HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.2 Chevron Use Permit Appeal (2) CITY OF DUBLIN
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: January 14 , 1991
SUBJECT: Appeal of PA 90-066 Chevron Conditional Use
Permit/Site Development Review at 5933
Dougherty Road Dq-C
REPORT PREPARED BY: Carol R. Cirelli, Associate Planner
EXHIBITS ATTACHED:
C�
Exhibit A: Draft Resolution of Approval upholding the
Planning Commission action denying the
Conditional Use Permit/Site Development
Review request
Attachment 1 : Planning Commission Resolution No. 90-064 ,
Conditional Use Permit approval
Attachment 2 : Minutes for the November 19 , 1990 Planning
Commission meeting
Attachment 3 : Letter of Appeal dated received November 26,
1990
Attachment 4: General Plan Land Use Designation
RECOMMENDATION: 1) Open Public Hearing and hear Staff
2�L presentation
2) Take testimony from Applicant and the
public
3) Question Staff, Applicant and the Public
4) Close Public Hearing and deliberate
5) Adopt Resolution (Exhibit A) denying
Conditional Use Permit/Site Development
Review and initiating General Plan
Amendment/Specific Plan Study, or give
Staff and Applicant direction and
continue the matter.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: There would be costs associated with a
General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan
Study that are undetermined. Staff would
need to prepare potential options and
potential cost estimates for City Council
review and approval.
---------------------------------------------------
COPIES TO: General/Agenda File
Address File
ITEM NO. Project Planner
DESCRIPTION:
Background
In August of 1990 , the Applicant submitted an application requesting
Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review approval to
construct and operate a new 24 hour service station, including a food
mart and car wash facility.
On November 19 , 1990, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No.
90-064 (Attachment 1) denying, without prejudice, the Applicant's
Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review request, and
recommending that the City Council initiate a General Plan Amendment
and Specific Plan Study for the Scarlett Court area. By denying the
project "without prejudice" , the Applicant will be allowed to submit
the same application within one year from the date of denial of the
project.
On November 26 , 1990, the Planning Commission action was appealed by
the Applicant who is not in support of the Commission's denial of the
Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review request.
Analysis
The Planning Commission denied the project based on the inability to
make affirmative findings relative to the service station as a
conditional use within a C-2 , General Commercial District zone. The
following facts supported the denial of the service station use:
1. The project is not consistent with the General Plan land use
designation for the site, which is Business Park/Industrial :
Outdoor Storage, in that a service station is not a retail use
which involves outdoor storage.
2 . There are currently 14 service stations in the City of Dublin.
Before 1982 , 20 service stations were in existence. The number
of service stations has been decreasing over time. Therefore, an
additional service station in the City will not serve the public
need.
3 . The proposed service station project may affect the health and
safety of individuals residing or working in the immediate
vicinity which utilize and dispense gasoline, a product which is
highly flammable and explosive in nature. Since there is
currently no service station at this location, the addition of
this service station would increase the risks of an unauthorized
release.
In response to the statements made by the Applicant in the letter of
appeal, the General Plan land use designation for the site allows
retail uses which involve outdoor storage, such as the retail sales of
mobile homes, construction material and automobiles. Although a
service station is considered a retail use conducted outdoors , this
-2-
use does not involve any outdoor storage activity (see Attachment 4
General Plan Land Use Designation) .
The number of service stations in Dublin has been decreasing over time
and as a result, there is no indication that an additional service
station in Dublin will serve the public- need.
In regards to public safety, although service stations are now
required to install equipment for the prevention of spills or
leakages, there is still some potential for an explosion or toxic
spill to occur. According to the Dougherty Regional Fire Authority,
the addition of this service station at this site would increase the
risk of an unauthorized release.
The Dougherty Regional Fire Authority and the City Attorney have
reviewed and concur with Finding "C" of the Draft Resolution.
The finding that the project is not consistent with the General Plan
land use designation for the site may also apply to other uses
currently operating in the vicinity of Scarlett Court. In addition,
existing land uses and property boundaries may change in the Scarlett
Court area as the City acquires, or receives as dedication, property
which is located within the adopted right-of-way alignment for the
Dublin Boulevard Extension project. For these reasons, the Planning
Commission and Staff recommend to the City Council that a General Plan
Amendment and Specific Plan study be prepared to determine appropriate
land uses and study boundaries for the Scarlett Court area.
A General Plan amendment could facilitate a transition of the area
from industrial and outdoor storage type uses to retail/commercial
type uses. A specific plan prepared for at least a portion of this
area could set forth land use and development regulations compatible
with the adopted right-of-way alignment for the Dublin Boulevard
Extension and affected property boundaries. '
Two options are available for Council's consideration. The first
option, which is Staff's recommendation, is for Council to uphold the
Planning Commission action denying without prejudice the Conditional
Use Permit/Site Development Review request and to initiate a General
Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Study, and to further direct Staff to
prepare a more detailed Staff Report identifying specific land use and
study area boundary options. The more detailed Staff Report would be
brought back to the City Council for review and approval . The second
option is for Council to provide direction to Staff determining that a
service station is in conformance with the General Plan land use
designation and continue the Conditional Use Permit/Site Development
Review request in order to provide Staff and the Applicant adequate
time to complete the application process.
Attached for Council consideration is a Draft Resolution (Exhibit A)
which upholds the Planning Commission action denying without prejudice
the Conditional Use Permit/Site Development Review request and
initiates a General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan study for the
Scarlett Court area.
-3-
RESOLUTION NO. 91 -
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
---------------------------------------------------------------------
UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION
DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PA 90-066 CHEVRON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AT 5933 DOUGHERTY ROAD
WHEREAS, William T. Scudder, on behalf of Chevron USA Inc. , filed
a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review application to
construct and operate a gasoline service station, food mart and car
wash facility at 5933 Dougherty Road; and
WHEREAS, the Planning .Commission did hold a public hearing on
said application on November 5 and 19 , 1990; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all
respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the application has been reviewed by the City in
accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) and has determined that CEQA does not apply to this project
pursuant to Section 15270 of the State CEQA guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the Staff Report was submitted recommending that the
application be denied without prejudice; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said
reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project is inconsistent with the City's
General Plan land use designation for the site; and
WHEREAS, on November 19 , 1990 , the Planning Commission adopted
Resolution No. 90-064 , denying PA 90-066 Chevron Conditional Use
Permit/Site Development Review; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission action denying PA 90-066 Chevron
Conditional Use Permit/Site Development Review was appealed; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on the appeal on
January 14 , 1991; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all
respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Staff Report was submitted recommending that the
City Council uphold the Planning Commission action denying without
prejudice the Conditional Use Permit/Site Development Review request
and initiating a General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Study for the
area; and
WHEREAS, the City Council heard and considered all reports,
recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth.
UMBIT A
- 1 -
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does
hereby find:
A. The service station facility is not required by and will not
serve the public need in that there are currently 14 service
stations in the City of Dublin, whereas, before 1982 , 20 service
stations were in existence. The number of service stations has
decreased over time.
B. The use will not be properly related to other land uses,
transportation and service facilities in the immediate vicinity
which are consistent with the General Plan, as the proposed use
is not consistent with the General Plan land use designation for
the site, which is Business Park/Industrial : Outdoor Storage.
C. The use will have a cumulative effect on the health and safety of
persons residing or working in the vicinity, will be materially
detrimental to the public welfare and will be injurious to
property or improvements in the neighborhood due to the existence
of two service stations in the immediate vicinity which utilize
and dispense gasoline and other gasoline products which are
highly inflammable and explosive in nature.. Since there is
currently no service station at this location, the addition of
this service station would increase the risks of an unauthorized
release.
D. The use is contrary to the specific intent clauses and
performance standards established for the district in which it is
to be located, as the proposed use is not consistent with the
City's General Plan land use designation for the project site,
which is Business Park/Industrial : Outdoor Storage.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does hereby
uphold the Planning Commission's action denying without prejudice
PA 90-066 Chevron Conditional Use Permit/Site Development Review and
does hereby initiate a General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Study
for the Scarlett Court area and with direction to Staff to prepare a
more detailed Staff Report with land use and study area boundary
options for future City Council review and approval .
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of January, 1991 .
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
2 -
RESOLUTION NO. 90 - 064
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
-------------------------------------
DENYING PA 90-066 CHEVRON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AT 5933 DOUGHERTY ROAD
WHEREAS, William T. Scudder, on behalf of Chevron USA Inc. , filed
a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review application to
construct and operate a gasoline service station, food mart and car
wash facility at 5933 Dougherty Road; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on
said application on November 5 and 19 , 1990 ; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all
respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the application has been reviewed by the City in
accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) and has determined that CEQA does not apply to this project
pursuant to Section 15270 of the State CEQA guidelines ; and
WHEREAS, the Staff Report was submitted recommending that the
application be denied without prejudice; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said
reports , recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project is inconsistent with the City's
General Plan land use designation for the site; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning
Commission does hereby find:
A. The service station facility is not required by and will not
serve the public need in that there are currently 14 service
stations in the City of Dublin, whereas , before 1982 , 20 service
stations were in existence. The number of service stations has
been decreasing over time .
B. The use will not be properly related to other land uses ,
transportation and service facilities in the immediate vicinity
which are consistent with the General Plan, as the proposed use
is not consistent with the General Plan land use designation for
the site, which is Business Park/Industrial : Outdoor Storage .
C . The use will have a detrimental effect on the health and safety
of persons residing or working in the vicinity, will be
materially detrimental to the public welfare and will be
injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood due to
the existence of two service stations in the immediate vicinity
which utilize and dispense gasoline and other gasoline products
- 1 AtU60
which are highly inflammable and explosive in nature. An
additional service station would increase the risks of upset.
D. The use is contrary to the specific intent clauses and
performance standards established for the district in which it is
to be located, as the proposed use is not consistent with the
City's General Plan land use designation for the project site ,
which is Business Park/Industrial : Outdoor Storage.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does
hereby deny without prejudice Conditional Use Permit application
PA 90-066 Chevron Conditional Use Permit/Site Development Review and
does eerPlanmAmendmenttandCSpecificcPlanuStudyZforh initiation
the
Scarlett
of a General
Court area.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of November, 1990 .
AYES: Commissioners Barnes , Burnham and Zika
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAINED:Commissioner Springer
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
YY '
Planning Directo
- 2 -
Langtry of TJKM indicated the 270 trips per day figure was
bas on the consultant ' s standard study of on-site traffic
counts .
Mr. Coldwel ' ndicated that there were employees and trucks
exiting and en ing the premises . He asked that the project be
approved tonight th the traffic consultant re-evaluating the
figures .
Cm. Zika indicated that he as hesitant to approve the project
without the traffic figures . e felt that the item should be
postponed until the traffic figu s were looked into.
Cm. Burnham felt that the traffic stu was not self-explanatory
and suggested that TJKM should discuss th calculations with the
Applicant.
Mr. Tong suggested that the Commission continue th roject so
that Staff, TJKM and the Applicant could review and c rify the
traffic study information.
The Planning Commission continued the item to the December 3 ,
1990 meeting.
SUBJECT: :PA'=90=:066::Chevron Conditional Use Permit/Site
j Development' Review request to construct a new Chevron
service station including a food mart/car wash
facility at 5933 Dougherty Road (continued from the
November 5 , 1990 Planning Commission meeting),
Cm. Burnham opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report.
Ms . Carol Cirelli presented the staff report to the Commission.
She indicated that Staff was recommending denial "without
prejudice" due to the inability to make affirmative findings for
the project, and recommended that the Commission request the City
Council to initiate a General Plan Amendment Study for Scarlett
Court.
Cm. Springer stated that he would need to abstain because of
possible conflict of interest on the proposed project.
Mr. Harvey Levine, 7020 Koll Center Parkway, indicated that he
was unhappy with the recommendation of denial; however he
understood Staff ' s position. He introduced Mr. Scudder and Mr.
Wahlen, the Applicants .
Mr. Wahlen described the proposed service station and indicated
that he was available to answer any questions that the
Commission might have .
Mr. Levine passed out documentation to the Commission regarding
his comments and concerns . He indicated-that-the iite was
Regular Meeting PCM-19907114 November 19 , 1990
[ 11-19min]
appropriate for a service station because it was connected with a
major commuter intersection and there were no residential
neighborhoods in the area. The lease for the property would be
up in two years and he felt that a service station would be
appropriate for the site .
Mr. Levine disagreed with the Staff ' s findings . He indicated
that there was a need for an additional service station because
there would be more cars in the future commuting from the East
Dublin area. He felt that the new station would not result in
health or safety hazards because the fuel tanks are required to
be double walled and were much safer than the old designs . He
stated that the area is designated as Business Park Industrial/
Outdoor Storage and that the project is not inconsistent with the
General Plan because service stations are considered an outdoor
retail related use .
Mr. Tong directed the Planning Commission' s attention to page 5
of the Dublin General Plan. Copies of page 5 were distributed to
the Planning Commission and Applicant.
He said that the General Plan clearly considers service stations
as retail uses and includes "service stations" as a specific
example in the "Retail/Office ' description. They are outdoor
retail uses, just as drive-in restaurants are considered outside
retail uses .
Retail uses conducted outdoors should not be confused with
"outdoor storage" uses . The General Plan describes "Business
Park/Industrial : Outdoor Storage use to include 1) mobile home
)
storage, 2 construction material storage, 3 ) automobile
dealerships , and similar uses where goods or materials are stored
outdoors .
The General Plan designation for the proposed site is "Business
Park/Industrial : Outdoor Storage" , so the proposed service
station would be inconsistent with the General Plan. If the
General Plan was amended so that the proposed site was designated
"Retail/Office" , a service station use could be consistent . All
existing service stations in the City are located in areas
designated in the General Plan for "Retail/Office" or
"Retail/Office and Automotive" use .
Mr. Tong also restated that there was less need overall for
another service station and that there were two service stations
in the immediate vicinity handling highly flammable and hazardous
liquids . Adding a third service station would increase the
potential for a hazardous spill or accident .
Mr. Tong recommended that the Commission adopt the resolutions
denying the proposed development and request the City Council to
initiate a General Plan Amendment for the Scarlett Court area so
that Staff could study the retail potential for the area or other
appropriate uses .
-------------------------------------------------------
Regular Meeting PCM-1990-115 November 19 , 1990
[ 11-19min]
Cm. Burnham closed the public hearing.
Cm. Zika agreed with Staff ' s recommendations ; however did not
agree that the service station would cause any significant safety
hazard. He suggested that Staff discuss the situation with DRFA.
Cm. Barnes concurred with Staff ' s recommendations .
Cm. Burnham agreed that there is a decline in the amount of
existing service stations in the city; however disagreed that the
proposed station would be a safety hazard. He suggested a
thorough study be done of the vicinity.
Mr. Tong indicated that the City Attorney reviewed the findings
and deemed them legally adequate . The proposed General Plan
Amendment could be completed in approximately one year. Staff
was recommending denial of the proposed project, without
prejudice . The Applicant could come back after the General Plan
Amendment within the year with the same proposal .
On motion from Cm. Zika, seconded by Cm. Barnes , and with a vote
of 3-0 (one abstained) , the Commission adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 90-064
DENYING PA 90-066 CHEVRON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AT 5933 DOUGHERTY ROAD
SUBJECT: PA 90-074 Chrysler Realty Corporation Auto Sales and
Service Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation
of an auto sales and service facility located at 6451
Scarlett Court (continued from the November 5 , 1990
Planning Commission meeting)
Cm. Burn h opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report .
Ms . Carol Cirelli resented the staff report to the Commission.
The proposed constr ion of the Dublin Boulevard Extension
would have a severe im ct on the use of the proposed project;
therefore, Staff is recom nding only a one-year extension of the
Conditional Use Permit for t s site.
Tom Sholes , Applicant, referred t Condition #1 and inquired
whether this was a factual statement . On Condition #15 he
requested a longer extension period fo he Conditional Use
Permit .
Cm. Zika asked Staff if there would be relocati fees for the
new tenant .
Cm. Burnham asked Staff if Condition #15 could be rewor d to
allow the use until the Dublin Boulevard Extension was
constructed.
Regular Meeting PCM-1990-116 November 19 , 1990
[ 11-19min]
Hallgrimson, Wong, Miller & Relyea
Attorneys at Law
STEVEN L.HALLGRIMSON
ERIC WONG 7020 KOLL CENTER PARKWAY,SUITE 142 60 S.MARKET STREET,SUITE 900
HOWARD S.MILLER PLEASANTON,CALIFORNIA 94566 SAN JOSE,CALIFORNIA 95113.2303
JANE P.RELYEA PHONE(415)462-2424 FAX(415)462-1818 PHONE(408)275-6600
HARVEY E.LEVINE FAX (408)275-0315
RONALD .RAINEY
JO ANN DERUVO
DONNA L.BECKER R E C E 1 V E p
MARK L.HIRSCH
THOMAS D.MURTHA
JQV
i
NANCY L.BRANDT C� n
STEVEN D.LEVERE " ° I
WILLIAM F.BURNS
WAYNE T.WONG
DUBLIN PLANNING
November 26, 1990
C476-001
VIA TELEFAX AND HAND-DELIVERY
Mr. Laurence Tong
Planning Director
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Re: Appeal of PA 90-066 Chevron SDR/CUP
Dear Mr. Tong:
On behalf of Chevron USA Inc. , I am appealing the ruling of
the Planning Commission regarding the above listed application
of Chevron.
As you know, we feel the staff position, as adopted by the
Planning Commission, is in error legally and factually as
follows:
(1) The proposed use is not inconsistent with the
General Plan;
(2) The proposed use is not a health and safety concern;
and
(3) The proposed use is needed by Dublin' s existing
community; certainly needed by the future development
approved, but not yet built; and will be needed by
the planned development to the east.
Aside from the stated staff position for denial, it is clear
that staff desires more planning done in the area, which
could result in the General Plan classification being amended
to Retail/Office. We would object to holding this small
project hostage to the replanning of the entire area.
Atb*M 3
Mr. Laurence Tong
November 26, 1990
Page 2
In summary, please set our appeal for hearing before the City
Council .
Respectfully,
HALLGRIMSON, WONG, MILLER & RELYEA
2 le
By :�'
Harvey E. Vvine, Esq.
HEL/aln
cc: Bill Scudder
Pat Bitz
W13c,cN 6eJeAAL ?LAN lAND US ��SCcztbra 5 �xcERPTs
Residential: Medium Density (6.1 to 14.0 units per gross residential acre) . The
range allows duplex, townhouse, and garden apartment development suitable for family
living. Except where mixed dwelling types are designated, unit types and densities
may be similar or varied. Where the plan requires mixed dwelling types, listed
policies specific to the site govern the location and distribution of dwelling types.
Assumed household size is two persons--per unit. Recently reviewed projects in the
medium density range include-Parkway Terrace (7.8) and Amador Lakes west of the
Dougherty Hills (13.5) .
Residential: Medium-High Density (14.1 to 25.0 units per gross residential acre) .
Projects at the upper end of this range normally will require some under-structure
parking and will have three or more living levels in order to meet zoning ordinance
open space requirements. Assumed household size is two persons per unit. Examples
of medium-high density projects include The Springs (17.8) and Greenwood Apartments
(19.8) .
Commercial/Industrial
Retail/Office. Shopping centers, stores, restaurants, business and professional
offices, motels, service stations,..and-sale of auto parts are included in this
classification. Residential"use"--is- excluded except in the Downtown Intensification
Area.
Retail/Office and Automotive. This classification includes all retail/office uses
and adds auto dealerships, auto body shops, and similar uses. Residential uses are
not permitted.
Business Park/Industrial. Uses are non-retail businesses (research, limited
manufacturing and distribution activities, and administrative offices) that do not
involve heavy trucking or generate nuisances due to emissions, noise, or open uses.
Residential uses are not permitted. Maximum attainable ratios of floor area to site
area (FAR) are controlled by parking and landscaping requirements and typically
result in .35 to .40 FAR's. Examples: Clark Avenue, Sierra Court.
Eman ss Park/Industrial: Outdoor Storage. In addition to the Business
--� ndustrial uses described above, this classification includes retail and r
cturing activities conducted outdoors such as mobile home or construction
als storage. Exampl e: Scarlett Court.
Public/Semi-Public
Public/Semi-Public Facilities. Uses other than parks owned by a public agency that
are of sufficient size to warrant differentiation from adjoining uses are labeled.
Development of housing on a site designated on the General Plan as semi-public shall
be considered consistent with the General Plan. Determination as to whether housing
should be permitted on a specific semi-public site and the acceptable density and
design will be through review of a Planned Unit Development proposal under the Zoning
Ordinance. Examples: Public and private schools, churches.
. Parks/Public Recreation. Publicly owned parks and recreation facilities.
Open Space. Included are areas dedicated as open space on subdivision maps, slopes
greater than 30 percent, stream protection corridors, woodlands, and grazing lands.
5 � t 4