Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-14-2012 - AgendaPlanning Commission Regular Meeting City of Dublin August 14, 2012 City Council Chambers 7:00 P.M. 100 Civic Plaza 1. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 3. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA 4. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS – July 24, 2012 5. ORAL COMMUNICATION - At this time, members of the audience are permitted to address the Planning Commission on any item(s) of interest to the public; however, no ACTION or DISCUSSION shall take place on any item, which is NOT on the Planning Commission Agenda. The Planning Commission may respond briefly to statements made or questions posed, or may request Staff to report back at a future meeting concerning the matter. Furthermore, a member of the Planning Commission may direct Staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda. Any person may arrange with the Assistant Community Development Director (no later than 11:00 a.m., on the Tuesday preceding a regular meeting) to have an item of concern placed on the agenda for the next regular meeting. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR 7. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8.1 PLPA-2011-00055 Dublin Preschool Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review for the construction and operation of a Day Care Center. 9. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS 10. OTHER BUSINESS: Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from the Planning Commission and/or Staff, including Committee Reports and Reports by the Planning Commission related to meetings attended at City Expense (AB 1234). 11. ADJOURNMENT This AGENDA is posted in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2(a) and Government Code Section 54957.5 If requested, pursuant to Government Code Section 54953.2, this agenda shall be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Section 12132), and the federal rules and regulations adopted in implementation thereof. To make a request for disability-related modification or accommodation, please contact the City Clerk’s Office (925) 833-6650 at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting. A complete packet of information containing Staff Reports (Agenda Statements) and exhibits related to each item is available for public review at least 72 hours prior to a Planning Commission Meeting or, in the event that it is delivered to the Commission members less than 72 hours prior to a Planning Commission Meeting, as soon as it is so delivered. The packet is available in the Community Development Department. (OVER FOR PROCEDURE SUMMARY) ti`s Of DU8 /�i ` STAFF REPORT 1 Vo�� PLANNING COMMISSION IFOR DATE: August 14, 2012 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: PLPA-2011-00055 Dublin Preschool Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review for the construction and operation of a Day Care Center Prepared By: Mamie R. Delgado, Senior Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the operation of a Day Care Center with up to 60 children and a Site Development Review Permit for the construction of a 3,284 square foot building with a 2,400 square foot outdoor play area along with 17 parking spaces, landscaping and associated site improvements. The Project site is located at 7250 Amador Valley Boulevard within the Village Parkway District of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Open the public hearing; 3) Take testimony from the Applicant and the public; 4) Close the public hearing and deliberate; and 5) Adopt a Resolution approving a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review for the construction and operation of a Day Care Center at 7250 Amador Valley Boulevard. III . a _ .' !. . ! ,, C Submitted By I °' evi ed By Senior Planner Assistant Community Development Director COPIES TO: Applicant File r� ITEM NO.: S.1, Page 1 of 8 DESCRIPTION: Figure 1. Project Site (7250 Amador Valley Blvd) The Project site is located near the southeast corner of Amador .'` ` Valley Boulevard and Village Parkway and is currently vacant. Adjacent uses include single- €. family residential to the east, 110 Taco Bell to the south, a multi- µ* g\\1a i tenant retail building to the west .. ,, �a and Amador Valley Boulevard to ** P�`a�o� the north. The site is _� approximately .35 acres in size ��` `� . 3. �`' and has a General Plan and '� ," �` . Zoning designation of Downtown „, , . "' , , Dublin — Village Parkway District. .• The A pp licant is proposing to construct a 3,284 square foot - � � s Day Care Center with a 2,400 -* square foot outdoor play area , along with 17 parking spaces, �°'� _ s, landscaping and associated site improvements. ;,� �. Background: `' x N The Project site and adjacent multi-tenant retail center were approved in 2004 for the development of a 5,582 square foot, two-story office building with 22 parking spaces (on the Project site) and an 8,539 square foot multi-tenant retail center with 32 parking spaces (to the west of the Project site). At the same time the project was approved, a Parcel Map was approved to create two separate parcels for the office building and the multi-tenant retail center. The retail center was subsequently constructed and is fully operational with a variety of businesses including Starbucks, Café Art, Montgomery Beauty Salon, an Optometrist and We Buy Gold. The office building site was sold and the entitlements to develop expired. The property is currently owned by Valley Community Bank. The property is now under contract to be purchased by the Applicant who is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to operate a Day Care Center and Site Development Review to construct a 3,284 square foot building with associated site improvements. ANALYSIS: Conditional Use Permit The Project site is located in the Downtown Dublin Zoning District which refers to the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan for permitted, conditional and prohibited uses for each of the three Districts (Retail District, Transit-Oriented District and Village Parkway District) within the Specific Plan Area. The Project site is located within the Village Parkway District which allows, as a conditionally permitted use, "Civic, Cultural and Institutional" uses including Day Care Centers. "Civic, Cultural and Institutional" uses are subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission. 2 of 8 A Conditional Use Permit enables the City to place conditions of approval on a project to ensure that the operating characteristics are compatible with surrounding uses. The proposed Project has been reviewed for issues related to noise, parking and other operating characteristics such as hours of operation and outdoor play activities. Conditions of approval have been placed on the Project, where appropriate, to ensure compatibility with the surrounding residential and commercial uses. The Applicant is proposing to operate a Day Care Center with 5 employees and up to 60 children between 2-5 years of age; the hours of operation would be 7:00am and 6:30pm Monday through Friday (Attachment 1). Outdoor play activities are proposed within an enclosed playground between the hours of 9:00am and 5:00pm Monday through Friday. According to the Applicant, up to 30 children would be outdoors for up to 30 minutes, four times a day. Noise The Dublin General Plan Noise Element sets forth the acceptable levels of community noise exposure. Because the proposed Day Care Center includes outdoor play activities and would be located adjacent to a residential neighborhood, a noise study was conducted to determine whether the noise associated with the proposed Day Care Center would exceed the normally acceptable noise exposure level of 60 decibels as set forth in the General Plan. The noise study concluded that the additional noise associated with the proposed outdoor play activities would not result in a significant increase in the existing noise environment and the community noise exposure would remain below the normally acceptable level of 60 decibels (Attachment 2). Condition of Approval No. 11 has been included in the draft Resolution (Attachment 3) to ensure that outdoor play activities occur as proposed by the Applicant. Additionally, Condition of Approval No. 12 has been included in the draft Resolution to ensure that outdoor activities are controlled so as not to become a nuisance to persons living or working in the vicinity of the Day Care Center. Parking The Dublin Zoning Ordinance requires that Day Care Centers provide 1 parking space for every employee plus one loading space for every 5 children at the facility. Loading spaces associated with Day Care Centers are often provided in the form of a parking space when the ages of the children require that they be accompanied by an adult into and out of the facility. The proposed Day Care Center would have 5 employees and 60 children requiring a total of 17 parking spaces as shown in Table 1 below. Table 1. Day Care Center Parking Requirements Parking Standard Proposed Project Required Parking Day Care Center 1 space/employee 5 employees 5 spaces 1 space/5 children 60 children 12 spaces Total Required Parking 17 spaces The proposed Site Plan (Attachment 4, Sheet Al) indicates that 17 parking spaces will be provided on the Project site; however, 10 of these spaces are currently being utilized by the adjacent multi-tenant retail center. As a result, a parking study was conducted to determine whether adequate parking would be available to accommodate the proposed Day Care Center based on the existing and projected parking demands of both the Day Care Center and the adjacent multi-tenant retail center. 3 of 8 The parking study concluded that during peak parking demand periods, the proposed Day Care Center would require all 17 parking spaces on the Project site (Attachment 5). As a result, parking for the multi-tenant retail center, which is currently occurring on the Project site, would be displaced during the peak parking demand periods and patrons of the retail center would need to park on the street along Village Parkway and/or Amador Valley Boulevard. On-street parking was previously anticipated for the retail center when Starbucks was granted a Conditional Use Permit for a parking reduction. Additionally, the parking study determined that existing on-street parking would be adequate to accommodate the demand. There are 4 on- street spaces along Village Parkway and approximately 7 on-street spaces along Amador Valley Boulevard. Site Development Review Site Layout A 3,284 square foot building is proposed and would be located on the northern portion of the Project site closest to Amador Valley Boulevard (see Attachment 4, Sheet Al). The building's main entrance would be on the southern elevation facing the parking lot. While the building would back up to Amador Valley Boulevard a secondary pedestrian entrance is proposed off of Amador Valley Boulevard and the building would be stepped back along this elevation as it transitions between the existing retail center and the single-family homes to the east (see Attachment 4, Sheets Al and A3). The Downtown Dublin Specific Plan requires a minimum 5-foot setback along Amador Valley Boulevard; the proposed building would have a 6-foot setback at the west end of the building (closest to the retail center) and a 24-foot setback at the east end of the building (closest to the single-family homes). The Downtown Dublin Specific Plan also requires a minimum 15-foot setback from shared property lines with single-family residential property; the proposed building would maintain a 15-foot setback along the east elevation which is adjacent to single-family homes (see Attachment 4, Sheet Al). As an additional measure to minimize any potential impacts to the adjacent single-family homes, the Applicant has proposed to locate an office, restroom and break room on the east side of the building closest to the single-family homes and place the classrooms on the western portion of the building furthest away from them (see Attachment 4, Sheet A2). The outdoor play area is proposed to be located along the south and west elevations which face the parking areas for the proposed Day Care Center and adjacent retail center (see Attachment 4, Sheets Al and A2). The location of the outdoor play area has been placed as far as practical from the single-family homes to minimize noise associated with outdoor play activities. The outdoor play area would be enclosed with a 6-foot high steel fence (see Attachment 4, Sheet A3) and would include a play structure in the southwestern corner of the play area (see Attachment 4, Sheet A2). The play structure would be 12-feet tall at the highest point; however, the tallest platform height where children would be standing would not exceed 48-inches for safety reasons should a child fall from the play structure (Attachment 6). The Project site will include 17 parking spaces including 5 compact spaces which will be reserved for employee parking for the Day Care Center, one accessible space for persons with disabilities and one electric/clean air vehicle space. All parking would be located on the southern portion of the site (see Attachment 4, Sheet Al). Access to the Project site can be obtained 4 of 8 from existing driveways on Amador Valley Boulevard and Village Parkway. Both driveways are fully improved and provide vehicular access to the retail center parcel. A "Maintenance, Drainage, Ingress and Egress Agreement" was recorded in 2005 and includes a vehicular ingress and egress easement across the retail center parcel to the Project site. The existing trash enclosure located on the adjacent retail center parcel will be a shared trash enclosure for both the Project and the retail center (see Attachment 4, Sheet Al). The "Maintenance, Drainage, Ingress and Egress Agreement" includes a provision that allows for the Project to utilize the existing trash enclosure. As part of the Project, the trash enclosure will be upgraded to meet current trash enclosure standards including new lighting within the enclosure, a new accessible entrance on the east side of the enclosure and a new accessible path from the Project site to the enclosure. Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Design Guidelines The Downtown Dublin Specific Plan contains Design Guidelines for development occurring within the Specific Plan Area. Some of the design standards contained in the Design Guidelines are required while others are recommended; the Design Guidelines also include standards that may not necessarily be recommended but are allowed or optional. The Design Guidelines require that all building facades that are visible from the public realm be designed with similar architectural elements, materials and colors as the front façade. The proposed Day Care Center building would have a cement plaster finish on all four elevations and would be painted with three different colors to define a base, body and cap along the facade: 1) a deep rusty orange (Cedarbark) along the base of the building; 2) a warm gray (Clay Pebble) for the body of the building; and 3) a lighter gray band (Pebblestone Beige) just below the roof line of the building. Numerous windows would be incorporated on the north, west and south elevations and all would be accented with forest green fabric awnings. One window would be incorporated on the east elevation and would provide natural light for an office. All windows would be clear glass with an anodized aluminum frame. The Design Guidelines also require that facades that are visible from the street and parking areas be articulated to improve design quality. The north elevation of the proposed Day Care Center building fronts Amador Valley Boulevard and is the most articulated elevation. The building is stepped back from west to east providing a significant amount of articulation. Additionally, five windows are proposed along this elevation with a fabric awning over each window which provides a projecting façade element that visually breaks up the building plane. The west elevation faces the existing retail center and includes a recess along the center of the elevation. Four windows are proposed along this elevation, each with a fabric awning over it. The south elevation faces the parking lot for the proposed Day Care Center and is also articulated, being stepped back from west to east. Five windows are proposed along the south elevation and similar to the other elevations, each window includes a fabric awning over it. The Design Guidelines encourage varying roof forms that are compatible with the overall style and character of the building. Additionally, roofs should be designed to prevent water damage or stains on building facades; if gutters and downspouts are provided, they should drain directly into a landscape area, retention/detention basin, bioswale or storm drain. Lastly, mechanical equipment is required to be screened from public view. The proposed roof for the Day Care Center would be composed of composition shingles (consistent with the adjacent retail center) and would include gutters and downspouts that would directly drain into landscaping or bio- 5of8 retention areas; a mechanical well on the roof would completely screen all roof mounted equipment from public view. Landscaping and Lighting The existing bioswale and new filtration planters will be landscaped with drought tolerant ornamental grasses. The bioswale is located along the southern property line and southeast corner of the Project site. The filtration planters would be located near the northeast corner of the Project site, along the eastern property line and just outside the southwest corner of the outdoor play area. Filtration planters are flow-through planters designed to cleanse stormwater runoff before it is collected into a pipe and routed to the disposal point. A total of ten 24-inch box trees are proposed to be added to the Project site near and along the eastern property line in addition to a variety of evergreen shrubs, plants and groundcover. Existing landscaping to the west of the Project site is located on the retail center parcel and is proposed to remain; any damage to existing landscaping as part of the development of the Project site would be replaced. There are currently 4 street trees along the Amador Valley Boulevard Project frontage; these trees will remain and any missing and/or damaged tree grates would be repaired as part of the Project (see Attachment 3, Condition of Approval No. 56). Signage Any proposed wall or freestanding signage will be reviewed under a separate permit for conformance to the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan and the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, as applicable. CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, SPECIFIC PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE: The Project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of Downtown Dublin — Village Parkway District which allows for range of uses consistent with the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan. The Project is consistent with the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan land use designation of Downtown Dublin — Village Parkway District in that Day Care Centers are a conditionally permitted use and the development of the Project site complies with the development standards and design guidelines contained in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan. REVIEW BY APPLICABLE DEPARTMENT AND AGENCIES: The Building Division, Fire Prevention Bureau, Public Works Department, Dublin Police Services and Dublin San Ramon Services District reviewed the Project and provided Conditions of Approval where appropriate to ensure that the Project is established in compliance with all local Ordinances and Regulations. Conditions of Approval from these departments and agencies have been included in the attached Resolution (Attachment 3). NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH: On Tuesday, June 12, 2012 the Applicant hosted a neighborhood outreach meeting at 7:00pm in the Dublin Library Community Room. The Applicant's architect prepared a letter inviting surrounding residents/property owners within 300-feet of the Project to the neighborhood 6 of 8 outreach meeting. One member of the public attended and was representing the new ownership of the adjacent retail center. In accordance with State law, a Public Notice was mailed to all property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the proposed Project. A Public Notice was also published in the Valley Times and posted at several locations throughout the City. To date, the City has received no objections from surrounding property owners regarding the Project. A copy of this Staff Report has been provided to the Applicant. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State Guidelines and City Environmental Regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and when applicable, environmental documents prepared. Staff is recommending that the Project be found Categorically Exempt from CEQA, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, In-Fill Development Projects. The Project consists of a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review for the construction and operation of a Day Care Center for up to 60 children. The Project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of Downtown Dublin — Village Parkway District and the Downtown Dublin Zoning District; the Project site is less than 5 acres in size and is surrounded by urban uses; it has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species; approval of the Project will not result in any significant effects related to traffic, noise, air quality or water quality; and, the site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. ATTACHMENTS: 1) Applicant's Written Statement dated June 11, 2012. 2) Noise Study prepared by Rosen Goldberg Der& Lewitz dated May 24, 2012. 3) Resolution approving a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review for the construction and operation of a Day Care Center at 7250 Amador Valley Boulevard. 4) Project Plans dated received by Dublin Planning on June 21, 2012. 5) Parking Analysis prepared by Omni Means dated April 19, 2012. 6) "Neptune" Play Structure Specifications. 7 of 8 GENERAL INFORMATION: APPLICANT: Zhen Zhen Li, Empire California Investment, LLC 18801 Belgrove Circle, Saratoga, CA 95070 PROPERTY OWNER: Valley Community Bank, Attn: Greg J. Hickel, Executive V.P./Chief Credit Officer, 5000 Pleasanton Ave, Suite 210, Pleasanton, CA 94566 LOCATION: 7250 Amador Valley Boulevard ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER: 941-0210-035-00 GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: Downtown Dublin —Village Parkway District SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan —Village Parkway District SURROUNDING USES: LOCATION ZONING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE CURRENT USE OF PROPERTY North DDZD Downtown Dublin —Village Commercial Parkway District South DDZD Downtown Dublin —Village Commercial Parkway District East R-1 Single-family Residential West DDZD Downtown Dublin —Village Commercial Parkway District REFERENCES: Dublin General Plan Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Dublin Zoning Ordinance 8 of 8 • • WILLIAM WOOD ARCHITECTS 301 Hartz Avenue • Suite 203 • Danville, CA 94526 • (925) 820-8233 • FAX (925) 820-8793 DUBLIN PRESCHOOL 7250 Amador Valley Blvd. Written Statement Revised June 11, 2012 We are proposing a Preschool facility for 60 kids ages from 2 to 5 years old. This building will be a one story structure with approximately 3,284 square feet. This facility will have 5 employees and be open Monday through Friday between lam and 6:30pm. The benefit to the community is obvious and there will be no more detrimental effects than a child staying at - home and possibly disrupting the peace of the surrounding residents — the adjacent businesses already front onto noisy busy heavily trafficked streets, so any additional impact would be negligible and definitely have no negative impact on either the surrounding residents 'or businesses. The proposed business use will not create .any negative impacts. on property, transportation systems or existing improvements in the neighborhood. This proposed development is an extension of an existing retail site development having use agreement for the trash enclosure and access easements. The existing PG&E transformer, the drainage basin (dry pond) and parking lot drainage system support this and the adjacent existing retail development. This development utilizes the existing site constraints and improvements in its overall design, the proposed parking area is an extension of the existing site development and circulation, the play area has been located to minimize impact on the adjacent residents east of this parcel. The proposed building will have design features similar to the adjacent retail building with a building scale appropriate to its use. The site is basically flat with no topographic features (except the manmade dry pond) and is very suitable for the proposed development. Its location is in proximity to the neighborhood it will serve and with major streets nearby,traffic access is easily accommodated. This building will only be a one story structure with a maximum roof height of approximately 21'-6" (the majority of the ridge height is only 20'-6" tall) and will not obstruct any views. This building's design provides a transition from the adjacent distinctly commercial retail building to the west and the residential neighborhood to the east (the building scale is similar to a residence, while some of the design elements and material finishes and color will mimic the retail building. In regard to the Landscape features — please refer to the attached letter from the Landscape Architect—Borrecco/Kilian &Associates, Inc. dated December 8, 2011. The project site is not located on a hazardous substances site — prior to the previously approved site development permit, a gas station underground storage tank was properly removed and the area was cleaned up. ATTACHMENT 1 • • ROSEN GOLDBERG DER & LEWITZ, INC. .-'s c,t.;tic?i 4tidic l&ual Crn,t111.Intc ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE IMPACT REPORT FOR: Dublin Preschool 7250 Amador Valley Boulevard Dublin, CA RGDL Project#: 12-032 PREPARED FOR: City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 PREPARED BY: Harold S. Goldberg, P.E. Principal Consultant DATE: 24 May 2012 1100 Larkspur Landing Circle#375 Larkspur CA 94939 n^Tel 415 464 0150 *Fax 415 464 0155 RGDLacoustics.com ATTACHMENT 2 • • Dublin Preschool, Dublin, CA Page 1 Environmental Noise Impact Report 24 May 2012 1. Introduction The proposed project is a new preschool facility at 7250 Amador Valley Boulevard in Dublin California. The site is currently vacant. The project includes a one story structure and an outdoor play area on the south and west sides of the building. This study estimates the noise levels that would be generated by the use of the outdoor play area and evaluates the potential for noise impact at the existing residences east of the site. The analysis includes ambient noise measurements at the site, noise measurements of a similar childcare facility and comparison of the noise levels with the City of Dublin's noise and land use compatibility standards. 2. Environmental Noise Fundamentals Noise can be defined as unwanted sound. It is commonly measured with an instrument called a sound level meter. The sound level meter captures the sound with a microphone and converts it into a number called a sound level. Sound levels are expressed in units of decibels. To correlate the microphone signal to a level that corresponds to the way humans perceive noise, the A-weighting filter is used. A-weighting de-emphasizes low-frequency and very high-frequency sound in a manner similar to human hearing. The use of A-weighting is required by most local General Plans as well as federal and state noise regulations (e.g. Caltrans, EPA, OSHA and HUD). The abbreviation dBA is sometimes used when the A-weighted sound level is reported. Because of the time-varying nature of environmental sound, there are many descriptors that are used to quantify the sound level. Although one individual descriptor alone does not fully describe a particular noise environment, taken together, they can more accurately represent the noise environment. The maximum instantaneous noise level (Lmax) is often used to identify the loudness of a single event such as a car passby or airplane flyover. To express the average noise level the Leq (equivalent noise level) is used. The Leq can be measured over any length of time but is typically reported for periods of 15 minutes to 1 hour. The background noise level (or residual noise level) is the sound level during the quietest moments. It is usually generated by steady sources such as distant freeway traffic. It can be quantified with a descriptor called the L90 which is the sound level exceeded 90 percent of the time. To quantify the noise level over a 24-hour period, the Day/Night Average Sound Level (DNL or Ldn) or Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is used. These descriptors are averages like the Leq except they include a 10 dB penalty during nighttime hours (and a 5 dB penalty during evening hours in the CNEL) to account for peoples increased sensitivity during these hours. In environmental noise, a change in noise level of 3 dB is considered a just noticeable difference. A 5 dB change is clearly noticeable, but not dramatic. A 10 dB change is perceived as a halving or doubling in loudness. ROSEN GOLDBERG DER& LEWITZ,INC. 1100 Larkspur Landing Circle#375 ►Larkspur CA 94939•Tel 415 464 0150 _ Fax 415 464 0155 RGDLacoustics.com • • Dublin Preschool, Dublin, CA Page 2 Environmental Noise Impact Report 24 May 2012 3. Acoustical Criteria 3.1.City of Dublin General Plan The Noise Element of the City's General Plan has policies regarding noise and land use compatibility. Table 1 provides guidelines for the compatibility of land uses with various noise exposures. The City uses the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) descriptor. A CNEL of 60 dBA or less is considered normally acceptable for residential land use. It should be noted that the City's compatibility standards are normally intended to be used for traffic and transit noise. Table 1: Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE(dB) Land Use Category Normally Conditionally Normally Clearly Acceptable Acceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable (Noise Insulation) Features Required Residential 60 or less 60.70 70-75 Over 75 Motels,hotels 60 or less 60-70 70-80 Over 80 Schools,churches,nursing 60 or less 60.70 70.80 Over 80 homes Neighborhood parks 60 or less 60-65 65-70 Over 70 Offices: retail commercial 70 or less 70.75 75-80 Over 80 Industrial 70 or less 70-75 Over 75 Conditionally acceptable exposure requires noise insulation features in building design.Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice. 3.2.City of Dublin Noise Ordinance Chapter 5.28 of the City of Dublin's Municipal Code prohibits "...loud, or disturbing, or unnecessary, or unusual or habitual noise or any noise which annoys or disturbs or injures or endangers the health, repose, peace or safety of any reasonable person of normal sensitivity present in the area". The noise ordinance states that it is appropriate to consider the level and character of the noise as well as the level and character of the background noise. Since the City's Noise Ordinance does not contain quantifiable noise level limits, it is not possible to apply the noise ordinance as a threshold for assessing project generated noise in the context of this noise study. 3.3.Increase in Noise The California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines require the determination of whether a project will generate a substantial increase in noise levels in the ROSEN GOLDBERG DER& LEWITZ,INC. 1100 Larkspur Landing Circle#375- Larkspur CA 94939 Tel 415 464 0150 4 Fax 415 464 0155 +RGDLacoustics.com . . Dublin Preschool, Dublin, CA Page 3 Environmental Noise Impact Report 24 May 2012 project vicinity above levels existing without the project. CEQA does not specify a method for determining when a project would cause a significant increase in noise. Likewise, the City of Dublin does not have criteria for determining when a noise increase is significant. A recent FAA Draft Policy discusses screening and impact thresholds for increases in aircraft noise. These thresholds are used to assess the significance of noise increases due to the project as follows— an increase in CNEL is significant if it is; • 5 dBA or greater and the future CNEL is less than 60 dBA or • 3 dBA or greater and the future CNEL is 60 dBA or greater and less than 65 dBA or • 1.5 dBA or greater and the future CNEL is 65 dBA or greater. 4. Existing Noise Environment To quantify the existing ambient noise levels at the site noise measurements were made at locations around the project site and near the adjacent homes. The major source of noise during the ambient measurements was distant traffic on 1-680 and Amador Valley Boulevard. Activity in the parking areas for the retail center was also audible at times. Table 3 shows the results of the short-term noise measurements at Location 1. Location 1 was chosen because it is closest point along the residential property line to the proposed play yard. While Location 1 was the most relevant location in the analysis, it was not practical to leave a monitor at Location 1 because there was no pole to secure it. Therefore, the measurements at Location 1 were short-term. Since the CNEL is a 24-hour descriptor a long-term monitor at another location was used to calculate the CNEL. The average noise level for each 15-minute interval during the 45-hour measurement is shown in Figure 2. Location A was chosen for the long-term monitor because of the presence of a light pole and the noise exposure was similar. The sound level difference between Location A and Location 1 was determined by correlating the simultaneous measurements at both locations. This sound level difference was then applied to the CNEL measured at Location A to determine the CNEL at Location 1 which is shown in Table 3. ROSEN GOLDBERG DER& LEWITZ,INC. 1100 Larkspur Landing Circle#375 Larkspur CA 94939 0 Tel 415 464 0150 o Fax 415 464 0155 RGDLacoustics.com • • Page 4 Dublin Preschool, Dublin, CA Environmental Noise Impact Report 24 May 2012 Figure 1: Site Plan and Ambient Noise Measurement Locations -: F AMADOR VALLEY BLVD el X,S. .�' .: -.`.s'. x -'i _ `. -4 s z ,ice `IFS,.. m!`i t^ `'. , 'w� ,k - -.y .. 5 '4. ',tit—,'''- s ,.'"".1* -,„ ,-,1/4.„,,,, 4:'' ' ° °S� } s { 3-" - m ......mow-°^.'...wry °� i'f,i` p" ' 44 , . , , , T •M #� 3Y£� $Po: ` . 4x y ::u may: �a � a"E"`.z ate "Y`�. `#e '` ' s ,. ". day . Table 3: Ambient Noise Measurement Results A-Weighted Noise Level, dBA Location Date/Time Leq Lmax L10 L50 Lgo CNEL 8 May 2012 60 69 62 60 56 11:45-2:25 P.M. 1 64 10 May 2012 55 69 57 54 52 10:10- 10:40 A.M. ROSEN GOLDBERG DER& LEWITZ,INC. 1100 Larkspur Landing Circle#375 Larkspur CA 94939 +Tel 415 464 0150 t.Fax 415 464 0155 4 RGDLacoustics.com • S Dublin Preschool, Dublin, CA Page 5 Environmental Noise Impact Report 24 May 2012 Figure 2: Long-Term Noise Measurement Results Location A 90 80 f^,: E' 10 w 70 m _ '. ..: 60 c 3 50 HY: at 'wYY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 9. 9. 0. 0. 5. 9. 9. 5' S o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 40 0 O N O N V' 0 Oo O N V t0 to 0 N 0 N V t0 O ON NN Tuesday,8 May 2012 Wednesday,9 May 2012 Thursday,10 May 2012 Time of Day 5. Analysis 5.1.Play Yard Noise at a Similar Facility To quantify the noise levels that would be generated by the use of the outdoor play yards, noise measurements were conducted at a similar facility, KinderCare Learning Center at 11925 Amador Valley Court on the morning of Friday, 17 April 2009. The noise measurements were conducted in the parking lot approximately 27 feet from the metal picket fence. There were three play yards in view of the measurement location and the children tended to congregate around the play structures. The pre-school yard had the most children (up to about 20) and the play structure was 90 feet from the noise measurement location. The toddler and infant yards had about nine children each and were to 115 and 210 feet away, respectively. The noise levels were dominated by the children's voices. Noise data was recorded for a total duration of 70 minutes and the average noise level (Leg) was 59 dBA and the median noise level (L50) was 55 dBA. Typical maximum noise levels from children yelling near the closest play structure were 65 to 70 dBA. The loudest yells generated an Lmax of 78 dBA and were from kids along the fence about 45 feet from the noise measurement location, yelling playfully at a truck driver in the parking lot. The children were soon instructed by the childcare staff to discontinue this activity. ROSEN GOLDBERG DER& LEWITZ,INC. 1100 Larkspur Landing Circle#375•.Larkspur CA 94939 •Tel 415 464 0150 a Fax 415 464 0155 a RGDLacoustics.com • • Dublin Preschool, Dublin, CA Page 6 Environmental Noise Impact Report 24 May 2012 5.2.Predicted Play Yard Noise Levels from the Project The proposed play yard at the Dublin Preschool facility is shown in Figure 1. According to the project applicant the children would use the outdoor play area during 30 minute periods, four times per day. During these times there would be up to 30 children in the outdoor play area. The remainder of the time the children would be indoors. A play structure would be located in the largest in the portion of the play yard that is south of the new building. The middle of this area is about 55 feet from the residential property line to the east. The project building would shield the west most portion of the play area from the residences. Noise levels from the children playing were calculated based on the noise measurements at the KinderCare facility. Adjustments were made for the number of children and the distance between the play areas and the property lines. The results are shown in Table 4. There is an existing wall/fence at the property line between the project site and the homes to the east that is a composite of a masonry and wood. The lower portion is a 6 foot tall masonry block wall. There is a 3-foot tall wood fence on top of the masonry wall. The lower 2 feet of the wood fence is constructed of overlapping boards and the upper 1 foot is wood lattice. Since the wall/fence is located in a drainage swale, the top of the masonry wall is only about 4-feet higher than the elevation of the proposed play area. Due to the relatively low height of the wall and the fact that the wood portion has cracks and gaps that let sound through, the fence will provide, limited noise reduction for people in the backyards or first floors of the homes. However, the fence will not provide noise reduction for the second floor rooms of the home at 7126 Portage Road. Therefore, to be conservative, this noise analysis assumes that the fence does not provide any noise reduction and the predicted noise levels in Table 4 do not include any effect from the fence. Table 4: Project Generated Noise Levels Location (dBA) (dBA) CNEL(dBA) East Property Line closest to 65 81 56 play yard ROSEN GOLDBERG DER& LEWITZ,INC. 1100 Larkspur Landing Circle#375+Larkspur CA 94939 *Tel 415 464 0150 Fax 415 464 0155 RGDLacoustics.com • • Dublin Preschool, Dublin, CA Page 7 Environmental Noise Impact Report 24 May 2012 5.3.Comparison with Acoustical Criteria 5.3.1. City of Dublin General Plan The CNEL at the nearest residential property line from play yard noise will be 56 dBA which is below the City's "normally acceptable" compatibility standard of CNEL 60 dBA. In fact, the use of the outdoor activity area could be increased beyond that expected, and still not exceed the standard. For example, if the duration of use doubled (from 2 hours to 4 hours) or the number of children are doubled, then the CNEL would increase from 56 dBA to 59 dBA. Since the CNEL is a 24- hour average it doesn't matter if the extra use occurs at a different time (doubling the duration) or at the same time (doubling the kids). A useful analogy is running a shower twice as long or at double the flow, it is still the same effect on the daily water usage. Also, it should be noted that the calculated CNEL does not depend on the time of day that the play area is used as long as it is not before 7 AM or after 7 PM. 5.3.2. Increase in Noise • The ambient CNEL is 64 dBA at the nearest residences. The addition of the play yard noise will increase the ambient CNEL by less than 1 dBA. This increase is less than the threshold of 3 dBA increase that would be considered significant. If the play time doubled, the CNEL would increase by 1.2 dBA to from 64 to 65.2 dBA. Since this is greater than 65 dBA, the relevant increase threshold would be 1.5 dBA. Therefore, the 1.2 dBA CNEL increase would be less than the threshold of 1.5 dBA. 6. Conclusions The noise from children using the proposed project's play yards is expected to be within "normally acceptable" levels of the City's General Plan Noise Element guidelines for single-family residential development. With the ambient traffic noise at the site, the play yard noise is not expected to significantly increase the long- term average noise levels at the nearby residences. ROSEN GOLDBERG DER& LEWITZ,INC. 1100 Larkspur Landing Circle#375*Larkspur CA 94939 •Tel 415 464 0150,,fax 415 464 0155 •RGDLacoustics.com RESOLUTION NO. 12-XX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE DEVELOPOMENT REVIEW PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A DAY CARE CENTER AT 7250 AMADOR VALLEY BLVD (APN 941-0210-035) PLPA-2011-00055 & 00056 WHEREAS, the Applicant has requested approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the operation of a Day Care Center for up to 60 children and Site Development Review for the construction of a 3,284 square foot building with a 2,400 square foot outdoor play area along with 17 parking spaces, landscaping and associated site improvements; and WHEREAS, the Project is located in the D-D (Downtown Dublin) Zoning District; and WHEREAS, a Day Care Center is permitted in the D-D Zoning District subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Sections 8.30.040 and 8.104.040.C.4 of the Dublin Municipal Code, all development in the D-D Zoning District and all new principal structures are subject to Site Development Review and shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with State Guidelines and City Environmental Regulations required that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the CEQA, Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission find this project Categorically Exempt from CEQA, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, In-Fill Development Projects. The project consists of a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review for the construction and operation of a Day Care Center for up to 60 children. The project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of Downtown Dublin — Village Parkway District and the Downtown Dublin Zoning District; the project site is less than 5 acres in size and is surrounded by urban uses; it has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species; approval of the project will not result in any significant effects related to traffic, noise, air quality or water quality; and, the site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted to the City of Dublin Planning Commission recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review request; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on August 14, 2012 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and ATTACHMENT 3 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth and used its independent judgment to evaluate the project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Dublin Planning Commission does hereby make the following findings and determinations regarding the Conditional Use Permit: A. The proposed use and related structures is compatible with other land uses, transportation and service facilities in the vicinity in that: 1) the Project would be located on a parcel intended for commercial development; 2) the Project would be accessible from Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard via existing driveways located on the adjacent retail center parcel and reciprocal access agreements are in place; 3) a parking study was conducted and concluded that adequate parking would be available for the Project and adjacent retail center; and, 4) a noise study was conducted and concluded that the Project would not cause the existing noise environment to exceed 60 decibels at the adjacent residential area. The parking and noise studies are incorporated herein by reference. B. It will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare in that: 1) conditions of approval have been placed on the Project limiting outdoor play activities to between the hours of 9am and 5pm Monday through Friday and limiting the number of children within the outdoor play area to no more than 30 children at a time to minimize the potential for noise impacts to the adjacent residential homes; and, 2) a noise study was conducted and concluded that the noise generated from children using the outdoor play area would not exceed normally acceptable levels of noise as set forth in the Dublin General Plan Noise Element for residential areas. C. It will not be injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood in that: 1) conditions of approval have been placed on the Project to ensure that the construction and use of the property will be in accordance with all local codes and regulations; and, 2) the Project will be located on a parcel of land intended to be developed for a commercial use and is consistent with the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan and Zoning District. D. There are adequate provisions for public access, water, sanitation, and public utilities and services to ensure that the proposed use and related structures would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare in that: 1) vehicular access to the site is available from Amador Valley Boulevard and Village Parkway; 2) the Amador Valley Boulevard and Village Parkway frontages are fully improved with sidewalks that provide pedestrian access to the project; 3) the Project will be served by existing public utilities; and 4) the Project will share an existing trash enclosure with the adjacent retail center and the enclosure will be upgraded to comply with current standards. E. The subject site is physically suitable for the type, density and intensity of the use and related structures being proposed in that: 1) the Project site is relatively flat and will be served by existing public utilities; 2) the Project site will be accessed from existing driveways along Amador Valley Boulevard and Village Parkway and the necessary 2 of 19 agreements have been recorded to ensure adequate ingress and egress to the Project site; and, 3) all required parking will be provided on the Project site. F. It will not be contrary to the specific intent clauses, development regulations, or performance standards established for the zoning district in which it is located in that: 1) the Project is located within the Downtown Dublin Zoning District — Village Parkway District and is sited near the sidewalk with parking provided at the rear; 2) the Project includes a pedestrian connection along Amador Valley Boulevard to encourage walking; and, 3) the Project adheres to all development regulations set forth in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan including setbacks, parking, floor area ratio, and building height, among other regulations. G. It is consistent with the Dublin General Plan and with any applicable Specific Plans in that: 1) the Project would be located on a parcel intended for commercial development; and, 2) as noted above, the Project adheres to all development regulations set forth in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Dublin Planning Commission does hereby make the following findings and determinations regarding the Site Development Review: A. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of Chapter 8.104, with the General Plan and with any applicable Specific Plans and design guidelines in that: 1) the Project is well designed in relation to the adjacent retail center and incorporates colors, materials and finishes that complement the retail center; 2) the Project is well designed in relation to the adjacent residential neighborhood in that the single story building in non-obtrusive and the outdoor play area has been located as far as practical from the rear yards of the adjacent residential homes; 3) the Project complies with the development regulations set forth in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan; and, 4) the Project will provide adequate circulation for automobiles and pedestrians. B. The proposal is consistent with the provisions of Title 8, Zoning Ordinance in that: 1) the Project requires Site Development Review and a complete application has been filed; 2) the Project provides the amount of parking required in accordance with Chapter 8.76 (Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations); and, 3) the Project complies with the development regulations contained in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan. C. The design of the project is appropriate to the City, the vicinity, surrounding properties and the lot in which the project is proposed in that: 1) the Project has been designed with colors, materials and finishes that complement the adjacent retail center; 2) all roof mounted equipment will be completely screened from public view; 3) the Project consists of a single story building which is non-obtrusive to adjacent residential uses and the outdoor play area has been located as far as practical from the rear yards of the adjacent residential homes; and, 4) the Project adheres to all required setbacks for the site. D. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the approved development in that: 1) the Project site is relatively flat and will be served by existing public utilities; 2) the Project site will be accessed from existing driveways along Amador Valley Boulevard and Village Parkway and the necessary vehicular access agreements 3 of 19 have been recorded to ensure adequate ingress and egress to the Project site; and, 3) all required parking will be provided on the Project site. E. Impacts to existing slopes and topographic features are addressed in that: 1) the Project site is relatively flat and does not include any significant slopes or topographic features. F. Architectural considerations including the character, scale and quality of the design, site layout, the architectural relationship with the site and other buildings, screening of unsightly uses, lighting, building materials and colors and similar elements result in a project that is harmonious with its surroundings and compatible with other development in the vicinity in that: 1) the Project is well designed and incorporates colors, materials and finishes that complement the adjacent retail center; 2) the Project consists of a single story building which is non-obtrusive to adjacent residential uses; 3) the Project is located with convenient access from Amador Valley Boulevard and Village Parkway; 4) the Project complies with the development regulations and design guidelines set forth in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan —Village Parkway District; 5) all roof mounted equipment will be completely screened from public view; and, 6) the Project contributes towards the pedestrian-oriented Village Parkway District by siting the building near the sidewalk along Amador Valley Boulevard and placing all parking to the rear of the building. G. Landscape considerations, including the location, type, size, color, texture and coverage of plant materials, and similar elements have been incorporated into the project to ensure visual relief, adequate screening and an attractive environment for the public in that: 1) the Project is attractively landscaped with denser vegetation along the shared property line between the Project and adjacent residential uses; 2) the Project includes filtration planters to treat stormwater runoff; and, 3) the Project includes a variety of plant species that soften the edges of the building most visible from the public realm and create an attractive visual buffer to adjacent residential uses. H. The site has been adequately designed to ensure proper circulation for bicyclists, pedestrians and automobiles in that: 1) vehicular access to the Project site is existing and includes driveways along Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard; 2) pedestrian access to the Project site can also be obtained from existing sidewalks along Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard; and, 3) conditions of approval have been placed on the Project requiring that bicycle racks be provided. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Dublin Planning Commission does hereby find that the Project is Categorically Exempt from CEQA, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, In-Fill Development Projects. As further described in the project application, staff report, noise and parking studies and other material sin the record, the project consists of a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review for the construction and operation of a Day Care Center for up to 60 children. The project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of Downtown Dublin — Village Parkway District and the Downtown Dublin Zoning District; the project site is less than 5 acres in size and is surrounded by urban uses; it has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species; approval of the project will not result in any significant effects related to traffic, noise, air quality or water quality; and, the site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. 4 of 19 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby approve a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review for the construction and operation of a Day Care Center as shown on the project plans, date stamped received by Dublin Planning on June 21, 2012, and incorporated by reference, subject to the following conditions of approval: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Unless stated otherwise, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to the issuance of building permits or establishment of use and shall be subject to Planning Division review and approval. The following codes represent those departments/agencies responsible for monitoring compliance of the conditions of approval: [PL] Planning; [B] Building; [PO] Police; [PW] Public Works; [ADM] Administration/City Attorney; [FIN] Finance; [PCS] Parks and Community Services; [F] Dublin Fire Prevention; [DSR] Dublin San Ramon Services District; [LDD] Livermore Dublin Disposal; [CO] Alameda County Department of Environmental Health; [Zone 7] Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Zone 7; [LAVTA] Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority; and [CHS] California Department of Health Services. NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Agency When Source Required, Prior to: GENERAL 1. Approval. This Conditional Use Permit and Site PL Ongoing Standard Development Review approval is for Dublin Preschool for the construction and operation of a Day Care Center at 7250 Amador Valley Boulevard for up to 60 children and 5 employees and for the construction and use of an outdoor play area and associated site improvements related to the operation of the Day Care Center (PLPA-2011-00055/00056). This approval shall be as generally depicted and indicated on the plans prepared by William Wood Architects dated received by Dublin Planning on June 21, 2012 and written statement dated June 11, 2012 on file in the Community Development Department, and as specified by the following Conditions of Approval for this project. 2. Effective Date. This Conditional Use Permit/Site PL On-going Standard Development Review approval becomes effective 10 days after action by the Planning Commission. 3. Permit Expiration. Construction or use shall PL 1 year of DMC commence within one (1) year of this Conditional Permit 8.96.020.D Use Permit/Site Development Review approval or approval the Permit shall lapse and become null and void. 4. Time Extension. The original approving PL Permit Standard decision-maker may, upon the Applicant's written Expiration request for an extension of approval prior to expiration, and upon the determination that any 5 of 19 Conditions of Approval remain adequate to assure that applicable findings of approval will continue to be met, grant a time extension of approval for a period not to exceed six (6) months. All time extension requests shall be noticed and a public hearing or public meeting shall be held as required by the particular Permit. 5. Modifications. The Community Development PL On-going DMC Director may consider modifications or changes 8.100 & to this Conditional Use Permit and Site 8.104 Development Review approval if the modifications or changes proposed comply with Chapter 8.100 (Conditional Use Permit) and Chapter 8.104 (Site Development Review) of the Zoning Ordinance. 6. Revocation of Permit. The Conditional Use PL On-going DMC Permit and Site Development Review approval 8.96.020.1 shall be revocable for cause in accordance with Section 8.96.020.1 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Any violation of the terms or conditions of this permit shall be subject to citation. 7. Indemnification. The Developer shall defend, Various On-going In indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Dublin accordance and its agents, officers, and employees from any with Gov. claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Code Dublin or its agents, officers, or employees to Section attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of 66499.37 the City of Dublin or its advisory agency, appeal board, Planning Commission, City Council, Community Development Director, Zoning Administrator, or any other department, committee, or agency of the City to the extent such actions are brought within the time period required by Government Code Section 66499.37 or other applicable law; provided, however, that The Developer's duty to so defend, indemnify, and hold harmless shall be subject to the City's promptly notifying The Developer of any said claim, action, or proceeding and the City's full cooperation in the defense of such actions or proceedings. 8. Fees. Applicant/Developer shall pay all FIN Issuance of Standard applicable fees in effect, including, but not limited Building to, Planning fees, Building fees, Traffic Impact Permits Fees, TVTC fees, Dublin San Ramon Services District fees, Public Facilities fees, Dublin Unified School District School Impact fees (per 6 of 19 agreement between Developer and School District), Fire Facilities Impact fees, Noise Mitigation fees, Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu fees, Alameda County Flood and Water Conservation District (Zone 7) Drainage and Water Connection fees; or any other fee that may be adopted and applicable. 9. Requirements and Standard Conditions. The Various Building Standard Applicant/Developer shall comply with applicable Permit City of Dublin Fire Prevention Bureau, Dublin Issuance Public Works Department, Dublin Building Department, Dublin Police Services, Alameda County Flood Control District Zone 7, Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority, Alameda County Public and Environmental Health, Dublin San Ramon Services District and the California Department of Health Services requirements and standard conditions. Prior to issuance of building permits or the installation of any improvements related to this project, the Developer shall supply written statements from each such agency or department to the Planning Department, indicating that all applicable conditions required have been or will be met. PLANNING 10. Parking. A total of 17 parking spaces (12 PL On-going Planning spaces for parent drop-off and pick-up and 5 spaces for employees) shall remain available for use by Dublin Preschool during the approved hours of operation. 11. Outdoor Play Area. Outdoor activities shall be PL On-going Planning limited to the designated outdoor play area as shown on the approved plans. No more than 30 children shall be present within the designated outdoor play area at any given time. Outdoor activities shall be limited to 30 minutes at a time up to 4 times per day and shall only occur between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday. 12. Noise. Outdoor play activities shall be controlled PL On-going Planning so as not to create,unusual or unnecessary noise that may disturb or annoy persons living or working in the vicinity. 13. Property Maintenance. The Applicant/Developer PL During Planning and property owner shall be responsible for Constructio maintaining the site in a clean and lifter free n, Through condition during construction and through Completion completion. Per the City of Dublin Non- and On- 7 of 19 Residential Property Maintenance Ordinance, going DMC Section 5.64.050, the Applicant/ Property Owner shall maintain the building, site and all signage in good condition and shall keep the site clear of trash, debris and graffiti vandalism on a regular and continuous basis. 14. Accessory/Temporary Structures and Uses. PL Placement Planning A Temporary Use Permit is required for all on site construction trailers, security trailers and storage containers used during construction. 15. Temporary Signage. All temporary signage PL On-going DMC shall be subject to the regulations of Chapter 8.84 8.84 (Sign Regulations) of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. 16. Landscaping. All landscaping shall be provided PL Issuance of Planning with an automatic sprinkler system. Occupancy Permit 17. Community Care Licensing. The Applicant PL Issuance of Planning and/or Future Tenant must be licensed by and occupancy comply with the State of California Community permit Care Licensing. The applicant shall submit a copy of this license to the Planning Division. 18. Business License. The Applicant and/or Future Various Building Various Tenant shall apply for a City of Dublin Business Permit License within 30 days of approval of the Issuance Conditional Use Permit/Site Development Review. 19. Hours of Operation. The approved hours of PL On-going Planning operation are 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. The Applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the drop-off and pick-up of children is conducted in an orderly manner and does not negatively impact surrounding residents or businesses. 20. Property Maintenance. The Applicant, Future PL On-going DMC Tenant and/or Property Owner shall keep the 5.64 property maintained in a safe, clean, and litter- free condition at all times. 21. Graffiti. The Applicant, Future Tenant and/or PL On-going DMC Property Owner shall keep the site clear of graffiti 5.68 vandalism on a regular and continuous basis, at all times. Where feasible graffiti resistant materials should be used. 22. Nuisance. The Applicant and/or Future Tenant PL On-going DMC shall control all activities so as not to create a 5.28.020 public or private nuisance to the existing and surrounding residents. 8 of 19 23. Temporary Promotional Banners and PL On-going DMC Balloons. Temporary Promotional Banner Signs 8.84 and Balloons are subject to compliance with Chapter 8.84 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. BUILDING 24. Building Codes and Ordinances. All project B Through Building construction shall conform to all building codes Completion and ordinances in effect at the time of building permit. 25. Building Permits. To apply for building permits, B Issuance of Building Applicant/Developer shall submit seven (7) sets Building of construction plans to the Building Division for Permits plan check. Each set of plans shall have attached an annotated copy of these Conditions of Approval. The notations shall clearly indicate how all Conditions of Approval will or have been complied with. Construction plans will not be accepted without the annotated resolutions attached to each set of plans. Applicant/Developer will be responsible for obtaining the approvals of all participation non- City agencies prior to the issuance of building permits. 26. Construction Drawings. Construction plans B Issuance of Building shall be fully dimensioned (including building Building elevations) accurately drawn (depicting all Permits existing and proposed conditions on site), and prepared and signed by a California licensed Architect or Engineer. All structural calculations shall be prepared and signed by a California licensed Architect or Engineer. The site plan, landscape plan and details shall be consistent with each other. _ 27. Addressing. Address will be required on all B Occupancy Building doors leading to the exterior of the building. Addresses shall be illuminated and be able to be seen from the street, 5 inches in height minimum. 28. Engineer Observation. The Engineer of record B Frame Building shall be retained to provide observation services Inspection for all components of the lateral and vertical design of the building, including nailing, hold- downs, straps, shear, roof diaphragm and structural frame of building. A written report shall be submitted to the City Inspector prior to scheduling the final frame inspection. 29. Phased Occupancy Plan. If occupancy is B Occupancy Building requested to occur in phases, then all physical of any improvements within each phase shall be affected 9 of 19 required to be completed prior to occupancy of building any buildings within that phase except for items specifically excluded in an approved Phased Occupancy Plan, or minor handwork items, approved by the Department of Community Development. The Phased Occupancy Plan shall be submitted to the Directors of Community Development and Public Works for review and approval a minimum of 45 days prior to the request for occupancy of any building covered by said Phased Occupancy Plan. Any phasing shall provide for adequate vehicular access to all parcels in each phase, and shall substantially conform to the intent and purpose of the subdivision approval. No individual building shall be occupied until the adjoining area is finished, safe, accessible, and provided with all reasonable expected services and amenities, and separated from remaining additional construction activity. Subject to approval of the Director of Community Development, the completion of landscaping may be deferred due to inclement weather with the posting of a bond for the value of the deferred landscaping and associated improvements. 30. Air Conditioning Units. Air conditioning units B Occupancy Building and ventilation ducts shall be screened from of Unit public view with materials compatible to the main building. Units shall be permanently installed on concrete pads or other non-movable materials to approved by the Building Official and Director of Community Development. 31. Temporary Fencing. Temporary Construction B Through Building fencing shall be installed along perimeter of all Completion work under construction. - 32. Green Building. The project shall meet the B Issuance of Building requirements of the CAL Green Building Building Standards Code in effect at the time of Permits permitting. This includes the addition of long term bicycle parking on the site. 33. Cool Roofs. Flat roof areas shall have their B Through Building roofing material coated with light colored gravel Completion or painted with light colored or reflective material designed for Cool Roofs. 34. Electronic File. The applicant/developer shall B Issuance of Building submit all building drawings and specifications for Building this project in an electronic format to the Permits satisfaction of the Building Official prior to the 10 of 19 issuance of building permits. Additionally, all revisions made to the building plans during the project shall be incorporated into an "As Built" electronic file and submitted prior to the issuance of the final occupancy. 35. Copies of Approved Plans. Applicant shall B 30 days Building provide the City with 4 reduced (1/2 size) copies after permit of the approved plan. and each revision issuance 36. Plumbing Fixture Counts. Plumbing fixture B Issuance of Building counts shall meet the requirements of table 4-1 of Building the CA Plumbing Code. Permits FIRE 37. Fire Alarm (detection) System Required. A Fire Alarm-Detection System shall be installed throughout the building so as to provide full property protection, including combustible concealed spaces, as required by NFPA 72. The system shall be installed in accordance with NPFA 72, Ca Fire, Building, Electrical, and Mechanical Codes. If the system is intended to serve as an evacuation system, compliance with the horn/strobe requirements for the entire building must also be met. All automatic fire extinguishing systems shall be interconnected to the fire alarm system so as to activate an alarm if activated and to monitor control valves. 38. Gate Approvals. Fencing and gates that cross pedestrian access and exit paths as well as vehicle entrance and exit roads need to be approved for fire department access and egress as well as exiting provisions where such is applicable. Plans need to be submitted that clearly show the fencing and gates and details of such. This should be clearly incorporated as part of the site plan with details provided as necessary. PUBLIC WORKS 39. Clarifications and Changes to the Conditions. PW Approval of Public In the event that there needs to be clarification to Improveme Works these Conditions of Approval, the Directors of nt Plans Community Development and Public Works have the authority to clarify the intent of these Conditions of Approval to the Applicant/ Developer by a written document signed by the 11 of 19 Directors of Community Development and Public Works and placed in the project file. The Directors also have the authority to make minor modifications to these conditions without going to a public hearing in order for the Applicant to fulfill needed improvements or mitigations resulting from impacts of this project. 40. Standard Public Works Conditions of PW Approval of Public Approval. Applicant/Developer shall comply with Improveme Works all applicable City of Dublin Public Works nt Plans Standard Conditions of Approval. In the event of a conflict between the Public Works Standard Conditions of Approval and these Conditions, these Conditions shall prevail. 41. Hold Harmless/Indemnification. The Developer PW Through Public shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the completion Works City of Dublin and its agents, officers, and of Improve- employees from any claim, action, or proceeding ments and against the City of Dublin or its advisory agency, Occupancy appeal board, Planning Commission, City of the Council, Community Development Director, Building Zoning Administrator, or any other department, committee, or agency of the City to the extend such actions are brought within the time period required by Government Code Section 66499.37 or other applicable law: provided, however, that the Developer's duty to so defend, indemnify, and hold harmless shall be subject to the City's promptly notifying the Developer of any said claim, action, or proceeding and the City's full cooperation in the defense of such actions or proceedings. 42. Grading/Sitework Permit. All improvement PW Issuance of Public work must be performed per a Grading/Sitework Grading/ Works Permit issued by the Public Works Department. Sitework Said permit will be based on the final set of civil Permit plans to be approved once all of the plan check comments have been resolved. Please refer to the handout titled Grading/Site Improvement Permit Application Instructions and attached application (three 8-1/2" x 11" pages) for more information. The Applicant/Developer must fill in and return the applicant information contained on pages 2 and 3. The current cost of the permit is $10.00 due at the time of permit issuance, although the Applicant/Developer will be responsible for any adopted increases to the fee amount. 12 of 19 43. Site Plan. On-site improvements shall be PW Issuance of Public designed in accordance with the approved site Grading/ Works plan, entitled "Dublin Preschool" by William Wood Sitework Architects. Permit 44. Accessible Path of Travel. Applicant shall PW Issuance of Public provide an accessible path of travel/walkway Grading/ Works from the public sidewalk on Amador Valley Sitework Boulevard to the building entrance per California Permit Building Code requirements. Said walkway shall be 4'-minimum wide. 45. Vehicle Parking. Applicant should repair any PW Occupancy Public distressed areas of pavement obstructing the Works path of travel. The parking spaces striping that is in poor condition shall be re-striped. All parking spaces shall be double striped using 4" white lines set approximately 2 feet apart according to City standards and §8.76.070 (A) 17 of the Dublin Municipal Code. All compact-sized parking spaces shall have the word "COMPACT" stenciled on the pavement within each space. 12"-wide concrete step-out curbs shall be constructed at each parking space where one or both sides abuts a landscaped area or planter. 46. Site Accessibility Requirements. All parking PW Occupancy Public spaces for the disabled and other physical site Works improvements shall comply with current UBC Title 24 requirements and City of Dublin Standards for accessibility. 47. Graffiti. The Applicant/Developer and/or building PL, PW On-going Public tenant(s) shall keep the site clear of graffiti Works vandalism on a regular and continuous basis. Graffiti resistant paint for the structures and film for windows or glass shall be used whenever possible. 48. Signs and Pavement Markings. The Applicant/ PW Occupancy Public Developer shall be responsible for the following Works on-site traffic signs and pavement markings: 1. Accessible parking signs and legends per State Title 24 requirements. 2. The word "Compact" shall be stenciled on the pavement surface within each compact parking space. 3. No Stopping/Fire Lane 49. Occupancy Permit Requirements. Prior to PW Occupancy Public issuance of an Occupancy Permit, the physical Works condition of the project site shall meet minimum health and safety standards including, but not limited to the following: 13 of 19 1. Lighting for the building and parking lot shall be adequate for safety and security. Exterior lighting shall be provided for building entrances/exits and pedestrian walkways. Security lighting shall be provided as required by Dublin Police. 2. All construction equipment, materials, or on-going work shall be separated from the public by use of fencing, barricades, caution ribbon, or other means reasonably approved by the City Engineer/Public Works Director. 3. All fire hydrants for the building shall be operable and easily accessible to City and ACFD personnel. 4. All site features designed to serve the disabled (i.e. H/C parking stalls, accessible walkways, signage, etc.) for the building shall be installed and fully functional. 50. Stormwater Runoff Calculations. Applicant/ PW Issuance of Public Developer shall provide the stormwater runoff, Grading/ Works conveyance and treatment details. The Sitework calculations shall demonstrate adequate capacity Permit in the existing storm drainage retention basin. Stormwater treatment design shall comply with the C-3 Stormwater Technical Guidance issued by Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program. Runoff from landscape areas shall not drain across sidewalk areas. _ 51. Changes to the SDR Submittal Plans. The PW Issuance of Public following comments will need to be addressed Grading/ Works prior to future plan check submittal: Sitework 1. Parking Stall 11 has 3'9" of space for a Permit backing maneuver adjacent to the parking space. The City standard is 5': change Parking Stall 11 to a Compact stall and provide 5' east of the parking space to provide adequate backup space. 2. The accessible path of travel to the Trash enclosure will cross behind Parking Stall 17: change location of curb ramp. 3. Truncated domes will be required in front of parking stalls 11-17. 4. Provide signage and striping for Fire Lane. 5. Provide access the existing transformer. 14 of 19 6. Possible conflict with 6" SD on east side of building and existing joint trench to existing transformer. 7. Possible conflict with SS lateral to building and existing joint trench near transformer. 8. Tree planting at east PL will be over 6" SD to treatment pond. 9. Provide outlet protection for SD pipes into treatment pond. 52. Erosion Control During Construction. PW Issuance of Public Applicant/Developer shall include an Erosion and Grading/ Works Sediment Control Plan with the Grading and Sitework Improvement plans for review and approval by Permit and the City Engineer/Public Works Director. Said during plan shall be designed, implemented, and construc- continually maintained pursuant to the City's tion. NPDES permit between October 1st and April 15th or beyond these dates if dictated by rainy weather, or as otherwise directed by the City Engineer/Public Works Director. 53. Construction Hours. Construction and grading PW During Public operations shall be limited to weekdays (Monday Construction Works through Friday) and non-City holidays between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. The Applicant/Developer may request permission to work on Saturdays and/or holidays between the hours of 8:30 am and 5:00 pm by submitting a request form to the City Engineer no later than 5:00 pm the prior Wednesday. Overtime inspection rates will apply for all Saturday and/or holiday work. 54. Temporary Fencing. Temporary Construction PW During Public fencing shall be installed along perimeter of all Construction Works work under construction to separate the and construction operation from the public. All Occupancy construction activities shall be confined to within the fenced area. Construction materials and/or equipment shall not be operated or stored outside of the fenced area or within the public right-of-way unless approved in advance by the City Engineer/Public Works Director. 55. Construction Noise Management Plan. PW During Public Developer shall prepare a Construction Noise Construc- Works Management Plan, to be approved by the City tion and Engineer and Community Development Director Grading that identifies measures to be taken to minimize Activities 15 of 19 construction noise on surrounding developed properties. The Plan shall include hours of construction operation, use of mufflers on construction equipment, speed limit for construction traffic, haul routes and identify a noise monitor. Specific noise management measures shall be included in the project plans and specifications. 56. Damage/Repairs. The Applicant/Developer shall PW Occupancy Public be responsible for the repair of any damaged Works pavement, curb & gutter, sidewalk, or other public street facility resulting from construction activities associated with the development of the project. The Developer shall repair/replace existing sidewalk and tree wells along the frontage of the Project on Amador Valley Boulevard as directed by the City Engineer. 57. Fees. The Applicant shall pay all applicable fees PW Issuance of Public in effect at the time of building permit issuance, Building Works including, but not limited to: Planning fees; Permit Building fees; Dublin San Ramon Services District fees; Public Facilities fees; City of Dublin Fire fees; Noise Mitigation fees; Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu fees; Alameda County Flood and Water Conservation District (Zone 7) Drainage and Water Connection fees; and any other fees as noted in the Development Agreement. 58. Lighting. The Applicant/Developer shall prepare PW Occupancy Public a photometric plan to the satisfaction of the City Works Engineer, Director of Community Development, the City's Consulting Landscape Architect and Dublin Police Services. A minimum of one foot- candle of light shall be provided and maintained across the surface of the parking lot. Any illumination, including security lighting, shall be directed away from adjoining properties, businesses or vehicular traffic so as not to cause any glare." 59. Geotechnical Report and Recommendations. PW Issuance of Public The Applicant/Developer shall provide a site Building Works specific geotechnical report prepared by a Permit reputable geotechnical engineer. The Geotechnical Engineer shall certify that the project design conforms to the report recommendations prior to issuance of a Grading/Sitework Permit or Building Permit. All report recommendations shall be followed during the course of grading and construction. 16 of 19 60. Environmental Site Assessment. According to PW Occupancy Public the environmental assessment report prepared Works by Clayton Group Services, Inc. dated 05/30/03, four underground fuel storage tanks (UST) were closed and removed from the site according to Alameda County Department of Environmental Health (ACDEH) requirements and protocols. If, during construction of the Project, presently- unknown hazardous materials are discovered, the Applicant/Developer shall adhere to the requirements of ACDEH, the Fire Marshal, the City, and/or other applicable agency to mitigate the hazard before continuing. Furthermore the report insists that the Applicant/Developer shall monitor and address any hydrocarbons residual found in the soil during excavation/trenching. 61. Storm Drain Lines. Proposed storm drain lines PW Issuance of Public and bio-retention areas within the existing Public Grading Works Services Easement areas shall be subject to Permit approval of the affected utility companies. The contractor shall pothole and determine locations of utilities within the joint trench and submit design to the City and utility companies for approval. POLICE 62. Security Requirements. Applicant shall comply PO Occupancy Police with the Dublin Municipal Code Security Requirements. DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT(DSRSD) 63. Prior to issuance of any building permit, complete DSR Issuance of DSRSD improvement plans shall be submitted to DSRSD permits that conform to the requirements of the Dublin San Ramon Services District Code, the DSRSD "Standard Procedures, Specifications and Drawings for Design and Installation of Water and Wastewater Facilities", all applicable DSRSD Master Plans and all DSRSD policies. 64. Domestic and fire protection waterline systems DSR Issuance of DSRSD for Tracts or Commercial Developments shall be permits designed to be looped or interconnected to avoid dead end sections in accordance with requirements of the DSRSD Standard Specifications and sound engineering practice. 65. DSRSD policy requires public water and sewer DSR Issuance of DSRSD lines to be located in public streets rather than in permits off-street locations to the fullest extent possible. If unavoidable, then public sewer or water easements must be established over the 17 of 19 alignment of each public sewer or water line in an off-street or private street location to provide access for future maintenance and/or replacement. 66. Prior to approval by the City of a grading permit DSR Issuance of DSRSD or a site development permit, the locations and permits widths of all proposed easement dedications for water and sewer lines shall be submitted to and approved by DSRSD. 67. All easement dedications for DSRSD facilities DSR Issuance of DSRSD shall be by separate instrument irrevocably permits offered to DSRSD or by offer of dedication on the Final Map. 68. Prior to approval by the City for Recordation, the DSR Issuance of DSRSD Final Map shall be submitted to and approved by permits DSRSD for easement locations, widths, and restrictions. 69. Prior to issuance by the City of any Building DSR Issuance of DSRSD Permit or Construction Permit by the Dublin San permits Ramon Services District, whichever comes first, all utility connection fees including DSRSD and Zone 7, plan checking fees, inspection fees, connection fees, and fees associated with a wastewater discharge permit shall be paid to DSRSD in accordance with the rates and schedules established in the DSRSD Code. 70. Prior to issuance by the City of any Building DSR Issuance of DSRSD Permit or Construction Permit by the Dublin San permits Ramon Services District, whichever comes first, all improvement plans for DSRSD facilities shall be signed by the District Engineer. Each drawing of improvement plans shall contain a signature block for the District Engineer indicating approval of the sanitary sewer or water facilities shown. Prior to approval by the District Engineer, the applicant shall pay all required DSRSD fees, and provide an engineer's estimate of construction costs for the sewer and water systems, a performance bond, a one-year maintenance bond, and a comprehensive general liability insurance policy in the amounts and forms that are acceptable to DSRSD. The applicant shall allow at least 15 working days for final improvement drawing review by DSRSD before signature by the District Engineer. 71. No sewer line or waterline construction shall be DSR Issuance of DSRSD permitted unless the proper utility construction permits permit has been issued by DSRSD. A 18 of 19 construction permit will only be issued after all of the items in Condition No. 9 have been satisfied. _ 72. The applicant shall hold DSRSD, its Board of DSR On-going DSRSD Directors, commissions, employees, and agents of DSRSD harmless and indemnify and defend the same from any litigation, claims, or fines resulting from the construction and completion of the project. 73. Improvement plans shall include recycled water DSR Issuance of DSRSD improvements as required by DSRSD. Services permits for landscape irrigation shall connect to recycled water mains. Applicant must obtain a copy of the DSRSD Recycled Water Use Guidelines and conform to the requirements therein. 74. This application is for construction of a daycare DSR Issuance of DSRSD facility in a currently vacant site. DSRSD will permits require a check of the plans by DSRSD. Water and sewer capacity charges will be required. Exact charges for this specific application will be calculated at the time of the plan check. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of August 2012 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Assistant Community Development Director 19 of 19 Attachment A CITY OF DUBLIN PUBLIC WORKS STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL November 18, 2004 GENERAL: 1. The Developer shall comply with the Subdivision Map Act, the City of Dublin Subdivision, Zoning, and Grading Ordinances, the City of Dublin Public Works Standards and Policies, and all building and fire codes and ordinances in effect at the time of building permit. All public improvements constructed by Developer and to be dedicated to the City are hereby identified as "public works" under Labor Code section 1771. Accordingly, Developer, in constructing such improvements, shall comply with the Prevailing Wage Law (Labor Code. Sects. 1720 and following) 2. The 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 related to this project 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. 3. Any water well, cathodic protection well, or exploratory boring on the project property must be properly abandoned, backfilled, or maintained in accordance with applicable groundwater protection ordinances. For additional information contact Alameda County Flood Control, Zone 7. AGREEMENT AND BONDS: 4. The Developer shall enter into a Tract Improvement Agreement with the City for all tract improvements. 5. The Developer shall provide performance (100%), and labor & material (100%) securities to guarantee the tract improvements, approved by the City Engineer, prior to execution of the Tract Improvement Agreement and approval of the Final Map. (Note: Upon acceptance of the improvements, the performance security may be replaced with a maintenance bond that is 25% of the value of the performance security.) November 18, 2004 Page 1 of 6 FEES: 6. The Developer shall pay all applicable fees in effect at the time of building permit issuance including, but not limited to, Planning fees, Building fees, Dublin San Ramon Services District fees, Public Facilities fees, Dublin Unified School District School Impact fees, Public Works Traffic Impact fees, Alameda County Fire Services fees; Noise Mitigation fees, Inclusionary Housing In- Lieu fees; Alameda County Flood and Water Conservation District (Zone 7) Drainage and Water Connection fees; and any other fees as noted in the Development Agreement. 7. The Developer shall dedicate parkland or pay in-lieu fees in the amounts and at the times set forth in City of Dublin Resolution No. 60-99, or in any resolution revising these amounts. and as implemented by the Administrative Guidelines adopted by Resolution 195-99. PERMITS: 8. Developer shall obtain an Encroachment Permit from the Public Works Department for all construction activity within the public right-of-way of any street where the City has accepted the improvements. At the discretion of the City Engineer an encroachment for work specifically included in an Improvement Agreement may not be required. 9. Developer shall obtain a Grading / Sitework Permit from the Public Works Department for all private grading and site improvements. 10. 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 Game, Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Caltrans and provide copies of the permits to the Public Works Department. SUBMITTALS: 11. All submittals of plans and Final Maps shall comply with the requirements of the "City of Dublin Public Works Department Improvement Plan Submittal Requirements", and the "City of Dublin Improvement Plan Review Check List". 12. The Developer will be responsible for submittals and reviews to obtain the approvals of all participating non-City agencies. The Alameda County Fire Department and the Dublin San Ramon Services District shall approve and sign the Improvement Plans. 13. Developer shall submit a Geotechnical Report, which includes street pavement sections and grading recommendations. 14. Developer shall provide the Public Works Department a digital vectorized file of the "master" files for the project when the Final Map has been approved. Digital raster copies are not acceptable. The digital vectorized files shall be in AutoCAD 14 or higher drawing format. Drawing units shall be decimal with the precision of the Final Map. All objects and entities in layers shall be colored November 18, 2004 Page 2 of 6 by layer and named in English. All submitted drawings shall use the Global Coordinate System of USA, California, NAD 83 California State Plane, Zone III, and U.S. foot. FINAL MAP: 15. The Final Map shall be substantially in accordance with the Tentative Map approved with this application, unless otherwise modified by these conditions. 16. All rights-of-way and easement dedications required by the Tentative Map including the Public Service Easement shall be shown on the Final Map. 17. Street names shall be assigned to each public/private street pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 7.08. The Developer shall propose a list of preferred and alternate street names for review and approval by the City and all interested outside agencies. Street names must not match or be closely similar to existing street names within Alameda County. The approved street names shall be indicated on the Final Map. EASEMENTS: 18. The Developer shall grant to the City of Dublin easements for traffic signal detectors, boxes conduit, etc. at all private streets and driveways entrances that will be signalized. 19. The Developer shall obtain abandonment from all applicable public agencies of existing easements and right of ways that will no longer be used. 20. The Developer shall acquire easements, and/or obtain rights-of-entry from the adjacent property owners for any improvements on their property. The easements and/or rights-of-entry shall be in writing and copies furnished to the City Engineer. 21. All public sidewalks must be within City right-of-way or in a pedestrian access easement unless approved by the City Engineer. GRADING PLANS: 22. The Grading Plan shall be in conformance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report, the approved Tentative Map and/or Site Development Review, and the City design standards & ordinances. In case of conflict between the soil engineer's recommendations and City ordinances, the City Engineer shall determine which shall apply. 23. A detailed Erosion Control Plan shall be included with the Grading Plan approval. The plan shall include detailed design, location, and maintenance criteria of all erosion and sedimentation control measures. November 18, 2004 Page 3 of 6 IMPROVEMENTS: 24. The public improvements shall be constructed generally as shown on the Tentative Map and/or Site Development Review. However, the approval of the Tentative Map and/or Site Development Review is not an approval of the specific design of the drainage, sanitary sewer, water, traffic circulation, and street improvements. 25. All public improvements shall conform to the City of Dublin Standard Plans and design requirements and as approved by the City Engineer. 26. The Developer shall install all traffic signs and pavement marking as required by the City Engineer. 27. Developer shall construct all potable and recycled water and sanitary sewer facilities required to serve the project in accordance with DSRSD master plans, standards, specifications and requirements. 28. Fire hydrant locations shall be approved by the Alameda County Fire Department. A raised reflector blue traffic marker shall be installed in the street opposite each hydrant. 29. Street light standards and luminaries shall be designed and installed per approval of the City Engineer. The maximum voltage drop for streetlights is 5%. 30. All new traffic signals shall be interconnected with other new signals within the development and to the existing City traffic signal system by hard wire. 31. Two empty 3" conduits with pull ropes, to accommodate future extension of the traffic interconnect system and for School District uses, shall be installed along any project arterial street frontage. The extent of this work to be determined by the City Engineer. 32. The Developer shall construct bus stops and shelters at the locations designated and approved by the LAVTA and the City Engineer. The Developer shall pay the cost of procuring and installing these improvements. 33. The Developer shall furnish and install City Standard street name signs for the project as required by the City Engineer. 34. Street trees, of at least a 24" box size, shall be planted along the street frontages. The varieties and locations of the trees to be approved by the Community Development Director and City Engineer. 35. Any decorative pavement installed within City right-of-way requires approval of the City Engineer. Where decorative paving is installed in public streets, pre-formed traffic signal loops and sleeves to accommodate future utilities shall put under the decorative pavement. November 18, 2004 Page 4 of 6 Maintenance costs of the decorative paving shall be included in a landscape and lighting maintenance assessment district or other funding mechanism acceptable to the City Engineer. 36. Roof drainage shall drain across bio-swales or into bio-filters prior to entering the storm drain system. The landscaping and drainage improvements in the bio-swale and bio-filters shall be appropriate for water quality treatment. The City Engineer may exempt specific roof leaders from this requirement if space limitations prevent adequate water treatment without creating hazards, nuisance or structural concerns. Concentrated flows will not be allowed to drain across public sidewalks. 37. Developer shall construct gas, electric, cable TV and communication improvements within the fronting streets and as necessary to serve the project and the future adjacent parcels as approved by the City Engineer and the various Public Utility agencies. 38. All electrical, gas, telephone, and Cable TV utilities, shall be underground in accordance with the City policies and ordinances. All utilities shall be located and provided within public utility easements and sized to meet utility company standards. 39. All utility vaults, boxes and structures, unless specifically approved otherwise by the City Engineer, shall be underground and placed in landscape areas and screened from public view. All utility vaults, boxes and structures shall be shown on landscape plans and approved by the City Engineer and Community Development Director prior to construction. CONSTRUCTION: 40. The Erosion Control Plan shall be implemented between October 15th and April 15th unless otherwise allowed in writing by the City Engineer. The Developer will be responsible for maintaining erosion and sediment control measures for one year following the City's acceptance of the subdivision improvements. 41. If archaeological materials are encountered during construction, construction within 100 feet of these materials shall be halted until a professional Archaeologist who is certified by the Society of California Archaeology (SCA) or the Society of Professional Archaeology (SOPA) has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation measures. 42. Construction activities, including the maintenance and warming of equipment, shall be limited to Monday through Friday, and non-City holidays, between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. except as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 43. Developer shall prepare a construction noise management plan that identifies measures to be taken to minimize construction noise on surrounding developed properties. The plan shall include hours of construction operation, use of mufflers on construction equipment, speed limit for construction traffic, haul routes and identify a noise monitor. Specific noise management measures shall be included in the project plans and specifications. November 18, 2004 Page 5 of 6 II 44. Developer shall prepare a plan for construction traffic interface with public traffic on any existing public street. Construction traffic and parking may be subject to specific requirements by the City Engineer. 45. The Developer shall be responsible for controlling any rodent, mosquito, or other pest problem due to construction activities. 46. The Developer shall be responsible for watering or other dust-palliative measures to control dust as conditions warrant or as directed by the City Engineer. 47. The Developer shall provide the Public Works Department with a letter from a registered civil engineer or surveyor stating that the building pads have been graded to within 0.1 feet of the grades shown on the approved Grading Plans, and that the top &toe of banks and retaining walls are at the locations and/or Site Development Review shown on the approved Grading Plans. NPDES: 48. Prior to any clearing or grading, the Developer shall provide the City evidence that a Notice of Intent (NO1) has been sent to the California State Water Resources Control Board per the requirements of the NPDES. A copy of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be provided to the Public Works Department and be kept at the construction site. 49. The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) for the operation and maintenance of the project shall identify the Best Management Practices (BMPs) appropriate to the project construction activities. The SWPPP shall include the erosion control measures in accordance with the regulations outlined in the most current version of the ABAG Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook or State Construction Best Management Practices Handbook. 50. The Developer is responsible for ensuring that all contractors implement all storm water pollution prevention measures in the SWPPP. 51. Developer shall enter into an agreement with the City of Dublin that guarantees the perpetual maintenance obligation for all storm water treatment measures installed as part of the project. Said agreement is required pursuant to Provision C.3.e.ii of RWQCB Order R2-2003-0021 for the issuance of the Alameda Countywide NPDES municipal storm water permit. Said permit requires the City to provide verification and assurance that all treatment devices will be properly operated and maintained. November 18, 2004 Page 6 of 6 4 tn i v . I Wall ETm Yaiigo 81°11 Yiii 13 yo* vErl ag 9,15' .. 2'a.MrngE m % p2 O WI g m i im C7 s 0 m —1 0 X rn c) —I 0 7J '0 D 221 WY r mz 2 m� O %-mz 0 mf La 6,0 Z p O 4 it 2 m 7 m p o m iZ Qm m N m 03 lilt D; Z °w� I- .� <_ � v 1 L ^ 0 T AT p y z e s TV Z flA2 m 1 p C m m ^1 if) 0107:::i a —I 22 O p, O 2 ell Z (0, F953 D y D n�mw y .. � �m za�m m tot C /\\\ om m�ii r-P Y .r. D m `Q P54/^ -C) wwm m.. n(�� �c 7�c �p m (�I,c (n Oww JC v 2m9"z D cn ' n� mmm � > � _ i y o`4; 4 T, > Ulli) IE,I 0 / o X n �I ❑ . .. . m m ro _ _ w IV < 1313 0 0 0 0 0 0 ). y b N N -+ CO W W D r- ri m° q o D D -1 mm oz 0 OO O0 0 O D m n C0) 0 73 W O m 000 m m w _ 'o ri rm 3 O 2p) mmm Z O p fn -‹ 0 ialli In 8 c y y D 0 d m c c c rrri $ r1- 13 13 m Z a D Dr F. rr- m mm 5 T T x H p y m -n In CO 0 X Z p p m O m _i -u n O O A = D co 5 /r e D m m O a rOn m 1 z < z m m -. = ° 5 r z ❑ 0 X M m zm m Z < O m m O m z z ,- O O i- m Z O X 1:7101 O m m z o z Z C G z 0 ® 13 M y z bz M I z ® M 4 z z .tom *. , r =717171= WILLIAM WOOD � . i $ • 638 DUBLIN PRESCHOOL o�as�: w`� 3 : v c 301 HARTZ AVENUE,SUITE 203 'fin 8' os' " 3 1 e6 DANVILLE,CALIFORNIA 94526 7250 AMADOR VALLEY BLVD. o�� o�, r J t d (925)820-8233 DUBLIN,CA q * ` v a• • . el 1 ki W� A x 110 ll' i . 1 9 VIP A V 8 66 mm m 1 `� o P, n n 7 mw A a m I(����II I i lm O ado0 5 z,-,, __ LA13 z _ (----- 0 mm3 gy Z 0 ZpA / , � A � �Un TIN W= 25.Ou I yw T OVA I ; ' f---.----":„1.,,,,, \ �� I 1 I Y 13 4> �_ i,. , I 1 I , I 4'1 ..___- — �1) I I O �I C+ _ C m p 40, �, /I� // \ . \ II ! I /\\\ y mm II 1 1 - - I A� a I saavonvl6 ln3ulavd3a I o T / 61 I r.,.!.,..,.. „ Nn a I�/M A"IdW00,3a s �o t — / ApT?; 9, 1 11 1n3W3/'tld 663YYd m ff�� FASFH I ,.;.;'t, l -- -1 1..,05,..'i- _I 1 663J0V'1d34 N� CD / I I, I 1 1 I �• W O°°°” 1 103'-10 1/2°SETBACK I V/ / k FT.Ac I I 11 , . 1,F -II i II I I im D I I °I I 'N BAG I I I I ._ mm 1 I - M / i '' 1 1 1 i;!z 11 I 1 1 S ASE E I I J 1i�DD ,1 EASEMENT/ e I_I I II i ii I -1 I/ n i lI I 1 II 1 _ 1 I 1((211 1 I 1 1 A pp I Z I S D gF naD 3 Q m I 9 - O i I '.1 I - 2L mD mA \ — 1 A Z I ��2M1M1 ,:- 1 1 II (1AF I 1 I I p O r^ 1[ryp�1I5 @iY El 1£T9 O 6 I ° \ 1 I•/ y 1 1 I I 1 I I I_ IYV�Tn ID i i� j� / �.� I I Q ise / 111 I 11 1��1 ICI S cA 1m� \1 I sm I .14,/ I�M I.I r:'..'',:' ll i I .. 7-- -_-_--„-_--,,,r.-- -- -_..»I I.'.:: A ME QAI� 7... TA I`II =D ' 19 r.// i I;I € 1�, it IZ I CJ A A i l i API / � ,ol m M/. 1 1 m ..._ ..-ER FENCE _....._. A (1/1/11_111-We' ' 0 ' I 12/111.1.7 �� I■ ••�i m I T I Aft — —--"'D / XII 3 ` n,9 m m Ire ����II _.— —_ nis $> _ �..a. 1,:i °'A 4 / £ Fd I Hiff I ____ _ _J _- - € M . 1` , , , , , ,,,_-_, I :I 1 eil WILLIAM WOOD DUBLIN PRESCHOOL ",„ *v s 1 I 301 HARTZ AVENUE,SurrE 203 7250 AMADOR VALLEY BLVD.1 A 4 DANVILLE,CALIFORNIA 9$526` , ` 0 (925)820-8233 DUBLIN,CA q * L ` 4 ,. / / / / m 1 Li A 4___k � / 1 4I01 II l $$� / F / -,N I �m a 1999F; RRB / z' p an ttrtt 67 / 2 $ n0 2 mom' .,-a• e'-s• 90-0 1a' €8 n° h F 1 °F 0 1,vill _in 1}'*- STrem D 0 i ir '1 MO r -'d'–————.1 1 Li 114 1 111111Prea 1 ----1 Z t ttt to I N 1 e1 II M 13 / Emma* /rili DC I a I � Q low, 'H'i J ,:, w i I a m / / Mar ! , .. ------------"- mt E49EH@IT `z IU-d unary py ZN-d I5-0• i I. ou.1111 4 i r/I � • `I §HO i % , -N / ' r �_. y�I O . III S I , n rr I° " m i lior La i �I t p Tom. W e: r I i 1 —�� � I ! N 7 I I I I \ MN& Min TJ / 1 I � i t 4\ti\/ \ qF Ij� / /11011,..---------.\ _ ———_ 1 \ I i I■�MEM �aIN� AIM e , e �� / / 3; a ,, ik. nor..1 r i kalf 0 , gill 24,0. \ 1 o I .t.1 Iii ii i i S. - mr I ��1 1 1i,, FlRE gCCl88 \\limo 9_, �, l �a+tli�*tom 'fl+:� '.', i,��� (1 o ■ SEI v'`/' a'ati' y �s�.'� ■I.1 I I 10 4, ' ' ';vf&-1,7:,Im it........,t,Usg il . .Z:ZiatM' o —:_. 1111 I 1 t. ` --- _.�__ I 1 1 —mow-. - -T - II I j n 0 II o ' 9 E I I-�� -----41111tillip..0, ■I1111111.111111111i 141 11111 I II 11 I ill"III I II II II I ill I I I Ill I IW li V , L L a --- G E P A R K \\W A Y ------ N N • WILLIAM WOOD DUBLIN PRESCHOOL ,S * ∎' , �''��QPFA P I gal 1I: C' I I I 'I I :c "T ��_'° °_1 13 1 9 o H 4$c 1 1 0 301 HARTZ AVENUE,SUITE 203 a? + $ _ 1 46 DANVILLE,CALIFORNIA 94526 7250 AMADOR VALLEY BLVD. o °�� S ;3 (925)820-8233 DUBLIN,CA 4 * 1 ` 1 a# r 4 > 1- f t I " t 0 LP 4 0 _r _ c.231 z $ �a G m n ' �1 .1r M = m V o Stf I " 1 1 33 r c—i>. gt: il;t::, , 0, , �t�}�14 a s 6 r § q O t►1®� I ,N 1411 r s=iD gig C s 8a I ®® C ,. :wl:� ll m . I F z .w F1 > '''11 : ail' -� Z E 1ii I ' ' t;.: y I4i /:/ �. a O Mild 1U___1 . e + p pa > $ I 0 _ ` co z ; p :::_se :�—I it I C '0 A r D ®IZ m `1 ' ► !C 9 I E1 F 11111!III 'i m 3 , ga D .. ti ■E1I 1- i i.,-...-__ _ .1.,I.,.,:•,. _� i i itJiIIn,.el Zi 1 z m z z 4 iiI 'II 151'0 E Z ( 1:14 D � 1 — a m iv Z £ �tl _ . 73 ;``gam ■��� I"� EMI! IIIILI i? I III en i '4:--..1= ',1'..1 i g R 0 tip ri 4 t. a mai 1i� _� ,' - - i € 0 err rr —IIIIiill� ,� 0� . _ Q fI . C) '. _ .a$ O f-_ -n m m m ate, % 1IV! WILLIAM WOOD DUBLIN PRESCHOOL (,,,:fi. , '""6 y 4='� l:e,; ; 1 11 ,` I: ( IIirlc rte � :,41 3 w c N 1 x 'F 301 HARTZ AVENUEUITE 203 i s e DANVILLE CALIFORA 94526 7250 AMADOR VALLEY BLVD. 4(925)820-82DUBLIN,CA * ° 1 > J 4 ) o t0 (D 7.1 0 N A W N o • P . 6> N A co N 0 Z TD000�1 w2> OD D mmmT n-m DAD2-I 7ODm> O(ppm mvZ7CAZ Go> D �-i-i� 22023.0 D DA-1 Z*Z *DS,�RC-i> 00> 077_1 �ZOm VZJ O Amv0O' 1mr Tm r mmXA2O1X OmO5m2DmOzZr O2DX rnXD1m0 -or- Ir- w222 DDO DA r zm2 C O 1 '02r zmr pA mm2T .1CD In OOKEZZO -ODm Dm rr- 0>00>Z(0n m<O21r MC - OD3in TO<F3.-i Mr mr <.mmoo (n<zDm0 z 000m WOAD Ain701mn-(n ADA °ZO -01'23 <Amm X m>O C 177_ r 1 zm --01<r m0mmr 13120 C r D_i rnT 1077 --I �0 A ° X T.r X 0- m m;0 X -C-)0I-0 D _ 0-0„23 0DA (nO i iZOAG)00°O -10077 077,4DmmJ XmO0 zm3�<m ml- O z1p DTAmDO Kc mA< XoC Oov'mc'>O{ <Am w z _1_200 r-n0 x0 2 m m Z ° D 0 m m D A m 0 A m 10 m m A 1< D 1 z z< m CO 2XOTOo° DOZ On m mOcnOO>O r'°n-10 -�r Dp 70.10- 0X00 0-<-10 (b 00 DO Om- -n00- D, H n O 2°p A(,.'- m-lln--i ozO (m.>OO mE_AO Oppm Z �OyyymzzZ 00m 33 -I 1-eA-40m1 mr41,0D20m0 CM oD°w Z>Dp?4- zO 00 c.1pT 11ZOcz < 1A� rNm zoANy.v Dm-i Zmm X�rnr01 "Hp-1y o0-1> -rTioxz0 0 O°O2c {Ar )2 2 O>DD°DOT m0Irr'mmOAm>Ar -1°D° O°O33om 20 XD TmC� r.-<*-FMC -1 fll'"Z !OC Tr HMO-1M C° 1 000 cow. NFZ_Z SmIO 1_m D- G) jm_ r10ZD r>2m<Tmmz m Oom 0DT_X77 DA c0 c>m'Ix X m AZ m. m { 0 -i-i-i-0 rt- ° mDO 'i 2Am om D °Zm01(� 772_3x0000-Dj2m DXrnO zp3pm ZD_ O1 ADTD T2p00W A °D-Ai �1p AD 023 .0700(1 O O zS2r D(nn H <m1<O m20 m- z mmmozDr °Dm �m D2�m2- {AOm 0m AA2O P2 1= 2rn1 22- o C 3vD Dpm mp�S° 4 min mz(T-) ommD mzc 10<oz 00> TD 0 zDDN.iz-i z>,>,_ -izmzA0 mm* mZ0o< r 0-i rn0m a m z00m 1 DA0 1Dm z1Zm<C1 DOS m1O Tp°m mZC rD 'rnrO�Z�n ? .211 �� 7Di m<m7Dx1m DUNi O<� pA=zp 2y�1 70�1nZ� mm C��OC (mil m2 X?<!2 Drn-nm0`2 2 Opp Ixr1{n n cniDAm2 -<ip3 '0_4 �Or1 Z�� 1 ZHzSD AwDDO HI .. 77Dm .OAr 2 O mrn ZAmTlrm00m '002-*-i °mz?? CO 3m Urn°A noOODDr m CO OOm �OnD 1*T-O?� mn1 mmc 2202 01200 2Or0 1�° mr m 000OCD m7C 015<�OOmpD AmOC =2z��m D 1O Z°y, �7<zrn < mz0 _co � ?mcamZmm �Om 00Oi mvOmm a{AF CO _ D m fn G) 41 C Z �n C In 3- -I -i \JJ zmprr r Z A_mm_mm m yADm mr zZ T<0Z -i m0- 4) r we Dm-p Dn o_iw m fn mD m4< <Z z-lO m O DmS_ CO Om�mGO) Z0Z 2 00(nnr,m Zoo=OZ�m-zi�0 OZ�m m�0oA2 m m0 OmOm z7JAHm2 rn 3-1c m-{ 4�OON00 mDA -Ni y'- (nm Amr ODA � 3D2C7 �O m rD- AzFD Z m zO2m T= A_Omm 0 Z0 m 0D(Djm D Cl) <cm z6 p*-1DAZ zZ< Am-i 53{0 DOf� 7^ o2prir TpA C fD OO�imi AD DXDxm�mz-mm °y<A �ZDDmmD D T3D DoIXr Z mSOC=n 6 •°-0im 1� {xZOzp 2m� Oi a6600 mA�O y00 0. 1m 3fi1A mOp m m m m rr zr<m MAlmrpO m3 0 0 NAO,Z1 m mr m<_ m m r °o< 2 cnwzm>C 012_ O °OA A D Z�3 1?T O 2 m x07mN'IT, °ZDIm Z 71 m.Xm�{ 1(Djp O �O.ZDI DZ w or m ?.._<7.-p (n1 xn 1 Z Cu AZ W C� 0000 n •Zrnld Z0m mmZ 7012=•CO ym1Dn O{D 2 m mw mtn C2D-iCmZmD mm 1 1T°��_2 A Zm m v OZ-c3,00 N� m(nm ZDA 2 2 Df!/Oyy 77 _07010277 DZZ0 OZr 200 m 277 mZm2 C-10X1 O2 m r2(0 Ill I-.“Om ,Zm1(Zn m c c)MOM i 21Wr_(D)0Z11D- z011N12D Z N mmo � (n 2(1 -{ m�A DAB { • • i mO° m U�r O y o�DaiTo zvrC �i 201 21__02 m C mz '� <0 ° ZmZ ZOO mm-. D AZ - mmmn° N00mm >Dw1 "nOmN m f0 vi02m 20XCOD N _ 077 0 0D� �00 Ofn1 O A1_r0 01 1 n °mmcno D<zD1���_ 1O 1 0(077°20 Dm m3D D ° 2 1y20 1 mA0 3- r O z3 0 <0 A 3 z mm°O(n o m 773RD mm m 0 D1mA > P1 rn =10=1 �m -= mZ rm-� 1 A j v�A m- zG)C m -_IO m Z D(nZ�O Omm z 3 0 1 A m 1Dm X 2 m 3X m < o 1�=yam >z (c') 2�Z°rnm °A14zimzODrr mom 0D3DD77p 2 m . 0-om r_3<" 0 O < Om ,-imm 1 <O m Doi f0 D<m MX Z Z O m-4m O?1 >'i0 mp C2DOr(AZZm ,Zi� Cmo7rc41 A .4iN..SOD SmziA O ?Crm- z Om0 >0 2� 1 < G) o-i0 CD C m -4> 0 r -0{-DIZZY °m m D°D020 m ZCI 1Dm C m< Tim °Sti O D Z 1Z A f�n 2 m-Omr m X*zAOm y O (n< 0 tnrD z Z Z-r Al '"1 m m m ° XI- ZZ m 0 �FO m m m 2 mfmrl O m -<z5 °x Z rn 0 N iv A N 17C m5- °m X1034)10- m2 OAO 0?� <m 00 co: 01zzOTn 00DTTD 3032 D*AOD1 A1*m D°D'aD _001 m Am n ? w N -•DO mD�mZO<m�= aw N SAD 30 <m 2 < CO.(i1 oy00C1 �au3XOZG -mimm-z DS.DmD rm 1OmS P OK FO D m D m mm C C m X 3 0 O O Z C A A 2 "<E1822-(;), D r n m m p g °-m f^z 5.3111 Z z<m Z ow c0mg_1Om0D=m0 0T„x_0gZDm c>moz2'zynm mmz .c.o. m° (mn(zn mn9lo0 Am<o)2fn ,(1?-1mv SN(n 22o ZOAD mi<�m DOXmO 2O 0070177C_inC<m3X 77.010(0)2«ZX PmOCmtn<X°Ow"' m*0 D mZ "'I 1 AZD10�0 m0<om-i Z3m 0°1�mZDA<A m3 0m0 773=� On ?2�rp04)G)-0,-- Q§OO(AO(mn-i-A1 �D1AnX<?1DmDD 4Di°m Z DO n n ZOm11,� �plrrn10m1X go 1= y-<Dm�DmOT3p ?2_rD �n�� CO �� 22000X0_- m0� vm�mm �zm�=�Ozprz mmm 2 O O �Onzvoc <-mj T (DoADr >mco _00..1 Zm Dmmo *100 0 _711 1O o100(Zn1(Zil0p AO2 °OZCZC20? (0'1(Zn00'4mOAm� DDm- c m0 rn m O1T<02-I 20T�T X00 1A"'mmc_�D'(11 >TOW >OZ° D0 �S 40i c�c0mj7m1 AoD02�A � 77(X100_ O-z m?O A _7X1 O O 0rommmDZ mmp^2 mDZ X03 Cn'A�y3N0 °�yz OrmD ZO mD CIO- o 'O T rp m KT mZ T C Dm C v m 0°mm {<C)oD Co g-. af^�'<�1'ia2p 3yZO Xr2r >0 0m mm0 O O m cnzmmcmnz�- ODD>O 0mmor 0m0 (zi) Oz z z DOOx-Im AO`c'1m Dz3 DmADwm�OZ DD mm m °p 0,„.. 2m (n ZZ --A ?} 0 z m nX°m_Mmo Xm,Xmm 1 r m 1 1 mZ 0-2 O DO 1 Om Om Orn1.. ;2 rOn C m X_ z0 zOADY ;;�00 Dp2Z m m p2 MM mZ1 x CD v1 m m A-N10myD AD{=X m,t1j0 OAZo1D0°o2v OmAC �mDz vm 4-Z OD T m * mXAZf1nZ0XA mODr 200cpo mZC r 20 Dr 1D- mCD°2m OOACC -1c-1 2 2z Or m_cnzc. m MmA> 011°0 00 < 1ZO n I 70100_Dm°Z�(n D=�f-m r0(ZnNO D-O-i ai Dm '- r O�°o'mm DmXWO Zor OX,>-1m�= Do M-OZO ND2z oc m O c xDm° Dm m A{D X12 z0 °m m Z cpD3T� cXOm 20 Dm0<3px{2 x�e7z Dm 0 T c0?O 2 0 m mr000p°002 10p1r m1AG)� OZ D1 T Oz XmfAi1� rN31� 1_r DmX77(n-omm"O rm2� °r711 3Z C) (DX 0 O O < OZAo20r- 0)(73 cm0lmp mt3n A m2 1 m CO m mo0>TCCA G)p6rno XD* ��>O�OiAmoo m�my mmcc) OZ z OC) 2 y z-4o OmZ mOiDO (?OZOmi <c 0 mcD'1 C) m rx0M0 0D D0 y0y03 °c10 Ar(n��_02�0(An mim >0z > OD 1 T1f0 > m Z OOOO��Do° O rC mmNcp zX m L A2m0<1 Z°0>r mm() 7c�o QXZZO.00Zm -Timm rX° 1 X Z 3 Xr Z Zz1 Om Z CO OA 0X0770 O 0Z mC)2 0 D p3 101 r 0 31, X z mXr3lDOmm =1034( 11m�z mm m m x rn1D0 mm omz-<> 0°Z TX7C 100 p D mm mZ 111 �m O mD0 D mZ3CZ�<OD <Zm3 T m Z mmm77 0< Z2� 004' r- nO Air 1m1 �_ 412 2m 0 < Z O X 030 D v m- m 1 DTZ CO 0 �1 G)mzo m11r" m:omv < xoX Om A O O o D271 DCC m3�Ov;0 Z1A T Zm <32m 11-02 70_-1I_2 co D m3 OX 1Op OT w O Cmcm2OIAp 011 > Fm()) cr 0 0 m , mr6Dmmm, mmOHD 000 2,m JpJ Om nxn�m <mD Oz > �3c r 0 m m3m(nOKmKw mom m m2p mm m CO 3 2 mC-ITA- m2ZN-I C)r— rvv3 OOm= ZOn mN O m�� z n mDm 0< m1'A A fnOm m� A X frT1 m�ZO-2i ODrX2o �Sz rX {m mx� °Xr T 1m rm m z 1 m mOG)- m0 m m0 • m C T z m ,- O> Z p 4/ �mm0 2 O 1 XX � D T 0 (- XmOmA OmDr-2 m moD 1 m < Dm1• z1g m-I y O m Z D T xmrr zc O ° Z O o < x fOo mm m0 1O 1 -(Oil -ri m c -i 0 ..� 1 Z o D 1m `L ° 2 0 (� 4i mD -IA r co 0 z DOX m m2 4) m(n 2 m O m m z 0 m ° O °11 2 0D mm co m.Mo 1 a)nzc Ayz r. r Om Z mO 0 y0 mmz��$f m N N N N N GI OM 1 O-p°ADD o-<. D r W F 2 coo m axn ro 4)m nAKp XZ77 z m '�I 0 mZD,n Amro' Z' NpTNTT DmDmO01 DDX101=-� _2X'00 wr 10 Ol CmmmO mD A O m �,��oy z�l.�3 3,0% DOTAm-n °zzxOmm z(n umim2O�i° O<tmn<O <n DDO1x�m1mZ D< m 7�z�osnAZ C. w2 mmlmmm nO°-FNA� D'�p0m2 C 2mCm-Zd 2Di-Om Ur OZ0.1 r r-> X ,nin m oyzmn(n p° 3 lrDmi>rniv0 ZmOr1m071 Om COAmAX mrr37yy1 m-IrAA-(1°177 r'm co yo •�o if°v�<� d° 9 m rn D fTI m°m f0c flTI D mm TX0O mT T Z ZO 0 z s 1 �m°moo) mm m �Zm tnA < mr) 9 Z T C `3 G)�1 mm °- 1 0 0°M NF."CI b' z(rn°nm°�bD {mp0-40-0 2mTp�OmO 0mT o �oTxmNDA4)mo 0°30; -I '? 3..77.,2°O �m m O_p 10D_c p cz 0X ZTODDm2DyZ X m $[oz>°5gfm z • xn Tzim• zCH 203?1zT0 Az1DXDrZn m10Cm zDA r O°X Z2 m41 OA• D -Di r tiz�Am n mo roozXm nXZm�r(Zn S2Xmmm� OOOzx Z�AmOOmOpOx 0X 0 0 Z z�� �zo° I = Am D o 0) DOOZ `2_z°m 1 Z m Z-c *20 rD- fT1XmC<mm 03rD- rm C m m<%.-2. °°g3. A y / m0°mD 1 `X 112, D0 0 0r 2Omzm 2 mar 1 a n m I/ • SSmc*(n°� m2(n1XpC xyyo-ir1 AmZC A 1 D3 c 10 ai)z,�Igf. mNVAD1�Z _7020,XO 0mI 70___70 �.0m1m X °°Drm° 0 O� �'�°�F� mm i . moNV{ic{O Z�r-g-7c1 mmr20Dz mA2mrn ccoimm«m(An<(?z °-1 �m°m ozyD Nvr a Om�TC.,m1 �2 1200 m03p<TRXI OOC Xm mmmllm- 1Dm -Di0 0 >s = o < m m zmzx zz F D O mrt10' m °m2_ O 11 > an _ D c�'izo nm�o� 0 z t)OpDZm=.. m.00Z0°T WOZ1Op'0 m0-i41v c?c0mm-i-°amOX 2Z `mF, �;;rl0 1 s oz °mo n • 1 N1 zoo m 1 Xmm 1°°m-1 010 0 1r Ssm zC 0m0 m pOF rn 4,14p0- y m m r 2`L-1A1<ri� �mm23 AZ 37cj03=Om 1�ZmZ Or ZCo-I2mm�m� XT p Zl mDwOp mac -° Z y '' pmt*(.)X2 ccmmm00 1ZX_i' O0 AOD*2m A11 m 1 T m mm co •re`4 T w �� D cn m 1°>1D m0O T 222 mG)ZG-)ci loam AnizCm2°�AD4- MX mm g ° �� °A°c-ino-' r c =1(1x000 r73„mm0 °mo›,m 2=17cm mm00zrncmpmr zu) xm c,` mgpwaco ^" ;mmp�m 7C 2 fZ_X- mam °o2,- -I O(Xiam?om I- o_' (!)ocOO�m`o mz °n cC) _� or min"'y r~�i�� '�" x mm m'10D i 2 f00CD O m- O X c°ZmmX_ A b'3. Z o'a o° Q m Dpm¢m3 I D 5r- =00Xi_=-1.7 Dwo 1 O��i mr AND � O0 102 N ypo C f . pA N •• mXmmD Z 0°A(7�pp f0�m3 m-0 U1D12 1m �NAm�DC 1m Q a $� m i �'S z m C O D z m oOm A0m D ai mm 701_< vm Or 121 SX 5 z pi;" c D •� OrD SZM yX�r1Z '�Z mO(n OOAX S• AS mXZ0�0-�-11 mp a wom0 ,-rZDmC {�nnp� n�Z 2DZZ _iOOm X< r<p� D< �m o ai O z02 0° r gxmroz mC000UD 1m-<Or 1 oil O• mU 28(mn DTO m1 {3 yio x 1m1 :(IA 1�� �m°mz(mn OmO-OimDm An<m2"< 0000 Am2--0D°<m>z rm m �Z? xm 77 ✓� 0- 00- 77mOcmA° �S�OfnOZ 1�_703.{0 000m7XCmonn0 CO m 'sg " 70c OD °a �C1-�yy `�a a o01rn D-Ci00D1D cOornl1(n0 _1772 cnz2-X m30m<Om A §om 0m2z0 m,O ° lii pCl OOON1 vq)7011_0 OCODDO<S� _0 m< 1°O�Oz�(nDO(n C 0 in 2j o� 2 m(mn >m m D 7 nv:, n A� i O 0°20_0 r Z aXoOZ rz �m T° r• D=om 10 Z,z Z 1 71 a *{ m z n 0,> z D r X m' °z r C Z �m 20. mD0 r S vmi<=D`e_ mODn 2 *pZZ0D �y lvmb-IZmpam0 1 • n�'�' DOT m to y� TCNZ p1 °Hm-i f0 ."(Ol Amz z= I_m 00 7p7mS_{c StO m �o zDn 71 z�0wx ZSA< 7> z m -I° ?f<T1 D (milOm-1'�2 �u ��" (°nmD mm J) O rnrm mm G) m < ° { 2�2G) p A Z p A mu) <<n H UU=gym oD DT �{D to- con M 0 7K z o2r U,n� z 3.0 O ` T00 < Amm �r vD m Ac° Nmop m D<� w_w� F��I �_I zT { C ZZ _ 'tmtla 1h1�1 i m m m O O m pj 9) Z7I w{ DzH r-i s M2 U o m t40 11 iS.-.4 m « 6 \ ' O-ci O� I� C o u. do O { ■: `' — t Z n� 1C 4 ea \ C7 d m> Rl to D 1.74 y' z 2 3OV'17IA co I ti H )m i 1 v) �.(�' hN'x- G °' 7 �m-i D PP { 9 O O �G)ZOGmV] 1:� ,. mz�Z F • �o m o :,` ,� '3.J- ��-� �N 8 m Z [Tl L� C f y < "'�n< � Zmm�'� C �mz o �p ;x °°1 O • c) Ai A= NN '3 m�Ayzd on l� m A or-, a m c M mom w.0 c ? o��� `5oaz ``,Fk L _' a `� Q �� ��. d �y-i m 00al v w o -=1 O m m �` R Cl? o - 6 ,-4 ' 44- - z C) Z n L ~r*- ,, (RI A.L2131i>JIi(XI o m o a w'�Q O-o 1 -, �� �) ? �i ` �0 3 N = (n D D pit �/ F CO Z.--r--,m p v t7 0 0 z ! v 1 �' O °`2 .. j z p N z rn •� c, , i O o Z z i ANNA rN V 33 Rgi 0 M LEVARD Z � m z a. _ o 0 y 03 2 2 S z. O �i c - its izZ 7a g r a co r D - t; - m N , y D L/ ' Fg ' 4 .,- > ` . ,, FL 333.83 Z O /�j x BIO-RETENTION AREA o n,+• t-0 i ° ,-,. 'tit VI OVERFLOW DRAIN `vZc 1F y. / FL SWALE 333.5 Ir m, f GRATE 333.9 q, c- = cF - INV 337.77 O �4�� ° < c owa =.:E ° , c•. E A or C R6 ,! MST 0 1 1 •,> D W W xi, 1 w o ° W Z Z c, . z rt�$ 01 78LF« 6° PVC O o +c° O 01 ®0.009 c m 0 I Pm Z _ � { ' ' FACE OF EXIST Z y �v FENCE 0 PILLAR Z < \ a��+� 6< ° 332.74 0 j \ � lS4A,S i<-/i„ /i r,i: f% irrR\ N�' \ 1 I \,, I• r . '��`3�,. ‘1,,,,,, --- 1 I FL 332.60 \ ,9 F - IV o > 26 '. I 6° SAN LATERAL ^ 'SEE -32 -- .I r� . °i PLUMBING PLAN FOR CONTINUATION .m y Z .a/ a A �`t /� EXISTING P.G.&E. A a T • v 2 x Fri, r„ -- ,•- TRANSFORMER PAD - 334.95\ \ ° e Frl 1 Ff .� D D q rn ��- x 4" SUB DRAIN °z o D Cl)VJ �O • SG�' Q - m Gti'<°4 °y I_ — —�w� i SAN SEWER CLEANOUT p= 8 �_ �����20�p� �g1 ?•8 W I.-"<4, 0444, ly�� $1 II BIO RETENTION AREA I 6 I z +``,, `14��94, ,q� No/ �c�,tc��•n S3S�T®o AL S3 Y , j �~ 3S� a",; - .._. OVERFLO 332.7 ''IVA 0 �p.gyp �ti �..... 0 C' . 60 GRATE 331.4; INV 331.07 m . 0 y�, - ›- ___K - ,_ FACE OF EXIST F,f�. .. b�<.s+ - - X � �'� x .,' - FENCE 0 PILLAR 332.73 r— NA Ff' ��+,'r - ��A _ 59LF 6° PVC T q�l, 6�'�+ X• Tr!y A ��' I, ' 0,�A D I 04 - . 9 , . 3Tc# ,`d FL 38 F+ •6> f �, A, ?p 0 i ,p oak SEE CURB ADJACENT TO 4,14y.z h? J : o i PARKING STALL DETAIL 1 A fin. s - £££ r ,a_ 1 '�....'4y • ; ••+, b a 3 AC ON 7° CLASS II - x ,09. X3 G tK gam!.\, �«r�a f, •0 AGG DASE-(MIN) o O W m; "' \ ' � pc, t I ACTUAL SECTION TO BE DETERMINED A > ££ 01_X3 7:g X3 .Y f ',' ,\\• ` 4 1:>6..., BY SOILS ENGINEER BASED UPON 3 D 6 Ol vu2� �:�� r�: �P < V £�£ 1 ` °R° VALUE TESTS. U) D m L j u :I yn . �C Z gUt� w� 'r p, \~:;� A I 1AfFTH,-3 I LNG CURB DETAIL D z z D EX 15`x15' 0. \ Ap�3 �� FACE OF EXIST n 27G CROSS SLOPE, .} `�. \ 3 C 1 SAW(:UT D.S R S.D. ci -"y C' FENCE 0 PILLAR pa I�i4X. i I -b 7 « ,_ - 332.97 ' LINE m ? _zN i cm-i - 'g -- --- ' 1''' 9E'."�`� - '� fb ':/ PROPOSE-Y AMP ^" " m O<m o o lilt" SEE ARO4 PLAN FOR DETAILS D o Z m p s ` r c N �� •• ; ,,_.o; r r,. _.....,._ EXISTING-TING--DRAINAGE�ASIN a r<i n>_< '- . :A' .�. _SE--T�TODIFIE�_ ._ z z =n n 7,-; 1 mmo z x ! ?` I SEE DETAIL FOR z o -I - -- g?':+�o4�C'�i''s'tsi93jyr34S*: er�.,.e Cti'�e6T�.�ir�.' s `9X"4 �1' "�� °w+w� G2= '�fi 'b "''� --£ ..ADJACENT W o m r c, s'?�K:aN_?a.'y'.t' .sSS7s�S.b :+F' 'sr i?a'h ...s. g4:4,34k �*s`*s? � 00 0 k? 0.`' �� TCLIMMWAGE- S@T _ -- I a)- r ,44 I `O*Z m -i 1-D' s Sa-ire --m T m to v:"-- 21? - a '2 m 0 �!-'�_ � m rR fox -sc -x .•• M _ - ", .0 -m # { A v,m> ,-r Td� o$_ - QZ '_ - n - r, arm EA l••-X $ tat z A G7 W •�• � tT - Ey Y - - -0 _0,- Vr m-- mm ;z-D- - g m-v '' "c: w r'l D m OC D µ i A °SI O m m> .y* D m - m -_ O D m r<n mAT-• Am Z� FF m°K 0r- mNi - m� opc.. moo ^m r a v E �y;m a boa ;v y ti z m v�m �O O rO £ o mA ° q I m� 2 tn£ P O mr�' S D °-1 D 0 Z r N Z `^mA", 'o'Q� n� 2 UH co `� 1 m -,.Z1 r m Lail A at .‘1,`§' 2 N -i -o r i"' o No �, goo �,1" 00 Y r r 0X j(m/1 XI am a `o2t� �� g Zo 3k A a� v' r Z m m ��00 2-,�S �n }c n AAA p S� �� z z - Soap �°,E� i �i 2 °°,2 min m = c, ao`� no a 41 2 < 0 A o . o o� �O + o a m e 2 zm 00 tt - o x-- 2D**MM**-ICCm -n CO Ae 0 pm�omoxzzx 9 �� m< . a- W r=OnmZ�OOoy m 0 i faY -Co < 1r- to+rn 0' t mm m 86mTmo -a0Z<mDmAxy C .moo.e -az'gig m s yo EmOc�,—rnoo� 7, 7'��� w-1 va� m G),xzDmmmmc i®`e i�)',�i c)0 f y10 Txm°zv-°°rn Z ,gab® o es, z �yv mr!'y�*Hxxoo E Z 4. 11,-,40.,1 0 ET ▪ co td o m*mom S x1 Dmr zma,z0 m ® o o m 0 o_m 0 Z S m 2°41 n 2° Z x , n 0 r 6p,4 = \A, m0<mD§7Jrr---mD -I D \z 33 < R C �_ UH o r0,o ompcNi�D1 D �� r. - a�x� �v (Cr N,outzrzn<�-{'- m oo awrtn< � z �zNm °mADZOcn2= o' m - oo ,oN N ;x S cg rrl mi1 -=-I y 1m AZm°< o 2 i a zn°,o m e�&., '"µ. m m p o"� - 3....0 m m N°O D m 2 0 w =,,, A emm w-m ."'f p.. aimpo Tym°DAZ D o Q Q °' �mw w• w ° n Do° OV_mrw0 3 g y 2 g 'zs ?2 N "mow A r• 5m z rmcnn I,-1 Z a �' �^ n ° "�'m OocaOQ NO m1r�i� 3 A 00 r-il�I I s 2 "a Ca Z'`o in tO''''�U S n 0) 6'0-17 ", u^ w I -P- 0 a X • m O ID MI Ai ; Ilk m 4 m® Ii'- - N ' I O rz CA 0 / z l � 'XISI1NG .‘,,,,,\, / / -1 .G.& E. EASEMENT r. � a / ty � 6 Jf/ T * l r- -0 Z _ / m D D 1. I mn Co r— - I / O .. �� CO / m zm r <x o / o X / z r - I F .'- ` Z ��, / C - \\ ,ate' T 1 \ , 1 =y y:0 �/, „ Lzi_,_. ______ ___ _ _ ___ _ _ , __ __ , __ __ ________ __ __ „..... 1 __ __ ._______ __ __ ________ __ __ r w.t,s.st ., , ., . m S`,TIZm D.x ,..,_ -1 -a-1 Olin 0z, N z mti.n ocz .. I.... .... , _.„„. . ..... . r 2 (7 1 m m m md=a x { �moIj co mm Ar ro`1 p '�� 1:-13 D mvzi zc 1 F own i DJ m2 ��m I m rn € D Cl) ®_: ; o/ D �� ,�: - 9§ n' . 17, , : I m �e D r -+ i I h . mr Ft r ;4: . t' I sr,<.`..:;iatea,`` Z Dg �i+�,.� j II--:‘41:!,..:111-, . 0 'rl 1 etj T r :€_� _ -- � -._ _1. _> Z Fig m< M,,5 �; a 4 m y z� n O m O mg m ygm< O = fA 8 S m0 < M ..- Ei yozg0 Z Hoo x '7 —i i i r 733-22D •• gym° co o"_ao o� 4 m e ° O(r-1DZ=1 go iT-r�C no il p 2.0Nz n 2cl m o . °a <�mz=O x gpo s ^ [3� (� OO(nD v �2N d(n 4_ N ° . 'C o ° m0 z :ip: -m 13 o rz ZD N2 0 o -� ITI 8 s ? , N z 5 z z ; gm TI 7i z � Z m i'z i m a H D irii'',6V1,, - O ii ����.Z7 1 m m $ n z <g -I 1 o �; li O O O yy� o i, m 1 y � °v rn A°= D .sj D lr #4.*: `n c2iro�c$ 5>u) Q R o Oxm cn a)m z p o � g +- _® i n D ig 2 aim �1- D of ., A r r ° z Y n 0 Of (T A W N O 10 m V ,T 9, A N N r, �m�11 N p (4�O Z N(n 0 0 D 1 0 1 1(4D '0�� D D(4 �1 m(4 O(4m O Z O(4O D ODD 2�1 �O(4m D 1 D O Z 0(4O D fl C m 1 O c. 9 r NxA m`O-3=tzrrm m<z(4 mpm OH H ZO m � megm mD,_ mAm m30Ap mm ?AA „-<OiO�Dm-IA pm-i mKA m 00� 0 H Z<w-I> -I 0 _1mm C-lrmm oo N=om -1-mmO 012 D C0 C C x 01 x > (4Z! 1m 2' mD 2<Om m C0 12 r m W m 1 00 mD 1 01 Pm(4 210.0- ZDOZ Dp2O < (4 D m(4 O(4D 1 om Op� 2 O- (412 S O(4N10 O1m ZDm 0 moo (4 r-10m O 2 < g-'m2C . mmm 2 in0� O O_ m O 1�10mZ mOD tnZ1 m .pZr m1 1�N x mo(2oD 0p1z< Tx m m-I �m-1z0 o0OQ Am m °OD zmm2 mmX<m 1 m's. 773,9 ppmmZ xz Zp< -02(nz (4zm0z m N n (n co 2 O N20O(4 c1 Fm -(4 2x.2 Omz '<p`2 1mmcRl 210 m,0 Zf/,�..z m iz �O m N0 8-1 0 D C .Z�] .-f17 mm1 -„ ozz,m ,OZm10 1N 0 01r xmm (4m(4 mmzi2D .20 9oz mmm=1, 00 spy pvm0 C=Owp 0 11-.-JI N Cl) mzo oDjyz mDDD MO 733 Tr -Z ZME Oz=m m�z,0 0M55 moo O? >=0-1_ xm L7n MTh? 0=ap-o� AO-m+pD O (p m !2 * O Z Z Z Z 00 O< K D-t O p p M W Z r C” D m NOm o -) O 2 1 1 0 0 73 UPJ 1 N 1 m !C'Z m 1 1 m x wr m-I0 T O- 0 0 PJH D 1 Z 1 r An O C 0-1 A OZ n1 OS O+ mSm -1D Sr <m 0,V O1 2xDm mC 0K 5.>-m (V 0< Cg ,m< _imODD m1 m 2x 2c 01m 2 O'OS,m={ Z CO NDm 2 1 1O-n02 D r0 m Z(4 m0 mAl2m a d C 0 mm ozmom moc y, 1c mmz -<-.m (mD,�m ozr*xz om Om mxznp _,. 3(473 mmmv- pmrcgma rt C 1 Dr <OZOD Om- mD pO (4 x 0x2. 0-Dj20 2K O� 0a°2p0 ;xf7m <2 1DN Szm-0 p.o `3 .L°..n 'c L. -I Z Z 2(4 02.Z0-(I CON ON .m <<Of111 -.0 .Zm)O mp zm 0m <O i'n9.(1 m (4 om. O4m, 92 m O z_o RI H e m -I M N 20t�*m m zx 02 O m ca m N mm m m�0 mm Ax m m O,M SZ '+<�0D <O O3 P Z mO1 7:q-O71-4m m I-ill to 5_ , Z mm O�DSrD- 1�D arc Cn HOC Oi tOiim `�LZ7p m��iD D� Zm� mO�-'pD m0 �ZN ,9,903 OSOmw -,t��rt h m O z z1 gm 0-10 0P 20 O 1m (4m A'.1> ,m rxm of r m �cAn w 0 C W O=m 0213 H O O m m m 1 SOD D, C*m r-x j= x M m 3 2< Z p T. x (4 2 O Z -10-0 C-0 m :tit,N n 0 Z * OS Z(pV m m D(4m mM 10 Om Z(4 <0 m DZ r m >M mm m ?Z-O oz ›-Fri mOmC W-1 (40 0 moa aaq A a O C � -U' D 01 2" (4 2 O z my O Z 1 c m 1 --4.-i v 0 m 0 z 0 N m m *I 0< 0-10W'-m r ,m C Z m O 1 m 2. 1 °>Q°73 i O m O m 3 2 2<C 2 m O C x 0 m T1 m 0 0 v 0 1 m (4N O S 0 m 1= ',-±Z-2- [.� Wes.` r 10 XDDO 07373 =9 0m n0r. m*L _m Dmxo> (Dnm g_ <03z0 D mOm Dp�O OvG)o L7 �-C`�•� o� m mm 02m(4 X10 Oz �A 1� z p(4 A�CZ ' °' Om mm 2 mmx ZOZ mv03i= � O�o� O �mOZ 00 ZO < .2.01 Z Z -2.I S Z mO m .ZOI O 1 O ONz to- MM 1�1 .. ! '- (n N Z m = Z .i O O�1 O O a m mz o 1. ! _1 J i 8 i Cl) 1 O ■ VILLAGE PARKWAY > T 1 '. .. H , n '` '_ `` O :k ' f• z n rn 2 . . j 2 z - , v ILiDIIMIIIMIN 7l 0 ,AI A7 .I F 3 ., �J �ii� 1 D C T ZOm z=; M v rn 0 D- i. - I D �zO ym ' :-- D I --A-I - ■r =D.T�1 -M O . . -••- t.....,.I. _ EEC OVd D• CO 01(1)• OOz \� .M=.`` -J.; 3 l. bEE �� • nxn N(Cie° _ • hi � ;ir�� �_ r 1 r _ =H P /, r . / g z , mx ia s -1� m Re, S x. �� / O0 Z / . 0 P I il`n z� M r m Dy N E d VIII z N a 4. 02.)1,3 -a R Z DD m 0 co m Dbz o 4 m O D-1 3 = > m N ° > r m 2 z m # D Z Z m > J L O 3D m 3 Z � ocuoWo (n Z ? H H H I+ -1 xi Qi2# ,m60 r,`-O I' m �' MA 32� A �s O .0 a_. _. m D m ,°,,ro "'�ti� °; ro m '^�� c `ate m x x Y D cnAA Ooo0 �� z m rocn ''',FO i Z �_+ 'p OO gym° ° o ro im ro'' 0 �_° ! G � m'"�� 0-� Or, o S2 o �A'C AZ �O m ti S�roro �°Ti 2 _ '°'12 mk °c 1 ° i Fz xn r O co => 1 008 m0 `'/ '441 BS I K + BB m w ry `B ' y- y :., ,S:1) N ~ BBBBae 0J 00 4 o O ®0 .' p r N J N J ! r j O N Z ®B ®8 .' 0 GO CO A A -CO CVO W CO 0 O-co N D '�J 1•• *Sj 4..+ O O U 0 0 0 0(T (T co m 0 (T xi - N "' S ^ o H H H H H H H I+ H I+ H H n^ b \�O l l ii w N H N VI N N N II N CO q m V' '-,' B cm z.--3 r r n o ! -] hifit. N o A S , m 2 ` T� 3mw zo > D o n ° ° A z D T , p" r, , n y2 zs AOS m m 0 m 0 0 oz _nXI rri `^ In ° 0 -0 -00 '30000x0 D 'p"w,. ,- f0D v ' n, = ro 'a '^m DD D DDD D -n -n m D -n 0 - "Aw�� "' m ro g °cr mmmmmmm mm m ,,,»tTm p ro CI 33 3 3 - °'000cN.c0�0 » 3 "y m m m m o a z z M f + i 1 F1 C22 Z m<S�T Z2 O� A D ,m< Z S OC�3 N1D2 mA2 Cm2 CO2 002 D02 2Dt211�2 ° mAiy3 Z I^ 'UPI • Z{m O o < 3 -ixzm Zmo OAO O<o �<0 3<o grmnrc m zOO�v T (NI' m0 lxli�ZV <� `2 r m `,;-',1,'E'),-7 D1x'1 DOm wmm wmm mmm DTm mAmrp N Fy3y w $ ��2 0< -°' OD O m ww Z m yZ 2EZ Y'n2 HI C.lD1Z p�.11n11Z x>mrm-q wl <On1 D 2 �InNO (S r 3 D Rxi O p-C1220�P HI nm.Zml HI O�j TT! p��j1A fAilO�Z2 f~i) °Tmm ~ ° 2A-<<N� C .1°1 y x A (0 Drmzcn HmN m2- ~°N mO- ma- (i<wO(Oo T Om2A Z O rg fb - n < =.' ! ti:i'3a m ��m Omm mmm ��m X0,5 O=1DAIr1< y AA m 1 VDO O D mDVmm❑ � ° p0 yZ° wZ° 9-Z1° N4Z1ma� n:3mmw o_ 1`12 ma Om '� m N =0m°CV 4 AwA 06 D0 OTA ui" =m3-DIm T3 OD Z(�mi'- oo -NIT m 2 m _IAO°OOm ZAjm �mm yym 3�W NDm -1~�Oy Om F N...Z]Im �O A m Z VC) < m < OT< N< Ow< ON< OQmcA mC C Zmm�i) 19m N �^ m �Anpo6°m 2�m rr'm vm Tb vm pv°m mw-Zi Oi ��I)c O-In°y '�OI� r i O mZm z`-�co ((vnnvv mgo �v <v_ �p� 9� z j <mo Omm°O wm NV O O 5 mzpm9m➢ DAD z-p1 q WI yCD mm02V OSHA 111111m Zij Z N w m 30CCy Dm lam my�m my my Nj)Iy Dy mA <Aw3 O3 2VN xOxm-i p -i V 2m-Oi0 -ZN DwN 2N-I SH y-i y AND3Z m0_�< O<{ OZZ OmNmm 3 m TtiZZNNO <20 rn8 r0 00 Mt' yinmA AmSA ZOO AZD mOn ➢ < _=< 3 Nm=Dm 8 NA1 rn1 -<6 Ati MO p *w �t < pp TD 1<IIti 9 Z y AA- '=2 m 2 N m <6 m m Nm a Omwy r-N G31n liT 2o1 m �D ° y �m39mm nOO 2ZV DO AO DO Co mr m Z➢D°n pN �<m� 9mom ��O mmmy< .lD) mm i OZ��mm AZCm OCm mz Z ni °mV`G° D yw<Z Hi z ?D3m O 3Ap t/' 2NpOOn AAZ m20 Z.lml 4�p m.lm) imo?m �O zmal� 9IIIC zoo Oiyzm Dtlo ➢ z Oc°mC. <w Aw0 �O m0 rno ZzlZm yy < z � O x -IA V1 Op Nm mDJJJJ fn"+I NT Om02= Da 2Z> rn-mm p.TDIA inn00 lOn G1p 2 O mS<mA< mN2 Z°< WD m> CD m_�mm 1Z <n y Vmm < . -I> m A A ZAO. < NO O$T wA �A 1A -IZ m TA py � NAwz mpoDO 3m m O x3i�1P wo pvD Pm Zm -y1m NOOmm m Ayn3 '',O', D� ZOxlmjl 0,T A yZ�N22 AZ C A P. tir <r 3ZOA-1 A O -IV -1 mN90=v my °m cmi °=0�°p Ojm vo�" Cm �m D wm0� x°' va2m m 00 On�mm A A O DYmmO- mA "' m0 O y6o �mzal^ :11',F'12 pO _ y1ZI -mOAi) ZD A OZ-Zi~A mm -I fni)m ZD 0➢ mD mp i�➢ m CK mlliZ O y w ihcci my �Z Dm ;m ?m m$j1 m p r`' 00 mgOZr D z xo�mNO �Ni Zym gr yr fnj)r �O�N m A00 AAZ �2N� .Z<I �ZmZic)CZi np ° 9n Zn wn �n i j Z]°i D Oy' O �7DDDAA w1 Ofni) OZ j2 p p°cm0 V ° Vx 2`. AOr➢O 00 1'r.' AO p0 mN�Zw y $A tir -I O mZ Z ip m NS U �R T Z� 0 n=° C r m D iir xccs i O3Vn2 Dyz te+— D m ^m4mOOmnO N Zp m T !02Z ;r0p 0 m D C i m n D N t d 11y v m O cu D ,,, -I A =.20mwPA C�`n f y - o timrD OV02 %m 3O o°s� c '-> O y „,,s a 7 - m O O m Z nw °Fomy imm zZ o / , p n r D Z x g3� 1 O< o ?,,9118 :. AmNd I.i T m �c . O . -.vvm o Oi 3 9 T. D§m ° � Zsno D"0 0 B Z mn D <'N z2o<o°mw^y m 1 °� S� 4 °am �iZ <9< a/m4 y Q0 wmv rn rAo my9 FAN;mn iC o cv0 O Om I On m O imODO� P<OpN m ti � W �A l_ D3-�T. <yZy •2_< A'� °Z~((D mn//11 w�=0 C=`v z -. 2 O 3 ~yy<2�3-A('I1 I A A S 2 m D�-< (. -i x Z ° O 2�O2p s m m< z co 2- D D T Oxwx m O T ,§)A(11 =v z O D O T O2 m O � O D1m z NZ 3 Z w< A ° �N y Ox1, -F'!,, m m y � m....i......i.. D m O 9 nD2 Vm 0 N m w o m w N Oq2 �F m Z V m V- D O� DDTT A m D1p 0m� T =mT m m A A° 9.1 w m Xy20xO ZD O ',1 kwm mWZm m ?d O ;J.', O V mmZ A0O° m1 w mN T a m-. e� 1 p ! ,ii'-,1 (-1,7t ti�D Z my y 1 Z y S0 V X1 DD :i° r3 Z 3 m j°lS 32 o A yni 2 my m"nmm o 2 = o m OZ 3 y0 p DO A Li T'w a N O w Oqmma m wm mO w yZ m it 1�O m V ' rOODD Z$ ,93,-.3 z ° lW ° Ow T rp<m 3 II` w< Om Dqy 2 �no 1w m n I2 w h IN �� =O rm A 10 O °' OOO m 0 n Oy m 9,11 %. V q m moA m 9TO �O w mp mOm 0 A o Omx O Cm N n2A O O _OT mI S AwA omDI0 ,T,.5 30 Oy I y;$ < << N i O mm 1 0 �y-;x m m OA-m O ',),'5,1‘,4 O',),'5,1‘,4 m D02 a D n� N mwv m�mp o O ND O (< v -13,)2q m z izti2 f A II 0 O O D OZm D O S a W m ZN-i p'° m m o8P=<El pd, S mZy° Z O o m y0 i v Io O a O N= n m-m cn t J ■ t + I i , VILLAG / E PARKW:20153' 0 (100'WIDE) / N2_6°3_8.58"W 31.13'(MON-MON m °o_ m r°M m 0 N32°52'30"W N32°52'30"W O F m ___ F R=650.00'L=136.01' _� 81.00' 1 ''i`''- _��=11°59'19"I- _-1' 11 / in z P It 24'WIDE _�_\N. o'-,so rw°, I,I a, 3 i�^ 1 ___� z P.A.&U.E., ���°o°� P N u o°c w 0 i 1 1 D.S.R.S.D. \\`v Oo / rn f..,'o °' z ry o° AND E.V.A.E. x I Ia a D - O 3C2 Iv m Im M n \I Z / Z of o N µ µ M I I� ' al / � ' - v o%I _ - a Z rn I ti/ > 1$ a `/ H-I °i I n FS', -1 R=10.00' IN 3 IA D I >i -I rO v I I i D=90°00'00" N20°53'11"W / I n r I Ai I N - _ 1 Dr k,L=15.71' 12.42' I 0 I I 0) N f I \�_ N32°52'30"W 122.88' �� o Q co N N W $ 1` 19.00"2°5�30"W N32°52'30"W 120.36' la�a o--I 03 1 / ice , e a pm o O O 14115.00' \R=10.00'D=90°00'00°L=15.71' N20°53'11 W o� m° o m z In 0. I I .°°° I f-N57°OT30"E 12.04' 9.90' /4 a � m K _ 24.00' 1 135.79' "rI, "i .. o°3 Q !' Z I I I u- ai N 4'115.00'1 46.04' 110'1 84.75' I/ a Oy rn $ r 0 1 o in 0 rn o L J N32°52'30"W 159.79'TOTAL I m w $ • m m I I o —I 10 WIDE PRIVATE / 1'w S"g 171 n m "7 v en D n rn (n mn 0Oz a "1 I in LI z 1$$1°` UTILITY EASEMENT I n 2 3 >�i ;I o 70 mod im^DC °c p x o > °o i.i N 2 ND Z in mzD1 fIC? rn N w VI wm 71 ,.. -eN / 3 mD 0 vm< -a.1mv_I ° R TTI m v 6WIDE ti, o0 cn v=m a I IN32°5230"W z p0 t- ml 1°° P.S.E. CO�__� �.____ Q a<•3 O 3 1 10.00' N In 1 - N33°07'S5"W / O D _ I�! r �9m �ac D ~I .�M 10.00' I 1•Z D z I w y A.N- N32°52'30"W 67.73'1 / I / rn m 0 inaa l4!W 1 -� J p n M N 24.00��m 60.44'_ 1P 75.56'-10.22"; C v r- m O z 532°52'30"E 160.00' o y c1zk / A o zz 9 10 11 m g 0 y Z F.� m m mmm BLOCK 4 / NN -1 D$ TRACT 2555 (52—M-25) Z9C ° Oma 3 ON D / rn Dm� Go= =ms N m to O O' T m - m z D a Z v m O I r a in m CO m ¢° > p OO m na m m m b I 1 Q o m I F..1 m a T o D °cn N 0 c_z� Ep TT7 D Dr a° o IM c -0 3 C m D 33 m D O N,cim C7 G D o 8 5 g r m D p G no m z g n co N• o . o D — - m g,'z a-, n M m z o m 3 > rm' O S E' n E, 2.-0 z m D z D N F z n 3 o (� O m O O'� < n a 1 r 1 v N m n ..•• C_., 0 ,T:, ZOO OT ` m m m 3 m m m Z O0 '. .........NNt...... c o O D R° n O 3 z m m R. to * moo 3 c m m a m D u�, n D z ODO IT Z m G n < m r a.co c -n Z . O c O 1 N n - rn m n I4 0 m rn D O `" D �' N M -I „ y O o 3 N O D M C/ 4 z n W C N O.6Ni 0 -1 -1 2 m m m rn —1 z cn e l I v M_\William Woad\Dublin\I I Prev0hoo1\6-20-12\II Presrbool-CIP-4 Awo Jun 20,2012-1-48Pm AMmmstratnr Flail / I X / Ar m i X AmD M 11 m n3 �If N O1 cc�� mI - 1! (Y AAOE AS X Ab O, AE ZA m viii zA m mOZ ii M I Z U m m D Z /O p m y I r< m NA — m pi rD Zm A00 z� DOr mN m GY N m N ¶ D mX \ o N u, m r O B wE� 1•�A i � • • � �� l „� �;1N. !!t_ �< , r r p-. O A O J , il .'. IN e � 0!AO� ' l A I' i J • , Z e , m milk eio E Pr lowir.I r- m i m O A 0 X r r i) �� � .1.2.-p . L � w ( E r. V�� y � n 0 f r- 1" 1> A # N D r- CO O ■vv O . A•i• 1• D m N �t m m A Z 1 A •\ ]. I L -- 0 -0 r do•. � • ` in 1 El,, L A 1 frop •• l hI r 1 4 —ail X' o O oo I 1 ` �O o I J i— t �) pr G i i – +. IWS 6 °Dm OT , ,:_ , A5 �m � DD� e�m0 ----..m.„---1 rE jm X N D � o k NLD OX „, AN n „ill m aZ � CDm A m z nmp mz D4 -L m O Zr N A ZA Z D L PH mD Z N z i D _ NA it M E z m ? m O I I C) Z , c) o 0m „ e 0 Q0 O m �..«. N N N N N tP lP GY D D D D D D A D , D D A G , A A N , , 0 130 r r r r r r r r r O 0 U o @ _ -- ----- t < m A c A A -0 Z Z m c m m O L O () p r y N < N Z AO AAT 0 m p N O m r r O D DAD :it D �D }{ZmD O D in D 3 3 m r z (1 3 A 3 n W n rr m� �~� n�=pz A D 3 D A 3 3 O 1 0 0 V' D A A D N 1- (Z� � M azA � ' Z ZT-m(Nj O O D D 7' 1 m p < r- r n 0 m r 3 \ i•m 3 , A m �i0 3n rn -IDDD 0 - N D r- O m N m D rail N N { D m Omm ®R : ,0 t_r,� �O1 P. r_ m c D m u, A _ Z �' b it ��� � oO� m-T 0 D E r- it Z A m D D A O •UT �' O A N r m .V r 3 D r ��j b D p tAE 13 zz_ o : rJE��,Q- I1I- N Z t Al m p D r 11. 61 �� a'�rm �� Orr- Z I�=-iD A p 3 N p m �} L r _ r D N O m ypnm ill Z()Dr N m E O A Az(l cmP O 10 3 �o �� ,�, n comma Q V mj i ill m E O D 0 0t0H (3 O E AO� , '"----1. n T p p < 3 L 1.L D< 0 Al rT 0 \^` m a D .. m. ..,. m m Z m 2 O D _ 0- r 1 mm• Dm I m E E E D m A m m ° m m p O m 4 A GA A m m T A 0 U A 0Aoo m D D O Z 1m m U m N m n n s I D 7 m E E m D N m v I- Nm N N p p A N A r D A - m A 3 D E D m • Dm m D m m O m $ A A m z -1-': x X O ? O O D p N m p D m -1 r N A N X X r- 01 D -< O Z FP u N A' A - - (9 - , LA ti D D n U, U, it iN W to (n i, iv W Cr' in w iv A m A m r r m r r r 3 r r r m S r r m E m O O m O O m O EE E0 rn m E E 0E m D E E p EE p E E E p p E E m (Di z DISCLAIMER: ALL VELLUM,BOND,TRACE,BLUEPRINT.ETC.DRAWINGS PROVIDED WITH BORRECCO/KILIAN&ASSOCIATES,INC (BK&A)LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS,TITLE BLOCK AND/OR SIGNATURE STAMP,IS CONSIDERED TO BE A COPY OF THE ORIGINAL DESIGN RETAINED BY BK&A IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT. BK&A WILL ONLY ACKNOWLEDGE SIGNED AND STAMPED PLANS AND DRAWINGS AFTER COMPARISON AND WRITTEN VERIFICATION WITH THE ORIGINAL ELECTRONIC FILES RETAINED BY BK&A.NO RESPONSIBILITY OR LIABILITY IS EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED FOR ELECTRONIC DATA AND/OR REPRODUCED PLANS AND DRAWINGS USED WITHOUT BK&A'S SIGNATURE. SHEET WWI rare 6/12/12 ! OF PROJECT i MI MOWN kPtS EORRECCO/KILIAN & ASSOCIATES. INC. NOTE `DRAWN DY:K;DB J E _, PRE CJC OOL _ LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS WORK NO AY WO OEPDN1E Q �o�s�w2 '� WORK 11D WY WO BE gIPIIGlE0. 17A1 Pine Street COPIED,MOP.OR unrxw>SE rme OF DRAYIM& CIS RAN s: 1 Q a * s. DE wNrrtll FOMENT OF OK. J DUBLIN CA _�\ ;OP7;�ta P V FAX 925/3775308 �....ee®miw.... .c s > j , 7 e O O + + + + + + - + + + + + + C.' O O CD N.3+ W A N .- CO O-. N3+ N N — in) cm co — + . + :f z .<-7 +". + tr + + + O 0O i A , - _a-- 1 1 . V V ;: A I ; W A- 'CO O A 0) ' ) 0) I 0z 03 N° "• 40 VD Cn W cn d7 Co C3)• . O-.-- -C}).- 'z z O - - l. A0 OD N W (0 CD W j+ N+�i �r� a (il± O 7 .O W + W+ V+ O+ C. 1 . V W �. � � W C7 p pp 00 CO N A co + + + + �+4. A+W N W W+ WO " • - V W A ? in. A� ©+ + A+. �+ A+ 0)+ V+ W+ A+ M 1 CO —`W CO 07 :� ;+ + + +O —,. W _ i (0 V Co - N 0) V . CO O CO j V V + - + + + - • Q ,+ +' j+ + + + d1 .c>+--: CJ7` \ _. p) _=+ N N V O' A V V W V O . _.._ .CD_. M °° _ gym_-._.— -, co z o 0 + + , + , + + + + + + + + - .- -- --- -k + '+ + - N 0 W ... O, CO N ' CTS •P 0) N (0 W O 0) 0 -4 '.0 + + + + -t + + +. \T± + + + + + _. - CO CD. CO 1. ..a . , •( W - 01 A i CO CO #� V o V• O C.) Q Ca) 'O 0) O0 = O C0 - N-. W V -0" CO D N A M - - Iv O M N -t { ate 4 _. ______17.,...,=:___ -- J=:1-- . . — - _, -17:1:1 -1 -,‘-------fj_. E ,ae o 17 0 a❑ ❑.❑ 00 ❑ a .❑ g -' cn Z D c, T D Z z z m m 5 m _ _ _ N li:—: m_ -6,f, -» PN r;v S EZT>z N poi oo~ > z _ l F o^CO p. N il m O u O _ + 3 O_ N msm m m1 Oa OSWNr c3 Z OzZ�m�xS° xP:8?-21'mo• ig S� c; o ,, m ma O �n➢mm2zm OOx >' a kz ma - �D O Om oO00mo-N m9, m> pD 3 L T m Z t • O i�,r,mm _ -mnv O m9�ym� y o�m m E,-,T,' r D C 4 y xy� o E 1=�m 2 11 D 5 z°C m b m O o j Y m ~ D C v o 5 0m,' v m r m C) w — °s; I D C vm m� o N0, 'Q [n 0- m I 2 00 P k o A o 0 0 0 0 m -{ A o 0 0 0 0 0 o T v m m m ti v os w ® a CO 10' m 1 WILLIAM WOOD I DUBLIN PRESCHOOL amrat, fi , , i :z., p R ` " o = 1 !_ 301 Hartz Avenue, Suite 203 `,s grri Danville, California 94526 7250 AMADOR VALLEY BLVD. .: U •' (925) 820-8233 DUBLIN,CA P� "■ • S ■ E N G I N E E R S • PLAN N E R S April 19,2012 Ms. Jaimee Bourgeois Transportation&Operations Manager City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin,CA 94568 RE: Focused Parking Analysis for a Proposed Pre-School Project in the City of Dublin Dear Ms.Bourgeois: The following letter report provides a focused weekday parking analysis for a proposed Pre-School project in the City of Dublin. The proposed project would be located adjacent to an existing retail center on the southeast quadrant of the Village Parkway/Amador Valley intersection (see Project Site Plan— attached). The existing retail center contains a mixture of small commercial tenants that includes a Starbuck's coffee shop. This center currently has an on-site parking supply of 32 spaces. There are an additional 10 spaces used as overflow parking; however,these 10 spaces are located beyond the center's property and are included on the property of the proposed project. The proposed project would be constructed on the eastern half of the site with a capacity for 60 pre-school students, 5 staff,and a parking supply/allotment of 17 parking spaces (seven more spaces than currently exist today). Combined with existing retail uses, proposed pre-school uses could create a higher parking demand affecting overall parking supply and availability during peak demand periods. Consequently, a focused parking demand analysis has been conducted for the proposed project based on City code requirements and parking surveys conducted for both existing and proposed uses. The following sections outline existing conditions at the project site,City parking code requirements,parking surveys conducted for both existing and proposed uses,and the likely parking demand during the weekday period. Existing Uses/Parking Demand The proposed project site is located at the southeast quadrant of the Village Parkway/Amador Valley Boulevard intersection. The site is vacant with the exception of a paved parking area on the southern end of the site that accommodates 10 parking spaces currently used by the adjacent retail center located to the west of the project site. The existing center includes a Starbuck's coffee shop, Café Art, Optometrist, We Buy Gold, and Salon uses totaling 8,539 square feet. Access to the site is provided by two right-turn-only driveways; one off Village Parkway and one off Amador Valley Boulevard. The retail center currently has 32 striped parking spaces on-site (19 standard, 11 compact, 2 accessible). In addition, there are approximately ten(10)parking spaces(5 striped and 5 un-striped)on the proposed pre-school project site where patrons or employees can currently park for an overall total supply of 42 on-site spaces. On-street parking adjacent to the site includes 11 parallel parking spaces; four (4) parallel spaces on Village Parkway and approximately seven(7)spaces on Amador Valley Boulevard. 1901 Olympic Blvd.,Suite 120,Walnut Creek,CA 94596 - (925) 935-2230 fax(925) 935-2247 ROSEVILLE REDDING VISALIA WALNUT CREEK ATTACHMENT 5 • . Ms.Jaimee Bourgeois Page 2 Apri119,2012 Existing Retail Center Parking demand surveys for all existing and proposed uses were conducted during the morning (7:00- 10:00 a.m., mid-day (11:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m.), mid-afternoon (2:30-3:30 p.m.) and evening (4:00-6:15 p.m.) periods'. (A complete summary is provided in Table A in 15 minute increments for all parking survey results and estimated parking demand has been attached). For existing retail uses adjacent to the proposed project site,overall parking demand peaked during the mid-afternoon period(around 3:30 p.m.) at 39 spaces. This included 37 spaces on-site and two (2) off-site spaces on Village Parkway. Of those patrons parking on-site, 32 patrons were parked in dedicated (striped) spaces for existing retail and five (5) patrons in the striped spaces on the pre-school site. As shown in Table 1 below, parking demand at the existing retail center was over capacity during the mid-day, mid-afternoon, and evening periods resulting in overflow parking onto the proposed pre-school project site. Existing Springfield-Montessori Pre-School To evaluate the parking demand characteristics of the proposed project, a comparable pre-school in the City of Dublin was surveyed for overall parking characteristics. The Springfield-Montessori pre-school is located at 5100 Brannigan Street. A self-contained facility, the pre-school has an on-site parking supply of 53 spaces (51 standard, 2 accessible) and an attendance of 150 students the day of the survey." As shown in Table 1, the pre-school had their peak demand period during the mid-afternoon period with 46 spaces occupied. During the mid-afternoon period, parents arrive slightly before pick-up times and park in the lot for approximately 10-15 minutes. Once the students are released, parents leave the site and demand drops. The entire process was observed to last approximately 20 minutes for the peak demand period. Table 1 Existing Parking Demand; Existing Retail Center& Springfield-Montessori Pre-School Morning,Mid-Day,Mid-Afternoon,and Evening Demand Periods Existing Retail Center Springfield Montessori Pre-School Peak Time Period Peak Surplus/ Peak Surplus/ Demand (Deficit) Demand (Deficit) Morning: 7-10 AM 26 +6 33 +20 Mid-Day: 11:30 AM-12:30 PM 37 (-5) 22 +31 Mid-Afternoon: 2:30-3:30 PM 39 (-7) 46 +7 Evening: 4:00-6:15 PM 35 (-3) 19 +34 Source: Omni-Means Engineers and Planners,Parking surveys at the Starbuck's Retail Center and Springfield-Montessori Pre- School(7:00-10:00 a.m., 11:30-12:30 p.m.,2:30-3:30 p.m.,4:00-6:15 p.m.),March 21 and 22,2012. Based on total parking supply of 32 spaces for existing retail uses and 53 spaces for existing Springfield-Montessori Pre-School uses. Proposed Project Description The proposed Pre-School project would be situated in the eastern half of the site as shown in the project site plan (attached). The actual site would be situated on a vacant parcel adjacent to existing onsite parking areas. Existing retail uses (shown as Parcel A) are located directly west of the project site and both existing and proposed uses would share common access driveways. The pre-school would have a • • Ms.Jaimee Bourgeois Page 3 April 19,2012 capacity for 60 students and would supply 17 parking spaces (including 10 existing spaces). Proposed parking spaces would be located immediately south of the pre-school building. City Code Requirements Parking code requirements for"day-care center"have been based on the City's zoning/municipal code for off-street parking and loading regulations.' Based on proposed uses, the parking code requirements would be as follows: Day Care Center(15+): 1 space per employee, 1 space per company vehicle,plus a loading space for every 5 children; Based on the City code requirements the parking requirements have been calculated below: Day Care Center: 60 children x 1 space/5 children= 12 spaces 5 employees x 1 space/employee= 5 spaces Total: 17 spaces As calculated above,the proposed pre-school project would require 17 parking spaces and this would exactly match proposed supply. Proposed Project Parking Demand with Existing Retail Uses Methodology The proposed project's parking demand has been based on parking surveys for the Springfield-Montessori Pre-School adjusted proportionately for lower student enrollment and staffing level. Specifically, surveyed Springfield-Montessori Pre-School parking demand reflects a total attendance of 150 students and 20 staff members for a combined head count of 170. The proposed project would consist of 60 students and 5 staff members for a combined head count of 65. The total proposed project head count of 65 represents 38% (65 divided by 170) of the existing head count for the Springfield Montessori. Therefore, the parking demand for the proposed Pre-School was estimated by multiplying the measured parking demand found at the existing Springfield-Montessori Pre-School by 38%. With the addition of the proposed project and associated parking spaces, there would be a total of 49 parking spaces on-site for both retail uses and proposed project uses. This supply would reflect 17 spaces for the proposed project and 32 spaces for existing retail uses. As noted previously, parking demand for existing retail uses has encroached beyond the 32 space limit during peak demand periods. Project Parking Demand Expected parking demand for the proposed project and the existing retail center has been shown in Table 2 (next page). As calculated, the proposed project's parking demand would peak during the mid- afternoon period(around 3:30 p.m.) at 17 spaces. Supply for the proposed project would be sufficient to meet the peak demand. At the same time,the existing retail center would have a demand for 39 parking spaces, which is 7 more than the parking supply of 32. During various other times of the day as well (mid-day and evening), the existing retail center parking demand would exceed its available on-site supply. • • Ms.Jaimee Bourgeois Page 4 April 19,2012 Table 2 Proposed Project Parking Demand With Existing Retail Center Uses Morning,Mid-Day,Mid-Afternoon,and Evening Demand Periods Existing Retail Center Proposed Dublin Pre-School Peak Time Period Peak Supply Surplus/ Peak Supply Surplus/ Demand 32 (Deficit) Demand 17 (Deficit) Morning: 7-10 AM 26 32 6 13 17 4 Mid-Day: 11:30 AM-12:30 PM 37 32 (-5) 8 17 9 Mid-Afternoon: 2:30-3:30 PM 39 32 (-7) 17 17 0 Evening: 4:00-6:15 PM 35 32 (-3) 7 17 10 Source: Omni-Means Engineers and Planners,Parking surveys at the Starbuck's Retail Center and Springfield-Montessori Pre- School(7:00-10:00 a.m., 11:30-12:30 p.m.,2:30-3:30 p.m.,4:00-6:15 p.m.),March 21 and 22,2012. A 38%weighted average was applied to surveyed Springfield-Montessori Pre-School parking demand to generate proposed project parking demand. Based on a total parking supply of 49 on-site parking spaces for existing retail and proposed project uses. It is noted that off-site parking spaces located on Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard were not included in the assumed parking supply for the existing retail center; however, the 11 on-street parking spaces would be sufficient to accommodate the excess demand from the retail center and allow for a four(4)space parking surplus during the peak mid-afternoon(2:30-3:30 p.m.)demand period. Summary/Conclusions The proposed Pre-School project would meet City parking code requirements for 17 parking spaces. Parking surveys conducted for existing retail uses adjacent to the project site indicate that peak demand occurs during the mid-afternoon (2:30-3:30 p.m.) period for 39 parking spaces. Based on surveys conducted for a representative pre-school in the City of Dublin, the Springfield-Montessori Pre-School has a peak parking demand during the same mid-afternoon period of 46 spaces. Applying a head count adjustment factor of 38%, the proposed project would have an estimated peak parking demand of 17 spaces during the mid-afternoon (2:30-3:30 p.m.) period. This 17-space project demand can be accommodated on-site. The existing retail center parking demand at this same time would exceed available supply by seven parking spaces. However,based on the findings of the prior Starbuck's parking demand study (where on-street parking was counted toward the available supply for the purpose of demonstrating that the Starbuck's use would not negatively impact the surrounding environment); the total center demand can be accommodated on-site and/or within the adjacent on-street parking supply. The result is that there would be a four-space surplus during the same mid-afternoon (2:30-3:30 p.m.) period. Based on the parking demand analysis for existing and proposed pre-school uses, it is likely that competition for parking spaces will be at a premium during the peak mid-day,mid-afternoon,and evening periods. It is important to note that an adequate parking supply usually reflects the availability of additional parking spaces in order to function at an acceptable level. Most parking areas/lots function best at approximately 90% of capacity. This essentially provides an efficiency factor of 10% to accommodate prospective parkers looking for a parking space. Without such a buffer, users would find themselves competing for the last available spaces. Those waiting for a space to open would slow traffic in the lot's aisles. Given the small size of the project's parking lot, a 95% effective parking ratio would • • Ms.Jaimee Bourgeois Page 5 April 19,2012 likely be sufficient. This would mean that an additional 2-3 parking spaces would be needed on-site so that retail customers and parents do not need to drive through the parking lot in search of a parking space during peak demand periods. Exacerbating the problem would be existing"cut-through"traffic using the parking lot to by-pass the Village Parkway/Amador Valley Boulevard intersection. Northbound motorists on Village Parkway currently cut-through the existing parking lot and continue eastbound on Amador Valley Boulevard to avoid turning right and/or delays at the signal-controlled intersection. All of these factors would contribute to increased on-site congestion during peak parking demand periods. Potential measures that could be implemented by the project applicant to improve circulation and parking include the following: • Similar to Village Parkway, delineate the on-street parking spaces on Amador Valley Boulevard with striped "T"'s to insure maximum efficiency. A 15-foot red curb is recommended immediately adjacent to the driveway; • Execute a reciprocal parking agreement with the existing retail center property owner to allow for the sharing of parking when uses are not peaking at the same time. If such an agreement were executed, signage might be needed to reserve the pre-school parking during peak periods so that parents would not end up having to park far from the school entrance. It is noted that(should the proposed project be approved),much of the existing cut-through traffic would likely be reduced. During peak parking demand periods of the retail center and proposed pre-school project,the parking drive aisles would not provide a convenient or fast option to Village Parkway. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, OMNI-MEANS,Ltd. Engineers&Planners I % I 4 actiekry Peter G loway Transp rtation Planner Cc: George W.Nickelson,P.E.(Omni-Means) Rob Tuma,Transportation Planner(Omni-Means) Enc. Project Site Plan,Parking Survey and Demand Summary Table A(15 min. increments) C1588LTR002.docx/35-2807-54 • • Ms.Jaimee Bourgeois Page 6 April 19,2012 Omni-Means Engineers and Planners,Existing parking demand surveys at the Starbuck's Retail Center and Springfield-Montessori Pre-School, (7:00-10:00 a.m., 11:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m., 2:30-3:30 p.m., 4:00-6:15 p.m.), March 21, 22, 2012. Ms.Laura Russ,Director, Springfield-Montessori Pre-School,Personal communication on March 21,2012. "'City of Dublin, Zoning/Municipal Code, Chapter 8.76, Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations,Parking requirements by use type(8.76.080), Revised October, 2011. • / \ � / 1 // !J!!! /1!! �`\ 1 CCt4i " . 1 �g I € € cue ii ii of O 01 gusalti,r . ...,w.i_ iio °alit 1 . . , MI Ali — z ta .3 ei am./ co__ .El 15,,,,1„,.... , ciitarlqh well- ,i 1 AA 40 -1 i Nallp i , , ...,,,,, .....,,,, ........, D 1! it i � 1 1 €11 I ! ` mwei . : 1 •. t II r 11 1 � S 11 t.no o r► 11 will 1 1 t 1 < , 1 �: Ig I m ! r 1 I Ix 71• 1! !! 1t ® _ v 1 S y ii' t g,fir*N11.1...., ,,,i• ..' 4 . ' I II 11 I'``�� qp j �w i► ! C 211k-Ari / y aa-r / \ Iva _� mw k r° 4: Illi 1 /7>111111111-111111:41111111 —7—--1 -11 li miNa ,--el-: 1p,,,,,T1 iz , , ,.. , . . r .■ -I I • '01 ^-n. I i l� ate. _ I411I� 1STEI'�SEM.211t111111 11211 9.9 1 a..aZ �� 1 -1 A r �� € NH. / :2111 I^I !11 111 . 'i �P ii!• I '' M1 I +tri 1 FEN r■ %fie:::\.{. I ° ��t g 1 1 ------1114111111112141111111011211/14 . -46:44141 11 I ill 11 1- A/ , 1 II 1 Y pli 1a i t' A ! R/ K \W A Y`------ E € 7 1 `\ ;'t . 1 WILLIAM WOOD �17I►1�I�l�lel►:■ ■ DUBLIN PRESCHOOL 1:•)) ���������1y j A 25 7250 AMADOR VALLEY BLVD li 19�e�82v DUBLW,G , 111111110 ` • • 1/1 O V_ a a co M M M N. M N en N M N N 0 N .-I rpa ep-I .-I rl n In rt N N t-I CO 00,1 vii N N 1./1 f•••• N N L/1 m N y + F + h 0 CU r .0 0 p 4 yo in ~ 8888888888888 lC t0 LC?) lO tD lO (0 LO 10 LO �D tD �C tO tO W tO tD lG tD a C o C y G eF a n to lA 111 lO N N CO O IA lli Cl a 00 N 01 M N I M O1 n n � N-1 a0-1 r�i e�-I e '46 M C M N N N N N N N N N N N N Q H H 2. N N Y Y C c 3 h a cre a 0 0 " 1N C1 Cl Cl 01 01 01 01 Cl C1 01 01 01 01 01 01 Ol 01 01 Ol 01 01 Cl 01 01 01 Cl 01 C1 01 01 01 01 C1 c a n. .r .r .t V d .t Cr .r Mt el' .Cr .7 t' . a v v . . a . v d' er v .' 0 v 0' a 0' 0' U 0 h C 'd .W F g — p L C y E .0 -0 00 g 111 111 N Cr Cr a M n n ei 01 01' CI' O 00 rl Cr d' LO n M U1 LO 0 01 N N CO n tit M n ei St C E rl N N N N N N N M 0 1 N r rn d' M Cr V' a Ch 0' U1 LA d' Cr M Cr 4 r n n M Pit M • Q O 'R ad. -- `-' O W 01 9 E E 01 G N p c c m n n rl (<=11 M V L11 et V ea rl et 111 t0 LO LO t0 r; N p M M O O N M O M N v W a-1 r1 rl 01 ti :at rl W ei ri LO tD N -0 p LC U 0 C Ln E — 0 1 h 01 U 1m m N m N 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N o C - M M M M M M M MM M M M M M M M M M M M M M M r M er ry M rn M M M N Q d Ln at o -O LU N Lb m ze C '•c-�, m t y U1 LA r1 M O co _co n 00 CO to to M O M LO n CO CO 00 00 01 0' N W 111 N N O 01 N 01 y r1 ri N N N N r1 rI N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M rn M an M n r M N M N 0 W E p TO -p 0 a C 0) w m m ai G O .m H 7 n w b' nn1tD 01 N ei .-i 0-I n at a t0 Cl Q1 C1 O1 C1 O 01 00 N O - ei O O O r1 N N M N to a-I ei ei rl 0-1 al ei ei .-1 rl rl H 0. :0 00 p m C N W o L „7 h co 0- c v a1 o PS . Q u c n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n N N n n n n 0I '^ tw W r1 e-I ei e-I r! r1 ei ai r1 rI rI ei ei ri r1 rt si e-1 rl ey ei ,1 e� ei e-i ei ei r1 ei r1 ei ei ei $ w 9. Q I—co 00 as 0 L^ a v v N 5; o C a) w) c d C y 0 G O O a-1 e-1 .r 111 U1 Oa N N ,, co 0o n 00 00 00 n 00 01 ay N N LO n n N to 111 in a' IA N v 2 m c S. ... u - _ C v 70 0 TOc _ m c O rl M N O M M n M M W N O 01 e-I r1 N 01 O M t0 C1 ID 01 CO 00 U1 .1' M r1 N LO .a d N N ey N M M N N N ei N N N rl N N Cr e-1 r1 rl ei rl al e-I r1 r1 N N 0 c o c N C ' _ W _ 00 S` o 00 cge`.iFAV?. 8OVIF,,'Mtfi.8 I °m `.28 3m400, 11'i. m Ein4o .. m Eg '-,1mao°l `'" "I 'i— A: r� 1■ n 0o Lid Cc; ao 01 t71 01 LT O eLi .N-I NN•1 .N-I Q N N m m m Ch v a Cr Ln I!i 1ri ui id l0 w www.pdplay.com "Neptune" Additional Info Age Group: 2-5 IMax Fall Height: 48" No. of Kids: 16 No. of Play Elements: 6 No. of Milk Jugs: 17,790 'i ' ' of Recycled Content: 80.53° �" Total Weight: 2,209 lb. E ��11 , j Minimum Use Zone: 31'x 19' smog as In oirtalp pi,,,b*rq ah,&a@ Easy,lac�e wui Panel sups Trips p-Bail si /10A ,a e' Traisfsr California ,— Gs$*Top Bubb** y Fiend Col Canner `YwZa»"0 Equign*M, rm. t. - _ 1 i. . .. , II i zz..t...., ..„,t . , --:: I a bh* Attachment 6 August 14, 2012 1l/ r 1�1 19 ∎ •■• 82 ��LIFOR�� SB 343 Senate Bill 343 mandates supplemental materials that have been received by the Community Development Department that relate to an agenda item after the agenda packets have been distributed to the Planning Commission be available to the public. This document is also available in the Community Development Department, the Dublin Library, and the City's Website. The attached document was received in the Community Development Department after distribution of the August 14, 2012 Planning Commission meeting agenda packet. August 14, 2012 Item # 8.1 G.1Forms&Documents1PC-CC Forms1PC Forms\SB 343 Form.doc AGENDA STATEMENT PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA: April 26,2005 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal of Zoning Administrator Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for PA 04-057,Enea Properties/Starbucks Coffee,Reduction to Required Parking Report prepared by.. Pierce Macdonald, Associate Planner&Janet Harbin, Senior Planner ,`./6 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution Affirming Zoning Administrator Approval of Conditional Use Permit PA 04-057, Enea Properties/Starbucks Coffee(with Site Plan attached as Exhibit A, and Parking Study attached as Exhibit B,with Focused Traffic/Parking Analysis dated April 19, 2005 included) 2. Zoning Administrator Staff Report,with Resolution attached, and Meeting Minutes for March 14,2005 3. Letter of Appeal,dated received March 23, 2005 4. Applicant's Written Statement in Response to Appeal 5. Planning Commission Reso. No. 04-40 for Enea Village,PA 03-069 6. Curbside Parking Diagram 7. Ordinance No. 21-98 for PA 98-049 RECOMMENDATION: 1. Open Public Hearing and Hear Staff Presentation; 2. Take Testimony from the Applicant and the Public; 3. Close Public Hearing and Deliberate; 4. Adopt Resolution(Attachment 1)Affirming Zoning Administrator Approval of a Conditional Use Permit PA 04- 057, Enea Properties/Starbucks Coffee(with Site Plan included as Exhibit A,and Parking Study as Exhibit B,with Focused Parking/Traffic Analysis included) BACKGROUND: The project site at 7197 Village Parkway was the former location of an automotive gasoline and service station that closed in the 1990's, and was previously zoned General Commercial(C-2). Adjacent uses include the Taco Bell restaurant to the south and two single-family homes to the east on Amador Valley Boulevard. The City Council adopted a Stage 1 and 2 Planned Development(PD)Zoning District for the property on December 15, 1998 (PA 98-049). Pursuant to the PD regulations,a range of office,commercial and eating and drinking establishments were permitted uses in the district. Cafés and other neighborhood- COPIES TO: Applicant Appellant PA File f ITEM NO. serving uses were specifically identified as appropriate new uses in the Planned Development Zoning District(PD District)adopted by the City Council. The development potential of the project site was further studied in the Village Parkway Specific Plan, adopted by City Council on December 19, 2000, in which the property was identified as an opportunity site and a primary gateway location. On May 11,2004,the Planning Commission approved a request for Site Development Review,Tentative Map, and a Conditional Use Permit for the Enea Village Parkway Center(PA 03-069)on the property(see Resolution 04-40, included as Attachment 5). The approval allows development of the 1-acre lot at the southeast corner of the intersection of Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard with a 8,539- square-foot commercial/retail center and a 5,582-square-foot office building. Project amenities included an 800-square-foot landscaped public plaza with bench seating. The site plan provided parking for 54 vehicles(32 parking spaces for the commercial/retail building and 22 parking spaces for the office building). Within the commercial/retail center, a 600-square-foot space was identified for eating and drinking uses, such as a coffee shop. Additionally, as part of the Site Development Review, an outdoor plaza seating area was identified and patio seating was allowed subject to PD District requirements. At the present time, grading and site work has commenced for the commercial/retail building at the site with approved building permits. Zoning Administrator Action: In November of 2004, Enea Properties requested a Conditional Use Permit from the Zoning Administrator to reduce the number of parking spaces required by the Zoning Ordinance to allow a 1,886-square-foot coffee retailer and café with 410 square feet of outdoor seating area to locate in the Enea Village Parkway Center. The parking requirement for the various uses in the commercial retail center counted individually is 45 parking spaces (see table entitled, Project Parking and Peak Parking Demand, on page 5). The proposal included a mix of indoor seating and outdoor seating, for a total of 30 indoor and 16 outdoor seats. The Conditional Use Permit was needed to reduce the number of on-site parking spaces by eight(8) parking spaces and substitute five(5)curbside parking spaces for five(5)on-site parking spaces,pursuant to Chapter 8.76.050 of the Zoning Ordinance, Adjustment to the Number of Parking Spaces. On March 14, 2005, the Zoning Administrator held a public hearing and granted the Conditional Use Permit based on information presented in the Staff report and at the public hearing that the adjusted number of parking spaces would be sufficient for the use,would not increase traffic congestion, and would be safe to motorists,pedestrians, and bicyclists. Prior to the hearing, the Zoning Administrator received 13 letters supporting the parking reduction, and 16 letters opposing the parking reduction. Additionally, at the public hearing held on March 14,2005, several people spoke in opposition to the parking reduction because of pedestrian safety,parking and other traffic-related issues, as well as the importance of supporting existing local businesses such as Mika's Espresso located to the northwest of the site. The Staff Report and Meeting Minutes for the Zoning Administrator Public Hearing are included as Attachment 2. Information on the requested Conditional Use Permit and material presented to the Zoning Administrator follows in the Analysis section below. Appeal of Zoning Administrator Action: On March 23, 2005, a letter from Bobbi Cauchi was received by the City Clerk appealing the Zoning Administrator approval of the Enea Properties parking reduction(PA 04-057). This was the only letter of appeal received, and is included as Attachment 3 of this Staff report. The letter of appeal expressed Ms. Cauchi's concerns regarding project traffic and circulation conflicts with local schools,pedestrians, and 2 area traffic, perceived inconsistency with the intent of the Village Parkway Specific Plan, and perceived inconsistency with the intent of Zoning Ordinance parking regulations. These points are briefly summarized and responded to in the section following the analysis of the Conditional Use Permit ANALYSIS: Legal Basis for Parking Reduction and Adjustment: Pursuant to Section 8.76.050 of the Zoning Ordinance,Adjustment to the Number of Parking Spaces,the Zoning Administrator may reduce the number of parking spaces required by the Zoning Ordinance by means of a Conditional Use Permit for the following reasons: 1)when off-site parking is available to satisfy the required parking under the Zoning Ordinance; 2)when the parking requirement is deemed excessive; and, 3)when a shared parking condition is present. In the latter two cases, a parking study must be prepared by a qualified traffic engineer or consultant. The following evidence must be provided: • An analysis of the availability of off-site parking spaces showing that the most distant parking space is not more than 400 feet from the commercial use,that the off-site parking spaces are not located in a residential zone or vehicle access area, and that any necessary agreements are executed to assure that the off-site parking spaces are provided to the principal use(Section 8.76.050.C). • An analysis of the parking demands of the proposed use and the parking demands of similar uses in similar situations, to demonstrate how the required parking standard is excessive (Section 8.76.050.E). • An analysis of how a sufficient number of parking spaces is provided to meet the greatest parking demands of the participating use types in a shared parking situation(Section 8.76.050.F). Lastly,the parking study must determine that an alternative parking standard would ensure that there will not be a parking deficiency, that overflow parking will not adversely impact adjacent uses, or that parking for various uses in a shopping center will not conflict with each other. Conditional Use Permit: The Applicant worked with the City Traffic Engineer and Planning Division Staff to develop a Parking Study for the project. The Parking Study is included as Exhibit B to Attachment 1. The Study reviewed the requested 1,886-square-foot coffee shop and a 410-square-foot outdoor seating area and provided an analysis of the typical parking requirements of the proposed tenant and the future tenants of the shopping center. The Parking Study concluded that the proposed project would generate significant visitors to the Village Parkway area due to its prominent location,promotion and marketing, and the attractiveness of the new building's design. The shared parking condition of the shopping center and the availability of free, on- street parking would supplement the parking provided on-site. In addition,the proximity of the project site to residential neighborhoods,bike paths, and public transportation would allow several transportation options for visitors and employees. Concurrent with the conditions of approval listed below, the Parking Study supported an alternative parking requirement to that of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance that takes into consideration all of the conditions at the project site. The Parking Study concluded that 32 off-street parking spaces and the 3 existing on-street parking spaces(a minimum of 5)would be sufficient to meet the peak parking needs of the coffee shop and the shopping center as a whole. Conditions of Approval: The following measures were recommended by the Parking Study and incorporated as Conditions of Approval of the Zoning Administrator Resolution(included in Attachment 2)to ensure that approval of the Conditional Use Permit would cause no adverse impacts on retail tenants in the shopping center or adjacent property owners or area traffic: 1. The project shall reserve six(6)of the parking spaces as time-limited parking. These spaces shall be located closest to the coffee shop and shall be posted with the following information: "15 Minute Parking Limit. Towing Enforced." Signs shall include City of Dublin Municipal Code citation that allows towing of illegally parked vehicles. These six (6)parking spaces with time limit restrictions would be able to safely accommodate 24 vehicles per hour. (Condition of Approval#8) 2. The coffee shop tenant shall provide information on the availability of travel options to visitors and employees on an on-going basis. BART and the Wheels and Alameda County Connection bus services, as well as the 511 telephone and Internet service(www.511.org), shall be resources for information and promotional materials. (Condition of Approval#9) 3. An alternative parking standard of 1 space for every 200 square feet of outdoor floor area would be adequate due to the seasonal nature of outdoor seating. The Applicant/Developer shall apply for and obtain a Conditional Use Permit for additional parking reductions pursuant to Section 8.76.050 of the Zoning Ordinance should the plaza area be covered by a permanent roof in the future(not included with this application). (Condition of Approval# 10) 4. The coffee shop shall provide auxiliary parking and proper signage for the first two weeks of operation due to increased traffic caused by the business' grand opening. The auxiliary parking shall be located in the Enea Village Center parking lot and the remaining commercial tenant spaces shall be kept vacant during the two-week time period(Condition of Approval # 11) To summarize the conclusions and recommendations made in the original Parking Study, an alternative parking requirement which includes six (6)time-limited parking spaces and five(5)on-street or curbside parking spaces,in addition to the other 26 parking spaces in the Enea Village Parkway Center's commercial/retail parking lot, would be sufficient to satisfy the peak parking demand of the coffee shop and the Center's retail tenants. Focused Traffic/Parking Analysis,dated April 19,2005: To address concerns expressed at the Zoning Administrator public hearing and in the letter of appeal,the Applicant commissioned George Nickelson of Omni Means to prepare a supplemental Focused Traffic/Parking Analysis (Focused Analysis)to evaluate conditions at the intersection of Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard and at existing local Starbucks Coffee locations(included with Exhibit B to Attachment 1). The locations surveyed in the Focused Analysis included the Starbucks Coffee businesses at 7904 Dublin Boulevard (at Regional),4930 Dublin Boulevard (Hacienda Crossings), and 9150 Alcosta Boulevard. The surveys were taken the week of April 4,2005. The Focused Analysis addresses concerns related to traffic congestion and parking demand from 6 A.M. to 10 A.M. during the busiest time period of the Starbucks business and during the time when local children are likely to be traveling to school. 4 The Focused Analysis prepared by Omni Means concluded that the intersection of Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard is currently operating at level of service(LOS) A and would continue to operate at LOS A with completion of the proposed project with the parking reduction. The Focused Analysis concluded that there would be a peak parking demand of 27 parking spaces for the proposed coffee shop use at 9:30 A.M. and a peak parking demand of 39 parking spaces for the commercial/retail center as a whole also at 9:30 A.M. Lastly, the Focused Analysis concluded that there would be sufficient on-street or curbside parking for the 7 parking spaces that could not be provided on-site by the 32-space parking lot. The Parking Study updated with the Omni Means Focused Traffic/Parking Analysis dated April 19, 2005 can be summarized as follows: Project Parkingand Peak Parking Demand from 9:00 A.M. to 9:30 A.M. Use Area Zoning Maximum Recommended Parking Provided (sq.ft.) Ordinance Hourly Standards/ (spaces) Required Parking Conditions Parking Demand* (spaces) (spaces) Coffee 1,886 19 27 • 6 time-limited parking 10 on-site Shop spaces(24 vehicles) 7 off-site Outdoor 410 4 • 4 regular spaces Seating • 5 off-site parking spaces Total Spaces Available: 10 spaces and 5 off-site spaces would manage max.demand of 33 vehicles_per hour Retail 6,653 22 12 22 on-site 22 regular spaces (No changes in standards from Zoning Ordinance) Total 8,539 interior 45 39 32 32 on-site +410 exterior 39 total *From Focused Traffic/Parking Analysis prepared by George Nickelson of Omni Means,dated April 19,2005. Added Conditions of Approval: Staff recommends and the Applicant has agreed to the following Condition of Approval that has been added to the Resolution(Attachment 1)to ensure that the conditions studied in the Parking Study and in the Focused Traffic/Parking Analysis continue to be in effect at the site and to ensure that parking spaces are not utilized for deliveries. 1. The Applicant/Developer shall identify the location of a 10-foot by 20-foot loading space on the site plan of the project site in addition to the 32 parking spaces provided in the parking lot. The location of the loading space shall be subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director and the Public Works Director. (Condition 12) 5 Letter of Appeal: As stated in the Background section, on March 23,2005, a letter from a Dublin resident,Bobbi Cauchi, was received by the City Clerk appealing the Zoning Administrator approval of PA 04-057, for a reduction of eight(8)parking spaces and substitution of five(5) curbside parking spaces for on-site parking on the site. The Letter of Appeal is included as Attachment 4 to this Staff report. The Appellant's grounds for the Appeal and Staff's responses are summarized as follows: 1. Comment: The Appellant believes that the proposed use will create high customer volume and/or traffic and the highest volume will be in the morning from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. During the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10 a.m., the Appellant believes that 90%of the Starbucks sales will be take- out or to-go. One of the two shopping center entrances is on Amador Valley Boulevard and the Appellant believes that this will function as a primary entrance and exit. The Appellant believes that vehicles exiting at the Amador Valley Boulevard exit will be required to drive east into residential neighborhoods. Because Dublin High School, Valley High School, Wells Middle School, and Frederiksen Elementary School are in the vicinity of the proposed parking reduction, the traffic generated by the use will be dangerous to children's safety. Response: A Parking Study was prepared by the Applicant and City Staff in December 2004 with a follow-up Focused Traffic/Parking Analysis on April 19,2005 prepared by Omni Means (in Attachment 1, Exhibit B) for the requested parking reduction. The parking study concluded that the proposed parking reduction at the Enea Village Parkway center would not create traffic hazards or conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians or bicyclists, and sufficient parking will be available for morning customers during the coffee shop's busiest hours. During the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. (the schools named above, except Valley High School,begin at or before 9:00 AM), the Enea Village Parkway Center's other tenants are not likely to be open for business. With the provision of six (6)time-limited parking spaces in the Center, there will be an excess of more than 2 to 17 parking spaces in the shopping center during this time(see Parking Study and Focused Traffic/Parking Analysis in Attachment 1). According to the Focused Traffic/Parking Analysis,traffic will not be directed into adjacent residential neighborhoods because of two factors. The first factor is that the Focused Analysis determined that 70%of Starbucks customers are"pass by"traffic, meaning that these drivers were using the roadways to drive to a destination and stopped for Starbucks because it was along the same route. The remaining 30%of Starbucks customers are new trips. The second factor is that the median strip on Amador Valley Boulevard allows a safe location for entrance into the Dublin Village Square Shopping Center north of the subject retail center,as well as for U-turn maneuvers for drivers wishing to access Village Parkway. Lastly,the stop signs, narrowness of the street, lack of freeway access, and residential character of Amador Valley Boulevard east of Village Parkway, is designed to slow traffic and contains many curvilinear streets and cul-de-sacs that will discourage traffic from entering Amador Valley Boulevard and neighborhood streets. Student and child safety has been protected by measures including but not limited to the following City enhancements. A crossing guard currently monitors students' access to school at the intersection of Burton Street and Amador Valley Boulevard to ensure pedestrian safety at busy times of the day. The crossing guard uses special stop signs developed by the City. The signalized intersection at Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard, along with recent pedestrian safety enhancements at the sidewalk and corner, such as the removal of the right-turn only lane as part of the Village Parkway Capital Improvement Project,will ensure that students' safety is protected. Based on the Accident History Report compiled by the Public Works Department, the intersection of Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard has a good safety record. Traffic accidents, 6 predominantly"fender benders,"average 5.4 per year involving other motorists. No pedestrian accidents have been reported since January of 2001. 2. Comment: The intent of the "downtown specific plan"(Village Parkway Specific Plan)was to create a breakfast/lunch destination. The Starbuck's Café use is not consistent with this intent because the Appellant believes that the use sells take-out/to-go items. The provision of time- limited parking spaces is proof that the business is a take-out/to-go use. Response: The intent of the Village Parkway Specific Plan for the area is to create a more pedestrian friendly and visually-enhanced retail/commercial shopping and service district along Village Parkway from Dublin Boulevard to above Amador Valley Boulevard. The Land Use Plan for the Specific Plan noted the site as an"opportunity site,"or a site for a possible change in use to be more inviting and provide pedestrian-oriented services and retail, and as a location for a potential plaza with new development. According to the Specific Plan, uses permitted at the project location include a number of service and retail businesses, and drinking and eating establishments with outdoor seating, such as that proposed by Enea Properties. Additionally, a café is specifically identified as a permitted use pursuant to the regulations of the Planned Development District, and this use may also sell to-go items. The provision of six(6)time-limited spaces was added as a condition of approval of the Enea Properties' project to meet the peak parking demand for the retail center between the hours of 9:00 AM and 11:00 AM during the week and 10:00 AM to 12 PM on the weekend when volume is highest for both the café use and the retail business in the shopping center. The six (6) time-limited spaces increase the capacity of the parking lot to meet this peak time only,and would not be needed during most times of the day. 3. Comment: The Appellant believes that it is important not to rely on the brand name recognition of the business that is requesting the parking reduction because the popularity of brands is impermanent and changes rapidly. Response: The issuance of planning and use permits pertains to the appropriate land use for a particular site and not to a specific brand of a product. Any eating or drinking establishment could have requested a Conditional Use Permit for this specific site. As Starbucks Coffee is a widely recognized and popular name brand,the Applicant has worked with the City Staff and a traffic consultant to provide parking and traffic studies as requested by Staff to justify an adjustment to required parking for this business location. Competition by various individual businesses in the same use type category is not a land use or planning consideration. 4. The Appellant believes that the parking requirements of 1 space for 100 square feet of restaurant/food services and 1 space for 300 square feet of retail were established for a use such as the Starbucks café within the retail center. Response: The Zoning Ordinance provides parking requirements by generic use type, as well as the means by which the required parking may be reduced or modified to fit specific conditions of a project,pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 8.76.050. The generic "eating and drinking establishment"use type includes cafés, restaurants, delicatessens, specialty foods,bakeries,ice cream shops, and sandwich shops. A Parking Study for a specific use prepared by a qualified traffic engineer or consultant is required to provide the basis for allowing a parking adjustment. In the case of the current project, the Parking Study found that the current conditions at the site, in combination with the measures recommended in the Study, would provide the basis for a parking reduction of eight (8)spaces and a modification of five(5) spaces to be located on-street. The Focused Traffic/Parking Analysis prepared in April 2005 by Omni Means supports the findings and recommendations of the Parking Study(both are included in Exhibit B to Attachment 1). 7 5. Comment: The Appellant believes that on-street parking reduces a person's ability to observe on-coming traffic unless that person is partially in the driving lane. Response: The City will ensure that on-street parking is prohibited within an appropriate distance from each driveway to allow for safe sight distance. Additionally, a person turning right from the store's driveway on Amador Valley Boulevard or Village Parkway would need to look only to the left to observe on-coming traffic before pulling out into the right traffic lane because the entrances/exits are right-turn only. 6. Comment: Reliance on on-street parking as an alternative to five (5) of the on-site parking spaces would cause traffic problems as drivers would look first for parking within the shopping center and circle to the on-street parking spaces with two U-turn maneuvers if on-site parking spaces were not available. Response: Based on the Parking Study and Focused Traffic/Parking Analysis,the peak parking demand is between 9:00 AM and 11:00 AM on weekdays, and 10:00 AM to 12:00 PM on weekends. With the provision of six (6)time-limited parking spaces, the parking lot of 32 spaces would be able to accommodate parking for 55 cars per hour,which is sufficient to meet the peak parking requirements of the Center. 7. Comment: Parallel parking at the on-street parking spaces would stop traffic on Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard. Response: Curb lanes on both Amador Valley Boulevard and Village Parkway are wide enough to accommodate parallel on-street parking safely without impeding traffic flows. Additionally, on- street parking is permitted along the rest of Village Parkway in front of a variety of other businesses. 8. Comment: People will not walk to the Starbucks cafe from on-street parking spaces in rain and other inclement weather. Response: With the provision of six (6)time-limited parking spaces in the shopping center,on- street parking would be in addition to the parking needed by the use. Because all parking for the site is uncovered, inclement weather would have only a small impact on the desirability of on- street parking,which could be closer in some cases to the coffee shop's tenant space than parking spaces in the parking lot of the shopping center. 9. Comment: The Starbucks location in Southern California (South Pasadena) used in the Parking Study is not similar enough to the Starbucks that is the subject of the requested parking reduction. The Starbucks example used in the Parking Study is 26%smaller in floor area than the Starbucks at 7197 Village Parkway, and the Parking Study increased the trips by 26%to adjust for the difference. The Parking Study does not include data for walk-up traffic such as persons walking from offices, schools, etc. The Appellant believes that the Starbucks at Regional Street and Dublin Boulevard generates more than 28 vehicles per hour(the conclusion of the Traffic Study for the Starbucks in South Pasadena). Response: The Applicant has provided a Focused Traffic/Parking Analysis based on current traffic and parking data for the Starbucks Coffee businesses at 7904 Dublin Boulevard(at Regional), 4930 Dublin Boulevard(Hacienda Crossings), and 9150 Alcosta Boulevard. The surveys were taken the week of April 4, 2005. The Focused Analysis addresses concerns related to traffic congestion and parking demand from 6 A.M. to 10 A.M. during the busiest time period of the business (included in Attachment 1). The Focused Traffic/Parking Analysis also surveyed the number of pedestrians and bicyclists near the businesses. This supplemental information supports 8 the conclusions and recommendations of the original Parking Study that 27 to 28 parking spaces would be required to meet the peak parking demand of the coffee shop use,which are provided. 10. Comment: The Traffic Study that concluded that the intersection of Village and Amador Valley Boulevard was safe and that traffic would remain at LOS C under current and future conditions did not take into considerations growth of the Dougherty Valley, the expansion of the Valley Center, the remodel of the AM/PM convenience store, increased school enrollment, the new Senior Housing development, and the remodeled Target/Expo Design Center. The traffic study does not provide sufficient information to evaluate the safety of the southeast corner of Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard. Response: The purpose of a specific plan is to anticipate the impacts of a group or range of development so that each individual use included in the specific plan does not require an individual study. This allows the City to plan for cumulative impacts of several projects taken together and allows development to occur without unforeseen or unnecessary delays. The traffic impacts of growth related to the various uses envisioned in the Village Parkway Specific Plan were studied and mitigated through Capital Improvement Projects and Developer payment of Traffic Impact Fees. The Valley Center,the Target/Expo remodel, and the Senior Housing development,were developed pursuant to the Village Parkway Specific Plan and the Downtown Core Specific Plan, and the traffic generated by these projected uses were included in the traffic studies for the Specific Plans. Traffic Studies have concluded that regional growth such as development in Dougherty Valley will not impact Village Parkway. In cases where a new project may exceed the development anticipated under the Specific Plan, a supplemental traffic study is prepared. However, the proposed project is relatively small (1,886 square feet) and conforms to the development standards of the PD Zoning District and Specific Plan. As the Applicant requested an adjustment in Parking Standards as allowed by the Zoning Ordinance, a more focused parking study was required instead. The Focused Traffic/Parking Analysis concluded that the intersection of Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard is operating at a level of service of A between 7:00 A.M. and 9:00 A.M., and that the potential for conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians or bicyclists is low. Public Hearing Notice and Comments: A Public Hearing Notice was mailed to property owners,residents, and tenants within a 300-foot radius of the project property. A copy of the notice was advertised in the Valley Times and posted at locations in the City. As of the writing of this report, no further comments have been received from the public. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA),together with the State guidelines and City environmental regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared. The proposed project has been found to be Categorically Exemption from the provisions of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15304, as it is a minor alteration to land consisting of a reduction in parking spaces for a business tenant within an approved infill retail commercial center,presently under construction. CONCLUSION: The Enea Village Parkway Center will replace a vacant former gas station at a prominent corner of the intersection of Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard. The project site is identified in the 9 Village Parkway Specific Plan as an opportunity site. The proposed coffee shop use meets the goals and requirements of the property as envisioned in the Village Parkway Specific Plan,the Planned Development District PA 98-049, and the Off-Street Parking and Loading Section of the Zoning Ordinance by creating a neighborhood-serving and pedestrian-friendly commercial use with shared parking. City Staff have reviewed the project and Conditions of Approval are contained in the Resolution (Attachment 1)that will mitigate any potential adverse impacts of the project relative to parking. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1)open public hearing and hear the Staff presentation; 2)take testimony from the Applicant, Appellant and the Public; 3) close the public hearing and deliberate; and,4)adopt the Resolution(Attachment 1) affirming the Zoning Administrator approval of a Conditional Use Permit PA 04-057 for a Reduction to Required Parking for Enea Properties/Starbucks Coffee(with Site Plan included as Exhibit A, and Parking Study as Exhibit B with Focused Traffic/Parking Analysis dated April 19, 2005 included). 10 GENERAL INFORMATION: APPLICANT: Robert Enea, Enea Properties Company, LLC 190 Hartz Avenue, Suite 260,Danville 94526 PROPERTY OWNER: Village Parkway Partners, LLC 190 Hartz Avenue, Suite 260,Danville 94526 APPELLANT: Bobbi Cauchi, Cauchi Photography 7063 Village Parkway,Dublin,CA 94568 LOCATION: 7197 Village Parkway,Dublin, CA 94568 (APN 941-0210-013) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Retail/Office EXISTING ZONING AND LAND USE: Planned Development Zoning District, PA 98-049 G:\PA#\2004\04-057 Enea\PC Staff Report.doc 11 Planning Commission !Minutes CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday,April 26,2005,in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Schaub called the meeting to order at 7:02pm. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Schaub,Commissioners Biddle,King,and Wehrenberg;Kristi Bascom,Senior Planner; John Bakker,Assistant City Attorney,Janet Harbin,Senior Planner;Pierce Macdonald,Associate Planner;and Maria Carrasco,Recording Secretary. Absent: Cm.Fasulkey ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA- MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS-The March 22,2005 minutes were approved as submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATION- At this time,members of the audience are permitted to address the Planning Commission on any item(s) of interest to the public;however,no ACTION or DISCUSSION shall take place on any item,which is NOT on the Planning Commission Agenda. The Commission may respond briefly to statements made or questions posed,or may request Staff to report back at a future meeting concerning the matter. Furthermore,a member of the Planning Commission may direct Staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda. Any person may arrange with the Planning Manager (no later than 11:00am,on the Tuesday preceding a regular meeting) to have an item of concern placed on the agenda for the next regular meeting. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS The Dublin Unified School district submitted a letter in reference to Item 8.4 Enea/Starbucks. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8.1 PA 99-064 Sabri Arac Development Agreement for Quarry Lane School-Development Agreement between the City and the owner,Dr.Sabri Arac,of the Quarry Lane School for the expansion of the school to provide an additional 70,289 square feet of classroom facilities,a gymnasium,playing field,parking and landscaped areas to accommodate middle and high school grades.A Planned Development District rezoning and Site Development Review were previously approved for the project,and would be further implemented through the Development Agreement. Chair Schaub opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Janet Harbin,Senior Planner presented the staff report and explained that the applicant,Dr.Sabri Arac of Quarry Lane School,is requesting approval of a development agreement with the City to allow for the construction of Phase 2 of the privately owned school at 6363 Tassajara Road. Phase 2 of Quarry Lane School consists of 70,289 square feet of classroom facilities,a gymnasium,playing field,parking,and landscaped areas to accommodate middle and high school grades. A Planned Development District Planning Commission 48 April26,2005 Regular Meeting Rezoning and Stage 2 Development Plan,for Phase 2 of the Quarry Lane School,located within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area,has previously been approved. In conjunction with the rezoning application,the property along with the adjacent Kobold property was approved for annexation to the City. Ms. Harbin explained that one of the implementing measures of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan is the requirement that the City enter into a Development Agreement with developers in the Plan area. The Development Agreement provides security to the developer that the City will not change its zoning and other laws applicable to the project for a specified period of time. Approval of this Development Agreement will implement provisions of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan,and the conditions of approval specific to the Quarry Lane School expansion project. The proposal is consistent with both the General Plan and the Specific Plan. Staff recommends the Planning Commission open the public hearing and hear the Staff presentation; take testimony from the Applicant the Public;close the public hearing and deliberate;and adopt a resolution recommending City Council adopt an ordinance approving a Development Agreement between the City of Dublin and Dr.Sabri Arac for the Quarry Lane School. She asked if there were any questions. Cm.Biddle asked if it is a 5-year agreement with an annual review. Ms. Harbin said yes. Cm. Biddle asked if there was any information on the number of students and what is projected for the future. Ms. Harbin said there are approximately 900 students currently and that will increase to about 1,500 students. Cm. King asked about the language on page 4 of the Development Agreement,paragraph 4.2,the term "will commence on the effective date and extend 4 years thereafter." He does not understand what that means. John Bakker,Assistant City Attorney,said the Development Agreement vests the land use regulations in effect at the time of the project approval. For a 5-year period until it terminates the land use regulations that are in effect on the date of the agreement will remain in effect for that 5-year period. Cm. King asked if the 5 years expire,does the Applicant have to come back before the City to renew? Mr. Bakker said not necessarily. If the Applicant's permit is still valid,he could still go forward with the project. He stated that what Development Agreements really do is protect developers from changes in law. Cm.King stated that if the agreement last 5 years and the permit is good for another 3 years,it contradicts itself if the same terms and conditions apply. Why have a 5-year term on the Development Agreement? Mr. Bakker said that the Development Agreement and the permit are mutually exclusive and do not rely on one another. Cm.King asked if construction needs to commence before the agreement becomes vested. (Planning Commission 49 April 26,2005 'Regular'Meeting Mr.Bakker stated that under common law,construction must be commenced in order to vest your rights. Another alternative to vest your rights is to enter into a Development Agreement. Cm.Biddle asked how far along is the project. Ms. Harbin stated Dr. Arac has submitted for building permits and anticipates the construction of the expansion over the summer. Cm.Biddle stated that the school is right across the street from a proposed park. Ms. Harbin stated the park is part of the Wallis Ranch project. Chair Schaub asked if there were any questions of Staff;hearing none he asked for the Applicant. Patricia Curtin,Land Use Attorney stated she represents Dr.Arac. She questions the need for the Development Agreement. They started developing the school with Alameda County before the area was annexed into the City. They have entered into an annexation agreement with the City. They do not see that the Development Agreement adds anything to it other than more time. Once they are able to pull the building permits they plan to construct immediately and there is no need for the 5-year agreement. They have some concerns with and question some of the fees that are being imposed. She has a meeting set up on May 3,2005 to discuss and work through those fees. Chair Schaub asked Ms.Curtin is there was something different that she wanted out of the City. Ms.Curtin stated she does not want the Development Agreement;she wants the building permits so they can start construction. Chair Schaub asked if she is requesting the Planning Commission to consider that. Ms.Curtin stated that if they cannot get their building permits without entering into a Development Agreement then let it go forward and she will continue to work with City Staff. Chair Schaub asked Mr.Bakker if it is in the Commission's realm to dispute the need for a Development Agreement. Mr. Bakker said there is a provision in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan requiring a Development Agreement. If the Applicant wants to move forward,the Planning Commission would need to approve the Development Agreement. Ms.Curtin stated this is a very unique situation and asked the Planning Commission to make the recommendation of approval to the City Council. Cm. King stated that the Development Agreement protects the Applicant as well as the City. Cm.Biddle asked when the original facility was constructed. Mr.Bakker stated approximately 1997. Cm. Biddle asked about the layout of the facility and where do they plan to construct the new facilities. Manning Commission 50 April 26,2005 'Pcgu(ar`Meeting Ms.Curtain stated she did not bring a diagram of the layout. Cm. Biddle asked if they are building a gymnasium and playing field and whether that was going to be opened to the public. Ms.Curtain stated that she was not sure,but could look into the question. Robert Nielsen,6407 Tassajara Road stated that they have a private agreement with Quarry Lane School and it would benefit them if it was included in the development agreement. Cm. King asked if he contacted Staff. Mr. Nielsen stated he informed Janet Harbin. Cm. King stated he does not have a problem with the agreement but still unclear on the language discussed earlier in section 4.2. On motion by Cm. Biddle,seconded by Cm. King,and by vote of 4-0-1 with Cm. Fasulkey absent,the Planning Commission adopted RESOLUTION NO. 05-24 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR PA 99-064 DR.SABRI ARAC FOR QUARRY LANE SCHOOL Chair Schaub reminded the audience if they are going to speak to please fill out a blue speaker slip and hand it to the recording secretary. 8.2 PA 05-010 Journey Church-Conditional Use Permit Extension(request for a one-year extension) A one-year extension of an existing Conditional Use Permit for a religious facility within an existing shopping center in a C-1 Retail Commercial(with Historic Overlay) Zoning District. Chair Schaub opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Kristi Bascom,Senior Planner presented the staff report and explained that the Applicant,Mike Connolly,Pastor of Journey Church,is requesting a one-year extension to continue using the space. Ms. Bascom explained that the reason for the limited term is because the site is in the Dublin Village Historic District. The City conducted some feasibility studies and is currently in the master planning process for the Dublin Square Shopping Center site and is expected to have that completed in 2006. The Applicant has requested that the Conditional Use Permit be extended through February 2006. The church assembly use is on Sunday's from 8:45-11:45 and during the week from 8:00am to 6:00pm. Because of the off peak use of the facility for assembly uses on Sunday,there is more than sufficient parking. Staff is seeking direction from the Planning Commission on whether findings for approval or denial of the one year extension can be made. Staff will bring the appropriate resolution back to the next Planning Commission meeting. She was available to answer questions. 'tanning Commission 51 April 26,2005 Vgutar Meeting Cm. King asked if there were any proposed changes to the use. Ms.Bascom stated there are no changes. Chair Schaub stated that if the church sublet the facility and someone else took over,all of the conditions stay exactly in place and if they are violated,the Conditional Use Permit can be revoked. Ms.Bascom stated that the use permit is for a community facility. If Journey Church was to move out and a new tenant moved in,they would need to abide to the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit. They would need to be aware that the Conditional Use Permit,if approved,would expire in 2006. Cm.Biddle stated that is good timing because the Master Plan for the Heritage Center is due to the City Council in January 2006. Chair Schaub invited the Applicant to speak. Mike Connelly,Pastor of Journey Church,thanked the Planning Commission for allowing them to meet there. He has a lot of gratitude to the City and the Commission. He requested that the extension be for 12 months from today rather than February 2005. Chair Schaub asked Staff their thoughts on the request. Ms. Bascom stated that the Applicant requested for a one-year extension and technically the use has expired. The one-year extension would take them from February 2005 through February 2006. Chair Schaub asked if anyone else wished to speak;hearing none he closed the public hearing. Chair Schaub asked Mr. Bakker whether the extension could be extended to May 1,2006. Mr. Bakker stated that given that the permit expired in February and the Applicant has requested a one- year extension. The one-year extension would be from the date the use permit expired. Cm. King stated that he does not see a problem with extending their use permit. Cm.Biddle stated that there are a number of churches in storefronts and industrial areas and asked if there is anything that accommodates churches in relocating. Ms.Bascom explained that the City has adopted a Public/Semi Public Policy to encourage property owners who are seeking a General Plan Amendment to set aside land for community facilities such as a church. The City is taking steps to ensure there is space in the future for community facilities. Ms. Bascom explained that Staff is looking for direction on whether to bring back a resolution for approval or a resolution for denial. The Planning Commission by unanimous vote directed Staff to bring back a resolution approving their request for a one-year extension. Ms.Bascom stated that Staff would bring back a resolution recommending approval at the next Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commission 52 April 2005 14gufar Meeting 8.3 PA 04-060 Tentative Map for Condominium Purposes for the Iron Horse Trail Apartments located at 6253 Dougherty Road-The Applicant requests approval of a Tentative Map to subdivide the Iron Horse Trail Apartments and create 177 condominium units. A condominium unit is defined as an estate in real property consisting of an undivided interest in the common area and separate fee interest in a specific unit. Chair Schaub opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Ms. Bascom,Senior Planner presented the staff report and explained that the Applicant is requesting approval of a Tentative Map to subdivide the Iron Horse Trail Apartments and create 177 condominium units. This item was noticed as a public hearing;however,an application for Site Development Review needs to be submitted and processed along with the proposed map. Therefore,the Applicant is requesting that this item be continued to a date uncertain. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission open the public hearing and continue the item to a date uncertain. 8.4 Appeal of Zoning Administrator Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for PA 04-057, Enea Properties/Starbucks Coffee,Reduction to Required Parking. Chair Schaub stated there is an issue of one Planning Commissioner that may need to recuse himself. Cm. King asked whether the Applicant objects to him participating. Norm Manion,stated he is representing the Applicant,Robert Enea and Mr.Enea would prefer for Cm. King to recuse himself. Chair Schaub explained the process to those people sitting in the audience. The issue at hand is a request by the applicant to have a reduction in the number of parking spaces on the site from 45 to 32. It is not whether or not there should be a coffee shop. That use type was approved a year ago. The Planning Commission is trying to come up with facts to make a good decision on behalf of the community. He asked for the staff report. Pierce Macdonald,Associate Planner presented the staff report and gave a brief history of the project. She stated that the item is the consideration of an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's approval. The permit is for an adjustment to number of parking spaces,required pursuant to zoning ordinance. The project site at 7197 Village Parkway was the former location of an automotive gasoline and service station that closed in the 1990's,and was previously zoned General Commercial. She showed a PowerPoint presentation including a site plan for the project. In December 1998,a planned development zoning district was approved for the project site. In December 2000,the Village Parkway Specific Plan was approved,including the project site. In May 2004,the Site Development Review application was approved for the project site. Ms.Macdonald explained that under the Zoning Ordinance there are provisions for parking adjustments,but a parking study must be prepared. The Applicant worked with Staff to provide information on peak parking demand and agreed to an alternative parking standard,which was reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineer. This standard called for on street parking for 5 cars;time- limited parking for 6 cars;and 26 regular parking spaces on site. Based on information gathered by Staff the peak parking demand would be 28 spaces for the coffee shop,22 spaces for the retail and a total of 50 spaces. With the conditions,5 on street parking spaces and 24 time-limited spaces,including the 26 regular spaces,would provide an available 55 parking spaces. The Conditional Use Permit was approved by the Zoning Administrator on March 14,2005. Prior to the hearin ,Staff received 13 letters in support of the project and 16 letters opposing the project. Within the (Planning Commission 53 ,prif 26,2005 Ncgufar:Meeting 10-day appeal period an appeal letter was received from a Dublin resident,Bobbi Cauchi. The grounds for the appeal stated that the parking reduction would cause a diversion of traffic into residential areas near 4 local schools which would cause unsafe conditions,and inconsistency with the Village Parkway Specific Plan. Also,parallel parking would be unsafe and stop traffic flow. The grounds for the appeal also included that the parking study was not adequate because it relied on a typical Starbucks location in a different part of California and that the Village Parkway Specific Plan traffic study did not consider the increased traffic volume created by local and regional growth. In response to the issues raised at the Zoning Administrator hearing,and in the letter of appeal,the Applicant commissioned a focused traffic parking analysis by George Nickelson of Omni Means for level of service at the intersection to gauge the amount of congestion at the intersection of Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard, to survey the peak parking demands of local Starbucks coffee shops and to evaluate the potential safety issue of pedestrians,bicyclists and vehicles. City Staff reviewed the analysis prepared by Omni Means and Staff reviewed the grounds for the appeal. As conditioned,these grounds and these issues have been addressed by the project. Ms.Macdonald stated that the City's Public Works Engineer,Mark Lander,will talk about traffic analysis and parking analysis. Mark Lander,City Engineer introduced himself and stated he was here to address any questions the Commission may have. He stated that the City Council adopted the downtown traffic impact fee in October of 2004. That fee study included a traffic analysis of the downtown area of Dublin,which includes three specific plan areas. The traffic study looked at potential infill development or redevelopment within the three downtown specific plans that concluded at ultimate build out in the downtown area there would be roughly another 38,000 trips generated. The Enea site was one of the sites assumed to generate new traffic. He stated the area would be adequate to handle build out. He explained that the project would not over load the 4 lanes on Village Parkway. He stated that because the property is so close to the existing intersection,the three driveways,one on Village Parkway,and two on Amador Valley Boulevard will be restricted to right in and right out. Should someone enter the site and wish to head west on Amador Valley Boulevard,they will have three options-they could leave the site and make a right turn onto Village Parkway and make an immediate left onto Amador Valley Boulevard. There is also an option of making a right turn onto Amador Valley Boulevard cross into the left turn pocket and make a u-turn and the third option would be to continue down to York Drive and make a u-turn to head west down Amador Valley Boulevard. Chair Schaub asked if one of those properties along Amador Valley Boulevard is a preschool. Ms. Bascom stated there are two preschools on Amador Valley Boulevard. Chair Schaub stated that there is a street further down that would be an option to make a u-turn. Ms. Bascom stated that after York Drive is Emerald Ave.,which has a left turn pocket. Mr. Lander concluded his presentation. Ms.Macdonald stated that the Omni Means parking study focused on the busiest time of the business as far as sales. The report found the peak parking demand for local area Starbucks was between 9:00 and 9:30am. The total parking demand was 39 parking spaces for the center and the parking lot and on- street would be adequate to meet the peak parking demands. Chair Schaub asked the total deficiency at 9:30am. Ms.Macdonald responded there is a deficiency of 7 parking spaces. (planning Commission 54 April' 2005 cgularMeeting Chair Schaub asked why the parking report states a deficiency of 13 spaces. Ms.Macdonald stated that is a comparison between the Zoning Ordinance parking requirement and the actual counts done in the field. Omni Means focused traffic and parking analysis felt that 7 on street parking spaces would be required. There are 9 available parking spaces along the project frontage. The Village Parkway Specific Plan has detailed diagrams of the improvements on Village Parkway,including parallel parking. The current proposal would take advantage of that component of the Village Parkway Specific Plan to provide additional parking. Chair Schaub asked if the slide of the Village Parkway streetscape was looking hypothetically looking north on Village Parkway or is it a generalization? Ms. Macdonald responded this is a general goal and the City has undergone a Capital Improvement Program to improve Village Parkway to put in bulb outs and street trees. Ms.Macdonald stated that the proposed parking reduction has been found to be categorically exempt. One letter was received from the applicant supporting the parking reduction. A packet of letters opposing the parking reduction were left at the homes of the Planning Commissioners and submitted for public record and copies have been distributed. One letter was from the DUSD stating it is not opposed to the parking reduction. In conclusion,staff has reviewed the parking analysis and that the peak parking demand would be met. Staff recommends that the planning commission adopt a resolution affirming the zoning administrator approval. She stated that in conclusion the proposed coffee shop lease space meets the goals and requirements of the property as envisioned in the Village Parkway Specific Plan,the Planned Development District PA 98-049,and the Off-Street Parking and Loading Section of the Zoning Ordinance by creating a neighborhood-serving and pedestrian-friendly commercial use with shared parking. City Staff have reviewed the project and Conditions of Approval are contained in the Resolution in Attachment 1 that will mitigate any potential adverse impacts of the project relative to parking. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution affirming the Zoning Administrators approval for a Conditional Use Permit for Enea Properties/Starbucks Coffee. Chair Schaub proposed that there are 4 documents that have facts. There is the parking study, traffic study,Village Parkway Specific Plan,and the letter from the appellant. At this point the Commission needs to determine the impact of the parking reduction. He would like to start the questioning with Staff before opening it up to the public. There are eight findings that are listed that need to be met for approval of the Conditional Use Permit. John Bakker stated the Conditional Use Permit findings must be met in order to grant the parking reduction;there are also related parking findings that must be met. Chair Schaub stated there are 32 spaces on site with 2 that are handicap and most of the time handicap spaces are not used. To consider them as part of the 32 is okay but the reality is they are not available to very many people,which leaves 30 spaces. Ms. Macdonald stated they would be available to any employee or guest that was handicapped. Chair Schaub asked where the employees are going to park. Ms. Macdonald stated the parking requirement is for guest and employee parking. Planning Commission 55 April 26,2005 4Zepurar'Meeting Chair Schaub asked how many employees are expected at peak time of 9:30am. Ms.Macdonald stated that the Applicant has presented to Staff that a maximum of 7 employees at the coffee shop would employed at any time. Chair Schaub asked about the other retail shops. Ms.Macdonald stated she could only speculate on what type of tenants would come in. Chair Schaub stated lets assume 4 additional employees for the other shops and now the count is 11 employees total at peak time. Ms. Bascom stated that Staff cannot validate that because they do not know who the retail tenants are. Chair Schaub asked that if the parking is filled up where the cars are going to go. There are 30 seating spaces within the coffee shop. Let's assume there are 10 people in line at peak,15 people sitting and most of them have cars,now the count is 25 plus 11 employees equals 36 with only 30 available spaces and we haven't counted customers in the retail stores yet. There is a possibility that is very real that there will be no parking at times. Ms. Macdonald stated Omni Means did a trip count and traffic count of some actual Starbucks. Chair Schaub stated it is critical and would like to discuss it. George Nickelson,Omni Means stated their analysis focused on traffic and parking. He stated they did trip generated counts and parking surveys in the three Starubucks in the Dublin area. They came up with actual surveys of trips in and out and parked cars. They also counted cars parked on the street. Total parking was surveyed and what they found was a surprise. The trips in and out of Starbucks peak between 8-9am. During those periods people spend less time on site and parking demand is lower. What they found is that the parking demand is highest between 9:30-10am. The absolute peak demand for Starbucks and retail is 9:30am of 39 parked cars with 32 cars parked in the lot and 7 parked out on the street. Chair Schaub asked if the handicapped spaces were included in that count. Mr. Nickelson stated yes. In addition there are spaces out on the street that would be available. Chair Schaub stated based on study there are 5 spaces available out on the street. Mr.Nickelson stated Omni Means study concludes there are 10-12 potential curb spaces. Chair Schaub stated some of the parking spaces will be used by the people in the office building. Mr. Nickelson stated the office building is supposed to be self parked per code. He stated the study does not show a deficit of parking. He stated they also did a traffic count during the commute period and the intersection is operating very well and will continue to operate very well with the traffic from this development. It is operating at level service'A' which is the highest level of service. They do not believe there are going to be a lot of vehicles traveling to the east and making u-turns. Chair Schaub asked why. Planning Cammission 56 April'26,2005 r4gufar Meeting Mr.Nickelson stated that if someone is destined to the west on Amador Valley Boulevard it will be a lot easier to turn right out of the driveway onto Village Parkway and make a left turn onto Amador Valley Boulevard. There was an issue brought up about the pedestrian and bicycle activity. They counted pedestrians and bicycles along Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard and found that it is a moderate volume. For the period of 7-9am. they counted 20 pedestrians and 10 bicyclist on Amador Valley Boulevard and 9 pedestrians and 2 bicyclists on Village Parkway. Cm.Wehrenberg asked the actual day the survey was conducted. Mr. Nickelson responded they did each of the Starbucks on different days. Cm.Wehrenberg asked the day the survey was conducted counting the pedestrians and bicyclist. Mr. Nickelson stated the day the traffic was counted was April 5,2005. Chair Schaub asked when spring break was. Mr.Nickelson stated they were assured by Staff that they were doing their counts when school was in. Mr.Lander stated that spring break took place in March. Chair Schaub stated that the study indicates that parallel parking is not an issue and does not have an affect on the two lanes going down Village Parkway. He asked Mr.Nickelson if he concurs with that. Mr. Nickelson stated the intersection operates at level A and any movements in and out of parking spaces will affect the level of traffic. Chair Schaub asked if someone is trying to parallel park could it stop a motorist. Mr. Nickelson responded sure,if someone is parallel parking at the exact time you are driving down the street it could be disruptive. Chair Schaub stated that at one time there was discussion about creating diagonal parking and closing off the right lane. He read from the Village Parkway Specific Plan-it would create additional congestion on Village Parkway during peak traffic flow, traffic may be diverted to Amador Valley Boulevard and residential streets with less capacity in the vicinity. Consultants estimate that the level of service on Village Parkway would operate at a level of service of'F'-unacceptable. He stated that someplace between level'A' and level'F'is what could happen. Mr.Nickelson stated he worked on the Specific Plan. The concept the Chair is referring to was to create a 2 lane Village Parkway with diagonal parking. The parking would be one issue,the other issue would be taking 4 lanes of traffic and putting into 2 lanes and they recommended against it. Chair Schaub stated next thing to discuss is the suggestion of the time limited parking spaces and the City of Dublin towing cars. Ms. Macdonald stated the sign would not say City of Dublin would tow. The sign would reference the citation number that allows cars illegally parked to be towed by private persons. Chair Schaub asked if the sign would say City of Dublin. Planning Commission 57 April 26,2005 ci cgufar°bfeeting Ms.Macdonald stated it would list the citation but would not state the City of Dublin will tow. Chair Schaub asked how affective this is. The nature of half the people in Starbucks is to get out in 15 minutes but getting in and out within 15 minutes does not always happen. Ms. Macdonald stated she would like to make small distinction between the Omni Means analysis and Staff's parking study. The Omni Means study focused on existing conditions and what the local Starbucks performed like. Staff looked at the project a little differently and looked at some"what if" scenarios. What if someone is using Starbucks to work on term paper or a small business owner using the facility to interview someone? Staff wanted to encourage a turn over to make sure 6 spaces were always available. Chair Schaub asked how effective will that be and how effective will it be to get any more capacity out of that lot. How effective will the towing be? Does someone call in and say a vehicle is parked longer than 15 minutes or does an enforcement person need to tag? Mr.Bakker stated that he is not sure what process is used by the City. The municipal code provision authorizes towing but without that the vehicle could not be towed. Chair Schaub asked again,how effective will these signs in helping reduce the possible backlog of cars in the parking lot during peak. Ms.Macdonald stated Staff has recommended as a condition of approval is one way to manage the turn over of cars and feels it will be effective to a degree. Time limited parking is used effectively in other parking lots in Dublin. Chair Schaub stated the other issue on the report is the availability of BART and Wheels. Are there any questions on that? Cm.Wehrenberg asked about the location of the bus stop in that area. Ms.Bascom stated there is one immediately to the east of the project site on Amador Valley Boulevard. Ms.Macdonald added that there is a west-bound stop on the opposite side of the road. Cm.Wehrenberg asked where the auxiliary parking was addressed. Ms. Macdonald stated that the Applicant had stated that for the first two weeks of the grand opening of the coffee shop,there would not be any other tenants so the entire parking lot would be available. Chair Schaub suggested moving onto the traffic. He asked Mr. Nickelson about the 95 trips in and 95 trips out of Starbucks and 29 in and 29 out for the proposed Starbucks. For the retail it is 19 trips in and 12 out. Why does Starbucks have the same amount of trips in as trips out but the retail has 7 more people that are in the parking lot? Mr. Nickelson stated that for the retail portion the employees are arriving and there will be a higher inbound than outbound. Chair Schaub asked where the employees for Starbucks are if it is 95 in and 95 out. Mr. Nickelson stated they are already there well before the commute hour of 7-9am. ?'tinning Commission 58 April 26,2005 gufar Meeting Chair Schaub stated he spoke to some of the employees at Starbucks on Regional Street as well as the employees at the Luggage Shop. He asked them where they park and the Luggage shop employee stated that he parks where the customers park. The Starbucks employees are not allowed to park in the customer parking lot and park across the street at the Western Appliance parking lot. Mr.Nickelson stated they counted the curb parking as well as the lot parking. Cm. Biddle asked for clarification about the traffic flow and asked if there are two entrance and two exits. Ms.Macdonald stated yes. Cm. Biddle asked if all the turns out of the project are right turns only. Ms.Macdonald stated correct. Cm. Biddle asked if there was another way to exit near Taco Bell and move into the left turn lane. Ms.Macdonald showed Cm. Biddle traffic flow on the PowerPoint diagram. Cm. Biddle asked how this intersection compares with other intersections at peak time Mr. Lander stated that currently they are close to 15,000 cars a day on the easterly leg,the westerly leg would be 20,000,the southerly is at 20,000 and the northerly is at 17,000. There are approximately 30,000 cars a day on Dublin Boulevard and 10,000 cars a day on Regional Street. Chair Schaub asked about Dublin Boulevard and Amador Plaza. Mr. Lander stated there are approximately 30,000 cars a day on Dublin Boulevard,and about 12,000 cars a day on Amador Plaza. Cm. Biddle asked how much of an increase to traffic will the proposed project generates. Mr. Lander stated that the traffic analysis done by Omni Means showed an approximate 1% increase. Chair Schaub asked if the pass-by rate was based on the study done in Orinda. Mr.Nickelson stated the research was done for a proposed Starbucks in Orinda. It was done at other Starbucks and used for the proposed project for Orinda. It was not done at Orinda. Chair Schaub stated he has no more clarification questions of staff. Chair Schaub opened the public hearing. Norm Manione,representing the Applicant Robert Enea,offered his view of some observations for the Planning Commission's consideration. The standards for parking requirements found in zoning codes throughout California are built off of statistical data that is surveyed. He explained that statistically they have found that putting up signage in regards to parking works. He stated that the employees are young adults and not all of them have vehicles. He invited the Commissioner's continued dialogue. It is definitely a commercial intersection and it is an amazing achievement that it is at a level'A'. He concluded his presentation and was available to answer questions. 2'lanning Commission 59 April-26,2005 Wcgu(ar Sheeting Cm. Biddle asked what the plan for the office building was. Robert Enea stated the office building at this point is not under construction. The office building parking is independent,which is based on the Zoning Ordinance. The office building will be built at some future date. Chair Schaub invited the Appellant. Bobby Cauchi,Appellant asked if there were parking reductions for Safeway on Dublin Boulevard and the Starbucks on Regional Street. Chair Schaub asked Staff. Ms.Bascom stated she was not aware of a parking reduction for the Safeway project. Ms.Macdonald stated the Starbucks on Regional Street was parked under a different Zoning Ordinance but did not receive a parking reduction. Chair Schaub explained that the Safeway service station went in after the grocery store was built. It is two separate pieces. Bobbi Cauchi,7073 Village Parkway stated for the record there is not enough parking in the community and it is creating a hazard. She stated that she is a small business owner at the Village Green on Village Parkway and that lot is often used as a park and ride. Chair Schaub asked her to help the Commission understand the problem with the parking reduction on the proposed project. Ms.Cauchi stated that once the coffee shop is on the corner,people are going to stop there and park and ride. She explained that she did her own parking study at the Starbucks on Regional Street. She entered at 9:39 and there were 8 employees,11 people in line,2 unused parking spaces,and 2 cars illegally parked at the entrance to the coffee shop. She questioned some of the employees and the part time employee stated she has witnessed 3"near" accidents. She asked the employees where they park and they indicated they park across the street. A local resident witnessed 2 accidents within a half hour period the Friday before last at 9:40am. Appellant's husband,Mr.Cauchi stated the proposed project is very close to three schools. They see a large number of kids from the high school walking to school. The peak hours of 7 to gam may work well for people getting coffee but that area is very busy during the lunch hour with the high school kids going to the fast food restaurants. He is concerned that the youth traffic was not taken into consideration and urged the Commission to take a very close look at these concerns. Chair Schaub asked if there were any other speakers. He explained to the residents to state their opinion but to not go over the same facts. John Plencner,6253 Dougherty Road,stated he is a Dublin resident and works at Valley High School. There are 4 projects within the vicinity of the project. He stated that his concerns are the schools in the close proximity. The problem is the foul weather days where the number of parents driving their children to school doubles and even triples. There will be a considerable increase in students that will Planning Commission 60 April 26,2005 Wggular Sbfee4ing impact that intersection. The number of parking spaces on site does not represent the peak numbers on foul weather days. The study does not reflect comprehensive growth for that intersection. Ron Meyn,11803 Norfolk Street,stated that the school district has not taken a position on the project. He asked how the bus stop on Amador Valley Boulevard affects the parking situation. Is there a designated area for the bus stop? By putting more cars into a parking area that does not have enough parking does in fact exacerbate traffic flow. Part of that traffic problem is that the main exit leads to the east-bound Amador Valley Boulevard into the residential area. There are two daycares on Amador Valley Boulevard. Phil Heesch,8555 Beverly Lane stated that it is nice to see some of the upgrades. His concern is that when the building across the street is rented out the traffic will increase even more. He asked how many parking stalls will there be. Chair Schaub stated that the requirement today for the parcel is 45 parking stalls and the request is to reduce it down to 32 spaces. Mr. Heesch stated that he does not think it will work in that location. Jeff Hansen, Dublin resident and stated that he is at the meeting as a Dublin resident and not as a member of the Dublin San Ramon Services District board of directors. He urged the Commission to uphold the appeal and overturn the decision of the Zoning Administrator. He stated that the post office is also located on Village Parkway and it is a very busy area. A 29% reduction is not intended by the Zoning Ordinance and is a substantial reduction. Cathrine Hauize,7272 Burton Street questions the data that was used for the traffic and parking analysis. A few years ago on the first day of the Easter break there were City employees laying out equipment on the street to count the cars. If that count was used for these studies,it does not accurately reflect traffic at that intersection. There were studies done when Safeway was put in and when Starbucks was put in and there are serious problems there. Heather Johnson,Windchime Way,Tracy stated she is an employee in Dublin. She attended the March 14,2005 hearing believes it was stated that at that meeting the traffic was rated at a level'C'. Chair Schaub directed the question to Staff. Mr.Lander stated that in the Omni Means Study as well as the Downtown TIF Study found that intersection is currently operating at level'A'. Ms.Johnson stated to her understanding from the March 14,2005 hearing that there were to 5 parking spaces,2 on Village Parkway and 3 on Amador Valley Boulevard. Chair Schaub stated the proposal indicates 9 spaces. Ms. Macdonald stated that the Omni Means found that on street parking would be available for 7 cars. Staff's recommendation is to require 5 on street and 6 time limited parking spaces. Chair Schaub stated the diagram indicates 9 on street parking spots. Ms. Macdonald stated 5 on street out of a maximum of 9,and 6 time limited. Planning Commission 61 April 26,2005 R gufar!Meeting Chair Schaub clarified that 9 are proposed with the assumption that 5 would be available. Ms.Johnson stated that at the March 14,2005 meeting there was discussion on making the area pedestrian friendly,which will increase the number of pedestrians and bicyclist,and that should be considered. Rick Camacho,business owner on Village Parkway stated he sat on the task force that created the Village Parkway Specific Plan. He explained that the goal of the plan was to increase the vitality of the area and promote business. Any growth in development is going to affect traffic. He stated that coming from the business standpoint-where do you draw the line and say no we are not going to have any more development. Whether there are 5 more or 10 more parking spots,it's the size of the business that is going to affect traffic. Chair Schaub thanked him and for serving on the task force. Mr.Manione stated that any expert opinion has to be measured from a practical observation. The property is zoned for the use. The growth from whatever traffic comes from this project is in the equation. He stated that parents driving their children to school have increased to ensure their safety, which may already be in the equation of traffic counts. There is validity in reasonable expertise. Mr. Nickelson has years of studying traffic and parking. He asked the Commission to not uphold the appeal but to uphold the decision made by the Zoning Administrator. Chair Schaub closed the public hearing. Cm. Wehrenberg stated that what is in front of the Commission is the 29%parking reduction. As a Planning Commission they have certain duties. What is the relationship to the project to the entire community and the understanding of the goals for the City? She stated that reducing parking seems to be a common factor lately and she is not for it. She has issues with what the retail will be. If there was not an eating and dining establishment it could change. Cm. Biddle agreed with Cm.Wehrenberg. He stated that he lives close to Fredrikson School and uses that intersection frequently. No matter what is done in the City,traffic is going to be affected. What is important is how it is managed. The Conditional Use Permit for this project was approved in May 2004 for 54 parking spaces. The scope of the building has changed in that the eating facility has gone from 600 sq.ft.to approximately 1,900 sq.ft. plus 400 sq.ft.outside. The project needs to be looked at as a total project. It is premature to reduce parking when only half the project has been built. He suggested looking at the parking reduction when the second phase of the project is constructed. He is not in favor of the reduction. He asked about parking for delivery trucks. Ms.Macdonald stated that an additional condition has been added to require the Applicant to provide a loading space on site. There are landscaping areas that could be adjusted to create a loading space. Chair Schaub stated it is important to him that as a Commission they don't make a mistake. He is not comfortable with the figures and data and that there will not be a parking lot that fills up everyday with a successful Starbucks. He hopes that there is a way to make this project happen and solve the problem. Chair Schaub asked for a motion. Mr.Bakker stated that the motion that Staff recommended was to adopt the resolution affirming the Zoning Administrators decision. If it is the pleasure of the Planning Commission to reverse the decision c Tanning Commission 62 April'26,2005 <cgu(ar.Meeting of the Zoning Administrator the resolution would need to be amended to reflect that findings could not be made to approve. On motion by Cm. Biddle,2nd by Cm.Wehrenberg subject to the text changes recommended by the Planning Commission and by a 3-1-1 vote with Cm.Fasulkey absent and Cm.King abstaining the Planning Commission adopted. RESOLUTION 05-25 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REVERSING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A REDUCTION TO REQUIRED PARKING FOR ENEA PROPERTIES/STARBUCKS COFFEE AT 7197 VILLAGE PARKWAY(PA 04-057) Ms.Bascom stated that this item is subject to a 10 day appeal period. OTHER BUSINESS-None NEW OR UNFINISHED Cm. Biddle asked that a follow up report be done regarding past projects. He asked about the shed on Dover Court that came before the Planning Commission a few months back. Ms. Bascom stated the property owners is in code enforcement for the shed violation and needs to make modifications. Cm.Biddle asked about the security dogs at the auto auction. Ms. Bascom stated she does not know the status of that. Cm. Biddle asked about the Cuellar garage conversion Ms.Bascom stated Mr.Cuellar will be heard at the May 3,2005 City Council meeting. ADJOURNMENT-The meeting was adjourned at 10:25pm. Respectfully submitted, ////,(5h14,4 Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST: Actin Planning Manager rlfanning Commission 63 ,ApriI26,2005 W'rilufar.MMerting CITY CLERK File0 • AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 7, 2005 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING:Appeal of Planning Commission Reversal of Zoning Administrator's Approval of a Conditional Use Permit Authorizing a Parking Reduction for PA 04-057,Enea Properties/Starbucks Coffee Report prepared by: Janet Harbin, Senior Planner c ATTACHMENTS: 1. Letter of Appeal to the City Council from Robert Enea dated received May 5,2005 2. Planning Commission Staff Report, with Resolution attached, and Meeting Minutes for April 26,2005 3. Letter of Appeal to the Planning Commission from Bobbi Cauchi dated received March 23,2005 with Applicant's Response to Appeal 4. Zoning Administrator Staff Report, with Resolution attached, and Meeting Minutes for March 14, 2005 5, Site Plan 6. Parking Study with Supplemental Parking Report • 7. Planning Commission Reso.No.04-40 for Enea Village Project,PA 03-069 8. Correspondence received by Planning Commissioners at their residences RECOMMENDATION: 1. Open Public Hearing and Hear Staff Presentation; 2. Take Testimony from the Applicant and the Public; 3. Close Public Hearing and Deliberate; 4kik( 4. Direct Staff to Either: a. Prepare a Resolution Denying the Appeal Thereby Affirming Planning Commission Denial of Conditional Use Permit PA 04-057,Enea Properties/Starbucks Coffee; Or b. Prepare a Resolution Granting the Appeal Thereby Reversing the Planning Commission and Upholding the Zoning Administrator's Approval of Conditional Use Permit PA 04-057,Enea Properties/Starbucks Coffee; Or c. Prepare a Resolution Granting the Appeal in Part Thereby Reversing the Planning Commission and Modifying the Zoning Administrator's Approval of Conditional Use Permit PA 04-057,Enea Properties/Starbucks Coffee, COPES TO: Appellant Property Owner PA File GAPA1/\2004104-057 Staubunk,Parking CUP\CC Appal 46-1-05.doc 1 V Q ITEM NO. • DESCRIPTION: The project site at 7197 Village Parkway was the former location of an automotive gasoline and service th station that closed in the 1990's,and was previously zoned General Commercial(C-2). Adjacent uses include the Taco Bell restaurant to the south and two single-family homes to the east on Amador Valley Boulevard, The City Council adopted a Stage 1 and 2 Planned Development(PD)Zoning District for the property on December 15, 1998,PA 98-049. Pursuant to the PD regulations,a range of office, commercial and eating and drinking establishments were permitted uses in the district. Cafés and other neighborhood-serving uses were specifically identified as appropriate new uses in the Planned Development Rezoning Ordinance adopted by City Council. The potential of the project site was further studied in the Village Parkway Specific Plan,adopted by City Council on December 19,2000,in which the property was identified as an opportunity site and a primary gateway area. On May 11,2004,the Planning Commission approved a request for Site Development Review,Tentative Map, and a Conditional Use Permit for the Enea Village Parkway Center(PA 03-069)on the property located at 7197 Village Parkway(see Resolution 04-40, included as Attachment 7). The approval allows development of the 1-acre lot at the southeast corner of the intersection of Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard with an 8,539-square-foot commercial/retail center and a 5,582-square-foot office building. Project amenities included an 800-square-foot landscaped public plaza with bench seating. The site plan provided parking for 54 vehicles. Within the corrunercial/retail center,a 600-square-foot space was identified for eating and drinking uses, such as a coffee shop. At the present time, construction has commenced for the commercial/retail building at the site with approved building permits;however, grading and sitework only have proceeded on the office building parcel. In November of 2004, Enea Properties requested a Conditional Use Permit from the Zoning Administrator to reduce the total number of parking spaces required by the Zoning Ordinance for a 1,886-square-foot coffee retailer and cafe(Starbuck's)by thirteen(13)parking spaces in the future Enea Village Parkway Center. The Conditional Use Permit,if approved,would reduce the number of on-site parking spaces by eight(8)parking spaces and substitute five(5)curbside parking spaces for five(5)on-site parking spaces, pursuant to Chapter 8.76 of the Zoning Ordinance, Off-street Parking and Loading(see Attachment 6, Parking Study with Supplemental Focused Parking Study). The proposal included a mix of indoor seating and outdoor seating,for a total of 30 indoor and 16 outdoor seats. On March 14,2005,the Zoning Administrator held a public hearing and granted the Conditional Use Permit. The hearing and Zoning Administrator action is addressed in the following section. Zoning Administrator Hearing and Action: In considering the Conditional Use Permit for a reduction of eight(8)parking spaces and substitution of five(5)curbside parking spaces for five(5)on-site parking spaces for the Enea Village Parkway Center (PA 04-057),the Zoning Administrator received a Staff report on the project(see Attachment 4), and heard comments from the public at a public hearing on March 14,2005. Prior to the hearing,the Zoning Administrator received 13 letters supporting the parking reduction, and 16 letters opposing the parking reduction. Additionally,at the public hearing held on March 14,2005, several people,including the owners of Mika's Espresso,located across Amador Valley Boulevard from the Enea Village Center's site, and their customers spoke in opposition to the parking reduction because of pedestrian safety,parking and other traffic-related issues,as well as the importance of supporting local businesses such as Mika's • Espresso. The meeting minutes for the Zoning Administrator Public Healing are included in Attachment 4 with the Staff report. 2 1 • A complete discussion of the information on the requested Conditional Use Permit and the material presented to the Zoning Administrator is contained in the Staff report in Attachment 4, along with the doh minutes of the hearing. The Zoning Administrator granted the Conditional Use Permit at the Public ler Hearing, and advised those attending about the appeal process. Appeal of Zoning Administrator Action to Planning Commission: Following the approval of the Conditional Use Permit by the Zoning Administrator,a letter from Bobbi Cauchi was received by the City Clerk on March 23,2005 appealing the approval of the Enea Properties/Starbucks parking reduction(PA 04-057). This was the only letter of appeal received, and is included as Attachment 3 of this Staff report. The letterr of appeal expressed Ms. Cauchi's concerns regarding project traffic and circulation conflicts with local schools and area traffic,perceived inconsistency with the intent of the Village Parkway Specific Plan,and perceived inconsistency with the intent of Zoning Ordinance parking regulations. These points were briefly summarized and responded to in the Analysis section of the Planning Commission Staff report included with this report as Attachment 2. Additionally,the Applicant,Robert Enea of Enea Properties,also submitted a response to the Appellant's letter which is included as the Applicant's Response to Appeal in Attachment 3,discussing the parking requirements of various cities in the Tri-Valley area related to approval of similar Starbucks shops.At the Planning Commission hearing on the appeal,Public Works Department Staff presented a diagram, included in Attachment 2,the Planning Commission Report and Minutes,which illustrates that nine(9) curbside parking spaces are available to substitute for the reduction of 13 parking spaces on-site,leaving the Applicant's on-site parking short by four(4)on-site spaces.Following the Staff presentation, testimony from the Applicant and the Public, and the Traffic Consultant and Staff responding to questions ak on the project,the Planning Commission acted to deny the Conditional Use Permit for the project. The adopted Resolution and minutes of the meeting are also contained in Attachment 3. ANALYSIS: Robert Enea of Enea Properties,the property owner of the Enea Village retail and office center in which Starbucks Coffee plans to locate, filed a Letter of Appeal of the Planning CommissionQienial of the Conditional Use Permit PA 04-057 on May 5,2005. The following section provides a discussion and response to the points presented in the Applicant's Letter of Appeal. The actual analysis of the project, technical traffic information, and the issues presented by the previous letter of appeal to the Planning Commission are contained in the Planning Commission Staff report,Attachment 2,the Zoning Administrator Staff report,Attachment 4,and the Parking Study with Supplemental Focused Parking Report in Attachment 6. Applicant's Letter of Appeal: The points of discussion presented in the Applicant's Letter of Appeal are numbered below and in the letter submitted,and include the corresponding response. 1. A plicant Comment: The Applicant requests that the City Council determine that the 1:100 parking standard is excessive for the proposed use; that the proposed alternative parking study reducing the on-site parking by eight (8)spaces, with four(4)on site 15-minute spaces and five (5)spaces off-site, is an appropriate downtown parking standard,particularly when considered in light of other cities • downtown parking standards;that the Zoning Administrator's approval be affirmed and the Planning Commission's decision be reversed;and the Conditional Use Permit be granted based on the recommendations and conclusions of the parking study prepared by Omni Means. 3 Ob • • Response: The appellant is essentially asking the City Council to reconsider the materials presented to the Zoning Administrator and the Planning Commission,and any evidence presented at or before the City Council hearing,and make an independent determination as to whether the parking reduction should be granted. 1 Applicant's Comment: Traffic and parking data, studies, and analysis are the fundamental basis for all most major decisions concerning urban planning and project development. Experts such as professional Traffic Engineers are relied on to analyze data and information to determine impacts associated with proposed growth and development. In the past, the Planning Commission and City Council have based major land use and development decisions on the summary and conclusions of Traffic Engineers like Omni Means, While it is appropriate for the elected or appointed decision makers to apply common sense to test and filtering the reasoning of planners and engineers, and to consider the input and concerns of other stakeholders, the process seemed to breakdown due to the • manner in which the hearing was conducted, and based on comments made by the Chair of the Commission. Certain questions and comments made by.the Chairman communicated particular beliefs or perceptions as follows: a. Handicapped parking spaces should not be counted toward fulfilling the on-site parking requirements because they generally go unused; b. Even though this is a downtown area, the project could not use five(5) of the nine (9)on- street spaces to make up for some of the required on-site spaces, which is normally allowed in downtown areas; c. The four limited time (I5-minute only)spaces would not effectively increase the capacity of the on-site parking plan, even,though it was recommended by experienced professionals; and, d. The Focused Traffic/Parking Analysis states that, "the proposed retail/coffee shop would not significantly impact traffic conditions at the study intersection compared to existing conditions," and the intersection of Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard with the project would "continue to operate at LOS "A"conditions during the A.M.peak hour. . ." Additionally, the study states that, "Curb space for 10-12 vehicles is available on Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard fronting the project site. . . It is likely the curb spaces would accommodate the excess demand." Response: The comment in item"d"suggests there is a misunderstanding of the nature of the pending application. The Applicant has applied for a parking reduction. The Zoning Administrator and the Planning Commission were limited to considering whether the proposed reduction would meet the requirements under Dublin Municipal Code section 8.76.050. Tra±lc impacts are relevant to that inquiry. For example,if the granting of the approval would result in significant traffic impacts then the decision maker might not be able to make one or more of the conditional use permit findings that must be made in order to grant the conditional use permit. However,the fact that the project will not have traffic impacts—as the Omni-Means study points out and the Applicant argues—does not mean that the parking reduction must be granted. Rather,the decision maker still must make the other,findings required under section 8.76.050. Relative to the other factual issues raised in this comment by the appellant,the Planning Commission did not ignore the parking studies and testimony of experts. The Supplemental Focused Traffic/Parking Analysis dated April 19,2005,in Attachment 6 of this Staff report,was included in the information submitted to the Planning Commission for consideration with the Staff report,and other information and materials,for the project prior to the public hearing on April 26,2005 for the appeal of the Zoning Administrator approval of the Conditional Use Permit. It was clear from the testimony that the commissioners had read the two studies. In determining what course of action is to be taken on a 4 Lib 15- • the Planning Commission is rCsurned to have revio 1.all the information,material and project, X18 P testimony in the record, The Resolution adopted by the Planning Commission,Resolution No.05-25 on April 26,2005,reversing the Zoning Administrator's approval and denying the Conditional Use I. Permit PA 04-057 indicated that the Planning Commission considered the information set forth in the Omni/Means study. The pertinent language reads as follows: WHEREAS, the Staff Report, including the Focused Traffic/Parking Analysis prepared by Omni Means, was submitted to the Planning Commission recommending that the Planning Commission affirm the Zoning Administrator's approval of the Conditional Use Permit and deny the appeal; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth, and used its independent judgment in making a decision. In addition,even if the Planning Commission had failed to consider the evidence set out in the Onmi/Means study,the City Council's consideration of the Omni/Meats study and the focused traffic/parking study on appeal would serve to cure any such irregularity Furthermore,the Planning Commission's denial was not based on the rejection of the testimony of experts. Rather it was based on its inability to make the required finding that the required parking standards are excessive and that the Applicant has proposed appropriate alternate parking standards that will ensure that there will not be a parking deficiency. In addition to the Omni-Means study that was part of the record,the Public Works Department Staff presented a diagram at the Planning Commission hearing,included in Attachment 2,which illustrates that nine(9)curbside parking spaces are available to substitute for the reduction of 13 parking spaces on-site,leaving the Applicant's on- site parking short by four(4)on-site spaces. Notwithstanding this staff presentation,the Planning Commission apparently rejected the Omni-Means report's premise and the staff suggestion at the meeting that on-street parking spaces can be used to satisfy off-street parking requirements. It therefore concluded that the Omni-Means report failed to demonstrate that the standard was excessive—since the project would actually be short 13 spaces—or that the study proposed alternate parking standards that are appropriate and ensure that there will not be a parking deficiency. That is a legal,not a factual,determination. Accordingly,if the Planning Commission's interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance is correct,then the Omni-Means study and staff presentation-both of which relied upon the premise that the project was only 4 off-street spaces short—do not support for the finding that the requirement is excessive or that the report proposes a parking standard that will ensure that there will not be a parking deficiency. The Applicant is correct that handicapped parking spaces are counted towards the on-site parking requirement. 3. Applicant's Comment: There is no credible or substantial evidence in the underlying record contrary to the conclusions of City Staff the City Traffic Engineer, and the commissioned Focused Traffic/Parking Analysis that alternative parking standards sought(1)are appropriate for this project, and(ii)will not result in a parking deficit. Response: As was indicated in response to comment 3 above,the Planning Commission's decision was premised on a legal determination,and not upon a factual determination. Once that legal determination was made,the evidence in the record did not support the required findings. . • 4. Applicant's Comment: The Planning Commission Chairman made several public comments in reference to the results of his own personal investigation relating to employee parking at another similar coffee shop location. These comments were inconsistent with his opening statement describing 5 Obi; the Commission's role as a jury panel. His statements, based on the evidence he gathered, may have biased the opinions of the other Commissioners and showed that he had not been objective in considering the request. Additionally, he also stated he received e-mails and over 20 pieces of correspondence delivered to his personal residence supporting the Appellant's position. As the Applicant, Staff advised us that no contact with the Commissioners'was permitted by either the • Applicant or the Appellant. Response: The pending application requests an approval that requires the City to conduct a quasi- judicial hearing. Such hearings entitle the Applicant(and the project's neighbors in some cases)to due process under the California Constitution, Due process in quasi-judicial proceedings is not the same as due process in judicial proceedings and in fact is somewhat flexible. At base,due process in quasi- judicial hearings requires that the participants receive a fair hearing. California courts have held that a. participant does not receive a fair hearing when information regarding the matter received by the decision maker is not included in the official record of the proceedings. Such information might include contacts concerning the matter with individuals outside of the public hearing,known as ex parte contacts. However,if the decision makers disclose on the record the information received outside of the public hearing,the requirements of due process are met. To avoid due process problems, City staff—as they did in this matter—routinely advise Applicants for quasi-judicial approvals not to make individual contacts with Planning Commissioners, At the Planning Commission hearing and on the record, the Chair indicated that he had done some outside investigation regarding the parking requirements at other local Starbucks locations. However, since that information was disclosed at the hearing,the requirements of due process were met with regard to that evidence. With regard to the correspondence delivered to the Planning Commissioners,a multi-page document go left at the doorsteps of the Planning Commissioners'homes was made part of the official record and is included as Attachment S. Any electronic mails that may have been received by the Planning Commissioners on this matter were not provided to City staff and were not made part of the official record. In any event, since the City Council is making an independent determination on the appeal,the City Council's consideration of the appeal will have the effect of curing any perceived due process violation that may have taken place at the Planning Commission level. The Applicant is free to introduce new evidence and in effect thereby receives a new hearing. The official record of the City Council will include all of the information included in this Staff report and the attachments,any evidence and testimony presented to the City Council at the public hearing, and any information received by individual Councilmembers that the Councilmembers disclose at the public hearing. Since the City Council will be making an independent determination based on this official record, the City Council determination will not be based on information that the Planning Commissioners may have obtained outside of the public hearing. Of course,the members of the City Council should disclose any information on this matter that they received outside of the public hearing and the official record to ensure that the City Council determination is consistent with due process requirements. Alternatively,if it so desires,the City Council could grant the appeal in part and remand the matter back to the Planning Commission with direction that the Planning Commission rehear the matter and disclose all information the Planning Commissioners received on the matter outside of the public hearing,including any ex parte contacts. • 5. Applicant's Comment: It must be stated for the public record that the motivating stakeholder behind the Appellant's actions are the owner's of a competing coffee kiosk located across the street. They 6 sS have disguised their opposition under the mask of traffic and parking. In reality, they are seeking to preserve their own economic interests and have abused the system to further their self-interest. Every letter and voice heard in opposition of our CUP for reduced parking is a friend or associate of the owners of the competing coffee kiosk In fact, it should be noted that the competing coffee kiosk business located across the street is operating under a twelve-year old conditional use permit granting them a 50 percent parking reduction. Response; Comment noted. The owners of Mika's Coffee across Amador Valley Boulevard from the Enea Village Center were present and spoke in opposition of the project at the Zoning Administrator bearing held on March 14,2005 (see Meeting Minutes of hearing contained in Attachment 4,Zoning Administrator Staff report,Resolution, and Meeting Minutes for March 14,2005). Staff has no way of confirming whether the letters or voices heard are friends or associates of the owners of the coffee kiosk. The Applicant is correct regarding the reduction in parking spaces at the site of the coffee kiosk. It was granted for a drive-through camera and photo business in accordance with a Conditional Use Permit granted by Alameda County in 1977. The approval of the Conditional Use Permit,C-3262, in 1977 included a finding that only one parking space was required for the use,the assumption being that the one parking space was needed for the employee in the kiosk. The City's Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 8.76 contains no specific standards for parking for solely drive-through uses, The parking standards matrix in that chapter states that the parking regulations for drive-through uses are"Per CUP." Conditional Use Permits run with the land and when Mika's took over the drive-through use,no additional use permit was required since the use permit was for a drive-through type of use. 6.Applicant's Comment: We have worked cooperatively with Staff and the resulting project is a culmination of extensive planning and design,yielding an attractive and high quality project elAdditionally, we are proud of the design and quality of our project and feel it will be a fine addition to the community, attracting good, high quality tenants to the area. We believe the alternative parking standard, as supported by the traffic consultant and Staff recommendations and reports, is appropriate for this location. Response:Comment noted. 7. Applicant's Comment: We alternatively appeal the Planning Commission's denial of the Conditional Use Permit with prejudice.' Response: The applicant is apparently requesting that,if the Council agrees with the Planning Commission decision,that the City Council grant the appeal in part for the sole purpose of denying the application without prejudice rather than with prejudice. Section 8.136.070 of the Zoning Code provides that: When an application for a permit is denied on appeal, no application for the same or substantially same permit or a permit for the same use on the same property shall be filed for a period of one year from the date of denial, except where the permit was denied without prejudice. Thus,the effect of the Planning Commission denial,which did not indicate whether it was a denial without prejudice,was to preclude the applicant from filing an application for the same or substantially same permit for a period of one year from the date of denial. The City Council could eliminate this prohibition by granting the appeal and indicating that the denial is without prejudice. 7 ebf Public Hearing Notice and Comments: In accordance with section 8.136.060.B, a Public Hearing Notice was mailed to property owners within.a le 300-foot radius of the project property,residents,tenants,persons that spoke at previous public hearings, and other interested parties. A copy of the notice was advertised in the Valley Times and posted at locations in the City. As of the writing of this report,no further comments have been received from the Public. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW; The California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA),together with the State guidelines and City environmental regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared. The proposed project has been.found to be Categorically Exemption from the provisions of California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA),in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15304,as it is a minor alteration to land consisting of a reduction in parking spaces for a business tenant within an approved infihl retail commercial center,presently under construction. CONCLUSION: The City Council's charge is to determine if the Planning Commission decision to reverse the Zoning Administrator's approval and deny the Conditional Use Permit should be upheld,or if the Planning Commission decision should be reversed and the Conditional Use Permit for PA 04-057 be approved. In addition,the City Council could grant the appeal in part,and make modifications to the Zoning Administrator's granting of the Conditional Use Permit. Staff has provided a Recommendation that would allow the City Council to make an appropriate determination and direct Staff to return at a later ap date with the draft Resolution implementing the determination. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council: 1)open public hearing and hear the Staff presentation;2)take testimony from the Applicant,Appellant and.the Public;3)close the public bearing and deliberate; and,4) direct Staff to Either: a. Prepare a Resolution Denying the Appeal Thereby Affirming Planning Commission Denial of Conditional Use Permit PA 04-057,Enea Properties/Starbucks Coffee; or, b. Prepare a Resolution Granting the Appeal Thereby Reversing the Planning Commission and Upholding the Zoning Administrator's Approval Conditional Use Permit PA 04-057,Enea Properties/Starbucks Coffee; or, c.Prepare a Resolution Granting the Appeal in Part Thereby Reversing the Planning Commission and Modifying the Zoning Administrator's Approval Conditional Use Permit PA 04-057,Enea Properties/Starbucks Coffee. G:1PA#1200coa.OS7 5n a\CC Appeal ar 60705 Aloe • sobs • PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION REVERSAL OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL,USE PERMIT AUTHORIZING A PARKIN REDUCTION FOR ENEA PROPERTI , /STARBUCKS OFFEE PA 04-*57 7:45 p.m. 6.1 (410430) Mayor Lockhart opened the public hearing. Senior Planner Janet Harbin presented the Staff Report and advised that Applicant Robert Enea, Enea Properties, was appealing the Planning Commission's denial of a Conditional Use Permit for a reduction in parking for a 1,886 square foot coffee retailer and café (Starbucks) in the future Enea Village Parkway Center, located at 7197 Village Parkway. The Zoning Administrator's previous approval of the Conditional Use Permit was appealed to the Planning Commission by Bobbi Cauchi in March 2004. At its April 26, 2005 meeting,the Planning Commission reversed the Zoning Administrator's decision and denied the Conditional Use Permit. Staff recommended that the Council conduct public hearing;deliberate;and direct Staff to EITHER: a) Prepare a Resolution denying the appeal, thereby affirming the Planning Commission denial of the Conditional Use Permit,—OR--b) Prepare a Resolution granting the appeal,thereby reversing the Planning Commission denial and upholding the Zoning Administrator's approval of the Conditional Use Permit; -- OR- c) Prepare a Resolution granting the appeal in part, thereby reversing the Planning Commission denial and modifying the Zoning Administrator approval of the Conditional Use Permit. City Attorney Elizabeth Silver reminded the Council that it should only consider the Appellant's stated grounds for the appeal. It boiled down to whether or not a conditional use permit could be granted to authorize a reduction in the standard parking requirements. There were provisions in the Zoning Ordinance which allow for reduction in parking if the findings could be made. The issue was not whether or not a Starbucks was an appropriate use, or whether there was competition with other businesses in the area. The Council previously designated the land use for this property, which allowed this type of use. City Attorney Silver further reminded the Council that it was acting in a quasi-judicial capacity during this heating and explained the principles of due process. She advised the Council to disclose any contact they may have had with anyone regarding this issue,so that the entire Council was working with the same written and verbal information. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 24 REGULAR MEETING June 7, 2005 PACE 213 Cm. Oravetz advised that he had received an anonymous packet of mail,which included copies of letters and petitions against project. He also spoke with City Staff regarding the parking issue. Vm. Zika advised that he had received the same packet, which he gave to the City Clerk for the record. He also spent time with Staff talking about required parking. Mayor Lockhart advised that she received the same packet,as well as several emails to which she responded with a standard response thanking them for taking the time to write, reminding them of the public hearing date and time,and inviting them to attend the meeting and participate. She also reminded them that the issue the Council would deal with was a reduction in parking not a particular business. Cm. McCormick advised that she had received the same packet and noted that the same information was duplicated in the staff report. She received numerous emails which she did not read,but saved for future review. Cm. I-lildenbrand advised that she had received the same packet,and also received several emails in opposition to a Starbucks, but refrained from responding. She had no individual conversations with Staff or residents. George Nickelson,Omni Means,advised that he was hired by the City to do the parking studies and reviewed the outcome of and recommendations made in the parking studies as outlined in the Staff Report. In summary,at 9:30 a.m. the peak combined Starbucks and retail demand would be 39 spaces,based on actual surveys taken directly from the Starbucks in this area. Thirty-two (32) on-site spaces would be available for the combined Starbucks/retail uses, leaving a 7-space deficit that would seek parking on the street, presumably on the curb frontage adjacent to the site. Vm. Zika asked if the traffic study count for the Starbucks on Regional Street included the customers parking at offsite lots and walking in. Mr. Nickelson advised that anyone who parked in the surveyor's field of view and walked into the Starbucks was counted. If they parked out of view and walked in,they would not be counted. Cm. McCormick asked if the Peet's Coffee in the Waterford Center was considered as a business to survey for parking counts. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 24 REGULAR MEETING June 7, 2005 PAGE 214 Mr. Nickelson advised that they chose to survey only Starbucks,so they would have an apples-to-apples approach. Ms. Harbin referred. to Peet's Coffee and advised that the Council had approved reduced parking for the entire Waterford Shopping Center. Traffic Engineer Ray Kuzbari addressed the proposed on-street parking locations as outlined in the Staff Report. In a recent development,the Livermore-Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA) had requested that the bus stop currently located at the corner of Amador Valley Boulevard and Village Parkway to be relocated to the east so it would be closer to the residential area. This action could accommodate three more on-street parking spaces,which would bring the total on-street parking spaces to 12. Cm. Oravetz asked if the Planning Commission had heard LAVTA's request before they made their decision. Mr. Kuzbari advised that LAVTA had not yet made their request; however,the Omni Means traffic study did look at that particular location with the existing bus stop and advised that utilizing those spaces could boost the on-street parking spaces to 12. Cm. Oravetz asked if the on-street parking spots would be striped. Mr. Kuzbari advised that it was an option,but not required. Council and Staff discussed LAVTA's proposal to relocate the bus stop and viewed photos of the subject area. Staff advised that there would be 300' for the bus to merge onto the leftmost lane to go straight on Amador Valley Boulevard,as well as vehicles going to the Montessori School and Wells Middle School. Vm. Zika noted that the Zoning Ordinance stated that 45 parking spaces were required for the coffee and retail use,and the Traffic Study showed 39 spaces were necessary. How many parking spaces were available based on the current footprint of the property? Mr. Kuzbari advised that 32 spaces on-site were currently available,just for retail including Starbucks. Mayor Lockhart addressed the audience and advised them that she would call the Applicant/Appellant first,and then call those who had submitted a speaker slip to speak for three minutes. The 3-minute rule would not apply to the Appellant. .� CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 24 REGULAR MEETING June 7, 2005 PAGE 215 Andrew Pionti,representing the Appellant, reviewed the site elevation and explained that the site would be developed in two parcels. Parcel A was being developed first as retail. Parcel B would be later developed as office use,which demanded the lowest parking. Their economic model for the project contemplated selling off Parcel B to pay down the debt obligation to Parcel A with entitlements,so they did not want to encumber Parcel B with parking obligations for Parcel A. Dublin did not have a default parking ratio for anything other than a full-service,sit-down restaurant,which was one spot for 100 square feet,or a 1:100 ratio. People do not usually stay as long at a Starbucks as they would a restaurant,with parking spaces turning over at an average of 10 minutes. He discussed ingress/egress from the site, as well as potential parking configurations. They have designed a project which,to their understanding,fit into the City's plans for that street as a gateway and opportunity site. The total on-site parking would accommodate 54 spaces;however,only 32 would be considered for Parcel A because Parcel B parking needed to stand alone. There was now the possibility for approximately 12 off-site adjacent curbside spots. As a result,at the peak time of 9:30 a.m.,the use would be only one spot short under the Dublin's high default standard of 1:100. Having to come up with more on-site parking spaces may result in having to reduce the size of the building on Parcel B,which would make it a very marginal economic project. This Starbucks was projected to do approximately 50% of the volume,in terms of sales and visits,as that of the Regional Street store. • Vm. Zika asked if there would be a fence or wall in between each parcel so the Starbucks visitors did not encroach into the Parcel B parking. If so, would they use the common driveway? Mr. Pionti advised yes,theme was a common driveway that would be accessed from Amador Valley Boulevard. It would be fenced about three-quarters of the length of the drive aisle and every attempt would be made to separate the two parcels. Joe Stevens, Dublin resident, stated that a local minority should not be allowed to deny the community a new Starbucks because they were concerned about the competition and urged the Council to listen to Staff's recommendations regarding the project. Debra Pavao, Dublin resident,stated that the meeting alleviated a lot of her fears regarding potential parking and traffic safety issues. Ivan Hayter, Dublin resident,stated that he would like a Starbucks at that site and would walk to it. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 24 REGULAR MEETING June 7, 2005 PAGE 216 Myrna Hayter, Dublin resident, stated that she was pleased to see something as nice as the proposed building going into that site, which had been vacant for so long. It would be a wonderful addition to the neighborhood,as well as very convenient to surrounding businesses. Nubia Walker, Dublin resident, stated that a Starbucks would be convenient at that location because it was not safe to get coffee from the drive-thru coffee shop in the shopping center where she worked. Dina Weir, Dublin resident,asked if the on-street parking would be marked with a time limit. If so, where would staff park? She expressed concern about the safety of children going to school on foot and on bicycles. Traffic was already congested when she drove her kids to school. It was not fair to assume that people would leave in 10 minutes because there are people who stay for hours. Mr. Kuzbari advised that Staff did not intend to recommend any time limited parking on- street. The Staff Report indicated that a few on-site parking spaces would be timed at 15 minutes. Staff, however,was unsure it was necessary because a lot was learned from the Omni Means surveys. Employee parking was not an issue covered because the current parking numbers included employees. Mr. Nickelson advised that the parking surveys included employees to a point where they were visible and the surveyor could see where they parked. All of the cars were visible and counted at the Alcosta/Village Parkway and Hacienda locations;however,there may have been some cars missed at the Regional location. Even so, if theoretical employee cars were added at that location,then averaged and backed out among the three,it would change the numbers by about one space. City Attorney Silver advised that either the Staff Report or the parking study stated that employee parking was included in the 1:100 parking requirement. Jerry Cauchi, Dublin resident, stated it was unfair to compare this proposal to the � p Starbucks at Alcosta/Village Parkway and Alcosta because they were part of a major retail center with more parking accommodations. He asked questions regarding alternative parking,the sizes of the parking spaces, possible mitigation measures, and the width of the turnout for the relocated bus stop. Mr. Kuzbari advised that the width of the relocated bus stop would be 16-18 feet and 300 feet long. The width narrows as the intersection at York Drive was approached. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 24 REGULAR MEETING June 7, 2005 PAGE 217 Jennifer Williams, Dublin resident,stated that the presentation by Staff and the Applicant was biased and ambiguous. She expressed concern about the danger of off-street parking on an already busy commuter road. Mr. Pionti,the Appellant, stated that there had been 15 approved Conditional Use Permits for reductions in the default numbers that one would use in the absence of a site- specific parking study and play. Of those 15, two were on Village Parkway and were approved May 10th. None of those have been appealed. Staff and Omni Means had no safety issues. Peak time was not at school commute time;it was at 9:30 a.m. The parking proposal included four spots for the outside patio. If it would help, the outside seating could be eliminated for now. After there was data for how the site operated,the Applicant would like to reserve the right to come back and seek to have the outdoor seating added back. Another possible mitigation measure would be to have six time-limit spaces. Mayor Lockhart closed the public hearing. Cm. Oravetz confirmed that the Council could only talk about parking,not about the use. City Attorney Silver confirmed the statement. Cm. Oravetz said that it came down to the math. Thirty-two spots on site with 12 on the road equaled 44;the Zoning Ordinance called for 45. He would not turn down a use for just one parking space. He did not think the on-street parking and flow-through traffic in the parking lot would be a problem, and he would support the appeal. City Attorney Silver advised that,although there were provisions in the Zoning Ordinance that designate how much parking was required,there were also provisions in the Zoning Ordinance that allowed the Planning Commission or Council to approve a reduction is parking. Under the Ordinance, the Council was allowed to reduce the amount of parking if it made the Conditional Use Permit findings as specified Zoning Ordinance Section 8.76.050.E. If the Council felt it could make the findings, it could grant the appeal. As the Staff Report recommended,the Council could tentatively decide by straw vote and return to the next meeting with a resolution that included the Council's findings. Cm. McCormick asked if they could consider the mitigation measures offered by the Appellant to reduce parking, such as eliminating the outdoor seating. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 24 REGULAR MEETING June 7, 2005 PAGE 218 City Attorney Silver advised yes, it could be considered; however, if the Applicant came back at a later date to request outdoor seating,the Council would have to go through this exercise again to grant a Conditional Use Permit to reduce the amount of parking. The Council and City Attorney engaged in a question and answer session regarding the findings to be made and the proposed mitigation measures. Vm. Zika stated that he would vote to affirm the Planning Commission's denial of the appeal because, if the traffic and parking studies were wrong, the Applicant could return in a year to ask for reduced parking. Every time the Council has voted to reduce the parking requirements,the outcome has not been positive. Cm. Hillenbrand stated that revitalizing that area is very important and this project would provide something to the community. Traffic safety in the area was a concern; however, she could support the project if the 15-minute parking spaces were required. She did not believe that the project would cause so many concerns as to affirm the denial of the request. The Council discussed time limited parking spaces and whether or not it worked. There will be people who show up with their laptops and stay for a long time,and it will be an honor system when using the 15-minute parking. Cm. McCormick stated that,as resident of neighborhood, she had been concerned about that parcel. It had been automotive use with cars going in and out all the time,then a vacant gas station and a blight to the neighborhood. The parking can be mitigated. The traffic was busy at school time,but not at peak time. She would like to see the site successful, no matter the use. Mayor Lockhart noted that the project was close enough to residential that people could walk instead of drive, which was exactly what the Council wanted to do with the Downtown Specific Plan. Pedestrian-friendly streets were the plan, and sidewalks were being widened and street furniture installed. Other businesses along that street have received reductions without complaints from anyone. Amador Valley Boulevard carries a lot of cars, and everyone knows that they have to be more careful during school commute time. The plan should not be denied because it was one space off,and she would be willing to support the findings to allow the center to operate under the numbers presented. City Attorney Silver advised that, if there were three members inclined to grant the appeal,the Council would need to direct Staff to prepare a resolution to return to the CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 24 REGULAR MEETING June 7, 2005 PAGE 219 next meeting to grant the appeal reversing the Planning Commission's decision, and' include the findings required under Section 8.76,050.E. There were 32 spaces on-site,as proposed,45 spaces are required. The Council has heard testimony tonight that there would be 12 on-street spaces directly adjacent to the project,which added up to 44 spaces. To make the findings, the Council would have to either conclude that restricting one or more spaces on-site to 15-minute parking would then create that additional.,one space, or take the Applicant up on his suggestion to eliminate the outdoor seath ' b h ,.. would result in a reduction of four spaces. ,.... '"`` The Council discussed restricting the parking time instead of eliminating the outdoor seating,and agreed to include two 15-minute parking spaces. City Attorney Silver advised that LAVTA was proposing to change the bus stop location, but it had not occurred yet. If bus stop did not move,the Council might want to consider restricting three or four spaces to the 15-minute time limit until the bus stop was relocated. The Council discussed how important it would be to the project for the bus stop to be relocated. Mr. Kuzbari confirmed that LAVTA was ready to move forward with the relocation. On motion of Cm. Oravetz,seconded by Cm. Hildenbrand and by majority vote (Vm. Zika opposed) the Council directed Staff to prepare a resolution for consideration at the next Council meeting granting the appeal in part,thereby reversing the Planning Commission denial and modifying the Zoning Administrator approval of the Conditional spaces Permit based on the findings that there would be 32 p aces on-site, 12 on-street h bus stop relocation, and with h would be dependent on the b parking spaces,three of whic wo pe P � two of the on-site nS spaces s aces marked with a 15-minute time limit. p RECESS 9:42 p.m. Mayor Lockhart called for a short break. The meeting reconvened at 9:46 p.m. with all Councilmembers present. 110/ii.W.Wev■A CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 24 REGULAR MEETING June 7, 2005 PAGE 220 CITY CLERK File # f gpi 0-1-13a AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 21, 2005 SUBJECT: PUBLIC BEARING: Appeal of Planning Commission Reversal of Zoning Administrator's Approval of a Conditional Use Permit Authorizing a Parking Reduction for PA 04-057,Enea Properties/Starbucks Coffee Report prepared by: Janet Harbin, Senior Planner ` " ". ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution Granting Appeal of Enea Properties in Part,Thereby Reversing the Planning Commission's Decision, and Modifying the Zoning Administrator's Approval of Conditional Use Permit PA 04-057(Enea Properties/Starbucks Coffee), 2. City Council Staff Report of June 7,2005 without attachments. 3. Letter dated June 1,2005 from Mr. James E. Lange. /47(' RECOMMENDATION: 1. Open Public Hearing[See my comments below] and Hear Staff Presentation; 2. Take Testimony from the Public; 3, Close Public Hearing and Deliberate; and 4. Adopt Resolution Granting the Appeal of Enea Properties in Part,Thereby Reversing the Planning Commission's Decision, and Modifying the Zoning Administrator's Approval of Conditional Use Permit PA 04-057(Enea Properties/Starbucks Coffee);or 5. Provide Staff with additional direction. DESCRIPTION: The project site at 7197 Village Parkway was the former location of an automotive gasoline and service station that closed in the 1990's, and was previously zoned General Commercial (C-2). Adjacent uses include the Taco Bell restaurant to the south and two single-family homes to the east on Amador Valley Boulevard. Enea Properties has requested a Conditional Use Permit from the Zoning Administrator to reduce the number of parking required by the Zoning Ordinance to allow a 1,886-square-foot coffee retailer and café to locate in the Enea Village Parkway Center. The Conditional Use Permit is needed to reduce the number of on-site parking spaces by thirteen(13)parking spaces and substitute twelve(12) curbside COPIES TO: Applicant Property Owner In-House Distrib tion ITEM NO. '.1 100X CAPAA2004104-057 Starbucks Parking CUP1Clry CouncillCC Ap eal sr 6-21-05.doc parking spaces for the required parking,pursuant to Chapter 8,76 of the Zoning Ordinance, Off-street Parking and Loading. The following is a summary of the City's actions on this project: • On March 14,2005,the Zoning Administrator approved a Conditional Use Permit for a Parking Reduction for the Starbucks Coffee Shop. • On May 5,2005,the Planning Commission approved an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's approval of the Conditional Use Permit. • At the June 7,2005, City Council Meeting,the City Council heard an Appeal of the Planning Commission decision that was filed by Robert Enea of Enea Properties,the property owner of the Enea Village retail/office center in which Starbucks Coffee plans to locate. A complete background and analysis of the issues are presented in the attached City Council Staff Report of June 7,2005 (Attachment 2). At the City Council meeting of June 7, 2005,the City Council reviewed the Staff report, the existing record, and received public testimony on the project. In addition,the City Council learned that Wheels, the City's public transit provider had requested to move an existing bus stop thus providing for a total of 12 parking spaces immediately adjacent the site on Amador Valley Boulevard. Following the June 7, 2005,City Council meeting,Wheels relocated the bus stop. The City Council conducted a straw vote and directed Staff to return to the next City Council meeting with a draft Resolution approving the Appeal in part,with modifications to conditions of approval to ensure that: • Two spaces on site are limited to 15 minute parking;and • Twelve spaces directly adjacent the project on Amador Valley Blvd.be available in order for the project to go forward(bus stop has been relocated). Following the distribution of the City Council Agenda Statement of 6-7-05, a comment letter was received from Mr. James E. Lange(Attachment 3). Mr. Lange indicates in his letter that as an adjacent property owner he does not support the project. He notes in his letter that he feels that the reduction will cause customers of Starbucks to park on his property. It should be noted that when Mr. Lange sent this letter,the City was not yet aware that Wheels would request that the bus stop be moved,thereby freeing up a total of 12 parking spaces adjacent the site. The public hearing should be reopened solely for the purpose of entering Mr.Lange's letter into the record and permitting the Appellant and the public to respond to the contents of this letter. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council: 1)open public hearing and hear the Staff presentation; 2)take public testimony; 3)close the public hearing and deliberate; and,4) adopt Resolution Granting the Appeal of Enea Properties in Part,Thereby Reversing the Planning Commission's Decision,and Modifying the Zoning Administrator's Approval of Conditional Use Permit PA 04-057 (Enea Properties/Starbucks Coffee);or 5)provide Staff with additional direction. 2 t 1b RESOLUTION NO. -05 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ************ A RESOLUTION GRANTING THE APPEAL OF ENEA PROPERTIES IN PART WITH MODIFICATIONS AND DENYING IT IN PART,THEREBY REVERSING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION,AND MODIFYING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PA 04-057 (ENEA PROPERTIES/STARBUCKS COFFEE) RECITALS: WHEREAS, the Enea Properties Company, LLC("Applicant/Appellant"),is the owner of property located at 7197 Village Parkway(APN 941-0210-013),and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission approved Resolution 04-40 on May 11,2004,approving a conditional use permit for amendments to the existing Planned Development, Site Development Review and a master sign program for the property located at 7197 Village Parkway; and WHEREAS,the conditions of approval of Resolution 04-40 required 32 on site parking spaces for the proposed retail and restaurant/cafe uses: Retail 7,939 square feet--26 spaces(1:300); and Restaurant 600 square feet--6 spaces(1:100);and WHEREAS,the Applicant/Appellant proposes to construct a 1,886 square foot coffee shop,410 square foot outdoor seating area and 6,653 square foot retail center; and WHEREAS, Dublin Municipal Code("DMC")section 8.76.080 requires 45 parking spaces for a 1,886 square foot coffee shop,410 square foot outdoor seating area.and 6,653 square foot retail center; and WHEREAS,the Applicant/Appellant has requested approval of an application on behalf of Starbucks Coffee, Inc., for a conditional use permit to allow a reduction of 13 parking spaces from the number of parking spaces required by the Dublin Municipal Code for a 1,886 square foot coffee shop,410 square foot outdoor seating area and 6,653 square foot retail center(45 spaces); and WHEREAS, the application was considered by,and approved by, the Zoning Administrator of the City of Dublin on March 14, 2005,by Resolution Number 05-04 of the Zoning Administrator of the City of Dublin;and WHEREAS, an appeal from the decision of the Zoning Administrator was filed on March 23, 2005,by Bobbi Cauchi,pursuant to Chapter 8.136 of the Dublin Municipal Code;and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission considered said appeal on April 26,2005 and reversed the decision of the Zoning Administrator by adoption of Resolution Number 05-25 of the Planning Commission of the City of Dublin; and 40. 21-06 41. 1 ATTACHMENT 1 cP trb WHEREAS,Enea Properties Company,LLC(the applicant)timely filed an appeal from the Planning Commission's reversal of the Zoning Administrator's approval of the Conditional Use Permit by letter of May 5,2005,stating the specified grounds for the appeal;and WHEREAS,the City Council considered the appeal of the Enea Properties Company, LLC on at a noticed public hearing on June 7,2005 and June 21,2005, and heard testimony and considered all documentary evidence submitted to it,including the agenda statements dated June 7, 2005 June 21,2005 and documents submitted to the City Council by persons testifying before the Council; and WHEREAS,at the conclusion of the public hearing on June 7, 2005,the City Council by a"straw vote" indicated its intention to grant the appeal in part and deny the appeal in part; and WHEREAS,the Council reopened the public hearing on June 21,2005,to consider additional testimony and documentary evidence,and closed the public hearing;and WHEREAS, the"record herein"consists of the minutes of the public hearings on June 7,2005 and June 21,2005,all documentary evidence submitted to the Council at such public hearings,including the agenda statements dated June 7,2005 and June 21,2005; and FINDINGS • WHEREAS,after considering the provisions of the Dublin Municipal Code and the record herein, the City Council finds as follows: 1. Pursuant to Dublin Municipal Code§8.76.080,the required parking for the proposed project, as approved by the Planning Commission by Resolution 04-40 in 2004,is 32 spaces, as follows: Retail 7,939 square feet 26 spaces(1:300); and Restaurant 600 square feet 6 spaces(1:100). 2. Pursuant to §8.76.050.E of the Dublin Municipal Code,an applicant may propose a reduction in the number of parking spaces required by Dublin Municipal Code §8.76.080 and the Zoning Administrator may grant a reduction in off street parking requirements if: a. The conditional use permit finding of Chapter 8.100 can be made; b. The applicant submits a parking study prepared by a qualified consultant analyzing the parking demand of the proposed use and the parking demands of similar uses in similar situations,demonstrating that the required parking standards are excessive, and proposing alternate parking standards which are appropriate and ensure that there will not be a parking deficiency; and c. Overflow parking will not impact any adjacent use. 3. Applicant/Appellant seeks a Conditional Use Permit to reduce the required parking, from 45 spaces which are required by DMC§8.76.080(Retail 6,642 square feet requires 22 spaces;Restaurant 1,886 square feet requiresl 9 spaces; and Outside seating 410 square feet requires 4 spaces)to 32 spaces. 4. Two parking studies were submitted, including the parking study dated December 29, 2004, entitled "Starbucks 7197 Village Parkway Parking Study",which is attachment 6 to the June 7, 2005 agenda statement, and a letter from Omni Means, dated April 19, 2005 to Ray Kuzbari(attachment 6 to the June 7, 2005 agenda statement); and 2 Sts 5. The City's traffic engineer, Ray Kuzbari,testified at the public hearing that 12 on street parking spaces immediately adjacent to the property will be available for parking due to the imminent relocation of a bus stop; and 6. The parking studies submitted to the Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission demonstrate that the required parking standards of Section 8.76.080 of the Dublin Municipal Code are excessive in that there is only one standard for restaurant uses which does not consider the type of use proposed by Starbucks,which requires fewer parking spaces than a typical restaurant due to the constant turnover of Starbucks'patrons; and 7. The Council finds that proposed alternate parking standards are appropriate and ensure that there will not he a parking deficiency in that 12 spaces are available for parking on the street immediately adjacent to the property and two on site spaces will be restricted to 15 minute parking,assuring adequate turnover which will generate the equivalent of one additional space; and the Council accordingly determines that overflow parking will not impact any adjacent use, NOW,THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL MAKES THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND DETERMINATION: 1. The City Council incorporates the findings in Resolution 05-04 of the Zoning Administrator in particular,findings 1,2,3,4, 5,6,7,and 8; 2. Condition of approval number 8 of Resolution 05-04 is modified to read as follows: Time limited reserve parking. The applicant/developer shall reserve 2 of the on site parking spaces as time limited parking. These spaces should be located closes to the coffee shop and should be posted with the following information; "15 minute parking limit. Towing enforced." Signs shall include City of Dublin Municipal Code citation that allows towing of illegally parked vehicles." 3. Council finds that 32 on site spaces, 12 off site spaces on the street directly adjacent to the property and 2 spaces limited to 15 minute parking satisfy the requirement of the Dublin Municipal Code for 45 parking spaces. 4. Condition number 2 of the conditions of approval of Resolution 05-04 is modified to include the following additional language: "The conditional use permit shall not be valid unless and until the City's traffic engineer determines that 12 parking spaces are available directly adjacent to the property on the street." 5. Except as modified by this Resolution,Resolution 05-04 is affirmed as modified and the appeal is granted and the decision of the Planning Commission is reversed. 3 1., ►a PASSED,APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 216`day of tune 2005,by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK 4 And authorized Staff to accept a $9,017.39 maintenance bond at a future date; Received (4.22 330-50) the Financial Reports for the Month of May, 2005; Authorized (4.23 600-30/670-30) $2,876,574.60 payment to the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority for Emerald Glen Park Land; Approved (4.24 300-40) the Warrant Register in the amount of$2,639,478.53. PUBLIC HEARING—PA 04-057 APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION REVERSAL OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) AUTHORIZING A PARKING REDUCTION ON PROPERTIES—STARBUCKS COFFEE 7:40 p.m. 6.1 (410-30) Mayor Lockhart opened the public hearing. Senior Planner Janet Harbin presented the Staff Report. Robert Enea of Enea Properties filed a Letter of Appeal of the Planning Commission denial of the CUP for a reduction in parking at 7197 Village Parkway for a 1,886 square foot coffee retailer and cafe (Starbuck's) in the future Enea Village Parkway Center. On June 7, 2005,the City Council held a public hearing on the appeal and took a straw vote to grant the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator's approval of the CUP with modifications. Staff was directed to return at the next meeting with a Resolution to that effect. Following the distribution of the agenda for the June 7th meeting, a comment letter was received from Mr.James E. Lange. Mr. Lange indicates that as an adjacent property owner, he does not support the project. He feels that the reduction in parking will cause customers of Starbucks to park on his property. Ms. Harbin advised that the public hearing should be reopened solely for the purpose of entering Mr. Lange's letter into the record and permitting the Appellant and the public to respond to the contents of this letter. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 24 REGULAR MEETING June 21, 2005 PAGE 259 Staff received a fax this afternoon indicating that Mr. Lange was reversing his original position opposing this matter. Cm. McCormick commented that following the last meeting, WHEELS relocated the bus stop. Twelve spaces are now available. Mr. Lange's letter was entered into the record. City Attorney Silver referenced the letter dated June 21 and indicated that it was signed by both Robert S. Enea and James E. Lange. No testimony was entered by any member of the public relative to this issue. Mayor Lockhart closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Hildenbrand,seconded by Cm. Oravetz,and by majority vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 132 — 05 GRANTING THE APPEAL OF ENEA PROPERTIES IN PART WITH MODIFICATIONS AND DENYING IT IN PART, THEREBY REVERSING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION, AND MODIFYING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PA 04-057 (ENEA PROPERTIESISTARBUCKS COFFEE) Vm. Zika voted in opposition to the motion. PUBLIC HEARING—PA 05-023 AMENDMENT TO MASTER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE DUBLIN RANCH PROJECT (AREAS A THROUGH H)) SUBMITTED BY JAMES TONG ON BEHALF OF THE LIN FAMILY 7:47 p.m. 6.2 (600-60) Mayor Lockhart opened the public hearing. Planning Consultant Mike Porto presented the Staff Report. This is the second reading of an Ordinance which would approve an amendment to the Master Development Agreement for the Dublin Ranch Project Areas A,B, C, D, E, F, G and H). CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 24 REGULAR MEETING June 21, 2005 PACE 260