HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.3 Downtown Display AppealOF
Ill 4 �Ir 111
0 � =�, 82
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
November 20, 2012
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
Joni Pattillo, City Manager( � �a
CITY CLERK
File # 410 -30
SUBJECT: Appeal of the Planning Commission's Denial of the Downtown Regional Serving
Sign ( "Downtown Display ") Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review
Permit, PLPA- 2012 -00042
Prepared by Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a Conditional
Use Permit and Site Development Review for the construction and ongoing operation of an 85
foot tall, regional- serving, freestanding sign as permitted by the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan.
The proposed project is located at 7153 Amador Plaza Road within the Retail District of the
Downtown Dublin Zoning District and Downtown Dublin Specific Plan.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Disclose ex parte contacts; 2) Receive Staff
presentation; 3) Open the public hearing; 4) Take testimony from the Appellant /Applicant and
the public; 5) Close the public hearing and deliberate; and 6) Take the following action:
a) Adopt a Resolution reversing the Planning Commission's adoption of Resolution 12 -33 and
approving a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review Permit for the construction
and ongoing operation of an 85 foot tall, regional- serving, freestanding sign as originally
proposed, as permitted by the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan, and as recommended to the
Planning Commission on September 11, 2012; OR
b) Adopt a Resolution reversing the Planning Commission's adoption of Resolution 12 -33 and
approving a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review Permit for the construction
and ongoing operation of a regional- serving, freestanding sign with a revised design and
modified conditions of approval; OR
c) Adopt a Resolution affirming the Planning Commission's adoption of Resolution 12 -33
denying a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review Permit for the construction
and ongoing operation of an 85 foot tall, regional- serving, freestanding sign as permitted by
the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan; OR
d) Provide other direction.
Page 1 of 8 ITEM NO. 6.3
Submitted By
Director of Community Development
DESCRIPTION:
Fi
The project site is located at
7153 Amador Plaza Road.
The project site has a General
Plan Land Use designation of
Downtown Dublin — Retail
District and is located within
the Downtown Dublin Specific
Plan Area. The site is zoned
Downtown Dublin Zoning
District.
K111t - -
Reviewed By
Assistant City Manager
ect Site
The Project Applicant, Nicole'
Salmon of Downtown Displays��
proposed to erect an 85 foot
tall regional- serving -
freestanding sign as permitted
by the Downtown Dublin •
Specific Plan. The City's goal:
in permitting this type of -
structure is to provide the
ability to advertise the
businesses in the Downtown
on a single, freeway- oriented sign that strongly reflects Dublin's civic identity.
r:
The sign is proposed to be located in a shopping center on the southeast corner of Amador
Valley Boulevard and Amador Plaza Road. The sign will be placed between the building
containing Sprouts Farmer's Market and Jo- Anne's Fabrics and Interstate 680, to the south of
The Floor Store.
The Planning Commission heard the Project Applicant's request for a Conditional Use Permit
and Site Development Review on September 11, 2012 and adopted Resolution 12 -33 denying
the request (Attachments 1 and 2). Charlie Stroud, business partner of the Applicant, appealed
the Planning Commission's denial of the project (Attachment 3).
Pursuant to the appeals process set forth in the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance (Chapter
8.136) for Planning actions, an Appellant must state the "extent of the appeal and the reasons
and grounds for appeal." Mr. Stroud's appeal letter identified the following points:
1. The Planning Commission did not make clear how the proposed sign is inconsistent with
the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (being that the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan
permits a regional- serving sign to serve the tenants of the Downtown area);
Page 2 of 8
2. The Appellant included with the appeal letter an alternate design to address the Planning
Commission's concerns regarding two key issues: overall sign height and the display of
the City's name and logo as a prominent feature; and
3. By not allowing a regional- serving sign for Downtown Dublin, the City is missing out on
the opportunity to create a destination that will benefit all Downtown businesses and
tenants.
In accordance with Chapter 8.136 and the issues raised in the appeal letter, this Staff Report
addresses whether the Planning Commission's denial of the project should be affirmed, affirmed
in part, or reversed. Pursuant to the appeals process, the City Council may adopt additional
Conditions of Approval that address the specific subject of the appeal.
Staff is recommending that the City Council reverse the Planning Commission's adoption of
Resolution 12 -33 denying a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review Permit for
the construction and ongoing operation of the Downtown Display sign, as further discussed
below.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The Planning Commission considered the Project at a public hearing on September 11, 2012.
There were no members of the public in attendance to speak in favor or against the Project.
After reviewing the Staff Report and receiving a presentation from Staff and testimony from the
Applicant and her business partner, the Planning Commission deliberated and, by a 5 -0 vote,
adopted Resolution 12 -33 denying a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review
Permit for the construction and ongoing operation of an 85 foot tall, regional - serving,
freestanding sign as permitted by the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan. The minutes of the
September 11, 2012 meeting (Attachment 4) reflect the Planning Commission's primary
concerns that at 85 feet, the sign as proposed is too tall, and that the City of Dublin logo should
not be included on the sign.
APPEAL PROCESS:
Chapter 8.136 (Appeals) 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 21, 2012, Charlie Stroud, business partner of Nicole Salmon (Applicant),
appealed the denial of the Downtown Regional Serving Sign Conditional Use Permit and Site
Development Review by the Planning Commission (Attachment 3). In accordance with Chapter
8.136 (Appeals), the City Council must hold a Public Hearing within 45 days of the filing of the
appeal and must take action no later than 75 days of the filing of the appeal or the decision of
the Planning Commission is deemed affirmed.
Due to scheduling conflicts, the Appellant waived his right under Municipal Code § 8.136.060.A
to an appeal hearing within 45 days of the proper filing of the appeal, and the item was
scheduled for consideration on November 20, 2012 (Attachment 5). Although the hearing date
for the appeal was delayed, the City Council must take action on the appeal no later than
Page 3 of 8
Wednesday, December 5, 2012 (75 days from September 21, 2012) or the decision being
appealed shall be deemed affirmed.
Chapter 8.136 (Appeals) of the Zoning Ordinance states that the City Council may, by majority
vote, affirm, affirm in part, or reverse the Planning Commission's decision on a Project. If the
City Council decides to reverse the Planning Commission's decision to deny the Project, the
City Council may adopt additional Conditions of Approval that address the specific subject of the
appeal.
The City Council's action to affirm or reverse the Planning Commission's decision must be
supported by findings of fact based on information before the City Council when it hears and
considers the appeal.
ANALYSIS:
In reviewing the Project, Staff relied on Chapters 8.30 (Downtown Dublin Zoning District), 8.100
(Conditional Use Permit), and 8.104 (Site Development Review) of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance
and Section 4.4.6 (Signage) of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan. Staff reviewed the Project
for conformance with the standards, regulations and findings contained in these Chapters and
the Specific Plan and, after finding that the Project was in conformance, recommended approval
of the Project to the Planning Commission
As noted above, the Applicant filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the
Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review application. The appeal letter cites the
Appellant's disagreement that the proposed sign is not consistent with the Downtown Dublin
Specific Plan and the Appellant also provided ways to address the Planning Commission's
concerns regarding the sign height and highlighting the City's name and logo as a prominent
feature. To follow is a detailed discussion of the issues raised in the appeal letter.
Appeal Point No. 1: The Downtown Dublin Specific Plan allows for a regional - serving
sign that is intended to serve Downtown Dublin. The Planning Commission denial of the
application did not make clear what about the sign did not comply with the Downtown
Dublin Specific Plan or the intention for a Downtown - serving sign.
The Planning Commission concluded that the original proposal for the Downtown Display sign
(Exhibit A to Attachment 6) is not consistent with the purpose of Chapter 8.104 (Site
Development Review), with the General Plan, and with any applicable Specific Plans and design
guidelines because the proposed sign is not consistent with the Streetscape Master Plan.
However, the proposed Downtown Display sign is consistent with the above documents in
several ways:
1. The Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) provides sign guidelines in Chapter 4
(Development Standards and Design Guidelines). More specifically, Section 4.4.6
(Signage) addresses a regional- serving sign and notes the following:
"One regional serving sign may be permitted in the Specific Plan Area. This sign shall be
intended to create an identity marker for the downtown and to advertise the downtown
and businesses located within the downtown area. Advertising on this sign by businesses
located within the Specific Plan Area shall not be considered off -site signage. The owner
of the sign shall not prohibit regional or destination - serving downtown businesses from
locating on the sign and the sign shall be designed to accommodate a variety of
Page 4 of 8
businesses in the Downtown Specific Plan Area. This sign will require a Conditional Use
Permit/Site Development Review and shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission."
Section 4.4.6 goes on to note that freeway- oriented signs shall be limited to a height of
35 feet, but that taller, co- located signs may be permitted at the discretion of the Planning
Commission. The Downtown Display sign, as directed by the Downtown Dublin Specific
Plan language noted above, can accommodate a variety of businesses and is therefore a
sizeable sign. The Downtown Dublin Specific Plan does not have a height limit for the
discretionary co- located sign nor does it contain any locational requirements for where
the sign could be placed other than being located within the Specific Plan area.
Therefore, the Appellant asserts that there are no standards or guidelines in the
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan with which the proposed Downtown Display sign is
inconsistent.
2. The excerpt from the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (above) notes that the sign should
create an identity marker for the downtown. The Project Applicant, with Staff support,
created a sign design that is intended to identify Downtown Dublin as a destination that is
at the core of the City. The design of the Downtown Display sign (including colors and
materials) is based on the design of the median markers that run the length of Dublin
Boulevard, and Staff supported the proposed Downtown Display sign design with its
strong reflection of Dublin's civic identity.
Most freeway- oriented signs brand the shopping center or auto dealership with the sole
intent of advertising the commercial business(es). The Downtown Display sign is unique
in that, at no cost to the City of Dublin, the City's branding is prominently displayed and
celebrated in the heart of Downtown.
The Appellant asserts that the proposed Downtown Display sign is highly compatible with
the designs in the City's Streetscape Master Plan, the Dublin Boulevard identity markers,
and other civic directional signage around town. However, the Streetscape Master Plan
is a blueprint for landscape, street furniture, and signage in the public right of way.
Because the Downtown Display sign is proposed to be located on private property,
conformance with the Streetscape Master Plan is not required. While not required, such
conformance highlighted that the sign design was reflective of other attractive signs in the
community and that it bears a strong resemblance to the City's own unique signage. If
the City were to design, fabricate, and install a sign of our own of this magnitude and
quality, the cost would be well into six figures.
Appeal Point No. 2: The Planning Commission raised concerns about the sign height
and the use of the City's name and logo, which can both be addressed with a new sign
design.
The Planning Commission did not make several of the required findings to approve a Site
Development review application because of concerns over the height of the sign and concerns
regarding blending a civic identification sign with the elements of commercial advertising. In
response to these concerns, the Applicant prepared a revised sign design that removed a sign
panel to lower the overall height and removed the "City of Dublin" logo from the top of the sign.
Below is a brief comparison of the key elements of the original Downtown Display sign design
(Exhibit A to Attachment 6) and the revised design (Exhibit A to Attachment 7):
Original Design Revised Design
Sign Height 85 feet at grade 68 feet at grade
Page 5 of 8
The height of the original Downtown Display sign is substantial, but it is intended to provide
visibility for businesses throughout the 284 -acre Downtown Dublin Specific Plan area. Due to
the fact that properties adjacent to Interstate 680 are located 20 feet below the adjacent freeway
grade, the effective height of the original design as viewed from the freeway would be a 65 foot
sign. The top 9'5" of the original sign design was intended for City branding.
To make the construction and installation of the sign financially viable, the Applicant needs to
have a certain number of tenants on the sign. The originally - proposed design meets the goals
of the City from a high - quality design standard, and it is able to meet the needs of the Applicant,
who will bear all of the costs involved in constructing, installing, operating, and maintaining the
sign in compliance with a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review approval.
It is Staff's opinion that the design of the original proposal provides the unique identity marker
called for in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan. However, in order to address concerns raised
by the Planning Commission, the Project Applicant prepared a revised proposal that eliminates
the "City of Dublin" name and logo from the top of the sign, removing 10 feet from the height of
the sign. The revised design also eliminated one sign panel from each side of the sign,
reducing the sign height by an additional 6 feet, 6 inches. Lastly, the height of the main part of
the sign structure was reduced by 6 inches, leading to an overall reduction in height of 17 feet.
The Appellant asserts that the revised design addresses the main concerns that the Planning
Commission had with the original design and that with these changes the findings for Site
Development Review and the Conditional Use Permit are able to be made.
Appeal Point No. 3: By not having a regional - serving sign to serve Downtown Dublin, the
City and its businesses are missing out on the opportunity to brand Downtown as a
unique and distinct area and advertise the area as a regional destination to the benefit of
all Downtown tenants.
The Downtown Dublin Specific Plan clearly permits a single, regional- serving sign in Downtown
with the intent of serving any tenant in the area. The Plan is not specific about the desired
location or the parameters for the sign size and design, which leaves it open for considering a
variety of options. In order for the sign to successfully advertise Downtown businesses and to
draw customers from both within the City and from throughout the region, a freeway- oriented
sign is a prudent design.
Prior to filing a Planning Application with the City, the Applicant considered a variety of
locations, along both the 1 -580 and 1 -680 corridors. The sign needed to be within the Downtown
Dublin Specific Plan area boundary, and visibility for a freeway- oriented sign along 1 -580 in
Page 6 of 8
Original Design
Revised Design
(est. 65 feet effective height at freeway)
(est. 48 feet effective height at freeway)
Tenant Sign Panels
7 on each side (14 total)
6 on each side (12 total)
Tenant Sign Panel size
Top panel: 7'6" tall
Same
Others: 56" tall
Civic Branding
"City of Dublin" and shamrock logo
No City of Dublin logo
at top of sign,
"Downtown" blade running vertical
"Downtown Dublin" blade running
down the side of the sign
vertical down the side of the sign
Sign structure
Bronze - colored aluminum square
Bronze - colored aluminum square
base with 8'5" by 8'5" footprint
base with 8'6" by 8'6" footprint
The height of the original Downtown Display sign is substantial, but it is intended to provide
visibility for businesses throughout the 284 -acre Downtown Dublin Specific Plan area. Due to
the fact that properties adjacent to Interstate 680 are located 20 feet below the adjacent freeway
grade, the effective height of the original design as viewed from the freeway would be a 65 foot
sign. The top 9'5" of the original sign design was intended for City branding.
To make the construction and installation of the sign financially viable, the Applicant needs to
have a certain number of tenants on the sign. The originally - proposed design meets the goals
of the City from a high - quality design standard, and it is able to meet the needs of the Applicant,
who will bear all of the costs involved in constructing, installing, operating, and maintaining the
sign in compliance with a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review approval.
It is Staff's opinion that the design of the original proposal provides the unique identity marker
called for in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan. However, in order to address concerns raised
by the Planning Commission, the Project Applicant prepared a revised proposal that eliminates
the "City of Dublin" name and logo from the top of the sign, removing 10 feet from the height of
the sign. The revised design also eliminated one sign panel from each side of the sign,
reducing the sign height by an additional 6 feet, 6 inches. Lastly, the height of the main part of
the sign structure was reduced by 6 inches, leading to an overall reduction in height of 17 feet.
The Appellant asserts that the revised design addresses the main concerns that the Planning
Commission had with the original design and that with these changes the findings for Site
Development Review and the Conditional Use Permit are able to be made.
Appeal Point No. 3: By not having a regional - serving sign to serve Downtown Dublin, the
City and its businesses are missing out on the opportunity to brand Downtown as a
unique and distinct area and advertise the area as a regional destination to the benefit of
all Downtown tenants.
The Downtown Dublin Specific Plan clearly permits a single, regional- serving sign in Downtown
with the intent of serving any tenant in the area. The Plan is not specific about the desired
location or the parameters for the sign size and design, which leaves it open for considering a
variety of options. In order for the sign to successfully advertise Downtown businesses and to
draw customers from both within the City and from throughout the region, a freeway- oriented
sign is a prudent design.
Prior to filing a Planning Application with the City, the Applicant considered a variety of
locations, along both the 1 -580 and 1 -680 corridors. The sign needed to be within the Downtown
Dublin Specific Plan area boundary, and visibility for a freeway- oriented sign along 1 -580 in
Page 6 of 8
Downtown is limited due to visual conflicts with the West Dublin /Pleasanton BART station and
mature, healthy landscaping. The Applicant found a suitable location along 1 -680 that would
allow the sign to be visible from both the northbound and southbound directions, which would
benefit Downtown tenants and businesses on both sides of the Interstate.
The Appellant asserts that both the original and revised design for the proposed Downtown
Display signs will serve to brand Downtown Dublin, help create an identifiable shopping
destination, and will benefit both those businesses that are able to advertise on the sign as well
as those that will benefit from the increased visibility and foot traffic to Downtown. By extension,
if the existing stores benefit, Downtown will become a more desirable location for other
businesses to locate which could incentivize additional commercial development, as well as
enable easier re- tenanting of existing vacant spaces. Lastly, if sales increase for Downtown
businesses, the City also reaps the benefit by way of additional sales tax dollars.
OPTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION:
Pursuant to Chapter 8.136 (Appeals) of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, the City Council may, by
majority vote to affirm, affirm in part, or reverse the Planning Commission's decision on a
Project. Staff is recommending that the City Council reverse the Planning Commission's
decision and approve the request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review
for the construction and ongoing operation of an 85 foot tall, regional- serving, freestanding sign
as originally proposed and as permitted by the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan, with Conditions
of Approval (Attachment 6).
If the City Council prefers the revised Downtown Display sign design, the City Council also has
the option to reverse the Planning Commission's adoption of Resolution 12 -33 and approve a
Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review for the construction and ongoing
operation of a regional- serving, freestanding sign with the revised design and Conditions of
Approval (Attachment 7). The Conditions of Approval are the same between the two resolutions
except that Condition of Approval No. 1 has been modified to reference the revised sign design
instead of the original proposal.
Lastly, the City Council could affirm the Planning Commission's adoption of Resolution 12 -33
denying the appeal request (Attachment 8).
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State Guidelines and City
Environmental Regulations, require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts
and when applicable, environmental documents prepared. Staff is recommending that the City
Council find this project exempt from CEQA in accordance with Section 15332 (In -fill
Development Projects in compliance with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, not occurring on
land with habitat value, and served by existing utilities and public services).
CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, SPECIFIC PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE:
The Project is consistent with the Downtown Dublin — Retail District General Plan land use
designation for the site and is also consistent with the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan, which
states that one regional- serving freeway- oriented sign can be permitted with a Conditional Use
Permit and Site Development Review approved by the Planning Commission.
Page 7 of 8
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS /PUBLIC OUTREACH:
A Public Notice was mailed to all property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the
proposed Project for the Planning Commission hearing on September 11, 2012. No members
of the public attended the hearing to speak regarding the project.
In accordance with State law, a Public Notice of this City Council meeting was mailed to all
property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the proposed Project. A Public Notice was
also published in the Valley Times and posted at several locations throughout the City. A copy
of this Staff Report was also provided to the Appellant, Project Applicant, and the property
owner. At the time of completion of this Staff Report, no comments other than those
documented in the Appeal Letter have been received.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 11, 2012 (without
attachments)
2. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated September 11, 2012
3. Planning Commission Resolution 12 -33 denying Conditional Use
Permit and Site Development Review for the construction and ongoing
operation of an 85 foot tall, regional- serving, freestanding sign as
permitted by the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan
4. Letter of Appeal dated September 21, 2012 from Charlie Stroud
5. 45 -day Public Hearing Waiver letter from Charlie Stroud
6. Resolution reversing the Planning Commission's adoption of
Resolution 12 -33 and approving a Conditional Use Permit and Site
Development Review Permit for the construction and ongoing operation
of an 85 foot tall, regional- serving, freestanding sign as originally
proposed, as permitted by the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan, and as
recommended to the Planning Commission on September 11, 2012, with
the Original Downtown Display Project Plans dated May 2, 2012 included
as Exhibit A.
7. Resolution adopting a Resolution reversing the Planning
Commission's adoption of Resolution 12 -33 and approving a Conditional
Use Permit and Site Development Review Permit for the construction
and ongoing operation of a regional- serving, freestanding sign with a
revised design and modified conditions of approval, with the Revised
Downtown Display Project Plans dated September 19, 2012 included as
Exhibit A.
8. Resolution affirming the Planning Commission's adoption of
Resolution 12 -33 denying a Conditional Use Permit and Site
Development Review Permit for the construction and ongoing operation
of an 85 foot tall, regional- serving, freestanding sign as permitted by the
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan.
Page 8 of 8
OF�DU��2
i9� d_ " =�• psi STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
�`IGIFOR�l�
DATE: September 11, 2012
TO: Planning Commission
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: PLPA- 2012 - 00042, Downtown Regional Serving
Sign Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review (CUP /SDR)
Prepared by Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review
for the construction and ongoing operation of an 85 foot tall regional serving freestanding sign
as permitted by the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Open the
public hearing; 3) Take testimony from the Applicant and the public; 4) Close the public hearing
and deliberate; and 5) Adopt a Resolution approving a Conditional Use Permit and Site
Development Review for the construction and ongoing operation of an 85 foot tall regional
serving freestanding Downtown Sign as permitted by the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan.
V-n -Y6
Submitted By
Principal Planner
Re'Viewed By
Acting Community
Development Director
COPIES TO: Applicant
File
ITEM NO.:
Page 1 of 6
G:IPA #120121PLPA- 2012 -00042 Downtown Display SDR- CUPIPCSR DD Sign CUP SDR.doc
DESCRIPTION:
The project site is located at
7153 Amador Plaza Road.
The project site has a General
Plan Land Use designation of
Downtown Dublin — Retail
District and is located within
the Downtown Dublin Specific
Plan Area. The site is zoned
Downtown Dublin Zoning
District.
The sign is proposed to be located in a shopping center on the southeast corner of Amador
Valley Boulevard and Amador Plaza Road. The sign will be placed between the building
containing Sprouts Farmer's Market and Jo- Anne's Fabrics and Interstate 680, to the south of
The Floor Store.
ANALYSIS:
The Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) provides sign guidelines in Chapter 4
(Development Standards and Design Guidelines). Section 4.4.6 (Signage) addresses a
regional - serving sign and notes the following:
"One regional serving sign may be permitted in the Specific Plan Area. This sign shall be
intended to create an identity marker for the downtown and to advertise the downtown
and businesses located within the downtown area. Advertising on this sign by businesses
located within the Specific Plan Area shall not be considered off -site signage. The owner
of the sign shall not prohibit regional or destination - serving downtown businesses from
locating on the sign and the sign shall be designed to accommodate a variety of
businesses in the Downtown Specific Plan Area. This sign will require a Conditional Use
PermiUSite Development Review and shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission."
Ovehe t year, City Staff have reviewed concept sign designs from other developer groups.
However, owntown Displays is the first group to have provided a sign design that is reflective
of Dublin's civic identity and one that provides a landmark statement for the Downtown with high
2 of 6
quality materials and design elements. Please refer to the Project Plan Set, included as Exhibit
A to Attachment 1 for the proposed design and location of the proposed sign. The sign design
is highly compatible with the City's Streetscape Master Plan, the Dublin Boulevard identity
markers, and other civic directional signage around town. The sections below describe the sign
design and location in greater detail.
Location
The sign is proposed to be located in an existing parking lot landscaped island in between Jo-
Anne's Fabrics and Interstate 680. Downtown Displays is leasing a small portion of land from
the property owner, Red Mountain Development Group LLC, to install and operate the sign.
This location will allow the sign to have excellent visibility from the Interstate 680 corridor as well
as visibility from some sections of Interstate 580. The proposed location increases the potential
to draw customers to businesses located in Downtown Dublin. Sheet 2 of the Project Plan Set
(Exhibit A to Attachment 1) shows the proposed sign location.
Height
The bottom of the first sign panel is approximately 26 feet above grade, and the top of the sign
reaches 85 feet tall. A number of freeway- oriented signs have been permitted by the City in
recent years. The following table (Table 1) notes the height of each of these signs for purposes
of comparison.
Table 1: Freeway- oriented signage
Sign Location
Sign Height
Fallon Gateway
99 feet (roughly matching adjacent freeway grade, but challenges
due to visibility on eastbound 580 due to freeway overcrossin
Ikea never installed)
99 feet (roughly matching adjacent freeway grade)
The Green on Park
Place (never installed
85 feet (roughly matching adjacent freeway grade)
Dublin Toyota
78 feet (roughly matching adjacent freeway grade)
Hacienda Crossings
75 feet 3 signs - roughly matching adjacent freeway grade)
Grafton Station
75 feet (roughly matching adjacent freeway grade)
Dublin Auto Mall
62 feet at or slightly below adjacent freeway grade)
Dublin Honda
45 feet below adjacent freeway grade)
Downtown Safeway
45 foot tower element with signage below adjacent freeway grade)
REI
40 foot tower element with signage (below adjacent freeway grade)
The overall height of the proposed Downtown Sign is substantial, but it is intended to provide
visibility for businesses throughout the 284 -acre Downtown Dublin Specific Plan area. Due to
the fact that it is located 20 feet below the adjacent freeway grade, the effective height as
viewed from the freeway is a 65 foot sign. Additionally, the top 9'5" of the sign is for City
branding. Also, to make the construction and installation of the sign financially viable, the
Applicants need to have a certain number of tenants on the sign. The proposed design meets
the goals of the City from a high - quality design standard, and it is able to meet the needs of the
Applicant, who will bear all of the costs involved in constructing, installing, operating, and
maintaining the sign in compliance with this Conditional Use Permit and Site Development
Review approval.
Sheets 6 and 7 of the Project Plan Set provide photo - simulations of the sign on the proposed
site.
3 of 6
Design and Materials
The sign is composed of three main elements: The base structure, the City identity
signage /branding, and the tenant panels. Each section is described in more detail below, and
the materials are called out specifically on Sheet 1 of the Project Plan Set (Exhibit A to
Attachment 1).
1. Sign Structure. The base structure of the freestanding sign will be a bronze - colored
aluminum square base that has a footprint of 8'5" by 8'5 ". The structure is a solid square
at ground level, but beginning at approximately 18 feet from the ground, the structure
opens up to a clover panel background that matches the design of the Dublin Boulevard
identity markers, bridge crossings, and other median fixtures. During the daytime the
green clovers are set against a black background. At night, the interior of the 8'5" square
structure is illuminated and the clovers go dark set against the illumination from the
interior of the structure. Condition of Approval 12 regulates the modulation of the interior
lighting, noting that the colors can change seasonally, but the default illumination will be
warm white or other subtle, subdued colors. The Condition of Approval prohibits bold,
bright illumination or employing a strobe effect. Sheet 4 of the Project Plan Set provides
more detail on the interior LED light fixtures that provides illumination and Sheet 9
provides a nighttime view of the sign.
2. City identity signage /branding. The top 9'5" of the sign is the City of Dublin logo and
shamrock, matching the colors, materials, and look of the Dublin Boulevard identity
markers with a bronze - colored background and gold metallic lettering. At night, the City
logo is backlit ( "halo" lit) with a subtle white light. Running down the length of the sign,
sitting atop a 27 foot bronze blade, is the word "Downtown ", which is crafted from
aluminum featuring individual gold metallic letters that are illuminated from within. At
night, "Downtown" is illuminated white, as shown on Sheet 9 of the Project Plan Set.
3. Tenant Sign Panels. There are seven tenant sign panels each on two sides of the sign,
for a total of fourteen panels. The bottom sign panel is intended to be used by two
tenants with smaller signs. Sheets 1 and 3 of the Project Plan Set detail the size of each
sign panel and the maximum copy area that is available for the tenant signage on each
panel. Condition of Approval 11 notes the design guidelines for the tenant signage.
Requirements include individual illuminated letters only with a letter depth not to exceed 5
inches, the tenant panels will all have the same opaque white background with the
letters /logo /graphics only illuminated from within, and no animated or changeable copy
signs are allowed. Sheets 8 and 9 of the Project Plan Set illustrate the design and
nighttime illumination of the individual tenant sign panels.
Site and Landscape Modifications
Changes will be needed to the project site in order to accommodate the installation of the
Downtown Sign. The landscaping in the existing planter area will be modified to accommodate
the proposed sign. Additionally, the Applicant proposes to remove six pine trees along the
perimeter of the site adjacent to the Zone 7 canal so the sign is visible. The pine trees are
estimated to range from 30 -40 feet tall and would obstruct the lower sign panels if left in place.
The six pine trees were examined by a local tree contractor and were described to be in
generally good health, between 10 -25 years old, but top heavy due to a lack of pruning and
shaping. Photos of the trees proposed for removal are on Sheet 11 of the Project Plan Set.
In place of the pine trees being removed, the Applicant's will install five 15- gallon sized crepe
myrtle trees and seven 15- gallon sized oleanders in the general vicinity of the sign to match the
existing landscape palette of the shopping center. Additionally, the shrubs and groundcover in
4 of 6
the planter area where the sign is proposed to be located will be refreshed once the sign is
installed.
Other site modifications include the removal of one parking lot light fixture. Condition of
Approval No. 13 requires the Applicant to install additional site lighting if it is determined that the
lighting level of the parking field falls below the minimum security requirements once the
Downtown Sign is installed and operational.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State Guidelines and City
Environmental Regulations, require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts
and when applicable, environmental documents prepared. Staff is recommending that the
Planning Commission find this project exempt from CEQA in accordance with Section 15332
(In -fill Development Projects in compliance with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, not
occurring on land with habitat value, and served by existing utilities and public services).
CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, SPECIFIC PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE:
Project is consistent with the Downtown Dublin — Retail District General Plan land use
designation for the site and is also consistent with the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan, which
states that one regional - serving freeway- oriented sign can be permitted with a Conditional Use
Permit and Site Development Review approved by the Planning Commission.
REVIEW BY APPLICABLE DEPARTMENT AND AGENCIES:
The Building Division, Fire Prevention Bureau, Public Works Department, Dublin Police Services
and Dublin San Ramon Services District have reviewed the project and, where appropriate,
have provided Conditions of Approval to ensure that the project is established in compliance
with all local ordinances and regulations. Conditions of Approval from these departments and
agencies have been included in the attached Resolution (Attachment 1).
Additionally, because the sign is located adjacent to Interstate 680, Condition of Approval No.
10 requires that the Applicant procure any permits that may be required from the State of
California Department of Transportation.
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. A Public Notice was also published in the Valley Times
and posted at several locations throughout the City. A copy of this Staff Report was also
provided to the Applicant and the property owner.
ATTACHMENTS: 1) Resolution approving a Conditional Use Permit and Site
Development Review for the construction and ongoing
operation of an 85 foot tall regional serving freestanding
Downtown Sign as permitted by the Downtown Dublin Specific
Plan, with the Project Plan Set included as Exhibit A.
5 of 6
GENERAL INFORMATION:
APPLICANT:
PROPERTY OWNER:
LOCATION:
ASSESSORS PARCEL
NUMBER:
GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE DESIGNATION:
SPECIFIC PLAN
LAND USE DESIGNATION:
SURROUNDING USES:
Nicole Salmon, Downtown Displays, 1534 Rancho View Dr,
Lafayette, CA 94549
Eric Nelson, Red Mountain Retail Group, Inc., 1237 E. 17th
Street, Santa Ana, CA
7153 Amador Plaza Road
APN 941 - 0305 - 037 -00
Downtown Dublin /Retail District
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan
LOCATION
ZONING
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE
CURRENT USE OF
PROPERTY
North
DDZD
Downtown Dublin /Retail District
Retail Shopping Center
South
DDZD
Downtown Dublin /Retail District
Retail /Office
West
DDZD
Downtown Dublin /Retail District
Retail Shopping Center
East
DDZD
n/a
Interstate 680
REFERENCES:
General Plan
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan
Zoning Ordinance
6 of 6
Cm. Schaub mentioned that violations cost the City money and resources, and felt that the City
could use those resources for other larger issues.
Chair Wehrenberg mentioned her suggestion of ensuring the Applicant's subcontractors comply
with Conditions of Approval to ensure fewer violations and in turn alleviate the need for the City
to use their resources.
On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Cm. O'Keefe, on a vote of 4 -1, with Cm.
Bhuthimethee being opposed; the Planning Commission adopted:
RESOLUTION NO. 12 - 32
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT AND PARKING REDUCTION
FOR SKY RIVER RV AT 6700 GOLDEN GATE DRIVE (APN 941 - 1500 - 047 -04)
PLPA- 2012 -00045
8.2 PLPA- 2012 - 00042, Downtown Regional Serving Sign Conditional Use Permit and Site
Development Review
Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner, began to present the project as outlined in the Staff Report.
Cm. Schaub asked if she was referring to the quote from the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan
(DDSP). He stated the quote does not indicate the specifics or the intent of the sign.
Ms. Bascom responded the quote continues on to describe the sign's purpose is for advertising
the downtown businesses throughout the area. She stated that the current guidelines allow one
freestanding sign per parcel that only advertises the business on that parcel. She stated that
when the DDSP was envisioned the regional serving sign was intended to cover the entire
downtown area. She stated the sign would not allow for every business in downtown area but
the larger regional destination serving tenants, not the smaller businesses. Not all of them will
have the freestanding signs but instead have one identity marker.
Cm. Schaub asked if any of the businesses could participate in the sign at any time.
Ms. Bascom answered yes and stated it could be any business within the downtown area.
Cm. Schaub asked since there are 7 panels on two sides, will each side have the same ad /sign.
Ms. Bascom answered no.
Cm. Schaub stated there could be 14 different ads.
Ms. Bascom answered there will be 14 different sign panels, tenants can have up to two panels.
2 fanning Commission September 11, 2012
Wfgufar3feeting 103
Mr. Baker added that you cannot see both sets of panels at one time from most vantage points.
He also pointed out that the sign, in addition to advertising the businesses in the downtown
area, is also an identity marker for City branding and the downtown.
Cm. Schaub asked who will choose which businesses will participate in the sign.
Ms. Bascom answered the owner of the sign.
Cm. Schaub asked even though the sign is a destination sign and a visual representation of the
City, we have no control over anything that goes on the sign.
Ms. Bascom answered the City will not own or operate the sign. She added that Condition of
Approval #11 has a variety of sign guidelines that the Applicant submitted and the City agreed
to. She stated the Condition of Approval allows any business within the downtown area to
advertise on the sign. If the business is located in the downtown and they are willing to pay the
cost, they can have a panel on the sign.
Cm. Schaub stressed that the City will not have any control over the sign except that the name
of the City will be on the sign.
Ms. Bascom answered yes. She added the City will not maintain or operate the sign. She
clarified that the Applicant will need to comply with the Condition of Approval and #11 regarding
the City guidelines. She stated the sign has been designed with the City's input, the cost is
being borne by the Applicant, and the Applicant will install and maintain the sign. She stated in
order for the Applicant to bring in revenue, they will typically have the regional serving retailers
on the sign. She stated the Applicants are in attendance to answer any questions regarding the
business details.
Cm. Brown asked if the sign is only big enough for a name and a logo, but no phone numbers or
websites.
Ms. Bascom answered yes; as required by Condition of Approval #11, a name and /or a graphic
only.
Cm. Brown asked if the DDSP mentions a regional sign but doesn't indicate when it would be
appropriate to install.
Ms. Bascom answered yes; it also does not indicate height, when to install or what it needs to
look like specifically.
Chair Wehrenberg asked if she knew of any other cities that have adopted similar sign
programs.
Ms. Bascom deferred to the Applicant to answer. She mentioned there are a number of
different signs in the 1 -80 corridor that are regional serving signs for a super center and are
branded with that city's logo. She mentioned the City of Campbell who has a similar sign close
to Highway 17 which was design specifically with the City's logo and the stores in the center.
She stated that often cities will get involved when the sign is of a regional nature with high
visibility and the location is an iconic place for the community.
Tfanning Commission S'eptern6er 11, 2012
Wggufar 9deeting 104
Cm. Schaub mentioned the sound wall on southbound 1 -680 where the sign will be installed. He
stated the sound wall stops at Amador Valley Blvd. and felt it could be dangerous if someone
saw the sign and wanted to get off the freeway. He added that many of the signs in Dublin that
Ms. Bascom gave as examples were approved as exceptions. He was concerned that those
exceptions are now considered standard rule. He pointed out that the previously approved
signs had legitimate reasons to be approved at the time.
Ms. Bascom responded she had not meant to indicate that the signs were approved for no
reason, that there are reasons behind all of them. She also stated that some of the signs were
never constructed.
Cm. Bhuthimethee asked how the Dublin Blvd. identifying signs are lit.
Ms. Bascom answered they are not illuminated except by street lights.
Mr. Baker added those signs are not a box but just a panel.
Cm. Bhuthimethee liked the way those signs are lit and thought they were very attractive.
Ms. Bascom agreed.
Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if a sign as large as this could be illuminated in the same way.
Ms. Bascom cautioned the light would need to be very strong and would not have the same
effect.
There was a discussion regarding how the sign will be illuminated and how the other large signs
in the City are illuminated.
Chair Wehrenberg suggested allowing the Applicant to describe the lighting for the sign.
Cm. Schaub asked who owns the trees that are to be removed.
Ms. Bascom answered they belong to the property owner the Applicant is leasing the site from.
Cm. Schaub asked if any of the trees were heritage trees.
Ms. Bascom answered no.
Chair Wehrenberg asked if the DDSP designated this site for the sign.
Ms. Bascom answered there was no site identified for the sign but it was envisioned that there
would be one sign. She added that Staff saw concepts in a few different areas from different
property owners. The Applicants were working with a different property owner but did not find
the sign distinctive or iconic. City Staff also saw a concept design from the property owners at
the REI location but were not happy with that design either. The Applicants felt a regional
serving sign needed to be on the 1- 580/1 -680 corridor to make it visible and beneficial for the
businesses. She mentioned there had been an effort to create a Public /Private partnership and
they tried to find public property to locate the sign, but were unable to because the City doesn't
Aanning Commissirrn Sertem6er 11, 2012
gu(ar5Weeting 105
own a lot of public property. She suggested the Applicants talk to other property owners in the
downtown area who might be interested.
Cm. O'Keefe asked if there is any cost to the City as far as involvement in the construction of
the sign and having the identity marker. He asked if the City would benefit from the sign.
Ms. Bascom answered there is no cost to the City. She added that this is a private developer
coming to the City with a private development project.
Cm. O'Keefe asked if the Staff and the Economic Development Department are in support of
this project instead of continuing to search for a location for a Public /Private partnership. He
was surprised that this is the only option presented to the City and would like to see more.
Ms. Bascom responded that Staff searched for sites where a sign could be located and felt they
had exhausted all possibilities. She stated they are limited to the DDSP area and also to
locations that are visible along the 1- 580/1 -680 corridor.
Mr. Baker stated that both Staff in CDD and Economic Development have been working on the
project, are supporting it and recommending approval.
Cm. Bhuthimethee asked about the history of the project.
Ms. Bascom asked if she was asking about the concept of having a singular regional serving
sign.
Cm. Bhuthimethee stated she had seen this type of sign for shopping areas, but not too often in
a downtown.
Mr. Baker replied it was an attempt to address the issues of signage in the downtown and to
avoid too many large signs. The idea is to brand the downtown to create an identity, to
reinvigorate the downtown, and encourage reinvestment.
Ms. Bascom responded that Dublin has a unique downtown which is really a commercial core.
She felt it is unlike Pleasanton or Walnut Creek's downtowns which are the original settlements
of the city and away from freeways; Dublin's downtown is bisected by two freeways so the
recommendation was made to create something visible from the freeways. She added the
DDSP envisioned taking the demand from various users and put it on one iconic element as
opposed to having signs throughout the downtown area.
Cm. Bhuthimethee agreed that the City needed an iconic element but did not envision it being
so large and so commercial.
Chair Wehrenberg asked if this project had been shared with other businesses in the area.
Ms. Bascom responded that the Applicant has begun to do some marketing, but Staff wanted to
make sure the Planning Commission approved it before they did any further marketing.
Cm. Schaub was concerned that the City will have no control over any new business in the
downtown that wants to put up whatever sign meets their requirement. He felt the sign would
not take the place of any other businesses' sign and there is nothing in the Ordinance that would
2 fanning Commission September 11, 2012
ftufarMeeting 106
indicate that this sign is anything but a commercial endeavor that some businesses may
participate in.
Ms. Bascom responded there is nothing that would prohibit a business that has a panel on this
sign from doing whatever sign they wanted on their site.
Chair Wehrenberg stated that there are design guidelines for signs within the DDSP and
anything different would come before the Planning Commission for approval.
Ms. Bascom agreed.
Chair Wehrenberg opened the public hearing.
Nicole Salmon, Downtown Displays, spoke in favor of the project. She stated this is a new
entity, with her partner, Charlie Stroud who both work for Arrow Sign Company. She stated they
have worked with the City of Dublin on many projects, i.e. Hacienda Crossings, the median
markers and the way- finding signage. She stated they were working with a property owner who
wanted to create the community sign but wanted to design it similar to their buildings for their
private purposes. They designed a sign and presented it to Staff with a few modifications in
keeping with the vision of the DDSP Regional Serving Sign. Then they tried to find a place to
put it, tried to decide who would buy the sign and how the business would work. Ultimately, they
decided they could build the sign and give the City what they wanted. They worked with Staff
and looked for potential locations both public and private. They worked with a private developer
and identified a location that works. That is how the concept of Downtown Displays was born.
She stated the City of Cordelia constructed a large sign, 85 feet tall, with 16 panels on each
side, to service the businesses that currently have pylon signs. The City of Cordelia allowed a
number of pylon signs causing a clutter of signs. They arranged for the community serving sign
and if they wanted to participate they would have to take down their pylon signs. This has also
been done in the City of Millbrea and the City of Davis. She stated that the concept of one sign
that services the district has been successful. The purpose was to comply with Dublin
standards; they will use all the same materials and finishes in the median markers.
Charlie Stroud, President, Arrow Sign Company and Downtown Displays spoke in favor of the
project. He spoke regarding the design of the sign and the materials. He stated there is a
controller, mounted at the base of the clovers that allows the lighting to change colors. The
intent was to change the light with slow architectural colors and different colors to coincide with
holidays. He gave an overview regarding the panels and the lighting for the cabinets.
Chair Wehrenberg asked if they had approached different businesses regarding marketing.
Mr. Stroud responded, they have not yet, but have spoken with business acquaintances to see
what level of interest there would be for this sign.
Chair Wehrenberg asked if all the panels would go on the sign at once or as each business is
added.
Mr. Stroud responded that they would fill the panels and the sign will go up as one unit.
Chair Wehrenberg asked how it would be handled when one tenant leaves; would they replace
it with a blank panel.
PCxnning Corramiss n Septem5er 11, 20,12
,fgufxar �teetiiW 107
Mr. Stroud answered they would return the panel to its original condition and then replace it with
a new set of letters for the new business.
Cm. Bhuthimethee was concerned that if one tenant left and there was no replacement how that
would be handled.
Ms. Salmon responded that there are so many businesses in the downtown that she is confident
they will be able to replace the panel within 30 days, but in the interim, they would make the sign
like new to comply with the Conditions of Approval. She stated they would go to the local
businesses to let them know there is a panel available. She realized that not everyone will be
able to be on the sign. She addressed Cm. Schaub's comment regarding the signs; they will
only allow the letters with the name of the business and /or their graphic logo. She stated the
sign will be used as a marker /identifier, not to be used as advertising.
Cm. Schaub was concerned with which businesses will be allowed to be on a panel.
Ms. Salmon responded they would not be able to say no to any business. She stated the lease
for the sign is expensive and felt that some of the small businesses would not be able to afford
it.
Cm. Brown asked what the length of the leasing term for the sign would be.
Ms. Salmon responded they would request a 5 year lease term. She stated they do not
anticipate a lot of turnover.
Cm. O'Keefe asked if the Applicants have a tentative agreement in place with the property
owner.
Ms. Salmon answered yes; the agreement with the property owner is for 20 years but the panel
leases will be for 5 years.
Cm. Brown stated the topmost tenant panel will be reserved for a business that is at least
20,000 sq ft. and asked how many businesses have that much square footage.
Ms. Salmon answered there are approximately 12 or more; Target, Sprouts, Sports Authority,
Orchard Supply.
Ms. Bascom stated that Staff reviewed the records of some of the larger regional serving
retailers such as: Sports Authority and the vacant space next to that store, OSH, Michaels,
Marshalls, Ross, DSW, Spouts, Joanne's, REI, Target, Safeway.
Cm. Brown asked how they would handle having several large tenants vying for the topmost
spaces.
Ms. Salmon responded they would have an auction with a minimum base bid offer to cover the
construction costs.
Cm. O'Keefe asked if they have any verbal commitments from businesses in the area.
Tfannang Commission ,S`eptem6er 11, 2012
Wegular- IMeetzng 108
Ms. Salmon responded they have none. She stated they have relationships with many of the
land owners and felt confident they would be able to reach the appropriate people but wanted to
wait until the Planning Commission approved the concept project.
Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if the four squares on the corners are metal and then painted.
Mr. Stroud answered yes. He stated one of the Conditions of Approval require that all the paint
be the same, neutral.
Cm. Bhuthimethee felt the white color was too stark and suggested making it more of a soft
beige color.
Mr. Stroud agreed and said they could warm it up but keep it neutral.
Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if the paint is acrylic polyurethane.
Mr. Stroud answered yes. The main structure is metal, the columns are steel, the top box and
the tenant panels are aluminum, and everything is painted with polyurethane.
Cm. Schaub asked if the Applicant would be willing to reduce the height of the sign to 50 feet.
Ms. Salmon responded that because the freeway is elevated she felt that, to have the amount of
panels that are needed, 85 feet is the minimum.
Mr. Stroud mentioned the sound wall on southbound 1 -680 that obstructs the sign, but after
Amador Valley Blvd there is good visibility. He felt the lower panels may not be as visible, so if
the sign were shorter they would lose value.
Cm. Schaub asked if their intent for the sign is to encourage people driving down the freeway to
see the sign and want to pull off.
Mr. Stroud answered no; the sign is not a way- finding type sign, it is more of an identity sign; a
destination sign letting people know that the businesses are there.
Cm. Schaub was concerned with accidents in the area and on the freeway.
Ms. Salmon stated that the way the sign will be marketed is not a way- finding sign; they are
approaching businesses with traffic counts; going to corporate marketing people and indicating
that this sign will identify their business for people driving by.
Cm. Schaub again expressed his concerns.
Ms. Salmon disagreed and felt that most of the people traveling by are commuters and they
would recognize the business. She stated that 80% of retail customers live within 10 miles of
that business. She stated what they are conveying to potential clients is that the people
traveling by are their customers and they may make a conscious decision to stop at their
business at a later time.
Cm. Schaub asked for the percentage again.
Tanning C'ommissinn ,Septem6er 11, 20.12
Wvgut meeting 109
Ms. Salmon answered, 80% of retail customers come from within 10 miles of that business.
Cm. Schaub felt their intent was actually about selling impressions of downtown businesses
from the freeway.
Ms. Salmon disagreed and stated that was not the purpose of the sign.
Cm. Schaub disagreed and stated his personal opinion was that the sign's intent was to sell
impressions from the freeway.
Mr. Stroud stated the sign would reach their target audience, their customers.
Cm. Schaub felt the way the Applicant is presenting the sign is that there are a certain number
of cars going past their sign and there will be a certain number of impressions.
Ms. Salmon agreed.
Chair Wehrenberg asked if the Applicant has worked on a sign like this before.
Ms. Salmon answered that she had not personally worked on a sign like this, but Arrow Signs
created one for the City of Milbrea. She stated that city funded the project because they wanted
to create a sign that only served the businesses in a regional district. She stated the only other
private development is for the City of Cordelia. She stated that trying to create an identity for a
particular district in a city is not new. She also mentioned the City of Richmond where the city
funded a sign next to the freeway for a certain district.
Chair Wehrenberg understood the sign is not supposed to be a way- finding sign, but asked if
the next step would be directories for the downtown such as the City signs for the library, bike
trails, and other signs directing to auto dealerships. She asked if that would be another service
to provide the City.
Ms. Salmon answered no.
Ms. Bascom responded the DDSP does not envision those types of signs for the downtown.
She stated it does not speak to future way- finding signs for future tenants.
Chair Wehrenberg asked if this sign would only address businesses in the DDSP area.
Ms. Bascom answered yes; the DDSP states the sign would be for businesses within the
downtown area only and a Condition of Approval for this sign states that any business to be
located on the sign must be within the 284 -acre DDSP area.
Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that the sign is an attractive sign. She liked the incorporation of the
City's logo and branding. She felt conflicted about the public /private integration, using the City's
logo for branding on this sign when it has only been used in the City's medians as a public
identifier for wayfinding district identification and that private /commercial businesses have not
allowed to use the median signs for private /commercial uses.
Pfanning Commission September 11, 2012
Wegurar .1,2eeting 110
Mr. Baker mentioned that the City has private advertising in the medians for the auto dealership
signs on Dublin Blvd.
Cm. Bhuthimethee was concerned that the sign is large and in the downtown. She liked the
attractiveness of it, but was unsure if this is the type of sign the City wants.
Chair Wehrenberg closed the public hearing.
Cm. Brown stated he did not recall the regional sign concept in the DDSP, but felt a regional
sign would be appropriate when there are more businesses in the downtown. He felt it is
premature and that within 5 years it's likely that we will see more businesses come into the
downtown area.
Cm. O'Keefe agreed and disagreed with Cm. Brown. He agreed that it is premature because
the downtown is not fully complete with empty buildings that need to be filled and other projects
not yet completed. He disagreed because he felt it could be an asset for business development
to attract businesses to the downtown. He felt the sign could be a point of differentiation
between Dublin and other nearby cities. Overall he felt that using the same markers that are
already throughout the City was a good idea and looked really attractive and the view from
Amador Valley Blvd is fantastic. He was concerned that there are too many panels and
suggested three on each side would be better. He felt the sign is a good rough draft, but this
sign was created "happenstance" and the City will not benefit financially from this project. He
estimated the project to bring in $1 -3 million /year and over 20 years that would mean $20 -60
million. He was surprised that this sign is the best option for the City and that they only get one
chance because once approved it can't be changed. He could support the sign if this is what is
being recommended to the Commission, but suggested 3 panels. He felt the height was
acceptable.
Cm. Schaub expressed his concern with the height of the sign and felt it was higher than the
mountains to the west.
Cm. O'Keefe felt the sign needed to be above the freeway in order to be seen.
Cm. Schaub disagreed.
Cm. O'Keefe wanted to see the shamrocks in- between the panels. He would be ok with the
height but was concerned by the number of panels.
Cm. Bhuthimethee stressed that she likes that it incorporates the City's logo, colors and
branding signs throughout the City, but was concerned that the sign is so prominent in the
downtown area. She wanted something iconic that people would remember but this sign is not
what she was envisioning. She had reservations about whether this is the statement that the
City wants to make with such a large and commercially dominant sign.
Cm. Schaub felt this sign is inappropriate and inconsistent with other signs, with some
exceptions. He stated the Commission approved signs for REI and Safeway (in the same area)
because they were totally consistent with the sign requirements. He felt it was inconsistent to
allow this sign to be approved when the other businesses had to meet the requirements of the
Design Element of the General Plan and the DDSP.
Tfanning Commission ,Septem6er 11, 2012
ftufar 1Afeeting 111
Cm. O'Keefe responded that this sign serves as a regional marker and is strictly for commercial
purposes, and felt it was comparing apples and oranges.
Cm. Schaub disagreed and emphasized that he felt it was wrong for the City to require all
businesses in the downtown area to meet the sign requirements of the DDSP, but then approve
this type of sign. His personal opinion was that this is wrong. He stated he cannot make the
findings for this sign for either the SDR or the CUP. He liked the sign but questioned whether it
is right in that location and did not want the City associated with 7 vendors when there is an
entire downtown to promote and it will not take away signs from downtown. He stated this was
not what he was envisioning for the downtown sign. He was unsure if this sign would meet
CEQA requirements. He was concerned with how the City will deal with views and felt that was
a CEQA requirement. He was concerned with light issues because the sign dominates the sky
and the freeway and he did not want to associate Dublin's downtown with this sign. He stated
he cannot make the findings. He believed the City Council should review the sign and make the
decision if this is the type of sign they want for the downtown.
Chair Wehrenberg was concerned with the height of the sign and added that there are
restrictions regarding gateways into the City and the blocking of hillsides. She felt the sign is
professional and liked the shamrocks, and the fact that there are no LED lights. She wanted to
ensure, through Conditions of Approval, that the sign would never become an LED sign. She
felt it is not necessary to have a sign at that height along the freeway because Dublin's unique
location at the intersection of two freeways and this is the one opportunity to have a sign there.
She restated that she does not want an LED sign.
Cm. Schaub suggested going through the findings to see if they can be made. His issues with
the SDR findings are: the sign does not promote an orderly, attractive, and harmonious
identification; ...is highly compatible with the City's Streetscape Master Plan... he felt it was
unique but not compatible; ...appropriate to the City... he felt it doesn't impact the topography
but it does impact the view of our western hills. He felt this sign is not different than having a
balloon 80 feet in the air. He felt the sign is completely out of scale with surrounding buildings.
He is opposed to taking trees out to install signs. His issues with the CUP findings are: He
does not feel it is a compatible use for surrounding businesses and restaurants. He felt it was
compatible with some but not all. He also felt it is not highly compatible with the streetscape or
consistent with the General Plan. He thought it is a pretty sign but it is not consistent; the
location and scale are wrong.
Cm. Brown agreed with Cm. Schaub on two main findings for the SDR; he felt the sign does not
promote a harmonious identification of businesses. He felt that the sign would only promote
those businesses on the sign. He stated there are many more businesses than that and more
to come before the downtown is complete. He stated he cannot make that finding for the SDR
or for the CUP for the same reason.
Cm. O'Keefe stated he cannot make all the findings either, but felt there are some things not
taken into consideration such as economic development and the value of this being commercial.
He felt that if the City Council finds that this is something they want to go forward with, he felt
that it doesn't take 14 signs to make this a profitable endeavor. He did not want to present the
City in such a commercial light.
Chair Wehrenberg did not think this sign is what is meant in the DDSP or what the City Council
expected. She asked if the Commission wanted to deny the project or defer to the City Council.
Planning Commission September 11, 2612
gurarWeetin# 112
Cm. Schaub stated if the Commission denies the project the Applicant can appeal the decision
to the City Council.
Mr. Baker felt the Commission has a few options; 1) to approve the project; 2) refer the project
to the City Council for action and that would be the Commission's action, rather than approving
or denying; and 3) the Commission can deny the item and then the Applicant could appeal to
the City Council.
Chair Wehrenberg did not want to make it more difficult for the Applicant and if this is what the
City Council wants she would rather defer to them.
Cm. Schaub felt the Planning Commission is the decision making body, has never deferred an
item, and should follow the process by denying the project and then the Applicant can appeal to
the City Council.
Mr. Baker clarified that there have been instances where the Commission has referred an item
to the City Council in the past, so this would not be the first time.
Cm. Brown agreed with Cm. Schaub in that he did not feel the item should be referred to the
City Council, he felt strongly about denial.
Cm. Schaub believed he is making the correct decision to deny the project and following the
process is important.
Mr. Baker asked the Commission to go through the findings and identify the ones they cannot
make as a group by consensus. He stated they can make some findings but in order to deny
the item they only have to not be able to make one finding.
Findings that cannot be made:
SDR — A: harmonious, highly compatible with streetscape masterplan...
Unanimous — cannot make the findings
B: consistent with zoning ordinance...
Unanimous — can make the finding
C: appropriate to surrounding City, vicinity and surrounding properties...
Unanimous — cannot make the finding
D: suitable for type and intensity...
Cm. Brown — cannot make the finding, did not like the regional sign concept and
did not feel the location next to the freeway is the best idea.
Cm. Schaub — cannot make the finding; felt the sign is too tall for the location.
Cm. Bhuthimethee — can make the finding; she felt it was the right location for a
regional serving sign but felt it was too tall.
Cm. O'Keefe — can make the finding
Pfanning Commission Septem6er 11, 2012
Wsgufar9feeting 113
Chair Wehrenberg — can make the finding
E: will not impact existing slopes and topography... Cm. Schaub stated that if it only
refers to the dirt under the sign then he can make the findings.
Unanimous — can make the finding
F: including character and scale... Cm. Schaub felt the sign is not in relationship to
the site or the other buildings; therefore he cannot make the finding.
Unanimous — cannot make the finding
G: Landscape considerations... Cm. Schaub stated he did not approve of removing
trees but could make the finding.
Unanimous — can make the finding
H: adequately designed to ensure proper circulation...
Unanimous — can make the finding
CUP - A: compatible with other land uses...
Cm. Schaub — cannot make the findings because he felt it is not compatible with
what is asked of all the other retail, restaurants and services.
Cm. Brown — cannot make the finding
Cm. Bhuthimethee — cannot make the finding
Cm. O'Keefe — Can make the finding
Chair Wehrenberg — can make the finding; but felt it would only serve the
businesses that can afford to be on the sign.
B: will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing...
Unanimous — can make the finding
C: compatible with the City's Streetscape Masterplan...
Chair Wehrenberg — cannot make the findings; she felt the sign is compatible but it
is a unique sign but the scale and height is not.
Cm. Brown — Cannot make the findings
Cm. O'Keefe — can make the findings
Cm. Bhuthimethee — cannot make the findings
Cm. Schaub — cannot make the findings
D: adequate provisions for public access, water...
Unanimous — can make the finding
E: physically suitable for the type, density and intensity...
Unanimous — can make the finding
F: will not be contrary to the specific intent clauses, development regulations...
Unanimous — can make the finding
G: consistent with the Dublin General Plan and with any applicable Specific Plans...
Unanimous — cannot make the finding
Pfcanning Commissu n September 11, 2012
WfgurarVeeting 114
The Commission felt the sign was not an attractive and harmonious identification
of the City and is inconsistent with what they believe the sign should be.
On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Cm. Brown, on a vote of 5 -0, the Planning
Commission unanimously adopted:
RESOLUTION NO. 12- 33
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
DENYING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION AND ONGOING OPERATION OF AN 85 FOOT TALL REGIONAL
SERVING FREESTANDING DOWNTOWN SIGN
AS PERMITTED BY THE DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN
7153 AMADOR PLAZA ROAD (APN 941 - 0305 - 037 -00)
PLPA- 2012 -00042
8.3 PLPA- 2012 -00047 Zoning Ordinance Amendments to Chapter 8.84 (Sign Regulations)
of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance as it relates to the quality of Temporary Promotional
Signs
Marnie Delgado, Senior Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report.
Chair Wehrenberg asked how Staff determined the 60 day limit.
Ms. Delgado responded that it was a City Council directive.
Cm. Schaub asked if the Commission could add a section to the Ordinance that would give the
Community Development Director the authority to remove any inappropriate sign within 24
hours, at their discretion.
Mr. Baker responded that could be problematic because of ownership rights and First
Amendment issues. He further stated that the Zoning Code provides guidance regarding
removal and abatement of signs within a process.
Cm. Schaub asked in what instance the Community Development Director would be able to
remove an inappropriate sign.
Mr. Baker responded that temporary signs require a permit from the City, and if they do not have
a permit there is a process to have them removed.
Chair Wehrenberg asked about signs on cars that are being driven around the City, can the
Ordinance prohibit that type of signage.
�Pfanning Commission ,dept her° I i, 2612
Wguh Weeting 115
RESOLUTION NO. 12- 33
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
DENYING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION AND ONGOING OPERATION OF AN 85 FOOT TALL REGIONAL
SERVING FREESTANDING DOWNTOWN SIGN
AS PERMITTED BY THE DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN
7153 AMADOR PLAZA ROAD (APN 941 - 0305 - 037 -00)
PLPA- 2012 -00042
WHEREAS, Nicole Salmon and Charlie Stroud of Downtown Displays have requested a
Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review approval to permit the construction and
ongoing operation of an 85 foot tall regional serving freestanding Downtown Sign as permitted
by the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (the "Project "); and
WHEREAS, the Project is located in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan area; and
WHEREAS, the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan specifically states that "One regional
serving sign may be permitted in the Specific Plan Area. This sign shall be intended to create an
identity marker for the downtown and to advertise the downtown and businesses located within
the downtown area. Advertising on this sign by businesses located within the Specific Plan Area
shall not be considered off -site signage. The owner of the sign shall not prohibit regional or
destination - serving downtown businesses from locating on the sign and the sign shall be
designed to accommodate a variety of businesses in the Downtown Specific Plan Area.'; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with State
Guidelines and City Environmental Regulations required that certain projects be reviewed for
environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared, but pursuant to Section
15270(b) of the CEQA, CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or
disapproves; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted to the City of Dublin Planning Commission
recommending approval of the project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on
September 11, 2012; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted to the City of Dublin Planning Commission
recommending approval of the project; and
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 reports,
recommendations and testimony herein above set forth and used its independent judgment to
evaluate the project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Dublin Planning Commission
does hereby make the following findings and determinations regarding the Site Development
Review:
A. The Project, as conditioned, is not consistent with the purpose of Chapter 8.104, with the
General Plan and with any applicable Specific Plans and design guidelines in that the
proposed sign is not consistent with the Streetscape Master Plan.
C. The design of the project is not appropriate to the City, the vicinity, surrounding properties
and the lot in which the project is proposed because the sign is too tall and the location is
not suitable.
F. Architectural considerations including the character, scale, and quality of the 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 that is not harmonious with its surroundings and compatible with other
developments in the vicinity because the sign is not in relationship to the site or the other
buildings.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Dublin Planning Commission does hereby
make the following findings and determinations regarding the Conditional Use Permit:
A. The proposed use and related structures is not compatible with other land uses,
transportation and service facilities in the vicinity in that the sign is not compatible with
the retail, restaurant, and service facilities in the area.
C. It will be injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood in that the sign is
compatible but it is a unique sign but the scale and height is not compatible.
G. It is not consistent with the Dublin General Plan and with any applicable Specific Plans in
that the sign is not an attractive and harmonious identification of the City and is
inconsistent with what they believe the sign should be.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby deny a
Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review for the Downtown Sign.
vote:
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of September 2012 by the following
AYES: Wehrenberg, Schaub, O'Keefe, Brown, Bhuthimethee
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Assistant Community Development Director
G: 1PAM20121PLPA- 2012 -00042 Downtown Display SDR- CUPIPC Denial Reso DD Sign. doc
2of2
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
ATTN: Kristi Bascom
September 21 st, 2012
RE: PLPA - 2012 -00042 - Downtown Regional Serving Sign
Dear Mrs. Bascom,
1226501 -1 0002 09/21/--2012 >301 4
Other Transaction PLPA20120042 APPEAL.
175.1=0
SEP 21. 2012
CH'Y OF DUBLIN
CXTY MANAGER'S OFFICE
�--Q poo9-q7
This letter serves as an appeal to the decision made by Planning Commission on September
11, 2012 for the Downtown Serving Sign. I would like the matter reviewed by City Council as
I am in disagreement with the decision made.
The Downtown Specific Plan allows for a Downtown Regional Serving Sign. In the
commission hearing it was not made clear what about the application did not comply with the
Downtown Specific Plan or the original intention for a Downtown Serving Sign.
The two main concerns that were raised were in reference to the overall height and the
identity of the City of Dublin name and logo as a prominent feature. I have enclosed an
alternate design that addresses those concerns for the Council's consideration.
It was recommended by one of the commissioners that the project be deferred to city council
for decision; ultimately this was rejected and a denial was placed. It was recognized though
that the project could be good for businesses. Since the project can benefit the businesses and
city as a whole, I wold like the matter heard by City Council.
Having worked on many City of Dublin projects over the years, I am concerned that by not
having a designated landmark to display the downtown business and district as a destination,
the City of Dublin is missing out on a great opportunity to brand the downtown and give the
needed exposure to the businesses therein.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Charlie Stroud
Ir
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, California 94568
Phone: (925) 833 -6650
Fax: (925) 833 -6651
r
City Council
(925) 833 -6650
City Manager
(925) 833 -6650
Community Development
(925) 833 -6610
Economic Development
(925) 833 -6650
Finance /Admin Services
(925) 833 -6640
Fire Prevention
(925)833 -6606
Human Resources
(925) 833 -6605
Parks & Community Services
(925) 556 -4500
Police
(925) 833 -6670
Public Works /Engineering
(925) 833 -6630
www.dublin.ca.gov
To: Charlie Stroud (via Email)
From: Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner
Date: September 24, 2012
Re: Appeal of Planning Commission decision on the Downtown
Display CUP /SDR (PLPA- 2012 - 00042)
The City received your September 21, 2012 letter stating your intent to
appeal the Planning Commission ruling on the Downtown Display
CUP /SDR application. Your letter was accompanied by the required
appeal fee and the City will commence processing the appeal.
The City has 45 days to hear the appeal and 75 days to take action on
the appeal (Municipal Code § 8.136.060.A). However, you may waive
the 45 day hearing deadline. If it is your intent to waive the 45 day
hearing deadline and if it is acceptable to you for the appeal to be heard
on November 20, 2012 (after the 45 -day period), please check and sign
the statement below, make a copy for your records, and return this
letter with the checked statement to me.
I have appealed the Planning Commission ruling on the
Downtown Display CUP /SDR application. I hereby waive my right
under Municipal Code § 8.136.060.A to an appeal hearing within 45
days of the proper filing i-p appe41 -- --�- /
If you have any questions on this waiver or on the appeal in general,
please do not hesitate to contact me at 925- 556 -4557.
copy: Caroline Soto, City Clerk
Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director
John Bakker, City Attorney
RESOLUTION NO. XX - 12
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
* * * * * * * * * **
REVERSING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 12 -33 AND
APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION AND ONGOING OPERATION OF AN 85 FOOT TALL, REGIONAL -
SERVING, FREESTANDING SIGN AS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED, AS PERMITTED BY THE
DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN, AND AS RECOMMENDED TO THE PLANNING
COMMISSION ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2012
7153 AMADOR PLAZA ROAD (APN 941 - 0305 - 037 -00)
PLPA- 2012 -00042
WHEREAS, Nicole Salmon of Downtown Displays requested a Conditional Use Permit
and Site Development Review approval to permit the construction and ongoing operation of an
85 foot tall regional serving freestanding Downtown Sign as permitted by the Downtown Dublin
Specific Plan (the "Project "); and
WHEREAS, the Project is located in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan area in an
existing shopping center in a developed area of the City; and
WHEREAS, the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan specifically states that "One regional
serving sign may be permitted in the Specific Plan Area. This sign shall be intended to create an
identity marker for the downtown and to advertise the downtown and businesses located within
the downtown area. Advertising on this sign by businesses located within the Specific Plan Area
shall not be considered off -site signage. The owner of the sign shall not prohibit regional or
destination - serving downtown businesses from locating on the sign and the sign shall be
designed to accommodate a variety of businesses in the Downtown Specific Plan Area.'; and
WHEREAS, a Downtown - oriented, regional - serving sign is permitted in the Downtown
Dublin Zoning District, subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development
Review by the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted to the City of Dublin Planning Commission
recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review request
which report is incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on
September 11, 2012, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
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; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 12 -33 denying a Conditional
Use Permit and Site Development Review Permit for the construction and ongoing operation of
an 85 foot tall, regional - serving, freestanding sign based on concerns about the proposed height
and use of the City of Dublin logo, which Resolution is incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, Charlie Stroud filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission's decision
to the City Council; 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
WHEREAS, Staff recommends that the City Council find this project exempt from CEQA
in accordance with Section 15332 (In -fill Development Projects in compliance with the General
Plan, Zoning Ordinance, not occurring on land with habitat value, and served by existing utilities
and public services); and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted to the City of Dublin City Council
recommending a Resolution reversing the Planning Commission's adoption of Resolution 12 -33
and approving a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review Permit for the
construction and ongoing operation of an 85 foot tall, regional - serving, freestanding sign as
originally proposed, as permitted by the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan, and as recommended
to the Planning Commission on September 11, 2012 which Staff Report is incorporated herein
by reference; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on said application on November 20,
2012, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law;
ITTI
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.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Dublin City Council does hereby
make the following findings and determinations regarding the Conditional Use Permit:
A. The proposed use and related structures is compatible with other land uses,
transportation and service facilities in the vicinity in that the sign will serve businesses
located in Downtown Dublin and is a compatible use with the retail, restaurant, and
service facilities in the area.
B. It will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the
vicinity, or be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare in that the Project has
been conditioned to comply with all State of California and Dublin Municipal Code
requirements.
C. It will not be injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood in that: the sign is
designed to be consistent with the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan in that the sign creates
an identity marker for the Downtown that is compatible with other high - quality signage
2of9
including the Dublin Boulevard identity markers and other civic directional signage in
Dublin.
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 in that: 1) the Project will be located on a fully
developed site that is served by existing utilities and services; and 2) the Project will not
create a demand for additional utilities or services beyond that which already exists to
serve the site.
E. The subject site is physically suitable for the type, density and intensity of the use and
related structures being proposed in that the sign is proposed to be located in an existing
island in an existing parking field and the sign will not create a demand for additional
utilities or services beyond that which already exists to serve the site.
F. It will not be contrary to the specific intent clauses, development regulations, or
performance standards established for the zoning district in which it is located in that: 1)
the proposed project is compatible with the Downtown Dublin Zoning District in which it is
located with approval of a Conditional Use Permit; and 2) the design of the sign meets
the requirements of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan.
G. It is consistent with the Dublin General Plan and with any applicable Specific Plans in
that: 1) the signage will promote orderly, attractive, and harmonious identification of the
businesses throughout the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) area as directed by
DDSP Section 4.4.6; and 2) the sign is consistent with the Downtown Dublin Specific
Plan Signage Design Guidelines in that the sign creates an identity marker for the
Downtown that is compatible with other high - quality signage including the Dublin
Boulevard identity markers and other civic directional signage in Dublin.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Dublin City Council does hereby
make the following findings and determinations regarding the Site Development Review:
A. The Project, as conditioned, is consistent with the purpose of Chapter 8.104, with the
General Plan and with any applicable Specific Plans and design guidelines in that: 1) the
signage will promote orderly, attractive, and harmonious identification of the businesses
throughout the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) area as directed by DDSP
Section 4.4.6; and 2) the sign is consistent with the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan
Signage Design Guidelines in that the sign creates an identity marker for the Downtown
that is compatible with other high - quality signage including the Dublin Boulevard identity
markers and other civic directional signage in Dublin.
B. The proposal is consistent with the provisions of Title 8, Zoning Ordinance because: the
sign complies with the intent and purpose of Chapters 8.30 (Downtown Dublin Zoning
District) and 8.84 (Sign Regulations).
C. The design of the project is appropriate to the City, the vicinity, surrounding properties
and the lot in which the project is proposed because: the sign is designed to be
consistent with the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan in that the sign creates an identity
3 of 9
marker for the Downtown that is compatible with other high - quality signage including the
Dublin Boulevard identity markers and other civic directional signage in Dublin.
D. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the approved
development because the site: 1) is located adjacent to Interstate 680, which provides
excellent visibility for Downtown businesses; and 2) the sign is located in an area that
does not receive heavy through traffic and would not over - intensify the site with too much
development.
E. The Project, will not impact existing slopes and topographic features because no grading
will be required for the installation of the sign.
F. Architectural considerations including the character, scale, and quality of the 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 that is harmonious with its surroundings and compatible with other developments
in the vicinity because the sign is consistent with the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan
Signage Design Guidelines and the sign creates an identity marker for the Downtown
that is compatible with other high - quality signage including the Dublin Boulevard identity
markers and other civic directional signage in Dublin. The sign is proposed to be
constructed with attractive, durable materials, and conditions of approval will be in place
to ensure the ongoing maintenance and repair of the sign as needed. The height of the
sign is appropriate to provide visibility within the Specific Plan area and along 1 -680,
given that the grade of properties adjacent to the freeway is 20' below the adjacent
freeway.
G. Landscape considerations including the location, type, size, color, texture and coverage
of plant materials and similar elements have been incorporated into the project to ensure
visual relief, adequate screening and an attractive environment for the public because
the Applicant will install new trees and landscaping to compensate for landscaping that is
proposed to be removed on -site to accommodate installation of the sign.
H. The site has been adequately designed to ensure proper circulation for bicyclists,
pedestrians and automobiles because the sign is proposed to be located in an existing
planter area and will not impact site circulation.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Dublin City Council does hereby find that
the Project is Categorically Exempt from CEQA, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332,
In -Fill Development Projects. As further described in the project application and as illustrated in
the Project Plans, the project consists of a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development
Review for the construction and ongoing operation of an 85 foot tall, regional - serving,
freestanding sign. The project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of
Downtown Dublin — Retail District and the Downtown Dublin Zoning District; the project site is
less than 5 acres in size and is surrounded by urban uses; it has no value as habitat for
endangered, rare or threatened species; approval of the project will not result in any significant
effects related to traffic, noise, air quality or water quality; and, the site can be adequately
served by all required utilities and public services.
4of9
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that based on the findings above and whole of the record
for the Project, the City of Dublin City Council does hereby approve a Conditional Use Permit
and Site Development Review for the construction and ongoing operation of an 85 foot tall,
regional - serving, freestanding sign as shown on the project plans, dated May 2, 2012,
attached as Exhibit A, subject to the following conditions of approval:
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Unless stated otherwise, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to the issuance
of building permits or establishment of use and shall be subject to Planning Division review and
approval. The following codes represent those departments /agencies responsible for monitoring
compliance of the conditions of approval: [PL] Planning; [B] Building; [PO] Police; [PW] Public
Works; [ADM] Administration /City Attorney; [FIN] Finance; [PCS] Parks and Community
Services; [F] Dublin Fire Prevention; [DSR] Dublin San Ramon Services District; [LDD]
Livermore Dublin Disposal; [CO] Alameda County Department of Environmental Health; [Zone
7] Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Zone 7; [LAVTA] Livermore
Amador Valley Transit Authority; and [CHS] California Department of Health Services.
NO.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Agency
When
Source
Required,
Prior to:
GENERAL
1.
Approval. This Conditional Use Permit/Site
PL
Ongoing
Planning
Development Review approval for PLPA- 2012 -00042 is
for the establishment and operation of one regional
freestanding sign as permitted by the Downtown Dublin
Specific Plan. The regional sign shall conform to the
Project Plans (11 sheets) and three Color and Materials
boards prepared by Downtown Displays, dated May 2,
2012, stamped approved and on file in the Community
Development Department as well as the color and
materials boards also on file.
2.
Permit Expiration. Construction or use shall
PL
One year
DMC
commence within one (1) year of Permit approval, or
from
8.96.020.D
the Permit shall lapse and become null and void.
approval
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 hearing 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
requirements of the Ordinance codified in this
subsection.
3.
Time Extension. The original approving decision-
PL
One year
DMC
maker may, upon the Applicant's written request for an
from
8.96.020.E
extension of approval prior to expiration, and upon the
approval
determination that any Conditions of Approval remain
5 of 9
6 of 9
adequate to assure that applicable findings of approval
will continue to be met, grant a time extension of
approval for a period not to exceed 6 months. All time
extension requests shall be noticed and a public
hearing or public meeting shall be held as required by
the particular Permit.
4.
Clarifications to the Conditions of Approval. In the
PL
Ongoing
Planning
event that there needs to be clarification to the
Conditions of Approval, the Community Development
Director has the authority to clarify the intent of these
Conditions of Approval to the Applicant without going to
a public hearing. The Community Development Director
also has the authority to make minor modifications to
these Conditions of Approval without going to a public
hearing in order for the Applicant to fulfill needed
improvements or mitigations resulting from impacts to
this project.
5.
Modifications. Any modifications to the approved Plan
PL
Ongoing
Planning
Set shall be subject to review by the Community
Development Director. Modifications to the approved
Plan Set and /or to the specific conditions stated herein
may be considered by the Community Development
Director pursuant to Chapter 8.104 (Site Development
Review) of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance.
6.
Approval Subject to Review. This approval shall be
PL
Ongoing
Planning
subject to periodic review by the Community
Development Director to determine compliance with the
conditions of approval. Any violation of the terms or
conditions of this approval may be subject to the
issuance of a citation.
7.
Revocable for Cause. This Conditional Use
PL
Ongoing
Planning
Permit/Site Development Review approval shall be
revocable for cause in accordance with Chapter 8.84
(Sign Regulations) of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance.
PLANNING
8.
Sign Maintenance. The regional freestanding sign
PL
Ongoing
Planning
shall be well- maintained in an attractive manner and in
accordance with the approved plans. Any chipping,
cracking or weathering of the exterior finishes of the
sign shall be repaired in a timely manner.
9.
Landscaping. Landscaping shall be installed as
PL
Ongoing
Planning
shown on Sheet 10 of the Project Plan Set and shall be
maintained with live plant material in an attractive
manner at all times.
10.
Approval from California Department of
PL
Issuance of
Planning
Transportation. The Applicant is required to obtain all
Building
necessary permits from the California Department of
Permit
Transportation (CalTrans) prior to approval of the
building permit for the freestanding sign.
11.
Tenant Sign Panel Design Guidelines. The following
PL
Ongoing
Planning
requirements apply to individual tenant sign panels on
the regional freestanding sign:
A. Individual sign panels are available only for
6 of 9
7 of 9
businesses located in the Downtown Dublin
Specific Plan (DDSP) area as defined in the DDSP
document.
B. Individual businesses shall be allowed to rent up to
two sign panels only, no more than one per side.
C. The top sign panel shall be reserved for an anchor
business located in the DDSP area (i.e. a business
with a minimum of 20,000 square feet of gross floor
area).
D. Each rentable panel has required margins around
the panel defining the maximum space for graphic
layout. These parameters are defined in the
specification drawings. The top panel only is
designed to allow for an extended logo element
above the sign panel. This element must be
compatible with the overall design of the display.
E. The sign panel graphics shall display only the
business name and /or ancillary trademark graphics
in one or two lines. Services, phone numbers,
websites, and other advertising copy are not
permitted. All graphic layouts are to be approved
prior to manufacturing and installation.
F. Construction of all tenant lettering and graphics to
be of highest quality meeting all UL requirements,
building codes, local codes, etc. The construction
of all tenant signage shall be warranted for five
years.
G. Tenant signs to consist of individual illuminated
letters. Letter depth is not to exceed 5 inches.
H. Cabinet signs or background panels are not
allowed.
I. Exposed neon or lighting elements are not allowed.
J. Animated or changeable copy signs are not
allowed.
K. All tenant sign panels are required to obtain a
Zoning Clearance from the City of Dublin Planning
Division. Signs will be reviewed for conformance
with the Project Plans.
L. Background color of sign panel may not be painted
or modified and shall remain in conformance with
the Project Plans.
M. All sign panel surfaces shall be restored to as -new
condition upon removal of tenant signage.
N. Bottom sign panel can be design either as a split
panel for two tenants or as a single panel for one
tenant.
12.
Sign Structure Interior Illumination. The interior
PL
Ongoing
Planning
illumination of the sign structure can change to be
seasonally appropriate. However, the default
illumination shall be a subtle, warm white or a slow
changing subtle color palette. The speed of the
animation will not be discernible to the passerby. The
interior illumination shall not be constantly changing at
7 of 9
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of November 2012 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
a fast rate or employ a strobe effect.
13.
Site Lighting. Installation of the regional freestanding
PUPW
Prior to
Planning,
sign will require the removal one parking lot light fixture.
Building
Public
The Applicant shall be responsible for ensuring the
Permit Final
Works
minimum security lighting of 1 FC on average in the
vicinity of the freestanding sign. A photometric plan
shall be provided that illustrates that this lighting level
can be achieved with upgrading the wattage of the
existing light fixtures already on site, light generated by
the freestanding sign itself, with the installation of an
additional fixture, or a combination of these
approaches. Planning Staff will review and approve the
lighting plan and the lighting installation prior to finaling
the Building Permit.
PUBLIC WORKS
14.
New Stop Sign. Provide a stop sign and pavement
PW
Prior to
Public
marking on the most easterly drive aisle near the
Building
Works
proposed freestanding sign location to avoid any sight
Permit Fianl
distance issues as a result of the sign location.
BUILDING
15.
Building Codes and Ordinances. All project
B
Through
Building
construction shall conform to all building codes and
Completion
ordinances in effect at the time of building permit
issuance.
16.
Building Permits. To apply for building permits,
B
Issuance of
Building
Applicant/Developer shall submit five (5) sets of
Building
construction plans to the Building Division for plan
Permits
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.
17.
Construction Drawings. Construction plans shall be
B
Issuance of
Building
fully dimensioned (including building elevations)
Building
accurately drawn (depicting all existing and proposed
Permits
conditions on site), and prepared and signed by a
California licensed Architect or Engineer.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of November 2012 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Mayor
9 of 9
I� Algn fart of
8' 5" 8' 5" Downtown kners
4. 6..
m�
Plan View scale: 3/32 = V 0'•
SPECIFICATION
DOWNTOWN
City of Dublin
Downtown Display
Amador Plaza Road. Dublin. Ca
5 -2 -12
Fie Namr/Lereom:
Bev- Dme �svip,nn
A 3-612 Inw— ,ghtm h,atld Imam
8 61612 Add sperafimoens
C —12 ewis dwers, square whe
o f -aslz gwlremremrewsga
E 6a -12 mnre�rem "Dw,mewn"
C mn— Appmyal
A—se—seas "a
w M
20487 Sheet 1
Menuhca—ad irshllone(1), pylon eq, aaahma
ITEM DESCRIPTION VENDOR SPECIFICATION
_
-
Stwch,e P— agesenag Mathews MP20157 "13ons,sess
ID Calsest Aluminum Matthew MP20157 " &ome;saha
City Laos 3/4'• pushth,u with Mathews MP25618 "Plaque Gald Metallic'
3
N�
.1-amen—by man
_
Caw, Background PaNcahanate Sabik Whbe with 3M Dual Cab, Black
applietl first surface
N�
s
Ga.. 1 /4'•a1uminum Matthew MP43443 Be., G,.a Mehllic, satin
N�
Cave, Illumination LED flood. Wee Kinetics Pe,detail
* Tenant Passe Aluminum SMrvan Wdlams Aeshefic Whbe #7035, with lght
teXCOat
4
Tenant Copy 111 —sand letters P., ..at soars (by tenants)
1�
{` Bowe—Panel Per engineering Matthews MP20157 " &saa -, ,a
-_
Bowntavn Letters 4" deepaluminum Matthews MP25618 " Paque Goa MetalliC
Beh,ns satin
0owntavn Letters Perfa,and aluminum Matthews MP25618 " Paque Goa MetalliC
Faces satin
Bowe—Letters Acrylic Glen,— Whbe #2447
Access Face Baclre,
Panel ar
back Bowe—Letters LED GE Whbe M-W.
Illumiretinn
Vertical OW., 1 /4'•a1uminum Matthews MP20157 " &saa -, ,a
Left Elevation
scale: 3/32 =ro^ Front Elevation
scale: 3/32
=IT'
Right Elevation scale: 3/32 =ro^
Back Elevation scale: 3/32 =IT'
DOWNTOWN
City of Dublin
Downtown Display
Amador Plaza Road. Dublin. Ca
5 -2 -12
Fie Namr/Lereom:
Bev- Dme �svip,nn
A 3-612 Inw— ,ghtm h,atld Imam
8 61612 Add sperafimoens
C —12 ewis dwers, square whe
o f -aslz gwlremremrewsga
E 6a -12 mnre�rem "Dw,mewn"
C mn— Appmyal
A—se—seas "a
w M
20487 Sheet 1
Sign Location
I
Location Detail scale: V — 30
DOWNTOWN
City of Dublin
Downtown Display
Amador Plaza Road. Dublin. Ca
5 -2 -12
Fk
C.an—Appro.1
ww
el-
20487 Shea 2
>
Cabinet Detail aea1e:1/4 " =ro"
lo,
Il
I
LED Layout aeale: 1 /4" = r o
LEG: 136' GETe[raMax He
Faur (4) powersupplies bcatetl at base of sgn
"square [We suppoas
d.PMbM1Caletlal-l-
-I-h emlosetl lack
" tleep lllumi -. letlers vnih
erbaletl ix e, lB "M1OIe, Yl6 "sYg
mlers, backetl vnlM1xryllc
Downtown Panel Detail aea1e:1 /4 ^ =ro"
ltltl "Mavm mpyarez
6 "maryin� 6 "maryin
(minimum) (minimum)
DOWNTOWN
Tmam copy ma —d
beyo�tlmpa --
p elms
Hd—hed vfii. aluminum
baffle setback 5" from t.
n n
12'GETetraMax He e III TENANT I'll
tV ItVI
2TGE Teba He
Tenant Panel 1 (Shown Flat) aeale: 1/4" = VU
ltl 9'" Mavmum mpyarez
Imb`�li iml'Imi City of Dublin
r
Downtown Display
Amador Plaza Road, Dublin, Ca
TENANT
a
I I
nme:
5.2_,2
— Fia Namr/Lareom:
Tenant Panels 2 -6 (Shown Flat) aeale: 1/4^ = r o"
x.. oam murpw�
A —12 Adtl tlnails
B —12 Ikvi.c witlN Of pantl ;supports
tl'
C 11 -12 Clangs nvmlwmmilumimletl
4'161/Y'Mav mpyarea 6" 6" 4'161/Y'Mav mpyarea
6 maryln �.{ �.{ 6"Imyin
(minimum) iminil�umi
F
N TENANT TENANT CusmmerAppmval
I I I my downy ve reps :nmeon a mhnena "root
a I I eureretelveey����el.aoro�poaret ask
I----- - - - - -- d l yk k I
Tenant Panel 7 )Shown Flat) ea1e:1/4 " =ro" <aaQ.=.7=a.ea,.,a�e�,rere....o�.
2048/ Sheet3
Fixture Detail
l
Calcrahae Powercore FSHU res
\ 1J5 R(s33m) voxFn m in4Keual run Iwpm
and -0db R(1]2 m) mtll run IvgHi
per � Bisbler Rn
IK
roper
Iney.
�d \_
er 3
Co Puller s �:
AO y
141 r'4F
Fwr I4) Cdor KIIIIIs
CdbreaSY PoVrerCne 23"
fiwuresm ,,.,back of
panelmllumiraletl lmenoroF
CoiRrdl 1
lorzletl by . ce. dd n
Hingetl1dc gaccessticer
Detail at Back —111/4"
oat Fnbid PF
Small-scale DMX installation with Mayer 3
Small -scale Installations may feature one or more ruins of Color Blast
Powercore Fixtures controlled by !Player 3. Data Enabler Pro devices can be
connected in series to one or both DMX output Ports on the iPlayer 3,
DOWNTOWN
City of Dublin
Downtown Display
Amador Plaza Road. Dublin. Ca
5 -2 -12
nd Namr/Lareom'
.w Hma D.iscrip.,
A 61612 Atltlticrzils
B 62112 r g tliagan }supp,,,
C.sm Appmval
w w
20487 ShM4
___
----------------- ----------------- — ` _ —_---------------
— - - -- --
N+��a{ Faaa.W3��M1naA�.�
ss
Exiafing Electrical f I
1 I N724423'W 146.25'
r f
1 I I
r I I C %ISiING S
I 9lllLf)P ,
I I y NOT APART —_— N_2 5 O W I_7_ —__ r I
f f uisLwc I B111UNNG4
f f CW CK E. CHEESE'S � , �Mial.
{ ] Q
BuuNnc a
r III l y N BuunlrvG I
J�
ISM
� --
z onNN N'S S fin, eronnd eleari semice
f I ! rAer<cs Flom nmgelentdnnl
r ! box location
,f
r +
I i
J rl r f BIALDM2 I
Irr r� { {{ Ek15TINC I I
_ I
li! lr I PAD
SBEAREA -- a -- --
I� � N52'S3'd8�W699.96'0
I
aIN.[)OR PLAZA A00.0
Site Plan / Utility Plan
oOWNTOWN
City of Dublin
Downtown Display
Amador Plaza Road. Dublin. Ca
5 -2 -12
Ra Namr/Lareom'
xv. omc mu�wn
Cusmmer Approval
el-
20487 Shears
DOWNTOWN
City of Dublin
Downtown Display
Amador Plaza Road. Dublin. Ca
5 -2 -12
Fk Namr/L—
C.an—Appro.1
ww
el-
20487 shears
DOWNTOWN
City of Dublin
Downtown Display
Amador Plaza Road. Dublin. Ca
5 -2 -12
Fk Namr/L—
C.an—Appro.1
ww
el-
20487 Sheaf
DOWNTOWN
City of Dublin
Downtown Display
Amador Plaza Road. Dublin. Ca
5 -2 -12
Fk Namr/L—
C.an—Appro.1
ww
el-
20487 Sheets
TENANT
TENANT
0
'y
TENANT
TMANT
#'TENANT
TENANT TEM
rf r- �
Plan
�eln�,ePe�p -sue i
Pylon Location
DOWNTOWN
City of Dublin
Downtown Display
Amador Plaza Road, Dublin, Ca
om�
5 -z -7 z
Fk Namr/Lareom'
Pev- Halo �svipinn
A —12 R—voo lomtion
B
-12 Clengo miminor sire
Cusmroar Approval
ww
20487
RESOLUTION NO. XX - 12
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
* * * * * * * * * **
REVERSING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 12 -31 AND
APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND ONGOING OPERATION OF A REGIONAL - SERVING,
FREESTANDING SIGN WITH A REVISED DESIGN AND MODIFIED CONDITIONS OF
APPROVAL
7153 AMADOR PLAZA ROAD (APN 941 - 0305 - 037 -00)
PLPA- 2012 -00042
WHEREAS, Nicole Salmon of Downtown Displays requested a Conditional Use Permit
and Site Development Review Permit for the construction and ongoing operation of a regional -
serving, freestanding sign with the revised design (the "Revised Project "); and
WHEREAS, the Project is located in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan area in an
existing shopping center in a developed area of the City; and
WHEREAS, the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan specifically states that "One regional
serving sign may be permitted in the Specific Plan Area. This sign shall be intended to create an
identity marker for the downtown and to advertise the downtown and businesses located within
the downtown area. Advertising on this sign by businesses located within the Specific Plan Area
shall not be considered off -site signage. The owner of the sign shall not prohibit regional or
destination - serving downtown businesses from locating on the sign and the sign shall be
designed to accommodate a variety of businesses in the Downtown Specific Plan Area.'; and
WHEREAS, a Downtown - oriented, regional - serving sign is permitted in the Downtown
Dublin Zoning District, subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development
Review by the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted to the City of Dublin Planning Commission
recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review request
which report is incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on
September 11, 2012,at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law;
ITTI
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 adopted Resolution 12 -33 denying a Conditional
Use Permit and Site Development Review Permit for the construction and ongoing operation of
an 85 foot tall, regional - serving, freestanding sign based on concerns about the proposed height
and use of the City of Dublin logo, which Resolution is incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, Charlie Stroud filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission's decision
to the City Council; 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
WHEREAS, Staff recommends that the City Council find this project exempt from CEQA
in accordance with Section 15332 (In -fill Development Projects in compliance with the General
Plan, Zoning Ordinance, not occurring on land with habitat value, and served by existing utilities
and public services); and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted to the City of Dublin City Council
recommending a Resolution reversing the Planning Commission's adoption of Resolution 12 -33
and approving a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review Permit for the
construction and ongoing operation of an 85 foot tall, regional - serving, freestanding sign as
originally proposed, as permitted by the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan, and as recommended
to the Planning Commission on September 11, 2012 which Staff Report is incorporated herein
by reference; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on said application on November 20,
2012, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law;
ITTI
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.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Dublin City Council does hereby
make the following findings and determinations regarding the Conditional Use Permit:
A. The proposed use and related structures is compatible with other land uses,
transportation and service facilities in the vicinity in that the sign will serve businesses
located in Downtown Dublin and is a compatible use with the retail, restaurant, and
service facilities in the area.
B. It will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the
vicinity, or be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare in that the Project has
been conditioned to comply with all State of California and Dublin Municipal Code
requirements.
C. It will not be injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood in that: the sign is
designed to be consistent with the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan in that the sign creates
an identity marker for the Downtown that is compatible with other high - quality signage
including the Dublin Boulevard identity markers and other civic directional signage in
Dublin.
2of9
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 in that: 1) the Project will be located on a fully
developed site that is served by existing utilities and services; and 2) the Project will not
create a demand for additional utilities or services beyond that which already exists to
serve the site.
E. The subject site is physically suitable for the type, density and intensity of the use and
related structures being proposed in that the sign is proposed to be located in an existing
island in an existing parking field and the sign will not create a demand for additional
utilities or services beyond that which already exists to serve the site.
F. It will not be contrary to the specific intent clauses, development regulations, or
performance standards established for the zoning district in which it is located in that: 1)
the proposed project is compatible with the Downtown Dublin Zoning District in which it is
located with approval of a Conditional Use Permit; and 2) the design of the sign meets
the requirements of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan.
G. It is consistent with the Dublin General Plan and with any applicable Specific Plans in
that: 1) the signage will promote orderly, attractive, and harmonious identification of the
businesses throughout the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) area as directed by
DDSP Section 4.4.6; and 2) the sign is consistent with the Downtown Dublin Specific
Plan Signage Design Guidelines in that the sign creates an identity marker for the
Downtown that is compatible with other high - quality signage including the Dublin
Boulevard identity markers and other civic directional signage in Dublin.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Dublin City Council does hereby
make the following findings and determinations regarding the Site Development Review:
A. The Project, as conditioned, is consistent with the purpose of Chapter 8.104, with the
General Plan and with any applicable Specific Plans and design guidelines in that: 1) the
signage will promote orderly, attractive, and harmonious identification of the businesses
throughout the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) area as directed by DDSP
Section 4.4.6; and 2) the sign is consistent with the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan
Signage Design Guidelines in that the sign creates an identity marker for the Downtown
that is compatible with other high - quality signage including the Dublin Boulevard identity
markers and other civic directional signage in Dublin.
B. The proposal is consistent with the provisions of Title 8, Zoning Ordinance because: the
sign complies with the intent and purpose of Chapters 8.30 (Downtown Dublin Zoning
District) and 8.84 (Sign Regulations).
C. The design of the project is appropriate to the City, the vicinity, surrounding properties
and the lot in which the project is proposed because: the sign is designed to be
consistent with the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan in that the sign creates an identity
marker for the Downtown that is compatible with other high - quality signage including the
Dublin Boulevard identity markers and other civic directional signage in Dublin.
3 of 9
D. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the approved
development because the site: 1) is located adjacent to Interstate 680, which provides
excellent visibility for Downtown businesses; and 2) the sign is located in an area that
does not receive heavy through traffic and would not over - intensify the site with too much
development.
E. The Project, will not impact existing slopes and topographic features because no grading
will be required for the installation of the sign.
F. Architectural considerations including the character, scale, and quality of the 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 that is harmonious with its surroundings and compatible with other developments
in the vicinity because the sign is consistent with the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan
Signage Design Guidelines and the sign creates an identity marker for the Downtown
that is compatible with other high - quality signage including the Dublin Boulevard identity
markers and other civic directional signage in Dublin. The sign is proposed to be
constructed with attractive, durable materials, and conditions of approval will be in place
to ensure the ongoing maintenance and repair of the sign as needed. The height of the
sign is appropriate to provide visibility within the Specific Plan area and along 1 -680.
G. Landscape considerations including the location, type, size, color, texture and coverage
of plant materials and similar elements have been incorporated into the project to ensure
visual relief, adequate screening and an attractive environment for the public because
the Applicant will install new trees and landscaping to compensate for landscaping that is
proposed to be removed on -site to accommodate installation of the sign.
H. The site has been adequately designed to ensure proper circulation for bicyclists,
pedestrians and automobiles because the sign is proposed to be located in an existing
planter area and will not impact site circulation.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Dublin City Council does hereby find that
the Project is Categorically Exempt from CEQA, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332,
In -Fill Development Projects. As further described in the project application and as illustrated in
the Project Plans, the project consists of a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development
Review Permit for the construction and ongoing operation of a regional - serving, freestanding
sign with a revised design. The project is consistent with the General Plan land use
designation of Downtown Dublin — Retail District and the Downtown Dublin Zoning District; the
project site is less than 5 acres in size and is surrounded by urban uses; it has no value as
habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species; approval of the project will not result in any
significant effects related to traffic, noise, air quality or water quality; and, the site can be
adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that based on the findings above and whole of the record
for the Project, the City of Dublin City Council does hereby approve a Conditional Use Permit
and Site Development Review Permit for the construction and ongoing operation of a regional -
serving, freestanding sign with the revised design as shown on the project plans, dated
September 19, 2012, attached as Exhibit A, subject to the following conditions of approval-
4 of 9
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Unless stated otherwise, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to the issuance
of building permits or establishment of use and shall be subject to Planning Division review and
approval. The following codes represent those departments /agencies responsible for monitoring
compliance of the conditions of approval: [PL] Planning; [B] Building; [PO] Police; [PW] Public
Works; [ADM] Administration /City Attorney; [FIN] Finance; [PCS] Parks and Community
Services; [F] Dublin Fire Prevention; [DSR] Dublin San Ramon Services District; [LDD]
Livermore Dublin Disposal; [CO] Alameda County Department of Environmental Health; [Zone
7] Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Zone 7; [LAVTA] Livermore
Amador Valley Transit Authority; and [CHS] California Department of Health Services.
NO.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Agency
When
Source
Required,
Prior to:
GENERAL
1.
Approval. This Conditional Use Permit/Site
PL
Ongoing
Planning
Development Review approval for PLPA- 2012 -00042 is
for the establishment and operation of one regional
freestanding sign as permitted by the Downtown Dublin
Specific Plan. The regional sign shall conform to the
Project Plans (8 sheets) and three Color and Materials
boards prepared by Downtown Displays, dated
September 19, 2012, stamped approved and on file in
the Community Development Department as well as
the color and materials boards also on file.
2.
Permit Expiration. Construction or use shall
PL
One year
DMC
commence within one (1) year of Permit approval, or
from
8.96.020.D
the Permit shall lapse and become null and void.
approval
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 hearing 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
requirements of the Ordinance codified in this
subsection.
3.
Time Extension. The original approving decision-
PL
One year
DMC
maker may, upon the Applicant's written request for an
from
8.96.020.E
extension of approval prior to expiration, and upon the
approval
determination that any Conditions of Approval remain
adequate to assure that applicable findings of approval
will continue to be met, grant a time extension of
approval for a period not to exceed 6 months. All time
extension requests shall be noticed and a public
hearing or public meeting shall be held as required by
the particular Permit.
4.
Clarifications to the Conditions of Approval. In the
PL
Ongoing
Planning
5 of 9
6 of 9
event that there needs to be clarification to the
Conditions of Approval, the Community Development
Director has the authority to clarify the intent of these
Conditions of Approval to the Applicant without going to
a public hearing. The Community Development Director
also has the authority to make minor modifications to
these Conditions of Approval without going to a public
hearing in order for the Applicant to fulfill needed
improvements or mitigations resulting from impacts to
this project.
5.
Modifications. Any modifications to the approved Plan
PL
Ongoing
Planning
Set shall be subject to review by the Community
Development Director. Modifications to the approved
Plan Set and /or to the specific conditions stated herein
may be considered by the Community Development
Director pursuant to Chapter 8.104 (Site Development
Review) of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance.
6.
Approval Subject to Review. This approval shall be
PL
Ongoing
Planning
subject to periodic review by the Community
Development Director to determine compliance with the
conditions of approval. Any violation of the terms or
conditions of this approval may be subject to the
issuance of a citation.
7.
Revocable for Cause. This Conditional Use
PL
Ongoing
Planning
Permit/Site Development Review approval shall be
revocable for cause in accordance with Chapter 8.84
(Sign Regulations) of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance.
PLANNING
8.
Sign Maintenance. The regional freestanding sign
PL
Ongoing
Planning
shall be well- maintained in an attractive manner and in
accordance with the approved plans. Any chipping,
cracking or weathering of the exterior finishes of the
sign shall be repaired in a timely manner.
9.
Landscaping. Landscaping shall be installed as
PL
Ongoing
Planning
shown on Sheet 8 of the Project Plan Set and shall be
maintained with live plant material in an attractive
manner at all times.
10.
Approval from California Department of
PL
Issuance of
Planning
Transportation. The Applicant is required to obtain all
Building
necessary permits from the California Department of
Permit
Transportation (CalTrans) prior to approval of the
building permit for the freestanding sign.
11.
Tenant Sign Panel Design Guidelines. The following
PL
Ongoing
Planning
requirements apply to individual tenant sign panels on
the regional freestanding sign:
A. Individual sign panels are available only for
businesses located in the Downtown Dublin
Specific Plan (DDSP) area as defined in the DDSP
document.
B. Individual businesses shall be allowed to rent up to
two sign panels only, no more than one per side.
C. The top sign panel shall be reserved for an anchor
business located in the DDSP area (i.e. a business
6 of 9
7 of 9
with a minimum of 20,000 square feet of gross floor
area).
D. Each rentable panel has required margins around
the panel defining the maximum space for graphic
layout. These parameters are defined in the
specification drawings. The top panel only is
designed to allow for an extended logo element
above the sign panel. This element must be
compatible with the overall design of the display.
E. The sign panel graphics shall display only the
business name and /or ancillary trademark graphics
in one or two lines. Services, phone numbers,
websites, and other advertising copy are not
permitted. All graphic layouts are to be approved
prior to manufacturing and installation.
F. Construction of all tenant lettering and graphics to
be of highest quality meeting all UL requirements,
building codes, local codes, etc. The construction
of all tenant signage shall be warranted for five
years.
G. Tenant signs to consist of individual illuminated
letters. Letter depth is not to exceed 5 inches.
H. Cabinet signs or background panels are not
allowed.
I. Exposed neon or lighting elements are not allowed.
J. Animated or changeable copy signs are not
allowed.
K. All tenant sign panels are required to obtain a
Zoning Clearance from the City of Dublin Planning
Division. Signs will be reviewed for conformance
with the Project Plans.
L. Background color of sign panel may not be painted
or modified and shall remain in conformance with
the Project Plans.
M. All sign panel surfaces shall be restored to as -new
condition upon removal of tenant signage.
N. Bottom sign panel can be design either as a split
panel for two tenants or as a single panel for one
tenant.
12.
Sign Structure Interior Illumination. The interior
PL
Ongoing
Planning
illumination of the sign structure can change to be
seasonally appropriate. However, the default
illumination shall be a subtle, warm white or a slow
changing subtle color palette. The speed of the
animation will not be discernible to the passerby. The
interior illumination shall not be constantly changing at
a fast rate or employ a strobe effect.
13.
Site Lighting. Installation of the regional freestanding
PL/PW
Prior to
Planning,
sign will require the removal one parking lot light fixture.
Building
Public
The Applicant shall be responsible for ensuring the
Permit Final
Works
minimum security lighting of 1 FC on average in the
vicinity of the freestanding sign. A photometric plan
shall be provided that illustrates that this lighting level
7 of 9
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of November 2012 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
Mayor
can be achieved with upgrading the wattage of the
existing light fixtures already on site, light generated by
the freestanding sign itself, with the installation of an
additional fixture, or a combination of these
approaches. Planning Staff will review and approve the
lighting plan and the lighting installation prior to finaling
the Building Permit.
PUBLIC WORKS
14.
New Stop Sign. Provide a stop sign and pavement
PW
Prior to
Public
marking on the most easterly drive aisle near the
Building
Works
proposed freestanding sign location to avoid any sight
Permit Fianl
distance issues as a result of the sign location.
BUILDING
15.
Building Codes and Ordinances. All project
B
Through
Building
construction shall conform to all building codes and
Completion
ordinances in effect at the time of building permit
issuance.
16.
Building Permits. To apply for building permits,
B
Issuance of
Building
Applicant/Developer shall submit five (5) sets of
Building
construction plans to the Building Division for plan
Permits
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.
17.
Construction Drawings. Construction plans shall be
B
Issuance of
Building
fully dimensioned (including building elevations)
Building
accurately drawn (depicting all existing and proposed
Permits
conditions on site), and prepared and signed by a
California licensed Architect or Engineer.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of November 2012 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
Mayor
City Clerk
9 of 9
8' 6
7
8' 6
77
777
8' 6
77
Left Elevation scale: 3/32 =ro^ Front Elevation scale: 3/32 =IT'
Ia• e•'
4. 6..
mL
Plan View scale: 3/32 = V 0'•
SPECIFICATION
- Manuacmre and i11t II one III, pylon sign as shown
ITEM DESCRIPTION
VENDOR
SPECIFICATION
she'lae Peren9neering
With—
MP20157"Rmnra;sace
Go— Rackgmaad NNcaNanate
Seek
Whbe with 3M Dual COlnr Rack
1
appleadfinat surface
Ga.. 1 /4'•a1uminum
Matthew s
MP43443 Be., Grcen Meallic, satin
4 Clover Illumination LFD flea.
W. antics
Perdetail
/ Tenant Panels Aluminum
Sherwin Wdlbms
Aasdlefic Whbe #]035, with lght
texwa[
• I Tenant Copy Aluminum
Aluminum
Per M,,tcob, (by tenants)
Downtown Panel P— age—eq
Matthew
MP20157 "Rmme;s ,a
Vertical DWI, 1 /4'•a1huminum
Matthews
MP20157 "Rmme;s ,a
Downtown Letters 4'•deepaluminum
Matthews
MP25618 "Paque GOB Metallic-
Race—
satin
Omvntawn Letters Pettarand aluminum
Matthews
MP25618 "Plaque Gob Metallic-
Faces
satin
Downtown Letters Acrylic
Chemcast
Whbe #244]
1 Face Raclrer
DIa,ae nLetters LFn
Illumination
GI
Whbe Mea1w.
Elevation scale: 3/32 —ro,, Back Elevation scale: 3/32 =1'0• Vertical neeler 1/4'•a1 nminim
—hews
MP2015] "Rrnma. "_-1.
DOWNTOWN
City of Dublin
Downtown Display
Amador Plaza Road. Dublin. Ca
91912
Fie fJame/Leredm:
Bev_ Oslo 0oscriprnn
A 3 &12 Inw— ,ghtta h, add imam
8 61612 Add sperafimdens
C 62112 R— dwers,square-
0 / -2112 Rmim mreel11, 1P.
E 621 -12 111.1.1a "0wmlevm"
Cusmmer Approval
w° w
20965 Sheet 1
I
Sign Location
DOWNTOWN
City of Dublin
Downtown Display
Amador Plaza Road. Dublin. Ca
91912
Fk
Umorna Approval
20965 Shea 2
Downtown Panel Detail spa 1,4 " =1 ' 0"
U
I
I
TENANT
I
Tenant Panel 1 (Shown Flat) — 1.:1 /4 ^ =ro°
10' 9'" Maumumwpya�
6" mayin fi" margin
4" d,Mbrlcal H aluminum (minimum) minimum)
panel wilb ei 1—luck
r
periommbixe 1B'kbole, M1' 90 =
amlers obsketlwiibacryle = T E N R N T
I
a
Tenant Panels 2 -5 (Shown Flat) —1.: 1/4" = VU
9'161/Y'Mav mpyarea C' C' 4'161/Y'Mav mpyarea
C'irey�n 6 "ireyin
iminimr i minimrmi
F
N TENANT TENANT
II i
I___________�i------- - - - -�i
Tenant Panel (Shown Flat) style: 1/4 " -F0'
oOWNTOWN
City of Dublin
Downtown Display
Amador Plaza Road. Dublin. Ca
91912
Fia Namr/Laravm:
Pev. Hale �curyvon
A —12 A dnails
B 62512 -- aipand ;supports
C -12 —T mlwmm ilumiiulctl
Umorn.r Approval
w° w
20965 Sheet 3
A%.-
ConaWler
K,y�a
S'^41gge
Fixture Detail
CelerBlaat Pow-- Fkturea
1.R P3.)_a mddauul run 1.01
una 400 a. (122 m) —1 run .,,I
�er�_
Player 3
Cmevller
x�l
Dam Enabler Pre
Small -scale DMX installation with iPlayer 3
Small -scale installations may feature one or more runs of ColorBlast
Powercore fixtures controlled by iPlayer 3. Data Enabler Pro devices can be
connected in series to one or both DMX output ports on the iPlayer 3.
Detail at Back style: 1/4^ = I'D"
DOWNTOWN
City of Dublin
Downtown Display
Amador Plaza Road. Dublin. Ca
91912
Fia Namr/Lareom:
x._ omn msr,�plmn
A 61612 AdddMils
B 62112 r d ani, s pp,,,
Cusmmer Approval
w° w
cC.`�ao�ar��oa��� °�
20.765 Sheet 4
bno rian / unory rian
DOWNTOWN
City of Dublin
Downtown Display
Amador Plaza Road, Dublin, Ca
91912
Fk
Cusmmer Approval
ww
—R—Res
20 965
Shea 5
DOWNTOWN
City of Dublin
Downtown Display
Amador Plaza Road. Dublin. Ca
91912
Fk Namr/L—
C.an—App—I
ww
20 965
Shea 6
DOWNTOWN
City of Dublin
Downtown Display
Amador Plaza Road. Dublin. Ca
91912
Fk Namr/L—
C.an—App—I
ww
20965 Sheet?
Plan
rwa lzicrcyc xrymc �
u�emc,�e xrr„c -,scA memc,�e xrr„c -,scA
7
�enic,epen�p -scA i
Pylon Location
DOWNTOWN
City of Dublin
Downtown Display
Amador Plaza Road. Dublin. Ca
91912
Fia Namr/Lareom'
ecv_ Halo �svipinn
A —12 R-1-1-1
e -12 Clengo miminor sire
Cusmmer Approval
c�Ca�a
20.765 Sheets
!do
FYI
!t-
D� canto r�vn �zlb�n
7�r �- w L
VA 7116;
s
1 �
6
rn �
1 �
i
G
DowntownDublin
L, �-
-1
rr+ -
RESOLUTION NO. XX - 12
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
* * * * * * * * * **
AFFIRMING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 12 -33
DENYING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND ONGOING OPERATION OF AN 85 FOOT TALL,
REGIONAL - SERVING, FREESTANDING SIGN AS PERMITTED BY THE DOWNTOWN
DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN
7153 AMADOR PLAZA ROAD (APN 941 - 0305 - 037 -00)
PLPA- 2012 -00042
WHEREAS, Nicole Salmon of Downtown Displays requested a Conditional Use Permit
and Site Development Review Permit for the construction and ongoing operation of a regional -
serving, freestanding sign with the revised design (the "Revised Project "); and
WHEREAS, the Project is located in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan area; and
WHEREAS, the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan specifically states that "One regional
serving sign may be permitted in the Specific Plan Area. This sign shall be intended to create an
identity marker for the downtown and to advertise the downtown and businesses located within
the downtown area. Advertising on this sign by businesses located within the Specific Plan Area
shall not be considered off -site signage. The owner of the sign shall not prohibit regional or
destination - serving downtown businesses from locating on the sign and the sign shall be
designed to accommodate a variety of businesses in the Downtown Specific Plan Area.'; and
WHEREAS, a Downtown - oriented, regional - serving sign is permitted in the Downtown
Dublin Zoning District, subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development
Review by the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted to the City of Dublin Planning Commission
recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review request
which report is incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on
September 11, 2012, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
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; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 12 -33 denying a Conditional
Use Permit and Site Development Review Permit for the construction and ongoing operation of
an 85 foot tall, regional - serving, freestanding sign based on concerns about the proposed height
and use of the City of Dublin logo, which Resolution is incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, Charlie Stroud filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission's decision
to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with State
Guidelines and City Environmental Regulations required that certain projects be reviewed for
environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared, but pursuant to Section
15270(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency
rejects or disapproves; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted to the City of Dublin City Council
recommending a Resolution reversing the Planning Commission's adoption of Resolution 12 -33
and approving a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review Permit for the
construction and ongoing operation of an 85 foot tall, regional - serving, freestanding sign as
originally proposed, as permitted by the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan, and as recommended
to the Planning Commission on September 11, 2012 which Staff Report is incorporated herein
by reference; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on said application on November 20,
2012, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; 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.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Dublin City Council does hereby
make the following findings and determinations under Section 8.100.060 of the Municipal Code
regarding the Conditional Use Permit:
A. The proposed use and related structures is not compatible with other land uses,
transportation and service facilities in the vicinity in that the sign is too tall, out of scale
with other buildings and uses in the area, and the location is not suitable.
C. The project will be injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood in that while
the sign is unique, the design too strongly reflects the civic signage in Dublin and that is
not compatible with the commercial nature of the sign.
G. The project is not consistent with the Dublin General Plan and with any applicable
Specific Plans in that a freeway- oriented sign identifying the Downtown is not what the
City had in mind when the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan was approved.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Dublin City Council does hereby make the
following findings and determinations under Section 8.104.090 of the Municipal Code regarding
the Site Development Review:
A. The Project, as conditioned, is not consistent with the purpose of Chapter 8.104, with the
General Plan and with any applicable Specific Plans and design guidelines in that a
2of3
freeway- oriented sign identifying the Downtown is not what the City had in mind when the
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan was approved.
C. The design of the project is not appropriate to the City, the vicinity, surrounding properties
and the lot in which the project is proposed because the sign is too tall, out of scale with
other buildings and uses in the area, and the location is not suitable.
F. Architectural considerations including the character, scale, and quality of the 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 that is not harmonious with its surroundings and compatible with other
developments in the vicinity because the sign is too tall, out of scale with other buildings
and uses in the area, the location is not suitable, and the design too strongly reflects the
civic signage in Dublin, which is incompatible with the commercial nature of the sign
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that based on the findings above and the whole of the
record for the Project, the City of Dublin City Council does hereby affirm the Planning
Commission's adoption of Resolution 12 -33 denying a Conditional Use Permit and Site
Development Review Permit for the construction and ongoing operation of an 85 foot tall,
regional - serving, freestanding sign as permitted by the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan as
shown on the project plans, dated May 2, 2012, and incorporated by reference.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of November 2012 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Mayor
3 of 3