HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.2 Urgency Ord Dev Moratorium
",' .
5T AFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
CITY CLERK.
. File #410-20
DATE: November 15, 2011
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: .' Joni Pattillo, City Managerd~ ~
SUBJECT: Consideration of Urgency Ordinance (Development Moratorium) in Areas
Designated Business Park/Industrial Under the City General Plan
Prepared by John Bakker, City Attorney
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
At its November 1, 2011 meeting, the City Council considered various options for initiating a
General Plan Amendment study concerning the maximum floor area ratio allowed in the lands
designated Business Park/lndustrial by the City's General Plan. For several of the options, an
urgency ordinance (development moratorium) was proposed to maintain the status quo while
the contemplated general plan amendment was being studied, by in particular limiting the
maximum floor area ratio to OAO until the contemplated general plan amendment was'
completed. The City Council chose not to proceed with any of the staff-proposed items but
directed staff to return during the Strategic Initiatives Process with a proposal to study the
commercial land uses in the Dublin Boulevard corridor roughly from Village Parkway on the west
to the Transit Center on the east. The proposed urgency ordinance would maintain the status
quo for an initial 45-day period while the City Council considers the contemplated general plan
amendment and/or specific plan initiation.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATION: .
Staff recommends that the City Council. consider the proposed ordinance and take the
appropriate action. If the City Council elects to adopt the proposed ordinance, it must be
adopted bv a four-fifths vote.
/~-~
Submitted By
City Attorney
C?ic.--C'1-
Reviewed. By
Assistant City Manager
Page 1 of 3
ITEM NO. 7.2
DESCRIPTION:
Background'
At the City Council meeting of October 4, 2011, the City Council held a public hearing on an
appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny Site Development Review (SDR)
approval for the All American Label project due to inconsistency with the City's General Plan.
The SDR application made by All American Label is for a 4,456 square foot addition to an
existing 23,994 square foot building at 6958 Sierra Court The building addition would increase
the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for the property from an existing OAO to OA8. In accordance with
the General Plan, Staff's position has been that the maximum FAR in the Business
Park/Industrial land use category where the property is located is OAO. Therefore, Staff
recommended, and the Planning Commission concurred, that the appeal should be denied
because the project would exceed the allowable FAR in accordance with the General Plan and
was inconsistent with this guiding policy document The Planning Commission's decision was
appealed and the item was placed on the City Council agenda on October 4, 2011.
At the October 4th meeting, the City Council voted to continue the item to November 1, 2011.
The City Council's discussion centered on the issues of clarity of the Business Park/Industrial
land use category description in the General Plan and on wanting to ensure that businesses in
the area had the ability to grow and expand. The City Council was also looking for a better
understanding of the status of legal non-conforming uses in the Sierra Court area. At the
conclusion of the discussion, in addition to continuing the appeal to November 1, 2011, the City
Council directed Staff to prepare a staff report on options for initiating a General Plan
Amendment for the Business Park/Industrial areas on Sierra Court. The City Council also
directed Staff to prepare an Urgency Ordinance to enact a moratorium on new development on
property with a Business Park/Industrial General Plan land use designation until the General
Plan Amendment Study had been completed.
Staff presented the appeal and the General Plan Amendment options at the November 1, 2011
City Council meeting (Attachment 1). The City Council, finding the FAR language to potentially
permit development to exceed OAO in certain circumstances, directed the City Attorney to
prepare findings reversing the Planning Commission decision. The findings have been
submitted for City Council approval in a separate agenda item. The City Council considered the
various General Plan Amendment study options presented by Staff, but ultimately chose not to
proceed with any of the outlined options. Instead, the City Council, by consensus, directed Staff
to return during the Strategic Initiatives process with a proposal (including the cost implications)
to study the land uses and allowable development intensity in the Sierra Court project area and
including all commercial and industrial properties along the Dublin Boulevard corridor roughly
from Village Parkway on the west to Scarlett Court on the east At the conclusion of the
hearing, the City Council adopted an urgency ordinance by a vote of 3-2. At the meeting, since
the City Council's direction did not implement any of the several options presented byStaff.upon
which the urgency ordinance was based, Staff understood that the City Council was directing
staff to bring back a'n urgency ordinance at the November 15 meeting. In any event, the
. urgency ordinance did not become effective because it was not enacted by a fourcfifths vote.
Moratorium Process
An interim ordinance would take effect immediately if adopted by a four-fifths vote by the City
Council. State law limits the initial term of the ordinance to 45 days. State law also requires the'
ordina'nce to include a finding that there is a current and immediate threat to the public health,
Page 2 of 3
safety or welfare, and that the approval of ministerial or discretionary actions in order to comply
with the Zoning Ordinance would result in a threat to public health, safety or welfare. State law
allows the City Council to extend the ordinance by 10 months and 15 days, and again by one
year (for a total of two years), following a noticed public hearing. Any subsequent extension
shall require a four-fifths vote for adoption. No more than two extensions may be adopted. Ten
days prior to the expiration of an interim ordinance or any extension, the City Council shall issue
a written report describing the measures taken to alleviate the condition, which led to the
adoption of the ordinance. Should the City Council establish a moratorium through the adoption
of this urgency ordinance, the abovecmentioned written report and extension request would be
brought back to the City Council on December 20, 2011.
The proposed interim ordinance (Attachment 2) is premised on the City Council's intention to
study the land uses in the Dublin Boulevard corridor roughly between Village Parkway and
Scarlett Court, including' the maximum FAR permitted in the Business Park/Industrial
classification.. It finds that it would be contrary to the public welfare to permit the approval of
development in excess of 0.40 during the interim' period before the City completes the
contemplated General Plan Amendment and/or Specific Plan process, since it would potentially
conflict with the contemplated General Plan Amendment and/or Specific Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Staff recommends that the Urgency Ordinance be found to be exempt from CEQA pursuant to
Section 15061 (b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines because the proposed 'Ordinance would
prevent changes in the environment pending the completion of the contemplated General Plan
Amendment Study and/or development of a Specific Plan.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
Public noticing is not required to adopt an Urgency Ordinance. Although not required, the City
mailed. notices of the November 1, 2011 meeting to all owners and tenants of property with a
General Plan land use designation of Business Parkllndustrial and to all property owners and
tenants within 300 feet of these properties. A notice was also posted in the designated posting
places.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. November 1,2011 Staff Report (Item 7.1)
2. Proposed Urgency Ordinance Making Findings and Adopting a
Moratorium on Projects that Would Result in a Floor Area Ratio
Greater than OAO in any Property with a General Plan Land Use
Designation of Business Parkllndustrial.
Page 3 of 3
.
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
CITY CLERK
File #420-30
DATE: November 1, 2011
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Joni Pattillo, City Managerd~ ;~o
SUBJECT: Business Parkllndustrial General Plan Amendment Study
Prepared by Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The' City Council will consider the initiation of a General Plan Amendment Study and
accompanying Urgency Ordinance (Development Moratorium) for either a portion of, or all
properties in Dublin with a Business Park/Industrial General Plan land use designation.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The financial impact of the project varies depending on the option(s) selected to be pursued by
the City Council. Initiation of a General Plan Amendment Study can vary from $3,810 to
$109,440, depending on which option is selected.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Deliberate; and 3)
Take one of the following actions:
.~
3a) Direct staff to prepare an amendment to the General Plan that clarifies the General Plan
provisions relating to the minimum and maximum Floor Area Ratios (FARs) for various
land uses in the General Plan. No Urgency Ordinance establishing a moratorium is
required with this option.
.3b) Adopt a Resolution approving the initiation of a General Plan Amendment Study to
increase the maximum Floor Area Ratio for ill! properties with a Business Parkllndustrial
General Plan land use designation from OAO to 0.50, and also study potential new uses
that could be allowed in the area. With this option the City Council would also waive the
reading and adopt an Urgency Ordinance making Findings and establishing a
. moratorium on the development of any property with a Business Parkllndustrial General
Plan land use designation in excess of a AO FAR pending the completion of a General
Plan Amendment Study.
3c) Adopt a Resolution approving the initiation of a General Plan Amendment Study to
create a new land use category for properties in the Sierra CourtlSierra Lanelfrinity
Court area with a Business Parkllndustrial General Plan land use designation with a
maximum Floor Area Ratio '(FAR) of 0.50, and a.lso study potential new uses that could
be allowed in the area. With this option the City Council would als.o waive the reading
Page 1 of 9
ITEM NO. 7.1
and adopt an Urgency Ordinance making Findings and establishing a moratorium on the
development of any property with a Business Parkllndustrial General Plan land use
designation in excess of a AO FAR pending the completion of a General Plan
Amendment Study.
3d) Adopt a Resolution approving the initiation of a General Plan Amendment Study to
create a new land use category for properties in the Sierra Court/Sierra LanefTrinity
Court area with a Business Park/Industrial General Plan land use designation with a
maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.50. With this option the City Council would also
waive the reading and adopt an Urgency Ordinance making Findings and establishing a
moratorium on the development of any property with a Business Park/Industrial General
Plan land use designation in excess of a AO FAR pending the completion of a General
Plan Amendment Study.
3e) Adopt a Resolution approving the initiation of a General Plan Amendment Study to
create a new land use category for properties in the Sierra Court/Sierra LanefTrinity
Court area with a Business Park/Industrial General Plan land use designation with a
maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.50 for warehouse uses at the discretion of the
City Council and a maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) ofAO for all other permitted uses.
With this option the City Council would also waive the reading and adopt an Urgency
Ordinance making Findings and establishing a moratorium on the development of any
property with a Business Park/Industrial General Plan land use designation in excess of
a AO FAR pending the completion of a General Plan Amendment Study.
c~~-__
/J. t=
C'k~_,..
Reviewed By
Assistant City Manager
Submitted By
Director of Community Development
DESCRIPTION:
Background
At the City Council meeting of October 4, 2011, the City Council held a public hearing on an
appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny Site Development Review (SDR)
approval for the All American Label project due to inconsistency with the City's General Plan.
The SDR application made by All American Label is for a 4,456 square foot addition to an
existing 23,994 square foot building at 6958 Sierra Court. The buildin'g addition would increase
the Floor Area Ration (FAR) for the property from an existing OAO to OA8. The maximum FAR
in the Business. Parkllndustrial land use category, where the property is located, is OAO.
Therefore, Staff recommended, and the Planning Commission concurred, that the appeal should
be denied because the project would exceed the allowable FAR in accordance with the General
Plan and was inconsistent with .this guiding policy document. The Planning Commission's'
decision was appealed and the item was placed on the City Council agenda on October 4, 2011.
At the October 4th meeting, after receiving public input, discussion, and consideration of the
application, the City Council voted to continue the item to November 1,2011. The City Council's
discussion centered on the issues of Clarity of the Business Parkllndustrial land use category
description in the General Plan and on wanting to ensure that businesses in the area had the
ability to grow and expand. The City Council was also looking for a better understanding of the
status of legal non-conforming uses in the Sierra Court area.
Page 2 of 9
.~,
. .
In addition to continuing the appeal, which is presented in a separate Staff Report for the City
Council's consideration at this meeting, the City Council directed Staff to prepare a Staff Report
on options for initiating a General Plan Amendment for the Business Parkllndustrial areas,on
Sierra Court (Attachment 1). The City Council also directed Staff to prepare an Urgency
Ordinance to enact a moratorium on new development on property with a Business
Park/Industrial General Plan land use designation until the General Plan issue has been
resolved.
ANALYSIS:
Located in the Primary Planning Area, the Business Park/Industrial land use designation
description in Chapter 1 of the General Plan is written as follows:
"Business Park/industrial (FAR: .30 to .40; employee density: 360-490 square feet per
employee) .
Uses are non-retail businesses (research, limited manufacturing and distribution activities,
and administrative offices) that do not involve heavy trucking or generate nuisances due to
emissions, noise, or open .uses. Residential uses are not permitted. Maximum attainable
ratios of floor area to site area (FAR) are controlled by parking and landscaping
requirements and typically result in .35 to .40 FAR's. Examples: Clark Avenue, Sierra Court."
(
At the October 4, 2011 City Council meeting, in the context of the All American Label SDR
discussion, the City Council voiced concerns about the language in the description of the
Business Park/Industrial land use category, and if the description could be interpreted as
creating ambiguity as it relates to the maximum allowable FAR for the land use category. There
were also concerns expressed about making a business non-conforming and what impact that
status could have on a property.
Non-Conforming Uses (Chapter 8,140)
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 meet 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 ~egulations.
All of these situations describe a non-conforming, but legally-established, use that can continue
to operate and exist even though it would not be allowed under today's standards.
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 .40. When the General Plan was amended in
1992 to add the density standards and a FAR range of .30 to .40 was specified, any site with a
FAR over .40 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 affect the business that occupies the
building. What is limited is the ability to further increase the size of the building if it is already at
the .40 FAR maximum. '
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT OPTIONS:
Page 3 of 9
At.the October 4, 2011 meeting, the City Council directed Staff to prepare options for initiating a
General Plan Amendment for the Business Park/Industrial-designated properties to eliminate
any perceived uncertainty in the language and to consider allowing increased development in
the area.
Amendments to the General Plan Land Use Element are typically paid for by the developer or
business owner whose project benefits from the amendment. The cost of processing a General
Plan Amendment includes direct costs such as planning consultant(s), traffic consultants, and
City Attorney time to review approval and environmental documents. There is also the cost of
Planning Staff time to manage the project and process.
Staff has prepared five General Plan Amendment options for the City Council to consider.
Options 2-5 also involve the adoption of an Urgency Ordinance that would enact a development
moratorium in the area until the General Plan Amendment study could be completed.
Option 1: Amend the description for the Business Park/Industrial land use category.
The first option would be to eliminate the General Plan language that has been identified as
being confusing and maintain the same interpretation that Staff has had since the General Plan'
was amended in 1992.
In order to affirm that the minimum and maximum FAR range for the Business Parkllndustrial
land use category is 0.30 to OAO, and to clarify that the FAR is controlled by these numbers, not
by parkiilg and landscape requirements, the following sentence could be removed from the
description for the Business Park/Industrial land use category (in Section 1.8.1 Land Use
Classifications): "Maximum attainable ratios of floor area to site area (FAR) are controlled by
parking and landscape requirements and typically result in .35 to AO FARs" The rest of the
description could remain as is.
This option could also include adding a single sentence to Section 1.8.1 affirming the direction
that each land use category description contains FAR ranges that should be read as the
minimum and maximum FAR for that category.' The text could read: "The FAR ranges noted in
the heading of each land use category are the minimum and maximum allowable FAR for that
category unless the description of the land use category identifies the specific conditions under
which the FAR can be exceeded"
Execution of Option 1 would involve minimal expenditure of additional Staff time and would take
approximately four months to complete (due to General Plan Amendment noticing
requirements). Staff would need to present the proposed language to the Planning Commission
for their review and recommendation to the City' Council. Option 1 would involve approximately
20 hours of Planning Staff time and approximately 6 hours of City Attorney review time, for a
total cost of $3,810. Option 1 does not require the consideration of an Urgency Ordinance
establishing a moratorium.
If the City Council would like to pursue Option 1, the City Council can direct Staff to proceed with
preparing the amendment
Option 2: Study increasing the FAR for properties throughout the Business
Park/Industrial land use' category to 0.50 FAR and study allowing additional uses
throughout the area.
Page 4 of 9
,.,. .
The Sierra Court area is one of.three areas in the City containing properties with a General Plan
land use designation of Business Park/Industrial. In addition to properties along Sierra Court,
Sierra Lane, and Trinity Courti there are properties at the south end of Village Parkway and
Clark Avenue, and property at 11711 Dublin Boulevard (owned by the Hexcel Corp.) also has a
Business Park/Industrial General Plan land use designation.
This option would initiate a General Plan Amendment study to increase the FAR on all
properties with a Business Parkllndustrial land use category in the Sierra Court area from 040
. to 0.50 and would also examine increasing the allowable uses in this larid use category.' This
option differs from Option 3 in that the study would include ~ properties with a Business
Parkllndustrial land use designation and would create a new land use designation for the
properties in the Sierra Court area alone.
Execution of Option 2 would require review and analysis by a consultant and the appropriate
level of environmental review. The process would take approximately 6-8 months to complete.
Option 2 would involve the retention ot Planning and Traffic consultants, Planning Staff time
involved in mailaging the project (estimated 60 hours), and City Attorney time for review of the
proposed General Plan Amendments and associated Urgency Ordinance (estimated 60 hours),
resulting in a total estimated cost of $109,440. A detailed scope of work, budget, and contract
would need to be approved by the City Council prior to any work being completed.
The Resolution for Option 2 is included as Attachment 2.
Option 3: Study increasing the FAR for properties in the Sierra Court/Sierra LanelTrinity
Court to 0.50 FAR and study allowing additional uses in the area. .
This option would initiate a General Plan Amendment study to create a new land use category
for the properties currently in the Business Parkllndustrialland use category in the Sierra Court
area only. The study would look at whether there are reasons to distinguish between the
properties with a Business Park/Industrial land use category in the Sierra Court area and those
with a Business Parkllndustrial land use category elsewhere in the City, such that it would be
justifiable to create a new land use category for the Sierra Court properties. The new category
would increase the FAR on all properties that currently have a Business Parkllndustrialland use
category in the Sierra Court area frOm 040 to 0.50 and would. also examine adding additional
allowable uses in that land use category. This option differs from Option 4 in that there could be
additional use types that are allowed and the traffic impacts and/or intensity of those uses could
be more than is currently allowed.
Execution of Option 3 would require review and analysis by a consultant and the appropriate
level of environmental review. The process would take approximately 6-8 months to complete
Option 3 would involve the retention of Planning and Traffic consultants, Planning Staff time
involved in managing the project (estimated 60 hours), and City Attorney time for review of the
proposed General Plan Amendments and associated Urgency Ordinance (estimated 60 hours),
resulting in a total estimated cost of $100,040. The 'cost is less than Option 2 due to the fact
that fewer properties would need to be analyzed. A detailed scope of work, budget, and
contract would need to be approved by the City Council prior to any work being completed.
The Resolution for Option 3 is included as Attachment 3.
Option 4: 'Study increasing the FAR for properties in the Sierra Court/Sierra Lane/Trinity
Court to 0.50 FAR
Page 5 of 9
This option would initiate a General Plan Amendment study to create a new land use category
for the properties currently in the Business Parkllndustrialland use category in the Sierra Court
area. The study would look at whether there are reasons to distinguish between the properties
with a Business Park/Industrial land use category in the Sierra Court area and those with a
Business Parkllndustrialland use category elsewhere in the City, such that it would be justifiable
to create a new land use category for the Sierra Court properties. The new category would
increase the FAR on all properties with the new land use designation Sierra Court area from
0.40 to 0.50. This option differs from Option 5 in that it does not limit the allowable uses to
warehousing to be able to access additional FAR on the property.
Execution of Option 4 would require review and analysis by a consultant and the appropriate
level of environmental review. The process would take approximately 6-8 months to complete.
Option 4 would involve the retention of Planning and Traffic consultants, Planning Staff time
involved in managing the project (estimated 60 hours), and City Attorney time for review of the
proposed General Plan Amendments and associated Urgency Ordinance (estimated 60 hours),
resulting in a total estimated cost of $91,040. The cost is less than Option 3 because additional
uses are not being considered, and the associated analysis would not need to be done. A
detailed scope of work, budget, and contract would need to be approved by the City Council
prior to any work being completed.
The Resolution for Option 4 is included as Attachment 4.
Option 5: Study increasing the FAR for properties in the Sierra Court/Sierra Lane/Trinity
Court to 0.50 FAR (for warehouse uses only)
At the October 4, 2011 City Council meeting, several of the comments during the public hearing
related to the difference between the maximum allowable FAR on Industrial Park-designated
properties in the Eastern Extended Planning Area and the maximum allowable FAR on
Business Park/Industrial-designated properties in the Sierra Court area. The FARs for both
areas are detailed below:
Land Use Category Minimum Maximum Exceptions Accompanying Zoning
FAR FAR District
Industrial Park 0.50 FAR allowed Planned Development Zoning
(Eastern Extended None 0.35 for warehouse uses required. To get up to 0,50
noted at the discretion of FAR, PD zoning would restrict
. Planning Area) the City Council allowable uses to warehousing
Business Park/ M-1 (Light Industrial) or
Industrial (Primary 0.30 OAO None
Planning Area) Planned Development
This option would initiate a General Plan Amendment study to create a new land use category
for the properties currently in the Business Parkllndustrialland use category in the Sierra c.ourt
area. The new category would be similar to the Industrial Park land use category in the Eastern
Extended Planning Area. The study would look at whether there are reasons to distinguish
between the properties with a Business Park/Industrial land use category in the Sierra Court
area and those with a Business Park/Industrial land use category elsewhere in the City, such
that it would be justifiable to create a new land use category for the Sierra Court properties. The
study would consider increasing the FAR for the new category to 0.50 for warehouse uses only,
while leaving the maximum FAR for all other uses permitted in the Business Parkllndustrialland
Page 6 of 9
use category at OAO. In order to ensure that the 0.50 FAR would only apply to warehousing
uses, a property owner who wished to take advantage of the increased FAR allowance would
need to apply for a rezoning to change from their existing Zoning District (either M-1 (Light
Industrial) or Planned Development) to a Planned Development Zoning District that limited the
allowed uses of the building to warehousing only (with up to 10% of the total building square
footage as ancillary office space).
Execution of Option 5 would require review and analysis by a consultant and the appropriate
level of environmental review. The process would take approximately 6-8 months to complete.
Option 5 would involve Planning and Traffic consultants, Planning Staff time involved in
managing the project (estimated 60 hours), and City Attorney time for review of the proposed
General Plan Amendments and associated Urgency Ordinance (estimated 60 hours), resulting
in a total estimated cost of $91,040. A detailed scope of work, budget, and contract would need
to be approved by the City Council prior to any work being completed.
The Resolution for Option 5 is included as Attachment 5.
URGENCY ORDINANCEIDEVELOPMENT MORATORIUM:
If the City Council elects to proceed with Options 2, 3, 4, or 5, the City Attorney has prepared an
urgency moratorium ordinance that would, during the pendency of the General Plan study and
until any General Plan amendment that may thereafter be adopted, provide that the FAR for all
properties with a land use designation of Business Park/Industrial shall be a minimum of .30 and
a maximum of AO (Attachment 6). The adoption of emergency .moratoria is authorized by
Government Code section 65858. Such moratoria may be adopted where an agency
determines that it is necessary to do so to protect the public health, safety and welfare. In this
situation, the City Council would be adopting the ordinance in order to protect the public welfare,
insofar as the purported ambiguity in the City's General Plan with respect to the permissible
FAR for properties with a land use designation of Business Parkllndustrial creates uncertainty
for property owners and harms the public welfare.
The statute provides that moratoria may be adopted only by a four-fifths vote of the City Council,
and that they are effective for only 45 days after their adoption unless the adopting agency
conducts a noticed public hearing on the extension of the ordinance for an additional 10 monlhs
and 15 days. Moratoria may then be extended for an additional one year period. If the City
Council adopts the attached ordinance, staff will take steps to ensure that a public hearing on an
extension of the ordinance is held within 45 days of this meeting.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
General Plan Amendm~nt
If Option 1 is selected, Staff recommends that the proposed Ger:leral Plan amendments be
found to be exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines,
because the proposed General Plan text amendments, which would clarify the existing
provisions of the General Plan, would have no potential for causing a significant effect on the
environment.
General Plan Amendment Study
If Options 2, 3, 4, or 5 are selected, Staff recommends that the initiation of a General Plan
Amendment Study be found exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
under Section 15306, Class 6 of the State CEQA Guidelines, because initiation of a General
Page 7 of 9
Plan Amendment study, in and of itself, will not result in disturbance to an environmental
resource.
Urgency Ordinance (Deve/opment Moratorium)
If Options 2, 3, 4, or 5 are selected, Staff recommends that the Urgency Ordinance be found to
be exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, because
the proposed Ordinance would simply clarify the existing provisions of the General Plan and
would prevent changes in the environment pending the completion of the contemplated General
Plan Amendment Study.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:'.
Public noticing is not required to review a request to initiate a General Plpn Amendment Study
or to adopt an Urgency Ordinance. Although not required, the City mailed notices to all owners
and tenants of property with a General Plan land use designation of Business Park/Industrial
and to all property owners and tenants within 300 feet of these properties. A notice was also
posted in the designated posting 'places.
NEXT STEPS:
If the City Council directs staff to prepare an amendment. to the General Plan that clarifies the
.General Plan provisions relating to the minimum and maximum Floor Area Ratios (FARs) for
various land uses in the General Plan, Staff will begin that process.
If the City Council adopts either Attachments 2, 3, 4, or 5, and adopts the Urgency Ordinance
(Attachment 6), Staff will: .
. Negotiate a scope of work and budget with consultant(s) to complete the necessary analysis;
. Return to the City Council with a contract for the scope of work and budget. At that time,
Staff will seek direction from the City Council on how funds should be budgeted.
. Return to the City Council within 45 days of enacting the Urgency Ordinance to hold a public
hearing and request an extension in accordance with the requirements of State Law. The
Urgency Ordinance can be extended an additional 10 months and 15 days to allow the
completion of the General Plan Amendment study.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. October 4, 2011 City Council Meeting Minutes
2. Resolution approving the initiation of a General Plan Amendment Study to increase the
maximum Floor Area Ratio for !ill properties with a Business Park/Industrial General Plan
land use designation from 0.40 to 0.50, and also study potential new uses that could be
allowed in the area
3. Resolution approving the initiation of a General Plan Amendment Study to create a new land
use category for properties in the Sierra Court/Sierra Lane/Trinity Court area with a Business
Park/Industrial General Plan land use designation with a maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of
0.50, and also study potential new uses that could'be allowed in the area .
4. Resolution approving the initiation of a General Plan Amendment Study to create a new land
use category for properties in the Sierra Court/Sierra LanelTrinity Court area with a Business
Page 8 of 9
,. > "
Park/Industrial General Plan land use designation with a maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of
0.50
5. Resolution approving the initiation of a General Plan Amendment Study to create a new land
use category for properties in the Sierra Court/Sierra Lane/Trinity Court area with a Business
Park/Industrial. General Plan land use designation with a maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of
0.50 for warehouse uses at the discretion of the City Council and a maximum Floor Area
Ratio (FAR) ofAO for all other permitted uses
6. Urgency Ordinance making Findings and establishing a moratorium on the approval of
permits for development on properties with a Business Park/Industrial General Plan land use
designation pending the completion of a General Plan Amendment Study
Page 9 of 9
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 negotiatio.n Price and termsof 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, Staff and 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
7:0131 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 thehealthcare 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
7:27:45 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 47
On motion of Cm. Hildenbrand, seconded by Vm. Hart and by unanimous vote, the City Council
took the following actions:
Approved'(41) Minutes of Regular Meeting of September 20, 2011;
Received (4.2 600-40);
RESOLUTION NO. 166 -11
AUTHORIZING A FIVE-YEAR (NOVEMBER 1,2011 - OCTO~ER 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
,~.y
. ~'~~~01
~~
('f~
DRAFT
.',
RESOLUTION NO. 169 - 11
AMENDING THE BENEFIT PLAN
Adopted (44 700-20)
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 (4.6 600-35) 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 wqrk
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
<5>
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
7:28:46 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
OCTOBER4, 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 .40.
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, ie,
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 .40 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 .40 maximum was ever
established as mandato'ry.
Cm Hildenbrand asked for clarification of the 17 businesses which were noted on the SiEWa
Court map. She asked how many had expanded the FAR beyond the .40 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 qeated a legal non-conforming status on businesses that exceeded the
maximum FAR. .In 1992 standards were most likely established due to State law requirem~nts
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.
em. -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 850 PM
Mayor Sbranti called the meeting to order at 903 PM
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 39
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'
(SiQn ReQulations) and Chapter 8.108 (Temporarv Use Permit), PLPA-2011-00026
9:03:41 PM 6.2 (450-30)
Mayor Sbranti opened the public hearing.
Marnie 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 8.76.080.0; 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
a'mendments and their relation to the issue.
Mr. Bakker stated that the issue Mr. Sanders was referring to was at what point an accessory
restaurant component of 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.
MayorSbranti 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 communit,y 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
~
I~~~~.~V~\\ .
19~~m
~
C;1)~~
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 De'velopment 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 Facility Use Policy
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 seemed reasonable.
Mayor .Sbranti stated that the rates. quoted were lower than the surrounding area and .felt
comfort~ble 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 60t apply to quasi-legislative decisions such as general plan amendments and zoning
ordinance amendments. At the April 5, 2011 City Council meeting, CouncilmemberSwalwell
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 Councllmember 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
10:39:01 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 1A 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 Ihe City and had exceeded that amount. He stated that the
change in land 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 are~ 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. Tebbutt 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 A 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
1112:03 PM
82 (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 vehicles had been known to park along this
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 30
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 4, 2011
13
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
1113 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
8.4
(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 T/ON ONLY reports from Council and/or Sta.ff,
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 California 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
1121 PM in memory of Staff Sgt. Sean Diamond and our fallen troops, and in honor of AI
White, Dublin business owner of Dublin Trophy House, 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
RESOLUTION NO. xx-11
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
* * * * * * * * *
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE INITIATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY
TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO FOR ALL PROPERTIES WITH A
BUSINESS PARK/INDUSTRIAL GENERAL PLANLAND USE DESIGNATION FROM 0.40 TO
0.50, AND ALSO STUDY POTENTIAL NEW USES THAT COULD BE ALLOWED IN THE
AREA
WHEREAS, at a public hearing on October 4, 2011, the City Council voiced concerns
that there was language in the General Plan land use category description for the Business
Parkllndustrial category that could be interpreted as creating ambiguity as it relates to the
maximum allowable Floor Area Ration (FAR) for the land use category; and
WHEREAS, at the same meeting, the City Council directed Staff to prepare options for
initiating a General Plan Amendment for the Business Park/Industrial-designated properties to
eliminate any perceived uncertainty in the language and to consider allowing increased
development in the area; and
WHEREAS, the initiation request has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and was found to be Categorically Exempt
under Section 15306, Class 6 of the State CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted outlining the issues surrounding the request;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all such reports, recommendations,
.and testimony hereinabove set forth, and supports the initiation of a General Plan Amendment
Study; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does
. hereby approve the initiation of a General Plan Amendment Study to increase the maximum
Floor Area Ratio for all properties with a Business Parkllndustrial General Plan land use
designation from OAO to 0.50, and also study potential new uses that could be allowed in the
area.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Dublin on this
1 sl day of November, 2011 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST
City Clerk
Mayor
2
RESOLUTION NO. xx-11
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
*1<*******
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE INITIATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY
TO CREATE A NEW LAND USE CATEGORY FOR PROPERTIES IN THE SIERRA
COURT/SIERRA LANEITRINITY COURT AREA WITH A BUSINESS PARK/INDUSTRIAL
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION WITH A MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO OF
0.50 AND ALSO STUDY POTENTIAL NEW USES THAT COULD BE ALLOWED IN THE
AREA
WHEREAS, at a public hearing on October 4, 2011, the City Council voiced concerns
that there was language in the General Plan land use category description for the Business
Park/Industrial category that could be interpreted as creating ambiguity as it relates to the
maximum allowable Floor Area Ration (FAR) for the land use category; and
WHEREAS, at the same meeting, the City Council directed Staff to prepare options for
initiating a General Plan Amendment for the Business Parkllndustrial-designated properties to
eliminate any perceived uncertainty in the language and to consider allowing increased
development in the area; and
WHEREAS, the initiation request has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and was found to be Categorically Exempt
under Section 15306, Class 6 of the State CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted outlining the issues surrounding the request;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all such reports, recommendations,
and testimony hereinabove set forth, and supports the initiation of a General Plan Amendment
Study; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does
hereby approve the initiation of a General Plan Amendment Study to create a new land use
category for properties in the Sierra Court/Sierra LanelTrinity Court area with a Business
Park/Industrial General Plan land use designation with a maximum Floor Area Ratio of 0.50 and
also study potential new uses that could be allowed in the area.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Dublin on this
1st day of November, 2011 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
1
A TIESI'
City Clerk
Mayor
2
. .
RESOLUTION NO. xx-11
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
*********
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE INITIATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY
TO CREATE A NEW LAND USE CATEGORY FOR PROPERTIES IN THE SIERRA
COURT/SIERRA LANE/TRINITY COURT AREA WITH A BUSINESS PARK/INDUSTRIAL
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION WITH A MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO OF
0.50
WHEREAS, at a public hearing on October 4, 2011, the City Council voiced concerns
that there was language in the General Plan land use category description for the Business
Park/Industrial category that could be interpreted as creating ambiguity as it relates to the
maximum allowable Floor Area Ration (FAR) for the land use category; and
WHEREAS, at the same meeting, the City Council directed Staff to prepare options for
initiating a General Plan Amendment for the Business Parkllndustrial-designated properties to
eliminate any perceived uncertainty in the language and to consider allowing increased
development in the area; and
WHEREAS, the initiation request has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and was found to be Categorically Exempt
under Section 15306, Class 6 of the State CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted outlining the issues surrounding the request;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all such reports, recommendations,
and testimony hereinabove set forth, and supports the initiation of a General Plan Amendment
Study; and '
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does
hereby approve the initiation of a General Plan Amendment Study to create a new land use
category for properties in the Sierra Court/Sierra LanelTrinity Court area with a Business
Park/Industrial General Plan land use designation with a maximum Floor Area Ratio of 0.50.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Dublin on this
151 day of Novem ber, 2011 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: .
City Clerk
Mayor
2
RESOLUTION NO. xx-11
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
*********
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE INITIATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY
TO CREATE A NEW LAND USE CATEGORY FOR PROPERTIES IN THE SIERRA
COURT/SIERRA LANE/TRINITY COURT AREA WITH A BUSINESS PARK/INDUSTRIAL
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION WITH A MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO OF
0.50 FOR WAREHOUSE USES AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND A
MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO OF .40 FOR ALL OTHER PERMITTED USES
WHEREAS, at a public hearing on October 4, 2011, the City Council voiced concerns
that there was language in the General Plan land use category description for the Business
Park/Industrial category that could be interpreted as creating ambiguity as it relates to the
maximum allowable Floor Area Ration (FAR) for the land use category; and
WHEREAS, at the same meeting, the City Council directed Staff to prepare options for
initiating a General Plan Amendment for the Business Park/Industrial-designated properties to
eliminate any perceived uncertainty in the language and to consider allowing increased
development in the area; and
WHEREAS, the initiation request has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and was found to be Categorically Exempt
under Section 15306, Class 6 of the State CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted outlining the issues surrounding the request;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all such reports, recommendations,
and testimony hereinabove set forth, and supports the initiation of a General Plan Amendment
Study; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does
hereby approve the initiation of a General Plan Amendment Study to create a new land use
category for properties in the Sierra Court/Sierra LanelTrinity Court area with a Business..
Park/Industrial General Plan land use designation with a maximum Floor Area Ratio of 0.50 for
warehouse uses at the discretion of the City Council and a maximum Floor Area Ratio of AO for
all other uses permitted under new land use designation.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Dublin on this
151 day of November, 2011 by the following vote: .
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Mayor .
,
2
"
ORDINANCE NO.'
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
AN URGENCY ORDINANCE MAKING FINDINGS AND ADOPTING A
MORATORIUM ON PROJECTS THAT WOULD RESULT IN A FLOOR AREA RATIO
GREATER THAN .40 IN ANY PROPERTY WITH A GENERAL PLAN LAND USE
DESIGNATION OF BUSINESS PARK/INDUSTRIAL
RECITALS
WHEREAS, at a public hearing on October 4,2011, the City Council voiced concerns that
there was language in the City of Dublin General Plan ("the General Plan") land use category
description for the Business Park/Industrial category that could be interpreted as creating ambiguity
as it relates to the minimum and maximum allowable Floor Area Ratios (FAR) for that land use
category; and
WHEREAS, until this time, City staff have interpreted the General Plan language in question
as meaning that the minimum FAR for the Business Parkllndu~trial category is 0.30 and the
maximum FAR for the Business Park/Industrial category is OAO; and
WHEREAS, an owner of property within the Business Park/Industrial category has
challenged City Staff's interpretation of the General Plan language; and
WHEREAS, at its meeting on November 1,2011, the City Council directed staff to prepare a
study to analyze the impact of increasing the maximum FAR for the Business Park/Industrial
category beyond the AD figure utilized by City staff; and
WHEREAS, there now exists significant uncertainty as to the meaning and impact of the
existing General Plan language, such that City staff and owners of property within the affected
land use designations are unsure of what restrictions apply to such property.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS, ADOPTED AS AN
INTERIM ORDINANCE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
65858:
A. Moratorium Imposed. In accordance with the authority granted the City of Dublin
under Government Code Section 65858, from and after the date of this ordinance, no use
permit, variance, building permit, or any other applicable entitlement for use that would result in
a property located within an area designated in the General Plan as. Business Park/Industrial
having a Floor Area Ratio that exceeds OAO shall be granted for a period of 45 days.
B. Authority; Urgency Statement. This ordinance is an interim ordinance adopted as
an urgency measure pursuant to Government Code Section 65858 and is for the immediate
, preservation of the public welfare. The facts constituting the urgency are these: considerable
uncertainty exists as to the maximum density allowed on property designated as Business
Park/Industrial in the Dublin General Plan. The City Council has directed staff to conduct a study to
analyze the possibility of amending the General Plan to establish a maximum density in excess of
OAO. Until the study is completed, the uncertainty will remain, and development could be proposed
that exceeds OAO FAR, approval of which could potentially be inconsistent with the General Plan.
The granting of entitlements for uses that are inconsistent with the General Plan is.contrary to state
law. Absent the adoption of this urgency ordinance, this uncertainty will continue, negatively
impacting the public welfare. As a result of this threat to the public welfare, it is necessary to, in
accordance with Government Code Section 65858, temporarily establish a 45-day moratorium on
the granting of any use permit, variance, building permit, or any other applicable entitlement for use
that would result in a property located within an area designated in the General Plan as Business
Park/Industrial having a Floor Area Ratio that exceeds OAO pending the completion of the City's
study of the potential impacts of amending the General Plan.
C Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act. This ordinance is
exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section
15061 (b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, because the ordinance is consistent with City staff's
current interpretation of the General Plan and would prevent changes in the environment
pending the completion of the contemplated General Plan amendment study.
O. Severability. If any provision of this ordinance or the applicaiion thereof to any
person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the ordinance, including the application
of such part or provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby and
shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, provisions of this ordinance are severable.
The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection,
subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof irrespective of the fact that anyone
or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be
held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable.
E. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption
if adopted by at least four-fifths vote of the City Council and shall be in effect for forty-five days
from the date of adoption unless extended by the City Council as provided for in Government
Code section 65858.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this _the day of
2011.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:.
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
City Clerk
785549 1.00C,1141001
1731952.2
2
'.
ORDINANCE NO.
. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
AN URGENCY ORDINANCE MAKING FINDINGS AND ADOPTING A
MORATORIUM ON PROJECTS THAT WOULD RESULT IN A FLOOR AREA RATIO
GREATER THAN 0.40 IN ANY PROPERTY WiTH A GENERAL PLAN LAND USE
DESIGNATION OF BUSINESS PARK/INDUSTRIAL
RECITALS
WHEREAS, at the October 4,2011 and November 1,2011, the City Council voiced concerns
that there was language in the City of Dublin General Plan ("the General Plan") land use category
u description for the Business Park/Industrial category that could be interpreted as creating ambiguity
as it relates to the maximum allowable Floor Area Ratios (FAR) for that land use category; and
WHEREAS, until this time, City staff interpreted the General Plan language in question as
meaning that the minimum FAR for the Business Park/Industrial category is 0.30 and the maximum
FAR for the Business Park/Industrial category is DAD; and .
WHEREAS, an owner of property within the Business Parkllndustrial category has asserted
that City Staff's interpretation of the General Plan language is incorrect and that the maximum FAR
permitted within the Business Parkllndustrial category is controlled by parking standards and
landscaping standards; and
WHEREAS, at its meeting on November 1, 2011, the City Council directed staff to return in
the near future with a proposed work plan for studying the land uses in commercial areas along the
Dublin Boulevard corridor roughly from Village Parkway on the west to Scarlett Court on the east,
which study would encompass much of the land designated as Business Park/Industrial; and
WHEREAS, there now exists significant uncertainty as to the meaning of the existing
General Plan language,. such that City staff and owners of property within the affected land use
designations are unsure of what restrictions apply to such property.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS, ADOPTED AS AN
INTERIM ORDINANCE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
65858:
A. Moratorium Imposed. In accordance with the authority granted the City of Dublin
under Government Code Section 65858, from and after the date of this ordinance,' no use
permit, variance, building permit, or any other applicable entitlement for a use shall be granted
for a p~riod of 45 days if the action would result in a property located within an area designated
in the General Planas Business Park/Industrial having a Floor Area Ratio that exceeds DAD.
B. Authority; Urgency Statement. This ordinance is an interim ordinance adopted as
an urgency measure pursuant to Government Code Section 65858 and is for the immediate
preservation of the public welfare. The facts constituting the urgency are these: considerable
uncertainty exists as to the maximum density allowed on property designated as Business
Parkllndustrial in the Dublin General Plan. The City Council has directed staff to return in the near
. .
future with a proposal to study the-land uses along the Dublin Boulevard corridor roughly from
Village Parkway on the west to Scarlett Court on the east. While it has not yet determined to
proceed with the study, the City Council has articulated a contemplated general plan proposal that it
intends to study within a reasonable period of time. Among other things, as currently contemplated,
the study may analyze whether the existing land uses categories and standards are the most
desirable for current economic circumstances and commercial trends. Further, as currently
contemplated, the study would analyze whether the FAR standard within the Business
Park/Industrial Category should be 0.40 or some other greater or lesser standard. The uncertainty
regarding the maximum FAR permitted in the Business Parkllndustrial category will remain at least
uiltil the City Council completes the contemplated General Plan amendment proposal or otherwise
resolves the uncertainty. In the meantime development may be proposed that exceeds 0.40 FAR,
approval of which could potentially be in conflict with the contemplated General Plan amendment.
The granting of entitlements for uses that are inconsistent with the GeneralPlan is contrary to state
law. Absent the adoption of this urgency ordinance, this uncertainty will continue, negatively
impacting the public welfare. As a result of this threat to the public welfare, it is necessary to, in
accordance with Government Code Section 65858, temporarily establish a 45-day moratorium on
the granting of any use permit, variance, building permit, or any other applicable entitlement for a
use that would result in a property designated in the General Plan as Business Parkllndustrial
having a Floor Area Ratio that exceeds 0.40.
C. Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act. This ordinance is
exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section
15061 (b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, because the ordinance is consistent with City staff's
current interpretation of the General Plan and would prevent changes in the e.nvironment
pending the completion of the contemplated General Plan amendment study.
D. Severability. If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any
person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the ordinance, including the application
of such part or provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby and
shall continue in full force and effect: To this end, provisions of this ordinance are severable.
The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection,
subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof irrespective of the fact that anyone
or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be
held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable.
E. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption
if adopted by at least four-fifths vote of the City Council and shall be in effect for forty-five days
from the date of adoption unless extended by the City Council as provided for in Government
Code section 65858. .
2
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 15th day of November 2011.
AYES:
NOES:.
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
City Clerk
3