Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-26-2005 PC Agenda 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 4. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA 5. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - March 22, 2005 6. ORAL COMMUNICATION - At this time, members of the audience are permitted to address the Planning Commission on any item(s) of interest to the public; however, no ACTION or DISCUSSION shall take place on any item, which is NOT on the Planning Commission Agenda. TIœ Commission may respond briefly to statements made or questions posed, or may request Staff to report back at a future meeting concerning the matter. Furthermore, a member of the Planning Commission may direct Staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda. Any person may arrange with the Planning Manager (no later than 11:00 a.m., on the Tuesday preceding a regular meeting) to have an item of concern placed on the agenda for the next regular meeting 7. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8.1 P A 99-064 Dr. Sabri Arac Development Agreement for Quarry Lane - Development Agreement between the City and the owner, Dr. Sabri Arac, of the Quarry Lane School for the expansion of the school to provide an additional 70,289 square feet of classroom facilities, a gymnasium, playing field, parking and landscaped areas to accommodate middle and high school grades. A Planned Development District rezoning and Site Development Review were previously approved for the project, and would be further implemented through the Development Agreement. 8.2 PA 05-010 Journey Church Conditional Use Permit Extension (request for a one-year extension) A one year extension of an existing Conditional Use Permit for a religious facility within an existing shopping center in a C-l Retail Commercial (with Historic Overlay) Zoning District. 8.3 P A 04-060 Tentative Map for Condominium Purposes for the Iron Horse Trail Apartments located at 6253 Dougherty Road - continued to a date uncertain. 8.4 Appeal of Zoning Administrator Approval of PA 04-057, Starbuck's Coffee, Conditional Use Permit - An appeal of Zoning Administrator approval of a Conditional Use Permit to permit a 29% Reduction to Required Parking for a proposed Starbuck's Coffee Shop, located in a retail commercial center under construction in the PD zoning district at the intersection of Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard. The Conditional Use Permit would allow a reduction of 13 parking spaces from the number of parking spaces normally required (45 parking spaces) for a 1,886-square-foot coffee shop, 410-square-foot outdoor seating area, and 6,642-square-foot retail center, pursuant to Section 8.76.050 of the Zoning Ordinance. 9. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS 10. OTHER BUSINESS (Commission/Staff Informational Only Reports) 11. ADJOURNMENT (SEE THIRD PAGE FOR PROCEDURE SUMMARY) RECEIVED Enea Properties Company,LLC E P CITY OF DUBLIN 190 Hartz Ave.,Ste.260 Danville, CA 94526 Enea Properties Company, LLC MAY 0 5 200 (925)314-1470 fax(925)314-1475 Hand Delivered CITY MANAGER'SOFFIC rse@st-michaeell-investments.com May 5, 2005 &//y : C,/TY / A/44-. Cjry 4r -Y To the City Clerk C aO ,D/RE 7 Ok City of Dublin 9//j/y M& 100 Civic Drive >D W Q/R�CTO,e Dublin, CA 94568 Re: Notice of Appeal and Appeal from the Planning Commission's Reversal With Prejudice of the Zoning Administrator's Approval of Conditional Use Permit PA-04057 Please regard this correspondence on behalf of Village Parkway Partners, LLC as our notice of appeal, and appeal, to the City of Dublin and the Dublin City Council from the Planning Commission's reversal and denial with prejudice of the Zoning Administrator's approval of Conditional Use Permit PA-04057 (the "CUP"). Our appeal is submitted in the alternative. First, and principally, we appeal the Planning Commissioners' affirming the appeal of a Bobbi Cauchi which it heard on April 26, 2005. In affirming that appeal it reversed the Zoning Commissioner's prior approval of the subject CUP. We respectfully submit that the action taken by the three (3) participating Planning Commissioners' is unsupported by substantial evidence, inconsistent with the factual data developed by, and the analysis and recommendations of the City's Planning Staff, its Traffic Engineer as well as the analysis and conclusions of the further Focused Traffic/Parking Analysis for a Proposed Retail/Coffee Shop Development dated April 19, 2005 as developed and presented by Mr. George Nickelson of Omni-Means. We believe that the CUP is not only in the best interest of the City of Dublin, but it is also important to the developing partnership's financial model for turning this former gas station site into an attractive gateway for a revitalized downtown. Specifically, we respectfully request that the Members of the City Council review and consider the reports, findings and recommendations of No warranty or representation,express 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. each of (i) City Planning Staff (ii) the City Traffic Engineer, and (iii) Mr. George Nickelson of Omni-Means as set forth in his Focused Traffic/Parking Analysis. We ask that, consistent, with the opinions of all of the foregoing professionals, that. the City Council determine that: • The City of Dublin's generic 1 :100 "restaurant" parking standard as applied to this particular project and specific proposed use appear excessive; • The project's proposed alternative parking standard, providing for a reduction of on-site parking by eight (8) spaces off-set by limiting four (4) on-site spaces to green-curbed 15 minute use only, and the relocation of five (5) parking spaces off-site, is an appropriate parking standard for this downtown gateway project and investment; • That the Zoning Administrator's approval of the subject CUP be affirmed, and that the Planning Commission's reversal of the Zoning Administrator's approval be reversed; and, • That the CUP issue and be granted subject to the conclusions and recommendations of the City's Original Parking Study. Not that the City. Council necessarily needs or wants to hear this, and . without the intention of offending anyone, I do want to share three observations (for whatever they are worth) as to what, in my opinion, happened at the Planning Commission hearing because, frankly, I do , think it is relevant and should be part of this record. First, it is my experience from putting together projects within Dublin, other Tri-Valley communities and elsewhere, that traffic and parking data, studies and analyses tend to provide the objective cornerstone for most major decisions concerning urban planning and project development. As laymen, we depend in significant part upon the expertise of professional traffic engineers and professional planning staff to collect, and analyze and process the data and project the likely impacts associated with proposed growth or a proposed project - particularly 2 where there is a recommendation to apply something other than a generic metric. While it is it certainly appropriate for elected or appointed decision makers to apply their common sense to test and filter the reasoning and recommendations of the professional planners and engineers, and to take into consideration the input and concerns of other stake holders, the process can break down where an appellants', or the decision makers', subjective impressions without good reason supplant the carefully measured data, analyses and recommendations of the professional planners and traffic engineers. From the manner in which the hearing on the underlying appeal was conducted, and based on certain statements made from the Chair at the hearing, it is my settled impression that the process did somewhat breakdown here - and for the reasons that may or may not have been fully appreciated by the Commission. As sincere, sharp and well intentioned as I believe the Chairman and the other Commissioners who heard the underlying appeal appear to be, their specific questions and certain of their comments communicated the following beliefs or perceptions: (i) that the project's two (2) proposed handicapped parking spots shouldn't be counted toward required on-site parking because they generally seem to go unused (thus appearing to ignore the fact this consideration is already built into the City's generic parking ratios and the professionals' site specific alternative parking standard); (ii) that, even though this is a "downtown" area the project could not properly substitute at least five (5) of the nine (9) off-site parallel street parking spots that will be created immediately adjacent to the subject project were it to be built-out - even though Planning Staff, the City Engineer and George Nickelson advised and opined that this was totally appropriate, reasonable and realistic (thus seemingly ignoring a key component of this site specific parking plan and a key complement to any hoped for vibrant downtown); 3 (iii) that, notwithstanding the experience of the professionals supportive of their use and efficacy, that the four (4) proposed green curbed 15 minute only parking spots could not be trusted to effectively increase the in-and-out functionality and capacity of the on site parking plan as a whole (thus tending to, again, disregard the experience, analysis and data supportive of this parking control device); and, (iv) that it may not be appropriate for Dublin, notwithstanding professional recommendations from City Staff, the City Traffic Engineer and respected third-party traffic engineers supported by a Focused Traffic/Parking Analysis and at a "A" level of service intersection, to adopt an alternative parking standard as permitted by the City's code for a business tenant within an approved inf ill retail commercial center if that means a reduction from the 1 :100 generic parking ratio - notwithstanding the fact that the 1:100 generic parking ratio being used in Dublin exceeds by a range from 75% to 150% the generic parking ratio that would apply to this same sized Starbucks were it located in nearby Pleasanton (1:200), Danville (1 :170), San Ramon (1:200), Walnut Creek (1:250) and Concord (1 :200). (see my attached "Applicant Written Statement" - which should have been labeled "Respondent" written statement - as submitted to the Planning Commission in opposition to the underlying Appeal). If it is now Dublin's policy not to permit, as its Code otherwise allows, an alternative parking plan for, specifically, a project proposing an adjustment to the very conservative 1:100 "eating & dining" generic parking standard, then that should, it would seem, be a policy pronouncement for City Council. But if that is not the policy, then I submit that there is no credible or substantial evidence in the underlying record contrary to the conclusions of City Staff, the City Traffic Engineer and the commissioned Focused Traffic/Parking Analysis that the alternative parking standards, sought are (i) appropriate for this project, and (ii) will not result in a parking deficit. Secondly, while it was explained to me by the City that neither I nor my partners should directly communicate with any member of the Planning 4 Commission in advance of the hearing as the Commission was acting in the role of "jury," a characterization which the Chair at hearing reiterated in his opening comments, I left the hearing somewhat confused, and concerned, by that characterization. This was due in part. I think, to the Chair's stating in public that he had conducted his own survey of two Starbucks employees at a completely different project (that at Regional - one which, I might add is both larger and approved under different standards than the subject) as to where they parked, appearing to put forward this survey as a data point in opposition to the express testimony of Planning Staff and Mr. Nickelson that the alternative parking standard proposed for the subject project did in fact incorporate consideration for employee parking. This struck me as inconsistent with the Commission's self described role - at least as I understood it. I was more troubled, however, by the Chair's effusively thanking those gathered in support of the appeal for getting involved and showing their concern by having personally delivered over twenty-plus letters to the houses of one or:more of the Commission members the day before hearing and for having communicated with one or more Commission members directly by email. I was discomforted not only because it appeared that the appellant and her colleagues were being thanked for direct contact that I understood was not to occur, but also because I thought it may reflect that the Commission was possibly proceeding somewhat in a vacuum without sufficient appreciation for why it was they were receiving all of this attention. I believe it must be stated for the public record that the motivating stakeholder behind the appeal of the Zoning Administrator's approval of • the subject CUP, and the buzz surrounding that appeal, in fact appears to have very little to do with what is good for the revitalization of downtown Dublin or appropriate for the subject project or the adjacent roadways, intersection and neighborhood. It is my opinion that it has everything to do with the orchestrated effort of the owners' of a competing coffee kiosk ("Mika's") located kitty-corner directly across the street from the subject project who, frankly, do not want to see a successful competitor, Starbucks, anchor the gateway corner to 5 downtown Dublin (which kiosk, ironically, operates under a twelve year old conditional use permit granting it a fifty (50%) parking reduction). I am in fact informed and believe that each of the twenty-two letters delivered to the homes of the Commissioners and each of the voices heard in opposition to our CUP for a site specific alternative parking standard is a friend, relative or associate of a member of the family that owns the competing drive-through coffee kiosk. While these folks certainly have a right to petition their government to further the economic self interest of their friends and associates, the Chair's thanking them for questionable direct contacts causes me to believe that these Commissioners might not have been aware that the true stake hold interest promoting these contacts was not that of schoolchildren, teachers and the school district (as, at least one of these letters expressly falsely states) but of an adjacent drive-through coffee kiosk. While I believe that the participating Commissioners are sincere, thoughtful and obviously dedicated and competent people, I also know that the three (3) Commissioners who heard the underlying appeal are also very new to the process. An objective review of the record, the report and recommendation of the City's Traffic Engineer, the reports and recommendations of the City's Planning Staff and the substance and conclusions of the Mr. George Nickelson in Omni-Means' Focused Traffic/Parking Analysis all support the conclusion that the alternative parking standards reflected by the CUP and its Conditions of Approval (i) are appropriate for the project, and (ii) ensure. that there will not be a parking deficiency. We have worked in cooperation with the Planning Staff to get this project to its current stage of development. The culmination of extensive planning and design has yielded an attractive, high quality project that, if completed, will be a fine addition to the community. Good, well designed projects attract good, high quality tenants and neighbors; Starbucks is one of those tenants. We believe that the alternative parking standard proposed is appropriate for this inf ill project at this location, a belief supported by the City's Planning Staff recommendations and its reports, the City's Traffic Engineer and his reports and the Focused Traffic/Parking Analysis prepared by George 6 Nickelson of Omni-Means (all of which are incorporated by reference as part of this appeal). Lastly, and in the alternative, we appeal from what I have been told is that aspect of the Planning Commission's denial of the CUP "with prejudice" which as, it has been explained by the City to me, means, that if the Planning Commission's reversal of the Zoning Administrator's approval,of the CUP were to be affirmed, then we could not come back to the City with anything CUP relating to parking for this Project for one (1) year. We appreciate your time and consideration of our appeal. Respectfully submitted, 4 . /4.,c ,,,,t.,,, ,44i . Robert S. Enea Managing Member Village Parkway. Partners, LLC