HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-057 Starbucks CUP ParkingAGENDA STATEMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA: Apri126, 2005
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal of Zoning Administrator Approval
of a Conditional Use Permit for PA 04-057, Enea
Properties/Starbucks Coffee, Reduction to Required Parking
Report prepared by: Pierce Macdonald, Associate Planner & Janet
Harbin, Senior Planner i/.
C,
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution Affirming Zoning Administrator Approval of
Conditional Use Permit PA 04-057, Enea
Properties/Starbucks Coffee (with Site Plan attached as
Exhibit A, and Parking Study attached as Exhibit B, with
Focused Traffic/Parking Analysis dated April 19, 2005
included)
2. Zoning Administrator Staff Report, with Resolution attached,
and Meeting Minutes for March 14, 2005
3. Letter of Appeal, dated received March 23, 2005
4. Applicant's Written Statement in Response to Appeal
5. Planning Commission Reso. No. 04-40 for Enea Village, PA
03-069
6. Curbside Parking Diagram
7. Ordinance No. 21-98 for PA 98-049
RECOMMENDATION: 1. Open Public Hearing and Hear Staff Presentation;
2. Take Testimony from the Applicant and the Public;
3. Close Public Hearing and Deliberate;
4. Adopt Resolution (Attachment 1) Affirming Zoning
Administrator Approval of a Conditional Use Permit PA 04-
057, Enea Properties/Starbucks Coffee (with Site Plan
included as Exhibit A, and Parking Study as Exhibit B, with
Focused Parking/Traffic Analysis included)
BACKGROUND:
The project site at 7197 Village Parkway was the former location of an automotive gasoline and service
station that closed in the 1990's, and was previously zoned General Commercial (C-2). Adjacent uses
include the Taco Bell restaurant to the south and two single-family homes to the east on Amador Valley
Boulevard.
The City Council adopted a Stage 1 and 2 Planned Development (PD) Zoning District for the property on
December 15, 1998 (PA 98-049). Pursuant to the PD regulations, a range of office, commercial and
eating and drinking establishments were permitted uses in the district. Cafes and other neighborhood-
COPIES TO: Applicant
Appellant
PA File
l
ITEM NO. ,
serving uses were specifically identified as appropriate new uses in the Planned Development Zoning
District (PD District) adopted by the City Council. The development potential of the project site was
further studied in the Village Parkway Specific Plan, adopted by City Council on December 19, 2000, in
which the property was identified as an opportunity site and a primary gateway location.
On May 11, 2004, the Planning Commission approved a request for Site Development Review, Tentative
Map, and a Conditional Use Permit for the Enea Village Parkway Center (PA 03-069) on the property (see
Resolution 04-40, included as Attachment 5). The approval allows development of the 1-acre lot at the
southeast corner of the intersection of Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard with a 8,539-
square-foot commercial/retail center and a 5,582-square-foot office building. Project amenities included
an 800-square-foot landscaped public plaza with bench seating. The site plan provided parking for 54
vehicles (32 parking spaces for the commercial/retail building and 22 parking spaces for the office
building). Within the commerciaUretail center, a 600-square-foot space was identified for eating and
drinking uses, such as a coffee shop. Additionally, as part of the Site Development Review, an outdoor
plaza seating area was identified and patio seating was allowed subject to PD District requirements. At
the present time, grading and site work has commenced for the commercial/retail building at the site with
approved building permits.
Zoning Administrator Action:
In November of 2004, Enea Properties requested a Conditional Use Permit from the Zoning Administrator
to reduce the number of parking spaces required by the Zoning Ordinance to allow a 1,886-square-foot
coffee retailer and cafe with 410 square feet of outdoor seating area to locate in the Enea Village Parkway
Center. The parking requirement for the various uses in the commercial retail center counted individually
is 45 parking spaces (see table entitled, Project Parking and Peak Parking Demand, on page 5). The
proposal included a mix of indoor seating and outdoor seating, for a total of 30 indoor and 16 outdoor
seats.
The Conditional Use Permit was needed to reduce the number of on-site parking spaces by eight (8)
parking spaces and substitute five (5) curbside parking spaces for five (5) on-site parking spaces, pursuant
to Chapter 8.76.050 of the Zoning Ordinance, Adjustment to the Number of Parking Spaces. On March
14, 2005, the Zoning Administrator held a public hearing and granted the Conditional Use Permit based
on information presented in the Staff report and at the public hearing that the adjusted number of parking
spaces would be sufficient for the use, would not increase traffic congestion, and would be safe to
motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists.
Prior to the hearing, the Zoning Administrator received 13 letters supporting the parking reduction, and 16
letters opposing the parking reduction. Additionally, at the public hearing held on March 14, 2005,
several people spoke in opposition to the parking reduction because of pedestrian safety, parking and other
traffic-related issues, as well as the importance of supporting existing local businesses such as Mika's
Espresso located to the northwest of the site. The Staff Report and Meeting Minutes for the Zoning
Administrator Public Hearing are included as Attachment 2. Information on the requested Conditional
Use Permit and material presented to the Zoning Administrator follows in the Analysis section below.
Appeal of Zoning Administrator Action:
On March 23, 2005, a letter from Bobbi Cauchi was received by the City Clerk appealing the Zoning
Administrator approval of the Enea Properties parking reduction (PA 04-057). This was the only letter of
appeal received, and is included as Attachment 3 of this Staff report. The letter of appeal expressed Ms.
Cauchi's concerns regarding project traffic and circulation conflicts with local schools, pedestrians, and
2
area traffic, perceived inconsistency with the intent of the Village Parkway Specific Plan, and perceived
inconsistency with the intent of Zoning Ordinance parking regulations. These points are briefly
summarized and responded to in the section following the analysis of the Conditional Use Permit
ANALYSIS:
Legal Basis for Parking Reduction and Adjustment:
Pursuant to Section 8.76.050 of the Zoning Ordinance, Adjustment to the Number of Parking Spaces, the
Zoning Administrator may reduce the number of parking spaces required by the Zoning Ordinance by
means of a Conditional Use Permit for the following reasons: 1) when off-site parking is available to
satisfy the required parking under the Zoning Ordinance; 2) when the parking requirement is deemed
excessive; and, 3) when a shared parking condition is present. In the latter two cases, a parking study
must be prepared by a qualified traffic engineer or consultant. The following evidence must be provided:
An analysis of the availability of off-site parking spaces showing that the most distant parking
space is not more than 400 feet from the commercial use, that the off-site parking spaces are
not located in a residential zone or vehicle access area, and that any necessary agreements are
executed to assure that the off-site parking spaces are provided to the principal use (Section
8.76.OSO.C).
^ An analysis of the parking demands of the proposed use and the parking demands of similar
uses in similar situations, to demonstrate how the required parking standard is excessive
(Section 8.76.OSO.E).
^ An analysis of how a sufficient number of parking spaces is provided to meet the greatest parking
demands of the participating use types in a shared parking situation (Section 8.76.OSO.F).
Lastly, the parking study must determine that an alternative parking standard would ensure that there will
not be a parking deficiency, that overflow parking will not adversely impact adjacent uses, or that parking
for various uses in a shopping center will not conflict with each other.
Conditional Use Permit:
The Applicant worked with the City Traffic Engineer and Planning Division Staff to develop a Parking
Study for the project. The Parking Study is included as Exhibit B to Attachment 1. The Study reviewed
the requested 1,886-square-foot coffee shop and a 410-square-foot outdoor seating area and provided an
analysis of the typical parking requirements of the proposed tenant and the future tenants of the shopping
center.
The Parking Study concluded that the proposed project would generate significant visitors to the Village
Parkway area due to its prominent location, promotion and marketing, and the attractiveness of the new
building's design. The shared parking condition of the shopping center and the availability of free, on-
street parking would supplement the parking provided on-site. In addition, the proximity of the project
site to residential neighborhoods, bike paths, and public transportation would allow several transportation
options for visitors and employees.
Concurrent with the conditions of approval listed below, the Parking Study supported an alternative
parking requirement to that of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance that takes into consideration all of the
conditions at the project site. The Parking Study concluded that 32 off-street parking spaces and the
3
existing on-street parking spaces (a minimum of 5) would be sufficient to meet the peak parking needs of
the coffee shop and the shopping center as a whole.
Conditions of Approval:
The following measures were recommended by the Parking Study and incorporated as Conditions of
Approval of the Zoning Administrator Resolution (included in Attachment 2) to ensure that approval of
the Conditional Use Permit would cause no adverse impacts on retail tenants in the shopping center or
adjacent property owners or area traffic:
1. The project shall reserve six (6) of the parking spaces as time-limited parking. These spaces shall be
located closest to the coffee shop and shall be posted with the following information: "15 Minute Parking
Limit. Towing Enforced." Signs shall include City of Dublin Municipal Code citation that allows towing
of illegally parked vehicles. These six (6) parking spaces with time limit restrictions would be able to
safely accommodate 24 vehicles per hour. (Condition of Approval # 8)
2. The coffee shop tenant shall provide information on the availability of travel options to visitors and
employees on an on-going basis. BART and the Wheels and Alameda County Connection bus
services, as well as the 511 telephone and Internet service (www.51 l.org), shall be resources for
information and promotional materials. (Condition of Approval # 9)
3. An alternative parking standard of 1 space for every 200 square feet of outdoor floor area would be
adequate due to the seasonal nature of outdoor seating. The Applicant/Developer shall apply for and
obtain a Conditional Use Permit for additional parking reductions pursuant to Section 8.76.050 of
the Zoning Ordinance should the plaza area be covered by a permanent roof in the future (not
included with this application). (Condition of Approval # 10)
4. The coffee shop shall provide auxiliary parking and proper signage for the first two weeks of
operation due to increased traffic caused by the business' grand opening. The auxiliary parking shall
be located in the Enea Village Center parking lot and the remaining commercial tenant spaces shall
be kept vacant during the two-week time period (Condition of Approval # 11)
To summarize the conclusions and recommendations made in the original Parking Study, an alternative
parking requirement which includes six (6) time-limited parking spaces and five (5) on-street or curbside
parking spaces, in addition to the other 26 parking spaces in the Enea Village Parkway Center's
commercial/retail parking lot, would be sufficient to satisfy the peak parking demand of the coffee shop
and the Center's retail tenants.
Focused Traffic/Parking Analysis, dated April 19, 2005:
To address concerns expressed at the Zoning Administrator public hearing and in the letter of appeal, the
Applicant commissioned George Nickelson of Omni Means to prepare a supplemental Focused
Traffic/Parking Analysis (Focused Analysis) to evaluate conditions at the intersection of Village Parkway
and Amador Valley Boulevard and at existing local Starbucks Coffee locations (included with Exhibit B
to Attachment 1). The locations surveyed in the Focused Analysis included the Starbucks Coffee
businesses at 7904 Dublin Boulevard (at Regional), 4930 Dublin Boulevard (Hacienda Crossings), and
9150 Alcosta Boulevard. The surveys were taken the week of April 4, 2005. The Focused Analysis
addresses concerns related to traffic congestion and parking demand from 6 A.M. to 10 A.M. during the
busiest time period of the Starbucks business and during the time when local children are likely to be
traveling to school.
4
The Focused Analysis prepared by Omni Means concluded that the intersection of Village Parkway and
Amador Valley Boulevard is currently operating at level of service (LOS) A and would continue to
operate at LOS A with completion of the proposed project with the parking reduction. The Focused
Analysis concluded that there would be a peak parking demand of 27 parking spaces for the proposed
coffee shop use at 9:30 A.M. and a peak parking demand of 39 parking spaces for the commercial/retail
center as a whole also at 9:30 A.M. Lastly, the Focused Analysis concluded that there would be sufficient
on-street or curbside parking for the 7 parking spaces that could not be provided on-site by the 32-space
parking lot.
The Parking Study updated with the Omni Means Focused Traffic/Parking Analysis dated April 19, 2005
can be summarized as follows:
Proiect Parking and Peak Parking Demand from 9:00 A.M. to 9:30 A.M.
Use Area Zoning Maximum Recommended Parking Provided
(sq.ft.) Ordinance Hourty Standards/ (spaces)
Required Parking Conditions
Parking Demand*
s aces s aces
Coffee 1,886 19 27 6time-limited parking 10 on-site
Sho spaces (24 vehicles) 7 off-site
Outdoor 410 4 4 regular spaces
Seating 5 off-site parking spaces
Total Spaces Available:
10 spaces and 5 off-site
spaces would manage
max. demand of 33
vehicles er hour
Retail 6,653 22 12 22 on-site
22 regular spaces
(No changes in standards
from Zonin Ordinance)
Total 8,539 interior 45 39 32 32 on-site
+ 4l0 exterior 39 total
* From Focused Traffic/Parking Analysis prepared by George Nickelson of Omni Means, dated April 19, 2005.
Added Conditions of Approval:
Staff recommends and the Applicant has agreed to the following Condition of Approval that has been
added to the Resolution (Attachment 1) to ensure that the conditions studied in the Parking Study and in
the Focused Traffic/Parking Analysis continue to be in effect at the site and to ensure that parking spaces
are not utilized for deliveries.
The Applicant/Developer shall identify the location of a 10-foot by 20-foot loading space on the
site plan of the project site in addition to the 32 parking spaces provided in the parking lot. The
location of the loading space shall be subject to the review and approval of the Community
Development Director and the Public Works Director. (Condition 12)
5
Letter of Appeal:
As stated in the Background section, on March 23, 2005, a letter from a Dublin resident, Bobbi Cauchi,
was received by the City Clerk appealing the Zoning Administrator approval of PA 04-057, for a
reduction of eight (8) parking spaces and substitution of five (5) curbside parking spaces for on-site
parking on the site. The Letter of Appeal is included as Attachment 4 to this Staff report. The
Appellant's grounds for the Appeal and Staff's responses are summarized as follows:
Comment: The Appellant believes that the proposed use will create high customer volume and/or
traffic and the highest volume will be in the morning from 7.'00 a. m. to 10:00 a. m. During the
hours of 7:00 a. m. to 10 a.m., the Appellant believes that 90% of the Starbucks sales will be take-
out or to-go. One of the two shopping center entrances is on Amador Palley Boulevard and the
Appellant believes that this will function as a primary entrance and exit. The Appellant believes
that vehicles exiting at the Amador Valley Boulevard exit will be required to drive east into
residential neighborhoods. Because Dublin High School, Palley High School, Wells Middle
School, and Frederiksen Elementary School are in the vicinity of the proposed parking reduction,
the traffic generated by the use will be dangerous to children's safety.
Response: A Parking Study was prepared by the Applicant and City Staff in December 2004 with
a follow-up Focused Traffic/Parking Analysis on April 19, 2005 prepared by Omni Means (in
Attachment 1, Exhibit B) for the requested parking reduction. The parking study concluded that
the proposed parking reduction at the Enea Village Parkway center would not create traffic hazards
or conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians or bicyclists, and sufficient parking will be available
for morning customers during the coffee shop's busiest hours. During the hours between 7:00 a.m.
and 9:00 a.m. (the schools named above, except Valley High School, begin at or before 9:00 AM),
the Enea Village Parkway Center's other tenants are not likely to be open for business. With the
provision of six (6) time-limited parking spaces in the Center, there will be an excess of more than
2 to 17 parking spaces in the shopping center during this time (see Parking Study and Focused
Traffic/Parking Analysis in Attachment 1).
According to the Focused Traffic/Parking Analysis, traffic will not be directed into adjacent
residential neighborhoods because of two factors. The first factor is that the Focused Analysis
determined that 70% of Starbucks customers are "pass by" traffic, meaning that these drivers were
using the roadways to drive to a destination and stopped for Starbucks because it was along the
same route. The remaining 30% of Starbucks customers are new trips. The second factor is that
the median strip on Amador Valley Boulevard allows a safe location for entrance into the Dublin
Village Square Shopping Center north of the subject retail center, as well as for U-turn maneuvers
for drivers wishing to access Village Parkway. Lastly, the stop signs, narrowness of the street, lack
of freeway access, and residential character of Amador Valley Boulevard east of Village Parkway,
is designed to slow traffic and contains many curvilinear streets and cul-de-sacs that will
discourage traffic from entering Amador Valley Boulevard and neighborhood streets.
Student and child safety has been protected by measures including but not limited to the following
City enhancements. A crossing guard currently monitors students' access to school at the
intersection of Burton Street and Amador Valley Boulevard to ensure pedestrian safety at busy
times of the day. The crossing guard uses special stop signs developed by the City. The signalized
intersection at Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard, along with recent pedestrian safety
enhancements at the sidewalk and corner, such as the removal of the right-turn only lane as part of
the Village Parkway Capital Improvement Project, will ensure that students' safety is protected.
Based on the Accident History Report compiled by the Public Works Department, the intersection
of Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard has a good safety record. Traffic accidents,
6
predominantly "fender benders," average 5.4 per year involving other motorists. No pedestrian
accidents have been reported since January of 2001.
2. Comment: The intent of the "downtown specific plan "(Village Parkway Specific Plan) was to
create abreakfast/lunch destination. The Starbuck's Cafe use is not consistent with this intent
because the Appellant believes that the use sells take-out/to-go items. The provision of time-
limited parking spaces is proof that the business is atake-out/to-go use.
Response: The intent of the Village Parkway Specific Plan for the area is to create a more
pedestrian friendly and visually-enhanced retail/commercial shopping and service district along
Village Parkway from Dublin Boulevard to above Amador Valley Boulevard. The Land Use Plan
for the Specific Plan noted the site as an "opportunity site," or a site for a possible change in use to
be more inviting and provide pedestrian-oriented services and retail, and as a location for a
potential plaza with new development. According to the Specific Plan, uses permitted at the
project location include a number of service and retail businesses, and drinking and eating
establishments with outdoor seating, such as that proposed by Enea Properties. Additionally, a
cafe is specifically identified as a permitted use pursuant to the regulations of the Planned
Development District, and this use may also sell to-go items. The provision of six (6) time-limited
spaces was added as a condition of approval of the Enea Properties' project to meet the peak
parking demand for the retail center between the hours of 9:00 AM and 11:00 AM during the week
and 10:00 AM to 12 PM on the weekend when volume is highest for both the cafe use and the
retail business in the shopping center. The six (6) time-limited spaces increase the capacity of the
parking lot to meet this peak time only, and would not be needed during most times of the day.
3. Comment: The Appellant believes that it is important not to rely on the brand name recognition
of the business that is requesting the parking reduction because the popularity of brands is
impermanent and changes rapidly.
Response: The issuance of planning and use permits pertains to the appropriate land use for a
particular site and not to a specific brand of a product. Any eating or drinking establishment could
have requested a Conditional Use Permit for this specific site. As Starbucks Coffee is a widely
recognized and popular name brand, the Applicant has worked with the City Staff and a traffic
consultant to provide parking and traffic studies as requested by Staff to justify an adjustment to
required parking for this business location. Competition by various individual businesses in the
same use type category is not a land use or planning consideration.
4. The Appellant believes that the parking requirements of 1 space for 100 square feet of
restaurant/food services and 1 space for 300 square feet of retail were established for a use such
as the Starbucks cafe within the retail center.
Response: The Zoning Ordinance provides parking requirements by generic use type, as well as
the means by which the required parking maybe reduced or modified to fit specific conditions of a
project, pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 8.76.050. The generic "eating and drinking
establishment" use type includes cafes, restaurants, delicatessens, specialty foods, bakeries, ice
cream shops, and sandwich shops. A Parking Study for a specific use prepared by a qualified
traffic engineer or consultant is required to provide the basis for allowing a parking adjustment. In
the case of the current project, the Parking Study found that the current conditions at the site, in
combination with the measures recommended in the Study, would provide the basis for a parking
reduction of eight (8) spaces and a modification of five (5) spaces to be located on-street. The
Focused Traffic/Parking Analysis prepared in April 2005 by Omni Means supports the findings
and recommendations of the Parking Study (both are included in Exhibit B to Attachment 1).
7
5. Comment: The Appellant believes that on-street parking reduces a person 's ability to observe
on-coming traffic unless that person is partially in the driving lane.
Response: The City will ensure that on-street parking is prohibited within an appropriate distance
from each driveway to allow for safe sight distance. Additionally, a person turning right from the
store's driveway on Amador Valley Boulevard or Village Parkway would need to look only to the
left to observe on-coming traffic before pulling out into the right traffic lane because the
entrances/exits are right-turn only.
6. Comment: Reliance on on-street parking as an alternative to five (5) of the on-site parking
spaces would cause traffic problems as drivers would look first for parking within the shopping
center and circle to the on-street parking spaces with two U-turn maneuvers if on-site parking
spaces were not available.
Response: Based on the Parking Study and Focused Traffic/Parking Analysis, the peak parking
demand is between 9:00 AM and 11:00 AM on weekdays, and 10:00 AM to 12:00 PM on
weekends. With the provision of six (6) time-limited parking spaces, the parking lot of 32 spaces
would be able to accommodate parking for 55 cars per hour, which is sufficient to meet the peak
parking requirements of the Center.
7. Comment: Parallel parking at the on-street parking spaces would stop traffic on Village Parkway
and Amador Valley Boulevard.
Response: Curb lanes on both Amador Valley Boulevard and Village Parkway are wide enough
to accommodate parallel on-street parking safely without impeding traffic flows. Additionally, on-
street parking is permitted along the rest of Village Parkway in front of a variety of other
businesses.
8. Comment: People will not walk to the Starbucks cafe from on-street parking spaces in rain and
other inclement weather.
Response: With the provision of six (6) time-limited parking spaces in the shopping center, on-
street parking would be in addition to the parking needed by the use. Because all parking for the
site is uncovered, inclement weather would have only a small impact on the desirability of on-
street parking, which could be closer in some cases to the coffee shop's tenant space than parking
spaces in the parking lot of the shopping center.
9. Comment: The Starbucks location in Southern California (South Pasadena) used in the Parking
Study is not similar enough to the Starbucks that is the subject of the requested parking reduction.
The Starbucks example used in the Parking Study is 26% smaller in floor area than the Starbucks
at 7197 Village Parkway, and the Parking Study increased the trips by 26% to adjust for the
difference. The Parking Study does not include data for walk-up traffic such as persons walking
from offices, schools, etc. The Appellant believes that the Starbucks at Regional Street and Dublin
Boulevard generates more than 28 vehicles per hour (the conclusion of the Traff c Study for the
Starbucks in South Pasadena).
Response: The Applicant has provided a Focused Traffic/Parking Analysis based on current
traffic and parking data for the Starbucks Coffee businesses at 7904 Dublin Boulevard (at
Regional), 4930 Dublin Boulevard (Hacienda Crossings), and 9150 Alcosta Boulevard. The
surveys were taken the week of April 4, 2005. The Focused Analysis addresses concerns related to
traffic congestion and parking demand from 6 A.M. to 10 A.M. during the busiest time period of
the business (included in Attachment 1). The Focused Traffic/Parking Analysis also surveyed the
number of pedestrians and bicyclists near the businesses. This supplemental information supports
8
the conclusions and recommendations of the original Parking Study that 27 to 28 parking spaces
would be required to meet the peak parking demand of the coffee shop use, which are provided.
10. Comment: The Traff c Study that concluded that the intersection of Village and Amador Valley
Boulevard was safe and that traffic would remain at LOS C under current and future conditions
did not take into considerations growth of the Dougherty Valley, the expansion of the Valley
Center, the remodel of the AM/PM convenience store, increased school enrollment, the new Senior
Housing development, and the remodeled Target/Expo Design Center. The traffic study does not
provide sufficient information to evaluate the safety of the southeast corner of Village Parkway
and Amador Valley Boulevard.
Response: The purpose of a specific plan is to anticipate the impacts of a group or range of
development so that each individual use included in the specific plan does not require an
individual study. This allows the City to plan for cumulative impacts of several projects taken
together and allows development to occur without unforeseen or unnecessary delays. The traffic
impacts of growth related to the various uses envisioned in the Village Parkway Specific Plan were
studied and mitigated through Capital Improvement Projects and Developer payment of Traffic
Impact Fees.
The Valley Center, the Target/Expo remodel, and the Senior Housing development, were
developed pursuant to the Village Parkway Specific Plan and the Downtown Core Specific Plan,
and the traffic generated by these projected uses were included in the traffic studies for the
Specific Plans. Traffic Studies have concluded that regional growth such as development in
Dougherty Valley will not impact Village Parkway.
In cases where a new project may exceed the development anticipated under the Specific Plan, a
supplemental traffic study is prepared. However, the proposed project is relatively small (1,886
square feet) and conforms to the development standards of the PD Zoning District and Specific
Plan. As the Applicant requested an adjustment in Parking Standards as allowed by the Zoning
Ordinance, a more focused parking study was required instead. The Focused Traffic/Parking
Analysis concluded that the intersection of Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard is
operating at a level of service of A between 7:00 A.M. and 9:00 A.M., and that the potential for
conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians or bicyclists is low.
Public Hearing Notice and Comments:
A Public Hearing Notice was mailed to property owners, residents, and tenants within a 300-foot radius of
the project property. A copy of the notice was advertised in the Valley Times and posted at locations in
the City. As of the writing of this report, no further comments have been received from the public.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State guidelines and City environmental
regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental
documents be prepared. The proposed project has been found to be Categorically Exemption from the
provisions of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines,
Section 15304, as it is a minor alteration to land consisting of a reduction in parking spaces for a business
tenant within an approved infill retail commercial center, presently under construction.
CONCLUSION:
The Enea Village Parkway Center will replace a vacant former gas station at a prominent corner of the
intersection of Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard. The project site is identified in the
9
Village Parkway Specific Plan as an opportunity site. The proposed coffee shop use meets the goals and
requirements of the property as envisioned in the Village Parkway Specific Plan, the Planned
Development District PA 98-049, and the Off-Street Parking and Loading Section of the Zoning
Ordinance by creating aneighborhood-serving and pedestrian-friendly commercial use with shared
parking. City Staff have reviewed the project and Conditions of Approval are contained in the Resolution
(Attachment 1) that will mitigate any potential adverse impacts of the project relative to parking.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) open public hearing and hear the Staff presentation;
2) take testimony from the Applicant, Appellant and the Public; 3) close the public hearing and deliberate;
and, 4) adopt the Resolution (Attachment 1) affirming the Zoning Administrator approval of a Conditional
Use Permit PA 04-057 for a Reduction to Required Parking for Enea Properties/Starbucks Coffee (with
Site Plan included as Exhibit A, and Parking Study as Exhibit B with Focused Traffic/Parking Analysis
dated April 19, 2005 included).
10
GENERAL INFORMATION:
APPLICANT: Robert Enea, Enea Properties Company, LLC
190 Hartz Avenue, Suite 260, Danville 94526
PROPERTY OWNER: Village Parkway Partners, LLC
190 Hartz Avenue, Suite 260, Danville 94526
APPELLANT: Bobbi Cauchi, Cauchi Photography
7063 Village Parkway, Dublin, CA 94568
LOCATION: 7197 Village Parkway, Dublin, CA 94568 (APN 941-0210-013)
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: RetaiUOffice
EXISTING ZONING
AND LAND USE: Planned Development Zoning District, PA 98-049
G:\PA#12 00 4104-0 5 7 Enea\ PC Staff Report.doc
11
RESOLUTION NO. 05 -
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
AFFIRMING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR APPROVAL OF
A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
REDUCTION TO REQUIRED PARKING FOR
ENEA PROPERTIES/STARBUCKS COFFEE AT
7197 VILLAGE PARKWAY (PA 04-057)
WHEREAS, the Enea Properties Company LLC, the site property owner, has requested
approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a reduction of eight (8) parking spaces and the relocation of five
(5) parking spaces off-site from the number of parking spaces normally required fora 1,886-square-foot coffee
shop, 410-square-foot outdoor seating area, and 6,653-square-foot retail center (45 spaces), pursuant to Section
8.76.050 of the Zoning Ordinance, on land located at 7197 Village Parkway (APN 941-0210-013); and
WHEREAS, the application has been reviewed in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and the City Environmental Guidelines, and determined to be
categorically exempt according to Section 15304, as it is a minor alteration to land consisting of a reduction in
parking spaces for a business tenant within an approved infill retail commercial center, presently under
construction; and
WHEREAS, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 21-98 which established Planned Development
District PA 98-049 on December 15, 1998, which established development standards for the project site; and
WHEREAS, City Council adopted the Village Parkway Specific Plan and Initial Study/Negative
Declaration on December 19, 2000, which established development standards, land uses, and goals for the
Specific Plan Area; and
WHEREAS, Planning Commission did hold a public hearing and approved a proposal submitted by
Enea Properties Company LLC for development of a 8,539-square-foot commercial/retail center and 5,582-
square-foot office building at the project site on May 11, 2004, by means of Resolution 04-40; and
WHEREAS, a Parking Study has been prepared and reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer for the
proposed reduction of eight (8) parking spaces and the relocation of five (5) parking spaces off-site from the
number of parking spaces normally required fora 1,886-square-foot coffee shop, 410-square-foot outdoor
seating area, and 6,653-square-foot retail center (45 spaces). The Parking Study states that alternative parking
standards would be appropriate for the project, and a Focused Traffic/Parking Analysis was completed by
George Nickelson of Omni Means, dated April 19, 2005, that supports the conclusions and recommendations
of the original Parking Study; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator did hold a public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit on
March 14, 2005, and approved the Conditional Use Permit subject to Conditions of Approval; and
ATTACHMENT 1
WHEREAS, a letter of appeal was received on March 23, 2005 from Bobbi Cauchi, pursuant to
Chapter 8.136 of the Zoning Ordinance, Appeals; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing in consideration of the Appeal on
Apri126, 2005; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Staff Report, including the Focused Traffic/Parking Analysis prepared by Omni
Means, was submitted to the Planning Commission recommending that the Planning Commission affirm the
Zoning Administrator's approval of the Conditional Use Permit and deny the appeal; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations, and
testimony hereinabove set forth, and used its independent judgment in making a decision.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby
make the following findings and determinations regarding said proposed Conditional Use Permit:
1. The Planning Commission relies on the Parking Study and Focused Traffic/Parking Analysis prepared
pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 8.76.OSO.C to find that sufficient off-site parking spaces will be
provided to the principal use because a maximum of nine (9) and a minimum of five (5) free, on-street
parking spaces will be available along the project street frontages on Village Parkway and Amador
Valley Boulevard, within 400 feet of the project site.
2. The Planning Commission relies on the Parking Study and Focused Traffic/Parking Analysis prepared
pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 8.76.050.E to find that the required outdoor seating parking
standard is excessive, and that the Conditional Use Permit project has provided an appropriate
alternative parking standard to ensure that there will not be a parking deficiency and that overflow
parking will not adversely impact adjacent uses because the proximity of the site to residences, bike
paths, and public transportation will allow several transportation options for visitors and employees,
and intemperate weather will limit the use of outdoor seating.
3. The Planning Commission relies on the Parking Study and Focused Traffic/Parking Analysis prepared
pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 8.76.OSO.F to find that there will not be a parking deficiency in
the commercial/retail center as a whole, that parking for the various uses will not conflict with each
other, and that overflow parking will not adversely impact adjacent uses because, as conditioned, there
will be 6 parking spaces in the parking lot with signs limiting parking to 15 minutes and because these
six (6) parking spaces would be capable of allowing 24 vehicles to park an hour combined with four (4)
normal parking spaces which would satisfy the total peak demand of 28 spaces an hour of the coffee
shop and other commercial/retail center uses.
4. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the development being proposed
because it is located within a developed downtown area, was previously developed, and because it is
located adjacent to roadways which are designed to carry traffic that would be generated by the
proposed types of uses; and
5. The proposed Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing
or working in the vicinity, or be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare because the project
has been built according to City laws and regulations; and
6. The proposed Conditional Use Permit is consistent with the Retail/Office designation of the Dublin
General Plan and the proposed development standards are permitted by said designation; and
7. The proposed Conditional Use Permit is consistent with the existing Planned Development Zoning
District (PA 98-049) regulations because Eating and Drinking Uses, such as cafes, are permitted uses
within the Planned Development Zoning District, and the project is consistent with the parking
regulations of Zoning Ordinance Chapter 8.76, to which the Planned Development District is also
subject.
The proposed Conditional Use Permit is consistent with the goals and standards of the Village Parkway
Specific Plan because it will provide neighborhood-serving uses and promote enhanced pedestrian
access and amenities.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby affirm the
Zoning Administrator approval of Conditional Use Permit PA 04-057, Enea Properties/Starbucks Coffee, for
project plans, included as Exhibit A, and the Parking Study dated December 29, 2004, included as Exhibit B
(with Focused Traffic/Parking Analysis prepared by George Nickelson of Omni Means, dated April 19, 2005,
included), and does deny the appeal, subject to the following Conditions of Approval:
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Unless stated otherwise all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to the issuance of building
permits or establishment of use and shall be subject to Department of Community Development review and
approval The following codes represent those departments/agencies responsible for monitoring compliance of
the conditions of approval• [ADM] Administration/ City Attorney [B] Building Division of the Community
Development Department [DSR] Dublin San Ramon Services District fFl Alameda County Fire
Department/City of Dublin Fire Prevention [FIN] Finance Department, fPLI Planning Division of the
Community Development Department [POLPolice [PW] Public works Department.
NO. CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN SOURCE?
AGENCY/ REQ.?
DEPART.
GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. Approval. This Conditional Use Permit approval for the Starbucks, PL Ongoing Standard
Inc., PA 04-057, establishes the parking requirements for the 1,886-
square-foot coffee shop and 410-square-foot outdoor seating area at
the Enea Commercial Center, 7197 Village Parkway. Conditions
of Approval contained herein shall not be construed as superseding
Conditions of Approval established with Planning Commission
approval of PA 03-069. Development pursuant to this Conditional
Use Permit is conditioned upon the requirement that the
development be consistent with the approved Site Development
Review (PA 03-069), the Planned Development (PD) Zoning
District, including the Land Use and Development Plan, and the
related General Provisions, and Standards and Conditions, and shall
generally conform to the Site Plan prepared by William Wood
Architects, dated received November 1, 2004, by the City of Dublin
Community Development Department, unless modified by the
Conditions of Approval contained herein.
2. Term. Pursuant to Section 8.96.020.D., approval of the Conditional PL On-going Z.O.
Use Permit shall be valid for one year from effective date. If
construction has not commenced b that time or extended er the
NO. CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN SOURCE?
AGENCY/ REQ.?
DEPART.
following means, this approval shall be null and void. The
approval period for the Conditional Use Permit maybe extended
six (6) additional months by the Director of Community
Development upon determination that the Conditions of Approval
remain adequate to assure that the above stated findings will
continue to be met. Applicant/ Developer must submit a written
request for the extension prior to the expiration date of the
Conditional Use Permit..
3. Revocation. The Conditional Use Permit will be revocable for PL On-going Z.O.
cause in accordance with Section 8.96.020.I of the Dublin Zoning
Ordinance. Any violation of the terms or conditions of this
approval shall be subject to citation, and ifnon-compliance
continues, potential revocation.
4. Fees. Applicant/Developer shall pay all applicable fees in effect at FIN Prior to Municipal
the time of building permit issuance, including, but not limited to: issuance of Code
Planning fees; Building fees; Dublin San Ramon Services District Building
fees; Public Facilities fees; Dublin Unified School District School Permits
Impact fees; Public Works Traffic fees; City of Dublin Fire
Services fees; Noise Mitigation fees; Alameda County Flood and
Water Conservation District (Zone 7) Drainage and Water
Connection fees; and any other fees as noted in the Development
Agreement. Unissued building permits subsequent to new or
revised TIF's shall be subject to recalculation and assessment of the
fair share of the new or revised fees. If the Development
Agreement approved for this project conflicts with this condition,
the Development Agreement shall prevail.
5. Required Permits. Applicant/Developer shall obtain all necessary PL, PW, B Prior to Standard
applicable permits required by other agencies including, but not issuance of
limited to, Alameda County Public Works, Alameda County Flood Building
Control District (Zone 7); California Department of Fish and Permits
Game; Army Corps of Engineers; and State Water Quality Control
Board, and shall submit copies of the permits to the Department of
Public Works. Applicant/Developer shall also apply, pay all
required fees and obtain permits from PG&E for power service
connection required to energize traffic signals and streetlights.
(, Hold Harmless/Indemnification. Applicant/Developer, and any Applicant On-going Standard
parties or individuals granted rights-of--entry by Applicant/
Developer, shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of
Dublin and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim,
action, or proceeding against the City of Dublin or its agents,
officers, or employees (a) to attack, set aside, void, or annul an
approval of the City of Dublin or its advisory agency, appeal board,
Planning Commission, City Council, Director of Community
Development, Zoning Administrator, or any other department,
committee, or agency of the City concerning a subdivision or other
development which actions are brought within the time period
provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37 and (b)
holdin the Cit liable for an dama es or wa es in connection
NO. CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN SOURCE?
AGENCY/ REQ.?
DEPART.
with the construction; provided, however, that the Applicant/
Developer's duty to so defend, indemnify, and hold harmless shall
be subject to the City's promptly notifying the Applicant/Developer
of any said claim, action, or proceeding and the City's full actions
or proceedings.
7_ Clarifications and Changes to the Conditions. In the event that PL, PW On-going Standard
there needs to be clarification to these conditions of approval, the
Directors of Community Development and Public Works have the
authority to clarify the intent of these conditions of approval to the
Applicant/Developer by a written document signed by the Director
of Community Development and the City Engineer and placed in
the project file. The before-mentioned authority also may make
minor modifications to these conditions in order for the
Applicant/Developer to fulfill needed improvements or mitigations
resulting from impacts to this project.
PARKING STUDY
S. Time-Limited Reserved Parking. The Applicant/Developer shall PL, PW Prior to Parking
reserve 5 of the parking spaces as time-limited parking. These issuance of Study
spaces should be located closest to the coffee shop and should be Building
posted with the following information: "15 Minute Parking Limit. Permits
Towing Enforced." Signs shall include City of Dublin Municipal
Code citation that allows towing of illegally parked vehicles.
In addition, the Applicant/Developer shall reserve 1 additional
parking space as time-limited parking to off-set the potential
increased parking demand associated with Wi-Fi Internet access.
This space should be located closest to the coffee shop and should
be posted with the following information: "15 Minute Parking
Limit. Towing Enforced." Sign shall include City of Dublin
Municipal Code citation that allows towing of illegally parked
vehicles.
Time limited parking spaces for the project shall total 6 spaces for
the shopping center to allow 24 vehicles to park per hour in time-
limited spaces.
9. Travel Options. The Applicant/Developer shall ensure that the PL, PW Prior to Parking
coffee shop tenant provide information on the availability of travel issuance of Study
options to visitors and employees on an on-going basis. BART and Building
the Wheels and Alameda County Connection bus services, as well Permits
as the 511 telephone and Internet service (www.511.orQ), shall be
resources for information and promotional materials.
10. Patio Seating. The Applicant/Developer shall apply for and obtain PL, PW On-going Parking
a Conditional Use Permit for additional parking reductions Study
pursuant to Section 8.76.050 of the Zoning Ordinance should the
plaza area be covered by a permanent roof and available for seating
(not a part of this approval).
NO. CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN SOURCE?
AGENCY/ REQ.?
DEPART.
11. Grand Opening. The Applicant/Developer shall be required to PL, PW Prior to Parking
provide auxiliary parking and proper signage for the first two issuance of Study
weeks of operation of the coffee shop due to increased traffic Building
caused by the business' grand opening. Permits
12. Loading Space. The Applicant/Developer shall identify the PL On-going Z.O.
location of a 10-foot by 20-foot loading space on the site plan of
the project site in addition to the 32 parking spaces provided in the
parking lot. The location of the loading space shall be subject to
the review and approval of the Community Development Director
and the Public Works Director.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of April, 2005.
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Planning Manager
G:\PA#12004\04-057 StarbucksU'CRESO.DOC
~ v~' N i ~ a n a eszs-oze <sze~ ~ , ~
- _ - _ -- - ~ ~~~ Y ~rkdo 9ZS1~6vlnRlOdi7v''~"Y]In.NVQ ~~~~
o .~ .ldM~2~dd 3Jdlll/~ t66L z~~~~6
o ~ <' ~ m ` U £OZai1nS'aniv~n~Z121VH TO£ s~ 3~ _; ~a j~ ; c N
z ~ ~~,*6S,=~'" ~It/l~~l ~~/M~12Jt/d ~Jd~~in ;~~ 9 e
QOOM Y~KI~IZIM ~~~~~ ~
---_~
.~L-,51 .0-,51 xE-,E
I
I
L
r ~ r 1 ~
\/ \
I I I I A ~ ~~
I I I 1 -. -. __ ._.. _.
I I I I ~\ ~ ~
<
I'~
r ~ X I I 11~ ~1`~ ~ ~// .
J,i .,/_ ~L' _ ~ ~.1,'~ ~,
`irk yir ~1 -I'r~ i~
\ 1 I 1'I I
J~ VL ~. L J - IL,1 \~~,~
('~ / \
'~ it ~ I I ~.i~i\ " I i \ i i ~ 1 i ~~` >\ ~ OVA,
-1 , ~rl. I I ~I 1 - ~ ~` ~; n ,
_~~ yes <~t1 ~~~ _)~1L_1kr.A'~ /~~
,i ,A A~i ,~ ~ I. ,'LI ~ .
__...-o-- - - -- P-
j~r q ~ ~ r ~ r~ ~'
J' /` ~
_~J'Lf 1 F_1L_ Li_~ x ~.~~
J }
%'I,V I~I.f I I` X1.1 \ ~ < i o
r~ I r I '~ ri,~ ~ ~
<IV~\f ~.~ ~I~ ~IX ~.. ~~ -
I~~ r fla' ~ ~. =~
I~ V/ I k' f 1 ~ V /~ ~ I
_ ^
~ ;~ ,' <,.
~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
i ~ ~;~ ~
t
I , ;/:.
~g
'"~ J
- -- -o .
~/ ~ ~~,; x
°E x~z-,sl I --I
I I
~, I I ' ~ O
I I
aJ I O
Z3 I I
I I
Wp i I J
Ei I i ~
1 I
~N I I Y
a L I I
_ w DO I I
N I 1
30 1 I
Z I I ,, /^~
OK I J VJ
U « ~
~Z
U
U) ~ ° w LL.
_ ~ 5~
- - -4--- - U ~ o o
~I --- -_-_ ..---
__. w
. J L_ _--J I 1 ~
r~
- ---- ----- ----- '~ m `
--ter- Q ~ a~
II w
~ ~"- N ~
__.____..._.._ ____ _ _. _ N= O
- ------ - -' L Ul ~ ul
I
II I I m o a
I1 __ in
_'~-Tt-- xl-,E -
I.~ _
II
__~ I
-- I
_ IJ
~ .-__. . _f- u- __ - -_ __-__--
II T
-- __~ -_- - -- - ~-__- _ jl_ _ -_
II II _ 1_____ ____ _ ___ I
u I ~
..__ ~ .
xEE_
Y
= 3
s+
~ Y1k6 V~ ` N I l H t1 O E£Z8'OZS tSGb)
9Z56b dIN2IQiiltrJ '3"1`IIAI.TNtt ~ e
~gs
4
a
~<$ ~ ~ ~ ~
A d M 11 ~I d d 3 J d l ~ i A 16 1 L
~z ~-ns 3nr~nt+uavil[ tos ,
~~~ ~
~
° s ~~
t'
~;~ 1 i b ~ ~ a ~ d nn ~ ~ d ~ ~ ~ b ~ ~ i n aooM v~zz~ ~~~~
~
~ $= a~ y
~ a f: ~
Q
e
\ v
~ ~~ (~1
\\ ~ _~ ~ r
~~ ~ ~ 9
4 6..Ln -.
(~0N0
n m c~ c3
~T~b
JI J'r ri1NN X0-.4
U J.~.J _S
1 ]J 1
z aaaa
t- t r t- r
N NNN N
m~ a-~~I~
1P~ d) C~
,j _,
~~i~ ~. J,
~J,J
ll,r ~ IS _i1 W
W &'Q{- iN~
iY ~ NNW ]
3
C1
~C+' ~Kn KI ml-
fl~ ~7 ~., nG;n ~
Ii I ~ ~~ o-.~
~~ .
°zu
~~ii
~~~
~'wA
~~m o
say ii _a ~
6
V£:
`
p
r!1
;4
°°~~ kid,' .
~ Z eer
+''! ~~~gj ~~-
~-~
Fi ~~
r-i i
^`~ ~ s
'bzq ~.~
.y o
..J €`R
~3~ty` -.~
~
® ~ ~
}
~•
~ ® a'e
`:
~
•
~I
z
D o Wi
~ ~u1;~
~~ S\~1
\!" az
:.~
? ~
0 °i
~~ ~ N~
~w ~I
.
~
~~ -
~ ~~ -
Yy - -
J ~
~'
m
m I
~/~',
`- f
i
.'_~~ /
,~ -' W
v
~~~ ~ ~ 1
~i - ,
fi
~~~ ~ ~ ~
of
~
'
.
W
l
~y
/
1
II
1
~Ir ~
Q ~y(7 1
fD .. . w
7f _
~ ?
?
w ',
~ •i-,oi F,• ~)
1
t
~
-_
~~e
A~~n d
~
r
w? . . ~
_1
f ?
~ '
--.. ~ /
/
~
'`
}
++f
t~ ~,t
~~a `7f
~R
~ 1
i 1 ( i
/
~
Y~ o i~/
~r ~
W I
~\ 1
-i ,~1h 1
? 11J
;re ~
w ~ 1 1 I
-1 i
1 /
~ '
! Z
! / 1 Q
7 1 1
~ 1 <j ; ~
?
r
? ~
~ ?
r
~ n..
~
~
? ~
~
?
w
t
R ~ (Y
1 1
I 1-
~~
}Y~ (>
L.~
RQ \_1 '
p
~2~
LL
~ `^
Vl
n
w~? /
4
id
~
~F
ua+
~
n^
p
SS
~
°nL
L.
.r
e9
R
`~.
Starbucks
7197 Village Parkway
Parking Study
Prepared by the City of Dublin
Community Development Department, and
Approved by the City of Dublin Public Works Department
December 29, 2004
~~~'~~-~
Starbucks
7197 Village Parkway
Parking Analysis
Introduction:
PA 04-057
The proposed project requests a reduction in the required parking spaces for a proposed 1,886-
square-foot coffee shop (Starbucks) within a new 8,528-square-foot shopping center by a total
of 13 parking spaces. The coffee shop would provide seating for 30 persons and outdoor
seating for 16 persons.
Under Section 8.76.080 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, the number of parking spaces required
by the gross square footage of all of the individual uses within the shopping center totals 45
spaces, as shown in Table 1, below. The proposed reduction of 13 spaces is reviewed in this
analysis.
Table 1., Required Parking Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 8.76.080
Use Area
(sq.ft.) Parking
Requirement Required
Parking
s aces Parking Provided
Coffee Shop 1,886 1 space/100 sq. ft. 19 (shared)
Outdoor Seating (410) 1 space/100 sq. ft. 4 (shared)
Remaining Retail 6,642 1 space/300 sq. ft. 22 (shared)
Total 8,528 45 32 spaces
-13 s aces
Zoning Ordinance Provisions for Parking Reductions:
Pursuant to Sections 8.76.050.C, 8.76.050.E, and 8.76.050.F, the number of parking spaces
required by the Zoning Ordinance may be reduced when ofF-site parking is available to satisfy
the required parking under the Zoning Ordinance, when the parking requirement is deemed
excessive, and when a shared parking condition is present. In the latter two cases, a traffic
study must be prepared by a qualified traffic engineer or consultant. The following evidence
must be provided:
An analysis of the availability of off-site parking spaces showing that the most
distant parking space is not more than 400 feet from the commercial use, that the
off-site parking spaces are not located in a residential zone or vehicle access area,
and that any necessary agreements are executed to assure that the off-site parking
spaces are provided to the principal use (Section 8.76.050.C).
An analysis of the parking demands of the proposed use and the parking demands of
similar uses in similar situations, to demonstrate how the required parking standard
is excessive, and an alternative parking standard to ensure that there will not be a
parking deficiency and that overflow parking will not adversely impact adjacent uses
(Section 8.76.050.E).
Page 2
Starbucks
7197 Village Parkway
PA 04-057
An analysis of how a sufficient number of parking spaces is provided to meet the
greatest parking demands of the participating use types in a shared parking situation
to ensure that there will not be a parking deficiency, that parking for the various
uses will not conflict with each other, and that overflow parking will not adversely
impact adjacent uses (Section 8.76.050.F).
Shared Parking:
The Enea Village Shopping Center is currently under construction. When it is completed, it will
be characterized by small tenants providing basic retail services, such as personal services,
clothing, or other retail uses, as allowed in the Planned Development regulations. These uses
will represent 49% of the parking demand of the shopping center (22 of the 45 required spaces
under the Zoning Ordinance).
The proposed coffee shop use would be 51% of parking demand. As the coffee shop would be
the only eating and drinking establishment in the shopping center, it can be expected that the
customers will visit more than one tenant space. A significant number of customer visits would
be expected to come from within the shopping center, as the different uses are comp{ementary
to each other. This relationship characterizes a shared parking condition.
Shared Parking_Yearly Parking Demand
The Dimensions of Parking Report, published by the Urban Land Institute and National Parking
Association (included as Appendix A), calculated the effect of shared parking on eating and
drinking uses and retail uses. According to the report, parking demand varies from month to
month throughout the year. The parking demand for retail uses is 65% -75% of peak demand
during 10 months of the year. The parking demand for restaurant uses is 50% -90% of peak
demand for 9 months of the year. The busiest month is December when retail uses operate at
100% of peak parking demand and restaurant uses operate at 90% of peak parking demand.
As such, by the most conservative estimation, there is still a 10% efficiency in shared parking
associated with eating and drinking uses during peak parking demand. A 10% reduction in
required parking for the coffee shop would result in a total of 43 remaining required parking
spaces, leaving a deficit of 11 parking spaces for all of the uses within the shopping center.
Daily Parkinq Demand
Fluctuations in parking demand throughout the day among the different uses in the shopping
center are also reviewed in this study. Based on information provided by Mr. Bill Robards, Vice
President of Starbucks Coffee Company (Appendix H), the typical peak hours of operation are 6
a.m. to 9 a.m. and 50% of the coffee company's business occurs before 11 a.m. on weekdays.
An informal survey of area Starbucks locations in Dublin and Pleasanton conducted by City Staff
on Friday, November 5, 2004, confirmed the information provided by Mr. Robards. The three
locations reported their busiest times between 6:30 and 11 a.m. (one location extended these
peak times to 12 p.m. on Saturdays). The locations contacted also described a second, less
Page 3
Starbucks PA 04-057
7197 Village Parkway
busy period between 6 p.m. and 9 p.m. during the weekends, and one location reported a third,
less busy period from 3 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. during the week. These results are shown on the
attached Appendix B.
The Dimensions of Parking Report, referenced above, calculated the effect of shared parking on
eating and drinking uses and retail uses throughout the day. According to the report, parking
demand varies from hour to hour for each type of business. The peak parking demand for
retail uses is typically from 11 a.m. to 5 p.m.l during the week. The peak parking demand for
retail is 12 p.m. to 5 p.m. during the weekends.
As shown in Appendices C and D, the peak parking demands of the proposed coffee shop could
coincide with the peak parking demands of the retail uses during the hours of 10 a.m. to 12
p.m. during the week and weekends.
The following section focuses on the peak parking demand period of 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. when
the parking demand for the coffee shop and retail uses are most likely to coincide.
Focused Analysis:
In Table 2. below, the information provided in the Dimensions Report and the information
provided by the Starbucks Coffee Company are combined with a parking study of a typical
Starbucks coffee shop prepared by Aztec Engineering Group for a similar project.Z The Aztec
Engineering report provided vehicle trips information for a typical Starbucks location on a
weekday. This information was used to estimate weekday parking demand on an hourly basis
for the proposed Starbucks coffee shop. The Aztec Engineering Study is included in the
information attached as Appendix I.
First, Table 2 calculates excess parking that would be unneeded by retail uses at certain times
of the day if the maximum Zoning Ordinance parking requirements were implemented.
According to the Dimensions Report,. retail businesses require fewer parking spaces than
required under the Dublin Zoning Ordinance (3.3 per 1,000 square feet) between the hours of 6
a.m. and 11 a.m. (ranging from .3 spaces to 2.6 spaces per 1,000 square feet) and during the
evening hours after 5 p.m. (ranging from 3 spaces to .5 spaces per 1,000 square feet) during
the workweek.
Similarly, during the weekend, retail uses require fewer parking spaces between 7 a.m. to 12
p.m. (ranging from .1 spaces to 2.9 spaces per 1,000 square feet) and after 6 p.m. (ranging
from 2.6 to .5 spaces per 1,000 square feet), as shown in Appendix F.
'According to the Dimensions Report, retail uses also experience a peak from 7 to 9 p.m. during the weekdays.
However, the property owner does not expect the tenants of these spaces to be open after 6 p.m due to the small size
of the tenant spaces and the neighborhood commercial character of the surrounding area. Larger Retail businesses
in large shopping centers would typically generate peak trips in the evening.
z The Aztec Engineering report for a typical Starbucks location (455 Fair Oaks) was applied to the analysis of a
1,00-square-foot Starbucks restaurant within a 7,038-square-foot shopping center in South Pasadena (1318
Huntington). The report studied seating of 17 interior seats and 18 exterior seats. Trips are increased in this report
by 26% for subject project's increase in building size and seating.
Page 4
Starbucks
7197 Village Parkway
PA 04-057
Lastly, Table 2 compares the available parking (parking that would not be .needed by the retail
uses) with the hourly parking demand based on the Aztec Engineering TrafFc Study. As shown
below, the peak parking demand for the proposed coffee shop would coincide with peak
parking demand for retail uses in the shopping center for one hour during the weekday, from
10 a.m. to 11 a.m. The shopping center would experience a maximum potential parking deficit
of 13 spaces between 10:00 a.m. and 11 a.m. on weekdays.3 On Saturdays, this peak period of
time and potential parking deficit would be expected to fast until 12 p.m. based on City StafF's
survey of area Starbucks.
Table 2., Weekday Parking Demand and Excess Parking By Hour
Starting
Time Retail
Parking
Demand
(per 1,000
s .ft. Zoning
Required
Parking
(per 1,000
s .ft. Excess Parking
for 6,642 square
foot retail space Parking
Available for
Starbucks
(spaces) Starbucks
Max. Hourly
Parking
Demand
s aces Parking
Surplus
(Deficit)
"
6 a.m. - 3.33 3.3 (22 spaces) 32 28 2
7 a.m. .3 3.33 3.03 (20 spaces) 30 28 2
8 a.m. .7 3.33 2.63 (17 spaces) 27 28 (1)
9 a.m. 1.6 3.33 1.73 (12 spaces) 22 28 (6)
10 a.m. 2.6 3.33 .73 (5 spaces) 15 "' 28 (13)
11 a.m. 3.3 n/a n/a 10 14 f (4)
12 p.m. 3.7 n/a n/a 10 14 (4)
1 p.m. 3.8 n/a n/a 10 14 (4)
2 p.m. 3.7 n/a n/a 10 14 (4)
3 p.m. 3.6 n/a n/a 10 14 , (4)
4 p.m. 3.3 n/a n/a 10 17 (7)
5 p.m. 3.0 3.33 .33 (2 spaces) 12 17 {5)
6 p.m. 3.1 3.33 Z3 (2 spaces) 12 17 (5)
7 p.m. 3.4 n/a n/a 10 15 (5)
8 p.m. 3.3 n/a n/a 10 14 (4)
9 p.m. 2.3 3.33 1.03 (7 spaces) 17 14 3
10 p.m. , 1.2 3.33 2.13 (14 spaces) 24 14 10
li p.m. .5 3.33 2.83 (19 spaces) 29 14 15
12 p.m. - 3.33 3.3 (22 spaces) 32 14 18
s As this comparison uses actual trip information provided by Aztec Engineering Group, the estimated 10%
reduction for monthly fluctuations in parking demand is not included in the Table 2 calculations.
Page 5
Starbucks PA 04-057
7197 Village Parkway
A shared parking pion for the proposed project must ensure that potential parking conflicts do
not impact the tenants of the new shopping center or adjacent properties during the maximum
parking demand periods of 10 to 11 a.m. on weekdays and 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. on weekends.
To satisfy the maximum hourly parking demand of the shopping center, which this study
estimates to be 45 spaces (13 spaces greater than the total available on-site parking of 32
spaces), the following mitigation measure is recommended:
The project should reserve 5 of the parking spaces as time-limited parking.
These spaces should be located closest to the coffee shop and should be posted
with the following information: °15 Minute Parking Limit. Towing Enforced."
Signs shall include City of Dublin Municipal Code citation that allows towing of
illegally parked vehicles. These 5 spaces with time limit restrictions would be
able to safely accommodate 20 vehicles per hour.
In addition to the measures described below, the 5time-limited spaces combined with the
remaining 27 regular parking spaces would effectively manage the shared parking demands of
the shopping center.
Off-site Parking:
When the construction of the new shopping center is completed, there will be 10 curbside
parking spaces along the Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard frontages of the
proposed coffee shop. No contractual agreement is necessary to make these spaces available
to visitors of the coffee shop for the life of the project. These spaces will be free to the public
as they are not metered, and they will be within 50 feet of the coffee shop. By the most
conservative estimation, 50% of the on-street parking spaces would be available to visitors to
the Enea shopping center at all times.
Therefore, this study recommends that 5 off-site, curbside parking spaces would
satisfy the requirements of Section 8.76.050.C of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance
for supplementing on-site parking.
Transit Pedestrians, and Bicycles:
The proposed project is within 1,000 feet of approximately 215 homes in the adjacent
neighborhoods. This distance would require a 10 to 20 minute walk along public sidewalks
through residential neighborhoods to travel to the proposed coffee shop.
Several bus lines serve the site. Dublin Wheels Regional Bus Service Routes 3 and 3E provide
service every 30 minutes from BART, schools, and the surrounding neighborhoods to the
project area and back, from 5:44 a.m, to 8:42 p.m. Wheels Route 10 provides service every 30
minutes to Dublin Boulevard and Village Parkway (approximately ~/a mile) from BART and
Stoneridge Mall, from 5 a.m. - 10:30 p.m.
Page 6
Starbucks PA 04-057
7197 Village Parkway
Alameda County Connection Bus Service, Route 121, provides service every 25 to 45 minutes
from BART to the project area and from Contra Costa County and Alcosta Boulevard to the
project area from 5 a.m. to 9:50 p.m.
Lastly, the new shopping center will provide bicycle racks for a total of 10 bikes. Two Class 2
bike paths run along Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard.
This study recommends that the coffee shop tenant provide information on the
availability of travel options to visitors and employees on an on-going basis.
BART and the Wheels and Alameda County Connection bus services, as well as
the 511 telephone and Internet service (www.511.ora), would be good
resources for information and promotional materials.
Students
One Starbucks business surveyed by City Staff reported a busy period between 3 p.m. and 4:30
p.m. during which time local students frequented the coffee shop. As the subject project would
be located near Dublin High School and Wells Middle School, a similar phenomenon is expected
to occur. This time period is also a busy time for most retail businesses.
Car ownership for students is limited to a minority of students in the upper grades. Dublin High
School currently has 1,300 students with 250 parking passes and an unknown number of
students who park in the surrounding neighborhoods. If these unknown students totaled as
-high as 50, then as many as 23% of the high school student population would have access to a
car.
However, the high school is .6 miles from the site. No parking conflict is expected for the
coffee shop and the retail tenants in the period of time after school ends as students would
likely walk, bicycle, or carpool together.
Outdoor Seating:
The proposed coffee shop would provide 16 outdoor seats at 4 to 5 tables in an area that is
approximately 410 square feet. The City of Dublin parking requirement of 1 parking space for
every 100 square feet of floor area is the same for both interior and exterior seating areas.
Under this standard, 4 parking spaces would be required for the exterior area. The following
provides an analysis of an alternative parking standard of 1 space for every 200 square feet of
outdoor floor area.
Outdoor seating is usually not available during inclement weather, such as very cold, stormy or
hot days. During those times, there would be no additional seating capacity for the proposed
use, requiring no additional parking. Inclement weather most frequently occurs in the summer,
fate fall, and winter, November to March and July to August. Visitors would be most likely to
use outdoor seating in the spring and early fall.
Page 7
Starbucks PA 04-057
7197 Village Parkway
According to the Dimensions in Parking Report (Appendix A), these are the times of year when
retail uses are operating at 70% - 75% of peak parking demand. Of the 22 parking spaces
available to the retail uses in the shopping center, a minimum of 5 of those spaces would be
unneeded and available to the proposed coffee shop.
According to Parking Standards• PAS Report Number 510/511, published by the American
Planning Association (Appendix G), the typical minimum parking requirement for outdoor cafe
seating is 1 space for every 200 square feet of area.
This study recommends that an alternative parking standard of 1 space for every
200 square feet of outdoor floor area is adequate due to the seasonal. nature of
outdoor seating to ensure that the parking demand generated by the outdoor
seating would not overtlow to adjacent properties and cause adverse impacts.
The alternative parking requirement would total 2 parking spaces.
Wi-Fi Internet Access:
Starbucks has indicated that it would like to offer Wi-Fi Internet access to its customers. Wi-Fi
is wireless Internet access which allows groups of people to connect lap top computers, cell
phones and other electronics to the Internet at the same time without cables. The availability
of Internet access could encourage visitors to complete business and school activities at the
proposed coffee shop, thus decreasing the rate of parking space turnover in the parking lot and
increasing parking demand.
The project should reserve 1 additional parking space as time-limited parking to
off-set the potential increased parking demand associated with Wi-Fi Internet
access. This space should be located closest to the coffee shop and should be
posted with the following information: `~15 Minute Parking Limit. Towing
Enforced." Sign shall include City of Dublin Municipal Code citation that allows
towing of illegally parked vehicles. This 1 space with time limit restrictions
would be able to safely accommodate 4 vehicles per hour. Time-limited parking
spaces for the project would total of 6 spaces, which would be capable of
allowing 24 vehicles to park an hour.
Grand Opening:
Due to its location at the corner of a prominent intersection in Dublin and the recognition of the
particular coffee shop brand, the grand opening of the project business could create increased
parking demand for the first one to two weeks. After that time, parking is expected to be more
typical as visitors become more familiar with the site. The shopping center is adjacent to an
undeveloped parcel. Part of this undeveloped parcel will serve as the construction and
materials yard during the building of the shopping center. Space would be available :after
construction is completed to provide unfinished, auxiliary parking during the first two weeks of
the grand opening of the Starbucks location. In addition, many of the adjacent retail spaces
may not be open for business during the first one to two weeks of Starbuck's grand opening,
making excess parking available. Auxiliary parking would ensure that increased parking
Page 8
Starbucks
7197 Village Parkway
PA 04-057
demand during the grand opening would not impact adjacent businesses or traffic along
adjacent roadways.
This study recommends that the coffee shop be required to provide auxiliary
parking and proper signage for the first two weeks of operation.
Conclusion and Recommendations:
This study concludes that the proposed project would generate significant visitors to the Village
Parkway area due to its prominent location, brand name recognition, and the attractiveness of
the new building's design. The shared parking condition of the shopping center and the
availability of free, on-street parking would supplement the parking provided on-site during the
busiest times of the day. In addition, the proximity of the project site to residential
neighborhoods, schools, bike paths, and public transportation would allow several
transportation options for visitors and employees. Concurrent with the recommendations listed
below, this study supports an alternative parking requirement to that of the Dublin Zoning
Ordinance that takes into consideration all of these factors.
To summarize the recommendations made in this study, the following measures are
recommended to ensure that the project causes no adverse impacts on retail tenants in the
shopping center or adjacent property owners:
1. The project should reserve 5 of the parking spaces as time-limited parking. These spaces
should be located closest to the coffee shop and should be posted with the following
information: 15 Minute Parking Limit. Towing Enforced." Signs shall include City of
Dublin Munici"al Code citation that allows towin of ille all arked vehicles. These 5
p 9 9 YP
parking spaces with time limit restrictions would be able to safely accommodate 20
vehicles per hour.
2. This study recommends that the coffee shop tenant provide information on the availability
of travel options to visitors and employees on an on-going basis. BART and the Wheels
and Alameda County Connection bus services, as well as the 511 telephone and Internet
service (www.511.org), would be good resources for information and promotional
materials.
3. This study recommends that an alternative parking standard of 1 space for every 200
square feet of outdoor floor area is adequate due to the seasonal nature of outdoor
seating to ensure that the parking demand generated by the outdoor seating would not
overflow to adjacent properties and cause adverse impacts. The alternative parking
requirement would total 2 parking spaces.
4. The project should reserve 1 additional parking space as. time-limited parking to off-set
the potential increased parking demand associated with Wi-Fi Internet access. This space
should be located closest to the .coffee shop and should be posted with the following
information: "15 Minute Parking Limit. Towing Enforced." Sign shall include City of Dublin
Municipal Code citation that allows towing of illegally parked vehicles. This 1 space with
time limit restrictions would be able to safely accommodate an additional 3 vehicles per
Page 9
Starbucks
7197 Village Parkway
PA 04-057
hour. Time-limited parking spaces for the project would total of 6 spaces, which would be
capable of allowing 24 vehicles to park an hour.
5. This study recommends that the coffee shop be required to provide auxiliary parking and
proper signage for the first two weeks of operation due to increased traffic caused by the
business' grand opening.
Table 3, as follows, summarizes the alternative parking standard and the recommended
mitigation measures.
Table 3., Proposed Alternative Parking Standard
Use Area Zoning Table 2 Mitigation Proposed Parking -
(sq.ft.) Ordinance Maximum Measures Required Provided
Required Demand Parking (spaces)
Parking (spaces} (spaces}
s aces
Coffee 1,886 19 8 6time-limited 13 8 on-site
Sho parking spaces 5 off-site
Outdoor (410) 4 (24 vehicles) 2 2 on-site
Seating 2 regular
spaces
^ 5 off-site
spaces
' alternative
parking
standard of 2
spaces
.Total Measures:
15 spaces would
manage max.
demand of 33
vehicles~er hour
Retail 6,642 22 17 No Mitigation 22 22 on-site
Measures -
22 regular
spaces
Total 8,528 45 45 37 37
Approve ""
Ray Kuzb ri, City of D lin Traffic Engineer
Page 10
~9
E N G? N P E 2 S ~? C A N N E R S
April 19, 2005
Mr. Ray Kuzbari
Senior Traffic Engineer
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Subject: Focused Traffic/Parking Analysis for a Proposed RetaiUStarbucks
Development on Village Parkway in the City of Dublin.
Dear Mr. Kuzbari,
This letter report summarizes an analysis of the traffic and parking conditions for the
proposed RetaiUStarbucks Enea Village development at 7197 Village Parkway in the
City of Dublin. The analysis involved surveys of traffic and parking conditions and an
evaluation of the effects of the project on those conditions.
1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The focus of this analysis is the traffic generation and parking conditions resulting from
the 8,539 square foot retail building which would include an 1,886 square foot Starbucks
coffee store and 6,653 square feet of retail use. (The overall development would also
eventually include a 5,582 square foot office building with separate parking). The project
is located on the southeast corner of the Village Parkway/Amador Valley Boulevard
intersection (see Figure 1). The area's land uses are a mix of commercial and residential
development, with primarily retail/commercial land uses along Village Parkway and
Amador Valley Blvd. west of the intersection. The area east of the project site is
residential.
2. EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
Traffic flows have been established from A.M. peak period intersection counts conducted
at the Village Pkwy./Amador Valley Blvd. intersectional) Based on the volumes, the
intersection is operating at level of service (LOS) `A' (v/c ratio 0.58) during the A.M.
peak hour. The calculation indicates that the A.M. peak hour traffic conditions are stable
with little delays overall. The average number of vehicles queued at each approach
during the red (stopped) phase of the signal cycle were noted. The eastbound left/through
queues averaged 6-8 vehicles; the westbound left/through queues averaged 6-7 vehicles;
the southbound left/through queues averaged 7-8 vehicles; and the northbound
left/through queues averaged 3 vehicles. Field observations noted that volumes and
vehicle queues at some approaches increase temporarily between 7:45-8:15 a.m. due to
school-related trips. (Average eastbound left/through queues of 6-8 vehicles increase to
12-13 vehicles; average southbound leftJthrough queues of 7-8 vehicles increase to 14-15
vehicles.) However, the intersection continues to operate efficiently and the queued
vehicles clear the intersection during each signal cycle.
i 90 i C~I~/rr;pic 3oulev~urd, Suite i 20 9 ',n/c~!nut ~ reek, CA 94590 • (925) 935-2230 fax, ,925) 935-2247
ROSF`JIi_~F BEDDING V!SHUn. WALNUT CREEK
Project Site Location Map
Noy,
o~~~~means figure 1
3. PROJECT TRAFFIC AND PARKING EFFECTS
a. Trip Generation and Distribution
Surveys identifying the number of vehicle trips were conducted at three existing nearby
Starbucks locations by Omni-Means Engineers and Planners.~2~ These included a 2,425
square foot Starbucks with 51 seats (all interior) located at 7904 Dublin Blvd. (at
Regional St.). A 2,046 square foot Starbucks with 21 interior and 34 exterior seats
located at 4930 Dublin Blvd. in the Hacienda Crossings Shopping Center. And a 1,560
square foot location with 37 interior seats and 12 exterior seats located at 9150 Alcosta
Blvd., San Ramon, in the Country Club Village Shopping Center. The locations were
chosen based on their proximity to the project site and as being representative of the
proposed Starbucks use. Starbucks' peak customer demand occurs in the mornings. In
order to determine the project's peak hour of trip generation, the number of vehicle trips
in and out of each location were counted from 6:00-10:00 a.m. The peak hourly in/out
trips for each location were then averaged, deriving a trip rate of 101 trips per 1,000 sq.
ft. of building space. Applying the trip rate to the proposed Starbucks of 1;886 square
feet with 30 interior and 16 exterior seats results in 190 total trips, comprised of 95
inbound trips and 95 outbound trips. (For comparison, a trip rate based on the number of
seats was also calculated, resulting in 178 total trips. In order to remain conservative, the
higher trip rate based on square footage, was used for this study.)
Of the 190 total peak hour trips, a large percentage would actually consist of "pass-by"
trips. Pass-by trips are not new vehicle trips to the street network, but reflect customers
who are already traveling on the street for another purpose {for example, in route to work
or school) and stop at the Starbucks. Pass-by trips are accounted for at the project
driveways, but since they are already on the street, they do not add extra trips to the
intersection. In a previous study for a Starbucks in Orinda, CA conducted by Abrams
Associates, the pass-by trip rate was documented to be 70% of the total trips.~3} (The
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) has also documented pass-by trip rates. The
published pass-by trip rate for a facility this small is closer to 80%.) Using the lower
{more conservative) 70% pass-by rate results in 132 (66 in, 66 out) pass-by trips and 58
(29 in, 29 out) actual new trips created by the Starbucks.
Trip generation for the remaining 6,653 square foot retail space was derived from ITE
published trip rates for retail centers.~4~ The retail space was calculated to generate 31 (19
in, 12out) total trips. A portion of these would also be pass-by trips. Using ITE data
derived for retail space of this size results in 35% of the total trips being pass-by trips.
This results in 11 (7 in, 4 out) pass-by trips and 20 (12 in, 8 out) net new trips during the
A.M. peak hour.
The combined Retail/Starbucks project results in 221 (114 in, 107 out) total A.M. peak
hour trips, comprised of 143 (73 in, 70 out) pass-by trips and 78 (41 in, 37 out) net new
trips. The trip generation is summarized in Table 1.
Traffrc & Parking Analysis
For Retail/Starbucks Page 3
TABLE 1
A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Generation for RetaiUStarbucks Project
Project Component
A.M. Trip Rate
A.M. Trips
1,886 sq. ft. Starbucks
6,653 sq. ft. Retail
101 trips/1,000 sq. ft.~A~
(50% in, 50% out)~2~
4.67 trips/1,000 sq. ft.~B~
(61% in, 39% out)
Combined RetaiUStarbucks Trips{~ _
190 (95 in, 95 out, Total
132 (66 in, 66 out) Pass-By
58 (29 in, 29 out) Net New
3_(19 in, 12 out) Total
11 (7 in, 4, out) Pass-By
20 (12 in, 8 out) Net New
221 (114 in, 107 out) Total
143 (73 in, 70 out) Pass-By
78 (41 in , 37 out) Net New
(A) Omni-Means Engineers & Planners, derived from trip counts at 3 area Starbucks, Apri147, 2005.
{B) ITE, Trip Generation, 7"' Edition, 2003.
(C) Net new trips reflect 70% pass-by for the Starbucks and 35% pass-by for the retail.
The project trips were distributed onto the street network based on several factors. These
included the project access points, surrounding locations of trip generating sources, and
proximity of other Starbucks locations. It is estimated that about 35% of the project's
traffic would be to/from the east on Amador Valley Boulevard, 20% to/from the west on
Amador Valley Boulevard, 30% to/from the north on Village Parkway, and 15% to/from
the south on Village Parkway. (Intersection and project driveway volumes are shown in
Figure 2.)
The distribution also accounted for possible U-turns. Primarily, westbound Amador
Valley Blvd. inbound trips would make U-turns at Village Parkway to access the Amador
Valley driveway, and outbound Village Parkway driveway vehicles wishing to go south
would make U-turns at Amador Valley Boulevard. Exiting vehicles could also make U-
turns from eastbound Amador Valley Blvd. to westbound Amador Valley Blvd. at the
Village Square Center driveway intersection just east of the project site.
b. Intersection Operation
With the project trips added to existing volumes, the Village Pkwy./Amador Valley Blvd.
intersection would remain at LOS `A' (v/c = 0.58). {The LOS are listed in Table 2 and
calculation worksheets are attached.) A comparison of the existing vehicle queues to
those with the added project traffic indicates that the average southbound, northbound,
and westbound left-turn queues would increase by one vehicle, and the average
northbound through queue would increase by one vehicle. The intersection would
Traffic & Parking Analysis
For Retail/Starbucks Page 4
continue to operate efficiently. The short vehicle queues (average 4 vehicles} for the
northbound Village Pkwy. approach to Amador Valley Blvd. would provide adequate
clearance for vehicles to exit the Village Prkwy. driveway and access the northbound left-
turn lane. For vehicles exiting the Amador Valley Blvd. driveway, the eastbound
Amador Valley Blvd. approach volumes are low enough (approximately 520 cars) and
the signal phasing provides numerous gaps in the eastbound traffic. These factors would
allow adequate gaps for outbound vehicles to access the left-turn lane pocket at the
Village Square Center driveway east of the project site.
c. Traffic Conditions With Site Buildout
Future Buildout of the project site could include development of a 5,582 square foot
office building. The intersection operating conditions were also analyzed accounting for
trips from the office. Using ITE trip rates for office buildings, the 5,582 square foot
building was calculated to generate 19 (17 in, 2 out) A.M. peak hour trips. (The site
Buildout project volumes are shown in Figure 2A.) The Village Pkwy./Amador Valley
Blvd. intersection would continue to operate at LOS `A' with the addition of the office
trips. This level of service indicates the intersection would continue to operate
efficiently.
TABLE 2
A.M. Peak Hour Level of Service at Village Pkwy./Amador Valley Blvd. Intersection
Existing Plus
Existin Retail & Starbucks
LOS V/C LOS V/C
A 0.58 A 0.58
Existing Plus
Retail, Starbucks, & Office
LOS V/C
A 0.58
Traffic & Parking Analysis
For Retail/Starbucks Page 5
~rn~
r cJ' Cfl
M N r-
~ ~ ~ t 103 (105)
M N r '- 438 (426)
~ j ~ ~ 139 (172) AMADOR VALLEY BLVD.
(342) 354 s ~ T ~ ~-
[92]
(288) 268 ~ ~ ~ M ~
(78) 78 ~ ~ N
.--..~-.
N~1~
N ~ M
r r ...~
PROJECT
SITE
~ [83]
r'
N
N
d
W
C7
g
NOT TO SCALE
A.M. Peak Hour
Existing and Existing+Project
4
g
~ Intersection Volumes,
N
with
Projec
Volumes
] at Driveways orth
o~r~o~means figure 2
d. Parking Needs
The proposed retaiUStarbucks building parking supply would consist of 32 onsite spaces.
The Dublin zoning ordinance results in 45 required spaces when the retail
("neighborhood retail") and Starbucks store ("convenience eating and drinking
establishment") are treated separately and added together. Sometimes, however, the mix
of businesses within a development may generate peak parking demands at different
times of the day (termed a "shared parking" condition). In this case, the peak Starbucks
demand occurs in the morning when retail parking demand is generally lower.
In order to identify the overall parking demand in the morning, a shared parking analysis
was conducted. This consisted of establishing the Starbucks and the retail area parking
demands separately at different times throughout the morning, then adding them together
for a total demand. The Starbucks parking demand was determined by conducting
morning parking surveys at the existing Starbucks locations previously mentioned.~s~ The
surveys were conducted between 6:00-10:00 a.m., with the number of occupied spaces
tabulated at each half hour. From the occupancy numbers surveyed at each location, an
average parking demand rate per 1,000 square feet of building space was calculated for
each half-hour. This rate was then applied to the proposed 1,886 square foot Starbucks to
obtain the parking demand at each half hour as shown in Table 3. The 1,886 square foot
Starbucks parking demand rises to a peak of 27 vehicles at 9:30 a.m.
The morning retail space demand was determined by applying the Dublin Zoning
Ordinance requirement of 1 space per 300 square feet (3.33 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft.),
which equates to 22 spaces. The ordinance is formulated to address the peak parking
demand which typically occurs in the afternoon. Published data from the Urban Land
Institute (ULI) shows that average mid-week parking demand for retail stores peaks
around 1:00 p.m. The subsequently lower demands earlier in the morning have been
identified by ULI as a percentage of the maximum demand.~6~ Applying these
percentages to the 22 space peak retail demand results in parking demands at each half-
hour as listed in Table 3.
The sum of the Starbucks and retail shared demands are also shown in Table 3. Based on
the calculations, the parking supply would accommodate the expected demand until about
9:30 a.m., when a peak demand for 39 spaces would exceed the on-site parking supply of
32 spaces. After 9:30 a.m., overall parking demand declines but still exceeds the supply.
By 10:30 a.m., the onsite parking supply would accommodate the shared Starbucks and
retail demand (based on an extended survey period at the existing 7904 Dublin Blvd.
Starbucks).
Traffic & Parking Analysis
For Retail/Starbucks Page 8
TABLE 3
Weekday Shared Parking Demand For Starbucks & Retail Space
Time Starbucks
Demand~a~ Retail
Demand~b~ Total
Demand Parking
Su ly Surplus /
Deficit
6:00 a.m. 4 0 4 32 + 28
6:30 a.m. 9 1 10 32 + 22
7:00 a.m. 13 2 15 32 + 17
7:30 a.m. 15 3 18 32 + 14
8:00 a.m. 17 4 21 32 + 11
8:30 a.m. 21 7 28 32 + 4
9:00 a.m. 21 9 30 32 + 2
9:30 a.m. 27 12 39 32 -7
10:00 a.m. 23 15 38 32 - 6
la) Parking demand for 1,886 sq. ft. Starbucks, based on surveys conducted by
Omni-Means Eng. & Planners at three area Starbucks stores.
(b) Zoning ordinance (source: City of Dublin), with hourly demand as a
percentage of p.m. maximum (source: ULI).
In a preliminary study of the project conducted by the City of Dublin, several mitigation
measures were presented to address an onsite parking deficit.~7~ One measure referred to
the presence of nearby on-street parking. Curb space for 10-12 vehicles is available on
Village Pkwy. and Amador Valley Blvd. fronting the project site. Given their location
and the absence of other nearby parking generators during the morning peak period, we
concur with the City's report that these spaces are not likely to be utilized by motorists
who are not associated with the project site. Also, our observations at the other Starbucks
indicate patrons will utilize street parking when it is in close proximity. Due to these
factors, it is likely the curb spaces would accommodate the excess demand.
It is also noted that the existing Starbucks at 9150 Alcosta Blvd. is located approximately
one mile north on Village Parkway. Two Starbucks serving the same general area may
result in a reduction in the average parking demand. Thus, the Starbucks parking demand
identified for this project is probably conservatively high.
Traffic & Parking Analysis
For RetaiUStarbucks Page 9
e. Pedestrian Issues /Vehicle Access
The project would be served by one right-turn inlout driveway on Village Pkwy. and one
right-turn in/out driveway on Amador Valley Boulevard, both 24 feet wide. (The project
site plan is illustrated in Figure 3.) The previous site use (gasoline service station) had
two driveways fronting each street that were approximately 40 feet wide. Pedestrian
safety is generally enhanced when the number of driveways is reduced.
Pedestrian and bicycle volumes on Village Pkwy. and Amador Valley Blvd. were also
monitored during the intersection count. For the two-hour period between 7:00-9:00
a.m., 20 pedestrians and 10 bicyclists were observed on Amador Valley Blvd., with 3
pedestrians walking along the project frontage. On Village Pkwy., 9 pedestrians and 2
bicyclists were observed, with 4 pedestrians and 1 bicyclist traveling along the project
frontage.
Although the proposed retail/Starbucks project would have a relatively high A.M. peak
hour trip generation, standard safety measures such as unobstructed sight lines along the
sidewalk and driveway, the eight-foot sidewalk width, clearly differentiated sidewalk
paving, and the current signalized intersection and crosswalk at Amador Valley Blvd. and
Village Pkwy. would be adequate to protect pedestrians and bicyclists in the A.M. peak
hours. In addition, the project's elimination of the two driveways provided for the former
gasoline service station would reduce the potential for vehicle and pedestrian or bicyclist
conflicts.
Traffrc & Parking Analysis
For Retail/Starbucks Page 10
4. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The proposed retaiUStarbucks project would not significantly impact traffic conditions at
the study intersection compared to existing conditions. With the added project trips, the
intersection would continue to operate at LOS `A' conditions during the A.M. peak hour.
Average southbound, northbound, and westbound left-turn vehicle queues would increase
by one vehicle.
The parking supply of 32 onsite spaces would accommodate the expected combined
retail/Starbucks demand until 9:30 a.m. when demand peaks for 39 spaces. The peak
demand would exceed the on-site parking supply by 7 spaces. After 9:30 a.m., the
parking demand declines but still exceeds the supply until 10:00 a.m.
Curb space for 10-12 vehicles is available on Village Pkwy. and Amador Valley Blvd.
fronting the project site. The location of these spaces suggests most of them are not
likely to be occupied by other than patrons of the retail/Starbucks development. It is
likely the curb spaces would accommodate the excess demand.
Sin rely,
9
~~
George W. Nickelson, P.E.
Attachments: LOS Definitions
LOS Calculations
Traffic & Parking Analysis
For Retail/Starbucks Page 11
~~M
m
~ i`
® ~~ .
-------- \ ~# ~ ~5
3
`\ ~ ~ ~ v ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ @~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ M`~~ d ~~~ a 3 ~`~ btg~ e s ~' ~~ ~y
~ {
~.
I ~-_
~ s +._-~
r
~~'~ i - -- ------ ~ ..
~~+5 . ~~ ~i4F j f ~f ~v I 7
S:' ~ I ii
~~ ~~~ .-r I ~ `*1 77 ~
aa~d~~.Y ~ oa Y ..k - -1`ri f~~= ~~ sy,-_ .- '-- - w-s ~ E 1 / V
B1f 1 ~ --_---- # ~~--,~-a---- -{may--- ~ ~ ~~~
- -- -f~ - - -- - -- -$; - ~ ! T ~' ~ L
pp I 1i$~~a ! ~ ~~
-A - / 7 i w t
• ~ I
~: 1 y 7~ J
~ } >v~ , ;:fit- ,:. ~ ~~` ~~~- 7, ~
~ J. h- ! 1
~.
,., ~-r-- ~ -~ 7 Q ~
ao
~°
REFERENCES
(1) Traffic counts conducted by Omni-Means Engineers & Planners, A.M. Peak
Period (7:00-9:00 a.m.), April 5, 2005.
(2) Trip counts conducted by Omni-Means Engineers & Planners at three Starbucks
locations:
7904 Dublin Blvd. (at Regional St.), Dublin, CA
(2,425 square feet with 51 interior seats.)
Surveys conducted 6:00- 10:30 a.m., April 6, 2005.
4930 Dublin Blvd., Dublin, CA (in Hacienda Crossings Shopping Center)
(2,046 square feet with 21 interior and 34 exterior seats.)
Surveys conducted 6:00-10:00 a.m., Apri17, 2005.
9150 Alcosta Blvd., San Ramon, CA (in Country Club Village Center)
(1,560 square feet with 37 interior seats and 12 exterior seats.)
Surveys conducted 6:00-10:00 a.m., Apri14, 2005.
(3) Abrams Associates, Starbucks Coffee Company, City of Orinda Parking and
Traffic Study, December 1995.
(4) Institute of Transportation Engineers, ~ Generation, 7th edition, 2003.
(5) Parking surveys conducted by Omni-Means Engineers & Planners at three
Starbucks locations: 7904 Dublin Blvd. (6:00-10:30 a.m., April 6, 2005); 4930
Dublin Blvd. (6:00-10:00 a.m., April 7, 2005); and 9150 Alcosta Blvd. (6:00-
10:00 a.m., Apri14, 2005).
(6) Urban Land Institute and National Parking Association, Dimensions of Parkin,
Washington, D.C.
(7) City of Dublin, Starbucks 7197 Village Parkway Parking Study, Prepared by
Community Development and Public Works Departments, December 29, 2004.
Traffic & Parking Analysis
For Retail/Starbucks Page 13
ATTACHMENTS
Level of Service Definitions
Level of Service Calculations
Traffic & Parking Analysis
For Retail/Starbucks Page l 4
LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS
LEVEL
OF UNSIGNALIZED
SERVICE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS INTERSECTIONS*
"A" Uncongested operations, all queues clear in a Little or no delay.
single-signal cycle. (Average stopped delay less (Average delay of < 10
than 10 seconds per vehicle; V/C less than or = seconds)
0.60).
"B" Uncongested operations, all queues clear in a Short traffic delays.
single cycle. (Average delay of 10-20 seconds; (Average delay of >10
V/C=0.61-0.70). and <15 secs.)
"C" Light congestion, occasional backups on critical Average traffic delay.
approaches. (Average delay of 20-35 seconds; (Average delay of >15
V/C=0.71-0.80). and <25 secs.)
"D" Significant congestion of critical approaches but Long traffic delays for
intersection functional. Cars required to wait some approaches.
through more than one cycle during short peaks. (Average delay of >25
No long queues formed. (Average delay of 35- and <35 secs.)
55 seconds; V/C=0.81-0.90).
"E" Severe congestion with some long standing Very long traffic delays
queues on critical approaches. Blockage of for some approaches.
intersection may occur if traffic signal does not (Average delay of >35
provide for protected turning movements. Traffic and <50 secs.)
queue may block nearby intersection(s) upstream
of critical approach{es). (Average delay of 55-80
seconds; V/C=0.91-1.00).
"F" Total breakdown, stop-and-go operation. Extreme traffic delays
(Average delay in excess of 80 seconds; V/C of for some approaches
1.01 or greater). (intersection may be
blocked by external
causes--delays >50
seconds).
* Level of Service refers to delays encountered by certain stop sign controlled approaches. Other
approaches may operate with little delay.
Source: Transportation Research Board, HiQhwav Capacity Manual, 2000.
CCTALOS Software ver. 2.35 by TJKM Transportation Consultants
-- --------------------------------
Condition: AM Existing Conditions 04/11/05
INTERSECTION 1 Village Pkwy./Amador Vallye B1 Dublin
Count Date 4/5/05 Time AM PEAK Peak Hour 8:00-9:00 AM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CCTA METHOD RIGHT THRU LEFT 4-PHASE SIGNAL
----------- 329 258 131
<--- v ---> ~ Split? Y
LEFT 354 --- 2.1 1.1 2.1 1.0 1.1 --- 103 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
THRU 268 ---> 2.2 (NO. OF LANES} 2.1<--- 438 THRU Amador Vallye Bl
RIGHT 78 ---
v
N
W + E
S
1.1 2.1 2.2 1.1 1.0 --- 139 LEFT
<--- --->
I I I v
76 166 38
LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? Y
SIG WARRANTS:
Urb=Y, Rur=Y
STREET NAME: Village Pkwy.
- -
ORIGINAL -----
ADJUSTED - -- ----- - - ---
V/C ----------------
CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
-------------
NB RIGHT (R) -------------
38 ----------
38 ----------
1650 ----------
0.0230 ----------------
THRU (T) 166 166 3300 0.0503
LEFT (L) 76 76 3000 0.0253
T + R 204 3300 0.0618 0.0618
T + L 242 4650 0.0520
T + R + L 280 4650 0.0602
-------------
SB RIGHT (R) -------------
329 ----------
329 -----------
1650 ---------
0.1994 ----------------
0.1994
THRU (T) 258 258 3300 0.0782
LEFT (L) 131 131 1650 0.0794
T + R 587 3300 0.1779
-------------
EB RIGHT (R) -------------
78 ----------
78 -----------
1650 ---------
0.0473 ----------------
THRU (T) 268 268 3300 0.0812
LEFT (L) 354 354 3000 0.1180
T + R 346 3300 0.1048
T + L 622 4650 0.1338
T + R + L 700 4650 0.1505 0.1505
-------------
WB RIGHT (R) -------------
103 ----------
103 -----------
1650 ---------
0.0624 ----------------
THRU (T) 438 438 3300 0.1327
LEFT (L) 139 139 1650 0.0842
T + R 541 3300 0.1639 0.1639
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPAC ITY RATIO: 0.58
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=X.INT,VOL= XA.VOL,CAP=
CCTALOS Software ver. 2.35 by TJKM Transportation Consultants
---------------------------------------
Condition: AM Existing + Proj. (Starbucks & Retail) 04/15/05
INTERSECTION 1 Village Pkwy./Amador Vallye B1 Dublin
Count Date 4/5
-------------- /05
--------
-- Time AM
-
-- PEAK Peak Hour 8:00-9:00 AM
CCTA METHOD -
RIGHT -
-------
THRU LEFT ---------- ----------- ---------------
4-PHASE SIGNAL
----------- 318 249 164
<--- v ---> ~ Split? Y
LEFT 342 --- 2.1 1.1 2.1 1.0 1.1 --- 105 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
THRU 288 ---> 2.2 (NO. OF LANES) 2.1<--- 426 THRU Amador Vallye Bl
RIGHT 78 --- 1.1 2.1 2.2 1.1 1.0 --- 172 LEFT
v v
N I I I SIG WARRANTS:
W + E 122 191 38 Urb=Y, Rur=Y
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? Y
STREET NAME: Village Pkwy.
--- ------- - -
ORIGINAL ----------
ADJUSTED ---------- -----------
V/C --------------
CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
---------------
NB RIGHT (R) -----------
38 -----------
38 ----------
1650 -----------
0.0230 --------------
THRU (T) 191 191 3300 0.0579
LEFT (L) 122 122 3000 0.0407
T + R 229 3300 0.0694
T + L 313 4650 0.0673
T + R + L 351 4650 0.0755 0.0755
---------------
SB RIGHT (R) -----------
318 -----------
318 ----------
1650 -----------
0.1927 --------------
0.1927
THRU (T) 249 249 3300 0.0755
LEFT (L) 164 164 1650 0.0994
T + R 567 3300 0.1718
---------------
EB RIGHT (R) -----------
78 -----------
78 ----------
1650 -----------
0.0473 --------------
THRU (T) 288 288 3300 0.0873
LEFT (L) 342 342 3000 0.1140
T + R 366 3300 0.1109
T + L 630 4650 0.1355
T + R + L 708 4650 0.1523 0.1523
---------------
WB RIGHT (R) -----------
105 -----------
105 ----------
1650 -----------
0.0636 --------------
THRU (T) 426 426 3300 0.1291
LEFT (L) 172 172 1650 0.1042
T + R
-
---
- 531
--------- 3300
---------- 0.1609
----------- 0.1609
------------
----
----------
---------------
TOTAL VOLU --
-----
--
----------------------
ME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO:
----------
----------- --
--------------
0.58
INTERSECTI ON LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=X.INT,VOL=XA.VOL,CAP=
CCTALOS Software ver. 2.35 by TJKM Transportation Consultants
Condition: AM
Existing+Pr ---------------------
oject+Office ----------- ---------------
04/15/05
INTERSECTION -----------------------
1 Village Pkwy./Amador Vallye -----------
B1 Dubl ---------------
in
Count Date 4/5
-------------- /05
----------- Time AM
----
- PEAK Peak Hou r 8:00-9:00 AM
CCTA METHOD
RIGHT ---
---
THRU LEFT ---------- ----------- ---------------
4-PHASE SIGNAL
----------- 318 249 169
^ I
<--- I I
v ---> ^
~ Split? Y
LEFT 342 --- 2.1 1.1 2.1 1.0 1.1 --- 105 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
THRU 292 --- > 2.2 (NO. OF LANES) 2.1<--- 426 THRU Amador Vallye Bl
RIGHT 78 --- 1.1 2.1 2.2 1.1 1.0 --- 178 LEFT
v v
N I I I SIG WARRANTS:
W + E 123 192 37 Urb=Y, Rur=Y
S LEFT THRU RIGHT Split? Y
STREET NAME: Village Pkwy.
ORIGINAL
ADJUSTED ------- -----------
V/C --------------
CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
---------------
NB RIGHT (R) -----------
37 -----------
37 ----------
1650 -----------
0.0224 --------------
THRU (T) 192 192 3300 0.0582
LEFT (L) 123 123 3000 0.0410
T + R _
229 3300 0.0694
T + L 315 4650 0.0677
T + R + L 352 4650 0.0757 0.0757
---------------
SB RIGHT (R) -----------
318 -----------
318 ----------
1650 -----------
0.1927 --------------
0.1927
THRU (T) 249 249 3300 0.0755
LEFT (L) 169 169 1650 0.1024
T + R 567 3300 0.1718
---------------
EB RIGHT (R) -----------
78 -----------
78 ----------
1650 -----------
0.0473 --------------
THRU (T} 292 292 3300 0.0885
LEFT (L} 342 342 3000 0.1140
T + R 370 3300 0.1121
T + L 634 4650 0.1363
T + R + L 712 4650 0.1531 0.1531
---------------
WB RIGHT (R) -----------
105 -----------
105 ----------
1650 -----------
0.0636 --------------
THRU (T) 426 426 3300 0.1291
LEFT (L) 178 178 1650 0.1079
T + R 531 3300 0.1609 0.1609
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.58
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
INT=X.INT,VOL=XA.VOL,CAP=
~~-
AGENDA STATEMENT
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MEETING DATE: March 14, 2005
SUBJECT:
ATTACHMENTS
RECOMMENDATION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
PUBLIC HEARING: PA 04-057, Starbucks Coffee -Conditional
Use Permit fora 29% Reduction to Required Parking .- , ~ ~-
Report prepared by.• Pierce Macdonald, Associate Planner
1. Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit fora 29%
Reduction to Required Parking for Starbucks Coffee (with
Site Plan included as Exhibit A, and Parking Study as
Exhibit B)
2. Applicant's Written Statement
3. Planning Commission Resolution 04-40
1. Open Public Hearing and Hear Staff Presentation;
2. Take Testimony from the Applicant and the Public;
3. Close Public Hearing and Deliberate;
4. Adopt Resolution (Attachment 1) Approving a Conditional
Use Permit fora 29% Reduction to Required Parking for
Starbucks Coffee (with Site Plan. included as Exhibit A, and
Parking Study as Exhibit B}
The project site at 7197 Village Parkway was the former location of an automotive gasoline and service
station that closed in the 1990'x, and was previously zoned General Commercial (C-2). Adjacent uses
include the Taco Bell restaurant to the south and two single-family homes to the east on Amador Valley
Boulevard. Other uses in the project vicinity include Oil Changers to the west, the new Valley Center
development to the northeast, and the Arco AM/PM service station to the north.
In 1998, the City Council studied the potential future uses of the property, held public hearings, and
adopted a Stage 1 and 2 Planned Development (PD) Zoning District for the property on December 1 ~,
1998, PA 98-049. Pursuant to the PD regulations, a range of office, commercial and eating and drinking
establishments were permitted uses in the district. Cafes and other neighborhood-serving uses were
specifically identified as appropriate new uses in the Planned Development Rezoning Ordinance adopted
by City Council.
The potential of the project site was further studied in the Village Parkway Specific Plan, adapted by City
Council on December 19, 2000, in which the property was identified as an opportunity site and a primary
gateway area. Opportunity sites and primary gateway areas are identified in the Specific Plan as
prominent locations that are suitable for plazas, public art, and other amenities.
In 2002, the Alameda County Environmental Protection Division issued a closure letter for the completed
G:U'A#12 0 04104-0 5 7 Starbucks Parking CUPIZA Staff Report.doc
COPIES TO: Applicant
Property Owner
PA File
ITEM NO. ATTA HNlEI~T ~
C
clean up at the site, which had previously been a gas station with leaking underground tanks.
On May 11, 2004, the Planning Commission approved a request for Site Development Review, Tentative
Map, and Conditional Use Permit for the Enea Village Parkway Center (PA 03-069) on the property (see
Resolution 04-40, included as Attachment 3). The approval will allow development of the 1-acre lot at
the southeast corner of the intersection of Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard with a 8,539-
square-foot commercial/retail center and a 5,582-square-foot office building. Within the
commerciaUretail center, a 600-square-foot space was identified for eating and drinking uses, such as a
coffee shop. Later that year, the former gas station was demolished, and a Building Permit application
was submitted to begin construction of the commerciaUretail building.
With the current application, Enea Properties is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow a 1,886-
square-foot coffee retailer and cafe, Starbucks Coffee, to locate in the Enea Village Parkway Center by
reducing the number of on-site parking spaces required by 29% by Chapter 8.76 of the Zoning Ordinance,
Off-street Parking and Loading. The proposal includes a mix of in-door seating and outdoor seating, for a
total of 30 indoor and 16 patio seats.
ANALYSIS:
At the time of the Planning Commission's approval of the Enea Village Parkway Center on May 11, 2004,
the future tenants of the project were unknown. The Staff report for the Planning Commission meeting
outlined the limits to the size of any future eating and drinking use due to the number of parking spaces
required under the Zoning Ordinance. The Staff report explained, as follows,
"Although it is unknown whether a restaurant will choose to locate at the site, the commercial/retail
building has been designed to accommodate a small eating and drinking use, such as a coffee shop or
ice cream vendor, in a 600-square-foot tenant space. The development has been designed to anticipate
DSRSD sewer requirements and accommodate the additional parking necessary fora (600-square-
foot) restaurant use."
The Planning Commission Staff Report also explained that additional floor area beyond 600 square feet
could be created in the future subject to Zoning Ordinance regulations, Section 8.76.050. The parking
requirements for the entire commercial building including the eating and drinking use are outlined in
Table 1., Enea Village Parkway Center Parking Tabulation, belov~T:
Table 1. Enea Village Parkway Center Parking Tabulation
Parcel A Bui{ding Area Parking Requirement Parking Provided Percentage of
Parkin Spaces
CommerciallRetail 7,939 square feet 26 Spaces (1:300} 19 Standard S aces 59.37%
11 Com act S aces 34.38%
Eating and Drinking 600 square feet 6 Spaces (1:100) 2 Accessible Spaces 6.25%
Total 8,539 square feet 32 S aces 32 S aces 100%
Conditional Use Permit
Pursuant to Section 8.76.050 of the Zoning Ordinance, Adjustment to the Number of Parking Spaces, the
Zoning Administrator may reduce the number of parking spaces required by the Zoning Ordinance when
2
off-Site parking is available to satisfy the required parking under the Zoning Ordinance, when the parking
requirement is deemed excessive, and when a shared parking condition is present. In the latter two cases,
a traffic study must be prepared by a qualified traffic engineer or consultant. The following evidence must
be provided:
An analysis of the availability ofoff--site parking spaces showing that the most distant parking
space is not more than 400 feet from the commercial use, that the off-site parking spaces are
not located in a residential zone or vehicle access area, and that any necessary agreements are
executed to assure that the off-site parking spaces are provided to the principal use (Section
8.76.0S0.C}:
^ An analysis of the parking demands of the proposed use and the parking demands of similar
uses in similar situations, to demonstrate how the required parking standard is excessive, and
an alternative parking standard to ensure that there will not be a parking deficiency and that
overflow parking will not adversely impact adjacent uses (Section 8.76.050.E}.
An analysis of how a sufficient number of parking spaces is provided to meet the greatest parking
demands of the participating use types in a shared parking situation to ensure that there will not be a
parking deficiency, that parking for the various uses will not conflict with each other, and that
overflow parking will not adversely impact adjacent uses (Section 8.76.0S0.F}.
The Applicant worked with the City Traffic Engineer and Planning Division Staff to develop a Parking
Study for the project. The Parking Study is included as Exhibit B to Attachment 1. The Study reviewed
the requested 1,886-square-foot coffee shop and a 410-square-foot outdoor seating area and provided an
analysis of the typical parking requirements of the proposed tenant and the entire shopping center.
The Study concluded that the proposed project would generate significant visitors to the Village Parkway
area due to its prominent location, brand name recognition, and the attractiveness of the new building's
design. The shared parking condition of the shopping center and the availability of free, on-street parking
would supplement the parking provided on-site during the busiest times of the day. In addition, the
proximity of the prof ect site to residential neighborhoods, schools, bike paths, and public transportation
would allow several transportation options for visitors and employees.
Concurrent with the recommendations listed below, the Parking Study supported an alternative parking
requirement to that of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance that takes into consideration all of the conditions at
the project site. The Parking Study concluded that 32 off-street parking spaces and the existing on-street
parking spaces (a minimum of 5) would be sufficient to meet the peak parking needs of the coffee shop
and the shopping center as a whole.
The following measures were recommended to ensure that the project causes no adverse impacts on retail
tenants in the shopping center or adjacent property owners, and these measures have been included as
Conditions of Approval for the project:
The project should reserve 5 of the parking spaces as time-limited parking. These spaces should be
located closest to the coffee shop and should be posted with the following information: "15 Minute
Parking Limit. Towing Enforced." Signs shall include City of Dublin Municipal Code citation that allows
towing of illegally parked vehicles. These 5 parking spaces with time limit restrictions would be able to
safely accommodate 20 vehicles per hour. (Condition of Approval # 8)
2. This study recommends that the coffee shop tenant provide information on the availability of travel `
options to visitors and employees on an on-going basis. BART and the Wheels and Alameda
County Connection bus services, as well as the 511 telephone and Internet service (www.511.orQ),
would be good resources for information and promotional materials.(Condition ofApproval # 9)
3. This study recommends that an alternative parking standard of 1 space for every 200 square feet of
outdoor floor area is adequate due to the seasonal nature of outdoor seating to ensure that the
parking demand generated by the outdoor seating would not overflow to adjacent properties and
cause adverse impacts. The alternative parking requirement would total 2 parking spaces. This
alternative parking standard is effective as long as the plaza area remains uncovered by a permanent
roof. The Applicant/Developer shall apply for and obtain a Conditional Use Permit for additional
parking reductions pursuant to Section 8.76.050 of the Zoning Ordinance should the plaza area be
covered by a permanent roof. (Condition ofApproval # 10)
4. The project should reserve 1 additional parking space as time-limited parking to off-set the potential
increased parking demand associated with Wi-Fi Internet access. This space should be located
closest to the coffee shop and should be posted with the following information: "15 Minute Parking
Limit. Towing Enforced." Sign shall include City of Dublin Municipal Code citation that allows
towing of illegally parked vehicles. This 1 space with time Limit restrictions would be able to safely
accommodate an additional 3 vehicles per hour. Time limited parking spaces for the project would
total of 6 spaces, which would be capable of allowing 24 vehicles to park an hour. (Condition of
Approval # 8)
5. This study recommends that the coffee shop be required to provide auxiliary parking and proper
signage for the first two weeks of operation due to increased traffic caused by the business' grand
opening. (Condition of Approval # 11)
To summarize the conclusions and recommendations made in the Study, information from Table 3. of the
Parking Study, as follows below, outlines the alternative parking standards.
Table 3., Proposed Alternative Parking Standards
Use Area Zoning Tabie 2 Recommended Proposed Parking
(sq.ft.) Ordinance Maximum Standards/ Required : Provided
Required Demand Conditions Parking (spaces)
Parking (spaces) (spaces)
s aces
Coffee 1,886 19 8 6time-limited parking I3 8 on-site
Sho spaces (24 vehicles} 5 off-site
Outdoor (410) 4 2 regular spaces 2 2 on-site
Seating 5 off-site spaces
^ alternative parking standard
of 2 spaces
Total Spaces Available:
15 spaces would manage
max. demand of 33
vehicles er hour
Retail 6,642 22 17 22 22 on-site
22 regular spaces
(No changes in standards
from Zonin Ordinance)
Total 8,528 45 45 37 37
4
Public Comments
A Public Hearing Notice was mailed to property owners, residents, and tenants within a 300-foot radius of
the project property. A copy of the notice was advertised in the Valley Times. As of the writing of this
report, no comments have been received from the Public.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State guidelines and City
environmental regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that
environmental documents be prepared. The project has been found to be Categorically Exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), according to Section 15332, because the project is an in-
fill development within a larger urbanized area and consistent with local general plan and zoning
requirements.
CONCLUSION:
The Enea Village Parkway Center will replace a vacant former gas station at a prominent corner of the
intersection of Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard. The project site is identified in the
Village Parkway Specific Plan as an opportunity site. The proposed coffee shop lease space meets the
goals and requirements of the property as envisioned in the Village Parkway Specific Plan, the Planned
Development District PA 98-049, and the Off-Street Parking and Loading Section of the Zoning
Ordinance by creating a .neighborhood-serving commercial use with shared parking. City Staff have
reviewed the project and attached draft Conditions of Approval that will mitigate any potential adverse
impacts of the project relative to parking.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Zoning Administrator: 1) open public hearing and hear the Staff presentation;
2) take testimony from the Applicant and the Public; 3) close the public hearing and deliberate; and, 4}
adopt the Resolution (Attachment 1} approving a Conditional Use Permit fora 29% Reduction to
Required Parking for Starbucks Coffee (with Site Plan included as Exhibit A, and Parking Study as
Exhibit B).
5
GENERAL INFORMATION:
APPLICANT: Robert Enea, Enea Properties Company, LLC
190 Hartz Avenue, Suite 260, Danville 94526
PROPERTY OWNER: Village Parkway Partners, LLC
190 Hartz Avenue, Suite 260, Danville 94526
LOCATION: 7197 Village Parkway, Dublin, CA 94568 (APN 941-0210-013)
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: Retail/Office
EXISTING ZONING
AND LAND USE: Planned Development Zoning District, PA 98-049
G:1PA#12004\04-057 Enea1ZA Staff Report.doc
6
RESOLUTION NO. OS - 04
A RESOLUTION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
29% REDUCTION TO REQUIRED PARKING FOR
STARBUCKS COFFEE AT
7197 VILLAGE PARKWAY (PA 04-057)
WHEREAS, the Enea Properties Company LLC, the site property owner, has requested
approval of an application on behalf of Starbucks Coffee, Inc., for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a
reduction of 13 parking spaces or 29% from the number of parking spaces normally required fora 1,886-
square-foot coffee shop, 410-square-foot outdoor seating area, and 6,653-square-foot retail center (45 spaces),
pursuant to Section 8.76.050 of the Zoning Ordinance, on land located at 7197 Village Parkway (APN 941-
0210-013); and
WHEREAS, the application has been reviewed in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and the City Environmental Guidelines, and determined to be
categorically exempt according to Section 15332, because the project is an in-fill development within a larger
urbanized area and consistent with the Dublin General Plan and Zoning Ordinance requirements; and
WHEREAS, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 21-98 which established Planned Development
District PA 98-049 on December 15, 1998, which established development standards for the project site; and
WHEREAS, City Council adopted the Village Parkway Specific Plan and Initial Study/Negative
Declaration on December 19, 2000, which established development standards, land uses, and goals for the
Specific Plan Area; and
WHEREAS, Planning Commission did hold a public hearing and approved a proposal submitted by
Enea Properties Company LLC for development of a 8,539-square-foot retail center and 5,582-square-foot
office building at the project site on May 11, 2004, by means of Resolution 04-40; and
WHEREAS, a Parking Study has been prepared and reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer for the
proposed reduction of 13 parking spaces or 29% from the number of parking spaces normally required for a
1,886-square-foot coffee shop, 410-square-foot outdoor seating area, and 6,653-square-foot retail center (45
spaces), which states that alternative parking standards would be appropriate for the project; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator did hold a public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit on
March 14, 2005; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required bylaw; and
WHEREAS, the Staff Report was submitted recommending Zoning Administrator approval of a
resolution approving a Conditional Use Permit; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations, and
testimony hereinabove set forth, and used her independent judgment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Zoning Administrator does hereby
make the following findings and determinations regarding said proposed Conditional Use Permit:
1. Pursuant to Section 8.76.OSO.C, a Parking Study has been prepared to assure that the off-site parking
spaces are provided to the principal use because a maximum of 10 and a minimum of 5 free, on-street
parking spaces will be available along the project street frontages on Village Parkway and Amador
Valley Boulevard, within 400 feet of the project site.
2. Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 8.76.OSO.E, a Parking Study has been prepared to demonstrate
how the required outdoor seating parking standard is excessive, and has provided an alternative parking
standard to ensure that there will not be a parking deficiency and that overflow parking will not
adversely impact adjacent uses because the proximity of the site to residences, schools, bike paths, and
public transportation will allow several transportation options for visitors, and intemperate weather will
limit the use of outdoor seating.
3. Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 8.76.OSO.F, a Parking Study has been prepared to ensure that
there will not be a parking deficiency in the shopping center as a whole, that parking for the various
uses will not conflict with each other, and that overflow parking will not adversely impact adjacent uses
because, as conditioned, there will be 6 parking spaces in the parking lot with signs limiting parking to
15 minutes and because these 6 parking spaces would be capable of allowing 24 vehicles to park an
hour combined with 4 normal parking spaces which would satisfy the total peak demand of 28 spaces
an hour of the coffee shop and other shopping center uses.
4. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the development being proposed
because it is located within a developed downtown area, was previously developed, and because it is
located adjacent to roadways which are designed to carry traffic that would be generated by the
proposed types of uses; and
5. The proposed Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing
or working in the vicinity, or be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare because the project
has been built according to City laws and regulations; and
6. The proposed Conditional Use Permit is consistent with the Retail/Office designation of the Dublin
General Plan and the proposed development standards are permitted by said designation; and
7. The proposed Conditional Use Permit is consistent with the existing Planned Development Zoning
District (PA 98-049) regulations because Eating and Drinking Uses, such as cafes, are permitted uses
within the Planned Development Zoning District, and the project is consistent with the parking
regulations of Zoning Ordinance Chapter 8.76, to which the Planned Development Distnct is also
subject.
8. The proposed Conditional Use Permit is consistent with the goals and standards of the Village Parkway
Specific Plan because it will provide neighborhood-serving uses and promote enhanced pedestrian
access and amenities.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Zoning Administrator does hereby approve a
Conditional Use Permit for project plans, included as Exhibit A, and the Parking Study, included as Exhibit B,
dated December 29, 2004, subject to the following Conditions of Approval:
2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Unless stated otherwise all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to the issuance of building
hermits or establishment of use and shall be subject to Department of Community Development review and
approval The following codes represent those departments/agencies responsible for monitoring compliance of
the conditions of approval• (ADMI Administration/ City Attorney, (Bl Building Division of the Community
Development Department [DSR] Dublin San Ramon Services District, (Fl Alameda County Fire
De~artment/City of Dublin Fire Prevention [FINI Finance Department, (PLl Planning Division of the
Communiy Devel~ment Department (POl Police [PW] Public works Department.
NO. CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN souxCE~
AGENCY/ REQ.?
DEPART.
GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. Approval. This Conditional Use Permit approval for the Starbucks, PL Ongoing Standard
Inc., PA 04-057, establishes the parking requirements for the 1,886-
square-foot coffee shop and 410-square-foot outdoor seating area at
the Enea Commercial Center, 7197 Village Parkway. Conditions
of Approval contained herein shall not be construed as superceding
Conditions of Approval established with Planning Commission
approval of PA 03-069. Development pursuant to this Conditional
Use Permit is conditioned upon the requirement that the
development be consistent with the approved Site Development
Review (PA 03-069), the Planned Development (PD) Rezoning,
including the Land Use and Development Plan, and the related
General Provisions, and Standards and Conditions, and shall
generally conform to the Site Plan prepared by William Wood
Architects, dated received November 1, 2004, by the City of Dublin
Community Development Deparhnent, unless modified by the
Conditions of A royal contained herein.
Z, Term. Pursuant to Section 8.96.020.D., approval of the Conditional PL On-going Z.O.
Use Permit shall be valid for one year from effective date. If
construction has not commenced by that time or extended per the
following means, this approval shall be null and void. The
approval period for the Conditional Use Permit may be extended
six (6) additional months by the Director of Community
Development upon determination that the Conditions of Approval
remain adequate to assure that the above stated findings will
continue to be met. Applicant/ Developer must submit a written
request for the extension prior to the expiration date of the
Conditional Use Permit..
3• Revocation. The Conditional Use Permit will be revocable for PL On-going Z.O.
cause in accordance with Section 8.96.020.I of the Dublin Zoning
Ordinance. Any violation of the terms or conditions of this
approval shall be subject to citation, and ifnon-compliance
continues, otential revocation.
4, Fees. Applicant/Developer shall pay all applicable fees in effect at FIN Prior to Municipal
the time of building permit issuance, including, but not limited to: issuance of Code
Planning fees; Building fees; Dublin San Ramon Services District Building
fees; Public Facilities fees; Dublin Unified School District School Permits
Impact fees; Public Works Traffic fees; City of Dublin Fire
Services fees; Noise Miti ation fees; Alameda Coun Flood and
NO. CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WREN souRCE~
AGENCY/ REQ.?
DEPART.
Water Conservation District (Zone 7) Drainage and Water
Connection fees; and any other fees as noted in the Development
Agreement. Unissued building permits subsequent to new or
revised T1F's shall be subject to recalculation and assessment of the
fair share of the new or revised fees. If the Development
Agreement approved for this project conflicts with this condition,
the Develo ment A Bement shall revail.
5. Required Permits. Applicant/Developer shall obtain all necessary PL, PW, B Prior to Standard
applicable permits required by other agencies including, but not issuance of
limited to, Alameda County Public Works, Alameda County Flood Building
Control District (Zone 7); California Department of Fish and Permits
Game; Army Corps of Engineers; and State Water Quality Control
Board, and shall submit copies of the permits to the Department of
Public Works. Applicant/Developer shall also apply, pay all
required fees and obtain permits from PG&E for power service
connection re uired to ever ize traffic si als and streetli hts.
(, Hold Harmless/Indemnification. Applicant/Developer, and any Applicant On-going Standard
parties or individuals granted rights-of--entry by Applicant/
Developer, shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of
Dublin and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim,
action, or proceeding against the City of Dublin or its agents,
officers, or employees (a) to attack, set aside, void, or annul an
approval of the City of Dublin or its advisory agency, appeal board,
Planning Commission, City Council, Director of Community
Development, Zoning Administrator, or any other department,
committee, or agency of the City concerning a subdivision or other
development which actions are brought within the time period
provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37 and (b)
holding the City liable for any damages or wages in connection
with the construction; provided, however, that the Applicant)
Developer's duty to so defend, indemnify, and hold harmless shall
be subject to the City's promptly notifying the ApplicantlDeveloper
of any said claim, action, or proceeding and the City's full actions
or roceedin s.
~. Clarifications and Changes to the Conditions. In the event that PL, PW On-going Standard
there needs to be clarification to these conditions of approval, the
Directors of Community Development and Public Works have the
authority to clarify the intent of these conditions of approval to the
Applicant/Developer by a written document signed by the Director
of Community Development and the City Engineer and placed in
the project file. The before-mentioned authority also may make
minor modifications to these conditions in order for the
Applicant/Developer to fulfill needed improvements or mitigations
resultin from im acts to this ro~ect.
.PARKING STUDY
8. Time-Limited Reserved Parking. The Applicant/Developer shall PL, PW Prior to Parking
reserve 5 of the parking spaces as time-limited parking. These issuance of Study
spaces should be located closest to the coffee shop and should be Building
posted with the following information: "15 Minute Parking Limit. Permits
Towing Enforced." Signs shall include City of Dublin Municipal
Code citation that allows towing of illegally parked vehicles.
NO. CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN SOURCE?
AGENCY/ REQ.?
DEPART.
In addition, the Applicant/Developer shall reserve 1 additional
parking space as time-limited parking to off-set the potential
increased parking demand associated with Wi-Fi Internet access.
This space should be located closest to the coffee shop and should
be posted with the following information: "15 Minute Parking
Limit. Towing Enforced." Sign shall include City of Dublin
Municipal Code citation that allows towing of illegally parked
vehicles.
Time limited parking spaces for the project shall total 6 spaces for
the shopping center to allow 24 vehicles to park per hour in time-
limited spaces.
9. Travel Options. The Applicant/Developer shall ensure that the PL, PW Prior to Parking
coffee shop tenant provide information on the availability of travel issuance of Study
options to visitors and employees on an on-going basis. BART and Building
the Wheels and Alameda County Connection bus services, as well Permits
as the 511 telephone and Internet service (www.511.orQ), would be
good resources for information and promotional materials.
10. Patio Seating. The Applicant/Developer shall apply for and obtain PL, PW On-going Parking
a Conditional Use Permit for additional parking reductions Study
pursuant to Section 8.76.050 of the Zoning Ordinance should the
plaza area be covered by a permanent roof and available for
seatin .
11. Grand Opening. The Applicant/Developer shall be required to PL, PW Prior to Parking
provide auxiliary parking and proper signage for the first two issuance of Study
weeks of operation of the coffee shop due to increased traffic Building
caused by the business' grand opening. Permits
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of March, 2005.
Zo 'ng Administrator
ATTEST:
~,~,~~
Associate Planner
G:V'A#12004\04-057 Starbucks\ZARESO.DOC
~ r
~~~~~
~~
i
~~
Zoning Adrr~inisfrator Hearing
March 74, 2005
CALL TO ORDER
A special meeting of the City of Dublin Zoning Administrator was held on Monday March 14,
2005 in the Dublin Civic Center Regional Meeting Room, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin. Zoning
Administrator Jeri Ram called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m.
ATTENDEES
Jeri Ram, Planning Manager and Zoning Administrator; Pierce Macdonald, Associate Planner;
Janet Harbin, Senior Planner; Chris Foss, Economic Development Director; Ray Kuzbari Senior
Civil Engineer (Traffic); Ananthan Kanagasundaram, Assistant Engineer; and Renuka Dhadwal,
Recording Secretary.
PUBLIC HEARING
Prior to opening the public hearing, Ms. Ram explained the meeting process to the members
present. She informed the members present that she will open the public hearing and ask for
staff report, ask questions from Staff, Applicant and members of the public, close the public
hearing, deliberate and make a decision. She further stated that if the Applicant or the
members present were unhappy with the Zoning Administrator's decision, they will have 10
calendar days to appeal the decision.
1. PA 04-05? Starbucks Coffee CUP fora 29% reduction to required parking
Ms. Ram opened the hearing and asked for the staff report.
Pierce Macdonald, Associate Planner, presented the Staff Report. Ms. Macdonald gave a brief
history of the property site, Staff analysis while reviewing the application, and public
comments since the writing of the report. The property in question 7197 Village Parkway, was
the former location of an automotive gasoline and service station which was closed in 1990s. It
was zoned General Commercial or C2 at that time. Adjacent uses include a fast food
restaurant, single family homes, as well as the Oil Changers and the newly developed Valley
Center. In 1998 the City Council studied the potential future uses of the property, held public
hearing and adopted a Planned Development District for the site which changed the zoning for
the site. Pursuant to the PD regulations, a range of office/commercial, eating and drinking uses
were permitted in the District. Cafes and other neighborhood serving uses were specifically
identified for the site. In the year 2000, the potential uses for the site were further studied in
the Village Parkway Specific Plan and it was determined that the said property was an
opportunity site and a primary gateway area. These are identified in the Plan as areas
suitable for Plazas, outdoor seating, public art and other amenities. Ms. Macdonald further
explained that in 2004, the Planning Commission approved a Site Development Review and a
Tentative Parcel Map for the Enea Village Parkway Center. The approval included the
development of the one-acre site with a 8,539 sq. ft. commercial retail center and a 5,582 sq. ft.
office building. The parking for the total center is 54 parking stalls. Within the retail center a
600 sq. ft. space was identified for an eating and drinking use such as a Coffee Shop or an Ice
Cream Parlor. Permits for the demolition of the gas station and the commencement of
construction were issued in 2004.
Enea properties, through this application, is requesting a conditional use permit to reduce
parking to allow a 1,886 sq. ft coffee retailer and cafe Starbucks Coffee to locate in the retail
center. Due to site constraints, the standard parking requirements through the zoning
ordinance will need to be replaced with an alternate parking plan. In reviewing the
Application, Staff completed the following analysis:
1. In order to expand a 600 sq. ft. space to a 1,886 sq. ft. space 19 parking spaces would
be required. The site currently provides 10 on-site parking spaces. To provide
outdoor seating, 4 spaces would be required.
2. Pursuant to Chapter 8.76 of the Zoning Ordinance, the parking can be reduced at a
site by the Zoning Administrator when a parking study is completed. The parking
study can make an argument for using off-site parking to satisfy the Zoning
Ordinance parking requirements. It can provide evidence for an alternative parking
requirement. It can also do an analysis of shared parking so that when retail uses are
not at their peak parking requirement, they can share the parking of the eating use
and vice versa. The parking study for the proposed application needed to ensure that
there was no parking deficiency due to the reduction and the resultant overflow will
not adversely impact the adjacent uses.
3. The Parking Study concluded that the proposed project would generate significant
visitors to the Village Parkway area due to its prominent location, brand name and
the attractiveness of the new building's design. The shared parking condition of the
shopping center and the availability of free, on-street parking would supplement the
parking provided on-site during the busiest times of the day. In addition, the
proximity of the proposed project to residential neighborhoods, schools, bike paths
and public transportation would allow several transportation options for visitors and
employees. The Parking Study additionally supported an alternative parking
requirement to that of the Zoning Ordinance that took into consideration all of the
conditions at the project site. The Study concluded that 32 off-street parking spaces
and the existing on-street parking spaces (a minimum of 5) would be sufficient to
meet the peak parking needs of the coffee shop and the shopping center as a whole.
4. The Parking Study made the following recommendations which are incorporated in
the resolution as Conditions of Approval:
a. Reserve 5 parking spaces as time-limited parking;
b. Information on travel options;
c. Alternative parking requirement of 2 parking spaces to accommodate outdoor
seating;
d. 1 additional parking space as time-limited to off-set increased parking demand
associated with Wi-Fi Internet access; and
2
e. Auxiliary parking and proper signage for first two weeks of operation.
Ms. Macdonald informed that a public hearing notice was mailed to the property owners and
occupants within 300-ft radius of the project site. Staff has received 131etters in support of the
project and 16 letters in opposition of the project since the mailing of the notices.
The issues identified in the letters were:
1. The proposed Starbucks Coffee would impact the business for Mika's Espresso Coffee
shop located adjacent to the proposed project.
2. Traffic congestion
3. Create unsafe conditions at the intersection of Amador Valley Boulevard and Village
Parkway
Ms. Macdonald informed that the Public Works department has assured Staff that since the
access to the retail center is right-in and right-out driveway, this would not cause traffic
congestion. There will be landscaped median at the intersection which would be safe for the
pedestrians. Additionally 90-ft of the curb on Village Parkway as well as 60-ft of the curb on
Amador Valley Blvd would be red-stripped for site distances.
In conclusion Staff has reviewed the project and attached a draft Conditions of Approval that
will mitigate any potential adverse impacts of the project relative to parking. Staff
recommends that the Zoning Administrator adopt the Resolution approving a Conditional Use
Permit fora 29% reduction to required parking.
Ms. Ram asked Ray Kuzbari, Senior Civil Engineer (Traffic), to explain the traffic situation in
relation to the school in the vicinity since the peak hours for the school and Starbucks Coffee
would be the same.
Mr. Kuzbari explained that a Traffic Analysis was conducted for the intersection along with
some proposed improvements which were approved by the City Council as part of the Village
Parkway Specific Plan enhancements. The free right turn from Village Parkway towards
Amador Valley Boulevard has been closed and the median has been extended out so that the
pedestrians can now safely cross the intersection. Mr. Kuzbari pointed out that the levels of
service for all signalized intersections are rated on a scale from A-F. Levels A-D are acceptable
levels. The Study for the intersection determined that the intersection is currently operating at
Level C. Therefore it is average in terms of congestion levels and based on that there is reserve
capacity to absorb more traffic. He further explained that the access driveway to and from the
proposed project site is right turn only and therefore will not impact traffic conditions at the
intersection. Therefore based on the Study, traffic to and from the project site can be handled
safely as well as the intersection as a whole.
Ms. Ram stated that she understood that the parking provided will be adequate since the uses
for that site do not overlap. However, she asked, if there was a situation when parking could
not be found on-site, where are the additional five spaces located on-street. Ms. Macdonald
explained that four spaces are located on Village Parkway and one on Amador Valley Blvd.
Ms. Ram asked if there was potential for more parking at the office site. Mr. Kuzbari
responded that there was potential for additional parking near the office site during peak
hours.
3
Ms. Ram asked if a person were to exit from the project site onto Amador Valley Blvd, where
would that person be able to make a U-turn. Mr. Kuzbari pointed out the median at Amador
Valley Blvd on the map and said that a person could potentially make a U-turn at that point
and could make a left turn on Village Parkway and park on-street on Village Parkway, if
necessary.
Ms. Ram asked if there were any Elementary Schools in the vicinity. Mr. Kuzbari stated that
in addition to the Wells Middle School, the Fredrickson Elementary School is also located in the
vicinity.
Ms. Ram asked if there was a crossing guard at the intersection. Mr. Kuzbari stated that the
crossing guard was stationed at Amador Valley Blvd and Burton Street and not at the
intersection in question. The reason being for this is because the intersection near the project
site is signalized.
Ms. Ram pointed out that one of the letters which was in opposition to the project talked about
a co-relation between reduced parking and traffic: Ms. Ram asked Mr. Kuzbari to explain how
would reduced parking interfere with traffic. Mr. Kuzbari explained that whenever traffic is
evaluated for a development project, Staff ensures that there is sufficient parking to
accommodate parking demand. If there is insufficient parking, then there is a potential of
more driveway traffic which could interfere with through traffic on the adjacent street and
hence the co-relation between reduced parking and increased traffic.
Ms. Ram stated that she is a little concerned for the safety of children crossing the intersection
as there may be potential U-turn traffic from the project site. Mr. Kuzbari explained that the
intersection in question is a signalized intersection and each approach to the intersection gets a
green light separately. Therefore there is no interference with pedestrian traffic.
Mr. Foss, Economic Development Director, pointed out that the crosswalk island in front of the
property has been removed therefore the free right turn towards Amador Valley Boulevard has
also been removed. This creates more safety for the pedestrians looking to cross the
intersection.
Ms. Ram asked Mr. Kuzbari if in his professional opinion as a Traffic Engineer the traffic
improvements that have been made and the traffic analysis that was conducted are safe and
the reduced parking request will not have a major traffic impact. Mr. Kuzbari responded that
he is comfortable making those determinations.
Ms. Ram asked Ms. Macdonald what the intent of the Village Parkway Specific Plan is in terms
of what it is trying to achieve for pedestrians. Ms. Macdonald explained that the goal for the
Village Parkway Specific Plan is to create a pedestrian friendly shopping district. As part of the
Plan the pavements on Village Parkway will be enhanced, new trees will be planted,
`opportunity sites' or `primary gateway areas' were identified, which would include outdoor
plazas for outdoor seating to make the area very pedestrian friendly. When the Planning
Commission reviewed the project they found that this site was offering free outdoor seating,
providing benches, creating extensive landscaping, which meets the intent of the Village
Parkway Specific Plan.
4
Ms. Ram opened the public hearing to take public testimony. She informed the members
present that if they wished to speak they should fill out a speaker form and hand it to the
Recording Secretary.
Danelle Meyn, co-owner of Mika's and resident of 4803 Norfolk Place, Dublin CA 94568, spoke
first. She stated her reasons for opposing the project. She felt that reducing parking spaces for
a coffee shop will impact traffic tremendously and will be unsafe for children.
Trish Bell, resident of 11696 Corto Ct, stated that this intersection will inevitably be congested
and will be hazardous. She gave the example of the post office and how difficult it is to find
parking on-site which causes traffic congestion on Village Parkway.
Ron Meyn, co-owner of Mika's, wasn't sure how many parking spaces were being provided for
the project. Ms. Macdonald stated that the project overall will provide 32 parking spaces. 10 of
those would be for Starbucks. During the hours that the retail center is closed, the entire 32
spaces would be available. Mr. Meyn had similar concerns regarding traffic impact as the
other speakers.
Teri Kolon, a teacher at Fredrickson Elementary School and resident of 7674 Knollbrook Dr.,
Pleasanton, felt that it was outrageous to have another coffee establishment in addition to the
existing ones in close proximity. She also voiced concerns regarding the safety for children who
walk to school.
Bobbi Cauchi, a business owner on Village Parkway and resident of 7133 Kingston Place
expressed her concerns for the safety of the children due to increased traffic. She wanted to
know what time during the day the Traffic Study was conducted. Ms. Ram responded that she
will ask Staff this question during deliberation.
Catherine Pettinicchi, a resident of 405 Merriwood Place, San Ramon, who frequently is in
Dublin due to the preschool her children go to also voiced her concerns regarding traffic impact
and she felt that the City is underestimating the popularity of Starbucks.
Ms. Ram requested those members who hadn't filled out the speaker form to do so prior to
leaving so that the City could accurately record their names in the minutes and furthermore
send them notices if this item were to be appealed.
Heather Johnson, employee of Dublin School District, stated that she understood the intent of
Dublin to have a Downtown like atmosphere; however, she thinks that the proposed project
area is not conducive for such an atmosphere due to the high traffic volume.
Ms. Ram asked the Applicant, Robert Enea, if he would like to say anything.
Mr. Enea stated that Staff had addressed all the concerns raised. He stated that traffic
concerns that have been raised is a regional problem and not area specific.
Hearing no other comments, Ms. Ram closed the public hearing.
Ms. Ram asked when the Traffic Study was done. Mr. Kuzbari responded that it was
completed in December 2002 prior to the improvements that were recently done at the
intersection.
5
Ms. Ram asked if there was a mix of parking spaces available on-site. Ms. Macdonald informed
that there were total 32 parking spaces available. Out of that 11 were compact spaces, 2
handicap accessible parking spaces.
Ms. Ram asked if there was any barrier between Building A and Building B of the project site.
Ms. Macdonald stated that there will be a fence to protect landscaping although it is accessible
from Village Parkway since it has a shared access driveway.
Ms. Ram inquired how many parking spaces does the Office component have. Ms. Macdonald
responded that the Office Building proposes 22 parking spaces.
Ms. Ram asked if there was any cross parking agreement between the two buildings. Ms.
Macdonald stated that there was no agreement, both buildings will have their independent
parking spaces.
Ms. Ram stated that she has considered all the testimony given; she has reviewed the staff
report, the letters, the Parking Study, Village Parkway Specific Plan and considered the safety
of traffic. Based on the Traffic Engineer's testimony that the City has made improvements to
the intersection, she feels confident that the intersection is safer now than before.
Furthermore, previously the proposed site had a gasoline station which operated at all hours of
day and night with traffic going in on Village Pkwy and out on Amador Valley Blvd. which is
similar to the proposed project. She added it is safer now that it was previously with all the
improvements. She further elaborated that in any shopping center there is a variety of
businesses and each business has its own time of operation and hence there is adequate
parking available on-site to meet the parking demand for a particular business at that center.
Specifically for this project she is confident that there is adequate parking on site based on the
different hours of operation for the retail use. While approving or disapproving a project, the
most important thing to consider is the compatibility of the use with the site. Ms. Ram stated
that the City is trying to revitalize the Village Parkway area and this project with its outside
seating complements the goal of the City. She cited examples of revitalization that has
occurred in the area (McDonald's improvements, Valley Center improvements).
Based on the conditions of approval, the Zoning Administrator approved the Conditional Use
Permit fora 29% reduction to required parking for Starbucks Coffee and adopted the following
Resolution:
RESOLUTION N0.05 - 04
A RESOLUTION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
29% REDUCTION TO REQUIRED PARKING FOR
STARBUCKS COFFEE AT
7197 VILLAGE PARKWAY (PA 04-057)
Ms. Ram, once again, informed that if the members of the public were not satisfied with her
decision, they have 10 calendar days to appeal.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 3:10 p.m.
Jeri Ram
Zoning Administrator
ATTEST:
~1
Pierce Macdonald
Associate Planner
G:\MINUTES\2005\CDD-ZA\ZA Minutes 3-14-05 Starbucks.doc
~~~.;, • +~ ~l` ~~
~- ~_
RECEIVED ~F ~~
CITY OF OUBLIN ~
I~AR 2 ~ 2005 ~~ ~~~ ~~~~
March 21, 2005
Re: Appeal letter for PA-04057 ~~ MANAGER'S p~FICE
This is a request to appeal planning application # PA-04057, Stazbucks Coffee-
Conditional Use Permit fora 29% Reduction to Required Parking. The location of this
proposed project is directly adja.cent to a residential neighborhood. The proposed use
creates a high customer volume and/or traffic, with their highest volume in the morning
hours from 7:00 a.m.-10:00 a.m. During this time frame well over 90% of their sales are
take-out or to-go. To illustrate that poirn the proposed applicant has provided for six
short term parking spaces, and unprecedented number for the city of Dublin. The primary
entrance and exit is located on Arnador Valley Blvd., and as vehicles exit from this
location they must head east on Amador Valley Blvd. directly into our residential
neighborhood This residential neighborhood contains the largest cluster of schools
within Dublin. 'The following schools that would be affected by this traffic aze Dublin
High School, Valley High School, Wells Middle School, and Frederiksen Elementary.
These school children range in ages from 5 to 17 yeazs old.
The tremendous vohune of vehicles that this use would attract during the eazly morning
hours combined with our children attempting to get to school is a recipe for disaster. This
community is unwilling to take that chance with our children's safety. The original
decision stated this use fell in line with the "downtown" plan of a cafe. It is clear to us the
committee for the "downtown" specific plan was encouraging a cafe which would be a
breakfastllunch destination We do not believe that they intent was to have another use at
this location that was primazily geared towards take-out/to-go items. Cleary this proposed
use functions primarily as a to-go/take-out shop.
We understand that this proposed use currently enjoys great brand name recognition, but
often "brands" lose favor. Such has been the case for Alpha-Beta, Gemco, Liberty House,
Montgomery Wards, K-Mart, Bob's Big Boy, Cocos, Jojo's, and Baxter's. All of these
past Dublin businesses have, not unlike the proposed use, enjoyed positive brand name
recognition during their time. We feel it is tremendously important NOT to rely on the
"brand" while considering this important appeal.
Furthermore we have concerns regarding the specific parking lot and immediate areas.
The current parking requirements( retail one space per 300 squaze feet and
restaurantlfood services one space per 100 square feet) was adopted specifically f or use
of this nature. The one space per 100 feet is designed to accommodate a use that
experiences large traffic volumes in a concentrated period of time as is in this case.
We believe, as it is stated, in the original proposal to "create" additional parking spaces in
the street present's two significant problems. Currently, street parking on Village
Parkway is problematic as it reduces one's ability to observe on-coming traffic unless
you aze already partially in the driving lane. (I.e. Dublin Post Office) When one exits this
parking lot from Village Parkway one may have to cross two lanes of traffic immediately
ATTACHMENT 3
before entering a turning lane. Another challenge regazds the five spaces of on street
parking located on Village Parkway. This would require pazking behind this retail
complex, walking around the building pass the two other retail locations, or down the
sidewalk around the corner to the main entrance of this establishment. We are highly
doubtful that potential customers would use those street spaces and walk that distance
without having attempted to find parking spaces within the shopping center proper. It is
the added vehicle movements in errtering and exiting this pazking lot as well as the
necessity to circle azound through a series of U-toms in order to make a second attempt
as to securing a parking spot. Should a potential customer choose to use one of the 5
Village Parkway on street pazking spaces it becomes 1~7cely that a parallel maneuver
would be required, which in itself would require the stoppage of traffic in the right lane.
Finally, the notion that a potential customer would pazk in the street, located quite a ways
from their destination, in the rain or other inclement weather is extremely doubtful. It is
not reasonable at all to consider that the 5 Village Parkway street spaces aze truly
functional for this proposed use.
1Zegazding the report/analysis compazing this Stazbuck's location with another Stazbuck's
location 400 miles away in Southern California shows far too few similarities to
accurately gage the potential traffic flow at the Dublin Starbuck's location. In this report
the Southern California. location was 26% smaller thus to gage the final figures a 26%
adjustment was forced to be made. The Southern California location is situated neaz a
freeway entrance. The report had no references to the volume of walk-up traffic, such as
being located next to an office complex, schools, etc. In a cursory observation at the
Starbuck's location on Dublin Blvd. and Regional Street the 28 cars per hour by faz under
represented the vehicle traffic indicated in the above mention report. This report simply
lacks specific fundamental, comparable data to be considered a relevarn comparison to
the proposed project.
Regazding the traffic study....this was compiled hastily some two and %2 years ago. There
are many vaziables that exist today that didn't exist in November 2002. Such as; the
influx of vehicles from the Dougherty valley, the expansion of the Valley Center,
remodel of A.M-P.M. mini market, increased enrollment in schools, new senior housing,
and remodeled Tazget Store/ExpoDesign center. This 2002 traffic study lacks resent and
importarn details required to evaluate the safety of this corner under currern conditions.
It is our overriding concern that no matter what subsequent traffic studies occur there is
no possible way to eliminate even a small increase of vehicle traffic on the residential
portion of Amador Valley Blvd. Being mindful that Amador Valley Blvd. is a main artery
for our children to get to and from school. This community places our children and their
safety above all else and we sincerely hope the planning commission will do the same.
This appeal has been respectfully prepared on behalf of Cauchi Photography,
Boblii CauC c~u~ ~~~'--^~
Cauchi Photography
7063 Village Pazkway
Dublin, Ca 94568
}/. ,~ ~~., -~-7 s--i ~c~
EPC
Enea Properties Company, LLC
RECE~yED
APR Z 8 ~
DUBLIN PLAN(dING
Applicant Written Statement
Dear Planning Commissioners,
Enea Properties Company, LLC
190 Hartz Ave., Ste. 260
Danville, CA 94526
(925) 314-1470
fax (925) 314.1475
rse~st-michael-investments.com
This statement is written in defense of the Conditional Use Permit
Approval that was granted to Village Parkway Partner's, LLC in
reference to the commercial project located nt the southeast corner of
Village Porkwny and Amador Valley Blvd. This former gas station site,
which has been vacant and abandoned for the Inst six years is currently
under construction with completion expected to occur by October 2005.
For the last three year I have worked very closely with the City
Planning Staff to design and build a pro ject that is consistent with the
intent of the Village Parkway Specific Plan and all applicable City zoning
ordinances.
We have atsked for, and have been granted, a parking reduction by the
zoning administrator to accommodate the projects anchor tenon#,
Stnrbucks. More importantly, Stnrbucks will allow us to attract other
qunli#y tenants to the project which is essential because of stiff
competition from other east Dublin retail projects.
The City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance classifies Stnrbucks as an "eating
and dinning establishment" which requires n parking ratio of 1 space per
100 square feet. No other City in the Bay Area has such a stringent
parking requirement. (See Table A below)
Table A
Parking Requirements fora 1,886 square Foot Stnrbucks
Located in a Shopping Center with other Retail Tenantsl
(assumes no outdoor seating) Classification Parking Ratio Parking Required
Dublin eating & dining 1 per 100 19 spaces
San Ramon eating & dining 1 per 200 10 spaces
Danville general retail 1 per 170 11 spaces
Pleasanton general retail 1 per 200 10 spaces
Concord general retail 1 per 200 10 spaces
Berkeley general retail 1 per 200 10 spaces
Walnut Creek general retail 1 per 250 8 spaces
t Table A was prepared based on individual telephone conversations with planners from e~ ~ ~~~~
1
No warranty ar representation, express or implied, is made as to the acuracy of the information contained herein, and same is submitted subject to
errors, omissions, changes of price, rental or other conditions, withdrawal without notice and to any special listing conditions, imposed by the principals.
Under the current Zoning Ordinance, Starbucks is treated as a full
service restaurant similar to an Applebee's, Black Angus. or Outback
Steakhouse. As you know, Starbucks does no cooking or food prepQrntion.
onsite nor do they serve ~.brenkfast, lunch or dinner. .
I feel that we hove adequately addressed the traffic and. parking issues
associated with- Starbucks intended use of the premises. As port of the
Conditional use Permit Applicotion, we worked closely with the .Staff and
- the City Engineer to address and mitigate any potential adverse impacts.
that may result from. Starbucks.- In addition to the City's' Traffic and
Parking Report, we voluntarily commissioned .Omni-Means, LTD to
conduct, an ~ independent Traffic dad Parking: 5#udy to corroborate and
confirm that-there would be no adverse impacts to .traffic and. parking.-
The results of both Traffic and. ,Parking Studies are conclusive,. no .
adverse impacts in traffic or parking will, occur as n result of .Starbucks
intended use of the premises.-
We have• worked in cooperation with the Planning .Staff to .get this
project to. its current stage of developrrrent: The culmination of
extensive planning cad design has .yielded a good looking, high quality •
project that will be a fine addition to the community. Good, well
design+~d projects attract good, high quality tenants; Starbucks is one of
those tenants that we need to .anchor- this center, and make it a success.
In conclusion, I feel strongly. that we have addressed and mitigcted all
of the concerns of ~ the Appellant associated with traffic and parking. I .
thank you for your consideration. and support of our Project.
Sincerely,
~~' ~ .
Robert •5. Enea
Managing Member .
Village Parkway Partners, LLC
2
RESOLUTION N0.04 - 40
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AMENDMENTS TO PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT PA 98-449, SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND MASTER SIGN PROGRAM
FOR ROBERT ENEA OFFICE AND RETAIL CENTERS
LOCATED AT 7197 VILLAGE PARKWAY, PA 03-069
WHEREAS, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 21-98 which established Planned Development
District PA 95-049 on December 15, 1998, which established development standards and architectural
guidelines for the project site; and
WHEREAS, City Council adopted the Village Parkway Specific Plan and Initial StudylNegative
Declaration on December 19, 2000, which established development standards, land uses, and goals for the
Specific Plan Area; and
WHEREAS, the Alameda County Environmental Protection Division has issued a closure letter dated
March 11, 2002, for clean up completed at the site, which was a former gasoline station, and Clayton Group
~rvices, Inc., has issued conclusions and recommendations found in the Phase I Environmental Assessment
report, dated May 30, 2003; and
WHEREAS, the application has been reviewed in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and the City Environmental Guidelines, and determined to be
consistent with the Negative Declaration prepared for the Village Parkway Specific Plan, PA 99-054, adopted
by the City Council on December 19, 2000, as the Specific Pian anticipated land uses for the site such as the
retail/commercial and office land uses proposed; and
WHEREAS, Enea Properties Company, LLC, has submitted a development application for a new
x,582-square-foot office building and new 8,539-square-foot retail center at 7197 Village Parkway, pursuant to
the provisions of PD 98-049 and the Village Parkway Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant proposes minor amendments to Planned Development PA 98-049 by means
of a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Section 8.32.080 of the Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the development project includes applications for a Conditional Use Permit, Site
Development Review and Master Sign Program pursuant to provisions of PD 98-049, the Zoning Ordinance,
and the Village Parkway Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit, Site
nevelopment Review and Master Sign Program on May 11, 2004; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and
ATTACHMEI~j S
WHEREAS, the Staff Report was submitted recommending Planning Commission approval of a
resolution approving a Conditional Use Permit, Site Development Review and Master Sign Program; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and use their independent judgment and considered all
said reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby
make the following findings and determinations regarding said proposed Conditional Use Permit, Site
Development Review and Master Sign Program:
1. The proposed minor amendment to the east side yard setback that reduces the required setback from a
minimum of 25 feet to a minimum of 10 feet substantially complies with and does not materially
change the provisions or intent of the adopted Planned Development Zoning District Ordinance for the
site because alternative measures have been incorporated into the project to protect the adjacent
residential uses from possible adverse impacts to lighting, noise and privacy. Furthermore, the proposed
development has been sited in the northernmost part of the parcel to provide the greatest separation
between the new building and the existing homes.
2. The proposed minor amendment to the internal vehicle separation that would remove internal vehicle
access requirements from the PD District substantially complies with and does not materially change
the provisions or intent of the Planned Development Zoning District Ordinance for the site because an
alternative measure has been incorporated into the project to provide future enhanced pedestrian access
to the property to the south at the time that this property is redeveloped and the existing drive-through
lane is removed, consistent with Village Parkway Specific Plan goals.
3. The Proposed Site Development Review and Master Sign Program meet the purpose and intent of
Chapter 8.104 of the Zoning Ordinance because they will promote orderly, attractive and harmonious
site and structural development compatible with surrounding properties and neighborhoods, especially
with the residential area to the east due to the building orientation, parking and landscaping of the site
layout; and
;. The Site Development Review and Master Sign Program are consistent with the general provisions,
intent, and purpose of the Site Development Review provisions of the Zoning Ordinance m that it
contains all information required by Chapter 8.104 of the Zoning Ordinance and accomplishes the
objectives of Chapter 8.104, A through J, of the Zoning Ordinance; and
4. The subject site is physically suitable far the type and intensity of the development being proposed
because it is located within a developed downtown area, vv~as previously developed, and because it is
located adjacent to roadwa}rs which are designed to carry traffic that would be generated by the
proposed types of uses; and
~. Architectural considerations, including the character ,scale, and quality of the design, the architectural
relationship with the site and other buildings, building materials and colors, screemng of exterior
appurtenances, exterior lighting and similar elements have been incorporated into the project and as
conditions of approval in order to insure compatibility of this development with the development's
design concept and the character of adjacent buildings, neighborhoods, and uses; and
6. Landscape considerations have been incorporated to ensure visual relief and an attractive environment
for the public; and
7. The proposed amendment will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in
the vicinity, or be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare because the project has been built
according to City laws and regulations; and
~. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Retail/Office designation of the Dublin General Plan
and the proposed development standards are permitted by said designation; and
9. The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals and standards of the Village Parkway Specific
Plan because it will provide neighborhood-serving uses and promote enhanced pedestrian access and
amenities.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby approve a
Conditional Use Permit, Site Development Review, and Master Sign Program, for project plans, included as
Exhibit A, and the proposed Master Sign Program, included as Exhibit B, stamped approved and dated May I1,
2004, subject to the Conditions of Approval, as follows.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
_Unless stated otherwise all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to the issuance of buildine
vermits or establishment of use and shall be subject to Department of Community Development review and
~~roval The following codes represent those departments/agencies responsible for monttonn~ compliance of
the conditions of approval •lADMl Administration/ City Attorney (Bl Buildtntl Drvtslon of the Communtt}j
Development DenartmentLjDSR] Dublin San Ramon Services District (Fl Alameda County Fire
De„QartmentlCity of Dublin Fire Prevention (FIN] Finance Department fPLI Planning Division of the
Community Development Department fP0] Police [PW] Public works Department.
NO. CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN HOV-' IS
AGENCY/ REQ.? CONDITION
DEPART. SATISFIES?
GENERAL CONDITIONS I
l . Approval. This Site Development Review approval for the Enea PL Ongoing Standard
OfficelCommercial Project, PA03-069, establishes the detailed
design concepts and regulations for the project Site Development
Review far Enea Office/Commercial Project, 7197 Village
Parkway, including a Master Sign Program. Development pursuant
to this Site Development Review is conditioned upon the
requirement that the development be consistent with the approved ~
Planned Development (PD) Rezoning, including the Land Use and
Development Plan, and the related General Provisions, and
Standards and Conditions, and shall generally conform to the
Preliminary Architectural Plans prepared by William Wood
Architects, dated received March 16, 2004; Preliminary Grading
and Drainage Plan prepared by Debolt Civil Engineering, dated
received April 16, 2004; Preliminary Utility Plan prepared by JED,
dated received April 16, 2004; Master Sign Program prepared by
Arrow Sign Company, dated April 21, 2004; and Preliminary
Planting Plan prepared by Borrecco/Killian & Associates, dated
received April 19, 2004, unless modified by the Conditions of
A royal contained herein.
2_ Standard Public Works and Site Development Review PL, PW On-going PW
Conditions of Approval. Applicant/Developer shall comply with
all applicable City of Dublin Standard Public Works {Exhibit A)
and Site Development Review Conditions of Approval
incorporated herein. In the event of a conflict between the
Standard Public Works Conditions of Approval and these
Conditions, these conditions shall revail.
3, Term. Pursuant to Section 8.96.020.D., approval of the Conditional PL On-going Zoning
Np, CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN How is -'
AGENCY/ REQ.? CONDITIOn
DEPART. SATISFIED?
Use Permit and Site Development Review shall be valid for one Ordinance
vear from effective date. If construction has not commenced by
that time or extended per the following means, this approval shalt
be null and void. Commencement of construction shall mean the
actual construction pursuant to the permit approval or
demonstrating substantial progress toward commencing such
construction. The approval period for Site Development Review
may be extended six (6) additional months by the Director of
Community Development upon determination that the Conditions
of Approval remain adequate to assure that the above stated
findings will continue to be met. Applicant) Developer must submit
a written request for the extension prior to the expiration date of
the Site Develo ment review.
.r}. Village Par[cway Specific Plan and Initial StudylNegative PL On-going Village
Declaration. Applicant/Developer shall comply with all applicable Parkway
mitigation measures of the Village Parkway Specific Plan and Specific
companion Initial Study/Negative Declaration, and Mitigations Plan
Measures that have not been made specific Conditions of Approval
of this project, thereby superceding the pertinent Mitigation
Measures referenced in those documents. The City shall determine
which of the requirements from these prior approvals are
a licable at this sta a of a royal.
5, Revocation. The SDR will be revocable for cause in accordance PL On-going Zoning
with Section 8.96.020.1 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Any Ordinance
violation 'of the terms or conditions of this approval shall be subject
to citation, and if non-com fiance continues, otential revocation.
6. Fees. ApplicantlDeveloper shall pay all applicable fees in effect at FIN Prior to Municipal
the time of building permit issuance, including, but not limited to: issuance of Code
I'la~ining fees; Building fees; Dublin San Raman Services District Building
fees; Public Facilities fees; Dublin Unified School District School Permits
Impact fees; Public Works Traffic fees; City of Dublin Fire
Services fees; Noise Mitigation fees; Alameda County Flood and
Water Conservation District (Zone 7) Drainage and V4'ater
Connection fees; and any other fees as noted in the Development
Agreement. Unissued building permits subsequent to new ar
revised TIF's shall be subject to recalculation and assessment of the
fair share of the new or revised fees. If the Development
Agreement approved for this project conflicts with this condition,
the Develo ment A reement shall revail.
~, Required Permits. Applicant/Developersha)l obtain all necessary PL, PW, B Prior to State and
applicable permits required by other agencies including, but not issuance of Regional
limited to, Alameda County Public Works, Alameda County Flood Building Agencies
Control District (Zone 7); California Department of Fish and Permits
Game; Army Corps of Engineers; and State Water Quality Control
Board, and shall submit copies of the permits to the Department of
Public Works. ApplicandDeveloper shat! also apply, pay all
required fees and obtain permits from PG&E for power service
connection re uired to ever ize traffic si als and streetli hts.
g, Postal Service. Applicant/Developer shall confer with local postal PW, B Prior to Standard
authorities to determine the type of mail units required and provide issuance of
a letter from the Postal Service stating its satisfaction with the mail Building
units proposed. Specific locations for such mail units shall be Permits
~O, CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN How is
AGENCY/ REQ.? CONDITION
DEPART. SATISFIED?
subject to approval and satisfaction of the Postal Service and the
Director of Community Development and City Engineer. A plan
showing the locations of all mailboxes shall be submitted for
review and a royal b the Ci En ineer.
9 Hold Harmless/Indemnification. Applicant/Developer, and any Applicant On-going Standard
. parties or individuals granted rights-of--entry by Applicant/
Developer, shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of
Dublin and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim,
action, or proceeding against the City of Dublin or its agents,
officers, or employees {a} to attack, set aside, void, or annul an
approval of the City of Dublin or its advisory agency, appeal board,
Planning Commission, City Council, Director of Community
Development, Zoning Administrator, or any other department,
committee, or agency of the City concerning a subdivision or other
development which actions are brought within the time period
provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37 and (b)
holding the City liable for any damages or wages in connection
with the construction of the parks; provided, however, that the
Applicant/ Developer's duty to so defend, indemnify, and hold
harmless shall be subject to the City's promptly notifying the
ApplicantlDeveloper of any said claim, action, or proceeding and
the Ci 's full actions or roceedin~s.
10 Clarifications and Changes to the Conditions. [n the event that PL, PW On-going Standard
. there needs to be clarification to these conditions of approval, the
Directors of Community Development and Public Works have the
authority to clarify the intent of these conditions of approval to the
Applicant/Developer by a written document signed by the Director
of Community Development and the City Engineer and placed in
the project file, also have the authority to make minor
modifications to these conditions in order for the
Applicant/Developer to fulfill needed improvements or mitigations
resultin from im acts to this ro~ect.
1 1 Projected Timeline. Applicant/Developer shall submit a projected PO Prior to Standard
. timeline for project completion to the Dublin Police Services issuance of
Department, to allow estimation of staffing requirements and Building
assienments. Permits
12 Prevailing Wage. All public improvements constructed by PW Prior to Labor
. Developer and to be dedicated to the City are hereby identified as acceptance of Code
"public works" under Labor Code section 1771. Accordingly, improvements section
Developer, in constructing such improvements, shall comply with by City 1771
the Prevailin Wa e Law Labor Code, sects. l 720 and followin Council
13. Construction Hours. Standard construction and grading hours PW Prior to Standard
shall be limited to weekdays (Monday through Friday) and non- acceptance of
City holidays between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. The improvements
ApplicantlDeveloper may request reasonable modifications to by City
Council
such determined days and hours, taking into account the seasons,
impacts on neighboring properties, and other appropriate factors, i
by submitting a request form to the City Engineer/Public Works
Director. For work on Saturdays, said request shall be submitted
no later than 5:00 p.m. the prior Wednesday. Overtime inspection
rates will a 1 for all after-hours, Saturda ,and/or holida work.
NO. CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN How Is
AGENCY/ REQ.? CONDITIO[~
DEPART. SATISFIED?
PUBLIC WORKS
14. Improvement and Grading Plans. Al] improvement and PW Prior to Standard
grading plans submitted to the Public Works Department for issuance of
review~lapproval shall be prepared in accordance with the Grading/Site
approved Tentative Map, these Conditions of Approval, and the work PetTttit
City of Dublin Municipal Code including Chapter 7.16 (Grading
Ordinance). When submitting plans for review/approval, the
ApplicantlDeveloper shall also fill-out and submit a City of
"
Dublin Improvement Plan Review Checklist (three 8-1/2" x 11
pages). Said checklist includes necessary design criteria and
other pertinent information to assure that plans are submitted in
accordance with established City standards. The plans shall also
reference the current City of Dublin Standard Plans (booklet),
and shall include applicable City of Dublin Improvement Plan
General Notes (three 8-1/2" x 1 1" pages). For on-site
improvements, the ApplicantlDeveloper shall adhere to the
City's On-site Checklist (eight 8-1/2" x 1 I"pages). All of these
reference documents are available from the Public Works
De artment call tele hone 925-833-6630 for more information .
15. Grading/Sit@work Permit. All site improvement work and PW Prior to Standard
public right-of--way work must he performed per a issuance of
Grading/Sitework Permit issued by the Public Works Grading/Site
Department. Said permit will be based on the final set of work Permit
improvement plans to be approved once all ofthe plan check
comments have been resolved. Please refer to the handout titled
Grading/Site Improvement Permit Application Instructions and
attached application (three S-l!2" x 1 1"pages) for more
information. The AppiicantJDeveloper must fill in and return
the applicant information contained on pages 2 and 3. The
current cost of the permit is $10.00 due at the time of permit
issuance, although the Applicant/Developer will be responsible
for an ado ted increases to the fee amount.
16. Erosion Control during Construction. ApplicantlDeveloper PW Prior to NPDES
shall include an Erosion and Sediment Control Pian with the issuance of Permit
Grading and Improvement plans for review and approval by the GradinglSite
City Engineer/Public Works Director. Said plan shall be work Permit
designed, implemented, and continual)}'maintained pursuant to and during
the City's NPDES permit between October 15t and April 15~' or construction.
beyond these dates if dictated by rainy weather, or as otherwise
directed by the City En ineerlPublic Works Director.
17. Water Quaiity/Best Management Practices. Pursuant to the PW Prior to NPDES
Alameda Countywide National Pollution Discharges Elimination issuance of Permit
Permit (NPDES) No. CAS0029831 with the California Regional Grading/
Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the Sitework
Applicant/Developer shall design and operate the site in a Permit
manner consistent with the Start at the Source publication, and
according to Best Management Practices to minimize storm
water pollution. In addition to the biofiltration swales proposed i
along the perimeter of the site, in-line filtration devices may be
necessary to serve runoff areas that will not drain to biofiltration
swales due to grading constraints. All trash dumpsters and
recycling area enclosures that are not located inside the building
Np, CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN How is
AGENCY/ REQ.? COND1TlOh
DEPART. SATISFIED'
shall have roofs to prevent contaminants from washing into the
storm drain system. The applicant shall file a Notice of Intent
with the RWQCB and shall prepare and submit a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan for the City Engineer/Public Works ~
Director's review/approval. Finally, all storm drain inlets
serving vehicle parking areas shall be stenciled "No Dumping -
Flows to Bay" using stencils available from the Alameda
Countywide Clean Water Pro ram.
1 S. Storm Water Treatment Measures Maintenance Agreement. Prior to NPDES
Applicant/Developer shall enter into an agreement with the City of acceptance Permit
Dublin that guarantees the property owner's perpetual of
maintenance obligation for all storm water treatment measures improvem-
installed as part of the project. Said agreement is required ents by City
pursuant to Provision C.3.e.ii of RWQCB Order R2-2003-0021 for Council
the reissuance ofthe Alameda Countywide NPDES municipal
storm water permit. Said permit requires the City to provide
verification and assurance that all treatment devices will be
ro erl o erated and maintained.
19. Construction Noise Management Program/Construction PL, PW, B Prior to Municipal
Impact Reduction Plan. ApplicandDeveloper shall conform to the acceptance of Code
following Construction Noise Management Program/Construction improvements
Impact Reduction Plan. The following measures shall be taken to by City
reduce construction impacts: Council
a. Off site truck traffic shall be routed as directly as
practical to and from the freeway (I-580) to the job site.
Primary route shall be from I-680 to St. Patrick Way, or
from I-580 to San Ramon Road to Amador Valley
Boulevard. An Oversized Load Permit shall be obtained
from the Citz; prior to hauling of any oversized loads on
City streets.
b. The construction site shall be watered at regular
intervals during all grading activities. The frequency of
watering should increase if wind speeds exceed 15 miles
per hour. Watering should include all excavated and
graded areas and material to be transported off-site.
Construction equipment shall use recycled or other non-
potable water resources where feasible.
c. Construction equipment shall not be left idling while not
in use.
d. Construction equipment shall be fitted with noise
muffling devices.
e. Mud and dust carried onto street surfaces by
construction vehicles sha{1 be cleaned-up on a daily
basis.
f. Excavation haul trucks shall use tarpaulins or other
effective covers.
g. Upon completion of construction, measures shall be
taken to reduce wind erosion. Replanting and repaving
should be completed as soon as possible.
h. After grading is completed, fugitive dust on exposed
soil surfaces shall be controlled using the following !
methods:
1. Inactive portions of the construction site shall be
NO. CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN HOW I5
AGENCY/ REQ.? CONDITION
DEPART. SATISFIED'!
seeded and watered until grass growth is evident.
2. All portions of the site shall be sufficiently watered
to prevent dust.
3. On-site vehicle speed shall be Limited to 1 S mph.
4. Use of petroleum-based palliatives shall meet the
road oil requirements of the Air Quality District.
Non-petroleum based tackifiers maybe required by
the City Engineer/Public Works Director.
i. The Department of Public Works shall handle all dust
complaints. The City Engineer/Public Works Director
ma}~ require the services of an air quality consultant to
advise the City on the severity of the dust problem and
additional ways to mitigate impact on residents,
including temporarily halting project construction. Dust
concerns in adjoining communities as wel l as the City of
Dublin shall be addressed. Control measures shall be
related to wind conditions. Air quality monitoring of PM
levels shall be provided as required by the CiTy
Engineer/Public Works Director.
j. Construction interference with regional non-project
traffic shall be minimized by:
1, Scheduling receipt of construction materials to non-
peak travel periods.
2. Routing construction traffic through areas of least
impact sensitivity.
3. Routing construction traffic to minimize construction
interference with regional non-project traffic
movement.
4. Limiting lane closures and detours to ot~ Veak travel
periods.
5: Providing ride-share incentives for contractor and
subcontractor personnel.
k. Emissions control of on-site equipment shall be
minimized through a routine mandatory program of low-
emissionstune-u s.
2d. Geotechnical Report and Recommendations. The PW, B Prior to Standard
Applicant/Developer shall provide a site specific geotechnical issuance of
report prepared by a reputable geotechnical engineer. The Grading/5ite
Geotechnical Engineer shall certify that the project design work Permit
conforms to the report recommendations prior to issuance of a or Building
Grading/Sitework Permit or Building Permit. Ali report Permit, and
recommendations shall be followed during the course of grading during
and construction. construction
21. Street Trees and Landscaping. 24" bax-sized street trees shall be PL, PW Prior to Village
planted at 30' on center spacing along east side of Village Parkway issuance of Parkway
and south side of Amador Valley Boulevard fronting the property Grading/Site Specific Pian
and. shall substantially comply with proposed site plan. Said trees work Permit
shall be placed in 4' by 4' tree wells with cast iron grates
positioned at the back of sidewalk. The tree variety shall be as
~
determined by the City Engineer/Public Works Director. After
project acceptance, these trees and the associated irrigation system
shall be maintained by the owner. Applicant/Property Owner shall
gyp, CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN xow Is
AGENCY/ REQ.? CONDITION
DEPART. SATISFIED?
landscape, irrigate and maintain landscaping areas adjacent to tl~e
plaza that are within the public right-of--way. Landscaping areas
and associated irrigation systems shall remain the responsibility of
the ro ert owner in a etui
22. Village Parkway Street Improvements. Street widths shall be 8 PL, PW On-going Village
feet in width along Village Parkway and 10 feet in width along Parkway
Amador Valley Boulevard adjacent to the project as shown on Specific Plan
ro'ect Develo ment Plans.
23. Stop Controls. Stop control devices for vehicles, including an Rl PW Prior to Standard
STOP sign, STOP pavement legend, ] 2"-wide white stop bar issuance of
Grading/Site
stripe, and appropriate delineation, shalt be provided at the work Permit
following locations:
a. At the two exit aisle approaches to Amador Valley
Boulevard and Villa e Parkwa .
24. Address Numbering System. After the final Parcel Map records PW, B Prior to Standard
but before Building Permits are issued, the ApplicantlDeveloper issuance of
Building
shall propose address numbers for each building/retail unit based
on the address grid utilized within Alameda County and available Permits
from the Dublin Building Official. The addressing scheme is
subject to review and approval by the City and other interested
outside agencies. Signs shall be prominently displayed on Village
Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard that identify all addresses
within the development. Addresses are required on the front and
rear of each building. Retail building requires address ranges to
be posted on the street side of each buildings, or as otherwise
re uired b the Buildin Official and Fire Marshal.
25. Site Accessibility Requirements. All disabled access ramps, B, PW Prior to UBC Title 24
parking spaces for the disabled, and other physical site issuance of /ADA and
improvements shall comply with current UBC Title 24 /ADA Occupancy
Permit Dublin
Standards for
requirements and City of Dublin Standards for accessibility. Accessibilih~
26. Relocation of Existing Improvements/Utilities. Any necessary PW Prior to Standard
relocation of existing improvements or utilities shall be acceptance
accomplished at no expense to the City. of improv-
ements by
City
Council
27. Joint Utility TrencheslUndergroundinglUtility Plans. PW Prior to Standard
Applicant/Developer shall construct all joint utility trenches acceptance
(including electric, telecommunications, cable TV, and gas) in of
accordance with standards enforced by the appropriate utility improveme
nts by City
agency. All vaults, electric transformers, cable TV boxes, blow- Council
off valves and other utility features shall be placed underground
and located behind the proposed sidewalk within the public
service easement, unless otherwise approved by the City
Engineer/Public Works Director. Conduit shalt be under the
public sidewalk within the right of way to allow for street tree
planting. Utility plans showing the location of all proposed
utilities shall be reviewed and approved by the City
En ineer/Public Works Director rior to installation.
NO. CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN >KOw is
AGENCY/ REQ.? CONDITIO.
DEPART. SATISi1 tED~
28. Temporary Construction Fencing. Temporary Construction PW Prior to Standard
fencing shal I be installed along the perimeter of all work under issuance of
construction to separate the construction operation from the final
public_ All construction activities shall be confined to within the Occupancy
Permit or
fenced area. Construction materials and/or equipment shall not be acceptance of
operated or stored outside of the fenced area or within the public public
right-of--way unless approved in advance by the City improvements
Engineer/Public Works Director. by the City
Council.
29. Damage/Repairs. The App[icant/Developer shall be responsible PW Prior to Standard
for the repair of any damaged pavement, curb & gutter, sidewalk, acceptance of
or other public street facility resulting from construction activities improvements
associated with the development of the project, to the satisfaction by City
Council
of the Ciri En ineer/Public Works Director.
30. Occupancy Permit Requirements. Prior to issuance of an PW, PL, B Prior to Standard
Occupancy Permit, the physical condition of the project site shall issuance of
meet minimum health and safety standards including, but not Occupancy
Permit
limited to the following:
a. The streets and walkways providing access to each building
shall be complete, as ,_ determined by the City
Engineer/Public Works Director, to allow for safe,
unobstructed pedestrian and vehicle access to and from the
51tC.
b. All traffic control devices on streets providing access to the
site shall be in place and fully functional.
c. All street name signs and address numbers for streets
providing access to the buildings shall be in place and
visible.
d. Lighting for the streets and site shall be adequate for safety
and security. All streetlights on streets providing access to
the buildings shall be energized and functioning. Exterior
lighting shall be provided for building entranceslexits and
pedestrian walkways. Security lighting shall be provided
as required by Dublin Police.
e. All construction equipment, materials, or on-going work
shall be separated from the public by use of fencing,
barricades, caution ribbon, or other means approved by the
City Engineer/Public Works Director.
f. All fire hydrants shall be operable and easily accessible to
City and ACFD personnel.
g. All site features designed to serve the disabled (i.e. H/C
parking stalls, accessible walkways, signage) shall be
installed and fully functional.
h. All landsca in ,walls and screenin shall be installed.
31. Environmental Site Assessment. According to the environmental Pte' On-going, ACDEH, the
assessment report prepared by Clayton Group Services, Inc. dated Through Fire Marshal,
10
~O, _ CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN xow Is
AGENCY! REQ.? CONDITION
DEPART. SATISFIED?
OSJ30/03, four underground fuel storage tanks (UST) were closed Completion and the City
and removed from the site according to Alameda County of Project and
Department of Environmental Health (ACDEH) requirements and Prior to
protocols. If, during construction of the Project, presently- issuance of
unknown hazardous materials are discovered, the Occupancy
Permit(s).
AppticantlDeveloper shall adhere to the requirements of ACDEH,
the Fire Marshal, the City, and/or other applicable agency to
mitigate the hazard before continuing. The ApplicantlDeveloper
shall monitor and address any hydrocarbons residual found in the
~ soil during excavationltrenching and prepare a site safety plan to be
submitted to the Director of Public Works, and ACDEH.
32, Release of Security. When all improvements governed by the PW Prior to Standard
Grading Permit are complete to the satisfaction of the City acceptance of
Engineer/Public Works Director, the City Engineer will release the improvements
Security. Prior to the bond release the Applicant/Deveioper shalt by City
furnish the following to the City: Council.
a. As-Built or Record Drawings printed on mylar of all
Improvement Plans and maps associated with the project.
b. A recorded copy of the Covenants, Conditions, and _
Restrictions that govern the project.
c. A Declaration or Report by the project Geotechnical Engineer
confirming that all geotechnical and grading work associated
with the project has been performed in accordance with the
Engineer's recommendations.
d. Payment of any outstanding City fees or other debts.
e. Any other information deemed necessary by the City
En ineer/Public Works Director.
33. Geographic Information System. Once the City Engineer/Public PW Prior to Standard
Works Director approves the development project, a digital acceptance of
vectorized file on floppy or CD ofthe Improvement Plans shall be improvements
submitted to the City and DSRSD. Digital raster copies are not by City
acceptable. The digital vectorized files shall be in AutoCAD 14 or Council.
higher drawing format or ESRI Shapefile format. Drawing units
shall be decimal with the precision of 0.00. All objects and entities
in layers shall be colored by layer and named in English, although
abbreviations are acceptable. Al! submitted drawings shall use the
Globa[ Coordinate System of USA, California, NAD 83 California
State Plane, Zone III, and U.S. foot. Said submittal shall be
acceptable to the City's GIS Coordinator.
TRAFFIC AND PARKING
Voluntary Traffic Mitigation Contribution or TIF. The
developerlapplicant shall pay Voluntary Traffic Mitigation
Contributions based on the number of daily vehicle trips generated
by the project or as determined by the Public Works Director.
Alternatively, the developer/applicant shall pay the Traffic Impact
Fee in effect at the time building permits are issued for each phase
of the project, assuming City adoption of a Downtown Traffic
Impact Fee Program.
PW, B, FIN
Prior to Applicant
issuance of
Building
Permits
j5. Bicycle Racks. Bicycle racks shall be installed near the entrances PL, PW Prior to Zoning
to the office and retail buildings as shown on project plans. issuance of Ordinance
Bicycle racks shall be designed to accommodate a minimum of Occupancy
Np, CONDITION TEXT RESPUN. WHEN How is '
AGENCY/ REQ.? COIYDITtor
DEPART. SATISFIED?
four bicycles per rack, and so that each bicycle can be secured to Permit(s).
the rack. The location of the bicycle racks shall not encroach into
any adjacentladjoining sidewalks in a manner that would reduce
the unencumbered width of the sidewalk to less than 4'. Bicycle
racks shall be placed in locations where they will have adequate
li htin and can be surveilled b the buildin occu ants.
3b. Vehicle Parking. Applicant/Developer shall construct on-site PW, PL Prior to Municipal
paved parking areas and spaces for guest, and tenant parking issuance of Code
according to the zoning requirements of the use. Occupancy of Occupancy
each phase of development will be dependent upon Permit(s)
ApplicandDeveloper completing the necessary parking areas to
serve that phase. All parking spaces shall be double striped using
4" white lines according to Figure 76-3 and Code §8.76.070 (A}
17 of the Municipal Code. All compact-sized parking spaces shall
have the word "COMPACT" stenciled on the pavement within
each space. 32"-wide concrete step-out curbs shall be constructed
at each parking space where one or both sides abuts a landscaped
area or lanter.
37, Parking Prohibitions/Restrictions. Vehicle parking shall be F, PW On-going Fire Code
prohibited/restricted in the following locations. This parking
prohibition shall be indicated with red-painted curbs, and with
R?6F "No Stopping -Fire Lane" signs installed on both sides at a
spacing not to exceed 200'. '
a. Prohibited along the south side of Amador Valley Boulevard
and east side of Village Parkway. This parking prohibition
shall be indicated with 1t26D "No Parking" signs installed at
a spacing not to exceed 200'.
b, Prohibited or restricted at other locations deemed reasonably
necessary by the City Engineer/Public Works Director
Burin final desi nand/or construction.
PLANNING
38. Outdoor Seating. Outdoor seating shall be subject to a Site PL On-going Standard
Development Review Waiver to be approved by the Community
Development Director or his designee and may be located in
appropriate areas in addition to areas specified in the Planned
Develo ment re ulations.
39. Pedestrian Access. The Applicant/Property Owner shall not PL On-going Village
construct any wall, fence ar other structure that obstructs the future Parkway
pedestrian access path identified in the Development Plan. Specific Plan
BUILDING & SAFETY
40 Trellis. Sheet A 1, if the trellis is attached or within 8 feet of the B Prior to UBC
. building, it shall be constructed from material with a minimum 1- issuance of
hour fire rating, such as heavy timber or tubular steel. If the trellis Building
Permits
were located at least 8 feet from building, a wood structure would
be acce table.
41. Soils. The ApplicantJDeveloper shall verify soils conditions where B Prior to EPC
farmer tanks were removed with a soils report and more detailed issuance of
assessment. The City of Dublin shall require a certification that Building
12
Np CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN xow is
_ AGENCY/ REQ.? CONDITION
DEPART. SATISFIES'
the tanks have been removed and that the soils where the tanks Permits
were located meet minimum compactions required by the soils
report. The project shall follow the recommendations of the Phase
I stud conducted by EPC.
42. Building Codes and Ordinances. Atl project construction shalt B, F Through
Completion Uniform
Building
conform to Uniform Building and Fire Codes as adopted by the City and Fire
of Dublin and all building codes and ordinances in effect at the time Codes
of building permit.
43 Building Permits. To apply for building permits, B Issuance of Standard.
. Applicant/Developersholl submit eight (8) sets of construction Building
Permits
plans to the Building Division for plan check. Each set of plans
shall have attached an annotated copy of these Conditions of
Approval. The notations shall clearly indicate how all Conditions
of Approval will or have been complied with. Construction plans
will not be accepted without the annotated resolutions attached to
each set of plans. ApplicandDeveloperwlll be responsible for
obtaining the approvals of all participation non-City agencies prior
to the issuance of buildin ermits.
44 Construction Drawings. Construction plans shall be fully B Prior to Standard
. dimensioned (including building elevations) accurately drawn issuance of
(depicting all existing and proposed conditions on site), and Building
Permits
prepared and signed by a California licensed Architect or -
Engineer. All structural calculations shall be prepared and signed
by a California licensed Architect or Engineer. The site plan,
landsca a Ian and details shall be consistent with each other.
45 Engineer Observation. The Engineer of record shall be retained S Prior to Standard
. to provide observation services for all components of the lateral scheduling
and vertical design of the building, including nailing, holdowns, the final
frame
straps, shear, roof diaphragm and structural frame of building. A
inspection ~
f
written report shall be submitted to the City Inspector prior to
schedutin the final frame ins ection.
46. Green Building Guidelines. To the extent practical, the applicant B On-going Standard
shalt incorporate Green Building Measures. Green Building Plan
shall be submitted to the Buildine Official for review.
47. Energy Conservation. Building plans shall demonstrate the B On-going Standard
incorporation of energy conservation measures into the design,
construction, and operation of proposed development.
ARCHITECTURE
48 Colors and Materials. The Community Development Director PL Prior to SDR Design
. or his designee shall have final approval of the building colors Occupancy Guidelines
after a test swatch of each color is painted on each of the Permit or
Temporary
buildings. Building colors and materials shall be generally Occupancy
consistent with plans submitted December 29, 2003 and October permit.
30, 2003. '
49. Awnings. The Community Development Director shall have PL Prior to SDR Design
13
NO. CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN How is
AGENCY/ REQ.? CONDITIOI
DEPART. SATISFIED'!
final approval of all awning colors prior to issuance of a building Occupancy Guidelines
permit. Permit or
Temporary
Occupancy
Permit.
50. Lighting Fixtures. Lighting plan shall include lighting fixtures PL Prior to SDR Design
that are coordinated with the building architecture, especially issuance of Guidelines
along pedestrian walkways and in the center's plaza. The Building
Community Development Director or his designee shall have Permits.
final a royal of the li tin fixtures.
51. Window Reveal. The retail building's watts along Village PL Prior to Applicant
Parkway and in the tower element shall be furred out 4" to 6" issuance of
from the window plane as represented by the applicant. Building
Permits
52. Walls and Fences. All walls and fences shall conform to PL On-going Zoning
Section 8.72.080 of the Zoning Ordinance unless otherwise Ordinance
required by this resolution. The six-foot masonry wall along the
east property line may be extended by lattice, or other means
approved by the Community Development Director, for an _
additional three (3) feet for a total height of nine (9) feet.
Constructionlinstallation of common/shared fences for all side
and rear ards shall be the res onsibiiity of A licant/Develo er.
53. Wall or Fence Heights. All wall or fence heights shall be a ._ PL, PW On-going Zoning
minimum 6 feet high (except in those locations where Section Ordinance
8.7?.080 of the Zoning Ordinance requires Lower fence heights).
A11 walls and fences shall be designed to ensure clear vision at all
street intersections to the satisfaction of the Ci En ineer.
MASTER SIGN PROGRAM
j4 Monument Signs. Monument signs shall not have white PL Prior to Zoning
. illuminated backgrounds. Sign structures and sign backgrounds issuance of Ordinance
shall be coordinated among the retail and office buildings and Building
shall be coordinated with the buiidin materials and colors. Permit.
55. Creative Signs. The Community Development Director or his PL On-going Applicant
designee may amend the Master Sign Program regtaiations for
unusual or creative signs, which meet the intent of the Village
Parkway Specific Plan and the Planned Development regulations,
and with the landlord's approval, by means of a Site Development
Review Waiver.
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
56 Consolidate Utilities. The ApplicantlDeveloper shall consolidate PL, Prior to Standard
. water lines, water meters and backflow devices in a location away PW, B issuance of
from building signage and outside of traffic safety/visibility areas Building
where they can be partially screened from view, such as in the PenY"ts'
south landscaping area near the center's vehicle entrance or other
appropriate location. The Applicant/Developer shall coordinate
placement of these utilities with the City's street improvements 1
and tanned street trees alon Vi][a a Parkwa .
57. Coordination with Village Parkway Street Improvements. The PL, PW Prior to Village Park
14
NO. CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN Ilow is
AGENCY/ REQ.? CONDITION
DEPART. SATISFIED''
color and design of the paving, landscaping and amenities of the issuance of Specific Plan
plaza shall be closely integrated with the City's planned street Encroachment
improvements. The Community Development Director shall have Permits.
final approval of the paving, landscaping and plaza amenities,
which shall be coordinated with the Village Parkway Improvement
Pro ~ ect.
58 Final Landscape and Irrigation Plans. The PL Prior to Standard
, Applicant/Developer shall submit a Final Landscape and Irrigation issuance of
Plan prepared and stamped by a State licensed landscape architect Building
or registered engineer, generally consistent with the preliminary Permits.
landscape plan prepared by Borrecco~Killian & Associates, Inc,,
dated April l9, 2004, except as modified by Conditions of
Approval below, along with a cost estimate of the work and
materials proposed, for review and approval by the Community
Development Director. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be at
a scale not less than 1"=l0'.
59. Decorative Railing. The Applicant/Developer shall install a low, PL Prior to Zoning
decorative metal railing or fence to be approved by the issuance of Ordinance
Community Development Director in the planter along the - Building
Permits
property Line dividing the retail building and office building to
rotect the ro osed lantin s.
SQ, Landscaping at Street/Drive Aisle Intersections. The PL, PW, PO On-going Municipal Co
ApplicantlDeveloper shall provide a landscaping plan acid shall
maintain landscaping such that the landscaping does not obstruct
the sight distance of motorists, pedestrians or bicyclists. Except
for trees, landscaping at drive aisle intersections shall not be taller
than 30 inches above the curb. Landscaping shall be kept at a
minimum height and fullness giving patrol officers and the general
ublic surveillance ca abilities of the area.
61. Landscape Screening of Parking. The ApplicantlDeveloper PL Prior to Zoning
shall provide a landscaping plan to be approved by the Community issuance of Ordinance
Development Director that screens parking with berming or Building
Permits
combination of berming and landscaping to achieve an immediate
2- to 3-foot tall screen from the finish grade of the parking stalls
as viewed from the ad~acent ma'or road.
62. Landscaping of Walls and Trash Enclosures. The PL Prior to SDR Design
Applicant/Developer/Developer shall screen all walls and the issuance of Guidelines
sides of walls surrounding trash enclosures. The use of vines is Building
Permits
encouraged. Trash enclosures shall be covered and subject to
a royal of the Public Works De artment.
63 Air Conditioning Units. All Air Conditioning units shall be PL Prior to SDR Design
, screened from view with either walls or plant material to the issuance of Guidelines
satisfaction of the Community Development Director. Building
Permits.
64. Utility Screening. All above grade utilities shall be screened PL Prior to SDR Design
from view with either walls or plant material to the satisfaction of issuance of Guidelines
the Community Development Director. Building
Perm its.
6S. Standard Plant Material, Irrigation and Maintenance PL Prior to Standard
15
gyp, CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN How is
AGENCY/ REQ.? CONDITIO.
DEPART. SATISF[ED?
Agreement. The Applicant/Developer shall complete and submit issuance of
to the Dublin Planning Division the Standard Plant Material, Building
Irri ation and Maintenance A reement. Permits.
66. Landscape Borders, Commercial area. All landscaped areas PL, PW Prior to Standard
shall be bordered by a concrete curb that is at least 6 inches high issuance of
and b inches wide, unless designed as part of the planned water Building
Permit
quality bioswale. Any curbs adjacent to parking spaces must be
l2 inches wide to facilitate pedestrian access. All landscape
planters within the parking area shall maintain a minimum S-foot
radius, or be 2 feet shorter than adjacent parking spaces to
facilitate vehicular maneuverin .
67, Plant standards. All trees shall be 24" box minimum; all shrubs PL Prior to Standard
shall be 5 gallon minimum. issuance of
Building
Permits.
C8, Maintenance of Landscaping. All landscaping materials within PL Prior to Standard
the public right-of--way shall be maintained in perpetuity and on- issuance of
site landscaping shall be maintained in accordance with the "City Building
of Dublin Standards Plant Material, Irrigation System and - Permits.
Maintenance Agreement" by the Developer after City-approved
installation. This maintenance shall include weeding, the
application ofpre-emergent chemical applications, irrigation, and
the replacement of plant materials that die. Any proposed or ~-;
modified landscaping to the site, including the removal or
replacement of trees, shall require prior review and written
a rova! from the Community Develo ment Director.
69. Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance. The PW Prior to Water Efficie
ApplicantlDeveloper shall submit written documentation to the issuance of Landscaping
Public Works Department (in the form of a Landscape Building Ordinance
Documentation Package and other required documents) that the Permits.
development conforms to the City's Water Efficient Landscaping
Ordinance.
FIRE SERVICES
gyp Addressing. The Applicant/Developer shall comply with Fire F, PO Prior to Municipal
. Department and Police Services Department requirements for occupancy of Code
addressing. Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all building.
new and existing buildings. The address shall be positioned as to
be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the
property. Said numbers shall contrast with their background
(CFC, 1998, Section 901.4.4) Pursuant to the Non-Residential
Security Ordinance, addressing and building numbers shall be
visible from the approaches to the building. Addressing for
individual suiteslbusinesses within the project sha1I have the
address stenciled on the rear door of the business.
'7 ~ . Emergency Vehicle Turning Radius. The corners at the F Prior to Fire Code
driveways into the site shall be to allow turning into the site with a occupancy
42' radius without turnip into the far lane of the ublic streets.
72. Emergency Vehicle Access. In accordance with the ACFD F Prior to Fire Code
requirements, the Applicant/Developer shall provide emergency combustible
vehicle access routes into the project in >;eneral conformance with construction
16
NO. CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN How Is
AGENCY/ REQ,? CONDITION
DEPART. SATISFIED?
the site plan. Applicant/Developer shall demonstrate how or
emergency access requirements shall be achieved on the combustible
lans to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the
rovement
im storage on
p
p
ACFD. (All emergency vehicle access roads (first lift of asphalt) site.
and the public water supply including all hydrants shall be in place
prior to vertical construction or combustible storage on site). Fire
apparatus roadways shall have a minimum unobstructed width of
20 feet (14 feet for one way streets) and an unobstructed vertical
clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. Roadways under 36
feet wide shall be posted with signs or shall have red curbs painted
with labels on one side; roadways under 28 feet wide shall be
posted with signs or shall have red curbs painted with labels on
both sides of the street as follows: "NO STOPPING FIRE LANE -
CVC 22500.1 ". CFC 1998, Section 1998 .
73. Automatic Sprinklers- Automatic sprinklers shall be provided F, B Prior to Fire Code
throughout the building as required by the Dublin Fire Code. If the occupancy
buildings have over 100 sprinklers the system shall be monitored of any
by UL listed central station. affected
buildin
74 ACFD rules regulations and standards. ApplicantlDeveloper F Through Alameda
. shall comply with all Alameda County Fire Department (ACFD) completion County Fire
rules, regulations, City of Dublin standards, including minimum Department
standards for emergency access roads and payment of applicable (ACFD)
fees including City of Dublin Fire facility fees. rules,
-, reguEations,
and Citv of
Dublin
Standards
75 Fire hydrants. The appiicant/Developer shall ,;onstruct all new F Prior to ACFD and
_ fire hydrants in accordance with the ACFD and City of Dublin issuance of City of
requirements. (Prior to combustible construction or combustible Building Dublin
storage on site). Final locations of fire hydrants shall be Permits Requiremen
approved by the ACFD in accordance with current standards. ~
The minimum fire flow design shall be 1500 gallon per minute at
20 psi residual (flowing from a single hydrant). Raised blue
reflectorized traffic markers shall be epoxied to the center of the
street opposite each hydrant. Sufficient fire flow is required
based on building construction and size. Applicant/Developer
shall provide information oa the fire flow that is available at
the site. This information is available from the DSRSD.
75. Fire Extinguishers. Provide 2A1 OBC fire extinguishers within 75 ft F Prior to Fire Code
travel distance of portions of the buildings. An approved sign in occupancy
accordance with Uniform Fire Code shall be conspicuously posted of any
above the extinguisher. affected
buildin
'7~ Knox Key Boxes. Provide Knox key boxes at the main entrance to F Prior to ACFD
, the buildings at the exterior doors to stair that extend to the 4~' floor occupancy
and at any gates. The Knox box shall contain a key that provides of any
access to the building or gate. Gates or barriers shall meet the affected
requirements of the ACFD. building
POLICE SERVICES
78. Li~htint;. The ApplicantlDevelopersha/l prepare a fighting PL, PO, B, Prior to Non-
17
Np, CONDITION TEXT RESPON.
AGENCY/
DEPART. WHEN
REQ.? How is
CONDITIO
SATISFIED?
isochart to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works, PW issuance of residential
Director of Community Development, the City's Consulting Building Security
Landscape Architect and Dublin Police Services. Exterior Permits Ordinance,
lighting shall be provided within the parking lot and on the Village
Parkway
building, and shall be of a design and placement so as not to Specific
cause glare onto adjoining properties, businesses or to vehicular ply
traffic. Lighting used after daylight hours shall be adequate to
provide for security needs (1.0 candle lights at ground level in
parking lot areas). The location of light poles and parking lot
trees shall be coordinated so that as the tree grows it will not
obscure the light nor have to be pruned extensively. Lighting
shall be shielded to control spillover to adjacent properties.
Exterior lighting is required over all doors. Lighting of all
exterior areas shall be designed to maximize surveillance.
Li htin fixtures shall be of a vandal resistant e.
79. Non-Residential Security Ordinance. The Applicant/Deveioper PO On-going Non-
shall comply with all applicable City of Dublin Non Residential Resident-
Security Ordinance requirements. ial
a. Addressing and building numbering shall be visible from the _ Securit,t
approaches to the building. Addressing for individual Ordinance
suites/businesses within the project shall have the address
stenciled in the rear door of the business.
b. Buildings require a minimum of 5-inch high numbers __,
displayed on the building.
c. (2} Tenant space numbers shall be a minimum size of 5
inches and be located on all doors. In addition all rear doors
or service doors will have the name of the business in 5-inch
high lettering.
d. Employee exit doors shall be equipped with 184-degree
viewer if there is not a burglary resistant window panel in the
door from which to scan the exterior.
e. Separation walls for individual tenant spaces housed within a
common structure shall be solid and continuous from the
structure's foundation to roof.
f Except for private stairways, stairways shall be designed as
follows:
i. interior doors shall have glazing panels a minimum of 5
inches wide and 20 inches in height and meet
requirements of the Uniform Building Code.
ii. Areas beneath stairways at or below ground level shall be
fully enclosed or access to them restricted.
iii. Enclosed stairways shall have shatter resistant mirrors or
other equally reflective material at each Level and landing
and be designed or placed in such manner as to provide
visibility around corners.
g. In office buildings (multiple occupancy), all entrance doors to
individual office suites shall meet the construction and
locking requirements for exterior doors.
h. Exterior landscaping shall be kept at a minimal height and
fullness giving patrol officers and the general public
surveillance capabilities of the area. Shrubs and ground cover
18
Np, CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN How [s
AGENCY/ REQ.? CONDIT[ON
DEPART. sAT[SFrEn°
shall not directly cover windows and doorways. River rock
used near parking lots or commercial buildings shall be
permanently affixed_
i. Landscaping features and plaza amenities shall
be designed to reduce their attractiveness to
skateboarders and vandals.
j. All entrances to the parking areas shall be posted
with appropriate signs per Sec. 22658(a) of the
California Vehicle Code, to assist in removing
vehicles at the property owner's/manager's
request.
k. The Applicant/Developer shall keep the site clear
of graffiti vandalism on a regular and continuous
basis at all times.
I. The ApplicantlDeveloper shall work with the
Dublin Police on an ongoing basis to establish an
effective theft prevention and security program.
m. A "Business Site Emergency Response Card"
shall be filed with the Police Department
commencing with the initial phases of
construction. Current information shall be
maintained until the com letion of the ro'ect.
DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT SRSD
~Q. Separate Connections. The two parcels shall have separate DSRSD Prior to DSRSD
sewer and water connections. issuance
of -
Building
Permits.
$] Subject to DSRSD. Prior to issuance of any building pemlit, DSRSD Prior to Standard
. complete improvement plans shall be submitted to DSRSD that issuance of
conform to the requirements of the Dublin San Ramon Services any
Building
,
District Code. the DSRSD `Standard Procedures, Specifications permit
and Drawings for Design and Installation of Water and
Wastewater Facilities", all applicable DSRSD Master Plans and
alt DSRSD olicies.
82 Future Flow Demands. All mains shall be sized to provide DSRSD Prior to DSRSD
. sufficient capacity to accommodate future flow demands in issuance of Utility
addition to each development project's demand. Layout and Building Master
sizing of mains shall be in conformance with DSRSD utility Permits. Planning
master tannin .
19
NO, CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN HOW IS
AGENCY/ REQ.? CONDITIO
DEPART. SATISFIED?
83. Sewers. Sewers shall be designed to operate by gravity flov<< to DSRSD Prior to DSRSD
DSRSD's existing sanitary sewer system. Pumping of sewage is issuance
of
discouraged and may only be allowed under extreme Building
circumstances following a case by case review with DSRSD permits
staff. Any pumping station will require specific review and
approval by DSRSD of preliminary design reports, design
criteria. and final plans and specifications, The DSRSD reserves
the right to require payment of present worth 20 year
maintenance costs as well as other conditions within a separate
agreement with the Applicant/Developerfnr any project that
re uires a um in station.
84, Waterline Design, Domestic and fire protection waterline DSRSD Prior to DSRSD
tems for the Commercial Development shall be designed to be issuance
sys
looped or interconnected to avoid dead end sections in accordance of
with requirements of the DSRSD Standard Specifications and Building
sound en ineerin ractice. Permits
85. Public Right-of--Way. DSRSD policy requires public water and DSRSD Prior to DSRSD
sewer lines to be located in public streets rather than in off-street issuance of
locations to the fullest extent possible. If unavoidable, then public Building
sewer or water easements must be established over the alignment Permits.
of each public sewer or water line in an off-street or private street
location to provide access for future maintenance and/or
re lacernent.
g(,. DSRSD Approval. Prior to approval by the City of a grading DSRSD Prior to DSRSD
permit or a site development permit, the locations and widths of approval
all proposed easement dedications for water and sewer lines shalt of a
be submitted to and approved by DSRSD. Grading
Permit
REFUSE AND RECYCLING
g'7 Refuse Collection. The refuse collection service provider shall B Prior to Municipa
, be consulted to ensure that adequate space is provided to issuance 1 Code
accommodate collection and sorting of petrucible solid waste as of
Building
well as source-separated recyclable materials generated by this Permits
ro' ect.
gg Refuse Collection Location. The Applicant/ Developer shall B, PL Prior to
, provide designated refuse collection areas for the project, to the issuance of
satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Community Building
Development Director. Collection areas shall be shown on the Permits
Municipal
improvement and landscape plans for this phase. Code.
ApplicantlDeveloper shall provide "No Parking" signs in
designated refuse collection areas. The refuse collection plan
shall be approved by the appropriate solid waste collection
company prior to approval of improvement plans. The
Applicant/Developer shall provide a copy of the recorded shared
trash enclosure covenant a Iicable to both ro erties.
89 Recycling. Applicant/Developer shat) provide refuse-recycling B, PW On-going Municipa
. collection and conform to the Ci of Dublin's recvclin ro am. I Code
20
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 1 lth day of May, 2004.
AYES: Cm. Fasulkey, and Machtmes
NOES: Cm. King
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT: Cm. Nassar and Jennings
ATTEST: ~
j I~
Planning nager
G:~P.A#',:.003'03-Ob9 Enea Pre-App1PCRESOSDR.DOC
~,
'Planning
j
L
21
'~
~/^
/A~
i~
CQ
CQ
v
~ ~
,iy,
,.
7
'pi` }
sy f
k~, 1
i 4 t
f i
,r ~
t
11
x ~~ ~_ 1
~' f:
3 tai ~ ~'~"
~ .L._
{ 3 r
* ~ ~'
~ ~ ~~ti 1
r fix * yy~ {~~"~# ~?
T' 7 _~._ ,
Y
>r. i ' r
F~ f~a
'~ ~ ~
i t. ~~ r
r "~
r ~ ,:
t ! ~ ~ ~~,
~ ~~ i
~ +
_ ~ ~ ~~ ~ .
~t ~ 1~
t _ ,~ ~`
f ~~
sx~ -~ .~
I' ~' °ae
I' `(~ ~a
! ~
s i ~'~
9g
~~~ ~.
~-t~5
."^~'~"~
~.~
-~ ______
~~-~t-
~~_ ~
=~~~
~ ~~
i~
~~!
E t
I
4
~~~, ~
a-#
ATTACHMENT 6
4 Parking Stalls
ORDINANCE NO. 21 - 98
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ADOPT
TAE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING (PA 98-049) OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7197
VILLAGE PARKWAY AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF VILLAGE PARKWAY AND AMADOR
VALLEY BOULEVARD (APN: 941-210-13)
WHEREAS, on July 7, 1998, the City Council instructed staff to initiate a General Plan Amendment
Study and/or Zone Change Study to evaluate appropriate uses for the property located at 7197 Village Parkway
("Property") consistent with the desires of the Council to encourage Village Parkway to develop into a vital
downtown area with offices, restaurants, cafes, retail services, and other pedestrian-friendly land uses; and
WHEREAS, in response to the City Council's direction, staff conducted a preliminary land use
investigation for the Property and recommended the following commercial uses:
Community-Serving Retail: general merchandise stores, clothinglshoe stores, gifdspecialty
stores, book stores, and similaz stores;
Office and Service: legal offices, medicaUdental offices, travel agency, hair/beauty salon,
other administrative and professional offices, and similar offices and service uses;
Eating, Drinking and Entertainment: restaurants, cafes, ice cream shops, video rental,
delicatessens, and similar uses; and
WHEREAS, Community-Serving Retail, Office and Service, Eating, Drinking and Entertainment uses,
as those terms are used in this ordinance, do not include automotive-related uses, such as service .stations,
automobilelvehicle brokerage, rental, sales, service and repair; and
WHEREAS, on July 21, 1998, the City Council also directed staff to prohibit any drive-through uses
on the Property; and
WHEREAS, on July 21, 1998, the City Council found that the approval of additional subdivisions, use
permits, variances, building permits, or any other applicable entitlement that would allow the future use of the
Property for automotive related uses, such as service stations, automobile/vehicle brokerage, rental, sales,
service and repair, would result in that threat to public health, safety and welfare; and
WHEREAS, on July 21, 1998, the City Council adopted aforty-five (45) day moratorium on the
acceptance, processing or approval of any applica#ions or permits for subdivisions, use permits, variances,
building permits, or any other applicable entitlement on the Property for any uses other than Community-
Serving Retail, Office Service, and Eating, Drinking and Entertainment; and
WHEREAS, due to staff needing additional time to complete the General Plan Amendment Study to
evaluate appropriate uses for the Property, on September 1, 1998, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 12-
98 which extended for ten (10) months and fifteen (15) days, from September fi, 1998, until July 21, 1999, the
forty-five (45) day moratorium it adopted on July 21, 1998; and
WHEREAS, staff completed the zone change study and prepared a Planned Development (PD) District
Rezone and Development Plan for the Property in compliance with Ordinance No. 12-98, which rezones the
Property from the C-2, General Commercial Zoning District to a PD Zoning District; and
ATTACHMENT 7
WHEREAS, the application has been reviewed in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and the City Environmental Guidelines, and determined to be
exempt from CEQA because the project will not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the
environment. Any future development that is proposed for the project site will be subject to CEQA review; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on the PD District Rezone,
Development Plan on November 10, 1998, and did adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council
approve a Planned Development Rezone and a Development Plan for PA 98-049; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, properly noticed public hearings were held by the City Council on December 1, 1998 and
December 15, 1998; and
WHEREAS, the Staff Report was submitted recommending that the City Council approve the
application; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and use its independent judgment and considered all said
reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth.
WHEREAS, pursuant to section 8.32.070 and 8.120.050 of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City
Council makes the following findings:
1. The Proposed Planned Development Zoning District and Development Plan (Stage 1 and 2) meet the
purpose and intent of Chapter 8.32 of the Zoning Ordinance because they will provide retail
commercial and office uses that are appropriate for a site which is located at a major intersection within
the Dublin's downtown instead of automotive related uses, which would be possible under the
requirements of the C-2 Zoning District; and
2. Development under the Planned Development Zoning District and Development Plan (Stage 1 and 2)
would be harmonious and compatible with existing and future development in the surrounding areas
and especially with the residential area to the south due to the setback, parking and landscape
requirements of the Planned Development Zoning District and due to the prohibition of automotive and
drive-through uses that would likely cause land use incompatibilities with the adjacent residential uses,
and potential noise and air quality impacts; and
3. The PD Rezone is consistent with the general provisions, intent, and purpose of the PD District Zoning
District of the Zoning Ordinance in that it contains all information required by Chapter 8.32 of the
Zoning Ordinance for a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan and accomplishes the objectives of
Chapter 8.32, A through H, of the Zoning Ordinance; and
4. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the zoning district being proposed
because it is located within a developed downtown area, was previously developed, and because it is
located adjacent to roadways which are designed to carry traffic that would be generated by the
proposed types of uses; and
5. The proposed amendment will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working
in the vicinity, or be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare because the project has been
2
built according to City laws and regulations and because the Planned Development Zoning District will
limit land uses to those which are appropriate for this site; and
6. The proposed amendment is consistent with the RetaiUOffice designation of the Dublin General Plan
and the proposed use types are permitted by said designation.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Dublin does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1.
Pursuant to Chapter 8.32, Title 8 of the City of Dublin Municipal Code the City of Dublin Zoning Map
is amended to rezone the following property ("Property") to a Planned Development Zoning District:
Approximately 1.06 acres at 7197 Village Parkway (APN 941-210-13) located at the southeast
corner of Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard.
A map of the Property is outlined below:
Subject rroperry
From C-2, General Commercial Zoning District
To PD, Planned Development Zoning District
`~ ~
1 ` \ µ t
~~~ `,~..
\ ~
~ ~ ~ \ /
~~
o' . ~ ?.
ti- l \
~ ~ W .~
~ ~
~ ~ \1 `\ ~/
\ ~
~ \ \
\\`~ \~ \\
~ ~ 1
.
SECTION 2.
C
J
C
The regulations of the use, development, improvement, and maintenance of the Property are set forth in
the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan (Exhibit lA hereto) which is hereby approved.
SECTION 3.
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 36933 of the Government Code of the State of
California.
3
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Dublin this 15th day of
December, 1998, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Howard, Lockhart, McCormick, Zika, & Mayor Houston
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
Mayor
ATTEST:
L
City Clerk
G:1CC-MTGS198-QTR4lDEC112-15-981ord-bponvp.doc
4
STAGE 1 AND STAGE 2
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
This is a Development Plan for PA 98-049 pursuant to Chapter 8.32 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance
for the property located at 7197 Village Parkway (APN 941-210-13}, located at the southeast corner of
Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard. This Development Plan meets all of the requirements
for Stage i and Stage 2 review of the project.
The land use designations for this PA 98-049 PD Zoning District are established to: a) accommodate a range
of community-serving retail and mixed-use projects incorporating retail, service and/or office uses; b}
provide appropriately located areas for retail stores, offices, and service establishments, offering
commodities and services required by residents of the-City and its surrounding market area; c} provide
opportunities for retail stores, offices, and service establishments to concentrate for the convenience of the
public and in mutually beneficial relationship to each other; d) provide space for community facilities and
institutions that appropriately may be located in commercial areas; d) provide adequate space to meet the
needs of modem commercial development, including off-street parking and truck loading areas; and e)
minimize traffic congestion and to avoid overloading of utilities by preventing the construction of buildings
of excessive size in relation to the amount of land azound them.
This Development Plan includes: development standards; permitted, conditional and prohibited uses; design
standards and Stage 1 and 2 site plan; labeled Exhibit lA to the Ordinance approving this Development Plan
(City Council Ordinance No. 21 - 98), and on file in the Planning Department. The Planned Development
District allows the flexibility needed to encourage innovative development while ensuring that the goals,
policies, and action programs of the General Plan, Downtown Dublin Specific Plan, and provisions of
Section 8.32 of the Zoning Ordinance are satisfied.
A. Permitted UseslSite Area/Densities:
Permitted Uses:
1. Community-serving retail uses, including, but not limited to:
a. General Merchandise Store
b. Discount Retail Store
c. ClothinglFashion Store
d. Shoe Store
e. Home Furnishing Store
£ Office Supply Store
g. Home Appliance/Electronics Store
h. Home Improvement/Hardware Store
i. Music Store
j. HobbylSpecialty Interest Store
k. Gifts/Specialty Store
1. Jewelry and Cosmetic Store
m. Drug Store
EXHIBIT lA
n. Auto Parts Store
o. Tay Store
p. Book Store
q. Pet Supplies Store
r. Sporting Goods Store (without sale of firearms)
s. GrocerylFood Store
t. Video Rentals
2. Office and service establishments, including, but not limited to:
a. Bank/Savings and Loan
b. Real Estate/Title Office
c. Travel Agent
d. Legal
e. Accounting
f. Medical and Dental
g. Optometrist
h. Architect
i. Employment Agency
j. Hair/Beauty Salon
k. Cleaner and Dryer
1. Shoe Repair
m. Key Shop
n. Tailor
o. Athletic Club
p. Formal Wear/Rental
q. Other Administrative and Professional Office
r. Technology Access Center
s. Tele-commuting Center
3. Eating and drinking establishments including, but not limited to:
a. Restaurant
b. Delicatessen
c. Specialty Food {e.g. bagel shop)
d. Bakery
e. Cafes
f. Ice Cream Shop
g. Sandwich Shop
Site Area: approximately 1.06 acres
Densities: .25 to .50 Floor Area Ratio
2
B. Conditional Uses:
1. In-patient and out-patient health facilities as licensed by the State Department of
Health Services
2. Wine or liquor bar with on-sale liquor license
3. Micro-brewery
4. Video Arcade
5. Sporting Goods Store (with sale of firearms)
6. Public and semi-public facilities (Governmental or institutional-type facilities. Public
facilities include: schools; libraries; city office buildings; State, County and other
public agency facilities; post offices; fire stations; and utilities. Semi-public facilities
include: churches; theaters; community centers; and hospitals),
7. Community care facility/large (7 or more}
8. Other uses that could possibly meet the intent of the Planned Development (PD}
District -Community-Serving Retail; Office and Service Establishments; and Eating
and Drinking uses.
C. Prohibited Uses:
1. Drive-In/Drive-Through Business
2. Service Station
3. Automobile/Vehicle: Brokerage; Rental; Repairs and Service; Sales and Service; and
Storage Lot
D. Dublin Zoning Ordinance -Applicable Requirements: Except as specifically modified by the
provisions of this PA 98-049 PD Zoning District, use, development, improvement and maintenance
of property within this PD Zoning District shall be subject to the provisions of the C-1, Retail
Commercial Zoning District of the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance with regard to
permittedlconditional uses, land use restrictions and rninimum/maximum development criteria.
E. Development Standards:
1. Setbacks
a. Front and Side Yard (street side):
minimum 10 feet
b. Rear (easterly property line}:
minimum l 5 feet (for first story)
minimum 25 feet (for second story)
minimum 35 feet (for third story}
c. Side Yard (southern property line):
minimum 5 feet
d. Vehicular access shall be maintained between this property and the property to the
south.
2. Height Limitations
3 stories, 45 feet high
3. Parking
a. All uses for the site shall comply with Chapter 8.76 Off Street Parking and
Loading Regulations of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance.
b. All parking shall be located on the southern and/or eastern portion of the
property.
4. Landscaping
a. All required setback areas, including the corner area of the property (Village
Pazkway and Amador Valley Boulevard) shall be properly designed and
landscaped in order to establish a high level of development quality while
providing for neighborhood identity where appropriate. The design shall
utilize street tree plantings with complementary landscape materials.
b. The corner landscaping should incorporate significant landscape, including
specimen trees and special "city entry" image treatment whenever appropriate.
The design shall ensure that any corner landscape plan conforms with the
Traffic Visibility Area requirements of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance to protect
public safety.
5. Outdoor Seating
Outdoor seating for Baring and drinking establishments are allowed within this PD Zoning
District and may be located in the westerly and northerly (street side) setback areas provided
these uses do not occupy more than 50% of the setback area.
F. Design Standards:
General Commercial Design Standards
1. Any new building developed at the site shall achieve a human scale and
interest. The building shall exemplify a sense of proportion to the physical site
and surrounding properties: The building design shall incorporate building
4
elements, such as wall insets, balconies and window projections, which may
help produce a proportionate building and reduce the scale of larger buildings.
2. The building color shall be compatible with the neighborhood and shall
reinforce the visual character of the environment of the proposed buildings.
Integral coloring of concrete, stucco, and similar materials is encouraged.
Bright colors may be used to provide an attractive and distinctive accent to the
building.
3. The choice of materials, colors, signs and the level of architectural detailing for
the new buildings shall be thoughtfully integrated into the design of all
building elevations.
Retail Commercial Center Design Standazds
All new retail commercial development with eating and drinking
establishments may incorporate an outdoor seating area, activity plaza. or
courtyard to enhance pedestrian use; public and civic interaction; and events.
2. All furniture and accessories provided for the outdoor seating area shall be
compatible with the architectural design of the building.
3. In order to promote a pedestrian environment, the ground floor level of the
buildings shall include display windows, courtyard entrances and other
elements of pedestrian interest.
G. Proposed Development:
Any new development proposed for the site shall be subject to a new Development
Plan pursuant to Chapter 8.32 of the Zoning Ordinance and a Site Development
Review permit. The decisionmaker for the Site Development Review shall be the
Community Development Director (and hislher designee).
2. New office building developments shall be encouraged to include a mix of
community -serving retail uses, and eating, drinking and entertainment
establishment-type uses.
H. Site Plan and Architecture:
A Site Development Review shall be prepared for this project which shall provide a site plan, floor
plans, building elevation plans and any other applicable architectural plans or other documents as
required by the Director of Community Development.
I. Phasing Plan:
The project shall be constructed in one phase of development. If the Developer decides to construct
the project in phases, a phasing plan shall be submitted for the review and approval of the
Community Development Director.
J. Landscaping Plan:
A preliminary landscaping plan in compliance with Chapter 8.72, Landscaping and Fencing
Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance shall be required for the Site Development Review.