HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.3 ScarlettCtMoratorium CITY CLERK #410-20
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 3, 2002
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Urgency Ordinance in Scarlett
Court Area (this item was continued from the August 6, 2002)
Report Prepared by: Andy Byde, Senior Planner
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Urgency Ordinance
2. Scarlett Court Area Map
3. Scarlett Court Assessors Parcel Map
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Open Public Hearing
2. Receive Staff presentation;
3. Receive Public Testimony and Close Public Hearing;
4. Determine if ministerial and discretionary actions could
negatively impact the outcome of the desired Specific Plan;
and
5(A). If the scope and exceptions proposed in draft Ordinance
(Attachment 1) are determined to be appropriate Staff
recommends that the City Council waive the reading and
adoPt an Urgency Ordinance which will impose a
moratorium on any ministerial and discretionary actions
(subject to the exceptions listed in the Agenda Statement); or
5(B). If the scope and eXceptions proposed by Staff are not
appropriate than provide direction to Staff on the 4 remaining
options listed in the Agenda Statement.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: No financial imPact
DESCRIPTION:
This item was continued from the August 6, 2002, City Council meeting. During the June 18th 2002, City
Council meeting, the 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 City Council is considering a moratorium for the area. On July 3, 2002, Staff sent out the notices
to all known Tenants and Property Owners within the specific Plan area. On August 6, 2002, the City
Council heard the proposed moratorium as well as concerns from business and property owners regarding
the impacts of the moratorium. The City Council voted to continue this item and directed Staff to
evaluate additional alternatives to the proposed moratorium.
COPIES TO.' Property/Business Owners
Project Planner
ITEM NO.
G:XPAg~2002\Scarlett Court Sp\ccstaffreport 8-26 Scarlett Court.doc /dr~
ISSUES
Proposed Moratorium
Staff is concerned, that without knowing the outcome of the Specific Plan study (which was authorized on
Jtme 18, 2002), which would include land use, economic analysis, and a circulation analysis; certain types
of ministerial and discretionary actions, which modify the appearance or allow vacant buildings to be
retenanted could ultimately frustrate the City's long term efforts to ensure the area is properly developed
as properties become suitable for reuse.
At the August 6, 2002, City Council meeting, Staff proposed a moratorium that would prohibit ministerial
or discretionary actions including: building permits which modify the appearance or potential use of a
building or a business license for a new use or permit the resumption of the last use of a property that has
been vacant for more than a year prior to the permit application, Site Development Review (SDR),
Conditional Use Permits (CUP), and etc. Staff proposed three exceptions: (1) any discretionary action
submitted prior to August 6, 2002; (2) emergency repair work deemed necessary by the Building Official
for the safety of the occupants; and (3) proposed new auto sales franchises. In addition, the proposed
urgency ordinance would temporarily modify the current zoning regulations and would require a CUP for
new auto sales franchises to be approved by the City Council, instead of the Planning Commission during
the moratorium period.
Moratorium Process
An interim ordinance would take effect immediately if adopted by a four-fifths vote by the City Council.
State law limits the initial term of the ordinance to 45 days. State law also requires the ordinance to
include a finding that there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety or welfare, and
that the approval of ministerial or discretionary actions in order to comply with the Zoning Ordinance
would result in a threat to public health, safety or welfare. State law allows the City Council to extend the
ordinance by 10 months and 15 days, and again by one year (for a total of two years), following a noticed
public hearing. Any subsequent extension shall require a four-fifths vote for adoption. No more than two
extensions may be adopted. Ten days prior to the expiration of an interim ordinance or any extension, the
City Council shall issue a written report describing the measures taken to alleviate the condition, which
led to the adoption of the ordinance. Should the City Council establish a moratorium through the
adoption of this urgency ordinance, the above mentioned written report would be brought back to the
Council on October 15, 2002.
Additionally, according to the City Attorney, the adoption of a moratorium pursuant to the authority of
Government Code section 65858 will not subject the City to liability for damages due to delay in
development of property.
Alternatives to the Proposed Moratorium
At the August 6, 2002, City Council meeting the Council requested Staff to return to the September 3,
2002, meeting with some additional information and alternatives to the proposed moratorium.
Alternative 1: Modify Zoning Ordinance to Require CUP's
During the August 6, 2002, City Council meeting it was mentioned that, rather than adopting a
moratorium, the Cotmcil could require a conditional use permit (CUP) and be the approving body for all
CUP's in the Scarlett Court Area, pending conclusion of the Scarlett Court Area Specific Plan Study. A
CUP is a quasi-judicial, administrative action. Its purpose is to allow a particular use not allowed as a
matter of right in the zoning district. According to the City Attorney, a CUP cannot be restricted to a term
of years unless the applicant so requests.
2 ,fZ
To implement Alternative 1, the City Council would have to create a new zoning district different from
the M-1 district by amending the Zoning Ordinance and then rezone the Scarlett Court Area to that new
zoning designation. Amending the Ordinance and rezoning the area would require bringing the proposed
Zoning Ordinance Amendment to the Planning Commission for review and returning to the City Council
for two public hearings, the ordinance would then be in effect 30-days after adoption. Significant Staff
time would be required to prepare the ordinance, in lieu of Staff time spent on the preparation of the
Specific Plan Study.
Alternative 2: Prohibiting Certain Use Types
As previously mentioned, the zoning for the Scarlett Court area is M-1 (Light Industrial). Contained
below is a table from the Zoning Ordinance which specifies the uses which are permitted and require no
discretionary approval ('P'), uses designated which are conditionally permitted (CUP required) with a
hearing before the Zoning Administrator ('C/ZA), uses designated which are conditionally permitted
(CUP required) with a hearing before the Planning Commission ('C/PC'), and uses designated which are
prohibited ('-'). Staff proposes an Alternative that would prohibit certain uses that are currently permitted
and conditionally permitted during the term of the Specific Plan Study as designated with the following'
Permitted P Car Wash/Detailing
Not Permitted -
Conditional Use Permit/Zoning Administrator c/tn
Conditional Use Permit~lanning Commission C~C
Temporary Use Permit T~ Co~ercial School
COMMERCIAL USE TYPE M-1
(coat)
CIVIC USES
Co--uniT Care Facili~/Large C/PC
CIVIC USE TYPE M-1
Co~uni~ Clubhouse Copying and Blueprint~g
Co~i~ Facili~ C/PC
Hospitamedical Center :~Tg Day Care Center (13+)
i~ Drive-i~rive-t~ough Business
Eating ~d DriVing
Newspaper ~e~cling Facili~ ' Establis~ent
~a~~ ~ ~ Fo~netell~g
~ General Retail Sales
Health Services/Civics
COMMERCIAL USES Hotel/Motel
Housemover's Storage Yard
COMMERCIAL USE TYPE M-1
~h: :: ~g~ ~g~ ~ * ~ ~ Massage Establis~ent
~gl~a ~g~a~q~ ~ M~i-Storage
~ ~ Neighborhood Retail Sales
Automobile~ehicle Brokerage - Outdoor Mobile Vendors C/ZA
Automobile~ehicle Rentals C/PC Outdoor Sales Not Related to C/ZA
Automobile~ehicle Repairs CJPC On-Site Established Business
~d Service Outdoor Seating
Automobile~ehicle Sales and C/PC Personal Services
Se~ice Plant Nurse~
~: ~: :::::~~ ~F~: ~ :;;~ ;~:~ :~: ~:~ ~:' Professional/Administrative
Banks and Financial Services - Office
Bed ~d Breakfast ~ C/PC ~atl~al~ ~r
Repair Shop
Seasonal Holiday Sales Lots TUP Heavy Industrial -
Service Retail Light Industrial P
~~ Printing and Publishing P
Shopping Center Research and Development P
Special Events TUP Laboratory
Temporary Construction Trailer Tf3P ~ ~t~'I~"~ ~
Storage of Petroleum Products P
for On-Site Use
Under this alternative those uses, which the City Council felt were not appropriate during the term of the
Specific Plan Study, would be prohibited. During the Specific Plan Study more detailed information on
circulation and preferred location and guidelines for these types of uses would be established.
To implement this alternative would require returning to the City Council with a new urgency ordinance
moratorium.
Alternative 3:Limiting Modifications of Properties over 2. 5 Acres
This alternative would concentrate on maintaining the current development pattern without impacting the
majority of the smaller uses. This approach would allow for modifications of uses on smaller parcels and
replacement of previously existing structures that have been removed prior to September 3, 2002. Interior
and exterior modifications (not including signage) and new construction would be limited to parcels under
2.5 acres in size. Currently 9 of the 21 parcels are over 2.5 acres (see Attachment 3 for Assessors Parcel
Map which illustrates which parcels are over 2.5 acres in size). Limiting new development to smaller
parcels would ensure that larger parcels, which have a greater chance for reuse, would be not be modified
during the Specific Plan Study.
To implement this alternative would require returning to the City Council with a new urgency ordinance
moratorium.
Analysis of Options
Listed on the following page is a table, which includes 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:
Action Description Timing Advantage Disadvantage
Adopt proposed Proposed moratorium that Immediately. Would prevent projects Would limit all property
urgency would prohibit ministerial commencing without owners' current flexibility
ordinance or discretionary actions respect to the pending of replacing tenants and
moratorium. including: building permits Specific Plan. making modifications and
(Proposed which modify the improvements to
Moratorium) appearance or potential use Would protect City from properties.
ora building or a business damage claims due to
license for a new use or delay. Would maintain
permit the resumption of existing uses and would
the last use of a property allow a specific use to
that has been vacant for move forward in the
more than a year prior to process.
the permk application
except for new auto sales.
Direct Staff to Zoning Ordinance Would Would allow projects to Would require significant
amend the amendment that would require three move forward in the additional Staff time to
Zoning require CLIPs to be heard public process, create and implement.
Ordinance by the City Council for all hearings and
(Alternative 1: uses within the Scarlett would not be Would not protect City
Modify Zoning Court Area. in effect for from 'takings' claims.
Ordinance to at least 4-
Require CUP 's). months. May not allow Council to
deny projects that are not
consistent with Council's
vision for area.
Direct Staff to A moratorium that would Next City Would allow certain uses to May not anticipate certain
prepare a new prohibit certain uses Council move forward in the projects that the Council
urgency currently permitted and meeting, process and allow some finds inconsistent with
ordinance conditionally permitted by level of flexibility to vision for the area.
(Alternative 2: the M-1 zoning district property owners/tenants.
Prohibiting within the Scarlett Court Would limit flexibility for
Certain Use Area. Would protect City from tenants/property owners.
Types). damage claims due to
delay. Would maintain
existing uses.
Direct Staff to A moratorium that would Next City Provides flexibility to the May prohibit uses that
prepare a new restrict ministerial and Council majority of tenants and would be appropriate.
urgency discretionary actions to meeting, property owners. Preserves
ordinance parcels less than 2.5 acres properties most likely subject Would limit some
(Alternative in size and exempt to reuse, property owners' current
3:£imiting replacement structures, flexibility.
Modifications of Would protect City from
Properties over damage claims due to delay.
2. 5 Acres).
Would maintain existing
uses and would allow a
specific use to move forward
in the process.
Take no Leave current zoning Immediately. Requires no additional Staff Could ulthnately fioustmte
additional action, regulations in place. Time. Maintains currents the City's long-term
zoning regulations and efforts to ensure the area is
provides ukimate flexibility properly developed.
to property owners/tenants.
RECOMMENDATION:
(1) Open Public Hearing; (2) receive Staff presentation; (3) receive public testimony and close public
hearing; (4) determine if ministerial and discretionary actions could negatively impact the outcome of the
desired Specific Plan; and (5A) if the scope and exceptions proposed in draft Ordinance (Attachment 1) are
determined to be appropriate Staff recommends that the City Council waive the reading and adopt an
Urgency Ordinance which will impose a moratorium on any ministerial and discretionary actions (subject
to the exceptions mentioned in the Agenda Statement); or 5(B) if the scope and exceptions proposed by
Staff are not appropriate than provide direction to Staff on the 4 remaining options listed above in the
Agenda Statement.
ORDINANCE NO. xx-02
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
AN URGENCY ORDINANCE MAKING FINDINGS AND ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM
ON THE ACCEPTANCE, PROCESSING AND APPROVAL OF APPLICATIONS AND
PERMITS FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE SCARLETT COURT AREA PENDING THE
COMPLETION OF A SPECIFIC PLAN
WHEREAS, the use or non-use of each parcel of real property in Scarlett Court, shown on Exhibit
A hereto, and the manner of using those parcels, affects the value and potential development of other
property in the surrounding area, also shown on Exhibit A hereto; and
WHEREAS, unsightly or inappropriate land use on one parcel can discourage or prevent desired
land uses in the surrounding area, negatively affecting the aesthetics of the City, decreasing the number of
jobs and revenue for City services, frequently leading to the degradation of structures as failed businesses
are not replaced, and increasing the likelihood that inconsistent and s.ub-optimal land uses will move into
an area, further degrading it; and
WHEREAS, Dublin Boulevard, a major thoroughfare, was recently improved to provide
additional frontage to parcels along Scarlett Court; and
WHEREAS, the Scarlett Court area has many large and underutilized parcels which have
inadequate access and do not take advantage of the recent extension of Dublin Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, the majority of the uses within the Scarlett Court area face inward and do not use
their frontage onto Dublin Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, several parcels within the Scarlett Court area have lot depths in excess of 1000 feet
which renders many retail uses ineffective; and
WHEREAS, Dolan's Lumber ceased operating at 6365 Scarlett Court in approximately June,
2001; and
WHEREAS, during the Goals and Objectives session for Fiscal Year 02/03, the City Council
requested Staff, as a high priority item, to initiate a Specific Plan for the Scarlett Court Area; and
WHEREAS, on June 18, 2002, the City Council authorized the initiation of a Specific Plan for the
Scarlett Court Area to assess the best uses for the properties in the Scarlett Court Area, how to encourage
those uses to take advantage of their frontage on Dublin Boulevard, and how to encourage beneficial re-
use of properties that are currently underutilized; and
WHEREAS, a number of franchise car dealerships already exist in the Scarlett Court Area; and
Attachment
G:~PA#~2002\Scarlett Court Sp\Scarlett Court r~ritorium ord-revised7.24.doc ' ~'~ ~/~/~ ~...~
WHEREAS, the City Council believes that similar uses should be encouraged to develop in the
Scarlett Court Area to improve the appearance of businesses in the area, provide jobs and revenUe, and to
take appropriate advantage of the properties in the Area fronting on Dublin Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has authorized the initiation of a Specific Plan study to determine
the best means of accomplishing those goals for the development of the Scarlett Court Area; and
WHEREAS, untimely changes of uses within the Area during the time that the City completes the
Specific Plan could ultimately frustrate the City's long term efforts to ensure the area is properly
developed as properties become suitable for reuse, either by allowing the initiation of uses incompatible'
with those recommended by the Specific Plan study or by directly preventing the use of properties as
recommended in the study; and
WHEREAS, based on the foregoing, the City Council finds that allowing development to
continue to occur in a disorganized fashion poses a current and immediate threat to the public health,
safety and welfare because it will likely cause land use incompatibilities; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the approval of additional subdivisions, use permits,
variances, building permits, or any other applicable discretionary permit, except for building permits and
discretionary permits submitted prior to September 3, 2002, which would allow the modification of the
properties within the Scarlett Court area, therefore would result in that threat to public health, safety and
welfare.
NOW ~THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS, ADOPTED AS AN
INTERIM ORDINANCE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
65858:
1) The City shall not approve any applications or permits for ministerial actions, including a business
license for a new use, which would result in the modification of the existing use or the resun~ption of the
last use of property that has been vacant longer than one year prior to applying for the business license.
The City shall not approve any applications or permits for ministerial and discretionary actions including
but not limited to site development review, subdivisions, use permits, rezonings, general plan
amendments, variances, building permits which modify the appearance or potential use of a bUilding, or
any other applicable entitlement in the Scarlett Court area (shown on Exhibit A heretO), so long as this
ordinance is in effect, excepting from the ordinance the following: (1) any discretionary action (and its
associated building permit required to implement the approved action) submitted prior to September 3,
2002; (2) emergency repair work deemed necessary by the Building Official for the safety of the
occupants; and (3) proposed new auto sales franchises, subject to the City Council approving a conditional
use permit. The City shall, nevertheless, accept and process applications for such entitlements.
2) This ordinance is not a "project" within the meaning of Section 15378 of the State CEQA
Guidelines, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change in the environment, directly or
ultimately; it prevents changes in the environment pending the completion of the contemplated Specific
Plan. This ordinance is categorically exempt from CEQA under section 15308 of the State CEQA
Guidelines because it is a regulatory action taken by the City, in accordance with Government Code
section 65858, to assure maintenance and prOtection of the environment pending completion of the
2
contemplated Specific Plan.
3) If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held
invalid, the remainder of the ordinance, including the application of such part or provision to other
persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby and shall continue in full force and effect. To this
end, provisions of this ordinance are severable. The City Council hereby declares that it would have
passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof irrespective of
the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or
phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable.
4) This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption if adopted by at least four-fifths
vote of the City Council and shall be in effect for forty-five days from the date of adoption unless
extended by the City Council as provided for in Government Code section 65858.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 3rd day of September 2002.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
City Clerk
Dublin
Exhibit A to
Attachment
$carlett Court Area Map
Zoning
Attachment 2
~SSESSOR'S MAP _9_4_1 ., Coae Area N0s.19-022 21
E M 1177(B.k.e7 P~1.69)
§50 Map of the Property of the ";:" ¢~g ;b ~o.~
Estate
Elizo~h A. Doughedy. ~o5
~~. {Bk.8 Pg.75} ,, ..
/ EM, 5000 ~,/~
2771 986/I
ATTACHMENT-