Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.1 Promenade Appeal Attch 1-71 ~- ~ -$ \~/. ~:' CITY CLERK File # ^~~-0~ AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: January 20, 2009 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: PA 08-006 Appeal of Planning Com mission's Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for Shared Parking at the Proposed C1ubSport Project within The Promenade at Dublin Ranch. Repo rt Prepared by Mike Porto, Consulting Planner ATTACHMENTS: 1) Section 8.76.OSOF of the Zoning Ordinance, "Adjustment to the Number of Parking Spaces", Subsection F. "Parking Reductions for Shared Parking," 2) Planning Commission Study Session Staff Report and Minutes for October 14, 2008. 3) Planning Commission Study Session Staff Report and Minutes for November 12, 2008. 4) TJKM Revised Shared Parking Analysis for Parcel 5/The Promenade at Dublin Ranch dated November 5, 2008. 5) Planning Commission Staff Report and Minutes for Planning Commission Hearing of December 9, 2008 including Mr. Huang's comment letter as Attachment 1. 6) Letter of Appeal filed with the City Clerk's office on December 18, 2008. 7) .Planning Commission Resolution 08-40 approving Site Development Review for Parcel 5 of The Promenade (Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 9717) and Conditional Use Permit for a Private Fitness/Recreation Facility, Outdoor Seating for Restaurant Use, and Reduction of Required Parking based on a shared parking plan on a 3.72-Acre site within Area G of Dublin Ranch. 8) Project Plans for The Promenade at Dublin Ranch Parcel 5 date stamped Received January 12; 2009. 9) Resolution 234-OS (Establishing A Policy Regarding Ex Parte Contacts in Quasi-Judicial Proceedings) 10) Proposed Findings of Fact to Affirm Planning Commission's adoption of Resolution 08-40, approving a reduction of ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COPY TO: Applicant Property owner Page 1 of 15 / /+ , ITEM NO. l0• ~,/ G: IPA#120081PA OS-006 Club Sporr PromenadelAppeallCCSRFinall-14-09.DOC required parking based on a shared parking plan for Parcel 4 of The Promenade within Area G of Dublin Ranch. 11) Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, Chapter 7.0 Community Design. RECOMMENDATION: 1) Disclosure of ex parte contacts pursuant to Resolution 234-05; 2) Receive Staff Presentation; 3) Open Public Hearing; 4) Take Testimony from the Appellant, Applicant and the Public; 5) Close Public Hearing and Deliberate; and 6) By Motion affirm the Planning Commission's approval of Resolution 08-40 approving a Conditional Use Permit for shared parking for The Promenade at Dublin Ranch (Parcel 4) and adopt Findings of Fact set forth in Attachment 10 Or 7) By "straw vote" direct the City Attorney to prepare findings for Council's adoption by motion on February 3 to affirm the Planning Commission's action in part with or without additional conditions of approval or to reverse such action. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: No Financial Impact. The Planned Development zoning for Area G was approved by the City Council on March 21, 2000 by Ordinance 06-00. The Village Center District (now known as The Promenade) of Area G was planned as a 23+ acre area between Central Parkway on the north and Dublin Boulevard on the south. The Promenade development concept adopted with the Planned Development zoning for Area G allowed for six Village Center/Neighborhood Commercial sites and one Public/Semi-Public site to be centrally located along both sides of the proposed extension of Grafton Street. The Planned Development Zoning was adopted with the intent and purpose of creating a pedestrian- ,~ N I i ,-\ -----~ 1 J (,. _) Di:BlLV y r '; ysae __ o,~crs 3~ / 1 Map 1: Vicinity Map oriented service, retail, commercial, and entertainment center serving the daily needs of the surrounding residential neighborhoods and intermittent shopping, service, and entertainment opportunities for a wider community base. The concept of The Promenade zoning is to create a Main Street within Dublin Ranch. The Promenade is proposed to serve as the centerpiece for the commercial area of Dublin Ranch. The objective is to create apedestrian- friendly commercial area with a small town character adjacent to high-density residential neighborhoods. 2of15 The incorporation of retail, office, and fitness/recreation uses will create opportunities for the residents, and enhance the balance of jobs and housing, as well as reduce or even eliminate vehicle trips and traffic congestion due to the close proximity of residential units. The Planned Development zoning for Area G requires that Site Development Review be approved for the design of the buildings within the Village Center District (The Promenade). In addition, the Planned Development ordinance defaults to the Zoning Ordinance regulations regarding parking. Chapter 8.76 of the Zoning Ordinance specifies how much parking is required. Section 8.76.OSOF (Attachment 1) allows for a Conditional Use Permit for shared parking to be granted if certain findings can be made (see below). ClubSport Proposal The proposed ClubSport Project is proposed for a 3.72-acre site at the northeast corner of Dublin Boulevard and Grafton Street in The Promenade, in Area G. The aerial to the right illustrates the proposed location of the project in relation to the remainder of The Promenade commercial area as well as the surrounding residential development of Area G. Development Proposal Summary: The proposed development includes three structures: • _. , ,_ ., ;. w ~'„ ~ ~ n ~^~ ~~ - ;, . --- ... ~~ f ,` C1ubS ort Athletic Club and ~ ~~~T~"~r~ f~ ~ _ P s ; ~ ~. ,. . _ ~ . I'RUJEC`T SITE ,~-' Spa - Two-story building of Sit :;~ "` - . approximately 47,669 square feet = ` ~r~~,;~; = ' -~M.'w anchoring the southwest corner of `~ ~ ~'~ the site at the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Grafton Street. • Mercantile Building - A three-story building of approximately 52,716 square feet located at the northwest corner of the site facing Grafton Street south of Finnian Way with retail and restaurant uses proposed for the ground floor and office space on the second and third floors. • Parking Structure - A four-level parking structure within the northeast portion of the site which includes 428 parking spaces in addition to 58 on-site parking spaces for a total of 486 spaces. The project is more fully described in the Planning Commission Staff Report dated December 9, 2008 (Attachment 5) 3of15 The requested approvals included a Site Development Review approval for the design of the project and a Conditional Use Permit for a fitness center, outdoor seating and shared parking pursuant to Section 8.76.OSOF of the Zoning Ordinance (Attachment 1). The Appeal of the Planning Commission approval of December 9, 2008, is confined to the approval of the Conditional Use Permit for shared parking. Pursuant to Dublin Municipal Code, the Council may consider only the matter raised by the appeal. (DMC section 8.136.060.C.) Accordingly, this Agenda Statement addresses only whether the Planning Commission's approval of Planning Commission Resolution No. 08-40, approving a Conditional Use Permit to allow shared parking pursuant to DMC section 8.76.OSO.F, should be affirmed, affirmed in part, or reversed. Staff recommends that the Council affirm the Planning Commission's adoption of Resolution No. 08-40 approving a Conditional Use Permit for shared parking. If the City Council reverses the Planning Commission's approval of the Conditional Use Permit to allow shared parking or affirms it in part and revises the number of parking spaces, the Council may need to revise Resolution No. 08-40 with respect to the Site Development Review approval and Conditional Use Permits for the fitness center and outdoor seating. For example, if the City Council determines that additional parking becomes necessary, the garage would have to be modified to provide that additional parking by either adding an additional story on top of, or below the existing garage. In the alternative, if additional parking is not possible, the Applicant may decide to reduce the size of the fitness building, mercantile building or eliminate or reduce the restaurant. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The Planning Commission reviewed this project over a period of three months. The Commission held two Study Sessions and one Public Hearing as follows: Planning Commission Study Sessions (October 14, 2008 and November 12, 2008) The proposed project was presented at two Planning Commission Study Sessions. The first was held on October 14, 2008 where questions were raised regarding the Dublin Boulevard elevation and the shared parking concept. (See Attachment No. 2, Study Session Staff Report and Minutes of the Planning Commission Study Session of October 14, 2008.) A second Study Session was held on November 12, 2008 to discuss in more detail the Dublin Boulevard elevation and the Shared Parking Concept. (See Attachment No. 3, Study Session Staff Report and Minutes of the Planning Commission Study Session of November 12, 2008.) Planning Commission Meeting (December 9, 2008) The ClubSport/ Mercantile building project was presented to the Planning Commission on December 9, 2008 at a Public Hearing. The Planning Commission was presented with the Shared Parking analysis prepared by TJKM and Associates in conjunction with the Staff Report which detailed the particulars regarding the required and provided parking. (See Attachment No. 4, TJKM Shared Parking Analysis, dated November 5, 2008, addressed to Mr. James Tong, and Attachment No. 5 Planning Commission Staff Report and Minutes for December 9, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting.) At that meeting, Mr. Jimmy Huang submitted a letter stating his concern that the Applicant was using a shared parking calculation to justify the parking provided for the project and noted the "parking crisis in the Dublin Ranch Villages" (Attachment 5). Mr. Huang was not present at the Hearing. 4of15 The Planning Commission reviewed all testimony including Mr. Huang's letter and the Staff Report, and after considerable discussion, approved the Site Development Review and a Conditional Use Permit for the fitness facility, outdoor seating-and shared parking (Attachments 5 and 7). The Planning Commission noted in the approval of the Resolution "with reservations" with respect to the shared parking (Attachment 5). COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ACTION: Community Development Director Hearing on Vesting Tentative Parcel Map (January 8, 2009) The project when it was originally submitted was Parcel 5 of a 5 parcel subdivision. Therefore, many of the attachments and documents reviewed by the Planning Commission and attached to this Report, reference the project site as Parcel 5. However, on January 8, 2009, the Community Development Director held a noticed public hearing on an application for a new Vesting Tentative Parcel Map (See Aerial above for parcel lines). The Map created 4 parcels within The Promenade. The project site is a part of this Map and is now designated as Parcel 4. As part of the Conditions of Approval of the Map, private reciprocal cross lot parking and access easements were required for the entire Promenade Area, including this project. This type of easement is common among centers where there is a diversity of uses businesses with different peak parking and use times. In addition, this action further enforces that the Applicant intends to create a Village Center where parking is fully utilized. APPEAL PROCESS: Chapter 8.136 of the Zoning Ordinance contains the regulations and procedures that must be followed if an action of the Planning Commission is appealed to the City Council. In brief, an appeal and filing fee must be filed with the City Clerk within 10 calendar days of the Planning Commission action. The appeal must be scheduled for the public hearing within 45 days of the filing of the Appeal. The City Council may defer decision on the Appeal at the Public Hearing, but must take action within 75 days within the filing of the Appeal. On December 18, 2008, Mr. Jimmy Huang filed a Letter of Appeal (letter is dated December 17, 2008) along with a filing fee of $175.00 on the Planning Commission approval of the Conditional Use Permit for shared parking for the project (Attachment 6). The Zoning Ordinance requires that a Public Hearing be held within 45 days of the filing of the Appeal, no later than February 1, 2009 and that action be taken within 75 days from receipt of the Appeal, no later than March 3, 2009. ANALYSIS: Prior to a discussion on the items referenced in the Appeal, it is important to discuss the background of the various legal regulations that the Planning Commission relied upon to make the decision to approve the Project. Leal Basis for Shared Parking: Pursuant to Section 8.76.050 "Adjustment to the Number of Parking Spaces", Subsection F. "Parking Reductions for Shared Parking" (Attachment 1), when shared off-street parking is proposed between two or more adjacent use types, the Zoning Administrator may grant a reduction in off-street parking requirements (from the sum required by each use type) in compliance with Chapter 8.100, Conditional Sof15 Use Permit. In the instance of this project, the entitlements requested required concurrent processing of various applications by the Planning Commission, therefore; the Planning Commission became the reviewing authority for the shared parking analysis. Reductions for shared parking may be granted if a report by a registered traffic engineer shows that the following four requirements are met: 1. The Conditional Use Permit Findings can be made. 2. A sufficient number of spaces are provided to meet the greatest parking demands of the participating use types and to ensure that there will not be a parking deficiency. 3. Satisfactory evidence is provided that the use types, by their natures and operating times, will not be in conflict with each other. 4. Overflow parking will not affect any adjacent use. A fifth requirement maybe needed, depending on the circumstances: 5. Additional documents, covenants, deed restrictions or other agreements as may be deemed necessary by the Zoning Administrator (in this case Planning Commission) are .executed to assure that the required parking spaces provided are maintained and that uses with similar hours and parking requirements as those uses sharing the parking facilities remain for the life of the documents, covenants, deed restrictions or other agreements. Required Parking for the Proiect: The proposed project contains a mixture of uses including retail, restaurant, office and the proposed fitness club. The Planned Development zoning for the site was approved in 2000 by Ordinance No. 06-00. Ordinance No. 06-00 does not contain any specific parking provisions but incorporates the provisions of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance for parking requirements. Direction and intent regarding parking can be drawn from the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP), Community Design Element (Attachment 11) which designates this area (town center) to be developed in a compact, imageable, town form and minimizes the reliance on the auto by creating apedestrian-friendly environment. Additionally, the character of a town center should have a walkable system of streets, and well-defined buildings creating a lively and interesting shopping street catering to pedestrians. This element further goes on to state that parking should be reduced 15% within '/4 mile of Main Street. Grafton is considered Main Street. The Zoning Ordinance allows for different methods of calculating parking in areas of mixed and shared uses. The first method is to calculate of the parking need by use type, for each use, and then add them together. In this instance, the requirement would be 541 parking stalls. The second method is to commission a parking study to address actual parking need based on shared uses. This is the method that was used for this project. In conjunction with the Site Development Review, the Applicant submitted a Shared Parking Analysis prepared by TJKM and Associates (Attachment 4). The Study reviewed the ClubSport Fitness Facility and the Mercantile Building which proposed up to 7,190 square feet for a restaurant use. The Shared Parking Analysis was reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineer, Public Works and Planning Staff. Based on the parking study, the shared need for parking is 453 spaces. The Applicant proposes to provide a total of 486 spaces on site and 14 off-site spaces on the adjacent 6of15 streets, for a total of 500 spaces, which is 47 spaces more than the Shared Parking Study indicates is needed (see Table below). The Traffic Consultant, TJKM, who prepared the Shared Parking Study, also consulted the International Transportation Engineers (ITE) to further test the demand for shared parking at the peak hour of 6:00 PM. ITE is an accepted industry standard for traffic, parking and transportation issues. ITE parking ratios for this combination of land uses demonstrates a need for 408 parking stalls. Based on the ITE standards, the proposed project's 486 on-site parking stalls would provide a surplus of 78 spaces or 16% of the on-site supply. There are still an additional 14 on-street parking stalls available adjacent to the project site on Finnian and Grafton. (See Table below). Based on the information above and illustrated in the table below, there are between 33 and 78 surplus on- site parking stalls at the 6:00 PM peak demand. (See table below). The City Traffic Engineer believed that this information showed satisfactory evidence that the use types by their nature and operating times would not conflict with each other. SHARED/PROVIDED PARKING PEAK REQUIREMENT 6:00 P.M. City City ITE Standards Requirement Requirement B Use T e (Shared On-Site Parking Required 541 453 408 On-Site Parking Provided 486 486 486 TOTAL -55 +33 +7g Street Parking Provided +14 +14 +14 GRAND TOTAL -41 +47 +92 PARKING PROVIDED Conditional Use Permit: As noted above, a Conditional Use Permit is required for the approval of Shared Parking under the Zoning Ordinance. Chapter 8.100.060 of the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance "Conditional Use Permits, Required Findings" state that in order to approve a Conditional Use Permit, the following findings must be met: 1. Would be compatible with surrounding and adjacent uses; 2. Have no adverse effects on or be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity; 3. Would not be injurious to surrounding properties or improvements in the neighborhood; 4. Provide adequate access, water, sanitation, and utilities; and 5. Have no adverse effects on or be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity. 7of15 The Planning Commission approved the Conditional Use Permit for the Shared Parking on December 9, 2008 subject to those findings listed above and in the Resolution approving the application (Attachment 7). Letter of Appeal: The points of discussion presented in the Letter of Appeal (Attachment 6) are restated and numbered below, and include Staff's corresponding response. Under a few of the comments below, Staff has noted "Comment noted, no response required." Staff has restated these particular comments in this manner to let the City Council know that the comment was not ignored; however, Staff did not believe the comment was required to be addressed or could be addressed. 1. Appellant Comment:. Their (Planning Commission) decision was not based on facts and observed behaviors but on theories and magical thinking. The epic parking crunch in the immediate vicinity of The Promenade should render most, if not all, of the idealized assumptions required for the Shared Parking calculation to work invalid, yet the TJKM Report did not even acknowledge the notorious parking crisis at Dublin Ranch Villages (Attachment 1). Since the applicability of the Shared Parking calculation is questionable at best, the City should use simple counting and demand the 541 parking spaces as mandated by Dublin 's Zoning ordinance. Response: The City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance, Section 8.76, allows for two methodologies to determine parking minimums. For multi-use projects such as The Promenade, specific individual requirements for individual uses, such as but not limited to retail, food, office and health club can be added together to create a total amount of parking necessary; in this case 541 parking stalls. However, Section 8.76 of the Zoning Ordinance also allows the City to consider shared parking when, two or more adjacent use types such as those found on the C1ubSport/ Mercantile site are proposed. To consider shared parking, 4 requirements must be met which are detailed in the response to the Appellant's comments in Item 8 below (a 5th requirement may be deemed necessary in certain instances). Section 8.76 does not favor one methodology over the other but rather provides criteria to be met in the 4 requirements for granting shared parking. Those 4 requirements were met when this item was presented to the Planning Commission for consideration. 2. Appellant Comment: The majority of the Planning Commission believes that the extreme parking shortage at Dublin Ranch Villages is brought on by the residents alone, but this simple-minded assessment shows an unfortunate lack of sophistication in thinking about the problem on the part of the Planning Commission. Response: Comment noted, no response required. 3. Appellant Comment: While residents who do not park their cars in the garage are partly to blame, the fact that the developers built up to the maximum of a given density range without regard for basic human behavior also contributes to the challenge. Response: The four projects that comprise the Villages at Dublin Ranch total 1,396 residential units. The projects were developed above the mid-point density but they were not developed to the maximum density allowed. The medium high density projects were developed at densities above the mid-point at 22 dwelling units per acre and 24 dwelling units per acre (maximum density is 25). There is no maximum density for high density residential land uses. The density range is 25 8of15 units per acre and above. The two high density projects were developed at 32 and 60 dwelling units per acre. 4. Appellant Comment: Current parking regulations do not restrict select groups of the public from parking on the streets of Dublin Ranch Villages, so homeowners, their guests, and Promenade patrons all have equal rights to park on city streets. Response: Comment noted, no response required. 5. Appellant Comment: The Homeowner Associations (HOAs) can control those few private parking spaces within their jurisdiction. They can also enforce the rules of the covenants, conditions and restrictions CC&R) through periodic inspections to make sure residents do not use their garages for storage. The HOAs, unfortunately, simply do not have the legal authority to stop their residents from parking on city streets. Response: Comment noted, no response required. 6. Appellant Comment: To date, no study has been conducted to establish the percentage of residents who refuse to use their own garages. Also, the degree to which that percentage contributes to the parking crisis in Dublin Ranch Villages remains undetermined. All planning done in the absence of hard data should be considered speculative and not evidence-based. Response: Comment noted, no response required. 7. Appellant Comment: Charter Properties was not responsible for the poor planning of the ill- conceived parking arrangement at Dublin Ranch Villages, so it is definitely not obligated to resolve a problem that cannot be fixed by a garage alone. Response: Comment noted, no response required. 8. Appellant Comment: All that the nearby residents are requesting is for adequate parking as defined by Dublin's Zoning Ordinance to be provided (Attachment 2), so Phase 1 at The Promenade does not exacerbate the parking crisis that neither the City nor the HOAs have the political will or sufficient jurisdiction to confront directly. Given the parking realities at Dublin Ranch Villages, allocating at least 541 parking spaces as mandated by code is not only the responsible way to start The Promenade but also in the best interest of The Promenade tenants, nearby residents, and, most importantly, all of Dublin. Response: Pursuant to Section 8.76.050 "Adjustment to the Number of Parking Spaces", Subsection F. "Parking Reductions for Shared Parking," when shared off-street parking is proposed between two or more adjacent use types, a reduction in off-street parking requirements (from the sum required by each use type) in compliance with Chapter 8.100, Conditional Use Permit may be granted. Shared parking may be granted if a report by a registered traffic engineer shows that the following requirements are met (the required Conditional Use Permit finding is underlined with Staff responses below that): 1. The Conditional Use permit Findings can be made. A) The proposed use and related structures are compatible with surroundin and adjacent uses, transportation and service facilities: The proposed project is compatible with the surrounding uses 9of15 because it will contribute toward creating a local mainstreet for the nearby residential uses previously developed. It will reduce vehicle trips because it is adjacent to residential uses and will provide facilities for those residential uses. B) The proposed use will have no adverse effects on or be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons working or residin in the vicinity: A shared parking study was prepared by a "Registered Traffic Engineer." This Study concluded that sufficient parking would be available on site and curbside adjacent to the proposed project to serve the uses during peak periods. Additionally, using the International Transportation Engineers (ITE) parking studies for similar uses it was determined that the number of parking stalls provided exceeds the number necessary during the peak period which was determined to be 6:00 PM. The City Engineer concurred with these findings. Therefore, it was determined by the Planning Commission that there would be adequate parking for the project and there would be no adverse effects or be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of persons working or residing in the area. C) The proposed use would not be incurious to surrounding_properties or improvements in the neighborhood: The proposed project would create opportunities for the residents and enhance the balance of jobs and housing as well as reduce or eliminate vehicular trips and traffic congestion due to the close proximity of the residential units as referenced in the Shared Parking Study. The proposed project brings recreational services, food services, office jobs and retail sales to the area as originally planned. with 1,396 residential units within a 2 minute walk from the proposed project. Therefore, the project would not be injurious to surrounding properties or improvements in the neighborhood. 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: There are adequate utilities, and access to serve the properties because improvements will be constructed to provide for vehicular and pedestrian access with the project. The shared parking study documented the need for parking at the peak hour (6:00 PM) and it was determined that the number of parking stalls to be provided exceeded the need at the peak period. The proposed project will provide water and sanitation facilities for the users. E) The subject site is physically suitable for the type density and intensity of the uses and proposed structures: The project as designed would visually enhance the architecture, provide continuity with new and nearby commercial projects and provide a diversity of uses for the adjacent residents. The Shared Parking Study documented the number of parking stalls required to meet the peak demand. The Shared Parking Study approached the need from a conservative base and determined that there was an adequate provision of stalls. When 10 of 15 comparing the Shared Parking Study with ITE Standards, the parking provided exceeds the maximum requirement by both those authorities. Additionally, the approved Parcel Map, as conditioned, provides for cross parcel access and parking throughout the parcels in The Promenade. Therefore, it was determined that the type, density and intensity of the uses proposed would be compatible with the surrounding land uses. F) The use will not be contrary to the specific intent clauses, development regulations or performance standards established for the zoning district in which it is located. The applicable zoning (Ordinance 06-00) incorporates the Zoning Ordinance requirements for parking for the site and the Zoning Ordinance allows for shared parking if the required findings can be made. Allowing shared parking for the proposed uses is authorized by the development regulations. G) The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan designate the site for Neighborhood Commercial. The Zoning Ordinance allows shared parking for these land use types. 2) A sufficient number of spaces is provided to meet the greatest parking demands of the participating use types and to ensure that there will not be a parking deficiency. The Shared Parking Study, using conservative methodology, determined that the peak parking demand using City Standards at 6:00 PM was 453 parking stalls. On-site parking consists of 486 parking stalls and 14 on-street. parking stalls adjacent to the project on Finnian and Grafton. International Transportation Engineers (ITE) parking ratios for this combination of land uses -- retail, restaurant, office and the proposed health/fitness club -- demonstrates aneed for 408 parking stalls at the peak hour of 6:00 PM. The Shared Parking Study concluded that "combined with the peak hour parking supply required based on City requirements for the Mercantile uses, the expected peak parking requirement is 408 parking spaces." The proposed project's 486 on-site parking stalls would provide a surplus of 78 spaces or 16% of the on-site supply. There are still an additional 14 on-street parking stalls available adjacent to the project site on Finnian and Grafton. 3) Satisfactory evidence is provided that the use types, by their natures and operating times, will not be in conflict with each other. The Shared Parking Study determined that at the peak hour of 6:00 PM there would be a 100% demand for both the C1ubSport and the restaurant uses. The peak for retail uses was determined to be 95% and the office demand dropped to 25%. Based on City requirements the number of parking stalls required would be 453 stalls. International Transportation Engineers (ITE) data at the 6:00 PM peak is determined to be 408 parking stalls. In either case there are 11 of 15 between 33 and 78 surplus parking stalls at the 6:00 PM peak demand. The City Traffic Engineer believed that this information showed satisfactory evidence that the use types by their nature and operating times would not conflict with each other. 4) Overflow parking will not adversely affect any adjacent use. The C1ubSport/Mercantile project is the first phase of The Promenade. Parcel Map 9717 that created the various lots which comprise . The Promenade (of which the C1ubSport/Mercantile facility are a part) requires a private reciprocal cross lot access and parking agreement be in place when the first final map records. This requirement will assure that overflow parking, if it occurs, would have the ability to use parking on the other lots throughout the 23 acre Promenade property. The requirement of the reciprocal easement for parking was applied at the Community Development Director Hearing for the Parcel Map on January 8, 2009, and was not known by the Planning Commission when they took action on the project on December 9, 2008. In addition, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Community Design Element sets forth the vision for this Town Center (The Promenade). The Plan notes that The Promenade should be developed in a compact, imageable, town form and minimizes the reliance on the auto by creating apedestrian-friendly environment. Additionally, the character of a town center should have a walkable system of streets, and well-defined buildings creating a lively and interesting shopping street catering to pedestrians (Attachment 11). Based on the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans provide that The Promenade would be a mixture of individual land uses with varying peak times of operation so that the concept of shared parking would be utilized to accommodate all of the land uses throughout the day. Additionally, the proximity of the 1,396 residential units located in Area G and known as the Villages would conform to the Community Design Standards in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan reducing the required parking demand due to the close proximity of the residents to the future commercial uses intended to occupy The Promenade facility. 5) Additional documents, covenants, deed restrictions or other agreements as may be deemed necessary by the Zoning Administrator (in this case Planning Commission) .are executed to assure that the required parking spaces provided are maintained and that uses with similar hours and parking requirements as those uses sharing the parking facilities remain for the life of the documents, covenants, deed restrictions or other agreements. A private reciprocal access and parking easement is required on all parcels that comprise the 23-acre Promenade property. The variations of intended land uses, by their very nature, are countercyclical and the parking demands peak at various times throughout the day. In this way, users of The Promenade will be able 12 of 15 to take advantage of available parking vacated by one use type as an additional use's time approaches its peak demand. 9. Appellant Comment: If the City allows one developer to disregard Dublin's Zoning Ordinance in an area with known parking shortage, it will send the wrong message to other developers with similar mixed-use projects elsewhere in Dublin. Once this bad precedent is set, those other developers can reasonably demand the City to relax its parking requirement for their projects and challenge the City in court should the City refuse. The City of Dublin cannot afford to spread this parking nightmare beyond Dublin Ranch Villages. Response: Section 8.76.OSOF, allows consideration of "Parking Reductions for Shared Parking" subject to certain requirements. Those requirements are detailed in the response to the Appellant's comment, Item 8 above. The Planning Commission has approved Conditional Use Permits for Shared Parking for Sky Martial Arts and Village Square Dental in the Dublin Village Square Shopping Center as well as Well Christian Community Church on Sierra Lane. Additionally, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved a Shared Parking Analysis for the Tralee project at Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road. 10. Appellant Comment: Responsible planning should not rest on theoretical use by idealized people alone. Response: Comment noted, no response required. 11. Appellant Comment: Up to now, residents and their guests have enjoyed what essentially amounts to exclusive use of the street parking with Dublin Ranch Villages. Response: Comment noted, no response required. 12. Appellant Comment: Charter Properties has no basis for believing that patrons beyond walking distance from The Promenade will always use the garage. Just like Planning Commission Chair Bill Schaub's postulation that The Promenade will never come close to needing S00 parking spaces, the developer's optimistic assumption fails to take into account that diners, shoppers, and gym members will park wherever they feel is most convenient. The 14 allotted parking spaces on the streets around The Promenade will not be able to absorb parking overflow from The Promenade into the neighborhood streets nearby. The parking overflow will adversely affect residents in the vicinity, but the City has an opportunity now to mitigate the negative impact by insisting that at least 541 parking spaces be planned. Response: This project is Phase 1 of The Promenade development. The Parcel Map that has created the C1ubSport/Mercantile site has been conditioned to provide private cross lot parking and access easements so that patrons of the C1ubSport/Mercantile will be able to utilize other sites within The Promenade to park if there is a need for overflow parking. See response to Appellant's comment under Item 8 above. 13. Appellant Comment: In its promotion of the controversial Grafton Plaza, Charter Properties has promised at numerous community events .that it is absolutely committed to providing adequate underground parking at the development, so Grafton Plaza will not exacerbate the parking crisis at Dublin Ranch Villages. In fact, Charter Properties was quick to note that the higher density of Dublin Ranch Villages was taken into consideration during the planning of Grafton Plaza at the Community Barbeque it organized on October 18, 2008. When I asked Mr. Martin Inderbitzen 13 of 15 whether or not the traffic to and from Grafton Plaza will negatively impact the residents at Dublin Ranch Villages and make an already tough parking situation worse, Mr. Inderbitzen said that the density at Dublin Ranch Villages is a little tight, but he believes the parking solution proposed for Grafton Plaza will be more than sufficient to satisfy the concerns of nearby residents. Response: Comment noted, no response required. 14. Appellant Comment: Building a parking structure with underground levels that complies with code at Phase 1 of The Promenade would, therefore, seem a great opportunity for Charter Properties to demonstrate its commitment to providing adequate parking at both The Promenade and Grafton Plaza. Response: See response to Appellant's comment under Item 8 above. 15. Appellant Comment: As shown by a weekly poll recently conducted on the Around Dublin Blog, 68% of respondents are in favor of Commissioner Doreen Wehrenberg's proposal that the additional spaces at Phase 1 of The Promenade should come in the form of underground parking (Figure 1). Response: Comment noted, no response required. 16. Appellant Comment: The required number of parking spaces as specified by Dublin's Zoning Ordinance was defined for good reasons. By allowing Charter Properties to under-allocate parking at The Promenade, the City assumes the consequences of a willful deviation from its own standards. Response: See Comments provided in relation to Item 1 above. 17. Appellant Comment: Our continued socialization of the cost and risk that come with bad planning must stop. In reviewing the developer's revisions, the City should ensure that Charter Properties does not simply use more motorcycle spaces than necessary to satisfy Dublin 's parking requirement. If permitted to do so, Charter Properties will be abusing the motorcycle parking spaces to be compliant with code in the same fashion developers typically build up to the maximum of a given density range. Response: Section 8.76.050 B, "Motorcycle Space Substitution." states "Parking lots with 40 or more spaces may replace regular spaces with motorcycle spaces. One regular space may be replaced for each 40 required spaces. Motorcycle spaces shall be a minimum size of 3 by 6 feet." The Applicant is proposing 12 motorcycle parking spaces which is allowed. The location of the motorcycle stalls are in locations that would not accommodate an ordinary motor vehicle. As detailed in other portions of the Staff Report above, the Shared Parking Study references a need of 408 to 453 parking stalls at the 6:00 P.M. peak. The provision of 12 counted motorcycle stalls would still provide 474 automobile parking stalls which exceeds the number of stalls referenced in the Shared Parking Study. Additionally, directly in front of the C1ubSport and the Mercantile building on both Grafton and Finnian, there will be constructed 14 on-street parking stalls for a total number of parking stalls for automobiles of 488. 18. Appellant Comment: As someone who lives in the area, I want The Promenade to be a success.. To get there, adequate parking must be provided, so people can spend as much time shopping as possible, instead of circling the area in frustration for a parking space that should have been allocated in the first place. I disagree with Commission Chair Schaub 's definition of "success " as 14 of 15 presented in the article published on September 16, 2007, in Contra Costa Times (Attachment 3). Congestion is not necessarily a sign of a successful area. True retail success is not measured in the gallons of gasoline wasted as patrons troll The Promenade in their cars but in sales tax generated as they walk from store to store. Response: Comment noted, no response required. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The City of Dublin, as the Lead Agency, prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Area G, which was certified by the City Council on February 15, 2000. This project is within the scope of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. PUBLIC NOTICING: In accordance with State law, a public notice was mailed to all property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the proposed project for the Planning Commission Study Sessions and Public Hearing. A public notice was also published in the Valley Times and posted at several locations throughout the City. This Appeal has been noticed according to law, in the same manner as the Planning Commission Study Sessions and Public Hearing. At the time of completion of this Staff Report, no comments have been received. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Disclosure of ex parte contacts pursuant to Resolution 234- 05; 2) Receive Staff Presentation; 3) Open Public Hearing; 4) Take Testimony from the Appellant, Applicant and the Public; 5) Close Public Hearing and Deliberate; and 6) By Motion affirm the Planning Commission's approval of Resolution 08-40 approving a Conditional Use Permit for shared parking for The Promenade at Dublin Ranch (Parcel 4) and adopt Findings of Fact set forth in Attachment 10; Or 7) By "straw vote" direct the City Attorney to prepare findings for Council's adoption by motion on February 3 to affirm the Planning Commission's action in part with or without additional conditions of approval or to reverse such action. 15 of 15 ~ ~ i ~3 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS Chapter 8.76 M. Tenant Space With Multiple Functions. 1. Large tenant space. When a large tenant space (as determined by the Director of Community Development) contains several use types, such as an office, manufacturing, and a cafeteria, the amount of parking to be provided shall be the total of that required by Section 8.76.080 for each Use `Tune, except as otherwise provided by Section 8.76.050 below, Adjustment to the Number of Parking Spaces. 2. Small tenant space. When a small tenant space (as determined by the Director of Community Development) contains several use types, the amount of parking to be provided for the tenant space shall be calculated as specified by Section 8.76.080 for the primary Use Tyt~e, except as otherwise provided by Section 8.76.050 below, Adjustment to Number of Required Parking Spaces, for the entire gross floor area of the tenant space. N. Use. The word "use" shall mean both type and intensity of the use, and that a change in use shall be subject to all of the requirements of this Chapter. O. Uses Not Listed. Requirements for uses not specifically listed herein shall be determined by the Director of Community Development, based upon the requirements for comparable uses and upon the particular characteristics of the use. Additional parking for specific uses may also be required upon determination by the Director of Community Development and the Planning Commission. 8.76.050 Adjustment to the Number of Parking Spaces A. Compact Car Space Substitution. Parking lots with 20 or more spaces may substitute compact car spaces for up to 35 percent of the total spaces required. Each compact space shall be labeled "Compact" or "C". B. Motorcycle Space Substitution. Parking lots with 40 or more spaces may replace regular spaces with motorcycle spaces. One regular space may be replaced for each 40 required spaces. Motorcycle spaces shall be a minimum size of 3 by 6 feet. C. Off-Site Parking. Where required parking for a use type cannot be feasibly provided on the same site as an approved use, the Zoning Administrator may allow the required parking to be located on an adjacent parcel pursuant to a Conditional Use Permit subject to all of the following requirements: 1. Conditional Use Permit Findings can be made. 2. The most distant parking space from anon-residential use type is not more than 400 feet from the use and the most distant parking space from a residential use type is not more than 150 feet from the use. City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance 76-3 September, 1997 Amended November Zl, 2006 ATTACHMENT 1 ~ ~ i~3 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS Chapter 8.76 3. Additional documents, covenants, deed restrictions, or other agreements as may be deemed necessary by the Director of Community Development are executed to assure that the required parking spaces are provided to the principal use for the life of the documents, covenants, deed restrictions, or other agreements. 4. The parking lot site is not located in a residential zone unless the principal use requiring the parking is also allowed in a residential zone. The parking lot site is not within a road easement or private street. D. Parking Exception. The Director of Community Development may grant a Parking Exception of up to 10% of the required parking spaces when necessary due to unusual design situations. A study shall be prepared by a traffic engineer addressing the request for a Parking Exception. Any approval of a Parking Exception shall be subject to the approval of that study by the Community Development Director. E. Parking Reductions For An Individual Use. When a reduction of off-street parking is proposed because an applicant for a proposed use believes the number of parking spaces required for their use as specified in Section 8.76.080 is not applicable, because the use would function differently than the generic use type and associated parking standards established in this Chapter, the Zoning Administrator may grant a reduction in off-street parking requirements pursuant to Chapter 8.100, Conditional Use Permit, if: Conditional Use Permit Findings can be made. 2. The Applicant submits a parking study prepared by a qualified consultant analyzing the parking demands 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. Overflow parking will not impact any adjacent use. F. Parking Reductions For Shared Parking. When shared off-street parking is proposed between two or more adjacent use types, the Zoning Administrator may grant a reduction in off-street parking requirements (from the sum of the parking required by each use type) in compliance with Chapter 8.100, Conditional Use Permit. Reductions for shared parking may be granted if a report by a registered traffic engineer shows that requirements 1-4 below are rnet and if requirement 5 is met: The Conditional Use Permit findings can be made. 2. A sufficient number of spaces is provided to meet the greatest parking demands of the participating use types and to ensure that there will not be a parking deficiency. City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance 76-4 September, 1997 Amended November 21, 2006 3 ~ i~3 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS Chapter 8.76 3. Satisfactory evidence is provided that the use types, by their natures and operating times, will not conflict with each other. 4. Overflow parking will not adversely affect any adjacent use. Additional documents, covenants, deed restrictions, or other agreements as may be deemed necessary by the Zoning Administrator are executed to assure that the required parking spaces provided are maintained and that uses with similar hours and parking requirements as those uses sharing the parking facilities remain for the life of the documents, covenants, deed restrictions, or other agreements. G. Parking Variance. Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, a Variance shall be obtained to allow deviations from provisions of this Chapter which govern Parking Requirements by Use Type (Section 8.76.080), and Loading Requirements (Section 8.76.090). A parking variance shall be processed in accordance with Chapter 8.112, Variance. 8.76.060 Special Regulations A. Accessibility and Usability. All required off-street parking spaces shall be designed, located, constructed and maintained so as to be fully and independently usable and accessible at all times, except when the closure of such parking areas is authorized for the securing of the properly in question or for public safety purposes. The usability of required parking spaces shall be maintained as follows: Required off-street parking spaces and driveways shall not be used for any purpose that at any time would preclude the parking or maneuvering of motor vehicles. 2. No owner or tenant shall lease, rent, or otherwise make a parking space required by this Chapter unavailable to the intended users of the parking space. B. Commercial Vehicles. The parking of a Commercial Vehicle in any Residential zoning district (on or off-street) for a period of 2 hours or greater in any 24 hour period, or the parking of two or more commercial vehicles (on or off-street) at any one time in the immediate vicinity, is prohibited, except for the purpose of loading or unloading property therefrom, or in connection with the performance of a service to or on property in the immediate vicinity. C. Company Vehicles. 1. Commercial or industrial districts. Uses in commercial or industrial zoning districts shall provide one parking space, in addition to those required by this Chapter, for each company vehicle which is parked on the site during normal business hours. The space may be located within a building. 2. Residential districts. Company vehicles including repair vans, trucks, panel vans and similar vehicles may not be parked in residential zoning districts except for one truck, Ciry of Dublin Zoning Ordinance 76-5 September, 1997 Amended November 21, 2006 ~~~~3 AGENDA STATEMENT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: October 14, 2008 SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION: PA 08-006, The Promenade at Dublin Ranch - Site Development Review and. Conditional Use Permits for a fitness center, outdoor restaurant seating, and shared parking at the northeast corner of Grafton Street and Dublin Blvd, also known as Parcel 5 of Tentative Parcel Map 9717. heport Prepared by Mike Porto, ('onsulting Planner ATTACHMENTS: 1) Applicant's Proposal/Design Package RECOMMEN ~~/ 1) Receive Staff presentation and provide direction. PROJECT DES PTION: The Promenade is the commercial component, or 22-acre Vill~.ge Center area, comprised of six development parcels within Area G of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan approved as a part of the Dublin Ranch Master Plan. Area G covers approximately 86.9 acres and identifies 13 development sites, including the six Village Center parcels. The Dublin Ranch Master Plan is located within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and ~is subject to the goals, objectives, policies, procedures, and programs of that plan. The proposed project is located on proposed Parcel 5 for Parcel Map 9717, a 3.72-acre site which represents the first phase of the area commonly known as The Promenade. Location Generally Area G is bounded by Central Parkway on the north, Keegan Street on the east, Dublin Boulevard on the south, and Brannigan Street on the west. The development sites for Medium High and High Density Residential uses along the easterly and westerly segments of Area G have already been developed. The Village Center, or The Promenade, is proposed to be developed along both sides of Grafton Street, the north-south connection which bisects Area G between Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway and will serve as the local Main Street for the surrounding neighborhoods in Eastern Dublin. The proposed project on Parcel 5 represents the gateway to The Promenade at the northeast corner of Grafton Street and Dublin Blvd. ,~ T4 Ja Y,~ ---- ~7 J ~' a~mwtca ; D [IBLIN yV 7 ~ x_580 P:L~SIMIDM Map 1: Vicinity Map COPIES TO: 'The Applicant The Property Owner Page 1 of 8 G: IPAftIl0081PA 08-006 Club Sport PromenadelPCSR Study Sesson.doc ITEM NO. ATTACHMENT 2 ~ ~ i~3 }'it~~e~l.~+ is Ictcatccl rte~r~1~ c~i` Ihtb}in I3auleti art}. ~c~rat}~ e~i~ }:ir~r~itin ~~'ar~, cast {~i' C~rallt~n Street, and ~r•est e~f i)e~(~}irt I~'~rnclt rt;4iclerttial Site }}? ~~ithirr 3'~rea tT ~trr~rentl~ c}ctic}t~Ijin~,~ zts `I ht 'I'c;t•rtrces. a t•eSitl~ntia} tt~~~rtht>erse ~rc7ject. 4 . - .. 50oYEd'td 1 ~'`~ ~ r M'S", '~( Is y~~ ~ '"'fit ~ `~ „~,y ».... ~..; +,:..- fit, ~,. '~ ~ ~ ` 4~ -~' ~i `y ` C""` 4• .~_, j~ ~~x 1'h.UJ} C(' Sf'ffr ~,,, ~ . ~:" .~. ~, 1.~is~r'frr~ L%'s~~ Mt1F Z: l~r•<>jc~c:t 4itc~ ,j,h~- :.? <ttre Ijrt>ject site i4 cttrrentl~ vacant. at~el erter<.tl}k• flai i~~ith <t ~ii~ht slt~iae (I`?r~ t~•era~e~ frt~rrt the t~~ft-th~~;e~l: tt~ the ~t7t~thea~t. "I'her.e litre; r.~tr trees ttn stt:, ant} tc~ t}~rte_ st~rrte }~re}in~tinar•~ ~~raclin~~ has c~ccttr•ret} t~ r~tttrn t}~e site tt~ its; c~ri~.inal ttalx~~ral~hit; c~neiitit7n. Decent}~ 'I°~}} i~rt>tl-ters it~c~; rr~eci a p~az-tic7n tsf• ti~is ~itc: i'or i}~eir• ~~Iaster Sa}es i~'ae;ilit4•, ~~~hit;l~ hay }~eett rc~rnttr-t~t1. lfittt;h c>~`t}t~ Vi1It~~;~ t_`~rttt:r ~rr~<~. it~clett}in }'~rce} ~, ~~as being ~t5e;ci f-car t}~e st~t~in~; <tncl stc~ra~„~e e~f materials anti eclttil~n~ent }car the mane ct~n'trtactittr7 ~rc~jects cttrrentl~ irr I~r•c~~ress. y}"here u~;es lave a}i been eliminated anal the. site is nc}d~• v~zc;z~nt, ;~~rrr•~~rrrrncl'rrra~,T L~:sc~,s "I'}~t: }~rc~ject site is bc>trndeci: a} tc~ the: nc~rt}1 l~ry I'f~r•cel " tai` the I'rc>rnt~nt~c}c ~~:11ich r;ttrrent}~ tti ~~act~r~i. ~r<~i~,~rt~;,. al-,~rtn~ec~ Fc}r :~~i~hh~rl~c>acl C"t~n»ncrcia] rrs~s; b) tc, t}7~ c~~t~;t (~~ ;a meth-usc~ trail s~°stcrr7 se}~~iratin~ the g~rt?ject site irt~r7~ the I~i~}~-clerasit~° resitlerttial Site e}e~•e}c}}~ecl a~ '(.l~ttr 'I"errace~, tt r~e;~ie}car~ti~t} t4.~~~;rtE~~~erse l~rc~ject; cj tc> t}1e st~rtth across I3t:thlin I3e~Ltle•vtrc} by ~,tc~tnt I•trt?pert~ desi~natetl fir C:Vami~tts C)t']tce I)eve}e-~i~ment; and d) tt~ the sc~uth~~•est {across I~ttblitt~ I3}~~,~. at C;r•aftrtn Street.} b~° t}~e Craite)n St<ztir>n deve}e-,}~rnent site, ~~~i~ich is ctrrrer7tiy ttrldea• ccrnstr-ttctit:?r~. t~rr~°Ic~;rrittr~rl!~''r~}~~ic~r~.s <9~~~rr~vnls }_~ ~;}trclr t?f,,(}t)i), ,flr•,:a> }:. Cup and }} ~~°ere stti~jeet tt} Stage }anti Sta~~e ~ I'ittnnetl 1)e~~eit7pn~ent IZert}rein<.~ ~t~}-rrf>sct} h~ (}rclin<rnce (}ti-{}{} ixa}-,~r<'~ecl ~1<irt;l~ 21, ?{){1(}). "I he I~() ~cjnin~ distt`ic;t ~~tt.s ~.tt}c~}~zetl ~r~ 1'I)- ~'i}I.t~~e Center li?r i'arce}s i thrtju~.;}~ Ei ~%ith the it~ter~t <tncl },ttr°}~t>~e iii' ~reatir~~ a ~etiestrit~n-t7rientec} ~~;r~ i~:e. retai}. ct~mr~~er•citl. anti cr~tt;rTair~ment center serving tiie cI<xii~ r1ce-ds t>1`the surrc~undin~; residertt~ia} ~~eix}~}xjr}rc~r~c}~ Gtn~:I interntiitcr7t ~l~c~}~l~in~, sere icev, ~tr~c1 ~ntert<YinE7~Lnt e~Ii~«rtirnitiixs i'{.>r ~t ti~,~ide:r cc~n~n~tznitti° I'a<?~ ~ t~l'i; Objectives of the Project ~ ,g~ ~~~ The Promenade is proposed to serve as the centerpiece for the commercial area of Dublin Ranch. he concept of the Village Center land t-se and zoning is to create a Ma.n Street within Dublin Ranch along the north side of Dublin Boulevard. The objective is to create apedestrian-friendly commercial area with a small town character adjacent to high-density residential neighborhoods. The incorporation. of retail, office, and fitness/recreation uses will create opportunities for the re:sidents, and enhance the balance of jobs and housing, as well as reduce or even eliminate vehicle trips ar-d traffic congestion due to the close proximity of residential units. PROPOSAL: Proposed Uses There are three structures proposed for the project including: • ClubSport Athletic Club and Spa -Two-story building cf approximately 47,669 square feet anchoring the southwest corner of the site at the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Grafl:on Street. This full-service private fitness center, spa, and recreation facility would include a fitness area (weight room and specialized workout areas) group -:xercise rooms, pool, spa, aerobics rooms, spa treatment rooms, offices, locker rooms, and a caf;. Administrative offices and a child care area are also included. The entrance to the building is located off of an internal pedestrian paseo that connects ~ `~ Grafton Street with a multi-use ~ ~ regional trail that runs along the y easterly boundary of the project site. Entrance access is also available from Grafton Street which connects to the main lobby, day spa and workout area on the first floor. The fitness rooms and = associated facilities are located on ~ a the second floor. The ClubSport Cafe will be located on the ground ' "` ~ floor of the building along the r~ ; paseo in the section. closest to ; s Grafton Street. The cafe will serve as the focal social area and will be open to the public, as well as to club members. An outdoor dining area is proposed as a part of the i cafe. The pool and deck are situated in an interior courtyard at the southerly portion of the facility closest to Dublin Boulevard, and will include a lap pool, Jacuzzi, and deck space. Z m y THE P~; MF' [-E ~ rac'EL 2 r Ui. 'fE~~ F NNIAN WAY ,. Yi ~_. ~~ ~' m,» ,~ ~, _ ;,~ ~.. ~t _ ___ ~ ....-DUBL@ B9VL~XNR2. ___ _. _ . - ..._ Mau 3: Project Site ClubSport would have up to 85 permanent staff members with a maximum of 35 individuals working on the premises during any given shift. ClubSport v~ould be open from 5:00 am to 11:00 pm Monday through Friday and from 6:00 am to 10:00 pm on weekends. Page 3-of 8 ~ ~-lt~rctntale 13uiltirt;; - _~ t}irec-~tt~r~ bui}~lin{~ t~[~ ~~#~}7r~~tirn<itel~ `~~.;' 1(i sc}uarc #cet tic} ~1~) [fie t ~-~ l~~catet} .at t}ac rac~rth~~est ec~a-taer c>C tlye15itt` facia}~ Cir<t8`tt~r7 `street ~;t?iitMa ~~f` C~irania» ~~'a~°. }~etai} tir,ti r•c5laaur.atlt tise4 <lre ~+rc?}~t>sct} li:>r tla~: ~rc?a.u~t~ flc~tar tc}tt~lira~,:~ 1~;.{}(}t) St}~aal~; ic~;t. 7'llc~ restta~trant risc:4 aria ~I°c7lac~sttl ~~# a a~n~a~:in:~ua t?#` ;r}~)(} silutirt' feet ~:r#' tlac 1 S,(}(?t} st}tuarc.: lect near tlae c:~7rr~er a>f` t;~rattc~u Street aa~~l 1~`irarai~an '+~'.:1~. t}i~#ice sptace ~.~•c~~altl c~ccu}~y t}~~ secc?rltl anti third ti~~c~E;~°;. t`}~~} 1u~tirs <zt~cl cla1s tal` c~~erati~~a-~ (car the ~a•c~pc>::~;t# retaiC ti~c~ cantacyt hi; s3ctern~tiracc} ~~t dais time. } Ic~~te~er, th4 i31'licc; uses typica}1} ~,~"~~talt~ he c~}~et~ f`rc~ar~ ~:()tl aTr~ t{> (7:Ot} pn~. 'I'he :~pplic~int rantici}~~att's that t(~e }ac?tr~•s €anti c}~a~~ ~?#'c~perritit~ra ii}-- "}~llc l'rt}rnenac}e sail} }~G sitnilGrr tt~ u~;es i~~ t17t ('itv ~.~(`1)ublin t~f'c~~n~~aYr~a}~le sifc: antl t~#~e. • >}'sirkir~~, 4tr•trctur•c _ '1`1~e ~roiect [~rta~-it~t;s f-car ~7;r s~~aces ~~hicla ir~c}utles t~ta site s}~tXCt?s r-s tine}1 gas ci.~rt~sic}c }i~trkir~~ z}ta~1~ Cr~afc~al Strcct ant} I~inaaiat~ ~~'Lr~~. .•1 fc?ti~•-}c~~c} ~arkia~~; structaire is }t3catet~ in the. nc}rt}feast [~t>rtit~a~ c7i'thc lait~.jec.t ite ~~~hie,h inclu~~}cs =i•{)? ~Garl:in~,~ s~ttccs <at1t1 is 4accesscti frt~n7 tht~ sur#ace parl~in~ lt~i area alt}n~ the eastt,rly sit}c tai` t~~c site. a~ ~'l-~i>c~t ~~ic}c ser~,ic~ Lal}e~• sei7~:rx<atcs the i~~~rkin~ struc.ttare i'rtjrt7 tlae }~1~.::rczintile I~iai}~liTa`~. :~cccss tea dais service cc~rric~cn- ~~~~ul~l be t}~rt~u~;}~ gates Oat taach tail ~anc1 thrt~ti~h thc° rc,ar t}~~tars «i' t}~e ialtlitif~cra[ ~#~ac~:s il~ tlae 1~-•9ercanti}e }xti}tlin`,~. `C`htrc i~; nt~, l~eclestriail ~acct:ss i-rani. il~e ~st~r}~it~~ ~;traictt~rt: tt~ tht; scr~,~icc ytai•ti iaa at}t}itit~t~ to the }~a~~kia~g structure. ~ srirfracc iaarkita~ 1t7t t~#' ~~+ sl~~~ces is 1~~c4ttetl al~~n~ tine c~zasterl~~ }art?}°serty~. t~llea•c arc zals~~ l5 can-street spaces pan (3a°ta#tt}ra Stre~;t a}tjn~ tl~e Prt~ject ti•tat7ta~e. ~ 41~~~re~l I'arl~i~~~,~ sent}"; c}atec~ Set~teaa~l~er ~, ?()(}~ ~tals cc7nclrlctcil }~~ "l':]K~=1 f'c~r C'lul~5}~c~a•t. ~T'he stittl~ cc~r~c}ut}ct} tia~tt tl~t; #7arkin4.~ }~rcaviclct3 lit>ult[ he sr~l~ficieaat tc~ st'rrc Ijeak mark}n~~ tleaaa~rtatl 1:ar tli~ [~~•«}?c~setl ~a7 i~: c~#, uses. . __ __ ~Tt~~~l?~l ~~. l~_~71 ~r~L~7 ~ ~:intucap t'atl.n-t? ~~ar~~ 4 :~._._ _ --- - - '~t~~nt}art3 P~a~ k~nt= ~~taccs____.- __ _..... ~.~ } t)t- to Inc#~c.i}~_I'art-ki~~~ ~}~aet;s _~._._._~~~ -' ~1'O"I ~~L '~ # U"? ~'()~I'_#L. P12{)`°'tI3F,[)'~l':~CE~ -117 ~~ C"r~rrrliti~~rxcrl t's~c~ f'clrnrt,~ s-r rz u; F;`r ,~°~7 ~ ~~. !~ (~ i __ ; 1~ __ _ _. }71 ____ .,{}~ _ _ _ _ ______~._______j 1 {}~~ 1 _," 47~' • 1' fitness C'e~rrtcx• 13aset} t~~a t3~e k'i)-1~'i}1a~e C~entt;r r~ft~ia~~ at}c~}~tecj ~~,%itl-~ t~errslitt~i.1 4tnci cz~iac}itic~na} ta,es. ~ri~ate recrc~atitan~~} (z~cllti%s {~>t~th it~t[t>r~r <3n~:~ c~t,~tc}oc~r) ar cla4~,i#iccl as a ctuat}iti«na} ~~sc rc~cluiritas~ a C't~i7t[itit~nral ['se ['ern3it (C'[_1I'}. '('hct•e#i~rt: the C'Ir~[~S}~t~a-t t~~ci}ite requirtxs tlac: ~lt~thc>riratit~n ~~f to C'II'. (3uttlt}car ~;catin~; _..:~; ta~a,°t c?}~ tlac m~aia~ street c}~strGtc:tca-, ~~i~tc}~~<jr se<~tir~~ i~~ t}~c stv}e t?i' a pit}~ ~,~ silk cafe has i?t~tra r~ytltat~stcd 1:13• the ('}ubS~t~rt Cafe: a}t,ta~ the #~~asec~ hct~~eeaa t[ae: ttivt> Inaili}ii~s~s ~~n~l f~~r t}7t re:tat~rat~t u:~es antici}~att:tl lt~r the ~rt~trtat.} `lc~t~r ;~f` t}~,; ~-1cre;;anti}e I3ttilt[i~~<~ ~tl«rl~; (ira#~ttata `~t~-eet. l)inii3ai, t~re~~s zu°e ~:r~~}x~sed tc~ }jc partiticinetl ~~ith i<~ili~~~~s. la~irclsc;~3i~c. aaad }~t>ttc~i ~larats that ~~ill rt?t ini:ert:T~e t~°itla pet}cstriaal tr~r[~#:ic. }'ale ~ t~i~ • Shared Parking - Reductio~is for shared parking are allowed by CUP according to Chapter 8.~6 ~ F. of the Zoning Ordinance. The shared parking study ~-or the proposed project by TJKM concluded that the 477 spaces would satisfy sufficient peak h~~ur parking demand for the proposed mix of uses. All 3 of these activities require authorization of a CUP. The CUP findings will be a part of the Staff Report for the Public Hearing at a future date. Design Standards The proposed project is consistent with the Stage 1 and 2 PD aFproved March 21, 2000. The Site Development Review includes: site plan, architectural design, landscape plan, and streetscape improvements. In accordance with the Design Standards, the buildings are sited; 1) close to the street, and 2) include facades with architectural offsets. The circulation is pedestrian-friendly by featuring paseos with the buildings .oriented towards Grafton Street designed as the "main street." Amid-block crossing and gateway entry plazas have also been incorporated in t le design. Parking is located at the rear (easterly design of the site) so as not to disrupt the continuity of the streetscape. While the site is currently visible from I-580 the ultimate view will be blocked by (Jrafton Station (project to the south currently under construction). The: project is not within a scenic corridor or designated view zone. Subject to approval of the requested Conditional Use Permits for the Fitness Center, outdoor seating and shared parking, the proposed project is consistent and compatible with the zoning and designated land use. The description of architecture for the 3 proposed buildings is below: Architecture • C1ubSport Athletic Club and Spa -The two-story structure is designed to represent an old Main Street developed over time, incorporating varied design details found in many of the older communities in Central California. Detailing includes stone vrainscot, decorative stone bands, and decorative trim at the cornice level, as well as stone inset elements reminiscent of an older structure. At the ground level, large retail display windows ~.ddress pedestrians and articulate the sidewalk. Awnings are set at multiple levels to create a canopy and provide color and shade. The corner of the building is set in a radial pattern to face the I~rimary streets, frame the pedestrian plaza, and create a possible location for public art. The south building elevation adjacent to Dublin Boulevard, which conceals the pool area, has been a concern to Staff. We have been working with the Applicant and his architect to create a more dynamic elevation. Various proposals were made to revise the Dublin Boulevard elevation to eliminate the wood product (See "Architecture" Tab, page A.1 of Attachment 1). A revised elevation was presented which will meet the Planning Commission's objectives of high quality sustainable materials. Unfortunately, there was not enough t.me to have the architect revise their submittal documents. The revised elevation incorporates a glass store front motif which proposes opaque glass for a portion of the glazing to provide privac ~ to the pool area and to screen an interior access corridor. Shapes, shadows and movement ~Nill be visible creating interest and activity. Production times did not allow the "revised" el~;vation to be incorporated into the Applicant's submittal package; therefore, the revision v-ill be presented to the Planning Commission at the Study Session. • Mercantile Building -The :u-chitecture of this 3-story building is typical of the older mercantile buildings found in urban centers throughout the country an~~ in smaller California towns. The detailing is similar to C1ubSl~ort, utilizing stone wainscots at the building base, large expanses of storefront glass, lower awnings to provide color and scale at the pedestrian level, and articulation Page 5 of 8 oo~~~~ ~~~ of cornice detailing and vertical stone insets. Signage is proposed as a combination of store ron`f signage and wall hanging Signage that evokes an older style :end quality. (See "Architecture" Tab, page A.3 of Attachment 1). • Parking Structure -The 4-level parking structure has b~;en designed in the style of an old warehouse that would be found adjacent to an urban core of older mercantile buildings. It has an open style, but designed to minimize the visual impact of tiie decks while still accentuating the warehouse look and form. The structure is detailed to complement the C1ubSport and Mercantile buildings with the inclusion of elements such as an upper treL is/blind, and vertical stone accents to carry the contemporary Central California theme. An old packing crate graphic would be added to the side of the building facing Finnian Way to further enhance the old warehouse look and feel. -The larger expanses of wall have been color blocked and detailed with reveals and stone insets to create an interesting visual effect and reduce the mass of the structure. Visual sight lines to the parking areas and lighting from the ~~djacent 4-story residential project to the east and the proposed Mercantile Building to the-west will be mitigated through the proposed trellis details on the sides of the structure. (See "Architecture 'Tab, page A.4 of Attachment 1). Development Standards The proposed project complies with the development standards. as defined in the Stage II PD, relating to the building height, setbacks, and coverage. Access and Circulation Access to the project site is taken from a driveway off of Dublin Bc~ulevard which leads into the surface parking lot. This lot also has driveway access through to Finnian W<<y. Access to the parking structure is from the surface parking lot. A pedestrian paseo traverses the site connecting Grafton Street to the north/south multi-use trail. A systemwide multi-use trail runs along the easterly boundary of the project site connecting Dublin Boulevard with the multi-use trail along Finnian Way along the northerly boundary. All streets and traffic improvement adjacent to the site will be completed as part of the overall project. Landscape/Streetscape The project site has been designed to complement the Grafton :station retail project located to the southwest utilizing similar materials in various patterns while providing for an upscale, yet traditional, street scene. Similar plant materials are proposed for continuity. Concrete pavers in varied patterns are used to highlight the architecture and contribute towards the street :scene. Accent pavers in wide bands across the sidewalk will link to accent pavers at the building edge. A 14-foot wide sidewalk, which is wider than the 12 feet required by the Planned Development design standards, helps to accommodate the proposed outdoor dining. The Design Guidelines establish the corners of Grafton Street at both Dublin Boulevard and Finnian Way as main street plazas. A water feature is proposed at the corner of Grafton Street and Finnian Way in front of the Mercantile Building which incorporates a seat wall/water basin, colored pavement, and accent landscape materials. Pedestrian areas, paseos, and spaces adjacent to the multi-use trail will be equipped with benches, bicycle racks, trash receptacles, lighting, bollards, anti potted plant materials to allow for resting, utility, and enhancement of the pedestrian scale. The pase~~ connecting Grafton Street and the multi-use trail to the east has a dramatic water fountain as its focal p~~int which can be seen from Grafton Street and the multi-use trail.. The paseo extends as a mid-block cr~~ssing of Grafton Street. The street improvements are consistent and comply with the adopted street sE~ctions and design standards for the Village Center, as well continuity from block to block adjacent to the project site. Street trees are located in grates at the curb line while specimen plants are placed in uniquel~~ designed pots at columns along the building edge. Page 6 of 8 ;d~~73 Proposed Parking The project provides for 477 spaces. This total includes 407 spaces in the proposed parking structure, 55 spaces on site in a surface lot along the easterly boundary of the proj~:ct site, and 15 curbside spaces along Grafton Street and Finnian Way. Based on the proposed occupancies and uses within each building, the required parking would be 530 spaces. A Shared Parking study da~:ed September 3, 2008 conducted by TJKM for ClubSport concluded that peak parking demand at 6:00 pr1 would be 452 spaces, and therefore concluded that 477 spaces would be sufficient. As described in a previous section of this Staff Report, a CUP would be required for shared parking. Public Art The proposed project is subject to the public art requirements of the City's Zoning Ordinance. The proposed public art compliance plain (See "Public Art" Tab, .page C.8, Attachment 1) shows possible locations for public art at the corner of Dublin Boulevard and Grafton Street and on Grafton Street just north of the mid-block crossing and paseo. Environmental Based on previous environmental documents, no environmental revif:w is required as the project does not create additional environmental impact. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Corrimission receive Staff presentaticn and provide direction. Page 7 of 8 l/ o~j l ~ ~ GENERAL INFORMATION: PROPERTY OWNER: APPLICANT: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION & EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN: PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: James Tong Charter Properties 4690 Chabot Drive, Suite 100 Pleasanton, CA 94588 James Tong Charter Properties 4690 Chabot Drive, Suits 100 Pleasanton, CA 94588. North of Dublin Boulevard, east area of Grafton Street, south of Finnian Way and east ~~f the H2 Residential neighborhood APN: 985-0009-009-0~. PD-Village Center NC Neighborhood Commercial In accordance with State law, a public notice was mailed to all property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the proposed project to advertise the project and the upcoming public hearing. A public notice was also published in the Tri-Valley Her~lld and posted at several location ~ throughout the City. Page 8 of 8 i2 ~ ~~~ ~.~ ,~ CALL TO ORDER A special meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, October 14, 2008, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Schaub called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. ATTENDEES Present: Chair Schaub, Vice Chair Tomlinson; Commissioners Biddle, King, and Wehrenberg; Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager; Mike Porto, Consulting Planner; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary.. 1.1 PA 08-006 Club Sport Promenade CUP and SDR. A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Site Development Review (SDR) for the establishment of a Club Sport fitness center with associated Spa and Cafe, athree-story retail/ office building, afour-level parking garage and associated site amenities. Mike Porto, Consulting Planner presented the project as stated in the Staff Report. Chair Schaub asked if the land to the left of Area G is zoned commercial and if it is still part of The Promenade project. Mr. Porto answered yes with the exception of an area zoned Public/Semi-Public. Chair Schaub asked if there is still Area G left to develop in order to complete this piece. Mr. Porto answered yes and stated this project will be the first piece of the complete project. Cm. Wehrenberg. asked if the Commission will review the project as a whole or in parts and when would the projects be submitted for the rest of Area G. Mr. Porto answered it would be submitted in parts. He explained that in 1998 with the zoning action for Areas F, G and H, the Applicant submitted a Stage 1 & 2 PD for Area G which set the design guidelines and architectural standards for how the area would be developed. He continued the Applicant presented at that time, a detailed description of how the project would be developed with a Central California old main street theme. He stated the Commission saw a lot of the same architectural themes presented to them with the Grafton Station project which would pyramid off the Promenade. Chair Schaub asked if approving this project would set the architectural standards for the Promenade, he was concerned the standards, once set, would be difficult to change. Mr. Porto answered the standards were approved. in 2000 by the previous Planning Commission. The Planning Commissioners agreed they were not part of the Commission when the standards were approved with the exception of Cm. King who did not recall the basic theme of the project. Dave Chadbourne, Land Plan Associates, gave the Commissioners a binder that contains the 1 ~3 ~ ~ '~ ~ architectural standards for the Promenade project. Mr. Porto agreed to provide the Commission with a copy of the standards when the project is reviewed at a later meeting. Chair Schaub felt it was important to ensure the project complies with the approved design standards and was concerned about setting a precedent that an Applicant could submit design guidelines for a project, have them approved, wait for a number of years to bring the project forward, and then submit a different plan to the Commission. Cm. Wehrenberg agreed with Chair Schaub and stated she would like to see the entire project planned out at once without asking for changes later. Chair Schaub felt that reviewing/approving the project in phases makes it hard for the Planning Commission when they have an idea of what it should look like, but the projects submitted dori t comply with that idea. He mentioned the Lowes project as one that would not have been approved without the design guidelines. Mr. Porto stated the original intent of the project was to create all of the architectural requirements and graphics with a Stage 2 PD which is the reason the Commission is only reviewing an SDR at this time. He continued the project must comply with the design guidelines and development standards that were approved in 2000. He explained that even though other projects come to the Commission in piecemeal applications, this project was considered as a whole in 2000 and the current submittals are refinements of individual design concepts that are in the design guidelines. He stated that Lowes was a new project with no design guidelines or standards, but this project has a very large set of design guidelines. He stated that when the projects are submitted Staff refers to the design guideline binder. He stated the elements of this project complied with the guidelines from the beginning. The guidelines are very specific including: building planes, vertical articulation, windows, and signage were all approved and documented in the design guidelines in 2000. He stated that Staff was also concerned about seeing other projects submitted piecemeal, but this project had very strong design intent in 2000 and is the first piece to come before the Commission. Mr. Porto stated he will provide the information that was approved in 2000 to the Commission before the project comes to them for the SDR. Cm. King asked if the architectural theme should be unified or different. He felt it was described as a small town city center, which he liked. He asked if the other five projects will be similar or will there be room for a different look as long as they fit with the architectural theme. Mr. Porto answered that the Applicant originally had an art deco motif for the building which was very nice, but that building's design did not meet the design guidelines, therefore they could not move forward without changing the zoning. He continued it is not intended for the buildings to be all the same, but the buildings will look like they've been built over time and the architecture, although similar, will be distinct and different for each building. Mr. Porto gave a brief overview of the "Prodema" material, which is considered a sustainable material and will be used along the entire frontage of Dublin Blvd. to create a strong visual element. He continued referring to a new elevation, which was provided to the Commission at 2 /~ ~ /73 the meeting, which changed the "Prodema" material to obscured glass along the Dublin Blvd. frontage. Mr. Porto felt this was a better elevation and asked for the Commission's direction. Cm. Tomlinson asked why they thought this was a better elevation. Mr. Porto answered it meets the intent of what the Planning Commission has been looking for in creating visual elements along Dublin Blvd. that link the street to the facility and will not blank out Dublin Blvd. He stated the elements provide the appearance of windows without loosing privacy. He stated that this elevation is consistent with the Community Design and Sustainability Element criteria. Cm. King asked if the glass is clear or fogged. Mr. Porto answered the glass is fogged to create privacy for the pool and the locker rooms. Cm. Biddle felt it was a good change. Cm. Tomlinson stated he liked the wood better than the glass due to the fact it is a different material and felt it added a different element in an organic way. Cm. King felt the wood looks like the side of a building and likes the fogged glass better. Mr. Porto thought the wood appeared more like a fence. Cm. Biddle felt the wood would be a more appropriate material for along the side of the building that faces the parking garage. Chair Schaub suggested splitting the material with glass and wood. He stated it is a long expanse to have just. wood or glass and felt it would look better if there were both. He asked if it is possible to put the wood below the glass. Mr. Porto reminded the Commission there will be landscaping below the wood and the sprinklers will be hitting the wood possibly causing discoloration. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the wood is a sustainable product and if the Developer would be going for any LEED certification with the project. She stated she likes the wood. Mr. Porto stated that the material is manufactured, and has a membrane element to it. He stated the material is not supposed to discolor with wear but should hold up over time with a 10 year warranty/ guarantee. Chair Schaub asked if the material could end up with calcium deposits on the wood and turn white where the water hits it. Mr. Porto answered it is possible, which is why he thought it would be more appropriate in those areas where it was not adjacent to landscaping such as under the soffits, on the east/west connector street, along the C1ubSport building's paseo area, or in the back of the building rather than along the southern exposure close to landscaping. Cm. Tomlinson mentioned that glass can get water spots as well and felt keeping the glass clean would be important also. Mr. Porto stated the Applicant's proposal was to maintain the stone base element carried through by the pool. 3 s ~ ~~~ Cm. King referred to Page 33 of .the Streetscape Master Plan, which stated "if the project has frontage onto Dublin Blvd. the Developer will also be responsible for installing the proposed Dublin identity markers in suitable median locations." He asked if that would be applicable to this project. Mr. Porto answered no because it is not at a "gateway" location. Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager stated the City identified the Dublin gateways in the Streetscape Master Plan and the Planning Commission also identified them in the Community Design and Sustainability Element. Cm. Tomlinson understood the reason for the glass along the corridor and felt removing the wood from that area would be fine, but suggested it would be better for the resin product if the wood was installed on the lower half of the building rather than the glass and would separate the pool from the sidewalk. He felt it could be introduced as one wood element, and spaced with. tiny gaps between. the strips or the pieces so that you can see through it. He felt it was interesting to add a wood element to an otherwise stucco glass type of building. Cm. King felt the wood looks like the wall that would be installed around a trash container. He agreed that some kind of a wood element would be okay but not the entire length of Dublin Blvd. Chair Schaub felt the Commission agreed that the expanse of wood is a problem. He felt the Commission needed to discuss whether they wanted the entire piece in front of the pool to remain wood or have the glass element. He did not feel that the wood is a good look for Dublin Blvd. Cm. Wehrenberg agreed with Chair Schaub and felt that the wood and the smaller windows added some versatility. She felt it was another building product, and was not sure what the intent for using the material was or how it is installed. Mr. Porto stated the material was researched very thoroughly. Cm. Wehrenberg would also like to see the elevation with something other than glass. Cm. Biddle felt variety is good but was concerned about how the material will hold up over time. Ms. Wilson felt the Commission would like to see a variety of materials on that elevation. Mr. Porto stated they would bring an elevation forward that would meet the Commissions intent. . Chair Schaub mentioned the Grafton Station project and felt it is unique with some good materials on it and is located across the street from this project. He felt that using some of the elements that the Commission likes from Grafton Station in this project would be good. Mr. Porto stated the Grafton Station project is all heavy base with a lot of concrete and lots of the which is different from the Promenade project. Chair Schaub stated he likes the variety of the buildings in the Grafton Station project, not necessarily the materials. 4 ~~ ~~~~ Cm. King asked about the art on the corner of the project area. Mr. Porto answered it is a potential location for public art. He continued the developer has designated two sites in the project in order to comply with the Public Art Ordinance. Cm. Tomlinson referred to page L-17.1 of the landscaping plans regarding the width of outdoor dining areas. He felt the dining areas are very small with the types of borders and columns, tree grates and canopies; there is not very much area to walk. He felt it would be better if the outdoor dining areas were not so disconnected and suggested having glass doors that nest, or sliding glass doors rather than regular doors. He felt that would keep the restaurants and the outdoor dining areas more connected and create a larger area to walk as well. Mr. Porto stated Staff required the developer to create the graphic to establish how the outdoor dining area would look so that the sidewalk would continue to function. He stated the restaurant uses, which are along the entire facade of the Mercantile building, are limited to a total of 7,100 square feet and the outdoor dining area is primarily on the corner of Finnian Way and Grafton Street. He felt there is not as much outdoor dining as shown on the graphic with 8 feet of sidewalk required to be maintained throughout the area. He stated he would talk to the Applicant regarding the pocket door concept to create openings and more connectivity with the restaurants. There was a discussion regarding the use of Palm trees in the City: Cm. Wehrenberg referred to the parking study and stated she would be looking closely at the parking issue especially in the Dublin Ranch area where it's been a problem. Mr. Porto stated he would attach the parking study to the Staff Report for the SDR hearing. Cm. Wehrenberg stated the housing to the east will be looking at a parking garage and if there will be a shortage of parking. she suggested another level on the parking garage. Mr. Porto mentioned the City Traffic Engineer reviewed the parking study and gave specific direction as to what she wanted to see and those issues have been met with the current submittal. Chair Schaub mentioned that this is the area that two City Councilmembers have been concerned about street parking, therefore the Commission will need to be careful when reviewing available street parking. Cm. Wehrenberg mentioned that a Conditional Use permit would be needed to reduce the amount of parking and that could be an issue. Cm. Biddle mentioned the hours of operation have a lot to do with parking for C1ubSport and asked if it was a 24 hour facility. Mr. Porto answered it is not, it closes at 10pm during the week and 11pm on the weekends. Cm. Biddle mentioned the people in the Mercantile building and the people in the ClubSport building will be there at different hours which will impact the use of the parking garage. Mr. Porto mentioned that with 1,000+ houses within a short walking distance residents will be able to walk to the project. 5 ~~ ~,~~_ Chair Schaub asked if there were any additional questions for Mr. Porto. There were none. He stated there were a few concerns but generally the Planning Commission liked the project. Cm. Biddle asked about how much separation there is along the east side of the project and the trail. Mr. Porto answered it is approximately 28 feet, l0 feet of trail then 9 feet of landscaping on each side. He continued the trail connects to Sorrento with another trail on the other side and pointed out the trail on the screen. He stated the trail, which is a bicycle path also, would bring people to the area. Hearing no further comments, Chair Schaub adjourned the meeting at 6:55 p.m. ADTOURIVMENT -The meeting was adjourned at 6:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Bill Schaub Chair Planning Commission ATTEST: Mary Jo Wilson, AICP Planning Manager G: IMINUTESI20081STUDYSESSIONSIPC Club Sport Promenade Study Session 10. /4.08.doc 6 G~~~ OF DUB~~ hi _ 19 ~) ~,8'L lFOR ~ ~ ~ ~~3 STUDY SESSION: AGENDA STA'CEMENT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING D~-TE: November 12, 2008 SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION: PA 08-006, The Promenade at Dublin Ranch - Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permits for a fitness center, outdoor restaurant seating, .and shared pazking at the northeast corner of Grafton Street and Dublin Blvd, also known as Parcel 5 of Tentative Pazcel Map 9717. X eport Prepared by Mike Porto, c=onsulting Planner ATTACHMENTS: 1) Applicant's Re-Submitted Proposal/Design Package. 2} Applicant's Original Proposal. 3) Applicant's proposal presented October 14, 2008. 4) Planning Commission Study Session Staff Report dated October 14, 2008 (without attachments). 5) Planning Commission Study Session Minutes dated October 14, 2008. 6) Area G Development Pl:~n. RECOMMENDATION: , ! 1) Receive Staff presentation; and 2) Provide direction. `~ ~ _:~ PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Promenade is the commercial component, or 22- acre Village Center area, comprised ~f six development parcels within Area G of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan approved as a part of the Dublin Ranch Master Plan. Area G covers approximately 86.9 acres and identifies 13 development sites, including the six Village Center parcels. The Dublin Ranch Master Plan is located within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and is subject to the goals, objectives, policies, procedures, and programs of that plan. The proposed project is loc~rted on proposed Parcel 5 for Parcel Map 9717, a 3.72-acre site which represents the first phase of the area commonly known as The Promenade. October 14, 2008 Planning Commission Review The Planning Commission, at their Study Session of Map 1: Vicinity Map ,,,r:.,• ,;,, ~. -----~ J ~~ ~.~;~.~ ; r~ru,-nc~.,, _ D(.-B11N 4 s -~. t.szu~ r, ~ ~ ~- PLE4SL'~70.'~' COPIES TO: Applicant Property Owner ITEM NO. Page 1 of S G:1PAN110081PA 08-006 Club Sport Promenadel2nd STUDY SESSION 11.12.081PCSR Second Study S~ssron 11.12.08.doc Attachment 3 October 14, 2008, reviewed the Applicant's design package and discussed three specific areas of con rn~~ ` ~ (See Attachment 2). Those three areas of concern were: 1. The Dublin Boulevazd building elevation and specifical:y the use of the product "Prodema" giving the appearance of wood versus an elevation incorporating obscure glass as a part of the building and the pool area screen; 2. The potential that this Project was setting the tone for the remainder of the architecture for the Promenade and concern that this Project would be considered "piecemealing" of the overall Promenade development; and 3. The shared parking study and if the study adequately addressed the demand and use of shared parking. Dublin Boulevazd Elevation The Applicant originally proposed that the elevation along Dublin Boulevard incorporate a simulated wood element called "Prodema." This element was to be used on the lower portion of the building itself and as the primary element of the pool screen wall (See Attachment ~:). Staff was concerned that the "Prodema" element introduced a product that was not in keeping with the Planning Commission's concerns regarding long-term sustainable architectural materials and that the material was not harmonious with the other building materials u::ed on either the Club Sport or the Mercantile Building. The Applicant presented a revised Dublin Boulevard elevation tc~ the Planning Commission at their October 14, 2008 Study Session which removed the "Prodema" and substituted obscure glass storefront material along the building as well as a combination of the obscun: glass and the scored concrete base found on the rest of the Club Sport Building (See Attachment 3). The Planning Commission referenced concerns regarding the entire removal of the "Prodema" (See Attachment 5; Planning Commission Study Session Minutes, begirming at the bottom of Page 2). Based on the Planning Commission comments at the October 14'h meeting, Staff worked with the Applicant on a revised elevation that includes a variety of materials. The newl}' proposed elevation is included as Attachment 1. The architect, having listened to the Planning Commission and discu:;sing the elevation with Staff, revised the elevation to more completely and fully integrate the design clement envisioned with the overall building concept. With this redesig~i, the architect has' brought in the: building elements from the majority of the Club Sport building into the separation wall between the pool <<nd Dublin Boulevard. The "Prodema" element is used on other portions of the Club Sport building as an accent; shown on the original elevation (Attachment 2), the "Prodema" was only used as a primary focal element on the Dublin Boulevard elevation. In re-evaluating their use of the material, the ~xchitect has chosen to create a trellis element with a wood product that will mirror the look and color of the "Prodema." This element will become the connection between the westerly wing of the Club Sf~ort Building (the Spa side) and the easterly wing (the locker rooms). Additionally, the architect has cr.osen to utilize the metal element on the Grafton Street and Dublin Boulevard canopies to more fully integrate this element with the main structure. The vertical wing walls, or flutes, will be constructed of the primary building material but will be capped with the ceramic the accent band found on the remainder of the Club Sport and Mercantile 2 of 5 'x, Building. The wood trellis, as it is approximately 18 feet from the p<<d height, will provide visual re ief of ~ -~" the buildings, allow views through to the sky and introduce a glimpse of the wood found elsewhere on the building. In this manner, the use of wood along Dublin Boulevard will be as an accent as it is found elsewhere on the site and not used as a primary building element. The base element will mirror the main Club Sport wing to the west (::cored concrete base) and the obscure glass window wall will be a continuation of the window pattern foL.nd on the rest of the building. Staff feels that this is a superior design solution to any of the other options presented and will fully integrate Dublin Boulevard with the remainder of the Project. Shared Parking At the Study Session on October 14, 2008, the Planning Commission referenced a concern regarding the shared parking and asked for additional information. The Shared Parking Analysis will be provided with the Staff Report for review by the Planning. Commission. The Cit:/ Traffic Engineer has reviewed that data presented and concurs with the analysis and findings. The parking analysis is described below: Proposed Parking Supply -The proposed project contains 486 on-site parking :;paces of which 428 spaces are in the parking garage and 58 spaces are in the adjacent surface lot. The 486 parking spaces provided include 12 motorcycle spaces, as allowed by the City's Zoning Ordinance (8.76.OSO.B). Only 20% of the on-site parking is proposed to be compact spaces ;~.nd most of these are on the top floor of the parking garage where the employees will be encouraged to park. This low percentage of compact spaces is encouraged by Staff for parking lots with nigh turnover rates. In addition to the on-site parking spaces, there are also 14 public street parking spaces along the Project's Finnian Way and Grafton Street frontages. The public street parking is proposed to be a two-hour time limit, from 7 a.m. - 6 p.m., Monday thru Friday. Demand -Based on the City's Zoning Ordinance the parking requirements would be 224 spaces for the proposed uses within the Mercantile Building and 31 i spaces for the Club Sport for a total of 541 spaces. Based on the peak parking requirement for aHealth/Fitness Club presented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Generat.%on, the parking requirement for the Club Sport would be 272 spaces; 45 spaces fewer than required by the City's Zoning Ordinance. The ITE parking generation rate corresponds closely with a Larking analysis conducted by TJI{M for the Club Sport Walnut Creek facility. • Shared Parking Analysis - A shared parking analysis was conducted by TJKM that accounts for the hourly variations in parking demands for each of the proposed uses in the Mercantile Building and the Club Sport. This analysis is based on the data presented in Shared Parking, Second Edition, published by the Urban Land Institute (ULI), and shows that the peak parking demand occurs at 6 p.m. At 6 p.m., the peak parking demand for both the Club Sport and restaurant is at 100%; the retail is at 95%; :end the office is at 25%. The peak parking demand at 6 p.m. is 453 spaces based on the City's Zoning Ordinance requirement, acid 408 based on the ITE demand for the Club Sport. Conclusion -The 486 on-site parking spaces proposed for tYie Project is 33 spaces more than the 453-space demand for the peak hour, based on the City's Zoning Ordinance and 78 spaces more than the 408-space demand for the peak hour, based on the ITE parking generation rate. In addition, the parking demand is conservative in that it ignores a significant number of users expected to walk or ride a bike to the site as there are 1396 r~;sidential units immediately adjacent to the Site and up to an additional 1,350 .residential units directly connected through the trail system in Sorrento neighborhoods to the north. 3 of 5 Conformity with the Stage 2 Development Plan ~~ ~ 1'~.~ On March 21, 2000, the City Council approved Ordinance 6-00 for the Stage 2 Development Plan for Area G, which included standards for the Promenade. That Development Plan document (see Attachment 6) established the zoning, permitted uses, density, design standa-ds, and ,very specific and detailed direction regarding the intended design parameters of the buildings acid building blocks of the Promenade. Additionally, adopted with the Ordinance as an attachment, was an extensive set of "Design Standards and Guidelines" which further articulated the building components That were to beyrequired in the design of the buildings in the Promenade. [terns. such as, but not limited to, architectural styles, building scale, corner and mid-block conditions mixed use and free standing building facades, building material, open spaces .and siting were also included. The result of this documentation was to build a very detailed and precise design "box" in which the development community was expected to design and locate their buildings within the Promenade. Although flexibility was provided, certain rigid parameters are required to be met. The culmination of this v~~ork effort was the most detailed and extensive design guidelines and standards that the City of Dublin had adopted at that time, and that exist today. Additionally, these standards achieved a Gold Nugget Award .from the Building Industry Association (B/A) for the Developer, the Architect and the City of Dublin as a collaborative team to create this document. The Commission indicated a concern that we might be setting a prece dent for future development with the architecture of the Club Sport and the Mercantile Building. Additionally, the Commission indicted a concern that the Project should be designed all at once without aski~ig for changes in the future and that reviewing the Project in phases makes it difficult for the Commission to envision the entire Project. The design guidelines were intended to dictate the theme and approach to be designed to so that the design "box" is limited. The conceptual aspect of the design theme in the Development Plan was meant to provide direction and to limit the range of designs. The Club Spo:-t and the Mercantile Building both comply with the original design intent and parameters established in 2000 and will serve as the guide for future development of the Promenade. In fact, they set a much more upscale tone for building design and building materials than required in the guidelines and, as the first block of the overall Promenade Plan, set a design tone of quality and style tl-at will dictate the pattern of future designs of the remaining blocks that exceed the original vision. The approval of this Project would not be "piecemealing," asthe concepts were established previously and it was intended that the blocks have a "developed over time" look that was set down with the original Development Plan. RECOMMENDATION: As this Staff Report was prepared to address concerns referenced by the Planning Commission at their meeting of October 14, 2008, and is being returned to a subse~~uent Study Session, the Planning Commission should discuss the revisions to the Dublin Boulevard Building elevation and provide direction. With respect to the Shared Parking Analysis and the conformity to the Stage 2 Development Plan, Staff has provided additional details. Staff recommends the Planning Commission: 1) Receive Staff presentation; and 2) Provide direction. 4of5 GENERAL INFORMATION: PROPERTY OWNER: APPLICANT: LOCATION: APN: EXISTING ZONING: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION & EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN: PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: ~z ~ ~ 23 James Tong Charter Properties 4690 Chabot Drive, Sui~:e 100 Pleasanton, CA 94588 James Tong Charter Properties 4690 Chabot Drive, Sui~:e 100 Pleasanton, CA 94588 North of Dublin Boulevard; east area of Grafton Street, south of Finnian Way and east of the H2 Residential neighborhood 985-0009-009-02 PD-Village Center NC Neighborhood Commercial In accordance with State law, a public notice was mailed to all property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the proposed project to advertise the project and the upcoming public hearing. A public notice was also published in the Tri-Valley Her:~ld and posted at several locations throughout the City. 5 of 5 z3 ~ , -~~ :~~.~, =- ~l Pl~xnning Comrnis.~ion n ~~ ``~~-ti,;°l Stu~~y Session Minutes ~~s~~ CALL TO ORDER A special meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Wednesday, November 12, 2008, in the Council Chambers located at 100 ivic Plaza. Chair Schaub called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ATTENDEES Present: Chair Schaub, Vice Chair Tomlinson; Commissioners Biddle, King, and Wehrenberg; Jeri Ram, Community Development Director; Mike Porto, Consulting Planner; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. 1.1 PA 08-006 Club Sport Promenade CUP and SDR. A C onditional Use Permit {CUP) and Site Development Review (SDR) for the establishment of a Club Sport fitness center with associated Spa and Cafe, athree-story retail/office bui}ding, afour-level parking garage and associated site amenities. Mike Porto, Consulting Planner }resented the project as stated in the Staff Report. Chair Schaub asked Mr. Porto, having mentioned that Lowes was not part of Area G, to locate Area G on the map. Mr. Porto pointed out Area G on the Proj+~ct Site Map. Chair Schaub asked if the homes and condominiums that are a lready built are within the design guidelines for Area G. Mr. Porto answered yes. Chair Schaub commented that it would be helpful to the Planning Commission if Staff could create a document that includes samples of drawings and •~ocabulary that the Commission could refer to when approving projects. He suggested a study session to help them understand the document. Jeri Ram, Community Development Director, suggested i:hat Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager, could arrange training for the Planning Commission Mr. Porto continued the Promenade project envisioned that the Stage 2 PD would have very extensive guidelines so that it could be used as a guide for thE~ projects as they were submitted. He stated they did not expect to have the entire area developed at one time. He stated that when Grafton Station was submitted there were no design guidelines but they were submitted with the plans for the pad areas later in the process. He continued that Lowes started with some of the concepts of the Promenade. He stated the guidelines for Area G were available in 2000 so that developers would need to comply with tho~:e guidelines. He felt that the Mercantile and Club Sport buildings use elements of the design guidelines and giving them a ~1'lanning(,'ommission 1 Novem6erl2, 2008 ~~ ~ ~~~~ more contemporary look. Chair Schaub thanked the Applic<t for a well prepared submittal and felt it helps the Planning Commission to make good decisions. Mr. Porto mentioned that the Promenade design received a Golden Nugget award from the Pacific Coast Builders conference which is a very prestigious award within the building industry. Cm. Wehrenberg was still concerned with the shared parking issue. She stated there is a parking problem in the development located behind the pazlcing structure and felt that those residents would use the structure for parking their personal ~•ehicles. She understood that the City does not have the staff to enforce parking rules but felt the situation will become worse in an area where parking is already a problem. She did not agree that the parking spaces turn over as quickly as the studies show. Mr. Porto answered that the 14 on-street parking spaces are the only spaces with a time limit on them and all other spaces within the parking structure have no time limit. Cm. Wehrenberg commented treat 12 of those spaces are for motorcycles and felt that those would not be used during the winter months. She mentioned that all the compact spaces are located on the top floor of the parking structure but felt the sr.laller cars will also use the larger spaces throughout the structure. Chair Schaub asked Cm. Wehrenberg how many spaces she felt the project was missing.. Cm. Wehrenberg stated they were short 86 spaces. Cm. Wehrenberg was still concerned and did not want to crea1:e a larger parking issue when the problem can be alleviated at this stage.. Cm. King agreed with Cm. Wehrenberg, but was also concerned with the current City standard formula for parking ratios. He felt the formula does not allow for enough parking. He felt that the parking issue is of great concern to the residents of Dublin. Cm. Biddle asked Cm. Wehrenberg if her concern was that the residents will use the parking garage for their over-flow parking. Cm. Wehrenberg answered yes, and she felt they would also use the street parking which would add to the parking problem. Cm. King commented that the Staff Report stated that parking should be better than expected because so many residents would be walking and riding bikes to the site. Cm. Biddle asked what controls can be put in place at the parking garage. Mr. Porto stated the Applicant is proposing to gate the parking area. He stated Staff has discussed the parking problem of The Terraces with the Applicant and they have suggested installing gates at both entrances to the parking lot that will bc~ lowered at night so that cars are able to leave the site but no cars could come into the parking <<rea. He stated the gate would be raised in the morning and left up during normal business hours. ~t'lanning Commiss~~n 2 Nwem6er 12. 2008 2~ ~ ~'~ ~ Chair Schaub asked if there has been a parking problem at t]le Lowes parking lot. Mr. Porto answered he was not aware of any problems. There was a discussion regarding the number of parking spaces for the project and whether there was adequate parking to solve the problem. Cm. Tomlinson felt that the parking garage should be the responsibility of Club Sport and the management of the Mercantile building to ensure that the local residents do not park in the garage. He felt it would affect their businesses if the garage w.~s not managed properly. He felt it was not good planning to base parking ratios on two differe:zt uses because the project would be over-parked and they would end up with large open parking lots that are hardly ever used. He felt there are many solutions to this problem. Mr. Porto stated that the compact spaces were located on thc~ roof for. employee parking. He stated that the Parking Ordinance allows for up to 35% c~~mpact spaces but Staff tries to maximize the full sized spaces. Mr. Porto continued there are many residential units adjacent to the project that are connected to the Promenade by a trail system which allows residents to walk or bike to the project site. He was not sure if there has ever been this type of a commercial project that is so close to a residential area. He mentioned Ulfert's and Waterford would be good examples of commercial project close by residential where there has not been a parking problem. He stated Staff discussed the shared parking issue with the Applicant anti the City Traffic Engineer who requested they add 14 parking stalls that were not included in the 10-14-08 Staff Report. He stated the Applicant has attempted to maximize on-site parking to meet Planning Commission's concerns. He felt there is a Barking problem in Area G because the HOA management companies do not enforce the CC:R's and therefore residents ar a allowed to use their garages for storage instead of parking which causes the on-street parking problem. Cm. Wehrenberg mentioned that at the 24 Hour Fitness f,~ciIity in Pleasanton has shared parking with office buildings and there is a parking attendant during peak times to enforce the parking lot rules. She stated that building additional floors w]Zen the' garage is first constructed would be cheaper than doing it later and suggested building one story under ground. She stated she would not be very flexible on this issue and did not want to add to the parking problem in the area. Mr. Porto felt that Staff plannE~d the parking correctly for the area but there has been no enforcement by the HOA's. Chair Schaub stated he is okay with the parking as is and felt that if it doesri t work the tenants of the Promenade will make it work. He also agreed with Mr. Porto regarding the parking design and lack of enforcement. Cm. Biddle stated that when a family moves into a unit with tv~o designated parking spaces and they have more than two cars they should expect some parkvtg problems. He did not feel the Commission could solve that problem. ~YCanning (,'ommission 3 November 12, 20QH Chair Schaub stated that to have a successful Downtown area there will be traffic and some parking problems but it is the responsibility of the property owner to enforce the parking. He stated he did not want to plan more parking because there is a~i enforcement issue. Cm. Wehrenberg stated she is not proposing the developer solve all the parking problems in the area and was concerned with thE~ shared parking formula being used for this project. She felt it would not be enough. Chair Schaub asked Cm. Wehrenberg what number of parking spaces she would be comfortable with. Cm. Wehrenberg stated she would like the project to meet i:he City requirement for parking which would mean they would need to add 45 spaces. She also felt that 12 motorcycle spaces were too many. Mr. Porto stated the project would come back to the Commis~;ion on 11-25-08 for approval and asked that they give direction on parking to Staff at this time. Cm. Tomlinson asked if the City's Parking Ordinance takes into consideration shared use. Mr. Porto answered the Ordinance does not specifically allow shared parking but does allow the Commission to consider shared parking by Conditional Use Permit. He stated the City Traffic Engineer was concerned with meeting the intent of the ITE parking standards and felt there would not be enough parking therefore asked for 10°~ extra parking for circulation purposes which then addressed the Traffic Engineer's criteria for enough parking. Mr. Porto stated the Parking Ordinance also allows the motorcycle use. He felt the Applicant has been conservative in their approach to the parking issue and they took the Commission's concerns into consideration. Cm. Tomlinson commented that there may be ClubSport members who live in the adjacent development that would choose to walk there, leaving their cars at home. Mr. Porto agreed with Cm. Tomlinson and stated that the project was designed so that nearby residents could walk or bike to the site. He mentioned that there are still 5 blocks of the development to build and many other parking sites planned for the area. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the C1ubSport facility in Pleasanton ~rvould close. Mr. Porto answered no. Chair Schaub stated there is still a lot of area for parking left in the area. Cm. Wehrenberg felt that by approving the development an :area at a time and compromising on parking on each one and then totaling all the parking, there could be a problem. Chair Schaub felt that he did not want to see a large expanse of parking and that some of the other development will not be built for a few years. ~rlannin8 (,'ommusion 4 'November 12, 2008 2~ ~~1~~ Chair Schaub asked for a straw vote for the parking as submitted. The vote was: Cm. Biddle - in support Cm. King - in support Cm. Wehrenberg - not in support Cm. Tomlinson - in support Chair Schaub - in support Chair Schaub wanted to ensure that the Commission's ~:oncerns were documented for discussion when reviewing subsE~quent applications for this area. Crn. Wehrenberg asked if the trellis material was real wood or faux wood. Mr. Porto answered it is proposed to be real wood p~~inted the same color as the Prodema which will be used as an accent on the remainder of the project. Cm. Tomlinson felt the Prodema material looked good. Mr. P~~rto answered that the material is used with Scandinavian designs and with other projects in the area. Chair Schaub felt Prodema would be a good substitute for stucco in future projects. Cm. Biddle asked if the windows in the pool area are opaque. Mr. Porto answered yes; all the windows along Dublin Blvd. are opaque at the utility corridor with access. to the pool from the locker rooms. He stated there would be light and movement giving life to the individual building. Cm. Tomlinson suggested, because the glass is at ground level and can be damaged by water; they should take that into consideration when planning the lar_dscaping in that area. Mr. Porto responded that the Applicant will be using bubblers rather than sprays for irrigation in that area. There was a discussion regarding the elevation drawings acid the trellis element which is a horizontal trellis that sits on top of the wall elements. Cm. Tomlinson stated he did not have a problem with the Prodema material, but felt it is a long expanse of opaque glass along the pool and suggested breakin; that up with other materials. Cm. King was concerned with the elevation and felt that Dublin BIvd should have more flare. He felt it was nice but it would not be noticed either positively or negatively. He felt it should be more exciting for Dublin Blvd. but felt the corner of Dublir. Blvd and Grafton Street makes a difference. Chair Schaub suggested making the part of the building that covers the pool area a little more distinctive than the building on the east side. So that there w,~uld be a front facade with a nice corner and then something distinctive where the pool is that would complement the rest of the building instead of mirroring. it. He agreed with Cm. Tomlinson that it is a long expanse for one material. 4'lanning Carnmissi°n S 7~ovem6er 12, 2008 Z~ °1,~ 7 3 Cm. King asked what the pole is on the corner of Page A-1. Mr. Porto answered it was the Applicant's suggestion for public art but it would not be in that location. Cm. King asked what the length of the building is, in car lengths. Dave Chadbourne, Land Plan Associates, stated the building is 200 feet from Grafton StrE~et to the parking area, which is approximately 10 car lengths. Chair Schaub suggested using the wood and Prodema for the Fool section only. Cm. Wehrenberg disagreed and stated she is in support of the concrete wall and the way it was designed but was concerned with the expanse of the opaque glass. She suggested putting the Prodema on the opposite side as shown in the original desi;m on Page A-1 of Attachment 2 which shows the Prodema on the building. She suggested showing half Prodema and half opaque glass at the pool area which would break up the expa~lse of the building by using more than one material. Chair Schaub liked the latest version of the elevation which ~ hows the indentation on the east side of the building with a slightly different look as opposed to the original that showed the Prodema in the that location. Mr. Porto suggested blanking out the center set of 3 sets of windows on the building to the east and install a Prodema trellis which is also being proposed for the back of the building and at the indentation. Cm. Tomlinson felt that windows are expected on buildings lout windows are not expected on fences. He stated that the wall separating the pool from the sidewalk is basically a fence and would not expect to see windows in areas like that which i;; why he felt the Prodema made sense in that location. He liked the idea of the glass on the building. Mr. Porto directed the Commission to refer to Page A-13 oi' Attachment 1 which shows the aluminum storefront. He suggested moving that element to the center panel or wherever they'd like to put it. Cm. King liked that idea and felt it would break up the horizontalness of it. Chair Schaub stated he would like to break up the glass and eliminate part of the opaque glass. He stated that if the panel on the east side Looks okay and is consistent with the rest of the building that would be fine. Cm. King agreed with Chair Sch~cub. Mr. Porto stated that if the Planning Commission can prop-ide direction to the Applicant's architect he will take them into consideration before the Plaiu~ing Commission meets to take action on the project. ~rCanning ~'ommission 6 November 12, 2008 Z~ ~ ~ ~ 3 Cm. King felt this elevation was better than some recent pro;iects. He stated that, he likes the stone that picks up the corner and the rest of the building, he likes glass and the trellis and the rest of the building, but does not like the solid row of windov~•s he would like to see something to make it less rectangular. Chair Schaub stated he is in support of the project the way it is now. Cm. Wehrenberg was concerned with the opaque glass and fElt it was too much like the Video Only store where the glass wa:; black and sticks out. She stated she does not care for the expanse of the opaque glass. Chair Schaub re-stated the concern with the opaque glass ~n the Dublin Blvd. side of the building and asked the Applicant to find some way of breakint; that up. Cm. Tomlinson stated his personal preference would be to leave the building the way it is with the opaque glass, but if they choose to change it he would prefer to have at least two other options to review. The other Commissioners agreed with Cm. Tomlinson. Chair Schaub re-stated the Commission would prefer to leave the glass on the building and try to break up the pool area so that it is not such an expanse of th~~ same material. Ms. Ram suggested landscaping might help alleviate the problem. Mr. Porto asked the Commission if they wanted an A and B c ption or just one example. Chair Schaub asked for another alternative besides the one submitted. Dave Chadbourne, band Plan Associates, asked if they coulc. put a solid material at the pool area such as Prodema or another like material. Cm. King felt that the Commissioners have different architectural theories regarding how to make that part of the street look interesting, therefore there is probably no consensus on how it should look. Cm. Wehrenberg agreed with Ms. Ram regarding the landscaping. Crn. Tomlinson stated the latest version would be acceptab a with the opaque glass if they include landscaping. He felt if it was too much trouble to change it leaving it as is would be acceptable. Chair Schaub agreed. Cm. King stated he likes the opaque glass on the elevation but would like to break it up with another material. Cm. Biddle agreed and felt the submittal was not far from what the Commission wanted. Planning ('ommusion 7 9lrovem6er 12, 2008 30 ~ ~ -~~ Chair Schaub felt the Commission would support the current ~lersion but felt the parking is still a concern. Cm. Wehrenberg re-stated her concern regarding the parking. Ms. Ram stated that it is expensive for the Applicant to make repeated changes to the project and asked the Commission if enhancing the landscaping along the Dublin Blvd. elevation would meet their needs. Cm. King suggested installing a public art piece in that area. Chair Schaub suggested the public art could be installed which would break up the expanse. Cm. Wehrenberg felt that would block public access to the sidewalk. Mr. Porto stated that there is &12. feet of landscaping between t:he building and the sidewalk. The Commission agreed that a landscaping solution would be .Fine. Mr. Porto asked if the Commission could be more specific re€;arding what type of landscaping the Commission would like to see. Chair Schaub stated the Commission believes that Staff and the Applicant will resubmit an acceptable project. ADTOURNMENT -The meeting was adjourned at 7:04p.m. Respectfully submitted, Bill u Chair Pl,~nning Commission ATTEST: Jeri R , AICP Community Development Director G: IM/NUTES120081STUDYSESSIONSIPC Club Spore Promenade 2nd Study Session 11.12.08.dac Planning (,'ommusinn $ 'November 12, 2008 3~~~-~~ Vision That Moves Your Community Transportation ~ ~`~~"' Consultants November 5, 2008 RECEIVED Mr. James Tong Charter Properties N~~ ~ 5 2~0$ 4690 Chabot Drive suite I oo DUBLIN PLANNING Pleasanton, CA 94588 Re: Revised Shared Parking Analysis for Parcel 5/The Promenade at Dublin Ranch Dear Mr. Tong: TJKM Transportation Consultants is pleased to present this revised report on the shared parking analysis of the proposed Parcel 5 site in The Promenade at Dublin Ranch in East Dublin, which includes a proposed Clubsport fitness center with health club, spa and cafe, as well as a Mercantile retail/office building. The site is directly across Dublin Boulevard from the Grafton Plaza development site and is generally bounded by Dublin Boulevard on the south, The Terraces residential development to the east, Finnian Way on the north and Grafton Street on the west. The general purpose of the analysis is to see how the peak parking demand of the uses being proposed for the site compares with the proposed parking supply. Because City Zoning Ordinance requirements for parking only consider different land uses as separate components, not accounting for interaction among uses that are grouped together, allowances must be made for such mixed uses, as described in this report. The analysis presented in this letter report demonstrates that the proposed parking supply, which is ten percent less than the supply required by the City's Zoning Ordinance, can more than accommodate the expected peak demand. The following proposed quantities for parking supply and land uses were provided by MacKay & Somps Civil Engineers on October 3 I , 2008. Parking Provided Pleasanton On-Site (Garage and Open) 3875 Hopyard Road Suite 200 Pleasanton, cA • Standard: 367 spaces 94688-8826 925.463.061 I . Compact: 98 spaces (20 percent of on-site) 92s.463.3690fax , Motorcycle: 12 spaces (2.5 percent of on-site; one additional not counted toward total) Fresno 516 W. Shaw Avenue • Accessible: 9 spaces Suite 200 Fresno, cA Total On-Site: 486 spaces 93704-2515 559.325.7530 Ss9.221.4940fax The 20 percent portion of compact spaces is well under the City Ordinance maximum of 35 percent, Sacramento which is appropriate for the proposed land uses. Most of the project uses are retail-oriented with 980 Ninth Street high parking turnover rates, which suggest minimizing the portion of compact spaces. However, 16w Floor sacramento, cA compact spaces are appropriate for the lower-turnover employee parking that will be directed to the 95814-2736 top floor of the parking garage, where 40 of the compact spaces will be located. The 12 motorcycle 916.449.9095 spaces are consistent with the motorcycle parking demand reported at other Clubsport facilities, as Santa Rosa 1400 N. Dutton Avenue described in the attached letter. Suite 21 Santa Rosa, cA 96401-4643 On-Street: 14 curbs aces on Grafton Street and Finnian Wa lmmediatel frontin the site. p y y g 7o7.s7s.saoo These on-street spaces will have atwo-hour parking time limit to encourage a high turnover rate. 707.676.6888 fax tjkm@tjkm.com Overall Total: 500 spaces www.tjkm.com Attachment 4 TJKM Mr. James Tong Transportation November 5, 2008 Consultants Page 2 3 7i ~~ r ~3 Proposed Land Uses Clubsport • Weight Room, Pool, Spa: • Aerobics Room Areas: • Spa Treatment Rooms • Offices: • Eating/Drinking Area: 16,647 square feet 7,971 square feet 9 rooms 2,573 square feet 2,644 square feet (Total Clubsport Gross Area = 47,669 square feet, which includes ancillary building areas not included above that do not count toward City of Dublin parking requirements.) Mercantile Retail/O~ce Building • Retail: 10,996 square feet • Restaurant: 7, 190 square feet • Office: 34,530 square feet Peak Parking Demand for Each Land Use City Ordinance Requirements TJKM has used the required parking ratios described in the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance to determine the parking supply requirement for each land use proposed in both the Clubsport and Mercantile components of the project. The parking ratios applied and the resulting required parking supply for each use are shown below in Table I (and in the first few columns of the first table attached as Appendix A). Using only the City required ratios for all uses, 541 spaces would be required. Table 1: Required Parking Supply for Each Land Use per City Zoning Ordinance Use S IRooms ft City Requirements q. . Ratio Spaces Clubsport: Weight Room, Pool, Spa 16,647 I/ 150 I I I Aerobics Room 7,971 1/50 160 Spa Treatment 9 rooms I /room 9 Offices 2,573 I /250 I 0 Eating/Drinking 2,644 I/100 27 Clubsport Total 317 Mercantile: Office 34,530 I /300 115 Retail 10,996 1/300 37 Restaurant 7, 190 I / 100 72 Mercantile Total 224 Total Parking "Requirement" 541 motes: 5q. tt. =square teet ~3 °~ / 73 TJKM Mr. James Tong Transportation November S, 2008 Consultants Page 3 ITE Health Club and Existing Clubsport Peak Data For purpose of comparison, an estimate of peak demand for the Clubsport use only was calculated using the average peak rate for Health/Fitness Clubs (ITE land use category 492) described in Parking Generation, 3rd Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). The ITE peak rate is 5.19 spaces per thousand square feet, which correlates very closely with the peak rate of 5.08 spaces per thousand square feet observed in TJKM surveys of an existing Clubsport facility in Walnut Creek. The higher ITE rate was used in this analysis to be conservative, and because it represents data from a number of health club sites. A ten percent circulation factor was applied to the ITE peak demand rate of 5.19 spaces per thousand square feet, resulting in a rate of 5.71 spaces per thousand square feet, which is equivalent to one space per 175 square feet. The circulation factor was applied because ITE peak rates reflect the number of parked vehicles observed in surveys, but adequate parking design typically provides additional spaces to reduce traffic conflicts between vehicles leaving and entering spaces and allow better circulation through a parking lot or garage during peak demand. City Ordinance required parking ratios already include a circulation factor, as they represent the total number of spaces considered adequate for individual land uses, and not just the peak number of parked vehicles. With the ten percent circulation factor included, it is anticipated that Clubsport will require 272 parking spaces to accommodate peak demand and provide for efficient circulation. Table II provides a comparison of required supply per city Ordinance and anticipated supply needed to accommodate expected peak demands. The supply needed for Clubsport was calculated as described above. The Mercantile required supply was calculated using the City Ordinance ratios in both cases (Tables I and II). The main justification for this differentiation is that Clubsport is known to be a prospective tenant of the project, and parking data specific to the Clubsport business operation was readily available, which also correlated closely with ITE data. In contrast, specific tenants for the Mercantile components are not known at this time. Additionally, the Clubsport would be the largest single land use component in this project and apparently generate the majority of the project's peak parking demand, so using data more specific to such an important part of the project is desirable. Table II: Required Parking Supply per Gity Ordinance vs. Expected Supply Needed Use S ft /Rooms City Requirements Expected Su pply Needed q. . Ratio Spaces Rate Spaces Clubsport Total 47,669 (See Table I) 317 I/175~ 272 Mercantile: Office 34,530 I /300 115 I /300 115 Retail 10,996 I /300 37 I /300 37 Restaurant 7,190 I/100 72 I/100 72 Mercantile Total 224 224 Total Parking "Requirement" 541 496 Notes: Sq. ft. =square feet I .Calculated using ITE peak parking demand ratio plus a ten percent circulation fattor. Using the ITE Health Club rate plus a ten percent circulation factor for the Clubsport use, and City ratios for the Mercantile uses, the sum of the parking requirements for each use would be 496 spaces, as shown above in Table I I (and in the first few columns of the second table attached as Appendix A). TJKM Mr. James Tong Transportation November S, 2008 Consultants Page 4 3~{ ~ i~3 The totals shown in Table I I are the requirements to accommodate peak demands at the peak parking time for each land use. However, the different land uses do not actually all have the same peak parking time, but peak at different times of day, so the actual combined peak demand during the day is typically less than sum of the peak demands for all of the land uses. This more refined analysis of "shared parking" is presented below. Shared Parking/Peak Hour Requirement Analysis This analysis accounts for the hourly variations in parking demand for each of the proposed land uses. For the Clubsport, the hourly percentages of peak demand used are the higher of data from TJKM surveys of the existing Clubsport Walnut Creek or 24-Hour Fitness San Ramon, to be conservative. The hourly percentages of peak demand used for the Mercantile components are based on the data presented in Shared Parking Second Edition, published by the Urban Land Institute (ULI). The resulting hourly parking requirements from 6:00 a.m. through 10:00 p.m. for each use are detailed in the tables attached as Appendix A. The first table presents the data with "City Requirements used as Peak Rates" for each land use. The second table uses the "ITE Average/ Clubsport Peak Rate [plus ten percent circulation factor] for Clubsport; City Requirements for Mercantile" as the peak demands. For the proposed project, the actual peak demand would occur at 6:00 p.m. At 6:00 p.m., 100 percent of the peak demands for both Clubsport and Restaurant uses occur, and Retail is at 95 percent of its peak, but the Office demand will only be 25 percent of its peak. The 6:00 p.m. peak results are summarized in Table III below. Table 111: Shared Parking Peak Requirement at 6:00 p.m. Use City Requirements ITE/Clubsport Peak Data for ClubsQort Only Clubsport 317 272 Mercantile Office 29 29 Retail 35 35 Restaurant 72 72 Total 453 408 Table III shows the following results: • Using City requirements for all project components, a total of 453 spaces would be needed during peak parking demand at 6:00 p.m. This is 88 (I 6 percent) fewer spaces than if all uses are assumed to peak at the same time. • Using the ITE Health Club rate plus ten percent circulation factor for the Clubsport use, and City ratios for the Mercantile uses, a total of 408 spaces would be needed during peak parking demand at 6:00 p.m. This is 88 (18 percent) fewer spaces than if all uses are assumed to peak at the same time. Conclusions Comparing the proposed 486-space on-site supply (excluding the 14 on-street spaces) with peak supply needed according to the two methods shown in Table III yields the following conclusions: • Using City requirements, 453 of the 486 on-site spaces would be needed during peak hour parking demand at 6:00 p.m., which provides a surplus parking supply of 33 spaces, or seven percent of the on-site supply. Js ~ ~ ~ TJKM Mr. Jarnes Tong Transportation November 5, 2D08 Consultants Page 5 • Using the ITE Health Club rate for the Clubsport use and City requirements for the Mercantile uses, 408 of the 486 on-site spaces would be needed during peak hour parking demand at 6:00 p.m. This provides a surplus parking supply of 78 spaces, or 16 percent of the on-site supply. We believe that the ITE parking data for health clubs, which correlates closely with actual Clubsport site observations at an existing facility, more accurately represents the likely peak hour parking demand for the Clubsport component of the project than the City requirements. Combined with the peak hour parking supply needed based on City requirements for the Mercantile uses, the expected peak parking requirement is 408 spaces. Furthermore, the City requirements are intended to accommodate peak demand for individual uses in suburban areas, where each land use tends to be partitioned to individual buildings or sites and at relatively low densities. In such suburban areas, walking is typically not an attractive travel option, and vehicle parking demand is thereby at a maximum. In contrast, the proposed Parcel 5 site includes a mix of uses at moderate density, in a setting surrounded by existing and proposed developments of complementary mixed-uses at higher densities than typical suburban areas, such as The Terraces residential complex and Grafton Plaza mixed-use development immediately adjacent. Approximately 1,400 residential units and 1,000 employees will be located within '/, mile of the project site, which also has close proximity to walking/biking trails. This setting increases the likelihood of "internal capture trips," where people walk or bicycle between complementary land uses rather than drive and create additional parking demand. The reduced parking demand associated with mixed-use internal capture trips is above and beyond the shared parking analysis herein that is based on hourly demand variations for each use, and probably adds at least several percent to the parking surplus for the project described above. A letter describing the experience with walk, bicycle, and motorcycle travel shares at existing Clubsport sites is attached. With the additional 14 curb spaces to be located on the portion of Grafton Street and Finnian Way immediately fronting the site, the total parking supply is 500 spaces. The 14 curb spaces on the street will have atwo-hour parking time limit, which will encourage a parking turnover rate consistent with the needs of the retail and restaurant uses in the project. Therefore, the 33-space surplus of on-site parking supply over the peak supply needed, based on the conservative shared parking analysis using City requirements, strongly indicates that the proposed parking supply is reasonable to fully accommodate the project's parking and on-site circulation needs. We will be happy to discuss any questions or comments you may have regarding these findings. Very truly yoursn, '''''° Richard K. Haygood, P.E. Senior Associate Attachments cc: Dave Chadbourne, Land Plan Associates Chris Kinzel, TJKM David Mahama, TJKM J:\JURISDICTION\D\Dublin\157-145 Dublin Ranch on-call\2008 Stuf~\Clubsport -Grafton-Dublin\LR 110508.docx ~O ~ ,~. b ~ 0 0 l 0 rl l D 1 ~ N 0 0 Q1 l D M O ~ ~ M ~ O ~ c -1 ~ ~ ^ N O O 0 0 c -I l D 0 1 M ll 'f N 0 1 l 0 0 1 d 0 ^ ~ ~ ~ N M O ~ ~ N N I ~ O O O l I~ n M N l0 N c -I N Q 1 N ! ~ d ^ ~ ~ ~ ~ N 0 0 e -I r -1 ~ M ~ M 1 ~ O rn ~ ~ m rn u ~ v ~ rn rn m o f d W Q l N M " ' ~ ~ ' N ~- -I 1~ ` ~ ~ O ~ O n o u ~ o m ~n ~ o o rn rn ~ m a ~ ~ rn o N M ° ° m ~ N ~ '" ~ O ~ .- + 0 iD 01 lD .-i M 01 lA l0 O l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N M " ~, Ol ct N t.l) lD " ~ ~ O ~ O V1 I~ n M N lD N lD Q1 e-I ^ ~ l0 n M ~ M 00 O d ~ N O M ch i„~ ~ O ~ O .1 n O n lD Cf u1 Q1 O ~ O d W ~ ~ ~ N •~-~ ~ ~ 0 0 ei l p M O l0 e i M M O M u1 OO V1 N M I A M M N d N ^ ~ ~ ~ .-I i O O l 0 r t!1 N M O O N l0 I~ ~ N Ol O l0 n V1 00 00 d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ M ~ M ` p ~ e i O ~ .--I I~ n M N l0 N lD f~ Lry 00 O N ~ ^ ~ lD I~ ~ N N M M I~ 01 O ~ ~ ~ }+ ~ Z Z C N f~ Ol I~ N l0 V1 O ~ 00 ~ ~U Q N M ~ l0 f~ O `~ (vj Q~ ~ ~ ~ O '"~ O .--I a-' .--I ~ 1~ n M N lD N u'1 I~ lD M Vf O a ^ ~ lD I~ 00 N ~ N ~ M ~ O N O '""~ O r-I ro N ~ N 1~ Ql i~ N lD M V1 00 1~ M ~ Q ~ l0 ~ N O ~ ~ M 'Cr ++ I\ O e -I . -1 M LL O ~""~ L O 7 ~ O O 00 ."~ lD Ol M M M N ai ~ N Q O X11 .--I n ~ et e-1 a-i ~ lD 00 1~ n O rl N ~ ~ O p Y 4J N ~ L U 7 -O i11 00 ~ N M 01 u1 1~ lD N ei ~ ~ Q V1 01 ~ In M ~ ct M M E N C U O L!1 1~ r-I M c0 (6 O ~? v n +' O L O W In W ll') N M 01 Ln 00 I~ n lp ~ ~ ~ i Q ~ Q 1 ~ V1 ~ ~ M ~-I O ~ -Q ( 6 -p 00 ^ U ~ ~ L O i ~ (6 ' +-+ ~ O Q1 O I~ n V1 n N a N (6 ~ d 'O ~ ci -I lD -I r-I N N ~--I M I~ N ~ ~ LJ ~ ~ c c M .-.~ N lA c s 0 m s Y a~+ i N A U . ~ . ~ a on ~ a ~ s E . ~ , 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ° r N ii a T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ o C, U ~ ~ U ~ f0 ' ~''j 7 7 C ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ O 4 -- C \ O l D 0 1 ^ ~ l ~ D L 0 n Q 1 Q ) 1 rl ~ L1 N N t' ~ ~ l 0 I ~ N N ~ O ~ 7 N to ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ m M i -i 04 ~ a + + ~+ ~a ~ ~ ~_ ~ U U 3 ' _ a ~ , O _ ' . t0 Vi'O O m ~ t O OO O ~ 'O ~ t /l A~ f 0 O_ ~ ~ u Gl ~ O a t C y~ a ~, ~ E v ~ "- ~ O C c ~ Y Y c C ° ~ f 0 i a o o Q ~ ~ °- a ma ~ ~~ 0 1 ~ o 0 v' E o c v a ~ _ C C1 .~ c 3 OC ~ Q ~ h N i GJ O~ u f 6 p O +~ L " O ~ > ' >' a i ~ °- s : n ~ ~ v a o ,~ co v _ ~ ~ v a Y ~ ~ u i ~ ~ . ~ O u . C .fl i u r o ~ i C c 0 O O ~ a+ d U 3 ° ~ 1 v a s c O O~ v a ~i C c d tL o a S 2 U Q ~/ ) O W U ~ O o C ~ ( 7 i- 1 N M N`) vo (`~ 01 N 0 0 Ol t 0 u 1 ~. d 0 0 0 1 O e i O r -1 V 1 U 1 N Q l t 0 ~ 0 0 n N M O r l e el N - O N ~ N I ~ O 0 1 V 1 a- -I N Q 1 N N a ~ ° ° m ^ ~- I °M o ~ 0 0 0 m ~n rn rn ~ ~ d ~ ~~- I M I~ e" I M O N O a- I 00 O l Q 1 l0 0p d ^ N M N ~" ~ ~ N O lD 01 lD Q l ri ~ p ~ d ~ ~ M lD ei M ; O N '' r o ~ ~ U1 C V1 ~ 01 .~ N N O n- 01 O M ~ ~ M N O ~ ~ ~ O O ~ ~ N N d Q1 ~ ~ ~ M iD M a~i M ~ O ~ L O M ~ L e-I V1 I~ M M M O1 ~ d M ~ ~ N M = O i..l , O ~ ~n N -O C f6 M ~ M ~ ~ d tMD O t^!1 0 1 ~"~ l0 M O t O ~..I ~ L O N r-I O- N lA tD I~ ~ Op pp co C C ryj M ^ 01 e-I 00 M Q O aM-1 ~ ~ ~ Z U1 ~ ~ I I Q1 N O ~ 00 IA Qj c~0 ~ Q O l0 n f~.,l M m Ql m ~ ~ M c i v f0 E ~ ~ f6 N v ~...I i O ~ ~ "~ CC~ U Y c G V1 V1 I~ lD M M G i- ~ S O- ~ Q O '~ `~ ~ ~ t0 ~ to M O ~. O 'J y O 01 ei N N y C N N N O L U ~ O ~ +~ ~ l0 7 C1 M V1 00 f~ CC C N OC C C ~ ~ M N ri M ~ O ,n O~ r-1 ~ O ~ L '~ N N ~ O Q ~ N C '=' 11 ~ - Ill M M N ei M ~, O v Q ry ~ ^ ~ ~ N U p U 7 ei 2 ro ~+'f ~ C GJ i~ ~ ~ L ~ N v ~ ~ co L ~ ~ L C Y ~ U u ~ a-I i.l1 I~ lD a ^ ~ Y O N ~ L Q l0 ~ M M ~ SZ N Gq ~ i C O ~ M ` U `n `~ O G L I~ o ~ 7 -O C \ U c0 C6 ~ ~ C ~ f0 "O ~ ~ .-I ~n o0 I~ n M v m o °' ~ C Q ~ m ri o ~ ~ ~ ~ a, L L ~ II • . a C u >S N N ~) r N a' tD N U c 0 C ~ Y w4~J L ~ f~ N .-i e-I M 1 ~ N N 01 et cp L O_ N N ~y f0 a ~ ~ Y f0 ~ ++ L p ~ ~ --1 7 ~ J ~ y U a a ~ i s "~ ~ E L N " a II r-I ~ to c ~ ~ ~ ~ ` ~- r ~ H ^ O O O ~ U p ~ c vi N G. a a O .-1 ~ M ~ m ~ ~ c ~ ~ II ` i ~ ~, . o . ,~ ~ v o - o ` ~ ~ ~ ~ N -. 7 L ~ ~ o ~ m ~ + rn j ~ Q1 ~ v 41 ~ • ° ~ j ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ 1~ Ch c r M r O 1 i ~ H T Q p[ ~ `~ v C hp C ~ N N h u + + ~ Y _ w- 7 r o ~ U U 7 ~ ~ ~ " O " O U d m ~ N O ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~' M ~ ~ ' ~ 0 ~ Y y _ Y O ~ ~ V ' O ~ 6 ~ ~ Q 4 J Q U ~ - p 4 S J Z L () l0 f N ~ ~ u O v C ~ O O ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ 3 N ~ M ~ ~ d Y ~ ~ ~ .~ O IAA G/ `o ~ ' +. C t La i + C ~ O ~ % T ~ ~ ~ i . _ ~ d Q C- ~ t ~' fO U v O f ~ u 0 ~ Y 7 ~ J p e- ~ I 7 u ~ W . Q p d ~ ~ '~ u_ f N 0 + v , L O C i ~o 0 d= W ~ ~ 0 _ ~ ~ U = ~ O a C ~ ~ ( g c-i n i m ~ ,.~.; ~ . TJKM Transportation Consultants 3875 Hopyard Rd, suite 200 Pleasanton, CA 94588 To: Chris Kinzel From: David Grove Cc: Dave Chadbourne Date: October 23, 2008 LEISURE ~ SPORTS ~ INC ckinzel a;tikm.com dave~cUlandplan-ca. com Re: Modes of Transportation for ClubSport membership base After having a chance to review the report prepared by TJKM entitled Shared Parking Analysis for ClubSport -The Promenade at Dublin Ranch, there are a few points that I wanted to bring to your attention regarding usage patterns that we have observed from our current membership base. According to your study, "The proposed Parcel S site includes a mix of uses at moderate density, in a setting surrounded by existing and proposed developments of complimentary mixed-uses at higher densities than typical suburban areas, such as The Terraces residential complex and Grafton Station mixed-use development immediately adjacent. This setting increases the likelihood of "internal capture trips ", where people walk between complimentary land uses rather than drive and create additional parking demand. " We have experienced "internal capture trips" at many of our other facilities that are located both in semi-pedestrian friendly areas as well as typical suburban locations. I have included statements below from the General Managers of some of our other ClubSport facilities that detail what they have experienced in terms of members that either walk, bicycle, or ride motorcycles to our clubs. Leisure Sports, Inc. operates six other ClubSport facilities in California, Nevada, and Oregon. We operate clubs in both suburban and semi-urban locations and have found some interesting patterns in terms of how our members access our clubs. ClubSport Oregon - • This property is a large (140,000 square feet) suburban club that is located in a business/retail area just outside of Portland, Oregon. According to the General Manager of this club: "...when the weather clears for a consistent period of time, we see a plethora of members that opt to travel by other means than automobiles. Many y~) ~ ; ~~ LEISURE ~ SPORTS ~ INC of our members can be found traveling to and from the club by bicycle (I 5-25 per day), motorcycle (5-10 per day), running (5-10 per day) and even, walking. " Interestingly, the closest residential neighborhood to this club is located half a mile away. Renaissance ClubSport Walnut Creek - This club is a combination of a 75,000 square foot ClubSport and a 174 room Renaissance hotel located at the intersection of Treat Blvd and Jones Rd. in Walnut Creek, CA. According to the General Manager of this property: "I find that a good percentage of our club members' fitness activity does not begin when they arrive at our club but in how they get to us. It is not uncommon to see our members walking, biking, or running to and from the club here at Renaissance ClubSport. Our club is situated adjacent to the Iron Horse Trail. The Iron Horse Trail is a pedestrian and bicycle trail that connects residential and commercial areas, schools, public transportation, and community facilities. On any given day, a large number of our members utilize the trail as a method of travel to our club. We see approximately thirty-five to forty-five bicycles parked at the bike racks throughout the day. We also see motorcycles parked in our parking lot throughout the day. "The area surrounding this property is a mix of business and retail. ClubSport Green Valley - This property is a large (120,000 square foot) suburban club that is located in an area that is made up of a mix of retail and residential developments. According to the General Manager of this facility: "... we do have a significant number of members as well as guests who come to our Club to work out riding motorcycles and bicycles on a daily basis. The bicycle and motorcycle spaces we provide are usually occupied for most of the mid-day and evening hours. We also have a number of members who walk to the Club from nearby apartments (when our desert heat permits). " ClubSport Pleasanton - • This property consists of 180,000 indoor square feet and is located at the intersection of I-580 and I-680 in Pleasanton, CA. Because of its lack of surrounding residential areas we don't typically see many walkers or bike riders at this club. What we do see is quite a few motorcycles. Our General Manager estimates 10-12 motorcycles per day use our dedicated motorcycle parking at this club. 2 ~i ~ i ~3 LEISURE ~ SPORTS ~ INC Overall, I believe your peak parking demand analysis is quite conservative because the "internal capture trips" have not been factored in. Based on the comments from the General Managers of our other C1ubSport facilities, the mixed-use and pedestrian friendly nature of this project, and the associated trail system that will run through the development, I believe we will produce a large number of "internal capture trips" at the new Dublin facility. As you stated in your parking analysis, these "internal capture rates" will add several percent to the parking surplus. Sincerely, David Grove Director of Development Leisure Sports, Inc. ~2 ~ ~ 7~ AGENDA STATEMENT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: December 9, 2008 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: PA 08-006, The Promenade at Dublin Ranch (Parcel 5) -Site Development RevieH and Conditional Use Permits for a private recreationlfitness center (C1ubSport), outdoor restaurant seating, and reduction of required parking based on a shared parking plan fora 3.72 acre site at the northeast corner of Grafton Street and Dublin Boulevard (Parcel 5 of Tentative Parcel Map 9717), Applicant James Tong and Mei Fong Tong. Report Prepared by Mike Porto, Consulting Planner ATTACHMENTS: 1) Resolution approving Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit{s) for The Promenade at Dublin Ranch (Parcel 5) PA 08-006. 2) Staff Report, Study Session October 14, 2008 w/o attachments. 3) Staff Report, Study Session November 12, 2008 w/o attachments. 4) Shared Parking Study dated November 5, 2008. 5) Planning Commission Study Session Minutes, October 14, 2008 and November 12, 2008 6) Applicant's Proposal/Design Package. RECOMMENDATION: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2} Open the public hearing; 3) Take testimony from the Applic<nt and the Public; 4) Close the Public Heanng and delrberate; and 5) Adopt Resolution approving Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit(s) for .r private recreation /fitness center, outdoor restaurant seating, and :•eduction of required parking based on a shared parking plan PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Promenade is described as the commercial component or Village Center district adopted with Area G of the Dublin Ranch Master Plan within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. It has been planned as a 23+ acre area between Central Parkway on the north and Dublin Boulevard on the south. The Village Center development concept adopted with the Planned Development zoning for Area G allowed for six Village Center/Neighborhood Commercial sites and one Public/Semi-Public site to be centrally located along both sides of the proposed extension of Grafton Street. «, n µ ~,~en J ~' ~.,~u~ ; ~...~: _y A[.%BLN y 1 _---- -~ ~ : ~~ ~ Map 1: Vicinity Map COPIES TO: The Applicant The Property Owner G:I PA#120081 PA 08-006 Club Sport PromenadeiPlnnning Commission 12.9.081 PCSR Club Spor112.9 08ftnaldoc Page 1 of 10 ITEM NO.~ Attachment 5 ~~ ~ ~~3 r.r~e~rrir~~r 'I itc }ta°c~j~:ct 4aciyla•t~„~~d ~?~~ ibis a~~}~lic:atic~rt i~ }~rcri?«s~°ci 1-~~r a ~~.:~?-ac•r~ site. at t}~~ t7ctrtl~eat ~~~~~r:~ a' ~~i I::}~_k~Iitt l~a>aa(e~ar~1 <trtt~ {.r~iltc>n 4treet. `This site: is sla~~~~rr as }'arcel -k t~f`t-csti~r4~ "I`~a-atati~zc 1'arc~l I~l:_Ea t~`'.II'11} ~>7I 1. :1a~ ri}->}?li~:atit?a~t r~:cea~at}~ h~t~ l~~:eat ~it}a~~itt~~l t~~r ~,;>~l`},'~~ <#?1 ~'. It ~~b?ulci st.al-a~}i~°;~1~:4 I h: 1'rr~~atL~at~tc}e 4aa-ea rr~tt? fcnar (~} E~arceis. rGatl~cr tita~t the sip c.ieaelt~}~rrt~rtt kites ~ra~ci iatc«r}'~c~r`te the I'i~l~lac `~~~lati-i'~~}~lic sits ~~ith C'aa•c~:l 1 cti"~'TP~~ X71? <ta~~1 tla~ ~'ill,.i<~c (:'c;~ti~;r ci~~e;1a~}~a~t~a~t site slac~~~a~ c~t~ tt~ Plaza i~}r :~,r~at (~;. tat ~aciciiti~~t3 tct the. £r~~I:toar I'itrcet ri;,~ht-c~1=~~~av. 4' 1`I'I'~1 {a",'17 ~ieliat~;ztes 4tar~;l estah}isl~acs tlae ri~~ltt-<'I`-~~<a~ #i~r 1°iraaai~aa~ ~~'a~ zaat east-1t~~t streets tip-}aic}t cc~aaa~ccts C1~ae rei~l~::rttial }7r~3ject~ bc>i.l~ east aau:i nest a~f "k`#ae I'rr>at~aeaiacle. {~'k~aatcea•~• L~:are is a ati?a•th-s~~rath ca7ara~ectc?a• €~c.t~ceen L`~:nta•al T'~arkr~a~ aattl l~jtati<tat '~~,'~a~, aracl a•rans ala~n~ the rtc>rther}fir i~r~rti~~n o}`the ~~~atcrlt~ k7t~raazciar-~~ f~i~•"}`1rc i~'a•~~a~~a~;a~atie adjacea~t tct il~c nei~fth~rir~~<~cf w~~aa~.aa°c. I~he i~a•~tjuct site ~~'arc:el -~j a~a;,irlt} be (~>catcc} to}tjaa~ #h~ Last side c~f'Cira}t«a~a Street #,Gt~~te~a i)aah}in 1:~~7utc~•arcf ~~•hi~:it #~aa•a~r3s the s~:~ftatlter}~~ l~cnaalclcra•~ ttf' the ~;ite ara~ I~'ia~a~aittar ~~'a~• «hi~:}a (i>a•arts t3~e Site`s ,- - - ... - i . .. ~., ; . , ~,... I fi- ~ w~.1~~ ~+'s. . .' .111' "~' w 3 3 !'. ~-: r ~~ itr ~V y'~ ~ • - . j F t t F ~ ~~~ ,y ^L' n • y~ y ti M', S ~~ + L : ~I ~ IT ~ ~ 7 i ~ ~~ , e ~ A ~~: ~~ ^"' "` '€~t~k~ r•~rr~rrel~'}~rtra~~ri.s .~~3rrra~crC irl:it~ 7; Prc;,j~ ~:.i ~ia~~ ';r~:~ fr {I':~~ {~~-{:)(~{)l c~~~~-~;rs ia.}~}ta°a~~:iatr~rtel~° fi(~.~ acre; sand i5 }~{~raatcled b~- C"e:a~tral I'ark~~~r4 ~ta~a t}le atc~rtEt. ~~,m~ ~:rn ~itreei: c7t~ the east. I7t:a~i}in i3«ule:rarc~ ctaa the ~;t>tath, t~rtil E3a•ratni~art Street c>aa tltc ti~c:st. lac.~as #~t C eta-. ~ i-i ~~itl~aat the 17uk~lira 1~raatch I~~I~aster I'laat ~~ere :aal~jc:ct tct `~t~r~~~ it art~i Stage ? I'laa~aaec} #:)e~ela~}?artealt F?c~:~oaairt~ a}~}~rc~~ e~9 ~~aa 14~1~rrc17 '?1. v{){){) k~v t7riiar~aa~ace {)(~-~(). ~;lzk~se~}area}tly~, r~re~a Ci 4v-as sl~E~aliti i~r:~ 1~~ #k~ar~el •1~r}~ %1~~ ~~~hic cre~atecl finarT 'l~let~it.aat7-iii~l~ aat~i lli~h I)e.nsit~- ~~esiciea7tisal pr~yjccts r>r a~ei;~.tak~i>rh~~~~ci~ {#'~tra:~cls ~, ~, :~ ~. E~:) that ~aatch~tr tl~e f-a7aar cctrri~:r5 c:~f` .la~e~~ ~i aatc~ arc sitGaatc:~l ~aia~at~£ t#ac ea~teriy saracl ~,.;: ;ti•I~, bt~ua~ciaries. }~rarar~ tktis iaritirr! stabc~lir•itiii~at. the. ~'i}l.a c C"4aatea• car ci?axtitterc;icYl ~arera ~~~t ea~4 isic~raeci Tar I:'ari:el y, ara ~tr~:a c}I`ahi7aat ?> acres, ia3cludi~~;~ a I'aahiic..'~;~~aai-1?aa~li~; Sire is}ctat~.z the zatitf7 ~i~.l~ ~~i` {~`eratrstl l'>rrl~r~at ti'v'C'st t~f' th` }~rc>}tatseci ~:~te~`asic~at t~#` C..iraf`ti~ra `~r~:et. i"h~ I'l;azaeac°~i I.)evzlct}>traeatt }'l~r.~ also ialr}tacleci ra ~ acre raeiti,~kthc~rht>c~rl }~raa~k z7arci ~a ? acre aaci~.~h}>a~rlt~>~a~ st~aaare {~a~}th cjF r~#tlch itr<• n~t~~ l~uilt`-. i'a~c `' tit 10 Summary of Proposed Development/Use: ~~ ~~ ; ~ .~ The proposed development of Parcel 5 includes three structures: • C1ubSport Athletic Club and Spa -Two-story building of approximately 47,669 square feet anchoring the southwest confer of the site at the intersectio~i of Dublin Boulevard and Grafton Street. • Mercantile Building - A three-story building of approximately 52,716 square feet located at the northwest corner of the site facing Grafton Street south of Fitmian Way with retail and restaurant uses proposed for the ground floor and office space on the sece>nd and third floors. • Parking Structure - A four-level parking structure within the northeast portion of the site which includes 428 parking spaces in addition to 58 on-site parking spaces. Parcel 4 represents the first phase: of The Promenade, and would commence with the construction of the C1ubSport facility. Existing Use The natural topography for all of the 23+ acre area within VTPM 9717, including Parcel 4, generally is flat with a slight slope (1 average) from the northwest to the southeast. It has been rough graded based on the conditions of approval for Tract 7148, and currently is vacant; there are no significant or substantial plant materials on site. Recently, the site had been usec( for the staging and storage of materials and equipment for the many construction projects currently in progress and recently competed in the vicinity. These temporary uses all have been removed, and the site now is completely vacant. With construction almost completed for all of the residential uses planned for Area G, the Promenade area is the only portion of this planning area that remains undeveloped. a ~ THF. PRtM1GMDE -- lAP.CEL 2 vwA:,E cvnrEx fINNUW WAY r :~ ~ _~ ~1 ~i ~ N mi ~ a ~ ~ I ~ > A ~ a ~ ,„ . i _ .. ~F _ ~~ . ..._ ~ ~ F ~, ._ ~ _ ' Map 3: Proposed Site Plan Surrounding Uses The project site is bounded: a) to the north, across the proposed exte~ision of Finnian Way, by Parcel 2 of The Promenade which currently is vacant property approved for Village Center/Neighborhood Commercial uses and is shown as Development Sites VC2 ar.d VC4 of the approved Planned Development Plan; b) to the east by a multi-use trail system separ~~ting the project site from the high- density residential Site H2 developed as The Terraces, a 636-unit residential townhouse project; c} to the south and southwest across Dublin Boulevard by vacant property designated for Campus Office Development within Area H, and by the Grafton Station development site, which is currently under construction; and d) to the west by Parcel 3 of The Promenade, currently vacant. Page 3 of 10 ~ S ~~~ ~~ The residential projects comprising Area G are identified below. Construction is complete for three of't~e neighborhoods and being completed for the Terraces. Occupancy is ire progress in the Terraces to the east of the project site. Table 1: SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS Location w/in Area G project Name No. of Units Land Use General Plan/EDSP NE The Court ands 281 units Medium High Density Residential NW The Cotta es 200 units Medium high Density Residential SE The Terraces 626 units High Density Residential SW The Villas 289 units High Density Residential 1396 units ANALYSIS: Planning Commission Study Sessio~is The proposed project was presented at two Planning Commission Study Sessions (See Attachment No 6, Minutes from November ll, 2008 Study Session). The first way held on October 14, 2008 where questions were raised and concerns expressed about the architecture and durability of certain exterior materials proposed for the ClubSport Building and facade along Dut~lin Boulevard. Also discussed were the shared parking concept and the conformity with the original Stage 2 Development Plan. (See Attachment No. 2) A .revised elevation was submitted and discussed at the Study Session of November 11, 2008 to determine whether the concerns expressed previously had been adequately addressed. (See Attachment No. 3) The proposed solution is described in the discussi~>n below on Architecture. Site Development Review: The Site Development Review is intE;nded to address:. 1) proposed building architecture; 2) site layout; 3) access; 4) compatibility with surrounding and adjacent uses; 5) effects on residents and workers; and 6) insuring an attractive environment. The three structures proposed for the project are described as follows: • ClubSport Athletic Club and Spa -The project anchor is tl~e ClubSport Athletic Club and Spa. This use would occupy atwo-story building of approximately 47,669 square feet situated at the southwest corner of the site, or the northwest corner of the intersection of Dublin Boulevard at Grafton Street. This full-service private fitness center, spa, an3 recreation facility would provide a fitness area (weight room and specialized workout areas) grou:~ exercise rooms, pool, spa, aerobics rooms, spa treatment morns, offices, locker rooms, ar~d a cafe with outdoor seating. Administrative offices and a child care area are also include J. Cafe and outdoor seating will be restricted to 2,644 square feet (Attachment I pg.19, Condition No. 121). The entra~lce to the buildin€; is located off of an internal pedestrian paseo connecting Grafton Street with amulti-use regional trail that runs along the easterly boundary of the project site. Entrance access to the building also is available from Grafto:i Street which connects to the main lobby, day spa, and workout area on the first floor. The fitness rooms and associated facilities are located on the second floor. The ClubSport Cafe will be located on the ground floor of the building along the paseo in the section closest to Grafton Strt;et. The cafe will serve as the focal social area and will be open to the public, as well as to club members. An outdoor dining area is proposed as part of the cafi;. The pool and deck are situated in an interior courtyard at the southerly portion of the facility closest to Dublin Boulevard ,end will include a lap pool, Jacuzzi, and deck space. Page 4 of 10 C1ubSport would have up to 85 permanent staff members with a maximum of 35 ind~ du ~ -~~'' working on the premises during any given shift. ClubSport w~~uld be open from 5:00 am to 11:00 pm Monday through Friday and from 6:00 am to 10:00 pm on weekends. • Mercantile Building - A three-story building of approxim.rtely 52,716 square feet would be located at the northwest corner of the site facing Grafton Street south of Finnian Way. Retail and restaurant uses are proposed for the ground floor totaling 18,C00 square feet. The restaurant uses are proposed at a maximum of 7,190 square feet of the 18.000 square feet near the corner of Grafton Street and Finnian Way (Attachment 1 pg.19, Condition No. 121). Office space would occupy the second and third floors. The hours and days of operation for the proposed retail uses cannot be determined at this time. However, the office uses typically would be open from 8:00 am to 6:00 pm. The Applicant ~inticipates that the hours and days of operation for The Promenade will be similar to uses in the ('ity of Dublin of comparable size and type. • Parking Structure - A foiir••level parking structure would bf; located in the northeast portion of the project site which would provide 428 parking spaces and would be accessed from the surface parking lot area along the e~-sterly side of the site. A 21-foot wide service alley separates the parking structure from the Mercantile Building. Access to this service corridor would be through gates at each end and through the rear doors of the individt al commercial tenant spaces in the Mercantile Building. There is no pedestrian access from the ~~arking structure to the service yard corridor. The Applicant has requested approval of a Conditional Us:, Permit for reduction of required parking based on approval of a shared parking plan. The Planned Development Village Center zoning district was adopted with the intent and purpose of creating apedestrian-oriented service, retail, commercial, and entertai lrrient center serving the daily needs of the surrounding residential neighborhoods and intermittent sh~~pping, service, and entertainment opportunities for a wider communit~• base. The concept of the Village Center land use and zoning is to create a Main Street within Dublin Ranch. The Promenade is propos ~d to serve as the centerpiece for the commercial area of Dublin Ranch. Z'he objective is to create a pedest Sian-friendly commercial area with a small town character adjacent to high-density residential neighborhoods. The gateway to The Promenade would be represented by Parcels 3 and 4 of Vesting Tentative Parce Map 9717 located, respectively, at the northwest and northeast corners of Grafton Street where it interse~;ts with Dublin Boulevard along the northerly side. The incorporation of retail, office, and fitness/recreation uses will c~~eate opportunities for the residents, and enhance the balance of jobs and housing, as well as reduce or even eliminate vehicle trips and traffic congestion due to the close proximit}~ of residential units. The findings for the Site Development Review must: 1) comply wit ~ the policies of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan; 2) have no adverse effects on or be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity; 3) be designed to provide a functional and attractive environment for the development; 4) have no adverse effects on or be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons working or residing in the vicin ty; 5) not impact views; 6) have architectural consideration incorpor<<ted into the project in order to insure compatibility with the theme and character of .Area G as a whole; and 7} include landscape prov sions to ensure visual relief and an attractive environment. These draft findings are set forth in the Resolution (Attachment 1). Conditional Use Permit(s) All three of the following activities proposed require approval by Conditional Use Permit: • Fitness Center -Based on the PD-Village Center zoning adapted with permitted and conditional uses, private recreational facilities (both indoor and outdoor) are classified as a conditional use Page 5 of 10 b'' requiring a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Therefore, the C1~ibSport facility requires approval a~ ~ JJ a CUP. A description of the hours of operation and use is provided above, under the Section entitled "Site Development Review). • Outdoor Seating - As part of the main street character, outdoor seating in the style of a sidewalk cafe has. been requested for the ClubSport Cafe along the paseo between the two buildings and for the restaurant uses anticipated for the ground floor of the Mercantile Building along Grafton Street. Dining areas are proposed to be partitioned with railin;s, hardscape, and potted plants that will not interfere with pedestrian traffic. A Condition of Apt~roval, (See Attachment 1, page 17, Condition 1 l2) restricting the use of amplified sound outside the buildings has been added to this project. • Shared Parking -Parking requirements for the uses on site are proposed to be satisfied by the parking structure, on-site surface parking, and curbside parking along Grafton Street and Finnian Way. Reductions of required parking are allowed based on a shared parking plan if approved by CUP according to Chapter 8.76 F. of the Zoning Ordinance. The .results of the required Shared Parking Study are discussed below The findings required for approval of the CUP(s) must: 1) be compatible with surrounding and adjacent uses; 2) have no adverse effects on or be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity; 3) not be injurious to surrounding properties or improvements in the neighborhood; 4) provide adequate access, water, sanitation, and util ties; and 5) have no adverse effects on or be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity These draft findings are set forth in the Resolution (Attachment 1). Development Sta~rdards The proposed project complies with the development standards as defined in the Stage 1 PD zoning and Stage 2 Planned Development Plan relating to the building height, setbacks, and coverage and was extensively discussed at the two previous Planning Commission Stt:dy Sessions (See Attachments 2, 3 and 5). Design Standards The proposed project is consistent with the Stage 1 and 2 PD ap proved March 21, 2000. The Site Development Review includes: site plan, architectural design, landscape plan, and streetscape improvements. In accordance with the Design Standards, the buildi~igs are: i) sited close to the street, and 2) include facades with architectural offsets. The circulation is pedestrian-friendly by featuring paseos with the buildings oriented towards Grafton Street designed as the "main street." Amid-block crossing and gateway entry plazas al:~o have been incorporated in the design. Parking is located along the rear (easterly side of the site) so as not to disrupt the continuity o' the streetscape. While the site is currently visible from I-580, the ultimate view will be blocked by tl~e Grafton Station project, currently under construction to the southwest of the proposed project for Parcel 4. The proposed project is not within a scenic corridor or designated view zone. Also, the proposed project is consistent and compatible with the zoning and designated land use, subject to approval of the ~~equested Conditional Use Permit(s) for the fitness center, outdoor restaurant seating, and reduction of •equired parking based on a shared parking plan. Arclritecture The architecture for the three propos~:d buildings is described as follo~NS: • C1ubSport Athletic Club and Spa -The two-story structure is designed to represent an old Main Street developed over time, incorporating varied design details found in many of the older communities in Central California. Detailing includes stone v~~ainseot, decorative stone bands, and Page b of 10 decorative trim at the cornice level, as well as stone inset elements reminiscent of ~~lde~' I?3 structure. At the ground level, large retail display windows address pedestrians and articulate the sidewalk. Awnings are set at multiple levels to create a canopy and provide color and shade. The corner of the building is set in a radial pattern to face the p •imary streets, frame the pedestrian plaza, and create a possible location for public art. Concerns about the south building elevation adjacent to Dublin Boulevard, which conceals the pool area, was expressed at the first Planning Commission Study Session and was further discussed at the second Stud}~ Session (See Attachment 5). ~. proposed wood product to be used on the Dublin Blvd. facade has been eliminated, and a revised elevation was presented which aims to meet the Planning Commi:~sion's objectives of high qualit} sustainable materials. Landscaping and potted plants used elsewhere on the site are now incorporated in the Dublin Boulevard elevation to help with the Planning Commissions expressed concerns. By incorporating a store front motii~, opaque glass would be used for a portion of the glazing to provide privacy to the pool area ,and to screen an interior access corridor. Visibility would be limited to shapes, shadows, and movement providing privacy while still revealing a venue oi~ activity. (See "Architecture" Tab, page A.1 aiid A.5 of Attachment 6) • Mercantile Building -The architecture of this 3-story buildi ig is typical of the older mercantile buildings found in urban cerrters throughout the country anti in smaller California towns. The detailing is similar to ClubSport, utilizing stone wainscots at the building base, large expanses of storefront glass, lower awnings to provide color and scale at the pedestrian level, articulation of cornice detailing, and vertical stone insets. Signage is. prop~~sed as a combination of storefront Signage and wall hanging Signage that evokes an older style a1d quality. (See "Architecture" Tab, page A.7, A.8 and A.10 of Attachment 6} • Parking Structure -The 4-level parking structure has be~:n designed in the style of an old warehouse that would be found adjacent to an urban core of alder mercantile buildings. It has an open style, but designed to minimize the visual impact of the decks while still accentuating the warehouse look and form. The structure is detailed to compl~;ment the ClubSport and Mercantile buildings with the inclusion of elements such as an upper trellis/blind, and vertical stone accents to carry the contemporary Central California theme. An old styli; graphic would be added to the side of the building facing Finnian Way to further enhance the old warehouse look and feel (See "Architecture" Tab, page A.`. The larger expanses of wall hive been color blocked and detailed with reveals and stone insets to create an interesting visual effect and reduce the mass of the structure. Visual sight lines to the parking areas and lighting from the adjacent 4-story residential project to the east and the proposed ME~rcantile Building to the west will be mitigated through the proposed trellis details on the sides of the structure. (See "Architecture' Tab, page A.28 of Attachment 6) Access and Circulation Access to the project site is taken from driveways off of Dublin Boulevard on the south and Finnian Way on the north which lead into the surf<<ce parking lot that runs the full length of the easterly boundary of the project site. Access to the parking structure is from the surface parki 1g lot. A systemwide multi-use trail also runs along the easterly boundary of the project site connecting Dublin Boulevard with the multi-use trail at Finnian Way along the northerly boundary. A pedestrian paseo traverses the site separating the ClubSport building from the Mercantile Building and connects Grafton Street to the north/south multi-use trail. All streets and traffic improvement adjacent to the site will be completed as part of the overall project. Page 7 of 10 ~~k'f1~`1 tl.S C'far ~f33'~ iii ~x ~~ ~ ~ ~3 }ht: !12't?j4Ct l±rtaticle; ftar ~~)}) s}a~~c~: ~~laiela int•Ir,~c t~ra site ~}aac:e~ {r~ twel} as etr~•hsit3t: }~tdrllirr~~ trc}jt~c~:3~t the }~;~tlj~'('t ttliatl,z; Circritarl Stre;t and I'irantrra G~'~a~., _}'1ai~; ttat~.rl i~ cc~~nlarisec} <al~ -~?~ ~}aa~e~ in tkae }~rt~}~t?~tc! la:rri;ir~~ structtkrt:, :~ ~}a~aet:~• cats situ in t}a~: sr:os-tsaee }tat., ar:~c! l~6 t;t~rh5ic}e s}?atwe;~ a~trn~ Circritran `~tre~t ~rrati }`,rar,i~tt ~~`t~a~. li~r~;et3 tan t}~e lat•t}},:~~e~3 t~ccri}a=ancic:~: anti ri:,;~~ ~~-it}ain e~atrla huilcli~a~, that' r=vc}uirc~i }~arlin :~~ ',1t~rrtti 1'tz~•E~ra~ stutl~~ e}~atctl i~~~~e~aalaer- ~. ?{i{}v (~+ee ;~tt~~cl, n~4°r,, :sta. ~) t;«nt}r~t`tec} h~ l.t[~~1 ltaa- C:}~~}~~±}~t~rt ic~lenti}iec} }ae~~k }7t~a'ki7:a~~ tletnta~acl at li:(?() }ann. ~~hen i}aet•e rai~~l~t }~~ to ta~~er{a}a iii' u:~c:s. t<~ h€° ~~a.t~,t~. ~~ncl thereftar`e. i~car~clt~t}c;c} tfairt ~~~(> ~}~aee~ ~~tatrlcl he w~.iE'licit::rat tt> :;er~,e the prta}xa5ec( ~ni~ ~?i'i.r~;e~. ::°~ ci~..~,e~°ihec~ in to lafi•e~ itat~~; :~~sctitan tat` t}iiti :~it4rl°{ l~e~acart. sa C"1'}' ~e~~u}~i he rc°c}r~ir-:~~1 fiar• to ~•c~c~t;tii~~a t>f• s~~ri~~ir~~ {~~~tki_n~ }araseci tan t~ s(~~rretl }~aar}>iz7~, }?lyar~. Table 2: PARKINS PRC}Vi©~I? # 1.-~R.1CtE tv~I`ti-~IT~ ~~I~~I=.I~~ Tt~)T~.L LF.,~z~L I ~a`T`.`~.\I?~F~J.~.~~t,~~'3C_iSF':~C'~;`~ _.~ '' ail I } 1~1 :~C"t~'E'~IE~~...~ i~'?,RI}:I~"~'~P~C°E °1 Ca r~ ~) II7Lr~~ ~,,~C ; 't:.~ ~.~R .~} ~' ,.~: T~~'* 1~Cw }~Jt1 r ^ # ~ ^~ }- :.t', { ~..}~ ~~ :'.~_ i~ ~L '~.Z"t 5 'i..L 1 ~3 ~ ~ . 1 ~', `~i ~ `? ."' ~ {{ y i f Fy~ /~~Yy5+ ~} y~ gr #n 1 ) .+. .~ }~ f 7 1t ~~ ~ t T .. l l ~ ~ `~ ,d ~,~~ .: £ ll~ i ~~.i1 .L d L0. .. 1~ L = ~ t j ~ j j ~ .w~ w T} y { ~'} Ty '~ l j ( / 7 y { ~r ).3EL~.L~ 1 ~.k'~5~17 j \ \ T ~`r r :~lL } ~. ~3.t_ ~L ,. - ~ ( ; V 4 f 4.! '( ' ~p j + Ti_~ 1 x"'5.1,,. i !~ 2 ~ ~ 1 '~t~~'C>T~C,C"'~'C`T~E P.~F~~~I~~~, ~I'.ai" f.~ U t::`(°`t' ~+Sit=iLt= t'~~. I~.IN~ z ti~':'~ C`£ ~ t1 ~J "I'~~T.~L. } I Cr t 1 C? ~. c3~rcls r°f~pc=l Str~j~ats'c°f3~f~ ,l C: }>rtrject site }aa~ l~eeri cit~i`"~tEl to ciar7tp}ernerat the Cara1'tc~n t~~titan retail }?rt>jcct 1c~L:<~t~t} tta t}ae _;~o'~~,ti~st ~rtilizialy~ si~ni}ar ~rrt,t~ri.~ls i~1 ~~~-icnrs }aattern> »~lail4 1-rrca~•ic(it~~ for ~~n t~}a~c;<rlt:. ~'et traclit<ana}, ~.~L. t ~,;;erae.:lctut~}1~, tl~e cie:~i~n ;~~t~ic}eliraew >~-ere in }a}ace ft>r "I"he I'reanr~:natle lar•it#r t~~ tlae tar~~i~tc>n `~t~~titan }~y~~•je4t hein~~T ~;uhrt~ittetl fica~° revict~. }_h~ Yrcxnenac3e ;~tricle}ines ~~ere r~5ec~ a~ <~ ~~ricfira~ t}c~trura•rer~t }`s_pr• tlae tle~t:It1}an~Lrat c~}'Cr•r~lttan Statitan. ~in~ilar }a}atrt tn~atea~ia}s tree }~rta}?ta~eci liar ec>rrtitat~it~. C.'tmcrete }aa~°~r~ ira ~s~ri~;ti }aGrttt;rn> are usec} tta hi~}ali~`~l~t the architecture trr7c{ c«~atrihute tt~~rarc}w the street ~cLrae. :~,etrer~t }-~~abers in t~-ic}e h~€~c~~ rrerta~s the ~i~}e~~~rlk ~~il{ litak tta accent }a<t~'er~; at the ~~~alc}in.~ ~ci~,~:t,. ,1 1=i--fiatat ~~°i~c ~ic3~~~all., ~~hit;h iw ~~itler t}a~rn the 1? }et recltiiretl b~ t}3e l~}aaar~ec} L)~tielta}~rnt:rat ciewi`~ia :~t~~nt}trt}5. helps tta acc~>~a~navc}<~te thy: prc~},tj~;ec! tatrtcit~car citai~a`~. }_}ac [)~~i~~ta C~t~icielir~es e~t~rh}~l~ tl•~c c~arratr~ cat`~7ratt;~n Street ttt heath I.?uhlira }-3catale~trrtt 4itac} F~i~~rraiar~ ~~'ay <r:~ r;i~~ira Street lala~~~5. r~ eater te~~itare i;~ prta}ae.;yis.} trt the cc~rn.;r ~:>t` Ct~-~~ftcan Street ar1c:I 1-'inni<~rr ~~ ~~~ ira I~°t~~at c>ftlae Mercantile ~3tril{-1in~ ~~~k7is;h ract:?r}ac3rsitL~ ;k :~e<it lt•~ill ~~,:+~r hsrsiti. c~~lc~r`ci t7ta~er7aent, n~it:l ~acccnt }u}t~,i~+:<jl~tr raa~terial~. F'ct~estri~ara arras, }~a;e~~.7r1d 5pat;es atiriucc~at tta tht rratalti-t~se tr4ail ~~ili he c:c.}Gfi}},ec! F'a,~e ~+ i}` l C) s~ with benches, bicycle racks, trash receptacles, lighting, bollards, anc. potted plant materials to allow ~r ~ 73 resting, utility, and enhancement of the pedestrian scale. The pasec- connecting Grafton Street and the multi-use trail to the east has a dramatic water. fountain as its focal pc-int which can be seen from Grafton Street and the multi-use trail. The t-aseo extends as a mid-block crossing of Grafton Street. The street improvements are consistent and comply with the adopted street sections and design standards for the Village Center, as well provide continuity from block to block adjace~it to the project site. Street trees are located in grates cct the curb line while specimen plants are placed it uniquely designed pots at columns along the building edge. Public Art The proposed project is subject to the public art requirements of :he City's Zoning Ordinance. The proposed public art compliance pl;~n (See Final Page in Applicant's Submittal Package, page C.8, Attachment 6 and Condition of Approval 119 in Attachment No. 1) slows possible locations for public art at the corner of Dublin Boulevard and Grafton Street and on Grafton Street just north of the mid-block crossing and paseo. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The City of Dublin, as the Lead Agency, prepared a Mitigated Neg~itive Declaration for Area G, which was certified by the City Council on February 15, 2000. This project is within the scope of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. CONCLUSION: The proposed Site Development Review represents a project which is compatible with the objectives of the Village Center Planned Development District. The project re~~resents the first phase of the local commercial component and neighborhood main street for Dublin Ra:lch. As modified, the fitness center provides an appropriate and suitable anchor for Grafton Street. Both pedestrian and vehicular circulation, including parking, has been adequat~:ly incorporated. All three prop~~sed structures and commercial uses comply with the adopted development standards and design elements. The requested Conditional Use Permit(s) for the private fitness center and outdoor cafe seating are compatible with uses in and around the area and are complementary user for an active commercial area. The proposed reduction of required .parking based on a shared. parking plan will adequately provide sufficient parking to serve the demand anticipated among the proposed uses. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planninn 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 approving Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit(s), with conditions, for a private recreation facility, outdoor seating for restaurant use. and reduction of required parking based on a shared parking plan. Page 9 of 10 ~~ ~ ~~3 GENERAL INFORMATION: PROPERTY OWNER: APPLICANT: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIOI\" & EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN: PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: James Tong and Mei For g Tong Charter Properties 4690 Chabot Drive, Suites 100 Pleasanton, CA 94588 James Tong c/o Charter Properties 4690 Chabot Drive, Suite 100 Pleasanton, CA 94588 North of Dublin Boulevard, east of Grafton Street, south of Finnian Way, and west of the H2 Residential neighborhood Portion of: APN 985-00f~9-009-02 Portion of Parcel 3 of Par~;el Map 7148 PD-Village Center NC Neighborhood Comrr.ercial In accordance with State law, a public notice was mailed to all propen.y owners and occupants within 300 feet of the proposed project to advertise the project and the upcoming public hearing. A public notice was also published in the Tri-Valley Herald and posted at several location:; throughout the City. Page 10 of 10 S~ °7~ ~ ~ 3 G~,~,tOE DJ~ll~ poi ~ eer ~~ '~'~' ~~ Planning Commission Minutes u~~ ~,1 - Tuesday, December 9, 2008 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, December 9, 2008, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Schaub called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m. Present: Chair Schaub; Commissioners Wehrenberg, King and Biddle; Jeri Ram, Community Development Director; Kit Faubion, City Attorney; Marnie Waffle, Senior Planner; Mike Porto, Consulting Planner; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. Absent: None ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA -NONE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - C-n a motion by Cm. Wehrenberg, seconded by Cm. Biddle the minutes of the November 25, 2008 meeting were approved. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -NONE CONSENT CALENDAR -NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS -NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS - 8.1 PA 08-006, The Promenade at Dublin Ranch (Pazcel 5) -Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permits for a private recreation/fitness center (ClubSport), outdoor restaurant seating, and reduction of required parking based on a shared parking plan fora 3.72 acre site at the northeast corner of Grafton Street and Dublin Boulevard (Parcel 5 of Tentative Parcel Map 9717), Applicant James Tong and Mei Fong Tong. Mike Porto, Consulting Planner, presented the Project as stated in the Staff Report. Cm. King asked if there are two public art projects or two alternatives for public art. Mr. Porto answered that the Applicant has designated two locations where public art could be located. He stated they have the option of providing the public art or paying an in-lieu fee, but they are required to set aside tentative locations where public art could be located as shown on the project drawings. He continued the public art may or may not be installed at those locations. Cm. King asked Mr. Porto to point out the locations where the public art could be located. Mr. Porto pointed out the locations on the project plans. Manning Commission inecem6er 9, 2008 ~gular9Keeting 150 Cm. Wehrenberg asked if there are sufficient bus stops along Dublin Blvd. in relation to the project. She felt this was important since the Commission is considering shared parking for the project and also trying to create a transit center where people walk or bike instead of drive. Mr. Porto answered there is an existing bus stop located at the Terraces to the east of the project and one on the north side of Dublin Blvd. between Grafton Street and Brannigan across from Grafton Station, adjacent to the project. Cm. Wehrenberg referred to a letter from Leisure Sports included in the packet regarding modes of transportation for the C1ubSport membership base. She asked if, during his research, he had any discussions with other cities regarding the Shared Parking and if it has worked. Mr. Porto answered no; after a project is complete most cities do not monitor how the project is being used. He stated the letter was added to the traffic study to give an indication of how their facilities would be used. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if there will be bike paths developed. Mr. Porto stated that in 1998 and before, one of the things programmed into Area G and most of Dublin Ranch was ways to get people to designated bike lanes. He then pointed out the bike lanes on the project plans. He continued Area G was integrated into the Bikeways Master Plan for the City of Dublin. Cm. Wehrenberg felt the bike lanes were important for the project to work. Cm. Biddle thanked Mr. Porto for the inclusion of the shared parking study. Chair Schaub opened the public hearing. John Zukowski, Dublin resident, read a letter on behalf of jimmy Huang, resident, regarding his concern about the shared parking calculation used for the Promenade project, the parking problem in the eastern part of Dublin and his support for the suggestion of including underground parking at the Promenade project. (The letter will be included as part of the PA 08- 006 Promenade file and attached to these minutes as Attachment 1.) Tim Hall, Dublin resident, spoke regarding the project. He felt the project would set the stage for the rest of the area and wanted to ensure that it is done correctly. He felt that diagonal parking would be a better choice for Grafton Street. He agreed with Mr. Huang's letter regarding the shared parking calculation. He felt the architecture along Dublin Blvd. was not conducive to attracting pedestrians to the area and since the area is supposed to be geared toward pedestrians he felt it would be important to address the architecture along Dublin Blvd. Hearing no other comments, Chair Schaub closed the public hearing. Chair Schaub stated that the Commission is very concerned with parking issues and wanted to ensure that was conveyed. 4'lanning Commission lnecem6er9, 2008 regular 912eeting 1 S 1 s~ ~, ~ 7~ Chair Schaub felt the discussion would include two issues; 1) did the changes the Applicant made to the plans meet the Commission's expectations, and 2) the parking issue. Cm. Biddle stated he appreciates the changes made and felt the landscaping additions were an improvement especially because it is a walkway area. He also suggested the trees along Dublin Blvd. should be a species that would grow very large and that the landscaping should look better over time with good maintenance. He stated he is generally satisfied with the project. Cm. King felt the project did not meet his aspirations for Dublin Blvd. He asked the other Commissioners if there was any reason pedestrians would walk along Dublin Blvd. The Commissioners discussed the entrances, exits and walkways along Dublin Blvd. and felt that eventually residents would be going to the Promenade. Cm. Biddle stated he likes the fact that residents do not have to walk along the street to enter the Promenade but that the entrances are on Grafton Street or the interior. Cm. Wehrenberg felt that the entrance locations would help with traffic on Dublin Blvd. and agreed with the cut-ins and turn lanes on Dublin Blvd. Chair Schaub stated that Dublin Blvd. is Dublin's main street but there is very little on Dublin Blvd. to go to. He felt that people travel down Dublin Blvd. with the backs of shopping centers, apartments, fences and even Grafton Station facing Dublin Blvd. and people would enter from the parking lot. Most everything is from the inside even though they want the streets to be pedestrian friendly the traffic is only cars and felt that was best. Cm. Wehrenberg stated she is in support of the architecture of the project. She liked the landscaping and the potted trees that were a change from the previous submittal. Chair Schaub stated he is in support of the revised architecture of the project. Chair Schaub showed a graph that he created from the parking information in the Staff Report to make it easier to understand the shared parking issue. He discussed whether the Commission believes in shared parking, when the peak parking period is assumed to be and the number of parking spaces provided at those times. Cm. Wehrenberg agreed with Chair Schaub regarding whether the Commission believes in shared parking or not. She restated her concern regarding the 12 motorcycle spots which she felt would not be used during rainy weather. She felt that the employees in the offices may want to work out at C1ubSport and then stay for dinner therefore the stalls would not empty out as the shared parking study suggests. She continued that the City wants the project to be successful and to be a transit oriented area where people bike, walk and use BART. She felt the more parking that is provided would encourage more car use and the City is trying to discourage car use to decrease the traffic and save the environment. She stated she was not in favor of reducing the amount of restaurant usage because the nearby residents would want to walk there. She felt the City should be reviewing the parking requirements and enforcement issues. She is not in favor of the loss of the 41 stalls mentioned in the Staff Report. planning Commission ~Uecem6er9, 2008 12,egular Meeting 152 ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ Chair Schaub felt there was no way to know how many people will walk to the area and how the loss of 41 spaces will affect the project. Cm. Wehrenberg mentioned that in the letter from C1ubSport they stated there are dedicated parking spaces for the C1ubSport facilities which help the parking issue. She felt that because there are classes and a spa people will stay for hours not go in and out quickly. She also felt the class schedule will impact the shared parking because people will rush to get to class. She stated these concerns should be taken into consideration when the Commission makes the findings for the project. Cm. King mentioned a conversation he had with the Mayor regarding Hacienda Crossings and the fact that it was difficult to find a parking spot and he felt it was because of poor planning. He stated she disagreed and felt it meant the project was successful. Cm. Biddle stated he is comfortable with the shared parking concept. He stated that the area was designed to feature that concept. He did not think the Commission should approve a project for maximum parking so that any conceivable parking problem would be solved. He stated he is comfortable with the number of parking spaces. He continued the Commission does not want to be in a position that if there is a parking problem in another area adjoining a project that the current project needs to have additional parking to solve the parking problem and felt that problem was for the initial project to solve, not the Commission. He felt a lot of the parking problem has to do with property management in regards to parking. He felt that a project needs to provide parking but it also needs to manage the parking use appropriately. Chair Schaub asked. Kit Faubion, City Attorney to discuss the relationship between HOA's and the City. Kit Faubion, City Attorney, stated that homeowner's associations and their CC&R's are private agreements among the members of the HOA and generally not enforced by the City. Chair Schaub agreed that the City cannot legally enforce the parking regulations of an HOA. He stated that if there is a parking problem in the vicinity of the project in question the Commission cannot deal with it when approving another project; it is not one project's responsibility to solve the parking problems of another project. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the parking standards that Dublin uses are generic and how Dublin compares to other cities. Chair Schaub mentioned that there are two sets of standards and he used Dublin's parking standards when creating his graph so that he would not have the more conservative numbers which is the Institute of Transportation Engineer (ITE). dunning Commission ~Decem6er 9, 2008 ~gufar~teeting 153 ~ ~ ~~ Mr. Porto answered there are two standards referenced in the shared parking agreement; the ULI standards and the ITE standards. He stated that those standards are considerably less than Dublin's requirement. He stated Dublin's parking ordinance deals with shared parking in the context of shopping centers where the parking ratio is for square footage. He stated that when there are multiple uses on the property the only opportunity is to either park it at the requirement for each individual use or do a shared parking analysis. He stated that Dublin is fairly conservative on parking compared with other jurisdictions. Chair Schaub asked if by "conservative" Mr. Porto meant that Dublin "overparks" compared to most cities. Mr. Porto answered yes, in some projects. Jeri Ram, Community Development Director, commented that since Staff does not have the information available they cannot comment on a comparison with other cities without doing the research first. Chair Schaub stated that the ITE table in the shared parking agreement was more conservative. Cm. Wehrenberg asked how often the standards are updated. Jaimee Bourgeois, Traffic Engineer, pointed out there are two concepts that were used in the study. One is the comparison between the City of Dublin's parking ordinance, which is conservatively high, versus data that is published based on actual surveys taken nationally. She stated the publication is updated every several years with new information based on new surveys. She continued to discuss the traffic standards, shared parking, traffic surveys and how they were used in the traffic study for this project. She mentioned that with the ITE rate an extra 10% would be added for a circulation factor, so if all of the parking is used as projected, based on ITE, there would still be an extra 10% for an efficiency factor. Chair Schaub pointed out that people who walk to the restaurants from the nearby residential areas is another factor that the Commission has reviewed in more densely populated areas in regards to the parking issue. Cm. King stated that Councilmember Kasie Hildenbrand mentioned the severe parking problem in the east Dublin areas. Chair Schaub mentioned that she was referring to The Villages specifically. Cm. King continued that it appears that the parking plan made an assumption that there would be two garage spaces for two cars but the reality is one of the spaces is used for storage. He asked if the Commission should base their findings on what people ought to do or what they actually do. Chair Schaub responded that this project has nothing to do with storage/parking in a condominium development. He stated the Commission cannot make up for the parking problem in The Villages with this project. Manning Commission ~ecem6er 9, 2008 [~gular 9Keeting 154 ~~ ~ , ~i Cm. King disagreed with Chair Schaub. He felt that if the parking turns out to be inadequate then the justification is to encourage people to walk instead which is what the Commission intended. He stated he would prefer there be more parking at the project. He then asked if there was an assumption that at 6:OOp.m. there would be 541 cars. Chair Schaub answered that if they do not use the concept of shared parking the maximum number would be 541. He stated he showed the maximum on his graph to see what was causing the problem. He continued that in shared parking, if there is an office complex and a theater, it works well, but this complex is more complicated. Cm. King asked if there were any surveys that show how a restaurant should work. Chair Schaub answered that these studies are based upon surveys but won't necessarily match this set of restaurants. Cm. Wehrenberg agreed with Chair Schaub that the Commission cannot accommodate for loss of parking in a residential area but felt it will be an inherent problem if not corrected. She suggested adding a condition that states the specific square footage allowed for each use. Ms. Ram stated that the application shows the exact amount of restaurant space and the exact amount of office space for this project and in order to change it that would mean a change to the Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review. Mr. Porto stated this was done with another project (Ulfert's) where Staff developed a maximum amount of square footage available for restaurant use. Chair Schaub stated the Ulfert's Center is a good example of where shared parking works well. Ms. Ram pointed out the first "Whereas" in the Resolution sets forth exactly how much space is being approved for each use. She then asked the Commission if they want to modify and specifically mention how much restaurant space and how much office space is allowed. She stated that Staff could change the Resolution to show the exact numbers before the Resolution is signed. Mr. Porto agreed. Ms. Ram stated that to make it clear as to the amount of restaurant space allowed in the project Staff would include it in the Resolution for the CUP/SDR. Chair Schaub felt it was important to put specific amounts in Resolutions to save the confusion later on. Ms. Ram agreed to add the square footage to the Resolution. Cm. Wehrenberg agreed with adding the exact number of square footage allowed for both restaurants and office space. She also felt that the shared parking issue should be reviewed as a Goals and Objectives item for 2009 in order to study how it is working in Dublin. She felt that the Commission does not want to add to the parking problem. She asked if the Commission needs to beef up the parking ordinance and if the City can enforce a condition of approval regarding parking. She stated that if the Commission is going to be approving these sorts of ~lanningCommission ~Decem6er9, 2008 ~ggular ~Yteeting 15 5 s-~ ~ > ~3 projects then they should make the parking ordinance stricter and easier to enforce and encourage people to get out of their cars. Chair Schaub was concerned about approving projects without considering the entire area. He stated that before Area G is completely developed the Commission should look at the parking issue as a whole. He asked Ms. Ram to add that item to their Goals and Objectives meeting as well. Ms. Ram mentioned the Commission's Goals and Objectives meeting is schedule for January 20, 2009. Cm. Wehrenberg was concerned that there may not be enough bike stalls if the Commission is encouraging people to ride their bike to C1ubSport. Mr. Porto stated the Applicant could add more bike racks if necessary. Ms. Ram asked if the Commission would like a Condition of Approval to work with the Applicant to ensure that adequate bike racks are provided prior to issuance of building permits. Chair Schaub stated he is in favor of shared parking for the project. He felt the Applicant has done everything they can to make the shared parking work for the project. He mentioned that there is a lot of parking across the street at Lowes and people should be able to walk across the street to get to C1ubSport. Cm. Wehrenberg agreed and felt that part of the solution is circulation with proper street lighting and crosswalks for safety. Chair Schaub felt crosswalks and street lighting would be important because there will be a lot of people going back and forth across Dublin Blvd. between Grafton Station and T'he Promenade. Cm. Biddle mentioned Condition #44, which refers to phased occupancy, and asked if there is a general plan for a construction start, and will they have phased construction. Mr. Porto answered he would obtain the information from the Applicant and let the Commission know. Ms. Ram reminded the Commission that Condition #44 is there to protect the public as it relates to construction phasing. Cm. Wehrenberg asked what the procedure would be to vote for part of the Resolution. Ms. Ram answered the Resolution is written as one; therefore Staff would have to break out the reference to the shared parking plan so that the Commission could vote for part of the Resolution only. She continued that the Commission would have to deny the Resolution because without the shared parking the project doesn't work or the Commission could vote for the Resolution and your reservations regarding shared parking plan would be noted in the minutes. Cm. Wehrenberg agreed with approving the Resolution but noting her concern Manning Commission ~Uecem6er9, 2008 ~gular ~Y(eeting 1 S 6 ~~ ~~ l ~~ regarding the shared parking plan. She continued that the shared parking plan may not be feasible because of the mix of buildings in the project. Ms. Ram reminded the audience that this item can be appealed to the City Council within 10 days of the action. On a motion by Cm. Biddle and seconded by Cm. Wehrenberg, on a vote of 4-0-0, the Planning Commission approved the following Resolution as modified, with reservations regarding the shared parking plan and specifying the square footage amount of restaurant uses in the Mercantile building as being a maximum of 7,190 square feet: RESOLUTION N0.08 - 40 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR PARCEL 5 OF THE PROMENADE (VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 9717) AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PRIVATE FITNESS/RECREATION FACILITY, OUTDOOR SEATING FOR RESTAURANT USE, AND REDUCTION OF REQUIRED PARKING BASED ON A SHARED PARKING PLAN ON A 3.72-ACRE SITE WITHIN AREA G OF DUBLIN RANCH PA 08-006 8.2 PA 08-047, Buffalo Wild Wings Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review (Quasi-JudiciaU Adjudicatory Action) -Request for a Conditional Use Permit to establish 42$ square feet of outdoor seating and Site Development Review for exterior modifications to the existing Pad B building at Grafton Station including new awnings, window tinting and outdoor seating furniture. The project is located at 3712 Dublin Boulevard. Marnie Waffle, Senior Planner presented the project as stated in the Staff Report. Ms. Waffle submitted a revised Resolution to the Planning Commission prior to her presentation where Condition of Approval #7 was revised. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the Applicant could install a solid wall instead of windows with film. Ms. Waffle answered that would significantly alter the architecture of the building. She stated that when the building was designed and constructed the use was unknown. She continued there is glass on all four elevations therefore it would be difficult for any tenant to accommodate a layout with so much window space. Chair Schaub asked if this is where the bathrooms are located, and if this is the entrance to the bathrooms or the actual bathrooms. Ms. Waffle stated the proposal would be to construct solid walls on the interior therefore with the film on the glass would give a visual obstruction for the solid walls. ~E'lanning Commission ~Vecem6er9, 2008 ~gular 9Keeting 1$7 ~r~ ~ ~ ~ 3 Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the Applicant is proposing to build the same type of wall to hide the back-of-house operations as in the bathroom area or only the install the film on these windows. Ms. Waffle answered the back-of-house operations area would be like the bathroom area with the same type of walls behind the windows. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the Applicant has looked at different ways to install the flat-screen TV instead of installing the film on only half of the bank of windows. Ms. Waffle agreed to speak with the Applicant regarding her suggestion. Ms. Waffle stated the revised Resolution for Condition of Approval #7 is regarding noise and amplified music. She stated noise and amplified music was originally prohibited within the outdoor dining area, but the revised Condition of Approval #7 allows it unless it becomes a problem and then the Community Development Director has the discretion to require the amplified music be turned down or turned off completely. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if Staff prefers the reflective finish on the film as opposed to non reflective finish. She felt it could be blinding depending on the time of day and where shadows occur. Ms. Waffle answered that when Staff was working with the Applicant regarding the film, they tried for a more natural look and to blend with the other projects in the area. She stated they tried to prevent the blacking out look and settled on Slate 10 which is the sample given to the Planning Commission. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if Staff would recommend using a decorative film with patterns instead. Chair Schaub stated that he visited the site and found the windows to be very reflective now, not sure how much more reflective the film will make them. Ms. Waffle stated that the film does not provide 100% visual obstruction so the closer you get to the window you might be able to see the wall behind it. She showed photos of two shades of the film side by side and felt that a photograph is not the best representation but you can see the differences in reflectivity in the photos. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if this is the film Staff preferred. Ms. Waffle stated that based on Staff's knowledge of the options available the film is the best one. She continued that if the goal is to prevent the blacking out of windows she felt it provides the most natural look in keeping with other windows without the film. Chair Schaub opened the public hearing. Hardy Samra, Applicant, Tee It LTP, LLC, spoke in favor of the project and gave an overview of the restaurant. He stated the restaurant is a franchise operation with approximately 570 restaurants and this is the first in northern California. Manning C°mmission ~ecem6er9, 2008 12eguCar Meeting 1$ 8 ~; ~ , ~3 Cm. Wehrenberg asked if there was another way to mount the large TV screen without putting film on only one side of the door. Mr. Samra answered that the TV is in the dining room area on the wall therefore, it would not be possible to mount it differently or in another location of the restaurant because of its 96" size. Cm. King felt that it would look odd to have reflective material on one side of the door. The Applicant answered that they have discussed the issue with Staff and if the TV can be moved they will move it. Cm. King suggested making both sides reflective and Mr. Samra stated they would look at that as well. Chair Schaub mentioned the wall would be where the other tenants will see and suggested whatever is in that location should be consistent with the shopping center. John Zukowski, resident, spoke in favor of the project and encouraged the Commission to approve the project. Tim Hall, resident, spoke in favor of the project and agreed with Cm. Wehrenberg who suggested installing window treatments instead of tacky film. Cm. King is in favor of the project but would suggest making both doors reflective or neither. Cm. Wehrenberg is in favor of the project but was concerned with the window film. She felt it was an appropriate measure but would like to review the east elevation. Chair Schaub is in favor of the project. He stated he is not particularly happy about the film but the building has glass all around and the Applicant must do something. Hearing no other comments, Chair Schaub closed the public hearing. On a motion by Cm. Biddle and seconded by Cm. King, on a vote of 4-0-0, the Planning Commission approved the following revised Resolution: RESOLUTION NO. 08-41 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING PA 08-047 BUFFALO WILD WINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF 425 SQUARE FEET OF OUTDOOR SEATING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE EXISTING PAD B BUILDING AT GRAFTON STATION 3712 DUBLIN BOULEVARD (APN 985-0061-002) PA 08-047 Manning Commission - Uecem6er 9, 2008 ~gularMeeting 159 ~z ~ i ~3 NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS - NONE OTHER BUSINESS -NONE 10.1 Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from the Planning Commission and/ or Staff, including Committee Reports and Reports by the Planning Commission related to meetings attended at City Expense (AB 1234). Ms. Ram reminded the Commission there will be a meeting on 12-23-08. ADTOURNMENT -The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ,f~' Bill au Chair Planning Commission ATTEST: Jeri Ram, AICP Community Development Director 4'lanning Commission ~ecem6er9, 2008 1~guCarMeeting 160 (03 ~ f i~ Dear Planning Commission: I am disappointed to learn that Charter Properties is still using this Shared Parking calculation to justify their parking allocation at Phase I of the Promenade. The use of this Shared Parking calculation is inappropriate, given the horrendous parking crisis in the Dublin Ranch Villages (Attachment 1). The extreme shortage of parking in the immediate vicinity of the Promenade should render most, if not all, of the assumptions needed for the Shared Parking calculation to work invalid, yet the TJICM Report did not even address the current parking realities in the Dublin Ranch Villages. The stance Commission Chair Schaub took in the Study Session on November 12, 2008, was quite disturbing, as he basically dismissed the Dublin Ranch Villages parking crisis by saying it is purely an enforcement issue on the part of the HOA. For years neither the City nor the HOAs have taken leadership on resolving this growing challenge. Instead of exacerbating the problem by under-allocating parking, the Planning Commission should push for a member that at least meets Dublin's Zoning Ordinance by simple counting. As shown by a weekly poll recently conducted on the Around Dublin Blog, 68% of the respondents are in favor of Commissioner Wehrenberg's proposal that the additional spaces should come in the form of underground parking (Figure 1). hnutd th can he ad~!I-iiuial pru ]ring ai i~=base I of rtie f9 utvcu..dd? Figure 1. Around Dublin Blog Weekly Poll Sixty-eight percent of the respondents favored additional levels of underground parking (http://www. arounddublinblog.com/2008/11/weekly-poll-should-additional-parking.html). Building a parking structure with underground levels at Phase I of the Promenade would be a great opportunity for Charter Properties to show the residents of Dublin that they are fully committed to provide sufficient parking at the Promenade and Grafton Plaza. As someone who lives in the area, I want the Promenade to be a success. To get there, I firmly believe we need to provide adequate parking, so people can spend as much time shopping as possible, instead of circling the area in frustration for a parking space that should have been planned in the first place. I disagree with Commission Chair Schaub's definition of "success" as presented in the article published on September 16, 2007, in Contra Costa Times (Attachment 2). True retail success is not measured in the gallons of gas wasted as patrons circle the Promenade in frustration but in sales tax generated. Sincere] ATTAC~-IlVIENT 1 Jimmy Huang 3719 Central Parkway Dublin, CA 94568 ~~ ~ < ~ ~;~ Attachment 1. In the video clip titled Parking.wmv, Councilwoman Kasie Hildenbrand went into great detail explaining just how bad the parking siriiation really is in the Dublin Ranch Villages at the City Council Meeting held on November 18, 2008. Attachment 2. Residents' parking comes up short: DUBLIN: Condo occupants in the Cottages circle blocks or wait for spaces to open for their cars. Byline: Sophia Kazmi Sep. 16--Many residents of the urban-looking condos and apartments in east Dublin are also experiencing an all-too-familiar big-city problem. Teresa Singleton, a resident of the Cottages condominium complex in the Villages at Dublin Ranch development, said residents' days are often planned around when they have to be home to find parking spaces. "It's over-the-top ridiculous," Singleton said, adding that the problem has become progressively worse since she moved in two years ago. "It's really unfortunate. People have to pay $500,000 to live here, and there is no place to park." Drivers frequently circle around blocks to find a space, or to wait for an opening; when a space opens up in front of their houses, drivers rejoice. Singleton lucked out Wednesday night and found a spot on Finnian Way, across the street from her home, where both sides of the street were solidly lined with cars. Many say part of the problem is some residents are using their garages to store other things than their cars. Residents interviewed said they have room to park one car in their garage, but since all were at least two-car households, they must take to the street to find a spot for a second vehicle. According to the city's planning department, that area of Dublin Ranch requires two spaces for each apartment, and for one- bedroom condominiums, there must be 1.5 spaces. For each two-bedroom condominium, there must be 2.5 spaces. Usually, the total is a whole number, but if the final sum has a half a space, the number is rounded up. The project has 1,396 units total. So there are somewhere .between 2,094 and 3,490 spots in the neighborhood. But, apparently, that is not enough. While coming home late could mean walking a couple of blocks home, James Bell said inviting family and friends over can become a serious issue. Bell, who moved to Dublin from Antioch in November, managed to score a spot in front of his condominium Wednesday evening. But he knew that space would mostly likely not be there for him when he returned from church that night. This parking anxiety has become part of life, he said. "Most people, they just deal with it." While these East Dublin residents may be ticked off, there have been no formal complaints about it that the police department is aware of. Planning Commission chairman Bill Schaub said he's heard about the problem from the two council members who live u~ the area, but he isn't sure what can be done. Changing the number of parking spaces per unit in the future would cause additional problems. "If we did, we would end up with so much asphalt," Schaub said. "For every spot you put a parking spot, you reduce the chances of a developer making money ... You would pay more for your house." ~~ ~ ~ ~~ Parking requirements are more than adequate, Schaub said, and developers have complained about the number of parking spots they have to provide. Congestion, Schaub said, is a sign of a successful area. Councilman Tim Sbranti, who also lives in the Cottages neighborhood, finds himself looking for parking as his wife parks her car in the garage. He said he thinks the opening of a nearby shopping center will help alleviate some of the parking woes, giving people additional places to park overnight. But Sbranti said he will use his frustrating first-hand experiences of trying to find a spot when that issue -- and future housing developments -- are discussed and debated. "What was the ratio for this project? OK ... we need to go much higher than that," Sbranti said. "The ratio here clearly didn't work." Sophia Kazmi covers Dublin. Reach her at skazmi@bayareanewsgroup.com or 925-847-2122. RECEIVED ~'~ °~j !~~ CITY OF DUBLIN DEC 1 7 200 Dear City Planner Mike Porto: ~ MANAGEfl'S OFFICE I am writing to appeal the Planning Commission's approval of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application to adopt the Shared Parking model for calculating the required number of parking spaces at Phase I of th.e Promenade. Their decision was not based on facts and observed behaviors but on theories and magical thinking. The epic parking crunch in the immediate vicinity of the Promenade should render most, if not all, of the idealized assumptions required for the Shared Parking calculation to work invalid, yet the TJKM Report did not even acknowledge the notorious parking crisis at Dublin Ranch Villages (Attachment 1). Since the applicability of the Shared Parking calculation is questionable at best, the City should use simple counting and demand the 541 parking spaces as mandated by Dublin's Zoning Ordinance. The majority of the Planning Commission believes that the extreme parking shortage at Dublin Ranch Villages is brought on by the residents alone, but this simple-minded assessment shows an unfortunate lack of sophistication in thinking about the problem on the part of the Planning Commission. While residents who do not park their cars in the garage are partly to blame, the fact that the developers built up to the maximum of a given density range without regard for basic human behavior also contributes to the challenge. Current parking regulations do not restrict select groups of the public from parking on the streets at Dublin Ranch Villages, so home owners, their guests, and Promenade patrons all have equal rights to park on city streets. The Home Owner Associations (HOAs) can control those few private parking spaces within their jurisdiction. They can also enforce the rules of the covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&R) through periodic inspections to make sure residents do not use their garages for storage. The HOAs, unfortunately, simply do not have the legal authority to stop their residents from parking on city streets. To date, no study has been conducted to establish the percentage of residents who refuse to use their own garages. Also, the degree to which that percentage contributes to the parking crisis in Dublin Ranch Villages remains undetermined. All planning done in the absence of hard data should be considered speculative and not evidence- based. Charter Properties was not responsible for the poor planning of the ill-conceived parking arrangement at Dublin Ranch Villages, so it is definitely not obligated to resolve a problem that cannot be fixed by a garage alone. All that the nearby residents are requesting is for adequate parking as defined by Dublin's Zoning Ordinance to be provided (Attachment 2), so Phase I at the Promenade_ does not exacerbate the parking crisis that neither the City nor the HOAs have the political will or sufficient jurisdiction to confront directly. Given the parking realities at Dublin Ranch Villages, allocating at least 541 parking spaces as mandated by code is not only the responsible way to start the Promenade but also in the best interest of the Promenade- tenants, nearby residents, and, most importantly, all of Dublin. If the City allows one developer to disregard .Dublin's Zoning Ordinance in an area with known parking shortage, it will send the wrong message to other developers: with similar mixed-use projects elsewhere in Dublin. Once this bad precedent is set, those other developers can reasonably demand the City to relax its parking requirement for their projects and challenge the City in court should the City refuse. The City of Dublin cannot afford to spread this parking nightmare beyond Dublin Ranch Villages. Responsible planning should not rest on theoretical use by idealized people alone. Up to now, residents and their guests have enjoyed what essentially amounts to exclusive use of the street parking within Dublin Ranch Villages. Charter Properties has no basis for believing that patrons beyond walking distance from the Promenade will always use the garage. Just like Planning Commission Chair Bill Schaub's postulation that the Promenade will never come close to needing 500 parking spaces, the developer's optimistic.; assumption fails to take into account that diners, shoppers, and gym members will park wherever they feel is most convenient. The 14 allotted parking spaces on the streets around the Promenade will not be able to absorb parking overflow from the Promenade into the neighborhood streets nearby. The parking overflow will adversely affect residents in the vicinity, but the City has an opportunity now to mitigate the negative impact by insisting that at least 541 parking spaces be planned. In its promotion of the controversial Grafton Plaza, Charter Properties has promised at numerous community events that it is absolutely committed to providing adequate underground parking at that development, so Grafton Plaza will not exacerbate the parking crisis at Dublin Ranch Villages.., In fact, Charter Properties was quick to note that the higher density of Dublin Ranch Villages was taken into consideration during the planning of Grafton Plaza at the Community Barbeque it organized on October 18, 2008. When I asked Mr. Martin lnderbitzen whether or not the Attachment 6 ~~ ~ i~3 traffic to and from Grafton Plaza will negatively impact the residents at Dublin Ranch Villages and make an already tough parking situation worse, Mr. Inderbitzen said that the density at Dublin Ranch Villages is a little tight, but he believes the parking solution proposed for Grafton Plaza will be more than sufficient to satisfy the concerns of nearby residents. Building a parking structure with underground levels that complies with code at Phase I of the Promenade would, therefore, seem a great opportunity for Charter Properties to demonstrate its commitment to providing adequate parking at both the Promenade and Grafton Plaza. As shown by a weekly poll recently conducted on the Around Dublin Blog, 68% of the respondents are in favor of Commissioner Doreen Wehrenberg's proposal that the additional spaces at Phase I of the Promenade should come in the form of underground parking (Figure 1). SUould ilterr. kie arhtifieriol frarhing at r`hase t of the r~~ttt~„~,~Ir'7 ~Q t:. '.1 ... ililL ~ _i ._ ~ .,:'ICI: ~_~~-_..~_.I 11_.._ ~ :I lil!: ~ 'tc:: tiliy t ,» _-~I Figure 1. Around Dublin Blog Weekly Poll Sixty-eight percent of the respondents favored additional levels of underground parking (http://www.arounddublinblog.com/2008/11 /weekly-poll-should-additional-parking.html). The required number of parking spaces as specified by Dublin's Zoning Ordinance was defined for good reasons. By allowing Charter Properties to under-allocate parking at the Promenade, the City assumes the consequences of a willful deviation from its own standards. Our continued socialization of the cost and risk that come with bad planning must stop. In reviewing the developer's revisions, the City should ensure that Charter Properties does not simply use more motorcycle spaces than necessary to satisfy Dublin's parking requirement. If permitted to do so, Charter Properties will be abusing the motorcycle parking spaces to be compliant with code in the same fashion developers typically build up to the maximum of a given density range. As someone who lives in the area, I want the Promenade to be a success. To get there, adequate parking must be provided, so people can spend as much time shopping as possible, instead of circling the area in frustration for a parking space that should have been allocated in the first place. I disagree with Commission Chair Schaub's definition of "success" as presented in the article published on September 16, 2007, in Contra Costa Times (Attachment 3). Congestion is not necessarily a sign of a successful area. True retail success is not measured in the gallons of gasoline wasted as patrons troll the Promenade in their cars but in sales tax generated as they walk from store to store. Sincerely, mmy Huang 3719 Central Parkway Dublin, CA 94568 ~~ ~ (o Attachment 1. Councilwoman Kasie Hildenbrand shared her personal experiences with the Dublin Ranch Villages parking crisis at the Dublin City Council Meeting held on November 18, 2008. http://www.vouiube.com/watch?v=8Ps cQLyx Attachment 2. Letter from a Concerned Resident in the Dublin Ranch Villages Dear Mr. Porto and Planning Commissioners, Being I'm a resident of the Dublin Ranch Villages, specifically The Courtyards, I attended this past Tuesday's Dec 9 meeting to find out more about the Club Sport and Promenade project. I was really surprised that the Commissioners are disobeying the CITY ZONING ORDINANCE of 541 parking spaces alloted for this commercial project, trimming it down to 500, and substituting the 41 fewer stalls with 14 shared street parking spaces. How does the. 14 shared street parking spaces make up 41 CITY ZONING ORDINANCE stalls? And how is it that based on Mr. Schaub's graphical representation of peak/non-peak times of Club Sport and Promenade visitors that a decision was succumb to? The CITY ZONING ORDINANCE says 541 for this project, please stick with what was alloted for the project. I think what's most upsetting is that the Commissioners sent back the drawings a handful of times for Club Sport's exterior design changes and fandscapi'ng on-Dublin Blvd, yet didn't send back the parking issue to the designers when there wasn't 541 parking stalls BASED ON CITY ZONING ORDINANCE. I understand the exterior design is important to attract patrons, but (with the exception to Commissioner Wehrenberg) shouldn't the commissioners sent back the .drawings as well when the CITY ZONING ORDINANCE of 541 stalls was not met? Why is it that the commissioners are so knit picky on landscaping and trellis issues, but when the CITY ZONING ORDINANCE of 541 stalls was not met, the commissioners didn't send it back, and instead came up with an alternative of 41 fewer stalls and 14 shared street parking spaces? Please tell me when, why and how CITY ZONING ORDINANCES are important if the commissioners want building cosmetics higher priority than following the CITY ZONING ORDINANCE of 541 parking stalls? Mr. Porto and commissioners, please retract your decision on accepting the 500 stalls and 14 shared street parking spaces, and find a way to include the CITY ZONING ORDINANCE of 541 parking stalls-- possibly adding an underground parking for employees -only and/or people with disabilities. Club Sport and the Promenade will be a great feature for the east ,side of Dublin. But it can be even greater of having what was alloted for of 541 parking stalls BASED ON.CITY ZONING ORDINANCE. ~9 ~ ~~3 Attachment 3. Residents' parking comes up short: DUBLIN: Condo occupants in the Cottages circle blocks or wait for spaces to open for their cars. Sophia Kazmi Sep. 16 -Many residents of the urban-Idoking condos and apartments in east Dublin are also experiencing an all-too-familiar big-city problem. Teresa Singleton, a resident of the Cottages condominium complex in the Villages at Dublin Ranch development, said residents' days are often planned around when they have to be home to find parking spaces. "It's over-the-top ridiculous," Singleton said, adding that the problem has become progressively worse since she moved in two years ago. "It's really unfortunate. People have to pay $500,000 to live here, and there is no place to park." Drivers frequently circle around blocks to find a space, or to wait for an opening; when a space opens up in front of their houses, drivers rejoice. Singleton lucked out Wednesday night and found a spot on Finnian Way, across the street from her home, where both sides of the. street were solidly lined with cars. Many say part of the problem is some residents are using their garages to store other things than their cars. Residents interviewed said they have room to park one car in their garage, but since all were at least two-car households, they must take to the street fa'#ind a spot for a second vehicle. According to' the city's planning department, that area of Dublin Ranch requires two spaces for each apartment, and for one-bedroom condominiums, there must be 1.5 spaces. For each two-bedroom condominium, there must be 2.5 spaces. Usually, the total is a whole number, but if the final sum has a half a space, the number is rounded up. The project has 1,396 units total. So there are somewhere between 2,094 and 3,490 spots in the neighborhood. But, apparently, that is not enough. While coming home late could mean walking a couple of blocks home, James Bell said inviting family and friends over can become a serious issue. Bell, who moved to Dublin from Antioch in November, managed to score a spot in front of his condominium Wednesday evening. But he knew that space would mostly likely not be there for him when he returned from church that night. ~:' i This parking anxiety has become part of life, he said. "Most people, they just deal with it." While these East Dublin residents may be ticked off, there have been no formal complaints about it that the police department is aware of. Planning Commission chairman Bill Schaub said he's heard about the problem from the two council members who live in the area, but he isn't sure what can be done. Changing the number of parking spaces per unit in the future would cause additional problems. "If we did, we would end up with so much asphalt," Scfiaut~ said. "For every spot you put a parking spot, you reduce the chances of a developer making money ... You would pay more for your house." ~b ~ - ~3 Parking requirements are more than adequate, Schaub said, and developers have complained about the number of parking spots they have to provide. Congestion, Schaub said, is a sign of a successful area. Councilman Tim Sbranti, who also lives in the Cottages neighborhood, finds himself looking for parking as his wife parks her car in the garage. He said he thinks. the opening of a nearby shopping center will help alleviate some of the parking woes, giving people additional places to park overnight. But Sbranti said he will use his frustrating first-hand experiences of trying to find a spot when that issue -- and future housing developments -- are discussed and debated. "What was the ratio for this project? OK ... we need to go much higher than that," Sbranti said. "The ratio here clearly didn't work." Sophia Kazmi covers Dublin. Reach her at skazmi~bayareanewsgroup.com or 925-847-2122. ~~ ~ ~ a This page intentionally left blank ~v ~ ,~3 RESOLUTION N0.08 - 40 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR PARCEL 5 OF THE PROMENADE (VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 9717) AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PRIVATE FITNESS/RECREATION FACILITY, OUTDOOR SEATING FOR RESTAURANT USE, AND REDUCTION OF REQUIRED PARKING BASED ON A SHARED PARKING PLAN ON A 3.72-ACRE SITE WITHIN AREA G OF DUBLIN RANCH PA 08-006 WHEREAS, the Applicant, James Tong and Mei Fong Tong, has requested approval of Site Development Review to develop Parcel 5 of Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 9717, a 3.72-acre site within an area known as The Promenade, with three structures, as follows: a) ClubSport - a two-story fitness center and day spa with cafe of approximately 47,669 square feet; b) Mercantile Building - a three-story commercial building of approximately 52,716 square feet proposed for restaurant (7,190 square feet), retail, and office uses; and c) a four-level parking structure of 407 spaces; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, the requested uses are subject to approval by Conditional Use Permit(s) for the following: a) a private recreational/fitness facility, b) outdoor seating for restaurant use, and c) reduction of required parking based on a shared parking plan; and WHEREAS, the project is located within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area; and WHEREAS, a complete application was submitted and is available and on file in the Department of Community Development; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has submitted project plans and exterior elevations dated received on December 2, 2008, for Site Development Review and the requested Conditional Use Permit; and WHEREAS, on March 21, 2000, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 06-00 approving PA 98- 069 for Area G of Dublin Ranch which established Stage 1 Planned Development (PD) zoning and Stage 2 Planned Development Plan for the project site as PD Village Center/Neighborhood Commercial; and WHEREAS, the proposed project was determined to be adequately addressed by the program EIR certified by Resolution 51-93, and Addenda dated May 4, 1993 and August 22, 1994, (hereafter "Eastern Dublin EIR" or "program EIR") (SCH #91-103064) that is available for review in the City Planning Department and is incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on said application on December 9, 2008, for this project; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and ATTACHMENT 7 ~ 3 °~ ? ~'~ WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the Planning Commission approve a Site Development Review and the requested Conditional Use Permit(s) subject to the findings contained herein; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and use their independent judgment and considered all said reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Planning Commission of the City of Dublin does hereby make the following findings and determinations regarding proposed Site Development Review. Site Development Review: A. Approval of the site layout, architectural design, landscaping, and public improvements is consistent with the purpose and intent of Chapter 8.104, Site Development Review of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. B. The proposed Village Center/Neighborhood Commercial project proposed for Parcel 4, as conditioned, complies with the policies of the General Plan, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and the Planned Development Regulations for PA 98-069 and with all other requirements of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance in that it will create opportunities for the residents, and enhance the balance of jobs and housing, as well as reduce or even eliminate vehicle trips and traffic congestion due to the close proximity of residential units. C. The Site Development Review, as proposed and conditioned, 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 general welfare because it serves as the first phase of the neighborhood commercial component planned for Dublin Ranch, meets the project objectives of creating a local main street area, and implements the adopted Architectural Design Standards for the Village Center of Area G. D. The approved site development, including site layout, structures, vehicular access, circulation and parking, setbacks, height, walls, public safety and similar elements, has been designed to provide a functional and attractive environment for the development. E. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the proposed commercial development because site dimensions will accommodate the proposed structures and uses. F. The proposed project will not impact views because it conforms with the Eastern Dublin Scenic Comdor Policies and Standards. G. Architectural considerations, including the character, scale and quality of the design, the architectural relationship with the site and other buildings, building materials and colors, screening of exterior appurtenances, exterior lighting, and similar elements have been incorporated into the project, and as conditions of approval, in order to insure compatibility of this development with the development's design concept or theme and the character of adjacent buildings within and adjacent to the Village Center of Area G as a whole. 2 ~~~~~~ H. Landscape considerations, including the location, type, size, color, texture and coverage of plant materials, provisions and similar elements have been considered to ensure visual relief and an attractive environment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Planning Commission of the City of Dublin does hereby make the following findings and determinations regarding requested Conditional Use Permit: Conditional Use Permit: A. The requested Conditional Use Permit for the private fitness/recreation facility and outdoor restaurant seating is compatible with surrounding and adjacent uses in that it contributes toward creating a local main street area for the nearby residential uses developed within Dublin Ranch and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. B. The requested Conditional Use Permit for a reduction of required parking based on a shared parking plan is compatible with the surrounding and adjacent uses in that a shared parking study concluded sufficient parking would be available on site and curbside adjacent to the project to serve the uses during peak periods. C. The requested Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity or be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare because the proposed development and requested conditional uses generally conform to the Village Center of standards established for Area G of Dublin Ranch. D. The requested Conditional Use Permit will not be injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood in that it will create opportunities for the residents, and enhance the balance of jobs and housing, as well as reduce or even eliminate vehicle trips and traffic congestion due to the close proximity of residential units. E. There are adequate provisions for public access, water, sanitation and public utilities, and services to ensure that the proposed development and the requested conditional uses would not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare because existing roads and facilities will be constructed to serve this project. F. The requested conditional uses would be physically suitable for the type, density, and intensity of the uses and proposed structures because it will visually enhance the architecture, provide continuity with new and nearby commercial projects, and general quality of services and diversity of uses for nearby residential development. G. The requested Conditional Use Permit will not be contrary to the specific intent clauses, development regulations, or performance standards established for the Zoning District PA 98-069 and the adopted Architectural Design Standards. H. The requested Conditional Use Permit will be consistent with Neighborhood Commercial land use designations of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. 3 ~~~~~3 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Dublin does hereby approve Site Development Review for the three-structure project proposed for the 3.72- acre site known as Parcel 4 of The Promenade Village Center commercial project with Area G of Dublin Ranch and for the requested Conditional Use Permit for a private recreation/fitness facility, outdoor restaurant seating, and a reduction of required parking based on a shared parking plan, as shown on plans prepared by Mackay & Somps dated received December 2, 2008 subject to the conditions included below. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Unless stated otherwise all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to the issuance of building permits or establishment of use, and shall be subject to Planning Department review and approval The following codes represent those departments/agencies responsible for monitoring compliance of the conditions of approval. ~PL.I Planning_[B] Building_[PO] Police [PW] Public Works [ADMl Administration/City Attorne~jFIN] Finance [F] Alameda County Fire Department [DSRI Dublin San Ramon Services District, [CO] Alameda County Department of Environmental Health [Z71Zone 7 NO. CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN AGENCY/ REQUIRED DEPART. GENERAL CONDITIONS 1. Parcel Map 9717 Conditions of Approval. All Conditions of Pw, PL Prior to the Approval for Tentative Parcel Map 9717 are included in the issuance of Conditions of Approvals for this SDR. In the event of a conflict building between Tentative Parcel Map 9717 and these SDR Conditions of permits Approval, the Parcel Map 9717 Conditions of Approval shall prevail. The Final Map shall be recorded prior to the issuance of buildin ermits 2, Sidewalk Improvements. The Applicant/Developer shall Pw occupancy construct the sidewalk improvements along the Finnian Way, Grafton Street, and Dublin Boulevard fronta es. 3, Sidewalk Cross Slope. The sidewalks within the Sidewalk Pw Improvement Easements shall have a typica12.0% cross slope. The cross slope plans may vary to 1.5% if needed to meet accessibility requirements at occupancy the doorways. If no other practical design solutions are available the City Engineer may approve a cross slope less than 1.5% to meet accessibility requirements. However, in no condition shall the cross slo e exceed 2.0% or be less than 1.0%. see 3 4, Driveway Design: Both entrances to the parking lot shall be a Pw Improvement modified driveway type entrance with curb radius where the curb plans height varies to zero at the sidewalk, the gutter continues across occupancy the driveway, the driveway is concrete to the back of sidewalk, the sidewalk profile is maintained and the sidewalk cross slope is 2%. 5. Street Trees. The Developer shall install the street trees on the Pw Improvement frontages on both sides of Grafton Street and Finnian Way that plans are dedicated with Parcel Ma 9717. occu anc 6, Trail Improvements. If not completed by others, the Developer Pw Improvement shall landscape and construct the pathway between Finnian Way plans and Dublin Boulevard alon the eastern bounda of Parcel 4. occu anc 7. Parking Garage. The Parking garage shall meet the following Pw Improvement requirements: plans • The arkin stalls should be a minimum 9 feet wide and 20.0 occupanc ~~ ~ o~~ NO. CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN AGENCY/ REQUIRED DEPART. feet deep as shown on the SDR exhibits. All parking stalls next to walls or columns that would interfere with opening the parked car doors shall contain two additional feet width. • All parking stalls next to columns that are within two feet of the edge of the drive aisle shall contain two additional feet width. • The driveway aisle shall be a minimum 24 feet wide. • Parking stalls at 90 degrees to one another should be two feet wider. • There should be no obstruction within area 24 feet in back of a parking stall. • All parking stalls shall be delineated with a double strip per the City standard drawings. • Minor exceptions to the above dimensions as shown on the SDR exhibits are approved. g, Grading/Sitework Permit. Developer shall obtain a PW Grading Grading/Sitework Permit from the Public Works Department for permits all private grading and site improvements including those within the Sidewalk Easement and the Dublin Boulevard Right of Way. The Developer shall provide performance security to guarantee the frontage improvements within the Sidewalk Easement and the Dublin Boulevard Ri ht of Wa . g, Pedestrian Traffic During Construction. The unimproved area PW During within the Dublin Boulevard right of way behind the sidewalk construction shall be kept open at all times for pedestrian traffic during construction until the pathway between Finnian Way and Dublin Boulevard along the eastern boundary of Parcel 4 and the temporary walkway along the northern frontage of Finnian Way includin Parcel A is o en to edestrian traffic. 10. Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions. A Property Owners PW Prior to the Association shall be formed by recordation of a declaration of recordation of Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions to govern use and the final map maintenance of common areas and facilities. Said declaration shall set forth the Association name, bylaws, rules, and regulations. Tlie CC&Rs shall ensure that there are adequate provisions for the maintenance, in good repair and on a regular basis, the landscaping, drainage, lighting, signs, pavement and other improvements within the Sidewalk Easement and public right of way. The Applicant/Developer shall submit a copy of the CC&R documents to the City for review and approval pursuant this condition. 11. Storm Water Treatment Measures Maintenance Agreement. PW On-going Applicant/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. ~~ ~~~3 NO. CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN AGENCY/ REQUIRED DEPART. P~L IC WORKS STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 12. In the event that there needs to be clarification to these Conditions Pw [PL] On-going of Approval, the City Engineer or Community Development Director has the authority to clarify the intent of these Conditions of Approval to the Developer without going to a public hearing. The City Engineer or Community Development Director also has the authority to make minor modifications to these conditions without going to a public hearing in order for the Applicant/Developer to fulfill needed improvements or miti ations resultin from im acts of this ro'ect. 13. The Applicant/Developer shall defend, indemnify, and hold On-going 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 Applicant/Developer's duty to so defend, indemnify, and hold harmless shall be subject to the City's promptly notifying the Applicant/Developer of any said claim, action, or proceeding and the City's full cooperation in the defense of such actions or roceedin s. 14. Applicant/Developer shall obtain an Encroachment Permit from Pw Prior to the Public Works Department for all construction activity within working the public right-of--way of any street where the City has accepted within the the improvements. At the discretion of the City Engineer an public right of encroachment permit for work specifically included in an way Im rovement A Bement ma not be re uired. 15. All public improvements to be constructed to City standards and PW On-going the satisfaction of the Ci En ineer. 16. Applicant/Developer shall provide the Public Works Department Pw In a digital vectorized file of the "master" files for the project when conjunction the Final Map has been approved. The digital vectorized files with the shall be in AutoCAD 14 or higher drawing format. Drawing units recordation of shall be decimal with the precision of the Final Map. All objects the Final Map and entities in layers shall be colored 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. 17. Applicant/Prior to any clearing or grading, the Developer shall Pw Prior to the provide the City evidence that a Notice of Intent (NOI) has been issuance of sent to the California State Water Resources Control Board per grading the requirements of the NPDES. A copy of the Storm Water permits Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be provided to the Public Works Department and be kept at the construction site. The Developer is responsible for ensuring that all contractors implement all storm water pollution prevention measures in the SWPPP. 1 g, The Applicant/Developer will be responsible for submittals and PW Prior to the reviews to obtain the approvals of all participating non-City recordation of a encies. The Alameda Coun Fire De artment and the Dublin the final ma ~~ ~,~~ NO. CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN AGENCY/ REQUIRED DEPART. San Ramon Services District shall approve and sign the Im rovement Plans. 19. Fire/Emergency Access. The Applicant/Developer shall Pw In conjunction dedicate and improve Emergency Vehicle Access Easements with (EAVE) and provide adequate access for fire and emergency recordation of vehicles per Alameda County Fire Department (ACFD) standard the final map, requirements through the site. Driveways and drive aisles shall be or by separate designed for fire truck and other emergency vehicles to instrument and conveniently pass through (20-foot minimum lane width) the site prior to the and have access to all buildings. The Applicant/Developer shall issueance of construct adequate access for fire and other emergency vehicles Grading and per Alameda County Fire Department (ACFD) standard Building requirements. Detailed final layout and design of site entrance, Permits exits and internal drive aisles must be approved by the ACFD and the Director of Public Works prior to issuance of grading and buildin ermit. 20. Storm Drain Easement, Water Easement, Sewer Easement, PW In conjunction Common Area Easement, Ingress/Egress and Access with the Easement, Parking Easement, Emergency Vehicle Access recordation of Easement, Pedestrian Access Easement and Public Service the fmal map Easement Dedications. The Applicant/Developer shall grant or dedicate Storm Drain Easement, Water Easement, Sewer Easement, Cable TV, Telephone and Electrical Service Easements, Common Area Easement, Ingress/Egress and Access Easement, Parking Easement, Emergency Vehicle Access Easement, Pedestrian Access Easement and Public Service Easements over each parcel in favor of the other parcels located within this project and/or the appropriate public agency as deemed necessary by the Director of Public Works. The Applicant/Developer shall prepare CC&Rs to reflect these easements and the CC&Rs shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Works. 21. Public Utility Construction. ApplicantlDeveloper shall PW occupancy construct all water, reclaimed water, gas, electric, telephone, sewer, cable TV, storm drainage per requirements of the Director of Public Works and/or public utility companies as necessary to serve parcels shown on this Tentative Map and future adjacent parcels with utility services and allow for vehicular and utility service access to those utilities. Applicant/Developer shall dedicate a minimum 10-foot wide Public Service Easement (PSE) over joint utility trench lines to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and the a ro riate utili 22. Abandonment of Easements and Right of Ways. PW In conjunction Applicant/Developer or current landowner shall obtain an with the abandonment from all applicable public agencies of existing recordation of utilities, easements and ri ht-of-wa snot to be continued in use. the final ma ...TRAF FIC ~& PARKING 23, Traffic Signs & Pavement Markings. All traffic signs and PW occupancy pavement markings shall be installed as required by the City En ineer 24, Parking. Parking spaces along the public streets shall be PW occupancy indicated with "tic" marks. The pop-outs shall be adjusted so that the curb length between pop-outs contains a whole number of arkin s aces. ~~ ~, i~3 NO. CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN AGENCY/ REQUIRED DEPART. 25. Parking Restrictions: Parking along the public streets shall be Pw occupancy limited to two hours. 2C, Developer shall obtain aGrading / Sitework Permit from the Pw Grading Public Works Department for all private grading and site Permit improvements including the private sidewalks. 2'7, Fees. Applicant/Developer shall pay all applicable fees in effect at the PW Prior to time of building permit issuance, including, but not limited to, Planning issuance of fees, Building fees, Dublin San Ramon Services District Fees, Public Building Facilities Fees, Dublin Unified School District School Impact fees, Permits City Traffic Impact fees, City Fire Impact 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. Unissued building permits subsequent to new or revised fees shall be subject to recalculation and assessment of the fair share of the new or revised fees. 28, Required Permits. Applicant/Developer shall comply with the Pw Prior to City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance and obtain all necessary permits issuance of required by other agencies (Alameda County Flood Control Building District Zone 7, California Department of Fish and Game, Army Permits Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, State Water Quality Control Board, Etc.) and shall submit copies of the ermits to the De artment of Public Works. 29, Building Codes and Ordinances. All project construction shall B Through conform to all applicable building codes and ordinances in effect completion of at the time of issuance of a buildin ermit. construction 30. Requirements. The Applicant/Developer shall meet all PW Prior to requirements of the approved Tentative Parcel Map for the project recordation of prior to City Council acceptance of offers of dedication and final map recordation of the Parcel Ma . 31. Action Programs/Mitigation Measures. Applicant/Developer PL Prior to shall comply with all applicable action programs and mitigation issuance of measures of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Final improvement Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and addendum's that have plans not been made specific Conditions of Approval, which are in effect at the time of issuance of Im rovement Plans. 32, Joint Utility Trenches/Undergrounding/LTtility Plans. PW occupancy Applicant/Developer shall construct all joint utility trenches (such as electric, telephone, cable TV, and gas) in accordance with the appropriate utility jurisdiction and City of Dublin Standard Plans and Specifications unless specifically approved by the Community Development Director and Public Works Director. All communication vaults, electric transformers, and cable TV boxes shall be underground in designated landscape areas between the proposed sidewalk and back of curb. Utility plans showing the location of all proposed utilities (including electrical vaults and underground transformers) shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Works and Director of Community Development. Location of surface or aboveground items shall be shown on the Final Landscaping and Irrigation Plan, screened from view and approved by the Community Development Director. ~ ~ /~3 NO. CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN AGENCY/ REQUIRED DEPART. 33. Utility Undergrounding. All utilities shall be installed in PW occupancy accordance with the criteria established in the "Standard Public Works Criteria." All utilities within the project and to each lot shall be underground in accordance with the City policies and existing ordinances unless otherwise approved by the Community Development Director. All utilities shall be located and provided within public utility easements and sized to meet utility company standards. The existing overhead electrical line along the south and east side of the roe shall be laced under round. 34. Damage/Repairs. The Applicant/Developer shall repair all PW occupancy damaged existing streets, curbs, gutters and sidewalks as a result of construction activities to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. ,BUIL~ ING'DEPTIVIENT _ - 35. Master Sign Program. A Master Sign Program shall be B occupancy submitted to the City. The program shall include building, site and street si s. 36. Fountain/Pools/Spas. Separate building permits shall be B Building obtained for all fountains, ools and/ors as. ermits 3'7, Plans shall show locations of roof access for the equipment B Prior to the installed on the roof tops. issuance of Building ermits 3 g, Due to size of building and type of construction, yard frontages B Prior to the maybe required for the design. Plans shall indicate frontage issuance of increases proposed for review and approval by the building Building official. ermits St ncll~ _ ~ _ id~.'B~'ildiup[ ~De.'~arfiuent~Coridtioris of-A rovaE" i~~:~,,,~ =. '~ ~,~ ~.~ _:~ ,r ;~ .:r~.:,; 39. Building Codes and Ordinances. All project construction shall B Through conform to all building codes and ordinances in effect at the time completion of of buildin ermit. construction 40. Building Permits. To apply for building permits, B Prior to Applicant/Developer shall submit eight (8) sets of construction Issuance of plans to the Building Division for plan check. Each set of plans Building shall have attached an annotated copy of these Conditions of Permits 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 rior to the issuance of buildin ermits. 41. Construction Drawings. Construction plans shall be fully B Prior to dimensioned (including building elevations) accurately drawn Issuance of (depicting all existing and proposed conditions on site), and Building prepared and signed by a California licensed Architect or Permits Engineer. All structural calculations shall be prepared and signed by a California licensed Architect or Engineer. The site plan, landsca e lan and details shall be consistent with each other. 42, Addressing. Address will be required on all doors leading to the B Prior to exterior of the building. Addresses shall be illuminated and be occupancy able to be seen from the street, 5 inches in hei ht minimum. 43. Engineer Observation. The Engineer of record shall be retained B Prior to frame to provide observation services for all components of the lateral inspection and vertical desi n of the buildin , includin nailin ,hold-downs, ~/ ~ ~~3 NO. CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN AGENCY/ REQUIRED DEPART. straps, shear, roof diaphragm and structural frame of building. A written report shall be submitted to the City Inspector prior to schedulin the final frame ins ection. 44. Phased Occupancy Plan. If occupancy is requested to occur in B Prior to phases, then all physical improvements within each phase shall be Occupancy of required to be completed prior to occupancy of any buildings any affected within that phase except for items specifically excluded in an building 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 landsca in and associated im rovements. 45. Air Conditioning Units. Air conditioning units and ventilation B Prior to ducts shall be screened from public view with materials occupancy compatible to the main building. Units shall be permanently installed on concrete pads or other non-movable materials approved by the Building Official and Director of Community Develo ment. 46. Temporary Fencing. Temporary Construction fencing shall be B Through installed along perimeter of all work under construction. completion of construction 4~, Green Building Guidelines. To the extent practical the B Through applicant shall incorporate Green Building Measures. Green completion of Building plan shall be submitted to the Building Official for construction review. 48. Cool Roofs. Flat roof areas shall have their roofing material B Through coated with light colored gravel or painted with light colored or completion of reflective material desi ed for Cool Roofs. construction 49. Electronic File. The applicant/developer shall submit all B Prior to building drawings and specifications for this project in an Issuance of electronic format to the satisfaction of the Building Official prior Building to the issuance of building permits. Additionally, all revisions Permits 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 occu anc . DUBL IN SAN RAMON-SERVICES DISTRICT DSRSD 50. Prior to issuance of any building permit, complete improvement DSR Prior to plans shall be submitted to DSRSD that conform to the Issuance of requirements of the Dublin San Ramon Services District Code, Building the DSRSD "Standard Procedures, Specifications and Drawings Permits for Design and Installation of Water and Wastewater Facilities," all a licable DSRSD Master Plans and all DSRSD olicies. 51. All mains shall be sized to provide sufficient capacity to DSR occupancy io ~v ~ e ~ NO. CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN AGENCY/ REQUIRED DEPART. accommodate future flow demands in addition to each development project's demand. Layout and sizing of mains shall be in conformance with DSRSD utili master lannin . 52. Sewers shall be designed to operate by gravity flow to DSRSD's DSR occupancy existing sanitary sewer system. Pumping of sewage is discouraged and may only be allowed under extreme circumstances following a case by case review with DSRSD staff. Any pumping station will require specific review and approval by DSRSD of preliminary design reports, design criteria, and final plans and specifications. DSRSD reserves the right to require payment of present worth 20 year maintenance costs as well as other conditions within a separate agreement with the applicant for an ro'ect that re uires a um in station. 53. Domestic and fire protection waterline systems for Tracts or DSR occupancy Commercial Developments shall be designed to be looped or interconnected to avoid dead end sections in accordance with requirements of the DSRSD Standard Specifications and sound en ineerin ractice. 54. DSRSD policy requires public water and sewer lines to be located DSR occupancy in public streets rather than in off-street locations to the fullest extent possible. If unavoidable, then public sewer or water easements must be established over the alignment of each public sewer or water line in anoff-street or private street location to rovide access for future maintenance and/or re lacement. 55. Prior to approval by the City of a grading permit or a site DSR Prior to development permit, the locations and widths of all proposed Issuance of easement dedications for water and sewer lines shall be submitted grading to and a roved b DSRSD. Permits 56. All easement dedications for DSRSD facilities shall be by DSR Prior to separate instrument irrevocably offered to DSRSD or by offer of recordation of dedication on the Final Ma . Final Ma 5'7, Prior to approval by the City for Recordation, the Final Map shall DSR Prior to be submitted to and approved by DSRSD for easement locations, recordation of widths, and restrictions. Final Ma Sg, Prior to issuance by the City of any Building Permit or DSR Prior to Construction Permit by the Dublin San Ramon Services District, Issuance of whichever comes first, all utility connection fees including Building DSRSD and Zone 7, plan checking fees, inspection fees, Permits 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. 59. Prior to issuance by the City of any Building Permit or DSR Prior to Construction Permit by the Dublin San Ramon Services District, Issuance of whichever comes first, all improvement plans for DSRSD Building facilities shall be signed by the District Engineer. Each drawing Permits 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, aone-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 workin da s for final im rovement drawin ~~ ~ e-~~ NO. CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN AGENCY/ REQUIRED DEPART. review b DSRSD before si nature b the District En ineer. 60. No sewer line or waterline construction shall be permitted unless DSR Prior to the proper utility construction permit has been issued by DSRSD. Issuance of A construction permit will only be issued after all of the items in Building Condition No.59 and 60 have been satisfied. Permits 61. The Applicant/Developer shall hold DSRSD, its Board of DSR On-going 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 ro'ect. 62. Improvement plans shall include recycled water improvements as DSR Prior to required by DSRSD. Services for landscape irrigation shall issuance of connect to recycled water mains. Applicant must obtain a copy Construction of the DSRSD Recycled Water Use Guidelines and conform to permits the re uirements therein. 63. A Backflow Prevention device to prevent back-siphoning of water DSR occupancy into the potable distribution main will be required on each commercial account er the District's.s ecifications. 64. Construction by Applicant/Developer. All onsite potable and DSR occupancy recycled water and wastewater pipelines and facilities shall be constructed by the Applicant/Developer in accordance with all DSRSD master lans, standards, s ecifications and re uirements. 65. DSRSD Water Facilities. Water facilities must be connected to occupancy the DSRSD or other approved water system, and must be installed at the expense of Applicant/Developer in accordance with District Standards and Specifications. All material and workmanship for water mains and appurtenances thereto must conform with all of the requirements of the officially adopted Water Code of the District and shall be subject to field inspection by the District. Applicant/Developer shall comply with all conditions of the a roved future Parcel Ma . 66. Approval from the Calif. Dept. of Health Services (DHS) is DSR occupancy required for connection of the on-site recycled system. Applicant/Developer must submit required documentation, including Recycled Water Connection Drawings, to District to allow fora royal b DHS. 67. Available recycled water pressures must be verified by the DSR occupancy a licant. `ALg11~EDA COUNTY-FIRE DEPARTMENT` 68. The project will need to comply with the applicable Building and F Prior to the Fire Codes. Site and Building plans shall be provided for review issuance of and approval by the fire department. Building Permits 69. Fire apparatus roadways shall have a minimum unobstructed F occupancy width of 20 feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. Roadways under 36 feet wide shall be posted with signs or shall have red curbs painted with labels on one side; roadways under 28 feet wide shall be posted with signs or shall have red curbs painted with labels on both sides of the street as follows: "NO STOPPING FIRE LANE - CVC 22500.1." 70, Fire Department access on Finnian and Grafton to meet required F occupancy length; Fire apparatus roadways must extend to within 150 ft. off' the most remote arst door exterior wall of any building. (CFC 2007, Section 503.1.1 . 12 ~ ~ ~ ~~3 NO. CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN AGENCY/ REQUIRED DEPART. '71, Fire apparatus roadways in excess of 150 feet in length must F Prior to the make provisions for approved apparatus turnarounds. (CFC issuance of 2007, Sec. 503.2.5). Building Permits 72, Provide Public Safety radio repeater in parking garage. CFC 45 F occupancy & NFPA 1221 section 9.3.1.4 see 5 '73, Provide wet standpipe to all levels of garage. CFC 905.3.1 F occupancy 74, On sheet A-12 / 13, fabric canopy shall meet flame retardant F Prior to the standard. CBC 3105.4 issuance of Building Permits '75, On sheet A-19 / 20 / 25, elevator size to accommodate gurney. F Prior to the CBC 3002.4 issuance of Building Permits 76. On sheet A-22 pool equipment room and laundry to meet F Prior to the separation requirements. CFC 2703.8 issuance of Building Permits 77, On sheet A-25 storage in garage to meet separation requirements. F Prior to the CFC 2703.8 issuance of Building Permits fig, On sheet C-3 show fire line size and location for garage and F Prior to the retail. CFC 903.3.5 issuance of Building Permits 79, Remove colored circles showing radius of fire truck access & F Prior to the standpipe on sheet C-7. issuance of Building Permits 80, Relocate fire hydrant on Grafton adjacent retail -within F/d F Prior to the access path. CFC 503.2.1 issuance of Building Permits g 1, Pavers used on fire department access roads to support 40,000 F occupancy ound wei ht load. CFC 503.2.3 see 14 82, New Fire Sprinkler System & Monitoring Requirements. In F Prior to the accordance with The Dublin Fire Code, fire sprinklers shall be issuance of installed in the building. The system shall be in accordance with Building the NFPA 13, the Ca Fire Code and Ca Building Code. Plans and Permits specifications showing detailed mechanical design, cut sheets, listing sheets and hydraulic calculations shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval and permit prior to installation. This ma be a deferred submittal. 83, Sprinkler Plans. Applicant/Developer shall submit detailed F Prior to the mechanical drawings of all sprinkler modifications, including cut issuance of sheets, listing sheets and calculations to the Fire Department for Building approval and permit prior to installation. All sprinkler system Permits components shall remain in compliance with the applicable N.F.P.A. 13 Standard, the CA Fire Code and the CA Building Code. eferred Submittal Item 84, Underground Plans. Submit detailed shop drawings for the fire F Prior to the 13 FlS o11~3 U NO. CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN AGENCY/ REQUIRED DEPART. water supply system, including cut sheets, listing sheets and issuance of calculations to the Fire Department for approval and permit prior to Building installation. All underground and fire water supply system Permits components shall be in compliance with the applicable N.F.P.A. 13, 24, 20, 22 Standards, the Ca Fire Code and the CA Building Code. The system shall be hydrostatically tested and inspected prior to being covered. Prior to the system being connected to any fire protection system, a system flush shall be witnessed by the Fire De artment. eferred Submittal Item gs, Central Station Monitoring. Automatic fire extinguishing F Prior to the systems installed within buildings shall have all control valves issuance of and flow devices electrically supervised and maintained by an Building approved central alarm station. Zoning and annunciation of Permits and central station alarm signals shall be submitted to the Fire occupancy Department for approval. The central station monitoring service shall be either certificated or placarded as defined in N.F.P.A. Standard No. 72. Assure the specific account is UL Certificated or Placarded and not 'ust the monitorin station. 86. Monitoring System Plans. If it is necessary to install a fire F Prior to the alarm monitoring system or modify an existing system in order to issuance of obtain a Certificated or Placarded account, plans and Building specifications shall be submitted to the fire department for review Permits and a royal of the installation or modifications. 87. Fire sprinkler system shall have an audible alarm in each suite F occupancy served b the fires rinkler s stem. 2002 NFPA 13 section 6.9.1. gg, FD Gate Key Box /Switch (Manual Gates). Each manually F occupancy operated gate that serves as a means of fire access shall have installed a Knox Key Box accessible from the entrance side of the gate. Where the locking method of the gate is by a chain a Knox padlock shall be installed on the chain. The key box door and necessary keys are to be provided to the fire inspector upon the final inspection. The inspector will then lock the keys into the box. CFC 506 89, Automatic Gates. ,All electrically controlled gates shall be F occupancy provided with an emergency gate over-ride key switch for fire de artment access. 90. Key Box/Switch Order Information. Key boxes and switches F occupancy may be ordered directly from the Knox Company at www.lcnoxbox.com 91. Site Plan. The site plan needs to show sufficient detail to reflect F Prior to an accurate and detailed layout of the site for review and record issuance of purposes. The site plan will need a scale that will allow sufficient Building details for review purposes and include, but. not be limited to the permits and following: occupancy • The site parking and circulation layout including fences , gates, fire lane locations and turnarounds. • Location of all fire appliances including fire hydrants, fire connections, fire sprinkler risers, and fire control valves. • The location of all building openings including the exit discharge pathway for building exits. Note the location of exit lighting for these pathways as well. • The location of any overhead obstructions and their clearances. 14 ~~ ~ ~~~ NO. CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN AGENCY/ REQUIRED DEPART. • The location of property lines and assumed property lines between buildings on the same property as well as any easements. 92, The site plan also will need to note the location and distance of F Prior to fire hydrants that are along the property frontage as well as the issuance of closest hydrants to each side of the property that are located along Building the access roads that serves the property. In addition, the permits and improved face of curb to face of curb or edge of pavement width occupancy of the access road that serves the property will need to be noted. CFC A endix Cha ter 1 section 105.4 93. Deferred Submittals. Provide on the Title or Cover Sheet under Prior to the heading Deferred Submittals all of the deferred submittal Issuance of items. 2007 CFC 901.2 Building • Fire sprinkler Installation Permits • Fire monitorin s stem install 94. Fire Access. Access roads, turnarounds, pullouts, and fire F On-going operation areas are Fire Lanes and shall be maintained clear and free of obstructions, includin the arkin of vehicles. 95. Entrances. Entrances to job sites shall not be blocked, including F On-going after hours, other than by approved gates/barriers that provide for emer enc access. 96. Site Utilities. Site utilities that would require the access road to On-going be dug up or made impassible shall be installed prior to combustible construction commencin . 97, Entrance flare, angle of departure, width, turning radii, grades, F Prior to turnaround, vertical clearances, road surface, bridges/crossings, Issuance of gates/key-switch, & within required 150-ft. distance to Fire Lane Building shall be shown on final site lan. Permits 98, Personnel Access. Approved route to furthermost portion of F Prior to exterior wall. Route width, slope, surface, obstructions must be Issuance of considered. Building Permits 99. Fire access is required to be approved all-weather access. Show F Prior to on the plans the location of the all-weather access and a Issuance of description of the construction. Access road must be designed to Building su ort the im osed loads of fire a aratus. Permits 100. Gate Approvals. Fencing and gates that cross pedestrian access F Prior to and exit paths as well as vehicle entrance and exit roads need to Issuance of be approved for fire department access and egress as well as Building exiting provisions where such is applicable. Plans need to be Permits 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 rovided as necess .CFC 501.3 101. Addressing. Addressing shall be illuminated or in an illuminated F Prior to area. The address characters shall be contrasting to their Issuance of background. If address is placed on glass, the numbers shall be on Building the exterior of the glass and a contrasting background placed Permits and behind the numbers. CFC 505 occu anc 102. Building Address. The building shall be provided with all F Prior to addresses or the assigned address range so as to be clearly visible Issuance of from either direction of travel on the street the address references. Building The address characters shall not be less than 5 inches in height by Permits and 1-inch stroke. Larger sizes may be necessary depending on the occupancy setbacks and visibili . DMC 7.08.040 15 g~ ~ ~-~ NO. CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN AGENCY/ REQUIRED DEPART. 103. Multi-Tenants. Where a building has multiple tenants, address F Prior to shall also be provided near the main entrance door of each tenant Issuance of space. The address shall be high enough on the building to be Building clearly visible from the driveway, street or parking area it faces Permits and even when vehicles are parked in front of the tenant space. The occupancy address shall not be less than 5-inches in height with a %2-inch stroke. DMC 7.08.040 104. Rear Doors. The address shall also be provided on any rear F Prior to doors to the tenant space with minimum 5-inch high characters. Issuance of DMC 7.08.040 2007 CFC 408.11.2 Building Permits and occu anc 105. Entrance Posting. Where the addressing on the building will not F Prior to be clearly visible from either direction of travel along the access Issuance of road the address references. Address posting shall also be Building provided at the entrance to the property. The address size shall be Permits and 5-inches high and should be on a reflective background. DMC occupancy 7.08.040 106. Multiple Buildings. Where multiple buildings exist on the same F Prior to site, all buildings shall be distinctly identified and posted with Issuance of minimum 5-inch high letters so as to be visible from the main Building driveways. DMC 7.08.040 Permits and occu anc NO. CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN AGENCY/ REQUIRED DEPART. (TE .RAi, SITE D VFi;OPM NT RFVTF'Vy CONDTI'IONS 107. Permit Expiration. Construction or use shall commence within PL Ongoing one (1) year of Site development Review (SDR) approval, or the SDR shall lapse and become null and void. Commencement of construction or use means the actual construction or use pursuant to the permit approval, or, demonstrating substantial progress toward commencing such construction or use. If there is a dispute as to whether the SDR has expired, the City may hold a noticed public hearing to determine the matter. Such a determination may be processed concurrently with revocation proceedings in appropriate circumstances. If a Permit expires, a new application must be made and processed according to the requirements of this Ordinance. 108. Time Extension. The original approving decision-maker may, PL ongoing upon the Applicant's written request for an extension of SDR approval prior to expiration, and upon the determination that any Conditions of Approval remain adequate to assure that applicable findings of approval will continue to be met, grant a time extension of approval for a period not to exceed 6 months. All time extension requests shall be noticed and a public hearing or ublic meetin shall be held as re uired b the articular Permit. 109. Revocation of permit. The permit shall be revocable for cause in PL ongoing accordance with Chapter 8.96 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Any violation of the terms or conditions of this permit shall be sub'ect to citation. 110. Clean up. The Applicant/Developer shall be responsible for PL Ongoing clean u and dis osal of ro'ect related trash and for maintainin 16 ~~ ~ ~~~ NO. CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN AGENCY/ REQUIRED DEPART. a clean, litter-free site. 111. Controlling Activities. The Applicant /Developer shall control PO, PL Ongoing all activities on the project site so as not to create a nuisance to the surroundin businesses and residences. 112. Noise/Nuisances. No loudspeakers or amplified music shall be PO, PL Ongoing ermitted to ro'ect or be laced outside of the buildin . 113. Accessory Structures. The use of any accessory structures, such PL, B, F Ongoing as storage sheds or trailer/container units used for storage or for any other purpose, shall not be allowed on the site at any time unless a Tem or Use Permit is a lied for and a roved. 114. Requirements and Standard Conditions. The various Prior to Applicant/Developer shall comply with applicable Alameda issuance of County Fire, Dublin Public Works Department, Dublin Building suilding Department, Dublin Police Services, Alameda County Flood Permits 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 a licable conditions re uired have been or will be met. 115. Fire Codes and Ordinances. All project construction shall B Through conform to all fire codes and ordinances in effect at the time of completion buildin ermits. 116. Traffic Control. During all phases of construction, two-way B, PL Prior to traffic is to be maintained along the abutting roads. Any proposed issuance of detouring or temporary signage and lane delineation along these Building roadways shall be approved in advance by the Director of Public Permits Works. 117. Occupancy Permit Requirements. Prior to issuance of an PW Prior to Occupancy Permit, the physical condition of the project site shall issuance of meet minimum health and safety standards and City requirements Occupancy including, but not limited to the following: a. The streets and walkways providing access to each building shall be complete, as determined by the City Engineer/Public Works Director, to allow for safe, unobstructed pedestrian and vehicle access to and from the site. b. All traffic control devices on streets providing access to the site shall be in place and fully functional. c. All street name signs and address numbers for streets providing access to the buildings shall be in place and visible. d. Lighting for the streets and site shall be adequate for safety and security. All streetlights on streets providing access to the buildings shall be energized and functioning. Exterior lighting shall be provided for building entrances/exits and pedestrian walkways. Security lighting shall be provided as required by Dublin Police. e. All construction equipment, materials, or on-going work shall be separated from the public by use of fencing, barricades, caution ribbon, or other means a roved b the Ci i~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ NO. CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN AGENCY/ REQUIRED DEPART. Engineer/Public Works Director. f. All fire hydrants shall be operable and easily accessible to City and ACFD personnel. g. All site features designed to serve the disabled (i.e. H/C parking stalls, accessible walkways, signage) shall be installed and fully functional. h. As-Built or Record Drawings printed on mylar of all site improvements shall be submitted to the Public Works Department. i. A Declaration or Report from the Geotechnical Engineer of Record confirming that all grading work associated with the project had been performed in accordance with the Engineer's recommendations. 118. Utility Siting Plan. The Applicant/Developer shall provide a PW, PL Prior to final Utility Siting Plan showing that transformers and service issuance of boxes are placed outside of public view where possible and/or Grading screened to the satisfaction of the Community Development Permits Director and Public Works Director. Applicant/Developer shall place all utility infrastructure underground including electric, telecommunications, cable TV, and gas in accordance with standards enforced by the appropriate utility agency. Utility plans showing the location of all proposed utilities shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer/Public Works Director prior to installation. 119. Public Art. The Applicant/Developer has elected to and shall Prior to the acquire and install a public art project in accordance with Chapter issuance of 8.58 of the Dublin Municipal Code and shall comply with the Building Public Art Compliance Report submitted by ApplicantJDeveloper, Permits dated December 2, 2008, and on file with the Planning Department. The value of the public art project is required to equal or exceed 0.5% of the building valuation (exclusive of land) for the project. The Building Official has determined that the total building valuation of the project (exclusive of land) is $25,888,120.00. Therefore, Applicant/Developer is required to acquire and install a public art project valued at a minimum amount of $129,440.60. The potential locations of the public art on the project site is shown on the Project Plans. Prior to first occupancy ApplicantlDeveloper shall (a) secure completion of the public art project, in a manner deemed satisfactory to the City Manager; and (b) execute an agreement between the City and Applicant/Developer that sets forth the ownership, maintenance responsibilities, and insurance coverage for the public art project. The public art project is subject to the approval of the City Council upon recommendation by the Heritage and Cultural Arts Commission. 120. Public Art Easement and Access Easement. Prior to the The Applicant/Developer shall reserve a site and provide a public issuance of art easement and an access easement to the City within the Building permits tg 9 a ~ i73 NO. CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN ' AGENCY/ REQUIRED DEPART. development project for a future public art project in accordance with Dublin Munici al Code Section 8.58.050. 121. Allowable Restaurant Square Footage: Cafe and Ourdoor P On-going eating and drinking area for the Club Sport Building is restricted to 2,644 square feet. Restaurant use in the Mercantile Building is restricted to 7,190 s uare feet. 122, Prevailing Wages. All public improvements constructed by Pw On-going 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 followin 123. Grading/Sitework Permit and Security. Pursuant to §7.16.620 Pw Prior to of the Municipal Code, the Applicant shall obtain a issuance of Grading/Sitework Permit from the Public Works Department that Grading/ governs the installation of required site improvements. Said Sitework permit will be based on the final set of improvement plans to be Permit approved once all 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. As a condition of issuance of said permit, Improvement Security shall be posted to guarantee the faithful performance of the permitted work. Such security shall be in the form of cash, a certified or cashier's check, a letter of credit, or a permit bond executed by the applicant and a corporate surety authorized to do business in California. The amount of the security will be based on the estimated cost of the site work (excluding the building). The applicant shall provide an estimate of these costs for Ci review with the first lan submittal. 124. Improvement Plans. The Applicant /Developer's Engineer shall PW Prior to prepare final improvement plans for review and approval by the Issuance of Director of Public Works. Said Improvement plans shall be based Grading on the Site Plan and other preliminary plans in the applicant's Permits approved package dated received December 2, 2008, and include, but are not limited to, plan and profile, storm drainage, utility, striping, new pavement sections per the approved project soils report, and details for the project to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. The Applicant/Developer's Engineer shall obtain the City of Dublin's On-Site Check List from the Public Works Department and shall address any and all items applicable to the project. Said Check List shall be part of these conditions of a royal. 125. Emergency Vehicle Access Easement Dedications. PW, F In conjunction Applicant/Developer shall dedicate all needed emergency vehicle with the final access easements from each adjacent public street to all fire access map or by roads surrounding the site and buildings as defined by Alameda separate County Fire Department and to the satisfaction of the Director of instrument Public Works. prior to occu anc 19 ~~ ~~~~ NO. CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN AGENCY/ REQUIRED DEPART. ACCESS AND CIRCULATION 126. Traffic Visibility/Line of Sight. All entrances and exits to the P Prior to site shall have a clear line of sight for cross traffic. Median island issuance of signage, on-site monument signage, electrical transformer boxes, Building trash enclosures, and landscaping shall not be situated as to Permits obstruct vehicular and pedestrian safety and visibility. The Director of Public Works and City of Dublin Traffic Engineer shall identify obstructions to on-site and off-site traffic visibility and may require relocation or redesign to remove such obstructions. GBAIJ ING' AND D ATNA TF 127, Overland Storm Drain Flow. To accommodate potential PW Prior to overland flow, the parking lot grading and on-site storm drain issuance of system shall be designed to convey storm water overland to the Grading/Site public street right-of--way without inundating the buildings in the work Permit event the i e network becomes lu ed. 128. Erosion Control during Construction. Applicant/Developer Pw Prior to shall include an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan with the issuance of Grading and Improvement plans for review and approval by the Grading/Site City Engineer/Public Works Director. Said plan shall be work Permit designed, implemented, and continually maintained pursuant to the City's NPDES permit between October 1St and April 15th or beyond these dates if dictated by rainy weather, or as otherwise directed b the Ci En ineer/Public Works Director. 129. Storm Water Treatment Measures Maintenance Agreement. PW Prior to Applicant/Developer shall enter into an agreement with the City issuance of of Dublin that guarantees the property owner's perpetual Occupancy maintenance obligation for all storm water treatment measures Permit 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 reissuance 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 ro erl o erated and maintained. 130. Construction Noise Management Program/Construction PW, PL On-going Impact Reduction Plan. Applicant/Developer shall conform to the following Construction Noise Management Program/Construction Impact Reduction Plan. The following measures shall be taken to reduce construction impacts: 1. Off-site truck traffic shall be routed as directly as practical. An Oversized Load Permit shall be obtained from the City prior to hauling of any oversized loads on City streets. Truck traffic shall be restricted to outside the peak traffic hours. 2. The construction site shall be watered at regular intervals during all grading activities. The frequency of watering should increase if wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour. Watering should include all excavated and graded areas and material to be transported off-site. Construction equipment shall use recycled or other non-potable water resources where feasible. 3. Construction e ui ment shall not be left idlin while not 20 ~/2 ~!? NO. CONDITION TEXT RESPON. AGENCY/ DEPART. WHEN REQUIRED in use. 4. Construction equipment shall be fitted with noise muffling devices. 5. Mud and dust carried onto street surfaces by construction vehicles shall be cleaned-up on a daily basis. 6. Excavation haul trucks shall use tarpaulins or other effective covers. 7. Upon completion of construction, measures shall be taken to reduce wind erosion. Replanting and repaving should be completed as soon as possible. 8. After grading is completed, fugitive dust on exposed soil surfaces shall be controlled using the following methods: a. Inactive portions of the construction site shall be seeded and watered until grass growth is evident. b. .All portions of the site shall be sufficiently watered to prevent dust. c. On-site vehicle speed shall be limited to 15 mph. d. Use of petroleum-based palliatives shall meet the road oil requirements of the Air Quality District. Non-petroleum based tackifiers may be required by the City Engineer/Public Works Director. 9. The Department of Public Works shall handle all dust complaints. The City Engineer/Public Works Director may require the services of an air quality consultant to advise the City on the severity of the dust problem and additional ways to mitigate impact on residents, including temporarily halting project construction. Dust concerns in adjoining communities as well as the City of Dublin shall be addressed. Control measures shall be related to wind conditions. Air quality monitoring of PM levels shall be provided as required by the City Engineer/Public Works Director. 10. Construction interference with regional non-project traffic shall be minimized by: a. Scheduling receipt of construction materials to non-peak travel periods. b. Routing construction traffic through areas of least impact sensitivity. c. Routing construction traffic to minimize construction interference with regional non-project traffic movement. d. Limiting lane closures and detours to off-peak travel periods. e. Providing ride-share incentives for contractor and subcontractor personnel. 11. Emissions control of on-site equipment shall be minimized throu h a routine mandato ro ram of low- 2l 93 ~ r~3 NO. CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN AGENCY/ REQUIRED DEPART. emissions tune-ups. 131. Zone 7. The Applicant/Developer shall comply with all Alameda Pw, zone7 Prior to County Flood Control and Water Conservation District -Zone 7 approval of Flood Control requirements and applicable drainage fees. Improvement Plans SECU RITY AND POT,ICE 132. Non-Residential Security Requirements. The PO, B Ongoing Applicant/Developer shall comply with all applicable City of Dublin Non-Residential Securi Ordinance re uirements. 133. Security During Construction. PO, B, PW During a. Fencing -The perimeter of the construction site shall be construction fenced and locked at all times when workers are not present. All 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 Public Works Director. b. Address Sign - A temporary address sign of sufficient size and color contrast to be seen during night time hours with existing street lighting is to be posted on the Dublin Boulevard perimeter. c. Emergency Contact -Prior to any phase of construction, Applicant/Developer will file with the Dublin Police Department an Emergency Contact Business Card that will provide 24-hour phone contact numbers of persons responsible for the construction site. d. Materials & Tools -Good security practices shall be followed with respect to storage of building materials and tools at the construction site. e. Security lighting and patrols shall be employed as necess 134. Lighting Plan. The Applicant shall submit a final lighting plan PO Prior to for approval by the Dublin Police. At a minimum the plan should Occupancy 1nClude: and On-going • .50 foot-candle lighting levels at all doors • 1.0 foot-candle lighting at ground level in parking lot areas • The lighting plan shall provide a photometric read-out with foot-candles plotted on the site. • Li htin fixtures shall be of a vandal resistant e. 135. Exterior Landscaping. Exterior landscaping shall be kept at a PO Prior to minimal height and fullness giving patrol officers and general Occupancy ublic surveillance ca abilities of the area. and ongoing 136. Seat Walls. Seat wall areas shall be designed to minimize the PO Prior to potential for vandalism by skateboarders and others. Occupancy and On oin 137. Graffiti. The Applicant/Developer shall keep the site clear of Po, PL Ongoing graffiti on a regular and continuous basis and at all times. Graffiti resistant materials should be used. zz ~y ~ ,-~ NO. CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN AGENCY/ REQUIRED DEPART. :..,FIRE ISSUES 13 8. Fire Hydrants. DSRSD standard steamer type (1-4 1 /2" and 1-2 F Prior to 1/2" outlet) fire hydrant(s) are required. (CFC 2001, Section Occupancy 903.4.2 and Ongoing 139. Identification of Hydrant Locations. Identify the fire hydrant F Prior to locations by installing reflective "blue dot" markers adjacent to the Occupancy hydrant, 6-inches off center from the middle of the street. (CFC and Ongoing 2001, Section 901.4.3 140. Inspection of Roadways & Fire Hydrants. Prior to the F Prior to Commencement of storage or framing, contact the City of Dublin, commencement Fire Prevention Division, and the Public Works Department to of storage or schedule an inspection of roadways and fire hydrants. (CFC 2001 framing Section 8704.2 & 8704.3 141. Monitoring of Sprinkler Systems. Sprinkler systems serving F Prior to more than 100 heads shall be monitored by an approved central Occupancy station, U.L. listed for fire alarm monitoring. The account shall be and Ongoing certificated. A copy of the U.L. listing and certificate must be provided to the Alameda County Fire Department, City of Dublin, Fire Prevention Division, prior to scheduling the final test system. CFC 2001, Section 1003.3 as amended 142. Fire Extinguisher. Provide at least one 2A l OBC portable fire F Prior to extinguisher for each 3,000 sq. ft. of floor area. Travel distance to Occupancy an extinguisher shall not exceed 75-feet of travel distance and shall and Ongoing not be between floors. CFC 2001, Section 1002.1 143. Fire Flow. Applicant/Developer shall submit to the Alameda F Prior to County Fire Department a letter from the Dublin San Ramon occupancy Services District a letter stating the available fire flow at the project and Ongoing site. DEBR IS/DUST/CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY 144. Construction Hours. Standard construction and grading hours PW on-going shall be limited to weekdays (Monday through Friday) and non- City holidays between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. The Applicant/Developer may request reasonable modifications to such determined days and hours, taking into account the seasons, impacts on neighboring properties, and other appropriate factors, by submitting a request form to the City Engineer/Public Works Director. For work on Saturdays, said request shall be submitted no later than 5:00 p.m. the prior Wednesday. Overtime inspection rates will a 1 for all after-hours, Saturda ,and/or holida work. 145. Construction Trash/Debris. Measures shall be taken to contain PW, B, PL Prior to all construction related trash, debris, and materials on-site until Construction disposal of-site can be arranged. The Applicant/Developer shall keep the adjoining public streets and properties free and clean of project dirt, mud, and materials during the construction period. The Developer shall be responsible for corrective measures at no ex ense to the Ci of Dublin. 146. Construction Fencing. The use of any temporary construction PL, PW, B Prior to fencing shall be subject to the review and approval of the Public issuance of Works Director and the Building Official. Building Permits LANDSCAPING 147. Final Landscape and Irrigation Plan. A Final Landscape and PI. Prior to Irrigation Plan prepared and stamped by a State licensed issuance of landsca e architect or re istered en ineer, alon with a cost Building 23 ~~~ ~~~~ NO. CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN AGENCY/ REQUIRED DEPART. estimate of the work and materials proposed, shall be submitted Permits for review and approval by the Community Development Director. Landscape and irrigation plans shall provide for a rec cled waters stem. 148. Sidewalk/Walkways. Sidewalks shall be constructed in PL occupancy accordance with streetsca e lans. 149. Completion of Landscaping (see Phased Occupancy Plan). B Occupancy 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 completion bond for the value of the deferred landsca in and associated im rovements. 150. Standard Plant Material, Irrigation and Maintenance PW Prior to Agreement. The Applicant/Developer shall complete and submit issuance of to the Dublin Planning Department the Standard Plant Material, Building Irri ation and Maintenance A Bement. Permits 151. Landscape Borders. All landscaped areas shall be bordered by a PL Ongoing concrete curb that is at least 6 inches high and 6 inches wide. Curbs adjacent to parking spaces must be 12 inches wide. All landscaped areas shall be a minimum of 6 feet in width (curb to curb) unless modified in this application. Concrete mow strips at least 6 inches deep and 4 inches wide shall be required to separate turf areas from shrub areas. 152. Maintenance of Landscape. All landscape areas on the site PL, PW On-going shall be enhanced and properly maintained at all times. Any proposed or modified landscaping to the site, including the removal or replacement of trees, shall require prior review and written a royal from the Communi Develo ment Director. 153. Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance. The PL, PW Completion of Applicant/Developer shall submit written documentation to the Improvements Public Works Department (in the form of a Landscape Documentation Package and other required documents) that the development conforms to the City's Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance. 154. Landscaping and Street Trees. The Applicant/Developer shall PL, PW Issuance of construct all landscaping within the site, along the project Occupancy frontage from the face of curb to the site right-of--way, and all Permits street trees proposed within the public service easements, to the design and specifications of the City of Dublin, and to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and Director of Community Development. Street tree varieties of a minimum 24"-box size shall be planted along all street frontages and shall be shown on the Landscaping plans. Exact tree locations and varieties shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Works. The proposed variety of trees to be planted adjacent to sidewalks or curbs shall be submitted for review to and approval by the Director of Public Works. Root shields shall be required unless otherwise determined by the Director of Public Works and the Director of Communi Develo ment. 155. Retaining Walls. Should there be any locations where the PL Prior to finished grade of this site is in excess of twenty-four (24) inches issuance of higher or lower than the abutting property or adjacent lots within Building the project, a concrete or masonry block retaining wall or other Permits suitable solution acceptable to the Director of Public Works shall be required and shall be measured from the top of grade on the hi her side of the retainin wall or slo e. Landsca in shall be 24 NO. CONDITION TEXT RESPON. AGENCY/ DEPART. WHEN REQUIRED installed around all retaining walls in order to soften grade transitions to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and the Director of Communi Develo ment. 156. Bicycle Racks. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the P Prior to the ApplicanttDeveloper shall work with Staff to provide additional issuance of bicycle racks at the entrance to the Club Sport Facility. The building additional bicycle racks shall be unobtrusive and out of the path permits of travel. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of December 2008. AYES: Schaub, Wehrenberg, Biddle, King NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: c [G~%%i 0~-----____ Planning Commissioner Chair ATTEST: Community Development Director G: IPA#120081PA 08-006 Club Sport PromenadelPlanning Commission 12.9.081PCReso-SDR&CUP COAs Boxes(use this one).doc 25