Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-09-2008 PC Minutes11 ? U1 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, December 9, 2008 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, December 9, 2008, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Schaub called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m. Present: Chair Schaub; Commissioners Wehrenberg, King ar.d Biddle; Jeri Ram, Community Development Director; Kit Faubion, City Attorney; Mamie Waffle, Senior Planner; Mike Porto, Consulting Planner; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. Absent: None ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - NONE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - On a motion by Cm. Wehrenberg, seconded by Cm. Biddle the minutes of the November 25, 2008 meeting were approved. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NONE CONSENT CALENDAR - NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS - 8.1 PA 08-006, The Promenade at Dublin Ranch (Parcel 5) - Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permits for a -private recreation/ fitness center (ClubSport), outdoor restaurant seating, and reduction of required parking based on a shared parking plan for a 3.72 acre site al: the northeast corner of Grafton Street and Dublin Boulevard (Parcel 5 of Tentative Parcel Map 9717), Applicant James Tong and Mei Fong Tong. Mike Porto, Consulting Planner, presented the Project as stated in the Staff Report. Cm. King asked if there are two public art projects or two alternatives for public art. Mr. Porto answered that the Applicant has designated two locations where public art could be located. He stated they have the option of providing the public art or paying an in-lieu fee, but they are required to set aside tentative locations where public art could be located as shown on the project drawings. He continued the public art may or may riot be installed at those locations. Cm. King asked Mr. Porto to point out the locations where the public art could be located. Mr. Porto pointed out the locations on the project plans. Pfanning Commission December 9, 2008 Wegular Meeting 150 Cm. Wehrenberg asked if there are sufficient bus stops along Dublin Blvd. in relation to the project. She felt this was important since the Commission is considering shared parking for the project and also trying to create a transit center where people walk or bike instead of drive. Mr. Porto answered there is an existing bus stop located at the Terraces to the east of the project and one on the north side of Dublin Blvd. between Grafton Street and Brannigan across from Grafton Station, adjacent to the project. Cm. Wehrenberg referred to a letter from Leisure Sports included in the packet regarding modes of transportation for the C1ubSport membership base. She asked if, during his research, he had any discussions with other cities regarding the Shared Parking and if it has worked. Mr. Porto answered no; after a project is complete most cities do not monitor how the project is being used. He stated the letter was added to the traffic study to give an indication of how their facilities would be used. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if there will be bike paths developed. Mr. Porto stated that in 1998 and before, one of the things programmed into Area G and most of Dublin Ranch was ways to get people to designated bike lanes. He then pointed out the bike lanes on the project plans. He continued Area G was integrated into the Bikeways Master Plan for the City of Dublin. Cm. Wehrenberg felt the bike lanes were important for the project b:) work. Cm. Biddle thanked Mr. Porto for the inclusion of the shared parking study. Chair Schaub opened the public hearing. John Zukowski, Dublin resident, read a letter on behalf of Jimmy Huang, resident, regarding his concern about the shared parking calculation used for the Promenade project, the parking problem in the eastern part of Dublin and his support for the suggestion of including underground parking at the Promenade project. (The letter will be included as part of the PA 08- 006 Promenade file and attached to these minutes as Attachment 1.) Tim Hall, Dublin resident, spoke regarding the project. He felt the project would set the stage for the rest of the area and wanted to ensure that it is done correctly. He felt that diagonal parking would be a better choice for Grafton Street. He agreed with Mr. Huang's letter regarding the shared parking calculation. He felt the architecture along Dublin Blvd. was not conducive to attracting pedestrians to the area and since the area is supposed to be geared toward pedestrians he felt it would be important to address the architecture along Dublin Blvd. Hearing no other comments, Chair Schaub closed the public hearing. Chair Schaub stated that the Commission is very concerned with parking issues and wanted to ensure that was conveyed. fanning Commission (December 9, 2008 ?krgular Meeting 151 Chair Schaub felt the discussion would include two issues; 1) did the changes the Applicant made to the plans meet the Commissions expectations, and 2) the parking issue. Cm. Biddle stated he appreciates the changes made and felt the landscaping additions were an improvement especially because it is a walkway area. He also suggested the trees along Dublin Blvd. should be a species that would grow very large and that the landscaping should look better over time with good maintenance. He stated he is generally satisfied with the project. Cm. King felt the project did not meet his aspirations for Dublin Blvd. He asked the other Commissioners if there was any reason pedestrians would walk along Dublin Blvd. The Commissioners discussed the entrances, exits and walkways along Dublin Blvd. and felt that eventually residents would be going to the Promenade. Cm. Biddle stated he likes the fact that residents do not have to walk along the street to enter the Promenade but that the entrances are on Grafton Street or the interior. Cm. Wehrenberg felt that the entrance locations would help with traffic on Dublin Blvd. and agreed with the cut-ins and turn lanes on Dublin Blvd. Chair Schaub stated that Dublin Blvd. is Dublin's main street but there is very little on Dublin Blvd. to go to. He felt that people travel down Dublin Blvd. with the backs of shopping centers, apartments, fences and even Grafton Station facing Dublin Blvd. and people would enter from the parking lot. Most everything is from the inside even though they want the streets to be pedestrian friendly the traffic is only cars and felt that was best. Cm. Wehrenberg stated she is in support of the architecture of the project. She liked the landscaping and the potted trees that were a change from the previous submittal. Chair Schaub stated he is in support of the revised architecture of the project. Chair Schaub showed a graph that he created from the parking information in the Staff Report to make it easier to understand the shared parking issue. He discussed whether the Commission believes in shared parking, when the peak parking period is assumed to be and the number of parking spaces provided at those times. Cm. Wehrenberg agreed with Chair Schaub regarding whether the Commission believes in shared parking or not. She restated her concern regarding the 12 motorcycle spots which she felt would not be used during rainy weather. She felt that the employees in the offices may want to work out at C1ubSport and then stay for dinner therefore the stalls would not empty out as the shared parking study suggests. She continued that the City wants the project to be successful and to be a transit oriented area where people bike, walk and use BART. She felt the more parking that is provided would encourage more car use and the City is trying to discourage car use to decrease the traffic and save the envirerunent. She stated she was not in favor of reducing the amount of restaurant usage because the nearby residents would want to walk there. She felt the City should be reviewing the parking requirements and enforcement issues. She is not in favor of the loss of the 41 stalls mentioned in the Staff Report. (Aanning Commission (December 9, 2008 fgufar Meeting 152 Chair Schaub felt there was no way to know how many people will walk to the area and how the loss of 41 spaces will affect the project. Cm. Wehrenberg mentioned that in the letter from C1ubSport they stated there are dedicated parking spaces for the C1ubSport facilities which help the parking issue. She felt that because there are classes and a spa people will stay for hours not go in and out quickly. She also felt the class schedule will impact the shared parking because people will rush to get to class. She stated these concerns should be taken into consideration when the Commission makes the findings for the project. Cm. King mentioned a conversation he had with the Mayor regarding Hacienda Crossings and the fact that it was difficult to find a parking spot and he felt it was because of poor planning. He stated she disagreed and felt it meant the project was successful. Cm. Biddle stated he is comfortable with the shared parking concept. He stated that the area was designed to feature that concept. He did not think the Commission should approve a project for maximum parking so that any conceivable parking problem would be solved. He stated he is comfortable with the number of parking spaces. He continued the Commission does not want to be in a position that if there is a parking problem in another area adjoining a project that the current project needs to have additional parking to solve the parking problem and felt that problem was for the initial project to solve, not the Commission. He felt a lot of the parking problem has to do with property management in rEgards to parking. He felt that a project needs to provide parking but it also needs to manage the parking use appropriately. Chair Schaub asked Kit Faubion, City Attorney to discuss the relationship between HOA's and the City. Kit Faubion, City Attorney, stated that homeowner's associations and their CC&R's are private agreements among the members of the HOA and generally not enforced by the City. Chair Schaub agreed that the City cannot legally enforce the parking regulations of an HOA. He stated that if there is a parking problem in the vicinity of the project in question the Commission cannot deal with it when approving another project; it is not one project's responsibility to solve the parking problems of another project. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the parking standards that Dublin uses are generic and how Dublin compares to other cities. Chair Schaub mentioned that there are two sets of standards and he used Dublin's parking standards when creating his graph so that he would not have the more conservative numbers which is the Institute of Transportation Engineer (ITE). 4?(anning Commission Decem6er9, 2008 9(egular `Meeting 153 Mr. Porto answered there are two standards referenced in the shared parking agreement; the ULI standards and the ITE standards. He stated that those standards are considerably less than Dublin's requirement. He stated Dublin s parking ordinance deals with shared parking in the context of shopping centers where the parking ratio is for square footage. He stated that when there are multiple uses on the property the only opportunity is to either park it at the requirement for each individual use or do a shared parking analysis. He stated that Dublin is fairly conservative on parking compared with other jurisdictions. Chair Schaub asked if by "conservative" Mr. Porto meant that Dublin "overparks" compared to most cities. Mr. Porto answered yes, in some projects. Jeri Ram, Community Development Director, commented that since Staff does not have the information available they cannot comment on a comparison with other cities without doing the research first. Chair Schaub stated that the ITE table in the shared parking agreement was more conservative. Cm. Wehrenberg asked how often the standards are updated. Jaimee Bourgeois, Traffic Engineer, pointed out there are two concepts that were used in the study. One is the comparison between the City of Dublin's parking ordinance, which is conservatively high, versus data that is published based on actual surveys taken nationally. She stated the publication is updated every several years with new information based on new surveys. She continued to discuss the traffic standards, shared. parking, traffic surveys and how they were used in the traffic study for this project. She mentioned that with the ITE rate an extra 10% would be added for a circulation factor, so if all of the parking is used as projected, based on ITE, there would still be an extra 10% for an efficiencfactor. Chair Schaub pointed out that people who walk to the restaurants from the nearby residential areas is another factor that the Commission has reviewed in more densely populated areas in regards to the parking issue. Cm. King stated that Councilmember Kasie Hildenbrand mentioned the severe parking problem in the east Dublin areas. Chair Schaub mentioned that she was referring to The Villages specifically. Cm. King continued that it appears that the parking plan made an assumption that there would be two garage spaces for two cars but the reality is one of the spaces is used for storage. He asked if the Commission should base their findings on what people ought to do or what they actually do. Chair Schaub responded that this project has nothing to do with storage/parking in a condominium development. He stated the Commission cannot make up for the parking problem in The Villages with this project. Planning Commission Decem6er 9, 2008 fgular Meeting 154 Cm. King disagreed with Chair Schaub. He felt that if the parking turns out to be inadequate then the justification is to encourage people to walk instead which is what the Commission intended. He stated he would prefer there be more parking at the project. He then asked if there was an assumption that at 6:00p.m. there would be 541 CETs. Chair Schaub answered that if they do not use the concept of shared parking the maximum number would be 541. He stated he showed the maximum on his graph to see what was causing the problem. He continued that in shared parking, il' there is an office complex and a theater, it works well, but this complex is more complicated. Cm. King asked if there were any surveys that show how restaurant should work. Chair Schaub answered that these studies are based upon surveys but won't necessarily match this set of restaurants. Cm. Wehrenberg agreed with Chair Schaub that the Commission cannot accommodate for loss of parking in a residential area but felt it will be an inherent problem if not corrected. She suggested adding a condition that states the specific square footage allowed for each use. Ms. Ram stated that the application shows the exact amount of restaurant space and the exact amount of office space for this project and in order to change it that would mean a change to the Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review. Mr. Porto stated this was done with another project (Ulfert's) where Staff developed a maximum amount of square footage available for restaurant use. Chair Schaub stated the Ulfert's Center is a good example of where shared parking wo:°ks well. Ms. Ram pointed out the first "Whereas" in the Resolution sets forth exactly how much space is being approved for each use. She then asked the Commission if they want to modify and specifically mention how much restaurant space and how much office space is allowed. She stated that Staff could change the Resolution to show the exact numbers before the Resolution is signed. Mr. Porto agreed. Ms. Ram stated that to make it clear as n the amount of restaurant space allowed in the project Staff would include it in the Resolution for the CUP/SDR. Chair Schaub felt it was important to put specific amounts in Resolutions to save the confusion later on. Ms. Ram agreed to add the square footage to the Resolution. Cm. Wehrenberg agreed with adding the exact number of square footage allowed for both restaurants and office space. She also felt that the shared parking issue should be reviewed as a Goals and Objectives item for 2009 in order to study how it is working in Dublin. She felt that the Commission does not want to add to the parking problem. She asked if the Commission needs to beef up the parking ordinance and if the City can enforce a condition of approval regarding parking. She stated that if the Commission is gong to be approving these sorts of Planning Commission (December 9, 2008 *gurar Meeting 155 projects then they should make the parking ordinance stricter and easier to enforce and encourage people to get out of their cars. Chair Schaub was concerned about approving projects without considering the entire area. He stated that before Area G is completely developed the Commission should look at the parking issue as a whole. He asked Ms. Ram to add that item to their Goals and Objectives meeting as well. Ms. Ram mentioned the Commission's Goals and Objectives rneeting is schedule for January 20, 2009. Cm. Wehrenberg was concerned that there may not be enough bike stalls if the Commission is encouraging people to ride their bike to C1ubSport. Mr. Porto stated the Applicant could add more bike racks if necessary. Ms. Ram asked if the Commission would like a Condition of Approval to work with the Applicant to ensure that adequate bike racks are provided prier to issuance of building permits. Chair Schaub stated he is in favor of shared parking for the project. He felt the Applicant has done everything they can to make the shared parking work for the project. He mentioned that there is a lot of parking across the street at Lowes and people should be able to walk across the street to get to C1ubSport. Cm. Wehrenberg agreed and felt that part of the solution is circulation with proper street lighting and crosswalks for safet. Chair Schaub felt crosswalks and street lighting would be important because there will be a lot of people going back and forth across Dublin Blvd. between Grafton Station and The Promenade. Cm. Biddle mentioned Condition #44, which refers to phased occupancy, and asked if there is a general plan for a construction start, and will they have phased construction. Mr. Porto answered he would obtain the information from the Applicant and let the Commission know. Ms. Ram reminded the Commission that Condition #44 is there to protect the public as it relates to construction phasing. Cm. Wehrenberg asked what the procedure would be to vote for part of the Resolution. Ms. Ram answered the Resolution is written as one; therefore Staff would have to break out the reference to the shared parking plan so that the Commission could vote for part of the Resolution only. She continued that the Commission would have to deny the Resolution because without the shared parking the project doesn't work or the Commission could vote for the Resolution and your reservations regarding shared parking plan would be noted in the minutes. Cm. Wehrenberg agreed with approving the Resolution but noting her concern T&nning Commission Decem6er 9, 2008 WQgufarWeeting 156 regarding the shared parking plan. She continued that the shared parking plan may not be feasible because of the mix of buildings in the project. Ms. Ram reminded the audience that this item can be appealed to the City Council within 10 days of the action. On a motion by Cm. Biddle and seconded by Cm. Wehrenberg, on a vote of 4-0-0, the Planning Commission approved the following Resolution as modified, with reservations regarding the shared parking plan and specifying the square footage amount of restaurant uses in the Mercantile building as being a maximum of 7,190 square feet: RESOLUTION NO. 08 - 40 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR PARCEL 5 OF THE PROMENADE (VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 9717) AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PRIVATE FITNESS/RECREATION FACILITY, OUTDOOR SEATING FOR RESTAURANT USE, AND REDUCTION OF REQUIRED PARKING BASED ON A SHARED PARKING PLAN ON A 3.72-ACRE SITE WITHIN AREA G OF DUBLIN RANCH PA 08-006 8.2 PA 08-047, Buffalo Wild Wings Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review (Quasi-Judicial/ Adjudicatory Action) - Request for a Conditional Use Permit to establish 425 square feet of outdoor seating and Site Development Review for exterior modifications to the existing Pad B building at Grafton Station including new awnings, window tinting and outdoor seating furniture. The project is located at 3712 Dublin Boulevard. Mamie Waffle, Senior Planner presented the project as stated in the Staff Report. Ms. Waffle submitted a revised Resolution to the Planning Commission prior to her presentation where Condition of Approval #7 was revised. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the Applicant could install a solid wall instead of windows with film. Ms. Waffle answered that would significantly alter the architecture of the building. She stated that when the building was designed and constructed the use was unknown. She continued there is glass on all four elevations therefore it would be difficult for any tenant to accommodate a layout with so much window space. Chair Schaub asked if this is where the bathrooms are located, and if this is the entrance to the bathrooms or the actaal bathrooms. Ms. Waffle stated the proposal would be to construct solid walls on the interior therefore with the film on the glass would give a visual obstruction for the solid walls. Aanning Commission December 9, 2008 Wggular 90eeting 157 Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the Applicant is proposing to build the same type of wall to hide the back-of-house operations as in the bathroom area or only the install the film on these windows. Ms. Waffle answered the back-of-house operations area would be like the bathroom area with the same type of walls behind the windows. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the Applicant has looked at different ways to install the flat-screen TV instead of installing the film on only half of the bank of windows. Ms. Waffle agreed to speak with the Applicant regarding her suggestion. Ms. Waffle stated the revised Resolution for Condition of Approval #7 is regarding noise and amplified music. She stated noise and amplified music was originally prohibited within the outdoor dining area, but the revised Condition of Approval #7 allows it unless it becomes a problem and then the Community Development Director I-as the discretion to require the amplified music be turned down or turned off completely. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if Staff prefers the reflective finish on the film as opposed to non reflective finish. She felt it could be blinding depending on the time of day and where shadows occur. Ms. Waffle answered that when Staff was working with the Applicant regarding the film, they tried for a more natural look and to blend with the other projects in the area. She stated they tried to prevent the blacking out look and settled on Slate 10 which is the sample given to the Planning Commission. Cm. Wehrenberg asked ii Staff would recommend using a decorative film with patterns instead. Chair Schaub stated that he visited the site and found the windows to be very reflective now, not sure how much more reflective the film will make them. Ms. Waffle stated that the film does not provide 100% visual obstruction so the closer you get to the window you might be able to see the wall behind it. She showed photos of two shades of the film side by side and felt that a photograph is not the best representation but you can see the differences in reflectivity in the photos. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if this is the film Staff preferred. Ms.'Naffle stated that based on Staff's knowledge of the options available the film is the best one. She continued that if the goal is to prevent the blacking out of windows she felt it provides the most natural look in keeping with other windows without the film. Chair Schaub opened the public hearing. Hardy Samra, Applicant, Tee It UP, LLC, spoke in favor of the project and gave an overview of the restaurant. He stated the restaurant is a franchise operation with approximately 570 restaurants and this is the first in northern California. Pfanning Commission lDecem6er9, 2008 Wfgufar fleeting 158 Cm. Wehrenberg asked if there was another way to mount the large TV screen without putting film on only one side of the door. Mr. Samra answered that the TV is in the dining room area on the wall therefore, it would not be possible to mount it differently or in another location of the restaurant because of its 96" size. Cm. King felt that it would look odd to have reflective material on one side of the door. The Applicant answered that they have discussed the issue with Staff and if the TV can be moved they will move it. Cm. King suggested making both sides reflective and Mr. Samra stated they would look at that as well. Chair Schaub mentioned the wall -would be where the other tenants will see and suggested whatever is in that location should be consistent with the shopping center. John Zukowski, resident, spoke in favor of the project and encouraged the Commission to approve the project. Tim Hall, resident, spoke in favor of the project and agreed with Cm. Wehrenberg who suggested installing window treatments instead of tacky film. Cm. King is in favor of the project but would suggest making troth doors reflective or neither. Cm. Wehrenberg is in favor of the project but was concerned with the window film. She felt it was an appropriate measure but would like to review the east elevation. Chair Schaub is in favor of the project. He stated he is not particularly happy about the film but the building has glass all around and the Applicant must do something. Hearing no other comments, Chair Schaub closed the public hearing. On a motion by Cm. Biddle and seconded by Cm. King, on a vote of 4-0-0, the Planning Commission approved the following revised Resolution: RESOLUTION NO. 08-41 A RESOLU'T'ION OF THE PLANNING C43MMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING PA 08-047 BUFFALO WILD WINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF 425 SQUARE FEET OF OUTDOOR SEATING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE EXISTING PAD B BUILDING AT GRAFTON STATION 3712 DUBLIN BOULEVARD (APN 985-0061-002) PA 08-047 1Pranning Commission December 9, 2008 Wfgular Meeting 159 NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS - NONE OTHER BUSINESS - NONE 10J Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from the Planning Commission and/or Staff, including Committee Reports and Reports by the Planning Commission related to meetings attended at City Expense (AB 1234). Ms. Ram reminded the Commission there will be a meeting on 12-23-08. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, B- f fib Chair Planning Commission ATTEST: Jeri am, AICP Community Development Director PCanningCommission December 9, 2008 Wgurar Meeting 160 Dear Planning Commission: I am disappointed to learn that Charter Properties is still using this Shared Parking calculation to justify their parking allocation at Phase I of the Promenade. The use of this Shared Parking calculation is inappropriate, given the horrendous parking crisis in the Dublin Ranch Villages (Attachment 1). The extreme shortzge of parking in the immediate vicinity of the Promenade should render most, if not all, of the assumptions needed for the Shared Parking calculation to work invalid, yet the TJKM Report did not even address the current parking realities in the Dublin Ranch Villages. The stance Commission Chair Schaub took in the Study Session on November 12, 2008, was quite disturbing, as he basically dismissed the Dublin Ranch Villages parking crisis by saying it is purely an enforcement issue on the part of the HOA. For years neither the City nor the HOAs have taken leadership on resolving this growing challenge. Instead of exacerbating the problem by under-allocating parking, the Planning Commission should push for a number that at least meets Dublin's Zoning Ordinance by simple counting. As shown by a weekly poll recently conducted on the Around Dublin Blog, 68% of the respondents are in favor of Commissioner Wehrenberg's proposal that the additional spaces should come in the form of underground parking (Figure 1). Weekly Poll Figure 1. Around Dublin Blog Weekly Poll Sixty-eight percent of the respondents favored additional levels of underground parking (http://www.arounddublinblog.com/2008/ 11/weekly-poll-should-additional-parking. html). Building a parking structure with underground levels at Phase I of the Promenade would be a great opportunity for Charter Properties to show the residents of Dublin that they are fully committed to provide sufficient parking at the Promenade and Grafton Plaza. As someone who lives in the area, I want the Promenade to be a success. To get there, I firmly believe we need to provide adequate parking, so people can spend as much time shopping as possible, instead of circling the area in frustration for a parking space that should have been planned in the first place. I disagree with Commission Chair Schaub's definition of "success" as presented in the article published on September 16, 2007, in Contra Costa Times (Attachment 2). True retail success is not measured in the gallons of gas wasted as patrons circle the Promenade in frustration but in sales tax generated. Sincerely, - Jimmy Huang 3719 Central Parkway Dublin, CA 94568 ATTACHWNT 1 Attachment 1. In the video clip titled Parking.wmv, Councilwoman Kasie Hildenbrand went irvo great detail explaining just how bad the parking situation really is in the Dublin Ranch Villages at the City Council Meeting held on November 18, 2008. Attachment 2. Residents' parking comes up short: DUBLIN: Condo occupants in the Cottages circle blocks or wait for spaces to open for their cars. Byline: Sophia Kazmi Sep. 16--Many residents of the urban-looking condos and apartments in east Dublin are also experiencing an all-too-familiar big-city problem. Teresa Singleton, a resident of the Cottages condominium complex in the Vil ages at Dublin Ranch development, said residents' days are often planned around when they have to be home to find parking spaces. "It's over-the-top ridiculous," Singleton said, adding that the problem has become progressively worse since she moved in two years ago. "It's really unfortunate. People have to pay $500,000 to live here, and there is no place to park." Drivers frequently circle around blocks to find a space, or to wait for an openiRg; when a space opens up in front of their houses, drivers rejoice. Singleton lucked out Wednesday night and found a spot on Finnian Way, across the street from her home, where both sides of the street were solidly lined with cars. Many say part of the problem is some residents are using their garages to store other things than their cars. Residents interviewed said they have room to park one car in their garage, but since all w°re at least two-car households, they must take to the street to find a spot for a second vehicle. According to the city's planning department, that area of Dublin Ranch requires two spaces for each apartment, and for one- bedroom condominiums, there must be 1.5 spaces. For each two-bedroom condominium, there must be 2.5 spaces. Usually, the total is a whole number, but if the final sum has a half a space, the number is rounded up. The project has 1,396 units total. So there are somewhere between 2,094 and 3,490 spots in the neighborhood. But, apparently, that is not enough. While coming home late could mean walking a couple of blocks home, James Bell said inviting family and friends over can become a serious issue. Bell, who moved to Dublin from Antioch in November, managed to score a spot in front of his condominium Wednesday evening. But he knew that space would mostly likely not be there for him when h,: returned from church that night. This parking anxiety has become part of life, he said. "Most people, they just deal with it." While these East Dublin residents may be ticked off, there have been no formal complaints about it that the police department is aware of. Planning Commission chairman Bill Schaub said he's heard about the problem from the two council members who live in the area, but he isn't sure what can be done. Changing the number of parking spaces per unit in the future would cause additional problems. "If we did, we would end up with so much asphalt," Schaub said. "For every spot you put a parking spot, you reduce the chances of a developer making money ... You would pay more for your house." Parking requirements are more than adequate, Schaub said, and developers have complained about the number of parking spots they have to provide. Congestion, Schaub said, is a sign of a successful area. Councilman Tim Sbranti, who also lives in the Cottages neighborhood, finds himself looking for parking as his wife parks her car in the garage. He said he thinks t:he opening of a nearby shopping cents will help alleviate some of the parking woes, giving people additional places to park overnight. But Sbranti said he will use his frustrating first-hand experiences of trying to find a spot when that issue -- and future housing developments -- are discussed and debated. "What was the ratio for this project? OK ... we need to go much higher than that," Sbranti said. "The ratio here clearly didn't work." Sophia Kazmi covers Dublin. Reach her at skazmi@bayareanewsgroup.com or 9:5-847-2122.