HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.3 Zoning Ord Amendmentsor
19 82
/ii � 111
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
December 3, 2013
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
Joni Pattillo City Manager""'
CITY CLERK
File #450 -20
SUBJECT: Zoning Ordinance Amendments to Chapter 8.08 (Definitions), Chapter 8.36
(Development Regulations) and Chapter 8.76 (Off- Street Parking and Loading
Regulations) (PLPA- 2012 - 00028)
Prepared by Mamie R. Delgado, Senior Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City is initiating amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to bring greater clarity and
consistency to existing regulations. Amendments are proposed to: 1) Chapter 8.08 (Definitions)
to add a new definition for Accessory Storage — Multi - Family; 2) Chapter 8.36 (Development
Regulations) to create a minimum requirement for accessory storage in the R -2 (Two - Family),
R -M (Multi - Family) and comparable PD (Planned Development) Zoning Districts and the
Downtown Dublin Zoning District; and 3) Chapter 8.76 (Off- Street Parking and Loading
Regulations) to establish a consistent guest parking standard for apartments and condominiums
and limit the use of tandem parking for residential uses. The City Council will consider
introducing an Ordinance to amend these Chapters of the Zoning Ordinance.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
1101
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council conduct the public hearing, deliberate, waive the
reading and INTRODUCE an Ordinance approving amendments to Dublin Zoning Ordinance
Chapters 8.08 (Definitions), 8.36 (Development Regulations) and Chapter 8.76 (Off- Street
Parking and Loading Regulations).
Submitted By
Director of Community Development
Reviewed By
Assistant City Manager
Page 1 of 8 ITEM NO. 6.3
DESCRIPTION:
Background
At the February 7, 2012 City Council meeting, Staff presented an informational report on the
status of parking in Area G of Dublin Ranch (Attachment 1). The City Council received the
report and, among other things, directed Staff to prepare Zoning Ordinance Amendments to: 1)
establish consistency between the parking standards for apartments and condominiums; 2)
require a minimum amount of personal storage for attached residential units; and 3) eliminate
the use of tandem parking to meet minimum parking requirements in residential projects.
On July 10, 2012, Staff presented proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments to the Planning
Commission (Attachment 2). During the public hearing, the Planning Commission received input
from a local developer who expressed concerns regarding the proposed multi - family accessory
storage requirement (Attachment 3). The Planning Commission weighed the developer's
concerns and recommended City Council approval of the Amendments with modifications.
Following the Planning Commission meeting, two additional local developers expressed
concerns over the increased guest parking requirements for condominiums and the inability to
use tandem parking as required parking (Attachment 4). One of the concerns expressed was
that the proposed changes to the parking ordinance would limit the developers' ability to
construct for -sale residential projects on in -fill sites as well as limit their ability to achieve
residential densities greater than 15 -18 dwelling units per acre on in -fill sites. As a result, fewer
units would be constructed, thereby lowering land values and limiting opportunities for first -time
homebuyers.
Another concern expressed was that the increase in required parking is contrary to Senate Bill
375 and parking trends in surrounding jurisdictions. The City of Livermore was cited as requiring
1 guest parking space for every 4 units in contrast to Dublin's proposed 1 guest parking space
per unit. The developers also expressed concerns over eliminating tandem parking especially
for smaller, 1- bedroom units. They believe that maintaining flexibility with the use of tandem
parking on in -fill sites could produce affordable by- design for -sale housing for first -time
homebuyers. Ultimately, the developers foresee the changes to the parking regulations as
inhibiting the development of for -sale housing on in -fill sites and facilitating the development of
higher density rental housing. As a result, these developers felt that the proposed changes to
the parking regulations would result in unintended consequences that should be further
evaluated.
On November 20, 2012, the City entered into a Consulting Services Agreement with Economic
& Planning Systems to assist Staff in preparing an economic impact analysis of the proposed
Zoning Ordinance Amendments. The findings of the economic impact analysis were presented
to the City Council on September 3, 2013 (Attachments 5 and 6). The City Council directed Staff
to prepare Zoning Ordinance Amendments to: 1) establish consistency between the guest
parking standards for apartments and condominiums by requiring 1 guest parking space per unit
for condominium projects; 2) require a minimum of 200 cubic feet of personal storage for
attached residential units with private, enclosed garages; and 3) restrict the use of tandem
parking to meet minimum parking requirements except in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan
area.
On November 12, 2013, the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments were presented to the
Planning Commission. The Planning Commission held a public hearing and after deliberating
Page 2 of 8
adopted Resolution 13 -41 recommending City Council approval of the proposed Amendments
(Attachments 7 and 8). Each of the proposed amendments are described in further detail below
and can be found in Attachment 9.
ANALYSIS:
Apartment and Condominium Parking Standards
Chapter 8.76 (Off- Street Parking and Loading Regulations) sets forth the minimum parking
requirements by Use Type. Apartments and Condominiums currently have the following parking
requirements:
Table 1. Section 8.76.080.8 (Residential Use Tvpes)
RESIDENTIAL USE TYPES
NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES REQUIRED
Residences
Apartments
Studio
1 covered or garaged per dwelling plus 1 parking space for
unreserved and guest parking.
1 Bedroom
1 covered or garaged per dwelling plus 1 parking space for
unreserved and guest parking.
2+ Bedrooms
1 covered or garaged per dwelling plus 1 parking space for
unreserved and guest parking.
Condominiums
Studio
1 covered or garaged per dwelling plus guest parking (see
below)
1 Bedroom
1 covered or garaged per dwelling plus guest parking (see
below)
2+ Bedrooms
2 covered or garaged per dwelling plus guest parking (see
below)
Guest Parking
Projects with 10 or more dwellings shall provide one
additional guest parking space for every 2 dwelling units
which shall be marked as a guest parking space.
The guest parking requirement for apartments is one parking space per unit; for condominiums,
the guest parking requirement is one parking space for every two units resulting in less guest
parking for condominiums than for apartments.
The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment combines the parking requirement for studio and
1 bedroom units into one category since the number of parking spaces required is the same for
both. The proposed Amendment also creates a consistent guest parking requirement among
both apartments and condominiums as follows (with the deleted text shown in strikethrou h and
the new text shown in underline):
Page 3 of 8
Table 2. Proposed Amendment to Section 8.76.080.13 (Residential Use Tvoes)
RESIDENTIAL USE TYPES
NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES REQUIRED
Condominiums
Studio and 1 Bedroom
1 covered or garaged
per dwelling plus 1 quest
parking
space per dwelling which shall be marked as a
parking space
quest
2 or more Bedrooms
2 covered or garaged
per dwelling plus 1 quest
parking
space per dwelling which shall be marked as a
parking space
quest
Studio
1 GOvered or
per dwelling
garaged plus guest parking
(coo
1 Bedroom
- rvccrr-vvrrt
1 no�rered or
dwelling narking
garaged per plus guest
(coo
2+ Bedrooms
2 novered or
dwelling narking
garaged per plus guest
(coo
Guest Parking
10 or
DrejeGtS
more dwellings shall
one
with
provide
additional narking mane for every 2 dwelling
guest
narking cn�ne
shall he marked as a
unitc
which
guest
Personal Storage for Attached Residential Units
While some existing multi - family residential developments include personal storage areas for
residents (commonly provided in closets on patios and balconies), the Dublin Zoning Ordinance
does not require that personal storage areas be provided thus leaving it to the discretion of the
developer whether to include this amenity in a multi - family project.
A survey of the surrounding Tri- Valley cities (Livermore, Pleasanton or San Ramon) revealed
that none currently have an accessory storage requirement for multi - family residential; however,
a number of cities throughout California do have such a requirement. Table 1 below
summarizes a survey of cities that was conducted through the League of California Cities
Housing, Community and Economic Development (HCED) Listserv:
Page 4 of 8
Table 3. Multi - Family Accessory Storaae Reauirements Survev
CITY
STANDARD
SQUARE FEET
(Surface Area)
CUBIC FEET
(Volume)
Sierra Madre
150 square feet/unit
30 -inch min. dimension
Lemoore
32 square feet/unit
Livingston
30 square feet/unit
Paso Robles
250 cubic feet/unit
Dana Point
250 cubic feet/unit
Lawndale
200 cubic feet/unit
San Dimas
150 cubic feet/unit
Fontana
125 cubic feet/unit
San Gabriel
90 cubic feet/unit
Glendale
90 cubic feet/unit (new construction)
60 cubic feet/unit (condo conversion
3 -foot min. dimension
24 square feet min. surface area
At the July 10, 2012 Planning Commission meeting, Staff proposed that 90 cubic feet of
personal storage be required per unit for all new multi - family developments in the R -2 (Two
Family Residential) and R -M (Multi - Family Residential) Zoning Districts and comparable PD
(Planned Development) Zoning Districts. 90 cubic feet consists of a space that is 3'x5'x6' (in any
configuration of length, width and height).
Staff recommends the use of a cubic foot measurement instead of a square foot measurement
to ensure that a reasonable amount of accessory storage space can be provided without
creating the potential for the space to be legally converted to a habitable room such as an office
or bedroom. The minimum size for a habitable room is 70 square feet with a minimum width of
7 -feet and a minimum height of 7 -feet, 6- inches (which amounts to 525 cubic feet).
The Planning Commission recommended that a minimum of 200 cubic feet of storage be
required and that the requirement be limited to those projects that provide private, enclosed
garages for individual units. 200 cubic feet consists of a space that is 5'x5'x8' (in any
configuration of length, width and height). Staff has incorporated the Planning Commission's
recommendation into the draft Ordinance (Attachment 9). Chapter 8.36 (Development
Regulations) is proposed to be amended as follows (with the deleted text shown in strikethro uivh
and the new text shown in underline):
Page 5 of 8
Table 4. Proposed Amendments to Section 8.36.020 (Agricultural and Residential
Development Requlations)
STANDARD
A
R -1
R -2
R -M
DISTANCE B ETWEEN
RESIDENCES
100 feet
10 feet
20 feet
20 feet
MAXIMUM LOT
COVERAGE
NA
40% 1 story,
35% 2 stories
40% 1 story,
35% 2 stories
40% 1 story,
35% 2 stories
COMMON USEABLE
OUTDOOR SPACE
NA
NA
NA
30 % of net site area
ACCESSORY STORAGE-
NA
NA
200 cubic feet
minimum per unit
200 cubic feet
minimum per unit
MULTI - FAMILY (1)
HEIGHT LIMITS
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(1) Multi- family accessory storage shall be provided for each unit in a multi - family project that has a private, enclosed garage attached or
assigned to the unit. In addition to the R -2 and R -M Zoning Districts, multi - family accessory storage shall also be provided in comparable
PD (Planned Development) Zonina Districts and the Downtown Dublin Zonina District. See also Chapter 8.08 (Definitions).
West of Dougherty Road 25 feet and 2 stories; may be increased to 35 feet and 2 stories pursuant to a Site Development Review
approval by the Zoning Administrator. East of Dougherty Road; 35 feet and 2 stories.
35 feet if 4 or fewer du.; 45 feet if 5 or more du.; 75 feet if 5 or more du. and lot coverage does not exceed 35 %.
In addition to adding a minimum requirement for accessory storage in the R -2, R -M and
comparable PD Zoning Districts and the Downtown Dublin Zoning District, a new definition for
Accessory Storage — Multi - Family is proposed to be added to Chapter 8.08 (Definitions) as
follows-
Accessory Storage — Multi - Family Residential. The term Accessory Storage —
Multi- Family Residential shall mean a dedicated, enclosed and securable space
located within an individual dwelling unit, an attached or detached individual
garage, or another dedicated space approved by the Community Development
Director, in which occupant(s) of the dwelling unit can store their personal effects.
Accessory Storage — Multi - Family Residential spaces shall not include bedroom
closets, linen closets, pantries or any other areas customarily provided to meet
the day to day functions of the dwelling unit. Accessory Storage - Multi - Family
Residential spaces may be used to satisfy required bicycle storage space.
Tandem Parking
The Zoning Ordinance currently allows for the use of tandem parking within single - family
dwelling unit attached garages. The Tandem Parking regulation (Section 8.76.0601) reads as
follows-
L. Tandem Parking. The Zoning Administrator may approve an off - street
parking program by means of a Conditional Use Permit utilizing limited
tandem (front to back) parking for commercial and industrial uses under
unusual design constraints provided that the development requires 20 or
more parking spaces. Tandem parking is permitted within single - family
dwelling unit attached garages. This may be accomplished by the use of
tandem, wedge or other techniques approved by the Zoning Administrator.
The Zoning Administrator may require that an attendant be on duty during
normal business hours.
Page 6 of 8
The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments would more clearly distinguish between the use
of tandem parking for commercial /industrial uses and the use of tandem parking for residential
uses. The Amendment would further prohibit the use of tandem parking to satisfy required
parking in residential projects except within the Downtown Dublin Zoning District where up to
25% of the required parking (excluding guest parking) in a multi - family project could be tandem
parking with approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission. In order to
approve a Conditional Use Permit, the standard Conditional Use Permit findings and three
additional findings would need to be made. The proposed Amendments would read as follows
(with the deleted text shown in strikethro u ivh and the new text shown in underline):
L. Tandem Parking.
1. Commercial and Industrial Uses. The Zoning Administrator may approve an off -
street parking program by means of a Conditional Use Permit utilizing limited tandem
(front to back) parking for commercial and industrial uses under unusual design
constraints provided that the development requires 20 or more parking spaces.
Tandern parking is permitted within single family dwelling unit attaGhed garages. This
may be aGGOMPlished by the use of tandern, wedge or other teGhni ived by
the Zeninn °dministra . The Zoning Administrator may require that an attendant be
on duty during normal business hours.
2. Residential Uses in the Downtown Dublin Zoning District. The Planning
Commission may approve an off - street parking program by means of a Conditional
Use Permit utilizing up to 25% of the required parking (excluding quest parking) as
tandem (front to back) parking for multi - family residential uses in the Downtown
Dublin Zoning District if all of the Conditional Use Permit findings can be made and
the followina additional findinas:
a. The allowance of tandem parking will not be detrimental to the project or
surrounding properties.
b. There are adequate provisions for dedicated personal storage that exceed
minimum requirements for accessory storage in multi - family residential projects.
c. Alternative modes of transportation are available in close proximity to the project
effectively reducing dependency on the automobile as the primary mode of travel.
3. Residential Uses outside of the Downtown Dublin Zoning District. Tandem (front
to back) parking is not permitted to satisfy required parking within a single- family
dwelling unit attached garage or a multi - family dwelling unit attached garage.
CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, SPECIFIC PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE:
The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments are consistent with the Dublin General Plan and
all applicable Specific Plans in that the General Plan and applicable Specific Plans include
policies that encourage the development of a variety of housing types including multi - family
housing and the proposed amendments make provisions to facilitate the on -going enjoyment of
residential properties by maintaining adequate parking standards and regulations.
Page 7 of 8
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS /PUBLIC OUTREACH:
A Public Notice was published in the Valley Times and posted at several locations throughout
the City. The Public Notice was provided to all persons who have expressed an interest in being
notified of meetings. The Staff Report for this public hearing was also made available on the
City's website.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with State Guidelines and City
Environmental Regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts
and that environmental documents be prepared. Pursuant to the CEQA, Staff is recommending
that the proposed Ordinance be found exempt from CEQA per CEQA Guidelines Section
15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that the amendments to Title 8 of the Dublin
Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) will not have a significant effect on the environment. The
adoption of the proposed Ordinance does not, in itself, allow the construction of any building or
structure, but it sets forth the regulations that shall be followed if and when a building or
structure is proposed to be constructed or a site is proposed to be developed. This Ordinance of
itself, therefore, has no potential for resulting in significant physical change in the environment,
directly or ultimately.
ATTACHMENTS: 1.
City Council Staff Report dated February 7, 2012
2.
Planning Commission Staff Report dated July 10, 2012, without
attachments
3.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of July 10, 2012
4.
Letters from Kevin Fryer and Pat Costanzo regarding the proposed
Zoning Ordinance Amendments
5.
City Council Staff Report dated September 3, 2013, without
attachments
6.
Economic Impact Analysis prepared by Economic & Planning
Systems, Inc and Joe DeCredico Studio dated June 4, 2013
7.
Planning Commission Resolution 13 -41 recommending City Council
approval of amendments to Dublin Zoning Ordinance Chapters 8.08
(Definitions), 8.36 (Development Regulations) and Chapter 8.76 (Off -
Street Parking and Loading Regulations)
8.
Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 12, 2013
9.
Draft City Council Ordinance approving amendments to Dublin
Zoning Ordinance Chapters 8.08 (Definitions), 8.36 (Development
Regulations) and Chapter 8.76 (Off- Street Parking and Loading
Regulations)
Page 8 of 8
or
sir wti�
19 82
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
February 7, 2012
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
Joni Pattillo, City Manager`x ° °r
Area G Parking Report
Prepared by Mike Porto, Consulting Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
CITY CLERK
File #570 -20
The City Council will receive information on the status of parking in Area G of Dublin Ranch.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no financial impact for this review.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council receive the report and /or provide Staff with direction on
whether or not to research steps that could be taken to minimize parking challenges in Area G
and in future unentitled higher density residential neighborhoods.
Submitted By Reviewed By
Planning Manager Assistant City Manager
DESCRIPTION:
At the City Council meeting on October 18, 2011, Councilmember Biddle requested that an item
be placed on a future City Council Agenda to discuss the status of the parking in Area G of
Dublin Ranch (see Attachment 1). Area G, commonly referred to as "Dublin Ranch Villages," is
bounded by Central Parkway to the North, Dublin Boulevard to the South, Keegan Street to the
East and Brannigan Street to the West. The overall area is comprised of 1,396 approved and
constructed medium -high and high density for sale condominiums (the Villas, the Cottages, the
Courtyards and the Terraces), a 5 acre Neighborhood Park (Bray Commons), a 2 acre
Neighborhood Square (Devaney Square), and a 23 acre neighborhood retail commercial
property (commonly referred to as "The Promenade ") bisects the area and is as yet
undeveloped. Three of the projects are constructed and completely occupied and the fourth
neighborhood (the Terraces) is still selling.
Page 1 of 8 ITEM NO. 7.1
The four residential projects located within Area G comply and exceed the parking requirements
that are established in the City of Dublin Zoning Code (Section 8.76.080). The required parking
for condominiums is shown below.
Condominiums:
- 1 Bedroom Units: One (1) covered or garage space per dwelling plus 0.5 guest space per
unit
- 2+ Bedrooms: Two (2) covered or garage spaces per dwelling plus 0.5 guest space per
unit
The Cottages and The Villas
Two neighborhoods comprise the westerly half of Area G: "The Cottages" is designated as a
Medium -High Density development and is comprised of 200 side -by -side and stacked flat
condominium units. "The Villas" is designated as a High Density development and is comprised
of 289 stacked flat and side -by -side condominium units. The following table illustrates the
required and actual number of parking spaces for these two projects.
Page 2 of 8
Table 1: "The Cottages" and "The Villas"
Garage
Required
Provided
Excess Parking
One bedroom units
0
0
0
(23 units @ 1 space /unit)
23
23
0
Two bedroom+ units
562
562*
0
(177 units @ 2 spaces /unit)
354
354*
0
Guest Parking
141 1
146 1
+5
0.5 space /unit
100
108 **
+8
Garage
Required
Provided
Excess Parking
One bedroom units
0
0
0
(112 units @ 1 space /unit)
112
112
0
Two bedroom+ units
562
562*
0
(177 units @ 2 spaces /unit)
354
354
0
Guest Parking
141 1
146 1
+5
0.5 space /unit
145
161 **
+16
*103 tandem garages = 206 parking spaces (described below)
*There are an additional 22 on- street parking spaces along the Chancery and Finnian frontages
of Devaney Square.
"The Cottages" and "The Villas" comply with the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance with respect to
parking and, due to restriping of Brannigan Street before occupancies, excess guest parking
was achieved adjacent to DeVaney Square.
Tandem Parking: There are no tandem garage parking spaces in "The Villas." However, "The
Cottages" have 103 garages in a tandem configuration (total of 206 parking spaces allowing for
85 two bedroom units and 18 one bedroom units).
The Courtyards and The Terraces
Two neighborhoods comprise the easterly half of Area G: "The Courtyards" is designated as a
Medium -High Density development and is comprised of 281 side -by -side and stacked
townhome condominium units. "The Terraces" is designated as a High Density development
and is comprised of 626 stacked flat podium condominium units.
Table 2: "The Courtyards" and "The Terraces"
Garage
Required
Provided
Excess Parking
One bedroom units
0
0
0
Two bedroom+ units
(281 units @ 2 spaces /unit)
562
562*
0
Guest Parking
0.5 space /unit
141 1
146 1
+5
I Garage I Required I Provided I Excess Parking I
Page 3 of 8
One bedroom units
(92 units @ 1 space /unit)
92
92
0
Two bedroom+ units
(534 units @ 2 spaces /unit)
1068
1068 **
0
Guest Parking
0.5 space /unit
313
1 330 * **
1 +17
*The Couryards: 258 tandem garages = 516 parking spaces
* *The Terraces: 137 tandem parking spaces in parking structure
—There are an additional 71 on- street parking spaces along the Maguire and Finnian frontages of
Bray Common.
There is an excess of 22 guest parking stalls for "The Courtyards" and "The Terraces"
The provision of guest parking on the east half of Area G did not take into account any parking
adjacent to the Neighborhood Park (Bray Commons). The frontage on Maguire, Finnian and
Keegan yields approximately 71 additional on- street parking stalls. Currently these uncounted
stalls are being utilized by residents for overnight and guest parking. It should be noted that
there would be a total of 93 additional parking spaces (71 on- street spaces, an additional 5
spaces on "the Courtyards, and 17 spaces on "The Terraces. ") beyond those that are required
by the Ordinance for the east half of Area G.
Tandem Parking: "The Courtyards" have a total of 258 tandem garages accommodating 516
garage parking spaces. "The Terraces" has a total of 137 tandem parking spaces within the
parking garage.
The Homeowners Association, managed by Massingham Associates, continues to encourage
the residents to park both their cars in the designated garage and keep the garages free from
storage (see Attachment 2). The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC & R's) state "that
you must keep your garage clear enough to park the number of vehicles in it that it was
designed to hold."
Contributing Issues to Parking Concerns
While there is a myriad of factors that could contribute to the parking issues in Area G, Staff
feels that there are three primary contributing issues that appear to affect the parking conditions
in Area G.
Tandem Parking: The City of Dublin Parking Ordinance allows tandem parking in multi - family
projects. Additionally, the Planning Commission, in review of the projects acknowledged the
tandem parking design solutions in the graphics provided for review. In many instances the
residents of Area G are using their tandem garages to park two cars however, due to the
inconvenience of having to move one car to get to the other, some residents choose to find
parking on- street or within private parking courts. Over time, the unused second car space
becomes an area for storage.
Multiple Cars: Most residents have only one or two cars which can be adequately parked in their
garages; however, some residents have a third car, a business truck or recreational vehicle
which can displace parking. When this happens, guest parking is used to accommodate the
additional vehicles.
Page 4 of 8
One - Bedroom Units: In accordance with the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance (Section 8.76.080)
Parking Requirements, one - bedroom condominium units (of which we have 227, including 23 in
the Cottages, and 112 in the Villas, and 92 in the Terraces) are only required to have one
parking stall and 0.5 guest stalls per unit. It is entirely possible that there are two people, with 2
cars living in these one bedroom units. The second car is then relegated to the guest parking
stalls located on the private streets, public streets or one of the guest stalls provided on site in
designated parking courts. By contrast, the Zoning Ordinance requirements for apartment
parking is one covered or garage stall for each unit regardless of bedroom count and one
unreserved guest parking stall for each unit resulting in more required spaces per one bedroom
unit and less required spaces per two bedroom unit than required for condominiums. It is
actually conceivable that an apartment project can provide more parking than a condominium
project.
Comparative Projects
California Highlands: For comparison, Staff reviewed California Highlands, a 246 unit
condominium project which was developed over 10 years ago and is located near the Dublin
Boulevard extension to Schaefer Ranch. The Planned Development Zoning requirement is to
provide 15% of the overall parking for guest parking, resulting in one guest parking stall for
approximately each 8 units. However, the guest parking was provided at a ratio of one guest
parking stall for each 3 condominium units, thus exceeding the minimum parking requirement as
noted in Table 3 below. No known guest parking issues have been raised at California
Highlands. As noted above, the ratio in Area G slightly exceeds 1 guest parking stall for every 2
condominium units.
Table 3: California Highlands
One and two bedroom units
(246 units @ 2 spaces /unit) 492 492 0
Guest Parking
246 x 15% 37 84 +47
Sorrento West: Sorrento west is comprised of 5 neighborhoods. Neighborhood 1 is a
traditional single - family detached product with a standard 2 car garage. Guest parking is on
public and private streets and is provided at the required ratio of 1 guest space for each
residential unit. This product does not compare with a product in Area G. The following table
illustrates the required and actual number of parking spaces for the remaining 4 neighborhoods
in Sorrento West.
Table 4: Sorrento West
Tro'v[ (117 Uinits
Garage Required Provided Excess Parking
Two bedroom+ units
(117 units @ 2 spaces /unit) 234 234* 0
Guest Parking
0.5 space /unit 59 79 +20
*18 tandem garages = 36 parking spaces
Firenze (ss Units ......
Page 5 of 8
Garage
Required
Provided
Excess Parking
Two bedroom+ units
(66 units @ 2 spaces /unit)
132
165
+33*
Guest Parking
0.5 space /unit
33
42
+9
*An extra 3rd car tandem space provided on 33 units
Siena (4 Uni ......
Garage
Required
Provided
Excess Parking
Two bedroom+ units
(64 units @ 2 spaces /unit)
128
192
+64*
Guest Parking
0.5 space /unit
32
79
+47
*An extra 2 -car garage space (tandem 4 -car) provided on 32 units
MAI (r6 UnitS)
Garage
Required
Provided
Excess Parking
Two bedroom+ units
(96 units @ 2 spaces /unit)
192
192
0
Guest Parking
0.5 space /unit
48
48
0
Excess guest parking in Sorrento West is 78 stalls; however, Sorrento West is developed at a
Medium Density land use where the neighborhoods in Area G were developed at a more urban
Medium -High and High Density Land use. Sorrento West requires a parking permit to parking in
the guest parking spaces overnight. Additionally the additional 3 and 4 car garage spaces in the
attached Firenze and Siena product provide uncounted excess resident parking which provides
additional parking for homeowners with extra personal vehicles.
Currently, the City has not received concerns regarding parking in Sorrento West. The Milano
and Amalfi projects are complete but not completely sold and the Firenze and Siena
neighborhoods are almost complete with unsold units. Trevi still has two buildings to construct.
The CC &R's for Sorrento West have identical language as Area G regarding parking the
number of vehicles in the garage and not allowing storage to obstruct vehicle parking.
Massingham Associates (the same property manager as Area G) has been issuing Community
Bulletins, in a similar manner to Area G, stating these requirements.
Potential Options for Area G:
The following is a discussion of potential options for the homeowner's association and /or the
City to pursue in order to address the parking concerns within Area G.
Potential Action by the Homeowner's Association
1. Increase the amount of guest parking. This option would require the HOA to identify
locations where it is practical to add additional on -site parking, prepare improvement
plans and process an amendment to the existing Site Development Review permit.
However, there are limited opportunities to create additional parking spaces because the
Page 6 of 8
development is at a relatively high density and the improvements have already been
constructed.
2. Require a parking permit for all vehicles that are parked overnight in the on -site guest
parking spaces. This would force the residents to park their vehicles in their garages,
leaving the guest spaces open to visitors. This would require an amendment to the
CC &Rs by vote of the property owners. It would also require enforcement by the HOA,
which could include citation or towing of vehicles. However, this could result in additional
vehicles parked off -site on public streets.
3. Establish a protocol that residents cannot park company owned vehicles anywhere in
Area G. Many companies find it cheaper to have employees drive their company vehicle
to and from work rather than provide space to leave company vehicles. This would
require a vote of the owners to amend the CC &Rs.
The City is limited in its ability to require action by the property owners and their HOA.
However, Staff could work with the HOA to try and implement measures as directed by the City
Council.
Potential Action by the City
1. Enforce the rule prohibiting vehicles to be parked in the public right -of -way for more than
72 hours. This would force the residents to use their garage spaces for their vehicles. As
a result, this option would help make street parking available for guests and help to
ensure that street parking is not used for long vehicle storage. This would require
increased Staff time for the Police Department to patrol and enforce this requirement.
However, this option would effectively reduce the amount of parking available to the
residents and could increase the parking concerns for residents of Area G.
2. Prohibit overnight parking on surrounding streets. This would force the residents to use
their garage spaces for their vehicles. This would also help make street parking
unattractive to residents thus freeing up spaces for guest parking. This option would
require increased Staff time for the Police Department to patrol and enforce this
requirement. This would effectively reduce the amount of parking available to the
residents and could increase the parking concerns for residents of Area G.
3. Staff could meet with Massingham Associates, the management company for the various
homeowner's associations, to discuss the parking issue and methods to address the
concerns using existing rules.
Staff could evaluate the viability of enforcing these measures as directed by the City Council. In
which case, Staff would return to the City Council with a report on the potential effectiveness of
these measures and the fiscal impacts.
Potential Options for City -Wide consideration:
1. Establish consistency in the Zoning Ordinance parking requirements for condominiums
and apartments related to amount of parking provided for one bedroom units and
required guest parking.
2. Evaluate a requirement to provide a minimum square foot area for personal storage for
all attached products.
3. Evaluate the effectiveness of tandem parking stalls and consider policy alternatives to
restrict the amount of tandem parking to meet minimum parking requirements, or prohibit
the use of tandem parking for compliance with required garage parking (additional stalls
could be allowed as tandem as long as the required stalls are not).
Page 7 of 8
Staff could further evaluate these options as directed by the City Council. In which case, Staff
would return to the City Council with a report on the potential effectiveness of these measures
and the fiscal impacts.
Conclusions
Some of the residents of Area G have raised concerns regarding the perceived lack of guest
parking within their neighborhoods. The parking provided at the Villages (Area G) is consistent
with the City's Zoning Ordinance. Area G has more guest parking than a similar project, the
California Highlands. There may be reasons beyond the City's regulations for these problems,
such as the displacement of the automobile by storage, the inconvenience of tandem parking
and households with multiple cars which were detailed above. Without the ability to conduct
studies which include going on to private property, it would be difficult to ascertain these
reasons. However, the City Council could direct Staff to analyze alternatives to address these
issues with future development projects, as outlined in this Staff Report.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS /PUBLIC OUTREACH:
This is a public meeting item. Although we are not required to notice public meetings, the City
Council has previously provided staff with direction to notify the affected neighbors on any
issues relative to Area G. In an attempt to implement the City Council's direction, Staff provided
a notice of this Public Meeting to Massingham and Associates who are the property managers
for all of the Homeowner's Associations in Area G and Sorrento West. Massingham Associates
posted the Public Meeting Notice at each of the mail kiosks in each of the projects they manage
the week of January 23, 2012, which is the legal posting place for messages in each of the
neighborhoods. Additionally the notice was placed in the Board Members' meeting packets and
announced at the Homeowner's meetings over the last three weeks. The notice was also
published on the HOA web site for each neighborhood.
Staff surveyed all of the posting locations on January 31, 2012 and the notices were all clearly
visible with the exception of The Terraces. The Notice had not been posted at The Terraces. As
a result, the HOA immediately posted the notice at The Terraces.
Additionally, a Public Notice was also published in the Valley Times and posted at several
locations throughout the City.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Minutes from October 18, 2011 City Council meeting
2. Massingham notices distributed to the Cottage and Villas Residents
Page 8 of 8
Parks and Community Services Strategic Plan Annual Report
7:25:51 PM 8.2 (920 -10)
Director of Parks and Community Service Diane Lowart presented the Staff Report and advised
that In November 2008, the City Council adopted the Parks and Community Services Strategic
Plan. Staff would present an annual report on the strategic objectives accomplished during
Fiscal Year 2010 -2011. This item was first agendized for the October 4, 2011 City Council
meeting. By consensus, the City Council moved this item to the October 18, 2011 City Council
meeting
Mayor Sbranti asked when the connection would be open from the East Bay Regional Park
District's ( EBRPD) Dublin Hills Regional Park and the City's Martin Canyon Creek Trail.
Ms. Lowart stated she would follow up on whether any event was planned by EBRPD for the
opening of the connection between its Dublin Hills Regional Park and the City's Martin Canyon
Creek Trail.
The City Council commented on the growth of the Parks and Community Services' activities. It
was vibrant and an asset to the community.
The City Council received the report.
OTHER BUSINESS Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from Council and /or Staff,
including Committee Reports and Reports by Council related to meetings attended at
City expense (AB 1234)
7:38:38 PM
Cm. Hildenbrand stated she had nothing to report.
Cm. Biddle stated he attended the Dublin High School Homecoming, an Alameda County
Transportation Commission meeting, an Alameda County Housing Authority meeting and the
School of Imagination ribbon cutting.
Vm. Hart stated he attended the Johnny Garlic's Restaurant ribbon cutting and the School of
Imagination ribbon cutting.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 7
VOLUME 30 G`�yOFDtjB�,y
REGULAR MEETING u, a.
OCTOBER 18, 2011 '� -182
��I���°
Cm. Swalwell stated he attended the Dublin High School Homecoming, and the Johnny Garlic's
Restaurant ribbon cutting.
Mayor Sbranti stated he attended the Johnny Garlic's Restaurant ribbon cutting and the School
of Imagination ribbon cutting. He stated he attended the City of Dublin — Dublin San Ramon
Services District Liaison Committee meeting, the Alameda County Mayor's Conference, and the
Residential Realtors Roundtable. He asked Dublin residents to participate in the Dublin Reads
event.
Cm. Biddle asked Staff to update the parking study done a few years ago regarding the
Promenade development. Included should be what did the parking code mean. Also looking
into how the parking was managed. What was permitted to park there? Was storage
permitted? Were there assigned spaces? In terms of similar complexes, how did they manage
their parking and what problems did they have. Also look at solutions how the management of
complexes could manage their parking or what the City could do to help resolve the situation
there; how much could the City do regarding parking issues versus the how much the
management of the complexes could do.
Ms. Pattillo asked if Cm. Biddle wanted it as an informational piece to the City Council. She
knew something had been done several years ago and it was more of a cursory look at the
parking situation as it related to the Promenade. Did he want Staff to look at each
Homeowner's Association (HOA) as well?
Cm. Biddle stated just those HOAs within Dublin with a similar type of housing as the
Promenade. Did they have the same type of parking situational problems?
City Manager Pattillo stated Staff could begin with a cursory look at was done with the
Promenade. She confirmed that what Cm. Biddle was asking for was to update the study that
had been done a few years back as an informational piece, and also understand if there were
any comparisons within the City of Dublin as it related to density and types of housing and see if
there were any parking issues. Was he also looking for how each HOA managed their parking?
Cm. Biddle stated, yes, he wanted to know what was their system. What were their parking
rules? What was and was not permitted?
City Manager Pattillo asked Cm. Biddle if he wanted to see what role the City had.
Mr. Biddle stated, yes, he wanted to know what could the City's role be in solving the parking
issue, if any.
Cm. Hildenbrand asked if he was asking if there was permitted parking.
Cm. Biddle stated he wanted to know what the management of the complexes could do, as well
as the City, in solving parking problems.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 8
VOLUME 30 Of 1D)
REGULAR MEETING ti
OCTOBER 18, 2011 '����
C'4LIFpR�lD
City Manager Pattillo stated Staff could build off what was done before, and how it was planned,
including the previous parking study, HOA discussion, looking at the designation, and what role
the City had as it related to parking. She might ask for clarification at a later date if needed.
ADJOURNMENT
10.1
There being no further business to come before the City Council, the meeting was adjourned at
7:57:39 PM in memory of Staff Sgt. Sean Diamond and our fallen troops.
Minutes prepared by Caroline P. Soto, City Clerk.
j,
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 9
VOLUME 30 Gl�yoepUB�m
REGULAR MEETING n� ,
�
OCTOBER 18, 2011 ��
L.
• =-4 M121=- iimp
Eric Lars Hanson
Mary Warren
Paul Cardoso
HT Astrov
F-,T-TTS=. 41,1ST1711117-1 17
Farmers Insurance Cc/ Greg Norris Agency
415-389-8200
(Coverage for main buildings and common area)
Unit owners are encouraged to obtain 'H06 coverage to
protect inside of unit and owner liability
Proudly Managed by
1855 Gateway Blvd, Suite 300
Concord, CA 94520
1W=1
A I IM I MRTA 141 @1 IONSK8 11 W P1*1 1 ITS 1 IN 1101401 It
Dublin Police Dispatch:
Report suspicious activity: 925-462-1212
•
'. =$. alrslme-14741V
Association Insurance
Gregg Norris Insurance Co.
415-389-8200
Financial Information 12/31/20
Operating Cash: $112,153.02 1
Proudly Managed by
Massin�-��R-NAcg-oc�tes Managementlnc,
1855 Gateway Blvd, Suite 300
Concord, CA 94520
Greg Thibodeaux- Manager
Veronica Lewis- Community Assistant
Phone: 925-405-4728
Email: VeronicaL(cbMassingham.com
Dublin Police Dispatch:
Report suspicious activity: 925-462-121
(They WANT You to Call! You May Stay Anonyrnol
MARCH 2011
ffel M M 94 0 =0- 4
R 0 1 tp
While a compliance campaign was undertaken 2 years ago, due to
increasing abuses it is again time to refresh remind everyone of the
requirements and penalties:
residents • !!, not use their garage be subject !
- Those monetary fines per the Fine Policy of the Community up to
$150 per
We kindly ask all owners and residents to assure compliance with the
community"s CC&Rs and rules to make the community a more livable
place, and to void violation atus/ fines. THANK
�b
� Gds
Cottages at Dublin Ranch
Garag��.Park na, Requirement
.............
To: All Cottages ResideniM
***Keep in mind that parking iti a firehane or across any garage door
subjects you to .immediate towing with a minimum charge of $300!***
eame
N,�
J jo in
US
Often during the hectic nucove in period, individuals don't have time to read
all, the paperwork that cartie with die properly, including all the rules a�nd
regi,dations. So below iss a reminder t� of some of the most criticat:
The Villas at Dublin Ranch Villages
Ggage P arking_ Requirement
From: Your board of Directors and Massingham & Associates Management
mllmmvmlt�-
* **Keep in mind that parking in a fire lane or across any garage door
subjects you to immediate towing with a minimum charge of $300!***
/9Oz
��LIFOR�l�
DATE:
TO:
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
July 10, 2012
Planning Commission
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: PLPA- 2012 -00028 Zoning Ordinance
Amendments to Chapter 8.08 (Definitions), Chapter 8.36 (Development
Regulations) and Chapter 8.76 (Off- Street Parking and Loading
Regulations)
Prepared By: Mamie R. Delgado, Senior Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City is initiating amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to bring greater clarity and
consistency to existing regulations. Amendments are proposed to: 1) Chapter 8.08 (Definitions)
to add a new definition for Accessory Storage — Multi - Family; 2) Chapter 8.36 (Development
Regulations) to create a minimum requirement for accessory storage in the R -2 (Two - Family),
R -M (Multi - Family) and comparable PD (Planned Development) Zoning Districts; and, 3)
Chapter 8.76 (Off- Street Parking and Loading Regulations) to establish a consistent guest
parking standard for apartments and condominiums and limit the use of tandem parking for
residential uses. The Planning Commission will review the proposed Zoning Ordinance
Amendments and make a recommendation to the City Council.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Open the
public hearing; 3) Take testimony from the public; 4) Close the public hearing and deliberate;
and 5) Adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council amend Chapter 8.08
(Definitions), Chapter 8.36 (Development Regulations) and Chapter 8.76 (Off- Street Parking
and Loading Regulations) of the Dublin Municipal Code.
Submitted By v
Senior Planner
COPIES TO: File
t
iewed By
Planning Manager
ITEM NO.: & '?)
Page 1 of 7
G:IPAM20121PLPA- 2012 -00028 Off - Street Parking & Loading ZOM07.10.12 PCSR Ch. 8.08, 8.36, 8.76 ZOA. doc
DESCRIPTION:
At the February 7, 2012 City Council meeting, Staff presented an informational report on the
status of parking in Area G of Dublin Ranch (Attachment 1). The City Council received the report
and, among other things, directed Staff to prepare Zoning Ordinance Amendments to: 1)
establish consistency between the parking standards for apartments and condominiums; 2)
require a minimum amount of personal storage for attached residential units; and, 3) eliminate
the use of tandem parking to meet minimum parking requirements. The Planning Commission
is being asked to review the proposed amendments and adopt a Resolution (Attachment 2)
recommending City Council adoption of the proposed amendments (Attachment 2, Exhibit A).
Apartment and Condominium Parking Standards
Chapter 8.76 (Off- Street Parking and Loading Regulations) sets forth the minimum parking
requirements by Use Type. Apartments and Condominiums currently have the following parking
requirements:
Table 1_ Section 8.76.080.13 (Residential Use Tvoes)
RESIDENTIAL USE
NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES REQUIRED
Residences
Apartments
Studio
1 covered or garaged per dwelling plus 1 parking
space for unreserved and guest parking.
1 Bedroom
1 covered or garaged per dwelling plus 1 parking
space for unreserved and guest parking.
2+ Bedrooms
1 covered or garaged per dwelling plus 1 parking
space for unreserved and guest parking.
Condominiums
Studio
1 covered or garaged per dwelling plus guest
parking (see below)
1 Bedroom
1 covered or garaged per dwelling plus guest
parking (see below)
2+ Bedrooms
2 covered or garaged per dwelling plus guest
parking (see below)
Guest Parking
Projects with 10 or more dwellings shall provide
one additional guest parking space for every 2
dwelling units which shall be marked as a guest
parking space.
The guest parking requirement for apartments is one parking space per unit; for condominiums,
the guest parking requirement is one parking space for every two units resulting in less guest
parking for condominium projects than for apartment projects.
The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment would create a consistent guest parking
requirement among both apartments and condominiums as follows (with proposed new text
shown with an underline and strikethrough text proposed to be deleted):
2of7
Table 2. Proposed Amendment to Section 8.76.080.13 (Residential Use Tvnes)
RESIDENTIAL USE
NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES REQUIRED
Residences
R -2
Apartments
LOT AREA
Studio
1 covered or garaged per dwelling plus 1
unreserved quest parking space per dwelling fer
1 Bedroom
1 covered or garaged per dwelling plus 1
unreserved quest parking space per dwellinq far
unreserved and g post �nn
2+ Bedrooms
1 covered or garaged per dwelling plus 1
unreserved guest parking space per dwelling for
Condominiums
8,000 sq. ft.
Studio
1 covered or garaged per dwelling plus 1 unreserved
guest parking space per dwelling _ (_°°° "�
1 Bedroom
1 covered or garaged per dwelling plus 1 unreserved
guest parking space per dwelling (see below)
2+ Bedrooms
2 covered or garaged per dwelling plus 1 unreserved
guest parking space per dwelling (see below)
('_`uost ❑arLlnn
PFejeGtS with 10 or more dwellin- . ..
*de
. one
additional for 2 dwelling
guest parking spaGe every
Personal Storage for Attached Residential Units
While some existing multi - family residential developments include personal storage areas for
residents (commonly provided in closets on patios and balconies), the Zoning Ordinance does
not require that personal storage areas be provided thus leaving it to the discretion of the
developer whether to include this amenity in a multi - family project. The proposed Zoning
Ordinance Amendment would require that a minimum of 90 cubic feet of personal storage be
provided per unit for all new multi - family developments in the R -2 (Two Family Residential) and
R -M (Multi - Family Residential) Zoning Districts and comparable PD (Planned Development)
Zoning Districts. Chapter 8.36 (Development Regulations) is proposed to be amended as
follows (with proposed new text shown with an underline and strikethrough text proposed to be
deleted):
Table 3. Proposed Amendments to Section 8.36.020 (Agricultural and Residential
Develooment Reaulations)
STANDARD
A
R -1
R -2
R -M
LOT AREA
Interior lot
100 acres
4,000 sq. ft.
8,000 sq. ft.
5,000 sq. ft.
Corner lot
100 acres
5,000 sq. ft.
9,000 sq. ft.
6,000 sq. ft.
3 of 7
LOT SQUARE
NA
4,000 sq. ft. and
4,000 sq. ft. and
750 sq. ft. and larger
FOOTAGE PER DU
100 feet
larger as consistent
larger as consistent
as consistent with
MAXIMUM LOT
COVERAGE
NA
with General Plan
with General Plan.
General Plan
LOT WIDTH &
NA
NA
NA
30 % of net site area
FRONTAGE
NA
NA
90 cubic feet
minimum per unit
90 cubic feet
minimum per unit
Interior lot
300 feet
50 feet
80 feet
50 feet
Corner lot
300 feet
60 feet
90 feet
60 feet
LOT DEPTH
NA
100 feet
100 feet
100 feet
RESIDENTIAL USE
1 du. 1 Second Unit
1 du 1 Second Unit
2 du's
1 du per full 750 sq.
(maximum per lot)
ft. (and larger as
consistent with
General Plan)
SETBACKS
Front
50 feet
20 ft. avg. 18 ft
20 ft. avg. 18 ft.
20 ft.
minimum to garage
minimum
(1)
Side
30 feet
(2)
10 feet
10 feet (3)
Street Side
50 feet
10 feet
10 feet
10 feet
Rear
50 feet
20 feet
20 feet
30 feet
(1) Living spaces may encroach to 15 ft. from Front Lot Line with Site Development Review on lots up to 6,000 square feet in size.
(2) Side Yard setbacks in the R -1 zoning district shall be a minimum of 5 feet plus one foot for each full 10 feet by which lot width exceeds
minimum lot width up to a maximum of 10 feet.
(3) Buildings with 4 or more residences in the R -M zoning district shall have a 15 foot Side Yard on one side.
STANDARD
A
R -1
R -2
R -M
DISTANCE B ETWEEN
RESIDENCES
100 feet
10 feet
20 feet
20 feet
MAXIMUM LOT
COVERAGE
NA
40% 1 story,
35% 2 stories
40% 1 story,
35% 2 stories
40% 1 story,
35% 2 stories
COMMON USEABLE
OUTDOOR SPACE
NA
NA
NA
30 % of net site area
ACCESSORY STORAGE-
NA
NA
90 cubic feet
minimum per unit
90 cubic feet
minimum per unit
MULTI - FAMILY (1)
HEIGHT LIMITS
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(1) Multi - familv accessory storage shall also be provided in comparable PD (Planned Development) Zoning Districts See also Chapter 8.08
(Definitions).
(2) West of Dougherty Road 25 feet and 2 stories; may be increased to 35 feet and 2 stories pursuant to a Site Development Review
approval by the Zoning Administrator. East of Dougherty Road; 35 feet and 2 stories.
(3) 35 feet if 4 or fewer du.; 45 feet if 5 or more du.; 75 feet if 5 or more du. and lot coverage does not exceed 35 %.
Staff is proposing a minimum of 90 cubic feet of storage per unit be provided for the storage of
personal effects. 90 cubic feet consists of a space that is 3'x5'x6' (in any configuration of length,
width and height). While none of the surrounding Tri- Valley cities (Livermore, Pleasanton or San
Ramon) currently have a similar requirement, a number of cities throughout California do have
such a requirement. Table 4 below summarizes a survey of cities that was conducted through
the League of California Cities Housing, Community and Economic Development (HCED)
Listserv:
4of7
Table 4. Multi - Familv Accessory Storane Renuirements Survev
CITY
STANDARD
Square Feet
(Surface Area)
Cubic Feet
Volume
Sierra Madre
150 square feet/unit
30 -inch min. dimension
Lemoore
32 square feet/unit
Livingston
30 square feet /unit
Paso Robles
250 cubic feet/unit
Dana Point
250 cubic feet/unit
Lawndale
200 cubic feet/unit
San Dimas
150 cubic feet/unit
Fontana
125 cubic feet/unit
San Gabriel
90 cubic feet /unit
Glendale
90 cubic feet /unit (new construction)
60 cubic feet/unit (condo conversion
3 -foot min. dimension
24 square feet min. surface area
In evaluating what might be an appropriate size requirement for accessory storage, Staff
selected a size that was small enough that the accessory storage area could not be legally
converted to a habitable room such as an office or bedroom. The minimum size for a habitable
room is 70 square feet with a minimum width of 7 -feet.
In addition to adding a minimum requirement for accessory storage in the R -2, R -M and
comparable PD Zoning Districts, a new definition for Accessory Storage — Multi - Family is
proposed to be added to Chapter 8.08 (Definitions) as follows:
Accessory Storage — Multi - Family Residential. The term Accessory Storage —
Multi- Family Residential shall mean a dedicated, enclosed and securable space
located within an individual dwelling unit, an attached or detached individual
garage, or another dedicated space approved by the Community Development
Director, in which occupant(s) of the dwelling unit can store their personal effects.
Accessory Storage — Multi- Family Residential spaces shall not include bedroom
closets, linen closets, pantries or any other areas customarily provided to meet
the day to day functions of the dwelling unit. Accessory Storage - Multi - Family
Residential spaces may be used to satisfy required bicycle storage space.
Tandem Parking
The Zoning Ordinance currently allows for the use of tandem parking within single - family
dwelling unit attached garages. The Tandem Parking regulation (Section 8.76.0601) reads as
follows:
L. Tandem Parking. The Zoning Administrator may approve an off - street
parking program by means of a Conditional Use Permit utilizing limited tandem
(front to back) parking for commercial and industrial uses under unusual design
constraints provided that the development requires 20 or more parking spaces.
Tandem parking is permitted within single - family dwelling unit attached garages.
5 of 7
This may be accomplished by the use of tandem, wedge or other techniques
approved by the Zoning Administrator. The Zoning Administrator may require that
an attendant be on duty during normal business hours.
The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment would separate the regulations pertaining to the
use of tandem parking for commercial /industrial uses from residential uses and would limit the
use of tandem parking in residential projects so that it could not be used for required parking.
The proposed amendment would read as follows (with proposed new text shown with an
underline and strikethrough text proposed to be deleted):
L. Tandem Parking. The Zoning Administrator may approve an off - street
parking program by means of a Conditional Use Permit utilizing limited tandem
(front to back) parking for commercial and industrial uses under unusual design
constraints provided that the development requires 20 or more parking spaces.
The Zoning Administrator may require that an attendant be on duty during
normal business hours.
Tandem parking is not
permitted to satisfy required
parking
within single - family
dwelling unit attached
This may be
garages or multi - family
ned b the of tandern,
dwelling unit
attached garages.
wedge or
other +onhniq e
aGn
by the Zening
use
AdmiRistFater. The
Zoning Administrator
may Fequire
approved
that be
duty during normal business
hours.
an attendant on
CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, SPECIFIC PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE:
The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments are consistent with the Dublin General Plan and
all applicable Specific Plans in that the General Plan and applicable Specific Plans include
policies that encourage the development of a variety of housing types including multi - family
housing and the proposed amendments make provisions to facilitate the on -going enjoyment of
residential properties by maintaining adequate parking standards and regulations.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS /PUBLIC OUTREACH:
A Public Notice was published in the Valley Times and posted at several locations throughout
the City. The Public Notice was provided to all persons who have expressed an interest in
being notified of meetings. The Staff Report for this public hearing was also made available on
the City's website.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with State Guidelines and City
Environmental Regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts
and that environmental documents be prepared. Pursuant to the CEQA, Staff is recommending
that the proposed Ordinance be found exempt from CEQA per CEQA Guidelines Section
15061(b)(3). Section 15061(b)(3) states that CEQA applies only to those projects that have the
potential to cause a significant effect on the environment. The adoption of the proposed
Ordinance is exempt from CEQA because the Ordinance does not, in itself, allow the
construction of any building or structure, but it sets forth the regulations that shall be followed if
and when a building or structure is proposed to be constructed or a site is proposed to be
developed. This Ordinance of itself, therefore, has no potential for resulting in significant
physical change in the environment, directly or ultimately.
6of7
ATTACHMENTS: 1) City Council Staff Report dated February 7, 2012,
without attachments.
2) Resolution recommending that the City Council amend
Chapter 8.08 (Definitions), Chapter 8.36 (Development
Regulations) and Chapter 8.76 (Off- Street Parking and
Loading Regulations) of the Zoning Ordinance, with the
draft Ordinance attached as Exhibit A.
7of7
gg {�
g f
Planning Commission Minutes
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, July 10,
2012, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Wehrenberg called the
meeting to order at 6:58:57 PM
Present: Chair Wehrenberg; Vice Chair O'Keefe; Commissioners Schaub and Brown; Jeff
Baker, Planning Manager; Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner; Marnie Delgado, Senior Planner;
and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary.
Absent: Cm. Bhuthimethee
ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA — NONE
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS — On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Vice
Chair Brown, on a vote of 3 -0 -1 (Cm. O'Keefe was absent from that meeting), the Planning
Commission approved the minutes of the June 12, 2012 meeting.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS — NONE
CONSENT CALENDAR — NONE
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS — NONE
PUBLIC HEARINGS --
8.1 PLPA- 2012 -00002 Dublin Toyota Site Development Review
Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report.
Cm. Schaub asked if the fabric canopies on the south elevation will remain.
Ms. Bascom answered that it will be removed.
Cm. Schaub asked if any canopies will remain.
Ms. Bascom answered there are shade canopies throughout the site and one on the north side
of the building will remain.
Chair Wehrenberg asked if the new part of the building will extend as far out as the canopies.
Ms. Bascom answered that it will extend approximately as far as the canopies, but the new entry
portal is set off the building and then ties back in with the columns and the roof structure.
Ms. Bascom pointed out on the site plan where the new entry portal will be located. She stated
there is an existing driveway that will be removed as part of the construction.
,11(anning Commission Jury 10, 2012
fturar setin 53
Cm. Brown asked to clarify that the existing service check -in area is not changing.
Ms. Bascom answered that is correct
Chair Wehrenberg felt the landscaping plans were too small to see the details of the elevation
on the south side.
Ms. Bascom shared a full sized set of plans with the Planning Commission and explained the
changes included in the application.
Chair Wehrenberg opened the public hearing.
Roxanne Duchaney, Applicant, spoke in favor of the project and explained the area Chair
Wehrenberg was asking about.
Cm. O'Keefe asked if installing turf instead of grass was more cost effective.
Ms. Bascom stated it is not artificial grass but sod.
Ms. Duchaney stated they looked at installing artificial grass but decided on sod and mentioned
they received approval to install the landscaping so the lot would look better during construction.
Cm. Brown asked if any of the signage would change.
Ms. Duchaney stated the directional signs will remain the same.
Ms. Bascom added that the wall signs will be re- utilized in other areas on the building.
Chair Wehrenberg closed the public hearing.
Chair Wehrenberg stated she could make the findings and had no issues with the project.
Cm. Schaub stated he could make the findings and felt it is a great update to the building.
Cm. Brown stated he can make the findings and felt the project would enhance their business
opportunities.
Cm. O'Keefe stated he can make the findings and was in support of the project. He suggested
removing the other canopy as well.
On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Cm. O'Keefe, on a vote of 4 -0 -1, with Cm.
Bhuthimethee being absent, the Planning Commission adopted:
RESOLUTION NO. 12 - 28
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
Tranning Commission July 10, 201,E
ufar- Weetin 54
APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR A 3,724 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION,
FAQADE MODIFICATIONS, AND RELATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE DUBLIN
TOYOTA SALES AND SERVICE BUILDINGS AT 4321 TOYOTA DRIVE
8.2 PLPA- 2012 -00001 7 -11 Site Development Review
Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report.
Cm. O'Keefe asked about an area marked "pedestrian doors" on the plans.
Ms. Bascom answered that those are doors to the trash enclosure. She stated the City requires
this type of door on trash enclosures.
Cm. Schaub asked if other trees will be planted to replace the trees being removed.
Ms. Bascom answered new trees will be planted in a different location to replace the trees that
were be removed.
Cm. Schaub asked if the windows will be clear glass and if they will be subject to the sign
ordinance.
Ms. Bascom answered yes, they will be clear glass and must comply with the sign ordinance
regarding coverage and will not be blacked out.
Chair Wehrenberg asked if the windows will be facing Village Parkway.
Ms. Bascom answered no windows will face Village Parkway but there is a trash enclosure
between the building and the street so there is not very much street presence on Village
Parkway.
Chair Wehrenberg asked if this project is within the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan area
Ms. Bascom answered no; it is just outside.
Cm. Brown asked if there will be additional AC equipment installed on the roof.
Ms. Bascom stated that the Applicant will identify roof mounted equipment on their building
permit plans. She stated the roof structure has a good well for roof mounted equipment. She
stated the City always has a Condition of Approval that any roof mounted equipment needs to
be screened from public view.
Cm. Brown asked where the new signs will be located.
Ms. Bascom stated the signs will be in the same location as the Carl's Jr. signs. She pointed
out the location of the signs on the north, west and south elevations. She commented that the
elevation provided in the packet has an error; there will be no signage on the interior (east)
elevation facing the shopping center.
Cm. O'Keefe asked if the planters that will be installed will hold the new trees.
Tlanning Cosa m4uion Jay 103 2012
(Rvgu ar eeting 55
Ms. Bascom pointed out the proposed location of the new trees facing the west frontage
Cm. O'Keefe asked if the new trees will be in addition to the existing trees.
Ms. Bascom pointed out the existing tree that will not be removed and stated there will be an
additional tree planted in the planter areas.
Chair, Wehrenberg asked if there will be irrigation for the planters and the screens that are
proposed to be installed.
Ms. Bascom answered yes; there is a Condition of Approval that ensures sufficient irrigation.
She stated that the landscape plan provided is conceptual and Staff will ensure that the final
landscape plan has irrigation plans and make sure the landscaping is properly irrigated for the
long term.
Chair Wehrenberg opened the public hearing
Richard LaRowe, Stantec Architecture, spoke in favor of the project. He thanked Staff for their
help. He stated that Staff made it clear that it was important to change the entrance to face
Dublin Blvd. versus the original design. He stated it was not easy but he was pleased with the
way it has turned out. He stated they completely redesigned the interior and moved the
entrance to the Dublin Blvd side and felt it was a better project.
Chair Wehrenberg asked if his firm was the same as mentioned on the drawings.
Mr. LaRowe answered no; he stated 7 -11 uses Harrison French and Associates for all their
tenant improvement projects across the country, but they don't present at meetings or
coordinate the approvals.
Cm. Schaub asked if 7 -11 is still Southland Corp.
Mr. LaRowe answered 7 -11 is owned by a Japanese firm that is trying to change the image of
the typical 7 -11 with more fresh fruit, sandwiches, salads and healthier, more upscale
merchandise.
Cm. Schaub was concerned with the image of 7 -11 selling unhealthy foods.
Mr. LaRowe distributed pictures of the new items being offered at 7 -11.
Cm. Brown felt that, since Village Parkway is part of the downtown area, having the newer,
more up -to -date 7 -11 would be a draw.
Cm. O'Keefe asked if the 7 -11 organization prefers their monument signs to be a monument
sign or a pedestal sign.
Mr. LaRowe stated the 7 -11 advancement program is about going into vacant buildings, fixing
them up and staying on a long term basis. They have a sign company that does all the signs for
7 -11. He stated they work with the community to determine what will be the best sign for that
location which is usually a monument sign.
�P(anning Cr mmn )sion Juf 10, 2012
cqurar5 eetin 56
Cm. O'Keefe was concerned about the height of the monument sign and the location on top of
the berm and would prefer the sign to be closer to 4 feet tall. He felt that the 6 foot tall sign was
not appropriate because, if mounted on the berm, the sign would be 8 -9 feet in height.
Cm. Schaub asked if there was an illustration of the monument sign.
Jeff Baker, Planning Manager, pointed out the monument sign illustration in the packet.
Cm. Schaub agreed with Cm. O'Keefe and felt the sign should be no more than 4 -5 feet in
height.
Cm. Brown mentioned the flat area to the left of the pedestrian walkway and felt the sign could
be located there.
Cm. O'Keefe felt that the intersection of Dublin Blvd. and Village Parkway is a key location.
Mr. LaRowe confirmed that the location of the sign is on the berm area.
Cm. Schaub felt the size of the address numbers were too large and suggested eliminating the
numbers or putting them on a separate sign.
Mr. LaRowe felt that, if the Commission was asking to condition the sign to reduce the height by
1 foot, he would agree.
Cm. Schaub suggested reducing the height by 2 feet and removing the address as part of the
monument sign.
Ms. Bascom stated the City does not have a minimum height for address numbers, but the
police department prefers a larger size.
Mr. LaRowe stated the height of the address is 10 inches and thought the height was required
by the fire department.
Mr. Baker suggested the Commission condition the project to reduce the sign by 2 feet and then
Staff can work with the Applicant, police and fire to ensure that the sign meets their
requirements.
Cm. Brown responded that would be assuming the sign is located on the berm, but felt the
proposed height would be acceptable if the sign were located on the flat area.
Mr. LaRowe stated the site plan shows the sign on the berm and asked that they condition it
with the sign on the berm, but if the sign is on the flat area he would like it to remain at 6 feet in
height.
Ms. Bascom stated that Condition of Approval #9 speaks to the location of the monument sign
and the requirement of a field test to ensure that the sign does not block vehicular visibility. She
stated the Commission could direct Staff to add language which states: "the overall sign height,
including grade, be no higher than 6 feet."
'Canning Commission _7u(y 10, 2012
gurur'teeting 57
Mr. LaRowe reminded the Commission that some of the shrubbery they wanted to remain might
block the sign.
Chair Wehrenberg asked the Commission if they would allow Staff to work with the Applicant to
make sure the sign is appropriate.
Cm. Schaub agreed.
Cm. Brown felt that being able to see the address is not only a convenience to fire and police,
but also to the public. He felt it could be a safety issue as well.
Mr. LaRowe stated there are accidents caused by drivers looking for an address, and typically
the address is on the building, not the sign.
Ms. Bascom stated the City requires the address to be over the front door and that is checked
during the building permit, plan check process.
Cm. O'Keefe suggested having the facade broken up and more trees added.
Mr. LaRowe stated the elevations are not depicting all the existing trees. He stated the
elevations were intended to show the landscaping requested by Staff and the landscaping that
will replace the drive -thru area is shown on the landscaping plan rather than the elevations.
Cm. O'Keefe felt there should be more visual relief and more trees added.
Ms. Bascom responded there is a large tree in the planter island on the north elevation which
will remain. She pointed out two planter islands.
Cm. Schaub felt the drive -thru area could include plants that grow higher to cover up the facade.
Ms. Bascom stated Staff would review the final landscape plans to ensure the plantings achieve
sufficient height as opposed to lower ground plants.
Chair Wehrenberg felt the landscape plans are sufficient. She stated this project may not be the
within the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan area but it is on Dublin Blvd and the City is trying to
improve the look of Dublin Blvd. She stated she would like a nice looking building in that
location.
Mr. LaRowe had no problem adding landscaping and felt the existing Japanese Maple is a nice
tree. He agreed to work with Staff on the landscaping plan.
Cm. O'Keefe wanted some assurances that the landscaping plans would reflect the
Commission's desires.
Mr. LaRowe agreed to work with Staff on the landscaping plans.
Chair Wehrenberg appreciated their efforts to improve the interior and their merchandise. She
agreed with Cm. O'Keefe regarding the landscaping and breaking up the walls and the
elevations. She would like a softer building on Dublin Blvd.
izrnia,q isin jug 1i 2}12 {rrn
fturar3feeting 58
Mr. LaRowe felt the Commission wanted to keep the mature landscaping but add to it with
accent trees to make the landscaping pop.
Chair Wehrenberg agreed and felt the green screen will help soften the building.
Mr. LaRowe stated the green screen will be clear on the landscape plans when it is submitted
for building permits with the irrigation plan in place. He apologized for not doing a better job on
the landscape plans with this submittal.
Cm. Schaub stated he supports the Applicant working with Staff to create a landscape plan that
the Commission will support.
Chair Wehrenberg felt the Commission had been working to improve the look of Dublin Blvd
over the years and wanted to ensure this building will enhance Dublin Blvd.
Mr. LaRowe stated they were convinced by Staff to change the entrance to the building because
of the importance of Dublin Blvd.
Ms. Bascom asked to clarify that the landscape enhancements the Commission would like to
see are: accent trees in the existing planter areas, and identify the plants that will be in the
planters and the green screens against the building.
Chair Wehrenberg agreed and felt the Commission would like the building softened.
Mr. LaRowe stated that trellises are included but did not show on the landscaping plan that was
submitted with the packet. He felt that made it hard for the Commission to visualize the plan.
Chair Wehrenberg closed the public hearing.
Cm. Brown agreed with Cm. O'Keefe regarding the landscaping plan and the signage.
Cm. Schaub stated there are no specific plans or design guidelines for the area on Dublin Blvd
between Village Parkway and Scarlett Court. He stated the Commission has tried to ensure that
the projects approved on Dublin Blvd are consistent with the various specific plans. He felt the
Scarlett Court Specific Plan is consistent with the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan. He didn't feel
there was a need for a specific plan for this area at this time. He felt that there was a lot of effort
put into making the signage on Dublin Blvd look nice and that this project would be a good
addition.
Chair Wehrenberg was in support of the project and stated she could make the findings. She
felt the parking was adequate with the added spaces and felt it was better than an old empty
building.
Cm. O'Keefe was happy to hear the new direction 7 -11 was going in with healthier foods and a
nicer interior. He was concerned with the landscaping documents that were submitted and
hesitated to make the findings for landscaping but trusts Staff to work with the Applicant to
create a nice looking building. He felt this is a very important area with a lot of traffic and it's
important for it to look good.
fanning C'omm"on Ju( 10, 2012
�Rvgufxr Meeting 59
Chair Wehrenberg stated that Staff has the power to withhold occupancy until the Applicant has
satisfied all the requirements.
Cm. O'Keefe stated he could make the findings.
Cm. Brown stated he could make the findings.
Ms. Bascom asked for clarification regarding the Commission's direction regarding Condition of
Approval #9 which is related to the free standing monument sign. She asked if they prefer a
sign that is no more than 4 feet tall.
Cm. O'Keefe responded only if the sign is located on the berm.
Ms. Bascom felt the overall direction of the Commission would be the sign, plus any grade that it
is located on, should be no higher than 6 feet.
Cm. Schaub stated it should be no higher than 6 feet from the sidewalk.
The Commission agreed the monument sign should be no more than 6 feet from grade to the
public sidewalk.
Ms. Bascom confirmed the Commission's desire for Condition of Approval #17 which is related
to the concept landscape plan and felt that condition captures the Commission's concerns by
saying "the landscape plan shall identify the proposed plant palette for the new planters to be
installed at the base of the building as well as planting proposed for new landscape islands that
are required to be expanded in the parking field." She will add "accent trees added to the
planter areas."
Cm. Schaub felt the language should direct the Applicant to break up the walls where the glass
was removed.
Ms. Bascom confirmed the Commission's desire for Condition of Approval #17 to state the
plants in the planter areas with the screens need to be able to achieve some height in order to
soften and.break up the wall area.
The Commission agreed.
On a motion by Cm. Brown and seconded by Cm. Schaub, on a vote of 4 -0 -1 with Cm.
Bhuthimethee being absent, the Planning Commission adopted, with the noted modifications to
Conditions of Approval #9 and #17:
RESOLUTION NO. 12- 27
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND A MASTER SIGN PROGRAM FOR 7 -11,
WHICH INCLUDES THE REMODEL OF AN EXISTING 2,760 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL
'Canning ('carramk5ion ,buy 10, 2012
` vgurar3teeting 60
BUILDING, MASTER SIGN PROGRAM, AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS AT
7120 DUBLIN BOULEVARD
8.3 PLPA- 2012 -00028 Zoning Ordinance Amendments to Chapter 8.08 (Definitions),
Chapter 8.36 (Development Regulations), and Chapter 8.76 (Off- Street Parking and
Loading Regulations)
Marnie Delgado, Senior Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report.
Cm. Schaub wanted to make sure the proposed size of the storage area is 3 ft X 5ft X 6ft.
Ms. Delgado responded yes; the proposal is 90 cubic feet which is approximately the size of a
bathtub with a height of 6 feet for personal storage.
Cm. Schaub felt that most garages have wasted space above the cars. He stated there are a
lot of people that have added racks in the garage that fit directly above the cars. He asked if the
developer installed those types of racks, would that suffice.
Ms. Delgado answered yes; the size was only meant to be an example but can be in any
configuration that equals 90 cubic feet.
Cm. Schaub asked if installing the rack would meet the 90 cubic foot requirement.
Ms. Delgado answered yes.
Cm. Schaub felt that would only address those units that had private parking. He felt in podium
parking the developer would need to have the ability to install them and thought that was
possible.
Chair Wehrenberg stated the Commission has discussed this issue with a developer in the past
Cm. Schaub agreed and felt the rack could be an option.
Cm. Brown felt the racks are a good idea and recently installed two similar racks in his own
home. He recommended adding ceiling storage as an example to include in the definition.
Ms. Delgado responded the definition currently allows for the storage to be within an attached or
detached individual garage. She stated that whether the storage is provided on the ground or
overhead, both would be acceptable options as long as they meet the 90 cubic foot requirement.
Cm. Schaub asked if the Commission could eliminate tandem parking. He felt that the
Commission is trying to get people to park in their garage properly and allow for guest parking
on the street.
Mr. Baker stated that this amendment would eliminate tandem parking as part of the required
parking. He stated that, in some of the developments with side -by -side garages, the developer
provides a third tandem space as extra parking. This amendment would allow developers to
continue providing bonus parking. If tandem parking was eliminated completely, the bonus
parking would not be allowed.
Tfanning Cbmm s ` n -7ufy 10, 2012
ufarWeetir 61
Cm. Schaub felt the bonus parking did not have to be called tandem parking.
Mr. Baker responded that the way the amendment is written, whatever the bonus parking is
called, it still allows the bonus parking but it would not allow tandem parking as part of the
required parking.
Cm. Brown stated he is in support of eliminating tandem parking to meet minimum parking
requirements. He asked if a study had been done that showed whether a developer would not
continue with a project if they were not allowed to include tandem parking as part of the required
parking. He asked if eliminating tandem parking would increase their development costs.
Cm. Schaub felt it would only take 2 or 3 units out of a project.
Cm. Brown asked if there has ever been an objection by a developer.
Mr. Baker answered he was not aware of any developer that had backed out of a project over
tandem parking. He stated that the format of parking impacts the footprint of buildings. He
stated the Jordan project was an example where there was a mix of side -by -side and tandem
parking. Eliminating the tandem parking would require some changes to the design which could
impact the units and the site plan.
Cm. Schaub felt, if the Commission had eliminated the tandem parking from the Jordan project,
the developer could have moved two of the buildings and only lost two units.
Chair Wehrenberg felt they have eliminated tandem parking because after the City Council
review of the Jordan project they did not want to see tandem parking again.
Cm. Schaub felt that there were some projects with tandem parking that were approved some
time ago but have not yet been built. He asked if there are any projects left in that category.
Mr. Baker answered there are a few
Cm. Brown asked Ms. Delgado to explain the elimination of the paragraph regarding guest
parking in the chart in the Staff Report.
Ms. Delgado responded that the row in the parking table Cm. Brown is referring to is the guest
parking requirement for condominiums that requires 1 guest parking space for every two units.
Staff is proposing to replace that with 1 guest parking space per unit and the language has been
added to each row based on bedroom size.
Cm. Schaub asked if the result of the change is more parking.
Ms. Delgado answered yes. It would increase the condominium parking requirement to match
the requirement for apartments. She stated the apartment standards will remain the same.
Cm. Schaub asked how condominiums are treated when a condo map is approved but the
building is operated as apartments.
01(anning Commission Jufy 10, 2012
&,qular544e =tang 62
Mr. Baker answered if there is a condo map on the project then they are technically
condominiums. The proposed parking requirements for condominiums and apartments are the
same except for the 2- bedroom condo which has 1 additional space.
Cm. Schaub felt 90 cubic feet of storage space is too small. He proposed that it be at least 200
cubic feet especially if the units will be in garages.
Chair Wehrenberg felt a 200 cubic foot requirement would make it mandatory for the developers
to include the rack in the garage in order to meet the requirement.
Cm. Brown felt it would help eliminate using balconies for storage which makes the street look
terrible. He agreed with Cm. Schaub that the minimum requirement should be larger.
Chair Wehrenberg and Cm. O'Keefe also agreed the minimum storage space should be larger.
Chair Wehrenberg opened the public hearing.
Jeff White, Avalon Bay, spoke regarding the amendment. He stated his company developed
Elan and Dublin Station which were completed in 2008. Last year, the Planning Commission
approved the 2nd phase which is now under construction between Dublin Station and the BART
Station. He was speaking on behalf of the other people who want to develop apartments in
Dublin. He felt there is an unintended consequence of this amendment. He understands the
issue of parking and storage and agrees there is a problem, but apartment projects don't have
that problem. He understood the problem to be residents using parking spaces for storage
instead of parking. He stated that, in Dublin Station, there is no problem because of the
common garage which has no individual, enclosed parking spaces. He stated they handle
storage by providing locked storage in dead spaces in the building or in the garage. He
mentioned the reference to using balconies for Storage and stated they don't have many of
balconies and are very rigorous about not allowing people to store anything on them. He asked
what problem the amendment is trying to solve for apartment projects. He stated that storage is
not a problem and proposed to exclude from the amendment the projects that do not provide
dedicated garages.
Cm. Schaub asked if the project that is under construction at the East BART station has a condo
map.
Mr. White responded that most apartment projects have condo maps.
Cm. Schaub stated that, under that condition, they would still have to provide storage.
Mr. White felt that it didn't matter whether it was an apartment complex or a condo but what type
of building that it is. He felt that in open parking there wasn't the problem of misusing the
parking spaces for storage.
Cm. Schaub asked if it would be difficult to provide lockers above the cars.
Mr. White stated that 10% of the residents at Dublin Station utilize the storage provided and felt
requiring 200 cubic feet of storage for every unit is not needed.
0� Vrdng cbmmgMion quay 10, 201'
= gjufar5Veeting 63
Cm. Schaub felt that just because they don't have it doesn't mean they don't need it. He stated
the Commission is trying to create projects where young people can live and asked how much
of a problem it be would to add storage.
Mr. White felt it will make the project bigger than it would otherwise be and they would have to
provide more space in the garage to access the storage. He felt it wasn't possible to add the
storage because everything has to be ADA accessible, even the bike parking must be
accessible. He stated that if the City requires storage it will have to be ADA accessible storage.
He felt there was no problem with storage whether an apartment or condo.
Cm. Schaub asked Mr. White what he would like the Commission to do.
Mr. White suggested differentiating storage requirements by type of parking; common parking or
individual garages.
Mr. Baker felt Mr. White was suggesting that storage be required only where there are individual
private parking garages.
Mr. White agreed.
Cm. Brown referred to Mr. White's question about "what problem are they trying to solve." He
stated that his vision was to solve the problem by making storage available for units with a
dedicated private garage.
Cm. Schaub asked, if the storage units are required above the parking spaces, are they
required to be accessible.
Mr. White answered that 5% of the parking stalls must be accessible and some percentage of
the bike storage must be accessible.
Cm. Schaub felt that the Commission was trying to find a solution and found an ADA problem.
Mr. White felt that the accessibility issue is only part of it and asked again what problem we are
trying to solve.
Cm. Schaub asked Mr. White if he was suggesting that projects with open /podium parking
should be exempted from the amendment.
Mr. White stated if it doesn't have dedicated, assigned, enclosed garages then it should be
exempt.
Mr. Baker stated the intent was to address the issue of residents using their enclosed private
garage for storage and this proposed change would require storage for units with enclosed
private garages and help to alleviate the parking issue.
Chair Wehrenberg closed the public hearing.
Chair Wehrenberg agreed with exempting the parking garage.
Cm. Schaub agreed and asked Ms. Delgado her opinion of the proposed change.
P&nning Cbmnfd�sio ury 10, 2012
fgular5,Veeti 64
Ms. Delgado felt it would be acceptable.
Cm. Schaub asked the Commission if they agreed with increasing the amount of storage from
90 to 200 cubic feet minimum.
Cm. Schaub felt that if there is a condo map on the project and it has enclosed garage type
parking; they should be required to provide 200 cubic feet of storage.
Ms. Delgado wanted to clarify that Staff is not distinguishing on this standard between
apartments and condos but indicating on multi - family projects, within certain zoning districts,
where the higher density units occur.
Mr. Baker confirmed that the Commission would like to have a minimum of 200 cubic feet of
storage per unit that has private enclosed garage type parking spaces. He stated Staff could
modify the footnote on page 4 of 7 in the second table to address that issue.
Cm. O'Keefe appreciated Mr. White coming to the meeting and sharing his concerns.
Cm. Schaub also appreciated Mr. White's input.
On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Cm. O'Keefe, on a vote of 4 -0 -1 with Cm.
Bhuthimethee being absent, with the modifications to the chart requiring 200 cubic feet of
storage for units with private, enclosed parking spaces, the Planning Commission adopted:
RESOLUTION NO. 12 -29
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND CHAPTER 8.08 (DEFINITIONS),
CHAPTER 8.36 (DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS) AND 8.76 (OFF- STREET PARKING AND
LOADING REGULATIONS) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE
NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS — NONE
OTHER BUSINESS - NONE
10.1 Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from the Planning Commission and /or Staff,
including Committee Reports and Reports by the Planning Commission related to
meetings attended at City Expense (AB 1234).
10.2 Cm. Schaub stated he walked around the Sorrento development to see how it looked.
He mentioned the "alley- loaded" projects; he was concerned to see how little space there
was between the units. He was also surprised to see the front of one unit facing the back
of another unit. He felt the Commission missed those small details. He suggested that
the other Commissioners walk around to see what was built after the Planning
Commission approves it.
canning Comm s,sion `Juf 10, 2012
ft; urar51fee,ing 65
10.3 Mr. Baker updated the Commission regarding: 1) REI The City has made considerable
effort and has now engaged the CEO to move the project forward. The CEO has
addressed the issues including the tower and the project should be complete within the
next 6 weeks; 2) Montessori Plus — building permits were issued Friday.
10.4 Mr. Baker advised the Commission that the City Council will hold a work session
regarding the Economic Development Strategy on July 19th at 6:00 pm in the Council
Chambers.
10.5 Mr. Baker mentioned that Jeri Ram, CDD Director, has announced her retirement as of
September 4, 2012.
10.6 Mr. Baker advised the Commission that there will be a new group under the Planning
Division called Neighborhood Resources. The new group will include existing staff from
the Police Department. The new group will focus on outreach to the community and
include programs such as Neighborhood Watch.
10.7 Chair Wehrenberg stated she may not be able to attend the July 24, 2012 meeting.
ADJOURNMENT — The meeting was adjourned at 8:45:13 PM
Res ectfully submitted,
oreen Wehrenberg
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Jeff B ke
Asst. Community Development Director
GWINUTES120121PLANNING COMMISSION107.10.12 FINAL PC MINUTES.domdoc
P&nning (' ornm4mion lufy Iii, 2012
�gu r5Veetin# 66
DRAFT DRAFT
Planning Commission Minutes
Tuesday, November 12, 2013
CALL TO ORDER /ROLL CALL
A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, November
12, 2013, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair O'Keefe called the
meeting to order at „70;;0,1„
Present: Chair O'Keefe; Vice Chair Bhuthimethee; Commissioners Goel and Kohli; Jeff Baker,
Assistant Community Development Director; Kit Faubion, City Attorney; Kristi Bascom, Principal
Planner; Marnie Delgado, Senior Planner; Martha Aja, Environmental Coordinator; Obaid Khan,
Senior Civil Engineer (Traffic); and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary.
Absent: Cm. Do
ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA — NONE
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS — On a motion by Chair O'Keefe and seconded by Cm.
Bhuthimethee, on a vote of 4 -0, with Cm. Do being absent, the Planning Commission approved
the minutes of the October 22, 2013 meeting with modifications.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS — NONE
CONSENT CALENDAR.— NONE
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS — NONE
PUBLIC HEARINGS —
8.1 PLPA- 2013 -00049 & 50 — Buick/GMC Dealership — Conditional Use Permit to allow a
carwash and limited outdoor repair work and a Site Development Review Permit to construct a
carwash building and related site improvements to an existing car dealership located at 4400
John Monego Court.
Martha Aja, Environmental Coordinator, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report.
Cm. Goel asked Ms. Aja to explain a code enforcement issue regarding a storage container on
the site.
Ms. Aja responded that there are four storage containers on the site and the Zoning Ordinance
allows for storage containers with a temporary use permit for up to one year. She stated that
the Applicant has indicated that the contents of the storage container will be moved to the new
building once constructed.
Cm. Goel asked if there was a request for storage containers prior to their installation on the
site.
III- S M ,�Yovemfiar liz .2
'1
DRAFT DRAFT
Ms. Aja answered no; the storage containers were noticed by Staff during an inspection and at
that time the Applicant was notified that they needed to apply for a Temporary Use Permit,
which the Applicant did.
Cm. Goel asked Ms. Aja to explain the code enforcement issue related to car washing on site.
Ms. Aja answered that currently, the washing of vehicles is occurring within the detailing area of
the service building. She stated that those car washing activities will not occur after the
proposed car wash building is completed.
Cm. Goel asked if the car washing activities were a violation of the existing use permit, and, if
so, what did the City do about the violation.
Ms. Aja answered that the car washing activities were a violation and a "stop work" order was
issued by the City.
Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director, stated that Staff worked with the
Applicant to apply for a Temporary Use Permit (TUP) so that they can meet City standards as
well as clean water requirements.
Cm. Goel asked if there was any contaminated run off into the adjacent flood facilities.
Ms. Aja answered no; the car washing activities did not cause any run off into the storm drains.
She stated that the new car wash will use recycled water and will be connected to the sanitary
sewer, as required.
Cm. Goel asked for an explanation regarding the Fiat dealership not being constructed, and if
there are elevations showing what the car wash will look like from Dublin Blvd.
Ms. Aja referred the Planning Commission to the elevations which showed the car wash and its
proximity to Dublin Blvd. She also stated that the property owner decided not to go forward with
constructing the Fiat dealership because of limited size of the parcel.
Cm. Kohli asked how many car dealerships currently have on -site car washes.
Ms. Aja answered that only the Honda and Nissan dealerships currently have on -site car
washing facilities.
Cm. Kohli asked how those dealerships that do not have car washing facility wash their
vehicles.
Ms. Aja answered that they can use deionized water to rinse off vehicles but they cannot use
soap or potable water that would go into the storm drain. She stated that Staff educates the
dealerships about clean water requirements when doing inspections.
Cm. Kohli asked what would the dealership do if they wanted to use soap to wash their vehicles.
Ms. Aja responded that they would have to take their vehicles to a car wash.
'137
DRAFT DRAFT
Mr. Baker stated that the dealerships under the same ownership often share a car wash
facilities.
Cm. Kohli asked how many gallons of water are used annually by a dealership, based car wash
activities.
Ms. Aja was not aware of the water usage, but added that one of the advantages of a facility
such as the one being requested is that they will use recycled water, which is a better
alternative.
Cm. Kohli asked if the public would be allowed to use the facility or would it be used only for the
dealership.
Ms. Aja answered that the facility would only be used by the three dealerships in the auto -mall
and would not be opened to the public.
Chair O'Keefe opened the public hearing.
Jim Templeton, McKay and Somps, spoke in favor of the project.
Cm. Goel asked about the line of sight to the car wash from Dublin Blvd.
Mr. Templeton responded that they had been more concerned with the view from John Monego
Court, but felt that the landscaping would conceal the car wash from Dublin Blvd.
Cm. Goel asked Ms. Aja to show the site plan that indicates the line of sight.
Ms. Aja showed the site plan and pointed out where the car wash building will be located and
the line of sight to Dublin Blvd.
Mr. Baker pointed out the area on Dublin Blvd. where the car wash building could be seen and
felt that visibility would be extremely limited when traveling east bound on Dublin Blvd.
Cm. Goel asked the height of the structure.
Ms. Aja answered that the main structure ranges from 20 -24 feet tall and the car wash is 15
feet, 8 inches tall.
Chair O'Keefe closed the public hearing.
Chair O'Keefe stated that he had visited the site and was not concerned with the sight path from
Dublin Blvd. He stated that he can make all the findings.
Cm. Goel stated that he can make all the findings, but was concerned regarding the code
violation. He stated that he was glad the City took action but wanted to verify the changes will
be implemented, unlike the landscaping that did not occur.
Ms. Aja stated that the landscaping will be installed as required by the Conditions of Approval
for the fagade modification that was approved last year. She also stated that the City will not
final the building permit until the landscaping improvements take place.
DRAFT DRAFT
Cm. Bhuthimethee stated that she was not concerned with the line of sight from Dublin Blvd.
and stated that she can make all the findings.
Cm. Kohli stated that he can make all the findings.
On a motion by Cm. Goel and seconded by Cm. Kohli, on a vote of 4 -0, with Cm. Do being
absent, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted:
RESOLUTION NO. 13 -36
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A CARWASH AND LIMITED
OUTDOOR REPAIR WORK AND A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT A
CARWASH BUILDING AND RELATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE BUICK/GMC
DEALERSHIP LOCATED AT 4400 JOHN MONEGO COURT
8.2 PLPA- 2012 -00031 - The Village at Dublin - General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan Amendment, Planned Development Rezone, Site Development Review, Tentative
Subdivision Map, and Environmental Impact Report.
Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report.
Chair O'Keefe asked if there is a Condition of Approval to require the Applicant to maintain the
landscaping.
Ms. Bascom answered that there is a general condition regarding landscape maintenance which
mandates the continued maintenance of landscaping in addition to the City's landscape
ordinance.
Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if there is any stone veneer on the buildings.
Ms. Bascom referenced the CMU split -face block veneer and referred to the materials board for
a sample of the material.
Cm. Bhuthimethee asked about the fence pilasters and if there is some type of relief or
articulation to the split -face block.
Ms. Bascom referred Cm. Bhuthimethee to the project architect for the answer to her question.
Cm. Goel asked how the developer will handle the issue of BART parking at the center.
Ms. Bascom stated that a commercial center is considered private property and the Applicant
will install the appropriate signage to discourage BART parking.
Cm. Goel asked if the Applicant's target opening is 2015. Ms. Bascom answered yes.
DRAFT DRAFT
Cm. Goel referred to the SEIR that mentioned the level of service at the intersection at Sybase
and connections to onramp at I -580. He asked if there are any substantial impacts to traffic on
Dublin Blvd. during peak commute hours as a result of this project.
Obaid Khan, Traffic Engineer, responded that one of the specific analyses done was regarding
queues and how they will build at the new intersection. He stated that they reviewed the
distribution of traffic at the new intersections and did not feel there would be issues on Martinelli
Way and Dublin Blvd. He stated that the project will create connectivity to Dublin Blvd., and
pedestrian, bike and vehicular access from Martinelli to Dublin Blvd. He discussed the traffic
analysis of the project.
Cm. Goel asked about bike access into the facility and the bike lane on Dublin Blvd. and asked
if it will be extended to Martinelli Way and Arnold Drive.
Mr. Khan answered that the City's Bikeways Master Plan calls for bike lanes on Arnold Drive.
He stated that there are existing bike lanes, south bound on Arnold Drive, between Dublin and
Martinelli but there are no bike lanes north bound, therefore the developer will add those lanes
to the frontage of the property. He stated that the Bikeways Master Plan does not require a bike
lane on Martinelli Way but the developer is required to add a Class 1 path on the north side of
Martinelli Way. He stated there will also be bike facilities within the project. He stated that
wherever they found that they could not mitigate an impact, the City has required the project to
prepare a Traffic Demand Management (TDM) Plan. He felt that, because of the project's close
proximity to BART, it has the potential to attract good TDM measures.
Cm. Kohli referred to comment letter #2 from the Alameda County Transportation Commission,
specifically comment 2.2.2 which stated that the DSEIR proposes to remove a crosswalk on
Dublin Blvd. if a bridge cannot be built. He asked for an explanation of that comment.
Ms. Bascom responded that if the Iron Horse Pedestrian Bridge (discussed with the Dublin
Crossing project) is not built, then the secondary mitigation, to ensure traffic flow on Dublin
Blvd., is to remove a portion of the crosswalk at the Iron Horse Trail intersection, which is not
desirable.
Cm. Kohli clarified that, if no bridge is built then the crosswalk goes away.
Ms. Bascom responded yes; but that would not happen until 2035 per the Dublin Crossing
project.
Cm. Kohli asked, since the developer of the Dublin Crossing project is contributing towards the
analysis of the bridge, is this developer also contributing. Ms. Bascom answered no.
Cm. Bhuthimethee was concerned with the backs of the stores facing Dublin Blvd. She felt that
in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) this type of orientation is prohibited.
Ms. Bascom answered that, due to the orientation of the site as a retail center, there had to be a
"back door' somewhere. She stated that Staff reviewed many different iterations of the site
plan. She stated that the approved Green at Park Place mixed -use project will be on the parcel
to the south and the developer endeavored to make the sites work together; also, Hacienda
'14 -
DRAFT DRAFT
Crossings shares the same orientation. She stated that the developer wanted to create a strong
connection to the future development to the south with an attractive pedestrian link.
Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if the median along Martinelli Way has been built yet.
Ms. Bascom answered that Martinelli Way is fully built out and the median is existing.
Cm. Bhuthimethee asked what type of entry statement will there be at this project.
Ms. Bascom answered that Pad 1 will be the anchor building on the corner of Hacienda Drive
and Dublin Blvd. She stated that the concept plans for The Green at Park Place have a similar
feature with anchor buildings on the corner. She stated that Martinelli Way is fully installed and
will be the main connection between the two projects with a north /south element. She stated
that this project does not have the same landscape entry feature that Hacienda Crossings does
because it serves as a driveway to the larger center, whereas this is a public street that runs
further west.
Cm. Bhuthimethee felt it would be good to have an east/west connection between this project
and Hacienda Crossings.
Chair O'Keefe opened the public hearing.
Pete Knoedler, Regency Centers, Applicant, spoke regarding the project. He stated that he is
excited to be in Dublin and felt the project will bring a unique look to Dublin. He stated that
Whole Foods has signed a lease and will have a large outdoor patio area west of the store for a
gathering place. He mentioned that Nordstrom Rack and Home Goods have signed leases for
the project. He stated that there will be a mix of unique restaurants. At the east elevation, close
to the plaza and Hacienda Drive, there will be a unique organic fresh food restaurant and there
will also be a lot of outdoor seating at Pad 2. He stated that they are planning to break ground
in February or March 2014 with the first tenants in the center opening in spring 2015. He
responded to the question about BART parking at the center and stated that his organization
owns other centers within close proximity to other BART stations. He stated that they have not
had any problems because they installed signage and let people know that the center is not a
parking field for BART. He stated that they will employ an In -house property management team
that will monitor the parking at all times.
Cm. Kohli had no questions for the Applicant but commented that he is very happy that the
project will bring in more unique, diverse retail, as well as restaurants.
Chair O'Keefe felt that it made sense to have the center oriented with the back of house to
Dublin Blvd. so that the layout is open to the freeway similar to Hacienda Crossings. He stated
that the Planning Commission has made a point to improve the look on major thoroughfares and
Dublin Blvd is one of those. He felt that there is an opportunity to improve the look on Dublin
Blvd. with this project. He felt that there is a lot being done with the landscaping, but that there
is an opportunity to create an enhanced look with building materials on the back side of the
buildings facing Dublin Blvd. He suggested installing the composite siding where there is
plaster and felt that it would add a lot of value. He asked the Applicant if he would agree to
enhance the building materials.
Mr. Knoedler asked Chair O'Keefe to point out the area he is referring to on the slide.
141
DRAFT DRAFT
Chair O'Keefe asked for the slide which shows Major 1, north elevation and Major 2, north
elevation also. He pointed out where he would like to see the composite siding instead of
plaster which was at the top of the building where the sign will be located.
Dave Johnson, Johnson Architects, stated that the enhancements to the back side of the
building was originally minimal, but after working with Ms. Bascom it was considerably
enhanced. He agreed to work with Staff to enhance the composite siding on the back side of
the buildings.
Chair O'Keefe felt that the north elevation of Major 2 is similar and asked that the Applicant
enhance that look as well.
Mr. Johnson felt that they could work with Staff to create a solution that helps to break up the
wall in a better way. He stated that Ms. Bascom's concern, from the beginning, was to create a
good looking back side of the building.
Chair O'Keefe felt that if the back of the buildings had to face Dublin Blvd., a major thoroughfare
in Dublin, then it should be enhanced a bit more.
Mr. Johnson added that the split -face block has variations to it but what was depicted in the
slide was a rendering.
Cm. Bhuthimethee agreed with Chair O'Keefe regarding having more articulation to the back
side of buildings that face major thoroughfares. She thought that the rendering of the pilaster
appears to be brick which she felt was a nice material that shows depth of color, but the actual
pilaster does not look like the rendering.
Mr. Johnson stated that he has been working with the manufacturer to create a better block with
more terra cotta tone.
Cm. Bhuthimethee stated that she was envisioning something different than what is seen in the
rendering. She asked if the same materials are used on the buildings.
Mr. Johnson answered yes and stated that the base materials are used sporadically in the back
of the buildings and is not a dominate element.
Cm. Bhuthimethee likes how the fence screens the parking and gives a background to the
monument sign on the corner to enhance the entry at Dublin Blvd. She asked if the tower
element at the main entry could be further enhanced to make it more of a signature element.
Mr. Knoedler felt that the structure at the corner is large and does make a statement.
Cm. Bhuthimethee stated that she wanted something really special at the entrance for the
pedestrians.
Mr. Johnson stated that there is landscaping on both sides of the entrance and there is also the
lighting that carries onto either side of the entrance.
. 2
DRAFT DRAFT
Cm. Bhuthimethee stated that she was hoping for something more distinctive at the main
entrance.
Mr. Knoedler mentioned that the building tower element lights up at night and felt that the
greenwall is great for pedestrians. He stated that they had worked with Staff extensively on this
entrance.
Cm. Bhuthimethee mentioned that she had visited a new Whole Foods store in Fremont that
she thought was very nice. She described the brick on the building, in the parking lot and the
real brick in the walkways. She stated that the richness of materials in that building was what
she was hoping for. She asked if they could enhance the caps on the pilasters.
Mr. Johnson answered yes and stated that they could use smooth block to contrast the split -
face and stated he would work with Staff. He stated that the pilasters and the materials won't be
that visible and is not the predominant material being used.
Ms. Bascom asked if Cm. Bhuthimethee was specifically referring to the cap on the pilasters on
the fence. Cm. Bhuthimethee answered yes.
Ms. Bascom asked if there was a particular design direction she was looking for.
Cm. Bhuthimethee answered that she would like to see something with more of a shadow line.
She stated that she would like to see more definition to the pilasters.
Ms. Bascom mentioned Condition of Approval #18 that requires approval by the Community
Development Director of certain design details, including the pilasters, for the project. She
stated that Staff will work with the Applicant to refine the pilaster detail.
Cm. Goel commended the Applicant for bringing Whole Foods to Dublin after 10 years. He
stated that he would like to see their marketing study. He felt that the residents of Dublin are
excited about the anchor stores coming to the center. He felt that the overall design of the
project brings out an aesthetic appeal as a magnet. He suggested, as a cyclist, using secure
bike parking facility, similar to BART, which would add a security element that creates another
opportunity for attraction to the center. He felt that Dublin has a significant bike infrastructure
and if the center has restaurants that encourage biking that would create another opportunity
that the other centers don't have.
Chair O'Keefe closed the pubic hearing.
Cm. Kohli felt that the Applicant has done a great job and thanked Staff. He agreed with Cm.
Goel about bringing Whole Foods here and felt the center will be a great addition to the City,
with more diversity in shopping, retail and restaurants.
Cm. Bhuthimethee stated that she is also very excited that Whole Foods is coming to Dublin.
She mentioned the Whole Foods in Fremont and felt it was a very nice store and was looking
forward to a very good building with great materials. She stated that in Fremont they made a
nice statement with the size of trees, at 84 inch box, which made it appear that the trees had
been there a long time. They also brought in very large, mature palm trees. She stated that this
center looks very nice and is excited about all the retail that will be there. She felt that the
3
DRAFT DRAFT
pedestrian spine will make a good north /south connection and the outdoor seating at the other
restaurants will enliven the space.
Chair O'Keefe felt that this is a very good project, and will draw people from all over the City.
He thanked the Applicant for understanding the Planning Commission's concern about the look
of Dublin Blvd. and agreeing to work with Staff to further enhance the composite siding on
Dublin Blvd. and Hacienda Drive. He stated that he can make the findings.
Cm. Goel felt that this will be a great magnate to Dublin, and liked the illuminating elements
similar to the Premium Outlet mall in Livermore. He felt that the project will stand out as people
drive by on the freeway with curb appeal and definition. He felt that those are the pieces that
the Planning Commission has been working hard to establish. He spoke regarding Whole
Foods' ability to enhance an area just by their presence. He encouraged the Applicant to take
the opportunity to further enhance the project, if possible. He stated he can make the findings.
Chair O'Keefe stated that the Planning Commission would like to recommend to City Council
that they move forward with the project but add a Condition of Approval to the SDR that the
Applicant will work with Staff to further enhance the composite siding on Dublin Blvd. and
Hacienda Drive and address the caps on the pilasters.
Mr. Baker responded that the best way to do that would be to follow the recommendation as
outlined in the Staff Report and then make the statement regarding those two items.
Ms. Bascom stated that Condition of Approval #18 will allow Staff to finesse the details of the
fence and the pilasters.
On a motion by Chair O'Keefe and seconded by Cm. Bhuthimethee, on a vote of 4 -0, with Cm.
Do being absent, with the addition of a condition to the SDR that states that the Applicant will
work with Staff to further enhance the composite siding on Majors 1 & 2 pertaining to Dublin
Blvd. and Hacienda Drive, the Planning Commission adopted:
RESOLUTION NO. 13- 37
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF A FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ADOPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS
UNDER CEQA FOR THE VILLAGE AT DUBLIN RETAIL CENTER
o
RESOLUTION NO. 13 — 38
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
I- S M ,�Yovemfiar liz .2
144 —
DRAFT DRAFT
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE
GENERAL PLAN AND THE EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN FOR
THE VILLAGE AT DUBLIN RETAIL CENTER
a a
RESOLUTION NO. 13 -39
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE
ZONING MAP TO REZONE 14.32 ACRES AT 5054 HACIENDA DRIVE TO A PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT AND APPROVING THE RELATED STAGE 1 AND 2
DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE VILLAGE AT DUBLIN RETAIL CENTER PROJECT
RESOLUTION NO. 13 -40
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
AND VESTING TENTATIVE MAP FOR PARCEL 3 OF PARCEL MAP 8262 FOR THE
VILLAGE AT DUBLIN RETAIL CENTER
o
8.3 PLPA- 2012 -00028 Zoning Ordinance Amendments to Chapter 8.08 (Definitions),
Chapter 8.36 (Development Regulations), and Chapter 8.76 (Off- Street Parking and
Loading Regulations).
Marnie Delgado, Senior Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report.
Cm. Kohli asked if the restriction on tandem parking only pertains to residential developments.
Ms. Delgado responded that the change will only pertain to residential developments; tandem
parking would continue to be allowed on commercial properties with no changes proposed to
that provision.
Mr. Baker stated that the amendment is to address a perceived issue in some areas where
there is two car tandem parking but residents do not use both parking spaces because it is
inconvenient. He stated that the City Council directed Staff to move forward with this
amendment to limit tandem parking. He stated that the two required parking spaces must be
side by side, but the 3rd parking space could be tandem.
Cm. Goel asked for an explanation of the requirement for 200 cubic feet of storage.
DRAFT DRAFT
Ms. Delgado responded that this subject came out of an informational report to the City Council
regarding the Dublin Ranch Villages and whether there was enough personal storage for the
residents so that they could have an alternative to storing things in the garage. She stated that
the idea was that if residents have dedicated storage space then the attached garage would be
used for parking and not for storage.
Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if the Planning Commission had required the personal storage
provision on another project in eastern Dublin and had increased the amount of storage.
Mr. Baker answered that Staff has worked with applicants of recent projects to provide personal
storage. He stated that the increase was as a result of a recommendation by the Planning
Commission to increase the storage space when the Commission previously reviewed these
proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments.
Cm. Bhuthimethee thought that the recommendation was as a result of information regarding
another city.
Ms. Delgado responded that Staff had reached out to other cities, found no regulations within
the Tri- Valley, but did find it in other cities within California. She stated that the size of the
storage varied. She stated that Staff recommended 90 cubic feet and the Planning Commission
suggested that it be increased to 200 cubic feet.
Cm. Goel asked for an example of how the storage space is included in an overall project.
Ms. Delgado answered that the proposed requirement is only for multi - family projects with a
dedicated, enclosed garage for each unit; (i.e. it would not apply to an apartment complex with
either a carport or open parking, nor would it apply to a condo project with a parking structure).
She stated that there are some project types similar to the Villages that have structured parking
with individual enclosed garages that are dedicated to a unit; that unit would be required to have
accessory storage.
Cm. Goel asked where the accessory storage would be in the unit.
Ms. Delgado answered that it would be up to the developer to decide the location, but it would
have to be dedicated to the unit; it could be within the unit or a space carved out of the garage
footprint.
Cm. Goel stated that it would be on a case by case basis as to how it is implemented, but the
storage requirement would become a part of that development.
Cm. Kohli asked to clarify that this amendment will make it more difficult for residents to use
their garages for uses other than parking their car.
Ms. Delgado responded that the amendment is to encourage the residents to use their garages
for parking by meeting their storage needs elsewhere. She continued that the intent is to keep
the garage open for parking so that the parking isn't spilling to the guest spaces or onto the
street and causing parking congestion in the area.
'14
DRAFT DRAFT
Cm. Goel was concerned about the tandem parking exclusion for the Downtown Dublin Specific
Plan (DDSP) area and asked for an explanation. He was concerned that a transit oriented
development could apply for a CUP to "skirt" the requirement.
Ms. Delgado responded that a developer could apply for a CUP to allow up to 25% of their units
to be tandem parked.
Cm. Goel asked if the 25% would be for 1 space or 2 spaces.
Ms. Delgado responded that, under the CUP, they would be allowed to have 2 spaces front to
back (tandem) for up to 25% of their units if they could demonstrate and the Planning
Commission could find, that it won't be a detriment to the project or surrounding properties and
that there are alternative methods of travel within close proximity.
Cm. Goel asked why this would be an exclusion when the Applicant can request the CUP.
Cm. Goel felt that the way the Ordinance is written the developer could apply for a CUP and the
Zoning Ordinance would be guidance for a finding.
Ms. Delgado responded that the proposed ordinance includes findings A. B. & C. which wwould
be the basis of a decision, in addition to the findings the Planning Commission would make for a
CUP. She stated that the amendment would give developers, in the downtown area, more
flexibility with their project. She stated that the City will be seeing more in -fill projects, some with
challenges in developing them. She stated that because downtown is close to the west Dublin
BART station and may not have the same parking needs as other more suburban projects, it
may be appropriate, if they meet the conditions, to give them the opportunity, on a case -by -case
basis, to use tandem parking to make it a more viable project.
Cm. Goel was concerned that the specifics of the exclusion in the document would be tying the
hands of the Planning Commission. He felt that it could be an automatic approval if the
developer applies for a CUP and they can comply with the restrictions then it would be allowed.
He stated he was trying to understand the reasoning behind having this finding specifically
identified in the Amendment. He stated that when there is a development that includes
alternative modes of transportation there usually is some type of specific requirement to provide
transit passes or provide a shuttle service to connect to transportation. He was concerned that
this exclusion gives the developer a 25% threshold automatically.
Mr. Baker responded that there is a perception in neighborhoods where there is a lot of tandem
parking that residents are not using their garages for parking and are creating overflow issues.
He continued; the first thought was to eliminate the ability to allow tandem parking; however,
development in the downtown is a priority for the City Council and to facilitate those
improvements. He stated that the report pointed out that there could be some limitations if
tandem parking is prohibited outright in that area where the City is trying to encourage
development. The ability to provide tandem parking could help to make projects happen that
may not otherwise be viable. However, they did not want to automatically allow tandem parking
in the downtown. He stated that Staff set up the CUP process so that approval would not be
automatic. He stated that the developer would have to apply for a CUP and receive Planning
Commission approval to allow them to have the 25 %. To create the framework for a decision, in
addition to the regular CUP findings, there are the additional findings that were added specific to
the DDSP area.
III -
'14
DRAFT DRAFT
Cm. Goel stated that it would not be automatic and there is a review process that would require
the Planning Commission's approval, but asked if a denial is possible.
Mr. Baker answered yes; that is a possibility.
Cm. Goel felt that this would be the time to change the amendment if the Planning Commission
wanted to.
Cm. Kohli asked if tandem parking was seen as the cause of the overflow parking issue in the
Dublin Ranch area.
Mr. Baker answered yes; that may be part of the issue.
Cm. Kohli asked Chair O'Keefe for his thoughts, since he was on the Planning Commission
during the original discussion regarding tandem parking.
Chair O'Keefe responded that a lot of residents expressed concerns regarding the parking issue
in that area which is why the study was done. He stated that the Planning Commission
discussed the issue and made the recommendation. He did not feel that the amendment was
tying the hands of the Planning Commission. He stated that the City did not want tandem
parking in east Dublin, but there may be projects in the downtown in which 25% tandem parking
would be appropriate, if they can make the findings.
Cm. Goel stated that he wanted to understand the reason for having it specifically called out in
the amendment and based on Chair O'Keefe's explanation of what transpired, he felt that it is an
attempt to provide clarity in the decision for findings.
Cm. Kohli stated he understood the requirement to use garages for parking rather than storage
and felt that it made sense after reading the comment letters from residents.
Chair O'Keefe opened the public hearing.
Stuart Cook, Alameda County Surplus Authority, spoke regarding the project. He asked why the
same provision was not being offered for development close to the East Dublin BART station.
He stated that the Alameda County Surplus Authority has two parcels in that area that have not
been entitled as yet and are both "odd," small sites. He felt that flexibility in this area is as
important as the Downtown Dublin area and for the same reasons. He stated that the Staff
Report indicated that the amendment is consistent with all applicable specific plans and stated
that the Dublin Transit Center Specific Plan states the parking ratio of 1.5 parking spaces per
unit and asked how that is consistent.
Ms. Delgado answered that the parking ratio for the Transit Center would not change as a result
of these amendments.
Mr. Cook responded that the parking ratio would not change but the tandem parking would
change unless there was some provision made.
Ms. Delgado responded that is correct; the exception for 25% of the units is exclusive to the
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan area.
1 -
DRAFT DRAFT
Mr. Cook responded that he felt that he could make the same statement for the Dublin Transit
Center Specific Plan area. He was not sure if it is necessary, but would not want to give up the
flexibility for the same reasons as the DDSP area.
Chair O'Keefe closed the public hearing.
Chair O'Keefe asked Staff if the Dublin Transit Center Specific Plan should be included to give
the developers the same opportunity to apply for a CUP for 25% tandem parking.
Mr. Baker answered that the residential parcels in the Dublin Transit Center are high density.
The Transit Center projects typically have a shared garage rather than individual attached
enclosed garages. The proposed ordinance applies to multi - family projects with individual
attached garages.
Chair O'Keefe asked if a parcel that is not developed yet should have the same opportunity for
tandem parking as the DDSP area.
Mr. Baker stated that at the current land use designations and densities, it would be unlikely to
build at that density and have enclosed garages.
Chair O'Keefe asked if it would be possible to allow the Dublin Transit Center Specific Plan area
the same flexibility.
Mr. Baker responded that it doesn't get away from the issue that the City Council was trying to
address which was high density housing with tandem parking.
Cm. Goel asked if this 25% exception would apply to the Dublin Crossing project.
Mr. Baker answered that the 25% exception is only for projects in the DDSP area and would not
apply to the Dublin Crossing project.
Ms. Delgado clarified Footnote #1 regarding the accessory storage. Footnote #1 should be
revised to clarify that the accessory storage requirement is only for multi - family projects that
have private, enclosed garages assigned to individual units, the intent was not to apply it to all
multi - family projects.
On a motion by Cm. Kohli and seconded by Cm. Goel, on a vote of 4 -0, with Cm. Do absent,
and with the clarification to Footnote #1, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted:
RESOLUTION NO. 13 -41
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO DUBLIN ZONING
ORDINANCE CHAPTERS 8.08 (DEFINITIONS), 8.36 (DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS) AND
8.76 (OFF- STREET PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS)
EFFECTIVE CITY -WIDE
'149 -
DRAFT
o
NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS — NONE
OTHER BUSINESS - NONE
DRAFT
10.1 Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from the Planning Commission and /or Staff,
including Committee Reports and Reports by the Planning Commission related to
meetings attended at City Expense (AB 1234).
10.2 Mr. Baker informed the Commission that the November 26, 2013 meeting is cancelled
and the next meeting will be December 10th. Cm. Kohli stated that he will not be able to
attend that meeting.
ADJOURNMENT — The meeting was adjourned at IM.
Respectfully submitted,
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Jeff Baker
Assistant Community Development Director
G:IMINUTE&20131PLANNING COMMISSIONO 1. 12.13 DRAFT PC MINUTES.docx
�6
Marnie Delgado iiPIPP IIpIpPim
From:
Kevin Pryer <Kevin @missionvalleyhomes.com>
Sent:
Monday, July 30, 2012 5:59 PM
To:
Marnie Delgado
Cc:
Mikep; Chris Foss
Subject:
Response to Parking Ordinance
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
Marnie,
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the recently proposed Parking Standards. As a developer of properties in
East Dublin I am well aware of the history of concerns and problems at certain sites in Dublin. in fact, I believe that our
Jordan Ranch project and it's few remaining tandem garage units accelerated the urgency behind parts of this proposed
ordinance. While I applaud the effort to provide more certainty and clarity on actual parking standards in Dublin I feel
that the proposed standard is a dramatic overreaction to recent tumult. The proposed requirement of 2 covered plus
one guest per dwelling for every condo or townhome with 2 or more bedrooms is an unreasonable standard with
consequences that 1 fear have not been considered. Here are a few thoughts for consideration:
1) Not just an East Dublin Ordinance: Projects like Jordan Ranch have been able to provide significant guest
parking (even meeting this proposed standard or exceeding it) because they are large parcel, master plan
communities. Much of the land that will allow for attached residential for -sale development in East Dublin is
gone. A few sites remain, but this ordinance will impact all of Dublin including the downtown. Dublin will soon
transition from a town that presses east for all new housing to one, like most core Bay Area cities, that looks to
convert old, underutilized sites into residential and mixed -use opportunities. A parking ordinance like this will
ensure that all housing provided in smaller parcels is rental housing as one fewer stall is required for similar
sized units. The reason for this is simple math, the percentage of a site that will be dedicated to parking alone
will limit the ability to deliver densities in the 15 -17 du /ac range. A loss of units = a loss of land value
2) Density is not always bad. As the City looks to satisfy its required share of housing allocations over the years and
looks to add bodies to parts of town where their presence will help retail and office growth and stimulate tax
dollar generation for the City this parking ordinance will prove a significant deterrent to having property owner
residents. Making it more difficult to deliver for -sale density means that homes that are built will be larger, and
more expensive increasing the difficulty of first time home buyers finding an entry level home in Dublin.
3) Parking is an issue not the only issue. This ordinance will create a sea of guest parking on sites small and large
and the result is more pavement, more impervious surface, more heat reflective surface- less pedestrian
oriented, less landscape, less open space, more impact on the environment. A balance of these issues (including
concerns about providing adequate guest parking) needs to be reached -this is an imbalance. It is an
overreaction.
4) Consider what others are doing in the area. According to their website, the City of Livermore Municipal Code
Chapter 3 -55 regarding Residential Townhouse Development: refers you to section 3 -20 -050 (Minimum off -
street parking requirements) to provide their required guest parking (which they call 4street parking ") The
relevant Section reads:
"Townhouse /Condominium. Two stalls for each dwelling unit in the townhouse /condominium
development, one of each shall be covered. One additional guest parking stall shall be
provided for each four dwelling units. These stalls shall be located to provide reasonable
utilization for all of the dwelling units within the project. Tandem parking shall not be utilized to
meet these requirements. Stalls shall not be located within any required project street frontage
yard."
That's 1 guest parking stall per 4 units. That is 1/4 the parking you are proposing. Not sure their number is
the right one, but it offers an interesting perspective about what other nearby towns, who have managed to
revitalize their downtowns, are doing. This is only one example and other jurisdictions no doubt have more
stringent requirements than Livermore but this is still informative and demonstrative that the proposed
requirement is extremely stringent.
5) The elimination of tandem parking is likely a foregone conclusion here in Dublin... and that too is an
unnecessary overreaction. A smaller, one bedroom condo or studio that has a tandem garage is a nice
alternative to offer first time homebuyers- more affordable, with a large flexible 1 car garage, If you allow the
2 car tandem to count for 1 stall you are ensuring it cannot serve as a garage for anything larger than a 1
bedroom unit. You are eliminating your flexibility as a City and your opportunity to provide varied housing
products in unique configurations in locations that will support them. Why do that? It is not necessary to
outlaw tandem parking to achieve your goals. Modify how it can be used and what it can serve and create
flexibility for in -fill locations and interesting, affordable by design for -sale housing products.
6) Be careful what you ask for: All of the above reasons /concerns explain why townhome /condo for -sale
product ranging from 15 -17 du /ac (typically) will be more difficult to deliver. As the economics of attached
for -sale products fail on sites developers will look to rental product as an alternative. With apartment parking
standards less stringent that towns /condos, when the market supports it and where appropriate you will
likely see apartment densities (28 du /ac MINIMUM as high as 60 du /ac here in Dublin) instead. If reducing
density is a goal, or a reason for support by some folks, consider the likelihood that what will actually result
from this ordinance is increased density on certain sites.
I appreciate that there have been legitimate parking issues in certain projects in town and agree that clarity and
modification of the parking standard is appropriate. I have found that Council has often been careful to consider
"unintended consequences" and l believe that this ordinance has many that should be well considered and studied. l
am happy to participate and assist in any way possible in that process. Thank you for taking the time to consider
these thoughts.
Sincerely,
Kevin Fryer
MVP Development
925 - 899 -5065
PCJ Real Estate Advisors, LLC
Cell: 408 - 8884224 * Email: patcjr @comcast.net
DATE: August 3, 2012 Delivered via Email
TO: Marnie Delgado
City of Dublin
FROM: Patrick Costanzo, Jr.
CC: Jeri Ram
Chris l=oss
RE: Draft Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Residential Tandem Parking
Thank you for your letter dated July 2e asking for input on your proposed Zoning Ordinance
Amendments. I offer the following comments on the Residential Tandem Parking proposed changes:
By eliminating the opportunity to utilize tandem parking to satisfy required parking within multi - family
dwelling unit attached garages you are severely limiting creative design opportunities for the
developerlarchitect. If I am reading the proposed changes correctly, you could never have a unit less
than 21 feet wide because you always need a garage that is 2 cars wide and 20 foot clear. The
struggle is that this affects our density solutions. Without the availability of tandem parking, we
struggle to achieve densities above 16 -18 dulac.
Why would tandem not be allowed for the requirement for a Studio or 1 Bedroom unit? If only one
space is required and 2 are provided in a tandem configuration why is this not acceptable? I suppose
the way the language is written you can enclose only the rear space and have the front space be
covered but not enclosed, however, I do not believe that is the intent of the language.
I would suggest that instead of eliminating the ability to use tandem parking you modify the language
to read that "if Tandem Parking configurations are used, only one of the two spaces will be permitted
to satisfy required parking.'
Additionally, for 2 bedroom units I would suggest allowing 1 covered space and one reserved
uncovered space rather than requiring 2 covered or garaged spaces. The 2 covered or garaged
spaces can then be required for 3+ bedrooms.
Below are comments from one of the architects that do business in town:
"Under SB375, the State is looking towards higher density near transit and other service hubs. This
effectively flies in the face of that as it will severely limit the developer's ability to meet what are at
times required densities in the urban area. As noted, we will top out for row town style of housing at
16- 18du /ac.
The other issue is with condos... if you require 1 guest per unit, even studios and 1 bedrooms, at
higher densities or with very tight sites in an urban area, they still take a lot of space. 100 unit condo
project would require 100 guest spaces ... at 270sf per stall, that could translate to an additional
27,OOOsf or .62 acres. Depending on the site, that's a lot. Where in an urban area do you have the
luxury of an extra half acre? This change is doubling the required parking... again, directly in conflict
with SB375."
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input. If you have any questions I can be reached at the
number above.
or
19 82
/ii � 111
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
September 3, 2013
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
Joni Pattillo City Manager""'
CITY CLERK
File #450 -20
SUBJECT: Economic Impact Analysis of Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments Related
to Multi - Family Parking Regulations
Prepared by Mamie R. Delgado, Senior Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
On February 7, 2012, the City Council received an informational report on the status of parking
in Area G of Dublin Ranch and directed Staff to prepare Zoning Ordinance Amendments related
to multi - family parking regulations. Staff presented the proposed Zoning Ordinance
Amendments to the Planning Commission on July 10, 2012; the Planning Commission
recommended City Council approval of the amendments, with modifications. Based on feedback
received from the development community, the City Council directed Staff to enter into a
Consulting Services Agreement with Economic & Planning Systems (EPS), to prepare an
economic impact analysis of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments on future residential
projects. The economic impact analysis is complete and Staff is reporting back to the City
Council on the findings and seeking direction related to the proposed Zoning Ordinance
Amendments.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
During FY 2012 -2013 a budget transfer from the General Fund Contingent Reserve line item
was approved to cover the cost to engage Economic & Planning Systems to conduct the
economic impact analysis. The not -to- exceed contract amount is $48,500 and to date
$29,688.75 has been expended.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council receive the report and provide direction on the proposed
Zoning Ordinance Amendments related to multi - family parking regulations.
Submitted By
Director of Community Development
Reviewed By
Assistant City Manager
Page 1 of 5 ITEM NO. 7.1
DESCRIPTION:
Background
At the February 7, 2012 City Council meeting, Staff presented an informational report on the
status of parking in Area G of Dublin Ranch (Attachment 1). The City Council received the report
and, among other things, directed Staff to prepare Zoning Ordinance Amendments to: 1)
establish consistency between the parking standards for apartments and condominiums; 2)
require a minimum amount of personal storage for attached residential units; and 3) eliminate
the use of tandem parking to meet minimum parking requirements.
On July 10, 2012, Staff presented proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments to the Planning
Commission (Attachment 2). During the public hearing, the Planning Commission received input
from a local developer who expressed concerns regarding the proposed multi - family accessory
storage requirement (Attachment 3). The Planning Commission weighed the developer's
concerns and recommended City Council approval of the Amendments with modifications.
Following the Planning Commission meeting, two additional local developers expressed
concerns over the increased parking requirements for condominiums and the inability to use
tandem parking as required parking (Attachment 4). One of the concerns expressed was that
the proposed changes to the parking ordinance would limit the developer's ability to construct
for -sale residential projects on in -fill sites as well as limit their ability to achieve residential
densities greater than 15 -18 dwelling units per acre on in -fill sites. As a result, fewer units would
be constructed, thereby lowering land values and limiting opportunities for first -time
homebuyers.
Another concern expressed was that the increase in required parking is contrary to Senate Bill
375 and parking trends in surrounding jurisdictions. The City of Livermore was cited as requiring
1 guest parking space for every 4 units in contrast to Dublin's proposed 1 guest parking space
per unit. The developers also expressed concerns over eliminating tandem parking especially
for smaller, 1- bedroom units. They believe that maintaining flexibility with the use of tandem
parking on in -fill sites could produce affordable by- design for -sale housing for first -time
homebuyers. Ultimately, the developers foresee the changes to the parking regulations as
inhibiting the development of for -sale housing on in -fill sites and facilitating the development of
higher density rental housing. As a result, representatives of the development community felt
that the proposed changes to the parking regulations would result in unintended consequences
that should be further evaluated.
On November 20, 2012 the City entered into a Consulting Services Agreement with Economic &
Planning Systems to assist Staff in preparing an economic impact analysis of the proposed
Zoning Ordinance Amendments. The purpose of this Staff Report is to present the findings of
the economic impact analysis and seek direction from the City Council on the proposed Zoning
Ordinance Amendments.
ANALYSIS:
The economic impact analysis (Attachment 5) evaluates the proposed Zoning Ordinance
Amendments that would:
1. Require a minimum of 200 cubic feet of accessory storage per unit for multi - family
projects that have private, enclosed garages assigned to individual units;
Page 2 of 5
2. Increase the guest parking requirement for condominium projects from .5 space per unit
to one space per unit; and,
3. Eliminate the use of tandem parking to meet minimum parking requirements in residential
projects.
As part of the economic impact analysis, EPS researched residential parking policies in
neighboring jurisdictions in the greater Tri- Valley area; evaluated the use of tandem parking in
residential projects throughout Dublin; interviewed stakeholders and planning professionals; and
prepared a case study to illustrate the difference in residential densities with and without the use
of tandem parking.
Accessory Storage
The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment would require that a minimum of 200 cubic feet of
accessory storage be provided per unit in multi - family projects that have private, enclosed
garages assigned to individual units. This requirement is intended to provide residents with an
alternative to storing their personal effects in their private garages thereby freeing up the garage
for the parking of personal vehicles. Interviews conducted with developers confirmed that the
provision of some additional interior storage space would not create a financial burden for
residential projects. A modest amount of additional storage can be integrated into residential
products without a significant impact on the product format.
Guest Parking
The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment would increase the guest parking requirement for
condominiums from .5 space per unit to one space per unit consistent with the current guest
parking requirement for apartments. Based on the economic impact analysis, most project sites
offer sufficient surplus land to provide the additional guest parking without impacting project
densities or creating a financial burden to developers; however, landscaping, open space and
other common areas are likely to be reduced in size in order to accommodate the additional
guest parking. In -fill development and other projects with limited site flexibility will suffer a
greater burden associated with the increased parking requirement, as these sites are less likely
to accommodate additional surface parking without an impact on density.
Tandem Parking
The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment would eliminate the use of tandem parking to
meet minimum parking requirements in residential projects. According to the economic impact
analysis, the elimination of tandem parking is unlikely to create a significant financial burden for
residential project developers; however, the resulting product type is more likely to be lower
density, larger units with a lower price per square foot. The demand for this larger product type
may or may not be absorbed by the market thereby constraining developers in the type of
residential product that would be delivered to the community. Additionally, development sites
that are constrained due to their size or other natural or topographic features would produce
fewer units thereby increasing the potential for financial impacts to the project. Furthermore, this
constraint on product type would limit the diversity of housing types and sizes to meet the
various needs of the community. As a result, the economic impact analysis suggests that some
allowance of tandem parking may be appropriate under certain circumstances and recommends
allowing tandem parking for up to 25% of the units in a project.
Page 3 of 5
According to the economic impact analysis, the primary benefit of tandem parking is planning
and design flexibility that improves site efficiency. Tandem parking provides a means by which
developers are able to meet suburban parking standards without using traditional wide,
suburban -sized house lots. In certain situations, the narrow -lot tandem - parked residential unit
can "fill out" a site where side -by -side parking formats will not fit. Based on interviews with
representatives in the development community, an allowance of tandem parking for up to 25%
of the units in a project would allow for significantly better efficiency in site development. The
economic impact analysis further suggests that in those portions of the City where higher
density development is desired (i.e. Downtown Dublin Specific Plan area) that tandem parking
be permitted in order to maximize densities and facilitate the redevelopment of smaller in -fill
sites.
Options for Consideration Related to Tandem Parking
Based on the conclusions of the economic impact analysis, Staff is presenting the following
options for the City Council's consideration:
Option 1
• Amend the Off - Street Parking and Loading Regulations (Chapter 8.76) to prohibit tandem
parking to meet minimum parking requirements in residential projects with the exception
of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Area;
• Allow 25% of the units in a residential project to have tandem parking in the Downtown
Dublin Specific Plan area, by- right; and
• Allow more than 25% of the units in a residential project to have tandem parking in the
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan area, with approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
Under Option 1, the Off - Street Parking and Loading Regulations of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance
would be amended to prohibit tandem parking to meet minimum parking requirements in
residential projects with the exception of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan area where tandem
parking would be permitted by -right for up to 25% of the units in a residential project with the
option to increase the amount of tandem parking with approval of a Conditional Use Permit. This
option would provide maximum flexibility for residential projects in the Downtown Dublin Specific
Plan area to facilitate development including development on small or constrained sites, achieve
higher densities in an area where higher density is currently encouraged, and foster greater
economic development opportunities within the Specific Plan area.
Option 2
• Amend the Off - Street Parking and Loading Regulations (Chapter 8.76) to prohibit tandem
parking to meet minimum parking requirements in residential projects with the exception
of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Area; and,
• Allow 25% of the units in a residential project to have tandem parking in the Downtown
Dublin Specific Plan area, with approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
Under Option 2, the Off - Street Parking and Loading Regulations of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance
would be amended to prohibit tandem parking to meet minimum parking requirements in
residential projects with the exception of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan area where tandem
parking would be conditionally permitted for up to 25% of the units in a residential project with
approval of a Conditional Use Permit. This option would provide some flexibility for residential
Page 4 of 5
projects in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan area to achieve higher densities but would be
subject to a discretionary review process to determine appropriateness of the tandem parking
and certain findings would need to be made in order to approve the tandem parking.
Option 3
• Amend the Off - Street Parking and Loading Regulations (Chapter 8.76) to prohibit tandem
parking to meet minimum parking requirements City -wide, including the Downtown Dublin
Specific Plan area.
Under Option 3, the Off - Street Parking and Loading Regulations of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance
would be amended to prohibit tandem parking to meet minimum parking requirements in
residential projects City -wide including the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan area. This option has
the potential to slightly reduce residential densities and increase the potential for financial
impacts in projects that are proposed on constrained sites due to the parcel size, configuration
or other natural or topographic feature.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS /PUBLIC OUTREACH:
A public notice is not required to seek direction from the City Council. However, City Staff did
send a letter to the development community and interested persons who were previously
notified that the City was undertaking Zoning Ordinance Amendments related to multi - family
parking regulations. Additionally, the Staff report was made available to the public on the City's
website.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. City Council Staff Report dated February 7, 2012
2. Planning Commission Staff Report dated July 10, 2012
3. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of July 10, 2012
4. Letters from the development community regarding the proposed
Zoning Ordinance Amendments
5. Economic Impact Analysis prepared by Economic & Planning
Systems dated June 4, 2013
Page 5 of 5
To: Marnie R. Delgado, Senior Planner, City ofDublin
From: Economic & Planning Systems, lnc, and Joe DcCredico
Studio
Subject: Economic Impacts of Proposed Parking Zoning Ordinance
Amendment, EP5#122118
Date: June 4,2O13
The City of Dublin (City) engaged Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
(EPS) and Joe De[redicu Studio (JDeS) to provide assistance in
evaluating a proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) that would:
1. Eliminate tandem parking as a means ofmeeting parking
requirements in residential development projects.
2. Increase the guest parking requirement for condominium projects
from Yi-npace per unit to one space per unit.
]. Require a minimum of 200 cubic feet ofaccessory storage for
multifamily projects that have private, enclosed garages assigned to
individual units.
EPS understands that the City is concerned the tandem parking spaces
are being used os in-home storage areas rather, than as parking for
automobiles. In addition, the City is concerned that tandem parking
spaces are inconvenient for residents and are, thus, not utilized. As o
result, City streets, as well as private etnae10 and guest perking spaces,
are congested with perked cars in areas where tandem parking is
prevalent. The policy goal of the ZOA is to require parking in o format
that will be used by residents for their cars, thereby minimizing the
residential parking overflow to City streets.
MEMMUMM=
To provide the City guidance concerning the proposed ZOA, EPS and
Economic & Inc.
]De5 (1) reviewed relevant policy literature and the parking ordinances
22gssatf�wa' Oaks Dive, Suite /so
of nearby municipalities, (Z) conducted interviews with stakeholders and
Sacramento, co95833'42xo
local real estate/planning experts, and (3) developed a simple test case
e16 e9 8010 m*
v/6n*ezomfax
to analyze a typical real estate development project that might use
tandem parking or traditional side-by-side parking to satisfy the local
sorkele'
parking standard.
Dower
L=sA/gemy
sv'ro/nento
MEMMUMM=
Economic Impacts of Proposed Parking Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Appendix June 4, 2013
The elimination of tandem parking is unlikely to create a significant financial
burden for residential project developers. Most developers will be able to reposition
projects to lower density (DU /Acre) larger units, maintaining or increasing total project
square footage. While product price per square foot is likely to fall with the increase in unit
size, EPS finds that developers in most cases will be able to maintain total project revenue
potential. For projects that suffer from parcel constraints, particularly small sites, financial
impacts may occur because of the inability to reconfigure the site for the larger product.
Increased guest parking requirements likely will be taken out of landscaping with
no financial impact on project developers. Most sites offer sufficient surplus land to
provide additional guest parking without a loss of density. However, surface parking for
guests will reduce open space and project common areas. Infill development and other
projects with limited site flexibility will suffer a greater burden associated with the increased
parking requirement, as these sites are less likely to accommodate additional surface parking
without an impact on density.
• The proposed storage requirement is not an issue. Developer interviews confirm that
the provision of some additional interior storage space will not create a financial burden for
residential projects. A modest amount of additional storage can be integrated into residential
products without a significant impact on product format.
The primary benefit of tandem parking is planning and design flexibility that
improves site efficiency. Tandem parking provides a means by which developers are able
to meet suburban parking standards without using traditional wide, suburban -sized house
lots. In certain situations, the narrow -lot tandem - parked residential products can "fill out" a
site, where side -by -side parking formats will not fit. A parking policy that allows a fraction of
the units in a residential project to use tandem parking may be appropriate. Interviews and
analysis suggest that allowing up to 25 percent of units to be parked in tandem could retain
sufficient flexibility in site development.
A review of current literature concerning parking policy offers a broad range of recommendations
to jurisdictions. In general, current best practices for residential parking policy focus on
providing flexibility, managing demand, and connecting alternative modes of transportation,
while minimizing impacts on residents. However, these best practices are geared toward parking
in urban areas and transit - oriented zones. The ZOA proposed for the City addresses the concern
that new suburban residential projects in Dublin are providing impractical (and therefore
insufficient) parking. The ZOA would require that parking be developed in a traditional side -by-
side format. EPS did not identify literature that addresses this particular policy issue.
To evaluate the appropriateness of the ZOA in a regional context, EPS conducted research
regarding off - street residential parking policies in neighboring jurisdictions in the greater Tri-
Valley area. Specifically, EPS contacted the Cities of Livermore, Pleasanton, San Ramon, and
Walnut Creek to determine whether these cities allowed tandem parking in residential projects.
EPS also identified off - street parking standards for prevalent residential land uses in each city.
Of the jurisdictions surveyed, the City of Pleasanton is the only jurisdiction whose municipal code
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. A -2
Economic Impacts of Proposed Parking Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Appendix June 4, 2013
does not allow for tandem parking. The other jurisdictions surveyed— Livermore, San Ramon,
and Walnut Creek —have municipal codes that allow for tandem parking based on bedroom
counts.
4= iT•Tr'
The City of Pleasanton does not explicitly allow tandem parking. However, two multifamily
Planned Unit Development (PUD) residential projects —one approved and one under review —
contain units with a tandem parking design. If the residential development is contained in a
PUD, the city will consider and potentially approve a tandem parking design if the project is in
alignment with the city's planning and policy objectives. Because there are a limited number of
residential projects in the city with tandem parking, city planning staff did not identify any issues
related to this type of parking design (e.g., constrained on- street parking because the garage is
not used to capacity).
Livermore
In the City of Livermore, tandem parking is permitted in all residential and mixed -use zones
when two parking spaces are required for a single residential unit. For secondary residential
units (i.e., in -law unit) with two or more bedrooms (which requires two parking spaces), the
required spaces may be in tandem with each other, but cannot be in tandem with the required
parking spaces required for the primary residential unit on the lot.'
San Ramon
In San Ramon, tandem parking is permitted through the issuance of a Minor Use Permit and
must be designed to meet minimum dimension and size standards.2 3 With the exception of one
single - family residential project (approved and constructed when it was located in the
unincorporated county), tandem parking in single - family residential projects in San Ramon is not
permitted. Tandem parking is permitted for multifamily residential projects, although San
Ramon planning staff generally discourages tandem parking design in residential projects. While
staff acknowledged the shortcomings of tandem parking, they did not identify specific cases
where projects with tandem parking created issues for residents.
Walnut Creek
The City of Walnut Creek's municipal code allows for tandem parking for multifamily and single -
family residential projects in the case where housing units require two parking spaces.4 Tandem
parking configurations can be utilized but one stall is not counted towards meeting the parking
requirement, unless an exception is granted by the city's planning commission. Tandem parking
for Second Family Units is permitted if the maximum of two spaces are provided and the City
finds that the design and lot configuration precludes placement of the parking spaces elsewhere
on the property.
1 City of Livermore Development Code § 4.04.010.
2 In San Ramon, tandem parking must be 10 feet wide by 40 feet deep (with a 9 -foot door opening)
and have a minimum of 200 cubic feet of storage area in or adjacent to the garage.
3 City of San Ramon Zoning Ordinance § D3 -35 A.2.
4 City of Walnut Creek Planning and Zoning Municipal Code § 10- 2.3.206 Table A.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. A -3
Economic Impacts of Proposed Parking Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Appendix June 4, 2013
Figure 1 Comparison of Multifamily Parking Standards
Multifamil Parking Standards
_
City Source
..e..__.
Type
Spaces / Unit
Tandem Parking
Livermore City of Livermore,
Studio and One Bdrm
1 space +
NA
Development Code,
1 guest space / 4 units
§ 4.04. 010
Two or More Bdrms
2 spaces +
Permitted
1 guest space 14 units
Downtown [1] City of Livermore
Studio
1 covered space +
NA
Downtown Specific
(Includes apartments /flats/
1 (guest) / 10 units [2]
Plan
lofts)
Chapter 8
One Bdrm
1.5 spaces (1 covered) +
Permitted if 2 spaces
(Includes apartments /flats/
1 guest space / 10 units [2] [3]
are dedicated to
lofts)
a single unit
Two or More Bdnns
1.75 spaces (1 covered) +
Permitted if 2 spaces
(Includes apartments /flats/
1 guest space / 10 units [2] [3]
are dedicated to
lofts)
a single unit
Pleasanton [4] City of Pleasanton,
Two Bdrms or Less
Minimum of 2 spaces for projects
Not permitted [5]
Municipal Code,
with four or fewer units plus
§ 18.88.030
1.5 spaces for each add'I unit
(at least 1 space must be covered)
1 guest space / 7 units
(may be open or covered)
Three Bdrms or More
Minimum of 2 spaces
Not permitted [5]
(at least 1 space must be covered)
1 guest space / 7 units
(may be open or covered)
San Ramon [6] City of San Ramon,
Studios and One Bdrm
1 covered space +
NA
Zoning Ordinance,
1 guest space / 4 units
§ D3 -35 A.2
Two-Three Bdrms
2 spaces
Permitted (w/
(at least 1 space must be covered)
Minor Use Permit)
1 guest space / 4 units
Four Bdrms or More
3 spaces
Permitted (w/
(at least 1 space must be covered)
Minor Use Permit)
1 guest space / 4 units
Walnut Creek [7] City of Walnut Creek,
Studio
1.25 spaces
Permited [9] [10]
Planning and Zoning
(1 covered) [3] [8]
Municipal Code,
§ 10- 2.3.206 Table A
One Bdrm
1.50 spaces
Permited [9] [10]
(1 covered) [3] [8]
Two Bdrms
2.00 spaces
Permited [9] [10]
(1 covered) [3] [8]
Three or More Bdrms
2.25 spaces
Permited [9] [10]
(1 covered) [3] [8]
"pkg_summary'
Source: Cities of Livermore, Pleasanton, San Ramon, and Walnut Creek municipal code; EPS.
NOTE: This table is not intended to be an exhaustive
listing of parking standards for all residential types identified in each city's municipal code,
only the most premlent. Also, this table excludes
additional standards such as
size dimensions and special circumstances
that alter the
standards shown here (e.g., development within
TOD). Please see each city's municipal code for additional details.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. A -4
Economic Impacts of Proposed Parking Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Appendix June 4, 2013
Figure 1 Comparison of Multifamily Parking Standards (continued)
Multifamily Parking Standards
city Source Type Spaces / Unit Tandem Parking
[1] Within a specific geographic area, residential units above retail /commercial and live /work spaces shall provide required parking spaces on -site,
off -site through the payment of an in -lieu fee, or through construction of parking facilities In the specific geographic area.
[2] Guest parking is only required for projects containing ten or more dwelling units. Guest parking shall be provided on -site, off -site in a dedicated
parking lot in the Downtown Specific Plan area that is within 600 feet of the project, or through the payment of in -lieu fees if an identified public
parking structure in the Downtown Specific Plan area is located within 600 feet of the project site.
[3] A fraction greater than or equal to 0.50 shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number; no additional space shall be required for a fractional unit of
less than 0.50.
[4] This table does not include reduced parking standards associated with Association of Bay Area Govemments (ABAG) Regional Housing Needs
Allocation (RHNA) sites.
[5] Tandem parking may be proposed for units within a Planned Unit Development (PUD) and would be subject to case -by -case review and approval.
[6] This table does not include reduced parking standards for mixed -use development in certain districts within the City of San Ramon.
[7] This table does not include parking standards for residential structures that qualify for a density bonus or for structures with five or more residential
units and either within 112 mile of BART or with lower income units.
[8] Guest parking is included within the multifamily parking standards for the City of Walnut Creek.
[9] Tandem parking configurations are permitted but one stall is not counted towards meeting the parking requirement, unless an exception is granted
by the City of Walnut Creek's planning commission.
[10] For projects that qualify for density bonuses, the City of Walnut Creek allows for reduced parking standards, and parking may be provided through
tandem parking, uncovered parking, or other parking solution with the exception of on- street parking.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. A-5
Economic Impacts of Proposed Parking Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Appendix June 4, 2013
fif-MV - r r MARMMTMr
The City of Dublin has identified a number of projects where the tandem parking format has
been used by developers. As shown in Figure 2, the use of tandem parking in these projects
ranges from 14 percent to 92 percent. However, only one project predominantly comprises
tandem - parked units. With the exception of this project (The Courtyards at Dublin Ranch
Villages), no project has more than 43 percent of units using the tandem format. The street
parking congestion that has been attributed to tandem - parked units is most prevalent in Dublin
Ranch Villages, where the greatest use of tandem parking (as a share of project units) is
observed.
Figure 2 Tandem - Parked Projects in Dublin
Project
No. of
Units
Units with
Tandem
Garages
Percent of Units
with Tandem
Parking
Parking
Requirement
Guest
Parking
Requirement
San Ramon Village
The Willows
56 units
8 units
14%
2 /unit
.5 /unit
Tralee
Townhomes
103 units
18 units
17%
2 /unit
.5 /unit
Dublin Ranch Villages
Cottages
200 units
85 units
43%
2/2 +BR unit
.5 /unit
1/113R unit
Courtyards
281 units
258 units
92%
2 /2 +BR unit
.5 /unit
1/1611 unit
Terraces
626 units
137 units
22%
2 /2 +BR unit
.5 /unit
1 /1BR unit
Jordan Ranch
Subareas 2 and 3
109 units
40 units
37%
2 /unit
.5 /unit
Source: City of Dublin
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. A-6
Economic Impacts of Proposed Parking Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Appendix June 4, 2013
EPS and JDeS conducted interviews with stakeholders and local real estate /planning experts to
solicit input regarding the proposed ZOA.5
The primary stakeholder group that would be affected by the ZOA is the real estate development
community. EPS spoke with two developers active in the Tri- Valley, as well as two planning
professionals active in designing residential products in the region. Overall, EPS finds that
developers rely on small- footprint tandem parking as a tool to increase dwelling units per acre,
particularly when site constraints (e.g., parcel size and configuration) do not allow for a
traditional side -by -side garage format. In some specific cases, primarily large projects with
planning and design flexibility, developers acknowledge the ZOA would have little to no impact
on project density. However, developers expressed concerns that small projects planned for
constrained sites could suffer density losses attributable to the proposed ZOA. Based on
interviews conducted, it seems unlikely that developers would substitute a significantly higher
density product (e.g., podium - parked multifamily residential) in cases where the ZOA introduces
a development constraint. There are a limited number of high -value sites where a podium
product is likely to be financially feasible (e.g., transit - oriented development areas), and these
sites are likely to be slated for this format from early -stage predevelopment work onward.
Conversations with a developer currently building a 3 -story townhome project in Dublin, who is
converting previously approved single -car garages to 2 -car, side -by -side garages, indicate there
is the opportunity to reconfigure projects and replace tandem garages with traditional ones.
However, the developer emphasized the importance of the site geometry in making this change,
particularly on constricted infill sites, and notes that it also requires redesign of the project.
Planning Professionals
Local planning professionals confirm that tandem parking is an important tool for efficient use of
land. Of note, planners contacted suggested that a reduction rather than elimination of tandem
parking would be desirable. Small- footprint tandem - parked units help to "fill out" a development
program. It was suggested that allowing 25 percent of units to use tandem parking would allow
developers to use this format sparingly, fitting it in as needed to take advantage of lots that
cannot accommodate the wider, more traditional garage formats.
To illustrate the potential effect of the ZOA on a typical residential project in Dublin, EPS and
JDeS agreed on a case study that evaluates a generic townhome project on a rectangular
1.41- net -acre site. The case study includes illustrative planning graphics and a high -level
assessment of economic effects. Figure 3 and Figure 4 present the case -study planning
schemes.
5 Personal communication with Kevin Fryer, Mission Valley Homes, 12/21/12; Patrick Castonzo, PCJ
Real Estate Advisors, 1/8/13; Don Ruthroff, The Dahlin Group, 1/8/13; Steve Otto, City of Pleasanton,
2/15/13; Lauren Barr, City of San Ramon, 2/15/13; and Carlson Yin Chan, Ronsdale Management LLC,
2/21/13.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. A -7
Economic Impacts of Proposed Parking Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Appendix /vne4,z0zs
UNIT A-3UNITS UNIT B-3UNITS UNIT C-21UNITS
MAX LIVING AREA 1,278.6 SF MAX LIVING AREA 2,254 SF MAX LIVING AREA 1,387.5 SF
�� �� �� �� �� �� ��
�� `��� ^�� �� �� �� �� �� lobMAXIMUM TANDEM ,
ADA ACCESSIBLE UNITS
2 CAR GARAGE
UNIT TYPE A:15�61X401 UNIT FOOTPRINT VVfTANDEMGARAGE
UNIT TYPE B: 2T X4V UNIT FOOTPRINT VVIS|DEBYSIDE GARAGE
UNIT TYPE C:1V X4V' UNIT FOOTPRINT V/0NDEM GARAGE
FRONT SETBACK: 1 (Y
SIDE SETBACK: 61
ALLEY WIDTH: 3Z
YIELD: 27 UNITS OR 19.15 du/ACRE
The townhome product that relies on tandem parking is a three-level unit with approximately
1,280 to 1,390 square feet of living space. The garage uses most of the ground-level space in
the unit, though there is sufficient space on the ground level for some storage. Living room,
dining room, kitchen, bathrooms, and bedrooms are on the Z"«and 3rdfloors. In this test, a
density of roughly 19 units per acre is achieved, for a total of 27 units on the 1.41-acre case-
study site, including three traditionally-parked units that satisfy the Americans with Disabilities
Act (A0A) target for ground-level living space. Based on the size and configuration of the
tandem-parked units, EP6 assumes current market pricing of about $390,000 to $416,000 ($300
to$3O5 per square foot).
Economic m Planning Systems, Inc, 4-8 ~~
Economic Impacts of Proposed Parking Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Appendix June 4, 2013
Figure 4 Townhorne Product with Traditional Garages (Scenario 2)
TRADITIONAL SIDE 8Y SIDE G&RAGETOVVNH0MES
2 CAR GARAGE
23'X 40'UNIT FOOTPRINT
FRONT SETBACK: 10'
8|QE SETBACK: 5'
ALLEY WIDTH: 32'
YIELD: 20 UNITS OR14.18du/ACRE
UNIT O-20UNITS
MAX LIVING AREA 2,2548F
�,
I
���� ���
���
The townhome product with a traditional side-by-side garage includes about 2,250 square feet of
living space. In this configuration, there is sufficient living area on the ground level to
accommodate bedroom and bathroom. Additional bathrooms and bedrooms, as well as the
living room, dining room, and kitchen, are upstairs. The product achieves e density ofroughly
14 units per acre, for atotal of 20 units on the 1.41-acre case-study site. Based on the size and
configuration of this unit, EPS assumes current market pricing of about $586,000 ($260 per
square foot). '
Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 are illustrative of how a developer might plan a site for residential
development with tandem parking versus traditional parking (with the Z0A), respectively. As
demonstrated in the case study, a project composed of about 90-percent tandem-parked units
on a land-constrained site would likely lose units as a result of the ZOA. In this case, 7 units are
lost (26 percent) when the developer switches from tandem parking to traditional parking.
However, with the wider traditional garage, the developer is likely to transition to larger units.
In this case study, a townhome with a traditional garage is GJ to 75 percent larger than a
townhome with a tandem garage. The traditional garage necessitates e wider unit footprint; the
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. &9
Economic Impacts of Proposed Parking Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Appendix June 4, 2013
building height remains unchanged. Overall, despite having fewer units, Scenario 2 includes
roughly 5,300 more square feet of living space.
Residential market data reveal that unit values increase with unit size at a decreasing rate.
While the smaller tandem - parked unit is likely to sell for less than the larger, traditionally parked
unit, the per- square -foot value of the smaller unit will be higher. EPS evaluated several
residential projects in Dublin to assess pricing for various unit sizes. Interestingly, current
residential real estate market values indicate that the total finished value of Scenarios 1 and 2
may not be very different. Figure 5 presents the economic assessment of Scenario 1 versus
Scenario 2.
Figure 5 Case Study Economic Assumptions
Unit Size Price Per
Units (Square Feet) Square Foot Unit Price
Scenario 1
Tandem Garage Townhome Product
Unit A 3 1,279 $305 $389,943
Unit B 3 2,254 $260 $586,040
Unit C 21 1,388 $300 $416,250
Project Square Feet
39,735
Project Revenue
$11,669,198
Profit Margin
15%
Developer Profit
$1,750,380
Scenario 2
Traditional Garage Townhome Product
Unit A 0 1,279 $305 $389,943
Unit B 20 2,254 $260 $586,040
Unit C 0 1,388 $300 $416,250
Project Square Feet
45,080
Project Revenue
$11,720,800
Profit Margin
15%
Developer Profit
$1,758,120
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. A -10 P, u „zz 1I– sM, a— -1—
Economic Impacts of Proposed Parking Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Appendix June 4, 2013
Assuming the rate of return (profit margin) for a developer is similar across the two product
types, this case -study example reveals that, in situations where parcel configuration and other
site constraints are not present, there may be little financial impact from the ZOA. However, it is
important to note the developer would be delivering a different product at a different price point,
and market absorption (i.e., quantity of demand for the larger residential product) may or may
not be the same. In addition, for projects that have planned on a tandem configuration, there
will be significant planning and design costs associated with reconfiguring the project.
Policy Recommendation
The primary benefit of tandem parking is planning and design flexibility that improves site
efficiency. Tandem parking provides a means by which developers are able to meet suburban
parking standards without using traditional wide, suburban -sized house lots. In certain
situations, the narrow -lot tandem - parked residential products can 'fill out" a site, where side -by-
side parking formats will not fit. A parking policy that allows a fraction of the units in a
residential project to use tandem parking may be appropriate. Based on a recommendation
received during the research process, EPS suggests that allowing up to 25 percent of units to be
parked in tandem would allow significantly better efficiency in site development. Figure 6
illustrates the application of this policy recommendation (with the same site assumptions that
are used the case study analysis, above).
In addition to recommending that the ZOA allow a fraction of units to be tandem - parked, EPS
suggests that it may be appropriate to exempt from the ZOA portions of the City where high -
density development is most desired. While developers may opt for podium - parked projects in
certain "premium" locations (e.g., near BART or retail amenities) with sufficiently large sites,
narrow and other small or challenged infill sites will likely benefit from the tandem parking option
to achieve the desired densities. It is notable that the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan
encourages density and parking flexibility. To maximize the potential for development at higher
densities, the tandem parking format could be permitted there. Developers seeking to redevelop
smaller infill sites may benefit from the use of tandem parking. In addition, these developments
are most likely to suffer from the proposed guest parking requirement.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. A -11
lj�2
Economic Impacts of Proposed Parking Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Appendix June 4, 2013
UNIT A-8UNITS UNIT -16 UNITS
MAX LIVING AREA 1,278.6 SF MAX LIVING AREA 2,254 SF
�� �� �� ��
�� ^��� x��� �� �� ��
010 i 604 23'x2
66 68F 500 OF
25% TANDEM GARAGE/75% SIDE BY SIDE GARAGE TVWNHOMES
2 CAR GARAGE
UNIT TYPE A:15.25'X40'UN|T FOOTPRINT VV8ANDEM GARAGE
UNIT TYPE B: 23'X4O'UM|T FOOTPRINT VWS|OEBY SIDE GARAGE
FRONT SETBACK: 10'
SIDE SETBACK: 6'
ALLEY WIDTH: 32'
YIELD: 22 UNITS oR1h.Gndu/ACRE
Given the relatively high value of land proximate to BART, some developers jn the Downtown will
opt to develop structured parking, which likely moderates the potential negative effects from
allowing tandem-parked units. However, in general, increasing development densities
Downtown and other areas of Dublin inevitably will necessitate increased attention to parking
management policies within the City. If the City chooses to continue to allow tandem-parked
projects in strategic locations where density is desired, EPS recommends that the City consider
additional alternative parking policies, potentially including a parking in-lieu fee program, street
parking permitting, and flexible parking ratios.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. A,12
RESOLUTION NO. 13 -41
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO DUBLIN ZONING
ORDINANCE CHAPTERS 8.08 (DEFINITIONS), 8.36 (DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS) AND
8.76 (OFF- STREET PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS)
EFFECTIVE CITY -WIDE
PLPA- 2012 -00028
WHEREAS, the City is initiating amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to bring greater
clarity and consistency to existing regulations; and
WHEREAS, amendments are proposed to Chapter 8.08 (Definitions) to create a new
definition for Accessory Storage — Multi - Family; and
WHEREAS, amendments are proposed to Chapter 8.36 (Development Regulations) to
create a minimum requirement for accessory storage in the R -2 (Two - Family), R -M (Multi -
Family) and comparable PD (Planned Development) Zoning Districts; and
WHEREAS, amendments are proposed to Chapter 8.76 (Off- Street Parking and Loading
Regulations) to establish a consistent guest parking standard for apartments and condominiums
and limit the use of tandem parking for residential uses; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with State
Guidelines and City Environmental Regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for
environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the CEQA, Staff is recommending that the proposed Ordinance
be found exempt from CEQA per CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen
with certainty that the amendments to Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance)
will not have a significant effect on the environment. The adoption of the proposed Ordinance
does not, in itself, allow the construction of any building or structure, but it sets forth the
regulations that shall be followed if and when a building or structure is proposed to be
constructed or a site is proposed to be developed. This Ordinance of itself, therefore, has no
potential for resulting in significant physical change in the environment, directly or ultimately;
and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted to the City of Dublin Planning Commission
recommending City Council approval of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said amendments on
November 12, 2013 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law;
1 of 2
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports,
recommendations and testimony herein above set forth and used its independent judgment to
evaluate the project.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does
hereby recommend that the City Council adopt the Ordinance attached hereto as Exhibit A.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of November 2013 by the following vote:
AYES: O'Keefe, Bhuthimethee, Goel, Kohli
NOES:
ABSENT: Do
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
Assistant Community Development Director
Planning Commission Chair
2 of 2
ORDINANCE NO. xx — 13
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
* * * * * * * * * * * * **
APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO DUBLIN ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTERS 8.08
(DEFINITIONS), 8.36 (DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS) AND 8.76 (OFF- STREET PARKING
AND LOADING REGULATIONS)
EFFECTIVE CITY -WIDE
PLPA- 2012 -00028
WHEREAS, the City is initiating amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to bring greater
clarity and consistency to existing regulations; and
WHEREAS, this Ordinance will amend Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 8.08 (Definitions)
to create a new definition for Accessory Storage — Multi - Family; and
WHEREAS, this Ordinance will amend Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 8.36
(Development Regulations) to create a minimum requirement for accessory storage in the R -2
(Two - Family), R -M (Multi - Family), comparable PD (Planned Development) Zoning Districts and
the Downtown Dublin Zoning District; and
WHEREAS, this Ordinance will amend Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 8.76 (Off- Street
Parking and Loading Regulations) to establish a consistent guest parking standard for
apartments and condominiums and limit the use of tandem parking for residential uses; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a properly noticed public hearing on
November 12, 2013 and adopted Resolution 13 -41 recommending City Council approval of
amendments to Dublin Zoning Ordinance Chapters 8.08 (Definitions), 8.36 (Development
Regulations) and 8.76 (Off- Street Parking and Loading Regulations); and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted to the City Council recommending approval of
the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments; and
WHEREAS, a properly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on XXX, 2013
at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and use its independent judgment and consider all
said reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby ordain as follows:
SECTION 1:
The City Council finds that this Ordinance is consistent with the Dublin General Plan and all
applicable Specific Plans in that the General Plan and applicable Specific Plans include policies
that encourage the development of a variety of housing types including multi - family housing and
the proposed amendments make provisions to facilitate the on -going enjoyment of residential
properties by maintaining adequate parking standards and regulations.
SECTION 2:
Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA "): The California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) together with State Guidelines and City Environmental
Regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts that
environmental documents be prepared. Pursuant to CEQA, the City Council hereby finds this
Ordinance to be exempt from CEQA per CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it can
be seen with certainty that the amendments to Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code (Zoning
Ordinance) will not have a significant effect on the environment. The adoption of this Ordinance
does not, in itself, allow the construction of any building or structure, but it sets forth the
regulations that shall be followed if and when a building or structure is proposed to be
constructed or a site is proposed to be developed. This Ordinance of itself, therefore, has no
potential for resulting in significant physical change in the environment, directly or ultimately.
SECTION 3:
The following definition is hereby added to Section 8.08.020 (Definitions) of Title 8 of the Dublin
Municipal Code to read as follows, with the other definitions contained in Section 8.84.020
(Definitions) to be re- alphabatized accordingly:
Accessory Storage — Multi - Family Residential. The term Accessory Storage —
Multi- Family Residential shall mean a dedicated, enclosed and securable space
located within an individual dwelling unit, an attached or detached individual
garage, or another dedicated space approved by the Community Development
Director, in which occupant(s) of the dwelling unit can store their personal effects.
Accessory Storage — Multi - Family Residential spaces shall not include bedroom
closets, linen closets, pantries or any other areas customarily provided to meet
the day to day functions of the dwelling unit. Accessory Storage - Multi - Family
Residential spaces may be used to satisfy required bicycle storage space.
SECTION 4:
In order to add a new row for Accessory Storage — Multi - Family and a new footnote relating to
multi - family accessory storage, Section 8.36.020.A of Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code is
hereby amended to read as follows in its entirety:
A. Development regulations are minimums unless stated as maximums. All areas are given
in net square feet.
STANDARD
A
R -1
R -2
R -M
LOT AREA
Interior lot
100 acres
4,000 sq. ft.
8,000 sq. ft.
5,000 sq. ft.
Corner lot
100 acres
5,000 sq. ft.
9,000 sq. ft.
6,000 sq. ft.
LOT SQUARE FOOTAGE
PER DU
NA
4,000 sq. ft. and
larger as consistent
with General Plan
4,000 sq. ft. and
larger as consistent
with General Plan
750 sq. ft. and larger
as consistent with
General Plan
LOT WIDTH & FRONTAGE
Interior lot
1 300 feet
50 feet
1 80 feet
1 50 feet
2of6
Corner lot
300 feet
60 feet
90 feet
60 feet
LOT DEPTH
NA
100 feet
100 feet
100 feet
RESIDENTIAL USE
(maximum per lot)
1 du. 1 Second
Unit
1 du 1 Second Unit
2 du's
1 du per full 750 sq. ft.
(and larger as
consistent with
General Plan)
SETBACKS
NA
40% 1 story,
40% 1 story,
40% 1 story,
Front
50 feet
20 ft. avg. 18 ft
minimum to garage
(1)
20 ft. avg. 18 ft.
minimum
20 ft.
Side
30 feet
(2)
10 feet
10 feet (3)
Street Side
50 feet
10 feet
10 feet
10 feet
Rear
50 feet
20 feet
20 feet
30 feet
(1) Living spaces may encroach to 15 ft. from Front Lot Line with Site Development Review on lots up to 6,000 square feet in size.
(2) Side Yard setbacks in the R -1 zoning district shall be a minimum of 5 feet plus one foot for each full 10 feet by which lot width exceeds
minimum lot width up to a maximum of 10 feet.
(3) Buildings with 4 or more residences in the R -M zoning district shall have a 15 foot Side Yard on one side.
STANDARD
A
R -1
R -2
R -M
DISTANCE B ETWEEN
100 feet
10 feet
20 feet
20 feet
RESIDENCES
MAXIMUM LOT
NA
40% 1 story,
40% 1 story,
40% 1 story,
COVERAGE
35% 2 stories
35% 2 stories
35% 2 stories
COMMON USEABLE
NA
NA
NA
30 % of net site area
OUTDOOR SPACE
ACCESSORY STORAGE-
NA
NA
200 cubic feet
200 cubic feet
MULTI - FAMILY (1)
minimum per unit
minimum per unit
HEIGHT LIMITS
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(1) Multi - family accessory storage shall be provided for each unit in a multi - family project that has a private, enclosed garage attached or
assigned to the unit. In addition to the R -2 and R -M Zoning Districts, multi - family accessory storage shall also be provided in comparable
PD (Planned Development) Zoning Districts and the Downtown Dublin Zoning District. See also Chapter 8.08 (Definitions).
(2) West of Dougherty Road 25 feet and 2 stories; may be increased to 35 feet and 2 stories pursuant to a Site Development Review approval
by the Zoning Administrator. East of Dougherty Road; 35 feet and 2 stories.
(3) 35 feet if 4 or fewer du.; 45 feet if 5 or more du.; 75 feet if 5 or more du. and lot coverage does not exceed 35 %.
SECTION 5:
In order to limit the use of tandem parking associated with residential uses, Section 8.76.060.E
(Tandem Parking) of Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
L. Tandem Parking.
1. Commercial and Industrial Uses. The Zoning Administrator may approve an off -
street parking program by means of a Conditional Use Permit utilizing limited tandem
(front to back) parking for commercial and industrial uses under unusual design
constraints provided that the development requires 20 or more parking spaces. The
Zoning Administrator may require that an attendant be on duty during normal business
hours.
2. Residential Uses in the Downtown Dublin Zoning District. The Planning
Commission may approve an off - street parking program by means of a Conditional
3 of 6
Use Permit utilizing up to 25% of the required parking (excluding guest parking) as
tandem (front to back) parking for multi - family residential uses in the Downtown Dublin
Zoning District if all of the Conditional Use Permit findings can be made and the
following additional findings:
a. The allowance of tandem parking will not be detrimental to the project or
surrounding properties.
b. There are adequate provisions for dedicated personal storage that exceed
minimum requirements for accessory storage in multi - family residential projects.
c. Alternative modes of transportation are available in close proximity to the project
effectively reducing dependency on the automobile as the primary mode of travel.
3. Residential Uses outside of the Downtown Dublin Zoning District. Tandem (front
to back) parking is not permitted to satisfy required parking within a single - family
dwelling unit attached garage or a multi - family dwelling unit attached garage.
SECTION 6:
In order to create consistency between the guest parking standards for apartments and
condominiums, Section 8.76.080.13 (Residential Use Types) of Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal
Code is hereby amended to read as follows in its entirety:
B. Residential Use Types. Residential Use Types shall provide off - street parking spaces as
follows-
RESIDENTIAL USE TYPES
NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES REQUIRED
Agricultural Housing
2 per dwelling
Boarding House
2 per dwelling, plus .5 per sleeping room
Caretaker Residence
2 per dwelling
Community Care Facility /Small
2 per dwelling
Emergency Shelter
1 parking space for every 20 beds plus 1 parking space
for each employee on the largest shift plus 1 parking
space for each company vehicle
Farm Mobile Home
2 per dwelling
Family Day Care Home /Large (up to
14)
2 in enclosed garage per dwelling, plus 1 space for
every employee not residing in the home, plus one
loading space for every 6 children in the facility; one
loading space may occur on street if within 150 feet of
the dwelling
Family Day Care /Small (up to 8)
Not regulated
Mobile Home
2 per dwelling
Mobile Home Park
2 per dwelling, plus 1 guest space for every 2 dwellings
4of6
Residences
Apartments
Studio
1 covered or garaged per dwelling plus 1 parking space
for unreserved and guest parking.
1 Bedroom
1 covered or garaged per dwelling plus 1 parking space
for unreserved and guest parking.
2+ Bedrooms
1 covered or garaged per dwelling plus 1 parking space
for unreserved and guest parking.
Condominiums
Studio and 1 Bedroom
1 covered or garaged per dwelling plus 1 guest parking
space per dwelling which shall be marked as a guest
parking space
2 or more Bedrooms
2 covered or garaged per dwelling plus 1 guest parking
space per dwelling which shall be marked as a guest
parking space
Senior Citizen Apartments
1 covered or garaged per dwelling plus one guest
parking space for every three dwelling units.
Residential Use Secondary to
Commercial Use
2 per residence
Second Unit
1 parking space, see Section 8.80.040.E relating to
Second Units parking
Single Family /Duplex
Lots of 4,000 square feet or less
2 in enclosed garage per dwelling* plus one on- street
parking space per dwelling unit within 150 feet of that
dwelling unit.
Lots greater than 4,000 square feet
2 in enclosed garage per dwelling *.
Single Room Occupancy Units
1 per unit plus 1 guest parking space for every 3 units
Supportive Housing - Small
2 per dwelling
Supportive Housing - Large
1 per 3 employees on largest shift, plus 1 per 3 beds
Transitional Housing - Small
2 per dwelling
Transitional Housing - Large
1 per 3 employees on largest shift, plus 1 per 3 beds
*Except if two, full -size, unenclosed parking spaces are provided elsewhere on a lot for the purposes of converting a
residential garage to living space pursuant to Chapter 8.78.
SECTION 7: Effective Date and Posting of Ordinance
This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after the date of its final
adoption. The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in at least
three (3) public places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 39633 of the Government
Code of California.
5 of 6
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin on this
_day of , 20137 by the following votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
6 of 6
Mayor