HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.1 All American Label Appeal~~~~ Off' nU~~~
/ii ~ 111
L~~ - ~ ~~~
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
CITY CLERK
File #410-30
November 15, 2011
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
~~
Joni Pattillo, City Manager ° ~'
SUBJECT: PLPA-2011-00020 Appeal of Planning Commission denial of the All American
Label Site Development Review fora 4,456 square foot addition to an existing
building (Continued from October 4 and November 1, 2011 meetings)
Prepared by John Bakker, City Attorney
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
At its October 4, 2011 and November 1, 2011 meetings, the City Council considered an appeal
of the Planning Commission's denial of a Site Development Review approval 4,456 square foot
addition to an existing 23,994 square foot building at 6958 Sierra Court. At the November 1,
2011 meeting, the City Council directed the City Attorney to prepare findings for the City Council
to reverse the Planning Commission's action. The City Attorney has prepared the attached
Resolution granting the appeal, reversing the Planning Commission's decision, and directing
Staff to process the application for Site Development Review approval.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council take one of the following actions: (a) Adopt the
Resolution granting the appeal and reversing the Planning Commission's adoption of Resolution
11-24 denying a Site Development Review fora 4,456 square foot addition to an existing 23,994
square foot building at 6958 Sierra Court; OR (b) Adopt the Resolution affirming the Planning
Commission's adoption of Resolution 11-24 ddenying a Site Development Review permit for a
4,456 square foot addition to an existing 23,994 square foot building at 6958 Sierra Court and
affirming the Planning Commission's Findings; OR (c) Take no action, the result of which would
be to affirm the Planning Commission action by operation of law.
~ ~,~~ ;~°
~ ._
Submitted By Reviewed By
Director of Community Development Assistant City Manager
Page 1 of 3 ITEM NO. 7.1
DESCRIPTION:
The Project site is located at the north end of Sierra Court, adjacent to the Alamo Creek trail to
the west and the Park Sierra Apartments to the northeast. The subject building is currently
occupied by All American Label. Sometime after November 2008, a building addition was
constructed without Planning and Building permits, the discovery of which led to enforcement
actions by the City. Subsequently, Charles Huff submitted an application on behalf of the
property owner, Brad Brown, for Site Development Review approval for the 4,456 square foot
addition. On August 23, 2011, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 11-24 denying
the application on the grounds that it was inconsistent with the General Plan. On September 1,
2011, Steve Poplar of Label Concepts filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action.
The City Council considered the appeal at its October 4, 2011 and November 1, 2011 hearings.
The focus of the appeal was on whether the General Plan permits development in the Business
Park/Industrial land use category to be approved that exceeds a Floor to Area Ratio (FAR) of
0.40. The Applicant asserted that the following language in the description of the Business
Park/Industrial General Plan land use category indicates that the FAR in the Business
Park/Industrial category may exceed 0.40 if the proposed development meets the City's
otherwise applicable parking and landscaping requirements:
"Maximum attainable ratios of floor area to site area (FAR) are controlled by parking and
landscaping requirements and typically result in .35 and .40 FAR's. Examples: Clark
Avenue, Sierra Court."
Staff disagrees, due to the fact that the title of the Business Park/Industrial land use category
indicates that the FAR is ".30 to .40." Staff also noted that state law requires that General Plan
land use designations include standards of population density and building intensity. Because
Staff viewed the project as inconsistent with the General Plan, Staff did not complete the typical
review of the project and asked the Planning Commission to deny the project on the grounds
that it could not be approved due to inconsistency with the General Plan. Staff did not review
other issues that must be reviewed before the Project could be approved. Therefore, Staff
noted that, if the Planning Commission's action were reversed, it would continue processing the
application, at which point it would be thoroughly reviewed and analyzed by Staff.
Additional detail on the appeal is set out in the November 1, 2011 staff report (Attachment 1).
After deliberating at the November 1, 2011 meeting, the City Council concluded that the
language in the General Plan was susceptible to the interpretation that the FAR in the Business
Park/Industrial designation may exceed .40 if the proposed project meets the otherwise
applicable landscaping and parking requirements. Therefore, the City Council directed the City
Attorney to prepare findings reversing the Planning Commission action.
The City Attorney has prepared the requested Resolution (Attachment 2). The resolution grants
the appeal and reverses the Planning Commission action. It also directs Staff to continue
processing the application for Site Development Review approval.
If the City Council does not approve the Resolution or otherwise does not take action on the
appeal, the Planning Commission's decision would be deemed affirmed. Section 8.136.060 of
the Zoning Ordinance specifies that if an action is not taken within 75 days of the proper filing of
Page 2 of 3
an appeal (September 1, 2011 in this case), the decision being appealed shall be deemed
affirmed.
In order that the City Council has the full range of options available to it, Staff has also included
the resolution (Attachment 3) rejecting the appeal that was presented at the October 4, 2011
and November 1, 2011 City Council meetings.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
The appeal was the subject of a noticed public hearing, and, at the conclusion of the public
hearing, the City Attorney was directed to prepare the attached resolution for presentation to the
City Council at tonight's meeting. No additional noticing is required.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. November 1, 2011 City Council Staff Report (Item 6.1)
2. Resolution granting the appeal of Steve Poplar of Label Concepts
Corp., thereby reversing the Planning Commission's decisions
denying the Site Development Review approval for the All American
Label project (PLPA-2011-00020), and directing Staff to process the
application for Site Development Review
3. Resolution affirming the Planning Commission's adoption of
Resolution 11-24 denying a Site Development Review permit for a
4,456 square foot addition to an existing 23,994 square foot building
at 6958 Sierra Court and affirming the Planning Commission's
Findings
Page 3 of 3
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
CITY CLERK
File #410-30
DATE: November 1, 2011
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:. Joni Pattillo, City Managerd~ ~
SUBJECT: PlPA-2011-00020 Appeal of Planning Commission denial of the All American
label Site Development Review for a 4,456 square foot addition to an existing
building
Prepared by Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a Site
Development Review Permit for a 4,456 square foot addition to an existing 23,994 square foot
building at 6958 Sierra Court. The Proposed Project was determined to be 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 ParkJlndustrial land use category. This item
was continued from the October 4, 2011 City Council meeting.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Disclose Ex Parte
Contacts; 3) Reopen the public hearing; 4) Take testimony from the Applicant and the public; 5)
Close the public hearing and deliberate; and either 6) Affirm .the Planning Commission's
adoption of Resolution 11-24 denying a Site Development Review Permit for a 4,456 square
foot addition to an existing 23,994 square foot building at 6958 Sierra Court and affirming the
Planning Commission's Findings; OR 7) Direct the City Attorney to prepare findings for the City
Cour;1cil to reverse the Planning Commission's action.
~~
{?k~~l-
Reviewed By
Assistant City Manager
Figure 1: Vicinity Map
Submitted By
Director of Community Development
DESCRIPTION:
Page 1 of 8
ITEM NO. 6.1
Background
The project site is located at
the north end of Sierra Court,
adjacent to the Alamo Creek
trail to the west and the Park
Sierra Apartments to the
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.
~ I. ...."'.. ,'.
,~"~\':' . <.-> '-' .. --'if
~x- \ " ':\ ~
.- ."; 'fl-;'~J!"~~.\'~'~~~' ,:. 7." 1=.r..'y).; :i:\~
., , 1. ", \,. . . .) ~... .;
.. I f'~.,..,',"" '(....
_(", ._ ;~.;;-;...,:\ '>-< ..' ~'.' . 'l:"" ~ ,;
\~ . :.' r . ~"'Jr' ~\. J;' ," ~,
: . --' i ..:. ,. ~.. "\,...
..." ['." .,' "". . ....'\. ,~, '- " .
>tl (~i" \>'~"
,r. /' . 0' I .. ~..
. .' . ~". .' I '\.. ~ ..
, I. . , ... "/1iff ""...t t r .,,~ . "'1-
f /" J . '. ...., ... '. < ",'j~
. ' ..J__ ,,,. ~
_'. 11 I -,- '~:"-'~"~
I · .....:< ..:...
Par\( Sierra
.
The 1.37 acre project site
includes a permitted 23.994
square foot industrial building
that has recently been
expanded with an unpermitted
4,456 square foot addition.
The project site is depicted in Figure 1.
Figure 2: General Plan Map
"1
-'I
The project site is located in the larger
Sierra CourtiTrinity 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 CourtiTrinity Court
area have a General Plan land use
designation of Business Park/Industrial,
as shown in Figure 2.
"1t1~f
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 Parklindustrial (FAR: .30 to
.40; employee density: 360-490 square
feet per employee),
Uses are non-retail businesses
(research, limited manufacturing and
distribution activities, and a<tn inistrative
offices) that do not involve heavy trucking or generate nuisances due to emissions, noise, or
open uses. Residential uses are not permitted. Maximun attainable ratios of "oar 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:
Page 2 of 8
The proposed site is located in the M-1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District. Most of the parcels in
the Sierra Courtffrinity Court area are located in M-1 (Light Industrial) and PO (Planned
Development), zoning districts, as shown in Figure 3.
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 Courtffrinity 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
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 s~e.
Figure 3: Zoning Map
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. "
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 endosed 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 Resok.rtion 08-37, permming the
construction of the unenclosed outdoor storage area and the associated Conditions of Approval
(Attachments 1 and 2). At some point after the Plannilg 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 Munic~1 Code. On May 24,2011, the Court
granted the City's preliminary irlunction prohibiting the ApplicMt's use of the building add~ion 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.
Page 3 of 8
In an effort to legalize the unpennitted structure, Mr. Charles Huff (Architect), dn behalf of Mr. Brad
Brown (Owner), has applied for Site Development Review approval for the 4,456 square foot
building addition,
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The Planning Commission reviewed the Proposed Project at a public hearing on August 23,
2011. After considerable discussion, the Planning Commission. voted 4-1 to deny the. project.
because it was inconsistent with the General Plan.
The subject property has a Business Parkllndustrial 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 Footage FAR
Existino Buildino 23,944 .40
With Proposed 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 3.
The Applicant disagrees with the City Attorney, Planning Commission, and City 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 (Attachment 4). 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.
Planning Commission Resolution 11-24 is included as Attachment 3 and the draft August 23,
2011 Meeting Minutes are included as Attachment 5 to this Staff Report.
APPEAL PROCESS AND CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Site Development Review Appeal
Chapter 8.136 of the Zoning Ordinance contains the regulations and procedures that must be
followed if an action of the Planning Commission is appealed to the City Council. In brief, an
appeal and filing fee must be filed with the City Clerk within 10 calendar days of the Planning
Commission action The appeal must be scheduled for a Public Hearing within 45 days of the
filing of the appeal. The City Council may defer decision on the appeal at the Public Hearing but
must take action within 75 days of the filing of the appeal:
On September 1, 2011, Steve Poplar of Label Concepts filed an appeal of the Plaf)ning.
Commission's denial of the Site Development Review application (Attachment 6). In
accordance with Chapter 8136, the City Council must hold a Public Hearing by October 16,
2011 'and must take action by November 15, 2011.
Page 4 of 8
Chapter 8.136 of the Zoning Ordinance states that the City Council may, by majority vote, affirm,
affirm in part, or reverse the Planning Commission's decision. If the City Council decides to
affirm the Planning Commission decision, the draft Resolution (Attachment 7) shall be approved.
City Council hearing on October 4,2011
The City Council held a public hearing on this item on October 4, 2011. After receiving public
input, discussion, and consideration of the application, the City Council voted to continue the
item to the November 1, 2011 City Council meeting. The City Council's discussion centered on
the issues of clarity of the Business Park/Industrial land use category description in ihe General
Plan and on wanting to ensure that businesses in the area had the ability to grow and expand.
Another one of the issues brought up by the City Council was that of legal non-conforming uses
that were created as a result of the City's General Plan Amendment in 1992, which was required
by the change in state law. The City Council meeting minutes are included as Attachment 8.
At the October 4, 2011 hearing, the City Council directed Staff to continue this item to the
November 1, 2011 City Council meeting. The City Council also directed Staff to prepare a Staff
Report on options for initiating a General Plan Amendment for the Business Park/Industrial
areas on Sierra Court and enacting a moratorium on new development until the General Plan
issue has been resolved. The General Plan Amendment and Development Moratorium issue is
presented in a separate Staff Report for the City Council's consideration at this meeting.
If the City Council decides to reverse the Planning Commission's decision to deny the Project,
the City Council would need to determine that a finding of GeneralPlan conformance can be
made for this project, pursuant to Section 8.104 090.A of the Zoning Ordinance. This decision
would bE! counter to the City Attorney's opinion as stated at the October 4, 2011 City Council
meeting, that based on state law requirements that General Plans contain density ranges, as
well as the 1992 amendments to the General Plan that are detailed below, that the FAR
maximum for the Business Park/Industrial General Plan land use category is OAO. The City
Council would provide Staff with the basis of the determination and direct the City Attorney to
prepare findings to reverse the Planning Commission action. Staff would then 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.
ANALYSIS:
'1992 Amendments to the General Plan
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 9). The Guidelines further describe a "standard" as a
rule or measure that must be complied with (Guidelines p. 16, Attachment 10), 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.
Page 5 of 8
)
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
Statement illustrates that each land use category was revised to include information about the
allowable FAR range as well as the employee density range. In order to be in compliance with
the General Plan Guidelines, the Business Park/Industrial land use category (outlined by a red
box) was amended to include an allowable FAR range of .30 to AD,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 11 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 and should be interpreted as descriptive
rather than mandatory. In 1992, 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 pian clarifies that projects are not guaranteed the maximum
permissible amount of development under the density range; the actual project density may
come in loWer.
The. 0.30 to AD FAR range has been in the Business Park/Industrial General Plan land use
category 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. As stated at the
October 4, 2011 City Council meeting, it is the City Attorney's opinion, based on state law
requirements that General Plans contain density ranges and the 1992 amendments to the
General Plan, that the FAR maximum is indeed 0.40.
Previous correspondence sent to the Applicant. on this topic has been consistent with the
historical interpretation of the FAR range being the minimum and maximum allowable for any
given site. A letter sent to the Applicant in 2008 explained that the maximum FAR for the site is
AD in accordance with the Business ParkJlndustrialland use designation, and the interpretation
provided in this Staff Report and in Planning Commission Resolution 11_24 is no different.
Legal Non-Conforming Uses
The Zoning Ordinance defines a legal non-conforming use as the use of a structure or land that
was legally established prior to the effective date of the Zoning Ordinance but which does not
conform to the current provisions of this Zoning Ordinance. A non-conforming use type includes
examples as varied as a building that does not m'eet current setback requirements, to a.
business located in a zoning district where that same type of business would not be permitted
today, to a tenant or business sign that is too big to be permitted under the current regulations.
All of these situations describe a non-conforming, but legally-established, use that can continue
to operate and exist even thouqh it would not be allowed under today's standards.
Legal non-conforming uses are often established when the Zoning Ordinance is amended, or
when a specific plan or general plan amendment is adopied that changes standards or policy
guidance in any particular area. The establishment of legal no"n-conforming uses is not unusual.
Page 6 of 8
"' I ' . .~.,.. ..-
Most of the buildings in the Sierra Court area were built prior to Dublin's incorporation in 1982.
Some of the buildings were built at a density that is higher than would be permitted under
today's standards, which is a Floor Area Ratio of AO. When the General Plan was amended in
1992 to add the, density standards and a FAR range of ,30 to AO was specified, any site with a
FAR over 040 became legal non-conforming. The buildings were legally established, and they
could be maintained, repaired, and could continue to exist. Non-conforming status does not
limit the transfer of ownership of the properties nor does it limit the ability of the existing
business, or any legally-permitted business in the zoning district, to continue to operate. What
is limited is the ability to further increase the size of the building IT it is already at the 040 FAR
maximum.
General Plan Amendment Study Initiation
Another item on the Novem ber 1, 2011 City Council meeting agenda is the possible initiation of
a General Plan Amendment study to examine changing the maximum FAR in the Business
Park/Industrial land use category from 040 to .50. If the City Council decides to affirm the
Planning Commission's adoption of Resolution 11-24 denying a Site Development Review
Permit for the project, the City Council could also decide to initiate a General Plan Amendment
study as described inthe separate Staff Report. A future amendment to the General Plan could
provide the Applicant an opportunity to move forward with their proposed project if an
amendment to raise the maximum FAR were approved.
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."
The Planning Commission was not able to make this finding. and therefore Resolution 11-24,
denying the project, was approved by the Planning Commission on August 23, 2011.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:.
Pursuant to Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Staff
recommends that the City Council find the denial of this Project to be Statutorily' Exempt from
CEQA review. CEQA Guidelines Section 15270 states that projects which are 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 recommended, and the Planning Commission-found, that
the Proposed Project is hot consistent with the General Plan. Staff has not completed a full
analysis of the project's consistency with the Zoning Ordinance.
REVIEW BY AI:PLlCABLE 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.
Page 7 of 8
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 for the October 4, 2011 hearing. The Public Notice was
also published in the Valley Times and posted at several locations throughout the City. The
item was continued from that hearing to November 1, 2011, so a.new notice was not required to
be distributed,
Prior to the October 4, 2011 public hearing, five comment letters were received on the. project
They are included as Attachments 12 to 16. A copy of this Staff Report was provided to the
Applicant.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated November 12,.2008 (without attachments)
2. Planning Commission Resolution 08-37
3. Planning Commission Resolution 11-24, denying Site Development Review for a 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
4, Letter to City from Peter MacDonald, dated June 8, 2011
5, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated August 23, 2011 .
6. Appeal letter from Steve Poplar, dated September 1, 2011
7, Resolution affirming the Planning Commission's adoption of Resolution 11-24 denying a
Site Development Review Permit for a 4,456 square foot addition to an existing 23,994
square foot building at 6958 Sierra Court and affirming the Findings, with the Project Site
Plan attached as Exhibit A
8. Draft City Council Meeting Minutes dated October 4, 2011
9. General Plan Guidelines (page 50)
10, General Plan Guidelines (page 16)
11. City Council September 14, 1992 Agenda Statement (with excerpts from the original
Attachment 1)
12. Comment letter from Phil Gelhaus, dated Octobe'r 4, 2011
13, Comment letter from Brian Driscoll, dated October 4, 2011
14. Comment letter from Fredrick Falender, dated September 23,2011
15. Comment letter from Steven Roeser, dated October 3, 2011
16. Comment letter from Glenn Araca, dated October 3,2011
P~ge 8 of 8
AGENDA STATEMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: November 12,2008
SUBJECT:
PUBLIC HEARING: PA 08-020 All American Label Conditional
Use Permit and Site Dcnlopment Re\'icw to allow a Con red
Outdoor Storage Area at 6958 Sierra Courl (Quasi-Judicial)
Report prepared h,l' .\fartha Aja. A.H;.,talll Plallller
I) Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit and Site
Development Review to allow exterior modifications to the
project sitc. which consists of the addition of a covered storage
area at All American Label located at 6958 Sierra Court.
2) Project Plans.
3) Letter from the Applicant.
4) Steel pole color sample.
5) Steel roof color sample.
J) Receive Stan' 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 Resolution (Attachment I) approving a Conditional Use
Permit and Site Development Review to allow exterior
modilications to the project site, which consists of the addition
of a covered storage area at All American Label located at 6958
Sierm Court.
ATTACHMENTS:
RECOMMENDATION:
,," \ I
, \
PRO.IECT DESCRIPTION:
The project site is located at 6958 Sierra Court. The
project site is approximately 1.3 acres in size. An
existing 23.994 square loot building currently exists
on-site. The existing building is primarily warehouse
with associated ollice space. The existing building
ineludes 2.800 square feet of omce space and 21.194
square teet of warehouse. The project site has a
General Plan designation of Business Parkllndustrial
and is zoned M-I (Light Industrial), which allows
industrial uses. The property is located at the end of
Sierra Court as indicated in the vicinity map to the letl.
The proposed project consists of a Conditional Use
Pemlit (CUP) and Sitc Development Rcview (SDR)
to allow an exterior modilication to the project site,
which consists of the addition of covered outdoor
storage area.
COPIES TO: Applicant
Property Owner
File
(i:\PA/l!\200g'PA 08-020 All A~-ncall.ahcl S()Rlp(' SlatYRcp.n II 12_~ dtliC
ITEM NO.: S. 2.
Page I 01'5
.."
BACKGROUND:
All American Label has been in business for more than IOyears and they have been at their current location
for the past 3 years. All American Label is a full service label printer business. The business has expanded
over the. past few years and consequently All American Label bas c.utgrown their existing building. The
proposed outdoor storage area will be used to provide additional st.)rage space for All American Label
business.
ANALYSIS:
Conditional Use Permit
Chapter 8.12 of the Zoning Ordinance (Zoning Districts and Pennitted Uses of Land) indicates that an
equipment and materials storage yard is permitted in the M-I Zoning District with a Conditional Use Permit
reviewed by the Planning Commission..
The Applicant has requested approval of a 4,456 square foot outdoor storage area adjacent to the building in
the northern portion of the site (Refer to Attachment 2). The Iron Hon:e Trall is located west of the project
site. Mature vegetation exists along the western property boundary, wl'ich will screen the proposed outdoor
storage area from individuals utilizing the trail. An apartment complex is located approximately 90 feet north
of the project site. There is an existing Wall along the adjacent proP('rly located north of the project site,
which will.screen the outdoor storage area f~om residents in this apartroent complex. The other surrounding
properties include industrial uses.
The Applicant is unable to add onto the existing building because the c'ment Floor Area Ratio of the project
site is the maximum as allowed by the City of Dublin's General Plan. The project site's Land Use
Designation is Business Parkflndustrial, which allows a maximum Floor Area Ratio of 0.40. The current
Floor Area Ratio for the project site is 0.40; therefore, the proposed outdoor storage area is the only avenue
available to thi: Applicant to create additional storage space on his property.
The proposed outdoor storage area will serve as an Oil-site location [.)r All American Label to store their
business's inventory. The Applicant will be storing a variety ofmaterias in the covered outdoor storage area
including pressure sensitive paper and corrugated boxes. Currently, Ar American Label has their inventory
stored outside and the inventory is brought inside every night. The addition of the covered storage area to the
site will provide protection to the inventory from the elements and also discourage vandalism.
Parking Analvsis .
The City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance contains off-street parking requirements by use type., A Light
Industrial UseType is required to provide I parking space per 400 squa:e feet of general purpose area, plus I .
parking space per 1,000 square ,feet of warehouse or distribution area. As previously stated, the office area is
2,800 square feet and the warehouse area is 21,194 square feet. The proposed outdoor storage area is required
to provide] parking space per 1,000 square feet. The proposed outdoor ;torage area is 4,456 square feet.
A total of 29 on-site parking spaces are required' for this use based on the existing and proposed uses (see
Table below).
201'5
Light Industrial Use Type (as listed in the Zoning Ordinance).' Parking required per
Warehouse =1 space per i,OOOsquarefeet City Code
General Purpose Area = 1 space per 400 square feet
General Purpose Area - 2,800 7 parking spaces'
Printing/Warehouse - 21,194 square feet 21 parking spaces
Proposed Outdoor Storage Area - 4,456 square feet 4 parking spaces
10% Parking Reduction '3 parking spaces
Total Parking Spaces Required 29 parking spaces
Parkin!!
The Applicant is able to accommodate all 29 parking spaces on site, which includes an overall 10%
reduction for the site as allowed by Section 8.76.050.D of the Zoning Ordinance. The 10% reduction
accounts for the need and use of parking throughout an average day. A condition has been placed on the
project which requires the Applicant to re-stripe the parking area to achieve the 29 required parking
spaces on-site (Condition No. 15, Attachment 1).
The proposed equipment and materials storage yard is' appropriate for the site because the proposed
location of the outdoor storage area is located in the Sierra Court Business Park, which has a variety of
industrial uses. The storage area is in association with an existing building and is compatible with the
cxisting and allowed uses of the project site. The draft findings for this Conditional Usc Pcrmit request
can be found on pages 2 and 3 of Attachment I.
Site Development Review
The Applicant is proposing a 4,456 square foot covered storage area. The color and materials are
consistent with the existing building. The outdoor storage area will be supported by ] 1 steel columns,
which will be painted to match the existing building (please refer to Attachment 4 for color sample). The
roof of the outdoor storage area will consist of steel roof panels pahted surf sand to match the existing
roof (please refer to Attachment 5 for roof color sample). The propo,ed height of the roof of the' storage
area ranges in height from ]6';(" (portion closest to the existing building) to 24'8" (portion farthest from
the existing building). The covered outdoor storage area is consistent with the height of the existing
building.
Thc proposed moditications are appropriate for the site because the outdoor storage area is compatible with
the existing building and the use of the site. The project site is located within the Sierra Business Park and it
is surrounded by a variety of industria] uses. The site is visible from the Alamo Creek Trail; however.
existing vegetation along the rear. of the property will help screen th,: covered outdoor storage area from
individuals utilizing the trail: The draft tindings for the Site Development Review can be found on pages 3
and 4 of Attachment 1.
Public Notice
In accordance with State law, a public notice regarding this hearing was mailed to all property owners and
occupants within 300 feet }If the proposed project. A public notice was also published in the Valley
Times and posted at several locations throughout the City. To date, the City has not received comments
or objections from surrounding property owners or tenants regarding the current proposal.
30f5
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The project has been reviewed under the California Envir6mnental Quality Act, (CEQA), Slate CEQA
Guidelines and the Dublin Environmental Guidelines, and the projec: has b~en found to be Categorically
Exempt from the California EnVironmental Quality Act (CEQA), ;\cCording to the CEQA Guidelines
Section 1530 I (Minor alteration of e:dsting facilities).
CONCLUSION:
Thc proposed covered outdoor storage area at All American Label will provide the property owner with
additional storage space on the. property. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the
Dublin General Plan and the Dublin Zoning District in which the project site is located and represents an
appropriate projcct for the site.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission; I) Receive Stalf presentation; 2) Open thc public
hearing; 3) Take testimony from the Applicant and the public; 4) Close the pubiic hearing and deliberate;
and 5) Adopt Resolution. (Attachment I) approving a Conditional Use Permit and Sitc Development
Review to allow exterior modifications to the project site, which cnnsists of the addition of a covered
storage area at All American Label located at 6958 Sierra,Court.
40f5
GENERALINFORMATION:
APPLICANT:
Tom Vargas
All American Label
6958 Sierra Court
Dublin, CA 94568
PROPERTY OWNER:
Brad Brown
All American Label
6958 Sierra Court
Dublin, CA 94568
LOCATION:
6958 Sierra Court
ASSESSORS PARCEL
NUMBER:
941-2756-006
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
Business Park/Industrial
EXISTING ZONING:
Light Industrial (M- I)
SURROUNDING USES:.
LOCATION ZONING GENERAL PLAN LAND CURRENT USE OF PROPERTY I
., USE
PD (PA 97-019) Medium-High Density Residential
North Residential
South M-I (Light Business Park/Industrial Industrial
Industrial)
West R-1 (Single- Single Family Residential Alamo Creek Trail
family
Residential)
East M-I (Light Retai I Office Injustrial
Industrial)
Project Site M-] (Light Business Park/Industrial Injustrial
Industrial)
5of5
RESOLUTION NO. 08 - 37
A .RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMlT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW PERMIT TO ALLOW A COVERED OUTDOOR STORAGE AREA IN THE LIGHT
INDUSTRIAL (M-l) ZONING DISTRICT AT 6958 SIERRA COURT (APN 941-2756-006)
P A 08-020
. WHEREAS, Tom Vargas, the Applicant, has requested approval of a Conditional Use Permit and
Site Development Review to allow an exterior modification to the project site, which consists of the addition
of a covered outdoor storage area in the Light Industrial (M-l) Zoning District at 6958 Sicrra Court; and
WHEREAS, the approximately 1.3 acre parcel is currently occHpied by a 23,994 square foot industrial
building; and
WHEREAS, the proposal includes a 4,456 square foot coveted outdoor storage area to the project
site; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan land use designation for the proiect site is Business ParklIndustrial and
the zoning is Light Industrial; and
WHEREAS, a complete application for the above noted entitlement request is available and on file
in the Community Development Department; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant has submitted project plans dated received October 28, 2008; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State guidelines
and City environmental regulations require that certain projects be I<viewed for environmental impact and
that environmental documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the Dublin General Plan and the
Zoning District in which it is located, and represents an appropriate plOject for the site; and
WHEREAS, this project is categorically exempt from the environmental review requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 {Existing
Facilities); and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted outlining the issues surrounding the request; and
WHEREAS the Planning Commission held a-properly notice,[ public hearing on said application on
November 12, 2008;.and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations and
testimony herein above set forth and used their independent judgment to make a decision,
Page 1 of 8
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of Dublin Planning Commission does
hereby make the following findings and determinations:
Conditional Use Permit:
A. The proposed use and related structures are compatible with other land uses, transportation and
service facilities in the vicinity because: I) the proposed location of the outdoor storage area is
located in the Sierra Court Business Park area whieh has a wide variety of industrial uses; 2) Section
8.12.050 states that an Equipment and Materials Storage Yard is permitted in the M-I (Light
Industrial) Zoning District with a ConditionlH Use Permit; and 3) the proposed outdoor storage area is
in association with an existing building and is compatible witl! the existing and allowed uses of the
project site.
B. The proposed use, as conditioned, . will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or
working in the vicinity, or be detrimental to the public healih, safety and welfare and will not be
injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood because: 1) the proposed use will be
adequately conditioned to ensure that the operation has no recognizable negative impacts to the
existing uses in the Light Industrial Business Park; and 2) the proposed outdoor storage area will
comply with all of the City of Dublin regulations.
C. The proposed use, under all circumstances and conditions 0/ this permit, will not be injurious to
property or improvements in the neighborhood because: I) the proposed outdoor storage area will be
used to store inventory; and 2) the storage area will comply wit1 all City of Dublin regulations.
D. There are adequate provisions for public access, water, sanitation, and public utilities and services to
ensure that the proposed use and related structures would not be detrimental to the public health,
safety. and welfare because: l) the proposed use will be operated adjacent to an existing building that
is serviced by all appropriate utilities and infrastructure; 2) th(, area was designed to accommodate a
variety of uses and the proposed use fits in with the intended uses of the area; and 3) the proposed
storage area will not be serviced by water or sanitation.
E. The subject site is physically suifable for the type, density and intensity of the use and related
structures being proposed because: ]) the existing roadway network leading to the site and the
availability of existing on-site parking is adequate to serve ,he proposed use; and 2) the covered
outdoor storage area will be located in an existing Light Indust!'ial Business Park which was designed
to support a variety of uses.
F. The proposed use will not be contrary to the 'pecific intent dauses, development regulations, and
performance standards estall/ished for the Light Industrial (M-i) zoning district because. l)
conditions of approval have been applied to the projeet te- ensure on-going compatibility with
surrounding uses; 2) the proposed use (outdoor storage) is 1 Conditional Use in the M-l (Light
Industrial) Zoning District and is permitted when the required fmdings as stated in Section 8.] 00.060
of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance can be madc; 3) the propos.~d outdoor storage area is compatible
with the existing uses found in the Sierra Court Light Industrial Business Park and therefore meets the
requirements of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance; 4) the proposed use is consistent with the intent of the
M-I (Light Industrial)' Zoning District as defined by Chapter 8.28 because the proposed outdoor
storage area is small in siz,~, meets the needs of the proJerty owner, is compatible with 'the
Page 2 of 8
sUrrOlmding land use; and 5) a total of 29 on-site parking spaces are required for this use, which
includes an overall 10% reduction for the site as allowed by Section 8.76.050.0 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
G. The approval of this Conditional Use Permit is consistent with the Dublin General Plan because: I)
the proposed use is permitted with a Conditional Use Permit and meets the intentions of the Zoning
District in which it is located; and 2) the proposed project \\ ill result in improvements to the site
which will provide a service to the property owner that is consistent with the intent of the Business
ParklIndustrial General Plan Land Use designation.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Plarming Commission does hereby make the
following findings and determination:
Site Development Review:
A. The Project, as conditioned, is consistent with the purpose ({nd intent of Chapter 8.104, with the
General Plan and any applicable Specific Plans and design guidelines because: I) the proposed
modification to the site is to allow the addition of a 4,456 square foot covered outdoor storage area
adjacent to an existing industrial building; 2) the outdoor stora.~e area is compatible with the existing
building and use of the site; and 3) the covered outdoor storage area will be used to store inventory.
B. The Project, as conditioned, is consistent with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance because: I)
the proposed project will comply with all City Regulations, including setback requirements and
height restrictions.
C. The design of the project, as conditioned, is appropriate 10 the City, the vicinity, surrounding
properties and the lot in which the project is proposed beca~se: I) prior to the construction of the
storage area, Building Permits will be required to ensure that the addition is constructed safely and in
accordance with this approval; 2) the proposed project will comply with all City Regulations; 3) the
proposed project will be compatible with similar projects in the vicinity; 4) the steel posts and roof of
the carport will be painted to match the existing building on site; and 5) the noise generated from the
construction will be minimal and will not create a nuisance.
D. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the approved development because.
1) the subject 'property is zoned M-l (Light Industrial) and the proposed project includes the addition
of a 4,456 square foot covered outdoor storage area adjacent to the existing building on site that is
consistent with the development regulations for the M-I Zonin~ District; and 2) the proposed covered
outdoor storage area will be compatible with the existing uses in the neighborhood.
E. Impacts to existing slopes and topographic features are addressed because: I) the property site is
. relatively Hat; and 2) grading will not be required for the proposed exterior modification, which
consists of the addition of a covered outdoor storage area to the site.
F. Architectural considerations including the character, scale and quality afthe design, site layout, the
architectural relationship with the site and other buildings, screening of unsightly uses, lighting,
building materials and colors and similar elements result in a project thai is harmonious with its
surroundings and compatible with other development in thi! vicinity because: I) the proposed outdoor
storage area will complement the existing building on site, thereby enhancing the overall site; and 2)
. Page 3 of 8
the colors and materials used for the covered outdoor storage area are consistent with the existirig
building on site.
G. Landscape considerations, including the location, type, size, ,;olor, texture, and coverage of plant
materials, and similar elements have been incorporated into the project to ensure visual relief,
adequate screening and an atlractive environment for the pub/ic because: 1) the project consists of
an existing light industrial property that is landscaped. .
H. The site has been adequately designed to ensure proper circ2!iation for bicyclists, pedestrians and
automobiles because: 1) no changes are being proposed to the site's circulation pattern.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City of Dublin Planning Commission does hereby
approve PA 08-020 the All American Label Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review Permit to
operate an outdoor storage area at 6958 Sierra Court, APN 941-2756-006. The project approval shall be
subject to compliance with the following Conditions of Approval f{,r a Conditional Use Permit and Site
Development Review Permit:
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Unless stated otherwise, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to the issuance of building
oermits or establishment of use, and shall be subiect to Planning Department review and approval. The
following codes represent those departments/agencies respOnsible' for monitoring compliance of the
conditions of approval: fPLl Plmming, [Bl Building. [POl Police. fPWl Public Works fADMl
Administration/City Attorney. [FlNl Finance, fFl Alameda County Fire Department. [DSRSDl Dublin San
Ramon Services District [Cm Alameda County Department of Environmental Health.
~PON.
L:NCY
GENERAL - Site Develonment Review and Conditional Use Permit
I. Approval. This Conditional Use Permit and Site PL
Development Review approval is for the approval of a
covered outdoor storage area located at 6958 Sierra
Court. This approval shall be as generally depicted and
indicated on the plans prepared by K&S Construction
dated received October 28, 2008, on file 10 the
Community Development Department, and as specified
by the following conditions of aoproval for this proiect. .
2. Permit Expiration. Construction or use shall commence PL
within one (1) year of Permit approval or the Permit shall
lapse and become null and void. Commencement .of
construction or use means the actual construction or use
pursuant. to the Permit approval or, demonstrating
substantial progress toward commencing such
construction or use. If there is a dispute as to whether"the
Permit has expired, the City may hold a noticed public
heari ng to determine the matter. Such a determination
may be processed concurrently' with revocation
proceedings in appropriate circumstances. If a Permit
expires, a new application must be made and processed
according to the reouirements of this Ordinance.
CONDITION TEXT
WHEN
REQ'D
Prior to:
SOURCE
"
On-going Standard.
One year of 8.96.020.0
approval
date
Page 4 of 8
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN SOURCE
AGI':NCY ' REQ'D
Prior to:
3. Time Extension. The original approving decision-maker PL One year of 8.96.020.E
may, upon the Applicant's written request for an approval
extension of approval prior to expiration, and upon the date
determination that any Conditions of Approval remain
adequate to assure that applicable findings of approval
, will continue to be met, grant a. ~:Re extension of
approval for a period not to exceed six 6 months.
4. Permit Validity. This Conditional Use Permit and Site PL On-going 8.96.020.F
Development Review approval shall be valid for the
remaining life of the approved struciure so long as the
operators of the subject property comply with the
proiect's conditions of approval.
5. Revocation of pennit. The Site Development Review PL On-going 8.96.020.1
and Conditional Use Permit approval shall be revocable
for cause in accordance with Section 8.96.020.1 of the
Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Any violation of the terms or
conditions of this permit shall be subiect to citation.
6. Clean-up. The Applicant/Developer shall be responsible PL On-going Standard
for clean-up and disposal of project related trash to
maintain a safe. clean, and litter-free site.
7. Modifications. Modifications or changes to this Site PL On-going 8.104.100
Development Review approval may be considered by the
Community Development Director if the modifications or
changes proposed comply with Section 8.104.100 of the
Zoning Ordinance.
8. Controlling Activities. The Applicant/Developer shall PL On-going Standard
control all activities on the project site so as not to create
a nuisance to the existing or surrounding businesses and
residences.
9. Accessoryrremporary Structures. The use of any PL On-going 8.108.020
accessory or temporary structures, such as storage sheds
or trailer/ container units used for storage or for any other
purposes, shall be subject to review and approval by the
Community Development Director.
10. Fees. ApplicantlDeveloper shall pay all applicable fees in Vari,ms Issuance of Standard
effect at the time of building permit issuance, including, building
but not limited to, Planning fees, Building fees, TVTC permit
fees, Dublin San Ramon Services District fees, Public
Facilities fees, Dublin Unified School District School
Impact fees, City of Dublin Fire Services fees, Alameda
County Flood and Water Conservation District (Zone 7)
Drainage and Water Connection fees; or any other fee that
mav be adoDted and annlicable.
II. Requirements and Standard Conditions. The Various Issuance of . Standard
Applicant/Developer shall comply with applicable Dublin building
Fire, Dublin Public Works Department, Dublin Building permit
Department, Dublin Police Services, Alameda County
Flood Control District Zone 7, Livermore Amador Valley
Transit Authority, Alameda County Public and
Environmental Health, Dublin San Ramon Services
District and the California Department of Health SelYices
requirements and standard conditions. Prior to issuance of
buildinl! permits or the installation of anv irnnrovements
Page 5 of 8
CONDmONTEXT
RESPON:
AGE:NCY
related to this project, the Developer shall supply written
statements from each such agency or department to the
Planning Department, indicating that all applicable
conditions required have been or will be met.
12. Building Codes and Ordinances. All project B
construction shall conform to all building codes and
ordinances in effect at the time of buildinQ Dermit.
13. Fire Codes and Ordinances. All project construction F
shall conform to all fire codes and ordinances in effcct at
the time of building permits. Site and Building plans shall
be provided for review and approval by the. Fire
Deollrtment.
PROJECT SPECIFIC - SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
14. Covered Storage Area. The covered outdoor storage PL
area shall consist of a 4,456 square foot steel carport
structure. The steel column poles shall be painted tan to
match the existing building. The roof shall consist of
galvalume steel painted surf sand to match the roof color
of the existinp building.
15. Parking Lot. The parking area shall be re-striped to PLIPW
achic;ve a total of 29 parking spaces. The parking
dimensions shall meet the dimensional requirements
specified III Chapter 8.76 of the Dublin Zoning
Ordinance.
16. Landscaping Any landscaping disturbed or damaged PL
during construction shall be replaced in kind, to the
satisfaction of the Director of Community Develooment.
17. Construction Fencing. The use of any temporary PW, PO,
construction fencing shall be subject to the review and F, B
approval of the Public Works Director, Dublin Police
Services, the Dublin Fire Marshall, and the Building
Official.
BUILDING DIVISION
18. Building Codes and Ordinanees. All project B
construction shall conform .to all building codes and
ordinances in effect at the time of building permit.
19. Building Permits. To apply for building permits, B
Applicant/Developer shall submit eight (8) sets of
construction 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. Applicant/Developer will be
responsible for obtaining the approvals of all participation
non-City agencies prior to the issuance of building
permits. .
20. Construction Drawings. Construction plans shall be B
fully dimensioned (including building elevations)
accuratelv drawn' (deoicting all existin" and monosed
Page 6 of 8
WHEN
REQ'D
Prior to:
Through
completion
On-going
Final
inspection
Final
inspection
Final
inspection
Installation
Through
completion
Issuance of
building
permits
Issuance of
building
oermits
SOURCE
Building
Fire
Planning
PlanninglPublic
Works
Planning
Public Works/
PolicelFire/
Building
Building
Building
Building
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN SOURCE
AGENCY REQ'D
Prior to:
conditions on site), and 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, landscape
plan and details shall be consistent with each other.
21. Addressing. Address will be required on all doors B Prior to Building
leading to the exterior of the building. Addresses shall be issuance of
illuminated and be illuminated and be able to be seen building
from the street, 5 inches in height minimum. permits
22. Engineer Observation. The Engineer of record shall be B Prior to Building
retained to provide observation services . for all frame
components of the lateral and vertical design of the inspection
building, including nailing, holddowns, straps, shear, roof
diaphragm and structural frame of building. A written
report shall be submitted to the City Inspector prior to
scheduling the [mal frame insnection.
23. Temporary Fencing. Temporary Construction fencing B Through Building
shall be installed along perimeter of all work under completion
construction. .
24. Green Building Guidelines. To the extent practical, the B Through Building
Applicant shall incorporate Green Building Measures. Completion
Green Building plan shall be submitted to the Building
Official for review.
25. Electronic File. The.Applicant/Developer shall submit all B Prior to Building .
building drawings and specifications for this project in an Final
electronic format to the satisfaction of the Building
Official pnor to the Issuance of building permits.
Additionally, all revisions made to the building plans
during the project shall be incorporated as an "As Built"
electronic file and submitted prior to the issuance of the
final occuoancv.
FIRE PREVENTION DIVISION
26. Building and Fire Codes. The project shall comply with F Through Fire
the applicable Building and Fire Codcs. Site and Building Completion
plans shall be provided for review and approval by the
Fire Denartment.
27. Project Access. Access for this project must comply with F Prior to Fire
Section 503 of the 2007 California Fire Code. issuance of
Building
Permit
DUBLIN POLICE SERVICES
28. Non Residential Security Requirements. The Applicant PO On-going . Police
shall comply with all applicable City of Dublin Non
Residential Security Ordinance Reauirements.
29. Graffiti. The Developer and/or Property Owner shall keep PO On-going Police
the site clear of graffiti vandalism on a regular and
continuous basis at all times. Graffiti resistance materials
and foliage should be used.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
30. Accessible Parking. The Applicant shall provide at least Prior to Public Works
one disabled accessible. stall that is wide enough to Filial
accommodate a "Van Accessible" stall and the pavement
Page 7 of 8
CONDITION TEXT RESI'ON. WHEN SOURCE
AGENCY REQ'D
Prior to:
slopes do not exceed 2% in any direction. All required
disabled stalls shall meet the current Title 24/ADA
standards. .
31. Handrails. The Applicant shall provide a handrail along PW Prior to Public Works
the existing path of travel from the accessible parking Final
snace to the orimarv entrance of the buildinl!.
32. Storm Drain Filter. The AppliciUlt shall install a "Triton" PW Prior to Public Works
Storm drain filter in the catch basin. Final
'.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 12"' day of November :~008.
AYES:
Schaub, Tomlinson, Wehrenberg, Biddle, King
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
P1ip
Planning Commis~,ion Chairperson
CDb~
G:\PA#!.2008\PA 08-020 Ail AmericaJ Label SDR\Resolution_doc
Page 8 of 8
RESOLUTION NO. 11. 24
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
o>~._.__.__~~......'"~,___,.~".=~,~.~_,~=~~_~~>~__~~,~'"._._~~"....__.......,.".~"..~...........~_~_....,~_~-".,...~~___.........,.',,~~.._._~._~._.,._~_.__._~_._~.~~_._'.._,~_...._
DENYING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR A 4,456 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO AN
EXISTING 23,994 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING AT 6958 SIERRA COURT
PLPA 2011-00020 (APN 941-2576-006)
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Charles Huff (Architect), on behalf of Mr. Brad Brown (Owner),
has requested approval of a Site Development Review permit to allow a 4,456 square foot
addition to an existing 23,994 square foot building at 6958 Sierra Court; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant has submitted project plans for the requested entitlement
prepared by Charles Huff, AlA received by the Planning Division on May 4, 2011, attached as
Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference; and
,
WHEREAS, the project site has a General Plan land use designation of Business
Park/Industrial, which has an allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) range of .30 to .40; and
WHEREAS, the FAR for the proposed project (existing building plus proposed addition) is
.48; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with State
guidelines and City environmental regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for
environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the CEQA, Staff has recommended that the denial of this Project
be found Statutorily Exempt pursuant to Section 15270 of the CEQA Guidelines which states
that Projects which are denied are not subject to the provisions of CEQA; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted to the Planning Commission on August 23,
2011 recommending denial of said application, which staff report is incorporated herein by
reference; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on said application;
WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports,
recommendations and testimony herein above set forth and used its independent judgment to
evaluate the project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of
Dublin does hereby make the following finding and determination regarding the proposed Site
Development Review:
A. The proposed Site Development Review is not consistent with the purposes of Chapter
8,104, Site Development Review, of the Zoning Ordinance, with the General Plan and
with any applicable Specific Plans and design guidelines because the floor area ratio
(FAR) for the existing, building is AO, which is the maximum alIowable FAR for the
Business Park/Industrial land use designation, With the proposed 4,456 square foot
addition, the FAR for the project site would be A8, which is inconsistent with the density
standards of the General Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby deny said
application, Site Development Review for All American Label, to construct a 4,456 square foot
addition to an existing 23,994 square foot building ,at 6958 Sierra Court as generally depicted in
the Project Plans prepared by Charles Huff, AlA, received by the Planning Division on May 4,
2011, labeled Exhibit A to this Resolution, and on file with the Community Development
Department.
PASSED AND APPROVED this 23rd day of August 2011 by the following vote:
AYES: Brown, Wehrenberg, Bhuthimethee
NOES: O'Keefe
ABSENT: Schaub
ABSTAIN:
Plan'ning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
planning Manager
G:\PA#\2011\PLPA-2011-00020 All Amorican L8bel SDR\PC 08,23,2001\PC D8nlal Resodocx
2
~o:t."""=
tl~;'l1fl>UI . " n"""I"1O .1I.;P........,."~1I1fH'.~~
l),'lIHJHVElBDD ~".
YIY 'jjOH S3'IWH::> LJD .
--
"t', ,
",~i~ ~
.t"' . '.
<~..:\.\.
, ...
~~.
Nlls'no ',;) ",""IS 8559
138'1il N'ltJHJ3y,J\f llV
~'/o.'V]llllilM:a.~
~
W
. ......
F
fli {
lJI '
'ff .
IS .
"
" '
II
II
i
i
, ".
.~
R
~
o
"
f
<;;
~
~
"'
m
~
w '
'"
rr
r
........ \
,\ \
.,_.._\
it7' \. .
\
\
.
,
.
i
I
I
I
I
,
I
J
.........::..........;-:::.~:..:.~.::::::::."...~:.. ..."_. ,.....,.
.:.:::. :~::;,:,: ~"':::"~:;',.":;:':':::C:'::;:.~.':,;.. '.~" '<c. ,..
.- - ~':'~,,:,~'~":'
~~.:';,(:.,.;;,:1.
LAW OFFICE
PETER MACDONALD
400 MAIN STREET, SUITE 210
PLEASANTON, CALIFORi'JIA 94566-7371
iDei'~~\/~.r
fllc:.,,;,~j ., t::,J
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
'JUN 08 2011
DUBLIN PlANNING
(925) 462-0191
FAX (925) 462-0404
pmacdonald@macdona1dlaw.net
June 8, 2011
Ms. Kristi Bascom
Principal Planner
City of Dublin,
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Subject: Supplemental Submittal PLPA.2011.00020
Information for Complete Application per Govt. Code Sec. 65940
Dear Ms. Bascom,
On behalf of All American label (Ml) , we hereby provide you with the additional
information required to enable the City to process our April 5, 2011 application for Site
Development Review (SDR) as complete,
You have raised two areas for which additional information is requested: Fire Access
and General Plan consistency.
Fire Access
The site plan we submitted for SDR approval complies with the poiicies of the Alameda
County Fire Dept. for the fully sprinklered building we are proposing, From the
designated fire access routes on our site plan, fire vehicles can get to within 200 feet of
every point of the first floor of the All American label (Ml) building, including the
proposed building addition. If the conditions of. project approval require the acquisition
of off-site easements to secure those fife access routes in-perpetuity, we will seek to
purchase those required easements.
Some of the fire access issues may require discussion during the SDR review process,
such as:
First, if we are required to obtain an easement from the Swimming Academy to the
south, there is a possibility that the Swimming Academy's single loaded drive aisle
could be expanded to enable double loaded parking, with an easement over the ML
property. That might increase the Swim Club's parking, to the benefit of the entire
rieighborhood, but might impact sorTie marginal landscaping on the AAL site. As part of
,.. -. '.'~",~~. "0, "::-.-: ".::-:~: ""."M:'d~:.. .,'.' C."',:,-, .:-;-:'. .'., ....,:',.~"
,..".,,"'......."',."" 0' ,., ""-~~C ,"'".~."~7_'_--.
_ .n__.__'"..... .". . ......... .'.
...._'.'_-..v_,_-,.~_,.,...~"'
....-...".,..,.....
,..,r,',"'_.-."~,_~_,'"
"--""- -"".
Ms. Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner
Junc 8, 2011
Page 2
the SDR process, we would want to discuss with Planning' Staff whether such an
approach would be acceptable to the City.
Second, our site plan assumes that the 20 foot public trail located adjacent to the Zone
7 canal along the entire back edge of the AAL building would be available for firefighters
to pull hoses when necessary (not fire truck access).. If the public can travel on that
public trail, there would be no basis for Zone 7 to exclude firefighters in an emergency.
In short, there is an existing and adequate public easement at that location.
Third, regarding the approved fire access road through the Park Sierra Apartments to
the north, if the SDR conditions of approval require the purchase of a fire access
easement, we will attempt to obtain that. We are already exploring that possibility with
the owner of those apartments. From the May 12, 2011 letter submitted by Park Sierra
LLC, attached, it is apparent the owner has no objection to use of that approved fire
access road by emergency vehicles as needed to access the public trail and AAL now.
Moreover, by operation of law, public safety personnel have the right to enter private
property such as the fire access route in Park Sierra Apartments as needed In exigent
circumstances. As explained by then Justice Burger speaking for the majority in Wayne
v. United States, 318 F.2d 205, 212:
"But a warrant is not required to break down a.door to enter a burning
home to rescue occupants or extinguish a fire, to prevent a shooting or to bring
emergency aid to an injured person. The need to protect or preserve life or avoid
serious injury is justification for what would be otherwise illegal absent an exigency or
emergency."
Perhaps there is a concern that the approved fire access route through the apartment
complex might become unavailable at some point in time, before the much older AAL
building reaches functional obsolescence. As a PUD zoned property, the approved fire
access route through Park Sierra apartments cannot change without an approval from
the City of Dublin. Moreover, having been constructed in the late 1990's, the apartment
building is designed to h'M1c1lejhe maximum credible earthquake, and is equipped with
fire sprinklers. Thus, the functional life of those apartment buildings is approximately
150 years - with the weak link being the concrete foundations, not the buildings
themselves. And, obsolete foundations can be replaced, if it is economically viable to
do so in 150,years or so. The layout of that long thin lot makes it probable that if the
apartment buildings ever did become economically obsolete, the same site design - the
same long fire access route used to access the back of the property now, would be
required to provide access for replacement site plan.
Fourth, in addition to the above approaches there are creative alternatives that might
also meet fire safety concerns. . For example, improvement of access through to the
public trail at the location of the Swimming Academy might allow better fire access to
. .-'.. .-: ~ ..~ " '~~. :-: ~::~_:-:~::':': ~:::: .
... _.. :.~-:::.~'.:::,~':,-.'::""~_'... _ .,.0.'_.-: ':'<_::~'-:.::.:'.:~': :,_".;; .-~^',;;.". ".-' '~':'::::~.~ ."'"
,- .-,. '. .--";.', '"..:.:.".._~'-".;.;~, ',~:'.:'~',~:','. ,-;."
:::~:-'-::,:;:-,"., 'j
I
Ms. Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner
Junc 8, 2011
Page 3
both ML and the Swimming Academy. Or, the water line that serves the apartment
complex could be extended under the 14 foot wall to provide a fire hydrant with any
needed equipment in the vicinity of the proposed building addition. Or, the approval of
the building addition could be conditioned on an agreement that if the Park Sierra fire
access route became unavailable, that building would have to perform specified
alternate compliance or be torn down, In a business friendly City, the staff works with
the applicant to provide for public safety in practical ways, 2010 CFD 503.1.1
(attached) provides the Fire Marshall with explicit authority to work with applicants to
solve access issues. The SDR'process is the process in which reasonable public and
private needs are weighed and resolved.
General Plan
We have a solid case based upon the history of the General Plan that the reference to
.4 FAR is intended to be descriptive, and not a mandatory maximum FAR. If we make
that case to the policymakers, and they reject it, then we will proceed with the required
General Plan amendment. And, should the policymakers find that the FAR of.4 is
mandatory, there is also a good case for amending the General Plan to raise the FAR to
.5 to be compatible with the existing density of 17 out of 27 properties in the Sierra
Court area, to encourage revitalization, and to be consistent with the .5 FAR allowed for
warehouse uses in East Dublin.
In fact, the controlling section of the General Plan, for the Business Park/Industrial
designation reads: "Maximum attainable ratios off/oar 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 Coult." General Plan p. 8. That language is
deliberately descriptive and not mandatory. It is also notable that this General Plan
wording has stayed exactly the same since the City of Dublin adopted its first General
Plan in 1985 (1985 General Plan p, 5, attached). Perhaps that long time consistency in
the General Plan wording is influenced by the fact that at least 17 out of 27 properties in
the Sierra Court area exceeded the 40% floor area ratio in 1985, and would have been
made non-conforming buildings if the 40% floor area ratio had been mandatory rather
than descriptive in 1985. There is further historical information in support of our thesis
that the FAR section of th!LGeneraL Planwas never intendedto.be mandatory.
But, suppose that some planners and policymakers have required that some
subsequent developments in Sierra Court conform to a AFAR maximum. If the
meaning of the General Plan can be amended by interpretation, and we are skeptical of
that, then there is no reason that it cannot change back by interpretation, in light of more
accurate historical information. If the decisions in which the .4 FAR became mandatory
were discretionary determinations, like PUD rezonings, rather than for a quasi- .
ministerial processes, like an SDR application, that is also relevant. For quasi-
legislative decisions like PUD approval, the policymaker is allowed to consider "any
rational basis" for its decision, and thus may require more stringent, standards than set
forth in ordinances and policies. But, for a quasi-ministerial determination like SDR
^~'::~~-::~"~~~~";~~~~~'::;,,~::,_::~~ ~',._ c_ :::':"'_:':": ,~.
.' ':~:::"::_'~:;':::C'_',~~'~~':"~2'::.::.::.:.:":::'::;';S'.'::,~'.':"':.'~!:: :',:~_~ :';,_:".',,'
.'''e.''.'
._'_' '. "-'''_'0' .......... . , '_ _,~. .
.'....'.._n_'_'o__-____..'___n_'.'_._.._ _ "'_'_'",'
Ms. Kristi Bascom, Prmcipal Planner
June 8,2011
Page 4
approval, involving a permitted use, the policymaker is obligated to apply existing laws,.
and its decisions must be supported by "substantial evid€nce",
Complete Application
As you know, the Permit Streamlining Act (Gov!. Code Section 65940 et seq.) relates
solely to information requirements for a complete application, and a local agency cannot
require implementation of conditions of approval as a prerequisite to processing an
application. The required information must be listed by the local agency prior to the
application submittal (Gov!. Code Section 65942). Neither the fire access easements
nor general plan amendment are contained in the City of Dublin list of required
information for processing a Site Development Review application. However,in an
effort to be as cooperative as possible we have provided the requested additional
information about how we plan to address the issues you raised.
The future of a substantial Dublin business with 25 employees depends on getting
reasonable and timely answers from the City to the questions addressed in this letter.
The number of hearings with the SDR process is only two - one with Planning
Commission, and one with City Council, if appealed. At that point we would all have
sufficient direction to plan for the future of this building addition. Applying to apply for a
general plan amendment, or appealing the incompleteness determination just delays
everyone, including the City staff, from getting the answers we all need from the policy
makers regarding the future of the proposed building addition and the AAL
manufacturing plant. Please accept our SDR application as complete and start the SDR
approval process.
Very Truly Yours,
Pb\MrYlfrcv D~
. Peter MacDonald
Cc: Mr. Brad Brown
Mr. Wallace Doolit1J~_ ..
Mr. Charles Huff
Ms. Jeri Ram.
Mr. Eric Casher
Ms. Nancy Feeley
Mr, Tim Sbranti
Attachments:
May 12, 201.1 l!'ltter from Park Sierra LLC
Fire Access Requirements - 2010 CFD 503.1.1
P. 5,1985 General Plan
Proposed Site Plan for All American Label
'. .~'~"7-~"-~'.~~""'_'","-",,---
..".,... ......--..
-"; :-:-'~:'-:..::~-:-,~:-:-:"-'~
,. .-~~ .~-'-" - '.'--".'
~~. Park ~ierrd
APARTMEaNi HOM5S
May 12, 2011
To whom it may concern:
",o,.,<",_.",:>_<.,:,,~,_c:c.c
. ,....... ....
Park Sierra LLC is the owner of Park Sierra apartments at 6450 Dougherty Road, in Dublin, Callfornia. As
part of the Park Sierra project, we developed fire access lanes in accordance with City of Dublin
standards, including a connecting gate to the public trail on Zone 7 property adjacent to Park Sierra
apartments. As property owners, we understand that In responding to exigent drcumstam:es beyond
our property it may become necessary for emergency vehicles to use the fire access route through our
property to the public trail and property beyond, such as adjacent properties at the end of Sierra Court.
Although we consider our consent to such use redundant, we have no objection to use of the fire access
lane through Park Sierra by public safety personnel to access property beyond our property in exrgent
circumstances.
Park Sierra LLC
130 Va ntis, Suite 200
Ailsa Viejo, California 92656
BY:~
Date: ~
Its Manager
i
I:
6450 Dougherty Road, Dublin, CA 94563 925/5(i0'0050 Fax 925/560-0032
email: parksierra@sheaapaltme.nts.com
www.sheeapartments.comlparksielTa
CA DRE License /J 0 j 332566
(
CHAPTER 5
FIRE SERVICE FEATURES
SECTION 501
GENERAL
(
501.1 Srope. Fire service features for buildings. structures and
premises shall comply with thls chapter.
501.2 Permits. A permit shall be required as set forth in
Appendix Chapter 1. Sections 105.6 and 105.7.
I
!
j
501.3 Construction documents. Constmction documents for
proposed fJre apparnlllS access, location of fire lanes and con-
struction documents and hydraulic calculations forfire hydrant
systems shall be submitted to the fire department for review
and approval prior to construction.
501.4 Timing or installation. When fire apparatus access
roods or a water supply for fire protection is reqnired to be
installed, such protection shail he installed and made service.
able prior 10 and during the time of construction except when
approved alternative methods of protection are provided. Tem-
porary srrcet signs shall be installed at each street intersection
when construction of new roadways allows passage by vehi-
cles in accordance with Section 505.2.
(
SECTION 502
DEFINITIONS
502.1 Definitions. The following words and terms shall. for the
purposes of this chapter and "" used elsewhere in Ilris code,
have the meanings showu herein.
FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD. A road that provides
fire apparatus access from a fJrC station to a facility, building or
portion thereof. This is a general term inclusive of all other
termB such as fire lane, public street, private street, parking lot
lane and access roadway. . ..
FIRE COMMAND CENTER. The principal 'attended or
unattended location where the status of the detection, alarm
communications and control systems is displayed, and from
whim the syslem(s) can be mannally cOntrolled.
FIREDEPARTMRNT MASTER KEY. A limited issue key
of 'peelal nt controlled design to be carried by fire department .
officials in command which will open key boxes on specified
properties.
FIRE LANE, A road 01' other passageway developed to allow
the pas, age of fire apparatus, A fire lane is not necessarily
intended (or vehicular traffic other than fire apparatus.
KEY BOX. A secure device with a lock operable only by . fire,
department master key, and containing building entry keys and
other keys that may be required for access in an emergency.
2007 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE
SECTION 503
FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS
563.1 Where required. Fire apparatus access roads ,hall be
provided and maintained in accordance with Sections 503.1.1
through 503.1.3.
503.1.1 BuHdings and facilities. Approved fire apparatus
access roads shall be provided for every facility, building or
portion' of a blulding hereafter constructed or moved into or
within the jurisdiction. The fire apparatus access road shall
comply with the requirements of thl, section and shall
extend to within 150 feet (45 720 rom) of all portions of the
facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story
of the building"" measured by an approved route arouud the
exlerior of the building or facililY.
Exception: The fire code official is authorized to
increllRe the dimen,ion of150 feet (45 720 mm) where:
1. Tbe buildiug is eqnipped throughout with an ap-
proved automatic sprinkler sy,teminstalled in ac-
cordance with Section 903.3.1.1, 903.3.1.2 or
903.3.1.3.
2. Fire apparatus access roads cannot be installed bc~
cau,e of location on property, topography, water-
ways, nonnegotiable grades or other similar
conditions. and an approved alternative means of
fire protection is provided.
3. There are not more than two Group R-3 or Group
U occunancies,
. 503.1.2 Additional access. The fire code official is autho-
rized to require more than one fire apparatus access road
based on the potential for impairment of n siugle road by
vehicle congestion, condition of terrain, climatic conditions
or other factors that could limit aCCeSS.
503.1.3 High-pRed storage. Fire department vehicle access
. . to buildings used for high-piled comhustible slomge shall
comply with the applicable provisions of Chapter 23.
503.2 Specifications. Fire apparatus acc(:ss roads shall be
installed aud arranged iu accordsnee with Section. 503.2.1
through 503.2.7. .
503.2,1 Dimensions. Fire apparatus access roods ,hall have
an unobstructed widlh of not less than 20 feet (6096 nun),
e>cept for approved security gates in nceordOnee with Sec-
tion 503,6. and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less
than 13 feel6lnehes (4115 nun).
503.2.2 Authorlty. The fire code official shall have the
authority to require an increase in the minimum access
widths where they are inadequate for fire or rescne opera-
tions.
503.2.3 Surface. Fire apparatns access roads .hall be
designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of
v
61
"""'~::C"V:""~.~:':>... .'...:.: :.:,~: :.. .-, 0-. .., >,.. ".,..,.'-'. ,,',
-,-.~..'.-,-.'. '.,' '.','.
" ,,,,,;:,.,,,,>~.',
.....,...,'...,.,
. ,~. - ~ ~,~~~.; c~ ~.,,"~':,~:_~::, ~.~:::':::'::::~~::~ ~ ~ -'". 0.... :~::~ :::-::::::-':,-~-=-':'=-~--':::~',:'~~:-':,:"-,'-1"'-',~,
.
,
Page 5, 1985 General Plan
Residential: Medium Density (6.1 to 14.0 units per gross residential acre). The
range allows duplex, townhouse, and garden apartment development.~itable for family
living. Except where mixed dwelling types are designated, unit types and densities
may be similar or varied. Where, the plan requires mixed dwelling types, listed
policies specific to the site govern the location and distribution of dwelling types.'
Assumed household size is two persons per unit. Recently reviewed projects in the'
medium density range include Parkway Terrace (7.8) and Amador Lakes wes,t of the
Dougherty Hills (13.5 )'.
Residential: Medium-High Density (14.1 to 25.0 units per gross residential acre).
Projefts at the upper end of this range normally will require some under-structure
parking and will have three Or more living levels in order to 'meet zoning ordinance
open space requirements. Assumed household size is two persons per unit. Examples
of medium-high density projects include The Springs (17.8) and Greenwood Apartments
(19.8) .
Oommercial/Industria1
Retail/Office. Shopping centers, stores, restaurants, business 'and professional
offices, motels, service stations, and sale of auto parts are included in this
classification. Residential ,use is excluded except in the DoWntown Intensification
Area.
.
,
Retail/Office and Automotive. This classification includes all retail/office uses
and adds auto dealerships, auto body' shops, and similar uses. Residential uses are
not permitted.
Business park/Industrial. 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.
Business Park/Industrial: OUtdoor Storage. In addition to the Business
Park/Industrial uses described above, this classification includes retail and
manufacturing activities conducted outdoors such as mobile home or construction
mater.ials storage. Exampl.e: Scarlett Court.
Public/Semi-public
Public/Semi:'Public FaciIIfieii. Uses other 'than parks oWned by a public agency that'
are of sufficient size to warrant differentiation from adjoining uses are,labeled.
Development of housing on a site designated on the-~eral Plan as semi-public shall
be considered consistent with the General Plan. Determination as to whether hOUSing
should be permitted On a specific semi-public site and the acceptable density and
design will be through review of a planned Unit Development proposal under the zoning
Ordinance. Examples: Public and private schools, churches.
Parks!public Recreation. ' Publicly owned parks and recreat~on facilities.
e' Open Space. ' ,Included are areas' dedicated as open space on subdivision maps, slopes
greater than 30 percent, stream protection corridors, woodlands, and grazing lands;
5
-~~J,.1.: ,
,,"r~f .
/ ,
~ / .'--
-- -"""BUILDING FOR, . CA N
ALL AMERI
6958 Sierra Ct.
',-."-'.".'."
.'.'.- -----
I
oi.
~
f;
()
m
en.
en
en
::;
m
"
!>
z
. 'i~
'. Iii
, I"
. I'
. '.
. .
.! ill
,j II!
Iii
,.
i
~
~
~
'-
\.
./
/
"'
!ii
.~.
8.
c
~~
1
.
, '"
I
J
,.r!
\I
\
\,
I
.
.,! ~
. - ~
r~'r .!
I,
"~
.,
t
1
, .
. ~~ .
; ~"
: * "
I < \I~
~ 0 "
~ c
H ~
~~
H
., ,
.,
1~
~i
. 3~
. S :t
.....::..
,~
W
Ej"'!E--
~ JolIN...
Ac~~' '.
CHARL~~U:FE ~I.f.
ARC. . : I - (t251'".t-S1;~~
j44~R'I~A""B"U'lI._ ~"'~~~~;::::..... .."
LABEL ~
. DUBUN
, ' A,'>\' ~5I.IYJA;'h,
<%~>/'" "'::,~
il/ I <(i~
~€~~
",'f'l"~~"\"
"",J,,' ]Y.,.'
~,
Planning Commission Minutes
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, August 23,
2011, in the City Council Chambers located ,at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Brown called the meeting
to order at 7:01 :32 PM
Present: Chair Brown; Vice Chair Wehrenberg; Commissioners O'Keefe and Bhuthimethee: Jeff
Baker, Planning Manager; Kit Faubion, City Attorney; Marnie Waffle, Senior Planner; and Taryn
Bozzo, Recording Secretary.
Absent: Commissioner Schaub
ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - NONE
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - On a motion by Vice Chair Wehrenberg, seconded by
Cm. Bhuthimethee the minutes of the August 9, 2011 meeting were approved.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NONE
CONSENT CALENDAR - NONE
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - NONE
PUBLIC HEARINGS-
8.1 PLP A-2011-00026 Zoning Ordinance Amendments to Chapter 8.40 (Accessory
Structures and Uses Regulations), Chapter 8,76 (Off-Street Parking and Loading
Regulations), Chapter 8.84 (Sign Regulations) and Chapter 8.108 (Temporary Use
Permit)
Marnie Waffle, Senior Planner presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report.
Jeff Baker, Planning Manager stated that there is supplemental information for the Planning
Commission in the form of an SB 343 sheet with an em ail from Brad Sanders, a property owner
in Dublin He stated that Mr' Sanders provided more information on the dais in the form of
Exhibits to his email for each Commissioner to view.
Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked if Staff has experienced issues with seasonal flags.
Ms. Waffle stated that there have not been issues; however, Staff has experienced an increase
in requests from various shopping centers to display such signage She stated that the City
does not currently have any provisions that would allow seasonal flags.
Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked if Staff included a displaytimeframe in the regulations, as'far as
how long the seasonal flags may be displayed.
a:fannwg CtJ-mmissimt
~lffUfar 'Meeting
.;;~;;u.rt 23, 201 t
106
Mr. Baker. replied that no specific timeframe was included as the flags are intended to be
seasonal in nature and/or reflect the holidays.
Vice Chair Wehrenberg stated that she would like to consider including a display timeframe as
flags for certain seasons may be displCiyed prematurely.
Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked if window film with graphics needs to be addressed in the
amendment to Chapter 8.84, Sign Regulations as it is becoming more popular with businesses.
Mr. Baker clarified that the Regulations currently allow 25% window coverage. He stated that
City Council reviewed what the City currently provides for window coverage regulations in June,
2011 and did not make any modifications to the current policy.
Chair Brown confirmed that Vice Chair Wehrenberg wants to consider having a specific display
timeframe for seasonal flags.
Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if the City is regulating the colors of signage, like day-glow or neon
colors, specifically for window coverings.
Ms. Waffle replied no.
Cm. O'Keefe asked, in regards to amending Chapter 8.40, if there was a discussion regarding
what percentage of an existing food preparation area would be allocated towards a new use if a
grocery market wanted to expand and include a seating area.
Ms. Waffle replied that the proposed amendment does not distinguish between new or existing
food preparation areas and includes seating and food preparation areas as a whole.
Mr. Baker confirmed that Staff has not distinguished between existing and new food preparation
areas. He stated that restaurants typically have both seating and food preparation areas and
the intent of the Regulation is to assist in determining parking requirements.
Mr. Baker clarified that if the seating and food preparation areas, combined, occupy less than
10% of the entire tenant space, it would be considered an Accessory Use and not require
additional parking; however, if it occupies more than 10% of the entire tenant space, then the
seating area requires Restaurant use parking at 1 per 1 00 square feet of seating area, and the
food preparation area requires Retail use parking at 1 per 300 square feet.
Chair Brown confirmed with Ms. Waffle that Temporary Promotional Signs are currently allowed
to be displayed for 21 days then have to be removed for 21 days.
Chair Brown asked if Staff regulates the content of the temporary signs displayed.
Mr. Baker replied no. He clarified that, currently, the Regulations do not restrict the number of
temporary signs a business can have and the intent of the proposed amendment is to limit the
number of temporary signs a business is allowed to display at one time.
Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked if Temporary Promotional Sign applicants have to submit an
example of the signage they are displaying when applying for a permit, specifically referring to
the colors they are using.
P!1nn.mg CvmmiS.rlIiJ1!
,%filIIM ,,,,",ding
J1U911.rt 23, 2011
107
Mr. Baker replied that the City does not currently regulate content in colors, specifically. He
clarified that the seasonal flags, as it's currently proposed, would not require a permit as long as
the standards are met. He further clarified that window signs do not currently require a permit.
Chair Brown opened the public hearing.
Bruce Fiedler, Dublin resident, spoke in opposition of the Zoning Ordinance Amendments. Mr.
Fiedler presented materials for the Commission's review such as the minutes from the 1999
Vehicle Dealership Signage Committee meeting; photos of businesses that had what they
consider to be extensive and/or day-glow window signs; a chart that lists the .effects he believes
the Amendments would have if adopted; and a 16 square-foot item to show the approximate
maximum size of Temporary Promotional Sign.
Mr. Fiedler stated that, in regards to flags being allowed for AutomobileNehicle Sales, he feels
there are several other businesses within the City that may want the same option.
Kit Faubion, City Attorney. briefly described the handout given to the Planning Commission by
Mr. Fiedler, stating that the handout appears to have a number of questions that Mr. Fiedler
intends to raise regarding signage; a tally of light posts, plus or minus a few, in the Dublin
Automotive Sales locations; comments on the results of the proposed Ordinance amendments;
and Dublin Non-Auto Sales Businesses which might want more signs
Mr. Fiedler stated that he feels the City of Dublin will do well to have appropriate regulations of
what sometimes appears to be commerCial graffiti. He further stated that, regarding Automotive
Sales, a local Mercedes Benz dealership does not post any flags for advertisement and still
remains successful in their sales. .
The Commission reviewed the materials and had no questions.
Jay Fink, Sahara Market, stated that he feels the proposed Amendments should be deferred
until Sahara Market's appeal is settled. He stated that he believes the proposed Amendments
were initiated because of the June 10, 2011 determination letter by the Community
Development Director which is currently on appeal. He further stated that if the Amendments
are adopted, he feels the Commission would not have the benefit of hearing the appeal
arguments as new Regulations would-be in effect and he would then have to argue the new
Regulations which is unfair.
Mr. Fink read a prepared statement indicating the proposed Amendments would create more
confusion and less consistency. He stated that the Eating and Drinking Establishments should
not include the food preparation area as it would be difficult to determine what a food
preparation area is, specifically for grocery markets. He further stated that he feels 10% for an
Accessory Use is restrictive and he has found that most cities allow at least 25% for an
Accessory Use.
Vice Chair Wehrenberg clarified that when Sahara Market asked for a continuance at the
August 9, 2011 Planning Commission meeting, they risked these Amendments being adopted
before their appeal was settled.
rR.'ltlnmg (,'cJmmi.r.rimt
~1F4far of/eeting
fiUb"USt 23, 2011
108
Moe Yousofi, Sahara Market, spoke in opposition to the Zoning Ordinance Amendments. Mr.
Yousofi agreed with Mr. Fink, stating that the proposed Amendments should be deferred until
Sahara Market's appeal is settled He stated that If the Amendments are adopted, he feels the
food preparation area should be omitted from the requirements.
The Commission had no questions.
Brad Sanders, landlord. for Sahara Market, spoke in opposition to the Zoning Ordinance
Amendments. Mr. Sanders agreed that the proposed Amendments should be deferred until
Sahara Market's appeal is settled. He stated that he and the City have agreed to try and work
out the issues regarding the appeal but is upset that he was not notified about the hearing
regarding the Amendments. He further stated that the Amendments were initiated by Sahara
Market's determination letter which had no initial findings, no analysis and no justifications .
Mr. Sanders stated that the 10% requirement for seating and food preparation areas has no
basis of findings. He stated that if the Amendments are adopted, he feels the food preparation
area should be omitted from the requirements.
The Commission had no questions.
Chair Brown closed the public hearing.
Cm. Bhuthimethee asked, regarding amending Chapter 8.84, if colors for signs would be
regulated and why Staff has not included such regulations.
Mr. Baker stated that the City does not currently regulate colors of signs because of certain First
Amendment issues related to the content of signs. He further stated that the Ordinance does
discourage the use of white acrylic panel because of discoloration over time.
Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if the Ordinance could discourage the use of day-glow or neon colors.
Ms. Faubion stated that regulating content and colors of signs can initiate issues with a
business's trademark and the City cannot regulate trademarks. She stated that regulating
content and colors of signs would be difficult to navigate without running into First Amendment
Rights. She further stated that she believes discouraging the white acrylic panel is a glare
issLle.
Cm. Bhuthimethee stated that some would argue that day-glow or neon colors would cause a
glare issue as well.
Ms. Waffle clarified that the discouragement of the white acrylic panel refers to background color
for signage and is only discouraged when a sign is illuminated.
Vice Chair Wehrenberg stated that, in response to Mr. Fiedler, the City of Dublin adopted the
Master Sign Program to answer most of his larger questions. She stated that she feels it is a
good thing to include the restrictions being proposed.
Vice Chair Wehrenberg confirmed with Mr. Baker that LCD/LED electronic signs are currently
restricted and only allowed by applying for a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Baker confirmed that
(Ffallning Omnmis.ri.a.1t
'1I&fiUC,r !Weeting
~UIU.st 2J~ 2011
109
Staff is not currently proposing any amendments to the regulations regarding LCD/LED
electronic signs.
Vice Chair Wehrenberg stated that she' takes no issue with the Amendments, except wanting to
have a display timeline for seasonal flags. She clarified that she would look to Staff for direction
on implementing such a timeline.
Vice Chair Wehrenberg stated that, regarding the food preparation area, a restaurant is a type
of use and the food preparation area would be shown on plans in the planning stages; therefore,
it should be included in the Regulations. She stated that some of the documentation provided
by Mr Sanders did not seem applicable based on the particular City's rules and the project
being referred to. She further stated that she feels there is more discussion that needs to be
had between Staff and the Applicant to ensure that the Applicant understands the process
required to try and work out issues.
Cm. O'Keefe agreed that more discussion needs to be had between Sahara Market and Staff.
He asked if Staff could clarify regarding Mr. Sanders not being notified about the hearing
regarding the Amendments being proposed.
Mr. Baker replied that Mr. Sanders was made aware of the hearing during negotiations that
occurred before the August 9, 2011 Planning Commission meeting. He stated that the City's
ultimate goal is to have Sahara Market open as soon as possible, however, their opening is
being held up by issues that the Property Owner has with the use of his property and how
parking is determined. He clarified that the City is trying .to find a global solution that would
resolve the Property Owner's issues and allow Sahara Market to open quickly. Mr Baker
clarified that the proposed Amendments are part of that solution and the City is working. to
streamline the process as much as possible. He stated that this solution and the proposed
Amendments and current Planning Commission meeting were discussed and agreed to with Mr.
Sanders.
Cm. O'Keefe asked why Staff did not provide more clarification in the proposed Amendments
regarding existing food preparation areas versus new food preparation areas.
Mr. Baker replied that the City is trying to create a standard to address parking for a tenant
space that contains more than one use. He stated that a business expanding to include a
restaurant requires seating and food preparation; therefore, more parking is needed to
. accommodate the increased demand.
Mr. Baker reiterated that if an Accessory' Use has less than 10% occupancy of seating and food
preparation area, the parking would not be affected; however. if that use is more than 10%, it
would not be considered an Accessory Use and the seating area would require 1 parking space
per 100 square feet, similar to a Restaurant, and the food preparation area would require 1
parking space per 300 square feet, similar to Retail.
Cm. O'Keefe stated that he understands an Eating and Drinking Establishment increasing the
intensity use and, therefore, requiring more parking.
Cm.Bhuthimethee stated that she feels there are some establishments where food preparation
areas should be included in the 10% Accessory Use requirement, such as a hardware store
adding a restaurant component; however, it should be different for a use such as a grocery store
PL"'1tnmg O?:nmirsw1f.
~"Ufat :lIket'!nd
,Augllst 23, 2011
110
which would have food preparation areas but no seating. She stated that she does not feel food
preparation areas should be inc!udedin the 10%.
Cm. O'Keefe stated that he does not feel food preparation areas should be excluded completely
as sometimes the food preparation area already exists.
Vice Chair Wehrenberg stated that a food preparation area is an element that every restaurant
has, therefore it needs to be included. She stated that she feels it would add more confusion in
the future if it was not included. She clarified that the component of a use changes when
seating is added. She stated that once a seating area is added, the parking ratio gets adjusted
because you are allowing for more customers.
Chair Brown stated that he finds the Amendments to bring more clarity and consistency to the
existing Regulations. He stated that he feels it addresses the needs of the community and
would like to see Sahara Market open quickly and prove successful. He further stated that he
believes the Amendments help to promote and satisfy the ultimate solution for Sahara Market as
well as provide solutions for future businesses.
Chair Brown stated that he did not feel any changes needed to be made to the Amendments
aside from Vice Chair Wehrenberg's request for a display timeline for seasonal flags
Mr. Baker stated that, as proposed, seasonal flags would be exempt from permitting. He stated
that if the Commission wished to regulate a display timeframe, Staff would recommend that the
seasonal flags be subject to something similar of a Temporary Promotional Sign permit to
ensure that Staff is aware of the display and how long it is displayed.
Vice Chair Wehrenberg stated that she does not wish to make the process more difficult for
businesses and is willing to strike the request for a display timeline. .
Chair Brown concurred with Vice Chair Wehrenberg.
On a motion by Vice Chair Wehrenberg and seconded by Cm. O'Keefe, on a vote of 4-0-1, with
Cm. Schaub being absent, the Planning Commission unanimoLlsly adopted
RESOLUTION NO, 11-23
A RES,OLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBtlN
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO
CHAPTER 8.40 (ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND USES REGULATIONS), CHAPTER 8:76
(OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS), CHAPTER 8.84 (SIGN
REGULATIONS), AND CHAPTER 8.108 (TEMPORARY USE PE'RMIT)
OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE
CITY-WIDE
PLP A-2011-00026
~~
rp{g.tH',ing c~.rW1t
'1-~IP'&..' !l1eetmlJ
,
.?.;;ust 23, 2011
III
8.2 .PLPA-2011-00020, All American Label Site Development Review for a 4,456 square foot
addition to an existing 23,994 square foot building at 6958 Sierra 'Court
Jeff Baker, Planning Manager, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report.
Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked what the storage area is being used for and if there is any risk
that may require it to be reviewed by the Fire Department.
Mr. Baker replied that he feels the Applicant may be better suited to address that question. He
stated that Court Order currently states that the storage area is not to be used while litigation is
ongoing.
Cm. O'Keefe asked if there are any sites in the Industrial (M-1) zoning area that currently
exceed the Floor Area Ratio (FAR).
Mr. Baker replied yes, stating that many of the buildin'gs on Sierra Court were built before the
City was incorporated. or before the 1992 General Plan Amendment which established the
minimum and maximum FAR. He stated that there are potentially buildings that exceed the
maximum 40% FAR and they are considered Legal, Non-Conforming.
Cm. O'Keefe asked what the current day, negative impacts would be of existing buildings
exceeding the 40% FAR.
Mr. Baker replied that those buildings would allow for greater density and intensity of use than
what is envisioned by the Community.
Chair Brown opened the public hearing.
Guy Houston, representing All American Label, spoke in favor of the Applicant. He stated that
the issue regarding Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) has been addressed and a plan for
access has been submitted. He further stated that the Applicant considers this issue closed.
Mr. Houston stated that the Applicants request is not in violation of the General Plan. He stated
that the 1985 General Plan did not mandate a 40% FAR and was descriptive but not mandatory
in nature. He further stated that the General Plan policy in 1992 remained unchanged, stating
that, "the changes do not affect the policy direction of the Plan and remains as in 1985."
Mr. Houston stated that the intent of the City Council in 1992 was clear and no char;1ges in the
descriptive nature were made, therefore the 40% FAR is not mandatory. .
Mr. Houston stated there are currently 17 buildings on Sierra Court that exceed the 40% FAR.
He stated that Legal, Non-Conforming use affects a building's use, property values, saleability,
and financing capabilities.
The Commission had no questions.
Brad Brown, Applicant, stated that the storage space would be used solely for storage and
would not be used to store machinery of any kind. He stated that the only way to increase his
business and continue as a viable manufacturer is to have the extra storage space, exceeding
c.I?fanninlJ Commi.r.rian
!R.f..gu{a.1'~~2ti:J1a
flugu.rt 23, 2011
112
, '.
the current FAR. He stated that he wishes to keep his business located in Dublin and will do
what he needs to work successfully with Staff.
Vice Chair Wehrenberg .asked Mr. Brown if he was the original applicant for the unenclosed
storage area SDR/CUP in 2008.
Mr. Brown replied yes.
Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked why the' storage area was not built as approved by the Planning
Commission in November, 2008.
Mr. Brown replied that it was a bad decision to move forward with an enclosed storage area. He
stated that his business cannot survive without the current storage area and additional FAR.
Jeff Main; owner of 6955 Sierra Court, spoke in support of the Applicant Mr. Main stated that
his building exceeds the FAR because it was established 31 years ago and he could not be
successful without the extra space He stated that All American Label provides business and
money for the City and as long as the storage area is built correctly and safely, it should be able
to remain as-is.
The Commission had no questions.
Steve Popelar, Dublin resident and owner of 6700 Sierra Lane, spoke in favor of the Applicant.
Mr. Popelar stated that All American Label is vital for the success of his own company, Label
Concepts. He stated that without All American Label, businesses will suffer and the effect on
other Dublin businesses is something the Commission should consider. .
The Commission had no questions.
Chair Brown closed the public hearing.
Cm. O'Keefe asked how mariy times the issue of exceeding FAR has come before the Planning
Commission.
Vice Chair Wehrenberg stated that the Commission has seen the issue in the past but it usually
addresses housing developments, such as a resident wanting to add a canopy or shade
structure.
Mr. Baker stated that it is not unheard of for someone to want to expand their building but find
that they cannot exceed the FAR: however it is not typically in a situation such as All American
Label's.
Chair Brown opened the public hearing.
Mr. Houston agreed that it is unlikely for someone to build something and then come back for
approval; however, in East Dublin the FAR requirement was changed to 50% which <:;aused the
lower FAR, such as in Industrial (M-1) zoning districts, to be inadequate.
Chair Brown closed the public hearing.
CFfo:nl1ing C'ommiS.riMt
:J?flJufar W~/!tinil
}!;ur;ust 23, 2011
113
Cm. O'Keefe stated that he understand the spirit of the original General Plan and agrees that
there has to be regulation for FAR; however, manufacturing' is very different today than it was in
.1985 and 1992, and there are existing buildings exceeding the 40% FAR He stated that the
Applicant is not proposing to be the largest exceeder of FAR and the storage area they have
built will allow them to be more competitive in their industry
Mr. Baker clarified that the question before the Commission is do they find the project to be
consistent with the General Plan, do they agree that the General Plan has a maximum FAR and
does the project exceed the standard that is in the General Plan. '
Cm. O'Keefe stated that the General Plan is descriptive in stating that the 40% FAR is not
mandatory, therefore he finds that the Commission could find the prqject to be consistent with
the General Plan.
Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked if a decision in the pending lawsuit would overrule any
determination made by the Commission. She asked why there is a difference in FAR between
East and West Dublin.
Ms. Faubion stated that the pending lawsuit is based on the Code Enforcement issue which is
separate from the General Plan conformance determination being considered by the
Commission.
Mr. Baker clarified that that the maximum FAR for Industrial zoning districts in East Dublin is
35% He further clarified that although the Applicant has submitted plans regarding the
Emergency Vehicle Access, they have yet to be reviewed and approved by Staff.
Cm, Bhuthimethee stated that she is in support of many businesses on Sierra Court and
appreciates the comments regarding the FAR She stated that the City has a General Plan that
creates general regulations for a reason. She further stated that if those plans and regulations
are not followed, bad consequences can arise,
Cm. Bhuthimethee agreed with Staff's recommendations,
Chair Brown stated that existing businesses are very valuable and the City encourages them to
grow; however, they are still required to adhere to the law which, in this case, states that the
maximum FAR is 40%. He stated that he agrees that the maximum FAR of 40% may not be
high enough; however, that can be considered for amendment at another time,
Ms, Faubion clarified the language of mandatory versus descriptive, stating that the General
Plan statute does require that there be standards of building intensity and the General'Plan was
required to have those standards in 1992 with language that is similar to the language that
exists today.' She stated that to prevent concerns regarding the General Plan, the Commission
would want to recognize that building intensity is a mandatory element and it is present in the
General Plan.
Cm. O'Keefe stated that regardless, buildings exceeding 40% FAR still exist.
Cm. Bhuthimethee replied that those buildings were grandfathered in because they were
established before the 40% maximum FAR was implemented,
f&'fl'ning C'<fmmissiw.
<l<:Ia'llkI1'!I/1lttittg
~~:U31l.rt 23J 201.t
114
Vice Chair Wehrenberg agreed with Cm. Bhuthimethee stating that unless those businesses
exceeding 40% FAR come to the City needing a revision to their area, then the current
maximum would be considered when reviewing the project.
Mr. Baker clarified that the City does currently require a General Plan Amendment for any
business that wants to exceed the 40% FAR.
Vice Chair Wehrenberg agreed with Cm. Bhuthimethee in regards to the General Plan being put
into place for a reason. She believes the General Plan is sufficient in its description and clarified
that there is a process in place to amend the FAR if needed.
On a motion by Cm. Bhuthimethee and seconded by Vice Chair Wehrenberg, on a vote of 3-1-1,
with Cm. Schaub being absent, the Planning Commission adopted:
RESOLUTION NO. 11- 24
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
DENYING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR A 4,456 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO AN
EXISTING 23,994 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING AT 6958 SIERRA COURT
PLPA 2011-00020 (APN 941-2576-006)
~~
Mr. Baker reminded the Applicant that there is a ten-day appeal period.
NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS -
Mr. Baker advised the Commission that a new Assistant Planner, Seth Adams, was hired and
will start on Monday, August 29, 2011.
Mr. Baker confirmed with the Commission that there are currently no agenda items for the
September 13, 2011 meeting so the next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for
September 27, 2011.
OTHER BUSINESS - NONE
10.1 Brief INFORMA TION ONLY reports from the Planning Commission and/or Staff,
including Committee Repor:ts and Reports by the Planning Commission related to
meetings attended at City Expense (AB 1234).
(Pkrl1ning C(}'mmiuion
'%iJufa, !j{ettina
. jf:u;;u.rt 23, 2011
115
ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 8:50:02 PM p.m.
ATTEST
Jeff Baker
Planning Manager
G:\MINUTES\20J 11PLANNING COMMISSfOM0823. 11 DRAFT PC Minutes.doc
Respectfully submitted,
Alan Brown
Chair Planning Commission
cR1.11TJmg CtJiml1'i,s.ri:m.
<lI.;fjufar !Meeting
116
.~.:u;ust 23, 2011
.
RECEIVED
SEP 0 1 2011
. :;: LABEL CONCEPTS C OR1tmc~~YN~~~~~~~fICE
~ l I-I"~ ,... ^ r:; 1< A f.. I loJ I~ R Y, S n tJ N l~ t~ r: n M fJ 1\ N Y
6700 $10"'" Lan., Dublin, CA 91568 (925) 828.3111 . i925) 829-8716
September 1 , 2011
To: City of Dublin
I appeal the 3 - 1 decision of the Planning Commission on
August 23,2011 (PLPA-2011-00020, All American Label
Site Development Review Application). The Planning
Commission incorrectly determined, (with incorrect guidance
from the Staff Report) that the Dublin General Plan requires
a maximum of 40% floor area ratio in the Business
Parkllndustrial General designation. This appeal is based
on the information we provided the City and Planning
Commission both before and during the hearing.
. --------
Steve Poplar
. Label Concepts
6700 Sierra Lane.
Dublin, CA 94568
- -,,~..:".,~:' "
,
\
I
I
!
1
1
:!
RESOLUTION NO. xx-xx
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
AFFIRMING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 11-24
DENYING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT FOR A 4,456 SQUARE FOOT
ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 23,994 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING AT 6958 SIERRA COURT
AND AFFIRMING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S FINDINGS
PLPA 2011-00020 (APN 941-2576-006)
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Charles Huff (Architect), on behalf of Mr. Brad Brown (Owner).
has requested approval of a Site Development Review permit to allow a 4,456 square foot
addition to an existing 23,994 square foot building at 6958 Sierra Court; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant has submitted project plans for the requested entitlement
prepared by Charles Huff, AlA received by the Planning Division on May 4, 2011, attached as
Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the project site has a General Plan land use designation of Business
Park/Industrial, which has an allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) range of .30 to .40; and
WHEREAS, the FAR for the proposed project (existing building plus proposed addition) is
.48; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with State
guidelines and City environmental regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for
environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the CEQA, Staff has recommended that the denial of this Project
be found Statutorily Exempt pursuant to Section 15270 of the CEQA Guidelines which states
that Projects which are denied are not subject to the provisions of CEQA; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted to the Planning Commission on August 23,
2011 recommending denial of said application, which staff report is incorporated herein' by
reference; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on said application;
WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports,
recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth and used its independent judgment to
evaluate the project.
WHEREAS, on August 23,2011, the Planning Commission did adopt Resolution 11-24
denying a Site Development Review Permit for a 4,456 square foot addition to an existing
23,994 square foot building at 6958 Sierra Court, which resolution is incorporated herein by
reference; and
"
WHEREAS, a Letter of Appeal (dated September 1, 2011) was submitted within the 10-
day appeal period; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted to the City of Dublin City Council
recommending either to affirm Planning Commission Resolution 11-24 denying a Site
Development Review Permit for a 4,456 square foot addition to an existing 23,994 square foot
building at 6958 Sierra Court, or to direct the City Attorney to prepare findings for the City
Council to reverse the Planning Commission's action The Staff Report detailed the basis for
the Planning Commission denial and is incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on said appeal on October 4, 2011;
and
WHEREAS. proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations
and testimony herein above set forth and used its independent judgment to evaluate the
project; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Dublin City Council does
hereby find that the denial of this Project is Statutorily Exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15270 of the CEQA Guidelines, which states
that Projects which are denied are not subject to the provisions of CEQA.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Dublin City Council does hereby verify
that the appeal of the Planning Commission's denial complied with the provisions of Chapter
8.136, Appeals, of the zoning ordinance.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Dublin City Council does hereby deny the
appeal and affirm Planning Commission Resolution 11-24 denying a Site Development Review
Permit for a 4,456 square foot addition to an existing 23,994 square foot building at 6958
Sierra Court and affirming the Findings set forth in the Planning Commission Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of October 2011 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor.
ATTEST:
20f4
City Clerk
G::FA",;201 jTLPA-20i 1-00020AfIAmei'lcon Label SDkC(' appcol 10,0-1.201 !:_~r[';' - CC RcsoAt11I'mlng PC DCl1ial.doc
3 of 4
Exitbit A to Attachment
,
, i
~ i
il / ~
~ i .~
i
m i g ~~.
.~ c
",rl f
, \1
~ \ "
\
I
!
I
!
I
I
I
~.1J1
· fl.
~l
. Iii
,
I
I
(11)
1
,
4 of 4.
..,....,.",""-.
DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
REGULAR MEETING - October 4, 2011
CLOSED SESSION
A closed session was held at 6:29:33 PM , regarding:
I. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Property: 3385 Dublin Blvd., #206, Dublin, CA
Agency negotiators Joni Pattillo, City Manager and John Bakker, City Attorney
Negotiating party: Camille Buckingham
Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment
II. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Property: 3245 Dublin Blvd., #224, Dublin, CA
Agency negotiators: Joni Pattillo, City Manager and John Bakker, City Attorney
Negotiating party: Mona Kosasih
Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment
III. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Property: 3255 Dublin Blvd., #420, Dublin, CA
Agency negotiators: Joni Pattillo, City Manager and John Bakker, City Attorney
Negotiating party Arthur Longoria
Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment
..
A regular meeting of the Dublin City Council was held on Tuesday, October 4, 2011, in the City
Council Chambers of the Dublin Civic Center. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m., by
Mayor Sbranti.
-+
ROLL CALL
PRESENT
ABSENT
Councilmembers Biddle, Hart, Hildenbrand, Swalwell, and Mayor Sbranti
..
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 7:00:41 PM
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 30
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 4, 2011
1
DRAFT
The pledge of allegiance to the flag was recited by the City Council, Staffand those present.
..
REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION ACTION 7:01 PM
Mayor Sbranti stated there was no reportable action during Closed Session.
.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Introduction of New Employees: Roxanna Recinos-Serna, Plan Check Engineer, Building
Division and Larry Ferquson, Senior Finance Technician, Finance Division
7:01 :31 PM 3.1
700-10
The City Council welcomed Roxanna Recinos-Serna on her appointment and congratulated
Larry Ferguson on his promotion.
..
Pilot Health Clinics Presentation
7:05:53 PM
3.2 560-60
Fire Chief Sheldon Gilbert presented the Staff Report and advised that the City Council would
receive a presentation on Alameda County's plans to develop pilot health care clinics in local
fire stations. .
Vm.. Hart asked for an update on the transition with the new ambulance provider for the
Alameda County Fire Department, Paramedics Plus; ongoing collaboration efforts with both
Oakland Fire Department and Fremont Fire Department; and costs associated with modification
of fire stations to accommodate the proposed clinics.
Fire Chief Gilbert stated that the target date for the ambulance provider is November 1, 2011.
The fire department is working closely with Paramedics Plus to ensure a smooth transition.
Collaboration with Hayward, Fremont and Oakland Fire Departments is occurring with the
formation of an oversight 'committee with labor, management and the healthcare community
and he was optimistic of the outcome. .
Cm. Swalwell asked 'for an in-depth explanation of cost structure to implement this program and
continue to fund for the next three years.
Chief Gilbert clarified that ongoing costs for the pilot program would be.estimated at $3.5 million
secured through Measure A funds, and through the Healthcare Services Agency, but .the long
DUBLIN CITY. COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 30
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 4,2011
2.
. DRAFT
term goal would be to implement a fee structure to support the ongoing costs of operating the
clinics and through the acceptance of donations. Initial startup fees for facility transformation of
approximately $400,000 to $700,000 but in the long term may offer a billing potential to
generate revenue.
Mayor Sbranti thanked Fire Chief Gilbert for the presentation.
.
Public Comments
7:2745 PM 3.3
No comments were made by any member of the public at this time.
..
CONSENT CALENDAR
7:27:55 PM Items 4.1 through 4.7
. On motion of Cm. Hildenbrand, seconded by Vm. Hart and by unanimous vote, the City Council
took the following actions:
Approved (4.1) Minutes of Regular Meeting of September 20,2011;
Received (4.2 600-40);
RESOLUTION NO. 166 -11
AUTHORIZING A FIVE-YEAR (NOVEMBER 1, 2011 - OCTOBER 31,2016)
FIRST RESPONDER ADVANCED LIFE SUPPORT (FRALS) AGREEMENT
WITH THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
Adopted (4.3 720-40/720-60
RESOLUTION NO. 167 -11
FIXING THE EMPLOYER'S CONTRIBUTION UNDER THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL CARE ACT
RESOLUTION NO. 168 -11
FIXING THE EMPLOYER'S CONTRIBUTION VESTING REQUIREMENT FOR
FUTURE RETIREES UNDER THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' MEDICAL
AND HOSPITAL CARE ACT.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 30
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 4, 2011
3
~ "
DRAFT
RESOLUTION NO.1 Ei9 - 11
AMENDING THE BENEFIT PLAN
Adopted (4.4 700-20)
RESOLUTION NO. 170 - 11
AMENDING THE CLASSIFICATION PLAN
Adopted (4.5 1060-20)
ORDINANCE NO. 11 - 11
AMENDING THE DUBLIN TRAFFIC CODE
ESTABLISHING BUS STOPS ON DUBLIN BOULEVARD
Authorized (46 600-35) the City Manager to approve a Change Order with Weber Tractor
Services in an amount not to exceed $44,281.07 for the installation of additional sidewalk work
under the Annual Sidewalk Repair Project (CIP No. 949012); approved budget change which
will transfer the amount of $22,000 in un-appropriated Measure B funds to the Annual Sidewalk
Repair Project (CIP No. 949102); and authorized the City Manager to approve a Change Order
with Weber Tractor Services in an amount not to exceed $17,150 for storm drain work funded
under the Citywide Storm Drain Assessment (CIP No. 960017).
Approved (4.7 300-40) Check Issuance Reports and Electronic Funds Transfers.
..
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None
..
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of the All American Label Site Development
Review for a 4,456 Square Foot Addition to an Existinq Buildinq, PLPA-2011-00020
728:46 PM 6.1 (410-30)
'Mayor Sbranti opened the public'hearing.
Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner, presented the Staff Report and advised that the City Council
would consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a Site Development Review
Permit for a 4,456 square foot addition to an existing 23,994 square foot building at 6958 Sierra
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 30
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 4, 2011
4
DRAFT
Court. The Proposed Project was determined to be 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 Parkllndustrialland use category.
Mayor Sbranti asked for clarification of the similar land use category in eastern Dublin, with a
maximum of FAR at .50 as opposed to the area in question in western Dublin, with the
maximum FAR at AO.
Ms. Bascom responded that in eastern Dublin, under the industrial park category, the FAR is
.35. However, under the General Plan industrial park category, warehousing uses only, can
have a maximum FAR of .50, which would be determined on a case by case .basis at the
discretion of the City Council. On Sierra Court, the General Plan allows for various uses, i.e.,
warehousing, research and development, distribution, and manufacturing.
Dublin resident and commercial real estate broker, Dan Watson, stated that he wanted to speak
in support of the applicant in that business owners are finding it,extremely difficult to manage in
these tough economic times, let alone expand within their budget. Mr. Watson asked that he
would like to see companies grow as easy as possible.
All American Label representative Guy Houston stated that the 1985 General Plan was
descriptive regarding FAR and not mandatory in nature, and stated that to this day, the General
Plan had not been changed. Mr. Houston stated, if the City Council chose to agree with the
Staff report, that would designate the 17 business on Sierra. Court that exceeded AO FAR, as a
non-conforming status. He also stated that this status would affect their use, their property
value, salability, and financing capabilities.
Legal Counsel for All American Label, Peter McDonald, referred to the 1992 City Council
discussion regarding the General Plan FAR and questioned whether the AO maximum was ever
established as mandatory.
Cm Hildenbrand asked for clarification of the 17 businesses which were noted on the Sierra
Court map. She asked how many had expanded the FAR beyond the AO maximum since
1992.
Ms. Bascom stated that, per the County records, all of those businesses were built prior to the
City's incorporation in 1982.
City Attorney John Bakker stated that, at the time of incorporation, the City would have most
likely carried forward various standards that the County already had in place, then as time went
on the City adopted its own General Plan standards. This would have impacted existing
businesses, and created a legal non-conforming status on businesses that exceeded. the
maximum FAR. In 1992 standards were most likely established due to State law requirements
of density requirements. Mr. Bakker stated that their status would not affect their operations,
but would impact expansion of their business
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 30
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 4, 2011
5
DRAFT
Vm. Hart asked Mr. Bakker if the 1992 General Plan Amendment changed the FAR standards.
Mr. Bakker stated that the intention was clarified to set the density range standard for each land
use as noted in the technical revisions that were made a FAR standard was added to each of
the commercial uses.
An Unnamed speaker stated that City Council should view this entire issue in comparison to
FAR standards established in east Dublin as accommodating to businesses as opposed to
viewing it as the older area in Dublin with the current FAR restrictions.
Mayor Sbranti closed the public hearing.
Cm. Swalwell asked, if City Council were to reject the Planning Commission recommendation,
would the direction be to set and reject the FAR, and wanted to be clear on what a rejection
would entail.
Mr. Bakker stated that one option the City Council had would be to have Staff prepare a
General Plan Amendment to revise the wording in the current plan to increase the FAR beyond
the established range.
Mayor Sbranti stated that a review of Sierra Court in its entirety and on a broader scale was
important in order to avoid having expansion issues in the future.
Vm. Hart asked, from a Planner's perspective, what impact would there be if the FAR was
expanded to a maximum range of .50.
Ms. Bascom stated the implication would be overall conformance and compromise the very
reason FAR standards are established, which are to set a range of intensity in any given area.
She further stated that, if the property in question was used to set a guideline, there would be
no standard for any other business in the future.
City Manager Pattillo stated that there have been no further requests than that of All American
Label Company, and if exceptions are made to the General Plan, then there was a process
established to do so. She further clarified. that to date, this has not been an issue with any other
business, and compromising FAR has to do with multiple elements such as landscaping in the
community and traffic circulation.
Vm Hart asked if this item was specific to the applicant or of the 17 businesses referred to as
non-conforming in the area of Sierra Court.
Mr. Bakker stated this issue was technically about the applicant, but if the General Plan was
interpreted as the applicant has requested, then implications would be throughout the area.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 30
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 4, 2011
6
DRAFT
. Cm. Swalwell proposed that City Council reject the Planning Commission's action and direct
Staff to bring back a General Plan Amendment to increase the FAR at the Sierra Court area for.
the businesses located there, to provide the ability for all businesses to grow and expand.
Cm. Biddle concurred that it was a good time to review the General Plan and have Staff bring
back an amendment to accommodate the businesses.
Vm. Hart stated his support for Staff to bring back a General Plan amendment to accommodate
businesses.
Mayor Sbranti stated that he felt there was sufficient record to show that the City Council of
1992 did not intend to create non-conformance for businesses when they adopted the General
Plan Amendment as well as ambiguity in the language where the FAR range is descriptive as
opposed to mandatory.
Cm. Hildenbrand stated that she did not agree with how the rules were broken in this situation;
however, she did not want to limit the existing businesses to expand if needed.
Mayor Sbranti asked Mr. Bakker if it was decided to do a moratorium how could this be spelled
out to move forward on this issue.
Mr. Bakker stated that the moratorium concept could be that the City Council would adopt the
resolution denying a site development review, maintain the FAR cap at .40, and provide time to
research a possible General Plan Amendment, with the key difference that the City Council
would not need to deny the appeal.
On motion of Mayor Sbranti, seconded by Cm Hildenbrand and by 3-2 vote, the City Council
directed to continue the appeal to the 1st meeting in November, and at that time bring forward
an adoption of a moratorium and direct Staff to prepare a General Plan Amendment Study
request on the FAR issue
City Manager Pattillo reiterated that the discussion on existing businesses which exceeded the
.50 FAR and were legal non-conforming, would need to be addressed in the proposed General
Plan Amendment Study. She further stated that a change for budget request would also be
presented to outline the costs associated with the FAR and types of uses. This proposed study
would be fully funded by the City, and not by an applicant as is usually done.
..
Mayor Sbranti called for a break at 8:50 PM
Mayor Sbran\i called the meeting to order at 9:03 PM
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 30
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 4, 2011
7
DRAFT
Zoning Ordinance Amendments to Chapter 8.40 (Accessory Structures and Uses
Regulations), Chapter 8.76 (Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations), Chapter 8.84
(Sian Reaulationsl and Chapter 8.108 (Temporary Use Permit), PLPA-2011-00026,
, ,-
9:03:41 PM 6,2 (450-30)
Mayor Sbranti opened the public hearing,
Mamie Delgado, Senior Planner, presented the Staff Report and advised that the City was
initiating amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to bring greater 'clarity and consistency to
existing regulations. Amendments are proposed to: Chapter 8:40 (Accessory Structures and
Uses Regulations) as it relates to Eating and Drinking Establishments as an accessory use to
retail sales; to Chapter 8.76 (Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations) as it relates to tenant
spaces with multiple functions and parking requirements for other Indoor Recreational Facilities
not specifically listed in Section 8,76.080.D; to Chapter 8.84 (Sign Regulations) as it relates to
flags, temporary promotional signs, and the regulation of signage in the Downtown Dublin
Zoning District; and to Chapter 8,108 (Temporary Use Permit) as it relates to other temporary
land uses not specifically defined and deviating from established development standards.
Dublin resident Bruce Fiedler stated the amendments proposed regarding Sign Regulations
were designed to benefit a few special interests at a cost to the wider community.
Dublin landlord for Sierra Market, Brad Sanders, commented on Chapters 8:40 and 8,76, and
stated that these amendments were directly the cause of prohibiting any seating to Sierra
Market due to the lack of parking.
Cm. Swalwell asked Staff to clarify Mr. Sanders comments regarding the ordinance
amendments and their relation to the issue,
Mr. Bakker stated that the issue Mr. Sanders was referring ,to was at what point an accessory
restaurant componentof a grocery store triggered a higher parking standard.
Linda Smith, Economic Development Director, elaborated on Mr. Sanders core arguments
about applying the additional parking spaces for the restaurant component and limiting his
ability on additional space in his center to be leased at retail in'the future. Other options have
been explored with Mr. Sanders as well.
Mayor Sbranti read comments submitted via fax by Sierra Market Owner, Mr. Sal Safi, "I am the
owner of Sahara Market, this confusion in the code has cost us tremendous grief and loss of
income. Section 8:40 will cause more confusion and will leave another gray area where the
food preparation area in a market with seating area and food preparation will be hard to define,"
Mayor Sbranti closed the public hearing
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 30
REGULAR'MEETING
OCTOBER 4, 2011
8
DRAFT
Mayor Sbranti asked Staff to explain how the 10% of seating and food preparation area was
established
Ms Waffle stated that this standard was taken from another standard in the accessory uses
chapter.
Mayor Sbranti asked Staff to elaborate on why food preparation needed to be included in the
10%.
Ms. Waffle stated that food preparation is a necessary component of an eating and drinking
establishment as it related to retail sales with the 10% threshold for intensity directly affecting
the minimum required parking spaces.
Mayor Sbranti asked for clarification on how this ordinance amendment would assist with the
Sahara Market expansion plan.
Ms. Waffle stated this item would assist by clarifying the off-street parking and loading
regulations that requires distinction between a large and small tenant space for the purpose of
determining parking requirements. She also stated that the Sahara Market management would
be working on a restriping plan which would also assist with resolving their expansion plan.
Mayor Sbranti asked what the implication might be if the City Council did not approve the
Chapter 8.84 ordinance amendment.
Ms. Waffle stated that any area outside planned development zoning district, or any shopping
center that did not have a master sign program, would not be allowed to have signs.
Cm. Hildenbrand commented on Chapter 8.84 and expressed that the sign regulations
ordinance was consistently being compromised with these amendments, resulting in creating an
lower aesthetic quality to the community.
Mayor Sbranti stated that he believed there were more limits than additions to this ordinance
amendment, and would like to take a pause and re-evaluate this amendment further before
voting on this amendment. He suggested looking at this from a broader perspective
Vm. Hart suggested a group outside of the ad-hoc committee evaluate whether the proposed
changes are of value to the City and provide recommendations.
Cm. Biddle stated he would be willing to have input from a community group and postpone
accepting amendment to the sign regulations.
Cm. Swalwell was in agreement with postponing the amendment.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 30
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 4,2011.
9
DRAFT
City Manager Pattillo stated that the City Attorney will provide clarity on moving forward with the
ordinance chapters, excluding Chapter 8,84, She clarified the direction provided regarding
Chapter 8,84 which would be to have Staff bring back recommendations, whether to form a task
force or one town hall meeting, This will also create a new initiative, adding additional workload'
and would ask the City Council to prioritize the current Economic Development initiatives,
Cm, Hildenbrand stated that she did not feel the need to form a task force and add additional
work,
Mayor Sbranti stated that he did not want to re-prioritize Economic Development initiatives but
gather feedback from community members to ensure that moving forward would be of benefit to
the City
On motion of Vm, Hart, seconded by Cm Hildenbrand and by unanimous vote, the City Council
INTRODUCE an Ordinance Amending Chapter 8AO (Accessory Structures and Uses
Regulations), Chapter 8,76 (Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations), and Chapter 8,108
(Temporary Use Permit) of the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 8,84 (Sign Regulations) would be
deferred,
..
Dublin Heritaqe Park and Museums Facilitv Use Policv
10:1622 PM 6,3 (295-10)
Mayor Sbranti opened the public hearing,
Paul McCreary, Assistant Parks and Community Services Director, presented the Staff Report
and advised that the City Council would consider adopting the Heritage .park and Museums
Facility Use Policy and Rental Fee Schedule, which would allow for community use and private
rentals of the Kolb Sunday School Barn and St Raymond Church,
No testimony was received by any member of the public relative to this issue,
Mayor Sbranti closed the public hearing,
Vm, Hart stated that the pricing seemed to be a bit expensive and cautioned that fees wouldn't
discourage the use of such a great facility,
Cm, Hildenbrand commented that based on the history of the facility and the importance of
preservation and protection of the buildings, the pricing seemedreasonable,
Mayor ,Sbranti stated that the rates quoted were lower than the surrounding area and felt
comfortable moving forward with the fee schedule as presented,
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 30 '
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 4, 2011
10
DRAFT
On motion of Cm. Hildenbrand, seconded by Cm. Biddle and by unanimous vote, the City
Council adopted
, RESOLUTION NO. 171 - 11
ESTABLISHING A FACILITY USE POLICY AND RENTAL FEE SCHEDULE FOR USE OF THE
KOLB SUNDAY SCHOOL BARN AND S1. RAYMOND CHURCH AT THE DUBLIN HERITAGE
PARK AND MUSEUMS
..
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Adoption of Amended and Restated Ex Parte Contacts Policy
10:28:47 PM 7.1
(610-20)
City Attorney John Bakker presented the Staff Report and advised that Ex parte contacts are
communications of information relevant to a quasi-judicial governmental decision to a decision
maker outside of the formal quasi-judicial proceeding. On December 20, 2005, the City Council
adopted a policy prohibiting' City Council members and Planning Commissioners, among others,
from the intentionally making or receiving ex parte contacts related to quasi-judicial proceedings
such as site development review approvals, conditional use permits, and variances.' The policy
did not apply to quasi-legislative decisions such as general plan amendments and zoning
ordinance amendments. At the April 5, 2011 City Council meeting, Councilmember Swalwell
requested that the policy be placed on.a future Council agenda that would allow the policy to be
reviewed. At the September 6, 2011 City Council meeting, the City Council directed the City
Attorney to prepare an amendment to the policy that would permit the members of the City
Council to make or receive ex parte contacts except when a matter is actually scheduled to be
heard by the City Council itself. Staff had prepared a resolution that would permit contacts
unless and until the City Council is notified that it would be sitting as the quasi-judicial hearing
. body on a specific matter.
Cm. Swalwell stated that he agreed to disclose all relevant information but felt it. was
unreasonable to have to reveal everything in a site visit conversation.
Cm. Hildenbrand commented that this topic was discussed at the last meeting, and the idea
was to prohibit a City Councilmember related to quasi-judicial. proceedings.
Mayor Sbranti stated he was in agreement with.the resolution proposed.
On motion of Cm. Hildenbrand, seconded by Mayor Sbranti and by unanimous vote, the City
adopted
RESOLUTION NO, 172-11
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 30
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 4, 2011
11
DRAFT
AMENDING AND RESTATING THE POLICY
REGARDING EX PARTE CONTACTS IN
QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
...
NEW BUSINESS
Vallev Christian Center General Plan Amendment Study Initiation Request
103901 PM
8.1
(420-30)
Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner, presented the Staff Report and advised that the City Council
would consider whether to initiate a General Plan Amendment Study to change the General
Plan Land Use Designation for a 1.4 acre property at the northwest corner of Dublin Boulevard
and Inspiration Drive from Public/Semi-Public to Medium/High Density Residential.
Bryan Tebbutt, Valley Christian Center representative stated that Valley Christian Center had a
long tenured involvement with the community and had committed in 2010 to the City to provide
over 2,500 hours of service to the City and had exceeded that amount. He stated that the
change in .Iand use would ultimately .result in completing their sanctuary, which is under
. construction. Once the study is complete, the Center would conduct neighborhood outreach to
provide the project details.
Richard Van De Boom, President of California Highlands Homeowners Association and
California Highlands resident, stated, on behalf of the Association, their concern was the wildlife
in the proposed site creek would be at risk without the environmental impact report conducted.
He also. stated that access into the proposed site would cause added traffic congestion as well
as a parking issue with the proposed 1 to 25 units in the plan.
Michelle Fontaine, California Highlands resident, urged the City Council to consider how this
project would impact all of the residents that had purchased homes for the reason of seclusion
and location with added traffic and parking issues of a high density residential project.
Vm. Hart asked for Staff to comment on surplus land in the proposed area of study.
Ms. Bascom stated that there was a sliver of Dublin Boulevard right of way that would need a
surplus analysis to be conducted if it were to be included in the potential project that was owned
by the City.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 30
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 4, 2011
12
DRAFT
Vm. Hart asked for clarification of Mr Van De Boom's comment related to the' exclusion of an
environmental impact report.
Ms. Bascom stated that what Mr. Van De Boom was referring to is that CEQA would not apply
to bring forward this request for study, but once the study is approved then all of the requisite
environmental analysis would be conducted.
Mayor Sbranti asked how many units were being proposed in this project.
Mr. Tebbutl responded that 20 units would ultimately be proposed in'the project.
Mayor Sbranti stated his support for this study as the surrounding developments had moved
forward and any issues that may have been a concern in 2003 had been resolved.
Cm. Swalwell reiterated that this motion was approving a study and not approving the proposed
rezoning.
Vm. Hart stated his support for the study to move forward, but expressed concern over the
issues brought forward by California Highlands regarding traffic and parking.
Cm. Hildenbrand stated her support for the study to be able to make a more informed decision
and expressed concerns for increased traffic issues that would be closely monitored.
On motion of Cm. Biddle, seconded by Mayor Sbranti and by unanimous vote, the City Council
adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 173-11
APPROVING THE INITIATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY TO CHANGE
THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR A 1.4 ACRE PROPERTY AT THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD AND INSPIRATION DRIVE FROM
PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC TO MEDIUM/HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LOCATED AT 7500
INSPIRATION DRIVE
(APN 941-0022-005-00)
..
Parkinq Desiqnation on Antone Way
11:12:03PM
8.2 (820"80)
Jaimee Bourgeois, Transportation and Operations Manager, presented the Staff Report and
advised that while on-street parking is allowed on Antone Way, there is insufficient width at the
east end where there exists a center median. While venicles had been knownto park alol!g this
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 30
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 4, 2011
13
1I~'~~1
19.~~>>i!
~~~
C:!L.IfO\i.'2-v-"
DRAFT
section, particularly during school drop-off and pick-up times, it was recommended that, in the
interest of public safety, "No Parking" zones be designated on the north and south sides of the
street.
On motion of Cm Hildenbrand, seconded by Cm Swalwell and by unanimous vote, the City
Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 174-11
APPROVING PARKING REGULATION ON ANTONE WAY
..
Parks and Community Services Strateqic Plan Annual Report
11:13 PM 8.3 (920-10)
City Manager Joni Pattillo requested that the City Council consider moving item 8.3 Parks and
Community Services Strategic Plan Annual Report to the next City Council meeting of October
18, 2011, due to time consideration. The City Council was in agreement to move item 8.3 to the'
next City Council meeting.
..
Confirmation of Appointment of City Council 2011 Ad-Hoc Audit Review Committee
11:13:20 PM
84
(610-40)
Mayor Sbranti presented the Staff Report and advised that the independent auditors from the
firm of Caporicci and Larson, Inc. (a subsidiary of Marcum, LLP) had scheduled their field work
necessary to complete the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for the year ending
June 30, 2011. The City Council would consider the establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee,
comprised of two City Council Members, to review the audit process and final report with the.
Auditors. The Committee would also review recommendations for a new audit engagement
which will begin with the financial reporting period ending June 30, 2012.
On motion of Mayor Sbranti, seconded by Cm. Hildenbrand and by unanimous vote, the City
Council confirmed the Mayor's appointment of Vice Mayor Kevin Hart and Councilmember Eric
Swalwell as the 2011 Ad-Hoc Audit Review Committee that would serve for a limited time, The
Committee will meet with the City Auditors to review and discuss the audit report for the period
ending June 30, 2011.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 30
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 4, 2011 .
14
DRAFT
OTHER BUSINESS Brief /NFORMA nON ONLY reports from Council and/or Staff,
including Committee Reports and Reports by Council related to meetings attended at
City expense (AB 1234)
11:1348 PM
City Manager Pattillo informed the City Council that Officer Nate Schmidt was commended by
the District Attorney's Office for his work in the Rosa Hill case in Dublin.
Cm. Swalwell attended the Tri-Valley Council Dinner, the Joint Dublin Unified. School District
meeting, the Dublin Rotary meeting, and the Target grand opening
Cm. Hildenbrand attended Tri-Valley Council Dinner, the Joint Dublin Unified School District
meeting, Social Media meeting, and the League of California Cities Annual Conference in San
Francisco.
'Cm Biddle attended the League of C,alifornia Cities Annual Conference in San Francisco, the
Developer Roundtable, the Senior Fair, the Livermore Amador Valley Transportation Authority
25th Anniversary, and the Social Media Workshop.
Cm. Hart attended the Tri-Valley Council Dinner, the Joint Dublin Unified School District
meeting, the Dublin Rotary meeting, and the Target grand opening.
Mayor Sbranti attended the City of Dublin Annual Golf Tournament, the Tri-Valley Council
Dinner, the Joint Dublin Unified School District meeting, the Dublin Rotary meeting, and the
Target grand opening,
..
ADJOURNMENT 11:21:06 PM
10.1
There being no further business to come before the City Council, the meeting was adjourned at
11 :21 PM in memory of Staff Sgt. Sean Diamond and our fallen troops, and in honor of AI
White, Dublin business owner of Dublin Trophy HOLlse, long tenured Lions member, and Rotary
member, and Chamber member, who passed away.
Minutes prepared by Dora Ramirez, Deputy City Clerk.
Mayor
ATTEST:
Deputy City Clerk
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 30
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 4, 2011
15
Chapter 4: Required Elements of the General Plan-land Use
The land use diagram
Attorney General Opinion No. 83,-804, March 7,
1984 addresses the requi'red level of specificity of the
land use diagram. III answer to the question of whether
a parcel specific map is required for the land use ele-
ment ora generall'lan, the Attorney General reasoned
fhaI' the detail necessary for a parcel sp~ciflc map may
be developed at a later stage in the Jand use process
(through specific plans, zoning ordinances Clnd subdi-
vision maps); therefore, a parcel specific map is not
required, only a diagram of general locations illustml-'
ing the policies of the plan.
The Cl1lifornia Supreme Court; in United Oll/duor
Adwrtising Co. 1'. BlISiness, TraJlsportatiolt and Hous-
ing Agency (1988) 44 Col. 3d 242, briefly discussed
the degree of precision which can be expected of [I'
general pl,an. The high court held that when $(jl1 Ber-
nardino County llsed a circle to distinguish the COIll-
munity of Baker CIS a "Desert Special Service Center"
the county did not delineate a well-defined geographic
area. Accordi!lg to the opinion of tile court, "the circle
011 the general plan' no more represents the precise
boundaries ofa present or future commercial area thnn
the dot or square Oll a map of California represents the
exact" size and shape of Baker or any other community."
The concept of the diagram as a general guide to
land use distribution rather than fI parcel specific map
also figured in the case of Las rrJgem:.r Homeowners
Associatioll v. Los Angeles COllll'Y (J 986) 177
Cal.App.3d 310. There, the court of nppenlupheld the
adequacy ofa county plllll which contained a gencral~
izcd land lIse map and which delegated specific lanel
llse interpretations to community ptans. See Chapter I
for a discussion of consistency between the diagr~ms
and the phm text.
Population density
Camp I'. COllnty 0/ Mendocino (l98J) J23
Cal,App.3d 334 established thot a general plan must
contain stnndards for populatioll density. It did not,
however, define slIch standards, The court in hl'ain
Harte Homeowners Association 1'. Tuolumne C01IJJ(l'
(1982) /38 CalApp.Jd 664 defined population dell~
sity as the "numbers of pl'ople in a given area and not
the dwelling units per acre, unless tbe basis for corre-
lation between tlle measure of dwelling units per acre
and numbers of people is sct forth explicilly in the
plan.}) Qut"mtifiable st<lndards of population density
must be provided for eflch of the land use cntegorics
contained in the plnn. '
Population density standards need !lot be restricted
solely to Inlld Llse designations with resiclentinl devel-
50 General Plan Guidelines
opment potential. 'As the court stated in 7k{!i1l Harte:
"it ,yould not be unreasonable to interpret tbe !erm
<;.population density" as relating not only to residential
density, but also to uses ofllonresidentiaJ land catego-
ries and as requiring an analysis of use patterns for all
categories. . . it appears sensible to -allow local gov-
ernments to detcrInirie whether the slatement ofpopu-
lation standards is to be tied to residency or, more
mnbitiously, to the daily usage [sic] estimates for each
land classification."
Although applied diflerently from one jurisdiction
lo.another, population density CRn best be expressed
as the relationship between two factors: tbe number of
dwellings per acre and the number of residents per
dwelling. Curreru estimates oftltc average Humber of
persons per household are available from the Depart-
ment of Financels Demographic Research and Census
Data Center (www.dofca.gov),
Building intensity
Till: Camp decision also held that fin adequate gen~
eral plan Illust cOlltflin standards for building intensity.
Again, the Iil'ilin Harte court has provided the mo~t
complete interpretation of building intensity avnilable
to d<'lte. These are its major points: intensity should be
defined for eacll of the various land use categories in
the plan; general use captions such as "neighborhood
commerciaP' and "service industr;al" are insufficient
measures of intensity by themselves; alld, building in-
tensity is not synonymous with population density. In-
tensity will be depen<lent upon the local plan's context
and JIlay be bas.ed upon a combination of variables such
<'IS maximum dwelling Lmits per acre, hGight and size
limita.tiOlls, and Lise restrictions. Unfortunately, the
COurt stopped short of defining what Me proper l11ea~
sure~s of building intensity.
Local general plans must contain quantifiable stan-
dards of blJilding intensiry for eacb land use desigl1:1~
tion. These st.lndnrds s.hould define t1~{,' most intensive
use tlwt1yi!l be allowe~ under each designation. While
the hmd Llse designation identifies the type of allow.
able uses, the building intensity standard will define
the concentration of lIse. 'Intensity standards can in-
durle provisions for flexibility such llS denslty bonuses,
cluster zoning, planned unit develobmellts, and the like.
OPR recommends that e~ch intenSIty standard in-
clude these variables: (1) permitted lands uses or build-
ing types; and (2) concentration of\1se. Permitted uses
and b\lilding types is a qualitative measurc of tile uses
that will be allowable in each land use designation.
The concentratiQn of use can be deAned by one or mare
quantitative Illcrrsures thal relate directly to tbe amount
Attachment 6
Chapter I: G.eneral Plan Basks
ante unless the variance pertains to the rebuilding of
an unintentionally destroyed notl-confollning use.
. Tbe city shrill not approve plans for the dowlltown
shopping center until an independently conducted
market study indicales that the center would be eco-
nomically feasible.
.. The city shall give f~worable {;onsidcration to
conditionalllsc permit proposals involving adap-
tive reuse of buildings that are designnted as "ar-
chltecturally'significant" by the cultural resources
element.
Stnnu31'ds
A st,mdard is a rule or lllc.asure establishing a level
of quality or quantity that must be complied ",'jlh OJ'
sCltistied, Standards define the abstract terms of ObR
iectives and policies with concrete specifications.
The Go\'emIllent Code makes various referellces to
general plan standards. For example, ~65302(a) states
in pal1 thatthe land use element must H...incltlde a state-
ment of the standards of population density and build-
ing intensity recommended for the various districts and
other territory covered by the plan." Other examples
of statutory refercnces to general plan standards in-
clude those found in g66477 (the Quimby Act) and
~66479 (reservations of land within subdivisions). Of
l:oursc, a local legislature may ndopl any other general
Dlan standards it deems desirable.
E.Y({1Jlp[es oj,ytundm'ds:
II) A milltInally acceptable peak hall I' level of service
for an arterial street is level of service c.
o The minimum acrel.lge required for a regional shop-
ping center is from 40 to 50 acres.
ot HiglHlcnsity residential means 15 to 30 dwelling
units per acre and up lo 42 dwelling units per acre
with a density bonus.
~ 'the first floor of n.li new construction shall b~ at
least two feet above the base flood elevation.
Pia" Proposa I
A plan pruposal describes the development intended
to take place in an area. Plan proposals are often ex-
pressed on the general plan ding ram.
,Ex{j})1ples of plan propos.a1s;
. First Street and Harbor Avenue me designated (\5
arterials,
. The proposed downtown shopping center \vill be
16 General Plan Guidelines
located within the aren bound by D and G Avenues
and Third tllld Fourth Streets.
. A new parking structure shall be located ill the vi~
cillitles of each of the following downtown inter-
sections: First Street andAAvenue, and Fifth Street
;md D Avenue,
Imp,lcmentatioll Measul'e
All implcment<1tion measure is an action, procedure,
program, or technique that carries out general plan
policy. Each policy must have at least one correspond-
ing implementation measure,
Examples ofimp/emeJlloliol1 measures:
. The city shall use tax-increment financing to pay
the cos1') ofrepfacing old sidewalks in the redevel-
opment area.
. The city shall adopt a specific plan for th~ illdus-
trial park.
. Areas designated by the land use element for agri-
culture shaH be placed in the agricultuml zone.
Linldllg Objectives to ImplcllH'lIt3tion
The following examples show the relationships
t1l11ong objecl.ives, policies, and implementation ll1ea-
SUITS. The examples are arranged according to a hier.
archy th)lll the general to the specific~from goals to
implementation measures. In all Rctual geneml pl<.1n,
there might be more than one policy under each objec-
tive, more than ope implementation measure under each
policy, etc.
Goal:
* A thriving downtowh that is the center of the city's
retan and service cOIn mercia I C1ctivities.
Objective:
. Development ofa new regional shopping ccntt'r ill
the downtO\vn,
Policy:
4,10. The city shall not approve disCl.ctiollary projects
or huilding pertnits that could impedc development
of the do\vnfown regional shopping center.
Implementation /J1easl/l'es:
. The city shall adopt an interim zoning ordinance-
restricting further development irl' the general vi-
cinity of the proposed dowlHo\vn shopping center
ATTACHMENT 7
~",,,.,~
~'~
AGENDA STATEMENT
City Council M~~ting
S~pt~mb~r 14, 1992
SUBJECT:'
Amcndm~nt' to the City of Dublin General Plan 'to Incorporate
Various Technical Revisions
BY: ~renda A. Gillarde, Project Consultant
PREPARED
ATTACHMENTS: 1. City of Dublin General Plan Technical Revisions,
dated August 13, 1992
2. Resolution for City Council Adoption of
Technical Revisions General Plan Amendment
3. Negative Declar,ation, dated February 25, 1991
'4. Planning Com mission resolution 92-45, recommending City
Council adoption of the general plan amendment, dated
August 17, 1992
5; General Plan Technical Appendices, dated February 1984
, RECOMMEN~rrION:
1.
l:f r<V ' ;:
4.
5.
6.
Open public hearing and hear staff presentation
Take public testimony
Ask questions of Staff and the public
Close public hearing ,
Discuss general plan amendment
Approve the resolution
FJNANCIAL STATEMENT:
Cost to prepare amendment (graphics and printing) estimated at
$2,320. Funds are available in the FY 92-93 budget.
BACKGROUND:
"
A recent review of the City's current gel)~ral plan (adopted February,1985) has
revealed that certain information should be add~d in conformance with Government
Code provisions for general plans. The City used the 1990 General Plan Guidelines
published by the California State Office of Planning and Research for guidance in
this general plan revision effort. Most of the changes involve adding statutory ,
references, cross referencing statutes, or, updating text to reflect .statutory changes.
Some implementing policies -have been"added-to strengthen existing City programs.
In addition, policies adopted by previous City general plan amendments have been
included with this general plan amendment and physically inserted into the general
plan document.
The above changes have ,been made to the plan and are now proposed for
incorporation into the document (Attachment 1). ,This would be accomplished by
the adoption of a resolution amending the existing city general pllln (Attachment 2),
A negative declaration was prepared for this project and was circulated to the
appropriate agencies (Attachment 3). The Planning Commission held a public
hearing on t'his item August 17th and passed a resolution recom mending City
Counell approval of the revisions, (See Attachment 4 for Planning Commission
resolution.)
1
:L",~~~~_~'~:",~.,_,,;.;.':""-'-":"'~"'':'''-'-''~";';''':C'__~='~~:::_-",,-,,~,~~~:::':":.:':"""'''-'.;;~''~''''''~='"-'-'-'-~~'''~-:'''
;..~~----~-
,~-~; _::,::;;,,::::;':,::~~ :':, ~~"'::~.:-,~ ~.:...:" ,"::
,.,~.~--=" - -
..---~,;-"~:._.; ~,,,;;;...:..._;....:..:_:,, '~>
'.-! .
DISCUSSION,
A. Technical Revisions to the Plan
As discussed above, language has been added to the Dublin General Plan that.
generally explains or clarifies certain sections of the plan. In some instances,
information. has' been added that was previously lacking for specific areas, such as
intensity standards for each commercial land use category.
The additions are to bring the plan into better. conformance with the 1990 State
General Plan. Guidelines. The changes do not affect. the policy direction of the
plan and it remai.ns as adopted in 1985. The most important technical revisions to-
the plan are outlined below by general plan chapter. Attachment 1 containS the
actual text changes, indicated by underlining and StrilCC61lt.
Chapter 1.0 Background
Several paragraphs have been added to the introduction to clarify the format of the
current general plan and where certain. information can be located. Reference is
made to current planning studies underway in western and eastern Dublin.. . Note
has been made that the Western Dublin . General Plan Amendment and-.Specific Plan
was recently approved by the City. Pages 1-Bthrough 1-7 contain additional
intensity standards for commercial development, as required by the Government
Code and discussed in the State General Plan Guidelines. .
Chapter 2.0 Land Use and Circulation Section: Land Use Element
Paragraphs have been. added to. the introduction clarifying the. required scope and
content of a . general plan -land use element.. The location..of certain required
information such as density and. intensity -standards, distribution of land uses and
open space is also provided in these introductory paragraphs.
Table 2.2 has been updated to reflect current potential housing sites... Explanatory
language was added to pages 2-4 and 2-5 about the Downtown Specific Plan which
was adopted in 1987.
Chabter 3.0 Land Use and Circulation Section: Parks and Open Soace
Explanatory language was added to the introduction describing .the required contents
of an open space element. On page 3-2, language was added describing .the City's
current park facilities and additional implementation policies added to page 3-3 that
would further promote aequisition of -needed- outdoor recreation sites.
ChaDter 4.0 Land Use. and Circulation Section: Schools. Public Lands and Utilities
Element
Explanatory language was added to the introduction specifying the required . contents
of this portion of the land use element. Additional implementing policies were
inserted on page 4-1 to ensure provision of adequate school facilities in the
Extended Planning Area. .
The discussion of..solid. waste was updated to reflect current legislation for source
reduction and recycling. Accordingly, implementation policies were added to ensure
2
,
current city programs are enforced. An implementation policy was also added to
the sewer treatment section (page 4-4) to ensure the availability of adequate
treatment prior to construction.
ha tel' 5
Element
This. chapter contains the most extensive technical revisions. In addition to .
language added..to the introduction describing the required contents of a circulation
element, a complete set of street standards .has been added (see pages 5-2. through
5-7). On page 5-11, a brief description of .flillding .for road improvements has been
inserted. While these revisions are fairly extensive, they do not alter the current
policy direction of the general. plan. The standards were included for the purpose'
of better defining the City's current and future roadway system.
Jand Use and eir ulation Sect'on: Circulati and Scenic i hwa
Chapter 6.0 Housing Section
This section has been deleted from the document since it was . recently .updated in
1990. .A reference is provided indicating where the revised housing element can be
obtained.
. Chapter 7.0 Environmental Resources Management Section: Conservation Element
The .major changes to this element-are the addition of explanatory language to the
introduction (page 7-1); sim fiar language added to the section addressing stream
corridors .(page7-2); .and expansion of the open. space section to include language.
and. measures that further strengthen open space acquisition and maintenance (pages
7-5, 7-6). .
Chapter 8.0 Environmental Resources Management Section: Seismic Safety and
Safety Element
Explanatory language has been added to. the introduction (pageS-1); clarifying
language .about. fire service (page .8-4); further. explanation about flooding (pages
8-5, 8-6); and an implementation Policy about hazardous waste (page 8-7).
Chapter 9.0 Environmental Resources Management Section: Noise Element
Language was added to the introduction specifying. .the required contents of a noise
element (page 9-1). Discussion was added . about future noise sources created by
the proposed BART stations (page 9-1). The BART Em was referenced for further
information. -..- -.'
B. Incorporation of the Technical Appendices
Although the. Technical Appendices are contained in a separate document. .
(Attachment 5), they contain information relevant to the general plan elements and
should be adopted. as part of the plan. A section has been . included in the attached
resolution that would formally adopt the Technical Appendices as part of the
. general plan, with the. exception of the Draft Environmental Impad Report. This
part of the technical appendices should not be part of the adopted portions of the
gene ral plan.
0-
3
"._/
-:>:
~:-;=-- -~~:-::::':;-;::::'~~"""",,~',
'.==-- "-::~.i-~_
C. Incorporation of Previouslv Adopted Policies
"'r
Prior .to this proposed. general plan..amendment, there were several previous general
plan amendments . which added certain. policies to. the City's general plan. These
policies were never. physically. inserted into the .plan .document. This. current
general plan amendment provides the opportunity to do this and so they have been
in<;:jllded in the AUl!:ust 1992 amended document. Thev are located on the followimr
pages:
iil
j
~:r
I
"i
":1
Addition ofihe Low-Density Single Family land use category, page 1-6
Guiding Policy G, page 5-8
Guiding Policy A, page 7-5 -
TTT1r11nTTla.,..,f~nr1' ~QljJ">iaCl l=l t'ht>^llrr'h r1 rlOn'OCl '7_1; Gnn '7_~
Jr-r
"'"~
j
~
,
:1 ~..;
I
::
J..-
!
~-
-
.l
,
1
I
A U GUS T 13;
"
.."
---.....,,~.
D R AFT G ENE R ALP LAN
TEe H N leAL REV IS
. ' . ".
TOT HE'
C I T Y 0 F D.U B'LI
. '.
. .'
G ENE R ALP' L A
='. ~?"'-~:~'-:::'?,":,0~
~,~> i.+i~;;~':;i_~i<":,->-,,,~~:::,21
;....'---'F
,'::.";f
..j
"
-
~':: ....~'.._..
"-:<.; :..~/
~. i).,:~;',;:1
:~-::;j'
'-;'
:;,j/
Primary Planning Area
Residential (Note: Assumed residential
contained in the 1990 Housing Element)
household size is based on
data l'~ 4lil
~
Residential: Low-Density Single-family (0.5 to 3.8 units per gross
residential acre). Detached units with assumed household size of 3.2
persons per unit.
Residential: Single-family (0.9 to 6.0 units per gross residential
acre; assumed household size of 3.2 persons per unit.). Detached and
zero lot line (no side yard) units are within this density range.
Examples are recent subdivisions in Dublin's western foothills at about
2.0 units per acre and ponderosa Village at 5.8 units per acre.
Residential: Medium Density (6.1 to 14.0 units per gross residential
acre; assumed household size of 2.0 persons per unit.). The range
'allows duplex, townhouse, and garden apartment development suitable for
family living. Except where mixed dwelling types are d~signated, unit
types and densities may be similar or varied. Where the plan requires
mixed dwelling types, listed policies specific to the site govern the
location and distribution of dwelling types. Recently reviewed
projects in the medium density range include Parkway Terrace (7.8) and
Amador Lakes west of'the Dougherty Hills (13.5).
Residential: Medium-High Density (14.1 to 25.0 units per gross
residential acre; assumed household size of 2.0 persons per unit.).
Projects at the upper end of this range normally will require Some
under-structure parking and will have three or more living levels in
order to meet zoning ordinance open space requirements. Examples of
medium-high density projects include The springs (17.8) and Greenwood
Apartments (19.8).
Commercial/Industrial
Retail/Office (FAR: .25 to .50; employee density: 200-450 square feet
per employee.). Shopping centers, s.tores, restaurants, business and
professional offices, motels, service stations, and sale of auto parts
are included in this classification. Residential use is excluded
except in the Downtown Intensification Area described in Section
2.2.l.A.
Retail/Office
to.490 square
retail/office
similar uses.
and Autolllc::tj,ve (FAR: .25 to .50; employee density: 220
feet per employe~.. This classification includes all
uses and adds auto dealerships, auto body shops, and
Residential uses are not permitted.
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
1-6
,
L
'..,
::t
'0-
C/J.
J., .
"
0iD'
::"'f:~)~
""'~""'-
--."".,,':..
.
,
.j
, ~~~;~~~,:.E:T"...~::::~;;7
, I
0', .!
~'::';::;';':;:::,:::' ;i?~
!;;c;;:
<""':,.;''";
":.'.::';'./
::"7'~~'
.,-,:!,;. r:tt:I
requirements and typically re'sult in .35 to .40 FAR's. Examples:
Avenue, Sierra Court.
Clark
jr Business Park/Industrial: Outdoor Storage (FAR: .25 to .40; employee'
gensity: 360-490 square feet per employee.). In addition to the
Business Park/Industrial uses described above, this classification
includes retail and manufacturing activities conducted outdoors such as
mobile home or construction materials storage. Example: Scarlett
Court.
public/Semi-Public (FAR:
employee)
public/Semi-Public Facilities. Uses other than parks owned by a public
agency that are of sufficient size to warrant differentiation from
adjoining uses are labeled. Development nf housing on a site
designated on the General Plan as semi-pUblic shall be considered
consistent with the General Plan. Determination as to whether housing
should be permitted on a specific semi-public site and the acceptable
density and design will be through review of a Planned Unit Development
proposal under the Zoning Ordinance. Examples: Public and private
schools, churches, Civic Center.
.50; employee density: 590 square ~eet per
Parks/Public Recreation. Publicly owned parks and recreation
facilities.
~
Open Space. Included are areas dedicated as
maps, slopes greater than 30 percent, stream
. woodlands, and grazing lands.
open space on subdivision
protection corridors,
Extended Planninq Area (See Figure 1-2)
Residential and Open Space
See General Plan Map and Sections 2.1.4, 3.i, 3.2, and 3.3.
Commercial/Industrial
Business Park/Industrial: Low coverage (FAR: .25 to .40; employee
density: 360-490 square feet per employee). This classification is
intended to provide a campus-like setting with open plazas and
landscaped pedestrian amenities for the uses described in 'the Business
Park/Industrial classification for the Vrimary Planning Area and to
allow retail uses tOS~:Eve ,businesses and residents. Maxilfltlm-fleer
area-raEie-fbtlilding-fleer-area-~s-pereent-ef-let-areat-te-be
determ~ned-by-zoning-regtllaEiens-shetlld-be-between-725-and-73T7
See General Plan Map and Section 2.37~4.
,
"
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
i
Business Park/Industrial. Same as in Primary Planning Area.
Public Lands
Large holdings such as Varks RFTA, Santa Rita, and Tassajara Creek
~( Regional Park.
1 - 7
6968 Sierra Court Dublin LLC
200 Ravenna Way
EI Dorado Hills, CA 9S762
Octooer 4, 2011
Dublin City Council
City Hall
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
C;O Brad Brown All American Label; via email
Re: October 4'" 2011 Meeting - City of Dublin General Plan and Floor Area Ratio
Dear City Council Members,
I write you as a neighboring landowner of All American Label located at 6958 Sierra Court Dublin, CA
94568, I am General controlling partner of real property located at 6968 Sierra Court, Dublin, CA 94568,
It ',S my understanding that the City Council will determine whether or not the City of Dublin General
Plan permits a Floor Area Ratio in excess of forty percent (40%) for industrial commercial property
located in Dublin. It appears that there are many properties within the City Plan with over that ratio and
in fact fifty percent (50%) ratio is allowed in East Dublin.
I operated a business at 6968 Sierra Court Dublin CA, from 1990 to 2009 and I am current landlord
located across the street (at the end of Sierra Court) from All American Label. Brad Brown has vastly
improved the property at 6958 Sierra Court since he took control of property and as an owner occupied
property type owner continues to maintain his property in an A-l condition. In Brad's property
improvement process additional space was added to his building. The additional building space replaced
tuck away unused land with no neighbor business to the north side of property being impacted by this
addition. In my "pinion the "additional building space" was an eye sore and the land space now being
utilized was a fire hazard and garbage heap and was not maintained by prior owners before Brad took
control of property. The way I understand the City of Dublin General Plan and CC&R's of this business
park 40 .percent (40%) FAR is the suggested ratio.
Additionally my observations in today's current economic climate it is nice to see a thriving business in
The City of Dublin ~reating jobs and revenue for the City of Dublin and surrounding businesses. Brad has
a choice to operate his type business anywhere in the world. Tome this is a compelling government
concern in keeping business in our country and should be of concern for the City of Dublin, County of
Alameda, State of California and the country we all love USA. Brad chose to stay operate here and
expand his business tastefully in the City of Dublin. I think his addition also gives addition tax revenue
. opportunity to the City of Dublin and the County of Alameda. I understand rules and laws are in place to
protect property owners and to keep The City of Dublin the beautiful City the GeneralPlan envisions. I
. believe Brad has kept his improvements within the bigger picture intent of the City of Dublin founding
fathers intentions of making Dublin the All American City it is known for.
I strongly believe that any FAR restriction imposed on this property would only hurt property values in
the immediate area of 6958 and 6968 Sierra Court properties and in this case return property to an
unsightly condition and loss of potential tax revenue to City of Dublin and Alameda County. I strongly
recommend a variance on Floor Area Ratio at property located at 6958 Sierra Court City of Dublin.
I would be happy to discuss this matter with any council member directly should you have any questions
or comments. My cell phone number is 916-541-7756.
Sincerely,
Phil Gelhaus
General Partner 6968 Sierra Court Dublin LLC
October 4,20.11
Dublin City Council
City Hall
I Go. Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Re: October 4, 20.11 Mceting - City of Dublin Gcncral Plan and Floor Area Ratio
Dear City Council Membcrs,
I am writing you concerning the above referenced matter as 1 am the owner of 690.8 Sierra Court,
Dublin, CA 94568.
Since I am unable to make thc mceting this evening the purpose of this letter is to communicate,
as a property owner on Sierra Court, my strong desire for the FAR (Floor Area Ratio) to be
expanded to 50.')1" as it cUlTently is in East Dublin.
Thank you for your consideration.
Regards,
'-
11 --1-:> rc
Brian Driscoll
Driscoll Enterprises, LLC
. ~'..
'>
Dublin City Council
Dublin,CA
Sept. 23, 2011
ToWhom it May Concern:
I own the property at 6918 Sierra Court.
I cannot attend the Oct. 4 meeting because I cannot drive at night.
You need to increase the F.A.R. at my property so it conforms to eastern Dublin.
Sincerely,
F&N Company LLC :;) _ /I " - J
by FredrickJ. Falender -.;;-~~
125 Golden Gate Avenue
Belvedere, CA 94920
Ph: 415-435-6328
LAW OFFICES
LEE D. S'I'lMl-.tEL
STEVEN H. ROESBR
STIMMEL, STIMMEL & SMITH
A PROFESSION AL CORPORATION
tr:;15 MONTGOHERY STREET, J2TH FLOOR
SA..~ FRANCISCO, CAI~TFORNJA 94J04
HARRY CORVIN
1913-1970
NOID.tA..'1 S. STIM1>.tBL
1939-1991
OF COUNSEL
LAURA BASALOCO-LAPO
WTLLIAM T. WEBB
SPBNCER W. 'v-RISBR01'H
TELEPHONE (415) 392-2018
FAX (41~} 39H2124
BMAIL STIMMELPC@STIM~XRL"T.AW.COM
WEn SITE W.VW.STDH'(BL"LAW.CO::>.t
SAUSALI'l'O OFFICE BY
API'OlNTMENT O:.Vr.Y
LEOA.1. ASSISTA.......rs
ALISON BOYD
UARIE T.TU
PARTNER EHERITUS
ANDRINE Ie SMITH
IN HE FILE NO.:
October 3, 20 II
Dublin City Council
City Hall
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Re: October 4, 20 I I Meeting - City of Dublin General Plan and Floor Area Ratio
Dear City Council Members:
I write you on behalf of my client Trilight Properties, LLC, owner of the real property located at 6444
Sierra Court, Dublin, CA 94568.
It is our understanding that the City Council will determine whether or not the City of Dublin General
Plan permits a Floor Area Ratio in excess of forty pereent (40%) for industrial cOlllmercial real property
located in Dublin. It is further our understanding that a Floor Area Ratio of up to fifty percent (50%) is
permitted in Eastern Dublin.
My client strongly bclicves that any such restriction would only hurt commercial real property values in
an already struggling economic region. Therefore, we respcctfldly urge you not to implement any such
Floor Area Ratio rcstriction affecting my client's property or other industrial properties in the arca.
I would be happy todiscuss this matter with you directly should you have any questions or commcnts.
My phone number is (415) 392-2018.
Sinccrcly,
~ fl-- . )/1
--,~/;~-
Steven Roeser' .
cc: Client
October 3, 2011
City of Dublin
Mayor Sbranti and Members of the Council
RE All American Label
Dear Mayor and Council,
I am a Dublin resident and have owned and operated my o'wn Real Estate Appraisal
Company in Dublin since 1994 and I'm also a Real Estate Broker.
I follow the city affairs as it relates to local business and land uses issues, as these items
are very important to me and my business interest
I am writing today in reference to the staff report on the All American Label item in the
City Council agenda, I believe this goes too far. Nobody can read that General Plan
clause and honestly believe it sets a maximum floor area ratio (F AR) of 40% for Sierra
C01ll1,
As a real estate practitioner, I was taught that land value is highly affected by what you
can do with it For the City to come up with a crazy interpretation of the General Plan
that makes almost 70% of the existing properties on Sierra COlH1non-conforming uses
would be a disaster. Even the businesses that don't exceed 40% would have their
properties devalued because they could not expand.
In these current economic times and all the pressure that goes with being a small business
owner, I believe the City StatI should work with the businesses that want to expand and
grow the economic base of Dublin, rather thanlllaking'life more difficult.
Please consider supp0l1ing the property owners On Sierra court.
Let's make Dublina better place for the small business owner and the c01ll1,mlniry.
Sincerely,
Glenn l Arace
11671 Manzanita Lane
Dublin, Ca 94568
RESOLUTION NO. xx-xx '
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
* * *'* * * * * * * * *
GRANTING THE APPEAL OF STEVE POPLAR OF LABEL CONCEPTS CORP.,
THEREBY REVERSING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION DENYING THE SITE
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPROVAL FOR THE ALL AMERICAN LABEL PROJECT (PLPA-
2011-00020), AND DIRECTING STAFF TO PROCESS THE APPLICATION FOR SITE
. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW .
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Charles Huff (Architect), on behalf of Mr. Brad Brown (Owner),
has requested approval of a Site Development Review permit to allow a 4,456 square foot
addition to an existing 23,994 square foot building at 6958 Sierra Court; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant has submitted project plans for the requested entitlement
prepared by Charles Huff, AlA, received by the Planning Division on May 4, 2011, attached
as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the project site has a General Plan land use designation of Business
Park/Industrial, which as previously interpreted by City Staff sets out an allowable Floor
Area Ratio (FAR) in the range of .30 to AD and;'
WHEREAS, the applicant argues that the General Plan land use designation does not
establish a definitive maximum FAR at DAD; and.
WHEREAS, the FAR for the proposed project (existing building plus proposed
addition) would be OA8; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with State
guidelines and City. environmental regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for
environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, because it was Staff's determination that the Project did not comply with
the General Plan, initial Staff review and processing of the application was limited solely to
General Plan conformity; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted to the Planning Commission on August 23,
2011 recommending denial of said application, which staff report is incorporated herein by
reference, on the grounds that the proposed project exceeded the DAD FAR requirement of
the General Plan; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to the CEQA, Staff recommended that Planning Commission's
denial of this Project be found Statutorily Exempt pursuant to Section .15270 of the CEQA
Guidelines which states that Projects which are denied are not subject to the provisions of
. CEQA; and .
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on said application;
,and
WHEREAS, proper notice of saia. hearing was given in all respects as required by
law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports,
recommendations and testimony herein above set forth and used its independent judgment
to evaluate the project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did adopt Resolution 11-24 denying a Site
Development Review Permit for a 4,456 square foot addition to an existing 23,994 square
foot building at 6958 Sierra Court on the grounds that the proposed project was
inconsistent with the General Plan because it would cause the property to exceed what it
considered to be the maximum FAR of 0.40 allowed by the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, a Letter of Appeal (dated September 1, 2011) was submitted by Steve
Poplar of Label Concepts Corp. within the 1 O-day appeal period; and
WHEREAS, Staff Reports were submitted to the City of Dublin City Council
recommending that the City Council either affirm Planning Commission Resolution 11-24
denying a Site Development Review Permit for a 4,456 square foot addition to an existing
23,994 square foot building at 6958 Sierra Court or direct the City Attorney to prepare
findings for the City Council to reverse the Planning Commission's action; and
WHEREAS, the City Council initially considered the appeal at a noticed public
hearing held on October 4, 2011 ahd again at the continued hearing on November 1, 2011;
and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearings was given in all respects as required by
law; and
WHEREAS, the" City Council did hear and consider all said' reports,
recommendations and testimony herein above set forth and used its independent judgment
to evaluate the project and at the conclusion of the public hearing on November 1, 2011
indicated its intention to grant the appeal; and
WHEREAS, the "record herein" consists of the minutes of the public hearings on October
4,2011 and November 1,2011 and all documentary evidence submitted to the Coundl at such
public hearings; including the agenda statements dated October 4, 2011 and November 1,
2011.
NOW, THEREFORE AFTER CONSIDERING THE PROVISIONS OF THE DUBLIN
MUNICIPAL CODE, THE CITY OF DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN ANEt,HE RECORD HEREIN,
THE CITY COUNCil MAKES THE FOllOWING FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS:
FINDINGS
1. The pertinent language of the General Plan reads 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
bv parkinQ and landscapinQ requirements and tvpicallv result in .35 to .40 FAR's.
Examples: Clark Avenue, Sierra Court." (City of Dublin General Plan, p. 1-8,
emphasis added.)
2. The quoted language is unclear relative to the maximum permitted FAR and is
in need of eventual clarification.
3. Other than with respect to the Project's consistency with the General Plan FAR
c
requirement, City Staff and the Planning Commission have not yet evaluated the findings
that the decision maker would be required to make under Dublin Municipal Code section
8.104.090.
DETERMINA TIONS
1. The appeal is hereby granted and the decision of the Planning Commission (in
adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 11-24) is reversed.
2. In light of the foregoing determination, Staff is directed to continue processing
the All American Label Site Development Review application in accordance with City
ordinances, policies, and standards, including complying with CEQA. .
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of November 2011 by the
following vote: .
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
. RESOLUTION NO. xx-xx
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
AFFIRMING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 11-24
DENYING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT FOR A 4,456 SQUARE" FOOT
ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 23,994 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING AT 6958 SIERRA COURT
AND AFFIRMING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S FINDINGS
PLPA 2011-00020 (APN 941-2576-006)
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Charles Huff (Architect), on behalf of Mr. Brad Brown (Owner),
has requested approval of a Site Development Review permit to allow a 4,456 square foot
addition to an existing 23,994 square foot building at 6958 Sierra Court; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant has submitted project plans for the requested entitlement
prepared by Charles Huff, AlA received by the Planning Division on May 4, 2011, attached as
Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the project site has a General Plan land use designation of Business
Park/Industrial, which has an allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) range of .30 to AO; and
WHEREAS, the FAR for the proposed project (existing building plus proposed addition) is
A8; and
WHEREAS, the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with State
guidelines and City environmental regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for
environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the CEQA, Staff has recommended that the denial of this Project
be found Statutorily Exempt pursuant to Section 15270 of the CEQA Guidelines which states
that Projects which are denied are not subject to the provisions of CEQA; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted to the Planning. Commission on August 23,
2011 recommending denial of said application, which staff report is incorporated herein by
reference; and
'WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on said application;
WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law;
and'
. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports,
recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth and used its independent judgment to
evaluate the project.
WHEREAS, on August 23,2011, the Planning Commission did adopt Resolution 11-24
denying a Site Development Review Permit for a 4,456 square foot addition to an existing
23,994 square foot building at 6958 Sierra Court, which resolution is incorporated herein by
reference; and
WHEREAS,a Letter of Appeal (dated September 1, 2011) was submitted within the 10-
day appeal period; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted to the City of Dublin City Council
recommending either to affirm Planning Commission Resolution 11-24 denying a Site
Development Review Permit for a 4,456 square foot addition to an existing 23,994 square foot
building at 6958 Sierra Court, or to. direct the City Attorney to prepare findings for the City
Council to reverse the Planning Commission's action. The Staff Report detailed the basis for
the Planning Commission denial and is incorporated herein by reference; and '
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on said appeal on October 4, 2011,
and November 1, 2011; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations
and testimony herein above set forth and used its independent judgment to evaluate the
project; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Dublin City Council does
hereby find that the denial of this Project is Statutorily Exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15270 of the CEQA Guidelines, which states
that Projects which are denied are not subject to the provisions of CEQA.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Dublin City Council does hereby verify
that the appeal of the Planning Commission's denial complied with the provisions of Chapter
8.136, Appeals, of the zoning ordinance.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Dublin City Council does hereby deny the
appeal and affirm Planning Commission Resolution 11-24 denying a Site Development Review
Permit for a 4,456 square foot addition to an existing 23,994 square foot building at 6958
Sierra Court and affirming the Findings set forth in the Planning Commission Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15h day of November 2011 by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
2 of 3
Exitbit A to Attachment
,
,
~ ,
,
; l I
~
~ 8 ~.
,eiij 1
~
s:
-
~
).
I
. ,
I
I
I
I
I
o
.'
-}-I J
:'1
"
III
} i1.I'
Ii,
1'1
t'
III
,
I
...'..
".
I
,
io0/lUl.DN\1Ifm
ALL AI'1'ERICAN LABEL
6958 SI.,.., Ct, --...-----riDfilIN.
.~... [--:--'--.
_. "'- r:::!IJ1lD.C,,^R,"S !lUFF, A-LA,
"">'W: UODWAJl:cJflTli..Ci
, , 'Cll.ft'::"~h..~~",.,.. .7~""'" ~ .. lII.11lj,l~~'"
~''-.''-....
3 of 3