HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.2 All American Label SDRG~~~ OF^DU~~~L
~~,/ ~~~ STAFF REPORT
i9~~~~ az PLANNING COMMISSION
~~ ~ ~~
O~LIFOR~~
DATE: August 23, 2011
TO: Planning Commission
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: PLPA-2011-00020, All American Label Site
Development Review fora 4,456 square foot addition to an existing
23,994 square foot building at 6958 Sierra Court
Report prepared by Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Applicant has requested approval of a Site Development Review permit fora 4,456 square
foot addition to an existing 23,994 square foot building at 6958 Sierra Court. Staff has
determined that the proposal is inconsistent with the General Plan in that the addition will cause
the building to exceed the maximum floor area ratio (FAR} established by the General Plan
Business Parkflndustrial land use category.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Open the
public hearing; 3) Take testimony from the Applicant and the public; 4) Close the public hearing
and deliberate; and 5) Adopt a Resolution denying Site Development Review fora 4,456 square
foot addition to an existing 23,994 square foot building at 6958 Sierra Court.
>~ ~ ~ ~~
Submitted By
Principal Planner
E~~
Reviewe y
Planning Manager
COPIES TO: Applicant ~...~~,.nw.,..~~._.w.~~.a~n~~.~~,._.~
File
ITEM NO.:
Page 1 of 7
G:IPA#120111PLPA-2011-00020 All American Label SDRIPC 08.23.20011PCSR 08.23.2011.docx
DESCRIPTION:
Background ;.
The project site is located ,
at the north end of Sierra ~
f
Court, adjacent to the
Alamo Creek trail to the ~
west and the Park Sierra ~
Apartments to the y'
northeast. The subject ~..
building is currently :;
occupied by All American
Label, which is a
business that specializes
in the printing and
distribution of labels and
other packaging. ;
~' ..,
~. ~..
Lek ~
ails'
`~. ~:
Figure 7: Vicinity Map
`~ - ~ ~ ~ \
~" .. ~ ^.f
The 1.37 acre project site ~ ~f '~, , ~~,r l ~ ~'`~
~, .
includes a permitted ~'`~~ -~~' - ~~~~~' = i ~ ~ _
23,994 square foot ~~~ r `° ~ ~ _
„*
industrial building that ~ ~` ~ ~ ^:F j
. f.,.. `
has recently been ~ .~ n ~ ~. r
~. - ~ ° .~ ~
expanded with an
unpermitted 4,456 square foot addition. The project site is depicted in Figure 1
d~
~'
~~
The project site is located in the larger Sierra Court/Trinity Court area, which is dominated by
light industrial buildings occupied by a combination of manufacturing, warehousing, and other
uses. Like the project site, most of the parcels in the Sierra Court/Trinity Court area have a
General Plan land use designation of Business Parkllndustrial, as shown in Figure 2.
Located in the Primary Planning Area,
the Business Park/Industrial land use
designation description in Chapter 1 of
the General Plan is as follows:
"Business Park/industrial (FAR: .30
to .40; employee density: 360-490
square feet per employee).
Uses are non-retail businesses
(research, limited manufacturing and
distribution activities, and administrative
offices) that do not involve heavy
trucking or generate nuisances due to
emissions, noise, or open uses.
Residential uses are not permitted.
Maximum attainable ratios of floor area
to site area (FAR) are controlled by
parking and landscaping requirements
and typically result in .35 to .40 FAR's.
Examples: Clark Avenue, Sierra Court."
Figure 2: General Plan Map
The proposed site is located in the M-1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District. Most of the parcels in
the Sierra Court/Trinity Court area are located in M-1 (Light Industrial) and PD (Planned
Development), zoning districts, as shown in Figure 3.
Project Site
Figure 3: Zoning Map
~,~~ ~
~~,~,~,N:. ~,~:~r~~u~,.,~~
The M-1 (Light Industrial) Zoning
District allows for a variety of
warehousing, manufacturing, and
distribution uses and is compatible with
the Business Park/Industrial General
Plan land use designation. The Sierra
Court/Trinity Court area is also home to
a number of Indoor Recreational Uses
that have been permitted through
either a Conditional Use Permit or a
Minor Use Permit.
Entitlement History
The Applicant, Mr. Tom Vargas,
Operations Manager for All American
Label, filed an application with the City
in 2008 requesting Site Development
Review (SDR) approval for the addition
of a 4,456 square foot storage area on
the northern portion of the site.
~ J ~ ~~~~ After the application was submitted,
Staff sent the Applicant an "incompleteness letter" dated August 11, 2008, noting that Staff had
determined that the City is unable to approve the proposed project due to an inconsistency with
the General Plan. The letter stated: `The current Floor Area Ratio for the site is 0.40, which is
the maximum as allowed by the City of Dublin's General Plan. Consequently, due to the size of
the lot and the size of the existing building, no additional floor area is permitted on the project
site; therefore, we are not able to approve the proposed storage building. The Floor Area Ratio
with the proposed shed would be .48." The full letter is included as Attachment 1 to this Staff
Report.
After receiving the letter, the Applicant amended the SDR application to request the approval of
a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review to allow the construction of a 4,456
square foot unenclosed outdoor storage area (i.e. carport), since an enclosed structure would not
be permitted due to FAR restrictions.
The amended SDR application was reviewed by the Planning Commission at a public hearing on
November 12, 2008 and the Planning Commission approved Resolution 08-37, permitting the
construction of the unenclosed outdoor storage area and the associated Conditions of Approval.
The Staff Report and Resolution are included as Attachments 2 and 3 to this Staff Report. At
some point after the Planning Commission approval of the unenclosed outdoor storage area, the
Applicant proceeded to construct an enclosed building addition without Building or Planning
permits. This action resulted in a Building Code Enforcement case being opened.
On February 14, 2011, counsel for the City filed a civil complaint seeking injunctive relief against
the Applicant. The complaint sought a Court order for the removal, or alteration, of the building
addition which was constructed in violation of the Municipal Code. On May 24, 2011, the Court
3 of 7
granted the City's preliminary injunction prohibiting the Applicant's use of the building addition until
the issue can be resolved at trial. The parties are awaiting a further court order setting a trial date
on the City's request for a permanent injunction and permanent resolution of the issue.
In an effort to legalize the unpermitted structure, Mr. Charles Huff (Architect), on behalf of Mr. Brad
Brown (Owner), has applied for Site Development Review approval for the 4,456 square foot
building addition. Staff continues to assert that the addition cannot be approved due to the
General Plan inconsistency, and has therefore prepared a recommendation for denial for the
Planning Commission's consideration (Attachment 4).
ANALYSIS:
General Plan Conformance
The subject property has a Business Park/Industrial General Plan land use designation. The
Business Park/Industrial General Plan land use designation has a maximum allowable floor to
area ratio (FAR) of 0.40 (City of Dublin General Plan Section 1.8.1.). The SDR application
indicates that the property is 1.37 acres (59,677 square feet), and that the existing building
(without the proposed addition) is 23,994 square feet. The existing building (without the
proposed addition) is already at the maximum allowable FAR, as shown in the table below:
Square Foota a FAR
Existin Buildin 23,944 .40
With Pro osed Addition 28,450 .48
With the proposed building addition, the FAR would be above the maximum permitted by the
General Plan. The Project Site Plan is included as Exhibit A to Attachment 4.
The Applicant disagrees with Staff's interpretation of the maximum permissible FAR described
in the General Plan. In a letter to the City dated June 8, 2011, the Applicant's attorney asserts
that the reference to a .40 FAR is intended to be descriptive, and not a mandatory maximum
FAR (See Attachment 5). He cites the text in the Business Park/Industrial land use description
that reads "maximum attainable ratios of floor area to site area (FAR) are controlled by parking
and landscaping requirements and typically result in .35 to .40 FAR's." However, the City's
long-standing interpretation of the permissible minimum and maximum FARs in each district rely
on the FAR range noted in the heading of each land use classification, as described below.
Dublin's first General Plan was adopted in February 1985. In 1992, the City Council approved
several technical revisions to the General Plan to ensure conformance of the document with
current Government Code provisions for General Plans. Government Code section 65302(a)
requires land use elements to include standards of population density and building intensity for
the various general plan districts. According to the General Plan Guidelines prepared by the
state Office of Planning and Research (OPR), court decisions hold that an adequate general
plan must contain quantified standards of building intensity for each general plan land use
designation (Guidelines p. 50, Attachment 6). The Guidelines further describe a "standard" as a
rule or measure that must be complied with (Guidelines p. 16, Attachment 7). Among other
things, the revisions included updating text to reflect statutory requirements, such as adding
intensity standards (floor area ratio and employee density) for each commercial land use
category.
The City Council Agenda Statement, dated September 14, 1992, details .the changes.
Attachment 1 to that Agenda Statement illustrates, in underline and strikethrough text, the exact
revisions made. Page 1-6 of Attachment 1 of the September 14, 1992 City Council Agenda
4 of 7
Statement illustrates that each land use category was revised to include information about the
allowable FAR range as well as the employee density range. The Business Park/Industrial land
use category (outlined by a red box) was amended to include an allowable FAR range of .30 to
.40, and an allowable employee density range of 360 to 490 square feet per employee. The
September 14, 1992 Agenda Statement (with the relevant pages of the original Attachment 1) is
included as Attachment 8 to this Staff Report.
The description of the Business Park/Industrial land use category further notes that "maximum
attainable ratios of floor area to site area (FAR) are controlled by parking and landscaping
requirements and typically result in .35 to .40 FAR`s." This text existed in the General Plan land
use category description prior to the 1992 amendment but could be interpreted as descriptive
rather than mandatory. The stricter FAR minimum and maximum range was added to the
General Plan land use descriptions to clearly establish the required mandatory standards of
permissible density for the Business Park/Industrial land use category. By retaining the
descriptive language, the general plan clarifies that projects are not guaranteed the maximum
permissible amount of development under the density range; the actual project density may
come in lower.
This FAR range has been in the General Plan since the City Council amended the General Plan
in 1992 (Resolution 115-92). ,Since the amendments to the General Plan were approved in
1992, the City has interpreted the FAR range as the minimum and maximum permitted FAR for
any given property.
Both the August 11, 2008 letter to the Applicant and the, previous Planning Commission Staff
Report, dated November 12, 2008 (Attachments 1 and 2), are consistent with the historical
interpretation of the FAR range being the minimum and maximum allowable for any given site.
These two documents, previously provided to the Applicant in 2008, explain that the maximum
FAR for the site is .40 in accordance with the Business Park/Industrial land use designation.
Required Findings
In accordance with Chapter 8.104 (Site Development Review) of the Zoning Ordinance, several
findings must be made in order to approve a Site Development Review application. Section
8.104.090 (Required Findings) states that "All of the following findings shall be made in order to
approve a Site Development Review and shall be supported by substantial evidence in the
public record." The first of those findings is 8.104.090A, which requires that "the proposal is
consistent with the purposes of this Chapter, with the General Plan and with any applicable
Specific Plans and design guidelines."
Staff cannot recommend to the Planning Commission that this finding be made, and therefore
has prepared a denial resolution for the Planning Commission's consideration. However, if the
Planning Commission determines that finding 8.104.090A can be made for this project, then the
Planning Commission should provide Staff with the basis of the finding and Staff will continue
processing the All American Label Site Development Review application. Under this scenario,
the proposed project would be thoroughly reviewed and analyzed by Staff. The project would
then be brought forward to the Planning Commission at a future hearing for full consideration.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Pursuant to Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Staff
recommends that the Planning Commission find the denial of this Project to be found Statutorily
Exempt from CEQA review. CEQA Guidelines Section 15270 states that projects which are
5 of 7
denied are not subject to the provisions of CEQA, and therefore environmental review is not
required.
CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE:
As noted in the previous section, Staff finds that the proposed project is not consistent with the
General Plan. Staff has not completed a full analysis of the project's consistency with the
Zoning Ordinance.
REVIEW BY APPLICABLE DEPARTMENT AND AGENCIES:
The SDR application has not yet been fully reviewed by all City departments and outside
agencies. A preliminary review by the Fire Department has shown that the project, as
proposed, does not meet fire access requirements.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
In accordance with State law, a Public Notice was mailed to all property owners and occupants
within 300-feet of the proposed project. The Public Notice was also published in the Valley
Times and posted at several locations throughout the City. At the writing of this Staff Report, no
letters have been received regarding the project. A copy of this Staff Report was provided to the
Applicant.
ATTACHMENTS: 1) All American Label Incompleteness letter, dated August 11, 2008
2) Planning Commission Staff Report, dated November 12, 2008
3) Planning Commission Resolution 08-37
4) Resolution denying Site Development Review fora 4,456 square foot
addition to an existing 23,994 square foot building at 6958 Sierra Court,
with the Project Site Plan attached as Exhibit A.
5) Letter to City from Peter MacDonald, dated June 8, 2011
6) General Plan Guidelines (page 50)
7) General Plan Guidelines (page 16)
8) City Council September 14, 1992 Agenda Statement (with excerpts from
the original Attachment 1)
INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE: The above attachments and all resolutions referenced in
this staff report are incorporated herein by reference.
6 of 7
GENERAL INFORMATION:
APPLICANT/:
PROPERTY OWNER:
LOCATION:
ASSESSORS PARCEL
NUMBER:
GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE DESIGNATION:
SPECIFIC PLAN
LAND USE DESIGNATION:
SURROUNDING USES:
Charles Huff, Architect, 4446 Railroad Ave., Pleasanton, CA
94566
Brad Brown, All American Label, 6958 Sierra Ct., Dublin, CA
94568
6958 Sierra Ct
941-2576-006
Business Park/Industrial
n/a
Location Zoning General Plan Current Use of
Pro ert
North Planned Development Medium-High Density Apartment
Residential Complex
South M-1 (Light Industrial) Business Indoor
Park/Industrial Recreational
East M-1 (Light Industrial) Business Light Industrial
Park/Industrial
West M-1 (Light Industrial) Stream Corridor Alamo Creek
REFERENCES:
General Plan
Zoning Ordinance
7 of 7