Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 7.1 Business Park GPAc.``~~" of n~~~~ ~~r ~~ ~~z ~~~~~~ ~ ~~~1~~~~~~ DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL CITY CLERK File #420-30 November 1, 2011 Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers m Joni Pattillo, City Manager ~"~~~~~"~ .,~r.~~ Business Park/Industrial General Plan Amendment Study Prepared by Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The City Council will consider the initiation of a General Plan Amendment Study and accompanying Urgency Ordinance (Development Moratorium) for either a portion of, or all properties in Dublin with a Business Park/Industrial General Plan land use designation. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The financial impact of the project varies depending on the option(s) selected to be pursued by the City Council. Initiation of a General Plan Amendment Study can vary from $3,810 to $109,440, depending on which option is selected. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Deliberate; and 3) Take one of the following actions: 3a) Direct staff to prepare an amendment to the General Plan that clarifies the General Plan provisions relating to the minimum and maximum Floor Area Ratios (FARs) for various land uses in the General Plan. No Urgency Ordinance establishing a moratorium is required with this option. 3b) Adopt a Resolution approving the initiation of a General Plan Amendment Study to increase the maximum Floor Area Ratio for all properties with a Business Park/Industrial General Plan land use designation from 0.40 to 0.50, and also study potential new uses that could be allowed in the area. With this option the City Council would also waive the reading and adopt an Urgency Ordinance making Findings and establishing a moratorium on the development of any property with a Business Park/Industrial General Plan land use designation in excess of a .40 FAR pending the completion of a General Plan Amendment Study. 3c) Adopt a Resolution approving the initiation of a General Plan Amendment Study to create a new land use category for properties in the Sierra Court/Sierra Lane/Trinity Court area with a Business Park/Industrial General Plan land use designation with a maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.50, and also study potential new uses that could be allowed in the area. With this option the City Council would also waive the reading Page 1 of 9 ITEM NO. 7.1 and adopt an Urgency Ordinance making Findings and establishing a moratorium on the development of any property with a Business Park/Industrial General Plan land use designation in excess of a .40 FAR pending the completion of a General Plan Amendment Study. 3d) Adopt a Resolution approving the initiation of a General Plan Amendment Study to create a new land use category for properties in the Sierra Court/Sierra Lane/Trinity Court area with a Business Park/Industrial General Plan land use designation with a maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.50. With this option the City Council would also waive the reading and adopt an Urgency Ordinance making Findings and establishing a moratorium on the development of any property with a Business Park/Industrial General Plan land use designation in excess of a .40 FAR pending the completion of a General Plan Amendment Study. 3e) Adopt a Resolution approving the initiation of a General Plan Amendment Study to create a new land use category for properties in the Sierra Court/Sierra Lane/Trinity Court area with a Business Park/Industrial General Plan land use designation with a maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.50 for warehouse uses at the discretion of the City Council and a maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of.40 for all other permitted uses. With this option the City Council would also waive the reading and adopt an Urgency Ordinance making Findings and establishing a moratorium on the development of any property with a Business Park/Industrial General Plan land use designation in excess of a .40 FAR pending the completion of a General Plan Amendment Study. ~ ~ ,~ ,~~" w.. ~`~..~ ~. ~ ..~.. Submitted By Reviewed By Director of Community Development Assistant City Manager DESCRIPTION: Background At the City Council meeting of October 4, 2011, the City Council held a public hearing on an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny Site Development Review (SDR) approval for the All American Label project due to inconsistency with the City's General Plan. The SDR application made by All American Label is fora 4,456 square foot addition to an existing 23,994 square foot building at 6958 Sierra Court. The building addition would increase the Floor Area Ration (FAR) for the property from an existing 0.40 to 0.48. The maximum FAR in the Business Park/Industrial land use category, where the property is located, is 0.40. Therefore, Staff recommended, and the Planning Commission concurred, that the appeal should be denied because the project would exceed the allowable FAR in accordance with the General Plan and was inconsistent with this guiding policy document. The Planning Commission's decision was appealed and the item was placed on the City Council agenda on October 4, 2011. At the October 4t" meeting, after receiving public input, discussion, and consideration of the application, the City Council voted to continue the item to November 1, 2011. The City Council's discussion centered on the issues of clarity of the Business Park/Industrial land use category description in the General Plan and on wanting to ensure that businesses in the area had the ability to grow and expand. The City Council was also looking for a better understanding of the status of legal non-conforming uses in the Sierra Court area. Page 2 of 9 In addition to continuing the appeal, which is presented in a separate Staff Report for the City Council's consideration at this meeting, the City Council directed Staff to prepare a Staff Report on options for initiating a General Plan Amendment for the Business Park/Industrial areas on Sierra Court (Attachment 1). The City Council also directed Staff to prepare an Urgency Ordinance to enact a moratorium on new development on property with a Business Park/Industrial General Plan land use designation until the General Plan issue has been resolved. ANALYSIS: Located in the Primary Planning Area, the Business Park/Industrial land use designation description in Chapter 1 of the General Plan is written as follows: "Business Park/industrial (FAR: .30 to .40; employee density: 360-490 square feet per employee). Uses are non-retail businesses (research, limited manufacturing and distribution activities, and administrative offices) that do not involve heavy trucking or generate nuisances due to emissions, noise, or open uses. Residential uses are not permitted. Maximum attainable ratios of floor area to site area (FAR) are controlled by parking and landscaping requirements and typically result in .35 to .40 FAR's. Examples: Clark Avenue, Sierra Court." At the October 4, 2011 City Council meeting, in the context of the All American Label SDR discussion, the City Council voiced concerns about the language in the description of the Business Park/Industrial land use category, and if the description could be interpreted as creating ambiguity as it relates to the maximum allowable FAR for the land use category. There were also concerns expressed about making a business non-conforming and what impact that status could have on a property. Non-Conforming Uses (Chapter 8.140) The Zoning Ordinance defines a legal non-conforming use as the use of a structure or land that was legally established prior to the effective date of the Zoning Ordinance but which does not conform to the current provisions of this Zoning Ordinance. Anon-conforming use type includes examples as varied as a building that does not meet current setback requirements, to a business located in a zoning district where that same type of business would not be permitted today, to a tenant or business sign that is too big to be permitted under the current regulations. All of these situations describe anon-conforming, but legally-established, use that can continue to operate and exist even though it would not be allowed under today's standards. Most of the buildings in the Sierra Court area were built prior to Dublin's incorporation in 1982. Some of the buildings were built at a density that is higher than would be permitted under today's standards, which is a Floor Area Ratio of .40. When the General Plan was amended in 1992 to add the density standards and a FAR range of .30 to .40 was specified, any site with a FAR over .40 became legal non-conforming. The buildings were legally established, and they could be maintained, repaired, and could continue to exist. Non-conforming status does not limit the transfer of ownership of the properties, nor does it affect the business that occupies the building. What is limited is the ability to further increase the size of the building if it is already at the .40 FAR maximum. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT OPTIONS: Page 3 of 9 At the October 4, 2011 meeting, the City Council directed Staff to prepare options for initiating a General Plan Amendment for the Business Park/Industrial-designated properties to eliminate any perceived uncertainty in the language and to consider allowing increased development in the area. Amendments to the General Plan Land Use Element are typically paid for by the developer or business owner whose project benefits from the amendment. The cost of processing a General Plan Amendment includes direct costs such as planning consultant(s), traffic consultants, and City Attorney time to review approval and environmental documents. There is also the cost of Planning Staff time to manage the project and process. Staff has prepared five General Plan Amendment options for the City Council to consider. Options 2-5 also involve the adoption of an Urgency Ordinance that would enact a development moratorium in the area until the General Plan Amendment study could be completed. Option 1: Amend the description for the Business Park/Industrialtand use category. The first option would be to eliminate the General Plan language that has been identified as being confusing and maintain the same interpretation that Staff has had since the General Plan was amended in 1992. In order to affirm that the minimum and maximum FAR range for the Business Park/Industrial land use category is 0.30 to 0.40, and to clarify that the FAR is controlled by these numbers, not by parking and landscape requirements, the following sentence could be removed from the description for the Business Park/Industrial land use category (in Section 1.8.1 Land Use Classifications): "Maximum attainable ratios of floor area to site area (FAR) are controlled by parking and landscape requirements and typically result in .35 to .40 FARs." The rest of the description could remain as is. This option could also include adding a single sentence to Section 1.8.1 affirming the direction that each land use category description contains FAR ranges that should be read as the minimum and maximum FAR for that category. The text could read: "The FAR ranges noted in the heading of each land use category are the minimum and maximum allowable FAR for that category unless the description of the land use category identifies the specific conditions under which the FAR can be exceeded." Execution of Option 1 would involve minimal expenditure of additional Staff time and would take approximately four months to complete (due to General Plan Amendment noticing requirements). Staff would need to present the proposed language to the Planning Commission for their review and recommendation to the City Council. Option 1 would involve approximately 20 hours of Planning Staff time and approximately 6 hours of City Attorney review time, for a total cost of $3,810. Option 1 does not require the consideration of an Urgency Ordinance establishing a moratorium. If the City Council would like to pursue Option 1, the City Council can direct Staff to proceed with preparing the amendment. Option 2: Study increasing the FAR for properties throughout the Business Park/Industrial land use category to 0.50 FAR and study allowing additional uses throughout the area. Page 4 of 9 The Sierra Court area is one of three areas in the City containing properties with a General Plan land use designation of Business Park/Industrial. In addition to properties along Sierra Court, Sierra Lane, and Trinity Court, there are properties at the south end of Village Parkway and Clark Avenue, and property at 11711 Dublin Boulevard (owned by the Hexcel Corp.) also has a Business Park/Industrial General Plan land use designation. This option would initiate a General Plan Amendment study to increase the FAR on all properties with a Business Park/Industrial land use category in the Sierra Court area from 0.40 to 0.50 and would also examine increasing the allowable uses in this land use category. This option differs from Option 3 in that the study would include all properties with a Business Park/Industrial land use designation and would create a new land use designation for the properties in the Sierra Court area alone. Execution of Option 2 would require review and analysis by a consultant and the appropriate level of environmental review. The process would take approximately 6-8 months to complete. Option 2 would involve the retention of Planning and Traffic consultants, Planning Staff time involved in managing the project (estimated 60 hours), and City Attorney time for review of the proposed General Plan Amendments and associated Urgency Ordinance (estimated 60 hours), resulting in a total estimated cost of $109,440. A detailed scope of work, budget, and contract would need to be approved by the City Council prior to any work being completed. The Resolution for Option 2 is included as Attachment 2. Option 3: Study increasing the FAR for properties in the Sierra Court/Sierra Lane/Trinity Court to 0.50 FAR and study allowing additional uses in the area. This option would initiate a General Plan Amendment study to create a new land use category for the properties currently in the Business Park/Industrial land use category in the Sierra Court area only. The study would look at whether there are reasons to distinguish between the properties with a Business Park/Industrial land use category in the Sierra Court area and those with a Business Park/Industrial land use category elsewhere in the City, such that it would be justifiable to create a new land use category for the Sierra Court properties. The new category would increase the FAR on all properties that currently have a Business Park/Industrial land use category in the Sierra Court area from 0.40 to 0.50 and would also examine adding additional allowable uses in that land use category. This option differs from Option 4 in that there could be additional use types that are allowed and the traffic impacts and/or intensity of those uses could be more than is currently allowed. Execution of Option 3 would require review and analysis by a consultant and the appropriate level of environmental review. The process would take approximately 6-8 months to complete. Option 3 would involve the retention of Planning and Traffic consultants, Planning Staff time involved in managing the project (estimated 60 hours), and City Attorney time for review of the proposed General Plan Amendments and associated Urgency Ordinance (estimated 60 hours), resulting in a total estimated cost of $100,040. The cost is less than Option 2 due to the fact that fewer properties would need to be analyzed. A detailed scope of work, budget, and contract would need to be approved by the City Council prior to any work being completed. The Resolution for Option 3 is included as Attachment 3. Option 4: Study increasing the FAR for properties in the Sierra Court/Sierra Lane/Trinity Court to 0.50 FAR Page 5 of 9 This option would initiate a General Plan Amendment study to create a new land use category for the properties currently in the Business Park/Industrial land use category in the Sierra Court area. The study would look at whether there are reasons to distinguish between the properties with a Business Park/Industrial land use category in the Sierra Court area and those with a Business Park/Industrial land use category elsewhere in the City, such that it would be justifiable to create a new land use category for the Sierra Court properties. The new category would increase the FAR on all properties with the new land use designation Sierra Court area from 0.40 to 0.50. This option differs from Option 5 in that it does not limit the allowable uses to warehousing to be able to access additional FAR on the property. Execution of Option 4 would require review and analysis by a consultant and the appropriate level of environmental review. The process would take approximately 6-8 months to complete. Option 4 would involve the retention of Planning and Traffic consultants, Planning Staff time involved in managing the project (estimated 60 hours), and City Attorney time for review of the proposed General Plan Amendments and associated Urgency Ordinance (estimated 60 hours), resulting in a total estimated cost of $91,040. The cost is less than Option 3 because additional uses are not being considered, and the associated analysis would not need to be done. A detailed scope of work, budget, and contract would need to be approved by the City Council prior to any work being completed. The Resolution for Option 4 is included as Attachment 4. Option 5: Study increasing the FAR for properties in the Sierra Court/Sierra Lane/Trinity Court to 0.50 FAR (for warehouse uses only) At the October 4, 2011 City Council meeting, several of the comments during the public hearing related to the difference between the maximum allowable FAR on Industrial Park-designated properties in the Eastern Extended Planning Area and the maximum allowable FAR on Business Park/Industrial-designated properties in the Sierra Court area. The FARs for both areas are detailed below: Land Use Category Minimum FAR Maximum FAR Exceptions Accompanying Zoning District Industrial Park 0.50 FAR allowed Planned Development Zoning (Eastern Extended None 0.35 for warehouse uses required. To get up to 0.50 Planning Area) noted at the discretion of FAR, PD zoning would restrict the Cit Council allowable uses to warehousin Business Park/ M-1 (Light Industrial) or Industrial (Primary 0.30 0.40 None Planned Development Planning Area) This option would initiate a General Plan Amendment study to create a new land use category for the properties currently in the Business Park/Industrial land use category in the Sierra Court area. The new category would be similar to the Industrial Park land use category in the Eastern Extended Planning Area. The study would look at whether there are reasons to distinguish between the properties with a Business Park/Industrial land use category in the Sierra Court area and those with a Business Park/Industrial land use category elsewhere in the City, such that it would be justifiable to create a new land use category for the Sierra Court properties. The study would consider increasing the FAR for the new category to 0.50 for warehouse uses only, while leaving the maximum FAR for all other uses permitted in the Business Park/Industrial land Page 6 of 9 use category at 0.40. In order to ensure that the 0.50 FAR would only apply to warehousing uses, a property owner who wished to take advantage of the increased FAR allowance would need to apply for a rezoning to change from their existing Zoning District (either M-1 (Light Industrial) or Planned Development) to a Planned Development Zoning District that limited the allowed uses of the building to warehousing only (with up to 10% of the total building square footage as ancillary office space). Execution of Option 5 would require review and analysis by a consultant and the appropriate level of environmental review. The process would take approximately 6-8 months to complete. Option 5 would involve Planning and Traffic consultants, Planning Staff time involved in managing the project (estimated 60 hours), and City Attorney time for review of the proposed General Plan Amendments and associated Urgency Ordinance (estimated 60 hours), resulting in a total estimated cost of $91,040. A detailed scope of work, budget, and contract would need to be approved by the City Council prior to any work being completed. The Resolution for Option 5 is included as Attachment 5. URGENCY ORDINANCE/DEVELOPMENT MORATORIUM: If the City Council elects to proceed with Options 2, 3, 4, or 5, the City Attorney has prepared an urgency moratorium ordinance that would, during the pendency of the General Plan study and until any General Plan amendment that may thereafter be adopted, provide that the FAR for all properties with a land use designation of Business Park/Industrial shall be a minimum of .30 and a maximum of .40 (Attachment 6). The adoption of emergency moratoria is authorized by Government Code section 65858. Such moratoria may be adopted where an agency determines that it is necessary to do so to protect the public health, safety and welfare. In this situation, the City Council would be adopting the ordinance in order to protect the public welfare, insofar as the purported ambiguity in the City's General Plan with respect to the permissible FAR for properties with a land use designation of Business Park/Industrial creates uncertainty for property owners and harms the public welfare. The statute provides that moratoria may be adopted only by afour-fifths vote of the City Council, and that they are effective for only 45 days after their adoption unless the adopting agency conducts a noticed public hearing on the extension of the ordinance for an additional 10 months and 15 days. Moratoria may then be extended for an additional one year period. If the City Council adopts the attached ordinance, staff will take steps to ensure that a public hearing on an extension of the ordinance is held within 45 days of this meeting. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: General Plan Amendment If Option 1 is selected, Staff recommends that the proposed General Plan amendments be found to be exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, because the proposed General Plan text amendments, which would clarify the existing provisions of the General Plan, would have no potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. General Plan Amendment Study If Options 2, 3, 4, or 5 are selected, Staff recommends that the initiation of a General Plan Amendment Study be found exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15306, Class 6 of the State CEQA Guidelines, because initiation of a General Page 7 of 9 Plan Amendment study, in and of itself, will not result in disturbance to an environmental resource. Urgency Ordinance (Development Moratorium) If Options 2, 3, 4, or 5 are selected, Staff recommends that the Urgency Ordinance be found to be exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, because the proposed Ordinance would simply clarify the existing provisions of the General Plan and would prevent changes in the environment pending the completion of the contemplated General Plan Amendment Study. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH: Public noticing is not required to review a request to initiate a General Plan Amendment Study or to adopt an Urgency Ordinance. Although not required, the City mailed notices to all owners and tenants of property with a General Plan land use designation of Business Park/Industrial and to all property owners and tenants within 300 feet of these properties. A notice was also posted in the designated posting places. NEXT STEPS: If the City Council directs staff to prepare an amendment to the General Plan that clarifies the General Plan provisions relating to the minimum and maximum Floor Area Ratios (FARs) for various land uses in the General Plan, Staff will begin that process. If the City Council adopts either Attachments 2, 3, 4, or 5, and adopts the Urgency Ordinance (Attachment 6), Staff will: • Negotiate a scope of work and budget with consultant(s) to complete the necessary analysis; • Return to the City Council with a contract for the scope of work and budget. At that time, Staff will seek direction from the City Council on how funds should be budgeted. • Return to the City Council within 45 days of enacting the Urgency Ordinance to hold a public hearing and request an extension in accordance with the requirements of State Law. The Urgency Ordinance can be extended an additional 10 months and 15 days to allow the completion of the General Plan Amendment study. ATTACHMENTS: 1. October 4, 2011 City Council Meeting Minutes 2. Resolution approving the initiation of a General Plan Amendment Study to increase the maximum Floor Area Ratio for all properties with a Business Park/Industrial General Plan land use designation from 0.40 to 0.50, and also study potential new uses that could be allowed in the area 3. Resolution approving the initiation of a General Plan Amendment Study to create a new land use category for properties in the Sierra Court/Sierra Lane/Trinity Court area with a Business Park/Industrial General Plan land use designation with a maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.50, and also study potential new uses that could be allowed in the area 4. Resolution approving the initiation of a General Plan Amendment Study to create a new land use category for properties in the Sierra Court/Sierra Lane/Trinity Court area with a Business Page 8 of 9 Park/Industrial General Plan land use designation with a maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.50 5. Resolution approving the initiation of a General Plan Amendment Study to create a new land use category for properties in the Sierra Court/Sierra Lane/Trinity Court area with a Business Park/Industrial General Plan land use designation with a maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.50 for warehouse uses at the discretion of the City Council and a maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of.40 for all other permitted uses 6. Urgency Ordinance making Findings and establishing a moratorium on the approval of permits for development on properties with a Business Park/Industrial General Plan land use designation pending the completion of a General Plan Amendment Study Page 9 of 9 DRAFT ~.~ O~ DU~~j~ MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL . ~ ,`` OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN C~ ~~~ sz ~ // REGULAR MEETING October 4, 2011 ~~ CLOSED SESSION A closed session was held at 6°29°33 ,regarding: I. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Property: 3385 Dublin Blvd., #206, Dublin, CA Agency negotiators: Joni Pattillo, City Manager and John Bakker, City Attorney Negotiating party: Camille Buckingham Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment II. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Property: 3245 Dublin Blvd., #224, Dublin, CA Agency negotiators: Joni Pattillo, City Manager and John Bakker, City Attorney Negotiating party: Mona Kosasih Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment III. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Property: 3255 Dublin Blvd., #420, Dublin, CA Agency negotiators: Joni Pattillo, City Manager and John Bakker, City Attorney Negotiating party: Arthur Longoria Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment ...., A regular meeting of the Dublin City Council was held on Tuesday, October 4, 2011, in the City Council Chambers of the Dublin Civic Center. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m., by Mayor Sbranti. ...., ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Biddle, Hart, Hildenbrand, Swalwell, and Mayor Sbranti ABSENT: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 7°00°41 PM DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 30 ~~ REGULAR MEETING i„~' ~,~~ x„i~~~ OCTOBER 4, 2011 ~~,~~,~,,~;`,~ ,~, ,. DRAFT The pledge of allegiance to the flag was recited by the City Council, Staff and those present. REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION ACTION 7:01 PM Mayor Sbranti stated there was no reportable action during Closed Session. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Introduction of New Employees: Roxanna Recinos-Serna, Plan Check Engineer, Building Division and Larry Ferguson, Senior Finance Technician, Finance Division 7x01 e31 3.1 700-10 The City Council welcomed Roxanna Recinos-Serna on her appointment and congratulated Larry Ferguson on his promotion. Pilot Health Clinics Presentation 7°05°53 3.2 560-60 Fire Chief Sheldon Gilbert presented the Staff Report and advised that the City Council would receive a presentation on Alameda County's plans to develop pilot health care clinics in local fire stations. Vm. Hart asked for an update on the transition with the new ambulance provider for the Alameda County Fire Department, Paramedics Plus; ongoing collaboration efforts with both Oakland Fire Department and Fremont Fire Department; and costs associated with modification of fire stations to accommodate the proposed clinics. Fire Chief Gilbert stated that the target date for the ambulance provider is November 1, 2011. The fire department is working closely with Paramedics Plus to ensure a smooth transition. Collaboration with Hayward, Fremont and Oakland Fire Departments is occurring with the formation of an oversight committee with labor, management and the healthcare community and he was optimistic of the outcome. Cm. Swalwell asked for an in-depth explanation of cost structure to implement this program and continue to fund for the next three years. Chief Gilbert clarified that ongoing costs for the pilot program would be estimated at $3.5 million secured through Measure A funds, and through the Healthcare Services Agency, but the long DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 2 VOLUME 30 ~~ REGULAR MEETING i„~' ~,~~ x„i~~~ OCTOBER 4, 2011 ~~,~~,~,,~;`,~ ,~, ,. DRAFT term goal would be to implement a fee structure to support the ongoing costs of operating the clinics and through the acceptance of donations. Initial startup fees for facility transformation of approximately $400,000 to $700,000 but in the long term may offer a billing potential to generate revenue. Mayor Sbranti thanked Fire Chief Gilbert for the presentation. Public Comments 7°27°45 3.3 No comments were made by any member of the public at this time. CONSENT CALENDAR 7°27°55 Items 4.1 through 4.7 On motion of Cm. Hildenbrand, seconded by Vm. Hart and by unanimous vote, the City Council took the following actions: Approved (4.1) Minutes of Regular Meeting of September 20, 2011; Received (4.2 600-40); RESOLUTION NO. 166 -11 AUTHORIZING AFIVE-YEAR (NOVEMBER 1, 2011 -OCTOBER 31, 2016) FIRST RESPONDER ADVANCED LIFE SUPPORT (FRALS) AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA Adopted (4.3 720-40/720-60 RESOLUTION NO. 167 - 11 FIXING THE EMPLOYER'S CONTRIBUTION UNDER THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL CARE ACT RESOLUTION NO. 168 - 11 FIXING THE EMPLOYER'S CONTRIBUTION VESTING REQUIREMENT FOR FUTURE RETIREES UNDER THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL CARE ACT DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 3 VOLUME 30 ~~ REGULAR MEETING i„~' ~,~~ x„i~~~ OCTOBER 4, 2011 ~~,~~,~,,~;`,~ ,~, ,. DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 169 - 11 Adopted (4.4 700-20) AMENDING THE BENEFIT PLAN RESOLUTION NO. 170 - 11 Adopted (4.5 1060-20) AMENDING THE CLASSIFICATION PLAN ORDINANCE NO. 11 - 11 AMENDING THE DUBLIN TRAFFIC CODE ESTABLISHING BUS STOPS ON DUBLIN BOULEVARD Authorized (4.6 600-35) the City Manager to approve a Change Order with Weber Tractor Services in an amount not to exceed $44,281.07 for the installation of additional sidewalk work under the Annual Sidewalk Repair Project (CIP No. 949012); approved budget change which will transfer the amount of $22,000 in un-appropriated Measure B funds to the Annual Sidewalk Repair Project (CIP No. 949102); and authorized the City Manager to approve a Change Order with Weber Tractor Services in an amount not to exceed $17,150 for storm drain work funded under the Citywide Storm Drain Assessment (CIP No. 960017). Approved (4.7 300-40) Check Issuance Reports and Electronic Funds Transfers. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS -None ...., PUBLIC HEARINGS Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of the All American Label Site Development Review fora 4,456 Square Foot Addition to an Existing Building, PLPA-2011-00020 7°28°46 6.1 (410-30) Mayor Sbranti opened the public hearing. Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner, presented the Staff Report and advised that the City Council would consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a Site Development Review Permit fora 4,456 square foot addition to an existing 23,994 square foot building at 6958 Sierra DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 4 VOLUME 30 ~~ REGULAR MEETING i„~' ~,~~ x„i~~~ OCTOBER 4, 2011 ~~,~~,~,,~;`,~ ,~, ,. DRAFT Court. The Proposed Project was determined to be inconsistent with the General Plan in that the addition will cause the building to exceed the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) established by the General Plan Business Park/Industrial land use category. Mayor Sbranti asked for clarification of the similar land use category in eastern Dublin, with a maximum of FAR at .50 as opposed to the area in question in western Dublin, with the maximum FAR at .40. Ms. Bascom responded that in eastern Dublin, under the industrial park category, the FAR is .35. However, under the General Plan industrial park category, warehousing uses only, can have a maximum FAR of .50, which would be determined on a case by case basis at the discretion of the City Council. On Sierra Court, the General Plan allows for various uses, i.e., warehousing, research and development, distribution, and manufacturing. Dublin resident and commercial real estate broker, Dan Watson, stated that he wanted to speak in support of the applicant in that business owners are finding it extremely difficult to manage in these tough economic times, let alone expand within their budget. Mr. Watson asked that he would like to see companies grow as easy as possible. All American Label representative Guy Houston stated that the 1985 General Plan was descriptive regarding FAR and not mandatory in nature, and stated that to this day, the General Plan had not been changed. Mr. Houston stated, if the City Council chose to agree with the Staff report, that would designate the 17 business on Sierra Court that exceeded .40 FAR, as a non-conforming status. He also stated that this status would affect their use, their property value, salability, and financing capabilities. Legal Counsel for All American Label, Peter McDonald, referred to the 1992 City Council discussion regarding the General Plan FAR and questioned whether the .40 maximum was ever established as mandatory. Cm Hildenbrand asked for clarification of the 17 businesses which were noted on the Sierra Court map. She asked how many had expanded the FAR beyond the .40 maximum since 1992. Ms. Bascom stated that, per the County records, all of those businesses were built prior to the City's incorporation in 1982. City Attorney John Bakker stated that, at the time of incorporation, the City would have most likely carried forward various standards that the County already had in place, then as time went on the City adopted its own General Plan standards. This would have impacted existing businesses, and created a legal non-conforming status on businesses that exceeded the maximum FAR. In 1992 standards were most likely established due to State law requirements of density requirements. Mr. Bakker stated that their status would not affect their operations, but would impact expansion of their business. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 5 VOLUME 30 ~~ REGULAR MEETING i„~' ~,~~ x„i~~~ OCTOBER 4, 2011 ~~,~~,~,,~;`,~ ,~, ,. DRAFT Vm. Hart asked Mr. Bakker if the 1992 General Plan Amendment changed the FAR standards. Mr. Bakker stated that the intention was clarified to set the density range standard for each land use as noted in the technical revisions that were made a FAR standard was added to each of the commercial uses. An Unnamed speaker stated that City Council should view this entire issue in comparison to FAR standards established in east Dublin as accommodating to businesses as opposed to viewing it as the older area in Dublin with the current FAR restrictions. Mayor Sbranti closed the public hearing. Cm. Swalwell asked, if City Council were to reject the Planning Commission recommendation, would the direction be to set and reject the FAR, and wanted to be clear on what a rejection would entail. Mr. Bakker stated that one option the City Council had would be to have Staff prepare a General Plan Amendment to revise the wording in the current plan to increase the FAR beyond the established range. Mayor Sbranti stated that a review of Sierra Court in its entirety and on a broader scale was important in order to avoid having expansion issues in the future. Vm. Hart asked, from a Planner's perspective, what impact would there be if the FAR was expanded to a maximum range of .50. Ms. Bascom stated the implication would be overall conformance and compromise the very reason FAR standards are established, which are to set a range of intensity in any given area. She further stated that, if the property in question was used to set a guideline, there would be no standard for any other business in the future. City Manager Pattillo stated that there have been no further requests than that of All American Label Company, and if exceptions are made to the General Plan, then there was a process established to do so. She further clarified that to date, this has not been an issue with any other business, and compromising FAR has to do with multiple elements such as landscaping in the community and traffic circulation. Vm. Hart asked if this item was specific to the applicant or of the 17 businesses referred to as non-conforming in the area of Sierra Court. Mr. Bakker stated this issue was technically about the applicant, but if the General Plan was interpreted as the applicant has requested, then implications would be throughout the area. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6 VOLUME 30 ~~ REGULAR MEETING i„~' ~,~~ x„i~~~ OCTOBER 4, 2011 ~~,~~,~,,~;`,~ ,~, ,. DRAFT Cm. Swalwell proposed that City Council reject the Planning Commission's action and direct Staff to bring back a General Plan Amendment to increase the FAR at the Sierra Court area for the businesses located there, to provide the ability for all businesses to grow and expand. Cm. Biddle concurred that it was a good time to review the General Plan and have Staff bring back an amendment to accommodate the businesses. Vm. Hart stated his support for Staff to bring back a General Plan amendment to accommodate businesses. Mayor Sbranti stated that he felt there was sufficient record to show that the City Council of 1992 did not intend to create non-conformance for businesses when they adopted the General Plan Amendment as well as ambiguity in the language where the FAR range is descriptive as opposed to mandatory. Cm. Hildenbrand stated that she did not agree with how the rules were broken in this situation; however, she did not want to limit the existing businesses to expand if needed. Mayor Sbranti asked Mr. Bakker if it was decided to do a moratorium how could this be spelled out to move forward on this issue. Mr. Bakker stated that the moratorium concept could be that the City Council would adopt the resolution denying a site development review, maintain the FAR cap at .40, and provide time to research a possible General Plan Amendment, with the key difference that the City Council would not need to deny the appeal. On motion of Mayor Sbranti, seconded by Cm Hildenbrand and by 3-2 vote, the City Council directed to continue the appeal to the 1St meeting in November, and at that time bring forward an adoption of a moratorium and direct Staff to prepare a General Plan Amendment Study request on the FAR issue. City Manager Pattillo reiterated that the discussion on existing businesses which exceeded the .50 FAR and were legal non-conforming, would need to be addressed in the proposed General Plan Amendment Study. She further stated that a change for budget request would also be presented to outline the costs associated with the FAR and types of uses. This proposed study would be fully funded by the City, and not by an applicant as is usually done. Mayor Sbranti called for a break at 8:50 PM Mayor Sbranti called the meeting to order at 9:03 PM DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 7 VOLUME 30 ~~ REGULAR MEETING i„~' ~,~~ xti~~~ OCTOBER 4, 2011 ~~,~~,~,,~;`,~ ,~, ,. DRAFT Zoning Ordinance Amendments to Chapter 8.40 (Accessory Structures and Uses Regulations), Chapter 8.76 (Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations), Chapter 8.84 (Sign Regulations) and Chapter 8.108 (Temporary Use Permit), PLPA-2011-00026 9°03°41 6.2 (450-30) Mayor Sbranti opened the public hearing. Marnie Delgado, Senior Planner, presented the Staff Report and advised that the City was initiating amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to bring greater clarity and consistency to existing regulations. Amendments are proposed to: Chapter 8.40 (Accessory Structures and Uses Regulations) as it relates to Eating and Drinking Establishments as an accessory use to retail sales; to Chapter 8.76 (Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations) as it relates to tenant spaces with multiple functions and parking requirements for other Indoor Recreational Facilities not specifically listed in Section 8.76.080. D; to Chapter 8.84 (Sign Regulations) as it relates to flags, temporary promotional signs, and the regulation of signage in the Downtown Dublin Zoning District; and to Chapter 8.108 (Temporary Use Permit) as it relates to other temporary land uses not specifically defined and deviating from established development standards. Dublin resident Bruce Fiedler stated the amendments proposed regarding Sign Regulations were designed to benefit a few special interests at a cost to the wider community. Dublin landlord for Sierra Market, Brad Sanders, commented on Chapters 8.40 and 8.76, and stated that these amendments were directly the cause of prohibiting any seating to Sierra Market due to the lack of parking. Cm. Swalwell asked Staff to clarify Mr. Sanders comments regarding the ordinance amendments and their relation to the issue. Mr. Bakker stated that the issue Mr. Sanders was referring to was at what point an accessory restaurant component of a grocery store triggered a higher parking standard. Linda Smith, Economic Development Director, elaborated on Mr. Sanders core arguments about applying the additional parking spaces for the restaurant component and limiting his ability on additional space in his center to be leased at retail in the future. Other options have been explored with Mr. Sanders as well. Mayor Sbranti read comments submitted via fax by Sierra Market Owner, Mr. Sal Safi, "I am the owner of Sahara Market, this confusion in the code has cost us tremendous grief and loss of income. Section 8.40 will cause more confusion and will leave another gray area where the food preparation area in a market with seating area and food preparation will be hard to define." Mayor Sbranti closed the public hearing. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 8 VOLUME 30 ~~ REGULAR MEETING i„~' ~,~~ x„i~~~ OCTOBER 4, 2011 ~~,~~,~,,~;`,~ ,~, ,. DRAFT Mayor Sbranti asked Staff to explain how the 10% of seating and food preparation area was established. Ms. Waffle stated that this standard was taken from another standard in the accessory uses chapter. Mayor Sbranti asked Staff to elaborate on why food preparation needed to be included in the 10%. Ms. Waffle stated that food preparation is a necessary component of an eating and drinking establishment as it related to retail sales with the 10% threshold for intensity directly affecting the minimum required parking spaces. Mayor Sbranti asked for clarification on how this ordinance amendment would assist with the Sahara Market expansion plan. Ms. Waffle stated this item would assist by clarifying the off-street parking and loading regulations that requires distinction between a large and small tenant space for the purpose of determining parking requirements. She also stated that the Sahara Market management would be working on a restriping plan which would also assist with resolving their expansion plan. Mayor Sbranti asked what the implication might be if the City Council did not approve the Chapter 8.84 ordinance amendment. Ms. Waffle stated that any area outside planned development zoning district, or any shopping center that did not have a master sign program, would not be allowed to have signs. Cm. Hildenbrand commented on Chapter 8.84 and expressed that the sign regulations ordinance was consistently being compromised with these amendments, resulting in creating an lower aesthetic quality to the community. Mayor Sbranti stated that he believed there were more limits than additions to this ordinance amendment, and would like to take a pause and re-evaluate this amendment further before voting on this amendment. He suggested looking at this from a broader perspective. Vm. Hart suggested a group outside of the ad-hoc committee evaluate whether the proposed changes are of value to the City and provide recommendations. Cm. Biddle stated he would be willing to have input from a community group and postpone accepting amendment to the sign regulations. Cm. Swalwell was in agreement with postponing the amendment. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 30 ~~ REGULAR MEETING i„~' ~,~~ x„i~~~ OCTOBER 4, 2011 ~~,~~,~,,~;`,~ ,~, ,. 9 DRAFT City Manager Pattillo stated that the City Attorney will provide clarity on moving forward with the ordinance chapters, excluding Chapter 8.84. She clarified the direction provided regarding Chapter 8.84 which would be to have Staff bring back recommendations, whether to form a task force or one town hall meeting. This will also create a new initiative, adding additional workload and would ask the City Council to prioritize the current Economic Development initiatives. Cm. Hildenbrand stated that she did not feel the need to form a task force and add additional work. Mayor Sbranti stated that he did not want to re-prioritize Economic Development initiatives but gather feedback from community members to ensure that moving forward would be of benefit to the City. On motion of Vm. Hart, seconded by Cm Hildenbrand and by unanimous vote, the City Council INTRODUCE an Ordinance Amending Chapter 8.40 (Accessory Structures and Uses Regulations), Chapter 8.76 (Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations), and Chapter 8.108 (Temporary Use Permit) of the Zoning Ordinance. Chapter 8.84 (Sign Regulations) would be deferred. Dublin Heritage Park and Museums Facility Use Policy 10e 16°22 6.3 (295-10) Mayor Sbranti opened the public hearing. Paul McCreary, Assistant Parks and Community Services Director, presented the Staff Report and advised that the City Council would consider adopting the Heritage Park and Museums Facility Use Policy and Rental Fee Schedule, which would allow for community use and private rentals of the Kolb Sunday School Barn and St. Raymond Church. No testimony was received by any member of the public relative to this issue. Mayor Sbranti closed the public hearing. Vm. Hart stated that the pricing seemed to be a bit expensive and cautioned that fees wouldn't discourage the use of such a great facility. Cm. Hildenbrand commented that based on the history of the facility and the importance of preservation and protection of the buildings, the pricing seemed reasonable. Mayor Sbranti stated that the rates quoted were lower than the surrounding area and felt comfortable moving forward with the fee schedule as presented. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 30 ~~ REGULAR MEETING i„~' ~,~~ x„i~~~ OCTOBER 4, 2011 ~~,~~,~,,~;`,~ ,~, ,. 10 DRAFT On motion of Cm. Hildenbrand, seconded by Cm. Biddle and by unanimous vote, the City Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 171 -11 ESTABLISHING A FACILITY USE POLICY AND RENTAL FEE SCHEDULE FOR USE OF THE KOLB SUNDAY SCHOOL BARN AND ST. RAYMOND CHURCH AT THE DUBLIN HERITAGE PARK AND MUSEUMS UNFINISHED BUSINESS Adoption of Amended and Restated Ex Parte Contacts Policy 10e2~e7 7.1 (610-20) City Attorney John Bakker presented the Staff Report and advised that Ex parte contacts are communications of information relevant to a quasi judicial governmental decision to a decision maker outside of the formal quasi-judicial proceeding. On December 20, 2005, the City Council adopted a policy prohibiting City Council members and Planning Commissioners, among others, from the intentionally making or receiving ex pane contacts related to quasi judicial proceedings such as site development review approvals, conditional use permits, and variances. The policy did not apply to quasi-legislative decisions such as general plan amendments and zoning ordinance amendments. At the April 5, 2011 City Council meeting, Councilmember Swalwell requested that the policy be placed on a future Council agenda that would allow the policy to be reviewed. At the September 6, 2011 City Council meeting, the City Council directed the City Attorney to prepare an amendment to the policy that would permit the members of the City Council to make or receive ex pane contacts except when a matter is actually scheduled to be heard by the City Council itself. Staff had prepared a resolution that would permit contacts unless and until the City Council is notified that it would be sitting as the quasi judicial hearing body on a specific matter. Cm. Swalwell stated that he agreed to disclose all relevant information but felt it was unreasonable to have to reveal everything in a site visit conversation. Cm. Hildenbrand commented that this topic was discussed at the last meeting, and the idea was to prohibit a City Councilmember related to quasi-judicial proceedings. Mayor Sbranti stated he was in agreement with the resolution proposed. On motion of Cm. Hildenbrand, seconded by Mayor Sbranti and by unanimous vote, the City adopted RESOLUTION NO. 172-11 DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 11 VOLUME 30 ~~ REGULAR MEETING i„~' ~,~~ x„i~~~ OCTOBER 4, 2011 ~~,~~,~,,~;`,~ ,~, ,. DRAFT AMENDING AND RESTATING THE POLICY REGARDING EX PARTE CONTACTS IN QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS NEW BUSINESS Valley Christian Center General Plan Amendment Study Initiation Request 10°39°01 8.1 (420-30) Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner, presented the Staff Report and advised that the City Council would consider whether to initiate a General Plan Amendment Study to change the General Plan Land Use Designation fora 1.4 acre property at the northwest corner of Dublin Boulevard and Inspiration Drive from Public/Semi-Public to Medium/High Density Residential. Bryan Tebbutt, Valley Christian Center representative stated that Valley Christian Center had a long tenured involvement with the community and had committed in 2010 to the City to provide over 2,500 hours of service to the City and had exceeded that amount. He stated that the change in land use would ultimately result in completing their sanctuary, which is under construction. Once the study is complete, the Center would conduct neighborhood outreach to provide the project details. Richard Van De Boom, President of California Highlands Homeowners Association and California Highlands resident, stated, on behalf of the Association, their concern was the wildlife in the proposed site creek would be at risk without the environmental impact report conducted. He also stated that access into the proposed site would cause added traffic congestion as well as a parking issue with the proposed 1 to 25 units in the plan. Michelle Fontaine, California Highlands resident, urged the City Council to consider how this project would impact all of the residents that had purchased homes for the reason of seclusion and location with added traffic and parking issues of a high density residential project. Vm. Hart asked for Staff to comment on surplus land in the proposed area of study. Ms. Bascom stated that there was a sliver of Dublin Boulevard right of way that would need a surplus analysis to be conducted if it were to be included in the potential project that was owned by the City. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 30 ~~ REGULAR MEETING i„~' ~,~~ x„i~~~ OCTOBER 4, 2011 ~~,~~,~,,~;`,~ ,~, ,. 12 DRAFT Vm. Hart asked for clarification of Mr. Van De Boom's comment related to the exclusion of an environmental impact report. Ms. Bascom stated that what Mr. Van De Boom was referring to is that CEQA would not apply to bring forward this request for study, but once the study is approved then all of the requisite environmental analysis would be conducted. Mayor Sbranti asked how many units were being proposed in this project. Mr. Tebbutt responded that 20 units would ultimately be proposed in the project. Mayor Sbranti stated his support for this study as the surrounding developments had moved forward and any issues that may have been a concern in 2003 had been resolved. Cm. Swalwell reiterated that this motion was approving a study and not approving the proposed rezoning. Vm. Hart stated his support for the study to move forward, but expressed concern over the issues brought forward by California Highlands regarding traffic and parking. Cm. Hildenbrand stated her support for the study to be able to make a more informed decision and expressed concerns for increased traffic issues that would be closely monitored. On motion of Cm. Biddle, seconded by Mayor Sbranti and by unanimous vote, the City Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 173-11 APPROVING THE INITIATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY TO CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FORA 1.4 ACRE PROPERTY AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD AND INSPIRATION DRIVE FROM PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC TO MEDIUM/HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LOCATED AT 7500 INSPIRATION DRIVE (APN 941-0022-005-00) Parking Designation on Antone Way 11°12°03 8.2 (820-80) Jaimee Bourgeois, Transportation and Operations Manager, presented the Staff Report and advised that while on-street parking is allowed on Antone Way, there is insufficient width at the east end where there exists a center median. While vehicles had been known to park along this DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 13 VOLUME 30 ~~ REGULAR MEETING i„~' ~,~~ x„i~~~ OCTOBER 4, 2011 ~~,~~,~,,~;`,~ ,~, ,. DRAFT section, particularly during school drop-off and pick-up times, it was recommended that, in the interest of public safety, "No Parking" zones be designated on the north and south sides of the street. On motion of Cm Hildenbrand, seconded by Cm Swalwell and by unanimous vote, the City Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 174-11 APPROVING PARKING REGULATION ON ANYONE WAY _,,..,~ Parks and Community Services Strategic Plan Annual Report 11:13 PM 8.3 (920-10) City Manager Joni Pattillo requested that the City Council consider moving item 8.3 Parks and Community Services Strategic Plan Annual Report to the next City Council meeting of October 18, 2011, due to time consideration. The City Council was in agreement to move item 8.3 to the next City Council meeting. Confirmation of Appointment of City Council 2011 Ad-Hoc Audit Review Committee 11 e 13°20 8.4 (610-40) Mayor Sbranti presented the Staff Report and advised that the independent auditors from the firm of Caporicci and Larson, Inc. (a subsidiary of Marcum, LLP) had scheduled their field work necessary to complete the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for the year ending June 30, 2011. The City Council would consider the establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee, comprised of two City Council Members, to review the audit process and final report with the Auditors. The Committee would also review recommendations for a new audit engagement which will begin with the financial reporting period ending June 30, 2012. On motion of Mayor Sbranti, seconded by Cm. Hildenbrand and by unanimous vote, the City Council confirmed the Mayor's appointment of Vice Mayor Kevin Hart and Councilmember Eric Swalwell as the 2011 Ad-Hoc Audit Review Committee that would serve for a limited time. The Committee will meet with the City Auditors to review and discuss the audit report for the period ending June 30, 2011. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 30 ~~ REGULAR MEETING i„~' ~,~~ x„i~~~ OCTOBER 4, 2011 ~~,~~,~,,~;`,~ ,~, ,. 14 DRAFT OTHER BUSINESS Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from Council and/or Staff, including Committee Reports and Reports by Council related to meetings attended at City expense (AB 1234) 11 ~ 1 ~~~~ City Manager Pattillo informed the City Council that Officer Nate Schmidt was commended by the District Attorney's Office for his work in the Rosa Hill case in Dublin. Cm. Swalwell attended the Tri-Valley Council Dinner, the Joint Dublin Unified School District meeting, the Dublin Rotary meeting, and the Target grand opening. Cm. Hildenbrand attended Tri-Valley Council Dinner, the Joint Dublin Unified School District meeting, Social Media meeting, and the League of California Cities Annual Conference in San Francisco. Cm. Biddle attended the League of California Cities Annual Conference in San Francisco, the Developer Roundtable, the Senior Fair, the Livermore Amador Valley Transportation Authority 25th Anniversary, and the Social Media Workshop. Cm. Hart attended the Tri-Valley Council Dinner, the Joint Dublin Unified School District meeting, the Dublin Rotary meeting, and the Target grand opening. Mayor Sbranti attended the City of Dublin Annual Golf Tournament, the Tri-Valley Council Dinner, the Joint Dublin Unified School District meeting, the Dublin Rotary meeting, and the Target grand opening. ADJOURNMENT 10.1 There being no further business to come before the City Council, the meeting was adjourned at 11:21 PM in memory of Staff Sgt. Sean Diamond and our fallen troops, and in honor of AI White, Dublin business owner of Dublin Trophy House, long tenured Lions member, and Rotary member, and Chamber member, who passed away. Minutes prepared by Dora Ramirez, Deputy City Clerk. Mayor ATTEST: Deputy City Clerk DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 15 VOLUME 30 ~~ REGULAR MEETING i„~' ~,~~ x„i~~~ OCTOBER 4, 2011 ~~,~~,~,,~;`,~ ,~, ,. RESOLUTION NO. xx-11 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RESOLUTION APPROVING THE INITIATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO FOR ALL PROPERTIES WITH A BUSINESS PARK/INDUSTRIAL GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM 0.40 TO 0.50, AND ALSO STUDY POTENTIAL NEW USES THAT COULD BE ALLOWED IN THE AREA WHEREAS, at a public hearing on October 4, 2011, the City Council voiced concerns that there was language in the General Plan land use category description for the Business Park/Industrial category that could be interpreted as creating ambiguity as it relates to the maximum allowable Floor Area Ration (FAR) for the land use category; and WHEREAS, at the same meeting, the City Council directed Staff to prepare options for initiating a General Plan Amendment for the Business Park/Industrial-designated properties to eliminate any perceived uncertainty in the language and to consider allowing increased development in the area; and WHEREAS, the initiation request has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and was found to be Categorically Exempt under Section 15306, Class 6 of the State CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted outlining the issues surrounding the request; and WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all such reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth, and supports the initiation of a General Plan Amendment Study; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby approve the initiation of a General Plan Amendment Study to increase the maximum Floor Area Ratio for all properties with a Business Park/Industrial General Plan land use designation from 0.40 to 0.50, and also study potential new uses that could be allowed in the area. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Dublin on this 1St day of November, 2011 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: 1 Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. xx-11 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RESOLUTION APPROVING THE INITIATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY TO CREATE A NEW LAND USE CATEGORY FOR PROPERTIES IN THE SIERRA COURT/SIERRA LANE/TRINITY COURT AREA WITH A BUSINESS PARK/INDUSTRIAL GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION WITH A MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO OF 0.50 AND ALSO STUDY POTENTIAL NEW USES THAT COULD BE ALLOWED IN THE AREA WHEREAS, at a public hearing on October 4, 2011, the City Council voiced concerns that there was language in the General Plan land use category description for the Business Park/Industrial category that could be interpreted as creating ambiguity as it relates to the maximum allowable Floor Area Ration (FAR) for the land use category; and WHEREAS, at the same meeting, the City Council directed Staff to prepare options for initiating a General Plan Amendment for the Business Park/Industrial-designated properties to eliminate any perceived uncertainty in the language and to consider allowing increased development in the area; and WHEREAS, the initiation request has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and was found to be Categorically Exempt under Section 15306, Class 6 of the State CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted outlining the issues surrounding the request; and WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all such reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth, and supports the initiation of a General Plan Amendment Study; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby approve the initiation of a General Plan Amendment Study to create a new land use category for properties in the Sierra Court/Sierra Lane/Trinity Court area with a Business Park/Industrial General Plan land use designation with a maximum Floor Area Ratio of 0.50 and also study potential new uses that could be allowed in the area. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Dublin on this 1St day of November, 2011 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: 1 Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. xx-11 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RESOLUTION APPROVING THE INITIATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY TO CREATE A NEW LAND USE CATEGORY FOR PROPERTIES IN THE SIERRA COURT/SIERRA LANE/TRINITY COURT AREA WITH A BUSINESS PARK/INDUSTRIAL GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION WITH A MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO OF 0.50 WHEREAS, at a public hearing on October 4, 2011, the City Council voiced concerns that there was language in the General Plan land use category description for the Business Park/Industrial category that could be interpreted as creating ambiguity as it relates to the maximum allowable Floor Area Ration (FAR) for the land use category; and WHEREAS, at the same meeting, the City Council directed Staff to prepare options for initiating a General Plan Amendment for the Business Park/Industrial-designated properties to eliminate any perceived uncertainty in the language and to consider allowing increased development in the area; and WHEREAS, the initiation request has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and was found to be Categorically Exempt under Section 15306, Class 6 of the State CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted outlining the issues surrounding the request; and WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all such reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth, and supports the initiation of a General Plan Amendment Study; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby approve the initiation of a General Plan Amendment Study to create a new land use category for properties in the Sierra Court/Sierra Lane/Trinity Court area with a Business Park/Industrial General Plan land use designation with a maximum Floor Area Ratio of 0.50. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Dublin on this 1St day of November, 2011 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: 1 Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. xx-11 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RESOLUTION APPROVING THE INITIATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY TO CREATE A NEW LAND USE CATEGORY FOR PROPERTIES IN THE SIERRA COURT/SIERRA LANE/TRINITY COURT AREA WITH A BUSINESS PARK/INDUSTRIAL GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION WITH A MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO OF 0.50 FOR WAREHOUSE USES AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND A MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO OF .40 FOR ALL OTHER PERMITTED USES WHEREAS, at a public hearing on October 4, 2011, the City Council voiced concerns that there was language in the General Plan land use category description for the Business Park/Industrial category that could be interpreted as creating ambiguity as it relates to the maximum allowable Floor Area Ration (FAR) for the land use category; and WHEREAS, at the same meeting, the City Council directed Staff to prepare options for initiating a General Plan Amendment for the Business Park/Industrial-designated properties to eliminate any perceived uncertainty in the language and to consider allowing increased development in the area; and WHEREAS, the initiation request has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and was found to be Categorically Exempt under Section 15306, Class 6 of the State CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted outlining the issues surrounding the request; and WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all such reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth, and supports the initiation of a General Plan Amendment Study; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby approve the initiation of a General Plan Amendment Study to create a new land use category for properties in the Sierra Court/Sierra Lane/Trinity Court area with a Business Park/Industrial General Plan land use designation with a maximum Floor Area Ratio of 0.50 for warehouse uses at the discretion of the City Council and a maximum Floor Area Ratio of .40 for all other uses permitted under new land use designation. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Dublin on this 1St day of November, 2011 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 1 ABSTAIN: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN AN URGENCY ORDINANCE MAKING FINDINGS AND ADOPTING A MORATORIUM ON PROJECTS THAT WOULD RESULT IN A FLOOR AREA RATIO GREATER THAN .40 IN ANY PROPERTY WITH A GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION OF BUSINESS PARK/INDUSTRIAL RECITALS WHEREAS, at a public hearing on October 4, 2011, the City Council voiced concerns that there was language in the City of Dublin General Plan ("the General Plan") land use category description for the Business Park/Industrial category that could be interpreted as creating ambiguity as it relates to the minimum and maximum allowable Floor Area Ratios (FAR) for that land use category; and WHEREAS, until this time, City staff have interpreted the General Plan language in question as meaning that the minimum FAR for the Business Park/Industrial category is 0.30 and the maximum FAR for the Business Park/Industrial category is 0.40; and WHEREAS, an owner of property within the Business Park/Industrial category has challenged City Staff's interpretation of the General Plan language; and WHEREAS, at its meeting on November 1, 2011, the City Council directed staff to prepare a study to analyze the impact of increasing the maximum FAR for the Business Park/Industrial category beyond the .40 figure utilized by City staff; and WHEREAS, there now exists significant uncertainty as to the meaning and impact of the existing General Plan language, such that City staff and owners of property within the affected land use designations are unsure of what restrictions apply to such property. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS, ADOPTED AS AN INTERIM ORDINANCE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65858: A. Moratorium Imposed. In accordance with the authority granted the City of Dublin under Government Code Section 65858, from and after the date of this ordinance, no use permit, variance, building permit, or any other applicable entitlement for use that would result in a property located within an area designated in the General Plan as Business Park/Industrial having a Floor Area Ratio that exceeds 0.40 shall be granted for a period of 45 days. B. Authority; Urgency Statement. This ordinance is an interim ordinance adopted as an urgency measure pursuant to Government Code Section 65858 and is for the immediate preservation of the public welfare. The facts constituting the urgency are these: considerable uncertainty exists as to the maximum density allowed on property designated as Business Park/Industrial in the Dublin General Plan. The City Council has directed staff to conduct a study to analyze the possibility of amending the General Plan to establish a maximum density in excess of 0.40. Until the study is completed, the uncertainty will remain, and development could be proposed that exceeds 0.40 FAR, approval of which could potentially be inconsistent with the General Plan. The granting of entitlements for uses that are inconsistent with the General Plan is contrary to state law. Absent the adoption of this urgency ordinance, this uncertainty will continue, negatively impacting the public welfare. As a result of this threat to the public welfare, it is necessary to, in accordance with Government Code Section 65858, temporarily establish a 45-day moratorium on the granting of any use permit, variance, building permit, or any other applicable entitlement for use that would result in a property located within an area designated in the General Plan as Business Park/Industrial having a Floor Area Ratio that exceeds 0.40 pending the completion of the City's study of the potential impacts of amending the General Plan. C. Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act. This ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, because the ordinance is consistent with City staff's current interpretation of the General Plan and would prevent changes in the environment pending the completion of the contemplated General Plan amendment study. D. Severability. If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the ordinance, including the application of such part or provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, provisions of this ordinance are severable. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable. E. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption if adopted by at least four-fifths vote of the City Council and shall be in effect for forty-five days from the date of adoption unless extended by the City Council as provided for in Government Code section 65858. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this _the day of 2011. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor City Clerk 785549_1. DOC;114.1001 1731952.2