Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.1 - 1408 7201 Regional Street SDR Page 1 of 9 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL DATE: April 18, 2017 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Christopher L. Foss, City Manager SUBJECT: Site Development Review for 7201 Regional Street Prepared by: Robert Paley, Assistant Planner and Amy Million, Principal Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Applicant has requested Site Development Review Permit approval for exterior changes to an existing 60,111 square foot retail building located at 7201 Regional Street that is currently occupied by CVS. The application includes a proposal to create three individual store fronts, modify the building façade, new trash enclosure in the rear of the building, repave and restripe a portion of the parking lot between the building and Regional Street, and refresh the existing landscape planters located in that same parking area. The Planning Commission denied the application at the March 14, 2017 Planning Commission meeting. Councilmember Gupta appealed the action of the Planning Commission. The City Council will hold a public hearing to consider the appeal. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Disclose ex-parte contacts, conduct the public hearing, deliberate and take the following action: a) Adopt the Resolution approving a Site Development Review Permit for exterior changes to an existing 60,111 square foot retail building and associated site improvements at 7201 Regional Street; or, b) Direct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution affirming the Planning Commission’s action with or without additional conditions of approval including findings of fact, for City Council consideration no later than May 16, 2017. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. Page 2 of 9 DESCRIPTION: The project site is located at 7201 Regional Street and within a portion of a larger shopping center near the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Regional Street as depicted in Figure 1. Access to the shopping center is provided from multiple driveways on Dublin Boulevard, Amador Valley Boulevard and Regional Street. The shopping center is comprised of nine individually owned parcels (Figure 6 below). The five-acre project site, that is the subject of this Staff Report, includes an existing 60,111 square foot retail building currently occupied by CVS, and a portion of the parking lot that serves the overall center. The project does not include improvements to a small portion of the subject property’s parking lot shown with the red hash lines in Figure 1. The subject shopping center is located within the Downtown Dublin Zoning District - Retail District. It was originally approved by Alameda County and constructed in 1972, before Dublin was incorporated as a City. The shopping center is comprised of retail and service uses including several large format tenant spaces (99 Ranch Market, CVS, Savers, and the former Sports Authority) as well as several smaller retail/service establishments, two banks, a gas station, and a recycling center. The Applicant, Browman Development Company, is requesting approval of a Site Development Review (SDR) Permit for façade modifications to their building and related site improvements which include repaving and striping a portion of their parking lot, a new trash enclosure painted a neutral color to match the building, and replanting or refreshing the existing planting areas within the portion of the parking between the building and Regional Street. The SDR Permit for this project is within the authority of the Community Development Director (DMC Chapter 8.104). On January 27, 2017, the Community Development Department issued a public notice of the intent to approve this SDR Permit. The City received comments from 17 Dublin residents as further discussed later in this Staff Report (Attachment 1). Due to the level of community interest in this project, the Community Development Director referred the application to the Planning Commission for action in accordance with DMC Chapter 8.96.020C.1. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: On March 14, 2017, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the proposed project. Two members of the public spoke in favor of the project. The Commission’s discussion focused on the project’s consistency with the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) and determined that the proposed project is not consistent with the DDSP because it does not incorporate enha nced building materials, inadequate landscaping in the parking area and the lack of a pedestrian gathering space or Page 3 of 9 pedestrian connectivity from the subject building to Regional Street After reviewing the Staff Report, receiving presentations from Staff and the Applicant, and receiving public comment, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 17 -01 denying the SDR Permit. The Planning Commission Resolution 17 -01 and minutes from the March 14, 2017 meeting are included as Attachments 2 and 3 respectively. On March 22, 2017, Councilmember Gupta appealed the action of the Planning Commission (Attachment 4). APPEAL PROCESS: Chapter 8.136 of the Zoning Ordinance contains the regulations and procedures that must be followed if an action of the Planning Comm ission is appealed to the City Council. The appeal must be scheduled for a Public Hearing within 45 days of the filing of the appeal. The City Council may defer decision on the appeal at the Public Hearing but must take action within 75 days of the filing of the appeal. On March 22, 2017, Councilmember Gupta appealed the denial of the Site Development Review Permit for 7201 Regional Street by the Planning Commission. In accordance with Chapter 8.136, the City Council must hold a Public Hearing no later than May 5, 2017 and must take action no later than June 2, 2017 or the decision of the Planning Commission is deemed affirmed. Chapter 8.136 of the Zoning Ordinance states that the City Council may, by majority vote, affirm, affirm in part, or reverse the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the 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 must be supported by findings of fact based on information before the City Council when it hears and considers the appeal. ANALYSIS: Building Design The building is currently designed for use by one single tenant. The p roposed project will create three new storefronts, shown as Tenant Spaces A, B and C on the attached project plans which are included as Exhibit A to Attachment 5. Since the Planning Commission meeting, the Applicant prepared enhanced drawings which more clearly depict the proposed façade improvements which is included as Exhibit B to Attachment 5. Tenant Space Square Feet TENANT Space A 21,469 Unknown Space B 10,000 Daiso (Retail) Space C 28,642 CVS (Retail) The exterior alterations to the front of the building include removal of the mansard roof, Page 4 of 9 the canopy that covers the length of the existing frontage, and the columns that support the canopy. In addition, the low wall that runs the length of the frontage, which was originally built for a previous tenant to accommodate shopping carts, will also be removed. Removal of this feature will provide for approximately 12 feet of sidewalk/pedestrian area between the drive aisle and the building. Figure 2: Proposed Facade The Applicant is proposing a variety of architectural enhancements which will include varying the parapet heights of each storefront, adding new materials, introducing a new color pallet that will complement the other buildings in the shopping center, and will also provide articulation and depth to the building by offering protruding entryways against a recessed façade (Figure 2). These features will update and enhance the appearance of this building while also complementing the varied architecture of the surrounding buildings. Figure 3 The proposed building entryways and façade are intended to complement the recent improvements to the former Sports Authority (Figure 3) as well as relate to the other existing buildings in the shopping center. The proposed materials include a cement plaster system over the existing concrete masonry blocks with each new storefront painted a separate color. The new storefronts would be comprised of aluminum frames, windows with a clear anodized finish, and quartz grey decorative metal screens that will act as faux awnings (Attachment 5, Exhibit A, Sheet A3). The project includes unique design features while still retaining elements of the building that make it consistent with the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan as well as the other buildings within the shopping center. The façade improvements include muted tones and natural colors and at least 50% of the façade surface for each storefront consists of windows and glass doors. The new facade will also provide prominent entries with distinctive architectural features in addition to multiple materials, textures, and colors that break up the building mass. Tenant Space A will include an attached semi -circular cement plaster awning over the entryway that is approximately 72 feet long by 10 feet wide and su pported by 2 cement Page 5 of 9 plaster columns that frame the doorways. The building will be painted a soft yellow tone, with white trim at the base and roof line as well as the canopy and columns. Tenant Space B will feature black and grey striped fabric awnings f raming a cement plaster entryway painted white, and the building will be painted an olive green with white trim at the roof line. Tenant Space C will be painted a muted copper color, and will include elements from each of the other storefronts, including the soft yellow tone of Tenant Space A applied to decorative cement plaster tiling and white cement plaster columns framing the entryway. Site Enhancements As previously mentioned, the Applicant proposes to remove the canopy and support columns as well as the low wall along the front of the building. The removal of these features will provide a new, wider pedestrian pathway that will improve the connection to the plaza located immediately south of the building between Aaron Brothers and Savers (Figure 4). This wider walkway will also provide better interaction between the pedestrians and the shops. The Applicant is proposing new and rehabilitated landscaping in existing parking lot planters generally located between the building and Regional Street (Figure 5). The proposed landscaping is compatible with the recent improvements to the landscaping found on the former Sports Authority property. The landscape in this portion of the parking lot is proposed to be refreshed with additional plantings (if the existing trees are healthy) or replaced with new trees, shrubs, and groundcover. Cork Oak and Zelkovia trees are proposed for the parking lot landscaping and for the planter strips within the property boundary that front onto Regional Street. These planter areas will also be refreshed with shrubs and Pink Flower Carpet Rose ground cover. The Applicant is also proposing to repave and stripe this same portion of their parking lot. Please refer to the Landscape Concept sheet (Exhibit A to Attachment 5, Sh eet L1) for additional details and further depiction of the proposed boundary for improvements. Public Comment The City received comments about the project from 17 residents. While generally supportive of the proposed façade improvements, the residents expressed a desire for the project to include pedestrian friendly improvements, including a pedestrian connection to Regional Street and a plaza or gathering space. The improvements requested by the public are consistent with the overarching goals of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP). The DDSP provides both development Page 6 of 9 standards that must be met, and design guidelines which have more flexibility and are encouraged or discouraged rather than required or prohibited. For example, Guiding Principal 3.3.2 of the DDSP - Retail District is to “[I]dentify ways to improve/enhance non‐vehicular and vehicular circulation and connections that are pedestrian friendly, particularly in areas that contain large, expansive parking lots.” The Specific Plan further encourages the creation of pedestrian gathering places. In applying the standards of the DDSP, consideration is given to the intent of the Specific Plan, and balancing those goals with the proposed improvements, and the financial feasibility of the project. The scope of a project, location of the improvements, and the site’s context are important pieces to the puzzle. It may not be realistic or desirable to require certain improvements in every project in the Downtown. The DDSP includes policies which require developers to provide substantial community benefits, such as plazas and gathering places, with larger projects. For smaller projects, such as façade remodels, certain improvements may not be feasible, but the project may still contribute to incremental i mprovements to the Downtown. Staff worked with the applicant early in the review process to incorporate a pedestrian path directly to Regional Street. However, the applicant raised concerns about the cost of these improvements given the existing pedestrian connections to Dublin Boulevard and Amador Valley Boulevard. City Staff considered these concerns against several factors, including pedestrian access routes and the location of public transportation. The shopping center currently provides pedestrian co nnections to Dublin Boulevard and Amador Valley Boulevard. Staff has included a condition of approval requiring the applicant to repair the existing pathway connecting to Amador Valley Boulevard, ensuring that it meets current standards (Condition #33). The closest public transit stops are located on Dublin Boulevard which is served by existing pathways. As discussed earlier, the shopping center also has an existing pedestrian scale plaza located south of the subject building (Figure 4 above). The project proposes to enhance the pedestrian connection in front of the building by increasing the sidewalk width to approximately 12 feet wide. This improvement will help to activate the plaza and better facilitate greater pedestrian connectivity through the shopping center from Dublin Boulevard to Amador Valley Boulevard. The proposed small-scale project complies with the DDSP by providing incremental improvements to the Downtown such as façade enhancements, parking lot and landscape improvements and pedestrian enhancements along the front of the building provides. Therefore, Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the Resolution, included as Attachment 5, approving this SDR Permit. Additional Steps to Achieve the Specific Plan Goals City staff is actively seeking ways to implement the vision of the DDSP and address the comments expressed by the community regarding the need to Page 7 of 9 create a more pedestrian friendly downtown, as well as providing gathering spaces. The following is an overview of several current and ongoing efforts: Collaboration with the Shopping Center’s Property Owners As previously mentioned, this shopping center is comprised of 9 parcels that are all individually owned (Figure 6). The configuration of the shopping center’s parcels, multiple property owners and the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) provide a number of challenges for improvement to the center. For example the CC&Rs limit the types of uses allowed, do not allow any buildings or structures in the designated common areas/parking areas, do not allow buildings or structures within 60 feet of the perimeter of the parcels, and require 93% the owners to agree to any changes to the CC&Rs. Understanding these challenges, the City’s Economic Development and Community Development staff have been collaborating with these property owners in an effort to encourage changes that implement the vision of the DDSP as well as enhance the economic viability of the shopping center. The City’s goal is to facilitate the property owners working together to make comprehensive improvements to the site and the buildings, create a cohesive and welcoming branding effort for the shopping center and to amend the CC&Rs for such things as expanding the allowed uses and allowing pad buildings along the street frontages that could make it financially viable to include additional gathering places and pedestrian connections. Page 8 of 9 City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan The City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan identifies the need for an additional public gathering place in the Downtown with the designation of a future Downtown Plaza of 0.50-0.75 acres in size. The Master Plan states that “[t]his park can provide a small public space within the 284 -acre Downtown Dublin Specific Plan area that would serve as a public gathering space in this bustling commercial and residential district. The Downtown Plaza could include benches and seating, public art, historic resources, a small performance space, or other elements that are appropriate to a small, vibrant urban space.” The location for the city-owned Downtown Plaza has not yet been determined; however, the City is actively looking for opportunities to implement the vision of the Master Plan. Downtown Dublin Streetscape Plan The Community Development Department has recently initiated a process to create a Downtown Dublin Streetscape Plan for the area. The streetscape plan will support implementation of the community’s vision as set forth in the DDSP. The focus of the streetscape plan will be to strengthen the identity of the downtown and identify improvements to enhance the pedestrian experience. Future Projects City Staff are actively working with other property owners and developers who have expressed interest to improve and/or expand their developments, to include amenities and features that will achieve the goals and intent of the DDSP. This includes looking for opportunities to create pedestrian plazas and a future City owned park plaza as described in the Parks and Recreation Master Plan . ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project is located within the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan area, which was the subject of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), State Clearinghouse number 20100022005. The Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Final EIR was certifi ed by City Council Resolution No. 08-11 dated February 1, 2011. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines section 15168(c)(2), the proposed project was examined to determine if another environmental document should be prepared . The project involves no expansion of the existing commercial building, but includes only architectural modifications and minor site enhancements. There is no substantial evidence in the record that any new effects would occur, that any new mitigation measures would be required, or that any of the conditions triggering supplemental environmental review under CEQA Guidelines section 15162 exists. CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE: The General Plan designation is Downtown Dublin Zonin g District - Retail District. The project has been reviewed for compliance with policies contained in the Community Design and Sustainability Element of the General Plan, including those related to building and site design, gathering and open space areas, and parking and circulation. The project is consistent with Development Regulations for this zoning district as described in Downtown Dublin Specific Plan and Dublin Municipal Code. Page 9 of 9 REVIEW BY APPLICABLE DEPARTMENT AND AGENCIES: The Building Division, Fire Prevention Bureau, Public Works Department, and Dublin San Ramon Services District have reviewed the project and provided Conditions of Approval (Attachment 3) where appropriate to ensure that the project is established in compliance with all local ordinances and regulations. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH: In accordance with State law, Public Notices of the Community Development Director’s pending action, the Planning Commission meeting and the City Council meeting were mailed to all property owners and occupants within 300-feet of the proposed project. The Public Notices were also published in the East Bay Times and posted at several locations throughout the City. A copy of this Staff Report was provided to the Applicant. Since the initial public notification period starting on January 27, 2017, the Community Development Department has received comments from 17 residents (Attachment 1). The comments focused on the desire to facilitate a more pedestrian friendly downtown, including the need for more connectivity between the public right of way and the shops located at the project site, as well as a public gathering space. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Public Comments 2. Planning Commission Resolution 17-01 3. March 14, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes 4. Councilmember Gupta Appeal Email 5. City Council Resolution Site Development Review 6. Exhibit A - Project Plans SDR 7201 Regional St (CVS) 7. Exhibit B - Additional Project Elevation Public Comments A 1 ! ACiMN'l Robert Paley From: Gaye Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 12-017 12,39 PM To. Robert Paley Dublin Hope that plans move forward to -update Regional Drive, Thanks, Gayle Petri Sent from rny Whone Robert Paley From: Jenny Chang Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 20172�4PM To: Robert Paley Subject: CVS Regional Street Project P|sn Dear Mr. Paley, Hope this nocosage finds you well. I was just made aware o|upconimg Regional Street project plans and |amdelighted that there will be some changes. |hope that there will be pedestrian walkways and other amenities like aplaza, fountain and maybe even heating lamps and/or benches that will make d very pedestrian friendly and nice, tohanQout outdoors for our residents. These and other amenities would make it really feel like a "Downtown" area. Thank you for your attention and thank you for helping to make this city great. Kind Regards, Jeri Robert Paley From: Sent: Tuesday, January 311, 2017 3:01 PM To: Robert Falk, Subject: US Mr. Paley - I'm included in a NextDoor West Dublin group, If you're not familiar with it, NextDoor is an application that facilitates communication within neighborhoods over various topics. For our group, a major topic is West Dublin City Planning. There's many of us that would like to see our area have a cohesive downtown area such as what Danville, Pleasanton and other comMunities have near us. We're disheartened by the degradation and aging of structures and grounds. We talk about how West/•ast Dublin almost feel like two different cities. The constant building of new condos is disappointing as we struggle with traffic problems on Dublin Blvd etc. Recently, there's been discussion about the CVS remodel. it's a welcomed project as the building/parking lot are beat-up and beleaguered. We're wondering about the architectural design and landscaping plans. West Dublin has no character, charm or general look and feel. It's a mish- mash of strip malls, different buildings, and has a generally unappealing look to it. If I could, I'd move but I can't as it's not financially feasible at this time. Anyway thought I'd let you know, you may hear from other Dublin residents. We're trying to form groups that will attend meetings and voice our concerns. Everyone is busy. However, lately there appears to be a groundswell of interest on this important topic (Dublin City Planning and it's general direction.) Thank you. Karen Gonzales Here's a cut/paste from the NextDoor thread that speaks to CVS: Project Description: Fagade remodel for the CVS building located at 7201 Regional St. The application includes a proposal to create three individual store fronts from the existing CVS, enhancements to the building faqade, and improvements to the parking lot and landscaping areas. Staff recommends that the Project be found Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. Project Location: 7201 Regional Street The City will accept comments on the proposed project until 5:00 pm on February 6, 2017, The Community Development Director will take action on this project on or after February 7, 2017, A written appeal may be made within ten (10) days of such action by anyone who advised the City of his/her concerns prior to the close of the comment period, If you challenge the described action in court. you may be limited to only those issues raised prior to action being taken. Robert Pala Sent, Tuesday, January 3l.2Ol73.36PM To: Robert Paley Cc: Chris Foss Subject- Cvs I support a face lift on the building to help make this shopping center, into a good down town attraction. | would Like to see good places to eat in that shopping center. Banks are fine but I think we need to get the west side back on the map. |do thank you for your work MWeGrdnt GunsUNimhed Dublin Ca, Robert Dalex a- From Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2017 1:1-1 AM To: Robert Paley Subject: C VS Hello, just seen a post about remodeling CVS. Please do all you can to help bring life to west Dublin. It wpuld be so nice.to have a downiown calking, shopping and dining, area. We have plenty of pcuplc in Dublin, but no Central gathering area.. Hope to see one soon. Thanks. Nancy Eggers I 11,: i 4 It'll Robert Paley From: AB Carr Sent: Wednes day, February 01, 2017 4:37 AM To� R*berlPaley Subject: I'd like a ppciestrian friendly downtown in Dublin (re� CVS refresh) Dear Mr. Paley: I'm a resident of Dublin since 1997. Regarding Regional Street and the OVS refresh, Myself in particular and many others have expressed our desiesto have a pedestrian friendly downtown Dublin, This is especially truean6 necessary for the apartments being built by the west DubUn BART station. VVe'dHkeson/etNnQahngcire|inesof»paceyto8atherandsbandda1wkhmornenicegreenery landscape and some trees, Even a smaller stage typp venue where a few street musicians or small ensembles could easily set up for some evening inusic. This could be similar to main courtyards such as can be found in Italy. VVe want a place for locals *o gather arid enjoy our city informally! I think it you look, at our recent Dublin cultural arts assessment, you will find the residents in the newer hi density housing do not really stay in Dublin to relax, stroll, congregate and enjoy our downtown. This West Dublin area bjust drive, park, run into the store and leave. |tis not pleasant or welcoming and in fact is quite boring. Other than aStarbucks, there isNO place for a real comnnmnhysocializing town square over here on the West side of Dublin. To boot, there is not enough public art kz enjoy ' just bodn8&ugkyy1nresandparking|nta| I'm tired of seeing stores go belly up or move out uf Dublin from this side of Dublin. Anita Carr Robert Paley From: NettyHuen Sent VVednesdeyFebrua/yO1,Z0l7O.5DPW To- Robert Paley Subject: Cv� project Hi Robert, Thank you for being open to hearing what the community wants in regards 10 plans for the cvs project. bwmo|db+n|ce to have little restaurants, shops, and bao (not big chain ones) m that area. Thanks) Hetty Sent from my iPhone Robert Palley _ From: chrisfine cheng Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2017 1,41. PM To: Robert Paley Subject coinnients tot project plan for CVS or. Regional street 0 It would be very nice for Dublin to have a downtown area that include amenities for pedestrian friendly shopping. Would like to see the addition of a small plaza, patio or green space, fountain, benches, walkways connecting to lots of restaurants and retail boutiques, Thanks, Christine Robert Pale From: Marlene Massetti Sent: Friday, February 03, 2017 1138 Pl`A To: Robert Paley Subject: Fw. Cofni-rients re: Dublin Plaza OV'S SDR (PILPA- 2016-ON38) Mr, Paley: Thank you for the opportunity to meet with you regarding the CVS remodel. I appreciate your time arid support for resident's input. I've reviewed the Dublin Plaza CVS plan and it's certainly an improvement to the existing, outdated 1970's building on Regional Street. CVS's proposal, however, lacks many of the amenities required for a Pedestrian Friendly Downtown including those identified in Dublin's Downtown Specific Plan (DDSP): walkways. a plaza, fountain, benches and informal gathering spaces where residents may congregate. Additionally, because CVS is located in the Retail District this remodel will set the standard for other remodels at Dublin Plaza. It will also determine the future success of our Pedestrian Friendly Downtown. In view of these facts, please consider the following in your evaluation of the CVS plan: o The CVS buildings are in a prime location, the center of our retail district Their location under the DDSP requires they include inviting pathways, amenities and connectivity to create a vibrant Downtown. o The proposed plan lacks many amenities that will support a Pedestrian Friendly Downtown such as a small plaza, patio or green space, benches or walkways that would contribute to a walkable Downtown and connectivity to other retail stores. ci Current residents (and future residents residing Downtown) want a pedestrian friendly, walkable Downto-wn;a place where they can congregate: close to home. 0 The CVS parking [at is underutilized and could be reduced to accommodate a City plaza. green space, gathering place for residents or an entertainment venue, o Our Downtown currently lacks upscale, dining and retail and events to bring people togeth-ar. Therefore each remodel and new development should contribute to the planned, Pedestrian Friendly Downtown. Finally, please consider the aesthetics of the tenant signage (by reducing their size), increase the size of the landscape plantings and including tree lined pathways connecting Regional street's sidewalk to the CVS retail buildings. Widening sidewalks in front of these buildings and adding landscaping in front of the CVS retail entrances would also encourage the walk ability factor and connectivity among retail stores at Dublin Plaza. it will also soften the starkness of the stucco buildings and asphalt parking lot. Some of the more ambitious projects, including reducing the CVS parking lot for a City plaza, could be realized in a partnership between the City and Dublin Plaza retailers, A portion of our Community Benefit funds (realized from recent residential projects) could support a City Plaza and the creation of a vibrant, Pedestrian Friendly Downtown. Marlene Massetti Robert Paley -0 From: Marlene Massetti Sent: Monday, February 06, 12017 1:32 PIM To: Luke Sines Cc: Jeff Eiaker; Roberl Paley. City Council Subject: FN: Comments rep Dublin Plaza CVS SDK (PLPA-2016-00038) Mr. Sims, One final comment in consideration of your review of the Dublin Plaza, CVS plan, Could the CVS retail BUILDING portion of the plan be considered SEPARATELY frorn the parking lol until the (4) remaining retailers on either side of CVS submit their remodel plans? This would allow for a complete, major redevelopment of the parking lot (along Regional) in our retail district and a cohesive plan that would incorporate a pedestrian walkway, plaza. Marlene From: Marlene Massetti Sent: Monday, February To. Luke Sims Cc: Jeff Baker; Robert Paley-, City Council Subject: Fw: Comments re: Dublin Plaza CVS SDR (PLPA-2016-00038) Mr, Sims: Please postpone a decision on the CVS remodel in consideration of an alternative plan that would create and be the foundation for a Pedestrian Friendly Downtown Our City needs a Downtown Plaza: A Pedestrian Friendly Walkway Connecting Regional Street to CVS Retail Shops and Dublin Plaza. The CVS parking lot remodel is an opportunity to provide that to residents in partnership with the City. Pictured below are examples of what our Downtown Retail District could be with a Plaza; a pathway connecting Regional Street to the new CVS retail buildings. Dubiin's plaza would be significantly smaller, however, with trees and landscaping appropriate to our area substituted, A large Oak Tree planted in the center of the Plaza would reflect Dublin's heritage. The CVS parking lot is one of the few remaining, parcels left in our retail district that could be the foundation for a vibrant, walkable Downtown. In evaluating the CVS remodel please find a way to incorporate a plaza at this location; the center of our Downtown Retail District. Marlene Massetti (.925) 875-0671 Robert Paley From: Sent: Sunday, February 05. 2017 3:07 PM To: Robert Paley Cc: Subject: CVS Plaza As an interested residerit of Dublin, I would like thank you fior the improvQuIcIlts to tile CVS that. you have put forth. 'rhest are some improvements that I would also like to put forth that are supported by others in the coimnunity. Niore trees, benches, walkways, small park, fountainil,sl. This would bring our community together in a positive way and bring a positive attitude to the city that does not exist at this time, Trio many in Dublin want to move because they see no amenities and only ugly building. This �would go a long way to help keep people here and be proud to live here. Thanks f'(-)r the opportunity to express this. %Murie Marshall ^ From sawsa`VV Sent: Sunday, February 05,3D178'03PM To: Robert Paley Subject: Hello Robert, I don't see why CVS will CbJtLt to design with the trees in mind. To make a downtown downtown it haze to be walking, eating friendly with interesting sto/esand eateries, Sent from my Whone Robert Paley Fromm JingFitmezm Sent Monday, February O6Z0I7ll:68Ak1 To: Luke Sims Cc Robert Paley;- Jeff Baker: City [ooncU; Arun,—Soel: David Hamber Subject: RE: CVS Remodel In additim, funding for the Regional St. plaza can come trorn community benefit agreements or bond money. From: Firmeza Sent: Monday, February 6'2QI7ll:53AM To.'huke.s/ms@dudinza.gov'<hJki�.�ir-ttsi,"�d� a�I�� [c:'robert.pa}ey@doWin.ca.Qov <�o t�ov->|1eff.baker@mdubin.ca.guv'��11��� � Subject: CVS Remodel Hello PN: Sims; Thank you for reaching out to the community on feedback regarding the CVS remodel. K4ysu0gcstionto this remodel is as follows: l. Let uu get a full view plan for Regional s\. \beUeve that Regional Street is the best location for awalkable friendly Downtown Dublin. I havestated this before to our Mayor that Regional street has great potential for a Downtown Pedestrian Friendly. VVe can connect Regional bya58O pedestrian overpass toS1onedd0e Mail, Maybe Pleasanton may want to partner with us and them creating a Plaza/park pedestrian on the other side. 3. | suggest let's get a full vision for Regional than piece mea|ing this effort, I Much tomy opposition of the 2500 housing allocation of Downtown Dublin Specific Plan, if we do this project right, I will support a mix use, plan for all of Regional JAmadmr Valley toS80Freavvay). | would love to see 100% affordable housiog- 4. 1|iketo see a center island plaza in Regional street, With small restaurant kiosk formnaUbusiness startup. Parking span$g for food trucks. Bocci ball park for seniors, 4 small childrems park with swings and slides, Small kids train rides, An ability for residents, schools, organizations in our city to decorate the plaza for St Patrick celebrations, July 4/^, Christmas arid other special occasions. 5. Some class A offires for Live/work concepts. |am very positive that i[wedoa whole Regional St. planning with my suggestions, we can create acenterpiece downtown for our city and revive our retail and office space business,es. Remumito"Jim"Firmeza Robert Paley Froni: David Bewley Sent: Monday: i ebruary 06, 2CI17 4A4 PM To: Luke Sims Cc: Robert Paley Subject: RE: Comments re: Dublin Plaza CVS SDR (PLPA-2016,-00038) Dear Mr. simse, I would like to incorporate by reference the 10 comments made by Marlene Massetti and additional comments by Morgan King regarding this project and additional comments regarding the, Dublin Plaza CVS SDR noted above, I also want add comments 11 and 12 1. Please postpone a decision on the CVS remodel in consideration of an alternative plan that would create and be the foundation for a Pedestrian Friendly Downtov;n. 2. Our City needs a Downtown Plaza: A Pedestrian Friendly Walkway Connecting Regional Street to CVS Retail Shops and Dublin Plaza. "The CVS parking lot remodel is an opportunity to provide that to residents in partnership with the City. 3. Additionally, because CVS is located in the Retail District this remodel will set the standard for other remodels at Dublin Plaza. It will also determine the future success of our Pedestrian Friendly Downtown, In view of these facts, please consider the following in your evaluation of the CVS plan: 4, The CVS buildings are in a prime location, the center of our retail district. Their location under the DDSP requires they include inviting pathways, amenities and connectivity to create a vibrant Downtown. The proposed plan lacks many amenities that will support a Pedestrian Friendly Downtown such as a small plaza, patio or green space, benches or walkways that would contribute to a walkable Downt"m and connectivity to other retail stores. 6. Current resdents (and future residents residing Downtown' want a pedestrian friendly, walkable Downtown; a place where they can congregate, close to home. 7, The CVS parking lot is underutilized and could be reduced to accommodate a City plaza, green space, gathering place for residents or an entertainment venue. 8. Our Downtown currently [a(,-kS upscale dining and retail and events to bring people together. Therefore each remodel and new development should contribute to the planned, Pedestrian Friendly Downtown. 9. Finally, please consider the aesthetics of the tenant signage (by reducing their size), increase the size of the landscape plantings and including tree lined pathways connecting Regional street's sidewalk to the CVS retail buildings. Widening sidewalks in front of these buildings and adding landscaping in front of the CVS retail entrances would also encourage the walk ability factor and connectivity among retail stores at Dublin Plaza. It will also soften the starkness of the stucco buildings and asphalt parking lot 10. Some of the more ambitious projects, including reducing the CVS parking lot for a City plaza, could be realized in a partnership between the City and Dublin Plaza retailers. A portion of our Community Benefit funds (realized from recent residential projects) could support a City Plaza and the creation of a vibrant, Pedestrian Friendly Downtown. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS I would like to be addressed 1. In July 2011, the Technical Assistance Panel, an extension of the national Urban Land Institute did a West Downtown Dublin, CA study which included the area encompassed by CVS and also the new Trumark development next to San Ramon Road project passed last year. This study presented a Strengths, Weakness, Opportunities and Threats analysis (SWOT) for the Downtown Dublin area which identified among other things: a. Low density and surplus parking creates development sites as an opportunity. This in my opinion should INCLUDE Pedestrian Friendly walkways and open space. This concept has been discussed by Dublin Planners and work groups for years but little has been done. b. No or little resistance to development in the Downtown area as a Strength. This in my opinion SHOULD NOT INCLUDE high density residential development as that has been opposed on numerous occasions as undesirable by the community at large, c. A THREAT that there is a division between EAST and WEST Dublin reflected in the planning effort. My comment here is that there is abundant data and factual information that demonstrates there is the same concern for overdeveloL)ment and loss of commercial .zoniEq.by the Western Dublin residents as well as the Eastern Dublin Residents. Therefore to plait additional residential development of any type, in commercial areas in West Dublin disproportionate to the East commercial areas is unbalanced, and creates an unfair division between West Dublin and East Dublin. Both sides of Dublin do not want to see a loss of commercial zoning and the potential opportunities presented by commercial zoning for the defined areas in favor of additional residential development. d. As to the CBP: Identifying ways to spend COMMUNITY BENEFIT PROGRAM (CPB) in-lieu funds to attract business and future customers needs to be balanced for BOTH West and East Dublin. There is a valid concern here that these funds are not sufficiently identified in a transparent manner and most important..... DEDICATED to the SPECIFIC areas for which these in-lieu funds where created. That is to say the in-lieu CBP funds for the West Dublin area should ONLY be used to create additional amenities and open spare in the West. The same should be true for the Eastern in-lieu CBP funds If these funds are NOT transparent and accounted for then it creates a potential for an UNHEALTY DIVISION between West Dublin and East Dublin and leads to favoring one side of Dublin over the other side. That is simply wrong and should NEVER be allowed, Thank you, David Bewi(--- Robert Paley From: Sent: Monday February 6, 2017 4:59 PM To: Luke Sims Subject: Re,. My earlier inessage Luke - Twas on the Planning Commission when the downtown plan was adopted in, l think, 2006. It provides that any business entity seeking to make changes in their density, FAR, or square footage trigger financial contribution or downtown revitalization plan for pedestrian amenities in the downtown As l predicted when this plan was adopted in a]oint city counsel and Planning Commission meeting, the plan was useless msadopted. Since then, about a decode has gone by and nothing down to implement the goal of pedestrian friendly destination area. Can you tell me if the CVS proposal includes any of the changes we are looking for? ' Morgan K]nh Robert Paley 7 M-I Sent: Monday, February 06, 2017 5:24 PM To: Robert Palf-y Subject: Coiriments re Dubfifi Plaza CVS SDR Attachments: Robert Paley letter re CVS proposal 02.06,201-y.pdf Mr Paley, Please see attached pdf with comments re the proposal for the CVS site. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Gabrielle Blackman Robert P-iley City of Dublin /DLblin, CA 94568 02/06-2017 Re: Dublin Plama (VS 5DR(PiPA-2olb�0UnJ8) Dear Mr. Paley, I've been a rvsJdvnt of Dublin tor thf.- past 12 years, and have extensive experience & expertise in the field of planning, and dc�ign. Having roviewed the propmed ch-anges to the Dublin, Plaza CV5 pian, I kindly ask that you consider the larger noeclsuf our con,mon|ty when reviewing this proposal. Our downtown needs zo develop e ssmngwrpresenca With modifications, this projecthasthc poteritialto brilng positive change, to both stimulate retail growth and simultaneously bUild a more pedestrijri Iriencliy downtown. Aa currently depicted, thepmpom|4uksanimpoctfu|apnroachoo^mpnove^/mtaU.ubmamlyabceUft.&a small one as it modifies only a portion of the retail at that location, rendering the proposal woefully ineffective, /o addition the proposal lacks much needed umemi6es &!mpmvement�^ ones that would attract critically needed pedestrian t'affcin the area. Inclutiori of amenities such as walkways with seatirig, plazas for ZatherinG, and perhups ever, fountain (es identified m the Dubi)n Downtown Specific P|an).would transform this location from a sea cfa�pha|t inmm pedestrian friendly site, atcracWng for more toot 'traffic. rakin0 into considrracioohuman behav|or relative m retail desirability and vnoerstanding, larger civic p|a^nins qmai4a modest, hutmmecuhmive approach could be, taken co dramatically ^impmvp" this mlsite. 3 critical points regarding the inherent issues with this �61P that rernain ifirerolved in this proposak 1) The pmen�ivevoderuW4rdpa esaperoovedhanifr between paasers 'by& the suorerootse proposed. The dMance frorn cu, bside to the storefronts is iil mak;rq-, it nearly impossible to draw pedestrian traffic t/om Regional, essentially creating animpaa|h|e^mpu/^. The result relegates meretail sites to supporting ~d*srin-,women"U° �*hichis limited |nRenm,atiri?pcdesoranactivity, Chickem''o'egg planning. destination retail dependscn vehicular tattic, which req*i,e� large quantities of parking.. which merely exacerbatn. the "mote" issue. The current proposai does little to enhance pedestrian accee- Z> The amount of parking spaces available e*cepdls thp perceived need. Oo any g,|vcn day thepw4ri*garea has a trickle of cars. Why does this matter? P,op!e 3re judgmental, it is a survival rlecnariisni, We do the same when bcnm=sto where we shop, and ret i!o|anmenknuwtno They pu'poe[ui|y craft solutions that are ga!;Ignrcl to influence. humanbuhxvior,00infloenceou/ judgement. T hey c,om*pttructonthat draw usvoretail. Apw,king lot packed with cars cnove\sa thriving gore.. one. that 'spe,hapspopular, or offeugc»atg*ah'orunique gxnds—drher way, auacked parking-lot isan in6cat/uvthat other consumers prefer this/meyostues� Apacmupo,u'ng lot i�iadraw. Cunv*rselyanempty parking lot . conveys the opposite, drf|ecU"pinterest. It's a/ud&+ment call mat)^ made ina split second. To change thii; millisecond impression, +sthat is all i,;s,nnennuutcho"8epe,captim-1—.t* one that this location is desnjbiebycon5onnzm. 3) 'The fKadc, upgtade is a good attempt to mirror the design -success at other retail 'locations in Dublin, But i,wmefo|/ym/oun,tmes what makes ol6cr|ocavmns successful in their retail dmw. |t8n`tjust3buutQe crafting of a more visible storefront, but ra-ther crafting an ct-tvironment, People linger if the environment oAiu something additional, & the more people On#ec the more people stay, and the mue people are seen io& around storefronts— the greater the perceived desirobilhtyoftnoretail. For those making that split-second joci8emrntto stop by, this iskey, And the fact thatunlya portion nf the proposed exterior- i, being considered for enhancement indicates a cie,.,r lack of underitarid;ng as to the greater benefit of cnhvnrir�t»� mpemV�itp wclmesn^t have. u,b*a cump|eteovprhaui but, a,c-w well planned moves would tr*n,fprmthis sitr. Soggestiommimprove the proWbility that this site rp�ulls ioacatalytic affect to help bring greater pedestrian aulwtyu, out, downtown: g Reduce the park.ng area xo*ifap:tively collapse the perceived nrean between the aurbnidu&the storefront enLrance.Recl"cimg the number of parking spaces wmv|upemtea greater clens.rvof parking by patrow,. implying to paGsers-by that the retail oftered at th� location js highly desirable: o) RemovoIais|oofparkinQ&rep|acewiuhtree'|incdandp|antegpedesuianwa}kwaKwithseating. that connects Regional with the retail gurefinnts. Vitt would encourage pedestrians tn walk ,othe retail stores. Or- b) Remove 2 aisles ofparking & replace each with the. walkway approach identified im~a~. Why Z—becayse visibility is key to drawing interest to retail and the, aisles can he placed such that they frarne the store-front frorn the street, rrp.ating a physical franip, for the retail (much like frarning a billboard. This approach does far mum that the gigantic storefront lettering shmwn). 2} Dee pen the sidewalk- in front u/ the retail: a> Offers greater sense. of sately for ppcit,wians, encouraging them to finger andvisit other adjacent stores. Human behavior ne|ips no pxvsice| environment clues. b) Deeper sidewalks can become air emenmonof the go,cfrnot, This iohighhsvccasofo!with restaurants & cafes, and it can be deployed to benefits other retail establishments. The more the storefront car engage the sidewalk, the n-tore peder;triam finger & the, more they li)nger, they shop. 5idewa|lks ire catalysts for activity. 9> Create a more cohesive architectural identity for the site: a> The propma| needs tnbecnhe ivm.Theotherbu:dingsd`ouWueoddmsueVa�weU.mhpnvbpthe propo,a(rvn*th* risk ofan investment that yie\do little positive change. b} Utilizing architectural e)eme,wmof the new iaqade design, uc/n^s the site, ta essentially glue the site together tu create a there there (rather than the cw,nen, lack v/clesigocoh,sivereaxof the facilities scact=,ed around the existing oceanofpa'*mg). New developments in Dublin have used this rohesivede*ign approach very wcusyYu|iy,deploying kf,� clea�gn elements acnoS5 the entire site Q bu/!Vine,-s'togwea,+riA area air identity. That ;5 what is woefully missing inthoCVSproposal. creating a larger, irriage for this entii e retail area would help Djbliner', identify thi, auadestination Change the impr*s,iun arid modify hvmanba»o,°r, Create a sense ofp|xce and apede�trian friendly downtown Dublin will flourish, Every proposal Offers an opportunity tn take one nsre step towards abnautifu{dmwntown But u won't happen |i ail woeve,doia see each p'ouosa|inisolation. 7 harik you for your consideration. SinereiV, Gabrielle Blackman Robert Paley From: Sent: Monday, February 06, 2017 9-.40 PM To: Luke Sims; Robert Paley, City Council Subject: Re-fadnq/ Facade upgiadps to "DownTowti" CVS plaza Dear City Staff and Council, This opportunity is unique. It is a chance to create something the city has asked for. Please consider the design structure of the CVS building(s) before approval. Does it have wide sidewalks? Is there a connectivity piece leading to BART, to Regional, to Amador? Are there trees, benches, a water feature? And very importantly- will there be ample peirking for cars and SUVs in our city that has an SUV in almost every home. Persimmon Place and Hacienda Crossings could have been so much more ... but they lack connectivity and gathering places—and prime time parking—they could have answered a desire, but planning lacked. While you re-design the CVS layout, leA's create a vision for a Pedestrian-friendly DownTown skeleton which could be vibrant in the future. There are dozens, perhaps hundreds of photos which Dublin residents have uploaded to this facebook site created with the intention of brainstorm/design for a downtown in Dublin. ti. oj i Uir!Q.ahprriia1?n aAi_p -t n afinks='l 89266'7 1'64 7,-',80&n,1'Jif t:=QrOU* f".1 ity-anotif id=14862�F^,40428193 Sincerely, Kerrie Chabot 18 year resident of Dublin, Robert Paley sm From., Steve And Tam Sent: Monday, February 61,2PPR IF, EM To: Luke Sims 03 |mmwriting in regards to the CVS redesign project, iam concerned that the City cf Dublin will continue with the same style o/ commercial space that it has io the past and urge you to consider a design that incorporates pedestrian triendlywalking space. Our community is longing for this type, of retail. VVe need places that allow for residents a place for walking from retail to retail with nice features along the way. Not only will this bring a charm to our community it would create something unk,,ue and vibrant that /u necessary for our residents. Do not let this opportunity pass by to rnakenure we get this one right. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, TammyFim*rrm RESOLUTION NO. 17- 01 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DENYING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT FOR EXTERIOR CHANGES TO AN EXISTING 60,111 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL BUILDING AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS AT 7201 REGIONAL STREET (APN 941-0305-016-00) PLPA-2016-00038 WHEREAS, Vic De Melo, Vice President of Browman Development Company, Inc. Applicant) and BDC Atwater, L.P., do Browman Development Company, Inc. (Property Owner), requested Site Development Review approval to make exterior changes to the 60,111 square foot retail building and site modifications to the property at 7201 Regional Street (the Project"); and WHEREAS, the Project is located in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan area, which permits retail uses and has a General Plan Land Use designation of Downtown Dublin— Retail District; and WHEREAS, projects that are denied are exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(4) of the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, the Site Development Review (SDR) Permit for this project is with the authority of the Community Development Director and on January 27, 2017 the Community Development Department issued a public notice of the intent to approve this SDR Permit; and WHEREAS, due to the level of community interest in this project, the Community Development Director referred the application to the Planning Commission for action; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted to the City of Dublin Planning Commission recommending Site Development Review approval of the project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on March 14, 2017; 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 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 Site Development Review: A. The proposal is not consistent with the purposes of Chapter 8.104 (Site Development Review), with the General Plan and with any applicable Specific Plans and Design Guidelines in that: the proposed project does is not consistent with the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) pertaining to building materials, landscaping and public access. The proposed project is inconsistent with the DDSP through the singular use of stucco on the building facade, inadequate landscaping in the parking area and the lack of a pedestrian gathering space or pedestrian connectivity from the subject building to Regional Street. B. 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 do not result in a project that is harmonious with its surroundings and compatible with other development in the vicinity in that: the project does not incorporate enhanced building materials and is therefore not consistent with the DDSP. C. 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: the project does not provide sufficient landscape and does not create an attractive parking area for the public. D. The site has not been adequately designed to ensure proper circulation for bicyclists. pedestrians and automobiles in that: while the subject shopping center currently provides pedestrian connections to Dublin Boulevard and Amador Valley Boulevard, the proposed project does not include additional enhancements to the exiting pedestrian network, which would further implement the goals and policies of the DDSP, such as a direct pedestrian connection from the subject building to Regional Street. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of March 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Wright, Qureshi, Mittan, Bhuthimethee, Kothari NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: fc/-- Assistant Community Development Director 2 of 2 um c .= .j,82 r,A0- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - Tuesday, March 14, 2017 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, March 14, 2017, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Mittan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 1.Call to Order Attendee Name Title Status Scott Mittan Commission Chair Present Tara Bhuthimethee Commission Vice Chair Present Amit Kothari Planning Commissioner Present Stephen Wright Planning Commissioner Present Samir Qureshi Planning Commissioner Present Pledge of Allegiance — The pledge of allegiance was recited by the Planning Commission, Staff and those present at the meeting. 2.Oral Communication - None 3. Consent Calendar RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Stephen Wright, Commissioner SECONDER: Amit Kothari, Planning Commissioner AYES: Bhuthimethee, Mittan, Kothan, Wright, Qureshi By unanimous vote, the Planning Commission took the following actions: 3.1 Approved the minutes of the February 14, 2017 Planning Commission meeting. 4.WRITTEN COMMUNICATION - NONE 5. PUBLIC HEARING 5.1. Development Agreement extension for the Dublin Gateway Medical Center project at 4084 and 4100 Dublin Boulevard (PA 06-026) Marnie Delgado, Senior Planner, presented the project as stated in the Staff Report. Chair Mittan opened the public hearing. Dev Mahadevan, Chief Executive Officer, Eden Health District, spoke in support of the project. March 14,2017 Dublin Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 3 Chair Mittan closed the public hearing. I RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Tara Bhuthimethee, Commission Vice Chair SECONDER: Samir Qureshi, Planning Commissioner AYES: Bhuthimethee, Mittan, Kothari, Wright, Qureshi RESOLUTION NO. 17-02 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND TRIAD DUBLIN GATEWAY, L.P. TO ALLOW FOR A FIVE YEAR TIME EXTENSION WITH CONDITIONS 5.2. Site Development Review for 7201 Regional Street PLPA-2016-00038 Amy Million, Principal Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Chair Mittan opened the public hearing. Vic De Melo, Browman Development Company, Applicant, spoke in favor of the project. He agreed to the Conditions of Approval. Aaron Drusack, Construction Manager, Browman Development Company, spoke regarding the construction of the project. John Cumbelich, real estate broker, spoke in favor of the project. Marie Marshall, resident, spoke in favor of the project. Chair Mittan closed the public hearing. RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Stephen Wright, Planning Commissioner SECONDER: Tara Bhuthimethee, Commission Vice Chair AYES: Bhuthimethee, Mittan, Kothari, Wright, Qureshi RESOLUTION NO. 17- 01 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN March 14,2017 Dublin Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 3 DENYING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT FOR EXTERIOR CHANGES TO AN EXISTING 60,111 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL BUILDING AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS AT 7201 REGIONAL STREET 6.UNFINISHED BUSINESS - NONE 7. NEW BUSINESS - NONE 8. OTHER BUSINESS Cm. Wright spoke about the Planning Commissioners Academy. Cm. Bhuthimethee mentioned aspects of the conference that she enjoyed. 9. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:04 pm. Minutes prepared by Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. R:spectfully submitted, Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Jeff B ker Assistant Community Development Director I I I March 14,2017 Dublin Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 3 1 Amy Million Subject:Re: Appealable Action Letter - Regional Street Facade Improvements SDR | PLPA-2016-00038 From: Abe Gupta <Abe.Gupta@dublin.ca.gov>  Date: Wednesday, March 22, 2017 at 10:18 AM  To: Caroline Soto <Caroline.Soto@dublin.ca.gov>  Cc: Chris Foss <Chris.Foss@dublin.ca.gov>, Linda Smith <linda.smith@dublin.ca.gov>, John Bakker  <jbakker@meyersnave.com>  Subject: Re: Appealable Action Letter ‐ Regional Street Facade Improvements SDR | PLPA‐2016‐00038  Dear Caroline, In response the appealable action letter below, I wish to appeal this in the public interest. Thank you. Abe Gupta Abe Gupta Councilmember City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568 (925) 833-6661 | (925) 833-6651 FAX abe.gupta@dublin.ca.gov | www.dublin.ca.gov Mission Statement: The City of Dublin promotes and supports a high quality of life, ensures a safe and secure environment, and fosters new opportunities.    From: Danielle Diaz   Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 11:50 AM  To: Danielle Diaz <Danielle.Diaz@dublin.ca.gov>; Debra LeClair <Debra.LeClair@dublin.ca.gov>; Linda Smith  <linda.smith@dublin.ca.gov>; Gregory Shreeve <Gregory.Shreeve@dublin.ca.gov>; Tim Eisler  <Tim.Eisler@dublin.ca.gov>; Lori Taylor <Lori.Taylor@dublin.ca.gov>; Darrell Jones <Darrell.Jones@dublin.ca.gov>;  Taryn Gavagan Bozzo <Taryn.GavaganBozzo@dublin.ca.gov>; I‐Ping Liu <I‐Ping.Liu@dublin.ca.gov>; Chris Foss  <Chris.Foss@dublin.ca.gov>; Laurie Sucgang <Laurie.Sucgang@dublin.ca.gov>; Robert Paley  <Robert.Paley@dublin.ca.gov>  Cc: Taryn Gavagan Bozzo <Taryn.GavaganBozzo@dublin.ca.gov>  Subject: Appealable Action Letter ‐ Regional Street Facade Improvements SDR | PLPA‐2016‐00038     Good Morning,      Please see the attached Appealable Action Letter for the Regional Street Façade Improvements Site Development  Review.      Thank you,     2   Danielle Diaz  Office Assistant II - Community Development Department  City of Dublin   100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568  (925) 833-6610 | (925) 833-6628 FAX   Danielle.diaz@dublin.ca.gov | www.dublin.ca.gov   Mission Statement: The City of Dublin promotes and supports a high quality of life, ensures a safe and secure environment, and fosters new opportunities.              RESOLUTION NO. XX-17 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN REVERSING PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 17-01 AND APPROVING THE SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT FOR EXTERIOR CHANGES TO AN EXISTING 60,111 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL BUILDING AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS AT 7201 REGIONAL STREET (APN 941-0305-016-00) PLPA-2016-00038 WHEREAS, Vic De Melo, Vice President of Browman Development Company, Inc. (Applicant) and BDC Atwater, L.P., c/o Browman Development Company, Inc. (Property Owner), requested approval of a Site Development Review Permit to make exterior changes to the 60,111 square foot retail building and site modifications to the property at 7201 Regional Street (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, the Project is located in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan area, which permits retail uses and has a General Plan Land Use designation of Downtown Dublin– Retail District; 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, the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan area was the subject of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), State Clearinghouse number 20100022005, which was certified by City Council Resolution No. 08-11 dated February 1, 2011. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines section 15168(c)(2), the proposed project was examined to determine if any other environmental document should be prepared; and, WHEREAS, the project involves no expansion of the existing commercial building, but includes only architectural modifications and minor site enhancements and there is no substantial evidence in the record that any new effects would occur, that any new mitigation measures would be required, or that any of the conditions triggering supplemental environmental review under CEQA Guidelines section 15162 exists; and, WHEREAS, the Site Development Review (SDR) Permit for this project is with the authority of the Community Development Director and on January 27, 2017 the Community Development Department issued a public notice of the intent to approve this SDR Permit; and WHEREAS, due to the level of community interest in this project, the Community Development Director referred the application to the Planning Commission for action; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted to the Planning Commission recommending approval of the Site Development Review Permit for the project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on said application on March 14, 2017; and 2 of 13 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 17 -01 denying the Site Development Review Permit; and WHEREAS, Councilmember Gupta appealed the action of the Planning Commission in the public interest; and WHEREAS, the City Council is the hearing body for the appeal of a decision by the Planning Commission; 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 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 Site Development Review: A. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of Chapter 8.104 (Site Development Review), with the General Plan and with any applicable Specific Plans and Design Guidelines in that: 1) the building currently exists and the project involves remodeling the existing facility to create three new storefronts; 2) the proposed architectural modifications will enhance the building by providing articulated entry features, introducing new materials to the existing building while retaining compatibility with the remaining building materials and surrounding buildings in the shopping center, and providing pedestrian amenities such as a wider walkway, improved landscaping, and bicycle parking. B. The proposal is consistent with the provisions of Title 8, Zoning Ordinance in that: 1) the continued use of the building for retail uses meets all development standards of the Downtown Dublin – Retail District as contained in Sections 4.1 of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan including building design and landscaping requirements; and 2) the project meets the Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements. 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 proposed changes are designed to update the building (originally constructed in 1972) by introducing new materials and architectural elements while remaining aesthetically consistent with other buildings in the shopping center; and 2) the remodeled building will further attract community retail users, retain and increase sales-tax generating uses, and provide businesses to serve the local and regional community. D. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the approved development in that: the General Plan allows retail development in the Downtown Dublin – Retail District land use designation and the proposed project is to enhance an existing retail building with façade and site improvements. 3 of 13 E. Impacts to existing slopes and topographic features are addressed in that: the project is located on a fully developed site that is generally flat and does not involve any modification to the existing grade. 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 proposed architectural modifications enhance the building by providing improved building entries and articulated entry features, introducing new materials to the existing building while retaining compatibility with the remaining building materials and surrounding buildings in the shopping center, and providing pedestrian amenities including improved landscaping and bicycle parking; 2) the plans provided by the Applicant shows building materials and colors that are compatible with the neutral, earth-tone colors of other buildings in the shopping center; and 3) the parking lot will be enhanced with new paving, stripping and landscaping which is compatible with the more recent improvements to the adjacent portion of the parking lot. 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 includes the installation of new landscape in existing planters in the parking lot, which will add visual interest as well as provide shade for vehicles ; and 2) existing perimeter landscaping within the project site along Regional Street will be improved. H. The site has been adequately designed to ensure proper circulation for bicyclists, pedestrians and automobiles in that: 1) the project consists of site improvements including improved pedestrian pathways from accessible parking areas to the building, new pedestrian entry features, and a widened pedestrian pathway along the building frontage; 2) the project provides pedestrian and bicycle amenities at the base of the building including planter areas and bicycle parking; 3) the subject shopping center currently provides pedestrian connections to Dublin Boulevard and Amador Valley Boulevard; and 4) the shopping center also has an existing pedestrian scale plaza located south of the subject building which will be further activated by the proposed project and better facilitate greater pedestrian connectivity through the shopping center from Dublin Boulevard to Amador Valley Boulevard. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby approve a Site Development Review Permit for the project at 7201 Regional Street as shown on the Project Plans date-stamped received by Dublin Planning on March 03, 2017 and included as Exhibit A, subject to the following conditions: 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 Department review and approval. The following codes represent those departments/agencies responsible for monitoring compliance of the conditions of approval: [PL] Planning, [B] Building, [PO] Police, [PW] Public Works, [ADM] Administration/City Attorney, [FIN] Finance, [CMO] City Manager’s 4 of 13 Office, [PCS] Parks and Community Services, [F] Alameda County Fire Department, [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, [CHS], California Department of Health Services. NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Agency When Required Source GENERAL - SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 1. Approval. This Site Development Review approval is for the Regional Street CVS located at 7201 Regional Street, PLPA-2016-00038. This approval includes a façade remodel of the building as well as site modifications including new landscaping in the parking lot and along the Regional Street frontage, slurry seal and re-stripe of the parking lot, and the replacement of the existing walkway in front of building. This Site Development Review shall conform to the project plans submitted by FCGA Architecture dated received March 03, 2017 on file in the Community Development Department, and other plans, text, and diagrams relating to this Site Development Review, unless modified by the Conditions of Approval contained herein. PL On-going Planning 2. Permit Expiration. Approval of this Site Development Review Permit shall be valid for one year from the effective date. Construction shall commence within one (1) year of Permit approval or the Permit shall lapse and become null and void. If there is a dispute as to whether the Permit has expired, the City may hold a noticed public hearing to determine the matter. If a Permit expires, a new application must be made and processed according to the requirements of this Ordinance. PL One Year After Effective Date DMC 8.96.020. D 3. Time Extension. The original approving decision-maker may, upon the Applicant’s written request for an extension of approval prior to expiration, upon the determination that all Conditions of Approval remain adequate and all applicable findings of approval will continue to be met, grant an extension of the approval for a period not to exceed six (6) months. All time extension requests shall be noticed before the original hearing body approves such an extension. PL Prior to Expiration Date DMC 8.96.020. E 4. Compliance. The Applicant/Property Owner shall operate this use in compliance with the PL On-going DMC 8.96.020. 5 of 13 NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Agency When Required Source Conditions of Approval of this Site Development Review, the approved plans and the regulations established in the Zoning Ordinance. Any violation of the terms or conditions specified may be subject to enforcement action. F 5. Revocation of Permit. The Site Development Review approval shall be revocable for cause in accordance with Section 8.96.020.I of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Any violation of the terms or conditions of this permit shall be subject to citation. PL On-going DMC 8.96.020.I 6. Requirements and Standard Conditions. The Applicant/ Developer shall comply with applicable City of Dublin Fire Prevention Bureau, Dublin 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 requirem ents and standard conditions. Prior to issuance of building permits or the installation of any improvements related to this project, the Applicant/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. Various Building Permit Issuance Standard 7. Required Permits. Applicant/Developer shall obtain all permits required by other agencies including, but not limited to Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Caltrans and provide copies of the permits to the Public Works Department. PW Building Permit Issuance DMC 8.04.080 8. Fees. Applicant/Developer shall pay all applicable fees in effect at the time of building permit issuance, including, but not limited to, Planning fees, Building fees, Traffic Impact Fees, TVTC fees, Dublin San Ramon Services District fees, Public Facilities fees, Dublin Unified School District School Impact fees, Fire Facilities Impact fees, Alameda County Flood and Water Conservation District (Zone 7) Drainage and Water Connection fees; or any other fee that may Various Building Permit Issuance Various 6 of 13 NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Agency When Required Source be adopted and applicable. 9. Indemnification. The 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 to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City of Dublin or its advisory agency, appeal board, Planning Commission, City Council, Community Development Director, Zoning Administrator, or any other department, committee, or agency of the City 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. ADM On-going Administra tion/City Attorney 10. Clarification of Conditions. In the event that there needs to be clarification to the Conditions of Approval, the Director of Community Development and the City Engineer have the authority to clarify the intent of these Conditions of Approval to the Developer without going to a public hearing. The Director of Community Development and the City Engineer also have the authority to make minor modifications to these conditions without going to a public hearing in order for the Developer to fulfill needed improvements or mitigations resulting from impacts to this project. Various On-going Planning 11. Clean-up. The Applicant/Developer shall be responsible for clean-up and disposal of project related trash to maintain a safe, clean and litter- free site. PL On-going DMC5.64 12. Modifications. Modifications or changes to this Site Development Review approval may be considered by the Community Development Director if the modifications or changes proposed comply with Chapter 8.104 of the Zoning Ordinance. PL On-going DMC 8.104 PROJECT SPECIFIC 13. Zoning Clearance. The Applicant shall submit an application, and obtain approval, for a Zoning PL Prior to Occupancy Planning 7 of 13 NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Agency When Required Source Clearance for the proposed indoor recreation use type (gym/fitness facility). LANDSCAPING 14. Final Landscape and Irrigation Plans. Plans shall be generally consistent with the landscape plans prepared by Gates & Associates and date stamped received on March 03, 2017, except as modified by the Conditions listed below and as required by the Community Development Director. Final Landscape and Irrigation Plans shall be prepared and stamped by a State licensed landscape architect or registered engineer shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer and the Community Development Director for all projects with rehabilitated landscaped areas of at least 500 square feet. PL Building Permit Issuance DMC 8.72.030 & State Model Water Efficiency Landscap e Ordinance 15. Regional Street Frontage. Applicant shall replace all trees along the Regional Street frontage with new 24” box Callery Pear Trees; and, install irrigation using recycled water consistent with DSRSD master plans, standards, specifications and requirements for these trees Various Occupancy Downtown Dublin Specific Plan 16. Plant Standards. All trees shall be 24” box minimum; all shrubs shall be 5 gallon minimum; all groundcover shall be 1 gallon minimum. PL Occupancy Planning 17. Maintenance of Landscaping. All landscaping shall be maintained in accordance with the “City of Dublin Standards Plant Material, Irrigation System and Maintenance Agreement” by the Developer after City-approved installation. This maintenance shall include weeding, and the replacement of materials that die. Any proposed modifications to the landscaping on the site, including the removal or replacement of trees, shall require prior review and written approval from the Community Development Director. PL On-going City of Dublin Standards Plant Material, Irrigation System 18. Plant Material. All plant material shall be continuously maintained including pruning and regular watering. If at any time the shrubs in the parking lot or throughout the project site are damaged, missing, dead or dying, these shrubs shall be immediately replaced to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. PL On-going Planning BUILDING - GENERAL 19. Building Codes and Ordinances. All project B Through Building 8 of 13 NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Agency When Required Source construction shall conform to all building codes and ordinances in effect at the time of building permit. The 2016 code cycle edition shall be in effect effective January 1, 2017. Completion of Construction 20. Building Permits. To apply for building permits, Applicant/Developer shall submit five (5) sets of construction plans to the Building & Safety Division for 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. B Issuance of Building Permits Building 21. Construction Drawings. Construction plans shall be fully dimensioned (including building elevations) accurately drawn (depicting all existing and proposed conditions on site), and prepared and signed by a California licensed Architect or Engineer. Submit two (2) sets of calculations. 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. B Issuance of Building Permits Building 22. Change of Occupancy Permit required. As per section 3408 of the California Building Code, a change of occupancy requires the building to meet the requirements of a new building for the proposed occupancy type. This may require upgrades to the structural systems. B Issuance of Building Permits Building 23. Engineer Observation. The Engineer of record shall be retained to provide observation services 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 Building Inspector prior to scheduling the final frame inspection. B Prior to Final Frame Inspection Building 24. Cool Roofs. Flat roof areas shall have their roofing material coated with light colored gravel or painted with light colored or reflective material designed for Cool Roofs. B Through Completion Building 9 of 13 NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Agency When Required Source 25. CAL Green Building Standards Code. The project shall incorporate the requirements of the CAL Green Building Standards Code for the new exterior lighting and automatic irrigation controllers for landscaping work. B Through Completion Building 26. Temporary Fencing. Temporary Construction fencing shall be installed along perimeter of all work under construction. B Through Completion Building FIRE – GENERAL CONDITIONS 27. Fire Codes. Project shall comply with the applicable Building and Fire Codes in effect at the time of submittal of plan check and permit. F On-going Fire PUBLIC WORKS – 28. Encroachment Permits. Applicant shall obtain an Encroachment Permit from the Public Works Department for all construction work and activity in the public right-of-way of any public street. PW Prior to commencem ent of work or activity in the public right- of-way. Public Works 29. Grading/Demolition/Sitework Permit. The applicant shall apply for and obtain a Grading/Sitework Permit from the Public Works Department for all site improvement or grading work. The Grading/Sitework Permit will be based on the final set of civil plans and will not be issued until all of plan check comments have been resolved. A copy of Grading/Sitework Permit application may be found on the City’s website at: https://ca- dublin.civicplus.com/index.aspx?NID=340 The current cost of the permit is $110.00 and is due at the time of permit issuance. The Applicant will also be responsible for any adopted increases to the fee amount or additional fees for inspection of the work. PW Issuance of Grading/ Sitework Permit Public Works 30. Submittals. Developer will be responsible for submittals and reviews to obtain the approvals of all participating City agencies. The Alameda County Fire Department and the Dublin San Ramon Services District shall approve and sign the Improvement Plans. PW Prior to Issuance of Grading/Site work Permit Public Works 10 of 13 NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Agency When Required Source 31. Trash Enclosure. Applicant shall construct a new trash enclosure serving the three tenants spaces in compliance with the City’s “Solid Waste and Recycling Enclosure” ordinance. The enclosure must have sufficient space for at least one (1) bin for solid waste, a second bin of at least equal size for storing and collecting separated cardboard, and either a mixed recycling bin or cart for mixed paper, bottles and cans of sufficient size to collect mixed recycling items generated on site. Enclosures that will be used by food establishments must also allow space for a separate food waste/organics bin of sufficient size to collect food waste generated on site. PW Issuance of Grading/Site work Permit DMC 7.98.30 32. Trash Collection. Applicant shall meet with the trash collection agency during plan check review for the distance, maneuvering and pick-up requirements for trash collection. Provide documentation of results, recommendations, a nd requirements generated from this meeting and incorporate these recommendations on the plans. Contact for trash collection agency: Jesse Tieger Recycling Coordinator Amador Valley Industries Office No.: 925-479-9545 Cellphone No.: 925-580-0027 jesse@amadorvalleyindustries.com www.amadorvalleyindustries.com PW Approval of Improvement Plans Public Works 33. ADA Accessibility Requirements. The Developer shall comply with the City of Dublin Public Works Standards and Policies, the most current requirements of the State Code Title 24 and the Americans with Disabilities Act with regard to accessibility, and all building and fire codes and ordinances in effect at the time of building permit. 1. The reconstruction of the walkway area abutting the westerly building façade shall comply with the current ADA Standards. 2. An accessible pedestrian path of travel from the building to the new trash enclosure shall be provided. 3. The current Accessible Parking PW Issuance of Grading/Site work Permit Public Works 11 of 13 NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Agency When Required Source signs (R99 signs) of existing accessible parking spaces do not comply with current ADA Standards per CBC 11B-502.6. Remove, replace, or add to the existing R99 signs so that the resulting sign is an R99C sign. 4. The restriping of the parking lot shall comply with the current ADA Standards per CBC 11B-502 and the city off-street parking standards found in Chapter 8.76.070 of the Municipal Code. Additionally, at plan check review, show the locations of the red curbs for the fire lanes and indicate that these be repainted red and labeled “Fire Lane” with the appropriate CVC code section in white stencil. 5. Assess and inspect the existing accessible path from Amador Valley Blvd. to the project building for compliance to current ADA standards. Reconstruct any portion thereof that does not comply with the current ADA standards. 6. If cost of upgrades required to comply with ADA accessibility standards exceeds 20% of the costs of proposed Tenant Improvements, an applicant may request an Unreasonable Hardship waiver from Building Department by completing and submitting the Unreasonable Hardship Request form that is available on the City of Dublin website Building Division Handouts page. A copy of the Unreasonable Hardship Request form can be downloaded from the link below. http://www.ci.dublin.ca.us/Docume ntCenter/View/3576 34. Slurry Seal. The Applicant shall apply slurry seal, crack seal, and full depth repairs where necessary to improve the conditions of the PW Approval of Improvement Plans and Public Works 12 of 13 NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Agency When Required Source pavement especially at locations that are showing signs of heavy allegation or structural failure. Additionally, repair or replace damaged planter curbs, medians, and wheel stops within the property limits. Final Occupancy 35. Construction Management Plan. During the plan check process, submit a construction management plan showing any phasing proposed, vehicular and pedestrian circulation, accessibility, construction fencing, staging area, pedestrian wayfinding signs, and truck haul route in and out of the property. Obtain approval from the Planning Department for the short-term loss of use of the parking lots and provide alternative locations for parking. PW Issuance of Grading/Site work Permit Public Works 36. Bicycle Parking. Developer shall provide bicycle parking near the entrances of the establishments. A total of six (6) bicycle racks or bicycle lockers that can house two bicycles per unit shall be installed and shown on the site plans for building permits and site work permits. PW Approval of Improvement Plans Public Works 37. Erosion Control. A detailed Erosion Control Plan shall be included submitted and shall include detailed design, location, maintenance criteria of all control measures, and standard details. The Erosion Control Plan shall be implemented between October 15th and April 15th unless otherwise allowed in writing by the City Engineer. PW Approval of Improvement Plans Public Works 38. Trash Capture. The project Storm water Management Plan shall incorporate trash capture measures such as screens, filters or CDS/Vortex units to address the requirements of Provision C.10 of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Municipal Regional Permit (MRP) PW Approval of Improvement Plans and Final Occupancy Public Works 39. Storm water Source Control. “No Dumping Drains to Bay” storm drain medallions per City Standard Detail CD-704 shall be placed on all public and private storm drain inlets. PW Approval of Improvement Plans and Final Occupancy Public Works PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of April 2017 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 13 of 13 ABSTAIN: Mayor ATTEST: ________ City Clerk v O ti 1 1 I 1, r, vg-•. 1 J V^ ^ J^ CI rr I IC j/ j I I Z° n 1 22g 116N I I, Olii c z , n 1 • y 1 W„, r> i• J i 1 II i Y- 1"-)\> e• I N a 1 e 1 24. 65' CI iti 1 0 4..-- 1c' Y. I jI- 11 .•{•{ 15000' i1 O I nY^ I ( t\• 1 N89V8' 15' E ip. i I 1 I I 114. 00• F.• I I ' uN 1 I: 4, ©-,---: \ i'? t wi x2. — 2s63 1 1 • • • • _• • • • gIF f4 1 I8" I ci T 1 1 I i e1 BUII i i . NA P. S 4. I I ' g i L.__ N69' 08. 1 5• E i , LI in. r • 1 247 70' 21 S. 1' wimitsimi I/ - T , C 1 _ g L i. - Ili o ! TENANT A y 1 C ! . 171 ® 1 r-' f c7' 1 < 7 efl •,_ `" 1- 21, 469 SF I I I,w7 V_ Y I. obdbnnnui. • c Ili. •- r l i' 1 s v/ s b I i r u TENANT B I If I g a. 4: . I. I., I .- 4 l- 10, 000 SF s A i m A. I ` r I L/ 71 it ,? t a Ir O, —. 408. 8 _.__ 44/ ." r s a it: II D F, /`` - ,. 1 I a " CVS PHARMACY I; —. 71. 7T. 28 642 SF if I I I N. A. P. ch p I• I I 2151' N69' 08' 1_ 5' E_ I 290. 0 I v EXISTING d BUILDING Li- I L-; I NAP I I1 t, E J--- 1 , 1 0 0 0 0 m 1 0 •1 1 u i. U 2nk o n jr: I R\' I C v 1 • I j 1,---.„ l>.b 2 I I r 0 50 I. r n ! TI I I I o IR F 3118 1 m s a o 0' 1% O I I I o 0o F z 1.> 1 c ax 1 1 1 2 w 3 el• a 1 cg, i 0 * c ig G 4 4 4 H. N IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR s`"` S gFO n m 110 m REGIONAL STREET MARKETPLACE 9 " a cif€ I 0 BROWNIAN ti DEVELOPMENT z Z -, 7201 REGIONAL STREET g g g O Fe- + .+` COMPANY o p o r, m Q RSC ENGINEERING \ y- , ` o m DUBLIN, CA 94568 c .' o o v` k' 2250 Douglas Blvd. Suite 150 33 Roseville, CA 95661 do h W[AIMMED Ph 916 788. 2884 Fox: 916. 788. 4408 eo DESCRIPTION ert , .• tl, p_ M,_ MM• beren p. M.•'. nl Ca w}. e- DW. M6Cem. a DOw wb' l IAr wea 6.... w Qn. M uM In A. A' t t518 t•- 6 1 p fi III 8 3x2 FIAT I 1 1 1 I11 1— II FT= __ a i, -, m m FT= — 6x.- 7r— n 111111111111 (; III II II II 11111111111 111111111111 f°°_"_ T`%=;= 9t7 0 4 MAUI g 1111111101. Ijljljljl, 1 j1 II II i1 , 11111 lllx I II11 xq TY 4 11111111I1 1111111111 I 111111111 lu u III I111 1111111111111 111111111111 111__ 11": 1 I' 1S 111111111111 11111II111II 4er- 1111 q 11. 1. 1. 1. 1. 11-- 111111111111 I _ 11111 I a u I II® - 3X2 MT E0 , E0 ( 0 l P Fi Ag o B 1 w a-. 8- 0 W D 1 9 P A I/ 0 m 4: ro- c frn I I N.\,,,, 1, IN.. 1r .. h111II11Il11 I I11_ 1P11 I IIIII1111111 1: 11 , i nr 1114111 a: ril 7/_- i I m. a I 11.-__ WMI I ‘° 1 K., INA i IV 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1 A =°= In - k 1 ' L lu i' i m L( o _ 1' ' 1' I' I CI o 4N ? 4g ri Jj z 6 B i g le z i ; - ntil 0 o I, m 4 . poi ° ° qq qV ° zm A a g ia $ 11 N Ida g Z r a m 6° a £ F r 0 0 ;• 6' r ' VI cil Rl pq lii i I5 s° g II: I.** I o. o....... g PROJECT: D TRASH ENCLOSURE - g DUBLIN PLAZA n q`! 11 x i i EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS lid n 7201 REGIONAL ST a w.. DUBLIN, CA 94568 urchJ'•< 1. 11- iO0dWd ro^ 19 1d '. i 1 fi t i 1 \ t I+ 2 it 1 1, Oili4i,\ i aII 3 c. N iii M OA n or i 4• 1, L - i P 41 fit 1 Cl. r_ __ t- 1-- I. I I c did AV , E 3t i A 3 b ! a or J- - - - ,__, fib — — — - -, — — - - 1— -? 9 II 1 orj I l C 0 3 s M1 t I to 0.coJA i i ai 4 • 11* j em 4! ,. t7' J\. n.. , / ice.. hotel i u e n m.,:.- 5.. c. li ur\ i g. 11` 44q417. ' `‘•-. 5. ii-', : ro IC 1, y a I( n d 9 d It Wilt 01 - $. tirill` m l 1.- Y- Mme,.,... yt L T p 9 yy,{{ V4% 4'.. A ST 3 3 Q- 1101• o I 0^ 33 71 S 3 is 1. • 0 GI0 d t e. yy yz {{ Iy CI WWw , i sari o o 0 J'.‘' .,,,? Li gziaPii a Ei UI i bi. 4e 7' :,,, i x 3 C.) l s. 1 ' 0 E. c D 7o V i . ° V1 F Z z 7 T 73 V1 m - v _ ,—, ; r`3.; ( 11 > lia 7C - 1 C) = S 7:, H as i i 7' o A Z - 0 m Z n A D36 - ern o ` : _ o r' D mom o Z n t N u 6/ 23/ 2016 9 16 25 AM C.\ User,\ Oskar FCGAINC\ OocumenM\ RSM_ CENTRAt_ Oskor M MI i 1, archI . cIur• O a u O O ZO m0 D 7. 13 Z D 7J nil TT__ ___ r G) s. 4, L NT C O4 OD Z 1 Z o i c A wZ r i,,f 1 w > t 11) 0 mmIll q I M , 0 1 I ill.. iv' W m rn 4 CIS m Cn< 71 Il biii w CD I o - I No I cri OD m ii al z s., H k. c 1jt 0 76] I!- 1. 1 MI T g 4 G N M MI cm < Z 44 j. l n Mir I' I---.--kilIl I I 13 - i-‹ H 11) o r—D n y 1 M Z 0 D v D7J N D N 00 x0tj (/) a, m z ° e/,./ 2O% s e: SI: S. W \ Nape- eewi\ e e( esnl. KC a vroj Q\ 9. Ce. Iro+. Ce. lteY 1 0. os•\ 0. Q..: 9 CV*..' e. n.\% htiM! DG. li Qe Cu. enr\ i, 3 R.,\ KU_ CCMU.. II II I lir! m o x 73 Oil 0 z/'' t rf p . C m f, r: 1 m o p • i m N m r.. D I o m p I:. o D u_ ` : rp Z %. .. O P- I rn H ii. 434, III 0 z III Ii; ., 4; 1..-_ 7 L__ Ir. II 11 I. e 0 L I 1 . CODI` 1 C r 1114 II D i f 0 I C } s ill - II - b. I. III1, Z to tTh T> lihlIIMIII ms' s if 0 /+ 1 iu ll II r li 3 ICS: fi. lic D m III I/ LL' 1 I [ a,,. D D 0 ill m n ll6Si-= H t 0. I III11li Y I t 1 It; i;? .` 1. lII f w r • I I i ll i I, i' I I 10 V. ` ha e W 41 o i so M I I f ' z UM _ _ . mr e D 1,, / s O I _..; ir II .z•, 6/ 23/ 2016 9 16 32 AM C\ Users\ Oskor FCGAINC\ Docum. nls\ RSM_ CC9TRAL Oskor. v, ir,...., X rn C)0 0. 3z 70 O D m Imm X M W Z Z MDm i o < m mrn 0 0 0 - 0 H 01 K OD mKz D/ , A W N O Xj V rn H v rm D 0 m W N rn D z o v m O W N D CT W N 7cn M m M CD i cn c op m z m D o, * CO m * CO p * CO G) * CO CO * CO 0 O FIT v v cD co r O -• O a - O < • 0 v O v O . L7 CL CI)..., an) CL n) CD CI) `.< co v ` G Qm ` v E3 y G7 "c6 CD 3 C7 * 30 030 30 " 530 z* E3 D D D Tn o Tn o o Tn o 0 CO o a' o 7 7 Q O — ' O O aj ' O 7• ' O Cn o H CC) OD Cr) CT) CD CT) 1 -< Cl) CD Cn S Zm C/) C No U) 3J 02 J rn 7- J iv cD o CD l CD O CD 1 CD 2 y C c R n N W o M r 3 N n° oo ,_ cn o . cn n o 90