HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.1 Windstar Attch 6-9
~~Ub2$L
CALL TO ORDER
A special meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, February
13, 2007, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Schaub called the meeting
to order at 5:30 p.m.
ATTENDEES
Present: Chair Schaub, Vice Chair Wehrenberg; Commissioners Biddle, King, and Tomlinson;
John Bakker, City Attorney; Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager; Erica Fraser, Senior Planner;
and Rhonda Franklin, Recording Secretary.
1.1 Study Session - Windstar Condominiums
Chair Schaub asked for the Staff Report.
Ms. Erica Fraser, Senior Planner, presented the specifics of the project as outlined in the
Staff Report.
Cm. Tomlinson asked if the parking spaces along the internal streets of the project would
be reserved or open. Ms. Fraser stated that at this time, the parking spaces would be
open.
. Chair Schaub asked if the guest parking would be gated. Ms. Fraser stated that the guest
parking would not be gated.
Chair Schaub asked if the internal guest parking would be time-limited. Ms. Fraser
explained that the guest parking inside could be time-limited and signs could be posted
indicating such. Chair Schaub expressed concerns about BART patrons parking in guest
and resident parking spaces. Ms. Fraser commented that the demand for guest parking
is typically inversely related to the demand for BART parking; thus alleviating some
. conflict with parking.
Cm. Biddle asked about the capacity of the West Dublin BART parking garage. A
member of the project team stated that the capacity would be 740 parking stalls.
Chair Schaub asked about the type of material that would be used for Eave #2. Ms.
Fraser explained that the developer would decide the material to use for Eave #2.
Cm. Biddle asked about the status of other projects in the area. Ms. Fraser briefly
discussed the status of other projects in the area.
Commissiun
Sessiun
1
Att~~hfu~~t6 6
{P5Ob2.~z..
Chair Schaub asked about the circulation of construction traffic in the Downtown area.
Ms. Fraser explained that the Public Works department requires a construction traffic
management plan as part of the conditions of approval for the project.
Cm. King asked if the West Dublin BART Specific Plan could allow a space for a 'Village
Green' area. Ms. Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager, explained that the majority of the
property in the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area would be developed and would
most likely leave little room for a 'Village Green' area.
Vice Chair Wehrenberg commented that the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area would
probably not be a prime location for a 'Village Green' because of its close proximity to the
freeways.
Cm. King asked about the type of material that would be used for the fa<;ade. Ms. Fraser
stated that the project plans call for a veneer to be used. She explained that a material
board would be provided for the public hearing on the project.
Cm. King asked if the balconies would be functioning or faux. Ms. Fraser explained that
they should be functioning; however, the balconies facing the freeway may be subject to
a noise study. Chair Schaub asked how a noise study could be done when the area is not
yet built out. Ms. Fraser explained that assumptions are used when conducting noise
studies.
Chair Schaub asked if the residents could choose to have a balcony. Ms. Fraser explained
that whether or not a balcony would be constructed would depend on the decibel level
obtained by the noise study.
Chair Schaub invited the Applicant to speak.
Mr. Eric Heffron, with Windstar Communities, spoke in favor of the project.
Cm. Tomlinson asked about the mix of unit sizes for similar projects. Mr. Heffron stated
that similar projects are about 60% I-bedrooms and explained that the mix for this project
would be compatible with a transit-oriented development.
Cm. Biddle asked about the timeframes for the project. Mr. Heffron stated that they
would like to start construction by the end of August 2007.
Mr. Chuck Tang, of MVE Architects, spoke in favor of the project.
Chair Schaub stated that he does not like to see panel veneers and would like to see high
quality veneers used for this project.
Cm. Tomlinson stated that he likes the overall design of the project. He stated that he
would like Eave #1 set down a bit. He stated that he does not have a problem with using
foam in areas that are out of the public's reach, but would like to use high quality
materials in areas that are within the public's reach. He stated that he would like to see a
Commissiun
StHay Sessiun
2
Pdirnary J3} 2006
l..t; ~ 'b 2-'82.-
different color choice for the elevator element. He stated that he likes the mixture of
materials used and would like to see the proposed colors for the awnings. He stated that
his main concern is regarding the parking. He asked if they could consider making street
parking for residents only. He expressed concern about the adequacy of the number of
parking spaces, especially with the 8% parking reduction. He stated that he is not sure
that guest parking has to be open access parking; if someone is truly a guest, a resident
could allow them access into a restricted parking area.
Vice Chair Wehrenberg stated that she likes the building and the eaves. She asked if the
43 off-street parking spaces were included in the parking count. Ms. Fraser said yes and
stated that the future parking spaces on St. Patrick Way were not counted. Vice Chair
Wehrenberg stated that she would like to see timed or permitted parking for parking on
the internal roadway. Vice Chair Wehrenberg stated that garbage pickup is important
and would be asked about in more detail during the public hearing for the project.
Regarding landscape, she stated that she w~uld like them to ensure that the trellises and
planters are watered regularly. Ms. Fraser stated that Staff would ensure that the final
landscape plans show irrigation. Vice Chair Wehrenberg stated that it would be nice if
cell towers and TV dishes could be incorporated into one system. She requested that the
development team work on a construction/ demolition plan with the City. The
Development Team stated that they would do their part to be good neighbors to the City.
Vice Chair Wehrenberg cautioned the Development Team to be aware that pigeons will
probably congregate on the building's eaves.
Cm. King stated that the overall architectural look is more interesting than it could be.
He stated that his reaction is that it is too rectangular. He stated that there is a dramatic
effect at the corner (shown on drawing # 19) and would like to see a visual effect there,
such as a sculpture or fountain. He stated that what is shown in the conceptual plans is
not dramatic enough for him.
Cm. Tomlinson Greg stated that he would like the proposed water feature to be as
dramatic as possible. Ms. Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager, stated that she believes the
water feature would be approved as part of the Public Art process. She stated that Staff
wOl!ld verify if this is correct.
Cm. Biddle stated that he agrees with the comments from the Commission. Regarding
parking, he stated that there could be enough parking spaces available as long as they are
handled properly. He stated that residents would probably expect some parking
problems. He stated that he likes the design and concept of the project.
Chair Schaub stated that he likes the project and is comfortable with the parking as long
as the parking is available to the residents. He stated that he does not want BART
patrons parking in resident and guest spaces at the expense of the residents. He stated
that he is a stickler for quality materials, and would like quality materials used for this
project.
The Planning Commission took a straw vote for Eave #1. All Planning Commissioners
. voted that Eave #1 should be dropped down a bit.
Commission
Sess ion
3
'Fdirnary 13,2006
(p 7 Ob 'Z.~'&
Chair Schaub requested that the Development Team use brick instead of stucco.
The Planning Commission thanked Ms. Fraser and the Development Team for putting
the Study Session together.
Hearing no further comments, Chair Schaub adjourned the meeting at 6:52 p.m.
4
13, 2006
~~6b z~
Mayor Lockhart asked if parking would be a concern on the smaller lots with the second
units.
Mr. Baker explained that parking would be provided by a sufficient-sized driveway.
The City Council entered into a brief discussion regarding the interior standards of these
units.
On motion of Cm. Sbranti, seconded by Vm. Hildenbrand and by unanimous vote, the
City Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 80 - 07
APPROVING AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT FOR THE FIRST
PHASE
OF THE POSITANO PROJECT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND
DUBLIN RE INVESTORS, LLC, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER
TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT
and direct Staff to prepare a minor administrative amendment to the Fallon Village Stage
1 and Stage 2 PD to allow secondary units on the 3,200 lots within the Positano
development. .
.
NEW BUSINESS
Request to Initiate a West Dublin BART Specific Plan Amendment Study to Increase
the Residential Density at 6600 Golden Gate Drive, Commonly Referred to as the
Windstar Proiect (APN 941-1500-046)
9:51 p.m. 8.1 . (410-55)
Senior Planner Erika Frasier presented the Staff Report and advised that the City Council
would consider the initiation of a West Dublin BART Specific Plan Amendment for the
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 26
REGULAR MEETING
June 5, 2007
, PAGE 208
Attachment 7
~115;f)2cgZ.
Windstar project to determine whether a Specific Plan Amendment Study would be
authorized to increase the residential density on the site.
On motion ofVm. Hildenbrand, seconded by Cm. Scholz and by unanimous vote, the City
Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 81 - 07
APPROVING THE INITIATION OF A WEST DUBLIN BART SPECIFIC PLAN
AMENDMENT STUDY FOR THE WINDSTAR PROJECT LOCATED
AT 6600 GOLDEN GATE DRIVE (APN 941-1500-046)
PA 06-009
. ._-
Resolution of Intention to Establish Right-of-Way Lines for the Extension of Scarlett
Drive and the Iron Horse Trail between Dublin Boulevard and Douehertv Road
10:00 p.m.
8.2 (820-90)
Public Works Director Melissa Morton presented the Staff Report and advised that
proposed right-of-way lines for Scarlett Drive and the Iron Horse Trail would establish a
right-of-way alignment to accommodate the extension of Scarlett Drive and relocate and
enhance a portion of the Iron Horse Trail. This roadway would provide a connection
between Dougherty Road and. Dublin Boulevard within the former Southern Pacific
Railroad Right-of- Way.
On motion ofCm. Oravetz, seconded.by Cm. Scholz and by unanimous vote, the Council
adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 82 - 07
INTENTION TO ESTABLISH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINES FOR
SCARLETT DRIVEIIRON HORSE TRAIL BETWEEN
DUBLIN BOULEVARD AND DOUGHERTY ROAD
and set Public Hearing for June 19,2007 in the Council Chambers at 7:00 p.m.
.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 26
REGULAR MEETING.
June 5,2007
PAGE 209
~Dr
1/~&~~~1
19~ ~tn
,~~
l~
co Ob Z'BZ-.
AGENDA STATEl\IENT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: October 23, 2007
SUBJECT:
ATTACHMENTS:
RECOMMENDATION:
~
PUBLIC HEARING: PA 06-009 Windstar Mitigated Negative
Declaration, West Dublin BART Specijc Plan Amendment, Stage 1
Development Plan Amendment, Stage :~ Planned Development Rezone and
Site Development Review for a 309-unt residential community.
Report prepared by Erica Fraser, Seniur Planner
1) Resolution recommending that the City Council approve a Mitigated
Negative Declaration for the Winds tar Project.
2) Resolution recommending that the City Council approve an amendment
to the West Dublin BART Specific Plan related to the Windstar Project.
3) Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance
rezoning the Project area and appro'/ing an amendment to the Stage 1
Development Plan and approving a related Stage 2 Development Plan
(with the draft City Council Ordinance attached as Exhibit A).
4) Resolution approving the Site Development Review for the Windstar
Residential Community.
5) February 13,2007 Planning Commission Study Session Staff Report
(without Attachments).
6) Minutes from the February 13, 200~' Planning Commission Study
Session.
7) Minutes from the June 5, 2007 City Cou~cil meeting.
8) Stage 1 Development Plan. .
9) Site Development Review Package.
10) Elevations reviewed during the FebJUary 13, 2007 Planning
Commission Study Session.
11)Mitigated Negative Declaration (PI::nning Commission only).
12) Responses to Comment Received on the Mitigated Negative
Declaration.
1) Receive Staff presentation;
2) Open the public hearing;
3) Take testimony from the Applicantmd the public;
4) Close the public hearing and deliberate;
5) Adopt Resolution recommending that the City Council approve a
Mitigated Negative Declaration for:he Windstar Project;
6) Adopt Resolution recommending th:tt the City Council approve an
amendment to the West Dublin BART Specific Plan related to the
Windstar Project;
7) Adopt Resolution recommending th:tt the City Council adopt an
Ordinance rezoning the Project area and approving an amendment to the
Stage 1 Development Plan and appnving a related Stage 2
COPIES TO: Property Owner/Appl:cant
File
Page 1 of9
G:\PA#\2006\06-009 Windstar Condos - TMAP. SOR. PO\PO SOR Noy 2006\PC PH\PC Aeenda Statetnentdoc
Attachment 8
I~~:'v~l?p~l1~l,lt Plan (with the draft: City Council Ordinance allachcd as., \ rro"l.S'2..
b,JlIblt A), and
8) Adopt Resolution ai)proving the SiLe Development Review for the
WindstarResidential Community.
PROJECT IlESCRIl)TION:
The proposed Project is a 309-unit residential project located at 6600 Golden Gate Drive in the West Dublin
BAR'r Specific Plan area. The property is zoned Planned Development and has a General Plan land use
designation of High Density Residential. The Project site is curremly vacant. The proposed number of units,
309, is larger than what was previously reviewed by the Plannin~ Commission during a Study Session on
February 13,2007,
The location ofthe \Vindstar ProjecT site is shown belo~v.
BACKGROUND:
On December 19, 2000, the City Council adopted a Resolution approving the West Dublin BART
Specific Planvvhichrczoned the plan area to encourage high-intensitJ mixed-use development.
On February 24, 2004, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution approving a 30S-unit residential
project (the AMB development) located adjacent to the Project site Construction of this Project has not
begun at this time.
On March 2, 2004, the City Coullcil approved Resolution 29-04 adopting an addendum to a Negative
Declaration to the Downtown Specd'ic Plan and the Supplemt~ntal Environmental Impact Report fl.)r the
West Dublin!Pleasanton BARf Station and 'fransit Village Projectl{)r the Stage I Development Plan for
this Project. At the same meeting, the City Council also approved Resolution 30-04 which waived the
recluirements of the City's Inc1usionarv Zoning RegJulations 1'0..1' the site',
'" .,I "-' '-
,
Page 2 of9
. . ~2Oh2~'2-
On March 16, 2004, the City Council adopted Ordinance 8-04 amendment the West Dublin BAR~
Specific Plan to increase the density on the site to allow up to 210 dwelling units.
On February 21, 2006, the Community Development Director approved Tentative Parcel Map 8993 to
subdivide 6600 Golden Gate Drive into two properties. One parcel is for the Windstar Project and the
second parcel was created for the future hotel development.
On February 13, 2007, the Planning Commission held a Study Session to discuss the layout, design and
parking for the Windstar Project. The Planning Commission did not request that any changes be made to
the Project at the meeting. The Planning Commission did discuss the provision of parking, concern over
BART patrons using the site, tandem parking and parkland in the area (Attachment 6).
In May 2007, (following the Planning Commission Study Session) the Applicant submitted a revised
application requesting an increase in the allowable density on the site, from the 210 units currently
allowed by the Specific Plan, to 309 units on the Project site.
On June 5, 2007, the City Council (minutes included as Attachmement 7) authorized the initiation of a
West Dublin BART Specific Plan amendment study to increase the total number of units allowed on the
Windstar site from 210 units to 309 units (an increase of99 units).
The 2006/2007 City Council Goals and Objectives includes the preparation of a Comprehensive
Downtown Specific Plan, which combines the Downtown Core, Dublin Downtown, Village Parkway,
West Dublin BART and San Ramon Specific Plans into one specific plan, as a high priority goal.
Preparation of the Comprehensive Specific Plan is underway and completion is anticipated in the Fall of
2008. The consultants have reviewed the Windstar plans and have determined that the Project is consistent
with the intent of the preparation of the Comprehensive Specific Plan.
ANALYSIS:
West Dublin BART Specific Plan Amendment
Windstar has proposed a 309-unit residential project on a 3.66-acre vacant site at 6600 Golden Gate Drive
in the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area. The property has a General Plan land use designation of
High Density Residential (25.1 + dwelling units per acre), and a West Dublin BART Specific Plan land use
designation of Residential (which currently allows 30-58 dwelling units/acre). Because the West Dublin
BART Specific Plan currently limits the maximum number of units]ermitted on the site to 210 dwelling
units, the Applicant is requesting a Specific Plan Amendment to increase the maximum density range to
permit the proposed 309-unit Project. (The applicable General Plan designation of High Density
Residential has no maximum range; therefore, the General Plan is not required to be amended.)
The development of the site at 6600 Golden Gate Drive plays an integral part in financing the construction
of the West Dublin BART Transit Station. The parking garage for the future BART station is currently
under construction and construction of the station is anticipated to b<:gin shortly. The Windstar Project is
anticipated to be the first private project under construction in the area and could act as a stimulus for
redevelopment in the Specific Plan area.
The West Dublin BART Specific Plan designates the Project site as Residential which permits a density
range of 30 to 58 residential units per acre. As proposed, the Applicant is requesting an amendment to the
Residential land use designation in the Specific Plan to increase the maximum permitted number of units
in the Residential land use category from 58 to 84 units per acre to aJow the construction of the proposed
Windstar Project with 309 dwelling units, which would constitute a maximum density of 84 units per acre.
The proposed increase in the allowable density for the Residential land use designation will only affect
Page 3 of9
the Windstar property because the Windstar property is the only site with the Residentiall~~2<6~
.designation in the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area at this time.
For additional background information on the West Dublin BART Specific Plan and the goals for the
Specific Plan area, please refer to the February 13, 2007 Planning Corrunission Study Session Agenda
Statement included as Attachment 5.
Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment
The Applicant has requested an amendment of the Stage 1 Development Plan for the site. The amendment
is necessary to allow the Applicant to increase the total number of permitted units on the site from 210
units to 309 units. The increase in the total number of units does not impact the site layout of the Project;
rather the increase in the total number of units will result in one additional story on the site.
A Resolution recommending the City Council amend the Stage 1 Development is included as Attachment
3.
Stage 2 Planned Development Rezone
The Applicant has proposed a PD Planned Development District rezoning for the site. The existing zoning
of the property is PD Planned Development Stage 1 Development Plan. Chapter 8.32 of th~ Dublin
Zoning Ordinance establishes the intent, purpose and requirements (If the Planned Development District.
The intent of the Planned Development District is to create a more desirable use of the land, a more
coherent and coordinated development, and a better physical environment that would otherwise not be
achieved under a single zoning district or combination of zoning districts. A Development Plan is
required pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance, which establishes regulations for the use, development,
improvement and maintenance of the property within the Plarmed Development Zoning District. The
Zoning Ordinance also' requires the adoption of both Stage 1 and ~:tage 2 Development Plans with the
reclassification of the property to the Planned Development Zoning District.
The Applicant is requesting approval of a Stage 2 Development Plan for the specific development of the
subject site at this time. The Stage 2 Development PlanlProject Plans for the Project can be found in
Attachment 9.
A Resolution recommending the City Council approve the Stage 2 Planned Development Rezone is
included as Attachment 3. The Stage 2 Planned Development District regulations, applicable to this
Project site only, are included as Exhibit A to Attachment 3.
Site Development Review
Some minor modifications have been made to the Project Plans following the February 13,2007 Planning
Commission Study Session due to the increase in the number of dwelling units. The following table
provides information on the modifications made to the Project folIow.ng the Study Session.
Table 1: Project Modifications
Area of Change February 13, 2007 Project Plans October 23, 2007 Project Plans
Number of Units 210 309 (increase of99 units)
Number of Stories Five Six
Page 4 of9
~~.
Area of Change February 13, 2007 Project Plalls October 23, 2007 Project Pla~
Enhanced Material Brick material on all sides of tte Some of the brick materials on
building. the south elevation have been
removed.
Design [ndustrial design theme. . No changes have been made to
the overall design of the Project.
Some minor changes have been
made to the design to
accommodate the additional unit
and the new building story.
Elevator Shaft Elevation shaft was not well Design of the elevator shaft has
integrated into the building. been modified so that the shaft is
compatible with the building and
blends in with the architecture
and form of the building.
FloorlUnit Plans One, Two and Three Bedrooms. The type of units has not changed,
however, the number of each of
the units has changed based on
the increase in the total number of
residential units for the site.
Parking A total of 388 Parking Stalls and A total of 479 parking stalls and
an overall parking ratio of 1.84 an overall parking ratio of 1.55
parking stalls per unit. parking stalls per unit (which is a
lower parking ratio than
previously proposed).
Parking Stall Types Regular, Compact and Tandem Tandem stalls have been removed
Stalls. from the Project.
1l{ Z~L
Some of the above changes are discussed in detail below. For additicnal information on the design, layout
and landscaping for the Project, which have not been changed since the Study Session, please refer to
pages 3-7 of the February 13,2007 Study Session Agenda Statement (Attachment 5).
Floor/Unit Plans:
The Windstar Project will have nine unit types. The residential unies will vary with respect to size and
number of bedrooms (See Table 2 below).
Table 2: Breakdown of Units by Type
No. of Unit size
Unit Type Bedrooms No. of Units (net square
foota2e)
Unit 1 Junior 1 15 616 Sq. Ft.
I Bedroom 1 192 840-1,290 Sq. Ft.
2 Bedroom 2 82 1,156-1,602 Sq. Ft.
Unit TH Townhome 2 5 1,607 Sq. Ft.
3 Bedroom 3 15 1,350-1,993 Sq. Ft.
Total 309
Page 5 of9
Parking:
t56b2~~
Section 8.76.080.B of the Zoning Ordinance requires one parking stall for everyone bedroom unit, two
parking stalls for every two bedroom, or more, unit and one guest parking stall for every two dwelling
units.
The following table shows the required number of parking stalls for the residential development based on
the number of units and the requirements of the Zoning OrdinancE. Please also refer to Table 2 which
provides a breakdown of the units by type.
Table 3: Required Parking Stalls
Unit Type Zoning Ordinance No. of Units Required
ReQuiremenf
One Bedroom I stanDer unit 20~' 207
Two Bedroom 2 stalls per unit 87 174
Three Bedroom 2 stalls per unit 15 30
Guest Parking 1 stall for every 2 units 309 (total number of 155
unit:,)
Total Stalls Required 566
As shown in Table 3 above, a total of 566 parking stalls are required to be provided on the Project site by
the Zoning Ordinance. The following table shows the number :>f parking stalls proposed for this
residential development.
Table 4: Proposed Parking
Stall Type Required No. of Propose(
Stalls Sta)
Private 411 43:
Guest 155 44
Total 566 47'
I No. of Difference
Is
, +24
-111
) -87
A total of 479 parking stalls will be provided for the residential development. A total of 44 parking stalls
will be provided on the site on the internal roadways (which are loclted on the Project site and therefore
are off-street parking stalls) and 314 stalls will be located in thesubterranean parking level. As shown in
Table 4, the proposed number of parking stalls are 87 stalls less, o)r a reduction of 15%, than what is
required by the Zoning Ordinance.
Following the February Study Session, tandem parking stalls were removed from the Project. All parking
stalls on site will be standard, compact or ADA accessible stalls.
The Project site will have an overall parking ratio of 1.59 parking ~talls per unit (the Zoning Ordinance
standard average is 2). In this case, the proposed parking reduction .s warranted due to the design of the
Project as a Transit-Oriented Development (TaD) with a BART Stltion in close proximity. The typical
parking ratio for Transit-Oriented Developments in California is 1.4:, which includes resident and visitor
parking. East Bay Transit-Oriented Developments tend to have much lower parking supply ratios. For
example, the Pleasant Hill BART TaD has a ratio of 1.08 parking spaces per unit and the Alameda
County BART TOD has a ratio of 1.31 parking spaces per unit. TJKM, the preparers of the Triggering
Analysis for the Project, which determined what improvements were required to be made to address
traffic impacts and a review of the proposed parking for the Project. TJKM visited the Fruitvale Transit
Village in Oakland, which is located adjacent to the Fruitvale BART Station, to review current parking
Page 6 of9
practices in the East Bay. Based on this review, TJKM observed tha1 the site, with a parking ratio of 1.31
spaces per unit, had adequat.e parking. space~ to serve the develop~ent. A.dditionally, the Dubli~ Transit lib 6b2..'t2
Center TOD currently permIts a parkmg ratIO of 1.5 Spaces per umt. WhIle many of the TransIt Center
projects are still under construction, residents have begun moving into Transit Center and staff has. not
heard any information that indicates any issues with parking.
A Triggering Analysis was prepared by TJKM and was included if the Mitigated Negative Declaration
for the Project. The Analysis includes a discussion of the proposed number of parking spaces. In the
Analysis, TJKM states that a parking ratio of 1.55 parking stalls would be adequate to serve the
residential development due to the close proximity of transit opportunities as well as services and jobs,
The proposed number of guest parking stalls is significantly lower than what is typically required for a
residential development. The guest parking stalls will also be loc :lted outside of the secured parking
garage, on the internal driveway system. Once the new BART Station is open, these stalls may be
attractive for BART patrons to use for parking to avoid paying the parking fee at the BARt Station or
when the lot is full. These spaces may also be attractive for residents to park in instead of parking in the
lot. A mitigation measure was included in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project which
requires signage in this area to discourage BART patrons from using these stalls during the day.
Due to the nature of this development and the close proximity to BART and office and retail uses, it is
likely that parking demand related to the Project will be lower than what is typically found in remote
residential developments. Additionally, a parking reduction was approved for the adjacent AMB Project
and parking reductions were approved for the approved residental developments that comprise the
Transit Center adjacent to the existing Dublin!Pleasanton Station based on the information regarding
parking demand for transit-oriented developments which was included in the Transit Center ElR.
Architecture:
The overall design of the Project has not been significantly modified. For a detailed discussion on the
overall design of the Project and its compatibility with other buildings in the vicinity, please refer to the
February 13, 2007 Planning Commission Study Session Agenda Statement (Attachment 5).
Colored elevations as well as a color and materials page have Jeen included in the Project Plans
(Attachment 9). A color and material board will also be available for review during the Planning
Commission meeting.
The elevations have been slightly modified to accommodate the additional story (see Attachment 10 for
the elevations reviewed by the Planning Commission during the Study Session). The height of the
building has increased by one story for a total of six stories which is less than the height limit in the West
Dublin BART Specific Plan, which limits buildings to eight stories, The design of the elevator shaft has
also been modified so that it is more integrated into the building.
The south elevation has been modified to remove the brick material on a portion of the elevation. The
brick was removed and replaced with a concrete material with score lines and an accent color to provide
some interest on this wall. This elevation is an internal elevation and faces the site of the future hotel. This
elevation will only be visible until the hotel is constructed and is not one of the main elevations of the
Project. Therefore staff believes the detail on this elevation is appropl iate for the building,
Page 7 of9
Mitigated Negative Declaration
In accordance with CEQA, the City prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration to review any 7m;:k!f>'"
associated with the proposed increase in the total number of units allowed on the site. The Mitigated
Negative Declaration identified several potential impacts related to traffic and parking. Mitigation
measures were identified to reduce those impacts to a less than significant level and are included in the
Mitigated Negative Declaration.
The Mitigated Negative Declaration relies on the 1990 Dublin/Pleasanton Extension Project EIR
(SCH#1989011009), 2001 DublinIPleasanton BART Station and Transit Village SEIR
(SCH#2000042058), the 2000 West Dublin BART Specific Plan Negative Declaration arid the 2004
Addendum to the Specific Plan Negative Declaration and the Transit Village SEIR.
The Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for Public Review from July 20,2007 through August
21, 2007. During the Public Review comment period, the City reeeived one comment letter from the
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). A response to the comment letter is included as
Attachment 12.
CONCLUSION:
The Applicant is requesting approval of a 309-unit residential proj ect. The residential Project is a high
intensity transit-oriented development which will take advantage of the future West DublinIPleasanton
BART Station and the proximity of services in the area. The proposed development will have a modern
design with industrial influences which will be attractive, will proml)te a pedestrian friendly environment
and will be compatible with approved and future development in the area. The site layout and design of
the development is compatible with the West Dublin aART Speciflc Plan. Approval of this Project and
construction of the community will implement the City's goal of cnating a transit-oriented development
in this area.
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;
5) Adopt Resolution recommending that the City Council approve a Mitigated Negative Declaration for
the Windstar Project; 6) Adopt Resolution recommending that the City Council approve an amendment to
the West Dublin BART Specific Plan related to the Windstar Project 7) Adopt Resolution recommending
that the City Council adopt an Ordinance rezoning the Project area and approving an amendment to the
Stage 1 Development Plan and approving a related Stage 2 Development Plan (with the draft City Council
Ordinance attached as Exhibit A)~ and 8) Adopt Resolution approvi:1g the Site Development Review for
the Windstar Residential Community.
Page 8 of9
GENERAL INFORMATION:
1~tt2gZ.
APPLICANT/
PROPERTY OWNER:
Windstar Communities
11149 North Torrey Pines #250
La J o11a, CA 92037
LOCATION:
6600 Golden Gate Drive
ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER:
941-1500-046
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
High- Density Residential
SPECIFIC PLAN
AREA:
West Dublin BART
EXISTING LAND USE:
Vacant
SURROUNDING USES:
Location Zoning General Plan Land Use Current Use of
ProDerty
Site PD (planned High-Density Vacant
Development) Residential
North PD (Planned Retail/Office Shopping Center
Development)
South PD (Planned Retail/Office Vacant
Development)
East PD (Planned Retail/Office Industrial and
Development) Automotive Repairs
West PD (planned Mixed Use R VX International
Development) Warehouse (AMB
Project approved on this
. site)
Page 9of9
DRAFT
1&f i5l. z.~v
DRAFT -U
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, October
23, 2007, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Schaub called the meeting
to order at 7:00 p.m.
Present: Chair Schaub, Vice Chair Wehrenberg; Commissioners Tomlinson, King and Biddle;
Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager; Erica Fraser, Senior Planner; Martha Aja, Assistant Planner;
Kit Fabion, City Attorney; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary.
Absent: None
ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - NONE
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - Minutes of October 9, 2007 meeting were approved
as submitted.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NONE
CONSENT CALENDAR - NONE
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - NONE
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
8.1 PA 07-012 Natalie's Daycare Conditional Use Permit to operate a Large Family Daycare
(up to 14 children) at 7060 Lancaster Road.
Chair Schaub asked for the Staff Report.
Martha Aja, Assistant Planner presented the project as stated in the Staff Report.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked if Staff had confirmed that the available parking in the garage,
driveway, and on-site mentioned in the Staff report is actually available. Ms. Aja responded
that the site was inspected when the application was submitted. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if it
was confirmed that the garage is not used as part of the daycare or storage.
Ms. Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager, stated that the Applicant understands that the garage
must be kept clear.
Cm. Biddle stated that he drove by the site at approximately 1-2 p.m. and there was only one car
in driveway, and garage door was closed so he could not see inside.
Commission
99
Attachment 9
October 23, 200?
15 D nt :z..~Z-
DRAFT DRAFT -U
Cm. King asked what the state statute or requirernents for this type of application and the range
of discretion to approve or not approve the application.
Kit Fa:bion, City Attorney answered that the State statute for Large Family Daycares homes
allows the Planning Commission to regulate with a Conditional Use Permit. Small family
Daycare homes, 8 or less, is considered a use permitted by right so the City cannot regulate
those, but can regulate the Large Family Daycare homes with 9-14 children with a Conditional
Use Permit.
Chair Schaub opened the public hearing.
The Applicant, Natalie Glynn, 7060 Lancaster Road, spoke in favor of the project. The
Applicant has been in business since 2003. She has 3 children of own, no complaints or
concerns from parents or neighbors. She stated that she is in the process of contracting with
Camp Parks for the men and women who train one Saturday and/ or Sunday a month. She
continued that one of the reasons she wanted to increase the size of her daycare was so that her
current families who are expecting more children can keep their families together and she can
provide a much needed service. She stated that she understands the noise level with the
children and therefore tries to limit their time outside. She stated that she is willing to work
with the neighbors.
Cm. Tomlinson asked the Applicant, in regards to weekend day care, if she was aware of
Condition #3 that states the business can operate Monday through Friday only. The Applicant
"answered that she was aware and would not provide weekend daycare if she is not approved.
Chair Schaub asked the Applicant if she had seen the conditions. The Applicant answered that
she had seen them.
Ms. Wilson stated that the Applicant has the option to amend her application for weekend
daycare and it would be up to the Commission if they thought it was appropriate for the
neighborhood, but weekend day<;:are was not before the Commission at this time.
Chair Schaub asked if the Applicant would have to come back to the Planning Commission to
amend her application. Ms. Wilson answered that she can amend her application verbally now.
The Applicant stated that she wanted to modify her application at this time.
Ms. Wilson asked if the modification would be for the hours of operation 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.
Monday through Sunday. The Applicant stated that the hours would remain the same but that
the weekend daycare would only be once per month. Ms. Wilson stated that the Planning
Commission could make the condition a "blanket" condition for seven days per week or write
the condition specifically for one weekend a month.
Cm, Tomlinson was concerned with the weekend daycare. He felt that most people have a
reasonable expectation of peace and quiet during the weekend. He also asked if the Applicant
had tried to meet and work with the neighbor whQ wrote the letter and will be speaking during
the public hearing. The Applicant responded that she was notified that the neighbor was to
Commission
100
October 23, 200?
. ~L15l "2.~~
DRAFT DRAFT -0
speak but did not know what the concerns are, except the noise level and a parent backing into
her driveway.
Chair Schaub asked if social service agencies inspect the area. The Applicant stated that she has
had 3 visits with no issues.
Chair Schaub stated that the Planning Commission deals with land use issues only but they are
an agency that deals with care and quality of care.
Cm. Wehrenberg stated that there are conditions regarding keeping areas clean and asked the
Applicant to confirm that the garage is available for parking. The Applicant answered that the
garage will be clear but work is being done on their house. Cm. Wehrenberg wanted to be sure
that the Applicant had read the conditions. The Applicant stated that she had.
Cm. Biddle asked what the age ranges of the children are. The Applicant answered their ages
are 0 to 12 years old.
Cm. Biddle asked what time the children are outside and how much time do they spend
outdoors. The Applicants answered that normally the toddlers are outside from 9:00 a.m. and
10:30 a.m. and then from 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. She stated that they had not been outside since
school started because of the weather.
Cm. Biddle stated that during his visit to the Applicant's house there was no parking problem
because the house is on the corner. He asked if she had spoken with the parents to park around
the corner if too many parents at one time. The Applicant stated that there has never been an
issue with parking.
Cm. Biddle asked if the children arrive at different times. The Applicant answered that the
children are dropped off and picked up at different times, never all at the same time.
The Commission discussed the number of childred related to the daycare and how long the
daycare has been in operation.
Ms. Maureen Zekman, 7072 Lancaster Road spoke in opposition to the project with the
following concerns: physical design of property and noise; parking; garbage; fire and general
safety; number of children; weekend operation; and property values.
Cm. King asked about one of the photogra.p,hs that show trash accumulation on the side of the
Applicant's house. Ms. Zekman stated that it appeared to trash accumulation along with some
building materials.
Cm. Tomlinson asked how recent the pictures were taken. Ms. Zekman answered that the
pictures were taken the previous weekend.
Ms. Zekman suggested that the Applicant move the play area to another part of her yard to
mitigate the noise level.
101
GauGer 23, 2007
~2.Ul.2t~
DRAFT DRAFT - ()
Chair Schaub asked Ms. Kit Fabion, City Attorney, what the rule is regarding the caregiver's
children and whether they would count in the 14 children or be in addition to the 14 children.
Ms. Fabion answered that there are two sets of regulations in this situation. One is the license
through Social Services that any daycare provider must be licensed which is a separate process
that looks at quality of care, safety of the children, etc. This is not within the purview of the.
Planning Commission and stated that some of the comments made by Ms. Zekman are
regarding the licensing aspect of the situation. The second regulatory system and the means of
counting the children for the land use part is the Conditional Use Permit, under the City's
ordinance, the children that are under 10 count towards the total number of children.
Chair Schaub stated that the Planning Commission looks at land use issues only, such as, traffic,
parking, transportation, noise, etc.
Ms. Zekman stated that she would be happy if the Applicant moved the play area over to the
other side of her yard.
Cm. Tomlinson asked Ms. Zekman if when her property was damaged she was able to work it
out with the drivers of the vehicles or the Applicant. Ms. Zekman stated that she repaired the
damage herself.
Mr. Frank Nagle, 7048 Lancaster Road, spoke in favor of project. He stated that he never had
any problems with the daycare.
Chair Schaub asked the Applicant if she would be willing to move the play area to the other
side of yard. The Applicant stated the area is where her elderly father gardens, but would be
willing to move the play area.
Chair Schaub asked the Applicant if she was aware of damage to Ms. Zekman's property would
she be willing to pay for it. The Applicant answered yes, but was not aware of any damage only
that Ms. Zekman was concerned about possible damage to her property.
Cm. Tomlinson asked Ms. Zekman if the Applicant moved the play area to the other side of the
yard would she still oppose the application. Ms. Zekman stated that she would not oppose the
application if the play area was moved and if there were time restrictions on the use of the. pool.
Chair Schaub asked if Ms. Zekman, the Applicant and Staff could work out the hours for the use
of the pool. Ms. Zekman answered yes.
Ms. Wilson stated that if the Commission has concerns about noise levels during the use of the
pool that would be included in the outdoor play time which is part of the permit. She stated
that the pool time would not be in addition to the outdoor play time indicated in the permit
application.
Ms. Fabion stated that if the Commission wishes to include a condition relative to moving the
play area they would want to recognize that there is a State license issue involved and there is
probably a certain amount of play area required to meet the State license statutes. Also,
{Pfarmi7lg Commission
102
Octo[je( 23, 2007
DRAFT DRAFT~;6b2g Z.
because of the placement of the pool there could be an access issue if the play area is moved to
that location. It could be a condition or stated that the Applicant should work as much as
possible or to the extent feasible to relocate the play area within the confines of the State license
statutes.
Cm. Tomlinson asked the Applicant if she anticipated having nine or more children when
providing the weekend care one day a month. The Applicant answered that it would be not
more than five. Cm. Tomlinson stated that, under State law, the Applicant has the right to care
for up to 8 children without State regulation. Therefore, if the Applicant is comfortable with her
application for 9-14 children, Monday through Friday and keeping the number of children on
the weekend to 8 or less then she would not have to amend her application. The Applicant
agreed.
Cm. King asked if the Applicant would agree to move the play area to an alternative location.
The Applicant answered yes if that is what needs to be done to have the Conditional Use Permit
approved.
Chair Schaub closed the public hearing.
Cm. Biddle stated that the sound of children playing is not offensive to him and that it is part of
living in any neighborhood. There is a reason why this process is here to allow cities to approve
conditional use permits because there is a great need for childcare in this and any community.
He felt that the issued raised could be handled neighbor-to-neighbor and doesn't need to come
before the Commission.
Cm. King stated that ordinarily the kinds of issues that Ms. Zekman brings forward are the
issues that would cause him to vote against it All the problems of the large daycare center
could have but in view of the fact that Ms. Zekman has agreed to work with Applicant to move
the location of the play area to mitigate sound he stated that he would be in favor of approving
the Conditional Use Permit.
Cm. Tomlinson stated that he would support the Conditional Use Permit if the play area is
moved to the other side of the yard.
Cm. Wehrenberg stated that she agreed with the other Commissioners but would like to make
sure that Staff inspects the area to ensure there is no garbage or no safety hazards before the
permit is issued. Ms. Wilson stated that Staff would verify that the area is clean.
Cm. Tomlinson wanted to ensure that the Conditions of Approval remain with the days and.
hours of operation as stated in the original submittal.
Cm. Wehrenberg stated that she would support the project with the Conditions of Approval as
submitted.
Chair Schaub stated that there should be condition added that the play area is to be moved
subject to any agencies restrictions.
Comlm:\'sian
103
Octooer 23, 200?
DRAFT
Ms. Wilson read the draft condition as follows:
DRAFT
~~~1~~
"The outdoor play area shall be located in the southeast area of the rear yard if this area is
determined to be accessible and feasible by the State of California's Community Care Licensing
Division, "
Chair Schaub stated that the condition would be added and that all the other conditions are in
effect including time of day of outdoor play time and use of the pool. He stated that there was
an issue of noise with the pool time and he would be in support of the Staff and the Applicant
working that out at the Staff level. He asked for a condition that states that the Applicant and
Staff would work out the pool play time as this is a noise issue.
Ms. Wilson stated that if the Commission is comfortable with the hours that the Applicant has
proposed then that would be what was assumed the outdoor activity would be. She stated that
if the Commission wanted the pool play time to be at a specific time that should be part of the
action at this meeting. Chair Schaub asked if the outdoor play time was in the conditions. Ms.
Wilson answered that is was not. Condition # 4 states that" no outdoor activities may take
place before 9:?0 a.m. or after 6:00 p.m."
Cm. Tomlinson was concerned about the condition to move the play area and the way it was
stated. He asked if the agency says no that the play area will not work in that area, will the
Conditional Use Permit still be approved. Then the situation still remains where the neighbor's
yard is still impacted.
Ms. Wilson answered that the City does not regulate the actual location, size or manner of the
outdoor play area it is up to the State Community Care Licensing division. The condition is
hoping that they would have the ability to shift it but we don' t know that for sure.
Cm. Tomlinson asked if the Commission should make the condition contingent on the State
approving the location of the play area.
Chair Schaub indicated that the vote could be different if the condition is not contingent on the
State approval.
Ms. Wilson stated that it is the Commission's right to make the determination that the noise
impact is sufficient enough to have that different location, i.e., the southeast corner of the yard
the Commission could condition the application to require the application that the play area
will be restricted to the southeast corner, and if the State does not concur or feels it isn't feasible
because of access issues then they would not be operating in compliance with CUP conditions.
Therefore, the CUP application would not be approved because they could not meet that
condition.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked for a straw vote without moving on the application. She stated that the
location makes no difference in her opinion.
Cm. Biddle agreed that if State approves the southeast corner location he would support that
but he would also support the current location.
104
October 23, 200!
Cm. King stated that the location makes the difference to him.
DRAFT
~5tsb -ZC6Y
DRAFT
Cm. Tomlinson stated that the location would make the difference to him also.
Chair Schaub stated that he would have to go with what the City Council has done in the past.
He felt that the Commission's approval would be appealed and felt that the City Council would
approve a Large Family Daycare regardless of noise. He stated that the Planning Commission
had denied a Large Family Daycare and it was overturned at the City Council. He stated that,
in his opinion, the location made no difference. He would still like to see the neighbors work
out the issues together without bringing it to the Planning Commission.
Ms. Wilson stated that the Commission could make a motion to could include the condition to
move play area to the southeast corner of the property which is accessible and feasible with
consideration of the Community Care Licensing. She stated that the Commission could vote for
that with a 3-2 vote or~2-3 vote.
Ms. Wilson stated that there is a motion to approve the application with an additional condition
which would read:
"The outdoor play area shall be located in the southeast area of the rear yard if this area is
determined to be accessible and feasible by the State of California's Community Care Licensing
Division. "
On a motion by Cm. Biddle as modified with the additional condition and seconded by Cm.
Wehrenberg, and by a vote of 5-0-0, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted:
RESOLUTION NO. 07 -50
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A LARGE
FAMILY DAYCARE HOME AT 7060 LANCASTER ROAD (APN 941-0201-023)
PA 07-012
Cm. King asked if one of the conditions is that the play area must be moved as far as the CUP
approval. Ms. Wilson answered that if it is feasible and accessible based on State of California
regulations for play areas.
Cm. Wehrenberg stated that is would not be a requirement.
Ms. Wilson answered if it can be done it is requir~d but if it cannot be done because it is not
feasible then it will not be done.
P{mminfJ
105
Octooer 23, 200?
'Gte Db t. ~ 'Z..
DRAFT DRAFT
Chair Schaub. restated that the CUP is approved and all the conditions apply with the added
condition that the play area is moved unless there is a letter from the State Licensing Board that
says it is not acceptable.
8.2 P A 07-018 New Start Daycare Conditional Use Permit to operate a Large Family Daycare
(up to 14 children) at 5481 Asterwood Drive.
Chair Schaub asked for the Staff Report
Martha Aja, Assistant Planner presented the project as stated in the Staff Report.
Chair Schaub opened the public hearing and asked if there was any opposition to the project
and hearing no comments, closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Cm.Tomlinson and seconded by Cm. Biddle, and by a vote of 5-0-0, the
Planning Commission unanimously adopted:
RESOLUTION NO. 07 -51
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A LARGE
FAMILY DAYCARE HOME AT 5481 ASTERWOOD DRIVE (APN 986-0001-106)
PA 07-018
8.3 P A 06-009 Windstar Condominiums for a, West Dublin BART Specific Plan Amendment,
Stage 1 Amendment, Stage 2 Rezone, Mitigated Negative Declaration and Site
Development Review.
Chair Schaub asked for a brief history of the project and the Staff Report.
Erica Fraser, Senior Planner, gave a brief history of the area and then presented the project as
stated in the Staff Report and answered questions regarding AMB Property and other
entitlements in the area.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked regarding the letter from Enea Properties, potential for them to develop,
would they come to the Commission regarding rezoning. Ms. Fraser answered the in the letter,
they were concerned that if Windstar was approved for an increase in density how would it
impact the Enea Properties building residential project on their site. But they have no
application for a project and their property is zoned retail/ office. This is the only area zoned for
residential.
Chair Schaub asked Ms. Fraser to explain the PD Planned Development District Zoning.
Ms. Fraser stated that a Stage 1 PD is the basics of a project, for example, the 'basics of Windstar
today, they have a Stage 1 PD that allows a general layout of the building and allows 210 units.
District refers to zoning district.
Commissiun
106
October 23, 2()()?
DRAFT
DRAFTeo16b282
Chair Schaub asked Ms. Fraser to explain that the landscape plan IS conceptual and not
intended to be final because it does not include the bike lane.
Ms. Fraser stated that the bike lane is shown on the project plans and she pointed out the
Bikeways Master Plan which shows the bike lane on St. Patrick's Way.
Ms. Fraser stated that there was brick on the elevations previously but has been removed. Cm.
Wehrenberg recalled that the bricks were on the lower part of the building to go with the rest of
the elevations. Ms. Fraser passed out the color board to the Commission.
Ms. Fraser stated that the west elevation changes only slightly, the height was increased to add
the 99 units. She noted that the project will be surrounded by street trees and accent planting.
At the corner of St. Patrick Way and Golden Gate there will be a water feature and public art.
Ms. Fraser indicated that Staff prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration and distributed it
accordingly and received only one comment letter which was from CalTrans. CalTrans raised
concerns about the entire project including the BART station and the hotel.
Ms. Fraser stated that the parking code requires a specific number of parking spaces per unit
type. She stated that there is a general average parking ratio of 2 stalls per unit. Windstar is
requesting a parking reduction and is proposing a total of 479 parking stalls which results in an
overall difference of 87 stalls.
Ms. Fraser continued that the parking ratio they are requesting is 1.55, which is similar to the
Transit Center. The City Council adopted a parking ratio of 1.5 per unit for everything in the
Transit Center.' This was based on the typical transit oriented development (TOD). There are
four (4) projects approved at the Transit Center with a parking ratio of 1.5, Camillia Place (fully
occupied), Elan, Avalon Bay and Metropolitan.
Chair Schaub asked if these developments were full now. Ms. Fraser stated that only Camilli a
Place was full at this time. Chair Schaub stated that the real test of the parking ratio comes
when the developments are full.
Ms. Fraser continued that Staff requested TJKM to look at parking; they determined that the
proposed ratio was appropriate for transit oriented development. She stated that there were
concerns regarding parking at tr:ansit oriented developments and was asked to do some
research into California. She stated that it is different everywhere, some are as low as.5 up to
2.5. She reviewed the parking for the Pleasant Hill BART TOD that has a parking ratio of 1.08
stalls/ unit. She stated that she found no complaints or articles written about it. She found a
study that was published in the Journal of Public Transportation which showed that the ratio
was appropriate for that site. They found that 24% of the people who lived there owned less
than one vehicle. This finding was based solely on the Pleasant Hill BART TOD. She also
mentioned other cities and their parking ratios and stated that the reason the ratios vary is
because it depends on where they are located.
Commissiun
107
Octo6er 23, 200?
1?Jifju[ar
DRAFT . DRAFT fJdIfJ Db 282
Ms. Fraser continued that at the study session for Winds tar, their parking ratio was 1.8
stalls/unit with tandem parking stalls. She mentioned that Windstar has removed all tandem
parking stalls and that all the parking would be traditional with a secured garage.
Chair Schaub stated that there have been some article in the paper regarding some of buildings
on Dublin Blvd have tandem parking and the back part of the stall is being used for storage not
parking which has led to a parking problem on the street.
Ms. Fraser stated that these problems are typically associated with individual private garages,
not large shared parking garages.
Chair Schaub thought that most of the parking problems should be addressed by the HOA's in
the developments not the Planning Commission. He stated that he thought the Commission
should be able to enforce the parking issues through the Conditions <?f Approval.
Cm. Wehrenberg stated that she had read the TJKM report and on page 25 it states that the
average peak period for residential condos is 1.46 and asked if that number is applicable to this
project.
Ms. Fraser stated that Windstar was condominiums previously and is now totally an apartment
project but the ratio would still apply.
Chair Schaub asked if there was an application for a condo map. Ms Fraser answered that there
was not.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked if Staff has proven that the Pleasant Hill study actually works in a city.
She felt strongly about the parking issue and doesn't want to approve something that w,ould not
be good for the community. She asked if it was possible to look into the Pleasant Hill BART
project and study the subject further, in a relatively quick manner.
Ms. Wilson stated that Staff can do more research.
Chair Schaub mentioned that we don't know if any of the BART projects are full so we cannot
know if it works. Ms. Fraser stated that they could not find any reported problems.
Cm. Tomlinson stated that he knows the Pleasant Hill project fairly well. It was built as an
apartment complex with a low parking ratio. He suggested that if the Commission wants to get
a sense of how it works out to call the property manager.
Ms. Fraser stated that it was important to note that people who move into this type of project
are aware of the parking situation.
Cm. Wehrenberg stated that the projects in the area are not going to be built at the same time
and asked what the" down-hill" effect on the next properties.
Commissiun
108
Octo5e:r 23} 200?
DRAFT DRAFT ~'1 U1) 1.~7-
Ms. Wilson stated that the Commission would be approving a parking standard that is different
then the code, but the exception to the code is related to a suburban model, the code does not
include standards for an urbanized model.
Ms. Fraser stated that the request to lower the parking ratio is n~t technically a waiver but a rule
in the PD zoning that allows their parking ratio to be 1.55.
Chair Schaub asked to make it clear that in the proposed parking there are 435 stalls for the
residents which is 24 over, and 44 proposed guests parking which is under by 111, given our
standard.
Cm. Biddle stated that there are 435 stalls behind the gate with an estimated 411 with the
assumptions. He stated that they are called guest stalls but can be used by the public.
Ms. Fraser discussed signage that could be installed that limits the parking with the ability to
tow.
Cm. Biddle asked what would keep a person that's going to BART from parking there. Ms.
Wilson answered that the management would have to enforce the parking rules.
Cm. Tomlinson suggested private parking meters installed.
Chair Schaub opened the public hearing.
The Applicant, Eric Heffner, spoke in favor of the project He introduced Morgan Davies,
Guzzardo Partnership, Landscaper; Chet Tang, Mclaren & Vasquez, Architect; Bob Russell,
Amphelon; Tom Garloch, VP Construction; Eric Jareau, BKF; Sean Tagazi, Equity Partner; and
John Reynolds, BART.
Mr. Heffner stated that they will be actively marketing this project as a luxury rental apartment
complex but will put a condominium map on the property at this time but will continue to
market as an apartment project.
Chair Schaub stated that the condo map was not part of the project the Commission will be
reviewing tonight. He asked the Applicant when they would bring the condo conversion
project back to the Commission.
The Applicant stated they would like a condo map now but would like to get the project
approved and then submit the condo map. The Applicant spoke about the parking issue and
mentioned the idea of "flex-cars" which are time-share cars. A professional management
company would rent a few parking spaces and have the cars available to the residents. Parking
enforcement will be managed by an on-site parking management company with 24/7 security.
Another Applicant and Architect, Chet Tang, spoke in favor of the project regarding the
architecture. He gave examples of projects that have worked in San Francisco and San Jose that
have a 1.5 parking ratio. He also mentioned the railings for the balconies which were changed
to an opaque railing to shield the items on the balconies.
Commissiun
109
OctoSer 23, 200?
DRAFT
DRAFT q D ~ 2'Z2.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked about the awnings on St. Patrick's which were shown only on the
Golden Gate side of the project on the elevations. The Applicant answered that the awnings are
also on the St. Patrick's way also but the awning material was changed to metal because of
concern about fabric maintenance.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked about green building elements in the project. Mr. Tang answered that
on the green building checklist they were able to be certified and exceeded the green design
checklist points. .
Ms. Wilson stated that Staff will continue to work with the Applicant during .the Building
Permit process with regard to green design checklist.
Cm. Tomlinson asked what the material was for the window detail on the lower element. Mr.
Tang stated that it was made of foam or plaster for a smoother finish.
Cm. Tomlinson stated that he does not care for the railing on the balconies. He felt that it
looked like sheet metal and was concerned about glare from the sun. Mr. Tang answered that
they had decided to paint all the railings. Cm. Tomlinson stated he did not recall the discussion
about making the railing opaque and felt something more open would be appropriate. He felt
that the management company would regulate what is placed on the patios ,!md felt that an
open wire railing would be a richer look. Mr. Tang answered that was what they preferred.
Ms. Fraser stated that Staff had added that condition to the most recent projects at the request of
the City Council who were concerned about what they were seeing along Dublin Blvd.
Chair Schaub stated that he also does not like the railing. He felt that it was too much like light
industrial. Mr. Tang stated they would prefer to have a more open railing.
Cm. Tomlinson suggested horizontal bar with gaps that still allow eye sightline to go through
the railing.
Chair Schaub stated that the Commission did not like the railing. Ms. Fraser answered that the
condition stated Staff was to work it out with the Applicant.
Cm. Tomlinson stated that architecturally he likes the new design of the project. He felt that the
increased size is appropriate. He stated that he does not like the "white powder sand" color; he
felt that there was too much of that color and was concerned with the metal glare on the
railings. He felt that a darker color with the "white powder sand" color as an accent.
Ms. Wilson asked Cm. Tomlinson if he was suggesting a modification of the "white powder
sand" paint color. He answered yes and would like to see the color in smaller areas only.
Cm. Tomlinson mentioned that he thought the entrances could be dressed up a little more and
something more interesting than the same brick. Mr. Tang mentioned that the brick will be
different patterns and textures.
(l'[annill{J Commission
110
GctuGer 23, 200?
DRAFT . DRAFT Of \ Obz<D"2-
Cm. King stated that at the study session he observed that the corner of St. Patricks Way and
Golden Gate should be something distinctive/dramatic and it has not changed since the
previous submittal. He felt that the water feature doesn't make a statement. His preference
would be something distinctive at that corner. He felt that public art should be backed up with
some kind of drama effect behind it.
Chair Schaub mentioned the Palo Alto Medical Group building and the art project that was
installed in front of their building as an example of a dramatic public art piece.
Cm. Tomlinson mentioned that the Palo Alto Medical Group added the aeration and creates
interest.. Mr. Tang mentioned that they could add some kind of vertical quality to the fountain.
Morgan Davies, Guzzardo Partnership, Landscaper, asked the Commission if they are more
concerned with architecture or the sculpture not being a big enough presence on the corner.
Cm. King was concerned with the architecture of the corner and gave the example of a tower at
one of the Transit Center buildings that has a lipstick shape. Mr. Davies stated that he felt that
the real life in the corner would come from what happens on the ground. He stated that the
idea was that people would walk through the site.
Cm. King suggested a taller, more framed fountain. Mr. Tang stated that he thought the
rendering doesn't give the project justice. He stated that they were working with Windstar to
add different types of windows that would add a glow effect with lighting and screening. Mr.
Tang also felt that the railing could be an enhancement to the effect.
Cm. Biddle stated that he was pleaseg that there is no large expanse of stucco compared to
others. He stated that something other than brick would be appreciated because he likes to
have as many options as possible.
Chair Schaub ~tated that he liked the building at a higher elevation. He stated that he liked the
industrial look and asked the Applicant to do a good job on the stucco.
Cm. Tomlinson stated that if they can enhance the corners and the entrance of the buildings that
would be preferable. Mr. Tang stated that it was their intent to enhance the corners with wrap
windows around the corner.
Chair Schaub was concerned that there be no plaster below 3-4 feet as he felt it became worn
very soon. Ms. Fraser stated that there is brick at the bottom. Mr. Tang mentioned that there is
a landscape base to the perimeter of the project.
Cm. Biddle was concerned about the actual change to the project. He stated that the footprint is
the same but felt the big change was adding the street level that includes the second level of
parking. Mr. Tang stated that as a result of adding the units there needed to be additional
parking. Therefore, the ground level parking became the second level parking garage. He
continued thatthe overall building is at 6 stories.
P[anniHfJ
1?J![Juf.lr ~Weetil1f:J
111
Octo6er 23, 200?
DRAFT DRAFT ota.1bZ'3Z
Cm. Biddle asked if the floor plans changed. Mi. Tang stated that there was some change to the
town homes, but the unit plans didn't change. Mr. Tang stated that there was an increase in the
one-bedroom units basically becaus.e they went from a condominium project to a rental project.
Ms. Wilson stated that the Applicant would have to submit a condo map. Mr. Heffner added
that they would not alter the condo map for unit sales.
Cm. King was concerned about the proximity to the Safeway store and that it was mentioned
that the project was within walking distance. He thought that the traffic problem would be
worse with the BART station finished and that it would be a problem to carry groceries back to
the apartment complex.
Mr. Heffner mentioned that the type of resident to live at their project will be an urban resident
that does not go shopping as often as a suburban resident.
Cm Biddle stated that the one place in Dublin that we can have high density is by the BART
station because within one mile there are many services including being able to walk across the
freeway to Stoneridge Mall.
Chair Schaub began the discussion on parking. He stated he was concerned about guest
parking/. and that there are two issues; 1) how will the Applicant handle the 111 guest parking;
2) he was concerned about what really works. He stated that the residents on the east side,
which is not a transit oriented development, are not happy with parking and we approved it to
parking codes. He suggested that the project be brought back to 1.5 for residential which is
what was stated to City Council and convert some of the inside parking to guest parking that
would bring the guest parking up to 80% of the requirement and the overall project will still
stay at 1.5. He was very concerned about the 111 cars that could potentially be at the project
and where they would park. He stated that one proposal was to take some of the residential,
two and three bedroom units and put them at 1.5 stalls/units as opposed to 2, that gave the
residential 80% of guest parking, therefore, some of guest parking would be inside the gate. He
suggested that the project is kept at 1.5 and bring the guest parking to 80%. Chair Schaub asked
the Applicant if this would be something they would want the Commission to consider.
Bob Russell, Amphelon Development, responded to the concerns regarding the guest parking
and some of the ratios being proposed. He stated that what they would like to propose is on the
prior submittal at 210 units, there was guest parking on the first level of approximately 39 stalls.
He pointed to the entry way at the street level on the slide and indicated the site of the gate
from the prior proposal for separating the residential parking from guest parking which would
add 39 stalls on first level. He stated that there were 435 stalls previously if you deduct 39 from
435 that would leave 396 for the residential units. Then increase guest stalls from 44 to 83 which
would almost double the guest stalls. Mr. Russell pointed out the parking at the project would
allow guest parking within the gated area and at that point the project would only be 15 under
the required 411 for residential and 72 under on guest parking and bring guest parking to 70%.
Bob Russell spoke ~n favor of the project regarding parking. He stated that he was president of
the Contra Costa Center Association which is the private business district around the Pleasant
Hill BART Station. He stated that there are four major apartment complexes within the BART
Commission
112
(ktaGer 23; 200?
DRAFT _. . DRAFT &\.3 6ff'i>2
station area and their parking ratio's are 1.1 at the low end, but most of the complexes are at 1.25
and 1.5 and have been there at least ten years and felt that it was a workable solution.
Cm. Wehrenberg stated that she would like to ensure that the Pleasant Hill complex is working
before we approve the project.
Bob Russell stated that he felt that there is a workable solution and that the TJKM study shows
that most projects that are being built are actually under what is requested. He felt that their
project was a more walkable community relative to retail than the Transit Center in Dublin
which is at the end of the BART line and would therefore have more parking problems.
Cm. Wehrenberg stated that she was in support of the project. She liked the flex-car idea and
thought it would be good for the project.
Chair Schaub asked if the Commission wanted to delay the approval and when could the
project come back.
Ms. Wilson stated it would depend on what the Commission wants the Staff to do. She stated
that if the Commission is !lsking Staff to look at the TOD in Pleasant Hill, and get more
information then it could probably come back at the next meeting. But if the Commission wants
much more than that, because of the preparation of the agenda, there would be a longer delay
before the project came back before the Planning Commission.
Cm. Wehrenberg stated that she would like to confirm it's working for Pleasant Hill and that
the 1.5 ratio is appropriate for that site. Ms. Fraser stated that the Pleasant Hill TOD has 1.08
ratio.
em. Biddle stated he thought that "guest" parking is a misnomer because it will be used by
people that rent a unit that has one parking space but have 3 or 4 cars. He was concerned about
control of parking and who would be responsible for it. He felt that an apartment manager
would have better control of the interior parking, particularly guest.
Bob Russell stated that this would be a high level apartment complex with a well controlled
parking garage.
Cm. King asked about the two hour parking limit. Ms. Fraser stated that Staff had put that limit
on the outside parking during the BART parking peak time, Monday through Friday 7:00 a.m.
to 6:00 p.m., which has nothing to do with the peak guest time which is after 6:00 p.m.
Cm. King stated he has the same concerns as Cm. Wehrenberg and Cm. Biddle. He stated that
he is uneasy with the formulas that he felt are based on obsolete assumptions. He stated he was
uneasy about approving an increase in capacity on assurances that it will work.
Cm. King asked if there would be a difference with parking from people who buy and those
who rent. Mr. Russell answered that the mix is geared towards the urban professional. He
stated that the traffic engineers studied models not only locally but throughout the nation to see
what is successful. He felt that since their request was for at or slightly above what is the norm
Commissiun
113
OctoBet 23, 200?
DRAFT. . ,DRAFT ~ Y Db 2-ez...-
for parkmg ratIos they would be comfortable at the 1.55 ratIo. He requested that the Plannmg
Commission not continue the item and felt that it was a workable situation.
Ms. Wilson added that many times there are communities that have a cap or maximum for
parking requirements to promote less cars and that there is a very specific clientele who want to
be there and be out of their cars. She stated that these types of parking ratios are studied
nationwide.
Ms. Fraser stated that the parking analysis relies on studies done in the .state as well as
throughout the nation. They are looking at what works and the parking ratios are based on site
conditions.
John Reynolds, BART project manager, spoke regarding the parking ratio at the Contra Costa
Center where the parking ratio is less than 1.5.
Cm. Tomlinson stated that he supports the parking as proposed and leaving the guest parking
at 44. He stated that on the previous plan he did not like the underground guest parking. He
was concerned about public safety in an underground parking area where they are open to the
public and close to BART. He stated that the code does not make a distinction between the size
of the apartments and the number of parking spaces assigned to it. He felt that taking away
unit spaces to add them to guest spaces would put more pressure on the residents. He
discussed the guest parking issue and shared use of commercial parking areas.
Chair Schaub asked John Reynolds if guests could park in the BART parking lot.
Mr. Reynolds stated that after 3:00 p.m. there would be no fee so there would be no problem.
Chair Schaub stated that he has a huge problem with the fact that there are only 44 guest
parking spaces. He felt that if this project is built and none of the other projects then the guests
can park at BART but did not feel that it was appropriate for guests to park on private property
such as nearby businesses.
Cm. Tomlinson stated that the question was: are guest spaces truly used by guests.
Chair Schaub stated that he felt the Commission must make an attempt to provide adequate
guest parking.
Cm. Tomlinson felt that taking spaces away from units and giving them to guests was not
necessary. He agreed that there would be no families in this project. He felt the car share idea
could work here and giving them more controlled parking would help also.
Mr. Reynolds spoke about the critical nature of this project to the funding of the BART station
and the fact that it is critical for the project to move forward and be completed when the station
opens. He felt that the parking difference is not that much but that it could financially impact
the project. He stated that the Applicant is willing to work with Staff because of the critical
nature of this project.
p{armmfJ Commission
1.?J!fJllklr 5'.1eetin,q
114
OctaGer 23, 200?
DRAFT DRAFT '15lfbZ<3 2-
Ms. Fraser made a suggestion to shift the 24 stalls to guest parking which would bring the total
guest parking to 68. She stated that the Applicant could either leave the gate as proposed and
stripe some guest parking stalls or move the gate and have 24 open stalls in the gated area,
Mr. Heffner stated he wants to move forward and that the request is for a 1.55 parking ratio
whether they are resident or guest parking but the total parking count is what is before the
Commission. He stated that they could secure the guest parking within the gated resident
parking garage.
Chair Schaub asked for a straw vote as to whether the Planning Commission would like more
guest parking in the ratio for the project.
Cm. King stated that he does not have an opinion.
Cm. Biddle stated that he liked Ms. Fraser's suggestion of balancing it out with resident and
guest parking and that it is controlled, he felt that the control issue needed to be in the
Conditions of Approval.
Cm. Wehrenberg stated she agreed with what is being proposed and agreed with Ms. Fraser's
suggestion of +24.
Cm. Tomlinson stated that he agreed. He stated that if the Applicant agrees with adding 24
spaces to guest parking and having ~hat many less to dedicate to residents then he supports.
that.
Chair Schaub asked Cm. King if he agreed with adding the 24. Cm. King stated that he could
not support it.
Chair Schaub closed the public hearing.
Chair Schaub proposed that the condition should be added that the guest parking be changed to
include the 24 and that will make the residential parking at the City standard and the guest
parking is closer to the standard of which 24 of those will be located inside the parking garage
and secure.
Ms. Fraser suggested that the Commission add a new Condition of Approval #27 that would require
that the building permit plans show that there are 411 resident parking stalls and 64 guest parking stalls,
24 of which will be in the parking garage. Cm. Biddle asked that the parking stalls be designated to
each unit. Ms. Fraser suggested a new CofA #28, which states: prior to occupancy the Applicant w.m
provide proof to the city that the resident stalls have been assigned to a unit.
Cm, Wehrenberg asked to add the condition to pursue the flex-car plan.
Ms. Fraser stated that the new CofA #29 would state: the Applicant shall research and include if
feasible the Flex-car opportunities for the residents.
CommIssion
115
October 23, 200?
DRAFT . . DRAFT 4 ~ 01)2$2
Ms. Fraser also stated that new Condition of Approval #30 to modify the "white powder sand" color
shall be removed and replaced with a neutral color to be reviewed and approved by the Community
Development Director.
Cm. Tomlinson asked to add an additional color to the pallet that would be a little darker and
the Commission did not like the railing materials.
Chair Schaub asked Cm. King to state his opinion for the record.
Cm. King stated that he is opposed to this change in the project because two months ago at a
joint study session regarding reworking the four West Dublin specific plans he asked where the
Village Green would be located. He stated that this is a 1/3 increase in mass, traffic and
parking. He stated that the Planning Commission has approved three or four projects and was
concerned about what to do when project come up while waiting for the specific plans to be
completed. By the time this plan is reviewed many things will have already been approved.
The following conditions will be added to the current Conditions of Approval:
27. Guest Parking. The Building Permit plans shall show that the parking layout has been modified so that
411 stalls are provided for resident parking and 68 parking stalls are provided for guests (with 44 of
the guest stalls located on the internal driveway and 24 within the parking garage).
28. Resident Stalls. Prior to Occupancy, the owner/developer shall provide proof that the resident parking
stalls are assigned to residents.
29. Flex Car. The Applicant shall research flex car opportunities for the residents and incorporate a flex
car into the project if feasible.
30. Exterior Colors. The powder sand color shall be used as an accent color only and the locations where
shown as a body color on the project plans shall be removed and replaced with a color which is
compatible with the building, as approved by the Community Development Director.
31. Elevations. The Applicant shall modify the building and landscaping at the corner of St. Patrick Way
and Golden Gate Drive to make a more interesting focal point on this corner, as approved by the
Community Development Director,
On a motion by Cm. Biddle and seconded by Cm. Tomlinson, with the recommended
modifications adding conditions 27-31 and by a vote of 5-0-0, the; Planning Commission
unanimously adopted:
RESOLUTION NO. 07 - 52
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR THE WINDSTAR PROJECT
P A 06-009
RESOLUTION NO. 07 - 53
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
,
116
200?
DRAFT DRAFT t91 Db 232-
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A WEST DUBLIN BART
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT TO INCREASE THE ALLOWABLE DENSITY FOR THE
, RESIDENTIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION
P A 06-009
RESOLUTION NO. 07- 54
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A
PD-PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING TO AMEND THE STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT
PLAN AND APPROVE A STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE WINDSTAR PROJECT
(APN 941-1500-046-01)
P A 06-009
RESOLUTION NO. 07 - 55
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR THE WINDSTAR PROJECT, A 309-UNIT
RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY LOCATED AT 6600 GOLDEN GATE DRIVE
(APN 941-1500-046-01)
P A 06-009
NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS - Ms. Wilson asked the Planning Commission if they
would like to have SFR development projects reviewed at study sessions. Chair Schaub stated
that he trusts Staff's judgment on what project should be reviewed at a study session. He stated
that if a study session can help all of us; it saves time in the long run. Ms. Wilson stated that the
Applicants understand that there is never a guarantee that they will achieve approval. Cm.
Tomlinson stated that the Commission tends to deal with things in one hearing and that Study
Sessions allow the Planning Commission to get overall information.
ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 10:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Bill Schaub
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Mary Jo Wilson, AICP
Planning Manager
G: \ MINUTES \ 2007\ Planning Commission \ 10.23.07.doc
Commission
117
OctoSer 2.3, 200?