Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 7.4 SPStudyScarlettCourtAGENDA STATEMENT CITY CLERK File# 410-55 CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 21, 2003 SUBJECT: Scarlett Court Specific Plan Study (PA 03-063) Report Prepared by: Kristi Bascom, Associate Planner ATTACHMENTS: RECOMMENDATIONs" '~ 21: Scarlett Court Specific Plan area map Excerpts from minutes of City Council meetings from October 1, 2002, September 3, 2002, August 6, 2002, and June 18, 2002. Receive Staff presentation Authorize Staff to continue the Scarlett Court Specific Plan Study. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: The Community Development Department has budgeted $70,000 for the completion of the Specific Plan for FY 2003/2004, including $40,000 for an economic study and $30,000 for internal circulation study. DESCRIPTION: On June 18, 2002 the City Council authorized the initiation ora specific plan for the Scarlett Court area in order to aSsess the best uses for the properties in the area. At this meeting, the City Council also discussed the merits of enacting a development, moratorium in the area in order to prevent activity occurring that could negatively impact the outcome of the desired specific plan. The City Council continued the discussion of a possible moratorium over several meetings (August 6, 2002, September 3, 2002, and October 1, 2002) and a community meeting was held to discuss various moratorium alternatives with property owners. On October 1, 2002, the City Council decided not to proceed with a moratorium and voted to delay work on the specific plan for one year. BACKGROUND: The Scarlett Court area consists of approximately 26 parcels, consisting of approximately 52 acres of land and is bounded on the west by Dougherty Road, the North by Dublin Blvd., the south by 1-580.right-of- way, and the east by the Iron Horse Trail right-of-way (see Attachment 1). The area has a General Plan designation of Business Park/Industrial: Outdoor Storage (F.A.R: .25 to .40). The General Plan designation anticipates retail and manufacturing activities conducted outdoors such as mobile home or construction materials storage. The zoning for the entire area is M-1 (Light Industrial), which allows warehousing, industrial and other similar uses. The M-1 zoning was originally established under the County jurisdiction and has remained unchanged since the City was incorporated. G:~PA#L2003\03-063 Scarlett Court Specific Plan\CC Staff Report Oct 2003.doc COPIES TO: Property/Business Owners Project Planner ~ ITEM NO. ~0 The Scarlett Court area contains the following uses: building material sales, light industrial uses, outdoor storage, mini storage, auto repair, and new/used automobile sales. The predominant use within the area is auto-related. The area has many large and underutilized parcels, including Dolan Lumber, which is located at 6365 Scarlett Court and ceased operating in approximately June of 2001. The City's Public Works Department is also in the process of designing the full improvement of Dougherty Road from Highway 580 to Dublin Boulevard. Prior to completing the design of this project, it is necessary to evaluate the future of Scarlett Court and the circulation system for the properties Within the Specific Plan boundaries. During the Goals and Objectives session for Fiscal Year 2003/2004, the City Council assigned a high priority to completing a specific plan for the Scarlett Court area. Pursuant to City Council direction of October 1, 2002 to delay work on the specific plan for one year, Staff is now requesting authorization to begin the study for the area. Staff is not requesting a moratorium on the uses within the Specific Plan Study area. If such authorization is given, Staff will be preparing a work program, anticipated budget, and Requests For Proposals (RFPs) to send out to consultants. Staff anticipates the necessary consultants would be an economic consultant to determine demand for particular uses and a traffic consultant to evaluate circulation patterns. In the next fiscal year, Staff may request funds to hire a design consultant to assist in preparing design guidelines for the area. Staff will also develop a schedule for community meetings with property owners and business tenants in the area. Property owners in the Scarlett Court Specific Plan area have been notified of the City Council consideration of this item tonight. If Council would like to proceed with the specific plan at this point, Staff will return shortly to the City Council to request authorization to send out the RFPs and present a draft work program and anticipated budget amount. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council: (1) receive Staff presentation and (2) authorize Staff to continue the Scarlett Court Specific Plan study. PUBHC HEARING - CONSIDERATION OF URGENCY MORATORIUM 'ORDINANCE IN $CARLETr COURT AREA 8:24 p.m. 6:4 (410~20) No Staff Report was presented. This item was continued from the September 3, 2002 Cio' Council mee~'n~ at which ~'me the Council directed S~aff to meet v~th business and property owners in the area, and to prepare an urgency ordinance to implement Altema~ve 2 wtu'ch would protu'bit alt new uses that ace Currentlypermitted and cond~'abnallyPermitted in' the area during the terra of the moratorium, which wiit last at least as long as the Specih'c Zlan Study, but no more than two years total.. Ada~'a'onally~ the CiO' Council direeted Staff to remove "Automobile/Vetu'cle Storage Lot~ as a protu'bited us~. Mayor Lockhart suggested that because we have had a considerable amount of comment on this and there is not a great deal of support on the part of the businesses for a moratorium, she would like to see an oppo~~ offered to allow them to move forward with their plans and table this for one year. This could be readdressed in a year to see if there are major changes that have occurred. Cm. Oravetz stated he would agree. Cm. Sbranti clarified we wouldn't do the Specific'Plan for one year and. there will be no moratorium. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 21 REGULAR MEETING October 1,2002 PAGE 501 ATTACHMENT · Mayor Lockhart stated we would allow them to come in as they normally would for plan approvals. Cm. Sbranti pointed out Staff has been given a lot of projects and they are currently inundated~ ' ' · Cm. McCormick asked if the intention is to bring this back in a year and do some planning. Mayor Lockhart replied yes~ we would give them a year to do what they need to do. Cm. Sbranti stated he feR doing a Specific Plan in a year will be more compatible because we will know what the area will look like. Cm. Zika clarified that this would be all the uses currently allowed and if a use goes in and they have a ! 0 years lease... City Attorney Silver stated if the City Council wants to they can table this issue as it relates to the Specific Plan since it was not part of the item before the Council tonight, and direct Staff to bring back the Specific Plan for consideration and discussion by the Council, or they can formally direct Staff to not do any work. Cm. Oravetz made a motion to table this and direct Staff to not do any work on fids. Mayor Lockhart opened the public hearing. Doreen Green, Amarillo Road~ representing Busick and Geary, stated most of their contractors have. small spaces, which they use for offices and paperwork. They come in in the morning and they have a nice quiet time during the day. Dublin should be glad to have some of these national companies. They are an asset rather than a detriment and should not be pushed away. The bogey man is still there and they will have to come back again. Everybody's in a fright mode with the economic situation. They thought they could put up a' faqade in front of their building and they want to provide the wherewithal to allow these companies to exist rather than chasing them away. We can't just have a seascape of automobile dealers. They should be allowed to use the current uses rather than the suggested changes. She stated she was happy to hear the City Council is tabling this to give people time for thought. They hope to provide a better curbside view than what they've got. They would like to continue providing space for these small businesses to co exist in the City. CITY coUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 21 REGULAR MEETING October 1, 2002 PAGE 502 Peter MacDonald, Main Street, Pleasanton, stated he feR this is a step in the right direction. Every use in Dublin is subject to a SDR by City Staff so there is a control ff something starts to happen. In one year, hopefully they will have a consensus from everybody on what needs to be done. Peter McGaw, Walnut Creek, stated'he felt the proposal is an excellent one and they support it. He was concerned about lack of engagement between Staff and property owners. He stated he hopes the Council will encourage Staff to talk to property owners as tiffs item comes back in a year. Glen Kierstead, Regional Street, stated he applauded the decision to take this off the agenda for a year. Their mini-storage program has an expansion planned and will come fOrWard within the next £ months. They plan to spend some money on exposure to Dublin Boulevard and this 1,000 .scIft area. He requested clarification the issue of FAR was brought up when they talked about this before. Outside wall to outside wail is measured and makes no mention of outside parking spaces.' Mayor Lockhart clarified that what was on the agenda was consideration of an urgency ordinance. She suggested that he work with the Economic Development Director and City Attorney on this specific' issue. Mayor Lockhart closed public hearing. On motion of Cm. Oravetz, seconded by Cm. McCormick, and by unanimous vote, the City Council agreed to table the issue for a period of one year. PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERATION OF URGENCY ORDINANCE ESTABHSHING A MORATORIUM IN SCARL.ETr COURT AREA 8:56 p.m. 6.3 (410-20) Mayor Lockhart opened the public hearing. Senior Planner Andy Byde presented the Staff Report. This item was continued from the August 6, 2002 City Council meeting. At this meeting, the City Council heard the proposed moratorium, as well as concerns from business and property owners regarding the impacts of the moratorium. The Council then voted to continue the item and directed Staff to evaluate additional alternatives to the proposed moratorium. Mr. Byde discussed the proposed moratorium and the moratorium process. Alternatives for consideration included: Alternative 1: Modify Zoning Ordinance to Require CUPs for uses during the term of the si, Study. Alternative 2: Prohibiting Certain Use Types during the term of the SI' or a maximum of 2 years. Alternative $: Limiting Modifications of Properties over 2.5 Acres. Mr. Byde presented an analysis of the 5 options currently before the City Council, including the proposed moratorium, Alternative 1, Alternative 2, Alternative 3, and the No Action option. Staff recommended that the Council determine ff ministerial and discretionary actions could negatively impact the outcome of the desired SP; and a) if the scope and exceptions proposed in draft Ordinance are determined to be appropriate, waive the reading and on an urgency basis, ADOFr Ordinance which will impose a moratorium on any ministerial and discretionary actions (subject to the exceptions listed in the Agenda Statement); - OR- b) ff the scope and exceptions proposed by Staff are not appropriate, then provide direction to Staff on the 4 remaining options listed in the Agenda Statement. Mr. Byde stated option 2 could allow the E1 Monte replacement building. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 21 REGULAR MEETING September 3, 2002 PAGE 404 Cm. Sbranti noted that under alternative I this would not prohibit the City from taking. He asked for elaboration on this. Mr. Byde there is a Cm. Zika the study Mr. Byde changed. Cm. Zika explained that the City Council would have to make the necessary findings and potential for exposure to litigation. asked fi, under alternate $, any proposal on a site more than 2.5 acres before is done, they would have to come before the City Council anyway?. stated it WOuld prohibit the City from acting on it unless the ordinance is stated basically all bets are off for a year and a half. Mr. Ambrose clarified it could be procesSed, but thc City Council couldn't act on it. Cm. Zika asked if back on alternate 2, they could only approve those items not lined out or as modified by Council? Mayor Lockhat~ asked how alternatives 1, 2 and $ might affect Mr. Corrie with dividing his $ parcels. Mr. Byde replied that alternates 1 and 2 would have no affect, but it would be prohibited under alternative $. Mayor Lockhart asked with regard to the maintenance building for E1 Monte RV- they would not be affected by any of these alternatives. Mr. Byde stated this was correct, but it must still go through the SDR process. They are currently in the plan checking process. Mayor Lockhart commented on the metal building on the lumber yard site and expressed concern about this. If they had an allowed use, how would we deal with this building? Mr. Byde stated it goes back to what extent can we make appropriate findings under a CUP as described in our Ordinance. The newer uses ail have new buildings - all proposed new buildings, they weren't required to have them. Could we require them to make substantial changes? CITY COUNCIL MINtTFES VOLUME 21 REGULAR MEETING September 3, 2002 PAGE 405 Ms. Silver Stated in order to grant a. CUP, certain findings have to be made, and it has to be on a case-by-case basis. There could be facts made requiring modifications to the building. Structures must be compatible with other structures in the vicinity. Since the last uses have included new buildings, the Planning Commission could potentially find that the proposal was not going to be compatible with other land uses in the area and they could deny a CUP. If you can deny a CUP, this includes the power to make conditions. Carl Aaron, Ironwood Drive, stated he noticed this item at the last meeting and stated he has no financial or family connection to it, except to shop there. He has been in the same house since 1962 and shopped at Dolan Lumber, the Smog Station, and was happy to hear that the shops and uses in that area are a good thing to have. He stated he agrees with this. Mr. Dolan died not too long ago. He talked about a commendation Mike Dolan received years ago where he loaned some large timbers as a result of an accident on the freeway. He advised that he has not come to an opinion about the moratorium. Stuart Ross, Lafayette, CA, landlords of 6500 Scarlett Court, Miracle Auto Shop stated he wrote a letter to Mr. Byde and thought in I 0~95 their property was to be taken for a right turn from Dougherty Road. Given that a condemnation action is likely to occur in the next few years, he did not see a benefit to include their parcel in the SP study and requested exemption. Michael Reiss, San Ramon, CA stated he was here regarding the former Dolan Lumber Company, at 6~65 Scarlett Court. He reminded the City Council of comments made by the party also interested in the property to turn the property into a Marine Center. He stated he has a vision for the property. He has been in contact with a total of $ auto franchises who are very interested in this property. His initial plan is to install an atrium style showroom, which will block out the rear of the property. Additionally, plans would be to re-blacktop the area, install new perimeter fencing, new lighting and eventually this will catalyst the area. He has all intention to build new state of the art facility that will face out toward the freeway. He intends to tap onto the synergies of surrounding businesses. This will create jobs for people in the Dublin area and produce $18 million in taxable revenue. He has a vision of erecting 4 facilities on the total 6.5 acres and erecting a new Dublin auto mall. He hopes the City Council will allow sales and service of automobiles on this property. Glenn Kierstead, commented on the State Law which requires findings be made related to health, safety and welfare. He asked how this affects public health, safety and welfare? Mr. Byde referenced the second page of the ordinance, CITY COUNCIL MINLrFES VOLUME g 1 REGULAR MEETING September 3, 2002 PAGE 406 "WH£1~AS~ unffrn¢ly chanses of uses within the Ama dutinX the lime &at ~he CiO~ completea the Specific tYan could ultimately frustrate the City's lonx term effo~s to ensure the area is properly developed as prope~ies become suitable for reuse, either by allowin$ the iniEation of uses incompadble ~th those recommended by the Specific Plan study or by directly preventin$ the use of prol~rlies as recommended in thc study7 and WHEREAS, based on the fore$oin~, the City Council finds that allowin$ development to continue to o~¢ur in a disorganized fashion poses a current and immediate threat to the pubh'v health~ safe~y and welfare because it will likely cause land use incompat~bih'ties; and WH£REAS~ the City Council finds that ~he approval ofaddit~bnal subdivisions, use permils, variances~ buildin$ l~rmits, or any other applicable ~h'samtionary permit~ except for buildin$ permits and discre~bnaryt~ermits submi#ed pdor to September 3, 2002, which would allow the modification of the properEes ~thin the Saarle# Couz~ area, ~herefore would result in that threat to pubb'c healflb safety and welfare. ~ He stated there is a concern and the findings are articulated that uses that go forward without a SP, those uses could jeopardize the health, safety and welfare. Mayor Lockhart stated the SP has always been designated for the entire area south of Dublin Boulevard, which we feel needs a SP. Mr. Byde stated land use incompafibilites are what the specific actions are intended to prevent. Mr. Yderstead disagreed and stated he did not feel this addresses health, safety and welfare. He has a mini-storage facility behind one of the dealerships and behind 84 Lumber and he is land locked. He has no visibility. His parcels are above 2.5 acres and they plan to do some expansions and he asked ff this will prohibit the expansion. The expansion they are planning requires no variance. Mr. Ambrose stated the Staff Report shows one of the prohibited uses would be a vehicle storage yard. Mr. Byde stated option $ would limit with regard to lot size. Mayor Lockhart stated options g and 3 would limit his ability during the SP study. Mr. Kierstead requested that the City Council put themselves in his position. He asked them to consider the three issues of safety health and welfare and stated he did not feel they can make these findings as a Council. The City can control the development out there and you don't need a mandate to tell them how to develop. CITY COUNCIL MINIYrEs VOLUME 21 REGULAR MEETING September 3, 2002 PAGE 407 Doreen Green, Amarillo Road stated she was representing 2 landowners in the area, Busick and Gearing. They have multi-tenants. She has been a homeowner since 1965 and involved in local business since 1970. She has a rapport with the Cit3r and its growth. The first thing that confused her was that they were considered a blight area. As far as restrictions on use of buildings, we are saying some uses will not be permitted anymore; various uses that all give something to the community. They provide a great many jobs and put money back into the coffers of the City. There are a tremendous amount of autos being sold out there. There are other uses that need to be addressed. Their tenants offer a very unique service. In today's business climate, private development will take care of the area in due course as the need arises. She agreed that on their property they do not have the highest and best use. They would like to improve the property further to go along with the improvement of the City. At the end of the last meeting, there was some discussion about property owner representatives meeting with City Staff to thrash out some of the issues. She stated she hoped the City would give them an opportunity to have this meeting before forcing this down their throats. This could cost owners money. Peter MacDonald~ Pleasanton, stated they oppose the moratorium in virtually all its forms, particularly alternatives 2 and 3. The ordinance, as proposed, is like taking a baseball bat after a fly. If you go with a moratorium approach, you stop redevelopment that you want to happen. It will get in the way with redevelopment that the Council wants. He stated Mr. Reiss does not have a lease on the property. They are also negotiating with the boat company. The market isn't creating blight, but is dying to put that property back in use. They favor a gP~ provided they don't end up with a moratorium that keeps them from 2 years of rent on this property. Just let it happen. This is a freeway commercial location. He stated he thought the direction was to allow the City Staff to go back and work with the property owners and it was ultimately decided that the City felt there was no need to meet. He distributed a document to the Council making suggestions related to a possible approach to an Interim Ordinance. (N077~: No copy wasX~¥¢n to thc CiOz Clerk for i~clusion in the ~vco~t.) He stated this was what they wanted to $o over with Staff. They would like to have a chance to come up with options. Cm. Oravetz commented this sounds a lot like option I. Mr. MacDonald stated what they propose is far simpler than option I. Everything in the area would require a use permit. Then they could see ff the use is compatible. This would be far simpler for the Zoning Administrator and for Staff. Mr. Ambrose stated Staff has not seen this proposal. C~ COuNciL--S VOLUME 21 REGULAR MEETING September 3, 2002 PAGE 408 Ms. Silver stated she just read it and felt paragraph 2 is too vague. The state law that authorizes a moratorium allows the City Council to adopt an interim ordinance to prohibit any uses that may De in conflict with a SP. In her opinion, a moratorium ordinance has to focus on uses. Alternative 2 does not prohibit ali uses, it allows a number of uses. The purpose of this statute is to allow the City Council, when considering changes to a G? or SP or zoning, to say let's put everything on hold while we decide what we want to come out of the process. The Council did this several years ago on Village Parkway. Cm. Sbranti asked fundamentally how this is different from option 1. Ms. Silver stated option 1 lays out a clearer process. Mr. MacDonald's appears to not follow a standard process, but provides too much discretion to the Zoning Administrator without guidance. Cm. Zika asked if his proposal would be subject to the same disadvantages as option I. Ms. Silver stated what he is proposing is very indefinite and not as structured as alternative 1. Mark Harvey, Dublin Honda, stated he came tonight to make sure he does not qualify for any of the alternatives. He stated he thought No. 2 sounds good as long as we don't include used cars. Don Price, E1 Monte RV, stated he thought they had gotten in under the wire, but now wasn't sure. He submitted his plans the day before the deadline for plan check. Mr. Byde stated the SDR section requires that for any new building in excess of 1,000 square feet, the City must make findings and discretionary items had to be submitted prior to that date. His item was submitted as a building permit. This was what he referenced. Mr. Price stated he wants to fit in wherever he can get his building. He is running about 800 motor homes through this building. When it rains, it is really tough with a fleet this size. They want their service building. Elpi Abulencia stated he wanted to make the Council stronger in its direction and decision. Based on his business experience, he asked why don't we simplify the playing field. Why not go with No. I ? The Mayor said previously, "daily we face the problem of growth and strive to understand people and to know who we are and where we are going". Along with the sustainability resource effort, he suggested we find out what the CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME gl REGULAR MEETING Sepfember 3, 2002 PAGE 409 people want really, what the owners want and tenants want and in interest of saving time, have a strong foot of what we are going to do, not just a moratorium and something that will precipitate conflict and disharmony among the people. Mayor Lockhart closed the public hearing. Cm. Zika stated he felt it is unfortunate that Staff and the property owners could not meet. Peter's idea could expose the city to claims of taking property. This whole area is not blighted, but we are saying it is an entrance to the City and with modifications to Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road so we can do this without piecemealing it. He would be willing to entertain alternates 2 or $, which seem to offer the greatest flexibility to property owners. This would allow us to develop some comprehensive plan on what we ultimately want to do with the area. Mayor Lockhart stated she felt this would give owners a year to deal with some sort of a plan. The Council has the responsibility to look at this for the benefit of the entire community. We are not asking people to make changes tomorrow, but look at changes that could be accommodated with a SP. We are trying to do the least amount of damage to everyone and we can best do this as part of an overall SF. She felt alternative g gets closest to doing this with listing businesses to include and those to exclude. This gives the business community direction on where the plan is going. Mr. Byde stated it is reasonable to expect this could be done in 1:5 or 14 months. Mr. Ambrose stated we have involved property owners and business owners heavily in the past. The issue is what do we do in the interim. Cm. McCormick stated she was leaning toward option 2 as this gives the most flexibility to the property owners. We're not trying to put anybody out of business. She would like to see something as flexible as possible while we are planning for the future. Cm. Sbranti stated he doesn't like option 3~ and feels option 2 is better than a strict moratorium. This has been done in the past. He agreed with Cm. Zika that it is unfortunate that a meeting has not taken place between property owners, businesses and Staff. We should look to make sure they all have frontages through the SP process and look at circulation. With option 1, he still feR this gives flexibility. Cm. Oravetz stated he was sticking with option 1. He did not feel it is a threat to heaRh safety and welfare. ' We do want to change that area. Option I gives the business owners the control they need to continue to operate their businesses. He was against a CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 21 REGULAR MEETING September 3, 2002 PAGE 410 moratorium at this time, but was all for doing something different out.there. He supports alternative 1. Cm. McCormick asked if we adopt option 2, how this will affect the Corrie property and Miracle Auto Painting? Mr. Ambrose stated all properties are covered, but relate only to shaded uses. Permitted uses are identified in the Staff Report. R doesn't preclude everything. Cm. Sbranti felt the sooner we get the SP done, businesses will benefit and he felt option £ will still allow some uses. The Village Parkway precedent worked well. Cm. Oravetz felt we will make a very unlevel playing field for them to compete in Dublin. We will be tying their hands with option 2. Mayor Lockhart disagreed. Cm. Oravetz asked ff Staff should also go back and look at Mr. MacDonald's options. Mr. Ambrose stated the City Council could add or delete uses at this time. Cm. Sbranti asked about a contractor's office - is this just small office space? Mr. Byde responded it is generally equipment storage associated with contracting. Cm. Sbranti asked about recreational facility indoor. Mr. Byde stated this would be a gymnasium or arcade. There's a whole list of about 20 that fall into this category. Cm. McCormick asked about an automobile vehicle storage lot and ff this would be prohibited. Mr. Byde stated it would not be prohibited under his current use, but it couldn't go forward during the term of the moratorium. Cm. McCormick stated she would consider moving this one off the list. The Council agreed to take this one off the list. CITY COUNCIL/~i~ VOLUME 21 REGULAR MEETING September 3, 2002 PAGE 411 Mr. Byde suggested that in order for Staff to meet with property owners, that this item be brought back to the'October 1 ~ meeting. On motion of Cm. McCormick, seconded by Mayor Lockhart, and by majority vote, the Council directed Staff to return to the Council in October with option 2 and add back auto vehicle storage lot. Additionally, Staff was directed to meet with property owners and have them indicate what other uses they want included during the i4 months. Cm. Oravetz voted in opposition to the motion. CONSIDERATION OF URGENCY ORDINANCE ESTABHSHING A MORATORIUM IN SCARI,ETT COURT AREA 8:17p.m. 6.3 (410-20) Mayor Lockhart opened the public hearing. Senior Planner Andy Byde presented the Staff Report and advised that in June of 2002, the City Council voted to initiate and define the Scarlett Court Area Specific Plan and directed Staff to provide notification to the tenants and property owners within the Scarlett Court Area that the Council is considering a moratorium for the area. Mr. Byde discussed: Moratorium; Concern of Businesses regarding the Moratorium; Moratorium Process; Environmental Review; and Redevelopment. Mr. Byde stated Staff recommended that following the public hearing~ the Council determine ff ministerial and discretionary actions could negatively impact the outcome of the desired Specific Plan (bP); and ff the scope and exceptions proposed in the draft Ordinance are determined to be appropriate, waive the reading and adopt the Ordinance on an Urgency Basis which will impose a moratorium on any ministerial and discretionary actions; -OR- ff the scope and exceptions'proposed by Staff are not appropriate then direct Staff to modify the Ordinance; -OR- ff the CitY Council determines that no negative impact will result On the anticipated SP, then take no additional action; and finally~ review the previous Redevelopment Study and provide appropriate direction to Staff. If approved tonight, the moratorium would go into effect for 45 days and then be brought back on September 17th. cou c,. VOLUME 21 REGULAR MEETING August 6, 2002 PAGE 367 Cm. Sbranti questioned when Specific Plans were done for Village Parkway and BART, ff the City adopted a moratorium during those processes? Mayor Lockhart advised that the City did not in those instances, but did one in the historic district. Cm. Zika asked ff we made a commitment to El Monte RV that they could replace their building? City Attorney Elizabeth Silver stated the City had to acquire a building and the City paid for the building. There is no agreement or obligation on the part of the City to allow construction of a building on that parcel different than any other approval process to get a building. Cm. Sbranti asked ff another alternative of not doing moratorium could be considered, but where the City Council could review specific proposals. Ms. Silver advised that this would require changes to a number of provisions to the Zoning Ordinance because of the number of possible applications. The Municipal Code would have to be changed with regard to building permits~ etc. Cm. Oravetz indicated he would like to explore Cm. Sbranti's idea after the public hearing. Mayor Lockhart read into the record a statement submitted by Kevin Peters (General Manager) Dublin Auto Center~ 6015 Scarlett Court. "The Sonic Automotive Group has invcated heavily into the Scamlatt Ct. ama with the Dublin Auto Center. We have concern that the xrowth rnorato~um could effect our investrnent. We am not clcar on the proposal and would like to learn mom before provith'n$ comment. ~ Don Price, E1 Monte RV, 6301 Scarlett Court, stated with regard to the obligation to replace their building, the City never told them they would get a replacement building, but it was always an understanding that the back building is a vital part of their operation. They submitted their architectural plans and they are currently in for review. He was not sure they met the time requirements. They are in for plan check now. Hopes they will be allowed to go forward with their building. JeffJacobson, 6500 Scarlett Court, stated he owns the Miracle Auto Painting business, which has been there for almost $0 years. His concern is are we trying to tie this to the whole development of Scarlett Court. How much time do they actually have there? He has a long term lease. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 21 REGULAR MEETING August 6, 2002 PAGE 368 Mayor Ix~ckhart stated she felt the SP will help them deal with these issues. Ms. Silver stated there was a verbal inquiry and Staff sent a letter explaining that there are no particular plans at this particular time. Public Works Director Lee Thompson stated we have the widening of Dougherty Road as part of the 5 year CIP and part of the TIP program. We do anticipate widening there either next year or the following year. There are a number of road configurations that could occur and which we will look at in the study. Steve Miller, Attorney representing interests of Busick Properties, stated they own light industrial space which they lease to tenants and have for the last $0 years. They rely on having new tenants come in when old tenants leave. They are concerned that this moratorium would hamper this interest with the one year vacancy provision which would preclude new tenant from going in and new business licenses. They won't do this ff they can't get a business license. The implementation of this ordinance is a bit premature. It would make more sense to have all the information to see ff redevelopment makes sense before you implement this moratorium. Holding off does not financially impact the City in any way. They urged an abundance of caution on the Council's part prior to making a drastic decision affecting the property owner's part regarding their land. Mayor Lockhart clarified that the moratorium is not tied to a redevelopment study. They just asked that this be brought back for review. Mr. Miller stated Cm. Sbranti made a suggestion that on a case-by-case basis, we evaluate changes in use. This makes more sense than an outright ban on uses. They would request that their interests are given the same dignity as auto dealerships. Peter McDonald stated he was here on behalf of Mike Fitzpatrick, related to the Dolan Lumber Site, 6.5 acres. They support the idea of doing a SP, but imposition of this moratorium ordinance is excessive and would be counterproductive. They suggest that any new uses be subject to a CUP and go through some kind of City review. If you have the power to prohibit something, you have the power to allow it with conditions. They would prefer some kind of a use permit basis to allow things to happen. The real threat is the thought that the City will not allow any new substantial buildings. Prohibition against use of existing building is most troubling. This comes right out of the planning books from Berkeley and Santa Monica. He stated he would be very disappointed to have Dublin get into that kind of a planning policy. This could become an opportunity to have public/private partnership. The Dolan property is a natural for redevelopment. Mr. Dolan is 82 years old and doesn't want to make any changes in the property right CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 2 I REGULAR MEETING August 6, 2002 PAGE 369 now. They encouraged a cooperative process to look at best use. They are negotiating with a boat retailer, a substantial company. They don't need to do any major building expansions. A look at long term uses - the boat dealership fits what you would expect to come out of the St' for the area. They don't have strong feelings one way or the other regarding redevelopment. A moratorium would not play well with a jury. They would like to see a moratorium that allows properties to improve during the process. Michael Fitzpatrick, representing Dolan Lumber Company, stated they are currently negotiating with a boat company. This property was not in good housekeeping fashion in the past. He came in about a year ago and worked on cleaning up the entire property. They are not here to contradict the City's plans. They are here to work with property owners to get a fair shake. You should not bite off the hand that feeds you. This is a very large company, which will create a potentially large tax for Dublin. Robert Cope, Rocklin, representing Cope & McPheters Marine passed out brochures to the Council. (2Vo copy u/as pwvidcd to t11¢ CiO/Clerk for the record.) He stated they are in 10 locations in :3 states. They represent some very high end products in their specific market and over the years have become very good partners in the communities where they have developed. Their goal is to apply for a special use permit and do their magic in the area. They have no plans to change the property other than cleanliness and painting and to fix what's broken. The revenue they will bring will add to the comlllUllity. Michael Reiss, San Ramon, stated he is interested in the Dolan Lumber Company, but doesn't have 56 years of business behind him. He is an entrepaneaur. He provided one copy only of his business plan to the Mayor. He hopes to seek exception regarding auto franchises. He has been in the industry for 20 years, has the necessary capitalization and has been in contact with one manufacturer franchise. There are 3 viable franchises which could go into that property. His initial plan is to bring one with intention of putting second facility on the premises in the near future. With Chris Foss' help, he initially hoped to put a new facility on the property immediately. Alternative would be to improve existing property and install atrium style showroom. He hopes to tap into auto related synergy. They will create new jobs for the City and will create about $18 million annually in taxable revenue. He would hope to create a state of the art facility which would put a very nice face on the City of Dublin. Mr. McDonald clarified neither of these people have leases on the property. Glenn Kierstead, owner of Dublin Security Storage since 1980 stated they expanded their property in 1087 and have 90,000 square feet of storage and mini-storage. They would like to expand and build out the facility. They are totally landlocked and have no CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 2 I REGULAR MEETING August 6, 2002 PAGE 370 frontage on Scarlett or Dublin Boulevard. The redevelopment report identified 15 blighted properties. He asked which properties these were. Mr. Byde stated this was from the redevelopment feasibility analysis. They evaluated in 1999 and 2000 what was a quick thumbnail analysis of whether redevelopment was feasible. This was a legal and financial exercise. The goal will be determined by the SP to be conducted. Mr. Kierstead stated many properties were affected by the September 1 lth disaster and they see some ripple effects. He asked that the City Council consider eliminating the lease provision and allow properties influx or process of development be considered on an individual basis for improvement to their property. Sid Corrie, 7950 Dublin Boulevard, stated they have a S-acre site, one acre with a ¢.0~ year lease. Quite some time ago they started a subdivision process. They watched this whole process evolve and they had an understanding they could continue with their lot split. In reading this, it says no subdivision allowed. He sees no reason why they would not be allowed to continue with the lot split. He's glad to see the Council working on the entire idea. A lot of places in the Bay Area.could take lessons from Dublin's Staff. Are we really going to do some redevelopment? It appears that the private sector is competing for this property. It soUncLs like the auto uses are already allowed. They are happy for the whole process to evolve, but would like to continue with their lot split. Mayor Lockhart stated she regretted even mentioning the redevelopment study that was done a couple of years ago. Mayor Lockhart closed the public hearing. RECESS 9:06 p.m. Mayor Lockhart called for a short recess. Cm. Zika absent. The meeting reconvened at 9:18 p.m., with Mayor Lockhart advised that due to the fact that Cm. Zika was ill and left abruptly, she ' would suggest that this item be continued to the first September Council meeting. CITY COUNCIL MI~$ VOLUME 21 REGULAR MEETING Augusf 6, 2002 PAGE 371 Mayor Lockhart stated she would like City Council discussion related to the SP and concept for the area. The City will drop the word "redevelopment". She requested ideas on concepts of what the Council wants to see in the SP study. What is the purpose and what kind of questions do we want answered in the study?. Cm. Sbranti pointed out it is the gateway to the City and he felt all would like to see a more attractive gateway to the City. Look at access to the businesses and infrastructure and can we do better with that land. He sees this as a commercial center. It is fight off the freeway and felt it is best for commercial uses. He likes the idea of auto row or boats. There is private redevelopment taking place and he would like to see this accelerate. He would like to see a vibrant commercial area. Cm. McCormick stated she has the same vision for the area and would like to see it linked with the transit corridor. Regarding the process, use a CUP rather than moratorium. Is this possible? Mr. Byde advised that currently M~ 1 zoning requires the majority of uses permitted by a CUP to be acted upon by the Planning Commission. Mayor Lockhart stated her question is, ff CUPs are required in that area, could the City Council review these instead of the Planning Commission? Mr. Byde stated the City Council could elect to be the hearing body if this is their desire. Ms. Silver elaborated that ff the Council were considering instances where CUPs were allowed, they would be in the context of the existing zoning on the property. Some are permitted uses and some are conditioned. Rather than the Planning Commission approving these, the City Council could approve them. Mr. Byde reviewed penm'tted uses. Just about every use related to auto requires a use permit. Mayor Lockhart asked if it is possible with a CUP to limit the time of the use? If a study takes 2 years, cOUld they limit it to a year after the end of the study? Mr. Byde stated yes with significant qualifiers. Significant improvements could be made and it could be problematic to do this. Ms. Silver advised that with regard to a term limit on a CUP, the general rule is a permit runs with the land. If an applicant requested a CUP for a limited duration, it could Cou Ci" / azr s VOLUME 21 REGULAR MEETING August 6, 2002 PAGE 372 terminate, but the City COuncil Or Planning Commission should nOt assume that a time limit could be placed on a CUP. Ms. Silver stated the moratorium is very straight forward. Case law is clear that there is no liability on the part of the City and legal protection is provided to the City from damages from delay in getting approval to develop the property. There are exceptions proposed and more exceptions can be added. Mayor Lockhart asked ff they take existing uses and include them as exceptions in the moratorium, then at the end of that period of time, and after SP study, they could do as they've done with other studies and change zoning and move forward? Ms. Silver stated they can look at all uses and permitted uses and can say the moratorium, except for approvals, can be granted for the following uses. Of the ten permitted, we like :3 of those so we will except those $ from the moratorium, as an example. Mayor Lockhart stated her vision is to retain the nature of the automotive industry in that area and she would also like the SP to consider light industrial such as a Light Industrial Park because this is valuable to the community and the valley. Dublin is a City that would look at uses which have been there for a long time and want to keep those businesses in the community. This area is such a gateway and it looks bad. Her greatest hope is we can retain boats, cars, whatever, but be proud of what we see when we look there. The building is very old and a SP is to look at improving the area. Cm. Sbranti stated the fact that the area qualified for redevelopment says something. Cm. Oravetz stated he felt what we really want is a facelift in the area. The moratorium seems to not be supported by the property owners. They have a month to come up with some different ideas ff they put this off until September. Can we go back to the drawing board and see ff the moratorium is the right way to go? We need to figure out how we get a facelift without a moratorium. Mayor Lockhart stated she felt we can protect the City and protect businesses. She asked if the SP will affect the plans for the dead end where Nissan is to go through? Mr. Byde stated this will be evaluated. Mayor Lockhart stated improving the roadway and undergrounding the wires will certainly improve the area. We are trying to find a way to clean up the area. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 21 REGULAR MEETING August 6, 2002 PAGE 373 Mr. Ambrose clarified that the City Council is trfing to find some middle ground. Staff will try to come up with some options with no moratorium. Mayor Lockhart stated in the meantime, it is business as usual. Cm. Sbranti requested that we look at what the allowed uses are. The problem is if you have a different set of rules for one particular area as opposed t6 the rest of the City, this could cause problems. Mayor Loclchart pointed out this is no different than what we did on Village Parkway. On motion of Cm. Oravetz~ seconded by Cm. McCormick, and by majority vote (Cm. Zika absent), the Council continued this item to the September 3, 2002 meeting. AUTHORIZATION FOR INITIATION OF A SFECIHC PLAN FOR THE SCARLETT COURT AREA.AND REQUEST FOR DIRECTION TO STAFF FOR FUTURE ACTIONS 8:05 p.m. 8.5 (410~5B) Senior Planner Andy Byde presented the Staff Report and advised that during establishment of the Goals & Objectives for 2002-03, the City Council ranked as a high priority goal, the initiation of a specific Plan for the Scarlett Court area. The area has a General Plan designation of Business Park/Industrial: Outdoor Storage (F.A.1L .25 to .40). The GP designation anticipates retail and manufacturing activities conducted outdoors such as mobile.home or..constm~.t~o.n~.~aterials storage. The zoning for the entire area is M~ I (Light Industrial), which allows warehousing, industrial and other similar uses. The M~ 1 zoning was originally established under the County jurisdiction and has remained unchanged since the City Was incorporated. Mr. Byde discussed the issues, specifically: Specific Plan Boundaries, Specific Plan (SP) Initiation and Moratorium. CITY COUNCIL ~ VOLUME 9.1 REGULAR MEETING June 1 8, 2002. PAGE 284 Staff preliminarily identified the proposed boundaries for the Scarlett Court area: approximately 26 parcels, consisting of approximately 52 acres of land, bounded on the west by Dougherty Road, the north by Dublin Boulevard, the south by I~580 right-of- way, and the east by the Iron Horse Trail right~of~way. Mr. Byde stated Staff requested direction regarding the proposed boundaries of the SP and Staff requested authorization to initiate a SP study for the area. Staff will prepare a work program, anticipated budget and Requests for Proposal (RFPs) to send out to consultants. Staff will return at a future meeting to request authorization to send out the RFPs and to present a draft work program and anticipated budget amount. Mr. Byde stated Staff also requests that the City Council provide direction as to the appropriateness of enacting a moratorium for the area. If the City Council directs Staff to return 1/o the next Council meeting with a moratorium, the interim ordinance would take effect immediately if adopted by a 4/5 vote of the City Council. State law.limits the initial term of the ordinance to 45 days, and further allows for the extension of the ordinance by 10 months and 15 days, and again by one year, following a noticed public heating. If a moratorium is desired, Staff requested that the Council provide direction regarding 'the scope and the exemptions of the proposed moratorium. Mayor Lockhart discussed the appropriate exemptions listed, which include: ~(1) any builch'~g permit submitted p~or to the effective d~te of the morato~um; (2) ~ny discr~bn~ action (and i~s associated buildinsr l~rmit) submitted p~or to effect'ye date of the moratorium; (3) work or modifica~bns to a buildins which will not rnod~'fy thc appearance or t~oten~'al use ora buildin$ or other wor£ d¢¢med necessary by Buildin$ Offibial for the saf¢~v of the occupants; and (4) proposed new auto sales franc/u;ms." She asked if there have been any7 Mr. Byde stated a building permit has been issued for the Dublin Volkswagen project. Mayor Lockhart stated a number of years ago when we looked at redevelopment, this area came back as one of the few areas which could be considered eligible for redevelopment. She stated she would like to hear a consultant's opinion on this. Mr. Ambrose stated the consultant felt this area was too small. Mayor Lockhart felt this area needs a lot of work and this may be one of the tools we'll need to do something with the area. She hates to cancel out the whole concept of redevelopment in this area. CITY COUNCIL MINLIT~ VOLUME 21 REGULAR MEETING June 18, 2002 PAGE 285 Cm. McCormick suggested we could review the study and see specifically what they referred to in that area and what the disqualifiers were. Mr. Ambrose stated the state legislature has really tightened the rules on what redevelopment agencies can do. What types of infrastructure has to be built and powers of condemnation have to be reviewed. Cm. Sbranti stated he did not feel size should be a deterrent. There are a lot of small redevelopment agencies. The City Council concurred and indicated they would like to see the study brought back. Cm. Zika suggested we look at the State Budget with impacts on redevelopment areas. They may be in deep trouble. Mr. Ambrose clarified that Staff should bring the study back, develop scope of WOrk and incorporate a review of the findings of the study. Mayor Lockhart felt the Council would need to review uses. This is such a great entrance to our City that it deserves it. Cm. Oravetz stated he supports the concept. This area needs a great deal of help. He felt this should be down a bit on the list, however. Mayor Lockhart pointed out that if you put a moratorium on, you may be holding up some businesses. Let them come back with scope of work and the Council could then prioritize. · Cm. Zika discussed timeframes. Staff.could come.back July 2~t with a temporary moratorium and then later with a one year moratorium. He stated he doesn't want property owners hung up before they can do something. We need to give them some kind of direction regarding what they can do with their property. Mr. Byde stated the moratorium could be up to 2 years total. Cm. Sbranti asked how property owners are notified. Mr. Byre stated we will certainly notify them, based on City Council direction. Mr, Ambrose asked how much time shoq!d, be given to respond, cITY CO~Cit VOLUME ¢.1 REGULAR MEETING June 18, 2002 PAGE 286 The Council agreed to $0 days Mr. Ambrose clarified that Staff should give 30 days notice prior to the City Council deciding on the moratorium. The Council could take action at the.August {;th City Council meeting. ~ Cm. Sbranti discussed the vacant Pak N Save lot across the street and asked if this cou!d be included as part of the specific plan area? Can we look at the whole area? Mayor Lockhart pointed out we would be placing a one-year moratorium on the Pak & Save site if this were to be included. Cm. Zika stated he would prefer to not include this site. Cm. Sbranti asked how many property owners own the Pak N Save site. Mr2 Foss stated on the Pak N Save site this is owned by Safeway, then you have the Golf Mart which is a separate property owner. The gas station is another separate parcel on the comer. Cm. Sbranti stated he felt the .community is interested in seeing something on the Pak N Save site, but given this information, it would be best to not include this. Michael Reiss spoke on the piece of property formerly known as Dolan Lumber facility located within this area at 133135 Scarlett Court. It is about $ ¼ acres in size. He has.been working with Mr. Dolan through one of his associates to lease this property. He reported that he has contacted 2 auto franchises who have a sincere desire to come into 'the Dublin market. A third franchise is yet to be contacted, simply because of the time factor, however there are $ that have a sincere desire to come here, He stated he knows the City wants a fresh face on this and he would make many capital improvements to the' property to make it more presentable. He intends to renovate the existing facility by installing an atrium style showroom on the facility and install exterior lighting and fencing. At some time in the future, if approved, the intent would be to build a completely brand new state of the art facility on that location. He can bring to the City employment potential and capitalize on the synergy of the other auto services. He estimates approximately $19 million in taxable income with just the one franchise. The land could easily handle a second franchise. He is hopeful that if there is a moratorium being explored, the exclusion of new auto dealerships would be excluded from this moratorium. Cm. Zika questioned if we put'a moratorium on, do we put it on everything? CITY cOUNCIL VOLUME £ I REGULAR MEETING June 18, 2002 PAGE 287 Mr. Byde stated it is possible to exclude certain uses. Mr. Ambrose stated one of the issues to be looked at is do we continue to look at small parcel development or create incentives where some of these parcels can be consolidated for a completely different type of use. An example would be land use designation for office complex which could cover several parcels. Our plan could include financial incentives for property owners. Cm. Zika asked about the timeframe for the dealerships. Mr. Reiss stated he was in negotiations with one franchise and originally anticipated an opening date of July of this year. He started negotiations back in February. He would look to be able to open by the first of next year. This would be realistic. Cm. Oravetz made a motion to accept Staff's recommended boundary, to give 30-day notice of the moratorium and come back August 6m and take it from there. Cm. Sbranti seconded' the motion, which was approved by a unanimous vote. Staff clarified that the motion included adoption of the Resolution approving the study. Cm. McCormick stated she is not supporting exempting uses as this time. She would like to see a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) required. Cm. Zika stated he felt if we notice people of a possible moratorium, we can still approve a CUP for something in the area. This would have to be called out in the Ordinance. Cm. Sbranti agreed that he did not want to see any exemptions at this point. People can come talk to them in the meantime. We should notice everybody. Clarification was made that they're not going forward with the moratorium at this time. On motion of Cm. Oravetz, seconded by Cm. Sbranti, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. t06- 02 AUTHORIZING THE INITIATION OF A SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE SCARLETT COURT AREA crl~ cou~ci~ ~mrr~s VOLUME Z 1 REGULAR MEETING June 18, 2002 PAGE 288