Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.1 All American Label SDR AppealG~~~ O~ DU~~~ 111 ~' ~`~_~~f~ l o~rt~'o~~~~~ DATE: TO: FROM: STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL CITY CLERK File #410-30 November 1, 2011 Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Joni Pattillo, City Manager ;;`mom ~: 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. This item was continued from the October 4, 2011 City Council meeting. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Disclose Ex Parte Contacts; 3) Reopen the public hearing; 4) Take testimony from the Applicant and the public; 5) Close the public hearing and deliberate; and either 6) 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 7) Direct the City Attorney to prepare findings for the City Council to reverse the Planning Commission's action. ~~ <, Submitted By Director of Community Development DESCRIPTION: Reviewed By Assistant City Manager Figure 1: Vicinity Map Page 1 of 8 ITEM NO. 6.1 Background The project site is located at the north end of Sierra Court, adjacent to the Alamo Creek trail to the west and the Park Sierra Apartments to the northeast. The subject building is currently occupied by All American Label, which is a business that specializes in the printing and distribution of labels and other packaging. The 1.37 acre project site ! ,. includes a permitted 23,994 ~` square foot industrial building that has recently been expanded with an unpermitted 4,456 square foot addition. The project site is depicted in Figure 1. Figure 2 General Plan Map ~. - ~~, ,+ -C k`y [~ LT ~~~..~ ~~~ ~, 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. Located in the Primary Planning Area, the Business Park/Industrial land use designation description in Chapter 1 of the General Plan is as follows: "' ~ '"'""~ T ~ -=- ~'~ "Business Park/industrial (FAR:.30 to '~ .40; employee density: 360-490 square ~ ~, ~ ~'° fI 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 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." Page 2 of 8 The proposed site is located in the M-1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District. Most of the parcels in the Sierra Court/Trinity Court area are located in M-1 (Light Industrial) and PD (Planned Development), zoning districts, as shown in Figure 3. The M-1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District allows for a variety of warehousing, manufacturing, and distribution uses and is compatible with the Business Park/Industrial General Plan land use designation. The Sierra Court/Trinity Court area is also home to a number of Indoor Recreational Uses that have been permitted through either a Conditional Use Permit or a Minor Use Permit. Entitlement History Mr. Tom Vargas, Operations Manager for All American Label, filed an application with the City in 2008 requesting Site Development Review (SDR) approval for the addition of a 4,456 square foot storage area on the northern portion of the site. 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 8 Figure 3: Zoning Map 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 because it was inconsistent with the General Plan. 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 (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: Square Footage FAR Existing Building 23,944 .40 With Proposed 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 the City Attorney, Planning Commission, and City 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 4). 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. Planning Commission Resolution 11-24 is included as Attachment 3 and the draft August 23, 2011 Meeting Minutes are included as Attachment 5 to this Staff Report. APPEAL PROCESS AND CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Site Development Review Appeal 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 6). 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. Page4of8 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 7) shall be approved. City Council hearing on October 4, 2011 The City Council held a public hearing on this item on October 4, 2011. After receiving public input, discussion, and consideration of the application, the City Council voted to continue the item to the November 1, 2011 City Council meeting. The City Council's discussion centered on the issues of clarity of the Business Park/Industrial land use category description in the General Plan and on wanting to ensure that businesses in the area had the ability to grow and expand. Another one of the issues brought up by the City Council was that of legal non-conforming uses that were created as a result of the City's General Plan Amendment in 1992, which was required by the change in state law. The City Council meeting minutes are included as Attachment 8. At the October 4, 2011 hearing, the City Council directed Staff to continue this item to the November 1, 2011 City Council meeting. The City Council also directed Staff to prepare a Staff Report on options for initiating a General Plan Amendment for the Business Park/Industrial areas on Sierra Court and enacting a moratorium on new development until the General Plan issue has been resolved. The General Plan Amendment and Development Moratorium issue is presented in a separate Staff Report for the City Council's consideration at this meeting. 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. This decision would be counter to the City Attorney's opinion as stated at the October 4, 2011 City Council meeting, that based on state law requirements that General Plans contain density ranges, as well as the 1992 amendments to the General Plan that are detailed below, that the FAR maximum for the Business Park/Industrial General Plan land use category is 0.40. 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. ANALYSIS: 1992 Amendments to the General Plan 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(x) 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 9). The Guidelines further describe a "standard" as a rule or measure that must be complied with (Guidelines p. 16, Attachment 10). 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. Page 5 of 8 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. In order to be in compliance with the General Plan Guidelines, 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 11 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 and should be interpreted as descriptive rather than mandatory. In 1992, 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 permissible amount of development under the density range; the actual project density may come in lower. The 0.30 to .40 FAR range has been in the Business Park/Industrial General Plan land use category 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. As stated at the October 4, 2011 City Council meeting, it is the City Attorney's opinion, based on state law requirements that General Plans contain density ranges and the 1992 amendments to the General Plan, that the FAR maximum is indeed 0.40. 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. A letter 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, and the interpretation provided in this Staff Report and in Planning Commission Resolution 11-24 is no different. Legal Non-Conforming Uses The Zoning Ordinance defines a legal non-conforming use as the use of a structure or land that was legally established prior to the effective date of the Zoning Ordinance but which does not conform to the current provisions of this Zoning Ordinance. Anon-conforming use type includes examples as varied as a building that does not meet current setback requirements, to a business located in a zoning district where that same type of business would not be permitted today, to a tenant or business sign that is too big to be permitted under the current regulations. All of these situations describe anon-conforming, but legally-established, use that can continue to operate and exist even though it would not be allowed under today's standards. Legal non-conforming uses are often established when the Zoning Ordinance is amended, or when a specific plan or general plan amendment is adopted that changes standards or policy guidance in any particular area. The establishment of legal non-conforming uses is not unusual. Page6of8 Most of the buildings in the Sierra Court area were built prior to Dublin's incorporation in 1982. Some of the buildings were built at a density that is higher than would be permitted under today's standards, which is a Floor Area Ratio of .40. When the General Plan was amended in 1992 to add the density standards and a FAR range of .30 to .40 was specified, any site with a FAR over .40 became legal non-conforming. The buildings were legally established, and they could be maintained, repaired, and could continue to exist. Non-conforming status does not limit the transfer of ownership of the properties nor does it limit the ability of the existing business, or any legally-permitted business in the zoning district, to continue to operate. What is limited is the ability to further increase the size of the building if it is already at the .40 FAR maximum. General Plan Amendment Study Initiation Another item on the November 1, 2011 City Council meeting agenda is the possible initiation of a General Plan Amendment study to examine changing the maximum FAR in the Business Park/Industrial land use category from .40 to .50. If the City Council decides to affirm the Planning Commission's adoption of Resolution 11-24 denying a Site Development Review Permit for the project, the City Council could also decide to initiate a General Plan Amendment study as described in the separate Staff Report. A future amendment to the General Plan could provide the Applicant an opportunity to move forward with their proposed project if an amendment to raise the maximum FAR were approved. 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 7 of 8 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 for the October 4, 2011 hearing. The Public Notice was also published in the Valley Times and posted at several locations throughout the City. The item was continued from that hearing to November 1, 2011, so a new notice was not required to be distributed. Prior to the October 4, 2011 public hearing, five comment letters were received on the project. They are included as Attachments 12 to 16. 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. Letter to City from Peter MacDonald, dated June 8, 2011 5. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated August 23, 2011 6. Appeal letter from Steve Poplar, dated September 1, 2011 7. Resolution 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 Findings, with the Project Site Plan attached as Exhibit A 8. Draft City Council Meeting Minutes dated October 4, 2011 9. General Plan Guidelines (page 50) 10. General Plan Guidelines (page 16) 11. City Council September 14, 1992 Agenda Statement (with excerpts from the original Attachment 1) 12. Comment letter from Phil Gelhaus, dated October 4, 2011 13. Comment letter from Brian Driscoll, dated October 4, 2011 14. Comment letter from Fredrick Falender, dated September 23, 2011 15. Comment letter from Steven Roeser, dated October 3, 2011 16. Comment letter from Glenn Arace, dated October 3, 2011 Page 8 of 8 A~GENllA STATEMENT 1'1JANNINC CQMMISSI~C3N NIEETINf~ DATE:. November 12, 2!08 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARIIV+G: PA If8-U2Q A11 American Label Coarclitiontal Use Permit and Site Qew~el~o,pment Iter°ierr° to allow- a Co~°ered Outdaar Storage Area at 6158 Sierra Court (Quasi-Judicial) R~aj~r~r~l ~ar~~xr~°~rt' h~~ :~-~er~•Eh~r ~11`cx, .~'s.s`i,stcx~tt I'Icrtt~te~~• ATTACIJMEIr1TS: I) Resolution Approa°in a C~anditional Use Kermit and Site Development Rer~iev~~ to allow e~cterior modit~catians to the project sits;, which consists of the addition of a co~~ered storage area at All American Label located at ~~5$ Sierra Court. ~} Project Flans. } Letter from the Applicant, 4} Steel pale color saanple. 5 } Steel root color sample. BFCT()Pa11v~E1'~vATI(}N: 1 } Receive Staff presentation; ~~ (3pen the public hearing; `y ~ 3} ~I`ake testimony' from the Applicant and the public; ~ 4} C'lase the p~tblie hearing and deliberate; and 5} Adapt Resolution {Attachment 1) appra~°ng a Conditional Use Fermis and Site De.°elopment Review- to allow exterior modifications to the project site., ~~hich consists of the addition of a covered stara~e area at All American Label located at f~SH Sierra Court. P1tOJEC'T UESCRIPTIfJN: The project site is located at fi95~ Sierra Court, The project site is approximately l , acres in sire. An txistin,~ ?3,94 sgaxare foot building currently exists an-site. The existing building is primarily 4r°t~rehouse ti~th associated office space. 'l'hc existing building includes 2.811(} square feet of office space and 21,19=1 square feet of warehouse. The project site has a General Plan desig,natian of Business Farkllndustrial and is 7aned M-1 Light Industrial}, which allarr~s industrial uses, The property is located at the end of Sierra Cauri as indicated in the r~iLnity° map to the left. The proposed project consists af' a Conditional [.lse Permit {CU1'} and Site Development Rc~°iew (S17R} to al'laar° an exterior moditicatian to the project site, ~°hich consists of the addition of covered outdoor storage area, iTE11~7 NO.: ~1 • Page 1 of S G:11't1~tl?OI)t~'~.!'~~ f}$~C1~[1 All Anaerical I,~h~l S~)Fi's.PC' StatT€2~pcirl 11.12.f7$.dac C(3I'II<aS T(]. Applicant l3rc~perty O~°rler I~ile 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 cutgrown their existing building. The proposed outdoor storage area will be used to provide additional stE~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 4,456 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, wl•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~zrrent 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 f~~r 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. Parkingwsis 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 oldwarehouse 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 4,456 square feet. A total of 29 on-site parking spaces are required for this use based on the existing and proposed uses (see Table below). 2of5 Parkin Light Industrial Use Type (a., listed in the Zoning Ordinance) ~ Warehouse = 1 space per 1, 000 square feet General Purpose Area = 1 space per 400 square feet Parking required per City Code 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 8.76.OSO.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, Attachment 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~xsiness 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 wili consist of steel roof panels pai.Zted surf sand to match the existing roof (please refer to Attachment 5 for roof color sample). The propo red 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 ~Nithin 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 undE;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 v~~ill 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 Planning 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 c~~nsists of the addition of a covered storage area at All American Label located at b958 Sierra Court. 4 of 5 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-OOb GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Business Park/Industrial EXISTING ZONING: Light Industrial (M-1) SURROUNDING USES: LOCATION ZONING (iENERAL PLAN LAND CURRENT USE OF PROPERTY USE PD (PA 97-019) Medium-High Density Rfsidential North Rf;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 Retail 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 project site, which consists of the addition of a covered outdoor storage area in t}xe Light Industrial (M-1) Zoning District at 6958 Sierra Court; and WHEREAS, the approximately 1.3 acre parcel is currently occupied by a 23,994 square foot industrial building; and WHEREAS, the proposal includes a 4,456 square foot coveted 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 Commission 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 a,id 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 Pazk azea 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 existin}; 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 nest 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) they area was designed to accommodate a vaziety 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 physically 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 tc~ 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 :findings as stated in Section 8.100.060 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance can be made; 3) the propos.~d 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 Page2of8 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 v~ill 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 foat 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 becaz~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 5) 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 flat; 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 elements 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 circz~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: CONDITION TEXT RESPON. AGI±;NCY WHEN REQ'D Prior to• SOURCE GE NERAL -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~u~tment, and as specified b the followin conditions of a roval 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. rage 4 or u CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN SOURCE AGl~: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 ment Director. 10. Fees. Applicant/Developer shall pay all applicable fees in Vari~~us 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 licable. 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 Page 5 of 8 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. 1'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 parking 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 1 g, 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. ApplicantlDeveloper 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 acid 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 componen#s 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 oecu anc . FIR E 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 DU BLIN 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. PUB LIC 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. AGENCY WHEN REQ'D Prior to• SOURCE slopes do not exceed 2% in any direction. All required disabled stalls shall meet the current Title 24/ADA 31 standards. Handrails. The Applicant shall provide a handrail along PW Prior to Public Works . the existing path of travel from the accessible pazking Final 32 s ace to the rim entrance of the buildin . 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: CQ~~~ Planning anager G: IPA#120081PA 08-020 All America) Label SDR1ResoG~tion.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 4,45fi SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 23,994 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING AT 6958 SIERRA COURT PLPA 2091-0002U (APN 94'1-257fi-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 Parkllndustrial, 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 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 al! 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 Developmenf Review is not consistent wifh fhe purposes of Chapter 8.704, Site Development Review, of the Zoning Ordinance, wifh fhe 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 for 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 Label, to construct a 4,456 square foot addition to an existing 23,994 square foot building at 6958 Sierra Court as generally depicted in the Project Plans prepared by Charles Huff, AIA, received by the Planning Division on May 4, 2011, labeled Exhibi# A to 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, Wehrenberg, Bhuthimethee NOES: O'Keefe ABSENT: Schaub ABSTAIN: Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Planning Manager G:1PA#12a191PLPA-2011-Q0020 AI! American Label SDRIPC D8.23.20091PC Dania! Reso.docx 2 suax»Ianl y>ac:on~ga ~s~:®s ~ara~cnnBaHr _ ,LJ 3J.lH~NV ~~~ 'V'1V ~~t1H 5~"lii'dH7 ~~: Ra W ~ . i t I ~ t ~I ,' s NT'18F1C7 ~~--tt TVV'~~ E.l.~a[S 869 ~~A~ ~~~1U~UY~ ~~~ 7a4~ Oh'~allfl9 M3N LAW OFFICE PETER MACD4NALD 400 MAIN STREET, SUITE 210 PLEASANTON, CALIFORNIA 94566-7371 (925) 462-0191 FAX {925) 462-0404 pmacdonald@macdonaldlaw.net June S, 2011 Ms. Kristi Bascom Principal Planner City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 '~.~~~; ~~~,~ ~~~ Subject: Supplemental Submittal PLPAp2019-00020 Information for Complete Application per Govt. Code Sec. fiv940 Dear Ms. Bascom, On behalf of All American Label (AAL), we hereby provide you with the additional 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 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 proposed building addition. If the conditions of project approval require the acquisition 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, such as: 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 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, thane 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 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 fo break down a door to enfer a burning home to rescue occupanfs or extinguish a fire, to prevenf a shoofing or to bring emergency aid fo an injured person. The need to profecf or preserve life or avoid serious injury is justification for whaf would be otherwise illegal absent an exigency or emergency." 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 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. Fourth, 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 tom 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 wark 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 We have a solid case based upon the history of the Genera! Plan that the reference to .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 sectian of the General Plan, for the Business Parkllndustrial designation reads: "Maximum attainable ratios of floor area fo site area (FAR) are controlled by parking and landscaping requirements and typically result in .35 fo .40 FAR's. Examples: Clark Avenue, Sierra Caurf." 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 Plan in 1985 (1985 General Plan p. 5, attached). Perhaps that long time consistency in the General Plan wording is influenced by the fact that at least 17 out 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 that the FAR section of the General.. Plan:.was never intended to _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 meaning of the General Plan can be amended by interpretation, and we are skeptical of 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 mandatary 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 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 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. 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~~n mU~Dm.~V 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 A P A R T M E N T H O M E S May 12, 2x21 To +nrham it may concern: Park Sierra I_LC is the owner of Park Sierra apartments at 545© Dougherty Road, in Dublin, California. As 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 an 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 for 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 nn objection to use of the fire access lane through Park Sierra by public safely personnel to access property beyond our property in exigent circumstances. Park Sierra I.LC 13Q Yantis, Suite 2{7Q Alisa Viejo, California 92656 gy; Date: its Manager 6450 D©egherGy Road, Aublin, CA, 9456$ 925f5fi0.OQ50 Fax 925f5b(l•0082 email: parl~sierxaC~?sheaapariments.cnm www.sheaa~artrnanES.cnmlparksie~xa Ct1 D12E License # A13$2Sb6 CHAPTER 5 FIRE SERVICE FEATURES SECTION 501 GENERAL 5011 Scope. Fire service features for buildings, structures and premises shall comply with this chapter. 501.2 Permits. A permit shall be required as set forth in Appendix Chapter 1, Sections 105.6 and 105.7. 501.3 Construetiom documents. Construction documents for proposed fire apparatus access, location of fire lanes and con- structiondocuments and hydraulic calculations fozfue hydrant systems shall be submitted to the fire department for review and approval priar to construction. 501.4 Tiuaiaxg of installation. When fire apparatus access roads or a water supply for fire protection is required to be installed, such protection shall be installed and made service- able prior to and during the time of construction except when approved alternative methods of protection are provided. Tem- porary street signs shall be installed at each street intersection when construction of new roadways allows passage by vehi- cles in accordance with Section 505.2. SECTION 502 DEFINITIONS 502.1 Definitions. The following words and terms shall, for the purposes of this chapter and as used elsewhere in this code, have the meanings shown herein. FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS RDAD. A road that provides fire apparatus access from a fire station to a facility, building ar portion thereof. This is a general term inclusive of all other terms such as fire lane, public street, private street, parking lot lane and access roadway. _ __ _. _ FIRE COMMAND CENTER. The principal attended or unattended location where the status of the detection, alarm communications and control systems is displayed, and from which the systems} can be manually controlled. FIRE I?EPARTMENT MASTER KEY. A limited issue key of special oz controlled design to be carried by fire department officials in command which will open key boxes on specified properties. FIRE LANE. A road or other passageway developed to allow the passage of fire apparatus. A fire lane is not necessarily intended for vehicular traffic other than fire apparatus. KEY BOX. A secure device with a lock aperablc only by a fire department master key, and containing building entry keys and other keys that maybe required for access in an emergency. SECTION 503 FIR1=APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS 543,1 Wleere required. Fire apparatus access roads shall be provided and maintained in accordance with Sections 503.1.1 through 503.1.3. 503.1.1 Buildings and facilities. Approved ~ apparatus access roads shall be provided for every facility, building or portion of a iiuilding hereafter constructed or moved into or within the,~uisdiction. The ftre apparatus access road shall comply with the requirements of this section and shall extend to within 150 feet (45 '720 mm} of all portions of the facility and apportions of the exteriorwalls of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility. Exception: The fire code official is authorized to increase the dimension of 150 feet (45 720 mm}where: 1. The building is equipped throughout with au ap- proved automatic sprinkler system installed in ac- cordance with Section 903.3.1.1, 903.3.1.2 or 9(13.3.1.3. 2. Fire apparatus access xoads cannot be installed be- cause of location on property, topography, water- ways, nonnegotiable grades or other similar conditions, and an approved alternative means of fue protection is provided. 3. There are not mare than two Group R-3 or Group 503.1.2 Additional access. The fire code official is autho- rized to require more than one fire apparatus access road based on the potential far impairment of a single road by vehicle congestion, condition of tetxain, climatic conditions or other factozs that could limit access. 5031.3High-plied storage. Fire department vehicle access to buildings used for high-piled combustible storage shall comply with the applicable provisions of Chapter 23. 543.2 Specifications. Fire apparatus access roads shall be installed and arranged in accordance with Sections 503.2.1 through Sfl3.2.7. 503.2,1 Dimensions. lire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet (6096 mm}, except for approved security gates in accordance with Sec- tion 503.6, and an unobstructed verticalclearance ofnot less than i3 feet 6 inches (4115 mm}. 503.2,2 Authority, The fire code official shall have the authority to require an increase in the minimum access widths where they are inadequate for fire or rescue opera- tions. 503.2.3 Surface. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of v 20t17 C~1L#Ft~RNiA FIRE CObE 61 Page 5. 1985 Genera! Plan Residential; Medium Density (b.l to 14.© units per gross residential acre). The range allows duglex, townhouse, and garden apartment development suitable far 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 {?.81 and Amador Lakes west of the Daugherty Hills {13,5). Residential: Medium-High Density (14.1. to 25.0 units per gross residential acre). Projects at the upper end of this range normally will require some under-structure parking and will have three or more living levels in order to 'meet zoning ordinance open space requirements. Assumed household size is two persons per unit. Examples of medium-high density projects include The Springs (17.8) and Greenwood Apartments (19.81. . Camiercial/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 Automotive. This classification includes all retail/office uses and adds auto dealerships, auto body shops, and similar uses. Residential uses are not permitted, Business Park/Industrial. Uses are non-retail businesses {research, limited manufacturing and distribution activities, and administrative offices) that do not involve heavy trucking or generate nuisances due to emissions, noise, ar 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 PAR'S, Examples= Clark Avenue, Sierra Court. Business Park/Industrial; Outdoor 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, 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 Flan as semi-public shall be considered consistent with the General Plan. Determination as to whether housing should be permitted on a specific semi-public site and the acceptable density and design will be through review of a Planned Unit Development proposal under the Zoning Ordinance. Examples: Public and private schools, churches. Parks/Public Recreation. Publicly owned parks and recreation facilities. Open Space. Included are areas dedicated as open space on subdivision maps, slopes greater than 30 percent, stream protection corridors, woodlands, and grazing lands, m n w cn rn v z `i 1 r ~~ i x :~ :~ ~~. . ~~~ ..,, \ T ~~~ s ~~ ~~ m ~ o d O '; 4.P ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ o ~ ~ g ~~ ~Z IR ~ 3D .! '~ ''~ ~ ~ `~ z ~~ 0 c '~4~\ ~,.;; ~ "21 K .. l: ~'~::t Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, August 23, 2011 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, August 23, 2011, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Brown called the meeting to order at x:01:32 If~l ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Present: Chair Brown; Vice Chair Wehrenberg; Commissioners O'Keefe and Bhuthimethee; Jeff Baker, Planning Manager; Kit Faubion, City Attorney; Marnie Waffle, Senior Planner; and Taryn Bozzo, Recording Secretary. Absent: Commissioner Schaub ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA -NONE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - On a motion by Vice Chair Wehrenberg, seconded by Cm. Bhuthimethee the minutes of the August 9, 2011 meeting were approved. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -NONE CONSENT CALENDAR -NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS -NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS - 8.1 PLPA-2011-00026 Zoning Ordinance Amendments to Chapter 8.40 (Accessory Structures and Uses Regulations), Chapter 8.76 (Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations), Chapter 8.84 (Sign Regulations) and Chapter 8.108 (Temporary Use Permit) Marnie Waffle, Senior Planner presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Jeff Baker, Planning Manager stated that there is supplemental information for the Planning Commission in the form of an SB 343 sheet with an email from Brad Sanders, a property owner in Dublin. He stated that Mr. Sanders provided more information on the dais in the form of Exhibits to his email for each Commissioner to view. Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked if Staff has experienced issues with seasonal flags. Ms. Waffle stated that there have not been issues; however, Staff has experienced an increase in requests from various shopping centers to display such signage. She stated that the City does not currently have any provisions that would allow seasonal flags. Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked if Staff included a display timeframe in the regulations, as far as how long the seasonal flags may be displayed. 106 Mr. Baker replied that no specific timeframe was included as the flags are intended to be seasonal in nature and/or reflect the holidays. Vice Chair Wehrenberg stated that she would like to consider including a display timeframe as flags for certain seasons may be displayed prematurely. Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked if window film with graphics needs to be addressed in the amendment to Chapter 8.84, Sign Regulations as it is becoming more popular with businesses. Mr. Baker clarified that the Regulations currently allow 25% window coverage. He stated that City Council reviewed what the City currently provides for window coverage regulations in June, 2011 and did not make any modifications to the current policy. Chair Brown confirmed that Vice Chair Wehrenberg wants to consider having a specific display timeframe for seasonal flags. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if the City is regulating the colors of signage, like day-glow or neon colors, specifically for window coverings. Ms. Waffle replied no. Cm. O'Keefe asked, in regards to amending Chapter 8.40, if there was a discussion regarding what percentage of an existing food preparation area would be allocated towards a new use if a grocery market wanted to expand and include a seating area. Ms. Waffle replied that the proposed amendment does not distinguish between new or existing food preparation areas and includes seating and food preparation areas as a whole. Mr. Baker confirmed that Staff has not distinguished between existing and new food preparation areas. He stated that restaurants typically have both seating and food preparation areas and the intent of the Regulation is to assist in determining parking requirements. Mr. Baker clarified that if the seating and food preparation areas, combined, occupy less than 10% of the entire tenant space, it would be considered an Accessory Use and not require additional parking; however, if it occupies more than 10% of the entire tenant space, then the seating area requires Restaurant use parking at 1 per 100 square feet of seating area, and the food preparation area requires Retail use parking at 1 per 300 square feet. Chair Brown confirmed with Ms. Waffle that Temporary Promotional Signs are currently allowed to be displayed for 21 days then have to be removed for 21 days. Chair Brown asked if Staff regulates the content of the temporary signs displayed. Mr. Baker replied no. He clarified that, currently, the Regulations do not restrict the number of temporary signs a business can have and the intent of the proposed amendment is to limit the number of temporary signs a business is allowed to display at one time. Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked if Temporary Promotional Sign applicants have to submit an example of the signage they are displaying when applying for a permit, specifically referring to the colors they are using. 107 Mr. Baker replied that the City does not currently regulate content in colors, specifically. He clarified that the seasonal flags, as it's currently proposed, would not require a permit as long as the standards are met. He further clarified that window signs do not currently require a permit. Chair Brown opened the public hearing. Bruce Fiedler, Dublin resident, spoke in opposition of the Zoning Ordinance Amendments. Mr. Fiedler presented materials for the Commission's review such as the minutes from the 1999 Vehicle Dealership Signage Committee meeting; photos of businesses that had what they consider to be extensive and/or day-glow window signs; a chart that lists the effects he believes the Amendments would have if adopted; and a 16 square-foot item to show the approximate maximum size of Temporary Promotional Sign. Mr. Fiedler stated that, in regards to flags being allowed for Automobile/Vehicle Sales, he feels there are several other businesses within the City that may want the same option. Kit Faubion, City Attorney, briefly described the handout given to the Planning Commission by Mr. Fiedler, stating that the handout appears to have a number of questions that Mr. Fiedler intends to raise regarding signage; a tally of light posts, plus or minus a few, in the Dublin Automotive Sales locations; comments on the results of the proposed Ordinance amendments; and Dublin Non-Auto Sales Businesses which might want more signs. Mr. Fiedler stated that he feels the City of Dublin will do well to have appropriate regulations of what sometimes appears to be commercial graffiti. He further stated that, regarding Automotive Sales, a local Mercedes Benz dealership does not post any flags for advertisement and still remains successful in their sales. The Commission reviewed the materials and had no questions. Jay Fink, Sahara Market, stated that he feels the proposed Amendments should be deferred until Sahara Market's appeal is settled. He stated that he believes the proposed Amendments were initiated because of the June 10, 2011 determination letter by the Community Development Director which is currently on appeal. He further stated that if the Amendments are adopted, he feels the Commission would not have the benefit of hearing the appeal arguments as new Regulations would be in effect and he would then have to argue the new Regulations which is unfair. Mr. Fink read a prepared statement indicating the proposed Amendments would create more confusion and less consistency. He stated that the Eating and Drinking Establishments should not include the food preparation area as it would be difficult to determine what a food preparation area is, specifically for grocery markets. He further stated that he feels 10% for an Accessory Use is restrictive and he has found that most cities allow at least 25% for an Accessory Use. Vice Chair Wehrenberg clarified that when Sahara Market asked for a continuance at the August 9, 2011 Planning Commission meeting, they risked these Amendments being adopted before their appeal was settled. 108 Moe Yousofi, Sahara Market, spoke in opposition to the Zoning Ordinance Amendments. Mr. Yousofi agreed with Mr. Fink, stating that the proposed Amendments should be deferred until Sahara Market's appeal is settled. He stated that if the Amendments are adopted, he feels the food preparation area should be omitted from the requirements. The Commission had no questions. Brad Sanders, landlord for Sahara Market, spoke in opposition to the Zoning Ordinance Amendments. Mr. Sanders agreed that the proposed Amendments should be deferred until Sahara Market's appeal is settled. He stated that he and the City have agreed to try and work out the issues regarding the appeal but is upset that he was not notified about the hearing regarding the Amendments. He further stated that the Amendments were initiated by Sahara Market's determination letter which had no initial findings, no analysis and no justifications. Mr. Sanders stated that the 10% requirement for seating and food preparation areas has no basis of findings. He stated that if the Amendments are adopted, he feels the food preparation area should be omitted from the requirements. The Commission had no questions. Chair Brown closed the public hearing. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked, regarding amending Chapter 8.84, if colors for signs would be regulated and why Staff has not included such regulations. Mr. Baker stated that the City does not currently regulate colors of signs because of certain First Amendment issues related to the content of signs. He further stated that the Ordinance does discourage the use of white acrylic panel because of discoloration over time. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if the Ordinance could discourage the use of day-glow or neon colors. Ms. Faubion stated that regulating content and colors of signs can initiate issues with a business's trademark and the City cannot regulate trademarks. She stated that regulating content and colors of signs would be difficult to navigate without running into First Amendment Rights. She further stated that she believes discouraging the white acrylic panel is a glare issue. Cm. Bhuthimethee stated that some would argue that day-glow or neon colors would cause a glare issue as well. Ms. Waffle clarified that the discouragement of the white acrylic panel refers to background color for signage and is only discouraged when a sign is illuminated. Vice Chair Wehrenberg stated that, in response to Mr. Fiedler, the City of Dublin adopted the Master Sign Program to answer most of his larger questions. She stated that she feels it is a good thing to include the restrictions being proposed. Vice Chair Wehrenberg confirmed with Mr. Baker that LCD/LED electronic signs are currently restricted and only allowed by applying for a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Baker confirmed that 109 Staff is not currently proposing any amendments to the regulations regarding LCD/LED electronic signs. Vice Chair Wehrenberg stated that she takes no issue with the Amendments, except wanting to have a display timeline for seasonal flags. She clarified that she would look to Staff for direction on implementing such a timeline. Vice Chair Wehrenberg stated that, regarding the food preparation area, a restaurant is a type of use and the food preparation area would be shown on plans in the planning stages; therefore, it should be included in the Regulations. She stated that some of the documentation provided by Mr. Sanders did not seem applicable based on the particular City's rules and the project being referred to. She further stated that she feels there is more discussion that needs to be had between Staff and the Applicant to ensure that the Applicant understands the process required to try and work out issues. Cm. O'Keefe agreed that more discussion needs to be had between Sahara Market and Staff. He asked if Staff could clarify regarding Mr. Sanders not being notified about the hearing regarding the Amendments being proposed. Mr. Baker replied that Mr. Sanders was made aware of the hearing during negotiations that occurred before the August 9, 2011 Planning Commission meeting. He stated that the City's ultimate goal is to have Sahara Market open as soon as possible, however, their opening is being held up by issues that the Property Owner has with the use of his property and how parking is determined. He clarified that the City is trying to find a global solution that would resolve the Property Owner's issues and allow Sahara Market to open quickly. Mr. Baker clarified that the proposed Amendments are part of that solution and the City is working to streamline the process as much as possible. He stated that this solution and the proposed Amendments and current Planning Commission meeting were discussed and agreed to with Mr. Sanders. Cm. O'Keefe asked why Staff did not provide more clarification in the proposed Amendments regarding existing food preparation areas versus new food preparation areas. Mr. Baker replied that the City is trying to create a standard to address parking for a tenant space that contains more than one use. He stated that a business expanding to include a restaurant requires seating and food preparation; therefore, more parking is needed to accommodate the increased demand. Mr. Baker reiterated that if an Accessory Use has less than 10% occupancy of seating and food preparation area, the parking would not be affected; however, if that use is more than 10%, it would not be considered an Accessory Use and the seating area would require 1 parking space per 100 square feet, similar to a Restaurant, and the food preparation area would require 1 parking space per 300 square feet, similar to Retail. Cm. O'Keefe stated that he understands an Eating and Drinking Establishment increasing the intensity use and, therefore, requiring more parking. Cm. Bhuthimethee stated that she feels there are some establishments where food preparation areas should be included in the 10% Accessory Use requirement, such as a hardware store adding a restaurant component; however, it should be different for a use such as a grocery store 110 which would have food preparation areas but no seating. She stated that she does not feel food preparation areas should be included in the 10%. Cm. O'Keefe stated that he does not feel food preparation areas should be excluded completely as sometimes the food preparation area already exists. Vice Chair Wehrenberg stated that a food preparation area is an element that every restaurant has, therefore it needs to be included. She stated that she feels it would add more confusion in the future if it was not included. She clarified that the component of a use changes when seating is added. She stated that once a seating area is added, the parking ratio gets adjusted because you are allowing for more customers. Chair Brown stated that he finds the Amendments to bring more clarity and consistency to the existing Regulations. He stated that he feels it addresses the needs of the community and would like to see Sahara Market open quickly and prove successful. He further stated that he believes the Amendments help to promote and satisfy the ultimate solution for Sahara Market as well as provide solutions for future businesses. Chair Brown stated that he did not feel any changes needed to be made to the Amendments aside from Vice Chair Wehrenberg's request for a display timeline for seasonal flags Mr. Baker stated that, as proposed, seasonal flags would be exempt from permitting. He stated that if the Commission wished to regulate a display timeframe, Staff would recommend that the seasonal flags be subject to something similar of a Temporary Promotional Sign permit to ensure that Staff is aware of the display and how long it is displayed. Vice Chair Wehrenberg stated that she does not wish to make the process more difficult for businesses and is willing to strike the request for a display timeline. Chair Brown concurred with Vice Chair Wehrenberg. On a motion by Vice Chair Wehrenberg and seconded by Cm. O'Keefe, on a vote of 4-0-1, with Cm. Schaub being absent, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted RESOLUTION NO. 11-23 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 8.40 (ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND USES REGULATIONS), CHAPTER 8.76 (OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS), CHAPTER 8.84 (SIGN REGULATIONS), AND CHAPTER 8.108 (TEMPORARY USE PERMIT) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE CITY-WIDE PLPA-2011-00026 111 8.2 PLPA-2011-00020, 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 to address that question. He stated that Court Order currently states that the storage area is not to be used while 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 Plan. 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 1992 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 17 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 the storage space would be used solely for storage and would not be used to store machinery of any kind. He stated that the only way to increase his business and continue as a viable manufacturer is to have the extra storage space, exceeding 112 the current FAR. He stated that he wishes to keep his business located in Dublin and will do what he needs to work successfully with Staff. Vice Chair Wehrenberg asked Mr. Brown if he was the original applicant for the unenclosed storage area SDR/CUP 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, 2008. 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-1) zoning districts, to be inadequate. Chair Brown closed the public hearing. 113 Cm. O'Keefe stated that he understand the spirit of the original General 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. He 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. She 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 on 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 those 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 case, 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 regardless, buildings exceeding 40% FAR still exist. Cm. Bhuthimethee replied that those buildings were grandfathered in because they were established before the 40% maximum FAR was implemented. 114 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 941-2576-006) 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 and/or Staff, including Committee Reports and Reports by the Planning Commission related to meetings attended at City Expense (AB 1234). 115 ADJOURNMENT -The meeting was adjourned at ,,,,,~,,,,,,,,,,,II~~,,I p.m. Respectfully submitted, Alan Brown Chair Planning Commission ATTEST: Jeff Baker Planning Manager G:IMINUTESI20111PLANNING COMMISS/ONI08.23.11 DRAFT PC Minutes.doc 116 ~~C~~~~~ 1' hl t= sy 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 1, 2011 To, City of Dublin 1 appeal the 3 -- 1 decision of the Planning Commission on August 23, 2011 ~PLPA-2011-00020, 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 Parkllndustrial General designation. This appeal is based on the information we provided the City and Planning Commission both before and during the hearing, Sin erel , Steve Poplar Label Concepts 6~OO 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: ATTEST: Mayor 2 of 4 City Clerk G:IP_~ '~ZOIIPLP~-21111-000211_~ll_~ta~er~cnnLabel.S7>R'~,C('nppeal10.0-1.2011_Ott-1-C'('Reso_~tfrra~ingP('I>cnial.doc 3of4 Exitbit A to Attachment I P ~ -. . ~P ,~ ... ~ i °°~ ,_ ~a ~~.~.. ~ ~ I ~ +1 ~° :;I ~ ~. 5 "~ ~~ r JLa -,~ ._,-, a ~ ~~. ~~ a~~ ~ ~ ~' ~Y. .~ ~k - ~`~ ~.. }~ ~,~„ _.- ~,, ~ ~ - - ~. .. o ... ~.. ti,~ N. A g i~~ddTT, r l;; y y,; ~- ~t P~~iA~~Rt'~ ~' ~ ,. ~ ~ ~ ~ y ~ 1 f m.~._ _. _ __.. ....m_~.._ ._ ~ ~ __ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~!!(~ ~~pp p ~^p I~P~ryµ~pp pp~Py}QQ pp~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ 'G~'~P~tP ~I~C~F~4.R. P~'b.Yd'.mG.lO'P ...-k9 gAw~R~i;rv nY.M WYxYPn7mµ ca BPYb')~WLAYpO 4of4 DRAFT ~.~ O~ DU~~j~ MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL . ~ ,`` OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN C~ ~~~ sz ~ // REGULAR MEETING October 4, 2011 ~~ CLOSED SESSION A closed session was held at 6°29°33 ,regarding: I. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Property: 3385 Dublin Blvd., #206, Dublin, CA Agency negotiators: Joni Pattillo, City Manager and John Bakker, City Attorney Negotiating party: Camille Buckingham Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment II. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Property: 3245 Dublin Blvd., #224, Dublin, CA Agency negotiators: Joni Pattillo, City Manager and John Bakker, City Attorney Negotiating party: Mona Kosasih Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment III. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Property: 3255 Dublin Blvd., #420, Dublin, CA Agency negotiators: Joni Pattillo, City Manager and John Bakker, City Attorney Negotiating party: Arthur Longoria Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment ...., A regular meeting of the Dublin City Council was held on Tuesday, October 4, 2011, in the City Council Chambers of the Dublin Civic Center. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m., by Mayor Sbranti. ...., ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Biddle, Hart, Hildenbrand, Swalwell, and Mayor Sbranti ABSENT: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 7°00°41 PM DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 30 ~~ REGULAR MEETING i„~' ~,~~ x„i~~~ OCTOBER 4, 2011 ~~,~~,~,,~;`,~ ,~, ,. DRAFT The pledge of allegiance to the flag was recited by the City Council, Staff and those present. REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION ACTION 7:01 PM Mayor Sbranti stated there was no reportable action during Closed Session. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Introduction of New Employees: Roxanna Recinos-Serna, Plan Check Engineer, Building Division and Larry Ferguson, Senior Finance Technician, Finance Division 7x01 e31 3.1 700-10 The City Council welcomed Roxanna Recinos-Serna on her appointment and congratulated Larry Ferguson on his promotion. Pilot Health Clinics Presentation 7°05°53 3.2 560-60 Fire Chief Sheldon Gilbert presented the Staff Report and advised that the City Council would receive a presentation on Alameda County's plans to develop pilot health care clinics in local fire stations. Vm. Hart asked for an update on the transition with the new ambulance provider for the Alameda County Fire Department, Paramedics Plus; ongoing collaboration efforts with both Oakland Fire Department and Fremont Fire Department; and costs associated with modification of fire stations to accommodate the proposed clinics. Fire Chief Gilbert stated that the target date for the ambulance provider is November 1, 2011. The fire department is working closely with Paramedics Plus to ensure a smooth transition. Collaboration with Hayward, Fremont and Oakland Fire Departments is occurring with the formation of an oversight committee with labor, management and the healthcare community and he was optimistic of the outcome. Cm. Swalwell asked for an in-depth explanation of cost structure to implement this program and continue to fund for the next three years. Chief Gilbert clarified that ongoing costs for the pilot program would be estimated at $3.5 million secured through Measure A funds, and through the Healthcare Services Agency, but the long DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 2 VOLUME 30 ~~ REGULAR MEETING i„~' ~,~~ x„i~~~ OCTOBER 4, 2011 ~~,~~,~,,~;`,~ ,~, ,. DRAFT term goal would be to implement a fee structure to support the ongoing costs of operating the clinics and through the acceptance of donations. Initial startup fees for facility transformation of approximately $400,000 to $700,000 but in the long term may offer a billing potential to generate revenue. Mayor Sbranti thanked Fire Chief Gilbert for the presentation. Public Comments 7°27°45 3.3 No comments were made by any member of the public at this time. CONSENT CALENDAR 7°27°55 Items 4.1 through 4.7 On motion of Cm. Hildenbrand, seconded by Vm. Hart and by unanimous vote, the City Council took the following actions: Approved (4.1) Minutes of Regular Meeting of September 20, 2011; Received (4.2 600-40); RESOLUTION NO. 166 -11 AUTHORIZING AFIVE-YEAR (NOVEMBER 1, 2011 -OCTOBER 31, 2016) FIRST RESPONDER ADVANCED LIFE SUPPORT (FRALS) AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA Adopted (4.3 720-40/720-60 RESOLUTION NO. 167 - 11 FIXING THE EMPLOYER'S CONTRIBUTION UNDER THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL CARE ACT RESOLUTION NO. 168 - 11 FIXING THE EMPLOYER'S CONTRIBUTION VESTING REQUIREMENT FOR FUTURE RETIREES UNDER THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL CARE ACT DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 3 VOLUME 30 ~~ REGULAR MEETING i„~' ~,~~ x„i~~~ OCTOBER 4, 2011 ~~,~~,~,,~;`,~ ,~, ,. DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 169 - 11 Adopted (4.4 700-20) AMENDING THE BENEFIT PLAN RESOLUTION NO. 170 - 11 Adopted (4.5 1060-20) AMENDING THE CLASSIFICATION PLAN ORDINANCE NO. 11 - 11 AMENDING THE DUBLIN TRAFFIC CODE ESTABLISHING BUS STOPS ON DUBLIN BOULEVARD Authorized (4.6 600-35) the City Manager to approve a Change Order with Weber Tractor Services in an amount not to exceed $44,281.07 for the installation of additional sidewalk work under the Annual Sidewalk Repair Project (CIP No. 949012); approved budget change which will transfer the amount of $22,000 in un-appropriated Measure B funds to the Annual Sidewalk Repair Project (CIP No. 949102); and authorized the City Manager to approve a Change Order with Weber Tractor Services in an amount not to exceed $17,150 for storm drain work funded under the Citywide Storm Drain Assessment (CIP No. 960017). Approved (4.7 300-40) Check Issuance Reports and Electronic Funds Transfers. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS -None ...., PUBLIC HEARINGS Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of the All American Label Site Development Review fora 4,456 Square Foot Addition to an Existing Building, PLPA-2011-00020 7°28°46 6.1 (410-30) Mayor Sbranti opened the public hearing. Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner, presented the Staff Report and advised that the City Council would 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 DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 4 VOLUME 30 ~~ REGULAR MEETING i„~' ~,~~ x„i~~~ OCTOBER 4, 2011 ~~,~~,~,,~;`,~ ,~, ,. DRAFT 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. Mayor Sbranti asked for clarification of the similar land use category in eastern Dublin, with a maximum of FAR at .50 as opposed to the area in question in western Dublin, with the maximum FAR at .40. Ms. Bascom responded that in eastern Dublin, under the industrial park category, the FAR is .35. However, under the General Plan industrial park category, warehousing uses only, can have a maximum FAR of .50, which would be determined on a case by case basis at the discretion of the City Council. On Sierra Court, the General Plan allows for various uses, i.e., warehousing, research and development, distribution, and manufacturing. Dublin resident and commercial real estate broker, Dan Watson, stated that he wanted to speak in support of the applicant in that business owners are finding it extremely difficult to manage in these tough economic times, let alone expand within their budget. Mr. Watson asked that he would like to see companies grow as easy as possible. All American Label representative Guy Houston stated that the 1985 General Plan was descriptive regarding FAR and not mandatory in nature, and stated that to this day, the General Plan had not been changed. Mr. Houston stated, if the City Council chose to agree with the Staff report, that would designate the 17 business on Sierra Court that exceeded .40 FAR, as a non-conforming status. He also stated that this status would affect their use, their property value, salability, and financing capabilities. Legal Counsel for All American Label, Peter McDonald, referred to the 1992 City Council discussion regarding the General Plan FAR and questioned whether the .40 maximum was ever established as mandatory. Cm Hildenbrand asked for clarification of the 17 businesses which were noted on the Sierra Court map. She asked how many had expanded the FAR beyond the .40 maximum since 1992. Ms. Bascom stated that, per the County records, all of those businesses were built prior to the City's incorporation in 1982. City Attorney John Bakker stated that, at the time of incorporation, the City would have most likely carried forward various standards that the County already had in place, then as time went on the City adopted its own General Plan standards. This would have impacted existing businesses, and created a legal non-conforming status on businesses that exceeded the maximum FAR. In 1992 standards were most likely established due to State law requirements of density requirements. Mr. Bakker stated that their status would not affect their operations, but would impact expansion of their business. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 5 VOLUME 30 ~~ REGULAR MEETING i„~' ~,~~ x„i~~~ OCTOBER 4, 2011 ~~,~~,~,,~;`,~ ,~, ,. DRAFT Vm. Hart asked Mr. Bakker if the 1992 General Plan Amendment changed the FAR standards. Mr. Bakker stated that the intention was clarified to set the density range standard for each land use as noted in the technical revisions that were made a FAR standard was added to each of the commercial uses. An Unnamed speaker stated that City Council should view this entire issue in comparison to FAR standards established in east Dublin as accommodating to businesses as opposed to viewing it as the older area in Dublin with the current FAR restrictions. Mayor Sbranti closed the public hearing. Cm. Swalwell asked, if City Council were to reject the Planning Commission recommendation, would the direction be to set and reject the FAR, and wanted to be clear on what a rejection would entail. Mr. Bakker stated that one option the City Council had would be to have Staff prepare a General Plan Amendment to revise the wording in the current plan to increase the FAR beyond the established range. Mayor Sbranti stated that a review of Sierra Court in its entirety and on a broader scale was important in order to avoid having expansion issues in the future. Vm. Hart asked, from a Planner's perspective, what impact would there be if the FAR was expanded to a maximum range of .50. Ms. Bascom stated the implication would be overall conformance and compromise the very reason FAR standards are established, which are to set a range of intensity in any given area. She further stated that, if the property in question was used to set a guideline, there would be no standard for any other business in the future. City Manager Pattillo stated that there have been no further requests than that of All American Label Company, and if exceptions are made to the General Plan, then there was a process established to do so. She further clarified that to date, this has not been an issue with any other business, and compromising FAR has to do with multiple elements such as landscaping in the community and traffic circulation. Vm. Hart asked if this item was specific to the applicant or of the 17 businesses referred to as non-conforming in the area of Sierra Court. Mr. Bakker stated this issue was technically about the applicant, but if the General Plan was interpreted as the applicant has requested, then implications would be throughout the area. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6 VOLUME 30 ~~ REGULAR MEETING i„~' ~,~~ x„i~~~ OCTOBER 4, 2011 ~~,~~,~,,~;`,~ ,~, ,. DRAFT Cm. Swalwell proposed that City Council reject the Planning Commission's action and direct Staff to bring back a General Plan Amendment to increase the FAR at the Sierra Court area for the businesses located there, to provide the ability for all businesses to grow and expand. Cm. Biddle concurred that it was a good time to review the General Plan and have Staff bring back an amendment to accommodate the businesses. Vm. Hart stated his support for Staff to bring back a General Plan amendment to accommodate businesses. Mayor Sbranti stated that he felt there was sufficient record to show that the City Council of 1992 did not intend to create non-conformance for businesses when they adopted the General Plan Amendment as well as ambiguity in the language where the FAR range is descriptive as opposed to mandatory. Cm. Hildenbrand stated that she did not agree with how the rules were broken in this situation; however, she did not want to limit the existing businesses to expand if needed. Mayor Sbranti asked Mr. Bakker if it was decided to do a moratorium how could this be spelled out to move forward on this issue. Mr. Bakker stated that the moratorium concept could be that the City Council would adopt the resolution denying a site development review, maintain the FAR cap at .40, and provide time to research a possible General Plan Amendment, with the key difference that the City Council would not need to deny the appeal. On motion of Mayor Sbranti, seconded by Cm Hildenbrand and by 3-2 vote, the City Council directed to continue the appeal to the 1St meeting in November, and at that time bring forward an adoption of a moratorium and direct Staff to prepare a General Plan Amendment Study request on the FAR issue. City Manager Pattillo reiterated that the discussion on existing businesses which exceeded the .50 FAR and were legal non-conforming, would need to be addressed in the proposed General Plan Amendment Study. She further stated that a change for budget request would also be presented to outline the costs associated with the FAR and types of uses. This proposed study would be fully funded by the City, and not by an applicant as is usually done. Mayor Sbranti called for a break at 8:50 PM Mayor Sbranti called the meeting to order at 9:03 PM DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 7 VOLUME 30 ~~ REGULAR MEETING i„~' ~,~~ xti~~~ OCTOBER 4, 2011 ~~,~~,~,,~;`,~ ,~, ,. DRAFT Zoning Ordinance Amendments to Chapter 8.40 (Accessory Structures and Uses Regulations), Chapter 8.76 (Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations), Chapter 8.84 (Sign Regulations) and Chapter 8.108 (Temporary Use Permit), PLPA-2011-00026 9°03°41 6.2 (450-30) Mayor Sbranti opened the public hearing. Marnie Delgado, Senior Planner, presented the Staff Report and advised that the City was initiating amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to bring greater clarity and consistency to existing regulations. Amendments are proposed to: Chapter 8.40 (Accessory Structures and Uses Regulations) as it relates to Eating and Drinking Establishments as an accessory use to retail sales; to Chapter 8.76 (Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations) as it relates to tenant spaces with multiple functions and parking requirements for other Indoor Recreational Facilities not specifically listed in Section 8.76.080. D; to Chapter 8.84 (Sign Regulations) as it relates to flags, temporary promotional signs, and the regulation of signage in the Downtown Dublin Zoning District; and to Chapter 8.108 (Temporary Use Permit) as it relates to other temporary land uses not specifically defined and deviating from established development standards. Dublin resident Bruce Fiedler stated the amendments proposed regarding Sign Regulations were designed to benefit a few special interests at a cost to the wider community. Dublin landlord for Sierra Market, Brad Sanders, commented on Chapters 8.40 and 8.76, and stated that these amendments were directly the cause of prohibiting any seating to Sierra Market due to the lack of parking. Cm. Swalwell asked Staff to clarify Mr. Sanders comments regarding the ordinance amendments and their relation to the issue. Mr. Bakker stated that the issue Mr. Sanders was referring to was at what point an accessory restaurant component of a grocery store triggered a higher parking standard. Linda Smith, Economic Development Director, elaborated on Mr. Sanders core arguments about applying the additional parking spaces for the restaurant component and limiting his ability on additional space in his center to be leased at retail in the future. Other options have been explored with Mr. Sanders as well. Mayor Sbranti read comments submitted via fax by Sierra Market Owner, Mr. Sal Safi, "I am the owner of Sahara Market, this confusion in the code has cost us tremendous grief and loss of income. Section 8.40 will cause more confusion and will leave another gray area where the food preparation area in a market with seating area and food preparation will be hard to define." Mayor Sbranti closed the public hearing. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 8 VOLUME 30 ~~ REGULAR MEETING i„~' ~,~~ x„i~~~ OCTOBER 4, 2011 ~~,~~,~,,~;`,~ ,~, ,. DRAFT Mayor Sbranti asked Staff to explain how the 10% of seating and food preparation area was established. Ms. Waffle stated that this standard was taken from another standard in the accessory uses chapter. Mayor Sbranti asked Staff to elaborate on why food preparation needed to be included in the 10%. Ms. Waffle stated that food preparation is a necessary component of an eating and drinking establishment as it related to retail sales with the 10% threshold for intensity directly affecting the minimum required parking spaces. Mayor Sbranti asked for clarification on how this ordinance amendment would assist with the Sahara Market expansion plan. Ms. Waffle stated this item would assist by clarifying the off-street parking and loading regulations that requires distinction between a large and small tenant space for the purpose of determining parking requirements. She also stated that the Sahara Market management would be working on a restriping plan which would also assist with resolving their expansion plan. Mayor Sbranti asked what the implication might be if the City Council did not approve the Chapter 8.84 ordinance amendment. Ms. Waffle stated that any area outside planned development zoning district, or any shopping center that did not have a master sign program, would not be allowed to have signs. Cm. Hildenbrand commented on Chapter 8.84 and expressed that the sign regulations ordinance was consistently being compromised with these amendments, resulting in creating an lower aesthetic quality to the community. Mayor Sbranti stated that he believed there were more limits than additions to this ordinance amendment, and would like to take a pause and re-evaluate this amendment further before voting on this amendment. He suggested looking at this from a broader perspective. Vm. Hart suggested a group outside of the ad-hoc committee evaluate whether the proposed changes are of value to the City and provide recommendations. Cm. Biddle stated he would be willing to have input from a community group and postpone accepting amendment to the sign regulations. Cm. Swalwell was in agreement with postponing the amendment. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 30 ~~ REGULAR MEETING i„~' ~,~~ x„i~~~ OCTOBER 4, 2011 ~~,~~,~,,~;`,~ ,~, ,. 9 DRAFT City Manager Pattillo stated that the City Attorney will provide clarity on moving forward with the ordinance chapters, excluding Chapter 8.84. She clarified the direction provided regarding Chapter 8.84 which would be to have Staff bring back recommendations, whether to form a task force or one town hall meeting. This will also create a new initiative, adding additional workload and would ask the City Council to prioritize the current Economic Development initiatives. Cm. Hildenbrand stated that she did not feel the need to form a task force and add additional work. Mayor Sbranti stated that he did not want to re-prioritize Economic Development initiatives but gather feedback from community members to ensure that moving forward would be of benefit to the City. On motion of Vm. Hart, seconded by Cm Hildenbrand and by unanimous vote, the City Council INTRODUCE an Ordinance Amending Chapter 8.40 (Accessory Structures and Uses Regulations), Chapter 8.76 (Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations), and Chapter 8.108 (Temporary Use Permit) of the Zoning Ordinance. Chapter 8.84 (Sign Regulations) would be deferred. Dublin Heritage Park and Museums Facility Use Policy 10e 16°22 6.3 (295-10) Mayor Sbranti opened the public hearing. Paul McCreary, Assistant Parks and Community Services Director, presented the Staff Report and advised that the City Council would consider adopting the Heritage Park and Museums Facility Use Policy and Rental Fee Schedule, which would allow for community use and private rentals of the Kolb Sunday School Barn and St. Raymond Church. No testimony was received by any member of the public relative to this issue. Mayor Sbranti closed the public hearing. Vm. Hart stated that the pricing seemed to be a bit expensive and cautioned that fees wouldn't discourage the use of such a great facility. Cm. Hildenbrand commented that based on the history of the facility and the importance of preservation and protection of the buildings, the pricing seemed reasonable. Mayor Sbranti stated that the rates quoted were lower than the surrounding area and felt comfortable moving forward with the fee schedule as presented. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 30 ~~ REGULAR MEETING i„~' ~,~~ x„i~~~ OCTOBER 4, 2011 ~~,~~,~,,~;`,~ ,~, ,. 10 DRAFT On motion of Cm. Hildenbrand, seconded by Cm. Biddle and by unanimous vote, the City Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 171 -11 ESTABLISHING A FACILITY USE POLICY AND RENTAL FEE SCHEDULE FOR USE OF THE KOLB SUNDAY SCHOOL BARN AND ST. RAYMOND CHURCH AT THE DUBLIN HERITAGE PARK AND MUSEUMS UNFINISHED BUSINESS Adoption of Amended and Restated Ex Parte Contacts Policy 10e2~e7 7.1 (610-20) City Attorney John Bakker presented the Staff Report and advised that Ex parte contacts are communications of information relevant to a quasi judicial governmental decision to a decision maker outside of the formal quasi-judicial proceeding. On December 20, 2005, the City Council adopted a policy prohibiting City Council members and Planning Commissioners, among others, from the intentionally making or receiving ex pane contacts related to quasi judicial proceedings such as site development review approvals, conditional use permits, and variances. The policy did not apply to quasi-legislative decisions such as general plan amendments and zoning ordinance amendments. At the April 5, 2011 City Council meeting, Councilmember Swalwell requested that the policy be placed on a future Council agenda that would allow the policy to be reviewed. At the September 6, 2011 City Council meeting, the City Council directed the City Attorney to prepare an amendment to the policy that would permit the members of the City Council to make or receive ex pane contacts except when a matter is actually scheduled to be heard by the City Council itself. Staff had prepared a resolution that would permit contacts unless and until the City Council is notified that it would be sitting as the quasi judicial hearing body on a specific matter. Cm. Swalwell stated that he agreed to disclose all relevant information but felt it was unreasonable to have to reveal everything in a site visit conversation. Cm. Hildenbrand commented that this topic was discussed at the last meeting, and the idea was to prohibit a City Councilmember related to quasi-judicial proceedings. Mayor Sbranti stated he was in agreement with the resolution proposed. On motion of Cm. Hildenbrand, seconded by Mayor Sbranti and by unanimous vote, the City adopted RESOLUTION NO. 172-11 DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 11 VOLUME 30 ~~ REGULAR MEETING i„~' ~,~~ x„i~~~ OCTOBER 4, 2011 ~~,~~,~,,~;`,~ ,~, ,. DRAFT AMENDING AND RESTATING THE POLICY REGARDING EX PARTE CONTACTS IN QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS NEW BUSINESS Valley Christian Center General Plan Amendment Study Initiation Request 10°39°01 8.1 (420-30) Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner, presented the Staff Report and advised that the City Council would consider whether to initiate a General Plan Amendment Study to change the General Plan Land Use Designation fora 1.4 acre property at the northwest corner of Dublin Boulevard and Inspiration Drive from Public/Semi-Public to Medium/High Density Residential. Bryan Tebbutt, Valley Christian Center representative stated that Valley Christian Center had a long tenured involvement with the community and had committed in 2010 to the City to provide over 2,500 hours of service to the City and had exceeded that amount. He stated that the change in land use would ultimately result in completing their sanctuary, which is under construction. Once the study is complete, the Center would conduct neighborhood outreach to provide the project details. Richard Van De Boom, President of California Highlands Homeowners Association and California Highlands resident, stated, on behalf of the Association, their concern was the wildlife in the proposed site creek would be at risk without the environmental impact report conducted. He also stated that access into the proposed site would cause added traffic congestion as well as a parking issue with the proposed 1 to 25 units in the plan. Michelle Fontaine, California Highlands resident, urged the City Council to consider how this project would impact all of the residents that had purchased homes for the reason of seclusion and location with added traffic and parking issues of a high density residential project. Vm. Hart asked for Staff to comment on surplus land in the proposed area of study. Ms. Bascom stated that there was a sliver of Dublin Boulevard right of way that would need a surplus analysis to be conducted if it were to be included in the potential project that was owned by the City. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 30 ~~ REGULAR MEETING i„~' ~,~~ x„i~~~ OCTOBER 4, 2011 ~~,~~,~,,~;`,~ ,~, ,. 12 DRAFT Vm. Hart asked for clarification of Mr. Van De Boom's comment related to the exclusion of an environmental impact report. Ms. Bascom stated that what Mr. Van De Boom was referring to is that CEQA would not apply to bring forward this request for study, but once the study is approved then all of the requisite environmental analysis would be conducted. Mayor Sbranti asked how many units were being proposed in this project. Mr. Tebbutt responded that 20 units would ultimately be proposed in the project. Mayor Sbranti stated his support for this study as the surrounding developments had moved forward and any issues that may have been a concern in 2003 had been resolved. Cm. Swalwell reiterated that this motion was approving a study and not approving the proposed rezoning. Vm. Hart stated his support for the study to move forward, but expressed concern over the issues brought forward by California Highlands regarding traffic and parking. Cm. Hildenbrand stated her support for the study to be able to make a more informed decision and expressed concerns for increased traffic issues that would be closely monitored. On motion of Cm. Biddle, seconded by Mayor Sbranti and by unanimous vote, the City Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 173-11 APPROVING THE INITIATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY TO CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FORA 1.4 ACRE PROPERTY AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD AND INSPIRATION DRIVE FROM PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC TO MEDIUM/HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LOCATED AT 7500 INSPIRATION DRIVE (APN 941-0022-005-00) Parking Designation on Antone Way 11°12°03 8.2 (820-80) Jaimee Bourgeois, Transportation and Operations Manager, presented the Staff Report and advised that while on-street parking is allowed on Antone Way, there is insufficient width at the east end where there exists a center median. While vehicles had been known to park along this DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 13 VOLUME 30 ~~ REGULAR MEETING i„~' ~,~~ x„i~~~ OCTOBER 4, 2011 ~~,~~,~,,~;`,~ ,~, ,. DRAFT section, particularly during school drop-off and pick-up times, it was recommended that, in the interest of public safety, "No Parking" zones be designated on the north and south sides of the street. On motion of Cm Hildenbrand, seconded by Cm Swalwell and by unanimous vote, the City Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 174-11 APPROVING PARKING REGULATION ON ANYONE WAY _,,..,~ Parks and Community Services Strategic Plan Annual Report 11:13 PM 8.3 (920-10) City Manager Joni Pattillo requested that the City Council consider moving item 8.3 Parks and Community Services Strategic Plan Annual Report to the next City Council meeting of October 18, 2011, due to time consideration. The City Council was in agreement to move item 8.3 to the next City Council meeting. Confirmation of Appointment of City Council 2011 Ad-Hoc Audit Review Committee 11 e 13°20 8.4 (610-40) Mayor Sbranti presented the Staff Report and advised that the independent auditors from the firm of Caporicci and Larson, Inc. (a subsidiary of Marcum, LLP) had scheduled their field work necessary to complete the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for the year ending June 30, 2011. The City Council would consider the establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee, comprised of two City Council Members, to review the audit process and final report with the Auditors. The Committee would also review recommendations for a new audit engagement which will begin with the financial reporting period ending June 30, 2012. On motion of Mayor Sbranti, seconded by Cm. Hildenbrand and by unanimous vote, the City Council confirmed the Mayor's appointment of Vice Mayor Kevin Hart and Councilmember Eric Swalwell as the 2011 Ad-Hoc Audit Review Committee that would serve for a limited time. The Committee will meet with the City Auditors to review and discuss the audit report for the period ending June 30, 2011. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 30 ~~ REGULAR MEETING i„~' ~,~~ x„i~~~ OCTOBER 4, 2011 ~~,~~,~,,~;`,~ ,~, ,. 14 DRAFT OTHER BUSINESS Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from Council and/or Staff, including Committee Reports and Reports by Council related to meetings attended at City expense (AB 1234) 11 ~ 1 ~~~~ City Manager Pattillo informed the City Council that Officer Nate Schmidt was commended by the District Attorney's Office for his work in the Rosa Hill case in Dublin. Cm. Swalwell attended the Tri-Valley Council Dinner, the Joint Dublin Unified School District meeting, the Dublin Rotary meeting, and the Target grand opening. Cm. Hildenbrand attended Tri-Valley Council Dinner, the Joint Dublin Unified School District meeting, Social Media meeting, and the League of California Cities Annual Conference in San Francisco. Cm. Biddle attended the League of California Cities Annual Conference in San Francisco, the Developer Roundtable, the Senior Fair, the Livermore Amador Valley Transportation Authority 25th Anniversary, and the Social Media Workshop. Cm. Hart attended the Tri-Valley Council Dinner, the Joint Dublin Unified School District meeting, the Dublin Rotary meeting, and the Target grand opening. Mayor Sbranti attended the City of Dublin Annual Golf Tournament, the Tri-Valley Council Dinner, the Joint Dublin Unified School District meeting, the Dublin Rotary meeting, and the Target grand opening. ADJOURNMENT 10.1 There being no further business to come before the City Council, the meeting was adjourned at 11:21 PM in memory of Staff Sgt. Sean Diamond and our fallen troops, and in honor of AI White, Dublin business owner of Dublin Trophy House, long tenured Lions member, and Rotary member, and Chamber member, who passed away. Minutes prepared by Dora Ramirez, Deputy City Clerk. Mayor ATTEST: Deputy City Clerk DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 15 VOLUME 30 ~~ REGULAR MEETING i„~' ~,~~ x„i~~~ OCTOBER 4, 2011 ~~,~~,~,,~;`,~ ,~, ,. Ckaapter° 4. flerluir•ed E'leriaents ref aloe General Pl~rn-Land Use 1~~ae Iearr~! ¢ase ca!irrgr°carrr tlttarney General Capiraian l'so. 133-13ft~1« lw'larcla 7, 1~8~1 adch-ess'es the a°er}aired level of specificity of the Larad arse dia~rana. fat arastiver to the rluestiort af'tvltetltes° a parcel specific ataap ns regaaia•ed f~rr the land nse elc- sttcatt eta ~etteral }alert, t1te.~Lttaratey ieraea^aC ressarted that the detail necessaa-y fcar-a parcel specifac malt stay lie clevelolaed at a latea• stage in thaw land arse pt•ocess (tlar•aaalt spa~cafic pleats„ zoaain~, oa•din~ances and subdi- visioat ntap~~; therefoa•e, a paa•cel spe~ci~c snap is na't~ r°er}uired, oat[y a clia~s°aan of ~a;ateral lacatiol7s illustrat- iat~ the policies art tlt+ pleat. The Califaarrria Sopranos Carat; in Y~raarfeca" Cltrtctr~or. rtrr<t~r.~r°td~5°iar~=G'v. ~o: ~'r~rsrere,~s, ~7•err.v,~r,r~~•tcrticarrcrrara".t-~carr~~ irt,~ ~9~rarrc}a (1rJ~) ~-l C'crl.3c! 2~/2, lrc°ie61y discarssecl the elegree o'f pa°ecisioat which cart lee expected of a general plan. '1"Ire hig~lt court Ite.ld flea when San J3er- rtarcliatr~ Coustty aaserl ~a Cir'cle to clisthtgarisla tl'ae crarn- ratnnit~y of ~aleea° as a "'~l7csca•t Speci~d Service Center"' flee caarnty dial trot rlelur~teate a vwelB-de~~ned gca,grap)tic area,. Accardittg to the apirtian afthe court, "thc cis°cle. ort tlte~ ,general plant no sttoa•e repres~e~nts the law°ecise boarndaaries a'fa pr•esestt ~r future commercial ar"ea than the clot err sr}aaaa°c ore. a neap afC`alifarna relay°escrtts the exact size ar~rd shape at~al~er or arty otltes° coaaarnanti y.'" The crancept of the rlia~r°am as a general guide to land arse discs°ibution s•atlaer thaat a laarcel specilkic attal~a also figua'ed in the cease of a',crns~ f~'ragcrres I~fra~rac>caaa~rarFrv ~ls.scrr^fcrtroaa aa. Los ~rr~r~le,t ~'arraaa'}~ (11<5'a5,1 t"7? ~`cr~1~~y~,3c,r,~a'l.). There„ the caa.art o'fappcal upheld the arlecfasaey ota caarnty plan evhich caattairted a geate.ral- ized land rase a'nap aatd e~rla'r'elt elete~_;~tc•d' spe;cilrc land arse haterpretatios~as~ to carnanuaa'ity lal.ua. See C~halater l foa° a discussion of coraslstettcy bets;, ~_~aa the- riap„raraas and the'plan text. ~'n~aarlrrtrr~ra r~errsitgr ~'rxrrr~rr a^. C~~'~arrttj~ rrf ~!~'earc~rrc°irao~ (1~~5'~J 1 ~d C"ral.rf~a,~. ~rl 33-~ established that <a general plan ntatst corttaira standards tar population dens"sty. It did a'aot,r lta~,vever•, define such standards. The catu•k in ~"aa^caarr flcrw't~ I~cavaa~taaa^rr~r•s AsSracar°rFr~ra u. Tirrrlarrrtra~ C°srrrrre.t~ (1.98~~.~,) P~~~ C'rrP~.~l~a,~a.~c1 ~w~~~ c~lefined poparlatioaa clan- airy as the `"nannbe~~ts of laeople isa a given aa-ea and not the dtvellirag artits pea° acre, tanless the basis far core°e- lation 'between the aateasarre ofd'rvcllfs'tg aaaaits per• aces and 'nasntlaers of peraple is set fartlt explicitly i'n the plan.' Qraantifiable staatdarcls of laopaalation density aatust be provided foa° each ref the tlartd ease categories contained in flee plan. Popu'latian deusi'ty standards need net be restricted solely to lartcl! rase desig~raatiaats r,vith residential clevel- ~~ enea•al Plata Guidelines opntestt potential ~,s the c~atsrt state~rl in ~"tr~caa7r ~ferr•1`~: `°'it tr~oaalr'1 neat be usta'easoat~ble to utterlaa•et tlte~ tea•rn "popaalatioaa density" as rclatiatg trot only^ tca s~esidentral destsity, last else to arses ofaaataa•es~idential land cate~~a- ries artrl as reaitairisa~ aaa staaalyss of rase laatteraas far all caateor`ies , . , it appears sensi~fale to allovr~ fecal ~.ov- er`~ratttertts to rleterntiste m~rltetltes'the ~stateraaent at l~ropu- latiort staraclarcls is tra lee tied. to rr3sideatcy ear, ratara~ atttbitously, to the daily usage [sic] estirnates far.. each land C1a5Sr~Catiall." r~tlthon~h applied differeattly 'lrattt oaae,jara°isdictios't to another, laopaa-atian clettsity cart 'hest be e>: i:~resserl as the t°ela~tiortsltip bet~reert tvwa faactas~s; the rawatber of dtvellin~s per acre arra9 the atunaber of resideaats pea° d~v=clung, Curreaak estimates ref the average naasttber rrf persoats per hause'hald ai•e savaila~lc fi-oatt flue Cfe~1'~aar-t- attestt ofl°'iraanee's ltenaragrapltic ltesear•cla and Census L}ata Center ~vv~vvv.dof.ca,gov~~. Brrfa'c~ira~ rrrf~atsila^ Tlae C.'carrr~r rlecisiora also held that eat ac[equate geat- eral l~alan snaas~t coaataiav staaadarels ~faa• baailclittg intensity.. ,~g'air'a, tMve~ Tta^~~rira e'en°te cotart has 'laravodecl the nao~st coanplete intea•pa°etatiort of baaildingintensity available to date. 7°ltese are its rnajpr paiatts: intensity slaoaald lie defined for each of the vaa~ioras land ease categaares in the l~alan,, gester•al rase calatiaats Brach as "neighLaorl~too~~l commercial°' and`service in lu ;tri~;iC'" are iatsaafficicatt atteasaares ofintensity lay tlw~~rarsel•~cs; artcl, lauilrling ire-~ tensit~^ i~s not synoaayrnoa~as wvitlt popaalatiast rleaasity. ln- tensity will be del,: r~;lent aapon flee fecal plant's eantext artd Wray lee ba e,i r~~~ rr a a:ontbination afvrariables sticlt as~ snaxirntara~t de, ti I?n~ raraits pea:` sere, hengl°ut artd size limi'tatioats, and r~~.e restrictions. tTnfortunately, i'he coarrt strapped sitar°t of deflating ~ti~l`aat are pa°aper mea- stares catbtail[lirtp intensity. Local general. glans aataast contain quantifiable stara- dards of building inteaasity far cac~it land arse desigata- tiart. These stararlards should define the roast ir7teatsive use that avill &re allawved urtrle~a• each elesigraatiart. 'tWlt'ile the land rase dcsignatioat ide¢ttifies flee type of allavv_ able aascsr t'he lauildittg i'tttcn~sity standard ~vil1 deflate tl'ae~ cancenta°ataa'a of~ use, 'fnteatsity standards coat in- e'Iaide laravisions faa-'fler: ibi it}F such as deatsit~,^ bor_uscs„ cl~.r_-air za=aan fanned arrif eie~.^•`l~~r,iri ui , ~u;ct Clac'lilc~. aJl'li, recoaatattencls tla~at e:~~.kt iaac~.:ra~it~: ,tau4l;~r,l ii~- elaadethese variables: (1 ~ pea Knitted lands asses oa ',riilcl- ingtypes, as'td ("~~ concrtrttr`atian ai'rase. P•attittec'1 vases aatd baailcling types is a ricaalatative aneasrarc of the eases that twill be alloavable ire each laatd 'ease desigaaatioaa. The coaacenta°atior't aaf'use can lte defianecf'by Date aa• treats rguantitativc rttcasures that relate aiirectly to the amoa~ant ~~~~ar Chapter (; Goner°al Plan basics artce unless the variarree laer°Cains fo the rekaniltkin~ oaf an rntintertticrta@ly de~strnye~d ttnrt-cor~afarrtairtg ttse. ~ Tkte rity sktal~l not akakarcavc plans for the dotivrttctt,~^rr shopl~aing center until an indepertclerttly condttctecl rxtar~et study htdkcates that, the center~vonkd he~ ee:a~_ nornkcalky FeasiC<a0c. ~ The city shall dive firvor°a@ale catasickeratiort to conditional use pecrttit pr'olaasals i~nvnlving adap- tive r•etrse o" laukldin~s tlartt are designated as "ar- ckt%tecturakly sipni~pcant'° by the cultue°a1 resources e8enlent. ~Starucl~r~ds ;L startdar°elrs a r°uIe or rtteastrr°e estalalisfrkrt a level ofcgttality oe° rl~uantty that rat~est lac corttlalked with or rf~isficd° Sfir;rrlar'ds tlcfine tlxe akastr•act terns of ah- t ~ -,-.: ~~~~: ~ ~~, cor.~w_ ..__, w,. ~' ~ 7Cietk" tiiaeciri~.,i.ti~~r,~,. TI;~. r ~~,,, ~:n~i ,~~i;; r: ~tdc makes var°~:~,us r~e1':::en~:~.:.~ to ~,~:n~°r,~l @tt.~rY sl:urdar•~:_i~,. E"or-e~xarttple, ~653~r'(a~ ~rate~s 6n part that the land use eleuter~rt ittust"...iucltrcke a state- rraent oftkt~e star~dae•ds of kaaprrl~ation densifly and hrri[d- irt kntertsity recrart~tme~rtded for tk~r~ various dis~tr-icts grad takl~ter- t~errktor'y cowered lay t'kte kalan." C~tlter~ e~xarnpke~s of s~tatrrtury rci`er.cnces to general elan star~tc~larcks in- clude tka~se farutd in ~6G~177 (tkte C~rrirttlay Act) artck ~6r5~k7'~ (resera~atiaarts oaf kand tivitl~in sukadivisiotts~, C~k' coarse, a @o~ea@ legisIatttr°e ra~tay adcalat arty rather enera'1 r~k.u~ ;gau~l:,_~cis it dee~ens desir°ah1e. Lxcrrlr}~lc.~ ~r,~',~Fcrraca`ar•cl~~.: ~~ A rtainitt~tal ly acc~eFtalake peak horu° levek o~ service for art arter•kal street is ]suck oaf service C. ~~ The tnink~munt ae~r•eage rec{uired fora repio~rtak slto~la- kai.n center is frortq 40 to 5tt acres. lrlih-dertskty reskdentiak means 15 to 3d tltivelBirag units per acre artrk rap to ~2 dkve'Ikirt~ units per' acre tvtkt a density laontrs. "k'he llrst floor of akl ne~v constr•rrction sltalk lac at @east ttivo feet aUove fife ktase flood elevation. P"larr I'r•olaosal A @alatt proposal rlescrihes khe development intended to tak~e~ lakace i.ra art area. Flan l~ar•aaposaCs are often ex- pressed an. Ylte general plan c~Ciagrarrt. ~~:tctarr~ad~s of plrarr 1ar'a~~cas•~rC,~.° +~ First S~treaa lack Flar°laar Avenue are cles~i~nated as arterials° +~ Tk~te Pr°oposed do~vrtkowa+n sktop~laing center vvilk lac l ~ Genera! Plan Guidelines located evitktkrr the area laorrn~~l by D artd C; Avenues anal `I"ktirck anal Foul°t@a Streets, ~ A rre~v parls~kn~, str-rrcture shall he Icaca~ted in tkte vi- cini~tie~s ol~each of the tallea~vin ~lo~vnto~vn ita~Cer- sections:First Street aatcl AAver'trres grad F'i tflt S~tt•ee~t artcl D Avenue. Ie~tplerr~e-~t:knkicanMaster^e Art rtttpCerttentatiran rtaeasrtre is art actian, karcacedure„ pr'oge•arrt„ or tecltrxia~rre t@tat car°ries out ~cruerak plan pa~licy. F'~ach pokicy ~nttrst havc at. least one c~arrespartcl- ie~tt;; irtxpkenxerttatiou measure. T'.varrr~rl~s aJ•r"rrr~r~(~7rxl~rttaC~iarr rRrecr~arr•c~s•.° ~ The city shakl use tax-~irtcrert~en't frtancirt to pay the costs rafrelalacin~ old sidewvall~s in tkte r-edevel- oprnertt ~r•ea. ~ °l"Irc city sktakl adopt a specific kart Etas- the indrrs- triak ~ar~k. ~ ~r•eas~ elesi~natecl by the 1art~d rase elertlent fpr ta~ri- cultru•e sktakl he placcr~l in fire aricraltur~~~k zcarte. Lirtlcu +k~l~jr:ckit~es ko lkrrrlalet~terrk~tlkirtrt T@te fokloevinp cxarnlales slto~v thr; r°elationsktklas arttort~ o'k?jectives, po'lic:ies, anal inaplen~entatiota trrca- sru-es, 7"kte exarnltkes ar-e ar•r°an~ed accordirr~ tca a hier•_ archy frotal the ~erterak to rite spe~ci~trc--~frortx goals tri irnplentcntation measrn-es° In an .actual geraerak plan, firers rni~hi kae rttore than orte pole"cy rrncler' each. okajec- tive„ tatore than crone irrapaleraterttatican rtteasur°e antler each policy, etc,. Gcadrl ~ thrivirt dorwrttotvrx that is the ccntet~° oftee cityts retail anal ser~,rice cortar~terciak activktkes. ~~a jeclit+e: ~ Development o~fa new regional shopkairt~ certtee- ut the do~vnto~vrt. 1'c~d rca,,. ~; T'hc city sktall riot apps°ove diset•etkoetar'y prc7jects or huilckirag per•~nrits that cortld krnlacde deveknprtrent of the, do~vntocvn regknnak sk7opping center. Irtr~ad~;rraerrt<'~lrcara rrtcrc;rsrrr°c s: +~ The city sktr~all aclcrpt aat ktttet•int zonirt,g orrhrxance t°estrictirtg farther devekolart~en in rite general vi- cinity ta~f~the lar•a'pased datvnto~vn sltoppira,g center AGENDA STATEMENT City Council Meeting September 14, 1992 SUBJECT:' 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 for 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 1984 RECOMMEND TION: 1. Open public hearing and hear staff presentation /] , 2. Take public testimony ~ ~(J 3. Ask questions of Staff and the public 4. Close public hearing 5. Discuss general plan amendment 6. 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 1990 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. In addition, policies adopted by previous City general plan amendments have- been included with this general plan amendment anal 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 would 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,} s D1S USSI N: A. eehnical Re 'sions to the Plan As discussed above, language has been added to 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 for specific areas, such as intensity standards for 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 adopted 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 underlinin and ~`°~~ Chanter 1.0 Background Several paragraphs have been added to the introduction to clarify the format of the current general plan and where certain information can be located. Reference is made to current planning studies underway in western and eastern Dublin. Nate has been made- that the Western Dublin General Plan Amendment and -Specific Plan was recently approved by the City. Pages 1-6 -through 1-7 contain additional intensity standards far commercial development, as required by the Government Code and discussed in the State General Plan Guidelines. ' Chapter 2,4. .Land Use and circulation .Section: Land Use Element Paragraphs have been added to -the introduction clarifying the required scope and content of a general planland 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 introductory paragraphs. Table 2.2 has been updated to reflect current ~ potential housing sites. Explanatory language was added to pages 2-4 and 2-5 about the Downtown Specific Plan which was adapted in 1987. Ghapter 3 4 Land Use and Circulation Section: Parks and Open Space Explanatory language was added to the introduction describing -the required contents of an open space element. On page 3-2, language was added- describing the City's current-park facilities and additional implementation policies added to page 3-3 that would further promote acquisition of -needed- outdoor recreation sites. ha ter 4 4 Land Use and irculation Seetian: Schools Public ands and Utilities Element Explanatory language was added to the introduction specifying the -required contents of this portion- of the Iand 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 Legislation for source reduction and recycling, Accordingly, implementation policies were added to ensure 2 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. Cha ter 5 0 Land Use and Circulation Section: Circulation and Sce is Hi hwa s Element 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 5-1.]., a brief description of -funding -for road improvements has been inserted. While these revisions are fairly extensive, they do -nit alter the current policy direction of the general- plan. -The standards were included for the purpose of Netter defining the City's current and future roadway system. Cha ter 6 0 Housin Section This section has been deleted- from-the document since it was recently -updated in 1990. A reference is provided indicating where the revised housing element can be obtained, Cha ter 7 © Environmental Resources Mana 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 S d Environmental Resources Mana ement Section: Seismic afet and Saf ety.. Ele m ent Explanatory language has been added to -the introduction (page 8--1}; clarifying language -about -fire service (page -8-~); further ~ explanation about flooding (pages 8-5, 8-6); 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. - ~ __ _ , - _ - -- -- B. Ineo~oration 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 C. lncorooration of Previously Adootcd .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 do this and sa they have been included in the August 1992 amended document. They are located on the following pages: Addition of the L-ow-Density Single Family land use category, page 1-6 Guiding Policy Gi page ~5-8 Guiding Policy A,~ page 7-5 - - _ - Implementing Policies -B through- G, pages 7-5 and 7-6 Implementing Polley 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~QM MENDATION: Staff recommends that the City ~Gouncil conduct the- public- hearing and after close of the public hearing, Staff .recommends- that the Council adopt the resolution adopting the technical revisions general plan amendment. [s/gptrspl4] 4 T E C H N I C A L R E V I S I O N S T O T H E C I T Y O F D U B L:I N G E N E R A L P L A N ,.. __ x ,. ~ .,~ 'b+ - ¢~ , ~~ Primary Planning Area Residential ~(~Note: Assumed residential household size is based on data._., contained in the 1990 Housing Element) -- 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 uxxit.). 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.$ units per acre. Residential: Medium Density {5.1 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 {14.1 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 same under-structure parking and will have three or more living levels in order to meet zoning ordinance open space requirements. Examples of medium--high density projects include The Springs (17.8) and Greenwood Apartments (19.8}. Cammerciai/industrial Retail/office _(FAR: 25 to .50; employee density: 200-450 square feet er em to ee. 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 empJ.ayee}. This classification includes .all retail/affic~e uses and adds auto dealerships, auto body shops, and similar uses. Residential uses are not permitted. Business Park/Industrial (FAR: .30 to .40; employee density: 360-490 square feet per employee.). Uses are non-retail businesses (research, limited manufacturing and distribution activities, and administrative offices} that da 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 iii` 1 - 5 requirements and typically result in .35 to .40 FAR's. Examples: ~ Avenue, Sierra Court. Clark Business Park/Yndustrial: Outdoor Storage (FAR: .25 to .40; employee 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 ar construction materials storage. Example: Scarlett Court. Public/Semi-Public (FAR: .50; employee density 590 square feet per 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 are labeled. Development of housing on a site designated on the General Plan as semi-public sha11 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. Parks/Public Recreation. Publicly owned parks and recreation facilities. 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 Plannin 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. Commercialflndustrial Business Park/Industrial: Low Coverage (FAR: .25 to .40; employee density: 360--490 square feet per employee). This classification is intended to provide a campus-like setting with open plazas and landscaped pedestrian amenities for the uses described in the Business Park/Industrial classification for the Primary Planning Area and to allow retail uses to serve-busine~-s es and residents. A4aximnm-floer ar€a-retie-{building-{leer-area-as-percent-af--let-area--te-be determined-by-zar~ing-regttlati©z~s-shattld-be-betv~een- .-25-and- .-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 Regional Park. --- 1 -~ 7 6968 Sierra Court Dublin LLC 200 Ravenna Way EI Dorado Hills, CA 95762 October 4, 2011 Dublin City Council City Hall 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 C/O Brad Brown All American Label; via email Re: October 4th 2011 Meeting -City of Dublin General Plan and Floor Area Ratio Dear City Council Members, I write you as a neighboring landowner of All American Label located at 6958 Sierra Court Dublin, CA 94568. I am General controlling partner of real property located at 6968 Sierra Court, Dublin, CA 94568. It is my understanding that the City Council will determine whether or not the City of Dublin General Plan permits a Floor Area Ratio in excess of forty percent (40%) for industrial commercial property located in Dublin. It appears that there are many properties within the City Plan with over that ratio and in fact fifty percent (50%) ratio is allowed in East Dublin. I operated a business at 6968 Sierra Court Dublin CA, from 1990 to 2009 and I am current landlord located across the street (at the end of Sierra Court) from All American Label. Brad Brown has vastly improved the property at 6958 Sierra Court since he took control of property and as an owner occupied property type owner continues to maintain his property in an A-1 condition. In Brad's property improvement process additional space was added to his building. The additional building space replaced tuck away unused land with no neighbor business to the north side of property being impacted by this addition. In my opinion the "additional building space" was an eye sore and the land space now being utilized was a fire hazard and garbage heap and was not maintained by prior owners before Brad took control of property. The way I understand the City of Dublin General Plan and CC&R's of this business park 40 percent (40%) FAR is the su~~ested ratio. Additionally my observations in today's current economic climate it is nice to see a thriving business in The City of Dublin creating jobs and revenue for the City of Dublin and surrounding businesses. Brad has a choice to operate his type business anywhere in the world. To me this is a compelling government concern in Keeping business in our country and should be of concern for the City of Dublin, County of Alameda, State of California and the country we all love USA. Brad chose to stay operate here and expand his business tastefully in the City of Dublin. I think his addition also gives addition tax revenue opportunity to the City of Dublin and the County of Alameda. I understand rules and laws are in place to protect property owners and to Keep The City of Dublin the beautiful City the General Plan envisions. I believe Brad has Kept his improvements within the bigger picture intent of the City of Dublin founding fathers intentions of making Dublin the All American City it is Known for. I strongly believe that any FAR restriction imposed on this property would only hurt property values in the immediate area of 6958 and 6968 Sierra Court properties and in this case return property to an unsightly condition and loss of potential tax revenue to City of Dublin and Alameda County. I strongly recommend a variance on Floor Area Ratio at property located at 6958 Sierra Court City of Dublin. I would be happy to discuss this matter with any council member directly should you have any questions or comments. My cell phone number is 916-541-7756. Sincerely, Phil Gelhaus General Partner 6968 Sierra Court Dublin LLC October 4, 2011 Dublin City Council City Hall 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Re: October 4, 2011 Meeting - City of Dublin General Plan and Floor Area Ratio Dear City Council Members, I am writing you concerning the above referenced matter as I am the owner of 6908 Sierra Court, Dublin, CA 94568. Since I am unable to make the meeting this evening the purpose of this letter is to communicate, as a property owner on Sierra Court, my strong desire for the FAR (Floor Area Ratio) to be expanded to 50% as it currently is in East Dublin. Thank you for your consideration. Regards, ~-~ ~~ ~ ~ ~. Brian Driscoll Driscoll Enterprises, LLC ®ublin City C®uu~il ubiir~, C Set® , 2411 `Tt~ Wh®rn it ay Cncern: I ~~n the rerty at 691 Sierra Curt. I ~a~nt attend the ~t. 4 rneeti~ because I ~ann~t drive at sight. You need t increase the F. .. at y property s it ~nf~r s ~ eastern ublin® Sincerely, FAN Crnar~y LLC --. by Fredrick J. Faler~er 12 GIen Gate Avenue belvedere, C 9492® Ph: 415-435~62~ LAW OFFICES LEE D. STIMMEL STEVEN R. ROESER OF COUNSEL LAURA BASALOCO-LAPO ~YILLZAM T. {VEBB SPENCER ~V. ~VEISBROTH LEGAL ASSISTANTS ALISON BOYD MARIE LIU IN RE FILE NO.: October 3, 2011 STIMMEL, STIMMEL BC SMITH A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 156 MONTGOMERY STREET. 12TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA fl4104 TELEPHONE (416) 3fl2-2018 FAX (415) 3f~1-2124 EMAIL STIMMELPCQSTIMMEL-LA~V.COM WEB SITE ~VW~V.STIMMFyL-LAW.COM HARRY CORVIN 1x13-1~J70 NOI?MAN S. STIMMEL 1D3~J-1~Jfl1 SAUSALITO OFFICE BY APPOINTMENT ONLY PARTNER EI•IERITU9 ANDRINE K. SMITH Dublin City Council City Hall 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 VIA HAND DELIVERY Re: October 4, 2011 Meeting -City of Dublin General Plan and Floor Area Ratio Dear City Council Members: I write you on behalf of my client Trilight Properties, LLC, owner of the real property located at 6444 Sierra Court, Dublin, CA 94568. It is our understanding that the City Council will determine whether or not the City of Dublin General Plan permits a Floor Area Ratio in excess of forty percent (40%) for industrial commercial real property located in Dublin. It is further om• understanding that a Floor Area Ratio of up to fifty percent (50%) is permitted in Eastern Dublin. My client strongly believes that any such restriction would only hurt commercial real property values in an already struggling economic region. Therefore, we respectfi~lly urge you not to implement any such Floor Area Ratio restriction affecting my client's property or other industrial properties in the area. I would be happy to discuss this matter with you directly should you have any questions or comments. My phone number is (415) 392-2018. Sincerely, ~- :r Steven Roeser cc: Client October 3, 2011 City of Dublin Mayor Sbranti and Members of the Council RE: All American Label Dear Mayor and Council, I am a Dublin resident and have owned and operated my own Real Estate Appraisal Company in Dublin since 1994 and Pin also a Real Estate Broker. I follow the city affairs as it relates to local business and land uses issues, as these items are very important to me and my business interest. I am writing today in reference to the staff report on the All American Label item in the City Council agenda. I believe this goes too far. Nobody can read that General Plan clause and honestly believe it sets a inaxiinuin floor area ratio (FAR) of 40% for Sierra Court. As a real estate practitioner, I was taught that land value is highly affected by what you can do with it. For the City to wine up with a crazy interpretation of the General Plan that snakes almost 70% of the existing properties on Sierra Court non-conforming uses would be a disaster. Even the businesses that don't exceed 40% would have their properties devalued because they could not expand. In these current economic tunes and all the pressure that goes with being a small business owner, I believe the City Staff should work with the businesses that want to expand and grow the economic base of Dublin, rather than malting life snore difficult. Please consider supporting the property owners on Sierra court. Let's snake Dublin a better place for the small business owner and the community. Sincerely, Glenn J. Arace 11671 Manzanita Lane Dublin, Ca 94568