Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.5 IKEA & Dub Rch Area F CITY CLERK AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 16, 2004 SUBJECT: Public Hearing - PA 02-034 and PA 01-037 - General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments for IKEA and Area F North, Dublin Ranch Report Prepared by: deri Ram, Planning Manager(,~ ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution Approving General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments for IKEA and Area F North, Dublin Ranch. · 2. Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of February 24, 2004 RECOMMENDATION: 1. Open Public Hearing  2. Receive Staff report and public testimony 3. Question Staff and public 4. Close Public Hearing and deliberate 5. Adopt the Resolution approving General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments for the IKEA Project and Dublin Ranch Area F North FINANCIAL STATEMENT: No financial impact PROJECT DESCRIPTION: · Applicants IKEA and James Tong (representing Chang Su-O Lin, H. Yao Lin & H. L. Lin), have submitted applications for approval of General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments for the IKEA Commercial Project and Dublin Ranch Area F North, respectively. State law allows four General Plan Amendments per Element per year (except in the event of changes to the Land Use Element as a result of modifications to the Housing Element). This approval would be the first General Plan Amendment for 2004. In order to avoid amendments in excess of the number permitted by State law, General Plan Amendments for specific projects can be grouped together and adopted as one resolution. This method of approving General Plan Amendments enables cities to approve several projects at the same time while only counting legally as one amendment. The City has done this in the past; a recent example is that of the Sybase and Corrie Center Phase II. These projects both included General Plan Amendments to the Land Use Element, adopted as one General Plan Amendment by one resolution. COPIES TO: In-House Distribution Applicants G:XAgendasL2004\CCSRIkeaAreaFGPA3-16-04.doc ITEM NO. _~~ ANALYSIS: 1. Ikea: The Ikea project requires amendments to both the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. General Plan Amendment Analysis: The following changes will need to be made to the City of Dublin General Plan: · Figure I-la, General Plan Land Use Map, will need to be amended to reflect the change from Campus Office to General Commercial. · Table 2.1, Land Use Summary, Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment Area will need to be amended to modify acreages shown .in the Table. The Ikea Project would be consistent with policies in the City of Dublin General Plan. The Ikea Project would be a commercial development that would also be employment generating. It would meet the needs of the City and the surrounding Tri-Valley area (Guiding Policy 2.2.4 A). The Project also satisfies the policies and guidelines that are set forth in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, which is also a requirement of the General Plan (Implementing Policy 2.2.4 C). Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Analysis The following changes will need to be made to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan: · The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Map will need to be amended to reflect the change in Land Use Designation (Exhibit A to Attachment 1). · The following Tables are amended by reference to make conforming amendments to reflect land changes from Campus Office to General Commercial: o Table 4.1 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Summary Table 4.2 Eastem Dublin Specific Plan Population and Employment Summary; and o Table 4.11 Hacienda Gateway Subarea Development Potential. A Comprehensive fiscal impact study for the entire Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area was conducted and concluded, at the time the plan was approved, that the plan would not be a financial drain to the existing City. Additionally, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan contains goals and policies (see Chapter 10.4 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan), which require new development to pay for infrastructure and required services. In order to determine that the Project was consistent with these policies, the City contracted with Economic & Planning Systems to compare the potential economic benefits of the proposed IKEA project to those of the approved (but not built) 780,000 square foot Commerce One office project. The study determined that, while both projects would be fiscally positive, the proposed IKEA retail development would result in a significantly higher net fiscal surplus than the office alternative (See Attachment 11 to Ikea PD Rezone Agenda Item within this Packet). The fiscal impact analysis compared the fiscal performance (municipal revenues minus municipal service costs) of both projects. The analysis determined that sales taxes would be the primary revenue contributor from the retail development, and that both projects would generate significant revenues from property taxes. The existing 1993 tax sharing agreement provides that the County of Alameda would take 35% of the newly generated sales taxes from any site within "Santa Rita Property Area". The study concluded that the IKEA project would result in a net annual fiscal surplus of nearly $680,000, while the office project would resultin a net annual fiscal surplus of $13,000. The study also found that, over the first 10 years, the IKEA project would generate $7.5 million (today's dollars) in net revenues to the City of Dublin, while the office project would generate $276,000. Additionally, the study also concluded that due to the market decline in the regional office market, a potential office project on the Site could not be expected in the near term and the EPS market analysis concluded that an office prOject would not be completed prior to 2013 (see page 10 of Attachment 11 to IKEA PD Rezone Agenda Item within this Packet). Based upon this conclusion, Staff finds that the proposed project is consistent with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan policies regarding fiscal neutrality. 2. Dublin Ranch, Area F North: The following changes for Dublin Ranch Area F North (consisting of portions of Areas F, B and E) are proposed to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan: 1) Elimination of a Portion of High School Site - A 20-acre area along the northwest boundary of the project site is designated as a high school site and is a remnant from Area E Phase I. It was not addressed during the previous General Plan Amendment (GPA) for Area F (PA 98-068). This remnant site would be incorporated into the Middle School site. 2) Reconfiguration of Middle School Site- The area designated for the middle school site has been reduced in size. 3) Public/Semi-Public Sites - Two smaller sites designated for Public/Semi-Public use have been eliminated and a larger site for this use has been created from a portion of the high school site. 4) Community Park Site and Elimination of Transitional Use - A final determination regarding the size of the Community Park has eliminated the necessity for an optional transitional zone to accommodate both Community Park and Medium Density Residential uses as approved with the previous plan. The result is a larger Community Park. 5) Open Space/Stream Corridor - Rather than serve as a dual use zone, the Open Space/Stream Corridor now would act as a buffering element between medium density residential uses and the western edge of a larger Community Park site. This new location, length, and acreage of the Open Space/Stream Corridor was factored into the applicant's 404 permit issued by the Army Corps through consultation with the departments of Fish & Game and Fish & Wildlife. 6) Unit Total/Density - Residential unit totals for the Development Area north of Gleason Drive would increase by 50 units under the proposed plan from 190 units to 240 units; however, the total units for the Amendment Area over all would decrease by 135 units from 1,425 units to 1,290. This decrease is the result of expanded acreage for low-density residential units use, elimination of the medium density residential units from the transitional area, and enlargement of the community park site. 7) Unchanged - The Neighborhood Square, Elementary School, and Neighborhood Park sites would remain the same size and at the same location. The proposed Amendments are in keeping with the intent of the original General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and would have the following results: · create a more orderly and organized development pattern · allow for the introduction of a more usable Public/Semi-Public use site · define the boundaries of a larger sports park · provide for residential land uses on the remainder middle school site 3oD · generally accommodate a land use pattern that will facilitate the timely implementation of the Plans . General Plan Amendment Analysis The following amendments will need to be made to the City of Dublin General Plan: · Figure l-la, the General Plan Land Use Map, (Exhibit B to Attachment 1) needs to be amended. Table 2.1, Land Use Summary, Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment Area will need to be amended to modify the Table with the new acreages shown below: General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Changes Previously ProPosed Increase or Land Use Designations (gross acres) Approved Decrease L Low Density Residential 22.7 ac 33.4 ac +10.7 ac M Medium Density Residential 120.5 ac 125,0 ac +4.5 ac MICP Medium Density Residential/Community Park 13.0 ac removed -13.0 ac HS High SchoolSite (portion) 20.0 ac removed -.20.0 ac MS Middle School Site 30.6 ac 25.2 ac -5.4 ac ES Elementary School Site 10.0 ac 10.0 ac 0.0 ac PISP Public/Semi-Public 3.9 ac 6.3 ac +2.4 ac CP Community Park 52.0 ac 65.9 ac +13.9 ac NP Neighborhood Park 5.6 ac 5.6 ac 0,0 ac NS Neighborhood Square 2.0 ac 2.0 ac 0.0 ac OS Open Space/Stream Corridor/Multi-Use Trail 9.0 ac 12.0 ac +3.0 ac Total Gross Acres 289.3 ac 285.4 ac -3.9 ac Units Total Units 1,425 du 1,290 du -135 du Low Density Units 91 du 121 du +30 du Medium Density Units 1,334 du 1,169 du -165 du This Amendment to the Land Use Map of the General Plan is consistent with the City of Dublin General plan. The Amendment will help to implement policies that encourage a balanced mixed use community, well integrated with both natural and urban systems. In addition it will be a safe and comfortable, attractive environment for living (Guiding Policy 2.1.4 A of the General Plan). The Project also satisfies the policies and guidelines that are set forth in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, which is also a requirement of the General Plan (Implementing Policy 2.1.4 C). Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment In order to make these changes to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, the following sections of the Plan will · need to be amended: · Figure 4.1, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Map (Exhibit B to Attachment 1). · The following Tables are amended by reference to make conforming amendments to reflect land use changes as shown on the Land Use Change Table above: o Table 4.1 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Summary o Table 4.2 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Population and Employment Summary; and o Table 4.5 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Town Center Commercial Subarea Development Potential o Table 4.6 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Town Center Residential Subarea Development Potential o Table 4.9 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Fallon Village Center Subarea Development Potential These Amendments are consistent with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan because the project will maintain the fiscal balance in Eastern Dublin because the number of housing units has been reduced and the amount of area of Public Semi Public development and Community Park has increased. Area F development plans have been sensitively designed and have avoided grading protected slopes or hillsides. Conclusion: In Conclusion, the Ikea Project and Dublin Ranch Area F North land use changes are consistent with both the City of Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Planning Commission Action: Approval of General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments requires action by the City Council based on a recommendation from the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission reviewed both of these projects at their meeting of February 24, 2004 (Attachment 2). The Planning Commission did not recommend approval of the Ikea General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments at its meeting of February 24, 2004 with Commissioner Nassar abstaining and Commissioner Jennings absent. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Area F North General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments at its meeting of February 24, 2004, with Commissioner Jennings absent. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council open the public hearing, receive the Staff report and public testimony, question Staff and public, close public hearing and deliberate and adopt the Resolution (Attachment 1) approving General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments for the Ikea Project and Dublin Ranch Area F North project. RESOLUTION NO. - 04 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE FOR THE IKEA PROJECT PA 02-034 AND THE DUBLIN RANCH AREA F NORTH PROJECT PA 01-037 IKEA PROJECT PA 02-034 WHEREAS, IKEA Property, Inc. submitted applications for an IKEA store, a retail center and related improvements on a 27.54 acre site north of 1-580, between Arnold Road and Hacienda Boulevard. The project proposes an approximately 317,000 square foot IKEA store on the westerly portion of the site, and an approximately 137,000 square foot retail center on the easterly portion of thc site. The development includes applications to amend the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan fi.om Campus Office to General Commercial; to rezone the site to PD-Plarmed Development and adopt related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans; to approve a Site Development Review and Master Sign Program for the IKEA store; and to approve a vesting tentative parcel map and development agreement. The applications are collectively known as the "Project"; and WHEREAS, the Project would amend General Plan land use and other maps and to change the land use designations from Campus Office to General Commercial. The Project would amend the General Plan Table 2.1 land use summary to reflect the revised land use designations; and WHEREAS, thc Project would amend the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use and other maps to change the land use designations from Campus Office to General Commercial. The Project would amend Specific Plan Tables 4.1, 4.2, and 4.11 to reflect the revised land use designations; and WHEREAS, the City prepared and circulated a Draft Supplemental EIR analyzing the potential environmental effects of the Project. The City prepared a Final Supplemental EIR comprised of written responses to all comments received on the Draft Supplemental EIR. On February 24, 2004, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 04-10 recommending that the City Council certify the Draft and Final Supplemental EIRs as the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the project, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, a Planning Commission Staff report dated February 24, 2004, and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the SEIR and the Project, including the proposed amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, at a noticed public hearing on February 24, 2004, the Planning Commission considered the Staff report, all written and oral testimony submitted to them and based thereon, did not recommend adoption of the proposed amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, as reflected in the Planning Commission minutes; and WHEREAS, a City Council Staff report dated March 16, 2004 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the SEIR and the Project, including the proposed amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; and ATTACHML N / WHEREAS, at a noticed public hearing on March 16, 2004, the City Council considered the Staff report, the SEIR, the Planning Commission recommendations, and all written and oral testimony submitted at the public hearing; and WHEREAS, on March 16, 2004, the City Council adopted Resolution -04, incorporated herein by reference, certifying the SEIR as adequate and complete pursuant to the California Environmental' Quality Act, and adopting mitigation and alternatives findings as well as a Statement of Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program as required for approval of the Project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council approves the following General Plan Amendment based on findings that the amendment is in the public interest and that the General Plan as so amended will remain internally consistent. A. Amend Figure l-la, City of Dublin General Plan Land Use Map, to modify the land use designations for the Project site from Campus Office to General Commercial and as shown on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. B. Amend Table 2.1, Land Use Summary, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Area to reflect the map change described above and shown on Exhibit A. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council approves the following Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment based on findings that the amendment is consistent with the Dublin General Plan and that the Specific Plan as so amended will remain internally consistent. A. Amend Figure 4.1, Land Use Map, to modify the land use designations for the Project site from Campus Office to General Commercial and as shown on Exhibit A attached 'hereto and incorporated herein by reference. B. Amend the following tables by reference to make conforming amendments to reflect land use changes from Campus Office to General Commercial: 1. Table 4.1 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Summary; 2. Table 4.2 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Population and Employment Summary; and 3. Table 4.11 Hacienda Gateway Subarea Development Potential. DUBLIN RANCH AREA F NORTH PROJECT PA 01-037: WHEREAS, the Applicant, James Tong (representing Chang Su-O Lin, H. Yao Lin & H. L. Lin), submitted applications for a 285.4-acre Amendment area located within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area, including portions of Areas B, E & F in Dublin Ranch. The Amendment Area is known as Dublin Ranch Area F North generally located north of Central Parkway between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road. The applications include: a) Amendments to both the General Plan land use designations and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; b) Planned Development Rezoning consistent with the land use amendments; c) Stage 1 Planned Development Plan for the entire 285.4-acre Amendment Area; d) Stage 2 Planned Development Plan for the Development Area, 88.5 acres north of Gleason Drive, within the Amendment Area and including Neighborhoods F 1 & F2; d) Site Development Review for 2 Neighborhoods F1 & F2; e) Master Vesting Tentative Tract Tentative Map No. 7281; and f) Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos.7282 & 7283. The project proposes a total of 1,290 residential units of low and medium density residential development, Middle School site, Elementary School site, Neighborhood Square, Neighborhood Park, Community Park, Public/Semi-Public use, and Open Space/Stream Corridor/Multi-Use Trail system. The applications collectively define this "Project"; and WHEREAS, the Project site currently is vacant land; and WHEREAS, the Project would amend the General Plan' land use map to change certain uses, including: alteration of the previously approved road system, elimination of a remnant high school site, acreage reduction of the middle school site, relocation and consolidation of the Public/Semi-Public Sites, elimination of the Medium Density Residential/Community Park use, expansion of the Community Park site, increase in the number of low-density residential units, and over all reduction in proposed units from 1,425 units to 1,290 units. The Project would amend Table 4.1 of the Eastern Dublin land use summary; and WHEREAS, the Project woUld amend the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan with corresponding land uses proposed for the General Plan land use amendment. Development Standards are included in the proposed Stage 1 and Stage 2 Planned Development Rezoning and Planned Development Plan review; and WHEREAS, an Initial Study determined that no additional mitigation measures would be required. Therefore, the appropriate environment assessment for the project is the preparation of an Addendum to a previously certified environmental impact report (EIR) and other adopted documents prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and WHEREAS, the City prepared a CEQA Addendum which together with the prior reports, reviews, and assessments adequately discloses the potential environmental impacts of the Project, and WHEREAS, a Planning Commission staff report dated February 24, 2004 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the CEQA Addendum and all other applications regarding the Project, including Amendments to the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, at a noticed public hearing on February 24, 2002, the Planning Commission considered the staff report, the CEQA Addendum and all written and oral testimony submitted to them, and based thereon, adopted Resolution 4-11 recommending adoption of the CEQA Addendum, Resolution 4-12 recommending adoption of the proposed amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and Resolution No. 4-13 recommending approval of Stage 1 and Stage 2 Rezone and Stage 2 Development Plan, which resolutions are incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, a City Council staff report dated Marchl 6, 2004 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the CEQA Addendum and the Project, including the proposed amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, at a noticed public hearing on March 16, 2004, the City Council considered the staff report, the CEQA Addendum (together with the prior EIR, Mitigated Negative Declaration and Negative Declaration described in the Addendum), the Planning Commission recommendations, and all written and oral teStimony submitted at the public hearing; and 3 WHEREAS, on March 16 2004, the City Council adopted a Resolution adopting the CEQA Addendum, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council approves the following General Plan Amendment based on findings that the amendment is in the pUblic interest and that the General Plan as so amended will remain internally consistent. A. Amend Section l-la, the General Plan Land Use Map (Exhibit B). B. Amend Table 2.1, Land Use Summary, Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment Area to modify the table with the new acreages shown below: General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Changes Previously Increase or Land Use Designations (gross acres) Approved Proposed Decrease L Low Density Residential 22.7 ac 33.4 ac +10.7 ac M Medium Density Residential 120.5 ac 125.0 ac +4.5 ac Medium Density Residential/Community 13.0 ac removed -13.0 ac M/CP Park HS High School Site (portion) 20.0 ac removed -.20.0 ac MS Middle School Site 30.6 ac 25.2 ac -5.4 ac ES Elementary School Site 10.0 ac 11).0 ac 0.0 ac P/SP Public/Semi-Public 3.9 ac 6.3 ac +2.4 ac CP Community Park 52.0 ac 65.9 ac +13.9 ac NP Neighborhood Park 5.6 ac 5.6 ac 0.0 ac .. NS Neighborhood Square 2.0 ac 2,0 ac 0.0 ac OS Open Space/Stream Corridor/Multi-Use Trail 9.0 ac 12.0 ac +3.0 ac · ' ' ~'" Total Gross Acres 289.3 ac 285:4 ac -3.9 ac Units Total Units 1,425 du 1,290 du -135 du Low Density Units 91 du 121 du +30 du Medium Density Units 1,334 du 1,169 du -165 du BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council approves the following Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment based on findings that the amendment is consistent with the Dublin General Plan and that the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan as so amended will remain internally consistent. A. Amend Figure 4.1, Land Use Map, to modify the land use designations for the Area F North project site as shown on attached EXhibit B, incorporated herein by reference. B. Amend Table 4.1 to modify the table with the new acreages shown below: 4 General plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Changes Previously Increase or Land Use Designations (gross acres) Approved Proposed Decrease L Low Density Residential 22.7 ac 33.4 ac +10.7 ac M Medium Density Residential 120.5 ac 125.0 ac +4.5 ac Medium Density Residential/Community 13.0 ac removed -13.0 ac M/CP Park HS High School Site (portion) 20.0 ac removed -.20.0 ac MS Middle School Site 30.6 ac 25.2 ac -5.4 ac ES Elementary School Site 10.0 ac 10.0 ac 0.0 ac P/SP Public/Semi-Public 3.9 ac 6.3 ac +2.4 ac CP Community Park 52.0 ac 65.9 ac +13.9 ac NP Neighborhood Park 5.6 ac 5.6 ac 0.0 ac NS Neighborhood Square 2.0 ac 2.0 ac 0.0 ac OS Open Space/Stream Corridor/Multi-Use Trail 9.0 ac 12.0 ac +3.0 ac Total Gross Acres 289.3 ac 285.4 ac -3.9 ac Units Total Units 1,425 du 1,290 du -135 du Low Density Units 91 du 121 du +30 du Medium Density Units 1,334 du 1,169 du -165 du C. Amend the following Tables to reflect land use changes as shown on the Land Use Change Table above: a. Table 4.2 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Population and Employment Summary; and b. Table 4.5 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Town Center Commercial Subarea Development Potential c. Table 4.6 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Town Center Residential Subarea Development · · potential d. Table 4.9 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Fallon Village Center Subarea Development Potential PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 16th day of March 2004 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk G:XAgendasX2004\CCreslkeaAreaFGPA3-16.doc 5 EXHIBIT Mr. peabody suggested for the Planning Commission to take the time to read the documents prepared by Staff. He recommended continuing the item until after the IKEA hearing to allow Staff time to prepare the additional traffic information requested by the Planning Commission. Cm. Fasulkey continued the item as suggested by Mr. Peabody. He directed Staff to compile the additional information requested regarding the traffic study. 8.3 PA 02-34 IKEA Retail Complex - Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, General Plan/Specific Plan Amendment, PD - Planned Development rezoning with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans, Development Agreement and Site Development Review. The proposed project is located on an approximately 27.54 acre site. The westerly portion of the site would include an approximately 317,000 square foot IKEA home furnishing facility and the easterly portion of the site would include an approximately 138,000 square foot retail center Cm. Fasulkey asked for the staff report. Andy Byde, Senior Planner, presented the staff report and a PowerPoint presentation. Mr. Byde explained that the Applicant, IKEA, is proposing an approximately 317,000 square foot IKEA home furnishing retail facility and an approximately 137,000 square foot retail center on a 27- acre site. The IKEA facility is proposed to be located on the westerly portion of the site and the retail center is proposed to be located on the easterly portion of the site. The site is bounded to the south by 1-580, to the west by Arnold Road, to the north the future Martinelli Way, and to the east, Hacienda Drive. Additionally, IKEA is requesting approval of various wall signage as well as a 99-foot tall pylon sign. The proposed project includes the following actions: The Applicant/Developer has applied to the City for a number of planning actions and approvals necessary for constructing the IKEA Home Furnishings Store and obtain general approvals for the retail center portion of the site. Analyses of these planning actions are included below. These actions collectively comprise PA 02-034 and include: · Certification of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR); · An Amendment to the General Plan reflecting the requested land use modification from Campus Office to General Commercial; · An Amendment to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan reflecting the requested land use modification from Campus Office to General Commercial; · A Planned Development Rezone/Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan to establish zoning and development standards for the entire Site; · A Site Development Review (SDR) requesting approval of the site layout of the IKEA portion of the site and the architecture of the IKEA building; · A Master Sign Program (MSP) requesting approval of directional signage, flags, and wall signs for the IKEA portion of the Project and a 99-foot tall freestanding sign to serve both the IKEA and the retail center sites; and · Development Agreement (DA) that would vest the laws applicable to the project for a five year time frame (a DA is required by the policies of the Specific Plan). ~5~i~ C~mmis'~io~ 3t~ q:~'~Tu,~, 24, 2004 ATTACHMENT Planning Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission refer its hearing jurisdiction on the Master Sign Program and the Site Development Review to the City Council, pursuant to Section 8.96.020.C.3 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Staff requests that the Planning Commission transfer original hearing jurisdiction on this project to the City Council due to the requirement that the General Plan, Specific Plan amendments and the Planned Development Rezoning be apprOVed by the City Council. Any comments or requested changes that the Planning Commission has to either the Conditions of Approval and or any of the proposed signage will be brought to the City Council. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: open Public Hearing, hear Applicant's presentation; question Staff, Applicant and the Public; close Public Hearing; deliberate; and adopt a resolution recommending the City Council certify the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report; adopt a resolution recommending the City Council approve amendments to the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; adopt a resolution recommending the City Council approve a Planned Development (PD) rez°ning with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans; adopt a resolution recommending the City Council approve a Site Development Review for the IKEA.portion of the Project; adopt a resolution recommending the City Council approve a Master Sign Program for IKEA; and adopt a resolution recommending the City Council adopt a Development Agreement for the IKEA project. Cm. Fasulkey opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to speak. Doug Greenholz, Applicant presented a PowerPoint for the project. He introduced the project team and explained the origins of IKEA and vision of the store. He stated that there are more than 192 stores worldwide in 31 countries. Dublin will be the third Bay Area store and Planned to open in 2005. IKEA would be an added benefit to the community. He provided the Planning Commission with an extensive overview of the project and proposed signage for the site. He thanked them for their consideration of the project. Randy Ackerman, Opus West, stated they have developed many projects in Dublin such as Hacienda Crossings, Emerald Point Office development, and Creekside Business Park. He discussed traffic circulation, parking, signage and the proposed tenants for the Lifestyle Center fof the site. Mr. Greenholz discussed the economic and job benefits for Dublin. He reiterated that IKEA is an overall benefit for the area. Cm. King asked if there were any other sites looked at in Dublin. Mr. Greenholz stated they looked at two other sites but felt this was the best site due to the infrastructure already in place and the surrounding retail. Cm. King asked the distance between this piece of property and BART station. Mr. Byde responded .$7 miles. He explained that generally the acceptable walkin§ distance for the United States is .25 mile. Cm. Nassar asked Mr. Greenholz about concerns with the height of the sign. Mr. Greenholz stated that, due to the combined sign with the adjacent retail, there is not sufficient room below the IKEA panel to allow visibility for the tenants in the Lifestyle Center. Cm. Nassar asked about the height of the IKEA section. Mr. Byde responded the bottom of the letters are approximately 88 feet. Cm. Machtmes asked the applicants why the City shOuld change the General Plan designation. Mr. Greenholz stated IKEA would compliment the surrounding retail. Part of the reason they are looking at this site is because it was available due to Commerce One falling out of their contract with Alameda County because office space is no longer viable. The studies that the City prOduced through Economic Planning Systems concluded that office would not be built for another 10 years. The benefits to the City are enormous - economically and part of the attractiveness is the location of the BART station. Cm. Machtmes asked if there is any data from the Emeryville store that tracks customers using BART. Mr, Greenholz said they do not track customers using BART. Mr: Ackerman stated there is also a bus stop going to be built On Martinelli Dr. Cm. Machtmes said there isn't any reason to expect to maximize the location next to BART. It is not reasonable to expect customers will take BART to a furniture store. Mr. Greenholz stated it does happen worldwide where customers come on mass transit. They shop and have the product shipped to their home. It is a big focus for IKEA to be close to public transit. Cm. Machtmes stated that one of the projected uses that maximizes the transit center orientation is high density residential. How will IKEA compliment the existing high density residential located 600' to the west. Mr. Greenholz stated IKEA has done a lot of screening along the back of the building. They have been working closely with Staff on landscaping and creating a buffer between IKEA and the mixed use along Arnold Road. Cm. Machtmes asked if it is the plan to buffer those two sites rather than incorporate them. Mr. Greenholz stated there is also very easy pedestrian access to and through the site coming from BART and the transit center. Cm. Machtmes stated he could not read the sign displayed on the PowerPoint slide and asked how will the 99 foot sign signal the driver of the location. Mr. Greenholz stated, based on a study conducted, the logo and the colors of the sign would be visible from the exit point at Hacienda Drive. Due to the size of the slide, it does not show that. Cm. Machtmes stated because it is a destination retail, wouldn't folks already know it's there. Mr. Greenholz stated they would love to propose a larger sign so it is readable from farther away. Cm. Machtrnes asked how the architecture is referred to having a European influence with such a large building. Mr. Greenholz responded IKEA warehouses on site, which requires a large building. The building is a prototypical building for IKEA. Cm. Nassar asked how many of the employees will be from the Tri-Valley area. Mr. Greenholz stated they would recruit locally from the area. Ted Wilcox, Dublin resident made a comment about traffic and bypassing the 580 by driving down Dublin Boulevard to get to the 680. ~ Cm. Fasulkey asked if there were any further questions of Staff; hearing none he closed the public hearing. Cm. King stated that on page 5 of the agenda statement is unclear. He asked for clarification on the following text: the DSEIR concluded that increased regional traffic beyond that anticipated in the 1993 EIR would result in potentially significant impacts on several intersections and road segments. Mitigation measures in the DSEIR proposed improvements to reduce these impacts to less than significant except at cumulative buildout for 2025for various 1-580 and 1-680 freeway segments, already operating below the acceptable level of service D. As a result of the Project, the traffic analysis anticipates that the traffic on these freeway segments, will increase by an average of approximately 1% He stated that appears that there are already below the acceptable level of service and this will make it worse. Mr. Byde stated that there are segments on that freeway that operate below acceptable levels of service as a result of development in San Joaquin County. Those levels are not resulting in Dublin but resulting from Livermore and east of Livermore. Cm. King asked if the reason that there were no measures proposed to reduce the impacts was because they would be minimal. Mr. Byde said the reason is that there are no feasible mitigations. The only potential mitigation would be to extend BART to San Joaquin County or additional .lanes to the 1-580. Cm. King said this project would increase traffic on those freeways segments by an average of 1%. He has concerns with the additional traffic on the 1-580 and the potential for rear-ending the vehicles in front of him. He asked the range. Mr. Byde said .5 % to approximately 2%. Mr. Kuzbari stated that during the a.m. peak hour, the campus office development would generate a lot more trips than a commercial development for that parcel. He stated the project will be required to contribute to Tri Valley Transportation Fees to help fund regional improvement projects that has been planned. For example, there are plans to improve some of the 1-580 interchanges. Cm. King asked why the original General Plan designation was office for that site. Mr. Byde stated that when the specific plan was done, the Transit Center was not part of the specific plan area. That portion was added in 2001. Cm. King asked why. Mr. Peabody explained because that area was originally part of Camp Parks and were subsequently transferred to Alameda County Surplus Property Authority. The plans were developed to maximize development around the Transit Station. Cm. Machtmes asked how does the City or Staff know that the project will be built as shown and in a timely manner. Mr. Byde stated given the current market dynamics additional retailers in the market that are · not here have a desire to be in Dublin. Cm. Machtmes asked is there a reason to think that this project is right for this designation and will the City end up with the same situation in the future to accommodate a Wal-Mart type use. Mr. Byde stated based on the discussions with Alameda County and plans and improvements set forth and the residential development occurring, there is no way a big box retail like Wal- Mart could afford to pay for the land value. Any future projects that come in are subject to the plans in place and the Commission and Council's approval of a particular project. Cm. Fasulkey wanted on the record was his concern with the height of the sign and would like to see it stay at 75 feet. Cm. Nassar asked if the Master Sign Program is being requested to be referred to the City Council. Mr. Peabody responded yes. Cm. Machtmes stated he does not agree with .37 miles being greater than what people are willing to walk. He feels it would be a terrible misuse of a piece of property that is closely related to the BART station. Cm. King agreed with Cm. Machtmes. It is not consistent with the theory of the original plan in relation to the BART station. It is also going to make the traffic on the freeway worse. It is a beautiful proposal but not for this location. Cm. Nassar stated that he is in favor of the project. Cm. Fasulkey asked Cm. King where is there a better location for the project. Cm. King stated something similar to the Costco location in San Ramon that is not right off the freeway. Cm. Fasulkey asked Mr. Peabody for some direction. Mr. Peabody stated that there are four Planning Commissioners, which will require 3 votes in favor. What is being heard is a 2 to 2 vote. Ms: Faubion suggested that the items be sent to the City Council withOut a recommendation. from the Planning Commission. There was much discussion on whether to approve or deny the IKEA project. From the Planning Commission discussion, it was clear there were not enough votes to send a positive recommendation to the City Council because a positive recommendation requires 3 votes. The Planning Comission was okay recommending certification of the SEIR though, so that was the first motion. Motion #1 - On motion by Cm. King, seconded by Cm. Nassar, with a 3-1-1 vote with Cm. Machtmes voting no and Cm. Jermings absent the Planning Commission approved RESOLUTION NO. 04 - 10 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE IKEA PROJECT PA 02-034