Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 66-04 AppealDubTransitVill RESOLUTION NO. 66 - 04 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN *********************** DENYING APPEAL AND AFFIRMING PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 04-12 (APPROVING A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) AND FINDING THAT PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NOS. 04-08, 04-09, 04-11 (RECOMMENDING, RESPECTIVELY, COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, PD REZONING AND STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE WEST DUBLIN TRANSIT VILLAGE) ARE NOT APPEALABLE WHEREAS, AMB Property Corporation has requested approval of a Vesting Tentative Parcel Map and Site Development Review for a mixed-use transit village project consisting of a maximum of 304 multi-family dwelling units, approximately 1,000 square feet of neighborhood retail space, and approximately 150,500 square feet of office space, surface parking, landscaping and related improvements on approximately 9.06 acres of land within thc West Dublin BART Specific Plan area at 6700 Golden Gate Drive, generally located north of the 1-580 freeway and south of the future extension of St. Patrick Way (the "Project"); and WHEREAS, the Applicant/Developer also applied for a rezoning to a Planned Development District, approval of a Stage 2 Development Plan and a Development Agreement (the "Related Project Approvals"); and WHEREAS, the Applicant/Developer proposes to split the 9.06 acre property into two separate parcels to facilitate development of the land uses and seeks approval of the development plan for the mixed-use project; and WHEREAS, a completed application for the Project and Related Project Approvals is available and on file in the Dublin Planning Department; and WHEREAS, the Project site is in the Dublin downtown area and within the planning area for the West Dublin BART Specific Plan ("Specific Plan"). The Specific Plan is one of three downtown specific plans approved by the City on December 19, 2000 and intended to improve the appearance, functionality, and economic vitality of the downtown area, particularly in recognition of a planned BART station adjacent to the Project site. (See Resolution 227-00, incorporated herein by reference). 2D~e Specific Plan includes permitted land uses, development standards, urban design guidelines, transportation improvements and implementation progranas to achieve the City's General Plan goals. The Specific Plan area is intended as a "high-intensity mixed-use area, capitalizing on regional transit linkages provided by both t~he BART line and supported by nearby freeways, 1-580 and 1-680." (p. 21). Lmp!ementation of the Specific Plan explicitly contemplates review of private development plans. (p. 30); and WHEREAS, the effects of implementing the Specific Plan and related general plan amendments were reviewed in a Negative Declaration ("the Prior Negative Declaration"), which was properly 00, incorporated herein by reference). In approving the Prior Negative Declaration, the City determined tha~ adoptio_n_ m~d imp!ementa?_.io~ of the Specific Pim~ wo~.~id .~a_ot have a sigt~ficm~t effect oa ~he environment. The City subsequently rezoned the Project site to PD-Planned Development and adopted ~ 1 related Stage 1 Development Plan on June 4, 2002, based on the Prior Negative Declaration. The Prior Negative Declaration is available for review in the Planning Department and is incorporated herein by reference; and WItEREAS, the West Dublin BART Specific Plan was prepared as a self-mitigating plan. Upon adoption ora Negative Declaration for the West Dublin BART Specific Plan and associated amendment to the General Plan in 2000, the City found that the West Dublin BART Specific Plan and associated actions would not have a significant effect on the environment because mitigation was incorporated into the Plan as part of the Plan implementation (Resolution 00-227). In this context, the West Dublin BART Specific Plan policies, standards and programs act as mitigations that must be included in subsequent implementing developments, such as the Project and Related Project Approvals. The Project and Related Project Approvals are consistent with and implement the West Dublin BART Specific Plan land uses, policies, standards, guidelines and programs; and WItEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study dated November 6, 2003 for the Project and Related Project Approvals consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15162 and determined that the Project and Related Project Approvals would not result in any significant adverse impacts. Although not required by CEQA, the City prepared a draft subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15162 to examine how the Specific Plan policies, standards and programs were included in the Project and Related Project Approvals, and thus how prior adopted mitigation established in the West Dublin BART Specific Plan would be implemented. The draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study are attached as Exhibit A of Attachment 1 to the Agenda Statement for Agenda Item 6.1 for the April 20, 2004 meeting and incorporated herein by reference; and WItEREAS, the draft MND was circulated for public review from November 10, 2003 to December 2, 2003. The City received one comment letter on the Project, from Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, dated December 2, 2003 ("Comment Letter"). Although not required by CEQA, the City prepared written responses to all the comments in a document entitled "LEGACY PARTNERS - AMB PROPERTY/PA 02-003/Response to Comments on Mitigated Negative Declaration From Adams Broadwell et al (December 2, 2003), dated February 10, 2004 ("Responses to Comments"). The Comment Letter and Responses to Comments are attached as Exhibit B to the Agenda Statement for Agenda Item 6.1 for the April 20, 2004 meeting and incorporated herein by reference. The Comment Letter included a substantial amount of background materials that are on file and available for review in the Planning Department, which materials have been reviewed by the City Council; and WI-IEREAS, the Responses to Comments provide the City's good faith, reasoned analysis of the environmental issues raised by the comment letter; and WItEREAS, the City carefully reviewed the Comment Letter and responses to Comments and determined that no subsequent EIR-level review of the MND was warranted, that the Prior Negative Declaration and the MND adequately identified and analyzed the environmental impacts of the Project and Related Project Approvals, and that the Comment Letter and Responses to Comments did not constitute or require substantial revisions to the MND. On these bases, the City determined that no recirculation of the MND was required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15073.5; and WI-IEREAS, an Agenda Statement, dated February 24, 2004 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the MND, including comments and responses, and the Project for the Planning Commission and recommended approval of the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map and the Site Development Review for PA 02-003; and 2 WItEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on the Project on February 24, 2004, and proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and use their independent judgment and considered all said reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth; and WItEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted Resolutions 04-08, 04-09 and 04-11, recommending that the Council approve the MND, the Planned District rezoning ordinance, and approve a development agreement; and WltEREAS, the Planning Commission did approve Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 8069 and the Site Development Review for PA 02-003 (the Project) on February 24, 2004 by Planning Commission Resolution 04-12, which approvals were contingent upon Council adoption of the Planned District rezoning ordinance for the Project; and VqHEREAS, Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 8.136 provides that Chapter 8.136 of the Dublin Municipal Code provides for appeals of any Planning Commission "requirement, decision or determination" (DMC section 8.136.010) and Section 8.136.020.B specifies that only "actions" of the Planning Commission "on permits" may be appealed to the Council; and WItEREAS, the Planning Commission's approval of Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 8069 and the Site Development Review for PA 02-003 on February 24, 2004 was appealed by Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, on behalf of International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 595, Sheet Metal Workers Union Local 104 and the Plumbers and Steamfitters Union Local 342 by letter dated March 4, 2004, received on March 4, 2004 ("Appeal"). The stated grounds for the appeal were that an EIR rather than a Mitigated Negative Declaration should have been prepared for the Project and that the City should have sent the draft MND to the State Clearinghouse and provided a 30-day comment period; and WHEREAS, proper notice of this heating on said appeal was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, an Agenda Statement was submitted recommending that the City Council affirm the Planning Commission decision to approve the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 8069 and the Site Development Review for PA 02-003 on February 24, 2004; and WHEREAS, on April 20, 2004, the City Council did hear and consider the March 4, 2004 appeal letter including all attachments, the Agenda Statement for the appeal and all attachments, the Agenda Statement for Agenda Item 6.2 on the April 20, 2004 agenda (related to the Related Project Approvals) and all attachments, all reports, recommendations and testimony provided at or before the close of the public heating whether orally or in writing, and exercised their independent judgment to make a decision. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does make the following f'mdings and determinations regarding the Appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Resolution 04-12 (Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 8069 and the Site Development Review for PA 02-003), which findings and determinations are based on (a) the foregoing Recitals which are incorporated herein, (b) the City of Dublin's General Plan, (c) the West Dublin BART Specific Plan, (d) the 2000 Negative Declaration for the West Dublin BART Specific Plan, (e) the MND, (f) the Agenda Statement for Agenda Items 6.1 and 6.1 for its April 20, 2004 meeting, including all attachments to said Agenda Statements and all documents referenced in such Agenda Statements, and (g) all testimony, whether oral or written, received at or before the close of the public hearing. 3 A. Three of the Planning Commission's resolutions that the Appellant has "appealed," Resolution Nos. 04-08, 04-09, 04-1 t, are not "requirements, decisions or determinations" of the Planning Commission, nor are they "actions on permits" subject to appeal. Rather, they are recommendations to the City Council. Accordingly, such resolutions are not subject to the appeal provisions contained in Chapter 8.136 of the Dublin Municipal Code, and only Planning Commission Resolution No. 04-12 is subject to appeal to the City Council. B. Contrary to the grounds stated in the appeal, the City was and is not required to prepare an EIR for the project for the following reasons: 1. The Prior Negative Declaration for the West Dublin BART Specific Plan and the Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately describe the environmental impacts of the Project. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15162, no subsequent EIR is required for the Project because there is no substantial evidence of changes to the Project or to area circumstances, or of new substantial information showing a new significant impact that was not assumed or analyzed in the prior Negative Declaration. 2. No Substantial Project Changes. There have been no substantial changes to the Project that were not assumed and analyzed in the Prior Negative Declaration. Changes considered by the Council in the course of the Specific Plan process were incorporated into a revised West Dublin BART Specific Plan ND which was adopted by the City Council on December 19, 2000. The Project is consistent with the mix of uses, density, building heights and other standards reviewed in the Prior Negative Declaration and approved in the previous general plan amendment, specific plan, rezoning and development plan actions. 3. No Substantial Change in Circumstances. There have been no substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that were not assumed and analyzed in the Prior Negative Declaration. The Specific Plan and the Prior Negative Declaration planned for change in the area as uses such as the Project site transition to transit oriented development. 4. No New Substantial Information. There has been no new information of substantial importance that was not known or could not have been known that shows the Project will have new significant effects not addressed in the Prior Negative Declaration. Much of the Specific Plan area, including the Project site, contains existing development, with existing impacts. The Prior Negative Declaration analyzed the effects oftransitioning existing developed sites to different uses, including effects on air quality, water quality, hazardous materials, and public services. Furthermore, based on the information existing in 2002, the City determined that no additional environmental review was required when it relied on the Prior Negative Declaration for rezoning the Project site. Two comment letters and related consultant reports (collectively, "comments") on the MND do not constitute new information under section 15162 for the following reasons. First, the comments often rely on information dated prior to the Prior Negative Declaration, or prior to the 2002 rezoning action based on the Prior Negative Declaration, and cannot thus be "new information" under section 15162. Second, the comments often incorrectly assume that the site is vacant and thus use an inappropriate baseline for measuring the potential for impacts. Third, the comments also incorrectly assume there has been no previous CEQA review for 4 the Project. In consequence, the comments incorrectly assert that the fair argument standard applies to CEQA review of the Project rather than the section 15162 standard for subsequent environmental review. Fourth, the comments fail to acknowledge or recognize the information available to the City when it approved the Prior Negative Declaration in 2000 and relied on it again in 2002 to approve the Project site rezoning. C. Contrary to the grounds stated in the Appeal, the City was not required to circulate the MND to the State Clearinghouse because no State agency is responsible for issuance of permits or approval of entitlements. The RWQCB is not a trustee agency pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15386. The RWQCB is not a responsible agency pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15381 as the City has received a RWQCB permit, and the RWQCB has no discretionary authority over the Project. The project is also not considered one of Statewide, Regional, or Areawide Significance requiring State agency review under CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15206 as it contains less than 500 housing units (Sec. 15206(b)(2)(A)), and less than 250,000 square feet of office space with less than 1,000 employees (Sec. 15206(b)(2)(C)). NOW, THEREFORE, THE DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL hereby affirms Planning Commission Resolution 04-12, approving the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map and Site Development Review for the West Dublin Transit Village project (including all conditions in such resolution) and denies the Appeal. The Council further determines that there is no right of appeal from Planning Commission Resolutions 04-08 (recommending approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration), 04-09 (recommending adoption of an ordinance rezoning the property) and 04-12 (recommending approval of a development agreement). PASSED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of Dublin, on the 20th day of April 2004 by the following votes: AYES: Councilmembers McCormick, Oravetz, Sbranti and Zika and Mayor Lockhart NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ~~'-~ ~~~(~/Mayor- - ' K2/G/4-20-04/reso-deny~appeal.doc (Item 6.1) g:~PAgL2002~PA02-003\CC-Reso TMP&SDR 5