Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Item 6.1 All Amer Label Appeal
of ~Ue~m n~ ~u 19~.- STAFF REPORT CITY CLERK ~`~ll~s~ CITY COUNCIL File #410-30 DATE: October 4, 2011 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Joni Pattillo, City Manager ~ SUBJECT: PLPA-2011-00020 Appeal of Planning Commission denial of the All American Label Site Development Review fora 4,456 square foot addition to an existing building Prepared by Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The City Council will consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a Site Development Review Permit fora 4,456 square foot addition to an existing 23,994 square foot building at 6958 Sierra Court. The Proposed Project was determined to be inconsistent with the General Plan in that the addition will cause the building to exceed the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) established by the General Plan Business Park/Industrial land use category. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Open the public hearing; 3) Take testimony from the Applicant and the public; 4) Close the public hearing and deliberate; and either 5) Affirm the Planning Commission's adoption of Resolution 11-24 denying a Site Development Review Permit fora 4,456 square foot addition to an existing 23,994 square foot building at 6958 Sierra Court and affirming the Planning Commission's Findings; OR 6) Direct the City Attorney to prepare findings for the City Council to reverse the Planning Commission's action. ~~c Submitted By Reviewed By Director of Community Development Assistant City Manager Page 1 of 7 ITEM NO. 6.1 DESCRIPTION: Figure 1: Vicinity Map . Background Project Site - Park Sierra Apts. The project site is located - at the north end of Sierra " - ~ _ ~ Court, adjacent to the ~ Alamo Creek trail to the Alamo - - ~ ' west and the Park Sierra Creek ; Apartments to the Trail northeast. The subject ~ J ~ ,1 ~ , building is currently ` - occupied by All American ` ~ ~-p ~ ~ - Label, which is a s - ~ . business that specializes f r in the printing and ~ - ' ' F distribution of labels and ~~-x ° . -l - - A other packaging. The 1.37 acre project site ' , . ~ , includes a permitted ~ „ ~ a 23,994 square foot ~ _ tr t~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V industrial building that ~ ~ ~ ~ ~,1,~ry~,~*~ .r ,y has recently been ~ ~ ~ f~ ~ ` expanded with an 't' a ~ unpermitted 4,456 square foot addition. The project site is depicted in Figure 1. The project site is located in the larger Sierra Court/Trinity Court area, which is dominated by light industrial buildings occupied by a combination of manufacturing, warehousing, and other uses. Like the project site, most of the parcels in the Sierra Court/Trinity Court area have a General Plan land use designation of Business Park/Industrial, as shown in Figure 2. Figure 2: General Plan Map Located in the Primary Planning Area, the Project Site Business Park/Industrial land use designation description in Chapter 1 of the General Plan is as follows: ,~.a~„~ "Business Park industrial (FAR:.30 to .40; ,~H.~ employee density: 360-490 square feet per employee). Uses are non-retail businesses (research, limited manufacturing and distribution ~"i. 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." Page2of7 The proposed site is located in the M-1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District. Most of the parcels in the Sierra CourtlTrinity Court area are located in M-1 (Light Industrial) and PD (Planned Development), zoning districts, as shown in Figure 3. Figure 3: Zoning Map n ~ The M-1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District ~ Project Site bni5, allows for a variety of warehousing, manufacturing, and distribution uses and is compatible with the Business Park/Industrial Ranned Development T'w°°" General Plan land use designation. The Sierra Court/Trinity Court area is also home to 5ni=, a number of Indoor Recreational Uses that have been permitted through either a Conditional Use Permit or a Minor Use Permit. ght [ndustnai Entitlement History Light lndustnal Mr. Tom Vargas, Operations Manager for All Ranned Development American Label, filed an application with the City in 2008 requesting Site Development Review (SDR) approval for the addition of a Ranned Developme ~ 4,456 square foot storage area on the northern portion of the site. Ranned Development _ After the application was submitted, Staff sent the Applicant an "incompleteness letter" dated August 11, 2008, noting that Staff had determined that the City is unable to approve the Proposed Project due to an inconsistency with the General Plan. The letter stated: "The current Floor Area Ratio for the site is 0.40, which is the maximum as allowed by the City of Dublin's General Plan. Consequently, due to the size of the lot and the size of the existing building, no additional floor area is permitted on the project site; therefore, we are not able to approve the proposed storage building. The Floor Area Ratio with the proposed shed would be .48." After receiving the letter, the Applicant amended the SDR application to request the approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review to allow the construction of a 4,456 square foot unenclosed outdoor storage area (i.e. carport), since an enclosed structure would not be permitted due to FAR restrictions. The amended SDR application was reviewed by the Planning Commission at a public hearing on November 12, 2008 and the Planning Commission approved Resolution 08-37, permitting the construction of the unenclosed outdoor storage area and the associated Conditions of Approval (Attachments 1 and 2). At some point after the Planning Commission approval of the unenclosed outdoor storage area, the Applicant proceeded to construct an enclosed building addition without Building or Planning permits. This action resulted in a Building Code Enforcement case being opened. On February 14, 2011, counsel for the City filed a civil complaint seeking injunctive relief against the Applicant. The complaint sought a Court order for the removal, or alteration, of the building addition which was constructed in violation of the Municipal Code. On May 24, 2011, the Court granted the City's preliminary injunction prohibiting the Applicant's use of the building addition until the issue can be resolved at trial. The parties are awaiting a further court order setting a trial date on the City's request for a permanent injunction and permanent resolution of the issue. Page 3 of 7 In an effort to legalize the unpermitted structure, Mr. Charles Huff (Architect), on behalf of Mr. Brad Brown (Owner), has applied for Site Development Review approval for the 4,456 square foot building addition. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The Planning Commission reviewed the Proposed Project at a public hearing on August 23, 2011. After considerable discussion, the Planning Commission voted 4-1 to deny the project. Planning Commission Resolution 11-24 is included as Attachment 3 and the draft August 23, 2011 Meeting Minutes are included as Attachment 4 to this Staff Report. APPEAL PROCESS: Chapter 8.136 of the Zoning Ordinance contains the regulations and procedures that must be followed if an action of the Planning Commission is appealed to the City Council. In brief, an appeal and filing fee must be filed with the City Clerk within 10 calendar days of the Planning Commission action. The appeal must be scheduled for a Public Hearing within 45 days of the filing of the appeal. The City Council may defer decision on the appeal at the Public Hearing but must take action within 75 days of the filing of the appeal. On September 1, 2011, Steve Poplar of Label Concepts filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the Site Development Review application (Attachment 5). In accordance with Chapter 8.136, the City Council must hold a Public Hearing by October 16, 2011 and must take action by November 15, 2011. Chapter 8.136 of the Zoning Ordinance states that the City Council may, by majority vote, affirm, affirm in part, or reverse the Planning Commission's decision. If the City Council decides to affirm the Planning Commission decision, the draft Resolution (Attachment 6) shall be approved. If the City Council decides to reverse the Planning Commission's decision to deny the Project, the City Council would need to determine that a finding of General Plan conformance can be made for this project, pursuant to Section 8.104.090.A of the Zoning Ordinance. At that point, the City Council would provide Staff with the basis of the determination and direct the City Attorney to prepare findings to reverse the Planning Commission action. Staff would then continue processing the All American Label Site Development Review application. Under this scenario, the Proposed Project would be thoroughly reviewed and analyzed by Staff. The project would then be brought forward to the Planning Commission at a future hearing for full consideration. The basis of the Planning Commission denial of the application and the determination of General Plan nonconformance is detailed in the following section. ANALYSIS: General Plan Conformance The subject property has a Business Park/Industrial General Plan land use designation. The Business Park/Industrial General Plan land use designation has a maximum allowable floor to area ratio (FAR) of 0.40 (City of Dublin General Plan Section 1.8.1). The SDR application indicates that the property is 1.37 acres (59,677 square feet), and that the existing building Page4of7 (without the proposed addition) is 23,994 square feet. The existing building (without the proposed addition) is already at the maximum allowable FAR, as shown in the table below: S care Foota a FAR Existin Buildin 23,944 .40 With Pro osed Addition 28,450 .48 With the proposed building addition, the FAR would be above the maximum permitted by the General Plan. The Project Site Plan is included as Exhibit A to Attachment 3. The Applicant disagrees with Staff's interpretation of the maximum permissible FAR described in the General Plan. In a letter to the City dated June 8, 2011, the Applicant's attorney asserts that the reference to a .40 FAR is intended to be descriptive, and not a mandatory maximum FAR (Attachment 7). He cites the text in the Business Park/Industrial land use description that reads "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." However, the City's long- standing interpretation of the permissible minimum and maximum FARs in each district rely on the FAR range noted in the heading of each land use classification, as described .below. Dublin's first General Plan was adopted in February 1985. In 1992, the City Council approved several technical revisions to the General Plan to ensure conformance of the document with current Government Code provisions for General Plans. Government Code section 65302(a) requires land use elements to include standards of population density and building intensity for the various general plan districts. According to the General Plan Guidelines prepared by the state Office of Planning and Research (OPR), court decisions hold that an adequate general plan must contain quantified standards of building intensity for each general plan land use designation (Guidelines p. 50, Attachment 8). The Guidelines further describe a "standard" as a rule or measure that must be complied with (Guidelines page 16, Attachment 9). Among other things, the revisions included updating text to reflect statutory requirements, such as adding intensity standards (floor area ratio and employee density) for each commercial land use category. The City Council Agenda Statement, dated September 14, 1992, details the changes. Attachment 1 to that Agenda Statement illustrates, in underline and strikethrough text, the exact revisions made. Page 1-6 of Attachment 1 of the September 14, 1992 City Council Agenda Statement illustrates that each land use category was revised to include information about the allowable FAR range as well as the employee density range. The Business Park/Industrial land use category (outlined by a red box) was amended to include an allowable FAR range of .30 to .40, and an allowable employee density range of 360 to 490 square feet per employee. The September 14, 1992 Agenda Statement (with the relevant pages of the original Attachment 1) is included as Attachment 10 to this Staff Report. The description of the Business Park/Industrial land use category further notes that "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." This text existed in the General Plan land use category description prior to the 1992 amendment but could be interpreted as descriptive rather than mandatory. The stricter FAR minimum and maximum range was added to the General Plan land use descriptions to clearly establish the required mandatory standards of permissible density for the Business Park/Industrial land use category. By retaining the descriptive language, the general plan clarifies that projects are not guaranteed the maximum Page 5 of 7 permissible amount of development under the density range; the actual project density may come in lower. This FAR range has been in the General Plan since the City Council amended the General Plan in 1992 (Resolution 115-92). Since the amendments to the General Plan were approved in 1992, the City has interpreted the FAR range as the minimum and maximum permitted FAR for any given property. There are instances of properties in the Sierra Court/Trinity Court area that exceed the maximum allowable FAR. These properties were developed prior to the City's incorporation and the adoption of the 1992 General Plan Amendment establishing the maximum allowable FAR. Therefore, these properties are considered legal non-conforming. They are allowed to exist at their current size but are prohibited from further expansion. Previous correspondence sent to the Applicant on this topic has been consistent with the historical interpretation of the FAR range being the minimum and maximum allowable for any given site. Correspondence previously .sent to the Applicant in 2008 explained that the maximum FAR for the site is .40 in accordance with the Business Park/Industrial land use designation. Required Findings In accordance with Chapter 8.104 (Site Development Review) of the Zoning Ordinance, several findings must be made in order to approve a Site Development Review application. Section 8.104.090 (Required Findings) states that "All of the following findings shall be made in order to approve a Site Development Review and shall be supported by substantial evidence in the public record." The first of those findings is 8.104.090.A, which requires that "the proposal is consistent with the purposes of this Chapter, with the General Plan and with any applicable Specific Plans and design guidelines." The Planning Commission was not able to make this finding, and therefore Resolution 11-24, denying the project, was approved by the Planning Commission on August 23, 2011. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Pursuant to Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Staff recommends that the City Council find the denial of this Project to be Statutorily Exempt from CEQA review. CEQA Guidelines Section 15270 states that projects which are denied are not subject to the provisions of CEQA, and therefore environmental review is not required. CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE: As noted in the previous section, Staff recommended, and the Planning Commission found, that the Proposed Project is not consistent with the General Plan. Staff has not completed a full analysis of the project's consistency with the Zoning Ordinance. REVIEW BY APPLICABLE DEPARTMENT AND AGENCIES: The SDR application has not yet been fully reviewed by all City departments and outside agencies. A preliminary review by the Fire Department has shown that the project, as proposed, does not meet fire access requirements. Page 6 of 7 NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH: In accordance with State law, a Public Notice was mailed to all property owners and occupants within 300-feet of the Proposed Project. The Public Notice was also published in the Valley Times and posted at several locations throughout the City. At the writing of this Staff Report, no letters have been received regarding the project. A copy of this Staff Report was provided to the Applicant. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated November 12, 2008 (without attachments) 2. Planning Commission Resolution 08-37 3. Planning Commission Resolution 11-24, denying Site Development Review fora 4,456 square foot addition to an existing 23,994 square foot building at 6958 Sierra Court, with the Project Site Plan attached as Exhibit A. 4. Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated August 23, 2011 5. Appeal letter from Steve Poplar, dated September 1, 2011 6. Resolution affirming Planning Commission's adoption of Reso No. 11-24 denying Site Development Review Permit fora 4,456 square foot addition to an existing 23,994 square foot building at 6958 Sierra Court and affirming the Findings, with the Project Site Plan attached as Exhibit A. 7. Letter to City from Peter MacDonald, dated June 8, 2011 8. General Plan Guidelines (page 50) 9. General Plan Guidelines (page 16) 10. City Council September 14, 1992 Agenda Statement (with excerpts from the original Attachment 1) Page 7 of 7 ~j ~'y 19 ' ~ 182 -~w AGENDA STATEMENT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: November 12, 2008 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: PA 08-020 All American Label Conditional Llse Permit and Site Development Review to allow a Covered Outdoor Storage Area at 6958 Sierra Court (Quasi-Judicial) Reporl prepared ht• A~fca7hcr ja, Ascislcml Planner A"T"I'AC'Hi~1F;h'1'S: 1) Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review to allow exterior modifications to the project site, which consists of the addition of a covered srorage area at All American Label located at 6958 Sierra Court. 2) Praiect Plans. 3) Letter tTOm the Applicant. 4) Steel pole color sample. Steel roof color sample. RECOMMENDATION: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Open the public hearing; ~ 3) Take testimony from the Applicant and the public; ' 4) Close the public hearing and deliberate; and 5) Adopt Resolution (Attachment 1) approving a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review to allow exterior modifications to the project site, which consists of the addition of a covered storage area at All American Label located at 6958 Sierra Court. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ~ The project site is located at 6958 Sierra Court. The ' ~ ttc~sidct,rial project site is approximately 1.3 acres in size. An existing 23,994 square toot building currently exists - on-site. The existing building is primarily warehouse - I'ruject ~it~~ ti~ Tt 4 with associated otiice space. The existing building - ~ ~•~w ` ~ z,v includes 2,800 square feet of otTice space and 21,194 ~ ~ square feet of warehouse. The project site has a ' i ~ ` ~ General Plan designation of Business ParlJIndustrial ~ / and is zoned M-1 (Light Industrial), which allows ' - t„ctusrrial industrial uses. The property is located at the end of I trop Horse ~ Sierra Court as indicated in the vicinit}~ map to the left. Trail ~ vl, - The proposed project consists of a Conditional Use ~ Permit (CUP) and Site Development Review (SDR) ~ to allow an exterior modification to the project site. which consists of the a(dition of covered outdoor storage area. COPIES TO: Applicant Property (h~ ner File ITEM NO.: • H Page 1 of 5 (;.U'A~~?(N181PA 08-020 Ail Amrrical I.abci SDR~PC' Staff Rcp~xt 11.12.O8.d~x I BACKGROUND: All American Label has been in business for more than 10 years and they have been at their current location for the past 3 years. All American Label is a full service label printer business. The business has expanded over the past few years and consequently All American Label has c utgrown their existing building. The proposed outdoor storage area will be used to provide additional st~~rage space for All American Label business. ANALYSIS: Conditional Use Permit Chapter 8.12 of the Zoning Ordinance {Zoning Districts and Permitted Uses of Land) indicates that an equipment and materials storage yard is permitted in the M-1 Zoning District with a Conditional Use Permit reviewed by the Planning Commission. The Applicant has requested approval of a 4,45b square foot outdoor storage area adjacent to the building in the northern portion of the site (Refer to Attachment 2). The Iron Horse Trail is located west of the project site. Mature vegetation exists along the western property boundary, w1 ich will screen the proposed outdoor storage area from individuals utilizing the trail. An apartment complex is located approximately 90 feet north of the project site. There is an existing wall along the adjacent property located north of the project site, which will screen the outdoor storage area from residents in this apartment complex. The other surrounding properties include industrial uses. The Applicant is unable to add onto the existing building because the c~~rrent Floor Area Ratio of the project site is the maximum as allowed by the City of Dublin's General Plan. The project site's Land Use Designation is Business Park/Industrial, which allows a maximum Floor Area Ratio of 0.40. The current Floor Area Ratio for the project site is 0.40; therefore, the proposed outdoor storage area is the only avenue available to the Applicant to create additional storage space on his property. The proposed outdoor storage area will serve as an on-site location for All American Label to store their business's inventory. The Applicant will be storing a variety of materia s in the covered outdoor storage area including pressure sensitive paper and corrugated boxes. Currently, Al'. American Label has their inventory stored outside and the inventory is brought inside every night. The addition of the covered storage area to the site will provide protection to the inventory from the elements and also discourage vandalism. Parking Analysis The City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance contains off-street parking requirements by use type. A Light Industrial Use Type is required to provide 1 parking space per 400 square feet of general purpose area, plus 1 parking space per 1,000 square feet of warehouse or distribution area. ~s previously stated, the office area is 2,800 square feet and the warehouse area is 21,194 square feet. The proposed outdoor storage area is required to provide 1 parking space per 1,000 square feet. The proposed outdoor storage area is 4,45b square feet. A total of 29 on-site parking spaces sire required for this use based on the existing and proposed uses (see Table below). 2of5 Parking Light Industrial Use Type (as listed in the Zoning Ordinance) ~ Parking required per Warehouse = 1 space per .1,000 square feet City Code General ~'urpose Area = 1 space per 400 square feet General Purpose Area - 2,800 7 parking spaces Printing/Warehouse - 21,194 square feet 21 parking spaces Proposed Outdoor Storage Area - 4,456 square feet 4 parking spaces 10% Parking Reduction -3 parking spaces Total Parking Spaces Required 29 parking spaces The Applicant is able to accommodate all 29 parking spaces on site, which includes an overall 10% reduction for the site as allowed by Section 8.7b.O50.D of the Zoning Ordinance. The 10% reduction accounts for the need and use of parking throughout an average day. A condition has been placed on the project which requires the Applicant to re-stripe the parking area to achieve the 29 required parking spaces on-site (Condition No. 15, Atl:achment 1). The proposed equipment and materials storage yard is appropriate for the site because the proposed location of the outdoor storage area is located in the Sierra Court B~zsiness Park, which has a variety of industrial uses. The storage area is in association with an existing building and is compatible with the existing and allowed uses of the project site. The draft findings for this Conditional Use Permit request can be found on pages 2 and 3 of Attachment 1. Site Development Review The Applicant is proposing a 4,456 square foot covered storage area. The color and materials are consistent with the existing buildin€;. The outdoor storage area will be supported by 11 steel columns, which will be painted to match the existing building (please refer to Attachment 4 for color sample). The roof of the outdoor storage area will consist of steel roof panels pai:ited surf sand to match the existing roof (please refer to Attachment 5 for roof color sample). The proposed height of the roof of the storage area ranges in height from 16'4" (portion closest to the existing building) to 24'8" (portion farthest from the existing building). The covered outdoor storage area is consistent with the height of the existing building. The proposed modifications are appropriate for the site because the outdoor storage area is compatible with the existing building and the use of the site. The project site is located within the Sierra Business Park and it is surrounded by a variety of industrial uses. The site is visible from the Alamo Creek Trail; however, existing vegetation along the rear of the property will help screen thy: covered outdoor storage area from individuals utilizing the trail. The draft findings for the Site Development Review can be found on pages 3 and 4 of Attachment 1. Public Notice In accordance with State law, a public notice regarding this hearing was mailed to all property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the proposed project. A public notice was also published in the Valley Times and posted at several locations throughout the City. To date, the City has not received comments or objections from surrounding property owners or tenants regarding the current proposal. 3 of 5 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project has been reviewed undc;r the California Environmental Quality Act, (CEQA), State CEQA Guidelines and the Dublin Environmental Guidelines, and the projec: has been found to be Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), according to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Minor alteration of existing facilities). CONCLUSION: The proposed covered outdoor storage area at All American Label will provide the property owner with additional storage space on the property. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the Dublin General Plan and the Dublin Zoning District in which the project site is located and represents an appropriate project for the site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Plannin Commission: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Open the public hearing; 3) Take testimony from the Applicant and the public; 4) Close the public hearing and deliberate; and 5} Adopt Resolution (Attachment 1) approving a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review to allow exterior modifications to the project site, which arasists of the addition of a covered storage area at A11 American Label located at 6958 Sierra Court. 4of5 GENERAL INFORMATION: APPLICANT: Tom Vargas All American Label 6958 Sierra Court Dublin, CA 94568 PROPERTY OWNER: Brad Brown All American Label 6958 Sierra Court Dublin, CA 94568 LOCATION: 6958 Sierra Court ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER: 941-2756-006 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Business Park/Industrial EXISTING ZONING: Light Industrial (M-1) SURROUNDING: USES: LOCATION ZONING (GENERAL PLAN LAND CURRENT USE OF PROPERTY USE PD (PA 97-019} Medium-High Density Rfsidential North Rc,sidential South M-1 (Light Business Park/Industrial Industrial Industrial) West R-1 (Single- Single Family Residential Alamo Creek Trail family Residential) East M-1 (Light R~,tail Office Industrial Industrial) Project Site M-1 (Light Business Park/Industrial Industrial Industrial) 5 of 5 RESOLUTION NO. 08 - 37 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT TO ALLOW A COVERED OUTDOOR STORAGE AREA IN THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (M-1) ZONING DISTRICT AT 6958 SIERRA COURT (APN 941-2756-006) PA 08-020 WHEREAS, Tom Vargas, the Applicant, has requested approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review to allow an exterior modification to the pro iect site, which consists of the addition of a covered outdoor storage area in the Light Industrial (M-1) Zoning District at 6958 Sierra Court; and WHEREAS, the approximately 1.3 acre parcel is currently occi.~pied by a 23,994 square foot industrial building; and WHEREAS, the proposal includes a 4,456 square foot covered outdoor storage area to the project site; and WHEREAS, the General Plan land use designation for the pro iect site is Business Park/Industrial and the zoning is Light Industrial; and WHEREAS, a complete application for the above noted entitlement request is available and on file in the Community Development Department; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has submitted project plans dated r~,ceived October 28, 2008; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State guidelines and City environmental regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impact and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, the proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the Dublin General Plan and the Zoning District in which it is located, and represents an appropriate project for the site; and WHEREAS, this project is categorically exempt from the environmental review requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Facilities}; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted outlining the issues surrounding the request; and WHEREAS the Planning Cormission held a properly noticea public hearing on said application on November 12, 2008; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth and used their independent judgment to make a decision. Page 1 of 8 NOW, THEREFORE, BE I'I' RESOLVED THAT the City of Dublin Planning Commission does hereby make the following findings acid determinations: Conditional Use Permit: A. The proposed use and related structures are compatible with other land uses, transportation and service facilities in the vicinity because: 1) the proposed location of the outdoor storage area is located in the Sierra Court Business Park area which has a wide variety of industrial uses; 2) Section 8.12.050 states that an Equipment and Materials Storage 'hard is permitted in the M-1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District with a Conditional Use Permit; and 3) the proposed outdoor storage area is in association with an existing; building and is compatible with the existing and allowed uses of the project site. B. The proposed use, as conditioned, will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or bE~ detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare and will not be injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood because: 1) the proposed use will be adequately conditioned to ensure that the operation has no recognizable negative impacts to the existing uses in the Light Industrial Business Park; and 2) the proposed outdoor storage area will comply with all of the City of Dublin regulations. C. The proposed use, under all circumstances and conditions of this permit, will not be injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood because: 1}the proposed outdoor storage area will be used to store inventory; and 2) the storage area will comply wit? all City of Dublin regulations. D. There are adequate provisions for public access, water, sanitation, and public utilities and services to ensure that the proposed use and related structures would ne?t be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare because: 1) the proposed use will be operated adjacent to an existing building that is serviced by all appropriate utilities and infrastructure; 2) thf, area was designed to accommodate a variety of uses and the proposed use fits in with the intended uses of the area; and 3) the proposed storage area will not be serviced by water or sanitation. E. The subject site is physicall~~ suitable for the type, density and intensity of the use and related structures being proposed because: 1) the existing roadway network leading to the site and the availability of existing on-site parking is adequate to serve the proposed use; and 2) the covered outdoor storage area will be located in an existing Light Industrial Business Park which was designed to support a variety of uses. F. The proposed use will not be contrary to the specific intent clauses, development regulations, and performance standards established for the Light Industrial (M-1) zoning district because: 1) conditions of approval have been applied to the project to ensure on-going compatibility with surrounding uses; 2) the proposed use (outdoor storage) is ~ Conditional Use in the M-1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District and is permitted when the required ~~indings as stated in Section 8.100.060 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance can be made; 3) the proposed outdoor storage area is compatible with the existing uses found in the Sierra Court Light Industrial Business Park and therefore meets the requirements of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance; 4) the proposed use is consistent with the intent of the M-1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District as defined by Chapter 8.28 because the proposed outdoor storage area is small in size, meets the needs of the pro ~erty owner, is compatible with the Page 2 of 8 surrounding land use; and 5) a total of 29 on-site parking spaces are required for this use, which includes an overall 10% reduction for the site as allowed by Section 8.76.OSO.D of the Zoning Ordinance. G. The approval of this Conditional Use Permit is consistent with the Dublin General Plan because: 1) the proposed use is permitted with a Conditional Use Permit and meets the intentions of the Zoning District in which it is located; and 2) the proposed project will result in improvements to the site which will provide a service to the property owner that is consistent with the intent of the Business Park/Industrial General Plan Land Use designation. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission does hereby make the following findings and determination: Site Development Review: A. The Project, as conditioned, is consistent with the purpose crud intent of Chapter 8.104, with the General Plan and any applicable Specific Plans and design guidelines because: 1) the proposed modification to the site is to pillow the addition of a 4,456 square foot covered outdoor storage area adjacent to an existing industrial building; 2) the outdoor stora.;e area is compatible with the existing building and use of the site; and 3) the covered outdoor storage area will be used to store inventory. B. The Project, as conditioned, is consistent with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance because: 1) the proposed project will comply with all City Regulations, including setback requirements and height restrictions. C. The design of the project, as conditioned, is appropriate to the city, the vicinity, surrounding properties and the lot in which the project is proposed becat~~se: 1) prior to the construction of the storage area, Building Permits will be required to ensure that the addition is constructed safely and in accordance with this approval; 2) the proposed project will comply with all City Regulations; 3) the proposed project will be compatible with similar projects in the vicinity; 4) the steel posts and roof of the carport will be painted to match the existing building on site; and s) the noise generated from the construction will be minimal and will not create a nuisance. D. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the approved development because: 1) the subject property is zoned M-1 (Light Industrial) and the proposed project includes the addition of a 4,456 square foot covered outdoor storage area adjacent to the existing building on site that is consistent with the development regulations for the M-1 Zonin.; District; and 2) the proposed covered outdoor storage area will be compatible with the existing uses in the neighborhood. E. Impacts to existing slopes and topographic features are addressed because: 1) the property site is relatively slat; and 2) grading will not be required for the proposed exterior modification, which consists of the addition of a covered outdoor storage area to the site. F. Architectural considerations including the character, scale and quality of the design, site layout, the architectural relationship with the site and other buildings, screening of unsightly uses, lighting, building materials and colors and similar elements result in a project that is harmonious with its surroundings and compatible with other development in the vicinity because: 1) the proposed outdoor storage area will complement the existing building on site, thereby enhancing the overall site; and 2) Page 3 of 8 the colors and materials used for the covered outdoor storage area are consistent with the existing building on site. G. Landscape considerations, including the location, type, size, ~;olor, texture, and coverage of plant materials, and similar eleme~its have been incorporated into the project to ensure visual relief, adequate screening and an attractive environment for the pub,'ic because: 1) the project consists of an existing light industrial property that is landscaped. H. The site has been adequately designed to ensure proper circa~lation for bicyclists, pedestrians and automobiles because: 1) no changes are being proposed to the site's circulation pattern. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City of Dublin Planning Commission does hereby approve PA 08-020 the All American Label Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review Permit to operate an outdoor storage area at 6958 Sierra Court, APN 941-2756-006. The project approval shall be subject to compliance with the following Conditions of Approval fc~r a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review Permit: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Unless stated otherwise all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to the issuance of buildin permits or establishment of use, and shall be subject to Planning D ~artment review and approval. The following codes represent those departments/agencies responsible for monitoring compliance of the conditions of approval: [PL] P1~u1mn~ [Bl Building APO] Police PW Public Works ADM Administration/City Attorney, fF»LFinance Ll Alameda Count~Fire De artment DSRSD Dublin San Ramon Services District [CO] Alameda Coun De artment of Environmental Health. CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN SOURCE AGI±;NCY REQ'D Prior to: GENERAL -Site Develo went Review and Conditional Use Permit 1. Approval. This Conditional Use Permit and Site PL On-going Standard Development Review approval is for the approval of a covered outdoor storage area located at 6958 Sierra Court. This approval shall be as generally depicted and indicated on the plans prepared by K&S Construction dated received October 28, 2008, on file in the Community .Development Dep~irtment, and as specified b the followin conditions of a royal for this ro ect. 2, Permit Expiration. Construction or use shall commence PL One year of 8.96.020.D within one (1) year of Permit approval or the Permit shall approval lapse and become null and void. Commencement of date construction or use means the actual construction or use pursuant to the Permit approval or, demonstrating substantial progress toward commencing such construction or use. If there is a dispute as to whether the Permit has expired, the City may hold a noticed public hearing to determine the matter. Such a determination may be processed concurrently with revocation proceedings in appropriate circumstances. If a Permit expires, a new application must be made and processed accordin to the re uirements of this Ordinance. Page 4 of 8 CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN SOURCE AGIF:NCY REQ'D Prior to• 3, Time Extension. The original approving decision-maker PL One year of 8.96.020.E may, upon the Applicant's written request for an approval extension of approval prior to expiration, and upon the date determination that any Conditions of Approval remain adequate to assure that applicable findings of approval will continue to be met, grant a time extension of a royal fora eriod not to exceed six 6 months. 4, Permit Validity. This Conditional Use Permit and Site PL On-going 8.96.020.F Development Review approval shall be valid for the remaining life of the approved structure so long as the operators of the subject property comply with the ro~ect's conditions of a royal. 5, Revocation of permit. The Site Development Review PL On-going 8.96.020.I and Conditional Use Permit approval shall be revocable for cause in accordance with Section 8.96.020.I of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Any violation of the terms or conditions of this ermit shall be subject to citation. 6, Clean-up. The Applicant/Developer shall be responsible PL On-going Standard for clean-up and disposal of project related trash to maintain a safe, clean, and litter-free site. Modifications. Modifications or changes to this Site PL On-going 8.104.100 Development Review approval may be considered by the Community Development Director if the modifications or changes proposed comply with Section 8.104.100 of the Zonin Ordinance. g_ Controlling Activities. The Applicant/Developer shall PL On-going Standard control all activities on the project site so as not to create a nuisance to the existing or surrounding businesses and residences. g, Accessory/Temporary Structures. The use of any PL On-going 8.108.020 accessory or temporary structures, such as storage sheds or trailer/ container units used fir storage or for any other purposes, shall be subject to review and approval by the Communi Develo meat Director. 10. Fees. Applicant/Developer shall pay all applicable fees in Various Issuance of Standard effect at the time of building permit issuance, including, building but not limited to, Planning fees, Building fees, TVTC permit fees, Dublin San Ramon Services District fees, Public Facilities fees, Dublin Unified School District School Impact fees, City of Dublin Fire Services fees, Alameda County Flood and Water Conservation District (Zone 7) Drainage and Water Connection fees; or any other fee that ma be ado ted and a livable. 11. Requirements and Standard Conditions. The Vari~~us Issuance of Standard Applicant/Developer shall comply with applicable Dublin building Fire, Dublin Public Works Department, Dublin Building permit Department, Dublin Police Services, Alameda County Flood Control District Zone 7, Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority, Alameda County Public and Environmental Health, Dublin San Ramon Services District and the California Department of Health Services requirements and standard conditions. Prior to issuance of buildin ermits or the installation of an im rovements Page5of8 CONDITION TEXT RE5PON. WHEN SOURCE AG>E;NCY REQ'D Prior to• related to this project, the Developer shall supply written statements from each such agency or department to the Planning Department, indicating that all applicable conditions required have been or will be met. 12. Building Codes and Ordinances. All project B Through Building construction shall conform to all building codes and completion ordinances in effect at the time of buildin ermit. 13. Fire Codes and Ordinances. All project construction F On-going Fire shall conform to all fire codes and ordinances in effect at the time of building permits. Site and Building plans shall be provided for review and approval by the Fire De artment. PROJECT SPECIFIC -SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 14. Covered Storage Area. The covered outdoor storage PL Final Planning area shall consist of a 4,456 square foot steel carport inspection structure. The steel column poles shall be painted tan to match the existing building. ~'he roof shall consist of galvalume steel painted surf sand to match the roof color of the existin buildin . 15. Parking Lot. The parking area shall be re-striped to PL/PW Final Planning/Public achieve a total of 29 parkilig spaces. The parking inspection Works dimensions shall meet the dimensional requirements specified in Chapter 8.76 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. 16. Landscaping. Any landscaping disturbed or damaged PL Final Planning during construction shall be replaced in kind, to the inspection satisfaction of the Director of Communi Develo ment. 17. Construction Fencing. The use of any temporary PW, PO, Installation Public Works/ construction fencing shall be subject to the review and F, B Police/Fire/ approval of the Public Works Director, Dublin Police Building Services, the Dublin Fire Marshall, and the Building Official. BUILDING DIVISION lg, Building Codes and Ordinances. All project B Through Building construction shall conform to all building codes and completion ordinances in effect at the time of building permit. 19. Building Permits. To apply for building permits, B Issuance of Building Applicant/Developer shall submit eight (8) sets of building construction plans to the Building Division for plan permits check. Each set of plans shall have attached an annotated copy of these Conditions of Approval. The notations shall clearly indicate how all Conditions of Approval will or have been complied with. Construction plans will not be accepted without the annotated resolutions attached to each set of plans. Applicant/Developer will be responsible for obtaining the approvals of all participation non-City agencies prior to the issuance of building ermits. 20. Construction Drawings. Co~~struction plans shall be B Issuance of Building fully dimensioned (including building elevations) building accuratel drawn de ictin all existin and ro osed ermits Page 6 of 8 CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN SOURCE AGENCY REQ'D Prior to• conditions on site), and prepared and signed by a California licensed Architect or Engineer. All structural calculations shall be prepared a.~id signed by a California licensed Architect or Engineer. The site plan, landscape lan and details shall be consistent with each other. 21. Addressing. Address will be required on all doors B Prior to Building leading to the exterior of the building. Addresses shall be issuance of illuminated and be illuminated and be able to be seen building from the street, 5 inches in hei ht minimum. ermits 22. Engineer Observation. The Engineer of record shall be B Prior to Building retained to provide observation services for all frame components of the lateral and vertical design of the inspection building, including nailing, holddowns, straps, shear, roof diaphragm and structural frame of building. A written report shall be submitted to the City Inspector prior to schedulin the final frame ins ection. 23. Temporary Fencing. Tempor~uy Construction fencing B Through Building shall be installed along perimeter of all work under completion construction. 24. Green Building Guidelines. To the extent practical, the B Through Building Applicant shall incorporate Green Building Measures. Completion Green Building plan shall be submitted to the Building Official for review. 25. Electronic File. The Applicant/l~eveloper shall submit all B Prior to Building building drawings and specifications for this project in an Final electronic format to the satisfaction of the Building Official prior to the issuance of building permits. Additionally, all revisions made to the building plans during the project shall be incorporated as an "As Built" electronic file and submitted prior to the issuance of the final occu anc . FIRE PREVENTION DIVISION 26, Building and Fire Codes. The project shall comply with F Through Fire the applicable Building and Fire Codes. Site and Building Completion plans shall be provided for review and approval by the Fire De artment. 27, Project Access. Access for this project must comply with F Prior to Fire Section 503 of the 2007 California Fire Code. issuance of Building Permit DUBLIN POLICE SERVICES 28. Non Residential Security Requirements. The Applicant PO On-going Police shall comply with all applicable City of Dublin Non Residential Securi Ordinance Re uirements. 29. Graffiti. The Developer and/or Property Owner shall keep PO On-going Police the site clear of graffiti vandalism on a regular and continuous basis at all times. Graffiti resistance materials and foliage should be used. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 30. Accessible Parking. The Applicant shall provide at least Prior to Public Works one disabled accessible stall that is wide enough to Final accommodate a "Van Accessible" stall and the avement Page 7 of 8 CONDITION TEXT RESI'ON. WHEN SOURCE AGENCY REQ'D Prior to• slopes do not exceed 2% in any direction. All required disabled stalls shall meet the current Title 24/ADA standards. 31. Handrails. The Applicant shall provide a handrail along PW Prior to Public Works the existing path of travel from the accessible pazking Final s ace to the rim entrance of tl~e buildin . 32, Storm Drain Filter. The Applicant shall install a "Triton" PW Prior to Public Works Storm drain filter in the catch basin. Final PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 12`}' day of November :'.008. AYES: Schaub, Tomlinson, Wehrenberg, Biddle, King NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Planning Commission Chairperson ATTE T: Planning anager G: IPA#120081PA 08-020 All Americal Label SDRIResolution.doc Page 8 of 8 RESOLUTION NO. 11- 24 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DENYING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FORA 4,456 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO AN ` EXISTING 23,994 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING AT 6958 SIERRA COURT PLPA 2091-0002{? (APN 94'1-2576-006) WHEREAS, the Applicant, Charles Huff (Architect}, on behalf of Mr. Brad Brown (Owner}, has requested approval of a Site Development Review permit to allow a 4,456 square foot addition to an existing 23,994 square foot building at 6958 Sierra Court; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has submitted project plans for the requested entitlement prepared by Charles Huff, AIA received by the Planning Division on May 4, 2Q11, attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference; and ° WHEREAS, the project site has a General Plan land use designation of Business Parkllndustrial, which has an allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR} range of .3Q to .40; and WHEREAS, the FAR for the proposed project (existing building plus proposed addition) is .48; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with S#ate guidelines and City environmental regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the CEQA, Staff has recommended that the denial of this Project be found Statutorily Exempt pursuant to Section 15270 of the CEQA Guidelines which states that Projects which are denied are not subject to the provisions of CEQA; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted to the Planning Commission on August 23, 2011 recommending denial of said application, which staff report is incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on said application; WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth and used its independent judgment to evaluate the project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Dublin does hereby make the following finding and determination regarding the proposed Site Development Review: A. The proposed Site Development Review is not consistent with the purposes of Chapter 8.704, Sife Development Review, of the Zoning Ordinance, with the General Plan and wifh any applicable Specific Plans and design guidelines because the floor area ratio (FAR) for the existing building is .40, which is the maximum allowable FAR far the Business Park/industrial land use designation. With the proposed 4,456 square foot addition, the FAR for the project site would be .48, which is inconsistent with the density standards of the Genera( Plan, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby deny said application, Site Development Review for Ail American ~.abel, to construct a 4,456 square foot addition to an existing 23,994 square foot building at 69x8 Sierra Court as generally depicted in the Project Plans prepared by Charles Huff, AIA, received by the Planning Division on May 4, 2011, labeled Exhibit A #o this Resolution, and on file with the Community Development Department. PASSED AND APPROVED this 23r~ day of August 2011 by the following vote: AYES: Brown, Wehreraberg, Bhuthimethee NOES: O'Keefe ABSENT: Schaub ABSTAIN: Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Planning Manager G:1PA#12pi 11PLPA-2011-Q0020 All American La6e1 SI7RIPC D8.23.20011PC I?ania! Reso.docx I i i 2 i i 9tif•I9YI?[Il Wl7elulltlld •$r:aP'saYPrupa7S[f'Ib _ IVI lal (l! ~.+.~a[S 8563 ~ .I. 7 ~ .1. 1 N ? N d s~1>~ 'd~l'~ ~~r~H s~~~~Ha 7~~'v' 1 Nt-f~~~1~W~ 7~Ib ~ 7I4j Oiy'~a71rta AS~y A ~ 4 •w ~ . ~ ~ - .y ~ III $ 7 ~ .a~ t. ~ ~ i ~ g ~1 ~ t. ,S "'a~ • o~ :~9~ ~ f ' ~ \ 4 7fH • ~ce [OaL 4~~t E ' a ti R i r~ • ~ ~ t ~~~f g~~ er~ J ~ f ~ ~S ~ ~ ~ a " • ~ . . r 1 _ ~ _ m U ~ ~ a ~ j • - ~ i I I DRAFT DRAFT 8.2 PLPA-201'(-00020, All American Label Site Development Review fora 4,456 square foot addition to an existing 23,994 square foot building at 6958 Sierra Court Jeff Baker, Planning Manager, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. ` Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked what the storage area is being used for and if there is any risk that may require it to be reviewed by the Fire Department. Mr. Baker replied that he feels the Applicant may be better suited #o address that question. He stated that Court Order currently states that the storage area is not to be used white litigation is ongoing. Cm. O'Keefe asked if there are any sites in the Industrial (M-1) zoning area that currently exceed the Floor Area Ratio (FAR}. Mr. Baker replied yes, stating that many of the buildings on Sierra Court were built before the City was incorporated or before the 1992 General Plan Amendment which established the minimum and maximum FAR. He stated that there are potentially buildings that exceed the maximum 40% FAR and they are considered Legal, Non-Conforming. Cm. O'Keefe asked what the current day, negative impacts would be of existing buildings exceeding the 40% FAR. Mr. Baker replied that those buildings would allow for greater density and intensity of use than what is envisioned by the Community. Chair Brown opened the public hearing. Guy Houston, representing All American Label, spoke in favor of the Applicant. He stated that the issue regarding Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA} has been addressed and a plan for access has been submitted. He further stated that the Applicant considers this issue closed, Mr. Houston stated that the Applicant's request is not in violation of the General Pfan. He stated that the 1985 General Plan did not mandate a 40% FAR and was descriptive but not mandatory in nature. He further stated that the General Plan policy in ~ 992 remained unchanged, stating that, "the changes do not affect the policy direction of the Plan and remains as in 1985." Mr. Houston stated that the intent of the City Council in 1992 was clear and no changes in the descriptive nature were made, therefore the 40% FAR is not mandatory. Mr. Houston stated there are currently 1 T buildings on Sierra Court that exceed the 40% FAR. He stated that Legal, Non-Conforming use affects a building's use, property values, saleability, and financing capabilities. The Commission had no questions. Brad Brown, Applicant, stated that tine storage space would be used solely for storage and would not be used to store machinery of any kind. He stated #hat the only way to increase his business and continue as a viable manufacturer is to have the extra storage space, exceeding ~t?~rrnsairzg ~'onitrzt~ss$nrt ~Isr~rrst 7,3, 201] ~~~par!~ar ,~~e~;2 irr~ 112 i DRAFT DRAFT the current FAR. He stated that De wishes to keep his business located in Dublin and will do what De needs to work successfully with Staff. Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked Mr, Brown if he was the original applicant for the unenclosed storage area SDRICUP in 2008, Mr. Brown replied yes. Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked why the storage area was not built as approved by the Planning Commission in November, 200$, Mr. Brown replied that it was a bad decision to move forward with an enclosed storage area. He stated that his business cannot survive without the current storage area and additional FAR. Jeff Main, owner of 6955 Sierra Court, spoke in support of the Applicant. Mr. Main stated that his building exceeds the FAR because it was established 31 years ago and he could not be successful without the extra space. He stated that All American Label provides business and money for the City and as long as the storage area is built correctly and safely, it should be able to remain as-is. The Commission had no questions. Steve Popelar, Dublin resident and owner of 6700 Sierra Lane, spoke in favor of the Applicant. Mr. Popelar stated that All American Label is vital for the success of his own company, Label Concepts. He stated that without All American Label, businesses will suffer and the effect on other Dublin businesses is something the Commission should consider. The Commission had no questions. Chair Brown closed the public hearing. Cm, O'Keefe asked how many times the issue of exceeding FAR has come before the Planning Commission. Vice Chair Wehrenberg stated that the Commission has seen the issue in the past but it usually addresses housing developments, such as a resident wanting to add a canopy or shade structure. Mr. Baker stated that it is not unheard of for someone to want to expand their building but find that they cannot exceed the FAR; however it is not typically in a situation such as All American Label's. Chair Brown opened the public hearing. Mr. Houston agreed that it is unlikely for someone to build something and then come back for approval; however, in East Dublin the FAR requirement was changed to 50% which caused the lower FAR, such as in Industrial (M-~) zoning districts, to be inadequate. Chair Brown closed the public Dearing. ~frrrartrrt~ Cptnrtrt=essv~t ~~tr~zssi 23, 201 ~y~rr~ar ~fe~t irF~ 113 DRAFT DRAFT Cm. O'Keefe stated that he understand the spirit of the original Genera[ Plan and agrees that there has to be regulation for FAR; however, manufacturing is very different today than it was in '1985 and 1992, and there are existing buildings exceeding the 40% FAR, Ne stated that the Applicant is not proposing to be the largest exceeder of FAR and the storage area they have built will allow them to be more competitive in their industry, Mr. Baker clarified that the question before the Commission is do they find the project to be consistent with the General Plan, do they agree that the General Plan has a maximum FAR and does the project exceed the standard that is in the General Plan. Cm. O'Keefe stated that the General Plan is descriptive in stating that the 40% FAR is not mandatory, therefore he finds that the Commission could find the project to be consistent with the General Plan. Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked if a decision in the pending lawsuit would overrule any determination made by the Commission. Slue asked why there is a difference in FAR between East and West Dublin. Ms, Faubion stated that the pending lawsuit is based on the Code Enforcement issue which is separate from the General Plan conformance determination being considered by the Commission. Mr. Baker clarified that that the maximum FAR for Industrial zoning districts in East Dublin is 35%. He further clarified that although the Applicant has submitted plans regarding the Emergency Vehicle Access, they have yet to be reviewed and approved by Staff. Cm, Bhuthimethee stated that she is in support of many businesses an Sierra Court and appreciates the comments regarding the FAR. She stated that the City has a General Plan that creates general regulations for a reason. She further stated that if thane plans and regulations are not followed, bad consequences can arise. Cm. Bhuthimethee agreed with Staff's recommendations. Chair Brown stated that existing businesses are very valuable and the City encourages them to grow; however, they are still required to adhere to the law which, in this ease, states that the maximum FAR is 40%. He stated that he agrees that the maximum FAR of 40% may not be high enough; however, that can be considered for amendment at another time. Ms. Faubion clarified the language of mandatory versus descriptive, stating that the General Plan statute does require that there be standards of building intensity and the General Plan was required to have those standards in 1992 with language that is similar to the language that exists today. She stated that to prevent concerns regarding the General Plan, the Commission would want to recognize that building intensity is a mandatory element and it is present in the General Plan. Cm. O'Keefe stated that re ardless buildin s excee ° 'il g g ding 40 FAR still exist. Cm. Bhuthimethee replied that those buildings were grandfathered in because they were established before the 40% maximum FAR was implemented. ?Ccarrrai~r~ ~,nrgrrrtsai~rt~ ffxr~{aest,23, X011 I' ~'~rs.l~r ~t~~~~tr f~ 114 i DRAFT DRA,~"T Vice Chair Wehrenberg agreed with Cm. Bhuthimethee stating that unless those businesses exceeding 40% FAR come to the City needing a revision to their area, then the current maximum would be considered when reviewing the project. Mr. Baker clarified that the City does currently require a General Plan Amendment for any business that wants to exceed the 40% FAR. Vice Chair Wehrenberg agreed with Cm. Bhuthimethee in regards to the General Plan being put into place for a reason. She believes the General Plan is sufficient in its description and clarified that there is a process in place to amend the FAR if needed. On a motion by Cm. Bhuthimethee and seconded by Vice Chair Wehrenberg, on a vote of 3-1-1, with Cm. Schaub being absent, the Planning Commission adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 11- 24 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DENYING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FORA 4,456 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 23,994 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING AT 6958 SIERRA COURT PLPA 2011-00020 (APN 94'1-2576-006) Mr. Baker reminded the Applicant that there is a ten-day appeal period. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS Mr. Baker advised the Commission that a new Assistant Planner, Seth Adams, was hired and will start on Monday, August 29, 2011. Mr. Baker confirmed with the Commission that there are currently no agenda items for the September 13, 2011 meeting so the next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for September 27, 2011. OTHER BUSINESS -NONE 10.1 Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from the Planning Commission andlor Staff, including Committee Reports and Reports by the Planning Commission related to meetings attended at City Expense (AB 1234). i ~'lan~air~g (`artai~fas~v~a ~~taf~cr ~#feg°t~~rg :~c~~rrsd 2.~, 2tJ1I ~~S I I DRAFT DRAFT ADJOURNMENT -The meeting was adjourned at 8:50:02 PM p.m. Respectfully submitted, Alan Brown Chair Planning Commission ATTEST: Jeff Baker Planning Manager G:1MINUTESl2011LPL4NNlNG COMMISS10Ni08.23.11 DRAFT PC Minutes.doc i ~1'Ir~~ant°rt~ Co~,trtrissic~ra ~1rr~trst ~3, ZE~.1:1 ~I ~~~~alrrr~~eetira~ ~ ~~C~~~~ SAP 0 1 2011 1' hl t= x° Ft K A f:, 1 I•s fz r7 i; ti F7 t.r f~l l: f: r'7 F•i fy ~ rat S• bID4 Sier•r~ ~.~tt~, C)~itrlirt, Ci19~i5b$ (925) 828-3~~i~i X925) 829-811b September ~ , 29 ~ 1 To, City of Dublin 1 appeal the 3 - 1 decision of the Planning Commission on August 23, 20 ~ 1 ~PLPA~201 '100020, All American Label Site Development Review Application}. The Planning Commission incorrectly determined, (with incorrect guidance from the Staff Report} that the Dublin General Plan requires a maximum of 40% floor area ratio in the Business Park/industrial General designation. This appeal is based on the information we provided the City and Planning Commission both before and during the hearing, a Sin erel , Steve Poplar Label Concepts ~ 6~0~ Sierra Lane Dublin, CA 9468 RESOLUTION NO. xx-xx A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN AFFIRMING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 11-24 DENYING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT FORA 4,456 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 23,994 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING AT 6958 SIERRA COURT AND AFFIRMING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S FINDINGS PLPA 2011-00020 (APN 941-2576-006) WHEREAS, the Applicant, Charles Huff (Architect), on behalf of Mr. Brad Brown (Owner), has requested approval of a Site Development Review permit to allow a 4,456 square foot addition to an existing 23,994 square foot building at 6958 Sierra Court; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has submitted project plans for the requested entitlement prepared by Charles Huff, AIA received by the Planning Division on May 4, 2011, attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the project site has a General Plan land use designation of Business Park/Industrial, which has an allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) range of .30 to .40; and WHEREAS, the FAR for the proposed project (existing building plus proposed addition) is .48; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with State guidelines and City environmental regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the CEQA, Staff has recommended that the denial of this Project be found Statutorily Exempt pursuant to Section 15270 of the CEQA Guidelines which states that Projects which are denied are not subject to the provisions of CEQA; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted to the Planning Commission on August 23, 2011 recommending denial of said application, which staff report is incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on said application; WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth and used its independent judgment to evaluate the project. WHEREAS, on August 23, 2011, the Planning Commission did adopt Resolution 11-24 denying a Site Development Review Permit fora 4,456 square foot addition to an existing 23,994 square foot building at 6958 Sierra Court, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, a Letter of Appeal (dated September 1, 2011) was submitted within the 10- day appeal period; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted to the City of Dublin City Council recommending either to affirm Planning Commission Resolution 11-24 denying a Site Development Review Permit fora 4,456 square foot addition to an existing 23,994 square foot building at 6958 Sierra Court, or to direct the City Attorney to prepare findings for the City Council to reverse the Planning Commission's action. The Staff Report detailed the basis for the Planning Commission denial and is incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on said appeal on October 4, 2011; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth and used its independent judgment to evaluate the project; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Dublin City Council does hereby find that the denial of this Project is Statutorily Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15270 of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that Projects which are denied are not subject to the provisions of CEQA. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Dublin City Council does hereby verify that the appeal of the Planning Commission's denial complied with the provisions of Chapter 8.136, Appeals, of the zoning ordinance. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Dublin City Council does hereby deny the appeal and affirm Planning Commission Resolution 11-24 denying a Site Development Review Permit fora 4,456 square foot addition to an existing 23,994 square foot building at 6958 Sierra Court and affirming the Findings set forth in the Planning Commission Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 4t" day of October 2011 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 2of3 i Exitbit A to Attachment - 1 1 ~ ~ - r 9 ~ ~ ; J'~ pY ~ - .9 ii a ~ - ~ [ • . ~ . - \ ~ ' - .a L~ \ ~ r - ~ ~ ~ ; r ~ - ~ ~ .~zi . tiL;. ~t ~.tw sn~nea ion: ..r ALL A~9ER~CAN LA~~L ~ ( CHARL[S E9UPf af.n. 595a Slerr•a Ct. VU{11.~'y ~ t}{ICr~NMNlC~• rys~a~4GA , pD7 YDHfi 3 of 3 i LAW OFFICE ' i PETER MACDONALD J~lN ~ ~ 400 MAIN STREET, SUITE 210 PLEASANTON, CALIFORNIA 94566-7371 (925) 4G2-0191 FAX {925) 462-0404 pmacd onald @macdonaldlaw.net June 8, 2011 Ms. Kristi Bascom Principal Planner City of Dublin ~ 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Subject: Supplemental Submittal PLPA-201'1-00020 Information for Complete Application per Govt. Code Sec. fi5940 Dear Ms. Bascom, 4n behalf of All American Label (AAL), we hereby provide you with the additional II information required to enable the City to process our April 5, 2011 application for Site Development Review {SDR) as complete. You have raised two areas far which additional information is requested: Fire Access I, -and General Plan consistency. Fire Access The site plan we submitted for SDR approval complies with the policies of the Alameda County Fire Dept. for the fully sprinklered building we are proposing. From the ' designated fire access routes on our site plan, fire vehicles can get to within 200 feet of every point of the first floor of the All American Label {AAL) building, including the ro osed buildin addition. If the conditions of ro'ect a royal re uire the ac uisition p p g p J pP _ q q of off-site easements to secure those fire access routes ire perpetuity, we will seek to purchase those required easements. Some of the fire access issues may require discussion during the SDR review process, SUC}1 a5: First, if we are required to obtain an easement from the Swimming Academy to the south, there is a possibility that the Swimming Academy's single loaded drive aisle could be. expanded to enable double loaded parking, with an easement over the AAL property. That might increase the Swim Club's parking, to the benefit of the entire neighborhood, but might impact some marginal landscaping on the AAL site. As part of 3 i i I Ms. Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner June 8, 2011 Page 2 the SDR process, we would want to discuss with Planning Staff whether such an approach would be acceptable to the City. Second, our site plan assumes that the 20 foot public trail located adjacent to the Zone 7 canal along the entire back edge of the AAL building would be available for firefighters to pull hoses when necessary (not fire truck access). If the public can travel on that public trail, there would be no basis for Zone 7 to exclude firefighters in an emergency. In short, there is an existing and adequate public easement at that location. Third, regarding the approved fire access road through the Park Sierra Apartments to the north, if the SDR conditions of approval require the purchase of a fire access easement, we will attempt to obtain that. We are already exploring that possibility with the owner of those apartments. From the May 12, 2011 letter submitted by Park Sierra LLC, attached, it is apparent the owner has no objection to use of that approved fire I, access road by emergency vehicles as needed to access the public trail and AAL now. Moreover, by operation of law, public safety personnel have the right to enter private property such as the fire access route in Park Sierra Apartments as needed in exigent circumstances. As explained by then Justice Burger speaking for the majority in Wayne ~ v. Unifed States, 318 F.2d 205, 212: But a warrant is not required to break down a door to enter a burning home to rescue occupants or exfinguish a fire, to prevent a shooting or fo bring ~ emergency aid to an injured person. The need to profect or preserve life or avoid serious injury is justification for whaf would be otherwise illegal absent an exigency or emergency." ~I Perhaps there is a concern that the approved fire access route through the apartment complex might become unavailable at some point in time, before the much older AAL building reaches functional obsolescence. As a PUD zoned property, the approved fire I, access route through Park Sierra apartments cannot change without an approval from the City of Dublin. Moreover, having been constructed in the late 1990's, the apartment building is designed to handle t_he maximum credible earthquake, and is equipped with fire sprinklers. Thus, the functional life of those apartment buildings is approximately 150 years -with the weak link being the concrete foundations, not the buildings themselves. And, obsolete foundations can be replaced, if it is economically viable to do so in 150 years or so. The layout of that long thin lot makes it probable that if the apartment buildings ever did become economically obsolete, the same site design -the same long fire access route used to access the back of the property now, would be required to provide access for replacement site plan. Four#h, in addition to the above approaches there are creative alternatives that might also meet fire safety concerns. For example, improvement of access through to the public trail at the location of the Swimming Academy might allow better fire access to Ms. Kristii Bascom, Principal Planner June 8, 2011 Page 3 both AAL and the Swimming Academy. Or, the water line that serves the apartment complex could be extended under the 14 foot wall to provide a fire hydrant with any needed equipment in the vicinity of the proposed building addition. Or, the approval of the building addition could be conditioned on an agreement that if the Park Sierra fire ~ access route became unavailable, that building would have to perform specified alternate compliance or be torn down. In a business friendly City, the staff works with the applicant to provide for public safety in practical ways. 2010 CFD 503.1.1 (attached) provides the Fire Marshall with explicit authority to work with applicants to solve access issues. The SDR-process is the process in which reasonable public and private needs are weighed and resolved. General Plan ICI We have a solid case based upon the history of the General Plan that the reference fio .4 FAR is intended to be descriptive, and not a mandatory maximum FAR. !f we make that case to the policymakers, and they reject it, then we will proceed with the required General Plan amendment. And, should the policymakers find that the FAR of .4 is mandatory, there is also a good case for amending the General Plan to raise the FAR to .5 to be compatible with the existing density of 17 out of 27 properties in the Sierra Court area, to encourage revitalization, and to be consistent with the .5 FAR allowed far warehouse-uses in East Dublin. In fact, the controlling section of the General Plan, for the Business Parkllndustrial designation reads: "Maximum aftainable rafios of floor area to site area (FAR) are controlled by parking and landscaping requiremenfs and typically result in .35 fo .44 FAR's. Examples: Clark Avenue, Sierra Court." General Plan p. 8. That language is deliberately descriptive and not mandatory. It is also notable that this General Plan wording has stayed exactly the same since the City of Dublin adopted its first General i, Plan in 1985 (1985 General Plan p. 5, attached). Perhaps fihat long time consistency in the Genera! Plan wording is influenced by the fact thafi at least 17 oufi of 27 properties in ' the Sierra Court area exceeded the 40% floor area ratio in 1985, and would have been made non-conforming buildings if the 40% floor area ratio had been mandatory rather than descriptive in 1985. There is further historical information in support of our thesis ' thafi the FAR section of the General.. Plan:.was never intended fio _be mandatory. But, suppose that some planners and policymakers have required that some subsequent developments in Sierra Court conform to a .4 FAR maximum. If the m ni I PI n an be amended b inter retation and we are ske tical of ea ng of the Genera a c y p p ~ that, then there is no reason that it cannot change back by interpretation, in light of more accurate historical information. If the decisions in which the .4 FAR became mandatory were discretionary determinations, like PUD rezonings, rather than fora quasi- ministerial processes, like an SDR application, that is also relevant. For quasi- legislative decisions like PUD approval, the policymaker is allowed to consider "any rational basis" for its decision, and thus may require more stringent standards than set forth in ordinances and policies. But, for aquasi-ministerial determination like SDR I Ms. Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner June 8, 2011 ' Page 4 appraval, involving a permitted use, the policymaker is obligated to apply existing laws, and its decisions must be supported by "substantial evidence". Complete Application As you know, the Permit Streamlining Act (Govt. Code Section 65940 et seq.) relates ~ solely to information requirements for a complete application, and a local agency cannot require implementation of conditions of approval as a prerequisite to processing an application. The required information must be listed by the local agency prior to the application submittal (Govt. Code Section 65942). Neither the fire access easements nor general plan amendment are contained in the City of Dublin list of required information for processing a Site Development Review application. However, in an j effort to be as cooperative as possible we have provided the requested additional information about how we plan to address the issues you raised. The future of a substantial Dublin business with 25 employees depends on getting reasonable and timely answers from the City to the questions addressed in this letter. ~i The number of hearings with the SDR process is only two -one with Planning ~ Commission, and one with City Council, if appealed. At that point we would all have sufficient direction to plan for the future of this building addition. Applying to apply for a general plan amendment, or appealing the incompleteness determination just delays everyone, including the City staff, from getting the answers we all need from the policy makers regarding the future of the proposed building addition and the AAL manufacturing plant. Please accept our SDR application as complete and start the SDR approval process. Very Truly Yours, ~ i Peter MacDonald Cc: Mr. Brad Brown Mr. Wallace Doolittle - - Mr. Charles Huff Ms. Jeri Ram Mr. Eric Casher Ms. Nancy Feeley Mr. Tim Sbranti Attachments: May 12, 2011 letter from Park Sierra LLC Fire Access Requirements - 2010 CFD 503.1.1 P. 5, 1985 General Plan Proposed Site Plan for All American Label i i ~.r Q~ra A P A ft T M E N T H O M E S I ` May 12, 20.1 i 1'o wham it may concern: I Park Sierra I_LC is the owner of Park Sierra apartments at 545© Dougherty Road, in Dublin, California. As ~i part of the Park Sierra protect, we developed fire access lanes in accordance with City of bublin standards, including a connecting gate to the public trail on Zone 7 property adjacent to Park Sierra apartments. As property owners, we understand that in responding to exigent circumstances beyond our property it may become necessary far emergency vehicles to use the fire access route through our property to the pubiic trail and property beyond, such as adjacent properties at the end of Sierra Court. Although we consider our consent to such use redundant, we have no objection to use of the fire access lane through Park Sierra by pubiic safely personnel to access property beyond our property in exigent circumstances. ~I i Park Sierra LI.C 130 Yantis, Suite 2010 Aliso Viejo, California 92656 gy; Date: its Manager 9 _ 645Q D©~gher~y Road, Dubs, CA, 9456$ 925f5fi0.OQ50 Fax 92515b(l•0082 email: parksiarra@sheaapartz~ents_cora www.sheaaparEnasnts_comlparksieira CA Dit~ License # 013$2566 i I j CHAPTER 5 j FIRE SERVICE FEATURES ~ ~ ~ si~cTioN poi sECTION ~aa GENERAI. F1RE AiPARATUS ACCESS ROADS 501.1 Seope.?"ire service features far buildings, structures and 503.1 Where required. Fire apparatus access roads shall be ~ ~ prenuses shall comply with this chapter. provided and maintained in accordance with Sections 503.1.1 throe h 503.1.3. g i - 501.2 Permits. A permit shall he required as set forth in 503.1.1 Buildings and facilities. Approved ~ apparatus ~ i Appendix Chapter 1, Sections 105.6 and 105.7. access roads shall be provided for every facility, building or 501.3 Construction documents. Construction documents for Portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or proposed fare apparatus access, location of fire lanes and con- withm the,Turisdiction. The ~ apparatus access mad shall struction documents and hydraulic calculations forfire hydrant comply with tho requirements of this section and shall systems shall be submitted to the fire department for review extend to within 150 feet (45 720 non) of all portions of the and approval prior to construction. facility and allportians of the exterior wails of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the 501.4 Tiuaiuag of installation. When fire apparatus access exterior of the building or facility. roads or a water supply for fire protection is required to be Exception: The fire code official is authorized to installed, such protection shall be installed and made service- increase the dimension of 150 feet (45 720 mm) where: . able prior to and during the time of construction except when 1, The building is equipped throughout with an ap- approvedalternative methods of protection are provided. Tem- prayed automatic sprinkler system installed in ac- porary street signs shall be installed at each street intersection cordance with Section 903.3.1.1, 903.3.1.2 or ~ when construction of new roadways allows .passage by vehi- eles in accordance with Section 505.2. 303'3' 1.3, 2. Fire apparatus access roads cannot beinstalled be- cause of location on property, topography, water- ways, nonnegotiable grades or other similar SECTION 502 conditions, and an approved alternative means of DEFiN1TIONS fue protection is provided. 502.1 Definitions. The following words and terms shall, for the 3• There are not mare than two Group R-3 or Group purposes of this chapter and as used elsewhere in this code, U occu ancies. have the meanings shown herein. 5031.2 Additional access. The fire code official is au#b:o- rized to require more than one fire apparatus access road FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD. A road that provides based on the potential for impairment of a single road by fire apparatus access from a fire station to a facility, building ar vehicle congestion, condidan of terrain, climatic conditions portion thereof: This is a general term inclusive of all other or other factors that could limit access. terms such as fire lane, public street, private street, parking lot 503.1..3 High-piled storage. Fire department vehicle access ~ lane and access roadway. _ _ _ to buildings used for high-piled combustible storage shall FIRE COMMAND CENTER. The principal attended or comply with the applicable provisions of Chapter 23. unattended location where the status of the detection, alarm 543.2 Specilieations. Fire apparatus access roads shall be communications and control systems is displayed, and from installed and arranged in accordance with Sections 503.2.1 which the system(s) can be manually controlled. through 503.2.7. FIItE DEPARTMENT MASTER KEY. A limited issue key 503.2.1 Dimensions. Fire apparatus access roads shall have of special or controlled design to be carried by fu'e department an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet (6096 mmi), officials in command which will open key boxes on specified except for approved security gates in accordance with Sec- s properties. lion 503.6, and an unobstructed verticalclearance ofnot less than i3 feet 6 inches (4115 rum). FIRE LANE. A road or other passageway developed to allow 503,2,2 ,Authority. The fire code official shall have the the passage of fee apparatus. A fn-e lane is not necessarily authority bo require an increase in the minimum access ( intended for vehicular traffic other than fire apparatus. widths where they are inadequate for fire or rescue opera- ' KEY BOX. A secure device with a lock operable only by a fire hOns' department master key, and containing building entry keys and 503.2.3 Surface. Fire apparatus access roads shall be other keys that maybe required for access in an emergency. designed and maintained to support the unposed loads of 20fl7 CALiFt)RNiA FIRE COQE 51 i Page 5. 1985 Genera! Plan i Residential: Medium Density (b.l to 14.4 units per gross residential acre. The ' range allows duplex, townhouse, and garden apartment development sufta}ale 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), j Residentials 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 ire 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). Cam~ercial/Industrial Retail/Dffice. 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. RetailJOffice and Aut~notive. 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 I, result in .35 to ,40 F'AR's, Examples= Clark Avenue, Sierra Court. E Business Park/Industrial; ~tdoor Storage. In addition to the Business Fork/Industrial uses described above, this classification includes retail and manufacturing activities conducted outdoors such as mobile home or construction materials storage. Example: Scarlett Court, i 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 honing 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 i I ~ ~ ~ n ! ~ ~ ~ y 1 ~ , - ~ - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~.~i.~~'<~~~,:~`:'~ ~ ~ ~ ~y it ~ { L ~ p~~g~~~ ~ ~ - A~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ it m ~ m~ c+ ~ / CS~ ~ ~ ~ ~~A \ - ~ ~ ~"~d..~ 4e0° pus - _ ~ f _ ~ a ~ ~ ~a~ ~ - vJ~ I ` ~ ~Zb ~ ,\`\\~g~ ~ S ~ r ~ ~ C+ ~ ~ _ ~ r~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~p pl ~5 M M } y ~ 4~~ O 4 P L ~ , - ~SS' • ~ s ~ ~ ~ ~ i _ i = ' n_ e <<p` a ` ~ a Y. ~ c i i 5£ +i~.4 -i Y , ~ ~ ~ _ ~_m ~2 T-`2 ,'krr - -Ce c-. L ~ i; ~ ~ ~ - A r; . NEW BUILRING FOR: ~0 ~ ' Jo4 N nnn cxAR~~s riu~F, A.I.A. z ALL AMERICAN LABEL R~;s~~, ARCH I T E C T 6958 Sierra Ct. DUBLIN ,441 ReIIroeE AV.., 6n11.6 Plaeennivn, CA [4Z6}46R-976 Chapter 4: Required. Elements of xhe General Plan-Land Use 77re Inurl trse dic~,grrri» opment potential. As the court stated in Tivrrin Hnrte: rlttocney' General Opinion No. S3=30~t, Ivarch 7, "it +vould not be unreasonable to ,interpret the term 1984 addresses the'requii•ed level ofspecificity ofthe. "population density" as relating riot only to residential laird use diagram. Ira answer tothe question of+vhether density, bat also to uses of nonresidential' laud catego- a parcel specific map is t•eduiced_ for the lat7d use ele- vies and as requiring an analysis: of Ilse patterns for all merit of a general plan, the.Attortiey General reasoned categories it alipears 'sensible to allow local gov- that the detail necessary for_ a parcel specific anap.niay ernrnents to determine whether the statement ofpopu- be developed :at" a later stage in the land use process lation standards is to be tied to residency or, more {throigh.specific plaus, zoning ordinances and subdi_ atnbtttousl}; to the daily usage [sic] estimates for each vision maps); thet•efore, aparcel specific map is'tiot land classification." required,:onlya diagram o€getieralaocations illustrat_ Although ahlilied dit~erently froiii.one jurisdiction ing the policies of the plan. to another, population density can best be expressed The California Supreme:Court, iii Uriiteil (Jrrtcloor~ as the relationship behveen.t+vo factors: the number of Arfuertisi~igC'o: v. &rrsirress, Ti•hrrs~ar-t~rtionrrirrlHc>us_ dwellings per acre and the ntiinber of residents per iryg rfgertc}~ (1958) ~1~/ C~r1.3d 2d?; briefly discussed d+velling. Current estimates of the average iiiitiiber of the degree of precision which. can he expected of a persons per houseliol"d are a~~ailalile from the Dzpart- general plan, The highcoiu~t held that avlien San,Ber- meat ofPinance's Demographic Research and Census nardino Court}% used ,ii "circle to distinguish the cona- Data Center (n'+vw.dof.ca.gov). muiiity of Baker.as a"" pesert Special Service,Genter" the comity dido>ofdelineate:a~~well=de~ned~geograp'hic: ' Btrildirrg i»ter~sif~a~ area. According; to the opmioit.:af the court, "die circle. The C'rrrrrp decision also held that. an.adequate gen- on. the ;general plan iia more represents the" precise eral plan must contain standards for building. intensity. boundat~ies ofapresent`or fiitiirecornmercial areathan Again, the ~t~nirr H~ir-te cotlt•t.has .provided the most the dot or square on a map of California i-epresenfs the complete intet•pretation of ~ii:ilding intensity available exactsze and shape of Bakeror any other comnulnity." to date. These arc its inl~or points: intensity should be The concept of the ,diagram as a general guide to defined for each ofthe various iaiid use categories in land Ilse distri~ittion rather tliati,a:parcel specificnap the plan; general use captions such es "neighborhood also figured in~the case of L"crs• [~irgerres -FlnrrteoivrieJs . comn~encial" and "service industr-ial"-are insufficient ~1ssncitrtiorr `ir, Li7s firrgele~s ,Courrl~~ (t 98b) 1 T7 ttaeas"iu•es of ~intensity,by themselves; and',~builtlin~ in- Crrl.Alip.3d31 D. There,. the court of appeal upheld the tensity is not synonymous +~i,ith population density. In- >adequacy of a_county p:lan.which contained a general- tensity will-tiedependent upon th`eaocal;plan'~scontext~ ized .land use i~ap and +vhicfi .delegated specific land arii_may be based upali a combination ofvariablesstich use interpretations tQ eomntunity plans.'See Ghapter~ 1 as tnas~imitm .dwelling units ,per acme, height and size ;for a discussion of"consistency bet+veen~the diagraiirs Iimita ions, and use .restricEions: Unfortutatefy, the and ~the~ptan text` courtatopped short of def ivng ivhaC are proper,niea- sures of building intenstty. ~Po~urla%iort 'rlettslt}? .Local general plan's must contaim_nuantifiahle Stan- Cnr:if~ v. Gorrirt}~ of it~Ieirdc~cilo (195'1) 123 lords of building intensity for each land rise designa- ~'al.~p~:3d 33=1 "established that a general plan must tion. These standardsshauld define the most intensive contain. standards for population density: It did not, use thatwill be all©+ved under eachdesignation. While ho+vevec, define such standards. Tlie court iti Tivrrirr the Ind use designation identifies the t}<pe of al'lo+v- Har7e Horr?eott~irers Ass'~cirrtiorr +c Tirvltinure Couirtj~ able uses, the building intensity 'standard +eill define (198?) 138 Ccrl.App.3cl 66=/ defned population den.- the concentration of use. h+tensity standards can in- sity as tlae "numbers of ~ieople i,n a given area rind apt dude provisions for Ele~ibiiity uch as densitybonuses, the d+vel'ling units per acre, iurless the basis for cgrre- clusterzonng, lamted uniCdevelo meats, and the like. lotion tiet+veen the measure of dwelling units per aa~e QPR recommends that each intensity standard in- and nutiibers of people is set forth expliciNy in the dude these variables: (l) permitted lands uses or build- plan." Quantifiable standards of population density ing types; and (2) concentrati"ou ofuse. Bennitted uses iiittsf be provided for each. of the .land use categories. and building types is a qualitative measuee of the uses contained in the plan. that will be allowable in -each land Ilse designation. Population density-standards need not lie restricted The concentration of use can be defined by one or more solely to land use designations with residential devel- quantitative measures that relate dirzcflyto the amount 54 General Plan Guidelines Attachment 6 Chapter` I :General Plan Basics <ance.rwless the variance pertains to the rebuilding of loeated.within the area bound by D and G;Avenues an unintentionallydestroyed non-conforming use. .and Third and Fourth Streets. 0 The city shall not approve plans for the downto~l'n ~ A ne~~~ park'urg structure shall be located in the va- s}iopping center until an independently conducted c,inities"of etch of the following downtown inter- marketshi8yindicates that the center would be eco= sections:: First Street and AAvenue, and Fifth Street rromicaliy feasible. acid D Avenue. ~ The city shall give favorable considerafiop to conditional use,perrnit proposals involving adap- IntPtertreutatinn Measure tine reuse of buildings tliat are designated` as "ar- An implernentatianmeasure is an action,:piocedure, cliitecttfraily significant" by the cuatrtral resources: program, or teehndrie that carries out general pain etemeiif; policy. >Jach policy ntustlia~<e at least oriecorrespond- ing'imlalemeiifation iiieasure, 5tantlards A stand'ard~~s a rule or.measure establishirig~~alevel EacmlPles of itn~leirrer,rlcrtlorr-»reasrrres: of quality ar.ctuantity that roust be complied with`or A The city shall use tas-increment finar7cing to pay satisfied. Stnr~dards detnre the abstract tennis of ob- the costs~ofreplacin~ old idewalks in{he redevel- 'ectives anal policies with concreteseciftcations. opment area.. The Government Code makes various refer'ences'fo 0 1-he pity shall adapt a specific plan foi• the indus- general~plan standards. For example, §65302(x) states trial pack. m part t3iat;the land itseelemerit must "...inehide a state- rneiit ofthe standards of~populatron density anti tiuilci- ® Areas~designaf~d by the, land use~elenrent •for Agri- ingintensity ri:con~mencled"for ttie various districts aiid c4rlture shat( be"placedin the agricultural zone. other territory covered by the plan." Other examples Linlciug Ob,jectiwes fo Inrplementatioii of statutory reference's to geiier~l plan standards in= c.ludethose found iii X66477 (the Quimby Act) and The folloi~=ing:e~amples s}iow the relationshit~s ~66~179 (reservations of land-~uifhin subdivisions)::p'f among objectives, policies;. and implementation taco- course, a loci;~l egislatur•e ?iay adopt any other general cures. The exaittples are arranged according. to a hier- 7anstandards it deeri~s desirable. ar•cliy fiom `the general to the specific=from goo}s tai impl'ementaEion rtieasw`es~. In an :actual general plan, ~xaru~les Gf'stutrdar~•~ls: ~ there mightbe~more_titart onepolicy irndec~each abjec- 6 A aninirnal ly acceptabke peak hour level of service. five, more than one i'mplenieritatio?3,measiirennder each for an arfei-ial"strr:et is level of service C. .Policy, etc. ® The'init~imun acreage required fora regional shop- Gull: pine eenter,is~ from 40 to a0 acres. A thriving downtown that"is the center oFthe~city's ® High-density-residential mean§ l"S to 30 dwelling retail aitd.setvtce<commercial activities. waits per acre and up to 42 iti4elling units per acre tvth a density Minns. Ubjectii~e: ® Tiie first floor of=all new constt•uction shall be at ® Development of a new regional.shopping center iii least two feet above the base flood elevation. floe downtown. 1?iatr'Proposal P~lic~~: A plan:pxoposaldescribes the develaprrient.intended ~ Tlie city shall riot approve discretionary projects to take place in an area. Plan proposals are often. e~- or building perriits that could impede development pressed on the general plan diagram. of the downto«<n regional shopping center. Finnrl~Jes of~lGrrt pt-o~iosuls: Irrrplenrenttrti.U~t nte~rsrii'es: A First Street and Harbor Avenue are designated as ~ The city st~ali, adopt an interim zoning ordinance `arterials. restricting further development in the general vi- 0 Tiie proposed downtown shopping center will be cinity of the :proposed downtown shopping center 16 General Plan Guidelines ATTACHMENT 7 AGENDA STATEMENT ~ - City Council Meeting September 14, 1992 SUBJECTr Amendment to the City of Dublin General Plan to Incorporate Various Technical Revisions PREPARED BY: Brenda A. Gillarde, Project Consultant ATTACHMENTS: 1. City of Dublin General Plan Technical Revisions, dated August 13, 1992 2. Resolution far City Council Adoption of Technical Revisions General Plan Amendment 3. Negative Declaration, dated February 25, 1991 4. Planning Commission resolution 92-45, recommending City Council adoption of the general plan amendment, dated August 17, 19 9 2 - 5; General Plan Technical Appendices, dated February ].984 RECOMMEND TION: 1. Open public hearing and hear staff presentation ~ 2. Take public testimony + 3. Ask questions of Staff and the public i 4. Close public hearing 5. Discuss general plan amendment fi. Approve the resolution FINANCIAL STATEMENT: Cost to prepare amendment (graphics and printing) estimated at $2,320. Funds are available in the FY 92-93 budget. BACKGROUND- A recent review of the City's current general plan (adopted February 1985}. has revealed that certain information should be added in conformance with Government Code provisions for general plans. The City used the 199a General Plan Guidelines published by the California State Office of Planning and Research for guidance in this general plan revision effort. Most of the changes involve adding -statutory - references, cross referencing statutes, or updating text to reflect statutory changes. Some implementing polieie~ -have been -added-to strengthen existing City programs. 7n addition, policies adopted by previous City general plan amendments have- been included with this general plan amendment and physically inserted into. the general plan document. The above changes have been made to the plan and are now proposed for incorporation into the document {Attachment 1}. This ~nrould be accomplished by the adoption of a resolution amending the existing city general plan {Attachment 2). A negative declaration was prepared for this ~pro~ect and was circulated to the appropriate agencies (Attachment 3}~ The Planning Commission held a ~ public hearing on this item August 17th and passed a resolution recommending City Council approval of the revisions. (See Attachment 4 for Planning Commission resolution.) 1 D1S USSI N: A. eehnical Re 'sions to the Plan As discussed abave, language has been added fa the Dublin General Plan that - generally explains or clarifies certain sections of the plan. In some instances, information has- been added that was previously lacking far specific areas, such as intensity standards far each commercial land use category. The additions are to bring the plan-into better conformance with the 199fl State General Plan Guidelines. The changes do not affect the policy direction of the plan and it remains as adapted in 1985. The most important- technical revisions to the plan are outlined below by general plan chapter. Attachment 1 contains the actual text changes, indicated by underlining' and Chapter 1.0 Background Several paragraphs have been added to the introduction to clarify the format of the current general plan and where certain infarmatian can be located. Reference is made to current planning studies underway in western and eastern Dublin. Note has been -made- That- the Western Dublin General Plan Amendment and -Specific Plan was recently approved by the City. Pages 1-fi through 1-7 contain additional intensify standards for commercial development, as required by the Government Code and discussed in the State General Plan Guidelines. ' Chanter 2 D Land Use and .rculation Section: Land Use-Element Paragraphs have been added fo -the introduction clarifying the required scope and content of a general plan land use element. The location of certain required information such as density and intensity standards, distribution of land uses and open space is also provided in these intraducfory paragraphs. Table 2.2 has been updated to reflect current potential housing sites. - Explanatory language was added to pages 2-~ and 2-5 about the Downtown Specific Plan which was adopted in 19 8'7. ha ter 3 0 Land Use and Circulation Section: Parks and en S ace Explanatory language was added to the introduction describing -the required cantents of an open space element. On page 3-2, language was added- describing the CityTs current-park facilities and additional implementation palicies added to page 3-3 that would further promote acquisition of -needed- outdoor recreation sites. ha ter 4 0 Land Use and irculafion Seefian: Schools Public ands and Utilities Element Explanatory language was added fa the introduction specifying the required contents of Phis portion- of the land use element. Additional implementing policies were inserted on page ~4-1 to ensure provision of adequate school facilities in the Extended Planning Area. The discussion of solid waste was updated to reflect current Iegislafion for source reduction and recycling. Accardingly, implementation policies were added to ensure 2 i current city programs are enforced. An implementation policy was also added to the sewer treatment- section (page 4-4) to ensure the availability of adequate treatment prior to construction, Cho ter 5 D Land Use and Circulation Section: Circulation and Sce is Hi hwa s Ele rn ent This chapter contains the most extensive technical revisions. In addition to language added to the introduction describing the required contents of a circulation element, a complete set of street standards -has been added (see gages 5-2~ through 5-7}. On page 5-J.]., a brief description offunding -for road improvements has been inserted. While these revisions are fairly extensive, they do -nit alter the current policy direction of the gen-eras- plan. -The standards were included for the purpose of better defining the City's current and future roadway system. Cho ter 6 0 Housin Section This section has been deleted- from the document since it was recently -updated in 199D. -A reference is provided indicating where the revised housing element can be obtained. Cha ter 7 0 Environmental Resources Mans ement Section: onservation Element The major changes to this element are the addition of explanatory language to the introduction ~ {page 7-1); similar language added to the section addressing stream corridors -(page 7-2); -and expansion of the open- space section to include language and measures that further strengthen open space acquisition and maintenance (pages Cha ter 8 0 Environmental Resources Mana ement Section: Seismic afet and Safet Element Explanatory language has been added to -the introduction (page -8-1}; clarifying language -about -fire service {page -8-4};- further ~ explanation about flooding (pages 8-5, 8-B); and an implementation policy about hazardous waste (page 8-7). Cha ter 9 0 Environmental Resources Mana ement Section: Noise Element Language was added to the introduction specifying -the required contents of a noise element (page 9-1). Discussion- Was added about future noise sources created by the proposed BART stations (page 9-1). The BART EIR was referenced for further information. - ~ _ _ - _ - l3. ~neorporation of the Technical Appendices Although the Technical Appendices- are contained in a separate document (Attachment- 5), they contain information relevant to the general- plan elements and should be adopted as part-of~the plan. A section has been included in the attached resolution that-would formally adopt the Technical Appendices as part of the general plan, with- the exception of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. This part of the technical appendices should not be part of the adopted portions of the general plan. 3 I ~~I C. Incorporation of Preyiousl~gted .Policies Prior ~to this proposed general plan amendment, there were several previous general plan amendments which added certain policies to the City's general plan. These policies were never physically inserted into the -plan document. This current general plan amendment provides the opportunity to da this and so they have been- included in the August J.992 amended document. They are located on the following pages: Addition of the i,ow-Density Single Family land use category, page 1-6 - Guiding Policy G} gage ~5-8 Guiding Policy A,~ page 7-5 - - - - - . Implementing Policies B through G, pages 7-5 and 7-6 Implementing Policy B, page 8-5 A section has been -included in the resolution that would physically incorporate these statements and policies into the City's general plan document. RE~~}M MENDATIGN • Staff recommends that the CityCouncil conduct the- public- hearing and after close of the public hearing, Staff recommends that the Council adopt the resolution adapting the technical revisions general plan amendment. F i i ~ ~s/gptrspl4] i 4 i D R A F T G E N E R A L I' L A N A. M E N D r1 E N T T E C H N I C A L R E V I S I O N S T D T H E. C T T Y O F D U B L T N G E N E R A L P L A N A U G U 5 T 13, 1992 i a f' x _ 'b+ Q~ ,4 R Primer Plannin Area Residential (Note: Assumed residential household size is based an data;,,, contained izz the 1990 Housing Element) ~~_r Residential: Low-~Densit Sin le-famil 0.5 to 3.8 units er ross residential acre Detached units with assumed household size of 3.2 persons per unit. Residential: Single-family {0.9 to 6.0 units per gross residential acre; assumed household size of 3.2 persons per unit.). Detached and zero lot line (no side yard) units are within this density range. Examples are recent subdivisions in Dublin's western foothills at about 2.0 units per acre and Ponderosa Village at 5.8 units per acre. Residential: Medium Density (6.1 to 14.0 units per gross residential acre; assumed household size of 2.0 persons per unit.}. 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. Recently reviewed projects in the medium density range include Parkway Terrace (7.8) and Amadar Lakes west of the Dougherty Hills (13.5}. Residential: Medium--High Density {I4.1 to 25.0 units per gross residential acre; assumed household size of 2.0 persons per unit.). Projects at the upper end of this range normally will. require some under-structure parking and will have three or more living levels in F.~' order to meet zoning ordinance open space requirements. Examples of medium-high density projects include The Springs (17.8) and Greenwood Apartments (19.8). Commercial/industrial Retail/Office _(FAR: 25 to .5D; employee density: 200-450 square feet _ . - - per employee.). 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 described in Section _ 2.2.1.A. Retail/Office and Automotive (FAR: .25 to .50; employee density: 220 to 490 square feet per employee). This classification includes .all retail/office uses and adds auto dealerships, auto body shops, and similar uses. Residential uses are not permitted. i Business Park/industrial FAR: .30 to .40; em Ia ee densit 360-490 square feet per employee.). Uses are non--retail businesses (research, Limited manufacturing and distribution activities, and administrative offices) that do not involve heavy trucking or generate nuisances due to emissions, noise, or open uses. Residential uses arE not permitted. Maximum attainable ratios of flour' area to site area (FAR) are controlled by parking and landscaping 'r E, I ~ requirements and typically result in .35 to .40 FAR's. Examples: Clark ~ Avenue, Sierra Court, Business Park/Industrial: Outdoor Storage FAR: .25 to .~k0; em to ee density: 360-490 s uare feet per employee.). In addition to the Business Park/Industrial uses described above, this classification includes retail and manufacturing activities conducted outdoors such as mobile home or construction materials storage. Example: Scarlett Court. Public/Semi-Public (FAR: .50; employee density: 590 square feet pear employee} Public/Semi-Public Facilities. Uses other than parks owned by a public agency that are of sufficient size to warrant differentiation from adjoining uses axe 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, Civic Center. ii Parks/Public Recreation. Fublicly awned parks and recreation ~ facilities. i 1~ Open Space. Included are areas dedicated as open space an subdivision maps, slopes greater than 30 percent, stream protection corridors, woodlands, and grazing lands. Extended Planning Area {See Figure 1-2} Residential and Open Space See General Plan Map and Sections 2.1.4, 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3. Commercial/Industrial Business Park/Industrial: Low Coverage FAR: .25 to .40; em to ee densit 360-490 s uare feet er em to ee This classification is intended to provide a campus-like setting with open plazas and landscaped pedestrian amenities for the uses described in the Business 1 Park/Industrial classification for the Primary Planning Area and to allow retail uses to serve-busines-s es and residents. A4aximnm-floer ar€a-retie- fbnilding-flaar-area-as-percent-af--let-apea~--to-lie determined-by-zaning-regttlati©r~s-shattld-be-betv~een--25-arid- .-3~- See General Plan Map and Section 2.3:2.4. Business Park/Industrial. Same as in Primary Planning Area. Public Lands Large holdings such as Parks RFTA, Santa Rita, and Tassajara Creek J. Regional Park. - 1 - 7