposed growth and development. to the past, the Planning Commission and City
Council have based major land use and development decisions an the summary and conclusions of
Traffic Engineer's Pike Omani Means. While it is appropriate for the elected or appointed decision
makers to apply common .sense to test and faltering the reasoning of planners and engineers, and to
consider the in and concerns of other stakeholders, the process seemed to breakdown due to the
manner in which the hearing was conducted, and based on comments trade 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 fuNlling 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 snake up for some of the required on -site spaces, which is normally allowed in
downtown areas,
c. Yhe, 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 Tra,, ic/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 'W' suggests there is a misunderstanding of the nature of the
pending application. The Applicant has applied for a parking reduction. The Zoning Administrator
and the Planning Commission were limited to considering whether the proposed reduction would meet
the requirements under Dublin Municipal Code section 8.76.050. Traffic impacts are relevant to that
inquiry, For example, if the granting of the approval would result in significant traffic impacts then
the decision maker might not be able to make one or more of the conditional use permit findings that
must be made in order to grant the conditional use 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 trust make the other findings required under section 8.76.050.
Relative to the other factual issues raised in this continent by the appellant, the Planning Commission
slid 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 Conditiorxal Use Permit. It was clear from the testimony that
the commissioners had tread the two studies. In determining what course of action is to be taken on a
project, the Planning Commission is presumed to have ridW all the information, material and
testimony in the record. The Resolution adopted by the Planning Commission, Resolutions No. 05 -25
on April 26, 2005, reversing the Zoning Administrator's approval and denying the Conditional Use
Permit PA 04 -057 indicated that the Planning Commission considered the information set forth in the
40 Chnn /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
1�,, EJtE.4S, 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
Omni/Means study, the City Council's consideration of the Omzyi/Means study and the focused
traffic/parking study on appeal would serve to cure any such irregularity
Furthermore, the Platting Commission's denial was not based on the rejection of the testimony of
experts. Mather 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 Worm 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 an- street parking spaces can be used to satisfy off- street parldng requirements. It
therefore concluded that the Omni -Means report failed to demonstrate that the standard was
excessivo--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 erasure 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. A_mnlicant's Comment: Ihere is no credible or substantial evidence in the underlying record contrary
to the conclusions of City Staf, the City Traffic Engineer, and the commissioned Focused
Traflic/Patrking Analysis that alternative parking standards sought (i) are appropriate for this project,
and (ii) will not result in a parking def cit
Response:. As was indicated in response to comment 3 above, the'Plaxnnning Commlissiona'.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 dick not support the required findings. .
04. Applicant's Qgmrnent: The Planning Commission Chairman made several public comments in
reference to the results of his own personal investigation relating to employee parldng at another
similar coffee shop location, These comments were inconsistent with his opening statement describing
5 g K
the C'ommission's role w 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 a -mails and over ,20piece's of
correspondence delivered to his personal residence supporting the Appellant's position. A4 the
Applicant, Staf,�"advised us that no contact with the Commissioners' was permitted by either the 0
Applicant or the Appellant.
Resyou erg- 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
parts 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 matte — 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
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 clue process violation
that may have taken place at the Planning Commission level. The Applicant is free to introduce now
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 infrormation 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 detenuination 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.
S. A licant's Comment: It must be suited 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
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 se f interest. Every
letter and voice heard in opposition of our CUP for reduced parking is a friend or associate of the
yawners 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
hearing held on March 14, 2005 (see Meeting Minutes of hearing contained in Attachment 4, ,honing
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 rim 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, Atmlicant's Commeni: We have worked cooperatively with Staff and the resulting project is a
culmination of extensive planning and design, yielding an attractive and high quality project.
Additionally, we are proud of the design and quality of our project and feel it will be a fine addition to
the community, attracting good, high quality tenants to the area. We believe the alternative parking
standard, as supported by the traffic consultant and Staff recommendations and reports, is appropriate
for this location.
RgMonse* Comment noted.
7. Applicant's Comm t: 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 withoutprejudice 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 pen-nit 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 ObV
Public Hearine Notre and Comments:
In accordance with section 8.136.060.8, a Public Hearing Notice was mailed to property owners within. a
300 -foot radius of the project property, residents, tenants, persons that spoke at previous public hearings,
and other interested parties. A copy of the notice was advertised in the Valley Times and posted at
locations in the City. As of the writing of this report, no further comments have been received from the
Public.
flQty I ZT4300) I WN 1►:11 6 "1 4.191'
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State guidelines and City emvironmental
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 parldng spaces for a business
tenant within an approved infill retail commercial center, presently under construction.
CONCLUSION:
Ile 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
Conu fission. 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 park, and make modifications to the Zoning
Administrator's granting of the Conditional Use Permit. Siaff has provided a Recoz endation that
would allow the City Council to make an appropriate detenn nation and direct Staff to return at a later
date with the draft resolution implementing the determination.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommen4s 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 Un Permit PA 04 -057, Enea
Properties/Starbueks Coffee.
0:1PA#12W4104.457 Enea1 CC AppW sr 60741 4oc
=I,
•
RESOLUTION NO. 132 - 05
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
GRANTING THE ,APPEAL OF ENEA PROPERTIES IN PART WITH MODIFICA'T'IONS
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 I STARDUCKS COFFEE)
RECITALS:
WHEREAS, the Enea Properties Company, LLC C'Applicant/Appellanf ), 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/Appel lant 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
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, 2045 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 0440 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 §8.76.084 (Retail 6,642 square feet requires 22 spaces; Restaurant
1,886 square feet requiresl9 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 "tarbucks 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
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 be a parking deficiency in that 12 spaces are available for parking on the street immediately
adjacent to the property and two on site spaces will be restricted to 15 minute parking, assuring adequate
turnover which will generate the equivalent of one additional space; and the Council accordingly
determines that overflow parking will not impact any adjacent. use.
NOW, THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL MAKES THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS
AND DETERMINATION:
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 S 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_
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 21't day of Tune 2005, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Hildenbrand, McCormick, Oravetz and Mayor Lockhart
NOES: Councilmember Zika
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None y A
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Cl
K2/0/6- 21- o5 /resCtw a-Starbucks (Item 6.1)
�� OF DU8
ui �i'S� STAFF REPORT
1 ���SAW� PLANNING COMMISSION
IFOR
DATE: August 14, 2012
TO: Planning Commission
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: PLPA- 2011 - 00055 Dublin Preschool Conditional
Use Permit and Site Development Review for the construction and
operation of a Day Care Center
Prepared By. Mamie R. Delgado, Senior Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the operation of a Day
Care Center with up to 60 children and a Site Development Review Permit for the construction
of a 3,284 square foot building with a 2,400 square foot outdoor play area along with 17 parking
spaces, landscaping and associated site improvements. The Project site is located at 7250
Amador Valley Boulevard within the Village Parkway District of the Downtown Dublin Specific
Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Open the
public hearing; 3) Take testimony from the Applicant and the public; 4) Close the public hearing
and deliberate; and 5) Adopt a Resolution approving a Conditional Use Permit and Site
Development Review for the construction and operation of a Day Care Center at 7250 Amador
Valley Boulevard.
<z
Submitted By 0 mr�°' Vev'iWted By
Senior Planner Assistant Community Development Director
COPIES TO: Applicant
File
ITEM NO.:
Page 1 of 8
DESCRIPTION:
The Project site is located near
the southeast corner of Amador
Valley Boulevard and Village
Parkway and is currently vacant.
Adjacent uses include single -
family residential to the east,
Taco Bell to the south, a multi -
tenant retail building to the west
and Amador Valley Boulevard to
the north. The site is
approximately .35 acres in size
and has a General Plan and
Zoning designation of Downtown
Dublin — Village Parkway District.
The Applicant is proposing to
construct a 3,284 square foot
Day Care Center with a 2,400
square foot outdoor play area
along with 17 parking spaces,
landscaping and associated site
improvements.
Background:
Figure 1. Project Site (7250 Amador Valley Blvd)
The Project site and adjacent multi- tenant retail center were approved in 2004 for the
development of a 5,582 square foot, two -story office building with 22 parking spaces (on the
Project site) and an 8,539 square foot multi- tenant retail center with 32 parking spaces (to the
west of the Project site). At the same time the project was approved, a Parcel Map was
approved to create two separate parcels for the office building and the multi- tenant retail center.
The retail center was subsequently constructed and is fully operational with a variety of
businesses including Starbucks, Cafe Art, Montgomery Beauty Salon, an Optometrist and We
Buy Gold. The office building site was sold and the entitlements to develop expired. The
property is currently owned by Valley Community Bank. The property is now under contract to
be purchased by the Applicant who is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to
operate a Day Care Center and Site Development Review to construct a 3,284 square foot
building with associated site improvements.
ANALYSIS:
Conditional Use Permit
The Project site is located in the Downtown Dublin Zoning District which refers to the Downtown
Dublin Specific Plan for permitted, conditional and prohibited uses for each of the three Districts
(Retail District, Transit - Oriented District and Village Parkway District) within the Specific Plan
Area. The Project site is located within the Village Parkway District which allows, as a
conditionally permitted use, "Civic, Cultural and Institutional' uses including Day Care Centers.
"Civic, Cultural and Institutional" uses are subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the
Planning Commission.
2of8
A Conditional Use Permit enables the City to place conditions of approval on a project to ensure
that the operating characteristics are compatible with surrounding uses. The proposed Project
has been reviewed for issues related to noise, parking and other operating characteristics such
as hours of operation and outdoor play activities. Conditions of approval have been placed on
the Project, where appropriate, to ensure compatibility with the surrounding residential and
commercial uses.
The Applicant is proposing to operate a Day Care Center with 5 employees and up to 60
children between 2 -5 years of age; the hours of operation would be 7:OOam and 6:30pm
Monday through Friday (Attachment 1). Outdoor play activities are proposed within an enclosed
playground between the hours of 9:OOam and 5:OOpm Monday through Friday. According to the
Applicant, up to 30 children would be outdoors for up to 30 minutes, four times a day.
Noise
The Dublin General Plan Noise Element sets forth the acceptable levels of community noise
exposure. Because the proposed Day Care Center includes outdoor play activities and would be
located adjacent to a residential neighborhood, a noise study was conducted to determine
whether the noise associated with the proposed Day Care Center would exceed the normally
acceptable noise exposure level of 60 decibels as set forth in the General Plan. The noise study
concluded that the additional noise associated with the proposed outdoor play activities would
not result in a significant increase in the existing noise environment and the community noise
exposure would remain below the normally acceptable level of 60 decibels (Attachment 2).
Condition of Approval No. 11 has been included in the draft Resolution (Attachment 3) to ensure
that outdoor play activities occur as proposed by the Applicant. Additionally, Condition of
Approval No. 12 has been included in the draft Resolution to ensure that outdoor activities are
controlled so as not to become a nuisance to persons living or working in the vicinity of the Day
Care Center.
Parking
The Dublin Zoning Ordinance requires that Day Care Centers provide 1 parking space for every
employee plus one loading space for every 5 children at the facility. Loading spaces associated
with Day Care Centers are often provided in the form of a parking space when the ages of the
children require that they be accompanied by an adult into and out of the facility. The proposed
Day Care Center would have 5 employees and 60 children requiring a total of 17 parking spaces
as shown in Table 1 below.
Table 1. Dav Care Center Parkina Reauirements
Parking Standard
Proposed Project
I Required Parkin
Day Care Center
1 space/employee
5 employees
5 spaces
1 space /5 children
60 children
12 spaces
Total Required Parking
17 spaces
The proposed Site Plan (Attachment 4, Sheet Al) indicates that 17 parking spaces will be
provided on the Project site; however, 10 of these spaces are currently being utilized by the
adjacent multi- tenant retail center. As a result, a parking study was conducted to determine
whether adequate parking would be available to accommodate the proposed Day Care Center
based on the existing and projected parking demands of both the Day Care Center and the
adjacent multi- tenant retail center.
3 of 8
The parking study concluded that during peak parking demand periods, the proposed Day Care
Center would require all 17 parking spaces on the Project site (Attachment 5). As a result,
parking for the multi- tenant retail center, which is currently occurring on the Project site, would
be displaced during the peak parking demand periods and patrons of the retail center would
need to park on the street along Village Parkway and /or Amador Valley Boulevard. On- street
parking was previously anticipated for the retail center when Starbucks was granted a
Conditional Use Permit for a parking reduction. Additionally, the parking study determined that
existing on- street parking would be adequate to accommodate the demand. There are 4 on-
street spaces along Village Parkway and approximately 7 on- street spaces along Amador Valley
Boulevard.
Site Development Review
Site Layout
A 3,284 square foot building is proposed and would be located on the northern portion of the
Project site closest to Amador Valley Boulevard (see Attachment 4, Sheet Al). The building's
main entrance would be on the southern elevation facing the parking lot. While the building
would back up to Amador Valley Boulevard a secondary pedestrian entrance is proposed off of
Amador Valley Boulevard and the building would be stepped back along this elevation as it
transitions between the existing retail center and the single - family homes to the east (see
Attachment 4, Sheets Al and A3).
The Downtown Dublin Specific Plan requires a minimum 5 -foot setback along Amador Valley
Boulevard; the proposed building would have a 6 -foot setback at the west end of the building
(closest to the retail center) and a 24 -foot setback at the east end of the building (closest to the
single - family homes). The Downtown Dublin Specific Plan also requires a minimum 15 -foot
setback from shared property lines with single - family residential property; the proposed building
would maintain a 15 -foot setback along the east elevation which is adjacent to single - family
homes (see Attachment 4, Sheet Al).
As an additional measure to minimize any potential impacts to the adjacent single - family homes,
the Applicant has proposed to locate an office, restroom and break room on the east side of the
building closest to the single- family homes and place the classrooms on the western portion of
the building furthest away from them (see Attachment 4, Sheet A2).
The outdoor play area is proposed to be located along the south and west elevations which face
the parking areas for the proposed Day Care Center and adjacent retail center (see Attachment
4, Sheets Al and A2). The location of the outdoor play area has been placed as far as practical
from the single - family homes to minimize noise associated with outdoor play activities. The
outdoor play area would be enclosed with a 6 -foot high steel fence (see Attachment 4, Sheet
A3) and would include a play structure in the southwestern corner of the play area (see
Attachment 4, Sheet A2). The play structure would be 12 -feet tall at the highest point; however,
the tallest platform height where children would be standing would not exceed 48- inches for
safety reasons should a child fall from the play structure (Attachment 6).
The Project site will include 17 parking spaces including 5 compact spaces which will be
reserved for employee parking for the Day Care Center, one accessible space for persons with
disabilities and one electric /clean air vehicle space. All parking would be located on the southern
portion of the site (see Attachment 4, Sheet Al). Access to the Project site can be obtained
4of8
from existing driveways on Amador Valley Boulevard and Village Parkway. Both driveways are
fully improved and provide vehicular access to the retail center parcel. A "Maintenance,
Drainage, Ingress and Egress Agreement" was recorded in 2005 and includes a vehicular
ingress and egress easement across the retail center parcel to the Project site.
The existing trash enclosure located on the adjacent retail center parcel will be a shared trash
enclosure for both the Project and the retail center (see Attachment 4, Sheet Al). The
"Maintenance, Drainage, Ingress and Egress Agreement" includes a provision that allows for the
Project to utilize the existing trash enclosure. As part of the Project, the trash enclosure will be
upgraded to meet current trash enclosure standards including new lighting within the enclosure,
a new accessible entrance on the east side of the enclosure and a new accessible path from the
Project site to the enclosure.
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Design Guidelines
The Downtown Dublin Specific Plan contains Design Guidelines for development occurring
within the Specific Plan Area. Some of the design standards contained in the Design Guidelines
are required while others are recommended; the Design Guidelines also include standards that
may not necessarily be recommended but are allowed or optional.
The Design Guidelines require that all building facades that are visible from the public realm be
designed with similar architectural elements, materials and colors as the front facade. The
proposed Day Care Center building would have a cement plaster finish on all four elevations
and would be painted with three different colors to define a base, body and cap along the
facade: 1) a deep rusty orange (Cedarbark) along the base of the building; 2) a warm gray (Clay
Pebble) for the body of the building; and 3) a lighter gray band (Pebblestone Beige) just below
the roof line of the building. Numerous windows would be incorporated on the north, west and
south elevations and all would be accented with forest green fabric awnings. One window would
be incorporated on the east elevation and would provide natural light for an office. All windows
would be clear glass with an anodized aluminum frame.
The Design Guidelines also require that facades that are visible from the street and parking
areas be articulated to improve design quality. The north elevation of the proposed Day Care
Center building fronts Amador Valley Boulevard and is the most articulated elevation. The
building is stepped back from west to east providing a significant amount of articulation.
Additionally, five windows are proposed along this elevation with a fabric awning over each
window which provides a projecting facade element that visually breaks up the building plane.
The west elevation faces the existing retail center and includes a recess along the center of the
elevation. Four windows are proposed along this elevation, each with a fabric awning over it.
The south elevation faces the parking lot for the proposed Day Care Center and is also
articulated, being stepped back from west to east. Five windows are proposed along the south
elevation and similar to the other elevations, each window includes a fabric awning over it.
The Design Guidelines encourage varying roof forms that are compatible with the overall style
and character of the building. Additionally, roofs should be designed to prevent water damage
or stains on building facades; if gutters and downspouts are provided, they should drain directly
into a landscape area, retention /detention basin, bioswale or storm drain. Lastly, mechanical
equipment is required to be screened from public view. The proposed roof for the Day Care
Center would be composed of composition shingles (consistent with the adjacent retail center)
and would include gutters and downspouts that would directly drain into landscaping or bio-
5of8
retention areas; a mechanical well on the roof would completely screen all roof mounted
equipment from public view.
Landscaping and Lighting
The existing bioswale and new filtration planters will be landscaped with drought tolerant
ornamental grasses. The bioswale is located along the southern property line and southeast
corner of the Project site. The filtration planters would be located near the northeast corner of
the Project site, along the eastern property line and just outside the southwest corner of the
outdoor play area. Filtration planters are flow- through planters designed to cleanse stormwater
runoff before it is collected into a pipe and routed to the disposal point.
A total of ten 24 -inch box trees are proposed to be added to the Project site near and along the
eastern property line in addition to a variety of evergreen shrubs, plants and groundcover.
Existing landscaping to the west of the Project site is located on the retail center parcel and is
proposed to remain; any damage to existing landscaping as part of the development of the
Project site would be replaced.
There are currently 4 street trees along the Amador Valley Boulevard Project frontage; these
trees will remain and any missing and /or damaged tree grates would be repaired as part of the
Project (see Attachment 3, Condition of Approval No. 56).
Signage
Any proposed wall or freestanding signage will be reviewed under a separate permit for
conformance to the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan and the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, as
applicable.
CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, SPECIFIC PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE:
The Project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of Downtown Dublin —
Village Parkway District which allows for range of uses consistent with the Downtown Dublin
Specific Plan. The Project is consistent with the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan land use
designation of Downtown Dublin — Village Parkway District in that Day Care Centers are a
conditionally permitted use and the development of the Project site complies with the
development standards and design guidelines contained in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan.
REVIEW BY APPLICABLE DEPARTMENT AND AGENCIES:
The Building Division, Fire Prevention Bureau, Public Works Department, Dublin Police Services
and Dublin San Ramon Services District reviewed the Project and provided Conditions of
Approval where appropriate to ensure that the Project is established in compliance with all local
Ordinances and Regulations. Conditions of Approval from these departments and agencies
have been included in the attached Resolution (Attachment 3).
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS /PUBLIC OUTREACH:
On Tuesday, June 12, 2012 the Applicant hosted a neighborhood outreach meeting at 7:OOpm
in the Dublin Library Community Room. The Applicant's architect prepared a letter inviting
surrounding residents /property owners within 300 -feet of the Project to the neighborhood
6 of 8
outreach meeting. One member of the public attended and was representing the new ownership
of the adjacent retail center.
In accordance with State law, a Public Notice was mailed to all property owners and occupants
within 300 feet of the proposed Project. A Public Notice was also published in the Valley Times
and posted at several locations throughout the City. To date, the City has received no objections
from surrounding property owners regarding the Project. A copy of this Staff Report has been
provided to the Applicant.
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 when applicable, environmental documents prepared. Staff is recommending that the
Project be found Categorically Exempt from CEQA, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15332, In -Fill Development Projects. The Project consists of a Conditional Use Permit and Site
Development Review for the construction and operation of a Day Care Center for up to 60
children. The Project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of Downtown
Dublin — Village Parkway District and the Downtown Dublin Zoning District; the Project site is
less than 5 acres in size and is surrounded by urban uses; it has no value as habitat for
endangered, rare or threatened species; approval of the Project will not result in any significant
effects related to traffic, noise, air quality or water quality; and, the site can be adequately
served by all required utilities and public services.
ATTACHMENTS: 1) Applicant's Written Statement dated June 11, 2012.
2) Noise Study prepared by Rosen Goldberg Der & Lewitz
dated May 24, 2012.
3) Resolution approving a Conditional Use Permit and
Site Development Review for the construction and
operation of a Day Care Center at 7250 Amador Valley
Boulevard.
4) Project Plans dated received by Dublin Planning on
June 21, 2012.
5) Parking Analysis prepared by Omni Means dated April
19, 2012.
6) "Neptune" Play Structure Specifications.
7of8
GENERAL INFORMATION:
APPLICANT:
Zhen Zhen Li, Empire California Investment, LLC 18801
Belgrove Circle, Saratoga, CA 95070
PROPERTY OWNER: Valley Community Bank, Attn: Greg J. Hickel, Executive
V.P. /Chief Credit Officer, 5000 Pleasanton Ave, Suite 210,
Pleasanton, CA 94566
LOCATION: 7250 Amador Valley Boulevard
ASSESSORS PARCEL
NUMBER: 941 - 0210- 035 -00
GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE DESIGNATION: Downtown Dublin —Village Parkway District
SPECIFIC PLAN
LAND USE DESIGNATION: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan —Village Parkway District
SURROUNDING USES:
LOCATION
ZONING
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE
CURRENT USE OF
PROPERTY
North
DDZD
Downtown Dublin —Village
Commercial
Parkway District
South
DDZD
Downtown Dublin — Village
Commercial
Parkway District
East
R -1
Single- family
Residential
West
DDZD
Downtown Dublin —Village
Commercial
Parkway District
REFERENCES:
Dublin General Plan
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan
Dublin Zoning Ordinance
8of8
w ,yY Plannin g Commission Minutes
X 4
f ,
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
CALL TO ORDER /ROLL CALL
A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, August 14,
2012, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Wehrenberg called the
meeting to order at ,;x,,,,,0,0,,,,,2,6 I„
Present: Chair Wehrenberg; Commissioners Schaub, Brown, and Bhuthimethee; Jeff Baker,
Assistant Community Development Director; Steve Muzio, City Attorney; Marnie Delgado,
Senior Planner; Ananthan Kanagasundaram, Associate Civil Engineer; and Debra LeClair,
Recording Secretary.
Absent: Vice Chair O'Keefe
ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA — NONE
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS — On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Cm.
Brown, the Planning Commission approved the minutes of the July 24, 2012 meeting as revised.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS — NONE
CONSENT CALENDAR.— NONE
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS — NONE
PUBLIC HEARINGS —
8.1 PLPA- 2011 -00055 Dublin Preschool Conditional Use Permit and Site Development
Review for the construction and operation of a Day Care Center
Marnie Delgado, Senior Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report.
Cm. Schaub asked Ms. Delgado to explain the difference between a preschool and a daycare
center.
Ms. Delgado answered the terms are used interchangeably; the definition of a daycare center in
the Zoning Ordinance includes preschools. She stated that, from an operator's point of view
they are slightly different so they are referred to as a preschool because that is how it will
operate, but there is no difference in the use type.
Chair Wehrenberg asked Ms. Delgado to explain the noise report.
Ms. Delgado responded that, in order to measure the anticipated noise level of an outdoor play
area, there are measurements taken from an operational facility (KinderCare). From that point
the consultant must extrapolate the noise level based on the number of children and the
proximity to the property line. All the information must be factored in to the project's operating
characteristics because this project is not identical to KinderCare.
�,?9,,ust 14, 20.12
Chair Wehrenberg did not agree with the analysis which states the distance and average noise
levels were done when there were only 9 children present.
Ms. Delgado responded that, on Page 6, Table 4, the study applies the analysis to the current
project and states the noise measurement is estimated at 56dba.
Chair Wehrenberg was concerned with the estimate and was unsure how the consultant came
to that conclusion.
Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director, responded there are different
measurement tools; LEQ, LMax and CNEL. The City uses the CNEL which is the 3rd column in
the table. He stated that, when the consultant took the data from KinderCare, they had to
extrapolate them based on the size and the location of the property line to the facility to get to
the measurement of 56dba.
There was a discussion regarding the noise study.
Cm. Brown asked if the ambient noise would drown out the extra noise of the daycare center.
Mr. Baker answered the consultant found that, if the daycare was stand - alone, it would put out
56 CNEL. He stated the current ambient measurement is at 64 and when the two are combined
it would incrementally increase the noise level by <1 decibel which is considered to be inaudible.
Cm. Schaub stated that the Omni -Means study indicates that the Parking Ordinance
requirement for daycare centers is 1 parking space per employee, 1 parking space for a
company car, plus loading for every 5 children. He felt the parking requirement should be 18
instead of 17 because they did not count the space for a company car.
Ms. Delgado answered one parking space would be required if there were a company vehicle,
but the Applicant is not proposing any company vehicles for this center.
Cm. Schaub stated that, when the Planning Commission reviewed the retail center in 2005,
according to the minutes of that meeting, the parking requirement would have been 28 spaces
for the coffee shop, plus 22 for the rest of the retail center, for a total of 50 parking spaces. He
stated that was the number they used when dealing with the mitigation issues. He stated the
requirement was 50, but now it is 32 because that is how many spaces are counted. He felt that
is not what was originally required and was concerned that the requirement is lower than it
should be.
Cm. Brown was concerned about how the parking space deficit during the peak hours would be
controlled for the daycare if the retail users are already parked there.
Ms. Delgado responded there are two parcels and they are parked independently of one
another, which was the intent when the project was originally approved. She stated the same is
true today; the daycare would be parked separately from the retail center. She stated the
Applicant has designated the first 5 parking spaces as employee parking to deter the patrons of
the retail center from parking in their lot. She continued that "employee parking only" will be
stenciled on the ground. She stated there will be an enforcement mechanism in place to
change parking behaviors.
�,?9,,ust 14, 20.12
Chair Wehrenberg felt that allocating 5 spaces to employees would exacerbate the issue. She
stated she sat in the parking lot for 45 minutes and the parking lot was full from 5:00 pm to 6:00
pm other than approximately 5 parking spaces. The consultant stated the peak hours would be
2:30 to 3:30 p.m., but she felt it peaked most of the day. She was concerned how the peak will
be managed on two separate sites. She understood it was two separate parcels but, when it is
a successful site, the situation would be exacerbated by adding more demand. She felt children
take precedence over coffee, but other people don't agree. She felt there would be a problem
with people coming in and out of the site and asked what the mechanism for enforcement would
be.
Ms. Delgado suggested the Commission could require that all of the parking be marked for the
daycare center only making the spaces no longer available to the other patrons. She felt the
parking would need to be enforced.
Chair Wehrenberg stated there were cars parked on the dirt lot during the time she was there.
Mr. Baker mentioned the sites are two separate legal parcels and parked independently. He
stated the proposed project is required to have 17 spaces and they are providing 17 spaces. He
stated there is no shared parking agreement between the property owners. He stated it is an
issue of the property owners exercising their right to their parking spaces so they would have to
enforce the parking. He suggested installing striping and /or signage indicating "daycare parking
only" that would discourage customers of the retail center from parking at the daycare center.
Cm. Schaub mentioned the pilot parking program for Village Parkway that was discussed at a
previous meeting with a similar issue. He felt the only way parking can be enforced is to tow the
cars. He was concerned with how a tow truck would fit in the parking lot. He stated the City
would not send officers to enforce parking.
Mr. Baker stated there are two separate issues; one is a retail center in which the City Council
approved a parking program with street parking. He stated the street parking is currently being
fully utilized because there currently is available parking on the daycare site. He felt that, once
the daycare is operational and striped /marked for daycare parking only, the retail customers will
hopefully park on the street. He stated the traffic surveys that were completed show that the
center is operating within what was anticipated when the project was approved in 2005. He
stated the number of the parked vehicles is consistent with the number that was anticipated so
the retail center has on -site parking and street parking that is an adequate supply for them.
Chair Wehrenberg understood but felt there were additional spots that are not striped but are
being utilized and felt that could be a problem.
Cm. Schaub stated he will be referring to the previous project because patrons must travel
through that retail area, which was approved in 2005, to get to the daycare center. He stated
that, during the Planning Commission review of the project in 2005, there was a discussion
regarding the Village Parkway Specific Plan which is no longer applicable. He stated there was
a study done that looked at installing diagonal parking on Village Parkway and removing the
right turn lane. The study indicated that these improvements would make the intersection of
Amador Valley and Village Parkway could go from a service level of A to F. He stated the City
Council took out the right turn lane and eliminated the right lane. He asked if there has been a
�,?9,,ust 14, 20.12
study to find out the result of taking out the lane. He also asked what the level of service is as a
result of the City removing the right turn lane.
Cm. Brown stated that his wife was at the corner waiting to turn right onto Amador Valley from
Village Parkway and it was backed up. Her solution was to cut through the parking lot and
come out on Amador Valley Blvd. She was not the only one to do so.
Mr. Baker addressed Cm. Schaub's comment and clarified that the Village Parkway Specific
Plan contemplated diagonal parking by eliminating a travel lane which never occurred. He
stated there are still two travel lanes even with the striping at the corner. He stated there
actually was never a separate right turn lane at that location. The former traffic engineer
reviewed the operation of this intersection and added the striping to remove the free right to
ensure safe operation of the corner.
Cm. Schaub asked if Staff knows if there is any level of service degraded because of the right
lane elimination. He felt that was important because it is putting pressure on the entrance to the
parcel. He requested the traffic consultant come to the podium.
Mr. Baker stated there have been various discussions but he did not believe it has significantly
impacted the level of service; however, there was a discussion about having the Traffic and
Safety Committee could take another look at that intersection to see if there are other options.
Cm. Schaub felt that a right turn lane would require the on- street parking to be removed which is
how more parking was accommodated for the retail center; the bus stop was moved as well.
Mr. Baker stated that removing the existing striping at the corner would likely not affect the on-
street parking on Village Parkway. It was put in place because there was not adjacent room for
a separate right turn lane. He stated it was not driven by the street parking so eliminating the
lane potentially would not eliminate the street parking.
Cm. Schaub state he brought up the issue because he felt it was putting a lot of pressure on the
street. He felt there were some issues to discuss regarding the traffic study.
Cm. Schaub asked about the space designated for a clean air vehicle and asked who could
park in that space.
Ms. Delgado responded anyone with a clean air vehicle can park in that spot.
Mr. Baker stated that is a new requirement of the Building Code that took effect on July 1 st; it is
like an accessible parking stall with limited availability.
Cm. Schaub felt that would take away another parking space and they would go from 17 spaces
to 16.
Chair Wehrenberg felt regardless of whether the parking is for compact, full -size and motorcycle
it comes down to the count, regardless of the use.
Mr. Baker agreed and stated that the Zoning Codes did not change with the Building Codes.
�,?9,,ust 14, 20.12
Cm. Schaub stated that the reality is that neither of the spaces is available unless you drive a
special car.
Chair Wehrenberg asked why the classrooms are placed on the west side of the building since
children inside classrooms are normally quiet and also asked if the building could be flipped.
Ms. Delgado answered that the children access the play area through the classroom area so
flipping the building to have the offices on the playground side would put the children up against
the residential area when exiting the building to use the play area.
Cm. Schaub asked how many feet there are between parking spaces across the parking lot.
Mr. Baker answered there are 25 feet which exceeds the minimum requirement.
Cm. Schaub felt that 25 feet is a car length and requested to discuss the parking study with the
traffic consultant.
Mr. Baker stated that length exceeds the minimum standard requirement for a shopping center
which is standard at 24 feet.
Peter Galloway, Omni Means, spoke regarding the traffic report.
Cm. Schaub felt his report was very well done and is a very important piece of what is being
reviewed. He stated he was experienced with surveys previously working for Mr. Enea. He
stated that the Commission is looking not only at the daycare parking but also how to get to the
daycare. He stated the issue includes the street parking, but also the congestion within the
retail center and the fact that it has 32 spaces. He asked what the margin of error was for
parking surveys. He also asked what date the studies were conducted.
Mr. Galloway answered the surveys were done on March 21 and 22. He stated that the traffic
data can fluctuate +/ -5% on any given day. He stated they try to conduct surveys on a typical
weekday, usually a Tues, Weds or Thurs unless specified otherwise by the City Traffic
Engineer. They try to do the survey on a typical, normal work day while school is in session.
He stated they try not to do surveys on Fridays or Saturdays or during the summer unless there
is a special use. In this instance, there was a full day survey done at each use; one at the
Montessori daycare and retail center.
Cm. Schaub stated the craft shop generates the afternoon peak.
Mr. Galloway stated the overall parking demand is for the existing retail center not just the
Starbucks.
Cm. Schaub asked how many cars were parked in the retail center and how do you know the
spaces are filled if you can't see all of them.
Mr. Galloway answered they try to do the parking survey at least every 1/2 hour. He stated this
study was done at 15 minute increments. The surveyor would note the vehicles that were
already parked, so at subsequent surveys he would know what the turn -over rate was.
Cm. Schaub asked why there is data missing in the table.
�,?9,,ust 14, 20.12
Mr. Galloway answered that they debated whether to include the raw data in the survey.
Cm. Schaub felt it was the right thing to do to include the raw data.
Mr. Galloway asked what holes Cm. Schaub was referring to.
Cm. Schaub stated the table shows 10:00 a.m. then 11:30 a.m. and then at 12:30 p.m. and then
start up again and asked if he could assume the data is the same during those time frames.
Mr. Galloway answered no; this is more a guidance from the City Traffic Engineer. They knew
the period when parking demand would be at its peak and conducted 4 surveys at peak periods
during the course of the day to mimic a preschool. That's why there are gaps in the survey.
Cm. Schaub asked if the number will be the same but not higher.
Mr. Galloway stated the surveyor was there all day and he was sure he got the peak time
period.
Cm. Schaub stated he is familiar with Queing theory and he agreed with Omni Means that, at
90% of capacity, it is starting to degrade which is standard. He stated the survey indicated that,
because of the small area of the proposed project, that 95% would be considered starting to
gridlock. He asked why Mr. Galloway picked 95 %.
Mr. Galloway answered because of the size of the lot. He stated that, when they designed for
90% capacity, those are for very large parking lots. You can pull into the lot and within a couple
turns you can see the entire lot and it was their thinking to allow an additional 5% given the
availability of the on- street parking and the ability to see the lot.
Cm. Schaub felt the on- street parking cannot be seen and the south parking cannot be seen
either.
Mr. Galloway stated that if you are driving to the site you can see if there are available spaces
on the street, but once the vehicle is on -site they can determine what the capacity is and
whatever way they enter the parking lot they can still see the spaces.
Cm. Schaub felt it would be the opposite, because the cars are stopped waiting for a space, the
other cars can't do anything until that car is done.
Cm. Schaub asked to display on the screen an Excel chart that he prepared.
Mr. Galloway stated that one of the reasons the traffic engineer had them survey the Montessori
site is because it is a very successful daycare /preschool and felt that would be a good
representation of a new daycare center. He stated the study is mimicking the peak demand of
the center in the study. He pointed out the proposed preschool may not have the same peaks,
at the same time. He stated the survey does not include any type of carpool or families with
multiple children other than what was counted at the Montessori school. He stated their
theoretical mean of 17 spaces is very conservative.
Cm. Schaub stated that 17 spaces is the code requirement for a daycare center.
�,?9,,ust 14, 20.12
Chair Wehrenberg felt that the conditions at this proposed school would be different and asked if
the traffic study would address the issue of traffic leaving the site and trying to go to the far left
lane to make a U -turn to travel south onto Village Parkway. She felt this causes a back -up
within the center.
Mr. Galloway responded that the Traffic Engineer did not request that they look at operational
trip generation characteristics of the project. He stated that in general Chair Wehrenberg was
correct; the driveway is close to the intersection and a left would not be an easy move when
traffic is congested, but felt that would be true of any type of driveway.
Chair Wehrenberg responded that other sites tended to have a longer driveway where the
drivers would not impact the parking, but in this center it does impact the congestion.
Mr. Galloway agreed but felt a lot of people park for convenience and know which way they will
be leaving, so they would park in that direction and after a while people using the site know what
to expect and plan accordingly.
Cm. Schaub felt that the parking lot at the Montessori school is totally different than the
proposed parking lot. He stated the Montessori school is on a dead -end street with a much
bigger lot and on a street that is not well traveled.
Cm. Schaub shared a chart that he created from the information in the parking study. He
started by asking "what if" 90% was the point at which deterioration began. He visited the site
and found that there were never more than 4 spaces available when using all 10 spaces, 2 on
the dirt and 5 on the street. During his visit he found that, after removing 3 cars from the
equation, the center was impacted with 90% utilization at 10 a.m. which accounts for the entire
day. He was concerned with the congestion in the center and getting the children to and from
the daycare center through the retail center. He asked Mr. Galloway's opinion regarding what
the center will be like when there are 60 kids in cars being dropped off and the lot is full.
Mr. Galloway felt the lot was not unlike any other typical school when all the parents come to
drop off at the same time, with a 15 -20 minute period to drop off children. He stated that, with
daycare centers, the parents typically do not drop off at the door and drive off. They park for 5-
10 minutes, walk the children in, then get back in the car and drive out of the lot.
Cm. Schaub was concerned that there will be 60 cars all coming into the parking lot. He stated
this is not a parking lot that flows through but they must go in and turn around.
Mr. Galloway responded that this may not be the ideal site but he felt that there are many things
that a private school can do to mitigate those factors, such as stagger the drop off and pick up to
avoid the peak times when the retail center is busy.
Chair Wehrenberg felt that would only work if the parents had staggered work hours.
Mr. Galloway agreed but did not know the characteristics of this particular daycare center; it may
be different than Montessori but felt there were things to do to mitigate those issues as a
Conditions of Approval.
Chair Wehrenberg asked if he felt the site will be impacted.
�,?9,,ust 14, 20.12
Mr. Galloway responded that currently patrons park in the center wherever they want, but if the
parking spots were designated as daycare center parking only, the patrons will park in the retail
center parking, on the street, or take their business elsewhere.
Cm. Schaub asked him to explain his proposed recommendations that the cut -thru traffic will be
reduced. He felt the area would definitely get any busier.
Mr. Galloway agreed it would be busier with the day care center. He stated the daycare center
would act as a natural traffic - calming measure. He felt that the people who would use the area
as cut -thru might not because of the presence of the daycare center.
Cm. Schaub asked about the recommendation that stated they "envisioned a reciprocal parking
agreement with a retail center." He asked if he was referring to the existing retail center or
another one.
Mr. Galloway responded he was referring to the existing retail center. He stated the traffic
engineer had made that recommendation and also recommended that the preschool spaces
should be designated during certain times of the day. He stated he did not realize there were
two separate parcels, but did not feel it would make a difference.
Cm. Schaub agreed that the two separate parcels did not make a difference in the parking
issue.
Mr. Galloway felt that the daycare center spaces should be designated as daycare center only.
He stated he was not familiar with the 2005 traffic study but the retail center is currently over
their on -site demand for parking.
Cm. Schaub stated the Planning Commission knew that in 2005, which is why they denied it.
He thanked Mr. Galloway and stated that in this type of parking lot being off by 10% is a
concern.
Mr. Galloway stated that a lot of people can confuse parking demand with traffic generation. He
stated that peak parking demand can occur anytime during the course of the day. He stated
that the traffic manual for daycare trip generation for this site's building would generate 48 peak
hour trips which would occur during the morning peak hours between 7 a.m. -9 a.m. and the
evening peak period between 4 p.m. -6 p.m., but the parking demand can occur anytime during
the day.
Chair Wehrenberg asked, since there was a gas station on the site previously, had there been
any negative impacts identified for the daycare center in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
regarding the removal of the gas tanks.
Ms. Delgado answered that she was not aware of any impacts.
Cm. Schaub asked, if the project is approved, how the construction of the project will go. He
asked where will the workers park and how the parking will be configured during the
construction.
Ms. Delgado answered that she did not know at this time.
�,?9,,ust 14, 20.12
Cm. Brown asked if there had been an analysis in the EIR of the air quality from the traffic on
Amador Valley Blvd and Village Parkway.
Stephen Muzio, City Attorney, responded that, in regards to the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) compliance, those reviews look at the impact on the environment of the proposed
project only not the air quality.
Chair Wehrenberg asked if the review would look at the impact of air quality on a playground
being in close proximity to a heavily traveled intersection.
Mr. Muzio stated that would not be part of a CEQA review.
Chair Wehrenberg stated that when the site was originally reviewed it was for an office building
and that's why the CEQA was approved.
Chair Wehrenberg stated that, as Planning Commissioners, they must look at not only land use
but must review safety and the appropriate land use.
Chair Wehrenberg open the public hearing.
Ginger Li, Applicant, spoke in favor of the project and thanked the Commission for their time.
She spoke of her experience with schools in Fremont, Palo Alto and San Jose. She stated
some of the students in Fremont actually live in Dublin. She felt Dublin requires more parking
than at her Palo Alto school which is on El Camino Real and has 118 students with only 11
parking spaces. She stated her school in Fremont has 120 children with 13 parking spaces;
San Jose school with 80 children and 10 parking spaces. She felt that a preschool is not like an
elementary school where all the children must be there at the same time. She stated that with a
preschool the parents drop off their children between 7:30am and 9:30am which only takes 3 -5
minutes. She stated with 60 students that would take approximately 25 minutes and they have
two hours which is enough. She felt that parking is not a problem and that 17 parking spaces
are more than any other city. She stated that she had spoken with the owner of the retail center
to work out the parking issue. She stated that they agreed that the retail center could use her
parking lot on nights and weekends and he seemed happy with that arrangement. She stated
she wanted to be a good neighbor. She stated they will label the parking spaces for the
preschool only but they will be welcome to use the parking lot when the daycare center is
closed.
Cm. Schaub asked the name of the owner of the retail center that she met with.
Ms. Li stated it was originally Robert Enea who sold the property to someone else but could not
recall his name. She stated she wanted to avoid any difficulties.
Cm. Schaub asked if she had a shared parking agreement with the owner of the retail center.
Ms. Li answered that the shared parking agreement is not a formal agreement. She thanked the
Commission and felt the project will be a nice school.
Chair Wehrenberg asked what made her decide to choose this property in Dublin.
�,?9,,ust 14, 20.12
Ms. Li answered that she liked to build from scratch and in Dublin it was hard to find a piece of
land. She did not want to renovate a building.
Cm. Bhuthimethee asked why she picked the downtown area.
Ms. Li answered the downtown area is near the freeway which is convenient for the parents.
Chair Wehrenberg asked if her other sites, with limited parking, are adjacent to retail centers
where there they must share parking with other businesses.
Ms. Li answered that one site in San Mateo is shared with a large grocery store. She felt that
Dublin requires more parking than any other city she has worked with and has confidence that it
will work.
Cm. Schaub asked if she will be the owner of the building and will be renting it to the school.
Ms. Li answered that she is partnering with other people to run the school and she has a degree
in early childhood education with a master's degree from Mills College.
Cm. Schaub stated she is buying the land from the bank and that the land was inexpensive
because it was in foreclosure.
Ms. Li disagreed and stated the bank actually increased the price of the land because of the
time it took to process her permit.
Cm. Schaub felt that there have been many comments that Dublin's Parking Ordinance is too
strict, but they have just spent an hour talking about the parking issue for this project. He felt
that, if the Commission had been able to require the number of parking spaces that they wanted
when the retail center project was denied, they would not be having this discussion now. He
was concerned that the Applicant was not listening to the discussion.
Cm. Brown asked if the 5 employees are all teachers and aides and remain with the children in
the classroom and during recess outside in the playground.
Ms. Li answered yes. She stated that their programs are: half -day from 9am —noon; whole day
from 7:30am — 6:OOpm, and preschool day 9:OOpm- 3:30pm. She stated that the pick -up times
range from noon- 6:OOpm. These are very staggered due to the nature of the program.
Cm. Brown repeated the times of the programs for clarification.
Ms. Li agreed and stated that the parents normally drop off the children between 7:30am and
9:30am.
Cm. Brown asked about the age range of the children.
Ms. Li answered that the children would range from 2 to 5 years old.
Cm. Brown asked if the ages are in all 3 programs.
Ms. Li answered yes.
�,?9,,ust 14, 20.12
Cm. Brown asked what she felt were the peak times when you would expect most children to be
dropped off and picked up.
Ms. Li answered that the peak times would be between 8:00 a.m. and 9:30 a.m. She stated
there are not too many drop offs between 7:30 a.m. and 8:00 a.m.
Cm. Brown asked about peak time at pick -up time.
Ms. Li answered the pick -up time ranges from noon — 6:00 p.m. and is staggered throughout the
afternoon.
Cm. Schaub asked if 3:30 is when school day is over but if the parents work then the drop -off
and pick -up time would be 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. which would be considered a full day.
Cm. Brown asked how many children are in each of the 3 programs.
Ms. Li answered they don't break down the number, but the maximum is 60 children in the
morning. She stated that they don't have many children in the afternoon.
Cm. Brown asked if the maximum of 60 children are present between 7:30 and noon.
Ms. Li answered yes.
Bill Wood, William Wood Architects, spoke in favor of the project. He stated he worked with
several day care centers and ones that are near retail centers end up using the retail services at
the same time as the daycare center. He stated he worked with Mr. Enea on the office building
that originally had 22 parking spaces and 32 for the retail center which comes to 54 spaces. He
stated that when the project changed to a daycare center, the parking spaces went to 17 which
left a total of 49. When the on- street parking was added it was brought up to 60. He stated the
needed parking for Starbucks retail center is actually at peak at 39 not 32, plus the 17 for the
daycare center which makes 56 and with the on- street parking you end up with 60 spaces. He
felt that the parking should be covered by a 6 -7% surplus beyond that at peak times. He felt the
nature of the daycare center building is a more friendly type of use at a one story building, it is 5
feet lower, and to address the noise they tried to keep children away from the residential area by
putting the office on that side. He stated he met with the neighbors and worked with staff and
the property owner on the site plan. He stated there is a front entrance and back entrance for
as much flexibility as possible. He stated the building is also smaller than the office building.
Cm. Schaub stated that the Commission had assumed the parking for the office building would
be underneath the building when originally reviewed.
Mr. Wood responded the original owner had discussed putting storage under the building but he
was not aware of any underground parking. He stated the building was approved with surface
parking.
Cm. Schaub stated he likes the building and the layout, but he was concerned with the parking
issue.
�,?9,,ust 14, 20.12
Mr. Wood made a suggestion to make more parking on -site, requiring the employees to park on
the street or issuing a parking permit to the employees to park on the street.
Cm. Schaub felt that parking is a problem when the site gets close to capacity. He stated that
the demand is unknown at the time of approval and if the business becomes successful then
there could be problems.
Mr. Wood felt the success will take care of itself, but if there are many people who want to
frequent the business and can't find a place to park they go somewhere else, but the business
has met their capacity.
Cm. Schaub felt the facility is on the edge.
Mr. Wood felt it was a good choice to have the compact spaces as employee parking and leave
the larger spaces for others.
Cm. Brown asked about the design of the fencing between the parking lot and the children's
playground. He was concerned with the safety of the children if someone hit the gas pedal
instead of the brakes. He asked if there are bollards on the outside of the fence.
Mr. Wood answered that bollards could be integrated into the design of the fence to protect the
children.
Chair Wehrenberg asked if there was a way to use landscaping around the playground to
minimize the pollution from the nearby traffic.
Mr. Wood answered there is landscaping around the perimeter of all the fencing on the project
to maintain separation between the play area and the parking area. He suggested they could
increase the landscaping visually and create a barrier.
Cm. Bhuthimethee liked the building but wished there was more in the Specific Plan to give the
entire district more character and identity. She asked if the storm water bio- retention area on
Amador Valley Blvd could be moved back. She stated it was against the sidewalk on Amador
Valley which is the sidewalk leading to the building. She was concerned with a 6 inch drop -off
for the free - board, but if the area was landscaped there would be no drop -off. She asked if the
area for the storm water could be backed up to eliminate the drop -off on the sidewalk.
Mr. Wood stated it could.
Cm. Bhuthimethee stated on sheet 2 of 3 of the Grading and Drainage Plan there is a sidewalk
that goes from Amador Valley Blvd to the building and then to the east of the sidewalk is the bio-
retention area which is adjacent to the sidewalk on Amador Valley and the sidewalk leading to
the building. She was concerned with people falling off.
Mr. Wood asked if they could move it back adjacent to the office of the building and fence it off.
Cm. Bhuthimethee did not feel it should be fenced off but asked that they move it back.
Mr. Baker suggested the Applicant could work with Public Works to ensure that the project
meets all the requirements and not cause any unintended consequence that we don't see here.
�,?9,,ust 14, 20.12
Chair Wehrenberg closed the public hearing.
Cm. Bhuthimethee was in support of the project. She felt that the project would add to the
vibrancy of the Downtown area; it is convenient for the parents who also want the project; the
property owners are working with each other; the community wants it and staff is recommending
it. They meet the parking code requirements, the parking counts have been confirmed by the
traffic consultant and the architecture meets DDSP requirements. She felt the daycare center
should not be punished for the success of Starbucks. She stated she could make all the
findings.
Cm. Schaub asked which findings she could make.
Cm. Bhuthimethee asked which findings he was referring to.
Cm. Schaub responded he was referring to safety, circulation and compatibility of use which he
felt are the overriding findings that must be made.
Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that, as the traffic consultant stated, this daycare center is not different
from any other school or more dangerous than any other parking lot. She felt since he is an
expert the Commission should listen to him. She also felt the applicant has stated that in her
other successful projects she had less parking with no problems. She felt that if we want
businesses to come to our City and serve the community the Commission must allow them to;
especially when they meet all the codes and requirements.
Cm. Schaub stated he cannot make the findings on safety, circulation and compatibility. He felt
it was not healthy for the children; the circulation is impossible and felt it will get worse. He did
not feel a daycare center is compatible with this parcel and stated he could not make those
three important findings on behalf of the residents.
Cm. Brown stated he specifically looked at the findings which are divided into several points,
and if one point of the finding cannot be made then none of the findings can be made. He felt
there are mitigations that can be worked out between the developer and Staff. He suggested
making the staggered drop -off times and pick -up times a Condition of Approval.
Cm. Schaub felt that Conditions of Approval could not be relied upon.
Chair Wehrenberg stated that in the past the Commission has required staggered drop -off and
pick -up times to try to mitigate the problem.
Cm. Brown stated there is a shopping center across Amador Valley Blvd with a large parking lot,
and suggested a van could meet the children there and bring them to the daycare.
Stephen Muzio, City Attorney, stated the scope of the Planning Commission's decision relates
to the Applicant's use, the layout of the subject property and if the 17 proposed parking spaces
are adequate for the daycare center's use.
Chair Wehrenberg understood but stated Finding A under the Conditional Use Permit states "a
parking study was conducted and concluded that adequate parking would be available for the
�,?9,,ust 14, 20.12
project and adjacent retail center." She stated she understood the site is two parcels but in
reading the finding it suggests that they are looking at both parcels.
Cm. Schaub felt the issue of circulation is not that they have the number of spaces but are they
appropriately spaced and accessible. He felt that was different than 17 spaces in a row.
Chair Wehrenberg felt the project meets the code requirement of 17 spaces.
Cm. Brown asked Mr. Muzio if it is improper to discuss mitigations.
Mr. Muzio answered no; he stated that to the extent that Cm. Brown was proposing that spaces
across the street be utilized for the daycare center.
Cm. Brown stated he was not suggesting utilizing the parking lot across the street for the
daycare center but as a mitigation, the children could be picked up from another location across
the street. He stated, under the Conditional Use Permit, he cannot the make Finding A, #2 and
#3. He stated he cannot make Finding B, #1 & #2; he cannot make Finding E, #2; he cannot
make Finding F, #2. He stated under the Site Development Review he cannot make Finding
A4, D2, F3 or F6 and cannot make Finding H at all.
Chair Wehrenberg agreed with Cm. Brown, and stated that she could not make the findings.
She felt the building is fine, met the codes and she agrees that they want new businesses in
Downtown Dublin.
Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that no one from the community has responded with negative comments
regarding this project. She felt this was a good sign.
Cm. Schaub felt it is the Planning Commission's job to represent the residents. He felt that the
residents would have no idea what would happen at the hearing based on the notice that was
distributed, which is the nature of notices in general.
Mr. Baker asked Cm. Schaub for clarification regarding the notice. He stated the notice
indicated that the Planning Commission would consider a Conditional Use Permit and Site
Development Review for a daycare center at this location.
Cm. Schaub responded the notice didn't indicate there would be parking spaces taken away
from the area. He felt the notice does not make it clear that businesses could be impacted
because of the parking issue. He felt that people do not attend the meeting because they don't
understand what the implications are. He stated that just because the patrons of the
businesses or the future parents of the daycare center, who don't understand that the project
will be congested and unsafe, are not at the meeting doesn't mean the Commission doesn't
represent them.
Chair Wehrenberg stated that when the original project was brought before the Commission
they struggled with the same discussion. She stated the Commission reviews land use as retail
and does not take into consideration if it is a Starbucks; they look at what is being proposed.
She felt with an office building they understand how people will park. She was concerned if this
site is appropriate for a daycare center. She was concerned with adding more impact to an area
that is close to 3 other schools. She would like to see the parcel built out rather than an empty
lot, but was unsure what type of use would be best for the site.
�,?9,,ust 14, 20.12
Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that if the Applicant thought the project would not work or be successful,
they would have saved their money and time and not submitted the application. She also felt
that if we keep allowing for cars and parking the City would be catering to the auto and Dublin
would become more sprawling, and felt that density is about allowing businesses to come into
Dublin.
Cm. Schaub felt that is not what is before the Planning Commission. He felt the findings of
safety, circulation and compatibility are the issues before the Commission.
Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that is how downtown areas are. She stated the City is trying to create
density in the Downtown. She felt that the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan allows for new
density and the Applicant meets all the requirements.
Cm. Schaub responded the Commission is reviewing zoning codes, density and traffic and the
safety of children.
Cm. Bhuthimethee felt the Applicant meets all those requirements.
Chair Wehrenberg stated that if the Commission was to deny the project and it is appealed to
the City Council she would like to have additional Conditions of Approval added regarding
marked parking spaces and signage designating those spaces to the daycare center which
could minimize impact to the center. She also wanted to see a shared parking agreement with
the adjacent business owners. She was also concerned about access for emergency vehicles
and suggested some red zones in the area need to be repainted. She agreed with Cm. Brown
that she cannot make the findings.
Mr. Muzio felt there was likely to be a motion to deny the CUP /SDR and in order to assist Staff
in preparing a revised resolution, he asked if the Commissioners would agree that the items
addressed by Cm. Brown should be the basis for denial.
Cm. Schaub agreed with Cm. Brown that he cannot make the findings.
Mr. Muzio stated that, in order to adopt a resolution denying the CUP /SDR, Staff would take the
findings and make negative statements for the items that Cm. Brown mentioned. For example
the Commission's findings would be that the project would not be accessible to traffic, etc.
Cm. Schaub asked Cm. Brown if any of his findings he could not make included an unhealthy
environment for the children. He felt it was unhealthy for the children to be playing next to the
parking lot.
Cm. Brown stated air quality was not among the findings.
Cm. Schaub asked that air quality be added to the resolution stating they cannot make those
findings and findings that the project is not an area conducive for children to play outside
adjacent to idling cars in the parking lot. He is concerned about air quality.
Chair Wehrenberg stated one of the findings is health and safety and air quality would fall into
that category. She was concerned with traffic at the daycare center and the parking lot
configuration.
�,?9,,ust 14, 20.12
Cm. Brown asked if the project can be continued.
Chair Wehrenberg asked Cm. Brown what he would like to study further that would allow the
project to be continued.
Cm. Brown responded he would like to see if there are mitigations that could be added that
would improve the situation. He mentioned the enforcement issue for the parking lot.
Cm. Schaub felt there was no enforcement issue. He stated the only recourse is to put signs up
and if people don't abide by the signs the cars must be towed and he felt there was no room for
a tow truck.
Chair Wehrenberg felt that in the beginning of the operation there would need to be local
enforcement there.
Cm. Brown asked if Chair Wehrenberg felt that continuation is not an option.
Chair Wehrenberg did not feel there would be a benefit to a continuation. She stated if the
Commission denies the project and the Applicant appeals the decision, it would go on to the City
Council.
Mr. Baker answered yes; if the Commission denies the project there would be a 10 -day appeal
period in which the Applicant can appeal their decision and then it would be heard by the City
Council. He continued if there is a motion for denial, based on what the City Attorney
mentioned, the resolution would be based on the negative findings as discussed in the prior
conversation.
On a motion by Cm. Schaub, the Planning Commission recommend denial of the resolution
based on the inability to make the findings referenced by Cm. Brown for both the Conditional
Use Permit and the Site Development Review, seconded by Cm. Brown, on a vote of 3 -1, with
Vice Chair O'Keefe being absent, the Planning Commission denied:
Brown, Wehrenberg, Schaub — yes
Bhuthimethee — no
RESOLUTION NO. 12 -31
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
DENYING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE DEVELOPOMENT REVIEW PERMIT
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A DAY CARE CENTER AT
7250 AMADOR VALLEY BIVD (APN 941 - 0210 -035)
PLPA- 2011 -00055 & 00056
Mr. Baker asked Mr. Muzio if he felt he had the information he needed to move forward with the
resolution.
q,?9,,ust 14, 20.12
Mr. Muzio answered yes but in certain cases with respect to specific items Staff may need to
create a negative statement of finding.
Mr. Baker mentioned that there is a 10 -day appeal period in which the Applicant can appeal the
Planning Commission's decision.
NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS — NONE
OTHER BUSINESS - NONE
10.1 Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from the Planning Commission and /or Staff,
including Committee Reports and Reports by the Planning Commission related to
meetings attended at City Expense (AB 1234).
10.2 Retirement party of Jeri Ram — on Thursday, August 30
10.3 Nothing on the agenda for 8 -28 but full agenda in September.
ADJOURNMENT — The meeting was adjourned at .r.::.0..1..::..34 PI .
Respectfully submitted,
Doreen Wehrenberg
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Jeff Baker
Assistant Community Development Director
G:IMINUTESI2010PLANNING COMMISSIONI08.14.12 DRAFT PC MINUTES.docx
�,?9,,ust 14, 20.12
RESOLUTION NO. 12 -31
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
DENYING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A DAY CARE CENTER AT
7250 AMADOR VALLEY BLVD (APN 941 - 0210 -035)
PLPA- 2011 -00055 & 00056
WHEREAS, the Applicant has requested approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the
operation of a Day Care Center for up to 60 children and Site Development Review for the
construction of a 3,284 square foot building with a 2,400 square foot outdoor play area along
with 17 parking spaces, landscaping and associated site improvements; and
WHEREAS, the Project is located in the D -D (Downtown Dublin) Zoning District; and
WHEREAS, a Day Care Center is permitted in the D -D Zoning District subject to
approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Sections 8.30.040 and 8.104.040.C.4 of the Dublin
Municipal Code, all development in the D -D Zoning District and all new principal structures are
subject to Site Development Review and shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with State
Guidelines and City Environmental Regulations required that certain projects be reviewed for
environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 15270(b) of the CEQA, CEQA does not apply to projects
which a public agency rejects or disapproves; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted to the City of Dublin Planning Commission
recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review request;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on
August 14, 2012 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports,
recommendations and testimony herein above set forth and used its independent judgment to
evaluate the project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Dublin Planning Commission
does hereby make the following findings and determinations regarding the Conditional Use
Permit:
A. The proposed use and related structures are not compatible with other land uses,
transportation and service facilities in the vicinity in that. 1) the Project is not compatible
with the adjacent retail center and will result in the removal of 10 existing parking spaces
currently being utilized by the retail center; 2) the Project will create additional congestion
on the adjacent retail center parcel; 3) the Project will create additional traffic impacts in
an area that is already impacted by three other schools (Dublin High School, Wells
Middle School and Valley High School).
B. The Project will adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the
vicinity, and be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare in that: 1) the Project
will expose children to poor air quality by locating the outdoor play area in close proximity
to a parking lot and two major streets (Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard).
C. The subject site is not physically suitable for the type, density and intensity of the use and
related structures being proposed in that: 1) the Project will generate additional traffic that
will result in congestion on the adjacent retail center parcel and the parking lot
configuration includes a dead -end which will further contribute to congestion; and 2) the
Project will create additional traffic impacts in an area that is already impacted by three
other schools (Dublin High School, Wells Middle School and Valley High School).
D. The Project will be contrary to the specific intent clauses, development regulations, and
performance standards established for the zoning district in which it is located in that. 1)
the Project does not provide adequate pedestrian connections to Amador Valley
Boulevard.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Dublin Planning Commission does hereby
make the following findings and determinations regarding the Site Development Review:
A. The Project is not consistent with the purposes of Chapter 8.104, with the General Plan
and with any applicable Specific Plans and design guidelines in that: 1) the Project will
not provide adequate on -site circulation for automobiles; and 2) the Project does not
provide adequate pedestrian connections to Amador Valley Boulevard.
B. The subject site is not physically suitable for the type and intensity of the approved
development in that: 1) the Project will generate additional traffic that will result in
congestion on the adjacent retail center parcel and the parking lot configuration includes
a dead -end which will further contribute to congestion; and 2) the Project will create
additional traffic impacts in an area that is already impacted by three other schools
(Dublin High School, Wells Middle School and Valley High School).
C. Architectural considerations including site layout do not result in a project that is
harmonious with its surroundings and compatible with other development in the vicinity in
that: 1) the Project is not compatible with the adjacent retail center and will result in the
removal of 10 existing parking spaces currently being utilized by the retail center; 2) the
Project will create additional congestion on the adjacent retail center parcel; 3) the
Project will create additional traffic impacts in an area that is already impacted by three
other schools (Dublin High School, Wells Middle School and Valley High School); and 4)
the Project will not provide adequate on -site circulation for automobiles because it
includes a dead -end which will contribute to on -site congestion.
2 of 3
D. The site has been adequately designed to ensure proper circulation for bicyclists,
pedestrians and automobiles in that: 1) the Project will not provide adequate on -site
circulation for automobiles because it will generate additional traffic that will result in
congestion on the adjacent retail center parcel and the parking lot configuration includes
a dead -end which will further contribute to congestion.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby deny the
request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review for the construction and
operation of a Day Care Center as shown on the project plans, date stamped received by
Dublin Planning on June 21, 2012, and incorporated by reference.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of August 2012 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
Wehrenberg, Schaub, Brown
Bhuthimethee
O'Keefe
Planning Commission Chair
Assistant C munity Development Director
G:1PAM20111PLPA- 2011 -00055 Dublin Preschool SDRIPC 08.14.12108.14.12 PC Reso Denial.docx
3 of 3
. � A AA � _-[I-]
Re: Conditional Use Permit & Site Development Review Permit
for the Construction & Operation of a Day Care Center
at 7250 Amador Valley Blvd (APN 941 -0210 -035)
PLPA -2011 -00055
To Whom it May Concern:
We are appealing the Planning Commission decision of August 14, 2012 on the above project
for the following reasons:
1. The decision was based on the lack of parking on an adjoining parcel, the applicant disputes
this finding as City of Dublin Planning Staff recommended approval and parking conformed to
guidelines.
2. Testimony presented by Planning Commissioner occurred without review by parking analysis
professional and information was not presented to Applicant or City of Dublin staff prior to
meeting.
3. The Applicant disputes the finding that air quality is poor and this finding by Planning
Commission was not based on facts.
4. The Applicant disputes the finding that site is not suitable, traffic and circulation issues were
addressed and a recommendation of approval was given by City of Dublin Planning staff after
careful review of the application. The adverse decision was based on purported inadequate
access to the property in conflict with the fact that the access was approved by the City of
Dublin in 2004.
5. It is alleged that this project does not provide adequate pedestrian connections to Amador
Valley Blvd. The proposed building has a secondary entrance which fronts directly onto
Amador Valley Blvd. - pedestrian oriented in keeping with the Village Parkway District
Development Standards As far as a pedestrian connection from the parking area to
Amador Valley Blvd. - the effectiveness of the short term parking provided for a use of
this nature would be compromised if longer term parking were encouraged by the
pedestrian connection (please refer to the Parking Analysis).
If you have any further questions, please give my office a call.
Sincerely
City of Dublin
www , dubl i n , ca ,gay!
1 Finance
1223701 -1 08/24/2012 BR1 T4
Fri Aug24,2012 04:27PM Trans #1 -1
1 $4000.00 Other - Other Transaction
Reason: PLANING DAYCARE APPEAL
From: ZHEN ZHEN LI
GL: B 1001,12102
Amt: $4000.00
1 ITEM(5): TOTAL: $4000.00
Check (1301) PAID $4000,00
925 - 833 -6640
vo'Nnuno
GAI9 ),311VA 800VV4V 09ZL 9Z466 VI�OMIVD -
coz �S,Mlmaw Vil loc
Li 0 lOOHOS3Hd Mien( cloom i7v-i-ilim -
W) 'Nnona WZB U (S 6) $.
GAIG A311VA HOGVINV OSZL 9zst6 VWNOMIVD ='&,4v.
coz mjns'�M", 7�XVH IN
CIOOMWVI-I-TTAA
1OOH OS31Jd Wisna I 'I il I
pullIN
MINE
LLLUl_9!
EN
ui
EL LU
PZ
IL
w
z
0
H
I
ap
)(b \\
I
w
vo'Nnano
'GAIG ),311VA HOGVV4V 09ZL
C��g (�6)
9ZS3,6 �I�Wlqvz),--Rvu
coz �ns'jn�v 71N�H IN
Hill!
100HOS3Ud Nnena
coom wvi-iqim
PZ
IL
w
z
0
H
I
ap
)(b \\
I
w
0
o
2
w wa�
o*�
21 co
o
A
$Nil
u
P,
IH Ir
o
38 o-
Fl� 6' 6 8'
8 pa 9, g op
Z,
H
4,P,
o
F39
�2
6 4�6
ow X XT
-o
9 o,-
.
.,--o RMHu
65 azzwz Piz -Z
Do�o�3� z
olzw z
0-- 6 'o I'z lMQ.,n15
cp -z'
c'i 5
z
oLL mgLL 6�!O-M,
Z_
Z�
0 N,
N Ell
< V�s, , _Q , W.
� -o' T'62
S iwoh
z
1w , -.- . Z. 0
Iz j- W�L -- -
z 'Z " ., 1
T, I M- I <. , -Z 1. 1. "
z 1.
-H
'o W6 Z
-H, -ja
6
-:? 0
-Z 3oz. d��06 W< V -r
6-'- 'o
T 2 -g z- z
>
H 15 6
6, Hw' , - o p z
z
<
om m = o 6 e wmN�o ZZ u» kNznd�a Z moz°a ni�Nw }gowQF0 �wr , Ni wNn�d O`w'�'. QQw z° Oaf.� n o?� � a4h o°3 �m ¢ 2� �gvm Z,rcni O wa-�_>°-� ' � ° K rc o vaN s Li �uZ0= °KO°K�iN��-y N N K g d a"uLL tt
U �,-}iKn' oOaan~ wmS>a z J �z r �F . rn <NuN0 pwOLLw Qnz - U_ - WJ w�i3wW`a >Ua � zF�°w p w K w w .O N ... - _ N N O w wFaN uOp�s } a Q w w O 2 Q nEO� - �KK w °U o N � Q o OwGdN_ a� uO° wm rw N N O -�a =moOxwW i o "OK `�n2u'„w��sNgyam�oWaWw �pNa5w P u m °Q�wwQ ° �w o N 0 Y � J .- ��x�n og p�`?z€Niwo j p¢aLLONx �Oaa=w ��',9a i�wz�Nipdu wO N=gzdO¢o m�QN�Ndw�� d`- aU0z '=�_o n���°'° o q m 0 _ rc K w ° p
Z.
z
Fz -Z 'w- Om, 0 0§ ;oi §6
z
w
0 lb-2, 6 2 d - ' - '
s .2 R $o zz; y T -26--�m < 6 55
z Ri w �86'0!jg lzz , 1 0
6a �HKZU� 2 z g2,�
I I> 2 'T, 0', -,6
T
T. I �z I w j5.
z
z z z- 6�� 5U' o 261. -.0.11 1: 1 �q .1 -z' 9 �R 910
P 'ZO5 -om -.1 �z - w g 8 8 5 �20 Z-
0
. . 3.. . � - -o '. 8 ;z 2 R s 2,
�z w
0 < 06 < . �-,o . r .
z j. UW' z 3-
-0 z 81.2
!"o?'w 'w
Z'-
9OX2T 0- �z 0 2, g 1.
oux fflo*, 'o S 2<
.2 oatb
0. P 10 2-0.
6-§
'o- -Z < I
Ozo �2 0 w
5-5 5
Qo- I I-
0
0 -j z
20, H � 2�. 9 zK P Z,
0
z I
W,
w�.
8 -W 2 wo '.zn 0, w s
1.
o 'o 0
NO o 6 Sd I
m4 2.,
w I
2 -T M . ..... HP. -0.1.--M I,.-
8 1 HOWD 6 8
I E I o 6
w 6 T -w
4W [J JL J
-,W. 1: 'R A z g�,- 0 -N, I Cf)
z -o
��5 . Z, F W-z
-W W� Z. Z, W, 1�
W. S -.o' 6 9 10 1p uz
a��- L, W. Z- 6
S �- H�Z<�
Z.., 0, -,z Z- lw ram d! 9
haw
P�� N I T_t, z 2. 5,; W. 0 2NoOLLz2 p 2
U.. , - �< � �-' T, E - H �
< W, 02 �p Iz - 1. if 0. 35 F" Z, o<
-,�M - . " 'g,'. , -, - p
-F,g o p. �'z 9' 1
.6r " W.
oz � s . . , M , m .6w T�I-
�T X0 zw M� O� wo .1 �w q <
I
W. 1, Z- �W-
odDZHx- " 9
0 M ..
H
Wax - - S 1. X 8 Up, 8 1 % 3 w%
96 d 6 w F, w co
g U w p
.E. wo� z' 6' z, .0 U-R: 13 .5 z
6.� 2 '. '. m �-, W-
N, Z9 0- W. '9
< ol - z �z I 'z 2.
M � I
z . -ow U lw- "O'sEN-Z 0, T < ca
W T
<
2 2 z. U z v' 6 %w re 0, wo zo w. 9, w- YF 2, 6 zw < .1 Wz
mw WZ,z W4, Q Fe § wo�- Z�- -1 T 0 Z' o22'20F I.:
w zo"�g�c- �0< z z t, 1. Z, 1.
T, 1, E, - oz �� T, .1 'o D� 6�6-.6y? '6 11 w
. - * " E t, 2 >,: T?
z �o "'.6 w Z' 'z 250., H.- �lw .1 '0 'w I
Z�
s �z W. Z. < I.'
W.,4 � M, - ��OH
Rl� 5 . �- 1. -� '� J, T 3 �. -, 5-,g056 V '
6 .15- Zl'- � 0 Iz 0,- 0 1
M C6
< mo Z< �.z 6�--- -6g
L o- 9� ,.,.O�-
6, � wogl.t 1 .1 2�-� V, 2, . . '. p I
0 1 w Z' '11. lo>, w
0, % W. i': HWH�-N .0
z H z
0.0� Klz
-z
0
w T TM < to
.--Kd W. I I ? 2 z 2: z -v< 4 RMH. O
<
'51531 303VA -15
B a33NONI SliOS A8
O1 N01103S Wn0V
3SVe OOV
Q
II SStllO ,G NO OV.f
wLo
Ewa �o
E o ozo
o.
z
OS°w�2LLZ
� Oow rm�Naog
a g�wm�� °ma
w .00'ai�o °afi
-h 3 rc¢3:
NOUMMUNO0 a0J NVId ONISNMd
33S, 'IVN3iVl NVS
'
- --
-
z. r
r
z
NSVQ 30
AO 33vi
151X3 JO 3OYJ
Z
f
fL
Q
a '
O OAd .9 dIBL
Z
(Q
kic
a
a
b
30YUpi )2
d �
d
3N1 -'I -
�--
U
LGt££ANI
S £££ 3lYMS li
Q
-ear
> F
C11
tilviao
Node O3SY
1
38
ou
11V139
0 0
¢WN
'51531 303VA -15
B a33NONI SliOS A8
O1 N01103S Wn0V
3SVe OOV
Q
II SStllO ,G NO OV.f
wLo
Ewa �o
E o ozo
o.
z
OS°w�2LLZ
� Oow rm�Naog
a g�wm�� °ma
w .00'ai�o °afi
-h 3 rc¢3:
NOUMMUNO0 a0J NVId ONISNMd
33S, 'IVN3iVl NVS
'
- --
-
z. r
j
z
NSVQ 30
AO 33vi
151X3 JO 3OYJ
Z
f
fL
Q
a '
O OAd .9 dIBL
Z
(Q
kic
S11tl130 NOJ
a
b
30YUpi )2
d �
d
3N1 -'I -
�--
U
LGt££ANI
S £££ 3lYMS li
Q
-ear
> F
C11
tilviao
Node O3SY
03NIWa3L30
38
11V139
'51531 303VA -15
B a33NONI SliOS A8
O1 N01103S Wn0V
3SVe OOV
Q
II SStllO ,G NO OV.f
wLo
Ewa �o
E o ozo
o.
z
OS°w�2LLZ
� Oow rm�Naog
a g�wm�� °ma
w .00'ai�o °afi
-h 3 rc¢3:
2
4$
£L'Z£f NY i'1Id030N3J m`1 ce Nr
151 %3 !0 �IYJ t 11 � tS .
!W££ AN' b'l££ 31tlN9
NIYN9 M013a3A0 rFf .",v` m�,A 9 � re`^f O �i�v' "� n
VMV NOLLN313a -019 `�JSaj °y"oy�,�o
le0NV31O a3M3s NVS _... ..... ....
J�
k.,
-a
Nmao ens .a
a
x
V98'b££ - 9vd a3wamsNVa>.
".\ -IV 0 -d ONLLSIX3
w
NOUMMUNO0 a0J NVId ONISNMd
33S, 'IVN3iVl NVS
'
- --
-
�5
�c
AO 33vi
151X3 JO 3OYJ
Z
f
fL
a '
O OAd .9 dIBL
Z
(Q
kic
0
a
b
30YUpi )2
LGt££ANI
S £££ 3lYMS li
2
4$
£L'Z£f NY i'1Id030N3J m`1 ce Nr
151 %3 !0 �IYJ t 11 � tS .
!W££ AN' b'l££ 31tlN9
NIYN9 M013a3A0 rFf .",v` m�,A 9 � re`^f O �i�v' "� n
VMV NOLLN313a -019 `�JSaj °y"oy�,�o
le0NV31O a3M3s NVS _... ..... ....
J�
k.,
-a
Nmao ens .a
a
x
V98'b££ - 9vd a3wamsNVa>.
".\ -IV 0 -d ONLLSIX3
w
NOUMMUNO0 a0J NVId ONISNMd
33S, 'IVN3iVl NVS
'
- --
-
.Z aislld
AO 33vi
151X3 JO 3OYJ
Z
f
fL
O OAd .9 dIBL
Z
(Q
kic
a
P
30YUpi )2
LGt££ANI
S £££ 3lYMS li
Nl"O MO'IJa3A9 t'
a �
,r �
-! Y3aY NouN3laa
t�
r X
e �s
t
o r w
n �
s�
h 2 n
4
Q( 31no
b0(7vtvv
b
S
m
es G w
W M
m',
z
J
EL
W
Q
z
cc
C
cli
�
V
z
Q
0
3z z
I zoo oo.,
6T
i�zz-,- ---BR 1". 'o
'66� 59' ;� < OZ
LB�- �z 51 — -2% o
U5 � 3.". . < z—, <
1 .4, 0 z- o.
'�z Iz .<-o& A
419�j ". �' j �- I - � c- . 1. t z.
z
o
I z z. �w
-6 ow Tw, Owl a69;,
j z Z'
-w P.
<%8w, 31 1
< 8 In o-.w W."",
zc - -, -, 6 z.
>
�5
< <z z W,
M-w ��T-O R z- 2 F j 2 w P 9 w- f ❑T z.w - - �, 7. 5 . z
>
z z T T
00 '1,
0 ° p
Hoo .6
og l< < 1.
iz� I. g- woo <
W. 1 W.
w ww" �S�
0 �z Opw N 0 9T U;--
0, z �3
'o .1 .,. '. I
�.6w 6
z z . I A
-Z
0.1 1
6 1 w2w 'R 0 0
w I p <
-Z� I I
10
Z'- T, 161F -H . o"
z
oz < xm
ul
Z9 Lu
w
ui
0 0 . WW
az
W
Z,
Ut
.w 3Zt
fj)
zw
I
00 !d
z �i O cr
1—
0 00
Z
z
o
to ' t'
ml
Z
0
cr
Z
~
C)
0
0
gg
Al
•
•
I
m
-i
0 z
<
Z CL
0
z
o P
0 C:
cr- (xj
W
wrae
jo
...........
rc
1.
w
ov
z,
ZJOQ
NZ
ml
Z
0
cr
Z
~
C)
0
0
gg
Al
•
•
I
m
-i
0 z
<
Z CL
0
z
o P
0 C:
cr- (xj
W
ag
Iz
0
ix
0
LU
1.
z
<
ag
Iz
0
ix
0
LU
uj
cg w
n Pz
0
Op
yw
z
W mp
mew T
z
wow
ono0.
I
0
0
r
CO
C
OL-
m
0
0
w
O
Cf)
Sa
3 AH
uj
cg w
n Pz
0
Op
yw
z
W mp
mew T
z
wow
ono0.
I
0
0
r
CO
C
OL-
m
0
0
w
O
Cf)
Sa
flu o w 0
xpq n6o 1H 9 fly
out
HH,
01
It K
in Awl
in 1up
HUI
B RUA
I
SSg
snag
M
all 1
A
1
C I
pill
cc
Ij
P H!
1
ERE
111 1
:z
gig
to
Uj
"WON
W
cc
Rio",
Oki
N
H N
B91
12
MH
His
If 1
all'
MH
oil
1
Un
0 -of
who
it
EM
III
EgiHi 1
H"V
In
229
101
its
056
onoul 1
I
Ml
Rio
No H1
�n,
Ono
Ulu
H1 NO
USE
011.
sit
H 91
110
in
Eivul,
Ufa
Him!
can
Hin
m
111
ov
M
IMM 1 1
R
iga call so
MH
HR
PH
womb a
JU
IMT"h
2
in
w- v
X55
s
AbMk2fbd 39VIIIA
co
o
5 u
I - 7
Ci -
= T
CL
u-d
of
>.0 01
uj
Q
T
of
co
3Sd
- �-1 1� - �i .
mm, �z
CL
Z,
ED
Lu
AbMk2fbd 39VIIIA
41 0-19
of
>.0 01
T
of
co
3Sd
- �-1 1� - �i .
mm, �z
Lu
omlmm m
aD
8
NJA1.bL r-f7
0
Im I I.,
elk
I CIA N
< H
.
. . X .....l. M6, ll,ZI,ZIN g N1
— —
— _88'Rl — — M.OE.ZfdEN — — — —
CO
&
R- V
AbMk2fbd 39VIIIA
^aL�H.Lmldv HdvasaNd'[ -- -- -
m
' 'CHI 'SiLLVL'70SSV W NV['II}IlQ"3a3H1[OII
vm
']aflnNCi StlRME t 0 1. .. NM'Otl0 GNV .NVi< C.J 4 UJ3L'N , VIVC J1101,3111 NCB 13 "A .0 ! ,--I 'I N ".3.NC....3N NP ..l (IlN 3 :NNtk;..)T3 NMaO I 1 NI'.M. J -.:JA null �M :F4vnv OC l3 .l!r Mbiq JrvY SNVI� C3. rvVl!: CIrv' - 13 V Jtl
3u iC �n,uC 1 'Jn i, 11 � �.S /t NV N -1. 'saC31 N. Je'„c.sle I §NJ 31tl CJ.N'v a /tJ l:roNUa hl f3, o�..fl m 1 ,.i 3N Ud f3s 3ivnl Ono- rvm33n iv �tt3w vY U
dwMOi �DkiJi3 N B Ab b. V. �� 1.
V
i a
o
" m m
m n
qt
z °
a z
PI u 7
Sa
7 3 0 a< a a a a u 9 lbw.
\) d b
n r t -i
aw
" m
m�
N
Ix, `r_ uunux r�
} u 1 �'���'� -.
Ll
0
_,�..
1 F
n I
w
i � I
.ao.iw.uxv . v -i vioe uz �v+Vrwv. puasaa +. M1<. ni 4 w .= vii rieM va+m unu ry
va'Nnana r(3 oaa (sze)
y� QAI9 A311VA UOGVWV 05ZL 9G5b6 o. u�o) io i au nuo0 L ;
5 'anua tl 1�nH LO£ O `
o ^
` GOO M WdITIIM
N
M1y v
C ,
o LLI
N
, Q Y OM . . m -
V
i
N h.
Gh O CV as -
a t
Ci
+N t`. c0 Q7 .�-.. _.. M1 ica iM �.- �O (. -4 10} t(3
F
C'._..,
m.
co
413P �lo M a) a1 M N M o', r°, V; _..... p�Z_ 4a Z I.f) OO
+CO oo 1w 'In M ta) ��
F
w ,oJ Qm d1 4 (A
N i.- iN +N O "' ed = a(V ` =V co N {O �b �O • " %�O� t0 O
Q
n
{
f
3
A
5
A
v
a
-
Nn
N
M1y v
C ,
o LLI
N
, Q Y OM . . m -
V
i
N h.
Gh O CV as -
a t
Ci
+N t`. c0 Q7 .�-.. _.. M1 ica iM �.- �O (. -4 10} t(3
F
C'._..,
m.
co
413P �lo M a) a1 M N M o', r°, V; _..... p�Z_ 4a Z I.f) OO
+CO oo 1w 'In M ta) ��
F
w ,oJ Qm d1 4 (A
N i.- iN +N O "' ed = a(V ` =V co N {O �b �O • " %�O� t0 O
n
E N G I N E E R S • PLAN N E R S
April 19, 2012
Ms. Jaimee Bourgeois
Transportation & Operations Manager
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
0
RE: Focused Parking Analysis for a Proposed Pre - School Project in the City of Dublin
Dear Ms. Bourgeois:
The following letter report provides a focused weekday parking analysis for a proposed Pre - School
project in the City of Dublin. The proposed project would be located adjacent to an existing retail center
on the southeast quadrant of the Village Parkway /Amador Valley intersection (see Project Site Plan —
attached). The existing retail center contains a mixture of small commercial tenants that includes a
Starbuck's coffee shop. This center currently has an on -site parking supply of 32 spaces. There are an
additional 10 spaces used as overflow parking; however, these 10 spaces are located beyond the center's
property and are included on the property of the proposed project. The proposed project would be
constructed on the eastern half of the site with a capacity for 60 pre- school students, 5 staff, and a parking
supply /allotment of 17 parking spaces (seven more spaces than currently exist today). Combined with
existing retail uses, proposed pre - school uses could create a higher parking demand affecting overall
parking supply and availability during peak demand periods. Consequently, a focused parking demand
analysis has been conducted for the proposed project based on City code requirements and parking
surveys conducted for both existing and proposed uses. The following sections outline existing
conditions at the project site, City parking code requirements, parking surveys conducted for both existing
and proposed uses, and the likely parking demand during the weekday period.
Existing Uses/Parking Demand
The proposed project site is located at the southeast quadrant of the Village Parkway /Amador Valley
Boulevard intersection. The site is vacant with the exception of a paved parking area on the southern end
of the site that accommodates 10 parking spaces currently used by the adjacent retail center located to the
west of the project site. The existing center includes a Starbuck's coffee shop, Cafe Art, Optometrist, We
Buy Gold, and Salon uses totaling 8,539 square feet. Access to the site is provided by two right- turn-only
driveways; one off Village Parkway and one off Amador Valley Boulevard. The retail center currently
has 32 striped parking spaces on -site (19 standard, 11 compact, 2 accessible). In addition, there are
approximately ten (10) parking spaces (5 striped and 5 un- striped) on the proposed pre - school project site
where patrons or employees can currently park for an overall total supply of 42 on -site spaces. On- street
parking adjacent to the site includes 11 parallel parking spaces; four (4) parallel spaces on Village
Parkway and approximately seven (7) spaces on Amador Valley Boulevard.
1901 Olympic Blvd., Suite 120, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 - (925) 935 -2230 fax (925) 935 -2247
ROSEVILLE REDDING VISALIA WALNUT CREEK
ATTACHMENT 5
Ms. Jaimee Bourgeois
April 19, 2012
Existing Retail Center
LI
Page 2
Parking demand surveys for all existing and proposed uses were conducted during the morning (7:00-
10:00 a.m., mid -day (11:30 a.m. -12:30 p.m.), mid - afternoon (2:30 -3:30 p.m.) and evening (4:00 -6:15
p.m.) periods'. (A complete summary is provided in Table A in 15 minute increments for all parking
survey results and estimated parking demand has been attached). For existing retail uses adjacent to the
proposed project site, overall parking demand peaked during the mid - afternoon period (around 3:30 p.m.)
at 39 spaces. This included 37 spaces on -site and two (2) off-site spaces on Village Parkway. Of those
patrons parking on -site, 32 patrons were parked in dedicated (striped) spaces for existing retail and five
(5) patrons in the striped spaces on the pre - school site. As shown in Table 1 below, parking demand at
the existing retail center was over capacity during the mid -day, mid - afternoon, and evening periods
resulting in overflow parking onto the proposed pre - school project site.
Existing Springfield- Montessori Pre - School
To evaluate the parking demand characteristics of the proposed project, a comparable pre - school in the
City of Dublin was surveyed for overall parking characteristics. The Springfield- Montessori pre - school is
located at 5100 Brannigan Street. A self - contained facility, the pre - school has an on -site parking supply
of 53 spaces (51 standard, 2 accessible) and an attendance of 150 students the day of the survey." As
shown in Table 1, the pre - school had their peak demand period during the mid - afternoon period with 46
spaces occupied. During the mid - afternoon period, parents arrive slightly before pick -up times and park
in the lot for approximately 10 -15 minutes. Once the students are released, parents leave the site and
demand drops. The entire process was observed to last approximately 20 minutes for the peak demand
period.
Table 1
Existing Parking Demand; Existing Retail Center & Springfield- Montessori Pre - School
Morning, Mid-Da .4 Mid - Afternoon, and Evenin Demand Periods
$w ,
tines" AINAP,
Morning: 7 -10 AM 26 1 +6 1 33 +20
Mid -Day: 11:30 AM -12:30 PM 1 37 1 ( -5) 1 22 1 +31 1
Mid - Afternoon: 2:30 -3:30 PM 1 39 1 0) 1 46 1 +7 1
I Evening: 4:00 -6:15 PM 1 35 1 ( -3) 1 19 1 +34 1
Source: Omni -Means Engineers and Planners, Parking surveys at the Starbuck's Retail Center and Springfield - Montessori Pre -
School (7:00 -10:00 a.m., 11:30 -12:30 p.m., 2:30 -3:30 p.m., 4:00 -6:15 p.m), March 21 and 22, 2012. Based on total parking
supply of 32 spaces for existing retail uses and 53 spaces for existing Springfield - Montessori Pre - School uses.
Proposed Project Description
The proposed Pre- School project would be situated in the eastern half of the site as shown in the project
site plan (attached). The actual site would be situated on a vacant parcel adjacent to existing onsite
parking areas. Existing retail uses (shown as Parcel A) are located directly west of the project site and
both existing and proposed uses would share common access driveways. The pre - school would have a
S
•
Ms. Jaimee Bourgeois
April 19, 2012
•
Page 3
capacity for 60 students and would supply 17 parking spaces (including 10 existing spaces). Proposed
parking spaces would be located immediately south of the pre - school building.
City Code Requirements
Parking code requirements for "day -care center" have been based on the City's zoning/municipal code for
off - street parking and loading regulations.' Based on proposed uses, the parking code requirements
would be as follows:
Day Care Center (15 +): 1 space per employee, 1 space per company vehicle, plus a loading
space for every 5 children;
Based on the City code requirements the parking requirements have been calculated below:
Day Care Center: 60 children x 1 space /5 children = 12 spaces
5 employees x 1 space /employee = 5 spaces
Total: 17 spaces
As calculated above, the proposed pre - school project would require 17 parking spaces and this would
exactly match proposed supply.
Proposed Project Parking Demand with Existing Retail Uses
Methodology
The proposed project's parking demand has been based on parking surveys for the Springfield- Montessori
Pre - School adjusted proportionately for lower student enrollment and staffing level. Specifically,
surveyed Springfield- Montessori Pre- School parking demand reflects a total attendance of 150 students
and 20 staff members for a combined head count of 170. The proposed project would consist of 60
students and 5 staff members for a combined head count of 65. The total proposed project head count of
65 represents 38% (65 divided by 170) of the existing head count for the Springfield Montessori.
Therefore, the parking demand for the proposed Pre - School was estimated by multiplying the measured
parking demand found at the existing Springfield - Montessori Pre- School by 38 %.
With the addition of the proposed project and associated parking spaces, there would be a total of 49
parking spaces on -site for both retail uses and proposed project uses. This supply would reflect 17 spaces
for the proposed project and 32 spaces for existing retail uses. As noted previously, parking demand for
existing retail uses has encroached beyond the 32 space limit during peak demand periods.
Proj ect Parking Demand
Expected parking demand for the proposed project and the existing retail center has been shown in Table
2 (next page). As calculated, the proposed project's parking demand would peak during the mid-
afternoon period (around 3:30 p.m.) at 17 spaces. Supply for the proposed project would be sufficient to
meet the peak demand. At the same time, the existing retail center would have a demand for 39 parking
spaces, which is 7 more than the parking supply of 32. During various other times of the day as well
(mid -day and evening), the existing retail center parking demand would exceed its available on -site
supply.
•
0
Ms. Jaimee Bourgeois Page 4
April 19, 2012
Table 2
Proposed Project Parking Demand With Existing Retail Center Uses
Source: Omni -Means Engineers and Planners, Parking surveys at the Starbuck's Retail Center and Springfield- Montessori Pre
School (7:00 -10:00 a. m., 11:30 -12:30 p. m., 2:30 -3:30 p. m., 4:00 -6:15 p.m.), March 21 and 22, 2012. A 38% weighted average
was applied to surveyed Springfield- Montessori Pre - School parking demand to generate proposed project parking demand.
Based on a total parking supply of 49 on -site parking spaces for existing retail and proposed project uses.
It is noted that off -site parking spaces located on Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard were
not included in the assumed parking supply for the existing retail center; however, the 11 on- street
parking spaces would be sufficient to accommodate the excess demand from the retail center and allow
for a four (4) space parking surplus during the peak mid - afternoon (2:30 -3:30 p.m.) demand period.
Summary /Conclusions
The proposed Pre - School project would meet City parking code requirements for 17 parking spaces.
Parking surveys conducted for existing retail uses adjacent to the project site indicate that peak demand
occurs during the mid - afternoon (2:30 -3:30 p.m.) period for 39 parking spaces. Based on surveys
conducted for a representative pre - school in the City of Dublin, the Springfield - Montessori Pre- School
has a peak parking demand during the same mid - afternoon period of 46 spaces. Applying a head count
adjustment factor of 38 %, the proposed project would have an estimated peak parking demand of 17
spaces during the mid - afternoon (2:30 -3:30 p.m.) period. This 17 -space project demand can be
accommodated on -site. The existing retail center parking demand at this same time would exceed
available supply by seven parking spaces. However, based on the findings of the prior Starbuck's parking
demand study (where on- street parking was counted toward the available supply for the purpose of
demonstrating that the Starbuck's use would not negatively impact the surrounding environment); the
total center demand can be accommodated on -site and /or within the adjacent on- street parking supply.
The result is that there would be a four -space surplus during the same mid - afternoon (2:30 -3:30 p.m.)
period.
Based on the parking demand analysis for existing and proposed pre - school uses, it is likely that
competition for parking spaces will be at a premium during the peak mid -day, mid - afternoon, and evening
periods. It is important to note that an adequate parking supply usually reflects the availability of
additional parking spaces in order to function at an acceptable level. Most parking areas/lots function
best at approximately 90% of capacity. This essentially provides an efficiency factor of 10% to
accommodate prospective parkers looking for a parking space. Without such a buffer, users would find
themselves competing for the last available spaces. Those waiting for a space to open would slow traffic
in the lot's aisles. Given the small size of the project's parking lot, a 95% effective parking ratio would
51
Morning, Mid -Da
, Mid - Afternoon, and Evenin
Demand Periods
1 $ 41 X
Pr ed' Dub
h R
Weak Time Pe:
S
Morning:
7 -10 AM
3
Mid -Day:
11:30 AM -12:30 PM
37
;.(
,
Mid - Afternoon: 2:30 -3:30 PM
32
- 7 }(�1
17 0.
Evening:
4:00 -6:15 PM
3.1�
{ -3)
7 ..1
Source: Omni -Means Engineers and Planners, Parking surveys at the Starbuck's Retail Center and Springfield- Montessori Pre
School (7:00 -10:00 a. m., 11:30 -12:30 p. m., 2:30 -3:30 p. m., 4:00 -6:15 p.m.), March 21 and 22, 2012. A 38% weighted average
was applied to surveyed Springfield- Montessori Pre - School parking demand to generate proposed project parking demand.
Based on a total parking supply of 49 on -site parking spaces for existing retail and proposed project uses.
It is noted that off -site parking spaces located on Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard were
not included in the assumed parking supply for the existing retail center; however, the 11 on- street
parking spaces would be sufficient to accommodate the excess demand from the retail center and allow
for a four (4) space parking surplus during the peak mid - afternoon (2:30 -3:30 p.m.) demand period.
Summary /Conclusions
The proposed Pre - School project would meet City parking code requirements for 17 parking spaces.
Parking surveys conducted for existing retail uses adjacent to the project site indicate that peak demand
occurs during the mid - afternoon (2:30 -3:30 p.m.) period for 39 parking spaces. Based on surveys
conducted for a representative pre - school in the City of Dublin, the Springfield - Montessori Pre- School
has a peak parking demand during the same mid - afternoon period of 46 spaces. Applying a head count
adjustment factor of 38 %, the proposed project would have an estimated peak parking demand of 17
spaces during the mid - afternoon (2:30 -3:30 p.m.) period. This 17 -space project demand can be
accommodated on -site. The existing retail center parking demand at this same time would exceed
available supply by seven parking spaces. However, based on the findings of the prior Starbuck's parking
demand study (where on- street parking was counted toward the available supply for the purpose of
demonstrating that the Starbuck's use would not negatively impact the surrounding environment); the
total center demand can be accommodated on -site and /or within the adjacent on- street parking supply.
The result is that there would be a four -space surplus during the same mid - afternoon (2:30 -3:30 p.m.)
period.
Based on the parking demand analysis for existing and proposed pre - school uses, it is likely that
competition for parking spaces will be at a premium during the peak mid -day, mid - afternoon, and evening
periods. It is important to note that an adequate parking supply usually reflects the availability of
additional parking spaces in order to function at an acceptable level. Most parking areas/lots function
best at approximately 90% of capacity. This essentially provides an efficiency factor of 10% to
accommodate prospective parkers looking for a parking space. Without such a buffer, users would find
themselves competing for the last available spaces. Those waiting for a space to open would slow traffic
in the lot's aisles. Given the small size of the project's parking lot, a 95% effective parking ratio would
51
•
Ms. Jaimee Bourgeois
April 19, 2012
0
Page 5
likely be sufficient. This would mean that an additional 2 -3 parking spaces would be needed on -site so
that retail customers and parents do not need to drive through the parking lot in search of a parking space
during peak demand periods. Exacerbating the problem would be existing "cut- through" traffic using the
parking lot to by -pass the Village Parkway / Amador Valley Boulevard intersection. Northbound motorists
on Village Parkway currently cut - through the existing parking lot and continue eastbound on Amador
Valley Boulevard to avoid turning right and/or delays at the signal- controlled intersection. All of these
factors would contribute to increased on -site congestion during peak parking demand periods.
Potential measures that could be implemented by the project applicant to improve circulation and parking
include the following:
• Similar to Village Parkway, delineate the on- street parking spaces on Amador Valley Boulevard
with striped "T "'s to insure maximum efficiency. A 15 -foot red curb is recommended
immediately adjacent to the driveway;
• Execute a reciprocal parking agreement with the existing retail center property owner to allow for
the sharing of parking when uses are not peaking at the same time. If such an agreement were
executed, signage might be needed to reserve the pre - school parking during peak periods so that
parents would not end up having to park far from the school entrance.
It is noted that (should the proposed project be approved), much of the existing cut - through traffic would
likely be reduced. During peak parking demand periods of the retail center and proposed pre- school
project, the parking drive aisles would not provide a convenient or fast option to Village Parkway.
Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
OMNI- MEANS, Ltd.
Engineers & Planners
I V
Peter G loway
Transp rtation Planner
Cc: George W. Nickelson, P.E. (Omni- Means)
Rob Tuma, Transportation Planner (Omni -Means)
Enc. Project Site Plan, Parking Survey and Demand Summary Table A (15 min. increments)
C1588LTR002.docx / 35- 2807 -54
S
i
Ms. Jaimee Bourgeois
April 19, 2012
•
Page 6
' Omni -Means Engineers and Planners, Existing parking demand surveys at the Starbuck's Retail Center and
Springfield- Montessori Pre - School, (7:00 -10:00 a.m., 11:30 a.m. -12:30 p.m., 2:30 -3:30 p.m., 4:00 -6:1 S p.m.),
March 21, 22, 2012.
Ms. Laura Russ, Director, Springfield - Montessori Pre - School, Personal communication on March 21, 2012.
City of Dublin, Zoning/Municipal Code, Chapter 8.76, Off - Street Parking and Loading Regulations, Parking
requirements by use type (8.76.080), Revised October, 2011.
S
G
HAM I
I WILLIAMWOOD DUBLIN PRESCHOOL
A�,�p qy 7250 AMADOR VALLEY BLVD.
l9ad)820�lai9 - - DUBLIN,
HAM I
a
°
LL
a a M M M M M M" en N M N N
- N N 14 rq e0-I
r1 n M
- N N N N N. N N N N
N
m N
{
H + Q
r
N
Tn
l0 -lU tD tD �O
lC t0 :O lO tD
lO W W W LO"
W W �C tO tO W tO tD lG tD
y0
t0 LD tD Ya W W W W
F d
V
-
W
0
Q' s
a n M Ln Ln w N N 00 O LA Ln
N N N N N N
dl .a c4 N N
N
m N M
01 N n 14 N a-1 4D N co
M N N N N N
-
N Q C S
d
0
d � a
w V N
° "c cM
01 Ol Q1 O1 01 01 O1 01 01 O1 O1 01 O1
�rvvvd vvvaavva
O1 O1 01 01 01
vavv`r
O1 O1 01 01 01
aa�rvd
O1 O1 Ol Ot 01 Ol 41 01 01 O1-
am v.tavaaa�
r
° rt
o
8
!g
m c
�. L» 10
- '.
N Ln N ti' - a m n n .-I -m er -Cr
O 00 .q - d'
d' M a' a
w n M LA w
� d' LA LA 'd'
O m N N co n Ln M n .-L
a M d' - V' M M m M m m
W C
-
4 N N N N N N N- M m N m m
po CL -A 8
d
m w
o c c �
m
� v �
'n n .-I N M V t!1 et V p �-
W
N .-1 -et Ln
t0 LO W t0 P
N p M M 0 O N m O M
W
al rl- eel 01 ei PI 'i rl sl. e-1
rl
Ln
C n
_
m
00
$ry
C
y
N N N N N N N N -N N N N N
M M M m M1 M in M' m m M m m
N N N N N
m.m M M
N N N N N
M M M M m
m-
0
e
.M
X
w
G m t5 d
y
LA Ln a4 M O Ol O0 n v 00 00 LO tO
rl rl N N N N ei r! N N N N N
m O M W P
M. m.M' M M
00 00 00 00 O1
MM M M M
a N LA m N N 'O 01 N C1
- M m M M M M'M N M N
v
o V
' n v W M CA
� ' 0) O1 Ot ��
m. 00'. N O O
LM
�-I 000 a 4 N N m ' N ' 14
_ N
en dl .P-1 aW-1 aO-I - am-I aN-I
.
p
N. = CL
U N
h
y
c w
0
c
tw
N n n n n n n n n n n n NN
rl 14 e4
rq 1-4 ea 14 rl
n n
- rt er a-I ''i .�
n n n n n n n n n n
- _ ei a-L rl a-I ..-I .� rl 14 14 1-1
$ ` v o Q
O
O
N.
o 0. E
1
O O rl e-I eh Ill LA �.' M � 00 co
n 00 00 00 n
00 01 N n
t0 P P P. LD LA to a', Ln N
C
`
y G
v
c o
eM'1
icy
a
_
u
v
c
m
d pd�
O .-I M N O` M M n M m 00 N O
M N
m aq ate! N m
N N N ei
O M t0 O1
N N
LD 01 aD W- N Q M .-1 N t0
0. p
�
'i 'i 14 N- m N N
a-1
N N
c o Ip�a
Mao
�maS m
tko
gym -e07!n
ag71cn!tcR tMvo
- n I� 1� n 00 00 l70 aD 01 C11 01. 01 O
Q N N M M f/)
- eF at -'a d' tll to Ln LA 16 l6
. .
� a�-1 eN-I eN-I
w
RESOLUTION NO. XX - 12
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
* * * * * * * * * **
REVERSING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 12 -31 AND
APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE DEVELOPOMENT REVIEW PERMIT
WITH ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND
OPERATION OF A DAY CARE CENTER AT 7250 AMADOR VALLEY BLVD
(APN 941 - 0210 -035)
PLPA- 2011 -00055 & 00056
WHEREAS, the Applicant has requested approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the
operation of a Day Care Center for up to 60 children and Site Development Review for the
construction of a 3,284 square foot building with a 2,400 square foot outdoor play area along
with 17 parking spaces, landscaping and associated site improvements; and
WHEREAS, the Project is located in the D -D (Downtown Dublin) Zoning District; and
WHEREAS, a Day Care Center is permitted in the D -D Zoning District subject to
approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Sections 8.30.040 and 8.104.040.C.4 of the Dublin
Municipal Code, all development in the D -D Zoning District and all new principal structures are
subject to Site Development Review and shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted to the City of Dublin Planning Commission
recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review request
which report is incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on
August 14, 2012 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports,
recommendations and testimony herein above set forth and used its independent judgment to
evaluate the project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 12 -31 denying a Conditional
Use Permit and Site Development Review Permit for the construction and operation of a Day
Care Center at 7250 Amador Valley Blvd which Resolution is incorporated herein by reference;
and
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Zhen Zhen Li, filed a timely appeal of the Planning
Commission's decision to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with State
Guidelines and City Environmental Regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for
environmental impacts; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the CEQA, Staff is recommending that the City Council find this
project Categorically Exempt from CEQA, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, In -Fill
Development Projects. The project consists of a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development
Review for the construction and operation of a Day Care Center for up to 60 children. The
project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of Downtown Dublin — Village
Parkway District and the Downtown Dublin Zoning District; the project site is less than 5 acres in
size and is surrounded by urban uses; it has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or
threatened species; approval of the project will not result in any significant effects related to
traffic, noise, air quality or water quality; and, the site can be adequately served by all required
utilities and public services; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted to the City of Dublin City Council
recommending reversal of the Planning Commission's denial and recommending approval of the
Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review request with additional conditions of
approval which report is incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on said application on October 2, 2012
at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations
and testimony herein above set forth and used its independent judgment to evaluate the project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Dublin City Council does hereby
make the following findings and determinations regarding the Conditional Use Permit:
A. The proposed use and related structures is compatible with other land uses,
transportation and service facilities in the vicinity in that: 1) the Project would be located
on a parcel intended for commercial development; 2) the Project would be accessible
from Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard via existing driveways located on the
adjacent retail center parcel and reciprocal access agreements are in place; 3) a parking
study was conducted and concluded that adequate parking would be available for the
Project and adjacent retail center; and, 4) a noise study was conducted and concluded
that the Project would not cause the existing noise environment to exceed 60 decibels at
the adjacent residential area. The parking and noise studies are incorporated herein by
reference.
B. It will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the
vicinity, or be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare in that: 1) conditions of
approval have been placed on the Project limiting outdoor play activities to between the
hours of 9am and 5pm Monday through Friday and limiting the number of children within
the outdoor play area to no more than 30 children at a time to minimize the potential for
noise impacts to the adjacent residential homes; and, 2) a noise study was conducted
and concluded that the noise generated from children using the outdoor play area would
not exceed normally acceptable levels of noise as set forth in the Dublin General Plan
Noise Element for residential areas.
2 of 20
C. It will not be injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood in that: 1)
conditions of approval have been placed on the Project to ensure that the construction
and use of the property will be in accordance with all local codes and regulations; and, 2)
the Project will be located on a parcel of land intended to be developed for a commercial
use and is consistent with the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan and Zoning District.
D. There are adequate provisions for public access, water, sanitation, and public utilities and
services to ensure that the proposed use and related structures would not be detrimental
to the public health, safety, and welfare in that: 1) vehicular access to the site is available
from Amador Valley Boulevard and Village Parkway; 2) the Amador Valley Boulevard and
Village Parkway frontages are fully improved with sidewalks that provide pedestrian
access to the project; 3) the Project will be served by existing public utilities; and 4) the
Project will share an existing trash enclosure with the adjacent retail center and the
enclosure will be upgraded to comply with current standards.
E. The subject site is physically suitable for the type, density and intensity of the use and
related structures being proposed in that: 1) the Project site is relatively flat and will be
served by existing public utilities; 2) the Project site will be accessed from existing
driveways along Amador Valley Boulevard and Village Parkway and the necessary
agreements have been recorded to ensure adequate ingress and egress to the Project
site; and, 3) all required parking will be provided on the Project site.
F. It will not be contrary to the specific intent clauses, development regulations, or
performance standards established for the zoning district in which it is located in that: 1)
the Project is located within the Downtown Dublin Zoning District — Village Parkway
District and is sited near the sidewalk with parking provided at the rear; 2) the Project
includes a pedestrian connection along Amador Valley Boulevard to encourage walking;
and, 3) the Project adheres to all development regulations set forth in the Downtown
Dublin Specific Plan including setbacks, parking, floor area ratio, and building height,
among other regulations.
G. It is consistent with the Dublin General Plan and with any applicable Specific Plans in
that: 1) the Project would be located on a parcel intended for commercial development;
and, 2) as noted above, the Project adheres to all development regulations set forth in
the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Dublin City Council does hereby
make the following findings and determinations regarding the Site Development Review:
A. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of Chapter 8.104, with the General Plan and
with any applicable Specific Plans and design guidelines in that: 1) the Project is well
designed in relation to the adjacent retail center and incorporates colors, materials and
finishes that complement the retail center; 2) the Project is well designed in relation to the
adjacent residential neighborhood in that the single story building in non - obtrusive and
the outdoor play area has been located as far as practical from the rear yards of the
adjacent residential homes; 3) the Project complies with the development regulations set
forth in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan; and, 4) the Project will provide adequate
circulation for automobiles and pedestrians.
3 of 20
B. The proposal is consistent with the provisions of Title 8, Zoning Ordinance in that: 1) the
Project requires Site Development Review and a complete application has been filed; 2)
the Project provides the amount of parking required in accordance with Chapter 8.76
(Off- Street Parking and Loading Regulations); and, 3) the Project complies with the
development regulations contained in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan and Downtown
Dublin Zoning District.
C. The design of the project is appropriate to the City, the vicinity, surrounding properties
and the lot in which the project is proposed in that: 1) the Project has been designed with
colors, materials and finishes that complement the adjacent retail center; 2) all roof
mounted equipment will be completely screened from public view; 3) the Project consists
of a single story building which is non - obtrusive to adjacent residential uses and the
outdoor play area has been located as far as practical from the rear yards of the adjacent
residential homes; and, 4) the Project adheres to all required setbacks for the site.
D. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the approved
development in that: 1) the Project site is relatively flat and will be served by existing
public utilities; 2) the Project site will be accessed from existing driveways along Amador
Valley Boulevard and Village Parkway and the necessary vehicular access agreements
have been recorded to ensure adequate ingress and egress to the Project site; and, 3) all
required parking will be provided on the Project site.
E. Impacts to existing slopes and topographic features are addressed in that: 1) the Project
site is relatively flat and does not include any significant slopes or topographic features.
F. Architectural considerations including the character, scale and quality of the design, site
layout, the architectural relationship with the site and other buildings, screening of
unsightly uses, lighting, building materials and colors and similar elements result in a
project that is harmonious with its surroundings and compatible with other development in
the vicinity in that: 1) the Project is well designed and incorporates colors, materials and
finishes that complement the adjacent retail center; 2) the Project consists of a single
story building which is non - obtrusive to adjacent residential uses; 3) the Project is located
with convenient access from Amador Valley Boulevard and Village Parkway; 4) the
Project complies with the development regulations and design guidelines set forth in the
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan — Village Parkway District; 5) all roof mounted equipment
will be completely screened from public view; and, 6) the Project contributes towards the
pedestrian- oriented Village Parkway District by siting the building near the sidewalk along
Amador Valley Boulevard and placing all parking to the rear of the building.
G. Landscape considerations, including the location, type, size, color, texture and coverage
of plant materials, and similar elements have been incorporated into the project to ensure
visual relief, adequate screening and an attractive environment for the public in that: 1)
the Project is attractively landscaped with denser vegetation along the shared property
line between the Project and adjacent residential uses; 2) the Project includes filtration
planters to treat stormwater runoff; and, 3) the Project includes a variety of plant species
that soften the edges of the building most visible from the public realm and create an
attractive visual buffer to adjacent residential uses.
4 of 20
H. The site has been adequately designed to ensure proper circulation for bicyclists,
pedestrians and automobiles in that: 1) vehicular access to the Project site is existing and
includes driveways along Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard; 2) pedestrian
access to the Project site can also be obtained from existing sidewalks along Village
Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard; and, 3) conditions of approval have been placed
on the Project requiring that bicycle racks be provided.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Dublin City Council does hereby find that
the Project is Categorically Exempt from CEQA, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332,
In -Fill Development Projects. As further described in the project application, staff report, noise
and parking studies and other material sin the record, the project consists of a Conditional Use
Permit and Site Development Review for the construction and operation of a Day Care Center
for up to 60 children. The project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of
Downtown Dublin — Village Parkway District and the Downtown Dublin Zoning District; the
project site is less than 5 acres in size and is surrounded by urban uses; it has no value as
habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species; approval of the project will not result in any
significant effects related to traffic, noise, air quality or water quality; and, the site can be
adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that based on the findings above and whole of the record
for the project, the City of Dublin City Council does hereby approve a Conditional Use Permit
and Site Development Review for the construction and operation of a Day Care Center as
shown on the project plans, date stamped received by Dublin Planning on June 21, 2012, and
incorporated by reference, subject to the following conditions of approval:
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Unless stated otherwise, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to the issuance
of building permits or establishment of use and shall be subject to Planning Division review and
approval. The following codes represent those departments /agencies responsible for monitoring
compliance of the conditions of approval: [PL] Planning; [B] Building; [PO] Police; [PW] Public
Works; [ADM] Administration /City Attorney; [FIN] Finance; [PCS] Parks and Community
Services; [F] Dublin Fire Prevention; [DSR] Dublin San Ramon Services District; [LDD]
Livermore Dublin Disposal; [CO] Alameda County Department of Environmental Health; [Zone
7] Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Zone 7; [LAVTA] Livermore
Amador Valley Transit Authority; and [CHS] California Department of Health Services.
NO.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Agency
When
Required,
Prior to:
Source
GENERAL
1.
Approval. This Conditional Use Permit and Site
PL
Ongoing
Standard
Development Review approval is for Dublin
Preschool for the construction and operation of a
Day Care Center at 7250 Amador Valley
Boulevard for up to 60 children and 5 employees
and for the construction and use of an outdoor
play area and associated site improvements
5 of 20
6 of 20
related to the operation of the Day Care Center
(PLPA- 2011- 00055/00056). This approval shall
be as generally depicted and indicated on the
plans prepared by William Wood Architects dated
received by Dublin Planning on June 21, 2012
and written statement dated June 11, 2012 on file
in the Community Development Department, and
as specified by the following Conditions of
Approval for this project.
2.
Effective Date. This Conditional Use Permit/Site
PL
On -going
Standard
Development Review approval becomes effective
upon approval by the City Council.
3.
Permit Expiration. Construction or use shall
PL
1 year of
DMC
commence within one (1) year of this Conditional
Permit
8.96.020.D
Use Permit/Site Development Review approval or
approval
the Permit shall lapse and become null and void.
4.
Time Extension. The original approving
PL
Permit
Standard
decision -maker may, upon the Applicant's written
Expiration
request for an extension of approval prior to
expiration, and upon the determination that any
Conditions of Approval remain adequate to
assure that applicable findings of approval will
continue to be met, grant a time extension of
approval for a period not to exceed six (6)
months. All time extension requests shall be
noticed and a public hearing or public meeting
shall be held as required by the particular Permit.
5.
Modifications. The Community Development
PL
On -going
DMC
Director may consider modifications or changes
8.100 &
to this Conditional Use Permit and Site
8.104
Development Review approval if the
modifications or changes proposed comply with
Chapter 8.100 (Conditional Use Permit) and
Chapter 8.104 (Site Development Review) of the
Zoning Ordinance.
6.
Revocation of Permit. The Conditional Use
PL
On -going
DMC
Permit and Site Development Review approval
8.96.020.1
shall be revocable for cause in accordance with
Section 8.96.020.1 of the Dublin Zoning
Ordinance. Any violation of the terms or
conditions of this permit shall be subject to
citation.
7.
Indemnification. The Developer shall defend,
Various
On -going
In
indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Dublin
accordance
and its agents, officers, and employees from any
with Gov.
claim, action, or proceeding against the City of
Code
Dublin or its agents, officers, or employees to
Section
attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of
66499.37
6 of 20
7 of 20
the City of Dublin or its advisory agency, appeal
board, Planning Commission, City Council,
Community Development Director, Zoning
Administrator, or any other department,
committee, or agency of the City to the extent
such actions are brought within the time period
required by Government Code Section 66499.37
or other applicable law; provided, however, that
The Developer's duty to so defend, indemnify,
and hold harmless shall be subject to the City's
promptly notifying The Developer of any said
claim, action, or proceeding and the City's full
cooperation in the defense of such actions or
proceedings.
8.
Fees. Applicant/Developer shall pay all
FIN
Issuance of
Standard
applicable fees in effect, including, but not limited
Building
to, Planning fees, Building fees, Traffic Impact
Permits
Fees, TVTC fees, Dublin San Ramon Services
District fees, Public Facilities fees, Dublin Unified
School District School Impact fees (per
agreement between Developer and School
District), Fire Facilities Impact fees, Noise
Mitigation fees, Inclusionary Housing In -Lieu
fees, Alameda County Flood and Water
Conservation District (Zone 7) Drainage and
Water Connection fees; or any other fee that may
be adopted and applicable.
9.
Requirements and Standard Conditions. The
Various
Building
Standard
Applicant/Developer shall comply with applicable
Permit
City of Dublin Fire Prevention Bureau, Dublin
Issuance
Public Works Department, Dublin Building
Department, Dublin Police Services, Alameda
County Flood Control District Zone 7, Livermore
Amador Valley Transit Authority, Alameda
County Public and Environmental Health, Dublin
San Ramon Services District and the California
Department of Health Services requirements and
standard conditions. Prior to issuance of building
permits or the installation of any improvements
related to this project, the Developer shall supply
written statements from each such agency or
department to the Planning Department,
indicating that all applicable conditions required
have been or will be met.
PLANNING
10.
Parking. A total of 17 parking spaces (12
PL
On -going
Planning
spaces for parent drop -off and pick -up and 5
spaces for employees) shall remain available for
7 of 20
8 of 20
use by Dublin Preschool during the approved
hours of operation.
11.
Outdoor Play Area. Outdoor activities shall be
PL
On -going
Planning
limited to the designated outdoor play area as
shown on the approved plans. No more than 30
children shall be present within the designated
outdoor play area at any given time. Outdoor
activities shall be limited to 30 minutes at a time
up to 4 times per day and shall only occur
between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday
through Friday.
12.
Noise. Outdoor play activities shall be controlled
PL
On -going
Planning
so as not to create unusual or unnecessary noise
that may disturb or annoy persons living or
working in the vicinity.
13.
Property Maintenance. The Applicant/Developer
PL
During
Planning
and property owner shall be responsible for
Constructio
maintaining the site in a clean and litter free
n, Through
condition during construction and through
Completion
completion. Per the City of Dublin Non-
and On-
Residential Property Maintenance Ordinance,
going
DMC Section 5.64.050, the Applicant/ Property
Owner shall maintain the building, site and all
signage in good condition and shall keep the site
clear of trash, debris and graffiti vandalism on a
regular and continuous basis.
14.
Accessory/Temporary Structures and Uses.
PL
Placement
Planning
A Temporary Use Permit is required for all
on site
construction trailers, security trailers and storage
containers used during construction.
15.
Temporary Signage. All temporary signage
PL
On -going
DMC
shall be subject to the regulations of Chapter
8.84
8.84 (Sign Regulations) of the Dublin Zoning
Ordinance.
16.
Landscaping. All landscaping shall be provided
PL
Issuance of
Planning
with an automatic sprinkler system.
Occupancy
Permit
17.
Community Care Licensing. The Applicant
PL
Issuance of
Planning
and /or Future Tenant must be licensed by and
occupancy
comply with the State of California Community
permit
Care Licensing. The applicant shall submit a
copy of this license to the Planning Division.
18.
Business License. The Applicant and /or Future
Various
Building
Various
Tenant shall apply for a City of Dublin Business
Permit
License within 30 days of approval of the
Issuance
Conditional Use Permit/Site Development
Review.
19.
Hours of Operation. The approved hours of
PL
On -going
Planning
8 of 20
9 of 20
operation are 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday. The Applicant shall be
responsible for ensuring that the drop -off and
pick -up of children is conducted in an orderly
manner and does not negatively impact
surrounding residents or businesses.
20.
Property Maintenance. The Applicant, Future
PL
On -going
DMC
Tenant and /or Property Owner shall keep the
5.64
property maintained in a safe, clean, and litter -
free condition at all times.
21.
Graffiti. The Applicant, Future Tenant and /or
PL
On -going
DMC
Property Owner shall keep the site clear of graffiti
5.68
vandalism on a regular and continuous basis, at
all times. Where feasible graffiti resistant
materials should be used.
22.
Nuisance. The Applicant and /or Future Tenant
PL
On -going
DMC
shall control all activities so as not to create a
5.28.020
public or private nuisance to the existing and
surrounding residents.
23.
Temporary Promotional Banners and
PL
On -going
DMC
Balloons. Temporary Promotional Banner Signs
8.84
and Balloons are subject to compliance with
Chapter 8.84 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance.
BUILDING
24.
Building Codes and Ordinances. All project
B
Through
Building
construction shall conform to all building codes
Completion
and ordinances in effect at the time of building
permit.
25.
Building Permits. To apply for building permits,
B
Issuance of
Building
Applicant/Developer shall submit seven (7) sets
Building
of construction plans to the Building Division for
Permits
plan check. Each set of plans shall have
attached an annotated copy of these Conditions
of Approval. The notations shall clearly indicate
how all Conditions of Approval will or have been
complied with. Construction plans will not be
accepted without the annotated resolutions
attached to each set of plans.
Applicant/Developer will be responsible for
obtaining the approvals of all participation non -
City agencies prior to the issuance of building
permits.
26.
Construction Drawings. Construction plans
B
Issuance of
Building
shall be fully dimensioned (including building
Building
elevations) accurately drawn (depicting all
Permits
existing and proposed conditions on site), and
prepared and signed by a California licensed
9 of 20
10 of 20
Architect or Engineer. All structural calculations
shall be prepared and signed by a California
licensed Architect or Engineer. The site plan,
landscape plan and details shall be consistent
with each other.
27.
Addressing. Address will be required on all
B
Occupancy
Building
doors leading to the exterior of the building.
Addresses shall be illuminated and be able to be
seen from the street, 5 inches in height minimum.
28.
Engineer Observation. The Engineer of record
B
Frame
Building
shall be retained to provide observation services
Inspection
for all components of the lateral and vertical
design of the building, including nailing, hold -
downs, straps, shear, roof diaphragm and
structural frame of building. A written report shall
be submitted to the City Inspector prior to
scheduling the final frame inspection.
29.
Phased Occupancy Plan. If occupancy is
B
Occupancy
Building
requested to occur in phases, then all physical
of any
improvements within each phase shall be
affected
required to be completed prior to occupancy of
building
any buildings within that phase except for items
specifically excluded in an approved Phased
Occupancy Plan, or minor handwork items,
approved by the Department of Community
Development. The Phased Occupancy Plan
shall be submitted to the Directors of Community
Development and Public Works for review and
approval a minimum of 45 days prior to the
request for occupancy of any building covered by
said Phased Occupancy Plan. Any phasing shall
provide for adequate vehicular access to all
parcels in each phase, and shall substantially
conform to the intent and purpose of the
subdivision approval. No individual building shall
be occupied until the adjoining area is finished,
safe, accessible, and provided with all
reasonable expected services and amenities, and
separated from remaining additional construction
activity. Subject to approval of the Director of
Community Development, the completion of
landscaping may be deferred due to inclement
weather with the posting of a bond for the value
of the deferred landscaping and associated
improvements.
30.
Air Conditioning Units. Air conditioning units
B
Occupancy
Building
and ventilation ducts shall be screened from
of Unit
public view with materials compatible to the main
10 of 20
11 of 20
building. Units shall be permanently installed on
concrete pads or other non - movable materials to
approved by the Building Official and Director of
Community Development.
31.
Temporary Fencing. Temporary Construction
B
Through
Building
fencing shall be installed along perimeter of all
Completion
work under construction.
32.
Green Building. The project shall meet the
B
Issuance of
Building
requirements of the CAL Green Building
Building
Standards Code in effect at the time of
Permits
permitting. This includes the addition of long
term bicycle parking on the site.
33.
Cool Roofs. Flat roof areas shall have their
B
Through
Building
roofing material coated with light colored gravel
Completion
or painted with light colored or reflective material
designed for Cool Roofs.
34.
Electronic File. The applicant/developer shall
B
Issuance of
Building
submit all building drawings and specifications for
Building
this project in an electronic format to the
Permits
satisfaction of the Building Official prior to the
issuance of building permits. Additionally, all
revisions made to the building plans during the
project shall be incorporated into an "As Built"
electronic file and submitted prior to the issuance
of the final occupancy.
35.
Copies of Approved Plans. Applicant shall
B
30 days
Building
provide the City with 4 reduced (1/2 size) copies
after permit
of the approved plan.
and each
revision
issuance
36.
Plumbing Fixture Counts. Plumbing fixture
B
Issuance of
Building
counts shall meet the requirements of table 4 -1 of
Building
the CA Plumbing Code.
Permits
FIRE
37.
Fire Alarm (detection) System Required. A
Fire Alarm- Detection System shall be installed
throughout the building so as to provide full
property protection, including combustible
concealed spaces, as required by NFPA 72. The
system shall be installed in accordance with
NPFA 72, Ca Fire, Building, Electrical, and
Mechanical Codes.
If the system is intended to serve as an
evacuation system, compliance with the
horn /strobe requirements for the entire building
must also be met. All automatic fire extinguishing
systems shall be interconnected to the fire alarm
11 of 20
12 of 20
system so as to activate an alarm if activated and
to monitor control valves.
38.
Gate Approvals. Fencing and gates that cross
pedestrian access and exit paths as well as
vehicle entrance and exit roads need to be
approved for fire department access and egress
as well as exiting provisions where such is
applicable. Plans need to be submitted that
clearly show the fencing and gates and details of
such. This should be clearly incorporated as part
of the site plan with details provided as
necessary.
PUBLIC WORKS
39.
Clarifications and Changes to the Conditions.
PW
Approval of
Public
In the event that there needs to be clarification to
Improveme
Works
these Conditions of Approval, the Directors of
nt Plans
Community Development and Public Works have
the authority to clarify the intent of these
Conditions of Approval to the Applicant/
Developer by a written document signed by the
Directors of Community Development and Public
Works and placed in the project file. The
Directors also have the authority to make minor
modifications to these conditions without going to
a public hearing in order for the Applicant to fulfill
needed improvements or mitigations resulting
from impacts of this project.
40.
Standard Public Works Conditions of
PW
Approval of
Public
Approval. Applicant/Developer shall comply with
Improveme
Works
all applicable City of Dublin Public Works
nt Plans
Standard Conditions of Approval. In the event of
a conflict between the Public Works Standard
Conditions of Approval and these Conditions,
these Conditions shall prevail.
41.
Hold Harmless /Indemnification. The Developer
PW
Through
Public
shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the
completion
Works
City of Dublin and its agents, officers, and
of Improve -
employees from any claim, action, or proceeding
ments and
against the City of Dublin or its advisory agency,
Occupancy
appeal board, Planning Commission, City
of the
Council, Community Development Director,
Building
Zoning Administrator, or any other department,
committee, or agency of the City to the extend
such actions are brought within the time period
required by Government Code Section 66499.37
or other applicable law: provided, however, that
the Developer's duty to so defend, indemnify, and
hold harmless shall be subject to the City's
12 of 20
13 of 20
promptly notifying the Developer of any said
claim, action, or proceeding and the City's full
cooperation in the defense of such actions or
proceedings.
42.
Grading /Sitework Permit. All improvement
PW
Issuance of
Public
work must be performed per a Grading /Sitework
Grading/
Works
Permit issued by the Public Works Department.
Sitework
Said permit will be based on the final set of civil
Permit
plans to be approved once all of the plan check
comments have been resolved. Please refer to
the handout titled Grading /Site Improvement
Permit Application Instructions and attached
application (three 8 -1/2" x 11" pages) for more
information. The Applicant/Developer must fill in
and return the applicant information contained on
pages 2 and 3. The current cost of the permit is
$10.00 due at the time of permit issuance,
although the Applicant/Developer will be
responsible for any adopted increases to the fee
amount.
43.
Site Plan. On -site improvements shall be
PW
Issuance of
Public
designed in accordance with the approved site
Grading/
Works
plan, entitled "Dublin Preschool" by William Wood
Sitework
Architects.
Permit
44.
Accessible Path of Travel. Applicant shall
PW
Issuance of
Public
provide an accessible path of travel /walkway
Grading/
Works
from the public sidewalk on Amador Valley
Sitework
Boulevard to the building entrance per California
Permit
Building Code requirements. Said walkway shall
be 4'- minimum wide.
45.
Vehicle Parking. Applicant should repair any
PW
Occupancy
Public
distressed areas of pavement obstructing the
Works
path of travel. The parking spaces striping that is
in poor condition shall be re- striped. All parking
spaces shall be double striped using 4" white
lines set approximately 2 feet apart according to
City standards and §8.76.070 (A) 17 of the Dublin
Municipal Code. All compact -sized parking
spaces shall have the word "COMPACT"
stenciled on the pavement within each space.
12" -wide concrete step -out curbs shall be
constructed at each parking space where one or
both sides abuts a landscaped area or planter.
46.
Site Accessibility Requirements. All parking
PW
Occupancy
Public
spaces for the disabled and other physical site
Works
improvements shall comply with current UBC
Title 24 requirements and City of Dublin
Standards for accessibility.
13 of 20
47.
Graffiti. The Applicant/Developer and /or building
PL, PW
On -going
Public
tenant(s) shall keep the site clear of graffiti
Works
vandalism on a regular and continuous basis.
Graffiti resistant paint for the structures and film
for windows or glass shall be used whenever
possible.
48.
Signs and Pavement Markings. The Applicant/
PW
Occupancy
Public
Developer shall be responsible for the following
Works
on -site traffic signs and pavement markings-
1 . Accessible parking signs and legends per
State Title 24 requirements.
2. The word "Compact" shall be stenciled on
the pavement surface within each compact
parking space.
3. No Stopping /Fire Lane
49.
Occupancy Permit Requirements. Prior to
PW
Occupancy
Public
issuance of an Occupancy Permit, the physical
Works
condition of the project site shall meet minimum
health and safety standards including, but not
limited to the following:
1. Lighting for the building and parking lot
shall be adequate for safety and security.
Exterior lighting shall be provided for
building entrances /exits and pedestrian
walkways. Security lighting shall be
provided as required by Dublin Police.
2. All construction equipment, materials, or
on -going work shall be separated from the
public by use of fencing, barricades,
caution ribbon, or other means reasonably
approved by the City Engineer /Public
Works Director.
3. All fire hydrants for the building shall be
operable and easily accessible to City and
ACFD personnel.
4. All site features designed to serve the
disabled (i.e. H/C parking stalls, accessible
walkways, signage, etc.) for the building
shall be installed and fully functional.
50.
Stormwater Runoff Calculations. Applicant/
PW
Issuance of
Public
Developer shall provide the stormwater runoff,
Grading/
Works
conveyance and treatment details. The
Sitework
calculations shall demonstrate adequate capacity
Permit
in the existing storm drainage retention basin.
Stormwater treatment design shall comply with
the C -3 Stormwater Technical Guidance issued
by Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program.
Runoff from landscape areas shall not drain
14 of 20
15 of 20
across sidewalk areas.
51.
Changes to the SDR Submittal Plans. The
PW
Issuance of
Public
following comments will need to be addressed
Grading/
Works
prior to future plan check submittal:
Sitework
Permit
1. Parking Stall 11 has 3'9" of space for a
backing maneuver adjacent to the parking
space. The City standard is 5': change
Parking Stall 11 to a Compact stall and
provide 5' east of the parking space to
provide adequate backup space.
2. The accessible path of travel to the Trash
enclosure will cross behind Parking Stall
17: change location of curb ramp.
3. Truncated domes will be required in front of
parking stalls 11 -17.
4. Provide signage and striping for Fire Lane.
5. Provide access the existing transformer.
6. Possible conflict with 6" SD on east side of
building and existing joint trench to existing
transformer.
7. Possible conflict with SS lateral to building
and existing joint trench near transformer.
8. Tree planting at east PL will be over 6" SD
to treatment pond.
9. Provide outlet protection for SD pipes into
treatment pond.
52.
Erosion Control During Construction.
PW
Issuance of
Public
Applicant/Developer shall include an Erosion and
Grading/
Works
Sediment Control Plan with the Grading and
Sitework
Improvement plans for review and approval by
Permit and
the City Engineer /Public Works Director. Said
during
plan shall be designed, implemented, and
construc-
continually maintained pursuant to the City's
Lion.
NPDES permit between October 1St and April 15th
or beyond these dates if dictated by rainy
weather, or as otherwise directed by the City
Engineer /Public Works Director.
53.
Construction Hours. Construction and grading
PW
During
Public
operations shall be limited to weekdays (Monday
Construction
Works
through Friday) and non -City holidays between
the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. The
Applicant/Developer may request permission to
work on Saturdays and /or holidays between the
15 of 20
16 of 20
hours of 8:30 am and 5:00 pm by submitting a
request form to the City Engineer no later than
5:00 pm the prior Wednesday. Overtime
inspection rates will apply for all Saturday and /or
holiday work.
54.
Temporary Fencing. Temporary Construction
PW
During
Public
fencing shall be installed along perimeter of all
Construction
Works
work under construction to separate the
and
construction operation from the public. All
Occupancy
construction activities shall be confined to within
the fenced area. Construction materials and /or
equipment shall not be operated or stored
outside of the fenced area or within the public
right -of -way unless approved in advance by the
City Engineer /Public Works Director.
55.
Construction Noise Management Plan.
PW
During
Public
Developer shall prepare a Construction Noise
Construc-
Works
Management Plan, to be approved by the City
Lion and
Engineer and Community Development Director
Grading
that identifies measures to be taken to minimize
Activities
construction noise on surrounding developed
properties. The Plan shall include hours of
construction operation, use of mufflers on
construction equipment, speed limit for
construction traffic, haul routes and identify a
noise monitor. Specific noise management
measures shall be included in the project plans
and specifications.
56.
Damage /Repairs. The Applicant/Developer shall
PW
Occupancy
Public
be responsible for the repair of any damaged
Works
pavement, curb & gutter, sidewalk, or other public
street facility resulting from construction activities
associated with the development of the project.
The Developer shall repair /replace existing
sidewalk and tree wells along the frontage of the
Project on Amador Valley Boulevard as directed
by the City Engineer.
57.
Fees. The Applicant shall pay all applicable fees
PW
Issuance of
Public
in effect at the time of building permit issuance,
Building
Works
including, but not limited to: Planning fees;
Permit
Building fees; Dublin San Ramon Services
District fees; Public Facilities fees; City of Dublin
Fire fees; Noise Mitigation fees; Inclusionary
Housing In -Lieu fees; Alameda County Flood and
Water Conservation District (Zone 7) Drainage
and Water Connection fees; and any other fees
as noted in the Development Agreement.
58.
Lighting. The Applicant/Developer shall prepare
PW
Occupancy
Public
16 of 20
17 of 20
a photometric plan to the satisfaction of the City
Works
Engineer, Director of Community Development,
the City's Consulting Landscape Architect and
Dublin Police Services. A minimum of one foot -
candle of light shall be provided and maintained
across the surface of the parking lot. Any
illumination, including security lighting, shall be
directed away from adjoining properties,
businesses or vehicular traffic so as not to cause
any glare."
59.
Geotechnical Report and Recommendations.
PW
Issuance of
Public
The Applicant/Developer shall provide a site
Building
Works
specific geotechnical report prepared by a
Permit
reputable geotechnical engineer. The
Geotechnical Engineer shall certify that the
project design conforms to the report
recommendations prior to issuance of a
Grading /Sitework Permit or Building Permit. All
report recommendations shall be followed during
the course of grading and construction.
60.
Environmental Site Assessment. According to
PW
Occupancy
Public
the environmental assessment report prepared
Works
by Clayton Group Services, Inc. dated 05/30/03,
four underground fuel storage tanks (UST) were
closed and removed from the site according to
Alameda County Department of Environmental
Health (ACDEH) requirements and protocols. If,
during construction of the Project, presently -
unknown hazardous materials are discovered,
the Applicant/Developer shall adhere to the
requirements of ACDEH, the Fire Marshal, the
City, and /or other applicable agency to mitigate
the hazard before continuing. Furthermore the
report insists that the Applicant/Developer shall
monitor and address any hydrocarbons residual
found in the soil during excavation /trenching.
61.
Storm Drain Lines. Proposed storm drain lines
PW
Issuance of
Public
and bio- retention areas within the existing Public
Grading
Works
Services Easement areas shall be subject to
Permit
approval of the affected utility companies. The
contractor shall pothole and determine locations
of utilities within the joint trench and submit
design to the City and utility companies for
approval.
POLICE
62.
Security Requirements. Applicant shall comply
PO
Occupancy
Police
with the Dublin Municipal Code Security
Requirements.
17 of 20
DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT (DSRSD)
63.
Prior to issuance of any building permit, complete
DSR
Issuance of
DSRSD
improvement plans shall be submitted to DSRSD
permits
that conform to the requirements of the Dublin
San Ramon Services District Code, the DSRSD
"Standard Procedures, Specifications and
Drawings for Design and Installation of Water
and Wastewater Facilities ", all applicable DSRSD
Master Plans and all DSRSD policies.
64.
Domestic and fire protection waterline systems
DSR
Issuance of
DSRSD
for Tracts or Commercial Developments shall be
permits
designed to be looped or interconnected to avoid
dead end sections in accordance with
requirements of the DSRSD Standard
Specifications and sound engineering practice.
65.
DSRSD policy requires public water and sewer
DSR
Issuance of
DSRSD
lines to be located in public streets rather than in
permits
off - street locations to the fullest extent possible.
If unavoidable, then public sewer or water
easements must be established over the
alignment of each public sewer or water line in an
off - street or private street location to provide
access for future maintenance and /or
replacement.
66.
Prior to approval by the City of a grading permit
DSR
Issuance of
DSRSD
or a site development permit, the locations and
permits
widths of all proposed easement dedications for
water and sewer lines shall be submitted to and
approved by DSRSD.
67.
All easement dedications for DSRSD facilities
DSR
Issuance of
DSRSD
shall be by separate instrument irrevocably
permits
offered to DSRSD or by offer of dedication on the
Final Map.
68.
Prior to approval by the City for Recordation, the
DSR
Issuance of
DSRSD
Final Map shall be submitted to and approved by
permits
DSRSD for easement locations, widths, and
restrictions.
69.
Prior to issuance by the City of any Building
DSR
Issuance of
DSRSD
Permit or Construction Permit by the Dublin San
permits
Ramon Services District, whichever comes first,
all utility connection fees including DSRSD and
Zone 7, plan checking fees, inspection fees,
connection fees, and fees associated with a
wastewater discharge permit shall be paid to
DSRSD in accordance with the rates and
schedules established in the DSRSD Code.
70.
Prior to issuance by the City of any Building
DSR
Issuance of
DSRSD
Permit or Construction Permit by the Dublin San
permits
18 of 20
19 of 20
Ramon Services District, whichever comes first,
all improvement plans for DSRSD facilities shall
be signed by the District Engineer. Each drawing
of improvement plans shall contain a signature
block for the District Engineer indicating approval
of the sanitary sewer or water facilities shown.
Prior to approval by the District Engineer, the
applicant shall pay all required DSRSD fees, and
provide an engineer's estimate of construction
costs for the sewer and water systems, a
performance bond, a one -year maintenance
bond, and a comprehensive general liability
insurance policy in the amounts and forms that
are acceptable to DSRSD. The applicant shall
allow at least 15 working days for final
improvement drawing review by DSRSD before
signature by the District Engineer.
71.
No sewer line or waterline construction shall be
DSR
Issuance of
DSRSD
permitted unless the proper utility construction
permits
permit has been issued by DSRSD. A
construction permit will only be issued after all of
the items in Condition No. 9 have been satisfied.
72.
The applicant shall hold DSRSD, its Board of
DSR
On -going
DSRSD
Directors, commissions, employees, and agents
of DSRSD harmless and indemnify and defend
the same from any litigation, claims, or fines
resulting from the construction and completion of
the project.
73.
Improvement plans shall include recycled water
DSR
Issuance of
DSRSD
improvements as required by DSRSD. Services
permits
for landscape irrigation shall connect to recycled
water mains. Applicant must obtain a copy of the
DSRSD Recycled Water Use Guidelines and
conform to the requirements therein.
74.
This application is for construction of a daycare
DSR
Issuance of
DSRSD
facility in a currently vacant site. DSRSD will
permits
require a check of the plans by DSRSD. Water
and sewer capacity charges will be required.
Exact charges for this specific application will be
calculated at the time of the plan check.
OTHER
75.
Restricted Parking Signs. The Applicant/
PL, PW
Issuance of
Planning,
Developer shall submit restricted parking signs to
Building
Public
the Planning Division for review and approval
Permits
Works
prior to the issuance of Building Permits. Said
signs shall be placed at the Project entrance and
at the Project's parking spaces to notify motorists
that parking is restricted to preschool patrons and
19 of 20
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of October 2012 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Mayor
20 of 20
preschool employees only Monday- Friday from
7.00am- 6:30pm. The exact location and number
of signs shall be determined by the Planning
Division and Public Works Department.
76.
On- Street Parking along Amador Valley Blvd.
PL, PW
Issuance of
Planning,
A 15 -foot long red curb shall be painted along the
Building
Public
west side of the driveway along Amador Valley
Permits
Works
Blvd. Additionally, all on- street parking spaces on
Amador Valley Blvd shall be marked with "T "s to
ensure that the maximum number of parking
spaces remains available at all times.
77.
Front -In Parking Only Signs. The Applicant/
PL, PW
Issuance of
Planning,
Developer shall submit front -in parking only signs
Building
Public
to the Planning Division for review and approval
Permits
Works
prior to the issuance of Building Permits. Said
signs shall be placed along those areas of the
outdoor play area fence that are adjacent to
parking spaces.
78.
Additional Landscaping. The Applicant/
PL
Issuance of
Planning
Developer shall provide a minimum 3 -foot wide
Building
landscape planter for the planting of dense
Permits
shrubs along those areas of the outdoor play
area fence that are adjacent to parking spaces.
Said planter shall be included in a Final
Landscape and Irrigation Plan and submitted to
the Planning Division for review and approval
prior to the issuance of Building Permits.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of October 2012 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Mayor
20 of 20
RESOLUTION NO. XX - 12
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
* * * * * * * * * **
REVERSING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 12 -31 AND
APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE DEVELOPOMENT REVIEW PERMIT
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A DAY CARE CENTER AT
7250 AMADOR VALLEY BLVD (APN 941 - 0210 -035)
PLPA- 2011 -00055 & 00056
WHEREAS, the Applicant has requested approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the
operation of a Day Care Center for up to 60 children and Site Development Review for the
construction of a 3,284 square foot building with a 2,400 square foot outdoor play area along
with 17 parking spaces, landscaping and associated site improvements; and
WHEREAS, the Project is located in the D -D (Downtown Dublin) Zoning District; and
WHEREAS, a Day Care Center is permitted in the D -D Zoning District subject to
approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Sections 8.30.040 and 8.104.040.C.4 of the Dublin
Municipal Code, all development in the D -D Zoning District and all new principal structures are
subject to Site Development Review and shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted to the City of Dublin Planning Commission
recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review request
which report is incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on
August 14, 2012 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports,
recommendations and testimony herein above set forth and used its independent judgment to
evaluate the project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 12 -31 denying a Conditional
Use Permit and Site Development Review Permit for the construction and operation of a Day
Care Center at 7250 Amador Valley Blvd which Resolution is incorporated herein by reference;
and
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Zhen Zhen Li, filed a timely appeal of the Planning
Commission's decision to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with State
Guidelines and City Environmental Regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for
environmental impacts; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the CEQA, Staff is recommending that the City Council find this
project Categorically Exempt from CEQA, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, In -Fill
Development Projects. The project consists of a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development
Review for the construction and operation of a Day Care Center for up to 60 children. The
project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of Downtown Dublin — Village
Parkway District and the Downtown Dublin Zoning District; the project site is less than 5 acres in
size and is surrounded by urban uses; it has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or
threatened species; approval of the project will not result in any significant effects related to
traffic, noise, air quality or water quality; and, the site can be adequately served by all required
utilities and public services; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted to the City of Dublin City Council
recommending reversal of the Planning Commission's denial and recommending approval of the
Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review request with additional conditions of
approval which report is incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on said application on October 2, 2012
at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations
and testimony herein above set forth and used its independent judgment to evaluate the project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Dublin City Council does hereby
make the following findings and determinations regarding the Conditional Use Permit:
A. The proposed use and related structures is compatible with other land uses,
transportation and service facilities in the vicinity in that: 1) the Project would be located
on a parcel intended for commercial development; 2) the Project would be accessible
from Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard via existing driveways located on the
adjacent retail center parcel and reciprocal access agreements are in place; 3) a parking
study was conducted and concluded that adequate parking would be available for the
Project and adjacent retail center; and, 4) a noise study was conducted and concluded
that the Project would not cause the existing noise environment to exceed 60 decibels at
the adjacent residential area. The parking and noise studies are incorporated herein by
reference.
B. It will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the
vicinity, or be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare in that: 1) conditions of
approval have been placed on the Project limiting outdoor play activities to between the
hours of 9am and 5pm Monday through Friday and limiting the number of children within
the outdoor play area to no more than 30 children at a time to minimize the potential for
noise impacts to the adjacent residential homes; and, 2) a noise study was conducted
and concluded that the noise generated from children using the outdoor play area would
not exceed normally acceptable levels of noise as set forth in the Dublin General Plan
Noise Element for residential areas.
2 of 20
C. It will not be injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood in that: 1)
conditions of approval have been placed on the Project to ensure that the construction
and use of the property will be in accordance with all local codes and regulations; and, 2)
the Project will be located on a parcel of land intended to be developed for a commercial
use and is consistent with the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan and Zoning District.
D. There are adequate provisions for public access, water, sanitation, and public utilities and
services to ensure that the proposed use and related structures would not be detrimental
to the public health, safety, and welfare in that: 1) vehicular access to the site is available
from Amador Valley Boulevard and Village Parkway; 2) the Amador Valley Boulevard and
Village Parkway frontages are fully improved with sidewalks that provide pedestrian
access to the project; 3) the Project will be served by existing public utilities; and 4) the
Project will share an existing trash enclosure with the adjacent retail center and the
enclosure will be upgraded to comply with current standards.
E. The subject site is physically suitable for the type, density and intensity of the use and
related structures being proposed in that: 1) the Project site is relatively flat and will be
served by existing public utilities; 2) the Project site will be accessed from existing
driveways along Amador Valley Boulevard and Village Parkway and the necessary
agreements have been recorded to ensure adequate ingress and egress to the Project
site; and, 3) all required parking will be provided on the Project site.
F. It will not be contrary to the specific intent clauses, development regulations, or
performance standards established for the zoning district in which it is located in that: 1)
the Project is located within the Downtown Dublin Zoning District — Village Parkway
District and is sited near the sidewalk with parking provided at the rear; 2) the Project
includes a pedestrian connection along Amador Valley Boulevard to encourage walking;
and, 3) the Project adheres to all development regulations set forth in the Downtown
Dublin Specific Plan including setbacks, parking, floor area ratio, and building height,
among other regulations.
G. It is consistent with the Dublin General Plan and with any applicable Specific Plans in
that: 1) the Project would be located on a parcel intended for commercial development;
and, 2) as noted above, the Project adheres to all development regulations set forth in
the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Dublin City Council does hereby
make the following findings and determinations regarding the Site Development Review:
A. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of Chapter 8.104, with the General Plan and
with any applicable Specific Plans and design guidelines in that: 1) the Project is well
designed in relation to the adjacent retail center and incorporates colors, materials and
finishes that complement the retail center; 2) the Project is well designed in relation to the
adjacent residential neighborhood in that the single story building in non - obtrusive and
the outdoor play area has been located as far as practical from the rear yards of the
adjacent residential homes; 3) the Project complies with the development regulations set
forth in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan; and, 4) the Project will provide adequate
circulation for automobiles and pedestrians.
3 of 20
B. The proposal is consistent with the provisions of Title 8, Zoning Ordinance in that: 1) the
Project requires Site Development Review and a complete application has been filed; 2)
the Project provides the amount of parking required in accordance with Chapter 8.76
(Off- Street Parking and Loading Regulations); and, 3) the Project complies with the
development regulations contained in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan and Downtown
Dublin Zoning District.
C. The design of the project is appropriate to the City, the vicinity, surrounding properties
and the lot in which the project is proposed in that: 1) the Project has been designed with
colors, materials and finishes that complement the adjacent retail center; 2) all roof
mounted equipment will be completely screened from public view; 3) the Project consists
of a single story building which is non - obtrusive to adjacent residential uses and the
outdoor play area has been located as far as practical from the rear yards of the adjacent
residential homes; and, 4) the Project adheres to all required setbacks for the site.
D. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the approved
development in that: 1) the Project site is relatively flat and will be served by existing
public utilities; 2) the Project site will be accessed from existing driveways along Amador
Valley Boulevard and Village Parkway and the necessary vehicular access agreements
have been recorded to ensure adequate ingress and egress to the Project site; and, 3) all
required parking will be provided on the Project site.
E. Impacts to existing slopes and topographic features are addressed in that: 1) the Project
site is relatively flat and does not include any significant slopes or topographic features.
F. Architectural considerations including the character, scale and quality of the design, site
layout, the architectural relationship with the site and other buildings, screening of
unsightly uses, lighting, building materials and colors and similar elements result in a
project that is harmonious with its surroundings and compatible with other development in
the vicinity in that: 1) the Project is well designed and incorporates colors, materials and
finishes that complement the adjacent retail center; 2) the Project consists of a single
story building which is non - obtrusive to adjacent residential uses; 3) the Project is located
with convenient access from Amador Valley Boulevard and Village Parkway; 4) the
Project complies with the development regulations and design guidelines set forth in the
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan — Village Parkway District; 5) all roof mounted equipment
will be completely screened from public view; and, 6) the Project contributes towards the
pedestrian- oriented Village Parkway District by siting the building near the sidewalk along
Amador Valley Boulevard and placing all parking to the rear of the building.
G. Landscape considerations, including the location, type, size, color, texture and coverage
of plant materials, and similar elements have been incorporated into the project to ensure
visual relief, adequate screening and an attractive environment for the public in that: 1)
the Project is attractively landscaped with denser vegetation along the shared property
line between the Project and adjacent residential uses; 2) the Project includes filtration
planters to treat stormwater runoff; and, 3) the Project includes a variety of plant species
that soften the edges of the building most visible from the public realm and create an
attractive visual buffer to adjacent residential uses.
4 of 20
H. The site has been adequately designed to ensure proper circulation for bicyclists,
pedestrians and automobiles in that: 1) vehicular access to the Project site is existing and
includes driveways along Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard; 2) pedestrian
access to the Project site can also be obtained from existing sidewalks along Village
Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard; and, 3) conditions of approval have been placed
on the Project requiring that bicycle racks be provided.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Dublin City Council does hereby find that
the Project is Categorically Exempt from CEQA, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332,
In -Fill Development Projects. As further described in the project application, staff report, noise
and parking studies and other material sin the record, the project consists of a Conditional Use
Permit and Site Development Review for the construction and operation of a Day Care Center
for up to 60 children. The project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of
Downtown Dublin — Village Parkway District and the Downtown Dublin Zoning District; the
project site is less than 5 acres in size and is surrounded by urban uses; it has no value as
habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species; approval of the project will not result in any
significant effects related to traffic, noise, air quality or water quality; and, the site can be
adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that based on the findings above and whole of the record
for the Project, the City of Dublin City Council does hereby approve a Conditional Use Permit
and Site Development Review for the construction and operation of a Day Care Center as
shown on the project plans, date stamped received by Dublin Planning on June 21, 2012, and
incorporated by reference, subject to the following conditions of approval:
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Unless stated otherwise, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to the issuance
of building permits or establishment of use and shall be subject to Planning Division review and
approval. The following codes represent those departments /agencies responsible for monitoring
compliance of the conditions of approval: [PL] Planning; [B] Building; [PO] Police; [PW] Public
Works; [ADM] Administration /City Attorney; [FIN] Finance; [PCS] Parks and Community
Services; [F] Dublin Fire Prevention; [DSR] Dublin San Ramon Services District; [LDD]
Livermore Dublin Disposal; [CO] Alameda County Department of Environmental Health; [Zone
7] Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Zone 7; [LAVTA] Livermore
Amador Valley Transit Authority; and [CHS] California Department of Health Services.
NO.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Agency
When
Required,
Prior to:
Source
GENERAL
1.
Approval. This Conditional Use Permit and Site
PL
Ongoing
Standard
Development Review approval is for Dublin
Preschool for the construction and operation of a
Day Care Center at 7250 Amador Valley
Boulevard for up to 60 children and 5 employees
and for the construction and use of an outdoor
play area and associated site improvements
5 of 20
6 of 20
related to the operation of the Day Care Center
(PLPA- 2011- 00055/00056). This approval shall
be as generally depicted and indicated on the
plans prepared by William Wood Architects dated
received by Dublin Planning on June 21, 2012
and written statement dated June 11, 2012 on file
in the Community Development Department, and
as specified by the following Conditions of
Approval for this project.
2.
Effective Date. This Conditional Use Permit/Site
PL
On -going
Standard
Development Review approval becomes effective
upon approval by the City Council.
3.
Permit Expiration. Construction or use shall
PL
1 year of
DMC
commence within one (1) year of this Conditional
Permit
8.96.020.D
Use Permit/Site Development Review approval or
approval
the Permit shall lapse and become null and void.
4.
Time Extension. The original approving
PL
Permit
Standard
decision -maker may, upon the Applicant's written
Expiration
request for an extension of approval prior to
expiration, and upon the determination that any
Conditions of Approval remain adequate to
assure that applicable findings of approval will
continue to be met, grant a time extension of
approval for a period not to exceed six (6)
months. All time extension requests shall be
noticed and a public hearing or public meeting
shall be held as required by the particular Permit.
5.
Modifications. The Community Development
PL
On -going
DMC
Director may consider modifications or changes
8.100 &
to this Conditional Use Permit and Site
8.104
Development Review approval if the
modifications or changes proposed comply with
Chapter 8.100 (Conditional Use Permit) and
Chapter 8.104 (Site Development Review) of the
Zoning Ordinance.
6.
Revocation of Permit. The Conditional Use
PL
On -going
DMC
Permit and Site Development Review approval
8.96.020.1
shall be revocable for cause in accordance with
Section 8.96.020.1 of the Dublin Zoning
Ordinance. Any violation of the terms or
conditions of this permit shall be subject to
citation.
7.
Indemnification. The Developer shall defend,
Various
On -going
In
indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Dublin
accordance
and its agents, officers, and employees from any
with Gov.
claim, action, or proceeding against the City of
Code
Dublin or its agents, officers, or employees to
Section
attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of
66499.37
6 of 20
7 of 20
the City of Dublin or its advisory agency, appeal
board, Planning Commission, City Council,
Community Development Director, Zoning
Administrator, or any other department,
committee, or agency of the City to the extent
such actions are brought within the time period
required by Government Code Section 66499.37
or other applicable law; provided, however, that
The Developer's duty to so defend, indemnify,
and hold harmless shall be subject to the City's
promptly notifying The Developer of any said
claim, action, or proceeding and the City's full
cooperation in the defense of such actions or
proceedings.
8.
Fees. Applicant/Developer shall pay all
FIN
Issuance of
Standard
applicable fees in effect, including, but not limited
Building
to, Planning fees, Building fees, Traffic Impact
Permits
Fees, TVTC fees, Dublin San Ramon Services
District fees, Public Facilities fees, Dublin Unified
School District School Impact fees (per
agreement between Developer and School
District), Fire Facilities Impact fees, Noise
Mitigation fees, Inclusionary Housing In -Lieu
fees, Alameda County Flood and Water
Conservation District (Zone 7) Drainage and
Water Connection fees; or any other fee that may
be adopted and applicable.
9.
Requirements and Standard Conditions. The
Various
Building
Standard
Applicant/Developer shall comply with applicable
Permit
City of Dublin Fire Prevention Bureau, Dublin
Issuance
Public Works Department, Dublin Building
Department, Dublin Police Services, Alameda
County Flood Control District Zone 7, Livermore
Amador Valley Transit Authority, Alameda
County Public and Environmental Health, Dublin
San Ramon Services District and the California
Department of Health Services requirements and
standard conditions. Prior to issuance of building
permits or the installation of any improvements
related to this project, the Developer shall supply
written statements from each such agency or
department to the Planning Department,
indicating that all applicable conditions required
have been or will be met.
PLANNING
10.
Parking. A total of 17 parking spaces (12
PL
On -going
Planning
spaces for parent drop -off and pick -up and 5
spaces for employees) shall remain available for
7 of 20
8 of 20
use by Dublin Preschool during the approved
hours of operation.
11.
Outdoor Play Area. Outdoor activities shall be
PL
On -going
Planning
limited to the designated outdoor play area as
shown on the approved plans. No more than 30
children shall be present within the designated
outdoor play area at any given time. Outdoor
activities shall be limited to 30 minutes at a time
up to 4 times per day and shall only occur
between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday
through Friday.
12.
Noise. Outdoor play activities shall be controlled
PL
On -going
Planning
so as not to create unusual or unnecessary noise
that may disturb or annoy persons living or
working in the vicinity.
13.
Property Maintenance. The Applicant/Developer
PL
During
Planning
and property owner shall be responsible for
Constructio
maintaining the site in a clean and litter free
n, Through
condition during construction and through
Completion
completion. Per the City of Dublin Non-
and On-
Residential Property Maintenance Ordinance,
going
DMC Section 5.64.050, the Applicant/ Property
Owner shall maintain the building, site and all
signage in good condition and shall keep the site
clear of trash, debris and graffiti vandalism on a
regular and continuous basis.
14.
Accessory/Temporary Structures and Uses.
PL
Placement
Planning
A Temporary Use Permit is required for all
on site
construction trailers, security trailers and storage
containers used during construction.
15.
Temporary Signage. All temporary signage
PL
On -going
DMC
shall be subject to the regulations of Chapter
8.84
8.84 (Sign Regulations) of the Dublin Zoning
Ordinance.
16.
Landscaping. All landscaping shall be provided
PL
Issuance of
Planning
with an automatic sprinkler system.
Occupancy
Permit
17.
Community Care Licensing. The Applicant
PL
Issuance of
Planning
and /or Future Tenant must be licensed by and
occupancy
comply with the State of California Community
permit
Care Licensing. The applicant shall submit a
copy of this license to the Planning Division.
18.
Business License. The Applicant and /or Future
Various
Building
Various
Tenant shall apply for a City of Dublin Business
Permit
License within 30 days of approval of the
Issuance
Conditional Use Permit/Site Development
Review.
19.
Hours of Operation. The approved hours of
PL
On -going
Planning
8 of 20
9 of 20
operation are 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday. The Applicant shall be
responsible for ensuring that the drop -off and
pick -up of children is conducted in an orderly
manner and does not negatively impact
surrounding residents or businesses.
20.
Property Maintenance. The Applicant, Future
PL
On -going
DMC
Tenant and /or Property Owner shall keep the
5.64
property maintained in a safe, clean, and litter -
free condition at all times.
21.
Graffiti. The Applicant, Future Tenant and /or
PL
On -going
DMC
Property Owner shall keep the site clear of graffiti
5.68
vandalism on a regular and continuous basis, at
all times. Where feasible graffiti resistant
materials should be used.
22.
Nuisance. The Applicant and /or Future Tenant
PL
On -going
DMC
shall control all activities so as not to create a
5.28.020
public or private nuisance to the existing and
surrounding residents.
23.
Temporary Promotional Banners and
PL
On -going
DMC
Balloons. Temporary Promotional Banner Signs
8.84
and Balloons are subject to compliance with
Chapter 8.84 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance.
BUILDING
24.
Building Codes and Ordinances. All project
B
Through
Building
construction shall conform to all building codes
Completion
and ordinances in effect at the time of building
permit.
25.
Building Permits. To apply for building permits,
B
Issuance of
Building
Applicant/Developer shall submit seven (7) sets
Building
of construction plans to the Building Division for
Permits
plan check. Each set of plans shall have
attached an annotated copy of these Conditions
of Approval. The notations shall clearly indicate
how all Conditions of Approval will or have been
complied with. Construction plans will not be
accepted without the annotated resolutions
attached to each set of plans.
Applicant/Developer will be responsible for
obtaining the approvals of all participation non -
City agencies prior to the issuance of building
permits.
26.
Construction Drawings. Construction plans
B
Issuance of
Building
shall be fully dimensioned (including building
Building
elevations) accurately drawn (depicting all
Permits
existing and proposed conditions on site), and
prepared and signed by a California licensed
9 of 20
10 of 20
Architect or Engineer. All structural calculations
shall be prepared and signed by a California
licensed Architect or Engineer. The site plan,
landscape plan and details shall be consistent
with each other.
27.
Addressing. Address will be required on all
B
Occupancy
Building
doors leading to the exterior of the building.
Addresses shall be illuminated and be able to be
seen from the street, 5 inches in height minimum.
28.
Engineer Observation. The Engineer of record
B
Frame
Building
shall be retained to provide observation services
Inspection
for all components of the lateral and vertical
design of the building, including nailing, hold -
downs, straps, shear, roof diaphragm and
structural frame of building. A written report shall
be submitted to the City Inspector prior to
scheduling the final frame inspection.
29.
Phased Occupancy Plan. If occupancy is
B
Occupancy
Building
requested to occur in phases, then all physical
of any
improvements within each phase shall be
affected
required to be completed prior to occupancy of
building
any buildings within that phase except for items
specifically excluded in an approved Phased
Occupancy Plan, or minor handwork items,
approved by the Department of Community
Development. The Phased Occupancy Plan
shall be submitted to the Directors of Community
Development and Public Works for review and
approval a minimum of 45 days prior to the
request for occupancy of any building covered by
said Phased Occupancy Plan. Any phasing shall
provide for adequate vehicular access to all
parcels in each phase, and shall substantially
conform to the intent and purpose of the
subdivision approval. No individual building shall
be occupied until the adjoining area is finished,
safe, accessible, and provided with all
reasonable expected services and amenities, and
separated from remaining additional construction
activity. Subject to approval of the Director of
Community Development, the completion of
landscaping may be deferred due to inclement
weather with the posting of a bond for the value
of the deferred landscaping and associated
improvements.
30.
Air Conditioning Units. Air conditioning units
B
Occupancy
Building
and ventilation ducts shall be screened from
of Unit
public view with materials compatible to the main
10 of 20
11 of 20
building. Units shall be permanently installed on
concrete pads or other non - movable materials to
approved by the Building Official and Director of
Community Development.
31.
Temporary Fencing. Temporary Construction
B
Through
Building
fencing shall be installed along perimeter of all
Completion
work under construction.
32.
Green Building. The project shall meet the
B
Issuance of
Building
requirements of the CAL Green Building
Building
Standards Code in effect at the time of
Permits
permitting. This includes the addition of long
term bicycle parking on the site.
33.
Cool Roofs. Flat roof areas shall have their
B
Through
Building
roofing material coated with light colored gravel
Completion
or painted with light colored or reflective material
designed for Cool Roofs.
34.
Electronic File. The applicant/developer shall
B
Issuance of
Building
submit all building drawings and specifications for
Building
this project in an electronic format to the
Permits
satisfaction of the Building Official prior to the
issuance of building permits. Additionally, all
revisions made to the building plans during the
project shall be incorporated into an "As Built"
electronic file and submitted prior to the issuance
of the final occupancy.
35.
Copies of Approved Plans. Applicant shall
B
30 days
Building
provide the City with 4 reduced (1/2 size) copies
after permit
of the approved plan.
and each
revision
issuance
36.
Plumbing Fixture Counts. Plumbing fixture
B
Issuance of
Building
counts shall meet the requirements of table 4 -1 of
Building
the CA Plumbing Code.
Permits
FIRE
37.
Fire Alarm (detection) System Required. A
Fire Alarm- Detection System shall be installed
throughout the building so as to provide full
property protection, including combustible
concealed spaces, as required by NFPA 72. The
system shall be installed in accordance with
NPFA 72, Ca Fire, Building, Electrical, and
Mechanical Codes.
If the system is intended to serve as an
evacuation system, compliance with the
horn /strobe requirements for the entire building
must also be met. All automatic fire extinguishing
systems shall be interconnected to the fire alarm
11 of 20
12 of 20
system so as to activate an alarm if activated and
to monitor control valves.
38.
Gate Approvals. Fencing and gates that cross
pedestrian access and exit paths as well as
vehicle entrance and exit roads need to be
approved for fire department access and egress
as well as exiting provisions where such is
applicable. Plans need to be submitted that
clearly show the fencing and gates and details of
such. This should be clearly incorporated as part
of the site plan with details provided as
necessary.
PUBLIC WORKS
39.
Clarifications and Changes to the Conditions.
PW
Approval of
Public
In the event that there needs to be clarification to
Improveme
Works
these Conditions of Approval, the Directors of
nt Plans
Community Development and Public Works have
the authority to clarify the intent of these
Conditions of Approval to the Applicant/
Developer by a written document signed by the
Directors of Community Development and Public
Works and placed in the project file. The
Directors also have the authority to make minor
modifications to these conditions without going to
a public hearing in order for the Applicant to fulfill
needed improvements or mitigations resulting
from impacts of this project.
40.
Standard Public Works Conditions of
PW
Approval of
Public
Approval. Applicant/Developer shall comply with
Improveme
Works
all applicable City of Dublin Public Works
nt Plans
Standard Conditions of Approval. In the event of
a conflict between the Public Works Standard
Conditions of Approval and these Conditions,
these Conditions shall prevail.
41.
Hold Harmless /Indemnification. The Developer
PW
Through
Public
shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the
completion
Works
City of Dublin and its agents, officers, and
of Improve -
employees from any claim, action, or proceeding
ments and
against the City of Dublin or its advisory agency,
Occupancy
appeal board, Planning Commission, City
of the
Council, Community Development Director,
Building
Zoning Administrator, or any other department,
committee, or agency of the City to the extend
such actions are brought within the time period
required by Government Code Section 66499.37
or other applicable law: provided, however, that
the Developer's duty to so defend, indemnify, and
hold harmless shall be subject to the City's
12 of 20
13 of 20
promptly notifying the Developer of any said
claim, action, or proceeding and the City's full
cooperation in the defense of such actions or
proceedings.
42.
Grading /Sitework Permit. All improvement
PW
Issuance of
Public
work must be performed per a Grading /Sitework
Grading/
Works
Permit issued by the Public Works Department.
Sitework
Said permit will be based on the final set of civil
Permit
plans to be approved once all of the plan check
comments have been resolved. Please refer to
the handout titled Grading /Site Improvement
Permit Application Instructions and attached
application (three 8 -1/2" x 11" pages) for more
information. The Applicant/Developer must fill in
and return the applicant information contained on
pages 2 and 3. The current cost of the permit is
$10.00 due at the time of permit issuance,
although the Applicant/Developer will be
responsible for any adopted increases to the fee
amount.
43.
Site Plan. On -site improvements shall be
PW
Issuance of
Public
designed in accordance with the approved site
Grading/
Works
plan, entitled "Dublin Preschool" by William Wood
Sitework
Architects.
Permit
44.
Accessible Path of Travel. Applicant shall
PW
Issuance of
Public
provide an accessible path of travel /walkway
Grading/
Works
from the public sidewalk on Amador Valley
Sitework
Boulevard to the building entrance per California
Permit
Building Code requirements. Said walkway shall
be 4'- minimum wide.
45.
Vehicle Parking. Applicant should repair any
PW
Occupancy
Public
distressed areas of pavement obstructing the
Works
path of travel. The parking spaces striping that is
in poor condition shall be re- striped. All parking
spaces shall be double striped using 4" white
lines set approximately 2 feet apart according to
City standards and §8.76.070 (A) 17 of the Dublin
Municipal Code. All compact -sized parking
spaces shall have the word "COMPACT"
stenciled on the pavement within each space.
12" -wide concrete step -out curbs shall be
constructed at each parking space where one or
both sides abuts a landscaped area or planter.
46.
Site Accessibility Requirements. All parking
PW
Occupancy
Public
spaces for the disabled and other physical site
Works
improvements shall comply with current UBC
Title 24 requirements and City of Dublin
Standards for accessibility.
13 of 20
47.
Graffiti. The Applicant/Developer and /or building
PL, PW
On -going
Public
tenant(s) shall keep the site clear of graffiti
Works
vandalism on a regular and continuous basis.
Graffiti resistant paint for the structures and film
for windows or glass shall be used whenever
possible.
48.
Signs and Pavement Markings. The Applicant/
PW
Occupancy
Public
Developer shall be responsible for the following
Works
on -site traffic signs and pavement markings-
1 . Accessible parking signs and legends per
State Title 24 requirements.
2. The word "Compact" shall be stenciled on
the pavement surface within each compact
parking space.
3. No Stopping /Fire Lane
49.
Occupancy Permit Requirements. Prior to
PW
Occupancy
Public
issuance of an Occupancy Permit, the physical
Works
condition of the project site shall meet minimum
health and safety standards including, but not
limited to the following:
1. Lighting for the building and parking lot
shall be adequate for safety and security.
Exterior lighting shall be provided for
building entrances /exits and pedestrian
walkways. Security lighting shall be
provided as required by Dublin Police.
2. All construction equipment, materials, or
on -going work shall be separated from the
public by use of fencing, barricades,
caution ribbon, or other means reasonably
approved by the City Engineer /Public
Works Director.
3. All fire hydrants for the building shall be
operable and easily accessible to City and
ACFD personnel.
4. All site features designed to serve the
disabled (i.e. H/C parking stalls, accessible
walkways, signage, etc.) for the building
shall be installed and fully functional.
50.
Stormwater Runoff Calculations. Applicant/
PW
Issuance of
Public
Developer shall provide the stormwater runoff,
Grading/
Works
conveyance and treatment details. The
Sitework
calculations shall demonstrate adequate capacity
Permit
in the existing storm drainage retention basin.
Stormwater treatment design shall comply with
the C -3 Stormwater Technical Guidance issued
by Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program.
Runoff from landscape areas shall not drain
14 of 20
15 of 20
across sidewalk areas.
51.
Changes to the SDR Submittal Plans. The
PW
Issuance of
Public
following comments will need to be addressed
Grading/
Works
prior to future plan check submittal:
Sitework
Permit
1. Parking Stall 11 has 3'9" of space for a
backing maneuver adjacent to the parking
space. The City standard is 5': change
Parking Stall 11 to a Compact stall and
provide 5' east of the parking space to
provide adequate backup space.
2. The accessible path of travel to the Trash
enclosure will cross behind Parking Stall
17: change location of curb ramp.
3. Truncated domes will be required in front of
parking stalls 11 -17.
4. Provide signage and striping for Fire Lane.
5. Provide access the existing transformer.
6. Possible conflict with 6" SD on east side of
building and existing joint trench to existing
transformer.
7. Possible conflict with SS lateral to building
and existing joint trench near transformer.
8. Tree planting at east PL will be over 6" SD
to treatment pond.
9. Provide outlet protection for SD pipes into
treatment pond.
52.
Erosion Control During Construction.
PW
Issuance of
Public
Applicant/Developer shall include an Erosion and
Grading/
Works
Sediment Control Plan with the Grading and
Sitework
Improvement plans for review and approval by
Permit and
the City Engineer /Public Works Director. Said
during
plan shall be designed, implemented, and
construc-
continually maintained pursuant to the City's
Lion.
NPDES permit between October 1St and April 15th
or beyond these dates if dictated by rainy
weather, or as otherwise directed by the City
Engineer /Public Works Director.
53.
Construction Hours. Construction and grading
PW
During
Public
operations shall be limited to weekdays (Monday
Construction
Works
through Friday) and non -City holidays between
the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. The
Applicant/Developer may request permission to
work on Saturdays and /or holidays between the
15 of 20
16 of 20
hours of 8:30 am and 5:00 pm by submitting a
request form to the City Engineer no later than
5:00 pm the prior Wednesday. Overtime
inspection rates will apply for all Saturday and /or
holiday work.
54.
Temporary Fencing. Temporary Construction
PW
During
Public
fencing shall be installed along perimeter of all
Construction
Works
work under construction to separate the
and
construction operation from the public. All
Occupancy
construction activities shall be confined to within
the fenced area. Construction materials and /or
equipment shall not be operated or stored
outside of the fenced area or within the public
right -of -way unless approved in advance by the
City Engineer /Public Works Director.
55.
Construction Noise Management Plan.
PW
During
Public
Developer shall prepare a Construction Noise
Construc-
Works
Management Plan, to be approved by the City
Lion and
Engineer and Community Development Director
Grading
that identifies measures to be taken to minimize
Activities
construction noise on surrounding developed
properties. The Plan shall include hours of
construction operation, use of mufflers on
construction equipment, speed limit for
construction traffic, haul routes and identify a
noise monitor. Specific noise management
measures shall be included in the project plans
and specifications.
56.
Damage /Repairs. The Applicant/Developer shall
PW
Occupancy
Public
be responsible for the repair of any damaged
Works
pavement, curb & gutter, sidewalk, or other public
street facility resulting from construction activities
associated with the development of the project.
The Developer shall repair /replace existing
sidewalk and tree wells along the frontage of the
Project on Amador Valley Boulevard as directed
by the City Engineer.
57.
Fees. The Applicant shall pay all applicable fees
PW
Issuance of
Public
in effect at the time of building permit issuance,
Building
Works
including, but not limited to: Planning fees;
Permit
Building fees; Dublin San Ramon Services
District fees; Public Facilities fees; City of Dublin
Fire fees; Noise Mitigation fees; Inclusionary
Housing In -Lieu fees; Alameda County Flood and
Water Conservation District (Zone 7) Drainage
and Water Connection fees; and any other fees
as noted in the Development Agreement.
58.
Lighting. The Applicant/Developer shall prepare
PW
Occupancy
Public
16 of 20
17 of 20
a photometric plan to the satisfaction of the City
Works
Engineer, Director of Community Development,
the City's Consulting Landscape Architect and
Dublin Police Services. A minimum of one foot -
candle of light shall be provided and maintained
across the surface of the parking lot. Any
illumination, including security lighting, shall be
directed away from adjoining properties,
businesses or vehicular traffic so as not to cause
any glare."
59.
Geotechnical Report and Recommendations.
PW
Issuance of
Public
The Applicant/Developer shall provide a site
Building
Works
specific geotechnical report prepared by a
Permit
reputable geotechnical engineer. The
Geotechnical Engineer shall certify that the
project design conforms to the report
recommendations prior to issuance of a
Grading /Sitework Permit or Building Permit. All
report recommendations shall be followed during
the course of grading and construction.
60.
Environmental Site Assessment. According to
PW
Occupancy
Public
the environmental assessment report prepared
Works
by Clayton Group Services, Inc. dated 05/30/03,
four underground fuel storage tanks (UST) were
closed and removed from the site according to
Alameda County Department of Environmental
Health (ACDEH) requirements and protocols. If,
during construction of the Project, presently -
unknown hazardous materials are discovered,
the Applicant/Developer shall adhere to the
requirements of ACDEH, the Fire Marshal, the
City, and /or other applicable agency to mitigate
the hazard before continuing. Furthermore the
report insists that the Applicant/Developer shall
monitor and address any hydrocarbons residual
found in the soil during excavation /trenching.
61.
Storm Drain Lines. Proposed storm drain lines
PW
Issuance of
Public
and bio- retention areas within the existing Public
Grading
Works
Services Easement areas shall be subject to
Permit
approval of the affected utility companies. The
contractor shall pothole and determine locations
of utilities within the joint trench and submit
design to the City and utility companies for
approval.
POLICE
62.
Security Requirements. Applicant shall comply
PO
Occupancy
Police
with the Dublin Municipal Code Security
Requirements.
17 of 20
DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT (DSRSD)
63.
Prior to issuance of any building permit, complete
DSR
Issuance of
DSRSD
improvement plans shall be submitted to DSRSD
permits
that conform to the requirements of the Dublin
San Ramon Services District Code, the DSRSD
"Standard Procedures, Specifications and
Drawings for Design and Installation of Water
and Wastewater Facilities ", all applicable DSRSD
Master Plans and all DSRSD policies.
64.
Domestic and fire protection waterline systems
DSR
Issuance of
DSRSD
for Tracts or Commercial Developments shall be
permits
designed to be looped or interconnected to avoid
dead end sections in accordance with
requirements of the DSRSD Standard
Specifications and sound engineering practice.
65.
DSRSD policy requires public water and sewer
DSR
Issuance of
DSRSD
lines to be located in public streets rather than in
permits
off - street locations to the fullest extent possible.
If unavoidable, then public sewer or water
easements must be established over the
alignment of each public sewer or water line in an
off - street or private street location to provide
access for future maintenance and /or
replacement.
66.
Prior to approval by the City of a grading permit
DSR
Issuance of
DSRSD
or a site development permit, the locations and
permits
widths of all proposed easement dedications for
water and sewer lines shall be submitted to and
approved by DSRSD.
67.
All easement dedications for DSRSD facilities
DSR
Issuance of
DSRSD
shall be by separate instrument irrevocably
permits
offered to DSRSD or by offer of dedication on the
Final Map.
68.
Prior to approval by the City for Recordation, the
DSR
Issuance of
DSRSD
Final Map shall be submitted to and approved by
permits
DSRSD for easement locations, widths, and
restrictions.
69.
Prior to issuance by the City of any Building
DSR
Issuance of
DSRSD
Permit or Construction Permit by the Dublin San
permits
Ramon Services District, whichever comes first,
all utility connection fees including DSRSD and
Zone 7, plan checking fees, inspection fees,
connection fees, and fees associated with a
wastewater discharge permit shall be paid to
DSRSD in accordance with the rates and
schedules established in the DSRSD Code.
70.
Prior to issuance by the City of any Building
DSR
Issuance of
DSRSD
Permit or Construction Permit by the Dublin San
permits
18 of 20
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of October 2012 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
19 of 20
Ramon Services District, whichever comes first,
all improvement plans for DSRSD facilities shall
be signed by the District Engineer. Each drawing
of improvement plans shall contain a signature
block for the District Engineer indicating approval
of the sanitary sewer or water facilities shown.
Prior to approval by the District Engineer, the
applicant shall pay all required DSRSD fees, and
provide an engineer's estimate of construction
costs for the sewer and water systems, a
performance bond, a one -year maintenance
bond, and a comprehensive general liability
insurance policy in the amounts and forms that
are acceptable to DSRSD. The applicant shall
allow at least 15 working days for final
improvement drawing review by DSRSD before
signature by the District Engineer.
71.
No sewer line or waterline construction shall be
DSR
Issuance of
DSRSD
permitted unless the proper utility construction
permits
permit has been issued by DSRSD. A
construction permit will only be issued after all of
the items in Condition No. 9 have been satisfied.
72.
The applicant shall hold DSRSD, its Board of
DSR
On -going
DSRSD
Directors, commissions, employees, and agents
of DSRSD harmless and indemnify and defend
the same from any litigation, claims, or fines
resulting from the construction and completion of
the project.
73.
Improvement plans shall include recycled water
DSR
Issuance of
DSRSD
improvements as required by DSRSD. Services
permits
for landscape irrigation shall connect to recycled
water mains. Applicant must obtain a copy of the
DSRSD Recycled Water Use Guidelines and
conform to the requirements therein.
74.
This application is for construction of a daycare
DSR
Issuance of
DSRSD
facility in a currently vacant site. DSRSD will
permits
require a check of the plans by DSRSD. Water
and sewer capacity charges will be required.
Exact charges for this specific application will be
calculated at the time of the plan check.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of October 2012 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
19 of 20
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Mayor
20 of 20
RESOLUTION NO. XX - 12
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
* * * * * * * * * **
AFFIRMING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 12 -31
DENYING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A DAY CARE CENTER AT
7250 AMADOR VALLEY BLVD (APN 941 - 0210 -035)
PLPA- 2011 -00055 & 00056
WHEREAS, the Applicant has requested approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the
operation of a Day Care Center for up to 60 children and Site Development Review for the
construction of a 3,284 square foot building with a 2,400 square foot outdoor play area along
with 17 parking spaces, landscaping and associated site improvements; and
WHEREAS, the Project is located in the D -D (Downtown Dublin) Zoning District; and
WHEREAS, a Day Care Center is permitted in the D -D Zoning District subject to
approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Sections 8.30.040 and 8.104.040.C.4 of the Dublin
Municipal Code, all development in the D -D Zoning District and all new principal structures are
subject to Site Development Review and shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted to the City of Dublin Planning Commission
recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review request
which report is incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on
August 14, 2012 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports,
recommendations and testimony herein above set forth and used its independent judgment to
evaluate the project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 12 -31 denying a Conditional
Use Permit and Site Development Review Permit for the construction and operation of a Day
Care Center at 7250 Amador Valley Blvd which Resolution is incorporated herein by reference;
and
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Zhen Zhen Li, filed a timely appeal of the Planning
Commission's decision to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted to the City of Dublin City Council
recommending reversal of the Planning Commission's denial and recommending approval of the
Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review request with additional conditions of
approval which report is incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on said appeal on October 2, 2012 at
which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations
and testimony herein above set forth and used its independent judgment to evaluate the project;
and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with State
Guidelines and City Environmental Regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for
environmental impacts; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 15270(b) of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Dublin City Council does hereby
make the following findings and determinations regarding the Conditional Use Permit:
A. The proposed use and related structures are not compatible with other land uses,
transportation and service facilities in the vicinity in that: 1) the Project is not compatible
with the adjacent retail center and will result in the removal of 10 existing parking spaces
currently being utilized by the retail center; 2) the Project will create additional congestion
on the adjacent retail center parcel; 3) the Project will create additional traffic impacts in
an area that is already impacted by three other schools (Dublin High School, Wells
Middle School and Valley High School).
B. The Project will adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the
vicinity, and be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare in that: 1) the Project
will expose children to poor air quality by locating the outdoor play area in close proximity
to a parking lot and two major streets (Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard).
C. The subject site is not physically suitable for the type, density and intensity of the use and
related structures being proposed in that: 1) the Project will generate additional traffic that
will result in congestion on the adjacent retail center parcel and the parking lot
configuration includes a dead -end which will further contribute to congestion; and 2) the
Project will create additional traffic impacts in an area that is already impacted by three
other schools (Dublin High School, Wells Middle School and Valley High School).
D. The Project will be contrary to the specific intent clauses, development regulations, and
performance standards established for the zoning district in which it is located in that: 1)
the Project does not provide adequate pedestrian connections to Amador Valley
Boulevard.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Dublin City Council does hereby make the
following findings and determinations regarding the Site Development Review:
A. The Project is not consistent with the purposes of Chapter 8.104, with the General Plan
2of3
and with any applicable Specific Plans and design guidelines in that: 1) the Project will
not provide adequate on -site circulation for automobiles; and 2) the Project does not
provide adequate pedestrian connections to Amador Valley Boulevard.
B. The subject site is not physically suitable for the type and intensity of the approved
development in that. 1) the Project will generate additional traffic that will result in
congestion on the adjacent retail center parcel and the parking lot configuration includes
a dead -end which will further contribute to congestion; and 2) the Project will create
additional traffic impacts in an area that is already impacted by three other schools
(Dublin High School, Wells Middle School and Valley High School).
C. Architectural considerations including site layout do not result in a project that is
harmonious with its surroundings and compatible with other development in the vicinity in
that: 1) the Project is not compatible with the adjacent retail center and will result in the
removal of 10 existing parking spaces currently being utilized by the retail center; 2) the
Project will create additional congestion on the adjacent retail center parcel; 3) the
Project will create additional traffic impacts in an area that is already impacted by three
other schools (Dublin High School, Wells Middle School and Valley High School); and 4)
the Project will not provide adequate on -site circulation for automobiles because it
includes a dead -end which will contribute to on -site congestion.
D. The site has not been adequately designed to ensure proper circulation for bicyclists,
pedestrians and automobiles in that: 1) the Project will not provide adequate on -site
circulation for automobiles because it will generate additional traffic that will result in
congestion on the adjacent retail center parcel and the parking lot configuration includes
a dead -end which will further contribute to congestion.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that based on the findings above and the whole of the
record for the Project, the City of Dublin City Council does hereby affirm the Planning
Commission's adoption of Resolution 12 -31 denying a Conditional Use Permit and Site
Development Review for the construction and operation of a Day Care Center as shown on the
project plans, date stamped received by Dublin Planning on June 21, 2012, and incorporated
by reference.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of October 2012 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Mayor
3 of 3